* 8 I ^^ <.' 
 
 ",3P C^ 
 
 
 c.^^ 
 
 A\^ 
 
 \' ./ 
 
 
 xO^. 
 
 0^ 
 
 ^^ > 
 
 
 
 
 its ^ <>!■ 
 
 Vl 
 
 
 fj ,. 
 
 V 
 
 .1 O 
 
 
 
 
 ,^' 
 
 .^\^ 
 
 
 ' S- "'• ^ ' V'c - - '. ^-'*'' '^*^ ^>" 
 
 '^' 
 
 V 
 
 
 .'A. - ■■*■ '-^', 
 
 
 .s -^^ 
 

 
 O^ s ^ ' ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 
 x^^. 
 
 o 
 
 ,\ 
 
 
 %,/^ ->^^ 
 
 "^^ .#' 
 
 . --,' 
 
 c^ * ss £>' -i ^*- " 
 
 ; X 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 Oo^ 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 - .^ '% ' -, . 
 
 A^ v'' '^. ^-. rO^ c«^ <-. -^^^ 
 
 e <r ^ 
 
 ,0o 
 
 •^^0 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 ^, V V » "f^ 
 
 "'^^ K^^' 
 
 ■I 
 
 -a 
 \ ^^ ' ^V s "> <■ / ^^ 
 
 G 
 
 
 
 \^ 
 
 <-- ^ 8 lA'^ 
 
 f^ 
 
 
 o> 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 8 1 A * 
 
 •t^. 
 
THE 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 
 
 OF 
 
 ENGLAND 
 
 Jrom 1760 to 1860 
 
 y 
 
 By CHAELES DUKE YONGE, MA. 
 
 REGIUS PROFESSOR OP MODERN HISTORY, QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST 
 
 AND AUTHOR OF " THE HISTORY OF THE BRITISH NAVY " 
 
 " THE LIFE OF MARIE ANTOINETTE " ETC. 
 
 
 NEW YORK 
 HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE 
 
 1882 
 
- n '. 
 
 ^ 
 
 \ s\> 
 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Mr. Hallam's "Constitutional* History " closes, as is well 
 known, with the death of George 11. The Reformation, the 
 great Rebellion, and the Revolution, all of which are embraced 
 in the period of which it treats, are events of such surpassing 
 importance, and such all-pervading and lasting influence, that 
 no subsequent transactions can ever attract entirely equal atten- 
 tion. Yet the century which has elapsed since the accession of 
 George III. has also witnessed occurrences not only full of ex- 
 citing interest at the moment, but calculated to affect the poli- 
 cy of the kingdom and the condition of the people, for all fut- 
 ure time, in a degree only second to the Revolution itself. In- 
 deed, the change in some leading features and principles of the 
 constitution wrought by the Reform Bill of 1832, exceeds any 
 that were enacted by the Bill of Rights or the Act of Settle- 
 ment. The only absolutely new principle introduced in 1688 
 was that establishment of Protestant ascendency which was 
 contained in the clause which disabled any Roman Catholic 
 from wearing the crown. In other respects, those great stat- 
 utes were not so much the introduction of new principles, as 
 a recognition of privileges of the people which had been long 
 established, but which, in too many instances, had been disre- 
 garded and violated. 
 
 But the Reform Bill conferred political power on classes 
 which had never before been admitted to be entitled to it ; 
 and their enfranchisement could not fail to give a wholly new 
 
iV PREFACE. 
 
 and democratic tinge to the government, which has been visi- 
 ble in its effect on the policy of all subsequent administrations. 
 
 And, besides this great measure, the passing of which has 
 often been called a new Revolution, and the other reforms, mu- 
 nicipal and ecclesiastical, which were its immediate and almost 
 inevitable fruits, the century which followed the accession of 
 George III. was also marked by the Irish Union, the abolition 
 of slavery, the establishment of the principle of universal re- 
 ligious toleration ; the loss of one great collection of colonies, 
 the plantation of and grant of constitutions to others of not 
 inferior magnitude, which had not even come into existence at 
 its commencement; the growth of our wondrous dominion in 
 India, with its eventual transfer of all authority in that coun- 
 try to the crown ; with a host of minor transactions and en- 
 actments, which must all be regarded as, more ou less, so many 
 changes in or developments of the constitution, as it was re- 
 garded and understood by the statesmen of the seventeenth 
 century. 
 
 It has seemed, therefore, to the compiler of this volume, that 
 a narrative of these transactions in their historical sequence, so 
 as to exhibit the connection which has frequently existed be- 
 tween them ; to show, for instance, how the repeal of Poyn- 
 ings' Act, and the Regency Bill of 1788, necessitated the Irish 
 "Union; how Catholic Emancipation brought after it Parlia- 
 mentary Reform, and how that led to municipal and ecclesi- 
 astical reforms, might not be without interest and use at the 
 present time. And the modern fulness of our parliamentary 
 reports (itself one not unimportant reform and novelty), since 
 the accession of George III., has enabled him to give the in- 
 ducements or the objections to the different enactments in the 
 very words of the legislators who proposed them or resisted 
 them, as often as it seemed desirable to do so. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Mr. Hallam's View of the Development of the Constitution.— Symptoms 
 of approaching Constitutional Changes. — State of the Kingdom at the 
 Accession of George III. — Improvement of the Law aflfecting the 
 Commissions of the Judges. — Restoration of Peace. — Lord Bute be- 
 comes Minister. — The Case of Wilkes. — Mr. Luttrell is Seated for Mid- 
 dlesex by the House of Commons.— Growth of Parliamentary Report- 
 ing.— Mr. Grenville's Act for trying Election Petitions.— Disfranchise- 
 ment of Corrupt Voters at New Shoreham Page 1 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 The Regency Bill. — The Ministry of 1766 lay an Embargo on Corn. — An 
 Act of Indemnity is Passed. — The Milium Tempus Act concerning 
 Crown Property; it is sought to Extend it to Church Property, but 
 the Attempt fails. — The Royal Marriage Act.— The Lords amend a Bill 
 imposing Export Duties, etc., on Corn 36 
 
 CHAPTER IH. 
 
 Mr. Grenville imposes a Duty on Stamps in the North American Colo- 
 nies. — Examination of Dr. Franklin. — Lord Rockingham's Ministry Re- 
 peals the Duty. — Lord Mansfield affirms a Virtual Representation in the 
 Colonies. — Mr. C. Townsend imposes Import Duties in America. — After 
 some Years, the Civil War breaks out. — Hanoverian Troops are sent to 
 Gibraltar. — The Employment of Hanoverian Regiments at Gibraltar 
 and Minorca. — End of the War. — Colonial Policy of the Present Reign. 
 — Complaints of the Undue Influence of the Crown. — Motions for Par- 
 liamentary Reform. — Mr. Burke's Bill for Economical Reform. — Mr. 
 Dunning's Resolution on the Influence of the Crown. — Rights of the 
 Lords on Money-bills.— The Gordon Riots 57 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Changes of Administration. — The Coalition Ministry. — The Establish- 
 ment of the Prince of Wales.— Fox's India Bill.— The King Defeats it 
 by the Agency of Lord Temple.— The Ministry is Dismissed, and Sue- 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 ceeded by Mr. Pitt's Administration. — Opposition to the New Ministry 
 in the House of Commons. — Merits of the Contest between the Old 
 and the New Ministry. — Power of Pitt.— Pitt's India Bill. — Bill for the 
 Government of Canada. — The Marriage of the Prince of Wales to Mrs. 
 Fitzherbert. — The King becomes Deranged. — Proposal of a Regency, — 
 Opinions of Various Writers on the Course adopted. — Spread of Revo- 
 lutionary Societies and Opinions. — Bills for the Repression of Sedition 
 and Treason. — The Alien Act. — The Traitorous Correspondence Act. 
 — Treason and Sedition Bills. — Failure of some Prosecutions under 
 them Page 97 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Affairs of Ireland. — Condition of the Irish Parliament. — The Octen- 
 nial Bill. — The Penal Laws. — Non-residence of the Lord-lieutenant. — 
 Influence of the American War on Ireland. — Enrolment of the Volun- 
 teers. — Concession of all the Demands of Ireland. — ^Violence of the Vol-, 
 unteers. — Their Convention. — Violence of the Opposition in Parlia- 
 ment: Mr. Brownlow, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Flood. — Pitt's Propositions 
 Fail. — Fitzgibbon's Conspiracy Bill. — Regency Question. — Recovery of 
 the King. — Question of a Legislative Union. — Establishment of May- 
 nooth College. — Lord Edward Fitzgerald. — Arguments for and against 
 the Union. — It passes the Irish Parliament. — Details of the Measure. — 
 General Character of the Union.— Circumstances which Prevented its 
 Completeness 153 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 
 A Census is Ordered. — Dissolution of Pitt's Administration. — Impeach- 
 ment of Lord Melville. — Introduction of Lord Ellenborough into the 
 Cabinet. — Abolition of the Slave-trade. — Mr. Windham's Compulsory 
 Training Bill. — Illness of the King, and Regency. — Recurrence to the 
 Precedent of 1788-'89. — Death of Mr. Perceval,— Lord Liverpool be- 
 comes Prime-minister. — Question of Appointments in the Household. 
 — Appointment of a Prime-minister 196 
 
 CHAPTER Vn. 
 
 The Toleration Act. — Impropriety of making Catholic Emancipation (or 
 any other Important Matter) an Open Question.— Joint Responsibility 
 of all the Ministers. — Detention of Napoleon at St. Helena. — Question 
 whether the Regent could Give Evidence in a Court of Law in a Civil 
 Action. — Agitation for Reform. — Public Meetings. — The Manchester 
 Meeting. — The Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill. — Lord Sidmouth's 
 Six Acts 224 
 
 CHAPTER VHL 
 
 Survey of the Reign of George III.— The Cato Street Conspiracy. — The 
 Queen's Return to England, and the Proceedings against hsr. — The 
 
CONTENTS. . Vii 
 
 King Visits Ireland and Scotland. — Reform of the Criminal Code, — 
 Freedom of Trade. — Death of Lord Liverpool. — The Duke of Welling- 
 ton becomes Prime-minister. — Repeal of the Test and Corporation Act. 
 — O'Connell is Elected for Clare. — Peel Resigns his Seat for Oxford. 
 — Catholic Emancipation. — Question of the Endowment of the Ro- 
 man Catholic Clergy. — Constitutional Character of the Emancipation. 
 —The Propriety of Mr. Peel's Resignation of his Seat for Oxford Ques- 
 tioned Page 245 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Demand for Parliamentary Reform. — Death of George IV., and Accession 
 of William IV. — French Revolution of 1830. — Growing Feeling in Favor 
 of Reform. — Duke of Wellington's Declaration against Reform. — His 
 Resignation : Lord Grey becomes Prime-minister. — Introduction of the 
 Reform Bill. — Its Details. — Riots at Bristol and Nottingham. — Pro- 
 posed Creation of Peers. — The King's Message to the Peers. — Character 
 and Consequences of the Reform Bill. — Appointment of a Regency. — 
 Re-arrangement of the Civil List 287 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Abolition of Slavery. — Abridgment of the Apprenticeship. — The East 
 India Company's Trade is Thrown Open. — Commencement of Eccle- 
 siastical Reforms. — The New Poor-law. — State of Ireland. — Agitation 
 against Tithes. — Coercion Bill. — Beginning of Church Reform. — Sir 
 Robert Peel becomes Prime-minister. — Variety of Ofl&ces held Provi- 
 sionally by the Duke of Wellington. — Sir Robert Peel Retires, and Lord 
 Melbourne Resumes the Government. — Sir Robert Peel Proposes a Meas- 
 ure of Church Reform. — Municipal Reform. — Measures of Ecclesiastical 
 Reform „ 313 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Death of William IV., and Accession of Queen Victoria. — Rise of the 
 Chartists. — Resignation of Lord Melbourne in 1839, and his Resumption 
 of Office. — Marriage of the Queen, and Consequent Arrangements. — 
 The Precedence of the Prince, etc. — Post-office Reform.— War in Af- 
 ghanistan. — Discontent in Jamaica. — Insurrection in Canada. — New 
 Constitution for Canada and other Colonies. — Case of Stockdale and 
 Hansard 349 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel becomes Prime-minister. — Commercial Reforms. — Free- 
 trade. — Religious Toleration. — Maynooth. — The Queen's University. — 
 Post-office Regulations. — The Opening of Letters. — Naturalization of 
 Aliens. — Recall of Lord Ellenborough. — Reversal of the Vote on the 
 Sugar Duties. — Refusal of the Crown to Sanction a Bill. — The Ques- 
 tion of Increase in the Number of Spiritual Peers. — Repeal of the Corn- 
 
Vlll ^ CONTENTS. 
 
 laws. — Revolution in France, and Agitation on the Continent.— Death 
 of Sir Robert Peel. — Indifference of the Country to Reform. — Repeal 
 of the Navigation Laws. — Resolutions in Favor of Free-trade. — The 
 Great Exhibition of 1851 rage 374 
 
 CHAPTER XIIL 
 
 Dismissal of LordPalmerston. — Theory of the Relation between the Sov- 
 ereign and the Cabinet. — Correspondence of the Sovereign with French 
 Princes. — Russian War. — Abolition of the Tax on Newspapers. — Life 
 Peerages. — Resignation of two Bishops. — Indian Mutiny. — Abolition of 
 the Sovereign Power of the Company. — Visit of the Prince of Wales to 
 India. — Conspiracy Bill. — Rise of the Volunteers. — National Fortifica- 
 tions. — The Lords Reject the Measure for the Repeal of the Paper- 
 duties. — Lord Palmerston's Resolutions. — Character of the Changes 
 during the last Century 401 
 
 INDEX 449 
 
CONSTITUTIOML HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Mr. Hallam's View of the Development of the Constitution. — Symptoms 
 of approaching Constitutional Changes. — State of the Kingdom at the 
 Accession of George III. — Improvement of the Law affecting the 
 Commissions of the Judges. — Restoration of Peace. — Lord Bute be- 
 comes Minister.— The Case of Wilkes.— Mr. Luttrell is Seated for Mid- 
 dlesex by the House of Commons. — Growth of Parliamentary Report- 
 ing. — Mr. Grenville's Act for trying Election Petitions.— Disfranchise- 
 ment of Corrupt Voters at New Shoreham. 
 
 The learned and judicious writer to whom is due the first 
 idea of a " Constitutional History of England," and of whose 
 admirable work I here venture to offer a continuation, regards 
 "the spirit of the government" as having been "almost wholly 
 monarchical till the Revolution of 1688," and in the four subse- 
 quent reigns, with the last of which his volumes close, as "hav- 
 ing turned chiefly to an aristocracy."* And it may be con- 
 sidered as having generally preserved that character through 
 the long and eventful reign of George HI. But, even while 
 he was writing, a change was already preparing, of which more 
 than one recent occurrence had given unmistakable warning. 
 A borough had been disfranchised for inveterate corruption in 
 the first Parliament of George IV.f Before its dissolution, the 
 same House of Commons had sanctioned the principle of a 
 state endowment of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, and 
 had given a third reading to a bill for the abolition of all civil 
 
 * " Constitutional History," vol. iii., p. 380; ed. 3, 1832. The first edi- 
 tion was published in 1827. 
 
 t Grampound. Corrupt voters had been disfranchised in New Shore- 
 ham as early as 1771, and the franchise of the borough of Cricklade had 
 been transferred to the adjoining hundreds in 1782. 
 
 1 
 
2 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 restrictions affecting members of that religion. It was impos- 
 sible to avoid foreseeing that the Parliamentary Reform inau- 
 gurated by the disfranchisement of Grampound would soon be 
 carried farther, or that the emancipation, as it was termed, of 
 all Christian sects was at least equally certain not to be long 
 delayed. And it will be denied by no one that those meas- 
 ures, which had no very obscure or doubtful connection with 
 each other, have gradually imparted to the constitution a far 
 more democratic tinge than would have been willingly ac- 
 cepted by even the most liberal statesman of the preceding 
 century, or than, in the days of the Tudors or of the Stuarts, 
 would have been thought compatible with the maintenance of 
 the monarchy. 
 
 When George III. came to the throne, he found the nation 
 engaged in a war which was occupying its arms not only on 
 the Continent of Europe, but in India and America also, and 
 was extending her glory and her substantial power in both 
 hemispheres. Inter arma silent leges. And, while the contest 
 lasted, neither legislators in Parliament nor the people outside 
 had much attention to spare for matters of domestic policy. 
 Yet the first year of the new reign was not suffered to pass 
 without the introduction of one measure limiting the royal 
 prerogative in a matter of paramount importance to the liberty 
 of the people, the independence of the judges. The rule of 
 making the commissions of the judges depend on their good 
 conduct instead of on the pleasure of the crown had, indeed, 
 been established at the Revolution ; but it was still held that 
 these commissions expired with the life of the sovereign who 
 had granted them ; and, at the accession of Anne, as also at 
 that of George IL, a renewal of their commissions had been 
 withheld from some members of the judicial bench. But now, 
 even before the dissolution of the existing Parliament, the new 
 King recommended to it such a change in the law as should 
 " secure the judges in the enjoyment of their oflSces dur- 
 ing their good behavior, notwithstanding any demise of the 
 crown ;" giving the proposal, which was understood to have 
 been originally suggested by himself, additional weight by the 
 very unusual step of making it the subject of a speech to the 
 
LOED BUTE BECOMES MINISTEE. 3 
 
 two Houses in the middle of the session. A bill to give effect 
 to it was at once brought in, and, though the Houses sat only 
 a fortnight longer, was carried before the dissolution. 
 
 The close of the year 1762, however, saw the restoration of 
 peace ; and the circumstances connected with the treaty which 
 re-established it gave birth to a degree of political and consti- 
 tutional excitement such as had not agitated the kingdom for 
 more than half a century. That treaty had not been concluded 
 by the minister who had conducted the war. When George 
 HI. came to the throne he found the Duke of Newcastle pre- 
 siding at the Treasury, but the seals of one Secretary of State 
 in the hands of Mr. Pitt, who was universally regarded as the 
 guiding genius of the ministry. The other Secretary of State 
 was Lord Holdernesse. But, in the spring of 1761, as soon as 
 the Parliament was dissolved,* that statesman retired from office, 
 and was succeeded by the Earl of Bute, a Scotch nobleman, 
 who stood high in the favor of the King's mother, the Princess 
 Dowager of Wales, but who had not till very recently been 
 supposed to be actuated by political ambition, and who was 
 still less suspected of any statesman-like ability to qualify him 
 for the office to which he was thus promoted. It was presently 
 seen, however, that he aspired to even higher dignity. He at 
 once set himself to oppose Pitt's warlike policy ; and, on the 
 question of declaring war against Spain, he was so successful 
 in inducing the rest of the cabinet to reject Pitt's proposals, 
 that that statesman resigned his office in unconcealed indigna- 
 tion. Having got rid of the real master of the ministry, Bute's 
 next step was to get rid of its nominal chief, and in the spring 
 of 1762 he managed to drive the Duke of Newcastle from the 
 Treasury, and was himself placed by the King at the head of 
 the administration. So rapid an elevation of a man previously 
 unknown as a politician could hardly fail to create very wide- 
 spread dissatisfaction, which was in some degree augmented by 
 the nationality of the new minister. Lord Bute was a Scotch- 
 man, and Englishmen had not wholly forgiven or forgotten the 
 Scotch invasion of 1745. Since that time the Scotch had been 
 
 * Parliament was dissolved March 19. Lord Bute succeeded Lord 
 Holdernesse March 25. 
 
4 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 regarded with general disfavor ; Scotcli poverty and Scotcli 
 greediness for the good things of England had furnished con- 
 stant topics for raillery and sarcasm ; and more than one dem- 
 agogue and political writer had sought popularity by pandering 
 to the prevailing taste for attacks on the whole nation. Fore- 
 most among these was Mr. John Wilkes, member for Aylesbury, 
 a man of broken fortunes and still more damaged character, 
 but of a wit and hardihood that made his society acceptable 
 to some of high rank and lax morality, and caused his political 
 alliance to be courted by some who desired to be regarded as 
 leaders of a party ; many of the transactions of the late reign 
 having, unfortunately, not been favorable to the maintenance 
 of any high standard of either public or private virtue. On 
 Lord Bute's accession to office, Wilkes had set up a periodical 
 paper, whose object and character were sufficiently indicated 
 by its title. The North Briton, and in which the diligence of 
 Lord Bute in distributing places among his kinsmen and coun- 
 trymen furnished the staple of almost every number ; while in 
 many the Princess of Wales herself was not spared, as the 
 cause, for motives not obscurely hinted at, of his sudden ele- 
 vation. So pertinacious and virulent were the attacks thus 
 launched at him, coinciding as they did, at least in one point, 
 with the prejudices of the multitude, that they were commonly 
 believed to have had some share in driving Lord Bute from 
 office, which, in the spring of 1763, he suddenly resigned, hop- 
 ing, as it might almost seem, thus to throw on his successor 
 the burden of defending his measures. The most important 
 of these measures had been the conclusion of the Treaty of 
 Versailles, which, when it was first announced to Parliament, 
 had been vehemently attacked in both Houses by Pitt and his 
 followers, but had been approved by large majorities. Wilkes, 
 however, not without reason, believed it to be still unpopular 
 with the nation at large, and, flushed with his supposed victo- 
 ry over Lord Bute, was watching eagerly for some occasion of 
 re-opening the question, when such an opportunity was afforded 
 him by the King's speech at the prorogation of the Parliament, 
 which took place a few days after Lord Bute's resignation. 
 Lord Bute had been succeeded by Mr. George Grenville, who 
 
JOHN WILKES AND HIS DIATRIBES. 5 
 
 had for a time been one of his colleagues as Secretary of State ; 
 and on him, therefore, the duty devolved of framing the royal 
 speech, the opening sentences of which referred to "the re- 
 establishment of peace" in terms of warm self-congratulation, 
 as having been effected "upon conditions honorable to the 
 crown and beneficial to the people." Wilkes at once caught 
 at this panegyric, as affording him just such an opportunity as 
 he had been seeking of renewing his attacks on the govern- 
 ment, which he regarded as changed in nothing but the name 
 of the Prime - minister.* And, four days after the proroga- 
 tion,f he accordingly issued a new number of The North 
 Briton (No. 45), in which he heaped unmeasured sarcasm and 
 invective on the peace itself, on the royal speech, and on the 
 minister who had composed it. As if conscious that Mr, Gren- 
 ville was less inclined by temper than Lord Bute to suffer such 
 attacks without endeavoring to retaliate, he took especial pains 
 to keep within the law in his strictures, and, ac-cordingly, care- 
 fully avoided saying a disrespectful word of the King himself, 
 whom he described as " a prince of many great and amiable 
 qualities," " ever renowned for truth, honor, and unsullied 
 virtue." But he claimed a right to canvass the speech "with 
 the utmost freedom," since " it had always been considered by 
 the Legislature and by the public at large as the speech of the 
 minister." And he kept this distinction carefully in view 
 through the whole number. The speech he denounced with 
 bitter vehemence, as " an abandoned instance of ministerial 
 effrontery," as containing " the most unjustifiable public decla- 
 rations" and "infamous fallacies." The peace he afiBrmed to 
 be " such as had drawn down the contempt of mankind on our 
 wretched negotiators." And he described the present minister 
 as a mere tool of " the favorite," by whom " he still meditated 
 to rule the kingdom with a rod of iron." But in the whole 
 
 * The greater part of Lord Bute's colleagues did, in fact, retain their 
 offices. Lord Egremont and Lord Halifax continued to be Secretaries of 
 State; Lord Henley (afterward Lord Northington) retained the Great 
 Seal; Lord North and Sir John Turner remained as Lords of the Treas- 
 ury ; and Mr. Yorke and Sir Fletcher Norton were still Attorney and 
 Solicitor General. 
 
 + Parliament was prorogued April 19, and Tfie North Briton (No. 45) was 
 published April 33. 
 
6 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 number there was but one sentence whicli could be represented 
 as implying the very slightest censure on the King himself, and 
 even that was qualified by a personal eulogy. " The King of 
 England," it said, " is not only the first magistrate of the coun- 
 try, but is invested by the law with the whole executive power. 
 He is, however, responsible to his people for the due execution 
 of the royal functions in the choice of ministers, etc., equally 
 with the meanest of his subjects in his particular duty. The 
 personal character of our present amiable sovereign makes us 
 easy and happy that so great a power is lodged in such hands ; 
 but the favorite has given too just cause for him to escape the 
 general odium. The prerogative of the crown is to exert the 
 constitutional power intrusted to it in such a way, not of blind 
 favor and partiality, but of wisdom and judgment. This is the 
 spirit of our constitution. The people, too, have their preroga- 
 tive ; and I hope the fine words of Dry den will be engraven on 
 our hearts, ' Freedom is the English subject's prerogative.' " 
 
 These were the last sentences of No. 45. And in the pres- 
 ent day it will hardly be thought that, however severe or even 
 violent some of the epithets with which certain sentences of 
 the royal speech were assailed may have been, the language 
 exceeds the bounds of allowable political criticism. With Ire- 
 spect to the King, indeed, however accompanied with personal 
 compliments to himself those strictures may have been, it may 
 be admitted that in asserting any responsibility whatever to 
 the people on the part of the sovereign, even for tne choice of 
 his ministers, as being bound to exercise that choice " with 
 wisdom and judgment," it ^pes somewhat beyond the strict 
 theory of the constitutionV' tThdoubtedly thaf theory is, that 
 the minister chosen by the King is himself responsible for 
 every circumstance or act which led to his appointment. This 
 principle was established in the fullest manner in 1834, when, 
 as will be seen hereafter, Sir Robert Peel admitted his entire 
 responsibility for the dismissal of Lord Melbourne by King 
 William IV., though it was notorious that he was in Italy at 
 the time, and had not been consulted on the matter. But as 
 yet such questions had not been as accurately examined as 
 subsequent events caused them to be ; and Wilkes's assertion 
 
THE PRINCIPLE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY. 7 
 
 of royal responsibility to this extent probably coincided with 
 the general feeling on the subject.* At all events, the error 
 
 * A letter of the Prince Consort examines the principle of ministerial 
 responsibility with so remarkable a clearness of perception and distinct- 
 ness of explanation, that we may be excused for quoting it at length : 
 "The notion that the responsibility of his advisers impairs the monarch's 
 dignity and importance is a complete mistake. Here we have no law of 
 ministerial responsibility, for the simple reason that we have no written 
 constitution ; but this responsibility flows as a logical necessity from 
 the dignity of the crown and of the sovereign. ' The King can do no 
 wrong,' says the legal axiom, and hence it follows that somebody must 
 be responsible for his measures, if these be contrary to law or injurious 
 to the country's welfare. Ministers here are not responsible qiid minis- 
 ters, that is, quA oflGlcials (as such they are responsible to the crown), but 
 they are responsible to Parliament and the people, or the country, as 'ad- 
 visers of the crown.' Any one of them may advise the crown, and who- 
 ever does so is responsible to the country for the advice he has given. 
 The so-called accountability of ministers to Parliament does not arise 
 out of an abstract principle of responsibility, but out of the practical 
 necessity which they are under of obtaining the consent of Parliament 
 to legislation and the voting of taxes, and, as an essential to this end, of 
 securing its confidence. In practice, ministers are liable to account for 
 the way and manner in which they have administered the laws which 
 they, conjointly with the Parliament, have made, and for the way they 
 have expended the moneys that have been voted for definite objects. 
 They are bound to furnish explanations, to justify their proceedings, to 
 satisfy reasonable scruples, and the answer, * We have, as dutiful subjects, 
 obeyed the sovereign,' will not be accepted. 'Have you acted upon 
 conviction, or have you not?' is the question. 'If you have not, then 
 you are civil servants of the crown, who counsel and do what you con- 
 sider wrong or unjust, with a view to retain your snug places or to win 
 the favor of the sovereign.' And this being so. Parliament withdraws 
 its confidence from them. Herein, too, lies that ministerial power of 
 which sovereigns are so much afraid. They can say, ' We will not do 
 this or that which the sovereign wishes, because we cannot be responsi- 
 ble for it.' But why should a sovereign see anything here to be afraid 
 of? To him it is, in truth, the best of safeguards. A really loyal servant 
 should do nothing for which he is not prepared to answer, even though his 
 master desires it. This practical responsibility is of the utmost advantage 
 to the sovereign. Make independence, not subservience, the essential 
 of service, and you compel the minister to keep his soul free toward the 
 sovereign, you ennoble his advice, you make him staunch and patriotic, 
 while time-servers, the submissive instruments of a monarch's extreme 
 wishes and commands, may lead, and often have led, him to destruction. 
 
 " But to revert to the law of responsibility. This ought to be in effect 
 a safeguard for law itself As such, it is superfluous in this country, 
 where law reigns, and where it would never occur to any one that this 
 could be otherwise. But upon the Continent it is of the highest impor- 
 tance ; as, where the government is an outgrowth of a relation of su- 
 premacy and subordination between sovereign and subject, and the ser- 
 vant, ti'ained in ideas natural to this relation, does not know which to 
 obey, the law or the sovereign, the existence of such a law would deprive 
 him of the excuse which, should he offend the law, and so be guilty of a 
 crime, is ready to his hand in the phrase, ' The sovereign ordered it so, I 
 have merely obeyed,' while it would be a protection to the sovereign 
 that his servants, if guilty of a crime, should not be able to saddle him 
 with the blame of it." — Life of the Prince Consort^ v., 263. 
 
8 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 contained in it, and the insinuation that due wisdom and judg- 
 ment had not been displayed in the appointment of Mr. G. 
 Grenville to the Treasury, were not so derogatory to the legiti- 
 mate authority and dignity of the crown as to make the writer 
 a fit subject for a criminal prosecution. But Mr. Grenville 
 was of a bitter temper, never inclined to tolerate any strictures 
 on his own judgment or capacity, and fully imbued with the 
 conviction that the first duty of an English minister is to up- 
 hold the supreme authority of the Parliament, and to chastise 
 any one who dares to call in question the wisdom of any one 
 of its resolutions. But The North Briton had done this, and 
 more. No. 45 had not only denounced the treaty which both 
 Houses had approved, but had insinuated in unmistakable lan- 
 guage that their approval had been purchased by gross corrup- 
 tion (a fact which was, indeed, suflSciently notorious). And, 
 consequently, Mr. Grenville determined to treat the number 
 which contained the denunciation as a seditious libel, the pub- 
 lication of which was a criminal offence ; and, by his direction, 
 Lord Halifax, as Secretary of State, issued what was termed 
 a general warrant — a warrant, that is, which did not name the 
 person or persons against whom it was directed, but which 
 commanded the apprehension of "the authors, printers, and 
 publishers" of the offending paper, leaving the officers who 
 were charged with its execution to decide who came under 
 that description, or, in other words, who were guilty of the act 
 charged, before they had been brought before any tribunal. 
 The warrant was executed. Wilkes and some printers were 
 apprehended ; Wilkes himself, as if the minister's design had 
 been to make the charge ridiculous by exaggeration, being con- 
 signed to the great state-prison of the Tower, such a use of 
 which was generally limited to those impeached of high-treason. 
 And, indeed, the commitment did declare that No. 45 of The 
 North Briton was " a libel tending to alienate the affections of 
 the people from his Majesty, and to excite them to traitorous 
 insurrections against the government." Wilkes instantly sued 
 out a writ of habeas corpus, and was without hesitation re- 
 leased by the Court of Common Pleas, on the legal ground 
 that, " as a member of the House of Commons, he was pro- 
 
WILKES AND " PKIVILEGE OF PARLIAMENT." 9 
 
 tected from arrest in all cases except treason, felony, or a 
 breach of the peace ;" a decision which, in the next session of 
 Parliament, the minister endeavored to overbear by inducing 
 both Houses to concur in a resolution that " privilege of Par- 
 liament did not extend to the case of publishing seditious 
 libels." 
 
 In his life of Lord Camden,* vt^ho was Chief-justice of the 
 Common Pleas at the time. Lord Campbell expresses a warm 
 approval of this resolution, as one " which would now be con- 
 sidered conclusive evidence of the law\" But, w^ith all respect 
 to the memory of a writer who was himself a Chief-justice, we 
 suspect that in this case he was advancing a position as an 
 author engaged in the discussion of what had become a party 
 question, which he would not have laid down from the Bench. f 
 The resolution certainly did not make it law, since it was not 
 confirmed by any royal assent ; and to interpret the law is not 
 within the province of the House of Commons, nor, except 
 when sitting as a Court of Appeal, of the House of Lords. 
 We may, however, fully agree with the principle which Lord 
 Campbell at the same time lays down, that " privilege of Par- 
 liament should not be permitted to interfere with the execu- 
 tion of the criminal law of the country." And this doctrine 
 has been so fully acquiesced in since, that members of both 
 Houses have in more than one instance been imprisoned on 
 conviction for libel. 
 
 The legality of the species of warrant under which Wilkes 
 had been arrested was, however, a question of far greater im- 
 portance ; and on that no formal decision was pronounced on 
 this occasion, the Lieutenant of the Tower, in his return to the 
 writ of habeas corpus, and the counsel employed on both sides, 
 equally avoiding all mention of the character of the warrant. 
 But it was indirectly determined shortly afterward. The lead- 
 
 * "Lives of the Lord Chancellors," c. cxliii. 
 
 t Indeed, the opinion which Lord Campbell thus expresses is manifest- 
 ly at variance with that which he had previously pronounced in his life 
 of Lord Northington, where he praised the House of Lords for "very 
 properly rejecting the bill passed by the Commons declaring general 
 warrants to be illegal, leaving this question to be decided (as it was, 
 satisfactorily) by the Courts of Common Law." 
 
 1* 
 
10 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY^OF ENGLAND. 
 
 ers of the Opposition would fain have had the point settled 
 by what, in truth, would not have settled it — another resolution 
 of the House of Commons. But, though it was discussed in 
 several warm debates, Grenville always contrived to baffle his 
 adversaries, though on one occasion his majority dwindled to 
 fourteen.* What, however, the House of Commons abstained 
 from affirming was distinctly, though somewhat extra -judi- 
 cially, asserted by Lord Camden, as Chief-justice of the Com- 
 mon Pleas. Wilkes, with some of the printers and others who 
 had been arrested, had brought actions for false imprisonment, 
 which came to be tried in his court ; and they obtained such 
 heavy damages that the officials who had been mulcted ap- 
 plied for new trials, on the plea of their being excessive. But 
 the Chief-justice refused the applications, and upheld the ver- 
 dict, on the ground that the juries, in their assessment of dam- 
 ages, had been " influenced by a righteous indignation at the 
 conduct of those who sought to exercise arbitrary power over 
 all the King's subjects, to violate Magna Charta, and to destroy 
 the liberty of the kingdom, by insisting on the legality of this 
 general warrant." Such a justification would hardly be admit- 
 ted now. But, in a subsequent trial, a still, higher authority, 
 the Chief -justice of the King's Bench, Lord Mansfield, held 
 language so similar, that, once more to quote the words of 
 Lord Campbell, " without any formal judgment, general war- 
 rants have ever since been considered illegal." 
 
 However, the release of Wilkes on the ground of his parlia- 
 mentary privilege gave him but a momentary triumph, or rather 
 respite. The prosecution was not abated by the decision that 
 he could not be imprisoned before trial ; while one effect of 
 
 * From a speech of Mr. Grenville delivered at a later period (February 
 3, 1769, " Parliamentary History," xvi., 548), it appears that the Secretaries 
 of State who signed this general warrant did so against their own judg- 
 ment. " They repeatedly proposed to have Wilkes's name inserted in 
 the warrant of apprehension, hut were overruled by the lawyers and 
 clerks of the office, who insisted that they could not depart from the 
 long-established precedents and course of proceeding." And in one of 
 these debates, Mr. Pitt, while denouncing with great severity Grenville's 
 conduct in procuring the issue of this particular warrant, was driven to a 
 strange confession of his own inconsistency, since he was forced to admit 
 that, while Secretary of State, he had issued more than one general war- 
 rant in exactly similar form. 
 
WILKES's "essay ON WOMEN." 11 
 
 his liberation was to stimulate the minister to add another 
 count to the indictment preferred against him, on which he 
 might be expected to find it less easy to excite the sympathy 
 of any party. Wilkes had not always confined his literary 
 efforts to political pamphlets. There was a club named the 
 Franciscans (in compliment to Sir Francis Dashwood, Lord 
 Bute's Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as well as Lord 
 Sandwich, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was one of its 
 members), which met at Medmenham Abbey, on the banks 
 of the Thames, and there held revels whose license recalled 
 the worst excesses of the preceding century. To this club 
 Wilkes also belonged ; and, in indulgence of tastes in harmony 
 with such a brotherhood, he had composed a blasphemous and 
 indecent parody on Pope's " Essay on Man," which he entitled 
 " An Essay on Woman," and to which he appended a body of 
 burlesque notes purporting to be the composition of Pope's 
 latest commentator, the celebrated Dr. Warburton, Bishop of 
 Gloucester. He had never published it (indeed, it may be 
 doubted whether, even in that not very delicate age, any pub- 
 lisher could have been found to run the risk of issuing so scan- 
 dalous a work), but he had printed a few copies in his own house, 
 of which he designed to make presents to such friends as he 
 expected to appreciate it. He had not, however, so far as it 
 appears, given away a single copy, when, on the very first day 
 of the next session of Parliament, Lord Sandwich himself 
 brought the parody under the notice of the House of Lords. 
 If there was a single member of the House whose delicacy was 
 not likely to be shocked, and whose morals could not be in- 
 jured by such a composition, it was certainly Lord Sandwich 
 himself ; but his zeal as a minister to support his chief kindled 
 in him a sudden enthusiasm for the support of virtue and de- 
 cency also ; and, having obtained a copy by some surrepti- 
 tious means, he now made a formal complaint of it to the 
 House, contending that the use of the name of the Bishop of 
 Grloucester as author of the notes constituted a breach of the 
 privileges of the House. And he was seconded by the bishop 
 himself, whose temper and judgment were, unhappily, very in- 
 ferior to his learning and piety. It is recorded that he actually 
 
12 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 compared Wilkes to the devil, and then apologized to Satan 
 for the comparison. But the Lords were in a humor to regard 
 no violence against Wilkes as excessive; and, submitting to 
 the guidance of the minister and the prelate, resolved that the 
 "Essay on Woman,"* as also another poem by the same 
 writer, a paraphrase of the " Veni Creator," was " a most scan- 
 dalous, obscene, and impious libel," and presented an address 
 to the King, requesting his Majesty " to give the most effect- 
 ual orders for the immediate prosecution of the author." And, 
 in the course of the next few weeks, the House of Commons 
 outran the peers themselves in violence and manifest unfair- 
 ness. They concurred with the Lords in ordering No. 45 of 
 The North Briton to be burnt by the common hangman, an 
 order which was not carried out without great opposition on 
 the part of the London populace, who made it the occasion of 
 a very formidable riot, in which the sheriffs themselves in- 
 curred no little danger ; and, by another resolution, they or- 
 dered Wilkes to attend in his place to answer the charge of 
 having published the two works. But at the time when they 
 made this order it was well known that he could not obey it. 
 A few days before he had been challenged by a Mr. Martin, 
 who till very recently had been one of the Secretaries of the 
 Treasury, and who was generally believed to have prepared 
 himself for the conflict by diligent practice with a pistol ; and 
 in the duel which ensued Wilkes had been severely wounded. 
 It was not only notorious that he had been thus disabled, but 
 he sent a physician and surgeon of admitted eminence in their 
 profession, and of unquestioned honor, to testify to the fact at 
 the bar of the House ; and subsequently he forwarded written 
 certificates to the same purport from some French doctors who 
 had special knowledge of gunshot wounds. But the Commons 
 declined to accept this evidence as suflScient, and directed two 
 other doctors to examine him. Wilkes, however, refused to 
 admit them : his refusal was treated as a sufficient ground for 
 
 ■* Strange to say, it does not seem absolutely certain that Wilkes was 
 the author of the "Essay on Woman." Horace Walpole eventually 
 learned, or believed that he had learned, that the author was a Mr. Thomas 
 Potter, (See Walpole's " George III.," i., 310 ; and Cunningham's " Note 
 on his Correspondence," iv., 126.) 
 
SENTENCE OF OUTLAWRY ON WILKES. 13 
 
 pronouncing him " guilty of a contempt of the authority of 
 the House," and for deciding on his case in his absence ; and, 
 on the 19th of January, before the case had come on for trial, 
 a resolution was carried that " Mr. Wilkes was guilty of writ- 
 ing and publishing The North Briton (No. 45), which this 
 House had voted to be a false, scandalous, and seditious libel, 
 and that, for the said offence, he be expelled the House." At 
 a later period of the year, he was tried on the two charges of 
 publishing No. 45 and the " Essay on Woman," was found 
 guilty of both, and, as he did not appear to receive judgment, 
 in November, 1764, he was outlawed. 
 
 So far, it may be said to have been a drawn battle. If, on 
 the one hand, the minister had procured the expulsion of 
 Wilkes, on the other hand Wilkes had gained great notoriety 
 and a certain amount of sympathy, and had, moreover, enriched 
 himself by considerable damages ; and again, if the nation at 
 large was a gainer by the condemnation of general warrants, 
 even that advantage might be thought to be dearly gained by 
 the discredit into which the Parliament had fallen through its 
 intemperance. But the contest between Wilkes and the min- 
 istry was only closed for a time ; and when it was revived, a 
 singular freak of fortune caused the very minister who had led 
 the proceedings against him on this occasion to appear as his 
 advocate. To avoid the consequences of his outlawry, he had 
 taken up his abode in Paris, waiting for a change of ministry, 
 which, as he hoped, might bring into power some to whom he 
 might look for greater favor. But when, though in the course 
 of the next two years two fresh administrations were formed, 
 it was seen that neither Lord Eockingham, the head of the 
 first, nor the Duke of Grafton and Mr. Pitt (promoted to the 
 Earldom of Chatham), the heads of the second, had any greater 
 sympathy with him than Mr. Grenville, he became desperate, 
 and looked out for some opportunity of giving effect to his 
 discontent. He found it in the dissolution of Parliament, 
 which took place in the spring of 1768. In spite of his out- 
 lawry, he instantly returned to England, and offered himself as 
 a candidate for London. There, indeed, he did not succeed, 
 though the populace was uproarious in his support, and drew 
 
14 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 his carriage through the streets as if in triumph. But, before 
 the end of the month, he was returned at the head of the poll 
 for Middlesex, when the mob celebrated his victory by great 
 riot and outrages, breaking the windows of Lord Bute, as his 
 old enemy, and of the Lord Mayor, as the representative of the 
 City of London, which had rejected him, and insulting, and 
 even in some instances beating, passers-by who refused to join 
 in their cheers for " Wilkes and Liberty." 
 
 He had already pledged himself to take the necessary steps 
 to procure the reversal of his outlawry ; and, in pursuance of 
 his promise, he surrendered in the Court of King's Bench. 
 But his removal to prison caused a renewal of the tumults 
 with greater violence than before. The mob even rescued him 
 from the officers who had him in custody ; and when, having 
 escaped from his deliverers, he, with a parade of obedience to 
 the law, again surrendered himself voluntarily at the gate of 
 the King's Bench Prison, they threatened to attack the jail 
 itself, kindled a fire under its walls, which was not extinguished 
 without some danger, and day after day assembled in such tu- 
 multuous and menacing crowds, that at last Lord Weymouth, 
 the Secretary of State, wrote a letter to the Surrey magistrates, 
 enjoining them to abstain from no measures which might seem 
 necessary for the preservation of peace, even if that could only 
 be effected by the employment of the soldiery. The riots grew 
 more and more formidable, till at last the magistrates had no 
 resource but to call out the troops, who, on one occasion, after 
 they had been pelted with large stones, and in many instances 
 severely injured, fired, killing or wounding several of the fore- 
 most rioters. So tragical an event seemed to Wilkes to fur- 
 nish him with exactly such an opportunity as lie desired to 
 push himself into farther notoriety. He at once printed Lord 
 Weymouth's letter, and circulated it, with an inflammatory 
 comment, in which he described it as a composition having fo.r 
 its fruit " a horrid massacre, the consummation of a hellish plot 
 deliberately planned." Too angry to be prudent. Lord Wey- 
 mouth complained to the House of Lords of this publication 
 as a breacb of privilege, and the Lords formally represented it 
 to the House of Commons as an insult deliberately offered to 
 
WILKES DEFIANT. 15 
 
 them by one of its members. There could be no doubt that 
 such language as Wilkes had used was libellous. In its impu- 
 tation of designs of deliberate wickedness, it very far exceeded 
 the bitterest passages of The North Briton ; and Lord Wey- 
 mouth's colleagues, therefore, thought they might safely follow 
 the precedent set in 1764, of branding the publication as a 
 libel, and again procuring the expulsion of the libeller from 
 the House of Commons. There were circumstances in the 
 present case, such as the difference between the constituencies 
 of Aylesbury and Middlesex, and the enthusiastic fervor in the 
 offender's cause which the populace of the City had displayed, 
 which made it very doubtful whether the precedent of 1764 
 were quite a safe one to follow ; but the ministers not only 
 disregarded every such consideration, but, as if they had wan- 
 tonly designed to give their measure a bad appearance, and to 
 furnish its opponents with the strongest additional argument 
 against it, they mixed up with their present complaint a refer- 
 ence to former misdeeds of Wilkes with which it had no con- 
 nection. On receiving the message of the Lords, they had 
 summoned him to appear at the bar of the House of Com- 
 mons, that he might be examined on the subject ; but this pro- 
 ceeding was so far from intimidating him, that he not only 
 avowed the publication of his comment on Lord Weymouth's 
 letter, but gloried in it, asserting that he deserved the thanks 
 of the people for bringing to light the true character of " that 
 bloody scroll." Such language was regarded as an aggravation 
 of his offence, and the Attorney-general moved that his com- 
 ment on the letter " was an insolent, scandalous, and seditious 
 libel;" and, when that motion had been carried. Lord Bar- 
 tington followed it up with another, to the effect that "John 
 Wilkes, Esq., a member of this House, who hath at the bar of 
 this House confessed himself to be the author and publisher 
 of what the House has resolved to be an insolent, scandalous, 
 and seditious libel, and who has been convicted in the Court 
 of King's Bench of having printed and published a seditious 
 libel, and three* obscene and impious libels, and by the judg- 
 
 * These are the words of the vt&olxiiion.— Parliamentary History, sy'i., 
 537. But it does not appear what the three libels were. The " Essay on 
 
16 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 ment of the said Court has been sentenced to undergo twenty- 
 two months' imprisonment, and is now in execution under the 
 said judgment, be expelled this House." This motion encoun- 
 tered a vigorous opposition, not only from Mr. Burke and the 
 principal members of the Rockingham party, which now formed 
 the regular Opposition, but also from Mr. Grenville, the former 
 Prime-minister, who on the former occasion, in 1764, had him- 
 self moved the expulsion of the same offender. His speech on 
 this occasion is the only one which is fully reported; and it 
 deserved the distinction from the exhaustive way in which it 
 dealt with every part of the question. It displayed no incli- 
 nation to extenuate Wilkes's present offence, but it pointed 
 out with great force the circumstance that the supporters of 
 the motion were far from agreement as to the reasons by 
 which they were guided; that some members of the greatest 
 authority in the House, while they had avowed their intention 
 of voting for the expulsion, had. at the same time been careful 
 to explain that the comment on Lord Weymouth's letter was 
 not the ground of their vote ; that so great a lawyer as Mr. 
 Blackstone had asserted that that comment "had not been 
 properly and regularly brought before the House," but had 
 founded his intention to vote for the expulsion solely "upon 
 that article of the charge which related to the three obscene 
 and impious libels mentioned in it, disavowing in the most 
 direct terms all the other articles." That, on the other hand, 
 other members of deserved weight and influence, such as Lord 
 Palmerston and Lord F. Campbell, had disdained the idea of 
 regarding '^the article of the three obscene and impious libels 
 as affording any ground for their proceeding." So practised a 
 debater as Mr. Grenville had but little difficulty, tlierefore, in 
 arguing against the advocates of expulsion, when they were so 
 divided that one portion of them did, in fact, reply to the other. 
 But it would be superfluous here to enter into the arguments 
 employed on either side to justify the expulsion, or to prove 
 it to be unjustifiable, from a consideration of the character of 
 either Wilkes or his publication. The strength and importance 
 
 Woman" was one, the paraphrase of "Veni Creator" was a second; no 
 third of that character is mentioned. 
 
DEBATE ON THE WILKES CASE. IT 
 
 of Mr. Grenville's speech lay in the constitutional points which 
 it raised. 
 
 Some supporters of the ministers had dwelt upon the former 
 expulsion, insisting that " a man who had been expelled by a 
 former House of Commons could not possibly be deemed a 
 proper person to sit in the present Parliament, unless he had 
 some pardon to plead, or some merit to cancel his former of- 
 fences." By a reference to the case of Sir R. Walpole, Mr. 
 Grenville proved that this had not been the opinion of former 
 Parliaments ; and he contended, with unanswerable logic, that 
 it would be very mischievous to the nation if such a principle 
 should be now acted on, and such a precedent established, 
 since, though employed in the first instance against the odious 
 and the guilty, it might, when once established, be easily ap- 
 plied to, and made use of against, the meritorious and the in- 
 nocent; and so the most eminent and deserving members of 
 the state, under the color of such an example, by one arbitrary 
 and discretionary vote of one House of Parliament, the worst 
 species of ostracism, might be excluded from the public coun- 
 cils, cut off and proscribed from the rights of every subject 
 of the realm, not for a term of years alone, but forever. He 
 quoted from "L'Esprit des Lois" an assertion of Montesquieu, 
 that " one of the excellences of the English constitution was, 
 that the judicial power was separated from the legislative, and 
 that there would be no liberty if they were blended together; 
 the power over the life and liberty of the citizens would 
 then be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislator." 
 And, having thus proved that it would be a violation of the 
 recognized constitution to found a second expulsion on the first, 
 he proceeded to argue that to expel him for this new offence 
 would be impolitic and inexpedient, as a step which would in- 
 evitably lead to a contest with the constituency which he rep- 
 resented, since, "in the present disposition of the county of 
 Middlesex, no one could entertain a doubt that Wilkes would 
 be re-elected. The House would then probably think itself 
 under a necessity of again expelling him, and he would as cer- 
 tainly be again re-elected. The House might, indeed, refuse to 
 issue a new writ, which would be to deprive the freeholders 
 
18 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 of Middlesex of the right of choosing any other representative ; 
 but he could not believe that the House would think it fit to 
 inflict such a punishment on the electors of a great county. 
 Should it not do so, the other alternative would be to bring 
 into the House as representative and knight of the shire for 
 Middlesex a man chosen by a few voters only, in contradiction 
 to the declared sense of a great majority of the freeholders on 
 the face of the poll, upon the supposition that all the votes of 
 the latter were forfeited and thrown away on account of the 
 expulsion of Mr. Wilkes." It seemed premature to discuss 
 that point before it arose, and therefore the Speaker contented 
 himself for the present with saying that " he believed there 
 was no example of such a proceeding; and that, if it should 
 appear to be new and unfounded as the law of the land, or 
 even if any reasonable doubt could be entertained of its legali- 
 ty, the attempt to forfeit the freeholders' votes in such a man- 
 ner would be highly alarming and dangerous." 
 
 Few prophecies have been more exactly fulfilled. The House 
 did expel Mr. Wilkes ; he did offer himself for re-election, and 
 was re-elected ; and the minister, in consequence, moved and 
 carried a resolution that "John Wilkes, Esq., having been, in 
 this session of Parliament, expelled this House, was and is in- 
 capable of being elected a member to serve in this present Par- 
 liament." And, in pursuance of this vote, a writ was again 
 issued. At the end of another month the proceeding required 
 to be repeated. Wilkes had again offered himself for re-elec- 
 tion. No other candidate had presented himself, and, in an- 
 swer to an inquiry, the under-sheriff reported that " no other 
 candidate had been proposed but John Wilkes, Esq., and that 
 no elector had given or tendered his vote for any other per- 
 son." Once more the House resolved that he was "incapa- 
 ble of being elected," and issued a new writ. But on this sec- 
 ond occasion the ministry had provided a rival candidate in 
 the person of the Honorable H. K. Luttrell. He was duly pro- 
 posed and seconded ; a poll was taken and kept open for sev- 
 eral days, and, as it appeared at the close that 1143 votes had 
 been given for Wilkes and 296 for Mr. Luttrell, the sheriff 
 again returned Wilkes as duly elected. 
 
ME. LUTTKELL DECLARED ELECTED. 19 
 
 A debate of singularly angry excitement arose on tlie re- 
 ception of this return. Even lawyers, such as Mr. De Grey, 
 the Attorney-general, and Sir Fletcher Norton, who had been 
 Attorney-general, were not ashamed to denounce the conduct 
 of the sheriff in returning Mr. Wilkes as "highly improper 
 and indecent," as " a flying in the face of a resolution of the 
 House of Commons;" and Sir Fletcher even ventured to ad- 
 vance the proposition that, "as the Commons were acting in 
 a judicial capacity, their resolutions were equal to law." Lord 
 North, too, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as we learn from 
 the " Parliamentary History," " spoke long, but chiefly to the 
 passions. He described Mr. Wilkes and his actions in a lively 
 manner; showed the variety of troubles which he had given 
 the ministry ; and that unless, by voting in Mr. Luttrell, an 
 end were put to this debate, the whole kingdom would be in 
 confusion ; though he owned that he did not think that meas- 
 ure would put an end to the distractions. He spoke much 
 more to the expediency than to the legality of the measure 
 proposed." 
 
 On the other side, it was contended by several members, 
 Burke and Mr. Grenville being of the number, that " the House 
 of Commons alone could not make a law binding any body 
 but themselves. That, if they could disqualify one person, 
 they could disqualify as many as they pleased, and thus get 
 into their own hands the whole power of the government;" 
 and precedents were produced to prove that votes of the House 
 of Lords, and also of the House of Commons, regarding their 
 own members, had been disregarded by the judges of the Court 
 of King's Bench as being contrary to law. But the minister 
 was secure of the steadiness of his adherents, and a majority 
 of 221 to 152 declared that Mr. Luttrell had been duly elected. 
 
 But Lord North was correct in his anticipation that their 
 vote would not put an end to the agitation on the question, 
 and it was renewed in the next session in a manner which at 
 one time threatened to produce a breach between the two 
 Houses. 
 
 The "Parliamentary History" closes its report of the debate 
 on the resolution by which Mr. Luttrell was seated with a sum- 
 
20 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 mary of the arguments used in it, taken from the "Annual Reg- 
 ister," which, as is universally known, was at this time edited 
 by Mr. Burke. It is a very fair and candid abstract, which, in 
 fact, puts the whole question on one single issue, " that the 
 House of Commons is the sole court of judicature in all cases 
 of election, and that this authority is derived from the first 
 principles of our government, viz., the necessary independence 
 of the three branches of the Legislature." But, though that 
 doctrine was fully admitted by the Opposition, they made 
 " that very admission a ground for reviving the question in the 
 next session, by moving for a resolution which should declare 
 that, * being a Court of Judicature, the House of Commons, in 
 deciding matters of election, was bound to judge according to 
 the law of the land, and the known and established law of 
 Parliament, which was part thereof.' " It was understood that 
 this resolution, if carried, was intended as a stepping-stone to 
 others which should condemn the decision of the previous ses- 
 sion ; yet it seemed such a truism that even the ministers could 
 not venture to deny it ; but they proposed to defeat the object 
 of its framers by adding to it a declaration that the late deci- 
 sion was " agreeable to the said law of the land." And we might 
 pass on to the subsequent debate, in which the constitutional 
 correctness of that addition was distinctly challenged, did it 
 not seem desirable to notice two arguments which were brought 
 forward against the motion, one by an independent member, 
 Mr. Ongley, the other by the Attorney-general. Mr. Ongley 
 contended that " a power of preserving order and decency is 
 essentially necessary to every aggregate body; and, with re- 
 spect to this House, if it had not power over its particular 
 members, they would be subject to no control at all." The an- 
 swer to this argument is obvious : that a right on the part of 
 the House to control the conduct of its members is a wholly 
 different thing from a right to determine who are or ought to 
 be members ; and that for the House to claim this latter right, 
 except on grounds of qualification or disqualification legally 
 proved, would be to repeat one of the most monstrous of all 
 Cromwell's acts of tyranny, when, in 1656, he placed guards 
 at the door of the House, with orders to refuse admission to all 
 
THE OPPOSITION DEFEATED. 21 
 
 those members whom, however lawfully elected, he did not ex- 
 pect to find sufficiently compliant for his purposes. Mr. De 
 Grey's argument was of a different character, being based on 
 what he foretold would be the practical result of a decision 
 that expulsion did not involve an incapacity to be re-elected. 
 If it did not involve such incapacity, and if, in consequence, 
 Mr. Wilkes should be re-elected, he considered that the House 
 would naturally feel it its duty to re-expel him as often as the 
 constituency re-elected him. But one answer given to this ar- 
 gument was, that to expel a second time would be to punish 
 twice for one offence, a proceeding at variance not only with 
 English law but with every idea of justice. Another, and one 
 which has obtained greater acceptance, was, that the legitimate 
 doctrine was, that the issue of a new writ gave the expelled 
 member an appeal from the House to the constituency, and 
 that the constituency had a constitutional right to overrule the 
 judgment of the House, and to determine whether it still re- 
 garded the candidate as its most suitable representative. 
 
 The ministers, however, were, as before, strong enough in 
 the House to carry their resolution. But the Opposition re- 
 turned to the charge, taking up an entirely different though 
 equally general position, " That, by the law of the land and the 
 known law and usage of Parliament, no person eligible by com- 
 mon right can be incapacitated by vote or resolution of this 
 House, but by act of Parliament only." It is remarkable that, 
 in the debate which ensued, two members who successively 
 rose to the dignity of Lord Chancellor, Mr. Thurlow and Mr. 
 Wedderburn, took different sides ; but nothing could shake the 
 ministerial majority. The resolution was rejected. And when 
 Lord Rockingham proposed the same resolution in the House 
 of Lords, though it was supported by all the eloquence of Lord 
 Chatham, he was beaten by a majority of more than two to 
 one, and the ministers even carried a resolution declaring "Jihat 
 any interference of the House of Lords with any judgment of 
 the House of Commons, in matters of election, would be a vio- 
 lation of the constitutional rights of the Commons." 
 
 Even these decisive defeats of the Opposition did not finally 
 terminate the struggle. The notoriety which Wilkes had gained 
 
22 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 had answered his purpose to no slight extent. The City had 
 adopted his cause with continually increasing earnestness and 
 effect. It had made him Sheriff, Alderman, Lord Mayor, and 
 had enriched him with the lucrative office of City Chamberlain ; 
 and, as one of the City magistrates, he subsequently won the 
 good opinion of many who had previously condemned him, by 
 his conduct during the Gordon Riots, in which he exerted his 
 authority with great intrepidity to check and punish the vio- 
 lence of the rioters. And when, in 1*782, Lord Rockingham 
 became, for the second time, Prime-minister, he thought he 
 might well avail himself of the favor he had thus acquired, and 
 of the accession to office of those whom the line which they 
 had formerly taken bound to countenance him, to bring for- 
 ward a motion for the expunction of the resolutions against 
 him which had been passed in IVVO. It was carried by a large 
 majority ; and though this was as evidently a party division as 
 those had been by which he had been defeated twelve years 
 before, still, as the last resolution on the subject, it must be 
 regarded as decisive of the law and practice of Parliament, 
 and as having settled the doctrine that expulsion does not in- 
 capacitate a member who has been expelled from immediate 
 re-election.* 
 
 The establishment of this rule, and the abolition of general 
 warrants, were, however, not the only nor the most important 
 result of these proceedings. They led indirectly to an innova- 
 tion which, it is hardly too much to say, has had a greater in- 
 fluence on the character and conduct of Parliament, and indeed 
 on the whole subsequent legislation of the country, than can 
 be attributed to any other single cause. Hitherto the bulk of 
 the people had enjoyed but very scanty and occasional means 
 of acquiring political education. At times of vehement politi- 
 
 * ^he last resolution is approved by Mr. Hallam. " If a few precedents 
 were to determine all controversies of constitutional law, it is plain 
 enough from the journals that the House has assumed the power of inca- 
 pacitation. But as such authority is highly dangerous and unnecessary 
 for any good purpose, and as, according to all legal rules, so extraordina- 
 ry a power could not he supported except by a sort of prescription that 
 cannot be shown, the final resolution of the House of Commons, which 
 condemned the votes passed in times of great excitement, appears far 
 more consonant to first principles." — Constitutional History^ iii., 357. 
 
RESISTANCE TO PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING. 23 
 
 cal excitement, or any special party conflict, pamphlets and pe- 
 riodical essays had enlightened their readers — necessarily a select 
 and small body — on particular topics. But standing orders of 
 both Houses, often renewed, strictly forbade all publication of 
 the debates which took place in either. To a certain extent, 
 these orders had come to be disregarded and evaded. Almost 
 ever since the accession of the House of Brunswick, a London 
 publisher had given to the world an annual account of the Par- 
 liamentary proceedings and most interesting discussions of the 
 year ; and before the middle of the reign of George H., two 
 monthly magazines had given sketches of speeches made by 
 leading members of each party. The reporters, however, did 
 not venture to give the names of the speakers at full length, 
 but either disguised them under some general description, or 
 at most gave their initials; and sometimes found that even 
 this profession of deference to the standing orders did not in- 
 sure them impunity. As late as the year 1747, Cave, the pro- 
 prietor and editor of the Gentleman's Magazine, was brought 
 to the bar of the House of Commons for publishing an ac- 
 count of a recent debate, and only obtained his release by ex- 
 pressions of humble submission and the payment of heavy fees. 
 The awe, however, which his humiliation and peril had been in- 
 tended to diffuse gradually wore off; the keen interest which 
 was awakened by the ministerial changes at the beginning of 
 the reign of George HI., which have been already mentioned, 
 naturally prompted a variety of efforts to gratify it by a reve- 
 lation of the language concerning them which was held by 
 statesmen of different parties; and these revelations were no 
 longer confined to yearly or monthly publications. More than 
 one newspaper had of late adopted the practice of publishing 
 what it affirmed to be a correct report of the debates of the 
 previous day, though, in fact, each journal garbled them to suit 
 the views of the party to which it belonged, and, to quote the 
 words of the historian of the period, " misrepresented the lan- 
 guage and arguments of the speakers in a manner which could 
 hardly be considered accidental."* The speakers on the min- 
 
 * Adolphus, " History of England," i., 484. 
 
24 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 isterial side in the debates on the Middlesex election had been 
 especial objects of these misrepresentations ; and, at the begin- 
 ning of 1771, one of that party, Colonel Onslow, M.P. for Guil- 
 ford, brought the subject before the House, complaining that 
 many speeches, and his own among them, had been misrepre- 
 sented by two newspapers which he named, and that " the prac- 
 tice had got to an infamous height, so that it had become ab- 
 solutely necessary either to punish the offenders or to revise 
 the standing orders."* And he accordingly moved " that the 
 publication of the newspapers of which he complained was a 
 contempt of the orders and a breach of the privileges of the 
 House, and that the printers be ordered to attend the House 
 at its next sitting. The habitual unfairness of the reports was 
 admitted by the Opposition ; but the publishers complained of 
 evidently felt assured of their sympathy (which, indeed, was 
 sufficiently, and not very decorously, shown by its leaders in- 
 flictino- on the House no fewer than twentv-three divisions in 
 a single night), and, relying on their countenance, they paid no 
 attention to the order of the House. A fresh order for their 
 arrest having been issued, the Sergeant-at-arms reported that 
 he had been unable to execute it, by reason of their absence 
 from their homes ; on which the House, not disposed to allow 
 itself to be thus trifled with, now addressed his Majesty with a 
 request that he would issue his royal proclamation for their ap- 
 
 * An idea of the license which the newspapers complained of had per- 
 mitted themselves at this time may be derived from the manner in which 
 one of them had introduced a speech of Mr. Jeremiah Dyson, M.P. for 
 Weymouth, and a Commissioner of the Treasury : " Jeremiah Weymouth, 
 
 the d n of the kingdom, spoke as follows." And it may seem that the 
 
 Opposition (for the affair was made a party question) can hardly be ac- 
 quitted of a discreditable indifference to the dignity of the House in sup- 
 porting a resolution of Colonel Barr^, that "Jeremiah Weymouth, the- 
 
 d n of this kingdom, is not a member of this House." On which the 
 
 previous question was moved by the ministers, and carried by 120 to 38. 
 — Parliamentary History^ xvii., 78. And an instance of rather the oppo- 
 site kind, of the guarded way in which the most respectable publications 
 were as yet accustomed to relate the transactions of Parliament, may be 
 gathered from the account of the proceedings in the case of Wilkes, given 
 in the "Annual Register" for 1770 — drawn up, probably, by Burke'him- 
 self — in which Lord Camden is only mentioned as "a great law lord;" 
 Lord Chatham as "Lord C m ;" Lord Rockingham as "a noble Mar- 
 quis who lately presided at the head of public affairs ;" the King as "the 
 
 K ;" Parliament as " P. ;" and the House of Commons as the " H. of 
 
 C:''— Annual Register, 1770, pp. 59-67. 
 
WILKES'S ACTION AS ALDERMAN, 25 
 
 prehension. And Colonel Onslow made a fresh motion, with 
 a similar complaint of the publishers of six more newspapers — 
 "three brace," as he described them in language more sports- 
 man-like than parliamentary. Similar orders for their appear- 
 ance, and, when these were disregarded, for their apprehension, 
 were issued. And at last one of those who had been men- 
 tioned in the royal proclamation, Mr. Wheble, printer of the 
 Middlesex Journal^ was apprehended by an officer named Car- 
 penter, and carried before the sitting magistrate at Guildhall, 
 who, by a somewhat whimsical coincidence, happened to be 
 Alderman Wilkes. Wilkes not only discharged him, on the 
 ground that there was " no legal cause of complaint against 
 him," but when AVheble, in retaliation, made a formal com- 
 plaint of the assault committed on him by Carpenter in arrest- 
 ing him, bound Wheble over to prosecute, and Carpenter to 
 answer the complaint, at the next quarter sessions, and then re- 
 ported what he had done in an oflScial letter to the Secretary 
 of State. Thomson, another printer, was in like manner ar- 
 rested ; and, when brought before Mr. Oliver, another alder- 
 man, was discharged by him. And when, a day or two after- 
 ward, a third (Mr. Miller) was apprehended by Whetham, a 
 messenger of the House of Commons, Mr. Brass Crosby, the 
 Lord Mayor, and the two Aldermen, signed a warrant commit- 
 ting Whetham to prison for assaulting Miller. Whetham was 
 bailed by the Sergeant-at-arms, who reported what had occur- 
 red to the House ; and the House, as the Lord Mayor and Al- 
 derman Oliver were members of it, as representatives for Lon- 
 don and Honiton, ordered that they should attend the House 
 in their places, to explain their conduct, and that Mr. Wilkes 
 should attend at the bar of the House. Wilkes, declining to 
 recognize the validity of the resolutions which had seated Col- 
 onel Luttrell for Middlesex, refused compliance with such an or- 
 der, writing a letter to the Speaker, in which he " observed that 
 no notice was taken of him as a member of the House ; and 
 that the Speaker's order did not require him to attend in his 
 place." And he " demanded his seat in Parliament, and prom- 
 ised, when he had been admitted to his seat, to give the House 
 a most exact detail of his conduct." But the Lord Mayor 
 
26 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 pleaded the charters of the City as a justification of his act in 
 releasing a citizen of London who had been arrested on a war- 
 rant which had not been backed by a City magistrate, and de- 
 manded to be heard by counsel in support of his plea. His 
 demand, however, was refused, and he and Alderman Oliver 
 were committed to the Tower; but, as if the ministers were 
 afraid of re-opening the question of Colonel Luttrell's election 
 for Middlesex, they evaded taking notice of Wilkes's disobedi- 
 ence to their order by a singularly undignified expedient, issu- 
 ing a fresh order for his appearance on the 8th of April, and 
 adjourning till the 9th. 
 
 The ministers now moved the appointment of a select com- 
 mittee to investigate the whole affair ; and the committee, be- 
 fore the end of the month, made an elaborate report, which, 
 however, abstained from all mention of the offence committed 
 by the printers, and confined itself to an assertion that " the 
 power and authority of the House to compel the attendance of 
 any commoner had ever extended as well to the City of Lon- 
 don, without exception on account of charters from the crown 
 or any pretence of separate jurisdiction, as to every other part 
 of the realm." And this assertion may be regarded as having 
 been upheld by the refusal of the judges to release the Lord 
 Mayor and Alderman when they sued out writs of habeas cor- 
 pus ; and they consequently remained prisoners in the Tower 
 till they were released by the prorogation. 
 
 But with this report of the committee the matter was suffer- 
 ed to drop. The transaction had caused almost unprecedented 
 excitement, which was not confined to the City, for the grand- 
 juries of many English counties and a committee of the Dub- 
 lin merchants showed their sympathy with the Opposition by 
 sending up addresses to the imprisoned City magistrates ; and 
 the ministers had a prudent fear of keeping alive an agita- 
 tion which had not been always free from danger to the pub- 
 lic tranquillity.* In effect, the victory remained with the 
 
 * On more than one occasion there had been disturbances in the City, 
 and in the streets adjacent to the Houses of Parliament, which were little 
 short of riot. One day the mob paraded effigies of the principal minis- 
 ters, which, after hanging and beheading them, they committed to the 
 flames with great uproar. On another day Mr. Charles Fox (as yet a 
 
MODERN PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING. 21 
 
 Opposition. No farther attempt was made to punish any of 
 the printers ; and, though the standing orders which forbid 
 any such publication have never been formally repealed, ever 
 since that time the publishers of newspapers and other period- 
 icals have been in the constant habit of giving regular details 
 of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament. And one 
 enterprising publisher, Mr. Hansard, has for many years pub- 
 lished a complete record of the debates in both Houses, which 
 is continually appealed to in the Houses themselves, by mem- 
 bers of both parties, as a manual of political and parliamentary 
 history. 
 
 The practice, as it now prevails, is one of the many instances 
 of the practical wisdom with which this nation often deals 
 with difficult subjects. The standing order is retained as an 
 instrument which, in certain cases, it may possibly be expedient 
 to employ ; as, in fact, it has been employed in one or two in- 
 stances in the present reign, when matters have been under con- 
 sideration which, however necessary to be discussed, were of 
 such a nature that the publication of the details into which 
 some speakers deemed it desirable to go was regarded by oth- 
 ers as calculated to be offensive to the taste, if not injurious to 
 the morals, of the community at large. But the very fact of 
 such an occasional enforcement of the standing orders under 
 very peculiar circumstances implies a recognition of the pro- 
 priety of its more ordinary violation; of the principle that 
 publication ought to be the general rule, and secrecy the un- 
 usual exception. And, indeed, it is, probably, no exaggeration 
 to say that such publication is not only valuable^ as the best 
 and chief means of the political education of the people out-of- 
 doors, but is indispensable to the working of our parliamentary 
 system such as it has now become. The successive Reform 
 Bills, which have placed the electoral power in the hands of so 
 vast a body of constituents as was never imagined in the last 
 century, have evidently regarded the possession by the electors 
 of a perfect knowledge of the language held and the votes 
 
 vehement Tory) complained to the House that the mob in Palace Yard 
 had insulted him, breaking the glasses of his chariot, and pelting him 
 with oranges, stones^ etc. — Parliamentary History, xvii., 163. 
 
28 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 given by their representatives as indispensable to the proper 
 exercise of the franchises which they have conferred. And, 
 even if there had previously been no means provided for their 
 acquisition of such information, it is certain that the electors 
 would never have consented to be long kept in the dark on 
 subjects of such interest. In another point of vievr, the pub- 
 lication of the debates is equally desirable, in the interest of 
 the members themselves, whether leaders or followers of the 
 different parties. Not to mention the stimulus that it affords 
 to the cultivation of eloquence — an incentive to which even 
 those least inclined or accustomed to put themselves forward 
 are not entirely insensible — it enables the ministers to vindicate 
 their measures to the nation at large, the leaders of the Oppo- 
 sition to explain their objections or resistance to those meas- 
 ures in their own persons, and not through the hired agency of 
 pamphleteers, and each humbler member to prove to his constit- 
 uents the fidelity with which he has acted up to the principles 
 his assertion of which induced them to confide their interests 
 and those of the kingdom to his judgment and integrity. Se- 
 crecy and mystery may serve, or be supposed to serve, the in- 
 terests of arbitrary rulers ; perfe t openness is the only prin- 
 ciple on which a free constitution can be maintained and a free 
 people governed. 
 
 It seems convenient to take all the measures which, in this 
 first portion of the reign before us, affected the proceedings 
 or constitution of Parliament together ; and, indeed, one enact- 
 ment of great importance, which was passed in 1770, it is 
 hardly unreasonable to connect in some degree with the de- 
 cision of the House which adjudged the seat for Middlesex to 
 Colonel Luttrell. Ever since the year 1704 it had been re- 
 garded as a settled point that the House of Commons had the 
 exclusive right of determining every question concerning the 
 election of its members. But it was equally notorious that it 
 had exercised that right in a manner which violated every prin- 
 ciple of justice and even of decency. Election petitions were 
 decided by the entire House, and were almost invariably treated 
 as party questions, in which impartiality was not even profess- 
 ed. Thirty years before, the Prime-minister himself (Sir Rob- 
 
ELECTION PETITIONS : A PUBLIC SCANDAL. 29 
 
 ert Walpole) had given notice to his supporters that " no quar- 
 ter was to be given in election petitions ;" and it was a division 
 on one petition which eventually drove him from office. There 
 was not even a pretence made of deciding according to evi- 
 dence, for few of the members took the trouble to hear it. A 
 few years after the time of which we are speaking, Lord George 
 Germaine thus described the mode of proceeding which had 
 previously prevailed : " The managers of petitions did not ask 
 those on whose support they calculated to attend at the exam- 
 ination of witnesses, but only to let them know where they 
 might be found when the question was going to be put, that 
 they might be able to send them word in time for the division." 
 The practice had become a public scandal, by which the con- 
 stituencies and the House itself suffered equally — the con- 
 stituencies, inasmuch as they were liable to be represented by 
 one who was in fact only the representative of a minority; the 
 House itself, since its title to public confidence could have no 
 solid or just foundation but such as was derived from its mem- 
 bers being in every instance the choice of the majority. Yet, 
 so long as petitions were judged by the whole House, there 
 seemed no chance of the abuse being removed, the number of 
 judges conferring the immunity of shamelessness on each in- 
 dividual. To remedy such a state of things, in the spring of 
 IVVO Mr. G. Grenville brought in a bill which provided for the 
 future trial of all such petitions by a select committee of fifteen 
 members, thirteen of whom should be chosen by ballot, one by 
 the sitting member whose seat was petitioned against, and one 
 by the petitioner. The members of the committee were to 
 take an oath to do justice similar to that taken by jurymen in 
 the courts of law ; and the committee was to have power to 
 compel the attendance of witnesses, to examine them on oath, 
 and to enforce the production of all necessary papers; it was 
 also to commence its sittings within twenty-four hours of its 
 appointment, and to sit from day to day till it should be pre- 
 pared to present its report. It was not to the credit of the 
 ministers that they made the passing of such a bill a party 
 question. The abuse which it was designed to remedy was 
 notorious, and Mr. Grenville did not exaggerate its magnitude 
 
30 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 when he declared that, " if it were not checked, it must end 
 in the ruin of public liberty." He was supported by Burke, 
 and by two lawyers, Mr. Dunning and Mr. Wedderburn, both 
 destined to rise to some of the highest offices in their profes- 
 sion ; but he was opposed by the Attorney-general, by Lord 
 North, as leader of the House, and by Mr. Fox — not yet turned 
 into a patriot by Lord North's dismissal of him from office. 
 The debates, both in the whole House and in committee, were 
 long and earnest. Some of the ministerial underlings were 
 not ashamed to deny the necessity of any alteration in the ex- 
 isting practice ; but their more favorite argument was founded 
 on the impropriety of the House " delegating its authority to a 
 committee," which was asserted to be " an essential alteration of 
 the constitution of the House of Commons." Lord North him- 
 self had too keen an instinct of propriety to deny the existence 
 of a great evil, and contented himself with pleading for time 
 for farther consideration ; while the Attorney -general confined 
 his objections to some details of the bill, which it would be 
 easy to amend. Others, with too accurate a foresight, doubted 
 the efficacy of the measure, and prophesied that the additional 
 sanction of the oath, by which its framer hoped to bind the 
 committees to a just and honest decision, would, " like oaths of 
 office and Custom-house oaths, soon fall into matters of form, 
 and lose all sanction, and so make bad worse." On the other 
 hand, besides the arguments founded on the admitted great- 
 ness of the evil to be remedied, it was sliown that the institu- 
 tion of committees, such as the bill proposed the appointment 
 of, was sanctioned by numerous precedents ; and though the 
 committees — sometimes consisting of as many as two hundred 
 members — were by far too large to make it probable that all 
 would bestow a careful attention on the whole case, there was 
 "nothing in the journals of the House to show that their de- 
 cisions were not regarded as final, or as requiring no subse- 
 quent confirmation from the whole House." Generally speak- 
 ing. Lord North could trust the steadiness of his majority ; 
 but, to his great surprise, on this occasion he found himself 
 deserted by the country gentlemen, who voted in a body for 
 the bill, although their spokesman, Sir W. Bagot, had been in 
 
THE MODEEN PRACTICE IN ELECTION PETITIONS. 31 
 
 no slight degree offended by some remarks of Burke, wlio, with 
 a strange imprudence, had claimed a monopoly of the title of 
 *' friends of the constitution" for himself and his party, and 
 had sneered at the country gentlemen, as " statesmen of a very 
 different description, though, by a late description given of 
 them, a Tory was now the best species of Whig." And the 
 union of the two bodies proved irresistible ; the bill was car- 
 ried by a majority of sixty-two, and the government did not 
 venture to carry on their resistance to it in the House of Lords, 
 any interference by which would, indeed, have been resented by 
 the Commons, as a violation of their privileges. 
 
 At first the duration of the bill was limited to seven years ; 
 but in 1774 it was made perpetual by a still larger majority, 
 the experience of its working having converted many who had 
 at first opposed it, but who now bore willing testimony to its 
 eflBcacy. Unhappily, though the House could make the bill 
 perpetual, at least till formally repealed, it could not invest 
 its good effects with equal durability. After a time, the same 
 complaints were advanced against the decision of election com- 
 mittees that had formerly been employed to discredit the judg- 
 ments of the whole House. The success or failure of a peti- 
 tion again became a party question ; and as in a committee of 
 an odd number the ministerialists or the Opposition must in- 
 evitably have a majority of at least one member, before the 
 end of the reign it had become as easy to foretell the result 
 of a petition from the composition of the committee as it had 
 been in the time of Walpole. And it was with the approval of 
 almost all parties — an approval extorted only by the absolute 
 necessity of the case — that, after one or two modifications of 
 Mr. Grenville's act had been tried, Mr. Disraeli induced the 
 House to surrender altogether its privilege of judging of elec- 
 tions, and to submit the investigations of petitions on such 
 subjects to the only tribunal sufficiently above suspicion to 
 command and retain the confidence of the nation, the judges 
 of the high courts of law. 
 
 We shall probably be doing the House of Commons of the 
 day no injustice, if we surmise that the degree in which pub- 
 lic attention had recently been directed to the representation, 
 
32 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 and the interest whicli the people were beginning to show in 
 the purity of elections, as the principle on the maintenance 
 of which the very liberties of all might depend, had some 
 share in leading the House to establish the wholly new, though 
 most necessary, precedent of punishing a constituency for ha- 
 bitual and inveterate corruption. It may be called the first 
 fruits of Mr. Grenville's act. At the end of the same year in 
 which that statute had been passed, a select committee had sat 
 to try the merits of a petition which complained of an undue 
 return for the borough of New Shorehara. And its report 
 brought to light an organized system of corruption, which 
 there was too much reason to fear was but a specimen of that 
 which prevailed in many other boroughs as yet undetected. It 
 appeared from the report, founded as it was on the evidence 
 and confession of many of the persons inculpated, that a so- 
 ciety had long existed in New Shoreham, entitled the Christian 
 Club, which, under this specious name, was instituted, as they 
 frankly acknowledged, for the express purpose of getting as 
 much money as possible at every election from the candidates 
 they brought in. The members of the club were under an 
 oath and bond of £500 not to divulge the secrets of the club, 
 and to be bound by the majority. On every election, a com- 
 mittee of five persons was nominated by the club to treat with 
 the candidates for as much money as they could get. And, 
 in pursuance of this system, when, on the death of Sir Stephen 
 Cornish, one of the members for the borough, five candidates 
 offered themselves to supply the vacancy, this committee of 
 five opened negotiations with them all. The offers of the rival 
 purchasers were liberal enough. One (General Smith) pro- 
 posed to buy the entire club in the lump for £3000, adding 
 a promise to build 600 tons of shipping in the town. A sec- 
 ond (a Mr. Rumbold) was willing to give every freeman £35 ; 
 and his offer was accepted by the committee, who, however, 
 cautioned him that no freeman was entitled to the money who 
 was not a member of the Christian Club. He willingly agreed 
 to this limitation of his expenditure, and both he and the club 
 regarded the matter as settled. He paid every freeman who 
 belonged to the club his stipulated bribe, and on the polling 
 
THE CHRISTIAN CLUB. 33 
 
 day they tendered eighty-seven votes in his favor, the entire 
 constituency being something under one hundred and fifty. 
 The genera], finding his £3000 declined, did not go to the 
 poll ; but a Mr. Purling and Mr. James did, the latter polling- 
 only four votes, the former only thirty- seven. What bribe 
 Mr. Purling had given was never revealed ; but by some means 
 or other he had contrived to render himself the most accepta- 
 ble of all the candidates to Mr. Roberts, the returning officer. 
 Roberts had himself been a member of the Christian Club, 
 but had quarrelled with it , and on the day of the election, as 
 Rumbold's voters came up, he administered to each of them 
 the oath against bribery. They took it without scruple ; but 
 he took it on himself to pronounce seventy-six of them dis- 
 qualified, and to refuse their votes ; and, having thus reduced 
 Mr. Rumbold's voters to eleven, he returned Mr. Purling as duly 
 elected. 
 
 Mr. Rurabold, not unnaturally, petitioned against such a re- 
 turn ; when Mr. Roberts admitted the facts alleged against 
 him, but pleaded that he had acted under the advice of coun- 
 sel, who had assured him that it was within his own discretion 
 to admit or to refuse any votes that might be tendered, and 
 that he might lawfully refuse any " which in his own mind he 
 thought illegal." It is a striking proof of the laxity which 
 prevailed on every quarter in electioneering practices, that the 
 House, to a great extent, admitted his justification or excuse as 
 valid. By a strange stretch of lenity, they gave him credit for 
 an honest intention, and contented themselves with ordering 
 him to be reprimanded by the Speaker. But the case of the 
 bribed freemen and of the borough generally was too gross to 
 be screened by any party. All agreed that the borough must 
 be regarded as incurably corrupt, and deserving of heavy pun- 
 ishment. The Attorney-general was ordered to prosecute the 
 five members of the managing committee for " an illegal and 
 corrupt conspiracy ;" and a bill was brought in to disfranchise 
 and declare forever incapable of voting at any election eighty- 
 one freemen who had been proved to have received bribes, and 
 to punish the borough itself, by extending the right of voting 
 
 2* 
 
34 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOKY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 at future elections to all the freeholders in the rape of Bram- 
 ber, the district of Sussex in which New Shoreham lies, an ar- 
 rangement which reduced the borough itself to comparative 
 insignificance. Mr. Fox opposed the bill, on the ground that 
 the offence committed could be sufiiciently punished by the 
 ordinary courts of law. But he stood alone in his resistance ; 
 the bill was passed, and a salutary precedent was established; 
 the penalty inflicted on New Shoreham being for many years 
 regarded as the most proper punishment for all boroughs in 
 which similar practices were proved to prevail. 
 
 And it might have continued to be thought so, had corrup- 
 tion been confined to the smaller boroughs ; but there was no 
 doubt that in many large towns corruption was equally preva- 
 lent and inveterate, while there were also many counties in 
 which the cost of a contest was by far too large to be account- 
 ed for by any legitimate causes of expenditure. And conse- 
 quently, as time wore on, severer measures were considered 
 necessary. Some boroughs were deprived of the right of elec- 
 tion altogether; in others, whose population or constituency 
 was too numerous to make their permanent disfranchisement 
 advisable, the writ was suspended for a time, that its suspen- 
 sion might serve both as a punishment and as a warning, a 
 practice which is still not unfrequently adopted. But no plan 
 could be devised for dealing with the evil in counties, till what 
 seemed hopeless to achieve by direct legislation was, in a great 
 degree, effected by the indirect operation of the Reform Bill of 
 1832. The shortening of the duration of an election, which 
 was henceforth concluded in a single day, and the multiplica- 
 tion of polling places, which rendered it impossible to ascertain 
 the progress of the different candidates till the close of the 
 poll, were provisions having an inevitable and most salutary ef- 
 fect in diminishing alike the temptation to bribe on the part 
 of the candidate, and the opportunity of enhancing the value 
 of his vote by the elector. The vast increase of newspapers, 
 by diffusing political education and stimulating political dis- 
 cussion, has had, perhaps, a still greater influence in the same 
 direction. And, as bribery could only be brought to bear on 
 
THE ERADICATION OF ELECTORAL CORRUPTION. 35 
 
 electors too ignorant to estimate the importance of the exer- 
 cise of the franchise by any higher test than the personal ad- 
 vantage it might bring to themselves, it is to the general diffu- 
 sion of education among the poorer classes, and their gradually 
 improved and improving intelligence, that a complete eradica- 
 tion of electoral corruption can alone be looked for. 
 
36 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 The Regency Bill.— The Ministry of 1766 lay an Embargo on Corn.— An 
 Act of Indemnity is Passed. — The Nullum Tempus Act concerning 
 Crown Property; it is sought to Extend it -to Church Property, but 
 the Attempt fails. — The Royal Marriage Act.— The Lords amend a Bill 
 imposing Export Duties, etc., on Corn. 
 
 The prosecution of Wilkes was not the only act of Mr. 
 Grenville's administration which excited both the Parliament 
 and the people. In 1764 the King was attacked by a serious 
 illness, and, as the Prince of Wales was an infant scarcely two 
 years old, it was manifestly necessary to make arrangements 
 for a Regency, in the event of the throne becoming vacant 
 while the heir was still a minor. A similar necessity had arisen 
 in the preceding reign on the death of the present King's fa- 
 ther, and a bill had accordingly been introduced by Mr. Pel- 
 ham, the minister of the day, which, in the event of the reign- 
 ing sovereign dying during the minority of the boy who had 
 now become the immediate heir to the throne, vested both the 
 guardianship of his person and the Regency of the kingdom in 
 his mother, the Princess Dowager of Whales, who, however, in 
 the latter capacity, was only to act with the advice of a coun- 
 cil, composed of her brother-in-law, the Duke of Cumberland, 
 and nine principal officers of state. It was not concealed by 
 either the King or the Duke that they would have preferred 
 a difiEerent arrangement, one which would have conferred an 
 uncontrolled Regency on the Duke himself ; but the bill was 
 passed by great majorities in both Houses, and served in some 
 respects as a model for that which was now to be brought 
 forward, the difference being that the Regent was not to be ex- 
 pressly named in it. To quote the words of the royal speech, 
 the King "proposed to the consideration of the two Houses 
 whether, under the present circumstances, it would not be ex- 
 pedient to vest in him the power of appointing from time to 
 
THE REGENCY QUESTION". 37 
 
 time, by instrument in writing under his sign-manual, either the 
 Queen or any other member of the royal family usually residing 
 in Great Britain, to be the guardian of the person of his succes- 
 sor, and the Regent of these kingdoms, until such successor 
 should attain the age of eighteen years, subject to such restric- 
 tions and regulations as were specified and contained in an act 
 passed on a similar occasion in the fourteenth year of the late 
 King; the Regent so appointed to be assisted by a council, 
 composed of the several persons who, by reason of their digni- 
 ties and offices, were constituted members of the council estab- 
 lished by that act, together with those whom the Parliament 
 might think proper to leave to his nomination." 
 
 It may be doubted whether such a power as his Majesty 
 desired was quite consistent with the principles of the consti- 
 tution. Parliament had, indeed, granted Henry YIIL the still 
 greater power of nominating a series of successors; but the 
 appointment which he consequently made by will was eventu- 
 ally superseded, when, on the failure of his immediate descend- 
 ants, the representative of his elder sister, whom he had passed 
 over, was seated on the throne, to the exclusion of the de- 
 scendants of his younger sister, to whom he had given the 
 preference. In France, the last two kings, Louis XIII. and 
 Xiy., had both, when on their death-beds, assumed the right 
 of making the arrangements for the Regency which would be- 
 come necessary, the heir to the throne being in each case a 
 minor ; but in each instance the arrangements which they had 
 made were disregarded. 
 
 However, on the present occasion the minister (who must 
 be taken to have framed the King's speech) and the Parlia- 
 ment agreed in the propriety of conferring the nomination of 
 the Regent on the King himself;* and the bill might have 
 
 * A motion was, indeed, made (but the " Parliamentary History," xvi., 
 55, omits to state by whom) that the House should "humbly entreat his 
 Majesty, out of his tender and paternal regard for his people, that he 
 would be graciously pleased to name the person or persons whom, in his 
 royal wisdom, he shall think fit to propose to the consideration of Par- 
 liament for the execution of those high trusts, this House apprehending 
 it not warranted by precedent nor agreeable to the principles of this free 
 constitution to vest in any person or persons not particularly named and 
 approved of in Parliament the important offices of Regent of these king- 
 
38 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 passed almost without notice, had it not been for a strange 
 display of the Prime-minister's ill-temper and mismanagement. 
 Mr. Grenville was at all times uncourtly and dictatorial in his 
 manner, even to the King himself ; he was also of a suspicious 
 disposition ; and though he was universally believed to have 
 owed his promotion to his present oflBce to the recommenda- 
 tion of Lord Bute,* he was extremely jealous of his predecessor. 
 He professed to believe, and probably did believe, that the King 
 was still greatly under Lord Bute's influence (though, in fact, 
 they had never met since that minister had quitted the Treas- 
 ury), that Lord Bute was still as closely connected with the 
 Princess of Wales as scandal had formerly reported him to be, 
 and that George III., under the pressure of their combined in- 
 fluence, would be induced to name his mother rather than his 
 wife as the future Regent. And he was so entirely swayed by 
 this ridiculous and wholly groundless fear, that, when the bill 
 to give effect to the royal recommendation was introduced into 
 the House of Lords, he instigated one of his friends to raise 
 the question who were included in the general term " the royal 
 family," which Lord Halifax, as Secretary of State, answered 
 by saying that he regarded it as meaning " those only who 
 were in order of succession to the throne." Such a definition 
 would have excluded the Queen as effectually as the Princess 
 Dowager ; and when Mr. Grenville found the peers reluctant to 
 accept this view (which, indeed, his own Lord Chancellor pro- 
 nounced untenable), he then sent another of his colleagues to 
 represent to the King that his mother was so unpopular that, 
 even if the Lords should pass the bill in such a form as ren- 
 dered her eligible for nomination, the Commons would intro- 
 duce a clause to exclude her by name. With great unwilling- 
 ness, and, it is said, not without tears, George HL consented to 
 the bill being so drawn as to exclude her, and it passed the 
 Lords in such a form. But when it reached the Commons it was 
 
 doms and guardian of the royal offspring heirs to the crown." But "it 
 passed in the negative," probably, if we may judge by other divisions on 
 motions made by the same party, Ijy an overwhelming majority. 
 
 * No one doubted that this choice had been made under the influence 
 of Lord Bute, and was designed for the preservation of that influence. — 
 Lord Stanhope, History of England, v., 41. 
 
OPPOSITION HATRED OF GEENVILLE. 39 
 
 found that if the leaders of the Opposition hated Bute much, 
 they hated Grenville more. They moved the insertion of the 
 name of the Princess Dowager as one of the members of the 
 royal family whom the King might nominate Regent, if it 
 should please him. Even Grenville had not the boldness pub- 
 licly to disparage his royal master's royal mother; the Prin- 
 cess's name was inserted by a unanimous vote in the list of 
 those from whom the King was empowered to select the Re- 
 gent, and the amendment was gladly accepted by the House of 
 Lords.* 
 
 In spite, however, of the unanimity of the two Houses on 
 the question, it will probably be thought that the authors of 
 the amendment, by which it was proposed to address the King 
 with an entreaty to name in the bill the person to whom he 
 desired to intrust the Regency, acted more in the spirit of the 
 constitution than those who were contented that the name 
 should be omitted ; indeed, that statesmen of the present cen- 
 tury agree in holding that an arrangement of such importance 
 should be made by the Houses of Parliament, in concurrence 
 with the sovereign, and not by the sovereign alone, is shown 
 by the steps taken to provide for a Regency in the event of 
 the demise of the reigning sovereign while the heir was a 
 minor, in the last and in the present reign, the second bill (that 
 of 1840) being in this respect of the greater authority, since 
 Lord Melbourne, the Prime-minister, did not propose it without 
 previously securing the approval of the Duke of Wellington, in 
 his character of leader of the Opposition. 
 
 We pass over for a moment the administration of Lord 
 Rockingham, as we have already passed over the taxation of 
 our North American Colonies by Mr. Grenville, because it will 
 be more convenient to take all the transactions relating to that 
 subject together when we arrive at the time when the troubles 
 arising out of the policy of the different administrations to- 
 ward those Colonies were brought to a head by the breaking 
 
 * In his speech in the House of Lords on the Regency Bill of 1840, the 
 Duke of Sussex stated that George III. had nominated the Queen as 
 Regent in the first instance, and, in the event of her death, the Princess 
 Dowager. 
 
40 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 out of civil war. Lord Rockingham's ministry, -whicli suc- 
 ceeded Mr. Grenville's, had, as is well known, but a brief ex- 
 istence, and was replaced by the cabinet so whimsically com- 
 posed by Mr. Pitt, who reserved to himself the oflBce of Privy 
 Seal, with the Earldom of Chatham ; the Duke of Grafton 
 being the nominal head of the Treasury, but the direction of 
 affairs being wholly in the hands of the new Earl, till the 
 failure of his health compelled his temporary retirement from 
 public life. Lord Chatham was brother-in-law to Mr. Grenville, 
 to whom in the occasional arrogance and arbitrariness of his 
 disposition he bore some resemblance ; and one of the ear- 
 liest acts of his administration, when coupled with the lan- 
 guage which he held on the subject in the House of Lords, 
 displayed that side of his character in a very conspicuous 
 light. 
 
 The summer of 1766 had been unusually wet and cold, both 
 at home and abroad, and the harvest had, in consequence, been 
 so deficient as to cause a very general apprehension of scarcity, 
 while rumors were spread that the high prices which the short- 
 ness of the -crops could not fail to produce were artificially 
 raised by the selfish covetousness of some of the principal corn- 
 dealers, who were buying up all the grain which came into the 
 market, and storing it, with the object of making an exorbitant 
 profit out of the necessities of the consumer, not only at home 
 but abroad. The poorer classes, seeing themselves, as they be- 
 lieved, threatened with famine, rose in riotous crowds, in some 
 places attacking the barns in which the corn was stored, and 
 threatening destruction to both the storehouses and the own- 
 ers. The ministry first tried to repress the discontent by the 
 issue of a proclamation against " forestallers and regraters," 
 framed in the language and spirit of the Middle Ages ; and, 
 when that proved ineffectual to restore confidence, they issued 
 an Order in Council absolutely prohibiting the exportation of 
 any kind of grain, and authorizing the detention of any ves- 
 sels lying in any British harbor which might be loaded with 
 such a cargo. Our annals furnished no instance of such an 
 embargo having been laid on any article of commerce in time 
 of peace ; but the crisis was difficult, the danger to the tran- 
 
AN EMBARGO ON GRAIN SHIPS. 41 
 
 quillity of the kingdom was great and undeniable, the necessity 
 for instant action seemed urgent, and probably few would have 
 been inclined to cavil at Lord Chatham's assertion, that the 
 embargo " was an act of power which, during the recess of 
 Parliament, was justifiable on the ground of necessity," had 
 the ministry at once called Parliament together to sanction the 
 measure by an act of indemnity. But Lord Chatham was at 
 all times inclined to carry matters with a high hand, and will- 
 ingly adopted the opinion advanced by the Chancellor (Lord 
 Northington), that "the measure was strictly legal, and that 
 no indemnity was necessary." Lord Northington's language 
 on the subject Lord Campbell describes as " exhibiting his 
 characteristic rashness and recklessness, which seemed to be 
 aggravated by age and experience,"* and the censure does not 
 seem too severe, since he presently " went so far as to main- 
 tain that the crown bad a right to interfere, even against a 
 positive act of parliament, and that proof of the necessity 
 amounted to a legal justification." But, however ill-considered 
 his language may have been. Lord Chatham adopted it, and 
 acted on it so far as to decline calling the Parliament together 
 before the appointed time, though, when the Houses did meet, 
 he allowed General Conway, as Secretary of State, to introduce 
 a bill of indemnity in the House of Commons. It was warmly 
 opposed in that House, partly on the ground that, if such a 
 measure as the embargo had been necessary, it would have been 
 easy to have assembled Parliament before the Order in Council 
 was issued (for, in fact, the proclamation against forestallers 
 and regraters had been issued on the 10th of September, when 
 Parliament, if not farther prorogued, would have met within 
 a week). But on that same day Parliament was farther pro- 
 rogued from the 16th of September till the 11th of Novem- 
 ber,! and it was not till after that prorogation, on the 24th of 
 September, that the Order in Council was issued. 
 
 In the House of Lords it seems to have been admitted that 
 the embargo was, under all the circumstances, not only desir- 
 
 * "Lives of the Chancellors," c. cxli. 
 
 + It appears from these dates that it was not yet understood that Par- 
 liament could not be prorogued for a longer period than forty days. 
 
42 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 able, but "indispensably necessary."* But the Opposition in 
 that House, being led by a great lawyer (Chief - justice Lord 
 Mansfield), took a wider view of the whole case ; and, after de- 
 nouncing the long prorogation of Parliament as having been 
 so culpably advised that there was no way left of meeting the 
 emergency but by an interposition of the royal power, directed 
 the principal weight of their argument against the doctrine of 
 the existence of any dispensing power. It was urged that the 
 late Order in Council could only be justified by " the general 
 proposition that of any, and, if of any, of every, act of parlia- 
 ment the King, with the advice of the Privy Council, may sus- 
 pend the execution and effect whenever his Majesty, so advised, 
 judges it necessary for the immediate safety of the people." 
 And this proposition was denounced as utterly inconsistent 
 with the principles of the Revolution, which had been " noth- 
 ing but a most lawless and wicked invasion of the rights of 
 the crown," if such a dispensing power were really one of the 
 lawful prerogatives of the sovereign. Reference was made to 
 the powers in more than one instance, and especially in the 
 case of ship-money claimed and exercised by Charles I. ; and 
 it was affirmed that " the dispensing and suspending power, 
 and that of raising money without the consent of Parliament, 
 were precisely alike, and stood on the very same ground. They 
 were born twins ; they lived together, and together were buried 
 in the same grave at the Revolution, past all power of resur- 
 rection." It was even argued that the dispensing or suspend- 
 
 * These words occur in a speech attributed to Lord Mansfield. There 
 is no detailed account of the debates on this subject in either House. All 
 that exists in the "Parliamentary History" is a very brief abstract of the 
 discussion in the Commons, and a document occupying above sixty pages 
 of the same work (pp. 251-314), entitled "A Speech on behalf of the 
 Constitution against the Suspending and Dispensing Prerogative," etc., 
 with a foot-note explaining that " this speech was supposed to be penned 
 by Lord Mansfield, but was, in fact, written by Mr. Macintosh, assisted 
 by Lord Temple and Lord Lyttleton." It certainly seems to contain in- 
 ternal evidence that it was not written by any lawyer, from the sneers at 
 and denunciations of lawyers which it contains, as a class of men who 
 "have often appeared to be the worst guardians of the constitution, and 
 too frequently the wickedest enemies to, and most treacherous betrayers 
 of, the liberties of their country." But, by whomsoever it was " penned" 
 and published, the arguments which it contains against the dispensing 
 power were, probably, those which had been urged by the great (Jhie:^ 
 justice, and as such I have ventured to cite them here. 
 
LOKD MANSFIELD ON PREROGATIVE. 43 
 
 ing power was yet more dangerous than that of raising money 
 without a Parliamentary vote, since it was a power which might 
 do the most mischief, and with the greatest speed, so many 
 were the subjects which it included. It would be a return to 
 the maxims of the idolators of prerogative as understood in 
 those earlier days, that is, of absolute and arbitrary power, a 
 Deo Rex, a Rege Lex. It was farther argued that, unless it 
 could be said that the moment Parliament breaks up the King- 
 stands in its place, and that the continuance of acts is consign- 
 ed into his hands, he cannot of right suspend any more than 
 he can make laws, both acts requiring the same power. The 
 law is above the King, and the crown as well as the subject is 
 bound by it as much during the recess as in the session of Par- 
 liament ; and therefore the wisdom of the constitution has ex- 
 cluded every discretion in the crown over a positive statute, 
 and has emancipated Parliament from the royal prerogative, 
 leaving the power of suspension, which is but another name 
 for a temporary repeal, to reside where the legislative power is 
 lodged — that is, in King, Lords, and Commons, who together 
 constitute the only supreme authority of this government. 
 Precedents were cited to prove that in former times differ- 
 ent ministries had avoided thus taking the law into their 
 own hands, as when, in 1Y09 and again in 1756, there was 
 a similar apprehension of scarcity, even though both those 
 years were years of w^ar. And the Bill of Rights was quoted 
 as the statute in which every sort of dispensing power was 
 condemned, though, as exercised by James IL, it had only 
 been exerted in dispensing with penal laws and remitting pen- 
 alties. 
 
 " Finally," said one speaker, who perhaps was Lord Mansfield 
 himself, " he is not a moderate minister who would rashly de- 
 cide in favor of prerogative in a question where the rights of 
 Parliament are involved, nor a prudent minister who, even in 
 a doubtful case, commits the prerogative, by a wanton experi- 
 ment, to what degree the people will bear the extent of it. 
 The opposite course was that by which a minister would con- 
 sult the best interests of the crown, as well as of the people. 
 The safety of the crown, as well as the security of the subject, 
 
44 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 requires the closing up of every avenue that can lead to 
 tyranny." * 
 
 These arguments prevailed, and the indemnity bill was pass- 
 ed, to quote the words of the "Annual Register" — at that time 
 written by Burke — " very much to the satisfaction of the pub- 
 lic." And that it should have been so accepted is creditable to 
 the good-sense of both parties. The precedent which was thus 
 established does, indeed, seem to rest on a principle indispensa- 
 ble to the proper working of a constitutional government. In 
 so extensive an empire as ours, it is scarcely possible that sud- 
 den emergencies, requiring the instant application of some rem- 
 edy, should not at times arise ; and, unless Parliament be sitting 
 at the time, such can only be adequately dealt with if the min- 
 isters of the crown have the courage to take such steps as are 
 necessary, whether by the suspension of a law or by any other 
 expedient, on their own responsibility, trusting in their ability 
 to satisfy the Parliament, instantly convoked to receive their 
 explanation, of the necessity or wisdom of their proceedings ; 
 and in the candor of the Parliament to recognize, if not the ju- 
 diciousness of their action, at all events the good faith in which 
 it has been taken, and the honest, patriotic intention which has 
 dictated it. The establishment of the obligation instantly to 
 submit the question to the judgment of Parliament will hardly 
 be denied to be a sufficient safeguard against the mmisterial 
 abuse of such a power ; and the instances in which such a pow- 
 er has since been exercised, coupled with the sanction of such 
 exercise by Parliament, are a practical approval and ratification 
 by subsequent Parliaments of the course that was now adopted.f 
 
 * In his "Lives of the Chief-justices" (c. xxxvi., life of Lord Mans- 
 field), Lord Campbell says, with reference to this case: "The Chief- 
 justice's only considerable public exhibition during this period was his 
 attack on the unconstitutional assertion of Lord Chatham and Lord Cam- 
 den, that, in a case of great public emergency, the crown could by law 
 dispense with an act of parliament. The question arising from the em- 
 bargo on the exportation of corn, in consequence of apprehended famine, 
 he proved triumphantly that, although the measure was expedieiit and 
 proper, it was a violation of law, and required to be sanctioned by an act 
 of indemnity." And Lord Campbell adds, in a note: "This doctrine, 
 acted upon in 1827, during the administration of Mr. Canning, and on 
 several subsequent occasions, is now universally taken for constitutional 
 law" (ii.,468). 
 
 t To adduce a single instance, worthy of remark as aflfecting the per- 
 
THE QUESTION OF CEOWN LANDS. 4o 
 
 The next year a not very creditable job of the ministry led 
 to the enactment of a statute of great importance to all holders 
 of property which had ever belonged to the crown. In the 
 twenty-first year of James I. a bill had been passed giving a 
 secure tenure of their estates to all grantees of crown lands 
 whose possession of them had lasted sixty years. The Houses 
 had desired to make the enactment extend to all future as well 
 as to all previous grants. But to this James had refused to 
 consent ; and, telling the Houses that " beggars must not be 
 choosers," he had compelled them to content themselves with a 
 retrospective statute. Since his time, and especially in the 
 reigns of Charles II. and William HI., the crown had been 
 more lavish and unscrupulous than at any former period in 
 granting away its lands and estates to favorites. And no one 
 had been so largely enriched by its prodigality as the most 
 grasping of William's Dutch followers, Bentinck, the founder 
 of the English house of Portland. Among the estates which 
 he had obtained from his royal master's favor w^as one which 
 went by the name of the Honor of Penrith. Subsequent ad- 
 ministrations had augmented the dignities and importance of 
 his family. Their Earldom had been exchanged for a Duke- 
 dom ; but the existing Duke was an opponent of the present 
 ministry, who, to punish him, suggested to Sir James Lowther, 
 a baronet of ancient family, and of large property in the North 
 of England, the idea of applying to the crown for a grant of 
 the forest of Inglewood, and of the manor of Carlisle, which 
 hitherto had been held by Portland as belonging to the Honor 
 of Penrith, but which, not having been expressly mentioned in 
 the original grant by William HI., it was now said had been 
 regarded as included in the honor only by mistake. It was 
 not denied that Portland had enjoyed the ownership of these 
 lands for upward of seventy years without dispute ; and, had 
 the statute of James been one of continual operation, it would 
 have been impossible to deprive him of them. But, as matters 
 
 sonal liberty of the subject, in 1818 a bill of indetnnity was passed to 
 sanction the action of the ministry in arresting and detaining in prison, 
 without bringing them to trial, several persons accused of being impli- 
 cated in seditious proceedings (vide infra). 
 
46 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 stood, the Lords of the Treasury willingly listened to the appli- 
 cation of Sir James Lowther ; they even refused permission to 
 the Duke to examine the original deed and the other documents 
 in the office of the surveyor, on which he professed to rely for the 
 establishment of his right ; and they granted to Sir James the 
 lands he prayed for at a rent which could only be regarded as 
 nominal. The injustice of the proceeding was so flagrant, that 
 in the beginning of 1768 Sir George Savile brought in a bill to 
 prevent any repetition of such an act by making the statute of 
 James I. perpetual, so that for the future a possession' for sixty 
 years should confer an indisputable and indefeasible title. The 
 ministers opposed it with great vehemence, even taking some 
 credit to themselves for their moderation in not requiring from 
 the Duke a repayment of the proceeds of the lands in question 
 for the seventy years during which he had held them. But 
 the case was so bad that they could only defeat Sir George Sa- 
 vile by a side-wind and a scanty majority, carrying an amend- 
 ment to defer any decision of the matter till the next session. 
 Sir George, however, was not discouraged; he renewed his mo- 
 tion in 1769, when it was carried by a large majority, with an 
 additional clause extending its operation to the Colonies in 
 North America; and thus, in respect of its territorial rights, 
 the crown was placed on the same footing as any private indi- 
 vidual, and the same length of tenure which enabled a possessor 
 to hold a property against another subject henceforth equally 
 enabled him to hold it against the crown. The policy not less 
 than the justice of such an enactment might have been thought 
 to commend it to every thinking man as soon as the heat en- 
 gendered by a party debate had passed away. It had merely 
 placed the sovereign and the subject on the same footing in 
 respect of the security which prescription gave to possession. 
 And it might, therefore, have been thought that the vote of 
 1769 had settled the point in every case; since what was the 
 law between one private individual and another, and between 
 the sovereign and a subject, might well have been taken to be 
 of universal application. But the ministry were strangely un- 
 willing to recognize such a universal character in the late act, 
 and found in the peculiar character of ecclesiastical bodies and 
 
THE QUESTION OF CHURCH CLAIMS. 47 
 
 ecclesiastical property a pretext for weakening the force of the 
 late enactment, by denying the applicability of the principle to 
 the claims of ecclesiastical chapters. In 1772 Mr. Henry Sey- 
 mour, one of the members for Huntingdon, moved for leave to 
 bring in a bill, which he described as one " for quieting the 
 subjects of the realm against the dormant claims of the Church ;" 
 or, in other words, for putting the Church on the same footing 
 with respect to property which had passed out of its possession 
 as the crown had been placed in by the act of 1769. He con- 
 tended that such a bill ought to be passed, not only on the 
 general principle that possessors who derived their property 
 from one source ought not to be less secure than they who de- 
 rived it from another, but also on the grounds that, as ecclesi- 
 astical bodies occasionally used their power, *' length of posses- 
 sion, which fortified and strengthened legal right and just title 
 in every other case, did in this alone render them more weak 
 and uncertain," from the diflSculty which often occurred in find- 
 ing documentary proof of very ancient titles ; and that this was 
 not an imaginary danger, since a member of the House then 
 present had recently lost £120,000 by a bishop reviving a claim 
 to an estate after the gentleman's family had been in undisturb- 
 ed possession of it above a hundred years. The defence of the 
 Church, however, was taken up by Mr. Skinner, Attorney -general 
 for the Duchy of Lancaster, who argued that though, in the case 
 of the crown, the nullum tempus which it had formerly claim- 
 ed, and which had been put an end to in 1769, was " an engine 
 in the hands of the strong to oppress the weak, the nullum 
 tempus of the Church was a defence to the weak against the 
 strong," as its best if not its sole security "against the en- 
 croachment of the laity." The "Parliamentary History" re- 
 cords that in the course of a long debate Lord North opposed 
 the bringing in of the bill, as did " the Lord-advocate of Scot- 
 land, who gave as a reason in favor of the bill, though he voted 
 against it, that a law of similar nature had passed in Scotland, 
 and that the whole kingdom, clergy as well as laity, found the 
 very best effects from it."* Burke argued in favor of the bill 
 
 * Vol. xvii., 304. 
 
48 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 with great force, declaring that in so doing " he did not mean 
 anything against the Church, her dignities, her honor, her privi- 
 leges, or her possessions ; he should wish even to enlarge them 
 all ; but this bill was to take nothing from her but the power 
 of making herself odious." But the ministerial majority was 
 too well disciplined to be broken, and Mr. Seymour could not 
 even obtain leave to bring in the bill. 
 
 The year 1772 was marked by the discussion of a measure 
 which the King seems to have regarded as one of private in- 
 terest only, affecting his personal rights over his own family. 
 But it is impossible to regard transactions which may affect 
 the right of succession to the throne as matters of only private 
 interest. And indeed the bill was treated as one involving a 
 constitutional question by both sides of both Houses, and as 
 such was discussed with remarkable earnestness, and with ve- 
 hemence equalling that of any other debate which had as yet 
 taken place since the commencement of the reign. The bill 
 had its origin in the personal feelings of the King himself, who 
 had been greatly annoyed at the conduct of his brother, the 
 Duke of Cumberland, in marrying a widow of the name of Hor- 
 ton, daughter of Lord Irnham, and sister of the Colonel Lut- 
 trell whom the vote of the House of Commons had seated as 
 member for Middlesex ; and perhaps still more at the discov- 
 ery that his other brother, the Duke of Gloucester, to whom 
 he was greatly attached, had married another subject, the wid- 
 owed Lady Waldegrave. His Majesty's dissatisfaction was, per- 
 haps, heightened by the recollection that he himself, in early 
 manhood, had also been strongly attracted by the charms of 
 another subject^ and had sacrificed his own inclinations to the 
 combined considerations of pride of birth and the interests of 
 his kingdom. And, though there was a manifest difference be- 
 tween the importance of the marriage of the sovereign himself 
 and that of princes who were never likely to become sover- 
 eigns, he thought it not unreasonable that he should be em- 
 powered to exercise such a general guardianship over the entire 
 family, of which he was the head, as might enable him to con- 
 trol its members in such arrangements, by making his formal 
 sanction indispensable to the validity of any matrimonial alii- 
 
GEORGE III. AND THE ROYAL MARRIAGES BILL. 4D 
 
 ances which they might desire to contract. A somewhat simi- 
 lar question had been raised in 171 7, when George I., having 
 quarrelled with the Prince of Wales (afterward George II.), as- 
 serted a claim to control and direct the education of all the 
 Prince's children, and, when they should be of marriageable age, 
 to arrange their marriages. The Prince, on the other hand, in- 
 sisted on his natural and inalienable right, as their father, to 
 have the entire government of his own offspring, a right which, 
 as he contended, no royal prerogative could be enabled or per- 
 mitted to override. That question was not, however, brought 
 before Parliament, to which, at that time, the King could, prob- 
 ably, not have trusted for any leanings in his favor ; but he re- 
 ferred it, in an informal way, to the Lord Chancellor (Lord 
 Cowper) and the Common-law Judges. They investigated it 
 with great minuteness. A number of precedents were adduced 
 for the marriage and education of the members of the royal 
 family being regulated by the sovereign, beginning with Henry 
 III., who gave his daughter Joan, without her own consent, in 
 marriage to the King of Scotland, and coming down to the pre- 
 ceding century, at the commencement of which the Council of 
 James I. committed the Lady Arabella Stuart and Mr. Seymour 
 to the Tower for contracting a secret marriage without the 
 King's permission, and at the end of which King William ex- 
 ercised the right of selecting a tutor for the Duke of Glouces- 
 ter, the son of the Princess Anne, without any consultation with 
 the Princess herself; and finally the judges, with only two dis- 
 sentient voices, expressed their conviction that the King was 
 entitled to the prerogative which he claimed. The case does 
 not, however, seem to have been regularly argued before them ; 
 there is no trace of their having been assisted in their delibera- 
 tions by counsel on either side, and their extra-judicial opinion 
 was clearly destitute of any formal authority ;* so that it came 
 before Parliament in some degree as a new question." 
 
 But George III. was not of a disposition to allow such mat- 
 ters to remain in doubt, and, in compliance with his desire, a 
 
 * The case is mentioned by Lord Campbell in his "Lives of the Chan- 
 cellors," c. cxxi. (life of Lord Macclesfield) and c. cxxiv. (life of Lord 
 Chancellor King). 
 
 3 
 
50 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 bill was, in 1772, introduced by Lord Rocbfort, as Secretary of 
 State, which proposed to enact that no descendants of the late 
 King, being children or grandchildren, and presumptive heirs 
 of the sovereign, male or female, other than the issue of prin- 
 cesses who might be married into foreign families, should be 
 capable of contracting a valid marriage without the previous 
 consent of the reigning sovereign, signified under his sign- 
 manual, and that any marriage contracted without such con- 
 sent should be null and void. The King or the ministers ap- 
 parently doubted whether Parliament could be prevailed on to 
 make such a prohibition life-long, and therefore a clause was 
 added which provided that if any prince or princess above the 
 age of twenty-five years should determine to contract a mar- 
 riage without such consent of the sovereign, he or she might 
 do so on giving twelve months' notice to the Privy Council ; 
 and such marriage should be good and valid, unless, before the 
 expiration of the twelve months, both Houses of Parliament 
 should declare their disapproval of the marriage. The con- 
 cluding clause of the bill made it felony " to presume to sol- 
 emnize, or to assist, or to be present, at the celebration of any 
 such marriage without such consent being first obtained." 
 
 The bill was stoutly resisted in both Houses at every stage, 
 both on the ground of usage and of general principle. It was 
 positively denied that the " sovereign's right of approving of 
 all marriages in the royal family," which was asserted in the 
 preamble of the bill, was either founded in law, or established 
 by precedent, or warranted by the opinion of the judges. And 
 it was contended that there never had been a time when the 
 possession of royal rank had been considered necessary to qual- 
 ify any one to become consort of an English prince or princess. 
 It had not even been regarded as a necessary qualification for a 
 queen. Three of the wives of Henry VIII. had been English 
 subjects wholly unconnected with the royal family ; nor had 
 the Parliament nor the people in general complained of any 
 one of those marriages ; moreover, two of his children, who had 
 in their turn succeeded to the crown, had been the offspring of 
 two of those wives ; and in the last century James II., while 
 Duke of York, had married the daughter of an English gentle- 
 
OPPOSITION TO THE EOYAL MARRIAGES BILL. 51 
 
 man ; and, though it had not been without notorious reluctance 
 that his royal brother had sanctioned that connection, it was 
 well known that Charles II. himself had proposed to marry the 
 niece of Cardinal Mazarin. In the House of Peers, Lord Cam- 
 den especially objected to the clause annulling a marriage be- 
 tween persons of full age ; and in the Commons, Mr. Dowdes- 
 well, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Rock- 
 ingham's administration, dwelt with especial vigor on the un- 
 reasonableness of the clause which fixed twenty-five as the age 
 before which no prince or princess could marry without the 
 King's consent. " Law, positive law," he argued, " and not the 
 arbitrary will of an individual, should be the only restraint. 
 Men who are by law allowed at twenty-one* to be fit for gov- 
 erning the realm may well be supposed capable of choosing 
 and governing a wife."t Lord Folkestone condemned with 
 great earnestness the expression in the preamble that the bill 
 was dictated " by the royal concern for the honor and dignity 
 of the crown," as implying a doctrine that an alliance of a sub- 
 ject with a branch of the royal family is dishonorable to the 
 crown — a doctrine which he denounced as "an oblique insult" 
 to the whole people, and which, as such, "the representatives 
 of the people were bound to oppose." And he also objected 
 to the " vindicatory part," as he termed the clause which de- 
 
 * In fact, however, the age at which a young prince was considered 
 competent to exercise the royal authority in person had been fixed at 
 eighteen ; and it is so stated in the speech in which the King, in 1765, 
 recommended the appointment of a Regent to Parliament. — Parliamen- 
 tary History, xvi. , 52. 
 
 + This idea was expanded into an epigram, which appeared in most of 
 the dail}' papers, and has been thought worthy of being preserved in the 
 " Parliamentary History," xvii., 401 (note) : 
 
 *' Quoth Dick to Tom, 'This act appears 
 
 Absurd, as I'm alive, 
 To take tlie crown at eighteen years, 
 
 A wife at twenty-five. 
 The mystery how shall we explain ? 
 
 For sure, as Dowdeswell said. 
 Thus early if they're fit to reig7i, 
 
 They must be tit to wecV 
 Quoth Tom to Dick, ' Thou art a fool, 
 
 And nothing know'st of life ; 
 Alas ! it's easier far to rule 
 
 A kingdom than a wife' " 
 
52 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 clared those who might assist, or even be present, at a marriage 
 contracted without the royal permission guilty of felony.* 
 
 The ministry, however, had a decided majority in both 
 Houses, and the bill became and remains the law of the land, • 
 though fourteen peers, including one bishop, entered a protest 
 against it on nine different grounds, one of which condemned 
 it as " an extension of the royal prerogative for which the great 
 majority of the judges found no authority ;" while another, 
 with something of prophetic sagacity, urged that the bill " was 
 pregnant with civil discord and confusion, and had a natural 
 tendency to produce a disputed title to the crown." 
 
 It may be doubted whether the circumstances w^hich had in- 
 duced George III. to demand such a power as that with which 
 the bill invested him justified its enactment. He was already 
 the father of a family so numerous as to render it highly im- 
 probable that either of his brothers or any of their children 
 would ever come to the throne ; while, as a previously existing 
 law barred any prince or princess who might marry a Roman 
 Catholic from the succession, the additional restraint imposed 
 by the new statute practically limited their choice to an incon- 
 veniently small number of foreign royal houses, many of which, 
 to say the least, are not superior in importance or purity of 
 blood to many of our own nobles. 
 
 Nor can it be said to have been successful in accomplishing 
 his Majesty's object. It is notorious that two of his sons, and 
 very generally believed that one of his daughters, married sub- 
 jects ; the Prince of Wales having chosen a wife who was not 
 
 * It is remarkable that this clause on one occasion proved an obstacle 
 to the punishment of the abettors of such a marriage. In 1793 the Duke 
 of Sussex married Lady Augusta Murray, first at Rome, and afterward, by 
 bauns, at St. George's, Hanover Square. And when the affair came to 
 be investigated by the Privy Council, Lord Thurlow denounced the con- 
 duct of the pair in violent terms, and angrily asked the Attorney-general, 
 Sir John Scott, why he had not prosecuted all the parties concerned in 
 this abominable marriage. Sir John's reply, as he reported it himself, 
 was sufficiently conclusive : " I answered that it was a very difficult busi- 
 ness to prosecute ; that the act, it was understood, had been drawn by 
 Lord Mansfield, the Attorney-general Thurlow, and the Solicitor-general 
 Wedderburn, who, unluckily, had made all persons present at the mar- 
 riage guilty of felony. And as nobody could prove the marriage except 
 a person who had been present at it, there could be no prosecution, be- 
 cause nobody present could be compelled to be a witness." — Thorp's 
 Life ofEldon, i., 235. 
 
SINGULAR SCENE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS. 53 
 
 only inferior in rank and social position to Lady Waldegrave 
 or Mrs. Horton, but was moreover a Roman Catholic ; and that 
 another of his sons petitioned more than once for permission 
 to marry an English heiress of ancient family. And our pres- 
 ent sovereign may be thought to have pronounced her opinion 
 that the act goes too far, when she gave one of her younger 
 daughters in marriage to a nobleman who, however high in 
 rank, has no royal blood in his veins. The political inconven- 
 ience which might arise from the circumstance of the reigning 
 sovereign being connected by near and intimate relationship 
 with a family of his British subjects will, probably, always be 
 thought to render it desirable that some restriction should be 
 placed on the marriage of the heir-apparent; but where the 
 sovereign is blessed with a numerous offspring, there seems no 
 suflBcient reason for sending the younger branches of the royal 
 house to seek wives or husbands in foreign countries. And as 
 the precedent set in the case of the Princess Louise has been 
 generally approved, it is probable that in similar circumstances 
 it may be followed, and that such occasional relaxation of the 
 act of 1772 will be regarded as justified by and consistent with 
 the requirements of public policy as well as by the laws of nat- 
 ure.* Generally speaking, the two Houses agreed in their sup- 
 port of the ministerial policy both at home and abroad ; but, 
 in spite of this political harmony, a certain degree of bad feel- 
 ing existed between them, which on one occasion led to a 
 somewhat singular scene in the House of Commons. The 
 Commons imputed its origin to the discourtesy of the Lords, 
 who, when members of the Commons were ordered by their 
 House to carry its bills up to the peers, sometimes kept them 
 " waiting three hours in the lobby among their lordships' foot- 
 men before they admitted them." Burke affirmed that this 
 had happened to himself, and that he " spoke of it, not out 
 of any personal pride, nor as an indignity to himself, but as 
 
 * A protest against the bill, entered by fourteen peers, including one 
 bishop (of Bangor), denounced it, among other objections, as "contrary 
 to the original inherent rights of human nature . . . exceeding the power 
 permitted by Divine Providence to human legislation . . . and shaking 
 many of the foundations of law, religion, and public security." — Parlia- 
 mentary History, xvii., 391. 
 
54 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 a flagrant disgrace to the House of Commons, which, he ap- 
 prehended, was not inferior in rank to any other branch of the 
 Legislature, but co-ordinate with them." And the irritation 
 which such treatment excited led the Commons, perhaps not 
 very unnaturally, to seek some opportunity to vindicate their 
 dignity. They found it in an amendment which the Lords 
 made on a corn bill. In the middle of April, 1772, resolu- 
 tions had been passed by the Commons, in a committee of the 
 whole House, imposing certain duties on the importation of 
 wheat* and other grain when they were at a certain price, 
 which was fixed at 48s., and granting bounties on exporta- 
 tion when the price fell below 44s. The Lords made several 
 amendments on the bill, and, among others, one to strike out 
 the clause which granted bounties. But when the bill thus 
 amended came back to the Commons, even those who dis- 
 liked the principle of bounties resented this act of the Lords 
 in meddling with that question, which they regarded as a vio- 
 lation of their peculiar and most cherished privilege, the ex- 
 clusive right of dealing with questions of taxation. Governor 
 Pownall, who had charge of the bill, declared that the Lords 
 had forgotten their duty when they interfered in raising 
 money by the insertion of a clause that "no bounty should 
 be paid upon exported corn." And on this ground he moved 
 the rejection of the bill.f In the last chapter of this volume, 
 
 * The import duty on wheat was fixed at 6d. a quarter on grain, and 2d. 
 per cwt. on flour, when the price of wheat in the kingdom should be at 
 or above 48s. ; wlien it was at or above 44s., the exportation was to be 
 altogether prohibited. — Parliamentary History, xvii., 476. 
 
 t See Hallam, " Constitutional History," iii., 38-46, ed. 1833, where, as 
 far as the imperfection of our early Parliamentary records allows, he 
 traces the origin of the assertion of this peculiar privilege by the Com- 
 mons, especially referring to a discussion of the proper limits of this 
 privilege in several conferences between the two Houses ; where, as on 
 some other occasions, he sees, in the assertion of their alleged rights by 
 the Commons, " more disposition to make encroachments than to guard 
 against those of others." A few years before (in 1763), the House of 
 Lords showed that they had no doubt of their right to reject a money-bill, 
 since they divided on the Cider Bill, which came under that description. 
 As, however, the bill was passed, that division was not brought under 
 the notice of the House. But in 1783, in the time of the Coalition Minis- 
 try, the peers having made amendments on the American Intercourse 
 Bill, "the Speaker observed that, as the bill empowered the crown to 
 impose duties, it was, strictly speaking, a money-bill, and therefore the 
 House could not, consistently with its own orders, suffer the Lords to 
 make any amendments on it, and he recommended that the considera- 
 
DISAQKEEMENT BETWEEN LORDS AND COMMONS. 55 
 
 a more fitting occasion for examining the rights and usages of 
 the House of Lords with respect to money-bills will be fur- 
 nished by a series of resolutions on the subject, moved by the 
 Prime-minister of the day. It is sufficient here to say that the 
 power of rejection is manifestly so different from that of orig- 
 inating grants — which is admitted to belong exclusively to the 
 Commons — and that there were so many precedents for the 
 Lords having exerted this power of rejection in the course of 
 the preceding century, that they probably never conceived that 
 in so doing now they were committing any encroachment on 
 the constitutional rights and privileges of the Lower House. 
 But on this occasion the ill-feeling previously existing between 
 the two Houses may be thought to have predisposed the Com- 
 mons to seek opportunity for a quarrel. And there never was 
 a case in which both parties in the House were more unani- 
 mous. Governor Pownall called the rejection of the clause by 
 the Lords " a flagrant encroachment upon the privileges of the 
 House," and affirmed that the Lords had " forgotten their 
 duty." Burke termed it "a proof that the Lords did not un- 
 derstand the principles of the constitution, an invasion of a 
 known and avowed right inherent in the House as the repre- 
 sentatives of the people," and expressed a hope that "they 
 were not yet so infamous and abandoned as to relinquish this 
 essential right," or to submit to " the annihilation of all their 
 
 tion of their amendments should be postponed for three months, and in 
 the mean time a new bill framed according to the Lords' amendments 
 should be passed." The recommendation was approved by Mr. Pitt, as 
 leader of the Opposition, and approved and acted on by Mr. Fox, as leader 
 of the ministry in that House. But, at the same time, Mr. Fox fully ad- 
 mitted the right of the Lords to discuss such questions, "for it would be 
 very absurd indeed to send a loan bill to the Lords for their concurrence, 
 and at the same time deprive them of the right of deliberation. To lay 
 down plans and schemes for loans belonged solely to the Commons ; and 
 he was willing, therefore, that the amended bill should be rejected, though 
 he was of opinion that the order of the House respecting money-bills was 
 often too strictly construed." And he immediately moved for leave to 
 bring in a new bill, which was verbatim the same with the amended bill 
 sent down by the Lords. — Parliamentary History, xxii'i., 895. The ques- 
 tion was revived in the present reign, on the refusal of the Lords to con- 
 cur in the abolition of the duty on paper, when the whole subject was 
 discussed with such elaborate minuteness, and with so much more com- 
 mand of temper than was shown on the present occasion, that it will be 
 better to defer the examination of the principle involved till we come to 
 the history of that transaction. 
 
56 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOBY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 authority." Others called it " an affront which the House was 
 bound to resent, and the more imperatively in consequence of 
 the absence of a good understanding between the two Houses." 
 And the Speaker, Sir John Gust, went beyond all his brother 
 members in violence, declaring that " he would do his part in 
 the business, and toss the bill over the table." The bill was 
 rejected nem. con., and the Speaker tossed it over the table, 
 several of the members on both sides of the question kicking 
 it as they went out ;* and to such a pitch of exasperation had 
 they worked themselves up, that " the Game Bill, in which the 
 Lords had made alterations, was served in a similar manner," 
 though those alterations only referred to the penalties to be 
 imposed for violations of the Game-law, and could by no stretch 
 of ingenuity be connected with any question of taxation. 
 
 * "Parliamentary History," xvii.,515. 
 
THE STAMi* DUTIES AND THE COLONIES. 57 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Mr, Grenville imposes a Duty on Stamps in the North American Colo- 
 nies. — Examination of Dr. Franklin. — Lord Rockingham's Ministry Re- 
 peals the Duty. — Lord Mansfield aflirms a Virtual Representation in the 
 Colonies. — Mr. C. Townsend imposes Import Duties in America. — After 
 some Years, the Civil War breaks out. — Hanoverian Troops are sent to 
 Gibraltar. — The Employment of Hanoverian Regiments at Gibraltar 
 and Minorca. — End of the "War. — Colonial Policy of the Present Reign. 
 — Complaints of the Undue Influence of the Crown. — Motions for Par- 
 liamentary Reform. — Mr. Burke's Bill for Economical Reform. — Mr. 
 Dunning's Resolution on the Influence of the Crown. — Rights of the 
 Lords on Money-bills. — The Gordon Riots. 
 
 But during these years another matter had been gradually 
 forcing its way to the front, which, though at first it attracted 
 but comparatively slight notice, when it came to a head, ab- 
 sorbed for several years the whole attention, not only of these 
 kingdoms, but of foreign countries also. It was originally — in 
 appearance, at least — merely a dispute between Great Britain 
 and her Colonies in North America on the mode of obtaining 
 a small revenue from them. But, in its progress, it eventually 
 involved us in a foreign war of great magnitude, and thus be- 
 came the one subject of supreme interest to every statesman in 
 Europe. England had not borne her share in the seven years' 
 war without a considerable augmentation of the national debt, 
 and a corresponding increase in the amount of yearly revenue 
 which it had become necessary to raise ;* and Mr. Grenville, as 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, had to devise the means of meet- 
 ing the demand. A year before, he had supported with great 
 warmth the proposal of Sir Francis Dashwood, his predecessor 
 
 * It is worth while to preserve the amount, if for no other reason, for 
 the contrast that the expenditure and resources of the kingdom a hun- 
 dred years ago present to those of the present day. The supply required 
 in 1764 was in round numbers £7,712,000; in 1755, before the war broke 
 out, £4,073,000, and even that included a million for the augmentation of 
 the army and navy. In 1761, when the war was at its height, the sum 
 voted was £19,616,000. 
 
 3* 
 
58 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOKY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 at the Exchequer, to lay a new tax upon cider. Now that he 
 himself had succeeded to that ofBce, he cast his eyes across the 
 Atlantic, and, on the plea that the late war had to a certain ex- 
 tent been undertaken for the defence of the Colonies in North 
 America, he proposed to make them bear a share in the burden 
 caused by enterprises from which they had profited. Accord- 
 ingly, in March, 1764, he proposed a series of resolutions im- 
 posing a variety of import duties on different articles of for- 
 eign produce imported into "the British Colonies and planta- 
 tions in America," and also export duties on a few articles of 
 American growth when "exported or conveyed to any other 
 place except to Great Britain." Another resolution aflQrmed 
 " that, toward defraying the said expense, it might be proper 
 to charge certain stamp-duties in the said Colonies and plan- 
 tations." 
 
 The resolutions imposing import and export duties were 
 passed by both Houses almost wdthout comment. That relat- 
 ing to a stamp-duty he did not press at the moment, announc- 
 ing that he postponed it for a year, in order to ascertain in 
 what light it would be regarded by the Colonists themselves ; 
 and as most, if not all, of the Colonies had a resident agent in 
 London, he called them together, explained to them the object 
 and anticipated result of the new imposition (for such he ad- 
 mitted it to be), and requested them to communicate his views 
 to their constituents, adding an offer that, if they should prefer 
 any other tax likely to be equally productive, he should be de- 
 sirous to consult their wishes in the matter. 
 
 He probably regarded such language on his part as a some- 
 what superfluous exercise of courtesy or conciliation, so entire 
 was his conviction of the omnipotence of Parliament, and of 
 the impossibility of any loyal man or body of men calling its 
 power in question. But he was greatly deceived. His mes- 
 sage was received in America with universal dissatisfaction. 
 Of the thirteen States which made up the body of Colonies, 
 there was scarcely one whose Assembly did not present a peti- 
 tion against the proposed measure, and against any other which 
 might be considered as an alternative. Grenville, however, was 
 not a man to be moved by petitions or remonstrances. He 
 
INDIGNANT DISSATISFACTION IN AMERICA. 59 
 
 was rather one whom opposition of any kind hardened in his 
 purpose ; and, as no -substitute had been suggested, at the open- 
 ing of the session of 1765 he proposed a series of resolutions 
 requisite to give effect to the vote of the previous year, and 
 imposing " certain stamp-duties and other duties " on the set- 
 tlements in America, perhaps thinking to render his disregard 
 of the objections which had been made less unpalatable by the 
 insertion of words binding the government to apply the sums 
 to be thus raised to " the expenses of defending, protecting, 
 and securing " the Colonies themselves. The resolutions were 
 passed, as the " Parliamentary History" records, " almost with- 
 out debate," on the 6th of March.* But the intelligence was 
 received in every part of the Colonies with an indignant dis- 
 satisfaction, which astonished even their own ao'ents in Eiio-- 
 land.f Formidable riots broke out in several provinces. In 
 Massachusetts the man who had been appointed Distributor of 
 Stamps was burnt in eflSgy ; the house of the Lieutenant-gov- 
 ernor was attacked by a furious mob, who avowed their deter- 
 mination to murder him if he fell into their hands; and reso- 
 lutions were passed by the Assemblies of the different States 
 to convene a General Congress at New York in the autumn, to 
 organize a resistance to the tax, and to take the general state 
 of affairs into consideration. 
 
 Before, however, that time came, a series of events having 
 no connection with these transactions had led to a change of 
 ministry in England, and the new cabinet was less inclined to 
 carry matters with a high hand. Indeed, even the boldest 
 statesman could hardly have learned the state of feeling which 
 had been excited in America without apprehension, and those 
 who had the chief weight in the new administration were not 
 
 * The report in the "Parliamentary History," xvi., 37, says: " This act 
 (the Stamp Act) passed the Commons almost without debate ; two or 
 three members spoke a2:ainst it, but without force or apparent interest, 
 except a vehement harangue from Colonel Barre [date, March 6, 1765]." 
 
 t Lord Stanhope (" History of England," v., 181) quotes a letter of Dr. 
 Franklin to one of his friends in America, in which, after deploring the 
 impossibility of preventing the act from being passed, he expresses a 
 hope that "frugality and industry will go a great way toward indemnify- 
 ing us." And he complied with Mr. Grenville's request to select a per- 
 son to act as Distributor of Stamps in Pennsylvania whom he thought 
 likely to be generally acceptable. 
 
60 COJ^fSTITUTlONAL HISTOKY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 men to imperil the state by an insistance on abstract theories 
 of right and prerogative. Accordingly, when, after Lord Rock- 
 ingham had become Prime-minister, Parliament met in Decem- 
 ber, 1765, the royal speech recommended the state of affairs 
 in America to the consideration of Parliament (a recommenda- 
 tion which manifestly implied a disposition on the part of the 
 King's advisers to induce the House of Commons to retrace 
 its steps), papers were laid before Parliament, and witnesses 
 from America were examined, and among them a man who 
 had already won a high reputation by his scientific acquire- 
 ments, but who had not been previously prominent as a politi- 
 cian, Dr. Benjamin Franklin. He had come over to England 
 as agent for Pennsylvania, and his examination, as preserved 
 in the " Parliamentary History," may be taken as a complete 
 statement of the matter in dispute from the American point 
 of view, and of the justification which the Colonists conceived 
 themselves to have for refusing to submit to pay such a tax 
 as had now been imposed upon them. At a later day he was 
 one of the most zealous, as he was probably one of the earliest, 
 advocates of separation from England; but as yet neither his 
 language nor his actions afforded any trace of such a feeling. 
 
 He affirmed* the general "temper of the Colonists toward 
 Great Britain to have been, till this act was passed, the best 
 in the world. They considered themselves as a part of the 
 British empire, and as having one common interest with it. 
 They did not consider themselves as foreigners. They were 
 jealous for the honor and prosperity of this nation, and always 
 were, and always would be, ready to support it as far as their 
 little power went. They considered the Parliament of Great 
 Britain as the great bulwark and security of their liberties and 
 privileges, and always spoke of it with the utmost respect and 
 veneration. They had given a practical proof of their good- 
 will by having raised, clothed, and paid during the last war 
 nearly 25,000 men, and spent many millions ; nor had any As- 
 sembly of any Colony ever refused duly to support the govern- 
 
 * These statements and arguments of Franklin are taken from different 
 parts of his examination before the House of Commons, as preserved in 
 the "Parliamentary History," xvi., 137-160. 
 
OBJECTIONS OF COLONISTS TO STAMP ACT. 61 
 
 ment by proper allowances from time to time to public oflScers. 
 They had always been ready, and were ready now, to tax them- 
 selves. The Colonies bad Assemblies of their own, which were 
 their Parliaments. They were, in that respect, in the same sit- 
 uation as Ireland. Their Assemblies had a right to levy money 
 on the subject, then to grant to the crown, and, indeed, had 
 constantly done so ; and he himself was specially instructed 
 by the Assembly of bis own State to assure the ministry that, 
 as they always bad done, so they should always think it their 
 duty to grant such aids to the crown as were suitable to their 
 circumstances and abilities, whenever called upon for the pur- 
 pose in a constitutional manner; and that instruction he had 
 communicated to the ministry. But tbe Colonies objected to 
 Parliament laying on them such a tax as that imposed by the 
 Stamp Act. Some duties, they admitted, the Parliament had 
 a right to impose, but he drew a distinction between "those 
 duties which were meant to regulate commerce and internal 
 taxes." The authority of Parliament to regulate commerce 
 had never been disputed by the Colonists. The sea belonged 
 to Britain. She maintained by ber fleets the safety of naviga- 
 tion on it ; she kept it clear of pirates ; she might, therefore, 
 have a natural and equitable right to some toll or duty, on 
 merchandise carried througb that part of her dominions, to- 
 ward defraying the expenses she was at in ships to maintain 
 the safety of that carriage. But the case of imposition of in- 
 ternal taxes was wholly different from this. The Colonists 
 held that, by the charters which at different times had been 
 granted to the different States, they were entitled to all the 
 privileges and liberties of Englishmen. They found in the 
 Great Charters, and the Petition and Declarations of Right, 
 that one of the privileges of English subjects is that they are 
 not to be taxed but by their common consent ; and these rights 
 and privileges had been confirmed by the charters which at 
 different times bad been granted to the different States." In 
 reply to a question put to him, he allowed that in the Penn- 
 sylvania charter there was a clause by which the King granted 
 that he would levy no taxes on the inhabitants unless it were 
 with the consent of the Colonial Assembly, or by an act of 
 
62 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 Parliament; words which certainly seemed to reserve a right 
 of taxation to the British Parliament; but he also demon- 
 strated that, in point of fact, the latter part of the clause had 
 never been acted on, and the Colonists had, therefore, relied on 
 it, from the first settlement of the province, that the Parlia- 
 ment never would nor could, by the color of that clause in the 
 charter, assume a right of taxing them till it had qualified it- 
 self to exercise such right by admitting representatives from 
 the people to be taxed. And, in addition to objections on 
 principle, he urged some that he regarded as of great force as 
 to the working of this particular tax imposed by the Stamp 
 Act. It was not an equal tax, as the greater part of the reve- 
 nue derived from it must arise from lawsuits for the recovery 
 of debts, and be paid by the lower sort of people ; it was a 
 heavy tax on the poor, and a tax on them for being poor. In 
 the back settlements, where the population was very thin, the 
 inhabitants would often be unable to get stamps without tak- 
 ing a long journey for the purpose. The scarcity of specie, 
 too, in the country would cause the pressure to be felt with 
 great severity, as, in his opinion, there vvas not gold and silver 
 enough in the Colonies to pay the stamp-duty for a single 
 year. In reply to another question, whether the Colonists 
 would be satisfied with a repeal of the Stamp Act without a 
 formal renunciation of the abstract right of Parliament to im- 
 pose it, he replied that he believed they would be satisfied. 
 He thought the resolutions of right would give them very little 
 concern, if they were never attempted to be carried into prac- 
 tice. The Colonies would probably consider themselves in the 
 same situation in that respect as Ireland. They knew that the 
 English Parliament claimed the same right with regard to Ire- 
 land, but that it never exercised it ; and they might believe 
 that they would never exercise it in the Colonies any more 
 than in Ireland. Indeed, they would think that it never could 
 exercise such a right till representatives from the Colonies 
 should be admitted into Parliament, and that whenever an 
 occasion arose to make Parliament regard the taxation of the 
 Colonies as indispensable, representatives would be ordered. 
 ^This last question put to the witness, like several others in 
 
THE MINISTERIAL DILEMMA. 63 
 
 the course of his examination, had been framed with the ex- 
 press purpose of eUciting an answer to justify the determina- 
 tion on the subject to which Lord Rockingham and his col- 
 leagues had come. It could not be denied that the govern- 
 ment was placed in a situation of extreme difficulty — difficulty 
 created, in part, by the conduct of the Colonists themselves. 
 That, as even their most uncompromising advocate, Mr. Pitt, 
 admitted, had been imprudent and intemperate, though it was 
 the imprudence of men who "had been driven to madness by 
 injustice." On the one hand, to repeal an act the opposition 
 to which had been marked by fierce riots, such as those of 
 Boston, and even in the Assemblies of some of the States by 
 language scarcely short of treason,* seemed a concession to 
 intimidation scarcely compatible with the maintenance of the 
 dignity of the crown or the legitimate authority of Parliament. 
 On the other hand, to persist in the retention of a tax which 
 the whole population affected by it was evidently determined 
 to resist to the uttermost, was to incur the still greater danger 
 of rebellion and civil war. In this dilemma, the ministers re- 
 solved on a course calculated, as they conceived, to avoid both 
 evils, by combining a satisfaction of the complaints of the 
 Colonists with an assertion of the absolute supremacy of the 
 British crown and Parliament for every purpose. And on 
 February 24, 1766, the Secretary of State brought in a bill 
 which, after declaring, in its first clause, " that the King's Maj- 
 esty, by and with the consent of the Lords spiritual and tem- 
 poral, and Commons of Great Britain, in Parliament assembled, 
 had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority 
 to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to 
 bind the Colonists and people of America, subjects of the 
 crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever," proceeded to 
 repeal the Stamp Act, giving a strong proof of the sincerity of 
 
 * In the Assembly of Virginia, one of the members — Patrick Henrj' — 
 after declaiming with bitterness against the supposed arbitrary measures 
 of the present reign, exclaimed, "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles I. his 
 Oliver Cromwell, and George III. — " A cry of " Treason !" was uttered. 
 The Spealier called Mr, Henry to order, and declared he would quit the 
 chair unless he were supported by the House in restraining such Intem- 
 perate speeches.— Adqlphus, History of England, i., 188. 
 
64 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the desire to conciliate the Colonists by the unusual step of 
 fixing the second reading of the bill for the next day. 
 
 But in its different clauses it encountered a twofold oppo- 
 sition, which he had, probably, not anticipated. It is unnec- 
 essary to notice that which rested solely on the inexpediency 
 of repealing the Stamp Act, " the compulsory enforcement of 
 which was required by the honor and dignity of the king- 
 dom." But the first clause was even more strenuously re- 
 sisted, on grounds which its opponents affirmed to rest on the 
 fundamental principles of the constitution. It was urged in 
 the House of Commons by Mr. Pitt that, "as the Colonies 
 were not represented in Parliament, Great Britain had no legal 
 right nor power to lay a tax upon them — that taxation is no 
 part of the governing or legislative power. Taxes," said the 
 great orator, " are the voluntary gift and grant of the Com- 
 mons alone. In legislation the three estates of the realm are 
 alike concerned; but the concurrence of the peers and the 
 crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the form of 
 a law ; the gift and grant is in the Commons alone. . . . The 
 distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially neces- 
 sary to liberty." 
 
 Mr. Pitt had no claim to be considered as a great authority 
 in the principles of constitutional law. George II., slight as 
 was his political knowledge or wisdom, complained on one oc- 
 casion of the ignorance of a Secretary of State who had never 
 read Vattel ; and in this very debate he even boasted of his 
 ignorance of " law-cases and acts of Parliament." But his 
 coadjutor in the House of Lords (Lord Camden, at this time 
 Chief-justice of the Common Pleas) owed the chief part of the 
 respect in which he was held to his supposed excellence as a 
 constitutional lawyer, and he fully endorsed and expanded Pitt's 
 arguments when the bill came up to the House of Lords. He 
 affirmed that he spoke as " the defender of the law and the 
 constitution ; that, as the affair was of the greatest consequence, 
 and in its consequences might involve the fate of kingdoms, he 
 had taken the strictest review of his arguments, he had exam- 
 ined and re-examined all his authorities ; and that his searches 
 had more and more convinced him that the British Parliament 
 
LORD Mansfield's dictum. 65 
 
 had no right to tax the Americans. The Stamp Act was ah'\ 
 solutely illegal, contrary to the fundamental laws of nature, 
 contrary to the fundamental laws of this constitution — a con- 
 stitution governed on the eternal and immutable laws of nature. 
 The doctrine which he was asserting was not new ; it was as 
 old as the constitution ; it grew up with it ; indeed, it was its 
 support. Taxation and representation are inseparably united. 
 God hath joined them ; no British government can put them 
 asunder. To endeavor to do so is to stab our very vitals." 
 And he objected to the first clause (that which declared the 
 power and right to tax), on the ground that if the ministers 
 " wantonly pressed this declaration, although they were now 
 repealing the Stamp Act, they might pass it again in a month." 
 He even argued that " they must have future taxation in view, 
 or they would hardly assert their right to enjoy the pleasure of 
 offering an insult." He was answered by Lord Northington 
 (the Chancellor) and by Lord Mansfield (the Chief-justice), 
 both of whom supported the motion to repeal the tax, but who 
 also agreed in denying the soundness of his doctrine that, as 
 far as the power was concerned, there was any distinction be- 
 tween a law to tax and a law for any other purpose ; and Lord 
 Mansfield farther denied the validity of the argument which it 
 had been attempted to found on the circumstance that the Col- 
 onies were not represented in Parliament, propounding, on the 
 contrary, what Lord Campbell calls " his doctrine of virtual rep- 
 resentation." " There can," said he, " be no doubt but that 
 the inhabitants of the Colonies are represented in Parliament, 
 as the greatest part of the people of England are represented, 
 among nine millions of whom there are eight who have no 
 votes in electing members of Parliament. Every objection, 
 therefore, to the dependency of the Colonies upon Parliament 
 which arises upon the ground of representation goes to the 
 whole present constitution of Great Britain. . . . For what pur- 
 pose, then, are arguments drawn from a distinction in which 
 there is no real difference of a virtual and an actual representa- 
 tion? A member of Parliament chosen for any borough rep- 
 resents not only the constituents and inhabitants of that par- 
 ticular place, but he represents the inhabitants of every other 
 
66 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 borough in Great Britain. He represents the City of London 
 and all the other Commons of the land, and the inhabitants of 
 all the colonies and dominions of Great Britain, and is in duty 
 and conscience bound to take care of their interests." 
 
 Lord Mansfield's doctrine of a virtual representation of the 
 Colonies must be admitted to be overstrained. The analogy 
 between the case of colonists in a country from no part of 
 which representatives are sent to Parliament, and that of a 
 borough or county where some classes of the population which 
 may, in a sense, be regarded as spokesmen or agents of the rest 
 form a constituency and return members, must be allowed to 
 fail ; yet the last sentences of this extract are worth preserv- 
 ing, as laying down the important constitutional principle, 
 subsequently expanded and enforced with irresistible learning 
 and power of argument by Burke, that a member of the House 
 of Commons is not a delegate, bound, under all circumstances, 
 to follow the opinions or submit to the dictation of his con- 
 stituents, but that from the moment of his election he is a 
 councillor of the whole kingdom, bound to exercise an inde- 
 pendent judgment for the interests of the whole people, rather 
 than to guide himself by the capricious or partial judgments 
 of a small section of it. But in its more immediate objects — 
 that of establishing the two principles, that the constitution 
 knows of no limitation to the authority of Parliament, and of 
 no distinction between the power of taxation and that of any 
 other kind of legislation — Lord Mansfield's speech is now uni- 
 versally admitted to have been unanswerable.* 
 
 The abstract right was unquestionably on the side of the 
 minister and the Parliament who had imposed the tax. But 
 he is not worthy of the name of statesman who conceives 
 absolute rights and metaphysical distinctions to be the proper 
 foundation for measures of government, and pays no regard 
 
 * On this point the law has been affirmed by a judge of high reputation 
 to be still what Lord Eoekingham and his colleagues asserted. In 1868, 
 on the trial of Governor Eyre for an indictment arising out of disturb- 
 ances in Jamaica, Judge Blackburne laid it down "that, although the 
 general rule is that the Legislative Assembly has the sole right of impos- 
 ing taxes in the colony, yet, when the Imperial Legislature cliooses to 
 impose taxes, according to the rule of English law they have a rigM to 
 do it." 
 
REPEAL OF THE STAMP ACT. 67 
 
 to custom, to precedent, to the habits and feelings of the peo- 
 ple to be governed ; who, disregarding the old and most true 
 adage, summum jus summa injuria, omits to take into his cal- 
 culations the expediency of his actions when legislating for a 
 nation which he is in the daily habit of weighing in his private 
 affairs. The art or science of government are phrases in com- 
 mon use ; but they would be void of meaning if all that is re- 
 quisite be to ascertain the strict right or power, and then un- 
 swervingly to act upon it in all its rigor. And, therefore, while 
 it must be admitted that the character of the power vested 
 in King, Lords, and Commons assembled in Parliament is un- 
 limited and illimitable, and that the legal competency to enact 
 a statute depends in no degree whatever on the wisdom or 
 folly, the justice or wickedness, of the statute, the advice given 
 to a constitutional sovereign by his advisers must be guided by 
 other considerations. To quote by anticipation the language 
 addressed to the Commons on this subject by Burke eight 
 years afterward, the proper policy was " to leave the Americans 
 as they anciently stood. ... To be content to bind America by 
 laws of trade. Parliament had always done it. And this 
 should be the reason for binding their trade. Not to burden 
 them by taxes; Parliament was not used to do so from the 
 beginning; and this should be the reason for not taxing. 
 These are the arguments of states and kingdoms."* 
 
 The ministry were strong enough to carry their resolutions 
 throuo'h both Houses. Their measure was divided into two 
 acts, one known as the Declaratory Act, asserting the absolute 
 and universal authority of Parliament ; the other repealing the 
 Stamp Act of the preceding year. And both were passed 
 without alteration, though the Lords divided against them on 
 both the second and third readings of the bill for repeal founded 
 on them,f some of them entering long protests in the journals 
 of the House. The right to tax was asserted, but the tax itself 
 was repealed. And Franklin's estimate of the feelings on the 
 subject entertained by his countrymen was fully verified by 
 
 * See his speech on American taxation in April, 1774. 
 t The chief divisions were : in the Commons, 375 to 167 ; in the Lords, 
 105 to 71. 
 
68 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the reception which the intelligence met with in the Colonies. 
 To quote the description of Lord Stanhope : " In America the 
 repeal of the Stamp Act was received with universal joy and 
 acclamation. Fireworks and festivals celebrated the good 
 news, while addresses and thanks to the King were voted by 
 all the Assemblies. . . . The words of the Declaratory Act, in- 
 deed, gave the Americans slight concern. They fully believed 
 that no practical grievance could arise from it. They looked 
 upon it merely as a salve to the wounded pride of England; 
 as only that ' bridge of gold ' which, according to the old 
 French saying, should always be allowed to a retreating as- 
 sailant."* 
 
 A recent writer, however, has condemned the addition of 
 the declaration of the abstract right to tax with great vehe- 
 mence. " Nothing," says Lord Campbell,f " could exceed the 
 folly of accompanying the repeal of the Stamp Act with the 
 statutable declaration of the abstract right to tax." But it 
 does not seem difficult to justify the conduct of the ministry 
 in this particular. For, besides the great weight deservedly 
 attached to Franklin's assurance that the declaration would not 
 be objected to by the Colonists, and besides the consideration 
 that, on a general view, it was desirable, if not indispensable, 
 to impress on all classes of subjects, whether at home or 
 abroad, the constitutional doctrine of the omnipotence of Par- 
 liament, the line of argument adopted by Mr. Pitt and Lord 
 Camden, in denying that omnipotence, left the ministers no 
 alternative but that of asserting it, unless they were prepared 
 to betray their trust as guardians of the constitution. For- 
 bearance to insist on the Declaratory Act could not fail to have 
 been regarded as an acquiescence on their part in a doctrine 
 which Lord Campbell in the same breath admits to be false. 
 It may be added, as a consideration of no small practical weight, 
 that, without such a Declaratory Act, the King would have been 
 very reluctant to consent to the other and more important Re- 
 pealing Act. And, on the whole, the conduct of the ministry 
 may, we think, be regarded as the wisest settlement both of the 
 
 * " History of England," vol. v., e. xlv., p. 218, ed. 1863. 
 
 t "Lives of the Chancellors," e. cxliii., life of Lord Camden. 
 
DISCONTENT EEVIVED IN AMERICA. 69 
 
 law and of the practice. It asserted the law in a manner which 
 offended no one ; and it made a precedent for placing the spirit 
 of statesmanship above the letter of the law, and for forbearing 
 to put forth in its full strength the prerogatives whose charac- 
 ter was not fully understood by those who might be affected 
 by them, and also could plead that Parliament itself had con- 
 tributed to lead them to misunderstand it by its own conduct 
 in never before exerting it. 
 
 For the moment, then, contentment and tranquillity were 
 restored in the Colonies. Unhappily, they were not lasting. 
 The same year which saw the triumph of the Rockingham ad- 
 ministration in the repeal of the Stamp Act, witnessed also its 
 fall before a discreditable intrigue. And the ministry which 
 succeeded it had not been a year in office before the new 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Townsend, revived the dis- 
 contents in America which Lord Rockingham had appeased. It 
 cannot be said, however, that the blame should all belong to him ; 
 or that the Rockingham party in the House of Commons were 
 entirely free from a share in it. They were — not unnaturally, 
 perhaps — greatly irritated at the intrigue by which Lord Chat- 
 ham had superseded them, and w^ere not disinclined to throw diflB- 
 culties in the way of their successors, for which the events of the 
 next year afforded more than one opportunity. Lord Chatham, 
 as has been mentioned, was universally recognized as the chief 
 of the new ministry, though he abstained from taking the usual 
 oflfice of First Lord of the Treasury, and contented himself with 
 the Privy Seal ; but he had constructed it of such discordant 
 elements* that no influence but his own could preserve con- 
 sistency in its acts or harmony among its members, as nothing 
 but his name could give it consideration either in Parliament 
 or in the country. In the first months of the next year, 1767, 
 he was attacked with an illness which for a time disabled him 
 from attending the cabinet, being, apparently, the forerunner of 
 
 * Every political student will recollect Burke's description of it as *'a 
 cabinet so variously inlaid, such a piece of diversified mosaic, such a tes- 
 sellated pavement without cement — here a bit of black stone, there a bit 
 of white — patriots and courtiers, King's friends and republicans, Whigs 
 and Tories, treacherous friends and open enemies," etc. — Speech on Amer- 
 ican Taxation. 
 
70 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 that more serious malady which, before the end of the summer, 
 compelled his long retirement from public life ; and the Oppo- 
 sition took advantage of the state of disorganization and weak- 
 ness which his illness caused among his colleagues, to defeat 
 them on the Budget in the House of Commons, by an amend- 
 ment to reduce the land-tax, which caused a deficiency in the 
 supplies of half a million. This deficiency it, of course, be- 
 came necessary to meet by some fresh tax ; and Townsend — 
 who, though endowed with great richness of eloquence, was of 
 an imprudent, not to say rash, temper, and was possessed of too 
 thorough a confidence in his own ingenuity and fertility of re- 
 source ever to be inclined to take into consideration any ob- 
 jections to which his schemes might be liable — proposed to 
 raise a portion of the money which was needed by taxes on 
 glass, paper, tea, and one or two other articles, to be paid as 
 import duties in the American Colonies. His colleagues, and 
 especially the Duke of Grafton himself, the First Lord of the 
 Treasury, and as such the nominal Prime-minister, having been 
 also, as Secretary of State, a member of Lord Rockingham's 
 ministry, which had repealed the former taxes, did not consent 
 to the measure without great and avowed reluctance ; but yield- 
 ed their own judgment to the strong feeling in its favor which 
 notoriously existed in the House of Commons.* Indeed, that 
 House passed the clauses imposing these import duties without 
 hesitation, being, probably, influenced in no small degree by the 
 
 * In a debate in the year 1776, on some measures adopted for the con- 
 duct of the war, the Duke of Grafton said : "In that year (1767), when the 
 extraordinary expenses incurred on account of America were laid before 
 the House of Commons, the House rose as one man and insisted that that 
 country should contribute to the burdens brought on by the military 
 establishment there, and a motion was made for bringing in a bill for 
 that purpose. I strenuously opposed the measure, as big with the conse- 
 quences it has since, unfortunately, produced. I spoke to my friends 
 upon the occasion, but they all united in the opinion that the tide was 
 too strong to expect either to stem or turn it, so as to prevent whatever 
 might be offered in that shape from passing into a law. Finding that all 
 my efforts would be vain, I was compelled to submit, but was resolved, 
 as far as lay in my power, to prevent the effect ; and, while I gave way, 
 to do it in such a manner as would cause the least harm. I accordingly 
 proposed the tea-duty as the most palatable ; because, though it answered 
 the main purpose of those with whom taxation was a favorite measure, 
 it was doing America an immediate benefit, for I procured the shilling a 
 pound duty to be taken off, and threepence to be laid on in lieu thereof; 
 so that, in fact, it was ninepence a pound saved to America. However, 
 
THE COLONISTS LEAEN THEIR STRENGTH. 71 
 
 evidence given in the preceding year by Dr. Franklin, who, as 
 has been already seen, had explained that the Colonists drew a 
 distinction between what he called " internal taxes " and import 
 duties " intended to regulate commerce," and that to the latter 
 class they were not inclined to object. And a second consid- 
 eration was, that these new duties were accompanied and coun- 
 terbalanced by a reduction of some other taxes ; so that the 
 ministry contended that the effect of these financial measures, 
 taken altogether, would be to lower to the Colonists the price 
 of the articles affected by them rather than to raise it. But 
 one of the resolutions adopted provided that the whole of the 
 money to be raised from these taxes should not be spent in 
 America, but that, after making provision for certain Colonial 
 objects specified, " the residue of such duties should be paid 
 into the receipt of his Majesty's Exchequer, and there reserved, 
 to be from time to time disposed of by Parliament toward de- 
 fraying the necessary expenses of defending, protecting, and 
 securing the said Colonies and plantations." And this clause 
 seems to have been understood as designed to provide means 
 for augmenting the number of regular troops to be maintained 
 in the Colonies, whose employment in the recent disturbances 
 had made them more unpopular than formerly.* 
 
 At all events, the intelligence of these new taxes, though only 
 import duties, found the Colonists in a humor to resist any ad- 
 dition of any kind to their financial burdens. The events of 
 the last two years had taught them their strength. It was un- 
 
 the attempt was received in America as I expected it would be — it im- 
 mediately caused disturbances and universal dissatisfaction." — Parlia- 
 mentary History^ xviii., 124. 
 
 * This unpopularity had been aggravated by another measure which 
 was among the last acts of Mr. Grenville's ministry. The Mutiny Act in 
 the Colonies was renewed for two years at a time, and, at its renewal in 
 the spring of 1765, a clause was added which required the Colonists to 
 furnish the troops with " fire, candles, vinegar, salt, bedding, utensils for 
 cooking, and liquors, such as beer, cider, and rum." The Assemblies of 
 several States passed resolutions strongly condemning this new imposi- 
 tion ; but, as the dissatisfaction did not lead to any overt acts of dis- 
 turbance, it seems to have been unnoticed in England at the time, or the 
 clause would probably have been repealed by Lord Rockingham ; and 
 eventually the Assembly of New York seems to have withdrawn its ob- 
 jections to it, presenting an address to Sir H. Moore, the Governor, in 
 which "they declared their intention of making the required provision 
 for the troops." — Lord E. Fitzmaurice, Life of Lord Shelburne^ ii., 61. 
 
72 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 deniable that the repeal of the Stamp Act had been extorted 
 by the riots in Boston and other places, and the success of this 
 system of intimidation could not fail to encourage its repeti- 
 tion. Accordingly, the news of this fresh attempt at taxation 
 was met by a unanimous determination to resist it. News- 
 paper writers and pamphleteers denounced not only the duties 
 but the ministry which imposed them. Petitions from almost 
 every State were sent over to England, addressed to the King 
 and to the Parliament ; but the violent temper of the leaders 
 of the populace was not content to wait for answers to them. 
 Associations were at once formed in Boston and one or two 
 other cities, where resolutions were adopted in the spirit of re- 
 taliation (as their framers avowed), to desist from the importation 
 of any articles of British commerce, and to rely for the future on 
 American manufactures. The principal Custom-house officers 
 at Boston were badly beaten, and others were compelled to seek 
 refuge in a man-of-war which happened to be in the harbor. 
 
 It would be painful, and at the present day useless, to trace 
 the steps by which these local disturbances gradually grew into 
 one general insurrection. The spirit of resistance was undoubt- 
 edly fanned by a party which from the first contemplated a 
 total separation from England as its ultimate result,* if, indeed, 
 they had not conceived the design even before Grenville had 
 given the first provocation to discontent. But the Colonists 
 were not without advocates in England, even among the mem- 
 bers of the government. The Duke of Grafton, while he re- 
 mained Prime-minister, was eager to withdraw all the duties 
 of which they complained ; but he was overruled by the ma- 
 jority of his colleagues. He prevailed, however, so far that 
 Lord Hillsborough, the Secretary of State, was authorized to 
 write a circular-letter to the governors of the different prov- 
 inces, in which he disowned, in the most distinct language 
 
 * The "Memoirs of Judge Livingstone" record his expression of opin- 
 ion as early as 1773, that "it was intolerable that a continent like America 
 should be governed by a little island three thousand miles distant." "Amer- 
 ica," said he, "must and will be independent." And in the "Memoirs 
 of General Lee " we find him speaking to Mr. Patrick Henry, who in 1766 
 had been one of the most violent of all the denouncers of the English 
 policy (see ante, p. 63), of " independence" as " a golden castle in the air 
 which he had long dreamed of" 
 
LORD north's futile AMERICAN POLICY. '73 
 
 possible, " a design to propose to Parliament to lay any farther 
 taxes upon America for the purpose of raising a revenue," and 
 promised for the next session a repeal of all the taxes except 
 that on tea ; and when the Duke retired from the Treasury, and 
 was succeeded by Lord North, that statesman himself brought 
 forward the promised repeal in an elaborate speech,* in which he 
 explained that the duty on tea, which he alone proposed to re- 
 tain, had been originally a boon to the Americans rather than 
 an injury, as being accompanied by the removal of a far heav- 
 ier tax. But he admitted that even that consideration was not 
 the one which influenced him in his opinion that that duty 
 should be maintained, so greatly as the perception that the 
 real object of those who complained of it was, not the redress 
 of a grievance, but the extinction of a right which was an es- 
 sential part of "the controlling supremacy of England." The 
 fact that the right to tax had been denied made it a positive 
 duty on the part of the English minister to exert that right. 
 *'To temporize would be to yield, and the authority of the 
 mother country, if now unsupported; would be relinquished for- 
 ever." And he avowed his idea of the policy proper to be pur- 
 sued to be " to retain the right of taxing America, but to give 
 it every relief that might be consistent with the welfare of the 
 mother country." He carried his resolution, though the mi- 
 nority — which on this occasion was led by Mr. Pownall, who 
 had himself been Governor of Massachusetts, and who moved 
 an amendment to include tea in the list of taxes proposed to 
 be repealed — was stronger than usual. f But the concession 
 failed to conciliate a single Colonist; it had become, as Burke 
 said four years afterward, a matter of feeling,^ and the irrita- 
 
 * See the whole speech, "Parliamentary History," xvi., 853. Many of 
 the taxes he denounced as so injurious to the British manufacturers, 
 "that it must astonish any reasonable man to think how so preposter- 
 ous a law could originally obtain existence from a British Legislature." 
 
 + The division was : for the amendment, 142 ; against it, 204. 
 
 X The words of the "preamble," on which Burke dwelt in 1774, were : 
 " Whereas it is expedient that a revenue should be raised in your Majes- 
 ty's dominions in America for making a more certain and adequate 
 provision for defraying the charge of the administration of justice and 
 support of civil government in such provinces where it shall be found 
 necessary, and tovrard farther defraying the expenses of defending, pro- 
 tecting, and securing the said dominions, be it enacted," etc. 
 
 4 
 
74 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 tion fed on itself, till, in 1773, a fresh act, empowering the 
 East India Company to export tea to the Colonies direct from 
 their own warehouses without its being subject to any duty in 
 England — which Lord North undoubtedly intended as a boon 
 to the Colonists — only increased the exasperation. The ships 
 which brought the tea to Boston were boarded and seized by 
 a formidable body of rioters disguised as native savages, and 
 the tea was thrown into the sea. The intelligence was re- 
 ceived in England with very different feelings by the different 
 parties in the state. The ministers conceived themselves forced 
 to assert the dignity of the crown, and proposed bills to inflict 
 severe punishment on both the City of Boston and the whole 
 Province of Massachusetts. The Opposition insisted on remov- 
 ing the cause of these disturbances by a total repeal of the 
 tea- duty. The minister prevailed by a far larger majority 
 than before, but his success only increased the exasperation in 
 the Colonies ; and it was an evil omen for peace that the lead- 
 ers of the resistance began to search the records of the English 
 Long Parliament " for the revolutionary precedents and forms 
 of the Puritans of that day."* The next year saw fresh at- 
 tempts to procure the repeal of the obnoxious tax rejected by 
 the House of Commons ; but, before the news of this division 
 reached America, blood had already been shed.f Ciyil war be- 
 gan. The next year the Colonies, now united in one solid 
 body, asserted their Independence, taking the title of the United 
 States ; and, though the government at home made more than 
 one effort to recall the Colonists to their allegiance, and sent 
 out commissioners of high rank, with large powers of conces- 
 sion ; and though in one remarkable instance the mission of 
 Mr. Penn, in the summer of 1775, with the petition to the 
 King known as " the Olive Branch," seemed to show a desire 
 for a maintenance of the union on the part of the Colonial 
 Congress,! from the moment that the sword was drawn all 
 
 * " Memoirs and Correspondence of Jefferson." Quoted by Lord Stan- 
 hope, *' History of England," vi,, 14. 
 
 •f At Lexington, April 19, 1775. 
 
 X Lord Stanhope, however, has reason on his side when he calls the 
 words of this petition " vague and general," though "kindly and respect- 
 ful ;" and when he points to the language of extreme bitterness against 
 
AMERICAN INDEPENDEISrCE PROCLAIMED. 75 
 
 hope of preserving the connection of the Colonies must have 
 been seen by all reasonable men to be at an end. 
 
 It is beside our present purpose to recapitulate the military 
 operations of the war, though they verified another of Burke's 
 warnings, that, supposing all moral difficulties to be got over, 
 the ocean remained — that could not be dried up ; and, as long 
 as it continued in its present bed, so long all the causes which 
 weakened authority by distance must continue. In fact, dis- 
 tance from England was one of the main circumstances which 
 decided the contest. The slowness of communication — almost 
 inconceivable to the present generation — rendered impossible 
 that regularity in the transport of re-enforcements and supplies 
 which was indispensable to success ; and, added to the strange 
 absence of military skill shown by every one of the British 
 generals, soon placed the eventual issue of the war beyond a 
 doubt. But one measure by which Lord North's government 
 endeavored to provide for the strengthening of the army em- 
 ployed in America was so warmly challenged on constitutional 
 grounds, that, though the fortunate separation of Hanover from 
 Great Britain has prevented the possibility of any recurrence 
 of such a proceeding, it would be improper to pass it over. 
 
 In his speech at the opening of the autumnal session of 
 1775, the King announced to the Houses that, in order to 
 leave a larger portion of the established forces of the kingdom 
 available for service in North America, he " had sent a part of 
 his Electoral troops to the garrisons of Gibraltar and Port Ma- 
 hon." And the announcement aroused a vehement spirit of 
 opposition, which found vent in the debates of both Houses on 
 the address, and in two substantive motions condemning the 
 measure as a violation of the constitution as established by the 
 Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. It was strenuously 
 maintained that both these statutes forbade the raising or keep- 
 England indulged in by Franklin at the very time that this petition was 
 voted. He, however, expresses a belief that even then "the progress of 
 civil war might have been arrested," which seems doubtful. But it is 
 impossible not to agree with his lordship in condemning the refusal by 
 the ministry to take any notice of the petition, on the ground that the 
 Congress was a self-constituted body, with no claim to authority or rec- 
 ognition, and one which had already sanctioned the taking up arms against 
 the King. — History of England^ vi., 93, 95, 105. 
 
76 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 ing on foot a standing army in the kingdom in time of peace, 
 and also the introduction of foreign troops into this kingdom, 
 without the previous consent of Parliament, on any pretence 
 whatever; and that "the fact that Gibraltar and Minorca were 
 detached from these islands did not exclude them from the 
 character of forming a part of the British dominion." And 
 on these grounds Lord Shelburne, who supported Lord Rock- 
 ingham on an amendment to the address, did not hesitate to 
 denounce this employment of the Hanoverian regiments, as 
 "fundamentally infringing the first principles of our govern- 
 ment," and to declare it "high -treason against the constitu- 
 tion." He asked, if there were a settled plan to subdue the 
 liberties of this country, what surer means could be adopted 
 than those of arming Roman Catholics and introducing for- 
 eign troops?"* and compared the measure under discussion to 
 the case of the Dutch regiments of William IH., " which the 
 Parliament wisely refused to allow him to retain." In the 
 House of Commons, the Opposition was led by Sir James Low- 
 ther and Governor Johnstone, the latter of whom " appealed to 
 the clause in the Act of Settlement which enacted that no person 
 born of other than English parents should enjoy any office or 
 place of trust, civil or military, within the kingdom ;" and argued 
 that to employ foreign officers in the protection of a British for- 
 tress was to place them in an " office of great military trust." 
 
 The discussion brought to light strange divisions and weak- 
 ness in the ministry. The ministerial lawyers differed on the 
 grounds on which they relied, the Attorney-general, Thurlow, 
 denying that the expression "this kingdom" in the Bill of 
 Rights included the foreign dependencies of the crownf (a nar- 
 rowing of its force which the Chancellor, Lord Bathurst, wholly 
 
 * It is probable, however, that the greater part of the Hanoverian sol- 
 diers were Protestants. 
 
 t Lord Campbell, who, in his "Life of Lord Bathurst," asserts that the 
 le,o;ality of the measure turns upon the just construction of the Act of 
 Settlement, adduces Thurlow's language on this subject as "a proof that 
 he considered that he had the privilege which has been practised by oth- 
 er Attorney-generals and Chancellors too, in debate, of laying down for 
 law what best suited his purpose at the moment." It does not seem 
 quite certain that the noble and learned biographer has not more than 
 once in these biographies allowed himself a similar license in the descrip- 
 tion of questions of party politics. 
 
THE INTEODUCTION OF FOREIGN TROOPS. 77 
 
 repudiated), while the argument on which he himself insisted 
 most strongly, that the existence of rebellion in America put 
 an end to all conditions which supposed the kingdom to be 
 at peace, could not obtain the support of any one of his col- 
 leagues. But a plea urged by an independent member, Lord 
 Denbigh, was regarded by some of the speakers with greater 
 favor; his contention being that neither the Bill of Eights 
 nor the Act of Settlement had been violated, since both those 
 great statutes must be interpreted with reference to the time 
 at which they were framed, and to the recent acts of James 11. 
 and William III., the recurrence of which they had been de- 
 signed to prevent, acts to which the present proceeding bore 
 no resemblance. 
 
 A stronger justification, however, might have been found in 
 very recent precedents. In 1745 the ministers had brought 
 over six thousand Dutch troops to re-enforce the army of the 
 Duke of Cumberland, and their act had been subsequently ap- 
 proved by Parliament. And in 1756, at the commencement 
 of the seven years' war, when the loss of Minorca had led to 
 such a distrust of our fleets that a French invasion was very 
 generally apprehended, both Houses presented addresses to 
 George II., begging him to bring over some Hanoverian regi- 
 ments ; and, in the course of the next year, other addresses to 
 thank him for compliance with their entreaty. 
 
 Looking at the strict law of the question, few lawyers doubt 
 that the expression " this kingdom " in the Bill of Rights in- 
 cludes the entire dominions of the crown, or that that great 
 statute was undoubtedly intended to protect the privileges of 
 all their inhabitants, whether within the four seas or in foreign 
 settlements. But it also seems that the clause against raising 
 and keeping on foot a standing army without the consent of 
 Parliament was not more violated by keeping a mixed garri- 
 son in Gibraltar and Port Mahon than garrisons consisting of 
 native soldiers only ; and undoubtedly the keeping an armed 
 force in both these fortresses had been sanctioned by Parlia- 
 ment. Nor could the colonel of a foreign regiment in garri- 
 son under the command of a British governor be fairly said to 
 be in an ofiice of great military trust. So far, therefore, the 
 
78 oonstitutio:nal histoky of England. 
 
 charge against the ministry may be thought to have failed. 
 But the accusation of having transgressed the clause which 
 prohibits " the introduction of foreign troops into this king- 
 dom without the previous consent of Parliament on any pre- 
 tence whatever," must, on the other hand, be regarded as 
 proved. And, indeed, Lord North himself may be taken to 
 have shown some consciousness that it was so, since he justi- 
 fied his conduct in omitting to procure that previous consent 
 by the necessity of the case, by the plea that, as Parliament 
 was in vacation, the time which would have been consumed in 
 waiting for its sanction would have neutralized the advantage 
 desired from the employment of the Hanoverians, since the regi- 
 ments which they were to replace at Gibraltar and Port Mahon 
 could not, after such delay, have reached America in time to be 
 of ser\'ice ; and since he also consented eventually to ask Par- 
 liament for an Act of Indemnity, the preamble of which af- 
 firmed the existence of doubts as to the legality of the step 
 which had been taken. And the fate of this act afforded a 
 still more striking proof of the divisions in the ministry, since, 
 after Lord North himself had proposed it in the House of 
 Commons, and it had been passed there by a large majority, it 
 was rejected in the House of Lords, where his own colleagues, 
 Lord Gower, Lord Suffolk, and Lord Weymouth, spoke and 
 voted against it as needless, because, in their judgment, no 
 doubt of the state of the law on the subject could exist. 
 
 From a statesman-like point of view, the employment of the 
 Hanoverians seems abundantly defensible, if force were still to 
 be employed to bring back the Colonists to their obedience. 
 The circumstance of their being subjects of our sovereign in 
 his other character of Elector of Hanover, clearly distinguished 
 it from the hiring of the Hessian and Brunswick mercenaries, 
 which has been deservedly condemned. And, as the entire 
 number fell short of two thousand,* Lord Shelburne's expres- 
 
 * In the debates on tlie subject it was stated that the number of Hano- 
 verians quartered in the two fortresses was nineteen hundred, and the 
 number of British troops left in them was two thousand. Moreover, as 
 has been already remarked, though Lord Shelburne spoke of arming Ko- 
 man Catholics, it is probable that the Hanoverians were mostly Protes- 
 tants. 
 
TERMINATION OF THE AMERICAN WAR. 79 
 
 sion of fear for the liberties and religion of Englishmen was an 
 absurd exaggeration. Moreover, the warm approval which, less 
 than twenty years before, Parliament had given to the intro- 
 duction of a far larger body of the same troops into England 
 itself, justified the anticipation that a similar sanction would 
 now be cheerfully given. That sanction — which, indeed, might 
 have been thought to be invited by the announcement of the 
 measure in the King's speech — was undoubtedly requisite. 
 And, if it was, a Bill of Indemnity for having acted without it 
 was equally necessary. But, as has been seen in the last chap- 
 ter, for an administration, on urgent occasions, to take action 
 on its own responsibility, and then to apply for indemnity, is a 
 course in strict harmony with the practice of the constitution; 
 and if in this instance the ministers are in any respect blama- 
 ble, their error would seem to have been limited to their ab- 
 staining from instantly calling Parliament together to sanction 
 their act, and being contented to wait for the ordinary time of 
 the Houses meeting. 
 
 The war, therefore, went on. The assertion of their inde- 
 pendence by the Colonies divided, and, so far, weakened, the 
 advocates of their cause in Parliament, one section of whom, 
 led by Lord Chatham, regarded any diminution of our domin- 
 ion as not only treasonable, but ruinous ; on the other hand, it 
 procured them the alliance of France and Spain. But it can- 
 not be said that either of these incidents produced any practi- 
 cal effect on the result of the war. Lord Chatham's refusal to 
 contemplate their independence could not retard its establish- 
 ment; and the alliance of France and Spain, which brought 
 nothing but disaster to those countries, could not accelerate it 
 by a single moment. For nearly six years the war continued 
 with alternations of success, the victories gained by the British 
 arms being the more numerous, the triumphs of the Americans 
 being incomparably the more important, involving as they did 
 the surrender of two entire armies, the latter of which, that 
 of Lord Cornwallis, in 1781, did, in fact, terminate the war, and 
 with the war the existence of the ministry which had conduct- 
 ed it. A singularly rapid succession of new administrations 
 ensued — so rapid that the negotiations for peace which the 
 
80 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 first, that of Lord Rockingham, opened, were not formally 
 completed till the third,* known as the Coalition Ministry, was 
 on the point of dismissal. It would be beside our purpose to 
 enter into the details of the treaty which constituted the United 
 States, as they were now called, a nation by our formal recog- 
 nition of their independence. Even in that recognition, which 
 was the most important article of the treaty, no constitutional 
 principle was involved, though it aJBfords the only instance in 
 our history which can seem to throw a doubt on our inheri- 
 tance of that capacity for government which the Roman poet 
 claimed as, in ancient times, the peculiar attribute of his own 
 countrymen. It presents the only instance of a loss of territo- 
 ry peopled by men who came of our blood, and who still spoke 
 our language. It was a stern and severe lesson ; and yet, 
 fraught with discredit and disaster as it was, it nevertheless 
 bore fruit in a later age which we may be excused for regard- 
 ing as an example of the generally predominating influence of 
 sober practical sense in our countrymen, when not led away by 
 the temporary excitement of passion, as shown in our capacity 
 to take home to ourselves and profit by the teachings of expe- 
 rience. The loss of the American Colonies was caused by the 
 submission of the Parliament and nation to men of theory 
 rather than of practice ; ideologists, as Napoleon called them ; 
 doctrinaires, to use the modern expression ; men who, because 
 Parliament had an abstract right of universal legislation, re- 
 garded it as a full justification for insisting on its exercise, 
 without giving a thought to the feelings, or prejudices, or hab- 
 its of those who might be affected by their measures. Ab- 
 stractedly considered. Lord Chatham and Lord Camden were 
 undoubtedly wrong in denying the power of Parliament to tax 
 the Colonies ; but there was better judgment in their coun- 
 sels, though founded on false premises, than in those of Gren- 
 ville and Townsend, though theirs was the more correct view of 
 the constitutional power of legislation. The two peers were 
 
 * The Preliminary or Provisional Articles, as they were called, of which 
 the Definitive Treaty was but a copy, were signed at Paris, November 30, 
 1783, during Lord Shelburne's administration. But the Definitive Treaty 
 was not signed till the 3d of September of the following year, under the 
 Coalition Ministry, which was t^'ned out a few weeks afterward. 
 
THE TEACHINGS OF EXPERIENCE. 81 
 
 wrong in their principle ; the two Chancellors of the Exchequer 
 were unwise in their application of their principle; and the 
 practical error was the more disastrous one. 
 
 It is now generally admitted that the true statesman-like 
 course toward the Colonies was that adopted by Lord Rock- 
 ingham and his colleagues in 1765 — to avoid weakening the 
 supreme power of Parliament by any disavowal of the right to 
 tax, but to avoid imperilling the sovereign authority of the 
 King by a novel exertion of it. As much of our common 
 English law is made up of precedent, so, in a still greater de- 
 gree, are our feelings and ideas of our rights and privileges reg- 
 ulated by precedent. And we lost America because in 1764 
 and 1767 neither minister nor Parliament took men's feelings 
 |nd prejudices into account. The loss of the United States, 
 therefore, was a lesson not undeserved ; and by our statesmen 
 since that day it has been taken in the right spirit of profiting 
 by its teaching as a guide to their own conduct. Since that 
 day the enterprise of our people has planted our flag in regions 
 far more distant, and has extended the dominion of our sover- 
 eign over provinces far more extensive than those which we 
 then lost. And on some of the administrations of the present 
 reign the duty has fallen of framing schemes of government 
 for those new acquisitions, as also for some of those previously 
 possessed. In how different a spirit from that which actuated 
 the early ministers of George III.* those to whom the task was 
 committed by Queen Victoria applied themselves to their task 
 may be seen in a maxim laid down by the present Lord Grey, 
 when he presided at the Colonial Office (1846-1852), that " the 
 success of free institutions in any country depends far less upon 
 the particular form of those institutions than upon the charac- 
 ter of the people on whom they are conferred." But how he 
 and others in the same office carried out that principle must be 
 reserved for a later chapter. 
 
 Besides the numerous motions which were brought forward 
 by the Opposition respecting the continuance and conduct of 
 
 * We shall see in a subsequent chapter that even in this reign of George 
 III. Pitt laid down the true principles of our legislation for the colonies 
 in his bill for the better government of Canada. 
 
 4* 
 
82 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the war, tliere were several also wbicli were indirectly prompted 
 by it. The Opposition claimed to be on this subject not only 
 the champions of the real interests of the nation, but also its 
 spokesmen, who expressed the opinions and feelings of all the 
 thinking and independent portion of the people. That their 
 efforts were overborne they attributed to the subservience of 
 the Parliament to the ministers, and of the ministers to the 
 crown.* And consequently several motions w^ere made by 
 members of that party, the object of which was, in one way or 
 another, to diminish what they regarded as the undue influence 
 of the crown. In one instance, and that the most successful, 
 a direct denunciation of that influence was employed, but the 
 earlier and more frequent proposals were directed to the purifi- 
 cation of the House of Commons, and to the strengthening of 
 its independence. It is remarkable that of these the two which 
 related to a subject of which the Commons are usually most 
 especially and most rightly jealous, the interference of peers in 
 elections, had the worst fortune. In 1780 complaints were 
 made and substantiated that the Duke of Bolton and the Duke 
 of Chandos (who was also Lord-lieutenant of the county) had 
 exerted themselves actively in the last election for Hampshire. 
 And, in support of motions that these peers " had been guilty 
 of a breach of the privileges of the House, and an infringe- 
 ment of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of Great 
 Britain," a case was adduced in which Queen Anne had dis- 
 missed the Bishop of Worcester from the ofiice of Almon- 
 er for similar interference. Nor did Lord Nugent, a rela- 
 tive of the Duke of Chandos, deny the facts alleged ; on the 
 contrary, he avowed them, and adopted a line of defence 
 which many must have thought an aggravation of the charge, 
 since it asserted that to prevent such interference was im- 
 possible, and therefore the House would but waste its time 
 in trying. However, on this occasion the House took the 
 view which he thus suggested to it, postponing all farther con- 
 sideration of the matter for four months ; and the charge 
 
 * An admirably reasoned passage on the influence of the crown, espe- 
 cially in the reigns of the two first Hanoverian Kings, will be found in 
 Hallam, " Constitutional History," c.xvL, vol. ill., p. 393, ed. 1833. 
 
A FORMAL MOTION FOR PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 83 
 
 against the Duke of Bolton was shelved in a somewhat similar 
 manner. 
 
 Even had these peers and such practices been censured with 
 the very greatest severity, the censures could have had but a 
 very limited effect. But it was on measures of a wider scope, 
 embracing what began to be called a Reform of Parliament, 
 that the more zealous members of the Opposition placed their 
 chief reliance. As far as our records of the debates can be 
 trusted, Lord Chatham, ten years before, had given the first 
 hint of the desirableness of some alteration of the existing 
 system. On one occasion he denounced the small boroughs 
 as " the rotten part of the constitution," thus originating the 
 epithet by which they in time came to be generally described ; 
 but more usually he disavowed all idea of disfranchising them, 
 propounding rather a scheme for diminishing their importance 
 by a large addition to the county members. However, he 
 never took any steps to carry out his views, thinking, perhaps, 
 that it was not in the Upper House that such a subject should 
 be first broached. But he had not been long in the grave, 
 when a formal motion for a reform of a different kind was 
 brought forward by one of the members for the City of Lon- 
 don, Alderman Sawbridge,* who, in May, 1780, applied for 
 leave to bring in "a bill for shortening the duration of Parlia- 
 ments." His own preference he avowed to be for annual Par- 
 liaments; but his suspicion that the House would think such 
 a measure too sweeping had induced him to resolve to content 
 himself with aiming at triennial Parliaments. As leave was 
 refused, the bill proposed to be introduced may, perhaps, be 
 thought disentitled to mention here, were it not that the cir- 
 cumstance that proposals for shortening the duration of Parlia- 
 ments are still occasionally brought forward seems to warrant 
 an account of a few of the argum'ents by which those who took 
 the leading parts in the debate which ensued resisted it. The 
 minister, Lord North, declared that the Alderman had misun- 
 
 * The "Parliamentary History" shows tliat he had brought forward 
 tlie same motion before 1780; since Lord Nugent, who replied to him, 
 said " the same motion had been made for some years past, and had been 
 silently decided on." From which it seems that it was never discussed 
 at any length till May 8, 1780. 
 
84 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 derstood the views of our ancestors on the subject ; as their 
 desire had been, not that Parliament should be elected annual- 
 ly, but that it should sit every year, an end which had now 
 been attained. Fox, on the other hand, while avowing that 
 hitherto he had always opposed similar motions, declared his 
 wish now to see not only triennial but annual Parliaments, as 
 the sole means of lessening the influence of the crown. " If 
 any of his constituents were to ask him to what our present 
 misfortunes were ascribable, he should say the first cause was 
 the influence of the crown ; the second, the influence of the 
 crown ; and the third, the influence of the crown." But it 
 was replied by Burke, who usually exhausted every question 
 he took in hand, that such a bill would rather tend to augment 
 that influence, since " the crown, by its constant stated power, 
 influence, and revenue, would be able to wear out all opposi- 
 tion at elections ; that it would not abate the interest or in- 
 clination of ministers to apply that interest to the electors ; on 
 the contrary, it would render it more necessary to them, if they 
 desired to have a majority in Parliament, to increase the means 
 of that influence, to redouble their diligence, and to sharpen 
 dexterity in the application. The whole effect of the bill 
 w^ould, therefore, be to remove the application of some part of 
 that influence from the elected to the electors, and farther to 
 strengthen and extend a court interest already great and pow- 
 erful in boroughs. It must greatly increase the cost of a seat 
 in Parliament ; and, if contests were frequent, to many they 
 would become a matter of expense totally ruinous, which no 
 fortunes could bear. The expense of the last general election 
 was estimated at £1,500,000 ; and he remembered well that 
 several agents for boroughs said to candidates, 'Sir, your elec- 
 tion will cost you £3000 if you are independent; but, if the 
 ministry supports you, it may be done for £2000, and even 
 less.' " And he adduced the case of Ireland, where formerly, 
 when " a Parliament sat for the King's life, the ordinary charge 
 for a seat was £1500; but now, when it sat for eight years, 
 four sessions, the charge was £2500 and upward." Such a 
 change as was proposed would cause " triennial corruption, 
 triennial drunkenness, triennial idleness, etc., and invigorate 
 
THE DEMAND FOE REFORM CONTINUES. 85 
 
 personal hatreds that would never be allowed to soften. It 
 would even make the member himself more corrupt, by increas- 
 ing his dependence on those who could best support him at 
 elections. It would wreck the fortunes of those who stood on 
 their own private means. It would make the electors more 
 venal, and injure the whole body of the people who, whether 
 they have votes or not, are concerned in elections." Finally, 
 it would greatly impair the proper authority of the House 
 itself. " It would deprive it of all power and dignity ; and 
 a House of Commons without power and without dignity, 
 either in itself or its members, is no House of Commons for 
 this constitution." 
 
 The applicability of some of his arguments — those founded 
 on the disorders at times of election — has been greatly dimin- 
 ished, if not destroyed, at the present day, by the limitation 
 of the polling to a single day. The disfranchisement of the 
 smaller boroughs has neutralized others ; but the expense of a 
 general election is not believed to have diminished, and that 
 alone seems a strong objection to a system which would render 
 them more frequent than they are at present. Mr. Sawbridge 
 could not obtain the support of a third of his hearers.* But 
 his notions had partisans in the other House who were not dis- 
 couraged by such a division ; and three weeks later the Duke 
 of Richmond brought forward a Reform Bill on so large a scale 
 that, as the " Parliamentary History " records, " it took him an 
 hour and a half to read it," and which contained provisions for 
 annual Parliaments and universal suffrage. But he met with 
 even less favor than the Alderman, and his bill was rejected 
 without a division. 
 
 Still the subject was not allowed to rest. Even after Lord 
 North had been replaced by Lord Rockingham, the demand for 
 Parliamentary Reform was continued ; the young Mr. Pitt mak- 
 ing himself the mouth-piece of the Reformers, and founding a 
 motion which he made in May, 1782, on " the corrupt influence 
 of the crown ; an influence which has been pointed at in every 
 period as the fertile source of all our miseries ; an influence 
 
 * On the division the numbers were : for the motion, 90 ; against it, 182. 
 
86 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 which has been substituted in the room of wisdom, of activity, 
 of exertion, and of success ; an influence which has grown up 
 with our growth and strengthened with our strength, but which, 
 unhappily, has not diminished with our diminution, nor de- 
 cayed with our decay." He brought forward no specific plan, 
 but denounced the close boroughs, and asked emphatically 
 whether it were " representation " for " some decayed villages, 
 almost destitute of population, to send members to Parliament 
 under the control of the Treasury, or at the bidding of some 
 great lord or commoner." He, however, was defeated, though 
 by the small majority of twenty. And it is remarkable that 
 when, the next year, he revived the subject, developing a more 
 precise scheme — akin to that which his father had suggested, 
 of increasing the number of county members, and including 
 provisions for the disfranchisement of boroughs which had 
 been convicted of systematic corruption — he was beaten by a 
 far larger majority,* the distinctness of his plan only serving 
 to increase the numbers of his adversaries. A kinsman of Pitt's, 
 Lord Mahon, made an equally futile attempt to diminish the 
 expenses of elections, partly by inflicting very heavy penalties 
 on parties guilty of either giving or receiving bribes,f and part- 
 ly by prohibiting candidates from providing conveyances for 
 electors; and more than one bill for disfranchising revenue- 
 ofiicers, as being specially liable to pressure from the govern- 
 ment, and to prevent contractors from sitting in Parliament, 
 was brought forward, but was lost, the smallness of the divi- 
 sions in their favor being not the least remarkable circumstance 
 in the early history of Reform. It was made still more evi- 
 dent that as yet the zeal for Reform was confined to a few, 
 when, two years afterward, Pitt, though now invested with all 
 the power of a Prime-minister, was as unable as when in oppo- 
 sition to carry a Reform Bill, which in more than one point 
 foreshadowed the measure of 1832; proposing, as it did, the 
 disfranchisement of thirty-six small boroughs, which were to 
 
 * The division in 1782 was : 161 to 141; in 1783, 293 to 149. 
 
 t How systematic and open bribery was at tliis time is shown by an 
 account of Sheridan's expenses at Stafford in 1784, of which the first item 
 is— 248 burgesses, paid £5 5s. each, £1302.— Moore's Life of Sheridan, 
 i.,405. 
 
burke's attack on the royal INFLUEXCE. 87 
 
 be purchased of their proprietors nearly on the principle adopt- 
 ed in the Irish Union Act, and on the other hand the enfran- 
 chisement of copyholders; but it differed from Lord Grey's 
 act in that it distributed all the seats thus to be obtained among 
 the counties, with the exception of a small addition to the rep- 
 resentatives of London and Westminster. However, his sup- 
 porters very little exceeded the number who had divided with 
 him in 1783, and Lord North, who led the Opposition in a 
 speech denouncing any change, had a majority of seventy-four. 
 After this second defeat, Pitt abandoned the question, at all 
 events for the time ; being convinced, to quote Earl Stanhope's 
 description of his opinion on the subject, " that nothing but 
 the pressure of the strongest popular feeling, such as did not 
 then exist, could induce many members to vote against their 
 own tenure of Parliament, or in fact against themselves."* 
 What, perhaps, weighed with him more, on deciding to acqui- 
 esce in this vote as final, was the perception that as yet the 
 question excited no strong interest out-of-doors ; and when, a 
 few years later, some who sought to become leaders of the peo- 
 ple endeavored to raise an agitation on the subject, their teach- 
 ings were too deeply infected with the contagion of the French 
 Revolution to allow a wise ruler to think it consistent with 
 his duty to meet them with anything but the most resolute 
 discouragement. 
 
 But, concurrently with the first of these motions for Parlia- 
 mentary Reform, two more direct attacks on the royal influ- 
 ence, and on what was alleged to be the undue exertion of it, 
 were made in the session of 1780. The first was made by 
 Burke, who brought forward a measure of economical reform, 
 demonstrating, in a speech of extraordinary power, a vast mass 
 of abuses, arising from corrupt waste in almost everj'^ depart- 
 ment of the state, and in every department of the royal house- 
 hold, without exception, and proposing a most extensive plan 
 of reform, which dealt with royal dignities, such as the Duchy 
 of Lancaster and the other principalities annexed to the crown ; 
 with the crown-lands, a great portion of which he proposed to 
 
 * "Life of Pitt, " i., 259. 
 
88 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 sell ; with the offices of the royal household, a sufficient speci- 
 men of the abuses on which was furnished by the statement, 
 that the turnspit in the King's kitchen was a member of Par- 
 liament ; and with many departments of state, such as the 
 Board of Works and the Pay-office, etc. He was studiously 
 cautious in his language, urging, indeed, that his scheme of 
 reform would " extinguish secret corruption almost to the pos- 
 sibility of its existence, and would destroy direct and visible 
 influence equal to the offices of at least fifty members of Par- 
 liament," but carefully guarding against any expressions im- 
 puting this secret corruption, this influence which it was so 
 desirable to destroy, to the crown. But his supporters were 
 less moderate ; and Mr. Thomas Townsend declared that facts 
 which he mentioned " contained the most unquestionable pre- 
 sumptive evidence of the influence of the crown ; he meant 
 the diverting of its revenues to purposes which dared not be 
 avowed, in corrupting and influencing the members of both 
 Houses of Parliament;" and he asserted that "the principle 
 and objects of the bill were the reduction of the influence of 
 the crown." The bill was not opposed by the ministers on its 
 principle ; but Lord North, even while consenting to its intro- 
 duction, " did not pledge himself not to oppose it in some or 
 other of its subsequent stages ;" and, in fact, his supporters re- 
 sisted it in almost every detail, some of them utterly denying 
 the right of the House to interfere at all with the expenditure 
 of the civil list ; others contesting the propriety of alienating 
 the crown-lands ; and a still greater number objecting to the 
 abolition of some of the offices which it was proposed to sweep 
 away, such as that of the " third Secretary of State, or Secre- 
 tary for the Colonies," that of " Treasurer of the Chamber," 
 and others of a similar character. And, as the minister suc- 
 ceeded in defeating him on several, though by no means all, 
 of these points, Burke at last gave up the bill. Fox warning 
 the House at the same time that it should be renewed session 
 after session, and boasting that even the scanty success which 
 it had met with had been worth the struggle. 
 
 The other direct attack was made by Mr. Dunning, who, 
 perhaps, did not then foresee that he himself was destined 
 
LOBD NORTH AND THE CROWN INFLUENCE. 89 
 
 soon to fill one of the offices which had come under the lash 
 of Burke's sarcasm, and who a few days afterward, in moving 
 that it was necessary to declare " that the influence of the 
 crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be dimin- 
 ished," rested no small portion of his argument on the treat- 
 ment that Burke's bill had received. He afiirmed that, though 
 Lord North had declared that "the influence of the crown was 
 not too great," the divisions on that bill, and on many other 
 measures which had been under discussion, were irrefragable 
 proofs of the contrary. He quoted Hume and Judge Black- 
 stone as testifying to the existence and steady increase of that 
 influence, and " could aflSrm of his own knowledge, and pledge 
 his honor to the truth of the assertion, that he knew upward 
 of fifty members in that House who always voted in the train 
 of the noble lord in the blue ribbon,* but who reprobated and 
 condemned, out of the House, the measures they had support- 
 ed and voted for in it." Mr. T. Pitt even instanced " the pres- 
 ent possession of oflSce by Lord North as an indubitable proof 
 of the enormous influence of the crown." 
 
 It was not strange that Lord North opposed a resolution 
 supported by such arguments with all the power of the gov- 
 ernment, basing his own opposition chiefly on the wisdom " of 
 maintaining the rule long since established by Parliament, nev- 
 er to vote abstract propositions." But he presently saw that 
 he was in a minority, and was forced to be content with adopt- 
 ing and carrying an amendment of Mr. Dundas, one of the 
 members for Edinburgh, who flattered himself that by the in- 
 sertion of now he converted a general assertion into a tempo- 
 rary declaration, which might at a future time be disavowed as 
 no longer applicable. A majority of eighteenf aflBrmed the res- 
 olution ; and when the mover followed it up by a second, de- 
 claring that " it is competent to this House to examine into 
 and to correct abuses in the expenditure of the civil list reve- 
 nues, as well as in every other branch of the public revenue, 
 
 * Lord North was a Knight of the Garter, the only commoner, except 
 Sir R. Walpole, who received that distinction in the last century, and 
 the latest, with the exception of Lord Castlereagh, on whom it has been 
 conferred. t 333 to 215. 
 
90 COifSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 whenever it shall seem expedient to the wisdom of this House 
 to do so," though the minister, with what was almost an appeal 
 ad misericordiam, " implored the House not to proceed," he 
 did not venture to take a division, and that resolution also, 
 with one or two others designed to give instant effect to them, 
 were adopted and reported by the committee to the House in 
 a single evening.* The first resolution did, in fact, embody a 
 complaint, or at least an assertion, which the Eockingham party 
 had constantly made ever since the close of the Marquis's first 
 administration. In a speech which he had made only a few 
 weeks before,f Lord Rockingham himself had declared that " it 
 was early in the present reign promulgated as a court axiom 
 that the power and influence of the crown alone was suflBcient 
 to support any set of men his Majesty might think proper to 
 call to his councils." And Burke, in his " short account " of 
 his administration of 1765, had not only imputed both its for- 
 mation and its dismissal to the " express request " and " ex- 
 press command of their royal master," but in the sentence, 
 " they discountenanced and, it is to be hoped, forever abolish- 
 ed, the dangerous and unconstitutional practice of removing 
 military officers for their votes in Parliament," condemned with 
 unmistakable plainness some acts of the preceding ministry 
 which were universally understood to have been forced upon it 
 by the King himself. General Conway had been deprived of 
 the colonelcy of his regiment ; Lord Rockingham himself, with 
 several other peers, had been dismissed from Lord-lieutenan- 
 cies, as a punishment for voting against the ministry ; such 
 dismissals being a flagrant attempt to put down all freedom of 
 debate in Parliament, which of all its privileges is the one most 
 essential to its usefulness, if not to its very existence. But, as 
 Burke said, the practice had been abandoned, and the first res- 
 
 * It is perhaps worth pointing out, as a specimen of the practical man- 
 ner in which parliamentary business was transacted at that time, that 
 this great debate — in which (the House being in committee) Mr. Dun- 
 ning himself spoke three times, and Lord North, Mr. T. Pitt, Mr. Fox, 
 the Speaker (Sir F. Norton), the Attorney-general, General Conway, Gov- 
 ernor Pownall, the Lord-advocate, and several other members took part — 
 was concluded by twelve o'clock. 
 
 t February 8, 1780, on Lord Shelburne's motion for an inquiry into the 
 public expenditure. — Parliamentary History y xx., 1346. 
 
CONTKOL OF THE PUBLIC EXPENDITUKE. 91 
 
 olution, therefore, as Lord North said, involved no practical 
 result. It is the second resolution that confers a constitution- 
 al character and importance on this debate. And it is not too 
 much to say that no vote of greater value had been come to 
 for many years. It might have been considered ahuost as the 
 assertion of a truism included in the power of granting sup- 
 plies, to declare that the Parliament has the right and authori- 
 ty to examine into and correct abuses in the expenditure, if it 
 had not been denied by more than one speaker on the ministe- 
 rial side, though not by the Prime-minister himself. But that 
 denial made the assertion of the right an imperative duty ; for 
 certainly the exclusive right of authorizing a levy of money 
 would lose half its value, if unaccompanied by the other right 
 of preventing the waste of the revenue thus raised. 
 
 It may likewise be said that another principle of the par- 
 liamentary constitution is, by implication, contained in Mr. 
 Dunning's second resolution, and that the words, " it is com- 
 petent to this House to examine into and to correct abuses in 
 the expenditure," were meant to imply a denial of the com- 
 petency of the other House to institute, or even to share 
 in, such an examination. Even if that were the object of its 
 framer, it only coincided with the view of the peers them- 
 selves, a very considerable majority* of whom had, a few 
 weeks before, rejected a motion made by Lord Shelburne for 
 the appointment of " a committee of members of both Houses 
 to examine without delay into the public expenditure," prin- 
 cipally on the ground urged by the Secretary of State, Lord 
 Stormont, and by several other peers, that " to inquire into, re- 
 form, and control the public expenditure" would be an im- 
 proper interference with the privileges of the Commons; the 
 Chief-justice, Lord Mansfield, even going the length of warn- 
 ing his brother peers that such interference might probably 
 lead the Commons " to dispute in their turn the power of ju- 
 dicature in the last resort exercised by the peers." Lord Cam- 
 den, on the contrary, affirmed, as a proposition which "no no- 
 ble lord present would deny, that that House had a right to 
 
 * 101 to 55. 
 
92 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 inquire so far as the disposal of public moneys came under 
 their cognizance as a deliberative body." And in the Lower 
 House itself, Burke, in his speech in favor of his Bill for Eco- 
 nomical Reform, went even farther than Lord Camden, and 
 blamed the House of Lords for rejecting Lord Shelburne's mo- 
 tion on such a ground. " They had gone," he said, " farther 
 in self-denial than the utmost jealousy of the Commons could 
 have required. A power of examining accounts, of censuring, 
 correcting, and punishing the Commons had never, that he 
 knew of, thought of denying to the Lords. It was something 
 more than a century ago that the Commons had voted the 
 Lords a useless body. They had now voted themselves so." 
 And it would seem that the Lords themselves, to a certain ex- 
 tent, retracted this, their self-denying vote, when, before the 
 end of the same session, they discussed Burke's BiU for Eco- 
 nomical Reform, and passed it, though it was a money-bill, 
 "containing extraneous enactments," and as such contravened 
 one of their own standing orders which had been passed in 
 the beginning of Queen Anne's reign, when the system of 
 " tacking," as it was called, had excited great discontent, which 
 was not confined to themselves. The propriety of rejecting 
 the bill on that ground was vigorously urged by the only two 
 lawyers who took part in the debate, the Chancellor, Lord 
 Thurlow, and Lord Loughborough, whose object was avowedly 
 thus to give a practical proof that the Lords " had not voted 
 themselves useless." But even those who disregarded their 
 advice fully asserted the right of the peers " to exercise their 
 discretion as legislators." We have noticed this matter on a 
 previous occasion. The privilege claimed by the Commons, 
 both as to its origin and its principle, has been carefully ex- 
 amined by Hallam, who has pointed out that in its full exclu- 
 siveness it is not older than Charles H., since the Convention 
 Parliament of 1660 "made several alterations in undoubted 
 money-bills, to which the Commons did not object."* And, 
 though his attachment to Whig principles might have inclined 
 him to take their part in any dispute on the subject, he never- 
 
 * "Constitutional History," iii,,43. 
 
THE LOEDS AND MONEY-BILLS. 93 
 
 theless thinks that they have strained botTi "precedent and 
 constitutional analogy " in their assertion of this privilege, 
 which is "an anomaly that can hardly rest on any other 
 ground of defence than such a series of precedents as estab- 
 lish a constitutional usage." The usage which for two cen- 
 turies was established in this case by the good-sense of both 
 parties clearly was, that the Lords could never originate a 
 money-bill, nor insert any clause in one increasing or even al- 
 tering the burden laid by one on the people, but that they 
 were within their right in absolutely rejecting one. But such 
 a right has a tendency to lapse through defect of exercise ; and 
 we shall hereafter see that " the disposition to make encroach- 
 ments," which in this matter Hallam imputes to the Commons, 
 has led them in the present reign to carry their pretensions to 
 a height which at a former period had been practically ignored 
 by the one House, and formally disclaimed by the other. 
 
 It may be remarked that Mr. Dunning's success in carrying 
 his first resolution did in itself, to a certain extent, disprove the 
 truth of that resolution, since, if the influence of the crown had 
 been such as he represented it, it must have been suflScient to 
 insure its rejection. But that resolution, and a new statute, of 
 which in a previous session he had been one of the principal 
 promoters, are reckoned by Lord Stanhope as among the chief 
 causes of the disgraceful riots of 1780. In the summer of 
 1778 he had seconded and supported with great eloquence the 
 repeal of some of the penal statutes against the Roman Catho- 
 lics which had been passed in the reign of William III. It 
 was the first blow at that system of religious intolerance which 
 for nearly a century had been one of the leading principles, as 
 it had been also the chief disgrace, of the constitution ; and it 
 was passed with scarcely any opposition by both Houses. As, 
 however, the statute which it repealed had been enacted before 
 the Scotch Union, the repeal did not extend to Scotland, and 
 it was necessary, therefore, to bring in a separate measure for 
 that kingdom. But the intelligence that such a proceeding was 
 in contemplation excited great wrath among the Scotch Pres- 
 byterians, who, in the hope of defeating it, established a Prot- 
 estant Association for the defence of what they called the Prot- 
 
94 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 estant interest, and elected as its president Lord George Gordon, 
 a young nobleman whose acts on more than one occasion gave 
 reason to doubt the soundness of his intellect. Against an} 
 relaxation whatever of the restrictions on the Roman Catholics 
 the Association sent up petitions to the House and to the King, 
 couched in language the wildness of which was hardly consist- 
 ent with the respect due to Parliament or to the sovereign. 
 Apparently in the hope of mitigating its opposition, the Houses 
 the next year passed an act, similar in principle, to relax some 
 of the restrictions still imposed on Protestant dissenting minis- 
 ters by some of the subscriptions which were required of them. 
 But, as in the reign of Charles H., the Presbyterian hatred of 
 the Roman Catholics was too uncompromising to be appeased 
 in such a manner. And when Lord George found the House 
 of Commons itself acknowledging the danger with which the 
 constitution was threatened by the influence of the crown, he 
 saw in their vote a justification for all his alarms, since he had 
 adopted as one of his most settled opinions the belief that 
 George HL was himself a Papist at heart ; and, under the in- 
 fluence of this strange idea, he drew up a petition to Parlia- 
 ment which he invited all the members of the Association to 
 accompany him to present. His summons was received with 
 enthusiasm by his followers. The number who, in obedience 
 to it, mustered in St. George's Fields, which he had appointed 
 as the place of rendezvous, was not reckoned by any one at less 
 than fifty thousand, and some calculations even doubled that 
 estimate. Whatever the number may originally have been, 
 it was speedily swelled by the junction of large bands of the 
 worst characters in the metropolis, who soon began to display 
 their strength by every kind of outrage. They commenced 
 by attacking some of the Roman Catholic chapels, which they 
 burnt ; and, their audacity increasing at the sight of their ex- 
 ploits, they proceeded to assault the houses of different mem- 
 bers of Parliament who had voted for the measures which had 
 offended them. Because the Chief-justice, Lord Mansfield, had 
 lately presided at a trial where a Roman Catholic had been ac- 
 quitted, they sacked and burnt his house, and tried to murder 
 himself. The magistrates, afraid of exposing themselves to the 
 
THE "GORDON RIOTS " IN LONDON. 95 
 
 fury of such a mob, kept for the most part out of the way ; 
 and, though the troops had been put under arms, and several 
 regiments from the rural districts had been brought up to Lon- 
 don in haste, the military officers were afraid to act without 
 orders. Left to work their pleasure almost without resistance, 
 the rioters attacked the different prisons, burnt Newgate and 
 released all the prisoners, and made more than one attack on 
 the Bank of England, where, however, fortunately the guard 
 was strong enough to repel them. But still no active meas- 
 ures were taken to crush the riot. The belief was general that 
 the soldiers might not act at all, or, at all events, not fire on 
 rioters, till an hour after the Riot Act had been read and the 
 mob had been warned to disperse ; and no magistrate could be 
 found to brave its fury by reading it. There seemed no obsta- 
 cle to prevent the rioters from making themselves masters of 
 the whole capital, had it not been for the firmness of the King 
 himself, who, when all the proper authorities failed, showed 
 himself in fact as well as in name the Chief Magistrate of the 
 kingdom.* He summoned a Privy Council, and urged the 
 members to adopt instant measures of repression ; and, when 
 some of the ministers seemed to waver, he put the question 
 himself to the Attorney-general whether the interpretation put 
 on the Riot Act, which seemed to him inconsistent with com- 
 mon- sense, were justified by the law. Wedderburn unhesi- 
 tatingly replied that it was not; that "if a mob were commit- 
 ting a felony, as by burning dwelling-houses, and could not be 
 prevented by other means, the military, according to the law 
 of England, might and ought to be immediately ordered to fire 
 upon them, the reading of the Riot Act being wholly unneces- 
 sary under such circumstances."! The King insisted on this 
 opinion being instantly acted on ; a proclamation was issued, 
 and orders were sent from the Adjutant-general's office that 
 the soldiers were to act at once without waiting for directions 
 from the civil magistrates. A few hours now sufficed to re^ 
 
 * His language is said to have been that " there was at all events one 
 magistrate in the kingdom who would do his duty." — Lord Stanhope, 
 Hisiwy of England, vii. , 48. 
 
 + " Lives of the Lord Chancellors," c. clxvii. 
 
96 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 store tranquillity. The Chief -justice, in his place in the House 
 of Lords, subsequently declared Wedderburn's opinion, and the 
 orders given in reliance upon it, to be in strict conformity with 
 the common law, laying down, as the principle on which such 
 an interpretation of the law rested, the doctrine that in such a 
 case the military were acting, " not as soldiers, but as citizens ; 
 no matter whether their coats were red or brown, they were 
 legally employed in preserving the laws and the constitu- 
 tion ;"* and Wedderburn, who before the end of the year be- 
 came Chief-justice of the Common Pleas, repeated the doctrine 
 more elaborately in a charge from the Bench. It was a lesson 
 of value to the whole community. It was quite true that the 
 constitution placed the army in a state of dependence on the 
 civil power. But, when that doctrine was so misunderstood as 
 to be supposed to give temporary immunity to outrage, it was 
 most important that such a misconstruction should be correct- 
 ed, and that it should be universally known that military disci- 
 pline does not require the soldier to abstain from the perform- 
 ance of the duty incumbent on every citizen, the prevention 
 of crime. 
 
 * Lord Stanhope's " History of England," vii., 56. 
 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE CEOWN. 97 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Changes of Administration. — The Coalition Ministry.— The Establish- 
 ment of the Prince of Wales.— Fox's India Bill.— The King Defeats it 
 by the Agency of Lord Temple. — The Ministry is Dismissed, and Suc- 
 ceeded by Mr. Pitt's Administration.— Opposition to the New Ministry 
 in the House of Commons. — Merits of the Contest between the Old 
 and the New Ministry.— Power of Pitt.— Pitt's India Bill.— Bill for the 
 Government of Canada.— The Marriage of the Prince of Wales to Mrs. 
 Fitzherbert. — The King becomes Deranged. — Proposal of a Regency. — 
 Opinions of Various Writers on the Course adopted. — Spread of Revo- 
 lutionary Societies and Opinions. — Bills for the Repression of Sedition 
 and Treason. — The Alien Act. — The Traitorous Correspondence Act. — 
 Treason and Sedition Bills.— -JFailure of some Prosecutions under thenu 
 
 The occurrences of the next year brought the question of 
 the influence of the crown into greater prominence. Lord 
 Rockingham's administration, unfortunately, came to a prema- 
 ture termination by his death at the beginning of July. With 
 a strange arrogance. Fox claimed the right of dictating the 
 choice of his successor to the King, making his pretensions 
 the more unwarrantable by the character of the person whom 
 he desired to nominate, the Duke of Portland, who, though 
 a man of vast property and considerable borough influence, 
 was destitute of ability of any kind, and had not even any 
 of that ofiicial experience which in some situations may at 
 times compensate or conceal the want of talent.* The King 
 preferred Lord Shelburne, a statesman whose capacity was 
 confessedly of a very high order, who had more than once 
 been Secretary of State,f and who had been recognized as 
 the leader of what was sometimes called the Chatham sec- 
 tion of the Whigs, ever since the death of the great Earl. 
 Indeed, if George IIL had been guided by his own wishes 
 and judgment alone, he would have placed him at the Treas- 
 
 * He had been Lord-chamberlain in Lord Rockingham's administra- 
 tion of 1765. He was now Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. 
 
 t In Lord Chatham's or the Duke of Grafton's ministry of 1766, and in 
 the later administration of Lord Rockingham. 
 
 5 
 
98 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 ury, in preference to Lord RocMnghana, three months before. 
 But, daring the last three months, jealousies had arisen be- 
 tween him and Fox, his colleague in office, who charged him 
 with concealing from him the knowledge of various circum- 
 stances, the communication of which he had a right to require. 
 It was more certain that on one or two points connected with 
 the negotiations with the United States there had been divis- 
 ions between them, and that the majority of the cabinet had 
 agreed with Lord Shelburne. Lord Shelburne, therefore, be- 
 came Prime-minister,* and Fox, with some of his friends, re- 
 signed ; Fox indemnifying himself by a violent philippic against 
 " those men who were now to direct the counsels of the coun- 
 try," and whom he proceeded to describe as " men whom nei- 
 ther promises could bind nor principles of honor could secure ; 
 who would abandon fifty principles for the sake of power, and 
 forget fifty promises when they were no longer necessary to their 
 ends ; who, he had no doubt, to secure themselves in the power 
 which they had by the labor of others obtained, would strive to 
 strengthen it by any means which corruption could procure."! 
 Fox at once went into what even those most disposed to 
 cherish his memory admit to have been a factious opposition. 
 He caballed with the very men to whom he had hitherto been 
 most vehemently opposed for the sole object of expelling Lord 
 Shelburne from office. And when, at the beginning of the 
 session of 1783, the merits of the preliminary articles of peace 
 
 * It may be convenient to take this opportunity of pointing out that, in 
 this administration, Lord Shelburne altered the old, most unreasonable, 
 and inconvenient arrangement by which the departments of the two Sec- 
 retaries of State were distinguished by the latitude, and called Northern 
 and Southern. By a new division, one took charge of the home affairs, 
 the other of the foreign affairs. And in 1794 a third Secretary was added 
 for War, who, by a very singular arrangement, which continued till very 
 recently, had charge also of the colonies. But, in the year 1855, the Colo- 
 nial-office was intrusted to a separate minister ; and in 1858 a fifth Secre- 
 tary of State, that for India, was added, on the transfer of the government 
 of that country from the East India Company to the Crown. When 
 there were only two Secretaries of State, the rule was that one should 
 sit in each House, At present it is not necessary that more than one 
 should be a peer, though it is more usual for two to be members of the 
 Upper House. Audit is usual also for the Under-secretaries to be mem- 
 bers of the House to which the Chief-secretaries do not belong, though 
 this rule is not invariably observed. 
 
 + "Parliamentary History," xxiii., 163. 
 
TUB FACTIOUS OPPOSITION OF C. J. FOX. 99 
 
 whicli had been provisionally concluded witli the United States 
 came under discussion, though the peers approved of them, in 
 the House of Commons he defeated the ministers in two sepa- 
 rate divisions,* and thus rendered their retention of oflSce im- 
 possible. He had gained this victory by uniting with Lord 
 North and a portion of the Tory party whom, ever since his 
 dismissal from office in 1774, he had been unwearied in de- 
 nouncing, threatening Lord North himself with impeachment. 
 And he now used it to compel the King to intrust the chief 
 office in the government to the very man whom his Majesty 
 had refused to employ in such an office six months before. 
 
 The transactions of the next twelve months exhibit in a 
 striking light more than one part of the practical working of 
 our monarchical and parliamentary constitution, not only in its 
 correspondence with, but, what is more important to notice, in 
 its occasional partial deviations from, strict theory. The theory 
 has sometimes been expressed in the formula, "The King 
 reigns, but does not govern." But, like many another terse 
 apophthegm, it conveys an idea which requires some modifica- 
 tion before it can be regarded as an entirely correct representa- 
 tion of the fact ; and the King himself, especially if endowed 
 with fair capacity and force of character, imbued with earnest 
 convictions, and animated by a genuine zeal for the honor and 
 welfare of his kingdom, will be likely to dwell more on the 
 possible modifications than on the rigid theory. Even those 
 who insist most on the letter of the theory will not deny that, 
 if the King has not actual power, he has at least great influ- 
 ence ; and the line between authority and influence is hard to 
 draw. One of G-eorge the Third's earliest ministers had ex- 
 plained to his Majesty that the principle of the constitution 
 was, " that the crown had an undoubted right to choose its min- 
 isters, and that it was the duty of subjects to support them, un- 
 less there were some very strong and urgent reasons to the 
 contrary." f And such a doctrine was too much in harmony 
 
 * The divisions were : 224 to 208, and 207 to 190. 
 
 t Lord Stantiope, quoting from an unpublished " Life of Lord Barring- 
 ton," compiled by the Bishop of Durham (meaning, I suppose, Bishop 
 Shute Barrington). — History of England^ v., 174. 
 
100 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 with the feelings of George III. himself not to be cordially ac- 
 cepted. For George III. was by no means inclined to be a Roi 
 faineant. No sovereign was ever penetrated with a more con- 
 scientious desire to do his duty to his people. Conscious, per- 
 haps, that his capacity was rather solid than brilliant, he gave 
 unremitting attention to the affairs of the nation in every de- 
 partment of the government ; and, perhaps not very unnatu- 
 rally, conceived that his doing so justified him, as far as he 
 might be able, in putting a constraint on his ministers to carry 
 out his views. Thus, he had notoriously induced Lord North 
 to persevere in the late civil war in America long after that 
 minister had seen the hopelessness of the contest ; and it was, 
 probably, only the knowledge of the strength of his feelings 
 on that subject, and of his warm attachment to that minister, 
 that caused the Parliament so long to withstand all the elo- 
 quence of the advocates of peace, and the still stronger argu- 
 ments of circumstances. He might fairly think that he had 
 now greater reason to adhere to his own judgment ; for Fox's 
 recommendation of the Duke of Portland in preference to 
 Lord Shelburne was an act not only of unwarrantable pre- 
 sumption, but of inconceivable folly, since there was no com- 
 parison between the qualifications of the two men ; and the 
 coalition by which, six months afterward, he had, as it were, 
 revenged himself for the rebuff, and had driven Lord Shelburne 
 from ofl[ice, was, as the King well knew, and as even Fox's own 
 friends did not conceal from themselves, almost universally 
 condemned out-of-doors."* To this combination, therefore, his 
 Majesty tried every expedient to escape from yielding. And 
 when Pitt's well-considered and judicious refusal of the govern- 
 ment left him no alternative but that of submission to Fox's 
 dictation, it would hardly have been very unnatural if his dis- 
 position and attitude toward a ministry which had thus forced 
 itself upon him had been those attributed to him by Lord John 
 
 * Even with the first flush of triumph, the night after the second de- 
 feat of Lord Shelburne in the House of Commons, Fox's great friend, 
 Mr. Fitzpatrick, writes to his brother, Lord Ossoi-y: "To the adminis- 
 tration it is cita mors, but not victoria Iceta to us. The apparent juncture 
 with Lord North is universally cried out against." — Lord J. Russell's 
 Memonals and Correspondmce of C.J. Fox, ii. , 18. 
 
C. J. fox's celebrated INDIA BILL. 101 
 
 Russell, of "an enemy constantly on the watch against it."* 
 But for some time that was not the impression of the minis- 
 ters themselves. In July, when they had been in office more 
 than three months, Fox admitted that he had never behaved 
 toward them as if he were displeased with them, and that he 
 had no project of substituting any other administration for the 
 present one.f And his temperate treatment of them was the 
 more remarkable, because a flagrant blunder of Burke (who 
 filled the post of Paymaster), in reinstating some clerks who 
 had been dismissed by his predecessor for dishonesty, had man- 
 ifestly weakened the ministry in the House of Commons; J 
 while in another case, in which the King had clearly in no 
 slight degree a personal right to have his opinion consulted 
 and his wishes accepted by them as the guide for their con- 
 duct, the establishment to be arranged for the Prince of Wales, 
 whose twenty-first birthday was approaching. Fox persuaded 
 the Parliament to settle on the young Prince an allowance of 
 so large an amount that some even of his own colleagues dis- 
 liked it as extravagant ; § while the King himself reasonably dis- 
 approved both of the amount and of the mode of giving it, the 
 amount being large beyond all precedent, and the fact of its 
 being given by Parliament rendering the Prince entirely inde- 
 pendent of his parental control, of which his conduct had given 
 abundant proof that he stood greatly in need. 
 
 That he presently changed his line of behavior toward them 
 was caused by their introduction of a bill which he regarded 
 as aimed in no small degree at his own prerogative and inde- 
 pendence — the celebrated India Bill, by which, in the Novem- 
 ber session. Fox proposed to abrogate all the charters which 
 different sovereigns had granted to the East India Company, 
 to abolish all vested rights of either the Company or individ- 
 uals, and to confer on a board of seven persons, to be named 
 
 * Lord J. Russell's " Memorials and Correspondence of C. J. Fox," ii., 
 90. + Ihid., p. 118. 
 
 X In one division (161 to 137) they had only a majority of twenty-four. 
 
 § In a letter to Lord Northington (Lord-lieutenant of Ireland), dated 
 July 17, Fox himself mentions that not one of his colleagues, except the 
 Duke of Portland and Lord Keppel (First Lord of the Admiralty), ap- 
 proved of it. — Memoirs of Fox, ii., 116. 
 
102 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOBY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 by Parliament, the entire administration of all the territories 
 in any way occupied by the Company. It was at once object- 
 ed to by the Opposition in the House of Commons, now led 
 by Mr. Pitt, as a measure thoroughly unconstitutional, on the 
 twofold ground that such an abrogation of formally granted 
 charters, and such an extinction of vested rights, was absolutely 
 without precedent ; and also that one real, if concealed, object 
 of the bill was to confer on the ministers who had framed and 
 introduced it so vast an amount of patronage as would render 
 them absolute masters of the House of Commons, and indirect- 
 ly, therefore, of the King himself, who would be practically 
 disabled from ever dismissing them. That such a revocation 
 of ancient charters, and such an immovable establishment of 
 an administration, were inconsistent with the principles of the 
 constitution, was not a position taken up by Pitt in the heat 
 of debate, but was his deliberate opinion, as may be fairly in- 
 ferred from his assertion of it in a private letter* to his friend 
 the Duke of Rutland. It may, however, be doubted whether 
 the epithet " unconstitutional " could be properly applied to 
 the bill on either ground. There is, indeed, a certain vague- 
 ness in the meaning, or at all events in the frequent use of this 
 adjective. Sometimes it is used to imply a violation of the 
 provisions of the Great Charter, or of its later development, the 
 Bill of Rights ; sometimes to impute some imagined departure 
 from the principles which guided the framers of those enact- 
 ments. But in neither sense does it seem applicable to this 
 bill. To designate the infringement or revocation of a charter 
 by such a description would be to affirm the existence of a 
 right in the sovereign to invest a charter, from whatever mo- 
 tive it may originally have been granted, with such a character 
 of inviolability or perpetuity that no Parliament should, on ever 
 such strong grounds of public good, have the power of inter- 
 fering with it. And to attribute such a power to the crown 
 appears less consistent with the limitations affixed to the royal 
 
 * November 22 he writes to the Duke of Rutland : " The bill ... is, I 
 really think, the boldest and most unconstitutional measure ever at- 
 tempted, transferring at one stroke, in spite of all charters and com- 
 pacts, the immense patronage and influence of the East to Charles Fox, 
 in or out of office." — Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i., 140. 
 
THE KING DISSENTS TO THE INDIA BILL. 103 
 
 prerogative by the constitution, than to regard all trusts created 
 by the crown as subject to parliamentary revision in the in- 
 terests of the entire nation. On the second ground the de- 
 scription seems even less applicable. An arrangement of pat- 
 ronage is a mere matter of detail, not of principle. For the 
 minister to propose such an arrangement as should secure for 
 himself and his party a perpetual monopoly of power and oflBce 
 might be grasping and arrogant ; for Parliament (and Parlia- 
 ment consists of the sovereign and the peers, as well as of the 
 House of Commons) to assent to such an arrangement might 
 be short-sighted and impolitic ; but it is not clear that either 
 the minister in proposing such an enactment, or the Parlia- 
 ment in adopting it, would be violating either the letter or the 
 spirit of the constitution. Every member of the Governing 
 Board was to be appointed by the Parliament itself ; and, 
 though unquestionably Fox would have the nomination, and 
 though he could reckon on the support of the majority in the 
 House of Commons for those whom he might select, still it 
 was a strictly constitutional machinery that he was putting in 
 motion. 
 
 A measure, however, may be very objectionable without be- 
 ing unconstitutional, and such a view of the India Bill the 
 progress of the debates in the House of Commons disposed 
 the King to take of it. In the House of Peers Lord Thurlow 
 described the bill as one to take the crown off his head and 
 place it on that of Mr. Fox ; and, even without adopting that 
 description to its full extent, the King might easily regard the 
 bill as a very unscrupulous attempt to curtail his legitimate 
 authority and influence. He became most anxious to prevent 
 the bill from being presented to him for his royal assent. And 
 it was presently represented to him that the knowledge of his 
 desire would probably induce the Lords to reject it. Among 
 the peers who had attacked the bill on its first introduction 
 into their House was Earl Temple, whose father had taken so 
 prominent a part in the negotiations for the formation of a 
 new ministry in 1765, and who had himself been Lord-lieu- 
 tenant of Ireland under Lord Shelburne's administration. But 
 he had not thought it prudent to divide the House against its 
 
104 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 first reading, and felt great doubts as to his success in a division 
 on the second, unless he could fortify his opposition by some 
 arguments as yet untried. He had no difficulty in finding a 
 willing and effective coadjutor. Since the retirement of Lord 
 Bute from court, no peer had made himself so personally ac- 
 ceptable to the King as Lord Thurlow, who had been Lord 
 Chancellor during the last four years of Lord North's adminis- 
 tration, and, in consequence, as it was generally understood, of 
 the earnest request of George IIL, had been allowed to retain 
 the seals by Lord Rockingham, and afterward by Lord Shel- 
 burne. What special attraction drew the King toward him, 
 unless it were some idea of his honesty and attachment to the 
 King himself — on both of which points subsequent events 
 proved his Majesty to be wholly mistaken — it is not very easy 
 to divine; but his interest with the King at this time was 
 notorious, and equally notorious was the deep resentment 
 which he cherished against Fox and Lord North, of whom, as 
 he alleged, the former had proscribed and the latter had be- 
 trayed him. To him, therefore. Lord Temple now applied for 
 advice as to the best mode of working on the King's mind, 
 and, with his assistance, drew up a memorial on the character 
 of the India Bill, on its inevitable fruits if it should pass 
 (which it described as an extinction of " more than half of the 
 royal power, and a consequent disabling of his Majesty for the 
 rest of his reign"), and on the most effectual plan for defeating 
 it; for which end it was suggested that his Majesty should 
 authorize some one to make some of the Lords " acquainted 
 with his wishes " that the bill should be rejected.* 
 
 George IIL eagerly adopted the suggestion, and drew up a 
 brief note, which he intrusted to Lord Temple himself, and 
 which stated that "his Majesty allowed Earl Temple to say 
 that whoever voted for the India Bill was not only not his 
 friend, but would be considered by him as his enemy. And, 
 if these words were not strong enough. Earl Temple might 
 
 * The whole paper is given by the Duke of Buckingham, " Courts and 
 Cabinets of George IIL," i., 288, and quoted by Lord Kussell in his "Me- 
 morials and Correspondence of C. J. Fox," ii., 251. It is endorsed, "De- 
 livered by Lord Thurlow, December 1, 1783. Nugent Temple." 
 
LORD temple's ADVICE TO THE KING. 105 
 
 use whatever words he might deem stronger and more to the 
 purpose."* 
 
 Lord Temple lost no time in availing himself of the permis- 
 sion thus granted him ; and, as it was by no means his object 
 to keep the transaction secret, his conduct was made the sub- 
 ject of severe comment by the Prime-minister himself the next 
 time that the bill was mentioned in the Upper House. The 
 Duke of Portland, indeed, professed to have learned it only from 
 common report, and to hope that the report was unfounded, 
 since, were it true, " he should be wanting in the duty he owed 
 to the public as a minister if he did not take the opportunity 
 of proposing a measure upon it to their lordships that would 
 prove that they felt the same jealousy, the same detestation, 
 the same desire to mark and stigmatize every attempt to vio- 
 late the constitution as he did." Lord Temple, in reply, ab- 
 stained from introducing any mention of the King's opinions 
 or wishes, but avowed plainly that he had used his privilege as 
 a peer to solicit an interview with his Majesty, and that at that 
 interview "he had given his advice. What that advice had 
 been he would not then say ; it was lodged in the breast of his 
 Majesty, nor would he declare the purport of it without the 
 royal consent, or till he saw a proper occasion. But, though 
 he would not declare affirmatively what his advice to his sover- 
 eign was, he would tell their lordships negatively what it was 
 not. It was not friendly to the principle and objects of the 
 bill."f The debate lasted till near midnight. Of the speak- 
 ers, a great majority declared against the bill ; and, on the di- 
 vision, it was rejected by a majority of nineteen.J This took 
 place on the loth of December. On the 18th, as the ministers 
 had not resigned — not regarding a single defeat in the Upper 
 House as a necessary cause for such a step — the King sent mes- 
 
 * "Life of Pitt," i.,148. Lord Stanhope does not pledge himself to 
 these being " the exact words of this commission, but as to its purport 
 and meaning there is no doubt." They are, however, the exact words 
 quoted by Fox in his speech in support of Mr, Baker's resolutions on the 
 17th. — Parliamentary History, xxiv., 207. 
 
 t "Parliamentary History," xxiv., 151-154. 
 
 X 95 to 76. "Strange to say, one of the cabinet ministers. Lord Stor- 
 mout, president of the council, formed part of the final majority against 
 the bill."— ii/e of Pitt, ii., 154. 
 
 5* 
 
106 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 sengers to tliem to demand their resignation, and the next day 
 it was publicly announced in the House of Commons that Pitt 
 had accepted the office of Prime-minister. 
 
 But Fox, who had anticipated the dismissal of himself and 
 his colleagues, was by no means inclined to acquiesce in it, or 
 to yield without a struggle; and on the l7th one of his parti- 
 sans in the House of Commons, Mr. Baker, one of the members 
 for Hertfordshire, brought forward some resolutions on the sub- 
 ject of the late division in the House of Lords. He professed 
 to rest them solely on rumors, but he urged that " it was the 
 duty of that House to express its abhorrence even of that ru- 
 mor," since by such an action as was alleged " that responsibil- 
 ity of ministers which was the life of the constitution would be 
 taken away, and with it the principal check that the public had 
 upon the crown." And he urged " the members of that House, 
 as the guardians of the constitution, to stand forward and pre- 
 serve it from ruin, to maintain that equilibrium between the 
 three branches of the Legislature, and that independence with- 
 out which the constitution could no longer exist," and with this 
 view to resolve " that to report any opinion, or pretended opin- 
 ion, of his Majesty upon any bill or other proceeding depend- 
 ing in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the 
 votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanor, derog- 
 atory to the honor of the crown, a breach of the fundamental 
 privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the constitution of 
 the country." It was opposed by Pitt, chiefly on the ground 
 that Mr. Baker only based the necessity for such a resolution 
 on common report, which he, fairly enough, denied to be a 
 sufficient justification of it ; and partly on the undoubted and 
 " inalienable right of peers, either individually or collectively, 
 to advise his Majesty, whenever they thought the situation of 
 public affairs made such a step an essential part of their duty." 
 But it was supported by Lord North as " necessary on consti- 
 tutional principles," since the acts so generally reported and 
 believed " affected the freedom of debate ;" and by Fox, who 
 declared that the action which was reported, if true, " struck at 
 the great bulwark of our liberties, and went to the absolute an- 
 nihilation, not of our chartered rights only, but of those radi- 
 
THE KING DISMISSES THE MINISTRY. 107 
 
 cal and fundamental ones wliich are paramount to all charters, 
 "whicli were consigned to our care by the sovereign disposition 
 of Nature, which we cannot relinquish without violating the 
 most sacred of all obligations, to which we are entitled, not as 
 members of society, but as individuals and as men; the right of 
 adhering steadily and uniformly to the great and supreme laws 
 of conscience and duty; of preferring, at all hazards and with- 
 out equivocation, those general and substantial interests which 
 members have sworn to prefer; of acquitting themselves hon- 
 orably to their constituents, to their friends, to their own minds, 
 and to that public whose trustees they were, and for whom they 
 acted." He avowed his conviction that rumor in this instance 
 spoke truth, and, affirming that " the responsibility of ministers 
 is the only pledge and security the people of England possesses 
 against the infinite abuses so natural to the exercise of royal 
 powers," argued that, if "this great bulwark of the constitu- 
 tion were once removed, the people would become in every re- 
 spect the slaves and property of despotism. This must be the 
 necessary consequence of secret influence." He argued that 
 the sole distinction between an absolute and a limited mon- 
 archy was that the sovereign in one is a despot, and may do as 
 he pleases, but that in the other he is himself subjected to the 
 laws, and consequently is not at liberty to advise with any one 
 in public affairs who is not responsible for that advice, and that 
 the constitution has clearly directed his negative to operate un- 
 der the same wise restrictions." Mr. Baker's resolution was 
 carried by a large majority ; but, as we have seen, did not de- 
 ter the King from dismissing the ministry. 
 
 The conduct of George IH. in this transaction has been 
 discussed by writers of both parties with such candor that 
 the Tory historian, Lord Stanhope, while evidently desirous 
 to defend it by implication, passes a slight censure on it in 
 the phrase that "the course pursued by the King was most 
 unusual, and most extreme, and most undesirable to establish 
 as a precedent ;"* while, on the other hand, so rigid a Whig 
 as Lord Campbell urges in his favor "that if it be ever ex- 
 
 * "Life ofPitt,"i., 155. 
 
108 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 cusable in a King of England to cabal against his ministers, 
 George III. may well be defended for the course he now took, 
 for they had been forced upon him by a factious intrigue, and 
 public opinion was decidedly in his favor."* But to those 
 who regard not the excuse which previous provocation may 
 be conceived in some degree to furnish to human infirmity, 
 but only the strict theory and principle of the constitution 
 on which the doctrine of the responsibility of the ministers 
 and the consequent irresponsibility of the sovereign rests, 
 Lord Campbell's conditional justification for the communica- 
 tion made through Lord Temple will hardly appear admissible. 
 We cannot be sure how far Mr. Grrenville's " Diary " is to be 
 trusted for transactions in which he was not personally con- 
 cerned, or for conversations at which he was not present ; but 
 in giving an accountf of some of the occurrences of the spring 
 of 1766, while Lord Rockingham was Prime-minister, we find 
 him relating a conversation between the King and Lord Mans- 
 field on the ministerial measure for conciliating the American 
 Colonies by the repeal of the Stamp Act, combined, however, 
 with an assertion of the right to tax. " He (Lord Mansfield) 
 took notice of the King's name having been bandied about in 
 a very improper manner ; to which the King assented, saying 
 he had been very much displeased at it, as thinking it uncon- 
 stitutional to have his name mentioned as a means to sway any 
 man's opinion in any business which was before Parliament ; 
 and that all those who approached him knew that to be his 
 sentiment. Lord Mansfield said he differed from his Majesty 
 in that opinion, for that, though it would be unconstitutional 
 to endeavor by his Majesty's name to carry questions in Parlia- 
 ment, yet where the lawful rights of the King and Parliament 
 were to be asserted and maintained, he thought the making his 
 Majesty's opinion in support of those rights to be known was 
 very fit and becoming." The line here alleged to have been 
 
 * "Lives of the Chancellors," c. clix.. Lord Thurlow. 
 
 + "The Grenville Papers," iii., 374. It may, however, be remarked, as 
 tending to throw some doubt on Mr. Grenville's statement, that Lord 
 Campbell asserts that "Lord Mansfield, without entering into system- 
 atic opposition, had been much alienated from the court during Lord 
 Rockingham's first administration." — Lives of the Chief-justices, ii., 468. 
 
MR. PITT ACCEPTS THE CONDUCT OF AFFAIRS. 109 
 
 drawn by the great Chief -justice, between proclaiming the 
 King's opinion in support of rights, but withholding it in the 
 case of measures, is, perhaps, too fine to be perceptible by or- 
 dinary intellects. But however the King may have understood 
 the judge, it is clear that the doctrine thus asserted does not 
 justify, but condemns, such an act as the communication of 
 the King's opinion and wishes in the case under consideration. 
 If it " would be unconstitutional to endeavor by his Majesty's 
 name to carry questions in Parliament," it must be at least 
 equally so to use his name to defeat them. And the case is 
 infinitely stronger, if the measure to be defeated be one which 
 has been introduced by his ministers. For there can be no 
 doubt whatever that, so long as they are his ministers, they are 
 entitled to his full and complete support on every question ; 
 alike in their general policy and on each separate measure. 
 When he can no longer give them that support, which the 
 very act of conferring their ofiices on them promised them, his 
 only legitimate and becoming course is to dismiss them from 
 their offices, and to abide the judgment of Parliament and the 
 nation on that act. Thus William IV. acted in the autumn of 
 1834; and thus George III. himself acted at the end of the 
 month of which we are speaking. But to retain them in their 
 offices, and to employ an unofficial declaration of his dissent 
 from them to defeat their policy, is neither consistent with the 
 straightforward conduct due from one gentleman to another, 
 nor with the principle on which the system of administration, 
 such as prevails in this country, is founded. 
 
 As has been already mentioned, the King at once dismissed 
 the Coalition Ministry. Mr. Pitt accepted the conduct of af- 
 fairs, and by so doing accepted the responsibility for all the 
 acts of the King which had conduced to his appointment. 
 Lord John Russell, who in his " Memorials and Correspond- 
 ence of Fox " has related and examined the whole transaction 
 at considerable though not superfluous length, while blaming 
 the prudence, and in some points the propriety, of Fox's con- 
 duct, at the same time severely censures Pitt as " committing 
 a great fault in accepting office as the price of an unworthy 
 intrigue," and affirms that " he and his colleagues who accept- 
 
110 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 ed oflBce upon tlie success of this intrigue placed themselves 
 in an unconstitutional position."* This seems to be a charge 
 which can hardly be borne out. In dismissing his former 
 ministry, the King was clearly acting within his right; and, 
 if so, Pitt was equally within his in undertaking the govern- 
 ment. The truer doctrine would seem to be, that, in so un- 
 dertaking it, he assumed the entire responsibility for the dis- 
 missal of his predecessors,! and left it to the people at large, 
 by the votes of their representatives, to decide whether that 
 dismissal were justified, and whether, as its inevitable conse- 
 quence, his acceptance of office were also justified or not. The 
 entire series of transactions, from the meeting of Parliament in 
 November, 1783, to its dissolution in the following March, may 
 be constitutionally regarded as an appeal by the King from the 
 existing House of Commons to the entire nation, as represented 
 by the constituencies ; and their verdict, as is well known, rati- 
 fied in the most emphatic manner all that had been done. And 
 we may assert this without implying that, if the single act of 
 empowering Lord Temple to influence the peers by the declara- 
 tion of the King's private feeling had been submitted by itself 
 to the electors, they would have justified that. The stirring 
 excitement of the three months' contest between the great 
 rivals led them to pronounce upon the transaction as a whole, 
 and to leave unnoticed what seemed for the moment to be the 
 minor issues — the moves, if we may borrow a metaphor from 
 the chess-table, which opened the game; and it may be ob- 
 served that, though, on the l7th of December, Pitt resisted Mr. 
 Baker's resolution with his utmost energy, in the numerous 
 debates which ensued he carefully avoided all allusion to Lord 
 Temple's conduct, or to the measure which had led to the dis- 
 missal of his predecessors, farther than was necessary for the 
 explanation of the principles of his own India Bill. It may 
 even be surmised that, if he had been inclined to recognize 
 
 * Vol. ii., pp. 329-232. 
 
 + It will be seen hereafter that this doctrine was admitted in the full- 
 est degree by Sir Kobert Peel in the winter of 1834, when he admitted 
 that his acceptance of office made him alone responsible for the dismissal 
 of Lord Melbourne, though, in fact, he was taken entirely by surprise by 
 the King's act, being in Italy at the time. 
 
THE OPPOSITION MISMANAGEMENT. Ill 
 
 Lord Temple's interference as warrantable, the breach between 
 that peer and himself, which occurred before the end of the 
 week, would not have taken place, since it seems nearly certain 
 that the cause of that breach was a refusal on the part of Pitt 
 to recommend his cousin for promotion in the peerage, a step 
 which, at such a moment, would have had the appearance of an 
 approval of his most recent deed,* but which he could hardly 
 have refused, if it had been done with his privity. The battle, 
 as need hardly be told, was first fought among the representa- 
 tives of the people in the House of Commons; for there was 
 only one occasion on which the opinion of the Lords was in- 
 vited, when they declared in favor of Pitt by a decisive major- 
 ity.f But in the Lower House the contest was carried on for 
 more than two months with extraordinary activity and ability, 
 by a series of resolutions and motions brought forward by the 
 partisans of the coalition, and contested by the youthful minis- 
 ter. In one respect the war was waged on very unequal terms, 
 Pitt, who had been but three years in Parliament, and whose 
 official experience could as yet only be counted by months, 
 having to contend almost single-handed against the combined 
 experience and eloquence of Lord North, Fox, and Burke. 
 Fortunately, however, for him, their own mismanagement soon 
 turned the advantage to his side. They were too angry and 
 too confident to be skilful, or even ordinarily cautious. The 
 leaders on both sides made professions in one respect similar; 
 they both alike denied that a desire of oflSce influenced either 
 their conduct or their language (a denial for which Pitt's 
 refusal of the Treasury, a year before, gained him more credit 
 than could be expected by Fox after his coalition with Lord 
 North), and both alike professed to be struggling for the 
 constitution alone, for some fundamental principle which each 
 charged his antagonist with violating ; Fox on one occasion 
 
 * Lord John Kussell, in his "Memorials of Fox" (ii., 253), affirms that 
 " Lord Temple's act was probably known to Pitt ;" but Lord Macaulay, 
 in his " Essay on Pitt" (p. 326), fully acquits Pitt of such knowledge, say- 
 ing that "he could declare, with perfect truth, that, if unconstitutional 
 machinations had been employed, he was no party to them." 
 
 t On Lord Effingham's motion, in condemnation of some of the pro- 
 ceedings of the Commons, which was carried February 4, 1784, by 100 
 to 53. 
 
1 1 2 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 even going so far as, in some degree, to involve the King him- 
 self in his censures, declaring not only that " the struggle wrs, 
 in fact, one" between Pitt himself and the constitution," but 
 that it was also one " between liberty and the influence of the 
 crown," and " between prerogative and the constitution ;" and 
 that " Pitt had been brought into power by means absolutely 
 subversive of the constitution." * But no act of which he thus 
 accused the minister or the King showed such a disregard of 
 the fundamental principle of the constitution of Parliament as 
 was exhibited by Fox himself when, in the very first debate 
 after the Christmas recess, he called in question that most un- 
 doubted prerogative of the crown to dissolve the Parliament, 
 and, drawing a distinction which had certainly never been heard 
 of before, declared that, though the King had an incontestable 
 right to dissolve the Parliament after the close of a session, 
 "many great lawyers" doubted whether he had such a right 
 in the middle of a session, a dissolution at such a period being 
 " a penal " one. Professing to believe that an immediate disso- 
 lution was intended, he even threatened to propose to the House 
 of Commons " measures to guard against a step so inimical to 
 the true interests of the country," and made a more direct at- 
 tack than ever on the King himself, by the assertion of a prob- 
 ability that, even if Pitt did not contemplate a dissolution, his 
 royal master might employ " secret influence " to overrule him, 
 and might dissolve in spite of him,f an imputation which Lord 
 North, with a strange departure from his customary good-hu- 
 mor, condescended to endorse.]; There could be no doubt that 
 both the doubt and the menace were of themselves distinct at- 
 tacks on the constitution ; and they were, moreover, singularly 
 impolitic and inconsistent with others of the speaker's argu- 
 ments, since, if the nation at large approved of his views and 
 conduct, a dissolution — which would have placed the decision 
 in its hands — would have been the very thing he should most 
 have desired. On another evening, though he admitted as a 
 principle that the sovereign had the prerogative of choosing 
 his ministers, he not only sought to narrow the effect of that 
 
 * "Parliamentary History," xxiv., 382-385— debate of January 20, 1784. 
 t Ibid., p. 283— January 12. J Ibid., pp. 251-257. 
 
PITT JUSTIFIES HIMSELF TO FOX. 113 
 
 admission by the assertion that "to exercise that prerogative 
 in opposition to the House of Commons would be a measure 
 as unsafe as unjustifiable,"* but to confine the right of deciding 
 on the title of the ministers to confidence to the existing House 
 of Commons. He accused Pitt of "courtino- the affection of 
 the people, and on this foundation wishing to support himself 
 in opposition to the repeated resolutions of the House passed 
 in the last three weeks." Had he confined himself to urging 
 the necessity of the ministers and the House of Commons be- 
 ing in harmony, even though such a mention of the House of 
 Commons by itself were to a certain extent an ignoring of the 
 weight of the other branches of the Legislature, he would have 
 only been advancing a doctrine which is practically established 
 at the present day, since there has been certainly more than 
 one instance in which a ministry has retired which enjoyed 
 the confidence of both the sovereign and the House of Lords, 
 because it was not supported by a majority in the House of 
 Commons. But when he proceeded to make it a charge 
 against the minister that he trusted to the good-will of the 
 people to enable him to disregard the verdict of the House of 
 Commons, he forgot that it was only as representing the peo- 
 ple that the House had any right to pronounce a verdict ; and 
 that, if it were true that the judgment of the people was more 
 favorable to the minister than that of the House of Commons, 
 the difference which thus existed was a condemnation of the 
 existing House, and an irresistible reason for calling on the 
 constituencies to elect another. 
 
 Pitt, therefore, had no slight advantage in defending himself 
 against so rash an assailant. " He did not shrink," he said, 
 " from avowing himself the friend of the King's just preroga- 
 tive," and in doing so he maintained that he had a title to be 
 regarded as the champion of the people not less than of the 
 crown. "Prerogative had been justly called a part of the 
 rights of the people, and he was sure it was a part of their 
 rights which they were never more inclined to defend, of 
 which they were never more jealous, than at that hour."f And 
 
 * "Parliamentary History," xxiv., 478— February 2. t Ibid., p. 663. 
 
114 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 he contended that Fox's objections to a dissolution betrayed a 
 consciousness that he had not the confidence of the nation. At 
 last, when the contest had lasted nearly two months, Fox, took 
 the matter into his own hands, and, no longer putting his par- 
 tisans in the front of the battle, on the 1st of March he him- 
 self moved for an address to the King, the most essential clause 
 of which " submitted to his Majesty's royal consideration that 
 the continuance of an administration which did not possess the 
 confidence of the representatives of the people must be inju- 
 rious to the public service." . . . And, therefore, that " his Maj- 
 esty's faithful Commons did find themselves obliged again to 
 beseech his Majesty that he would be graciously pleased to lay 
 the foundation of a strong and stable government by the pre- 
 vious removal of his present ministers." In the speech with 
 which he introduced this address he put himself forward as es- 
 pecially the champion of the House of Commons. He charged 
 the Prime -minister with an express design "to reduce the 
 House to insignificance, to render it a mere appendage to the 
 court, an appurtenance to the administration." He asserted 
 the existence of a systematic " design to degrade the House, 
 after which there was not another step necessary to complete 
 the catastrophe of the constitution." And on this occasion he 
 distinguished the feelings of the King from those which influ- 
 enced the minister, aflirming his confidence "that the King's 
 heart had no share in the present business."* 
 
 Pitt, on the other hand, in reply, aflSrmed that he was called 
 on by duty "to defend the rights of the other branches of the 
 Legislature ; the just and constitutional prerogative of the sov- 
 ereign," upon which the Opposition was seeking to encroach, 
 without even having shown a single reason to justify such in- 
 vasion. He freely admitted that, if the House of Commons or 
 either of the other branches of the Legislature " disapproved of 
 an administration on proper grounds, it would not be well for 
 that administration to retain office." But in the present in- 
 stance he contended that " no ground for disapprobation had 
 been shown." The existing administration " had, in fact, by an 
 
 * ' ' Parliamentary History," xxiv., 687, 695, 699. 
 
PITTS FIRMNESS PRODUCES AN IMPRESSION. 115 
 
 unaccountable obstinacy and untowardness of circumstances, 
 been deprived of all opportunity" of showing its capacity or 
 its intentions. "If any accusations should be made and proved 
 against it, if any charges should be substantiated, it would, in- 
 deed, be proper for the ministers to resign ; and if, in such a 
 case, he were afterward to continue in office, he would suffer 
 himself to be stigmatized as the champion of prerogative, and 
 the unconstitutional supporter of the usurpation of the crown. 
 But, till this period arrived, he should reckon it his duty to 
 adhere to the principles of the constitution, as delivered to us 
 by our ancestors ; to defend them against innovation and en- 
 croachment, and to maintain them with firmness." " The con- 
 stitution of this country," he presently added, " is its glory ; 
 but in what a nice adjustment does its excellence consist! 
 Equally free from the distractions of democracy and the tyr- 
 anny of monarchy, its happiness is to be found in its mixt- 
 ure of parts. It was this mixed government which the pru- 
 dence of our ancestors devised, and which it will be our wis- 
 dom to support. They experienced all the vicissitudes and 
 distractions of a republic ; they felt all the vassalage and des- 
 potism of a simple monarchy. They abandoned both; and, 
 by blending each together, extracted a system which has been 
 the envy and admiration of the world. This system it is the 
 object of the present address to defeat and destroy. It is 
 the intention of this address to arrogate a power which does 
 not belong to the House of Commons ; to place a negative 
 on the exercise of the prerogative, and to destroy the balance 
 of power in the government as it was settled at the Revo- 
 lution." 
 
 Fox had urged that our history afforded no example of a 
 ministry retaining office after the House of Commons had 
 passed a resolution condemning it. Pitt, in reply, urged that 
 our history equally failed to furnish any instance of a ministry 
 having been called on to retire without any misconduct being 
 alleged against them. And the result of the division showed 
 that his arguments and his firmness were producing an impres- 
 sion on the House, for, though he was again defeated, the ma- 
 jority against him (only twelve) was far smaller than on any 
 
116 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 previous division.* A week later, this feeling in his favor was 
 shown still more decidedly, when Fox, on moving for a fresh 
 address, or, as he termed it, a representation to the King that 
 the House had received his Majesty's reply to their address 
 " with surprise and affliction," he could only carry it by a sin- 
 gle vote.f And this division closed the struggle. Fox made 
 no farther effort. Before the end of the month the Parliament 
 was dissolved, and the general election which ensued sent to 
 the House a majority to support the ministers which Pitt was 
 fairly warranted in claiming as the full justification of the 
 course which he had pursued. 
 
 On a review of the whole of this extraordinary transaction, 
 or series of transactions, it is impossible to avoid regarding the 
 issue of the struggle as an all-important element in the case, 
 and a test almost decisive of the correctness of conduct of the 
 rival leaders. We may leave out of the question the action 
 of the King in his communication to Lord Temple, which, al- 
 though sanctioned by the great legal authority of Lord Thur- 
 low, we are, for reasons already given, compelled to regard as 
 unconstitutional, but for which Mr. Pitt was only technically 
 responsible ; having, indeed, made himself so by his subsequent 
 acceptance of office, but having had no previous suspicion of 
 the royal intentions. Similarly, we may dismiss from our con- 
 sideration the merits or demerits of Fox's India Bill, the de- 
 signs which were imputed to its framers, or the consequences 
 which, whether intended or not by them, were predicted as cer- 
 tain to flow from it. And we may confine ourselves to the 
 question whether, in the great Parliamentary struggle which 
 ensued, and which lasted for more than three months, J the 
 doctrines advanced by Mr. Fox, and the conduct pursued by 
 him, were more or less in accordance with the admitted rules 
 and principles of the constitution. 
 
 * The numbers were 201 to 189. The week before, on Mr. Powys's mo- 
 tion for a united and efficient administration, the majority had been 30 — 
 197 to 177. On a motion made by Mr. Colce, February 3, the majority had 
 been 24 — 211 to 187. At the beginning of the struggle the majorities had 
 been far larger — 232 to 143 on Fox's niotion for a committee on the state 
 of the nation, January 12. + 191 to 190. 
 
 X From December 19, when Pitt accepted office, to March 34, when the 
 Parliament was dissolved. 
 
THE DOCTEINES ADVANCED BY FOX. 117 
 
 These doctrines may be reduced to two : the first a declara- 
 tion that no minister is justified in retaining office any longer 
 than he is sustained in it by the favorable judgment of the rep- 
 resentatives of the people. Taken by itself, this, but for one 
 consideration, might be pronounced the superfluous assertion 
 of a truism ; superfluous, because it is obvious that a House of 
 Commons hostile to a minister can compel his resignation by 
 obstructing all his measures. And Pitt himself recognized this 
 as fully as Fox, though we may hardly agree with him that the 
 Opposition was bound to allow him time to develop his poli- 
 cy, and to bring forward his various measures, before it pro- 
 nounced an opinion adverse to them. In 1835, when Sir R. 
 Peel first met Parliament after his acceptance of office, conse- 
 quent on the King's dismissal of Lord Melbourne's ministry, 
 the Opposition encountered and defeated him twice in the first 
 week of the session — on the choice of a Speaker, and on the 
 address, though the latter had been framed with the most skil- 
 ful care to avoid any necessity for objection ; but no attempt 
 was made by him to call in question the perfect right of Lord 
 J. Russell and his followers in the House to choose their own 
 time and field of battle. But there is one farther consid- 
 eration, that the authority belonging to the judgment of the 
 House of Commons depends on that judgment being not sole- 
 ly its own, but the judgment also of the constituencies which 
 have returned it, and whose mouth-piece it is ; and also that 
 the House is not immortal, but is liable to be sent back to 
 those constituencies, to see whether they will ratify the judg- 
 ment which their representatives have expressed ; whether, in 
 other words, their judgment be the judgment of the nation 
 also. This farther consideration was, in fact, Pitt's plea for re- 
 sisting the majorities which, through January and February, so 
 repeatedly pronounced against him. And in determining to 
 appeal to the constituencies, as the court of ultimate resort, he 
 was clearly within the lines of the constitution. 
 
 It follows that Fox, in protesting against a dissolution, in 
 threatening even to take steps to prevent it, was acting in self- 
 evident violation of all constitutional principle and precedent. 
 He was denying one of the most universally acknowledged of 
 
118 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the royal prerogatives. The distmction whicli he endeavored 
 to draw between a dissolution at the close of a session and one 
 in the middle of it, had manifestly no validity in law or in 
 common-sense. The minister had a clear right to appeal from 
 the House of Commons to the people, and one equally clear to 
 choose his own time for making that appeal. The appeal was 
 made, the judgment of the nation v^'as pronounced, and its pro- 
 nouncement may be, and indeed must be, accepted as a suffi- 
 cient justification, in a constitutional point of view, of Pitt's 
 conduct both in accepting and retaining office. If he retained 
 it for three months, in opposition to the voice of the existing 
 House of Commons, he could certainly allege that be was re- 
 taining it in accordance with the deliberate judgment of the 
 nation. 
 
 And this is the verdict of a modern statesman, a very careful 
 student of the theory of our Parliamentary constitution, and 
 one whom party connection would notoriously have inclined 
 to defend the line taken by Mr. Fox, had it been possible to do 
 so. Indeed, he may be said to show his bias in that states- 
 man's favor when he affirms that he would have been right in 
 moving a resolution of censure on Pitt for '' his acceptance of 
 office," which he presently calls the result of " the success of a 
 court intrigue,"* and, without a particle of evidence to justify 
 the imputation, affirms to "have been prepared beforehand 
 with much art and combination." But amicus Fox, sed magis 
 arnica Veritas; and though he thus passes censure on Pitt, 
 where the facts on which he bases it are at least unproved, on 
 those points as to which the facts are clear and certain he con- 
 demns Fox altogether, affirming that his " attempt to show 
 that the crown had not the prerogative of dissolving Parliar 
 ment in the middle of a session had neither law nor precedent 
 in its support."! ^^^ ^® proceeds to lay down, with great 
 clearness and accuracy, " the practice as well as the theory of 
 our mixed government," which is, that " when two of the 
 powers of the state cannot agree, and the business of the state 
 is stopped, the only appeal is to the people at large. Thus, 
 
 * "Memorials and Correspondence of C. J. Fox," by Earl Russell, ii., 
 229, 248. t lUd., p. 230. 
 
EXTREME POPULARITY OF PITT. 119 
 
 when in the reign of Queen Anne the House of Lords and the 
 House of Commons fuhninated resohitions at each other, a dis- 
 sohition cleared the air and restored serenity. If no case had 
 occurred since the Revolution of a quarrel between the crown 
 and the House of Commons, the cause is to be sought in the 
 prudence with which every sovereign who had reigned since 
 that event had wielded his constitutional authority. If George 
 III. had been wanting in that prudence, it did not follow that 
 he was debarred from the right of appealing to the people. 
 Any other doctrine would invest the House of Commons, 
 elected for the ordinary business of the state, with a supreme 
 power over every branch of it. This supreme power must rest 
 somewhere ; according to our constitution it rests in the com- 
 mon assent of the realm, signified by the persons duly qualified 
 to elect the members of the House of Commons; and Lord 
 Russell, in thus expounding his ideas on this subject, was un- 
 doubtedly expressing the view that ever since the transactions 
 of which we have been speaking has been taken of the point 
 chiefly in dispute. Since that day there has been more than 
 one instance of Parliament being dissolved in the middle of a 
 session; but, though the prudence of the different ministers 
 who advised such dissolutions may, perhaps, have been ques- 
 tioned — nay, though in one memorable instance it was un- 
 doubtedly a penal dissolution in the fullest sense of the word* 
 — no one has ever accused the sovereign's advisers of seducing 
 him into an unconstitutional exercise of his prerogative, 
 
 Pitt was now Prime-minister, with a degree of power in Par- 
 liament and of popularity out-of-doors that no former minister, 
 not even his own father, had ever enjoyed. As such, by the 
 confession of one who was certainly no friendly critic,f "he 
 became the greatest master of Parliamentary government that 
 has ever existed." His administration may be regarded as a 
 fresh starting-point in the history of the country, as the in- 
 auguration of the principle of steady amendment, improve- 
 ment, and progress, in place of the maxims which had guided 
 
 * That of April, 1831, after the defeat of the Government on General 
 Gaseoyne's amendment, 
 t Lord Macaulay, " Miscellaneous Essays," ii., 330. 
 
120 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 all his predecessors since the Revolution, of regarding every- 
 thing as permanently settled by the arrangements made at that 
 time, and their own duty, consequently, as binding them to 
 keep everything in its existing condition. But, of all the min- 
 isters recorded in our annals, there is not one so greatly in 
 advance of his time as Pitt ; and from the very outset of his 
 ministerial career he apphed himself, not only to the removal 
 or correction of admitted abuses or defects, but, in cases where 
 the fault, being in our general system of policy, had been less 
 conspicuous, to the establishment of new principles of action 
 which have been the rules of all succeeding statesmen. He 
 was not, indeed, the first raiser of the question of Parliamentary 
 Reform, but he was the first to produce an elaborate scheme 
 with that object, parts of which, such as the suppression of the 
 smaller boroughs and the enfranchisement of places w^hich had 
 gradually become more important, have been leading features 
 of every subsequent bill on the subject. He Avas the first to 
 propose the removal of those political disabilities under which 
 the Roman Catholics labored, which no one before him had 
 regarded as consistent with the safety of the state, and to 
 which he sacrificed ofiice. He was the first to conceive the 
 idea of developing our national industries and resources by 
 commercial treaties with other nations, even choosing for his 
 essay-piece a treaty with a country with which our relations 
 for nearly five hundred years had been almost uninterruptedly 
 hostile, and which Fox, in the heat of his opposition, objected 
 even to consider in any other light than that of an enemy. 
 He laid the foundation for all subsequent legislation connected 
 with our colonies in his Bill for the Government of Canada; 
 and he established a system for the government of our Indian 
 dependencies on so statesman-like a principle, that all subse- 
 quent administrations concurred in upholding it, till subsequent 
 events compelled the abolition of all the share in the govern- 
 ment of the country previously possessed by the Company. 
 
 A great writer of the past generation,* who in some respects 
 has done full justice to his genius and political virtue, has, how- 
 
 * Lord Macaulay, essay on William Pitt. 
 
Pitt's military policy considered. 121 
 
 ever (partly, it can hardly be doubted, from regarding himself 
 as a follower of his great rival, Fox), contrasted his capacity as 
 a War-minister with that of his father, drawing a comparison 
 on this point very disadvantageous to the son. We need not 
 stop to examine how far the praises which he bestows on Lord 
 Chatham's talents as a planner of military operations are de- 
 served ; but it may very fairly be contended that the disparag- 
 ing views of Pitt's military policy which he has advanced are 
 founded solely on what is in this as well as in many other in- 
 stances a most delusive criterion, success. It is true, unques- 
 tionably, that in the campaigns of 1793-4-5 against the French 
 revolutionists, while he took upon this country the entire bur- 
 den of the naval war, on land he contented himself with play- 
 ing a secondary part, and employing a comparatively small 
 force (which, however, doubled that which his father had sent 
 to Minden),* for the success of the military operations trusting 
 chiefly to the far stronger Austrian and Prussian divisions, un- 
 der the command of Prince Coburg and the Duke of Bruns- 
 wick, to which the British regiments were but auxiliaries. It 
 is true, also, that the result of their operations w^as unfortunate, 
 and that the German generals proved wholly unable to contend 
 with the fiery and more skilful impetuosity of Jourdan and 
 Pichegru. But the question is not whether Pitt's confidence 
 in the prowess of his allies was misplaced, but whether he had 
 not abundant reason to justify him in entertaining it. And, 
 to judge fairly on this point, we must recollect the reputation 
 which for the last forty years the Austrian and Prussian armies 
 had enjoyed. The result of the seven years' war had estab- 
 lished the renown of the Prussians, and the Duke of Bruns- 
 wick was understood to be a favorite pupil of the Great Fred- 
 eric. The same war had shown that the Austrians were not 
 very unequal to the Prussians ; while the reputation of the 
 French troops had fallen to the lowest ebb, the most memora- 
 ble event in their annals during the same war being the rout 
 of Rosbach, when 60,000 of them fled before Frederic and 
 
 * Alison ("History of Europe," xiii,, 971) states the English force in 
 the Netherlands in 1794 at 25,000 men. Lord Stanhope calls the English 
 at Minden 10,000 or 12,000. 
 
 6 
 
122 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 22,000. At the breaking out of the Revolution, it might be 
 said that De Bouille was the only French general of the slight- 
 est reputation, and since the sad journey to Yarennes he had 
 been an exile from his country. And, though again in 1803 
 Pitt once more trusted for success on land to Continental alli- 
 ances, not only does he deserve admiration for the diplomatic 
 talent with which he united Austria, Prussia, and Russia against 
 France, but it can hardly be doubted that confederacy would 
 have been triumphant, had not the incompetent vanity of Alex- 
 ander ruined all its prospects by his rash disregard at Auster- 
 litz of the experienced warnings of his own staff.* 
 
 The new form of government which he established for India, 
 and to which allusion has been made, has lost the greater part 
 of its importance in the eyes of the present generation, from 
 the more recent abolition of the political authority of the East 
 India Company, though of some of the principles which he 
 avowed he had taken for his guides it is worth while to pre- 
 serve the record ; with such clearness, as well as statesman-like 
 
 * An eminent living writer (Mr. Lecky, "History of England," ii., 474) 
 quotes with apparent approval another comparison between the fatlier 
 and son, made by Grattan, in the following words : " The father was not, 
 perhaps, so good a debater as his son, but was a much better orator, a 
 greater scholar, and a far greater man." The first two phrases in this 
 eulogy may, perhaps, balance one another; though, when Mr. Lecky ad- 
 mits that "Lord Chatham's taste was far from pure, and that there was 
 much in his speeches that was florid and meretricious, and not a little 
 that would have appeared absurd bombast but for.J,he amazing power of 
 his delivery," he makes a serious deduction from his claim to the best 
 style of eloquence which no one ever made from the speeches of his son. 
 But Grattan's assertion that the man who, as his sister said of him, knew 
 but two books, the "^neid" and the "Faerie Queene," was superior in 
 scholarship to one who, with the exception of his rival, Fox, had proba- 
 bly no equal for knowledge of the great authors of antiquity in either 
 House of Parliament, is little short of a palpable absurdity. We may, 
 however, suspect that Grattan's estimate of the two men was in some 
 degree colored by his personal feelings. With Lord Chatham he had 
 never been in antagonism. On one great subject, the dispute with Amer- 
 ica, he had been his follower and ally, advocating in the Irish House of 
 Commons the same course which Chatham upheld in the English House 
 of Peers. But to Pitt he had been almost constantly opposed. By Pitt 
 he and his party, whether in the English, or, so long as it lasted, in the 
 Irish Parliament, had been repeatedly defeated. The Union, of which he 
 had been the indefatigable opponent, and to which he was never entirely 
 reconciled, had been carried in his despite; and it was hardly unnatural 
 that the recollection of his long and unsuccessful warfare should in some 
 degree bias his judgment, and prompt him to an undeserved disparage- 
 ment of the minister by whose wisdom and firmness he had been so often 
 overborne. 
 
Pitt's new foem of government for india. 123 
 
 wisdom, do they affirm the objects which every one should keep 
 in view who applies himself to legislation for distant dependen- 
 cies, where the privileges and interests of foreign fellow-subjects 
 are to be regarded with as jealous a solicitude as those of our 
 own countrymen. These objects may be briefly described as 
 being the reconciling the vested and chartered interests of the 
 Company with the legitimate authority of the King's govern- 
 ment; for, though Pitt admitted that "state necessity" might 
 occasionally be allowed as a valid reason for the abrogation of 
 a charter, he affirmed that nothing short of such absolute neces- 
 sity could excuse such a measure, and he relied on the previous 
 history of the Company to prove the fallacy of an observation 
 that had sometimes been made, that commercial companies 
 could not govern empires. There were three interests to be 
 considered: that of the native Indians, that of the Company, 
 and that of this country; and the problem to be solved was, 
 "how to do the most good to India and to the East India 
 Company with the least injury to our constitution." Some of 
 his remarks contained unavoidable allusions to Fox's bill of the 
 previous year, since some of the provisions of his bill were en- 
 tirely opposite to those which Fox had framed, the most ma- 
 terial point of difference being the character of the Board of 
 Control which he proposed to establish. Fox, as has been 
 seen, had proposed to make the commissioners to be appoint- 
 ed under his bill irremovable for several years, whatever changes 
 might take place in the home government; an arrangement 
 which the opposers of the bill suspected of being designed to 
 prevent any change in the home government from taking 
 place. Pitt, on the. other hand, laid down as one of his leading 
 principles that "the board could not be permanent, that it must 
 be subordinate to the administration of the day, and that per- 
 manency would be in itself a deviation from the principles of 
 the constitution, and would involve the board in contradictions 
 to the executive government that could hot fail to be attended 
 with great public inconvenience. An institution to control the 
 government of India must be either totally independent of the 
 government of this country or subordinate to it." " The board 
 was to consist of none but privy councillors," and instead of 
 
124 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the vast amount of patronage which was to have been created 
 by the bill of 1783, this board was "to create no increase of 
 officers nor to impose any new burdens." ..." The first and 
 leading ideas would be, to limit the subsisting patronage ;" . . . 
 and so little was Pitt covetous to engross that which did and 
 must continue to subsist, that he left even "the officers of the 
 government of Bengal to the nomination of the Court of Di- 
 rectors, subject only to the negative of the crown ; and the 
 Court of Directors was also to have the nomination of the 
 officers of all the subordinate governments, except only of the 
 commander-in-chief, who, for various reasons, must remain to 
 be appointed by the crown." Another very important part of 
 the arrangement was, that " gradation and succession were to 
 be the general rule of promotion," a regulation which of itself 
 would be " a forcible check upon patronage, and tend greatly 
 to its reduction." The governor of Bengal was to be the gov- 
 ernor-general of the whole country, the governors of Madras 
 and Bombay being subordinate to him ; and each governor was 
 to be assisted by a council of three members, of whom the 
 commander of the forces was to be one. 
 
 The spirit in which a law or a government is administered 
 is commonly of greater practical importance than the words in 
 which the regulation or the system is framed or defined ; and 
 Pitt, therefore, concluded his speech by laying down a few 
 " clear and simple principles as those from which alone a good 
 government could arise. The first and principal object would 
 be to take care to prevent the government from being ambi- 
 tious and bent on conquest. Commerce was our object, and, 
 with a view to its extension, a pacific system should prevail, 
 and a system of defence and conciliation. The government 
 there ought, therefore, in an especial manner, to avoid wars, or 
 entering into alliances likely to create wars." It was not to 
 forget " to pay a due regard to self-defence, or to guard against 
 sudden hostilities from neighboring powers, and, whenever 
 there was reason to apprehend attack, to be in a state of prep- 
 aration. This was indispensably necessary ; but whenever such 
 circumstances occurred, the executive government in India was 
 not to content itself with acting there as the circumstances of 
 
OUTLINES OF PITT's CONSTITUTION FOK INDIA. 125 
 
 the case might require ; it was also to send immediate advice 
 home of what had happened, of what measures had been taken 
 in consequence, and what farther measures were intended to be 
 pursued ; and a tribunal was to be established to take cogni- 
 zance of such matters." The system of taking presents from 
 the natives was to be absolutely prohibited, a regulation which 
 he hoped would " tend effectually to check private corruption ;" 
 and, lastly, it was proposed to establish a court of criminal 
 judicature for the trial in England of certain classes of delin- 
 quents after their return from India. The judges of the court 
 were to be men of the highest character ; they were to be 
 chosen by ballot, some being taken from the bench of judges, 
 some from each House of Parliament. And they were " not 
 to be tied down to strict rules of evidence, but to be upon 
 their oaths to give their judgments conscientiously, and to pro- 
 nounce such judgment as the common law would warrant." 
 Such a tribunal he admitted to be an innovation ; but, " unless 
 some new process were instituted, offences shocking to human- 
 ity, opposite to justice, and contrary to every principle of relig- 
 ion and morality, must continue to prevail, unchecked, uncon- 
 trolled, and unrestrained, and the necessity of the case out- 
 weighed the risk and the hazard of the innovation." 
 
 These were tlie general outlines of the constitution which in 
 1784 the Parliament established for India, and the skill with 
 which it was adapted to the very peculiar character of the 
 settlements to be governed is sufficiently proved by the fact 
 that it was maintained with very little alteration equally by 
 Whig and Tory administrations for three-quarters of a century, 
 till the great convulsion of the Mutiny compelled an entire 
 alteration in the system, and the abolition of the governing 
 powers of the Company, as we shall have occasion to relate in 
 a subsequent chapter. The principles which Pitt had laid 
 down as the guiding maxims for the governors ; the avoidance 
 of ambitious views of conquest, the preservation of peace, and 
 the limitation of the aims of the government to the encourage- 
 ment and extension of commerce, were not equally adhered to. 
 Undoubtedly, in some instances, the wars in which, even during 
 Pitt's too short lifetime, the Indian government was engaged. 
 
126 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 came under Ms description of wars which were justifiable on 
 the ground of self-defence — wars undertaken for the preserva- 
 tion of what had been previously won or purchased, rather than 
 for the acquisition of new territories at the expense of chiefs 
 who had given us no provocation. But for others, though pro- 
 fessedly undertaken with a view only of anticipating hostile in- 
 tentions, the development of which might possibly be reserved 
 for a distant future, it is not easy to find a similar justifica- 
 tion ; and it may be feared that in more than one case govern- 
 ors-general, conscious of great abilities, have been too much in- 
 clined to adopt the pernicious maxim of Louis XIV., that the 
 aggrandizement and extension of his dominions is the noblest 
 object which a ruler of nations can have in view. Yet, though 
 unable on strictly moral grounds to justify all the warlike en- 
 terprises which make up so large a part of our subsequent 
 Indian history, it is impossible, probably, for even the most 
 rigid moralist to avoid some feelings of national pride in the 
 genius of our countrymen, who in the short space of a single 
 century have built up an empire of a magnitude unequalled 
 even by the Caesars, and have governed and still are governing 
 it in so wise and beneficent a spirit, and with such a display of 
 administrative capacity, that our rule is recognized as a blessing 
 by the great majority of the nations themselves, as a protection 
 from ceaseless intestine war, from rapine, and that worst of 
 tyrannies, anarchy, which was their normal condition before 
 Clive established our supremacy at Plassy, and into which they 
 would surely and speedily fall back, if our controlling authority 
 were to be withdrawn. 
 
 India was not the only British settlement for which the 
 growth of our empire compelled Pitt to devise a constitution. 
 The year which saw his birth had also seen the conquest of 
 Canada from the French; and in 1774 a system of govern- 
 ment for the new province had been established which it is 
 sufficient here to describe as one which differed but little from 
 a pure despotism, the administration being vested in a govern- 
 or and Legislative Council, every member of which was to be 
 nominated by the crown. But the working of this act had 
 from the first proved very unsatisfactory, and had become 
 
PITl's BILL FOR COLONIAL SELF-GOVERNMENT. 127 
 
 more so as the population increased by the influx of fresh 
 settlers from Great Britain, and also from the United States, 
 where many of those who in the recent civil war had adhered 
 to the connection with the mother country had been exposed 
 to constant malice and ill-treatment, and had preferred cross- 
 ing the border and obtaining lands in Canada to returning to 
 England. Pitt recognized the evil, and undertook to remedy 
 it; and in 1791 he introduced a bill to establish a constitution 
 for Canada, which a recent historian describes as " remarkable, 
 as recognizing for the first time the wise and generous princi- 
 ple of independent colonial institutions, which has since been 
 fully developed in every dependency of the British crown capa- 
 ble of local self-government."^ One peculiar difficulty in fram- 
 ing such a constitution arose from the circumstance of the old 
 French colonists, who greatly outnumbered the settlers of Brit- 
 ish blood, being attached to the Roman Catholic religion ; while 
 the British settlers were nearly, or perhaps all, Protestant, though 
 of different denominations. The difficulty was, indeed, lessened 
 by the circumstance that the French dwelt in Quebec and the 
 district between that city and the mouth of the St. Lawrence, 
 and that the English had for the most part betaken themselves 
 to the more inland region. And this local separation of the 
 two races the minister now took for his i>;uide in the arrano-e- 
 ment which he devised. The most important feature in it was 
 the division of the province into two parts, as Upper and Lower 
 Canada, and the establishment of a distinct local Legislature for 
 each division, a House of Assembly being created in each, and 
 a Council, so as, in Pitt's words, "to give both divisions the 
 full advantages of the British constitution." The Assemblies 
 were to have the power of taxation (so that there was no room 
 left for such perverse legislation by a British Parliament as 
 had lately cost its sovereign the United States). The act of 
 habeas corpus was extended to the province (a privilege which 
 no one of French blood had ever enjoyed before) ; the tenure 
 of land was to be the socagef tenure so long and happily es- 
 
 * Massey's "History of England," iii.,447; confer also Green's "His- 
 tory of the English People," vol. iv. 
 + Hallam ("Middle Ages," ii., 386, 481), extolling the condition of 
 
128 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 tablislied in England. Complete religious toleration was estab- 
 lished, and a certain proportion of land was allotted in Upper 
 Canada, as a provision for a Protestant clergy, and the founda- 
 tion of an ecclesiastical establishment. So great was Pitt's de- 
 sire to complete the resemblance between the colony and Great 
 Britain, that he even contemplated the creation of an aristoc- 
 racy, by the introduction of a provision enabling the King to 
 grant hereditary colonial titles, the possession of which should 
 include hereditary seats in the provincial Council. The two 
 latter clauses were opposed by Fox, and the latter of them, 
 though sanctioned by Parliament, was never carried out in 
 practice. But Fox, bitter as he was at this time in his general 
 opposition to the government, agreed cordially in the general 
 principles of the bill, avowing his conviction that "the only 
 method of retaining distant colonies with advantage is to enable 
 them to govern themselves," so that each party in the British 
 Parliament is entitled to a share of the credit for this pattern 
 of all subsequent colonial constitutions — Pitt for the original 
 genius for organization which his contrivance of all the compli- 
 cated details of the measure displayed, and Fox for his frank 
 adoption of the general principle inculcated by his rival, even 
 while differing as to some of the minor details of the measure. 
 During these years the country was increasing in prosperity, 
 and the minister was daily rising in credit ; more powerful and 
 more popular than the most successful or the most brilliant of 
 his predecessors. But during these same years two great con- 
 stitutional difficulties had arisen, one of which, indeed, the deep 
 sense which both parties felt of the danger of investigating it 
 shelved almost as soon as it was seen ; but the other of which, 
 besides the importance which it derived from the degree in 
 which it involved the principle of the supreme authority of 
 Parliament, and brought under discussion even that which 
 regulates the succession to the crown, imperilled the existence 
 
 " the free socage tenants, or English yeomanry, as the class whose inde- 
 pendence has stamped with peculiar features both our constitution and 
 our national character," gives two derivations for the name; one "the 
 Saxon soc, which signifies a franchise, especially one of jurisdiction;" and 
 the other, that adopted by Bracton, and which he himself prefers, " the 
 French word soc, a ploughshare." 
 
NOTOEIOUS PROFLIGACY OF THE PRINCE. 129 
 
 of the ministry, and threatened a total change in both the do- 
 mestic and foreign policy of the nation. 
 
 The Prince of Wales, who had come of age in the summer 
 of 1783, had at once begun to make himself notorious for the 
 violence of his opposition to his father's ministers, carrying the 
 openness of his hostility so far as, during the Westminster elec- 
 tion, to drive about the streets with a carriage and all his ser- 
 vants profusely decorated with Fox's colors; and, still more 
 discreditably, by most unmeasured profligacy of all kinds. 
 The consequence was that he soon became deeply involved in 
 debt, so deeply that, in 1787, a member of Fox's party gave 
 notice of his intention to move that the Parliament should pay 
 his debts and increase his income. Pitt, without specifying 
 his reasons, avowed that he should feel it his duty to oppose 
 any grant of such a character; but another member of Par- 
 liament, Mr. Rolle, one of the members for Devonshire, being 
 trammelled by no such feeling of responsibility, expressed a 
 similar resolution in language which contained an allusion per- 
 fectly understood on both sides of the House. He said that 
 "the question thus proposed to be brought forward went im- 
 mediately to affect our constitution in Church and State." And 
 every one knew that he was referring to a report which had 
 recently become general, that the Prince was married to a Ro- 
 man Catholic lady of the name of Fitzherbert. No direct no- 
 tice was taken of this allusion at the moment, Fox himself, who 
 had the chief share of the Prince's confidence, being acciden- 
 tally absent ; but a day or two afterward he referred to Rolle's 
 speech with great indignation, declaring that it referred to a 
 " low, malicious calumny " which had no foundation whatever, 
 and "was only fit to impose on the lowest order of persons." 
 Being pressed as to the precise force of his assertion, and be- 
 ing asked whether it meant more than that under the existing 
 laws, such as the Royal Marriage Act, there had been no mar- 
 riage, because there could have been no legal marriage, he de- 
 clared that he meant no such evasion, but that no marriage cer- 
 emony, legal or illegal, had ever taken place ; and farther, that 
 in saying this he was speaking on the direct authority of the 
 Prince himself. No more degrading act stains the annals of 
 
 ^6* 
 
130 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 British royalty. For tlie fact was true — the very next evening 
 Fox learned the deceit which the Prince had practised on him 
 from a gentleman who had been one of the witnesses to the 
 marriage, which had been solemnized by a Protestant clergy- 
 man fifteen months before.* And his indignation was such 
 that for some time afterward he abstained from all interference 
 in the Prince's affairs ; while the language held by the Prince's 
 other confidant, Mr. Sheridan, was so evasive as to betray a con- 
 sciousness that whatever had occurred would not bear the light 
 of day ; so that there were very few to whom the truth or 
 falsehood of the report was a subject of interest who felt any 
 uncertainty on the subject. 
 
 It may, probably, be regarded as fortunate for the peace of 
 the kingdom that the Prince, who eventually became King 
 George IV., left behind him no issue from his marriage with 
 the Princess, the failure of heirs of his body thus removing 
 any temptation to raise the question whether he had not him- 
 self forfeited all right to succeed to the throne by his- previous 
 marriage to a Roman Catholic. A clause of the Bill of Rights 
 provides that any member of the royal family who should mar- 
 ry a Roman Catholic (with the exception of the issue of prin- 
 cesses who may be the wives of foreign princes) shall by that 
 marriage be rendered incapable of inheriting the crown of Eng- 
 land. And though the Royal Marriage Act (which, as we have 
 seen, had been recently passed) had enacted that no marriage 
 of any member of the royal family contracted without the con- 
 sent of the reigning sovereign should be valid, it by no means 
 follows that an invalidity so created would exempt the con- 
 
 * Lord Colchester's "Diary," i., 68, mentions that the officiating cler- 
 gyman was Mr. Burt, of Twickenham, who received £500 for his services. 
 Lord John Russell ("Memorials and Correspondence of Fox," ii., 284- 
 289) agrees in stating that the marriage was performed in the manner 
 prescribed by the Common Prayer-book. Mr. Jesse, in his "Life of 
 George III.," ii.,506, gathering, as the present writer can say from per- 
 sonal knowledge, his information from some papers left behind him by 
 the late J. W. Croker, says : " The ceremony was performed by a Protes- 
 tant clergyman, though in part, apparently, according to the rites of the 
 Roman Catholic Church." Lord John Russell avoids discussing the 
 question whether the marriage involved the forfeiture of the inheritance 
 of the crown, an avoidance which many will interpret as a proof that in 
 his opinion it did. Mr. Massey's language ("History of England," iii., 
 327) clearly intimates that he holds the same opinion. 
 
INTENTION OF THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT. 131 
 
 tFactor of a marriage with a Roman Catholic, which as an hon- 
 orable man he must be supposed to have intended to make 
 valid, from the penalties enacted by the Bill of Rights. It is 
 a point on which the most eminent lawyers of the present day 
 are by no means agreed. The spirit of the clause in that bill 
 undoubtedly was, that no apparent or presumptive heirs to the 
 crown should form a matrimonial connection with any one who 
 should own allegiance to a foreign power, and that spirit was 
 manifestly disregarded if a prince married a Roman Catholic 
 lady, even though a subsequent law had enacted a conditional 
 invalidity of such a marriage. We may find an analogy to 
 such a case in instances where a man has abducted a minor, 
 and induced her to contract a marriage with himself. The 
 lady may not have been reluctant ; but the marriage has been 
 annulled, and the husband has been criminally prosecuted, the 
 nullity of the marriage not availing to save him from conviction 
 and punishment. A bigamous marriage is invalid, but the biga- 
 mist is punished. And, apart from any purely legal considera- 
 tion, it may be thought that public policy forbids such a construc- 
 tion of law as would make the illegality or invalidity of an act 
 (and all illegal acts must be more or less invalid) such a pro- 
 tection to the wrong-doer as would screen him from punishment. 
 Whatever may be the judgment formed on the legal as- 
 pect and merits of the case, the conduct of the Prince could 
 not fail to give the great body of the people, justly jealous at 
 all times of their national adherence to truthfulness and hon- 
 esty, a most unfavorable impression of his character. As has 
 been already mentioned. Fox was so indignant at having been 
 made the instrument to assure the Parliament and the nation 
 of a falsehood, that he for a time broke off all communication 
 wdth him.* Yet a singular caprice of fortune, or, it would be 
 more proper to say, a melancholy visitation of Providence, be- 
 fore the end of the following year led Fox to carry his cham- 
 pionship of the same Prince who had so abused his confidence 
 to the length of pronouncing the most extravagant eulogies on 
 his principles, and on his right to the confidence and respect of 
 
 * Russell's " Life of Fox," ii., 187. 
 
132 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the nation at large. In the autumn of 1788 the King fell into 
 a state of bad health, which in no long time affected his mind, 
 and, by the middle of November, had so deranged his faculties 
 as to render him incapable of attending to his royal duties, or, 
 in fact, transacting any business whatever. Parliament was not 
 sitting, but its re-assembling had been fixed for the 4th of De- 
 cember, and before that day arrived the King's illness had as- 
 sumed so alarming a character, and it appeared so unsafe to cal- 
 culate on his immediate recovery, that the minister summoned 
 a Privy Council, the summons being addressed to the members 
 of the Opposition as well as to his own followers, to receive the 
 opinions of the physicians in attendance on his Majesty, as a 
 necessary foundation for the measures which he conceived it to 
 be his duty to propose to Parliament. Those opinions were, 
 that it was almost certain that the disease would not be perma- 
 nent, though no one could undertake to fix its duration with 
 the least appearance of probability. And, as the royal authori- 
 ty could not be left in abeyance, as it were, for an uncertain pe- 
 riod, it was mdispensable to appoint a Regent to conduct the 
 affairs of the kingdom till the King should, happily, be once 
 more in a condition to resume his functions. 
 
 In considering the line of conduct adopted in this emergency 
 by Pitt and his great rival Fox, Pitt has one manifest advantage 
 on his side, that it is impossible to attribute the course which 
 he took to any personal motive,. or any desire for the retention 
 of oflScial power ; while it is equally impossible to doubt that 
 Fox was in no slight degree,* and that Lord Loughborough, 
 
 ^ Fox's private correspondence is full of anticipations that the Regent's 
 first act will be to dismiss Pitt, and to make him minister. In a letter of 
 December 15 he even fixes a fortnight as the time by which he expects 
 to be installed ; while Lord Loughborough, who was eager to possess 
 himself of the Great Seal — an expectation in which, though well-founded, 
 he would, as it proved, have found himself disappointed — was led by his 
 hopes to give the Prince counsel of so extraordinary a nature that it is 
 said that the ministers, to whose knowledge it had come, were prepared, 
 if any attempt had been made to act upon it, or even openly to avow it, 
 to send the learned lord to the Tower. [" Diary of Lord Colchester," i., 
 28.] In an elaborate paper which he drew up and read to the Prince at 
 Windsor, he assured his Royal Highness, speaking as a lawyer, that " the 
 administration of government devolved to him of right. He was bound 
 by every duty to assume it, and his character would be lessened in the 
 public estimation, if he took it on any other ground but right, or on any 
 sort of compromise. The authority of Parliament, as the great council 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE ROYAL PHYSICIANS. 133 
 
 the Prince's chief adviser on points of law, was wholly influ- 
 enced by the hope of supplanting the ministry. Pitt had never 
 the least doubt that on the establishment of the Regency he 
 should be dismissed, and was prepared to return to the Bar. 
 But his knowledge of the preference which the Prince enter- 
 tained for his rival did not lead him to hesitate for a single 
 moment as to the propriety of placing him in a situation to 
 exercise that preference. On the reassembling of Parliament, 
 he at once took what he conceived to be the proper parlia- 
 mentary course of proceeding ; at his suggestion committees 
 in both Houses were appointed to take a formal examination 
 of the royal physicians ; and, when those committees had re- 
 ported that the King was for the present incapable of discharg- 
 ing his royal functions, though likely at some future period to 
 be able to resume them, he moved the House of Commons to 
 appoint another committee, to search for "precedents of such 
 proceedings as might have been taken in the case of the per- 
 sonal exercise of the royal authority being prevented or inter- 
 rupted by infancy, sickness, or infirmity, with a view to provide 
 for tlie same." Such a search for precedents was no novelty, 
 and may be thought to have been especially proper in such a 
 case as this, since history recorded the appointment of several 
 regencies, one under circumstances strikingly resembling those 
 now existing, when, in 1454, Henry VI. had fallen into a state 
 of imbecility, and the Parliament appointed the Duke of York 
 Protector* of the kingdom. 
 
 But Fox instantly opposed it with extreme vehemence, de- 
 
 of the nation, would be interposed, not to confer but to declare the right. 
 The mode of proceeding should be that in a short time his Royal High- 
 ness should signify his intention to act by directing a meeting of the 
 Privy Council, when he should declare his intention to take upon him- 
 self the care of the state, and should at the same time signify his desire 
 to have the advice of Parliament, and order it by proclamation to meet 
 early for the despatch of business. . . . It is of vast importance in the out- 
 set that he should appear to act entirely of himself, and, in the confer- 
 ences he must necessarily have, not to consult, but to listen and direct." 
 The entire paper is given by Lord Campbell (" Lives of the Chancel- 
 lors," c. clxx.). 
 
 * Hume's account of this transaction is, that the Duke "desired that 
 it might be recorded in Parliament that this authority was conferred on 
 him from their own free motion, without any application on his part ; . . . 
 and he required that all the powers of his office should be specified and 
 defined by Parliament." 
 
134 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 daring that the appointment of such a committee would be 
 a pure waste of time. It was notorious, he aflBrmed, that no 
 precedent existed which could have any bearing on the present 
 case, since there was in existence a person such as had never 
 been found on any previous occasion, an heir - apparent of 
 full age and capacity to exercise the royal authority ; and he 
 declared it to be his deliberate opinion that the Prince of 
 Wales had " as clear and express a right to assume the reins of 
 government, and to exercise all the powers of sovereignty, dur- 
 ing the illness and incapacity of the sovereign, as if that sov- 
 ereign were actually deceased." Such an assertion of indefea- 
 sible right was so totally at variance with the Whig doctrines 
 which Pitt, equally with Fox, regarded as the true principles of 
 the constitution, that Pitt at once perceived the advantage 
 which it gave him, by enabling him to stand forward as the 
 supporter of the supreme authority of Parliament, which Fox 
 had by implication denied. He instantly replied that to assert 
 an inherent indefeasible right in the Prince of Wales, or any 
 one else, independently of the decision of the two Houses, 
 fell little short of treason to the constitution ; but, at the same 
 time, to prevent any one pretending to misconceive his inten- 
 tions, he allowed it to be seen with suflScient plainness that, 
 when once the right of Parliament to appoint the Regent had 
 been established, he should agree in the propriety of conferring 
 that office on the Prince of Wales. The committee was ap- 
 pointed ; but, even before it could report the result of its in- 
 vestigations, the doctrine advanced by Fox had been the sub- 
 ject of discussion in the House of Lords, where Lord Camden, 
 who had presided over the meeting of the Privy Council a few 
 days before, on moving for the appointment of a similar com- 
 mittee of peers, had taken occasion to declare that, if Fox had 
 made such an assertion as rumor imputed to him, it was one 
 which had no foundation in " the common law of the kingdom. 
 He had never read nor heard of such a doctrine. Its assertors 
 might raise expectations not easily laid, and might involve the 
 country in confusion." And he contended, as Pitt had done 
 in the Commons, that its assertion was a strong argument in 
 favor of the appointment of a committee, that it might be at 
 
PITT SUBMITS A SERIES OF EESOLUTIONS. 135 
 
 once seen whether it were warranted by any precedent whatever. 
 The reports of the two committees bore out Fox's statement, 
 that no precedent entirely applicable to the case before them 
 had ever occurred. But by this time Fox had learned that the 
 argument which he had founded on it was in the highest de- 
 gree unpalatable both to Parliament and to the nation ; and 
 for a moment he sought to modif}' it by an explanation that, 
 though he had claimed for the Prince " the naked right, he 
 had not by that expression intended to maintain that that right 
 could be reduced into possession without the consent of Par- 
 liament;" an explanation not very reconcilable to common- 
 sense, since, if a right were inherent and indefeasible, Parlia- 
 ment could not, without absolute tyranny, refuse to sanction 
 its exercise ; and, in fact, his coadjutor, Sheridan, on the very 
 same evening, re-asserted his original doctrine in, if possible, 
 still more explicit terms, warning the minister " of the danger 
 of provoking the Prince to assert his right," while a still greater 
 man (Burke) declared that " the minister had taken up an at- 
 titude on the question tantamount to that of setting himself 
 up as a competitor to the Prince." Such inconsiderate vio- 
 lence gave a great advantage to Pitt, one of whose most useful 
 characteristics as a debater was a readiness and presence of 
 mind that nothing could discompose. He repelled such men- 
 aces and imputations with an equally lofty scorn, and, after a 
 few necessary preliminaries, brought forward a series of resolu- 
 tions, one of which declared the fact of the sovereign's illness, 
 and consequent incapacity ; a second affirmed it to be the right 
 and duty of the two Houses of Parliament to provide the 
 means for supplying the defect in the royal authority ; and a 
 third imposed on the Houses the task of deciding on the mode 
 in which the royal assent necessary to give their resolutions 
 the authority of law should be signified. It was impossible to 
 object to the first; but the second was stubbornly contested 
 by the Opposition, the chiefs of the Coalition Ministry once 
 more fighting side by side ; though Lord North contented him- 
 self with arguing that the affirmation of the right and duty 
 of Parliament was a needless raising of a divsputable point, and 
 moving, therefore, that the committee should report progress, 
 
136 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 as the recognized mode of shelving it. Fox, however, carried 
 away by the heat of debate, returned to the assertion of the 
 doctrine of absolute right, overlooking his subsequent modifi- 
 cation of it, and again gave Pitt the advantage, by condescend- 
 ing to impugn his motives for proposing the resolution, as be- 
 ing inspired, not by a zeal for the constitution, but by a con- 
 sciousness that he did not deserve the confidence of the Prince, 
 and, therefore, anticipated his instant dismissal by the Regent. 
 The re-affirmation of the Prince's inherent right was, indeed, 
 necessary to Fox as the foundation for the objections which he 
 took to other parts of Pitt's scheme. For the minister, while 
 admitting to its full extent the irresistible claim which the 
 Prince of Wales possessed to the preference of Parliament for 
 the Regency, proposed at the same time to impose certain lim- 
 itations on his exercise of the authority, so long as there was a 
 reasonable hope of his royal father's recovery. He was not to 
 have the power to create peerages, nor to alienate the property 
 of the crown, nor to grant offices in reversion ; and, as the 
 Queen was to have the care of his Majesty's person, she also 
 was to have the appointment of all the offices in the royal 
 household. Fox, on the other hand, objected with extreme 
 earnestness to the impropriety of imposing any limitations 
 whatever on the power of the Regent; and then the question 
 whether the Prince was to derive his right to the Regency from 
 the authority of Parliament, or from his natural position and 
 inalienable preceding right as his father's heir, became one of 
 practical importance. If the Parliament had the right to con- 
 fer authority, it had clearly the right to limit the authority it 
 conferred. If the Prince had an indefeasible right to the Re- 
 gency, independently of the will of Parliament, then Parlia- 
 ment could have no pretence to limit or restrain the exercise 
 of an authority which in no degree flowed from itself. Fox, 
 indeed, took another objection to the imposing of limitations 
 to the authority to be intrusted to the Regent, contending that 
 this would be to create a power unknown to the constitution — 
 a person in the situation of King without regal power. But, 
 not to mention precedents drawn from the reigns of Edward 
 III., Richard IT., and Henry VL, in the twenty-fourth year of 
 
BUKKE DENOUNCES THE MINISTER'S PEOPOSAL. 137 
 
 the very last reign, George IL, on the death of his son, the fa- 
 ther of the present King, had enjoined the Parliament to pro- 
 vide for the government, in the case of his own death, while 
 the heir was still a minor, recommending to them the appoint- 
 ment of the Princess Dowager of Wales as Regent, " with such 
 powers and limitations as might appear expedient." And, in 
 conformity with his desire, the Parliament had appointed the 
 Princess Regent, with a Council of Regency to assist her ; and 
 had enacted that " several portions of the regal power " should 
 be withheld from the Regent, if she could not obtain the con- 
 sent of the Council thus appointed.* 
 
 This part of the case was so plain, that when, after the dif- 
 ferent resolutions proposed by Pitt had been adopted in both 
 Houses, Fox insisted that, instead of proceeding by a bill to 
 create a Regency, and to appoint the Prince of Wales Regent, 
 the only course which could be adopted with propriety would 
 be to present an address to the Prince, to entreat him to as- 
 sume the government, he failed to induce the House to agree 
 with him ; and finally, as if he were determined to find a bat- 
 tle-field in every clause, he made a vigorous resistance to the 
 expedient by which Pitt proposed that the formal royal assent 
 which was necessary to make the bill law should be given. 
 Fox, on one occasion, had gone the length of denying that the 
 two Houses had any right to be regarded as a Parliament while 
 the King, an essential part of Parliament, was incapacitated. 
 But such an objection could have had no force, even in the 
 mind of him who raised it, since the proceedings of the two 
 Convention Parliaments of 1660 and 1689 labored under a 
 similar defect ; and yet their acts had been recognized as valid, 
 and ratified by subsequent Parliaments. And now, in refer- 
 ence to the expedient proposed by the minister, that the two 
 Houses should empower and authorize the Lord Chancellor to 
 aflBx the Great Seal to the bill, Burke, with great, but for him 
 not unusual, violence, denounced both the proposal and the 
 Chancellor, declaring that such a step would be the setting up 
 of a phantom of sovereignty, a puppet, an idol, an idiot, to 
 
 * "Parliamentary History," xxvii., 803 — speech of Mr. Hardiuge, one 
 of the Welsh judges, and M.P. for Old Sarum. 
 
138 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 which he disclaimed all allegiance. A more perilous amend- 
 ment was one proposed to another clause by Mr. Rolle, enact- 
 ing that if the Regent should marry a Roman Catholic his au- 
 thority should cease. Since the Bill of Rights, as we have 
 seen, forbade a sovereign to marry a Roman Catholic without 
 incurring the forfeiture of his crown, it was evidently reasona- 
 ble that the same restriction should be imposed on every Re- 
 gent ; but it was hard at the moment altogether to dissociate 
 such a clause from the discussions of the preceding year ; and 
 Mr. Rolle endeavored to give the clause a more pointed mean- 
 ing by an amendment to enact that the forfeiture should be 
 incurred by the mere celebration of any marriage ceremony, 
 whether the marriage thus performed were legal and valid or 
 not. His amendment, however, was unanimously rejected. The 
 bill was passed without alteration by the House of Commons ; 
 the Prince, while protesting in an elaborate and most able letter, 
 drawn up for him by Burke, against the restrictions imposed 
 by the bill, nevertheless consented to sacrifice his own judg- 
 ment to the general good of the kingdom, and to accept the 
 authority, limited as it was. And by the middle of February 
 the bill was sent up to the House of Lords. There Lord Cam- 
 den had charge of it, and his position as a former Chancellor 
 gave irresistible weight to his opinion that the mode proposed 
 to give the final sanction to the bill was strictly in accord- 
 ance with the spirit and practice of the constitution. The 
 point with whicli he dealt was the previous one, how Parlia- 
 ment, which was to pass the bill, was to be opened, for, " cir- 
 cumstanced as it was, Parliament could not at present take a 
 single step." The law, as he put it, declared that the King 
 must be present, either in person or by a representative. When 
 he could not attend personally, the legal and constitutional 
 process was to issue letters-patent under the Great Seal. In 
 the present dilemma, therefore, he recommended that the two 
 Houses should direct letters - patent to be issued under the 
 Great Seal, authorizing commissioners to open Parliament in 
 the name of his Majesty. He " must use the liberty to say 
 that those who treated this proposal with ridicule were igno- 
 rant of the laws of their country. A fiction it might be term- 
 
EECOVERY OF THE ROYAL PATIENT. 139 
 
 ed, but it was a fiction admirably calculated to preserve the 
 constitution, and, by adopting its forms, to preserve its sub- 
 stance." The authority of the Great Seal he explained to be 
 such that, " even if the Lord Chancellor, by caprice, put it to 
 any commission, it could not afterward be questioned ;" and 
 he adduced a precedent of a very similar character to the course 
 now proposed, which occurred " at the commencement of the 
 reign of Henry YL, when, the sovereign being an infant of 
 nine months old, the Great Seal was placed in his hand, and it 
 was supposed to be given to him by the Master of the Kolls, 
 whereupon many commissions were sealed by it, and the gov- 
 ernment was carried on under its authority." That precedent, 
 he reminded the peers, had been followed as recently as the 
 year 1754, when, during an illness of George IL, Lord Chan- 
 cellor Hardvvicke aflSxed the Great Seal to a commission for 
 opening a session of Parliament. And, finally, he concluded by 
 moving, " That it is expedient and necessary that letters-patent 
 for opening the Parliament should pass under the Great Seal.".* 
 The motion was carried, and Parliament was opened in ac- 
 cordance with it ; and, if it had been necessary, the same ex- 
 pedient would have sufficed to give the requisite assent to the 
 Regency Bill, a necessity which was escaped by the fortunate 
 recovery of the royal patient, which was announced by his medi- 
 cal advisers a day or two before that fixed for the third reading 
 of the bill in the House of Lords. 
 
 Though the question was thus left undetermined for the mo- 
 ment, it was revived twenty-two years afterward, when the same 
 sovereign was attacked by a recurrence of the same disease, 
 and the existing ministry, then presided over by Mr. Perceval, 
 brought forward a Regency Bill almost identical with that 
 which on this occasion had been framed by Mr. Pitt ; and the 
 Opposition, led by Lord Grey and Sir Samuel Romilly, raised 
 as nearly as possible the same objections to it which were now 
 urged by Fox and his adherents. The ministerial measure was, 
 however, again supported by considerable majorities; so that 
 the course proposed by Mr. Pitt on this occasion may be said 
 
 * 1 take this report, or abstract, of Lord Camden's speech from the 
 "Lives of the Chancellors," c. cxlvii. 
 
140 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 to have received the sanction of two Parliaments assembled and 
 sitting under widely different circumstances ; and may, there- 
 fore, be taken as having established the rule which will be 
 adopted if such an emergency should, unfortunately, arise here- 
 after. And indeed, though the propriety of Pitt's proposals has, 
 as was natural, been discussed by every historical and political 
 writer who has dealt with the history of that time, there has 
 been a general concurrence of opinion in favor of that states- 
 man's measure. Lord John Russell, while giving a document, 
 entitled " Materials for a Pamphlet," in which he recognizes 
 the handwriting of Lord Loughborough, and which "contains 
 the grounds of the opinion advanced by him, and adopted by 
 Mr. Fox, that, from the moment the two Houses of Parliament 
 declared the King unable to exercise his royal authority, a right 
 to exercise that authority attached to the Prince of Wales," 
 does not suppress his own opinion of the " erroneousness of 
 this or any other doctrine that attributes to any individual or 
 any constituted authority existing in the state a strict or legal 
 right to claim or to dispose of the royal authority while the 
 King is alive, but incapable of exercising it."* 
 
 The only writer, as far as I am aware, who advocates the op- 
 posite view is Lord Campbell, who, after quoting the speech of 
 Lord Camden, from which extracts have been made, comments 
 on it, and on the whole transaction, in the following terms : 
 " From the course then adopted and carried through, 1 presume 
 it is now to be considered part of our constitution that if ever, 
 during the natural life of the sovereign, he is unable by mental 
 disease personally to exercise the royal functions, the deficien- 
 cy is to be supplied by the two Houses of Parliament, who, in 
 their discretion, will probably elect the heir-apparent Regent, 
 under such restrictions as they may please to propose, but who 
 may prefer the head of the ruling faction, and at once vest in 
 him all the prerogatives of the crown. On the two occasions 
 referred to in the reign of George IH., the next heir being at 
 enmity with the King and his ministers, this was considered 
 the loyal and courtly doctrine ; and, from its apparent advance- 
 
 * "Memorials of Fox," ii., 292. 
 
LORD CAMPBELL ON THE REGENCY. 141 
 
 merit of the rights of Parliament, there was no difficulty in 
 casting odium on those who opposed it. But I must avow 
 that my deliberate opinion coincides with that of Burke, Fox, 
 and Erskine, who pronounced it to be unsupported by any 
 precedent, and to be in accordance with the principles of the 
 Polish, not the English, monarchy. The two Houses of Parlia- 
 ment would be the proper tribunal to pronounce that the sov- 
 ereign is unable to act; but then, as if he were naturally as 
 well as civilly dead, the next heir ought of right to assume the 
 government as Regent, ever ready to lay it down on the sover- 
 eign's restoration to reason, in the same way as our Lady Vic- 
 toria would have returned to a private station if, after her ac- 
 cession, there had appeared posthumous issue of William IV. 
 by his queen. It is easy to point out possible abuses by the 
 next heir as Regent, to the prejudice of the living sovereign ; 
 but there may be greater abuses of the power of election im- 
 puted to the two Houses, whereby a change of dynasty might 
 be effected. I conceive, therefore, that the Irish Parliament* 
 in 1789 acted more constitutionally in acknowledging the right 
 of the next heir, in scouting the fiction of a commission or 
 royal assent from the insane sovereign, and in addressing the 
 Prince of Wales to take on himself the government as Regent." 
 Though the sneers at the possibility of Parliament prefer- 
 ring " the head of the ruling faction " to the heir-apparent be 
 hardly consistent with the impartial candor which is one of the 
 most imperative duties of an historical critic, and though the 
 allusion to the principles of the Polish monarchy be not very 
 intelligible, yet no one will refuse to attach due weight to the 
 deliberate opinion of one who won for himself so high a pro- 
 fessional reputation as Lord Campbell. But, with all respect 
 to his legal rank, we may venture to doubt whether he has not 
 laid down as law, speaking as a literary man and an historian, 
 a doctrine which he would not have entertained as a judge. 
 For, if we consider the common law of the kingdom, it is cer- 
 tain that, in the case of subjects, if a man becomes deranged, 
 his next heir does not at once enter on his property "as if 
 
 * The proceedings of the Irish Parliament ou this occasion will be 
 mentioned in the next chapter. 
 
142 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 be were naturally as well as civilly dead." And if, as in sucli 
 cases is notoriously the practice, the Court of Chancery ap- 
 points a guardian of the lunatic's property, analogy would seem 
 to require that the Houses of Parliament, as the only body 
 which can possibly claim authority in such a matter, should ex- 
 ercise a similar power in providing for the proper management 
 of the government to that which the law court would exercise 
 in providing for the proper management of an estate ; and that, 
 therefore, the principles of constitutional* statesmanship, which 
 is deeply interested in upholding the predominant authority of 
 Parliament, must justify the assertion of the ministers that the 
 two Houses bad the entire and sole right to make regulations 
 for the government of the kingdom during the incapacity of 
 the sovereign ; and that the next heir, even when a son of full 
 age, can have no more right to succeed to his father's royal 
 authority in bis lifetime than, if that father were a subject, be 
 would have to succeed to his estate. 
 
 The opposite doctrine would seem to impugn the legality 
 of the whole series of transactions which placed William and 
 Mary on the throne. The admission of an indefeasible right 
 of the heir-apparent would have borne a perilous resemblance 
 to a recognition of that divine right, every pretension to which 
 the Revolution of 1688 bad extinguished. If, again, as Fox 
 and his followers at one time endeavored to argue, the Houses 
 in 1789 had no right to the name or power of a Parliament, 
 because the King had no part in their meetings, the convention 
 that sat a century before (as, indeed, was admitted) was certain- 
 ly far less entitled to that name or power, for it had not only 
 never been called into existence by a King, but was assembled 
 in direct defiance of the King. Similarly, it is admitted that 
 the body which invited Charles II. to return and resume his 
 
 * Mr. Hallam (iii., 144, ed. 1832) gives a definition of the term " uncon- 
 stitutional" which seems rather singular: ^'Bj^ unconstitutional, as dis- 
 tinguished from 'illegal,' I mean a novelty of much importance, tending 
 to endanger the established laws." May not the term rather be regard- 
 ed as referring to a distinct class of acts — to those at variance with the 
 recognized spirit of the constitution or principles of government, with 
 the preservation of the liberties of the people, as expressed or implied in 
 the various charters, etc., but not forbidden by the express terms of any 
 statute ? 
 
OUTBREAK OP THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 143 
 
 autliority was equally destitute of the validity whicli could 
 only be given by a royal summons. Yet both these bodies 
 had performed actions of greater importance than that which 
 was looked for from this Parliament. The one had abolished 
 the existing and usurping government, and restored to his 
 kingdom a King who had been long an exile. The other had, 
 as it were, passed sentence on the existing sovereign, on grounds 
 which confessedly will not bear a strict examination, and had 
 conferred the crown on a prince who had no hereditary claim 
 to the title. The justification of both acts was necessity. Sa- 
 lus regni suprema Lex. And the necessity was clearly more 
 urgent in the present case than in either of the preceding in- 
 stances. For, unless the Parliament interfered to create an au- 
 thority, there was absolutely none in existence which was capa- 
 ble of acting. It should also be remembered that this Parlia- 
 ment of 1789, though not opened for the session by the King, 
 had been originally elected in obedience to his order, and had 
 been prorogued by his proclamation to the day of meeting;"^ 
 and, though the opening of a session by a speech from the 
 throne is the usual form for the commencement of its proceed- 
 ings, it may be doubted whether it be so indispensable a part 
 of them that none of their acts are valid without it. 
 
 The breaking out of the French Revolution, and the degree 
 in which, in spite of all its atrocities and horrors, the revolu- 
 tionary spirit for a time infected a large party in England, 
 prevented Pitt from reviving the plan of Reform which he had 
 framed with such care and genius for organization, and in 
 which, though defeated in Parliament, both before and after 
 he became minister, he had hitherto continued to cherish the 
 hope of eventually succeeding. But when clubs and societies, 
 where the most revolutionary and seditious doctrines were 
 openly broached, were springing up in London and other large 
 towns, and unscrupulous demagogues by speeches and pam- 
 phlets were busily disseminating theories which tended to 
 the subversion of all legitimate authority, he not unnatural- 
 
 * The entry in the "Parliamentary History," November 20, 1788, is: 
 "Both Houses met pursuant to the last prorogation. Later meetings 
 were in consequence of successive adjournments." 
 
144 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 ly thought it no longer seasonable to invite a discussion of 
 schemes which would be supported in many quarters only, to 
 quote his own words, " as a stepping-stone to ulterior objects, 
 which they dared not avow till their power of carrying them 
 into effect should be by this first acquisition secured." But 
 the alarm which the spread of revolutionary ideas excited in 
 his mind was displayed, not only passively in this abstention 
 from the advocacy of measures the expediency of which must 
 at all times in some degree depend on the tone of their intro- 
 duction, but also in active measures of repression, some of 
 which were not, indeed, unwarranted by precedent, but others 
 of which can hardly be denied to have been serious inroads on 
 the constitution, infringements of the freedom of opinion and 
 discussion to which all Englishmen are entitled, and one of 
 which was, to say the least, a very perilous extension of a law 
 already sufficiently severe, the statute of treason. If the French 
 had been content with the overthrow of their own government 
 and institutions, much as we should have lamented the indis- 
 n criminate rashness and abhorred the atrocities with which their 
 design was carried out, we should still have adhered to the un- 
 questionable maxim, that no nation is justified in interfering 
 in the internal affairs of another. But the Jacobin and Giron- 
 din demagogues, who had now the undisputed sway in Paris, 
 did not limit their views to their own country, but openly de- 
 clared themselves the enemies of all established governments 
 in every country ; and the Convention passed a formal resolu- 
 tion in which they proffered " fraternity and assistance " to 
 every people which might be inclined to rise against their gov- 
 ernments. Their resolutions were officially communicated to 
 the sympathizing societies in England, and emissaries were se- 
 cretly encouraged to cross the Channel in the hope of gaining 
 converts. Nor were their exertions barren. Two men were 
 convicted in Scotland of a plot to seize Edinburgh Castle, to 
 massacre the garrison, to imprison the judges, and to rise in 
 arms to compel the government to a change of policy. In 
 London the King was fired at on his way to open Parliament, 
 and on his return his carriage was attacked by a furious mob, 
 and was only protected from serious injury by a troop of the 
 
LOED GBENVILLE's ALIEN BILL. 145 
 
 Life Guards. Such outrages proved the existence of a new 
 danger, against which no previous government had ever been 
 called on to provide, and such as, in the opinion of the cabinet, 
 could only be met by novel measures of precaution. 
 
 The first was directed against the foreign propagators of 
 revolution. The resolutions of the Convention had been pro- 
 mulgated in November, 1792 ; and at the meeting of Parlia- 
 ment in December, Lord Grenville, as Foreign Secretary of 
 State, introduced in the House of Lords an alien bill, to enable 
 the government to deal in a summary manner with any foreign 
 visitors whose conduct or character might seem to call for its 
 interference. It provided that all foreigners who had arrived 
 in the kingdom since the preceding January should give in a 
 statement of their names and residences ; that any one who 
 should arrive in future should furnish an account of his name, 
 his station in life, and his object in visiting England ; that the 
 King, by proclamation, order in Council, or sign-manual, might 
 direct all foreigners to reside in such districts as might be 
 thought suitable; that no one might quit the residence in 
 which he first settled without a passport; and that the Secre- 
 tary of State might order any suspected foreigner to quit the 
 kingdom instantly. 
 
 The act was to be in operation for twelve months, and Lord 
 Grenville, in introducing it, though he admitted it to be a 
 measure of "rather a novel nature," explained at the same 
 time that it was so far from being new in the powers which 
 it gave, that Magna Charta distinctly recognized " the power 
 and right of the crown to prevent foreigners from entering or 
 residing within the realm." All that was really new was the 
 defining of the manner in which that power should be exer- 
 cised, since it had been so rarely needed that doubts might 
 exist as to the proper mode of putting it in action. The bill, 
 which was adopted in both Houses by large majorities, is re- 
 markable, among other circumstances, from the fact that its 
 discussion furnished the first instance of a public display of 
 the difference between the two sections of the Opposition, sub- 
 sequently described by Burke in one of his most celebrated 
 pamphlets as the Old and New Whigs ; those whom he called 
 
 7 
 
146 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the Old Whigs (the Duke of Portland, Sir Gilbert Elliott, Mr. 
 Windham, not to mention Burke himself) earnestly support- 
 ing it, while Lord Lansdowne, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. 
 Grey resisted it with equal zeal. Lord Lansdowne took the 
 ground that it was a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; 
 while Fox and Grey denounced it, in more general terms, as 
 a measure " utterly irreconcilable w^ith the principles of the 
 constitution," Mr. Grey apparently referring chiefly to the 
 power given by the bill to the Secretary of State to send any 
 foreigners from the country, which he described as "making 
 the bill a measure of oppression, giving power for the exer- 
 cise of which no man was responsible." Sir Gilbert Elliott's 
 answer was singularly ingenious. He did not deny that the 
 bill conferred additional power on the crown, though not more 
 than was justified by existing circumstances ; but he maintain- 
 ed that the right of giving extraordinary powers to the crown 
 on occasions was so far from being inconsistent with the prin- 
 ciples of the constitution, that to grant extraordinary powers 
 in extraordinary emergencies was a part of it essential to the 
 character of a free government. If such powers were at all 
 times possessed by the crown, its authority would be too great 
 for a free government to co-exist with it; but if such could 
 not be at times conferred on the crown, its authority would 
 be too small for its own safety or that of the people. 
 
 The arguments of the ministers were, no doubt, greatly rec- 
 ommended, both to the Parliament and the people in general, 
 by the notoriety of the fact that foreign agents were in many 
 of our large towns busily, and not unsuccessfully, engaged in 
 propagating what were known as Jacobin doctrines. But, even 
 without that aid, it was clear that every government must, for. 
 the common good of all, be at times of extraordinary emer- 
 gency invested with the power of suspending laws made for 
 ordinary circumstances. And what would be an intolerable 
 evil, if the supreme magistrate took upon himself to exercise 
 it, ceases to be one when the right to exercise it is conferred 
 bv the nation itself in Parliament. If the bill did, as was 
 argued, suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, that statute had been 
 enacted by Parliament, and therefore for Parliament, in a case 
 
THE TRAITOEOUS COBRESPONDENCE BILL. 147 
 
 of necessity, to suspend its operation was clearly within the 
 spirit of the constitution. 
 
 The bills affecting our own fellow-subjects were still more 
 warmly contested. One was known as the Traitorous Corre- 
 spondence Bill, which, according to Lord Campbell, was sug- 
 gested by Lord Loughborough, who had lately become Lord 
 Chancellor. The old law of high-treason, enacted in the reign 
 of Edward IIL, had been in effect greatly mitigated by later 
 statutes, which had made acts to which that character was im- 
 puted more difficult of proof, by a stricter definition of what 
 was admissible evidence, and other safeguards ; and the prac- 
 tice of the courts had by degrees practically reduced the list 
 of treasons enumerated in the old law, indictments for many 
 of the offences contained in it forbearing to assert that the 
 persons accused had incurred the penalty of high-treason. But 
 this new bill greatly enlarged the catalogue. It made it high- 
 treason to hold any correspondence with the French, or to en- 
 ter into any agreement to supply them with commodities of 
 any kind, even such as were not munitions of war, but arti- 
 cles of ordinary merchandise, or to invest any money in the 
 French Funds ; and it enacted farther that any person who, by 
 "any writing, preaching, or malicious and advised speaking," 
 should encourage such designs as the old statute of Edward 
 made treasonable, should be liable to the penalties of high- 
 treason. 
 
 Another bill was designed to check the growing custom of 
 holding public meetings, by providing that no meeting, the 
 object of which was to consider any petition to the King or 
 Parliament, or to deliberate on any alleged grievance, should 
 be held without those who convened it, and who must be 
 householders, giving previous notice of it by public advertise- 
 ment ; and empowering any two justices of the peace, at their 
 own discretion, to declare any such meeting an unlawful as- 
 sembly, and to disperse it by force, if, from the subjects dis- 
 cussed, the language held, or any special circumstances, they 
 should regard it as dangerous. 
 
 Fox, and those who still adhered to him, resisted almost 
 every clause of these different bills. They maintained that 
 
148 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 one of tlie most fundamental maxims of law " in every coun- 
 try calling itself free was, that property was in the highest 
 degree entitled to the protection of the law ; and, if so, that 
 the right of disposing of it or investing it in any manner must 
 be considered under the same protection ;" that any interfer- 
 ence " with ordinary commercial transactions was equally re- 
 pugnant to the spirit of the constitution ;" and, taking a prac- 
 tical view of the question, they warned the minister that such 
 rigorous enactments imposing such extreme penalties would de- 
 feat their own end ; for "it was a general and true maxim, that 
 excess of punishment for a crime brings impunity along with 
 it ; and that no jury would ever find a verdict which would 
 doom a fellow-creature to death for selling a yard of cloth and 
 sending it to France." They protested, too, against inflicting 
 on words, whether written or spoken, penalties which had hith- 
 erto been confined to overt acts. And the clauses conferring 
 power on magistrates to prevent or disperse public meetings 
 encountered still more vehement opposition ; Fox insisting, 
 with great eloquence, that " public meetings for the discussion 
 of public subjects were not only lawful, but agreeable to the 
 very essence of the constitution ; that, indeed, to them, under 
 that constitution, most of the liberties which Englishmen now 
 enjoyed were particularly owing." The people, he maintained, 
 had a right to discuss their grievances. " They had an inalien- 
 able right to complain by petition, and to remonstrate to either 
 House of Parliament, or to the King ; and to make two mag- 
 istrates, who might be strong partisans, irresponsible judges 
 whether anything said or done at a meeting had a tendency to 
 encourage sedition, was to say that a free constitution was no 
 longer suitable to us." Pitt justified these measures, partly on 
 the ground of the special and unprecedented danger of the 
 times, as proved by the late attempt on the King's life, and 
 partly by the open avowal of republican doctrines made at the 
 meetings of different societies ; partly, also, on the temporary 
 character of the measures, since in each bill a period was fixed 
 after which its operation should expire. And he argued, far- 
 ther, that, as many of the actions specified in these bills as se- 
 ditious or treasonable were by many lawyers considered capa- 
 
PITT AND THE SECRET SOCIETIES. 149 
 
 Lie of being reached by statutes already existing, tliougb not 
 universally understood, it was " humane, not cruel, to remove 
 doubts, and to prevent men from being ensnared by the am- 
 biguity of old laws." 
 
 And in May, 1794, he brought in another bill, founded on 
 the report of a secret committee which, in compliance with a 
 royal message, the House of Commons had appointed to in- 
 vestigate the proceedings and objects of certain societies which 
 were known to exist in different parts of the kingdom. In 
 obedience to a Secretary of State's warrant, founded on sworn 
 informations, their books and papers had been seized, and, hav- 
 ing been sealed up, were now laid before the House, with the 
 report of the committee that they proved that several of the 
 societies which they named had, ever since the end of the year 
 1791, been uniformly pursuing a settled design for the subver- 
 sion of the constitution ; one society, in particular, having ap- 
 proved a plan for assembling a Convention, in imitation of the 
 French Assembly sitting under that title, in order to overturn 
 the established government, and to wrest from the Parliament 
 the power which the constitution placed in its hands. 
 
 To prevent the dissemination of such principles, and to de- 
 feat such schemes, Pitt now asked leave to bring in a bill to 
 empower his Majesty — acting, of course, through the Secretary 
 of State — to secure and detain such persons as he should sus- 
 pect of conspiring against the King's person and government. 
 He admitted that the power which he thus proposed to confer 
 amounted to a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in every 
 part of the United Kingdom ; nor did he deny that it was an 
 unusually strong measure, but he contended that it was one 
 justified by absolute necessity, by the manifest danger of such 
 a conspiracy as the committee had aflSrmed to exist to the tran- 
 quillity of the nation and the safety of the government. 
 
 Fox, it may almost be said as a matter of course, opposed 
 the introduction of any such measure ', but his opposition was 
 hardly marked by his usual force of argument. He was ham- 
 pered by the impossibility of denying either the existence of 
 the societies which the committee and the minister had men- 
 tioned, or the dangerous character of some of their designs; 
 
150 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 but he objected to the measures of repression which were pro- 
 posed, partly o.n the absence of all attempts at concealment on 
 the part of the promoters of these societies, partly on the con- 
 temptible character of the Convention which it was designed 
 to summon, and the impossibility that such an assembly should 
 have the slio-htest influence. He even made their avowed hos- 
 tility to the constitution a plea for a paneg'yric on that consti- 
 tution, and on the loyal attachment to it evinced by the vast 
 majority of the people ; and from that he proceeded to found 
 a fresh argument against the proposed measure, contending 
 that it made a fatal inroad on that very constitution which 
 was so highly valued by the whole nation. He described it as 
 a measure " of infinitely greater mischief than that which it 
 proposed to remedy, since it would give the executive author- 
 ity absolute power over the personal liberty of every individual 
 in the kingdom." He did not deny that a similar measure had 
 been enacted under William HI., again in 1715, and again in 
 1745; but he contended that "the present peril bore no re- 
 semblance to the dangers of those times. This measure went 
 to overturn the very corner-stone of the constitution, and if it 
 passed, there was an end of the constitution of England." The 
 bill was passed in both Houses by very large majorities.* It 
 was originally enacted for six months only, but was from time 
 to time renewed till the end of the century. 
 
 If we take a general survey of all these measures together, 
 as parts of one great defensive scheme for the preservation of 
 the public tranquillity and the general safety of the empire, 
 it may, probably, be thought that, though undoubtedly suspen- 
 sions of the constitution, they are not open to the charge of 
 being unconstitutional, since they were enacted, not only for 
 the welfare of the people, but with their consent and concur- 
 rence, legitimately signified by their representatives in Parlia- 
 ment. It is scarcely consistent with sound reason to contend 
 that the habeas corpus, which had been enacted by Parliament, 
 could not be suspended by the authority which had enacted 
 it ; that the constitution, which exists for the benefit of the 
 
 * In the Commons by 183 to 33 ; in the Lords by 119 to 11. 
 
IMPOLITIC COUNSEL OF THE CHANCELLOR. 151 
 
 people, could not be suspended by the people ; or to deny, if 
 it was in appearance transgressed by these enactments, that it 
 was yet transgressed by strictly constitutional acts, by the de- 
 cision of the Parliament, to whose power the constitution pre- 
 scribes no limits. 
 
 But it is not sufficient that in this point of view these meas- 
 ures may have been defensible. In judging of their statesman- 
 ship, it is almost equally to be considered whether they were 
 expedient and politic, whether the emergency or necessity were 
 such as to justify such rigorous methods of repression. It was 
 fairly open to doubt whether some of them, and especially the 
 .Traitorous Correspondence and the Seditious Meetings Bills, 
 did not treat as treasonable acts which did not go beyond sedi- 
 tion, and whether so to treat them were not to invest them 
 with an importance which did not belong to them. And on 
 this part of the question the general judgment has, we think, 
 been unfavorable to the government ; and it has been common- 
 ly allowed that the Chancellor, whose advice on legal subjects 
 the Prime- minister naturally took for his guide, gave him im- 
 politic counsel. In fact, it is well known that these two acts, 
 to a great extent, failed in their object through their excessive 
 severity, several juries having refused to convict persons who 
 were prosecuted for treason, who would certainly not have 
 escaped had they only been indicted for sedition ; and it is de- 
 serving of remark that these two bills were not regarded with 
 favor by the King himself, if the anecdote — which seems to 
 rest on undeniable authority — be true, that he expressed satis- 
 faction at the acquittal of some prisoners, on the ground that 
 almost any evil would be more tolerable than that of putting 
 men to death " for constructive treason." It must therefore, 
 probably, be affirmed that these two acts, the Treason Act and 
 the Seditious Meetings Act, went beyond the necessity of the 
 case ; that they were not only violations of the constitution — 
 which, when the measures are temporary, as these were, are not 
 always indefensible — but that they were superfluous, unjust, 
 and impolitic; superfluous, when they proposed to deal with 
 acts already visitable with punishment by the ancient laws of 
 the kingdom ; unjust, when they created new classes of offences; 
 
152 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 and impolitic, as exciting that kind of disapproval of the acts 
 of government which in many minds has a tendency to excite 
 a spirit of discontent with and resistance to legitimate author- 
 ity. And, indeed, it must be inferred that such was the light 
 in which these measures were regarded by a statesman who in 
 his general policy was proud to acknowledge himself Mr. Pitt's 
 pupil, as he was also the most skilful and successful of his 
 more immediate successors. Twenty-five years afterward the 
 distress caused by the reaction inevitably consequent on the 
 termination of twenty years of war produced a political excite- 
 ment scarcely inferior to that with which Pitt had now to deal, 
 and seditious societies and meetings scarcely less formidable ; 
 but, as we shall see, Lord Liverpool, taking warning, perhaps, 
 from the mistake into which Mr. Pitt was led on this occasion, 
 though compelled to bring forward new and stern measures of 
 repression, and even to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act for a 
 time, kept strictly within the lines of constitutional precedent, 
 and was careful to avoid confounding sedition with treason. 
 
THE CONPITIONS AFFECTING IRELAND. 153 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Affairs of Ireland. — Condition of the Irish Parliament. — The Octen- 
 nial Bill. — The Penal Laws. — Non-residence of the Lord-lieutenant. — 
 Influence of the American War on Ireland. — Enrolment of the Volun- 
 teers. — Concession of all the Demands of Ireland. — Violence of the Vol- 
 unteers. — Their Convention. — Violence of the Opposition in Parlia- 
 ment: Mr. Brownlow, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Flood. — Pitt's Propositions 
 Fail. — Fitzgibbon's Conspiracy Bill. — Eegency Question. — Kecovery of 
 the King. — Question of a Legislative Union. — Establishment of May- 
 nooth College. — Lord Edward Fitzgerald. — Arguments for and against 
 the Union. — It passes the Irish Parliament. — Details of the Measure. — 
 General Character of the Union. — Circumstances which Prevented its 
 Completeness. 
 
 In describing the condition of Ireland and the feelings of its 
 people, in the latter years of the reign of George II., Mr. Hal- 
 lara has fixed on the year 1753 as that in which the Irish 
 Parliament first began to give vent to aspirations for equality 
 vi^ith the English Parliament in audible complaints ; and the 
 Irish House of Commons, finding the kingdom in the almost 
 unprecedented condition of having "a surplus revenue after the 
 payment of all charges," took steps to vindicate that equality 
 by a sort of appropriation bill. 
 
 There were, however, three fundamental differences between 
 the Parliaments of the two countries, which, above all others, 
 stood in the way of such equality as the Irish patriots desired : 
 the first, that by a law as old as the time of Henry VII., and 
 called sometimes the Statute of Drogheda, from the name of 
 the town in which it was first promulgated, and sometimes 
 Poynings' Act, from the name of Sir Henry Poynings, the 
 Lord-deputy at the time, no bili could be introduced into the 
 Irish Parliament till it had received the sanction of the King 
 and Privy Council in England ; the second, that the Parlia- 
 ment lasted for the entire life of the King who had summoned 
 it — a regulation which caused a seat in the House of Commons 
 to be regarded almost as a possession for life, and consequently 
 
154 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 enormously increased the influence of the patrons of boroughs, 
 some of whom could return a number of members such as the 
 mightiest borough monger in England could never aspire to 
 equal.* The third difference, of scarcely inferior importance, 
 was, that the Parliament only sat in alternate, years. But, 
 though these arrangements suited the patrons and the mem- 
 bers of the House of Commons, it was not strange that the 
 constituencies, whose power over their representatives was al- 
 most extinguished by them, regarded them with less com- 
 placency, and, at the general election which was the conse- 
 quence of the accession of George III., pledges were very gen- 
 erally exacted from the candidates that, if elected, they would 
 endeavor to procure the passing of a septennial act like that 
 which had been the law in England ever since the early years 
 of George I, A bill with that object was introduced in 1761, 
 and reported on not unfavorably as to its principle by the Eng- 
 lish law advisers to whom the Privy Council referred it. But, 
 as if it had been designed to exemplify in the strongest possi- 
 ble manner the national propensity for making blunders, it con- 
 tained one clause which rendered it not only impracticable but 
 ridiculous. The clause provided that no member should take 
 his seat or vote till his qualification had been proved before the 
 Speaker in a full house. But the Speaker could not be chosen 
 till the members had established their right of voting, so that 
 the whole was brought to a dead-lock, and the bill, if passed, 
 could never have been carried out. 
 
 In the ministry of 1767, .however — that of the Duke of 
 Grafton and Lord Chatham — Lord Halifax was replaced at 
 Dublin Castle by Lord Townsend, who, among his other good 
 qualities, deserves specially honorable mention as the first Lord- 
 lieutenant who made residence in Dublin his rule on principle ; 
 for till very lately non-residence had been the rule and residence 
 the exception, a fact which is of itself a melancholy but all- 
 suSicient proof of the absolute indifference to Irish interests 
 
 * Mr. Froude says four <?reat families — the Fitzgeralds of Kildare, the 
 Boyles, the Ponsonbys, and the Beresfords — returned a majority of the 
 House of Commons ("English in Ireland," ii., 5); and besides those 
 peers, the arrangement for the Union proved tliat the influence of the 
 Loftuses and the Hills fell little short of them. 
 
INJUSTICE AND FOLLY TOWARD IRELAND. 155 
 
 shown by all classes of English statesmen. And under his gov- 
 ernment a bill for shortening Parliaments was passed, though 
 it fixed the possible duration of each Parliament at eight years 
 instead of seven, the variation being made to prevent a general 
 election from being held at the same time in both countries, 
 but, according to common belief, solely in order to keep up a 
 mark of difference between the Irish and English Parliaments. 
 And those who entertained this suspicion fancied they saw a 
 confirmation of it in the retention of the regulation that the 
 Irish Parliament should only sit in alternate years, a practice 
 wholly inconsistent with any proper idea of the duties and 
 privileges of a Parliament such as prevailed on this side of the 
 Channel ; since a Parliament whose sessions were thus inter- 
 mittent could not possibly exercise that degree of supervision 
 over the revenue, either in its collection or its expenditure, 
 which is among its most important duties. And the contin- 
 ued maintenance of this practice must be regarded farther as a 
 proof that the English legislators had not yet learned to con- 
 sider Ireland as an integral part of the kingdom, entitled in ev- 
 ery particular to equal rights with England and Scotland. In- 
 deed, it is impossible for any Englishman to contemplate the 
 history of the treatment of Ireland by the English legislators, 
 whether Kings, ministers, or Parliaments, for more than a cen- 
 tury and a half, without equal feelings of shame at the injus- 
 tice and wonder at the folly of their conduct. Not only was 
 Ireland denied freedom of trade with England (a denial as 
 inconsistent not only with equity but also with common-sense 
 as if Windsor had been refused free trade with London),* but 
 Irish manufactures were deliberately checked and suppressed 
 to gratify the jealous selfishness of the English manufacturers. 
 Macaulay, in his zeal for the memory of William III., has not 
 scrupled to apologize for, if not to justify, the measures delib- 
 erately sanctioned by that sovereign for the extinction of the 
 Irish woollen manufactures, on the ground that Ireland was 
 
 * Such a system actually had existed in France, where articles of ordi- 
 nary trade could not be transported from one province to another with- 
 out payment of a heavy duty ; but Colbert had abolished that system in 
 France above one hundred years before the time of which we are speaking. 
 
156 'CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 not a sister kingdom, but a colony ; tliat " tlie general rule is, 
 that the English Parliament is competent to legislate for all 
 colonies planted by English subjects, and that no reason ex- 
 isted for considering the case of the colony in Ireland as an 
 exception."* There is, perhaps, no passage in his whole work 
 less to his credit. But, if such was the spirit in which an Eng- 
 lish historian could write of Ireland in the latter half of this 
 present century, it may, perhaps, diminish our wonder at the 
 conduct of our legislators in an earlier generation. 
 
 The penal laws on the subject of religion were also con- 
 ceived and carried out in a spirit of extraordinary rigor and 
 Injustice. By far the larger portion of the Irish population 
 still adhered to the Roman Catholic faith ; but, as far as the 
 negative punishment of restrictions and disabilities could go, 
 its profession was visited as one of the most unpardonable of 
 offences. No Roman Catholic could hold a commission in the 
 army, nor be called to the Bar, nor practise as an attorney ; and 
 when it was found that a desire to devote themselves to the 
 study of the law had led many gentlemen to acknowledge a 
 conversion to Protestantism, a statute was actually passed to 
 require them to prove their sincerity by five years' adherence 
 to their new form of religion before they could be regarded as 
 having washed off the defilement of their old heresy sufficient- 
 ly to be thought worthy to wear a gown in the Four Courts. 
 No Roman Catholic might keep a school ; while a strange re- 
 finement of intolerance had added a statute prohibiting parents 
 from sending their children to Roman Catholic schools in a 
 foreign country. 
 
 And the manner in which the government was carried on 
 was, if possible, worse even than the principle. The almost 
 continual absence of the Lord - lieutenant inevitably left the 
 chief management of the details in the hands of underlings, 
 and the favor of the Castle was only to be acquired by the 
 lowest time-serving, of which those who could influence elec- 
 tions, wealthy and high-born as they for the most part were, 
 were not more innocent than the representatives. No support 
 
 * " History of England," vol. v., c. xxiii., p. 57. 
 
DISCEEDITABLE BEIBERY IN IRELAND. 157 
 
 to government could be looked for from either peer or com- 
 moner unless it were purchased by bribes more or less open, 
 ■which it was equally discreditable to ask and to grant ; for one 
 of the worst fruits of the system which had so long reigned 
 throughout the island was the general demoralization of all 
 classes. Mr. Froude gives George III. himself the credit of be- 
 ing the first person who resolutely desired to see a change of 
 the system, and to " try the experiment whether Ireland might 
 not be managed by open rectitude and real integrity."* But 
 his first efforts were baffled by the carelessness or incompeten- 
 cy of the Viceroys, since it was difficult to find any man of 
 ability who would undertake the office. And for some years 
 things went on with very little change, great lords of different 
 ranks having equally no object but that of controlling the 
 Castle and engrossing the patronage of the government, and in 
 not a few instances of also procuring large grants or pensions 
 for themselves, each seeking to build up an individual influence 
 which no Viceroy could ever have withstood, had they been 
 united instead of being separated by mutual jealousies, which 
 enabled him from time to time to play off one against the 
 other. 
 
 But the war with the North American Colonies, which broke 
 out in 1774, by some of its indirect consequences brought 
 about a great change in the affairs of Ireland. The demand 
 for re-enforcements to the armies engaged in America could 
 only be met by denuding the British islands themselves of their 
 necessary garrisons. No part of them was left so undefended 
 as the Irish coast; and, after a time, the captains of some of 
 the American privateers, learning how little resistance they had 
 to fear, ventured into St. George's Channel, penetrated even 
 into the inland waters, and threatened Carrickfergus and Bel- 
 fast. In matters of domestic policy it was possible to procras- 
 tinate, to defer deciding on relaxations of the penal laws or the 
 removal of trade restrictions, but to delay putting the country 
 into a state of defence against an armed enemy for a single 
 moment was not to be thought of ; yet the government was 
 
 * " The Englisli in Ireland," ii., 39. 
 
158 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 powerless. Of the regular army almost every available man 
 was in, or on his way to, America, and the most absolute ne- 
 cessity, therefore, compelled the Irish to consider themselves 
 as left to their own resources for defence. It was as impossi- 
 ble to levy a force of militia as one of regular troops, for the 
 militia could not be embodied without great expense; and the 
 finances of the whole kingdom had been so mismanaged that 
 money was as hard to procure as men. In this emergency sev- 
 eral gentlemen proposed to the Lord-lieutenant to raise bodies 
 of volunteers. The government, though reluctant to sanction 
 the movement, could see no alternative, since the presence of 
 an armed force of some kind was indispensable for the safety 
 of the island. The movement grew rapidly ; by the summer 
 of 1779 several thousand men were not only under arms, but 
 were being rapidly drilled into a state of efficiency, and had 
 even established such a reputation for strength, that, when in 
 the autumn the same privateers that had been so bold in Bel- 
 fast Lough the year before reached the Irish coast, in the hope 
 of plundering Limerick or Galway, they found the inhabitants 
 of the district well prepared to receive them, and did not vent- 
 ure to attempt a descent on any part of the island. And, when 
 the Parliament met in October, some of the members, who saw 
 in the success that could not be denied to have attended their 
 exertions an irresistible means of strengthening the rising pre- 
 tensions of Ireland to an equality of laws and freedom with 
 England, moved votes of thanks in both Houses to the whole 
 body of Volunteers. They were carried by acclamation, and 
 the Volunteers of the metropolis lined the streets between the 
 Parliament House and the Castle when, according to custom, 
 the members of the two Houses marched in procession to pre- 
 sent their addresses to the Lord-lieutenant. Such a recogni- 
 tion of the power of this new force stimulated those members 
 who claimed in a special degree the title of Friends of Ireland 
 to greater exertion. A wiser government than that of Lord 
 North would have avoided giving occasion for the existence of 
 a force which the utter absence of any other had made masters 
 of the situation. The Volunteers even boasted that they had 
 been called into existence by English misgovernment. In the 
 
CONCESSIONS BY LORD NORTH TO IRELAND. 159 
 
 language of one of tbeir most eloquent advocates, " England 
 had sown her laws like dragons' teeth, and they had sprung 
 up as armed men." 
 
 Ireland began to feel that she was strong, and, not unnatu- 
 rally, desired to avail herself of that strength, which England 
 now could not question, to put forward demands for conces- 
 sions which in common fairness could not well be denied. In 
 1778, when Lord North, in the hope of recovering the alle- 
 giance of the North American Colonies, brought forward what 
 he termed his conciliatory propositions, the Irish members be- 
 gan to press their demand that the advantages thus offered to 
 the Americans should be extended to their own countrymen 
 also; that the fact of the Irish not having rebelled should 
 not be made a plea for treating them worse than those who 
 had; and in the front of all their requests was one for the 
 abolition of those unjust and vexatious duties which shackled 
 their trade and manufactures. But the jealousy of the English 
 and Scotch manufacturers was still as bitter, and, unhappily, 
 still as influential, as it had proved in the time of William III. 
 And, to humor the grasping selfishness of Manchester and 
 Glasgow, Lord North met the demands of the Irish with a 
 refusal of which every w^ord of his speech on the propositions 
 to America was the severest condemnation, and which he 
 sought to mitigate by some new regulations in favor of the 
 linen trade, to which the English and Scotch manufacturers 
 made no objection, since they had no linen factories. The 
 Irish, in despair, had recourse to non- importation agreements, 
 of w^hich the Americans had set the example, binding them- 
 selves not to import nor to use any articles of English or 
 Scotch manufacture with which they could possibly dispense. 
 And the result was, that Lord North yielded to fear what he 
 had refused to justice, and the next year brought in bills to 
 grant the Irish the couimercial equality which they demanded. 
 Some of the most oppressive and vexatious of the penal laws 
 were also relaxed ; and some restrictions which the Navigation 
 Act imposed on commerce with the West Indies were repealed. 
 But, strange to say, the English ministers still clung to one 
 grievance of monstrous injustice, and steadily refused to allow 
 
IGO CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 judicial appointments to be placed on the same footing as in 
 England, and to make the seat of a judge on the bench depend 
 on his own good conduct, instead of on the caprice of a king 
 or a minister. 
 
 But the manifest reluctance with which the English govern- 
 ment had granted this partial relief encouraged the demand 
 for farther concessions. The Irish members, rarely deficient 
 in eloquence or fertility of resource, had been lately re-enforced 
 by a recruit of pre-eminent powers^ whom Lord Charlemont 
 had returned for his borough of Moy, Henry Grattan ; and, 
 led by him, began to insist that the remaining grievances, to 
 the removal of which the nation had a right, would never 
 be extinguished so long as the supreme power of legislation 
 for the country rested with the English and Scotch Parlia- 
 ment ; and that the true remedy was only to be found in the 
 restoration to the Irish Parliament of that independence of 
 which it had been deprived ever since the time of Henry YII. 
 They were encouraged by the visibly increasing weakness of 
 Lord North's administration. Throughout the year 1781 it 
 was evidently tottering to its fall. And on the 2 2d of Febru- 
 ary, 1782, Grattan brought forward in the Irish House of Com- 
 mons a resolution, intended, if carried, to lay the foundation 
 of a bill, " that a claim of any body of men other than the 
 King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland to bind this kingdom 
 is unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance." This resolution 
 aimed at the abolition of Poyriings' Act. Other resolutions 
 demanded the abolition of the " powers exercised by the Privy 
 Council under color of Poynings' Act," and a farther relaxa- 
 tion of the penal laws. So helpless did the government by this 
 time feel itself, that the Attorney-general, who was its spokes- 
 man on this occasion, could not venture to resist the principle 
 of these resolutions, but was contented to elude them for the 
 time by objections taken to some of the details ; and Grattan 
 gave notice of another motion to bring the question to a more 
 definite decision, which he fixed for the 16th of April. 
 
 Before that day came Lord North's government had ceased 
 to exist, and had been replaced by Lord Rockingham's, one 
 most influential member of which was the most distinguished 
 
THE REPEAL OF POYNINGs' ACT. 161 
 
 of living Irishmen, Mr. Burke, who, while in opposition, had 
 always shown himself a warm supporter of the claims of his 
 countrymen, and was not likely to have his ardor in the cause 
 damped by being placed in a situation where he could procure 
 a friendly hearing to his counsels. Once more they had in- 
 creased their demands, requiring, besides the removal of the 
 purely political grievances, a surrender of the right of appeal 
 from the Irish to the English courts of law. But their new 
 masters were inclined to grant everything which seemed requi- 
 site to the establishment of complete equality between the two 
 kingdoms; and though the new ministry was dissolved in a 
 few months by the premature death of its chief, he lived long 
 enough to carry the repeal of Poynings' Act, the retentio-n of 
 which was nov^ admitted to be not only senseless but mischiev- 
 ous, since the existence of a body invested with nominal dig- 
 nity, but practically powerless, was calculated not only to pro- 
 voke discontent, but to furnish a lever for agitation. 
 
 The repeal was, however, nothing less than the establishment 
 of an entirely new constitution in Ireland. The Irish Parlia- 
 ment, the meetings of which had hitherto been a mere form 
 and farce, was installed in a position of absolute independence, 
 to grant money or to make laws, subject to no other condition 
 than that their legislation should be of a character to entitle it 
 to the royal assent, a condition to which every act of the Brit- 
 ish Parliament was likewise and equally liable. "Unhappily, 
 as an Irish patriotic writer exclaims on this occasion, it was 
 written in the book of fate that the felicitv of Ireland should 
 be short-lived." * And a similar shortness of existence was to 
 be the lot of the separate independence of her Parliament. 
 Even while framing instructions for the Lord-lieutenant, in his 
 honest desire to inaugurate a system of just government for 
 Ireland, George III. had warned him on no account to " sum- 
 mon a Parliament without his special command."f And, re- 
 garded by the light of subsequent events, it can hardly be 
 denied that the prohibition displayed an accurate insight into 
 
 * Froude's "English in Ireland," ii., 345. He does not name the au- 
 thor whom he quotes. 
 i Ibid.,u.,42. 
 
162 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the real difficulties of the country, and also into the character 
 of the people themselves as the source of at least some of those 
 difficulties. We ought not to judge its leaders too severely. 
 A nation which has been long kept in bondage, and is suddenly 
 presented with liberty, is hardly more able to bear the change 
 than a man immured for years in a dark dungeon can at once 
 endure the unveiled light of the sun ; and independence had 
 been granted to the Irish too suddenly for it to be probable 
 that they would at once and in every instance exercise it wisely. 
 
 All parties were to blame in different degrees. The first 
 danger came from the Volunteers, who, flushed with self-im- 
 portance, from the belief that it was the imposing show of their 
 strength which had enabled the Parliament to extort Lord 
 Rockingham's concession from the English Houses, now claimed 
 to be masters of the Parliament itself. With the termination 
 of the American war, and the consequent return of the English 
 army to Europe, the reason for their existence had passed 
 away. But they refused to be disbanded, and established a 
 convention of armed delegates, to sit in Dublin during the ses- 
 sion of Parliament, and to overawe the Houses into passing a 
 series of measures which they prescribed, and which included 
 a Parliamentary Reform Bill of a most sweeping character. 
 On this occasion, however, the House of Commons acted with 
 laudable firmness. Led by Mr. Fitzgibbon, a man of great 
 powers, and above all suspicion of corruptibility, it spurned the 
 dictation of an unauthorized body, and rejected the Reform 
 Bill, avowedly on the ground of its being presented to it " un- 
 der the mandate of a military congress ;" and the Convention, 
 finding itself powerless to enforce its mandates, dissolved. 
 
 But the difficulties of the government were not over with 
 the suppression of the Volunteer Convention. The Lord-lieu- 
 tenant had a harder, because a more enduring, contest to en- 
 counter with the Parliament and the patrons of the boroughs. 
 A single act of Parliament may substitute a new law for an old 
 one ; but no one resolution or bill has a magical power to ex- 
 tinguish long habits of jobbery and corruption. Members and 
 patrons alike seemed to regard the late concessions as chiefly 
 valuable on account of the increased value which it enabled 
 
Pitt's scheme of equalization of duties. 163 
 
 them to place on their services to the government; and one 
 cannot read without a feeling of shame that one or two of the 
 bishops, who were wont to be regarded as the proprietors of 
 the seats for their diocesan cities, were not behind the most 
 shameless lay boroughmongers in the resolution they evinced 
 to make a market of their support of the government. The 
 consequence was that the government was unable to feel con- 
 fident of its power to carry any measure except at a price that 
 it was degrading to pay ; while of those few members who 
 were above all suspicion of personal corruption, many were so 
 utterly wrong-headed, and had their minds so filled with un- 
 reasonable jealousy for what they called the honor and dignity 
 of Ireland, and with a consequent distrust of England and of 
 all Englishmen, that their honest folly was even a greater ob- 
 stacle to wise and good government than the mean cunning of 
 the others. There can hardly be a more striking proof or the 
 difiiculties to be overcome by a minister than is furnished by a 
 speech made by a gentleman of the highest character, and of 
 deservedly wide influence in the Northern counties, Mr. Brown- 
 low, of Lurgan, one of the members for Armagh, which is 
 quoted by Mr. Froude.* 
 
 Pitt was painfully conscious of the commercial injustice with 
 which hitherto Ireland had always been treated, and in the very 
 first year of his administration he applied himself to the re- 
 moval of the most mischievous of the grievances of which the 
 Irish merchants complained, adopting to a great extent a scheme 
 which had been put before him by one of the most consider- 
 able gentlemen of that body, which was based on the principle 
 of equalization of duties in both countries. It is unnecessary 
 here to enter into the details of the measure which he intro- 
 duced into the House of Commons. He avowed it to be the 
 commencement of a new system of government for Ireland, " a 
 system of a participation and community of benefits, a system 
 of equality and fairness, which, without tending to aggrandize 
 one portion of the empire or to depress the other, should seek 
 the aggregate interest of the whole ; it was a substitute for the 
 
 * See p. 164. 
 
164: CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 system which had hitherto been adopted of making the smaller 
 country completely subordinate to and subservient to the great- 
 er, of making the smaller and poorer country a mere instru- 
 ment for the advantage of the greater and wealthier one. He, 
 therefore, proposed now to create a situation of perfect com- 
 mercial equality, in which there was to be a community of 
 benefits, and also to some extent a community of burdens." 
 And he urged the House to " adopt that system of trade with 
 Ireland that would tend to enrich one part of the empire with- 
 out impoverishing the other, while it would give strength to 
 both ; that, like mercy, the favorite attribute of Heaven, 
 
 " ' Is twice blessed — 
 It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.' " 
 
 It might, he said, be regarded as " a treaty with Ireland by 
 which that country would be put on a fair, equal, and impartial 
 footing with Great Britain, in point of commerce, with respect 
 to foreign countries and our colonies." The community of 
 burdens which his measure would impose on Ireland was this : 
 that whenever the gross hereditary revenue of Ireland should 
 exceed £650,000 (an amount considerably in excess of any- 
 thing it had ever yet reached), the excess should be applied to 
 the support of the fleet of the United Kingdom. It was, in 
 fact, a burden that could have no existence at all until the Irish 
 trade had become far more flourishing and productive than as 
 yet it had ever been. Yet a measure conceived in such a spirit 
 of liberality, and framed with such careful attention to the mi- 
 nutest interests of Irish trade, Mr. Brownlow did not hesitate 
 to denounce as one " tending to make Ireland a tributary na- 
 tion to Great Britain. The same terms," he declared, "had 
 been held out to America, and Ireland had equal spirit with 
 America to reject them." He even declared that " it was hap- 
 py for Mr. Orde " (the Chief Secretary, who had introduced the 
 measure into the Irish House of Commons) " that he was in a 
 country remarkable for humanity. Had he proposed such a 
 measure in a Polish Diet, he would not have lived to carry 
 back an answer to his master. If," he concluded, " the gifts 
 of Britain are to be accompanied with the slavery of Ireland, 
 I will never be a slave to pay tribute ; I will hurl back her 
 
PITT BAFFLED BY SENSELESS OPPOSITION. 165 
 
 gifts with scorn." Baffled by such frantic and senseless oppo- 
 sition, Pitt condescended to remodel his measure. In its new 
 form it was not so greatly for the advantage of Ireland. He 
 had been constrained to admit some limitation of his original 
 liberality by the opposition which it had met with in England 
 also, where Fox, at all times an avowed enemy of freedom of 
 trade, had made himself the mouth-piece of the London and 
 Liverpool merchants, who could not see, without the most nar- 
 row-minded apprehension, the monopoly of the trade with India 
 and the West Indies, which they had hitherto enjoyed, threat- 
 ened by the admission of Ireland to its benefits. And now a 
 clause in the second bill, binding the Irish Parliament to re- 
 enact the Navigation Laws existing in England, called up an 
 opposition from Grattan"^ as furious as that with which Mr. 
 Brownlow had denounced the original measure. To demand 
 the enactment of the English Navigation Law, he declared, was 
 " a revocation of the constitution ;" and his rival. Flood, in his 
 zeal to emulate his popularity with the mob, surpassing him 
 in vehemence, inveighed against the clause, as one intended to 
 make the Irish Parliament a mere register of the English Par- 
 liament, which it should never become." All the arguments 
 brought forward in favor of the measure by the supporters 
 of the government — arguments which, probably, no one would 
 now be found to deny to have been unanswerable — failed to 
 make the slightest impression on a House in which the chief 
 object of each opponent of the ministry seemed to be to out- 
 run his fellows in violence ; and eventually the measure fell to 
 the ground, and for fifteen years more Ireland was deprived of 
 the advantages which had been intended for her. 
 
 And even yet the danger from the Volunteers was not whol'y 
 extinguished. Though their Convention had been suppressed, 
 
 * Mr. Froude imputes to Grattan a singularly base object, " Far from 
 Grattan was a desire to heal the real sores of the country for which he 
 was so zealous. These wild, disordered elements suited better for the 
 campaign in which he engaged of renovating an Irish nationality."- ■ 
 EvglvOi in Ireland^ ii., 448. But, however on many points we may see rea 
 son to agree with Mr. Froude's estimate of the superior wisdom of Fitz- 
 gibbon, we conceive that this opinion is quite consistent with our acquit- 
 tal of the other of the meanness of deliberately aiming at a continuance 
 of evils, in order to find in them food for a continuance of agitation. 
 
166 CONSTITUTIOXAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 its leaders had only changed their tactics. Under the guidance 
 of a Dublin ironmonger, named Napper Tandy, they now pro- 
 posed to convene a Congress, to consist, not, as before, of dele- 
 gates from the Volunteer body, but of persons who should be 
 representatives of the entire nation ; and Tandy had even the 
 audacity to issue circulars to the sheriffs of the different coun- 
 ties, to require them, in their official capacity, to summon the 
 people to return representatives to this Congress. The Sheriff 
 of Dublin, a man of the name of O'Reilly, obeyed the requisi- 
 tion ; but Fitzgibbon, who, luckily, was now Attorney-general, 
 instantly prosecuted him for abuse of his office. He was con- 
 victed, fined, and imprisoned, and his punishment deterred oth- 
 ers from following his example. And a rigorous example had 
 become indispensable, since it was known to the government 
 that Tandy and some of his followers were acting in connec- 
 tion with French emissaries, and that their object was the sepa- 
 ration of Ireland from England, and, in the minds of some of 
 them, certainly the annexation of the country to France; in- 
 deed, on one occasion Fitzgibbon asserted in the House of 
 Commons that he had seen resolutions inviting the French into 
 the country. The government would gladly have established a 
 militia to supersede the Volunteers, but the temper of the Irish . 
 Parliament, in its newly-acquired independence, rendered any 
 such attempt hopeless ; and Mr. Grattan, with a perversity of 
 judgment which his warmest admirers must find it difficult to 
 reconcile with statesmanship, if not with patriotism, even op- 
 posed with extreme bitterness a bill for the establishment of a 
 police for Dublin, though he could not deny that there existed 
 in the city an organized body of ruffians, who made not only 
 the streets but even the dwelling-houses of the more orderly 
 citizens unsafe, by outrages of the worst kind, committed on 
 the largest scale — assaults, plunderings, ravishments, and mur- 
 ders. In the rural districts of the South the disturban.ces were 
 so criminally violent, and so incessant, that the Lord-lieutenant 
 was compelled to request the presence of some additional regi- 
 ments from England, as the sole means of preserving any kind 
 of respect for the law ; and more than once the mobs of riot- 
 ers showed themselves so bold and formidable, that the soldiers 
 
IRELAND AND THE REGENCY BILL. 167 
 
 were compelled to fire in self-defence, and order was not re- 
 stored but at the cost of many lives. 
 
 Presently a Conspiracy Bill was passed, and gradually the 
 firmness of the government re-established a certain amount of 
 internal tranquillity. But shortly afterward a crisis arose 
 which, more than the debates on the commercial propositions, 
 or on the Volunteers, or on the police, showed how over-lib- 
 eral had been the confidence of the English minister who had 
 repealed Poynings' Act, and had bestowed independent authori- 
 ty on the Irish Parliament before the members had learned how 
 to use it. We have seen how keen a contest was excited in 
 the English Parliament by the deranged condition of the King's 
 health in 1788, and the necessity which consequently arose for 
 the appointment of a Regency. Grattan was in London at the 
 time, where he had contracted a personal intimacy with Fox, 
 and had been presented by him to the Prince of Wales, whose 
 graciousness of manner, and profession of adherence to the 
 Whig system of politics, secured his attachment to that party. 
 Grattan was easily indoctrinated by Fox with his theory of the 
 indefeasible claim of the Prince to the Regency as his birth- 
 right, and is understood to have promised that the Irish Par- 
 liament should adopt that view. The case was one which 
 seemed Unprovided for. There was no question but that the 
 law enacted that the sovereign of England should also be the 
 sovereign of Ireland. But no express law of either country 
 contained any such stipulation respecting a Regent ; and Grat- 
 tan conceived that, in the absence of any pre-existing ordi- 
 nance, it would be easy to contend that the Irish Parliament 
 was the sole judge who the Regent should be, and on what 
 terms he should exercise the royal authority. 
 
 The Irish Parliament had been prorogued in 1787 to the 
 5th of February, 1789, the same day on which, after numer- 
 ous examinations of the physicians in attendance on the royal 
 patient, and after the passing of a series of resolutions enun- 
 ciating the principles on which the government was proceed- 
 ing, Pitt introduced the Regency Bill into the English House 
 of Commons, being prepared to conduct it through both Houses 
 with all the despatch that might be consistent with a due ob- 
 
168 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 servance of all the forms of deliberation. Grattan's object was 
 to anticipate the^decision of the English Parliament, so as to 
 avoid every appearance that the Irish Parliament was only fol- 
 lowing it ; and he therefore proposed that the House of Com- 
 mons should instantly vote an address to the Prince, requesting 
 him to take upon himself the Regency of the kingdom of Ire- 
 land, by his own natural right as the heir of the crown ; mak- 
 ing sure not only that his advice would be taken by those whom 
 he was addressing, but that the House of Lords would not 
 venture to dissent from it. 
 
 Fitzgibbon, as Attorney-general and spokesman of the gov- 
 ernment in the Commons, as a matter of course opposed such 
 precipitate action, not only warning his hearers of the folly 
 and danger of taking a step " which might dissolve the single 
 tie which now connected Ireland with Great Britain," but ex- 
 plaining also the whole principle of the constitution of the two 
 kingdoms, so far as it was a joint constitution, in terms which 
 give his speech a permanent value as a summary of its princi- 
 ple and its character. He recalled to the recollection of the 
 House the act of William and Mary, which declares " the king- 
 dom of Ireland to be annexed to the imperial crown of Eng- 
 land, and the sovereign of England to be by undoubted right 
 sovereign of Ireland also ;" and argued from this that Mr. Grat- 
 tan's proposal was contrary to the laws of the realm and crim- 
 inal in the extreme. " The crown of Ireland," as he told his 
 hearers, " and the crown of England are inseparably united, and 
 the Irish Parliament is totally independent of the British. Par- 
 liament. The first of these positions is your security, the sec- 
 ond your freedom, and any other language tends to the separa- 
 tion of the crowns or the subjection of your Parliament. The 
 only security of your liberty is the connection with Great Brit- 
 ain ; and gentlemen who risk breaking the connection must 
 make up their minds to a union. God forbid I should ever 
 see that day ; but, if the day comes on which a separation shall 
 be attempted, I shall not hesitate to embrace a union rather 
 than a separation." 
 
 He proceeded to show that, as the Irish Parliament had it- 
 self enacted that all bills which passed their two Houses should 
 
GEA.TTAK*S IMPASSIONED ELOQUENCE PREVAILS. 169 
 
 require the sanction of the Great Seal of England, they actual- 
 ly had no legal power to confer on the Prince of Wales such 
 authority as Grattan advised his being invested with, whatever 
 might be the form of words in which their resolution was 
 couched. He pointed out, also, that if the Irish Parliament 
 should insist on appointing the Prince of Wales Regent before 
 it was known whether he would accept the Regency of Eng- 
 land, it was manifestly not impossible " that they might be 
 appointing a Regent for Ireland being a different person from 
 the Regent of England ; and in that case the moment a Regent 
 was appointed in Great Britain, he might send a commission 
 under the Great Seal appointing a Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, 
 and to that commission the Regent of Ireland would be bound 
 to pay obedience. Another objection of great force to his mind 
 was, that the course recommended by Grattan would be a for- 
 mal appeal from the Parliament of England to that of Ireland. 
 It would sow the seeds of dissension between the Parliaments 
 of the two countries. And, indeed, those who were professing 
 themselves advocates for the independence of the Irish crown 
 were advocates for its separation from England." 
 
 But the House was too entirely under the influence of Grat- 
 tan's impassioned eloquence for Fitzgibbon's more sober argu- 
 ments to be listened to. The address proposed by Grattan 
 was carried by acclamation; and the peers were scarcely less 
 unanimous in its favor, one of the archbishops even dilating 
 on "the duty of availing themselves of the opportunity of as- 
 serting the total independence of Ireland." Even when, on a 
 second discussion as to the mode in which the address was to 
 be presented to the Prince, Fitzgibbon reported that he had 
 consulted the Chancellor and all the judges, and that they were 
 unanimously of opinion that, till the Regency Bill should be 
 passed in England, the address was not only improper but 
 treasonable, he found his warning equally disregarded. And 
 when the Lord-lieutenant refused to transmit the address to 
 England, on the avowed ground of its illegality, Grattan pro- 
 posed and carried three resolutions : the first, that the address 
 was not illegal, but that, in addressing the Prince to take on 
 himself the Regency, the Parliament of Ireland had exercised 
 
 8 
 
170 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 an undoubted right ; the second, that the Lord-lieutenant's re- 
 fusal to transmit the address to his Royal Highness was ill- 
 advised and unconstitutional ; the third, that a deputation from 
 the two Houses should go to London, to present the address 
 to the Prince. Mr. Froude affirms that the deputation, even 
 when preparing to sail for England, was very irresolute and 
 undecided whether to present the address or not, from a rea- 
 sonable fear of incurring the penalties of treason, to which the 
 lawyers pronounced those who should present it liable. But 
 their courage was not put to the test. As has been already 
 seen, before the end of the month the King's recovery was an- 
 nounced, and the question of a Regency did not occur again 
 till the Irish Parliament had been united to the English. 
 
 Since Lord Rockingham's concessions, in 1782, the project 
 of a legislative union between the two countries, resembling 
 that which united Scotland to England, had more than once 
 been broached. We have seen it alluded to by Fitzgibbon in 
 the course of these discussions, and it was no new idea. It 
 had been discussed even before the union with Scotland was 
 completed, and had then been regarded in Ireland with feelings 
 very different from those which prevailed at a later period. 
 Ten years after the time of which we are speaking, Grattan 
 denounced the scheme with almost frantic violence. Fitzgib- 
 bon (though after the Rebellion he recommended it as indis- 
 pensable) as yet regarded it only as an alternative which, 
 though he might eventually embrace it, he should not accept 
 without extreme reluctance. But at the beginning of the 
 century all parties among the Protestant Irish had been eager 
 for it, and even the leading Roman Catholics had been not 
 unwilling to acquiesce in it. Unlackily, the English ministers 
 were unable to shake off the influence of the English manufact- 
 urers; and they, in another development of the selfish and 
 wicked jealousy which had led them in William's reign to 
 require the suppression of the Irish woollen manufacture, now, 
 in Anne's, rose against the proposal of a legislative union.* In 
 blindness which was not only fatal but suicidal also, " they per- 
 
 * Froude, "English in Ireland," i., 304. 
 
Pitt's ieish policy gradually peogkessing. 171 
 
 suaded themselves that the union would make Ireland rich, and 
 that England's interest was to keep her poor;" as if it had been 
 possible for one portion of the kingdom to increase in prosperity 
 without every other portion benefiting also by the improvement. 
 
 However, in the reign of Anne the union was a question 
 only of expediency or of wisdom. The wide divergence of 
 the two Parliaments on this question of the Regency trans- 
 formed it into a question of necessity. The King might have 
 a relapse ; the Irish Parliament, on a recurrence of the crisis, 
 might re-affirm its late resolutions; might frame another ad- 
 dress to the Prince of Wales ; and there might be no alterna- 
 tive between seeing two different persons Regents of England 
 and Ireland, or, what would be nearly the same thing, seeing 
 the same person Regent of the two countries on different 
 grounds, and exercising a different authority. 
 
 And if these proceedings of the Irish Parliament had 
 wrought in the mind of the great English minister a convic- 
 tion of the absolute necessity of preventing a recurrence of 
 such dangers by the only practicable means open to him — the 
 fusion of it into one body with the English Parliament by a 
 legislative union — the occurrences of the ensuing ten years en- 
 forced that conviction with a weight still more irresistible. It 
 has been seen how stirring an influence the revolutionary fever 
 engendered by the overthrow of the French monarchy for a 
 time exerted even over the calmer temper of Englishmen. In 
 Ireland, where, ever since Sarsfield and bis brave garrison 
 enlisted under the banner of Louis XIV., a connection more 
 or less intimate with France had been constantly kept up, the 
 events in Paris had produced a far deeper and wider effect. 
 More than one demagogue among the Volunteers had avowed 
 a desire to see the whole country transfer its allegiance from 
 the English to the French sovereign ; and this preference was 
 more pronounced after the triumph of democracy in the French 
 capital. For the leaders of the movement, themselves nearly 
 all men of the lowest degree, denounced the Irish nobles with 
 almost as much vehemence as the Englisb connection. 
 
 Yet Pitt's policy, dictated partly by a spirit of conciliation, 
 and still more by feelings of justice,* was gradually removing 
 
172 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 many of the grievances of which the Irish had real reason to 
 complain. Next to the restrictions on trade, nothing had made 
 such an impression on his mind as the iniquity of the penal 
 laws ; and those he proceeded to repeal, encouraging the in- 
 troduction of bills to throw open the profession of the law to 
 Roman Catholics, to allow them seats on the magistrates^ bench 
 and commissions in the army, and to grant them the electoral 
 franchise, a concession which he himself would willingly have 
 extended by admitting them to Parliament itself. But these 
 relaxations of the old Penal Code, important as they were, only 
 conciliated the higher classes of the Roman Catholics. Most 
 of the Roman Catholic prelates, and most of the Roman Cath- 
 olic lay nobles, proclaimed their satisfaction at what had been 
 done, and their good-will toward the minister who had done 
 it ; but the professional agitator^ were exasperated rather than 
 conciliated at finding so much of the ground on which they 
 had rested cut from beneath their feet. So desiroas was Pitt 
 to carry conciliation to the greatest length that could be con- 
 sistent with safety, that he held more than one conference with 
 Grattan himself ; but he found that great orator not very man- 
 ageable, partly, as it may seem from some of Mr. Windham's 
 letters, through jealousy of Fitzgibbon, who was now the Irish 
 Chancellor,* and still more from a desire to propitiate the Ro- 
 man Catholics, for whom he demanded complete and immediate 
 Emancipation ; while Pitt, who was, probably, already resolved 
 on accomplishing a legislative Union, thought, as far as we can 
 judge, that Emancipation should follow, not precede, the Union, 
 lest, if it should precede it, it might prove rather a stumbling- 
 block in the way than a stepping-stone to the still more impor- 
 tant measure. 
 
 It is not very easy to determine what influence the " Eman- 
 cipation," as it was rather absurdly called,f if it had been 
 granted at that time, might have had in quieting the prevail- 
 
 * See especially a letter of Mr. Windham's, quoted by Lord Stanhope 
 ("Life of Pitt," ii.,288). 
 
 t Mr. Archdall, Iq his place in Parliament, denounced the term as ut- 
 terly inapplicable. " Emancipation meant that a slave was set free. The 
 Catholics were not slaves. Nothing more absurd had ever been said since 
 language was first abused for the delusion of mankind." 
 
Pitt's ieish policy of conciliation. 173 
 
 ing discontent. With one large party it would probably have 
 increased it, for there was quite as great an inclination to in- 
 surrection in Ulster as in Leinster or Munster; and with the 
 Northern Presbyterians animosity to Popery was at least as 
 powerful a feeling as sympathy with the French Republicans. 
 A subsequent chapter, however, will afford a more fitting op- 
 portunity for discussing the arguments in favor of or against 
 Emancipation. What seems certain is, that a large party among 
 the Roman Catholics of the lower class valued Emancipation 
 itself principally as a measure to another end — a separation 
 from England. Pitt, meanwhile, hopeless of reconciling the 
 leaders of the different parties — the impulsive enthusiasm of 
 Grattan with the sober, practical wisdom of Fitzgibbon — pur- 
 sued his own policy of conciliation united with vigor ; and one 
 of the measures which he no^ carried subsists, unaltered in its 
 principle, to the present day. 
 
 There was no part of the penal laws of which the folly and 
 iniquity were more intolerable than the restrictions which they 
 imposed on education. To a certain extent, they defeated 
 themselves. The clause which subjected to severe penalties a 
 Roman Catholic parent who sent his child abroad to enjoy the 
 benefits of an education which he was not allowed to receive 
 at home, was manifestly almost incapable of enforcement, and 
 the youths designed for orders in the Romish Church had been 
 invariably sent to foreign colleges — some to Douai or St. Omer, 
 in France ; some to the renowned Spanish University of Sala- 
 manca. But the French colleges had been swept away by the 
 Revolution, which also made a passage to Spain (the greater 
 expense of which had at all times confined that resource to a 
 small number of students) more difficult ; and the consequence 
 was, that in 1794 the Roman Catholic Primate, Dr. Troy, peti- 
 tioned the government to grant a royal license for the endow- 
 ment of a college in Ireland. Justice and policy were equally 
 in favor of the grant of such a request. For the sake of the 
 whole kingdom, and even for that of Protestantism itself, it 
 was better that the Roman Catholic priesthood should be an 
 educated rather than an ignorant body of men ; and, in the 
 temper which at that time prevailed over the western countries 
 
174 CONSTITUTIONAE HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 of the Continent, it was at least equally desirable that the ris- 
 ing generation should be preserved from the contagion of the 
 revolutionary principles which the present rulers of France 
 were so industrious to propagate. Pitt at once embraced the 
 idea, and in the spring of the next year a bill was introduced 
 into the Irish Parliament by the Chief Secretary, authorizing 
 the foundation and endowment of a college at Maynooth, in 
 the neighborhood of Dublin, for the education of Roman Cath- 
 olics generally, whether destined for the Church or for lay pro- 
 fessions. It is a singular circumstance that the only opposi- 
 tion to the measure came from Grattan and his party, who 
 urged that, as the Roman Catholics had recently been allowed 
 to matriculate and take degrees at Trinity College, though not 
 to share in the endowments of that wealthy institution, the 
 endowment of another college, to be exclusively conj&ned to 
 Roman Catholics, would be a retrograde step, undoing the ben- 
 efits of the recent concession of the authorities of Trinity ; 
 would be " a revival and re-enactment of the principles of sep- 
 aration and exclusion," and an injury to the whole community. 
 For, as he wisely contended, nothing was so important to the 
 well-doing of the entire people as the extinction of the relig- 
 ious animosities which had hitherto embittered the feelings of 
 each Church toward the other, and nothing could so surely 
 tend to that extinction as the uniting the members of both 
 from their earliest youth, in the pursuit both of knowledge and 
 amusement, as school-fellows and playmates. If Mr. Fronde's 
 interpretation of the motives of those who influenced Grattan 
 on this occasion be correct, he was unconsciously made a tool 
 of by those whose real object was a separation from England, 
 of the attainment of which they despaired, unless they could 
 unite Protestants and Roman Catholics in its prosecution. The 
 bill, however, was passed by a very large majority, and £9000 
 a year was appropriated to the endowment of the college. 
 Half a century afterward, as will be seen, that endowment was 
 enlarged, and placed on a more solid and permanent footing, 
 by one of the ablest of Pitt's successors. It was a wise and 
 just measure ; and if its success has not entirely answered the 
 expectations of the minister who granted it, its comparative 
 
INSUREECTION BEEAKS OUT IN lEELAND. 175 
 
 failure has been owing to circumstances wWcli the acutest judg- 
 ment could not have foreseen. 
 
 But it seems certain that neither the concession nor the re- 
 fusal of any demands put forward by any party in Ireland 
 could have prevented the insurrection which broke out shortly 
 afterward. There were two parties among the disaffected Irish 
 — or it should, perhaps, rather be said that two different ob- 
 jects were kept in view by them — one of which, the establish- 
 ment of a republic, was dearer to one section of the malcon- 
 tents ; separation from England, with the contingency of an- 
 nexation to France, was the more immediate aim of the other, 
 though the present existence of a republican form of govern- 
 ment in France to a great extent united the two. As has been 
 mentioned before, the original movers in the conspiracy were 
 of low extraction, Dublin tradesmen in a small way of business. 
 Napper Tandy was an ironmonger, Wolfe Tone was the son of 
 a coach-maker. But they had obtained a recruit of a very dif- 
 ferent class, a younger son of the Duke of Leinster, Lord Ed- 
 ward Fitzgerald, a man of very slender capacity, who, at his 
 first entrance into Parliament, when scarcely more than of age, 
 had made himself remarkable by a furious denunciation of 
 Pitt's Irish propositions; had married a natural daughter of 
 the Duke of Orleans, a prince, in spite of his royal birth, one 
 of the most profligate and ferocious of the French Jacobins; 
 and had caught the revolutionary mania to such a degree that 
 he abjured his nobility, and substituted for the appellation 
 which marked his rank the title of " Citizen Fitzgerald." He 
 had enrolled himself in a society known as the United Irish- 
 men, and had gone to France, as its plenipotentiary, to arrange 
 with Hoche, one of the most brilliant and popular of the French 
 generals, a scheme for the invasion of Ireland, in which he 
 promised him that, on his landing, he should be joined by tens 
 of thousands of armed Irishmen. Hoche entered warmly into 
 the plan, w^as furnished with a splendid army by the Directors, 
 and in December, 1796, set sail for Ireland ; but the fleet which 
 carried him was dispersed in a storm ; many of the ships were 
 wrecked, others were captured by the British cruisers, and the 
 remnant of the fleet, sadly crippled, was glad to regain its har- 
 
176 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 bors. Two years afterward another invading expedition had 
 still worse fortune. General Humbert, who in 1796 had been 
 one of Hoche's oflScers, did succeed in effecting a landing at 
 Killala Bay, in Mayo ; but he and the whole of his force was 
 speedily surrounded, and compelled to surrender ; and a month 
 afterward a large squadron, with a more powerful division of 
 troops, under General Hardy, on board, found itself unable to 
 effect a landing, but fell in with a squadron under Sir John 
 Warren, who captured every ship but two ; Wolfe Tone, who 
 was on board one of them, being taken prisoner, and only es- 
 caping the gallows by suicide. 
 
 This happened in October, 1798. But it is difficult to con- 
 ceive with what object these last expeditions had been de- 
 spatched from France at all ; for in the preceding summer the 
 rebellion of the Irish had broken out, and had been totally 
 crushed in a few weeks;* not without terrible loss of life on 
 both sides, nor without the insurgent leaders — though many 
 of them were gentlemen of good birth, fortune, and education, 
 and still more were clergy — showing a ferocity and ingenuity 
 in cruelty which the worst of the French Jacobins had scarcely 
 exceeded; one of the saddest circumstances of the whole re- 
 bellion being, that the insurgents, who had burnt men, women, 
 and children alive, who had deliberately hacked others to pieces 
 against whom they did not profess to have a single ground of 
 complaint beyond the fact that they were English and Protes- 
 tant, found advocates in both Houses of the English Parlia- 
 ment, who declared that the rebellion was owing to the severity 
 of the Irish Viceroy and his chief councillors, who denied that 
 the rebels had solicited French aid, and who even voted against 
 granting to the government the re-enforcements necessary to 
 prevent a revival of the treason. 
 
 The rebellion was crushed with such celerity as might have 
 convinced the most disaffected of the insanity of defying the 
 power of Great Britain; but it was certain that the spirit which 
 prompted the rebellion was not extinguished, and that, as it 
 
 * The first beginning of the insurrection was at Prosperous, County 
 Kildare, May 24. General Lake dealt it the final blow on Vinegar Hill, 
 June 21. 
 
COLLAPSE OF INSURRECTION IN IRELAND. 177 
 
 had been fed before, so it would continue to be fed by the 
 factious spirit of members of the Irish House of Commons, 
 and of those who could return members,* so long as Ireland 
 had a separate Parliament. Not, indeed, that Pitt required the 
 argument in favor of a Union which was thus furnished. The 
 course adopted by the Irish Parliament on the Regency ques- 
 tion was quite sufficient to show how great a mistake had been 
 made by the repeal of Poynings' Act. But what the rebellion 
 proved was, that the Union would not admit of an instant's 
 delay; and Pitt at once applied himself to the task of framing 
 a measure which, while it should strengthen England, by the 
 removal of the necessity for a constant watchfulness over every 
 transaction and movement in Ireland, should at the same time 
 confer on and secure to Ireland substantial advantages, such as, 
 without a Union, the English Parliament could scarcely be in- 
 duced to contemplate. 
 
 Mr. Hallam, in one of the last chapters of his work,f while 
 showing by unanswerable arguments the advantages which 
 Scotland has derived from her Union with England, has also 
 enumerated some of the causes which impeded the minister of 
 the day in his endeavors to render it acceptable to the Scotch 
 members to whom it was proposed. The most apparently sub- 
 stantial of these was the unprecedented character of the meas- 
 ure. No past "experience of history was favorable to the ab- 
 sorption of a lesser state, at least where the government par- 
 took so much of the republican form, in one of superior power 
 and ancient rivalry." But, in the case of the present meas- 
 ure, what had thus been a difficulty in the Scotch Union might 
 have been expected to be regarded as an argument in its favor, 
 since the keenest patriots among the Scotch had long been 
 convinced that the Union had brought a vast increase of pros- 
 
 * Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Tierney, and Lord William Russell led the de- 
 nunciations of the government in the English House of Commons. A 
 protest against Pitt's refusal to dismiss the Lord-lieutenant, Lord Cam- 
 den, the Chancellor Fitzgibbon, and the Commander-in-chief, Lord Car- 
 hampton, was signed by the Dukes of Norfolk, Devonshire, and Leinster ; 
 Lords Fitzwilliam, Moira, and Ponsonby, "two of them Irish absentees, 
 who were discharging thus their duties to the poor country which sup- 
 ported their idle maghiflcence." — The Engliah in Ireland, iii., 454. 
 
 t " Constitutional History," iii., 451 seq. 
 
 8* 
 
178 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 perity and importance to their country, and what was now con- 
 fessed to have proved advantageous to Scotland might natu- 
 rally be expected to be equally beneficial to Ireland. Another 
 obstacle had been the fear of the danger to which the Presby- 
 terian Church might be " exposed, when brought thus within 
 the power of a Legislature so frequently influenced by one 
 which held her, not as a sister, but rather a bastard usurper to 
 a sister's inheritance." But here again experience might give 
 her testimony in favor of an Irish Union, since it was incon- 
 testable that those apprehensions — which, no doubt, many ear- 
 nest Scotchmen had sincerely entertained — had not been re- 
 alized, but that since the Union the Presbyterian Church had 
 enjoyed as great security, as complete independence, and as 
 absolute an authority over its members as in the preceding 
 century; that the Parliament had never attempted the slight- 
 est interference with its exercise of its privileges, and that the 
 Church of England had been equally free from the exhibition 
 of any desire to stimulate the Parliament to such action ; while 
 the Roman Catholic Church, which had manj^ more adherents 
 in England than the Presbyterian Church had ever had, was 
 quite powerful enough to exact for itself the maintenance of 
 its rights, and the minister was quite willing to grant equal se- 
 curities to those which, at the beginning of the century, had 
 been thought sufficient for the Church of Scotland. A third 
 reason which our great historical critic puts forward for the 
 disfavor with which the Union was at the time regarded by 
 many high-minded Scotchmen, he finds in " the gross prostitu- 
 tion with which a majority sold themselves to the surrender of 
 their own legislative existence." That similar means were to 
 some extent employed to win over opponents of the govern- 
 ment in Ireland cannot, it must be confessed, be denied, though 
 the temptations held out to converts ofteuer took the shape of 
 titles, promotions, appointments, and court favors than of act- 
 ual money. The most recent historian of this period — who, 
 to say the least, is not biassed in favor of either the English 
 or Irish government of the period — pronounces as his opinion, 
 formed after the most careful research, that the bribery was on 
 the other side. " Cornwallis and Castlereagh" (the Lord-lieu- 
 
POLITICAL JOBBERY AND BKIBERY. Il9 
 
 tenant and the Chief Secretary) " both declared it to be with- 
 in their knowledge that the Opposition offered four thousand 
 pounds, ready money, for a vote. But they name only one 
 man who was purchased, and his vote was obtained for four 
 thousand pounds. From the language of Lord Cornwallis, it 
 is certain that if money was spent by the government in this 
 way, it was without his knowledge ; but many things may have 
 been done by the inferior agents of the government, and possi- 
 bly by Castlereagh himself, which they would not venture to 
 lay before the Lord-lieutenant. It appears, however, from the 
 papers which have recently come to light, that the prevalent 
 belief of the Union having been mainly effected by a lavish 
 expenditure of money is not well-founded ; still it is certain 
 that some money was expended in this way." Besides actual 
 payment for votes, he adds that a very large sum — a hundred 
 thousand pounds — is said to have been expended in the pur- 
 chase of seats, the holders of which were, of course, to vote 
 against the measure; and names Lord Downshire as subscrib- 
 ing £5000, Lord Lismore and Mr. White £3000 each, while 
 the government funds were chiefly expended "in engaging* 
 young barristers of the Four Courts to write for the Union." 
 But, even if it were true that corruption was employed to the 
 very utmost extent that was ever alleged by the most vehe- 
 ment opponent of the measure and of the government, it may 
 be feared that very few of the last century Irishmen would 
 have been so shocked at it as to consider that fact an objec- 
 tion to the Union, especially, it is sad and shameful to say, 
 among the upper classes. The poorer classes, those who could 
 render no political service to a minister, as being consequently 
 beneath official notice, were unassailed by his temptations ; but 
 the demoralization of the men of rank and property was al- 
 most universal, and few seats were disposed of, few votes were 
 given, except in return for favors granted, or out of discontent 
 at favors refused. And it cannot be denied that the tendency 
 to political jobbery had not been diminished by the conces- 
 sions of 1782, if, indeed, it may not be said that the increased 
 
 * Massey's " History of England," iv., 397 (quoting the Cornwallis cor- 
 respondence). 
 
180 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 importance whicli those concessions had given to the Irish Par- 
 liament had led the members of both Houses to place an in- 
 creased value on their services. Certainly no previous Lord- 
 lieutenant had given such descriptions of the universality of 
 the demands made on him as were forwarded to the English 
 government by those who held that office in the sixteen years 
 preceding the outbreak of the Rebellion. 
 
 It is remarkable that the transaction which, as has been said 
 before, may be conceived to have first forced on Pitt's mind 
 the conviction of the absolute necessity of the Union — namely, 
 the course pursued by the Irish Parliament on the Regency 
 Bill — bore a close resemblance to that which, above all other 
 considerations, had made the Scotch Union indispensable, 
 namely, the Act of Security passed by the Scottish Estates in 
 1703, which actually provided that, on the decease of Queen 
 Anne without issue, the Estates " should name her successor, 
 but should be debarred from choosing the admitted successor 
 to the crown of England, unless such forms of government 
 were settled as should fully secure the religion, freedom, and 
 trade of the Scottish nation."* The Scotch Estates, therefore, 
 had absolutely regarded the possible separation of the two 
 kingdoms as a contingency which might become not undesir- 
 able ; and, though it was too ticklish an argument to bring 
 forward, it may very possibly have occurred to Pitt that a 
 similar vote of the Irish Parliament was not impossible. The 
 claim which Grattan, following Fox, had set up on behalf of 
 the Prince of Wales, was one of an indefeasible right to the 
 Regency ; and, as far as right by inheritance went, his claim 
 to the. crown, if, or whenever, a vacancy should occur, was far 
 less disputable. But, as has been mentioned in the last chap- 
 ter, a question had already been raised whether his Royal High- 
 ness had not forfeited his right to the succession, and it was 
 quite possible that that question might be renewed. The fact 
 of the Prince's marriage to a Roman Catholic was by this time 
 generally accepted as certain; the birth of the Princess Char- 
 lotte gave greater importance to the circumstance than it 
 
 * Lord Stanhope's "Reign of Queen Anne," p. 89. 
 
MR. PLUNKETt's views IN lEISH PARLIAMENT. 181 
 
 seemed to have while the Prince remained childless ; and, if 
 the performance of the marriage ceremony should be legally 
 proved, and the English law courts should pronounce that the 
 legal invalidity of the marriage did not protect the Prince from 
 the penalty of forfeiture, it was highly probable that the Irish 
 Parliament would take a different view — would refuse, in spite 
 of the Bill of Eights, to regard marriage with a Roman Catho- 
 lic as a disqualification, but would recognize the Prince of 
 Wales as King of Ireland. 
 
 Several minor considerations, such as the desirableness of 
 uniformity in the proceedings of the two countries with respect 
 to Money Bills, the Mutiny Act, and other arrangements of 
 parliamentary detail, all pointed the same way ; and, on the 
 whole, it may be said that scarcely any of the opponents of 
 the government measure were found to deny its expediency, 
 especially as regarded the interests of Great Britain. The ob- 
 jections which were made were urged on different grounds. 
 In the Irish House of Commons, a member who, though a 
 young man, had already established a very high reputation for 
 professional skill as a barrister, for eloquence equally suited to 
 the Bar and to the Senate, and for sincere and incorruptible 
 patriotism, Mr. Plunkett, took upon himself to deny the com- 
 petency of the Irish Parliament to pass a bill not only to ex- 
 tinguish its own existence, but to prevent the birth of any 
 future Parliament, and to declare that the act, if it " should be 
 passed," would be a mere nullity, and that no man in " Ireland 
 would be bound to obey it." And, in the English House of 
 Commons, Mr. Grey may be thought to have adopted some- 
 thing of the same view, when he proposed an amendment "to 
 suspend all proceedings on the subject till the sentiments of 
 the people of Ireland respecting that measure could be ascer- 
 tained." He did not, of course, deny (he was speaking on the 
 21st of April, 1800) that the bill had been passed by both 
 Houses of the Irish Parliament by considerable majorities.* 
 But he contended that that Parliament did not speak the senti- 
 ments of the people ; and, that being the case, that its voice 
 
 * In the House of Commons by 158 to 115 : in the House of Lords, Feb- 
 ruary 10, by 75 to 26. 
 
182 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 was of no authority. It is evident that all arguments founded 
 on a denial of the omnipotence of a Parliament, whether Eng- 
 lish or Irish, are invalid. The question of that omnipotence, 
 as has been seen in a former chapter, had been fully discussed 
 when Mr. Pitt's father denied the power of Parliament to tax 
 the American Colonies ; and that question may fairly be re- 
 garded as having been settled at that time. It is equally clear 
 that the denial that, on any question whatever, the House of 
 Commons must be taken to speak the sentiments of the con- 
 stituencies, whether the proposal of such question had been 
 contemplated at the time of their election or not, is the ad- 
 vancement of a doctrine wholly inconsistent with our parlia- 
 mentary constitution, and one which would practically be the 
 parent of endless agitation and mischief. To expect that the 
 members could pronounce on no new question without a fresh 
 reference to their constituents, would be to reduce them from 
 the position of representatives to that of delegates; such as 
 that of the members of the old States-general, in France, whose 
 early decay is attributed by the ablest political writers in no 
 small degree to the dependence of the members on their con- 
 stituents for precise instructions. Another argument on which 
 Mr. Grey insisted with great earnestness is worth preserving, 
 though subsequent inventions have destroyed its force ; he con- 
 tended that the example of the Scotch Union did not, when 
 properly considered, afford any argument in favor of an Irish 
 Union, from the difference of situation of the two countries. 
 Scotland was a part of the same island as England ; "there was 
 no physical impediment to rapid and constant communication ; 
 the relative situation of the two countries was such that the 
 King himself could administer the executive government in 
 both, and there was no occasion for a separate establishment 
 being kept up in each." But the sea lay between England and 
 Ireland, and the delays and sometimes difficulties which were 
 thus interposed rendered it "necessary that Ireland should have 
 a separate government;" and he affirmed that "this was an 
 insuperable bar to a beneficial Union," quoting a saying of 
 Lord Somers, that "if it were necessary to preserve a separate 
 executive government at Edinburgh after the Union, he would 
 
MR. grey's predictions FALSIFIED. 183 
 
 abandon tlie measure." Mr. Grey even denied that the pros- 
 perity of Scotland since the Union was mainly attributable 
 to that measure. " It was not the Union ; it was the adop- 
 tion of a liberal policy, the application of a proper remedy 
 to the particular evils under whi<;h the country labored, that 
 removed the causes which had impeded the prosperity of Scot- 
 land." But this argument was clearly open to the reply that 
 the adoption of that liberal policy had been a direct effect of 
 the Union, and would have been impracticable without it, and 
 was, therefore, a strong inducement to the adoption of a simi- 
 lar Union w^ith Ireland, where the existing evils were at least 
 as great as those which, a century before, had kept down Scot- 
 land. Another of his arguments has been remarkably falsified 
 by the event. With a boldness in putting forward what was 
 manifestly, indeed avowedly, a party objection, and which, as 
 such, must be looked upon as somewhat singular, he found a 
 reason for resistino' the addition of a hundred Irish members 
 to the British House of Commons in the probability that they 
 would, as a general rule, be subservient to the minister. He 
 instanced " the uniform support which the members for Scot- 
 land had given to every act of ministers," and saw in that ex- 
 ample "reason to apprehend that the Irish members would 
 become a no less regular band of ministerial adherents." It 
 would be superfluous to point out how entirely contrary the 
 result has been to the prediction. 
 
 It is, however, beside the purpose of this work to dwell on 
 the arguments by which the minister supported his proposal, 
 or on those with which the Opposition resisted it, whether 
 apparently founded on practical considerations, such as those 
 brought forward by Mr. Grey, or those of a more sentimental 
 character, which rested on the loss of national "dignity and 
 honor," which, it was assumed, would be the consequence of 
 the measure. It seems desirable rather to explain the principal 
 conditions on which the Union was to be effected, as Pitt ex- 
 plained it to the House of Commons in April, 1800. In the 
 preceding year he had confined himself to moving a series of 
 resolutions in favor of the principle, which, though they were 
 adopted by both Houses in England, he did not at that time 
 
184 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 endeavor to carry farther, since in the Irish House of Commons 
 the utmost exertions of the government could only prevail by a 
 single vote ;* and he naturally thought such a majority far too 
 slender to justify his relying on it so far as to proceed farther 
 with a measure of such vast importance. But, during the re- 
 cess, he had introduced some modifications into his original 
 draft of the measure, which, though slight, were sufficient to 
 conciliate much additional support ; and the consequence was, 
 that in February of this year both the Irish Houses accepted it 
 by sufficient majorities ;f and, therefore, he now felt able to lay 
 the details of the measure before the English Parliament. To 
 take them in the order in whicb he enumerated them, that 
 which had appeared to the Irish Parliament " the first and most 
 important, was the share which the Irish constituencies ought 
 to have in the representation of the House of Commons." On 
 this point, " the Parliament of Ireland was of opinion that the 
 number of representatives for Ireland ought to be one hun- 
 dred." And he was not disposed to differ from the conclusion 
 to which it had come. He regarded it, indeed, as " a matter of 
 but small importance whether the number of representatives 
 from one part of the united empire were greater or less. If 
 they were enough to make known the local wants, to state the 
 interests and convey the sentiments of the part of the empire 
 they represented, it would produce that degree of general secu- 
 rity which would be wanting in any vain attempt to obtain that 
 degree of theoretical perfection about which in modern times 
 they had heard so much." He approved of "the principle 
 which had been laid down upon this part of the subject in the 
 Parliament of Ireland — a reference to the supposed population 
 of the two countries, and to the proposed rate of contribution. 
 The proportion of contribution proposed to be established was 
 seven and a half for Great Britain, and one for Ireland ; while 
 in the proportion of population Great Britain was to Ireland as 
 two and a half or three to one ;J; so that the result, on a combi- 
 
 * An amendment pledging the House to maintain " an independent 
 Legislature, as established in 1782," was only defeated by 106 to 105, 
 
 t In the House of Commons the majority was 158 to 115 : in the House 
 of Lords, 75 to 26. 
 
 X This estimate, which was but a guess, proved very inaccurate. The 
 
A EETKOSPECT OF PITt's IEISH POLICY. 185 
 
 nation of these two calculations, would be something more than 
 five to one in favor of Great Britain, which was about the pro- 
 portion which it was proposed to establish between the repre- 
 sentation of the two countries." The principle of selection of 
 the constituencies which had been adopted he likewise consid- 
 ered most "equitable and satisfactory for Ireland. The plan 
 proposed was, that the members of the counties and the prin- 
 cipal commercial cities should remain entire. . . . The remain- 
 ing members were to be selected from those places which were 
 the most considerable in point of population and wealth. . . . 
 This was the only plan which could be adopted without trench- 
 ing on the constitution ; it introduced no theoretical reforms in 
 the constitution or in the representation of this country ; it 
 made no distinction between diJfferent parliamentary rights, nor 
 any alteration, even the slightest, in the internal forms of Par- 
 liament." 
 
 Another consideration which he had kept in mind in framing 
 this measure was this : " By the laws of England care had been 
 taken to prevent the influence of the crown from becoming too 
 great by too many offices being held by members of Parlia- 
 ment." And Pitt had no doubt that there would be a general 
 feeling " that some provision ought to be made on this sub- 
 ject " in the arrangements for the new Parliament. At pres- 
 ent, among the representatives of the counties and great com- 
 mercial towns, whose seats were to be preserved in the new 
 united Parliament, there were not above five or six who held 
 offices ; and, though it was impossible to estimate the possible 
 number of place-holders with precision, he thought what would 
 be most fair for him to propose would be, that " no more than 
 
 first census for the United Kingdom, which was taken the next year 
 (1801), showed that Ireland was considerably more populous than its own 
 representatives had imagined. The numbers returned (as given by Ali- 
 son, "History of Europe," ii., 335, c. ix., sec. 8) were: 
 
 England 8,382,434 
 
 Wales 547,346 
 
 Scotland 1,599,068 
 
 Army, Navy, etc 470,586 
 
 Total 10,999,434 
 
 Ireland 5,396,436 
 
 So that the proportion of population in Great Britain, as compared with 
 that of Ireland, only exceeded two to one by an insignificant fraction. 
 
186 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 twenty of the Irish members should hold places, and that if it 
 should happen that a greater number did hold places during 
 pleasure, then those who had last accepted them should vacate 
 their seats." 
 
 In the House of Peers he proposed that twenty-eight lords 
 temporal of Ireland should have seats in the united Parliament, 
 who should be elected for life by the Peers of Ireland — an ar- 
 rangement which differed from that which, at the beginning of 
 the century, had been adopted for the representative Peers of 
 Scotland; but he argued, and surely with great reason, that 
 "the choice of Peers to represent the Irish nobility for life was 
 a mode that was more congenial to the general spirit and sys- 
 tem of a Peerage than that of their being septennially elected, 
 as the nobility of Scotland were." Of the spiritual Peers, four 
 were to sit in rotation ; to the lay Peers a farther privilege was 
 given, w^hich the minister regarded as of considerable, and even 
 constitutional importance. By the articles of the Scotch Union, 
 a Peer, if not chosen as a representative of the Peerage, was 
 not eligible as a candidate for the House of Commons in either 
 England or Scotland. But this bill " reserved a right to the 
 Peers of Ireland who should not be elected to represent their 
 own Peerage, to be elected members of the House of Com- 
 mons of the united Parliament of Great Britain ;" and Pitt 
 urged that this was " a far better mode of treatment than had 
 been adopted for the nobility of Scotland ; so that a nobleman 
 of Ireland, if not representing his own order, might be chosen 
 as a legislator by a class of inferior rank, which he was so far 
 from regarding as improper, that he deemed it in a high degree 
 advantageous to the empire, analogous to the practice as well 
 as friendly to the spirit of the British constitution." And he 
 enforced his argument by pointing out with honest pride the 
 advantage which in that respect the spirit and practice of our 
 constitution gave to our nobility over the nobles of other coun- 
 tries. " We know full well," he continued, " the advantage we 
 have experienced from having in this House those who, in the 
 course of descent, as well as in hopes of merit, have had a pros- 
 pect of sitting in our House of Peers. Those, therefore, who 
 object to this part of the arrangement " (for, as he had previ- 
 
THE lEISH EEPEESENTATIVE PEESS. 187 
 
 ously mentioned, it had been made a subject not only of objec- 
 tion, but of ridicule) " can only do so from the want of due 
 attention to the true character of our constitution, one of the 
 great leading advantages of which is, that a person may for a 
 long time be a member of one branch of the Legislature, and 
 have it in view to become a member of another branch of it. 
 This it is which constitutes the leading difference between the 
 nobility of Great Britain and those of other countries. With 
 us they are permitted to have legislative power before they 
 arrive at their higher stations ; and as they are, like all the rest 
 of mankind, to be improved by experience in the science of leg- 
 islation as well as in every other science, our constitution affords 
 them that opportunity by their being eligible to seats in this 
 House from the time of their majority. This is one of those 
 circumstances which arise frequently in practice, but the ad- 
 vantages of which do not appear in theory till chance happens 
 to cast them before us, and makes them subjects of discussion. 
 These are the shades of the British constitution in which its 
 latent beauties consist;" and he affirmed his conviction that 
 this privilege would prove " an advantage to the nobility of 
 Ireland, and an improvement in the system of representation 
 in the House." 
 
 It will hardly be denied that the arrangement that the rep- 
 resentative Peers of Ireland should enjoy their seats for life 
 did make it desirable that those who were not so elected to 
 the Upper House should be eligible as candidates for a place 
 in the Lower House. Otherwise, those who were not chosen 
 as representatives of the peerage would have been placed in the 
 anomalous and unfair position of being the only persons in the 
 kingdom possessed of the requisite property qualification, and 
 not disqualified by sex or profession, who were absolutely ex- 
 cluded from the opportunity of distinguishing themselves and 
 serving their country in Parliament. How great the practical 
 benefit to the House of Commons and the country the clause 
 he was recommending was calculated to confer, was shown in 
 a remarkable manner the very year of his death, when an Irish 
 Peer was returned to the House of Commons, who, retaining 
 his seat for nearly sixty years as the representative of different 
 
188 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 constituencies, the University of Cambridge being among the 
 number, during the course of that period rose through a vari- 
 ety of offices to that of Prime-minister, and, as is admitted even 
 by those who dissented most widely from some of his opinions 
 and actions, earned for himself an honorable reputation, as one 
 who had rendered faithful services to the crown, and on more 
 than one occasion had conferred substantial benefits on the 
 country. 
 
 The arrangements proposed with respect to the Peers were 
 not opposed. But Mr. Grey — generally acting as the spokes- 
 man of the Opposition on this question — raised an objection 
 to making so large an addition as that of one hundred new 
 members to the British House of Commons. He repeated his 
 prophecy, made on a previous occasion, of the subserviency to 
 the minister which the Irish members might be expected to 
 exhibit, and therefore moved an amendment to reduce the 
 number of Irish representatives to eighty-five ; but, to obviate 
 the discontent which such a reduction might be expected to 
 excite in Ireland, he proposed to diminish the number of Eng- 
 lish members also, by disfranchising forty " of the most de- 
 cayed boroughs," a step which would leave the number of 
 members in the new united Parliament as nearly as possible 
 the same as it was before. He found, however, very few to 
 agree with him; his amendment was rejected by 1*76 to 34; 
 and the minister's proposal was adopted in all its details. 
 
 Mr. Pitt touched lightly on the next article, which limited 
 the royal prerogative of creating Peers by a provision that the 
 King should never confer any fresh Irish peerage till three 
 peerages should have become extinct. This, again, was a point 
 of difference between the conditions of the Scotch and Irish. 
 Unions ; since by the terms of the Scotch Union the King was 
 forever debarred from creating any new Scotch peerages. But 
 it was pointed out that the greater antiquity of the Scotch 
 peerages, and the circumstance that in Scotland the titles de- 
 scended to collateral branches, were calculated to make the 
 extinction of a Scotch peerage an event of very rare occur- 
 rence; while the comparative newness (with very few excep- 
 tions) of Irish peerages, and the rule by which they are " con- 
 
THE lEISH CHUECH AND THE UNION. 189 
 
 fined to immediate male descendants," rendered the entire ex- 
 tinction of the Irish peerage probable, " if the power of adding 
 to or making up the number were not given to the crown." 
 
 Recent legislation has given such importance to the next 
 resolution, that it will be well to quote his precise words : 
 
 "5. That it would be fit to propose, as the fifth article of 
 union, that the Churches of that part of Great Britain called 
 England and of Ireland shall be united into one Church ; and 
 that when his Majesty shall summon a Convocation, the arch- 
 bishops, bishops, and clergy of the several provinces in Ireland 
 shall be respectively summoned to and sit in the Convocation 
 of the united Church, in the like manner and subject to the 
 same regulations as to election and qualification as are at pres- 
 ent by law established with respect to the like orders of the 
 Church of England ; and that the doctrine, worship, discipline, 
 and government of the said united Church shall be preserved 
 as now by law established for the Church of England, saving 
 to the Church of Ireland all the rights, privileges, and jurisdic- 
 tions now thereunto belonging ; and that the doctrine, worship, 
 discipline, and government of the Church of Scotland shall 
 likewise be preserved as now by law, and by the Act of Union 
 established for the Church of Scotland ; and that the continu- 
 ance and preservation forever of the said united Church, as the 
 Established Church of that part of the said United Kingdom 
 called England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an 
 essential and fundamental article and condition of the Union." 
 
 Pitt's comment on this article was so brief as to show that 
 he regarded its justice as well as its importance too obvious to 
 need any elaborate justification. He pointed out that that 
 portion of it which related to Convocation had been added by 
 the Irish Parliament, and " would only say on so interesting a 
 subject that the prosperity of the Irish Church could never be 
 permanent, unless it were a part of the Union, to leave as a 
 guard a power to the United Parliament to make some provi- 
 sion in this respect as a fence beyond any act of their own that 
 could at present be agreed on." But, while he thus showed 
 his conviction that the permanent prosperity of the Irish Church 
 was essential to the welfare of the kingdom, he was by no 
 
190 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 means insensible to the claims of the Roman Catholic Churcli 
 (as founded not more in policy than in justice) to be placed in 
 some degree on a footing of equality with it; not only by a 
 recognition of the dignity of its ministers, but also by an en- 
 dowment which should be proportioned to their requirements, 
 and should place them in a position of worldly competence and 
 comfort for which hitherto they had been dependent on their 
 flocks.* To use the expression of a modern statesman, he con- 
 templated " levelling up," not " levelling down." Perhaps it 
 may be said that he contemplated levelling up, as the surest 
 and most permanent obstacle to any proposal of levelling down. 
 
 At the same time it is fair to remark, that the argument 
 which on a recent occasion was so strongly pressed by the 
 champions of the Church, that it was beyond the power of 
 Parliament to repeal what was here declared to be " an essen- 
 tial and fundamental article and condition of the Union," is 
 untenable, on every consideration of the power of Parliament, 
 and, indeed, of common-sense ; since it would be an intolerable 
 evil, and one productive of the worst consequences, if the doc- 
 trine were admitted that any Parliament could make an un- 
 changeable law and bind its successors forever ; and, moreover, 
 since the very words of this article do clearly imply the power 
 of Parliament over the Church, the power asserted, to " make 
 some provision for the permanence of its prosperity," clearly 
 involving a power to make provisions of an opposite character. 
 The expediency or impolicy, the propriety or unrighteousness, 
 of a measure must always depend on the merits of the question 
 itself at the time, and not on the judgment or intentions of 
 legislators of an earlier generation. And advocates weaken in- 
 stead of strengthening their case when they put forward argu- 
 ments which, however plausible or acceptable to their own par- 
 tisans, are, nevertheless, capable of refutation. 
 
 The next article related to a question of paramount practical 
 importance, and of special interest, since, as has been seen be- 
 fore, there was no subject on which the past legislation of the 
 English Parliament had been so discreditable. But the jealousy 
 
 * See his letter to the King, dated January 31, 1801, quoted by Lord 
 Stanhope in the appendix to vol. iii. of his "Life of Pitt," p. 25. 
 
Pitt's peinciples of legislation for Ireland. 191 
 
 of English manufacturers, thougli it had prevailed over the in- 
 difference of William III., who reserved all his solicitude for 
 matters of foreign diplomacy, could find no echo in the large 
 mind and sound commercial and financial knowledge of the 
 modern statesman. He laid it down as the principle of his 
 legislation on this subject — a principle which " he was sure 
 that every gentleman in the House was ready to admit — that 
 the consequence of the Union ought to be a perfect freedom 
 of trade, whether of produce or manufacture, without exception, 
 if possible ; that a deviation from that principle ought to be 
 made only when adhering to it might possibly shake some 
 large capital, or materially diminish the effect of the labor of 
 the inhabitants, or suddenly and violently shock the received 
 opinion or popular prejudices of a large portion of the people ; 
 but that, on the whole, the communication between the two 
 kingdoms should in spirit be free ; that no jealousy should be 
 attempted to be created between the manufacturers of one place 
 or the other upon the subject of 'raw materials' or any other 
 article ; for it would surely be considered very narrow policy, 
 and as such would be treated with derision, were an attempt 
 made to create a jealousy between Devonshire and Cornwall, 
 between Lancashire and Durham. . . . He said, then, that the 
 principle of the Union on this head should be liberal and free, 
 and that no departure from it should ever take place but upon 
 some point of present unavoidable necessity." He was even 
 able to add (and he must have felt peculiar satisfaction in mak- 
 ing the statement, since the change in the feelings of the Eng- 
 lish manufacturers on the subject must have been mainly the 
 fruit of his own teaching, and was a practical recognition of 
 the benefits which they had derived from his commercial policy 
 taken as a whole), that " the English manufacturers did not 
 wish for any protective duties ; all they desired was free inter- 
 course with all the world ; and, though the want of protective 
 duties might occasion them partial loss, they thought it amply 
 compensated by the general advantage." He even thought the 
 arrangements now to be made " would encourage the growth 
 of wool in Ireland, and that England would be able to draw 
 supplies of it from thence ; and he did not fear that there 
 
192 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 would be trade enongli for both countries in the markets of 
 the world, and in the market which each country would afford 
 to the other." The English manufacturers did not, however, 
 acquiesce very cheerfully in every part of his commercial ar- 
 rangements. On the contrary, against the clause which re- 
 pealed all prohibitions of or bounties on exportation of differ- 
 ent articles grown or manufactured in either country, they pe- 
 titioned, and even set up a claim, which was granted, to be 
 heard by counsel and to produce witnesses. But Pitt steadily 
 refused the least modification of this part of his measure, not 
 merely on account of its intrinsic reasonableness and justice, 
 but because there was scarcely any condition to which the Irish 
 themselves attached greater importance. 
 
 An equally important and more difficult matter to adjust to 
 the satisfaction of both Parliaments was the apportionment of 
 the financial burdens between the two nations. It would be 
 tiresome as well as superfluous to enter into minute details ; 
 the more so as the arrangement proposed was of a temporary 
 character. After a long and minute discussion, Pitt's appraise- 
 ment was admitted to come as near to strict fairness and equity 
 as any that could be made ; the separate discharge of its public 
 debt already incurred was left to each kingdom ; and it was 
 farther settled that for twenty years fifteen parts of the expense 
 of the nation out of seventeen should be borne by Great Brit- 
 ain and two by Ireland. 
 
 Other articles provided that the laws and courts of both 
 kingdoms, civil and ecclesiastical, should remain in their exist- 
 ing condition, subject, of course, to such alterations as the 
 united Legislature might hereafter deem desirable. 
 
 The resolutions, when adopted — as they speedily were — were 
 embodied in a bill, which passed through the last stage by re- 
 ceiving the royal assent at the beginning of July. The state 
 of public feeling in Ireland was not yet sufficiently calmed 
 down after the Rebellion for it to be prudent to venture on a 
 general election, and it was, consequently, ordained that the 
 members for the Irish counties and for those Irish boroughs 
 which had been selected for the retention of representation 
 should take their seats in the united Parliament on its next 
 
THE IRISH UNION A VITAL CHANGE. 193 
 
 meeting. On the 22d of January, 1801, the united, or, to give 
 it its more proper designation, the Imperial Parliament held its 
 first meeting, being, although in its sixth session, so far regard- 
 ed as a new Parliament, that the King directed a fresh election 
 of a Speaker. 
 
 The Union, as thus effected, was so far a vital change in the 
 constitution of both Great Britain and Ireland, that it greatly 
 altered the situation in which each kingdom had previously 
 stood to the other. Till 1782 the position of Ireland toward 
 England had been one of entire political subordination ; and, 
 though that had in appearance been modified by the repeal of 
 Poynings' Act, yet no one doubted or could doubt that, when- 
 ever the resolutions of the two Parliaments came into conflict, 
 the Irish Parliament would find submission unavoidable. But 
 by the Union that subordination was terminated forever. The 
 character of the Union — of the conditions, that is, on which 
 the two countries were united — was one of perfect and com- 
 plete equality on all important points, indeed, in all matters 
 whatever, except one or two of minor consequence, where some 
 irremovable difference between them compelled some trifling 
 variations. It was not a connection of domination on the one 
 side and subordination on the other, where every concomitant 
 circumstance might tempt the one to overbearing arrogance, 
 while the other could not escape a feeling of humiliation. It 
 was rather — to quote the eloquent peroration of Pitt, when, in 
 the preceding year, he first introduced the subject to the con- 
 sideration of the House of Commons — " a free and voluntary 
 association of two great countries, joining for their common 
 benefit in one empire, where each retained its proportionate 
 weight and importance, under the security of equal laws, recip- 
 rocal affection, and inseparable interests ; and which wanted 
 nothing but that indissoluble connection to render both in- 
 vincible." 
 
 On that occasion Pitt had argued, from the great subsequent 
 increase in the population and wealth of Edinburgh and Glas- 
 gow, and in the prosperity of the whole country of Scotland, 
 that a similar result might be looked for in Ireland. And the 
 general trade of Ireland, and especially the linen manufacture, 
 
 9 
 
194 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOKY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 within a very few years began to realize his prediction. So 
 that it is strange to find Fox, on the great minister's death, five 
 years afterward, reiterating his disapproval of the Union as a 
 plea for refusing him the appellation of a great statesman.* 
 In one point alone the intrigues of a colleague prevented Pitt 
 from carrying out to the full his liberal and enlightened views, 
 and compelled him to leave the Union incomplete in a matter 
 of such pre-eminent importance, that it may be said that all 
 the subsequent disquietudes which have prevented Ireland from 
 reaping the full benefit he desired from the Union are trace- 
 able to his disappointment on that subject.f We have seen 
 
 * Mr. Fox, called on by Mr. Alexander to explain his expressions (in 
 the debate relative to Mr. Pitt's funeral), by which he had declared his 
 disapprobation of the Union, and his concurrence in opinion with Mr. 
 O'Hara that it ought to be rescinded. Mr. Fox repeated his disapproba- 
 tion, but disclaimed ever having expressed an opinion or entertained a 
 thought of proposing its repeal, that being now impracticable, though he 
 regretted its ever having been effected. — Diary of Lord Colchester, Febru- 
 ary 17, 1806, ii., 39. 
 
 t It may be remarked that in another respect also political critics have 
 pronounced the Union defective. Archbishop Whately, whose long ten- 
 ure of oflSce in Ireland, as well as the acuteness and candor which he 
 brought to bear on every subject he discussed, entitle his opinions to 
 most respectful consideration, held this view very strongly. In several 
 conversations which he held with Mr. W. N. Senior, in 1858 and 1862, he 
 condemned the retention of the Lord-lieutenancy as "a half measure," 
 which, however unavoidable at the time when "no ship could be certain 
 of getting from Holyhead to Dublin in less than three weeks," he pro- 
 nounced " inconsistent with the fusion of the two peoples, which was the 
 object of the Union," and wholly indefeasible "in an age of steam-vessels 
 and telegraphs." And, besides its theoretical inconsistency, he insisted 
 that it produced many great and practical mischiefs, among which he 
 placed in the front "the keeping up in people's minds the notion of a 
 separate kingdom ; the affording a hot-bed of faction and intrigue ; the 
 presenting an image of Majesty so faint and so feeble as to be laughed at 
 and scorned. Disaffection to the English Lieutenancy is cheaply shovvn, 
 and it paves the way toward disaffection to the English crown." And 
 he imputed its continued retention to "the ignorance which prevails in 
 England of the state of feeling in Ireland." — Journals and Conversations 
 Belating to Ireland, by W. N. Senior, ii., 130, 251, and passim. And it is- 
 worthy of observation that a similar view is expressed by a Scotch writer 
 of great ability, who, contrasting the mode in which Scotland is governed 
 with that which pi'evails in Ireland, farther denounces the Viceroyalty 
 "as a distinct mark that Ireland is not directly under the sovereignty of 
 Great Britain, but rather a dependency, like India or the Isle of Man." — 
 Ireland, by J. B. Kinnear, quoted in the Fortnightly Review, April 1, 1881. 
 It is remarkable that in 1850 a bill for the abolition of the office was 
 passed in the House of Commons by a large majority (295 to 70), but was 
 dropped in the House of Lords, chiefly on account oi the opposition of 
 the Duke of Wellington. But it is, at all events, plain that the reasons, 
 arising from the difliiculty and uncertainty of communication, which made 
 its abolition impossible at the beginning of the century, have passed away 
 
Pitt's liberal and enlightened aims. 195 
 
 that he contemplated, as a natural and necessary consequence 
 or even part of the Union, an extensive reform of the laws af- 
 fecting the Roman Catholics. Indeed, the understanding that 
 he was prepared to introduce a measure with that object had 
 no small weight in conciliating in some quarters support to the 
 Act of Union. Accordingly, when describing the arrangements 
 which he had in view for the Church of Ireland, he indicated 
 his intention with sufficient plainness by the statement, that 
 *'it might be proper to leave to Parliament an opportunity 
 of considering what might be fit to be done for his Majesty's 
 Catholic subjects ;" words which were generally understood to 
 express his feeling, that both justice and policy required the 
 removal of the restrictions which debarred the Roman Catho- 
 lics from the complete enjoyment of political privileges. But 
 the history and different bearings of that question it will be 
 more convenient to discuss in a subsequent chapter, when we 
 shall have arrived at the time when it was partially dealt with 
 by the ministry of the Duke of Wellington. 
 
 "with the introduction of steam-vessels and telegraphs. Communication 
 of Loudon with Dublin is now as rapid as communication with Edin- 
 burgh, and, that being the case, it is not easy to see how an establish- 
 ment which has never been thought of for Scotland can be desirable for 
 Ireland. 
 
196 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 A Census is Ordered. — Dissolution of Pitt's Administration. — Impeach- 
 ment of Lord Melville.— Introduction of Lord Ellenborough into the 
 Cabinet. — Abolition of the Slave-trade. — Mr. Windham's Compulsory- 
 Training Bill. — Illness of the King, and Regency, — Recurrence to the 
 Precedent of 1788-' 89. — Death of Mr. Perceval.— Lord Liverpool be- 
 comes Prime-minister. — Question of Appointments in the Household. 
 — Appointment of a Prime-minister. 
 
 The Union witli Ireland was the last great work of Pitt's 
 jRrst administration, and a noble close to the legislation of the 
 eighteenth century. But the last months of the year were also 
 signalized by another enactment, which, though it cannot be 
 said to have anything of a character strictly entitled to the 
 name of constitutional, nevertheless established a practice so 
 valuable as the foundation of a great part of our domestic leg- 
 islation, that it will, perhaps, hardly be considered foreign to 
 the scope and purpose of this volume to record its commence- 
 ment. In November, 1800, Mr. Abbott, the member for Hel- 
 stone, brought in a bill to take a census of the people of the 
 United Kingdom, pointing out not only the general importance 
 of a knowledge of -the population of a country in its entire 
 amount and its different classes to every government, but also 
 its special bearing on agriculture and on the means requisite to 
 provide subsistence for the people, on trade and manufactures, 
 and on our resources for war. Such a census as he proposed 
 had been more than once taken in Holland, Sweden, Spain, and 
 even in the United States, young as was their separate national 
 existence ; it had been taken once — nearly fifty years previous 
 — in Scotland ; and something like one had been furnished in 
 England in the reign of Edward III. by a subsidy roll, and in 
 that of Elizabeth by diocesan returns furnished by the Bishops 
 to the Privy Council.* He farther argued for the necessity of 
 
 * It is somewhat remarkable that Lord Macaulay, in his endeavors to 
 estimate the population in 1685, takes no notice of any of these details 
 mentioned by Mr. Abbott. 
 
USEFUL RESULTS OF THE CENSUS. 197 
 
 such a proceeding from tlie different notions entertained by 
 men of sanguine or desponding tempers as to the increase or 
 diminution of the population. " Some desponding men had 
 asserted that the population had decreased by a million and 
 a half between the Revolution and Peace of Paris, in 1763; 
 others (of whom the speaker himself was one) believed that, 
 on the contrary, it had increased in that interval by two mill- 
 ions." His motion was unanimously adopted by both Houses ; 
 and when the census was taken, its real result furnished as 
 strong a proof of its usefulness as any of the mover's argu- 
 ments, by the extent of the prevailing miscalculations which it 
 detected. For Mr. Abbott, who had spared no pains to arrive 
 at a correct estimate, while he mentioned that some persons 
 reckoned the population of England and Wales at 8,000,000, 
 pronounced that, according to other statements, formed on a 
 more extensive investigation, and, as it seemed to him, on a 
 more correct train of reasoning, the total number could not be 
 less than 11,000,000." In point of fact, excluding those em- 
 ployed in the army and navy, who were nearly half a million, 
 the number for England and Wales fell short of nine millions.* 
 It would be quite superfluous to dilate on the value of the in- 
 formation thus supplied, without which, indeed, much of our 
 subsequent legislation on poor-laws, corn-laws, and all matters 
 relating to rating and taxation, would have been impracticable 
 or the merest guesswork. 
 
 As was mentioned in the preceding chapter, Pitt found him- 
 self unable to fulfil the hopes which, in his negotiations with 
 different parties in Ireland, he had led the Roman Catholics 
 to entertain of the removal of their civil and political disabili- 
 ties. So rigorous were those restrictions, both in England and 
 Ireland, that a Roman Catholic could not serve even as a pri- 
 vate in the militia; and a motion made in 1797 by Mr. Wilber- 
 force — a man who could certainly not be suspected of any 
 
 * The details of this census of 1801 are given in a note in the preceding 
 chapter (see page 185), from which it appears that the entire population 
 of the United Kingdom was in that year 16,395,870. Sir A. Alison, in 
 different chapters of the second part of his "History of Europe," gives 
 returns of subsequent censuses, from the last of which (c. Ivi., s. 34, note), 
 it appears that in 1851 the population amounted to 27,511,862, an increase 
 of 11,116,792 in half a century. 
 
198 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 leaning to Roman Catholic doctrine — to render them admis- 
 sible to that service, though it was adopted in the House of 
 Commons, was rejected by the House of Lords. But Pitt, 
 who on that occasion had supported Wilberforce, did not con- 
 fine his views to the removal of a single petty disability, but 
 proposed to put the whole body of Roman Catholics on a foot- 
 ing of perfect equality with Protestants in respect of their 
 eligibility to every kind of ofiice, with one or two exceptions. 
 And during the autumn of 1800 he was busily engaged in 
 framing the details of his measure, in order to submit it to his 
 royal master in its entirety, and so to avoid disquieting him 
 with a repetition of discussions on the subject, which he knew 
 to be distasteful to him. For, five years before, George III. 
 had consulted the Chief - justice, Lord Kenyon, and the At- 
 torney-general, Sir John Scott (afterward Lord Eldon), on the 
 question whether some proposed concessions to Dissenters, ■ 
 Protestant as well as Roman Catholic, did not " militate against 
 the coronation oath and many existing statutes;" and had re- 
 ceived their legal opinion that the tests enacted in the reign 
 of Charles IL, " though wise laws, and in policy not to be de- 
 parted from, might be repealed or altered without any breach 
 of the coronation oath or Act of Union" (with Scotland).* 
 Their opinions on the point were the more valuable, since they 
 were notoriously opposed to their political convictions, and 
 might be supposed to have carried sufficient conviction to the 
 royal mind. But his Majesty's scruples were now, unfortunate- 
 ly, revived by the Lord Chancellor, who, strange to say, was 
 himself a Presbyterian ; and who treacherously availed himself 
 of his knowledge of what was in contemplation to anticipate 
 the Prime-minister's intended explanations to the King. He 
 fully succeeded in his object of fixing the King's resolution to 
 refuse his assent to the contemplated concessions (which, by a 
 curious confusion of ideas, his Majesty even characterized as 
 *' Jacobinical"!), though not in the object which he had still 
 
 * "Lives of the Chief-justices," by Lord Campbell, iii., 87, life of Lord 
 Kenyou. 
 
 t "What is this," said George III. to Mr. T)undas, "whichi this young 
 loi'd (Castlercagh) has brought over, wliich they are going to throw at 
 my head ? The most Jacobinical thing I ever heard of ! I shall reckon 
 
NELSON AND THE NORTHERN CONFEDERACY. 199 
 
 more at heart, of inducing the King to regard him as the 
 statesman in the whole kino-dom the most deservina' of his 
 confidence. The merits of the question will be more appro- 
 priately examined hereafter. It is sufficient to say here that 
 Pitt, conceiving himself bound by personal honor as well as by 
 statesman-like duty to persevere in his intended measure, or to 
 retire from an office which no man is justified in holding unless 
 he can discharge its functions in accordance with his own judg- 
 ment of what is required by the best interests of the state, 
 resigned his post, and was succeeded by Mr. Addington. 
 
 Addington's ministry was made memorable by the forma- 
 tion of the Northern Confederacy against us, and its imme- 
 diate and total overthrow by Nelson's cannon ; and for the 
 Peace of Amiens, severely criticised in Parliament, as that of 
 Utrecht and every subsequent treaty with a similar object had 
 been, but defensible both on grounds of domestic policy, as 
 well as on that of affording us a much-needed respite from the 
 strain of war ; though it proved to be only a respite, and a 
 feverish one, since at the end of two years the war was renew- 
 ed, to be waged with greater fury than ever. But it was too 
 short-lived for any constitutional questions to arise in it. And 
 when, in 1804, Pitt resumed the government, his attention was 
 too completely engrossed by the diplomatic arrangements by 
 which he hoped to unite all the nations east of the Rhine in 
 resistance to a power whose ever aggressive ambition was a 
 standing menace to every Continental kingdom, for him to be 
 able to spare time for the consideration of measures of domes- 
 tic policy, except such as were of a financial character. But, 
 though his premature death rendered his second administra- 
 tion shorter than even Addington's, it was not wholly unpro- 
 ductive of questions of constitutional interest. It witnessed a 
 recurrence to that which cannot but be regarded as among the 
 most important privileges of the House of Commons, the right 
 of impeaching a minister for maladministration. A report of 
 a commission appointed for the investigation of the naval af- 
 fairs of the kingdom had revealed to Parliament a gross misap- 
 
 any man ray personal enemy who proposes any such measure." — Life of 
 Pi«,iii.,374. 
 
200 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 plication of the public money committed by the Paymaster of 
 the Navy. And, as that officer could not have offended as he 
 had done without either gross carelessness or culpable con- 
 nivance on the part of the Treasurer of the Navy, Loi"d Mel- 
 ville, v^'ho had since been promoted to the post of First Lord 
 of the Admiralty, the House of Commons ordered his impeach- 
 ment at the Bar of the House of Lords ; the vote being passed 
 in 1805, during Pitt's administration, though the trial did not 
 take place till the year following. In reality, the charge did 
 not impugn Lord Melville's personal honor, on which at first 
 sight it appeared to press hardly, Mr. Whitbread himself, the 
 member for Bedford, who was the chief promoter and mana- 
 ger of the impeachment, admitting that he never imputed to 
 Lord Melville " any participation in the plunder of the public ;" 
 and, as Lord Melville was acquitted on every one of the charges 
 brought against him, the case might have been passed over 
 here with the barest mention of it, were it not that Lord Camp- 
 bell has pointed out the mode of procedure as differing from 
 that adopted in the great trial of Warren Hastings, twenty 
 years before ; and, by reason of that difference, forming a 
 model for future proceedings of the same kind, if, unhappily, 
 there should ever be occasion given for a similar prosecution. 
 The credit of the difference Lord Campbell gives to the Chancel- 
 lor, Lord Erskine, who, " instead of allowing the House of Lords 
 to sit to hear the case a few days in a year, and, when sitting, 
 being converted from a court of justice into a theatre for rhe- 
 torical display, insisted that it should sit, like every other crim- 
 inal tribunal, de die in diem, till the verdict was delivered. And 
 he enforced both upon the managers of the House of Commons 
 and on the counsel for the defendant the wholesome rules of 
 procedure established for the detection of crime and the pro- 
 tection of innocence."* It is well known that on the trial of 
 Hastings the managers of that impeachment, and most especial- 
 ly Burke, claimed a right of giving evidence such as no court 
 of law would have admitted, and set up what they entitled " a 
 usage of Parliament independent of and contradistinguished 
 
 * "Lives of the Chancellors," c. elxxxiv., life of Lord Erskine. 
 
napoleon's avowed invasion of ENGLAND. 201 
 
 from the common law."* Bat on that occasion Lord Thurlow, 
 then Chancellor, utterly denied the existence of any such usage — 
 a usage which, " in times of barbarism, when to impeach a man 
 was to ruin him by the strong hand of power, was quoted in 
 order to justify the most arbitrary proceedings." He instanced 
 the trial of Lord Strafford, as one which " was from beginning 
 to end marked by violence and injustice," and expressed a 
 "hope that in these enlightened days no man would be tried 
 but by the law of the land." We may fairly agree with Lord 
 Campbell, that it is to be hoped that the course adopted by 
 Lord Erskine in this case has settled the principle and mode of 
 procedure for all future time ; since certainly the importance 
 of an impeachment, both as to the state interests involved in it, 
 and the high position and authority of the defendant, ought to 
 be considered as reasons for adhering with the greatest close- 
 ness to the strict rules of law, rather than for relaxing them in 
 any particular. 
 
 But, as was natural, the public could spare little attention for 
 anything except the war, and the arrangements made by the 
 minister for engaging in it with effect ; the interest which such 
 a state of things always kindles being in this instance greatly 
 inflamed by Napoleon's avowal of a design to invade the king- 
 dom, though it is now known that the preparations of which 
 he made such a parade were merely a feint to throw Austria 
 off her guard.f During Addington's administration Pitt had 
 spoken warmly in favor of giving every possible encourage- 
 ment to the Volunteer movement, and also in support of a pro- 
 posal made by an independent member. Colonel Crawford, to 
 fortify London ; and one of his first measures after his resump- 
 tion of office was a measure, known as the Additional Force 
 Bill, to transfer a large portion of the militia to the regular 
 army. It was so purely a measure of detail, that it would 
 hardly have been necessary to mention it, had it not been for 
 an objection made to it by the Prime-minister's former col- 
 league. Lord Grenville, and for the reply with which that ob- 
 jection was encountered by the Chief -justice, Lord Ellenbor- 
 
 * ''Lives of the Chancellors," c. clix., life of Lord Thurlow. 
 t See " Memoires de M, de Metternich," ii., 156. 
 
 9* 
 
202 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 oiigli ; tlie former denouncing it as unconstitutional, since, as 
 he declared, it tended to establish a large standing army in 
 time of peace ; and Lord Ellenborough, on the other hand, de- 
 claring the right of the crown to call out the whole population 
 in arms for the defence of the realm to be so " radical, essential, 
 and hitherto never questioned part of the royal prerogative, 
 that, even in such an age of adventurous propositions, he had 
 not expected that any lord would have ventured to question it."* 
 
 Pitt died in the beginning of 1806, and was succeeded by an 
 administration oi which his great rival. Fox, w^as the guiding 
 spirit while he lived, though Lord Grenville was First Lord of 
 the Treasury, and, after Fox's death, which took place in Sep- 
 tember, the undisputed Prime-minister. But the formation of 
 the administration was not completed without a step which was 
 at once strongly denounced, not only by the regular Opposi- 
 tion, but by several members of political moderation, as a vio- 
 lation, if not of the letter, at least of the spirit, of the constitu- 
 tion, the introduction of the Lord Chief -justice. Lord Ellen- 
 borough, into the cabinet. It was notorious that he was in- 
 vited to a seat among that body as the representative of a small 
 party, the personal friends of Lord Sidmouth. For the minis- 
 try was formed in some degree on the principle of a coalition ; 
 Lord Grenville himself having been a colleague o{ Pitt through- 
 out the greater part of that statesman's first ministry, and as 
 such having been always opposed to Fox ; while Lord Ellen- 
 borough had been Attorney-general in Addington's administra- 
 tion, which avowedly only differed from Pitt on the single sub- 
 ject of the Catholic question. 
 
 The appointment was at once made the subject of motions 
 in both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Lords, Lord 
 Bristol, who brought the question forward, denounced "this 
 identification of a judge with the executive government as in- 
 jurious to the judicial character, subversive of the liberty of the 
 people, and having a direct and alarming tendency to blend 
 and amalgamate those great elementary principles of political 
 power which it is the very object of a free constitution to keep 
 
 * "Lives of the Chief-justices," iii.,175. 
 
ellenboeough's cabinet appointment resisted. 203 
 
 separate and distinct." In the House of Commons, Mr. Can- 
 ning took a similar objection; and, though he admitted that a 
 precedent for the act might be found in the case of Lord Mans- 
 field, who, while Chief -justice, had also been a cabinet minister 
 in the administration of 1757, he argued forcibly that that 
 precedent turned against the ministry and the present appoint- 
 ment, because Lord Mansfield himself had subsequently admit- 
 ted that " he had infringed the principles of the constitution 
 by acting as a cabinet minister and Chief-justice at the same 
 time." Fox, in reply, relied principally on two arguments. 
 The first was, that " he had never heard of such a thing as the 
 cabinet council becoming the subject of a debate in that House. 
 He had never known of the exercise of the King's prerogative 
 in the appointment of his ministers being brought into ques- 
 tion on such grounds as had now been alleged." The second, 
 that " in point of fact there is nothing in the constitution that 
 recognizes any such institution as a cabinet council ; that it is 
 a body unknown to the law, and one which has in no instance 
 whatever been recognized by Parliament." He farther urged 
 that as Lord Ellenborough was a privy councillor, and as the 
 cabinet is only a select committee of the Privy Council, he was, 
 " in fact, as liable to be summoned to attend the cabinet, as a 
 privy councillor, as he was in his present situation." 
 
 The last argument was beneath the speaker to use, since not 
 one of his hearers was ignorant that no member of the Privy 
 Council unconnected with the government ever is summoned 
 to the deliberations of the cabinet ; and though, as he correct- 
 ly stated, " there is no legal record of the members comprising 
 any cabinet," it may safely be afiirmed that since July, 1714, 
 when the Duke of Argyll and the Duke of Somerset claimed 
 admission to the deliberations of the ministers, on account of 
 the danger in which the Queen lay, though they admitted that 
 they had received no summons to attend,* there has been no 
 instance of any privy councillor attending without a summons ; 
 nor, except at the accession of a new sovereign, of summonses 
 being sent to any members of the council except the actual 
 
 *Lord Stanhope, "History of England," i., 133. 
 
204 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 ministers. The second argument was even worse, as being still 
 more sophistical. It might be true that no law nor statute rec- 
 ognized the cabinet as a body distinct from the Privy Council, 
 but it was at least equally true that there was no one who was 
 ignorant of the distinction ; that it was, in truth, one without 
 which it would be diflBcult to understand the organization or 
 working of any ministry. The indispensable function and 
 privilege of a ministry is, to deliberate in concert and in pri- 
 vate on the measures to be taken for the welfare of the state ; 
 but there could be little chance of concert, and certainly none 
 of privacy, if every one who has ever been sworn a member of 
 the Privy Council had a right to attend all its deliberations. 
 Again, to say that the King's prerogative, as exercised in the 
 choice of his advisers, is a thing so sacred that no abuse of it, 
 or want of judgment shown in its exercise, can warrant a com- 
 plaint, is inconsistent with every principle of constitutional gov- 
 ernment, and with every conceivable idea of the privileges of 
 Parliament. In fact. Parliament has claimed a right to inter- 
 fere in matters apparently touching more nearly the royal pre- 
 rogative, and it is only in the reign preceding the present reign 
 that hostile comments have been made in Parliament on the 
 appointment of a particular person as ambassador to a foreign 
 power. Yet the post of ambassador is one which might have 
 been supposed to have been farther removed from the supervi- 
 sion of Parliament than that of a minister, an ambassador be- 
 ing in a special degree the personal representative of the sov- 
 ereign, and the sovereign, therefore, having, it might be sup- 
 posed, a right to a most unfettered choice in such a matter. 
 
 Stripped of all technicalities, and even of all reference to the 
 manifest possibility of such a circumstance arising as that the 
 Chief -justice, if a member of a cabinet, may have a share in 
 ordering the institution of a prosecution which, as a judge, it 
 may be his lot to trj^, one consideration which is undeniable is, 
 that a member of a cabinet is of necessity, and by the very 
 nature of his position in it, a party man, and that it is of pre- 
 eminent importance to the impartiality of the judicial bench, 
 and to the confidence of the people in the purity, integrity, and 
 freedom from political bias of their decisions, that the judges 
 
BRITISH SOIL AND NEGRO FREEDOM. 205 
 
 should be exempt from all suspicion of party coTmection. Lord 
 Campbell even goes tbe length of saying, what was not urged 
 on either side of either House in these debates, that it was 
 alleged by at least one contemporary writer that Lord Mans- 
 field's position in the cabinet did perceptibly influence some 
 of his views and measures respecting the Press ;* and, though 
 in both Houses the ministry had a majority on the question 
 of the propriety of the appointment, he records his own opin- 
 ionf that " the argument was all on the losing side ;" and that 
 Mr. Fox showed his consciousness that it was so by his " con- 
 cession that the Chief-justice should absent himself from the 
 cabinet when the expediency of commencing prosecutions for 
 treason or sedition was to be discussed." He adds, also, that 
 " it is said that Lord Ellenborough himself ere long changed 
 his opinion, and, to his intimate friends, expressed deep regret 
 that he had ever been prevailed upon to enter the cabinet." 
 
 But, if the composition of the cabinet of 1806 has in this 
 respect been generally condemned, on the other hand the an- 
 nals of that ministry, short-lived as it was, are marked by the 
 enactment of one great measure which has been stamped with 
 universal approbation. It may, perhaps, be said that the ex- 
 istence, promotion, discouragement, or suppression of a branch 
 of trade has no title to be regarded as a constitutional question. 
 But the course which the British Parliament, after a long pe- 
 riod of hesitation, has adopted respecting, not only the slave- 
 trade, but the employment of slave-labor in any part of the 
 British dominions, is so intimately connected with the great 
 constitutional principle, that every man, whatever be his race 
 or nation or previous condition, whose foot is once planted on 
 British soil, is free from that moment, that it cannot be ac- 
 counted a digression to mention the subject here. To our 
 statesmen of Queen Anne's time trafiic in slaves was so far 
 from being considered discreditable, that the ministry of that 
 reign prided themselves greatly on what was called the Assien- 
 to Treaty with Spain, by which they secured for the British 
 merchants and ship-owners the privilege of supplying the West 
 
 * "Lives of the Chief-justices," ii., 451. He is quoting H. Walpole. 
 ilbid.,m.,187. 
 
206 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 India Islands witli several thousand slaves a year. In 1748 
 the ministers of George 11. were equally jealous of the credit 
 of renewing it. It had even on one occasion been decided in 
 the Court of Common Pleas that an action of trover could be 
 maintained for a negro, "because negroes are heathens;" though 
 Chief-justice Holt scouted the idea of being bound by a prece- 
 dent which would put " a human being on the same footing as 
 an ox or an ass," and declared that " in England there was no 
 such thing as a slave." Subsequent decisions, however, of two 
 Lord Chancellors — Lord Talbot and Lord Hardwicke — were not 
 wholly consistent with the doctrine thus laid down by Holt ; 
 and the question could not be regarded as finally settled till 
 1772, when a slave named Somersett was brought over to Eng- 
 land from Jamaica by his master, and on his arrival in the 
 Thames claimed his freedom, and under a writ of habeas corpus 
 had his claim allowed by Lord Mansfield. The master's coun- 
 sel contended that slavery was not a condition unsanctioned by 
 English law, for villeinage was slavery, and no statute had ever 
 abolished villeinage. But the Chief-justice, in the first place, 
 denied that villeinage had ever been slavery such as existed in 
 the West Indies ; and, in the second place, he pronounced that, 
 whether it had been or not, it had, at all events, long ceased in 
 England, and could not be revived. " The air of England has 
 long been too pure for a slave, and every man is free who 
 breathes it. Every man who comes into England is entitled to 
 the protection of English law."* But this freedom was as yet 
 held to be only co-extensive with these islands. And for sixty 
 years more our West India Islands continued to be cultivated 
 by the labor of slaves, some of whom were the offspring of 
 slaves previously employed, though by far the greater part were 
 imported yearly from the western coast of Africa. The supply 
 from that country seemed inexhaustible. The native chiefs in 
 time of war gladly sold their prisoners to the captains of British 
 vessels; in time of peace they sold them their own subjects ; and, 
 if at any time these modes of obtaining slaves slackened, the 
 captains would land at night, and, attacking the villages on the 
 
 * Campbell's "Lives of the Chief-jnstices," ii., 139, life of Chief-justice 
 Holt ; and p. 418, life of Lord Mansfield. 
 
ME. WILBERFOECE AND HIS MISSION". 207 
 
 coast, sweep off tlie inhabitants on board their ships, and at once 
 set sail with their booty. The sufferings of these unhappy 
 captives in what was called the " middle passage " — the passage 
 between their native land and the West India Islands — were for 
 a long time unknown or disregarded, till, early in Pitt's first 
 ministry, they attracted the notice of some of our naval officers 
 who were stationed in the West Indies, and who, on their return 
 to England, related the horrors which they had witnessed or 
 heard of — how, between decks too low to admit of a full-grown 
 man standing upright, the wretched victims, chained to the sides 
 of the ships, lay squeezed together in such numbers, though the 
 whole voyage was within the tropics, that, from the overpow- 
 ering heat and scantiness of food, it was estimated that two- 
 thirds of each cargo died on the passage. Most fortunately 
 for the credit of England, the fearful trade was brought under 
 the notice of a young member of Parliament singularly zealous 
 in the cause of humanity and religion, endowed with untiring 
 industry and powerful eloquence, and connected by the closest 
 ties of personal intimacy with Mr. Pitt. To hear of such a 
 system of organized murder, as the British officers described 
 the slave-trade to be, was quite sufficient to induce Mr. Wil- 
 berforce to resolve to devote himself to its suppression. He 
 laid the case in all its horrors before his friend the Prime-min- 
 ister, a man as ready as himself to grapple with and extinguish 
 all proved abuses ; and Pitt at once promised him all the sup- 
 port which he could give. It was no easy task that he had 
 taken on himself. A year or two before, Burke had applied 
 himself to frame some regulations which he hoped might 
 gradually remove the evil ; but, little as he was moved by con- 
 siderations of popularity or daunted by difficulty, he had aban- 
 doned the attempt, as one which would meet with a resistance 
 too powerful to be overcome. Wilberforce was not a bolder 
 man than Burke, but he had no other object to divide his at- 
 tention, and, therefore, to this one he devoted all his faculties 
 and energies, enlisting supporters in every quarter, seeking even 
 the co-operation of the French government, and opening a cor- 
 respondence with the French Secretary of State, M. Montmorin, 
 a statesman of great capacity, and, what was far rarer in France, 
 
208 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 of incorrnptible honesty. M. Montmorin, however, though alive 
 to the cruelty of the traffic, was unable to promise him any 
 aid, alleging the fears of the French planters that its abolition 
 " would ruin the French islands. He said that it was one of 
 those subjects upon which the interests of men and their sen- 
 timents were so much at variance, that it was difficult to learn 
 what was practicable."* 
 
 Wilberforce had already found that the English merchants 
 were still less manageable. Pitt had entered so fully into his 
 views, that in 1788 he himself moved and carried a resolution 
 pledging the House of Commons to take the slave-trade into 
 consideration in the next session. And another friend of the 
 cause. Sir W. Dobben, brought in a bill to diminish the horrors 
 of the middle passage by proportioning the number of slaves 
 who might be conveyed in one ship to the tonnage of the ves- 
 sel. But those concerned in the West India trade rose up in 
 arms against even so moderate a measure, and one so clearly 
 demanded by the most ordinary humanity as this. The Liver- 
 pool merchants declared that the absence of restrictions on the 
 slave-trade had been the chief cause of the prosperity and opu- 
 lence of their town, and obtained leave to be heard by counsel 
 against the bill. But Fox united with Pitt on this subject, and 
 the bill was carried. But this was all the practical success 
 which the efforts o£ the "Abolitionists," as they began to be 
 called, achieved for many years. And even that was not won 
 without extreme difficulty ; Lord Chancellor Thurlow opposing 
 it with great vehemence in the House of Lords, as the fruit of 
 a " five days' fit of philanthropy which had just sprung up," 
 and pointing to the conduct of the French government, which, 
 as he asserted, had offered premiums to encourage the trade, as. 
 an example that we should do well to follow. It was even said 
 that he had contrived to incline the King himself to the same 
 view ; to have persuaded him that the trade was indispensable 
 to the prosperity of our manufacturers, and, in the Chancellor's 
 words, " that it was his royal duty to show some humanity to 
 the whites as well as to the negroes." And more than once, 
 
 * " Life of Wilberforce," 1., 158. 
 
COLONIAL IMPORTATION OF NEGROES FORBIDDEN. 209 
 
 when bills to limit or wholly suppress the trade had been passed 
 by the Commons, the same mischievous influence defeated them 
 in the Lords. The last years of Pitt's first administration were 
 too fully occupied with the affairs of Ireland, negotiations with 
 foreign powers, and the great war with France, to enable him 
 to keep pace with his friend's zeal on the subject. But in his 
 second admmistration, occupied though he was with a recur- 
 rence of the same causes, he found time to prepare and issue an 
 Order in Council prohibiting the importation of slaves into our 
 fresh colonial acquisitions, and the employment of British ships 
 to supply the Dutch, French, and Spanish islands. 
 
 And this Order in Council paved the way for the total abo- 
 lition. One of the earliest proceedings of the new ministry was 
 the introduction by the Attorney-general, Sir Arthur Pigott, of 
 a bill to extend and make it perpetual ; to forbid " the impor- 
 tation of African negroes by British ships into the colonies 
 conquered by or ceded to us in war; or into the colonies of 
 any neutral state in the West Indies. For at present every 
 state that had colonies in America or the West Indies, and 
 that was not actually at war with us, availed itself of the op- 
 portunity of British shipping to carry on the trade." It was 
 resisted as vehemently as any former measure with the same 
 object, and partly on the new ground that it would in no degree 
 stop the tfede or diminish the sufferings of the Africans, but 
 would merely rob our ship-owners of their profits to enrich the 
 Americans. Mr. Rose, the member for Christchurch, who ad- 
 vanced this argument, had been a friend of Pitt ; yet, though 
 he quoted an instance of a single vessel having buried one hun- 
 dred and fifty-two slaves on one voyage, he was not ashamed 
 to deprecate the bill, on the plea that " the manufacturers of 
 Manchester, Stockport, and Paisley would be going about naked 
 and starving, and thus, by attending to a supposed claim for 
 relief from a distant quarter, we should give existence to much 
 more severe distress at home." The bill, however, was carried 
 in both Houses, and received the royal assent. And Fox, who 
 supported it warmly in his speech on the third reading (one of 
 the last speeches which he ever addressed to the House), invited 
 Wilberforce to regard it as a stepping-stone to the total aboli- 
 
210 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 tion of tlie trade, and as an encouragement to renew liis motion 
 for that object ; and, tliougli lie could not promise him the sup- 
 port of the government as a government, he " could answer for 
 himself and many of his friends who held the highest and most 
 dignified stations in the other House of Parliament. They still 
 felt the question of the total abolition as one involving the 
 dearest interests of humanity, and as one which, should they be 
 successful in effecting it, would entail more true glory upon 
 their administration, and more honor upon their country, than 
 any other transaction in which they could be engaged." 
 
 Mr. Fox did not live to see the opening of another session ; 
 but, when that time came, the position which he had taken up, 
 that the measure of which he had thus promoted the passing 
 was an encouragement to do more, was adopted to its full ex- 
 tent by the chief of his colleagues, Lord Grenville, who, in Feb- 
 ruary, 1807, himself brought forward a motion for the entire 
 abolition of the trade. Though he was Prime - minister, he 
 could not introduce it as a government measure, since two of 
 his colleagues — Lord Sidmouth, the President of the Council, 
 and Mr. Windham, the Secretary of State for the Colonies — 
 opposed it; though the former professed a desire to see the 
 trade abolished, but would have preferred to attain that end by 
 imposing such a tax on every slave imported as should render 
 the trade unprofitable. He had another obstacle "klso to en- 
 counter, in the vehement opposition of some of the princes of 
 the royal family, the Dukes of Clarence and Sussex more espe- 
 cially, who were known to be canvassing against the bill, and 
 were generally understood, in so doing, to be acting in accord- 
 ance with the views of their elder brothers. But he was confi- 
 dent that by this time the feeling of the whole country was. 
 with him on the subject. He was resolved to rest his case on 
 its justice, and therefore consented that the House should hear 
 counsel on the subject, though he resisted their demand to be 
 allowed to call witnesses. Accordingly, counsel were heard for 
 the whole body of West India planters, and for those of one or 
 two separate islands, such as Jamaica and Trinidad ; for the 
 Liverpool merchants, and even for the trustees of the Liverpool 
 Docks. But some of their reasonings he even turned against 
 
A ROYAL DEFENDER OF THE SLAVE-TRADE. 211 
 
 themselves, refusing for a moment to admit "that the profits 
 obtained by robbery could be urged as an argument for the 
 continuance of robbery." He denounced the trade as "the 
 most criminal that any country could be engaged in," and as 
 one that led to other crimes in the treatment of the slaves af- 
 ter they reached the West Indies. He instanced " three most 
 horrible and dreadful murders of slaves" that had been com- 
 mitted in Barbadoes, and quoted the report of Lord Seaforth, 
 governor of the island, who, on investigation, had found that 
 by the law of the colony the punishment aflSxed to such mur- 
 ders was a fine of eleven pounds. He was opposed by the Duke 
 of Clarence, who directed his remarks chiefly to a defence of 
 the general humanity of the planters ; and by Lord Westmore- 
 land, who, in a speech of singular intemperance, denounced the 
 principle of the measure, as" one after the passing of which " no 
 property could be rendered safe which could fall within the 
 power of the Legislature." He even made it an argument 
 against the bill that its principle, if carried to its legitimate 
 logical end, must tend to the abolition of slavery as well as of 
 the slave-trade. He objected especially to the assertion in the 
 preamble that the trade was " contrary to justice and humani- 
 ty," declaring that those words were only inserted in the hope 
 that by them " foreign powers might be humbugged into a con- 
 currence with the abolition," and wound up his harangue by a 
 declaration that, though he should " see the Presbyterian and 
 the prelate, the Methodist and pew-preacher, the Jacobin and 
 the murderer, unite in support of it, he would still raise his 
 voice against it." It must have been more painful to the min- 
 ister to be opposed by so distinguished an officer as Lord St. 
 Vincent, who resisted the bill chiefly on the ground that " its 
 effect would be to transfer British capital to other countries, 
 which would not be disposed to abandon so productive a 
 trade," and declared that he could only account for Lord Gren- 
 ville's advocacy of it " by supposing that some Obi man had 
 cast his spell upon him." But the case was too strong for any 
 arguments to prevail which were based solely on the profits of 
 a trade which no one pretended to justify. The bill passed the 
 Lords by a majority of nearly three to one ; in the House of 
 
212 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 t Commons, where the opposition was much feebler, by one infi- 
 nitely larger ;* and, by a somewhat remarkable coincidence, it 
 received the royal assent on the same day on which Lord Gren- 
 ville announced to his brother peers that his administration was 
 at an end. 
 
 Even before the abolition had thus become law, the member 
 for Northumberland, Earl Percy, endeavored to give practical 
 effect to Lord Westmoreland's view, that emancipation of the 
 slaves was its inevitable corollary, by moving for leave to bring 
 in a bill for the gradual abolition of slavery in the British set- 
 tlements of the West Indies. But he was opposed by Lord 
 Howiclv,f though he had been among the earnest advocates of 
 abolition, partly for the sake of the negroes themselves, and 
 partly on the ground that the Legislature had no " right to in- 
 terfere with the property of the colonists;" little foreseeing 
 that the measure which he now opposed was reserved for his 
 own administration, and that its accomplishment would be one 
 of its chief titles to the respectful recollection of posterity. 
 And, as the House was presently counted out, the discussion 
 would not have been worth recording, were it not for the op- 
 portunity which it gave of displaying the practical and moder- 
 ate wisdom of Wilberforce himself, who joined in the opposi- 
 tion to Lord Percy's motion. " The enemies of abolition had," 
 he said, " always confounded abolition with emancipation. He 
 and his friends had always distinguished between them ; and 
 not only abstained from proposing emancipation, but were ready 
 to reject it when proposed by others. How much soever he 
 looked forward with anxious expectation to the period when 
 the negroes might with safety be liberated, he knew too well 
 the effect which the long continuance of abject slavery pro-, 
 duced upon the human mind to think of their immediate eman- 
 cipation, a measure which at the present moment would be in- 
 jurious both to them and to the colonies. He and those who 
 acted with him were satisfied with having gained an object 
 which was safely attainable." 
 
 And they had reason to be satisfied. For the good work 
 
 V ,^„ * The division in tlie Lords was 100 to 36 ; in the Commons, 383 to 16. 
 t Afterward the Earl Grey of 1831. 
 
ABOLITION OF THE SLAVE TRAFFIC. 213 
 
 thus done was not limited by the extent of the British domin- 
 ions, vast as they are. Tiie example of the homage thus paid 
 by the Parliament and the nation to justice and humanity was 
 contagious ; the principle on which the bill was founded and 
 was carried being such that, for mere shame, foreign countries 
 could hardly persist in maintaining a traffic which those who 
 had derived the greatest profit from it had. on such grounds re- 
 nounced ; though our ministers did not trust to their sponta- 
 neous sympathies, but made the abolition of the traffic by our 
 various allies, or those who wished to become so, a constant 
 object of diplomatic negotiations, even purchasing the co-opera- 
 tion of some by important concessions, in one instance by the 
 payment of a large sum of money. The conferences and con- 
 gresses which took place on the re-establishment of peace gave 
 them great facilities for pressing their views on the different 
 governments. And Lord Liverpool's instructions to Lord Cas- 
 tlereagh and the Duke of Wellington, as plenipotentiaries of 
 our government,* show the keen interest which he took in the 
 matter, and the skilful manner in which he sought to avail him- 
 self of the predominant influence which the exertions and tri- 
 umphs of this country had given her with every foreign cabinet. 
 Though Portugal was an ally to whom we regarded ourselves 
 as bound by special ties, as well as by the great benefits we had 
 conferred on her, yet, as she clung with the greatest pertinacity 
 to the trade, he did not scruple to endeavor to put a constraint 
 upon her which should compel her submission, and instructed 
 Lord Castlereagh " to induce the Congress to take the best 
 means in their power to enforce it by the adoption of a law, on 
 the part of the several states, to exclude the colonial produce of 
 those countries who should refuse to comply with this system 
 of abolition." 
 
 And exertions so resolutely put forward were so successful, 
 that the trade was avowedly proscribed by every European 
 nation, though unquestionably it was still carried on by stealth 
 by merchants and ship-owners of more than one country — not, 
 if the suspicions of our statesmen were well founded, without 
 
 * See especially his "Letters to Lord Castlereagh," p. 814; and "Life 
 of Lord Liverpool," i.,512; ii., 35, 49, 137. 
 
214 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 some connivance on the part of their governments. Nor were 
 our efforts in the cause the fitful display of impulsive excite- 
 ment. We have continued them and vv^idened their sphere as 
 occasions have presented themselves, exerting a successful in- 
 fluence even over unchristian and semi-civilized governments, 
 of which an instance has very recently been furnished, in the 
 assurances given by' the Khedive of Egypt to our minister re- 
 siding at his court, that he is taking vigorous measures to sup- 
 press the slave-trade, which is still carried on in the interior of 
 Africa ; and that we may believe his promise that he will not 
 relax his exertions till it is extinguished, at least in the region 
 on the north of the equator. 
 
 Individuals, as a rule, are slow to take warning from the ex- 
 perience of others ; slower, perhaps, to follow their example in 
 well-doing. Nations are slower still. When such an example 
 is followed, still more when it is adopted by a general imita- 
 tion, it will usually be found not only that the good is of a 
 very unusual standard of excellence, but that he or they who 
 have set the example are endowed with a force of character 
 that predisposes others to submit to their influence. And 
 credit of this kind England may fairly claim for the general 
 abolition of the slave-trade ; for the condemnation and aboli- 
 tion of the slave-trade had this distinguishing feature, that the 
 idea of such a policy was of exclusively British origin. '' No 
 nation had ever before conceived the notion that to make a 
 man a slave was a crime. On the contrary, there were not 
 wanting those who, from the recognition of such a condition in 
 the Bible, argued that it was a divine institution. And they 
 who denounced it, and labored for its suppression, had not only 
 inveterate prejudice and long custom to contend with, but found 
 arrayed against them many of the strongest passions that ani- 
 mate mankind. The natural desire for gain united merchants, 
 ship-owners, and planters in unanimous resistance to a measure 
 calculated to cut off from them one large source of profit. 
 Patriotism, which, however misguided, was sincere and free 
 from all taint of personal covetousness, induced many, who 
 were wholly unconnected either with commerce or with the 
 West Indies, to look with disfavor on a change which not only 
 
A MEASURE FOE STRENGTHENING THE ARMY. 215 
 
 imperilled the interests of such important bodies of men, but 
 which, they were assured by those concerned, must render the 
 future cultivation of estates in the West Indies impracticable ; 
 while such a result would not only ruin those valuable colonies, 
 but would also extinguish that great nursery for our navy 
 which was furnished by the vessels at present engaged in the 
 West India trade. To disregard such substantial considera- 
 tions, to risk a loss of revenue, a diminution of our colonial 
 greatness, and a weakening of our maritime power, even while 
 engaged in a formidable war, under no other pressure but that 
 of a respect for humanity and justice, was certainly a homage 
 to those virtues, and also an act of self-denying courage, of 
 which the previous history of the world had furnished no simi- 
 lar example ; and it is one of which, in one point of view, the 
 nation may be more justly proud than of the achievements of 
 its wisest statesmen, or the exploits of its most invincible war- 
 riors. For it was the act of the nation itself. No previous 
 sentiment of the people paved the way for Pitt's triumphs in 
 finance, for Nelson's or Wellington's victories by sea and land ; 
 but the slave-trade could never have been abolished by any 
 parliamentary leader, had not the nation as a whole become 
 convinced of its wickedness, and, when once so convinced, re- 
 solved to brave everything rather than persist in it. The merit 
 of having impressed it with this conviction belongs to Mr. 
 Wilberforce, whose untiring, unswerving devotion of brilliant 
 eloquence and practical ability to the one holy object, and 
 ^hose ultimate success, give him a just claim to be reckoned 
 among the great men of a generation than which the world 
 has seen none more prolific of every kind of greatness. But 
 the nation itself is also entitled to no slight credit for hav- 
 ing so rapidly appreciated the force of his teaching, and for 
 having encouraged its representatives to listen to his voice, 
 by the knowledge that by adopting his measures they would 
 be carrying out the wish and determination of the whole 
 people. 
 
 A measure for the strengthening of the army, introduced by 7 
 the Secretary of State for War, Mr. Windham, though not one 
 of perpetual force, since it required to be renewed every year, 
 
216 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 claims a brief mention, from the extent to which one of its 
 clauses trenched on the freedom of the subject, by making 
 every man of military age (from sixteen years old* to forty) 
 liable to be compelled to submit to military training for a cer- 
 tain period of each year. " Nothing," to quote the Secretary's 
 words, " was to exempt any man from the general training but 
 his becoming a volunteer at his own expense, the advantage of 
 which would be that he could train himself if he chose, and 
 fight, if occasion required it, in the corps to which he should 
 belong, instead of being liable to fall in among the regulars. . . . 
 As out of the immense mass of the population some selection 
 must be made, those called on to be trained were to be selected 
 by lot, and he would have the people divided into three classes, 
 between the ages of sixteen and forty : the first class to com- 
 prehend all from sixteen to twenty -four; the second, those 
 between twenty-four and thirty-two ; and the third, all from 
 thirty-two to forty. The number of days for training he pro- 
 posed to limit to twenty-six, with an allowance of a shilling a 
 day for each man." The result aimed at by this part of his 
 measure was the creation of a force different from and uncon- 
 nected with the militia ; and he did not conceal his hope that 
 the military habits which it would implant in a large portion 
 of the population would lead many of those thus about to be 
 trained to enlist in the regular army. To the militia itself he 
 paid a high but not undeserved compliment, declaring it " for 
 home service certainly equal to any part of our regular forces, 
 with the single exception that it had never seen actual service." 
 But the militia could not be called on to serve out of the king- 
 dom ; and his object was to increase the force available for 
 foreign service — " to see the great mass of the population of 
 the country so far trained as to be able to recruit immediately 
 whatever losses the regular army might sustain in action." As 
 
 * Lord Colchester's "Diary," ii., 49, dated Api'il 3, 1806, says eighteen 
 years. But Mr. Windham's speech, as reported in the "Parliamentary 
 History," second series, vi., 685, says sixteen years ; and as he divides the 
 ages into three classes, the two latter of which, from twenty -four to 
 thirty -two, and from thirty -two to forty, are of eight years each, it is 
 probable that the younger class was of the same duration, i. e., from six- 
 teen to twenty-four. 
 
THE king's malady EECtJRS. 217 
 
 yet, the number of men yearly obtained by recruiting fell far 
 short of the requirements of the service. Wellington had not 
 yet begun that career of victory which created a national en- 
 thusiasm for war, and filled our ranks with willing soldiers. 
 And another clause of the same bill was framed in the hope 
 of making the service more acceptable to the peasantry, by 
 limiting the time for which recruits were to be enlisted, and 
 entering men, at first, in the infantry for seven years, or in the 
 cavalry (as that branch of the service required a longer appren- 
 ticeship) for ten ; then allowing them the option of renewing 
 their engagement for two periods — in the infantry of seven 
 years each, in the cavalry of six and five, with increased pay 
 during each of the two periods, and a small pension for life, if 
 the soldier retired after the second period; and "the full al- 
 lowance of Chelsea," which was to be farther raised to a shil- 
 ling a day, for those who elected to serve the whole twenty- 
 one years. This principle the present reign has seen carried 
 to a much greater extent, but the change is too recent for even 
 the most experienced officers to be agreed on its effects. And 
 it is only because of this recent extension of it that this clause 
 is mentioned here. But the enactment of a law of compulsory 
 service was clearly an inroad on the great constitutional right 
 of every man to choose his own employment. At the same 
 time, it is equally clear that it was only such an inroad as, un- 
 der the circumstances, was fully justifiable. It is true that all 
 danger of French invasion had passed away with Trafalgar; 
 but the kingdom was still engaged in a gigantic war, and the 
 necessity of the case — always the supreme law — was so little 
 denied by the Opposition, that their objections to the bill were 
 directed entirely against the clause for limited enlistment, and 
 not against that which abridged the subject's liberty, by com- 
 pelling him to learn to serve his country in war. 
 
 The reign of George III., which had now lasted fifty years, 
 was drawing practically to a close. The excitement caused 
 by the ministerial changes in 1801 had already brought on 
 one relapse, though fortunately a very brief one, of the King's 
 malady of 1*788 ; and in the autumn of 1810 the death of the 
 daughter who was supposed to be his especial favorite, the 
 
 10 
 
218 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 Princess Amelia, produced a recurrence of it, whicli, thougli 
 at first the pli3'^sicians entertained more sanguine hopes of his 
 speedy recovery than on any former occasion, he never shook 
 off. More than one change of ministry had recently taken 
 place. In 1807 Lord Grenville had been compelled, as Pitt 
 had been in 1801, to choose between yielding his opinions on 
 the Catholic question or resigning his office, and had chosen 
 the latter alternative. He had been succeeded for two years 
 by the Duke of Portland; but in 1809 that nobleman had also 
 retired, and had been succeeded by his Attorney-general, Mr. 
 Perceval, the only practising barrister who had ever been so 
 promoted. And he now being Prime -minister, and, as such, 
 forced to make arrangements for carrying on the govern- 
 ment during the illness of his sovereign, naturally regarded the 
 course pursued in 1789 as the precedent to be followed. Ac- 
 cordingly, on the 20th of December he proposed for the adop- 
 tion of the House of Commons the same resolutions which Pitt 
 had carried twenty-two years before — that the King was pre- 
 vented by indisposition from attending to public business; 
 that it was the duty of Parliament to provide means for sup- 
 plying the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authori- 
 ty, and its duty also to determine the mode in which the royal 
 assent to the measures necessary could be signified. And he 
 also followed Pitt's example in expressing by letter to the 
 Prince of Wales his conviction that his Royal Highness was 
 a person most proper to be appointed Regent, and explaining 
 at the same time the restrictions which seemed proper to be 
 imposed on his immediate exercise of the complete sovereign 
 authority; though the advanced age at which the King had 
 now arrived made it reasonable that those restrictions should 
 now be limited to a single year. The Prince, on his part, 
 showed that time had in no degree abated his repugnance to 
 those restrictions, and he answered the minister's letter by re- 
 ferring him to that which he had addressed to Pitt on the 
 same subject in 1788. And he induced all his brothers to ad- 
 dress to Perceval a formal protest against " the establishment 
 of a restricted Regency," which they proceeded to describe as 
 perfectly unconstitutional, as being contrary to and subversive 
 
DENUNCIATIONS BY THE OPPOSITION. 219 
 
 of the principles which seated their family upon the throne of 
 this realm."* 
 
 Perceval, liowever, with Pitt's example before him, had no 
 doubt of the course which it was his duty to pursue ; and 
 the Opposition also, for the most part, followed the tactics of 
 1789; the line of argument now adopted by each party being 
 so nearly identical with that employed on the former occasion, 
 that it is needless to recapitulate the topics on which the dif- 
 ferent speakers insisted ; though it is worth remarking that 
 Lord Holland, who, as the nephew of Fox, thought it incum- 
 bent on him to follow his uncle's guidance, did on one point 
 practically depart from it. As his uncle had done, he de- 
 nied the right of the Houses to impose any restrictions on the 
 Prince's exercise of the royal authority ; but, at the same time, 
 he consented to put what may be called a moral limitation on 
 that exercise, by adding to an amendment which he proposed 
 to the resolution proposed by the minister an expression of 
 " the farther opinion of the House that it will be expedient 
 to abstain from the exercise of all such powers as the imme- 
 diate exigencies of the state shall not call into action, until 
 Parliament shall have passed a bill or bills for the future 
 care of his Majesty's royal person during his Majesty's pres- 
 ent indisposition." 
 
 It is remarkable that the leaders of the Opposition were in 
 i, great degree stimulated in the line they took by the very 
 same hopes which had animated Fox and his followers in 1789 — 
 the expectation that the Regent's first act would be to discard 
 the existing niinistry, and to place them in oflSce. But again 
 they were disappointed in their anticipations, of the realization 
 of which they had made so sure that they had taken no pains 
 to keep them secret. They even betrayed their mortification 
 to the world when the Prince's intentions on the subject of 
 the administration became known by the violence of their lan- 
 guage in Parliament, some of their party denouncing the em- 
 ployment of the Great Seal to give the royal assent to the bill 
 as " fraud and forgery." Nor, indeed, could the Regent him- 
 
 * Lord Colchester's " Diary," ii., 300. 
 
220 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 self, even while expressing his intention to make no change in 
 the administration, lest " any act of his might in the smallest 
 degree have the effect of interfering with the progress of his 
 sovereign's recovery," suppress an expression of dissatisfaction 
 at the recent arrangements, which he considered had placed 
 him in " a situation of unexampled embarrassment," and had 
 created " a state of affairs ill calculated, as he feared, to sustain 
 the interests of the United Kingdom in this awful and perilous 
 crisis, and most difficult to be reconciled to the general princi- 
 ples of the British constitution."* There were at this time 
 general and apparently well-founded hopes of the King's re- 
 covery. For at intervals during the whole of January the 
 Prime-minister had interviews with his Majesty ; and, on the 
 very day on which the bill became law, the King himself men- 
 tioned it to Lord Eldon, the Chancellor, and said that he ac- 
 quiesced in it from perfect confidence in the advice of his phy- 
 sicians, and on the sound judgment and personal attachment of 
 his ministers. 
 
 For the present, therefore, no change was made in the ad- 
 ministration ; but when, in the spring of the following year, 
 Mr. Perceval was murdered, the necessity for a new arrange- 
 ment which this strange and calamitous atrocity forced upon 
 the Regent — who by this time had come into possession of his 
 full authority — led to his making offers of the conduct of af- 
 fairs to more than one prominent statesman, all of them, as is 
 somewhat remarkable, being peers. And, though the proposals 
 eventually came to nothing, and the negotiations terminated in 
 the re-establishment of the former ministry, with Lord Liver- 
 pool at its head, yet some of the causes to which their failure 
 was publicly or generally attributed seem desirable to be re- 
 corded, because the first, and that most openly avowed, bears a 
 not very distant resemblance to the complication which baffled 
 Sir Robert Peel's endeavors to form an administration in 1839 ; 
 and another corresponds precisely to a proposal which, in 1827, 
 
 * See " Diary of Lord Colchester" (Speaker at the time), c. xxxvi., p. 316. 
 He gives the whole of the Prince's letter to Perceval (which had been 
 composed by Sheridan), and of Perceval's reply. The Regency Bill be- 
 came law February 5, 1811. 
 
THE PRINCE regent's INCERTITUDE. 221 
 
 the Regent — then King George IV. — did himself make to the 
 Duke of Wellington. It is unnecessary to dwell on the singu- 
 lar manner in which the Regent first professed to give his con- 
 fidence to Lord Wellesley, then transferred it to Lord Moira,* 
 and then to a certain extent included Lord Grey and Lord 
 Grenville in it. Nor would it be profitable to discuss the cor- 
 rectness or incorrectness of the suspicion expressed by Mr. 
 Moore, in his " Life of Sheridan " — who was evidently at this 
 time as fully in the Regent's confidence as any one else — that 
 " at the bottom of all these evolutions of negotiation there was 
 anything but a sincere wish that the object to which they re- 
 lated should be accomplished."! The reason avowed by Lord 
 Grey and Lord Grenville for refusing a share in the projected 
 administration was the refusal of Lord Moira, who had been 
 employed by the Prince to treat with them on the subject, to 
 allow them to make a power of removing the officers at pres- 
 ent filling "the great offices of the household "J; an express 
 condition of their acceptance of ministerial office. They af- 
 firmed that a "liberty to make new appointments" to these 
 offices had usually been given on every change of administra- 
 tion. But Lord Moira, while admitting that " the Prince had 
 laid no restriction on him in that respect," declared that "it 
 ji'ould be impossible for him to concur in making the exercise 
 of this power positive and indispensable in the formation of 
 the administration, because he should deem it on public grounds 
 peculiarly objectionable." Such an answer certainly gives a 
 great color to Moore's,, suspicion, since it is hardly possible to 
 conceive that Lord Moira took on himself the responsibility of 
 giving it without a previous knowledge that it would be ap- 
 proved by his royal master. In a constitutional point of view, 
 
 * A letter of Lord Wellesley to Lord Grey, June 4 (given by Pearce, 
 "Life of Lord Wellesley," iii., 270), shows that Lord Moira had been in 
 communication with Lord Grey and Lord Grenville before Lord Welles- 
 ley had given up the idea of forming a ministry. And though Lord Grey 
 in his reply (p. 273) expresses his conviction that Lord Moira's letter was 
 not "an authorized communication," but only "a private communica- 
 tion," it is clear that it could not have been written without the privity 
 of the Regent. + "Life of Sheridan," ii., 425. 
 
 t Pearce's "Life of Lord Wellesley," iii., 276. All the letters which 
 passed between Lord Grey, Lord Grenville, Lord Moira, and Lord Welles- 
 ley himself are given at full length by Mr. Pearce in that chapter. 
 
222 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 there can, it will probably be felt, be no doubt that the two 
 lords had a right to the liberty they required. And the very 
 men concerned, the great officers of the household, were evi- 
 dently of the same opinion, since the chief, Lord Yarmouth, 
 informed Sheridan that they intended to resign, in order that 
 he might communicate that intention to Lord Grey ; and Sher- 
 idan, who concealed the intelligence from Lord Grey, can hardly 
 be supposed, any more than Lord' Moira, to have acted in a 
 manner which he did not expect to be agreeable to the Prince. 
 But, in Canning's opinion, this question of the household was 
 only the ostensible pretext, and not the real cause, of those two 
 lords rejecting the Regent's offers; the real cause being, as 
 he believed, that the Prince himself had already named Lord 
 Wellesley as Prime-minister, and that they were resolved to 
 insist on the right of the Whig party to dictate on that point 
 to the Regent,* just as, in 1782, Fox had endeavored to force 
 the Duke of Portland on the King, when his Majesty preferred 
 Lord Shelburne. As has been intimated in a former page, it 
 will be seen hereafter that in 1839 a similar claim to be allow- 
 ed to remove some of the ladies of the royal household, and the 
 rejection of that claim by the sovereign, prevented Sir R. Peel 
 from forming an administration. And, as that transaction was 
 discussed at some length in Parliament, it will afford a better 
 opportunity for examining the principle on which the claim 
 and practice (for of the practice there is no doubt) rest. For 
 the present it is sufficient to point out the resemblance between 
 the cases. 
 
 But it is remarkable that, unwarrantable as the pretension 
 of the Whig leaders was to dictate to the Regent to whom he 
 should confide the lead of the government (if, indeed. Canning 
 be correct in his opinion), yet it was not one to which the Re- 
 gent felt any repugnance, since, in 1827, when Lord Liverpool's 
 illness again left the Treasury vacant, he, being then on the 
 throne as George IV., proposed to the Duke of Wellington to 
 desire the remaining members of the administration themselves 
 to select a chief under whom they would be willing to con- 
 
 * Stapleton's " George Canning and his Times," p. 303. 
 
THE PREEOGATIVE OF THE SOVEREIGN. 223 
 
 tinue in his service ; but the Duke told him that the plan of 
 allowing them to choose their own leader would be most derog- 
 atory to his position ; that the choice of the Prime-minister 
 was an act which ought to be entirely his own, for that, in 
 fact, under the British constitution, it was the only personal 
 act of government which the King of Great Britain had to 
 perform.* Though not generally a great authority on con- 
 stitutional points, we apprehend that the Duke was clearly cor- 
 rect in this view, which, indeed, has been so invariably carried 
 out in practice, that the King's suggestion would not have 
 deserved mention had it not been a king's. So far from it 
 belonging to any individual subject or to any party to name 
 the Prime-minister, to do so is even beyond the province of 
 the Parliament. Parliament decides whether it will give its 
 confidence to an administration of one party or the other ; but 
 not only has no vote ever been given on the question whether 
 one member of the dominant party be fitter or not than an- 
 other to be its head, but we do not remember a single instance 
 of any member of either House expressing an opinion on the 
 subject in his place in Parliament. To do so would be felt by 
 every member of experience to be an infringement on the 
 prerogative of his sovereign ; and it may be added that a con- 
 trary practice would certainly open the door to intrigue, or, 
 what would be equally bad, a suspicion of intrigue, and would 
 thus inevitably diminish the weight which even the Opposition 
 desire to see a Prime-minister possess both in Parliament and 
 in the country. 
 
 * Mr. Stapleton affirms that his Royal Highness actually did adopt this 
 plan ou this occasion : " His Royal Highness adopted the unprecedented 
 course of commanding his servants to elect the First-minister. Their 
 choice fell on Lord Liverpool." — George (Janning and his Times, y>. 208. 
 Mr. Stapleton, however, gives no authority for this assertion, and he was 
 probably mistaken, since Lord Livei-pool's papers afford no corrobora- 
 tion of it, but rather tend to disprove it. 
 
224 CONSTITUTION^ AL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Toleration Act. — Impropriety of maliing Catliolic Emancipation (or 
 any other Important Matter) an Open Question. — Joint Responsibility 
 of all the Ministers. — Detention of Napoleon at St. Helena. — Question 
 whether the Regent could Give Evidence in a Court of Law iu a Civil 
 Action. — Agitation for Reform. — Public Meetings. — The Manchester 
 Meeting.— The Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill. — Lord Sidmouth's 
 Six Acts. 
 
 The war was daily becoming of more exciting interest, and, 
 so far as our armies were concerned, was rapidly assuming 
 greater proportions. While the Duke of Portland was still at 
 the head of affairs, Napoleon, by his unprovoked attacks on 
 both the Peninsular kingdoms, had at last opened a field of 
 action to our armies, in which even the most sanguine of those 
 who placed a loyal confidence in the old invincibility of Eng- 
 lish prowess could not have anticipated the unbroken series of 
 glories which were to reward their efforts. For four years 
 Lard Wellington had contended against all the most renowned 
 marshals of the Empire,* driving them back from impregnable 
 lines of defence, defeating them in pitched battles, storming 
 their strongest fortresses, without ever giving them room to 
 boast of even the most momentary advantage obtained over 
 himself; and he was now on the eve of achieving still more 
 brilliant and decisive triumphs, which were never to cease till 
 he had carried his victorious march far into the heart of France 
 itself. 
 
 At such a time it may well be supposed that the attention 
 
 * Against Junot, at Vimiera and Roliga, in 1808 ; Soult, at Oporto, and 
 Victor, at Talavera, in 1809 ; Massena and Ney, at Busaco and Torres 
 Vedras, in 1810; Massdna and Bessi^res, at Fuentes d'Onor, in 1811. 
 Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajoz had been taken in 1812, in spite of the neigh- 
 borhood of Soult and Marmont. In July, 1812, a month after the forma- 
 tion of Lord Liverpool's ministry, he routed Marmont at Salamanca; in 
 1813 he took Madrid, and routed Jourdain at Vittoria; and, having sub- 
 sequently defeated Soult at Sauroren, he crossed the French frontier in 
 October. 
 
THE PllIME-MlXISTER REPUGXANT TO PERSECUTIOX. 225 
 
 of the new ministry was too fully occupied with measures 
 necessary for the conduct of the war to leave it much time 
 for domestic legislation. Yet even its first session was not 
 entirely barren. 
 
 In the first excitement of the Restoration, when the nation 
 was still exasperated at the recollection of what it had suffered 
 under the triumphant domination of the Puritans, two laws 
 had been framed to chastise them, conceived in a spirit as in- 
 tolerant and persecuting as had dictated the very worst of their 
 own. One, which was called the Conventicle Act, inflicted on 
 all persons above the age of sixteen, who should be present at 
 any religious service performed in any manner differently from 
 the service of the Church of England, in any meeting-house, 
 where more than five persons besides the occupiers of the house 
 should be present, severe penalties, rising gradually to transpor- 
 tation ; and gave a single magistrate authority to convict and 
 to pass sentence on the offenders. The other, commonly known 
 as the Five Mile Act, forbade all ministers, of any sect, who did 
 not subscribe to the Act of Uniformity, and who refused to 
 swear to their belief in the doctrine of passive obedience, from 
 teaching in any school, and from coming within five miles of 
 any city, corporate town, or borough sending members to Par- 
 liament, or any town or village in which they themselves had 
 resided as ministers. The latter statute had fallen into com- 
 plete disuse, and many of the provisions of the former had 
 been relaxed, though magistrates in general construed the re- 
 laxing enactments as leaving the relaxations wholly at their 
 discretion to grant or to withhold, and were very much in the 
 habit of withholding or abridging them. Other statutes, such 
 as the Test Act, had subsequently been passed against every 
 sect of Dissenters, though they had only imposed civil disabili- 
 ties, and had not inflicted penalties. But the new Prime-min- 
 ister was a man to whose disposition anything resembling per- 
 secution was foreign and repugnant. Before his predecessor's 
 unhappy death he had already discussed with him the proprie- 
 ty of abolishing laws conceived in such a spirit; and he no 
 sooner found himself at the head of the government than he 
 prepared a bill to carry out his views. He drew a distinction 
 
 10* 
 
226 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 between the acts inflicting penalties and tbose wbich only im- 
 posed disabilities. Witb tbese latter be did not propose to 
 interfere ; but, in July, bis colleague. Lord Castlereagb, intro- 
 duced into tbe House of Commons a b>ill to repeal tbe Con- 
 venticle Act and tbe Five Mile Act altogetber, and, wben it bad 
 passed tbe Commons, be bimself moved its adoption by tbe 
 Lords, enforcing bis recommendation by tbe argument, tbat 
 " an enlarged and liberal toleration was tbe best security to tbe 
 Establisbed Cburcb, a Cburcb not founded on tbe exclusion of 
 religions discussion, but, in its bomilies, its canons, and all tbe 
 principles on wbicb it rested, courting tbe investigation of tbe 
 Scriptures, upon wbicb it founded its doctrines." At tbe same 
 time, wbile urging tbe repeal of acts wbicb be truly branded as 
 a disgrace to tbe statute-book, be was not blind to tbe duty 
 imposed on bim, as responsible for tbe public tranquillity, of 
 taking care tbat meetings beld ostensibly for purposes of devo- 
 tion sbould not be perverted to tbe designs of political agita- 
 tors ; and tberefore be provided in tbe bill for tbe registration 
 of all places appropriated to religious worsbip, and for tbe ex- 
 action from " tbe preacbers and teacbers in tbose meetings of 
 some test or security in tbe oatbs to be taken by tbem." He 
 bad already secured tbe acquiescence of tbe bisbops, and he 
 was equally successful now in winning tbe assent of tbe House. 
 Tbe conditions, siicb as tbey were, did not prevent tbe bill from 
 being entirely acceptable to tbe Non-conformists ; and tbougb 
 tbeir spokesman in tbe House of Commons, Mr. W. Smitb, 
 memljer for Norwicb, confessed a wisb "tbat it had gone a 
 little farther, and had granted complete religious liberty," he 
 at tbe same time expressed sincere gratitude on tbe part of the 
 Non-conformists for what was thus done for them; and de- 
 clared tbat, " as an act of toleration, it certainly was tbe most 
 complete which had hitherto been passed in this country." It 
 was, in fact, the beginning of the abandonment of tbat system 
 of discouragement of and hostility to all sects except tbe Es- 
 tablisbed Church, wbicb had hitherto been regarded by a large 
 party as one of the most essential principles of the constitu- 
 tion. And as such it makes tbe year 1812 in some respects a 
 landmark in our constitutional history. 
 
LOED Liverpool's parliamentary innovation. 227 
 
 Mr. Smith had referred to an omission which prevented him 
 from speaking of the bill as complete. He was alluding to the 
 Test and Corporation Acts, which had been passed ten years 
 later than the Conventicle Act, in the same reign of Charles 11. , 
 and which many of the Non-conformists, and especially the 
 Unitarians, had urged Lord Liverpool to include in this meas- 
 ure of repeal, but which he decided on retaining. As has been 
 said above, he drew a distinction between acts inflicting penal- 
 ties and those which went no farther than imposing political 
 disabilities, feeling that any relief of Protestant Dissenters from 
 such disabilities must inevitably lead to the concession of a sim- 
 ilar indulgence to Roman Catholics, and not being as yet pre- 
 pared to admit to Parliament the members of a Church which 
 recognized the duty of obedience in any matter to a foreign 
 sovereign ; for, as the disabilities had been originally imposed on 
 the Roman Catholics, so they were now maintained on politi- 
 cal, not religious, grounds ; and even those most opposed to a 
 relaxation of them were careful to explain their resistance to be 
 one which time and a change of circumstances might mitigate.* 
 
 As a fitter opportunity for discussing the question will be 
 afforded by the Duke of Wellmgton's bill, in 1829, we should 
 not have mentioned it at all in this place, had not Lord Liver- 
 pool, in arranging his administration, adopted a mode of deal- 
 ing with it which, though rather a parliamentary or depart- 
 mental than a constitutional innovation, was, nevertheless, one 
 of so stran2:e a character as to seem to call for examination. 
 Ever since the formation of Walpole's ministry it had been 
 
 * A resolution, moved by Mr. Canning, to take the claims of the Roman 
 Catholics into consideration in the next session had been carried in June by 
 the large majority of 129 ; and when Lord Wellesley brought forward a sim- 
 ilar motion in the House of Lords, not only did Lord Liverpool *' protest 
 against its being inferred from any declaration of his that it was, or ever 
 had been, his opinion that under no circumstances would it be possible 
 to make any alteration in the laws respecting the Roman Catholics," but 
 the Chancellor, Lord Eldon, who was generally regarded as the stoutest 
 champion of the existing law, rested his opposition entirely on political 
 grounds, explaining carefully that he opposed the motion, "not because 
 he quarrelled with the religion of the Roman Catholics, but because their 
 religious opinions operated on their political principles in such a way as 
 to render it necessary to adopt some defence against them," and met 
 the motion by moving the previous question, avowedly because " he did 
 not wish, at once and forever, to shut the door of conciliation ;" and the 
 previous question was only carried by a single vote — 126 to 125. 
 
228 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the invariable rule and practice for all the members of the cab- 
 inet to act in concert on all measures of importance, or, indeed, 
 it may be said, on all measures on which a Parliamentary vote 
 vs'as taken. But, in arranging his administration after Mr. 
 Perceval's death, Lord Liverpool found it absolutely impossi- 
 ble to form one satisfactory either to the nation or to himself, 
 if it were to be confined to members in perfect agreement with 
 himself on the subject of the retention of the disabilities affect- 
 ing the Roman Catholics ; and therefore, in order to be able to 
 form a ministry generally strong and respected, he adopted the 
 strange expedient of allowing every member of it to act inde- 
 pendently on this one question. He made it what was called 
 an open question. The arrangement, as explained to the House 
 of Commons by Lord Castlereagh, the ministerial leader of 
 that assembly, was that, " in submission to the growing change 
 of public opinion in favor of those claims (the Roman Catholic 
 claims), and the real sentiments of certain members of the gov- 
 ernment, it had been resolved upon, as a principle, that the dis- 
 cussion of this question should be left free from all interference 
 on the part of the government, and that every member of that 
 government should in it be left to the free and unbiassed sug- 
 gestions of his own conscientious discretion." 
 
 It was an arrangement which secured the Prime-minister the 
 co-operation of Lord Castlereagh himself, and eventually of Mr. 
 Canning ; but it failed to propitiate the Opposition, the leader 
 of which in the House of Commons, Mr. Ponsonby, turned it 
 into open ridicule, affirming that " nothing could be more ab- 
 surd than a cabinet professing to have no opinion on such an 
 important subject." And it must be confessed that Mr. Pon- 
 sonby's language on the subject seems the language of com- 
 mon-sense. So far from the importance of a question justify- 
 ing such an arrangement, that importance appears rather to 
 increase, if possible, the necessity for absolute unanimity in 
 the administration than to diminish it; and on a grave and 
 momentous subject to leave each member of a ministry free to 
 pronounce a separate and different judgment, so that one may 
 resist what his colleague advocates, is to abdicate the functions 
 of government altogether. To permit such liberty was either 
 
A MISCHIEVOUS PEECEDENT. 229 
 
 a proof that the ministry was weak altogether — which it was 
 not — or that its conduct on this question was weak. In either 
 case, it was a mischievous precedent that was thus set ;* and 
 the fact that it has since been followed in more than one in- 
 stance, is so far from being any justification of it, that it rather 
 supplies an additional reason for condemning it, as being the 
 cause of wider mischief than if it had been confined to one 
 single question, or had influenced the conduct of one cabinet 
 only. It has often been said that the name "cabinet" is un- 
 known to the law, and that what we call the cabinet is, in fact, 
 only a committee of the Privy Council. As a statement of law 
 the assertion may be correct, but it is certain that for more than 
 a century and a half the constitution has adopted the principle 
 that the cabinet consists of the holders of a certain, to some 
 extent a fluctuating, number of the principal state officers; and, 
 recognizing the responsibility of all for the actions of each 
 member of it, does by that recognition sanction an expectation 
 that on all questions, or at all events on all but those of the 
 most trivial character, they will speak and act with that una- 
 jiimity which is indispensable, not only to the strength of the 
 government itself, but to its being held in respect by the peo- 
 ple ; such respect being, indeed, among the most essential ele- 
 ments of its strength. 
 
 The incidents of the war itself do not belong to a work such 
 as this ; but, tantalizing as it must be to an historian of any 
 class to pass over the brilliant series of achievements which 
 gave Britain the glory of being twice f the principal agent in 
 
 * "It [difference on the Catholic question] was an evil submitted to by 
 the government, of which Mr. Fox, Lord Grenville, and Lord Grey were 
 members, in the years 1806, 1807, as well as by the governments of Mr. 
 Perceval, Lord Liverpool, and the Duke of Wellington." — PeeVs Memoirs, 
 i,,63. This passage would seem to imply that Peel believed the Catholic 
 question to have been left " open " in 1806 ; but there is not, so far as the 
 present writer is aware, any trace of such, an arrangement on record, and 
 Lord Liverpool's letter to the King, of November 10, 1826 ("Life," iii., 
 436), shows clearly that he was not aware of such a precedent for the ar- 
 rangement which, in 1812, "he and others advised his Majesty" to con- 
 sent to. Moreover, the condemnation passed on it by Mr. Ponsonby, who 
 had been Chancellor of Ireland in 1806 and 1807, seems a clear proof that 
 he knew nothing of it, though it is hardly possible that he should have 
 been ignorant of it if it had existed. 
 
 t To whom the chief glory of the Waterloo campaign belongs there 
 can, of course, be no doubt; and though the Austrians and Prussians put 
 
230 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the deliverance of Continental Europe, the glories of Salamanca, 
 Vittoria, Orthes, and Waterloo must be left to other writers, 
 who, it is not unpatriotic to hope, may never again have similar 
 cause for exulting descriptions. But out of the crowning tri- 
 umph of Waterloo a difficulty arose which, though it may be 
 difficult to characterize the principle on which it was settled, 
 since it was not strictly a question of constitutional, interna- 
 tional, or military law ; and though the circumstances were so 
 peculiar that the conclusion adopted is never likely to be re- 
 ferred to as a precedent, seems still deserving of a brief men- 
 tion, especially as an act of Parliament was passed to sanction 
 the decision of the cabinet. Baffled by the vigilance of our 
 cruisers in every attempt to escape from one of the western 
 ports of France to America, Napoleon was at last compelled to 
 surrender himself to a British squadron. But, though he was 
 our prisoner, the Prime-minister considered us, in all our deal- 
 ings with him, as so bound by engagements to our allies, that 
 he was to be regarded as "the common prisoner of all, so far 
 that we should not give him up or release him without the 
 joint consent of all." The question was full of difficulty. 
 There were, probably, very few persons in this or any other 
 country who did not coincide in the impropriety of releasing 
 him, and so putting it in his power once more to rekindle a 
 war in Europe. But it was a political view of the case, found- 
 ed on a consideration of what was required by the tranquillity 
 of Europe ; and it was not easy to lay down any legal ground 
 to justify the determination. Some regarded him as a French 
 subject, and, if that view were correct, he could hardly be de- 
 tained by us as a prisoner of war after we had concluded a 
 treaty of peace with France. But, again, it seemed to some, 
 the Lord Chancellor being among them, a questionable point 
 whether in the last campaign we had been at war with France ; 
 
 forward a claim to an equal share, and Russia even to a preponderating one, 
 in the first deposition of Napoleon, he himself constantly attributed his 
 fall more to the Peninsular contest than to any of his wars east of the 
 Rhine. And, indeed, it is superfluous to point out that almost to the 
 last he gained occasional victories over the Continental armies, but that 
 he never gained one advantage over the British force; and that Welling- 
 ton invaded France the first week of October, 1813 — nearly three months 
 before a single Russian or German soldier crossed the Rhine. 
 
THE QUESTION OP NAPOLEOn's TEEATMENT. 231 
 
 whetlier, on the contrary, we had not assumed the character of 
 an ally of France against him. And, on the supposition that 
 we had been at war with France, a second question was raised 
 by Lord Ellenborough, the Chief -justice, " what rights result on 
 principle from a state of war, as against all the individuals of 
 the belligerent nations — rights, whatever they may be, seldom, 
 if ever, enforced against individuals, because individuals hardly 
 ever make war but as part of an aggregate nation." The ques- 
 tion — as, after consultation with Lord Ellenborough and his 
 own brother. Sir William Scott, it finally appeared to Lord 
 Eldon, on whom the Prime-minister naturally depended, as his 
 chief legal counsellor, though in its political aspect he judged 
 for himself — was, firstly, " whether it could possibly be incon- 
 sistent with justice or the law of nations that, till some peace 
 were made by treaty with some person considered as Napoleon's 
 sovereign, or till some peace were made with himself, we should 
 keep him imprisoned in some part of our King's dominions." 
 And, secondly, " whether there were any person who could pos- 
 sibly be considered his sovereign, after the treaty of 1814 had 
 clothed him with the character of Emperor of Elba, with im- 
 perial dignity and imperial revenue." Lord Liverpool himself, 
 however, raised another question : whether, by his invasion of 
 France, he had not forfeited his right to be regarded as an in- 
 dependent sovereign ; resting this doubt on a suggestion which, 
 among others, he proposed to the Lord Chancellor, that " at Elba 
 he enjoyed only a limited and conditional sovereignty, which 
 ceased when the condition on which he held it was violated." 
 
 This last suggestion, it must be confessed, appears untenable, 
 as totally inconsistent with the language of the Treaty of Fon- 
 -tainebleau, under the provisions of which Napoleon became 
 sovereign of Elba, and which does not contain a single article 
 which bears out the opinion that his sovereignty was limited 
 or conditional. ' On the contrary, the words of the treaty ex- 
 pressly agree that " Elba should form during his life a separate 
 principality, which should be possessed by him in full sover- 
 eignty and property." 
 
 There is no need to discuss the views of Blucher. On the 
 news of Napoleon's landing at Frejus reaching the plenipoten- 
 
23^ . CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 tiaries assembled at the Congress of Vienna, they at once issued 
 a declaration that, " in breaking the convention which had es- 
 tablished him at Elba, Buonaparte " (for they refused him his 
 imperial appellation of Napoleon) "had destroyed the only 
 legal title on which his existence depended. . . . He had placed 
 himself out of the pale of civil and social relations, and, as the 
 enemy and disturber of the peace of the world, he was delivered 
 over to public justice." And the old Prussian, burning with a 
 desire to avenge the indignities and injuries which he had in- 
 flicted on Prussia, avowed his determination to execute him as 
 an outlaw, if he should fall into his hands. And it is still less 
 worth while to inquire — though Lord Holland in his place in 
 Parliament did desire the House to consult the judges on the 
 point — whether, if Napoleon were a prisoner of war, he " were 
 not entitled to his habeas corpus, if detained after the signature 
 of a treaty of peace with all the powers, or any of which he 
 could be considered as the subject." 
 
 On the whole, the simplest view of the position and of our 
 detention of him, the view most reconcilable with the princi- 
 ples which regulate the waging and the relinquishing a state 
 of war, seems to be to consider that Napoleon was a sovereign 
 with whom we were at war; that that war could only be ter- 
 minated by a treaty of peace between ourselves and him ; that 
 it rested with us to conclude, or to abstain from concluding, 
 any such treaty ; and that, till we should conclude it, we had 
 clearly a right to detain him as a prisoner of war. It must, at 
 the same time, be admitted that modern history afforded no 
 precedent for the detention of a prisoner for his whole life 
 (unless, indeed, Elizabeth's imprisonment of the Queen of Scots 
 may be considered as one), and that the most solid justification 
 for it was necessity. To quote the language of Lord Eldon, 
 " I believe it will turn out that, if you can't make this a casus 
 exceptionis or omissus in the law of nations, founded upon ne- 
 cessity, you will not really know what to say upon it. Salus 
 Reipuhlicce suprema lex, as to one state; Salus omnium Re- 
 rumpuhlicarum must be the suprema lex as to this case."* 
 
 * Letter to Sir W. Scott, Twiss's " Life of Lord Eldon," ii., 273. It is 
 remarkable that in his " Life of Lord Ellenborough " Lord Campbell takes 
 no notice of this case. 
 
COLONEL BEKKELEY AND EOYAL TESTIMONY. 233 
 
 In the course of the year 1818 a somewhat singular ques- 
 tion as to the position of the Regent was raised by a claim ad- 
 vanced by Colonel Berkeley to produce his Royal Highness as 
 a witness in a court of law. The Prince consulted the Prime- 
 minister, and the Prime -minister referred it to the Attorney 
 and Solicitor General, not concealing his own impression that 
 it could not be consistent with his constitutional position and 
 prerogative for the King to appear as a witness to be subjected 
 to examination and cross-examination.* They, in their state- 
 ment of opinion, assumed it to be an undeniable principle of 
 the constitution that the sovereign, " by reason of his royal 
 character, could not give testimony." And therefore they liad 
 no doubt that the Regent, exercising his authority, was equal- 
 ly prevented from so doing. Colonel Berkeley's counsel had 
 urged that, even if he could not appear in open court and be 
 sworn, he had the privilege of communicating his evidence in 
 a peculiar mode, by certificate under the Sign Manual or Great 
 Seal. But the Attorney and Solicitor General professed that 
 they could not discover whence this last privilege was derived ; 
 they urged, as an insurmountable objection to such a contriv- 
 ance, that " all instruments under the Sign Manual or Great 
 Seal must, in point of form, be in the name of and on behalf 
 of the King, which would manifestly be incongruous when the 
 evidence certified was not that of the King, but of the Regent 
 himself." And they quoted a case in which Lord Chief-jus- 
 tice Willes had said " that the certificate of the King, under 
 his Sign Manual, of a fact (except in an old case in Chancery) 
 had always been refused." As it had been urged also, on Col- 
 onel Berkeley's behalf, that the Prince had formerly "joined in 
 proving the will of the Duke of Brunswick," his brother-in-law, 
 they farther expressed an opinion that " he ought not to have 
 done so, but should have left it to the other executors." 
 
 On the point -whether " the King himself could give evi- 
 dence orally or in any other manner," their opinion expressed 
 very plainly the principle on which they maintained that he 
 
 * The opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor General, Sir S. Shepperd 
 and Sir R. Gifford, is given at length in the author's "Life of Lord Liver- 
 pool," ii., 373. 
 
234 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 could not. " That he was not compellable to do so ; that he 
 could not be sworn (there being no power capable of admin- 
 istering an oath to him in a court of justice). That, whether 
 his testimony be given viva voce or otherwise, no question in 
 chief or on cross-examination could be proposed to him, was 
 admitted by Colonel Berkeley's counsel. And that his testi- 
 mony must be conclusive as to the facts stated by him, ap- 
 peared necessarily to follow from the perfection ascribed by 
 law to his royal character. For such remarkable exceptions, 
 therefore, to the case of all other witnesses they could not but 
 think that strong and decisive authority ought to be produced ; 
 while the silence of text-writers on the subject, so far from be- 
 ing favorable to the notion that the King can give evidence, 
 appeared to afford a directly contrary inference." And they 
 summed up their opinion in a few words: "that his Royal 
 Highness the Prince Regent, while in the personal exercise of 
 the royal authority, was in the situation of the King in this re- 
 spect, and that the King could not by any mode give evidence 
 as a witness in a civil suit." 
 
 It is very improbable that Colonel Berkeley should have 
 made the application without previously ascertaining the will- 
 ingness of the Prince to give evidence, could such a course be 
 permitted. And as his Royal Highness, on receiving this opin- 
 ion of the law-officers of the crown, did not come forward as a 
 witness, that opinion may be held to have settled the question. 
 And, apart from the constitutional objections relied on by those 
 able lawyers, it is evident that there would be serious practical 
 objections to the sovereign being made a witness. It would 
 be derogatory to his royal character to put himself in a posi- 
 tion where comments could be made, either by the opposing 
 barrister or by the public outside, on his evidence. And, on 
 the other hand, it would be perilously unfair to one litigant for 
 his adversary to be able to produce a witness who was not sub- 
 ject to cross-examination, nor to remarks upon his testimony. 
 
 The reign of George III. was now drawing to its close, and, 
 if it produced no legislation affecting the principles of the con- 
 stitution (it will presently be seen that it did produce one meas- 
 ure which its opponents branded as a violation of these princi- 
 
AGITATION FOR REMOVAL OF ABUSES. 235 
 
 pies), yet in its last years it witnessed the revival of an agita- 
 tion which was kept up with varying animation till it vi^as tem- 
 porarily quieted by the concession of its demands. We have 
 seen that one of Pitt's earliest efforts at legislation had been 
 directed to a reform in Parliament, an object which to the end 
 of his life he considered of great importance, though the revo- 
 lutionary spirit aroused by the troubles in France, and the open 
 sympathy with the French Jacobins and Eepublicans avowed 
 by a party among ourselves — which, if numerically weak, was 
 sufficiently loud and active to be dangerous — prevented him 
 from ever re-opening the subject. But, though^ the French 
 Revolution in this way proved for the time an insurmountable 
 obstacle to the success of the reformers, in another way it 
 insured the revival of the question, by the general spirit of in- 
 quiry which it awakened among the population at large, and 
 which soon went beyond the investigation of any single abuse 
 or anomaly. For even less far-sighted statesmen than Pitt con- 
 fessed the existence of much that was not only theoretically 
 indefensible, but practically mischievous. The period, little 
 short of a century, which elapsed between the death of William 
 III. and Pitt's accession to office had been one of almost com- 
 plete stagnation and apathy. The Scotch Union, the Septen- 
 nial Bill, the establishment of a militia, and the Place Bill of 
 1T43 were the only instances of any legislation deserving the 
 name of constitutional which made the reigns of Anne and 
 the first two Georges memorable. And in the very nature of 
 things it was impossible that, after so long a slumber, there 
 should not be much to do, and many, whether capable or in- 
 capable, eager to bear a share in the work. The sudden cessa- 
 tion of the excitement of war had begotten a restless craving 
 for some other excitement to take its place, and none seemed 
 so creditable as energy and acuteness in the discovery and re- 
 moval of abuses. Complaints were made, and not without rea- 
 son, of the working of the poor-law ; of the terrible severity 
 of our criminal code ; of the hardships and sufferings of the 
 younger members of the working classes, especially in the 
 factories ; of the ignorance of a large portion of the people, in 
 itself as prolific a cause of mischief and crime as any other. 
 
236 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 But, though committees and commissions were appointed by 
 Parliament to investigate the condition of the kingdom in re- 
 spect of these matters, a feeling was growing up that no efiEect- 
 nal remedy would be applied till the constitution of the House 
 of Commons itself were reformed, so as to make it a more real 
 representation of the people than it could as yet be considered. 
 And a farther stimulus to this wish for such a Parliamentary 
 reform was supplied by the distress which a combination of 
 circumstances spread among almost all classes in the years im- 
 mediately following the conclusion of the second treaty of 
 peace.* The harvests of the years 1816 and 1817 were unusual- 
 ly deficient, and this pressed heavily on the farmers and landed 
 proprietors. The merchants and manufacturers, who, while 
 every part of the Continent was disturbed or threatened by 
 the operations of contending armies, had practically enjoyed 
 almost a monopoly of the trade of the world, found their profits 
 reduced, by the new competition to which the re-estabiishment 
 of peace exposed them, to a point which compelled them to a 
 severe reduction of expenditure. The uncertainty felt as to 
 the results to be brought about by the inevitable repeal of the 
 Bank Act of 1797, and the return to cash payments — results 
 which it was impossible to estimate correctly beforehand — had 
 a tendency to augment the distress, by the general feeling of 
 uneasiness and distrust which it created. And the employers 
 of labor could not suffer without those who depended on them 
 for employment suffering still more severely. The consequence 
 was, that there was a general stagnation of trade ; numbers of 
 artisans and laborers of every kind were thrown out of work, 
 and their enforced idleness and poverty, which was its result, 
 made them ready to become the tools of demagogues such as 
 are never wanting in the hour of distress and perplexity. Meet- 
 ings were convened, ostensibly to petition for reform, but in 
 reality to afford opportunities for mob-orators, eager for noto- 
 riety, to denounce the government and those whom they styled 
 
 * It is a shrewd observation of Sully, that it is never any abstract desire 
 for theoretical reforms, or even for increased privileges, which excites the 
 lower classes to discontent and outrage, but only impatience under actual 
 Buffering. 
 
THE PEINCE KEGENT FIRED AT. 237 
 
 the " ruling classes," as the causes of the present and past evils. 
 From these meetings multitudes issued forth ripe for mischief. 
 In some places they rose against the manufacturers, and de- 
 stroyed their machines, to the recent introduction of which 
 they attributed their want of employment. In others, still 
 more senselessly, they even set fire to the stores of grain in the 
 corn-dealers' warehouses, aggravating by their destruction the 
 most painful of their own sufferings. On one occasion, a mob 
 which had assembled in one of the eastern districts of London, 
 on pretence of framing a petition to be presented to the Prince 
 Kegent, at the close of the meeting paraded the streets with 
 a tricolor flag, the emblem of the French Kevolutionists, and 
 pillaged a number of shops, especially those of the gun-makers, 
 spreading terror through all that side of the metropolis. In at 
 least one instance the violence of the rioters rose to the height 
 of treason. Assassins fired at the Kegent in the Park as he 
 was*returning from the House of Lords, whither he had been 
 to open Parliament; and when it was found that they had 
 missed their aim, the mob attacked the royal carriage, pelting 
 it with large stones, and breaking the windows ; nor was it 
 without some difficulty that the escort of troops cleared a path 
 for him through the mob, and enabled him to reach Carlton 
 House in safety. 
 
 The first effect of these outrages was to damage the cause 
 of Reform itself, even such uncompromising reformers as Lord 
 Grey denouncing " meetings at which extensive schemes of Re- 
 form were submitted to individuals incapable of judging of 
 their propriety." The second consequence was to compel the 
 ministers to take steps to prevent a recurrence of such tumults 
 and crimes. At first they were contented with a temporary 
 suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act ; but, even while that 
 suspension was in force, it did not entirely prevent meetings, 
 at some of which the language of the speakers certainly bor- 
 dered on sedition ; and when the suspension was taken off, 
 fresh meetings on a larger scale, and of a more tumultuous 
 character than ever, were held in more than one rural district. 
 Finally, in July of 1819, the whole kingdom was thrown into 
 a violent state of excitement by a meeting held at Birming- 
 
238 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 ham, at which the leaders, assuming the newly-invented party 
 name of Radicals^ not only demanded the remodelling of the 
 whole system of government, but, because Birmingham as yet 
 sent no members to the House of Commons, took it upon 
 themselves to elect Sir Charles Wolseley, a baronet of respect- 
 able family, as their representative to the Parliament, and 
 charged him to claim a place in the House of Commons in 
 the next session, by the side of those elected in obedience to 
 the royal writs. Sir Charles was at once arrested on the charge 
 of having at this meeting used seditious language calculated to 
 lead to a breach of the peace ; but the Radical leaders, far from 
 being intimidated by this demonstration of vigor on the part 
 of the government, immediately summoned a similar meeting 
 in Manchester, announcing their intention to elect a represent- 
 ative of that great town likewise, which, though the largest of 
 all the manufacturing towns, was also unrepresented in the Im- 
 perial Parliament. The magistrates prohibited the meeting. 
 It was only postponed for a week, when the people assembled 
 in such formidable numbers (no estimate reckoned them at 
 fewer than 60,000), that the ordinary civil authorities deemed 
 themselves unequal to dealing with it, and called in the aid first 
 of the Yeomanry and then of a hussar regiment. The soldiers 
 behaved with great forbearance, as soldiers always do behave 
 on such occasions ; but they were bound to execute the orders 
 which were given them to arrest some of the leaders, and, in the 
 tumult which was the inevitable consequence of their attempt to 
 force a way through so dense a crowd, three or four lives were, 
 unfortunately, lost. 
 
 So unusual a catastrophe called out the energies of both 
 parties. The Radical leaders published manifestoes declaring 
 the people had been "massacred" by the soldiers by the or- 
 ders of the government. Meetings were held to denounce the 
 conduct of the ministers, one being even promoted by Lord 
 Fitzwilliam, as Lord-lieutenant of Yorkshire, a dignity of which 
 he was instantly deprived; while, on the other hand, the grand- 
 juries of Cheshire and Lancashire made reports of the condi- 
 tion of those counties to the Secretary of State, which showed 
 that a most alarming spirit prevailed over the greater part of 
 
LORD SIDMOUTH'S " SIX ACTS." 239 
 
 the district. "The most inflammatory publications had been 
 issued in the principal towns, at a price which put them within 
 the reach of the poorest classes of society. The training and 
 military drilling of large bodies of men under regular leaders 
 had been carried on to a great extent for some time, chiefly by 
 night ; and there was no doubt that an extensive manufacture 
 of arms was going on." What was a hardly inferior symptom 
 of danger was a system of intimidation which prevailed to a 
 most serious degree. Many magistrates had received notices 
 threatening their lives, and combinations had been formed to 
 withhold custom from publicans and shopkeepers who had 
 come forward to support the civil power. In many parts of 
 the two counties the grand-jaries declared "that no warrant 
 of arrest or other legal process could be executed ; the pay- 
 ment of taxes had ceased, and the landlords were threatened 
 with the discontinuance of their rents." 
 
 It was admitted that the spirit of disaffection was local, con- 
 fined to three or four counties ; but those counties were, next 
 to Middlesex itself, the most populous and among the most 
 important in the kingdom, and there was danger lest the feel- 
 ing, if not checked, might spread. The crisis seemed so mo- 
 mentous, that some even of the Opposition leaders volunteered 
 their counsels and aid to the ministers in dealing with it. And 
 the ministers, after long deliberation, decided on calling Parlia- 
 ment together in November, and introducing some bills which 
 they conceived necessary to enable them to restore and preserve 
 tranquillity. They were six in number; and — perhaps, with 
 some sarcastic reference to Gardiner's Six Acts in the sixteenth 
 century — they were very commonly spoken of as Lord Sid- 
 mouth's Six Acts, that noble lord being the Home-secretary, 
 to whose department they belonged. It is not necessary here 
 to do more than mention the general purport of five of them. 
 One prohibited military training without the sanction of the 
 government; another empowered magistrates to search for 
 arms which they had reason to believe were collected for ille- 
 gal purposes ; the third authorized the seizure of seditious and 
 blasphemous libels ; the fourth subjected publications below a 
 certain size to the same stamp as that required for a newspa- 
 
240 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 per ; the fifth regulated the mode of proceeding in trials for 
 misdemeanor of a political character. But these enactments 
 were regarded as little more than arrangements of detail or pro- 
 cedure involving no principles, and some of them were admit- 
 ted even by tbe most steadfast opponents of the ministers to 
 be necessary. But the sixth, designed to restrain the practice 
 of holding large open-air meetings — not, indeed, forever, but 
 for a certain period, fixed at five years — was strongly resisted 
 by the greater portion of the Whig party in both Houses, as a 
 denial to the people of one of their most ancient and constitu- 
 tional rights.* 
 
 Its principal clauses enacted that " no meeting exceeding the 
 number of fifty persons (except a meeting of any county or di- 
 vision of any county, called by the Lord-lieutenant or sheriff 
 of such county, etc., or by five or more acting justices of the 
 peace for such county, or by the major part of the grand-jury ; 
 or any meeting of any city, borough, etc., called by the mayor 
 or other head officer of such city, etc.) should be holden for 
 the purpose or on the pretext of deliberating upon any public 
 grievance, or upon any matter relating to any trade, manufact- 
 ure, etc., or upon any matter of Church or State, or of consid- 
 ering, proposing, or agreeing to any petition, address, etc., etc., 
 unless in the parish or township within which the persons call- 
 ing any such meeting usually dwell ;" and it required six days' 
 notice of the intention to hold such meetings, with their time, 
 place, and object, to be given to a magistrate. It empowered 
 the magistrate to whom such notice was given to alter the time 
 and place. It forbade adjournments intended to evade these 
 prohibitions. It forbade any one to attend such meetings ex- 
 cept freeholders of the county, or parishioners of the parish, or 
 members of the corporation of the city or borough in which 
 they were held, or members of the House of Commons for 
 such places. It empowered magistrates to proceed to the places 
 where such meetings were being held, and, if they thought it 
 necessary, to require the aid of constables. It enacted that any 
 
 * The bill (entitled "The Seditious Meetings Prevention Bill"), 60 
 George ITI., e, 6, is given at full length in Hansard's "Parliamentary De- 
 bates," series i., vol. xlL, p. 1655. 
 
ME. BKOUGHAM DEFENDS A POPULAR EIGHT. 241 
 
 meeting, the tendency of which should be " to incite or stir up 
 the people to hatred and contempt of the person of his Majes- 
 ty, his heirs and successors, or of the government or constitu- 
 tion of this country as by law established, should be deemed 
 an unlawful assembly." It empowered one or more justices of 
 the peace, in the event of any meeting being held contrary to 
 the provisions of this act, to warn every one present, in the 
 King's name, to depart ; and made those who did not depart 
 in obedience to such warning liable to prosecution for felony, 
 and, if convicted, to seven years' transportation. It forbade 
 the display of flags, banners, or ensigns at any meeting, and 
 the employment of any drum, or military or other music ; but 
 it excepted from its operation " any meeting or assembly which 
 should be wholly holden in any room." 
 
 There was one peculiarity in the line taken by the oppo- 
 nents of the bill, that they did not deny that the meetings 
 which had induced the ministers to propose it were an evil, 
 dangerous to the general tranquillity; but it was strongly urged 
 by Lord Erskine and others that the existing laws were quite 
 strong enough to deal with them, so that a new enactment 
 was superfluous; and by others, in both Houses, that such 
 meetings were " an ancient and constitutional mode of discuss- 
 ing abuses or petitioning Parliament," any interference with 
 which was a greater evil than the meetings themselves, as being 
 a violation of the constitution." Mr. Brougham in particular 
 admitted, to the full extent of the assertions of the ministers 
 themselves, " the wickedness and folly of many of the speech- 
 es" made at the recent meetings. He expressed with great 
 force his entire disapproval of the system on which these meet- 
 ings had been conducted, and admitted that the martial array 
 which had been exhibited, and the vastness of the numbers of 
 those who had attended, were of themselves calculated to ex- 
 cite alarm ; but he declared that " he could not on that account 
 acquiesce in a total subversion of a popular right." On the 
 other hand, the ministers themselves did not deny " the gen- 
 eral right of the people to petition the Legislature, or to carry 
 their addresses to the foot of the throne. And therefore (as 
 Lord Harrowby, the President of the Council, admitted) there 
 
 11 
 
242 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 could be no doubt of tbeir rigbt to assemble, so far as was nec- 
 essary to agree to their petitions or addresses. It was a right 
 that did not depend on the Bill of Eights, on which it was 
 usually grounded, but had existed long before. But this bill," 
 he contended, "imposed no restrictions on the legitimate en- 
 joyment of that privilege ; it only regulated the meetings at 
 which it was to be exercised." And Lord Liverpool affirmed 
 that the bill was not only " consistent with the existing laws 
 and principles of the constitution, but was even proposed in 
 furtherance of those principles, and for the purpose of protect- 
 ing the people of this country against a series of evils which, if 
 not checked, must subvert their laws and liberties." 
 
 In attempting to form a correct judgment on the question 
 whether this bill were constitutional or unconstitutional, it 
 must, I think, be admitted that, as has been remarked before, 
 the terms " constitutional " and " unconstitutional " are some- 
 what vague and elastic. There is no one document — not Magna 
 Charta, nor the Petition of Right, nor the Bill of Rights — which 
 can be said to contain the whole of the British constitution. 
 Its spirit and principles are, indeed, to be found in all the laws, 
 to which they give animation and life, but not in any one law. 
 And among its leading principles are those which embrace the 
 right of every individual to freedom of action and freedom of 
 speech, so long as he does not commit any crime himself, nor 
 tempt others to do so. Yet it does not follow that a new en- 
 actment which for a while abridges or suspends that freedom 
 of action or speech is inconsistent with those constitutional 
 principles. 
 
 Ministers, to whom the government of a country is intrusted, 
 do wrong if they limit their operations to the punishment of 
 offences which have been committed. It is at least equally 
 their duty, as far as possible, to prevent their commission ; to 
 take precautionary measures, especially at times when there is 
 notorious danger of offences being committed. At the same 
 time they are bound not to legislate under the influence of 
 panic; not to yield to fears having no substantial ground. 
 And in their measures of precaution they are farther bound 
 to depart from or overstep the ordinary law as little as is com- 
 
MINISTERS SUPPOETED IN BOTH HOUSES. 243 
 
 patible with the attainment of their object. In all such cases 
 each action of theirs must stand or fall by its own merits; 
 by the greatness of the emergency which has caused it, and 
 by its sufficiency for its end. For as no law, except such as 
 forbids moral crimes, is invariable, so even the dearest privi- 
 leges of each subject, being his for the common good, are liable 
 to temporary suspension for that common good. But the bur- 
 den of justification lies on those who propose that suspension. 
 
 Now, that this bill was such a suspension of the long-estab- 
 lished rights of the subject, and so far an overstepping of the 
 principles of the constitution, is admitted by the very fact of 
 its framers only proposing for it a temporary authority. Had 
 it not invaded a valuable and real right, it might have been 
 made of perpetual obligation. But it is not easy to see how 
 it can be denied that the dangers against which it was intended 
 to guard were also real. It was certain that itinerant dema- 
 gogues were visiting districts with which they had no connec- 
 tion, for the sole purpose of stirring up political agitation. It 
 was clear that such meetings as they convened, where those as- 
 sembled could only be counted by tens of thousands, were too 
 large for deliberation, and were only meant for intimidation ; 
 and equally clear that, though the existing laws may have armed 
 the magistrate with authority to disperse such meetings, they 
 did not furnish him with the means of doing so without at 
 least the risk of bloodshed (for such a risk must be involved 
 in the act of putting soldiers in motion), and still less did they 
 invest him with the desirable power of preventing such meet- 
 ings. It was necessary, therefore, to go back to the original 
 principles and objects of every constitution, the tranquillity, 
 safety, and welfare of the nation at large. And it does not 
 appear that this bill went beyond what was necessary for that 
 object. Indeed, though party divisions are not always trust- 
 worthy tests of the wisdom or propriety of a measure, the un- 
 usual magnitude of the majorities by which on this occasion 
 the minister was supported in both Houses may fairly be re- 
 garded as a testimony to the necessity of the bill,* while its 
 
 * In the House of Lords the majority was 135 to 38 ; in the House of 
 Commons, 351 to 138. And even of this minority, many would have sup- 
 
244 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 sufficiency was proved by the abandonment of all such meet- 
 ings, and the general freedom from agitation in every part of 
 the country which prevailed in the following year, though its 
 most remarkable incident was one of which demagogues might 
 well have taken advantage, if they had not had so convincing a 
 proof of the power of government, and of the resolution of the 
 ministers to exert it.* 
 
 ported the bill, if the ministers would have consented to adopt an amend- 
 ment proposed by Lord Althorp, to limit its operation to a few of the 
 northern and midland counties, in which alone, as he contended, any 
 spirit of dangerous disaffection had been exhibited. 
 
 * It may be as well to mention that these pages were written in the 
 autumn of 1880. 
 
DEATH OF KING GEOEGE III. 245 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Survey of the Reign of George III.— The Cato Street Conspiracy.— The 
 Queen's Return to England, and the Proceedings against her. — The 
 King Visits Ireland and Scotland.— Reform of the Criminal Code. — 
 Freedom of Trade.— Death of Lord Liverpool.— The Duke of Welling- 
 ton becomes Prime-minister. — Repeal of the Test and Corporation Act. 
 — O'Connell is Elected for Clare.— Peel Resigns his Seat for Oxford.— 
 Catholic Emancipation.— Question of the Endowment of the Roman 
 Catholic Clergy.— Constitutional Character of the Emancipation.— The 
 Propriety of Mr. Peel's Resignation of his Seat for Oxford Questioned. 
 
 In the first month of 1820 George III. died. His had been 
 an eventful reign, strangely checkered with disaster and glory ; 
 but, if we compare its close with its commencement, it was 
 still more remarkably distinguished by a development of the 
 resources and an increase in the wealth and power of the na- 
 tion, to which the history of no other country in the same 
 space of time affords any parallel. 
 
 Regarded from the first point of view, our successes greatly 
 outweighed our disasters. The loss of our North American 
 Colonies, the only event which can be so described, was far 
 more than counterbalanced by our vast acquisitions in India, 
 at the Cape of Good Hope, and Malta ; while to our maritime 
 supremacy, in the complete establishment of which Rodney 
 and Nelson had crowned the work of Anson and Hawke, was 
 now added a splendor of military renown far surpassing that 
 achieved by any other of the nations which had borne their 
 share in the overthrow of Napoleon. 
 
 The increase of our resources is sufficiently shown by a sin- 
 gle fact. At his accession George III. found the kingdom en- 
 gaged in the great seven years' war ; one British army employed 
 beyond the Rhine, another in India ; fleets traversing the seas 
 in every direction, capturing the Havana, in the West Indies ; 
 Manilla, in the East ; and routing French squadrons in sight of 
 their own harbors. While, to maintain these varied armaments, 
 
246 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 supplies were voted by Parliament in 1761 to what Lord Stan- 
 hope calls " the unprecedented amount of almost twenty mil- 
 lions." In 1813 the supplies reached nearly six times that 
 amount,* and that prodigious sum was raised with greater ease 
 than the revenue of 1761, the interest on the necessary loans 
 being also lower than it had been on the former occasion. 
 
 The philosophical man of science will point with at least 
 equal exultation to the great discoveries in art and science ; to 
 the achievements of the mechanic, the engineer, and the chem- 
 ist ; to the labors of Brindley and Arkwright and Watts, to 
 which, indeed, this great expansion of the resources and growth 
 of the wealth of the country is principally owing. 
 
 While, as the preceding chapters of this work have been de- 
 signed to show, our political progress and advancement had 
 been no less steady or valuable; yet, important from a con- 
 stitutional point of view as were many of the labors of our 
 legislators in these sixty years, they are surpassed in their in- 
 fluence on the future history of the nation, as well as in the 
 reality and greatness of the changes which were produced by 
 them in the constitution, by the transactions of the reigns of 
 the next two sovereigns, though the two united scarcely equalled 
 in their duration a quarter of that of their venerable father. 
 
 It has been seen how Pitt was baffled in his efforts to re- 
 model the House of Commons, and to remove the disabilities 
 under which the Roman Catholics labored, the reasons for which, 
 even granting that they had been sufficient to justify their orig- 
 inal imposition, had, in his judgment, long passed away. His 
 pursuit of the other great object of his domestic policy, the 
 emancipation of trade from the shackles which impeded its 
 universal development, was rudely interrupted by the pressure 
 of the war forced upon him by that very nation which he had 
 desired to make the first partner, if one may use such an ex- 
 pression, in the prosperity which he hoped to diffuse by his 
 commercial treaty with her. But, as in the case of other men 
 in advance of their age, the principles which he had asserted 
 were destined to bear fruit at a later period. And the mere 
 
 * £118,776,000. Alison, c. Ixxvi. 
 
THE ROYAL CONNUBIAL DISSENSIONS. 247 
 
 fact of a change in the person of the sovereign seemed to make 
 a change in the policy hitherto pursued less unnatural. 
 
 Yet, memorable as the reforms which it witnessed were des- 
 tined to make it, no reign ever commenced with more sinister 
 omens than that at which we have now arrived. The new 
 King had not been on the throne a month, when a conspiracy 
 was discovered, surpassing in its treasonable atrocity any that 
 had been heard of in the kingdom since the days of the Gun- 
 powder Plot; and, even before those concerned in that foul 
 crime had been brought to punishment, the public mind was 
 yet more generally and profoundly agitated by a scandal which, 
 in one point of view, was still more painful, as in some degree 
 involving the whole kingdom in its disgrace. 
 
 The marriage of the present sovereign to Mrs. Fitzherbert has 
 already been mentioned. A few years afterward, in the year 
 1795, regarding that marriage as illegal, he had contracted a 
 second with his cousin, the Princess Caroline of Brunswick. 
 But, even in royal families, a more unfortunate alliance had 
 never taken place. They had never met till she arrived in Eng- 
 land for the wedding ; and, as he had never professed any other 
 motive for consenting to the match than a desire to obtain the 
 payment of his debts, he did not think it necessary to disguise 
 his feelings, or to change his habits, or even to treat her with 
 decency for a single day. On his very first introduction to her 
 he behaved to her with marked discourtesy.* Shortly after the 
 marriage he formally separated himself from her, and, both be- 
 fore and after the separation, lived in undisguised licentiousness. 
 She, on her part, indignant at his neglect and infidelity, and ex- 
 asperated at the restrictions which he presently placed on her 
 intercourse with their only child, made no secret of her feelings, 
 and on many occasions displayed such disregard of the ordinary 
 rules of prudence and propriety, that he had some color for 
 charges of infidelity to her marriage vows which, after a few 
 years, he brought against her. The King, her uncle, could not 
 refuse to appoint a commission to investigate the truth of the 
 accusation ; but the commissioners unanimously acquitted her 
 
 * See Lord Malraesbury's account of their first interview. — Diaries of 
 Lord Malmesbury, iii., 218. 
 
248 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 of any graver fault than imprudence. She was again received 
 at court, from which she had been excluded while the inquiry 
 was pending ; but her husband's animosity toward her was not 
 appeased. As time wore on, and as the King's derangement 
 deprived her of her only protector, it even seemed as if he de- 
 sired to give it all the notoriety possible, till at last, wearied out 
 by his implacable persecution, she sought and obtained his per- 
 mission to quit the country and take up her abode abroad. It 
 was a most unfortunate resolution on her part. She fixed her 
 residence in Italy, where she gradually learned to neglect the 
 caution which she had observed in England, till, after a year or 
 two, reports arose of her intimacy with a servant whom she had 
 raised from a menial situation to that of the chief officer of her 
 household, and whom she admitted to a familiarity of inter- 
 course which others besides her husband thought quite incom- 
 patible with innocence. He sent agents into Italy to inquire 
 into the truth of those rumors ; and their report so greatly con- 
 firmed them that, even before the King's death, he laid it before 
 the Prime-minister, with a demand that he should at once take 
 steps to procure him a divorce, in which he professed to be- 
 lieve that the Princess herself would willingly acquiesce. He 
 was so far correct, that her legal advisers were willing to ad- 
 vise her to consent to " a formal separation, to be ratified by an 
 act of Parliament." But such an arrangement fell far short of 
 the Prince's wishes. The Princess Charlotte, the heiress to his 
 throne, had died in childbirth two years before, and he was 
 anxious to be set free to marry again. The ministers were 
 placed in a situation of painful embarrassment. There was an 
 obvious difficulty in pointing out to one who already stood to- 
 ward them in the character of their sovereign, and who must 
 inevitably soon become so, that his own conduct made the 
 prospect of obtaining a divorce from the Ecclesiastical Courts 
 hopeless ; and the only other expedients calculated to attain 
 his end, " a direct application to Parliament for relief, founded 
 upon the special circumstances of the case," or " a proceeding 
 against the Princess for high -treason," were but little more 
 promising. Indeed, it was afterward ascertained to be the 
 unanimous opinion of the judges that the charge of high-trea- 
 
THREATENED EETUEN OF THE QUEEN CONSOET. 249 
 
 son could not be legally sustained, since the individual who was 
 alleged to be the partner in the criminality imputed to her was 
 a foreigner, and therefore, " owing no allegiance to the crown," 
 could not be said to have violated it.* 
 
 He chafed under their resistance to his wish, and would have 
 deprived them of their offices, could he have relied on any suc- 
 cessors whom he might give them proving more complaisant ; 
 but, before he could make up his mind, the death of George 
 III. forced upon both him and them the consideration of his 
 and his wife's position, since it made it necessary to remodel 
 the prayer for the royal family, and instantly to decide wheth- 
 er her name and title as Queen were to be inserted in it. He 
 was determined that they should not be mentioned ; and, as the 
 practice of praying for a Queen Consort by name appeared not 
 to have been invariable, they were willing to gratify him on 
 this point, though it was evidently highly probable that she 
 would consider this as a fresh insult, sufficient to justify her in 
 carrying out a threat, which she had recently held out, of re- 
 turning to England. Her ablest advisers did not, indeed, re- 
 gard it in this light, since the prayer as uow framed implored 
 the Divine protection for " all the royal family " in general 
 terms, in which she might be supposed to be included, and 
 made no separate mention of any member of the family. f But, 
 unfortunately, she was much more under the influence of coun- 
 sellors who were neither lawyers nor statesmen, but who only 
 desired to use her as a tool to obtain notoriety for themselves. 
 A long negotiation ensued. It was inevitable that some appli- 
 cation should be made to Parliament in connection with her 
 affairs, since the annuity which had been settled upon her by 
 Parliament in 1814, on the occasion of her departure from Eng- 
 land, had expired with the life of the late King. And the min- 
 isters proposed that that annuity should now be raised from 
 £35,000 to £50,000, on condition of her remaining abroad, 
 
 * "Parliamentary Debates," series 2, ii., 633. 
 
 t Mr, Brougham gave his opinion that if the Duke of York, or any 
 other member of the royal family, had been named, it would have been 
 offensive to the Queen ; but the measure adopted he regarded as of a 
 neutral character. (Mentioned by Lord Liverpool, "Life of Lord Liver- 
 pool," iii., 55.) 
 
 11* 
 
250 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 having, by their positive refusal to concur in any proceedings 
 against her while she remained abroad, extorted the King's ac- 
 quiescence in this proposal, though he called it a " great and 
 painful sacrifice of his personal feelings." They sought to con- 
 ciliate her acceptance of it by mentioning her in it by her title 
 of " Queen," and by coupling with it a sanction to her appoint- 
 ment of her law-oflScers, an Attorney and Solicitor General, an 
 act which could only be exercised by a Queen. And, though a 
 part of the condition of her residence abroad required that she 
 should do so under some other title, that seemed only a con- 
 forming to an ordinary practice of royal princes on their trav- 
 els. At the same time, the ministers stated frankly to Mr. 
 Brougham, a lawyer of the highest reputation as an advocate, 
 whom she had appointed her Attorney -general, that, if she 
 should reject the offer, and come to England, as she had already 
 announced her intention of doing, such a course would leave 
 them no alternative, but would compel them to institute pro- 
 ceedings against her. 
 
 Eventually she preferred the advice of others to that of Mr. 
 Brougham, or, as it may, perhaps, be more consistent with the 
 real fact to say, she yielded to her own feelings of hatred of 
 her husband, which, it must be confessed, were far from unnat- 
 ural. She believed, or professed to believe, that he had more 
 to dread from an exposure of his conduct than she had from 
 any revelations of her actions ; and, under this impression, in 
 the spring she crossed the Channel and took up her residence 
 in London. It was a step which seemed to Lord Liverpool to 
 leave him no alternative, and, in consequence, he at once took 
 the course which he had from the beginning conceived her ar- 
 rival would reader indispensable. He brought down to Parlia- 
 ment a royal message from the King, announcing that her re- 
 turn to England had made it necessary to communicate to the 
 Houses documents relating to her conduct since her departure 
 from the kingdom, which he recommended to their immediate 
 and serious attention. He proposed the appointment by ballot 
 of a committee of the House of Lords to examine those doc- 
 uments; and when the committee had reported that the doc- 
 uments containing " allegations deeply affecting the honor of 
 
THE "bill of pains AND PENALTIES. 251 
 
 the Queen, etc., . . . appeared to the committee calculated to 
 affect not only the honor of the Queen, but also the dignity of 
 the crown and the moral feelings and honor of the country, so 
 that, in their opinion, they should become the subject of a sol- 
 emn inquiry, which might be best effected in the course of a 
 legislative proceeding," he introduced a "Bill of Pains and 
 Penalties " to deprive her of her title of Queen, and to annul 
 her marriage. 
 
 No one would willingly dwell on so melancholy and dis- 
 graceful a subject. As far as the Queen was concerned, a pro- 
 tracted investigation, during which a number of witnesses, 
 favorable and unfavorable, were examined, left no doubt on 
 the mind of almost all dispassionate people that the miscon- 
 duct alleged against her had been abundantly proved. At the 
 same time there was a feeling equally general that the King's 
 treatment of her from the very beginning of their married life 
 had disentitled him to any kind of relief; and this sentiment 
 was so strongly shown by the gradual diminution of the ma- 
 jority in favor of the bill, as it proceeded through its several 
 stages, that Lord Liverpool, who had already abandoned the 
 clause annulling the marriage, eventually withdrew the whole 
 bill, perceiving the impossibility of inducing the House of 
 Commons to pass it when it should go down to that House. 
 
 No act of Lord Liverpool's ministry has been attacked with 
 greater bitterness than that of allowing any proceedings what- 
 ever to be taken against the Queen, partly on the ground that, 
 however profligate her conduct had been, it had certainly not 
 been more gross than that of her husband, which had provoked 
 and given opportunity for her errors; partly because a great 
 scandal was thus published to the world, and "a shock was 
 given to the national decency and morality which the minis- 
 ters, above all men, were bound to avoid ; partly, also, because 
 the mode of proceeding adopted was alleged to be wholly un- 
 precedented ; and because, as was contended, the power of Par- 
 liament ought not to be invoked to inflict penalties which, if 
 deserved, should have been left to the courts of law. It can- 
 not be denied that there is weight in these objections ; but, in 
 estimating their force, it must be considered that every part of 
 
252 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 the conduct of the ministers showed that their motive was not 
 the gratification of the King's private feelings, whether di- 
 rected to the object of indulging his enmity against his wife, 
 or to that of obtaining freedom to contract a second marriage ; 
 on the contrary, so long as the Queen remained abroad, no lan- 
 guage could be more distinct, consistently with the respect due 
 to his royal dignity, than that in which they expressed to him 
 their insurmountable objection to every mode of proceeding 
 against her which he had suggested, founded almost equally on 
 considerations of " the interests of his Majesty and of the mon- 
 archy,"* and " the painful obligation " under which they con- 
 ceived themselves to lie " of postponing their regard for his 
 Majesty's feelings to great public interests." 
 
 But when the Queen came to England the case was greatly 
 altered. The question now forced on the consideration of the 
 cabinet was, not the mode of avoiding an intolerable scandal, 
 but the choice between two scandals, both of the gravest char- 
 acter. The scandal to be dreaded from the revelations of the 
 conduct of both King and Queen, that could not fail to result 
 from the investigation which, in justice, must precede any at- 
 tempt to legislate on the subject, was, indeed, as great as ever; 
 but it had now to be compared with the alternative scandal of 
 allowing a woman lying under such grievous imputations to 
 preside over the British court, as, if resident in England, and 
 in undisturbed possession of her royal rank, she of necessity 
 must preside. The consequence would evidently have been 
 that the court would have been deserted by all who could give 
 lustre and dignity to it by their position and character ; and, 
 in the slights thus offered to her, royalty and the monarchy 
 themselves would seem to be brought into contempt. The 
 latter scandal, too, would be the more permanent. Grievous 
 and shameful as might be the disclosures which must be an- 
 ticipated from an investigation in which the person accused 
 must be permitted the employment of every means of defence, 
 including recrimination, the scandal was yet one which would, 
 to a certain extent, pass away with the close of the inquiry. 
 
 * " Minutes of Cabinet," dated 10th and 14th February, 1820, forwarded 
 to the King by Lord Liverpool (" Life of Lord Liverpool," iii., 25-38). 
 
THE ROYAL SCANDAL MADE A PARTY QUESTION. 253 
 
 But, if she were left undisturbed in the enjoyment of her 
 royal rank, and of privileges which could not be separated 
 from it, that scandal would last as long as her life — longer, in 
 all probability, than the reign. It is hardly too much to say 
 that the monarchy itself might have been endangered by the 
 spectacle of such a King and such a Queen ; and the ministers 
 might fairly contend that, of two great dangers and evils, they 
 had, on the whole, chosen the least. 
 
 Lastly, if the Queen's conduct was to be investigated, though 
 the mode adopted was denounced as unconstitutional by the 
 Opposition (for, not greatly to their credit, the leading Whigs 
 made her guilt or innocence a party question), it does not seem 
 to deserve the epithet, though it may be confessed to have been 
 unsupported by any direct precedent. Isabella, the faithless 
 wife of Edward II., had, indeed, been condemned by "the 
 Lords " to the forfeiture of many of the estates which she had 
 illegally appropriated ; but it does not appear that her violation 
 of her marriage vows, or even her probable share or acquies- 
 cence in her husband's murder, formed any portion of the 
 grounds of her deprivation. And the Parliament which at- 
 tainted Catherine Howard proceeded solely on her confession 
 of ante -nuptial licentiousness, without giving her any oppor- 
 tunity of answering or disproving the other charges which 
 were brought against her. Unprecedented, therefore, the course 
 now adopted may be admitted to have been. But it was the 
 only practicable one. The different minutes of the cabinet, 
 which the Prime - minister laid before the King, established 
 most conclusively the correctness of their opinion that no im- 
 peachment for high-treason could lie against her. She could 
 not be an accomplice in such an offence of one who, being a 
 foreigner, could not have committed it. It was equally im- 
 possible for the King to sue for a divorce, as one of his sub- 
 jects might have done ; because it was the established practice 
 of Parliament not to entertain a bill of divorce without the 
 judgment of the Ecclesiastical Court being previously obtained 
 and produced. And, under the circumstances, to obtain from 
 the Ecclesiastical Court such a sentence as could alone lay the 
 foundation for a bill of divorce was clearly out of the question. 
 
254 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 The case was a new and extraordinary one, and, being sucL, 
 could only be dealt with in some new and extraordinary man- 
 ner. And in all such cases an appeal to Parliament seems the 
 most, if not the only, constitutional mode of solving the diffi- 
 culty. Where the existing laws are silent or inapplicable, the 
 most natural resource clearly is, to go back to the fountain of 
 all law ; that is, to the Parliament, which alone is competent to 
 make a new law. In one point of view the question may seem 
 unimportant, since we may well hope that no similar case will 
 ever arise to require the precedent now set to be appealed to ; 
 but not unimportant, if it in any way or degree contributes to 
 establish the great principle, that the solution of all matters 
 of moment to the state belongs to the Parliament alone: a 
 principle which, in its legitimate completeness, carries with it 
 a condemnation of many a modern association whose object, 
 whether avowed or disguised, is clearly to supersede where it 
 fails to intimidate the sole constitutional Legislature. 
 
 The abandonment of the bill was naturally hailed as a tri- 
 umph by the Queen and her partisans; but with the excite- 
 ment of the struggle against the government the interest taken 
 in her case died away. The next year, w^hen she demanded to 
 be crowned with her husband, his refusal to admit her claim 
 elicited scarcely any sympathy for her under this renewed 
 grievance ; in truth, it was one as to which precedent was un- 
 favorable to her demand. And the mortification at finding 
 herself already almost forgotten contributed to bring on an ill- 
 ness of which she died in less than a year after the termination 
 of what was called her trial ; and in a short time both she and 
 it were forgotten. 
 
 For the next few years the history of the kingdom is one of 
 "progressive correction of abuses or defects. The King paid 
 visits to Ireland and Scotland, parts of his dominions which 
 his father had never once visited, and in both was received 
 with the most exultant and apparently sincere acclamations. 
 And, though one great calamity fell on the ministry in the 
 loss of Lord Castlereagh — who, in a fit of derangement, brought 
 on by the excitement of overwork, unhappily laid violent hands 
 on himself — his death, sad as it was, could not be said to 
 
THE SANGUINARY CRIMINAL CODE. 255 
 
 weaken or to affect the general policy of the cabinet. Indeed, 
 as he was replaced at the Foreign Office by his old colleague 
 and rival, Mr. Canning, in one point of view the administration 
 may be said to have been strengthened by the change, since, 
 as an orator. Canning had confessedly no equal in either House 
 of Parliament. Another change was productive of still more 
 practical advantage. Lord Sidmouth retired from the Home 
 Office, and was succeeded by Mr. Peel, previously Secretary for 
 Ireland ; and the transfer of that statesman to an English office 
 facilitated reforms, some of which were as yet little anticipated 
 even by the new Secretary himself. The earliest of them, and 
 one not the least important in its bearing on the well-doing of 
 society, the mitigation of the severity of our Criminal Code, 
 was, indeed, but the following up of a series of measures in the 
 same direction which had been commenced in the time of the 
 Duke of Portland's second administration, and, it must be added, 
 in spite of its resistance. The influence of various trades, and 
 of the owners of different kinds of property, pressing in turns 
 upon our legislators, had rendered our code the most sanguina- 
 ry that had, probably, ever existed in Christendom. Each class 
 of proprietor regarded only the preservation of his own prop- 
 erty, and had no belief in the efficacy of any kind of protec- 
 tion for it, except such as arose from the fear of death ; nor 
 any doubt that he was justified in procuring the infliction of 
 that penalty to avert the slightest loss to himself. The con- 
 sequence was that, at the beginning of the present century, 
 there were above two hundred offences the perpetrators of 
 which were liable to capital punishment, some of a very trivial 
 character, such as cutting down a hop-vine in a Kentish hop- 
 garden, robbing a rabbit-warren or a fish-pond, personating an 
 out-pensioner of Greenwich Hospital, or even being found on 
 a high-road with a blackened face, the intention to commit a 
 crime being inferred from the disguise, even though no overt 
 act had been committed. An act of Elizabeth made picking 
 a pocket a capital offence ; another, passed as late as the reign 
 of William III., affixed the same penalty to shop-lifting, even 
 when the article stolen might not exceed the value of five shil- 
 lings. And the fault of these enactments was not confined to 
 
256 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 their unreasonable cruelty; they were as mischievous even to 
 those whom they were designed to protect as they were ab- 
 surd, as some owners began to perceive. In the list of capital 
 offences was that of stealing linen from a bleaching-ground. 
 And a large body of bleachers presented a petition to Parlia- 
 ment entreating the repeal of the statute which made it such, 
 on the ground that, practically, it had been found not to strike 
 terror into the thieves, but almost to secure them impunity, 
 from the reluctance of juries to find a verdict which would send 
 a fellow-creature to the gallows for such an offence. 
 
 Nor was this by any means the only instance in which the 
 barbarity of the law defeated its object. And its combined 
 impolicy and inhumanity had some years before attracted the 
 notice of Sir Samuel Romilly, who had been Solicitor-general 
 in the administration of 1806, and who, shortly after its disso- 
 lution, began to apply himself to the benevolent object of pro- 
 curing the repeal of many of the statutes in question, and in 
 the course of a few years did succeed in obtaining the substi- 
 tution of milder penalties for several of the less flagitious of- 
 fences. He died in 1818 ; but the work which he had begun 
 was continued by Sir James Mackintosh, a man of even more 
 conspicuous ability, and one who could adduce his own experi- 
 ence in favor of the changes which he recommended to the Par- 
 liament, since he had filled the office of Recorder of Bombay 
 for eight years, and had discharged his duties with a most dili- 
 gent and consistent avoidance of capital punishment, which he 
 had never inflicted except for murder ; his lenity, previously 
 unexampled in that land, having been attended with a marked 
 diminution of crime. He procured the substitution of milder 
 penalties in several additional cases; and at last, in 1822, he 
 carried a resolution engaging the House of Commons " the next 
 session to take into its serious consideration the means of in- 
 creasing the efficacy of the criminal law by abating its undue 
 rigor." And this success had the effect of inducing the new 
 minister to take the question into his own hands. Peel saw 
 that it was one which, if it were to be dealt with at all, ought 
 to be regulated by the government itself, and not be left to in- 
 dependent members, who could not settle it with satisfactory 
 
AMELIORATION OF THE CRIMINAL CODE. 257 
 
 completeness; and therefore, in 1823, he introduced a series 
 of bills to carry out the principle implied in Mackintosh's reso- 
 lution of the preceding year, not only simplifying the law, but 
 abolishing the infliction of capital punishment in above a hun- 
 dred cases. He was unable to carry out his principle as fully 
 as he could have desired. The prejudice in favor of still re- 
 taining death as a punishment for forgery was too strong for 
 even his resolution as yet to overbear, though many private 
 bankers supplied him with the same arguments against it in 
 their case which had formerly been alleged by the bleachers. 
 But the example which he now set, enforced as it was with all 
 the authority of the government, was followed in many subse- 
 quent sessions, till at last our code, instead of the most severe, 
 has become the most humane in Europe, and death is now 
 never inflicted except for murder, or crimes intended or calcu- 
 lated to lead to murder. It is worth remarking, however, that 
 neither Romilly, Mackintosh, nor Peel ever entertained the 
 slightest doubt of the right of a government to inflict capital 
 punishment. In the last address which Mackintosh delivered 
 to the grand-jury at Bombay he had said: "I have no doubt 
 of the right of society to inflict the punishment of death on 
 enormous crimes, wherever an inferior punishment is not sufii- 
 cient. I consider it as a mere modification of the right of self- 
 defence, which may as justly be exercised in deterring from at- 
 tack as in repelling it."* And in his diary, when speaking of 
 a death-warrant which he had just signed, he says : " I never 
 signed a paper with more perfect tranquillity of mind. I felt 
 agitation in pronouncing the sentence, but none in subscribing 
 the warrant ; I had no scruple of conscience on either occa- 
 sion." 
 
 And it seems that his position is unassailable. The party 
 whose interest is to be kept in view by the Legislature in im- 
 posing punishments on offences is society, the people at large, 
 not the offender. The main object of punishment is to deter 
 rather than to reform ; to prevent crime, not to take vengeance 
 on the criminal. And, if crime be more effectually prevented 
 
 * " Life of Sir J. Mackintosh," by R, J. Mackintosh, ii., 110, 116. 
 
258 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 by moderate than by severe punisbments, society has a right to 
 demand, for its own security (as a matter of policy, not of jus- 
 tice), that the moderate punishment shall, on that ground, be 
 preferred. That punishments disproportioned in their severity 
 to the magnitude of the offence often defeated their object was 
 certain. Not only had jurymen been tnown to confess that 
 they had preferred violating their oaths to doing still greater 
 violence to their consciences, by sending a man to the gallows 
 for a deed which, in their opinion, did not deserve it, but the 
 very persons who had been injured by thefts or forgeries were 
 often deterred from prosecution of the guilty by the knowledge 
 that the forfeiture of their lives must follow their conviction. 
 It was almost equally certain that criminals calculated before- 
 hand on the chance of impunity which the known prevalence 
 of these feelings afforded them. Wherever the sympathy of 
 the public does not go along with the law, it must, to a great 
 extent, fail ; and that the terrible frequency of sanguinary 
 punishment had failed in all its objects, was proved by the fact 
 that, in spite of the numerous executions which took place, 
 crimes increased in a still greater proportion than the popula- 
 tion. Under the reformed system, now first inaugurated on an 
 extensive scale, crimes have become rarer, detection and pun- 
 ishment more certain — a combination of results which must be 
 the object equally of the law-giver and the philanthropist. 
 
 It is not quite foreign to this subject to relate that, a year 
 or two before, a mode of trial had been abolished which, though 
 long disused, by some curious oversight had still been allowed 
 to remain on the statute-book. In the feudal times either the 
 prosecutor or the prisoner, in cases of felony, had a right to 
 claim that the cause should be decided by " wager of battle ;" 
 but it was an ordeal which, with one exception in the reign of 
 George II., had not been mentioned for centuries. In 1817, 
 however, the relatives of a woman who had been murdered, 
 being dissatisfied with the acquittal of a man who had been 
 indicted as her murderer, sued out "an appeal of murder" 
 against him, on which he claimed to have the appeal decided 
 by " wager of battle," and threw down a glove on the floor of 
 the court to make good his challenge. The claim was pro- 
 
** m-DT A T -D-tr -O A TTXIT T7I " 
 
 TKIAL BY BATTLE ABOLISHED. 259 
 
 tested against by the prosecutor ; but Lord Ellenborougb, the 
 Chief-justice, pronounced judgment that, " trial by battle hav- 
 ing been demanded, it was the legal and constitutional mode 
 of trial, and must be awarded. It was the duty of the judges 
 to pronounce the law as it was, and not as they might wish it 
 to be."* He gave sentence accordingly ; and, had the two par- 
 ties been of equal stature and strength, the Judges of the Com- 
 mon Pleas might have been seen, in their robes, presiding from 
 sunrise till sunset over a combat to be fought, as the law pre- 
 scribed, with stout staves and leathern shields, till one should 
 cry "Craven," and yield up the field. Fortunately for them, 
 the alleged murderer was so superior in bodily strength to his 
 adversary, that the latter declined the contest. But the public 
 advancement of the claim for such a mode of decision was fatal 
 to any subsequent exercise of it ; and, in spite of the Common 
 Council of London, who, confiding, perhaps, in the formidable 
 appearance presented by some of the City Champions on Lord 
 Mayor's Day, petitioned Parliament to preserve it, the next 
 year the Attorney-general brought in a bill to abolish it, and 
 the judges were no longer compelled to pronounce an absurd 
 sentence in obedience to an obsolete law, framed at a time 
 when personal prowess was a virtue to cover a multitude of 
 sins, and might was the only right generally acknowledged. 
 
 The foundation, too, was laid for other reforms. Lord Liv- 
 erpool was more thoroughly versed than any of his predeces- 
 sors, except Pitt, in the soundest principles of political econ- 
 omy ; and in one of the first speeches which he made in the 
 new reign he expressed a decided condemnation, not only of 
 any regulations which were designed to favor one trade or one 
 interest at the expense of another, but generally of the whole 
 system and theory of protection ; and one of his last measures 
 made an alteration in the manner of taxing corn imported from 
 foreign countries, which was greatly to the advantage of the 
 consumer. It was known as the " sliding-scale," the tax on 
 imported corn varying with the price in the market, rising 
 when the price fell, and falling when it rose ; the design with 
 
 * " Lives of the Chief-justices," iii. , 171. 
 
260 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 which it was framed being to keep the price to the consumer 
 at all times as nearly equal as possible. At first, however, it 
 was vehemently denounced by the bulk of the agriculturists, 
 who were re-enforced on this occasion by a large party from 
 among the Whigs, and especially by some of those connected 
 with Ireland. But a more suitable period for discussing the 
 establishment of Free-trade as the ruling principle of our finan- 
 cial policy will occur hereafter. 
 
 The introduction of the sliding-scale was almost the last act 
 of Lord Liverpool's ministry. At the beginning of 1827 he 
 was preparing a fresh measure on the same subject, the effect 
 of which was intended to diminish still farther the protection 
 which the former act had given, and which was in consequence 
 denounced by many landholders of great wealth and influence, 
 led, on this subject, by the King's favorite brother, the Duke 
 of York.* But, a few days after the meeting of Parliament, 
 he was struck down by an attack of paralysis, from which he 
 never recovered. 
 
 In his post as Prime-minister he was succeeded by Canning, 
 not without great reluctance on the part of the King; not, 
 probably, so much because he feared to find in him any desire 
 to depart from the policy of Lord Liverpool, except on the 
 Catholic question (for even on matters of foreign policy, on 
 which Canning had always been supposed most to fix his at- 
 tention, he had adopted the line which Lord Liverpool had 
 laid down for the cabinet with evident sincerity),! ^^ because 
 
 * In a letter on the subject to Lord Liverpool, the Duke goes the length 
 of calling the proposed bill "an experiment which, should it fail, must 
 entail the dreadful alternative of the entire ruin of the landed interests 
 of the empire, with which he is decidedly of opinion that the nation must 
 stand or fall." — Life of Lord Liverpool, iii., 434. 
 
 + At one time it was the fashion with writers of the Liberal party to 
 represent Lord Liverpool as led by Lord Castlereagh in the earlier, and by 
 Canning in the later, part of his administration ; but Lord Liverpool's 
 correspondence with both these ministers shows clearly that on every 
 subject of foreign as well as of home policy he was the real guide and 
 ruler of his cabinet. Even the recognition of the independence of the 
 South American provinces of Spain— which is so often represented as ex- 
 clusively the work of Canning — the memorandum on the subject which 
 Lord Liverpool drew up for the cabinet proves that the policy adopted 
 was entirely his own, and that as such he adhered to it resolutely, in spite 
 of the avowed disapproval of the Duke of Wellington and the known un- 
 willingness of the King to sanction it ; and it may be remarked (as he and 
 
THE COMMANDEE-IN-CHIEFSHIP. 261 
 
 his Majesty had never wholly forgiven him for the attitude 
 which he had taken, differing on one or two points from that 
 of his colleagues on the Queen's case. And, as has been men- 
 tioned in a former chapter, he even, with the object of evading 
 the necessit)'' of appointing him, suggested to the Duke of Wel- 
 lington the singular scheme of allowing the remaining members 
 of Lord Liverpool's cabinet to select their own chief,* which 
 the Duke, though coinciding with him in his dislike of Can- 
 ning, of whom he entertained a very causeless suspicion, re- 
 jected without hesitation, as an abandonment of the royal pre- 
 rogative in one of its most essential duties or privileges. An- 
 other of his Majesty's notions, if it had been carried out, would 
 have been one of the strangest violations of constitutional prin- 
 ciple and practice which it is possible to conceive. The Duke 
 of York, who had for many years been Commander-in-chief, 
 died in January of the same year, and on his death the King 
 actually proposed to take that office on himself. For the mo- 
 ment Lord Liverpool was able to induce him to abandon the 
 idea, and to confer the post on the Duke of Wellington. But 
 it had taken such possession of his mind that he recurred to it 
 again when, on Canning becoming Prime-minister, the Duke 
 resigned the office ; and he pressed it on the Cabinet with sin- 
 gular pertinacity till, on Canning's death, the Duke was pre- 
 vailed on to resume the command. It is evident that no ar- 
 rangement could possibly be more inconsistent with every prin- 
 ciple of the constitution. The very foundation of parliamen- 
 tary government is, that every officer of every department is 
 responsible to Parliament for the proper discharge of his duties. 
 But the investiture of the sovereign with ministerial office of 
 any kind must involve either the entire withdrawal of that de- 
 partment from parliamentary control, or the exposure of the 
 sovereign to constant criticism, which, however essential to the 
 
 Lord Castlereagh have sometimes been described as favoring the Holy 
 Alliance), that the concluding sentence of his letter to the Duke on the 
 subject expresses his hostility, not only to that celebrated treaty, but to 
 the policy which dictated and was embodied in it. (See Lord Liverpool's 
 memorandum for the cabinet and letter to the Duke of Wellington, De- 
 cember 8, 1824.)— Life of Lord Liverpool, iii., 297-305. 
 * See ante, p. 223. 
 
262 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 eflBcieticy of the department, and consequently to the public 
 service, would be wholly inconsistent with the respect due to 
 the crown. The first alternative it is certain that no Parlia- 
 ment would endure for a moment; the second, by impairing 
 the dignity of the monarch, could scarcely fail in some degree 
 to threaten the stability of the monarchy itself. 
 
 Canning's ministry was too brief to give time for any trans- 
 action of internal importance. That of Lord Goderich, who 
 succeeded him, though longer by the almanac, was practically 
 briefer still, since it never met Parliament at all, but was form- 
 ed and fell to pieces between the prorogation and the next 
 meeting of the Houses. But that which followed, under the 
 presidency of the Duke of Wellington, though after a few 
 months its composition became entirely Tory, is memorable for 
 the first great departure from those maxims of the constitution 
 which had been reckoned among its most essential principles 
 ever since the Revolution. Of the measures which bear that 
 character, one was carried against the resistance of the minis- 
 try, the other by the ministers themselves. And it may at first 
 sight appear singular that the larger measure of the two was 
 proposed by the Duke after those members of his cabinet who 
 had originally been supposed to give it something of a Liberal 
 complexion had quitted it. The Reform Bill of 1832 — to 
 which we shall come in the next chapter — has been often call- 
 ed a peaceful revolution. The Toleration Acts, as we may call 
 the bills of 1828 and 1829, are scarcely less deserving of that 
 character. 
 
 The constitution, as it had existed for the last hundred and 
 forty years, had been not only a Protestant but a Church of 
 England constitution. Not only all Roman Catholics, but all 
 members of Protestant Non-conforming sects, all who refused 
 to sign a declaration against the doctrine of Transubstantiation, 
 and also to take the Sacrament according to the rites of the 
 one Established Church, were disqualified for any appointment 
 of trust. That the object with which the Test Act had been 
 framed and supported was rather political than religious is no- 
 torious ; indeed, it was supported by the Protestant Dissent- 
 ers, though they themselves were to suffer by its operation, so 
 
THE TEST ACT. 263 
 
 greatly at that time did the dread of Popery and the French 
 King overpower every other consideration.* On the Roman 
 Catholics, after the reign of James II. had increased that appre- 
 hension, the restrictions were tightened. But those which in- 
 flicted disabilities on the Protestant Non-conformists had been 
 gradually relaxed. The repeal of two, the Five Mile and the 
 Conventicle Acts, had, as we have seen in the last chapter, been 
 recent measures of Lord Liverpool. But the Test Act still re- 
 mained, though it had long been practically a dead letter. The 
 Union with Scotland, where the majority of the population 
 was Presbyterian, had rendered it almost impossible to main- 
 tain the exclusion of Englishmen resembling the Scotch in 
 their religious tenets from preferments, and even from seats in 
 the House of Commons, to which Scotchmen were admissible. 
 And though one Prime-minister (Stanhope) failed in his at- 
 tempt to induce Parliament to repeal the Test Act, and his suc- 
 cessor (Walpole) refused his countenance to any repetition of 
 the proposal, even he did not reject such a compromise as was 
 devised to evade it ; and in the first year of George II.'s reign 
 (by which time it was notorious that many Protestant Non-con- 
 formists had obtained seats in municipal corporations, and even 
 in the House of Commons, who yet had never qualified them- 
 selves by compliance with the act of 1673) a bill of indemnity 
 was introduced by the minister, with at least the tacit consent 
 of the English bishops, to protect all such persons from the 
 penalties which they had incurred. And the bill, which was 
 only annual in its operation, was renewed almost every year, 
 till, in respect of all such places or dignities (if a seat in the 
 House of Commons can be described by either of those names), 
 no one thought of inquiring whether a man, so long as he were 
 a Protestant, adhered to the Established Church or not ; mem- 
 bers of the House of Commons even openly avowing their non- 
 conformity, and at times founding arguments on the fact. 
 
 The practical nullification of the Test Act by these periodi- 
 cal bills of indemnity had been for some time used by two op- 
 posite parties — both that which regarded the maintenance of 
 
 * "With much prudence or laudable disinterestedness," says Hallam 
 (" Constitutional History," ii., 532). 
 
264 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the exclusive connection of the constitution with the Church of 
 England as of vital importance to both Church and constitu- 
 tion, and that which was opposed to all restrictions or disqual- 
 ifications on religious grounds — as an argument in their favor. 
 The one contended that there could be no sufficient reason for 
 repealing a law from which no one suffered ; the other, that it 
 was a needless provocation of ill-feeling to retain a law which 
 no one ever dreamed of enforcing. Hitherto the latter had 
 been the weaker party. One or two motions for the repeal of 
 the Test Act, which had been made in former years,* had been 
 defeated without attracting any great notice ; but in the spring 
 of 1828 Lord John Russell, then a comparatively young mem- 
 ber, but rapidly rising into influence with his party, carried a 
 motion in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill 
 to repeal the act, so far as it concerned the Protestant Non-con- 
 formists, by a very decisive majority,! in spite of all the efforts 
 of Peel and his colleagues. 
 
 The ministry was placed in a difficult position by his suc- 
 cess, since the usual practice for a cabinet defeated on a ques- 
 tion of principle was to resign ; and it is probable that they 
 would not have departed from that rule now, had not this de- 
 feat occurred so early in their official life. But on this occa- 
 sion it seemed to them that other questions had to be consid- 
 ered besides the constitutional doctrine of submission on the 
 part of a ministry to the judgment of the Parliament.^ Theirs 
 was now the fourth administration that had held office within 
 twelve months ; and their resignation, which would compel the 
 construction of a fifth, could hardly fail not only to embarrass 
 the sovereign, but to shake public confidence in government 
 generally. It was also certain that they could rely on a divi- 
 sion in the House of Lords being favorable to them, if they 
 chose to appeal from one House to the other. Under these 
 circumstances, they had to consider what their line of conduct 
 should be, and there never were two ministers better suited to 
 deal with an embarrassment of that kind than the Duke of 
 
 * The last time had been in 1790, when there had been a majority of 
 187 against it. — PeeVs Memoirs, i., 99. 
 t 237 to 193. X "Peel's Memoirs," i., 68. 
 
LORD ELDON AND THE EELIGI0U8 TEST. 265 
 
 Wellington and Mr. Peel. The Duke's doctrine of government 
 was, that " the country was never governed in practice accord- 
 ing to the extreme principles of any party whatever ;"* while 
 Peel's disposition at all times inclined him to compromise. He 
 was quite aware that on this and similar questions public feel- 
 ing had undergone great alteration since the beginning of the 
 century. There was a large and increasing party, numbering 
 in its ranks many men of deep religious feeling, and many firm 
 supporters of the principle of an Established Church, being 
 also sincere believers in the pre-eminent excellence of the 
 Church of England, who had a conscientious repugnance to 
 the employment of the most solemn ordinance of a religion as 
 a mere political test of a person's qualifications for the dis- 
 charge of civil duties. In the opinion of the Bishop of Ox- 
 ford (Dr. Lloyd), this was the feeling of " a very large majority 
 of the Church itself," and of the University-t Peel, therefore, 
 came to the conclusion — to which he had no difiiculty in bring- 
 ing his colleague, the Prime-minister — that " it might be more 
 for the real interests of the Church and of religion to consent 
 to an alteration in the law " than to trust to the result of the 
 debate in the House of Lords to maintain the existing state of 
 things. Accordingly, after several conferences with the most 
 influential members of the Episcopal Bench, he framed a dec- 
 laration to be substituted for the Sacramental test, binding all 
 who should be required to subscribe it — a description which 
 included all who should be appointed to a civil or corporate 
 oflSce — never to exert any power or influence which they might 
 thus acquire to subvert, or to endeavor to subvert, the Protes- 
 tant Church of England, Scotland, or L-eland, as by law estab- 
 lished. The declaration was amended in the House of Lords 
 by the addition of the statement, that this declaration was sub- 
 scribed " on the true faith of a Christian," introduced at the 
 instigation of Lord Eldon, who had not held the Great Seal 
 since the dissolution of Lord Liverpool's administration, but 
 who was still looked up to by a numerous party as the foremost 
 champion of sound Protestantism in either House. 
 
 * " Wellington's Civil Despatches," iv., 453. 
 
 t See his letter to Peel, March 23 ("Peel's Memoirs," i., 9^-100). 
 
 12 
 
266 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 Not that the addition of these words at all diminished the 
 dissatisfaction with which the great lawyer regarded the bill. 
 On the contrary, he believed it to be not only a weapon wilful- 
 ly put into the hands of the enemies of the Established Church, 
 but a violation of the constitution, of which, as he regarded it, 
 " the existing securities were a part." He pointed out that 
 "the King himself was obliged to take the sacrament at his 
 coronation ;" and he argued from this and other grounds that 
 " the Church of England, combined with the state, formed to- 
 gether the constitution of Great Britain ; and that the acts now 
 to be repealed were necessary to the preservation of that con- 
 stitution." 
 
 With every respect for that great lawyer, his argument on 
 this point does not appear sustainable. For the bill in ques- 
 tion did not sweep away securities for the Established Church, 
 but merely substituted, for one which long disuse and indem- 
 nity had rendered wholly inoperative, a fresh security, which, 
 as it would be steadily put in force, might fairly be expected 
 to prove far more efficacious. And it can hardly be contended 
 that it was not within the province of the Legislature to mod- 
 ify an existing law in this spirit and with this object, however 
 important might be the purpose for which that law had orig- 
 inally been framed. Nay, it might fairly be argued that the 
 more important that object was, the more were they who 
 strengthened the means of attaining that object entitled to be 
 regarded as faithful servants and supporters of the principle of 
 the constitution. 
 
 The measure, however, relieved the Protestant Dissenters 
 alone. Not only did Lord Eldon's amendment preserve the 
 Christian character of the Legislature, but the requirement to 
 sign the declaration against Transubstantiation, which was un- 
 repealed, left the Roman Catholics still under the same disquali- 
 fications as before. But the days of those disqualifications were 
 manifestly numbered. Indeed, many of those who had followed 
 the ministers in their original resistance to the repeal of the 
 Test Act had been avowedly influenced by the conviction that 
 it could not fail to draw after it the removal of the disabilities 
 affecting the Roman Catholics. As has been said before, the 
 
EOMAN CATHOLIC DISABILITIES. 267 
 
 disabilities in question had originally been imposed on the Ro- 
 man Catholics on political rather than on religious grounds. 
 And the political reasons for them had been greatly weakened, 
 if not wholly swept away, by the extinction of the Stuart line 
 of princes. Their retention or removal had, therefore, now be- 
 come almost wholly a religious question ; and the late bill had 
 clearly established as a principle that, though the state had a right 
 to require of members of other religious sects that they should 
 not abuse the power which might arise from any positions or 
 employments to which they might be admitted, to the subver- 
 sion or injury of the Established Church of England, yet, when 
 security for their innocuousness in this respect was provided, 
 it was not justified in inquiring into the details of their faith. 
 And if this were to be the rule of government for the future, 
 the conclusion was irresistible that a similar security was all 
 that the state was justified in demanding from Roman Catho- 
 lics, and that it could have no warrant for investigating their 
 opinion on Transubstantiation, or any other purely theological 
 tenet. There could be no doubt that the feelings of the pub- 
 lic had been gradually and steadily coming round to this view 
 of the question. The last House of Commons had not only 
 passed a bill to remove Roman Catholic disabilities (which was 
 afterward thrown out in the House of Lords), but had also 
 passed, by a still larger majority, a resolution, moved by Lord 
 Francis Leveson Gower (who was now the Secretary for Ire- 
 land), in favor of endowing the Roman Catholic priests in Ire- 
 land. And at the late general election the opinions of the 
 candidates on what was commonly called Catholic Emancipa- 
 tion had been the great cardinal question with a great number, 
 probably a majority, of the constituencies. 
 
 It may be remarked that it was not the Test Act which ex- 
 cluded Roman Catholics from Parliament, but a bill which, fif- 
 teen years later, had been passed (probably under the influence 
 of Lord Shaftesbury) at the time when the whole kingdom was 
 excited by the daily expanding revelations of the Popish Plot.* 
 
 * The entry of this bill in Cobbett's "Parliamentary History " is : " The 
 House of Commons testified a very extraordinary zeal in unravellino; the 
 Popish Plot, and, to prevent mischief in the interval, passed a bill to dis- 
 
268 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 And this bill had a loop-hole which was never discovered till now, 
 but the discovery of which totally changed the whole aspect of 
 the question. Even before the bill repealing* the Test Act had 
 passed through all its stages, Sir Francis Burdett had again in- 
 duced the House of Commons to pass a resolution condemning 
 the continuance of the Roman Catholic disabilities ; to which, 
 however, the peers, by a far larger majority, refused their con- 
 currence.* But, within a month of this division, the aspect of 
 the whole question was changed by the shrewdness of an Irish 
 barrister, who had discovered the loop-hole or flaw in the bill 
 of 1678 already alluded to, and by the energy and promptitude 
 with which he availed himself of his discovery. Mr. O'Connell 
 had a professional reputation scarcely surpassed by any member 
 of the Irish Bar. He was also a man of ancient family in the 
 county of Kerry. And, being a Roman Catholic, he had for 
 several years been the spokesman of his brother Roman Catho- 
 lics on most public occasions. He now, on examination of the 
 bill of 1678, perceived that, though it forbade any Roman Cath- 
 olic from taking a seat in either House of Parliament, it con- 
 tained no prohibition to prevent any constituency from elect- 
 ing him its representative. And when, on the occasion of 
 some changes which were made in the cabinet, the represen- 
 tation of the County Clare was vacated by its member, Mr. 
 Vesey Fitzgerald, accepting the office of President of the 
 Board of Trade, O'Connell instantly offered himself as a can- 
 didate in opposition to the new minister, who, of course, sought 
 re-election. 
 
 Mr. Fitzgerald was a man who had always supported the de- 
 mands of the Roman Catholics ; he was also personally popular, 
 and had the undivided support of nearly all the gentlemen and 
 principal land-owners of the county, in which he himself had 
 large property. But 0' Conn ell's cause was taken up by the 
 
 able Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament," to which the 
 Lords, when the bill came up to their House, added a proviso exempting 
 the Duke of York from its operation. An. 1678; October 26 to Novem- 
 ber 21. — Parliamentary History, iv., 1024^-1039. 
 
 * In the House of Commons the majority for Sir F. Burdett's resolu- 
 tion was six — 272 to 266. But, in the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne, 
 moving the same resolution, was defeated by forty-five— 182 to 137. 
 
O'CONNELL ELECTED TO PARLIAMENT. 269 
 
 entire Roman Catholic priesthood ; addresses in his favor were 
 read at the altars of the different churches; and, after five 
 days' polling, Mr. Fitzgerald withdrew from the contest. The 
 Sheriff, in great perplexity, made a special return, reporting 
 that " Mr. Fitzgerald was proposed, being a Protestant, as a fit 
 person to represent the county in Parliament ; that Mr. O'Con- 
 nell, a Roman Catholic, was also proposed ; that he, Mr. O'Con- 
 nell, had declared before the Sheriff that he was a Roman Cath- 
 olic, and intended to continue a Roman Catholic ; and that a 
 protest had been made by several electors against his return." 
 
 It was accepted as a return of O' Council, who, however, made 
 no attempt to take his seat, though when he first stood he had 
 assured the electors that there was no law to prevent him from 
 doing so ; but the importance of his success was not to be meas- 
 ured by his actual presence or absence in the House of Com- 
 mons for the remainder of a session. It had made it absolute- 
 ly impossible to continue the maintenance of the disabilities; 
 what one Irish constituency had done, other Irish constituencies 
 might be depended on to do.* And it was quite certain that, 
 as opportunity offered, almost every constituency in Munster 
 and Connaught, and many in Leinster, would follow the example 
 of Clare, and return Roman Catholic representatives ; while to 
 retain a law which prevented forty or fifty men duly elected by 
 Irish constituencies from taking their seats must have appear- 
 ed impossible to all but a few, whom respect for the undoubt- 
 ed sincerity of their attachment to their own religion and to 
 the constitution, as they understood it, is the only considera- 
 tion which can save them from being regarded as dangerous 
 fanatics. At all events, the ministers were not among them. 
 And the Duke of Wellington, though he had previously hoped, 
 by postponing the farther consideration of the question for a 
 year or two, to gain time for a calmer examination of it when 
 the existing excitement had cooled down,f at once admitted 
 the conviction that the result of the Clare election had ren- 
 dered farther delay impossible. In his view, and that of 
 those of his colleagues whose judgment he estimated most 
 
 * See Fitzgerald's letter to Peel ("Peel's Memoirs," i., 114). 
 t " Peel's Memoirs," i., 131. 
 
270 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 highly, the Irish constituencies and their probable action at 
 future elections were not the only parties whose opinions or 
 feelings must be regarded by a responsible statesman; but to 
 them must be added the constituencies of the larger island 
 also, since, while, to quote the language of Mr. Peel, " the gen- 
 eral election of 1826 had taken place under circumstances 
 especially calculated to call forth the manifestation of Prot- 
 estant feeling throughout the country," they had returned a 
 majority of members in favor of concession, as was proved by 
 the recent division on Sir F. Burdett's motion. Moreover, 
 apart from the merits or demerits of concession, taken by itself, 
 there was a manifest danger that the keeping up of the excite- 
 ment on the subject by a continued adherence to the policy of 
 restriction might, especially among such a people as the Irish, 
 so impulsive, and, in the lower classes, so absolutely under the 
 dominion of the priests, kindle an excitement on other sub- 
 jects also, still more difficult to deal with. It was even already 
 certain that the Koman Catholic priests were endeavoring to 
 tamper with the loyalty of the soldiers of their persuasion. 
 Nor was it clerical influence alone that the government had to 
 dread. A year or two before a Catholic Association had been 
 formed, which included among its members all the wealthiest 
 and ablest of the Roman Catholic laymen, noblemen, squires, 
 and barristers. Its organization had been so skilfully conduct- 
 ed, and all its measures had been so carefully kept within the 
 requirements of the law, that the crown lawyers, on being con- 
 sulted, pronounced it impossible to interfere with it ; and, by 
 what may be called a peaceful agitation, it had attained such 
 extraordinary power over the minds of the bulk of the Roman 
 Catholics, that the Lord-lieutenant reported that " he was quite 
 certain that they could lead on the people to open rebellion at 
 a moment's notice, and that their organization was such that, 
 in the hands of desperate and intelligent leaders, they would be 
 extremely formidable." * 
 
 Under all these circumstances, the Duke had no hesitation 
 in deciding that it had become absolutely necessary to concede 
 
 * See " Lord Anglesey's Letters," ibid., pp. 126, 147. 
 
THE duke's judicious CONCESSIONS. . 271 
 
 the demands of the Roman Catholics and their supporters for 
 a removal of their political disabilities. And it was equally 
 obvious that, the more promptly the concession was made, the 
 more gracious it would seem, and the greater was the proba- 
 bility of its having the conciliatory and tranquillizing effect 
 the hope of which made it so desirable. He was not a man to 
 lose time when he had once made up his mind. It was already 
 too late in the session for anything to be done in 1828; but 
 the Parliament had scarcely been prorogued before he put his 
 views on the subject before the King, and began, in concert 
 with the Home-secretary, to frame a bill such as he hoped 
 might settle the long-agitated question, without doing more 
 violence than was necessary to the feelings of those whose op- 
 position or reluctance he was aware he should have to encoun- 
 ter : among whom was the King himself, who, though thirty 
 years before he had, with an ostentation rather unbecoming, 
 considering his position, put himself forward as an advocate of 
 Emancipation, had subsequently changed his opinion, and had 
 recently taken more than one occasion to declare that he had 
 never doubted that, as the head and protector of the Protestant 
 religion, he was bound to refuse his assent to any relaxation of 
 the existing law.* The Duke, however, was too well acquaint- 
 ed with his royal master's character to apprehend any real firm- 
 ness of resistance from him ; but he knew that a great majority 
 of the clergy, and no small portion of the country gentlemen, 
 were conscientiously and immovably fixed in opposition to any 
 concession at all, some refusing to regard the question in any 
 but a purely religious light, and objecting to associate in the 
 task of legislation for those whom they regarded as adherents 
 of an idolatrous superstition ; while those who mingled politi- 
 cal reasoning with that founded on theology dwelt also on the 
 danger to be apprehended to the state, if political power were 
 
 * As early as the year 1813, on the negotiations (mentioned in a former 
 chapter) for the entrance of Lord Grenville and Lord Grey into the min- 
 istry, the Duke of York mentioned to both those noblemen that the Re- 
 gent had an insuperable objection to the concession of Emancipation. 
 And it seems probable that it was the knowledge of his sentiments on 
 that point that greatly influenced the course which Lord Liverpool sub- 
 sequently pursued in regard to that question. — See Life of Lord LiverpooL 
 i.,381. 
 
272 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOET OF ENGLAND. 
 
 given to those whose allegiance to the King was divided with 
 another allegiance which they acknowledged to a foreign prel- 
 ate. And he had presently an unmistakable proof afforded 
 him how great was the strength of this party in the country. 
 Peel was one of the representatives of the University of Ox- 
 ford; and, as from his earliest enjoyment of a seat in Parlia- 
 ment he had been a prominent opponent of the Roman Catho- 
 lic claims, he considered that it was to that maintenance of a 
 policy identified in their eyes with that Protestant ascendency 
 which his supporters took to be both the chief bulwark and 
 one of the most essential parts of the constitution that he owed 
 his position as their member. With a conscientiousness which 
 was rather overstrained, and not quite consistent with the legiti- 
 mate position of a member of the House of Commons as a rep- 
 resentative, and not a delegate, he now conceived that his change 
 of view on the subject made it proper for him to give his con- 
 stituents an opportunity of making choice of some one else 
 who should more faithfully represent them. He accordingly 
 resigned his seat, offering himself at the same time for re-elec- 
 tion. But he was defeated by a very large majority, though 
 his competitor was one who could not possibly be put on a 
 level with him either for university distinction or for parlia- 
 mentary eminence. 
 
 Not the less, however, for all their difficulties and discourage- 
 ments, did the ministers proceed in the course on which they 
 had resolved. They inserted in the speech with which the 
 King opened the session of 1829 a recommendation to the 
 Houses " to take into consideration the whole condition of Ire- 
 land, and to review the laws which imposed civil disabilities on 
 his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects." And with as little 
 delay as possible they introduced a bill to remove those disa- 
 bilities. But there was another measure which they felt it to 
 be indispensable should precede it. A previous sentence of 
 the royal speech had described the Catholic Association as one 
 " dangerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the spirit 
 of the constitution, keeping alive discord and ill-will among his 
 Majesty's subjects, and one which must, if permitted to con- 
 tinue, effectually obstruct every effort permanently to improve 
 
SUPPRESSION OF THE CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION. 273 
 
 the condition of Ireland." And the ministers naturally re- 
 garded it as their first duty to suppress a body which could 
 deserve to be so described. They felt, too, that the large meas- 
 ure of concession and conciliation which they were about to an- 
 nounce would lose half its grace, and more than half its effect, 
 if it could possibly be represented as a submission to an agita- 
 tion and intimidation which they had not the power nor the 
 courage to resist. They determined, therefore, to render such 
 an imputation impossible, by previously suppressing the Asso- 
 ciation. It was evident that it could not be extinguished by 
 any means short of an act of Parliament. And the course pur- 
 sued, with the discussions which took place respecting it, show 
 in a very clear and instructive manner the view taken by states- 
 men of the difference between what is loyal or illegal, consti- 
 tutional or unconstitutional ; their apprehension that conduct 
 may be entirely legal, that is to say, within the letter of the 
 law, but at the same time perfectly unconstitutional, outside of 
 and adverse to the whole spirit of the constitution. The royal 
 speech had not ventured to describe the Association as illegal. 
 The Duke of Wellington expressly admitted that " in the origi- 
 nal institution and formation of the society there was nothing 
 strictly illegal."* And its founder and chief, Mr. O'Connell, 
 had been at all times careful to inculcate on his followers the 
 necessity of avoiding any violation of the law. But the speech 
 had also declared the association to be " inconsistent with the 
 spirit of the constitution." And its acts, as the Duke proceed- 
 ed to describe them, certainly bore out that declaration. " Those 
 acts consisted principally in levying a tax upon certain of his 
 Majesty's subjects called Catholic rent, and this by means and 
 acts of extreme violence; by appointing persons to collect 
 these rents ; and farther by adopting measures to organize the 
 Catholic population; by appointing persons to superintend 
 that organization ; and by assuming to themselves the govern- 
 ment of the country; and, still more, affecting to assume it. 
 Besides, they expended this rent in a manner contrary to, and 
 utterly inconsistent with, all law and order and the constitution 
 
 * Speech on moving the second reading of the bill in the House of 
 Lords, February 19, 1829 (" Hansard," xx., 389). 
 
 12* 
 
274 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 of the country." No member of either House denied the ac- 
 curacy of this description of the Association's proceedings. 
 And if it were correct, it was incontrovertible that the denun- 
 ciation of it as an utterly unconstitutional body was not too 
 strong. Indeed, the fact of its *' levying a tax " upon a portion 
 of the King's subjects (to say nothing of the intimidation, 
 amounting to compulsion, by which, as was notorious, it was 
 in many instances exacted) was the assumption of one of the 
 most important functions of the Imperial Parliament ; it was 
 the erection of an imperium in imperio, which no statesmen in- 
 trusted with the government of a country can be justified in 
 tolerating. And this was felt by the Opposition as well as by 
 the ministers ; by the Whigs as fully as by the Tories. The 
 most eloquent of the Whig party, Mr. Stanley, was as decided 
 as Mr. Peel himself in affirming that the existence of the Asso- 
 ciation was " inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution," 
 and that it was " dangerous that the people of a country should 
 look up to any public body distinct from the government, op- 
 posed to the government, and monopolizing their attachment 
 and obedience."* 
 
 It was, therefore, with the almost unanimous approval of 
 both parties that the bill framed for the suppression of the 
 Association was received. The framing of such a bill was not 
 unattended by diflSiculties, as Peel acknowledged,! since " no 
 one wished to declare that every political meeting was illegal ;" 
 while at the same time it was necessary to guard against " hav- 
 ing its enactments evaded, since a more dangerous precedent 
 than the successful evasion of acts of the Legislature could 
 scarcely be conceived." But the measure, as it was proposed, 
 skilfully steered clear of these difficulties. It met them by 
 intrusting "the enforcement of the law to be enacted to one 
 person alone." The bill proposed "to give to the Lord-lieu- 
 tenant, and to him alone, the power of suppressing any associa- 
 tion or meeting which he might think dangerous to the public 
 peace, or inconsistent with the due administration of the law ; 
 
 * Speech on the first reading of the bill, February 10 (" Hansard," xx., 
 t Speech on the first reading (" Hansard," xx., 198). 
 
UNANIMITY OF THE LEGISLATUEE. 275 
 
 together with power to interdict the assembly of any meeting 
 of which previous notice should have been given, and which he 
 should think likely to endanger the public peace, or to prove 
 inconsistent with the due administration of the law." And 
 farther, " to interdict any meeting or association which might 
 be interdicted from assembling, or which might be suppressed 
 under this act, from receiving and placing at their control any 
 moneys by the name of rent, or any other name." But the 
 act was not to be one of perpetual duration. It could not be 
 concealed that such a prohibition or limitation of the general 
 right of public meeting and public discussion was a suspension 
 of a part of the constitution ; and therefore the ministers were 
 content to limit its operation " to one year and the end of the 
 then next session of Parliament," feeling " satisfied that there 
 would be no objection to continue it, if there should be any 
 necessity for its continuance." And this limitation was a sub' 
 stantial mitigation of its severity. It made the bill, as Mr 
 Stanley correctly described it, " not a permanent infringe- 
 ment on the constitution, but a temporary deviation from it, 
 giving those powers which were necessary at the moment," 
 but not maintaining them an hour longer than they were 
 necessary. 
 
 And this seems to be the course most in accordance with 
 the spirit of the constitution, with former practice, with com- 
 mon-sense. Deeds which violate the letter of the law can be 
 dealt with by the law. But actions or courses of action which, 
 even if they may be thought to overstep the law, transgress it 
 so narrowly as to elude conviction, can only be reached by en- 
 actments which also go in some degree beyond the ordinary 
 law ; and, so going beyond it, are to that extent encroachments 
 on the ordinary privileges and rights of the subject, and sus- 
 pensions of the constitution. But the very term " suspension " 
 shows that the power conferred is but temporary, otherwise it 
 would be synonymous with abrogation. And all parties may 
 wisely agree, as they did in this instance, to a temporary suspen- 
 sion of the people's rights, though there would be none to whom 
 their permanent abrogation would not be intolerable. 
 
 The bill, then, for the suppression of the Association passed 
 
276 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 witli universal approval, and it may be regarded as furnishing 
 a model for dealing with similar associations, if ever they 
 should arise. And as soon as it was passed Mr. Peel intro- 
 duced the greater measure, that for the repeal of the disabili- 
 ties. In drawing the necessary bill the ministers had had two 
 questions of special importance to consider : firstly, whether it 
 should be unlimited concession which should be granted, such 
 as would throw open to the Roman Catholics every kind of 
 civil office ; and, secondly, whether it should be accompanied 
 by any other measure, which might render it more palatable to 
 its adversaries, as diminishing a portion at least of the dangers 
 which those who regarded the question in a purely political 
 light most apprehended. On the first point it was determined 
 that, with the exception of three civil offices, those of the Lord 
 Chancellors of England and Ireland and the Lord-lieutenant of 
 Ireland,* and some of a purely ecclesiastical character, such as 
 the Judge of the Court of Arches, every kind of preferment 
 should be opened to the Roman Catholics.f The declaration 
 against Transubstantiation and the oath of supremacy, certain 
 expressions in which were the obstacles which had hitherto 
 kept the Roman Catholics out of office and out of Parliament, 
 were to be repealed, and another to be substituted for them 
 which should merely bind him who took it to defend the King, 
 to maintain the Protestant succession, and to declare that " it 
 
 * An amendment was proposed by Lord Chaudos to add the office of 
 Prime-minister to these three, on tlie ground tliat if a Roman Catholic 
 were Prime-minister "he might have tlie disposal of all the patronage 
 of the state and the Church vested in his hands." But Mr. Peel pointed 
 out that the law of England "never recognized any such office as that 
 of Prime-minister. In the eyes of the law the ministers were all on an 
 equality." And the position, such as it was, being a conventional one, 
 was not necessarily connected with the office of First Lord of the Treas- 
 ury. "In a recent instance his late right honorable friend, Mr. Canning, 
 had determined to hold the office of Prime-minister with that of Secretary 
 of State. And when Lord Chatham was Prime-minister, he did not hold 
 the office of First Lord of the Treasury." At the same time he explained 
 that the impropriety of intrusting a Roman Catholic with Church patron- 
 age was already guarded against in the bill, a clause of which provided 
 tiiat "it should not be lawful for any person professing the Roman 
 Catholic religion directly or indirectly to advise the crown in any ap- 
 pointment to or disposal of any office or preferment, lay or ecclesiastical, 
 in the united Church of England and Ireland, or of the Church of Scot- 
 land." — Hanmrd^ xx., 1425. 
 
 t Many years afterward the restriction as to the Lord Chancellorship 
 of Ireland was abolished. 
 
THE ENDOWMENT OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY. 211 
 
 was not an article of his faith, and that he renounced, rejected, 
 and abjured the opinion, that princes excommunicated or de- 
 posed by the Pope might be deposed and murdered ; and that 
 he disclaimed, disavowed, and solemnly abjured any intention 
 to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law 
 within this realm, and that he would never exercise any privi- 
 lege to which he was or might become entitled to disturb or 
 w^eaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in 
 this kingdom."* 
 
 The second question was, it will probably be confessed, even 
 more important. Pitt, who had always contemplated, and had 
 encouraged the Irish Roman Catholics to contemplate, the ab- 
 olition of their political disabilities as an indispensable append- 
 age to, or, it may be said, part of the Union, had designed, far- 
 ther, not to confine his benefits to the laymen, but to endow the 
 Roman Catholic clergy with adequate stipends, a proposal which 
 was received with the greatest thankfulness, not only by the 
 Irish prelates and clergy themselves, but also by the heads of 
 their Church at Rome, who were willing, in return, to give the 
 crown a veto on all the ecclesiastical appointments of their 
 Church in the two islands.f The justice of granting such an 
 
 * The plan which Pitt had intended to propose was to substitute in 
 lieu of tlie Sacramental test a political test, to be imposed indiscriminate- 
 ly on all persons sitting in Parliament, or holding state or corporation 
 offices, and also on all ministers of religion, of whatever description, etc., 
 etc. This test was to disclaim in express terms the sovereignty of the 
 people, and was to contain an oath of allegiance and "fidelity to the 
 King's government of the realm, and to the established constitutions of 
 Churcliaud state." — Letter of Lord Grenville, given in Courts and Cabinets 
 of George IIL, and quoted by Lord Stanhope, Life of Pitt, iii.,270. This 
 plan seems very preferable to that now adopted, since it removed every 
 appearance of making a distinction between the professors of the differ- 
 ent creeds, when the same oath was to be taken by all indifferently. 
 
 + The question had been discussed with the highest Papal authorities 
 more than once since the beginning of the century. In 1812 Mgr. Qua- 
 rantotti, the prelate who, during the detention of the Pope in France by 
 Napoleon, was invested with the chief authority in ecclesiastical affairs 
 at Rome, in a letter to the Vicar - apostolic. Dr. Poynter, formally an- 
 nounced the consent of the Papal See to give the King a veto on all ec- 
 clesiastical appointments within the United Kingdom ; and, after his re- 
 turn to Rome, Pio VII. himself confirmed the former title by a second 
 addressed, by his instructions, to the same Dr. Poynter, which letter, in 
 1816, was read by Mr. Grattan in the House of Commons, it being through- 
 out understood that this concession of the veto to the King was condi- 
 tional on the abolition of the disabilities and the endowment of the priest- 
 hood. And in 1835, after Lord Francis Egerton's resolution had been 
 
278" CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 endowment could hardly be contested. The Reformation in 
 Ireland, if what had taken place there could be called a refor- 
 mation at all, had been wholly different from the movement 
 which had almost extinguished Popery in England. The great 
 majority of the Irish people had never ceased to adhere to the 
 Romish forms, and the Reformation there had been simply a 
 transfer of the property of the Romish Church to the Church 
 of England, unaccompanied by any corresponding change of be- 
 lief in the people, who had an undeniable right to claim that 
 the state, while making this transfer, should not deprive of all 
 provision the clergy to whose ministrations they still clung with 
 a zeal and steadiness augmented rather than diminished by the 
 discouragements under which they adhered to them. 
 
 The policy of granting such endowment was equally con- 
 spicuous. No measure could so bind the clergy to the gov- 
 ernment; and no such security for the loyalty and peaceful, 
 orderly behavior of the poorer classes could be provided, as 
 might be expected from the attachment to the government of 
 those who had over them an influence so powerful in its char- 
 acter and so unbounded in its strength as their priests. And 
 the Duke of Wellington, who had at one time been himself the 
 Irish Secretary, and, as an intimate friend of Lord Castlereagh, 
 who held that office at the time of the Union, had a perfect 
 knowledge of what had been intended at that time — and who 
 was, of course, aware of the very decided favor which the House 
 of Commons had so lately shown to the project — proposed to 
 follow out Pitt's plan in that particular, and to connect a pro- 
 vision* for the Roman Catholic clergy with the removal of their 
 political disabilities from the laymen. Unluckily, Peel, who, 
 throughout the whole transaction, was, of all the cabinet, the 
 
 carried in the House of Commons, Dr. Doyle, one of the most eminent of 
 the Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland, in an examination before a com- 
 mittee of the House of Lords, expressed the willingness of the Roman 
 Catholic clergy to accept a state provision, if it were permanently an- 
 nexed to each benefice, and accompanied with a concession of an equal- 
 ity of civil rights to the Roman Catholic laity. — See Life of Lord Liverpool, 
 ii., 145 ; Diary of Lord Colchester, March 17, 1825, iii., 373 ; PeeVs Memoirs, i., 
 306,333seg. 
 
 * The sum to be thus employed seems to have been intended to be 
 £300,000 a year. — PeeVs Memoirs, i., 197. On the whole question of the 
 payment and Peel's objections to it, see ibid., pp. 197, 306. 
 
SIR ROBERT PEEl's SCRUPLES. 279 
 
 counsellor on whose judgment he most relied, took a different 
 view of the expediency of making such a provision, having, in- 
 deed, " no objection to it in point of principle." But he saw 
 many practical difficulties, which he pressed on the Duke with 
 great earnestness. He argued that for the government " to 
 apply a sum of money to the payment of the ministers of the 
 Church of Rome in Ireland, granting a license for the perform- 
 ance of their spiritual functions, would be a virtual and com- 
 plete supersession, if not repeal, of the laws which prohibit in- 
 tercourse with Rome ;" and asked, " Could the state affect to 
 be ignorant that the bishop whom it paid derived his right to 
 be a bishop from the See of Rome?" Another difficulty he 
 found in the apprehension that " the admission of the right of 
 the Roman Catholic clergy to an endowment might produce 
 similar claims on the part of the Dissenters in England, who 
 contribute in like manner to the support of their own religion 
 and of the established religion also." He suggested, farther, 
 that, if the Roman Catholic priest were allowed, in addition to 
 his stipend, " to receive dues, Easter offerings, etc., from his 
 parishioners, his condition would then be better than that of 
 the ministers of the Established Church in many of the par- 
 ishes in Ireland." And, finally, he urged the practical objec- 
 tion, that the endowment would greatly strengthen the oppo- 
 sition to the whole measure, by the reluctance which, " on 
 purely religious grounds," many would feel to the endowment 
 of the Roman Catholic faith, who would yet be inclined to ac- 
 quiesce in the removal of the disabilities, " on grounds rather 
 political than religious." He was " not insensible to the im- 
 portance of establishing some bond of connection between the 
 Rom°an Catholic clergy and the state;" but he believed that 
 the omission of a provision for their endowment " was impor- 
 tant to the ultimate success of the government in proposing the 
 measure before them." 
 
 It is not probable that the Duke was greatly influenced by 
 the first, or what may be called the constitutional, objection — 
 that any concert with the Papal Court with respect to the ap- 
 pointments or endowments of its clergy would be a violation of 
 the act which prohibited any intercourse with Rome. The re- 
 
280 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 moval of the disabilities required the repeal of one act of Par- 
 liament ; and, if the holding communications with Rome on 
 the subject of clerical appointments should be so construed as 
 to require the repeal of another, it would hardly seem that there 
 could be any greater violation of or departure from the princi- 
 ples of the constitution in repealing two acts than in repealing 
 one. As to the second of Peel's objections, the English Dis- 
 senters could not possibly be said to stand on the same ground 
 as the Irish Roman Catholics, since their ministers had certain- 
 ly never been deprived by any act of the state of any provision 
 which they had previously enjoyed; but their position as un- 
 endowed ministers was clearly one of their own making. The 
 possible inferiority in point of emolument of some of the Prot- 
 estant cures in Ireland to that which might be enjoyed by some 
 of the Roman Catholic clergy could hardly be regarded as the 
 foundation of any argument at all, since no law had ever un- 
 dertaken, or ever could undertake, to give at all times and un- 
 der all circumstances equal remuneration to equal labors. But 
 the consideration last suggested was exactly the one to influ- 
 ence such a mind as that of the Duke of AVellington, generally 
 contented to deal with a present difficulty. He was determined 
 to carry Emancipation, because he saw that the Clare election 
 had made it impossible to withhold or even to delay it; and, 
 being so determined, he was desirous to avoid encumbering it 
 with any addition which might increase the opposition to it. 
 At the same time he was far from being sanguine of its effect, 
 " with whatever guards or securities it might be accompanied, 
 to pacify the country or to avert rebellion,"* which, in his ap- 
 prehension, was undoubtedly impending ; and, under the influ- 
 
 * See his "Civil Despatches," iv., 570. In February, 1829, he said to 
 Lord Sidmouth, "It is a had business, but we are aground." "Does 
 your Grace think, then," asked Lord Sidmouth, " that this concession 
 will tranquillize Ireland?" "I can't tell; I hope it will," answered the 
 Duke, who sliortly discovered, and had the magnanimity to admit, his 
 mistake. — Life of Lord Sidmouth, iii., 453. It is remarkable that the ques- 
 tion of endowing the Roman Catholic clergy was again considered by 
 Lord John Russell's ministry in 1848. A letter of Prince Albert in Octo- 
 ber of that year says, with reference to it: " The bishops have protested 
 against Church endowment, being themselves well off; but the clergy 
 would gratefully accept it if offered, but dare not avow this." — Life of the 
 Pi'ince Consort, ii., 136. 
 
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION ACHIEVED. 281 
 
 ence of these combined feelings, lie eventually withdrew that 
 clause from the bill. It was accompanied by another bill, dis- 
 franchising the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland. They were 
 a class of voters sunk in the deepest poverty, and such as cer- 
 tainly could not well be supposed capable of forming, much less 
 of exercising, an independent judgment on political matters. 
 Yet this bill is remarkable as having been the only enactment 
 passed since the Revolution to narrow the franchise. It had no 
 opposition to anticipate from English or Scotch members, and 
 was accepted by the Irish members as the price of Emancipation. 
 
 No measure that had ever been framed since the Revolution 
 had caused such excitement in the country ; but the preponder- 
 ance of feeling in its favor was equally marked in both Houses 
 of Parliament. In the House of Commons 320 supported it, 
 while only 142 could be marshalled against it. In the House 
 of Lords 213 divided for it against 109. And in April it re- 
 ceived the royal assent. 
 
 The general policy of removing the disabilities it is not nec- 
 essary to discuss here. It is quite clear that the Clare election 
 had rendered it impossible to maintain them. And if some of 
 those who judge of measures solely by their effects still de- 
 nounce this act, as one which has failed in its object of tran- 
 quillizing Ireland, many of those who admit the failure ascribe 
 it to the omission to accompany it by one securing a state en- 
 dowment for the Roman Catholic clergy, pronouncing it, with- 
 out that appendage, a half measure, such as rarely succeeds, 
 and never deserves success. However that may be, it is cer- 
 tain that the measure, coupled with the repeal of the Test Act 
 of the previous year, was one which made a great and perma- 
 nent change in the practical working of the constitution of the 
 kingdom, as it had been interpreted for the last one hundred 
 and fifty years. Of that constitution one of the leading feat- 
 ures, ever since the Restoration, had been understood to be the 
 establishment and maintenance of the political as well as the 
 ecclesiastical ascendency of the Church of England. On that 
 ascendency the repeal of the Test Act in 1828 had made the 
 first, and that a great, inroad, and the present statute entirely 
 abolished it as a principle of government. So far as political 
 
282 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 privileges went, every Christian sect was now placed on a foot- 
 ing of complete equality. But so to place them may fairly be 
 regarded as having been required not only by justice and expe- 
 diency, but by reasons drawn from the history of the nation, 
 and from the circumstances under which these disabilities had 
 been imposed. Before the Rebellion no one was excluded from 
 the English Parliament on account of his religion, whether he 
 was a Roman Catholic, a Presbyterian, or a member of any 
 other of the various sects which were gradually arising in the 
 country. It was not till after the Restoration that a recollec- 
 tion of the crimes of the Puritans, when they had got the up- 
 per-hand, and the fear of machinations and intrigues, incom- 
 patible with the freedom and independence of the people, 
 which were imputed to the Roman Catholics, gave birth to the 
 statutes depriving both Protestant and Roman Catholic Non- 
 conformists of all legislative and political power. The restric- 
 tions thus imposed on the Presbyterians and other Protestant 
 sects had, as we have seen, been gradually relaxed by a period- 
 ical act of indemnity. Indeed, after the Union with Scotland, 
 it was impossible with any show of consistency to maintain 
 them, since, as it has been already pointed out, after Presbyte- 
 rianisra had been recognized as the established religion of Scot- 
 land, it would have seemed strangely unreasonable to regard it 
 as a disqualification on the southern side of the Border. But, 
 as long as the Stuart princes were from time to time disquiet- 
 ing the government by their open invasions or secret intrigues, 
 no such relaxation could with safety be granted to the Roman 
 Catholics, since it could hardly be expected that they would 
 forbear to employ any power which they might acquire for the 
 service of a prince of their own religion. That danger, how- 
 ever, which ever since 1745 had been a very shadowy one, had 
 wholly passed away with the life of the last Stuart lay prince, 
 Charles Edward ; and his death left the rulers of the kingdom 
 and advisers of the sovereign free to take a different and larger 
 view of their duty to the nation as a whole. 
 
 It was notorious that the number of Non-conformists was 
 large. In the middle of the last century it had received a con- 
 siderable accession through the institution of the new sect of 
 
SUPINENESS OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. 283 
 
 Wesleyan Methodists; which, through the supineness of the 
 clergy of the Established Church in that generation, had grad- 
 ually increased, till it was estimated that the various Dissenting 
 sects in England equalled at least half the number of the mem- 
 bers of the Established Church. In Wales they were believed 
 to form the majority. In Scotland three-fourths of the people 
 were Presbyterians ; and in Ireland the Roman Catholics out- 
 numbered the Protestants in nearly the same proportion. Tak- 
 ing England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland together, a calculation 
 which reckoned the different sects of Protestant and Roman 
 Catholic Non-conformists united at half the entire population 
 would probably not have erred very widely from the truth. 
 
 It must have been the aim of every statesman deserving of 
 the name to weld these different religious parties into one har- 
 monious whole, as far as their civil position went. And meas- 
 ures which had that tendency could not be foreign to the con- 
 stitution, properly understood. A constitution which confines 
 its benefits to one-half of a nation hardly merits the title of a 
 constitution at all. For every constitution ought to extend its 
 protection and its privileges equally to every portion of the 
 people, unless there be some peculiarity in the principles or 
 habits of any one portion which makes its participation in them 
 dangerous to the rest. It had undoubtedly been the doctrine 
 of Pitt, and of the greater part of those who since his time had 
 held the reins of government, that if any portion of the King's 
 subjects did cherish a temper dangerous to the rest, it was be- 
 cause they were debarred from privileges to which they con- 
 ceived themselves to have a just right, and that their discontent 
 and turbulence were the fruit of the restrictions imposed on 
 them. In proposing to remove such a grievance Pitt certainly 
 conceived himself to be acting in accordance with, the strictest 
 principles of the constitution, and not so much innovating upon 
 it as restoring it to its original comprehensiveness. And so of 
 the measure, as it was now carried, it will apparently be correct 
 to say that, though it did make an important change in the 
 practical working of the constitution, it made it only by re- 
 verting to the fundamental principles of civil and religious lib- 
 erty, to which every subject had a right ; which had only been 
 
284 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 temporarily restrained under tlie apprehension of danger to the 
 state, and which the cessation of that apprehension made it a 
 duty to re-establish in all their fulness. 
 
 But it is by no means clear that in the conduct of the meas- 
 ure the constitution was not violated in one very important 
 point, the proper relation subsisting between a constituency and 
 its representative, by Mr. Peel's resignation of his seat for the 
 University of Oxford. That he was sensible that the act stood 
 in need of explanation is proved by the careful statement of the 
 motives and considerations that determined him to it, which 
 he drew up twenty years afterward. They were of a twofold 
 character. To quote his own words : " When I resolved to 
 advise, and to promote to the utmost of my power, the settle- 
 ment of that question, I resolved at the same time to relinquish, 
 not only my oflScial station,* but the representation of the Uni- 
 versity of Oxford. I thought that such decisive proofs that I 
 could have no object, political or personal, in taking a course 
 different from that which I had previously taken, would add to 
 ray influence and authority, so far, at least, as the adjustment 
 of the particular question at issue was concerned." " I cannot 
 deny that in vacating my seat I was acting upon the impulse 
 of private feelings, rather than upon a dispassionate considera- 
 tion of the constitutional relations between a representative and 
 his constituents. I will not seek to defend the resolution to 
 which I came by arguments drawn from the peculiar character 
 of the academic body, or from the special nature of the trust 
 confided to its members; still less will I contend that my ex- 
 ample ought to be followed by others to whom may be offered 
 the same painful alternative of disregarding the dictates of 
 their own consciences, or of acting in opposition to the opin- 
 ions and disappointing the expectations of their constituents. 
 I will say no more than that my position was a very peculiar 
 one, that I had many painful sacrifices to make, and that it 
 would have been a great aggravation of them, if it could have 
 
 * This first extract refers in part to the proposal which he made to the 
 Duke to resign his office as Secretary of State, and to support the Eman- 
 cipation as a private member, a design which he only relinquished at the 
 Duke's earnest entreaty. The second extract refers to the seat in Par- 
 liament alone.— See PeeVs Memoirs^ i.,310, 313. 
 
MR. PEEL AND THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. 285 
 
 been said with truth that I was exercising an authority derived 
 from the confidence of the University to promote measures in- 
 jurious, in her deliberate judgment, either to her own interests 
 or to those of the Church." 
 
 No one would willingly censure too severely an act dictated 
 by a sense of honor, even if somewhat overstrained and too 
 scrupulously delicate ; but when Mr. Peel speaks of " defend- 
 ing " or not defending his deed, he clearly admits it to be one 
 open to impeachment. And when he forbears to " contend 
 that his example ought to be followed," he seems practically to 
 confess a consciousness that any defence against such impeach- 
 ment must fail ; while the last sentence quoted above involves 
 an assertion that a constituency (in this instance one of the two 
 most important constituencies in the kingdom) could be justi- 
 fied in regarding a measure required by the safety, or at least 
 by the welfare, of the state, as injurious to its own interests ; 
 and so far admits a possible severance between the interests of 
 a particular class or body and those of the whole community, 
 which can have no real existence. That, however, is not the 
 point to be investigated here. The charge, as it seems, to which 
 Mr. Peel's deed lays him open is, that by it he lowered the posi- 
 tion and character of a member of Parliament from those of a 
 representative to those of a delegate. It was an adoption of 
 the principle laid down for his own guidance by a colleague of 
 Mr. Burke above fifty years before, and indignantly repudiated 
 by that great political philosopher, as proceeding from an entire 
 misapprehension of the rights of a constituency and of a mem- 
 ber^ of Parliament. He told the electors of Bristol that " when 
 they had chosen their member, he was not a member of Bristol, 
 but a member of Parliament ; and that if the local constituent 
 should have an interest, or should form an opinion, evidently 
 opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the 
 member for that place ought to be as far as any other from 
 any endeavor to give it effect ;" that a representative " owes to 
 his constituents, not his industry only, but his judgment, and 
 
 * Speech to the electors of Bristol on being declared by the sheriffs 
 duly elected member for that city, November 3, 1774. — Burke's Works, 
 ill., 11, ed. 1803. 
 
286 COJSSTITUTIONAL HISTOBY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 betrays instead of serving them, if he sacrifices it to their opin- 
 ion." And in so saying he carried with him the concurrence 
 and approval of all his contemporaries v^hose sentiments on 
 such a question were entitled to weight. 
 
 In the States-general of France each member was, by the 
 original constitution of that body, a delegate, and not a repre- 
 sentative. He could not even remonstrate against the most 
 oppressive grievance of which the previous instructions of the 
 constituent body had not instructed him to complain ; and this 
 limitation of his duties and powers was, undoubtedly, one very 
 principal cause which led to the States-general so rapidly falling 
 into utter disrepute. It was no light thing to take a step which 
 had a tendency to bring down the British Parliament to the 
 level of the despised and long-disused States-general. And it 
 is the more necessary to put the case in a clear and true light, 
 because at the present day there is an evident disposition on 
 the part of constituencies to avail themselves of Peel's conduct 
 in this instance as a precedent, in spite of his protest against 
 its being so regarded, and to fetter their representatives with 
 precise instructions; and a corresponding willingness on the 
 part of candidates to purchase support at elections by a sub- 
 missive giving of pledges on a variety of subjects, so numerous 
 as to leave themselves no freedom of judgment at all. On the 
 great majority of subjects which come before Parliament, a 
 member of Parliament, if he be a sensible and an honest man, 
 has a far better opportunity of obtaining correct information 
 and forming a sound opinion than can be within reach of any 
 constituency, whose proneness to misjudge is usually in exact 
 proportion to the magnitude of its numbers. Every elector 
 justifiably may, and naturally will, seek to ascertain that be- 
 tween the candidate whom he supports and himself there is a 
 general conformity of opinion ; an absolute identity he will 
 never find, and he has no right to ask.* 
 
 * It is worth pointing out, however, that, as if it were one of the nat- 
 ural fruits of the Eeform Bill, the Liberal Committee of the Livery of 
 London in 1832 passed a series of resolutions asserting the principle of 
 delegation without the slightest modification ; one resolution affirming 
 "that members chosen to be representatives in Parliament ought to do 
 such things as their constituents wish and direct them to do ;" another, 
 
DEATH OF GEOKGE IV. 287 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Demand for Parliamentary Reform. — Death of George IV., and Accession 
 of William IV. — French Revolution of 1830. — Growing Feeling in Favor 
 of Reform. — Duke of Wellington's Declaration against Reform. — His 
 Resignation: Lord Grey becomes Prime-minister. — Introduction of the 
 Reform Bill. — Its Details. — Riots at Bristol and Nottingham. — Pro- 
 posed Creation of Peers. — The King's Message to the Peers. — Character 
 and Consequences of the Reform Bill. — Appointment of a Regency. — 
 Re-arrangement of the Civil List. 
 
 One of Pitt's great measures of domestic, apart from financial 
 or commercial, policy having become law, it seemed in some de- 
 gree natural to look for the accomplishment of the other, a re- 
 form of the House of Commons, which, indeed, after the conclu- 
 sion of the war, had been made at times the subject of earnest 
 petition, being one in which a far greater number of people had 
 a lively interest than that excited by Catholic Emancipation. 
 The Englishmen who had advocated that measure had been striv- 
 ing for the adoption of a principle rather than for a concession 
 from which they could expect any personal benefit, since very 
 few in any English or Scotch constituency were Roman Cath- 
 olics, or desired to return a Roman Catholic representative. 
 But thousands in every county, including the whole body of 
 citizens of some of the largest and most flourishing towns, felt 
 a personal concern in the attainment of Parliamentary Reform, 
 as the measure which would give them, and which could alone 
 give them, that voice in the affairs of the kingdom to which they 
 felt themselves entitled, but which they had never yet enjoyed. 
 
 And before the end of the next session the prospect of the 
 early success of their aspirations was greatly increased by the 
 death of the King. George IV., who in his early manhood had 
 
 "that a signed engagement should be exacted from every member that 
 he would at all times and in all things act conformably to the wishes of 
 a majority of his constituents, or would at their request resign the trust 
 with which they had honored him." — Annual Register^ 1832, p. 300; quoted 
 by Alison, 2d series, v., 355. 
 
288 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 attached himself to the Whigs with an ardor and ostentation 
 altogether unbecoming his position as heir to the throne, had 
 formally separated himself from them after the death of Fox, 
 in 1806, and had gradually come to regard their adversaries 
 with a favor as exclusive as he had formerly shown "to them- 
 selves. But the Duke of Clarence, who now succeeded to the 
 throne, had always shown a leaning toward the Whigs, who 
 of late had been commonly regarded as the reforming party. 
 While the war lasted, and during the few remaining years of 
 the reign of George III., no active steps toward Reform were 
 taken in Parliament; but under George IV. more than one 
 borough convicted of gross and habitual corruption, as has 
 been mentioned, was disfranchised. Grampound was so pun- 
 ished in the time of Lord Liverpool, and its members were 
 transferred to Yorkshire, so as to give that largest of the coun- 
 ties four representatives ; and it may be remarked that this 
 arrangement caused the Prime-minister to suggest an improve- 
 ment in the details of an election— which was afterward uni- 
 versally adopted — when, in reply to a remark on the great in- 
 convenience that was found to exist in taking the poll at once 
 in so large a county as Yorkshire, he hinted at the possibility 
 of obviating that difficulty by allowing polls to be taken in 
 different parts of the county. And, since the Duke had been 
 in office, two more boroughs, Penrhyn and East Retford, had 
 also been disfranchised; though the Reformers failed in their 
 endeavor to get the seats thus vacated transferred to Manchester 
 and Birmingham. With the accession of the new sovereign, 
 however, they became more active. They found encourage- 
 ment in other circumstances also. Many of those who were 
 commonly called the Ultra Tories had been so alienated from 
 the Duke's government by the Emancipation Act, that they 
 were known to be ready to coalesce with almost any party for 
 the sake of overturning his administration. Moreover, as, forty 
 years before, the French Revolution of 1789 had caused great 
 political excitement in England, so now the new French revo- 
 lution of July acted as a strong stimulus on the movement party 
 in this as well as in other countries ; and altogether there was a 
 very general feeling that the time for important changes had 
 
Wellington's avowed eesistance to eefoem. 289 
 
 come. The Duke of Wellington was not blind to the prevalence 
 of the idea ; and, being by no means willing to admit that his 
 own policy of the preceding year had in the least contributed to 
 strengthen it, he conceived it to be his duty to discountenance it 
 by every means in his power ; but the steps which he took with 
 that object only invigorated and inflamed it. As Prime-min- 
 ister, he inserted in the speech with which the new sovereign 
 opened his first Parliament in the autumn after his accession a 
 general panegyric on that " happy form of government under 
 which, through the favor of Divine Providence, this country 
 had enjoyed for a long succession of years a greater share of 
 internal peace, of commercial prosperity, of true liberty, of all 
 that constitutes social happiness, than had fallen to the lot of 
 any other country of the world." And in his own character, 
 a few nights afterward, he added a practical commentary on 
 those sentences of the royal speech, when, in allusion to Lord 
 Grey's expression of a hope that the ministers would prepare 
 "to redress the grievances of the people by a reform of the 
 Parliament," he repudiated the suggestion altogether, avowing 
 that the government were contemplating no such measure, and 
 adding that " he would go farther, and say that he had never 
 read or heard of any measure up to that moment which in any 
 degree satisfied his mind that the state of the representation 
 could be improved or rendered more satisfactory to the coun- 
 try at large than at that moment. He was fully convinced that 
 the country possessed at that moment a Legislature which an- 
 swered all good purposes of legislation to a greater degree than 
 any Legislature had ever answered them in any country what- 
 ever. . . . And he would at once declare that, as far as he was 
 concerned, as long as he held any station in the government of 
 the country, he should always feel it his duty to resist any 
 measure of Reform when proposed by others." 
 
 Such uncompromising language was, not unnaturally, regard- 
 ed by the Opposition in both Houses as a direct defiance, and 
 the challenge was promptly taken up both in and out of Par- 
 liament. It happened that at this moment the ministry was 
 extremely unpopular in the City; not, indeed, on account of 
 its hostility to Reform, but in consequence of the recent intro- 
 
 13 
 
290 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 duction by the Home-secretary of a police force in London, on 
 the model of one which the Duke himself, when Irish Secre- 
 tary, had established in Dublin. The old watchmen had been 
 so notoriously inefficient that it might have been expected that 
 the change would have been hailed with universal approval and 
 gratitude, but it met with a very different reception. Many of 
 the newspapers which had not yet forgiven the passing of Cath- 
 olic Emancipation made it a ground for the strongest imputa- 
 tions on the Duke himself, some of them even going the length 
 of affirming that he aimed at the throne, and that the organi- 
 zation of this new force was the means on which he reckoned 
 for the attainment of his object. No story is too gross for the 
 credulity of the populace. To hear of such a plot was to be- 
 lieve it; to believe it was to resolve to defeat it; and at the 
 beginning of November the government received several warn- 
 ings that a plan was in agitation to raise a formidable riot on 
 Lord Mayor's Day, when the King and the Duke himself were 
 expected to dine with the Lord Mayor. The Lord Mayor even 
 wrote to the Duke to suggest the prudence of his coming 
 " strongly and sufficiently guarded," and the result of this ad- 
 vice was certainly strange. The Duke cared little enough about 
 personal danger to himself, but he regarded himself as specially 
 bound by his office to watch over the public tranquillity, and 
 to do nothing that might be expected to endanger it. He was 
 at least equally solicitous that a new reign should not open 
 with a tumult which could in. any way be regarded as an in- 
 sult to the King; and, under the influence of these feelings, 
 he took the responsibility of giving the King the unprece- 
 dented advice of abandoning his intention of being present 
 at the Guildhall banquet. Such a step had an inevitable ten- 
 dency to weaken the ministry still farther by the comments 
 which it provoked. Even his own brother. Lord Wellesley, 
 did not spare his sarcasms, pronouncing it "the boldest act 
 of cowardice he had ever heard of;" while the Reformers 
 ascribed the unpopularity which it confessed to the Duke's 
 declaration against any kind or degree of Reform ; and, to 
 test the correctness of this opinion, Mr. Brougham, who, in 
 the House of Commons, was the most eloquent champion of 
 
FALL OF THE WELLINGTON MINISTRY. 291 
 
 Reform, gave notice of a motion on the subject for the 16th 
 of November. Before that day came, however, the ministry 
 had ceased to exist. On the preceding evening it had been 
 defeated on a proposal to refer to a select committee the 
 consideration of the Civil List, a new settlement of which was 
 indispensable at the beginning of a new reign, and on the 
 morning of the 16th the Duke resigned, not only advising the 
 King to intrust the formation of the new cabinet to Lord Grey 
 — who was universally recognized as the head of the Whig 
 party — but recommending his Majesty also to be prepared to 
 consent to a measure of moderate Reform, which, though he 
 could not bring himself to co-operate in it, he was satisfied 
 that the temper of the House of Commons, if not of the peo- 
 ple out-of-doors also, rendered unavoidable.* The advice was 
 taken. Lord Grey had no difficulty in forming a ministry in 
 which the Whigs were aided by the junction of several of the 
 more moderate Tories, who had regarded Canning as their 
 leader; and from the very beginning Parliamentary Reform 
 was proclaimed to be the one great object of his government. 
 It would be more correct to call it a Reform of the House of 
 Commons, since there was no idea of interfering with the 
 House of Lords, even in those parts of it which were of a rep- 
 resentative character, the Scotch and Irish peers. But, by what- 
 ever title the ministerial policy was designated, no one misun- 
 derstood what was intended ; and as Parliament was, after a 
 few days, adjourned over the Christmas holidays, the recess was 
 spent by a sub-committee of the cabinet in framing a measure 
 
 * But it may be remarked that till very recently the people out-of-doors 
 had ceased to show any great anxiety about Reform. Two or three years 
 before, Lord Althorp, who, in Lord Grey's ministry, was Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer and leader of the House of Commons, told Peel that the peo- 
 ple had become so indifferent to it, that he never meant to bring forward 
 the question again, and in the last seven years only fourteen petitions had 
 been presented to Parliament in favor of it. In reality, such a feeling in 
 the people would have been eminently favorable to a calm framing of a 
 moderate measure; but this indifference was soon changed into a more 
 violent and widely diffused excitement than there was any record of since 
 the days of the Popish Plot; that excitement, however, according to the 
 confession of the historian of the Whig ministry and the Eeform Bill, 
 himself an ardent reformer, being "no spontaneous result of popular feel- 
 ing, but being brought about by the incessant labors of a few shrewd and 
 industrious partisans forming a secret, but very active and efficient, com- 
 mittee in London." — Roebuck's History of the Whig 31inistry,etc., ii., 309. 
 
292 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND, 
 
 on the subject ; by the people in anxious guesses as to its prob- 
 able character and extent ; and by a small but shrewd body of 
 demagogues, some of whom were members of one House of 
 Parliament or the other, in exciting the populace to the most 
 extravagant expectations of that character and extent, and of 
 the fruits to be anticipated from it. 
 
 The Reform Bill was brought into the House of Commons 
 at the beginning of the next session. It took both parties by 
 surprise, being a far more sweeping measure than the Tories, 
 had apprehended ; than, it was generally believed, if not known, 
 a large section of the supporters of the ministry liked ; than 
 Lord Grey himself had originally contemplated, or than he was 
 very willing to sanction, till he was overborne by some of the 
 more ardent spirits among his colleagues. Such questions, 
 however, even if the precise truth of such reports could be as- 
 certained, are of no interest when the discussions have become 
 things of the past. That of which it is important to preserve 
 the remembrance is the principle on which those statesmen 
 proceeded who framed and recommended the bill, and that on 
 which their opponents rested in denouncing and resisting it. 
 
 Pitt, as has been already seen, had framed two Reform Bills, 
 one in 1783, when he was not in office; the second in 1785, 
 when he was Prime-minister, and as such had a right to pro- 
 pose the employment of public money in furtherance of his 
 scheme. In 1783 he proposed an addition to the number of 
 county members, and of the representatives of London and its 
 suburbs; but he did not contemplate the disfranchisement 
 of any constituencies, except such as should from time to 
 time be convicted of corruption. But in his second bill he 
 proposed to disfranchise thirty-six boroughs, with the consent, 
 of the electors themselves, or of those persons whose influ- 
 ence in them was so great as practically to make them ab- 
 solute masters of every election. And that consent was to be 
 purchased at a price little short of £30,000 for each borough, 
 this part of the scheme being a foreshadowing of that subse- 
 quently adopted in the arrangements of the Union in Ireland. 
 The seventy -two seats thus acquired were to be distributed 
 among the largest counties and the cities of London and West- 
 
THE PROPOSED REFORM BILL OF 1831. 293 
 
 minster. But, as he did not shut his eyes to the growing im- 
 portance of the manufacturing towns — many of the chief of 
 which, such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, etc., were still 
 unrepresented — he provided for the gradual enfranchisement 
 of those towns also, by a clause which enacted that* " if any 
 boroughs beyond the thirty-six either were or grew to be de- 
 cayed, and below a certain definite number of houses, such 
 boroughs should have it in their power to surrender their fran- 
 chise on an adequate consideration, and their right of sending 
 members to Parliament should be transferred from time to time 
 to populous and flourishing towns." As to the franchise, he 
 asserted " that in the counties there was no good reason why 
 copyholders should not be admitted to the franchise as well as 
 freeholders; and such an accession to the body of electors would 
 give a fresh energy to representation." And therefore he pro- 
 posed their enfranchisement; but this was the only change in 
 the qualification of the electors that he regarded as consist- 
 ent with that principle of the constitution according to which 
 the possession of property was the indispensable title to politi- 
 cal privileges. 
 
 But the bill of 1831 was of a very different character. The 
 weak part of the measure of 1785 was that, while it seemed to 
 admit that, besides the thirty-six boroughs invited at once to 
 disfranchise themselves, there would probably be found others 
 which might be sacrificed without injury ; and while it un- 
 questionably implied the present existence of other " populous 
 and flourishing towns " besides the capital, fairly entitled to be 
 represented, it left their enfranchisement to the slow operation 
 of time, instead of granting it at once. The ministers of Wil- 
 liam lY., on the contrary, desired to make their measure more 
 complete, and also more immediate in its operation. 
 
 Indeed, the circumstances of the kingdom had altered so 
 greatly in the half century that had elapsed since Pitt promul- 
 gated his scheme, that the delays which to him seemed practi- 
 
 * Lord Stanhope's "Life of Pitt," i., 357, where the noble writer ex- 
 plains that " the amount of the fund, and some others of these details, are 
 not stated in Pitt's speech, but appear in Mr. Wyvill's ' summary expla- 
 nation' " — printed as a note in the "Parliamentary History," xxv.,445. 
 
294 constitutio:nal history of England. 
 
 cable were now no longer admissible. The great extension of 
 our trade, which was the fruit partly of his wise commercial 
 policy, and partly of the long war ; the rapid and prodigious 
 growth of our manufactures, developed by the inventive inge- 
 nuity of our mechanics and engineers, had given a considera- 
 tion and influence to the commercial, manufacturing, and mon- 
 eyed classes which could not be disregarded. The land-owners, 
 who had previously almost monopolized the representation, no 
 longer constituted the wealthiest class of the community. Pitt 
 himself had raised a banker to the peerage. More recently, 
 men closely connected with the commercial classes had become 
 cabinet ministers, one of whom had even subsequently sacrificed 
 office to his feeling of the propriety of enfranchising a single 
 town, Birmingham. But there were other towns at least equal 
 in importance to Birmingham which were unrepresented, and 
 it was clearly impossible to maintain a system which gave 
 representatives to boroughs like Gatton, Old Sarum, or Corfe 
 Castle — where the electors scarcely outnumbered the members 
 whom they elected — and withheld them from large and opulent 
 manufacturing centres like Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield. 
 The enfranchisement, therefore, of these towns, and of others 
 whose population and consequent importance, though inferior 
 to theirs, was still vastly superior to those of many which had 
 hitherto returned representatives, was so manifestly reasonable 
 and consistent with the principles of our parliamentary consti- 
 tution, that it was impossible to object to it. And their en- 
 franchisement unavoidably led to the disfranchisement of the 
 smaller boroughs, unless the House of Commons were to be en- 
 larged to a number which was not likely to tend to the facilita- 
 tion of business. Indeed, in the opinion of the framers of the 
 bill, the House was already too large, and they proposed to 
 reduce its number by upward of sixty — a step to which it is 
 probable that many of those whose opposition contributed to 
 defeat it subsequently repented of their resistance. Neverthe- 
 less, the line adopted by the Duke of Wellington's ministry 
 showed that there was still a large party to whom reform on a 
 large scale was altogether distasteful ; and accordingly the bill 
 which, under the influence of these considerations. Lord Grey's 
 
BADICAL CHANGE IN ELECTORAL QUALIFICATIONS. 295 
 
 administration brouo-ht forward in tlie spring of 1831, gave rise 
 to the fiercest struggles in both Houses of Parliament that had 
 been witnessed for many generations. One Parliament was 
 dissolved ; two sessions of that which followed were opened in 
 a single year; once the ministry itself was dissolved, though 
 speedily reconstructed; and three bills were framed, each in 
 some degree differing from its predecessor in some of its details, 
 though all preserved the same leading principles of disfranchis- 
 ing wholly or partially the smaller boroughs ; of enfranchising 
 several large and growing towns ; of increasing the number of 
 county representatives ; and of enfranchising also some classes 
 which previously had had no right of voting. It would be a 
 waste of time to specify the variations in the three bills. It is 
 sufficient to confine our attention to that which eventually be- 
 came law. Fifty-six boroughs were wholly disfranchised ; those 
 in which the population fell short of a certain number (2000), 
 and where the amount of assessed taxes paid by the inhabitants 
 was correspondingly small. Thirty more were deprived of one 
 of their members, being those in which the population was be- 
 tween 2000 and 4000. And the seats thus vacated were 
 divided between the towns which since the Eevolution had 
 gradually grown into importance, the suburbs of the metropolis, 
 and the counties, the majority of which were now divided into 
 two halves, each half returning two members, as many as had 
 previously represented the whole. The boundaries of the 
 boroughs, too, were in most cases extended. 
 
 More important, perhaps, in its influence on subsequent legis- 
 lation was the alteration made in the qualifications which con- 
 stituted an elector. Hitherto the franchise, the right of voting 
 at elections, had been based on property. The principle had 
 not, indeed, been uniformly adhered to in the boroughs, where, 
 as Lord John Russell, in the speech with which he introduced 
 the bill, pointed out, a curious variety of courses had been 
 adopted. " In some," as he described the existing practice, 
 " the franchise was exercised by ' a select corporation ;' that is 
 to say, it was in the possession of a small number of persons, 
 to the exclusion of the great body of the inhabitants who had 
 property and interest in the place represented. In ancient 
 
296 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 times, lie believed, every freeman, being an inhabitant liouse- 
 holder resident in the borough, was competent to vote. As, 
 however, this arrangement excluded villeins and strangers, the 
 franchise always belonged to a particular body in every town — 
 a body undoubtedly possessed of property, for they bore the 
 charges of their members, and on them .were assessed the sub- \ 
 sidies and taxes voted by Parliament. But when villeinage 
 ceased, various and opposite courses seemed to have been pur- 
 sued in different boroughs. In some, adopting the liberal 
 principle that all freemen were to be admitted, householders of 
 all kinds, down to the lowest degree, and even sometimes be- 
 yond, were admitted. In others, adopting the exclusive prin- 
 ciple that villeins and strangers were no part of the burgesses, 
 new corporations were erected, and the elective franchise was 
 more or less confined to a select body." Bat all these diversi- 
 ties and varieties were now swept away, and a uniform franchise 
 was established, all tenants whose rent amounted to £10 re- 
 ceiving the franchise in boroughs, while by a kindred amend- 
 ment, which was forced on the ministers at a very early stage 
 of the measure, tenants at will whose rent amounted to £50 
 became entitled to vote in the counties. 
 
 The arrangements for taking the poll were also greatly 
 changed. Instead of the fifteen days which had of late been 
 allowed for a county election, two were now thought suflScient.* 
 In boroughs the time was abridged in a similar proportion, 
 and the arrangement was facilitated by a division of counties 
 into several convenient polling districts, so that no elector 
 should require to travel more than a few miles to record 
 his vote. 
 
 This last change was universally accepted as a great practical . 
 improvement, from its tendency to lessen the expense of elec- 
 tion contests, which had risen to an enormous and ruinous 
 height. But every other part of the scheme was viewed with 
 the greatest repugnance, not to say dread, by the Opposition ; 
 and every one of the bills was fought step by step in the House 
 of Commons. The first bill was only carried by a majority of 
 
 * In 1835 the two daj's were reduced to one. 
 
POPULAR FEENZY AND THE BRISTOL RIOTS. 297 
 
 one ; the second was absolutely rejected by the House of Lords ; 
 and on the third the ministers, after carrying it triumphantly 
 through the Lower House, were defeated in the Upper House 
 on a point of detail, which, though of no great importance in 
 itself, they regarded as an indication that the peers, though 
 they had consented to read it a second time, would insist on 
 remodelling it to a great degree, and, if they were not allowed 
 to do so, would again reject it altogether. 
 
 Meanwhile, the people were wrought up to a pitch of frenzy 
 absolutely unprecedented. Never had agitators, among whom 
 some of the ministers themselves were not ashamed to appear, 
 been so unscrupulous in their endeavors to excite discontent. 
 One cabinet minister wrote inflammatory articles in the news- 
 papers; another publicly called the legitimate opposition of 
 the peers "the whisper of a faction." And their exertions 
 soon bore fearful fruit. In London some of the peers who 
 had been most prominent in their objections to the bill were 
 hooted and pelted, and one, Lord Londonderry, was nearly 
 murdered. The King and Queen were insulted by mobs in 
 the Park, some of the rioters even openly threatening the 
 Queen with death, because she was believed to be favorable to 
 the anti-Reformers. In some of the most important provin- 
 cial towns the discontent broke out into actual insurrection. 
 At Bristol a tumultuous mob, whose numbers were swelled by 
 crowds of the worst ruflSans of the metropolis, sought to mur- 
 . der the Recorder, Sir Charles Wetherall, when he came down 
 to that city to hold the quarter-sessions ; and, when defeated 
 in their attack on him, stormed the Mansion House, and set it, 
 with the Bishop's Palace and other public buildings, and scores 
 of private houses, on fire, several of the rioters themselves, who 
 had got drunk, perishing in the flames. A similar mob rose in 
 arms at Derby, but did less mischief, as there the magistrates 
 knew their duty better. But Nottingham almost equalled 
 Bristol in its horrors. Because the Duke of Newcastle was a 
 resolute anti-Reformer, a ferocious gang attacked and set on 
 fire the fine old Castle ; and, not content with committing fear- 
 ful ravages in the town, roamed over the adjacent district, at- 
 tacked the houses of many of the leading country gentlemen, 
 
 13* 
 
298 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 plundering and burning the dwellings, and in more than one 
 instance murdering some of the inhabitants. 
 
 The King had hitherto borne himself between the contending 
 parties in the state with scrupulous fairness to both. Though 
 he had, probably, been taken by surprise by the sweeping char- 
 acter of the changes his ministers had proposed, he had given 
 them a frank support, consenting, even at a moment's notice, 
 to dissolve the Parliament after the unfavorable division in the 
 House of Commons on the first bill; but he had, at the same 
 time, warned them that he would never consent to employ 
 any means of coercion to overbear the free decision of the 
 House of Lords. And he had more than once rejected as un- 
 constitutional their solicitations to allow them to make peers 
 with that object. At last they endeavored to compel his con- 
 sent by resigning their oflSces, though the ground for so de- 
 cided a step can hardly be deemed sufficient, since the provo- 
 cation which they alleged was only Lord Lyndhurst's success 
 in carrying an amendment to take the enfranchising clauses of 
 the bill before those of disfranchisement, so as to give the lat- 
 ter a more gracious appearance, as if the boroughs to be extin- 
 guished were made to suffer, not so much for their own posi- 
 tive unworthiness as in order to make room for others which 
 had become of undeniably greater importance. The King took 
 the strictly constitutional line of accepting their resignation 
 and intrusting the Duke of Wellington with the task of form- 
 ing a new administration, warning the Duke, at the same time, 
 that he considered himself now pledged to grant a large meas- 
 ure of Reform ; but the Duke found the task impracticable, 
 and then, as the only means of averting farther insurrectionary 
 tumults, which bore no slight resemblance to civil war, and 
 might not impossibly end in it, the King did at last consent to 
 permit the creation of a sufficient number of peers to insure 
 the passing of the bill. But he could not overcome his repug- 
 nance to the measure as a severe blow to the constitution — one 
 which would in effect be tantamount to the extinction of the 
 independence of the Upper House as a legislative body ; and, 
 thinking no means unjustifiable that would avert the necessity 
 of such a creation, he conceived the idea of authorizing his 
 
THE REFORM BILL FINALLY PASSED. 299 
 
 private secretary, Sir Herbert Taylor, to request the cliief peers 
 on the Opposition side to absent themselves from the division 
 on the third "reading. It seemed to him, and indeed to many 
 of them, the only thing that could be done. Their judgment 
 of the character and eventual consequences of the ministerial 
 bill was unaltered; but they saw the violence of the public 
 feeling on the subject, and the danger to the state of too stub- 
 born and uncompromising a resistance to it, and, yielding loyal 
 obedience to their royal master's wish, they retired from the 
 House without voting. Those who remained passed the bill, 
 and in the beginning of June, 1832, it became law. 
 
 We have ventured in a previous chapter to call in question 
 the propriety of the conduct of the King's father, George IH., 
 in using his personal entreaties to influence the House of Lords 
 against the India Bill of Mr. Fox. The transaction which has 
 been related here is the second and only other instance since 
 the Revolution of a sovereign having recourse to such a device 
 to sway the votes of members of either House. But the cir- 
 cumstances were so entirely different, nay, so diametrically op- 
 posite, that an opinion of the impropriety of the sovereign's 
 deed in the former case imposes no obligation on the ground 
 of consistency to censure it in the later instance. The inter- 
 ference of George HI. was designed to thwart and defeat his 
 ministers on a measure of which he had not previously inti- 
 mated any disapproval. William IV., on the other hand, was 
 exerting himself to support his ministers, not, as it seems proba- 
 ble, without some sacrifice of his own judgment. His father 
 acted as he did to avert an inroad on his prerogative and inde- 
 pendence, which he had been persuaded to apprehend, but the 
 danger of which can hardly be said to have been proved be- 
 yond all question ; so that even those who think the result of 
 his action fortunate for the nation cannot defend the action as 
 one that on any constitutional principle can be justified. The 
 son, at a far more critical moment, adopted the course which 
 he did adopt as the only means which he saw of extricating 
 the state and the nation from an alternative of great calamities: 
 the extinction of, or at least a deep wound to, the legislative in- 
 dependence of the House of Lords, by the following of a single 
 
300 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 precedent* which, had ever since been universally condemned ; 
 or, on the other hand, a continuance of outrages and tumults 
 ■which had already disgraced the nation in the eyes of the 
 world, and which, if renewed and continued, could not fail to 
 imperil the safety of the state. Such a motive may certainly 
 be allowed to excuse the irregularity of the act. 
 
 When, however, we come to consider the proposal to create 
 peers, which drove the King to take such a step, that is a ques- 
 tion on which, while it is still more important, it is also more 
 difficult to form a satisfactory judgment. It was denounced 
 by the Duke of Wellington and other peers as utterly uncon- 
 stitutional and revolutionary; as a destruction of the great 
 principle of the equality of the two Houses ; as a denial to the 
 peers of their right to form and act upon their own deliberate 
 judgment; and as a reduction of their position to that of a 
 body existing merely to register the decrees of the other House. 
 Indeed, that it had this character was admitted by Lord Grey 
 himself, with no abatement beyond such mitigation as might 
 be found in the idea that it was only intended to affect their 
 decision on a single question. So far it may be said that even 
 while defending it he condemned it; Habemus conjitentem 
 reum. But the task of a ruler or legislator is often but a 
 choice between difficulties, or even between manifest evils. 
 And, even if an act or course be admitted to be intrinsically 
 evil, taken by itself, yet, if the evil which it is calculated or de- 
 signed to avert be a greater evil still, the defence is complete, 
 or, at all events, sufficient. And this, in fact, is the principle 
 of the justification which Lord Grey alleged. He was, perhaps, 
 unconsciously referring to a passage in Mr. Hallam's great work 
 on " Constitutional History " (then very recently published), 
 in which, while discussing Sunderland's Peerage Bill, and ad- 
 mitting that "the unlimited prerogative of augmenting the 
 peerage is liable to such abuses, at least in theory, as might 
 overthrow our form of government," he proceeds to point out 
 that in the exercise of this, as of every other power, "the crown 
 has been carefully restrained by statutes, and by the responsi- 
 
 * The creation of twelve peers, in the reign of Queen Anne, to secure a 
 majority in favor of the Peace of Utrecht. 
 
THE crisis: lord grey and the peers. 301 
 
 bility of its advisers ;" but that, while " the Commons, if they 
 transgress their boundaries, are annihilated by a proclamation " 
 (that is, by a dissolution) " against the ambition, or, what is 
 much more lil^ely, the perverse haughtiness of the aristocracy, 
 the constitution has not furnished such direct securities. . . . 
 The resource of subduing an aristocratical faction by the crea- 
 tion of new peers could never be constitutionally employed, 
 except in the case of a nearly equal balance ; but it might use- 
 fully hang over the heads of the whole body, and deter them 
 from any gross excesses of faction or oligarchical spirit. The 
 nature of our government requires a general harmony between 
 the two Houses of Parliament."* In the present case no one 
 could impute the difference between the two Houses to any 
 "perverse haughtiness" on the part of the peers. But the 
 difference existed, and was too deeply founded on the cautious 
 principles of the Tory party to be surmountable by ordinary 
 means. It was certain also that the Commons would not give 
 way; that, without danger to the public peace, they could not 
 give way. And this was, in fact. Lord Grey's contention : that 
 a crisis had arisen in which compulsion must be exercised on 
 one or other of the disagreeing parties ; and that coercion of 
 the peers by an augmentation of their number, or a threat of 
 it, was the only compulsion practicable. In upholding this 
 position, however, it must be remarked that he was betrayed 
 into the use of language which was as great a violation of con- 
 stitutional and parliamentary principle and usage as the action 
 which he was recommending ; language, too, which was quite 
 unnecessary to strengthen his argument. He accused the 
 Lords of " opposing the declared and decided wishes both of 
 the crown and the people ;" of " acting adversely to the crown ;" 
 and this introduction of the sovereign's name to overawe the 
 assembly was unconstitutional in the highest degree. For, 
 constitutionally, the sovereign has no right to signify his opin- 
 ion, nor, indeed, any recognized means of signifying it but by 
 giving or withholding his royal assent to measures which the 
 two Houses have passed. On any bill which has not yet been 
 
 * ''Constitutional History," iii., 321. See the whole passage. 
 
302 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 passed by them he has, as has been already hnplied, no legiti- 
 mate means whatever of expressing his judgment. The time 
 has not come for him to do so. Moreover, the statement was, 
 probably, not believed by any one to be strictly true, for it was 
 pretty generally understood that the King would have preferred 
 a far more moderate measure. But, indeed, in the very speech 
 in which the Prime-minister made this use of the King's name 
 he presently added an observation which was a sufficient con- 
 demnation of his previous language. For, in denouncing the 
 " vile attacks which had been made on his Majesty in the pub- 
 lic press," and disclaiming all share in them (a disclaimer which, 
 however true of himself, could not, it is believed, have been ut- 
 tered with equal truth by all his colleagues), he pointed out 
 that " it ought always to be recollected that it is contrary to 
 the principles of the constitution to arraign the personal con- 
 duct of the sovereign." It follows, as a matter of course, that 
 it is equally contrary to those principles to allege his personal 
 opinions in either House on any measure before it, since, if al- 
 leged, they must be open to criticism ; unless, indeed, the mere 
 allegation of the royal sentiments were to be taken as decisive 
 of the question, in which 'case all freedom of discussion would 
 be at once extinguished. 
 
 But this irregularity, into which the Prime-minister was ap- 
 parently betrayed by his desire of victory, must not be allowed 
 to affect our verdict on the main question ; and, now that the 
 lapse of time has enabled us to contemplate dispassionately 
 the case on which he had to decide, it will, probably, be 
 thought that his justification of his conduct in recommending 
 a creation of peers is fairly made out. That, under any press- 
 ure short of that, the peers would have again rejected the Re- 
 form Bill, or at least would have pared it down to much 
 smaller proportions than would have satisfied the popular de- 
 mand for Reform, may be regarded as certain ; and equally 
 certain that such a line of conduct would have led to a renewal 
 of disgraceful and dangerous tumults. The minister, therefore, 
 as has been said before, had to choose between two evils. It 
 was a grievous dilemma; but those who had to deal with it 
 (even while it may be admitted that they cannot be held 
 
"the whisper op a faction." 303 
 
 wholly free from blame, as having themselves contributed by 
 their own language to the popular excitement and irritation)* 
 may be excused for thinking the wound inflicted on the con- 
 stitution, by thus overbearing the voice of one House of Par- 
 liament on a single occasion, less formidable in its immediate 
 fruit, and more capable of being remedied and retrieved, than 
 that which would have followed from a renewal of insurrec- 
 tionary tumults, even if they should have come short of actual 
 civil war. 
 
 One critic of these transactions,! whose experience and high 
 reputation entitle his opinion to respectful consideration, after 
 reminding his readers that, " although Parliament is said to be 
 dissolved, a dissolution extends, in fact, no farther than to the 
 Commons, and that the Peers are not affected by it ; no change 
 can take place in the constitution of their body, except as to 
 a small number of Scotch representative peers," proceeds to 
 argue that, " so far as the House of Peers is concerned, a crea- 
 tion of peers by the crown on extraordinary occasions is the 
 only equivalent which the constitution has provided for the 
 change and renovation of the House of Commons by a disso- 
 lution. In no other way can the opinions of the House of 
 Lords be brought into harmony with those of the people." 
 But it may be feared that this comparison is rather ingenious 
 than solid. Indeed, the writer himself limits such an expedient 
 as a creation of peers to insure the passing of a particular 
 measure to " extraordinary occasions." But a dissolution of 
 the House of Commons is so far from being so limited, that it 
 is the natural and inevitable end of every House of Commons 
 after an existence which cannot exceed seven years, and which 
 is very rarely so protracted. And though it may be, and 
 probably has been, the case that a House of Commons has 
 passed measures to which it had no great inclination, lest it 
 should provoke a minister to a premature dissolution, yet no 
 
 * Lord John Kussell had publicly described the language of the Tory 
 peers in the debate on Lord Lyndhurst's amendment as "the whisper of 
 a faction." And many articles of most extreme violence which appeared 
 in the Times about the same time were generally believed to have been 
 written (in part at least) by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham. 
 
 t " Constitutional History of England," by Sir J. E. May, i., 262. 
 
304 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 submission ou its part can long postpone it; and a threat or 
 apprehension of a dissolution would certainly fail to overcome 
 the opposition of the House of Commons, or of a party within 
 it, if the measure before them seemed open to serious objec- 
 tion. The presumed or presumable immortality of the one 
 body, and the limited existence of the other, seem to constitute 
 so essential a difference between them as must prevent the 
 measures adopted toward one being fairly regarded as any 
 guide to a justification of those employed in the case of the 
 other. 
 
 The Reform Bill of 1832 has sometimes been called a new 
 Revolution, and to some extent it deserved the name ; for it 
 was not, like the Catholic Emancipation Act, a mere restoration 
 of privileges to any class or classes of the people which had 
 once been enjoyed by them, and had subsequently been with- 
 drawn, but it was a grant of a wholly new privilege to places 
 and to classes which had never enjoyed it ; while it was mani- 
 fest that the political power thus conferred on these classes in- 
 volved a corresponding diminution of the powers of those who 
 had hitherto monopolized it. It was also the introduction of 
 a new principle. The old doctrine of the constitution had 
 been, that the possession of freehold property, as the only per- 
 manent stake in the country, was the only qualification which 
 could entitle a subject to a voice in the government and legis- 
 lation of the kingdom. The new doctrine was that, as others 
 besides owners of land contributed to the revenue by the pay- 
 ment of taxes, those who did so contribute to a sufficient 
 amount had a right to a voice, however indirect or feeble, in 
 the granting of those taxes; and so far it was the extension 
 and application to subjects at home of the principle for which 
 Lord Chatham and Burke had contended sixty years before in 
 the case of the American Colonies, that taxation and a right to 
 representation went together; a principle which, many ages be- 
 fore, had been laid down by the greatest of our early kings as 
 the foundation of our parliamentary constitution and rights. 
 But this principle, however generally it may have been asserted, 
 had hitherto been but very partially carried out in practice, 
 and the old borough system had been skilfully devised by sue- 
 
(C 
 
 ROTTEN BOEOUGHS." 305 
 
 cessive kings and ministers to keep the political power in the 
 hands of the crown and the aristocracy. It was with that ob- 
 ject that most of the boroughs which were first allowed to re- 
 turn members under the Tudors had been enfranchised,* a great 
 noble or landholder, whose affection to the government could 
 not be doubted, being often able to obtain the promotion of 
 some village or petty town in the neighborhood of his estates 
 to the dignity of a parliamentary borough, and thus acquiring 
 a great addition to his political and social importance by his 
 power of influencing the election. No one could deny that the 
 existence of such boroughs was an abuse, or at least an anom- 
 aly, rendered the more conspicuous as time went on by the 
 denial of representatives to towns which contained as many 
 thousands of citizens as they could boast single burgesses. At 
 the same time it was equally undeniable that the aristocracy, 
 generally speaking, exerted their influence advantageously for 
 the state. A peer or great squire who could return the mem- 
 bers for a borough took a worthy pride in the abilities and 
 reputation of those whom he thus sent to Parliament ; espe- 
 cially the leaders of the two parties sought out promising young 
 men for their seats ; and it has often been pointed out that, of 
 the men who in the House of Commons had risen to eminence 
 in the country before the Reform Bill, there was scarcely one 
 who had not owed his introduction to Parliament to the patron 
 of one of those boroughs which were now wholly or partially 
 disfranchised ; while on one or two occasions these " rotten 
 boroughs," as, since Lord Chatham's time, they were often de- 
 risively called, had proved equally useful in providing seats for 
 distinguished statesmen who, for some reason or other, had lost 
 the confidence of their former constituents. So, when Bristol 
 had disgraced itself by the rejection of Burke, Malton had 
 averted the loss with which Parliament and the country were 
 threatened by again, through the influence of Lord Rocking- 
 ham, returning the great statesman as their representative. So, 
 
 * Elizabeth enfranchised no fewer than sixty-two in the course of her 
 reign, "a very large proportion of them petty boroughs, evidently under 
 the influence of the crown or the peerage." — Hallam, Constitutional His- 
 tory, I, 360. 
 
306 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 to take a later instance, Westbury, under the influence of Sir 
 Manasseli Lopes, had provided a refuge for Sir Robert Peel, 
 when the course which he had taken on Catholic Emancipation 
 had cost him his seat for Oxford. And these practical uses of 
 these small boroughs — anomalies in a representative system, as 
 they were called in the debates on the subject, and as they 
 must be confessed to have been — were so important, that some 
 even of those who felt compelled by their principles to vote 
 for their parliamentary extinction have, nevertheless, confessed 
 a regret for the sacrifice, lamenting especially that it has, in a 
 great degree, closed the doors of the House of Commons against 
 a class whose admission to it is on every account most desira- 
 ble, the promising young men of both parties. 
 
 In one point of great importance the framers of the Keform 
 Bill of 1832 proved to be mistaken. They justified the very 
 comprehensive or sweeping range which they had given it by 
 their wish to make it a final settlement of the question, and by 
 the expression of their conviction that the completeness with 
 which it had satisfied all reasonable expectations had effectually 
 prevented any necessity for ever re-opening the question. Their 
 anticipations on this head were not shared by their opponents, 
 who, on the contrary, foretold that the very greatness of the 
 changes now effected would only whet the appetite for a farther 
 extension of them ; nor by a growing party, now beginning to 
 own the title of Radicals, which till very recently had only been 
 regarded as a reproach, and who, even before the bill passed,* 
 expressed their discontent that it did not go farther, but ac- 
 cepted it as an instalment of what was required, and as an in- 
 strument for securing " a more complete improvement." And 
 their expectations have been verified by subsequent events. In- 
 deed, it may easily be seen that the principles on which one 
 portion of the bill — that which enfranchised new classes of 
 
 * Sir A. Alison, "History of Europe," xxiii., 55, quotes a paragraph 
 from the ^xammer newspaper, whieli says : " The ground, limited as it is, 
 Avhich it is proposed to clear and open to the popular influence, will suf- 
 fice as the spot desired by Archimedes for the plant of the power which 
 must ultimately govern the whole system. Without reform, convulsion 
 is inevitable. Upon any reform farther reform is inevitably consequent, 
 and the settlement of the constitution on the democratic basis certain." 
 
BEFORM, AND ITS PROBABLE FUTURE EFFECT. 307 
 
 voters — was framed were sucli as, in shrewd hands, might easily 
 be adduced as arguments in favor of the necessity of recon- 
 sideration of the question from time to time. So long as the 
 right of voting was confined to owners of property, or members 
 of corporate bodies, the line thus laid down was one which was 
 not liable to be crossed. But the moment that tenancy was 
 added to ownership, and a line was drawn distinguishing elec- 
 tors from non-electors, not by the nature of their qualifications, 
 but by the amount of their rent, detail was substituted for prin- 
 ciple ; and the proposer or maintainer of the rule that the qual- 
 ification should be a yearly rental of £10 might be called on to 
 explain why, if £10 were a more reasonable limit than £15, 
 £8 were not fairer than £10. Or again, if the original argu- 
 ment were, that a line must of necessity be drawn somewhere, 
 and that £10 was the lowest qualification which seemed to 
 guarantee such an amount of educated intelligence in the voter 
 as would enable him to exercise the franchise conferred on him 
 judiciously and honestly, such reasoning would from time to 
 time invite the contention that the spread of education had 
 rendered £8 tenants now as enlightened as £10 tenants had 
 been some years before. And thus the measure of 1832, in- 
 stead of forever silencing the demand for Reform by the com- 
 pleteness of its concessions, did in fact lay the foundation for 
 future agitation, which has been farther encouraged and fed by 
 farther submission to it, and which its leaders, who have so far 
 triumphed, show no purpose to discontinue. To discuss whether 
 such extensions of the franchise as have already been adopted, 
 and those farther steps in the same direction which are gener- 
 ally understood to be impending, will eventually be found com- 
 patible with the preservation of our ancient monarchical con- 
 stitution, is a fitting task for the statesmen and senators whose 
 duty it is to examine in all their bearings the probable effects 
 of the measures which may be proposed. But the historian's 
 business is rather " to compile the records of the past " than 
 "to speculate on the future."* And the course which was too 
 perilous or diflScult for Mr. Hallam to undertake we will follow 
 
 * Hallam, " Constitutional History," c. xvi., w Jin. 
 
308 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 his example in avoiding. But it cannot be denied that, if the 
 Reform Bill of 1832 transferred the chief political power of 
 the state from the aristocracy to the middle classes, a farther 
 lowering of the qualification for the exercise of the franchise 
 must transfer it from the middle to the lower classes ; and that 
 those who view such transfer with alarm, and deprecate it as 
 fraught with peril to all our ancient institutions, maintain their 
 opinions by arguments as old, indeed, as the days of the Roman 
 republic,* but which have not lost strength by lapse of time, if, 
 indeed, they hav^e not been fortified by events in the history of 
 more than one modern nation. 
 
 Even before the introduction of the first Reform Bill one 
 measure had been passed of constitutional importance, though 
 the concurrence of both parties in its principle and details pre- 
 vented it from attracting much notice. Two daughters who 
 had been born to the King and Queen had died in their infancy, 
 and the royal pair were now childless ; and, as some years had 
 elapsed since the birth of the last, it was probable that they 
 might remain so. The presumptive heiress to the throne was, 
 therefore, the daughter of the deceased Duke of Kent, the 
 Princess Victoria, our present most gracious sovereign, and, as 
 she was as yet only eleven years of age, it was evidently neces- 
 sary to provide for the contingency of the death of the King 
 before she should attain her majority. A Regency Bill for that 
 purpose had, therefore, been prepared by the Duke of Welling- 
 ton's cabinet, and had been introduced by Lord Chancellor 
 Lyndhurst in the House of Lords before the resignation of the 
 ministry. It could not be so simple in its arrangements as 
 such bills had sometimes been, since there was more than one 
 contingency possible, for which it was requisite to provide. It 
 was possible not only that William IV. might die within the 
 next seven years, but also that at his death he might leave a 
 child, or his widow in a state which warranted the expectation 
 of one, the latter case being the more difficult to decide upon, 
 since no previous Regency Bill furnished any precedent for the 
 ministers' guidance. 
 
 * "Semper in republiea timendum est ne plurimum valeant plurimi." 
 
 —ClCEEO. 
 
PRINCESS VICTORIA AND THE REGENCY QUESTION. 309 
 
 The first point, however, to be settled was, who was the most 
 proper person to administer the affairs of the kingdom as 
 Regent, in the event of the heiress to the crown being still a 
 minor at the King's death. It was a question on which it was 
 evidently most desirable that no difference of opinion should 
 be expressed. And, in fact, no difference existed. The leaders 
 of both parties — the Duke and his colleagues, who had framed 
 the bill, and Lord Grey, with his colleagues, who adopted it — 
 agreed that the mother of the young sovereign would be the 
 fittest person to exercise the royal authority during the minor- 
 ity ; and, farther, that she should neither be fettered by any 
 limitations to that authority, nor by any councillors appointed 
 by Parliament nominally to advise and assist, but practically to 
 control her. It was felt that a Regent acting for a youthful 
 daughter would need all the power which could be given her ; 
 while, as she could never herself succeed to the throne, she could 
 be under no temptation, from views of personal ambition, to 
 misuse the power intrusted to her. 
 
 At first sight it seemed a more diflScult and delicate question 
 what course should be pursued with reference to the possible 
 event of the King dying while the Queen, his widow, was ex- 
 pecting to become a mother. As has been said above, no prec- 
 edent was to be found in any former bill; yet it seemed to 
 be determined by the old constitutional maxim, that the King 
 never dies. Not even for a moment could the throne be treat- 
 ed as vacant, and, therefore, it was proposed and determined 
 that in such a case the Princess Victoria must instantly be pro- 
 claimed Queen, and the Duchess of Kent must instantly assume 
 the authority of Regent ; but that, on the birth of a posthu- 
 mous child to the Queen Dowager, the Princess and the Duch- 
 ess, as a matter of course, should resume their previous rank, 
 and Queen Adelaide become Regent, and govern in the name 
 of her new-born infant and sovereign. The strict constitutional 
 correctness of the principle elaborately and eloquently expound- 
 ed to the peers by Lord Lyndhurst was unanimously admitted, 
 and the precedent now set was followed, with the needful mod- 
 ification, when, ten years afterward, it became necessary to pro- 
 vide for the possibility of Queen Victoria dying during the mi- 
 
310 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 nority of her heir. The parent of the infant sovereign, Prince 
 Albert, was appointed Regent, with the cordial approval of the 
 nation ; the dissent of the Queen's uncle, the Duke of Sussex, 
 who, with a very misplaced ambition, urged instead the ap- 
 pointment of a Council of Regency, of which he hoped to be- 
 come the most influential member, only serving to make the 
 unanimity of the rest of the Parliament more conspicuous. 
 
 A somewhat kindred question, inasmuch as it affected the 
 personal arrangements, if they may be so termed, of the sov- 
 ereign, was settled in the same session, and on a new principle. 
 What was called the Civil List had hitherto been placed on a 
 footing which was at once unintelligible and misleading. The 
 expression was first used at the Revolution, and was applied 
 not only to that portion of the revenue which was devoted to 
 the personal expenses of the sovereign, but also to many branch- 
 es of the civil expenditure of the state, with which, in fact, he 
 had no concern whatever. Not only the salaries of the great 
 officers of the household, but those also of the ministers, am- 
 bassadors, and of the judges, were paid out of it, as well as 
 those of many place-holders of various classes, and pensions to 
 a large amount. Amounts embracing such a variety of miscella- 
 neous and unconnected expenses could hardly be expected to be 
 kept with regularity, and there was lavish waste in every depart- 
 ment. Burke's bill had rectified some of the abuses, and had also 
 pointed out the way to some other reforms which were gradually 
 adopted; but still numbers of. charges were left untouched, and 
 there was scarcely any one subject which afforded more topics 
 to unscrupulous demagogues than the amount of the Civil List, 
 which the ignorant multitude were constantly assured that the 
 King enjoyed to squander on his own pleasures, though, in fact, 
 the greater part of it was expended in the service of the statie, 
 and was entirely free from his control. Only a portion of the 
 sum which went under this name was voted annually by the 
 Parliament. A portion was derived from the Crown Lands, 
 from duties known as Droits of the Crown and Droits of the 
 Admiralty, etc., the amount of which fluctuated, and with which 
 Parliament was admitted to have no right to interfere. But 
 the working of the whole was satisfactory to no one — neither 
 
A EE ARRANGEMENT OF THE CIVIL LIST. 311 
 
 to the King himself, nor to those who upheld the right of the 
 Pcirliament to have a predominant control of every branch of 
 expen-diture of the public money. The feeling that the whole 
 of the royal income and expenditure should be placed on a 
 different footing was general, and the fall of the Duke of Wel- 
 lington's ministry had been immediately caused by the success 
 of a proposal that, before fixing the new sovereign's Civil List, 
 Parliament should refer the niatter to a committee, that inquiry 
 might be made into every part of it. Lord Grey's ministry 
 were bound to act in conformity with a resolution on which 
 they had, as it were, ridden into office ; and the arrangement 
 which they ultimately effected was one in which common-sense 
 and the royal convenience and comfort were alike consulted. 
 That portion of the Civil List of his predecessor which was 
 voted by Parliament amounted to nearly £850,000 a year; 
 but, besides that sum, George IV. enjoyed the income already 
 mentioned as derived from Crown Lands, Droits, etc., while a 
 farther large sum was furnished by the ancient revenue of the 
 crown of Scotland, and another was received from Ireland. The 
 ministers now proposed that all these sources of income should 
 be handed over to the Treasury, and that the Civil List should 
 henceforward be fixed at £510,000, being at the same time re- 
 lieved from all the foreign and extraneous charges on it which 
 had invidiously swelled the gross amount, without being in any 
 way under the control of the sovereign, or in any way minis- 
 tering to his requirements, either for personal indulgence or 
 for the maintenance of the state and magnificence imposed on 
 him by his position. 
 
 Such a change was on every ground most desirable. It was 
 clearly in accordance with our parliamentary constitution that 
 grants of money made by the Parliament should express dis- 
 tinctly and unmistakably the objects to which they were really 
 to be applied ; and that the charges of departments connected 
 with the government, the administration of justice, or the for- 
 eign service of the country, should not be mixed up with others 
 of a wholly different character, so as to make what was, in fact, 
 the expenditnre of the nation wear the appearance of being 
 the expenditure of the sovereign. Moreover, the assignment of 
 
312 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 many of the charges to the Civil List even gave a false char- 
 acter to the appointments themselves. If a sovereign was to 
 pay ambassadors and judges out of what seemed to be his pri- 
 vate income, the logical conclusion could hardly be avoided 
 that he had a right to lower those salaries, or even to diminish 
 the number of those appointments. And it may even be said 
 that the less any real danger of such a right being so exercised 
 was to be apprehended, the more unadvisable was it to retain 
 an arrangement which in theory could be described as liable to 
 such an abuse. 
 
THE ANOMALY OF WEST lisDIA SLAVERY. 313 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Abolition of Slavery. — Abridgment of the Apprenticeship. — The East 
 India Company's Trade is Thrown Open. — Commencement of Eccle- 
 siastical Reforms. — The New Poor Law. — State of Ireland. — Agitation 
 against Tithes. — Coercion Bill. — Beginning of Church Reform. — Sir 
 Robert Peel becomes Prime-minister, — Variety of Offices held Provi- 
 sionally by the Duke of Wellington. — Sir Robert Peel Retires, and Lord 
 Melbourne Resumes the Government. — Sir Robert Peel Proposes a Meas- 
 ure of Church Reform. — Municipal Reform. — Measures of Ecclesiastical 
 Reform. 
 
 Apart from the consideration of the abstract principle, on 
 which the advocates of Parliamentary Reform had insisted, of 
 the right of many classes hitherto unrepresented to represen- 
 tation, they had also dwelt on the practical advantage which 
 might be expected to ensue from the greater degree in which 
 public opinion would henceforth be brought to bear on the 
 action of the Houses, and, by a natural consequence, on the ad- 
 ministrative government also. And the bill had hardly passed 
 when this result began to show itself, not only in transactions 
 of domestic legislation, but in others which affected our most 
 remote dependencies, both in the East and West. We have 
 seen in a previous chapter how Wilberforce, after twenty years 
 of labor and anxiety, reaped the reward of his virtuous exer- 
 tions in the abolition of the slave-trade. But he had not vent- 
 ured to grapple with the institution which gave birth to that 
 trade, the employment of slaves in our West India Islands. 
 Yet it was an evil indefensible on every ground that could 
 possibly be alleged. It was not onl}'' a crime and an injustice, 
 but it was an anomaly, and a glaring inconsistency, in any 
 British settlement. The law, as we have seen, had been laid 
 down as absolutely settled, that no man within the precincts 
 of the United Kingdom could be a slave ; that, even had such 
 been his previous condition, the moment his foot touched Eng- 
 lish soil he became a free man. By what process of reasoning, 
 
 14 
 
314 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 then, could it be contended that his right to liberty according 
 to EngUsh law depended on what portion of the British do- 
 minion he was in — that what was incompatible with his claims 
 as a human being in Kent ceased to be so in Jamaica? The 
 sentiment that what was just or unjust in one place was just 
 or unjust in every place; that a man's right to freedom did 
 not depend on the country of his birth or the color of his skin, 
 had naturally and logically been widely diffused and fostered 
 by the abolition of the slave-trade. It was but a small step 
 from admitting that there could be no justification for making 
 a man a slave, to asserting that there was an equal violation of 
 all justice in keeping one in slavery ; and this conclusion was 
 strengthened by tales, which were continually reaching those 
 most interested in the subject, of oppression and cruelty 
 practised by the masters, or oftener by their agents and over- 
 seers, on the unfortunate beings over whom they claimed power 
 and right as absolute as any owner could pretend to over any 
 description of property. They made so general an impression 
 that, ten years before the time at which we have now arrived, 
 a society had been formed in London whose object was the 
 immediate extinction of slavery in every British settlement ; 
 and Canning, then Secretary of State, had entered warmly into 
 the general object of the society; not, indeed, thinking the 
 instant abolition practicable, but inducing Parliament to pass 
 a body of resolutions in favor of at once improving the con- 
 dition of the slaves, as the best and necessary preparation for 
 their entire enfranchisement;* and the next year, 1824, the 
 subject was recommended to the attention of the Houses in 
 the King's speech, and an Order in Council was issued enjoin- 
 ing the adoption of a series of measures conceived in the spirit 
 of those resolutions, among which one was evidently meant as 
 a precursor of the slaves' entire emancipation, since it gave the 
 " negro who had acquired sufficient property " a title " to pur- 
 
 * The second resolution affirmed that "this House looks forward to 
 a progressive improvement in the character of the slave population, such 
 as may prepare them for a participation in those civil rights and privi- 
 leges which are enjoyed by other classes of his Majesty's subjects." 
 (Stapleton's "Life of Canning," iii., 98, where also large extracts from 
 the minister's speech are given. ) 
 
COMPENSATION VOTED TO SLAVE-HOLDERS. 316 
 
 chase his own freedom and that of his wife and family." And 
 it was, probably, from regarding it in this light that the planters 
 (as the -owners of estates in the West Indies were generally 
 called) selected that provision as the object of their most vehe- 
 ment remonstrances. But, though they were not so open in 
 their remonstrances against the other clauses of the order, they 
 did worse, they disregarded them ; and the stories of the ill- 
 treatment of the slaves were neither less frequent nor less 
 revolting than before. 
 
 Fresh Orders in Council, avowedly designed as the stepping- 
 stones to eventual emancipation, were issued ; and one which 
 reached the West Indies at the end of 1831 was, unhappily, so 
 misconstrued by the slaves in Jamaica, who regarded it as rec- 
 ognizing their right to instant liberation, that, when their mas- 
 ters refused to treat it as doing so, they broke out into a for- 
 midable insurrection, which was not quelled without great loss 
 of life and destruction of property. The planters were panic- 
 stricken ; many of them, indeed, were almost ruined. The colo- 
 nial Legislatures,* which had been established in the greater 
 part of the islands, addressed the ministers with strong protests 
 against the last Order in Council ; and the mischief which had 
 confessedly been already done, and the farther mischief which 
 was not unreasonably dreaded, were so great that the cabinet 
 consented to suspend it for a while ; and the House of Com- 
 mons made a practical confession that the planters were entitled 
 to sympathy as well as the slaves, by voting nearly a million of 
 money to compensate those of Jamaica for their recent losses. 
 
 But out-of-doors the feeling rather was that the insurrection 
 had been caused, not by the unreasoning though natural impa- 
 tience for freedom entertained by the negro — whom Canning 
 had truly described as " possessing the form and strength of a 
 man, but the intellect of a child " — but by the slackness and 
 supineness of the local Legislature, too much under the influ- 
 ence of the timid clamors of the planters to listen to the voice 
 of justice and humanity, which demanded to the full as em- 
 phatically, if somewhat less vociferously, the immediate deliver- 
 
 * Trinidad, St. Lucia, and Demerara were the only British islands which 
 had not separate Legislatures. 
 
316 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 ance of the slave. The object, however, thus desired was not 
 so free from difficulty as it seemed to those zealous but irre- 
 sponsible advocates of universal freedom ; for, in the first place, 
 the slaves were not the only persons to be considered; the 
 planters also had an undoubted right to have their interests 
 protected, since, however illegitimate property in human beings 
 might be, it was certain that its existence in that portion of the 
 King's dominions had been recognized by Parliament and courts 
 of justice for many generations, and that suddenly to withdraw 
 a sanction and abrogate a custom thus established, and, as it 
 might fairly be believed, almost legalized by time, would be not 
 only ruinous to the planters, who would have no other means 
 of cultivating their lands, but, as being ruinous to them, would 
 also manifestly be most unjust. Even in the interests of the 
 slaves themselves, instant emancipation before they were fit for 
 it might prove to them a very doubtful blessing. The state, 
 too, and the general interests of the kingdom had to be consid- 
 ered, for the shipping employed in the West India trade, and 
 the revenue derived by the Imperial Exchequer from it, were 
 both of great amount. It was a very complicated question, 
 and required very cautious handling; but it was plain that the 
 people were greatly excited on the subject. One or two of the 
 ministers themselves had deeply pledged themselves to their 
 constituents to labor for the cessation of slavery ; and eventual- 
 ly, though by no means blind to the difficulty of arriving at a 
 thoroughly safe solution of the question, the ministry decided 
 that " delay was more perilous than decision," and they brought 
 in a bill, in which they endeavored to combine the three great 
 objects — justice to the slave, by conferring on him that freedom 
 to which he, in common with all mankind, had an inviolable 
 right ; justice to the slave-owner, by compensating him fairly 
 for the loss of what (however originally vicious the practice 
 may have been) he was entitled by long usage and more than 
 one positive law to regard as property ; and a farther justice to 
 the slave, that justice which consists in being careful so to con- 
 fer benefits as to do the greatest amount of good to the recip- 
 ient. The first object was attained by enacting that those who 
 had hitherto been slaves should be free ; the third was arrived 
 
COXSUMMATION OF SLAVE EMANCIPATION. 317 
 
 at by making the freedom thus given, not instantaneous, but by 
 leading them to it, and preparing them for its proper and use- 
 ful enjoyment, by a system of apprenticeship. The slave was 
 to be apprenticed to his master for seven years, receiving, partly 
 in money and partly in kind, a certain fair amount of wages, 
 and having also one-fourth of his time absolutely at his own 
 disposal. And the second was secured by granting the planters 
 the magnificent sum of twenty millions of money, as compensa- 
 tion for the injury done to them ; or, in other words, as pur- 
 chase-money for the property they were compelled to surrender. 
 The apprenticeship system did not wholly succeed. The slaves 
 were not suflSciently enlightened to appreciate the character of 
 the new arrangement; and, as the light in which it appeared to 
 them was rather that of deferring than of securing their eman- 
 cipation, it made them impatient rather than thankful. In the 
 majority of cases it proved difficult to induce them to work 
 even three-fourths of their time, and eventually the planters 
 themselves were driven to the conclusion that it was best to 
 abridge the period of apprenticeship. By the act of the colo- 
 nial Legislatures themselves it was shortened by two years, and 
 the emancipation was completed on the 1st of August, 1838. 
 
 Still, though on this single point the success of the scheme 
 did not fully correspond to the hopes of those who had framed 
 it, it was one which did great honor to their ingenuity as well 
 as to their philanthropy (Lord Stanley, as Colonial Secretary, 
 being the minister to whose department it belonged). And the 
 nation itself is fairly entitled to no small credit for its cordial, 
 ungrudging approval of a measure of such unprecedented liber- 
 ality. Indeed, the credit deserved was frankly allowed it by 
 foreign countries. To quote the language of an eloquent his- 
 torian of the period, " the generous acquiescence of the people 
 under this prodigious increase of their burdens has caused the 
 moralists of other nations to declare that the British Act of 
 Emancipation stands alone for moral grandeur in the history 
 of the world."* And, in respect of the personal liberty of the 
 subject, it may be said to have completed the British constitu- 
 
 * Miss Martineau, "History of the Thirty Tears' Peace," book iv., c. 
 viii. 
 
5 
 
 318 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 tion ; establishing the glorious principle, that freedom is not 
 limited to one part of our sovereign's dominions, to these islands 
 alone, but that in no part of the world in which the British flag 
 is erected can any sort of slavery exist for a single moment. 
 
 The abolition of the political authority of the East India 
 Company, which took place some years after the time at Avhich 
 we have arrived, and which will be mentioned in a subsequent 
 chapter, would make it unnecessary to mention the renewal of 
 its charter, which took place at this time, were it not that the 
 force of public opinion again made itself felt in some impor- 
 tant limitations of its previous rights. The monopoly of the 
 trade with China which the Company had hitherto enjoyed 
 was resented as an injustice by the great body of our mer- 
 chants and ship-owners, who contended that all British subjects 
 had an equal right to share in advantages which had been won 
 by British arms. The government and Parliament adopted 
 their view, and the renewed charter extinguished not only that 
 monopoly, but even the Company's exclusive trading privileges 
 in India itself, though these, like the rights of the West India 
 planters over their slaves, were purchased of it by an an- 
 nuity for forty years, which was estimated as an equivalent 
 for the loss of profit which must result to the proprietors of 
 the Company's stock from the sudden alteration. It cannot be 
 said that any constitutional principle was involved in what was 
 merely a commercial regulation, or relaxation of such regula- 
 tions. Yet it may not be thought inopportune to mention the 
 transaction thus briefly, as one important step toward the es- 
 tablishment of free-trade, which, at the end of fifty years from 
 the time when Pitt first laid the foundatton of it, was gradually 
 forcing itself on all our statesmen, as the only sound principle 
 of commercial intercourse between nations. The laborious his- 
 torian of Europe during these years finds fault with the ar- 
 rangements now made, but only on the ground that they did 
 not go far enough in that direction ; that, while " everything 
 was done to promote the commercial and manufacturing in- 
 terests of England, nothing was done for those of Hindostan ;"* 
 
 * Alison, "History of Europe," 2d series, c. xxxi., sec. 74. 
 
PEENICIOTJS WOBKING OF THE POOR-LAW. 319 
 
 that, " while English cotton goods were admitted for a nomi- 
 nal duty into India, there was no corresponding advantage 
 thought 'of to the industry of India in supplying the markets 
 . of the country." The objection was not unfounded ; but the 
 system of which it complains was too one-sided to be long 
 maintained, and in less than ten years a great financial reform 
 had swept away the great mass of import duties, and so far had 
 placed the Indian manufacturer on the same level with his fel- 
 low-subjects of English blood. 
 
 The disturbances which agitated the first years of the reign 
 of William IV. were not caused solely by the excitement at- 
 tendant on the passing of the Reform Bill. There had been 
 extensive agricultural distress in England, which had shown it- 
 self in an outbreak of new crimes, the burning of ricks in the 
 farm-yards, and the destruction of machinery, to which the 
 peasantry were persuaded by designing demagogues to attrib- 
 ute the scarcity of employment. But statesmen of both par- 
 ties were agreed in believing that a great deal of the poverty 
 which, especially in the agricultural counties, had become the 
 normal condition of the laborer, might be ascribed to the per- 
 nicious working of the Poor-law, which subsisted with scarcely 
 any alteration as it had been originally enacted in the reign of 
 Elizabeth. There was even reason to doubt whether the slight 
 changes which had been made had been improvements. If 
 they had been in the direction of increased liberality to the 
 poor man who needed parish relief, and had to some extent 
 lessened his discomforts, they had at the same time tended 
 greatly to demoralize both him and his employer, by introduc- 
 ing a system of out-door relief, which, coupled with the prac- 
 tice of regarding such relief as a legitimate addition to wages, 
 led the former to feel no shame at underpaying his workmen, 
 and the workman to feel no shame at depending on the parish 
 for a portion of his means of subsistence. It was not to be 
 wondered at that under such a system the poor-rates gradually 
 rose to the prodigious amount of seven millions and a quarter 
 of money; or that the rate-payers began to clamor against such 
 a state of things, as imposing on them a burden beyond their 
 power to bear. It was evident that it was an evil which im- 
 
^20 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 peratively demanded a remedy ; and accordingly one of the 
 first objects to which Lord Grey's Cabinet turned its attention 
 after the completion of the Reform Bill was the amendment of 
 the Poor-law. 
 
 The scheme which in the spring of 1834 they introduced to 
 Parliament was the first instance of the adoption in this coun- 
 try of that system of centralization which has long been a fa- 
 vorite with some of the Continental statesmen, but which is not 
 equally in harmony with the instincts of our people, generally 
 more attached to local government. But, if ever centraliza- 
 tion could commend itself to the English mind, it might well 
 be when a new law and a new principle of action were to be 
 introduced, in the carrying out of which uniformity of practice 
 over the whole kingdom was especially desirable. According- 
 ly, the government bill proposed the establishment of a Board 
 of Commissioners to whom the general administration of the 
 Poor-laws over the whole kingdom was to be intrusted. They 
 were to have power to make rules and regulations as to the 
 mode or modes of relief to be given, subject to the approval of 
 the Secretary of State, that thus the establishment of one uni- 
 form system over the whole country might be secured. Power 
 was to be given to unite several parishes into one union, and 
 to erect large workhouses for the several parishes thus massed 
 together;* and every union was to be under the management 
 of boards of guardians, elected by the rate-payers of the differ- 
 ent parishes, with the addition of the resident magistrates as 
 ex officio guardians. Lord Althorp, who introduced the bill, 
 admitted that such extensive powers as he proposed to confer 
 on the Board of Commissioners were "an anomaly in the con- 
 stitution," but pleaded the necessity of the case as their justifi- 
 cation, since it was indispensable to vest a discretionary power 
 somewhere, and the government was too fully occupied with 
 the business of the nation, while the local magistrates would 
 be destitute of the sources of information requisite to form a 
 
 * In the debate on the Registration Bill, in 1836, Lord John Russell 
 stated that two hundred and twenty-eight unions had already been form- 
 ed in England and Wales, and that it might be calculated that when the 
 whole country was divided into unions the entire number would amount 
 to something more than eight hundred. 
 
A NEW POOR-LAW BILL INTRODUCED. 321 
 
 proper opinion on the subject. The commissioners alone, be- 
 ing exclusively devoted to the subject, and being alone in pos- 
 session of all the information that could be collected, were really 
 the only body vs^ho could fairly be trusted to form correct opin- 
 ions on it.* The fact of the creation of such a board being 
 " an anomaly," or, as it might rather have been called, a nov- 
 elty in the constitution, does not seem an insuperable objec- 
 tion, unless it were also inconsistent or at variance with the 
 fundamental principles of the constitution, and that can hardly 
 be alleged in this instance. It is true that local management, 
 whether its range were wide or narrow, whether covering the 
 business of a county or limited to a single parish, had been the 
 general rule ; but, like every other arrangement for the conduct 
 of affairs of any kind, that local management was inherently 
 subject to the supreme authority and interference of Parlia- 
 ment. Nor, as the maintenance of this Parliamentary authori- 
 ty, as the supreme referee in the last resource, was provided for 
 by the subordination of the commissioners for the approval of 
 their regulations to the Secretary of State, does it seem that 
 the arrangement now proposed and adopted can be said to 
 have been inconsistent with constitutional principle. And the 
 necessity for some change of that nature was clearly made out 
 by the abuses which, undeniably, had been suffered to grow up 
 under the old system. 
 
 If the habitual condition of the Irish peasant were to be 
 taken into account, it would be correct to say that there was 
 less distress at this time in England than in Ireland ; but there 
 was still greater discontent, and infinitely more of dangerous dis- 
 turbance. Catholic Emancipation had stimulated the agitators, 
 not pacified them ; they regarded it as a triumph over the Eng- 
 lish government ; and, being so, as at once a reason for demand- 
 ing, and a means of extorting, farther concessions. But this 
 notion of theirs, when inculcated on the peasantry, bore terrible 
 fruit, in such an increase of crime as had probably never been 
 known in any country in the world. In the provinces of Lein- 
 ster, Munster, and Connaught murders, deeds of arson, and rapine 
 
 * See Lord Althorp's speech, of parts of which an abstract is given in 
 the text. — Parliamentary Debates, xxii., April 17. 
 
 14* 
 
322 CONSTITUTIOXAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 were of far more than daily occurrence.* Lord Althorp asserted 
 in the House of Commons that more lives had been sacrificed in 
 Ireland by murder in the preceding year than in one of Welling- 
 ton's victories. And what was, if possible, a still worse symp- 
 tom of the disposition of the common people, was exhibited 
 in the impossibility of bringing the criminals, even when well 
 known, to justice. Jurors held back from the assizes, witnesses 
 who had seen murders committed refused to give evidence. 
 The Roman Catholic prelates, and the higher class of the Ro- 
 man Catholic clergy — most of whom, greatly to their credit, ex- 
 erted themselves to check this fearful progress of wickedness — 
 found their denunciations unheeded; while O'Connell, in his 
 place in the House of Commons, used language which to an 
 ignorant and ferocious peasantry looked almost like a justifica- 
 tion of it, affirming it to be caused wholly by the " unjust and 
 ruinous policy of the government" in refusing to abolish tithes. 
 It was not the first time that the existence of tithe had been 
 alleged as an Irish grievance. In the three southern provinces 
 by far the greater portion of the tenantry were Roman Catho- 
 lics, and they had long been complaining that they were forced 
 to pay for the support of the Protestant clergyman of their 
 parish, whose ministrations they could not attend, as well as 
 for the maintenance of their own priest, whose livelihood de- 
 pended on their contributions. According to strict political 
 economy, there could be no doubt that the burden of the tithe 
 fell, not on the tenant, but on the landlord, in the calculation 
 of whose rent the amount of tithe to which each holding was 
 liable was always taken into consideration ; and that being the 
 true doctrine, it was equally plain that in reality the Protestant 
 clergy were paid, not by Roman Catholics, but by Protestants, 
 since it was not disputed that by far the greater part of the 
 land-owners in every province were Protestants.f But an igno- 
 
 * Lord Althorp made the following frightful statement of the crimes 
 committed in the province of Leinster alone in the last three months of 
 1832 and the first three of 1833 : 207 murders, 271 cases of arson. The as- 
 saults attended with grievous personal injury were above 1000; burglaries 
 and robberies, above 3000. 
 
 + It was often asserted that fourteen-fifteenths of the land in Ireland 
 belonged to Protestants, but this estimate was, probably, an exagger- 
 ation. 
 
A "coercion bill" foe IRELAND. 323 
 
 rant peasant is no student of political economy or of logic ; and 
 the fact that the payment of the tithe passed through his hands 
 was, in his eyes, an incontrovertible proof that it came out of 
 his pocket. The discontent had gradually begotten an organ- 
 ized resistance to the payment, and the mischief of allowing 
 the continuance of such a state of feeling and conduct, which 
 was manifestly likely to impair the respect for all law, made 
 such an impression on the government that, in the royal speech 
 with which he opened the session of 1832, the King recom- 
 mended the whole subject to the consideration of Parliament, 
 urging the Houses to inquire " whether it might not be possi- 
 ble to effect improverafents in the laws respecting this subject." 
 In compliance with this recommendation, committees were 
 appointed by both Houses ; and the result of their investiga- 
 tions was a recommendation that a new arrangement should be 
 made, under which the tithe should be commuted to a rent- 
 charge. Accordingly, the next year the ministers proceeded 
 to give effect to this recommendation. But they reasonably 
 judged that an alteration of a particular law in compliance 
 with the clamor raised against it would be a concession preg- 
 nant with mischief to the principle of all government, if it were 
 not accompanied, or rather preceded, by a vindication of the 
 majesty of all law ; and therefore the first measure affecting 
 Ireland, which they brought in in 1833, was a " Coercion Bill," 
 which empowered the Lord-lieutenant not only to suppress the 
 meetings of any assembly or association which he might con- 
 sider dangerous to the public peace, but also to declare by proc- 
 lamation any district in which tumults and outrages were rife 
 to be " in a disturbed state ;" and in districts thus proclaimed 
 no person was to be permitted to be absent from his house from 
 an hour after sunset to sunrise. Houses might be searched for 
 arms, martial law was to be established, and courts-martial held 
 for the trial of all offences except felonies ; and the Habeas 
 Corpus Act was suspended for three months. O'Connell and 
 his party protested with great vehemence against such an enact- 
 ment, as a violation of every right secured to the subject by the 
 constitution. And a bill which suspended the ordinary courts 
 of justice must be admitted to have been incompatible with the 
 
324 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 constitution as commonly understood and enjoyed. But if the 
 measure thus proposed was extraordinary, the state of affairs 
 which had led to its proposal was so also in a far greater degree. 
 The records of no nation had ever presented such a fearful cata- 
 logue of crimes as was now laid before the Parliament, and 
 at such a crisis the statesmen to whom the tranquillity of the 
 country and the safety of the citizens were intrusted were un- 
 doubtedly called upon to go back from the letter of the consti- 
 tution to that which is the primary object of every, constitution 
 — the safety of those who live under it. Salus populi suprema 
 lex. And the argument of necessity was regarded, and rightly 
 regarded, by both Houses of Parliament as a sufficient and 
 complete justification of even so exceptional an enactment. 
 
 And concurrently with this enactment, which, however in- 
 dispensable for the repression of crime, no one could deny to 
 be severe, the ministers endeavored also to remove the causes 
 of discontent by a large measure of Church reform, not con- 
 fining their aim to settling the tithe question, but dealing with 
 the whole question of the Irish Church in such a way as to lay 
 down, as an undoubted principle of the constitution, the doc- 
 trine that the Church existed for the benefit of the nation; 
 that its property was bestowed on it for the same object ; and 
 that, consequently, the nation, or in other words the Parlia- 
 ment, had a perfect right to deal with its property and endow- 
 ments of all kinds, always keeping the same end in view, the 
 general advantage of the whole nation. Proceeding on these 
 maxims, they introduced a Church Reform Bill, in which, per- 
 haps, the most remarkable circumstance of all was, that the 
 evil which had been the original cause of their taking up the 
 subject at all was the last thing settled, not, indeed, being final- 
 ly arranged for four years; while the principal detail in the 
 way of reform which was completed in this first session was 
 one which, however reasonable, had hitherto received but little 
 attention, and had certainly provoked no great outcry. It could 
 not be denied that the Episcopal Establishment in Ireland was 
 out of all proportion to the extent of the country and the num- 
 ber of the Protestant population, or of the parishes. The en- 
 tire population in communion with the Church fell short of 
 
MR. STANLEY AXD SIR JAMES GRAHAM RESIGN. 325 
 
 900,000. The number of parishes scarcely exceeded 1400. 
 But over this comparatively scanty flock were set no fewer 
 than eighteen bishops and four archbishops ; while England, 
 with 12,000 parishes, was contented with twenty-four bishops 
 and two archbishops. It was proposed to consolidate these 
 bishoprics into ten, the archbishoprics into two, a reduction 
 which could hardly fail to commend itself to all. But with 
 this reduction was combined a variety of other details relating 
 to the Episcopal revenues, to the right of the bishops to grant 
 leases, and other matters of finance, which the ministers pro- 
 posed so to remodel as to create a very large fund to be at the 
 disposal of the state. On this point the greater part of the 
 ministerial scheme was wrecked for the time. They succeeded 
 in carrying that part of it which consolidated the bishoprics, 
 and in inducing the House of Commons to grant, first as a 
 loan, which was originally turned into a gift, a million of money 
 to be divided among the incumbents of the different parishes, 
 who were reduced to the greatest distress by the inability to 
 procure payment of their tithes, the arrears of which amounted 
 to a far larger sum. 
 
 But the assertion that any surplus fund arising from redis- 
 tribution of the Episcopal revenues ought to belong to the 
 state, not only called forth a vigorous resistance from the whole 
 of the Tory party at its first promulgation, but, when the sub- 
 ject was revived the next year, and one of the supporters of 
 the ministry, Mr. Ward, proposed a resolution that any such 
 surplus might be legitimately applied to secular purposes, it 
 produced a schism in the ministry itself. The resolution was 
 cordially accepted by Lord John Kussell, but was so offensive 
 to four of his colleagues, Mr. Stanley and Sir James Graham 
 being among the number, that they at once resigned their 
 offices. The breach thus made was not easily healed ; and be- 
 fore the end of the session other dissensions of a more vexatious 
 and mortifying character led to the retirement of the Prime- 
 minister himself. All attempts to deal with the tithe question 
 failed for the time, four more years elapsing before it was final- 
 ly settled. But, curtailed as it was, the bill of 1833 still de- 
 serves to be remembered as a landmark in constitutional legis- 
 
326 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 lation, since it afforded tlie first instance of Parliament affirm- 
 ing a right to deal with ecclesiastical dignities and endowments, 
 thus setting a precedent which, in the next reign, was followed 
 "with regard to the Church of England. 
 
 Lord Melbourne succeeded Lord Grey at the Treasury ; but 
 every one saw that the ministry was greatly weakened. The 
 King, too, had become greatly dissatisfied both with their gen- 
 eral policy, especially in regard to the Irish Church — which he 
 took an opportunity of assuring the Irish bishops he was un- 
 alterably resolved to uphold — and also with the language and 
 conduct of one or two individual ministers, to which it is not 
 necessary to refer more particularly; and when, on the death 
 of Lord Spencer, father of Lord Althorp, the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, which took place in November, 1834, it became 
 necessary for Lord Melbourne to propose to him a re-arrange- 
 ment of some of the cabinet offices, he at once dismissed the 
 whole body of the ministers. It was a somewhat singular step 
 to take, for they had not been defeated in Parliament, and he 
 did not himself allege any special dissatisfaction with anything 
 which they had yet done, though he did apprehend that some 
 of them would press upon him measures disadvantageous to 
 "the clergy of the Church of England in Ireland," to which 
 he had an insuperable objection ; and, moreover, that the sub- 
 ject would cause fresh divisions in the ministry, and the resig- 
 nation of one or two more of its most important members. 
 He had, indeed, six months before, given a practical proof of 
 his distrust of the ability of Lord Melbourne and the colleagues 
 who remained to him to carry on the government of the king- 
 dom satisfactorily, by desiring the new Prime-minister to enter 
 into communication with the leaders of the Opposition, " to 
 endeavor at this crisis to prevail upon them to afford their aid 
 and co-operation toward the formation of an administration 
 upon an enlarged basis, combining the services of the most 
 able and efficient members of each" party.* Nor had he re- 
 linquished the idea of bringing about such a coalition, till he 
 learned that both Lord Melbourne and Sir Robert Peel consid- 
 
 * "Memoirs of Sir Robert Peel," ii., 3, 19. 
 
THE KING TAKES THE COUNTRY BY SURPEISE. 327 
 
 ered the differences whicli divided them to be too deeply 
 founded on principle to render their union in one administra- 
 tion either beneficial to the state or creditable to themselves. 
 And it may be said that the letter in which Lord Melbourne 
 had in November announced to his Majesty the death of Lord 
 Spencer, and the necessity for new arrangements which that 
 event had created, by the expression that " in these new and 
 altered circumstances it was for his Majesty to consider wheth- 
 er it were his pleasure to authorize Viscount Melbourne to at- 
 tempt to make such fresh arrangements as might enable his 
 present servants to continue to conduct the affairs of the coun- 
 try, or whether his Majesty deemed it advisable to adopt any 
 other course," and that " Lord Melbourne earnestly entreated 
 that no personal consideration for him might prevent his Maj- 
 esty from taking any measures or seeking any other advice 
 which he might think more likely to conduce to his service 
 and to the advantage of the country," did not only contem- 
 plate, but to a certain degree even suggested, the possibility of 
 his Majesty's preferring to have recourse to fresh advisers. 
 
 The King's subsequent acts and their result, however, cer- 
 tainly took the kingdom by. surprise. He applied to the Duke 
 of Wellington to undertake the formation of a new ministry ; 
 and the Duke, explaining to the King that " the difficulty of 
 the task consisted in the state of the House of Commons, ear- 
 nestly recommended him to choose a minister in the House of 
 Commons," and named Sir Robert Peel as the fittest object for 
 his Majesty's choice. Sir Robert was in Italy at the time ; 
 but, on receiving the royal summons, he at once hastened to 
 England, the Duke of Wellington in the mean time accepting 
 the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Secretary of State, 
 as a provisional arrangement, till he should arrive in London. 
 
 Sir Robert reached England early in December ; and though, 
 if " he had been consulted beforehand, he would have been in- 
 clined to dissuade the dismissal of the last ministry as prema- 
 ture and impolitic," he did not consider it compatible " with 
 his sense of duty " to decline the charge which the King laid 
 upon him, and at once accepted the office of Prime-minister, 
 being fully aware that by so doing he " became technically, if 
 
328 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 not morall)'-, responsible for the dissolution of the preceding 
 government, though he had not had the remotest concern in 
 it."* In the formation of his ministry he so far endeavored 
 to carry out the views which the King had suggested to Lord 
 Melbourne in the summer as to invite the co-operation of Mr. 
 Stanley (who, by the death of his grandfather, had recently be- 
 come Lord Stanley) and Sir J. Graham, who, as has been men- 
 tioned before, had retired from Lord Grey's cabinet. A new 
 name, that of " Conservative," had recently been invented for 
 the more moderate section of the old Tory party ; and it was 
 one which, though Lord Grey had taunted them with it, as be- 
 traying a sense of shame at adhering to their old colors, Peel 
 was inclined to adopt for himself, as characteristic of his feel- 
 ings and future objects ; and perhaps he thought it might help 
 to smooth the way for a junction with him of those who would 
 flinch from proclaiming so decided a change in their opinions 
 as would be implied by their becoming colleagues of one who 
 still cherished the name of Tory. But they declined his offers ; 
 and consequently he was forced to select his cabinet entirely 
 from the party of anti-Reformers. He dissolved Parliament, a 
 step as to which it seemed to him that the universal expecta- 
 tions of, and even preparation for, a dissolution, left him prac- 
 tically scarcely any option ;f but he soon found, as, indeed, he 
 had feared he should find, the attempt to establish a Conserva- 
 tive government premature. The party of the late ministry, 
 following the example set by Mr. Fox in 1784 with better fort- 
 une, divided against him in the House of Commons on every 
 occasion, defeating him in every division ; and at the beginning 
 of April he retired, and Lord Melbourne and his former col- 
 leagues resumed their offices with very little change. 
 
 They had, as was natural, not been contented with opposing 
 the Conservative ministry in its general policy, but in both 
 Houses they had attacked it with great energy. They had be- 
 
 * " Memoirs of Sir Kobert Peel," pp. 31, 32. 
 
 t " One important question I found practically, and perhaps unavoid- 
 ably, decided before my arrival, namely, the dissolution of the existing 
 Parliament. Every one seemed to have taken it for granted that the 
 Parliament must be dissolved, and preparations had accordingly been 
 made almost universally for the coming contest." — PeeVs Memoirs, ii.,43. 
 
THE EOYAL PREROGATIVE DISPUTED. 329 
 
 gun the battle in both Houses in the debate on the address, in 
 which they selected three points in the recent transactions for 
 special condemnation, affirming that in every one of them the 
 royal prerogative had been unconstitutionally exercised — the 
 dismissal of the late ministry, the dissolution of Parliament, 
 and the appointment of the Duke of Wellington to a variety 
 of offices. In the House of Commons the attack was led by 
 Lord Morpeth and Lord John Russell ; in the House of Lords 
 by Lord Melbourne himself. It was urged that, though the 
 prerogative of the sovereign to dismiss his ministers was un- 
 doubted and inalienable, yet the Houses had a clear right to sit 
 in judgment on any particular exercise of it ; and that the cir- 
 cumstances of the late ministry having been but recently form- 
 ed, of its possessing in a conspicuous degree the confidence of 
 the great majority of the House of Commons, and of its being 
 occupied at the moment of its dismissal with matters of high 
 national concern, justified the House in calling on the new min- 
 isters to show valid reasons for its sudden dismissal. As to 
 the dissolution, it was asked what misdemeanor the late House 
 of Commons had committed ? No difference had occurred be- 
 tween it and the other House of Parliament. It had passed 
 no hostile vote against any administration. It had been in ex- 
 istence but a very short time. All these circumstances, they 
 affirmed, made it reasonable for the Houses to express to his 
 Majesty their disapprobation of the dissolution. Lord Morpeth 
 argued, moreover, that the right of the House of Commons to 
 inquire into such an exercise of the royal prerogative was 
 proved by the example of Mr. Pitt, who, in 1784, had intro- 
 duced into the speech from the throne a paragraph inviting 
 Parliament to approve of the recent dissolution; and what 
 Parliament could be asked to approve of, it manifestly had an 
 equal right to censure. But the most vehement of the cen- 
 sures of the Opposition were directed against what Lord Mor- 
 peth called " the most unseemly huddling of offices in the 
 single person of the Duke of Wellington ; an unconstitutional 
 concentration of responsibility and power, at which there was 
 hardly an old Whig of the Rockingham school whose hair 
 did not stand on end." He admitted that in the present in- 
 
330 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 stance the arrangement had only been provisional and tempo- 
 rary, and that " no harm had been done;" but, he asked, " what 
 harm might not have been done? If the country had been 
 suddenly obliged to go to war, who would have been responsi- 
 ble for the Foreign Department? If an insurrection of the 
 negroes had occurred, who was responsible for the Colonial 
 OflBce ? If in Ireland any tithe dispute had arisen, who was 
 responsible as Home-secretary ?" And Lord Melbourne, though 
 a speaker generally remarkable for moderation, on this subject 
 went much farther ; and, after urging that, " if one person held 
 the situation of First Lord of the Treasury, and also that of 
 Secretary of State for the Home Department, it would not only 
 place in his hands without any control the appointment to 
 every great oflSce in the state, but a person so situated would 
 also have the pecuniary resources of the state at his disposal 
 without check or investigation," he proceeded to assert that 
 " an intention to exercise those offices would amount to a trea- 
 sonable misdemeanor." He did not, indeed, go so far as his 
 late Attorney-general, Sir J. Campbell, who, in vexation at his 
 loss of office, had even threatened the Duke with impeachment ; 
 but, though he admitted that the Duke had been free from the 
 guilty intention of exercising the authority of these offices, he 
 suggested that " the Lords ought to pass some resolution cal- 
 culated to prevent so great a breach of the constitution from 
 being drawn into a precedent." 
 
 On the first point thus raised, for the dismissal of the late 
 ministry without any such cause as is usually furnished by an 
 adverse vote of one of the Houses of Parliament, Peel frankly 
 admitted that his acceptance of office rendered him constitu- 
 tionally responsible, though, as he also said, it was notorious 
 that in fact he had, and could have had, no previous knowl- 
 edge of it; but he denied that any constitutional question 
 whatever was involved in it, since the King's right was denied 
 by no one ; and he could, therefore, only consent to discuss it 
 as a question of policy and expediency. And, looking at it in 
 this light, he regarded his defence as easy and complete. He 
 contended that the events of the past year, the resignation of 
 several of the subordinate ministers, and finally of Lord Grey 
 
SIR ROBERT PEEL JUSTIFIES THE KING's ACTION. 331 
 
 himself, and the proposal which had been made to him (Peel) 
 and several of his friends to coalesce with Lord Melbourne, 
 rendered the act by which the late government had been re- 
 moved perfectly justifiable on the part both of the King and 
 of himself; that the King was justified in thinking a wholly 
 fresh arrangement preferable to a re-arrangement of Lord Mel- 
 bourne's cabinet; and he himself in obeying his sovereign's 
 commands to form a new administration. 
 
 The wisdom and propriety of the dissolution, too, could only 
 be examined as a question of expediency ; but in this instance 
 every consideration not only recommended but compelled it. 
 "When he undertook the arduous duties now imposed upon 
 him, he did determine that he would leave no constitutional 
 effort untried to enable him satisfactorily to discharge the trust 
 imposed in him. He did fear that if he had met the late Par- 
 liament he should have been obstructed in his course, and ob- 
 structed in a manner and at a season which might have pre- 
 cluded an appeal to the people. It was the constant boast of 
 the late government that the late Parliament had unbounded 
 confidence in them. And, if that Parliament was, as had been 
 constantly asserted, relied upon as ready to condemn him with- 
 out a hearing, could any one be surprised at his appeal to the 
 judgment of another, a higher and a fairer tribunal, the public 
 sense of the people ?" Precedent, too, was in his favor on this 
 point, since, " whenever an extensive change of government 
 had occurred, a dissolution of Parliament had followed ;" and 
 he referred to the year 1784, and to 1806, when the adminis- 
 tration of which Lord Grey was the leading member at once 
 dissolved the existing Parliament on coming into oflSce ; though 
 he believed " the present to be the first occasion on which a 
 House of Commons had been invited to express its dissatisfac- 
 tion at the exercise of the prerogative of dissolution." 
 
 To the strictures of Lord Melbourne and Lord Morpeth on 
 the Duke of Wellington's temporary assumption of a combina- 
 tion of offices, it was replied by Sir Robert and the Duke that, 
 " though there might be inconvenience from the assumption 
 of all those powers by one individual, it was so far from being 
 unconstitutional, that it was a common practice for the Secre- 
 
332 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 tary for one department to act for another during intervals of 
 recreation, or periods of ill-health ; that there was ample prec- 
 edent for such a proceeding. In the last week of the life of 
 Queen Anne, the Duke of Shrewsbury had united three of the 
 greatest posts of the kingdom, those of Lord Treasurer, Lord 
 Chamberlain, and Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, with the sanction 
 of that great constitutional lawyer, Lord Somers. And in 1827 
 Mr. Canning had retained the seals of the Foreign OflSce for 
 some weeks after his appointment as First Lord of the Treas- 
 ury. Moreover, there was actually a law which provided that 
 when the ojSfice of Chancellor of the Exchequer is vacant the 
 seals of that office shall be delivered to the Chief-justice ; and 
 under this rule, in the latter part of the reign of George II., 
 Chief-justice Lord Mansfield had continued finance-minister for 
 above three months. And, as to the practical result of what 
 had been done in the present instance, the Duke affirmed, what, 
 indeed, was universally admitted, that the arrangement had 
 from the first been understood to be merely temporary ; that 
 no inconvenience had resulted from it ; indeed, that " not a 
 single act had been done in any one of the offices which had 
 not been essentially necessary for the service of the country." 
 
 The first two points on which the ministry was assailed it 
 seems superfluous to examine, since it is clear that the position 
 taken up by Sir Robert Peel is impregnable : that, on every 
 view of the principles and practice of the constitution, there 
 was no doubt of the right of the sovereign to dismiss his min- 
 isters or to dissolve the Parliament at his pleasure ; and that 
 those acts can only be judged of by a consideration of their 
 expediency. Inexpedient, indeed, the dismissal of the preced- 
 ing ministry is generally considered to have been, even in the . 
 interest of the Conservatives themselves. But inexpedient the 
 dissolution can hardly be pronounced to have been, since, though 
 the new election failed to give them a majority in the House of 
 Commons, it beyond all doubt greatly strengthened their mi- 
 nority. On the other hand, though it cannot be denied that 
 the House of Commons has a perfect right to express its dis- 
 approval of any or every act of the minister, it is not so clear 
 that Lord Morpeth's invitation to it to express its dissatisfac- 
 
WELLINGTON S ASSUMPTION OF VAEIOUS OFFICES. 333 
 
 tion with this particular act of dissolution was, on general prin- 
 ciples, expedient or safe ; since such a vote is making a peril- 
 ous approach to claiming for the House the right of being 
 asked for its consent to its own dissolution, a claim the admis- 
 sion of which had been one of the most fatal, if not the most 
 fatal, of all the concessions of Charles I. 
 
 As to the Duke of Wellington's assumption of a variety of 
 offices, it is probable that when he first proposed to the King 
 to confer them on him, he anticipated no objection whatever 
 from any quarter, since he had so little idea of there being any 
 impropriety in holding two offices, were they ever so apparent- 
 ly incongruous, if his Majesty should have directed him to do 
 so, that seven years before, when he became Prime-minister, he 
 had at first designed permanently to retain the command of 
 the army in conjunction with the Treasury, and had only been 
 induced to abandon the intention by the urgent remonstrance 
 of Sir Robert Peel ; and, constitutionally, there does not seem 
 to be any limitation of the sovereign's power to confer offices, 
 to unite or to divide them. Indeed, the different Secretary- 
 ships of State seem to owe their existence entirely to his will, 
 and not to any act of Parliament. He can diminish the num- 
 ber, if he should think fit, as he did in 1782, when, on the ter- 
 mination of the American war, he forbore to appoint a suc- 
 cessor to Lord George G-ermaine, in Lord Rockingham's admin- 
 istration ; or he can increase the numbers, as he did in 1794, 
 when he revived the third Secretaryship, which he had sup- 
 pressed twelve years before, without any act of Parliament be- 
 ing passed to direct either the suspension or the revival. He 
 can even leave the most important oflSces vacant, and intrust 
 the performance of their duties to a commission, as was done 
 in this very year 1835, when the Great Seal was put in com- 
 mission, and the duties, for above two years, were performed 
 by commissioners, who had other duties also to discharge ; and 
 these instances may, perhaps, warrant the conclusion that the 
 distribution of the different posts in what is generally known 
 as the cabinet is dictated by considerations of what is practica- 
 ble and expedient rather than by any positive and invariable 
 rule or principle. 
 
334 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 Yet it does not follow that, because the constitution was not 
 violated or endangered by such an arrangement, the leaders of 
 the Opposition did other than their duty in calling attention 
 to it. Unquestionably, it is historically true that the liberties 
 of the people owe their preservation, growth, and vigor to the 
 jealous watchfulness to check the first and slightest appearance 
 of any attempt to encroach upon them, which has been con- 
 stantly exercised from the very earliest times by an almost un- 
 broken series of fearless and independent patriots. And in this 
 instance the very novelty of such an arrangement as had taken 
 place did of itself make criticism a duty; though it may also 
 be thought that the critics acted wisely in contenting themselves 
 with calling notice to it, and abstaining from asking Parliament 
 to pronounce a formal judgment on it, since any express cen- 
 sure would have been unwarranted either by the facts of the 
 case or by any inference to be drawn from previous usage, 
 while an approval of it would wear the appearance not only of 
 sanctioning, but even of inviting a repetition of an arrangement 
 which, if ever attempted to be carried out in actual practice, 
 must tend to grave inconvenience, if not to discredit. 
 
 Lord Melbourne resumed office, and, being strengthened by 
 the manifest inability of the opposite party to command the 
 confidence of the House of Commons, began to apply himself 
 with vigor to the carrying out of several measures of internal 
 reform, some of which involved not only the property but the 
 long-established rights of very considerable bodies, and, as so 
 doing, have an importance in a constitutional point of view, be- 
 sides that arising from their immediate effects. Peel had been 
 equally alive to the desirableness, so cogent as almost to amount 
 to a moral necessity, of introducing reforms into more than one 
 old institution, such as should bring them more into harmony 
 with the spirit of the age, remodelling or terminating some 
 arrangements which were manifest abuses, and others which, 
 though, if dispassionately examined and properly understood, 
 they, perhaps, were not really grievances, yet in their operation 
 caused such discontent and heart-burnings that they were as mis- 
 chievous as many others far more indefensible in theory. And, 
 short-lived as his administration had been, he had found time 
 
LORD MELBOUENE's RESUMPTION OP OFFICE, 335 
 
 to frame and introduce an extensive measure of Church reform, 
 not only dealing with the question of tithes, the levy and col- 
 lection of which in some of their details had long been made 
 subjects of bitter complaints by the farmers, but including also 
 provision for the creation of two new bishoprics, those of Ripon 
 and Manchester. No part of his measure was more imperative- 
 ly called for by the present circumstances of the nation, or of 
 greater importance in its future operation. There had been no 
 increase in the number of bishops since the reign of Elizabeth ; 
 but since her time not only had the population of the entire 
 kingdom been quadrupled, but some districts which had then 
 been very scantily peopled had become exceedingly populous. 
 These districts had hitherto been almost destitute of Episcopal 
 supervision, which now was thus to be supplied to them. But 
 the new legislation did more. It might be expected that the 
 growth of the population would continue, and would in time 
 require a farther and corresponding increase of the Episcopate ; 
 and the erection of these new dioceses was, therefore, not only 
 the supplying of a present want, but the foundation of a sys- 
 tem for increasing the efficiency of the Church which should 
 be capable of gradual progressive expansion, as the growth of 
 the population in various districts might be found to require 
 additional facilities for supervision. And the judgment with 
 which the new arrangement met the requirements of the com- 
 munity may be regarded as proved by the circumstance that 
 now, after the lapse of nearly half a century, it is maintained in 
 active operation, and is admitted by all parties not only to be 
 of the greatest practical benefit, but also to have a moral effect 
 scarcely less valuable in the degTee in which it has stimulated 
 the application of private munificence to the great work of 
 Church extension. 
 
 But before Lord Grey quitted office his government had also 
 called the attention of Parliament to the necessity of a large 
 municipal reform, which, indeed, it seemed to them that the 
 Reform Bill had bound them, in all consistency, to introduce. 
 In the speech with which the King had closed the session of 
 1833, he had informed the Houses that he had "directed com- 
 missions to be issued for investigating the state of the munici- 
 
S36 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 pal corporations throngliout tlie United Kingdom, the result of 
 whose inquiries would enable them to mature some measure 
 which might seem best fitted to place the internal government 
 of corporate cities and towns upon a solid foundation in respect 
 of their finances, their judicature, and their police." He re- 
 minded them that they had recently passed acts "for giving 
 constitutions upon sound principles to the royal and parHa- 
 mentary boroughs of Scotland," and warned them that "their 
 attention would hereafter be called to the expediency of ex- 
 tending similar advantages to the unincorporated towns in Eng- 
 land which had now acquired the right of returning members 
 to Parliament." The commission of which his Majesty thus 
 spoke had now presented its report, strongly condemnatory of 
 the existing system in almost every point of view ; of the con- 
 stitution and mode of election of the existing corporations, and 
 of their government of the towns over which they presided. It 
 declared that " even where they existed in their least imperfect 
 form, and were most rightfully administered, they were inade- 
 quate to the wants of the present state of society." But they 
 charged them also with positive offences of no venial kind. 
 " They had perverted their powers to political ends, sacrificing 
 local interests to party purposes. They bad diverted from their 
 legitimate use revenues which ought to have been applied for 
 the public advantage, wasting them in many instances for the 
 benefit of individuals ; sometimes even employing for purposes 
 of corruption funds originally intended for charitable uses." 
 And they asserted that this too common misconduct of these 
 bodies had engendered " among a great majority of the inhabi- 
 tants of the incorporated towns a general and just dissatisfac- 
 tion with their municipal institutions, a distrust of the self- 
 elected municipal councils, and of the municipal magistracy, 
 tainting with suspicion the local administration of justice." 
 And therefore they " felt it their duty to represent to his Maj- 
 esty that the existing municipal corporations of England and 
 Wales neither possessed nor deserved the confidence and re- 
 spect of his Majesty's subjects; and that a thorough reform 
 must be effected before they could become what they ought to 
 be, useful and eflScient instruments of local government." 
 
GROSS ABU&E OF COEPOEATION TEUSTS. 337 
 
 It would be superfluous here to repeat the story of the rise 
 of the boroughs, whose gradual acquisition of charters, with 
 privileges and powers of various degrees, has been sufficiently 
 investigated by Hallam.* What the Parliament had now to 
 deal with was the way in which the system worked in the 
 nineteenth century ; and here it must be confessed that the 
 report of the commissioners, severe as it was, did in no degree 
 exaggerate the prevailing evils. The corporations had grad- 
 ually become self -elected oligarchies of the worst kind. It 
 must be admitted that, in perverting their authority to politi- 
 cal purposes, they might plead the excuse that they were but 
 following the example set them by the ministers of William 
 III., who introduced into their bill for restoring the corpora- 
 tions which James 11. had suppressed clauses manifestly in- 
 tended to preserve the ascendency of the Whig party, "by 
 keeping the Church or Tory faction out off them. But no 
 such palliation (if, indeed, that had any right to be called a 
 palliation) could be alleged for their abuse of the trusts com- 
 mitted to them ; abuse which, if committed by single individ- 
 uals, would have been branded, and perhaps punished, as mal- 
 versation and fraud of the deepest dye. A sufficient specimen 
 of the kind and extent of their misdeeds in one branch of their 
 duties was afforded by a single paragraph of Lord John Rus- 
 sell's speech, in which he affirmed that, in some of the reports 
 of their management of charitable estates committed to their 
 care, it was proved that " the property, instead of being em- 
 ployed for the general benefit of the town, had been consumed 
 for the partial benefit of a few individuals, and not unfrequently 
 in the feastings and entertainments in which the mayor and 
 other corporators had been in the habit of indulging. In some 
 not very large boroughs these expenses had amounted to £500 
 and £600 a year; and the enjoyment had been confined to 
 freemen of only one party." And the perpetuity of this mis- 
 management was in most instances secured by the members of 
 the corporation themselves electing their new colleagues on the 
 occasion of any vacancy. 
 
 * " Middle Ages,"ii., Slseq. See also Stubbs, "Constitutional History," 
 i., 82-93 et seq. t See Hallam's "Constitutional History," ii., 155. 
 
 15 
 
338 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 To put an end to this discreditable state of affairs, the gov- 
 ernment had prepared a very sweeping scheme of reform, 
 though that it was not too sweeping was proved by the ap- 
 proval with which not only its principle but niost of its details 
 were received by the greater part of the Opposition ; the lead- 
 ing principle being, to quote the words of the minister in in- 
 troducing the bill, " that there should be one uniform govern- 
 ment instituted, applicable to all; one uniform franchise for 
 the purpose of election; and a like description of officers in 
 each, with the exception of some of the larger places, in which 
 there would be a recorder, or some other such magistrate. The 
 first thing to be amended was the mode of election to the cor- 
 poration, which was now to be intrusted to all such rate-payers 
 in each borough as had paid poor-rates for three years, and re- 
 sided within seven miles of the place." Lord John Russell had 
 considered, he said, "whether this franchise should be limited 
 to those paying a certain amount of rates ; to the ten-pound 
 householders, for instance, to whom the parliamentary franchise 
 was confined ;" but he decided on proposing to extend it to all 
 rate-payers, because, according to the established principle, to 
 the known and recognized principle of the constitution, it is 
 right that those who contribute their money should have a 
 voice in the election of the persons by whom the money is 
 expended." The old modes of acquiring the freedom of a cor- 
 poration, such as birth, apprenticeship, etc., were to be abol- 
 ished, as also were all exclusive rights of trade, vested rights, 
 however, being preserved. The next point to be decided was 
 the composition of the corporation which these rate -payers 
 were to elect, and the ministerial proposal was that each cor- 
 poration should consist of a mayor, aldermen, and councillors, 
 possessing a certain amount of property as a qualification, and 
 varying in number according to the population of the borough ; 
 the larger towns being also divided into wards, with a certain 
 number of common-councilmen and aldermen to be chosen in 
 each ward. The mayor was to be a yearly officer ; of the al- 
 dermen and councillors a certain number were to retire each 
 year, being, however, capable of re-eleclion. The mayor was 
 to be elected by the councils, and was to be a magistrate dur- 
 
PROPOSED EEMEDIES FOR COEPOEATE VENALITY. 339 
 
 ing his year of oflSce. And the body thus constituted was to 
 have the entire government of the borough ; of its police, its 
 charities, and generally, and most especially, of the raising and 
 expenditure of its funds,* which had been too often dealt with 
 in a manner not only wasteful, but profligate. Cases had been 
 brought forward in which "corporations had been incurring 
 debts year by year, while the members were actually dividing 
 among themselves the proceeds of the loafis they raised." The 
 revenue derived from charitable estates had been " no less scan- 
 dalously mismanaged." And the bill provided for the appoint- 
 ment of finance committees, trustees, auditors, and a regular 
 publication of all the accounts, as the only eflicient remedy and 
 preventive of such abuses. The whole police of the town and 
 administration of justice was also to be completely under the 
 control of the council ; and for the appointment of magistrates 
 the council was to have the power of recommending to the 
 crown those whom they thought fit to receive the commission 
 of the peace; and in the large towns it should have power 
 also to provide a salary for stipendiary magistrates. Another 
 clause provided that towns which could not as yet be included 
 in the bill, since they had never been incorporated, might ob- 
 tain charters of incorporation by petition to the Privy Council. 
 Such were the general provisions of this great measure of 
 reform ; a bill similar in principle having already been enacted 
 for Scotland, and another being shortly after passed, with such 
 variations of detail as the differences in the circumstances of 
 the country required, for Ireland. Some of the clauses, espe- 
 cially those which preserved the vested rights of freemen and 
 their families, and which required a certain amount of property 
 or rating qualifications in the town councillors, were not orig- 
 inally included in the bill, but were inserted as amendments in 
 the House of Lords ; and it may be remarked that the result of 
 the discussion in that House afforded a proof of the sagacity 
 
 * This was a matter of no small importance. The number of boroughs 
 included in the bill was 183, having a population of about two millious. 
 Their annual income was stated by Lord John Russell to be as nearly as 
 possible £2000 a year for each, being £367,000 ; but their annual expendi- 
 ture exceeded that amount by £10,000, being £377,000 ; " besides which 
 there was a debt of £2,000,000 owing by these bodies." 
 
340 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 of those peers who, though conscientiously opposed to the Re- 
 form Bill, preferred allowing it to pass by their own retirement 
 from the final divisions to driving the minister to carry his 
 point by a creation of peers, since the avoidance of such an 
 addition to their numbers as had been threatened enabled them 
 now to force the adoption of these amendments on a reluctant 
 minister. And it seems difficult to deny that the first was re- 
 quired by justice, and that the second was most desirable in 
 the interests of the measure itself. Without it the town coun- 
 cillors, from among whom the mayor was to be chosen, might 
 have been selected from the poorest, the least educated, and 
 least independent class of the rate-payers. In some boroughs, 
 or in some wards of many boroughs, it may be regarded as cer- 
 tain that they would have been so chosen ; and such an ad- 
 mixture of unfit persons would have tended to bring some de- 
 oi*ee of discredit on the whole council, while to the successful 
 inauguration of a new system the establishment of a general 
 feeling of respect for it and confidence in it was of primary 
 importance. The danger, too, of so ill-judged a selection would 
 have been greatest in the larger boroughs, those being, at the 
 same time, the very places in which the occasional difficulty of 
 maintaining order and tranquillity made it even more necessary 
 than in smaller towns that the council should enjoy the esteem 
 and confidence of their fellow-citizens. 
 
 The principle that every man who contributed to the rates 
 had a ria:ht to claim a voice in the election of those who were 
 to expend them, which the minister laid down as the justifica- 
 tion of the clause conferring the municipal franchise on all the 
 rate-payers, was strongly contested by Sir Robert Peel, though 
 neither he nor those of his party m the Upper House proposed 
 any alteration of the bill in this respect ; but he pointed out 
 that, though Lord John affirmed it to be the known and recog- 
 nized principle of the constitution, he had not acted on it in 
 the Reform Bill ; and it is certainly open to question whether 
 the adoption of some limitation would not have been an im- 
 provement on the present measure. The doctrine established 
 in this instance by Lord John gave a preponderance at every 
 municipal election to mere numbers, since the poorest class is 
 
DISSENTERS AND THE MARRIAGE ACT. 341 
 
 everywhere the most numerous, and its admission led almost 
 inevitably to a reduction of the parliamentary franchise at some 
 future day, though certainly at this time, and for many years 
 afterward. Lord John was far from contemplating any alteration 
 of the Reform Bill, but, on the contrary, took every opportunity 
 of proclaiming his adherence to it as a final solution of the 
 question. 
 
 But though in this particular it is possible that the bill 
 might have been improved, it must be allowed to have been a 
 measure very creditable to its framers. Few reforms have been 
 conceived in a more judicious and more moderate spirit; few 
 have been so carefully limited to the removal of real and proved 
 abuses, and the prevention of their recurrence, while avoiding 
 any concessions to the insidious demands of revolutionists, or 
 the ill-regulated fancies of metaphysical theorists. It was a re- 
 form strictly in accordance with some of the most important 
 principles of the constitution, as they have been gradually de- 
 veloped by the practical experience of successive generations. 
 It combined with felicitous skill representative with local gov- 
 ernment ; it secured uniformity in working, and that peculiarly 
 English principle of publicity, without which the best-devised 
 system cannot long be preserved from degeneracy. 
 
 The Church reforms in England and Ireland, which were car- 
 ried out about the same time, cannot be said to have involved 
 any constitutional principle, though one of them greatly ex- 
 tended the principle of religious toleration and indulgence to 
 the Dissenters of various sects. No alteration had been made 
 in the Marriage Act of 1754, which declared it indispensable to 
 the validity of a marriage that it should be performed in a 
 church and by a clergyman of the Established Church. And 
 it was not strange that this should be felt as a grievance by 
 those who were not in communion with that Church. But 
 some of the Dissenting sects had an additional cause of discon- 
 tent in the words of the marriage service, which gave a religious 
 character to the ceremony, while they regarded it as a civil con- 
 tract. In his short administration Sir Robert Peel had rec- 
 ognized the validity of the arguments against the unmodified 
 maintenance of the existing law, and had framed a measure 
 
342 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 calculated, in his view^to give the Dissenters the relief their 
 title to which could nJBFe denied. But his bill had been ex- 
 tinguished by his retirement. And Lord John Russell now 
 availed himself of the machinery of another measure, which he 
 introduced at the same time, to make the relief somewhat wider 
 and more effective. 
 
 Hitherto there was no record of births and marriages beyond 
 that which was preserved in the registers of different parishes, 
 which in former years had in many instances been carelessly 
 and inaccurately kept. But at the beginning of 1836, the min- 
 isters, justly urging that it was important, in a national point 
 of view, both with regard to the security of titles to property, 
 and to that knowledge of the state of population the value of 
 which was recognized by the establishment of the practice of 
 taking a decennial census, that there should be a general register 
 of all such occurrences, introduced a bill to establish a registry 
 and registrar in every Poor-law union, with a farther registry 
 for each county, and a chief or still more general one in London 
 for the whole kingdom, subject to the authority of the Poor- 
 law Commissioners. And by a second bill they farther pro- 
 posed that the registries to be thus established should be offices 
 at which those who desired to do so might contract purely civil 
 marriages. Previous clauses in it provided that members of 
 any sect of Protestant Dissenters might be married in their 
 own chapels, and by ministers of their own persuasion. After 
 enactments removing all the civil, disabilities under which Non- 
 conformists had labored for one hundred and fifty years had 
 been placed on the statute-book, it was clearly inconsistent in 
 the highest degree to retain still more offensive and unreason- 
 able religious disabilities, and to deny to them the right of 
 being married by their own ministers, according to the rites 
 most agreeable to their consciences or prejudices. And though 
 some of the details of the ministerial measure were objected to 
 and slightly altered in its passage through Parliament, the gen- 
 eral principle was admitted by the warmest friends and most 
 recognized champions of the Established Church, who wisely 
 felt that a bulwark which is too ill-placed or too unsubstantial 
 to be defended, is often a treacherous source of weakness rather 
 
THE COMMUTATION OP TITHES. 343 
 
 than strength, and that a temperate recognition of the validity 
 of claims founded on justice was the best protection against 
 others which had no such foundation, and that measures such 
 as these adopted in a spirit of generous conciliation could only 
 strengthen the Church by taking at least one weapon from the 
 hands of its enemies. 
 
 Another of the measures relating to the Church, of which 
 Peel had prepared a sketch, had for its object the removal of 
 a grievance of which the members of the Church itself had 
 long been complaining, the mode of the collection of tithe. 
 It would be superfluous here to endeavor to trace the origin of 
 tithes, or the purposes beyond the sustentation of the clergy- 
 men to which they were originally applied.* They had un- 
 doubtedly been established in England some time before the 
 Conquest, and the principle that the land should support the 
 National Church was admitted by a large majority of the popu- 
 lation ; it may probably be said with something nearly ap- 
 proaching unanimity on the part of those who really paid it, 
 namely, the land-owners. The objection to the tithe system 
 was founded rather on the way in which it worked, operating, 
 as Lord John Russell described it, as "a discouragement to 
 industry ; a penalty on agricultural skill ; a heavy mulct on 
 those who expended the most capital and displayed the great- 
 est skill in the cultivation of the land." The present mode of 
 levying the tithes forced the clergy to forbearance at the ex- 
 pense of what they deemed to be their rights, or led them to 
 enforce them at the expense of the influence which they ought 
 to possess with their parishioners, compelling them to lose 
 either their income by their indulgence, or their proper weight 
 and popularity in the parish by the exaction of what the law 
 gave them for " the support of themselves and their families." 
 And this dilemma was felt so keenly by the clergy themselves, 
 that it had become a very general feeling with them that, " if 
 any sort of commutation could be devised, they would be de- 
 lighted to be delivered from this objectionable mode of pay- 
 ment." Indeed, Sir Robert Peel, whose measure of the preced- 
 
 * See Hallam, "Middle Ages," il, 205-207. 
 
344 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 ing year had been chiefly directed to the encouragement of 
 voluntary commutations, had stated to the House that there 
 were already two thousand parishes in the kingdom in which 
 a commutation between the clergyman and his parishioners 
 had been agreed upon, and established as a durable settlement 
 by separate acts of Parliament. Indeed, arrangements of this 
 kind existed very generally ; the parishes in which the tithe 
 was taken in kind being comparatively few, and the plan usual- 
 ly adopted being for the occupier of land to pay the incumbent 
 a fixed annual sum bearing a certain proportion to his rent. 
 But arrangements which were optional were, of course, liable 
 to be rescinded ; and Peel desired to establish a system which 
 should be universal and permanent. And with this view he 
 had designed the appointment of a temporary commission, one 
 member of which should be nominated by the Primate, as the 
 representative of the Church, under whose supervision the 
 tithes of every parish in the kingdom should be commuted 
 into a rent-charge, regulated partly by the composition which 
 had hitherto been paid, and partly by the average price of 
 grain — wheat, barley, and oats. It was no new idea, since as 
 far back as 1791 Pitt had proposed a general commutation of 
 tithes for a corn rent, and had submitted a plan with that ob- 
 ject to the Primate, though circumstances of which we have 
 no accurate knowledge prevented him from proceeding with it.* 
 Objectionsf were taken to this last part of the arrangement, 
 chiefly because it would render perpetual the terms of existing 
 compositions, the extreme augmentation of them which was 
 provided for in the bill being only ten per cent., while it was 
 notorious that the majority of incumbents had shown such 
 
 * "Life of Pitt," ii.,131. Lord Stanhope imagines that the plan was 
 relinquished in consequence of discouraging comments by the Arch* 
 bishop (Dr. Moore). 
 
 t These objections were founded on the following calculations, or 
 something similar to them. The tithe was the tenth of the produce. 
 In letting estates it was estimated that a farm ought to produce three 
 rents ; in other words, that a farm let at £1 an acre ought to produce 
 yearly £3 an acre. One-tenth of three pounds, or 6s., therefore, was what 
 the clergyman was entitled to claim. Out of this, however, he had to de- 
 fray the cost of collection, which might, perhaps, be one shilling, leaving 
 him five shillings. But the average of compositions over the whole king- 
 dom was under 2s. 9d., or eleven-twentieths of what he was entitled to; 
 and if augmented by ten per cent., it would not exceed three shillings. 
 
DISPARITY OP ECCLESIASTICAL REVENUES. 345 
 
 liberality in these matters that the compositions rarely amount- 
 ed to two-thirds of the sum to which they were legally entitled. 
 And it was hardly denied that the measure did involve some 
 sacrifice of the extreme legal rights of the clergy ; but it was 
 urged and generally felt by the most judicious friends of the 
 Church that the peace and harmony which might be expected 
 to be the fruit of the measure was worth some sacrifice, and the 
 bill was passed with very general approval ; a bill on similar 
 principles, with such variations as were required by the differ- 
 ences between the two countries, being also passed for Ireland. 
 The last measure on ecclesiastical subjects was also chiefly 
 of a financial character, though its details were calculated, some 
 directly, others indirectly, to produce benefits of a still more 
 important nature. The condition of the property of the bish- 
 ops and the ecclesiastical chapters had long been a subject of 
 censorious remark. The various dioceses differed greatly in 
 extent, as did, therefore, the labors of the diocesans. Some 
 sees contained above 1000, one (London) even above 1200 par- 
 ishes ; others contained under 150. The revenues of some were 
 very large, in one or two instances approaching £20,000 a year, 
 while those of others scarcely exceeded £1000 or £1500 a year, 
 thus affording incomes palpably inadequate to the support of 
 the Episcopal dignity ; so inadequate, indeed, that they were 
 generally supplemented by the addition of some better en- 
 dowed deanery or canonry. It was universally felt that such a 
 deficiency and such a mode of supplying it were in themselves 
 a scandal, which was greatly augmented by the system of trans- 
 lations to which it had given birth. The poorer bishoprics 
 would hardly have been accepted at all had they not been re- 
 garded as stepping-stones to others of greater value ; and the 
 hope of such promotion had in some cases the not unnatural, 
 however deplorable, effect of making the bishop anxious to 
 please the minister of the day, to whom alone he could look 
 for translation, by parliamentary subservience ; and the still 
 more mischievous result (if possible) of rendering the whole 
 Bench liable to the same degrading suspicion ; while the can- 
 onries and prebends in the different chapters, whose revenues 
 also varied greatly, were in every diocese so numerous that they 
 
 15* 
 
346 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 had become nearly sinecures, the duties rarely exceeding resi- 
 dence for a month, or, at the outside, six weeks in a year. 
 
 These abuses (for such they could not be denied to be) had 
 attracted the attention of Sir Robert Peel, who had appointed 
 a commission, of which many of the highest dignitaries of the 
 Church were members, and who, after very careful investiga- 
 tion and deliberation, presented a series of reports on which 
 the ministry framed its measure. They proposed, as has al- 
 ready been mentioned in connection with the labors of Sir 
 Robert Peel, an amalgamation of four of the smaller bishoprics 
 at their next vacancy, in order hereafter to provide for the ad- 
 dition of two new ones at Manchester, or Lancaster, and Ripon, 
 without augmenting the number of bishops. Lord Melbourne 
 apparently feared to provoke the hostility of some of the ex- 
 treme Reformers, who had recently proposed to deprive the 
 bishops of their seats in the House of Lords, if he should at- 
 tempt to increase the number of the spiritual peers ; though, 
 as their number had been stationary ever since the Reforma- 
 tion, while that of the lay peers had been quadrupled, such an 
 objection hardly seemed entitled to so much consideration. 
 Another clause was directed toward the establishment of great- 
 er equality between the revenues of the different bishoprics, a 
 step which, besides its inherent reasonableness and equity, would 
 extinguish the desire of promotion by translation, except in a 
 few specified instances. Various reasons, sufficiently obvious 
 and notorious, rendered the two archbishoprics, and the bishop- 
 rics of London, Durham, and Winchester, more costly to the 
 occupants than the other dioceses ; and these were, therefore, 
 left in possession of larger revenues than the rest, proportionate 
 to their wider duties or heavier charges. But all the others 
 were to be nearly equal, none exceeding £5500, and none fall- 
 ing below £4500 ; while the five richer sees were also the only 
 ones to which a prelate could be translated from another diocese. 
 It followed, almost as a matter of course, that the practice of al- 
 lowing a bishop to hold any other preferment was to cease with 
 the cessation of the cause that had led to such an abuse. * 
 
 Another part of the bill provided for the suppression of 
 such canonries or prebends as might fairly be considered su- 
 
THE ABOLITION OF CHUi^iCH PLURALITIES. 347 
 
 perfluons. Four were considered suflScient for the proper per- 
 formance of the duties of each cathedral ; and the extinction 
 (after the lives of the present holders) of the rest was designed 
 to form a large fund, to be at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical 
 Commissioners,* and to be applied by them chiefly to meet the 
 wants of the more populous parishes in different large towns, 
 for which it had hitherto been difficult to make any provision,! 
 by contributing to the erection of additional churches, by in- 
 creasing the incomes of the incumbents in cases where it was 
 insufficient, or in any other way which the practical experience 
 of the members of the commission might suggest. One very 
 important reform of a different kind was also provided for in 
 the abolition of pluralities, the bill prohibiting the holding of 
 two livings by the same person except they were within ten 
 miles of each other. The measure was objected to by Sir 
 Robert Inglis, who had represented Oxford as the peculiar 
 champion .of Protestant and Church principles ever since 1829, 
 and by a party which shared his views, as one calculated to be 
 " fatal to the best interests of the Church." They looked on 
 the property of the Church and everything connected with it 
 as invested with so peculiar a character, that they not only 
 contested the right of Parliament to take any step to diminish 
 its revenues or to change the employment of them, but they 
 even " disputed its right to deprive one class of the clergy of 
 any portion of their revenues for the purpose of distributing 
 it among another." But the distinction thus made between 
 Church property and that of any other public body seems one 
 which can hardl}^ be supported. The purposes for which ec- 
 clesiastical chapters or oflScials have been endowed with pos- 
 sessions and revenues are undoubtedly of a more sacred char- 
 acter than the duties imposed on lay corporations ; but that 
 consideration cannot be regarded as affecting the tenure of 
 
 * The fund so created was expected to amount to £130,000 a year. 
 
 t As instances of the want of church-room in such towns, Lord John 
 cited the dioceses of London, Chester, York, Lichfield, and Coventry, 
 containing a population of 2,590,000 persons, with church accommoda- 
 tion for only 276,000, or one-ninth of the population; the Commission- 
 ers, from whose report he was quoting, reckoning that church - room 
 ought to be provided for one-third. 
 
348 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 those possessions, or as inconsistent with the doctrine that they 
 are national property, bestowed by the nation on the Church 
 for the service and advantage of the people ; deeply interested 
 not only in the maintenance of an Established Church, but in 
 that Church being in the highest possible degree efficient for 
 its holy objects. Being so bestowed and appropriated, that 
 property must, on every principle of the constitution, be sub- 
 ject to the control of the national Parliament. And surely 
 that control could never be more legitimately exerted than in 
 carrying out the recommendations of a commission which num- 
 bered among its members several of the prelates of the Church, 
 whose profession and position were a guarantee for their anx- 
 iety to preserve all the rights of the Church which contributed 
 to its credit or efficiency; while their matured experience en- 
 abled them better than any other men to judge how to recon- 
 cile the maintenance of its dignity with the extension of its 
 usefulness. 
 
THE AUSPICIOUS ACCESSION OF QUEEN VICTORIA. 349 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 Death of 'William IV., and Accession of Queen Victoria. — Rise of the 
 Chartists. — Resignation of Lord Melbourne in 1839, and his Resumption 
 of Office. — Marriage of the Queen, and Consequent Arrangements. — The 
 Precedence of the Prince, etc. — Post-office Reform. — War in Afghanis- 
 tan. — Discontent in Jamaica. — Insurrection in Canada.— New Constitu- 
 tion for Canada and other Colonies. — Case of Stockdale and Hansard. 
 
 The reforms mentioned in the preceding chapter were the 
 last measures of the reign of William TV. In the summer of 
 the next year, 1837, he died, and was succeeded in his British, 
 though not in his Hanoverian, dominions by our present gra- 
 cious sovereign, who had only just arrived at the age which 
 entitled her to exercise the full authority of the crown. The 
 change was calculated to strengthen the crown, by enlisting the 
 chivalrous feelings of all that was best in the nation in the sup- 
 port of a youthful Queen, and in a lesser degree it for a time 
 strengthened the ministry also ; but, with respect to the latter, 
 the feeling did not last long. For the next three years the 
 summers were very unfavorable to the farmer; the harvests 
 were bad ; the inevitable accompaniment of a rise in prices had 
 caused severe and general distress, and distress had produced 
 clamorous discontent, and in some districts formidable riots. 
 It had been greatly aggravated in the manufacturing counties 
 by the operations of the trades-unions, which had gradually 
 put forth pretensions to regulate the wages and other condi- 
 tions of work, and had enforced them with such tyrannical 
 violence, not flinching from the foulest crimes, that in many 
 instances they had driven the masters to close their factories 
 rather than submit to their mandates ; and in others had com- 
 pelled the workmen themselves to discontinue their labors, thus 
 spreading destitution among thousands whose earnings, if they 
 had been allowed to consult their own wishes, would have been 
 
350 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 amply sufficient for the support of their families ;* and the evil 
 had grown to such a height, that in 1838 a committee was ap- 
 pointed by the House of Commons to investigate the whole 
 subject of trade combinations. But the turbulent spirit excited 
 by this distress did not now confine itself to single outbreaks 
 of violence, but, under the guidance of some demagogues of a 
 more methodical turn of mind than usual, developed itself in a 
 systematic organization having for its object what they called 
 " the people's charter," which aimed at a total revolution of 
 the existing parliamentary system, with the avowed ' design 
 that, when adopted, it should eventually lead to an entire re- 
 construction of the government. The Chartists, as they called 
 themselves, had advocates even in Parliament, who presented 
 their petitions to the House of Commons, and tried, though 
 unsuccessfully, to give them importance by the appointment of 
 a committee to investigate the character of the reforms which 
 they demanded. They were not, however, contented with 
 peaceful modes of pressing their demands, but, in the course of 
 the summer of 1839, broke out in formidable riots in different 
 parts of the country. At Birmingham they set fire to different 
 parts of the town, carrying on their work of pillage and de- 
 struction to such a pitch that the Duke of Wellington com- 
 pared the condition of the town to one taken by storm in regu- 
 lar warfare; and at Newport, in Monmouthshire, they even 
 planned and carried out an attack on the troops quartered in 
 the district. But this violence led for a time to the suppres- 
 sion of the movement, the leaders in the Newport riots being 
 convicted of high-treason ; and, though the government for- 
 bore to put the extreme severities of the law in force against 
 them, those who remained unconvicted had been taught by 
 
 * Fifty-two mills and 80,000 persons were thrown out of employment 
 for ten weeks at Ashton in 1830 by the turning out of 3000 " coarse spin- 
 ners," who could clear at the time from 28s. to 31s. per week. The fol- 
 lowing passage is extracted from an oath said to have been administered 
 by the combined spinners in Scotland in 1823: "I, AB, do voluntarily 
 swear, in the awful presence of God Almighty, and before these witnesses, 
 that I will execute with zeal and alacrity, as far as in me lies, every task 
 or injunction which the majority of my brethren shall impose upon me in 
 furtherance of our common welfare, as the chastisement of knobs, the assas- 
 sination of oppressive and tyrannical masters, or the demolition of shops 
 that shall be deemed incorrigible." — Annual Hegister, 1838, pp. 204-207. 
 
AN tJNEXPECTED IMPEDIMENT. 351 
 
 their example the danger which they incurred by such proceed- 
 ings ; and some years elapsed before a series of revolutionary 
 troubles on the Continent again gave a momentary encourage- 
 ment to those in this country who sympathized with the revo- 
 lutionists, and prompted them to another attempt to force their 
 views upon the government and the people. 
 
 It had nearly, however, been another ministry on whom the 
 task of quelling these riots had fallen. Though, as has been 
 already said, Lord Melbourne's cabinet derived a momentary 
 strength from the accession of a young Queen, the support it 
 thus acquired did not last; and in May, 1839, having been de- 
 feated on a measure of colonial policy, which will be mentioned 
 hereafter, the cabinet resigned. The Queen intrusted the task 
 of forming a new administration to Sir Robert Peel, who un- 
 dertook it with a reasonable confidence that he should be able 
 to hold his ground better than formerly, now that the retire- 
 ment of his predecessors was their own act, and admitted by 
 them to have been caused by a consciousness of the divisions 
 among their supporters and their own consequent weakness. 
 He had the greater reason for such confidence, since two of 
 the colleagues of Lord Grey who had refused his offers in 
 1834, Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham, were now willing 
 to unite with him ; and he had almost completed his arrange- 
 ments, when he was stopped by an unexpected, though not 
 altogether unprecedented, impediment. It will be recollected 
 that, in 1812, some of the arrangements for the formation of 
 a new administration on the death of Mr. Perceval were im- 
 peded by a doubt which was felt in some quarters whether 
 the new ministers would be allowed to remove one or two 
 officers of the household, to whom the Regent was generally 
 understood to be greatly attached, but who were hostile to 
 the party which hoped to come into power, though it was 
 afterward known that these officers had felt themselves bound 
 to retire as soon as the arrangements in contemplation should 
 be completed.* Sir Robert Peel was now met by a difficulty 
 of the same kind, but one which the retiring ministers had 
 
 * See page 221. 
 
352 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the address to convert into a real obstacle. The young 
 Queen, who had warm affections, but who could not possibly 
 have yet acquired any great knowledge of business, had be- 
 come attached to the ladies whom Lord Melbourne had ap- 
 pointed to the chief places in her household. It had never 
 occurred to her to regard their offices in a political light ; and, 
 consequently, when she found that Sir Robert considered it 
 indispensable that some changes should be made in those ap- 
 pointments, she at once refused her consent, terming his pro- 
 posal one " contrary to usage and repugnant to her feelings." 
 Sir Robert, however, felt bound to adhere to his request for the 
 removal of some of the ladies in question ; for, in fact, they 
 were the wives and sisters of his predecessors, and a continu- 
 ance of their daily intercourse with the Queen might reasonably 
 be expected to have some influence over her Majesty's judg- 
 ment of the measures which he might feel it his duty to pro- 
 pose. Such a difficulty could not have arisen under a male 
 sovereign ; but Lord Melbourne himself had departed from the 
 ordinary practice when he surrounded his royal mistress with 
 ladies so closely identified with his cabinet. It is very possible 
 that he had originally made the appointments without any such 
 design, from the careless indifference which was his most mark- 
 ed characteristic ; but he cannot be so easily acquitted when, in 
 reply to the Queen's application to him for advice on the sub- 
 ject, he, being joined in his assertion by Lord John Russell, as- 
 sured her that Sir Robert Peel's demand was unjustifiable and 
 unprecedented. Supported by the positive dictum of the min- 
 isters on whose judgment she had hitherto been bound to rely, 
 the Queen naturally adhered to her decision of refusing to per- 
 mit the removal of the ladies in question, and the result was 
 that Sir Robert Peel declined to take office under circumstances 
 of difficulty beyond those to which every new minister must of 
 necessity be exposed, and Lord Melbourne and his colleagues 
 resumed their posts. The transaction was, of course, canvassed 
 in both Houses of Parliament. Sir Robert Peel and the Duke 
 of Wellington, who was the spokesman of the party in the 
 House of Lords, defended their refusal to undertake the gov- 
 ernment on any other condition than that for which they had 
 
LORD MELBOURNE'S CONTENTION INDEFENSIBLE. 353 
 
 stipulated, on the ground that the authority to make such 
 changes in the household as they had proposed was indispensa- 
 ble, as a proof of their possession of her Majesty's confidence ; 
 while Lord Melbourne, with a strange exaggeration, defended 
 the advice which he had given her Majesty by the assertion 
 that to have complied with Sir Robert Peel's proposal would 
 have been "inconsistent with her personal honor." Other 
 arguments on the same side were based on the alleged cruelty 
 of separating her Majesty "from the society of her earliest 
 friends, her old and constant companions ;" an argument which 
 was disposed of by Lord Brougham's remark, that till she had 
 become Queen (not yet two years before) she had had no ac- 
 quaintance with them whatever.* 
 
 But it is needless to dwell at any length on the case, in 
 which all subsequent historians and political critics, however 
 generally prepossessed in favor of the Liberal ministers, have 
 given up their position as untenable. Her Majesty herself kept 
 strictly on the path of the constitution in guiding herself by 
 the counsels of those who, till their successors were appointed, 
 were still her responsible advisers. But the course which they 
 recommended was absolutely irreconcilable with one fundament- 
 al principle of the constitution — the universal responsibility of 
 the ministers. In denying the right of the incoming ministers 
 to remodel the household (or any other body of offices) in 
 whatever degree they might consider requisite, they were clear- 
 ly limiting the ministerial authority. To limit the ministerial 
 authority is to limit the ministerial responsibility ; to limit the 
 ministerial responsibility is to impose some portion of responsi- 
 bility (that portion from which it relieves the minister) on the 
 sovereign himself, a dangerous consequence from which the con- 
 stitution most carefully protects him. In fact, that the advice 
 Lord Melbourne gave was indefensible was tacitly confessed by 
 himself, when, on the recurrence of the same emergency two 
 years later, he was compelled to recommend a different course ;f 
 
 * The question was examined with great minuteness by Lord Brougham 
 a fortnight after the ministerial explanation. See " Parliamentary De- 
 bates," 3d series, xlvii., 1164. 
 
 t It is stated on good authority that Lord Melbourne, in private con- 
 versation, justified or explained the line he had taken by his consideratioa 
 
354 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 and the ladies whom Sir Robert had considered it necessary to 
 remove anticipated their dismissal by voluntary resignation. 
 It may be added that, at the close of this same year, Lord Mel- 
 bourne himself insisted on nominating the private secretary to 
 the Prince whom the Queen was about to marry, though no 
 one could pretend that offices in his household were as im- 
 portant as those in that of the sovereign ; and though, if there 
 was any post in which the Prince might have been supposed 
 to have a right to an unfettered choice, that might have been 
 supposed to have been the office of his private secretary.* 
 
 Her Majesty's marriage with Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg, 
 her first cousin — one tending as greatly to the happiness of 
 herself and the advantage of the nation as any royal marriage 
 recorded in history — took place in the beginning of 1840 ; and 
 in the preparatory arrangements — matters of far greater conse- 
 quence to the Queen's feelings than any appointments in the 
 household — the ministry, by singular mismanagement, contrived 
 to force the consideration of other constitutional questions on 
 Parliament in such a way that the conclusions which were 
 adopted, however inevitable, could hardly fail to be mortifying 
 and vexatious to her Majesty, in whose cup of happiness at 
 such a moment special care ought rather to have been taken to 
 prevent the admixture of any such alloy. In the matter of the 
 annuity to be settled on the young Prince, the Opposition must, 
 indeed, share the blame with the minister. If it was unpardon- 
 able carelessness in the latter. to omit the usual practice of 
 previously consulting the leaders of the Opposition on the 
 amount of the grant to be proposed, it was not the less im- 
 politic and unworthy of such men as the Duke and Sir Robert 
 Peel to show their disapproval of the inattention by a curtail- 
 ment of the grant. The sum proposed, £50,000 a year, was 
 fairly justified by the fact of its being the same which twenty- 
 four years before had been settled on the Prince's uncle, Leo- 
 pold, on his marriage with the Princess Charlotte. Indeed, if 
 there were to be any difference, the circumstances might have 
 
 for his friends, scores of whom would have had their hopes blighted by 
 his retirement. 
 * See " Life of the Prince Consort,' ' i. , 55. 
 
INTENDED MARRIAGE OF THE QUEEN. 355 
 
 been regarded as warranting an increase rather than a diminu- 
 tion of it. Money was certainly more plentiful in 1840 than 
 in 1816, and the husband of an actual Queen occupied, beyond 
 all question, a higher position than the husband of the heiress- 
 presumptive, who might never become Queen, and who, in fact, 
 never did. We cannot think, therefore, that the reduction of 
 £20,000, which Sir Robert Peel proposed and carried, was 
 reasonable or becoming, but regard it as neither called for by 
 the circumstances of the kingdom, nor as befitting its liberality, 
 nor as in harmony with its practice. 
 
 But on the two other questions — one immediately affecting 
 the constitution, and the other not absolutely unconnected with 
 it — no defence of the minister seems available. At the open- 
 ing of Parliament in 1840, her Majesty commenced her speech, 
 by the announcement of her intended marriage, describing the 
 bridegroom simply as " the Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha," 
 the same expression which she had used in addressing the Privy 
 Council a few weeks before. That description of him had at 
 once struck her uncle, Leopold — who, since the death of his 
 English wife, the Princess Charlotte, had become King of Bel- 
 gium — as so imperfect and insufiicient, that, on reading her 
 address to the Privy Council, he at once wrote to her to point 
 out that it would have been desirable to mention the fact of 
 the Prince being a Protestant,* and that the omission would in- 
 evitably cause discontent. But, in spite of this warning, Lord 
 Melbourne refused to advise the Queen to insert a statement of 
 the Prince's religion in her speech, though it was by no means 
 superfluous on such an occasion, since, if he were a Roman 
 Catholic, a marriage with him would have incurred a forfeiture 
 of the crown. The Duke of Wellington, on the other hand, 
 regarded it as a positive duty to require that the fact of the 
 Prince being a Protestant should be mentioned, so as to show 
 the care of Parliament to prevent any constitutional precau- 
 tions from being overlooked, such statement having, indeed, 
 been usually made on similar occasions. When he, therefore, 
 moved an amendment to insert the word "Protestant" in the 
 
 " Life of the Prince Consort," i., 57. 
 
356 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 description of the Prince, Lord Melbourne did not venture to 
 divide the House against it; but still his management gave an 
 ungracious appearance to the transaction, as if there had been 
 in any quarter an unwillingness to recognize the fact of the 
 Prince's Protestantism till the recognition was forced on the 
 government by the action of the Parliament. 
 
 The third question, as affecting the relative ranks and posi- 
 tions of the different members of the royal family, cannot be 
 said to have been wholly unconnected with the provisions of 
 the constitution ; and the mismanagement of the minister was, 
 perhaps, even more sure to attract notice in this case than in 
 the other, since to introduce into a bill a clause which had no 
 connection whatever with its title had something of the ap- 
 pearance of a deliberate slight to the two Houses. A bill to 
 naturalize the Prince was, of course, indispensable. But into 
 it the ministers, without any notice, had introduced a clause 
 enabling him " during his life to take precedence in rank after 
 her Majesty in Parliament and elsewhere as her Majesty might 
 think fit and proper, any law, statute, or custom to the con- 
 trary notwithstanding." It was admitted that no such prece- 
 dence had been given to Prince George of Denmark, nor to 
 Prince Leopold. And there were obvious difficulties in the 
 way of conferring such a life-long precedence, because, as Lord 
 Brougham had pointed out, it was possible that the Queen 
 might die without issue, in which case the King of Hanover 
 would become King of England also, and his son the Prince 
 of Wales ; and it would have been an inconceivable anomaly 
 that a foreign naturalized prince should take precedence of the 
 Prince of Wales, whose special rank and importance was rec- 
 ognized in many acts of Parliament. This objection was so 
 clearly insuperable, that Lord Melbourne consented to alter the 
 clause so as to give the Prince precedence only " after the heir- 
 apparent." But even this concession failed to satisfy the ob- 
 jectors, the King of Hanover, among others, positively refusing 
 to waive his precedence over any foreign prince. And event- 
 ually the minister withdrew the clause altogether, and the bill, 
 as it was passed, was confined to the naturalization of the 
 Prince. Lord Melbourne had thus contrived to make the 
 
PEINCE ALBERT AND THE PRECEDENCE QUESTION. 357 
 
 Queen and Prince appear as if they were desirous to induce 
 the two Houses by a sort of trick to confer on the Prince a 
 precedence and dignity to which he was not entitled, and to 
 render the refusal of Parliament to be so cajoled a fresh cause 
 of mortification to the royal pair. The course that was eventu- 
 ally adopted is understood to have been suggested by the Duke 
 of Wellington — to withdraw the affair altogether from the cog- 
 nizance of Parliament, and to leave it to the Queen to confer 
 on the Prince whatever precedence she might choose, as it was 
 certainly within her right to do. And so, a few days after the 
 bill had passed, she did by letters-patent give him precedence 
 next to herself " on all occasions and in all meetings, except 
 when otherwise provided by act of Parliament," as, seventeen 
 years later, she, in the same way, with the cordial approval of 
 the whole nation, conferred on him the title of Prince Consort. 
 And apart from its convenience, as avoiding all unseemly dis- 
 cussions, this would seem to have been the most natural and 
 proper mode of settling such a matter. The Queen is the foun- 
 tain of honor in this kingdom, and at her own court she can 
 certainly confer on any of her own subjects whatever prece- 
 dence she may think fit, while it may be doubted whether any 
 act of a British Parliament could give precedence at a foreign 
 court. It was, probably, not in his character of Duke of Cum- 
 berland, but as an independent sovereign, that the King of 
 Hanover maintained his claim to superior precedence ; and it 
 was plain that the most illustrious subject could not possibly 
 at any court be allowed to rank above a king. With reference 
 to its possible effect on the subsequent relations of Peel and 
 his followers with the court, it was, perhaps, well that a few 
 months later they had the opportunity of proving that no per- 
 sonal objection to the Prince himself had influenced their 
 course in these transactions, by giving a cordial assent to the 
 ministerial proposal of conferring the Kegency on him in the 
 event of the Queen giving an heir to the throne, and dying 
 while he was still a minor. The principle was the same as 
 that which had guided the arrangements for a Regency ten 
 years before; but it was not inconceivable that Parliament 
 might have hesitated to intrust so large an authority to so 
 
358 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 very young a man, and him a comparative stranger, sucli as 
 the Prince still was, had the leaders of the Opposition given 
 the slightest countenance to such an objection. 
 
 Lord Melbourne's ministry was hardly strengthened by the 
 circumstances under which it resumed oflSce. Yet the close 
 of the same year witnessed a reform of which it is hardly too 
 much to say that no single measure of this century has con- 
 tributed more to the comfort of the whole mass of the people, 
 with w^hich it has also combined solid commercial benefits. 
 Hitherto the Post-office had been managed in a singular man- 
 ner, and the profit derived from it had been treated as some- 
 thing distinct from the ordinary revenue of, the kingdom. In 
 the reign of Charles 11. it had been given to the Duke of York, 
 and the grant was regarded as conferring on him such exten- 
 sive rights, that when, some years afterward, an enterprising 
 citizen set up a penny post for the delivery of letters in the 
 City and its precincts, the Duke complained of the scheme as 
 an infraction of his monopoly, and the courts of law decided 
 in his favor. That grant ceased, as a matter of course, on the 
 Duke's accession to the throne; and in the reign of Queen 
 Anne a portion of the Post-office proceeds was appropriated, 
 with the general consent of a grateful country, to reward the 
 great achievements of the Duke of Marlborough, a perpetual 
 charge on it of £5000 a year being annexed to the dukedom. 
 In those days the postage of a letter was twopence for short 
 distances, and threepence for any distance beyond eighty miles.* 
 But those charges had been gradually increased; about the 
 middle of the century the lowest charge was fixed at fourpence, 
 rising in proportion to the distance, till the conveyance of a 
 single letter from one extremity of the kingdom to the other, 
 cost eighteen-pence. Such a rate could not fail to be very 
 profitable ; and by the beginning of the present reign the 
 yearly profit exceeded a million and a half of money. The 
 heaviness of the charge, however, had latterly attracted atten- 
 tion, and had been the cause of many complaints, as being a 
 great discouragement, and, in the case of the poorer classes, 
 
 * Macaulay's "History of England," i.,386. 
 
EOWLAND HILL AND POSTAL EEFOEM. 359 
 
 a complete obstacle to communication. However, neither the 
 ministers nor the Parliament had succeeded in devising any 
 remedy, since a system affording so large a return was not a 
 thing lightly to tamper with, when those who complained sud- 
 denly found a practical leader in Mr. Rowland Hill, who pub- 
 lished a pamphlet on the subject, in which he affirmed the cost 
 of the conveyance of each letter even for such a distance as 
 from London to Edinburgh to be infinitely less than a far- 
 thing; and that, consequently, all the rest of the postage was 
 a tax for the purposes of revenue. When this fact was once 
 established, it needed no argument to prove that to increase 
 the tax paid by each recipient of a letter in proportion to the 
 distance at which he lived from the writer was an indefensible 
 unfairness ; and, after much investigation and discussion, Mr. 
 Hill succeeded in convertino; the ministers to his view. Ac- 
 cordingly, the Budget for 1839, introduced by Mr. Spring Rice, 
 then Chancellor of the Exchequer, contained a clause which 
 reduced the postage for every letter weighing less than an 
 ounce to a uniform charge of a penny, to be prepaid by means 
 of a stamp to be affixed to each letter by the sender. It was 
 not without plainly-expressed reluctance that the scheme was 
 consented to by the Opposition ; nor can their hesitation be 
 considered as unreasonable, in the very unsatisfactory condi- 
 tion of the finances of the kingdom at the time. The balance- 
 sheet of the preceding year showed a considerable deficiency. 
 There was a large unfunded debt ; and even Mr. Hill's most 
 sanguine calculations admitted a probable loss to the Post- 
 office of £1,200,000 for the first year or two; though he ex- 
 pressed his confidence that eventually the correspondence of 
 the kingdom would be found to increase so largely as to make 
 up for the greater part, if not the whole, of the deficiency. 
 His anticipations were far outrun by the reality. 
 
 In 1839 the Postmaster -general estimated the number of 
 letters sent yearly by the post at less than twenty-five millions. 
 They are now upward of a thousand millions, a number the 
 conveyance of which (with the addition of newspapers, whose 
 circulation had also been greatly augmented by a recent reduc- 
 tion of the tax to a penny) would have severely taxed the 
 
360 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 whole carrying power of the kingdom before the introduction 
 of raih'oads. Nor have the benefits of the new system been 
 confined to ourselves. Foreign nations have followed our ex- 
 ample, though not quite in the same degree, till an international 
 postage is at length established throughout the whole of the 
 civilized world. And it has not been only the happiness of 
 private individuals that has been augmented by this facility of 
 communication. In its gradual development it has largely 
 promoted the extension of trade of every kind, and, by facilita- 
 ting a commercial intercourse between nations, it cannot but 
 contribute to the maintenance of friendship and peace. 
 
 The full advantages of this reform could not be seen at first ; 
 but, even had it been appreciated as fully as we appreciate it 
 now, no approval of it could have counterbalanced the general 
 dissatisfaction with which the ministry was regarded. At home 
 the finances were falling into great disorder, the expenditure of 
 the year greatly exceeding the income ; while the feeling that 
 their Irish policy was dictated by a wish to purchase at any 
 price the support of O'Connell, was still more injurious to them, 
 for he was already beginning to renew agitation in Ireland, in- 
 augurating a new association, which, though its purposes were 
 faintly veiled for a time under the title of the Precursor Asso- 
 ciation, was understood to point at a repeal of the Union ; 
 while the ministers, though they denounced such a measure as 
 ruinous to every part of the kingdom, seemed willing to give it 
 practical encouragement by a bill which they introduced, which 
 bore the name of a Registration Act for Ireland, but which was 
 not confined to that object. On the contrary, it contained a 
 provision for lowering the qualification for the franchise by 
 one-half ; so that it was, in fact, a new Reform Bill for Ireland,* 
 calculated greatly to increase his influence by the number of 
 voters of the poorer classes whom it would create. The bill 
 was defeated, but the odium of having proposed it remained. 
 
 But, besides these home difficulties, there were troubles 
 abroad, both in the East and in the West. In the East, the 
 
 * This is the name which the Liberal historian of the time, Miss Mar- 
 tineau, gives it, " The so-called Registration Bill was, in fact, an unan- 
 nounced new Reform Bill for Ireland." — History of the Peace, book v., c. vi. 
 
INSULTING PROTEST OF THE JAMAICA ASSEMBLY. 361 
 
 complications inseparable from a dominion like tliat of ours in 
 India, where constant expansion seemed to have become a law 
 of its existence, had involved us in a war with a new enemy, 
 the warlike Afghan nation ; in the West, both Jamaica and 
 Canada were in a state threatening insurrection. Indeed, the 
 troubles in Jamaica had been the immediate cause of that res- 
 ignation of the ministry in 1839 which has already been men- 
 tioned. Measures adopted in the English Parliament with ref- 
 erence to the termination of that apprenticeship system which, 
 as we have seen, formed a part of the bill for the abolition of 
 slavery, and another for the regulation of the prisons in the 
 island, had given such offence to the colonial Assembly, never 
 very manageable, that the members passed a resolution that 
 their legislative rights had been violated, and that they would 
 abstain from all exercise of their legislative functions, except 
 such as might be necessary " to preserve inviolate the faith of 
 the island with the public creditor, until " (by the rescinding 
 of the resolutions, etc., of which they complained) " they should 
 be left to the free exercise of their inherent rights as British 
 subjects." And this resolution was seconded by an insulting 
 protest, in which they drew an offensive comparison between 
 the state of crime in the island and that which prevailed in 
 Great Britain, taunting the British Parliament with the mur- 
 ders and acts of incendiarism which terrified Ireland night and 
 day, with the murders of Burke and Hare in Scotland, with the 
 law of divorce and crim. con. trials in England, and " a Poor- 
 law which has taken millions from the necessities of the desti- 
 tute to add to the luxuries of the wealthy." The Governor 
 dissolved the Assembly, but that which succeeded re-adopted 
 the resolutions of its predecessor, and the ministers, in conse- 
 quence, brought in a bill " to suspend the existing constitution 
 of the island for a limited number of years, and to provide that 
 during that interval its legislative functions should not be ex- 
 ercised by a Governor, a Council, and a House of Assembly, but 
 should reside in the Governor and Council alone." The emer- 
 gency was too great and undeniable, the remedy proposed was 
 also too unprecedented in its stringency, to be dealt with with- 
 out the gravest deliberation ; and the House of Commons ac- 
 
 16 
 
362 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 cordingly gave the matter the patient consideration which be- 
 came both it and themselves. They allowed the island to ap- 
 pear by counsel against the bill, and listened for many hours 
 to an elaborate defence of the conduct of the Assembly, which, 
 if it failed to change the intention of the ministers, convinced 
 Sir Robert Peel and his party that their measure was doubtful 
 in its justification and impolitic in its severity. He pointed 
 out that " the bill was neither more nor less than one for the 
 establishment of a complete despotism — one which would es- 
 tablish the most unqualified, unchecked, unmitigated power 
 that was ever yet applied to the government of any community, 
 in place of that liberal system which had prevailed for upward 
 of one hundred and fifty years." And, though he did not for 
 a moment question the power of Parliament to pass such a 
 measure, he greatly doubted the policy of such an exertion of 
 it. A somewhat similar measure affecting Canada they had 
 been compelled to enact in the preceding year, and he feared 
 lest " it might seem to be coming to be a practice of Parlia- 
 ment to suspend a constitution every session." And he quoted 
 a speech of Canning, delivered fifteen years before, in which 
 that eloquent statesman, a man by no means inclined to a tim- 
 orous policy, had declared that " no feeling of wounded pride, 
 no motive of questionable expediency, nothing short of real and 
 demonstrable necessity, should ever induce him to moot the 
 awful question of the transcendental power of Parliament over 
 every dependency of the British crown. That transcendental 
 power was an ordinance of empire, which ought to be kept back 
 within the penetralia of the constitution. It exists, but it should 
 be veiled. It should not be produced on trifling occasions, or 
 in cases of petty refractoriness or temporary misconduct." 
 
 And Sir Robert, " looking at all the papers before the House, 
 could not say that there was here any vindication for bringing 
 forward this transcendental power." He asked whether " they 
 had ever treated with so much severity a conquered colony 
 amid the first heat of animosity after the contest." And he 
 traced the history of our government of the island back to the 
 time of Charles II., pointing out (as Burke had formerly argued 
 with respect to our Colonies in North America) that "Jamaica 
 
THE MELBOUENE MINISTEY EESIGNS. 363 
 
 owed its colonization by British subjects to the conquest that 
 was made of it by the arms of Cromwell ; that its first English 
 population was composed of those who, disgusted with the ex- 
 cesses of the civil wars, there found a refuge," and who had car- 
 ried with them that attachment to liberty which, as early as 
 1678, had led them successfully to repel the attacks made on 
 the privileges of their House of Assembly by the ministers of 
 Charles 11. He warned the House, also, that if this measure 
 were passed, " a sympathy for the people of Jamaica would be 
 excited throughout the other West Indian possessions of the 
 crown." And, while fully admitting that the conduct of the 
 Assembly had been "foolish and unjustifiable," he still recom- 
 mended that it should be treated in a conciliatory spirit, which 
 as yet had not been shown toward it. 
 
 The government carried their proposal by a majority of no 
 more than five in a very full house, a success which -they re- 
 garded as a defeat, and, as has been already mentioned, resign- 
 ed. But as the state of the question and of the island did not 
 admit of delay, on their resumption of their offices they intro- 
 duced a fresh measure, which the Conservatives again curtailed 
 of its most severe clauses, and which, in the form in which it 
 was eventually passed, gave the Assembly time to reconsider its 
 conduct, and, without the humiliation of confessing itself guilty, 
 to give a practical recantation of their offensive resolutions, by 
 resuming its work of legislation, any farther delay of which 
 would on many subjects be very mischievous to the island it- 
 self. The distinct assertion by both parties of the power of 
 the Parliament to inflict even the severest penalty enabled the 
 Houses to take this conciliatory course without loss of dignity ; 
 while the stern disapproval of the conduct of the Assembly 
 which the Conservative leader had expressed, even when plead- 
 ing for a milder treatment of it, convinced the colonists that 
 any protracted contumacy would be dangerous, and would de- 
 prive them for the future of all title to even the modified pro- 
 tection which on this occasion had saved them. 
 
 In the discussion of these transactions. Peel, as we have seen, 
 had alluded to the affairs of Canada, which had been of a still 
 more serious complexion ; since there the discontent of the 
 
364 CONSTITUTIOXAL HISTOEY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 colonists in the Lower Province had developed into armed in- 
 surrection. We have seen that, from the first moment after 
 the country had passed into our possession, there had been al- 
 most constant dissensions between the old French colonists and 
 the English immigrants who crossed over both from England 
 and from the colonies on the southern side of the St. Lawrence 
 in the early part of the reign of George IIL The desire of 
 terminating these divisions, which had their root in a difference 
 of religion as well as of race, the French settlers being Koman 
 Catholics, had been one of the chief motives which had led Pitt 
 in 1791 to divide the country into two provinces.* And for 
 many years the scheme was fairly successful ; but, toward the 
 end of the reign of George IV., the political excitement caused 
 by the agitation in England of the question of Catholic Eman- 
 cipation, and subsequently of Reform, spread across the Atlan- 
 tic to the Canadas; and the French portion of the colonists, 
 who almost monopolized the representation in Lower Canada, 
 began to urge the adoption of changes utterly inconsistent with 
 the existing constitution of the colony. In the hope of com- 
 pelling the compliance of the home government with their de- 
 mands, in 1832 and the following years they refused to vote 
 the necessary supplies ; and, gaining courage, as it were, from 
 the contemplation of their own violence, and under the guid- 
 ance of a leader of French extraction, a M. Papineau, who 
 scarcely concealed his hope of effecting the complete severance 
 of the Lower Province from the British dominion, they pro- 
 ceeded to put forth farther demands, which they regarded as 
 plausible from the apparent resemblance of the changes which 
 they required to the system of the English constitution, but 
 which, to use the words in which Sir Robert Peel described 
 them, would have established " a French republic." The most 
 important of them were that the Upper or Legislative Council 
 should, like the Assembly, be rendered elective, instead of, as 
 had hitherto been the case, being nominated by the crown. 
 And another asked that the Executive Council should be made 
 responsible to the Assembly, in the same manner as in England 
 
 * See ante, p. 127. 
 
PAPINEAU^S BAND DEFEATED IN CANADA. 365 
 
 the ministers of the crown were responsible to Parliament. As 
 it was at once shown that the ministry at home had no inten- 
 tion of granting these demands, Papineau collected a band of 
 malcontents in arms, with whom he took possession of one or 
 two small towns, and ventured even to measure his strength 
 with the Commander-in-chief of the province. Sir John Col- 
 borne, one of the most distinguished of Wellington's comrades 
 and pupils. His force was utterly routed, and he himself fled 
 across the frontier to New York. A similar outbreak, excited 
 in the Upper Province by a newspaper editor, was crushed with 
 equal ease and rapidity.* And the next year, 1838, Lord John 
 Russell brought forward a bill to suspend the constitution of 
 the colony, and to confer on a new Governor, who was at once 
 to proceed thither, very ample powers for remodelling the gov- 
 ernment of the province, subject, of course, to the sanction of 
 the home government. In the previous year he had succeed- 
 ed in carrying some resolutions announcing the determination 
 of Parliament not to concede the demands of the Assembly of 
 the Lower Province, which have been already mentioned. And 
 the reasons which he gave for this course are worth preserving, 
 as expressing the view recognized by Parliament of the rela- 
 tions properly existing between the mother country and a col- 
 ony. It was on a proper understanding of them that he based 
 his refusal to make the Executive Council in Canada responsi- 
 ble to the Assembly. He held such a step to be " entirely in- 
 
 * In one instance the rebels were aided by a party of citizens of the 
 United States, who, without any sanction from their own government, 
 seized an island on the St. Lawrence belonging to us, and attacked some 
 of the Canadian villages. And this led to the discussion of a question of 
 international combined with constitutional law, which Lord Campbell 
 thus describes: " 'Whether, if the subjects or citizens of a foreign state 
 with which we are at jjeace, without commission or authority from their 
 own or any other government, invade the English territory in a hostile 
 manner, and levy war against the Queen in her realm, we are entitled to 
 treat them as traitors ?' The Canadian courts held that we could not, as 
 they had never acknowledged even a temporary allegiance to our sover- 
 eign. And of this opinion was Sir William Follett. But, after reading 
 all that is to be found on the subject, I come to the conclusion that they 
 owed allegiance when, as private individuals, they voluntarily crossed the 
 English frontier ; that it was no defence for them to say that they then 
 had arms in their hands and intended to murder the Queen's subjects." — 
 Life of Lord Cawip&eZZ, ii.,119. It certainly would have been no defence; 
 but would it not have taken their conduct from under the definition of 
 treason^ and made it an act of piracy? 
 
366 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 compatible with those relations. Those relations require that 
 his Majesty should be represented, not by a person removable 
 by the House of Assembly, but by a Grovernor sent out by the 
 King, responsible to the King, and responsible to the Parlia- 
 ment of Great Britain. This is the necessary constitution of a 
 colony ; and if we have not these relations existing between the 
 mother country and the colony, we shall soon have an end of 
 these relations altogether." And he pointed out the practical 
 difficulties which might reasonably be apprehended if such a 
 change as was asked were conceded. " The person sent out by 
 the King as Governor, and those ministers in whom the As- 
 sembly confided, might differ in opinion, and there would be at 
 once a collision between the measures of the King and the con- 
 duct of the representatives of the colony." 
 
 The plan of sending out a new Governor free from any pre- 
 vious association with either of the parties, or any of the recent 
 transactions in the colony, was, probably, the wisest that could 
 have been adopted. Unfortunately, it was in some degree 
 marred by the choice of the statesman sent out, Lord Durham, 
 a man of unquestioned ability, but of an extraordinarily self- 
 willed and overbearing temper. He drew up a most able re- 
 port of the state of the provinces, combined with recommenda- 
 tions of the course to be pursued toward them in future, so ju- 
 dicious that subsequent ministers, though widely differing from 
 his views of general politics, saw no better plan than that which 
 he had suggested ; but, unhappily, the measures which he him- 
 self adopted, especially with respect to the treatment of those 
 who had been leaders in the late rebellion, were such manifest 
 violations of law, that the government at home had no alterna- 
 tive but that of disallowing some of them, and carrying a bill 
 of indemnity for others. He took such offence at their treat- 
 ment of him, though it was quite inevitable, that he at once 
 resigned his appointment and returned home. But the next 
 year the Queen sent down a message to the Houses recommend- 
 ing a union of the two provinces (a measure which had been 
 the most important, and the very foundation, of his sugges- 
 tions), and Lord John Russell introduced a bill which, as he 
 described its object, he hoped would " lay the foundation of a 
 
LOED ELGIN- GOVERNOR-GENEEAL OF CANADA. 367 
 
 permanent settlement of the affairs of the entire colony." The 
 main feature of the government policy was the formation of 
 " a legislative union of the two provinces on the principles of a 
 free and representative government," and the establishment of 
 such a system of local government as amounted to a practical 
 recognition of the principle so earnestly repudiated, as we have 
 seen, by Lord John Russell a year or two before. It was not, 
 perhaps, fully carried out at first. Lord Sydenham, who had 
 succeeded Lord Durham, reported to the home government, as 
 the result of a tour which he had taken through a great part 
 of the country, that in the whole of the Upper Province, and 
 among the British settlers of the Lower Province, " an excellent 
 spirit prevailed, and that he had found everywhere a determi- 
 nation to forget past differences, and to unite in an endeavor to 
 obtain under the union those practical measures for the im- 
 provement of the country which had been too long neglected 
 in the struggle for party and personal objects." But of the 
 French Canadians he could not give so favorable a report. Ef- 
 forts were still made by some of the old Papineau party to mis- 
 lead the people ; but he was satisfied they would not again be 
 able to induce the peasantry to support any attempt at disturb- 
 ance. It was natural that that party should still feel some 
 soreness at the utter failure of their recent attempts and the 
 disappointment of their hopes ; and affairs took the longer time 
 in being brought into perfect order and harmony through a 
 strange mortality which took place among the first Governors- 
 general. Lord Sydenham died the next year of lockjaw, brought 
 on by a fall from his horse ; Sir Charles Bagot was forced to 
 retire in a state of hopeless bad health after an administration 
 equally brief; two years later, Sir Charles Metcalfe, who suc- 
 ceeded him, returned home only to die ; and it was not till a 
 fourth Governor, Lord Elgin, succeeded to the government that 
 it could be said that the new system, though established five 
 years before, had a fair trial. 
 
 Fortunately, he was a man admirably qualified by largeness of 
 statesman-like views and a most conciliatory disposition for such 
 a post at such a time ; and he strictly carried out the scheme 
 which was implied by the bill of Lord John Russell, and to a cer- 
 
368 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 tain extent inaugurated by Lord Sydenham, selecting his advisers 
 from the party which had the confidence of the Legislative As- 
 sembly, and generally directing his policy in harmony with their 
 counsels ; so that under his government the working of the colo- 
 nial constitution was a nearly faithful reproduction of the par- 
 liamentary constitution at home. Such a policy was in reality 
 only a development of the principle laid down by Pitt half a 
 century before, and warmly approved by his great rival, that 
 " the only method of retaining distant colonies with advantage 
 is to enable them to govern themselves."* And since that day 
 similar constitutions have been established in our other distant 
 dependencies as they have become ripe for them — in New Zea- 
 land, the Cape, and the Australian colonies — almost the only 
 powers reserved to the home government in those colonies in 
 which such constitutions have been established being that of 
 appointing the governors ; that of ratifying or, if necessary, 
 disallowing measures adopted by the colonial government ; 
 and, in cases of necessity, that of prescribing measures for the 
 adoption of the local Legislatures, and even of compelling such 
 adoption, in the event of any persevering opposition. The act 
 of 1850, which established a constitution in Victoria, went even 
 farther in the privileges it conferred on the colonists, inasmuch 
 as it gave power to the Legislative Council to alter some of its 
 provisions, and even to remodel the Legislative Council and As- 
 sembly. It may be doubted whether this last concession did not 
 go too far, since in more than one important instance the gov- 
 ernment of that great colony has availed itself of it so liberally 
 as to render it necessary to pass a fresh act of Parliament to en- 
 able her Majesty to give her royal assent to some of the changes 
 which the Assembly had enacted.f Indeed, it cannot be said 
 
 * See Fox's words, quoted by Lord Stanhope. — Life of Pitt, ii., 90. 
 
 + A couple of years after the period which is the boundary of the pres- 
 ent work, this Canadian constitution of 1841 was superseded by a meas- 
 ure uniting- Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in one federal gov- 
 ernment, with, as the act recites, "a constitution similar in principle to 
 tbat of the United Kingdom." The act farther provided for the admis- 
 sion of other dependencies of the crown in North America, Newfound- 
 land, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, and Rupert's Land into the 
 union, and established as the constitution of the whole one scarcely dif- 
 fering from that of 1841, with the exception that both the Houses of the 
 Legislature — called in the act the Senate and the House of Commons — 
 
SELF-GOVERNMENT FOE THE COLONIES. 369 
 
 that tlie system has worked in every part or on every occasion 
 quite as well as might have been hoped ; nor can it be denied 
 that the colonies have occasionally claimed a power of inde- 
 pendent action in opposition to the home Parliament in a way 
 to try severely the patience of the home government. After 
 the British Parliament had adopted the policy and system of 
 free-trade, the Canadian Assembly adhered to the doctrine of 
 protection so obstinately that it actually established a tariff of 
 import duties injurious to the commerce of the mother coun- 
 try, and apparently intended as a condemnation of its princi- 
 ples. But its contumacy showed how wholly different was the 
 spirit of the British government from that which had prevailed 
 in the last century ; for though the home government had un- 
 questionably the right of disallowing the offensive tariff, it for- 
 bore to exercise it ; and, probably, by this striking proof that 
 it considered a complete recognition of the principle of local 
 self-government more important than any trifling financial or 
 commercial advantage, contributed greatly to implant in Cana- 
 da and all the colonies that confidence in the affectionate mod- 
 eration of the home government which must be the strongest, 
 if not the only indissoluble, bond of union. 
 
 On the whole, it is hardly too much to say that no more 
 statesman-like, and (if sentiment may be allowed a share in in- 
 fluencing the conduct of governments) no more amiable spirit 
 animates any act of our modern legislation than is displayed in 
 these arrangements for the management of our colonies. They 
 are a practical exemplification of the idea embodied in the ex- 
 pression, " the mother country." A hundred years ago, Burke 
 sought to impress on the existing ministers and Parliament the 
 conviction that, " so long as our Colonies kept the idea of their 
 civil rights associated with our government, they would cling 
 and grapple to us, and no force under heaven would be of 
 power to tear them from their allegiance." In the case of 
 
 were to be representative bodies, and that powers were conferred on them 
 so absolutely free and independent, that it was thought necessary to add 
 a clause providing that their " privileges, immunities, and powers were 
 never to exceed those at the passing of the act held, enjoyed, and exer- 
 cised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of 
 Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof." 
 
 16* 
 
370 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 which he was speaking his warning, as we have seen, fell on 
 deaf ears ; but the policy of the present reign is a willing and 
 full adoption of them, on a far larger scale than even his far- 
 seeing vision could then contemplate. Within the century 
 which has elapsed since his time the enterprise of Britain has 
 sent forth her sons to people another hemisphere ; and they, 
 her children still, cling to the parent state with filial affection, 
 because they feel that, though parted from her by thousands 
 of miles and more than one ocean, they are still indissolubly 
 united to her by their participation in all the blessings of her 
 constitution, her generous toleration, her equal laws, her uni- 
 versal freedom. 
 
 On one transaction of these years the leaders of the Opposi- 
 tion were found acting in close agreement with the ministers. 
 We have seen how, in the early part of the reign of George III., 
 the House of Commons threw the sheriffs of London into pris- 
 on, on account of their performance of what they conceived to 
 be their duty as magistrates ; and in 1840 it subjected the same 
 officials to the same treatment on a question of the same char- 
 acter — the extent of the privilege of the House of Commons to 
 overrule the authority of the courts of law. The question was 
 in appearance complicated by the institution of several suits at 
 law, and by the fact that the House was not consistent in its 
 conduct, but allowed its servants to plead to the first action, 
 and refused the same permission in the second, when the result 
 of the first trial had proved adverse to them. The case was 
 this : some inspectors of prisons had presented a report to Par- 
 liament, in which they alleged that they had found in Newgate 
 a book of disgusting and obscene character, published by a 
 London publisher named Stockdale. The House of Commons 
 had ordered the report to be printed and sold by Messrs. Han- 
 sard, the Parliamentary publishers, and Stockdale brought an 
 action against Messrs. Hansard for libel. Chief-justice Den- 
 man charged the jury that " the fact of the House of Commons 
 having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish their reports was 
 no justification to them for publishing a Parliamentary report 
 containing a libel;" and Stockdale obtained damages, which 
 were duly paid. Stockdale, encouraged by this success, when. 
 
STOCKDALE AND HIS ACTIONS FOR LIBEL. 371 
 
 in spite of the result of the late trial, Hansard continued to sell 
 the report, brought a fresh action ; but now the House forbade 
 the publishers to plead to it ; and, as they obeyed the prohibi- 
 tion, and forbore to plead, the case eventually came before the 
 Sheriff's Court ; fresh damages were given, and, in obedience 
 to the writ of the Queen's Bench, the sheriffs seized Hansard's 
 goods, and sold them to satisfy the judgment. Lord John 
 Russell, as leader of the House, moved to bring to the Bar of 
 the House all the parties concerned in the action — the plaintiff, 
 his attorney, the sheriffs, and the under-sheriffs. He was op- 
 posed by nearly all the legal members of the House except the 
 crown lawyers. Sir Edward Sugden especially warning the House 
 that " a resolution of the House was of no avail in a court of 
 justice ;" while others taunted the House with want of courage 
 in not proceeding against the judges themselves, rather than 
 against their officers, which in this case the sheriffs were. 
 
 There could be no doubt of the importance of the question, 
 since it was no less, as the Attorney-general, Sir J. Campbell, 
 put it, than a question whether Parliament or the courts of law 
 had the superiority ; and now Sir Robert Peel, as leader of the 
 Opposition, came to the support of Lord John Russell, de- 
 claring his opinion to be, first, that " the House possessed ev- 
 ery privilege necessary for the proper and effectual discharge 
 of its functions ;" secondly, that " the publication of evidence 
 which had led the House to adopt any course was frequently 
 essential to justify that course to the nation ;" and thirdly, 
 that " to judge of the extent of their privileges, and to vindi- 
 cate them by their own laws, belonged to the House alone." 
 And he pressed strongly on the House that it was " the duty 
 of the House to fight the battle to the last," tljough he con- 
 fessed that " it was with pain that he had come to the deter- 
 mination of entering into a contest with the courts of law." 
 On one point the judges agreed with the House of Commons. 
 The House committed the sheriffs; but, when they sued out 
 their habeas corpus, the judges decided that the return of the 
 Sergeant-at-arms that they were committed by the House for 
 breach of privilege was a sufficient return. Stockdale brought 
 fresh actions. But meantime the case was arousing a strong 
 
372 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 excitement in the country.* The singular hardship of the po- 
 sition of the sheriffs excited general sympathy: if they obeyed 
 the House of Commons, which prohibited them from paying 
 over to Stockdale the damages which they had received for 
 him, the Court of Queen's Bench would be bound to attach 
 them for disobedience to its order. If they obeyed the Queen's 
 Bench, the House would imprison them for breach of privi- 
 lege. And the national feeling is always in favor of the strict- 
 ly defined authority of the courts of law, rather than of the 
 somewhat indefinite claims of Parliament to interpret, and 
 even to make, privilege. Another consideration, probably, 
 weighed a little with the champions of the House — that their 
 power of imprisonment ended with the session. As matters 
 went on, it was found that even the Attorney and Solicitor- 
 general differed as to the course to be pursued ; and eventually 
 Lord John Russell consented to adopt the advice which had 
 been given by a former Attorney-general, Sir F. Pollock, and 
 to bring in a bill to legalize all similar proceedings of Parlia- 
 ment in future, by enacting that a certificate that the publica- 
 tion of any document had been ordered by either House should 
 be a sufficient defence against any action. The introduction 
 of such a bill was in some degree an acknowledgment of de- 
 feat ; but it can hardly be denied to have been not only a judi- 
 cious step, but the only one practicable, if the contest between 
 Parliament and the courts of law were not to be everlasting ; 
 
 * Lord Campbell, in his autobiography, puts the transaction, in the 
 phase at which it had now arrived, in a very serious light: "Next came 
 a proceeding which placed me in a most difficult position ; and the pub- 
 lic never knew the danger which then existed of a convulsion unexam- 
 pled in our history. The sheriffs sued out a writ of habeas corpus^ directed 
 to the Sergeant-at-arms, commanding him to produce before the Court of 
 Queen's Bench the sheriffs of Middlesex, alleged to be illegally in custody, 
 with the cause of their detention. Wilde, the Solicitor-general, was strong 
 for refusing to make any return to the writ, and for setting the Court of 
 Queen's Bench at defiance. Had I concurred in this opinion it would 
 certainly have been acted on. The consequences would have been that 
 the Sergeant-at-arms, even with the mace in his hand, would have been 
 sent to Newgate by the Court of Queen's Bench. The House must have 
 retaliated by committing the judges. The crown would then have had 
 to determine on which side the army should be employed, and for a time 
 we must have lived under a military government" (ii., 129). The noble 
 and learned autobiographer does not explain why it should have been 
 indispensable to employ the army on either side. 
 
THE PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT. 373 
 
 and it met with general approval. If it was a compromise, it 
 was one that satisfied both parties and both ends. It upheld 
 the authority of the courts of law, and at the same time it 
 practically asserted the reasonableness of the claim advanced 
 by the House of Commons, by giving it for the future the 
 power which it had claimed. Nor were people in this day 
 inclined to be jealous of the privileges of Parliament, so long 
 as they were accurately defined. They felt that it was for the 
 advantage and dignity of the nation that its powers and privi- 
 leges should be large ; what they regarded with distrust was, a 
 claim of power of which no one knew the precise bounds, and 
 which might, therefore, be expanded as the occasion served. 
 
3V4 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel becomes Prime-minister. — Commercial Reforms. — Free- 
 trade. — Religious Toleration. — Maynooth. — The Queen's University. — 
 Post-oflace Regulations. — The Opening of Letters. — Naturalization of 
 Aliens. — Recall of Lord Ellenborough. — Reversal of the Vote on the 
 Sugar Duties. — Refusal of the Crown to Sanction a Bill. — The Ques- 
 tion of Increase in the Number of Spiritual Peers. — Repeal of the Corn- 
 laws. — Revolution in France, and Agitation on the Continent. — Death 
 of Sir Robert Peel. — Indifference of the Country to Reform. — Repeal 
 of the Navigation Laws. — Resolutions in Favor of Free-trade. — The 
 Great Exhibition of 1851. 
 
 The transactions mentioned in the last chapter were among 
 the last events of Lord Melbourne's ministry. He had for 
 some time been aware of his impending defeat in the House 
 of Commons, and, greatly to his credit, had endeavored to 
 make the return to office easier to his successors by the friendly 
 counsels he had given to the Queen on the subject.* A dis- 
 solution of Parliament in the summer of 1841 only weakened 
 his party, and in September he resigned, and was succeeded by 
 Sir Kobert Peel, who, comparatively short as was his tenure of 
 office,f found it long enough to establish for himself a reputa- 
 tion as the greatest financier of Europe since the days of Pitt. 
 It may be worth remarking that, in the "Memoirs of the Prince 
 Consort," it is mentioned that in the course of his administra- 
 tion Peel found reason to change his judgment on the question 
 of which House of Parliament it was the more desirable for 
 the Prime-minister to be a member. Canning had more than 
 once asserted his conviction that the public business would be 
 
 * On the 20th of February, 1840, Baron Stockmar writes : "Melbourne 
 told me that he had already expressed his opinion to the Prince that the 
 Court ought to tali^e advantage of the present movement to treat all par- 
 ties, especially the Tories, in the spirit of a general amnesty." To the 
 Queen his language was the same : " You should now hold out the olive- 
 branch a little." — Life of the Fri7ice Consort, i., 83. 
 
 t He became Prime-minister in September, 1841, and retired in June, 
 1846 — four years and three-quarters afterward. 
 
SIR ROBERT* PEEL AND THE PREMIERSHIP. 375 
 
 more satisfactorily conducted when the Prime-minister was a 
 commoner, founding his opinion chiefly on the paramount im- 
 portance of financial questions, the discussion of which is almost 
 confined to the House of Commons, and conceiving it to be 
 supported by the history of the administration of Pitt, from 
 whom, indeed, he had imbibed the idea ; and in former years 
 Peel had more than once expressed his concurrence with that 
 view of the subject. But, from papers which were intrusted 
 to him for the execution of his great work. Sir Theodore Martin 
 learned that Peel had subsequently found reason to come to 
 the opposite conclusion, not from any change in his view of 
 the relative importance of the different departments of admin- 
 istration, but solely because " the amount of work imposed 
 upon the first minister in the House of Commons, in addition 
 to what he had to go through elsewhere, was too great for any 
 human strength. In the House of Lords the Prime-minister 
 would escape the necessity for being in a position to vindicate 
 all the details of administration, and to answer the multiplicity 
 of questions on all sorts of subjects, the putting of which has 
 almost degenerated into a vice. He had, therefore, come to 
 the conclusion that it was there he ought to be."* And, in- 
 deed, the subjects which demanded the care of the minister, and 
 attracted the attention of Parliament, were constantly increas- 
 ing in number, variety, and importance to the very end of his 
 administration. Not only were the financial difficulties of the 
 country, the depressed state of agriculture and commerce (the 
 result of a succession of bad harvests), sufficient causes for 
 grave anxiety, but the terrible war, of which mention has al- 
 ready been made, which we had now been carrying on for 
 nearly three years in Afghanistan, and which, before the end 
 
 * " Life of the Prince Consort," i., 266. It may be remarked that, in 
 spite of the opinion thus expressed by Sir Robert Peel, of those who, 
 since his retirement in 1846, have held the same oflBlce, the majority have 
 been members of the House of Commons. The peers who have since 
 been Prime-ministers have been Lord Aberdeen and Lord Derby ; the 
 members of the House of Commons have been Lord John Russell, Lord 
 Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Gladstone ; though it may be thought 
 that in his second ministry Mr. Disraeli showed his concurrence in Sir 
 Robert Peel's latest view, by becoming a peer in the third year of his 
 administration. 
 
376 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 of this very year, was about to be signalized by a disaster such 
 as bad never before befallen a British army, threatened to 
 kindle the flames of war in Europe also, from the share which 
 the intrigues of Russia had had in fomenting the quarrel ; and 
 the same danger was more than once in the course of the next 
 five years imminent, from the irritation with which France re- 
 garded us, and which, commencing in Syria, while Lord Mel- 
 bourne was still at the helm, lost no opportunity of displaying 
 itself, whether in transactions in the remote Pacific Ocean or 
 the old battle-field of the two nations, the Spanish peninsula ; 
 and finally, these embarrassing perplexities were crowned by 
 the appalling visitation of famine, which, at the end of the 
 fourth year of the administration, fell upon Ireland with a 
 severity surpassing any similar event in modern history. 
 
 With all these multiform difiiculties the new minister grap- 
 pled with unfiinching courage, and with conspicuous success. 
 Peace was preserved abroad, and financial prosperity was re- 
 stored at home. Into the details of his measures devised for 
 this last-mentioned object, though the leading features of his 
 administration, and those on which his fame chiefly rests, it 
 would be beside the purpose of the present work to enter. It 
 is sufiicient to say here that, in the spirit of Pitt's great financial 
 reform of 1787, he revised the whole of the import duties of 
 our commercial tariff, especially reducing the duties on raw 
 material ;* making up the deficiency so caused by an income- 
 tax, which he described as a temporary imposition, since he 
 doubted not that the great increase of lawful trade, which would 
 be the consequence of the reduction of duties, would soon en- 
 able the revenue to dispense with a tax to the objections of 
 which he was not blind. In recommending this great change 
 to the House, he laid down as the soundest maxim of financial 
 legislation, in which " all were now agreed, the principle that 
 we should buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest," 
 
 * Lord Stanhope tells us "the remedial resolutions moved by Pitt in 
 the House of Commons, as abolishing the old duties and substituting 
 new ones in a simpler form, amounted in number to no less than 2537." 
 •—Life of Pitt, i., 330. Peel, in his speech, March 21, 1842, states that he 
 reduces or takes off altogether (wherever the duty is trifling, but is prac- 
 ticable) the duty on 750 articles of import. 
 
ABEOGATION OF DISGRACEFUL PENAL LAWS. 377 
 
 a doctrine which, when more fully carried out, as it was sure to 
 be, led almost inevitably to the great measure for which his 
 administration is most celebrated, the repeal of the Corn-laws. 
 There could be no doubt that, in the most modified application 
 of it, it struck at the root of the principle of protection, which 
 had hitherto been the fundamental principle of our finance, and 
 made a farther extension of it inevitable. 
 
 And, as he had been one of the leading members of the min- 
 istry which carried Catholic Emancipation, so he now proceed- 
 ed on the same path of religious toleration ; and, in the session 
 of 1844, successfully recommended to the House of Commons 
 a bill which had already been passed by the Lords, repealing a 
 number of penal acts affecting the Roman Catholics, which, 
 though they had long been practically obsolete, still encumbered, 
 and it may be said disgraced, the statute book, and were, so to 
 say, a standing degradation of and insult to the Roman Catho- 
 lic body. One of them, passed in the reign of William and 
 Mary, still forbade any Roman Catholic to come within ten 
 miles of London, to have either sword or pistol in his house, or 
 to possess a horse worth more than five pounds. Another, en- 
 acted under Elizabeth, still made every Roman Catholic who 
 omitted to take certain oaths guilty of high-treason, though no 
 attempt to administer those oaths had been made since the 
 Revolution. Another, of the time of Charles L, deprived any 
 Roman Catholic who should send his son to a foreign school 
 of all protection of the law ; he could neither sue nor defend 
 an action. It may fairly be said that the credit of Parliament 
 and of the nation was concerned in the abrogation of laws so 
 ridiculously oppressive, and not the less obnoxious for being 
 practically invalid. And in the same spirit another measure was 
 framed and carried by the Lord Chancellor, whose object was 
 the confirmation of religious endowments belonging to different 
 sects of Protestant Dissenters, and their protection from vexatious 
 and unjust litigation, by making a continued possession of any 
 kind of endowment or property for twenty years a valid title. 
 
 These enactments may be regarded as indispensable supple- 
 ments to the repeal of the T^st Act and Catholic Emancipation. 
 They were the coping-stone of the great edifice of religious 
 
378 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 toleration, of which the former acts had laid the foundation. 
 And the next year Peel carried out still farther the same prin- 
 ciple, by a measure which could not fail to be regarded as an 
 especial boon in Ireland, since the great majority of the popu- 
 lation of that kingdom were of the Roman Catholic persuasion. 
 It has been seen that when the troubled state into which the 
 Continent was thrown by the French Revolution threw hinder- 
 ances in the way of the Irish students designed for the Roman 
 Catholic priesthood going to one of the great Continental col- 
 leges, such as St. Omer or Salamanca, for their education, Pitt 
 established for them a college at Maynooth, for the endowment 
 of which Parliament was annually asked for a .grant of about 
 £9000. The sum had long been felt to be altogether inade- 
 quate to the requirements of the foundation. As early as the 
 year 1807, Lord Liverpool, then Home-secretary, had contem- 
 plated a large increase of the grant, though the weakness of the 
 government, then presided over by the Duke of Portland, pre- 
 vented him from carrying out that and other measures which 
 he had conceived in a kindred spirit. Moreover, the grant was 
 rarely proposed without giving rise to a warm debate raised by 
 a party whose too tender consciences forbade them to sanction 
 any measure appearing to foster a religion from which they 
 dissented. And to remedy the two evils (the one arising from 
 the want of a suflScient provision, the other from the spirit of 
 religious controversy, for which the House of Commons was 
 certainly very ill-calculated). Peel, in 1845, proposed to treble 
 the grant, so as to put the college on a more satisfactory foot- 
 ing, by providing sufficient incomes for the professors, and a 
 revenue adequate to the respectable maintenance of an increased 
 number of pupils ; and also to place the charge for the future 
 on the Consolidated Fund, by which step its yearly discussion 
 in Parliament would be altogether avoided. The measure was 
 vigorously resisted, partly on the religious ground already men- 
 tioned, and partly by an argument, urged with some plausibil- 
 ity, that the design with which the college had originally been, 
 founded had not been realized ; that, in fact, it had not proved 
 a benefit to the country, but rather the reverse, by tempting 
 into the service of the Roman Catholic Church a humbler and 
 
THE MAYNOOTH COLLEGE ENDOWMENT. 379 
 
 poorer class of students than could devote themselves to it 
 when the preliminary education involved the expense of a pro- 
 tracted residence in a foreign country. But the obvious ad- 
 vantages of the change prevailed over these considerations, and 
 the bill was carried by large majorities.* 
 
 And now that the long cessation of controversy on the sub- 
 ject — which, indeed, has been not the least beneficial fruit of 
 this bill of 1845 — permits a candid consideration of it in all its 
 bearings, it will probably be thought that Parliament had not 
 often come to a wiser decision, one more dictated by judicious 
 liberality of sentiment, and more imperatively required on ev- 
 ery ground of statesman - like policy. If the countervailing 
 objections and advantages be calmly weighed, it may almost 
 be said that there was no alternative between enlarging the 
 endowment and putting it on a new footing, or suppressing 
 the college altogether. In its existing condition it was noto- 
 riously inadequate to fulfil the design of its founder; and any 
 establishment visibly inadequate to its design tends to bring 
 the design itself into some degree of contempt. Yet even if 
 it should be granted that there might have been no fair ground 
 of complaint if the college had never been founded, to close it 
 after its benefits, however scanty, had been enjoyed for half a 
 century, could not fail to have been regarded as an unpardon- 
 able injustice and injury. The other alternative, therefore, was 
 practically the only one that remained ; and in embracing it 
 Peel was but carrying out the original principle on which the 
 college was founded. It had been intended to be eflScient; 
 through lack of means it had proved ineflScient. The obvious 
 and just remedy was to supply such increased means as to cre- 
 ate or bestow the efficiency originally aimed at. And it was a 
 felicitous idea to place the charge for the future on such a 
 footing as to combine with such an increase an avoidance of 
 the irritation which its yearly discussion had never failed to 
 excite. 
 
 And at the same time, to carry still farther the principle of 
 religious toleration, or rather of religious equality, he induced 
 
 * In the Commons by 307 to 184; in the Lords by 336 to 69. 
 
380 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the Parliament to found a new university, consisting of three 
 colleges, one in each of the three provinces of Ulster, Munster, 
 and Con naught (Leinster, as having Trinity College and May- 
 nooth, being regarded as already sufficiently provided with uni- 
 versity education), which should be open to students of every 
 religious denomination, and at which, while every kind of sec- 
 ular education, both literary and scientific, should be given, the 
 stirring up of religious controversy and animosity should be 
 guarded against, by the absence of any theological professor- 
 ships. He did not, indeed, design that the still greater bene- 
 fits of religious education should be withheld from the pupils, 
 but he proposed to provide for that object by confiding their 
 religious education to the care of the clergy of each persuasion, 
 some of whom in each town which was the seat of a college — 
 Belfast, Cork, and Gal way — might be trusted for willingness 
 to superintend it. It was hoped that one fruit of this scheme, 
 and that by no means its least valuable result, would be that 
 the association of pupils of various creeds in their studies and 
 amusements from an early age would lead them to maintain, in 
 their more mature years, the harmony of which the foundation 
 had thus been laid in their youth ; and that thus the religious 
 animosities which were the principal obstacle to the prosperity 
 of the country would be softened, and in time extinguished. 
 And this object has been achieved to a great extent, though 
 the disfavor with which the Roman Catholic Church regards 
 any educational system which is not under the superintendence 
 of its priesthood has prevented the scheme from attaining the 
 full development which was hoped for. The number of stu- 
 dents of each of the principal sects — the Church of Ireland, the 
 Roman Catholics, and the Presbyterians — steadily increases.* 
 
 * The following statements of the members of colleges and of the three 
 denominations for 1879,1874, and 1869 appear in the last Queen^s University 
 Calendar : 
 
 1879. 1874. 1869. 
 
 Church of Ireland 201 189 211 
 
 Roman Catholics 223 188 161 
 
 Presbyterians 888 249 227 
 
 Other denominations ...... 88 87 83 
 
 900 713 6^ 
 
EXCEPTIONAL OFFICIAL INSPECTION OF POST LETTERS. 381 
 
 Members of each religious body are among tbe professors in 
 each college, and all accounts represent the most perfect har- 
 mony and cordiality as existing throughout the whole body. 
 
 Yet, important as was the principle contained in these meas- 
 ures, none of them, perhaps, caused such excitement at the mo- 
 ment as an exercise by the government of what was, in point 
 of fact, one of its most ancient, as well as most essential, pow- 
 ers : the occasional opening of letters which passed through 
 the post, in compliance with a warrant of the Secretary of State. 
 England had at all times been the refuge of those unquiet spir- 
 its who, in pursuit of their schemes of rebellion and revolution, 
 had incurred the displeasure of their own governments, and 
 had too easily found accomplices here. And in the course of 
 the summer some notorious offenders of this class found a 
 member of the House of Commons to present a petition, in 
 which they complained that some letters which they had post- 
 ed had been stopped and opened by the officers of the Post- 
 office. The member who presented the petition appears to 
 have fancied it an unprecedented and wholly unlawful exercise 
 of authority ; but Sir James Graham, the Home-secretary, not 
 only at once avowed that the statement was true, and. that he 
 had issued his warrant for the opening of the letters mention- 
 ed, but also showed that the power to issue such an order was 
 reserved to the Secretary of State in all the statutes which reg- 
 ulated the proceedings of the Post-office. The clause in the 
 act which conferred the power had been originally framed by 
 Lord Somers, a statesman certainly as little open as any of his 
 time to the suspicion of desiring to encroach on the rightful 
 liberty of the subject ; and it had been exercised from time to 
 time in every reign since the Revolution. It was a power in- 
 trusted to the Secretaries of State for the public safety, and ex- 
 ercised by them on their own responsibility. The practice and 
 its justification were assailed in both Houses of Parliament by 
 members of the extreme Liberal party ; but, though no distinct 
 motion on the subject was made, the general feeling of both 
 Houses was plainly evinced, that it was a power which might 
 at times be highly useful for the prevention of crime, or for the 
 hinderance of conspiracies which might be dangerous to the 
 
882 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 general welfare and tranquillity, and that the constitutional re- 
 sponsibility attaching to every minister for every official act 
 was a sufficient security against its being improperly used.* 
 
 And it will, probably, be generally admitted that this was 
 the statesman-like view of the subject. There is no doubt that 
 the practice in question does infringe the great constitutional 
 right of every individual in these kingdoms to absolute free- 
 dom of communication with his friends. But the most impor- 
 tant and the most cherished constitutional rights must possess 
 something of elasticity. It must be necessary at times to go 
 back to the original object for which those rights have been 
 conferred and secured. That original object is the safety and 
 welfare of the whole body corporate — of the entire nation. 
 And if that safety and welfare at times require the sacrifice, a 
 wise ruler will not hesitate to demand it of the people, or to 
 impose it on them for their own good. So another principle 
 of the constitution is the absolute freedom of action for all the 
 subjects of the sovereign; yet that principle is infringed by 
 more than one statute : Factory Acts, which limit the hours of 
 even voluntary labor; Education Acts, which compel the par- 
 
 * In the course of the session, in order to tranquillize the public mind 
 on the subject, secret committees were appointed by both Houses of Par- 
 liament to investigate the subject, from wliose inquiries it appeared that, 
 since the days when the government was endangered by the plots of the 
 Jacobites, the power had been very sparingly used. The most conspicu- 
 ous instance of its employment had been in the case of Bishop Atterbury, 
 several of whose letters "had been opened, and were produced in Parlia- 
 ment to justify the bill of " pains and penalties " which was passed against 
 him. The power had been confined to Great Britain till the latter part 
 of the last century, when it was judged desirable to extend it also to the 
 Lord-lieutenant of Ireland. But, since the Peace of Amiens, the number 
 of letters opened in a year had not, on an average, exceeded eight; nor 
 was there the least ground for suspecting that a single one had been 
 opened except on such information as fully warranted suspicion. 
 
 The practice, however, was not confined to our own government. In 
 the second volume of the "Life of Bishop Wilberforce" a page is given 
 of his diary, dated July 18, 1854, which records a conversation in which 
 the Duke of Newcastle and Lord John Russell took part, and in which it 
 is mentioned that the French government, under the administration of 
 M. Guizot, opened letters, and that the practice was not confined to mo- 
 narchical or absolute governments, for " the American government opens 
 most freely all letters." And, with reference to this particular case, the 
 Duke of Newcastle said that " Sir James Graham really opened Mazzini's 
 letters on information which led to a belief that a great act of violence 
 and bloodshed might be prevented by it." — Life of Bishop Wilberforce^ 
 ii., 247. 
 
FOKEIGNEKS AND LEITEES OF NATURALIZATION. 383 
 
 ent to a certain line of conduct toward his children ; each m 
 their way substitute another rule for that entire freedom of ac- 
 tion which, as has been said before, is the fundamental princi- 
 ple of the constitution ; but they make the substitution on the 
 reasonable ground that the course of action which they compel 
 is for the benefit, not only of the individual constrained, but 
 of the whole community of which he is a member, and for 
 whose welfare all laws and constitutions exist. 
 
 One of the grounds of complaint against the exercise of this 
 power, which had been alleged by some of the opponents of 
 the government, had been that Sir James Graham's conduct 
 had been dictated by an unworthy subservience to some of the 
 despotic sovereigns of the Continent. The fact was indignant- 
 ly denied in the House of Lords by the Duke of Wellington; 
 and in the course of the session a remarkable proof was afford- 
 ed how little influence such motives had on the decisions of 
 our government, when they acquiesced in the passing of a bill 
 which was a virtual repeal of the Alien Act, which had existed 
 for more than half a century, and of which more than one 
 Continental sovereign would certainly have desired, the reten- 
 tion. Of late, indeed, it had been so modified, that practically 
 it had become little more than a dead letter; and now, in 1844, 
 without being formally repealed, it w^as virtually abrogated by 
 an act which enabled all foreigners to obtain letters of natural- 
 ization, which conferred on them every right of British sub- 
 jects, except those of becoming members of Parliament,* or of 
 the Privy Council. 
 
 Generally speaking, few- governments had enjoyed more of 
 the confidence of the nation than Peel's did in 1844; yet in 
 this year it was exposed to two remarkable mortifications. 
 The charter of the East India Company, as framed by Pitt in 
 
 * A subsequent act, passed since the date at which the present histo- 
 ry closes, has repealed even this exception. By the 38d Victoria, c. 14 
 ("Law Reports," p. 169), it is enacted that "an alien, to whom a certifi- 
 cate of naturalization is granted, shall in the United Kingdom be "entitled 
 to all political and other rights, powers, and privileges, and be subject to 
 all obligations to which a natural born British subject is entitled as sub- 
 ject in the United Kingdom," etc.; and at the general election of 1880 the 
 Baron de Ferrieres, a Belgian nobleman, who had been naturalized in 
 1867, was elected M.P. for Cheltenham. 
 
384 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 1784, and as subsequently renewed from time to time, not 
 only made the concurrence of the Board of Directors neces- 
 sary to the appointment of a Governor-general, but gave that 
 board absolute power to remove him, without requiring the 
 concurrence of the government. They had never before ex- 
 ercised that power, but it was well known that they had, on 
 at least one occasion, earnestly desired to procure the removal 
 of a governor, though they would not take the responsibility 
 of differing from the Board of Control on the subject. On 
 the present occasion, however, they were excited to a forget- 
 fulness of their former moderate policy in such a matter. 
 The Governor-general was Lord Ellenborongh, a man who was 
 not only distinguished for remarkable ability and energy, but 
 who had displayed those qualities in a very conspicuous man- 
 ner in the two years during which he had exercised the gov- 
 ernment, having successfully retrieved a series of terrible dis- 
 asters in Afghanistan ; and having, moreover, through the con- 
 quest and annexation of Scinde, subsequently increased our In- 
 dian dominion by the addition of considerable territory. He 
 had since invaded Gwalior also, and waged a fierce, though 
 brief and successful, war with the Mahratta chiefs, who were 
 almost in insurrection against their lawful rajah, who was but 
 a child. And his success had enabled him to establish a gov- 
 ernment in the province, which he expected that gratitude, 
 coupled with a sense of the necessity of our protection, would 
 bind to a steady alliance with us. But, while achieving these 
 triumphs, he had not been careful to pay much deference to 
 the Directors at home. Some of his despatches and proclama- 
 tions, especially one in which he had spoken of the disasters in 
 Afghanistan as " unparalleled in their extent unless by the 
 errors in which they had originated," was regarded by them 
 as openly condemning a policy which they had sanctioned. 
 What was of greater importance, they regarded his attack on 
 Scinde,* and his operations in Gwalior, in which he had himself 
 
 * It is remarkable that not only did Sir James Outrara, a man of the 
 most profound acquaintance with India, and of the soundest judgment, 
 with which was combined a very warlike spirit and the most brilliant 
 military skill, utterly condemn the invasion of Scinde as tyrannical and 
 unjust, but that in discussing the question his biographer, Major-general 
 
TUE SUPERSESSION OF LORD ELLENBOROUQH. 385 
 
 been present and under fire, as proofs of a fondness for war, 
 which was surely calculated to embroil them with others of the 
 frontier tribes ; and, under the influence of these feelings, though 
 Parliament by large majorities had given him its thanks for his 
 various achievements, and though the ministers at home were 
 known to entertain a high opinion of his merits and services, 
 they decided on putting an end to his government, and super- 
 seded him. This act, as was natural, was vigorously discussed 
 in both Houses. By the Duke of Wellington, no mean au- 
 thority on Indian affairs, it was condemned as "the most in- 
 discreet exercise of power that he had known to have been 
 carried into execution by anybody possessed of power since he 
 himself had had a knowledge of public affairs" — an indiscre- 
 tion aggravated by the fact that the Directors as a body " nei- 
 ther had nor could have any knowledge whatever of the in- 
 structions under which Lord Ellenborough had acted," such 
 knowledge being confined to the secret committee. The im- 
 propriety of such an exercise of the Directors' power may be 
 thought to be proved by the circumstance that the Board of 
 Control, with whom they were thus proclaiming their differ- 
 ence, was the body whose chief member was responsible to the 
 nation for the government of India, while they were under no 
 such responsibility except, indeed, to the proprietors of the 
 Company. But it is remarkable that, even while thus censur- 
 ing this exercise of their power, the Duke of Wellington in the 
 same speech repudiated all idea of making it a plea for depriv- 
 ing them of it, or for effecting any alteration in the constitu- 
 tion of the Company. He considered their power, and that of 
 the Board of Control, most useful as checks on each other ; 
 and was, probably, content with the belief that the censure 
 with which on this occasion their act had been visited would 
 be sufficient to prevent a repetition of it. And the course of 
 
 Sir F. Goldsmid, quotes a passagre from a recent article in the Contempo- 
 rary Review by Mr. Gladstone, who was himself a member of the cabinet 
 at the time, as President of the Board of Trade, in which he states that 
 " the conquest of Scinde was disapproved, he believes unanimously, by 
 the cabinet of Sir Robert Peel. But the ministry were powerless, inas- 
 much as the mischief of retaining was less than the mischief of abandon- 
 ing it." — Goldsmid' s Life of Outram, i., 312, 347. 
 
 17 
 
386 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOKT OF ENGLAND. 
 
 subsequent events, which has led to the entire extinction of 
 the political power of the Company, makes anything beyond 
 this brief mention of the transaction superfluous at the present 
 time. 
 
 The other mortification of the ministry to which allusion 
 has been made fell upon it at home in the Parliamentary 
 discussion of the Prime-minister's financial measures, on which 
 his judgment was usually regarded as pre-eminent, and on 
 which a large majority of the House was generally disposed 
 implicitly to follow his guidance. Sir Robert was not, in- 
 deed, himself Chancellor of the Exchequer, that office being 
 filled by Mr. Goulburn, but it was certain that the Budget 
 was inspired by a deference to the Prime-minister's views. 
 And, among the arrangements which it proposed, one consist- 
 ed of a relaxation of the sugar - duties, which was regarded 
 with dread by those interested in the West Indies, as a farther 
 step in the direction of free-trade, and as depriving them of the 
 modified protection which they were as yet enjoying. To pre- 
 serve that protection to them, Mr. Miles, the member for Bris- 
 tol, proposed an amendment which, after an animated debate, was 
 carried by a majority of twenty. Three months before, on the 
 Factory Bill and the question whether the hours of labor should 
 be limited to ten or to twelve, the minister had also found him- 
 self defeated, though by a much smaller majority ; but in that 
 case the defeat had been the less pronounced from the incon- 
 sistency of the votes on the different limits.* And he extri- 
 cated himself from that difficulty by abandoning the bill alto- 
 gether, and introducing a new one, not without angry resist- 
 ance on the part of Lord John Russell and other members of 
 the Opposition. They denounced such a manoeuvre as alike 
 unconstitutional and unparliamentary; while he, on the con- 
 trary, insisted that " the House had always jealously retained 
 the right of reconsidering its own decisions. In that instance, 
 however, the introduction of a new bill might have been re- 
 
 * In one instance — on the question whether twelve should be the num- 
 ber of hours, as proposed by the Government — the majority against that 
 number was 186 to 183. But immediately afterward a majority of 188 to 
 184 decided against Lord Ashley's alternative proposal of ten hours. 
 
SIR ROBERT PEEL DEFEATED ON THE BUDGET. 387 
 
 garded as the simplest mode of harmonizing the variety of 
 views which had been represented by the discussion of and 
 votes on the ministerial proposal and the amendments ; but no 
 such expedient was practicable in this case, that of the sugar- 
 duties. A defeat on an important clause in the Budget by a 
 majority of twenty was a far more serious matter; it was such 
 a blow as had generally been reckoned sufficient to require a 
 resignation of a ministry. But on this occasion Peel did not 
 feel himself called on to take that step ; nor was he inclined to 
 dissolve Parliament, which some regarded as his only legitimate 
 alternative, though he had little doubt that, if he did so, he 
 should be supported by the confidence of the country. After 
 careful reflection, the course on which he eventually decided 
 was to adhere to the principle of a relaxation of duties, but to 
 consent to a moderate variation from his original proposal as 
 to the amount. And in pursuit of this plan, on the next dis- 
 cussion of the Budget, he proposed an amendment to that 
 effect, making the adoption of it by the House a test of its con- 
 fidence in the administration. Lord John Russell opposed the 
 amendment with great vehemence, pronouncing the acceptance 
 of it, if it should be accepted, and the House should thus con- 
 sent " to retract its previous vote, a lamentable proof of sub- 
 serviency, which would disgrace it with the country." What 
 Sir Robert now asked was, substantially, that they should now 
 declare that to be expedient which they had declared to be in- 
 expedient only three nights ago ; and Lord Palmerston insisted 
 that the proper course to be taken by the government was to 
 resign ; while Mr. Labouchere, who had also been a member of 
 Lord Melbourne's cabinet,* though he admitted that there might 
 be " circumstances under which a minister might without im- 
 propriety ask the House to reconsider a vote," denied that the 
 present was such a case, and especially denounced the importa- 
 tion of the question of confidence or no confidence in the min- 
 istry into the discussion as " dangerous and unconstitutional." 
 Another section of the Opposition agreed in taking the same 
 line ; Mr. Disraeli (then beginning to lay the foundations of 
 
 * As President of the Board of Trade. He afterward was raised to the 
 peerage as Lord Taunton. 
 
388 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 his reputation and influence) strongly denouncing the conduct 
 of the minister, as degrading both to his own supporters and 
 still more to the whole House, and recommending him to say 
 frankly to both, " We have gauged your independence, and you 
 may have a semblance of parliamentary freedom as far as this 
 point, but the moment you go farther, you must either submit 
 to public disgrace, or we must submit to private life." The 
 end of the discussion was, that the minister prevailed by a ma- 
 jority a trifle larger than that which had defeated him before. 
 This is not the place to discuss the difference between one 
 principle of taxation and another; but the question whether a 
 minister when defeated is justified in asking either House of 
 Parliament to reconsider its vote, seems one that could only 
 have been raised in a House under the influence of unusual ex- 
 citement of some kind. The charge that such a request was 
 unconstitutional only serves to show how loosely the words 
 " constitution " and " unconstitutional " are often used even by 
 those from whom precision of language might most be expect- 
 ed ; for Sir Robert Peel's proposal that the House should re- 
 tract its vote was not unprecedented, the very same demand 
 having been made in 1833 by Lord Althorp, then Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer of Lord Grey's ministry, of which those very 
 men were members who were now loudest in denouncing the 
 conduct of the present government. And on that occasion it 
 is worth remarking that, though Lord Althorp's demand was 
 resisted in one or two quarters, he was vigorously supported by 
 Sir Robert Peel, on the ground that, though to rescind one 
 night a vote passed on a former one might be not altogether 
 free from objection, it would be a far greater evil that questions 
 of importance should be held to be in dl cases finally decided 
 by a single vote, passed, it might be, in a thin House, or in 
 obedience to some sudden impulse. 
 
 And this seems to be the view of the case commended not 
 only by constitutional and parliamentary practice, but by com- 
 mon-sense. It would be strange, indeed, when the questions 
 submitted to the British Parliament and the decisions of that 
 Parliament on them are so often of paramount importance to 
 the whole world, if the Parliament should be the only body in 
 
THE WELSH BISHOPEICS. 389 
 
 the world denied the right of revising its own judgments, the 
 only one whose first resolution is so irrevocable that even itself 
 may not change or modify it. To rescind a recent vote is, no 
 doubt, as Sir Robert Peel said, a step not wholly free from ob- 
 jection. It should be an exceptional act, as one which, if often 
 repeated, would give an appearance of capricious fickleness and 
 instability to the opinions of Parliament, calculated to impair 
 that respect for it which the whole state and nation are deep- 
 ly concerned in upholding; but to refuse, under any circum- 
 stances, to confess a change of judgment, would lay the Parlia- 
 ment open to an imputation at least equally dangerous to that 
 respect — that of an obstinacy which refuses to confess the pos- 
 sibility of being mistaken, or to hear reason. It would not be 
 well, therefore, that the abrogation of a previous vote should be- 
 come an ordinary practice ; but it would be equally undesirable 
 that any fixed or unchangeable rule should be interposed to pre- 
 vent a second discussion of an important question, with the pos- 
 sibility of its leading to a reversal of the opinion first expressed. 
 In the same year (1844) the ministers felt compelled to raise 
 a constitutional point of singular refinement, which had the 
 effect of arresting the progress of a bill, in which one part of 
 the kingdom took a lively interest, which a division in its fa- 
 vor proved to be fully shared by the House of Lords.* It has 
 been already mentioned that in the last year of the preceding 
 reign a bill had passed for creating, when opportunity offered 
 by the sees affected becoming vacant, two new bishoprics at 
 Ripon and Manchester, the incomes of which were to be pro- 
 vided by the union of some of the smaller existing bishoprics, 
 Gloucester with Bristol, St. Asaph with Bangor. But the 
 Welsh regarded with great disapproval any reduction of the 
 number of bishoprics in the principality, and Lord Powis now 
 brought in a bill to repeal so much of the act as provided for 
 the union of two Welsh sees, urging not only their great ex- 
 tent, which he stated at 3000 square miles of very mountain- 
 ous country, but the fact that the population of North Wales 
 was steadily and largely increasing. The bill, as has been in- 
 
 * The second reading was carried in the House of Lords by 49 to 37. 
 
390 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 timated, was favorably received by the Lords, who passed the 
 second reading by a majority of twelve ; but, before it could 
 be read a third time, the Duke of Wellington, as leader of the 
 ministry in that House, announced that the bill was one which 
 touched the prerogative of the crown, and therefore could not 
 be proceeded with without the consent of her Majesty, which 
 he was not authorized to express. 
 
 As the matter was explained by the Chancellor, Lord Lynd- 
 hurst, the manner in which the bill touched the royal preroga- 
 tive was this : as, during the vacancy of any see, its temporali- 
 ties belonged to the crown, any alterations in a see affected the 
 direct pecuniary interests of the crown, and he, as Speaker of 
 the House, doubted whether he should be justified in putting a 
 question which so touched the royal prerogative without the 
 sovereign's consent. A committee which was appointed to in- 
 vestigate the case fully confirmed the view thus taken by the 
 ministers, and the bill was dropped. 
 
 It was, however, an exercise of the royal prerogative which 
 was received by the House in general with great dissatisfaction. 
 Certainly, since the Civil List and royal income had been placed 
 on their present footing, it was only by a very forced construc- 
 tion that the pecuniary interests of the sovereign could be said 
 to be affected. And it seemed a very insufficient plea for 
 evoking the exercise of a power which, as it was said, had cer- 
 tainly never been exerted before since the accession of the 
 Hanoverian dynasty. Nor was it made more acceptable by 
 the explanation of Lord Brougham, who on this occasion came 
 to the support of the minister, that the refusal of the crown's 
 consent at this stage was " a warning, as it were, a polite and 
 courteous communication between the sovereign, as guardian 
 of the privileges of the crown, and the two Houses of Parlia- 
 ment, that if they passed a certain bill it would not receive the 
 royal assent ;" for, though the right to refuse the royal assent 
 to any bill was incontestable, it had not been exercised since 
 the time of William IIL, and to put it in force for the protec- 
 tion of an imaginary interest of the crown itself would have 
 been so unpopular an exercise of it that no administration 
 could have ventured to advise it. 
 
A NEW PKINCIPLE ESTABLISHED. 391 
 
 One of the arguments wMcli the Duke of Wellington brought 
 forward in the discussion, and which, probably, contributed to 
 induce him thus to strangle Lord Powis's bill, has had an in- 
 fluence on subsequent legislation. He urged that its adoption 
 — since the resolution to establish bishoprics at Manchester and 
 Ripon was one which every one desired to carry out — would 
 increase the number of bishops, "and thus make an organic 
 change in the constitution of the House of Lords." It is not 
 very clear how the addition of a single spiritual peer could have 
 that effect. But the Duke had dwelt upon the same argument 
 before in the debate on the proposed union of the sees affected, 
 urging that there was such a jealousy of the Church in many 
 quarters, and especially in some of the* large towns, that it 
 would be very undesirable to pass any measure the effect of 
 which would be to increase the number of Episcopal peers. 
 Even if there was any general reluctance at that time to see 
 such an increase (a fact which was by no means ascertained), it 
 may be doubted whether it was founded on any sufficient rea- 
 son. It is not easy to see why, when there is no limit to the 
 augmentation of the number of lay peers, it should be judged 
 impolitic or unjust to make even so small an addition to the num- 
 ber of spiritual peers. At the Restoration the spiritual peers 
 were, probably, more than a fifth of the entire House. From 
 the great number of subsequent creations of lay peers they 
 were now less than a sixteenth, so that there could be no ground 
 for apprehending that a slight re-enforcement of the Episcopal 
 bench would disturb the balance, or give the Church an undue 
 preponderating weight in the decisions of the House. The 
 difficulty, however, such as it appeared to the Duke then, has 
 had such weight with subsequent administrations, that a new 
 principle has been established of creating bishoprics which shall 
 not at first confer seats in the Upper House till their holders 
 become entitled to them by seniority. As they are peers from 
 the moment of their consecration, it may be doubted whether 
 this creation of peers, without seats in Parliament, does not de- 
 serve the name of " an organic change in the constitution," far 
 more than the addition of one or two ecclesiastical peers to the 
 Episcopal bench; and also whether it has not established a 
 
392 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 dangerous principle and precedent ; the disconnection of bish- 
 oprics from seats in Parliament, in even a single instance, seem- 
 ing to furnish an argument in favor of the exclusion of the 
 whole order, a measure which, if unjust and injurious to the 
 Church, would be at least equally injurious to Parliament itself, 
 and to the whole state. 
 
 But all questions of this kind were presently lost sight of in 
 the excitement produced by the measure which more than any 
 other has stamped Sir Robert Peel's administration with a last- 
 ing character, the repeal of the Corn-laws. Many statesmen, 
 even of those who were most in favor of free-trade in other 
 articles of commerce, made an exception in the case of corn, 
 partly from a. feeling of the necessity of encouraging agricult- 
 ure, and partly from a conviction of the danger of in any way 
 contributing to create or increase a dependence on foreign 
 countries for the food of the people. Both Whigs and Tories 
 were generally thus agreed on the necessity of maintaining the 
 principle of protection ; the dispute between the two parties 
 being whether it were best achieved by a fixed duty on import- 
 ed corn, or by what was commonly known as a sliding scale : a 
 scale, that is, which varied inversely with the price of the grain 
 itself, rising as the price in the home market fell, and falling as 
 it rose. In the manufacturing districts a different feeling had 
 prevailed for some years. In the first years of the present 
 reign severe distress in Manchester and others of the chief 
 manufacturing towns had led to the formation of an association 
 whose chief object was sufficiently indicated by its title of the 
 Anti-Corn-law League. At first Mr. Villiers, the member for 
 Wolverhampton, was its principal spokesman in the House of 
 Commons , but at subsequent elections two manufacturers of 
 great eloquence obtained seats, and year after year urged the 
 entire repeal of all duties on corn with great earnestness, though 
 for some time their arguments made but little impression on 
 the House. Their motions were rejected in 1842 by a major- 
 ity of 300; in 1843 by one exceeding 250; in 1844 by above 
 200 ; and in 1845 by one of more than 130 in a much smaller 
 House. But this last division had scarcely been taken when 
 an unprecedented calamity — the almost entire failure of the 
 
peel's proposal to suspend the corn-laws. 393 
 
 potato crop, whicli was attacked in nearly every part of both 
 islands by a new disease, the cause of which is not to this day 
 fully ascertained — suddenly changed the aspect of the subject. 
 To the English farmer and laborer it was a severe loss ; to the 
 Irish farmer it was ruin; to the Irish peasant famine. The 
 grain harvest, too, was generally deficient. And it was evident 
 that rigorous measures, promptly taken, were indispensable, if 
 a large portion of the peasantry in the southern and western 
 provinces of Ireland were not to be left to perish of actual 
 starvation. In the face of so terrible an emergency Peel acted 
 with great decision. On his own responsibility he authorized 
 the purchase of a large supply of Indian corn from the United 
 States, hoping, among other indirect effects of such a step, to 
 accustom the Irish to the use of other kinds of food besides 
 the root on which hitherto they had too exclusively relied.* 
 And he laid before his colleagues in the cabinet a proposal to 
 suspend the existing Corn-law " for a limited period," a meas- 
 ure which all saw must lead to its eventual repeal. It would 
 be superfluous now to recapitulate the discussions which took 
 place, the various alternative proposals which were suggested, 
 or the dissensions in the cabinet to which his proposal gave 
 birth ; the resignation of the ministry, and its subsequent re- 
 sumption of office, when Lord Stanley and Lord John Russell 
 had found it impossible to form an administration. It is suffi- 
 cient to say that, as soon as Parliament met, Sir Robert brought 
 forward a bill to reduce the duty on corn to four shillings, a 
 price only half of the lowest fixed duty that had ever been pro- 
 posed before, that reduction, too, being a stepping-stone to the 
 abolition of all duties, at the end of three years, beyond a shil- 
 ling a quarter, which was to be retained, in order to acquire an 
 accurate knowledge of the quantity of grain imported. The 
 diminution, however, of this duty was not the whole object of 
 his new measure. It included other arrangements which would 
 serve as a compensation to the agriculturists, by relieving them 
 from some of the peculiar burdens to which the land was sub- 
 jected ; and it contained, farther, a reduction or abolition of 
 
 * See " Peel's Memoirs," ii., 173. 
 17* 
 
394 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 import duties hitherto levied on many other articles, especially 
 on such as " formed the clothing of the country," on the fair 
 ground that if the removal of protection from the agriculturist 
 were " a sacrifice for the common good," the commercial and 
 manufacturing interests might justly be required to make a 
 similar sacrifice for the same patriotic object. 
 
 Though opposed in both Houses with unusual bitterness, the 
 ministry carried their measure, which, indeed, in all probability, 
 even if the destruction of the potato crop had not come to ac- 
 celerate the movement, could not have been long delayed, the 
 continual and rapid increase of the population adding yearly 
 strength to the arguments of those who denounced the imposi- 
 tion of any tax which had the effect of increasing the price of 
 the people's food. But, however inevitable it may have been, 
 we are not the less compelled to regard it as indirectly bringing 
 about a great constitutional change, or rather as consummating 
 that which had been commenced by the Reform Bill. Till the 
 year 1832 the territorial aristocracy had exerted a predominat- 
 ing influence in the government of the state. The Reform 
 Bill, which deprived the wealthier land-owners of the greater 
 part of their power at elections, struck the first blow at that in- 
 fluence. The abolition of the Corn-laws inflicted on it a still 
 more decisive wound, by its extinction of the doctrine that there 
 was any such peculiar sacredness about the land and its produce 
 as entitled them to protection beyond that enjoyed by other 
 kinds of property. Placing in that respect the commercial and 
 manufacturing interest on a level with the landed interest, it 
 made us, in a farther and a somewhat different sense from that in 
 which Napoleon had used the phrase, a nation of shopkeepers.* 
 
 The repeal of the Corn-laws had another result : it divided 
 the Conservative party, and, as a necessary consequence, led to 
 the downfall of the ministry. The same session which wit- 
 
 * It has been observed that till the Corn-laws were repealed there had 
 been no instance whatever of any person who had been engaged in trade 
 becoming a cabinet minister. Since that time there have been several, 
 some of whom only relinquished their share in houses of business on re- 
 ceiving their appointments, and some who are generally understood to 
 have continued to participate in the profits of trade while members of an 
 administration. 
 
DOWNFALL OP LOUIS PHILIPPE. 395 
 
 nessed its success in carrying that repeal witnessed also its de- 
 feat on a coercion bill, which they regarded as indispensable for 
 the " protection of life in Ireland," where actual murders had 
 reached the appalling amount of nearly three hundred in two 
 years. The ministry at once resigned, and Lord John Russell had 
 no difficulty in forming an administration, now that the question 
 of the Corn-laws was finally settled. It was, however, no bed of 
 roses to which the new ministry succeeded ; the famine in Ire- 
 land exceeded the worst anticipations ; and, though prodigious 
 efforts were made by the government and Parliament to relieve 
 it, though large sums were placed at the disposal of the Lord- 
 lieutenant, aided by contributions from private sources in Eng- 
 land to an enormous amount ; though the small remnant of the 
 import duty on corn which had been left on it by the measure 
 of the preceding year was taken off, and the navigation laws 
 suspended, in order that no obstacle interposed to the acqui- 
 sition of food from every available quarter, it was estimated 
 that more than half a million of people perished through act- 
 ual famine or the diseases which scarcity brought in its train.* 
 A severe monetary crisis was one not unnatural result of this 
 distress, so severe that the Funds fell to a price below any that 
 had been quoted for many years, and the reserve in the Bank 
 of England to an amount loj^er than it had been at any period 
 since 1828. And these difficulties had hardly been surmounted 
 when a new revolution in France overturned the dynasty of 
 Louis Philippe and established a republic. The revolutionary 
 contagion spread to Italy, where, indeed, the movement had 
 begun. The Pope — Pius IX. — who had but lately succeeded 
 to the tiara, was forced to flee from Rome in the disguise of a 
 foreign courier, after his Prime-minister had been murdered by 
 the mob. Germany was scarcely less disturbed. The adminis- 
 tration of Metternich, who had governed Austria with authority 
 little less than absolute for nearly forty years, was overthrown 
 
 in a tumult in which he himself escaped with difficulty from 
 
 — 1 ■ 
 
 * Alison, quoting the General Keport of the Census Commissioners, 
 estimates the deaths caused by famine and the diseases engendered by it 
 at the appalling number of 590,000, and states the sums advanced under 
 different acts of Parliament to meet the emergency at £7,133,368. — His- 
 tory of Europe^ vii., 374, 376, 3d series. 
 
396 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGI/AND. 
 
 the violence of the populace; dangerous riots took place at 
 Munich, at Berlin, and at the capitals of most of the smaller 
 principalities, and for some time everything seemed to portend 
 the outbreak of a general war, likely to be the more formidable 
 as being a war of the revolutionary and republican against the 
 monarchical principle. Happily, that danger was averted. The 
 only war which broke out between different nations was a brief 
 contest in the north of Italy, which the superior numbers of the 
 Austrian armies and the skill of Marshal Eadetsky, a veteran 
 who had learned the art of war under Suvarof nearly sixty 
 years before, decided in favor of Austria, and which in the 
 spring of 1849 was terminated by a peace on less unfavorable 
 terms to Sardinia than she could well have expected. And in 
 the same season tranquillity was re-established even at Rome, 
 which, from the peculiar character of the Papal power, con- 
 tained special elements of provocation and danger. 
 
 But, though peace was thus generally maintained, these va- 
 rious events had produced a fgrment of spirits which required 
 some time to calm down, and so greatly embarrassed the gov- 
 ernment, that in the spring of 1852 Lord John Russell's ad- 
 ministration was dissolved, and a new ministry was formed by 
 Lord Derby.* But the causes which had overthrown his pred- 
 ecessor remained to weaken him ; so that for some time it 
 seemed impossible to form a ministry which afforded any 
 promise of stability. Such a rapid succession of changes as 
 ensued had had no parallel since the first years of George IIL 
 Between February, 1852, and February, 1855, the country had 
 no fewer than four different Prime-ministers, a fact which was 
 at once both the proof and the parent of weakness in every 
 administration. Lord John Russell had attempted to procure 
 a factitious support in the country by stimulating a fresh de- 
 mand for parliamentary reform. A year or two before, he had 
 provoked the dissatisfaction of the "Advanced Liberals," as 
 they called themselves, by insisting on the finality of the Re- 
 form Bill of 1832, and by advising his followers "to rest and 
 
 * The same statesman who has previously been mentioned as Lord 
 Stanley, and whom the death of his father had recently raised to the 
 House of Peers. 
 
POPULAE APATHY REGARDING REFORM. 397 
 
 be tbankful" for what had been then obtained. But now he 
 began to advance an opinion that that act required " some 
 amendments to carry into more complete effect the principles 
 on which it was founded." He inserted an intimation of that 
 doctrine in the Queen's speech ; and endeavored to give effect 
 to it by bringing in a bill to lower the franchise, having, it 
 seems, persuaded himself that a five-pound franchise would 
 create a more Conservative class of voters.* He had scarcely 
 introduced it when the fall of his ministry led to its abandon- 
 ment; but, though it was coldly received by the House of 
 Commons, the idea was taken up by the other political par- 
 ties, who can hardly be acquitted of having used the question 
 merely as an instrument of party warfare, trying, with an un- 
 statesmanlike indifference to the danger of re-awakening the 
 old frenzy on the subject, to rouse the nation to take an inter- 
 est in it ; but trying in vain. The nation was no longer in the 
 same temper as it had displayed twenty years before. The Re- 
 form Bill of 1832 had been demanded and carried with a fran- 
 tic vehemence of enthusiasm such as could only have been ex- 
 cited by real defects and grievances. But those grievances had 
 been removed and redressed. And the bulk of the people could 
 take no interest in schemes whose sole end seemed to be either 
 to satisfy the theories of some political doctrinaires or to em- 
 barrass an adversary ; till at last, as Reform Bill after Reform 
 Bill was framed, brought in, and defeated, or dropped, it be- 
 came plain, " as the Prince Consort noted in a private memo- 
 randum at the end of 1859, that what the country wanted, in 
 fact, was not reform, but a bill to stop the question of Re- 
 form. "f And, at last, the prevalence of this feeling Lord John 
 Russell could not conceal even from himself, but confessed to 
 Lord Palmerston, then Prime-minister, who had always silently 
 discouraged the movement, that " the apathy of the country 
 
 ^ In 1853 he said to Lord Clarendon, speaking of a new bill which he 
 was pressing on Lord Aberdeen, then Prime-minister, " I am for making 
 it as Conservative as possible, and that by a large extension of the suf- 
 frage. The Radicals are the ten-pound holders. The five-pound holders 
 will be Conservative, as they are more easily acted upon." — Life of the 
 Pnnce Consort, ii., 503. It was the same idea that inspired some of the de- 
 tails of the Reform Bill subsequently passed by Lord Derby's third min- 
 istry, t "Life of the Prince Consort," iv., 395. 
 
398 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 was undeniable; nor was it a transient humor. It seemed 
 rather a confirmed habit of mind. Four Reform Bills had 
 been introduced of late years by four different governments, 
 and for not one of them had there been the least enthusiasm. 
 The conclusion to which he had come was, that the advisers 
 of the crown of all parties having offered to the country various 
 measures of reform, and the country having shown itself indif- 
 ferent to them all, the best course which could now be taken 
 was to wait till the country should show a manifest desire for 
 an amendment of the representation."* 
 
 There was, however, in these years one subject in which the 
 country did take a real interest; that was the development 
 and extension of the principles of free-trade. On that the 
 national view had become so decided that in 1848 the Parlia- 
 ment even abolished the navigation laws, which had subsisted 
 so long, the first act on the subject dating from the reign of 
 Richard IL, that the adherence to the principle contained in 
 them of confinmg both the export and the import trade of the 
 kingdom, with but few exceptions, to British shipping, seemed 
 almost an essential article of the constitution. It was the 
 dearer, too, to the national prejudices, from the sense universal- 
 ly entertained of the paramount importance of maintaining the 
 pre-eminence of our navy, and from the belief that the com- 
 mercial marine was a nursery for the royal fleets, with which 
 they could not dispense. But latterly the laws had become 
 unpopular even with some of those who had formerly been 
 supposed to derive the greatest benefit from them. Many of 
 our colonies had complained of their operation, and several of 
 the ablest of our colonial governors had recommended their 
 repeal. They had been found, too, to present frequent and 
 considerable difficulties in our commercial negotiations with 
 other countries, and many naval officers of large experience 
 and sound judgment expressed a decided belief that they were 
 of no practical use to the naval service. The result of a long 
 and able debate was that the laws were repealed, with the ex- 
 ception of that portion of them which preserved the monopoly 
 
 * " Life of the Prince Consort," v., 56. 
 
EEPEAL OF THE NAVIGATION LAWS. 399 
 
 of the coasting trade to our own seamen and vessels, tbat ex- 
 ception being chiefly dictated by considerations connected with 
 the prevention of smuggling. 
 
 The ground on which the ministers relied in proposing this 
 repeal of laws so ancient was that, when protection had been 
 removed from every other trade, those concerned in these dif- 
 ferent trades had an irresistible claim for its removal from the 
 shipping. And on general principles, both of commerce and 
 statesmanship, the claim was, as they urged, irresistible, unless 
 some object of greater importance still than uniformity of legis- 
 lation — namely, the national safety, bound up as it unquestion- 
 ably was in the perpetual pre-eminence of the national navy — 
 required an exception to be made. But for the maintenance 
 of our maritime supremacy it was, as Burke had preached three- 
 quarters of a century before, better to trust to the spirit of the 
 people, to their attachment to their government, and to their 
 innate aptitude for seamanship, which they seem to have in- 
 herited from the hardy rovers of the dark ages, and which no 
 other nation shares with them in an equal degree. And if that 
 may safely be trusted, as undoubtedly it may, to maintain the 
 supremacy of our warlike fleets, the preponderance of argument 
 seemed greatly on the side of those who contended that our 
 commercial fleets needed no such protection ; to which it may 
 be added that exceptions to a general rule and principle are in 
 themselves so questionable, that the burden of proof seems to 
 lie upon those who would establish or maintain them. But the 
 advocates of free-trade were not content even with this triumph, 
 though it might have been thought a crowning one, and in the 
 course of the next year they succeeded in carrying a resolution 
 which (though Lord Derby and the opponents of the act of 1846 
 were now in oflfice) was not resisted even by the ministry, being, 
 in fact, the result of a compromise between the different par- 
 ties ; and which asserted that " the improved condition of the 
 country, and especially of the industrious classes, was mainly the 
 result of recent legislation, which had established the principle 
 of unrestricted competition, . . . and that it was the opinion of 
 the House that this policy, firmly maintained and prudently 
 extended, would, without inflicting injury on any important 
 
400 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. . 
 
 interest, best enable tbe industry of the country to bear its own 
 burdens, and would thereby most surely promote the welfare 
 and contentment of the people." Such a resolution was, in 
 fact, the adoption of free-trade as the permanent ruling princi- 
 ple of all future commercial legislation. And even before the 
 adoption of this resolution, the feeling in favor of free-trade 
 had been greatly strengthened by the Great Exhibition, which 
 not only delighted the world for six months with a spectacle 
 of such varied and surpassing beauty as even its original pro- 
 jector, the Prince Consort, had not pictured to himself, but 
 which had also the farther and more important effect of in- 
 structing the British workman in every branch of manufacture, 
 by bringing before his eyes the workmanship of other nations ; 
 and, as we may well believe (though such a result is not so 
 easily tested), of improving the mutual good-will between rival 
 nations, from the respect for each which the experience of their 
 skill and usefulness could not fail to excite. 
 
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SOVEREIGN AND MINISTERS. 401 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Dismissal of Lord Palmerston. — Theory of the Relation between the Sov- 
 ereign and the Cabinet. — Correspondence of the Sovereign with French 
 Princes. — Russian War. — Abolition of the Tax on Newspapers. — Life 
 Peerages. — Resignation of two Bishops. — Indian Mutiny. — Abolition of 
 the Sovereign Power of the Company. — Visit of the Prmce of Wales to 
 India. — Conspiracy Bill. — Rise of the Volunteers. — National Fortifica- 
 tions. — The Lords Reject the Measure for the Repeal of the Paper- 
 duties. — Lord Palmerston's Resolutions. — Character of the Changes 
 during the last Century. 
 
 The frequency of ministerial changes at this time has already 
 been mentioned, and the first of them took place at the begin- 
 ning of 1852, under circumstances which throw some light on 
 a question which has never been exactly defined — the duty of 
 the different members of a cabinet to one another, to the 
 Prime-minister, and to the sovereign. 
 
 Queen Victoria had a high idea of her duties and responsi- 
 bilities. From any legal responsibility she was aware that she 
 was exempt ; but she did not the less consider that a moral re- 
 sponsibility rested on her not to be content to give her royal 
 sanction as a mere matter of form to every scheme or measure 
 which might be submitted to her, but to examine every case 
 for herself, to form her own opinion, and, if it differed from 
 that of her ministers, to lay her objections and views fairly be- 
 fore them, though prepared, as the constitution required, to act 
 on their decision rather than on her own, if, in spite of her ar- 
 guments, they adhered to their judgment. And in carrying 
 out this notion of her duty she was singularly aided by the 
 Prince, her husband, a man of perfectly upright character, of 
 great general ability, and who, from the first moment of his 
 married life, regulated his views of every question, domestic 
 and foreign, by its bearing on English interests and English 
 feelings, to which he early acclimatized himself with a remark- 
 able readiness of appreciation. 
 
402 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 In the administration of Lord John Russell, Lord Palmer- 
 ston was Foreign Secretary, and during its latter years foreign 
 affairs occupied more of the attention of the country than mat- 
 ters of domestic policy. 
 
 The revolution of 1848, which overthrew the Orleans dy- 
 nasty, had produced in France a state of affairs but little re- 
 moved from anarchy, which was scarcely mitigated by the 
 election of Prince Louis Napoleon to the Presidency of the 
 new republic for four years, so constant was the opposition 
 which the Republican party in the Assembly offered to every 
 part of his policy. They even carried their opposition so far 
 as to form a deliberate plan for the impeachment of his min- 
 ister and himself, and for his arrest and imprisonment at Vin- 
 cennes. But he was well-informed of all these dangers, and on 
 the morning of the 2d of December, 1851 (the day, as was 
 commonly believed, having been selected by him as being the 
 anniversary of his uncle's great victory of Austerlitz), he antici- 
 pated them by the arrest of all the leading malcontents in their 
 beds; which he followed up by an appeal to the people to 
 adopt a new constitution which he set before them, the chief 
 article of which was the appointment of a President for ten 
 years. 
 
 No one could avoid seeing that what was aimed at was the 
 re-establishment of the Empire in his own person. And so 
 arbitrary a deed, as was inevitable, produced great excitement 
 in England and anxious deliberations in the cabinet. Their 
 decision, in strict uniformity with the principle that rules our 
 conduct toward foreign nations, was to instruct our ambassa- 
 dor in Paris, Lord Normanby, to avoid any act or word which 
 could wear the appearance of an act of interference of any kind 
 in the internal affairs of France. But, on Lord Normanby re- 
 porting these instructions to the French Foreign Secretary, M. 
 Guizot, he learned, to his surprise and perplexity, that Lord 
 Palmerston had interfered already by expressing to the French 
 ambassador in London, M. de Walewski, his warm approval of 
 the President's conduct ;* and Lord Normanby, greatly annoy- 
 
 * "Life of Palmerston," vol. i,, c. vii. 
 
LORD PALMERSTOnV "UNOFFICIAL" VIEWS. 403 
 
 ed at being directed to hold one language in Paris, while the 
 head of his department was taking a widely different tone in 
 Downing Street — a complication which inevitably " subjected 
 him to misrepresentation and suspicion " — naturally complained 
 to the Prime-minister of being placed in so embarrassing a 
 situation. 
 
 Both the Queen and the Prime-minister had for some time 
 been discontented at the independent manner m which Lord 
 Palmerston apparently considered himself entitled to transact 
 the business of his department, carrying it so far as even to 
 claim a right to send out despatches without giving them any 
 intimation of either their contents or their objects. And the 
 Queen, in consequence, above a year before,* had drawn up a 
 memorandum, in which she expressed with '^reat distinctness 
 her desire to have every step which the Foreign Secretary 
 might recommend to be taken laid clearly before her, with suf- 
 j&cient time for consideration, " that she might know distinctly 
 to what she had given her royal sanction ;" and " to be kept 
 informed of what passed between him and the Foreign Minis- 
 ters before important decisions are taken," etc., etc. And, after 
 such an intimation of her wish, she not unnaturally felt great 
 annoyance at learning that in a transaction so important as this 
 coup d^etat (to give it the name by which from the first it was 
 described in every country) Lord Palmerston had taken upon 
 himself to hold language to the French Ambassador " in com- 
 plete contradiction to the line of strict neutrality and passive- 
 ness which she had expressed her desire to see followed with 
 regard to the late convulsions at Paris, and which was approved 
 by the cabinet."f The Prime -minister seems to have taken 
 the same view of the act, and remonstrated with Lord Palmer- 
 ston, who treated the matter very lightly, and justified his right 
 to hold such a conversation, which he characterized as " unoffi- 
 cial," in such a tone and on such grounds that Lord John con- 
 sidered he left him no alternative " but to advise the Queen to 
 place the Foreign Ofiice in other hands." 
 
 A careful and generally impartial political critic has recently 
 
 » " Life of the Prince Consort," ii., 303. + Ibid., p. 413. 
 
404 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY ^F ENGLAND. 
 
 expressed an opinion " that Lord Palmerston made good his 
 case ;"* but his argument on the transaction seems to overlook 
 the most material point in it. Lord Palmerston's own defence 
 of his conduct was, that ^' his conversation with Walewsti was 
 of an unofficial description ; that he had said nothing to hira 
 which would in any degree or way fetter the action of the gov- 
 ernment ; and that, if it was to be held that a Secretary of 
 State could never express any opinion to a foreign minister on 
 passing events except as the organ of a previously consulted 
 cabinet, there would be an end of that easy and familiar inter- 
 course which tends essentially to promote good understanding 
 between ministers and government ;" and he even added, as a 
 personal justification of himself as against the Prime-minister, 
 that three days afterward Lord John Russell himself. Lord 
 Lansdowne (the President of the Council), and Sir Charles 
 Wood (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had all discussed the 
 transaction with M. de Walewski at a dinner-party, " and their 
 opinions were, if anything, rather more strongly favorable than 
 his had been." 
 
 This personal aspect of the case it is impossible to discuss, 
 since there are no means of knowing whether the ministers 
 mentioned would have admitted the correctness of this report 
 of their language. If it were confessed to be accurate, it would 
 only show them to have been guilty of equal impropriety, and 
 to a great extent justify him as against the Prime -minister, 
 whose condemnation of his language, if he were conscious that 
 he had held the same himself, would be inexplicable. But it 
 certainly does not justify him in respect of her Majesty or the 
 cabinet collectively, since the Queen's complaint was, not that 
 he held unofficial conversations as a private individual, and not 
 as " the organ of a previously consulted cabinet," but that the 
 tenor of the conversation which he had held was in direct con- 
 tradiction to the tone which the cabinet had decided should be 
 taken on the subject ; that his language was calculated to draw 
 the government into a course of action which it had been de- 
 liberately resolved to avoid. And, in spite of the deference due 
 
 * Amos, '< Fifty Years of the English Constitution," p. 289. 
 
DISMISSAL OF LORD PALMEESTON". 405 
 
 to Lord Palmerston's great experience, it is hard to see how a 
 conversation between our Foreign Secretary and the French 
 Ambassador on an action, the result of which is as yet unde- 
 cided, can be wholly unofficial, in the sense of having no influ- 
 ence on the conduct of affairs, or, as he expressed it, " in no 
 degree or way fettering the action of the government." 
 
 The result was, as has been mentioned before, that the Prime- 
 minister recommended the removal of Lord Palmerston from 
 his office, and that he was removed accordingly. And this con- 
 clusion of the case seems to show that the statement of the 
 position of the Prime-minister in the cabinet is rather under- 
 stated by Mr. Gladstone in one of his essays,* where he says : 
 " The head of the British government is not a Grand Vizier. 
 He has no powers, properly so called, over his colleagues ; on 
 the rare occasions when a cabinet determines its course by the 
 votes of its members, his vote only counts as one of theirs." 
 He admits at the same time that " they are appointed and dis- 
 missed by the sovereign on his advice." And surely to have 
 the right of giving this advice is to have the greatest possible 
 power over his colleagues ; not power, perhaps, to change their 
 opinions (though it possibly at times has had power to prevent 
 the expression of them), but power to compass their immediate 
 removal from the administration, as was exercised in this in- 
 stance, and as had been exercised by Pitt with regard to Lord 
 Thurlow. That a difference of opinion, even on an important 
 subject, is not always regarded as a sufficient cause for such a 
 dismissal ; that a Prime-minister, especially if conscious of his 
 strength, occasionally consents to retain colleagues who differ 
 from him on some one subject, the same work to which we are 
 partly indebted for our knowledge of the details of this affair 
 — the " Life of the Prince Consort" — furnislies two remarkable 
 instances in which the Prime - minister, then Lord Palmerston 
 himself, submitted to be overruled. We read there that on one 
 occasion, when " Count Persigny sought the active intervention 
 of England by the way of ' moral support' to a demand" which 
 France proposed to address to Austria, " Lord Palmerston and 
 
 * "Past Gleanings," i., 242. 
 
406 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 Lord John Russell (then Foreign Secretary) were disposed to ac- 
 cede ; but a diiferent view was taken both by her Majesty and by 
 the cabinet, and Count Persigny's request was accordingly de- 
 clined."* On this occasion, it is true, he was yielding to an 
 overwhelming majority of his colleagues (her Majesty's approval 
 must, of course, have been expressed subsequently to their deci- 
 sion). But in another instance we find the same Prime-minister 
 consenting to the introduction of a bill by one of his colleagues, 
 Mr. Gladstone, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which he 
 disapproved so highly that, after it had been passed by a very 
 slender majority of the House of Commons,f he expressed to 
 the Queen a hope that the closeness of the division " might 
 encourage the House of Lords to throw out the bill when it 
 should come to their House, and that he was bound in duty to 
 say that, if they should do so, they would perform a good pub- 
 lic service ;" and after they had rejected it by a majority of 
 eighty-nine, he pronounced that " they had done a right and 
 useful thing," reporting to her Majesty, as a corroboration of 
 this opinion, and as a proof that it was largely shared by the 
 public out-of-doors, that "the people in the gallery of the 
 House of Lords are said to have joined in the cheers which 
 broke out when the numbers of the division were announced. "J 
 And on a third occasion also he bore with the same colleague's 
 opposition to a measure which he and all the rest of the cabi- 
 net justly thought of vital importance to the best interests of 
 the country, the fortification of our great seaports, allowing him 
 to object for a time in private, and even to threaten public 
 opposition to it the next year, since he felt assured that his 
 opposition, if carried out, which he doubted, would be wholly 
 ineffectual. § 
 
 The personal interest in politics which this laudable habit of 
 judging of everything for herself naturally engendered in the 
 Queen's mind led, however, to the adoption by her Majesty, in 
 more than one instance, of a course at variance not only with 
 all historical precedent, but, with deference be it said, with con- 
 stitutional principle, sanctioned though it was by more than 
 
 * " Life of the Prince Consort," iv., 458. + 219 to 210. 
 
 t " Life of the Prince Consort," v., 100. § Ibid., p. 148. 
 
A DEPAKTUEE FROM CONSTITUTIONAL USAGE. 407 
 
 one ministry. When the First Napoleon, after his elevation to 
 the head of the French government as First Consul, proposed, 
 by an autograph letter to George III., to treat with that sover- 
 eign for the conclusion of peace between the two nations, Pitt, 
 to whom his Majesty communicated the letter, had no difficulty 
 in deciding that it would be unseasonable for the King " to de- 
 part from the forms long established in Europe for transact- 
 ing business with foreign states,"* and, under his guidance, the 
 cabinet instructed Lord Grenville, as Foreign Secretary, to ad- 
 dress the reply to the First Consul's letter to the French For- 
 eign Secretary, M. de Talleyrand. 
 
 But this reign has witnessed several departures from the old 
 and convenient rule. Its violation was not begun by her 
 Majesty, but by the Emperor Nicholas of Russia in the year 
 preceding the Crimean war. He wrote to the Queen herself to 
 discuss some of the points in dispute, and she answered his let- 
 ter with her own hand.f The outbreak of war which soon en- 
 sued prevented any continuation of that correspondence ; but 
 the close alliance which that war for a time produced between 
 England and France, strengthened as it was by an interchange 
 of visits between the royal and imperial families, which led to 
 the establishment of a strong mutual friendliness and regard, 
 led also to an occasional interchange of letters on some of the 
 gravest questions affecting the policy of the two nations. The 
 correspondence was sanctioned by successive English cabinets, 
 every letter which the Queen either received from, or sent to, 
 any foreign prince on political affairs being invariably commu- 
 nicated by her either to the Prime-minister or to the Foreign 
 Secretary ; and they, in one instance, even suggesting to her 
 Majesty to write to Louis NapoleonJ with an object so delicate 
 as that of influencing the language with which he was about to 
 open his -Chambers. 
 
 But we must think the line recommended by Pitt to George 
 HI. both more constitutional and more safe. A letter from 
 one sovereign to another on political subjects cannot be divest- 
 
 * " Life of Pitt," by Earl Stanhope, iii., 210. 
 t "Life of the Prince Consort," iv., 329. 
 t Ibid., p. 366. 
 
408 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 ed of the character of a state-paper, and for every state-paper 
 some one must be responsible. The sovereign cannot be, but 
 for every one of his actions the ministers are. And it follows, 
 therefore, that they are thus made responsible for documents 
 of which they have not been the original authors; of which, 
 were it not for the courtesy of the sovereign, they might by 
 possibility be wholly ignorant ; and with parts of which, even 
 with the knowledge which that courtesy has afforded them, 
 they may not fully coincide, since they could hardly venture to 
 subject a composition of their royal mistress to a vigorous criti- 
 cism. Such a correspondence, therefore, places them so far in 
 a false position, and it runs the risk of placing the sovereign 
 himself in one equally false and unpleasant, since, if the opin- 
 ions expressed or the advice given fail of their effect, the ad- 
 viser is so far lowered in the eyes of his correspondent and of 
 the world. 
 
 As has been incidentally mentioned, in the spring of 1854 
 war broke out with Russia, nominally on account of the Sul- 
 tan's refusal to concede some of the Czar's demands concerning 
 the condition of the G-reek Church in Palestine, but more really 
 because, believing the Turkish empire to be in the last stage 
 of decay, he hoped by hastening its destruction to obtain the 
 lion's share of its spoils. And for the first time for two cen- 
 turies an English and French army stood together in a field of 
 battle as allies. In the field our armies were invariably victo- 
 rious, inflicting severe defeats on the enemy at Alma and Ink- 
 erman, and wresting from them the mighty fortress of Sebas- 
 topol, in the Crimea, which hitherto they had believed to be 
 absolutely impregnable. Our fleet was, if possible, still more 
 triumphant, destroying Bomarsund and Sweaborg, in the Bal- 
 tic, without the Russian ships daring to fire a single gun in 
 their defence, while their Black Sea fleet was even sunk by its 
 own admiral, as the only expedient to save it from capture. 
 And in the spring of 1856 the war was terminated by a treaty 
 of peace, in which, for the first time since the days of Peter 
 the Great, Russia was compelled to submit to a cession of ter- 
 ritory. But (it may almost be said) to the credit of the na- 
 tion these successes, glorious and substantial as they were, made 
 
THE NEWSPAPER TAX ABOLISHED. 409 
 
 at the time scarcely so great an impression on the people as 
 the hardships which, in the first winter of the war, our troops 
 suffered from the defective organization of our commissariat. 
 Want of shelter and want of food proved more destructive 
 than the Russian cannon ; presently our gallant soldiers were 
 reported to be perishing by hundreds for lack of common nec- 
 essaries ; and the new^s awakened so clamorous a discontent 
 throughout the whole of the United Kingdom as led to another 
 change of ministry, and Lord Aberdeen was succeeded by Lord 
 Palraerston. While a war on so large a scale was being waged 
 there was but little time to spare for the work of the legisla- 
 tor, though it is not foreign to our subject to relate that in 
 1855 the last of those taxes which the political economists de- 
 nounced as taxes on knowledge, the tax on newspapers, was 
 abolished. Originally it -had been fourpence; in 1836 Mr. 
 Spring Rice, Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Melbourne's 
 ministry, had reduced it to a penny ; and now, with a very 
 general acquiescence, it was abolished altogether. 
 
 The entire abolition of a tax is not properly to be called a 
 financial measure, that epithet belonging rather to those which 
 aim at an augmentation of revenue by an increase in the num- 
 ber of contributors to a tax, while lessening the amount paid 
 by each. But the abandonment of the tax in question should 
 rather be regarded as a sacrifice of revenue for the instruction 
 of the people in political knowledge ; a price paid to enable 
 and induce the poorer classes to take a well-instructed interest 
 in the affairs of the state and the general condition of the coun- 
 try. And, viewed in this light, the abolition of this tax must 
 be allowed to have been a political measure of great impor- 
 tance, and to have contributed greatly to the end which was 
 aimed at. Till 1836 a daily paper, costing sevenpence, was the 
 luxury of the few ; and the sale even of those which had the 
 largest circulation was necessarily limited. But the removal of 
 the tax at once gave birth to a host of penny newspapers, con- 
 ducted for the most part with great ability, and soon attaining 
 a circulation which reached down to all but the very poorest 
 class ; so that the working-man has now an opportunity of see- 
 ing the most important questions of the day discussed from 
 
 18 
 
410 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 every point of view, and of thus acquiring information and 
 forming a judgment on them which the subsequent extension 
 of the franchise makes it more than ever desirable that he 
 should be able to form for himself. Every movement in that 
 direction renders it the more necessary to raise the intelligence 
 of the great mass of the people to a level which may enable 
 them to make a safe and salutary use of the power placed in 
 their hands. And no mode of implanting a wholesome politi- 
 cal feeling in the masses can equal candid political discussion : 
 discussion one ruling principle of which shall be to teach that 
 the greatest differences of opinion may be honestly entertain- 
 ed ; that, with scarcely an exception, the leading men of each 
 party, those who have any title to the name of statesman, are 
 animated with an honest, patriotic desire to promote the best 
 interests of the nation ; and that the elucidation of truth is not 
 aided by unreasoning invective and the undeserved imputation 
 of base motives. 
 
 One of the last topics discussed by Mr. Hallam was the in- 
 troduction of a bill to limit for the future the prerogative of 
 the crown in a field in which its exercise had previously been 
 unrestrained, the creation of peers ;* and among the last which 
 we shall have to examine Was one of an exactly opposite char- 
 acter, though relating to the same subject, the creation of a 
 life peerage. In the winter of 1855 Sir James Parke, one of 
 the Barons of the Exchequer, was created Lord Wenslydale, by 
 letters-patent which conferred the title limiting it also to the 
 new peer's own life. The professed object of the measure was 
 to strengthen the judicial power of the House of Lords. But 
 it was not denied that the limitation of the peerage conferred 
 on him for his own life (a limitation which made no practical 
 difference to Sir James himself, since he had no children) was 
 intended to raise the question whether the crown could or 
 could not create a life peerage with a seat in the House of 
 Lords. A creation so limited was so novel, or at all events so 
 long disused a proceeding, that it inevitably provoked examina- 
 tion and discussion. And, as it was found that the lawyers in 
 
 * " Constitutional History," iii., 319, 3d edition. 
 
THE dEEATION OF A LIFE PEEEAGE. 411 
 
 general regarded it as indefensible, at the beginning of the ses- 
 sion of 1856 Lord Lyndhurst brought the matter before the 
 House of Lords by a motion for the appointment of a com- 
 mittee of privileges to investigate and report upon it. There 
 were two aspects of the case which naturally came to be con- 
 sidered in the debates on it which ensued: the advantao-es or 
 disadvantages, in other words, the political expediency, of such 
 a form of letters-patent, and their legal or constitutional pro- 
 priety. It was, of course, with the latter alone that the com- 
 mittee of privileges had to deal. And this part of the question 
 was examined with great legal and antiquarian learning, though, 
 as was almost inevitable, it was argued as a party question, ex- 
 cept, indeed, by the lawyers. They, with the exception of the 
 Chancellor, Lord Cranworth, who had advised the measure," 
 were unanimous in their condemnation of it ; the Whig peers, 
 Lord Brougham and Lord Campbell, then Chief-justice, being 
 as positive in their denial of the right so to exercise the pre- 
 rogative as those on the Opposition side of the House, Lord 
 Lyndhurst or Lord St. Leonards.* 
 
 The arguments against the measure were chiefly these : The 
 objectors drew a distinction between what was legal according 
 to the strict letter of the law, and what was constitutional ; con- 
 tending that there might be exercises of the prerogative which 
 could not be affirmed to be illegal, but which no one would 
 deny to be altogether inconsistent with the principles and 
 practice of the constitution, since a great part of the constitu- 
 tion rested on unwritten law, on long-continued usage, Ze^ et 
 consueUido Parliamenti. And they affirmed that this measure 
 was so opposed to that usage, that " no instance had occurred 
 within a period of four hundred years in which a commoner 
 had been raised to a seat in the House of Lords by a patent of 
 peerage containing only an estate for life ;"f one most essential, 
 
 * It should be added that, on a subsequent occasion, Mr. Roundell 
 Palmer, member for Plymouth (now Lord Chancellor Selborne, and even 
 then in the enjoyment of the highest professional reputation), declared 
 his opinion to be in favor of the legality and constitutional propriety of 
 the proceeding. 
 
 t To illustrate this position, Lord Lyndhurst said : " The sovereign 
 may by his prerogative, if he thinks proper, create a hundred peers with 
 descendible qualities in the course of a day. That would be consistent 
 
412 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 if not tlie most essential character of the peerage being that it 
 was an hereditary dignity, and one which combined with its 
 rank an hereditary seat in the House of Lords. That one or 
 two instances of life peerages were to be found in the annals 
 of the Plantagenet kings was not denied, though none exactly 
 similar in character.* But Lord Lyndhurst argued that prec- 
 edents which had occurred " at a time when the constitution 
 of the country was neither understood nor fully formed " were 
 entitled to but little respect ; and Lord Derby, limiting the age 
 of valid precedents a little more strictly, " said frankly that he 
 had no respect for any precedent affecting the prerogatives of 
 the crown that dated farther back than the year 1688." And 
 since that time, or indeed since the time of Henry YIIL, it was 
 certain that no life peerage had ever been granted, except by 
 Charles II., James II., and George I. and IL, to some of their 
 mistresses, instances wholly beside the present case, since, of 
 course, none of those ladies could claim seats in the House of 
 Lords. Indeed, it was believed that both Mr. Pitt, at the time 
 of the Union, and Lord Grey, in 1832, had considered the 
 question, and had both decided against the propriety of advis- 
 ing a creation of life peerages. 
 
 with the prerogative, and would be perfectly legal ; but everybody must 
 feel, and everybody must know, that such an exercise of the undoubted 
 prerogative of the crown would be a flagrant violation of the principles 
 of the constitution. In the same manner the sovereign might place the 
 Great Seal in the hands of a layman wholly unacquainted with the laws 
 of the country. That also would be. a flagrant violation of the constitu- 
 tion of this country." — Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, ex]., February 
 7, 1856. In the same debate Lord Derby defined "prerogative" as "the 
 power of doing that which is beside the law." Hallara, in discussing the 
 prosecution of Sir Edward Hales, fully recognizes the principle contend- 
 ed for by Lord Lyndhurst, saying that " it is by no means evident that 
 the decision of the judges" in that case " was against law," but proceed- 
 ing to show that " the unadvised assertion in a court of law " of such an 
 exercise of the prerogative "maybe said to have sealed the condemna- 
 tion of the house of Stuart." — GonMitritional History, vol. iii., c. xiv,, p. 86. 
 * In the reign of Kichard II. the Earl of Oxford had been made Marquis 
 of Dublin for life, but he already had a seat in the House as Earl. Henry 
 V. had originally made the peerages of his brothers, the Dukes of Bedford 
 and Gloucester, life peerages ; but these were afterward surrendered and 
 regranted "in the usual descendible form," so that they rather made 
 against the present case than for it. Henry VIII. had created the Prince 
 of Thomond Earl of Thomond for his life, but he had at the same time 
 granted him the barony of Inchiquin "for liimself and his heirs forever." 
 It was also alleged that these life peerages had not been conferred by the 
 King alone, but by the King with the authority and consent of Parlia- 
 ment, "these significant words being found in the patents." 
 
THE DEBATE ON LIFE PEERAGES. 413 
 
 In defence of the measure Lord Granville refused to admit 
 the distinction between what was legal and what was constitu- 
 tional ; if a measure were both legal, that is, warranted by the 
 letter of the law, and also expedient, these two concurrent qual- 
 ities, he contended, made it constitutional. He denied, also, 
 that any legal prerogatives of the crown could be held to have 
 lapsed through disuse ; nullum tempus occurrit Regi ; and he 
 challenged any peer to assert that the sovereign had lost the 
 right of refusing his royal assent to a measure passed by the 
 two Houses, merely because no sovereign since William IH. 
 had so exercised his royal prerogative. And against the au- 
 thority of Mr. Pitt and Lord Grey he quoted that of Lord John 
 Russell, who, in 1851, had offered a life peerage to an eminent 
 judge, who, though he had declined the offer, had been influ- 
 enced in his refusal by no doubt of the right of the crown to 
 make it. 
 
 On the expediency of the measure its opponents had urged 
 that it would effect a remodelling of the House of Peers, a 
 total change of its constitution, by the introduction of a second 
 and distinct class of peerages ; and Lord Campbell, with a not 
 unbecoming jealousy for what he regarded as the interests of 
 his brother lawyers, argued that it would " henceforth prevent 
 any lawyer, however eminent he might have been as an advo- 
 cate, whatever services he might have rendered to the state in 
 the House of Commons, whatever fame or fortune he might 
 have acquired, from aspiring to an hereditary peerage, or to 
 becoming the founder of a family, since, to make a distinction 
 between the Chancellor and the Chief -justice, between one Chan- 
 cellor or Chief-justice and another, when coming into the Up- 
 per House, as to the tenure of their honors, would be intoler- 
 able ; all must be under the same rule, ' no son of theirs suc- 
 ceeding.' " And Lord Lyndhurst closed his argument by draw- 
 ing a comparison between the House of Lords and the French 
 Senate : " It was but a few weeks since he had read an oflScial 
 comment in the Moniteur, coming from the highest source, on 
 the inefficiency, the want of patriotism, energy, and the back- 
 wardness to fulfil the high destinies to which they were called, 
 that characterized that illustrious body, the Senate of France. 
 
414 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 He had no disposition to cut down our tribunal to that life in- 
 terest on which the Senate of France is based, as he believed 
 the hereditary character of the House of Lords to be one from 
 which great and important advantages are derived. . . . The 
 hereditary principle," he added, " is intwined in every part of 
 our constitution ; we in this House enjoy our hereditary rights 
 in common with the crown ; we mutually support and assist 
 each other, and we form a barrier and defence to protect both 
 those branches of the constitution against any by whom they 
 may be assailed." 
 
 As Lord Granville had made the expediency of any measure 
 the quality which, combined with legality, was sufficient to es- 
 tablish its constitutional character, he naturally labored this 
 point with especial diligence. He dwelt upon the great im- 
 portance of strengthening the judicial element in the House, 
 since it was the great ultimate court of appeal. He produced 
 a letter of the great Chancellor, Lord Eldon, which quoted in- 
 stances in which various administrations had found difficulties 
 in the way of introducing eminent lawyers into the House, be- 
 cause their want of adequate fortune to support the rank had 
 disinclined them to encumber their descendants with an hered- 
 itary peerage. He showed also that that difficulty had made 
 so great an impression on their own Chairman of Committees, 
 Lord Redesdale, that on one occasion he had intimated a feel- 
 ing in favor of allowing " the Law, in the same way as the 
 Church, to be, to a certain extent, represented in the House by 
 the holders of certain offices, who should be admitted to that 
 House as Peers of Parliament during the continuance of hold- 
 ing such office " (to which argument Earl Grey added another, 
 that the instance of bishops, who were but life peers, proved 
 that the holders of life peerages were not considered inferior 
 to hereditary peers). 
 
 He dwelt, too, on the evil consequence of the Lords " placing 
 themselves before the country as seeking to limit the preroga- 
 tive of the crown, when that prerogative was exercised with a 
 view to remedy something that was weak, and to remove a cer- 
 tain imminent danger." What the danger was he certainly did 
 not explain. But Lord Grey, in supporting him, took wider 
 
A committee: of privileges appointed. 415 
 
 ground, and, applying the argument derived from Lord Eldon's 
 letter to other professions, extolled the idea of instituting life 
 peerages as one whose effect would be " more easily to .open 
 the doors of the House to men w^hom it was desirable should 
 be admitted — to distinguished officers ; to eminent writers ; to 
 members of the House of Commons, who in their different 
 lines might have rendered good service to the state, but who, 
 though "possessing means amply sufficient to support their 
 rank during their own life, yet, from having only a life income, 
 or a numerous family to be provided for, might be unable to 
 accept an hereditary peerage without injury to their family. 
 In such instances," he contended, " it would be most desirable 
 to grant peerages for life only. Such a proceeding would, he 
 was convinced, by no means disincline others in different cir- 
 cumstances to accept hereditary titles, nor indispose the min- 
 istry to confer them. Nor did he see any reason for fearing 
 that the practice of creating life peerages would be more likely 
 to be abused for the purpose of increasing the power of the 
 minister than the creation of hereditary peerages." 
 
 The committee of privileges was appointed, and reported it 
 as the opinion of the members that " neither the letters-patent 
 by themselves, or with the addition of the usual writ of sum- 
 mons, could entitle the grantee to sit and vote in Parliament." 
 And the House, by a majority of ninety-two to fifty-seven, 
 adopted their report. The ministers yielded to its judgment, 
 and ennobled Lord Wenslydale by a new patent in the usual 
 form, as Lord Derby had suggested. But Lord Derby desired 
 to show that his objection had been founded on principle only; 
 and, as he was willing to admit that, apart from the principle 
 involved, " some advantages in certain cases, and under certain 
 modifications, might arise from peerages for life," he proposed 
 the appointment of a select committee "to consider the expe- 
 diency of making provision for the more efficient discharge of 
 the duties of the House as a court of appeal. The committee 
 was appointed, and, after careful consideration, recommended 
 the creation of two new offices, to be held by two law lords, 
 as "Deputy Speakers of the House of Lords," who should be 
 judges of at least five years' standing, and should be enabled 
 
416 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 " by authority of Parliainent to sit and vote in the House, and 
 enjoy all the rights and privileges of a peer of Parliament 
 under a patent conferring a peerage for life only, if the crown 
 may have granted or shall grant the same to such persons in 
 preference to an hereditary peerage, provided always that not 
 more than four persons shall have seats in the House at one 
 time as peers for life." Such an arrangement would have in- 
 troduced a new practice, but not a new principle, since the an- 
 nexation of a seat in the House of Lords to certain offices had 
 existed from time immemorial in the case of the bishops. And 
 the bill was carried in the House of Lords, but defeated in the 
 Commons by a motion to refer it to a committee, which was 
 adopted by a small majority, in a not very full House,* toward 
 the end of the session. 
 
 Those who look at the question apart from all preference of 
 one minister or one party to another will, probably, be of opin- 
 ion that the decision of the comuiittee, that a life peerage thus 
 created by the crown could not confer a seat in Parliament, 
 was conformable to the most leoitimate view of the constitu- 
 tion. It was, indeed, matter of history that in the Middle Ages 
 the crown had exercised its prerogative in many ways which it 
 had since abandoned. Boroughs had been enfranchised, and 
 again disfranchised, apparently from no motive but pure ca- 
 price ; writs of summons had been withheld from peers, f But 
 
 * The division was 153 to 133. Some years afterward, however, a clause 
 in the act, which created a new appellate jurisdiction, empowered the sov- 
 ereign to create peerages of this limited character, one of the clauses pro- 
 viding that " every Lord of Appeal in Ordinary should he entitled during 
 his life to rank as a Baron by such style as her Majesty may be pleased to 
 appoint, and shall during the time that he continues in office as a Lord 
 of Appeal in Ordinary, and no longer, be entitled to a writ of summons 
 to attend, sit, and vote in the House of Lords. His dignity as a Lord of 
 Parliament shall not descend to his heirs." As this act was passed long 
 after the period at which the present volume closes, it does not belong 
 to the writer to examine how far this act, in providing that every Lord 
 of Appeal shall for the time rank as a Baron (the Lords of Appeal being, 
 of course, appointed by the crown), is entitled to be spoken of as intro- 
 ducing a great constitutional innovation, big with future consequences, 
 as it has been described by some writers. 
 
 t In one notorious instance, that of the Earl of Bristol (confer Hallam, 
 i., 518), in the time of Charles I., the House of Lords had interfered and 
 compelled the issue of the writ ; their action forming a precedent for their 
 right of interference in such matters, which in the present case the Lord 
 Chancellor denied. 
 
ANCIENT PRECEDENTS FOR LIFE PEERAGES. 41 7 
 
 no one would have justified the repetition of sucli acts now. 
 And common-sense, as well as recognized usage, favored the doc- 
 trine that long disuse was a sufficient and lawful barrier against 
 their revival. That the power of conferring life peerages with a 
 seat in Parliament — of which, perhaps, the only undeniable in- 
 stances were the cases of the brothers of Henry V., whose royal 
 blood would in those days, probably, have been held to warrant 
 an exception in their favor — had not been exercised for full 
 four hundred years, was admitted ; and the assumption that so 
 long a disuse of a power was tantamount to a tacit renuncia- 
 tion of it, is quite compatible with a loyal and due zeal for the 
 maintenance of other parts of the prerogative which have suf- 
 fered no such abatement. 
 
 If, however, we consider the expediency of the measure, or, 
 in other words, the possible advantage that might ensue from 
 the existence of a power to create life peerages with a seat in 
 Parliament, opinions will probably be more divided. We have 
 seen that Lord Derby allowed that there might be advantages 
 in such an exercise of power under certain limitations; and 
 the existing system does, undoubtedly, appear open to improve- 
 ment in certain cases. At present the only mode of rewarding 
 naval or military commanders who have performed brilliant 
 and useful service, or a Speaker of the House of Commons, 
 whose public career, though less showy and glorious, may at 
 times have been scarcely less valuable, and has certainly been 
 by far more irksome, is the grant of a peerage with a pension 
 for lives. Without the peerage they cannot have the pension.* 
 And, consequently, many most distinguished officers, whose con- 
 spicuous merits well deserved conspicuous honors, have gone 
 unrewarded except by some promotion of knighthood, which 
 carries with it no substantial benefit ; while the descendants of 
 some of those who have been ennobled have openly lamented 
 that the only mode which could be found of honoring their 
 fathers proves a punishment to their heirs, by encumbering 
 them with an empty title, which they are unable adequately to 
 
 * The grant of a pension of £1000 a year, with a baronetcy, to General 
 Havelock, and more recently to Sir F. Roberts, are, it is believed, the only 
 exceptions to this rule. 
 
 18* 
 
418 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 support, and practically closing against them avenues to possi- 
 ble wealth and distinction which custom pronounces derogatory 
 to their rank. So, not to mention the names of living worthies, 
 no reward could be found for Sir W. Parker, that brave and 
 skilful seaman who conducted a British fleet two hundred miles 
 up a Chinese river, and crowned his exploits by the capture of 
 a mighty city, which had never before beheld a European flag ; 
 nor for Inglis, who, when the safety of our Indian Empire hung 
 upon his gallantry, successfully sustained a siege whose hard- 
 ships and dangers are surpassed by none in ancient or modern 
 history. Many will, probably, be of opinion that it is not for 
 the honor of England that such services should want due rec- 
 ognition ; and that for men like those life peerages with liberal 
 pensions would be an appropriate recompense. It would, of 
 course, be impossible to limit the number of them beforehand, 
 but it would also be needless, since the nature of the services 
 by which alone they could be deserved would act of itself as a 
 sufficient limitation. 
 
 One of the expedients which had been mentioned in this 
 discussion had been the annexation of peerages to certain 
 ofiices, to which it had been regarded as an unanswerable ob- 
 jection that this would be the creation of an absolutely un- 
 heard-of tenure, the peer thus created being able at pleasure to 
 lay down his peerage, or even, it might be, being removable. 
 But before the end of the session an emergency arose which in- 
 duced Parliament to sanction the principle, novel though it was, 
 that an official peerage, if a bishopric may be so called, might 
 be laid down with the sanction of Parliament when the holder 
 was no longer able to discharge its duties. Two of the most 
 eminent members of the Episcopal bench. Dr. Blomfield, Bishop 
 of London, and Dr. Maltby, Bishop of Durham, had become 
 wholly incapable of discharging their duties, the one having 
 been struck down by paralysis, and the other being almost 
 blind. And they now proposed to the Prime-minister that he 
 should make some arrangement by which they might be allowed 
 to relinquish their offices, retaining a certain portion of the in- 
 come of their sees as a retiring pension. There was no prec- 
 edent for such an arrangement, but the necessity of the two 
 
THE BISHOPS AND RETIRING PENSIONS. 419 
 
 cases was so manifest, the injury which the Church must suffer 
 if the superintendence of two such important dioceses were to 
 be neglected, was so palpable, and the conditions of the retir- 
 ing pensions asked were so moderate and equitable, that Lord 
 Palmerston had no hesitation in sanctionino; the introduction 
 of a bill to give effect to the arrangement proposed. 
 
 It did not pass without vigorous resistance from more than 
 one quarter. The Bishop of Exeter complained of it as incom- 
 patible with the great Church principle, that a bishop could 
 only resign his office to the archbishop of his province ; others 
 opposed_it as a violation of the common law, which forbids 
 any bargain being made for the resignation of an office ; while 
 some, referring to the prohibition of simony (a word, perhaps, 
 as much misunderstood and as often misapplied as any in the 
 language), denounced the arrangement that the retiring prelates 
 were to have pensions as simoniacal.* The most reasonable- 
 objection made to the proceeding was, that such exceptional 
 legislation to meet an isolated case tended to establish a dan- 
 gerous precedent, and that, as there were other men of great 
 age on the bench, it would be better to effect the end now 
 aimed at by a large general measure providing means for the 
 retirement of all clergymen, those of inferior rank as well as 
 bishops, whom age or infirmity might incapacitate. But the 
 general feeling was against delay. The bill passed, and served 
 in" some degree as a model for that general measure which was 
 soon afterward introduced, and which, as was suggested on this 
 occasion, provided for an arrangement similar in principle being 
 carried out whenever a priest holding any kind of ecclesiastical 
 preferment should become disabled for the performance of its 
 duties. 
 
 There can be no doubt that such legislation was absolutely 
 necessary in the interests of the Church, taking that expres- 
 sion to include, not the clergy alone, but the whole congrega- 
 tion of Churchmen. But it introduced a remarkable change 
 
 * Bishop Lonsdale, of Lichfield, in reference to Simon Magus, from 
 whose oifer of money to the Apostles the offence derives its name, deny- 
 ing that there was any similarity between his sin and the act of purchasing 
 an advowson or presentation, remarked that it might just as fitly be called 
 magic as simony. 
 
420 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 into the system of ecclesiastical peerages, and, so far, into the 
 constitution of the House of Lords. What was resigned by 
 the two prelates was not the peerage (they had still the right 
 to be styled "my lord"), but the seat in the House of Lords, 
 which was a part, and which had hitherto been regarded as an 
 inseparable part of it, or, at least (as it should, perhaps, rather 
 be said, since the recent regulation that the junior bishop 
 should not have a seat was a clear violation of that principle), 
 which hitherto no one had been able to dissociate from the 
 peerage after it had been once enjoyed. 
 
 The treaties which terminated the war with Russia were not 
 concluded till the spring of 1856 ; and it was well, indeed, that 
 the country had no longer a foreign war on her hands, for a 
 twelvemonth had scarcely elapsed when the very continuation 
 of her existence as a great Eastern power was suddenly im- 
 perilled by what, regarded in one aspect, was a mutiny of her 
 troops on a most extensive scale ; in another, a civil war, waged 
 by a combination of native princes, Hindoo as well as Moham- 
 medan,* for the total extinction of our power, and the expulsion 
 of the British race from Bengal. As early as the first week of 
 February several commanders of regiments and other authori- 
 ties received warnings of the organization of a wide conspiracy 
 against our power ; and in the second week of May the troops 
 
 * It has been, and will probably continue to be, a matter of dispute 
 whether the first conception and plan of the insurrection originated with 
 the restless boldness of the Mohammedans or the deeper fanaticism of 
 the Hindoos. It is notorious that the prophecy that a century had been 
 assigned by the Almighty as the allotted period of our supremacy in India 
 had for many years been circulated among both ; and, though the con- 
 spiracy was at first generally attributed to the Mohammedans, the argu- 
 ment that the period from the battle of Plassy, in 1757, to the outbreak 
 in 1857, though an exact century according to the Hindoo calendar, is 
 three years longer according to the Mohammedan computation, seems an 
 almost irresistible proof that the Brahmins were its original authors. 
 Sir John Kaye, in his " History of the Sepoy War," at the end of book 
 iii., c. iii., prints the following note, as furnished to him by Mr. E. A. 
 Eeade, a gentleman of long experience in India: "I do not think I ever 
 met one man in a hundred that did not give the Mohammedans credit 
 for this prediction. I fully believe that the notion of change after a cen- 
 tury of tenure was general, and I can testify, with others, to have heard 
 of the prediction at least a quarter of a century previously. But, call it 
 a prediction or a superstition, the credit of it must, I think, be given to 
 the Hindoos. If we take the Hejira calendar, 1757 a.d. corresponds with 
 1171 Hejira; 1857 a.d. with 1274 Hejira; whereas, by the lunisolar year 
 of the Sumbut, 1757 is 1814 Sumbut, and 1857 is 1914 Sumbut." 
 
THE INDIAN MUTINY AND ITS ATROCITIES. 421 
 
 at Meerut broke into open mutiny, set fire to the public build- 
 ings, murdered their officers, and even their wives and children, 
 and then marched off to Delhi, vv^here the garrison was pre- 
 pared to receive them with open arras, and to imitate their 
 atrocities. The contagion spread, and in a few weeks nearly 
 all Bengal was in arms. In one or two instances the native 
 chiefs stood by us, but the greater number joined the insurgents, 
 some from the desire to throw off our yoke, but others, proba- 
 bly, from constraint and through fear. Whatever were their 
 motives, before the end of June nearly all the principal cities 
 and fortresses of Bengal, up to the very gates of Calcutta, were 
 in the hands of the insurgents, the chief exception being at the 
 great city of Lucknow, where, though the mutineers got pos- 
 session of the city, a British garrison held the Residency, in the 
 centre ; and, maintaining themselves with heroic fortitude, un- 
 surpassed in all the history of war, for nearly nine months, 
 contributed more than any other body of men to the final sup- 
 pression of the revolt. It would be beside our purpose here 
 to dwell upon the great deeds by which in that terrible year 
 our army, in all its branches, maintained its old renown ; upon 
 the recapture of Delhi; the deliverance of the incomparable 
 defenders and preservers of Lucknow ; the exploits of Law- 
 rence, and Inglis, and Havelock, and Outram, and Peel, and 
 Campbell ; and, if we are forced to deny ourselves the proud 
 gratification of dwelling on their combined heroism and wis- 
 dom, we may for the same reason be spared the pain of recount- 
 ing the horrid cruelties wreaked in too many instances not only 
 on the officers who fell into the rebels' hands, and on the civil 
 magistrates, but on the helpless women and children. In the 
 first excitement of fear and horror those cruelties were, no 
 doubt, greatly exaggerated, but still enough remains proved to 
 stamp the insurrection as one branding with the foulest dis- 
 grace the race which perpetrated and exulted in them. 
 
 It was not till the last week of 1858 that the last sparks of 
 rebellion were finally extinguished by the defeat in Oude of the 
 last body of rebels who remained in arms, and the flight of the 
 remnant of their force across the frontier of Nepaul ; but, even 
 before that day came, the ministry at home had been led to see 
 
422 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 the necessity of putting the government of the country for the 
 future on a different footing. It could hardly be doubted that 
 the prompt suppression of a revolt of so unprecedented a mag- 
 nitude, and the proof given in the course of our operations that 
 the British soldier still maintained the same superiority over 
 the native trooper as in the days of Clive, had heightened our 
 reputation and the belief of our power among the native tribes. 
 But, speedily and decisively crushed though it had been, the 
 revolt had given too terrible a proof of the inconstancy and 
 treachery of the native tribes not to act as a warning to our 
 statesmen ; and the reflection that was thus forced upon them 
 showed that a company of merchants, however distinguished 
 by general courage and sagacity they had shown themselves, 
 was no longer qualified to exercise imperial dominion over a 
 territory which now extended over more than a million of 
 square miles, and more than a hundred and fifty millions of 
 native subjects. 
 
 Accordingly, in the first week of the session of 1858, Lord 
 Palmerston, as Prime-minister, introduced a bill to transfer the 
 government of British India from the East India Company to 
 the crown. It was natural that the principle of such a measure 
 should be opposed by the Directors of the Company, though it 
 was supported by more than one person who had held high 
 civil office in India ; and equally natural that the arrangement 
 of its details should call forth a minute and rigorous examina- 
 tion, and on many points a very determined opposition. We 
 need not, however, say more about this bill, since circumstances 
 prevented its being proceeded with ; and the history of those 
 which succeeded it is now only worth referring to as showing 
 the extreme difficulty of the task of framing a government on 
 new principles for a dependency of such vast magnitude and 
 importance.* 
 
 * It is worthy of remark that, as early as 1829, the Earl of Ellenbor- 
 ough, then President of the Board of Control, had come to the conclu- 
 sion that the Company was no longer competent to govern so vast a 
 dominion as that of British India had gradually become. In his Diary, 
 recently published (ii., 131), he expresses his firm conviction that, "in 
 substituting the King's government for that of the Company, we shall be 
 conferring a great benefit on India, and efi"ecting the measure which is 
 most likely to retain for England the possession of India ;" and from the 
 
THE CROWN AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. 423 
 
 Lord Palmerston's bill was dropped, in consequence of the 
 fall of his ministry, before the time came for its second read- 
 ing ; but the discussion on it had to some extent smoothed the 
 way for that of his successor. Lord Derby. A great impression 
 on the Parliament, and on the country in general, had been 
 made by a very able speech of Sir G. C. Lewis, Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer. He traced the whole history of the Indian 
 government from the day of Plassy, and substantiated the 
 right of the home government and Parliament to remodel it as 
 they might judge best, by proving that ever since the passing 
 of Pitt's first bill, in 1784, the Company had been constantly 
 subject to Parliamentary control. He showed, too, most con- 
 vincingly, that a petition which the Company had presented to 
 the House of Commons, deprecating any change in the existing 
 system which should tend to diminish the authority of the Di- 
 rectors, was based on one great fallacy — speaking, as it did, of 
 the Company as one and indivisible, and unchanged in charac- 
 ter, functions, and influence, down to the date of the last re- 
 newal of its charter, only five years previously ; whereas the 
 truth was, that in the one hundred years since Plassy the sys- 
 tem had undergone as many changes as the English constitu- 
 tion between the Heptarchy and the reign of Queen Victoria. 
 
 He had thus removed some of the obstacles out of the way 
 of the measure of the new government, though Lord Derby 
 would have preferred postponing it till tranquillity should have 
 been restored to the country by the complete suppression of the 
 revolt, had not the large majority* which had sanctioned the 
 introduction of Lord Palmerston's bill, in his opinion, " placed 
 the Company in such a situation that they could no longer 
 command the same amount of public confidence and public 
 support as they were entitled to receive previously to that vote 
 
 same work (ii., 61) we learn that Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, one of 
 the ablest servants of whom the Company could boast, and who had re- 
 cently been Governor of Bombay, even while confessing himself preju- 
 diced in favor " of the existing system, under which he had been educated 
 and lived," admitted that "the administration of the government in the 
 King's name would be agreeable to the civil and military services, and 
 to people in England, He doubted whether, as regarded the princes of 
 India, it would signify much, as they now pretty well understood us." 
 See also ibid., p. 414. * 318 to 173. 
 
424 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 of the House of Commons." It may be added that the first 
 bill on the subject which was introduced by his government 
 bore evident marks of the difficulties under which it was framed 
 — difficulties existing from the unexpected suddenness of his 
 accession to office ; so that, after a not very short discussion, 
 it was eventually withdrawn, and it was not till the end of 
 June that the measure which was finally adopted was intro- 
 duced. 
 
 The leading enactments of the measure* provided that for 
 the future the government of India, described as having been 
 hitherto vested in, or exercised by, the Company in trust for 
 her Majesty, should be vested in her Majesty, and exercised in 
 her name ; that one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of 
 State should have and perform all such powers and duties re- 
 lating to the government or revenues of India as had formerly 
 belonged to the Court of Directors, as the Court of Proprietors 
 of the Company ; that a Council of the Governor-general should 
 be established, consisting of fifteen members, seven of whom 
 should be appointed by the Court of Directors, being persons 
 who were, or had formerly been. Directors of the Company, 
 and eight shouFd be nominated by the crown. And as to both 
 classes, it was provided that the majority should consist of per- 
 sons who had served or resided in India for ten years at the 
 least, and should not have left India more than ten years when 
 appointed. They were to hold their offices during good behav- 
 ior, to receive salaries, and to be entitled to retiring pensions, 
 but to be incapable of sitting in Parliament. The appointment 
 of Governor-general and Governor of each Presidency was to 
 belong to the crown. The expenditure of the revenues of 
 India, both in India and elsewhere, was to be subject to the 
 control of the Secretary of State in Council ; other clauses pro- 
 vided for the dividends of the Company, for the admission of 
 persons into the civil service ; and, with reference to existing 
 establishments, one clause provided that " the Indian military 
 and naval forces should remain under existing conditions of 
 service." 
 
 * The whole bill is given in the "Annual Register" for the year 1858, 
 p. 226. 
 
AMALGAMATION OF THE ARMIES IN INDIA, 425 
 
 This last clause was strongly objected to by the Queen,* as 
 "inconsistent with her constitutional position as head of the 
 army, which required that the Commander-in-chief should be 
 put in communication with the new Secretary of State for In- 
 dia, in the same manner in which he is placed with regard to 
 the troops at home or in the colonies toward the Secretary of 
 State for War. . . . With regard to the whole army, whether 
 English or Indian, there could, with due regard to the public 
 interest, be only one head and one general command." She 
 yielded her opinion, however, to the resolute objections of the 
 Prime-minister, with whom on this point his predecessor,! Lord 
 Palraerston, agreed ; but the result proved the superior sound- 
 ness of her Majesty's view. It was not only a most anomalous 
 arrangement, since the supreme control of all the warlike forces 
 was one of the most inalienable prerogatives of the crown, but 
 it had the strange fault of preserving the double government 
 in the case in which, above all others, unity of system and unity 
 of command were most indispensable. And, what weighed 
 more than either consideration with the generally practical 
 views of English statesmen, it was from the beginning found 
 to work badly, creating, as it did, great and mischievous jeal- 
 ousies between the two divisions, the Royal and the Indian 
 army. It was found that all the generals then in the highest 
 commands in India — Lord Clyde (Sir Colin Campbell having 
 been ennobled by that title). Sir Hugh Rose, and Sir William 
 Mansfield — strongly disapproved of it, and recommended a 
 change ; and consequently, in the summer of 1860, Lord Palm- 
 erston, who in the mean while had returned to the Treasury, 
 came round to the Queen's view of the subject, and a new act 
 was passed which amalgamated the two armies into one Impe- 
 rial army, taking its turn of duty throughout all parts of the 
 British empire.^ 
 
 * See her letter to Lord Derby on the subject, given in the *' Life of the 
 Prince Consort," iv., 308 ; confer also a memorandum of the Prince Con- 
 sort, ma., p. 310. t Ibid., p. 106. 
 
 \ It should be remarked that the arrangement originally carried out 
 awoke among the European troops of the Company so deep and general 
 a spirit of discontent as at one time threatened to break out in open mu- 
 tiny; the ground of their dissatisfaction being "the transfer of their 
 services in virtue of an act of Parliament, but without their donsent." 
 
426 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 A letter addressed by Lord Palmerston to the Queen in the 
 autumn of 1857, which appears to have been his first statement 
 to her Majesty of the opinion which he had formed of the ne- 
 cessity of abolishing the governing authority of the Company, 
 states the principal arguments in favor of such a measure with 
 great clearness, as arising from " the inconvenience and diffi- 
 culty of administering the government of a vast country on the 
 other side of the globe by means of two cabinets, the one re- 
 sponsible to the crown and Parliament, the other only respon- 
 sible to the holders of Indian stock, meeting for a few hours 
 three or four times a year, which had been shown by the events 
 of the year to be no longer tolerable." His disapproval of 
 parts of Lord Ellenborough's policy probably prevented him 
 from alluding to his recall from India by the Directors, in di- 
 rect defiance of the opinion of the government,* though that 
 strange step can hardly have been absent from his mind. 
 But, in fact, the case for taking the whole rule of so vast a 
 dominion wholly into the hands of the Queen's government at 
 home was so irresistible, that it did not require to be strength- 
 ened by reference to any individual instances of inconvenience. 
 When the double government was originally established, the 
 English in India were still but a small mercantile community, 
 with very little territory beyond that in the immediate neigh- 
 borhood of its three chief cities. Of the conduct of the affairs 
 of such a body, still almost confined to commerce, the chief 
 share might not unreasonably be left to the merchants them- 
 selves, subject to such supervision on the part of the govern- 
 ment at home as was implied in the very name of the depart- 
 
 Accordingly, " on the announcement of the proclamation transferring 
 the possessions of the East India Company to the crown, some of the 
 soldiers of the Company's European force set up a claim for a free dis- 
 charge or a bounty on re-enlistment." Lord Clyde's recommendation 
 "tliat a concession should be made" was overruled by the government 
 of India, and " pronounced inadmissible by the law-officers of the crown" 
 in England. The dissatisfaction was allayed for the time by the judicious 
 measures, equally conciliatory and firm, adopted by Lord Clyde, in whom 
 all ranks of both armies felt equal confidence; but eventually the gov- 
 ernment became convinced of the necessity of granting discharges to 
 every man who wished for one, provided he had not misconducted him- 
 self." — Sha.dwell's Life of Lord Clyde,,u.y 407-416. 
 * See ante, p. 385. 
 
THE EMPRESS-QUEEN OF INDIA. 427 
 
 ment invested with that supervision, the Board of Control, 
 which, as Pitt explained the name, was meant to show that it 
 was not to be, like the measure proposed by the Coalition 
 Ministry, a board of political influence.* But the case was 
 wholly altered when British India reached from Point de Galle 
 to the Himalayas, and spread beyond the Ganges on the east, 
 to beyond the Indus on the west; when the policy adopted 
 in India often influenced our dealings with European states, 
 and when the force required for the protection of those vast 
 interests exceeded the numbers of the royal army. India, too, 
 is a country the climate of which prevents our countrymen 
 from emigrating to it as settlers, as they do to Canada or Aus- 
 tralia, and where, consequently, the English residents are, and 
 always must be, a mere handful in comparison with the millions 
 of natives. In such a case their government must at all times 
 rest mainly on opinion, on the belief in the pre-eminent power 
 of the ruler; and it was obvious that that belief would be 
 greatly fortified by the sovereign of Britain becoming that 
 ruler.f The great rajahs cordially recognized the value of the 
 transfer of power considered in this light, and felt their own 
 dignity enhanced by becoming the vassals of the sovereign her- 
 self. 
 
 But in most arrangements their success depends in a great 
 degree on the mode in which they are carried out. And the 
 line of conduct adopted by the government, and, in all fairness 
 it must be added, by the Queen herself (for in many points it 
 clearly sprung from her own impulse), has ever since been uni- 
 formly and eminently of a character to conciliate both the re- 
 spect and attachment of the natives of all ranks and of every 
 sect and race. The assumption of the government by the 
 
 * Stanhope's "Life of Pitt," i., 173. 
 
 t Sir Theodore Martin quotes a passage from a letter of the Times cor- 
 respondent, giving: a report of the effect of the proclamation on the na- 
 tives: " Genuineness of Asiatic feeling is always a problem, but I have 
 little doubt it is in this instance literally sincere. The people understand 
 an Empress, and did not understand the Company. Moreover, they (I 
 am speaking of the masses) have a very decided notion that the Queen 
 has hanged the Company for offences ' which must have been very great,' 
 and that fact gives hope of future justice." — Life of the Prince Consort, iv., 
 337. 
 
428 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 Queen was announced to the natives in a royal proclamation, 
 which, as she explained to the Prime-minister her view of the 
 terms in which it should be framed, was to " give the Indians 
 pledges which her future reign was to redeem, and to explain 
 the principles of her government ; to breathe feelings of gen- 
 erosity, benevolence, and religious toleration, and to point out 
 the privileges which they would receive in being placed on an 
 equality with the subjects of the British crown, and the pros- 
 perity following in the train of civilization."* It was trans- 
 lated into all the native languages, was read at the head-quarters 
 of every province of the Empire, and was admitted to be ad- 
 mirably calculated to allay all apprehensions on points on which 
 the native mind is at all times most sensitive, and on which re- 
 cent circumstances might, without some such assurance, have 
 engendered and almost warranted some uneasiness. And it 
 was followed up by other proceedings admirably calculated to 
 flatter the pride of the great native princes, and to prove to 
 them that the equality promised should be a reality, and not 
 an empty name. The very next spring her Majesty suggested 
 for the consideration of the cabinet the institution of " a high 
 order of chivalry," as " the means of gratifying the personal 
 feelings of the chief number of the native princes, binding them 
 together in a confraternity, and attaching them by a personal 
 tie to the sovereign," which was presently instituted under the 
 name of " The Most Exalted Order of the Star of India," the 
 members of which were to be great native chiefs, or such Eng- 
 lish public servants as had filled posts of chief command in 
 India, and rendered distinguished service to the state, the Queen 
 herself being the Grand Master; and among the first native 
 knights were Sindia, the Maharajah of Gwalior ; Holkar, the 
 Maharajah of Indore. The loss of his dominion was not held 
 to disentitle the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh to the same honor ; 
 and, though there may have been some little incongruity in the 
 appointment, one lady, the faithful Begum of Bhopal, received 
 the reward of her loyalty under circumstances of unprecedented 
 
 * See the Queen's letter to Lord Derby, "Life of the Prince Consort," 
 iv., 284. See also some sentences of the proclamation, and Lord Can- 
 ning's proclamation, ibid., p. 336. 
 
THE PRINCE OF WALEs'S STATE VISIT TO INDIA. 429 
 
 difSculty by being included in the list. The English knights 
 were Lord Clyde, Sir John Lawrence, Lord Harris, and General 
 Pollock; and the proudest native chiefs could hardly feel other- 
 wise than honored by becoming members of a brotherhood 
 which conquerors and statesmen such as these regarded as 
 among their most valued distinctions. 
 
 More substantial benefits followed. The great chiefs who 
 had loyally stood by England in the Mutiny received accessions 
 of territory. Lord Canning, whose term of government was 
 on the point of expiring, issued in 1862 a *'Sanad," or patent, 
 securing to the whole body of Hindoo feudatories the recogni- 
 tion of the full right of adoption, on the failure of their natu- 
 ral heirs, the somewhat arbitrary encroachments on which by 
 Lord Dalhousie were believed by many to have been among 
 the strongest provocations to the Mutiny. 
 
 And what, on so excitable and vain a people, probably, pro- 
 duced a more vivid impression than any measure of mere util- 
 ity, however greatly needed or judiciously executed, the heir of 
 the throne crossed that " black water," which to themselves is 
 an object of almost superstitious dread, to visit their country, 
 and make a personal acquaintance with their chiefs. And the 
 enthusiastic loyalty with which Hindoos and Mohammedans, 
 Rajahs and ryots, flocked to the different cities to catch even 
 a passing glimpse of the Queen's son, showed how general 
 was the appreciation of so unprecedented a compliment to the 
 whole nation. 
 
 It has been mentioned that the first bill for the transfer of 
 the government of India from the Company to the crown was 
 dropped, in consequence of a change in the administration that 
 had been caused by the introduction of a measure which was 
 regarded by a great majority, both of Parliament and the 
 nation, as an abandonment of a most cherished constitutional 
 principle, and than which scarcely any act of a minister in our 
 history evinced a greater blindness to a deep-seated national 
 feeling. We have seen how close an alliance the Russian war 
 had given birth to between this country and France. The 
 French Emperor himself, who had resided for some time in 
 England, was, moreover, regarded by the Prime-minister with 
 
4.30 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOEY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 some degree of personal friendship, as well as with that sym- 
 pathy in his political objects which had already cost him his 
 post as Secretary of State, and was now to drive him from the 
 Treasury. A brilliant French writer has remarked, that his 
 countrymen are, of all peoples, the least suited to be con- 
 spirators, since none of them can ever keep a secret. But it 
 was the ill-fortune of Louis Napoleon that he had provoked 
 enmities, not only among his own countrymen, but among the 
 republican fanatics of other nations also, who saw in his zeal for 
 absolute authority the greatest obstacle to their designs, which 
 aimed at the overthrow of every established government on the 
 Continent, and shrunk from no crimes which they conceived 
 to be calculated to promote their object. To free themselves 
 from such an antagonist, the most wholesale murders seemed 
 by no means too large a price. And in the middle of January, 
 as the Emperor and Empress were going to the Opera, a pro- 
 digious explosion took place almost beneath the wheels of their 
 carriage, from the effect of which they themselves had a most 
 narrow escape, both being struck in the face by splinters, the 
 aide-de-camp in their carriage also being severely wounded on 
 the head; while their escort and attendants were struck down on 
 all sides, ten being killed and above one hundred and fifty wound- 
 ed.* It was soon found out that the authors of this atrocious 
 crime were four Italians, of whom a man named Orsini was the 
 chief, and that he, who had but recently escaped from a prison 
 in Mantua, had fled from that town to England, and had there 
 concocted all the details of his plot, and had procured the shells 
 which had been his instruments. 
 
 It was not unnatural that so atrocious a crime, causing such 
 wide -spread destruction, should awaken great excitement in 
 France, and in many quarters violent reclamations against Eng- 
 land and her laws, which enabled foreign plotters to make her a 
 starting-place for their nefarious schemes. Even in the French 
 Chambers very bitter language was used on the subject by some 
 
 ■^ The "Annual Register" says that "neither the Emperor nor the 
 Empress was touched;" but Sir Theodore Martin ("Life of the Prince 
 Consort," iv., 155) says that "the Emperor's nose was grazed, and that 
 the Empress received a blow on the left eye which affected it for some 
 time." 
 
IMPASSIONED FEENCH EEMONSTEANCES. 431 
 
 of the rnost influential Depnties, for which our ministers were 
 disposed to make allowance, Lord Clarendon, the Foreign Sec- 
 retary, writing to the Prince Consort tliat " it was not to be 
 expected that foreigners, who see that assassins go and come 
 here as they please, and that conspiracies may be hatched in 
 England with impunity, should think our laws and policy 
 friendly to other countries, or appreciate the extreme difiiculty 
 of making any change in our system."* 
 
 But a different feeling was roused by a despatch of the 
 French Secretary of State to the ambassador here, which 
 seemed to impute to this country that it deliberately sheltered 
 and countenanced men by whose writings "assassination was 
 elevated into a doctrine openly preached, and carried into 
 practice by reiterated attacks " upon the person of the French 
 sovereign, and asked, in language which had rather an imperious 
 tone, " Ought the English Legislature to contribute to the de- 
 signs of men who were not mere fugitives, but assassins, and 
 continue to shelter persons who place themselves beyond the 
 pale of common right, and under the ban of humanity? Her 
 Britannic Majesty's Government can assist us in averting a 
 repetition of such guilty enterprises, by affording us a guarantee 
 of security which no state can refuse to a neighboring state, and 
 which we are justified in expecting from an ally. Fully relying, 
 moreover, on the profound sagacity of the English Cabinet, we 
 refrain from indicating in any way the measures which it may 
 seem fit to take in order to comply with this wish. We con- 
 fidently leave it to decide on the course which it shall deem 
 best fitted to the end in view." Still, though the charge that 
 our Legislature contributed to the designs of assassins was 
 some departure from the measured language more usual in 
 diplomatic communications between friendly powers, under the 
 circumstances this remonstrance might have been borne with. 
 Unluckily, it was not all, nor the worst, that we were called 
 upon to bear. A few days afterward some addresses to the 
 Emperor from different military corps were published in the 
 Moniteur, which not only poured forth bitter reproaches against 
 
 * "Life of the Prince Consort," iv., 156. 
 
432 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 tbe whole English nation, but demanded to be led to an inva- 
 sion of the country, " as an infamous haunt for the carrying 
 out of infernal machinations." Political addresses seem to our 
 ideas inconsistent with military discipline ; but the army had 
 been permitted, and even encouraged, to make them ever since 
 the days of the Consulate, though such addresses never received 
 the recognition of a publication in the official journal till they 
 had been subjected to careful revision, and, if necessary, ex- 
 purgation. On this occasion, however, that supervision had 
 been carelessly performed, and the offensive passages were left 
 standing, though, when the Emperor learned the indignation 
 which they had excited even among his well-wishers in England, 
 he instructed his ambassador to apologize for their retention 
 and publication, as an act of inadvertence on the part of the 
 officials whose duty it had been to revise such documents. So 
 far all was well. And had the English ministers replied to the 
 despatch of M. de Persigny in firm and temperate language, 
 they would have escaped the difficulties which eventually over- 
 threw them. There was no doubt that, according to diplomatic 
 usage, a written despatch formally communicated to the Secre- 
 tary of State required a written reply. 
 
 Unfortunately, a written reply was not given. Lord Claren- 
 don was too apprehensive of the mischief which might possibly 
 arise from a protracted discussion, leading, perhaps, to an angry 
 controversy ; and under the influence of this feeling contented 
 himself, when the despatch was. presented, with giving the am- 
 bassador a verbal answer, that " no consideration on earth would 
 induce Parliament to pass a measure for the extradition of for- 
 eign political refugees ; that our asylum could not be infringed, 
 and that we adhered to certain principles on that subject which 
 were so old and so sacred that they could not be touched ;"* 
 adding, however, at the same time an assurance that the Attor- 
 ney-general was already, at his request, examining our law of 
 conspiracy, to see whether it was sufficiently comprehensive or 
 stringent. The purport of this answer was all that could have 
 been desired ; but there was a very general impression that the 
 
 * Speech of Lord Palmerston, February 19. 
 
PUBLIC FEELING INFLAMED IN ENGLAND. 433 
 
 omission to reply by a written despatch was a sacrifice of the 
 national dignity, if not an unworthy submission to scarcely dis- 
 guised menace ; though at the same time there was also a feel- 
 ing among both parties in Parliament that our laws with re- 
 spect to the conduct of foreigners residing among us were, per- 
 haps, susceptible of improvement. On the very first night of 
 the session, in allusion to the attack on the French Emperor, 
 Lord Derby had said that " he could wish to hear the opin- 
 ion of the ministers whether the existing laws of this coun- 
 try were adequate to afford security for the lives of foreign 
 princes against plots contrived in this country ; and, if they 
 were not, whether they might not be amended, so as to meet 
 the case of such crimes as had recently been perpetrated, which 
 were so heinous and revolting to every feeling of humanity." 
 And even before that speech the ministers had applied them- 
 selves to frame a measure to amend the law, which in the sec- 
 ond week of February the Prime-minister himself introduced 
 to the House of Commons. 
 
 It was read a first time, though not without some opposition ; 
 but before it arrived at the second reading, though only a week 
 afterward, the feeling of the country, reflected in this instance 
 by the House, had become so inflamed, that the measure was 
 not discussed on its own merits, but on the point whether, since 
 no other answer had been given to the French despatch, this 
 must not be regarded as the ministerial answer, and therefore 
 whether it were such an answer as it befitted England to send. 
 Had it been examined on its own merits solely, it could hardly 
 have provoked much adverse criticism. It was entitled, "A 
 bill to amend the law with relation to the crime of conspiracy 
 to commit murder," and it merely proposed to establish in 
 England a law which had long existed in Ireland. Hitherto, as 
 Lord Palmerston explained the matter, England had treated 
 conspiracy to murder as a misdemeanor, punishable with fine 
 and imprisonment. In Ireland it had long been a capital 
 crime ; and, though he did not propose to assimilate the Eng- 
 lish to the Irish statute in all its severity, he proposed to enact 
 that conspiracy to murder should be a felony, punishable with 
 penal servitude, by whomsoever the conspiracy might be con- 
 
 19 
 
434 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 cocted, or wherever the crime might be designed to be com- 
 mitted. 
 
 The principle of such a law, supported as it was by the prec- 
 edent of Ireland, could hardly be resisted. And Mr. Walpole, 
 who had been Home-secretary in Lord Derby's ministry, avow- 
 ed his determination to support the bill, " as being right in 
 principle." But even he limited his promise of support by a 
 condition " that the honor of England should be previously 
 vindicated ;" arguing that the French despatch bore the char- 
 acter of a demand, based upon allegations which were contrary 
 to truth, and which, therefore, the ministers were bound to re- 
 pudiate ; and that to pass such a bill without putting on record 
 a formal denial of those allegations would, in the general view 
 of Europe, imply a confession that to them we had no answer 
 to give. And it was this consideration which eventually de- 
 termined the decision of the House, Mr. Disraeli, who closed 
 the debate on his side, condemning the conduct of the minis- 
 ters as " perplexed, timid, confused, wanting in dignity and 
 self-respect. In not replying to the despatch, they had lost a 
 great opportunity of asserting the principles of public law." 
 The House, taking his view of their conduct, threw out the bill 
 by a majority of nineteen ;* and the ministry resigned, and was 
 succeeded by one under the presidency of Lord Derby. 
 
 Many of those who on this occasion combined to form the 
 majority had denounced the bill, as an infringement of the 
 principles of our constitution. It is, however, evident that, 
 had it passed, it would not have deserved such a description. 
 It would in no degree whatever have deprived a foreign resi- 
 dent of safety and the protection of English law, so long as he 
 should obey that law ; and that is all the indulgence that the 
 constitution ever g^ve or ought to give. Foreigners had al- 
 ways been amenable to our courts of justice for any violation 
 of the law. And Lord Palmerston's bill not only went no 
 farther than removing a, certain class of offences from the cate- 
 
 * It is remarkable that it was not a very full House, the numbers of the 
 division being only 234 to 215. Many members absented themselves, be- 
 ing equally unwilling to condemn the bill or to approve the silence of 
 the ministry. 
 
BERNARD, THE ACCOMPLICE OF ORSINI. 4^5 
 
 gory of misdemeanors to that of felonies, but it also imposed 
 no liability in that respect on foreigners which it did not at 
 the same time impose on all the Queen's subjects. Indeed, the 
 bill was so moderate, and the improvement it proposed so de- 
 sirable, that, in a subsequent discussion in the House of Lords, 
 Lord Campbell, the Chief-justice, expressed a hope that Lord 
 Derby's government would take it up ; though Lord Derby, in 
 view of the existing feeling of the country on the subject, pru- 
 dently forbore to act on that suggestion. But, as one of Orsi- 
 ni's most guilty accomplices, a man named Bernard, was still in 
 London, he caused him to be indicted for murder, as having in- 
 curred that guilt as accessary to the death of some whom the 
 explosion had killed. The excitement on the question had, 
 however, not died away when the trial came on ; and, though 
 it will, probably, be generally admitted that the evidence was 
 sufficiently clear, Bernard was acquitted. 
 
 Lord Derby, however, did not long retain his office. Indeed, 
 the Earl was so conscious that, on questions of general policy, 
 the House of Commons was inclined to views differing from 
 his own, that he would have preferred declining the task of 
 forming a ministry, had he not conceived that, in the difficulty 
 in which the Queen was placed by recent circumstances, he w^as 
 bound by his duty to make the attempt, even if the result of it 
 were merely to obtain a kind of respite for his sovereign and 
 the country, which might give time for the present excitement 
 of feeling to calm down. He was not deceived in his forebod- 
 ings of his inability to maintain his position. In the course of 
 the next spring he was twice defeated in the House of Com- 
 mons — once by the House which he found in existence, and a 
 second time in one which was the fruit of a general election. 
 And m the summer of 1859 Lord Palmerston returned to office, 
 with power increased by the junction of many of those who 
 had helped to overthrow him in 1858, but who now combined 
 with him to strike a similar blow at his Conservative successor. 
 
 Yet, brief as was Lord Derby's tenure of power, it was made 
 memorable by the commencement of a movement which can- 
 not be regarded as devoid of constitutional importance, since, 
 though originally it was only designed to supply a temporary 
 
436 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOKY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 re-enforcement to our ancient constitutional forces, the regular 
 army and the militia, it has eventually created a force which, to 
 the great honor of those who constitute it, has become a per- 
 manent addition to them. In the great war against Revolu- 
 tionary France, when it was generally believed that those who 
 held rule in Paris were contemplating an invasion of these isl- 
 ands, Pitt, as we have seen, had encouraged the formation of 
 corps of volunteers, which continued to be of great use till the 
 very end of the war, by performing, in conjunction with the 
 militia, a great portion of the home duties which must other- 
 wise have fallen on the line regiments, and thus disengaging 
 the regular army for service on the Continent. There was now 
 no such formidable enemy to be dreaded as the first Napoleon, 
 but in every part of Europe affairs were in a state so unquiet 
 that every kingdom seemed at times on the very brink of war ; 
 and since, if it should once break out, no one could feel con- 
 fident that we should not be involved in it, or, if we should 
 be, who would be our allies or our enemies, measures of 
 precaution and self-defence seemed as needful now as they 
 had been sixty years before. Our boldest statesmen were dis- 
 quieted and anxious; and the nation at large, sharing their 
 uneasiness, kindled wdth the feeling that it was a time to 
 show that the present generation inherited the self-denying 
 patriotism of their fathers. Leaders were not wanting again 
 to prompt the formation of a volunteer force. The govern- 
 ment at once saw the value of the scheme. Fortunately, the 
 Secretary for War, Colonel Peel, happened to be an old sol- 
 dier, a veteran who had learned the art of war under Wel- 
 lington himself; and he, having great talents for organiza- 
 tion, placed the force from its infancy on a sound footing. 
 How thoroughly the movement harmonized with the martial 
 spirit of the nation — to which, indeed, it owed its birth — is 
 shown by the history of the force, which now, above twenty 
 years after its original formation, maintains its full numbers 
 and yearly improves its efficiency. Though there has not for 
 many years been any apprehension of war, above one hundred 
 and twenty thousand men still annually devote no small por- 
 tion of their time to the acquisition of military discipline and 
 
THE VOLUNTEEK MOVEMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN. 437 
 
 science, and that so successfully, that, by the testimony of the 
 most experienced judges, they have attained a degree of effi- 
 ciency which, if the necessity for their services should ever 
 arise, would render them valuable and worthy comrades to the 
 more regularly trained army. Lord Derby retired from office 
 while the force was still in its infancy ; but Lord Palmerston 
 was equally sensible of its value, and gave a farther proof of 
 his appreciation of the vast importance of measures of national 
 defence by the vigor with which he carried out the recommen- 
 dations of a royal commission which had been appointed by 
 the preceding ministry to investigate the condition of our na- 
 tional defences. Its report had pointed out the absolute neces- 
 sity of an improved system of protection for our great dock- 
 yards and arsenals, which, from their position on the coast, 
 were more liable to attack than inland fortresses would have 
 been, had we had such. And, in accordance with that warning, 
 in the summer of 1860, Lord Palmerston proposed the grant of 
 a large sum of money for the fortification of our chief dock- 
 yards. It was opposed on a strange variety of grounds ; some 
 arguing that the proposed fortifications were superfluous, be- 
 cause our navy was the defence to which the nation was wont 
 deservedly to trust ; some that they were needless, because no 
 other nation was in a condition to attack us ; others that they 
 were disgraceful, because it was un-English and mean to skulk 
 behind stone walls, and because Lycurgus had refused to trust to 
 stone walls for the safety of Sparta ; and one member, the chief 
 spokesman of a new and small party, commonly known as the 
 " peace-at-any-price party," boldly denounced the members of 
 tbe commission as a set of "lunatics" for framing such a re- 
 port, and the ministers as guilty of "contemptible cowardice" 
 for suggesting to the nation that there was any danger in being 
 undefended. But the ministry prevailed by a large majority;* 
 the money was voted, and the nation in general warmly ap- 
 proved of the measure. As Lord Palmerston subsequently 
 expressed it, " the government, the Parliament, and the nation 
 acted in harmonious concert "f on the subject. 
 
 * 268 to 39. + " Life of the Prince Consort," v., 131. 
 
438 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 One of the arguments against it which the objectors had 
 brought forward was, that the ministry was not unanimous in 
 the conviction of the necessity; and we learn from the "Life 
 of the Prince Consort"* that Mr. Gladstone, the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer, was vehement in his resistance to it, threatening 
 even to carry his opposition so far as to resign his office, if it 
 were persevered in. And, as has been intimated on a previous 
 page, this was not the only question on which in the course of 
 this year the Prime-minister did in his heart differ from his 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he did not think it expe- 
 dient to refuse his sanction to his proposals on a matter belong- 
 ing to his own department, the Exchequer. The subject on 
 which he secretly doubted his colleague's judgment was one of 
 the proposals made in the Budget of the year. As has already 
 been mentioned, the transaction throws a rather curious light 
 on the occasional working of our ministerial system ; and the 
 fate of the measure in the two Houses of Parliament is also de- 
 serving of remark and recollection, as re-opening the question, 
 which had not been agitated for nearly a century, as to the ex- 
 tent of the power of the House of Lords with respect to votes 
 of money. In a former chapter f we have had occasion to 
 mention the angry feeling on the part of the House of Com- 
 mons which, in the year 1772, had been evoked by the act of 
 the House of Lords, in making some amendments on a bill re- 
 lating to the exportation of corn which had come up to them 
 from the Commons. A somewhat similar act had, as we have 
 also seen, revived the discussion a few years later, when the 
 minister of the day had shown a more temperate feeling on the 
 subject. On neither occasion, however, had the question of the 
 privileges of the Lords been definitively settled ; and no occasion 
 had since arisen for any consideration of the subject. But the 
 Budget of 1860 contained a clause which, in spite of the de- 
 served reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a skil- 
 ful financier, was not regarded with general favor. There was 
 a large deficiency in the revenue for the year ; but while, among 
 his expedients for meeting it, Mr. Gladstone proposed an aug- 
 
 * " Life of the Prince Consort," i., 99. t Chapter II., p. 54. 
 
THIS lords' rejection op a bill of supply. 439 
 
 mentation of the income-tax, he proposed also to repeal the 
 excise duty on paper, which produced about a million and a 
 quarter. It is now known that the Prime - minister himself 
 highly disapproved of the sacrifice at such a time of so pro- 
 ductive a tax.* And, if that had been suspected at the time, 
 the House of Commons would certainly not have consented to 
 it; even when the ministry was supposed to be unanimous in 
 its approval of it, it was only carried by a majority of nine ; 
 and, when the bill embodying it came before the House of 
 Lords, a Whig peer, who had himself been formerly Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer in Lord Melbourne's administration, moved 
 its rejection, and it was rejected by a majority of eighty-nine. 
 
 The rejection of a measure relating to taxation caused great 
 excitement among a large party in the House of Commons — so 
 violent, indeed, that the only expedient that presented itself to 
 the Prime-minister, if he would prevent the proposal of some 
 step of an extreme and mischievous character, was to take the 
 matter into his own hands. Had he been able to act entirely 
 on his own judgment, it may, perhaps, be thought that, with 
 his sentiments on the inexpediency of the measure which had 
 been rejected, he would have preferred a silent acquiescence in 
 the vote of the Lords ; but he would have been quite unable to 
 induce the majority of his own supporters, and even some of 
 his own colleagues, to adopt so moderate a course ; and accord- 
 ingly he moved the appointment of a committee to examine 
 and report on the practice of Parliament in regard to bills for 
 imposing or repealing taxes. And when it had made its report, 
 which was purely of an historical character, setting forth the 
 precedents bearing on the subject, he proposed three resolutions, 
 asserting "that the right of granting aids and supplies to the 
 
 * It is known, from two letters from Lord Palmerston to the Queen, 
 published in the "Life of the Prince Consort," v., 100 — in one, written 
 before the debate in the House of Lords, he expresses a hope that the 
 smallness of the majority in the House of Commons will encourage the 
 Lords to throw it out, and he "is bound in duty to say that, if they do 
 so, they will perform a good public service;" and in another, the day 
 after the division in the Lords, he writes again "that they have done a 
 right and useful thing," adding that the feeling of the public was so 
 strong against the measure, that those in the gallery of the House are 
 said to have joined in the cheers which broke out when the numbers 
 were announced. 
 
440 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 crown is in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their 
 constitution, etc. ; that, although the Lords had exercised the 
 power of rejecting bills of several descriptions relating to taxa- 
 tion by negativing the whole, yet the exercise of that power by 
 them had not been frequent, and was justly regarded by the 
 Commons with peculiar jealousy, as affecting their rights, etc. ; 
 and that, to guard for the future against an undue exercise of 
 that power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their 
 rightful control over taxation and supply, the Commons had it 
 in their power so to impose and remit taxes, and to frame bills 
 of supply, that their right, etc., might be maintained inviolate." 
 In the debate which ensued his chief opponents came from 
 his own party, and even his own colleague, the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer, displayed a fundamental difference of feeling 
 from his on the subject, a difference which was expressed by 
 one of the most eloquent supporters of the resolutions, Mr. 
 Horsman, M.P. for Stroud, saying that "Lord Palmerston 
 wished to make the independence of the House of Lords a 
 reality, while Mr. Gladstone seemed to desire that it should be 
 a fiction." Lord Palmerston, indeed, showed the feeling thus 
 attributed to him in a statesman-like declaration that, if " this 
 nation had enjoyed a greater amount of civil, political, social, 
 and religious liberty than, as he believed, any other people in 
 the world, that result had been accomplished, not by vesting in 
 either of the three estates, the Crown, the Lords, or the Com- 
 mons, exclusive or overruling power over the others, but by 
 maintaining for each its own separate and independent authori- 
 ty, and also by the three powers combining together to bear 
 and forbear, endeavoring by harmonious concert with each 
 other to avoid those conflicts and clashings which must have 
 arisen if independent authority and independent action had 
 been exerted by each or by all." He entered into the history 
 of the question, explaining that, though "each branch of the 
 Legislature retained its respective power of rejecting any meas- 
 ure, the Commons had claimed from time immemorial particu- 
 lar privileges in regard to particular measures, and especially 
 the exclusive right of determining matters connected with the 
 taxation of the .people. They claimed for themselves, and 
 
LORD PALMERSTON COUNSELS FORBEARANCE. 441 
 
 denied to the Lords, the right of originating, altering, or 
 amending such measures; but, as long ago as 1671, the Attor- 
 ney -general, in a memorable conference between the two 
 Houses, had admitted that the Lords, though they could not 
 originate or amend, had, nevertheless, power to reject money- 
 bills ;" and this admission he regarded as consistent with com- 
 mon-sense, for "it was well known that, though the Commons 
 contended for the right of originating measures for the grant 
 of supply, and of framing bills with that object, according to 
 their belief of what was best for the public interest, yet sucli 
 bills could not pass into law without the assent of the Lords ; 
 and it was clear that an authority whose assent was necessary 
 to give a proposal the force of law, must, by the very nature 
 of things, be at liberty to dissent and refuse its sanction." 
 
 The committee had enumerated a large number of precedents 
 (above thirty) in which, since that conference, the Lords had 
 rejected such bills; but the cases were not in general exactly 
 similar to that now under consideration, since the bills which 
 they had rejected had commonly, if not in every case, been for 
 the imposition and not for the repeal of a tax ; and in most 
 cases some question of national policy had been involved which 
 had influenced their vote. But the view which Lord Palmer- 
 ston pressed on the House was, that the present was " a case 
 in which party feelings ought to be cast aside. It was one in 
 which higher and larger interests than those of party were con- 
 cerned, and in which the course that the House now took 
 would be a precedent to guide future Parliaments." He 
 pointed out, moreover, that the smallness of the majority in the 
 House of Commons had been to the Lords " some encourage- 
 ment to take this particular step," and that " he was himself 
 led to think that they had taken it, not from any intention to 
 step out of their province, and to depart from the line of con- 
 stitutional right which the history of the country has assigned 
 them, but from motives of policy dependent on the circum- 
 stances of the moment ; and therefore he thought it would be 
 wise if the Commons forbore to enter into a conflict with the 
 Lords on a ground which might really not exist, but satisfled 
 themselves with a declaration of what were their own constitu- 
 
 19* 
 
442 co:nstitutional history of England. 
 
 tional powers and privileges. It was of the utmost importance 
 in a constitution like ours, where there are different branches, 
 independent of each other, each with powers of its own, and 
 where cordial and harmonious action is necessary, that care 
 should be taken to avoid the commencement of an unnecessary 
 quarrel, and the party that acted otherwise would incur a grave 
 responsibility." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, however, though he ended by expressing his 
 concurrence in the resolution proposed by his chief, used very 
 different language respecting the vote of the House of Lords, 
 characterizing it as " a gigantic innovation, the most gigantic 
 and the most dangerous that had been attempted in our time," 
 since " the origination of a bill for the imposition of a tax, or 
 the amendment of a money-bill, was a slight thing compared 
 with the claim to prevent the repeal of a tax ;" and, dealing 
 with assertions which he had heard, that in this instance " the 
 House of Commons had been very foolish and the House of 
 Lords very wise," he asked whether that really described the 
 constitution under which we live. The House of Commons 
 could " not be infallible in matters of finance more than in 
 other matters. It might make errors, but he demanded to 
 know whether those errors in finance were or were not liable 
 to correction by the House of Lords. If they were, what be- 
 cause of the privileges of the Commons?" On the other hand, 
 Mr. Disraeli, as leader of the Opposition or Conservative party, 
 supported the resolutions, and applauded the speech of the 
 Prime-minister, as " a wise, calm, and ample declaration of a 
 cabinet that had carefully and deliberately considered this im- 
 portant subject. It had acknowledged that the conduct of 
 the Lords was justified by law and precedent, and sanctioned 
 by policy," and he maintained that it showed that " the charge 
 made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was utterly unten- 
 able, and had no foundation." And Mr. Horsman, taking a 
 large general view of the legitimate working of the parliament- 
 ary constitution, argued that, while it was an undoubted rule 
 that "all taxes should originate with the Commons, as that 
 elective and more immediately responsible assembly that is con- 
 stantly referred back to the constituencies, the reviewing power 
 
LORD PALMEESTON's THREE RESOLUTIONS PASSED. 443 
 
 of a permanent and independent chamber was no less essential ; 
 and that, considering that " the Reform Bill of 1832 had given 
 a preponderance of powers to the Commons, and that the ten- 
 dency of any farther Reform Act must be in the same direc- 
 tion, so far from narrowing the field of action for the peers, the 
 wiser alternative might be to adopt a generous construction of 
 their powers, with a view to preserving the equilibrium that is 
 held to be essential to the safety and well-working of the con- 
 stitution. The House of Commons," he concluded, " is perpet- 
 ually assuming fresh powers and establishing new precedents. 
 Virtually, all bills now originate with the Commons; but this 
 is not the consequence of any aggressive spirit in them, but is 
 the necessary and inevitable result of the historic working of 
 the constitution ; and so tliis act of the Lords was but the natu- 
 ral working of the constitution to meet a definite emergency." 
 The resolutions were passed, the first and third without a 
 division ; the second, to which an amendment had been pro- 
 posed, designed to limit the force of the precedents alleged as 
 justifying the act of the Lords, by a majority of nearly four 
 hundred.* In their form and language the resolutions cannot 
 be said to have greatly affected the power claimed by the Lords, 
 and exercised by them in this instance. The first two were 
 simply declaratory of acknowledged principles or facts, and the 
 third intimated no desire to guard against anything but an un- 
 due exertion by the Lords of the right which they were ad- 
 mitted to possess. But it can hardly be doubted that the in- 
 tention even of Lord Palmerston, dictated by the strong feeling 
 which he perceived to prevail in the House of Commons on 
 the subject, was to deter the Lords from any future exercise of 
 their powers of review and rejection of measures relating to 
 taxation, when, perhaps, the Commons might be under less 
 prudent guidance; nor that the effect of the resolutions will 
 correspond with the design rather than with the language of 
 the mover, and will prevent the Lords, unless under the pressure 
 of some overpowering necessity, from again interfering to con- 
 trol the Commons in such matters. At the same time it seems 
 
 * 433 to 36. 
 
444 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOET OF ENGLAND. 
 
 superfluous to point out that one claim advanced by the Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, who was apparently carried beyond his 
 usual discretion by his parental fondness for the rejected bill, 
 is utterly unrecomcilable with the maintenance of any constitu- 
 tion at all that can deserve the name. When there are three 
 bodies so concerned in the legislation that the united consent 
 of all is indispensable to give validity to any act, to claim for 
 any one of them so paramount an authority that, even if it 
 should adopt a manifestly mischievous course, neither of the 
 others should have the right to control or check or correct the 
 error, would be to make that body the irresponsible master of 
 the whole government and nation; to invest it with that 
 "overruling power" which Lord Palmerston with such force 
 of reasoning had deprecated ; and td substitute for that har- 
 monious concert of all to which, in his view, the perfection of 
 our liberties was owing, a submission to one, and that the one 
 most liable to be acted upon by the violence or caprice of the 
 populace. He was a wise man who said that he looked on the 
 tyranny of one man as an evil, but on the tyranny of a thou- 
 sand as a thousand times worse. And for this reason also the 
 resolutions which were now adopted seem to have been con- 
 ceived in a spirit of judicious moderation, since, while render- 
 ing it highly improbable that the Lords would again reject a 
 measure relating to taxation, it avoided absolutely to extinguish 
 their power to do so. Lord Palmerston, it may be thought, 
 foresaw the possibility of an occasion arising when the noto- 
 riety that such a power still existed might serve as a check to 
 prevent its exercise from being required. In. the very case 
 which had given rise to this discussion he regarded it as certain 
 that the feeling of the majority of the nation approved of the 
 action of the peers ; and, as what had occurred once might oc- 
 cur again, it was certainly within the region of possibility that 
 another such emergency might arise,«when the Lords might in- 
 terfere with salutary effect to save the country from the evil 
 result of ill-considered legislation ; finance being, above all oth- 
 ers, the subject on which a rash or unscrupulous minister may 
 find the greatest facility for exciting the people by plausible 
 delusions. There is, moreover, another reason why it would 
 
REPEAL OP THE PAPER-DUTIES. 445 
 
 not only be impolitic, but absolutely unfair, to deprive the Lords 
 altogether of their power of rejection even in cases of taxation ; 
 namely, that the Commons, when imposing taxes, are taxing 
 the Lords themselves, as well as the other classes of the com- 
 munity ; while the Lords alone of the whole nation are abso- 
 lutely unrepresented in the House of Commons. There is a 
 frequent cry for a graduated income-tax ; and surely if an un- 
 scrupulous demagogue in office were to contrive such a gradua- 
 tion as would subject a peer to three times the income-tax borne 
 by a commoner, it would be a monstrous iniquity if the peers were 
 to have no power of protecting themselves in their own House. 
 In the last sentence of his speech the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer had "respectfully reserved to himself the freedom of 
 acting in such a way as should appear to offer any hope of 
 success in giving effect by a practical measure to the principle 
 contained in the first resolution." And it was, probably, an 
 exemplification of the power of which he thus bespoke the use 
 that he the next year struck out a scheme for insuring the re- 
 peal of the paper-duties, including it in one bill with all his 
 other financial propositions, instead of dividing , them in the 
 ordinary way in several distinct bills. It was a manoeuvre 
 which too much resembled the system of " tacking," which had 
 been so justly denounced as one of the most unseemly ma- 
 noeuvres of faction in the previous century.* But, as some of 
 the principal reasons which in the preceding year had led the 
 Lords to condemn the repeal had ceased to exist, and the defi- 
 ciency of the revenue had been converted into a surplus, they 
 thought it wiser to prove their superiority of wisdom to the 
 House of Commons by showing a more conciliatory spirit, and 
 passed the bill ; though the course adopted, which had the ef- 
 fect of depriving the Lords of that power of examination of 
 the details of the financial scheme of the government which 
 they had hitherto enjoyed-without any question or dispute, was 
 strongly protested against in both Houses, and by some mem- 
 bers who were not generally unfriendly to the administration. 
 
 * See the proceedings of 1700 (Macaulay, " History of England," v., 273 ; 
 and of 1704, Lord Stanhope's " Keign of Queen Anne," p. 168). The Whig 
 and the Tory writer equally condemn the " Tackers." 
 
446 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTOKY OF ENGLAND. 
 
 A hundred years had now elapsed since George III. ascended 
 the throne. It had been a period full of transactions of great 
 importance, developing the constitution in such a manner and 
 to such an extent as to make a change in its character but little 
 inferior to those which had been produced by the contests of 
 the preceding century. One principal result of the Revolution 
 of 1688 has been described as having been the placing of the 
 political power of the state chiefly in the hands of the aristoc- 
 racy. The Reform Bill of 1832, which has been sometimes 
 called a "second Revolution," transferred that power to the 
 middle classes.* And what may be called the logical sequence 
 of the later measures is the contrary of that which was design- 
 ed to flow from the earlier ones. The changes which were ef- 
 fected in 1688 were intended to promote, and were believed 
 to have insured, stability ; to have established institutions of a 
 permanent character, as far as human affairs can be invested 
 with permanency. And down to the death of George 11. the 
 policy of succeeding ministers, of whom Walpole may be taken 
 as the type, as he was unquestionably the most able, aimed 
 chiefly at keeping things as they were. Quieta non movere. 
 The Peerage Bill, proposed by a Prime-minister thirty years 
 after the Revolution, was but an exaggerated instance of the 
 perseverance with which that object was kept in view, But 
 the Reform Bill of 1832, like the Emancipation Act which pre- 
 ceded it, on the contrary, contained in itself, in its very princi- 
 ple, the seeds and elements of farther change. 
 
 The Emancipation Act, following and combined with the re- 
 peal of the Test Act, rendered it almost inevitable that relig- 
 ious toleration would in time be extended to all persuasions, 
 even to those adverse to Christianity. And the Reform Bill, 
 as has been already pointed out, by the principles on which it 
 based its limitations of the franchise, laid the foundation for 
 
 * In the debate on life peerages ("Parliamentary History," cxl., 356), 
 Lord Grey spoke of" that great transfer of political power from one class 
 to another which was accomplished by the Reform Bill." And Lord 
 Campbell, speaking of Lord Grey himself in connection with that meas- 
 ure, says : " His Reform Bill ought to place him in a temple of British 
 worthies by the side of Lord Somers, for it wisely remodelled the consti- 
 tution, and it is hardly less important than the Bill of Rights." — Life of 
 Lord Campbell, ii., 204. 
 
EEFORM, AND ITS CONSEQUENT RESULTS. 447 
 
 farther and repeated revision and modification.* The conse- 
 quence is, that the aim of statesmen of the present day differs 
 from that which was pursued by their predecessors. The 
 statesman of the present day can no longer hope to avoid 
 farther changes, and must, therefore, be content to direct his 
 energies to the more difficult task of making them moderate 
 and safe, consistent with the preservation of that balance of 
 powers to which the country owes the liberty and happiness 
 which it has hitherto enjoyed. 
 
 It is in this point of view that the diffusion of education, 
 beyond the blessing which it confers on the individual, is of 
 especial importance to the state. Political theorists affirm that 
 all men have an equal right to political power — to that amount, 
 at least, of political power which is conferred by a vote at elec- 
 tions. Men of practical common-sense affirm that no one has 
 a right to power of any kind, unless he can be trusted to for- 
 bear employing it to the injury of his fellow-creatures or of 
 himself. And the only safeguard and security for the proper 
 exercise of political power is sound and enlightened education. 
 It is unnecessary to dwell on this point, because our statesmen 
 of both parties (to their honor) give constant proof of their 
 deep conviction of its importance. 
 
 But, in closing our remarks, it may be allowable to point out 
 the political lesson which, above all others, the teachers of the 
 masses should seek to inculcate on their pupils. The art of 
 government, and each measure of government, is, above all 
 other things, the two-sided shield. There are so many plausi- 
 ble arguments which may be advanced on each side of almost 
 every question of policy, that no candid man will severely con- 
 demn him who in such disputable matters forms an opinion 
 different from his own. Age and experience are worse than 
 valueless if they do not teach a man to think better of his kind ; 
 and the history of the period which we have been considering 
 teaches no lesson more forcibly than this, that the great ma- 
 
 * A recent writer, professedly belonging to the Radical party, claims 
 for it the credit of" being the legitimate issue of the Reform Bill of 1832." 
 ("The State of Parties," by J. K Kehhel, Mneteenth Century, March, 1881, 
 p. 497.) 
 
448 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OP ENGLAND. 
 
 jority of educated men, and especially of our leading statesmen, 
 are actuated by honest and patriotic motives. And we would 
 presume to urge that more important than a correct estimate 
 of any one transaction of the past, or even of any one measure 
 to influence the future, is the habit of putting a candid, and 
 therefore a favorable, construction on the characters and inten- 
 tions of those to whom from time to time the conduct of the 
 affairs of the nation is intrusted. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abbott, Mb., proposes a census, 196. 
 
 Addiugtou, Mr., becomes Prime-minis- 
 ter, 199. See Sidmouth. 
 
 Additional Force Bill, 201. 
 
 Albert, Prince, marries Queen Victoria, 
 354. 
 
 Alien Act, the, 145. 
 
 Althorp, Lord, introduces a bill for the 
 reform of the Poor-laws, 320; his 
 speech on the condition of Ireland, 
 322 ; invites the House of Commons 
 to rescind a vote, 388. 
 
 Amelia, Princess, death of, 218. 
 
 Archdall, Mr., on Catholic Emancipa- 
 tion, 172, note. 
 
 Association, Catholic, suppression of, 
 2T4. 
 
 Baker, Mk., moves a resolution on the 
 dismissal of the Coalition Ministry, 
 106. 
 
 Barrington, Lord, moves the expulsion 
 of Wilkes, 15. 
 
 Battle, wager of, abolished, 259. 
 
 Bernard, trial of, as accomplice of Or- 
 sini, 435. 
 
 Bishoprics, provision for the increase of, 
 335; exclusion of the occupants of the 
 junior bishoprics from the House of 
 Peers, 392; resignation of, by aged 
 bishops, 41S, 419. 
 
 Blucher, Field-marshal, proposes to put 
 Napoleon to death, 232. 
 
 Boston, United States, tea ships at, 
 boarded by rioters, and the cargo 
 thrown into the sea, 74. 
 
 Bristol, Lord, denounces the appoint- 
 ment of the Chief-justice to a seat in 
 the cabinet, 202. 
 
 Brougham, Mr., afterward Lord Chan- 
 cellor, the chief adviser of the Queen, 
 250 ; defends the ministry for stopping 
 Lord Powis's bill, 390. 
 
 Brownlow, Mr., opposes Pitt's commer- 
 cial reforms, 163. 
 
 Buonaparte, Napoleon, detention of, 230. 
 
 Burdett, Sir F., carries a motion for re- 
 peal of Roman Catholic disabilities, 
 268. 
 
 Burke, Mr. E., opposes the expulsion of 
 Wilkes, 16,20; supports Mr. Grenville's 
 act,«0; complains of the insolence of 
 
 the House of Peers, 53 ; supports the 
 repeal of the bill for taxing the Amer- 
 ican Colonies, 67 ; on annual Parlia- 
 ments, 84; brings in a bill for eco- 
 nomical reform, 87; his "short ac- 
 count of a late administration," 90; 
 asserts the right of the House of Peers 
 to examine the public accounts, 92; his 
 violent language on the Regency Bill, 
 135, 138 ; member of Lord Rocking- 
 ham's second ministry, 161 ; his view 
 of the attachment of the Colonies to 
 England, 369. 
 Bute, Earl of, Prime-minister in 1762, 8 ; 
 resigns office, 4. 
 
 Cabinet, character of, 229. 
 
 Camden, Earl of, approves the resolu- 
 tion of the House of Commons, 10; 
 opposes the Royal Marriage Act, 51 ; 
 supports Lord Chatham's views on 
 the American question, 64; moves the 
 Regency bill of 1788, 138. 
 
 Campbell, Lord, his "Lives of the Chan- 
 cellors " referred to, 9, 41 ; his denun- 
 ciation of the Declaratory Act, 68, and 
 of the Regency bill, 140 ; on the Chief- 
 justice in the cabinet, 205. 
 
 Canada, disquietude in, 364; union of 
 the two provinces, 366. 
 
 Canning, Lord, grants the right of adop- 
 tion to the Hindoo feudatories, 429. 
 
 Canning, Mr. G., attacks the appoint- 
 ment of the Chief-justice to a seat in 
 the cabinet, 203 ; becomes Prime-min- 
 ister, 260 ; dies, 261 ; his opinion on 
 the question in which House of Par- 
 liament the Prime- minister should be, 
 374, 375. 
 
 Caroline, Princess of Brunswick, mar- 
 ries the Prince of Wales, 247 ; inves- 
 tigations into^ her conduct, 247; she 
 dies, 254. 
 
 Cave, Mr., punished for publishing re- 
 ports of debates, 23. 
 
 Census established, 196. 
 
 Charlotte, Princess, birth of, 180. 
 
 Chartists, rise of, 350 ; outrages of, at 
 Birmingham and Newport, 350. 
 
 Chatham, Earl of, Secretary of State in 
 1760,10; Lord Privy Seal in 1767, 13, 
 40 ; supports Lord Rockingham's res- 
 
450 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 olution on the expulsion of Wilkes, 
 21; denies the power of the Parlia- 
 nieut to tax America, 64. 
 
 Church reform, sketched out by Sir Rob- 
 ert Peel, 343 ; carried by Lord Mel- 
 bourne's ministry, 346. 
 
 Clarence, Duke of, opposes the aboli- 
 tion of the slave-trade, 210, 211; his 
 leaning toward the Whigs, 28S. 
 
 Clarendon, Earl of, omits to reply to the 
 despatch of the French minister, 432. 
 
 Clergy, Eoman Catholic, question of en- 
 dowing the, 279. 
 
 Colborne, Sir John, crushes the insurrec- 
 tion in Ca-nada, 365. 
 
 Colonies, general grant of constitutions 
 to, in New Zealand, the Cape, and 
 Australia, 308. 
 
 Commons, House of, privileges of, with 
 respect to money-bills, 54. 
 
 Conventicle Act, repeal of, 225. 
 
 Conway, General, Secretary of State, in- 
 troduces a bill of indemnity, 41. 
 
 Cornwallis, Lord, surrenders in Ameri- 
 ca, 79. 
 
 Corporations, reform of, 337. 
 
 Crosby, Brass, Mr., Lord Mayor, commits 
 a messenger of the House of Commons, 
 and is himself committed to the Tow- 
 er, 25. 
 
 Cumberland, Duke of, marries Mrs. Hor- 
 ton, 48. 
 
 Cust, Sir J., Speaker of the House of 
 Commons, 56. 
 
 Dasuwoob, Sik p., his revels at Medmen- 
 
 ham Abbey, 11. 
 Declaratory Act, 65 et seq. 
 De Grey, Mr., Attorney- general, sup- 
 ports the resolutions against Wilkes, 
 
 21. 
 Denbigh, Lord, defends the employment 
 
 of Hanoverian troops at Gibraltar, 77. 
 DenmaUjLord Chief-justice, his charge 
 
 to the jury in the case of Stockdale v. 
 
 Hansard, 370. 
 Disraeli, Mr. B., his act for the trial of 
 
 election petitions, 31 ; he denounces 
 
 Sir Robert Peel for not resigning when 
 
 defeated on the sugar-duties, 387, 388 ; 
 
 condemns Lord Clarendon's omission 
 
 to reply to the French despatch, 434; 
 
 supports the House of Lords on the 
 
 paper-duties, 442. 
 Dowdeswell, Mr., opposes the Royal 
 
 Marriage Act, 51. 
 Dundas, Mr., moves an amendment to 
 
 Mr. Dunuing's resolution, S9. 
 Dunning, Mr., afrerward Lord Ashbur- 
 
 ton, supports Mr. Grenville's act, 30 ; 
 
 carries a resolution on the influence 
 
 of the crown, 89. 
 Durham, Lord, Governor of Canada, 366. 
 
 Education, influence of the penal laws 
 
 on, in Ireland, 173. 
 Eldon, Lord, on the coronation oath in 
 
 connection with the Catholic ques- 
 
 tion, 198; on the detention of Napo* 
 leon, 232 ; on life peerages, 414. 
 
 Elgin, Lord, Governor-general of Cana- 
 da, 367. 
 
 Ellenborough, Lord, supports the Ad- 
 ditional Force Bill, 202; becomes a 
 member of the Cabinet, 202; is re- 
 called from the government of India 
 by the Company, 385. 
 
 Emancipation of Roman Catholics de- 
 signed by Pitt, 198; carried by the 
 Duke of Wellington, 271. 
 
 Ernest, Duke of Cumberland, and King 
 of Hanover, refuses to yield prece- 
 dence to Prince Albert, 356. 
 
 Erskiue, Lord, as Chancellor, presides 
 over the impeachment of Lord Mel- 
 ville, 200 ; resists Lord Sidraouth's Six 
 Acts, 241. 
 
 FiTzsERALD, LoRi) E., opposes the Eng- 
 lish government, 175. 
 
 Fitzgerald, Mr. Vesey, is defeated in 
 Clare, 269. 
 
 Fitzgibbon, Mr. (afterward Lord Clare), 
 opposes the convention of delegates 
 in Dublin, 162; Attorney -general in 
 Ireland, prosecutes the sheriff of Dub- 
 lin, 166 ; supports the Regency bill, 
 168. 
 
 Fitzwilliam, Earl, is dismissed from the 
 Loi-d-lieutenancy of Yorkshire, 238. 
 
 Five Mile Act repealed, 225. 
 
 Fox, Mr. C, opposes Mr. Grenville's act, 
 30 ; on the privileges claimed by the 
 House of Commons respecting money- 
 bills, 55, note; on Parliamentary re- 
 form and annual Parliaments, 84; 
 urges the appointment as Prime-min- 
 ister of the Duke of Portland, 97; re- 
 signs oflice, 98 ; becomes Secretary of 
 State, 100; his India Bill, 101; violence 
 of his attacks on Pitt at the begin- 
 ning of his ministry, 112; his opin- 
 ions on Colonial policy, 128; denies 
 the Prince's marriage, 129 ; opposes 
 the Regency bill, 133 ; opposes the 
 Alien Act and other bills, 146, 148; op- 
 poses Pitt's commercial reforms, 165; 
 becomes Secretary of State, 202; sup- 
 ports the abolition of the slave-trade, 
 209 ; dies, 210. , 
 
 France, new revolution in, in 1848, 395. 
 
 Franklin, Dr., is examined by the House 
 of Commons on Mr. Grenville's meas- 
 ures of taxation, 60. 
 
 Geobge hi., state of affairs at the acces- 
 sion of, 2 ; illness of, in 1764, 36; firm- 
 ness in the Gordon riots, 95 ; dismisses 
 the Coalition Ministry, 106 ; becomes 
 deranged, 132 ; is attacked on the 
 street, 144; resists the relaxation of 
 Catholic restrictions, 198 ; becomes 
 permanently deranged, 218 ; dies, 245; 
 character of his reign, 245. 
 
 George IV. succeeds to the throne, 247. 
 
 Gladstone, Mr. W. E., opposes the forti- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 451 
 
 fication of the dockyards, 438; pro- 
 poses to repeal the paper-dnties, 439 ; 
 carries the repeal of ihe paper-duties, 
 445; desires to weaken the power of 
 the House of Lords, 442, 
 
 Gloucester, Duke of, marries Lady 
 Waldegrave, 48. 
 
 Gordon, Lord George, the Gordon riots, 
 94, 
 
 Goulburn, Mr. H,, is Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, 386. 
 
 Grafton, Duke of, Prime -minister in 
 1767, 13, 40 ; disapproves of American 
 taxation, 70. 
 
 Graham, Sir J., as Home-secretary, or- 
 ders the opening of letters, BSl. 
 
 Grampound disfranchised, 1. 
 
 Granville, Earl, defends life peerages, 
 413, 
 
 Grattan, Mr, H., moves the repeal of 
 Poynings' Act, 160 ; opposes Pitt's 
 commercial reforms, 165 ; opposes 
 Pitt's Regency bill, 168. 
 
 Gienville, Mr. G,, becomes Prime -min- 
 ister, 4; opposes the expulsion of 
 Wilkes, 16; brings in a bill for the 
 investigation of election petitions, 29 ; 
 imposes taxes on the North American 
 Colonies, 58. 
 
 Grenville, Lord, introduces the Alien 
 Bill, 145 ; opposes the Additional 
 Force Bill, 201; brings in a bill for 
 the abolition of the slave-trade, 210 ; 
 refuses a seat in the cabinet in 1812, 
 221. 
 
 Grey, Mr. (afterward Earl), opposes the 
 Eegency bill, 139; opposes the Alien 
 Act, 146 ; opposes the union with Ire- 
 land, 181; proposes to diminish the 
 number of members of the House of 
 Commons, 188 ; opposes the abolition 
 of slavery, 212;' refuses a seat in the 
 cabinet in 1S12, 221 ; becomes Prime- 
 minister, 291 ; his ministry brings in 
 the Reform Bill, 295; defends a pro- 
 posed creation of peers, 300 ; men- 
 tions the sovereign's opinion uncon- 
 stitutionally, 302; retires from office, 
 325. 
 
 Grey, Earl (son of the preceding), his 
 doctrine on the true principles of co- 
 lonial government, 81 ; on life peer- 
 ages, 414, 415. 
 
 Gower, Lord F. L., carries a resolution 
 for the endowment of the Roman 
 Catholic clergy, 267. 
 
 Guizot, M., Foreign Secretary iu France, 
 402. 
 
 Halifax, Eaul of, issues a general war- 
 rant against the publishers, etc., of 
 The North Briton, 8. 
 
 Hanoverian troops, employment of, at 
 Gibraltar, 75. 
 
 Hansard, Mr., publishes the Parliamen- 
 tary debates, 27. 
 
 Hardy, General, taken prisoner by Sir J. 
 Warren, 176. 
 
 Hill, Mr. Roland, proposes a reform of 
 the Post-office, 359. 
 
 Hillsborough, Lord, writes a circular let- 
 ter to the North American Colonies, 72. 
 
 Hoche, General, sails for Ireland, 175. 
 
 Holdernesse, Earl of, Secretary of State 
 in 1760, 3. 
 
 Holland, Lord, opposes the Regency 
 Bill, 219. 
 
 Holt, Chief-justice, his decision on the 
 question of slavery, 206. 
 
 Horsman, Mr,, supports the House of 
 Lords on the paper-duties, 442. 
 
 Humbert, General, taken prisoner in 
 Mayo, 176. 
 
 India: Fox's India Bill, 101 ; Pitt's India 
 Bill, 122; Mutiny in, 421; transfer of 
 the authority of the Company to the 
 crown, 422 ; establishment of the Or- 
 der of the Star of India, 428 ; is visited 
 by the Prince of Wales, 429. 
 
 Ireland, affairs of, 153 et seq. ; connection 
 with France, 171 ; rebellion in, 176. 
 
 Jamaica, planters in, compensated for 
 diminution of the value of their prop- 
 erty by the abolition of slaveiy, 315 ; 
 disturbances in, 361 ; its constitution is 
 suspended, 361. 
 
 Judges, new tenure of their office, 2. 
 
 King, the, cannot be a witness in any 
 legal proceeding, 233. 
 
 Labottohert:, Me, H,, reproaches Sir 
 Robert Peel for not resigning, 387. 
 
 Leopold, King of Belgium, points out 
 the insufficiency of the description of 
 Prince Albert, 355. 
 
 Lewis, Sir G. C, speech on the history 
 and power of the East India Com- 
 pany, 423. 
 
 Liverpool, Lord, earnest for the univer- 
 sal abolition of the slave - trade, 213 ; 
 becomes Prime -minister, 220; makes 
 the Catholic question an open ques- 
 tion in the cabinet, 228 ; brings in, 
 and subsequently withdraws, a "Bill 
 of Pains and Penalties" against the 
 Queen, 251; attacked by apoplexy and 
 dies, 260 ; contemplates an increased 
 grant to Maynooth, 378. 
 
 Lopes, Sir M., procures the return of Mr. 
 Peel for Westbury, 306. 
 
 Louise, Princess, marriage of, 53. 
 
 Lowther, Sir John, obtains a grant of 
 Inglewood Forest, 45, 
 
 Lnttrell, Mr., is declared elected for Mid- 
 dlesex, 19. 
 
 Lyndhurst, Lord, carries an amendment 
 on the Refcn-m Bill, 298; introduces a 
 Regency bill, 308. 
 
 Mackintosh, Sik J., applies himself to 
 mitigate the severity of the law, 256. 
 
 Mahon, Lord, brings in a bill to dimin- 
 ish the expenses of elections, 86. 
 
452 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Mansfield, Lord, condemns general war- 
 i-auts, 10; insists on the necessity of 
 a bill of indemnity, 42 ; vindicates 
 the supremacy of Parliament, 65 ; his 
 house is burnt by the rioters in 1780, 
 94. 
 
 Martin, Mr., wounds Wilkes in a duel, 
 12. 
 
 Massachusetts, riots in, 59. 
 
 Maynooth, foundation of a college at, 
 174; is enlarged and more fully en- 
 dowed, 378. 
 
 Melbourne, Lord, becomes Prime -min- 
 ister, 326; resigns, 327; resumes ofiice, 
 328; mismanages the arrangements 
 for Prince Albert, 357. 
 
 Melville, Lord, is impeached, 200. 
 
 Metternich, Prince, is driven from Vien- 
 na, 895. 
 
 Miles, Mr., defeats the government on 
 the sugar-duties, 386. 
 
 Moira, Lord, employed by the Regent 
 to negotiate with the Whig leaders in 
 1812, 221. 
 
 Money-bills, power of the House of 
 Lords as to, 438, 439. 
 
 Montesquieu, M. de, his opinion of the 
 English constitution, 17. 
 
 Montmorin, M., Wilberforce writes to 
 him on the subject of the slave-trade, 
 207. 
 
 Napoleon, Louis, is elected President of 
 the French Republic, 402; his coup 
 d'etat, 402; conspiracy against, 430. 
 
 Navigation laws, the, repeal of, 398. 
 
 Nelson, Lord, his victory at Copenha- 
 gen, 199. 
 
 Newcastle, Duke of, Prime -minister in 
 1760, 3. 
 
 New Shoreham, disfranchisement of, for 
 bribery, 34. 
 
 Newspapers, tax on, reduced and after- 
 ward abolished, 409. 
 
 Nicholas, Emperor of Russia, writes to 
 the Qneen, 407. 
 
 Normanby, Lord, ambassador in Paris, 
 complains of Lord Palmerston, 402. 
 
 North, Lord, supports the decision in fa- 
 vor of Mr. Luttrell, 19 ; opposes Mr. 
 Grenville's act, 30 ; opposes Mr. Sey- 
 mour's bill to limit the Nullum Tem- 
 pus Act, 47 ; opposes reform of Par- 
 liament, 87 ; rejects the demands of 
 Ireland, 159. 
 
 Northington, Lord C, defends the em- 
 bargo on corn, 41 ; indicates the su- 
 premacy of Parliament, 65. 
 
 Nullum Tempus Act, the, extended, 46. 
 
 O'CoNNELi., Mb. D., is returned for Clare, 
 269 ; is chief of the Catholic Associa- 
 tion, 273. 
 
 Octennial act for Ireland, 155. 
 
 " Olive Branch, the," 74. 
 
 Onslow, Colonel, complains of the pub- 
 lication of the debates, 24. 
 
 Orsini, conspiracy of, 430. 
 
 Palmeeston, Lokd, is dismissed from 
 the Foreign-office, 405 ; introduces the 
 bill for the transfer of the government 
 of India to the crown, 422 ; writes to 
 the ^ueen on the abolition of the au- 
 thority of the East India Comi)any, 
 426; is defeated on the Conspiracy 
 Bill, and resigns, 434 ; returns to of- 
 fice, 435 ; disapproves of the reduction 
 of the paper-duty, 439 ; desires to up- 
 hold the House of Lords, 440. 
 
 Papineau, M., organizes an insurrection 
 in Canada, 364. 
 
 Parke, Sir J., is created a peer for life, 
 410. 
 
 Parliament, first meeting of the United, 
 193. 
 
 Peel, Sir Robert, responsible for the 
 change of ministry in 1834, 6, 117 ; 
 becomes Home-secretary, 255 ; resigns 
 his seat for Oxford, and fails to be re- 
 elected, 272 ; impropriety of his res- 
 ignation, 285; speech on introducing 
 the bill for Catholic Emancipation, 
 276 ; becomes Prime-minister, 327 ; de- 
 clines to form an administration in 
 1839, 352 ; supports Lord J. Russell's 
 resolutions in the case of Stockdale 
 V. Hansard, 371; his opinion on the 
 question in which House the Prime- 
 minister should be, 375; becomes 
 Prime - minister in 1841, 374 ; revises 
 the commercial tariff, 376 ; suspends 
 the Corn -law, 393; causes its aboli- 
 tion, 394. 
 
 Peel, Colonel, organizes the Volunteers, 
 436. 
 
 Peerages, life, legality of, 410, 411. 
 
 Peers, the House of, strikes out of a com 
 bill some clauses giving bounties, 54; 
 their right to inquire into the public 
 expenditure asserted by Lord Camden 
 and others, 91 ; their privileges as to 
 money-bills, 93 ; provisions as to Irish 
 peers in the Act of Union, 186, 187; 
 proposed creation of peers to carry 
 the Reform Bill considered, 298 et 
 seq. ; the House of Peers rejects the 
 abolition of the paper-duty, 438, 439. 
 
 Penal laws, in Ireland, 173; repeal of, 
 in the United Kingdom, 377. 
 
 Penn, Mr., sent from America to Eng- 
 land with "the Olive Branch," 74. 
 
 Perceval, Mr., becomes Prime-minister, 
 218 ; proposes a Regency bill, 218 ; is 
 murdered, 220. 
 
 Percy, Lord, proposes the entire aboli- 
 tion of slavery, 212. 
 
 Persigny, M. de, French Secretary of 
 State, his despatch on Orsini's con- 
 spiracy, 432. 
 
 Pigott, Sir A., brings in a bill on the 
 slave-trade, 209. 
 
 Pitt, see Earl of Chatham. 
 
 Pitt, Mr. T., denounces the influence of 
 the crown, 89. 
 
 Pitt, Mr. W., on the privileges of House 
 of Commons respecting money-bills, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 453 
 
 55, note ; becomes Prime-minister, 106 ; 
 his loDg struggle against, and event- 
 ual defeat of the Opposition, 112 et 
 seq. ; comparisons between his father 
 and him, 121; his India bill, 122; his 
 Quebec bill, 127 ; his Regency bill, 135, 
 167; founds Maynooth, 174; carries the 
 Irish Union, 188, 189 ; resigns on the 
 Catholic question, 199. 
 
 Plunkett, Mr., opposes the Irish Union, 
 181. 
 
 Pousonby, Mr. G., condemns the policy 
 of open questions, 228. 
 
 Poor-law, the, reform of, 319 et seq. 
 
 Portland, Duke of, becomes Prime-min- 
 ister, 100; again, 2 IS. 
 
 Post-office, reform of, 358 ; letters opened 
 by the order of the Secretary of State, 
 381. 
 
 Powis, Earl, brings in a bill to preserve 
 the Welsh sees, 389. 
 
 Pownall, Governor, introduces a corn 
 bill, 54. 
 
 Poyniugs' Act, 153 ; repeal of, 161. 
 
 Eadetskt, MAEsnAL, his campaign in 
 North Italy, 396. 
 
 Reform of Parliament, Alderman Saw- 
 bridge proposes a measure of, S3 ; Mr. 
 Pitt brings in a bill for, 86 ; agitation 
 for, in 1818, 236 ; introduced and car- 
 ried by Lord Grey's administration, 
 294 et seq. ; the people indifferent to 
 farther reform, 397. 
 
 Regency bill of 1764, 36 ; of 1840, 39 ; for- 
 mer Regency bills had been passed in 
 the reigns of Edward III., Richard II., 
 Henry VL, and George II., 136 ; in Ire- 
 land, 168; bill of 1810, 218. 
 
 Registration, extension of, 342. 
 
 Rice, Mr. Spring, as Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, introduces Post-office re- 
 form, 359; as Lord Monteagle pro- 
 poses the rejection of the paper-duty 
 bill, 439. 
 
 Roberts, Mr., returning officer for New 
 Shoreham, 33. 
 
 Rochfort, Lord, introduces the Royal 
 Marriage Act, 50. 
 
 Rockingham, Marquis of. Prime-minis- 
 ter in 1766, 13 ; moves a resolution 
 condemning the proceedings against 
 Wilkes, 21 ; Prime-minister a second 
 time, 22 ; repeals the American taxes, 
 63 ; disapproves of the employment of 
 Hanoverian troops at Gibraltar, 76; 
 wisdom of his policy toward America, 
 81 ; his speech on the influence of the 
 crown, 90 ; becomes Prime-minister a 
 second time, 160. 
 
 Rolle, Mr., moots the question of the 
 Prince's marriage, 129, 138. 
 
 Romilly, Sir S., opposes the Regency 
 bill, 139; applies himself to reforms 
 of the law, 256. 
 
 Rose, Mr., opposes Sir A. Pigott's bill 
 on the slave-trade, 209. 
 
 Russell, Lord J., his opinion on Fox's 
 
 conduct in Opposition, 118, 119; on 
 the Regency bill, 140 ; carries the re- 
 peal of the Test Act, 264 ; introduces 
 the Reform Bill, 295 ; introduces a bill 
 for municipal reform, 338; his resolu- 
 tions in the case of Stockdale v. Han- 
 sard, 371; becomes Prime -minister, 
 395. 
 Russia, war with, 408. 
 
 Sandwich, Earl of, denounces Wilkes's 
 "Essay on Woman," 11. 
 
 Sarstield, General, takes refuge in 
 France, 171. 
 
 Savile, Sir G., his bill for the limitation 
 of the Nullum Tempus Act, 46. 
 
 Seaforth, Lord, reports of the treatment 
 of slaves in Barbadoes, 211. 
 
 Seditious Meetings Act, 147. 
 
 Shelburne, Lord, denounces the employ- 
 ment of Hanoverian troops at Gibral- 
 tar, 76 ; becomes Prime-minister, 98. 
 
 Sheridan, Mr. R., his language on the 
 Prince's marriage, 130 ; opposes the 
 Alien Act, 146 ; conceals Lord Yar- 
 mouth's intention to resign, 222. 
 
 Sidmouth, Lord, as Home-secretary, in- 
 troduces six bills for the suppression 
 of sedition, 239 ; resigns office, 255. 
 
 Slavery, abolition of, 316. 
 
 Slave-trade, abolition of, 209 et seq. 
 
 Smith, Mr. W., M.P. for Norwich, on re- 
 peal of the Five Mile Act, 226. 
 
 Somersett, is released by Lord Mans- 
 field, 206. 
 
 Stamp Act, imposed on the American 
 Colonies by Mr. Grenville, 58 ; repeal- 
 ed by Lord Rockingham, 63. 
 
 Stanley, Mr., afterward Lord, and after- 
 ward Lord Derby, denounces the Cath- 
 olic Association, 274 ; brings in a bill 
 for the abolition of slavery, 317; fails 
 in the attempt to form a ministry in 
 1845, 393 ; becomes Prime-minister in 
 1852, 396; proposes a committee on 
 life peerages, 415; becomes Prime- 
 minister, 434 ; resigns, 435. 
 
 St. Vincent, Lord, opposes the abolition 
 of the slave-trade, 211. 
 
 Stockdale, Mr., brings an action against 
 Messrs. Hansard, 370. 
 
 Sugar-duties, Sir Robert Peel's ministry 
 is defeated on a reduction of, 386. 
 
 Sussex, Duke of, protests against some 
 clauses of the Regency Act, 310. 
 
 Sydenham, Lord, Governor -general of 
 Canada, 367. 
 
 Tandy, Nappeb, proposes a congress, 
 166. 
 
 Temple, Earl, his interview with George 
 III., 104, 116. 
 
 Test and Corporation Acts are repealed, 
 264. 
 
 Thurlow, Mr., afterward Lord Chancel- 
 lor, on the case of Wilkes, 21 ; defends 
 the employment of Hanoverian troops 
 at Gibraltar, 76, 77 ; denounces Fox's 
 
454 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 India Bill, 103; approves of the King's 
 einploymeut of Lord Temple, 116. 
 
 Tone, Wolfe, 175 ; commits snicide, 176. 
 
 Towuseud, Lord, Lord-lieutenant of Ire- 
 land, 154. 
 
 Towusend, Mr. C, re-imposes taxes on 
 North America, 69. 
 
 Traitorous Correspondence Bill, 147. 
 
 Troy, Dr., petitions for a Roman Cath- 
 olic college in Ireland, 173. 
 
 Union, the Irish, 177 et seq. 
 Union with Scotland, obstacles to, and 
 advantages resulting from, 177. 
 
 Victoria, Queen, succeeds to the throne, 
 349; marries, 354; her careful exercise 
 of her dnties, 401 ; draws up a memo- 
 randum for the guidance of the min- 
 isters, 403 ; writes to foreign sover- 
 eigns, 406, 407. 
 
 Victoria, the province of, grant of a con- 
 stitution to, 368. 
 
 Villiers, Mr. C, advocates the repeal of 
 the Corn-laws, 392. 
 
 Volunteers, rise of the Irish, 158 ; rise of 
 the English, 436. 
 
 Wat-eb, Prinoe of, son of George III., 
 his conduct and establishment, 101 ; 
 marries Mrs. Pitzherbert, 129 ; is at- 
 tacked in the streets, 237. See George 
 IV. 
 
 Wales, Prince of, son of the Queen, vis- 
 its India, 429. 
 
 Walpole, Sir R., the case of, 17 ; on elec- 
 tion petitions, 29 ; refuses to repeal the 
 Test Act, 263 ; his general policy, 446. 
 
 Walpole, Mr. Spencer, supports the Con- 
 spiracy Bill, 434. 
 
 Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, de- 
 nounces Wilkes, 11, 12. 
 
 Ward, Mr., his motion on the appropria- 
 tion of Church funds, 325. 
 
 Wedderburn, Mr., afterward Lord 
 Loughborough, on the case of Wilkes, 
 21 ; supports Mr. Grenville's act, BO ; 
 his opinion on the Riot Act, 96 ; the 
 chief legal adviser of the Prince of 
 Wales, 132; suggests the Traitorous 
 
 Correspondence Bill, 147; excites the 
 King to resist the removal of Catho- 
 lic disabilities, 198. 
 
 Wellesley, Marquis, proposed to be ap- 
 pointed Prime-minister, 222. 
 
 Wellington, Lord, afterward Duke of, 
 his victories in the Peninsula and in 
 France, 224; becomes Commander-in- 
 chief, 261 ; advises the King to decline 
 dining with the Lord Mayor, 290 ; fails 
 in the endeavor to form an admin- 
 istration, 298 ; becomes temporary 
 Prime -minister, h(jldiug several of- 
 fices, 327; condemns the recall of Lord 
 Ellenborough, 385. 
 
 Westmoreland, Lord, opposes the aboli- 
 tion of the slave-trade, 211. 
 
 Wetherall, Sir Charles, is attacked at 
 Bristol, 297. 
 
 Weymouth, Lord, Secretary of State, 
 writes a letter to the Surrey magis- 
 trates, 15. 
 
 Whately, Archbishop, his opinion on 
 the Lord -lieutenancy of Ireland, 194, 
 oiote. 
 
 Whitbread, Mr., promotes the impeach- 
 ment of Lord Melville, 200. 
 
 Wilberforce, Mr. W., proposes the ad- 
 mission of Roman Catholics to the 
 militia, 197 ; devotes himself to the 
 abolition of the slave-trade, 207. 
 
 Wilkes, Mr., sets up The North Briton, 
 4; criticises the King's speech, 5; is 
 apprehended, 8 ; is expelled the House 
 of Commons for printing the "Essay 
 on Woman," 13 ; is elected for Middle- 
 sex, expelled, and re-elected, IS et seq. ; 
 as Lord Mayor behaves with spirit dur- 
 ing the Gordon riots, 22 ; procures the 
 expunction of the resolutions against 
 him, 22. 
 
 William IV., his conduct on the Reform 
 Bill, 298, 299 ; dies, 349. 
 
 Windham, Mr,, brings in a bill for re- 
 enforcing the army, 215. 
 
 Wolseley, Sir C, is elected M.P. by a 
 Birmingham convention, 238. 
 
 Yarmouth, Earl of, Lord Chamberlain, 
 222. 
 
 THE END. 
 
IMPORTANT HISTORICAL WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 HARPER & BROTHERS, FRAMLIN SftUARE, N. Y. 
 
 Hakpeb «S5 Bbothees will send any of the following works by tnail, postage pre- 
 paid, to any part of the United States, on receipt of the price. 
 
 For a full list o/Histoeioal Works pvblished by Harpeb & Bkothers, see their- 
 New and Enlarged Catalogue, which will be sent to any address on receipt of nine 
 cents, 
 
 MACAULAY'S ENGLAND. The History of England from the Acces- 
 sion of James II. By Thomas Babington Macaulat. New and El- 
 egant Library Edition, from New Electrotype Plates. 8vo, Cloth, Gilt 
 Tops, Five Volumes in a Box, $10 00 per set. Sold only in Sets. 
 12mo, Cloth, 5 vols., $2 50 ; Sheep, $3 75; 8vo, Paper, 5 vols., |I 00; 
 8vo, Cloth, in 1 vol., $1 25. 
 
 MACAULAY'S MISCELLANEOUS WORKS. The Miscellaneous 
 Works of Lord Macaulay. In Five Volumes, Svo, Cloth, with Paper 
 Labels and Uncut Edges, in a box, $10 00. 
 
 HUME'S ENGLAND. History of England, from the Invasion of Julius 
 Csesar to the Abdication of James IL, 1688. By Datid Hume. New 
 and Elegant Library Edition, from New Electrotype Plates. Six Vol- 
 ^umes in a Box, 8vo, Cloth, with Paper Labels, Uncut Edges and Gilt 
 Tops, $12 00. Sold only in Sets. 6 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 00 ; Sheep, 
 $4*50. 
 
 MOTLEY'S DUTCH REPUBLIC. The Rise of the Dutch Republic. 
 A History. By John Lothrop Motley, LL.D., D.C.L. With a Por- 
 trait of William of Orange. Three Volumes in a Box, 8vo, Cloth, with 
 Paper Labels, Uncut Edges and Gilt Tops, $6 00. Sold only in Sets. 
 
 MOTLEY'S UNITED NETHERLANDS. History of the United Neth- 
 erlands, from the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Years' 
 Truce. With a full View of the English-Dutch Struggle against Spain, 
 and of the Origin and Destruction of the Spanish Armada. By John 
 Lothrop Motley, LL.D., D.C.L. With Portraits. Four Volumes 
 in a Box, 8vo, Cloth, with Paper Labels, Uncut Edges and Gilt Tops, 
 $8 00. Sold only in Sets. 
 
 MOTLEY'S JOHN OF BARNEVELD. Life and Death of John of 
 Barneveld, Advocate of Holland. With a View of the Primary Causes 
 and Movements of the " Thirty Years' War." By John Lothrop 
 Motley, LL.D., D.C.L. Illustrated. Two Volumes in a Box, 8vo, 
 Cloth, with Paper Labels, Uncut Edges and Gilt Tops, $4 00. Sold 
 only in Sets. 
 
2 Important Historical Works. 
 
 GIBBON'S ROME. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman 
 Empire. By Edward Gibbon. With Notes by Dean Milman, M. 
 GuizoT, and Dr. William Smith. New Edition, from New Electro- 
 type Plates. Six Volumes in a Box, 8vo, Cloth, with Paper Labels, 
 Uncut Edges and Gilt Tops, $12 00. Sold only in Sets. 6 vols., 
 12mo, Cloth, $3 00 ; Sheep, $4 50. 
 
 HILDRETH'S UNITED STATES. The History of the United States. 
 
 . First Series. — From the First Settlement of the Country to the Adop- 
 tion of the Federal Constitution. Second Series. — From the Adoption 
 of the Federal Constitution to the End of the Sixteenth Congress. By 
 Richard Hildketh. Six Volumes, 8vo, Cloth, with Paper Labels, 
 Uncut Edges and Gilt Tops, f 12 00. Sold only in Sets. 
 
 LODGE'S ENGLISH COLONIES IN AMERICA. English Colonies 
 in America. A Short History of the English Colonies in America. 
 By Henry Cabot Lodge. 8vo, Half Leather, $3 00. 
 
 HARPER'S POPULAR CYCLOPAEDIA OF UNITED STATES 
 HISTORY. From the Aboriginar Period to 1876. Containing Brief 
 Sketches of Important Events and Conspicuous Actors. By Benson 
 J. Lossing. Illustrated by Two Steel-plate Portraits and over 1000 
 Engravings. 2 vols., Royal 8vo, Cloth, $12 00. 
 
 PICTORIAL FIELD-BOOK OF THE REVOLUTION ; or, Illustra- 
 tions by Pen and Pencil of the History, Biography, Scenery, Relics, and 
 Traditions of the War for Independence. By Benson J. Lossing. 2 
 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $14 00; Sheep, $15 00; Half Calf, $18 00. 
 
 PICTORIAL FIELD-BOOK OF THE WAR OF 1812; or, Illustra- 
 tions by Pen and Pencil of the Histoiy, Biogi'aphy, Scenery, Relics, and 
 Traditions of the last War for American Independence. By Benson 
 J. Lossing. With 882 Illustrations, engraved on Wood by Lossing & 
 Barritt, chiefly from Original Sketches by the Author. Complete in 
 ■ One Volume, 1084 pages, large 8vo. Price, in Cloth, $7 00 ; Sheep, 
 $8 50 ; Full Roan, $9 00 ; Half Calf or Half Morocco extra, $10 00. 
 
 ALISON'S HISTORY OF EUROPE. History of Europe. First Se- 
 ries. — From the Commencement of the French Revolution, in 1789, to 
 the Restoration of the Bourbons, in 1815. In addition to the Notes on 
 Chapter LXXVL, which correct the errors of the original work con- 
 cerning the United States, a copious Analytical Index has been append- 
 ed to this American Edition. Second Series. — From the Fall of Napo- 
 leon, in 1815, to the Accession of Louis Napoleon, in 1852. By Sir 
 Archibald Alison. 8 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $16 00 ; Sheep, $20 00 ; Half 
 Calf, $34 00. 
 
 KEIGHTLEY'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. The History of England, 
 from the Earliest Period to 1839. By Thomas Keightley. 5 vols., 
 
 18mo, Cloth, $3 75. 
 
Important Historical Works. 
 
 KINGLAKE'S CRIMEAN WAR. The Invasion of the Crimea : its 
 Origin, and an Account of its Progress down to the Death of Lord Rag- 
 lan. By A. W. KiNGLAKE. Maps and Plans. Four Vols, now ready. 
 12rao, Cloth, $2 00 per vol. ; Half Calf, $3 75. 
 
 GREEN'S HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE. History of the 
 English People. By John Richard Green, M.A. With Maps. In 
 Four Volumes, 8vo, Cloth, $2 50 per vol. 
 
 GREEN'S SHORT HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE. A 
 Short History of the English People. By John Richard Green. 
 With Maps and Tables. 8vo, Cloth, $1 30. 
 
 GREEN'S MAKING OF ENGLAND. The Making of England. By 
 Jo R. Green. With Maps. 8vo, Cloth, $2 50 ; 4to, Paper, 20 cents. 
 
 M'CARTHY'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. A History of Our Own 
 Times, from the Accession of Queen Victoria to the General Election 
 of 1880. By Justin M'Cartht. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $2 50; 4to, 
 Paper, 40 cents. 
 
 DRAPER'S AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. History of the American Civil 
 War. By John W. Draper, M.D., LL.D. In Three Volumes. 8vo, 
 Cloth, $10 50; Sheep, $12 00; Half Calf, $17 25. 
 
 DRAPER'S INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE. A 
 History of the Intellectual Development of Europe. By John W. Dra- 
 per, M.D., LL.D. New Edition. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 00; Half 
 Calf, $6 50. 
 
 CARLYLE'S FREDERICK THE GREAT. History of Friedrich IL, 
 called Frederick the Great. By Thomas Carlyi^e. Portraits, Maps, 
 Plans, &c. 6 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $7 50. 
 
 CARLYLE'S OLIVER CROMWELL. Letters and Speeches of Oliver 
 Cromwell, including the Supplement to the First Edition. With Eluci- 
 dations. By Thomas Carltle. 2 vols., I2mo, Cloth, $2 50. 
 
 CARLYLE'S FRENCH REVOLUTION. History of the French Revo- 
 lution. By Thomas Carltle. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $2 50. 
 
 CARLYLE'S EARLY KINGS OF NORWAY. The Early Kings of 
 Norway ; also an Essay on the Portraits of John Knox. By Thomas 
 Carltle. 12mo, Cloth, $1 25. 
 
 STEPHEN'S HISTORY OF FRANCE. Lectures on the History of 
 France. By Sir James Stephen, K.C.B. 8vo, Cloth, $3 00-, Half 
 Calf, $5 25. 
 
Important Historical Works. 
 
 RAWLINSON'S MANUAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY. A Manual of 
 Ancient History, from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the "Western 
 Empire. Comprising the History of Chaldasa, Assyria, Media, Babylo- 
 nia, Lydia, Phcenicia, Syria, Judaea, Egypt, Carthage, Persia, Greece, 
 Macedonia, Parthia, and Rome. By George Rawlinson, M. A., Cam- 
 ■den Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford. 12mo, 
 Cloth, $1 25. 
 
 WILKINSON'S ANCIENT EGYPTIANS. A Popular Account of the 
 Ancient Egyptians. Revised and Abridged from his larger Work. By 
 Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, D.C.L., F.R.S., &c. With 500 Illustra- 
 tions. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, f 3 50. 
 
 MACKINTOSH'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. A History of England 
 to the Seventeenth Century. By Sir James Mackintosh. 3 vols., 
 12m 0, Cloth, $3 00. 
 
 PERRY'S ENGLISH CHURCH HISTORY. A History of the Church 
 of England, From the Accession of Henry VIII. to the Silencing of 
 Convocation in the 18th Century. By Rev. G. G. Perry, M.A., Canon 
 of Lincoln. With an Appendix, containing a Sketch of the History of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. . By 
 J. A. Spencer, S.T.D. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 50. 
 
 RUSSELL'S MODERN EUROPE. History of Modern Europe ; with a 
 View of the Progress of Society, from the Rise of Modern Kingdoms to 
 the Peace of Paris in 1763. By W. Russell. With a Continuance 
 of the History by William Jones. Illustrated. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, 
 f 6 00 ; Sheep, $7 50 ; Half Calf, $12 75. 
 
 AGNES STRICKLAND'S QUEENS OF SCOTLAND. Lives of the 
 Queens of Scotland and English Princesses connected with the Regal 
 Succession of Great Britain. By Agnes Strickland. Complete in 
 8 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $12 00 ; Half Calf, $26 00. 
 
 GROTE'S HISTORY OF GREECE. A History of Greece, from the 
 Earliest Period to the Close of the Generation Contemporary with Al- 
 exander the Great. By George Grote. 12 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $18 00 ; 
 Sheep, $22 80 ; Half Calf, $39 00. 
 
 MOSHEIM'S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. Ancient and Modern 
 Ecclesiastical History, in which the Rise, Progress, and Variation of 
 Church Power are Considered in their Connection with the State of 
 Learning and Philosophy, and the Political History of Europe during 
 that Period. Translated, with Notes, &c., by A. Maclaine, D.D. Con- 
 tinued to 1826, by C. Coote, LL.D. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $1 00 ; Sheep, 
 $5 00 ; Half Calf, $8 50. 
 
Important Historical Works. 
 
 GIESELER'S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. A Text-Book of Church 
 History. By Dr. John C. L. Gieselek. Translated from the Fourth 
 Revised German Edition. By Samuel Davidson, LL.D., and Rev. 
 John Winstanlet Hull, M.A. A New American Edition, Revised 
 and Edited by Rev. Henry B. Smith, D.D., Professor in the Union 
 Theological Seminary, New York. Vols. I,, II., III., and IV., 8vo, 
 Cloth, $2 25 ; Sheep, $2 75 ; Half Calf, $4 50 per volume ; Vol. V., 
 8vo, Cloth, $S 00. 
 
 ABBOTT'S FREDERICK THE GREAT. The History of Frederick 
 the Second, called Frederick the Great. By John S. C. Abbott. 
 Illustrated. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00 ; Half Calf, $7 25. 
 
 ABBOTT'S FRENCH REVOLUTION. The French Revolution of 
 1789, as viewed in the Light of Republican Institutions. By John 
 S. C. Abbott. 100 Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00 ; Sheep, $5 50 ; 
 Half Calf, $7 25. 
 
 ABBOTT'S NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. The History of Napoleon 
 Bonaparte. By John S. C. Abbott. With Maps, Illustrations, and 
 Portraits on Steel. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10 00; Sheep, $11 00; Half 
 Calf, $14 50. 
 
 SCHILLER'S REVOLT OF THE NETHERLANDS. History of the 
 Revolt of the Netherlands : Trial and Execution of Counts Egmont and 
 Horn, and the Siege of Antwerp. By Frederick Schiller. Trans- 
 lated from the German by the Rev. A. J. W. Morrison, M.A. 12mo, 
 Cloth, $1 00. 
 
 SCHILLER'S THIRTY YEARS' WAR. History of the Thirty Years' 
 War. By Frederick Schiller. Translated from the German by the 
 Rev. A. J. W. Morrison, M.A. 12mo, Cloth, $1 00. 
 
 HELPS'S SPANISH CONQUEST. The Spanish Conquest in Ameri- 
 ca, and its Relation to the History of Slavery, and to the Government 
 of Colonies. By Sir Arthur Helps. 4 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $6 00; 
 Half Calf, $13 00. 
 
 ROLLIN'S ANCIENT HISTORY. Ancient History of the Egyptians, 
 Carthaginians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, Grecians, 
 and Macedonians. By Charles Rollin. Including a History of the 
 Arts and Sciences of the Ancients, with a Life of the Author, by James 
 Bell. Numerous Maps and Illustrations. In 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, 
 $4 50 ; Sheep, $5 50. In 1 vol.. Cloth, $3 50 ; Sheep, $4 00. 
 
 DE TOCQUEVILLE'S FRENCH REVOLUTION. The Old Regime 
 and the Revolution. By Alexis De Tocqueville, of the Academic 
 Frangaise, Author of "Democracy in America." Translated by John 
 Bonner. 12mo, Cloth, $1 50. 
 
6 Important Historical Works. 
 
 SISMONDFS ITALIAN REPUBLICS. A History of the Italian Re- 
 publics : being a View of the Rise, Progress, and Fall of Italian Free- 
 dom. By J. C. L. SiSMONDE DE SiSMONDi. 12mo, Cloth, 75 cents. 
 
 SISMONDI'S LITERATURE IN EUROPE. Historical View of the 
 Literature of the South of Europe. By J, C. L. Sismonde de Sismon- 
 Di. Translated, with Notes, by Thomas Roscoe. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, 
 $2 75 ; Half Calf, $6 25. 
 
 CUSHING'S TREATY OF WASHINGTON. The Treaty of Washing- 
 ton : its Negotiation, Execution, and the Discussions relating thereto. 
 By Caleb Gushing. Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 00. 
 
 HALLAM'S LITERATURE OF EUROPE. Introduction to the Lit- 
 erature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Cen- 
 turies. By Henry Hallam, LL.D., F.R.A.S. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, 
 $4 00 ; Sheep, $5 00. 
 
 HALLAM'S MIDDLE AGES. View of the State of Europe during the 
 Middle Ages. By Henry Hallam, LL.D., F.R.A.S. 8vo, Cloth, 
 
 $2 00 ; Sheep, $2 50. ■ 
 
 HALLAM'S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. The 
 
 Constitutional History of England, from the Accession of Henry VII. to 
 the Death of George 11. By Henry Hallam, LL.D., F.R.A.S. Svo, 
 Cloth, $2 00 ; Sheep, $2 50. 
 
 YONGE'S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. The 
 
 Constitutional History of England from 1760 to 1860. By Charles 
 Ddke Yonge, M.A. 4to, Paper, 25 cents. 12mo, Cloth. {Just Ready). 
 
 MACKENZIE'S AMERICA. America : a History. I. The United 
 States. — II. Dominion of Canada.— III. South America, &c. By Rob- 
 ert Mackenzie. 4to, Paper, 20 cents. 
 
 MACKENZIE'S NINETEENTH CENTURY. The Nineteenth Century. 
 A History. By Robert Mackenzie. 4to, Paper, 15 cents. 
 
 SMITH'S MOHAMMED AND MOHAMMEDANISM. Lectures de- 
 livered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain in February and March, 
 1874. By R. Bosvtorth Smith, M.A., Assistant Master in Harrow 
 School ; late Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. With an Appendix 
 containing Emanuel Deutsch's Article on " Islam." 12mo, Cloth, $1 50. 
 
 TAYLOR'S HISTORY OF IRELAND. The History of Ireland. From 
 the Anglo-Norman Invasion to the Union of the Country with Great 
 Britain. By W. C. Taylor. With Additions by William Sampson. 
 2 vols., 18mo, Cloth, $1 50. A 
 
 If 
 

 
 
 yy 
 
 
 
 ^Q^^> 
 
 _0 
 
 ^/'.'V^'^'V;^.^^' 
 
 
 
 5J*> 
 
 
 ^!«#^1^ /^ 
 
 ''/j. * n -ti ^ 
 
"> ~aSx-. 
 
 0' 
 
 -f^ 
 
 .A -/, 
 
 , ' \ '^ ^^ / ^- 
 ^ ^ ''y -^ 
 
 
 -V :• ^^v 
 
 .0" 
 
 a ^p 
 
 -^^ -V 
 
 
 - \- . :r~ • 
 
 .^^. 
 
 ,xV ^/>, 
 
 .A- 
 
 <*. 
 
 % c^^" 
 
 c 
 
 ^■. 
 
 
 ■-. v^ 
 
 \° "^ 
 
 
 
 
 x^^. ^^^^ 
 
 ^o'' ' 
 
 
 
 .^'^ 
 
 
 "C 
 
 
 
 
 
 "h. 
 
 .^#^^ 
 
 ■^c^.^^^^P^.* ,y^^ 
 
 V" 
 
 
 -^"^ r (3 51 '. -f=>. 
 
 »'/' 
 
 \^ 
 
 
 . ,xX^--^^->- 
 
 
 rp- y 
 
 
 .^ -^ ^%: 
 
 -V, d^ 
 
 
 ^0' 
 
 oA^ 
 
 
 
 ■•^.T.A" - -■( ' 
 
 .s -^' 
 
 ^ ' 
 
 \ 
 
 '/ 
 
 s 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 ''*. 
 
 .^ 
 
 %^ 
 
 
 xO o. 
 
 ^i^'^.. 
 
 
 ^^%^^' 
 
 
 '-^y- V^ 
 
 
 
 A^^ ^/^ 
 
 
 ,«>■ -^