History for ready reference, Volume 2, El Dorado to Greaves

by J. N. Larned

Lewis XIV."
J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 9, section 7.
"William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the
republic of the United Provinces, was, before the birth of the
Prince of Wales, first prince of the blood royal of England
[as son of Princess Mary, daughter of Charles I., and,
therefore, nephew as well as son-in-law of James II.]; and his
consort, the Lady Mary, the eldest daughter of the King, was,
at that period, presumptive heiress to the crown."
Sir J. Mackintosh,
History of the Revolution in England,
chapter 10.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Invitation to William of Orange and his acceptance of it.
"In July, in almost exact coincidence of time with the Queen's
accouchement [generally doubted and suspected], came the
memorable trial of the Seven Bishops, which gave the first
demonstration of the full force of that popular animosity
which James's rule had provoked. Some months before, however,
Edward Russell, nephew of the Earl of Bedford, and cousin of
Algernon Sidney's fellow-victim, had sought the Hague with
proposals to William [prince of Orange] to make an armed
descent upon England, as vindicator of English liberties and
the Protestant religion. William had cautiously required a
signed invitation from at least a few representative statesmen
before committing himself to such an enterprise, and on the
day of the acquittal of the Seven Bishops a paper, signed in
cipher by Lords Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, and Lumley, by
Compton, Bishop of Northampton, by Edward Russell, and by
Henry Sidney, brother of Algernon, was conveyed by Admiral
Herbert to the Hague. William was now furnished with the
required security for English assistance in the projected
undertaking, but the task before him was still one of extreme
difficulty. ... On the 10th of October, matters now being ripe
for such a step, William, in conjunction with some of his
English advisers, put forth his famous declaration. Starting
with a preamble to the effect that the observance of laws is
necessary to the happiness of states, the instrument proceeds
to enumerate fifteen particulars in which the laws of England
had been set at naught. The most important of these were--
(1) the exercise of the dispensing power;
(2) the corruption, coercion, and packing of the judicial
bench;
(3) the violation of the test laws by the appointment of
papists to offices (particularly judicial and military
offices, and the administration of Ireland), and generally
the arbitrary and illegal measures resorted to by James for
the propagation of the Catholic religion;
(4) the establishment and action of the Court of High
Commission;
(5) the infringement of some municipal charters, and the
procuring of the surrender of others;
(6) interference with elections by turning out of all
employment such as refused to vote as they were required;
and
(7) the grave suspicion which had arisen that the Prince of
Wales was not born of the Queen, which as yet nothing had
been done to remove.
Having set forth these grievances, the Prince's manifesto went
on to recite the close interest which he and his consort had
in this matter as next in succession to the crown, and the
earnest solicitations which had been made to him by many lords
spiritual and temporal, and other English subjects of all
ranks, to interpose, and concluded by affirming in a very
distinct and solemn manner that the sole object of the
expedition then preparing was to obtain the assembling of a
free and lawful Parliament, to which the Prince pledged
himself to refer all questions concerning the due execution of
the laws, and the maintenance of the Protestant religion, and
the conclusion of an agreement between the Church of England
and the Dissenters, as also the inquiry into the birth of the
'pretended Prince of Wales'; and that this object being
attained, the Prince would, as soon as the state of the nation
should permit of it, send home his foreign forces. About a
week after, on the 16th of October, all things being now in
readiness, the Prince took solemn leave of the States-General.
... On the 19th William and his armament set sail from
Helvoetsluys, but was met on the following day by a violent
storm which forced him to put back on the 21st. On the 1st of
November the fleet put to sea a second time. ... By noon of
the 5th of November, the Prince's fleet was wafted safely into
Torbay."
H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
G. Burnet,
History of My Own Time, 1688
(volume 3).
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 18, chapters 1-4 (volume 4).
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors,
chapters 106-107: Somers (volume 4).
T. P. Courtenay,
Life of Danby (Lardner's Cab. Cyclop.),
pages 315-324.
{908}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The Revolution.
Ignominious flight of James.
"The declaration published by the prince [on landing]
consisted of sixteen articles. It enumerated those proceedings
of the government since the accession of the king, which were
regarded as in the greatest degree opposed to the liberty of
the subject and to the safety of the Protestant religion. ...
To provide some effectual remedy against these and similar
evils, was the only design of the enterprise in which the
prince, in compliance with earnest solicitations from many
lords, both spiritual and temporal, from numbers among the
gentry and all ranks of people, had now embarked. ...
Addresses were also published to the army and navy. ... The
immediate effect of these appeals did not correspond with the
expectations of William and his followers. On the 8th of
November the people of Exeter received the prince with quiet
submission. The memory of Monmouth's expedition was still
fresh and terrible through the west. On the 12th, lord
Cornbury, son of the earl of Clarendon, went over, with some
officers, and about a hundred of his regiment, to the prince;
and most of the officers, with a larger body of the privates
belonging to the regiment commanded by the duke of St.
Alban's, followed their example. Of three regiments, however,
quartered near Salisbury, the majority could not be induced to
desert the service of the king. ... Every day now brought with
it new accessions to the standard of the prince, and tidings
of movements in different parts of the kingdom in his favour;
while James was as constantly reminded, by one desertion after
another, that he lived in an atmosphere of treachery, with
scarcely a man or woman about him to be trusted. The defection
of the lords Churchill and Drumlaneric, and of the dukes of
Grafton and Ormond, was followed by that of prince George and
the princess Anne. Prince George joined the invader at
Sherburne; the princess made her escape from Whitehall at
night, under the guardianship of the bishop of London, and
found an asylum among the adherents of the prince of Orange
who were in arms in Northamptonshire. By this time Bristol and
Plymouth, Hull, York, and Newcastle, were among the places of
strength which had been seized by the partisans of the prince.
His standard had also been unfurled with success in the
counties of Derby, Nottingham, York, and Cheshire. ... Even in
Oxford, several of the heads of colleges concurred in sending
Dr. Finch, warden of All Souls' College, to invite the prince
from Dorsetshire to their city, assuring him of their
willingness to receive him, and to melt down their plate for
his service, if it should be needed. So desperate had the
affairs of James now become, that some of his advisers urged
his leaving the kingdom, and negotiating with safety to his
person from a distance; but from that course he was dissuaded
by Halifax and Godolphin. In compliance with the advice of an
assembly of peers, James issued a proclamation on the 13th of
November, stating that writs had been signed to convene a
parliament on the 15th of January; that a pardon of all
offences should previously pass the great seal; and that
commissioners should proceed immediately to the head-quarters
of the prince of Orange, to negotiate on the present state of
affairs. The commissioners chosen by the king were Halifax,
Nottingham, and Godolphin; but William evaded for some days
the conference which they solicited. In the meantime a forged
proclamation in the name of the prince was made public in
London, denouncing the Catholics of the metropolis as plotting
the destruction of life and property on the largest possible
scale. ... No one doubted the authenticity of this document,
and the ferment and disorder which it spread through the city
filled the king with the greatest apprehension for the safety
of himself and family. On the morning of the 9th of December,
the queen and the infant prince of Wales were lodged on board
a yacht at Gravesend, and commenced a safe voyage to Calais.
James pledged himself to follow within 24 hours. In the course
of that day the royal commissioners sent a report of their
proceedings to Whitehall. The demands of the prince were, that
a parliament should be assembled; that all persons holding
public trusts in violation of the Test-laws should relinquish
them; that the city should have command of the Tower; that the
fleet, and the places of strength through the kingdom should
be placed in the hands of Protestants; that the expense of the
Dutch armament should be defrayed, in part, from the English
Treasury; and that the king and the prince, and their
respective forces, should remain at an equal distance from
London during the sitting of parliament. James read these
articles with some surprise, observing that they were much
more moderate than he had expected. But his pledge had been
given to the queen; the city was still in great agitation; and
private letters, intimating that his person was not beyond the
reach of danger, suggested that his interests might possibly
be better served by his absence than by his presence. Hence
his purpose to leave the kingdom remained unaltered. At three
o'clock on the following morning the king left Whitehall with
sir Edward Hales, disguising himself as an attendant. The
vessel provided to convey him to France was a miserable
fishing-boat. It descended the river without interruption
until it came near to Feversham, where some fishermen,
suspecting Hales and the king to be Catholics, probably
priests endeavouring to make their escape in disguise, took
them from the vessel. ... The arrest of the monarch at
Feversham on Wednesday was followed by an order of the privy
council, commanding that his carriage and the royal guards
should be sent to reconduct him to the capital. ... After some
consultation the king was informed that the public interests
required his immediate withdrawment to some distance from
Westminster, and Hampton Court was named. James expressed a
preference for Rochester, and his wishes in that respect were
complied with. The day on which the king withdrew to Rochester
William took up his residence in St. James's. The king chose
his retreat, deeming it probable that it might be expedient
for him to make a second effort to reach the continent. ...
His guards left him so much at liberty, that no impediment to
his departure was likely to arise; and on the last day of this
memorable year--only a week after his removal from Whitehall,
James embarked secretly at Rochester, and with a favourable
breeze safely reached the French coast."
R. Vaughan,
History of England under the House of Stuart,
volume 2, pages 914-918.
ALSO IN:
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapters 9-10 (volume 2).
H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapter 4.
Continuation of Sir J. Mackintosh's
History of the Revolution in 1688,
chapters 16-17.
Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 1, books 6-7 (volume 2).
{909}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).
The settlement of the Crown on William and Mary.
The Declaration of Rights.
"The convention met on the 22nd of January. Their first care
was to address the prince to take the administration of
affairs and disposal of the revenue into his hands, in order
to give a kind of parliamentary sanction to the power he
already exercised. On the 28th of January the commons, after a
debate in which the friends of the late king made but a faint
opposition, came to their great vote: That king James II.,
having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of this
kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and
people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons
having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn
himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and
that the throne is thereby vacant. They resolved unanimously
the next day, That it hath been found by experience
inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant
kingdom to be governed by a popish prince. This vote was a
remarkable triumph of the Whig party, who had contended for
the exclusion bill. ... The lords agreed with equal unanimity
to this vote; which, though it was expressed only as an
abstract proposition, led by a practical inference to the
whole change that the whigs had in view. But upon the former
resolution several important divisions took place." The lords
were unwilling to commit themselves to the two propositions,
that James had "abdicated" the government by his desertion of
it, and that the throne had thereby become "vacant." They
yielded at length, however, and adopted the resolution as the
commons had passed it. They "followed this up by a resolution,
that the prince and princess of Orange shall be declared king
and queen of England, and all the dominions thereunto
belonging. But the commons, with a noble patriotism, delayed
to concur in this hasty settlement of the crown, till they
should have completed the declaration of those fundamental
rights and liberties for the sake of which alone they had gone
forward with this great revolution. That declaration, being at
once an exposition of the mis-government which had compelled
them to dethrone the late king, and of the conditions upon
which they elected his successors, was incorporated in the
final resolution to which both houses came on the 13th of
February, extending the limitation of the crown as far as the
state of affairs required: That William and Mary, prince and
princess of Orange, be, and be declared, king and queen of
England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto
belonging, to hold the crown and dignity of the said kingdoms
and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during
their lives, and the life of the survivor of them; and that
the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and
executed by, the said prince of Orange, in the names of the
said prince and princess, during their joint lives; and after
their decease the said crown and royal dignity of the said
kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the
said princess; for default of such issue, to the princess Anne
of Denmark [younger daughter of James II.], and the heirs of
her body; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the
body of the said prince of Orange. ... The Declaration of
Rights presented to the prince of Orange by the marquis of
Halifax, as speaker of the lords, in the presence of both
houses, on the 18th of February, consists of three parts: a
recital of the illegal and arbitrary acts committed by the
late king, and of their consequent vote of abdication; a
declaration, nearly following the words of the former part,
that such enumerated acts are illegal; and a resolution, that
the throne shall be filled by the prince and princess of
Orange, according to the limitations mentioned. ... This
declaration was, some months afterwards [in October],
confirmed by a regular act of the legislature in the bill of
rights."
See ENGLAND: 1689 (OCTOBER).
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapters 14-15 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 10 (volume 2).
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 19, chapters 2-3 (volume 4).
R. Gneist,
History of English Constitution,
chapter 42 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).
The Church and the Revolution.
The Toleration Act.
The Non-Jurors.
"The men who had been most helpful in bringing about the late
changes were not all of the same way of thinking in religion;
many of them belonged to the Church of England; many were
Dissenters. It seemed, therefore, a fitting time to grant the
Dissenters some relief from the harsh laws passed against them
in Charles II.'s reign. Protestant Dissenters, save those who
denied the Trinity, were no longer forbidden to have places of
worship and services of their own, if they would only swear to
be loyal to the king, and that his power was as lawful in
Church as in State matters. The law that gave them this is
called the Toleration Act. Men's notions were still, however,
very narrow; care was taken that the Roman Catholics should
get no benefit from this law. Even a Protestant Dissenter
might not yet lawfully be a member of either House of
Parliament, or take a post in the king's service; for the Test
Acts were left untouched. King William, who was a Presbyterian
in his own land, wanted very much to see the Dissenters won
back to the Church of England. To bring this about, he wished
the Church to alter those things in the Prayer Book which kept
Dissenters from joining with her. But most of the clergy would
not have any change; and because these were the stronger party in
Convocation--as the Parliament of the Church is
called--William could get nothing done. At the same time a
rent, which at first seemed likely to be serious, was made in
the Church itself. There was a strong feeling among the clergy
in favour of the banished king. So a law was made by which
every man who held a preferment in the Church, or either of
the Universities, had to swear to be true to King William and
Queen Mary, or had to give up his preferment. Most of the
clergy were very unwilling to obey this law; but only 400 were
found stout-hearted enough to give up their livings rather
than do what they thought to be a wicked thing. These were
called 'non-jurors,' or men who would not swear. Among them
were five out of the seven Bishops who had withstood James II.
only a year before. The sect of non-jurors, who looked upon
themselves as the only true Churchmen, did not spread. But it
did not die out altogether until seventy years ago [i. e.,
early in the 19th century]. It was at this time that the names
High-Church and Low-Church first came into use."
J. Rowley,
The Settlement of the Constitution,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 5, chapters 4-11.
T. Lathbury,
History of the Non-jurors.
{910}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (MAY).
War declared against France.
The Grand Alliance.
See FRANCE: A.. D. 1689-1690.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).
The Bill of Rights.
The following is the text of the Bill of Rights, passed by
Parliament at its sitting in October, 1689:
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully, and freely
representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did
upon the Thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord
One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-eight [o. s.], present unto
their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style
of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, being
present in their proper persons, a certain Declaration in
writing, made by the said Lords and Commons, in the words
following, viz.:
"Whereas the late King James II., by the assistance of divers
evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did
endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion,
and the laws and liberties of this kingdom:
1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with
and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without
consent of Parliament.
2. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for
humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the
said assumed power.
3. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under
the Great Seal for erecting a court, called the Court of
Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes.
4. By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by
pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner
than the same was granted by Parliament.
5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this
kingdom in time of peace, without consent of Parliament,
and quartering soldiers contrary to law.
6. By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to
be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed
and employed contrary to law.
7. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve
in Parliament.
8. By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters
and causes cognisable only in Parliament, and by divers
other arbitrary and illegal causes.
9. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and
unqualified persons have been returned, and served on
juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials
for high treason, which were not freeholders.
10. And excessive bail hath been required of persons
committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the
laws made for the liberty of the subjects.
11. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and
cruel punishments inflicted.
12. And several grants and promises made of fines and
forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the
persons upon whom the same were to be levied.
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws
and statutes, and freedom of this realm. And whereas the said
late King James II. having abdicated the government, and the
throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange
(whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious
instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and
arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause
letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal,
being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties,
cities, universities, boroughs, and Cinque ports, for the
choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to
be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the
two-and-twentieth day of January, in this year One Thousand
Six Hundred Eighty and Eight, in order to such an
establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties
might not again be in danger of being subverted; upon which
letters elections have been accordingly made. And thereupon
the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant
to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled
in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into
their most serious consideration the best means for attaining
the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors
in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and
asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:
1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the
execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of
Parliament, is illegal.
2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the
execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been
assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.
3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of
Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other
commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and
pernicious.
4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by
pretence and prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for
longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be
granted, is illegal.
5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the
King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such
petitioning are illegal.
6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the
kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of
Parliament, is against law.
7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms
for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as
allowed by law.
8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free.
9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings
in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in
any court or place out of Parliament.
10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor
excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted.
11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned,
and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason
ought to be freeholders.
12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures
of particular persons before conviction are illegal and
void.
13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the
amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws,
Parliament ought to be held frequently.
{911}
And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular
the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and
that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to the
prejudice of the people in any of the said premises, ought in any
wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example. To
which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged
by the declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange, as
being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy
therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said
Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so
far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the
violation of their rights, which they have here asserted, and
from all other attempts upon their religion, rights, and
liberties:
II. The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and
Commons, assembled at Westminster, do resolve, that William
and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be, and be declared,
King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the
dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal
dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them the said
Prince and Princess during their lives, and the life of the
survivor of them; and that the sole and full exercise of the
regal power be only in, and executed by, the said Prince of
Orange, in the names of the said Prince and Princess, during
their joint lives; and after their deceases, the said crown
and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to
the heirs of the body of the said Princess; and for default of
such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of
her body; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the
body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, do pray the said Prince and Princess to
accept the same accordingly.
III. And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all
persons of whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be
required by law instead of them; and that the said oaths of
allegiance and supremacy be abrogated. 'I, A. B., do sincerely
promise and swear, That I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary: So
help me God.' 'I, A. B., do swear, That I do from my heart
abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that
damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or
deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may
be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other
whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person,
prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any
jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority,
ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: So help me
God.'"
IV. Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and
royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland,
and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the
resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained
in the said declaration.
V. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased, that the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, being the two
Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their
Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the
settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this
kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in
danger again of being subverted; to which the said Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, did agree and proceed to
act accordingly.
VI. Now in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, for the
ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration,
and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein
contained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority
of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted,
That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and
claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient, and
indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this
kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed,
and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars
aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as
they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers
and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their
successors according to the same in all times to come.
VII. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,
seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God, in his
marvellous providence, and merciful goodness to this nation,
to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons
most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their
ancestors, for which they render unto Him from the bottom of
their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly,
firmly, assuredly, and in the sincerity of their hearts,
think, and do hereby recognise, acknowledge, and declare, that
King James II. having abdicated the Government, and their
Majesties having accepted the Crown and royal dignity as
aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of
right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign
liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen of England, France, and
Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to
whose princely persons the royal state, crown, and dignity of
the said realms, with all honours, styles, titles, regalities,
prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same
belonging and appertaining, are most fully, rightfully, and
entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed.
VIII. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this
realm, by reason of any pretended titles to the Crown, and for
preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon
which the unity, peace, tranquillity, and safety of this
nation doth, under God, wholly consist and depend, the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do beseech their
Majesties that it may be enacted, established, and declared,
that the Crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and
dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto
belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their
said Majesties, and the survivor of them, during their lives,
and the life of the survivor of them. And that the entire,
perfect, and full exercise of the regal power and government
be only in, and executed by, his Majesty, in the names of both
their Majesties, during their joint lives; and after their
deceases the said Crown and premises shall be and remain to
the heirs of the body of her Majesty: and for default of such
issue, to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and
the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue, to the
heirs of the body of his said Majesty: And thereunto the said
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of
all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit
themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever: and do
faithfully promise, that they will stand to, maintain, and
defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and
succession of the Crown herein specified and contained, to the
utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against
all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the
contrary.
{912}
IX. And whereas it hath been found by experience, that it is
inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant
kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince, or by any king or
queen marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted,
That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be
reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church
of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry
a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to
inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this
realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or
any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise, any regal
power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same; and in all
and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall
be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance, and the said
Crown and government shall from time to time descend to, and
be enjoyed by, such person or persons, being Protestants, as
should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said
person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or
professing, or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead.
X. And that every King and Queen of this realm, who at any
time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown
of this kingdom, shall, on the first day of the meeting of the
first Parliament, next after his or her coming to the Crown,
sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the
presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his
or her coronation, before such person or persons who shall
administer the coronation oath to him or her, at the time of
his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen),
make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned
in the statute made in the thirteenth year of the reign of
King Charles II., intituled "An Act for the more effectual
preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling
Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." But if it
shall happen that such King or Queen, upon his or her
succession to the Crown of this realm, shall be under the age
of twelve years, then every such King or Queen shall make,
subscribe, and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or
her coronation, or the first day of meeting of the first
Parliament as aforesaid, which shall first happen after such
King or Queen shall have attained the said age of twelve
years.
XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall
be declared, enacted, and established by authority of this
present Parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the law of
this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties,
by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, declared, enacted, or established
accordingly.
XII. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority
aforesaid, That from and after this present session of
Parliament, no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any
statute, or any part thereof, shall be allowed, but that the
same shall be held void and of no effect, except a
dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such
cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill
or bills to be passed during this present session of
Parliament.
XIII. Provided that no charter, or grant, or pardon granted
before the three-and-twentieth day of October, in the year of
our Lord One thousand six hundred eighty-nine, shall be any
ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same
shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and
no other, than as if this Act had never been made.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1696.
The war of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance
against Louis XIV. (called in American history "King William's
War ").
See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692;
1693 (JULY); 1694; 1695-1696.
Also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694--1697.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).
The Battle of Beachy Head.
The great peril of the kingdom.
"In June, 1690, whilst William was in Ireland, the French sent
a fleet, under Tourville, to threaten England. He left Brest
and entered the British Channel. Herbert (then Earl of
Torrington) commanded the English fleet lying in the Downs,
and sailed to Saint Helens, where he was joined by the Dutch
fleet under Evertsen. On the 26th of June the English and
French fleets were close to each other, and an important
engagement was expected, when unexpectedly Torrington
abandoned the Isle of Wight and retreated towards the Straits
of Dover. ... The Queen and her Council, receiving this
intelligence, sent to Torrington peremptory orders to fight.
Torrington received these orders on the 29th June. Next day he
bore down on the French fleet in order of battle. He had less
than 60 ships of the line, whilst the French had 80. He placed
the Dutch in the van, and during the whole fight rendered them
little or no assistance. He gave the signal to engage, which
was immediately obeyed by Evertsen, who fought with the most
splendid courage, but at length, being unsupported, his second
in command and many other officers of high rank having fallen,
and his ships being fearfully shattered, Evertsen was obliged
to draw off his contingent from the unequal battle. Torrington
destroyed some of these injured ships, took the remainder in
tow, and sailed along the coast of Kent for the Thames. When
in that river he pulled up all the buoys to prevent pursuit.
... Upon his return to London he was sent to the Tower, and in
December was tried at Sheerness by court-martial, and on the
third day was acquitted; but William refused to see him, and
ordered him to be dismissed from the navy."
W. H. Torriano,
William the Third,
chapter 24.
"There has scarcely ever been so sad a day in London as that
on which the news of the Battle of Beachy Head arrived. The
shame was insupportable; the peril was imminent. ... At any
moment London might be appalled by news that 20,000 French
veterans were in Kent. It was notorious that, in every part of
the kingdom, the Jacobites had been, during some months,
making preparations for a rising. All the regular troops who
could be assembled for the defence of the island did not
amount to more than 10,000 men. It may be doubted whether our
country has ever passed through a more alarming crisis than
that of the first week of July 1690."
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 15 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
J. Campbell,
Naval History of Great Britain,
chapter 18 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1690-1691.
Defeat of James and the Jacobites in Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
The new charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
{912}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1692.
Attempted invasion from France.
Battle of La Hogue.
"The diversion in Ireland having failed, Louis wished to make
an effort to attack England without and within. James II., who
had turned to so little advantage the first aid granted by the
King of France saw therefore in preparation a much more
powerful assistance, and obtained what had been refused him
after the days of the Boyne and Beachy-Head,--an army to
invade England. News received from that country explained this
change in the conduct of Louis. The opinion of James at
Versailles was no better than in the past; but England was
believed to be on the eve of counter-revolution, which it
would be sufficient to aid with a vigorous and sudden blow.
... Many eminent personages, among the Whigs as well as among
the Tories, among others the Duke of Marlborough (Churchill),
had opened a secret correspondence with the royal exile at
Saint-Germain. James had secret adherents in the English fleet
which he had so long commanded before reigning, and believed
himself able to count on Rear-Admiral Carter, and even on
Admiral Russell. Louis gave himself up to excessive confidence
in the result of these plots, and arranged his plan of naval
operations accordingly. An army of 30,000 men, with 500
transports, was assembled on the coast of Normandy, the
greater part at La Hogue and Cherbourg, the rest at Havre:
this was composed of all the Irish troops, a number of
Anglo-Scotch refugees, and a corps of French troops. Marshal
de Bellefonds commanded under King James. Tourville was to set
ut from Brest in the middle of April with fifty ships of the
line, enter the Channel, attack the English fleet before it
could be reinforced by the Dutch, and thus secure the
invasion. Express orders were sent to him to engage the enemy
'whatever might be his numbers.' It was believed that half of
the English fleet would go over to the side of the allies of
its king. The landing effected, Tourville was to return to
Brest, to rally there the squadron of Toulon, sixteen vessels
strong, and the rest of our large ships, then to hold the
Channel during the whole campaign. They had reckoned without
the elements, which, hitherto hostile to the enemies of
France, this time turned against her." The French fleets were
detained by contrary winds and by incomplete preparations.
Tourville was not reinforced, as he expected to be, by the
squadrons of Toulon and Rochefort. Before he found it possible
to sail from Brest, the Jacobite plot had been discovered in
England, the government was on its guard, and the Dutch and
English fleets had made their junction. Still, the French
admiral was under orders which left him no discretion, and he
went out to seek the enemy. "May 29, at daybreak, between the
Capes of La Hogue and Barfleur, Tourville found himself in
presence of the allied fleet, the most powerful that had ever
appeared on the sea. He had been joined by seven ships from
the squadron of Rochefort, and numbered 44 vessels against 99,
78 of which carried over 50 guns, and, for the most part, were
much larger than a majority of the French. The English had 63
ships and [4,540] guns; the Dutch, 36 ships and 2,614 guns; in
all, 7,154 guns; the French counted only 3,114. The allied
fleet numbered nearly 42,000 men; the French fleet less than
20,000." Notwithstanding this great inferiority of numbers and
strength, it was the French fleet which made the attack,
bearing down under full sail "on the immense mass of the
enemy." The attempt was almost hopeless; and yet, when night
fell, after a day of tremendous battle, Tourville had not yet
lost a ship; but his line of battle had been broken, and no
chance of success remained. "May 30, at break of day,
Tourville rallied around him 35 vessels. The other nine had
strayed, five towards La Hogue, four towards the English
coast, whence they regained Brest. If there had been a naval
port at La Hogue or at Cherbourg, as Colbert and Vauban had
desired, the French fleet would have preserved its laurels!
There was no place of retreat on all that coast. The fleet of
the enemy advanced in full force. It was impossible to renew
the prodigious effort of the day before." In this emergency,
Tourville made a daring attempt to escape with his fleet
through the dangerous channel called the Race of Alderney,
which separates the Channel Islands from the Normandy coast.
Twenty-two vessels made the passage safely and found a place
of refuge at St. Malo; thirteen were too late for the tide and
failed. Most of these were destroyed, during the next few
days, by the English and Dutch at Cherbourg and in the bay of
La Hogue,--in the presence and under the guns of King James'
army of invasion. "James II. had reason to say that 'his
unlucky star' everywhere shed a malign influence around him;
but this influence was only that of his blindness and
incapacity. Such was that disaster of La Hogue, which has left
among us such a fatal renown, and the name of which resounds in
our history like another Agincourt or Cressy. Historians have
gone so far as to ascribe to this the destruction of the
French navy. ... La Hogue was only a reprisal for Beachy-Head.
The French did not lose in it a vessel more than the allies
had lost two years before, and the 15 vessels destroyed were
soon replaced."
H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV:
(translated by M. L. Booth),
volume 2, chapter 2.'
ALSO IN:
Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 18 (volume 4).
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5).
Sir J. Dalrymple,
Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland,
part 2, book 7 (volume 3).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1695.
Expiration of censorship law.
Appearance of first newspapers.
See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749.
Measures of commercial and industrial restriction
in the American colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1697.
The Peace of Ryswick.
Recognition of William III. by France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1698.
The founding of Calcutta.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1698-1700.
The question of the Spanish Succession.
The Treaties of Partition.
The Spanish king's will.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.
The Act of Settlement.
The source of the sovereignty of the
House of Hanover or Brunswick.
"William and Mary had no children; and in 1700 the young Duke
of Gloucester, the only child of Anne that lived beyond
infancy, died. There was now no hope of there being anyone to
inherit the crown by the Bill of Rights after the death of
William and of Anne. In 1701, therefore, Parliament settled
the crown on the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and her heirs.
Sophia was one of the children of that Elizabeth, daughter of
James I., who in 1613 had married the Palsgrave Frederick. She
was chosen to come after William and Anne because she was the
nearest to the Stuart line who was a Protestant. The law that
did this is called the Act of Settlement; it gives Queen
Victoria her title to the throne. Parliament in passing it
tried to make the nation's liberties still safer. It was now
made impossible (1) for any foreigner to sit in Parliament or
to hold an office under the Crown; (2). for the king to go to
war in defence of countries that did not belong to England,
unless Parliament gave him leave; or (3) to pardon anyone so
that the Commons might not be able to impeach him."
J. Rowley,
The Settlement of the Constitution,
book 1, chapter 5.
{914}
"Though the choice was truly free in the hands of parliament,
and no pretext of absolute right could be advanced on any
side, there was no question that the princess Sophia was the
fittest object of the nation's preference. She was indeed very
far removed from any hereditary title. Besides the pretended
prince of Wales, and his sister, whose legitimacy no one
disputed, there stood in her way the duchess of Savoy,
daughter of Henrietta duchess of Orleans, and several of the
Palatine family. These last had abjured the reformed faith, of
which their ancestors had been the strenuous assertors; but it
seemed not improbable that some one might return to it. ...
According to the tenor and intention of the act of settlement,
all prior claims of inheritance, save that of the issue of
king William and the princess Anne, being set aside and
annulled, the princess Sophia became the source of a new royal
line. The throne of England and Ireland, by virtue of the
paramount will of parliament, stands entailed upon the heirs
of her body, being protestants. In them the right is as truly
hereditary as it ever was in the Plantagenets or the Tudors.
But they derive it not from those ancient families. The blood
indeed of Cerdic and of the Conqueror flows in the veins of
his present majesty [George IV.]. Our Edwards and Henries
illustrate the almost unrivalled splendour and antiquity of
the house of Brunswic. But they have transmitted no more right
to the allegiance of England than Boniface of Este or Henry
the Lion. That rests wholly on the act of settlement, and
resolves itself into the sovereignty of the legislature.
H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 15 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
book 10 (volume 2).
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702.
The rousing of the nation to war with France.
When Louis XIV. procured and accepted for his grandson the
bequest of the Spanish crown, throwing over the Partition
Treaty, "William had the intolerable chagrin of discovering
not only that he had been befooled, but that his English
subjects had no sympathy with him or animosity against the
royal swindler who had tricked him. 'The blindness of the
people here,' he writes sadly to the Pensionary Heinsius, 'is
incredible. For though the affair is not public, yet it was no
sooner said that the King of Spain's will was in favour of the
Duke of Anjou, that it was the general opinion that it was
better for England that France should accept the will than
fulfil the Treaty of Partition.' ... William dreaded the idea
of a Bourbon reigning at Madrid, but he saw no very grave
objection, as the two treaties showed, to Naples and Sicily
passing into French hands. With his English subjects the exact
converse was the case. They strongly deprecated the assignment
of the Mediterranean possessions of the Spaniard to the
Dauphin; but they were undisturbed by the sight of the Duke of
Anjou seating himself on the Spanish throne. ... But just as,
under a discharge from an electric battery, two repugnant
chemical compounds will sometimes rush into sudden
combination, so at this juncture the King and the nation were
instantaneously united by the shock of a gross affront. The
hand that liberated the uniting fluid was that of the
Christian king. On the 16th of September 1701 James II.
breathed his last at St. Germains, and, obedient to one of
those impulses, half-chivalrous, half-arrogant, which so often
determined his policy, Louis XIV. declared his recognition of
the Prince of Wales as de jure King of England. No more timely
and effective assistance to the policy of its de facto king
could possibly have been rendered. Its effect upon English
public opinion was instantaneous; and when William returned
from Holland on the 4th of November, he found the country in
the temper in which he could most have wished it to be."
Dissolving the Parliament in which his plans had long been
factiously opposed, he summoned a new one, which met on the
last day of the year 1701. "Opposition in Parliament--in the
country it was already inaudible--was completely silenced. The
two Houses sent up addresses assuring the King of their firm
resolve to defend the succession against the pretended Prince
of Wales and all other pretenders whatsoever. ... Nor did the
goodwill of Parliament expend itself in words. The Commons
accepted without a word of protest the four treaties
constituting the new Grand Alliance. ... The votes of supply
were passed unanimously." But scarcely had the nation and the
King arrived at this agreement with one another than the
latter was snatched from his labors. On the 21st of February,
1702, William received an injury, through the stumbling of his
horse, which his frail and diseased body could not bear. His
death would not have been long delayed in any event, but it
was hastened by this accident, and occurred on the 8th of
March following. He was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his

deceased queen, Mary, and second daughter of the deposed
Stuart king, James II.
H. D. Traill,
William the Third,
chapters 14-15.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 21, chapters 7-10 (volume 5).
See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
Accession of Queen Anne.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
Union of rival East India Companies.
See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702.
The War of the Spanish Succession.
Failure at Cadiz.
The treasure ships in Vigo Bay.
Marlborough's first campaigns.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1702;
and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1711.
The War of the Spanish Succession in America
(called "Queen Anne's War").
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.
{915}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1714.
The Age of Anne in literature.
"That which was once called the Augustan age of English
literature was specially marked by the growing development of
a distinct literary class. It was a period of transition from
the early system of the patronage of authors to the later
system of their professional independence. Patronage was being
changed into influence. The system of subscription, by which
Pope made his fortune, was a kind of joint-stock patronage.
The noble did not support the poet, but induced his friends to
subscribe. The noble, moreover, made another discovery. He found
that he could dispense a cheaper and more effective patronage
than of old by patronising at the public expense. During the
reign of Queen Anne, the author of a successful poem or an
effective pamphlet might look forward to a comfortable place.
The author had not to wear the livery, but to become the
political follower, of the great man. Gradually a separation
took place. The minister found it better to have a regular
corps of politicians and scribblers in his pay than
occasionally to recruit his ranks by enlisting men of literary
taste. And, on the other hand, authors, by slow degrees,
struggled into a more independent position as their public
increased. In the earlier part of the century, however, we
find a class of fairly cultivated people, sufficiently
numerous to form a literary audience, and yet not so numerous
as to split into entirely distinct fractions. The old
religious and political warfare has softened; the statesman
loses his place, but not his head; and though there is plenty
of bitterness, there is little violence. We have thus a
brilliant society of statesmen, authors, clergymen, and
lawyers, forming social clubs, meeting at coffee-houses,
talking scandal and politics, and intensely interested in the
new social phenomena which emerge as the old order decays;
more excitable, perhaps, than their fathers, but less
desperately in earnest, and waging a constant pamphleteering
warfare upon politics, literature, and theology, which is yet
consistent with a certain degree of friendly intercourse. The
essayist, the critic, and the novelist appear for the first
time in their modern shape; and the journalist is slowly
gaining some authority as the wielder of a political force.
The whole character of contemporary literature, in short, is
moulded by the social conditions of the class for which and by
which it was written, still more distinctly than by the ideas
current in contemporary speculation. ... Pope is the typical
representative of the poetical spirit of the day. He may or
may not be regarded as the intellectual superior of Swift or
Addison; and the most widely differing opinions may be formed
of the intrinsic merits of his poetry. The mere fact, however,
that his poetical dynasty was supreme to the end of the
century proved that, in some sense, he is a most
characteristic product. Nor is it hard to see the main sources
of his power. Pope had at least two great poetical qualities.
He was amongst the most keenly sensitive of men, and he had an
almost unique felicity of expression, which has enabled him to
coin more proverbs than any writer since Shakespeare.
Sensitive, it may be said, is a polite word for morbid, and
his felicity of phrase was more adapted to coin epigrams than
poetry. The controversy is here irrelevant. Pope, whether, as
I should say, a true poet, or, as some have said, only the
most sparkling of rhymesters, reflects the thoughts of his day
with a curious completeness. ... There is, however, another
wide province of literature in which writers of the eighteenth
century did work original in character and of permanent value.
If the seventeenth century is the great age of dramatists and
theologians, the eighteenth century was the age in which the
critic, the essayist, the satirist, the novelist, and the
moralist first appeared, or reached the highest mark.
Criticism, though still in its infancy, first became an
independent art with Addison. Addison and his various
colleagues set the first example of that kind of social essay
which is still popular. Satire had been practised in the
preceding century, and in the hands of Dryden had become a
formidable political weapon; but the social satire of which
Pope was, and remains, the chief master, began with the
century, and may be said to have expired with it, in spite of
the efforts of Byron and Gifford. De Foe, Richardson,
Fielding, and Smollett developed the modern novel out of very
crude rudiments; and two of the greatest men of the century,
Swift and Johnson, may be best described as practical
moralists in a vein peculiar to the time. ... The English
novel, as the word is now understood, begins with De Foe.
Though, like all other products of mind or body, it was
developed out of previously existing material, and is related
to the great family of stories with which men have amused
themselves in all ages, it is, perhaps, as nearly an original
creation as anything can be. The legends of saints which
amused the middle ages, or the chivalrous romances which were
popular throughout the seventeenth century, had become too
unreal to amuse living human beings. De Foe made the discovery
that a history might be equally interesting if the recorded
events had never happened."
L. Stephen,
History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century,
chapter 12, sections 23-56 (volume 2).
"This so-called classic age of ours has long ceased to be
regarded with that complacency which led the most flourishing
part of it to adopt the epithet 'Augustan.' It will scarcely
be denied by its greatest admirer, if he be a man of wide
reading, that it cannot be ranked with the poorest of the five
great ages of literature. Deficient in the highest
intellectual beauty, in the qualities which awaken the fullest
critical enthusiasm, the eighteenth century will be enjoyed
more thoroughly by those who make it their special study than
by those who skim the entire surface of literature. It has,
although on the grand scale condemned as second-rate, a
remarkable fulness and sustained richness which endear it to
specialists. If it be compared, for instance, with the real
Augustan age in Rome, or with the Spanish period of literary
supremacy, it may claim to hold its own against these rivals
in spite of their superior rank, because of its more copious
interest. If it has neither a Horace nor a Calderon, it has a
great extent and variety of writers just below these in merit,
and far more numerous than what Rome or Spain can show during
those blossoming periods. It is, moreover, fertile at far more
points than either of these schools. This sustained and
variegated success, at a comparatively low level of effort,
strikes one as characteristic of an age more remarkable for
persistent vitality than for rapid and brilliant growth. The
Elizabethan vivida vis is absent, the Georgian glow has not
yet dawned, but there is a suffused prosaic light of
intelligence, of cultivated form, over the whole picture, and
during the first half of the period, at least, this is bright
enough to be very attractive. Perhaps, in closing, the
distinguishing mark of eighteenth-century literature may be
indicated as its mastery of prose as a vehicle for general
thought."
E. Gosse,
The Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature
(New Princeton Rev., July, 1888, page 21).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.
The Methuen Treaty with Portugal.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.
{916}
England: A. D. 1703.
The Aylesbury election case.
"Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, sued the returning officer for
maliciously refusing his vote. Three judges of the King's
Bench decided, against the opinion of Chief Justice Holt, that
the verdict which a jury had given in favor of Ashby must be
set aside, as the action was not maintainable. The plaintiff
went to the House of Lords upon a writ of error, and there the
judgment was reversed by a large majority of Peers. The Lower
House maintained that 'the qualification of an elector is not
cognizable elsewhere than before the Commons of England'; that
Ashby was guilty of a breach of privilege; and that all
persons who should in future commence such an action, and all
attorneys and counsel conducting the same, are also guilty of
a high breach of privilege. The Lords, led by Somers, then
came to counter-resolutions. ... The prorogation of Parliament
put an end to the quarrel in that Session; but in the next it
was renewed with increased violence. The judgment against the
Returning Officer was followed up by Ashby levying his
damages. Other Aylesbury men brought new actions. The Commons
imprisoned the Aylesbury electors. The Lords took strong
measures that affected, or appeared to affect, the privileges
of the Commons. The Queen finally stopped the contest by a
prorogation; and the quarrel expired when the Parliament
expired under the Triennial Act. Lord Somers 'established the
doctrine which has been acted on ever since, that an action
lies against a Returning Officer for maliciously refusing the
vote of an elector.'"
C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 5, chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
Lord Campbell,
Lives of the Lord Chancellors: Somers,
chapter. 110 (volume 4).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1704-1707.
Marlborough's campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Campaigns in Spain.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1704;
SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704, to 1707;
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705, and 1706-1707.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1707.
The Union with Scotland.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
Hostility to the Union in Scotland.
Spread of Jacobitism.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1708-1709.
The War of the Spanish Succession:
Oudenarde and Malplaquet.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709;
and SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1709.
The Barrier Treaty with Holland.
"The influence of the Whig party in the affairs of government
in England, always irksome to the Queen, had now began visibly
to decline; and the partiality she was suspected of
entertaining for her brother, with her known dislike of the
house of Hanover, inspired them with alarm, lest the Tories
might seek still further to propitiate her favour, by
altering, in his favour, the line of succession, as at present
established. They had, accordingly, made it one of the
preliminaries of the proposed treaty of peace, that the
Protestant succession, in England, should be secured by a
general guarantee, and now sought to repair, as far as
possible, the failure caused by the unsuccessful termination
of the conferences, by entering into a treaty to that effect
with the States. The Marquis Townshend, accordingly, repaired
for this purpose to the Hague, when the States consented to
enter into an engagement to maintain the present succession to
the crown, with their whole force, and to make the recognition
of that succession, and the expulsion of the Pretender from
France, an indispensable preliminary to any peace with that
kingdom. In return for this important guarantee, England was
to secure to the States a barrier, formed of the towns of
Nieuport, Furnes and the fort of Knokke, Menin, Lille, Ryssel,
Tournay, Conde, and Valenciennes, Maubeuge, Charleroi, Namur,
Lier, Halle, and some forts, besides the citadels of Ghent and
Dendermonde. It was afterwards asserted, in excuse for the
dereliction from that treaty on the part of England, that
Townshend had gone beyond his instructions; but it is quite
certain that it was ratified without hesitation by the queen,
whatever may have been her secret feelings regarding it."
C. M. Davies,
History of Holland,
part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3 ).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712.
Opposition to the war.
Trial of Sacheverell.
Fall of the Whigs and Marlborough.
"A 'deluge of blood' such as that of Malplaquet increased the
growing weariness of the war, and the rejection of the French
offers was unjustly attributed to a desire on the part of
Marlborough of lengthening out a contest which brought him
profit and power. The expulsion of Harley and St. John
[Bolingbroke] from the Ministry had given the Tories leaders
of a more vigorous stamp, and St. John brought into play a new
engine of political attack whose powers soon made themselves
felt. In the Examiner, and in a crowd of pamphlets and
periodicals which followed in its train, the humor of Prior,
the bitter irony of Swift, and St. John's own brilliant
sophistry spent themselves on the abuse of the war and of its
general. ... A sudden storm of popular passion showed the way
in which public opinion responded to these efforts. A
High-Church divine, Dr. Sacheverell, maintained the doctrine
of non-resistance [the doctrine, that is, of passive obedience
and non-resistance to government, implying a condemnation of
the Revolution of 1688 and of the Revolution settlement], in a
sermon at St. Paul's, with a boldness which deserved
prosecution; but in spite of the warning of Marlborough and of
Somers the Whig Ministers resolved on his impeachment. His
trial in 1710 at once widened into a great party struggle, and
the popular enthusiasm in Sacheverell's favor showed the
gathering hatred of the Whigs and the war. ... A small
majority of the peers found him guilty, but the light sentence
they inflicted was in effect an acquittal, and bonfires and
illuminations over the whole country welcomed it as a Tory
triumph. The turn of popular feeling freed Anne at once from
the pressure beneath which she had bent; and the skill of
Harley, whose cousin, Mrs. Masham, had succeeded the Duchess
of Marlborough in the Queen's favor, was employed in bringing
about the fall both of Marlborough and the Whig Ministers. ...
The return of a Tory House of Commons sealed his
[Marlborough's] fate. His wife was dismissed from court. A
masterly plan for a march into the heart of France in the
opening of 1711 was foiled by the withdrawal of a part of his
forces, and the negotiations which had for some time been
conducted between the French and English Ministers without his
knowledge marched rapidly to a close. ... At the opening of
1712 the Whig majority of the House of Lords was swamped by
the creation of twelve Tory peers. Marlborough was dismissed
from his command, charged with peculation, and condemned as
guilty by a vote of the House of Commons. He at once withdrew
from England, and with his withdrawal all opposition to the
peace was at an end."
J. R. Green,
Short History of the English People,
section 9, chapter 9.
{917}
Added to other reasons for opposition to the war, the death of
the Emperor Joseph I., which occurred in April, 1711, had
entirely reversed the situation in Europe out of which the war
proceeded. The Archduke Charles, whom the allies had been
striving to place on the Spanish throne, was now certain to be
elected Emperor. He received the imperial crown, in fact, in
December, 1711. By this change of fortune, therefore, he
became a more objectionable claimant of the Spanish crown than
Louis XIV. 's grandson had been.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.
Earl Stanhope,
History of England, Reign of Anne,
chapters 12-15.
"Round the fall of Marlborough has gathered the interest
attaching to the earliest political crisis at all resembling
those of quite recent times. It is at this moment that Party
Government in the modern sense actually commenced. William the
Third with military instinct had always been reluctant to
govern by means of a party. Bound as he was, closely, to the
Whigs, he employed Tory Ministers. ... The new idea of a
homogeneous government was working itself into shape under the
mild direction of Lord Somers; but the form finally taken
under Sir Robert Walpole, which has continued to the present
time, was as yet some way off. Marlborough's notions were
those of the late King. Both abroad and at home he carried out
the policy of William. He refused to rely wholly upon the
Whigs, and the extreme Tories were not given employment. The
Ministry of Godolphin was a composite administration,
containing at one time, in 1705, Tories like Harley and St.
John as well as Whigs such as Sunderland and Halifax. ... Lord
Somers was a type of statesman of a novel order at that time.
... In the beginning of the eighteenth century it was rare to
find a man attaining the highest political rank who was
unconnected by birth or training or marriage with any of the
great 'governing families,' as they have been called. Lord
Somers was the son of a Worcester attorney. ... It was
fortunate for England that Lord Somers should have been the
foremost man of the Whig party at the time when constitutional
government, as we now call it, was in course of construction.
By his prudent counsel the Whigs were guided through the
difficult years at the end of Queen Anne's reign; and from the
ordeal of seeing their rivals in power they certainly managed,
as a party, to emerge on the whole with credit. Although he
was not nominally their leader, the paramount influence in the
Tory party was Bolingbroke's; and that the Tories suffered from
the defects of his great qualities, no unprejudiced critic can
doubt. Between the two parties, and at the head of the
Treasury through the earlier years of the reign, stood
Godolphin, without whose masterly knowledge of finance and
careful attention to the details of administration
Marlborough's policy would have been baffled and his campaigns
remained unfought. To Godolphin, more than to any other one
man, is due the preponderance of the Treasury control in
public affairs. It was his administration, during the absence
of Marlborough on the Continent, which created for the office
of Lord Treasurer its paramount importance, and paved the way
for Sir Robert Walpole's government of England under the title
of First Lord of the Treasury. ... Marlborough saw and always
admitted that his victories were due in large measure to the
financial skill of Godolphin. To this statesman's lasting
credit it must be remembered that in a venal age, when the
standards of public honesty were so different from those which
now prevail, Godolphin died a poor man. ... Bolingbroke is
interesting to us as the most striking figure among the
originators of the new parliamentary system. With Marlborough
disappeared the type of Tudor statesmen modified by contact
with the Stuarts. He was the last of the Imperial Chancellors.
Bolingbroke and his successor Walpole were the earlier types
of constitutional statesmen among whom Mr. Pitt and, later,
Mr. Gladstone stand pre-eminent. ... He and his friends,
opponents of Marlborough, and contributors to his fall, are
interesting to us mainly as furnishing the first examples of
'Her Majesty's Opposition,' as the authors of party government
and the prototypes of cabinet ministers of to-day. Their ways
of thought, their style of speech and of writing, may be
dissimilar to those now in vogue, but they show greater
resemblance to those of modern politicians than to those of
the Ministers of William or of the Stuarts. Bolingbroke may
have appeared a strange product of the eighteenth century to
his contemporaries, but he would not have appeared peculiarly
misplaced among the colleagues of Lord Randolph Churchill or
Mr. Chamberlain."
R. B. Brett,
Footprints of Statesmen,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Marlborough,
chapters 89-107.
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Walpole,
volume 1, chapters 5-6.
G. Saintsbury,
Marlborough.
G. W. Cooke,
Memoirs of Bolingbroke,
volume 1, chapters 6-13.
J. C. Collins,
Bolingbroke.
A. Hassall,
Life of Bolingbroke,
chapter 3.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.
The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.
"The Test Act, making the reception of the Anglican Sacrament
a necessary qualification for becoming a member of
corporations, and for the enjoyment of most civil offices, was
very efficacious in excluding Catholics, but was altogether
insufficient to exclude moderate Dissenters. ... Such men,
while habitually attending their own places of worship, had no
scruple about occasionally entering an Anglican church, or
receiving the sacrament from an Anglican clergyman. The
Independents, it is true, and some of the Baptists, censured
this practice, and Defoe wrote vehemently against it, but it
was very general, and was supported by a long list of imposing
authorities. ... In 1702, in 1703, and in 1704, measures for
suppressing occasional conformity were carried through the
Commons, but on each occasion they were defeated by the Whig
preponderance in the Lords." In 1711, the Whigs formed a
coalition with one section of the Tories to defeat the
negotiations which led to the Peace of Utrecht; but the Tories
"made it the condition of alliance that the Occasional
Conformity Bill should be accepted by the Whigs.
{918}
The bargain was made; the Dissenters were abandoned, and, on
the motion of Nottingham, a measure was carried providing that
all persons in places of profit or trust, and all common
councilmen in corporations, who, while holding office, were
proved to have attended any Nonconformist place of worship,
should forfeit the place, and should continue incapable of
public employment till they should depose that for a whole
year they had not attended a conventicle. The House of Commons
added a fine of £40, which was to be paid to the informer, and
with this addition the Bill became a law. Its effects during
the few years it continued in force were very inconsiderable,
for the great majority of conspicuous Dissenters remained in
office, abstaining from public worship in conventicles, but
having Dissenting ministers as private chaplains in their
houses. ... The object of the Occasional Conformity Bill was
to exclude the Dissenters from all Government positions of
power, dignity or profit. It was followed in 1714 by the
Schism Act, which was intended to crush their seminaries and
deprive them of the means of educating their children in their
faith. ... As carried through the House of Commons, it
provided that no one, under pain of three months'
imprisonment, should keep either a public or a private school,
or should even act as tutor or usher, unless he had obtained a
licence from the Bishop, had engaged to conform to the
Anglican liturgy, and had received the sacrament in some
Anglican church within the year. In order to prevent
occasional conformity it was further provided that if a
teacher so qualified were present at any other form of worship
he should at once become liable to three months' imprisonment,
and should be incapacitated for the rest of his life from
acting as schoolmaster or tutor. ... Some important clauses,
however, were introduced by the Whig party qualifying its
severity. They provided that Dissenters might have
school-mistresses to teach their children to read; that the
Act should not extend to any person instructing youth in
reading, writing, or arithmetic, in any part of mathematics
relating to navigation, or in any mechanical art only. ... The
facility with which this atrocious Act was carried, abundantly
shows the danger in which religious liberty was placed in the
latter years of the reign of Queen Anne."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 1.
The Schism Act was repealed in 1719, during the administration
of Lord Stanhope.
Cobbett's Parliamentary History,
volume 7, pages 567-587.
ALSO IN:
J. Stoughton,
History of Religion in England,
volume 5, chapters 14-16.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.
The Peace of Utrecht.
Acquisitions from Spain and France.
See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713;
also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713;
and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1713.
Second Barrier Treaty with the Dutch.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1713-1714.
The desertion of the Catalans.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.
The end of the Stuart line and the beginning of the
Hanoverians.
Queen Anne died, after a short illness, on the morning of
August 1, 1714. The Tories, who had just gained control of the
ministry, were wholly unprepared for this emergency. They
assembled in Privy Council, on the 29th of July, when the
probably fatal issue of the Queen's illness became apparent,
and "a strange scene is said to have occurred. Argyle and
Somerset, though they had contributed largely by their
defection to the downfall of the Whig ministry of Godolphin,
were now again in opposition to the Tories, and had recently
been dismissed from their posts. Availing themselves of their
rank of Privy Councillors, they appeared unsummoned in the
council room, pleading the greatness of the emergency.
Shrewsbury, who had probably concocted the scene, rose and
warmly thanked them for their offer of assistance; and these
three men appear to have guided the course of events. ...
Shrewsbury, who was already Chamberlain and Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland, became Lord Treasurer, and assumed the authority of
Prime Minister. Summons were at once sent to all Privy
Councillors, irrespective of party, to attend; and Somers and
several other of the Whig leaders were speedily at their post.
They had the great advantage of knowing clearly the policy
they should pursue, and their measures were taken with
admirable promptitude and energy. The guards of the Tower were
at once doubled. Four regiments were ordered to march from the
country to London, and all seamen to repair to their vessels.
An embargo was laid on all shipping. The fleet was equipped,
and speedy measures were taken to protect the seaports and to
secure tranquility in Scotland and Ireland. At the same time
despatches were sent to the Netherlands ordering seven of the
ten British battalions to embark without delay; to Lord
Strafford, the ambassador at the Hague, desiring the
States-General to fulfil their guarantee of the Protestant
succession in England; to the Elector, urging him to hasten to
Holland, where, on the death of the Queen, he would be met by
a British squadron, and escorted to his new kingdom." When the
Queen's death occurred, "the new King was at once proclaimed,
and it is a striking proof of the danger of the crisis that
the funds, which had fallen on a false rumour of the Queen's
recovery, rose at once when she died. Atterbury is said to
have urged Bolingbroke to proclaim James III. at Charing
Cross, and to have offered to head the procession in his lawn
sleeves, but the counsel was mere madness, and Bolingbroke saw
clearly that any attempt to overthrow the Act of Settlement
would be now worse than useless. ... The more violent spirits
among the Jacobites now looked eagerly for a French invasion,
but the calmer members of the party perceived that such an
invasion was impossible. ... The Regency Act of 1705 came at
once into operation. The Hanoverian minister produced the
sealed list of the names of those to whom the Elector
entrusted the government before his arrival, and it was found
to consist of eighteen names taken from the leaders of the
Whig party. ... Parliament, in accordance with the provisions
of the Bill, was at once summoned, and it was soon evident
that there was nothing to fear. The moment for a restoration
was passed."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 1 (volume 1).
{919}
"George I., whom circumstances and the Act of Settlement had
thus called to be King of Great Britain and Ireland, had been
a sovereign prince for sixteen years, during which time he had
been Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg. He was the second who ever
bore that title. By right of his father he was Elector; it was
by right of his mother that he now became ruler of the United
Kingdom. The father was Ernest Augustus, Sovereign Bishop of
Osnaburg, who, by the death of his elder brothers, had become
Duke of Hanover, and then Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. In
1692 he was raised by the Emperor to the dignity of Elector.
... The mother of George I. was Sophia, usually known as the
Electress Sophia. The title was merely one of honour, and only
meant wife of an Elector. ... The Electress Sophia was the
daughter of Elizabeth, daughter of King James I., and
Frederick, the Elector Palatine [whose election to the throne
of Bohemia and subsequent expulsion from that kingdom and from
his Palatine dominions were the first acts in the Thirty
Years' War]. ... The new royal house in England is sometimes
called the House of Hanover, sometimes the House of Brunswick.
It will be found that the latter name is more generally used
in histories written during the last century, the former in
books written in the present day. If the names were equally
applicable, the modern use is the more convenient, because
there is another, and in some respects well known, branch of
the House of Brunswick; but no other has a right to the name
of Hanover. It is, however, quite certain that, whatever the
English use may be, Hanover is properly the name of a town and
of a duchy, but that the electorate was Brunswick-Lüneburg.
... The House of Brunswick was of noble origin, tracing itself
back to a certain Guelph d'Este, nicknamed 'the Robust,' son
of an Italian nobleman, who had been seeking his fortunes in
Germany. Guelph married Judith, widow of the English King,
Harold, who fell on the hill of Senlac. ... One of Guelph's
descendants, later, married Maud, the daughter of King Henry
II., probably the most powerful king in Europe of his day, at
whose persuasion the Emperor conferred on the Guelphs the
duchy of Brunswick."
E. E. Morris,
The Early Hanoverians,
book 1, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
P. M. Thornton,
The Brunswick Accession,
chapters 1-10.
Sir A. Halliday,
Annals of the House of Hanover,
book 10 (volume 2).
J. McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
chapters 1-4.
W. M. Thackeray,
The Four Georges,
lecture 1.
A. W. Ward,
The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian Succession (English
History Review, volume 1).
See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701,
THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1714-1721.
First years of George I.
The rise of Walpole to power and the founding of Parliamentary
Government.
"The accession of the house of Hanover in the person of the
great-grandson of James I. was once called by a Whig of this
generation the greatest miracle in our history. It took place
without domestic or foreign disturbance. ... Within our own
borders a short lull followed the sharp agitations of the last
six months. The new king appointed an exclusively Whig
Ministry. The office of Lord Treasurer was not revived, and
the title disappears from political history. Lord Townshend
was made principal Secretary of State, and assumed the part of
first Minister. Mr. Walpole [Sir Robert] took the subaltern
office of paymaster of the forces, holding along with it the
paymastership of Chelsea Hospital. Although he had at first no
seat in the inner Council or Cabinet, which seems to have
consisted of eight members, only one of them a commoner, it is
evident that from the outset his influence was hardly second
to that of Townshend himself. In little more than a year
(October 1715) he had made himself so prominent and valuable
in the House of Commons, that the opportunity of a vacancy was
taken to appoint him to be First Commissioner of the Treasury
and Chancellor of the Exchequer. ... Besides excluding their
opponents from power, the Whigs instantly took more positive
measures. The new Parliament was strongly Whig. A secret
committee was at once appointed to inquire into the
negotiations for the Peace. Walpole was chairman, took the
lead in its proceedings, and drew the report." On Walpole's
report, the House "directed the impeachment of Oxford,
Bolingbroke, and Ormond for high treason, and other high
crimes and misdemeanours mainly relating to the Peace of
Utrecht. ... The proceedings against Oxford and Bolingbroke
are the last instance in our history of a political
impeachment. They are the last ministers who were ever made
personally responsible for giving bad advice and pursuing a
discredited policy, and since then a political mistake has
ceased to be a crime. ... The affair came to an abortive end.
... The opening years of the new reign mark one of the least
attractive periods in political history. George I. ... cared
very little for his new kingdom, and knew very little about
its people or its institutions. ... His expeditions to Hanover
threw the management of all domestic affairs almost without
control into the hands of his English ministers. If the two
first Hanoverian kings had been Englishmen instead of Germans,
if they had been men of talent and ambition, or even men of
strong and commanding will without much talent, Walpole would
never have been able to lay the foundations of government by
the House of Commons and by Cabinet so firmly that even the
obdurate will of George III. was unable to overthrow it
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
Happily for the system now established, circumstances
compelled the first two sovereigns of the Hanoverian line to
strike a bargain with the English Whigs, and it was faithfully
kept until the accession of the third George. The king was to
manage the affairs of Hanover, and the Whigs were to govern
England. It was an excellent bargain for England. Smooth as
this operation may seem in historic description, Walpole found
its early stages rough and thorny." The king was not easily
brought to understand that England would not make war for
Hanoverian objects, nor allow her foreign policy to be shaped
by the ambitions of the Electorate. Differences arose which
drove Townshend from the Cabinet, and divided the Whig party.
Walpole retired from the government with Townshend, and was in
opposition for three years, while Lord Stanhope and the Earl of
Sunderland controlled the administration. The Whig schism came
to an end in 1720, and Townshend and Walpole rejoined the
administration, the latter as Paymaster of the Forces without
a seat in the Cabinet. "His opposition was at an end, but he
took no part in the active work of government. ... Before many
months had passed the country was overtaken by the memorable
disasters of the South Sea Bubble.
See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.
{920}
All eyes were turned to Walpole. Though he had privately
dabbled in South Sea stock on his own account, his public
predictions came back to men's minds; they remembered that he
had been called the best man for figures in the House, and the
disgrace of' his most important colleagues only made his
sagacity the more prominent. ... He returned to his old posts,
and once more became First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor
of the Exchequer (April 1721), while Townshend was again
Secretary of State. Walpole held his offices practically
without a break for twenty-one years. The younger Pitt had an
almost equal span of unbroken supremacy, but with that
exception there is no parallel to Walpole's long tenure of
power. To estimate aright the vast significance of this
extraordinary stability, we must remember that the country had
just passed through eighty years of revolution. A man of 80 in
1721 could recall the execution of Charles I., the protectorate
of Oliver, the fall of Richard Cromwell, the restoration of
Charles II., the exile of James II., the change of the order
of succession to William of Orange, the reactionary ministry
of Anne, and finally the second change to the House of
Hanover. The interposition, after so long a series of violent
perturbations as this, of twenty years of settled system and
continuous order under one man, makes Walpole's government of
capital and decisive importance in our history, and
constitutes not an artificial division like the reign of a
king, but a true and definite period, with a beginning, an
end, a significance, and a unity of its own."
J. Morley,
Walpole,
chapters 3-4.
ALSO IN:
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole,
chapters 9-21 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1715.
The Jacobite rising.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1716.
The Septennial Act.
The easy suppression of the Jacobite rebellion was far from
putting an end to the fears of the loyal supporters of the
Hanoverian dynasty. They regarded with especial anxiety the
approaching Parliamentary elections. "As, by the existing
statute of 6 William and Mary [the Triennial Act, of 1694],
Parliament would be dissolved at the close of the year, and a
new election held in the spring of 1717, there seemed great
probability of a renewal of the contest, or at least of very
serious riots during the election time. With this in view, the
ministers proposed that the existing Parliament should be
continued for a term of seven instead of three years. This,
which was meant for a temporary measure, has never been
repealed, and is still the law under which Parliaments are
held. It has been often objected to this action of Parliament,
that it was acting arbitrarily in thus increasing its own
duration. 'It was a direct usurpation,' it has been said, 'of
the rights of the people, analogous to the act of the Long
Parliament in declaring itself indestructible.' It has been
regarded rather as a party measure than as a forward step in
liberal government. We must seek its vindication in the
peculiar conditions of the time. It was useless to look to the
constituencies for the support of the popular liberty. The
return of members in the smaller boroughs was in the hands of
corrupt or corruptible freemen; in the counties, of great
landowners; in the larger towns, of small place-holders under
Government. A general election in fact only gave fresh
occasion for the exercise of the influence of the Crown and of
the House of Lords--freedom and independence in the presence
of these two permanent powers could be secured only by the
greater permanence of the third element of the Legislature,
the House of Commons. It was thus that, though no doubt in
some degree a party measure for securing a more lengthened
tenure of office to the Whigs, the Septennial Act received,
upon good constitutional grounds, the support and approbation
of the best statesmen of the time."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, page 938.
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
volume 1, chapter 6.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1717-1719.
The Triple Alliance.
The Quadruple Alliance.
War with Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1720.
The South Sea Bubble.
See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1721-1742.
Development of the Cabinet System of ministerial government.
See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1725.
The Alliance of Hanover.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1726-1731.
Fresh differences with Spain.
Gibraltar besieged.
The Treaty of Seville.
The Second Treaty of Vienna.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1727.
Accession of King George II.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1727-1741.
Walpole's administration under George II.
"The management of public affairs during the six years of
George the First's reign in which Walpole was Prime Minister,
was easy. ... His political fortunes seemed to be ruined by
George the First's death [1727]. That King's successor had
ransacked a very copious vocabulary of abuse, in order to
stigmatise the minister and his associates. Rogue and rascal,
scoundrel and fool, were his commonest utterances when Robert
Walpole's name was mentioned. ... Walpole bowed meekly to the
coming storm," and an attempt was made to put Sir Spencer
Compton in his place. But Compton himself, as well as the king
and his sagacious queen, soon saw the futility of it, and the
old ministry was retained. "At first, Walpole was associated
with his brother-in-law, Townsend. But they soon disagreed,
and the rupture was total after the death of Walpole's sister,
Townsend's wife. ... After Townsend's dismissal, Walpole
reigned alone, if, indeed, he could be said to exercise sole
functions while Newcastle was tied to him. Long before he was
betrayed by this person, of whom he justly said that his name
was perfidy, he knew how dangerous was the association. But
Newcastle was the largest proprietor of rotten boroughs in the
kingdom, and, fool and knave as he was, he had wit enough to
guess at his own importance, and knavery enough to make his
market. Walpole's chief business lay in managing the King, the
Queen, the Church, the House of Commons, and perhaps the
people. I have already said, that before his accession George
hated Walpole. But there are hatreds and hatreds, equal in
fervency while they last, but different in duration. The King
hated Walpole because he had served his father well. But one
George was gone, and another George was in possession. Then
came before the man in possession the clear vision of
Walpole's consummate usefulness. The vision was made clearer
by the sagacious hints of the Queen. It became clear as
noonday when Walpole contrived to add £115,000 to the civil
list. ... Besides, Walpole was sincerely determined to support
the Hanoverian succession. He constantly insisted to George
that the final settlement of his House on the throne would be
fought out in England. ... Hence he was able to check one of
the King's ruling passions, a longing to engage in war. ...
{921}
It is generally understood that Walpole managed the House of
Commons by bribery; that the secret service money was thus
employed: and that this minister was the father of that
corruption which was reported to have disgraced the House
during the first half of the last century. I suspect that
these influences have been exaggerated. It is a stock story
that Walpole said he knew every man's price. It might have
been generally true, but the foundation of this apothegm is,
in all likelihood, a recorded saying of his about certain
members of the opposition. ... Walpole has been designated,
and with justice, as emphatically a peace minister. He held
'that the most pernicious circumstances in which this country
can be, are those of war, as we must be great losers while the
war lasts, and cannot be great gainers when it ends.' He kept
George the Second at peace, as well as he could, by insisting
on it that the safety of his dynasty lay in avoiding foreign
embroilments. He strove in vain against the war which broke
out in 1739. ... I do not intend to disparage Walpole's
administrative ability when I say that the country prospered
independently of any financial policy which he adopted or
carried out. ... Walpole let matters take their course, for he
understood that the highest merit of a minister consists in
his doing no mischief. But Walpole's praise lies in the fact,
that, with this evident growth of material prosperity, he
steadily set his face against gambling with it. He resolved,
as far as lay in his power, to keep the peace of Europe; and
he was seconded in his efforts by Cardinal Fleury. He
contrived to smooth away the difficulties which arose in 1727;
and on January 13, 1730, negotiated the treaty of Seville [see
SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731], the benefits of which lasted through
ten years of peace, and under which he reduced the army to
5,000 men." But the opposition to Walpole's peace policy
became a growing passion, which overcame him in 1741 and
forced him to resign. On his resignation he was raised to the
peerage, with the title of Earl of Orford, and defeated,
though with great difficulty, the determination of his enemies
to impeach him.
J. E. T. Rogers,
Historical Gleanings,
volume 1, chapter 2.
"It is impossible, I think, to consider his [Walpole's] career
with adequate attention without recognising in him a great
minister, although the merits of his administration were often
rather negative than positive, and although it exhibits few of
those dramatic incidents, and is but little susceptible of
that rhetorical colouring, on which the reputation of
statesmen largely depends. ... He was eminently true to the
character of his countrymen. He discerned with a rare sagacity
the lines of policy most suited to their genius and to their
needs, and he had a sufficient ascendancy in English politics
to form its traditions, to give a character and a bias to its
institutions. The Whig party, under his guidance, retained,
though with diminished energy, its old love of civil and of
religious liberty, but it lost its foreign sympathies, its
tendency to extravagance, its military restlessness. The
landed gentry, and in a great degree the Church, were
reconciled to the new dynasty. The dangerous fissures which
divided the English nation were filled up. Parliamentary
government lost its old violence, it entered into a period of
normal and pacific action, and the habits of compromise, of
moderation, and of practical good sense, which are most
essential to its success, were greatly strengthened. These
were the great merits of Walpole. His faults were very
manifest, and are to be attributed in part to his own
character, but in a great degree to the moral atmosphere of
his time. He was an honest man in the sense of desiring
sincerely the welfare of his country and serving his sovereign
with fidelity; but he was intensely wedded to power,
exceedingly unscrupulous about the means of grasping or
retaining it, and entirely destitute of that delicacy of
honour which marks a high-minded man. ... His estimate of
political integrity was very similar to his estimate of female
virtue. He governed by means of an assembly which was
saturated with corruption, and he fully acquiesced in its
conditions and resisted every attempt to improve it. ... It is
necessary to speak with much caution on this matter,
remembering that no statesman can emancipate himself from the
conditions of his time. ... The systematic corruption of
Members of Parliament is said to have begun under Charles II.,
in whose reign it was practised to the largest extent. It was
continued under his successor, and the number of scandals
rather increased than diminished after the Revolution. ... And
if corruption did not begin with Walpole, it is equally
certain that it did not end with him. His expenditure of
secret service money, large as it was, never equalled in an
equal space of time the expenditure of Bute. ... The real
charge against him is that in a period of profound peace, when
he exercised an almost unexampled ascendancy in politics, and
when public opinion was strongly in favour of the diminution
of corrupt influence in Parliament, he steadily and
successfully resisted every attempt at reform. ... It was his
settled policy to maintain his Parliamentary majority, not by
attracting to his ministry great orators, great writers, great
financiers, or great statesmen, ... but simply by engrossing
borough influence and extending the patronage of the Crown."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter. 3 (volume 1).
"But for Sir Robert Walpole, we should have had the Pretender
back again. But for his obstinate love of peace, we should
have had wars, which the nation was not strong enough nor
united enough to endure. But for his resolute counsels and
good-humoured resistance, we might have had German despots
attempting a Hanoverian regimen over us: we should have had
revolt, commotion, want, and tyrannous misrule, in place of a
quarter of a century of peace, freedom and material
prosperity, such as the country never enjoyed, until that
corrupter of parliaments, that dissolute tipsy cynic, that
courageous lover of peace and liberty, that great citizen,
patriot and statesman governed it. ... In private life the old
pagan revelled in the lowest pleasures: he passed his Sundays
tippling at Richmond; and his holidays bawling after dogs, or
boozing at Houghton with Boors over beef and punch. He cared
for letters no more than his master did: he judged human
nature so meanly that one is ashamed to have to own that he
was right, and that men could be corrupted by means so base.
But, with his hireling House of Commons, he defended liberty
for us; with his incredulity he kept Church-craft down. ... He
gave Englishmen no conquests, but he gave them peace, and
ease, and freedom; the Three per Cents. nearly at par; and
wheat at five and six and twenty shillings a quarter."
W. M. Thackeray,
The Four Georges,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole,
chapters 31-59 (volume 1).
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 15-23 (volumes 2-3).
Lord Hervey,
Memoirs of the Reign of George II.
{922}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1731-1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1732.
The grant of Georgia to General Oglethorpe.
See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1733.
The first Bourbon Family Compact.
Its hostility to Great Britain.
See FRANCE, A. D. 1733.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1733-1787
The great inventions which built up the
Cotton Manufacture.
See COTTON MANUFACTURE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.
The War of Jenkins' Ear.
"In spite of Walpole's love of peace, and determined efforts
to preserve it, in the year 1739 a war broke out with Spain,
which is an illustration of the saying that the occasion of a
war may be trifling, though its real cause be very serious.
The war is often called the War of Jenkins' Ear. The story ran
that eight years before (1731) a certain Captain Jenkins,
skipper of the ship 'Rebecca,' of London, had been maltreated
by the Spaniards. His ship was sailing from Jamaica, and
hanging about the entrance of the Gulf of Florida, when it was
boarded by the Spanish coast guard. The Spaniards could find
no proof that Jenkins was smuggling, though they searched
narrowly, and being angry at their ill-success they hanged him
to the yardarm, lowering him just in time to save his life. At
length they pulled off his ear and told him to take it to his
king. ... Seven years later Captain Jenkins was examined by
the House of Commons, on which occasion some member asked him
how he felt when being maltreated, and Jenkins answered, 'I
recommended my soul to God and my cause to my country.' The
answer, whether made at the time or prepared for use in the
House of Commons, touched a chord of sympathy, and soon was
circulated through the country. 'No need of allies now,' said
one politician; 'the story of Jenkins will raise us
volunteers.' The truth of the matter is that this story from
its somewhat ridiculous aspect has remained in the minds of
men, but that it is only a specimen of many stories then
afloat, all pointing to insolence of Spaniards in insisting
upon what was after all strictly within their rights. But the
legal treaty rights of Spain were growing intolerable to
Englishmen, though not necessarily to the English Government;
and traders and sailors were breaking the international laws
which practically stopped the expansion of England in the New

World. The war arose out of a question of trade, in this as in
so many other cases the English being prepared to fight in
order to force an entrance for their trade, which the
Spaniards wished to shut out from Spanish America. This
question found a place amongst the other matters arranged by
the treaty of Utrecht, when the English obtained almost as
their sole return for their victories what was known as the
Assiento. This is a Spanish word meaning contract, but its use
had been for some time confined to the disgraceful privilege
of providing Spanish America with negroes kidnapped from their
homes in Africa. The Flemings, the Genoese, the Portuguese,
and the French Guinea Company received in turn from Spanish
kings the monopoly in this shameful traffic, which at the
treaty of Utrecht was passed on for a period of thirty years
to England, now becoming mistress of the seas, and with her
numerous merchant ships better able than others to carry on
the business. The English Government committed the contract to
the South Sea Company, and the number of negroes to be
supplied annually was no less than 4,800 'sound, healthy,
merchantable negroes, two-thirds to be male, none under ten or
over forty years old.' In the Assiento Treaty there was also a
provision for the trading of one English ship each year with
Spanish America; but in order to prevent too great advantage
therefrom it was carefully stipulated that the ship should not
exceed 600 tons burden. There is no doubt that this
stipulation was regularly violated by the English sending a
ship of the required number of tons, but with it numerous
tenders and smaller craft. Moreover smuggling, being very
profitable, became common; it was of this smuggling that
Captain Jenkins was accused. ... Walpole, always anxious for
peace, by argument, by negotiation, by delays, resisted the
growing desire for war; at length he could resist no longer.
For the sake of his reputation he should have resigned office,
but he had enjoyed power too long to be ready to yield it, and
most unwisely he allowed himself to be forced into a
declaration of war October 19, 1739. The news was received
throughout England with a perfect frenzy of delight. ... A
year and a day after this declaration of war an event
occurred--the death of the Emperor--which helped to swell the
volume of this war until it was merged into the European war,
called the War of the Austrian Succession, which includes
within itself the First and Second Silesian Wars, between
Austria and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The European war
went on until the general pacification in the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748. Within another ten years war broke out
again on somewhat similar grounds, but on a much wider scale
and with the combatants differently arranged, under the title
'Seven Years' War.' The events of this year, whilst the war
was only between Spain and England, were the attacks on
Spanish settlements in America, the capture of Porto Bello,
and the failure before Cartagena, which led to Anson's famous
voyage."
E. E. Morris,
The Early Hanoverians,
book 2, chapter 3.
"Admiral Vernon, setting sail with the English fleet from
Jamaica, captured Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Darien,
December 1st--an exploit for which he received the thanks of
both Houses of Parliament. His attempt on Carthagena, in the
spring of 1741, proved, however, a complete failure through
his dissensions, it is said, with General Wentworth, the
commander of the land forces. A squadron, under Commodore
Anson, despatched to the South Sea for the purpose of annoying
the Spanish colonies of Peru and Chili, destroyed the Peruvian
town of Paita, and made several prizes; the most important of
which was one of the great Spanish galleons trading between
Acapulco and Manilla, having a large treasure on board. It was
on this occasion that Anson circumnavigated the globe, having
sailed from England in 1740 and returned to Spithead in 1744."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 3.
{923}
ALSO IN:
R. Walter,
Voyage around the World of George Anson.
Sir J. Barrow,
Life of Lord George Anson,
chapter 1-2.
W. Coxe,
Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain,
chapter 43 (volume 3).
See, also,
FRANCE, A. D. 1733,
and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1742.
Naval operations in the Mediterranean.
See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.
Ministries of Carteret and the Pelhams,
Pitt's admission to the Cabinet.
"Walpole resigned in the beginning of February, 1742; but his
retirement did not bring Pitt into office. The King had
conceived a violent prejudice against him, not only on account
of the prominent and effective part he had taken in the
general assault upon the late administration, but more
especially in consequence of the strong opinions he had
expressed on the subject of Hanover, and respecting the public
mischiefs arising from George the Second's partiality to the
interests of the Electorate. Lord Wilmington was the nominal
head of the new administration, which was looked on as little
more than a weak continuation of Walpole's. The same character
was generally given to Pelham's ministry, (Pelham succeeded
Wilmington as Premier, on the death of the latter in 1743,)
and Pitt soon appeared in renewed opposition to the Court. It
was about this time that he received a creditable and
convenient addition to his private fortune, which also
attested his celebrity. In 1744, the celebrated Duchess of
Marlborough died, leaving him a legacy' of 10,000 l. on
account of his merit in the noble defence he has made of the
laws of England, to prevent the ruin of his country.' Pitt was
now at the head of a small but determined band of Opposition
statesmen, with whom he was also connected by intermarriages
between members of their respective families and his own.
These were Lord Cobham, the Grenvilles, and his schoolfellow
Lord Lyttelton. The genius of Pitt had made the opposition of
this party so embarrassing to the minister, that Mr. Pelham,
the leader of the House of Commons, and his brother, the Duke
of Newcastle, found it necessary to get rid of Lord Carteret,
who was personally most obnoxious to the attacks of Pitt, on
account of his supposed zeal in favour of the King's
Hanoverian policy. Pitt's friends, Lyttelton and Grenville,
were taken into the ministry [called the Broad-bottomed
Administration], and the undoubted wish of the Pelhams was to
enlist Pitt also among their colleagues. But 'The great Mr.
Pitt,' says old Horace Walpole--using in derision an epithet
soon confirmed by the serious voice of the country--'the great
Mr. Pitt insisted on being Secretary at War';--but it was
found that the King's aversion to him was insurmountable; and
after much reluctance and difficulty, his friends were
persuaded to accept office without him, under an assurance
from the Duke of Newcastle that 'he should at no distant day
be able to remove this prejudice from his Majesty's mind.'
Pitt concurred in the new arrangement, and promised to give
his support to the remodelled administration. ... On the
breaking out of the rebellion of 1745, Pitt energetically
supported the ministry in their measures to protect the
established government. George the Second's prejudices
against him, were, however, as strong as ever. At last a sort
of compromise was effected. Pitt waived for a time his demand
of the War Secretaryship, and on the 22nd of February, 1746,
he was appointed one of the joint Vice-treasurers for Ireland;
and on the 6th of May following he was promoted to the more
lucrative office of Paymaster-General of the Forces. ... In
his office of Paymaster of the Forces Pitt set an example then
rare among statesmen, of personal disinterestedness. He held
what had hitherto been an exceedingly lucrative situation: for
the Paymaster seldom had less than 100,000 l. in his hands,
and was allowed to appropriate the interest of what funds he
held to his own use. In addition to this it had been customary
for foreign princes in the pay of England to allow the
Paymaster of the Forces a per-centage on their subsidies. Pitt
nobly declined to avail himself of these advantages, and would
accept of nothing beyond his legal salary."
Sir E. Creasy,
Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
chapter 4.
"From Walpole's death in 1745, when the star of the Stuarts
set for ever among the clouds of Culloden, to 1754, when Henry
Pelham followed his old chief, public life in England was
singularly calm and languid. The temperate and peaceful
disposition of the Minister seemed to pervade Parliament. At
his death the King exclaimed: 'Now I shall have no more
peace'; and the words proved to be prophetic. Both in
Parliament and in the country, as well as beyond its shores,
the elements of discord were swiftly at war. Out of
conflicting ambitions and widely divergent interests a new
type of statesman, very different from Walpole, or from
Bolingbroke, or from Pelham, or from the 'hubble-bubble
Newcastle,' was destined to arise. And along with the new
statesman a new force, of which he was in part the
representative, in part the creator, was to be introduced into
political life. This new force was the unrepresented voice of
the people. The new statesman was an ex-cornet of horse,
William Pitt, better known as Lord Chatham. The
characteristics of William Pitt which mainly influenced his
career were his ambition and his ill-health. Power, and that
conspicuous form of egotism called personal glory, were the
objects of his life. He pursued them with all the ardour of a
strong-willed purpose; but the flesh was in his case painfully
weak. Gout had declared itself his foe while he was still an
Eton boy. His failures, and prolonged withdrawal at intervals
from public affairs, were due to the inroads of this fatal
enemy, from whom he was destined to receive his death-blow.
Walpole had not been slow to recognise the quality of this
'terrible cornet of horse,' as he called him."
R. B. Brett,
Footprints of Statesmen,
chapter 7.
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 24-28 (volume 3).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743.
The British Pragmatic Army.
Battle of Dettingen.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
The second Bourbon Family Compact.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1743-1752.
Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India.
The founding of British empire by Clive.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1744-1745.
War of the Austrian Succession:
Hostilities in America.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: and 1745.
{924}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745 (MAY).
War of the Austrian Succession in the Netherlands.
Fontenoy.
See NETHERLANDS (THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
The Young Pretender's invasion.
Last rising of the Jacobites.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession
British incapacity.
Final successes at Sea.
"The extraordinary incapacity of English commanders, both by
land and sea, is one of the most striking facts in the war we
are considering. ... Mismanagement and languor were general.
The battle of Dettingen was truly described as a happy escape
rather than a great victory; the army in Flanders can hardly
be said to have exhibited any military quality except courage,
and the British navy, though it gained some successes, added
little to its reputation. The one brilliant exception was the
expedition of Anson round Cape Horn, for the purpose of
plundering the Spanish merchandise and settlements in the
Pacific. It lasted for nearly four years. ... The overwhelming
superiority of England upon the sea began, however, gradually
to influence the war. The island of Cape Breton, which
commanded the mouth of Gulf St. Lawrence, and protected the
Newfoundland fisheries, was captured in the June of 1745. In
1747 a French squadron was destroyed by a very superior
English fleet off Cape Finisterre. Another was defeated near
Belleisle, and in the same year as many as 644 prizes were
taken. The war on the part of the English, however, was most
efficiently conducted by means of subsidies, which were
enormously multiplied."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England, 18th Century,
chapter 3 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1746-1747.
War of the Austrian Succession in Italy.
Siege of Genoa.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1748 (OCTOBER).
End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748;
and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1748-1754.
First movements to dispute possession of the Ohio Valley with
the French.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1749-1755.
Unsettled boundary disputes with France in America.
Preludes of the final contest.
See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1751.
Reformation of the Calendar.
See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1753.
The Jewish Naturalization Bill.
See JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1754.
Collision with the French in the Ohio Valley.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755.
The Seven Years War.
Its causes and provocations.
"The seven years that succeeded the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle
are described by Voltaire as among the happiest that Europe
ever enjoyed. Commerce revived, the fine arts flourished, and
the European nations resembled, it is said, one large family
that had been reunited after its dissensions. Unfortunately,
however, the peace had not exterminated all the elements of
discord. Scarcely had Europe begun to breathe again when new
disputes arose, and the seven years of peace and prosperity
were succeeded by another seven of misery and war. The ancient
rivalry between France and England, which had formerly vented
itself in continental struggles, had, by the progress of
maritime discovery and colonisation, been extended to all the
quarters of the globe. The interests of the two nations came
into collision in India, Africa and America, and a dispute
about boundaries in this last quarter again plunged them into
a war. By the 9th article of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle,
France and England were mutually to restore their conquests in
such state as they were before the war. This clause became a
copious source of quarrel. The principal dispute regarded the
limits of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which province had, by the
12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht, been ceded to England
'conformably to its ancient boundaries'; but what these were
had never been accurately determined, and each Power fixed
them according to its convenience. Thus, while the French
pretended that Nova Scotia embraced only the peninsula
extending from Cape St. Mary to Cape Canseau, the English
further included in it that part of the American continent
which extends to Pentagoet on the west, and to the river St.
Lawrence on the north, comprising all the province of New
Brunswick. Another dispute regarded the western limits of the
British North American settlements. The English claimed the
banks of the Ohio as belonging to Virginia, the French as
forming part of Louisiana; and they attempted to confine the
British colonies by a chain of forts stretching from Louisiana
to Canada. Commissaries were appointed to settle these
questions, who held their conferences at Paris between the
years 1750 and 1755. Disputes also arose respecting the
occupation by the French of the islands of St. Lucia,
Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago, which had been declared
neutral by former treaties. Before the Commissaries could
terminate their labours, mutual aggressions had rendered a war
inevitable. As is usual in such cases, it is difficult to say
who was the first aggressor. Each nation laid the blame on the
other. Some French writers assert that the English resorted to
hostilities out of jealousy at the increase of the French
navy. According to the plans of Rouillé, the French Minister
of Marine, 111 ships of the line, 54 frigates, and smaller
vessels in proportion, were to be built in the course of ten
years. The question of boundaries was, however, undoubtedly
the occasion, if not also the true cause, of the war. A series
of desultory conflicts had taken place along the Ohio, and on
the frontiers of Nova Scotia, in 1754, without being avowed by
the mother countries. A French writer, who flourished about
this time, the Abbé Raynal, ascribes "this clandestine warfare
to the policy of the Court of Versailles, which was seeking
gradually to recover what it had lost by treaties. Orders were
now issued to the English fleet to attack French vessels
wherever found. ... It being known that a considerable French
fleet was preparing to sail from Brest and Rochefort for
America, Admiral Boscawen was despatched thither, and captured
two French men-of-war off Cape Race in Newfoundland, June 1755.
Hostilities were also transferred to the shores of Europe. ...
A naval war between England and France was now unavoidable;
but, as in the case of the Austrian Succession, this was also
to be mixed up with a European war.
{925}
The complicated relations of the European system again caused
these two wars to run into one, though their origin had
nothing in common. France and England, whose quarrel lay in
the New World, appeared as the leading Powers in a European
contest in which they had only a secondary interest, and
decided the fate of Canada on the plains of Germany. The war
in Europe, commonly called the Seven Years' War, was chiefly
caused by the pride of one Empress [Maria Theresa], the vanity
of another [Elizabeth of Russia], and the subserviency of a
royal courtezan [Madame Pompadour], who became the tool of
these passions."
T. H. Dyer,
History of Modern Europe,
book 6, chapter 5 (volume 3).
"The Seven Years' War was in its origin not an European war at
all; it was a war between England and France on Colonial
questions with which the rest of Europe had nothing to do; but
the alliances and enmities of England and France in Europe,
joined with the fact that the King of England was also Elector
of Hanover, made it almost certain that a war between England
and France must spread to the Continent. I am far from
charging on the English Government of the time--for it was
they, and not the French, who forced on the war--as Macaulay
might do, the blood of the Austrians who perished at Leuthen,
of the Russians sabred at Zorndorf, and the Prussians mown
down at Kunersdorf. The States of the Continent had many old
enmities not either appeased or fought out to a result; and
these would probably have given rise to a war some day, even
if no black men, to adapt Macaulay again, had been previously
fighting on the coast of Coromandel, nor red men scalping each
other by the great lakes of North America. Still, it is to be
remembered that it was the work of England that the war took
place then and on those lines; and in view of the enormous
suffering and slaughter of that war, and of the violent and
arbitrary proceedings by which it was forced on, we may well
question whether English writers have any right to reprobate
Frederick's seizure of Silesia as something specially immoral
in itself and disastrous to the world. If the Prussians were
highway robbers, the English were pirates. ... The origin of
the war between England and France, if a struggle which had
hardly been interrupted since the nominal peace could be said
to have an origin, was the struggle for America."
A. R. Ropes,
The Causes of the Seven Years' War
(Royal Historical Society, Transactions,
new series, volume 4).
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 31-32 (volume 4).
F. Parkman,
Montcalm and Wolfe,
chapters 1-7.
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (APRIL).
Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation of the
colonies by act of Parliament.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
Boscawen's naval victory over the French.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JULY).
Braddock's defeat in America.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
Victory at Lake George.
See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1756.
Loss of Minorca and reverses in America.
See MINORCA: A. D. 1756;
and CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1759.
Campaigns on the Continent.
Defence of Hanover.
See GERMANY: A D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER),
to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760.
The great administration of the elder Pitt.
"In 1754 Henry Pelham died. The important consequence of his
death was the fact that it gave Pitt at last an opportunity of
coming to the front. The Duke of Newcastle, Henry Pelham's
brother, became leader of the administration, with Henry Fox
for Secretary at War, Pitt for Paymaster-general of the
Forces, and Murray, afterwards to be famous as Lord Mansfield,
for Attorney-general. There was some difficulty about the
leadership of the House of Commons. Pitt was still too much
disliked by the King, to be available for the position. Fox
for a while refused to accept it, and Murray was unwilling to
do anything which might be likely to withdraw him from the
professional path along which he was to move to such
distinction. An attempt was made to get on with a Sir Thomas
Robinson, a man of no capacity for such a position, and the
attempt was soon an evident failure. Then Fox consented to
take the position on Newcastle's own terms, which were those
of absolute submission to the dictates of Newcastle. Later
still he was content to descend to a subordinate office which
did not even give him a place in the Cabinet. Fox never
recovered the damage which his reputation and his influence
suffered by this amazing act. ... The Duke of Newcastle's
Ministry soon fell. Newcastle was not a man who had the
slightest capacity for controlling or directing a policy of
war; and the great struggle known as the Seven Years' War had
now broken out. One lamentable event in the war has to be
recorded, although it was but of minor importance. This was
the capture of Minorca by the French under the romantic,
gallant, and profligate Duc de Richelieu. The event is
memorable chiefly, or only, because it was followed by the
trial and execution [March 14, 1757] of the unfortunate
Admiral Byng.
See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.
The Duke of Newcastle resigned office, and for a short time
the Duke of Devonshire was at the head of a coalition Ministry
which included Pitt. The King, however, did not stand this
long, and one day suddenly turned them all out of office. Then
a coalition of another kind was formed, which included
Newcastle and Pitt, with Henry Fox in the subordinate position
of paymaster. Pitt now for the first time had it all his own
way. He ruled everything in the House of Commons. He flung
himself with passionate and patriotic energy into the alliance
with that great Frederick whose genius and daring were like
his own."
Justin McCarthy,
History of the Four Georges,
volume 2, chapter 41.
"Newcastle took the Treasury. Pitt was Secretary of State,
with the lead in the House of Commons, and with the supreme
direction of the war and of foreign affairs. Fox, the only man
who could have given much annoyance to the new Government, was
silenced with the office of Paymaster, which, during the
continuance of that war, was probably the most lucrative place
in the whole Government. He was poor, and the situation was
tempting. ... The first acts of the new administration were
characterized rather by vigour than by judgment. Expeditions
were sent against different parts of the French coast with
little success. ... But soon conquests of a very different
kind filled the kingdom with pride and rejoicing. A succession
of victories undoubtedly brilliant, and, as it was thought,
not barren, raised to the highest point the fame of the
minister to whom the conduct of the war had been intrusted.
{926}
In July, 1758, Louisburg fell. The whole island of Cape Breton
was reduced. The fleet to which the Court of Versailles had
confided the defence of French America was destroyed. The
captured standards were borne in triumph from Kensington
Palace to the city, and were suspended in St. Paul's Church,
amidst the roar of guns and kettle-drums, and the shouts of an
immense multitude. Addresses of congratulation came in from all
the great towns of England. Parliament met only to decree
thanks and monuments, and to bestow, without one murmur,
supplies more than double of those which had been given during
the war of the Grand Alliance. The year 1759 opened with the
conquest of Goree. Next fell Guadaloupe; then Ticonderoga;
then Niagara. The Toulon squadron was completely defeated by
Boscawen off Cape Lagos. But the greatest exploit of the year
was the achievement of Wolfe on the heights of Abraham. The
news of his glorious death and of the fall of Quebec reached
London in the very week in which the Houses met. All was joy
and triumph. Envy and faction were forced to join in the
general applause. Whigs and Tories vied with each other in
extolling the genius and energy of Pitt. His colleagues were
never talked of or thought of. The House of Commons, the
nation, the colonies, our allies, our enemies, had their eyes
fixed on him alone. Scarcely had Parliament voted a monument
to Wolfe when another great event called for fresh rejoicings.
The Brest fleet, under the command of Conflans, had put out to
sea. It was overtaken by an English squadron under Hawke.
Conflans attempted to take shelter close under the French
coast. The shore was rocky: the night was black: the wind was
furious: the waves of the Bay of Biscay ran high. But Pitt had
infused into every branch of the service a spirit which had
long been unknown. No British seaman was disposed to err on
the same side with Byng. The pilot told Hawke that the attack
could not be made without the greatest danger. 'You have done
your duty in remonstrating,' answered Hawke; 'I will answer
for everything. I command you to lay me alongside the French
admiral.' Two French ships of the line struck. Four were
destroyed. The rest hid themselves in the rivers of Brittany.
The year 1760 came; and still triumph followed triumph.
Montreal was taken; the whole Province of Canada was
subjugated; the French fleets underwent a succession of
disasters in the seas of Europe and America. In the meantime
conquests equalling in rapidity, and far surpassing in
magnitude, those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved in
the East. In the space of three years the English had founded
a mighty empire. The French had been defeated in every part of
India. Chandernagore had surrendered to Clive, Pondicherry to
Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa and the Carnatic, the
authority of the East India Company was more absolute than
that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been. On the continent of
Europe the odds were against England. We had but one important
ally, the King of Prussia; and he was attacked, not only by
France, but also by Russia and Austria. Yet even on the
Continent, the energy of Pitt triumphed over all difficulties.
Vehemently as he had condemned the practice of subsidising
foreign princes, he now carried that practice farther than
Carteret himself would have ventured to do. The active and
able Sovereign of Prussia received such pecuniary assistance
as enabled him to maintain the conflict on equal terms against
his powerful enemies. On no subject had Pitt ever spoken with
so much eloquence and ardour as on the mischiefs of the
Hanoverian connection. He now declared, not without much show
of reason, that it would be unworthy of the English people to
suffer their King to be deprived of his electoral dominions in
an English quarrel. He assured his countrymen that they should
be no losers, and that he would conquer America for them in
Germany. By taking this line he conciliated the King, and lost
no part of his influence with the nation. In Parliament, such
was the ascendeney which his eloquence, his success, his high
situation, his pride, and his intrepidity had obtained for
him, that he took liberties with the House of which there had
been no example, and which have never since been imitated. ...
The face of affairs was speedily changed. The invaders [of
Hanover] were driven out. ... In the meantime, the nation
exhibited all the signs of wealth and prosperity. ... The
success of our arms was perhaps owing less to the skill of his
[Pitt's] dispositions than to the national resources and the
national spirit. But that the national spirit rose to the
emergency, that the national resources were contributed with
unexampled cheerfulness, this was undoubtedly his work. The
ardour of his soul had set the whole kingdom on fire. ... The
situation which Pitt occupied at the close of the reign of
George the Second was the most enviable ever occupied by any
public man in English history. He had conciliated the King; he
domineered over the House of Commons; he was adored by the
people; he was admired by all Europe. He was the first
Englishman of his time; and he had made England the first
country in the world. The Great Commoner, the name by which he
was often designated, might look down with scorn on coronets
and garters. The nation was drunk with joy and pride."
Lord Macaulay,
First Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham
(Essays, volume 3).
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 33-36 (volume 4).
Sir E. Creasy,
Memoirs of Eminent Etonians,
chapter 4.
England: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST).
The Seven Years War.
Abortive expeditions against the coast of France.
Early in 1758 there was sent out "one of those joint military
and naval expeditions which Pitt seems at first to have
thought the proper means by which England should assist in a
continental war. Like all such isolated expeditions, it was of
little value. St. Malo, against which it was directed, was
found too strong to be taken, but a large quantity of shipping
and naval stores was destroyed. The fleet also approached
Cherbourg, but although the troops were actually in their
boats ready to land, they were ordered to re-embark, and the
fleet came home. Another somewhat similar expedition was sent
out later in the year. In July General Bligh and Commodore
Howe took and destroyed Cherbourg, but on attempting a similar
assault on St. Malo they found it too strong for them. The
army had been landed in the Bay of St. Cast, and, while
engaged in re-embarkation, it was attacked by some French
troops which had been hastily collected, and severely
handled."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, page 1027.
{927}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
The Seven Years War in America: Final capture of Louisbourg
and recovery of Fort Duquesne.
Bloody defeat at Ticonderoga.
See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1758-1761.
Breaking of French power in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1759.
Great victories in America.
Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Quebec.
See CANADA: A. D. 1759.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
British naval supremacy established.
Victories off Lagos and in Quiberon Bay.
"Early in the year [1759] the French had begun to make
preparations for an invasion of the British Isles on a large
scale. Flat-bottomed boats were built at Havre and other
places along the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, and large
fleets were collected at Brest and Toulon, besides a small
squadron at Dunkirk. A considerable force was assembled at
Vannes in the south of Brittany, under the command of the Duc
d'Aiguillon, which was to be convoyed to the Irish coasts by
the combined fleets of Brest and Toulon, while the
flat-bottomed boats transported a second army across the
channel under cover of a dark night. The Dunkirk squadron,
under Admiral Thurot, a celebrated privateer, was to create a
diversion by attacking some part of the Scotch coast. The
design was bold and well contrived, and would not improbably
have succeeded three or even two years before, but the
opportunity was gone. England was no longer in 'that enervate
state in which 20,000 men from France could shake her.' Had a
landing been effected, the regular troops in the country, with
the support of the newly created militia, would probably have
been equal to the emergency; but a more effectual bulwark was
found in the fleet, which watched the whole French coast,
ready to engage the enemy as soon as he ventured out of his
ports. The first attempt to break through the cordon was made
by M. de la Clue from Toulon. The English Mediterranean fleet,
under Admiral Boscawen, cruising before that port, was
compelled early in July to retire to Gibraltar to take in
water and provisions and to refit some of' the ships. Hereupon
M. de la Clue put to sea, and hugging the African coast,
passed the straits without molestation. Boscawen, however,
though his ships were not yet refitted, at once gave chase,
and came up with the enemy off [Lagos, on] the coast of
Portugal, where an engagement took place [August 18], in which
three French ships were taken and two driven on shore and burnt.
The remainder took refuge in Cadiz, where they were blockaded
till the winter, when, the English fleet being driven off the
coast by a storm, they managed to get back to Toulon. The
discomfiture of the Brest fleet, under M. de Conflans, was
even more complete. On November 9 Admiral Sir Edward Hawke,
who had blockaded Brest all the summer and autumn, was driven
from his post by a violent gale, and on the 14th, Conflans put
to sea with 21 sail of the line and 4 frigates. On the same
day, Hawke, with 22 sail of the line, stood out from Torbay,
where he had taken shelter, and made sail for Quiberon Bay,
judging that Conflans would steer thither to liberate a fleet
of transports which were blocked up in the river Morbihan, by
a small squadron of frigates under Commodore Duff. On the
morning of the 20th, he sighted the French fleet chasing Duff
in Quiberon Bay. Conflans, when he discerned the English,
recalled his chasing ships and prepared for action; but on
their nearer approach changed his mind, and ran for shelter
among the shoals and rocks of the coast. The sea was running
mountains high and the coast was very dangerous and little
known to the English, who had no pilots; but Hawke, whom no
peril could daunt, never hesitated a moment, but crowded all
sail after them. Without regard to lines of battle, every ship
was directed to make the best of her way towards the enemy,
the admiral telling his officers he was for the old way of
fighting, to make downright work with them. In consequence
many of the English ships never got into action at all; but
the short winter day was wearing away, and all haste was
needed if the enemy were not to escape. ... As long as
daylight lasted the battle raged with great fury, so near the
coast that '10,000 persons on the shore were the sad
spectators of the white flag's disgrace.' ... By nightfall two
French ships, the Thésée 74, and Superb 70, were sunk, and two,
the Formidable 80, and the Héros 74, had struck. The Soleil
Royal afterwards went aground, but her crew escaped, as did
that of the Héros, whose captain dishonourably ran her ashore
in the night. Of the remainder, seven ships of the line and
four frigates threw their guns overboard, and escaped up the
river Vilaine, where most of them bumped their bottoms out in
the shallow water; the rest got away and took shelter in the
Charente, all but one, which was wrecked, but very few ever
got out again. With two hours more of daylight Hawke thought
he could have taken or destroyed all, as he was almost up with
the French van when night overtook him. Two English ships, the
Essex 64, and the Resolution 74, went ashore in the night and
could not be got off, but the crews were saved, and the
victory was won with the loss of 40 killed and 200 wounded.
The great invasion scheme was completely wrecked. Thurot had
succeeded in getting out from Dunkirk, and for some months was
a terror to the northern coast-towns, but early in the
following year an end was put to his career. For the rest of
the war the French never ventured to meet the English in
battle on the high seas, and could only look on helplessly
while their colonies and commerce fell into the hands of their
rivals. From the day of the fight in Quiberon Bay, the naval
and commercial supremacy of England was assured."
F. W. Longman,
Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War,
chapter 12, section 3.
ALSO IN:
C. D. Yonge,
History of the British Navy,
volume 1, chapter 12.
J. Entick,
History of the late War,
volume 4, pages 241-290.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1760.
Completed conquest of Canada.
Successes of the Prussians and their allies.
See CANADA: A. D. 1760;
and GERMANY: A. D. 1760.
{928}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.
Accession of George III.
His ignorance and his despotic notions of kingship.
Retirement of the elder Pitt.
Rise and fall of Bute.
The Grenville Ministry.
"When George III. came to the throne, in 1760, England had
been governed for more than half a century by the great Whig
families which had been brought into the foreground by the
revolution of 1688. ... Under Walpole's wise and powerful
sway, the first two Georges had possessed scarcely more than
the shadow of sovereignty. It was the third George's ambition
to become a real king, like the king of France or the king of
Spain. From earliest babyhood, his mother had forever been
impressing upon him the precept, 'George be king!' and this
simple lesson had constituted pretty much the whole of his
education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant
king that ever sat upon the English throne; and so far as
general culture is concerned, this opinion is undoubtedly
correct. ... Nevertheless ... George III. was not destitute of
a certain kind of ability, which often gets highly rated in
this not too clear-sighted world. He could see an immediate
end very distinctly, and acquired considerable power from the
dogged industry with which he pursued it. In an age where some
of the noblest English statesmen drank their gallon of strong
wine daily, or sat late at the gambling-table, or lived in
scarcely hidden concubinage, George III. was decorous in
personal habits and pure in domestic relations, and no
banker's clerk in London applied himself to the details of
business more industriously than he. He had a genuine talent
for administration, and he devoted this talent most
assiduously to selfish ends. Scantily endowed with human
sympathy, and almost boorishly stiff in his ordinary unstudied
manner, he could be smooth as oil whenever he liked. He was an
adept in gaining men's confidence by a show of interest, and
securing their aid by dint of fair promises; and when he found
them of no further use, he could turn them adrift with wanton
insult. Anyone who dared to disagree with him upon even the
slightest point of policy he straightway regarded as a natural
enemy, and pursued him ever afterward with vindictive hatred.
As a natural consequence, he surrounded himself with weak and
short-sighted advisers, and toward all statesmen of broad
views and independent character he nursed the bitterest
rancour. ... Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in
1760, had it for his first and chiefest thought to break down
the growing system of cabinet government in England."
J. Fiske,
The American Revolution,
chapter 1 (volume 1).
"The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his accession,
afforded an opportunity of strengthening the parliamentary
connection of the king's friends. Parliament was kept sitting
while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the
court candidates, and using every exertion to secure their
return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the
ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, but even
encouraged opposition to such ministers as he conceived not to
be in his interest. ... Lord Bute, the originator of the new
policy, was not personally well qualified for its successful
promotion. He was not connected with the great families who
had acquired a preponderance of political influence; he was no
parliamentary debater: his manners were unpopular: he was a
courtier rather than a politician: his intimate relations with
the Princess of Wales were an object of scandal; and, above
all, he was a Scotchman. ... Immediately after the king's
accession he had been made a privy councillor, and admitted
into the cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards
concerted, by which Lord Holdernesse retired from office with
a pension, and Lord Bute succeeded him as Secretary of State.
It was now the object of the court to break up the existing
ministry, and to replace it with another, formed from among
the king's friends. Had the ministry been united, and had the
chiefs reposed confidence in one another, it would have been
difficult to overthrow them. But there were already jealousies
amongst them, which the court lost no opportunity of
fomenting. A breach soon arose between Mr. Pitt, the most
powerful and popular of the ministers, and his colleagues. He
desired to strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had
concluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then at war
with this country.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).
Though war minister he was opposed by all his colleagues
except Lord Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council,
--declared that he had been called to the ministry by the
voice of the people, and that he could not be responsible for
measures which he was no longer allowed to guide. Being met
with equal loftiness in the cabinet, he was forced to tender
his resignation. The king overpowered the retiring minister
with kindness and condescension. He offered the barony of
Chatham to his wife, and to himself an annuity of £3,000 a
year for three lives. The minister had deserved these royal
favours, and he accepted them, but at the cost of his
popularity. ... The same Gazette which announced his
resignation, also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension,
and was the signal for clamors against the public favourite.
On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute became the most
influential of the ministers. He undertook the chief
management of public affairs in the cabinet, and the sole
direction of the House of Lords. ... His ascendency provoked
the jealousy and resentment of the king's veteran minister,
the Duke of Newcastle: who had hitherto distributed all the
patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted. ... At
length, in May 1762, his grace, after frequent disagreements
in the cabinet and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign.
And now, the object of the court being at length attained,
Lord Bute was immediately placed at the head of affairs, as
First Lord of the Treasury. ... The king and his minister were
resolved to carry matters with a high hand, and their
arbitrary attempts to coerce and intimidate opponents
disclosed their imperious views of the prerogative.
Preliminaries of a treaty of peace with France having been
agreed upon, against which a strong popular feeling was
aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who
ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having
declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the
peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his
office of Lord Chamberlain. A few days afterwards the king,
with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of
privy councillors. ... No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of
the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire than he ... resigned
his place in the household. A more general proscription of the
Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton,
and the Marquess of Rockingham, having presumed, as peers of
Parliament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were
dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. ...
Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the heads of
the Whig party.
{929}
All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of
peace, were dismissed. ... The preliminaries of peace were
approved by Parliament; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in
the success of the court, exclaimed, 'Now my son is king of
England.' But her exultation was premature. ... These
stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an
organised opposition. ... The fall of the king's favoured
minister was even more sudden than his rise. ... Afraid, as he
confessed, 'not only of falling himself, but of involving his
royal master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly [April 7,
1763],--to the surprise of all parties, and even of the king
himself,--before he had held office for eleven months. ... He
retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more
securely the measures of the court; having previously negotiated
the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and
arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry
of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the
king's personal views, and was expected to be under the
control of himself and his favorite."
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
chapter 1-10 (volume 1).
The Grenville Papers,
volumes 1-2.
W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 2-3 (volume 1).
G. O. Trevelyan,
Early History of Charles James Fox,
chapter 4.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
Crown, Parliament and Colonies.
The conflicting theories of their relations.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
The third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings.
War with Spain.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762.
The Seven Years War: Last Campaigns in Germany.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1 762.
Capture of Havana.
See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764.
"The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes.
"The popular dislike to the new system of Government by
courtiers had found vent in a scurrilous press, the annoyance
of which continued unabated by the sham retirement of the
minister whose ascendancy had provoked this grievous kind of
opposition. The leader of the host of libellers was John
Wilkes, a man of that audacity and self-possession which are
indispensable to success in the most disreputable line of
political adventure. But Wilkes had qualities which placed him
far above the level of a vulgar demagogue. Great sense and
shrewdness, brilliant wit, extensive knowledge of the world,
with the manners of a gentleman, were among the
accomplishments which he brought to a vocation, but rarely
illustrated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he
engaged in public life, Wilkes had become infamous for his
debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested
the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon
religion and decency. Profligacy of morals, however, has not
in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a
patriot. ... Wilkes' journal, which originated with the
administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was
happily entitled 'The North Briton,' and from its boldness and
personality soon obtained a large circulation. It is surpassed
in ability though not often equalled in virulence by the
political press of the present day; but at a time when the
characters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public
estimation, they were protected, not unadvisedly perhaps, from
the assaults of the press by a stringent law of libel. ... It
had been the practice since the Revolution, and it is now
acknowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat
the Speech from the Throne, on the opening of Parliament, as
the manifesto of the minister; and in that point of view, it
had from time to time been censured by Pitt, and other leaders
of party, with the ordinary license of debate. But when Wilkes
presumed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree
which would have seemed temperate and even tame had he spoken
to the same purport in his place in Parliament, it was thought
necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of
the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secretary
of State to seize--not any person named--but 'the authors,
printers, and publishers of the seditious libel, entitled the
North Briton, No. 45.' Under this warrant, forty-nine persons
were arrested and detained in custody for several days; but as
it was found that none of them could be brought within the
description in the warrant, they were discharged. Several of
the individuals who had been so seized, brought actions for
false imprisonment against the messengers; and in one of these
actions, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff
under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, the two important questions as to the claim of a
Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to
justices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the
legality of a warrant which did not specify any individual by
name, were raised by a Bill of Exceptions to the ruling of the
presiding judge, and thus came upon appeal before the Court of
King's Bench. ... The Court of King's Bench ... intimated a
strong opinion against the Crown upon the important
constitutional questions which had been raised, and directed
the case to stand over for further argument; but when the case
came on again, the Attorney-General Yorke prudently declined
any further agitation of the questions. ... These proceedings
were not brought to a close until the end of the year 1765,
long after the administration under which they were instituted
had ceased to exist. ... The prosecution of Wilkes himself was
pressed with the like indiscreet vigour. The privilege of
Parliament, which extends to every case except treason,
felony, and breach of the peace, presented an obstacle to the
vengeance of the Court. But the Crown lawyers, with a
servility which belonged to the worst times of prerogative,
advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception,
as having a tendency to a breach of the peace; and upon this
perversion of plain law, Wilkes was arrested, and brought
before Lord Halifax for examination. The cool and wary
demagogue, however, was more than a match for the Secretary of
State; but his authorship of the alleged libel having been
proved by the printer, he was committed close prisoner to the
Tower. In a few days, having sued out writs of habeas, he was
brought up before the Court of Common Pleas. ... The argument
which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct
which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once
rejected by an independent court of justice; and the result
was the liberation of Wilkes from custody.
{930}
But the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this
disappointment. An ex-officio prosecution for libel was
immediately instituted against the member for Aylesbury; he
was deprived of his commission as colonel of the
Buckinghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided
the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from
the lord-lieutenancy of the same county, and from the Privy
Council. When Parliament assembled in the autumn, the first
business brought forward by the Government was this
contemptible affair--a proceeding not merely foolish and
undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and
decency. Having elected to prosecute Wilkes for this alleged

libel before the ordinary tribunals of the country, it is
manifest that the Government should have left the law to take
its course unprejudiced. But the House of Commons was now
required to pronounce upon the very subject-matter of inquiry
which had been referred to the decision of a court of law; and
this degenerate assembly, at the bidding of the minister,
readily condemned the indicted paper in terms of extravagant
and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by
the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of
the Government, then pressed for an immediate decision on the
question of privilege; but Pitt, in his most solemn manner,
insisting on an adjournment, the House yielded this point. On
the following day, Wilkes, being dangerously wounded in a duel
with Martin, one of the joint Secretaries to the Treasury, who
had grossly insulted him in the House, for the purpose of
provoking a quarrel, was disabled from attending in his place;
but the House, nevertheless, refused to postpone the question
of privilege beyond the 24th of the month. On that day, they
resolved 'that the privilege of Parliament does not extend to
the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought
to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in
the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and
dangerous an offence.' Whatever may be thought of the public
spirit or prudence of a House of Commons which could thus
officiously define its privilege, the vote was practically
futile, since a court of justice had already decided in this
very case, as a matter of strict law, that the person of a
member of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of
this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was
consistent with the loftiness of his character. ... The
conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower
House. ... The session was principally occupied by the
proceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the
unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament
had elevated into a person of the first importance. His name
was coupled with that of Liberty; and when the executioner
appeared to carry into effect the sentence of Parliament upon
'The North Briton,' he was driven away by the populace, who
rescued the obnoxious paper from the flames, and evinced their
hatred and contempt for the Court faction by 'burning in its
stead the jack-boot and the petticoat, the vulgar emblems
which they employed to designate John Earl of Bute and his
supposed royal patroness. ... Wilkes himself, however, was
forced to yield to the storm. Beset by the spies of
Government, and harassed by its prosecutions, which he had not
the means of resisting, he withdrew to Paris. Failing to attend
in his place in the House of Commons on the first day after
the Christmas recess, according to order, his excuse was
eagerly declared invalid; a vote of expulsion immediately
followed [January 19, 1764], and a new writ was ordered for
Aylesbury."
W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 4 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
J. E. T. Rogers,
Historical Gleanings,
volume 2, chapter 3.
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 41-42 (volume 5).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1763.
The end and results of the Seven Years War:
The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg.
America to be English, not French.
See SEVEN YEARS WAR.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764.
Determination to tax the American colonies.
The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1764.
The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its
consequences.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1765.
Passage of the Stamp Act for the colonies.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768.
Grenville dismissed.
The Rockingham and the Grafton-Chatham Ministries.
Repeal of the Stamp Act.
Fresh trouble in the American colonies.
"Hitherto the Ministry had only excited the indignation of the
people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of
their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the
king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George
afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he
recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency
Bill should be brought in, limiting the king's choice of a
Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers,
however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry,
persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's
name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the
Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult
on his parent, apparently through lack of consideration.
Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name
by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his
Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some
time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of
them. With this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make
overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], offering almost
any terms." But no arrangement was practicable, and the king
was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be detested. "He
was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's
following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no
underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a
burden to him under George Grenville's domination, and he
determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the
Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ
again. Pitt and Temple still proving obdurate, Cumberland
opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the
Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. ... The new
Ministry was composed as follows: Rockingham became First Lord
of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer;
Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. ...
{931}
Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power
of language or government. ... He was totally free from any
suspicion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than
talent in the Ministry altogether. ... The back-bone of the
party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke
was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was
not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its
own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to
effect certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far
accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act
[see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused
so much indignation among the Americans; and at the same time
passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. ... The
king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his
Ministers. ... The conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them
was a decided mistake, and more. He was really at one with
them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance
with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely
party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on
whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to
form a coalition, in which were included men of the most
opposite views--'King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the
few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham refused to take any
office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of
following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this
Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the
leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham.
Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord
North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The
Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington,
Barrington, Camden, Granby--all men of the most opposite
views. ... This second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the
very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage.
... As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an
uncongenial atmosphere. ... His name, too, had lost a great
deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to
conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and
humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.' ... There
were other difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had
increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout,
that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His
disease later almost approached madness. ... The Ministry
drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and wave of
opinion like a water-logged ship; and it was only the utter want
of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking
entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with
America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's
repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet,
and he rapidly assumed the most prominent position. He had
always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought
forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and
paper [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and
1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. ...
This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its
author, in September; and then the weakness of the Ministry
became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable,
some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition
was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords
Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich joined the Ministry. Lord
Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded
Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first
Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number
of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst
that had governed England since the days of the Cabal; and the
short period of its existence was marked by a succession of
arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that
it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed
to Chatham's views; and yet with singular irony his nominal
connection with it was not severed for some time"--that is,
not until the following year, 1768.
B. C. Skottowe,
Our Hanoverian Kings,
pages 234-239.
ALSO IN:
The Grenville Papers,
volumes 3-4.
C. W. Dilke,
Papers of a Critic,
volume 2.
E. Lodge,
Portraits,
volume 8, chapter 2.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1767-1769.
The first war with Hyder Ali, of Mysore.
See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.
John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again.
The Middlesex elections.
In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed by the court, returned
to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king; but
his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved
and writs issued for a new election, he offered himself as a
candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247
votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this
decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex.
The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At
the close of the poll the numbers were--Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; Mr.
Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which
astonished the public and terrified the ministry. The mob was
in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to
illuminate their houses and to shout for 'Wilkes and liberty.'
It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom
they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. ... A
month after the election he wrote to Lord North: 'Though
relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in
your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly
expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes
appears to be very essential, and must be effected.' What the
sovereign counselled was duly accomplished. Before his
expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having
surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal;
consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the
offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000,
and imprisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he
was rescued by the mob; but as soon as he could escape out of
the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself
into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench.
Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that
he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense
multitude assembled before the prison, but, balked in its
purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House,
became furious, and commenced a riot.
{932}
Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired,
wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they
butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house,
and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the
inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against
the magistrate who ordered the firing, and the soldier who did
the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier
was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a
reward for his services, a pension of one shilling a day. A
general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington
conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed,
assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to
them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve
it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in
the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and
protection that the law can authorise and this office can
give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the
necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent
before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used
without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His
observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth
of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext
for his expulsion from the House of Commons. Ten days
afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five
votes only. On the following day the House resolved 'that John
Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament
expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a
member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election
was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex returned
him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At
another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court
tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for
Luttrell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been
elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had
been outraged in the persons of the Middlesex electors, and a
subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not
hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal
resentment of a revengeful and obstinate king. The cry of
'Wilkes and liberty' was raised in quarters where the very
name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident
that not the law only had been violated in his person, but
that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound.
Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In
the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed to pay his
debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at
length done what was right between him and one of the
Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the
other having been removed by death beyond the reach of
justice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages.
These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed
out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had
exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the
ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs
of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of
April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid
succession to the offices--then much sought after, because
held in high honour--of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of
London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member
for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting
the resolutions of his incapacity to sit in the House formally
expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the
City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post
till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although the
latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has
generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by
several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and
energetic opponent of the war with America."
W. F. Rae,
John Wilkes
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1868, volume 10).
ALSO IN:
W. F. Rae,
Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
part 1.
G. O. Trevelyan,
Early History of Charles James Fox,
chapters 5-6, and 8.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.
The Letters of Junius.
"One of the newspapers in London at this period was the
'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson
Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the
day; and he readily received any contributions of a like
tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a
writer whose letters beginning at the latest in April, 1767,
continued frequent through that and the ensuing year. It was
the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of
signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and
Brutus. It does not appear, however, that these letters
(excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were
published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public
attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in
ability, or still less in acrimony. ... Such was the state of
these publications, not much rising in interest above the
common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st of
January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same
hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ
greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or
superior moderation; it contained, on the contrary, a fierce
and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places,
including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its
predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and
respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, General in the army
and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows
which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for
himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed
with his own name, and defending the character and conduct of
Lord Granby. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew
his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William
himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of
the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow, Sir William more than
once replied; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay
him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir
William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends
could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned
the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the
controversy. ... These victories over a man of rank and
station such as Draper's gave importance to the name of
Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly
expected by the public, and carefully prepared by the author.
{933}
He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names;
sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the
signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main
and most elaborate attacks were made. Nor was it long before
he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a
series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton.
Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which
he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a
false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford,--an
attack, however, of which the sting is felt by his descendants
to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by
the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture
was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known
statesmen or well-known writers--Burke or Dunning, Boyd or
Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Hamilton--flew from mouth to
mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere
hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground.
Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a
little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and
eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' cries
Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance
by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of
August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that 'the Bible and
Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are
forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient to the
popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was
supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall
was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others
for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The
verdict in Woodfall's case was: Guilty of printing and
publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to
ulterior proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that
period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the
Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During
the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued
with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives against
the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who
had presided at the trials of the printers; he plunged into
the full tide of City politics; and he engaged in a keen
controversy with the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke.
The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it
commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to
69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those
of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. ... Besides the
letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many
others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending
them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham
appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to
Mr. George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript
among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe; all three were written
in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same
initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made
known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important
of all, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr.
Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed
in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in
length; but many of great value towards deciding the question
of authorship. It seems that the packets containing the
letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser
were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by
an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself; more commonly
they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the
streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply
was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to
him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at
the bar of some coffee-house. ... It may be doubted whether
Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. ... When
dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he
declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it
shall perish with me.'"
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 47 (v. 5).
The following list of fifty-one names of persons to whom the
letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by
different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and
Pseudonyms":
James Adair, M. P.;
Captain Allen;
Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.;
William Henry Cavendish Bentinck;
Mr. Bickerton;
Hugh M'Aulay Boyd;
Edmund Burke;
William Burke;
John Butler, Bishop of Hereford;
Lord Camden;
John Lewis De Lolme;
John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton;
Samuel Dyer;
Henry Flood;
Sir Philip Francis;
George III.;
Edward Gibbon;
Richard Glover;
Henry Grattan;
William Greatrakes;
George Grenville;
James Grenville;
William Gerard Hamilton;
James Hollis;
Thomas Hollis;
Sir George Jackson;
Sir William Jones;
John Kent;
Major-General Charles Lee;
Charles Lloyd;
Thomas Lyttleton;
Laughlin Maclean;
Rev. Edmund Marshall;
Thomas Paine;
William Pitt, Earl of Chatham;
the Duke of Portland;
Thomas Pownall;
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Robert Rich;
John Roberts;
Rev. Philip Rosenhagen;
George, Viscount Sackville;
the Earl of Shelburne;
Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield;
Richard Suett;
Earl Temple;
John Horne Tooke;
Horace Walpole;
Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough;
John Wilkes;
James Wilmot, D. D.;
Daniel Wray.
ALSO IN:
G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapter 6.
C. W. Dilke,
Papers of a Critic,
volume 2.
Lord Macaulay,
Warren Hastings
(Essays, volume 5).
A. Bisset,
Short History of the English Parliament,
chapter 7.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1770.
Fall of the Grafton Ministry.
Beginning of the administration of Lord North.
"The incompetency of the ministry was ... becoming obvious. In
the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime
Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants
of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The
rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's
party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently
explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder
of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence
suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named
party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which
had brought discontent in England to the verge of open
outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying
along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point
the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own
Cabinet.
{934}
France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was
beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven
Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the
Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again
to the necessities of party, made a public profession of
friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there
was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between
the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first
session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of
public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the
murrain among 'horned beasts,'--a speech not of a king, but,
said Junius, of 'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an
amendment when the address in answer to this speech was
proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the
fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he
blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America,
which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed
strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of
Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be
taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's
voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent.
Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the
persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked
and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby,
one of the most popular men in England, followed the same
course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General,
also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up
by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of
the nation. ... Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet
the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and
much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in
his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion.
The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands,
but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. ...
The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of
this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain
his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected
in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one
of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime
Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so
that while the different sections of the Opposition were still
unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to
find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity
gone. The new Prime Minister ... had great capacity for
business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a
first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of
temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep,
during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn
aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his
accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the
Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more
than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the
support of all royal influence from whatever source derived,
North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill
effects of such a system of government, and of the King's
policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really
responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is
closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of
the reign--the struggle of the King, supported by the
unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of
those who were represented, against the domination of the
House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels
which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the
great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the
Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that
struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not
recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He
did not understand that the people had other objects much
beyond his own."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, pages 1057-1060.
ALSO IN:
Correspondence of George III. with Lord North,
volume 1.
W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 10-13 (volume 1).
J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 17 (volume 1).
E. Burke,
Thoughts on the Present Discontents
(Works, volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea.
The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770,
and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
Last contention of Parliament against the Press.
Freedom of reporting secured.
"The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the
House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the
exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which
still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought
desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors.
It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the
publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It
had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other
periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament,
under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness
and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the
speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less
authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the
'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of
respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an
article which purported to be a report of the debates in
Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared
by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and
derived his information from persons who could seldom give him
more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each
of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the
composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired
oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius.
Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without
the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify,
the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of
which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was
no order of either House specifically prohibiting the
publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been
resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the
privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely
be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting,
therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent
disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the
proceedings of Parliament should take place during the
session.
{935}
There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals
would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the
parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a
right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses,
had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a
conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in
the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they
would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow,
member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which
wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash
meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he
could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House
had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had
even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable
members."
William Massey,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 15.
"Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the
bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after
receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker.
Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who
failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead
of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger
into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were
both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr.
Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had
recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic
magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a
peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not
backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from
custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful
arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had
been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively
apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and
Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of
having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought
the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of
London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both
members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in
their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower.
Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one
long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their
release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards,
the publication of debates has been pursued without any
interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of
privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of
the main sources of its influence--its censure being reserved for
wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued
beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was
prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the
power of a single member of either House to require the
exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously
employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until
1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present
could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History,
chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
R. F. D. Palgrave,
The House of Commons,
lecture 2.
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1772.
The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1773.
Reconstitution of the Government of British India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress in America.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1774.
Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made
efficient by James Watt.
See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered.
Ticonderoga.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776.
Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.
See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1776.
War measures against the colonies.
The drift toward American independence.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778.
The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their
relations to the American War.
"The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first
stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the
latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its
maximum. ... The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that
the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and
with the King. ... The Declaration of Independence, and the
known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the
climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to
English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around
the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness.
... In every stage of the contest the influence of the
Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. ... The
statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue
were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of
Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other
writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that
the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of
Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success
to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs.
... While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified
the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did
the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by
examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully
realise how completely at this time he assumed the position
not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending,
directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of
the Government. ... 'Every means of distressing America,'
wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly
supported the employment of Indians. ... It was the King's
friends who were most active in promoting all measures of
violence. ... The war was commonly called the 'King's war,'
and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King.
The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most
culpable in this matter, was Lord North. ...
{936}
The publication of the correspondence of George III. ...
supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of
the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears
from this correspondence that for the space of about five
years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody,
costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own
judgment and to his own wishes. ... Again and again he
entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again
and again he yielded to the request of the King, who
threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne.
... The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat
with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their
independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of
Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable,
that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for.
... He consented, too, though apparently with extreme
reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the
Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the
Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three
Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in
the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment
was one of the most terrible in English history. England had
not an ally in the world. ... England, already exhausted by a
war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to
confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few
months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. ...
There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and
consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were
turned. . . . If any statesman could, at the last moment,
conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and
kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly
existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other
hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a
moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord
North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send
for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long
silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord
Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said,
with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham
the ship would assuredly go down. ... The King was unmoved. He
consented indeed--and he actually authorised Lord North to make
the astounding proposition--to receive Chatham as a
subordinate minister to North. ... This episode appears to me
the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my
own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led
Charles I. to the scaffold."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 14 (volume 4).
"George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins
which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed,
was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not
shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired
under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is
difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable
mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the
natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance
and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally
unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."
J. Morley,
Edmund Burke: a Historical Study,
page 135.
"No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt
to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than
rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let
us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that
he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation.
And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had
the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let
the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and
no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George
and the British nation were simply not wiser than other
people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from
the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when
any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without
compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even
mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real
power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the
acknowledgment of American independence, King George still
called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title
was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up.
Remember that some people in our own day regretted the
separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If
they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."
E. A. Freeman,
The English People in its Three Homes
(Lectures to American Audiences),
pages 183-184.
ALSO IN:
Correspondence of George III. with Lord North.
Lord Brougham,
Historical Sketches of Statesmen
in the Reign of George III.
T. Macknight,
History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke,
chapters 22-26 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1778.
War with France.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).
ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780.
Repeal of Catholic penal laws.
The Gordon No-Popery Riots.
"The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774],
establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier
have been impossible, and it was justly considered a
remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such
a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should
have created no serious disturbances in the country. ... The
success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later,
to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some
part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still
subject. ... The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of
£100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic
priest performing his functions in England, and there were
occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to
the utmost in order to defeat them. ... The worst part of the
persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III.,
and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal
those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending
of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these
and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment,
and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing
land. ... It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was
carried without a division in either House, without any
serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the
concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to
England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing
session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland.
{937}
It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate
and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity
through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the
country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians
perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first
signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of
Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established
Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending,
and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a
remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an
agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly
through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary
resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills,
newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant
Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. ... Furious
riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and
Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the
Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The
shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods
scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were
compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of
many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the
Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of
Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to
suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not
suffered to fire in their defence. ... The flame soon spread
southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery
had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many
murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and
many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how
easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent
the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. ... The fanatical
party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the
person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a
melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very
ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his
connection with the ducal house of Gordon. ... A 'Protestant
Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics,
was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and
presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that
20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a
petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about
half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three
great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing
blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have
been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different
roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to
have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to
actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the
scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an
aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around
the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of
the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted,
compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No
Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and
many of them, but especially the members of the House of
Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. ... In the
Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and
demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with
much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192
to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George
Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery,
and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed
him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in
the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of
his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of
the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the
body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers'
gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other
ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said
at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North
succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many
anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were
made to force the doors. ... At last about nine o'clock the
troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to
disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further
outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in
Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried
away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in
the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The
Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was
next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could
intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some
slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were
captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force,
for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little
disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in
Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided.
Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels
utterly ruined."
W. E. H. Lecky,
History of English in the 18th Century,
chapter 13 (volume 3).
"On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. ...
Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to
have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three
days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were
adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as
might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On
Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were
perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military
force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of
Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and

maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this
time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the
interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day
was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the
prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also
broken open ... and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks
were likewise made upon several ... private houses. ... But
the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet
perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which
they closed the day of madness and crime--the entire
demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable
Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. ...
{938}
The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more
dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town
indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was
felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it
was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter
destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in
all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the
infuriated multitudes who braved their power. ... The King's
Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey
Bridewell, were all burned today. ... The Mansion House, the
Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is
understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the
other buildings which it was intended to attack were
circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice
assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was
guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not
without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned
the fire of the military. ... Among other houses which were
set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr.
Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. ... The worst
consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional
excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the
quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many
indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had
rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of
the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this
night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in
different quarters of the town. ... By Thursday morning ...
the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had
succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force
of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that
the rioters would be speedily overpowered. ... The soldiers
attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with
complete success. ... On Friday the courts of justice were
again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the
evening. ... On this first day after the close of the riots,
'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many
places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' ...
Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were
capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed;
the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the
remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a
distant land. ... Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the
part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots,
was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to
trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.
Sketches of Popular Tumults,
section 1, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. H. Jesse,
Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III.,
chapter 34 (volume 2).
H. Walpole,
Journal of the Reign of George III.,
volume 2, pages 403-424.
Annual Register, 1780,
pages 254-287.
C. Dickens,
Barnaby Rudge.
W. J. Amherst,
History of Catholic Emancipation,
volume 1, chapters 1-5.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782.
Declining strength of the government.
Rodney's great naval victory.
The siege of Gibraltar.
"The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow
of the personal government of George III., was now close at
hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour.
In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina
had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of
that year, Parliament was dissolved, although the king
complained that his expenses for purposes of corruption had
been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was
scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one.
Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North
and his colleagues. The example of American resistance had
told upon Ireland. ... For more than a year there had been war
in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying
everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost
foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and
insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests
except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire
tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of
Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir
Eyre Coote. In May, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola,
thus driving the British from their last position in Florida.
In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the
siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three
years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter
the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to
Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British
possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and
Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous
watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all
the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a
single friend. The maritime supremacy of England was, however,
impaired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West
Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships
encountered the French near the island of
Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued,
and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the
most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before
the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and
Grasse was taken prisoner,--the first French
commander-in-chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an
enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to
Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do
nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was
eliminated from the situation at a single blow; and in the
course of the summer the English achieved another great
success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a
struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in
modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, England, defeated in
the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded
the other parties to the war."
J. Fiske,
American Revolution,
chapter 15 (volume 2).
"Gibraltar ... had been closely invested for nearly three
years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the
place; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced
by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and
commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of
1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success; in
the month of November, the enemy were driven from their
approaches, and the works themselves were almost destroyed by
a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the
fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of
Gibraltar.
{939}
De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez,
assumed the chief command. ... The garrison of Gibraltar
comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the
allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense
train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well
acquainted with the fortress, had little hope of taking it
from the land side, but relied with confidence on the
formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it
from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb-proof and
shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the
action of these tremendous engines alone would be sufficient
to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which
ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates
was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from
sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were
consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not
until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade
took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great
attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered
fortress, was commenced on the 13th of September. On that day,
the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail
of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were
drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb
ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within
close range; while the ten floating batteries were moored with
strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the
land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with
the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in
at the first practicable breach. ... The grand attack was
commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400
pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely
anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant
storm, from 142 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to
the cannonade both from sea and land; and of these he made the
most judicious use. Disregarding the attack from every other
quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the
floating batteries in front of him; for unless these were
silenced, their force would prove irresistible. But for a long
time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous
masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless
from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not
penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless,
the artillery of the garrison was still unceasingly directed
against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of
red-hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it
was observed that the combustion caused by these missiles,
which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning
to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns
from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which
issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire,
and that all the efforts of the crews were required to subdue
the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent;
and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal
floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. ... Eight
of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night;
and the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames
and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible
flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with
annihilation. . . . The loss of the enemy was computed at
2,000; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted
to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to
repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and
Spanish fleets remained in the Straits, expecting the
appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe; and
relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal,
they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might
enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having
been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits
until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior
array which the enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an
engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the
combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his
stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed
this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish
Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line,
venture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the
great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been
regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she
had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had
been pressed by the whole force of the allied monarchies.
After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."
W. Massey,
History of England, Reign of George III.,
chapter 27 (volume 3).
ALSO IN:
Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapters 62-66 (volume 7).
J. Drinkwater,
History of the Siege of Gibraltar.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1783.
Second war with Hyder Ali, or Second Mysore War.
See INDIA: A. D. 1780--1783.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1781-1783.
War with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1782.
Legislative independence conceded to Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783.
Fall of Lord North.
The second Rockingham Ministry.
Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations.
The Shelburne Ministry.
Coalition of Fox and North.
"There comes a point when even the most servile majority of an
unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party
allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the
surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November,
1781. 'O God, it is all over!' cried Lord North, wringing his
hands, when he heard of it. ... On February 7, a vote of
censure, moved by Fox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a
majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost
a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one
vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a
resolution and carried by a majority of nineteen.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (FEBRUARY-MAY).
Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's
resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he
seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to
Hanover. ... Indeed, if it had not been for his large family,
and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well
known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried
this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of
which he was no longer master.
{940}
By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. saw that the
game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to
Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him
with the characteristic words: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you
who desert me, not I who desert you.' ... Even when the
long-deferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no
more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still
flattered himself that he might get together a Ministry from
among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would
be able to restore peace without granting independence, and
Shelburne was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in
this scheme. ... Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall
into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence
of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox,
and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's
phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was
not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of
permanent success lay in becoming the successor, not the
supplanter, of Rockingham. ... His game was to wait. He
respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. ... Before
Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct
pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon
American independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on
the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed
by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the
old Whig families, pledged to a policy of economical reform,
and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment
of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by
being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took
charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself
went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord
Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of
the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At
the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as
Chancellor. ... The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into
the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Conway,
and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and
Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. ... Few
Administrations have done so much in a short time as did the
Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence,
and it so happened that the lion's share of the work fell to
Fox. Upon his appointment to office his friends noticed a
change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that
ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is
said never to have touched a card during either of his three
short terms of office. ... By the division of work among the
two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the
colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those
relating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of
Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two
Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American
colonies by the Crown of its own accord, or should be reserved
in order to form part of the general treaty of peace.
According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at
once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain
at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and
Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and
England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her
side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme,
but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she
ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, and
the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his
control into the hands of Fox. ... Shelburne at once threw his
whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great
effect that to give independence at once was to throw away the
trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be
required to make, the only one which she was, prepared to
make; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was
wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and
the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the
isolation of France failed, and a double negotiation for peace
was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the
treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782
(SEPTEMBER)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and
Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly
have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of
friends; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed
to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that
important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin
were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the
Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the
Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and
despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then
because he would not embitter Rockingham's last moments upon
earth." This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of, July
Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the
King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined
to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not
make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord
Shelburne. "Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the
Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and
the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt
[Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parliament in 1780] into
the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to
smile on Shelburne. He ... might well look forward to a long
and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration
lasted not quite seven months." It was weakened by distrust
and dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in
February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had
concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was
succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Ministry
formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland
succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became
the Secretaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the
Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the
Paymastership, the followers of Lord North ... were rewarded
with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of
political parties have been received by historians and
posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the
coalition of 1783. ... There is no evidence to show that at
the time it struck politicians in general as being specially
heinous."
H. O. Wakeman,
Life of Charles James Fox,
chapters 3-5.
ALSO IN:
Lord J. Russell,
Life of Fox,
chapters 16-17 (volume l).
W. F. Rae,
Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
pages 307-317.
Lord E. Fitzmaurice,
Life of William, Earl of Shelburne,
volume 3, chapters 3-6.
{941}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1783.
The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of
America signed at Paris.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787.
Fall of the Coalition.
Ascendancy of the younger Pitt.
His extraordinary grasp of power.
His attempted measures of reform.
"Parliament met on the 11th of November; on the 18th Fox asked
for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Government of
India. That day month[?] the Government had ceased to exist.
Into the merits of the Bill it is not now necessary to enter.
... It was clear that it furnished an admirable weapon against
an unpopular Coalition which had resisted economical reform,
demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed
at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of
India,--patronage which, genially exercised by Dundas, was
soon to secure Scotland for Pitt. In the House of Commons the
majority for the Bill was over 100; the loftiest eloquence of
Burke was exerted in its favour; and Fox was, as ever,
dauntless and crushing in debate. But outside Parliament the
King schemed, and controversy raged. ... When the Bill arrived
at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King
had seen Temple, and empowered him to communicate to all whom
it might concern his august disapprobation. The uneasy whisper
circulated, and the joints of the lords became as water. The
peers who yearned for lieutenancies or regiments, for stars or
strawberry leaves; the prelates, who sought a larger sphere of
usefulness; the minions of the bedchamber and the janissaries
of the closet; all, temporal or spiritual, whose convictions
were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. ...
The result was overwhelming. The triumphant Coalition was
paralysed by the rejection of their Bill. They rightly refused
to resign, but the King could not sleep until he had resumed
the seals. Late at night he sent for them. The messenger found
North and Fox gaily seated at supper with their followers. At
first he was not believed. 'The King would not dare do it,'
exclaimed Fox. But the under Secretary charged with the
message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals
were delivered with a light heart. In such dramatic fashion, and
the springtide of its youth, fell that famous government,
unhonoured and unwept. 'England,' once said Mr. Disraeli,
'does not love coalitions.' She certainly did not love this
one. On this occasion there was neither hesitation nor delay;
the moment had come, and the man. Within 12 hours of the
King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First
Lordship of the Treasury and the Chancellorship of the
Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid universal
derision. And so commenced a supreme and unbroken Ministry of
17 years. Those who laughed were hardly blamable, for the
difficulties were tremendous. ... The composition of the
Government was ... the least of Pitt's embarrassments. The
majority against him in the House of Commons was not less than
40 or 50, containing, with the exception of Pitt himself and
Dundas, every debater of eminence; while he had, before the
meeting of Parliament, to prepare and to obtain the approval
of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the
place of Burke's. The Coalition Ministers were only dismissed
on the 18th of December, 1783; but, when the House of Commons
met on the 12th of January, 1784, all this had been done. The
narrative of the next three months is stirring to read, but
would require too much detail for our limits. ... On the day
of the meeting of Parliament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched
divisions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His
government seemed still-born. His colleagues were dismayed.
The King came up from Windsor to support him. But in truth he
needed no support. He had inherited from his father that
confidence which made Chatham once say, 'I am sure that I can
save this country, and that nobody else can'; which made
himself say later, 'I place much dependence on my new
colleagues; I place still more dependence on myself.' He had
refused, in spite of the King's insistance, to dissolve; for
he felt that the country required time. ... The Clerkship of
the Pells, a sinecure office worth not less than £3,000 a
year, fell vacant the very day that Parliament met. It was
universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and
so acquire an independence, which would enable him to devote
his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not
£300 a year; his position was to the last degree precarious.
... Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He
gave the place to Barré. ... To a nation inured to jobs this
came as a revelation. ... Above and beyond all was the fact
that Pitt, young, unaided, and alone, held his own with the
great leaders allied against him. ... In face of so resolute a
resistance, the assailants began to melt away. Their divisions,
though they always showed a superiority to the Government,
betrayed notable diminution. ... On the 25th of March
Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by
the unexplained theft of the Great Seal. When the elections
were over, the party of Fox, it was found, had shared the fate
of the host of Sennacherib. The number of Fox's martyrs--of
Fox's followers who had earned that nickname by losing their
seats--was 160. ... The King and Pitt were supported on the
tidal wave of one of those great convulsions of feeling, which
in Great Britain relieve and express pent-up national
sentiment, and which in other nations produce revolutions."
Lord Rosebery,
Pitt,
chapter 3.
"Three subjects then needed the attention of a great
statesman, though none of them were so pressing as to force
themselves on the attention of a little statesman. These were,
our economical and financial legislation, the imperfection of
our parliamentary representation, and the unhappy' condition
of Ireland. Pitt dealt with all three. ... He brought in a
series of resolutions consolidating our customs laws, of which
the inevitable complexity may be estimated by their number.
They amounted to 133, and the number of Acts of Parliament
which they restrained or completed was much greater. He
attempted, and successfully, to apply the principles of Free
Trade, the principles which he was the first of English
statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the actual commerce of
the country. ... The financial reputation of Pitt has greatly
suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the
worst part of it.
{942}
The dread of national ruin from the augmentation of the
national debt was a sort of nightmare in that age. ... Mr.
Pitt sympathised with the general apprehension and created the
well-known 'Sinking Fund.' He proposed to apply annually a
certain fixed sum to the payment of the debt, which was in
itself excellent, but he omitted to provide real money to be
so paid. ... He proposed to borrow the money to payoff the
debt, and fancied that he thus diminished it. ... The exposure
of this financial juggle, for though not intended to be so,
such in fact it was, has reacted very unfavourably upon Mr.
Pitt's deserved fame. ... The subject of parliamentary reform
is the one with which, in Mr. Pitt's early days, the public
most connected his name, and is also that with which we are
now least apt to connect it. ... He proposed the abolition of
the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey
accomplished it. ... If the strong counteracting influence of
the French Revolution had not changed the national opinion, he
would unquestionably have amended our parliamentary
representation. ... The state of Ireland was a more pressing
difficulty than our financial confusion, our economical
errors, or our parliamentary corruption. ... He proposed at
once to remedy the national danger of having two Parliaments,
and to remove the incredible corruption of the old Irish
Parliament, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single
representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in
England. ... Of these great reforms he was only permitted to
carry a few into execution. His power, as we have described
it, was great when his reign commenced, and very great it
continued to be for very many years; but the time became
unfavourable for all forward-looking statesmanship."
W. Bagehot,
Biographical Studies: William Pitt.
ALSO IN:
Earl Stanhope,
Life of William Pitt,
chapters 4-9 (volume 1).
G. Tomline,
Life of William Pitt,
chapters 3-9 (volume 1-2).
Lord Rosebery,
Pitt,
chapters 3-4.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1788 (FEBRUARY).
Opening of the Trial of Warren Hastings.
See INDIA: A. D.1785-1795.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1788-1789.
The King's second derangement.
The king's second derangement, which began to show itself in
the summer of 1788, was more serious and of longer duration
than the first. "He was able ... to sign a warrant for the
further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th
September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the
king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and
placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in
danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a
further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th
November. ... According to long established law, Parliament,
without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed
to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion,
for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to
the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate
upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had
given rise." By Mr. Fox it was maintained that "the Prince of
Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of
sovereignty during the king's incapacity as if the king were
actually dead; and that it was merely for the two Houses of
Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence, the
exercise of his right. ... Mr. Pitt, on the other hand,
maintained that as no legal provision had been made for
carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of
Parliament to make such provision." The discussion to which
these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the
situation of affairs, gave rise, was so prolonged, that the
king recovered his faculties (February, 1789) before the
Regency Bill, framed by Mr. Pitt, had been passed.
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England,
volume 1, chapter 3.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1789-1792.
War with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).
See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1793.
The Coalition against Revolutionary France.
Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER),
and (JULY-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
Popular feeling towards the French Revolution.
Small number of the English Jacobins.
Pitt forced into war.
Tory panic and reign of terror.
Violence of government measures.
"That the war [of Revolutionary France] with Germany would
widen into a vast European struggle, a struggle in which the
peoples would rise against their oppressors, and the freedom
which France had won diffuse itself over the world, no French
revolutionist doubted for an hour. Nor did they doubt that in
this struggle England would join them. It was from England
that they had drawn those principles of political and social
liberty which they believed themselves to be putting into
practice. It was to England that they looked above all for
approbation and sympathy. ... To the revolutionists at Paris
the attitude of England remained unintelligible and
irritating. Instead of the aid they had counted on, they found
but a cold neutrality. ... But that this attitude was that of the
English people as a whole was incredible to the French
enthusiasts. ... Their first work therefore they held to be
the bringing about a revolution in England. ... They strove,
through a number of associations which had formed themselves
under the name of Constitutional Clubs, to rouse the same
spirit which they had roused in France; and the French envoy,
Chauvelin, protested warmly against a proclamation which
denounced this correspondence as seditious. ... Burke was
still working hard in writings whose extravagance of style was
forgotten in their intensity of feeling to spread alarm
throughout Europe. He had from the first encouraged the
emigrant princes to take arms, and sent his son to join them
at Coblentz. 'Be alarmists,' he wrote to them; 'diffuse
terror!' But the royalist terror which he sowed would have
been of little moment had it not roused a revolutionary terror
in France. ... In November the Convention decreed that France
offered the aid of her soldiers to all nations who would
strive for freedom. ... In the teeth of treaties signed only
two years before, and of the stipulation made by England when
it pledged itself to neutrality, the French Government
resolved to attack Holland, and ordered its generals to
enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt [see FRANCE: A.
D.1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY)]. To do this was to force
England into war. Public opinion was already pressing every
day harder upon Pitt. ... But even while withdrawing our
Minister from Paris on the imprisonment of the King, to whose
Court he had been commissioned, Pitt clung stubbornly to a
policy of peace. ...
{943}
No hour of Pitt's life is so great as the hour when he stood
lonely and passionless before the growth of national passion,
and refused to bow to the gathering cry for war. ... But
desperately as Pitt struggled for peace, his struggle was in
vain. ... Both sides ceased from diplomatic communications,
and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of War.
From that moment Pitt's power was at an end. His pride, his
immovable firmness, and the general confidence of the nation,
still kept him at the head of affairs; but he could do little
save drift along with a tide of popular feeling which he never
fully understood. Around him the country broke out in a fit of
passion and panic which rivalled the passion and panic
oversea. ... The partisans of Republicanism were in reality
but a few handfuls of men. ... But in the mass of Englishmen
the dread of these revolutionists passed for the hour into
sheer panic. Even the bulk of the Whig party believed property
and the constitution to be in peril, and forsook Fox when he
still proclaimed his faith in France and the Revolution."
J. R. Green,
History of the English People,
book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4).
"Burke himself said that not one man in a hundred was a
Revolutionist. Fox's revolutionary sentiments met with no
response, but with general reprobation, and caused even his
friends to shrink from his side. Of the so-called Jacobin
Societies, the Society for Constitutional Information numbered
only a few hundred members, who, though they held extreme
opinions, were headed by men of character, and were quite
incapable of treason or violence. The Corresponding Society
was of a more sinister character; but its numbers were
computed only at 6,000, and it was swallowed up in the loyal
masses of the people. ... It is sad to say it, but when Pitt
had once left the path of right, he fell headlong into evil.
To gratify the ignoble fears and passions of his party, he
commenced a series of attacks on English liberty of speaking
and writing which Mr. Massey, a strong anti-revolutionist,
characterizes as unparalleled since the time of Charles I. The
country was filled with spies. A band of the most infamous
informers was called into activity by the government. ...
There was a Tory reign of terror, to which a slight increase
of the panic among the upper classes would probably have lent
a redder hue. Among other measures of repression the Habeas
Corpus Act was suspended; and the liberties of all men were
thus placed at the mercy of the party in power. ... In
Scotland the Tory reign of terror was worse than in England."
Goldwin Smith,
Three English Statesmen,
pages 239-247.
"The gaols were filled with political delinquents, and no man
who professed himself a reformer could say, that the morrow
might not see him a prisoner upon a charge of high treason.
... But the rush towards despotism against which the Whigs
could not stand, was arrested by the people. Although the
Habeas Corpus had fallen, the Trial by Jury remained, and now,
as it had done before, when the alarm of fictitious plots had
disposed the nation to acquiesce in the surrender of its
liberties, it opposed a barrier which Toryism could not pass."
The trials which excited most interest were those of Hardy,
who organized the Corresponding Society, and Horne Tooke. But
no unlawful conduct or treasonable designs could be proved
against them by creditable witnesses, and both were
acquitted." The public joy was very general at these
acquittals. ... The war lost its popularity; bread grew
scarce; commerce was crippled; ... the easy success that had
been anticipated was replaced by reverses. The people
clamoured and threw stones at the king, and Pitt eagerly took
advantage of their violence to tear away the few shreds of the
constitution which yet covered them. He brought forward the
Seditious Meetings bill, and the Treasonable Practices bill.
Bills which, among other provisions, placed the conduct of
every political meeting under the protection of a magistrate,
and rendered disobedience to his command a felony."
G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapter 17.
ALSO IN:
J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 81-89 and 95 (volumes 5-6).
J. Gifford,
History of the Political Life of William Pitt,
chapters 23-24, and 28-29 (volumes 3-4).
W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 32-36 (volumes 3-4).
E. Smith,
The Story of the English Jacobins.
A. Bisset,
Short History of the English Parliament,
chapter 8.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
Campaigns of the Coalition against France.
French successes in the Netherlands and on the Rhine.
Conquest of Corsica.
Naval victory of Lord Howe.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1794.
Angry relations with the United States.
The Jay Treaty.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1794-1795.
Withdrawal of troops from the Netherlands.
French conquest of Holland.
Establishment of the Batavian Republic.
Crumbling of the European Coalition.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
Disastrous expedition to Quiberon Bay.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1795.
Capture of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
Evacuation and abandonment of Corsica.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
Unsuccessful peace negotiations with the French Directory.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1796-1798.
Attempted French invasions of Ireland.
Irish Insurrection.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.
Monetary panic and suspension of specie payments.
Defeat of the first Reform movement.
Mutiny of the Fleet.
Naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.
"The aspect of affairs in Britain had never been so clouded
during the 18th century as at the beginning of the year 1797.
The failure of Lord Malmesbury's mission to Paris had closed
every hope of an honourable termination to the war, while of
all her original allies, Austria alone remained; the national
burdens were continually increasing, and the three-per-cents
had fallen to fifty-one; while party spirit raged with
uncommon violence, and Ireland was in a state of partial
insurrection. A still greater disaster resulted from the panic
arising from the dread of invasion, and which produced such a
run on all the banks, that the Bank of England itself was
reduced to payment in sixpences, and an Order in Council
appeared (February 26) for the suspension of all cash
payments. This measure, at first only temporary, was prolonged
from time to time by parliamentary enactments, making bank-notes
a legal-tender; and it was not till 1819, after the conclusion
of peace, that the recurrence to metallic currency took place.
{944}
The Opposition deemed this a favourable opportunity to renew
their cherished project of parliamentary reform; and on 26th
May, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey brought forward a plan chiefly
remarkable for containing the outlines of that subsequently
carried into effect in 1831. It was negatived, however, after
violent debates, by a majority of 258 against 93. After a
similar strife of parties, the motion for the continuance of
the war was carried by a great majority in both houses; and
the requisite supplies were voted. ... Unknown to the
government, great discontent had for a long time prevailed in
the navy. The exciting causes were principality the low rate
of pay (which had not been raised since the time of Charles
II.), the unequal distribution of prize-money, and undue
severity in the maintenance of discipline. These grounds of
complaint, with others not less well founded, gave rise to a
general conspiracy, which broke out (April 15) in the Channel
fleet under Lord Bridport. All the ships fell under the power
of the insurgents; but they maintained perfect order, and
memorialised the Admiralty and the Commons on their
grievances: their demands being examined by government, and
found to be reasonable, were granted; and on the 7th of May
the fleet returned to its duty. But scarcely was the spirit of
disaffection quelled in this quarter, when it broke out in a
more alarming form (May 22) among the squadron at the Nore,
which was soon after (June 6) joined by the force which had
been cruising off the Texel under Lord Duncan. The mutineers
appointed a seaman named Parker to the command; and,
blockading the mouth of the Thames, announced their demands in
such a tone of menacing audacity as insured their instant
rejection by the government. This second mutiny caused
dreadful consternation in London; but the firmness of the King
remained unshaken, and he was nobly seconded by the
parliament. A bill was passed, prohibiting all communication
with the mutineers under pain of death. Sheerness and Tilbury
Fort were armed and garrisoned for the defence of the Thames;
and the sailors, finding the national feelings strongly
arrayed against them, became gradually sensible that their
enterprise was desperate. One by one the ships returned to
their duty; and on 15th June all had submitted. Parker and
several other ringleaders suffered death; but clemency was
extended to the multitude. ... Notwithstanding all these
dissensions, the British navy was never more terrible to its
enemies than during this eventful year. On the 14th of
February, the Spanish fleet of 27 sail of the line and 12
frigates, which had put to sea for the purpose of raising the
blockade of the French harbours, was encountered off Cape St.
Vincent by Sir John Jarvis, who had only 15 ships and 6
frigates. By the old manœuvre of breaking the line, 9 of the
Spanish ships were cut off from the rest; and the admiral,
while attempting to regain them by wearing round the rear of
the British line, was boldly assailed by Nelson and
Collingwood,--the former of whom, in the Captain, of 74 guns,
engaged at once two of the enemy's gigantic vessels, the
Santissima Trinidad of 136 guns, and the San Josef of 112;
while the Salvador del Mundo, also of 112 guns, struck in a
quarter of an hour to Collingwood. Nelson at length carried
the San Josef by boarding, and received the Spanish admiral's
sword on his own quarterdeck. The Santissima Trinidad--an
enormous four-decker--though her colours were twice struck,
escaped in the confusion; but the San Josef and the Salvador,
with two 74-gun ships, remained in the hands of the British;
and the Spanish armament, thus routed by little more than half
its own force, retired in the deepest dejection to Cadiz, which
was shortly after insulted by a bombardment from the gallant
Nelson. A more important victory than that of Sir John Jarvis
(created in consequence Earl St. Vincent) was never gained at
sea, from the evident superiority of skill and seamanship
which it demonstrated in the British navy. The battle of St.
Vincent disconcerted the plans of Truguet for the naval
campaign; but later in the season a second attempt to reach
Brest was made by a Dutch fleet of 15 sail of the line and 11
frigates, under the command of De Winter, a man of tried
courage and experience. The British blockading fleet, under
Admiral Duncan, consisted of 16 ships and 3 frigates; and the
battle was fought (October 16) off Camperdown, about nine
miles from the shore of Holland. The manœuvres of the British
Admiral were directed to cut off the enemy's retreat to his
own shores; and this having been accomplished, the action
commenced yard-arm to yard-arm, and continued with the utmost
fury for more than three hours. The Dutch sailors fought with
the most admirable skill and courage, and proved themselves
worthy descendants of Van Tromp and De Ruyter; but the prowess
of the British was irresistible. 12 sail of the line,
including the flagship, two 56-gun ships, and 2 frigates,
struck their colours; but the nearness of the shore enabled
two of the prizes to escape, and one 74-gun ship foundered.
The obstinacy of the conflict was evidenced by the nearly
equal number of killed and wounded, which amounted to 1,040
English, and 1,160 Dutch. ... The only remaining operations of
the year were the capture of Trinidad in February, by a force
which soon after was repulsed from before Porto Rico; and an
abortive attempt at a descent in Pembroke Bay by about 1,400
French."
Epitome of Alison's History of Europe,
sections 190-196 (chapter 22,
volume 5--of complete work).
ALSO IN:
J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 100-103 (volume 6).
R. Southey,
Life of Nelson,
chapter 4.
E. J. De La Gravière,
Sketches of the Last Naval War,
volume 1, part 2.
Captain A. T. Mahan,
Influence of Sea Power on the
French Revolution and Empire,
chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1798 (AUGUST).
Nelson's victory in the Battle of the Nile.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1798.
Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (APRIL).
Final war with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).
See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
Expedition against Holland.
Seizure of the Dutch fleet.
Ignominious ending of the enterprise.
Capitulation of the Duke of York.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER),
and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1800.
Legislative union of Ireland with Great Britain.
Creation of the "United Kingdom."
See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.
{945}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1801.
The first Factory Act.
See FACTORY LEGISLATION.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1802.
Import of the Treaty of Luneville.
Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with Great Britain alone.
Retirement of Pitt.
The Northern Maritime League and its summary annihilation at
Copenhagen.
Expulsion of the French from Egypt.
The Peace of Amiens.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.
Pitt's promise to the Irish Catholics broken by the King.
His resignation.
The Addington Ministry.
The Peace of Amiens.
War resumed.
Pitt at the helm again.
His death.
The Ministry of "All the Talents."
"The union with Ireland introduced a new topic of party
discussion, which quickly became only second to that of
parliamentary reform. In transplanting the parliament of
College Green to St. Stephen's, Pitt had transplanted the
questions which were there debated; and, of these, none had
been more important than the demand of the Catholics to be
admitted to the common rights of citizens. Pitt, whose Toryism
was rather the imperiousness of a haughty master, than the
cautious cowardice of the miser of power, thought their
complaints were just. In his private negotiations with the
Irish popular leaders he probably promised that emancipation
should be the sequel to the union. In his place in parliament
he certainly gave an intimation, which from the mouth of a
minister could receive no second interpretation. Pitt was not
a minister who governed by petty stratagems, by ambiguous
professions, and by skilful shuffles: he was at least an
honourable enemy. He prepared to fulfil the pledge he had
given, and to admit the Catholics within the pale of the
constitution. It had been better for the character of George
III. had he imitated the candour of his minister; had he told
him that he had made a promise he would not be suffered to
fulfil, before he had obtained the advantage to gain which
that promise had been made. When Pitt proposed Catholic
emancipation as one of the topics of the king's speech, for
the session of 1801, the royal negative was at once
interposed, and when Dundas persisted in his attempt to
overcome his master's objections, the king abruptly terminated
the conference, saying, 'Scotch metaphysics cannot destroy
religious obligations.' Pitt immediately tendered his
resignation. ... All that was brilliant in Toryism passed from
the cabinet with the late minister: When Pitt and Canning were
withdrawn, with their satellites, nothing remained of the Tory
party but the mere courtiers who lived upon the favour of the
king, and the insipid lees of the party; men who voted upon
every subject in accordance with their one ruling idea--the
certain ruin, which must follow the first particle of
innovation. Yet from these relicts the king was obliged to
form a new cabinet, for application to the Whigs was out of
the question. These were more strenuous for emancipation than
Pitt. Henry Addington, Pitt's speaker of the house of commons,
was the person upon whom the king's choice fell; and he
succeeded, with the assistance of the late premier, in filling
up the offices at his disposal. ... The peace of Amiens was
the great work of this feeble administration [see FRANCE: A.
D. 1801-1802], and formed a severe commentary upon the
boastings of the Tories. 'Unless the monarchy of France be
restored,' Pitt had said, eight years before, 'the monarchy of
England is lost forever.' Eight years of warfare had succeeded,
yet the monarchy of France was not restored, and the crusade
was stayed. England had surrendered her conquests, France
retained hers; the landmarks of Europe had been in some degree
restored; England, alone, remained burdened with the enduring
consequences of the ruinous and useless strife. The peace was
approved by the Whigs, who were glad of any respite from such
a war, and by Pitt, who gave his support to the Addington
administration. But he could not control his adherents. ... As
the instability of the peace grew manifest, the incompetency
of the administration became generally acknowledged: with Pitt
sometimes chiding, Windham and Canning, and Lords Spencer and
Grenville continually attacking, and Fox and the Whigs only
refraining from violent opposition from a knowledge that if
Addington went out Pitt would be his successor, the conduct of
the government was by no means an easy or a grateful task to a
man destitute of commanding talents. When to these

parliamentary difficulties were added a recommencement of the
war, and a popular panic at Bonaparte's threatened invasion,
Addington's embarrassments became inextricable. He had
performed the business which Pitt had assigned him; he had
made an experimental peace, and had saved Pitt's honour with
the Roman Catholics. The object of his appointment he had
unconsciously completed, and no sooner did his predecessor
manifest an intention of returning to office, than the
ministerial majorities began to diminish, and Addington found
himself without support. On the 12th of April it was announced
that Mr. Addington had resigned, and Pitt appeared to resume
his station as a matter of course. During his temporary
retirement, Pitt had, however, lost one section of his
supporters. The Grenville party and the Whigs had gradually
approximated, and the former now refused to come into the new
arrangements unless Fox was introduced into the cabinet. To
this Pitt offered no objection, but the king was firm--or
obstinate. ... In the following year, Addington himself, now
created Viscount Sidmouth, returned to office with the
subordinate appointment of president of the council. The
conflagration had again spread through Europe. ... Pitt had
the mortification to see his grand continental coalition, the
produce of such immense expense and the object of such hope,
shattered in one campaign. At home, Lord Melville, his most
faithful political supporter, was attacked by a charge from
which he could not defend him, and underwent the impeachment
of the commons for malpractices in his office as treasurer of
the navy. Lord Sidmouth and several others seceded from the
cabinet, and Pitt, broken in health, and dispirited by
reverses, had lost much of his wonted energy. Thus passed away
the year 1805. On the 23d of January, 1806, Pitt expired. ...
The death of Pitt was the dissolution of his administration.
The Tory party was scattered in divisions and subdivisions
innumerable. Canning now recognised no political leader, but
retained his old contempt for Sidmouth and his friends, and
his hostility to the Grenvilles for their breach with Pitt.
Castlereagh, William Dundas, Hawkesbury, or Barham, although
sufficiently effective when Pitt was present to direct and to
defend, would have made a hopeless figure without him in face
of such an opposition as the house of commons now afforded.
{946}
The administration, which was ironically designated by its
opponents as 'All the Talents,' succeeded. Lord Grenville was
first lord of the treasury. Fox chose the office of secretary
for foreign affairs with the hope of putting an end to the
war. Windham was colonial secretary. Earl Spencer had the
seals of the home department. Erskine was lord chancellor. Mr.
Grey was first lord of the admiralty. Sheridan, treasurer of
the navy. Lord Sidmouth was privy seal. Lord Henry Petty, who,
although now only in his 26th year, had already acquired
considerable distinction as an eloquent Whig speaker, was
advanced to the post of chancellor of the exchequer, the
vacant chair of Pitt. Such were the men who now assumed the
reins under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty."
G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapters 17-18.
ALSO IN:
Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon),
Life of Pitt,
chapters 29-44 (volumes 3-4).
A. G. Stapleton,
George Canning and His Times,
chapters 6-8.
Earl Russell,
Life and Times of Charles James Fox,
chapters 58-69 (volume 3).
G. Pellew,
Life and Correspondence of Henry Addington,
1st Viscount Sidmouth,
chapters 10-26 (volumes 1-2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1802 (OCTOBER).
Protest against Bonaparte's interference in Switzerland.
His extraordinary reply.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1802-1803.
Bonaparte's complaints and demands.
The Peltier trial.
The First Consul's rage.
Declaration of war.
Napoleon's seizure of Hanover.
Cruel detention of all English people in France, Italy,
Switzerland and the Netherlands.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1804-1809.
Difficulties with the United States.
Questions of neutral rights.
Right of Search and Impressment.
The American Embargo.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
Third Coalition against France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1805.
Napoleon's threatened invasion.
Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleet.
His victory and death at Trafalgar.
The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Final seizure of Cape Colony from the Dutch.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Cession of Hanover to Prussia by Napoleon.
War with Prussia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Attempted reinstatement of the dethroned King of Naples.
The Battle of Maida.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806.
Death of Pitt.
Peace negotiations with Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1807.
Expedition against Buenos Ayres.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1810.
Commercial warfare with Napoleon.
Orders in Council.
Berlin and Milan Decrees.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.
The ministry of "All the Talents."
Abolition of the Slave Trade.
The Portland and the Perceval ministries.
Confirmed insanity of George III.
Beginning of the regency of the Prince of Wales.
Assassination of Mr. Perceval.
The "Ministry of All the Talents" is "remarkable solely for
its mistakes, and is to be remembered chiefly for the death of
Fox [September 13, 1806] and the abolition of the slave-trade.
Fox was now destined at the close of his career to be
disillusioned with regard to Napoleon. He at last thoroughly
realized the insincerity of his hero. ... The second great
object of Fox's life he succeeded in attaining before his
death;--this was the abolition of the slave-trade. For more
than thirty years the question had been before the country,
and a vigorous agitation had been conducted by Clarkson,
Wilberforce, and Fox. . Pitt was quite at one with them on
this question, and had brought forward motions on the subject.
The House of Lords, however, rejected all measures of this
description during the Revolutionary War, under the influence
of the Anti-Jacobin feeling. It was reserved for Fox to
succeed in carrying a Bill inflicting heavy pecuniary
punishments on the traffic in slaves. And yet this
measure--the sole fruit of Fox's statesmanship--was wholly
inadequate; nor was it till the slave-trade was made felony in
1811 that its final extinction was secured. The remaining acts
of the Ministry were blunders. ... Their financial system was
a failure. They carried on the war so as to alienate their
allies and to cover themselves with humiliation. Finally, they
insisted on bringing forward a measure for the relief of the
Catholics, though there was not the slightest hope of carrying
it, and it could only cause a disruption of the Government.
... The king and the Pittites were determined to oppose it,
and so the Ministry agreed to drop the question under protest.
George insisted on their withdrawing the protest, and as this was
refused he dismissed them. ... This then was the final triumph
of George III. He had successfully dismissed this Ministry; he
had maintained the principle that every Ministry is bound to
withdraw any project displeasing to the king. These principles
were totally inconsistent with Constitutional Government, and
they indirectly precipitated Reform by rendering it absolutely
necessary in order to curb the royal influence. ... The Duke
of Portland's sole claims to form a Ministry were his high
rank, and the length of his previous services. His talents
were never very great, and they were weakened by age and
disease. The real leader was Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, a dexterous debater and a patriotic statesman.
This Government, being formed on the closest Tory basis and on
the king's influence, was pledged to pursue a retrograde
policy and to oppose all measures of Reform. The one really
high-minded statesman in the Cabinet was Canning, the Foreign
Minister. His advanced views, however, continually brought him
into collision with Castlereagh, the War Minister, a man of
much inferior talents and the narrowest Tory views. Quarrels
inevitably arose between the two, and there was no real Prime
Minister to hold them strongly under control. ... At last the
ill-feeling ended in a duel, which was followed by a mutual
resignation on the ground that neither could serve with the
other. This was followed by the resignation of Portland, who
felt himself wholly unequal to the arduous task of managing
the Ministry any longer.
{947}
The leadership now devolved on Perceval, who found himself in
an apparently hopeless condition. His only supporters were
Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Palmerston, and Wellesley. Neither
Canning, Castlereagh, nor Sidmouth (Addington) would join him.
The miserable expedition to Walcheren had just ended in
ignominy. The campaign in the Peninsula was regarded as a
chimerical enterprise, got up mainly for the benefit of a Tory
commander. Certainly the most capable man in the Cabinet was
Lord Wellesley, the Foreign Minister, but he was continually
thwarted by the incapable men he had to deal with. However, as
long as he remained at the Foreign Office, he supported the
Peninsular War with vigour, and enabled his brother to carry
out more effectually his plans with regard to the defence of
Portugal. In November, 1810, the king was again seized with
insanity, nor did he ever recover the use of his faculties
during the rest of his life. The Ministry determined to bring
forward Pitt's old Bill of 1788 in a somewhat more modified
form, February, 1811. The Prince of Wales requested Grey and
Grenville to criticize this, but, regarding their reply as
lukewarm, he began to entertain an ill-will for them. At this
moment the judicious flattery of his family brought him over
from the Whigs, and he decided to continue Perceval in office.
Wellesley, however, took the opportunity to resign, and was
succeeded by Castlereagh, February, 1812. In May Perceval was
assassinated by Mr. Bellingham, a lunatic, and his Ministry at
once fell to pieces."
B. C. Skottowe,
Our Hanoverian Kings,
book 10, chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
F. H. Hill,
George Canning,
chapters 13-17.
S. Walpole,
Life of Spencer Perceval,
volume 2.
R. I. and S. Wilberforce,
Life of William Wilberforce,
chapter 20 (volume 3).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807.
Act for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-SEPTEMBER).
Operations in support of the Russians against the Turks and
French.
Bold naval attack on Constantinople and humiliating failure.
Disastrous expedition to Egypt.
See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
Alliance formed at Tilsit between Napoleon and Alexander I. of
Russia.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER).
Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish fleet.
War with Russia and Denmark.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).
Submission of Portugal to Napoleon under English advice.
Flight of the house of Braganza to Brazil.
See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (MAY).
Ineffectual attempt to aid Sweden.
Expedition of Sir John Moore.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (JULY).
Peace and alliance with the Spanish people against the new
Napoleonic monarchy.
Opening of the Peninsular War.
See SPAIN: A. D.1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1808.
Expulsion of English forces from Capri.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D.1808-1809.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1808-1809.
Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula.
Convention of Cintra.
Evacuation of Portugal by the French.
Sir John Moore's advance into Spain and his retreat.
His death at Corunna.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
Wellington sent to the Peninsula.
The passage of the Douro and the Battle of Talavera.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER).
The Walcheren Expedition.
"Three times before, during the war, it had occurred to one or
another, connected with the government, that it would be a
good thing to hold Antwerp, and command the Scheldt, seize the
French ships in the river, and get possession of their
arsenals and dockyards. On each occasion, men of military
science and experience had been consulted; and invariably they
had pronounced against the scheme. Now, however, what Mr. Pitt
had considered impracticable, Lord Castlereagh, with the
rashness of incapacity, resolved should be done: and, in order
not to be hindered, he avoided consulting with those who would
have objected to the enterprise. Though the scene of action
was to be the swamps at the mouths of the Scheldt, he
consulted no physician. Having himself neither naval,
military, nor medical knowledge, he assumed the
responsibility--except such as the King and the Duke of York
chose to share. ... It was May, 1809, before any stir was
apparent which could lead men outside the Cabinet to infer
that an expedition for the Scheldt was in contemplation; but
so early as the beginning of April (it is now known), Mr.
Canning signified that he could not share in the
responsibility of an enterprise which must so involve his own
office. ... The fleet that rode in the channel consisted of 39
ships of the line, and 36 frigates, and a due proportion of
small vessels: in all, 245 vessels of war: and 400 transports
carried 40,000 soldiers. Only one hospital ship was provided
for the whole expedition, though the Surgeon General implored
the grant of two more. He gave his reasons, but was refused.
... The naval commander was Sir Richard J. Strachan, whose
title to the responsibility no one could perceive, while many
who had more experience were unemployed. The military command
was given (as the selection of the present Cabinet bad been)
to Lord Chatham, for no better reason than that he was a
favourite with the King and Queen, who liked his gentle and
courtly manners, and his easy and amiable temper. ... The
fatal mistake was made of not defining the respective
authorities of the two commanders; and both being
inexperienced or apathetic, each relied upon the other first,
and cast the blame of failure upon him afterwards. In the
autumn, an epigram of unknown origin was in every body's
mouth, all over England:
'Lord Chatham, with his sword undrawn,
Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;
Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham.'
The fleet set sail on the 28th of July, and was on the coast
of Holland the next day. The first discovery was that there
were not boats enough to land the troops and the ordnance. The
next was that no plan had been formed about how to proceed.
The most experienced officers were for pushing on to Antwerp,
45 miles off, and taking it before it could be prepared for
defence; but the commanders determined to take Flushing first.
They set about it so slowly that a fortnight was consumed in
preparations.
{948}
In two days more, the 15th of August, Flushing was taken.
After this, Lord Chatham paused to consider what he should do
next; and it was the 21st before be began to propose to go on
to Antwerp. Then came the next discovery, that, by this time
two intermediate places had been so strengthened that there
must be some fighting on the way. So he did nothing more but
take possession of two small islands near Flushing. Not
another blow was struck; not another league was traversed by
this magnificent expedition. But the most important discovery
of all now disclosed itself. The army had been brought into
the swamps at the beginning of the sickly season. Fever sprang
up under their feet, and 3,000 men were in hospital in a few
days, just when it became necessary to reduce the rations,
because provisions were falling short. On the 27th of August,
Lord Chatham led a council of war to resolve that 'it was not
advisable to pursue further operations.' But, if they could
not proceed, neither could they remain where they were. The
enemy had more spirit than their invaders. On the 30th and
31st, such a fire was opened from both banks of the river,
that the ships were obliged to retire. Flushing was given up,
and everything else except the island of Walcheren, which it
was fatal to hold at this season. On the 4th of September,
most of the ships were at home again; and Lord Chatham
appeared on the 14th. Eleven thousand men were by that time in
the fever, and he brought home as many as he could. Sir Eyre
Coote, whom he left in command, was dismayed to see all the
rest sinking down in disease at the rate of hundreds in a day.
Though the men had been working in the swamps, up to the waist
in marsh water, and the roofs of their sleeping places had
been carried off by bombardment, so that they slept under a
canopy of autumn fog, it was supposed that a supply of Thames
water to drink would stop the sickness; and a supply of 500
tons per week was transmitted. At last, at the end of October,
a hundred English bricklayers, with tools, bricks, and mortar,
were sent over to mend the roofs; but they immediately dropped
into the hospitals. Then the patients were to be accommodated
in the towns; but to spare the inhabitants, the soldiers were
laid down in damp churches; and their bedding had from the
beginning been insufficient for their need. At last,
government desired the chief officers of the army Medical
Board to repair to Walcheren, and see what was the precise
nature of the fever, and what could be done. The
Surgeon-General and the Physician-General threw the duty upon
each other. Government appointed it to the Physician-General,
Sir Lucas Pepys; but he refused to go. Both officers were
dismissed, and the medical department of the army was
reorganized and greatly improved. The deaths were at this time
from 200 to 300 a week. When Walcheren was evacuated, on the
23rd of December, nearly half the force sent out five months
before were dead or missing; and of those who returned, 35,000
were admitted into the hospitals of England before the next 1st
of June. Twenty millions sterling were spent on this
expedition. It was the purchase money of tens of thousands of
deaths, and of ineffaceable national disgrace."
H. Martineau,
History of England, 1800-1815,
book 2, chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 7, chapter 20.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
Difficulties of Wellington's campaign in the Peninsula.
His retreat into Portugal.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1810.
Capture of the Mauritius.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1810-1812.
The War in the Peninsula.
Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras.
French recoil from them.
English advance into Spain.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1800-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER),
and 1810-1812.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1811.
Capture of Java from the Dutch.
See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1811-1812.
Desertion of Napoleon's Continental System by Russia and Sweden.
Reopening of their ports to British commerce.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JANUARY).
Building of the first passenger Steam-boat.
See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
The Peninsular War.
Wellington's victory at Salamanca and advance to Madrid.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813.
The Liverpool Ministry.
Business depression and bad harvests.
Distress and rioting.
The Luddites.
"Again there was much negotiation, and an attempt to introduce
Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning to the ministry. Of course they
could not serve with Castlereagh; they were then asked to form
a ministry with Grenville and Grey, but these Lords objected
to the Peninsular War, to which Wellesley was pledged.
Grenville and Grey then attempted a ministry of their own but
quarrelled with Lord Moira on the appointments to the
Household; and as an American war was threatening, and the
ministry had already given up their Orders in Council (one of
the chief causes of their unpopularity), the Regent rather
than remain longer without a ministry, intrusted Lord
Liverpool with the Premiership, with Castlereagh as his
Foreign Secretary, and the old ministry remained in office.
Before the day of triumph of this ministry arrived, while
Napoleon was still at the height of his power, and the success
of Wellington as yet uncertain, England had drifted into war
with America. It is difficult to believe that this useless war
might not have been avoided had the ministers been men of
ability. It arose from the obstinate manner in which the
Government clung to the execution of their retaliatory
measures against France, regardless of the practical injury
they were inflicting upon all neutrals. ... The same motive of
class aggrandizement which detracts from the virtue of the
foreign policy of this ministry underlay the whole
administration of home affairs. There was an incapacity to
look at public affairs from any but a class or aristocratic
point of view. The natural consequence was a constantly
increasing mass of discontent among the lower orders, only
kept in restraint by an overmastering fear felt by all those
higher in rank of the possible revolutionary tendencies of any
attempt at change. Much of the discontent was of course the
inevitable consequence of the circumstances in which England
was placed, and for which the Government was only answerable
in so far as it created those circumstances. At the same time
it is impossible not to blame the complacent manner in which
the misery was ignored and the occasional success of
individual merchants and contractors regarded as evidences of
national prosperity. ...
{949}
A plentiful harvest in 1813, and the opening of many
continental ports, did much to revive both trade and
manufactures; but it was accompanied by a fall in the price of
corn from 171s. to 75s. The consequence was widespread
distress among the agriculturists, which involved the country
banks, so that in the two following years 240 of them stopped
payment. So great a crash could not fail to affect the
manufacturing interest also; apparently, for the instant, the
very restoration of peace brought widespread ruin. ... Before
the end of the year 1811, wages had sunk to 7s. 6d. a week.
The manufacturing operatives were therefore in a state of
absolute misery. Petitions signed by 40,000 or 50,000 men
urged upon Parliament that they were starving; but there was
another class which fared still worse. Machinery had by no
means superseded hand-work. In thousands of hamlets and
cottages handlooms still existed. The work was neither so good
nor so rapid as work done by machinery; even at the best of
times used chiefly as an auxiliary to agriculture, this hand
labour could now scarcely find employment at all. Not
unnaturally, without work and without food, these hand workers
were very ready to believe that it was the machinery which
caused their ruin, and so in fact it was; the change, though
on the whole beneficial, had brought much individual misery.
The people were not wise enough to see this. They rose in
riots in many parts of England, chiefly about Nottingham,
calling themselves Luddites (from the name of a certain idiot
lad who some 30 years before, had broken stocking-frames),
gathered round them many of the disbanded soldiery with whom
the country was thronged, and with a very perfect secret
organization, carried out their object of machine-breaking.
The unexpected thronging of the village at nightfall, a crowd
of men with blackened faces, armed sentinels holding every
approach, silence on all sides, the village inhabitants
cowering behind closed doors, an hour or two's work of
smashing and burning, and the disappearance of the crowd as
rapidly as it had arrived--such were the incidents of the
night riots."
J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 3,
pages 1325-1332.
ALSO IN:
C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 7, chapter 30.
Pictorial History of England,
volume 8, chapter 4
(Reign of George III., volume 4).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1815.
War with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809;
1808; and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1813 (JUNE).
Joined with the new European Coalition against Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1814.
Wellington's victorious and final campaigns
in the Peninsular War.
See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1816.
War with the Ghorkas of Nepal.
See INDIA: A. D..1805-1816.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1814.
The allies in France and in possession of Paris.
Fall of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH),
and (MARCH-APRIL).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (May-June).
Treaty of Paris.
Acquisition of Malta, the Isle of France
and the Cape of Good Hope.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
The Treaty of Ghent, terminating war with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Congress of Vienna and its revision of the map of Europe.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (MARCH).
The Corn Law.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.
[Transcriber's Note:]
INDONESIA: A. D. 1815 (APRIL).
Eruption of Mount Tambora precipitating the "Year without a
Summer" and widespread famine.
"Low temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests
in Britain and Ireland. ... With the cause of the problems
unknown, hungry people demonstrated in front of grain markets
and bakeries. Later riots, arson, and looting took place in
many European cities. On some occasions, rioters carried flags
reading "Bread or Blood". Though riots were common during
times of hunger, the food riots of 1816 and 1817 were the
highest levels of violence since the French Revolution. It was
the worst famine of 19th-century mainland Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer#Europe
[End Transcriber's Note]
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
The Waterloo campaign.
Defeat and final Overthrow of Napoleon.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-AUGUST).
Surrender of Napoleon.
His confinement on the Island of St. Helena.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
Wellington's army in Paris.
The Second Treaty.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (SEPTEMBER).
The Holy Alliance.
See HOLY ALLIANCE.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.
Agitation for Parliamentary Reform.
Hampden Clubs.
Spencean philanthropists.
Trials of William Hone.
The Spa-fields meeting and riot.
March of the Blanketeers.
Massacre of Peterloo.
The Six Acts.
Death of George III.
Accession of George IV.
"From this time the name of Parliamentary Reform became, for
the most part, a name of terror to the Government. ... It
passed away from the patronage of a few aristocratic lovers of
popularity, to be advocated by writers of 'two-penny trash,'
and to be discussed and organized by 'Hampden Clubs' of
hungering philanthropists and unemployed 'weaver-boys.' Samuel
Bamford, who thought it no disgrace to call himself 'a
Radical' ... says, 'at this time (1816) the writings of
William Cobbett suddenly became of great authority; they were
read on nearly every cottage hearth in the manufacturing
districts of South Lancashire, in those of Leicester, Derby,
and Nottingham; also in many of the Scottish manufacturing
towns. Their influence was speedily visible.' Cobbett
advocated Parliamentary Reform as the corrective of whatever
miseries the lower classes suffered. A new order of
politicians was called into action: 'The Sunday-schools of the
preceding thirty years had produced many working men of
sufficient talent to become readers, writers, and speakers in
the village meetings for Parliamentary Reform; some also were
found to possess a rude poetic talent, which rendered their
effusions popular, and bestowed an additional charm on their
assemblages; and by such various means, anxious listeners at
first, and then zealous proselytes, were drawn from the
cottages of quiet nooks and dingles to the weekly readings and
discussions of the Hampden Clubs.' ... In a Report of the
Secret Committee of the House of Commons, presented on the
19th of February, 1817, the Hampden Clubs are described as
'associated professedly for the purpose of Parliamentary
Reform, upon the most extended principle of universal suffrage
and annual parliaments'; but that 'in far the greater number
of them ... nothing short of a Revolution is the object
expected and avowed.' The testimony of Samuel Bamford shows
that, in this early period of their history, the Hampden Clubs
limited their object to the attainment of Parliamentary Reform.
... Bamford, at the beginning of 1817, came to London as a
delegate from the Middleton Club, to attend a great meeting of
delegates to be assembled in London. ...
{950}
The Middleton delegate was introduced, amidst the reeking
tobacco-fog of a low tavern, to the leading members of a
society called the 'Spencean Philanthropists.' They derived
their name from that of a Mr. Spence, a school-master in
Yorkshire, who had conceived a plan for making the nation
happy, by causing all the lands of the country to become the
property of the State, which State should divide all the
produce for the support of the people. ... The Committee of
the Spenceans openly meddled with sundry grave questions
besides that of a community in land; and, amongst other
notable projects, petitioned Parliament to do away with
machinery. Amongst these fanatics some dangerous men had
established themselves, such as Thistlewood, who subsequently
paid the penalty of five years of maniacal plotting." A
meeting held at Spa-fields on the 2d of December, 1816, in the
interest of the Spencean Philanthropists, terminated in a
senseless outbreak of riot, led by a young fanatic named
Watson. The mob plundered some gunsmiths' shops, shot one
gentleman who remonstrated, and set out to seize the Tower;
but was dispersed by a few resolute magistrates and
constables. "It is difficult to imagine a more degraded and
dangerous position than that in which every political writer
was placed during the year 1817. In the first place, he was
subject, by a Secretary of State's warrant, to be imprisoned
upon suspicion, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
Secondly, he was open to an ex-officio information, under
which he would be compelled to find bail, or be imprisoned.
The power of ex-officio information had been extended so as to
compel bail, by an Act of 1808; but from 1808 to 1811, during
which three years forty such informations were laid, only one
person was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-officio
informations were filed, and the almost invariable practice
then was to hold the alleged offender to bail, or, in default,
to commit to prison. Under this Act Mr. Hone and others were
committed to prison during this year. ... The entire course of
these proceedings was a signal failure. There was only one
solitary instance of success--William Cobbett ran away. On the
28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication
of his 'Register' for four months. On the 12th of May earl
Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was
proceeded against for publishing some blasphemous parody; but
he had read one of the same nature, written, printed, and
published, some years ago, by other people, without any notice
having been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl
Grey alluded, and a portion of which he recited, was Canning's
famous parody, 'Praise Lepaux'; and he asked whether the
authors, be they in the cabinet or in any other place, would
also be found out and visited with the penalties of the law?
This hint to the obscure publisher against whom these
ex-officio informations had been filed for blasphemous and
seditious parodies, was effectually worked out by him in the
solitude of his prison, and in the poor dwelling where he had
surrounded himself, as he had done from his earliest years,
with a collection of odd and curious books. From these he had
gathered an abundance of knowledge that was destined to
perplex the technical acquirements of the Attorney-General, to
whom the sword and buckler of his precedents would be wholly
useless, and to change the determination of the boldest judge
in the land [Lord Ellenborough] to convict at any rate, into
the prostration of helpless despair. Altogether, the three
trials of William Hone are amongst the most remarkable in our
constitutional history. They produced more distinct effects
upon the temper of the country than any public proceedings of
that time. They taught the Government a lesson which has never
been forgotten, and to which, as much as to any other cause,
we owe the prodigious improvement as to the law of libel
itself, and the use of the law, in our own day,--an
improvement which leaves what is dangerous in the press to be
corrected by the remedial power of the press itself; and
which, instead of lamenting over the newly-acquired ability of
the masses to read seditious and irreligious works, depends
upon the general diffusion of this ability as the surest
corrective of the evils that are incident even to the best
gift of heaven,--that of knowledge."
C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 5.
In 1817 "there was widespread distress. There were riots in
the counties of England arising out of the distress. There
were riots in various parts of London. Secret Committees were
appointed by both Houses of the Legislature to inquire into
the alleged disaffection of part of the people. The Habeas
Corpus Act was suspended. The march of the Blanketeers from
Manchester [March, 1817] caused panic and consternation
through various circles in London. The march of the
Blanketeers was a very simple and harmless project. A large
number of the working-men in Manchester conceived the idea of
walking to London to lay an account of their distress before
the heads of the Government, and to ask that some remedy might
be found, and also to appeal for the granting of Parliamentary
reform. It was part of their arrangement that each man should
carry a blanket with him, as they would, necessarily, have to
sleep at many places along the way, and they were not exactly
in funds to pay for first-class hotel accommodation. The
nickname of Blanketeers was given to them because of their
portable sleeping-arrangements. The whole project was simple,
was touching in its simplicity. Even at this distance of time
one cannot read about it without being moved by its pathetic
childishness. These poor men thought they had nothing to do
but to walk to London, and get to speech of Lord Liverpool,
and justice would be done to them and their claims. The
Government of Lord Liverpool dealt very roundly, and in a very
different way, with the Blanketeers. If the poor men had been
marching on London with pikes, muskets and swords, they could
not have created a greater fury of panic and of passion in
official circles. The Government, availing itself of the
suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, had the leaders of the
movement captured and sent to prison, stopped the march by
military force, and dispersed those who were taking part in
it. ... The 'Massacre of Peterloo,' as it is not
inappropriately called, took place not long after. A great
public meeting was held [August 16, 1819] at St. Peter's
Field, then on the outskirts of Manchester, now the site of
the Free Trade Hall, which many years later rang so often to
the thrilling tones of John Bright. The meeting was called to
petition for Parliamentary reform. It should be remembered
that in those days Manchester, Birmingham, and other great
cities were without any manner of representation in
Parliament.
{951}
It was a vast meeting--some 80,000 men and women are stated to
have been present. The yeomanry some reason impossible to understand, endeavoured to disperse
the meeting, and actually dashed in upon the crowd, spurring
their horses and flourishing their sabres. Eleven persons were
killed, and several hundreds were wounded. The Government
brought in, as their panacea for popular trouble and
discontent, the famous Six Acts. These Acts were simply
measures to render it more easy for the authorities to put
down or disperse meetings which they considered objectionable,
and to suppress any manner of publication which they chose to
call seditious. But among them were some Bills to prevent
training and drilling, and the collection and use of arms.
These measures show what the panic of the Government was. It
was the conviction of the ruling classes that the poor and the
working-classes of England were preparing a revolution. ...
During all this time, the few genuine Radicals in the House of
Commons were bringing on motion after motion for Parliamentary
reform, just as Grattan and his friends were bringing forward
motion after motion for Catholic Emancipation. In 1818, a
motion by Sir Francis Burdett for annual Parliaments and
universal suffrage was lost by a majority of 106 to nobody.
... The motion had only two supporters--Burdett himself, and
his colleague, Lord Cochrane. ... The forms of the House
require two tellers on either side, and a compliance with this
inevitable rule took up the whole strength of Burdett's party.
... On January 29, 1820, the long reign of George III. came to
an end. The life of the King closed in darkness of eyes and mind.
Stone-blind, stone-deaf, and, except for rare lucid intervals,
wholly out of his senses, the poor old King wandered from room
to room of his palace, a touching picture, with his long,
white, flowing beard, now repeating to himself the awful words
of Milton--the 'dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of
noon--irrecoverably dark'--now, in a happier mood, announcing
himself to be in the companionship of angels. George, the
Prince Regent, succeeded, of course, to the throne; and George
IV. at once announced his willingness to retain the services
of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool. The Whigs had at one time
expected much from the coming of George IV. to the throne, but
their hopes had begun to be chilled of late."
J. McCarthy,
Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. Routledge,
Chapters in the History of Popular Progress,
chapters 12-19.
H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 1, chapters 5-17 (volume 1).
E. Smith,
William Cobbett,
chapters 21-23 (volume 2).
See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1818.
Convention with the United States relating to Fisheries, etc.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1820.
Accession of King George IV.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1822.
Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona.
Projects of the Holy Alliance.
English protests.
Canning's policy towards Spain and the Spanish American
colonies.
See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.
The Cato Street Conspiracy.
Trial of Queen Caroline.
Canning in the Foreign Office.
Commercial Crisis of 1825.
Canning as Premier.
His death.
"Riot and social misery had, during the Regency, heralded the
Reign. They did not cease to afflict the country. At once we
are plunged into the wretched details of a conspiracy. Secret
intelligence reached the Home Office to the effect that a man
named Thistlewood, who had been a year in jail for challenging
Lord Sidmouth, had with several accomplices laid a plot to
murder the Ministers during a Cabinet dinner, which was to
come off at Lord Harrowby's. The guests did not go, and the
police pounced on the gang, arming themselves in a stable in
Cato Street, off the Edgeware Road. Thistlewood blew out the
candle, having first stabbed a policeman to the heart. For
that night he got off; but, being taken next day, he was soon
hanged, with his four leading associates. This is called the
Cato Street Conspiracy. ... George IV., almost as soon as the
crown became his own, began to stir in the matter of getting a
divorce from his wife. He had married this poor Princess
Caroline of Brunswick in 1795, merely for the purpose of
getting his debts paid. Their first interview disappointed
both. After some time of semi-banishment to Blackheath she had
gone abroad to live chiefly in Italy, and had been made the
subject of more than one 'delicate investigation' for the
purpose of procuring evidence of infidelity against her. She
now came to England (June 6, 1820), and passed from Dover to
London through joyous and sympathizing crowds. The King sent a
royal message to the Lords, asking for an inquiry into her
conduct. Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh laid before the
Lords and Commons a green bag, stuffed with indecent and
disgusting accusations against the Queen. Happily for her she
had two champions, whose names shall not readily lose the
lustre gained in her defence--Henry Brougham and Thomas
Denman, her Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. After the
failure of a negotiation, in which the Queen demanded two
things that the Ministers refused--the insertion of her name
in the Liturgy, and a proper reception at some foreign
court--Lord Liverpool brought into the Upper House a 'Bill of
Pains and Penalties,' which aimed at her degradation from the
throne and the dissolution of her marriage. Through the
fever-heat of a scorching summer the case went on, counsel and
witnesses playing their respective parts before the Lords. ...
At length the Bill, carried on its third reading by a majority
of only nine, was abandoned by the Ministry (November 10). And
the country broke out into cheers and flaming windows. Had she
rested content with the vindication of her fair fame, it would
have been better for her own peace. But she went in public
procession to St. Paul's to return thanks for her victory. And
more rashly still in the following year she tried to force her
way into Westminster Abbey during the Coronation of her
husband (July 19, 1821). But mercy came a few days later from
the King of kings. The people, true to her even in death,
insisted that the hearse containing her remains should pass
through the city; and in spite of bullets from the carbines of
dragoons they gained their point, the Lord Mayor heading the
procession till it had cleared the streets. ... George Canning
had resigned his office rather than take any part with the
Liverpool Cabinet in supporting the 'Bill of Pains and
Penalties,' and had gone to the Continent for the summer of
the trial year.
{952}
Early in 1822 Lord Sidmouth ... resigned the Home Office. He
was succeeded by Robert Peel, a statesman destined to achieve
eminence. Canning about the same time was offered the post of
Governor-General of India," and accepted it; but this
arrangement was suddenly changed by the death of Castlereagh,
who committed suicide in August. Canning then became Foreign
Secretary. "The spirit of Canning's foreign policy was
diametrically opposed to that of Londonderry [Castlereagh].
... Refusing to interfere in Spanish affairs, he yet
acknowledged the new-won freedom of the South American States,
which had lately shaken off the Spanish yoke. To preserve peace
and yet cut England loose from the Holy Alliance were the
conflicting aims, which the genius of Canning enabled him to
reconcile [see VERONA, CONGRESS OF]. ... During the years
1824-25, the country, drunk with unusual prosperity, took that
speculation fever which has afflicted her more than once
during the last century and a half. ... A crop of fungus
companies sprang up temptingly from the heated soil of the
Stock Exchange. ... Shares were bought and gambled in. The
winter passed; but spring shone on glutted markets.
depreciated stock, no buyers, and no returns from the shadowy
and distant investments in South America, which had absorbed
so much capital. Then the crashing began--the weak broke
first, the strong next, until banks went down by dozens, and
commerce for the time was paralyzed. By causing the issue of
one and two pound notes, by coining in great haste a new
supply of sovereigns, and by inducing the Bank of England to
lend money upon the security of goods--in fact to begin the
pawnbroking business--the Government met the crisis, allayed
the panic, and to some extent restored commercial credit.
Apoplexy having struck down Lord Liverpool early in 1827, it
became necessary to select a new Premier. Canning was the
chosen man." He formed a Cabinet with difficulty in April,
Wellington, Peel, Eldon, and others of his former colleagues
refusing to take office with him. His administration was
brought abruptly to an end in August by his sudden death.
W. F. Collier,
History of England,
pages 526-529.
ALSO IN:
Lord Brougham,
Life and Times, by Himself,
chapters 12-18 (volume 2).
A. G. Stapleton,
George Canning and His Times,
chapters 18-34.
A. G. Stapleton,
Some Official Correspondence of George Canning,
2 volumes
F. H. Hill,
George Canning,
chapters 19-22.
Sir T. Martin,
Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
chapter 7.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1826.
The first Burmese War.
See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1825-1830.
The beginning of railroads.
See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
Removal of Disabilities from the Dissenters.
Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.
"Early in 1827 a private member, of little influence,
unexpectedly raised a dormant question. For the best part of a
century the Dissenters had passively submitted to the
anomalous position in which they had been placed by the
Legislature [see above: A. D. 1662-1665; 1672-1673;
1711-1714]. Nominally unable to hold any office under the
Crown, they were annually 'whitewashed' for their infringement
of the law by the passage of an Indemnity Act. The Dissenters
had hitherto been assenting parties to this policy. They
fancied that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts would
logically lead to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and
they preferred remaining under a disability themselves to
running the risk of conceding relief to others. The tacit
understanding, which thus existed between the Church on one
side and Dissent on the other, was maintained unbroken and
almost unchallenged till 1827. It was challenged in that year
by William Smith, the member for Norwich. Smith was a London
banker; he was a Dissenter; and he felt keenly the hard,
unjust, and unnecessary' law which disabled him from holding,
any office, however insignificant, under the Crown,' and from
sitting 'as a magistrate in any corporation without violating
his conscience.' Smith took the opportunity which the annual
Indemnity Act afforded him of stating these views in the House
of Commons. As he spoke the scales fell from the eyes of the
Liberal members. The moment he sat down Harvey, the member for
Colchester, twitted the Opposition with disregarding 'the
substantial claims of the Dissenters,' while those of the
Catholics were urged year after year' with the vehemence of
party,' and supported by 'the mightiest powers of energy and
eloquence.' The taunt called up Lord John Russell, and
elicited from him the declaration that he would bring forward
a motion on the Test and Corporation Acts, 'if the Protestant
Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do
so.' A year afterwards--on the 26th of February, 1828--Lord
John Russell rose to redeem the promise which he thus gave."
His motion "was carried by 237 votes to 193. The Ministry had
sustained a crushing and unexpected reverse. For the moment it
was doubtful whether it could continue in office. It was saved
from the necessity of resigning by the moderation and
dexterity of Peel. Peel considered that nothing could be more
unfortunate for the Church than to involve the House of
Commons in a conflict with the House of Lords on a religious
question. ... On his advice the Bishops consented to
substitute a formal declaration for the test hitherto in
force. The declaration, which contained a promise that the
maker of it would 'never exert any power or any influence to
injure or subvert the Protestant' Established Church, was to
be taken by the members of every corporation, and, at the
pleasure of the Crown, by the holder of every office. Russell,
though he disliked the declaration, assented to it for the
sake of securing the success of his measure." The bill was
modified accordingly and passed both Houses, though
strenuously resisted by all the Tories of the old school.
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 10 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
J. Stoughton,
Religion in England from 1800 to 1850,
volume 1, chapter 2.
H. S. Skeats,
History of the Free Churches of England,
chapter 9.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828.
The administration of Lord Goderich.
Advent of the Wellington Ministry.
"The death of Mr. Canning placed Lord Goderich at the head of
the government. The composition of the Cabinet was slightly
altered. Mr. Huskisson became Colonial Secretary, Mr. Herries
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government was generally
considered to be weak, and not calculated for a long
endurance. ... The differences upon financial measures between
Mr. Herries ... and Mr. Huskisson ... could not be reconciled
by Lord Goderich, and he therefore tendered his resignation to
the king on the 9th of January, 1828.
{953}
His majesty immediately sent to lord Lyndhurst to desire that
he and the duke of Wellington should come to Windsor. The king
told the duke that he wished him to form a government of which
he should be the head. ... It was understood that lord
Lyndhurst was to continue in office. The duke of Wellington
immediately applied to Mr. Peel, who, returning to his post of
Secretary of State for the Home Department, saw the impossibility
of re-uniting in this administration those who had formed the

Cabinet of lord Liverpool. He desired to strengthen the
government of the duke of Wellington by the introduction of
some of the more important of Mr. Canning's friends into the
Cabinet and to fill some of the lesser offices. The earl of
Dudley, Mr. Huskisson, lord Palmerston, and Mr. Charles Grant,
became members of the new administration. Mr. William Lamb,
afterwards lord Melbourne, was appointed Chief Secretary for
Ireland. The ultra-Tories were greatly indignant at these
arrangements. They groaned and reviled as if the world was
unchanged."
C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 13.
ALSO IN:
Sir T. Martin,
Life of Lord Lyndhurst,
chapter 9.
W. M. Torrens,
Life of Viscount Melbourne,
volume 1, chapter 15.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1829.
Intervention on behalf of Greece.
Battle of Navarino.
See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1828.
Corn Law amendment.
The Sliding Scale.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1829.
Catholic Emancipation.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.
The state of the Parliamentary representation before Reform.
Death of George IV.
Accession of William IV.
Fall of the Wellington Ministry.
"Down to the year 1800, when the Union between Great Britain
and Ireland was effected, the House consisted of 558 members;
after 1800, it consisted of 658 members. In the earlier days
of George III., it was elected by 160,000 voters, out of a
population of a little more than eight millions; in the later
days of that monarch, it was elected by about 440,000 voters,
out of a population of twenty-two millions. ... But the
inadequacy of the representation will be even more striking if
we consider the manner in which the electors were broken up
into constituencies. The constituencies consisted either of
counties, or of cities or boroughs. Generally speaking, the
counties of England and Wales (and of Ireland, after the
Union) were represented by two members, and the counties of
Scotland by one member; and the voters were the forty-shilling
freeholders. The number of cities and boroughs which returned
members varied; but, from the date of the Union, there were
about 217 in England and Wales, 14 in Scotland, and 39 in
Ireland,--all the English and Welsh boroughs (with a few
exceptions) returning two members, and the Scotch and Irish
boroughs one member. How the particular places came to be
Parliamentary boroughs is a question of much historic
interest, which cannot be dealt with here in detail.
Originally, the places to which writs were issued seem to have
been chosen by the Crown, or, not unfrequently, by the
Sheriffs of the counties. Probably, in the first instance, the
more important places were selected; though other
considerations, such as the political opinions of the owners
of the soil, and the desire to recognise services (often of a
very questionable character) rendered by such owners to the
King, no doubt had their weight. In the time of Cromwell, some
important changes were made. In 1654, he disfranchised many small
boroughs, increased the number of county members, and
enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. All these reforms
were cancelled after the Restoration; and from that time very
few changes were made. ... In the hundred and fifty years
which followed the Restoration, however, there were changes in
the condition of the country, altogether beyond the control of
either kings or parliaments. Old towns disappeared or decayed,
and new ones sprang up. Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were
remarkable examples of the latter,--Old Sarum was an example
of the former. ... At one time a place of some importance, it
declined from the springing up of New Sarum (Salisbury); and,
even so far back as the reign of Henry VII., it existed as a
town only in imagination, and in the roll of the Parliamentary
boroughs. ... Many other places might be named [known as Rotten
Boroughs and Pocket Boroughs]--such as Gatton in Surrey, and
Ludgershall in Wiltshire--which represented only their owners.
In fact, the representation of owners, and of owners only, was
a very prominent feature of the electoral system now under
consideration. Thus, the Duke of Norfolk was represented by
eleven members, who sat for places forming a part of his
estates; similarly, Lord Lonsdale was represented by nine
members, Lord Darlington by seven, the Duke of Rutland and
several other peers by six each; and it is stated by one
authority that the Duke of Newcastle, at one time, returned
one third of all the members for the boroughs, while, up to
1780, the members for the county of York--the largest and most
influential of the counties--were always elected in Lord
Rockingham's dining-room. But these are only selected
instances. Many others might be cited. According to a
statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, 6,000 persons
returned a clear majority of the House of Commons. In 1793,
the Society of the Friends of the People asserted, and
declared that they were able to prove, that 84 individuals
returned 157 members; that 70 individuals returned 150
members; and that of the 154 individuals who thus returned 307
members--the majority of the House before the Union with
Ireland--no fewer than 40 were peers. The same Society
asserted in the same year, and declared that they were able to
prove, that 70 members were returned by 35 places, in which
there were scarcely any electors; that 90 members were
returned by 46 places, in which there were fewer than 50
electors; that 37 members were returned by 19 places, with not
more than 100 electors; and that 52 members were returned by
26 places, with not more than 200 electors: all these in
England alone. Even in the towns which had a real claim to
representation, the franchise rested upon no uniform basis.
... In some cases the suffrage was practically household
suffrage; in other cases the suffrage was extremely
restricted. But they all returned their two members equally;
it made no difference whether the voters numbered 3,000 or
only three or four. Such being the state of the
representation, corruption was inevitable. Bribery was
practised to an inconceivable extent. Many of the smaller
boroughs had a fixed price, and it was by no means uncommon to
see a borough advertised for sale in the newspapers. ...
{954}
As an example of cost in contesting a county election, it is
on record that the joint expenses of Lord Milton and Mr.
Lascelles, in contesting the county of York in 1807, were
£200,000. ... It is not to be supposed that a condition of
things which appears to us so intolerable attracted no
attention before what may be called the Reform era. So far
back as 1745, Sir Francis Dashwood (afterwards Lord de
Spencer) moved an amendment to the Address in favour of
Reform; Lord Chatham himself, in 1766 and 1770, spoke of the
borough representation as 'the rotten part of the
constitution,' and likened it to a 'mortified limb'; the Duke
of Richmond of that day, in 1780, introduced a bill into the
House of Lords which would have given manhood suffrage and
annual parliaments; and three times in succession, in 1782,
1783, and 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed resolutions in favour of
Reform. ... After Mr. Pitt had abandoned the cause, Mr.
(afterwards Earl) Grey took up the subject. First, in 1792, he
presented that famous petition from the Society of the Friends
of the People, to which allusion has been already made, and
founded a resolution upon it. He made further efforts in 1793,
1795, and 1797, but was on every occasion defeated by large
majorities. ... From the beginning of the 19th century to the
year 1815--with the exception of a few months after the Peace
of Amiens in 1802--England was at war. During that time Reform
dropped out of notice. ... In 1817, and again in 1818 and
1819, Sir Francis Burdett, who was at that time member for
Westminster and a leading Reformer, brought the question of
Reform before the House of Commons. On each occasion he was
defeated by a tremendous majority. ... The next ten years were
comparatively uneventful, so far as the subject of this
history is concerned. ... Two events made the year 1830
particularly opportune for raising the question of
Parliamentary Reform. The first of these events was the death
of George IV. [June 26],--the second, the deposition of
Charles X. of France. ... For the deposition of
Charles--followed as it was very soon by a successful
insurrection in Belgium--produced an immense impression upon
the Liberals of this country, and upon the people generally.
In a few days or weeks there had been secured in two
continental countries what the people of England had been
asking for in vain for years. ... We must not omit to notice
one other circumstance that favoured the cause of Reform. This
was the popular distress. Distress always favours agitation.
The distress in 1830 was described in the House of Lords at
the time as 'unparalleled in any previous part of our
history.' Probably this was an exaggeration. But there can be
no doubt that the distress was general, and that it was acute.
... By the law as it stood when George IV. died, the demise of
the Crown involved a dissolution of Parliament. The Parliament
which was in existence in 1830 had been elected in 1826. Since
the beginning o£ 1828 the Duke of Wellington had been Prime
Minister, with Mr. (soon after Sir Robert) Peel as Home
Secretary, and Leader of the House of Commons. They decided to
dissolve at once. ... In the Parliament thus dissolved, and
especially in the session just brought to a close, the
question of Reform had held a prominent place. At the very
beginning of the session, in the first week of February, the
Marquis of Blandford (afterwards Duke of Marlborough) moved an
amendment to the Address, in which, though a Tory, he affirmed
the conviction 'that the State is at this moment in the most
imminent danger, and that no effectual measures of salvation
will or can be adopted until the people shall be restored to
their rightful share in the legislation of the country.' ...
He was supported on very different grounds by Mr. O'Connell,
but was defeated by a vote of 96 to 11. A few days later he
introduced a specific plan of Reform--a very Radical plan
indeed--but was again ignominiously defeated; then, on the 23d
of February, Lord John Russell ... asked for leave to bring in
a bill for conferring the franchise upon Leeds, Manchester,
and Birmingham, as the three largest unrepresented towns in
the kingdom, but was defeated by 188 votes to 140; and
finally, on the 28th of May--scarcely two months before the
dissolution--Mr. O'Connell brought in a bill to establish
universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and triennial parliaments,
but found only 13 members to support him in a House of 332.
... Thus, the question of Reform was now before the country,
not merely as a popular but as a Parliamentary question. It is
not too much to say that, when the dissolution occurred, it
occupied all minds. ... The whole of August and a considerable
part of September, therefore, were occupied with the
elections, which were attended by an unparalleled degree of
excite merit. ... When all was over, and the results were
reckoned up, it was found that, of the 28 members who
represented the thirteen greatest cities in England (to say
nothing of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland), only 3 were
Minsterialists. ... Of the 236 men who were returned by
elections, more or less popular, in England, only 79 were
Ministerialists. ... The first Parliament of William IV. met
on the 26th of October, but the session was not really opened
till the 2d of November, when the King came down and delivered
his Speech. ... The occasion was made memorable, however, not
by the King's Speech, but by a speech by the Duke of
Wellington, who was then Prime Minister. ... 'The noble Earl
[Grey],' said the Duke, 'has alluded to something in the shape
of a Parliamentary Reform, but he has been candid enough to
acknowledge that he is not prepared with any measure of
Reform; and I have as little scruple to say that his Majesty's
Government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on
my own part, I will go further, and say, that I have never
read or heard of any measure, up to the present moment, which
could in any degree satisfy my mind that the state of the
representation could be improved, or be rendered more
satisfactory to the country at large than at the present
moment. ... I am not only not prepared to bring forward any
measure of this nature, but I will at once declare that, as
far as I am concerned, as long as I hold any station in the
government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to
resist such measures when proposed by others.' Exactly
fourteen days after the delivery of this speech, the Duke's
career' as Prime Minister came for the time to a close. On the
16th of November he came down to Westminster, and announced
that he had resigned office. In the meantime, there had been
something like a panic in the city, because Ministers,
apprehending disturbance, had advised the King and Queen to
abandon an engagement to dine, on the 9th, with the Lord Mayor
at the Guildhall.
{955}
On the 15th, too, the Government had sustained a defeat in the
House of Commons, on a motion proposed by Sir Henry Parnell on
the part of the Opposition, having reference to the civil
list. This defeat was made the pretext for resignation. But it
was only a pretext. After the Duke's declaration in regard to
Reform, and in view of his daily increasing unpopularity, his
continuance in office was impossible."
W. Heaton,
The Three Reforms of Parliament,
chapters 1-2.
ALSO IN:
A. Paul,
History of Reform,
chapters 1-6.
W. Bagehot,
Essays on Parliamentary Reform,
essay 2.
H. Cox,
Antient Parliamentary Elections.
S. Walpole,
The Electorate and the Legislature,
chapter 4.
E. A. Freeman,
Decayed Boroughs
(Historical Essays, 4th series).
England: A. D. 1830-1832.
The great Reform of Representation in Parliament, under the
Ministry of Earl Grey.
"Earl Grey was the new Minister; and Mr. Brougham his Lord
Chancellor. The first announcement of the premier was that the
government would 'take into immediate consideration the state
of the representation, with a view to the correction of those
defects which have been occasioned in it, by the operation of
time; and with a view to the reestablishment of that
confidence upon the part of the people, which he was afraid
Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full extent that
is essential for the welfare and safety of the country, and
the preservation of the government.' The government were now
pledged to a measure of parliamentary reform; and during the
Christmas recess were occupied in preparing it. Meanwhile, the
cause was eagerly supported by the people. ... So great were
the difficulties with which the government had to contend,
that they needed all the encouragement that the people could
give. They had to encounter the reluctance of the king,--the
interests of the proprietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt,
unable to overcome, had sought to purchase,--the opposition of
two thirds of the House of Lords; and perhaps of a majority of
the House of Commons,--and above all, the strong Tory spirit
of the country. ... On the 3d February, when Parliament
reassembled, Lord Grey announced that the government had
succeeded in framing 'a measure which would be effective,
without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised
moderation,' and which 'had received the unanimous consent of
the whole government.' ... On the 1st March, this measure was
brought forward in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell,
to whom,--though not in the cabinet,--this honorable duty had
been justly confided. ... On the 22d March, the second reading
of the bill was carried by a majority of one only, in a House
of 608,--probably the greatest number which, up to that time,
had ever been assembled at a division. On the 19th of April,
on going into committee, ministers found themselves in a
minority of eight, on a resolution proposed by General
Gascoyne, that the number of members returned for England
ought not to be diminished. On the 21st, ministers announced
that it was not their intention to proceed with the bill. On
that same night, they were again defeated on a question of
adjournment, by a majority of twenty-two. This last vote was
decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the
king in person, 'with a view to its immediate dissolution.' It
was one of the most critical days in the history of our
country. ... The people were now to decide the question;--and
they decided it. A triumphant body of reformers was returned,
pledged to carry the reform bill; and on the 6th July, the
second reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a
majority of 136. The most tedious and irritating discussions
ensued in committee,--night after night; and the bill was not
disposed of until the 21st September, when it was passed by a
majority of 109. That the peers were still adverse to the bill
was certain; but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture to
oppose the national will, was doubtful. On the 7th October,
after a debate of five nights,--one of the most memorable by
which that House has ever been distinguished, and itself a
great event in history,--the bill was rejected on the second
reading, by a majority of forty-one. The battle was to be
fought again. Ministers were too far pledged to the people to
think of resigning; and on the motion of Lord Ebrington, they
were immediately supported by a vote of confidence from the
House of Commons. On the 20th October, Parliament was
prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement,
turbulence, and danger [see BRISTOL: A. D. 1831], met again on
the 6th December. A third reform bill was immediately brought
in,--changed in many respects,--and much improved by reason of
the recent census, and other statistical investigations.
Amongst other changes, the total number of members was no
longer proposed to be reduced. This bill was read a second
time on Sunday morning, the 18th of December, by a majority of
162. On the 23d March, it was passed by the House of Commons,
and once more was before the House of Lords. Here the peril of
again rejecting it could not be concealed,--the courage of some
was shaken,--the patriotism of others aroused; and after a
debate of four nights, the second reading was affirmed by the
narrow majority of nine. But danger still awaited it. The
peers who would no longer venture to reject such a bill, were
preparing to change its essential character by amendments.
Meanwhile the agitation of the people was becoming dangerous.
... The time had come, when either the Lords must be coerced;
or the ministers must resign. This alternative was submitted
to the king. He refused to create peers: the ministers
resigned, and their resignation was accepted. Again the
Commons came to the rescue of the bill and the reform
ministry. On the motion of Lord Ebrington, an address was
immediately voted by them, renewing their expressions of
unaltered confidence in the late ministers, and imploring his
Majesty 'to call to his councils such persons only as will
carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions,
that bill for reforming the representation of the people,
which has recently passed this House.' ... The public
excitement was greater than ever; and the government and the
people were in imminent danger of a bloody collision, when
Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his sovereign. The
bill was now secure. The peers averted the threatened addition
to their numbers by abstaining from further opposition; and
the bill,--the Great Charter of 1832,--at length received the
Royal Assent. It is now time to advert to the provisions of
this famous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the
faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than
half a century.
{956}
The main evil had been the number of nomination, or rotten
boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty-six of these,--having
less than 2,000 inhabitants, and returning 111 members,--were
swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less than 4,000
inhabitants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis
lost two. This disfranchisement extended to 143 members. The
next evil had been, that large populations were unrepresented;
and this was now redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including
metropolitan districts, received the privilege of returning
two members; and 20 more of returning one. The large county
populations were also regarded in the distribution of
seats,--the number of county members being increased from 94
to 159. The larger counties were divided; and the number of
members adjusted with reference to the importance of the
constituencies. Another evil was the restricted and unequal
franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of
election were set aside in Boroughs; and a £10 household
franchise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were
the only class of electors whose rights were reserved; but
residence within the borough was attached as a condition to
their right of voting. ... The county constituency was
enlarged by the addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for
terms of years, and of tenants-at-will paying a rent of £50 a
year. ... The defects of the Scotch representation, being even
more flagrant and indefensible than those of England, were not
likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of
reform. ... The entire representation was remodelled.
Forty-five members had been assigned to Scotland at the Union:
this number was now increased to 53 of whom 30 were allotted
to counties, and 23 to cities and burghs. The county franchise
was extended to all owners of property of £10 a year, and to
certain classes of leaseholders; and the burgh franchise to
all £10 householders. The representation of Ireland had many
of the defects of the English system. ... The right of
election was taken away from the corporations, and vested in
£10 householders; and large additions were made to the county
constituency. The number of members in Ireland, which the Act
of Union had settled at 100, was now increased to 105."
T. E. May,
Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860,
chapter 6 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
W. N. Molesworth,
History of the Reform Bill of 1832.
W. Jones,
Biographical Sketches of the Reform Ministers.
Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself,
chapters 21-22.
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1831.
First assumption of the name Conservatives by the Tories.
See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832.
Intervention in the Netherlands.
Creation of the kingdom of Belgium.
War with Holland.
See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.
Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies.
Trade monopoly of the East India Company withdrawn.
Factory Bill.
Irish tithes.
"The period which succeeded the passing of the Reform Bill was
one of immense activity and earnestness in legislation. ...
The first great reform was the complete abolition of the
system of slavery in the British colonies. The slave trade had
itself been suppressed so far as we could suppress it long
before that time, but now the whole system of West Indian
slavery was brought to an end [see SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.
1834-1838]. ... A long agitation of the small but energetic
anti-slavery party brought about this practical result in
1833. ... Granville Sharpe, Zachary Macaulay, father of the
historian and statesman, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Wilberforce,
Brougham, and many others, had for a long time been striving
hard to rouse up public opinion to the abolition of the slave
system." The bill which passed Parliament gave immediate
freedom to all children subsequently born, and to all those
who were then under six years of age; while it determined for
all other slaves a period of apprenticeship, lasting five
years in one class and seven years in another, after which
they attained absolute freedom. It appropriated £20,000,000
for the compensation of the slave-owners. "Another reform of
no small importance was accomplished when the charter of the
East India Company came to be renewed in 1833. The clause
giving them a commercial monopoly of the trade of the East was
abolished, and the trade thrown open to the merchants of the
world [see INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833]. There were other slaves in
those days as well as the negro. There were slaves at home,
slaves to all intents and purposes, who were condemned to a
servitude as rigorous as that of the negro, and who, as far as
personal treatment went, suffered more severely than negroes in
the better class plantations. We speak now of the workers in
the great mines and factories. No law up to this time
regulated with anything like reasonable stringency the hours
of labour in factories. ... A commission was appointed to
investigate the condition of those who worked in the
factories. Lord Ashley, since everywhere known as the Earl of
Shaftesbury, ... brought forward the motion which ended in the
appointment of the commission. The commission quickly brought
together an immense amount of evidence to show the terrible
effect, moral and physical, of the over-working of women and
children, and an agitation set in for the purpose of limiting
by law the duration of the hours of labour. ... The principle
of legislative interference to protect children working in
factories was established by an Act passed in 1833, limiting
the work of children to eight hours a day, and that of young
persons under eighteen to 69 hours a week [see FACTORY
LEGISLATION]. The agitation then set on foot and led by Lord
Ashley was engaged for years after in endeavouring to give
that principle a more extended application. ... Irish tithes
were one of the grievances which came under the energetic
action of this period of reform. The people of Ireland
complained with justice of having to pay tithes for the
maintenance of the church establishment in which they did not
believe, and under whose roofs they never bent in worship." In
1832, committees of both Houses of Parliament reported in
favor of the extinction of tithes; but the Government
undertook temporarily a scheme whereby it made advances to the
Irish clergy and assumed the collection of tithes among its
own functions. It only succeeded in making matters worse, and
several years passed before the adoption (in 1838) of a bill
which "converted the tithe composition into a rent charge."
J. McCarthy,
The Epoch of Reform,
chapters 7-8.
ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 17.
H. Martineau,
History of the Thirty Years' Peace,
book 4, chapters 6-9 (volumes 2-3).
{957}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1840.
Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.
The capture of Acre.
Bombardment of Alexandria.
See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845.
The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.
See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837.
Resignation of Lord Grey and the Reform Ministry.
The first Melbourne Administration.
Peel's first Ministry and Melbourne's second.
Death of William IV.
Accession of Queen Victoria.
"On May 27th, Mr. Ward, member of St. Albans, brought forward
... resolutions, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of
Ireland much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant
population; that it was the right of the State, and of
Parliament, to distribute church property, and that the
temporal possessions of the Irish church ought to be reduced.
The ministers determined to adopt a middle course and appoint
a commission of inquiry; they hoped thereby to induce Mr. Ward
to withdraw his motion, because the question was already in
government hands. While the negotiations were going on, news
was received of the resignation of four of the most
conservative members of the Cabinet, who regarded any
interference with church property with abhorrence; they were
Mr. Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond, and the
Earl of Ripon. ... Owing to the difference of opinion in the
Cabinet on the Irish coercion bill, on July 9, 1834, Earl Grey
placed his resignation as Prime Minister in the hands of the
king. On the 10th the House of Commons adjourned for four
days. On the 14th, Viscount Melbourne stated in the House of
Lords that his Majesty had honored him with his commands for
the formation of a ministry. He had undertaken the task, but
it was not yet completed. There was very little change in the
Cabinet; Lord Melbourne's place in the Home Department was
filled by Lord Duncannon; Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a
seat as First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and Lord
Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mulgrave. The
Irish Church Bill was again brought forward, and although it
passed the Commons, was defeated in the Lords, August 1st. The
king much disliked the church policy of the Whigs, and dreaded
reform. He was eager to prevent the meeting of the House, and
circumstances favored him. Before the session Lord Spencer
died, and Lord Althorpe, his son, was thus removed to the
upper House. There was no reason why this should have broken
up the ministry, but the king seized the opportunity, sent for
Lord Melbourne, asserted that the ministry depended chiefly on
the personal influence of Lord Althorpe in the Commons,
declared that, deprived of it as it now was, the government
could not go on, and dismissed his ministers, instructing
Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington. The
sensation in London was great; the dismissal of the ministry
was considered unconstitutional; the act of the king was
wholly without precedent. ... The Duke of Wellington, from
November 15th to December 9th, was the First Lord of the
Treasury, and the sole Secretary of State, having only one
colleague, Lord Lyndhurst, who held the great seal, while at
the same time he sat as Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer.
This temporary government was called a dictatorship. ... On
Sir Robert Peel's return from Italy, whence he had been
called, he waited upon the king and accepted the office of
First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
With the king's permission, he applied to Lord Stanley and Sir
James Graham, entreating them to give him the benefit of their
co-operation as colleagues in the Cabinet. They both declined.
Prevented from forming a moderate Conservative ministry, he
was reduced to fill his places with men of more pronounced
opinions, which promised ill for any advance in reform. ...
The Foreign, Home, War, and Colonial offices were filled by
Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen; Lord Lyndhurst
was Lord Chancellor; Harding, Secretary for Ireland; and Lord
Wharncliffe, Privy Seal. With this ministry Peel had to meet a
hostile House of Commons. ... The Prime Minister therefore
thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the
opportunity [in what was called 'the Tamworth manifesto'] of
declaring his policy. He declared his acceptance of the Reform
Bill as a final settlement of the question. ... The elections,
though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more
favorable to the existing government than that which had been
dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals.
... Lord John Russell, on April 7th, proposed the resolution,
'That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the
subject of the tithes in Ireland can lead to satisfactory and
final adjustment which does not embody the temporalities of
the Church in Ireland.' This was adopted by a majority of 27,
and that majority was fatal to the ministry. On the following
day the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, stated that
in consequence of the resolution in the House of Commons, the
ministry had tendered their resignation. Sir Robert made a
similar explanation in the Commons. Ten days later, Viscount
Melbourne, in moving the adjournment of the House of Lords,
stated that the king had been pleased to appoint him First
Lord of the Treasury. ... On June 9, 1837, a bulletin issued
from Windsor Castle informing a loyal and really affectionate
people that the king was ill. From the 12th they were
regularly issued until the 19th, when the malady, inflammation
of the lungs, had greatly increased. ... On Tuesday, June 20th,
the last of these official documents was issued. His Majesty
had expired that morning at 2 o'clock. William died in the
seventy-second year of his age and seventh year of his reign,
leaving no legitimate issue. He was succeeded by his niece,
Alexandrina Victoria."
A. H. McCalman,
Abridged History of England,
pages 565-570.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Taylor,
Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 2, chapters 10-12.
W. M. Torrens,
Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne,
volume 2, chapters 1-8.
J. W. Croker,
Correspondence and Diaries,
chapters 18-20 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1836-1839.
Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law Agitation.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1837.
Separation of Hanover.
See HANOVER: A. D. 1837.
{958}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.
Opening of the reign of Queen Victoria.
End of personal rule.
Beginning of purely constitutional government.
Peel and the Bedchamber Question.
"The Duke of Wellington thought the accession of a woman to
the sovereign's place would be fatal to the present hopes of
the Tories [who were then expecting a turn of events in their
favor, as against the Whig administration of Lord Melbourne].
'Peel,' he said, 'has no manners, and I have no small talk.'
He seemed to take it for granted that the new sovereign would
choose her Ministers as a school-girl chooses her companions.
He did not know, did not foresee, that with the accession of
Queen Victoria the real reign of constitutional government in
these islands was to begin. The late King had advanced
somewhat on the ways of his predecessors, but his rule was
still, to all intents and purposes, a personal rule. With the
accession of Victoria the system of personal rule came to an
end. The elections which at that time were necessary on the
coming of a new sovereign went slightly in favour of the
Tories. The Whigs had many troubles. They were not reformers
enough for the great body of their supporters. ... The
Radicals had split off from them. They could not manage
O'Connell. The Chartist fire was already burning. There was
many a serious crisis in foreign policy--in China and in
Egypt, for example. The Canadian Rebellion and the mission of
Lord Durham involved the Whigs in fresh anxieties, and laid
them open to new attacks from their enemies. On the top of all
came some disturbances, of a legislative rather than an
insurrectionary kind, in Jamaica, and the Government felt
called upon to bring in a Bill to suspend for five years the
Constitution of the island. A Liberal and reforming Ministry
bringing in a Bill to suspend a Constitution is in a highly
awkward and dangerous position. Peel saw his opportunity, and
opposed the Bill. The Government won by a majority of only 5.
Lord Melbourne accepted the situation, and resigned [May 7,
1839]. The Queen sent for the Duke of Wellington, and he, of
course, advised her to send for Peel. When Peel came, the
young Queen told him with all the frankness of a girl that she
was sorry to part with her late Ministers, and that she did
not disapprove of their conduct, but that she felt bound to
act in accordance with constitutional usages; Peel accepted
the task of forming an Administration. And then came the
famous dispute known as the 'Bedchamber Question'--the
'question de jupons.' The Queen wished to retain her
ladies-in-waiting; Peel insisted that there must be some
change. Two of these ladies were closely related to Whig
statesmen whose policy was diametrically opposed to that of
Peel on no less important a question than the Government of
Ireland. Peel insisted that he could not undertake to govern
under such conditions. The Queen, acting on the advice of her
late Ministers, would not give way. The whole dispute created
immense excitement at the time. There was a good deal of
misunderstanding on both sides. It was quietly settled, soon
after, by a compromise which the late Prince Consort
suggested, and which admitted that Peel had been in the right.
... Its importance to us now is that, as Peel would not give
way, the Whigs had to come back again, and they came back
discredited and damaged, having, as Mr. Molesworth puts it,
got back 'behind the petticoats of the ladies-in-waiting.'"
J. McCarthy,
Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 12.
ALSO IN:
W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 2, chapter 1.
H. Dunckley,
Lord Melbourne,
chapter 11.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1837.
The Victorian Age in Literature.
"It may perhaps be assumed without any undue amount of
speculative venturesomeness that the age of Queen Victoria
will stand out in history as the period of a literature as
distinct from others as the age of Elizabeth or Anne, although
not perhaps equal in greatness to the latter, and far indeed
below the former. At the opening of Queen Victoria's reign a
great race of literary men had come to a close. It is curious
to note how sharply and completely the literature of Victoria
separates itself from that of the era whose heroes were Scott,
Byron, and Wordsworth: Before Queen Victoria came to the
throne, Scott, Byron, Coleridge, and Keats were dead.
Wordsworth lived, indeed, for many years after; so did Southey
and Moore; and Savage Landor died much later still. But
Wordsworth, Southey, Moore, and Landor had completed their
literary work before Victoria came to the throne. Not one of
them added a cubit or an inch to his intellectual stature from
that time; some of them even did work which distinctly proved
that their day was done. A new and fresh breath was soon after
breathed into literature. Nothing, perhaps, is more remarkable
about the better literature of the age of Queen Victoria than
its complete severance from the leadership of that which had
gone before it, and its evidence of a fresh and genuine
inspiration. It is a somewhat curious fact, too, very
convenient for the purposes of this history, that the
literature of Queen Victoria's time thus far divides itself
clearly enough into two parts. The poets, novelists, and
historians who were making their fame with the beginning of
the reign had done all their best work and made their mark
before these later years, and were followed by a new and
different school, drawing inspiration from wholly different
sources, and challenging comparison as antagonists rather than
disciples. We speak now only of literature. In science the
most remarkable developments were reserved for the later years
of the reign."
J. McCarthy,
The Literature of the Victorian Reign
(Appletons' Journal, January, 1879, page 498).
"The age of Queen Victoria is as justly entitled to give name
to a literary epoch as any of those periods on which this
distinction has been conferred by posterity. A new tone of
thought and a new colour of style are discernible from about
the date of the Queen's accession, and, even should these
characteristics continue for generations without apparent
break, it will be remembered that the Elizabethan age did not
terminate with Elizabeth. In one important respect, however,
it differs from most of those epochs which derive their
appellation from a sovereign. The names of Augustus, Lorenzo,
Louis XIV., Anne, are associated with a literary advance, a
claim to have bequeathed models for imitation to succeeding
ages. This claim is not preferred on behalf of the age of
Victoria. It represents the fusion of two currents which had
alternately prevailed in successive periods. Delight and
Utility met, Truth and Imagination kissed each other.
Practical reform awoke the enthusiasm of genius, and genius
put poetry to new use, or made a new path for itself in prose.
The result has been much gain, some loss, and an originality
of aspect which would alone render our Queen's reign
intellectually memorable.
{959}
Looking back to the 18th century in England, we see the spirit
of utility entirely in the ascendant. Intellectual power is as
great as ever, immortal books are written as of old, but there
is a general incapacity not only for the production, but for
the comprehension of works of the imagination. Minds as robust
as Johnson's, as acute as Hume's, display neither strength nor
intelligence in their criticism of the Elizabethan writers,
and their professed regard for even the masterpieces of
antiquity is evidently in the main conventional. Conversely,
when the spell is broken and the capacity for imaginative
composition returns, the half-century immediately preceding
her Majesty's accession does not, outside the domain of the
ideal, produce a single work of the first class. Hallam, the
elder Mill, and others compose, indeed, books of great value,
but not great books. In poetry and romantic fiction, on the
other hand, the genius of that age reaches a height unattained
since Milton, and probably not destined to be rivalled for
many generations. In the age of Victoria we witness the fusion
of its predecessors."
R. Garnett,
Literature (The Reign of Queen Victoria,
edited by T. H. Ward, volume 2, pages 445-446).
"The most conspicuous of the substantial distinctions between
the literature of the present day and that of the first
quarter or third of the century may be described as consisting
in the different relative positions at the two dates of Prose
and Verse. In the Georgian era verse was in the ascendant; in
the Victorian era the supremacy has passed to prose. It is not
easy for anyone who has grown up in the latter to estimate
aright the universal excitement which used to be produced in
the former by a new poem of Scott's, or Byron's, or Moore's,
or Campbell's, or Crabbe's, or the equally fervid interest
that was taken throughout a more limited circle in one by
Wordsworth, or Southey, or Shelley. There may have been a
power in the spirit of poetry which that of prose would in
vain aspire to. Probably all the verse ages would be found to
have been of higher glow than the prose ones. The age in
question, at any rate, will hardly be denied by anyone who
remembers it to have been in these centuries, perhaps from the
mightier character of the events and circumstances in the
midst of which we were then placed, an age in which the
national heart beat more strongly than it does at present in
regard to other things as well as this. Its reception of the
great poems that succeeded one another so rapidly from the
first appearance of Scott till the death of Byron was like its
reception of the succession of great victories that, ever
thickening, and almost unbroken by a single defeat, filled up
the greater part of the ten years from Trafalgar to
Waterloo--from the last fight of Nelson to the last of
Wellington. No such huzzas, making the welkin ring with the
one voice of a whole people, and ascending alike from every
city and town and humblest village in the land, have been
heard since then. ... Of course, there was plenty of prose
also written throughout the verse era; but no book in prose
that was then produced greatly excited the public mind, or
drew any considerable amount of attention, till the Waverley
novels began to appear; and even that remarkable series of
works did not succeed in at once reducing poetry to the second
place, however chief a share it may have had in hastening that
result. Of the other prose writing that then went on what was
most effective was that of the periodical press,--of the
Edinburgh Review and Cobbett's Register, and, at a later date,
of Blackwood's Magazine and the London Magazine (the latter
with Charles Lamb and De Quincey among its
contributors),--much of it owing more or less of its power to
its vehement political partisanship. A descent from poetry to
prose is the most familiar of all phenomena in the history of
literature. Call it natural decay or degeneracy, or only a
relaxation which the spirit of a people requires after having
been for a certain time on the wing or on the stretch, it is
what a period of more than ordinary poetical productiveness
always ends in."
G. L. Craik,
Compendious History of English Literature,
volume 2, pages 553-555.
"What ... are the specific channels of Victorian utterance in
verse? To define them is difficult, because they are so subtly
varied and so inextricably interwoven. Yet I think they may be
superficially described as the idyll and the lyric. Under the
idyll I should class all narrative and descriptive poetry, of
which this age has been extraordinarily prolific; sometimes
assuming the form of minstrelsy, as in the lays of Scott;
sometimes approaching to the classic style, as in the
Hellenics of Landor; sometimes rivalling the novellette, as in
the work of Tennyson; sometimes aiming at psychological
analysis, as in the portraits drawn by Robert Browning;
sometimes confining art to bare history, as in Crabbe;
sometimes indulging flights of pure artistic fancy, as in
Keats' "Endymion" and "Lamia." Under its many metamorphoses
the narrative and descriptive poetry of our century bears the
stamp of the idyll, because it is fragmentary and because it
results in a picture. ... No literature and no age has been
more fertile of lyric poetry than English literature in the
age of Victoria. The fact is apparent. I should superfluously
burden my readers if I were to prove the point by reference to
Byron, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Rossetti,
Clough, Swinburne, Arnold, Tennyson, and I do not know how
many of less illustrious but splendid names, in detail. The
causes are not far to seek. Without a comprehensive vehicle
like the epic, which belongs to the first period of national
life, or the drama, which belongs to its secondary period, our
poets of a later day have had to sing from their inner selves,
subjectively, introspectively, obeying impulses from nature
and the world, which touched them not as they were Englishmen,
but as they were this man or that woman. ... When they sang,
they sang with their particular voice; and the lyric is the
natural channel for such song. But what a complex thing is
this Victorian lyric! It includes Wordsworth's sonnets and
Rossetti's ballads, Coleridge's' Ancient Mariner' and Keats'
odes, Clough's 'Easter day' and Tennyson's 'Maud,' Swinburne's
'Songs before Sunrise' and Browning's 'Dramatis Personæ,'
Thomson's 'City of Dreadful Night' and Mary Robinson's
'Handful of Honeysuckles,' Andrew Lang's Ballades and Sharp's
'Weird of Michael Scot,' Dobson's dealings with the eighteenth
century and Noel's 'Child's Garland,' Barnes's Dorsetshire
Poems and Buchanan's London Lyrics, the songs from Empedocles
on Etna and Ebenezer Jones's 'Pagan's Drinking Chant,'
Shelley's Ode to the West Wind and Mrs. Browning's 'Pan is
Dead,' Newman's hymns and Gosse's Chant Royal.
{960}
The kaleidoscope presented by this lyric is so inexhaustible
that any man with the fragment of a memory might pair off
scores of poems by admired authors, and yet not fall upon the
same parallels as those which I have made. The genius of our
century, debarred from epic, debarred from drama, falls back
upon idyllic and lyrical expression. In the idyll it satisfies
its objective craving after art. In the lyric it pours forth
personality. It would be wrong, however, to limit the wealth
of our poetry to these two branches. Such poems as
Wordsworth's 'Excursion,' Byron's 'Don Juan' and 'Childe
Harold,' Mrs. Browning's 'Aurora Leigh,' William Morris's
'Earthly Paradise,' Clough's 'Amours de Voyage,' are not to be
classified in either species. They are partly
autobiographical, and in part the influence of the tale makes
itself distinctly felt in them. Nor again can we omit the
translations, of which so many have been made; some of them
real masterpieces and additions to our literature."
J. A. Symonds,
A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry
(Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1889,
pages 62-64).
The difference between the drama and the novel "is one of
perspective; and it is this which in a wide sense
distinguishes the Elizabethan and the Victorian views of life,
and thence of art. ... It is ... the present aim of art to
throw on life all manner of side-lights, such as the stage can
hardly contrive, but which the novel professes to manage for
those who can read. The round unvarnished tale of the early
novelists has been dead for over a century, and in its place
we have fiction that seeks to be as complete as life itself.
... There is, then, in each of these periods an excellence and
a relative defect: in the Elizabethan, roundness and balance,
but, to us, a want of fulness; in the Victorian, amplified
knowledge, but a falling short of comprehensiveness. And
adapted to each respectively, the drama and the novel are its
most expressive literary form. The limitations and scope of
the drama are those of its time, and so of the novel. Even as
the Elizabethan lived with all his might and was not troubled
about many things, his art was intense and round, but
restricted; and as the Victorian commonly views life by the
light of a patent reading-lamp, and so, sitting apart, sees
much to perplex, the novel gives a more complex treatment of
life, with rarer success in harmony. This rareness is not,
however, due to the novel itself, but to the minds of its
makers. In possibility it is indeed the greater of the two,
being more epical; for it is as capable of grandeur, and is
ampler. This largeness in Victorian life and art argues in the
great novelists a quality of spirit which it is difficult to
name without being misunderstood, and which is peculiarly
non-Elizabethan. It argues what Burns would call a castigated
pulse, a supremacy over passion. Yet they are not Lucretian
gods, however calm their atmosphere; their minds are not built
above humanity, but, being rooted deep in it, rise high. ...
Both periods are at heart earnest, and the stamp on the great
literature of each is that of reality, heightened and made
powerful by romance. Nor is their agreement herein greatly
shaken by the novel laying considerable stress on the outside
of life, while the drama is almost heedless of it; for they
both seek to break into the kernel, their variance being
chiefly one of method, dictated by difference of knowledge,
taste, and perception."
T. D. Robb,
The Elizabethan Drama and the Victorian Novel
(Lippincott's Monthly Magazine, April, 1891,
pages 520-522).
England: A. D. 1838-1842.
The Chartist agitation.
"When the Parliament was opened by the Queen on the 5th of
February, 1839, a passage in the Royal Speech had reference to
a state of domestic affairs which presented an unhappy
contrast to the universal loyalty which marked the period of
the Coronation. Her Majesty said: 'I have observed with pain
the persevering efforts which have been made in some parts of
the country to excite my subjects to disobedience and
resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and illegal
practices.' Chartism, which for ten subsequent years
occasionally agitated the country, had then begun to take
root. On the previous 12th of December a proclamation had been
issued against illegal Chartist assemblies, several of which
had been held, says the proclamation, 'after sunset by
torchlight.' The persons attending these meetings were armed
with guns and pikes; and demagogues, such as Feargus O'Connor
and the Rev. Mr. Stephens at Bury, addressed the people in the
most inflammatory language. ... The document called 'The People's
Charter,' which was embodied in the form of a bill in 1838,
comprised six points:--universal suffrage, excluding,
however, women; division of the United Kingdom into equal
electoral districts; vote by ballot; annual parliaments; no
property qualification for members; and a payment to every
member for his legislative services. These principles so
quickly recommended themselves to the working-classes that in
the session of 1839 the number of signatures to a petition
presented to Parliament was upwards of a million and a
quarter. The middle classes almost universally looked with
extreme jealousy and apprehension upon any attempt for an
extension of the franchise. The upper classes for the most
part regarded the proceedings of the Chartists with a contempt
which scarcely concealed their fears. This large section of the
working population very soon became divided into what were
called physical-force Chartists and moral-force Chartists. As
a natural consequence, the principles and acts of the
physical-force Chartists disgusted every supporter of order
and of the rights of property."
C. Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 8, chapter 23.
"Nothing can be more unjust than to represent the leaders and
promoters of the movement as mere factious and self-seeking
demagogues. Some of them were men of great ability and
eloquence; some were impassioned young poets, drawn from the
class whom Kingsley has described in his 'Alton Locke'; some
were men of education; many were earnest and devoted fanatics;
and, so far as we can judge, all, or nearly all, were sincere.
Even the man who did the movement most harm, and who made
himself most odious to all reasonable outsiders, the once
famous, now forgotten, Feargus O'Connor, appears to have been
sincere, and to have personally lost more than he gained by
his Chartism. ... He was of commanding presence, great
stature, and almost gigantic strength. He had education; he
had mixed in good society; he belonged to an old family. ...
There were many men in the movement of a nobler moral nature
than poor, huge, wild Feargus O'Connor. There were men like
Thomas Cooper, ... devoted, impassioned, full of poetic
aspiration, and no scant measure of poetic inspiration as
well. Henry Vincent was a man of unimpeachable character. ...
{961}

Ernest Jones was as sincere and self-sacrificing a man as ever
joined a sinking cause. ... It is necessary to read such a
book as Thomas Cooper's Autobiography to understand how
genuine was the poetic and political enthusiasm which was at
the heart of the Chartist movement, and how bitter was the
suffering which drove into its ranks so many thousands of
stout working men who, in a country like England, might well
have expected to be able to live by the hard work they were
only too willing to do. One must read the Anti-Corn-Law Rhymes
of Ebenezer Elliott to understand how the 'bread tax' became
identified in the minds of the very best of the working class,
and identified justly, with the system of political and
economical legislation which was undoubtedly kept up, although
not of conscious purpose, for the benefit of a class. ... A
whole literature of Chartist newspapers sprang up to advocate
the cause. The 'Northern Star,' owned and conducted by Feargus
O'Connor, was the most popular and influential of them; but
every great town had its Chartist press. Meetings were held at
which sometimes very violent language was employed. ... A
formidable riot took place in Birmingham, where the
authorities endeavoured to put down a Chartist meeting. ...
Efforts were made at times to bring about a compromise with
the middle-class Liberals and the Anti-Corn-Law leaders; but
all such attempts proved failures. The Chartists would not
give up their Charter; many of them would not renounce the
hope of seeing it carried by force. The Government began to
prosecute some of the orators and leaders of the Charter
movement; and some of these were convicted, imprisoned and
treated with great severity. Henry Vincent's imprisonment at
Newport, in Wales, was the occasion of an attempt at rescue
[November 4, 1839] which bore a very close resemblance indeed
to a scheme of organised and armed rebellion." A conflict
occurred in which ten of the Chartists were killed, and some
50 were wounded. Three of the leaders, named Frost, Williams,
and Jones, were tried and convicted on the charge of high
treason, and were sentenced to death; but the sentence was
commuted to one of transportation. "The trial and conviction
of Frost, Williams, and Jones, did not put a stop to the
Chartist agitation. On the contrary, that agitation seemed
rather to wax and strengthen and grow broader because of the
attempt at Newport and its consequences. ... There was no lack
of what were called energetic measures on the part of the
Government. The leading Chartists all over the country were
prosecuted and tried, literally by hundreds. In most cases
they were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
... The working classes grew more and more bitter against the
Whigs, who they said had professed Liberalism only to gain
their own ends. ... There was a profound distrust of the
middle class and their leaders," and it was for that reason
that the Chartists would not join hands with the Anti-Corn-Law
movement, then in full progress. "It is clear that at that
time the Chartists, who represented the bulk of the artisan
class in most of the large towns, did in their very hearts
believe that England was ruled for the benefit of aristocrats
and millionaires who were absolutely indifferent to the
sufferings of the poor. It is equally clear that most of what
are called the ruling class did really believe the English
working men who joined the Chartist movement to be a race of
fierce, unmanageable, and selfish communists, who, if they
were allowed their own way for a moment, would prove
themselves determined to overthrow throne, altar, and all
established securities of society."
J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 5 (volume 1).
Among the measures of coercion advocated in the councils of
the Chartists was that of appointing and observing what was to
be called a "'sacred month,' during which the working classes
throughout the whole kingdom were to abstain from every kind
of labour, in the hope of compelling the governing classes to
concede the charter."
W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 2, chapter 5.
ALSO IN:
T. Cooper,
Life, by himself,
chapter 14-23.
W. Lovett,
Life and Struggles,
chapters 8-15.
T. Frost,
Forty Years' Recollections,
chapters 3-11.
H. Jephson,
The Platform,
part 4, chapters 17 and 19 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1839-1842.
The Opium War with China.
See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.
Adoption of Penny-Postage.
"In 1837 Mr. Rowland Hill had published his plan of a cheap
and uniform postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was
appointed in 1837, which continued its inquiries throughout
the session of 1838, and arrived at the conviction that the
plan was feasible, and deserving of a trial under legislative
sanction. After much discussion, and the experiment of a
varying charge, the uniform rate for a letter not weighing
more than half an ounce became, by order of the Treasury, one
penny. This great reform came into operation on the 10th of
January, 1840. Its final accomplishment is mainly due to the
sagacity and perseverance of the man who first conceived the
scheme."
C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
page 883.
"Up to this time the rates of postage on letters were very
heavy, and varied according to the distance. For instance, a
single letter conveyed from one part of a town to another cost
2d.; a letter from Reading, to London 7d.; from Brighton, 8d.;
from Aberdeen, 1s. 3½d.; from Belfast, 1s. 4d. If the letter
was written on more than a single sheet, the rate of postage
was much higher."
W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 2, chapter 1.
ALSO IN:
G. B. Hill,
Life of Sir Rowland Hill.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1840.
The Queen's marriage.
"On January 16,1840, the Queen, opening Parliament in person,
announced her intention to marry her cousin, Prince Albert of
Saxe Coburg-Gotha--a step which she trusted would be
'conducive to the interests of my people as well as to my own
domestic happiness.' ... It was indeed a marriage founded on
affection. ... The Queen had for a long time loved her cousin.
He was nearly her own age, the Queen being the elder by three
months and two or three days. Francis Charles Augustus Albert
Emmanuel was the full name of the young Prince. He was the
second son of Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and of his
wife Louisa, daughter of Augustus, Duke of
Saxe-Gotha-Altenberg. Prince Albert was born at the Rosenau,
one of his father's residences, near Coburg, on August 26,
1819. ... A marriage between the Princess Victoria and Prince
Albert had been thought of as desirable among the families on
both sides, but it was always wisely resolved that nothing
should be said to the young Princess on the subject unless she
herself showed a distinct liking for her cousin.
{962}
In 1836, Prince Albert was brought by his father to England,
and made the personal acquaintance of the Princess, and she
seems at once to have been drawn toward him in the manner
which her family and friends would most have desired. ... The
marriage of the Queen and the Prince took place on February
10, 1840."
J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 7 (volume 1).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842.
Interference in Afghanistan.
The first Afghan War.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838; 1838-1842; 1842-1869.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842.
Fall of the Melbourne Ministry.
Opening of the second administration of Sir Robert Peel.
In 1841, the Whig Ministry (Melbourne's) determined "to do
something for freedom of trade. ... Colonial timber and sugar
were charged with a duty lighter than was imposed on foreign
timber and sugar; and foreign sugar paid a lighter or a
heavier duty according as it was imported from countries of
slave labour or countries of free labour. It was resolved to
raise the duty on colonial timber, but to lower the duty on
foreign timber and foreign sugar, and at the same time to
replace the sliding scale of the Corn Laws then in force [see
TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828] with a fixed
duty of 8s. per quarter. ... The concessions offered by the
Ministry, too small to excite the enthusiasm of the free
traders, were enough to rally all the threatened interests
around Peel. Baring's revision of the sugar duties was
rejected by a majority of 36. Everybody expected the Ministers
to resign upon this defeat; but they merely announced the
continuance of the former duties. Then Peel gave notice of a
vote of want of confidence, and carried it on the 4th of June
by a single vote in a House of 623 members. Instead of
resigning, the Ministers appealed to the country. The
elections went on through the last days of June and the whole
of July. When the new Parliament was complete, it appeared
that the Conservatives could count upon 367 votes in the House
of Commons. The Ministry met Parliament on the 24th of August.
Peel in the House of Commons and Ripon in the House of Lords
moved amendments to the Address, which were carried by
majorities of 91 and 72 respectively." The Ministry resigned
and a Conservative Government was formed, with Peel at its
head, as First Lord of the Treasury. "Wellington entered the
Cabinet without office, and Lyndhurst assumed for the third
time the honours of Lord Chancellor." Among the lesser members
of the Administration--not in the Cabinet--was Mr. Gladstone,
who became Vice-President of the Board of Trade. "This time
Peel experienced no difficulty with regard to the Queen's
Household. It had been previously arranged that in the case of
Lord Melbourne's resignation three Whig Ladies, the Duchess of
Bedford, the Duchess of Sutherland, and Lady Normanby, should
resign of their own accord. One or two other changes in the
Household contented Peel, and these the Queen accorded with a
frankness which placed him entirely at his ease. ... During
the recess Peel took a wide survey of the ills affecting the
commonwealth, and of the possible remedies. To supply the
deficiency in the revenue without laying new burthens upon the
humbler class; to revive our fainting manufactures by
encouraging the importation of raw material; to assuage
distress by making the price of provisions lower and more
regular, without taking away that protection which he still
believed essential to British agriculture: these were the
tasks which Peel now bent his mind to compass. ... Having
solved [the problems] to his own satisfaction, he had to
persuade his colleagues that they were right. Only one proved
obstinate. The Duke of Buckingham would hear of no change in
the degree of protection afforded to agriculture. He
surrendered the Privy Seal, which was given to the Duke of
Buccleugh. ... The Queen's Speech recommended Parliament to
consider the state of the laws affecting the importation of
corn and other commodities. It announced the beginning of a
revolution which few persons in England thought possible,
although it was to be completed in little more than ten
years."
F. C. Montague,
Life of Sir Robert Peel,
chapter 7-8.
ALSO IN:
J. R. Thursfield,
Peel,
chapter 7-8.
W. C. Taylor,
Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 3, chapters 3-5.
J. W. Croker,
Correspondence and Diaries,
chapter 22 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1842.
The Ashburton Treaty with the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846.
Repeal of the Corn Laws and dissolution of the League.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1845-1846.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846.
First war with the Sikhs.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
Settlement of the Oregon Boundary Question with the United
States.
See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
The vengeance of the Tory-Protectionists.
Overthrow of Peel.
Advent of Disraeli.
Ministry of Lord John Russell.
"Strange to say, the day when the Bill [extinguishing the
duties on corn] was read in the House of Lords for the third
time [June 25] saw the fall of Peel's Ministry. The fall was
due to the state of Ireland. The Government had been bringing
in a Coercion Bill for Ireland. It was introduced while the
Corn Bill was yet passing through the House of Commons. The
situation was critical. All the Irish followers of Mr.
O'Connell would be sure to oppose the Coercion Bill. The
Liberal party, at least when out of office, had usually made
it their principle to oppose Coercion Bills, if they were not
attended with some promises of legislative reform. The English
Radical members, led by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, were
certain to oppose coercion. If the protectionists should join
with these other opponents of the Coercion Bill, the fate of
the measure was assured, and with it the fate of the
Government. This was exactly what happened. Eighty
Protectionists followed Lord George Bentinck into the lobby
against the Bill, in combination with the Free Traders, the
Whigs, and the Irish Catholic and national members. The
division took place on the second reading of the Bill on
Thursday, June 25, and there was a majority of 73 against the
Ministry."
J. McCarthy,
The Epoch of Reform,
page 183.
{963}
The revengeful Tory-Protectionist attack on Peel was led by
Sir George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli, then just making
himself felt in the House of Commons. It was distinctly
grounded upon no objection in principle to the Irish Coercion
Bill, but on the declaration that they could "no longer trust
Peel, and, must therefore refuse to give him unconstitutional
powers.' ... He had twice betrayed the party who had trusted
his promises. ... 'The gentlemen of England,' of whom it had
once been Sir Robert's proudest boast to be the leader,
declared against him. He was beaten by an overpowering
majority, and his career as an English Minister was closed.
Disraeli's had been the hand which dethroned him, and to
Disraeli himself, after three years of anarchy and
uncertainty, descended the task of again building together the
shattered ruins of the Conservative party. Very unwillingly
they submitted to the unwelcome necessity. Canning and the
elder Pitt had both been called adventurers, but they had
birth and connection, and they were at least Englishmen.
Disraeli had risen out of a despised race; he had never sued
for their favours; he had voted and spoken as he pleased,
whether they liked it or not. ... He was without Court favour,
and had hardly a powerful friend except Lord Lyndhurst. He had
never been tried on the lower steps of the official ladder. He
was young, too--only 42--after all the stir that he had made.
There was no example of a rise so sudden under such
conditions. But the Tory party had accepted and cheered his
services, and he stood out alone among them as a debater of
superior power. Their own trained men had all deserted them.
Lord George remained for a year or two as nominal chief: but
Lord George died; the conservatives could only consolidate
themselves under a real leader, and Disraeli was the single
person that they had who was equal to the situation. ... He
had overthrown Peel and succeeded to Peel's honours."
J. A. Froude,
Lord Beaconsfield,
chapter 9.
Although the Tory-Protectionists had accomplished the
overthrow of Peel, they were not prepared to take the
Government into their own hands. The new Ministry was formed
under Lord John Russell, as First Lord of the Treasury, with
Lord Palmerston in the Foreign Office, Sir George Grey in the
Home Department, Earl Grey Colonial Secretary, Sir C. Wood
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Macaulay
Paymaster-General.
W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel,
volume 3, chapter 11.
The most important enactment of the Coercion Bill "(which
subsequently gave it the name of the Curfew Act) was that
which conferred on the executive Government the power in
proclaimed districts of forbidding persons to be out of their
dwellings between sunset and sunrise. The right of proclaiming
a district as a disturbed district was placed in the hands of
the Lord-Lieutenant, who might station additional constabulary
there, the whole expense of which was to be borne by the
district."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, page 137.
ALSO IN:
S. Walpole,
Life of Lord John Russell,
chapter 16 (volume 1).
B. Disraeli,
Lord George Bentinck,
chapter 14-16.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1846.
Difference with France on the Spanish marriages.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1848.
The last Chartist demonstration.
"The more violent Chartists had broken from the Radical
reformers, and had themselves divided into two sections; for
their nominal leader, Feargus O'Connor, was at bitter enmity
with more thoroughgoing and earnest leaders such as O'Brien
and Cooper. O'Connor had not proved a very efficient guide. He
had entered into a land scheme of a somewhat doubtful
character. ... He had also injudiciously taken up a position
of active hostility to the free-traders, and while thus
appearing as the champion of a falling cause had alienated
many of his supporters. Yet the Parliament elected in 1846
contained several representatives of the Chartist principles,
and O'Connor himself had been returned for Nottingham by a
large majority over Hobhouse, a member of the new Ministry.
The revolution in France gave a sudden and enormous impulse to
the agitation. The country was filled with meetings at which
violent speeches were uttered and hints, not obscure, dropped
of the forcible establishment of a republic in England. A new
Convention was summoned for the 6th of April, a vast petition
was prepared, and a meeting, at which it was believed that
half a million of people would have been present, was summoned
to meet on Kennington Common on the 10th of April for the
purpose of carrying the petition to the House in procession.
The alarm felt in London was very great. It was thought
necessary to swear in special constables, and the wealthier
classes came forward in vast numbers to be enrolled. There are
said to have been no less than 170,000 special constables. The
military arrangements were entrusted to the Duke of
Wellington; the public offices were guarded and fortified;
public vehicles were forbidden to pass the streets lest they
should be employed for barricades; and measures were taken to
prevent the procession from crossing the bridges. ... Such a
display of determination seemed almost ridiculous when
compared with what actually occurred. But it was in fact the
cause of the harmless nature of the meeting. Instead of half a
million, about 30,000 men assembled on Kennington Common.
Feargus O'Connor was there; Mr. Maine, the Commissioner of
Police, called him aside, told him he might hold his meeting,
but that the procession would be stopped, and that he would be
held personally responsible for any disorder that might occur.
His heart had already begun to fail him, and he ... used all
his influence to put an end to the procession. His prudent
advice was followed, and no disturbance of any importance took
place. ... The air of ridicule thrown over the Chartist movement
by the abortive close of a demonstration which had been
heralded with so much violent talk was increased by the
disclosures attending the presentation of the petition." There
were found to be only 2,000,000 names appended to the
document, instead of 5,000,000 as claimed, and great numbers
of them were manifestly spurious. "This failure proved a
deathblow to Chartism."
J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 4, pages 176-178.
ALSO IN:
S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 20 (volume 4).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1848-1849.
Second war with the Sikhs.
Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.
See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1849.
Repeal of the Navigation Laws.
See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850.
The Don Pacifico Affair.
Lord Palmerston's speech.
The little difficulty with Greece which came to a crisis in
the last weeks of 1849 and the first, of 1850 (see GREECE: A.
D. 1846-1850), and which was commonly called the Don Pacifico
Affair, gave occasion for a memorable speech in Parliament by
Lord Palmerston, defending his foreign policy against attacks.
{964}
The speech (June 24, 1850), which occupied five hours, "from
the dusk of one day till the dawn of another," was greatly
admired, and proved immensely effective in raising the
speaker's reputation. "The Don Pacifico debate was
unquestionably an important landmark in the life of Lord
Palmerston. Hitherto his merits had been known only to a
select few; for the British public does not read Blue Books,
and as a rule troubles itself very little about foreign
politics at all. ... But the Pacifico speech caught the ear of
the nation, and was received with a universal verdict of
approval. From that hour Lord Palmerston became the man of the
people, and his rise to the premiership only a question of
time."
L. C. Sanders,
Life of Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 8.
ALSO IN:
Marquis of Lorne,
Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 7.
J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 19 (volume 2).
J. Morley,
Life of Cobden,
volume 2, chapter 3.
T. Martin,
Life of the Prince Consort,
chapter 38 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
The so-called Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with the United States,
establishing a joint protectorate over the projected Nicaragua
Canal.
See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1850.
Restoration of the Roman Episcopate.
The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1850-1852.
The London protocol and treaty on the Schleswig-Holstein
Question.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1851.
The Great Exhibition.
"The first of May, 1851, will always be memorable as the day
on which the Great Exhibition was opened in Hyde Park. ...
Many exhibitions of a similar kind have taken place since.
Some of these far surpassed that of Hyde Park in the splendour
and variety of the collections brought together. Two of them
at least--those of Paris in 1867 and 1878--were infinitely
superior in the array and display of the products, the
dresses, the inhabitants of far-divided countries. But the
impression which the Hyde Park Exhibition made upon the
ordinary mind was like that of the boy's first visit to the
play--an impression never to be equalled. ... It was the first
organised to gather all the representatives of the world's
industry into one great fair. ... The Hyde Park Exhibition was
often described as the festival to open the long reign of
Peace. It might, as a mere matter of chronology, be called
without any impropriety the festival to celebrate the close of
the short reign of Peace. From that year, 1851, it may be said
fairly enough that the world has hardly known a week of peace.
... The first idea of the Exhibition was conceived by Prince
Albert; and it was his energy and influence which succeeded in
carrying the idea into practical execution. ... Many persons
were disposed to sneer at it; many were sceptical about its
doing any good; not a few still regarded Prince Albert as a
foreigner and a pedant, and were slow to believe that anything
really practical was likely to be developed under his impulse
and protection. ... There was a great deal of difficulty in
selecting a plan for the building. ... Happily, a sudden
inspiration struck Mr. (afterward Sir Joseph) Paxton, who was
then in charge of the Duke of Devonshire's superb grounds at
Chatsworth. Why not try glass and iron? he asked himself. ...
Mr. Paxton sketched out his plan hastily, and the idea was
eagerly accepted by the Royal Commissioners. He made many
improvements afterwards in his design; but the palace of glass
and iron arose within the specified time on the green turf of
Hyde Park."
J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 21 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
T. Martin,
Life of the Prince Consort,
chapters 33-36, 39, 42-43 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852.
The Coup d'Etat in France and Lord Palmerston's dismissal from
the Cabinet.
Defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell.
The first Derby
Disraeli Ministry and the Aberdeen coalition Ministry.
The "coup d'etat" of December 2nd, 1851, by which Louis
Napoleon made himself master of France (see FRANCE: A. D.
1851) brought about the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the
British Ministry, followed quickly by the overthrow of the
Ministry which expelled him. "Lord Palmerston not only
expressed privately to Count Walewski [the French ambassador]
his approval of the 'coup d'etat,' but on the 16th of December
wrote a despatch to Lord Normanby, our representative in
Paris, expressing in strong terms his satisfaction at the
success of the French President's arbitrary action. This
despatch was not submitted either to the Prime Minister or to
the Queen, and of course the offence was of too serious a
character to be passed over. A great deal of correspondence
ensued, and as Palmerston's explanations were not deemed
satisfactory, and he had clearly broken the undertaking he
gave some time previously, he was dismissed from office. ...
There were some who thought him irretrievably crushed from
this time forward; but a very short time only elapsed before
he retrieved his fortunes and was as powerful as ever. In
February 1852 Lord John Russell brought in a Militia Bill
which was intended to develop a local militia for the defence
of the country. Lord Palmerston strongly disapproved of the
scope of the measure, and in committee moved an amendment to
omit the word 'local,' so as to constitute a regular militia,
which should be legally transportable all over the kingdom,
and thus be always ready for any emergency. The Government
were defeated by eleven votes, and as the Administration had
been very weak for some time, Lord John resigned. Lord Derby
formed a Ministry, and invited the cooperation of Palmerston,
but the offer was declined, as the two statesmen differed on
the question of imposing a duty on the importation of corn,
and other matters.'
G. B. Smith,
The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
pages 264-265.
"The new Ministry [in which Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of
the Exchequer] took their seats on the 27th of February, but
it was understood that a dissolution of Parliament would take
place in the summer, by which the fate of the new Government
would be decided, and that in the meantime the Opposition
should hold its hand. The raw troops [of the Tory Party in the
House of Commons], notwithstanding their inexperience,
acquitted themselves with credit, and some good Bills were
passed, the Militia Bill among the number, while a
considerable addition to the strength of the Navy was effected
by the Duke of Northumberland. No doubt, when the general
election began, the party had raised itself considerably in
public estimation. But for one consideration the country would
probably have been quite willing to entrust its destinies to
their hands.
{965}
But that one consideration was all important. ... The
Government was obliged to go to the country, to some extent,
on Protectionist principles. It was known that a Derbyite
majority meant a moderate import duty; and the consequence was
that Lord Derby just lost the battle, though by a very narrow
majority. When Parliament met in November, Lord Derby and Mr.
Disraeli had a very difficult game to play. ... Negotiations
were again opened with Palmerston and the Peelites, and on
this occasion Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert were willing to
join if Lord Palmerston might lead in the House of Commons.
But the Queen put her veto on this arrangement, which
accordingly fell to the ground; and Lord Derby had to meet the
Opposition attack without any reinforcements. ... On the 16th
of December, ... being defeated on the Budget by a majority of
19, Lord Derby at once resigned."
T. E. Kebbel,
Life of the Earl of Derby,
chapter 6.
"The new Government [which succeeded that of Derby] was a
coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with Sir William Molesworth
thrown in to represent the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen became
Prime Minister, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The other Peelites in the Cabinet were the Duke of Newcastle,
Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert."
G. W. E. Russell,
The Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone,
chapter 5.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1852.
Second Burmese War.
Annexation of Pegu.
See INDIA: A. D. 1852.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1852-1853.
Abandonment of Protection by the Conservatives.
Further progress in Free Trade.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1846-1879.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1855.
Civil-Service Reform.
See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1856.
The Crimean War.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
Popular discontent with the management of the war.
Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry.
Palmerston's first premiership.
A brightening of prospects.
"Our army system entirely broke down [in the Crimea], and Lord
Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle were made the scapegoats of
the popular indignation. ... But England was not only
suffering from unpreparedness and want of administrative power
in the War department; there were dissensions in the Cabinet.
... Lord John Russell gave so much trouble, that Lord
Aberdeen, after one of the numerous quarrels and
reconciliations which occurred at this juncture, wrote to the
Queen that nothing but a sense of public duty and the
necessity for avoiding the scandal of a rupture kept him at
his post. ... At a little later stage ... the difficulties
were renewed. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his motion for the
appointment of a select committee to inquire into the
condition of the army before Sebastopol, and Lord John
definitively resigned. The Ministry remained in office to
await the fate of Mr. Roebuck's motion, which was carried
against them by the very large majority of 157. Lord Aberdeen
now placed the resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the
Queen [January 31, 1855]. ... Thus fell the Coalition Cabinet
of Lord Aberdeen. In talent and parliamentary influence it was
apparently one of the strongest Governments ever seen, but it
suffered from a fatal want of cohesion."
G. B. Smith,
Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
pages 227-230.
"Lord Palmerston had passed his 70th year when the Premiership
came to him for the first time. On the fall of the Coalition
Government the Queen sent for Lord Derby, and upon his failure
for Lord John Russell. Palmerston was willing at the express
request of her Majesty to serve once more under his old chief,
but Clarendon and many of the Whigs not unnaturally positively
refused to do so. Palmerston finally undertook and
successfully achieved the task of forming a Government out of
the somewhat heterogeneous elements at his command. Lord
Clarendon continued at the Foreign Office, and Gladstone was
still Chancellor of the Exchequer. The War Department was
reorganised, the office of Secretary at War disappearing, and
being finally merged in that of Secretary of State for War.
Although Palmerston objected to Roebuck's Committee, he was
practically compelled to accept it, and this led to the
resignation of Gladstone, Graham and Herbert; their places
being taken by Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir Charles Wood, and Lord
John Russell."
Marquis of Lorne,
Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 10.
"It was a dark hour in the history of the nation when Lord
Palmerston essayed the task which had been abandoned by the
tried wisdom of Derby, Lansdowne, and John Russell. Far away
in the Crimea the war was dragging on without much hope of a
creditable solution, though the winter of discontent and
mismanagement was happily over. The existence of the European
concert was merely nominal. The Allies had discovered, many
months previously, that, though Austria was staunch, Prussia
was a faithless friend. ... Between the belligerent powers the
cloud of suspicion and distrust grew thicker; for
Abd-el-Medjid was known to be freely squandering his war loans
on seraglios and palaces while Kars was starving; and though
there was no reason for distrusting the present good faith of
the Emperor of the French, his policy was straight-forward
only as long as he kept himself free from the influence of the
gang of stock-jobbers and adventurers who composed his Ministry.
Nor was the horizon much brighter on the side of England. A
series of weak cabinets, and the absence of questions of
organic reform, had completely relaxed the bonds of Party. If
there was no regular Opposition, still less was there a
regular majority. ... And the hand that was to restore order
out of chaos was not so steady as of yore. ... Lord Palmerston
was not himself during the first weeks of his leadership. But
the prospect speedily brightened. Though Palmerston was
considerably over seventy, he still retained a wonderful
vigour of constitution. He was soon restored to health, and
was always to be found at his post. ... His generalship
secured ample majorities for the Government in every division
during the session. Of the energy which Lord Palmerston
inspired into the operations against Sebastopol, there can
hardly be two opinions."
L. C. Sanders,
Life of Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 10.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
Mr. Gladstone's Commission to the Ionian Islands.
See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1856-1860.
War with China.
French alliance in the war.
Capture of Canton.
Entrance into Pekin.
Destruction of the Summer Palace.
See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.
{966}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1857-1858.
The Sepoy Mutiny in India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1858.
Assumption of the government of India by the Crown.
End of the rule of the East India Co.
See INDIA: A. D. 1858.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.
The Conspiracy Bill.
Fall of Palmerston's government.
Second Ministry of Derby and Disraeli.
Lord Palmerston again Premier.
"On January 14, 1858, an attempt was made to assassinate
Napoleon III. by a gang of desperadoes, headed by Orsini,
whose head-quarters had previously been in London. Not without
some reason it was felt in France that such men ought not to
be able to find shelter in this country, and the French
Minister was ordered to make representations to that effect.
Lord Palmerston, always anxious to cultivate the good feeling
of the French nation, desired to pass a measure which should
give to the British Government the power to banish from
England any foreigner conspiring in Britain against the life
of a foreign sovereign. ... An unfortunate outburst of
vituperation against England in the French press, and the
repetition of such language by officers of the French army who
were received by the Emperor when they waited on him as a
deputation, aroused very angry English feeling. Lord
Palmerston had already introduced the Bill he desired to pass,
and it had been read the first time by a majority of 200. But the
foolish action of the French papers changed entirely the
current of popular opinion. Lord Derby saw his advantage. An
amendment to the second reading, which was practically a vote
of censure, was carried against Lord Palmerston, and to his
own surprise no less than to that of the country, he was
obliged to resign. Lord Derby succeeded to Palmerston's vacant
office. ... Lord Derby's second Ministry was wrecked upon the
fatal rock of Reform early in 1859, and at once appealed to
the country. ... The election of 1859 failed to give the
Conservatives a majority, and soon after the opening of the
session they were defeated upon a vote of want of confidence
moved by Lord Hartington. Earl Granville was commissioned by
the Queen to form a Ministry, because her Majesty felt that
'to make so marked a distinction as is implied in the choice
of one or other as Prime Minister of two statesmen so full of
years and honour as Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell
would be a very invidious and unwelcome task.' Each of these
veterans was willing to serve under the other, but neither
would follow the lead of a third. And so Granville failed, and
to Palmerston was entrusted the task. He succeeded in forming
what was considered the strongest Ministry of modern times, so
far as the individual ability of its members was concerned.
Russell went to the Foreign Office and Gladstone to the
Exchequer."
Marquis of Lorne,
Viscount Palmerston,
chapters 10-11.
ALSO IN:
T. Martin,
Life of the Prince Consort,
chapters 82-84, 91-92,
and 94 (volume 4).
T. E. Kebbel,
Life of the Earl of Derby,
chapter 7.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1860.
The Cobden-Chevalier commercial treaty with France.
See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (May).
The Queen's Proclamation of Neutrality with reference
to the American Civil War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (October).
The allied intervention in Mexico.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (November).
The Trent Affair.
Seizure of Mason and Slidell.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
The Cotton Famine.
"Upon a population, containing half a million of cotton
operatives, in a career of rapid prosperity, the profits of
1860 reaching in some instances from 30 to 40 per cent upon
the capital engaged; and with wages also at the highest point
which they had ever touched, came the news of the American
war, with the probable stoppage of 85 per cent of the raw
material of their manufacture. A few wise heads hung
despondently down, or shook with fear for the fate of 'the
freest nation under heaven,' but the great mass of traders
refused to credit a report which neither suited their opinions
nor their interests. ... There was a four months' supply held
on this side the water at Christmas (1860), and there had been
three months' imports at the usual rate since that time, and
there would be the usual twelve months' supply from other
sources; and by the time this was consumed, and the five
months' stock of goods held by merchants sold, all would be
right again. That this was the current opinion was proved by
the most delicate of all barometers, the scale of prices; for
during the greater part of the year 1861 the market was dull,
and prices scarcely moved upwards. But towards the end of the
year the aspect of affairs began to change. ... The Federals
had declared a blockade of the Southern ports, and, although
as yet it was pretty much a 'paper blockade,' yet the newly
established Confederate government was doing its best to
render it effective. They believed that cotton was king in
England, and that the old country could not do without it, and
would be forced, in order to secure its release, to side with
those who kept it prisoner. Mills began to run short time or
to close in the month of October, but no noise was made about
it; and the only evidence of anything unusual was at the
boards of guardians, where the applications had reached the
mid-winter height three months earlier than usual. The
poor-law guardians in the various unions were aware that the
increase was not of the usual character--it was too early for
out-door labourers to present themselves; still the difference
was not of serious amount, being only about 3,000 in the whole
twenty-eight unions. In November, 7,000 more presented
themselves, and in December the increase was again 7,000; so
that the recipients of relief were at this time 12,000 (or
about 25 per cent) more than in the January previous. And now
serious thoughts began to agitate many minds; cotton was very
largely held by speculators for a rise, the arrivals were
meagre in quantity, and the rates of insurance began to show
that, notwithstanding the large profits on imports, the
blockade was no longer on paper alone. January, 1862, added
16,000 more to the recipients of relief, who were now 70 per
cent above the usual number for the same period of the year.
But from the facts as afterwards revealed, the statistics of
boards of guardians were evidently no real measure of the
distress prevailing. ... The month of February usually lessens
the dependents on the poor-rates, for out-door labour begins
again as soon as the signs of spring appear; but in 1862 it
added nearly 9,000 to the already large number of extra cases,
the recipients being now 105 per cent above the average for the
same period of the year.
{967}
But this average gives no idea of the pressure in particular
localities. ... The cotton operatives were now, if left to
themselves, like a ship's crew upon short provisions, and
those very unequally distributed, and without chart or
compass, and no prospect of getting to land. In Ashton there
were 3,197; in Stockport, 8,588; and in Preston, 9,488 persons
absolutely foodless; and who nevertheless declined to go to
the guardians. To have forced the high-minded heads of these
families to hang about the work-house lobbies in company with
the idle, the improvident, the dirty, the diseased, and the
vicious, would have been to break their heaving hearts, and to
hurl them headlong into despair. Happily there is spirit
enough in this country to appreciate nobility, even when
dressed in fustian, and pride and sympathy enough to spare
even the poorest from unnecessary humiliation; and
organisations spring up for any important work so soon as the
necessity of the case becomes urgent in any locality.
Committees arose almost simultaneously in Ashton, Stockport,
and Preston; and in April, Blackburn followed in the train,
and the guardians and the relief committees of these several
places divided an extra 6,000 dependents between them. The
month of May, which usually reduces pauperism to almost its
lowest ebb, added 6,000 more to the recipients from the
guardians, and 5,000 to the dependents on the relief
committees, which were now six in number, Oldham and Prestwich
(a part of Manchester) being added to the list. ... The month
of June sent 6,000 more applicants to sue for bread to the
boards of guardians, and 5,000 additional to the six relief
committees; and these six committees had now as many
dependents as the whole of the boards of guardians in the
twenty-eight unions supported in ordinary years. ... In the
month of July, when all unemployed operatives would ordinarily
be lending a hand in the hay harvest, and picking up the means
of living whilst improving in health and enjoying the glories
of a summer in the country, the distress increased like a
flood, 13,000 additional applicants being forced to appeal for
poor-law relief; whilst 11,000 others were adopted by the
seven relief committees. ... In August the flood had become a
deluge, at which the stoutest heart might stand appalled. The
increased recipients of poor-law relief were in a single
month, 33,000, being nearly as many as the total number
chargeable in the same month of the previous year, whilst a
further addition of more than 34,000 became chargeable to the
relief committees. ... Most of the cotton on hand at this
period was of Indian growth, and needed alterations of
machinery to make it workable at all, and in good times an
employer might as well shut up his mill as try to get it spun
or manufactured. But oh! how glad would the tens of thousands
of unwilling idlers have been now, to have had a chance even
of working at Surats, although they knew that it required much
harder work for one-third less than normal wages. ... Another
month is past, and October has added to the number under the
guardians no less than 55,000, and to the charge of the relief
committees 39,000 more. ... And now dread winter approaches,
and the authorities have to deal not only with hundreds of
thousands who are compulsorily idle, and consequently
foodless, but who are wholly unprepared for the inclemencies
of the season; who have no means of procuring needful
clothing, nor even of making a show of cheerfulness upon the
hearth by means of the fire, which is almost as useful as
food. ... The total number of persons chargeable at the end of
November, 1862, was, under boards of guardians, 258,357, and on
relief committees, 200,084; total 458,441. ... There were not
wanting men who saw, or thought they saw, a short way out of
the difficulty, viz., by a recognition on the part of the
English government of the Southern confederacy in America. And
meetings were called in various places to memorialise the
government to this effect. Such meetings were always balanced
by counter meetings, at which it was shown that simple
recognition would be waste of words; that it would not bring
to our shores a single shipload of cotton, unless followed up
by an armed force to break the blockade, which course if
adopted would be war; war in favour of the slave confederacy
of the South, and against the free North and North-west,
whence comes a large proportion of our imported corn. In
addition to the folly of interfering in the affairs of a
nation 3,000 miles away, the cotton, if we succeeded in
getting it, would be stained with blood and cursed with the
support of slavery, and would also prevent our getting the
food which we needed from the North equally as much as the
cotton from the South. ... These meetings and counter meetings
perhaps helped to steady the action of the government
(notwithstanding the sympathy of some of its members towards
the South), to confirm them in the policy of the royal
proclamation, and to determine them to enforce the provisions
of the Foreign Enlistment Act against all offenders. ... The
maximum pressure upon the relief committees was reached early
in December, 1862, but, as the tide had turned before the end
of the month, the highest number chargeable at any one time is
nowhere shown. The highest number exhibited in the returns is
for the last week in the year 1862, viz.: 485,434 persons; but
in the previous weeks of the same month some thousands more
were relieved."
J. Watts,
The Facts of the Cotton Famine,
chapters 8 and 12.
ALSO IN:
R. A. Arnold,
History of the Cotton Famine.
E. Waugh,
Factory Folk during the Cotton Famine.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1862 (JULY).
The fitting out of the Confederate cruiser Alabama
at Liverpool.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1865.
Governor Eyre and the Jamaica Insurrection.
See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
Death of Palmerston.
Ministry of Lord John Russell.
Its unsatisfactory Reform Bill and its resignation.
Triumph of the Adullamites.
Third administration of Derby and Disraeli,
and its Reform Bills.
"On the death of Lord Palmerston [which occurred October 18,
1865], the premiership was intrusted for the second time to
Earl Russell, with Mr. Gladstone as leader in the House of
Commons. The queen opened her seventh parliament (February 6,
1866), in person, for the first time since the prince
consort's death. On March 12th Mr. Gladstone brought forward
his scheme of reform, proposing to extend the franchise in
counties and boroughs, but the opposition of the moderate
Liberals, and their joining the Conservatives, proved fatal to
the measure, and in consequence the ministry of Earl Russell
resigned.
{968}
The government had been personally weakened by the successive
deaths of Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, the
Duke of Newcastle, Earl of Elgin, and Lord Palmerston. The
queen sent for the Earl of Derby to form a Cabinet, who,
although the Conservative party was in the minority in the
House of Commons, accepted the responsibility of undertaking
the management of the government: he as Premier and First Lord
of the Treasury; Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer."
A. H. McCalman,
Abridged History of England,
page 603.
"The measure, in fact, was too evidently a compromise. The
Russell and Gladstone section of the Cabinet wanted reform:
the remnants of Palmerston's followers still thought it
unnecessary. The result was this wretched, tinkering measure,
which satisfied nobody, and disappointed the expectation of
all earnest Reformers. ... The principal opposition came not
from the Conservatives, as might have been expected, but from
Mr. Horsman and Mr. Robert Lowe, both members of the Liberal
party, who from the very first declared they would have none
of it. ... Mr. Bright denounced them furiously as
'Adullamites'; all who were in distress, all who were
discontented, had gathered themselves together in the
political cave of Adullam for the attack on the Government.
But Mr. Lowe, all unabashed by denunciation or sarcasm,
carried the war straight into the enemy's camp in a swift
succession of speeches of extraordinary brilliance and power.
... The party of two, which in its origin reminded Mr. Bright
of 'the Scotch terrier which was so covered with hair that you
could not tell which was the head and which was the tail of
it,' was gradually reinforced by deserters from the ranks of
the Government until at last the Adullamites were strong
enough to turn the scale of a division. Then one wild night,
after a hot and furious debate, the combined armies of the
Adullamites and Conservatives carried triumphantly an
amendment brought forward by one of the Adullamite chiefs,
Lord Dunkellin, to the effect that a rating be substituted for
a rental qualification; and the Government was at an end. ...
The failure of the bill brought Lord Russell's official career
to its close. He formally handed over the leadership of the
party to Mr. Gladstone, and from this time took but little
part in politics. Lord Derby, his opponent, was soon to follow
his example, and then the long-standing duel between Gladstone
and Disraeli would be pushed up to the very front of the
parliamentary stage, right in the full glare of the
footlights. Meanwhile, however, Lord Derby had taken office
[July 9, 1866]. Disraeli and Gladstone were changing weapons
and crossing the stage. ... The exasperated Liberals, however,
were rousing a widespread agitation throughout the country in
favour of Reform: monster meetings were held in Hyde Park; the
Park railings were pulled down and trampled on by an excited
mob, and the police regulations proved as unable to bear the
unusual strain as police regulations usually do on such
occasions. The result was that Mr. Disraeli became convinced
that a Reform Bill of some kind or other was inevitable, and
Mr. Disraeli's opinion naturally carried the day. The
Government, however, did not go straight to the point at once.
They began by proposing a number of resolutions on the
subject, which were very soon laughed out of existence. Then
they brought a bill founded on them, which, however, was very
shortly afterwards withdrawn after a very discouraging
reception. Finally, the Ministry, lightened by the loss of
three of its members--the Earl of Carnarvon, Viscount
Cranborne, and General Peel--announced their intention of
bringing in a comprehensive measure. The measure in question
proposed household suffrage in the boroughs subject to the

payment of rates, and occupation franchise for the counties
subject to the same limitation, and a variety of fanciful
clauses, which would have admitted members of the liberal
professions, graduates of the universities, and a number of
other classes to the franchise. The most novel feature was a
clause which permitted a man to acquire two votes if he
possessed a double qualification by rating and by profession.
The great objection to the bill was that it excluded the
compound householder.' The compound householder is now as
extinct an animal as the potwalloper found in earlier
parliamentary strata, but he was the hero of the Reform
debates of 1867, and as such deserves more than a passing
reference. He was, in fact, an occupier of a small house who
did not pay his rates directly and in person, but paid them
through his landlord. Now the occupiers of these very small
houses were naturally by far the most numerous class of
occupiers in the boroughs, and the omission of them implied a
large exclusion from the franchise. The Liberal party,
therefore, rose in defence of the compound householder, and
the struggle became fierce and hot. It must be remembered,
however, that neither Mr. Gladstone nor Mr. Bright wished to
lower the franchise beyond a certain point, and a meeting was
held in consequence, in which it was agreed that the programme
brought forward in committee should begin by an alteration of
the rating laws, so that the compound householder above a
certain level should pay his own rates and be given a vote,
and that all occupiers below the level should be excluded from
the rates and the franchise alike. On what may be described
roughly as 'the great drawing-the-line question,' however, the
Liberal party once more split up. The advanced section were
determined that all occupiers should be admitted, and they
would have no 'drawing the line.' Some fifty or sixty of them
held a meeting in the tea-room of the House of Commons and
decided on this course of action: in consequence they acquired
the name of the 'Tea-Room Party.' The communication of their
views to Mr. Gladstone made him excessively indignant. He
denounced them in violent language, and his passion was
emulated by Mr. Bright. ... Mr. Gladstone had to give in, and
his surrender was followed by that of Mr. Disraeli. The
Tea-Room Party, in fact, were masters of the day, and were
able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Government to
induce them to admit the principle of household suffrage pure
and simple, and to abolish all distinctions of rating. ... Not
only was the household suffrage clause considerably extended,
the dual vote abolished, and most of the fancy franchises
swept away, but there were numerous additions which completely
altered the character of the bill, and transformed it from a
balanced attempt to enlarge the franchise without shifting the
balance of power to a sweeping measure of reform."
B. C. Skottowe,
Short History of Parliament,
chapter 22.
{969}
The Reform Bill for England "was followed in 1868 by measures
for Scotland and Ireland. By these Acts the county franchise
in England was extended to all occupiers of lands or houses of
the yearly value of £12, and in Scotland to all £5 property
owners and £14 property occupiers; while that in Ireland was
not altered. The borough franchise in England and Scotland was
given to all ratepaying householders and to lodgers occupying
lodgings of the annual value of £10; and in Ireland to all
ratepaying £4 occupiers. Thus the House of Commons was made
nearly representative of all taxpaying commoners, except
agricultural labourers and women."
D. W. Rannie,
Historical Outline of the English Constitution,
chapter 12, section 4.
ALSO IN:
W. BAGEHOT,
Essays on Parliamentary Reform, 3.
G. B. Smith,
Life of Gladstone,
chapters 17-18 (volume 2).
W. Robertson,
Life and Times of John Bright,
chapters 39-40.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1869.
Discussion of the Alabama Claims of the United States.
The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and its rejection.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1867-1868.
Expedition to Abyssinia.
See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
Retirement of the Derby-Disraeli Ministry.
Mr. Gladstone in power.
His Irish Land Bill.
"On March 16, 1868, a remarkable debate took place in the
House of Commons. It had for its subject the condition of
Ireland, and it was introduced by a series of resolutions
which Mr. John Francis Maguire, an Irish member, proposed. ...
It was on the fourth night of the debate that the importance
of the occasion became fully manifest. Then it was that Mr.
Gladstone spoke, and declared that in his opinion the time had
come when the Irish Church as a State institution must cease
to exist. Then every man in the House knew that the end was
near. Mr. Maguire withdrew his resolutions. The cause he had
to serve was now in the hands of one who, though not surely
more earnest for its success, had incomparably greater power
to serve it. There was probably not a single Englishman
capable of forming an opinion who did not know that from the
moment when Mr. Gladstone made his declaration, the fall of
the Irish State Church had become merely a question of time.
Men only waited to see how Mr. Gladstone would proceed to
procure its fall. Public expectation was not long kept in
suspense. A few days after the debate on Mr. Maguire's motion,
Mr. Gladstone gave notice of three resolutions on the subject
of the Irish State Church. The first declared that in the
opinion of the House of Commons it was necessary that the
Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an
Establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests
and to all individual rights of property. The second
resolution pronounced it expedient to prevent the creation of
new personal interests by the exercise of any public
patronage; and the third asked for an address to the Queen,
praying that Her Majesty would place at the disposal of
Parliament her interest in the temporalities of the Irish
Church. The object of these resolutions was simply to prepare
for the actual disestablishment of the Church, by providing
that no further appointments should be made, and that the
action of patronage should be stayed, until Parliament should
decide the fate of the whole institution. On March 30, 1868,
Mr. Gladstone proposed his resolutions. Not many persons could
have had much doubt as to the result of the debate. But if
there were any such, their doubts must have begun to vanish
when they read the notice of amendment to the resolutions
which was given by Lord Stanley. The amendment proclaimed even
more surely than the resolutions the impending fall of the Irish
Church. Lord Stanley must have been supposed to speak in the
name of the Government and the Conservative party; and his
amendment merely declared that the House, while admitting that
considerable modifications in the temporalities of the Church
in Ireland might appear to be expedient, was of opinion 'that
any proposition tending to the disestablishment or
disendowment of the Church ought to be reserved for the
decision of the new Parliament.' Lord Stanley's amendment
asked only for delay. ... The debate was one of great power
and interest. ... When the division was called there were 270
votes for the amendment, and 331 against it. The doom of the
Irish Church was pronounced by a majority of 61. An interval
was afforded for agitation on both sides. ... Mr. Gladstone's
first resolution came to a division about a month after the
defeat of Lord Stanley's amendment. It was carried by a
majority somewhat larger than that which had rejected the
amendment--330 votes were given for the resolution; 265
against it. The majority for the resolution was therefore 65.
Mr. Disraeli quietly observed that the Government must take
some decisive step in consequence of that vote; and a few days
afterwards it was announced that as soon as the necessary
business could be got through, Parliament would be dissolved
and an appeal made to the country. On the last day of July the
dissolution took place, and the elections came on in November.
Not for many years had there been so important a general
election. The keenest anxiety prevailed as to its results. The
new constituencies created by the Reform Bill were to give
their votes for the first time. The question at issue was not
merely the existence of the Irish State Church. It was a
general struggle of advanced Liberalism against Toryism. ...
The new Parliament was to all appearance less marked in its
Liberalism than that which had gone before it. But so far as
mere numbers went the Liberal party was much stronger than it
had been. In the new House of Commons it could count upon a
majority of about 120, whereas in the late Parliament it had
but 60. Mr. Gladstone it was clear would now have everything
in his own hands, and the country might look for a career of
energetic reform. ... Mr. Disraeli did not meet the new
Parliament as Prime Minister. He decided very properly that it
would be a mere waste of public time to wait for the formal
vote of the House of Commons, which would inevitably command
him to surrender. He at once resigned his office, and Mr.
Gladstone was immediately sent for by the Queen, and invited
to form an Administration. Mr. Gladstone, it would seem, was
only beginning his career. He was nearly sixty years of age,
but there were scarcely any evidences of advancing years to be
seen on his face. ... The Government he formed was one of
remarkable strength. ... Mr. Gladstone went to work at once
with his Irish policy.
{970}
On March 1, 1869, the Prime Minister introduced his measure
for the disestablishment and partial disendowment of the Irish
State Church. The proposals of the Government were, that the
Irish Church should almost at once cease to exist as a State
Establishment, and should pass into the condition of a free
Episcopal Church. As a matter of course the Irish bishops were
to lose their seats in the House of Lords. A synodal, or
governing body, was to be elected from the clergy and laity of
the Church and was to be recognised by the Government, and
duly incorporated. The union between the Churches of England
and Ireland was to be dissolved, and the Irish Ecclesiastical
Courts were to be abolished. There were various and
complicated arrangements for the protection of the life
interests of those already holding positions in the Irish
Church, and for the appropriation of the fund which would
return to the possession of the State when all these interests
had been fairly considered and dealt with. ... Many amendments
were introduced and discussed; and some of these led to a
controversy between the two Houses of Parliament; but the
controversy ended in compromise. On July 26, 1869, the measure
for the disestablishment of the Irish Church received the
royal assent. Lord Derby did not long survive the passing of
the measure which he had opposed with such fervour and so much
pathetic dignity. Be died before the Irish State Church had
ceased to live. ... When the Irish Church had been disposed
of, Mr. Gladstone at once directed his energies to the Irish
land system. ... In a speech delivered by him during his
electioneering campaign in Lancashire, he had declared that
the Irish upas-tree had three great branches: the State
Church, the Land Tenure System, and the System of Education,
and that he meant to hew them all down if he could. On
February 15, 1870, Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land
Bill into the House of Commons. ... It recognised a certain
property or partnership of the tenant in the land which he
tilled. Mr. Gladstone took the Ulster tenant-right as he found
it, and made it a legal institution. In places where the
Ulster practice, or something analogous to it, did not exist,
he threw upon the landlord the burden of proof as regarded the
right of eviction. The tenant disturbed in the possession of
his land could claim compensation for improvements, and the
bill reversed the existing assumption of the law by presuming
all improvements to be the property of the tenant, and leaving
it to the landlord, if he could, to prove the contrary. The
bill established a special judiciary machinery for carrying
out its provisions. ... It put an end to the reign of the
landlord's absolute power; it reduced the landlord to the
level of every other proprietor, of every other man in the
country who had anything to sell or hire. ... The bill passed
without substantial alteration. On August 1, 1870, the bill
received the Royal assent. The second branch of the upas-tree
had been hewn down. ... Mr. Gladstone had dealt with Church
and land; he had yet to deal with university education. He had
gone with Irish ideas thus far."
J. McCarthy,
Short History of Our Own Times,
chapter 23.
ALSO IN:
W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 3, chapter 6.
Annual Register, 1869,
part 1: English History,
chapters 2-3, and 1870, chapters 1-2.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1870.
The Education Bill.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1699-1870.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
Abolition of Army Purchase and University Religious Tests.
Defeat of the Ballot Bill.
"The great measure of the Session [of 1871] was of course the
Army Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, on the 16th
of February. It abolished the system by which rich men
obtained by purchase commissions and promotion in the army,
and provided £8,000,000 to buy all commissions, as they fell
in, at their regulation and over-regulation value [the
regulation value being a legal price, fixed by a Royal
Warrant, but which in practice was never regarded]. In future,
commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them by
open competition, or who had served as subalterns in the
Militia, or to deserving non-commissioned officers. ... The
debate, which seemed interminable, ended in an anti-climax
that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw over
the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the
country. ... The Army Regulation Bill thus passed the Second
Reading without a division," and finally, with some amendments
passed the House. "In the House of Lords the Bill was again
obstructed. ... Mr. Gladstone met them with a bold stroke. By
statute it was enacted that only such terms of Purchase could
exist as her Majesty chose to permit by Royal Warrant. The
Queen, therefore, acting on Mr. Gladstone's advice, cancelled
her warrant permitting Purchase, and thus the opposition of
the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli indignantly termed
'the high-handed though not illegal' exercise of the Royal
Prerogative. The rage of the Tory Peers knew no bounds." They
"carried a vote of censure on the Government, who ignored it,
and then their Lordships passed the Army Regulation Bill
without any alterations. ... The Session of 1871 was also made
memorable by the struggle over the Ballot Bill, in the course
of which nearly all the devices of factious obstruction were
exhausted. ... When the Bill reached the House of Lords, the
real motive which dictated the ... obstruction of the
Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons was quickly
revealed. The Lords rejected the Bill on the 18th of August,
not merely because they disliked and dreaded it, but because
it had come to them too late for proper consideration.
Ministers were more successful with some other measures. In
spite of much conservative opposition they passed a Bill
abolishing religious tests in the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, and throwing open all academic distinctions and
privileges except Divinity Degrees and Clerical Fellowships to
students of all creeds and faiths."
R. Wilson,
Life and Times of Queen Victoria,
volume 2, chapter 16.
ALSO IN:
G. W. E. Russell,
The Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone,
chapter 9.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1871-1872.
Renewed negotiations with the United States.
The Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Award.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
Rise of the Irish Home Rule Party
and organization of the Land League.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.
Decline and fall of the Gladstone government.
Disraeli's Ministry.
His rise to the peerage, as Earl of Beaconsfield.
The Eastern Question.
Overthrow of the administration.
The Second Gladstone Ministry.
{971}
"One of the little wars in which we had to engage broke out
with the Ashantees, a misunderstanding resulting from our
purchase of the Dutch possessions (1873) in their
neighbourhood. Troops and marines under Wolseley ... were sent
out to West Africa. Crossing the Prah River, January 20th,
1874, he defeated the Ashantees on the last day of that month
at a place called Amoaful, entered and burnt their capital,
Coomassie, and made a treaty with their King, Koffee, by which
he withdrew all claims of sovereignty over the tribes under
our protection. The many Liberal measures carried by the
Ministry caused moderate men to wish for a halt. Some
restrictions on the licensed vintners turned that powerful
body against the Administration, which, on attempting to carry
an Irish University Bill in 1873, became suddenly aware of its
unpopularity, as the second reading was only carried by a
majority of three. Resignation followed. The erratic, but
astute, Disraeli declined to undertake the responsibility of
governing the country with the House of Commons then existing,
consequently Mr. Gladstone resumed office; yet Conservative
reaction progressed. He in September became Chancellor of the
Exchequer (still holding the Premiership) and 23rd January,
1874, he suddenly dissolved Parliament, promising in a letter
to the electors of Greenwich the final abolition of the income
tax, and a reduction in some other 'imposts.' The elections
went against him. The 'harassed' interests overturned the
Ministry (17th February, 1874). ... On the accession of the
Conservative Government under Mr. Disraeli (February, 1874),
the budget showed a balance of six millions in favour of the
reduction of taxation. Consequently the sugar duties were
abolished and the income tax reduced to 2d. in the pound.
This, the ninth Parliament of Queen Victoria, sat for a little
over six years. ... Mr. Disraeli, now the Earl of Beaconsfield,
was fond of giving the country surprises. One of these
consisted in the purchase of the interest of the Khedive of
Egypt in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling (February,
1876). Another was the acquisition of the Turkish Island of
Cyprus, handed over for the guarantee to Turkey of her Asiatic
provinces in the event of any future Russian encroachments.
... As war had broken out in several of the Turkish provinces
(1876), and as Russia had entered the lists for the insurgents
against the Sultan, whom England was bound to support by
solemn treaties, we were treated to a third surprise by the
conveyance, in anticipation of a breach with Russia, of 7,000
troops from India to Malta. The Earl of Derby, looking upon
this manœuvre as a menace to that Power, resigned his office,
which was filled by Lord Salisbury (1878). ... The war proving
disastrous to Turkey, the treaty of St. Stephano (February,
1878), was concluded with Russia, by which the latter acquired
additional territory in Asia Minor in violation of the treaty
of Paris (1856). Our Government strongly remonstrated, and war
seemed imminent. Through the intercession, however, of
Bismarck, the German Chancellor, war was averted, and a
congress soon met in Berlin, at which Britain was represented
by Lords Salisbury and Beaconsfield; the result being the
sanction of the treaty already made, with the exception that
the town of Erzeroum was handed back to Turkey. Our
ambassadors returned home rather pompously, the Prime Minister
loftily declaring, that they had brought back 'peace with
honour.' ... Our expenses had rapidly increased, the wealthy
commercial people began to distrust a Prime Minister who had
brought us to the brink of war, the Irish debates, Irish
poverty, and Irish outrages had brought with them more or less
discredit on the Ministry. ... The Parliament was dissolved March
24th, but the elections went so decisively in favour of the
Liberals that Beaconsfield resigned (April 23rd). Early in the
following year he appeared in his place in the House of Peers,
but died April 19th. Though Mr. Gladstone had in 1875
relinquished the political leadership in favour of Lord
Hartington yet the 'Bulgarian Atrocities' and other writings
brought him again so prominent before the public that his
leadership was universally acknowledged by the party. ... He
now resumed office, taking the two posts so frequently held
before by Prime Ministers since the days of William Pitt, who
also held them. ... The result of the general election of 1880
was the return of more Liberals to Parliament than
Conservatives and Home Rulers together. The farming interest
continued depressed both in Great Britain and Ireland,
resulting in thousands of acres being thrown on the landlords'
hands in the former country, and numerous harsh evictions in the
latter for non-payment of rent. Mr. Gladstone determined to
legislate anew on the Irish Land Question: and (1881) carried
through both Houses that admirable measure known as the Irish
Land Act, which for the first time in the history of that
country secured to the tenant remuneration for his own
industry. A Land Commission Court was established to fix Fair
Rents for a period of 15 years. After a time leaseholders were
included in this beneficent legislation."
R. Johnston,
A Short History of the Queen's Reign,
pages 49-57.
ALSO IN:
J. A. Froude,
Lord Beaconsfield,
chapters 16-17.
G. B. Smith,
Life of Gladstone,
chapters 22-28 (volume 2).
H. Jephson,
The Platform,
chapters 21-22 (volume 2).
ENGLAND: A. D. 1877.
Assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress of India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1877.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1878.
The Eastern Question again.
Bulgarian atrocities.
Excitement over the Russian successes in Turkey.
War-clamor of "the Jingoes."
The fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878;
and TURKS: A. D. 1878.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1881.
Annexation of the Transvaal.
The Boer War.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1878.
The Congress of Berlin.
Acquisition of the control of Cyprus.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1878-1880.
The second Afghan War.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1880.
Breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1880.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1882.
War in Egypt.
Bombardment of Alexandria.
Battle of Tel-el-Kebir.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.
The Act for Prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at
Parliamentary Elections.
{972}
"Prior to the General Election of 1880 there were those who
hoped and believed that Corrupt Practices at Elections were
decreasing. These hopes were based upon the growth of the
constituencies and their increased political intelligence, and
also upon the operation of the Ballot Act. The disclosures
following the General Election proved to the most sanguine
that this belief was an error. Corrupt practices were found to
be more prevalent than ever. If in olden times larger
aggregate sums were expended in bribery and treating, never
probably had so many persons been bribed and treated as at the
General Election of 1880. After that election nineteen
petitions against returns on the ground of corrupt practices
were presented. In eight instances the Judges reported that
those practices had extensively prevailed, and in respect of
seven of these the reports of the Commissioners appointed
under the Act of 1852 demonstrated the alarming extent to
which corruption of all kinds had grown. ... A most serious
feature in the Commissioners' Reports was the proof they
afforded that bribery was regarded as a meritorious not as a
disgraceful act. Thirty magistrates were reported as guilty of
corrupt practices and removed from the Commission of the Peace
by the Lord Chancellor. Mayors, aldermen, town-councillors,
solicitors, the agents of the candidates, and others of a like
class were found to have dealt with bribery as if it were a
part of the necessary machinery for conducting an election.
Worst of all, some of these persons had actually attained
municipal honours, not only after they had committed these
practices, but even after their misdeeds had been exposed by
public inquiry. The Reports also showed, and a Parliamentary
Return furnished still more conclusive proof, that election
expenses were extravagant even to absurdity, and moreover were
on the increase. The lowest estimate of the expenditure during
the General Election of 1880 amounts to the enormous sum of
two and a half millions. With another Reform Bill in view, the
prospects of future elections were indeed alarming. ... The
necessity for some change was self-evident. Public opinion
insisted that the subject should be dealt with, and the evil
encountered. ... The Queen's Speech of the 6th of January,
1881, announced that a measure 'for the repression of corrupt
practices' would be submitted to Parliament, and on the
following day the Attorney-General (Sir Henry James), in
forcible and eloquent terms, moved for leave to introduce his
Bill. His proposals (severe as they seemed) were received with
general approval and sympathy, both inside and outside the
House of Commons, at a time when members and constituents
alike were ashamed of the excesses so recently brought to
light. It is true that the two and a half years' delay that
intervened between the introduction of the Bill and its
finally becoming law (a delay caused by the necessities of
Irish legislation), sufficed very considerably to cool the
enthusiasm of Parliament and the public. Yet enough desire for
reform remained to carry in July 1883 the Bill of January
1881, modified indeed in detail, but with its principles
intact and its main provisions unaltered. The measure which
has now become the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1883, was in
its conception pervaded by two principles. The first was to
strike hard and home at corrupt practices; the second was to
prohibit by positive legislation any expenditure in the
conduct of an election which was not absolutely necessary.
Bribery, undue influence, and personation, had long been
crimes for which a man could be fined and imprisoned. Treating
was now added to the same class of offences, and the
punishment for all rendered more deterrent by a liability to
hard labour. ... Besides punishment on conviction,
incapacities of a serious character are to result from a
person being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election
Judges or Election Commissioners. ... A candidate reported
personally guilty of corrupt practices can never sit again for
the same constituency, and is rendered incapable of being a
member of the House of Commons for seven years. All persons,
whether candidates or not, are, on being reported, rendered
incapable of holding any public office or exercising any
franchise for the same period. Moreover, if any persons so
found guilty are magistrates, barristers, solicitors, or
members of other honourable professions, they are to be
reported to the Lord Chancellor, Inns of Court, High Court of
Justice, or other authority controlling their profession, and
dealt with as in the case of professional misconduct. Licensed
victuallers are, in a similar manner, to be reported to the
licensing justices, who may on the next occasion refuse to
renew their licenses. ... The employment of all paid
assistants except a very limited number is forbidden; no
conveyances are to be paid for, and only a restricted number
of committee rooms are to be engaged. Unnecessary payments for
the exhibition of bills and addresses, and for flags, bands,
torches, and the like are declared illegal. But these
prohibitions of specific objects were not considered
sufficient. Had these alone been enacted, the money of wealthy
and reckless candidates would have found other channels in
which to flow. ... And thus it was that the 'maximum scale'
was adopted as at once the most direct and the most
efficacious means of limiting expenditure. Whether by himself
or his agents, by direct payment or by contract, the candidate
is forbidden to spend more in 'the conduct and management of
an election' than the sums permitted by the Act, sums which
depend in each case on the numerical extent of the
constituency."
H. Hobhouse,
The Parliamentary Elections
(Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883,
pages 1-8.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
The Third Reform Bill and the Redistribution Bill.
The existing qualifications and disqualifications
of the Suffrage.
"Soon after Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1880, Mr.
Trevelyan became a member of his Administration. Already the
Premier had secured the co-operation of two other men new to
office--Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke. ... Their
presence in the Administration was looked upon as a good
augury by the Radicals, and the augury was not destined to
prove misleading. It was understood from the first that, with
such men as his coadjutors, Mr. Gladstone was pledged to a
still further Reform. He was pledged already, in fact, by his
speeches in Midlothian. ... On the 17th of October, 1883, a
great Conference was held at Leeds, for the purpose of
considering the Liberal programme for the ensuing season. The
Conference was attended by no fewer than 2,000 delegates, who
represented upwards of 500 Liberal Associations.
{973}
It was presided over by Mr. John Morley. ... To a man the
delegates agreed as to the imperative necessity of household
suffrage being extended to the counties; and almost to a man
they agreed also as to the necessity of the measure being no
longer delayed. ... When Parliament met on the 5th of the
following February ... a measure for 'the enlargement of the
occupation franchise in Parliamentary Elections throughout the
United Kingdom' was distinctly promised in the Royal Speech;
and the same evening Mr. Gladstone gave notice that 'on the
first available day,' he would move for leave to bring in the
bill. So much was the House of Commons occupied with affairs
in Egypt and the Soudan, however, that it was not till the
29th of February that the Premier was able to fulfil his
pledge." Four months were occupied in the passage of the bill
through the House of Commons, and when it reached the Lords it
was rejected. This roused "an intense feeling throughout the
country. On the 21st of July, a great meeting was held in Hyde
Park, attended, it was believed, by upwards of 100,000
persons. ... On the 30th of July, a great meeting of delegates
was held in St. James's Hall, London. ... Mr. John Morley, who
presided, used some words respecting the House that had
rejected the bill which were instantly caught up by Reformers
everywhere. 'Be sure,' he said, 'that no power on earth can
separate henceforth the question of mending the House of
Commons from the question of mending, or ending, the House of
Lords.' On the 4th of August, Mr. Bright, speaking at
Birmingham, referred to the Lords as 'many of them the spawn
of the plunder and the wars and the corruption of the dark
ages of our country'; and his colleague, Mr. Chamberlain, used
even bolder words: 'During the last one hundred years the
House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular
liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the
common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse
and sheltered every privilege. ... It is irresponsible without
independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without
judgment, and arrogant without knowledge.' ... In very many
instances, a strong disposition was manifested to drop the
agitation for the Reform of the House of Commons for a time,
and to concentrate the whole strength of the Liberal party on
one final struggle for the Reform (or, preferably, the
extinction) of the Upper House." But Mr. Gladstone gave no
encouragement to this inclination of his party. The outcome of
the agitation was the passage of the Franchise Bill a second time
in the House of Commons, in November, 1884, and by the Lords
soon afterwards. A concession was made to the latter by
previously satisfying them with regard to the contemplated
redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, for which a
separate bill was framed and introduced while the Franchise
Bill was yet pending. The Redistribution Bill passed the
Commons in May and the Lords in June, 1885.
W. Heaton,
The Three Reforms of Parliament,
chapter 6.
"In regard to electoral districts, the equalization, in other
words, the radical refashioning of electoral districts, having
about the same number of inhabitants, is carried out. For this
purpose, 79 towns, having less than 15,000 inhabitants, are
divested of the right of electing a separate member; 36 towns,
with less than 50,000, return only one member; 14 large towns
obtain an increase of the number of the members in proportion
to the population; 35 towns, of nearly 50,000, obtain a new
franchise. The counties are throughout parcelled-out into
'electoral districts' of about the like population, to elect
one member each. This single-seat system is, regularly,
carried out in towns, with the exception of 28 middle-sized
towns, which have been left with two members. The County of
York forms, for example, 26 electoral districts; Liverpool 9.
To sum up, the result stands thus:--the counties choose 253
members (formerly 187), the towns 237 (formerly 297). The
average population of the county electoral districts is now
52,800 (formerly 70,800); the average number of the town
electoral districts 52,700 (formerly 41,200). ... The number
of the newly-enfranchised is supposed, according to an average
estimate, to be 2,000,000."
Dr. R. Gneist,
The English Parliament in its Transformations,
chapter 9.
ALSO IN:
J. Murdoch,
History of Constitutional Reform in Great
Britain and Ireland,
pages 277-398.
H. Jephson,
The Platform,
chapter 23 (volume 2).
The following is the text of the "Third Reform Act," which is
entitled "The Representation of the People Act, 1884":
An Act to amend the Law relating to the Representation of
the People of the United Kingdom. [6th December, 1884.]
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as the Representation of the
People Act, 1884.
2. A uniform household franchise and a uniform lodger
franchise at elections shall be established in all counties
and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, and every man
possessed of a household qualification or a lodger
qualification shall, if the qualifying premises be situate
in a county in England or Scotland, be entitled to be
registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an
election for such county, and if the qualifying premises be
situate in a county or borough in Ireland, be entitled to
be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an
election for such county or borough.
3. Where a man himself inhabits any dwelling-house by
virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the
dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom
such man serves in such office, service, or employment, he
shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the
Representation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant
occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant.
4. Subject to the saving in this Act for existing voters,
the following provisions shall have effect with reference
to elections:
(1.) A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a
voter in respect of the ownership of any rentcharge except
the owner of the whole of the tithe rentcharge of a
rectory, vicarage, chapelry, or benefice to which an
apportionment of tithe rentcharge shall have been made in
respect of any portion of tithes.
(2.) Where two or more men are owners either as joint
tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any land or
tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if
his interest is sufficient to confer a qualification as a
voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be
entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered
as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election.
{974}
Provided that where such owners have derived their interest
by descent, succession, marriage, marriage settlement, or
will, or where they occupy the land or tenement, and are
bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business
thereon, each of such owners whose interest is sufficient
to confer on him a qualification as a voter shall be
entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
conditions as if he were sole owner) to be registered as a
voter in respect of such ownership, and when registered to
vote at an election, and the value of the interest of each
such owner where not otherwise legally defined shall be
ascertained by the division of the total value of the land
or tenement equally among the whole of such owners.
5. Every man occupying any land or tenement in a county or
borough in the United Kingdom of a clear yearly value of
not less than ten pounds shall be entitled to be registered
as a voter and when registered to vote at an election for
such county or borough in respect of such occupation
subject to the like conditions respectively as a man is, at
the passing of this Act, entitled to be registered as a
voter and to vote at an election for such county in respect
of the county occupation franchise, and at an election for
such borough in respect of the borough occupation
franchise.
6. A man shall not by virtue of this Act be entitled to be
registered as a voter or to vote at any election for a
county in respect of the occupation of any dwelling-house,
lodgings, land, or tenement, situate in a borough.
7. (1.) In this Act the expression "a household
qualification" means, as respects England and Ireland, the
qualification enacted by the third section of the
Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments
appended to this text], and the enactments amending or
affecting the same, and the said section and enactments so
far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to
counties in England and to counties and boroughs in
Ireland.
(2.) In the construction of the said enactments, as amended
and applied to Ireland, the following dates shall be
substituted for the dates therein mentioned, that is to say,
the twentieth day of July for the fifteenth day of July, the
first day of July for the twentieth day of July, and the
first day of January for the fifth day of January.
(3.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means the
qualification enacted, as respects England, by the fourth
section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see
comments appended to this text], and the enactments amending
or affecting the same, and as respects Ireland, by the
fourth section of the Representation of the People (Ireland)
Act, 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the
same, and the said section of the English Act of 1867, and
the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far
as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in
England, and the said section of the Irish Act of 1868, and
the enactments amending or affecting the same, shall, so far
as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in
Ireland; and sections five and six and twenty-two and
twenty-three of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration
Act, 1878, so far as they relate to lodgings, shall apply to
Ireland, and for the purpose of such application the
reference in the said section six to the Representation of
the People Act, 1867, shall be deemed to be made to the
Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868, and in the
said section twenty-two of the Parliamentary and Municipal
Registration Act, 1878, the reference to section thirteen of
the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843, shall be construed
to refer to the enactments of the Registration Acts in
Ireland relating to the making out, signing, publishing, and
otherwise dealing with the lists of voters, and the
reference to the Parliamentary Registration Acts shall be
construed to refer to the Registration Acts in Ireland, and
the following dates shall be substituted in Ireland for the
dates in that section mentioned, that is to say, the
twentieth day of July for the last day of July, and the
fourteenth day of July for the twenty-fifth day of July,
and the word "overseers" shall be construed to refer in a
county to the clerk of the peace, and in a borough to the
town clerk.
(4.) The expression "a household qualification" means, as
respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the third
section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act,
1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same,
and the said section and enactments shall, so far as they
are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in
Scotland, and for the purpose of the said section and
enactments the expression "dwelling-house" in Scotland
means any house or part of a house occupied as a separate
dwelling, and this definition of a dwelling-house shall be
substituted for the definition contained in section
fifty-nine of the Representation of the People (Scotland)
Act, 1868.
(5.) The expression "a lodger qualification" means, as
respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the fourth
section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act,
1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same,
and the said section and enactments, so far as they are
consistent with this Act, shall extend to counties in
Scotland.
(6.) The expression "county occupation franchise" means, as
respects England, the franchise enacted by the sixth
section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see
comments appended to this text]; and, as respects Scotland,
the franchise enacted by the sixth section of the
Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868; and, as
respects Ireland, the franchise enacted by the first
section of the Act of the session of the thirteenth and
fourteenth years of the reign of Her present Majesty,
chapter sixty-nine.
(7.) The expression "borough occupation franchise" means,
as respects England, the franchise enacted by the
twenty-seventh section of the Act of the session of the
second and third years of the reign of King William the
Fourth, chapter forty-five [see comments appended to this
text]; and as respects Scotland, the franchise enacted by
the eleventh section of the Act of the session of the
second and third years of the reign of King William the
Fourth, chapter sixty-five; and as respects Ireland the
franchise enacted by section five of the Act of the session
of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her
present Majesty, chapter sixty-nine, and the third section
of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.
{975}
(8.) Any enactments amending or relating to the county
occupation franchise or 'borough occupation franchise other
than the sections in this Act in that behalf mentioned
shall be deemed to be referred to in the definition of the
county occupation franchise and the borough occupation
franchise in this Act mentioned.
8. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Representation of
the People Acts" means the enactments for the time being in
force in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively
relating to the representation of the people, inclusive of
the Registration Acts as defined by this Act.
(2.) The expression "the Registration Acts" means the
enactments for the time being in force in England,
Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the
registration of persons entitled to vote at elections for
counties and boroughs, inclusive of the Rating Acts as
defined by this Act.
(3.) The expressions "the Representation of the People
Acts" and "the Registration Acts" respectively, where used
in this Act, shall be read distributively in reference to
the three parts of the United Kingdom as meaning in the
case of each part the enactments for the time being in
force in that part.
(4.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate
to the registration of persons entitled to vote in boroughs
in England in respect of a household or a lodger
qualification, and in boroughs in Ireland in respect of a
lodger qualification, shall, with the necessary variations
and with the necessary alterations of precepts, notices,
lists, and other forms, extend to counties as well as to
boroughs.
(5.) All enactments of the Registration Acts which relate
to the registration in counties and boroughs in Ireland of
persons entitled to vote in respect of the county
occupation franchise and the borough occupation franchise
respectively, shall, with the necessary variations and with
the necessary alterations of precepts, notices, lists, and
other forms, extend respectively to the registration in
counties and boroughs in Ireland of persons entitled to
vote in respect of the household qualification conferred by
this Act.
(6.) In Scotland all enactments of the Registration Acts
which relate to the registration of persons entitled to
vote in burghs, including the provisions relating to dates,
shall, with the necessary variations, and with the
necessary alterations of notices and other forms, extend
and apply to counties as well as to burghs; and the
enactments of the said Acts which relate to the
registration of persons entitled to vote in counties shall,
so far as inconsistent with the enactments so applied, be
repealed: Provided that in counties the valuation rolls,
registers, and lists shall continue to be arranged in
parishes as heretofore.
9. (1.) In this Act the expression "the Rating Acts" means
the enactments for the time being in force in England,
Scotland, and Ireland respectively, relating to the placing
of the names of occupiers on the rate book, or other
enactments relating to rating in so far as they are
auxiliary to or deal with the registration of persons
entitled to vote at elections; and the expression "the
Rating Acts" where used in this Act shall be read
distributively in reference to the three parts of the
United Kingdom as meaning in the case of each part the Acts
for the time being in force in that part.
(2.) In every part of the United Kingdom it shall be the
duty of the overseers annually, in the months of April and
May, or one of them, to inquire or ascertain with respect
to every hereditament which comprises any dwelling-house or
dwelling-houses within the meaning of the Representation of
the People Acts, whether any man, other than the owner or
other person rated or liable to be rated in respect of such
hereditament, is entitled to be registered as a voter in
respect of his being an inhabitant occupier of any such
dwelling-house, and to enter in the rate book the name of
every man so entitled, and the situation or description of
the dwelling-house in respect of which he is entitled, and
for the purposes of such entry a separate column shall be
added to the rate book.
(3.) For the purpose of the execution of such duty the
overseers may serve on the person who is the occupier or
rated or liable to be rated in respect of such
hereditament, or on some agent of such person concerned in
the management of such hereditament, the requisition
specified in the Third Schedule of this Act requiring that
the form in that notice be accurately filled up and
returned to the overseers within twenty-one days after such
service; and if any such person or agent on whom such
requisition is served fails to comply therewith, he shall
be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding
forty shillings, and any overseer who fails to perform his
duty under this section shall be deemed guilty of a breach
of duty in the execution of the Registration Acts, and
shall be liable to be fined accordingly a sum not exceeding
forty shillings for each default.
(4.) The notice under this section may be served in manner
provided by the Representation of the People Acts with
respect to the service on occupiers of notice of
non-payment of rates, and, where a body of persons,
corporate or unincorporate, is rated, shall be served on
the secretary or agent of such body of persons; and where
the hereditament by reason of belonging to the Crown or
otherwise is not rated, shall be served on the chief local
officer having the superintendence or control of such
hereditament.
(5.) In the application of this section to Scotland the
expression rate book means the valuation roll, and where a
man entered on the valuation roll by virtue of this section
inhabits a dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service,
or employment, there shall not be entered in the valuation
roll any rent or value against the name of such man as
applicable to such dwelling-house, nor shall any such man
by reason of such entry become liable to be rated in
respect of such dwelling-house.
(6.) The proviso in section two of the Act for the
valuation of lands and heritages in Scotland passed in the
session of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the
reign of Her present Majesty chapter ninety-one, and
section fifteen of the Representation of the People
(Scotland) Act, 1868, shall be repealed: Provided that in
any county in Scotland the commissioners of supply, or the
parochial board of any parish, or any other rating
authority entitled to impose assessments according to the
valuation roll, may, if they think fit, levy such
assessments in respect of lands and heritages separately
let for a shorter period than one year or at a rent not
amounting to four pounds per annum in the same manner and
from the same persons as if the names of the tenants and
occupiers of such lands and heritages were not inserted in
the valuation roll.
{976}
(7.) In Ireland where the owner of a dwelling-house is
rated instead of the occupier, the occupier shall
nevertheless be entitled to be registered as a voter, and
to vote under the same conditions under which an occupier
of a dwelling-house in England is entitled in pursuance of
the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and the
Acts amending the same, to be registered as a voter, and to
vote where the owner is rated, and the enactments referred
to in the First Schedule to this Act shall apply to Ireland
accordingly, with the modifications in that schedule
mentioned.
(8.) Both in England and Ireland where a man inhabits any
dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or
employment, and is deemed for the purposes of this Act and
of the Representation of the People Acts to be an
inhabitant occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant, and
another person is rated or liable to be rated for such
dwelling-house, the rating of such other person shall for
the purposes of this Act and of the Representation of the
People Acts be deemed to be that of the inhabitant
occupier; and the several enactments of the Poor Rate
Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and other Acts
amending the same referred to in the First Schedule to this
Act shall for those purposes apply to such inhabitant
occupier, and in the construction of those enactments the
word "owner" shall be deemed to include a person actually
rated or liable to be rated as aforesaid.

(9.) In any part of the United Kingdom where a man inhabits
a dwelling-house in respect of which no person is rated by
reason of such dwelling-house belonging to or being
occupied on behalf of the Crown, or by reason of any other
ground of exemption, such person shall not be disentitled
to be registered as a voter, and to vote by reason only
that no one is rated in respect of such dwelling-house, and
that no rates are paid in respect of the same, and it shall
be the duty of the persons making out the rate book or
valuation roll to enter any such dwelling-house as last
aforesaid in the rate book or valuation roll, together with
the name of the inhabitant occupier thereof.
10. Nothing in this Act shall deprive any person (who at
the date of the passing of this Act is registered in
respect of any qualification to vote for any county or
borough), of his right to be from time to time registered
and to vote for such county or borough in respect of such
qualification in like manner as if this Act had not passed.
Provided that where a man is so registered in respect of
the county or borough occupation franchise by virtue of a
qualification which also qualifies him for the franchise
under this Act, he shall be entitled to be registered in
respect of such latter franchise only. Nothing in this Act
shall confer on any man who is subject to any legal
incapacity to be registered as a voter or to vote, any
right to be registered as a voter or to vote.
11. This Act, so far as may be consistently with the tenor
thereof, shall be construed as one with the Representation
of the People Acts as defined by this Act; and the
expressions "election," "county," and "borough," and other
expressions in this Act and in the enactments applied by
this Act, shall have the same meaning as in the said Acts.
Provided that in this Act and the said enactments--The
expression "overseers" includes assessors, guardians,
clerks of unions, or other persons by whatever name known,
who perform duties in relation to rating or to the
registration of voters similar to those performed in
relation to such matters by overseers in England. The
expression "rentcharge" includes a fee farm rent, a feu
duty in Scotland, a rent seck, a chief rent, a rent of
assize, and any rent or annuity granted out of land. The
expression "land or tenement" includes any part of a house
separately occupied for the purpose of any trade, business,
or profession, and that expression, and also the expression
"hereditament" when used in this Act, in Scotland includes
"lands and heritages." The expressions "joint tenants" and
"tenants in common" shall include "pro indiviso
proprietors." The expression "clear yearly value" as
applied to any land or tenement means in Scotland the
annual value as appearing in the valuation roll, and in
Ireland the net annual value at which the occupier of such
land or tenement was rated under the last rate for the time
being, under the Act of the session of the first and second
years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter
fifty-six, or any Acts amending the same.
12. Whereas the franchises conferred by this Act are in
substitution for the franchises conferred by the enactments
mentioned in the first and second parts of the Second
Schedule hereto, be it enacted that the Acts mentioned in
the first part of the said Second Schedule shall be
repealed to the extent in the third column of that part of
the said schedule mentioned except in so far as relates to
the rights of persons saved by this Act; and the Acts
mentioned in the second part of the said Second Schedule
shall be repealed to the extent in the third column of that
part of the said schedule mentioned, except in so far as
relates to the rights of persons saved by this Act and
except in so far as the enactments so repealed contain
conditions made applicable by this Act to any franchise
enacted by this Act.
13. This Act shall commence and come into operation on the
first day of January one thousand eight hundred and
eighty-five: Provided that the register of voters in any
county or borough in Scotland made in the last-mentioned
year shall not come into force until the first day of
January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six, and
until that day the previous register of voters shall
continue in force.
The following comments upon the foregoing act afford
explanations which are needed for the understanding of some of
its provisions:
"The introduction of the household franchise into counties is
the main work of the Representation of the People Act, 1884.
... The county household franchise is ... made identical with
the borough franchise created by the Reform Act of 1867 (30 &
31 Vict., c. 102), to which we must, therefore, turn for the
definition of the one household franchise now established in
both counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom. The
third section of the Act in question provides that 'Every man
shall in and after the year 1868 be entitled to be registered
as a voter, and when registered to vote, for a member or
members to serve in Parliament for a borough [we must now add
"or for a county or division of a county">[ who is qualified as
follows:
(1.) Is of full age and not subject to any legal
incapacity;
(2.) Is on the last day of July [now July 15th] in any
year, and has during the whole of the preceding twelve
calendar months been an inhabitant occupier as owner or
tenant of any dwelling house within the borough [or within
a county or division of a county];
{977}
(3.) Has during the time of such occupation been rated as
an ordinary occupier in respect of the premises so occupied
by him within the borough to all rates (if any) made for
the relief of the poor in respect of such premises; and,
(4.) Has on or before the 20th day of July in the same year
bona fide paid an equal amount in the pound to that payable
by other ordinary occupiers in respect of all poor rates
that have been payable by him in respect of the said
premises up to the preceding 5th day of January: Provided
that no man shall under this section be entitled to be
registered as a voter by reason of his being a joint
occupier of any dwelling house. ... The lodger franchise
was the creation of the Reform Act of 1867 (30 & 31 Vict.,
c. 102), the 4th section of which conferred the suffrage
upon lodgers who, being of full age and not subject to any
legal incapacity, have occupied in the same borough
lodgings 'of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of
£10 or upwards' for twelve months preceding the last day of
July, and have claimed to be registered as voters at the
next ensuing registration of voters. By this clause certain
limitations or restrictions were imposed on the lodger franchise;
but these were swept away by the 41 & 42 Vict., c. 26, the
6th section of which considerably enlarged the franchise by
enacting that:--
(1.) Lodgings occupied by a person in any year or two
successive years shall not be deemed to be different
lodgings by reason only that in that year or either of
those years he has occupied some other rooms or place in
addition to his original lodgings.
(2.) For the purpose of qualifying a lodger to vote the
occupation in immediate succession of different lodgings of
the requisite value in the same house shall have the same effect
as continued occupation of the same lodgings.
(3.) Where lodgings are jointly occupied by more than one
lodger, and the clear yearly value of the lodgings if let
unfurnished is of an amount which, when divided by the
number of the lodgers, gives a sum of not less than £10 for
each lodger, then each lodger (if otherwise qualified and
subject to the conditions of the Representation of the
People Act, 1867) shall be entitled to be registered and
when registered to vote as a lodger, provided that not more
than two persons being such joint lodgers shall be entitled
to be registered in respect of such lodgings. ... Until the
passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, no
householder was qualified to vote unless he not only
occupied a dwelling house, but occupied it either as owner
or as the tenant of the owner. And where residence in an
official or other house was necessary, or conducive to the
efficient discharge of a man's duty or service, and was
either expressly or impliedly made a part of such duty or
service then the relation of landlord or tenant was held
not to be created. The consequence was that a large number
of persons who as officials, as employes, or as servants
are required to reside in public buildings, on the premises
of their employers or in houses assigned to them by their
masters were held not to be entitled to the franchise. In
future such persons will ... be entitled to vote as
inhabitant occupiers and tenants (under Section 3 of the
recent Act), notwithstanding that they occupy their
dwelling houses 'by virtue of any office, service or
employment.' But this is subject to the condition that a
subordinate cannot qualify or obtain a vote in respect of a
dwelling house which is also inhabited by any person under whom
'such man serves in such office, service or employment.'
... Persons seised of (i. e., owning) an estate of
inheritance (i. e., in fee simple or fee-tail) of freehold
tenure, in lands or tenements, of the value of 40s. per
annum, are entitled to a vote for the county or division of
the county in which the estate is situated. This is the
class of electors generally known as 'forty shilling
freeholders.' Originally all freeholders were entitled to
county votes, but by the 8 Henry VI., c. 7, it was provided
that no freehold of a less annual value than 40s. should
confer the franchise. Until the Reform Act of 1832, 40s.
freeholders, whether their estate was one of inheritance or
one for life or lives, were entitled to county votes. That Act,
however, restricted the county freehold franchise by
drawing a distinction between (1) freeholds of inheritance,
and (2) freeholds not of inheritance. While the owners of
the first class of freeholds were left in possession of
their former rights (except when the property is situated
within a Parliamentary borough), the owners of the latter
were subjected to a variety of conditions and restrictions. ...
Before the passing of the Representation of the People Act,
1884, any number of persons might qualify and obtain county
votes as joint owners of a freehold of inheritance,
provided that it was of an annual value sufficient to give
40s. for each owner. But ... this right is materially
qualified by Section 4 of the recent Act. ... Persons
seised of an estate for life or lives of freehold tenure of
the annual value of 40s., but of less than £5, are entitled
to a county vote, provided that they
(1) actually and bonâ fide occupy the premises, or
(2) were seised of the property at the time of the passing
of the 2 Will. IV., c. 45 (June 7th, 1832), or
(3) have acquired the property after the date by marriage,
marriage settlement, devise, or promotion to a benefice or
office. ... Persons seised of an estate for life or lives
or of any larger estate in lands or tenements of any tenure
whatever of the yearly value of £5 or upwards: This
qualification is not confined to the ownership of freehold
lands. Under the words 'of any tenure whatever' (30 & 31
Vict., c. 102, s. 5) copyholders have county votes if their
property is of the annual value of £5. ... The electoral
qualifications in Scotland are defined by the 2 & 3 Will.
IV., c. 65, the 31 & 32 Vict., c. 48, and the
Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 Vict., c. 3).
The effect of the three Acts taken together is that the
County franchises are as follows:
1. Owners of Land, &c., of the annual value of £5, after
deducting feu duty, ground annual, or other considerations
which an owner may be bound to pay or to give an account
for as a condition of his right.
2. Leaseholders under a lease of not less than 57 years or
for the life of the tenant of the clear yearly value of
£10, or for a period of not less than 19 years when the
clear yearly value is not less than £50, or the tenant is
in actual personal occupancy of the land.
3. Occupiers of land, &c., of the clear yearly value of £10.
4. Householders.
5. Lodgers.
6. The service franchise.
Borough franchises.
1. Occupiers of land or tenements of the annual value of £10.
2. Householders.
3. Lodgers.
4. The service franchise.
{978}
The qualification for these franchises is in all material
respects the same as for the corresponding franchises in
the Scotch counties, and in the counties and boroughs of
England and Wales. ... The Acts relating to the franchise
in Ireland are 2 & 3 Will. IV., c. 88, 13 & 14 Vict., c.
69, the representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868,
and the Representation of the People Act, 1884. Read
together they give the following qualifications:
County franchises.
1. Owners of freeholds of inheritance or of freeholds for
lives renewable for ever rated to the poor at the annual
value of £5.
2. Freeholders and copyholders of a clear annual value of
£10.
3. Leaseholders of various terms and value.
4. Occupiers of land or a tenement of the clear annual
value of £10.
5. Householders.
6. The lodger franchise.
7. The service franchise.
Borough franchises.
1. Occupiers of lands and tenements of the annual value of
£10.
2. Householders. ...
3. Lodgers.
4. The service franchise.
5. Freemen in certain boroughs. ...
All the franchises we have described ... are subject to this
condition, that no one, however qualified, can be registered
or vote in respect of them if he is subjected to any legal
incapacity to become or act as elector. ... No alien unless
certificated or naturalised, no minor, no lunatic or idiot,
nor any person in such a state of drunkenness as to be
incapable--is entitled to vote. Police magistrates in London
and Dublin, and police officers throughout the country,
including the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, are
disqualified from voting either generally or for
constituencies within which their duties lie. In the case of
the police the disqualification continues for six months after
an officer has left the force. ... Persons are disqualified
who are convicted of treason or treason-felony, for which the
sentence is death or penal servitude, or any term of
imprisonment with hard labour or exceeding twelve months,
until they have suffered their punishment (or such as may be
substituted by competent authority), or until they receive a
free pardon. Peers are disqualified from voting at the
election of any member to serve in Parliament. A returning
officer may not vote at any election for which he acts, unless
the numbers are equal, when he may give a casting vote. No
person is entitled to be registered in any year as a voter for
any county or borough who has within twelve calendar months
next previous to the last day of July in such year received
parochial relief or other alms which by the law of Parliament
disqualify from voting. Persons employed at an election for
reward or payment are disqualified from voting thereat
although they may be on the register. ... The Corrupt and
Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict., c. 51),
disqualifies a variety of offenders [see above, A. D. 1883]
against its provisions from being registered or voting."
W. A. Holdsworth,
The New Reform Act,
pages 20-36.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1881-1885.
Campaign in the Soudan for the relief of General Gordon.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1885.
The fall of the Gladstone government.
The brief first Ministry of Lord Salisbury.
"Almost simultaneously with the assembling of Parliament
[February 19, 1885] had come the news of the fall of Khartoum
and the death of General Gordon [see EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885].
These terrible events sent a thrill of horror and indignation
throughout the country, and the Government was severely
condemned in many quarters for its procrastination. Mr.
Gladstone, who was strongly moved by Gordon's death, rose to
the situation, and announced that it was necessary to
overthrow the Mahdi at Khartoum, to renew operations against
Osman Digma, and to construct a railway from Suakim to Berber
with a view to a campaign in the autumn. A royal proclamation
was issued calling out the reserves. Sir Stafford Northcote
initiated a debate on the Soudan question with a motion
affirming that the risks and sacrifices which the Government
appeared to be ready to encounter could only be justified by a
distinct recognition of our responsibility for Egypt, and
those portions of the Soudan which are necessary to its
security. Mr. John Morley introduced an amendment to the
motion, waiving any judgment on the policy of the Minister,
but expressing regret at its decision to continue the conflict
with the Mahdl. Mr. Gladstone skilfully dealt with both motion
and amendment. Observing that it was impossible to give rigid
pledges as to the future, he appealed to the Liberal party, if
they had not made up their minds to condemn and punish the
Government, to strengthen their hands by an unmistakable vote
of confidence. The Government obtained a majority of 14, the
votes being 302 in their favour with 288 against; but many of
those who supported the Government had also voted for the
amendment by Mr. Morley. ... Financial questions were
extremely embarrassing to the Government, and it was not until
the 30th of April that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
ready with his financial statement. He was called upon to deal
with a deficit of upwards of a million, with a greatly
depressed revenue, and with an estimated expenditure for the
current year--including the vote of credit--of no less than
£100,000,000. Amongst Mr. Childers's proposals was one to levy
upon land an amount of taxation proportioned to that levied on
personal property. There was also an augmentation of the
spirit duties and of the beer duty. The country members were
dissatisfied and demanded that no new charges should be thrown
on the land till the promised relief of local taxation had
been carried out. The agricultural and the liquor interests
were discontented, as well as the Scotch and Irish members
with the whiskey duty. The Chancellor made some concessions,
but they were not regarded as sufficient, and on the Monday
after the Whitsun holidays, the Opposition joined battle on a
motion by Sir M. Hicks Beach. ... Mr. Gladstone stated at the
close of the debate that the Government would resign if
defeated. The amendment was carried against them by 264 to
252, and the Ministry went out. ... Lord Salisbury became
Premier. ... The general election ... [was] fixed for November
1885."
G. B. Smith,
The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
pages 373-377.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
The partition of East Africa with Germany.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
{979}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1886.
Mr. Gladstone's return to power.
His Home Rule Bill for Ireland and his Irish Land Bill.
Their defeat.
Division of the Liberal Party.
Lord Salisbury's Ministry.
"The House of Commons which had been elected in November and
December, 1885, was the first House of Commons which
represented the whole body of the householders and lodgers of
the United Kingdom. The result of the appeal to new
constituencies and an enlarged electorate had taken all
parties by surprise. The Tories found themselves, by the help
of their Irish allies, successful in the towns beyond all
their hopes; the Liberals, disappointed in the boroughs, had
found compensation in unexpected successes in the counties;
and the Irish Nationalists had almost swept the board. ... The
English representation--exclusive of one Irish Nationalist for
Liverpool--gave a liberal majority of 28 in the English
constituencies; which Wales and Scotland swelled to 106. The
Irish representation had undergone a still more remarkable
change. Of 103 members for the sister island, 85 were Home
Rulers and only 18 were Tories. ... The new House of Commons
was exactly divided between the Liberals on one side and the
Tories with their Irish allies on the other. Of its 670
members just one-half, or 335, were Liberals, 249 were Tories,
and 86 were Irish Nationalists [or Home Rulers]. ... It was
soon clear enough that the alliance between the Tory Ministers
and the Irish Nationalists was at an end." On the 25th of
January 1886, the Government was defeated on an amendment to
the address, and on the 28th it resigned. Mr. Gladstone was
invited to form a Ministry and did so with Lord Herschell for
Lord Chancellor, Sir William Harcourt for Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Mr. Childers for Home Secretary, Lord Granville for
Secretary for the Colonies, Mr. John Morley for Chief
Secretary for Ireland, and Mr. Chamberlain for President of
the Local Government Board. On the 29th of March "Mr.
Gladstone announced in the House of Commons that on the 8th of
April he would ask for leave to bring in a bill 'to amend the
provision for the future government of Ireland'; and that on
the 15th he would ask leave to bring in a measure 'to make
amended provision for the sale and purchase of land in
Ireland.'" The same day Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan
(Secretary for Ireland) resigned their seats in the Cabinet,
and it was generally understood that differences of opinion on
the Irish bills had arisen. On the 8th of April the House of
Commons was densely crowded when Mr. Gladstone introduced his
measure for giving Home Rule to Ireland. In a speech which
lasted three hours and a half he set forth the details of his
plan and the reasons on which they were based. The essential
conditions observed in the framing of the measure, as he
defined them, were these: "The unity of the Empire must not be
placed in jeopardy; the minority must be protected; the
political equality of the three countries must be maintained,
and there must be an equitable distribution of Imperial
burdens. He then discussed some proposals which had been made
for the special treatment of Ulster--its exclusion from the
bill, its separate autonomy or the reservation of certain
matters, such as education, for Provincial Councils; all of
which he rejected. The establishment of an Irish legislature
involved the removal of Irish peers from the House of Lords
and the Irish representatives from the House of Commons. But
if Ireland was not represented at Westminster, how was it to
be taxed? The English people would never force on Ireland
taxation without representation. The taxing power would be in
the hands of the Irish legislature, but Customs and Excise
duties connected with Customs would be solely in the control
of the Imperial Parliament, Ireland's share in these being
reserved for Ireland's use. Ireland must have security against
her Magna Charta being tampered with; the provision of the Act
would therefore only be capable of modification with the
concurrence of the Irish legislature, or after the recall of
the Irish members to the two Houses of Parliament. The Irish
legislature would have all the powers which were not specially
reserved from it in the Act. It was to consist of two orders,
though not two Houses. It would be subject to all the
prerogatives of the Crown; it would have nothing to do with
Army or Navy, or with Foreign or Colonial relations; nor could
it modify the Act on which its own authority was based.
Contracts, charters, questions of education, religious
endowments and establishments, would be beyond its authority.
Trade and navigation, coinage, currency, weights and measures,
copyright, census, quarantine laws, and some other matters,
were not to be within the powers of the Irish Parliament. The
composition of the legislature was to be first, the 103
members now representing Ireland with 101, elected by the same
constituencies, with the exception of the University, with
power to the Irish legislature to give two members to the
Royal University if it chose; then the present Irish members
of the House of Lords, with 75 elected by the Irish people
under a property qualification. The Viceroyalty was to be
left, but the Viceroy was not to quit office with an outgoing
government, and no religious disability was to affect his
appointment. He would have a Privy Council, and the executive
would remain as at present, but might be changed by the action
of the legislative body. The present judges would preserve their
lien on the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain, and the Queen
would be empowered to antedate their pensions if it was seen
to be desirable. Future judges, with the exception of two in
the Court of Exchequer, would be appointed by the Irish
government, and, like English judges, would hold their office
during good behaviour. The Constabulary would remain under its
present administration, Great Britain paying all charges over
a million. Eventually, however, the whole police of Ireland
would be under the Irish government. The civil servants would
have two years' grace, with a choice of retirement on pension
before passing under the Irish executive. Of the financial
arrangements Mr. Gladstone spoke in careful and minute detail.
He fixed the proportion of Imperial charges Ireland should pay at
one-fifteenth, or in other words she would pay one part and
Great Britain fourteen parts. More than a million of duty is
paid on spirits in Ireland which come to Great Britain, and
this would be practically a contribution towards the Irish
revenue. So with Irish porter and with the tobacco
manufactured in Ireland and sold here. Altogether the British
taxpayers would contribute in this way £1,400,000 a year to
the Irish Exchequer; reducing the actual payment of Ireland
itself for Imperial affairs to one-twenty-sixth." On the 16th
of April Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land Bill,
connecting it with the Home Rule Bill as forming part of one
great measure for the pacification of Ireland. In the meantime
the opposition to his policy within the ranks of the Liberal
party had been rapidly taking form. It Mr. Trevelyan, Sir
Henry James, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Courtney.
It soon received the support of Mr. John Bright. The debate in
the House, which lasted until the 3rd of June, was passionate
and bitter.
{980}
It ended in the defeat of the Government by a majority of 30
against the bill. The division was the largest which had ever
been taken in the House of Commons, 657 members being present.
The majority was made up of 249 Conservatives and 94 Liberals.
The minority consisted of 228 Liberals and 85 Nationalists.
Mr. Gladstone appealed to the country by a dissolution of
Parliament. The elections were adverse to him, resulting in
the return to Parliament of members representing the several
parties and sections of parties as follows:
Home Rule Liberals, or Gladstonians, 194,
Irish Nationalists 85
total 279;
seceding Liberals 75,
Conservatives 316
total 391.
Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues resigned and a new Ministry
was formed under Lord Salisbury. The Liberals, in alliance
with the Conservatives and giving their support to Lord
Salisbury's Government, became organized as a distinct party
under the leadership of Lord Hartington, and took the name of
Liberal Unionists.
P. W. Clayden,
England under the Coalition,
chapters 1-6.
ALSO IN:
H. D. Traill,
The Marquis of Salisbury,
chapter 12.
Annual Register, 1885, 1886.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1885-1888.
Termination of the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of
Washington.
Renewed controversies with the United States.
The rejected Treaty.
See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1877-1888.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1886.
Defeat of Mr. Parnell's Tenants' Relief Bill.
The plan of campaign in Ireland.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1886-1893.
The Bering Sea Controversy and Arbitration.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1890.
Settlement of African questions with Germany.
Cession of Heligoland.
See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1891.
The Free Education Bill.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1891.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1892-1893.
The fourth Gladstone Ministry.
Passage of the Irish Home Rule Bill by the House of Commons.
Its defeat by the Lords.
On the 28th of June, 1892, Parliament was dissolved, having
been in existence since 1886, and a new Parliament was
summoned to meet on the 4th of August. Great excitement
prevailed in the ensuing elections, which turned almost
entirely on the question of Home Rule for Ireland. The Liberal
or Gladstonian party, favoring Home Rule, won a majority of 42
in the House of Commons; but in the representation of England
alone there was a majority of 70 returned against it. In
Ireland, the representation returned was 103 for Home Rule,
and 23 against; in Scotland, 51 for and 21 against; in Wales,
28 for and 2 against. Conservatives and Liberal Unionists
(opposing Home Rule) lost little ground in the boroughs, as
compared with the previous Parliament, but largely in the
counties. As the result of the election, Lord Salisbury and
his Ministry resigned August 12, and Mr. Gladstone was
summoned to form a Government. In the new Cabinet, which was
announced four days later, Earl Rosebery became Foreign
Secretary; Baron Herschell, Lord Chancellor; Sir William
Vernon Harcourt, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Herbert H.
Asquith, Home Secretary; and Mr. John Morley, Chief Secretary
for Ireland. Although the new Parliament assembled in August,
1892, it was not until the 13th of February following that Mr.
Gladstone introduced his bill to establish Home Rule in
Ireland. The bill was under debate in the House of Commons
until the night of September 1, 1893, when it passed that body
by a vote of 301 to 267. "The bill provides for a Legislature
for Ireland, consisting of the Queen and of two Houses--the
Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. This
Legislature, with certain restrictions, is authorized to make
laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in
respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some
part thereof. The bill says that the powers of the Irish
Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law
respecting the establishment or endowment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or imposing any
disability or conferring any privilege on account of religious
belief, or whereby any person may be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, or whereby
private property may be taken without just compensation.
According to the bill the executive power in Ireland shall
continue vested in her Majesty the Queen, and the Lord
Lieutenant, on behalf of her Majesty, shall exercise any
prerogatives or other executive power of the Queen the
exercise of which may be delegated to him by her Majesty, and
shall in the Queen's name summon, prorogue, and dissolve the
Legislature. An Executive Committee of the Privy Council of
Ireland is provided for, which 'shall aid and advise in the
government of Ireland.' The Lord Lieutenant, with the advice
and consent of the Executive Council, is authorized to give or
withhold the assent of her Majesty to bills passed by the houses
of the Legislature. The Legislative Council by the terms of
the bill shall consist of forty-eight Councilors. Every man
shall be entitled to vote for a Councilor who owns or occupies
any land or tenement of a ratable value of £20. The term of
office of the Councilors is to be for eight years, which is
not to be affected by dissolution, but one-half of the
Councilors shall retire in every fourth year and their seats
be filled by a new election. The Legislative Assembly is to
consist of 103 members returned by the Parliamentary
constituencies existing at present in Ireland. This Assembly,
unless sooner dissolved, may exist for five years. The bill
also provides for 80 Irish members in the House of Commons. In
regard to finance, the bill provides that for the purposes of
this act the public revenue shall be divided into general
revenue and special revenue, and general revenue shall consist
of the gross revenue collected in Ireland from taxes; the portion
due to Ireland of the hereditary revenues of the crown which
are managed by the Commissioners of Woods, an annual sum for
the customs and excise duties collected in Great Britain on
articles consumed in Ireland, provided that an annual sum of
the customs and excise duties collected in Ireland on articles
consumed in Great Britain shall be deducted from the revenue
collected in Ireland and treated as revenue collected in Great
Britain; these annual sums to be determined by a committee
appointed jointly by the Irish Government and the Imperial
Treasury. It is also provided that one-third of the general
revenue of Ireland and also that portion of any imperial
miscellaneous revenue to which Ireland may claim to be
entitled shall be paid into the Treasury of the United Kingdom
as the contribution of Ireland to imperial liabilities and
expenditures; this plan to continue for a term of six years,
at the end of which time a new scheme of tax division shall be
devised.
{981}
The Legislature, in order to meet expenses of the public
service, is authorized to impose taxes other than those now
existing in Ireland. Ireland should also have charged up
against her and be compelled to pay out of her own Treasury
all salaries and pensions of Judges and liabilities of all
kinds which Great Britain has assumed for her benefit. The
bill further provides that appeal from courts in Ireland to
the House of Lords shall cease and that all persons having the
right of appeal shall have a like right to appeal to the Queen in
council. The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant is fixed at
six years. Ultimately the Royal Irish Constabulary shall cease
to exist and no force other than the ordinary civil police
shall be permitted to be formed. The Irish Legislature shall
be summoned to meet on the first Tuesday in September, 1894,
and the first election for members shall be held at such time
before that day as may be fixed by her Majesty in council." In
the House of Lords, the bill was defeated on the 8th of
September--the second reading postponed to a day six months
from that date--by the overwhelming vote of 419 to 41.
----------ENGLAND: End----------
ENGLE.--ENGLISH.
See ANGLES AND JUTES;
also, ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.
ENGLISH PALE, The.
See PALE, THE ENGLISH.
ENGLISH SWEAT, The.
See SWEATING SICKNESS.
ENGLISHRY.
To check the assassination of his tyrannical Norman followers
by the exasperated English, William the Conqueror ordained
that the whole Hundred within which one was slain should pay a
heavy penalty. "In connexion with this enactment there grew up
the famous law of 'Englishry,' by which every murdered man was
presumed to be a Norman, unless proofs of 'Englishry' were
made by the four nearest relatives of the deceased.
'Presentments of Englishry,' as they were technically termed,
are recorded in the reign of Richard I., but not later."
T. P. Taswell-Langmead,
English Constitutional History.
page 68.
ENNISKILLEN, The defence of.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1688-1689.
ENÔMOTY, The.
In the Spartan military organization the enômoty "was a small
company of men, the number of whom was variable, being given
differently at 25, 32, or 36 men,--drilled and practised
together in military evolutions, and bound to each other by a
common oath. Each Enômoty had a separate captain or
enomotarch, the strongest and ablest soldier of the company."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 8.
ENRIQUE.
See HENRY.
ENSISHEIM, Battle of (1674).
See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.
EORL AND CEORL.
"The modern English forms of these words have completely lost
their ancient meaning. The word 'Earl,' after several
fluctuations, has settled down as the title of one rank in the
Peerage; the word 'Churl' has come to be a word of moral
reprobation, irrespective of the rank of the person who is
guilty of the offence. But in the primary meaning of the
words, 'Eorl' and 'Ceorl'--words whose happy jingle causes
them to be constantly opposed to each other--form an
exhaustive division of the free members of the state. The
distinction in modern language is most nearly expressed br the
words 'Gentle' and 'Simple.' The 'Ceorl' is the simple
freeman, the mere unit in the army or in the assembly, whom no
distinction of birth or office marks out from his fellows."
E. A. Freeman,
History of the Norman Conquest of England,
chapter 3, section 2.
See, also, ETHEL;
and ENGLAND: A. D. 958.
EORMEN STREET.
See ERMYN STREET.
EPAMINONDAS, and the greatness of Thebes.
See GREECE: B. C. 379-371, and 371-362;
also THEBES: B. C. 378.
EPEIROS.
See Epmus.
EPHAH, The.
"The ephah, or bath, was the unit of measures of capacity for
both liquids and grain [among the ancient Jews]. The ephah is
considered by Queipo to have been the measure of water
contained in the ancient Egyptian cubic foot, and thus
equivalent to 29.376 litres, or 6.468 imperial gallons, and to
have been nearly identical with the ancient Egyptian artaba
and the Greek metretes. For liquids, the ephah was divided
into six hin, and the twelfth part of the hin was the log. As
a grain measure, the ephah was divided into ten omers, or
gomers. The omer measure of manna gathered by the Israelites
in the desert as a day's food for each adult person was thus
equal to 2.6 imperial quarts. The largest measure of capacity
both for liquids and dry commodities was the cor of twelve
ephahs."
H. W. Chisholm,
On the Science of Weighing and Measuring,
chapter 2.
EPHES-DAMMIM, Battle of.
The battle which followed David's encounter with Goliath, the
gigantic Philistine.
1 Samuel, xvii.
EPHESIA, The.
See IONIC (PAN-IONIC) AMPHIKTYONY.
EPHESUS.
The Ephesian Temple.
"The ancient city of Ephesus was situated on the river
Cayster, which falls into the Bay of Scala Nova, on the
western coast of Asia Minor. Of the origin and foundation of
Ephesus we have no historical record. Stories were told which
ascribed the settlement of the place to Androklos, the son of
the Athenian king, Codrus. ... With other Ionian cities of
Asia Minor, Ephesus fell into the hands of Crœsus, the last of
the kings of Lydia, and, on the overthrow of Crœsus by Cyrus,
it passed under the heavier yoke of the Persian despot.
Although from that time, during a period of at least five
centuries, to the conquest by the Romans, the city underwent
great changes of fortune, it never lost its grandeur and
importance. The Temple of Artemis (Diana), whose splendour has
almost become proverbial, tended chiefly to make Ephesus the most
attractive and notable of all the cities of Asia Minor. Its
magnificent harbour was filled with Greek and Phenician
merchantmen, and multitudes flocked from all parts to profit
by its commerce and to worship at the shrine of its tutelary
goddess. The City Port was fully four miles from the sea,
which has not, as has been supposed, receded far. ... During
the generations which immediately followed the conquest of
Lydia and the rest of Asia Minor by the Persian kings, the
arts of Greece attained their highest perfection, and it was
within this short period of little more than two centuries
that the great Temple of Artemis was three times built upon
the same site, and, as recent researches have found, each time
on the same grand scale."
J. T. Wood,
Discoveries at Ephesus,
chapter 1.
{982}
The excavations which were carried on at Ephesus by Mr. Wood,
for the British Museum, during eleven years, from 1863 until
1874, resulted in the uncovering of a large part of the site
of the great Temple and the determining of its architectural
features, besides bringing to light many inscriptions and much
valuable sculpture. The account given in the work named above
is exceedingly interesting.
EPHESUS: Ionian conquest and occupation.
See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.
EPHESUS: Ancient Commerce.
"The spot on the Asiatic coast which corresponded most nearly
with Corinth on the European, was Ephesus, a city which, in
the time of Herodotus, had been the starting point of caravans
for Upper Asia, but which, under the change of dynasties and
ruin of empires, had dwindled into a mere provincial town. The
mild sway of Augustus restored it to wealth and eminence, and
as the official capital of the province of Asia, it was
reputed to be the metropolis of no less than 500 cities."
C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 40.
EPHESUS: A. D. 267.
Destruction by the Goths of the Temple of Diana.
See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.
EPHESUS: A. D. 431 and 449.
The General Council and the "Robber Synod."
See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.
----------EPHESUS: End----------
EPHETÆ, The.
A board of fifty-one judges instituted by the legislation of
Draco, at Athens, for the trial of crimes of bloodshed upon
the Areopagus.
G. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
EPHORS.
"Magistrates, called by the name of Ephors, existed in many
Dorian as well as in other States [of ancient Greece],
although our knowledge with regard to them extends no further
than to the fact of their existence; while the name, which
signifies quite generally 'overseers,' affords room for no
conclusion as to their political position or importance. In
Sparta, however, the Board of Five Ephors became, in the
course of time, a magistracy of such dignity and influence
that no other can be found in any free State with which it can
be compared. Concerning its first institution nothing certain
can be ascertained. ... The following appears to be a probable
account:--The Ephors were originally magistrates appointed by
the kings, partly to render them special assistance in the
judicial decision of private disputes,--a function which they
continued to exercise in later times,--partly to undertake,
as lieutenants of the kings, other of their functions, during
their absence in military service, or through some other
cause. ... When the monarchy and the Gerousia wished to
re-establish their ancient influence in opposition to the
popular assembly, they were obliged to agree to a concession
which should give some security to the people that this power
should not be abused to their detriment. This concession
consisted in the fact that the Ephors were independently
authorized to exercise control over the kings themselves. ...
The Ephors were enabled to interfere in every department of
the administration, and to remove or punish whatever they
found to be contrary to the laws or adverse to the public
interest."
G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 1, section 8.
See, also, SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION, &c.
EPHTHALITES, The.
See HUNS, THE WHITE.
EPIDAMNUS.
See GREECE: B. C. 435-432;
and KORKYRA.
EPIDII, The.
See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.
EPIGAMIA.
The right of marriage in ancient Athens.
G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3.
EPIGONI, The.
See BŒOTIA.
EPIPOLÆ.
One of the parts or divisions of the ancient city of Syracuse,
Sicily.
EPIROT LEAGUE, The.
"The temporary greatness of the Molossian kingdom [of Epeiros,
or Epirus] under Alexander and Pyrrhus is matter of general
history. Our immediate business is with the republican
government which succeeded on the bloody extinction of royalty
and the royal line [which occurred B. C. 239]. Epeiros now
became a republic; of the details of its constitution we know
nothing, but its form can hardly fail to have been federal.
The Epeirots formed one political body; Polybios always speaks
of them, like the Achaians and Akarnanians, as one people
acting with one will. Decrees are passed, ambassadors are sent
and received, in the name of the whole Epeirot people, and
Epeiros had, like Akarnania, a federal coinage bearing the
common name of the whole nation."
E. A. Freeman,
History of Federal Government,
book 4, section 1.
EPIRUS.--THE EPIROTS.
"Passing over the borders of Akarnania [in ancient western
Greece] we find small nations or tribes not considered as
Greeks, but known, from the fourth century B. C. downwards,
under the common name of Epirots. This word signifies,
properly, inhabitants of a continent, as opposed to those of
an island or a peninsula. It came only gradually to be applied
by the Greeks as their comprehensive denomination to designate
all those diverse tribes, between the Ambrakian Gulf on the
south and west, Pindus on the east, and the Illyrians and
Macedonians to the north and north-east. Of these Epirots the
principal were--the Chaonians, Thesprotians, Kassopians, and
Molossians, who occupied the country inland as well as
maritime along the Ionian Sea, from the Akrokeraunian
mountains to the borders of Ambrakia in the interior of the
Ambrakian Gulf. ... Among these various tribes it is difficult
to discriminate the semi-Hellenic from the non-Hellenic; for
Herodotus considers both Molossians and Thesprotians as
Hellenic,--and the oracle of Dôdôna, as well as the
Nekyomanteion (or holy cavern for evoking the dead) of
Acheron, were both in the territory of the Thesprotians, and
both (in the time of the historian) Hellenic. Thucydides, on
the other hand, treats both Molossians and Thesprotians as
barbaric. ... Epirus is essentially a pastoral country: its
cattle as well as its shepherds and shepherds' dogs were
celebrated throughout all antiquity; and its population then,
as now, found divided village residence the most suitable to
their means and occupations. ... Both the Chaonians and
Thesprotians appear, in the time of Thucydides, as having no
kings: there was a privileged kingly race, but the presiding
chief was changed from year to year. The Molossians, however,
had a line of kings, succeeding from father to son, which
professed to trace its descent through fifteen generations
downward from Achilles and Neoptolemus to Tharypas about the
year 400 B. C."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 24.
{983}
The Molossian kings subsequently extended their sovereignty
over the whole country and styled themselves kings of Epirus.
Pyrrhus, whose war with Rome (see ROME: B. C. 282-275) is one
of the well known episodes of history, was the most ambitious
and energetic of the dynasty (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280);
Hannibal reckoned him among the greatest of soldiers. In the
next century Epirus fell under the dominion of Rome.
Subsequently it formed part of the Byzantine empire; then
became a separate principality, ruled by a branch of the
imperial Comnenian family; was conquered by the Turks in 1466
and is now represented by the southern half of the province of
Turkey, called Albania.
See, also, ŒNOTRIANS.
EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.
The Greek Despotat.
From the ruins of the Byzantine empire, overthrown by the
Crusaders and the Venetians in 1204, "that portion ...
situated to the west of the range of Pindus was saved from
feudal domination by Michael, a natural son of Constantine
Angelos, the uncle of the Emperors Isaac II. and Alexius III.
After the conquest of Constantinople, he escaped into Epirus,
where his marriage with a lady of the country gave him some
influence; and assuming the direction of the administration of
the whole country from Dyrrachium to Naupactus, he collected a
considerable military force, and established the seat of his
authority generally at Ioannina or Arta. ... History has
unfortunately preserved very little information concerning the
organisation and social condition of the different classes and
races which inhabited the dominions of the princes of Epirus.
Almost the only facts that have been preserved relate to the
wars and alliances of the despots and their families with the
Byzantine emperors and the Latin princes. ... They all assumed
the name of Angelos Komnenos Dukas; and the title of despot,
by which they are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine
honorary distinction, never borne by the earlier members of
the family until it had been conferred on them by the Greek
emperor. Michael I, the founder of the despotat, distinguished
himself by his talents as a soldier and a negotiator. He
extended his authority over all Epirus, Acarnania and Etolia,
and a part of Macedonia and Thessaly. Though virtually
independent, he acknowledged Theodore I. (Laskaris), [at
Nicæa] as the lawful emperor of the East." The able and
unscrupulous brother of Michael, Theodore, who became his
successor in 1214, extinguished by conquest the Lombard
kingdom of Saloniki, in Macedonia (A. D. 1222), and assumed
the title of emperor, in rivalry with the Greek emperor at
Nicæa, establishing his capital at Thessalonica. The empire of
Thessalonica was short lived. Its capital was taken by the
emperor of Nicæa, in 1234, and Michael's son John, then
reigning, was forced to resign the imperial title. The
despotat of Epirus survived for another century, much torn and
distracted by wars and domestic conflicts. In 1350 its
remaining territory was occupied by the king of Servia, and
finally it was swallowed up in the conquests of the Turks.
G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusader,
chapter 6.
ALSO IN:
Sir J. E. Tennent,
History of Modern Greece,
chapter 3.
EPIRUS: Modern History.
See ALBANIANS.
EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH.
See CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
EPISTATES.
The presiding officer of the ancient Athenian council and
popular assembly.
EPONYM.--EPONYMUS.