BRITAIN, OR GREAT BRITAIN, The most considerable of all the European islands, is situated between fifty and fifty-eight and a half degrees of north latitude. It is bounded on the north by the North Sea, on the east by the German Ocean, on the south by the English Channel, and on the west by St George’s Channel and the Atlantie Ocean. From north to south it extends about five hundred and eighty miles in length; its greatest breadth, from the North Foreland in Kent to the Land’s-End in Cornwall, is about three hundred and seventy miles; and its superficial area is computed at eighty-seven thousand five hundred square miles. The figure of this island is irregular, somewhat resembling that of a wedge, to which indeed it was compared by the ancients, from its gradually narrowing towards its northern extremity; and its whole line of coast is deeply indented by bays, creeks, and estuaries, which, notwithstanding its boldness and ruggedness in many parts, afford safe and commodious harbours. From its geographical position, therefore, no less than from its natural advantages, this island seems to have been destined by nature to become the seat of a great and powerful nation.

CHAP. I.
[7:5:293]

BRITISH AND ROMAN PERIOD.

Origin of the names Albion and Britain.—The Gauls, Kelts, or Celts.—Their migrations and incursions Portion of Europe occupied by them at the dawn of history.—Distinctive characters of the race—Branches of the great Celtic family.—Celts the earliest inhabitants of Britain—Followed by invaders of the Gothic or Teutonic race.—Predominance of the latter—Aboriginal Celtic population of Scotland succeeded by the Gothic— Condition of the Britons in the time of Caesar—Druidism— Character and habits of the Britons.—Commerce and War.— Roman Period—Caesar’s Expeditions—Subsequent atte'mpts of the Romans—Aulus Plautius.—Ostorius Scapula.—Gallant struggle of Caractacus—His defeat in South Wales—Betrayed.—Aulus Didius—Attack on Anglesea by Suetonius Paulinus. —Revolt of the Britons under Boadicea—Campaigns of Agricoa—Extent of the Roman Conquests in Britain—Introduction of Christianity—Hadrian, Severus, and Caraçalla—Constitution of the Roman Provincial Government Usurpations of Carnusius and Allectus—Constantine—Cruelties of Paulus. —Scots and Picts.—Their inroads and ravages Departure of the Romans from Britain—Distresses of the Natives—Arrival of the Saxons under Hengist and Horsa.—Saxon Conquest.

Various etymologies have been proposed of the words Albion and Britain; the former being the ancient name of the island; the latter that which superseded it, and in time became the appellation by which it was universally known.

Originally Albion was considered as only one of the British islands, and it is described as such both by Agathemerus and Ptolemy; but being by far the largest and most important of the group, the particular name was in course of time laid aside, and the general denomination used in its stead. The etymological origin of both, however, is involved in uncertainty. Some derive that of Albion from the Greek Αλφoς or Aλπoς, identical with the Latin Albus and the Sabine Alpus, signifying White, and being obviously mere variations of the Celtie Alb or Alp, which has the same meaning; conceiving, with Festus, that as the mountains which separate France and Italy were called Alpes, by reason of their snowy covering, so this island was denominated Albion on account of the chalky cliffs and soil of its southern shores, which were the portions that appeared to those who viewed it from the coast of Gaul; and this conjecture derives some countenance from the fact that the ancient Britons themselves called it Iniswen or Eilanban, the White Island. Others, again, have recourse to the Phoenician, in which Alp signifies High, and eon tend that the name Albion was originally bestowed upon the island by the adventurous navigators of Phoenicia, who first visited its shores, by reason of the bold and precipitous aspect of its headlands and coasts, and that hence it is descriptive, not of the colour, but of the physical conformation, of these coasts.

Of the word Britain a still greater variety of etymologies have been proposed. Nennius derives it from Brutus, whom he likewise calls Brito, the fifth in descent from Aeneas. Camden supposes it a compound of Brith or Brit, a Celtie word signifying painted, and rαwα, a Greek word denoting a region; so that, according to him, the island was called Britannia from its being the country of painted people. Carte, founding on the circumstances that the ancient Britons called themselves Prydhain, and their country Inis-prydhain, or the Isle of the Prydhain, conceives that Brìtanni and Britannia are only latinized forms of the original word Prydhain in the British or Celtic tongue. Somner, disliking Camden’s etymology, conjectures that Britain is derived from brydio, which in the ancient language of the island signified rage, and, according to him, was intended to indicate its position in the midst of a tempestuous sea. Whittaker is equally or even more fanciful than Somner, contending that the true etymon of the word is brith, briet, brit, bris, or brig, which he says means striped or divided. And Bochart, whose love of the Phoenician was such that he found it every where and in every thing, conceives that this island and some others near it were denominated BaratAnac by the Phoenicians, that is, the country of tin, which, contracted into Bratanac, passed from them to the Greeks and Romans, and ultimately emerged in the softened forms of Britanni and Britannia. This, at least, has the merit of ingenuity to recommend it. Of the others, that of Carte seems to us to be the most natural and probable; although it leaves unexplained the word Prydhain, the analysis of which is essential to complete the etymology. It has been assumed by some that the name was originally bestowed on the island by foreigners; and, on this supposition, they have endeavoured to resolve it into its elements, or at least to offer a conjectural explanation of the circumstance which led to its primary application. But for our own part, we see no grounds w hatever for entertaining such a notion; and think it much more likely that foreigners varied, according to their respective idioms and modes of articulation, the name in use among the natives, than that they invented, applied, and rendered general a new one, constructed on a remote and fanciful analogy, and having reference to accessory circumstances or particular localities·^[1. Carte, History, vol. i. pp. 4, 5, G. ]

At the period when the Greek and Roman writers began to turn their attention to the west of Europe, they found it, from the remotest extremity of Ireland to the banks of the Danube, peopled by a race called Gauls, Kelts, or Celts, who, before the practice of tillage bound them to the soil, had overspread a large portion of Spain [7:5:294]in the course of their armed migrations, and, through the passes of the Julian and Rhaetian Alps, had poured predatory bands on the great plain of northern Italy, where they established themselves, and afterwards struck a heavy blow at the rising power of Rome, stretching their dominions as far as the Appennines. This remarkable race, believed with reason to be of oriental origin, extended along the Danube till they reached the Sarmatians on the one hand, and the Thracians and Illyrians on the other; and from the central position which they thus occupied, they appear to have diverged by various natural channels to the different countries of Europe where their descendants are still to be found. How they came to establish themselves originally in such a position is uncertain. Their early migrations, undertaken for plunder rather than conquest, occurred anterior to the period of history; and we have but slender grounds for probable conjecture respecting either their extent or their antiquity. But some of the later incursions of this people into Italy and Greece are fortunately better known to us. A numerous body of Gauls, for example, deserting the bands of their countrymen who ravaged Greece, established themselves in Asia Minor under the successors of Alexander, and gave their name to the country they occupied, which was accordingly called Galatia. In the opinion of some, this body of invaders consisted wholly of Celts, while others maintain that they were of the Teutonic race; but it seems at least equally probable that they were composed of both races. With regard to the causes which produced these fierce and extensive irruptions, the learned have lost themselves in speculation, and wearied their readers with endless conjectures. The motives which led to them were in all likelihood different at different times, and they may therefore be variously ascribed to the restless and adventurous spirit of such tribes, to the ambition and rapacity of their chiefs, to the necessity which, after a certain period, urges on an unproductive race to seek new settlements, or to the resistless pressure of invading barbarians from behind, or perhaps to the simultaneous operation of several of these causes.^[2. Mackintosh, History of England, vol. i. Introd. ]

The Rhine formed the northern boundary of the Gauls, and separated them from the Germanic or Teutonic race, which spread into Scandinavia, towards the last retreat of the Finnish tribes in the Aretic solitudes, and extended, on the other side, from the shores of the Atlantic to the vast plains inhabited by the Sarmatians and Daeians. The Garonne divided them from the Aquitanians, a people who, from various circumstances, as the testimony of the ancients, and the names of rivers and mountains, appear to have been the original inhabitants of the Spanish peninsula; whilst a portion of this primitive Iberian race occupied the southern coast of Gaul from the Pyrenees to the frontier of Italy.

The intermingling, followed by the gradual fusion and amalgamation of the various races by which most countries have been successively overrun, renders it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to discriminate the first inhabitants from the more civilized visitants, as well as to distinguish between the different tribes of the latter. Greece, from its position near the earliest seats of civilization, was open to conquest and colonization from numerous points both by sea and land; on the side of Thrace, on that of Asia Minor, from Egypt, and from the countries of the East. Europe, Africa, and Asia, appear at different times to have discharged portions of their population into this favoured spot; and hence has arisen the difficulty of ascertaining the number, and much more of detecting the peculiarities, of each successive immigration Italy, again, being accessible to colonists by sea from Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt, and always exposed to the inroads of the tribes who inhabited or were able to make themselves masters of the principal passes of the Alps, was occupied by a greater diversity of races than any other country of the West; and hence has arisen a confusion in the genealogy of its tribes, which even the profound sagacity and varied learning of Niebuhr have not succeeded in disentangling. Population appears to have originally flowed into this country from its two extremities; but in process of time the opposite streams met, and became so thoroughly intermingled, that no moral or intellectual chemistry can ever decompose them. With regard to the colonies of the Phoenicians, they encircled the Mediterranean as far as Carthage and Cadiz, whilst no Grecian colonists had as yet established themselves farther to the west than Massalia, Massilia, or Marseilles. In circumstances and times like these, the natural boundaries of nations were often irregularly changed. The course of migration was frequently diverted from its ordinary channels, and sometimes forced back towards its original source. Races were mingled so that their distinctive marks became no longer discoverable; and even languages were changed, or altogether disappeared. Of this confusion the Galatians in Asia Minor, and the Keltiberians in Spain, afford examples. Even the Belgie inhabitants of northern Gaul have been thought a mixed race, and it seems pretty certain that, from whatever cause, Teutonic tribes were generally classed amongst them. Again, although the natural tendency of an unwritten language be to break down first into dialects and afterwards into distinct languages, yet languages originally different sometimes run into each other, and coalesce in a very remarkable manner. Of this the Hindustance and Anglo-Norman have afforded examples at the opposite extremities of the globe, both having been formed out of jargons used in intercourse between the conquerors and the conquered. The victors sometimes impose their language, with little mixture, on the vanquished; but in India every variety of dialect has been deeply tinctured with Sanscrit, the original as well as the sacred language of that country; and nothing can be imagined more heterogeneous or dissimilar than the roots of most of the forms of speech which actually obtain in it.^[3. Mackintosh, ubi supra. ]

It may not be out of place to observe here, that the term race, as used in civil history, has a very different acceptation from that which is given to it by naturalists. The latter, confining their view to the physical form and organization of man, and making no account of language, and of those other minor varieties and peculiarities which the civil historian is obliged to notice, admit at present only five races of men; the Caucasian, the Mongolian, the Ethiopian, the American, and the Malay. Colour is considered as one of their tests or characters. The Caucasian is accounted the primitive stock, and it deviates into two extremes, equally remote and different from each other, namely, the Mongolian and the Ethiopian. But although the Mongol and the Negro differ from the European much more deeply and radically than the Hindu and the Arab, yet if the lesser difference be admitted to be the result of physical causes, operating throughout a long tract of ages, it will be difficult to prove that the greater may not at length have been produced by similar causes acting during a greater period of time. Be this as it may, however, it must be obvious that, from lengthened separation, and the natural divergency of language, the historical divisions [7:5:295]of mankind become broken into portions or subdivisions not always corresponding with the political distribution of territory among nations, and that, as the same state may contain tribes of various race, so the same race may be subject to many distinct rulers.^[4. Mackintosh, Hist, of England, vol. i. p. 12. ]

The Celtic race may be considered as subdivided into two distinct portions, with languages which, though certainly derived from a common stock, are not, it is believed, reciprocally understood. One of these cognate languages or dialects, called the Gaelic, is still spoken by the native Irish, by the Highlanders of Scotland, and in the Isle of Man; the other is the common speech of Wales and Lower Bretagne, and, till a period comparatively recent, it was spoken in Cornwall; whilst, in each branch or subdivision, the parent language seems only to differ by provincial variations, which, accumulating in a long series of ages, have produced a greater divergence than is generally found to exist between affiliated dialects. The Gaulish tribes are unable to converse with the Cimbric, yet there is abundant evidence that the Gaelic and Cymraig or Welsh are branches of the same family. Indeed it is supposed by some that the Cimbric or Cymraig followed, at a considerable interval, the Gaulish settlers; and it seems not improbable, that the tribes who spoke this form or dialect of Celtic were, as Sir James Mackintosh observes, “the same Cimbri who, in conjunction with their Teutonic allies, were expelled from the Roman territory with a slaughter so enormous, and after atrocities so unmatched, as to be suspected of exaggeration;” although it should be borne in mind “that the adversaries of the Romans were not armies, but migratory nations, bringing into the field women and children, and fierce animals,” which all contributed to swell the horrors of the butchery, and first taught the Romans to dread the arms of the northern barbarians.^[5. History, ibid.. ]

That the aboriginal, or at least the earliest inhabitants of these islands were a people of Celtic origin and race, seems to be admitted on all hands, and is rendered highly probable, both from the intimations of history and the evidence of language. The former leave little doubt that the migrations and settlements of the Celtic tribes preceded those of the Scythian or Gothic nations by whom they were almost everywhere displaced; and this conclusion derives additional probability from the consideration, that the greater part of the names of mountains, lakes, and rivers, in both the British islands, are still descriptive and significant in some dialect of the Celtic language. “The appellations of these vast and permanent parts of nature,” says Sir James Mackintosh, “are commonly observed to continue as unchanged as themselves.” Of all the languages that ever existed, the Celtic is perhaps the richest in an appropriate and expressive nomenclature for physical objects; and the facility with which its elementary forms admit of combinations descriptive of the varieties observable in external nature, must have greatly tended to impress and perpetuate the appellations which it originally supplied. Hence it is that, after the revolution of ages, and the fluctuations of conquest, dominion, and race, together with all the changes which time and usage insensibly operate in language, the names in question are still distinctly traceable; whilst the extent to which they still obtain in both parts of Britain seems to argue the original ascendancy of the race from whose language they were derived. Had the Gothic preceded, instead of following, the Celtic colonists, the case would in all probability have been exactly, or at least very nearly, the reverse of this. As it is, however, the fact here mentioned appears to be incompatible with any other supposition than that of Britain being originally peopled by a Celtic race; and as the Gaelic dialect explains many more of the names of external objects than that spoken by the other branch of the race, the same principle leads us to conclude, that those who employed that variety of the common or parent language were the first settlers. Beyond these probabilities the most ancient period of our history is involved in impenetrable darkness.

To the Celtic population of Britain succeeded the Gothic, by whom they were, at a very early period, displaced to a considerable extent. Advancing from the northern parts of Asia and Europe, where they had enjoyed a wild independence, the Scythians or Goths drove the Cimbri or northern Celts before them, and, seizing upon that part of Gaul which is nearest to Britain, they crossed over into England. The period of this immigration is uncertain; but at the time of Caesar’s invasion, the primitive or Celtic inhabitants had been driven into the interior and more inaccessible parts of the island, while the southeastern portion was peopled with colonies of Gothic descent, who may, therefore, be regarded, as the chief ancestors of the English nation. The expulsion of the aboriginal population from the south-eastern coasts and lowland districts of the whole island was complete; so much so, in fact, that, but for the tenacity with which the names of natural objects adhere to them, and some other indications of a still fainter kind, not a trace or vestige of their original ascendancy would have remained. The Saxon conquest was of a different character. The invaders, inconsiderable in number, sought political supremacy rather than a settlement by means of extermination, and used the privileges of conquest with more moderation than their predecessors of the same race. There no longer existed between the conquerors and the conquered that radical diversity of physical conformation, habits, and customs, which, in a barbarous age, is the source of inextinguishable hostility; they accordingly enslaved, but forcbore from exterminating or utterly expelling the natives; a gradual amalgamation took place; and, from the commingled Gothic dialects of both, at length sprung the Anglo-Saxon, which is the parent of the English language. Some, indeed, have maintained that, at the period of Caesar’s invasion, the population of Britain still continued Celtic. But this opinion labours under serious objections. The Anglo-Saxon and the English language, in its elder and simpler form, exhibit scarcely a trace of Celtic in their composition; and they have even less of that peculiar dialect of Gothic which the Angles and Saxons must have spoken at the period of their arrival in Britain, than of the Belgic and Dutch dialects, which are in all probability of Scandinavian origin. To this it may, indeed, be objected that Druidism, which is rightly considered as a Celtic superstition, is mentioned by Caesar in the earliest authentic records of the island which has reached our times. But, in the first place, Caesar never speaks of having actually seen Druids, nor does it appear that any one of this class of priests was discovered until the Romans had penetrated into South Wales; and, secondly, forms of superstition often survive the races or nations amongst which they originated, and pass indifferently from the conquered to the conquerors, and conversely, by the operation of causes totally distinct from those which determine the fate of communities of men.

The expulsion of the Celts from the eastern coast of Britain long preceded the arrival of Caesar. This may be inferred from the account of Tacitus, whose description [7:5:296]of the inhabitants of the lowland parts of Scotland as a red-haired and large limbed race, clearly indicates their Gothic origin; whilst, in the interval between Caesar and Agricoa, no material change appears to have occurred in the relative distribution of the various tribes by whom Scotland was then inhabited. It would be vain to attempt to ascertain the epoch of a revolution which seems to have been effected long anterior to the period of history; but if the time of its occurrence be uncertain, the fact itself is nevertheless indisputable; and this is connected with another, sufficiently remarkable, namely, that every trace or vestige of the original Celtic population of the Lowlands has been obliterated, and that there is neither monument, record, tradition, nor circumstance of any kind which can lead to a conjecture as to their fate. It is natural, indeed, to suppose that in Scotland, as elsewhere, those who escaped the fury of the invaders sought shelter in the mountains or Highlands, where a people chiefly Celtic still exists; but it seems as well established as any fact of the kind can ever be, that the occupation of the Highlands by a Celtic population does not date much earlier than the sixth century, and. that the first settlers of this race were a reflux of the Celts from Ireland, not a remnant of the aboriginal inhabitants of the Lowlands. The Dalriads or Attacotii are indeed said to have established themselves in Argyleshire about the middle of the third century; but they were driven back to Ireland in the fifth century, and did not return till the following one, when they effected a second and permanent settlement. Extravagant pretensions to antiquity have, it is true, been set up in favour of the Celtic Scots by Boyce, Buchanan, and others, who gravely affirm that this people reigned in Scotland a thousand years before the Christian era. But the fabulous millennium with which these writers gratified the credulous nationality of their countrymen in an uninquiring age has found no supporters in more modern times.

The condition of the Britons in the time of Caesar very much resembled that of the Gauls from whom they sprung. They were divided into a number of petty kingdoms or states, each of which was again subdivided among subordinate chieftains, who governed their respective tribes or clans with more than feudal authority. Oh great emergencies, indeed, they united under a common leader; but this “king of kings” had only a limited and precarious rule; and the confederacies of the ancient Britons, like those of the ancient Greeks, were neither numerous nor lasting. Like the mutually repellant atoms of the Epicurean philosophy, their union was fortuitous; and as there existed no principle of compression to retain them in the situation into which accident or a sense of common danger sometimes threw them, a separation speedily followed. It was this which gave the Romans so great an advantage in their contests with these warlike nations. Never consulting together for the benefit of the whole, it was rare that even two or three of them united against the common enemy. They fought, for the most part, separately, and, as a necessary consequence, were beaten in detail. Of the limits of the regal authority among the Britons little is known with any degree of certainty, though much probably depended on the personal character of the individual who exercised it. Hereditary right seems to have been recognised, and extended even to female succession, but it was not strictly observed or enforced; and instances were not rare of the exclusion of a son by his father, whom he had offended, from any share in his dominions. It has been conjectured that the power of the people was considerable; but tnis is merely conjecture. Among the Gauls the few had not succeeded in excluding the many from all participation in the conduct of their own affairs. But whether the Britons resembled them in this respect or not, it is difficult to say. From all that we learn, however, we are inclined to think that here the similarity failed.

But whatever may have been the power of the kings or the influence of the people, there existed an order which exercised anauthorityparamount tothatof either, or of both united. This was the Druidical or sacred caste, which, in relation to the rest of society, occupied a station and enjoyed privileges in Britain, analogous to those possessed by the Brahmins of India at the period of their greatest glory. The power of the Druids was absolute, exclusive, and peculiar to them as a body. Their sanction was necessary to all public transactions, which otherwise were of no validity. They could pardon malefactors who had been judicially condemned, or ordain victims to the sacrifice without the intervention of any trial or judgment but their own. From the Druids the Romans seem to have borrowed the aquae ct ignis interdictio, which became the most terrible sentence of their law. It was, in fact, the Druidical excommunication slightly varied. An individual debarred from attending the holy rites, and interdicted the use of fire, received sentence of eternal banishment from the fellowship of his kind; and this sentence, more formidable than the excommunication of the Roman Catholic church in aftertimes, they could pronounce at pleasure. Their ceremonies were at once mysterious and inhuman. The mistletoe, which they accounted peculiarly sacred, was gathered by them from the leaves of the oak with circumstances of extraordinary solemnity, though for what purpose or with what view is unknown. They dwelt in the centre of concentrated woods, and their retreats were defended from intrusion or violation by the power of a dark and gloomy superstition. On their rude but horrid altars they sacrificed human victims; and from the course of the blood as it flowed under the knife of the officiating priest, they prognosticated future events. They were the lawgivers, physicians, poets, and philosophers of their country. They are said to have been acquainted with letters and the art of writing, though in what particular form is uncertain. Caesar, probably from misinformation, says that they employed the Greek letters, which is very improbable. They taught their disciples the doctrine of transmigration, and inculcated on them the duty of despising death in defence of their country.’ They practised celibacy, and continued their order by kidnapping children, whom they trained up and initiated in their mysteries. Some of their observances are described as excessively revolting; others would seem to have been of a more innocent and even humane character. Britain was the great sanctuary of this superstition. Originally imported from Gaul, it seems to have found a congenial soil in this country, where it struck its roots so firmly, and insinuated itself so deeply, into the general character, that traces of it are still discoverable in several of the popular superstitions which the “schoolmaster” has not yet succeeded in effacing.

The Druidical system is not without oriental features. “So much subserviency of one part of a nation to another,” says Sir James Mackintosh, “in an age so destitute of the means of influence and of the habits of obedience, is not without resemblance to that system of ancient Asia, which confined men to hereditary occupations, and consequently vested in the sacerdotal caste a power founded in the exclusive possession of knowledge. The Egyptian and Phoenician colonists who settled in the Hellenic territory were, by some fortunate accident unknown to history, set free from those Asiatic restrictions which, having probably long subsisted as usages, were at length sanctioned among their ancestors by law and by religion as the sole security against a relapse into unskilfulness and barbarism.” But the Celtic colonists who originally settled in Gaul and [7:5:297]Britain were not equally fortunate. Having imported, long before the period of record, the oriental system, with its restrictive and stationary spirit, they submitted to its yoke in their new settlements, where it withstood the example of a more generous polity afforded by the neighbouring republics of Hellenic origin, and only yielded at length to the ascendancy of the benignant genius of the Christian religion.

The prevalence of such a system is, even under the most favourable circumstances, incompatible with an advanced state of civilization; and in Britain it co-existed with a condition of society which, anterior to the Roman occupation, was but little elevated above absolute barbarism. The south-western shores of the island had, it is true, been.early resorted to by foreigners for purposes of traffic; the Phoenicians and Massilians, for example, traded in the tin of Cornwall, and from them geographers spoke of the Cassiterides or Tin Islands; but this traffic was too limited in extent, and too confined in its sphere, to have any material influence on the general character of the people, who accordingly derived small benefit from their occasional intercourse with foreigners. Their scanty clothing consisted of untanned skins; and the parts of the body left exposed were bedaubed with an azure colouring matter extracted from a particular herb. Tillage, which had been introduced by the Belgic Gauls, was not altogether unknown; but the principal articles of food were the milk and flesh of their herds. Superstition, with its usual blind absurdity, had forbidden them the use of fish, which abounded on all the coasts of the island. Their towns were merely clusters of wigwams, covered with turf, boughs, or skins, and situated in the midst of some forest or morass, with the avenues defended by ramparts of earth and felled trees. In their persons they were large and tall, excelling the Gauls alike in stature and in strength; but their features were heavy, their figures clumsy, and, according to Strabo, they did not stand firm on their legs. Large men, indeed, are seldom handsome or elegantly formed. But although barbarians in point of art and industry, the ancient Britons commanded respect by their intellectual and moral qualities. According to Tacitus, they possessed a quicker apprehension than the Gauls; and Diodorus Siculus commends their integrity as greater than that of the Romans. A custom abhorrent to natural morality is indeed said to have prevailed amongst them; we are told that societies of ten or twelve persons possessed wives in common. But the supposition of such a custom might be easily, though erroneously, formed, by a Roman stranger, from the circumstance of the barbarians sleeping promiscuously in their hovels, as the peasantry do to this day in some parts of Scotland; and the fact, when rightly understood, by no means warrants the conclusion which seems to have been drawn from it. On the contrary, the chastity of the sexes, and the purity of domestic intercourse, may have been as rigidly observed and maintained among these simple barbarians as in periods of society when the guards of virtue are multiplied, and modesty is sheltered by factitious sentiment and conventional ceremony.

The trade in tin of Cornwall, carried on either directly or indirectly by the Phoenicians and Massilians, has been already noticed. Prior to the Roman conquest, however, the exports must have been inconsiderable; and it is even doubtful whether those early navigators were acquainted with the mainland of Britain, since we hear only of the Cassiterides, or adjacent islands, to which their mercantile adventures appear to have been confined. But after the Romans had firmly established themselves in their conquest, copper, tin, lime, chalk, pearls, corn, cattle, hides, horses, cheese, dogs, and slaves, began to be exported by them, and we may conclude that the products of other countries were imported in return or exchange for these commodities. The only manufacture we read of was that of baskets, in which, as we learn from various authorities, the Britons greatly excelled. Some of the more useful but baser metals seem not to have been found in Britain before the time of Caesar, who informs us that even their brass was imported; and their skill in manufacturing such as they had must have been very small indeed, since, as we learn from the same authority, their ornamental trinkets were supplied by strangers. But their warlike habits had not left them ignorant of the coarser craft of the armourer. Man has never been found, in any state or condition of his existence, altogether unprovided with w capons of defence. Those of the Britons consisted of small targets and swords, spears, and chariots armed with iron scythes projecting from the extremities of the axle-tree; and they were also provided with noisy rattles, intended to strike terror into their enemies. Their chariots they managed with considerable dexterity, and, on several occasions, succeeded in breaking the Roman line by means of these vehicles; but, on the whole, they proved unavailing against the admirable discipline of the legions, and were no more heard of after the Romans gained a footing in the island. It is even wonderful that they should ever, in any instance, have been found in the least degree dangerous or formidable, except to the Britons themselves; for as these vehicles could only act on level unbroken ground, and as the extreme mobility of the legion gave it the choice of its own position, whether for attack or defence, nothing but the grossest misconduct on the part of its commander could ever have placed it in a situation to be successfully assaulted by such clumsy and unmanageable engines.

Such are the principal notices supplied by historians respecting the ancient inhabitants of this country prior to the Roman conquest. The first events in the authentic history of Britain are the landing of Caesar on the southern shores, in the fifty-fifth year before the Christian era, and bis invasion of the country in the following year. The course of his conquests in Gaul had brought him in sight of an island hitherto known only by name, and, being probably desirous of dazzling the people of Rome by a new achievement, as well as of seeming to be engaged in objects remote from internal aggrandizement, he resolved on attempting a descent upon this unexplored region, on the pretence that the Britons had rendered some assistance to the Gauls in their struggle for independence. Another and more secret motive for this expedition may have been, that it would enable him to prolong his provincial command, and, above all, to keep up an army devoted to its chief, until the fulness of time should come for the execution of his projects against liberty. On the first occasion, when he disembarked near Deal, his landing was warmly disputed by the natives; but discipline and skill at length prevailed over wild valour, and after a sanguinary struggle the Britons were defeated, and forced to sue for peace. Deputies were accordingly sent to lay tbcir submission before Caesar, and learn the conditions on which they were to be forgiven for the crime of defending their native soil. But having ascertained the number of the invaders, and learnt that accidents arising from ignorance of the navigation had damaged the Roman fleet, they acceded to whatever terms Caesar thought proper to dictate, and secretly resolved to renew the attack. They were again repulsed, however, though not without inflicting a severe loss on the enemy; and Caesar, surprised at the resistance he had encountered, as well as anxious to secure his return to Gaul, which the approach of winter had endangered, readily accepted the nominal submission proffered by the islanders. Thus ended the first descent of the Romans [7:5:298]on Britain. After a brief but fierce struggle of little more than three weeks, Caesar embarked his whole army, and returned to Gaul, glad to escape from a situation where his means were insufficient to enable him to keep his ground, and where the slightest reverse would undoubtedly have proved fatal.

In the ensuing spring the same commander again appeared on the British coast, with an armament of 800 vessels, having on board five legions and 2000 auxiliary horse. The sight of so formidable a fleet made the Britons despair of resisting the landing of the invaders, and they accordingly withdrew to their forests, where they could act with better chance of success. The Romans, therefore, disembarked without opposition, penetrated into the country, and passing the Thames above Kingston, entered the country of the Trinobantes, whose territory included the site of the present metropolis of Britain. The advance was bravely disputed, and in the course of this forest campaign, the military qualities of the invaders were put to a severe trial, by the incessant activity, the daring courage, and the rapid movements of the hardy natives. Cassivelaunus, a British chief, particularly distinguished himself by his gallantry and enterprise, as well as by a natural talent for war, which was strikingly exhibited in the bold design of cutting off Caesar from his fleet. But genius and science asserted their usual superiority. The Britons were at length vanquished; and the chiefs having promised to pay tribute, and to abstain from hostility against those of their countrymen who bad abetted the Romans, the latter withdrew, content with the barren glory of having gained a victory without result, and conquered a country which they could not retain. In faet, it is not easy to divine the real object of these expeditions. It has been said that Caesar showed no signs of an intention to establish himself in Britain, and probably regarded his expeditions only as a means of flattering the Romans, and of displaying the complete reduction of Gaul. This may be true; but it was never the character of Roman policy to fight useless battles, or lavish unprofitably the blood of the legions. The more probable supposition appears to be, that Caesar considered the entire conquest and subjugation of a country covered with forests, without roads, and inhabited by a hardy, warlike race, as a hopeless task, or at least as one which, in his particular situation, and with the means at his disposal, it would be unwise or imprudent to persevere in. One benefit, however, resulted from his enterprise; he first laid open the country to history, and collected those invaluable notices of the character, condition, habits, manners, customs, and religion of the people, which he has preserved in his Commentaries, and which still afford instruction and delight to every reader.

Britain was threatened with invasion by Augustus, who thereby extorted presents and tribute from the insular chiefs; Tiberius employed no menace, but exacted the tribute; and Caligula, in one of his insane freaks, landed at the head of a body of troops, whom he commanded to charge the ocean, and collect cockle-shells as fit emblems of his imaginary triumph over that boisterous enemy. The visit of the imperial madman took place ninety years after Caesar’s expedition, and formed a subject of derision to the whole Roman world. But the next attempt was of a more serious character, and productive of graver results. In the reign of Claudius, the adventurous and hitherto unprofitable enterprise was resumed under two distinguished officers, Aulus Plautius and Vespasian, who, landing at the head of an army 50,000 strong, marched through the territories of the Cattivelauni, and defeated Caractaeus and Trocodumnus, the British leaders, in three successive engagements. But the retreating enemy was still too formidable to be seriously passed; reinforcements were demanded by the emperor’s lieutenants; and seven years elapsed before they succeeded in reducing the country southward of the Thames. This partial conquest cost the blood of thirty battles, in which the Romans were not always victorious.

Ostorius Seapula, who succeeded Aulus Plautius in the provincial government of Britain, extended the province to the banks of the Severn, and built a chain of forts to check the incursions of the independent tribes. But Caradoc or Caractaeus still lived. This renowned chief had lost his dominions; but, notwithstanding all his reverses, the ascendancy he had acquired over the minds of his countrymen remained unshaken, and, great in adversity, he was still formidable. Despairing of success in the open country, he transferred the war to the mountains of Wales, and at the head of the Silures and other tribes, who had arms in their hands and the love of liberty in their hearts, he prepared to make another effort in defence of his country. The position he selected for this final stand shows him to have been possessed of that instinctive military genius which anticipates science and often defeats its combinations. It consisted of a rising ground or eminence, with a rapid and scarcely fordable river, which it commanded in front, and was incapable of being turned by either flank, whilst its defensive strength was increased by a stone rampart built along the brow of the bill. Here he resolved to await the attack of the Romans ;· and exhorting his followers to remember that Caesar himself had been driven from the shores of Britain, he called upon them to maintain by their valour the liberty which they had inherited from their ancestors. They vowed fidelity to the cause of their country, and promised that they would conquer or die where they stood. The Roman general was astonished. He saw that he had to encounter a desperate enemy, skilfully posted, and unassailable except where his position was strongest; and, in viewing the difficulties of his situation, his mind almost misgave him. But the spirit of his soldiers was roused, and they cried out that no position was impregnable to the brave. Having forded the river with extreme difficulty, they formed the testudo y or close column, covered overhead with their shields, to protect them from the missile weapons of the natives; ascended the hill in this compact order; broke through the rampart of loose stones; and charging home upon the Britons, overthrew them with great slaughter. The brothers of the British prince surrendered; his wife and daughter were made captive; and the hero himself, who had escaped the casualties of the field, and taken refuge among the Brigantes in Yorkshire, was afterwards basely betrayed into the hands of the enemy by their queen Cartismandua, his inhuman stepmother. He was sent captive to Italy, whither the fame of his achievements had preceded him; and the people flocked to behold the man who for nine years had defied the power of Rome. His family supplicated for mercy; but the magnanimous chief, sustaining in misfortune true greatness of character, stooped not to prefer any solicitation, and, addressing the emperor with a manly dignity, equally removed from abject submission and insolent defiance, made so great an impression on the mind of Claudius, that his fetters were ordered to be struek off, and both his family and himself treated with the most distinguished regard.

Meanwhile the Silures, beaten but not subdued, renewed their attacks on the Romans, and kept up the animosity of their countrymen by their example. They cut to pieces some cohorts employed in building forts in their country; harassed the enemy with continuai skirmishes; and, although defeated in a general action which they afterwards risked, they escaped without entire rout under [7:5:299] cover of night. Weary of an obscure and destructive warfare, barren of glory and productive of little save fatigue and anxiety, Ostorius died, and was succeeded by Aulus Didius. The latter checked the incursions of the Britons, who had again become formidable under a new leader; but not till after they had defeated a Roman legion, and reaped some other advantages of a minor description. Unfortunately for himself, however, Venusius, the leader in question, and chief of the Huicçii of Warwick and Worcestershire, had married the betrayer of Caractacus, a woman as licentious in her personal conduct as she had proved herself devoid of principle or patriotism. Having scandalized her subjects by admitting Villocatus, her armour-bearer, to a share of her bed and throne, Cartismandua implored the aid of the Romans against her husband, who had collected a force to expel the usurper. But the promised assistance proved too scanty for the protection of the adultress, who, in the end, was driven from her kingdom; and although this civil war operated as a seasonable diversion, the efforts of the Romans were for several years confined to the preservation of what they had already acquired.

But the season for action in due time arrived. Suetonius Paulinus, an officer of high reputation, but ambitious, and prone to cruelty, having obtained the province of Britain, resolved to destroy the sacred seat of Druidism in the island of Mona or Anglesea, where the head of that order resided, considering it as the centre of the British nation, and the source whence emanated that spirit of resistance which had already cost the Romans so much blood. The project was equally bold and well conceived. Having crossed the strait, however, he found a host drawn up in order of battle to receive him, the declivities bristling with arms, soldiers occupying every defile, and women, in funeral apparel, running along the ranks like furies with burning torches in their hands, whilst Druids clustered around, imprecating the wrath of heaven on the sacrilegious intruders into their holy of holies. Awed by the spectacle, the legions for a moment stood powerless ∙, but ashamed of their momentary panic, they rushed forward to the attack, drove all before them, and, after demolishing the altars and groves, burned the Druids in their own fires.

In the midst of this havoc, however, Suetonius received intelligence of a general insurrection of the conquered tribes. The immediate causes of an outbreaking so little expected were the gross injustice done to the family of Prasutaegus, king of the Icini, and the atrocious outrages offered to his queen Boadicea, who, having remonstrated against the fraudulent exheredation of her children, was publicly whipped, and constrained to witness the violation of her daughters. Wrongs so great, and insults so intolerable, required not the general spoliation which followed to kindle up the spirit of an indignant people, and to turn their vengeance on the oppressors. The standard of the injured queen was raised, and numerous tribes rallied round it. The infant colony of Camelodunum (Malden or Colchester) was destroyed; the infantry of the ninth legion were annihilated; and in the more flourishing colony of Verulamium (St Alban’s) seventy thousand persons are said to have been put to death with all the cruelties of a barbarous revenge. Suetonius flew to the assistance of his countrymen, and soon succeeded in bringing the Britons to a general action on open ground, where their superiority in point of numbers was of little avail against discipline and science. They were defeated with prodigious slaughter, whilst the victors, by their own account, lost only five hundred men. The disproportion was doubtless great; but this is probably an exaggeration in both directions. The Britons seem to have fought gallantly, though not successfully; and hence the historian says, that “the glory won on that day was equal to that of the most re- , nowned victories of the ancient Romans,” a statement inconsistent with the notion that it had been either easily or cheaply purchased. Boadicea ended her miseries by taking poison; and Posthumus, the commander of a legion, fell on his sword, indignant at not having a share in so glorious a victory.^[6. Mackintosh, History, vol. i. p. 22. ]

Broken by this blow, the spirit of the Britons would have soon been quenched had it not been kept alive by oppression. Suetonius, with all his abilities, was injudiciously vindictive, and frequently lost by his cruelty the advantages which he had gained by his talents. He was therefore recalled by Nero; and, under his more immediate successors, the Britons enjoyed a short interval of repose. But the Roman energies revived under Vespasian, who had gathered his first laurels in Britain. The Brigantes, commanded by Venusius, were at length overcome; and the Silures, after a gallant but hopeless resistance, were in like manner subdued. In this double contest Cerealis and Frontinus employed no less than seven years, a fact which sufficiently indicates the persevering energy with which these powerful tribes contended for independence.

These successes paved the way for the subjugation of the greater part of the island under Cnaeus Julius Agricoa, who was now appointed to the government of the province. The administration of this distinguished Roman would probably have been as little known to us as that of any of his predecessors, if it had not been for the circumstance of having as his son-in-law the most able and philosophical of the ancient historians; “a singular instance,” as Sir James Mackintosh observes, “of the power which genius, in ages where historical materials are scanty, may exercise over the allotment of fame.” In the character of Agricoa is exhibited an example of the union of great capacity for war, with prudence, moderation, and judgment in the administration of civil affairs. “His well-balanced mind,” says the very eminent writer just cited, “was averse from all excess, but it was without those brilliant peculiarities in which the biographer delights. The only general maxim by which the historian attempts to exalt his character is, that there is a conduct, even under tyrannical reigns, equally distant from servility and turbulence, by which an eminent man may serve his country with safety and innocence. The work in question ought rather to be regarded as the funeral panegyric than as the life of Agricoa. The age of Tacitus afforded him few opportunities to acquire a talent for praise by frequent exercise: his style did not easily descend to ordinary particulars; and his affection in this case cramped his freedom.” Hence the indistinctness of the outline presented to us by the historian may be ascribed both to the generality of his language and to the limits of his information; circumstances often render it difficult to extract a precise meaning from his words, and, particularly, to fix the localities of some of the most interesting events he relates.

Agricoa began his military career in Britain by subduing the Ordovici of North Wales, and reducing Mona, which, after the fierce vigour of Suetonius was withdrawn in consequence of the insurrection under Boadicea, had regained its independence and religious pre-eminence as the grand seat of Druidism. This he effected without the aid of ships, by causing a sufficient force to swim across the narrowest part of the strait with their arms and horses, but unencumbered with baggage. In his second campaign [7:5:300]he carried his arms to the northward, and subdued tribes who had never as yet come into contaet with the Romans; showing elemency to such as submitted to the power of Rome, and never, in any instance, abusing victory for purposes of cruelty or oppression. To secure these advanced conquests, he built a chain of forts or military stations from sea to sea, in nearly the same line where the rampart of Hadrian and the wall of Severus were afterwards erected.

In his third campaign Agrieola entered the country of the Caledonians by the head of the Solway, and traversed it as far as the Tay without encountering an enemy. Believing that the invaders would retire on the approach of winter, they abstained from committing any hostilities; but in this expectation they were deceived, for, when winter set in, they found the Romans established in fortified towns, well provided with all necessary stores, and secure alike against surprise or assault. Next year the Roman general built a line of forts between the friths of Forth and Clyde, with the double view of excluding the contagion of revolt, and of protecting the inhabitants of the province against the inroads of the northern barbarians. In his fifth campaign he crossed the frith of Clyde; and, after a variety of skirmishes with the wild natives of Cantyre, Lorn, Argyleshire, and Lochaber, obtained a view of the coast of Ireland, which, from the information he collected as to the force necessary for subduing and retaining, he meditated adding to the Roman empire; but this design was never put in execution. During his sixth campaign he passed the friths of Forth and Tay, and led his army, which was attended and supported in all its movements by a fleet, along the eastern coast of Scotland. The Caledonians hung upon his line of march, and harassed him considerably; but, awed by the presence and sight of the fleet, which was to them a novel spectacle, they generally kept at a respectful distance. In a night attack, however, they threw a portion of his army into confusion; and, having penetrated into the camp of the ninth legion, would have overwhelmed them entirely if Agrieola had not come with great celerity to their aid, and driven the assailants back to their woods and morasses. After this action, Agrieola retired into winter quarters, and left the Caledonians a short respite to prepare for the final struggle in defence of their rude independence.

When the Roman commander took the field in his seventh campaign, he found the native host eneamped in a position the exact locality of which has been much disputed (some fixing it at the base of the central and others at that of the eastern portion of the Grampian chain), under a chief whose name has been latinized into Galgaeus. The barbarians were estimated at near 30,000 men, whilst the Roman army was little, if at all, inferior in number. But every possible advantage was on the side of the latter; for with what conceivable chance of success could a disorderly mass or rabble of 30,000 barbarians contend against an equal number of highly-disciplined and veteran troops, led on by a general of consummate ability and great experience in the art of war? The elaborate description of Tacitus has caused an importance to be attached to this battle, which, in reality, does not belong to it. The issue was never even for an instant doubtful. The Caledonians were defeated with great slaughter, ten thousand having fallen either in the battle or in the pursuit, whilst the loss of the Romans scarcely exceeded three hundred men. After the defeat of their main body, a reserve of the Caledonians moved to take the Romans in flank; but the attempt was defeated by Agrieola in person at the head of a strong body of legionaries, and the flight then became universal. The inhabitants mingled with the fugitives after setting fire to their dwellings, and the silence of desolation succeeded to the noise of conflict. The pursuit was soon discontinued; the vanquished found refuge in their mountain fastnesses; and as the Grampian range which towered in front constituted the advanced bulwark of a country wholly unknown, Agrieola did not attempt to penetrate into its dangerous defiles, but, marching into the country now called Angus,· took it from the Horesti, whom he had previously subdued. Meanwhile his fleet returned from a voyage of discovery which it had prosecuted as far as the Oreades, and even Thule, supposed to be Foula, the most northerly of the Zetland islands; and Agricoa established his winter quarters on the most level district, which lay to the northward of the natural frontier formed by the two friths. But in the reign of Domitian it was difficult for the most prudent general to be long successful with safety. Agrieola was recalled; and, on his return to Rome, all the arts by which he shunned popularity proved insufficient to lull the suspicions of a jealous tyrant, by whose directions his days seem to have been shortened by poison.

Under Agrieola the -Roman dominion reached its utmost extent in Britain, and the natives, as we have seen, were driven into the rugged and inhospitable regions beyond the Grampians. From this time till the close of the third century the island is seldom noticed by the Roman historians. We know, indeed, though chiefly by the evidence of medals, that the mountaineers broke into the Roman province, and were driven back into their fastnesses by the vigorous arm of Hadrian, who erected a second wall, the remains of which are still traceable from the Solway Frith to the mouth of the Tyne. Under Antoninus the same species of fortification was constructed on the more northern frontier of the friths; while Severus, abandoning Agrieola’s rampart, which Antoninus had caused to be repaired, erected a stone wall almost parallel with that of Hadrian already mentioned, and in a manner equally solid and durable. These frontier works, executed on so large a scale, and requiring a numerous body of troops at the different stations for their defence, sufficiently attest the persevering and formidable character of the assaults of our rude ancestors on the Roman power in Britain. They might be beaten, but they could not be subdued; they might be driven back, but in a little time they were sure to return to the attack. The progress of the Roman arms in the reduction of Britain was singularly slow; and, notwithstanding all their defensive precautions, the tenure by which the northern part of the province was held seems to have been exceedingly insecure. Gaul was conquered by one great effort, and retained in subjection without difficulty. Britain, on the other hand, though peopled by a race of kindred origin, was only carried as it were foot by foot, and kept under by the direct ascendancy of military power. And this difference produced another, which, in its results, often influenced the destinies of the Roman world. Its insular situation, and the large force which it was necessary to maintain for the support of order and government, offered irresistible temptations to irregular ambition; it became “an island fertile in usurpers ;” and the commander who assumed the purple had always at hand powerful means to enforce his pretensions. It was alike the object and the theatre of all manner of intrigues and contentions; the first, though not the highest, prize in the lottery of ambition. Hence the Roman cultivation was extended to it in a much less degree than to Spain and Gaul. The writers of the latter province were respectable, those of the former the most celebrated of the time; but Roman Britain did not produce a single literary name. In what degree the prevalence of the Latin might have paved the way for that disappearance of the ancient language of Britain in the lar- [7:5:301]ger and more fertile portion of the island, which was completed under the Saxons, there are no memorials extant which warrant us to hazard a conjecture. The Roman remains seem rather to indicate the luxury of the military stations of that people, than a desire to adorn their province with civil architecture; whilst, in the convenience and magnificence of their roads, they only contemplated the security of their power or the extension of their conquests.

The precise period of the introduction of Christianity into Britain is uncertain. About the end of the second century, however, we find Tertullian boasting that the gospel had subdued tribes yet unconquered by the Romans; and from this circumstance, as well as from our more accurate information respecting the diffusion of Christianity in Gaul, it may be reasonably supposed that its first planting in our island was considerably earlier. Two centuries afterwards, theological controversy had become so prevalent, that Pelagius and Celestius, the one a Welchman and the other a Scotchman, agitated all Christendom by their heretical notions on the subjects of original sin and free will. The received opinion, which ascribes to Constantine, who began his reign at York, the introduction of Christianity into Britain towards the middle of the fourth century, is founded upon the palpable error of confounding the first preaching of the gospel with the formal recognition or establishment of Christianity, upon the ruins of Paganism, as the religion of the empire. Long before that time intrepid and dauntless missionaries had carried the faith of the cross to the hearths and the homes of our barbarous ancestors; and the policy of Constantine only kept pace with, instead of outrunning, the natural course of events.

When Severus died at York, Caracalla, then known by his original name of Bassianus, concluded a peace with the Caledonians, and, along with his brother Geta, hastened to Rome to plunge into all the debaucheries of the capital. There now occurs in the history of Britain a chasm of seventy years, during which the silence of the Roman writers would lead us to infer that the island enjoyed peace. In the reign of Diocletian, Carnusius, intrusted with the command of a naval armament, fitted out to repress piracy on the coasts of Britain, usurped the purple, and maintained his assumed dignity for eight years. But while Constantius, the coadjutor of the emperor, was preparing to attack him, he was assassinated by Allectus, who, imitating the example of his master, usurped the sovereignty, and maintained it for three years. He was, however, defeated and slain by Constantius, who put an end to the rebellion, and dispersed the followers of the usurper. In the division of the empire between Galerius and Constantius, Britain fell to the share of the latter, who, in consequence, fixed his residence in the island, and, after some contests with the Caledonians, of which little is known, died at York, leaving his son Constantine his successor in the empire. This prince, not unjustly surnamed the Great, assumed the purple at York, where he staid some time to pay the last honours to his father’s ashes, and to finish the war with the Meaetae and Caledonians, who at this time began to be known by the names of Picts and Scots. Called afterwards to a higher destiny, and recognized as the undisputed master of the Roman world, he overthrew the altars of Paganism, and established Christianity as the religion of the empire, including that portion of it where he had first been invested with the ensigns of the imperial dignity. About eighteen years after the accession of Constantine, Britain took part with the unsuccessful usurper Magnentius. This entailed on it the bitter resentment of Constantius, who sent into the island one Paulus, a Spaniard, with instructions to discover and punish those who had been concerned in the rebellion. Tyranny is not always so fortunate as so be provided with such instruments. This inquisitor, surnamed Catena, from his expertness in connecting criminal charges, entered at once on his career, and soon filled all the western parts with tortures, confiscations, and murders. Martinus, the British governor, unable to restrain his cruelties, attempted his life, but unhappily missing the aim, was obliged to pay the forfeit of his own. On the accession of Julian to the purple, that event was signalized by an act of exemplary justice; the inhuman Paulus was ordered to be burned alive.

A few words may be necessary here respecting the constitution of the provincial government of Britain. This was generally intrusted to a prefect, who exercised the civil and military power, subject only to the control of the questors, whose peculiar department was finance. The prefect acted as imperial lieutenant or viceroy, and appointed the governors of the six provinces into which Roman Britain was divided. These were, first, Britain to the south of the Severn and the Thames; second, Britain along the Severn, including Wales and the adjoining districts; third, Flavia Caesariensis, from the two former provinces to the German Ocean, the Humber, and the Don; fourth, Maxima Caesariensis to the north of the Humber, from its mouth, as far as the mouths of the Tyne and the* Eden; fifth, Valencia, from the Tyne to the Clyde and the Forth; and, sixth, Vespasiana, the country beyond the friths, a precarious and ill-defined conquest, continually disturbed by the inroads of the barbarians. Such were the territorial divisions of this country under the Romans. They seem to have been adopted gradually as conquest extended, and afterwards rounded ofF by natural limits for the convenience alike of the general and of the local government.

For about a century and a half the southern part of the Roman province in Britain had suffered but little disturbance from the northern tribes, whose inroads were generally checked by the frontier defences and garrisons. About ten years, however, after the judicial campaign of Paulus, the Scots and Picts, recovering from the chastisement inflicted on them by the commanders of Julian, attacked with greater force the legions of Valentinian and Valens, and for three years ravaged the province with impunity. They were at length driven back by Theodosius, governor of Britain, and father of the celebrated emperor of that name, who defeated them in several battles, and forcing them beyond the rampart of Agricoa, once more extended the province to its utmost ancient limits. But the progressive decline of the empire having exposed its northern frontier to invasion at every point, the Roman troops were gradually withdrawn from this island for the more urgent purpose of protecting the seat of dominion; and about the middle of the fifth century Britain was abandoned to her own resources. Gallio of Ravenna commanded the last detachment of troops that Rome ever sent to this island. This was under Honorius. After repelling a furious inroad of the Scots and Picts, the Roman general, assembling the British chiefs, told them frankly, that, since the empire, labouring under its own weight, could no longer afford them protection, they must henceforth take courage and defend themselves; and, in the name of the emperor, he formally absolved the different cities or townships of the province from their allegiance to Rome. Lastly, having repaired the wall of Severus, erected useful forts, and supplied the natives with military weapons and engines, the Romans took their final departure from Britain exactly four hundred and seventy-five years after Julius Caesar first landed on its shores.

These bequests, however, proved unavailing. The British youth who had been trained in the Roman army more than once drove back the barbarous tribes of their own [7:5:302]island; but the latter increasing in numbers and audacity, at length “broke through their walls, like wolves into a sheep-fold, retired with their booty, and returned every succeeding year.” In their distress they made a vain appeal to Aetius, who for a moment propped the falling empire. “The barbarians,” said they in a letter entitled the Groans of the Britons, “drive us into the sea, and the sea drives us back upon the swords of the barbarians.” But Aetius had to do with Attila, and, however much he might pity the suppliants, he could afford them no relief. Disappointed of aid in this quarter, and despairing of their ability any longer to resist their northern invaders, the British states were led to employ in their defence auxiliaries who soon became more formidable than the enemies against whom they had been called in to combat. These mercenaries, who gradually rose to be·conquerors, consisted chiefly of Saxons, intermingled with Angles, Jutes, and Frisians from the Cimbric Chersonesus, or peninsula of Jutland. The Saxons, who appear to have had their chief seat on the Elbe, were previously known to the Britons only by predatory descents on their coasts; and, certainly, it does seem rather extraordinary that they should have thought of calling in the aid of such perilous auxiliaries. But, under the pressure of urgent danger or actual calamity, men are more inclined to seek present relief than to calculate remote consequences; and it should be recollected that the Britons, denied all assistance by their former masters, and wholly unable to defend themselves against the desolating inroads of the fierce tribes of the north, were in a situation to close with any scheme which promised even a chance of deliverance. That the invitation given to this marauding race was as formal as it afterwards proved fatal to the native population, may safely be doubted, notwithstanding the direct testimony of the Saxon historians. They were probably at hand, and being always ready to embark in any enterprise which held out a prospect of booty, they in all likelihood required but little solicitation to induce them to join the Britons against their northern enemies. Accordingly, in the middle of the fifth century, the Saxon ships arrived on the British coast, where they disembarked a few hundred wild warriors of that roving nation under their leaders Hengist and Horsa. These fabled descendants of Oden immediately took the field at the head of their followers, and by their aid the Picts and Scots were completely defeated. One evil was thus averted, but another, and, if possible, a greater, succeeded. The Saxons, acquiring a liking for the country they had been hired to defend, and eager to exchange the bleak shores and sandy wastes of the north for the rich fields and more genial climate of Britain, invited fresh bodies of their countrymen to join them, and, in a little time, from being the auxiliaries, they became the conquerors and masters, of the ill-fated Britons. But the latter did not yield without a struggle. Displaying, when it was too late, a valour which, more opportunely exerted, would have spared them the miseries of this contest, they resisted their new tyrants, and occasionally with success. Horsa fell in battle; and so slow was the progress of the Saxon arms, that Hengist, with all his boasted victories, never penetrated beyond the county of Kent. The invaders, however, clung with desperate tenacity to the soil. By degrees the Saxon power reduced the natives to entire submission, or drove them to seek shelter in the mountains of Wales, Cornwall, and Cumberland. Many emigrated to avoid the horrors of this conquest; and some settling in Armorica, the peninsula between the Seine and the Loire, laid the foundation of that singular resemblance in language and manners to the insular Britons which has ever since distinguished the inhabitants of Bretagne. For the history of England from this period until the union of the crowns, we refer to the article England. See also the article Scotland.

CHAP. II.

REIGN OF JAMES I.

Accession of James to the English throne—State of the nation at this time.—Origin of the patriotic party—Grievances of the nation—James’s arbitrary system of government.—Puritans—- Attempt to establish Episcopacy in Scotland.—Iniquity and folly of the project—First Parliament.—Peace with Spain.— Proposed union with Scotland.—Difference between the King and the Parliament.—New Parliament convoked.—Execution of Sir Walter Raleigh—Gunpowder Plot.—Policy in regard to Ireland—Death of Henry Prince of Wales..—Affairs of the Palatinate.—Spanish match proposed.—Remonstrance of the Commons, and dispute consequent thereon—Marriage with the Infanta resolved on—Prince Charles sets out for Madrid

His reception there.—Articles of the Marriage treaty—Faithlessness of the Prince.—Marriage with the Infanta broken off.— New match proposed with Henrietta of France.—War declared against Spain.—Affairs on the Continent.—Death and character of James.

The history of Britain as one kingdom commences with the union of the crowns in the beginning of the seventeenth century. In 1603 the kingdoms of Scotland and England fell under the dominion of one sovereign, by the accession of James VI. of Scotland to the English throne. He derived his title to the latter from being the great-grandson of Margaret, eldest daughter of Henry VII.; and, on the failure of the male line, his hereditary right remained incontestible. Queen Elizabeth, with her last breath, had recognised him for her successor; and the parliament, conformably to her dying request, had settled the succession on the heirs of Henry VII.; so that few sovereigns ever ascended a throne with more general approbation, or greater hopes of a peaceable and happy reign. The memory of a disputed succession was yet fresh in the minds of the English; and as the title of James was unquestionable, the accession of a protestant sovereign, who was to extinguish the hostility of Scotland, and unite two kingdoms intended by nature to form one, was regarded as a new and auspicious era in the history of both countries.

But the popularity of James hardly survived his arrival in England; the hopes which had been so eagerly cherished were soon blighted; and the history of this monarch’s reign consists of little else than a detail of disputes and contentions between him and his parliament. A minute account of these transactions would scarcely conduce either to entertainment or instruction; but it is nevertheless of importance to know their origin, as out of them sprung those succeeding events which make so conspicuous a figure in the annals of Britain.

In the ages which preceded the period upon which we are now entering, the human mind, enervated by superstition, and degraded by ignorance, seemed to have surrendered all pretensions to liberty, either religious or civil. Unlimited and uncontrolled despotism everywhere prevailed; and although England suffered less in this respect than almost any other nation, the numerous examples of arbitrary power exercised by her sovereigns show that the country was then very far indeed from enjoying liberty in any rational sense of the term. As a proof of this, and as an evidence how little restraint was at that time imposed on the authority of the sovereign, it is only necessary to mention, that the proceedings of parliament were accounted of so little consequence, that no journals were kept of them; nor was it till 1607, four years subsequent to the accession of James, that parliamentary journals were commenced, on the motion of Sir Edwin Sandys, a member of great authority in the house.
[7:5:303]

The proceedings of parliament being held as of so little consequence, it is no wonder that the sessions were not regular, and that little attention was paid to the choice nr continuance of the members. In the reign of Elizabeth and her predecessors the sessions of parliament seldom exceeded in duration a twelfth part of the vacations. When parliaments were prolonged beyond one session, it was usual for the Chancellor to exert a discretionary authority of issuing new writs to supply the place of such members as he judged incapable of attending, either by reason of business, sickness, or any other impediment. No practice could be more dangerous to liberty than this’; yet so little were the rights and interests of the nation then understood, that the Commons, of their own accord, confirmed the Chancellor’s power in this respect by the 23d of Elizabeth; nor did they proceed any further in the assertion of their .privileges, than to vote, that during the sitting of parliament no writ should issue for the choosing or returning of any member without the warrant of the house.

But towards the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, a great though insensible revolution took place throughout all Europe. Arts and sciences began to flourish; commerce and navigation were greatly extended; and learning of all kinds began to be diffused. More enlarged views naturally gave birth to generous sentiments; a love of freedom, in England especially, was implanted in the breasts of most people of birth and education; and this was greatly promoted by an acquaintance with the ancient Greek and Latin writers. The example of the republics of Greece and Rome, the members of which had so often sacrificed their lives in defence of liberty, produced a powerful impression; and a desire of circumscribing the excessive prerogative and arbitrary proceedings of the crown began to be secretly formed throughout the nation.

Nor was this desire unreasonable, or without a solid foundation. During the last years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, the commerce, navigation, and number of seamen in England, had sensibly decayed. A remonstrance from the Trinity-house in 1602 bears, that since 1588, the number of seamen and shipping had decayed about a third. Every species of domestic industry was fettered by monopolies, and exclusive companies, which are only another species of monopoly; almost all foreign trade, except that to France, was in the hands of a few; and any prospect of future improvement in commerce was for ever sacrificed to the temporary advantage of the sovereign. These companies, though arbitrarily erected, had carried their privileges so far, that almost all the commerce of England centred in London; the customs of that port alone amounted to L.110,000 a year, whilst those of the rest of the kingdom amounted only to L.17,000; and the whole trade of London itself was confined to about two hundred citizens, who, by combining together, were easily enabled to fix whatever price they pleased both on the exports and imports of the nation. Besides this, the subjects were burdened by wardships and purveyances. The latter constituted an old prerogative of the crown, by which the officers of the household were empowered to take, without consent of the owners, provisions for the king’s family, and carts and horses for the removal of his baggage, upon paying a stated price for them. The king had also a power of sending any person, -without his own consent, on whatsoever message he pleased; and thus he could easily compel an individual to pay any sum of money he chose, rather than be sent out of the country on a disagreeable mission. Money extorted from individuals by this or by any other method was usually called, doubtless in derision, a “benevolence.”

These were a few of the grievances under which the nation at this time laboured, and which the rising spirit of patriotism tended to redress. This disposition, however, the sèvere government of Elizabeth had confined within very narrow limits. But when James, a foreign prince, less dreaded and less beloved, succeeded to the throne, symptoms of a freer and more independent genius immediately 7 appeared. Happily, James neither perceived the alteration, nor had sufficient capacity to check its early advances. He had established in his own mind a speculative system of absolute government, which few of his subjects, and none but traitors and rebels, as he thought, would make any 7 scruple to admit. He thought himself entitled to equal prerogatives with other European sovereigns, not considering the military force by which their despotism was sustained. The almost unlimited power which for upwards of a century had been exercised by the English sovereigns, he considered as the prerogative of royal birth, and not as the result of peculiar circumstances skilfully improved. In his person, therefore, he imagined all legal power to be centred by a hereditary 7 and divine right; and so fully was he persuaded of his absolute property in his subjects, that in his speech to the parliament in 1621, he told them that he “wished them to have said that their privileges were derived from the grace and permission of him and his ancestors.” And when the same parliament protested that “the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament, are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England,” he was so enraged, that, sending for the journals of the Commons, he, with his own hand, before the council, tore out this protestation, and ordered his reasons to be inserted in the council-book.

The consequence of such opposite dispositions actuating the king and parliament was, that during this reign the prerogatives of the crown were openly and violently attacked. But the chief grounds of discontent were money and religion. The king’s high notions of the royal prerogative made him imagine that he had a right to whatever sums he pleased to demand; whilst his profusion caused him to dissipate in a short time the scanty supplies which he succeeded in extorting from the parliament. With regard to religious matters, the nation was at that time greatly infected with Puritanism. Though the severities of Elizabeth had almost totally suppressed the Papists, it had been otherwise with the Puritans. So much had they increased by the very means which had diminished the number of Catholics, that no less than seven hundred and fifty clergymen of that persuasion signed a petition to James on his accession to the English throne. They hoped that the king, having received his education in Scotland, and always professed an attachment to the church established there, would at least abate the rigour of the laws enacted against the Puritans, if he did not show them particular favour and encouragement. But in this they were grievously mistaken. He had observed in their Scottish brethren a decided turn towards republicanism, and a zealous attachment to civil liberty. In his capacity of monarch as well as of theologian, he had experienced the little complaisance they were disposed to show him. They controlled his commands; disputed his tenets; and to his face, before the whole people, censured his conduct and behaviour. This superiority assumed by the Presbyterian clergy, the monarchical pride of James could never digest. Although he had been obliged, while in Scotland, to court their favour, he treasured up, on that account, the stronger resentment against them; and he was determined to make them feel, in their turn, the full weight of his authority. He therefore not only rejected the petition of the clergymen above mentioned, but throughout his whole reign refused to relax in the least the severity of the laws against [7:5:304]Protestant nonconformists, although often petitioned to the contrary by his parliament.

The same principles which produced in James such an aversion to the Puritans, prompted him to favour the Episcopalians, and even the Catholics, as being greater friends to despotism. In his youth he had been suspected of a bias towards the ancient religion; and it is certain that when he ascended the throne of England, he often endeavoured to procure some mitigation of the laws against them, if not an absolute toleration. But in this he was constantly opposed by the parliament; and indeed the strong inclination shown by James to establish Episcopacy throughout the whole of his dominions, tended very much to alienate the minds of his subjects, especially in Scotland, and to create that suspicion of his intentions which accompanied him to the grave.

The first intercourse between King James and his English parliament discovered at once the character of the new monarch, and the spirit of the people over whom he had been called to reign. Vain, pedantic, garrulous, mean, and accessible to flattery, however gross; arbitrary in his principles, and in his own opinion the greatest master of king-craft that ever lived; “the wretched Solomon of Whitehall” found in his English ministers, Cecil, Suffolk, and Northampton, devoted parasites and ready tools. His address to the parliament bespoke his own opinion of himself, and showed that he believed himself an absolute king, whose proclamations were to have the force of laws. But it was only with his courtiers and bishops that James passed for that paragon of wisdom and policy which he devoutly believed himself to be. The House of Commons already contained many men of free, fearless, and intelligent minds; nor were the principles of independence, which in several instances had been asserted against all the power and energy of Elizabeth, likely to be veiled before the mock dignity of such a regal punchinello as James. His first parliament, accordingly, reminded him of their privileges; resisted the arbitrary issue, by the Chancellor, of new writs for elections; and made some laudable attempts to check the spirit of monopoly which paralysed the trade and manufactures of the kingdom, as well as to relieve the landed interest from some remnants of feudal oppression.

The accession of James was speedily followed by the conclusion of peace with Spain. The tendency of his disposition was pacific, not so much from principle, as from the want of all energy, vigour, and force of character, if not positive cowardice. But whilst the nation was thus delivered from the evils of war, a deadly blow was meditated against the government in all its branches, and against the religion of the country. This was the famous Gunpowder Plot, which the habitual fears of the king, sharpened by the scenes he had witnessed in his youth, enabled him to “nose out,” as he called it, and to read the true meaning of the threats contained in a letter from one of the conspirators, after it had eluded the sagacity of his wisest counsellors. The common danger which the king and the parliament had escaped kept them for a time in good humour with each other; and a supply of L.400,000 was voted by the Commons to relieve the king from the embarrassments in which his thoughtless profusion had involved him, and to enable him to give a suitable reception to his brother-in-law, the king of Denmark.

But the most important subject of discussion which occupied the attention of this first parliament was a project for incorporating the kingdoms whose crowns were already united on the head of James. A motion to this effect was made by Sir Francis Bacon, the king’s solicitor, who supported it with all the ability, ingenuity, and eloquence for which he was so greatly distinguished; maintain ing that, for the object contemplated, there was no need of uniformity in the laws or religion of the two countries,— and that, with Ireland subdued, Scotland united, and the navy duly supported, the English monarchy would become the most formidable in the world. It is to the honour of James, and reflects credit on the sagacity which he at intervals displayed, that he was eager in forwarding this measure. But the Commons remained inflexible, and the project consequently failed. In conformity, however, with an opinion obtained from the judges, the post-nati, that is, all Britons born since the death of Queen Elizabeth, were declared to be naturalized subjects in either kingdom.

Pecuniary difficulties, from which the king was never free, brought him again as a suppliant for aid from this parliament. Squandering with reckless prodigality, he was continually in want; and, in the present instance, his embarrassments were aggravated by the expense incurred in maintaining his government in Ireland. The parliament acceded to his solicitations; but, in return, demanded a redress of grievances, and amongst these the suppression of the High Commission Court, which had become odious by the severities it exercised against the Puritans. James refused the supply tendered on such conditions, and the dispute ended by his dissolving the parliament; on which occasion the royal pedant told them “not to meddle with the main points of government—that was his craft; nor pretend to instruct a king who had been thirty years at the trade in Scotland, besides an apprenticeship of seven years in England.”

But James found it impossible to dispense altogether with this “meddling” body. His usual extravagance soon reduced him to straits, notwithstanding the discreditable shifts he had recourse to for raising money; and, in 1613, he was obliged to convoke another parliament, for the sake of obtaining a supply. At this time Robert Carre, whom he had raised through several gradations of dignity to be Earl of Somerset, engrossed the favour of the monarch, and merited the hatred of the'nation. The sums spent on this worthless minion, and the countenance shown him after the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, at once degraded the king in the eyes of the people, and drained the scanty resources of his ill-supplied exchequer. The consequence was, that his second parliament proved still more refractory than the first. On their assembling, the king proposed to them to vote a supply, and then proceed to the consideration of such grievances as required to be redressed. But the Commons inverted this order of procedure, and began with the redress of grievances. The king’s wrath was kindled at their obstinacy. He dismissed them, and imprisoned some of the members who had particularly signalized themselves in resisting the supply; a proceeding of fatal example, as the son and successor of James afterwards found to his bitter experience, and which Lord Coke justly describes as the greatest violence ever done to the constitution by an English monarch.

In 1617 the king revisited Scotland, with the design of establishing Episcopacy in that kingdom. He did not, however, propose to abolish Presbytery entirely, and set up Episcopacy in its room. He meant to content himself with establishing the royal authority above the ecclesiastical, and introducing some ceremonies into the public worship, such as kneeling at the sacrament, private communion, private baptism, confirmation of children, the observance of Christmas, and the like. But as his design -was fully seen through from the beginning, every advance towards Episcopacy produced the greatest discontent, and the ceremonies in question were rejected as so many mortal sins.
[7:5:305]

At this time the power of the Scotch clergy was exceedingly great; and the severe spirit with which they were actuated prompted them to exercise it in a manner little calculated to operate in the way of conciliation. Every ecclesiastical court possessed the power of excommunication, which was then attended with serious temporal effects, to say nothing of the spiritual consequences which were supposed to flow from it. The person excommunicated was shunned by every one as profane and impious; and his whole estate during his life-time, with all his movables for ever, were forfeited to the crown. A sentence of excommunication might be pronounced in a summary manner, even by an inferior ecclesiastical court, against a person, whether he lived within the bounds of their jurisdiction or not; and as its effects were in every instance the same, the power which the clergy thus exercised was truly formidable. But they were not satisfied with this unbounded authority in ecclesiastical matters; they assumed a censorial power over every part of the administration; and, mingling politics with religion in their sermons, and even in their prayers, they inculcated principles which were accounted alike turbulent and seditious. But however much we may revolt at this intermixture of sacred and secular things, there was something in the spirit and circumstances of the time which went far to justify it. The pulpit was then the only place whence the people could derive instruction, and their sole teachers and guides were the clergy. No public press as yet existed. Books were few and expensive, appearing at distant intervals, and wholly inaccessible to the mass of the people. Journals were wholly unknown. In such circumstances the clergy naturally became the political as well as the religious instructors of the people; the defenders of their civil rights as well as the guardians of public morals, and of the purity of ecclesiastical discipline.

That a monarch like James should have hated an order of men whom he could neither intimidate by his power nor cajole by his flatteries, is most natural. But this forms a poor justification for the faithless and hypocritical course he pursued; whilst his maxim of“No bishop, no king,” shows that his understanding was as confined as his character was mean and grovelling. He began his attack upon Presbytery by discontinuing the General Assembly, and banishing those clergymen who had the spirit to remonstrate. He procured a deeree restoring thirteen bishopries; and, at a packed meeting of the subservient part of the Scottish clergy, the holders of these unenviable preferments were appointed perpetual moderators within their presbyteries. And to complete the degradation of the people, a high commission was given to the prelates, conferring upon them inquisitorial and discretionary powers of citing and punishing for religious opinions, laymen as well as clergymen. But this tyrannical and iniquitous project utterly failed. James aimed at nothing less than subverting the established religion of the country, and he was unable to introduce a single cere-mony borrowed from Episcopacy, Not a rag of the surplice would the stern Presbyterians of that age consent to tolerate. Enough, however, was done to envenom the hatred of the people, and to treasure up vengeance against the coming day of retribution. James, it has been truly said, was one of those kings whom God seems to send for the express purpose of hastening revolutions.

Nor was he in any degree more successful in the opposition which he attempted to the puritanical innovations in England. He had observed, in his progress through that kingdom, that a rigid, or, as some called it, Judaical observance of the Sabbath gained ground every day; and that by this means the people were debarred from such sports and recreations as contributed to their health as well as amusement. Imagining that it would be easy to infuse cheerfulness into the spirit of devotion which then prevailed, he issued a proclamation to allow and encourage, after divine service, all kinds of lawful games and exercises. But this proclamation was regarded by his subjects as an instance of the utmost profaneness and impiety. In 1620 a bill was brought in by the Commons for the more strict observance of the Sunday, which they called the Sabbath. One Shepherd opposed this bill, objecting to the appellation of Sabbath, as puritanical, and justifying indulgence in sports and amusements on that day. For this he was expelled the house on the motion of Mr Pym; and in the sentence pronounced against him his offence is described as “great, exorbitant, and unparalleled.” The men of that day were in earnest, and seldom did things by halves.

From this sketch, imperfect as it necessarily is, a tolerable idea maybe formed of the situation of affairs during the reign of James I., as well as of the character and designs of that weak, wavering, and on the whole mischievous prince. It now becomes our duty to proceed to the more proper business of the present article, and to give some account of the remarkable transactions of this period.

The first thing of any consequence was a conspiracy formed, or alleged to have been formed, in the year of the king’s accession to the throne, to displace him, and bestow the kingdom on Arabella Stuart, a near relation of his own, and equally descended from Henry VII. Every thing regarding this pretended conspiracy, except that some such plot was favoured by one or two priests, remains nearly in its original obseurity. What renders it remarkable, however, is the concern Sir Walter Raleigh was said to have in it. For this he was tried, condemned without proof, suffered thirteen years’ imprisonment in the Tower, and was at length executed out of complaisance to the Spaniards. The execution of this distinguished man is one of the most unjustifiable acts of James’s reign. It is certainly possible, as Hume has asserted, that Raleigh may have made the pretended gold mine in Guiana a cloak for his real design of plundering the Spanish settlements; but if the fact admitted of as easy proof as has been alleged, Raleigh ought to have been punished on that account, and on no other. It has been conceded, however, that an English jury would not have returned a verdict of guilty against him ∙ 1 and if so, the sacrifice of the bravest living commander, at the instigation of a foreign power, was equally detestable in itself and derogatory to the dignity and independence of the country.

Allusion having been already made to the Gunpowder treason, discovered in 1605, the origin and circumstances of that desperate plot shall now be detailed. On the accession of James, great expectations had been formed by the Catholics that he would prove favourable to them; and it is even pretended that he had entered into a positive engagement to grant them toleration as soon as he should mount the throne of England. But their hopes were built on an insecure foundation. James on all occasions expressed his intention of executing strictly the laws enaeted against them, and of persevering in the rigorous measures of Queen Elizabeth. A scheme of revenge was first thought of by one Catesby, a man of good parts and ancient family, who communicated his design to Percy, a descendant of the house of Northumberland. The latter proposed to assassinate the king. But Catesby deemed this quite inadequate to the purpose, inasmuch as the king would be succeeded by his children, who would also inherit his maxims of government; and even if the whole royal family were destroyed, the parliament, nobility, and gentry, who were all infected with the same heresy, would raise another Protestant prince to the throne. “To serve any good purpose,” said he, “we must destroy, at [7:5:306]one blow, the king, the royal family, the lords and commons, and bury all our enemies in one common ruin. Happily they are all assembled on the first meeting of parliament, and afford us the opportunity of glorious and useful vengeance. Great preparations will not be requisite. A few of us may run a mine below the hall in which they meet; and choosing the very moment when the king harangues both the houses, consign over to destruction the determined foes to all piety and religion.”

This comprehensive scheme being approved of, it was resolved to communicate it to a few more. Thomas Winter was sent over to Flanders in quest of Fawkes, an officer in the Spanish service, of approved zeal and courage. All the conspirators were bound by the most solemn oaths, accompanied with the sacrament; and to such a degree had superstition hardened their minds, that not one of them entertained the smallest compunction for the cruel destruction they were preparing to commit. Some indeed were startled at the thoughts of destroying a number of Catholics who must necessarily be present as spectators, or attendants on the king, or as having seats in the House of Peers; but Desmond a Jesuit, and Garnet, superior of that order in England, removed these scruples, by showing that the interest of religion required in this case the sacrifice of the innocent with the guilty.

This happened in the spring and summer of 1604, about which time the conspirators hired a house in Percy’s name, adjoining that in which the parliament was to meet. Towards the end of the year they began to pierce through the wall of the house, in order to get in below that where the parliament was to assemble. The wall being about three yards thick, occasioned a great deal of labour; but its density yielded to perseverance, and they at length approached the other side, when they were startled by a noise for which they could not well account. Upon inquiry, they found that it proceeded from a vault below the House of Lords; that a magazine of coals had been kept there; and that the coals were then selling off, after which the vault would be let to the highest bidder. Upon this the vault was immediately hired by Percy, and thirty-six barrels of gunpowder lodged in it; the whole being covered up with faggots and billets, the doors of the cellars boldly flung open, and every body admitted as if it contained nothing dangerous.

Considering themselves as now certain of success, the conspirators began to arrange the remaining part of their enterprise. The king, the queen, and Prince Henry, were expected to be present at the opening of the parliament. But as the duke, by reason of his tender age, would be absent, it was resolved that Percy should seize or murder him. The Princess Elizabeth, likewise a child, being kept at Lord Harrington’s house in Warwickshire, some others of the conspirators engaged to assemble their friends on pretence of a hunting match, to seize the person of that princess, and immediately proclaim her queen. The day so long wished for at last approached. The dreadful secret, though communicated to more than twenty persons, had been religiously kept for near a year and a half; and nothing could be foreseen calculated to prevent the success of their design. Ten days before the meeting of parliament, however, Lord Monteagle, a Catholic, son of Lord Morley, received the following letter, which had been delivered to his servant by an unknown hand.

“My Lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care for your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift off your attendance on this parliament. For God and man have determined to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement; but retire yourself into the country, where you may expect the event in safety. For though there be no appearance of any stir; yet, I say, they shall receive a terrible blow this parliament, and yet they shall not see who hurts them. This counsel is not to be contemned, because it may do you good, and can do you no harm; for the danger is over as soon as you have burned this letter. And I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.”

Though Lord Monteagle imagined this letter to be only a ridiculous artifice to frighten him, he carried it to Lord Salisbury, secretary of state; and the latter laid it before the king on his arrival in town a few days after. His majesty looked upon it in a much more serious light than the young nobleman to whom it had been addressed. From the peculiar manner in which it was expressed, he concluded that some design had been formed to blow up the Parliament House with gunpowder; and it was thought advisable to search the vaults underneath.

The lord chamberlain, to whom this charge belonged, purposely delayed the search till the day before the meeting of parliament. He remarked the great piles of wood and faggots which lay in the vault under the House of Lords; and casting his eye upon Fawkes, who stood in a corner and passed himself for Percy’s servant, he could not help noticing the daring and determined courage conspicuous in his face, and which so much distinguished this man even amongst the other conspirators. As Percy lived little in town, so large a quantity of fuel appeared somewhat extraordinary; suspicions were thus excited; and, upon comparing all circumstances, it was resolved to make a further search. About midnight, Sir Thomas Knevet, a justice of peace, was sent with proper attendants; and meeting Fawkes, who had just finished all his preparations, before the door of the vault, Sir Thomas immediately seized him, and, turning over the faggots, discovered the gunpowder. The matches and every thing proper for setting fire to the train were found in the pocket of Fawkes, who seeing now no refuge except in boldness and despair, expressed the utmost regret that he had missed the opportunity of firing the powder at once, and of sweetening his own death by that of his enemies. For several days he displayed the same obstinate intrepidity; but on being shut up in the Tower, and the rack exhibited to him, his resolution at last failed, and he made a full discovery.

Catesby, Percy, and the other conspirators, on learning that Fawkes was arrested, hurried to Warwickshire, where Sir Edward Digby, imagining that his confederates had succeeded, was already in arms to seize the Princess Elizabeth. But she had escaped into Coventry; and they were obliged to put themselves in a posture of defence against the country people, who were raised in all quarters and armed by the sheriffs. The conspirators, with their attendants, never exceeded eighty in number, and being surrounded on every side, could no longer hope either to prevail or escape. Having therefore confessed themselves, and received absolution, they boldly prepared for death, and resolved to sell their lives as dear as possible. But even this miserable consolation was denied them. Some of their powder catching fire, exploded, and disabled them from defending themselves. The people then rushed in upon them. Percy and Catesby were killed by one shot. Digby, Rookwood, Winter, and others, being made prisoners, were tried, confessed their guilt, and died, as well as Garnet, by the hands of the common executioner. The Lords Stourton and Mordaunt, two Catholics, were fined by the Star Chamber, the former in L.4000, the latter in L.10,000, because their absence from parliament had occasioned a suspicion of their acquaintance with the conspiracy. The Earl of Northumberland was fined in L.30,000, and detained several years a prisoner in [7:5:307]the Tower, by reason of his having admitted Percy into the number of gentlemen-pensioners without taking the requisite oaths.

James’s attempts to civilize the barbarous inhabitants of Ireland, and to render tìieir subjection durable and useful to the crown of England, were more honourable in the design than successful in the execution. He began by abolishing the ancient Irish customs which supplied the place of laws, and were exceedingly barbarous and absurd. By the Brehon law, every crime, however enormous, was punished only by fine. Murder itself was compensated in this way. Every one had a value affixed to him, called his eric; and he who was able to pay this, might kill whomsoever he pleased. As for such slight offences as oppression, extortion, or other things of that nature, no penalty was affixed to them, nor could any redress be obtained for them. The custom of gavelhind, by which, upon the death of any person, his land was divided amongst all the males of the sept or family, both bastard and legitimate, also operated as a powerful preventive to improvement, and commenced that incessant subdivision of the soil, the bitter consequences of which we have lived to witness. Having abolished these customs, James substituted English law in their stead, and taking the natives under his protection, he declared them free citizens, and proceeded to govern them by a regular administration, military as well as civil. But other measures of a more doubtful character followed. As the Irish had been engaged in rebellion against Elizabeth, a renunciation of all rights formerly granted them to separate jurisdictions was rigorously exacted; a resignation of private estates was even required; and when these were restored, the proprietors received them back under such conditions as seemed calculated to prevent all future oppression of the common people. Meanwhile a company was established in London for planting new colonies in the province of Ulster, which had fallen to the crown by the attainder of rebels. The property was divided into moderate shares, the largest not exceeding 2000 acres; tenants were brought over from England and Scotland; the Irish were removed from the hills and fastnesses, and settled in the open country; husbandry and the arts were taught them; and Ulster, from being the most wild and disorderly province in Ireland, became in time the best cultivated and most civilized.

On the 6th of November this year Henry prince of Wales died suddenly, not without strong suspicions of poison. On opening his body, however, no symptoms of the kind appeared; but his death diffused a universal grief throughout the nation, as he was reckoned a prince of extraordinary accomplishments and high promise. But the marriage of the Princess Elizabeth with Frederic, elector palatine, which was celebrated in February 1613, served to dissipate the grief caused by Prince Henry’s death. This marriage, however, proved unfortunate both with respect to the king and to his son-in-law; for the elector, trusting to so great an alliance, engaged in enterprises beyond his means; and James, unable, and perhaps also unwilling, to assist him in his distress, lost his last hold on the affections of his people.

These bad consequences did not begin to appear till the year 1619. At that time the states of Bohemia, having taken arms in defence of the Protestant religion, and persevered in the contest notwithstanding the preparations of the emperor to crush them, made an offer of their crown to the elector palatine, induced doubtless by his connection with the king of England, and his relationship to Prince Maurice, whose authority in the United Provinces was nearly absolute. Stimulated by ambition, the young palatine, without consulting either James or Maurice, whose opposition he foresaw, accepted the offer, and marched into Bohemia in support of his new subjects. But the affairs of the new king soon came to a crisis. Frederic, defeated in the decisive battle of Prague, fled with his family into Holland; whilst Spinola the Spanish general invaded the palatinate, where, meeting with little resistance, except from on6 body of 2400 Englishmen commanded by Sir Horace Vere, he quickly reduced the whole principality. The ban of the empire was published against the unfortunate elector in 1621; the upper palatinate was in a little time conquered by the elector of Bavaria, to whom the execution of the decree of the diet had been committed; Frederic was obliged to live with his numerous family 7 in poverty and distress, either in Holland or at Sedan; and the new conquests of the Catholics throughout Germany were attended with persecutions against the Protestants.

By this intelligence the religious zeal of the English was inflamed to the highest pitch. The sufferings of their Protestant brethren in Germany excited universal sympathy, whilst the neutrality and inactivity of James were loudly exclaimed against. But although the king might have defended his pacific measures by plausible arguments, some of his motives were the most ridiculous that can be conceived. In a spirit of pedantic self-conceit, he fancied himself capable of disarming hostile nations by dint of argument; and believed that the power of Austria, though not awed by that of England, would submit to his arbitration merely out of respect to his virtue and moderation. Wedded to his notions concerning the prerogative of kings, he also imagined, that wherever a contention arose between any sovereign and his subjects, the latter must necessarily be in the wrong; and for this reason he from the first denied his son-in-law the title of king of Bohemia, and forbade him to be prayed for in the churches under that appellation. Besides, Jarpes was on other accounts extremely averse to a rupture with Spain. He had entertained an opinion peculiar to himself, that any alliance below that of a king was unworthy a prince of Wales; and he never would allow any princess except a daughter of France or of Spain to be mentioned as a match for his son. This pitiful folly gave Spain an opportunity of managing the English monarch in his most important concerns. With a view of engaging him to observe neutrality in regard to the succession of Cleves, the elder daughter of the king of Spain had been indirectly offered during the life of Prince Henry. The bait, however, did not then take; and James, in consequence of his alliance with the Dutch, sent 4000 men to the assistance of the Protestants, by which means the succession was secured to the Protestant line. In 1618, Gondomar offered the king of Spain’s second daughter to Prince Charles; and, to render the temptation irresistible to so necessitous a prince as James, he gave hopes of an immense dowry with the Infanta. On this match James built great hopes, not only of relieving his own necessities, hut of recovering the palatinate for his son-in-law; at least the public were taught to believe that the recovery of the palatinate was one of the king’s chief motives for entertaining the project of such a marriage.

But the Commons viewed the matter in a very different light; and this, joined to other parts of the king’s conduct, blew into a flame the contention which had long subsisted between them. On the 14th of November 1621, the Commons framed a remonstrance, which they intended to carry to the king, representing that the enormous growth of the Austrian power threatened the liberties of Europe; that the progress of the Catholic religion in England bred the most melancholy apprehensions; that the indulgence of his majesty towards the professors of that religion had [7:5:308]encouraged their insolence and temerity; that the uncontrolled conquests made by the Austrian family in Germany raised mighty expectations in the English Catholics; and particularly that the proposed Spanish match had led them to hope for the entire toleration, if not final re-establishment, of their religion. They therefore entreated his majesty to undertake the defence of the palatinate, and maintain it by force of arms; to turn his sword against Spain, whose armies and treasures were the chief support of the Catholic interest in Europe; to enter into no negociation for the marriage of his son except with a Protestant princess; to cause the children of Popish recusants to be taken from their parents and committed to the care of Protestant teachers and schoolmasters; and to exact with the utmost severity the fines and confiscations to which the Catholics by law were liable. Protestants had not yet learnt toleration in the school of adversity. The king was then at Newmarket; but hearing of the intended remonstrance, he wrote a letter to the Speaker, sharply rebuking'the House for debating on matters far above their reach and capacity, and strictly forbidding them to meddle with any thing that regarded his government, or deep matters of state, and especially not to touch on his son’s marriage with the Spanish princess. Upon this the Commons framed a new remonstrance, in which they asserted their right of debating on all matters of government, and claimed entire freedom of speech in their debates. The king replied, that their remonstrance was more like a denunciation of war than an address of dutiful subjects; that their pretension to inquire into all state affairs without exception, was such a plenipotence as none of their ancestors, even during the reign of the weakest princes, had ever pretended to; that they could not better show their wisdom, as well as duty, than by keeping within their proper sphere; and that in any affair which .depended on his prerogative, they had no title to interpose with their advice, unless when he pleased to ask it. The Commons in return framed the protestation already mentioned, which the king tore out of their journals, and soon after dissolved the parliament. Of the leading members of the house, Sir Edward Coke and Sir Robert Phillips were committed to the Tower, and Selden, Pym, and Mallory, to other prisons; while, as a lighter punishment, some others were sent into Ireland to execute the king’s commands in that country. A more judicious course was followed with Sir John Saville, who was made comptroller of the household, a privy counsellor, and soon after a baron.

This open breach between the king and the parliament soon rendered politics a general subject of discourse; every man began to indulge himself in reasonings and inquiries concerning matters of state; and the parties which arose in parliament were speedily propagated throughout the nation. In vain did James, by reiterated proclamations, forbid discourses of this kind. These, if they had any effect at all, served rather to inflame than allay the curiosity of the public. In every company or society the transactions just mentioned became the subject of argument and debate; some taking the side of monarchy, and others that of liberty. And this was the real origin of the two parties since known by the names of Whigsand Tories.

During five years James continued the dupe of the court of Spain. Firmly resolved to contract no alliance with a heretic, the king of Spain continued to procrastinate and invent one excuse after another; pretending all along a willingness to conclude the match, though no step had as yet been taken for obtaining a dispensation from the pope. To pave the way for bringing the matter to a close, James issued public orders for discharging all popish recusants who were imprisoned; and it was daily apprehended that he would prohibit in future the execution of the penal laws against them. This conduct, generous had it proceeded from genuine principles of toleration, he was obliged to justify on the hollow pretence that it was done in order to procure from foreign princes a corresponding indulgence for the Protestants; the severity of the English laws against Catholics having, it was alleged, been urged as a reason against showing any favour to Protestants residing in Catholic kingdoms.

Armed with these concessions, which were but ill relished at home, Digby, earl of Bristol, was sent as ambassador to the court of Spain; and one Gage was secretly dispatched as an agent to Rome. After amusing him so long with false hopes, the court of Spain seemed at last sincere in the projected marriage. Lord Bristol himself, although he had formerly opposed the Spanish match, now came to be of this opinion, and considered the proposed marriage as an infallible prognostic of the palatine’s restoration; nor, indeed, was it easy to conjecture why Philip should be ready to bestow the Infanta with a dowry of L.600,000 sterling on a prince whose demands he meant to refuse at the hazard of a war, unless we suppose that he reckoned on the cowardice and imbecility of the English monarch’s character.

But whilst the king exulted in his pacific counsels, and boasted of his superior sagacity and penetration, all his prospects were blasted by the temerity of the worthless favourite who governed both court and nation with almost unlimited sway. This was Villiers, duke of Buckingham, who had succeeded Somerset in the capricious affections of James, and had risen from the rank of cupbearer to a dukedom and the highest honours of the state. Though possessed of some accomplishments as a courtier, he was utterly devoid of the talent necessary to a minister; and at once partook of the insolence which attends a fortune newly acquired, and the impetuosity which belongs to persons born in high stations, and unacquainted with opposition. Amongst those who had experienced the arrogance of this overgrown favourite, was the Prince of Wales himself; and a coldness, if not enmity, had in consequence arisen between them. Desirous of putting an end to this misunderstanding, and at the same time envious of the great reputation of the Earl of Bristol, Buckingham persuaded the prince to undertake a journey to Madrid. This, he said, considered as an unexpected piece of gallantry, would equal all the fictions of Spanish romance; and, suiting the chivalrous and enterprising character of that nation, would immediately introduce him to the princess under the agreeable character of a devoted and adventurous suitor. Little persuasion was necessary to prevail with Charles to undertake the journey; and the impetuosity of the favourite having extorted a consent from James, the prince and Buckingham (or “Baby Charles” and “Steenie,” as the king ridiculously called his son and his minion) set out as knight-errant and squire. They travelled through France in disguise, under the assumed names of Jack and Tom Smith. At a ball in Paris, the prince first saw the Princess Henrietta, whom he afterwards married. She was then in the bloom of youth and beauty, and the novelists of the time say that the prince fell in love with her on this occasion.

On their arrival at Madrid, every body was surprised by a step so little usual among great princes. The Spanish monarch made Charles a visit, expressed the utmost gratitude for the confidence reposed in him, and made warm protestations of a corresponding confidence and friendship. He gave Charles a golden key which opened all his apartments, that the prince might, without any formality, have access to him at all hours; and heaped upon him other marks of distinction and favour if possible still more flattering[7:5:309]. The Infanta, however, was only shown to her lover in public; the Spanish ideas of propriety being too strict to allow any further intercourse till the arrival of the dispensation. Meanwhile no attempt was made by the Spaniards to profit by the circumstance of having the prince of Wales in their power, in order to impose any harder conditions of treaty. Their Catholic zeal, indeed, prompted them on one occasion to seek more concessions in the religious articles; but, on the opposition of Bristol, they immediately desisted. The pope, however, hearing of Charles’s arrival in Madrid, tacked some new clauses to the dispensation; and it became necessary to transmit the articles to London for the king’s ratification. This treaty, which was made public, consisted of several articles, chiefly regarding the exercise of the Catholic religion by the Infanta; and of these, the only one that could reasonably be found fault with, was that in which the king consented that the children of the marriage should be educated by the princess till they were ten years of age. But besides this public treaty, there were some private articles, which stipulated for a suspension of the penal laws against the English Catholics in the first instance, together with a toleration for the exercise of the Roman Catholic religion in private houses, and, next, a repeal of these laws by parliament. Meanwhile Gregory XV. who had granted the dispensation, died; and Urban VIII. was chosen as his successor. Upon this the nuncio refused to deliver the dispensation till the pleasure of the new pope should be known concerning it. But the crafty pontiff delayed his confirmation, in hopes that, during the prince’s residence in Spain, some expedient might be fallen upon to effect his conversion. The king of England, as well as his son, became impatient; but, on the first hint, Charles obtained leave to return, and Philip graced his departure with the same marks of civility and respect which had signalised his arrival.

The modest, reserved, and highly dignified behaviour of Charles, together with the confidence he had reposed in the Spanish nation, and the romantic gallantry he had practised in regard to their princess, encleared him to the whole court of Madrid. But in the same proportion that Charles was beloved and esteemed, Buckingham was despised and hated. His sallies of passion, his indecent freedoms with the prince, his dissolute pleasures, and his arrogant, impetuous temper, which he either could not or would not restrain, rendered him an object of undisguised aversion to the Spaniards. Buckingham, on the other hand, sensible how odious he had become to the Spaniards, and dreading the influence which that nation would naturally acquire after the arrival of the Infanta, employed all his influence to prevent the marriage. What arguments he used to prevail with the prince to offer so gross an insult to the Spanish nation, from whom he had received the most generous treatment, or what colours he employed to disguise the ingratitude and imprudence of such a measure, are totally unknown. Certain it is, however, that when the prince left Madrid, he was firmly determined, in opposition to his most solemn promises, to break off the treaty with Spain. Accordingly, on their arrival at London, the prince and Buckingham assumed the entire direction of the negociation; and it was not difficult to find pretences under which to mask the breach of treaty which had been secretly resolved on. After employing many fruitless artifices to delay or prevent the espousals, Bristol received positive instructions not to deliver the proxy which had been left in his hands, nor to conclude the marriage until security was given for the full restitution of the palatinate. Philip understood this language; but, determined to throw the whole blame of the rupture on the English, he delivered into Bristol’s hand a written promise, by which he bound himself to procure the restoration of the palatinate either by persuasion or by every other possible means. When he found that this concession gave no satisfaction, he ordered the Infanta to lay aside the title of Princess of Wales, which she had borne after the arrival of the dispensation from Rome, and to drop the study of the English language; and as he foresaw that the rash counsels which now governed the court of England would not stop short at the breach of the marriage-treaty, he immediately ordered preparations for war to be made throughout all his dominions.

A match for Prince Charles was soon afterwards negociated with Henrietta, daughter of Henry IV., and this met with much better success than that with the Infanta. But the king had not the same inducements to prosecute this match as the former one, the portion promised being much smaller; yet willing that his son should not be altogether disappointed of a bride, and the king of France demanding only the same terms which had been offered to the court of Spain, James thought proper to comply. In an article of this treaty of marriage, it was stipulated that the education of the children till the age of thirteen should belong to the mother; and this probably gave that turn towards popery which afterwards proved the ruin of the unfortunate house of Stuart.

Being now deprived of every other hope of relieving his son-in-law, except by force of arms, James declared war against Spain and the emperor, for the recovery of the palatinate; and six thousand men were sent over into Holland to assist Prince Maurice in his schemes against those powers. The people were everywhere elated at the course which events had taken; and so popular was the idea of a Spanish war, and so great the joy at the rupture of the projected Catholic alliance, that Buckingham became for the time a favourite of the people, and was hailed even by Sir Edward Coke as the saviour of the nation. The reinforcement sent to Prince Maurice was followed by another consisting of twelve thousand men, commanded by Count Mansfeldt; and the court of France promised its assistance. But the English were disappointed in all their views. The troops embarked at Dover found, on arriving at Calais, that no orders had arrived for their admission into that place, much less for affording them a passage through France, as had been promised; and after waiting some time, they were obliged to sail towards Zealand, where proper measures had not as yet been taken for their disembarkation. Meanwhile a pestilential disorder crept in amongst them; half their number died while on board, and the other half, weakened by sickness, was insufficient to march into the palatinate; and thus ended this ill-concerted and fruitless expedition. Whether its unfortunate result had any effect on the king’s health is uncertain; but he was soon after seized with a tertian ague, which put an end to his life on the 27th of March 1625, after having lived fifty-nine years, and reigned over England twenty-two, and over Scotland almost as long as he had lived.

James, the son of Queen Mary and of Lord Darnley, the handsomest couple of their age, was lumpish, not to say deformed, in his person, vulgar in his air, and ungainly in his manners. He had an awkward figure, a rolling eye, a ricketty sidelong walk, nervous tremblings, a slobbering mouth, and a boyishness of manner which formed a ludicrous contrast with the airs of dignity and regal state which he was constantly labouring to assume. These imperfections, it is true, might have been found in the best and greatest man; and it is seldom indeed that nature is equally lavish in physical and mental endowments. But, in this king, the ungainliness of his outward man was not redeemed by intellectual or moral qualities calculated to insure admiration or regard. He possessed [7:5:310] some learning, indeed, and, within a narrow circle, exhibited considerable ingenuity of speculation on subjects connected with government and morals. But his understanding was deficient alike in depth and in soundness; his principles were loose, vague, and undefined; his prejudices ridiculously gross; his credulity boundless; and his conceit only to be matched by his pedantry and imbecility. As a king he was perhaps the most extraordinary phenomenon that history has ever presented to the wonder of mankind. What policy would have induced wise tyrants to conceal, James was continually obtruding on all who had the patience to listen to him. His despotic theories of government, and his pretensions to arbitrary power, were continually in his mouth; and whilst he had not a regiment of guards to enforce his doctrines, he talked with more confidence than Hadrian would have judged it wise to assume when at the head of eighty legions and the master of the Roman world. In practice, however, no monarch ever held his prerogatives with less tenacity. “He neither gave way gracefully to the advancing spirit of liberty, nor took vigorous measures to stop it, but retreated before it with ludicrous haste, blustering and insulting as he retreated.” Whatever might have been the frailties, vices, or crimes of former kings of England, they had all possessed great force of character, and, whether loved or hated, they had always been feared. James, on the contrary, was only despised; and even his spoiled minion Buckingham made no scruple to laugh outright in the face of his “dear dad and gossip.” Nor did the follies and vices of the man tend in any degree to lessen the contempt produced by the feeble and wavering policy of the sovereign. The indecent gallantries of the court, and the habits of gross intoxication which even the females indulged, were viewed with loathing and disgust by a people whose manners were beginning to be tinctured by a more than stoical severity. But there were shades still darker and deeper than these. “Crimes of the most frightful kind had been discovered; others were suspected. The strange story of the Gowries was not forgotten. The ignominious fondness of the king for his minions,— the perjuries, the sorceries, the poisonings, which his chief favourites had planned within the walls of his palace,— the pardon which, in direct violation of his duty and of his word, he had granted to the mysterious threat of a murderer,—made him an object of loathing to many of his subjects.”^[7. Edinburgh Review, vol. liv. p. 512. “The sovereign whom James most resembled,” says the very able writer of the article here referred to, “was, we think, Claudius Caesar. Both had the same feeble and vacillating temper, the same childishness, the same coarseness, the same poltroonery. Both were men of learning; both wrote and spoke—not, indeed, well, but still in a manner in which it seems almost incredible that men so foolish should have written or spoken. The follies and indecencies of Janies are well described in the words which Suetonius uses respecting Claudius :—‘ Multa talia, etiam privatis deformia, necdum principi, neque infacundo, neque indocto, immo etiam pertinaciter liberalibus, studiis dedito.’ The description given by Suetonius, of the manner in which the Roman prince transacted business, exactly suits the Briton. ‘ In cognoscendo ac decernendo mira varietate animi fuit, modo circumspectus et sagax, modo inconsultus ac praeceps, nonnunquam frivolus amentique similis.’ Claudius was ruled successively by two bad women; James successively by two bad men. Even the description of the person of Claudius which we find in the ancient memoirs might in many points serve for that of James. ‘ Ceterum et ingredientem destituebant poplites minus firmi, et remisse quid vel serio agentem multa dehonestabant, risus indecens, via turpior, spumante rictu, praeterea linguae tibubantiař’ v ] In a word, nature and education seem to have done their best to make James a finished specimen of all that a king ought not to be.

CHAP. III.

REIGN OF CHARLES I.

Accession of Charles I.—His character as contrasted with that of his father—First Parliament—Their niggard supply Dissolved—New Parliament Impeachment of Buckingham

Arbitrary proceedings of the King—Disputes—Dissolution.— Ship-money—Forced loan resisted—Remarkable trial War with France—Buckingham’s Expedition—Third Parliament.

—Petition of Right.—Duplicity of Charles.—Royal assent at length given to the Bill—Assassination of Buckingham—Ton- ( nage and poundage—Parliament dissolved.—Peace concluded with France and Spain—Archbishop Laud.—Religious Innovations.—New Ministry—Strafford—Arbitrary measures of the King John Hampden prosecuted for the payment of ship money—Particulars of this memorable case—Hampden, Cromwell, and other Puritans prevented from emigrating to North America—Attempt to introduce Episcopacy into Scotland— The Covenant—King tries to soothe the Covenanters.—Assembly at Glasgow—Episcopacy abolished—War.—Peace—War again declared.—A Parliament called and dissolved Pecuniary distresses of the King Royalists defeated at Newbuiti

Treaty of Rippon Meeting of Parliament Impeachment, trial, and execution of Strafford—Injustice of this proceeding. —Parliament rendered perpetual—Imprisonment of Laud— Delinquency—Charles’s visit to Scotland—His concessionsand promotions—The Incident—Rebellion and Massacre of the Protestants in Ireland Reasons for attaching suspicion to the

King Proceedings of the English Parliament Acrimonious remonstrance of the Commons Their violent proceedings

Roundheads and Cavaliers—The Bishops retire from the House of Lords—Impeachment, by the King’s order, of six members of Parliament He goes in person to seize them—Consequen ces of this rash act—Proffered concessions unavailing—Commons demand the surrender of the executive power of the state. —Refused by the King—War between the King and Parliament.

Charles I. succeeded to the same favourite, the same ministers, and the same council, which his father had possessed, to say nothing of the same pecuniary distress; and, unhappily, he also inherited the same principles of government. But in other respects he bore no resemblance to his sire. “He was neither a driveller nor a pedant, a buffoon nor a coward. Even in the judgment of his enemies he was a scholar and a gentleman, a man of exquisite taste in the fine arts, and of strict morals in private life. His talents for business were respectable, and his demeanour was grave, dignified, and kingly. But he was false, imperious, obstinate, narrow-minded, ignorant of the temper of his people, and unobservant of the signs of the times. The main principle of his government was resistance to public opinion; and hence his concessions were delayed till it mattered not whether he resisted or yielded, till the nation, which had long ceased to love or to trust him, had at last ceased also to fear him.” (Edirib. Pev. vol. liv. p. 515.) At the same time his accession to the throne was greeted with favour, and even hailed as auspicious by the nation, which had been wearied and sickened by the pedantic and presumptuous incapacity of his father. Nothing is more easy than for princes to gain golden opinions; nothing more difficult than to rule with wisdom and moderation in those great crises when the national mind becomes agitated by a new spirit, and when the old frame of government must either accommodate itself to the advancing state of society, or be dashed in pieces by a rude collision with a new and resistless force. Pleased with his temporary popularity, obtained partly by the rupture with Spain, and also in want of money for carrying on his government, Charles resolved to call together the great council of the nation; and, accordingly, [7:5:311]he issued writs for summoning a new parliament for the 7th of May 1625. But the arrival of the Princess Henrietta, whom he had espoused by proxy, obliged him to delay, by repeated prorogations, their meeting till the 18th of June, when they assembled at Westminster for the dispatch of business.

The king’s discourse to the parliament was full of apparent simplicity and cordiality. He mentioned cursorily the occasion he had for supply, but, it is said, employed no means to influence the suffrages of the members. The officers of the crown, who had seats in the house, were not even allowed to specify the particular sum which he had occasion for; he trusted entirely to the wisdom and affection of his parliament. But the parliament, composed chiefly of Puritans, was not in a humour to be generous, or even just, in appreciating the king’s necessities. They knew that all the money formerly granted had been expended on military and naval preparations; that great anticipations were made on the revenues of the crown; that the king was loaded with a debt contracted by his father, who had borrowed money both from foreign princes and from his own subjects; that the public revenues could with difficulty maintain the dignity of the crown, even under the ordinary charges of government; that the present war had been, in a great measure, the result of their own importunate applications and entreaties; and that the nation was solemnly pledged to support their sovereign in carrying it on. They could not be ignorant of the difficulty of military enterprises directed against the whole house of Austria; against the king of Spain, possessed of the greatest riches and most extensive dominions of any prince in Europe; against the Emperor Ferdinand, hitherto the most fortunate monarch of the age, who had astonished Germany by the rapidity of his victories. Yet, with all this knowledge, and to answer all these important ends, the commons thought proper to vote a supply of only L. 112,000. The excuses which have been made for this insulting parsimony are, the hatred of Buckingham, and the discovery that the war had been produced by his artifices and intrigues. But the validity of this apology may reasonably be disputed. If the war was judged impolitic or unnecessary, it became the duty of the Commons to address the king, praying him to abandon it. If it was neither the one nor the other, they ought not to have avenged themselves for a trifling grievance by insulting the king and degrading the country.

The parliament was adjourned for a few weeks in summer by reason of the plague, which had suddenly broken out; but on their re-assembling at Oxford, the king represented, in the most explicit manner, the necessity there was for a large supply, urging that this request was the first he had ever made them; that he was young, and in the commencement of his reign; and that if he now met with kind and dutiful usage, it would endear to him the use of parliaments, and for ever preserve an entire harmony between him and his people. But the Commons remained inexorable, refusing even the addition of two fifteenths to the former supply. They renewed their complaints against the growth of popery; they demanded a strict execution of the penal laws against the Catholics; they remonstrated against some late pardons granted to priests; and they attacked Montague, one of the king’s chaplains, on account of a book he had lately composed, in which it was maintained that virtuous Catholics as well as other Christians would be saved from eternal torments. Charles gave them a complaisant answer, but at the same time firmly resolved to abate somewhat of the rigorous laws against that unfortunate party, which his engagements with France absolutely required. No measure of his whole reign, however, proved more obnoxious to his intolerant subjects, or in its consequences more fatal to himself, than this resolution. The Puritans, who had continued to gain ground during the whole reign of James, now formed the majority of the House of Commons. Petitions were consequently presented to the king for replacing such clergymen as had been silenced for want of conformity to the ceremonies; and laws were enacted for the strict observance of Sunday, which was sanctified with the most rigid and melancholy gloom. The inevitable result of all this was the dismissal of the refractory parliament, which was dissolved on the 12th of August.

During this interval Charles had been obliged to borrow from his subjects on privy-seals and other expedients, by which means he was enabled, though with great difficulty, to equip a fleet destined to act against Spain. But the force thus painfully fitted out performed nothing worthy of notice, and the ill success of the enterprise only served to increase the clamours against the court.

Charles’s second parliament, which was speedily convoked, adopted substantially the same views as the first, though without pushing their parsimony to such meanness. They voted a supply of three subsidies, amounting to L.l 68,000 and three fifteenths; but the passing of this vote into a law was reserved until the end of the session; a proceeding which was tantamount to a threat of withholding it unless their demands were satisfied. Clíarles was greatly incensed at this conduct; but he found it prudent to submit, and to wait the event with patience. In the mean time the Commons attacked the Duke of Buckingham, who had become generally obnoxious; and he was also impeached by the Earl of Bristol in the Lords, on account of his conduct in the Spanish negociation. But the earl’s impeachment was entirely overlooked, and the Commons taxed Buckingham with offences, such as administering physic to the late king without consent of his physicians, from which he found little difficulty to exculpate himself. While under this impeachment, Buckingham was elected chancellor of the university of Cambridge, and the king publicly thanked the university for their wise and proper choice. This was keenly resented by the Commons; but when they loudly complained of the affront, the lord-keeper commanded them, in the king’s name, not to meddle with his minister and servant, but to finish in a few days the bill they had begun for the subsidies, otherwise they must expect to sit no longer. And to strip this imprudent menace of all disguise, Sir Dudley Carlton emphatically explained it by allusion to those monarchs in Christendom who, owing to the turbulence of their subjects, had been obliged to overthrow parliaments altogether. Nor was this the whole, or even the worst. Adding injury to indignity, the king next ordered two members of the House of Commons, Sir John Eliot and Sir Dudley Digges, the chief managers of the impeachment against the duke, to be thrown into prison, alleging as the reason of this proceeding certain seditious expressions said to have dropped from these members. Upon inquiry, however, it appeared that no such expressions had been uttered; and as the Commons refused to proceed with any business until they received satisfaction in their privileges, the members were accordingly released, though with a very-bad grace. Soon after, the House of Lords, moved by the example of the Commons, claimed liberty for the Earl of Arundel, who had been lately confined in the Tower; and after many fruitless evasions the king was obliged, though somewhat ungraciously, to comply with their demand.

The next attack meditated by the Commons, if successful, would have proved decisive, and reduced the king to an absolute dependence on his parliament. They were preparing a remonstrance against the levying of tonnage and poundage without consent of the legislature. This [7:5:312]impost, together with six new ones laid on merchandise by King James, constituted nearly one-half of the crown revenues; and it was therefore of vital importance to the king, situated as he was, to preserve it entire, although there can be no doubt whatever that, in its own nature, it was an odious and oppressive tax. It was also the intention of the Commons, if they succeeded in carrying this point, to petition the king to remove Buckingham from his presence and councils. But the king, alarmed at the blow which was preparing for him, anticipated the Commons by dissolving parliament, on the 15th of June 1626. The House of Lords in vain interceded. The king was determined on his course; and when the Peers prayed that the parliament might he allowed to continue its sittings, he replied in angcr, “Not a moment longer.” The king and the Commons at their separation published each an appeal to the nation.

Charles having thus made a breach with his parliament which there were no hopes of repairing, was obliged to have recourse to the naked exercise of his prerogative in order to supply himself with money. A commission was openly granted to compound with the Catholics, and dispense with the penal laws enacted against them; an expedient by which the king filled his coffers, but gave universal disgust to his subjects. From the nobility he desired assistance; from the city of London he required a loan of L.100,000. The former contributed but slowly; the latter, sheltering themselves under many pretences and excuses, gave at last a flat denial. To equip a fleet, an apportionment was made by order of the council amongst all the maritime towns, each of which was required, with the assistance of the adjacent counties, to furnish a certain number of vessels or amount of shipping. The city of London was rated at twenty ships. And this was the first appearance, in the present reign, of ship-money; a taxation which had once been imposed by Elizabeth on a great emergency, but which, revived and carried some steps farther by Charles, produced the most violent discontents. These summary methods of supply, however, were employed with some moderation, until the tidings arrived of the king of Denmark’s defeat by Tilly, the imperial general. Money then became more than ever necessary; and as the ways and means hitherto employed had not answered expectation, it was suggested in council, as the most speedy, equal, and effective means of obtaining a supply, to exact a general loan from the subject, rating every man according as he was assessed in the rolls of the last subsidy. The precise sum required was what each would have paid had the vote of four subsidies passed into a law; but it was at the same time ostentatiously declared that the sums thus exacted were not to be considered as subsidies, but as loans.

This paltry and equivocating subterfuge imposed upon no one. It was plain that by the course which the court was now pursuing, the liberty of the subject would be entirely destroyed, and parliaments in future rendered wholly superfluous. It was to no purpose, therefore, that the followers of the court, and their preachers in the pulpit, enjoined submission to this loan as part of the duty of passive obedience and non-resistance. A spirit of opposition arose among the people; many refused these loans; and some were even active in encouraging their neighbours to insist upon their common rights and privileges. By a warrant of the council these were thrown into prison, and most of them patiently submitted to confinement, although such as applied to the king by petition were commonly released. Five gentlemen alone, Sir Thomas Darnel, Sir John Corbet, Sir Walter Earl, Sir John Heweningham, and Sir Edmond Hampden, demanded release, not as a favour from the court, but as their right by the law. No particular cause was assigned for their commitment; the special command of the king and council was alone pleaded. But it was alleged, that, by law, this was not sufficient reason for refusing bail or re-leasement to the prisoners. The question was brought to a solemn trial before the Court of King’s Bench, and the whole kingdom was attentive to the issue of the cause. By the debates on this subject, it appeared that personal liberty had been secured by no less than six different statutes, and by an article in Magna Charta itself. In times of turbulence and sedition, indeed, the princes had infringed upon these laws; and of this several examples were produced. The difficulty then lay to determine when such violent measures were necessary, and of that the court pretended to be supreme and only judge. As it was found to be legal, however, that the five gentlemen should plead the statute, by which they might demand bail, so it was deemed expedient by the court to remand them to prison, without determining on the necessity of taking bail for the present. This was a cruel evasion of justice; and, as might be expected, satisfied neither party. The court insisted that no bail could be taken; the country exclaimed that the prisoners ought to be set free.

While the king was thus embroiled with his parliament at home, and with powerful nations abroad, he rashly engaged in a war with France, a kingdom with which he had but lately formed an alliance; a temerity bordering on madness. All historians agree that the French, like the Spanish war, was of Buckingham’s creating: and the motives which led to it would appear incredible, if the violence, profligacy, and folly of that man’s character were not known. At the time when Charles married, by proxy, Henrietta of France, Buckingham had appeared at Paris to grace the festivity, and, by his showy superficial accomplishments, had attracted the admiration of the Queen of France herself. Having conducted Henrietta safely to England, he was preparing, doubtless in the spirit of ambitious gallantry, to return upon a new embassy; when Richelieu, the minister, himself a disappointed lover of the queen, caused a message to be sent him from France, declining the honour of his intended visit. Buckingham’s rage at this knew no bounds, and, in a transport of passion, he swore that he would see the queen in spite of all the power of France. He also determined, if possible, to embroil the two kingdoms in war; and with this view he prevailed with Charles to dismiss the queen’s French domestics, and encouraged the English ships to seize on those of France. But great as these provocations were, they failed in their object, which was to drive the French to a declaration of war. Upon this Buckingham persuaded the king openly to espouse the cause of the Huguenots, whose leader, the Duke de Soubise,.was then in London. And the vain, shallow, impetuous favourite himself set sail with a hundred ships and seven thousand men to assist the Huguenots of Rochelle. Uninformed of his designs, however, the latter shut their gates against him. Instead of attacking the rich and defenceless isle of Oleron, Buckingham then bent his course to that of Rhé; and, after allowing the garrison of St Martyn to be well provisioned, he resolved to reduce it by famine. But his impatience soon led him to abandon this design; and attempting to storm the place without having made a breach in the defences, he was repulsed with the loss of two thirds of his force, and returned to England covered with disgrace. Destitute alike of capacity for war, of common sense and common vigilance, his conduct, throughout the whole of this expedition, was alternately that of an idiot and a madman. He did every thing that he ought not to have done; neglected every thing which it was his duty to do; attempted what was impossible or impracticable; sacrificed [7:5:313]the lives of brave men at the shrine of his insane folly; brought disgrace on the national arms; and prodigiously aggravated all the difficulties and embarrassments with which his master was then surrounded. Of all the popinjays ever hatched and feathered in a court, Buckingham was beyond all doubt one of the most mischievous as well as most unprincipled.

Well then might the king and his favourite tremble at the prospect of meeting a third parliament, after having squandered the money illegally extorted from a nation, now on the point of insurrection, on a war begun in the madness of profligacy, and productive only of disaster and shame. But, in the actual state of men’s minds, it would have been hazardous to renew the experiment of raising money by the exercise of the prerogative alone. A third parliament was therefore summoned, and met on the 17th of March 1628. At the beginning of the session Charles plainly told them, that “if they should not do their duties, in contributing to the necessities of the state, he must, in discharge of his conscience, use those other means which God had put into his hands, in order to save that which the follies of some particular men might otherwise put in danger.” Foreseeing that they might expect to be dismissed on the first disagreement with the king, the Commons proceeded with caution, yet relaxed nothing in vigour. The nation was now really suffering from the late arbitrary proceedings. They, therefore, began by remonstrating against arbitrary imprisonments and forced loans; after which, five subsidies, or L.280,000, were voted to the king, a sum with which Charles declared himself well satisfied. The Commons, however, resolved not to pass this vote into a law, until they had obtained from the king a sufficient security that their liberties should no longer be violated as they had formerly been. With this view they framed a law which was called a Petition of Right, because it was only a confirmation of the ancient constitution, in which they collected all the arbitrary exertions of the prerogative which had taken place since the king’s accession, and in particular complained of the grievances of forced loans, benevolences, taxes without consent of parliament, arbitrary imprisonments, billeting soldiers, and martial law. They made no pretensions to any unusual power or privileges; nor did they intend to infringe on the royal prerogative in any respect. They aimed only at securing those rights and privileges derived from their ancestors.

But the king, on his part, began plainly to show that he aimed at nothing less than absolute power. This most reasonable petition he did his utmost to evade, by repeated messages to the house, in which he offered his royal word that there should be no more infringements on the liberty of the subject. But these messages had no effect on the Commons. They knew how brittle such promises were without further security, and accordingly passed the bill. In the Lords an attempt was made to stultify the measure, by adding to a general declaration of the rights of property and person a clause to the effect that, in case the sovereign be, from absolute necessity, obliged to imprison a subject, tf he shall be petitioned to declare that, within a convenient time, he shall and will express the cause of imprisonment, and will, upon cause so expressed, leave the prisoner to be tried by the common law of the land.” But in a conference the Commons refused to annihilate their petition by such a compromise; the Lords then passed the bill, and nothing was wanting but the royal assent to give it the force of a law. Charles accordingly came to the House of Peers, sent for the Commons, and being seated in the chair of state, instead of giving the usual concise assent, said, “the king willeth that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm, and that the statutes be put into execution; that his subjects may have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppression contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof he holds himself in conscience as much obliged as of his own prerogative.”

This equivocal answer was highly resented. The Commons returned in very ill humour; and their indignation would undoubtedly have fallen on the unfortunate Catholics, had not the petition against that persecuted class of religionists already received a satisfactory answer. To give vent to their displeasure, therefore, they fell on Dr Mainwaring, who had preached, and, at the special command of the king, printed, a sermon, which was found to contain doctrines subversive of civil liberty. For these doctrines Mainwaring was sentenced to be imprisoned during the pleasure of the house, to be fined in L.1000, to make submission and acknowledgment for his offence, to be suspended for three years, and declared incapable of holding any ecclesiastical dignity or secular office; and his book was ordered to be called in and burnt. But the session was no sooner ended than Mainwaring received a pardon, and was promoted to a living of considerable value; and some years afterwards he was raised to the see of St Asaph. Having dealt thus with Mainwaring, the Commons proceeded to censure Buckingham; and the storm of public indignation seemed ready to burst on his head, when it was diverted by 7 the king’s yielding to the importunities of parliament. He went to the House of Peers, and when he pronounced the usual form of words, “Let it be law as is desired," the house resounded with acclamations, which were re-echoed over all the country 7 , and the bill for five subsidies immediately passed.

But the Commons were not y 7 et done with the redress of grievances. They called for the abolition of a commission which had been recently granted to thirty-three officers of the crown for levying money by impositions or otherwise, “in which form or circumstance were to be dispensed with rather than the substance be lost or hazarded.” They adverted to a scheme for introducing into England a thousand German horse, probably to aid in levying contributions; they again attacked Buckingham, against whom they were justly implacable; and they also asserted that the levying of tonnage and poundage without consent of parliament was a palpable violation of the ancient liberties of the people, and an open infringement of the petition of right so lately granted. To prevent a formal remonstrance on these subjects, the king suddenly prorogued the parliament on the 26th of June 1628.

The hand of an assassin soon rid the Commons of their enemy Buckingham. He was murdered on the 23d of August this same year, by one Felton, who had formerly served under him as a lieutenant. The king did not appear much concerned at his death, but retained an affection for his family throughout his whole lifetime. He desired also that Felton might he tortured, in order to extort from him a discovery 7 of his accomplices; but the judges declared, that though that practice had been formerly very common, it was altogether illegal.

In 1629 the usual contentions between the king and his parliament were renewed. The great article on which the Commons broke with their sovereign, and which finally created in him a disgust at all parliaments, was their demands with regard to tonnage and poundage. The question at issue was, whether this tax could be levied without consent of parliament or not. Charles, supported by 7 multitudes of precedents, maintained that it might; and the parliament, in consequence of their petition of right, asserted that it could not. But the Commons were resolved to support their rights.

They 7 began with summoning before them the officers of [7:5:314]the custom-house, to give an account of the authority by which they had seized the goods of those merchants who had refused to pay the duties of tonnage and poundage. The Barons of Exchequer were questioned with regard to their decrees on that head. The sheriff of London was committed to the Tower for his activity in supporting the officers of the custom-house. The goods of Rolles, a merchant, and member of the house, being seized on account of his refusal to pay the duties, complaints were made of this violence, as a breach of privilege. Charles, on the other hand, supported his officers in all these measures; and the breach between him and the Commons became every day wider. Sir John Eliot framed a remonstrance against tonnage and poundage, which he offered to the clerk to read; but the latter refused, and Sir John then read it himself. When the question was called for, the Speaker, Sir John Finch, said, that he had it in command from the king to adjourn, and to put no question; upon which he rose and left the chair. The whole bouse was in an uproar; the Speaker was pushed back, and forcibly held in the chair by Hollis and Valentine, till a short remonstrance was framed, and passed by acclamation. Papists and Arminians were now declared capital enemies to the commonwealth; those who levied tonnage and poundage were branded with the same epithet; and even the merchants who voluntarily paid these duties were declared betrayers of English liberty, and public enemies. The doors being locked, the gentleman-usher of the House of Lords, who was sent by the king, could get no admittance till this remonstrance was finished. By the king’s order he took the mace from the table, which put an end to their proceedings; and, on the 10th of March, the parliament was dissolved. Some of the members were imprisoned and fined; but this severity served only to increase the general discontent, and point out the sufferers as proper leaders for the popular party.

Disgusted with parliaments, Charles now resolved to call no more; but finding himself destitute of resources, he was obliged to conclude a war which was begun without necessity, and conducted without glory. A treaty was signed with France on the 14th of April, and another with Spain on the 5th of November 1630, by which Charles bound himself to observe a neutrality with regard to the affairs of the Continent. In these treaties the Huguenots and the palatinate were equally abandoned. Charles, however, united with France in mediating between Sweden and Poland, in hopes of gaining the former to the cause of his brother-in-law. But although Gustavus espoused the cause of the German Protestants, and accepted of aid from Charles under the Marquis of Hamilton, be refused, when he had overrun Germany, to restore the palatinate, except on condition of its dependence upon himself. In short, the peace was as ignominious as the war had been disgraceful.

The king’s conduct to his subjects cannot now therefore appear blameless, nor the general discontent without foundation. As if resolved to ruin himself utterly, and to forfeit any small degree of regard which his subjects; still retained for him, Charles now set about making innovations in religion. Archbishop Laud had obtained a prodigious ascendancy over the king, and, by a superstitious attachment to fantastical ceremonies, led him into a conduct that proved fatal to himself and ruinous to the kingdom. The humour of the nation at that time inclined them to enthusiasm rather than superstition; and the ancient ceremonies which had been sanctified by the permission and practice of the first reformers, were barely tolerated in divine service. Yet Laud chose this time, in every respect the most unseasonable that could have been hit upon, for renewing the ceremonies of the fourth and fifth century, when the Christian church was sunk in superstition, and religion had been smothered under a cumbrous mass of unmeaning forms; and so openly were his projects avowed, that not only did the Puritans believe the church of England to be fast relapsing into the ancient faith, but even the court of Rome itself entertained hopes of regaining its former authority in this island, and, in order to quicken the zeal of Laud, twice offered him, in private, a cardinal’s hat. He had just sense enough to decline a tender which, if accepted, would have instantly wrought his overthrow. But it must nevertheless be confessed, that if he hesitated openly to declare himself a Catholic. the genius of his religion was essentially identical with that of Rome. The same profound respect was exacted to the sacerdotal character; the same submission to the creeds and decrees of synods and councils; the same pomp and ceremony in worship; the same superstitious regard to days, postures, meats, and vestments. The communion table was removed from the middle of the area where it had hitherto stood in all churches except cathedrals, and placed at the cast end, railed in, and denominated an altar, whilst the clergyman who officiated received the appellation of priest. All kinds of ornaments, especially pictures, were introduced; some of them copied from the mass-book. And the crucifix too, that perpetual consolation of all pious Catholics, and terror of all sound Protestants, was not forgotten on this occasion.

In return for the king’s indulgence towards the church, Laud and his followers took care to magnify on every occasion the regal authority, and to treat with the utmost disdain all puritanical pretensions to a free and independent constitution. From this subjection, however, they took care to exclude themselves, insisting upon a divine and apostolical charter in preference to a legal and parliamentary one. The sacerdotal character was magnified as sacred and indefeasible; and all right to spiritual authority, or even to private judgment in spiritual subjects, was refused to profane laymen. Ecclesiastical courts were holden by bishops in their own name, without any notice being taken of the king’s authority; and Charles, though extremely jealous of every claim set up by popular assemblies, seemed rather to encourage than repress the encroachments of his clergy.

Meanwhile the king had changed his counsellors without changing his councils. In order to weaken the popular party, by creating suspicion and distrust of its chiefs, Charles, resorting to an expedient often adopted by princes, had chosen his ministers from the ranks of the patriots, in the hope of converting them into strenuous supporters of the prerogative which he was content to share with them. Nor was he mistaken in calculating the more immediate effects of this political apostacy. Sir Thomas Wentworth, now created Earl of Strafford, was appointed president of the council of York, deputy of Ireland, and chief counsellor of the king. Sir Dudley Digges became master of the rolls; Noy, attorney-general; and Littleton, solicitor-general. But the arch-apostate was Wentworth, a man distinguished by great force of character, dauntless courage, brilliant and commanding eloquence, extraordinary intellectual resources, unconquerable moral energy,and a fierce tumultuous ambition, which led him to trample withoutscru-ple or remorse upon every principle accounted most sacred and most binding on public men. In him the popular party lost one of its most powerful supporters, whilst despotism gained a formidable instrument, ready to revenge his own apostacy on the men he had deserted and betrayed, and to employ all his powers for the purpose of crushing those liberties of which he had been the most distinguished champion. This bold, bad man, remarkable alike in every aspect of his character,'became the associate and [7:5:315]colleague of Laud, who still retained the chief direction of ecclesiastical affairs, and who has not unaptly been de* scribed as a lower kind of Saint Dominie, “differing from the fierce and gloomy enthusiast who founded the Inquisition, as we might imagine the familiar imp of a spiteful witch to differ from the archangel of darkness.” (Edinburgh Review, vol. liv. p. 521.)

λVhilst Charles ruled without parliaments he ruled by the naked exercise of prerogative alone. He wanted money for the support of government; and he levied it, either by the revival of obsolete laws, or by violations of the rights and privileges of the nation. In the Star-chamber and High Commission unheard of severities were practised in order to support the present mode of administration, and suppress the rising spirit of liberty throughout the kingdom. Sir David Foulis was fined L.5000 for dissuading a friend from compounding for knighthood. Prynne, a barrister, was condemned to be pilloried in two places, to lose his ears, to pay a fine of L.5000, and to be imprisoned during life, for reviling stage plays, huntings, and festivals, and animadverting on the superstitions of Laud. Allison was ordained to pay L.1000 to the king, to be publicly flogged, and to stand four times in the pillory, for reporting that the Arehbishop of York had fallen into disgrace by asking toleration for the Catholics. Nor were these the only cases of the kind. Personal liberty was annihilated. ÃIeanwhile tonnage and poundage continued to be levied by royal authority alone. The former arbitrary impositions were still exacted, and even new ones laid upon the different kinds of merchandise. The custom-house officers received orders from the council to enter into any house, warehouse, or cellar; to search any trunk or chest, and to break any bulk whatsoever, in default of the payment of customs. To exercise the militia, each county was assessed by edict of the council, in a certain sum for maintaining a muster-master appointed to that service. Compositions were openly made with recusants, and the toleration of the Catholic religion being sold, religion became a regular part of the revenue. A commission was also granted for compounding with such as possessed crown-lands on defective titles; and upon this iniquitous pretence large sums were exacted from the people, who chose rather to submit to this fraudulent imposition, than to have the precise nature of their titles and the state of their private affairs exposed to the world.

These arbitrary proceedings led to an occurrence which will be ever memorable in the history of English liberty. John Hampden had been rated at twenty shillings of shipmoney for an estate he possessed in Buckinghamshire, which was assessed at a ship of four hundred and fifty' tons, or four thousand five hundred pounds. The share of the tax which fell to Hampden was very small; so small, indeed, that the sheriff was blamed for setting so wealthy a man at so low a rate; but although the sum demanded was a trifle, the principle of the demand was essentially despotical. The judges, it is true, had declared that, in case of necessity, the king might impose the tax of ship-money, and that his majesty was the sole judge of that necessity. But after consulting the most eminent constitutional lawyers of the time, Hampden, undismayed by this judicial deliverance, refused to pay the few shillings at which he was assessed, and determined, rather than submit to the imposition, to incur the certain expense and eventual danger of bringing to a solemn hearing this great controversy between the crown and the people. The leading council against the writ was the celebrated Oliver St John, whilst the attorney-general and solicitor-general appeared for the crown. The case was argued during twelve days in the Exchequer Chamber, and the judges took a considerable time for deliberation. No one has ever doubted that the law was clearly in favour of Hampden, and that the arguments of his counsel remained unanswered. The bench was, however, divided in opinion. Four of the twelve judges pronounced decidedly in his favour; a fifth took a middle course; and the remaining seven gave their voices in favour of the writ. The majority against him was, therefore, the narrowest possible; and when it is recollected that the judges held their situations only during the royal pleasure, and consequently were entirely dependent on the court, this decision maybe regarded as in reality a victory. In this light it was considered at the time; and it certainly had the effect of awakening the public indignation against the arbitrary designs of the court, and the abominable prostitution of judicial authority by which these had been sanctioned and abetted. “The judgment,” says Clarendon, “proved of more advantage and credit to the gentleman condemned, than to the king’s service.”

The decision of the Exchequer Chamber, however, had placed at the disposal of the crown the property of every man in England; whilst the abominable proceedings of the Star-chamber, which caused obnoxious individuals to be mutilated and sent to rot in dungeons, showed that the persons as well as the estates of all who ventured to oppose the crown were entirely at its mercy. What that mercy was will immediately be seen. Hampden, with some of his friends and connections, determined to quit England for ever, and to betake themselves across the Atlantic, to a settlement which a few persecuted Puritans had formed in the wilderness of Connecticut. Lords Saye and Brooke were the original projectors of this scheme of emigration; and Hampden, who had been early consulted respecting it, now resolved to withdraw himself beyond the reach of further persecution, having reason to dread the vengeance of the court for the resistance he had offered to its tyranny. He was accompanied by his kinsman Oliver Cromwell; and the cousins took their passage in a vessel which lay in the Thames, bound for North America. They were actually on board, when an order of council appeared, by which the ship was prohibited from sailing; and seven other ships, filled with emigrants, were also stopped by the same authority. “Hampden and Cromwell remained,” says the writer from whom we have borrowed so much, “and with them remained the evil genius of the house of Stuart.” (Edinburgh Review, vol. liv. p. 526.)

While the discontent produced by these arbitrary proceedings was at its height in England, and the people ready to break out in open rebellion, Charles thought proper to attempt setting up Episcopacy in Scotland. The canons for establishing a new ecclesiastical jurisdiction were promulgated in 1635, and were received without any external appearance of opposition, yet with great inward apprehension and discontent. But when the reading of the liturgy was first attempted in the cathcdral church of St Giles in Edinburgh in 1637, it produced such a violent tumult that it was not thought safe to repeat the experiment. A universal combination against the religious innovations began immediately to take place; but Charles, as if obstinately bent on his own destruction, continued inflexible in his purpose, though he had nothing to oppose to the united force of the kingdom but a proclamation, in which he pardoned all past offences, and exhorted the people to be more obedient for the future, and to submit peaceably to the use of the liturgy. This proclamation accelerated the insurrection which had before been but slowly advancing. Four Tables, as they were called, were formed in Edinburgh; one consisting of nobility, another of gentry, a third of ministers, and the fourth of burgesses. The table of gentry was divided into many subordinate [7:5:316]ones, according to the different counties. In the hands of the Four Tables the authority of the whole kingdom was placed. Orders were issued by them, and everywhere obeyed with the utmost regularity; and amongst the first acts of their government was the production of the Covenant. This famous instrument consisted of a renunciation of popery, formerly signed by James in his youth, and filled with many virulent invectives against that party. A bond of union or league followed, by which the subscribers obliged themselves to resist all religious innovations, and to defend each other against all opposition whatsoever. The Covenant was subscribed by people of all ranks and conditions. Few disapproved of it in their hearts, and still fewer dared openly to condemn it. The king’s ministers and counsellors themselves were mostly of the same way of thinking; and none but persons accounted rebels to God, and traitors to their country, could withdraw themselves from so salutary and pious a combination.

The king now began -to be seriously alarmed. He sent the Marquis of Hamilton, as commissioner, with authority to treat with the Covenanters; he required the Covenant to be renounced and recalled; and, as sufficient concessions on his part, he offered to suspend the canons and liturgy till they could be received in a fair and legal way, and so to model the High Commission that it should no longer give offence to his subjects. In answer to this demand, however, the Covenanters declared that they would sooner renounce their baptism than the Covenant; and they invited the commissioner himself to sign it. Hamilton returned to London; made another fruitless journey with new concessions to Edinburgh; returned again to London, and was immediately sent back with still more satisfactory concessions. The king was now willing to abolish entirely the canons, the liturgy, and the High Commission Court; he even resolved to limit greatly the power of the bishops, and seemed content if on any terms he could retain that order in the Church of Scotland. Further, he gave Hamilton authority to summon first an assembly, and then a parliament, where every national grievance should be redressed. But these tardy and reluctant concessions only showed the weakness of the king, and encouraged the malcontents to rise in their demands. The offer, however, of an assembly and a parliament, in which they expected to be entirely masters, was very willingly embraced by the Covenanters.

Perceiving the advantage which his enemies had reaped from their Covenant, Charles resolved to have one on his side also; and he ordered a bond to be drawn up for that purpose. It consisted of the same strenuous renunciation of popery with the other; and although the king did not approve of this, he thought proper to adopt it, in order to remove all the suspicions entertained against him. As the Covenanters, in their bond of mutual defence against all opposition, had been careful not to except the king, Charles also formed a bond, which was annexed to this renunciation, and expressed the subscribers’ loyalty and duty to his majesty. But the Covenanters perceiving that this new Covenant was only meant to weaken and divide them, received it with the utmost scorn and detestation; and proceeded without delay to model the assembly from which such great achievements were expected.

This assembly met at Glasgow in 1638. A firm determination had been entered into of utterly abolishing Episcopacy; and, as preparatory thereto, there was laid before the presbytery of Edinburgh, and solemnly read in all the churches of the kingdom, an accusation against the bishops, as guilty, all of them, of heresy, simony, bribery, perjury, cheating, incest, adultery, fornication, common - swearing, drunkenness, gaming, breach of the sabbath, and every other crime which had occurred to the accusers. The bishops sent a protest, declining the authority of the assembly; the commissioner too protested against that court, as illegally constituted and elected, and in his majesty’s name dissolved it. This measure was foreseen, and little regarded. The court still continued to sit and do business. All the acts of assembly since the accession of James to the crown of England were, upon very reasonable grounds, declared null and invalid. The acts of parliament which affected ecclesiastical affairs were on that very account supposed to have no authority. And thus the whole fabric which James and Charles, in along course of years, had been rearing with much care and policy, fell at once to the ground. The Covenant likewise was ordered to be signed by every one, under pain of excommunication.

In 1639 the Covenanters prepared in earnest for war. The Earl of Argyll, though he long seemed to temporize, at last embraced the Covenant, and became the chieflead-er of that party. The Earls of Rothes, Cassillis, Montrose, Lothian, the Lords Lindesay, Loudoun, Yester, and Balmerino, also distinguished themselves. Many Scottish officers had acquired reputation in the German wars, particularly under Gustavus; and these were invited over to assist their country in its present necessity. The command was intrusted to Leslie, a soldier of experience and ability. Forces were regularly enlisted and disciplined; arms were commissioned and imported from foreign countries; a few castles which belonged to the king, being unprovided with provisions, ammunition, and' garrisons, were soon seized; and the whole country, except a small part under the Marquis of Huntly, who still adhered to the king, fell into the Covenanters’ hands, and was soon put in a tolerable state of defence.

Charles, on the other hand, was not deficient in endeavours to oppose this formidable combination. By regular economy he had not only paid all the debts contracted in the French and Spanish wars, but had amassed a sum of L.200,000, which he had reserved for any sudden exigency. The queen, who had great interest with the Catholics, both from sympathy of religion, and from the favours and indulgences which she had been able to procure them, now employed her credit in persuading them that it was reasonable to give large contributions, as a mark of their duty to the king, during this urgent necessity; and thus, to the great scandal of the Puritans, a considerable supply was raised. The king’s fleet also was formidable and well supplied. Having put five thousand land forces on board, he intrusted the command to the Marquis of Hamilton, who had orders to sail for the Frith of Forth, and cause a diversion by occupying the forces of the malcontents. An army of near twenty thousand foot and three thousand horse was meanwhile levied, and put under the command of the Earl of Arundel, a nobleman of great family, but distinguished for neither military nor political abilities. The Earl of Essex, a man of strict honour, and extremely popular, especially among the soldiery, was appointed lieutenant-general; and the Earl of Holland was made general of the horse. The king himself joined the army, and summoned all the Peers of England to attend him. The whole had the appearance of a splendid court rather than a military armament, and in this state the army arrived at Berwick.

The Scottish force was equally numerous with that of the king, but inferior in cavalry. The officers had more experience; and the soldiers, though ill disciplined and armed, were animated, as well by the national aversion to England, and the dread of becoming a province of their old rival, as by that religious enthusiasm which was the occasion of the war. Yet so prudent were their leaders, that they immediately sent very submissive messages to the [7:5:317] king, and craved leave to be admitted to a treaty. Charles, as usual, took the worst possible course. He concluded a sudden pacification, in which it was stipulated, that he should withdraw his fleet and army; that within forty-eight hours the Scots should dismiss their forces; that the king’s forts should be restored to him, his authority acknowledged, and a general assembly and parliament immediately summoned, in order to compose all differences. But this peace was not of long duration. Charles could not prevail on himself to abandon the cause of Episcopacy, and secretly intended to seize every favourable opportunity to recover the ground he had lost. The assembly, on the other hand, proceeded with the utmost vigour and determination. They voted Episcopacy to be unlawful in the church of Scotland; they stigmatized the canons and liturgy as popish; and they denominated the High Commission tyranny. The parliament, which sat after the assembly, advanced pretensions which tended to diminish the civil power of the monarch; and they were proceeding to ratify the acts of assembly, when, by the king’s instructions, Traquair, the commissioner, prorogued them. By reason of these claims, which might have easily been foreseen, the war recommenced the same year.

No sooner had Charles concluded the peace, however, than he found himself obliged to disband his army from want of money; and as the soldiers had been held together merely by mercenary views, it was not possible, without great trouble, expense, and loss of time, to rc-assemble them. The Covenanters, on the contrary, in dismissing their troops, had been careful to preserve nothing but the appearance of a pacification. The officers had orders to be ready on the first summons; the soldiers were warned not to think the nation secure from an English invasion; and the religious zeal which animated all ranks of men made them immediately fly to their standards as soon as the trumpet of war was sounded by their spiritual and temporal leaders.

In 1640, however, the king managed to draw an army together; but finding himself unable to support them, he was obliged to call a parliament after an intermission of about eleven years. As the sole object of the king in calling this parliament was to obtain a supply, and the only reason they had for attending was to procure a redress of grievances, much harmony could scarcely be expected. The king accordingly insisted for money, and the parliament expatiated on their grievances, till a dissolution ensued; and, as if to render this measure still more unpopular, the king permitted the Convocation to sit after the dissolution ;—a practice of which there had been very few examples since the reformation, and which was now deemed exceedingly irregular. Besides granting a supply to the king from the spiritualities, the Convocation, jealous of innovations similar to those which had taken place in Scotland, imposed an oath on the clergy and the graduates in the Universities, binding them to maintain the government of the church, by archbishops, bishops, deans, chapters, and otherwise, as by law established. These steps were deemed illegal, because not ratified by consent of parliament; and the oath became a subject of general ridicule.

Disappointed of parliamentary subsidies, the king was obliged to have recourse to other expedients. The ecclesiastical subsidies offered a considerable resource; and it seemed but just that the clergy should contribute to the expense of a war which they had been mainly instrumental in raising. Charles borrowed money from his ministers and courtiers; and so urgent were his wants, that above L.300,000 were subscribed in a few days. Attempts were made to levy a forced loan from the citizens; but these were repelled by the spirit of liberty, which had now become unconquerable. A loan of L.40,000 was, however, extorted from the Spanish merchants who had bullion in the Tower. Coat and conduct money for the soldiery was also levied on the counties; all the pepper was bought up from the East India Company upon trust, and sold at a great discount for ready money; and an infamous scheme was proposed for coining two or three hundred thousand pounds osbase money. Such were the extremities to which Charles was now reduced. The fresh difficulties which were every day raised with regard to the payment of shipmoney, obliged him to exert continual acts of authority, and augmented extremely the discontents of the people, while his indigence and necessities continued undiminished.

These expedients, however, enabled the king, though with great difficulty, to set in motion an army, consisting of 19,000 foot and 2000 horse. The Earl of Northumberland was appointed general; the Earl osStrafford, who had been recalled from Ireland, lieutenant-general; and Lord Conway general of the horse. A small fleet was thought sufficient to serve the purposes of this expedition. The Scottish forces, though somewhat superior, were sooner ready than the king’s army, and marched to the borders of England. But notwithstanding their warlike preparations, the Covenanters still held the most submissive language to the king; having entered England, they said, with no other design than to obtain access to the king’s presence, and lay their humble petition at his royal feet. At New-burn-upon-Tyne they were opposed by a detachment of four thousand five hundred men under Conway, who seemed resolved to dispute the passage of the river. The Scots first entreated them civilly not to interrupt them in their march to their gracious sovereign; and then attacking the detachment with great bravery, killed several, and chased the remainder from the ground. A panic now seized the whole English army; the forces at Newcastle fled immediately to Durham; and not thinking themselves safe there, they abandoned the town, and retreated into Yorkshire.

The Scots continuing to advance, dispatched messengers to the king, who had by this time arrived at York. They took care to redouble their expressions of loyalty, duty, and submission to his person; and they even made apologies for their late victory. Charles was in a very distressed condition; and, in order to prevent the further advance of the Scots, he agreed to a treaty, and named sixteen English noblemen to meet with eleven Scottish commissioners at Rippon.' Strafford, upon whom, by reason of Northumberland’s sickness, the command of the army had devolved, advised Charles rather to put all to the hazard than to submit to the terms which he foresaw would be prescribed. He urged him to push forward, to attack the Scots, and to bring the affair to a quick decision. If he were ever so unsuccessful, nothing worse could befal him than what he would certainly be exposed to from his inactivity; and, to show how easily this project might be executed, he ordered an assault to be made on some quarters of the Scots, and gained some advantage over them. This energetic advice Charles had not resolution to adopt. He resolved to summon a council of the peers; and as he foresaw that they would advise him to call a parliament, he told them in his first speech that he had already taken that resolution. Meanwhile, in order to subsist both armies (for the king was obliged to pay his enemies, in order to save the northern counties), Charles wrote to the city, desiring a loan of L.200,000; and the peers assembled at York joined in the same request.

The parliament met in November 1640. The House of Commons had never been observed to be so numerous; and, in order to strike a blow at once against the court, they began with the impeachment of the Earl of Strafford. That nobleman, who was considered as prime minister, both on account of the credit he possessed with his master, [7:5:318]and his own uncommon vigour and capacity, had incurred the hatred of the three kingdoms. The Scots looked upon him as the capital enemy of their country. He had engaged the parliament of Ireland to advance large subsidies to be employed in a war against them; he had levied an army of nine thousand men, with which he had menaced their western coast; he had obliged those who lived under his government to renounce the solemn league and covenant; and he had governed Ireland, first as deputy, and then as lord-lieutenant, during eight years, with great vigilance, activity, and energy, but with very little popularity, owing to the severities he had exercised. In a nation so averse to the English government and religion, these qualities were sufficient to draw upon him the public hatred. His manners, besides, were at bottom haughty, rigid, and severe; and no sooner did adversity begin to seize him, than this concealed hatred blazed up at once, and the Irish parliament used every expedient to aggravate the charge against him. Nor was this all. The universal discontent which prevailed throughout England was all pointed against the Earl of Strafford; and for this reason, that he was the minister of state whom the king most favoured and trusted. His extraction was honourable, his paternal fortune considerable; yet envy attended his sudden and great elevation, and his former associates in popular counsels, finding that he owed his advancement to the desertion of their cause, denounced him as the archapostate of the commonwealth, whom it behoved them to sacrifice as a victim to public justice.

From such causes nothing else could be expected than what really happened. Articles of impeachment were exhibited against Strafford, and this proceeding was followed by a bill of attainder. The king had induced Strafford to leave the army by a promise of protection, and an assurance that not a hair of his head should be hurt; but he soon learnt to his cost, that in neglecting the scriptural admonition, “Put not your faith in princes,” he had rushed into the jaws of destruction. It was not without extreme difficulty, however, that the king could be brought to consent to the sacrifice of his favourite minister. He came to the House of Lords, where he expressed his resolution never to employ Strafford again in any public business; but with regard to the treason of which that minister was convicted, he professed himself totally dissatisfied. The Commons, however, voted it a breach of privilege for the king to take notice of any bill depending before the House. Charles did not seem to perceive that his attachment to Strafford was the chief motive for the bill; and that the greater the proof he gave of this attachment to his minister, the more inevitable did he render his destruction. The House of Lords were intimidated, by popular violence, into passing the bill of attainder against the unfortunate earl; and the same battery was next employed to force the king’s assent. The populace flocked about Whitehall, and accompanied their demand of justice with loud clamours and open menaces. A thousand reports of conspiracies, insurrections, and invasions, were spread abroad. On whatever side the king cast his eyes he saw no resource nor security. All his servants, consulting their own safety rather than their master’s honour, declined interposing with their advice between him and his parliament; the queen, terrified at the appearance of so great a danger, pressed Charles, with tears, to satisfy his people in this demand, which it was hoped would finally content them; Archbishop Juxon alone had the courage to advise him, if he did not approve of the bill, by no means to consent to it. At last, after the most violent anxiety and doubt, Charles granted a commission to four noblemen, in his name, to give the royal assent to the bill; flattering himself, that as neither his will was consenting to the deed, nor his hand immediately engaged in it, he was free from the guilt which attended this base and ungrateful act.

That Strafford, on general grounds, perhaps, merited his fate, may be more easily conceded than the legality or justice of the proceedings which issued in his condemnation and death. The articles of impeachment exhibited against him respected his conduct as president of the Council of the North, as deputy of Ireland, and as commanderin-chief in England; and four months were employed by the managers in framing the accusation, so as, if possible, to entangle him in the meshes of treason. But he baffled, with wonderful ability, all the arguments of his accusers, whom he met and overthrew on every point; nor was the evidence produced against him at all sufficient to establish the charge of absolute treason, or to warrant the bill of attainder which was subsequently introduced. He was convicted of that constructive or accumulative species of treason, which, once admitted into the criminal jurisprudence of any country, must, in seasons of agitation and excitement, place the life of every man in it at the disposal of the ruling powers. He was sentenced to death in virtue of an ex post facto law, and fell the victim of popular odium, if not of party vengeance. It has indeed been said, that the proceedings against Strafford were justified by that which alone justifies capital punishment, or warrants the ravages committed in war, namely, by the public danger. But, even on this ground, it was incumbent on his accusers to show, first, that there was such a pressing and urgent danger as to justify an act of attainder; and, secondly, that the sacrifice demanded was the only mode in which such danger could be obviated or removed. Neither of these points, however, was established, or attempted to be established. The high tribunal before which Strafford was tried, convicted, and condemned, never seems to have thought of setting forth its own fears for the public weal, whether well or ill founded, as the sole and only measure of the justice of its procedure; they went upon grounds totally different, and sought to give a legal sanction to a judgment, for which no better defence can now be devised than the plea of necessity. And had they followed a different course, their conduct would have been at once absurd and inconsistent; for where there is an urgent or admitted necessity, that, from the nature of things, supersedes all ordinary principles of law, all questions of evidence, all considerations of guilt or of innocence; and where, as in this case, a formal investigation and trial have been gone into, it converts them into an absolute and intolerable mockery. The execution of Strafford, therefore, may be more easily palliated than defended. As a revolutionary measure, it may have been expedient; considered as a judicial act, it seems to have been a flagrant violation of the most sacred principles of law and justice.

These commissioners were empowered to give the royal assent to a bill yet more fatal to the king, which provided that the present parliament should not be dissolved, prorogued, or adjourned, without their own consent. By this last bill Charles perpetuated the power which had already become uncontrollable. The reason of this extraordinary step was, that the Commons, from policy rather than necessity, had resorted to the expedient of paying the two armies by borrowing money from the city; and these loans they were to be afterwards repaid by taxes levied on the people. But at last the citizens began to start difficulties with regard to a further loan which was demanded. “We make no scruple of trusting the parliament,” said they, “were we certain that the parliament was to continue till our repayment. But, in the present precarious situation of affairs, what security can be given us for our money?” In order to obviate this objection, the above-mentioned bill was suddenly[7:5:319] brought in, and having passed both houses with great rapidity, was at last brought to the king, who, being oppressed with grief on account of the unhappy fate of Strafford, did not perceive the effect of it until it was too late.

Soon after the impeachment of Strafford, Laud was accused of high treason, and committed to custody; and to avoid a similar fate Lord Keeper Finch and Secretary Windebank fled, the one into Holland, the other into France. The house then instituted a new species of crime, which was termed delinquency; and persons who had acted under the king or by his authority during the late military operations were now called delinquents. Many of the nobility and gentry of the nation, while exerting what they considered as the legal powers of magistracy, thus found themselves unexpectedly involved in this new and sufficiently vague offence. The Commons, however, reaped great advantage from their invention;— they disarmed the crown, established the maxims of rigid law and liberty, and spread the terror of their own authority. All the sheriffs who had formerly exacted ship-money, though by the king’s express command, were now declared delinquents. The farmers and officers of the customs who had been employed during so many years in levying tonnage, poundage, and other imposts laid on without the authority of parliament, were likewise denominated delinquents, and were afterwards glad to compound for a pardon by paying L.150,000. Every sentence of the Star Chamber and High Commission Courts, which from their very nature were arbitrary and oppressive, underwent a severe scrutiny; and all who had concurred in such sentences were voted liable to the penalties of law. No minister of the king, no member of the council, was safe. The judges who had formerly given judgment against Hampden for refusing to pay ship-money were accused before the Peers, and obliged to find security for their appearance when required. Berkeley, a judge of the King’s Bench, was seized by order of the house, even when sitting in his court. The sanction of the Lords and Commons, as well as that of the king, was declared necessary for the confirmation of ecclesiastical canons.

In a word, the constitution was new-modelled, in as far as that may be said to have been done by reforming abuses and striking terror into all those who had profited by them, or had in any manner of way been accessory to the arbitrary proceedings of the court. And during the first period of the transactions of this parliament, their merits so greatly overbalanced their defects and errors, as to entitle them to the admiration of all lovers of liberty. Not only were former abuses remedied, and grievances-redressed; provision was also made, by excellent laws, against a recurrence of the like evils. And if the means by which they accomplished such great ends savoured often of artifice, sometimes of violence, it is to be considered that revolutions in government cannot always be effected by mere force of argument and reasoning; and that, factions being once excited, men can neither so certainly regulate the tempers of others, nor control their own, as to guard against all excesses.

The king having promised to pay a visit this summer to his subjects in Scotland, in order to settle their government, the English parliament was very importunate with him to lay aside that journey; but they could not prevail with him so much as to delay it. Failing in this, they appointed a small committee of both houses to attend him; in order, as was pretended, to see the articles of pacification executed, but in reality to watch the motions of the king, and to extend still further the ideas of parliamentary authority. This committee consisted of the Earl of Bedford, Lord Howard, Sir Philip Stapleton, Sir William Armyne, Nathaniel Fiennes, and John Hampden.

Charles arrived in Scotland on the 14th of August 1641, intending, it is said, to give full satisfaction if possible to the people of that country. And some dseful changes were in reality made. The bench of bishops and the lords of articles were abolished; it was provided that no man should be created a Scottish peer who possessed not ten thousand merks, above L.500 sterling, of annual rent in the kingdom; a law for triennial parliaments was likewise passed; it was resolved that the last act of every parliament should be to appoint the time and place for holding the parliament next ensuing; and the king was also deprived of the power he had formerly exercised of issuing proclamations which enjoined obedience under the penalty of treason. But the hardest blow given to the royal authority was an article which provided that no member of the privy council, no officer of state, none of the judges, should be appointed without the advice and approbation of parliament. Charles even agreed to deprive of their seats four judges who had adhered to his interests; and their place was supplied by others more agreeable to the ruling party. Several of the Covenanters were also sworn of the privy council; and all the ministers of state, counsellors, and judges, were by law to hold their offices during life or good behaviour. While in Scotland, the king conformed himself to the established church; he bestowed pensions and preferments on Henderson, Gillespie, and other popular preachers; and he practised every artifice to soften, if not to gain, his greatest enemies. The Earl of Argyll was created a Marquis, Lord Loudon an Earl, and Leslie was raised to the peerage by the title of Lord Leven. But though Charles th us heaped favours on his enemies with a prodigal hand, they were not satisfied, believing that all he did proceeded from artifice and necessity; whilst some of his friends were disgusted, and thought themselves ill rewarded for their past services. The king was manifestly playing a part, and he played it ill, because he overacted his assumed character.

Argyll and Hamilton, being seized with an apprehension, real or pretended, that the Earls of Crawford and Cochrane meant to assassinate them, left the parliament suddenly, and retired into the country; but, upon receiving assurances of safety, they returned in a few days. This event, which had no visible result in Scotland, was commonly denominated,the Incident; but it was attended with very serious consequences in England. The English parliament immediately took the alarm. They insinuated that the Malignants, as they called the king’s party, had laid a plot to murder the godly in both kingdoms; and having applied to Essex, whom the king had left general of the south of England, he ordered a guard to attend them.

In the mean time a rebellion broke out in Ireland, with circumstances of unparalleled atrocity, bloodshed, and devastation. By the judicious conduct of James the old Irish had been subdued, and proper means taken for securing their subjection in time coming; but their ancient animosity still remained, and only wanted an occasion, or rather pretext, to burst forth. And this, according to the received account, was furnished by the circumstances of the times and the weakness of the government.

Roger More, a gentleman descended from an ancient Irish family, but of narrow fortune, first formed the project of expelling the English, and asserting the independence of his native country. He went secretly from chieftain to chieftain, and roused up every latent principle of discontent. He maintained a close correspondence with Lord Macguire and Sir Phelim O’Ncale, the most powerful of the old Irish chiefs; and, by his persuasions, soon engaged not only them, but the most considerable persons of the nation, in a conspiracy. It was also hoped [7:5:320]that the English of the Pale, as they were called, or the old English planters, who were all Catholics, would afterwards join the party which proposed to restore their religion to its ancient splendour and authority. The design was, that Sir Phelim O’Neale and the other conspirators should begin an insurrection on a given day throughout the provinces, and attack all the English settlements; and that, on the very same day, Lord Macguire and Roger More should surprise the castle of Dublin. They fixed on the beginning of winter for the commencement of the insurrection, that there might be more difficulty in transporting forces from England. Succours of men and supplies of arms were expected from France, in consequence of a promise to that effect made them by Richelieu; and many Irish officers who had served in the Spanish army expressed their readiness to lend their aid as soon as they saw an insurrection commenced by their Catholic brethren. The news which every day arrived from England of the fury expressed by the Commons against Catholics struck terror into the Irish nation, and stimulated the conspirators to execute their fatal purpose, by assuring them of the concurrence of their countrymen.

From the propensity discovered by the Irish to revolt, it was deemed unnecessary as well as dangerous to trust the secret to many; and, though the day appointed drew near, no discovery, it is said, had yet been made by government. The king, indeed, had received information from his ambassadors, that something was in agitation among the Irish in foreign parts; but though he gave warning to the administration in Ireland, his intelligence was entirely neglected. They were awakened from their security only the day before the commencement of hostilities. The castle of Dublin, by which the capital was commanded, contained arms for ten thousand men, with thirty-five pieces of cannon and a proportional quantity of ammunition; yet this important place was guarded by no greater force than fifty men, and even they did their duty negligently. Mac-guirc and More were already in town with a numerous band of retainers; others were expected in the course of the night; and next morning they were to enter on what seemed an easy enterprise, the surprisal of the castle. But O’Connolly, an Irishman and a Protestant, discovered the conspiracy. The justices and council immediately fled to the castle, and reinforced the guards. The city was alarmed, and the Protestants prepared for defence. More escaped, but Macguire was taken; and Mahon, one of the conspirators, being likewise seized, first discovered to the justices the project of a general insurrection.

But though O’Connolly’s discovery saved the castle from a surprise, Mahon’s confession came too late to prevent the intended insurrection. O’Neale and his confederates had already taken arms in Ulster. The houses, cattle, and goods of the English were first seized. Those who heard of the commotions in their neighbourhood, instead of deserting their habitations, and assembling together for mutual protection, remained at home in hopes of defending their property, and thus fell separately into the hands of their enemies. A universal massacre now commenced, accompanied with circumstances of unequalled barbarity. No age, no sex, no condition, was spared. In the frenzy of this bloody tragedy, every ordinary tie was broken, and death dealt by the hand from which protection was implored and expected. All the tortures which wanton cruelty could devise, all the lingering pains of body, all the anguish of mind, all the agonies of despair, could not satiate revenge excited without injury, and cruelty derived from no cause. Enormities, indeed, were committed, which, though attested by undoubted evidence, appear almost incredible. The stately buildings or commodious habitations of the planters, as if upbraiding the sloth and igno rance of the natives, were consumed with fire, or laid level with the ground; whilst the miserable owners, shut up in their houses, and preparing for defence, perished in the flames, together with their wives and children; thus affording a double triumph to their insulting foes. If anywhere a number assembled together, and resolved to oppose the assassins, they were disarmed by capitulations and promises of safety, confirmed by the most solemn oaths; but no sooner had they surrendered, than the rebels, with perfidy equal to their cruelty, made them share the fate of their unhappy countrymen. Others tempted their prisoners, by the love of life, to embrue their hands in the blood of friends, brothers, or parents; and having thus rendered them accomplices in their own guilt, gave them that death which they sought to shun by deserving it.

The barbarities by which Sir Phelim O’Neale and the Irish in Ulster signalized their rebellion may be imagined from this faint description. More, shocked at the recital of such enormities, flew to O’Neale’s camp; but he found that his authority, though sufficient to excite the Irish to a rebellion, was too feeble to restrain their inhumanity. Soon afterwards he abandoned the cause, and retired to Flanders. From Ulster the flames of rebellion diffused themselves in an instant over the other three provinces of Ireland. In all places death and slaughter were common, though the Irish in some provinces pretended to act with moderation and humanity. But barbarous indeed was their humanity. Not content with expelling the English from their houses, they stripped them of their very clothes, and turned them out naked and defenceless to all the severities of the season; and the heavens, as if conspiring with the wrath of man against that unhappy people, were armed with cold and tempest unusual to the climate, and destroyed what the sword had spared. By some computations, the number of those who perished by all these cruelties is estimated at a hundred and fifty thousand; by the most moderate, forty thousand are calculated to have lost their lives; but even this estimate is in all probability exaggerated.

The English of the Pale, who were not probably at first in the secret, pretended to condemn the insurrection, and to detest the barbarity with which it was accompanied: and by their earnest protestations they engaged the justices to supply them with arms, which they promised to employ in defence of government. But the interests of religion were found to have more influence over them than a regard to duty and the peace of their country. They chose Lord Gormonstone as their leader; and, joining the old Irish, rivalled them in acts of cruelty towards the English Protestants. Besides many smaller bodies dispersed over the kingdom, the main army of the rebels amounted to twenty thousand men, and threatened Dublin with an immediate siege. Both the English and Irish rebels pretended authority from the king and queen, but especially the latter, for their insurrection; and they affirmed that the cause of their taking arms was to vindicate the royal prerogative, now invaded by the puritanical parliament. Sir Phelim O’Neale having, it is said, found a royal patent in the house of Lord Caulfield, whom he had murdered, tore off the seal, and affixed it to a commission which he had previously forged for himself.

The king received intelligence of this insurrection while in Scotland, and immediately communicated the disastrous tidings to the Scottish parliament; expressing a hope that, as there had all along been an outcry against popery, the nation would now, when that religion was appearing in its blackest colours, support him vigorously in the suppression of it. But if he was sincere in this request, which may not uncharitably be doubted, the Scots were not disposed[7:5:321] to give so serious a pledge without due deliberation. Considering themselves now as secured in the enjoyment of their rights, and conceiving hopes from the present distresses of Ireland, they resolved to ascertain precisely the ground on which succours were demanded, before consenting to grant them. Except dispatching a small body of forces to support the Scottish colonies in Ulster, the utmost length they would go, therefore, was to agree to send commissioners to London, in order to treat with the parliament. The king accordingly found himself obliged to have recourse to the English parliament, and to depend on their assistance for a supply. He told them that the insurrection was not, in his opinion, the result of any rash enterprise, but of a preconcerted conspiracy against the crown of England. To their care and wisdom, therefore, he said, he committed the conduct and prosecution of the war, which, in a cause so important to national and religious interests, must of necessity be immediately begun and vigorously pursued. These words are fair-seeming, and it would be cruel to load the memory of an unfortunate prince with unjust reproach, or even ill-founded suspicion. But the impartiality of history compels us reluctantly to admit that there are grounds for charging the king with a guilty foreknowledge of what was designed and perpetrated in Ireland. The suddenness of his visit to Scotland, and the time chosen for undertaking it; his whole conduct in that country, particularly in at once making concessions at utter variance with the principles of his government and the integrity of his prerogative, which he had risked a civil war to preserve entire, and in heaping favours on his bitterest .enemies; his new-born zeal against popery, which he had been so long covertly labouring to introduce; the criminal intrigues of the queen and those about her person, of which he could scarcely be altogether ignorant; the known deceit and duplicity of his own character; the strange inaction of the public functionaries in Ireland, even after they were apprized of the danger, to say nothing of the deaf ear they had turned to many previous hints that danger was brewing, and some sudden explosion contemplated; the absence of all proof of the fraud alleged to have been committed by O’Neale in regard to the royal patent said to have been found in the house of Lord Caulfield ;—these, and many other circumstances that might be mentioned, seem to establish, first, that Charles had some very particular and urgent reasons for visiting Scotland at this time; secondly, that while there he acted a part which is only explicable on the supposition that he had a secret design to cover by it; thirdly, that such an impression seems to have been general at the time; and, lastly, that there are circumstances connected with this atrocious rebellion which have never been explained in such a manner as to vindicate the king’s memory from the suspicion of at least guilty knowledge.

The English parliament, now re-assembled, discovered in each vote the same dispositions in which they had separated. By the difficulties and distresses of the crown, the Commons, who alone possessed the power of supply, had aggrandized themselves; and some were not sorry that the Irish rebellion had succeeded, at such a critical juncture, to the pacification in Scotland. An expression of the king’s, by which he committed to them the care of Ireland, was immediately laid hold of, and interpreted in the most unlimited sense. On other occasions the Commons had been gradually encroaching on the executive power of the crown; but in regard to Ireland they now at once assumed it as if it had been delivered over to them by a regular assignment. They levied money under pretence of the Irish expedition, but reserved it for other purposes; they took arms from the king’s magazines, but reserved them for more immediate use. Yet though no forces were for a considerable time sent over to Ireland, and very little money remitted during the extreme distress of that kingdom, so strong was the attachment of the people to the Commons, that the fault was never imputed to persons whose votes breathed nothing but destruction and death to the Irish rebels.

In the meanwhile it was resolved to frame a general remonstrance on the state of the kingdom; and the committee, which at the meeting of the parliament had been chosen for that purpose, were commanded to finish their undertaking. The king returned from Scotland on the 25th of November 1641, and was received in London with shouts and acclamations by the people. Sir Richard Gournay, the lord-mayor, had promoted these favourable dispositions, and persuaded the populace, who had so lately insulted the king, and who so soon after made war upon him, to show these marks of respect. But all the pleasure which Charles had reaped from this reception was soon damped by the remonstrance of the Commons, which was presented to him, accompanied with a petition of similar import. The bad counsels which he had followed were there complained of; his concurrence in the Irish rcbcllion was plainly insinuated; the scheme laid for the introduction of popery and superstition was inveighed against; and, as a remedy for all these evils, the king was desired to intrust every office and command to persons in whom his parliament should see cause to confide. To this bitter remonstrance Charles found it necessary to make a civil reply. He knew that the public confidence was at that time denied to his ministers, more especially to such of them as had deserted the public cause; and that whilst men detested the servile insolence of Williams, the reckless levity of Digby, and the unblushing infamy of Saville, their faith and hope were strong in the inflexible virtues of Hampden, the mild integrity of Kimbolton, the ardent patriotism of Hollis, and the cool sagacity of Pym.

From this period the proceedings of the Commons became bolder, and more determined and violent. Finding themselves likely to be opposed by the nobility, who saw that their own degradation would speedily follow that of the crown, they openly told the Upper House that “they themselves were the representatives of the whole body of the kingdom, and that the Peers were nothing but individuals, who held their seats in a particular capacity; and therefore, if their Lordships would not consent to acts necessary for the preservation of the people, the Commons, together with such of the Lords as were more sensible of the danger, must join together and represent the matter to his majesty.” Every method of alarming the country was now put in practice. Affecting continual fears of destruction to themselves and to the whole nation, they excited the people by never-ceasing inquiries concerning conspiracies, by reports of insurrections, by alleged rumours of invasion from abroad, and by discoveries of dangerous combinations at home. When Charles dismissed the guard which had been ordered them during his absence, they complained; and, on his promising them a new guard under the command of the Earl of Lindesay, they declined the offer. They ordered halberts to be brought into the hall where they assembled, and thus armed themselves against those conspiracies with which they pretended they were hourly threatened. During this time several reduced officers and young gentlemen of the inns of court offered their service to the king; and between them and the populace there occurred frequent skirmishes, which ended not without bloodshed. By way of reproach, these gentlemen gave the rabble the name of Poundheads, on account of their short cropped hair; whilst the latter distinguished their [7:5:322]opponents by the name of Cavaliers; and thus the nation was furnished with party names, under which the factions might rendezvous and signalize their mutual hatred.

These tumults continued to increase about Westminster and Whitehall. The cry against the bishops continually resounded; and being easily distinguishable by their habit, as well as objects of violent hatred to all the sectaries, they were exposed to the most outrageous insults. In these circumstances, the Archbishop of York, having been abused by the populace, hastily called a meeting of his brethren; and by his advice a. protestation was drawn up and addressed to the king and the House of Lords, setting forth, that though they had an undoubted right to sit and vote in parliament, yet in coming thither they had been menaced and assaulted by the multitude, and could no longer with safety attend their duty in the House; for which reason they protested against all laws, votes, and resolutions, as null and invalid, which should pass during the time of their forced absence. This ill-timed protestation was signed by twelve bishops, and communicated to the king. As soon as it was presented to the Lords, that house desired a conference with the Commons, whom they informed of this unexpected protestation. An impeachment of high treason was immediately sent up against the bishops, as endeavouring to subvert the fundamental laws, and to invalidate the authority of the legislature; and on the first demand they were sequestered from parliament, and committed to custody. No man in either house ventured to speak a word in their vindication. One individual alone remarked, that he did not believe them guilty of high treason; he only thought they were stark mad, and therefore desired that they might be sent to Bedlam.

This was a fatal blow to the royal interest, and it was aggravated by the imprudence of the king himself. Charles had long suppressed his resentment, and only strove to gratify the Commons by the greatness of his concessions; but finding all his compliances unavailing, he now gave orders to Herbert, the attorney-general, to enter an accusation of high treason, in the House of Peers, against Lord Kimbolton and five commoners, Sir Arthur Hazlerig, Hollis, Hampden, Pym, and Strode. The articles charged them with traitorously endeavouring to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the kingdom, to deprive the king of his regal power, and to impose on his subjects an arbitrary and tyrannical authority; with inviting a foreign army to invade the kingdom; with aiming at subverting the very right and being of parliaments; and with actually raising and countenancing tumults against the king. Men had scarce leisure to wonder at the precipitation and imprudence of this impeachment, when they were astonished by another measure still more rash and unwarrantable. A serjeant at arms, in the king’s name, demanded of the house the five members, and was sent back without any positive answer. This was followed by conduct still more extraordinary. Next day the king himself entered the House of Commons alone, and advanced through the hall, while all the members stood up to receive him. The Speaker withdrew from the chair, and the king took possession of it. Having seated himself, and looked round for some time, he told the house that he was sorry for the occasion that forced him thither, but that he was come in person to seize the members whom he had accused of high treason, seeing they would not deliver them up to his serjeant at arms. Then addressing himself to the Speaker, he desired to know whether any of the members were in the house. But the Speaker, falling on his knees, replied that he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, in that place, but as the house was pleased to direct him; and he asked pardon for not being able to give any other answer. The king sat for some time to see if the accused were present; but they had escaped a few minutes before his entry, and taken shelter in the city. Disappointed, perplexed, and not knowing on whom to rely, he next proceeded, amidst the invectives of the populace, who continued to cry out, “Privilege, privilege!” to the common council of the city at Guildhall, where he justified his proceedings respecting the fugitives, and expressed a hope that they would not find shelter or protection in the city. The common council answered his complaints by a disdainful silence; and, on his return, one of the populace, more courageous or insolent than the rest, cried out, “To your tents, 0 Israel !”

When the Commons assembled the next day, they affected or felt the greatest terror, and passed a unanimous vote that the king had violated their privileges, and that they could not assemble again in the same place, till they had obtained satisfaction, and a guard for their security. Meanwhile the king retired to Windsor, whence lie wrote to his parliament, promising every satisfaction in his power. But they were resolved to accept of nothing unless he would discover his advisers in that illegal measure; a condition which they knew that, without rendering himself for ever vile and contemptible, he could not possibly submit to.

The Commons had already stripped the king of most of his privileges; the bishops were fled, the judges were intimidated; and it now only remained, after securing the church and the law, that they should also get possession of the sword. The power of appointing governors and generals, and of levying armies, still continued a prerogative of the crown. Having first magnified their terrors of popery, which perhaps they actually dreaded, the Commons proceeded to petition that the Tower might be put into their hands, and that Hull, Portsmouth, and the fleet, should be intrusted to persons of their choosing. Compliance with these requests was calculated to subvert what remained of the monarchy; but such was the necessity of the times, that they were first contested, and then granted. The Commons then desired to have a militia, raised and governed by such officers and commanders as they should nominate. But Charles hesitated. Being at that time in Dover attending, the queen and the Princess of Orange, who was about to leave the kingdom, he replied that he had not now leisure to consider a matter of such great importance; and therefore would defer an answer till his return. The Commons, however, were well aware that they had gone too far to recede; and hence they were desirous of leaving him no authority whatever, conscious that they themselves would be the first victims of its free exercise. They alleged that the dangers and distempers of the nation were such as could endure no longer delay; and unless the king speedily complied with their demands, they would be obliged, both for his safety and that of the kingdom, to embody and direct a militia by the authority of both houses. In their remonstrance they also desired to be permitted to command the army for an appointed time; a request which so exasperated him, that he exclaimed with indignation, “No, not for an hour !” This peremptory refusal broke off all further treaty, and both sides now resolved to have recourse to arms.

CHAP. IV.

REIGN OF CHARLES I.: CIVII. WAR.

Charles, with his family, retires to York.—Fruitless negociations State of the belligerent parties—Inactivity of the par liamentary army—Skirmish at Worcester—Battle of Edgehill Association in favour of the King—Fairfax defeated in the north Battle of Stratton—Bristol taken by the royalists.[7:5:323] —Siege of Gloucester.—Raised—Battle of Newbury—Advantages gained by Fairfax and Cromwell.—Lord Fairfax defeated at Atherton—The Scots agree to assist the Parliament—Solemn League and Covenant—Dexterity of Vane.—King’s Irish auxiliaries—Dispersed at Lantwich—Siege of York. —Royalists totally defeated at Marston-Moor.—Demands of the Parliament—Execution of Laud—Exploits of Montrose in Scotland—Defeat of the Covenanters under Burley at Aberdeen.—Subsequent movements—Devastation of Argyll’s country—Battle of Inverlochy—Sack of Dundee Battles of Al-derneand Alford—Parliamentary army new-modelled by Cromwell—Royalists defeated at Naseby Bristol taken.—Retreat of the King to Oxford—Battle of Kilsyth—Montrose defeated at Pliiliphaugh—Charles throws himself on the Scottish army at Newark—Négociations and proceedings in consequence—Surrender of the King’s person to the English.—The army usurp the sovereignty—Seizure of the King by Cromwell—Designs of the army resisted, but ineffectually—Presbyterian members forced to leave the House.—Both parties treat with the King— His resolution to quit the kingdom—Seized and confined in the Isle of Wight.—Levellers—Danger of Cromwell from this sect.—Put down—The Scottish army under Hamilton defeated—State of parties—Cromwell enters Edinburgh in triumph, and settles the government of Scotland—Négociations between the King and Parliament—Pride’s Purge—Charges against the King.—His trial—His sentence—His execution—Behaviour in his last moments.—Feelings of the nation on the King’s death.

Charles, taking the Prince of Walcs and the Duke of York along with him, retired, by slow journeys, to the city of York, where the people were more loyal, and less infected with the prevailing spirit of the times, than elsewhere. Here he found his cause backed by a more numerous party among the people than he had expected. The nobility and gentry from all quarters, either personally or by messages and letters, expressed their duty towards him; and the queen, who was then in Holland, had succeeded in levying men and procuring ammunition by selling the crown jewels. But before war was openly declared, the semblance of a negociation was kept up, rather with a view to please the people, than with any hope of reconciliation. Nay, that the king might despair of all composition, the parliament sent him the conditions on which they were willing to come to an agreement. Their demands were contained in nineteen propositions or articles, and in effect amounted to a total abolition of monarchical authority. It was required that no man should remain in the council who was not agreeable to parliament; that no deed of the king’s should be held valid unless it passed the council, and was attested under their hand; that all the officers of state should be chosen with consent of parliament; that none of the royal family should marry without the consent of parliament or of council; that the laws should be executed against Catholics; that the votes of Catholic lords should be excluded; that the reformation of the liturgy and church government should proceed according to the advice of parliament; that the ordinance with regard to the militia should be acquiesced in; that parliament should judge all delinquents; that a general pardon should be granted, with such exceptions as might be advised by parliament; that the forts and castles should be disposed of by consent of parliament; and that no peers should be created but with consent of both houses. War on any terms was esteemed by the king and all his counsellors preferable to a peace on such ignominious terms. “If I should submit to these terms,” said he, “I may have ιny hand kissed, and may retain the title of majesty, but I should remain but the outside, the picture, the sign of a king.” Charles accordingly resolved to support his authority by force of arms. Ĥis towns, he said, were taken from him; his ships, his army, and his money. But there still remained to him a good cause, and the hearts of his loyal subjects, which, with God’s blessing, he doubted not would recover all the rest. Therefore, collecting some forces, he advanced southwards, and erected his royal standard at Nottingham.

The struggle now about to commence seemed, in many respects, exceedingly unequal. The king, indeed, was supported by a splendid nobility, and a large portion of the more considerable gentry, who, dreading a total confusion of ranks, enlisted themselves under the banner of their monarch, from whom they received, and to whom they communicated, lustre. The cordial concurrence of the bishops and church of England also increased the number of his adherents. But it may safely be affirmed, that the high monarchical doctrines so much inculcated by the clergy had been eminently prejudicial to his cause; while the bulk of the nobility and gentry who now attended the king in his distress breathed the spirit of liberty as well as of loyalty; and it was only in the liopes of his submitting to a limited and legal government that they were willing to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in his cause. On the other hand, the city of London, and most of the great corporations, took part with the parliament. In the capital, no less than four thousand men enlisted in one day; and the demand for a loan, by the parliament, was answered with so much alacrity, that the treasure flowed in faster than it could be received. All the sea-ports, except Newcastle, were also in the hands of the parliament; and the seamen naturally followed the party espoused by the ports to which they belonged. Add to this, that the example of the Dutch commonwealth, where liberty had so happily supported industry, made the commercial part of the nation desirc to see a similar form of government established in England; whilst many families, who had enriched themselves by commerce, finding that, notwithstanding their opulence, they could not raise themselves to a level with the ancient gentry, adhered to a power by the success of which they hoped to acquire both rank and consideration.

At first every advantage seemed to lie against the royal cause. The king was totally destitute of money, while, from the causes already mentioned, the parliament were secure of a considerable revenue. They had begun by seizing all the magazines of arms and ammunition, and their fleet intercepted the greater part of the succours sent by the queen from Holland; so that the king, in order to arm his followers, was obliged to borrow the weapons of the trained bands, under promise of restoring them on the return of peace. The nature and qualities of his adherents alone gave the king some compensation for all the advantages possessed by his adversaries. More bravery and activity were hoped for from the generous spirit of the nobles and gentry, than from the baser disposition of the multitude; and as the landed gentlemen had levied and armed their tenants at their own expense, greater force and courage were to be expected from these rustic troops than from the vicious and enervated population of cities.

But the parliamentary forces were ill officered or ill directed, otherwise, with a disposable force of six thousand men, which lay within a few days’ march of the royalists, they might have easily dissipated the small number of troops which the king had been able to collect, amounting to no more than eight hundred horse and three hundred foot. In a short time the parliamentary army marched to Northampton, where the Earl of Essex, who had joined them, found a force amounting to fifteen thousand men. The king’s army too was soon reinforced from all quarters; but having no force capable of coping with the parliamentary army, he thought it prudent to retire to Derby, and thence to Shrewsbury, in order to cover the levies which his friends were making in those parts. At Wellington, a day’s march from Shrewsbury, he assembled[7:5:324] his forces, amounting to near ten thousand men, and caused to be read at the head of every regiment his military orders, in which he protested solemnly before his whole army that he would maintain the Protestant religion according to the church of England; that he would govern according to the known statutes and customs of the kingdom; and that he would observe inviolate the laws to which lie had given his consent during the present and preceding parliaments.

While Charles lay at Shrewsbury, he received the news of an action, the first that occurred in this unhappy contest, in which his party were victorious. On the appearance of civil commotion in England, the Princes Rupert and Maurice, sons of the elector palatine, had offered their services to the king; and the former at that time commanded a body of horse which had been sent to Worcester to watch the motions of Essex, who was then marching towards that city. The prince, however, had scarcely arrived, when he saw some of the enemy’s cavalry approaching the gates. Without a moment’s delay he attacked them as they were defiling from a lane and in the act of forming, killed their commander, Colonel Sandys, routed the whole party, and pursued them above a mile.

At this period military science and skill were at the lowest possible ebb in England; so much so, indeed, that, however much the contending parties might differ in spirit or in means, they were on a footing of perfect equality in ignorance of the principles and conduct of war. The hostile armies moved simultaneously, the king’s from Shrewsbury, and the parliamentary from Worcester; but so totally destitute were both of intelligence, that they wandered about for ten days in absolute ignorance of each other’s motions. At length, on the 23d of October 1642, they met at Keinton, or Edgehill, in the county of Warwick. The royalists were commanded in chief by the Earl of Lindesay, who had seen some service in the Low Countries, and now had under him Prince Rupert, master of the horse, Sir Jacob Astley in charge of the foot, Sir Arthur Aston commanding the dragoons, and Sir John Heydon the artillery. The general-in-chief of the parliamentary forces was the Earl of Essex, assisted by a number of subordinate officers as yet unknown to fame. In the encounter which immediately ensued, the royalists were at first victorious. Both wings of the parliamentary army were broken and put to flight by the onset of Prince Rupert’s cavalry, supported by the troops under Aston and Wilmot; and if the royalist reserve had remained steady, the day would have been won. But thinking the victory already decided, they broke up from their position to join in the pursuit, and, whilst in the confusion produced by this disorderly movement, they were attacked by Sir William Balfour, who had anxiously watched their motions, with the parliamentary reserve, and defeated in their turn. Both armies then rallied, and faced each other for some time, neither party venturing to renew the attack: they lay all night under arms, and next day withdrew, Essex towards Warwick, and the king to his former quarters. Five thousand men, it is said, were left dead on the field in this bootless encounter. Soon afterwards, the king took Banbury and Reading, and defeated two regiments of his enemies at Brentford, taking five hundred prisoners. Thus ended the campaign of 1642, in which, though the king upon the whole had the advantage, yet the parliamentary army amounted to twenty-four thousand men, and was much superior to his. Nevertheless, his enemies had so far been humbled as to offer terms of peace. This led to the negociations at Oxford. The terms required by the parliament as the condition of the king’s recal, were the disposal of the militia, the abolition of Episcopacy, and the settlement of ecclesiastical controversies by an assembly of divines. But considerable abatement would probably have been made in these demands if Charles had not been extravagant in his; and the failure of the negociation is ascribed to the king’s fidelity to an unhappy promise he had made to the queen to accede to no terms without her intervention and consent.

While the treaty was in dependence no cessation of hostilities took place. On the 27th of April 1643 Reading surrendered to the parliamentary forces under the Earl of Essex, who commanded a body of eighteen thousand men. In the north, the Earl of Northumberland united the counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland, in a league for the king, and some time after engaged other counties in the same association. The same nobleman also took-possession of York, and the Earl of Newcastle dislodged the forces of the parliament under Fairfax at Tadcaster; but his victory was not decisive. Other advantages were also gained by the royalists, the most important of which was at Stratton, where Waller, who commanded the parliamentary army, was entirely defeated, and forced to fly with only a few horse to Bristol. This happened on the 13th of July, and was followed by the siege of Bristol, which surrendered to Prince Rupert on the 25th of the same month.

Although the taking of Bristol cost the royalists dear, five hundred having fallen in the attempt to carry it by storm, yet their general success had greatly dispirited the opposite party; and the confusion which now prevailed at London was so great that some proposed to the king tomarch directly to the metropolis, which it was hoped might be reduced by an insurrection of the citizens, by victory, or by treaty, and thus put an end at once to the civil disorders. But this judicious advice was rejected; and it was resolved first of all to reduce Gloucester, that the king might have the whole course of the Severn under his command. By this means it was hoped that the rich but disaffected counties of the west, losing the protection of their friends, might be forced to pay large contributions as an atonement for their disaffection; that a communication might be maintained between Wales and these new conquests; and that half the kingdom, freed from the enemy, and united into one firm body, might be employed in re-establishing the king’s authority throughout the remainder. The siege accordingly commenced on the 10th of August; but the town being defended by Massey, a resolute governor, and well garrisoned, made a vigorous defence. The consternation in London, however, was as great as if the enemy had already been at their gates; and in the midst of the general confusion a design was formed by Waller of forcing the parliament to accept of some reasonable conditions of peace. He imparted his design to some others; but a discovery being made of their proceedings, he and two others were condemned to death. Waller, however, escaped with a fine of L. 10,000. In the meanwhile Gloucester was reduced to the utmost extremity. A general assault had been repelled by the desperate enthusiasm of the garrison and city; but the means of prolonging the defence were now nearly exhausted. As a last resource, the parliament dispatched Essex with an army of fourteen thousand men to raise the siege. This he effected without much difficulty; and on entering the place he found only one barrel of gunpowder left, and the provisions nearly exhausted.

But on his return to London he was intercepted by the king’s army, and a desperate battle ensued at Newbury, which lasted till night. Essex’s horse were several times broken by the king’s, but his infantry preserved its formation; and the front ranks presenting a formidable array of pikes, whilst those in the rear poured in a destructive fire, Prince Rupert and the gentry composing the royal cavalry[7:5:325] were unable, notwithstanding the furious impetuosity of their attacks, to make any impression on its compact order. Night put an end to the contest, but left the victory undecided. On the side of the king fell the brave, accomplished, and virtuous Lord Falkland, one of the few personages to be met with in history whose life and death were equally honourable and glorious. Next morning Essex proceeded on his march to London; and although he had rather escaped a defeat than gained a victory, he obtained the approbation of parliament. The king followed in the same direction, and, having taken possession of Reading, he established a garrison there, and by that means straitened London and the quarters of the enemy.

In the north, during the summer, the Earl, now created Marquis, of Newcastle, had raised a considerable force for the king; and great hopes of success were entertained from that quarter. But there appeared, in opposition to him, two men, on whom the event of the war finally depended, and who about this time began to be remarked for their valour and military conduct. These were Sir Thomas Fairfax, son to the lord of that name, and Oliver Cromwell. The former gained a considerable advantage over the royalists at Wakefield, and took General Goring prisoner; the latter obtained a victory at Gainsborough over a party commanded by General Cavendish, who perished in the action. But both these defeats were more than compensated by the total rout of Lord Fairfax at Atherton Moor, and the dispersion of his army, which happened on the 31st of July. After this victory, the Marquis of Newcastle sat down before Hull with an army of fifteen thousand rnen; but, being beaten off by a sally of the garrison, he suffered so much that he thought it proper to raise the siege. About the same time Manchester advanced from the eastern associated counties, and having joined Cromwell and young Fairfax, defeated the royalists at Horne Castlc, where the conduct and gallantry of these two rising officers were eminently conspicuous. But though fortune had thus balanced her favours, the king’s party still remained much superior in the north; and had it not been for the garrison of Hull, which kept Yorkshire in awe, a junction of the northern forces with the army of the south might have enabled the king, instead of undertaking the imprudent enterprise against Gloucester, to march directly to London and put an end to the war. The indecisive battle of Newbury terminated the campaign of 1643, by both parties retiring into winter quarters.

The issue of the war being still doubtful, both the king and parliament began to look for assistance from other nations. The former looked to Ireland, the latter to Scotland. The parliament of England, at the commencement of the civil dissensions, had invited the Scots to interpose their mediation, which, however, the king had declined. Early in the spring of 1643 this offer was renewed, but with no better success than before. Commissioners were also empowered to urge on the king to a compliance with the presbyterian worship and discipline; but this he absolutely refused, as well as to call a parliament in Scotland; and the commissioners, finding themselves unable to prevail in any one of their demands, returned highly dissatisfied. Disappointed in all these views, the English parliament now sent commissioners to Edinburgh, to treat of a more close confederacy with the Scottish nation. The person in whom they principally confided on this occasion was Sir Harry Vane, who, in eloquence, address, and capacity, as well as in art and dissimulation, was not surpassed by any one in that age, so famous for men of active talents. By his persuasions was framed at Edinburgh the Solemn League and Covenant, which effaced all former protestations and vows taken in both kingdoms, and long maintained itscredit and authority. In this covenant, the subscribers, besides mutually engaging to defend each other against all opponents, bound themselves to endeavour, without respect of persons, the extirpation of popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, and profaneness; to maintain the rights and privileges of parliaments, together with the king’s authority; and to discover and bring to justice all incendiaries and malignants. They vowed also to preserve the reformed religion as established in the church of Scotland; but, by the artifice of Vane, no declaration more explicit was made with regard to England and Ireland, than that those kingdoms should be reformed according to the word of God and the example of the purest churches. This equivocal abjuration of prelacy completely blinded the Scottish Presbyterians, who, assuming their own to be the purest church, never doubted that it was intended to serve as a model for England. But, as a leader of the sect of Independents, Vanc had other views, and artfully reserved a loophole of retreat whenever it should be convenient to dispense with the assistance of the Scots. Meanwhile the Solemn League and Covenant was received in the Scottish convention, and in the assembly of the kirk, with tears of enthusiastic joy, and transmitted to the English parliament and assembly of divines at Westminster, where, for different reasons, it was received with equal applause, and ordained to be universally subscribed in both kingdoms. By a treaty with the convention, twenty-one thousand Scottish troops were to be retained in arms at the expense of England, to be led by their own generals, and to receive orders from a committee of both kingdoms. ‘

The king likewise, in order to secure himself, had concluded a cessation of arms with the Irish rebels, and recalled a considerable part of his army from Ireland. Some Irish Catholics came over with these troops, and joined the royal army, where they continued the same cruelties and disorders to which they had been accustomed; and the parliament voted that no quarter should ever be given them in any action. But Prince Rupert having made some reprisals, this inhumanity was repressed on both sides.

The campaign of 1614 proved very unfortunate to the royal cause. The forces brought from Ireland were landed at Mostyne in North Wales, and placed under the command of Lord Biron. They then besieged and took the castles of Hawarden, Beeston, Acton, and Deddington-house. No place in Cheshire or the neighbourhood now adhered to the parliament except Lantwich, and to it Biron laid siege in the depth of winter. Alarmed at this progress, Sir Thomas Fairfax assembled an army of four thousand men in Yorkshire, and having joined Sir William Brereton, approached the camp of the royalist». Biron and his soldiers, elated with success, entertained a most profound contempt for their enemies, and, as usual in such cases, paid dear for their absurd vanity. Fairfax suddenly attacked their camp, while the swelling of the river by a thaw divided one part of the army from the other. Those immediately opposed to Fairfax were quickly driven from their post, and having retired into the church of Acton, were surrounded and taken prisoners; the other part retreated precipitately without fighting; and thus was dissipated or rendered useless the body of auxiliaries from Ireland. This happened on the 25tb of January. On the 11th of April ensuing Colonel Bellasis was totally defeated at Selby in Yorkshire by Sir Thomas Fairfax, who had returned from Cheshire with his victorious forces. Being afterwards joined by Lord Leven with the Scottish army, Fairfax, in conjunction with his ally, sat down before the city of York, but being unable to invest the city completely, they were obliged to content themselves with incommoding it by a loose blockade. Hopetoun, having assembled a body of fourteen thousand men, endeavoured to break into Sussex, Kent, and the southern association, which seemed[7:5:326] well disposed to receive him; but he was defeated by Waller at Cherington. At Newark, however, Prince Rupert totally routed the parliamentary army which besieged that place, and thus preserved the communication open between the king’s northern and southern quarters.

The great advantages which the parliament had gained in the north seemed now to second their enterprises, and finally to promise them success. Manchester having taken Lincoln, had united his army to that of Leven and Fairfax; and York was now closely besieged by their numerous forces. That town, though vigorously defended by the Marquis of Newcastle, was reduced to the last extremity, when Prince Rupert, having joined Sir Charles Lucas, who commanded Newcastle’s horse, hastened to its relief with an army of twenty thousand men.

The Scottish and parliamentary generals raised the siege, and, drawing up on Marston-moor, prepared to give battle to the royalists. By a dexterous movement, or rather by masking his movements, Rupert, interposing the Ouse between him and the enemy, threw military stores and provisions into York, and joined his forces with those under Newcastle. The marquis then endeavoured to persuade him, that, having successfully effected his purpose, he ought to be contented with the present advantage; remain on the defensive at least till an expected reinforcement arrived; and leave the enemy, diminished by losses, and discouraged by ill success, to dissolve by the mutual dissensions which had begun to take place among them. The prince, however, hurried on by his natural impetuosity, gave immediate orders for fighting. His forces occupied Marston-moor; those of his opponents were posted in the adjacent fields; and both sides were nearly equal in numbers. Fifty thousand British subjects were now drawn up in order of battle, and ready to begin the work of mutual destruction. After an ineffectual cannonade across a bank and ditch which separated the two armies, the signal for close combat was given nearly at the same instant by both sides. A moment of silent suspense followed, each party expecting that the other would begin the attack. But evening approached, and no time was to be lost. At the head of the left wing of the parliamentary army Cromwell and David Leslie crowned the bank, drove back Rupert’s right wing, dispersed his cavalry, and overpowered part of his centre. A different fortune awaited the right wing of the parliamentary army, where young Fairfax commanded. Charged with irresistible impetuosity by General Hurry, it was beaten back in disorder; and a reserve of the Scottish infantry, which moved to its support, was also cut up with astonishing celerity. The royalists then pushed for the enemy’s baggage, and began to plunder. But while they were thus occupied, Cromwell and Leslie wheeled round and restored the battle. The parliamentary right wing now rallied on the left, and the whole army having changed its front, drew up in a position at right angles to that which it had occupied at the commencement of the battle. The royalists did the same, and the combat was renewed with great fury on both sides. But fortune soon declared in favour of the parliamentarians. The shock, though bloody, was brief, and the vietory decided by Leslie’s three Scottish regiments and Cromwell’s brigade of ironsides. The royal army was driven off the field, and its whole artillery taken.

Immediately after this unfortunate action the Marquis of Newcastle left the kingdom, while Prince Rupert retired into Lancashire. The city of York surrendered in a few days, and Newcastle was soon afterwards taken by storm. This was a fatal blow to the royal cause, and far from being counterbalanced by an advantage gained at Cropredy-bridge by the king over Waller, or even by the surrender of Essex’s forces, which happened on the 1st of September. On the 27th of Oetober another battle was fought at Newbury, in which the royalists were worsted; but soon after they retrieved their honour at Dennington Castle, which finished the campaign in 1644.

In 1645 negociations were renewed, aĥd the commissioners, sixteen from Charles, twelve from the parliament, and four from the Scots, assembled at Uxbridge on the 30th of January; but it was soon found impossible to come to any agreement. The demands of the parliament were exorbitant, and, what was worse, their commissioners alleged that these were nothing but preliminaries. The king was required to attaint, and except from a general pardon, forty of the most considerable of his English, and nineteen of his Scottish subjects, together with all the popish recusants who had borne arms for him. It was insisted that forty-eight more, with all the members of either house who had sat in the parliament called by the king at Oxford, all lawyers and divines who had embraced the king’s party, should be rendered incapable of any office, be forbidden the exercise of their profession, be prohibited from coming within the verge of the court, and should forfeit the third of their estates to the parliament. It was required, that whoever had borne arms for the king should forfeit the tenth of their estates, or, if that did not suffice, the sixth, for the payment of public debts, And, as if such terms would not have sufficiently annihilated the royal authority, it was further demanded that the court of wards should be abolished; that all the considerable officers of the crown, and particularly the judges, should be appointed by parliament; and that the right of peace and war should not be exercised without consent of parliament. Considerable abatement was, however, made in these rigorous demands; and as the rising power of the Independents made it the interest of the Presbyterians to conclude peace, if it could be done with any degree of safety, the treaty was now limited to the three subjects of religion, the militia, and Ireland. On the first, the king’s enemies required the abolition of prelacy, the confirmation of the acts of the assembly of divines at Westminster, and the ratification of the Solemn League and Covenant, with an injunction tb all to take it, beginning with the king himself; on the second, the management of the militia till seven years after the peace, and an act of mutual oblivion; on the third, or Ireland, a cessation of arms, and the surrender to parliament of the direction of the war, and of the power of concluding peace without their consent. But, after a great deal of fruitless negociation, Charles ultimately refused to coneede any of these points, and the treaty was in consequence broken off. The news of Montrose’s victories in Scotland, and the hope of ten thousand men under the Duke of Lorraine, which the queen had stipulated for, are alleged to have been the chief causes of the failure of the treaty. A little before the commencement of this negociation, the parliament, to show their determined resolution to proceed as they had begun, brought to the block Archbishop Laud, who had for a considerable time been a prisoner in the Tower, and was no longer capable of giving offence, or rendering himself dangerous to any one. The sacrifice of this weak, wicked, and unfortunate man; was therefore, politically considered, an act of bootless severity, and as such ought to be condemned.

But while the king’s affairs were daily becoming worse in England, they seemed to revive a little in Scotland, through the conduct and valour of the Earl of Montrose. On his return from his travels, Montrose had been introduced to the king; but not meeting with an agreeable reception, he went over to the Covenanters, and had been active in forwarding all their schemes. Being commis-sioned[7:5:327], however, by the tables to wait upon the king while the army lay at Berwick, he was gained over by the civilities and caresses of that monarch, and thenceforth devoted himself entirely, though secretly, to his service. Having attempted to form an association in favour of the royal cause, Montrose was thrown into prison; and on his release, which he managed to obtain, he found the king ready to give ear to his counsels, which were of the boldest and most daring kind. The whole nation of Scotland was occupied by the Covenanters; considerable armies were kept on foot by them, and every place was guarded by a vigilant administration; yet, by his owncredit, and that of a few friends who remained to the king, this bold renegade undertook to raise such commotions as should soon oblige the malcontents to recal the forces which had so sensibly turned the balance in favour of the English parliament. The defeat at Marston-moor had left him no hopes of any suceours from England; he was therefore obliged to stipulate with the Earl of Antrim for a supply of men from Ireland. And having used various disguises, as well as passed through many dangers, he arrived in Scotland, where he lay for some time concealed on the borders of the Highlands.

Although the Irish did not exceed eleven hundred foot, very ill armed, Montrose immediately put himself at their head; and, being joined by thirteen hundred Highlanders, he attacked Lord Eleho, who lay at Tibbermore, near Perth, with six thousand men, and utterly defeated him, killing two thousand of the Covenanters. He next marched northwards in order to rouse the Marquis of Huntly and the Gordons, who had before taken arms, but had been overpowered by the Covenanters. At Aberdeen he attacked and entirely defeated Lord Burley, who commanded two thousand five hundred men. But by this victory Montrose did not obtain the end he proposed; for the Marquis of Huntly showed no inclination to join an army where he was sure to be eclipsed by a powerful and daring genius acting from its own impulses.

Montrose was now in a very dangerous situation. Argyll, reinforced by the Earl of Lothian, was behind him with a great army; while the militia of the northern counties of Moray, Ross, and Caithness, to the number of five thousand,opposed him in front, and guarded thebanksof the Spey, a deep and rapid river. In order to save his troops, he turned aside into the hills; but, after some marches and counter-marches, Argyll came up with him at Faivy Castle. Here, after some skirmishes, in which he was victorious, Montrose got elcar of a superior army, and, by a quick march through almost inaccessible mountains, placed himself absolutely beyond their reach.

But it was the misfortune of this general, that good or ill fortune proved equally destructive to his army. After every victory his Scottish adherents went home with the spoil they had collected; and had his army been composed of these only, he must soon have been altogether abandoned. But the Irish under his command, having no place to which they could retire, adhered to him in every fortune. With these, therefore, and some reinforcements of Atholemen and Maedonalds, Montrose fell suddenly upon Argyll’s country, letting loose upon it all the horrors of war in their most savage form. Having collected three thousand men, Argyll marched in quest of the enemy, who had retired with their plunder, and took up a position at Inner-lochy, supposing himself to be still at a considerable distance from his antagonist. While this force had thus es-blished itself in front, the Earl of Seaforth, at the head of the garrison of Inverness and a body of five thousand new levied troops, pressed the royalists on the other side, and threatened them with total destruction. The situation of Montrose waseritical in the extreme; but a stroke of genius and fortune relieved him, and brought back vietory to his standard. By a rapid and unexpected march he hastened to Innerloehy, and presented himself in order of battle before the Covenanters at the head of about eighteen hundred men. Argyll, seized with a panic, deserted his army, and, at a secure distance, having pushed off from the shore of the loch in a boat, witnessed the conflict which he had not the courage to share. The Campbells, however, made a stout resistance, but were at last defeated and pursued with great slaughter. After this vietory, Montrose was joined by great numbers of Highlanders; Seaforth’s army dispersed of itself; and the Lord Gordon, eldest son of the Marquis of Huntly, having escaped from his uncle Argyll, who had hitherto detained him, now joined Montrose with a considerable number of liis followers, accompanied by the Earl of Aboyne.

Alarmed at these victories, the council at Edinburgh sent for Baillie, an officer of reputation, from England, and, joining him in commapd with Urrey, dispatched them with a considerable army against the royalists. Montrose, with a detachment of eight hundred men, bad attacked Dundee, a town remarkable for its zeal in favour of the covenant, carried it by assault, and given it up to be plundered by his soldiers, when Baillie and Urrey with their whole force suddenly came upon him. He instantly called off his soldiers from the plunder, put them in order, covered his retreat by a series of skilful manoeuvres, and, having marched sixty miles in the face of a superior enemy without stopping or allowing his soldiers the least time for sleep or refreshment, he at last secured himself in the mountains. His antagonists now divided their forces, in order to carry on the war against an enemy who surprised them as much by the rapidity of his marches as by the boldness of his enterprises. Urrey met him with four thousand men at Auldearn, near Inverness, and, trusting to his superiority in number, Montrose having only two thousand men, attacked him in the post which he had chosen. Montrose posted his right wing on some strong ground, and drew the best of his forces to the other, leaving no main body between them; a defect which he artfully concealed by showing a few men through the trees and bushes with which the ground was covered. And, that Urrey might have no leisure to discover the stratagem, he instantly led his left wing to the charge, and made a furious onset on the Covenanters, whom he drove from the field in complete disorder. Baillie now advanced to revenge Urrey’s defeat, and re-establish, if possible, the ercdit of the popular arms. But he himself met with a similar fate at Alford. Montrose, weak in cavalry, intermixed his troops of horse with platoons of infantry, and, having put his enemy’s horse to rout, fell with united force upon their foot, which were entirely cut in pieces, though with the loss of the gallant Lord Gordon on the part of the royalists. Victorious in so many battles, which his vigour had rendered as decisive as they were successful, Montrose now prepared to march into the southern counties, in order to put down the power of the Covenanters, and disperse the parliament, which had been ordered to assemble at St Johnstone or Perth.

While Montrose was thus signalizing his valour in the north, Fairfax, or rather Oliver Cromwell under his name and sanction, employed himself in new-modelling the parliamentary army, and throwing the whole into a different and much more effective form. And never perhaps was there a more singular army established than that which was now re-organized by the parliament. To the greater number of the regiments chaplains were not appointed: the officers assumed the spiritual duty, which they united with their military functions. During the intervals of action they occupied themselves in sermons, prayers, and [7:5:328]exhortations. Rapturous ecstasies supplied the place of study and reflection; and whilst the zealous devotees poured out their thoughts in unpremeditated harangues, they mistook the natural eloquence which flowed from an excited and enthusiastic temperament, for illuminations and illapses of the Holy Spirit. Wherever they were quartered, they excluded the minister from his pulpit, and, usurping his place, conveyed their sentiments to the audience with all the authority that belonged to their power, their valour, and their military exploits, united with zeal and fervour. The private soldiers were infected with the same spirit; and such an enthusiasm seized the whole army as perhaps has scarce ever been equalled in the history of the world. The royalists ridiculed the fanaticism of the parliamentary armies, without being sensible how much reason they had to dread its effects. They were at this time equal, if not superior, in numbers to their enemies, but so licentious in their conduct, that they had become more formidable to their friends than to their enemies. The commanders were most of them men of dissolute characters; in the west especially, where Goring commanded, universal spoil and havoc were committed; the whole country was laid waste by the excesses of the royalist army; and even the most devoted friends of church and state longed for success to the parliamentary forces in these parts, as the only mode in which a stop could be put to these frightful disorders.

The natural consequence of this enthusiasm in the parliamentary army, and this licentiousness in that of the king, was, that equal numbers of the latter were no longer able to maintain their ground against the former. This appeared conspicuously in the decisive battle of Naseby, which was fough t between forces nearly equal. Prince Rupert, by his furious onset, broke the wing of the enemy opposed to him, hut, as usual, pursued too far. Cromwell also bore down the wing of the royalists opposite that which he commanded; but instead of imitating the example of the impetuous prince, he senta detachment in pursuit, and executing what is technically called a quart de conversion, attacked the exposed flank of the centre, where the royalist infantry were pressing hard on Fairfax. The result of this movement was decisive. When Rupert returned from pursuit the battle was irretrievably lost. The king called out to make but one charge more and the day would be their own; but his artillery and baggage being already taken, his infantry destroyed, and the prince’s cavalry wholly exhausted by their exertions, it was now too late to attempt any such effort. After an obstinate struggle, Charles was entirely defeated, with the loss of five hundred officers and four thousand private men prisoners, and all his artillery and ammunition, while his infantry were totally dispersed.

After this fatal battle, the king retired first to Hereford, then to Abergavenny, and remained some time in Wales, in the vain hope of raising a body of infantry in these quarters, already harassed and exhausted. His affairs now went to ruin in all quarters. Fairfax retook Leicester on the 17th of June; and on the 10th of July he raised the siege of Taunton, while the royalists retired to Lamport, an open town in the county of Somerset. Here they were attacked by Fairfax, and driven from their position, with the loss of three hundred killed and fourteen hundred taken prisoners. This was followed by the loss of Bridgewater, which Fairfax took three days after, making the garrison, to the amount of two thousand six hundred men, prisoners of war. He then reduced Bath and Sharburn; and on the 11th of September Bristol was surrendered by Rupert, though a few days before he had boasted, in a letter to Charles, that he would defend the place for four months. This so enraged the king, that he immediately recalled all the prince’s commissions, and sent him a pass to go beyond sea.

In the mean time the Scots, having made themselves masters of Carlisle after an obstinate siege, marched southwards and invested Hereford, but were obliged to raise the siege on the king’s approach. This was the last glimpse of success that attended his arms. Having marched to the relief of Chester, which was anew besieged by the parliamentary forces under Colonel Jones, his rear was attacked by Poyntz, and an engagement immediately ensued. The fight was maintained with great obstinacy, and victory seemed to incline to the royalists, when Jones fell upon them from the other side, and defeated them with thelossof six hundred killedanda thousand taken prisoners. The king, with the remains of his army, fled to Newark, and thence escaped to Oxford, where he shut himself up during the winter season. After the surrender of Bristol, Fairfax and Cromwell, having divided their forces, marched, the former westwards in order to complete the conquest of Devonshire and Cornwall, and the latter to attack the king’s garrisons to the eastward of Bristol. Nothing was able to stand before these victorious generals; every town was obliged to submit, and every body of troops which ventured to resist them were utterly defeated.

At last news arrived that Montrose himself, after some more successes, had been defeated; and thus the only hope of the royal party was destroyed. When he had descended into the southern counties, the Covenanters, assembling their whole force, met him with a numerous army, and gave him battle at Kilsyth. But here he obtained a memorable victory. Of the Covenanters above four thousand were killed on the spot, and no remains of an army left them in Scotland. Many noblemen, who had secretly favoured the royal cause, now declared openly for it, when they saw a force able to support them. The Marquis of Douglas, the Earls of Annandale and Hartfield, the Lords Fleming, Seton, Maderty, Carnegy, and many others, flocked to the royal standard. Edinburgh opened its gates and gave In berty to all the prisoners detained there by the Covenanters, and amongst the rest to Lord Ogilvy, son to the Earl of Airly, whose family had contributed essentially to the victory gained at Kilsyth. David Leslie was now detached from the army in England, and marched to the relief of his distressed party in Scotland. Allured by vain hopes of rousing to arms the Earls of Hume, Traquaire, and Roxburgh, who had promised to join him, and of obtaining from England some supply of cavalry, in which he was still very deficient, Montrose advanced still further to the south. But by the negligence of his piquet, or more probably from security engendered by success, Leslie surprised his army at Philiphaugh in the Forest, then much diminished in numbers from the desertion of the Highlanders, who, according to custom, had retired to the hills to secure their plunder. After a sharp conflict, in which Montrose displayed great valour, his forces were routed by Leslie’s cavalry, and he was himself forced to fly to the mountains.

In the situation to which the king was now reduced, he resolved to grant the parliament their own terms, and sent them repeated messages to this effect; but a considerable time elapsed before they deigned to make him any reply. At last, after reproaching him with the blood spilt during the war, they informed him that they were preparing some bills, to which, if he would consent, they should then be able to judge of his pacific inclinations. In the mean time Fairfax was advancing with a victorious army in order to lay siege to Oxford; and Charles, rather than submit to be taken captive and led in triumph by his insolent subjects, resolved to give himself up to the Scots, who had never testified such implacable animosity against him, [7:5:329]md to trust to their loyalty for the rest. After passing n disguise through many bye-ways and cross-roads, he ιrrived, in company with only two persons, Dr Hudson and Mr Ashburnham, at the Scottish camp before Newark, and immediately discovered himself to their general Lord Leven.

This resolution, though adopted in the midst of disaster, >cems to have been formed by the king in hopes of divid-ng his enemies, and profiting by their dissensions, of vhich, indeed, any prince in his situation would not have ιesitated to avail himself. Nor were there wanting circumstances to justify a measure which, because it proved mfortunate, has generally been considered as rash and ill-ιdvised. The Presbyterian form of church government ιad indeed been adopted in England, under the sanction if the divines assembled at Westminster; but the parliament steadily refused to render the church supreme, and to disjoin it from all connection with the state. The Inde-oendents, also, had combined with the Erastians in parliament to procure a charitable indulgence of conscience, 3r, in other words, unlimited though tacit toleration of all sects and opinions; a proceeding which the English as well as Scottish Presbyterians resisted as at once incompatible with the covenant, and favourable to boundless lati-tudinarianism. Nor were there wanting other causes of deep offence to exasperate the Scots. Their pay was in arrear; their supplies were neglected; their cautionary garrisons in the north were demanded back; their free quarters were refused. Ever since the battle of Naseby the Presbyterian, and with it the Scottish, influence had declined, whilst that of the Independents became every day stronger and stronger. Symptoms of an approaching schism, if not collision, were apparent. Is it to be wondered that, in these circumstances, Charles, who had already maintained a secret correspondence with the two factions of his enemies, should have now calculated on widening, by his presence with one of them, the breach that had so evidently taken place? His previous views, as expressed in a confidential letter to Lord Digby, were “to draw either the Presbyterians or the Independents to side with him,” and to render whichever of the two he succeeded in gaining instrumental in extirpating the other; “so that,” as he says, “I shall really be king again.” Nor is there any reason to doubt that, in betaking himself to the Scottish camp, the real design of the king was to endeavour to effect the object here so distinctly declared.

On the authority of an intercepted letter of the king, it has been asserted that he threw himself on the Scottish army in consequence of an assurance that they would assist him in recovering his lost prerogative, unite with the forces under Montrose, and compel the English parliament to accept a peace. In a declaration still extant, however, the Scottish leaders disclaim, in the strongest terms, any public or private agreement whatsoever with the king; and as this disclamation, which was publicly made, received no contradiction at the time, the reasonable conclusion is, that it could not be disputed. It is no doubt true that an agreement had been concerted, through Montreville the French ambassador, by which the Scots, with the knowledge and approbation of the English Presbyterians, were to escort the king to their camp. But the treaty was broken off by the refusal of the Scots to co-operate with Montrose, and by the king’s hesitation to sanction and confirm the Presbyterian form of church establishment. The Scots seem, therefore, to have been perfectly sincere in their declaration to the English parliament. Charles came amongst them of his own proper motion, and not in consequence of any stipulation on their part to unite with him against their English allies; and whatever discontents might have arisen in England, such a stipulation to support the king, without first exacting from him an unequivocal pledge to grant all the objects for which they had taken up arms, would have been the height of folly, and a sacrifice of great national interests to a romantic sentiment. Accordingly, they remained faithful to their original engagements; and although they withdrew to Newcastle to prevent the English intercepting their return home, they obtained the king’s order for the surrender of Newark, guarded his person with respectful vigilance, and openly professed their resolution to avail themselves of the advantage they had thus acquired, in order to obtain the desired conformity in religion, and the establishment of peace on a durable basis.

Next came the negociations between the Scots and English for the payment of arrears due to the former, and for the surrender of the king’s person into the hands of the latter. The arrears, after many deductions, were finally settled atL.400,000; and this adjustment has been perpetually identified by historians with the agreement to deliver up the king’s person, and represented as the equivalent given, or the price paid, for an act of unparalleled baseness. The confusion of facts, however, is as gross as the stigma attached to the Scottish nation is undeserved. The amount of the arrears was fixed in August. In November the question as to the disposal of the royal person remained still unsettled. At this time the Scottish parliament, indignant at a vote passed by the English parliament in September (a month after the settlement of the arrears) claiming the sole disposal of the king’s person, resolved to maintain the freedom of the king, and assert his right to the English throne; but the vote was afterwards rescinded, on the just ground that it amounted to an abandonment of the solemn league and covenant, adopted in concert with the English Presbyterians, unless their joint demands were granted by the king. They offered, however, to reinstate him on the throne, and to obtain for him a just settlement with his English subjects, provided he would consent to take the covenant; and commissioners were appointed by the estates in Scotland to signify to his majesty these conditions, upon which alone he could expect to be received in Scotland, or assisted by the Scottish nation. But the king remained inflexible. In vain did the Duke of Hamilton, one of his principal friends in Scotland, unite with the ministers in representing that this alone could save him; in vain was it urged that if he conceded the Presbyterian church to both kingdoms, the demands respecting the militia would be relaxed, that all Scotland would declare in his favour, and that, while the Presbyterians remained numerous and powerful, few in England would venture to oppose the reconstitution of the monarchy with limited power. Nothing could move him to accede to that which alone could save him. On the eve of his departure, the commissioners renewed with great earnestness their offers to conduct him to Berwick, and to procure more equitable terms, provided he would take the covenant; and so anxious were they to save him, that a bare promise to comply with their religious demands would have been deemed sufficient. But all that could be wrung from this unhappy prince was a doubtful consent to tolerate Presbytery for three years; and even in making this concession, he justified it to his own curious conscience, by declaring before two of his bishops his unalterable resolution to restore and uphold Episcopacy. In the case of a sovereign cursed with such blind and obstinate infatuation, what else could be done but leave him to his fate?

It has been mentioned as a circumstance reflecting disgrace on the Scots, that the English parliament still withheld their arrears, and that the surrender of the king’s [7:5:330]person was the only condition upon which payment could be obtained. If the case had really stood so that the refusal of the Scots to deliver up Charles would have been punished only by defrauding them of the money which was justly due to them, and by no other consequence whatever, then the charge of selling the king for prompt payment might well have been alleged against them. But it must be obvious that the loss of the arrears, upon which so much stress has always been laid, was a mere trifle in comparison with the misery and bloodshed which must have ensued from drawing the sword in defence of the king, without first securing the grand objects of the covenant. Conduct such as this, on the part of the Scottish leaders, would have amounted to a violation of their solemn oaths, and a betrayal of the great national interests intrusted to their guardianship. They offered all that men, circumstanced as they were, could offer; they were willing, at any hazard, to adhere to the king, if the king would have been true to the country; and his refusal to accede to the terms proposed to him shows, that, if the Covenanters had conquered all England in his cause, they would only have rivetted more firmly the chains of Episcopacy and tyranny on themselves.^[8. The comments which Mr Hume has thought it proper to make on this unfortunate transaction are sufficiently met and answered by the statements contained in the text. The following defence of the Scots against the accusations which have been so freely preferred in consequence of the transactions at Newark, will, however, be read with interest, as proceeding from a writer who will not be suspected of any undue partiality to the Covenanters, namely, Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, Lord Advocate of Scotland in the reigns of Charles II. and James VII. “The parliament of Scotland (1661),” says he, “taking to their consideration how much and how unjustly this kingdom was injured by an aspersion cast upon it for the transactions at Newcastle in anno 1647, at which time the king was delivered to the parliament of England; which was’ called in some histories a selling of the king; did by an express act condemn and reprobate all that treaty, and declare that the same was no national act, but was only carried on by some rebels who had falsely assumed the name of a parliament. Nor wanted there many, even in that parliament, who protested against all that procedure, and who had the courage and honesty to cause registrate that protestation. And I must here crave leave to expostulate with our neighbours of England, for inveighing so severely against our nation for delivering their king, seeing he was only delivered up to the then parliament, who first, imprisoned and thereafter murdered him: whereas how soon even our rebels discovered their design, they carried into England a splendid mighty army for his defence; and when his murder came to their ears, they proclaimed bis son their king, and sent commissioners to treat with him and bring him to Scotland; and when he was arrived they did contribute their lives and fortunes for his safety. And albeit some bigot Presbyterians did use him unkindly out of too much kindness to their own principles, yet even these did very generously oppose Cromwell, and such as had murdered the king; as is clear by the attack made by Major-general .Montgomery at Musselburgh, and by the remonstrators at Linlithgow. They fought also two battles for him at Dunbar and W^orcester, and suffered the greatest imaginable hardships.” (Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, from the Restoration of King Charles 11. a. ». 1660. By Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh. Printed at Edinburgh in 1821, and edited by Thomas Thomson, Esq. Depute Clerk Registrar of Scotland.) ]

After the flight of Charles, Oxford surrendered to Fairfax, and the civil war terminated exactly four years after the king’s standard was first erected at Nottingham. In consequence of the transactions at Newark, and the total failure of all attempts at an accommodation with the Presbyterians, the king was delivered over to the English commissioners, and conducted under a guard to Holdenby, in Northamptonshire, where he was very rigorously confined, and debarred from visits of his friends, as well as all communication with his family.

The civil war being thus ended, the king absolved his followers from their allegiance, and the parliament had now no enemy to fear but the troops which had fought for them. But it was not long before they found themselves in the same unfortunate predicament to which they had reduced the king. The majority of the house were Presbyterians, but the majority of the army were Independents. Soon after the retreat of the Scots, the former seeing every thing reduced to obedience, proposed to disband a considerable part of the army, and send the rest over to Ireland. But this was by no means relished by the Independents, and Cromwell took care to heighten the disaffection. Instead of preparing to disband, therefore, the soldiers resolved to petition, and began by demanding an indemnity, ratified by the king, for any illegal actions they might have committed during the war. But the Commons voted that this petition tended to introduce mutiny, and threatened to proceed against the promoters of it as enemies to the state and disturbers of the public peace. The army accordingly began to set up for themselves, and a military parliament was organized, in opposition to the parliament at Westminster. The principal officers formed a council to represent the body of Peers; the soldiers elected two men out of each company, called the agitators of the army, to represent the Commons; and of this assembly Cromwell took care to be a member. The new parliament soon found many grievances to be redressed, and specified some of the most considerable. The Commons were obliged to yield to every request, and the demands of the agitators rose in proportion to the concessions they extorted. The Commons accused the army of mutiny and sedition; but the army retorted the charge, and alleged that the king had been deposed only to make way for their usurpations. In the mean time Cromwell, who secretly conducted all the measures of the army, while he exclaimed against their violence, resolved to seize the king’s person. Accordingly a party of five hundred horse appeared at Holmby Castle, under the command of one Joyce, originally a tailor, now a cornet; and by this man was the king conducted to the army, who were hastening to then-rendezvous at Triplow Heath, near Cambridge. Next day Cromwell arrived, and being received with acclamations of joy, was immediately invested with the supreme command. The Commons now discovered the designs of the army; but it was too late. All resistance had become hopeless. Cromwell advanced with precipitation, and was in a few days at St Alban’s. Even submission was now to no purpose. The army still rose in their demands, in proportion as these were gratified, and at last proclaimed their intention of modelling the whole government, as well as settling the nation.

Cromwell began with accusing eleven members of the house, leaders of the Presbyterian party, as guilty of high treason, and enemies to the army. The Commons were willing to protect them; but the army insisting on their dismission, they voluntarily left the house. At last the citizens of London, finding the constitution totally overturned, and a military despotism about to be established on the ruins of the kingly tyranny which they formerly dreaded, began to think seriously of repressing the insolence of the troops. The common council assembled the militia of the city; the works were manned; and a manifesto was published, aggravating the hostile intentions of the army. Finding that the Commons, in compliance with the request of the army, had voted that the city militia should be disbanded, the multitude rose, besieged the door of the house, and obliged them to reverse the vote which they had so lately passed. The assembly was in consequence divided into two parties; the greater part siding [7:5:331] with the citizens, but the minority, with the two speakers at their head, being for encouraging the army. Accordingly the two speakers, with sixty-two of the members, secretly retired from the house, and threw themselves on the protection of the army, which was then at Hounslow Heath. They were received with shouts and acclamations; their integrity was extolled; and the whole force of the soldiery, to the number of twenty thousand men, now moved forward to reinstate them in their places.

In the meanwhile the part of the house which was left resolved to resist the encroachments of the army. They chose new speakers, gave orders for enlisting troops, and ordered the train-bands to man the lines; while the whole city boldly resolved to resist the invasion. But this resolution only held while the enemy was at a distance. When Cromwell appeared, all was obedience and submission; and the gates were opened to the general, who attended the two speakers and the rest of the members peaceably to their habitations. The eleven impeached members having been accused as the cause of the tumult, were expelled, and most of them retired to the Continent. The mayor, the sheriff, and three aidermen, were sent to the Tower; several citizens and officers of the militia were committed to prison; the lines about the city were levelled with the ground; and the command of the Tower was given to Fairfax.

It now only remained to dispose of the king, who continued a prisoner at Hampton Court. The Independent army, at the head of which was Cromwell, on the one hand, and the Presbyterians, in name of both houses, on the other, treated with him separately in private. He had sometimes even hopes, that in these struggles for power, he might be chosen mediator in the dispute; and he expected that the kingdom, at last sensible of the miseries of anarchy, would of its own accord relapse into tranquillity. At this time he was treated with flattering marks of distinction, and allowed to converse with his own servants; whilst his chaplains were permitted to attend him, and celebrate divine service in their own way. But the most exquisite pleasure he enjoyed was in the company of his children, with whom he had several interviews. The meeting on these occasions was so touching, that Cromwell himself, who happened once to be present, could not help being moved, and was heard to declare that he never before beheld such an affecting scene. But these instances of respect were not of long continuance. As soon as the army had gained a complete victory over the House of Commons, the king was treated not only with the greatest disrespect, but even kept in continual alarm for his personal safety. The consequence was, that Charles at last resolved to withdraw himself from the kingdom.

Accordingly, on the 11th of November 1647, the king, attended only by Sir John Berkeley, Ashburnham, and Leg, privately left Hampton Court; and his escape was not discovered till nearly an hour afterwards, when those who entered his chamber found on the table some letters directed to the parliament, to the general, and to the officer who bad attended him. He travelled all night through the forest, and arrived next day at Titchfield, a seat of the Earl of Southampton, occupied by the countess dowager, a woman of honour, to whom the king knew he might safely intrust his person. Before he arrived at this place, he went to the sea-coast, and expressed great anxiety that a ship, which he seemed to look for, had not arrived. As he could not hope to remain long concealed at Titchfield, the question was, what measure should next be embraced? In the neighbourhood lay the Isle of Wight, of which Hammond was governor. This man was a dependent of Cromwell’s, which was an unfavourable circumstance; yet as he was nephew to Dr Hammond, the king’s favourite chaplain, and had acquired a good reputation in the army, it was thought proper to have recourse to him in the present emergency, when no other rational expedient could be thought of. Ashburnham and Berkeley were accordingly dispatched to the island. They had orders not to inform Hammond of the place where the king lay concealed, till they had first obtained from him a promise not to deliver up his majesty, even though the parliament and army should require him, but restore him to his liberty, if he could not protect him. The promise would have been but a slender security; yet, even without exacting it, Ashburnham imprudently, if not treacherously, brought Hammond to Titchfield; and the king was obliged to put himself into his hands, and to attend him to Carisbrooke Castle in the Isle of Wight, where, though he was received with great demonstrations of respect and kindness, he was in reality a prisoner.

While the king continued in this forlorn situation, Cromwell found himself upon the point of losing all the fruits of his schemes, by having his own artifices turned against himself. Among the Independents, who in general were hostile to all ecclesiastical systems, a set of men grew up called Levellers, who disallowed all subordination whatsoever, and declared that they would have no other chaplain, king, nor general, save Jesus Christ. All this would have gone down very well with Cromwell as long as it was only directed against his enemies, but he did not relish it quite so well when applied to himself. Accordingly, having intimation that the Levellers were to meet at a certain place, he unexpectedly appeared before them at the head of his red regiment, which had hitherto been deemed invincible, and demanding, in the name of God, what these meetings and murmurings meant, he expostulated with them upon the dangerous consequence of their precipitate schemes, and desired them immediately to depart. Instead of obeying, however, they returned an insolent answer; upon which he ordered his guards to disperse them, caused several of them to be hanged upon the spot, sent others to London, and thus dissipated a faction which was no otherwise criminal than in having followed his own example. Cromwell’s authority was greatly increased by the reduction of this sect; and it became irre-sistable in consequence of a new and unexpected addition to his successes.

Meanwhile the relative situations of parties had materially changed, and the power of the Independents been increased as that of the Presbyterians declined. The former, too, began to disclose ulterior views and intentions which had never hitherto been suspected by their allies the Scots, whom they now took all occasions to mortify. The latter also found, that in the matter of Presbytery, no less than in the conduct of the war and the policy pursued towards the king, they had been overreached and deceived. The discovery in question brought on an accommodation between Charles and his Scottish subjects, who, in consideration of his majesty agreeing to confirm the covenant in parliament, and establish the Presbyterian church till it should be revised by the assembly of divines, engaged to assert and restore his authority by force of arms. This treaty was afterwards called The Engagement; but although discontents had multiplied between the two kingdoms, it was found no easy matter to induce the nation to enter into the views of those by whom the engagement had been concluded. The Scottish royalists, under Traquair and Callender, were impatient for action; the moderate Presbyterians, under the Duke of Hamilton, wished to restore the king and the power of the English Presbyterians; the wild party, headed by Argyll, and seconded by the kirk, denounced the engagement as a deadly breach of the covenant, and deprecated hostilities with [7:5:332]England. Amidst this division of party and opinion, new levies were raised for the invasion of England, and the chief command given to Hamilton, as David Leslie and the other officers could not act without the sanction of the church.

Langdale headed a separate body of royalists who had not taken the covenant, and both invaded the north of England. But though these two armies amounted to above twenty thousand men, Cromwell, at the head of eight thousand hardy veterans, feared not to give battle to the divided and undisciplined mass, conducted by an incapable leader. Attacking these bodies in succession, he routed and dispersed them, took Hamilton prisoner, and, following up the blow, soon entered Scotland. Of the whole Scottish force only a small body under Callender, who disdained to surrender, made their way back to Scotland. This overthrow was the signal for the High Presbyterian party to bestir themselves. New levies were indeed raised by the Earl of Lanark, Hamilton’s brother; but these proved of no avail. The Earls of Argyll, Cassillis, and Eglintoun, at the head of the Presbyterians of the west country and the Highlands, marched to Edinburgh, and inviting Cromwell to the metropolis, conducted him thither in triumph, suppressed the engagement, and renewed the solemn league and covenant with England. This expedition of the Covenanters to Edinburgh, commonly called the Whigamores’ Inroad, gave the finishing blow to the royal cause in Scotland at this time.

During these contentions the king, who was kept a prisoner at Carisbrooke Castle, continued to negociate with the parliament for putting an end to the unspeakable calamities of the kingdom. And the parliament, on the other hand, saw no method of restraining the military, except to counterbalance it by the kingly power. Frequent proposals for an accommodation accordingly passed between the captive king and the Commons; but the great obstacle which had all along stood in the way still remained unshaken. This was the king’s refusal to abolish Episcopacy, though he consented to alter the liturgy. However, the treaty was still carried on with vigour, and the parliament for the first time seemed in earnest to conclude their negociations. But all was now too late. The victorious army, headed by Cromwell, advanced to Windsor, and with furious remonstrances began to demand vengeance on the king. The unhappy monarch had been lately sent in custody to that place; and from thence he was now conveyed to Hurst Castle in Hampshire, opposite to the Isle of Wight. The parliament in the meanwhile began to issue ordinances for a more effectual opposition to these military encroachments, when they were astonished by a message from Cromwell, intimating his intention of paying them a visit next day with his whole army, and at the same time ordering them to raise him L.40,000 on the city of London.

The Commons, though destitute of all hopes of prevailing, had still the courage to resist, and to attempt in the face of the whole army to finish the treaty they had begun with the king. They had taken into consideration the whole of his concessions; and although they had formerly voted them unsatisfactory, they now renewed the consultation with great vigour. After a violent debate, which lasted three days, it was carried in the king’s favour, by a majority of 129 against 83, that his concessions were a foundation for the houses to proceed upon in settling the affairs of the nation. This was the last attempt in his favour; for the next day Colonel Pride, at the head of two regiments, blockaded the house, and seizing in the passage forty-one members of the Presbyterian party, sent them to a low room belonging to the house, that passed by the denomination of Hell. Above a hundred and sixty members were excluded; and none were allowed to enter but the most furious and determined of the Independents, in all not exceeding sixty. This atrocious invasion of parliamentary rights commonly passed by the name of Pride’s Purge, and the remaining members were called the Rump. The latter soon voted that the transactions of the house a few days before were entirely illegal, and that their general’s conduct was just and necessary.

Nothing now remained to complete the career of the Rump but to put the king to death. In this assembly, composed of the most obscure citizens and officers of the army, a committee was appointed to bring in a charge against the king; and on their report a vote was carried, declaring it treason in a king to levy war against his parliament. It was therefore resolved that a high court of justice should be appointed, to try his majesty for this newly-invented treason. For form’s sake they desired the concurrence of the few remaining Lords in the upper house; but there was virtue enough left in that body unanimously to reject the proposal. The Commons, however, were not to be stopped by so small an obstacle. They voted that the concurrence of the House of Lords was unnecessary, and that the people were the origin of all just power. And to add to their zeal, a woman of Herefordshire, illuminated by prophetical visions, desired admittance, and communicated a revelation which she pretended to have received from heaven. She assured them that their measures were consecrated from above, and ratified by the sanction of the Holy Ghost. This intelligence gave them great comfort, and much confirmed them in their present resolutions. Colonel Harrison, the son of a butcher, was commanded to conduct the king from Hurst Castle to Windsor, and from thence to London. His subjects, who crowded to see their fallen sovereign, were greatly affected at the change which appeared in his face and person. He had permitted his beard to grow, and his hair had become venerably gray, rather by the pressure of anxiety than by the hand of time; whilst the rest of his apparel bore the marks of misfortune and decay. He had long been attended by an old decrepid servant commonly called Sir Philip Warwick, who could only deplore his master’s fate, without being able to revenge his cause. All the exterior symbols of sovereignty were now withdrawn, and his attendants had orders to serve him without ceremony. He could not, however, be persuaded that his adversaries would bring him to a formal trial; but he every moment expected to be dispatched by private assassination.

From the 6th to the 20th of January was spent in making preparations for this extraordinary trial. The court of justice consisted of a hundred and thirty-three persons named by the Commons; but of these about seventy only met upon the trial. The members were chiefly composed of officers of the army, most of them of very mean birth, together with some of the Lower House, and a few citizens of London. Bradshaw, a lawyer, was chosen president; Coke was appointed solicitor for the people of England; Dorislaus, Steele, and Aske, were named assistants. The court sat in Westminster Hall. When the king was brought forward before this court, he was conducted by the mace-bearer to a chair placed within the bar. Though long detained a prisoner, and now produced as a criminal, he still maintained the dignity of a king. The charge was then read by the solicitor, accusing him of having been the cause of all the bloodshed which had flowed since the commencement of the war; after which Bradshaw directing his discourse to Charles, told him that the court expected his answer. The king began his defence by declining the authority of the court. He represented, that having been engaged in treaty with his two houses of [7:5:333] parliament, and having finished almost every article, he expected a different treatment from that which he had now received. He perceived, he said, no appearance of an upper house, which was necessary to constitute a just tribunal. He alleged that he was himself the king and fountain of law, and consequently could not be tried by laws to which he had never given his assent; that having been intrusted with the liberties of the people, he would not now betray them by recognising a power founded in usurpation; that he was willing, before a proper tribunal, to enter into the particulars of his defence; but that until then he must decline any apology for his innocence, lest he should be considered as the betrayer of, and not as a martyr for, the constitution. Bradshaw, in order to support the authority of the court, insisted that they had received their authority from the people, the source of all right. He pressed the king not to decline the authority of the court which was delegated by the Commons of England, and interrupted, overruled, and browbeat him in his attempts to reply. In this manner the king was three times produced before the court, and as often persisted in declining its jurisdiction. The fourth and last time he was brought before this self-created tribunal, he was insulted on his way thither by the soldiers and the mob, who cried out, “Justice! justice! Execution! execution I” but he continued undaunted. His judges now examined some witnesses, by whom it was proved that the king had appeared in arms against the forces commissioned by parliament, and then pronounced sentence against him. He seemed very anxious at this time to be admitted to a conference with the two houses, and it was supposed that he intended to resign the crown in favour of his son; but the court refused compliance, and considered his request as an artifice to delay justice.

The behaviour of Charles throughout this trying scene was manly, firm, and dignified. In leaving the hall, the soldiers and rabble were again instigated to cry out Justice, and Execution, and to revile him with the most bitter reproaches; and, amongst other insults, one miscreant presumed to spit in his face. He patiently bore their insolence. “Poor souls,” said he, “they would treat their generals in the same manner for sixpence.” Those of the populace who still retained the feelings of humanity expressed their sorrow in sighs and tears. A soldier more compassionate than the rest could not help imploring a blessing on his royal head. An officer overhearing him, struck the honest sentinel to the ground before the king, who could not help saying that the punishment exceeded the offence.

On his return to Whitehall, Charles desired permission of the house to see his children, and to be attended in his private devotions by Dr Juxon, late bishop of London. These requests were granted, and three days were also allowed him to prepare for execution. Every night between his sentence and execution the king slept soundly as usual, though the noise of the workmen employed in erecting the scaffold continually resounded in his ears. The fatal morning having at last arrived, Charles rose early; and calling one of his attendants, hade him employ more than usual care in dressing him, and preparing him for so great a solemnity. The street before Whitehall was the place destined for his execution; for it was intended in this way to increase the severity of his punishment. He was led through the banqueting house to the scaffold adjoining to that edifice, attended by his friend and servant Bishop Juxon, a man of the same mild and steady character as his master. The scaffold, covered with black, was guarded by a regiment of soldiers under the command of Colonel Tomlinson; and on it were to be seen the block, the axe, and two executioners in masks. The people, in crowds, stood at a distance. The king surveyed all these solemn preparations with composure; and, as he could not expect to be heard by the people at a distance, he addressed himself to the few persons who stood round him. He there justified his own innocence in the late fatal wars, observing that he had not taken arms till after the parliament had shown him the example; and that he had no other object in his warlike preparations, than to preserve that authority entire which had been transmitted to him by his ancestors. But, though innocent towards his people, he acknowledged the equity of his execution in the eyes of his Maker, and owned that he was justly punished for having consented to the execution of an unjust sentence against the Earl of Strafford. He forgave all his enemies; exhorted the people to return to their obedience, and acknowledge his son as his successor; and signified his attachment to the Protestant religion as professed by the church of England. So strong was the impression made by his dying words on those who could hear him, that Colonel Tomlinson himself, to whose care he had been committed, acknowledged himself a convert. At one blow his head was severed from his body. The other executioner then, holding up the head, exclaimed, “This is the head of a traitor.”

It is impossible to describe the grief, indignation, and astonishment, which took place, not only among the spectators, who were overwhelmed with a flood of sorrow, but throughout the whole nation, as soon as the report of this execution was conveyed to them. Each blamed himself, either with active disloyalty to the king, or a passive compliance with his destroyers. The very pulpits which used to resound with insolence and sedition were now bedewed with tears of repentance; and all united in their detestation of those dark hypocrites, who, to satisfy their own enmity, involved a whole nation in the guilt of this catastrophe. Charles was executed on the 30th of January 1649, in the forty-ninth year of his age, and twenty-fourth of his reign. He was of a middling stature, robust, and well-proportioned. His countenance was pleasant, but melancholy; and it is probable that the continual troubles in which he was involved might have given this expression to his features. As it had been remarked that the king, the moment before he stretched out his neck to the executioner, had addressed to Juxon, with a very earnest accent, the single word “Remember” great mysteries were supposed to be concealed under that word; and the generals vehemently insisted with the prelate that he should inform them of the king’s meaning. Juxon told them that the king, having frequently charged him to inculcate on his son the forgiveness of his murderers, had taken this opportunity, in the last moment of his life, when his commands, he supposed, would be regarded as sacred and inviolable, to reiterate that desire; and that his mild spirit thus terminated its earthly course by an act of benevolence to his greatest enemies.

CHAP. V.

THE COMMONWEALTH.

Dissolution of the Monarchy, and establishment of the Commonwealth—Council of State.—Négociations with Prince Charles. —Descent of Montrose in the North.—His defeat and execution—Aιτival of Charles in Scotland—His treatment there— The Scots proclaim him King—War with England—Battle of Dunbar—Subsequent operations—The Scots march into England Battle of Worcester.—Adventures of the King, and his escape into France Cromwell’s policy towards Scotland.—

War with the,Dutch Cromwell resolves to seize on the So vereign power—Parliament turned out.—Protest of Bradshaw and the Council—Barebone’s Parliament—Dissolved—Cromwell declared Protector—Settlement of the Government

His vigorous administration.—Jamaica conquered.—Arbitrary [7:5:334]methods of raising money.—Another Parliament called The

Crown offered to Cromwell—Refused —Situation to which he was reduced by the frequent conspiracies of the Royalists and the Levellers—His death and character—Richard Cromwell declared Protector His abdication Rump Parliament reinstated—Dissolved by the army Military Government—Pro ceedings of Monk—Négociations March to London—His quarters established in Westminster.—City of London punished Secluded Members of Parliament recalled—New Par liament assembled—Charles II. leaves Spain—His message to the Parliament He is recalled, and lands in England—Cha racter of Monk’s proceedings in the matter of the Restoration.

The dissolution of the monarchy followed, as a natural consequence, the execution of the king. At the commencement of the struggle the demands of the two houses were limited to the redress of existing grievances; but now when it was over, the triumphant party refused to be content with any thing less than the abolition of the old, and the establishment of a new and more popular form of government. They had sinned too deeply against royalty to trust themselves to the mercy or moderation of a king. A republic was therefore their choice, first, because it promised to shelter them from the vengeance of their enemies; and, secondly, because it offered them the additional advantage of sharing among themselves all the power, the patronage, and the emoluments of office. In accordance with this decision, the head of the king had no sooner fallen on the scaffold at Whitehall, than a proclamation was issued, declaring it treason to give to any person the title of king without the authority of parliament; and at the same time was published the vote of the 4th of January (1649), by which it had been decreed that the supreme authority in the nation resided in the representatives of the people. The peers, though aware of their approaching fate, met on the day fixed at their adjournment, and proceeded to business; but after a pause of a few days the Commons voted that the House of Lords, as useless and dangerous, ought to be abolished; and they declared it high treason to acknowledge Charles Stuart, son of the late king, as successor to the throne. A council of state was next appointed, consisting of forty-one members, with powers limited in duration to twelve months, and charged with the preservation of domestic tranquillity, the disposal of the military and naval force, the superintendence of internal and external trade, and the negociation of treaties with foreign powers. A new great seal was then made, on one side of which were engraven the arms of England and Ireland, with this inscription, “The great seal of England ;” and on the reverse was represented the House of Commons sitting, with this motto,—“On the first year of freedom, by God’s blessing restored, 1649.” The forms of all public business were changed, and instead of proceeding in the king’s name, ran in that of the “keepers of the liberties of England.” The Court of King’s Bench was called the Court of Public Bench; and so cautious on this head, it is said, were some of the republicans, that, in reciting the Lord’s prayer, they would not say, “thy kingdom,” but “thy commonwealth, come.” The king’s statue in the exchange was thrown down; and on the pedestal these words were inscribed, Exit tyrannus, regum ultimus, “The tyrant is gone, the last of the kings.” The merit or demerit of thus erecting a commonwealth on the ruins of the monarchy belongs chiefly to Cromwell, Ireton, Bradshaw, and Marten, who by their superior influence guided and controlled the opinions and passions of their associates in the senate and the arnly.

The Commons next proceeded to punish those who had been most remarkable for their attachment to their late sovereign. The Duke of Hamilton, Lord Capel, and the Earl of Holland, were condemned and executed; the Earl of Norwich and Sir John Owen were also condemned, and afterwards pardoned. These executions greatly irritated the Scots; and the insolence of the Independents, with their victories, inflaming them still more, they determined to acknowledge Prince Charles as their king, but at the same time to abridge his power by limitations similar to those which they had attempted to impose upon his father. But as Argyll and the more rigid Covenanters still predominated, they made their loyalty conditional on his own good behaviour. The first propositions were made to Charles at Paris, where he had passed some time in hopes of obtaining assistance; and renew ed offers were made to him at Breda, to which place he had withdrawn on finding France indisposed to lend him any aid. Butas he had by this time commanded Montrose to attempt a descent in his favour upon Scotland by force of arms, he, with the characteristic duplicity of his race, protracted the negociations until the result of this enterprise should be known. With arms and money furnished by Sweden and Denmark, and accompanied by about six hundred Germans, Montrose, accordingly, arrived in Orkney from Hamburg, and by a compulsory levy of the islanders, raised his force to fourteen hundred men. He then passed over to the mainland of Scotland, where the people, remembering his former cruelties, fled in horror before him. But his career was destined to be a short one. Having advanced beyond the pass of Invercarron, his motley band was surprised by a superior force, surrounded, beaten, and dispersed. Montrose contrived to effect his escape, but having thrown himself on the protection of Macleod of Assynt, he was betrayed by that worthy for a thousand bolls of meal, and being brought prisoner to Edinburgh, he was condemned on his former attainder to be hanged for the space of three hours on a gibbet thirty feet in height, and his limbs were ordered to be stuck up in the principal towns of the kingdom; his head on a spike in Edinburgh, his arms on the gates of Perth or Stirling, his legs on those of Glasgow and Aberdeen, and his body to be interred by the hangman in Boroughmuir, unless the sentence of excommunication by the kirk were previously relaxed. Montrose’s defeat and death, however, were productive only of a further limitation of the terms offered to Charles; and as he no longer refused to accept these conditions, and to take the covenant, if required to do so, he embarked with his court in a Dutch fleet, and arrived at the mouth of the Spey. But as the jealousy of the Scots had been roused by the late invasion, the covenant was exacted from him before he was suffered to land. His English attendants, with the exception of a few complying persons, who accommodated themselves to the times, were dismissed; and he was surrounded by the fanatical clergymen, wļio, though they approached his person in the most respectful manner, launched out in continual invectives on the iniquity of his father’s house, the idolatry of his mother, and his own connection with inveterate malignants. Charles pretended to listen to their discourses, but nevertheless made an attempt to escape. Being overtaken, however, and brought back, he owned the greatness of his fault, and testified his repentance for what he had done.

Cromwell, in the mean time, having been appointed by the parliament to command the army in Ireland, prosecuted the war in that kingdom with his usual success. He had to encounter the royalists commanded by the Duke of Ormond, and the native Irish led on by O’Neale. But he quickly overcame their force; and most of the towns, intimidated by his energy, opened their gates at his approach. He was on the point of reducing the whole kingdom, when he was recalled by the parliament to defend his country against the Scots, who had raised a considerable army in support of the royal cause.
[7:5:335]

As Fairfax had conscientiously declined to draw his sword against the Presbyterians of Scotland, Cromwell received the command of the forces destined to invade that kingdom, and, in a month from the time of the king’s arrival, he was on the banks of the Tweed at the head of sixteen thousand veteran troops. Argyll, then at the head of the committee of estates, made the most vigorous preparations for his reception; while Leslie, who had never yet been beaten, opposed his great experience and cool sagacity to the genius of Cromwell. The latter, having established between Edinburgh and Leith a fortified camp, as a secure rallying point, wasted the Merse and the Lothians, in order to deprive Cromwell of subsistence; and when forced at length to retire within his entrenchments, he remained resolutely on the defensive, in spite of every expedient tried by his adversary to draw him out to action. At this time the king arrived at the Scottish headquarters, but his presence having excited the jealousy of the clergy, they ordered him to leave it, and forthwith proceeded to purge the camp of four thousand Malignants and Engagers, the only soldiers of credit and experience in the army; so that being now a host of saints, they concluded, somewhat hastily, that they could not be beaten. In the blindness of their folly, they murmured at their prudent general; and, in the extravagance of their fanaticism, they expostulated with the Lord in prayer on the urgent necessity of his interposition, in order to uphold the kirk, and deliver them from the sectaries. An opportunity of striking a blow to advantage having presented itself on a Sunday, Leslie proposed instantly to attack; but he was prevented by these insane fanatics, who affected great horror at the crime of Sabbath-breaking. Meanwhile Cromwell, straitened for provisions, withdrew his army, now reduced in numbers by sickness, to Dunbar. Leslie followed his movement, and encamped on the heights which command the town, taking care at the same time to occupy the passes by which alone the enemy could retire to Berwick. Cromwell’s situation had become now most critical. His adversary’s position was too strong to be assaulted with any hope of success; his retreat was intercepted; his provisions were nearly exhausted; sickness was daily thinning his ranks; destruction brooded over him. But the madness of the clergy restored the ascendency of this extraordinary man’s fortune, and snatched from Leslie the fruits of his masterly combinations, when he was on the very eve of reaping them in a bloodless harvest of victory. They had been wrestling with the Lord in prayer, as they termed it, and pretending some special revelation, they now fancied that they had obtained the victory, and that the heretical army, together with Agag their general, would forthwith be delivered into their hands. These holy idiots, accordingly, forced their general to descend to the plain, and to"attack the English. When Cromwell discovered through his glass that the Scots were actually in motion, he exclaimed, “They are coming down; the Lord hath delivered them into our hands.” His anticipation was speedily realised. Descending from the hills during a tempestuous night, which had extinguished their matches, the Scots, consisting entirely of raw undisciplined levies, were overthrown at the first onset by the veteran troops of Cromwell, who had been carefully sheltered from the storm; three thousand were slain, nine hundred made prisoners, and the remainder dispersed, whilst the loss of the English scarcely exceeded forty men.

This disaster, so richly merited, showed, in a striking point of view, the danger of disunion. In a meeting held at Perth, the Scottish parliament accordingly resolved to call in the aid of the Malignants and Engagers, on condition of repentance of past errors; but two of the western shires still held out against this approximation of parties, and withdrew from the general levy about five thousand men. Charles had by this time become thoroughly satisfied that soothing the religious prejudices of the kirk was indispensable to give him a chance of acquiring due preponderance in the state. On the first of January 1651, his coronation was performed with great solemnity at Scone. There, on his bended knees, and with his arm upraised, he swore by the Eternal and Almighty God to observe strictly the two covenants; to establish the Presbyterian government in Scotland and in his own family; to give his assent to acts for establishing it in his other dominions; to rule according to the law of God, and the venerated laws of the land; to abolish and withstand all false religions; and to root out heretics and enemies to the true God, when convicted as such by the kirk. Argyll then placed the crown upon the king’s head, an act for which his own was afterwards the forfeit; and having seated him on the throne, both nobility and gentry swore allegiance, “according to the national covenant, and the solemn league and covenant.”

In the meanwhile Cromwell was making rapid progress in subduing the kingdom. He had obtained possession of Edinburgh Castle, taken Tantallon by storm, attempted Dumbarton, though without success, and carried many places of inferior note. A severe attack of ague for a time retarded his operations; but in the month of July he marched with his army towards Stirling. The Scots faced him in their entrenched camp at Torwood, and resolved to pursue the same, cautious conduct observed by Leslie till it had been so fatally overruled by the clergy. After observing them for a time, Cromwell withdrew to Glasgow, and the Scots took up a position at Kilsyth: he retrograded to Falkirk, and his opponents returned to their camp at Torwood. Both parties had now resumed the respective positions which they had originally occupied; but the aspect of affairs had materially changed. Whilst the attention of the Scots was engaged by the enemy in their front, a body of men had Crossed the Frith in boats, and, having fortified a hill near Inverkeithing, were immediately followed by Lambert at the head of a powerful division. Holburn was dispatched from the camp at Torwood, with orders to drive the enemy into the sea; but being suddenly charged by Lambert at the head of a superior force, he was routed and put to flight. Cromwell then transported his army to the left bank of the river, and advanced on the rear of the Scots, who, in consequence, retired from the position which had thus been completely turned. The progress of the English excited the most fearful anticipations in the minds of the Scottish leaders; to Charles it suggested the execution of a project which he had long meditated, namely, to march into England, accompanied by such of his subjects of Scotland as were willing to share in the toils and perils of the enterprise. This scheme was opposed by Argyll and a few other chieftains, who regarded it as utterly desperate; but the king was inflexible; and the rest having expressed their readiness to stake their lives on the issue of the attempt, twelve thousand men began their march from Stirling, in the direction of Carlisle, and gained three days in advance before the movement was discovered.

Cromwell was surprised and embarrassed: he had not calculated on such a daring adventure, and his army was unprepared to follow at a moment’s notice. But exerting all the energies of his powerful mind, he quickly assembled a large force, more formidable even for its quality than its numerical strength, and set out in quest of the fugitive invaders, who had met with none of the support upon which they had so confidently reckoned, either from the English royalists or Presbyterians. At last the Scot-tish[7:5:336] army, which had thrown itself into Worcester, was attacked by Cromwell at the head of thirty thousand men, and, after a desperate contest, completely defeated. The battle was fought on the 3d of September 1651, the day on which, twelve months before, the English general had defeated the Scots at Dunbar. In the morning, Fleetwood, who had advanced from Upton to Powick, received orders to force the passage of the Team; whilst Cromwell, in order to preserve his communications, threw a bridge of boats across the Severn at Bunshill, near the confluence of the two rivers. The operations necessarily occupied a considerable time, and at one o’clock in the afternoon the attack was not fully developed. About this time, while Charles with his staff was reconnoitring the positions of the enemy from the tower of the cathedral, a fire of musketry was heard in the direction of Powick. He descended immediately, and riding to the scene of action, ordered Montgomery with a brigade of horse and foot to defend the line of the Team, and oppose the construction of the bridge. But it was now too late. After a hard struggle Fleetwood effected a passage, at the moment when Cromwell, having completed the bridge, moved four regiments to his assistance. The Scots, though attacked by superior numbers, made a gallant resistance, disputing every field and hedge, repeatedly charging with the pike, and struggling to protract the contest in the hope of preventing Fleetwood from effecting a junction with Cromwell. Meanwhile the latter having secured the communication across the river, directed a battery to open upon Fort Royal, a work lately raised to cover the Sid-bury gate of the town, and, under cover of its fire, moved his troops in two divisions to Perrywood and Redhill. With great promptitude Charles immediately marched the whole of his disposable infantry, the Duke of Hamilton’s troops of horse, and some volunteers, to attack one of these divisions, while the other was still separated from it by the Severn; and fortune smiled on his first efforts. The English militia recoiled from the shock, and some guns were taken by the royalists. But Cromwell had placed in reserve some veteran battalions, who soon restored the battle, and forced the royalists to retreat in their turn. Still they remained unbroken; availing themselves of every advantage of ground to check the advance of the enemy, and anxiously expecting the arrival of the cavalry under Leslie, which had remained in the city. Leslie, however, did not appear till it was too late. The infantry, overpowered by superior numbers, were now flying in confusion to the gate protected by the fort. The battle was irretrievably lost. Disorder everywhere prevailed. The enemy assaulted the town on all sides, and, after an unavailing struggle in the streets, completed the victory by the capture of the place, and the annihilation of the whole royalist, force.

The king, who had greatly signalised his personal courage during the battle, now entered upon a scene of adventures the most romantic that can be imagined. After cutting off his hair, the better to disguise his person, he worked for some days in the habit of a peasant, making faggots in a wood. He next attempted to retire into Wales, under the conduct of one Pendrel, a poor farmer, who was sincerely attached to his cause; but in this attempt he failed, as every pass was guarded to prevent his escape. Being obliged to return, he met one Careless, who had escaped the carnage at Worcester; and in his company the king was obliged to climb a spreading oak, among the branches of which they lay concealed during the day, while the soldiers of the enemy were heard in pursuit of them below. After this he experienced all the varieties of famine, fatigue, and pain, till he arrived at the house of Colonel Lane, a zealous royalist, in Staffordshire. Here he deliberated about the means of escaping into France; and Bristol being supposed the most suitable port, it was resolved that he should ride thither before this gentleman’s sister, on a visit to a person who lived in the neighbourhood of that city. During this journey the king every day met with persons whose faces he knew, and at one time passed through a whole regiment of the enemy’s army. But on finding that, for a month to come, no ship would sail from Bristol either for France or Spain, he was obliged to go elsewhere for a passage. He therefore repaired to the house of Colonel Wyndham in Dorsetshire, where he was cordially received; and thence pursuing his journey to the sea-side, he once more had a narrow escape at an inn, where he tarried for the night. The day had been appointed for a solemn fast; and a weaver, who had been a soldier in the parliamentary army, was preaching against the king in a little chapel fronting the house. To avoid suspicion, Charles was himself among the audience. But it happened that a smith, of the same principles with the weaver, had been examining the horses belonging to the passengers, and came to assure the preacher that he knew by the fashion of the shoes that one of the strangers’ horses came from the north. The preacher immediately affirmed that this horse could belong to no other than Charles Stuart, and instantly went with a constable to search the inn. But the king had taken timely precautions, and left the inn before the constable’s arrival. At Shoreham, in Sussex, a vessel was at last found, in which he embarked. He was known to so many, that if he had not set sail at that critical moment, it would have been impossible for him to escape. After forty-one days’ concealment he arrived safely at Feschamp in Normandy. No fewer than forty persons of both sexes had at different times been privy to his escape, although a reward of a thousand pounds was offered for his person.

In the mean time Cromwell returned in triumph, leaving Ludlow to improve the victory; and his first care was to depress the Scots, on account of their having “withstood the work of the gospel,” as he called it. An act was passed for abolishing royalty in Scotland, and annexing that kingdom as a province to the English commonwealth. It was, however, permitted to send some members to the English parliament; judges were appointed to distribute justice; and the people of that country, now freed from the tyranny of the ecclesiastics, were not much dissatisfied with the government.

All parts of the British dominions being now reduced to perfect subjection to the parliament, they next resolved to chastise the Dutch, who had given some cause for complaint. It happened that Dorislaus, one of the late king’s judges, being sent by the parliament as their envoy to Holland, was assassinated by one of the royal party who had taken refuge there; and some time after, Mr St John, appointed their ambassador to that court, was insulted by the friends of the Prince of Orange. These were judged sufficient grounds for a declaration of war against Holland by the commonwealth of England. The parliament’s chief dependence lay in the activity and courage of Blake their admiral, who, although he had not entered the navy till late in life, yet surpassed all who went before him in courage and skill. On the other side, the Dutch opposed to him Van Tromp, justly celebrated for his bold and enterprising genius. Many engagements took place between these renowned commanders with various success; but these fierce encounters served rather to show the excellency of the admirals than to determine their superiority. At last the Dutch, who experienced many disadvantages by the loss of their trade, and by the total suspension of their fisheries, were willing to treat of a peace. The parliament, however, gave an evasive answer, and studied to [7:5:337]keep their navy on foot as long as they could; rightly judging, that while the force of the nation was exerted by sea, it would diminish the formidable power of Cromwell by land.

But this remarkable man quickly perceived their designs, and, secure in the attachment of the army, resolved to seize the sovereign power. He persuaded the officers to present a petition for payment of arrears and redress of grievances. His orders were obeyed. A petition was drawn up and presented, in which the officers, after demanding their arrears, desired the parliament to consider how many years they had sat, and what professions they had formerly made of their intention to new-model the house, and establish freedom upon the broadest basis. They alleged, that it was now full time to give place to others; that, however meritorious their actions might have been, yet the rest of the nation had some right, in their turn, to manifest their patriotism in defence of their country. The house was highly offended, and appointed a committee to prepare an act, declaring that all persons who presented such petitions for the future should be deemed guilty of high treason. Against this the officers warmly remonstrated, and the parliament as angrily replied. Cromwell, informed of the altercation, started up in the utmost seeming fury, and turning to Major Vernon, cried out “that he was compelled to do a thing that made the very hair of his head stand on end.” Then hastening to the house at the head of three hundred soldiers, and with marks of violent indignation on his countenance, he entered, took his place, and attended to the debates for some time. But when the question was about to be put, he suddenly started up, and, after some general remarks, began to load the parliament with the bitterest reproaches for their tyranny, ambition, oppression, and robbery of the public. Having finished his harangue, he stamped with his foot on the ground, which was the preconcerted signal for the soldiers to enter; and the place was immediately filled with armed men. He then turned, and again addressing himself to the members, said, “For shame, get you gone; give place to honester men, those who will more faithfully discharge their trust. You are no longer a parliament; I tell you, you are no longer a parliament; the Lord has done with you.” Sir Harry Vane exclaiming against this conduct, “Sir Harry,” cried Cromwell with a loud voice, “0 Sir Harry Vane; the Lord deliver me from Sir Harry Vane.” Then taking hold of one of the members by his cloak, he exclaimed, “Thou art a whoremaster;” to another he said, “Thou art an adulterer to a third, “Thou art a drunkard to a fourth, “Thou art a glutton and afterwards selecting different members in succession, he described them as dishonest and corrupt livers, a shame and scandal to the profession of the gospel. Suddenly checking himself, however, he turned to the guard and ordered them to clear the house. At these words Colonel Harrison took the Speaker by the hands and led him from the chair; Algernon Sidney was next compelled to quit his seat; and the other members, eighty innumber, on the approach of the military, rose and moved towards the door. Cromwell now resumed his discourse. “It is you,” he exclaimed, “that have forced me to do this. I have sought the Lord both day and night, that he would rather slay me than put me on the doing of this work.” Then pointing to the mace, “Take away that fool’s bauble,” cried he; after which he cleared the hall, ordered the doors to be locked, and putting the keys in his pocket, returned to Whitehall. In the afternoon the members of the council of state assembled at their usual place of meeting. As Bradshaw took the chair, however, the lord-general entered and told them, that if they were there as private individuals they were welcome, but if as the council of state, they must know that the parliament was dissolved, and with it also the council. “Sir,” replied Bradshaw, with the spirit of an ancient Roman, “we have heard what you did at the house this morning, and before many hours all England shall know it. But, sir, you are mistaken in thinking that the parliament is dissolved. No power under heaven can dissolve them but themselves. Therefore take you notice of that.” After this protest they withdrew. But the decisive blow had been struck. By the parricidal hands of its own children perished the long parliament, which, under a variety of forms, had for more than twelve years defended and invaded the liberties of the nation. It fell without a struggle, unpitied and unregretted. The members slunk away to their homes, where, by submission, they sought to purchase the forbearance of their new master; while their partisans, if such they had, reserved themselves in silence for the day of retribution, which, however, came not until after Cromwell slept in his grave.

The whole civil and military power of the state now centred in Cromwell, who, by this bold transaction, became, in effect, king of Great Britain, with uncontrollable authority. Desirous, however, to amuse the people with the form of a commonwealth·, he proposed to give his subjects a parliament, but such a one as should be altogether obedient to his commands. For this purpose it was decreed that the sovereign power should be vested in a hundred and forty-four persons, under the denomination of a parliament; and the lord-general undertook to select them himself. The persons pitched upon were the lowest, meanest, and most ignorant of the citizens, and the very dregs of the fanatics. To go farther than others in the absurdities of fanaticism was the chief qualification upon which each of these valued himself. Their very names, borrowed from scripture, and rendered ridiculous by their misapplication, served to show their excess of folly. One of them particularly, a canting leather-seller, called Praise-God-Barebone, gave his name to this odd assembly, which was called Barebone’s Parliament. They were principally composed of Antinomians, a sect which, after receiving the spirit, supposed themselves incapable of error, and fifth-monarchy men, who every hour expected Christ’s second coming on earth. They began by choosing eight of their number to seek the. Lord in prayer, while the rest calmly sat down to deliberate upon the suppression of the clergy, the universities, and courts of justice; and besides all this, it was their intention to substitute the law of Moses in the room of the law of the land.

It was impossible such a legislature as this could stand; even the vulgar exclaimed against it, and Cromwell himself began to be ashamed of its absurdities. He had carefully chosen many persons among the members who were entirely devoted to his interests, and these he commanded to dismiss the assembly. They accordingly met by concert earlier than the rest of their fraternity; and observing to each other that this parliament had sat long enough, they hastened to Cromwell, with Rouse, their Speaker, at their head, and into his hands resigned the authority with which he had invested them. Cromwell accepted their resignation with pleasure; but being told that some of their number showed themselves refractory, he sent Colonel White to clear the house of such as ventured to remain there. They had placed one Moyer in the chair by the time the colonel arrived; and he being asked by the colonel what they did there, replied very gravely, That they were seeking the Lord. “Then you may go elsewhere,” rejoined Colonel White, “for, to my certain knowledge, the Lord hath not been here these many years.”

This shadow of a parliament being thus dissolved, the [7:5:338]officers, by their own authority, declared Cromwell protector of the Commonwealth of England. The mayor and aldermen were sent for to give solemnity to his appointment, and he was installed into his new office at Whitehall, in the palace of the kings of England. He was to be addressed by the title of Highness; and his power was proclaimed in London, and in other parts of the kingdom. It was now, indeed, in a great measure necessary that some person should take the supreme command; for affairs had been brought into such a situation, by the furious animosities of the contending parties, that nothing short of absolute power could prevent a renewal of bloodshed and confusion. The government of the kingdom was adjusted in the following manner. A council was appointed, which was not to exceed twenty-one, nor fall below thirteen persons, who were to enjoy their offices for life, or during good behaviour; and, in case of a vacancy, the remaining members were to name three, of whom the protector was to choose one. The protector was appointed the supreme magistrate of the Commonwealth, with powers such as the king was formerly possessed of. The power of the sword was vested in him jointly with the parliament when sitting, or with the council at other times. He was obliged to summon a parliament once every three years, and to allow them to sit five months without adjournment. The standing army was fixed at twenty thousand foot and ten thousand horse, and funds were assigned for their support. The protector was to enjoy his office for life, and on his death his place was to be supplied by the council. Of all these clauses, that in regard to the standing army was alone sufficient for Cromwell’s purpose; for, while possessed of that instrument, he could at any time mould the rest of the constitution to his pleasure. He chose his council from among his officers, who had been the companions of his dangers and victories, and to each of them he assigned a pension of a thousand pounds a year. He took care to have his troops, upon whose fidelity he depended for support, paid a month in advance. The magazines were also well provided, and the public treasure was managed with frugality and attention; whilst by his activity, vigilance, and resolution, he discovered every conspiracy against bis person, and every plot for an insurrection, before they took effect.

Thus Cromwell continued to govern, though without assuming the title of king, in as absolute a manner as the most despotic prince in Europe. As he was feared at home, so he made himself respected abroad. The Dutch, humbled by repeated defeats, were obliged to sue for peace; to consent to pay deference to the British flag; to abandon the interests of the king; to pay L.85,000 as an indemnification for former expenses; and to restore to the English East India Company a part of those dominions which they had been dispossessed of by the Dutch during the former reign. The ministry of France thought proper to pay court to the protector; and as he had furnished that court with a body of six thousand men to attack the Spanish dominions in the Netherlands, the French put Dunkirk into his hands as a reward for his attachment. By means of the fleet under Blake he humbled Spain and chastised the Algerines and Tunisians. Penn and Venables, two other admirals, made an attempt on the island of Hispaniola; but failing in this, they steered to Jamaica, which was surrendered to them without a blow. Yet so little was thought of this conquest at the time, that, on their return, the two admirals were committed to the Tower, by reason of the failure of the principal object of their expedition.

It is not to be supposed that a numerous standing army could be maintained, and so many foreign wars carried on, without incurring extraordinary expenses. In fact, the protector’s revenues were so much exhausted, that he was obliged to have recourse to methods which he probably would not have chosen had he not been driven to them by necessity. One or two royalist conspiracies, though detected and punished, served him as a pretext for imposing a tax upon that party, of the tenth penny on all their possessions; and in order to raise this oppressive impost, ten major-generals were instituted, who divided the whole kingdom into as many military jurisdictions. They had power to subject whom they pleased to this tax, and to imprison such as denied their jurisdiction. Under colour of these powers they exercised the most arbitrary authority; the people had no protection against their exactions; the very mask of liberty was entirely thrown off; and all property was placed at the disposal of a military tribunal. It was in vain that the nation cried out for a free parliament. Cromwell assembled one in consequence of their clamours, but as speedily dissolved it when he found it refractory to his commands. At last, as parliaments were always held in such estimation by the people, he resolved to give them one, but such as should be entirely of his own choosing, and chiefly composed of his creatures. Lest any of a different description should enter the house, guards were placed at the doors, and none admitted but such as produced a warrant from his council.

The principal design of convening this assembly was to offer him the crown, with the title of king, and all the other ensigns of royalty. His creatures, therefore, took care to insinuate the confusion which existed in legal proceedings without the name of a king; that no man was acquainted with the extent or limits of the authority of the present magistrates; but that those of a king had been well ascertained by the experience of ages. The motion was at last formally made in the house, easily carried through, and nothing seemed now wanting but Cromwell’s own consent to have his name enrolled among those of the kings of England. This consent, how ever, he had not resolution enough to give. His doubts continued for some days; and the conference carried on with the members who had made him the offer, as far as it is intelligible on his part, seems to argue that he was desirous of being compelled to accept the offer. The conference, however, terminated in his total refusal.

But with all these proffered honours, and with all his despotic power, the situation of Cromwell was far from being enviable. Perhaps no situation, however mean or contemptible, was more truly distressing than his, even at the time when the nation was loading him with congratulations and addresses. He had at last rendered himself hateful to every party, and he owed his safety solely to their mutual hatred and distrust. His arts of dissimulation were exhausted; none could be any longer deceived by them; and even those of his own party and principles disdained the use to which he had converted his Zealand professions. Though the whole nation silently detested his administration, he would not have been completely wretched if he could have found domestic consolation. But even his own family had embraced republican principles with so much vehemence, that they could not without indignation behold him invested with uncontrolled power; and even Mrs Claypole, his favourite daughter, upbraided him, on her death-bed, with all the crimes by which he had waded “through slaughter to a throne.” To aggravate all this, conspiracies were formed against him; and it was at last openly taught, that'his death was not only desirable, but that his assassination would be meritorious. A book was published by one Colonel Titus, a man who had formerly been attached to his cause, entitled “Killing no Murder.” Of all the pamphlets which appeared at that time, or which have since been published, [7:5:339] this was one of the most masterly. Cromwell read it, and is said never to have smiled afterwards.

The protector now found, that the grandeur to which he had sacrificed his former tranquillity was only an inlet to fresh inquietudes. He was haunted with perpetual apprehensions of assassination. He wore armour under his clothes, and always kept pistols in his pockets. His aspect was clouded by a settled gloom, and he regarded every stranger with suspicion. He was always attended by a numerous guard, and generally travelled in a hurry. He never returned from any place by the road he went; and never slept above three nights together in the same chamber. At last, however, he was delivered from this life of horror and anxiety by a tertian ague, of which he died on the 3d of September 1658, after having held the reins of government nine years.^[9. The night on which Cromwell died was stormy. “The violence of the wind increased till it blew a hurricane. Trees were torn from their roots in the park, and houses unroofed in the city. So strange a coincidence could not fail of exciting remarks in a superstitious age; and though the storm reached to the coasts of the Mediterranean, in England it was universally referred to the death of the protector. His friends asserted that God would not remove so great a man from the world without previously warning the nation of its approaching loss; the cavaliers more maliciously maintained that the devils, ‘ the princes of the air, were congregating over Whitehall, that they might pounce on the protector’s soul.’” (Lingard, History of England, vol. vii. p. 273. London, 1829, 4to.) ]

“Till the commencement of the present century,” says Dr Lingard, “when that wonderful man arose who, by the splendour of his victories and the extent of his empire, cast all preceding adventurers into the shade, the name of Cromwell stood without a parallel in the history of civilized Europe. Men looked with a feeling of awe on the fortunate individual who, without the aid of birth, wealth, or connections, was able to seize the government of three powerful kingdoms, and to impose the yoke of servitude on the necks of the very men who had fought in his company to emancipate themselves from the less arbitrary sway of their hereditary sovereigns. That he who accomplished this was no ordinary person, all must admit; and yet, on close investigation, we shall discover little that was sublime or dazzling in his character. Cromwell was not the meteor which surprises and astounds by the brilliancy and rapidity of its course. Cool, cautious, calculating, he stole on with slow and measured pace, and, while with secret pleasure he toiled up the ascent to greatness, laboured to persuade the spectators that he was reluctantly borne forward by an exterior and resistless force, by the march of events, the necessities of the state, the will of the army, and even the decree of the Almighty. He looked upon dissimulation as the perfection of human wisdom, and made it the key-stone of the arch on which he built his fortunes. The aspirations of his ambition were concealed under the pretence of attachment to the ‘ good old cause ;’ and his secret workings to acquire the sovereignty for himself and his family were represented as endeavours to secure for his former brethren in arms the blessings of civil and religious freedom, the two great objects which originally called them into the field. Thus his whole conduct was made up of artifice and deceit. He laid his plans long beforehand; he studied the views and dispositions of all from whose influence he had anything to hope or to fear; and he employed every expedient to win their affections, and to make them the blind unconscious tools of his policy. For this purpose he asked questions, or threw out insinuations in their hearing; now kept them aloof with an air of reserve and dignity; now put them off their guard by condescension, perhaps by buffoonery; at one time addressed himself to their vanity or avarice, at another exposed to them with tears (for tears he had at wilD the calamities of the nation; and then, when he found them moulded to his purpose, instead of assenting to the advice which he had himself suggested, feigned reluctance, urged objections, and pleaded scruples of conscience. At length he yielded; but it was not till he had acquired by his resistance the praise of moderation, and the right of attributing his acquiescence to their importunity rather than to his own ambition.

“Exposed as he was to the continual machinations of the royalists and levellers, both equally eager to precipitate him from the height to which he had attained, Cromwell made it his great object to secure to himself the attachment of the army. To it he owed the acquisition, through it alone could he insure the permanence, of his power. Now, fortunately for his purpose, that army, composed as never was army before or since, revered in the lord-protector what it valued mostly in itself, the cant and practice of religious enthusiasm.” “In minds thus disposed, it was not difficult to create a persuasion that the final triumph of t’ their cause’ depended on the authority of the general under whom they had conquered; while the full enjoyment of that religious freedom which they so highly prized rendered them less jealous of the arbitrary power which he occasionally assumed. In his public speeches he perpetually reminded them, that if religion was not the original cause of the late civil war, ‘ yet God soon brought it to that issue that amidst the strife of battle, and the difficulties and dangers of war, the reward to which they looked was freedom of conscience; that this freedom to its full extent they enjoyed under his government, though they could never obtain it till they placed the supreme power in his hands. The merit which he thus arrogated to himself was admitted to be his due by the great body of the saints: it became the spell by which he rendered them blind to his ambition and obedient to his will; the engine by which he raised, and afterwards secured, the fabric of his power.

“On the subject of civil freedom the protector could not assume so bold a tone. He acknowledged, indeed, its importance; it was second only to religious freedom: but if second, then, in the event of competition, it ought to yield to the first. He contended that under his government every provision had been made for the preservation of the rights of individuals, as far as was consistent with the safety of the whole nation. He had reformed the chancery, he had laboured to abolish the abuses of the law, he had placed learned and upright judges on the bench, and he had been careful in all ordinary cases that impartial justice should be administered between the parties. This was indeed true; but it was also true that by his orders men were arrested and committed without lawful cause; that juries were packed; that prisoners, acquitted at their trial, were sent into confinement beyond the jurisdiction of the courts; that taxes had been raised without the authority of parliament; that a most unconstitutional tribunal, the high court of justice, had been established; and that the major-generals had been invested with powers the most arbitrary and oppressive.

“Some writers have maintained that Cromwell dissembled in religion as well as in politics; and that when he condescended to act the part of the saint, he assumed for interested purposes a character which he otherwise despised. But this supposition is contradicted by the uniform tenor of his life. Long before he turned his attention to the disputes between the king and the parliament, religious enthusiasm had made a deep impression on his mind; it continually manifested itself during his long career both [7:5:340]in the senate and the field; and it was strikingly displayed in his speeches and prayers on the last evening of his life. It should, however, be observed, that he made religion harmonize with ambition.”^[10. History of England, vol. vii. p. 2/4-279. London, 1829, 4to. ]

Oliver Cromwell was succeeded in his office of protector by his son Richard, who immediately called a parliament. To this assembly the army presented a remonstrance, desiring to have some person appointed for their general in whom they could confide. But the house voted such meetings and remonstrances unlawful; upon which the officers, surrounding Richard’s house, forced him to dissolve the parliament; and he soon afterwards signed an abdication of the government. His younger brother Henry, who had been appointed to the command in Ireland, followed Richard’s example, and resigned his commission without striking a blow.

The officers, thus left at liberty, resolved to restore the Rump Parliament, as it was called, consisting of that remnant of a parliament which had condemned Charles. But no sooner were they reinstated in authority, than they began to humble the army by cashiering some of the officers, and appointing in their room others on whom they could place more reliance. The officers, accordingly, resolved to dissolve the assembly. For this purpose Lambert, one of the general officers, drew together a chosen body of troops, and, placing them in the streets which led to Westminster Hall, when the Speaker, Lenthal, proceeded in his carriage to the house, he ordered the horses to be turned, and very civilly conducted him home. The other members were likewise intercepted; and the army returned to their quarters to observe a solemn fast, which generally either preceded or attended all their remarkable proceedings. A committee was then elected, of twenty-three persons, of whom seven were officers. These they invested with sovereign authority; and a military government was established, which gave the nation a prospect of endless servitude and tyranny without redress.

Upon learning that the officers had by their own authority dissolved the parliament, General Monk, who was then in Scotland with eight thousand veteran troops, protested against the measure, and resolved to defend the national privileges. As soon as he had put his army in motion, he found himself eagerly courted by all parties; but so cautious .was he of declaring his mind, that, till the very last, no one knew which side he would take. As a remarkable instance of this politic or hesitating behaviour, when his own brother came to him with a message from Lord Granville in the name of the king, he refused all conversation with him upon hearing that he had told his errand to Mr Price, the general’s own chaplain, and a man of known probity and honour.

Informed that the officers were preparing an army to oppose him, Monk amused them with negociations; and the people, finding themselves not entirely defenceless, began to declare for a free parliament. The Rump, being invited by the navy and part of the army, again ventured to resume their seats, and to thunder votes in their turn against the officers and that party of the army by which they had been ejected. Without taking any notice of Lambert, they sent orders to the troops to repair immediately to the garrisons appointed for them. The soldiers obeyed; and Lambert at last found himself deserted by his whole army. Monk in the mean time proceeded with his army to London. The gentry, on his march, flocked round him with addresses, expressing their desire of a new parliament; but that general, still continuing his inflexible taciturnity, at last reached to St Alban’s, within a few miles of the capital, leaving all the world in doubt as to his motives and designs. Here he sent the parliament a message, desiring them to remove such forces as remained in London to country quarters. Some of the regiments willingly obeyed this order; and such as did not, AIonk turned out by force; after which he took up his quarters in Westminster. The house voted him thanks for his services. He desired them to call a free parliament; and this soon inspired the citizens with courage to refuse submission to the present government. They resolved to pay no taxes until the members formerly excluded by Colonel Pride should be replaced. But for this they were punished by Monk, at the desire of the parliament. He arrested eleven of the most obnoxious of the common council; broke the gatesand portcullises, and, having exposed London to the scorn and contempt of all who hated it, he returned in triumph to his quarters at Westminster. The next day, however, he made an apology for this conduct, and promised for the future to co-operate with the mayor and common-council in such schemes as they should approve.

The Commons were now greatly alarmed. They tried every method to detach the general from his new alliance; some of them even promised to invest him with the dignity of supreme magistrate, and to support his usurpation. But Monk was too cunning or too wise to hearken to such proposals; he resolved to restore the secluded members, and by their means to bring about a new election. The restoration of the expelled members was easily effected; and their number was so much superior to that of the Rump, that the chiefs of this last party now withdrew in their turn. The restored members began with repealing all the orders by which they had been expelled. They renewed and enlarged the general’s commission; fixed a proper stipend for the support of the fleet and army; and, having passed these votes, dissolved themselves, giving orders for the immediate assembling of a new parliament. Meanwhile Monk new-modelled his army to the purposes he had in view; and some officers, by his direction, presented him with an address, in which they promised to obey implicitly the orders of the ensuing parliament. He approved of this engagement, which he ordered to be signed by all the different regiments; and this furnished him with a pretence for dismissing all the officers by whom it was rejected.

In the midst of these transactions, Lambert, who had been confined in the Tower, escaped from prison, and began to raise forces; and as his activity and principles were sufficiently known, Monk took prompt measures to oppose his proceedings. He dispatched Colonel Ingoldsby, with his own regiment, against Lambert, before the latter had time to assemble his dependents. With four troops of horse Lambert had taken possession of Daventry; but the greater part of them having joined Ingoldsby, Lambert also surrendered, not without exhibiting strong marks of pusillanimity.

All this time Monk still persisted in his reserve; nor had he intrusted his secret intentions to any person except one Morris, a gentleman of Devonshire. The latter was of a sedentary and studious disposition; and with him alone had the general deliberated on the great and dangerous enterprise of the restoration. Sir John Granville, who had a commission from the king, applied for access to the general; but he was desired to communicate his business to Morris. Granville refused, though twice urged, to deliver his message to any but the general himself; upon which Monk, finding he could depend on this minister[7:5:341]’s secrecy, opened to him his whole intentions, but, with his usual caution, refused to commit any thing to paper. In consequence of these overtures the king left the Spanish territories, but very narrowly escaped being detained at Breda by the governor, under pretence of treating him with proper respect and formality. From this he retired to Holland, where he resolved to wait the course of events.

The new parliament being assembled, Sir Harbottle Grimstone was chosen Speaker, a man known to be a royalist in his heart. The eyes of all were now turned towards the king; yet such were their fears, and such the dangers which attended freedom of speech, that for some days no one ventured to make any mention of his name. At length Monk gave directions to Annesley, president of the council, to inform them that one Sir John Granville, a servant of the king’s, had been sent over by his majesty, and was now at the door with a letter to the House of Commons. After some manoeuvring, this message was received, Granville was called in, the letter read, and the king’s proposals accepted of. He offered a general amnesty to all persons whatsoever, and that without any other exceptions than should be made by parliament. He promised to indulge scrupulous consciences with liberty in matters of religion; to leave to the examination of parliament the claims of all such as possessed lands with contested titles; to confirm all these concessions by act of parliament; to satisfy the army under General Monk with respect to their arrears; and to give the same rank to his officers when they were enlisted in the king’s army.

In consequence of this agreement between the king and the parliament, Montague, the English admiral, waited on Charles, to inform him that the fleet expected his orders at Scheveling. The Duke of York immediately went on board, and took the command as lord high admiral. The king embarked without delay, and landing at Dover, was received by Monk, whom he honoured with particular marks of attention. He entered London on the 29th of May 1660, which was his birth-day; and was attended by a great number of people, who testified their joy, as the multitude commonly do on such occasions, by loud acclamations.

“That the re-establishment of royalty was a blessing to the country,” says Dr Lingard, “will hardly be denied. It presented the best, perhaps the only, means of restoring public tranquillity, amidst the confusion and distrust, the animosities and hatreds, the parties and interests, which had been generated by the civil war, and by a rapid succession of opposite and ephemeral governments. To Monk belongs the merit of having, by his foresight and caution, effected this desirable object without bloodshed or violence: but to his dispraise it must also be recorded, that he effectedit without any previous stipulation on the part of the exiled monarch. Never had so fair an opportunity been offered of establishing a compact between the sovereign and the people, of determining by mutual consent the legal rights of the crown, and securing from future encroachment the freedom of the people. That Charles would have consented to such conditions, we have sufficient evidence; but when the measure was proposed, the lord-general declared himself its most determined opponent. It may have been that his cautious mind figured to itself danger in delay; it is more probable that he sought to give additional value to his services in the eyes of the new sovereign. But, whatever were the motives of his conduct, the result was, that the king ascended the throne unfettered with conditions, and thence inferred that he was entitled to all the powers claimed by his father at the commencement of the civil war. In a few years the consequence became manifest. It was found that by the negligence or perfidy of Monk a door had been left open to the recurrence of dissension between the crown and the people; and that very circumstance which Charles had hailed as the consummation of his good fortune, served only to prepare the way for a second revolution, which ended in the permanent exclusion of his family from the government of these kingdoms.”^[11. History of England, vol. vii. pp. 342, 343. ]

CHAP. VI.

REIGN OF CHARLES II.

Charles II—His first measures popular—The regicides punished—Indignities offered to the remains of Cromwell, Ireton, and Bradshaw—Leath of the Duke of Gloucester—Parliament dissolved.—State of the nation.—Profligacy and ingratitude of the King Slavish disposition of Parliament.—King’s extravagance. —Marriage with the Infanta of Portugal.—War with the Dutch. —Naval engagements z∖ction off Lowestofĩě—Battle of the

Four Days—Négociations.—The Dutch fleet appears in the Medway and the Thames—Plague in London.—Great Fire.— . Peace with Holland—Clarendon disgraced—The triple alliance.

—Arbitrary proceedings of the King.—The Cabal.—Renewal of the war with Holland.—Desperate naval battle in Southwold Bay.—Successes of the French king against the Dutch.—Meeting of Parliament—Test Act.—Bold procedure of the Commons.—National Discontents.—Popish Plot—Impeachment of Danby.—Exclusion Bill brought in—Duke of York returns to England—Petitioners and Abhorrers—Whig and Tory—Attempt to establish Episcopacy in Scotland—Persecution of the Presbyterians—Rising at Pentland Insurgents defeated

Cruelties exercised by Archbishop Sharpe—Act against Conventicles—Scheme, of Comprehension and Indulgence The

King takes out lawburrows against his subjects—Letters of Intercommuning—Trial and execution of James Mitchell In famous conduct of the Privy Council—Murder of Archbishop Sharpe—Second Insurrection Insurgents defeated at Both well Bridge.—Parliamentary proceedings.—Parliament dissolved, and a new one summoned to meet at Oxford Case of

Fitzharris—Parliament dissolved—Arbitrary proceedings of the King.—Fitzharris condemned and executed Spies, in formers, suborners, and plotters—Bill of indictment against Shaftesbury ignored by the Grand Jury Affairs in Scotland.

—Cameron and Cargill declare war on the government.—Skirmish at Airmoss—Cargill excommunicates the King and the Ministers at Torwood—Subsequent atrocities—Insidious and diabolical proceeding of the Council.—Trial of the Earl of Argyll. —London deprived of its Charters Compositions entered into by other Corporations—Designs against the King—The Ryehouse Plot—Consequent proceedings Death of Charles II.—

His character.

Charles II. was thirty years of age at the time of his restoration. Being naturally of an engaging countenance, and possessed of an open, affable disposition, he became a favourite with all classes of his subjects. They had now experienced all the miseries of anarchy, and in proportion to these was the satisfaction they felt on the accession of the young monarch. His first measures were also calculated to give general satisfaction. He seemed desirous of obliterating the memory of past animosities, and of uniting every party in affection for their prince and country. He admitted into his council the most eminent men of the nation, without regard to former distinctions. The Presbyterians shared this honour equally with the royalists. Calamy and Baxter, presbyterian clergymen, were even made chaplains to the king. Admiral Montague was created Earl of Sandwich, and General Monk Duke of Albemarle. Morris, the general’s friend, was appointed secretary of state. The choice which the king at first made of his principal ministers and favourites, was, in like manner[7:5:342], popular. Sir Edward Hyde, created Earl of Clarendon, was made prime minister and chancellor; the Marquis, created Duke of Ormond, was named steward of the household; the Earl of Southampton became high-treasurer; and Sir Edward Nicholas secretary of state. These men, united in the strictest bonds of friendship, supported each other’s credit, and for a time steadily pursued the interests of the public.

The parliament having been summoned without the king’s consent, received at first only the title of a Convention; and it was not until after an act had passed for that purpose that they were acknowledged by the name of a Parliament. Both houses acknowledged the guilt of the former rebellion, and gratefully received in their own name, and in that of all the subjects, his majesty’s gracious pardon and indemnity. The king having before promised an indemnity to all criminals, excepting such as should be excluded by parliament, he now issued a proclamation, declaring, that such of the late king’s judges as did not surrender themselves within fourteen days should receive no pardon. Nineteen surrendered themselves; some were taken in their flight; and others escaped beyond sea. The Peers seemed inclined to great severity on this occasion, but were restrained by the king, who, in terms apparently the most earnest, pressed the act of general indemnity.

After repeated solicitations, the act of indemnity passed both houses, with the exception of those who had an immediate hand in the king’s death. Even Cromwell, Ireton, and Bradshaw, though dead, were considered as proper objects of resentment. Their bodies were dug from their graves, dragged to the place of execution, and, after hanging some time, buried under the gallows. Of the rest who had sat in judgment on the late monarch’s trial, some were dead, and others thought worthy of pardon. Ten only out of eighty were doomed to immediate destruction. These were enthusiasts who had all along acted from principle, and who, in the general spirit of rage excited against them, showed a fortitude which would have done honour to any cause.

This was all the blood that was shed at the restoration. The rest of the king’s judges were reprieved, and afterwards dispersed in several prisons. The army which had for so many years governed the nation was now disbanded, and prelacy, with all the ceremonies of the church of England, was at the same time restored; yet the king pretended to preserve the air of moderation and neutrality. In regard to religion, Charles, in his gayer hours, was a professed deist; but in the latter part of his life he showed an inclination to the Catholic persuasion, which he had strongly imbibed in his infancy and exile.

On the 13th of September this year died the young Duke of Gloucester, a prince of some promise. The king was never so deeply affected by any incident in his life. The Princess of Orange, also, having come to England, in order to share the joy attending the restoration of her family, with whom she lived in great friendship, soon afterwards sickened and died. The queen-mother paid a visit to her son, and obtained his consent to the marriage of the Princess Henrietta with the Duke of Orleans, brother to the French king. The parliament having met on the 6th of November, and carried on business with the greatest unanimity and dispatch, was dissolved by the king on the 29th of December 1660.

During the reign of Charles II. the spirit of the people seemed to take a turn quite opposite to that which it had exhibited in the time of his father. The latter found his subjects animated with a fierce though often ill-regulated zeal for liberty. They knew not what it was to be free, and therefore imagined that liberty consisted in throwing off entirely the royal authority. After a bloody and protracted struggle they carried their point; the unhappy monarch was dethroned and put to death; but instead of liberty they found themselves involved in the meshes of a more formidable tyranny than that which they had overthrown. From this, however, they were freed by the restoration; but they now ran into the contrary extreme; and instead of an unbounded spirit of opposition, there was nothing but an unbounded spirit of submission, through which Charles at length found means to render himself almost quite absolute, and to govern without requiring, or indeed without having any occasion for, parliaments. A similar revolution, or rather revulsion, took place in matters connected with religion. During the former reigns a spirit of the most gloomy enthusiasm had overspread the whole island, and men imagined that the Deity was only to be appeased by their denying themselves all social pleasure, and resisting every thing which tended to make life agreeable. The proceedings of Cromwell and his associates, to say nothing of the conduct of others, showed that this was not genuine religion; but, in avoiding one error, they ran into another equally dangerous. Every thing religious or serious was now discountenanced; riot and dissipation everywhere prevailed. The court set the example. Nothing but scenes of gallantry and festivity were to be seen; the horrors of the late war became the subject of ridicule; the formality of the sectaries was displayed on the stage, and even laughed at from the pulpit; in a word, the best mode in religion now was to have as little as possible, and, in deriding the hypocrisy of the sectaries, to transgress even the common duties of morality. In the midst of this riot and dissipation, the old and faithful followers of the royal family were left unrewarded. Numbers who had fought both for the king and his father, and had lost their whole fortunes in his service, were suffered to pine in want and oblivion; whilst their persecutors, who had acquired fortunes during the civil war, were permitted to enjoy them without molestation. The wretched royalists petitioned and murmured in vain. The monarch fled from their expostulations to scenes of mirth and festivity: and the act of indemnity was with some reason described as an act of forgiveness to the king’s enemies, and of oblivion to his friends.

In 1661 the Scottish and English parliaments vied with each other in protestations of loyalty and attachment to the king. In England, monarchy and episcopacy were raised to the greatest splendour. The bishops were permitted to resume their seats in the House of Peers, and all military authority was acknowledged to be vested in the king. He was empowered to appoint commissioners for regulating corporations,’ and expelling such members as had intruded themselves by violence, or professed principles dangerous to the constitution. An act of uniformity was passed, by which it was required that every clergyman should be re-ordained, if he had not before received episcopal ordination; that he should declare his consent to every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and should take the oath of canonical obedience. In consequence of this law, abo¢e two thousand of the presbyterian clergy resigned their cures at once. In Scotland the right of the king was asserted in the fullest and most positive terms to be hereditary, divine, and indefeasible. His power was extended to the lives and possessions of his subjects, and his original grant was held to be the source whence all that they enjoyed was derived. They voted him an additional revenue of L.40,000; and all the former violences were spoken of in terms of the utmost detestation.

But this intoxication of loyalty soon began to wear off. The king’s profusion and extravagance in his pleasures, together with his indolence in administration, furnished [7:5:343]opportunities of making very disadvantageous comparisons between him and Oliver Cromwell. And these dispositions were increased by the ejectment of so many ministers, and also by observing Dunkirk, which had been acquired during Cromwell’s vigorous administration, sold to the French for L.40,000, and that merely to supply the king’s extravagance. From this time, August 1662, Charles found himself perpetually opposed; and his parliaments granted supplies much more reluctantly than before.

A few months previously, the continual exigencies of the king had forced him to conclude a marriage with the Infanta of Portugal, for the sake of her portion, which was to be L.500,000 in money, together with the fortress of Tangier in Africa, and that of Bombay in the East Indies. The Lord Chancellor Clarendon, and the Dukes of Ormond and Southampton, urged many reasons against this match, particularly the likelihood of her never having any children; but all their objections were fruitless, and therefore Clarendon, like a true courtier, set himself to promote it as far as lay in his power. But the king’s necessities being still greater than his supplies could meet, he resolved to sacrifice his minister, Clarendon, to the resentment of the parliament, to whom he had become obnoxious, in order to procure more money. In 1663 an extraordinary supply was demanded. On the 12th of June the king sent for the Commons to Whitehall; and having complained of their inattention, he informed them of a conspiracy which had been formed to seize the castle of Dublin, hoping by this means to furnish a reason for demanding a present supply. The artifice succeeded. Four subsidies were immediately granted, and the clergy in convocation followed the example of the Commons. On this occasion the Earl of Bristol ventured to impeach the Chancellor in the House of Peers; but as he did not support his charge, the affair was dropped for the present.

In 1664 Charles was induced to declare war against the Dutch, with the view, probably, of getting the money to be employed for that purpose into his own hands. In this war the English, under the command of Sir Robert Holmes, expelled the Dutch from Cape Coast Castle in Africa, and likewise seized on their settlements of Cape Verd and the Isle of Goree. Sailing thence to America, the admiral took possession of Nova Belgia, since called New York, and long afterwards a dependency of Britain. On the other hand, De Ruyter, the Dutch admiral, dispossessed the English of all their settlements in Guinea except Cape Coast. He afterwards sailed to America, where he attacked Barbadoes and Long Island, but was at last repulsed.

At length a battle between the grand fleets of each nation was fought near Lowestoffe on the 3d of June 1665, the one under the Duke of York, to the number of a hundred and fourteen sail; the other commanded by Opdam, admiral of the Dutch navy, of nearly equal force. The English fleet was divided into three squadrons; the red, under the command of the duke; the white, under that of Prince Rupert; and the blue, under the Earl of Sandwich. James hoisted his flag on board the Royal Charles. The Dutch fleet sailed in seven divisions, comprising one hundred and thirteen ships. The bravest and noblest of the Dutch youths had repaired on board to share the dangers of the expedition; and as the admiral had received positive orders to fight, every heart beat high with the hope of victory. But Opdam did not share this confidence. In the inexperience of many of his captains, and the insufficiency of their crews, this able seaman discovered enough to make him doubt the result of the coming battle; and to those near him he observed, “I know what prudence would suggest; but I must obey my orders, and by this time to-morrow you shall see me crowned with laurel or with cypress.” Early in the morning of the 3d the hostile fleets descried each other near Lowestoffe, and seven hours were spent in attempts on each side to gain the weather-gage. At length the English, tacking in the same direction as the enemy, soon pushed alongside of them, in a parallel line, upon which the signal was made for each ship to bear down and engage her opposite in the enemy’s fleet. The sea was calm and the sky cloudless, but a slight breeze which blew from the south-west facilitated the execution of the duke’s order. The two nations fought with their characteristic obstinacy, and during four hours the issue hung in suspense. On one occasion the duke was in imminent peril. All the ships of the red squadron except two had dropped out of the line to refit and prepare again for action, and the weight of the enemy’s fire was poured into the flag-ship. The Earl of Falmouth, Lord Muskerry, and Boyle, son to the Earl of Burlington, were killed by the same shot, and James was bespattered with their blood. But the disabled ships gradually resumed their stations in the line; and as the fire of the English began to increase, that of the enemy was observed to slacken. At length the Eendract, bearing Opdam’s flag, blew up, and the admiral with five hundred men perished in the explosion. Dismayed at the loss of their commander, the Dutch fled in confusion. Four of their sternmost ships running foul of each other, were destroyed by a fire-ship, and three others shortly afterwards experienced the same fate. Van Tromp endeavoured to keep the fugitive ships together; and as the darkness of the night retarded pursuit, the Dutch fleet in the morning was moored in safety within the shallows. In this battle the enemy lost four admirals, seven thousand men slain or made prisoners, and eighteen sail either burnt or taken. The loss of the victors was small in proportion, not exceeding six hundred men.

This success excited the jealousy of the neighbouring states, particularly France and Denmark, who immediately resolved to protect the republic against such a formidable enemy. De Ruyter, the great Dutch admiral, on his return from Guinea, was appointed, at the head of seventy-six sail, to join the Duke of Beaufort, the admiral, who it was supposed was then entering the British channel from Toulon. The Duke of Albemarle (Monk) and Prince Rupert now commanded the British fleet, which did not exceed seventy-four sail. Albemarle detached Prince Rupert with twenty ships to oppose the Duke of Beaufort; a piece of rashness against which Sir George Ayscue protested in vain. The fleets thus engaged on most unequal terms, and the memorable battle of the Four Days ensued. The first day the Dutch admiral Evertzen was killed by a cannon-ball, one of their ships was blown up, and three of the English ships were taken; darkness parted the combatants. The second day the battle was renewed with incredible fury. Sixteen fresh ships joined the Dutch; and the English were so shattered that their fighting ships were reduced to twenty-eight. They retreated towards their own coast, followed by the Dutch; and another fierce conflict commenced, but was put a stop to by the darkness of the night. In the morning of the third day the English continued their retreat, and the Dutch their pursuit. Albemarle came to the desperate resolution of blowing up his own ship rather than submit to the enemy, when he found himself happily reinforced by Prince Rupert with his squadron of twenty sail. By this time, however, it was night; but the next day, being the fourth, the fleets came again to close action, which was continued with great fury till they were parted by a mist. Sir George Ayscue had the misfortune to strike on the Galoper Sand, where he was taken, with a ship, the Prince Royal, of a hundred guns. Both sides claimed[7:5:344] the victory, but the Dutch certainly had the advantage in this engagement. A second, however, equally bloody, happened soon after, with larger fleets on both sides, but commanded by the same admirals. In this the Dutch were vanquished; but few prizes were made, and De Ruyter conducted his retreat in such a gallant and masterly manner, that he kept the pursuers at bay, and soon moored his fleet in safety within the Wierings.

This success brought on negociations, which were protracted on various pretexts. The English exchequer was completely drained, and to prepare the fleet for sea again required an immediate supply of money. Parliament had indeed made a grant for the public service; but, though liberal in amount, it offered only a distant resource. In these circumstances it was, in an evil hour, proposed to lay up the larger ships in ordinary, and to equip two squadrons of light frigates for harassing the enemy’s trade in the Channel and the German Ocean; and although the Duke of York stated that such a proceeding was in truth tantamount to an abandonment of the sovereignty of the sea, the difficulty of procuring money, and the expectation of a speedy peace, weighed so much with the king and council, as to obtain their consent to a measure which brought lasting disgrace on the government and the country. It was in fact disarming, and inviting attack. Nor did the enemies of England forego the opportunity which was thus offered. A secret treaty was on the eve of being concluded between that courìtry and France; and four out of the seven United Provinces, desirous of peace, resolved to withdraw their contributions towards the expenses of the war. But the pensionary, De Witt, still thirsted for revenge. The Dutch fleet being ready for sea, whilst that of England was dismantled and in the docks, he determined not to throw away the opportunity which fortune had placed in his hands. The English argued, and the French remonstrated, but the pensionary continued inexorable. He left the Texel in company with De Ruyter, and ordered the fleet, to the amount of seventy, to join him in separate squadrons off the Nore. The English government was not taken altogether by surprise. The warnings of the Duke of York had awakened them to a sense of their danger; and three months before orders had been issued to strengthen the fortifications at Sheerness, to throw a boom across the Medway at the stakes, to mount guns on the batteries, and to prepare a number of fire-ships. But these orders were very ill executed. The commissioners of the navy were already a million in debt; their credit was gone; to procure ready money, either by application to the treasury, or by loan from the bankers, was impossible; and, without immediate payment, the sailors refused to serve, the labourers to work, and the merchants to sell. Little had therefore been done, and that little imperfectly. Meanwhile De Witt, in order to distract the attention of the government, ordered one division of his fleet to sail up the Thames as far as Gravesend, and the other to destroy the shipping in the Medway. The works at Sheerness opposed but a feeble resistance, and were levelled with the ground by a few broadsides. At the first alarm, Monk hastened to the mouth of the Medway, where he erected batteries, moored guard-ships for the protection of the boom, and sunk five ships before it in the narrowest part of the channel. He had scarcely completed these preparations, when the Dutch advanced with the wind and tide in their favour; but the obstructions in the main passage proved insurmountable; and they were forced to drop away with the ebb. In the night, however, they discovered another channel deep enough for large ships at high water, and in the morning worked their way through without impediment. The foremost ships then opened their fire on the batteries, while a heavy fire-ship running against the boom, hung upon it, and a second following in her wake, it broke under their united pressure. The guardships were soon in a blaze, and the Royal Charles, a first-rate, became the prize of the assailants. Finding all his efforts here fruitless, Monk hastened back to Upnor Castle, and employed the night in mounting guns, collecting ammunition, and manning the batteries. Morning revealed a most humiliating spectacle, the Dutch fleet advancing triumphantly up the river. Two line-of-battle ships led the line; then came six enormous Ére-ships; which, ata short distance, were followed by the rest of the squadron. The men of war anchored to receive and return the fire of the batteries on either bank; the fire-ships passed between them, and .speedily set fire to the Royal James, the Oak, and the London, three first-rates. Indescribable consternation reigned in the capital. It was fully expected that the Dutch would sail up next tide to London Bridge, destroy the whole shipping, and reduce the metropolis to a heap of ruins. At the ebb, however, their commander, Van Ghent, made the signal to the fleet to fall down the river, and having burnt two of his vessels which had grounded, he rejoined the other division at the Nore. The disgrace which had thus been inflicted on England, so lately mistress of the seas, sunk deep in the hearts of the people. Unable to conceive how the Dutch, whom they had so often defeated, should ride triumphant in their rivers, burn their ships, and fill with dismay the capital and the country, their grief and indignation knew no bounds; and whilst many attributed the calamity to the imaginary machinations of the Catholics, others believed that the king had secretly leagued with the enemy to depress the nation, that he might the more easily establish a despotic government.

During these transactions London was desolated by one of the most calamitous visitations ever experienced by this or any other nation. In the winter of 1664, two or three isolated cases of plague had occurred in the outskirts of the metropolis, and excited general alarm; but it was not till about the end of May 1665, that, under the malignant influence of excessive heat, and a close, stagnant atmosphere, the evil burst forth in all its terrors. From the centre of St Giles the infection spread with rapidity over the adjacent parishes, threatened the court at Whitehall, and, in spite of every precaution, crept into the city. A general panic ensued. The nobility and gentry fled; the royal family followed; and all who had the power or the means prepared to imitate their example. By every outlet the tide of emigration flowed towards the country, till it was checked by the lord mayor refusing to grant certificates of health, and by the opposition of the neighbouring townships, which rose in their own defence, and drove back the fugitives into the devoted city. The absence of the wealthier class of citizens, and the consequent breaking up of establishments, with the cessation of trade, served to aggravate the calamity; and although the charity of the opulent seemed to keep pace with the progress of the pestilence, forty thousand servants were left without a home, and the number of artizans and labourers thrown out of employment was still more considerable. The mortality was at first confined to the lower classes, carrying off a larger proportion of children than of adults, and of females than males; but, by the end of June, its diffusion became so rapid, its virulence so great, and its ravages so destructive, that the civil authorities, in virtue of the powers with which they had been invested by an act of James I. “for the charitable relief and ordering of persons infected with the plague,” divided the parishes into districts, allotting to each a competent number of officers; and ordered a red cross, one foot in length, to be [7:5:345]painted on the door of every infected house, with the •words “Lord have mercy on us” placed above it, that the healthy might be warned of the existence of the disease. Provision was also made for the interment of the dead. In the day-time persons were always on the watch to withdraw from public view the bodies of those who expired in the street; during the night the tinkling of a bell, accompanied with the lurid glare of torches, announced the approach of the pest-cart making its melancholy round to receive the victims of the previous twenty-four hours. “No coffins were prepared; no funeral service was read; no mourners were permitted to follow the remains of their relatives and friends. The cart proceeded to the nearest cemetery, and shot its burden into the common grave, a deep and spacious pit, capable of holding some scores of bodies, and dug in the church-yard, or, when the churchyard was full, in the outskirts of the parish.”

The distemper generally manifested itself by the febrile symptoms of shivering, nausea, headach, and delirium; but in some these affections were so mild as to be mistaken for a slight and transient indisposition. The insidious approaches of the mortal foe were not discovered, and the patient applied to his usual avocations, till suddenly faintness seized him, the’fatal “tokens” or plague-spots appeared on his breast, and then his hour was come. In most cases, however, the pain and delirium left no room for doubt. The sufferings of the patients were dreadful, and often threw them into paroxysms of frenzy, during which they burst the bands that confined them to their beds, precipitated themselves from the windows, ran naked into the street, and plunged into the river. If the patient survived till the third or fourth day, buboes appeared, and when these could be made to suppurate recovery might be anticipated; but if the efforts of nature and the physician proved unavailing, death became inevitable. Men of the strongest minds were lost in amazement when they contemplated the woe and desolation wrought by the pestilence; the timid and credulous became the dupes of their own imaginations and the victims of their own terrors; whilst fanaticism scattered abroad its wild predictions and fierce denunciations to add to the inexpressible horror of the scene. During the months of July and August, when the weather was sultry and the heat oppressive, the eastern parishes, which had at first been spared, became the chief seat of the pestilence, and the substantial citizens suffered in common with their poorer neighbours. The regulations of the magistrates could now no longer be enforced. The nights were insufficient for the burial of the dead; coffins were borne along the street at all hours of the day; and the poor burst from their infected dwellings to seek relief for their families, who were perishing of famine as well as of the pestilence. “London,” says Dr Lingard, in a passage worthy of Thucydides, “presented a wide and heart-rending scene of misery and desolation. Rows of houses stood tenantless and open to the winds; others, in almost equal numbers, exhibited the red cross flaming on the doors. The chief thoroughfares, so lately trodden by the feet of thousands, were overgrown with grass. The few individuals who ventured abroad walked in the middle, and, when they met, declined on opposite sides, to avoid the contact of each other. But if the solitude and stillness of the streets impressed the mind with awe, there was something yet more appalling in the sounds which occasionally burst upon the ear. At one moment were heard the ravings of delirium or the wail of woe from the infected dwelling; at another the merry song or the loud and careless laugh from the was-sailers at the tavern or the inmates of the brothel. Men became so familiarised with the form, that they steeled their feelings against the terrors, of death. They waited each for his turn with the resignation of the Christian or the indifference of the Stoic. Some devoted themselves 1 to the exercises of piety; others sought relief in the riot of dissipation or the recklessness of despair.”

In September the heat of the atmosphere abated; but, contrary to expectation, the mortality increased. From this time infection became the certain harbinger of death, which followed often within the space of twenty-four hours, generally in the course of three days. An experiment, grounded on the practice of former times, was now ordered to be tried. Fires of sea-coal, in the proportion of one to every twelve houses, were kindled in the streets, courts, and alleys of London and Westminster, and were kept burning three days and nights, till a heavy, continuous rain extinguished them. By the supposed disinfecting power of heat, it was hoped to dissipate the pestilential miasm, or at least to abate its virulence; and, in fact, the next report exhibited a considerable diminution in the number of deaths. But whilst the survivors were congratulating themselves on the prospect of deliverance, the destroying angel was scattering a fiercer pestilence from his wings. In the following week, ten thousand victims sank under the accumulated virulence of the disease, and despair reigned in every heart. Yet even now, in this lowest depth of human misery, deliverance was at hand. The high winds which usually accompany the autumnal equinox cooled and purified the air; the fever assumed a less malignant form; the weekly number of deaths successively decreased; in the beginning of December seventy-three parishes were pronounced clear of the disease; and in February the court, attended by the nobility and gentry, returned to Whitehall. Upwards of a hundred thousand individuals are said to have perished in London alone; and as the pestilence extended its destructive sway over the greater part of the kingdom, the fugitives from the metropolis carrying the infection with them wherever they found an asylum, the total amount of its ravages must have been truly dreadful.

This calamity was followed by another, if possible, still more dreadful. On the night of Sunday the 2d of September 1666, a fire broke out in Pudding Lane, near Fish Street, one of the most crowded quarters of the metropolis. It originated in a bakehouse; the buildings in the neighbourhood being constructed of wood, with pitched roofs, quickly caught the flames; and the stores with which they were filled consisting of the highly combustible articles used in the equipment of shipping, nourished the conflagration. The pipes from the new river were found empty, and the engine which raised water from the Thames was consumed. No decisive measures were adopted to check the progress of the devouring element, and several hours elapsed before the aid of the military was called for. Meanwhile the wind, which during the day blew from the east, augmented hourly in violence, and became a perfect hurricane. The fire spread with astonishing velocity, leaping as it were from roof to roof, and frequently igniting houses at a distance; “the night was as light as day for ten miles round ;” a vast column or pillar of fire, about a mile in diameter, ascended to the clouds; the flames, as they rose, were bent, broken, and shivered, by the fury of the tempest; and every blast scattered through the air flakes of fire, which, falling on inflammable materials, kindled new conflagrations. The lurid red glare of the sky, the scorching heat of the atmosphere, the roaring of the flames, and the frequent crash of falling buildings, combined to fill every breast with astonishment and terror. While the storm raged, the conflagration bade defiance to every effort of human ingenuity or power. Houses had been blown up or demolished, and gaps thus made, in hopes of arresting the progress of the flames; but ignited flakes [7:5:346]were carried over the empty space, or the ruins again took fire, or the flames unexpectedly turned in a new direction. On the evening of Wednesday the violence of the wind began to abate; and the church of the Temple, as well as Westminster Abbey and Whitehall, were saved by the destruction of the neighbouring buildings. Towards the evening of Thursday the weather became calm, and hopes were entertained that this dreadful calamity was approaching its close. But in the night new alarms were excited. The fire burst out again in the Temple, while it still raged with unabated fury near Cripplegate, and a large body of flame seemed to be making rapid advances towards the Tower. With the aid of gunpowder, however, large openings were'made; and as the weather continued calm, the conflagration was thus prevented from extending its ravages, and, in consequence, gradually died out, although months elapsed before the combustion was altogether extinguished in the immense accumulation of ruins. By this deplorable calamity two thirds of London, including the whole space from the Tower to the Temple, were reduced to ashes. The number of houses consumed amounted to thirteen thousand two hundred, and that of churches, including St Paul’s, to eighty-nine, covering three hundred and seventy-three acres within, and sixty-three without the walls.

The history of this fire accounts sufficiently for its origin, as well as for the destructive ravages it committed. But at this time political and religious prejudices had perverted the understandings by inflaming the passions of men, and every occurrence was viewed through a false and distorting medium. By some it was considered as an evident visitation of Providence in punishment of sin: but the precise nature of the sin was not agreed upon; the more rigid religionists declaring it to consist in the immorality of the king and the courtiers, whilst the cavaliers were equally positive that nothing but the guilt of the late rebellion could have entailed such a chastisement on the nation. Others, again, attributed it to the disloyalty and revenge, either of the republicans, who sought to destroy the scat of the monarchy, or of the Catholics, who wished to punish the stronghold of Protestant heresy. Of these charges, however, no vestige of proof could ever be discovered; and in the report of the House of Commons, which is still extant, will be found a complete refutation of the calumny. But the men of that time were not to be reasoned out of what they had determined at all hazards to believe; and accordingly, on the monument erected to perpetuate this calamitous event, stands recorded the calumnious falsehood, that “the burning of this Protestant city was begun and carried on by the treachery and malice of the Popish faction.” Next to the guilt of him who perpetrates an atrocious crime, says Dr Lingard, is the guilt of those who charge it upon the innocent. One good, however, resulted from this great evil. The plague was fairly burnt out, and the city rose like a phoenix from its ashes; the streets being widened, the narrow and unwholesome alleys totally banished, and the houses built of brick instead of wood. In so frightful a devastation, it is remarkable that not a single life was lost.

These complicated misfortunes did not fail to excite many murmurs among the people. Whilst the blame of the fire was laid on the Papists, the Dutch war was exclaimed against as unsuccessful and unnecessary, and as an attempt to humble that nation, who were equally enemies to Popery with themselves. Charles himself also began to be sensible, that all the ends for which he had undertaken this war were likely to be entirely frustrated. Instead of be ’ ing able to lay up money for his own purposes^ the supplies of. parliament i had hitherto been so scanty^ that • he found himself considerably· in-debt. A treaty was therefore set on foot, and concluded at Breda on the 21st of July 1667. By this treaty the only advantage gained by Britain was, the cession of the colony of New York. It was therefore accounted disgraceful by the nation, and the blame of it thrown upon the Earl of Clarendon, who, besides, was charged with the sale of Dunkirk, the bad payment of the seamen, the disgrace inflicted by the Dutch fleet, and his own ambition. His daughter, whilst yet in Paris, had countenanced the addresses of the Duke of York, and, under a solemn promise of marriage, had admitted him to the privileges of a husband. James, however, either of his own accord, or through the persuasions of his brother Charles, afterwards married her; and this was imputed as a crime to Clarendon. .·. On these grounds the king, who had never much loved this nobleman, ordered the seals to be taken from him and given to Sir Orlando Bridgemen. Clarendon was again impeached; and though the charges were manifestly frivolous, yet so strong was the popular torrent against him, that he thought proper to withdraw into France. Soon after, Charles formed an alliance with Holland and Sweden, in order to prevent the French king from completing his conquest of the Netherlands, the greatest part of which he had already subdued; and he was unexpectedly stopped in his career by this league, in which it was agreed by the contracting powers to constitute themselves arbiters of the differences between France and Spain, and to check the exorbitant pretensions of both, , ł

The king now began to govern in a very arbitrary manner. He had long wished to extend his prerogative, and to be able to furnish himself with whatever sums he wanted for his pleasures, and he (therefore sought ministers who would make no scruple of gratifying him in both particulars. »In Clifford, Ashley: (afterwards Shaftesbury), Buckingham, Arlington, and Lauderdale, who were distinguished by the term Cabal, a word formed from the initials of their names, he found: a "junta-in all respects suited to his wishes. These men,·it is probable, were as ready to betray their king as they speedily showed themselves to betray their country; yet it seems pretty evident that they were deceived by'their master, who concealed from them the real state of his degrading connection with France, and also the secret of what he was pleased jocosely to denominate his religion. The first effects of the advice given by the Cabal were a secret alliance with France, and a rupture with Hollańd. The undivided disgrace of both transactions belongs to them, notwithstanding the king had taken a bribe from France, which, however, he kept from the knowledge of his ministers, lest they should claim their share in the wages of infamy. Soon after this the Duke of York declared himself a Catholic; and liberty of conscience was proclaimed to ail sectaries, Dissenters as well as Catholics. A proclamation was also issued containing very rigorous clauses in favour of impressment; and at the heels∙of this came another full of menaces against those who should speak undutifully of his majesty’s measures, nay, even against those who heard such discourses, unless they informed in due time against the offenders. These things gave great and just offence to the people; but they were especially alarmed at the alliance with France, and afraid of the perfidy by which the policy of that nation was characterized.

In the meanwhile the Dutch, attacked by Louis on land, and by the combined navies of England and Frante on sea, and at the same time deserted by their ally Sweden, seemed on the very verge of» destruction. But the republic of the United Provinées-was not wanting to itself in this Crisis.' War was· declared with Holland on the 17th of (.March 1672p ’ and by'the beginning of May the [7:5:347] Dutch fleet put to seh. It consisted’of seventy-five men of war, and a considerable number of fire-ships, with whieh De Ruyter stationed himself between Dover and Calais; to prevent the intended junction of the French and English fleets. The Duke of York lay at the Nore with forty sail, being all he was able to muster ;' but with this force he contrived, under cover of a fog, to pass the enemy un^∙ noticed, and to reach St Helens, where he awaited the art rival of the French squadron under D’Estrées. When the latter had joined, the combined fleet immediately sailed in quest of the enemy. He was discovered lying off Ostend, but prudently declined to engage even upon equal terms; and baffling all the manoeuvres employed to bring him to action, at last reached Goree. The duke then returned to Southwold Bay, in order that his ships might take in their full complement of men and provisions, in both of which they had previously been deficient. Meanwhile De Ruyter, learning the situation and employment of the English, suddenly resolved to become the aggressor; and sailing from' Goree with his whole force on the evening of the 27th May, he would probably have surprised his enemies at anchor, had it not been for Cogolin, the captain of a French frigate, who, ignorant of the coast, had anchored during the night at a distance 1 of several miles from Southwold Bay, and having descried two of the Dutch ships in the morning, fired off his guns in succession as a signal of the approach of the enemy. Still the bold and decided advance of De Ruyter had all the effect of a surprise. James, it is true, immediately ordered every ship to get under weigh, and take her station in the line; but the wind being easterly, and the tide running to leeward, not more than twenty sail could form to meet the enemy. The duke, with part of the red squadron, encountered De Ruyter and the fleet from the Maas; the Earl of Sandwich led the blue against Van Ghent and the fleet from Amsterdam; whilst D’Estrées opposed Banker with the ships from Zealand, though, probably from respect for conservative principles, the French commander cautiously avoided coming to close action with his opponent. The battle raged long and fiercely. The English had to contend with a bold, skilful, and experienced enemy, and, owing to the inexplicable inactivity of their French allies, no less than to the suddenness of the attack, they had to make head against a fearful disparity of force. Their ships, becoming intermingled with those of the enemy, could afford each other little support, whilst they were in imminent danger of being overwhelmed by the number of their adversaries. Still they fought with desperate courage, in order to protract their resistance till they could be joined by the remainder of the fleet from the bay. About eleven o’clock the flag-ship, the Prince, of one hundred guns, lay a complete wreck on the water, having lost all her rigging and above one third of her crew. Finding her no longer manageable, the duke ordered her to be towed out of the fire, and immediately shifted his flag to the St Michael of ninety guns. The gallant Earl of Sandwich was less fortunate. In his ship the Royal James, a first-rate, he had repeatedly beat off the enemies by whom he was surrounded; carried by boarding a seventy gun ship which lay athwart his hawse; and sunk a fire-ship which was drifting towards him. But after a contest of eight hours’ duration, the Royal James became unmanageable; a second fire-ship now grappled her on the larboard side; and in a few minutes that magnificent vessel was in flames. The duke ordered the Dartmouth and a number of boats to hasten to her assistance, and between two and three hundred of the crew were saved; the rest, with their gallant commander, perished in the waves. Meanwhile the other ships joined the fleet, and the combat became more equal. About five the duke shifted his flag from the-St Michael, which could with difficulty be kept afloat, to the London, which had sustained less damage, and the battle continued with unhbated fury. But, about seven o’clock, De Ruyter shrunk from the conflict, and sailed to overtake the Zealand squadron. The honour of the victory belonged to the'English." With all the disadvantages of a surprise·, and with wind and tide against them, they encountered a force: greatly'superior, and, notwithstanding the skill of the Dutch admiral and the bravery of his men, they maintained the combat with that cool determined courage which, when properly directed, nothing under heaven can overcome, and ultimately compelled the enemy to retreat. The English lost one, and the Dutch three ships of the line; but the French suffered very little, not having entered into the heat of the engagement. It was even supposed by some that they had orders to observe this conduct, and to spare their own ships, whilst the Dutch and English weakened each other by their mutual fury in the combat.

The combined powers were more successful against the Dutch by land. Louis carried all before him, crossed the Rhine, took the frontier towns of the enemy, and threatened the new republic with dissolution. Terms were proposed to them by the conquerors. Louis offered them such as would have deprived them of all power of resisting an invasion from France by land; those of Charles would have exposed them equally to invasion by sea. At last the murmurs of the English at seeing this brave and industrious people, the supporters of the Protestant cause, totally sunk and on the brink of destruction, were too loud not to reach the king. He was obliged to call together the Parliament in order to take the sense of the nation respecting his conduct; and he soon found how his subjects stood affected towards him.

The parliament met on the 24th of February 1673. They began with resisting some of the king’s extraordinary stretches of prerogative, and taking means for promoting uniformity in religious matters. A law was passed entitled the Test Act,-imposing an oath on all who should enjoy any public benefice. Besides taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, such persons were obliged to receive the sacrament once a year in the established church, and to abjure all belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation. As the Dissenters also had seconded the efforts of the Commons against the king’s declaration of indulgence to Roman Catholics, a bill was passed for their ease and relief, which, however, met with some difficulty in passing through the Peers. The Dutch, in the mean time, continued to defend themselves with such valour, that the Commons began to despair of success. They therefore resolved that the standing army was a grievance; and declared that they would grant no more supplies to carry on the Dutch war, unless it appeared that the enemy were so obstinate as to refuse all reasonable conditions. To cut short these disagreeable altercations, the king resolved to prorogue the parliament; and with that intention he went unexpectedly to the House of Peers, and sent the usher of the black rod to summon the House of Commons to attend. The usher and the Speaker happened to meet nearly at the door of the house; but the Speaker being within, some of the members suddenly shut the door, and cried, “To the chair.” It was then moved, and voted by acclamation, that the alliance with France was a grievance, that the evil counsellors of the king were a grievance, and that the Earl of Lauderdale was a grievance; upon which the house rose in great confusion. The king finding that he could expect no supply from the Commons for carrying on a war so unpopular, resolved to make a separate peace with the Dutch, on the terms which they had proposed through the Spanish ambassador; and [7:5:348]having asked the advice of his parliament, a peace was concluded accordingly.

The prepossession which Charles had all along shown in favour of France, and his manifest inclination upon all occasions to attach himself to that kingdom, had given great offence to his people; and other circumstances also conspired to raise a general discontent. The toleration of Catholics, so much wished for by the king, and the bigotry of the Duke of York, the heir-apparent to the crown, who was zealous for the propagation of the Catholic religion, excited an alarm, not altogether without foundation, that the Protestant religion was in danger. But these fears and discontents were carefully fomented by wicked and designing men, who, to promote their own interests, scrupled not to advance the greatest falsehoods. In 1678 an account of a plot, supposed to have been formed by the Papists, for burning London, putting the Protestants to death, and destroying the king and the Protestant religion, was circulated by one Kirby, a chemist; Tong, a weak, credulous parson; and Titus Oates, who had likewise been a clergyman, and was in reality one of the most abandoned miscreants that ever disgraced humanity. The circumstances attending this pretended discovery were so perfectly incredible and monstrous, that it seems amazing how any person of common sense could give ear to them; yet so violently were the minds of the nation at this time inflamed against the Catholics, that it not only produced the destruction of many individuals of the Romish persuasion, but a general massacre of that unfortunate sect was apprehended. The parliament, who ought to have repressed these delusions, and brought back the people to calm deliberate inquiry, showed themselves even more credulous than the vulgar themselves. The cry of the plot was immediately echoed from one house to the other; the country party could not let slip so favourable an opportunity of managing the passions of the people; and the courtiers were afraid of being thought disloyal if they ventured to doubt the guilt of those who were accused of designs against the king’s person. The whole nation was seized by a sort of epidemic madness. Danby, the prime minister, himself entered into it very furiously, and persisted in his inquiries notwithstanding all the king’s advices to the contrary; and Charles himself, who was the only person that ought to have been most concerned, was the only one who treated it with contempt. Nothing, however, could check the popular phrenzy; and for a time the king was obliged to give way to it. Meanwhile accident after accident, occurring in a manner unparalleled in history, contributed to maintain the delusion, and to give temporary credibility to the infernal perjuries of Oates, Bedloe, and their associates in infamy. Letters were seized which discovered the Duke of York’s correspondence with France, in opposition to the religion and interests of his country; Danby’s correspondence, which involved the king in the disgrace of similar machinations, was also detected; and, to crown the whole, Godfrey, the magistrate who had first given publicity to the plot, was either murdered, or, which seems at least equally probable, committed suicide. This last occurrence made every good Protestant imagine that he felt a Catholic poniard at his throat; and, whilst it aggravated the terrors, confirmed the credulity, of the people. The verdict of wilful murder returned by the coroner’s inquest on the body of Godfrey imparted the stamp of authority to all the reports previously in circulation. The ignorant believed and trembled, the artful secretly fomented the panic with which the nation was now seized. It was no longer safe to deny that Godfrey had been murdered by the Papists, or that the latter had conspired the destruction of the king, the constitution, and the church of England, with the extermination of every Protestant in the kingdom. The plot having thus attained a sudden and bloated maturity, it was greedily adopted by the popular party as an engine against the court; and whilst the extraordinary hallucination lasted, every species of injustice and iniquity was perpetrated without compunction or remorse. Coleman, Ireland, Grove, Pickering, and others suffered death for an imaginary conspiracy, on the contradictory testimony of incredible witnesses, and after trials in which the judges and the juries seemed to vie with each other in abetting perjury. Nor was the reign of delusion and blood short-lived. For two years, Protestant credulity and vengeance were satiated, from time to time, with the invention of new horrors and the immolation of fresh victims; nor were these legal murders stayed till the execution of the venerable Lord Viscount Stafford excited pity and remorse in the public mind. This event seems to have contributed to awaken the nation from its trance; the still small voice of reason and humanity began again to be heard; men gradually shook off both the delusion and the panic by which they had been hurried into such excesses; and when they recovered the use of their faculties sufficiently to enable them to take a deliberate survey of the late proceedings, they were horrified alike at the iniquity which had been committed, and at the character of the diabolical miscreants by whose instrumentality it had been effected.

In the midst of this general uproar and persecution, the lord treasurer Danby was impeached in the House of Commons by Seymour the Speaker. The principal charge against him was, his having written a letter to Montague, the king’s ambassador at Paris, directing him to sell the king’s good offices at the treaty of Nimeguen, to the kÌDg of France, for a certain sum of money; contrary to the general interests of the confederates, and also to those of his own kingdom. But although the charge was just, Danby had the good fortune to find the king resolved to defend him. Charles assured the parliament that, as he had acted in every thing by his orders, he held him entirely blameless; and although he would deprive him of all his employments, yet he positively insisted on his personal safety. The Lords, however, still went on to impeach him, and Danby was sent to the Tower; but no worse consequences followed.

These proceedings were carried on by a House of Commons which had continued in existence above seventeen years. They were now dissolved, however, and another parliament was called; but this one proved as unmanageable as the preceding. The members resolved to check the growth of Popery by striking at the root of the evil; and therefore brought in a bill for the total exclusion of the Duke of York from the crown of England and Ireland, which passed the Lower House by a majority of seventy-nine. They next voted the king’s standing army and guards to be illegal; and proceeding to fix limits to the king’s power of imprisoning delinquents, the celebrated statute of Habeas Corpus was passed, which confirms to the subject an absolute security against oppressive power.

During these troubles the Duke of York had retired to Brussels; but an indisposition of the king induced him to return to England, to be ready, in case of accident, to assert his right to the throne. After prevailing with his brother to disgrace his natural son the Duke of Monmouth, who had now become very popular, he set out for Scotland, under pretence of quieting the apprehensions of the English nation, but in reality to strengthen his interests in that part of the kingdom. This proceeding, however, served still more to inflame the country party, who were strongly attached to the Duke of Monmouth, and resolved to support him against the Duke of Ywk. Mobs, petitions, and burnings of the pope in effigy, were the artifices employed to keep up the terrors of the people, and to [7:5:349]alarm the court. The parliament had shown favour to the various tribes of informers, and that of course served to increase the number of these misereants. Plots also became more numerous. Conspiracy was . set up against conspiracy; and the people, uncertain what to believe or whom to trust, were kept in a state of the most dreadful apprehension. »

But it was not by plots alone that the adverse parties endeavoured to supplant each other. Tumultuous petitions on the one hand, and adulatory addresses on the other, were sent up from all quarters. Wherever the country party prevailed, petitions were sent to the king, filled with grievances and apprehensions. Wherever the church or court party had the ascendency, addresses were framed, containing expressions of the highest regard for his majesty, and the deepest abhorrence of those who endeavoured to disturb the public tranquillity. Thus the nation came to be distinguished into Petitioners and Abhorrers. The names of Whig and Tomj i also, were now first used as terms of reproach. The whigs were so denominated from a cant name given to the Presbyterian conventiclers, “whig” being milk turned sour; and the tories received that honourable appellation from the Irish banditti so called, whose usual phrase, in ordering people to stand and deliver, was the Irish word force, “give me.”

During all this time the king had tyrannized over the Scots in a very cruel manner. Being apprized of the tendency of Presbyterian principles to a republican form of government, Charles, like his predecessors, had endeavoured to introduce Episcopacy there, but in a much more violent manner than had formerly been attempted. The rights of patrons had for some years been abolished, and the power of electing ministers had been vested in the kirk-sessions and lay elders,; but it was now enacted, that all incumbents who had been admitted upon this title should receive a presentation, and be instituted anew by the bishop, under the penalty of deprivation. In consequence of this, three hundred and fifty parishes were, at once declared vacant. , New ministers were sought for all over the kingdom, and none was too vicious or ignorant to be rejected. The people, as might have been expected, were displeased to:the highest degree, but gave no sign of mutiny or· sedition, notwithstanding their discontent. This submission made their case still worse; it being rather hastily imagined, that, as they did not complain for a little ill usage, they would submit with equal patience to worse.

Affairs remained tolerably tranquil, till, in 1661, a severe act was passed in England against conventicles, which severity was imitated by the Scottish parliament, who passed an act of the same kind. Military force was next let loose on the people. Wherever they had forsaken their churches, the guards were quartered throughout the country. These legalized banditti were commanded by Sir James Turner, a man of a furious temper and dissolute life, who went about and received lists from the clergy, of those who absented themselves from the churches, or were supposed to frequent conventicles. Without proof or legal conviction, he exacted fines, and quartered soldiers on the supposed criminals till he received payment. An insurrection being dreaded during the Dutch war, new forces were levied, and intrusted to the command of Dalziel and Drummond, two men of savage dispositions, and the Scottish parliament gave full scope to whatever enormities they chose to commit.

Representations were now made to the king, who promised some redress. But his lenity came too late. In 1668 the people rose in arms, and having surprised Turner in Dumfries, resolved to put him to death; but finding his orders much more violent than his execution of them, they spared his life. At Lanark they renewed the covenant, and published a manifesto, in which they professed submission to the king, and only desired the re-establishment of Presbytery, and the re-instatement of their former ministers. Their force never exceeded two thousand men; and although the country in general bore them great favour, men’s spirits were so subdued, that the insurgents could expect no further increase of numbers. Dalziel took the field to oppose them. The number of the Covenanters had now been reduced to little more than a thousand, and these were no way capable of contending with regular forces. Having advanced towards Edinburgh, and met with no support, they attempted to make their way back to the west by the Pentland Hills. But at a spot called Rullion Green they were attacked by the king’s troops, and received the first charge with great firmness. This, however, was the whole action. They immediately fell into confusion and fled. About forty were killed on the spot, and a hundred and thirty taken prisoners.

As long ago as the year 1661 the Presbyterians had deputed Sharpe, then one of their number, to lay their grievances before the king. Instead of doing so, however, their deputy abandoned the cause altogether, became their'violent enemy, and, as a reward of his treachcry, was created Archbishop of St Andrews. After the affair of Pentland this man was the foremost to take vengeance on the unhappy insurgents, whose oppressed state and inoffensive behaviour made them objects of universal compassion. Ten were hanged on one gibbet in Edinburgh, and thirty-five before their own doors in different parts of the country. Some of them were previously tortured, and, after death, their mutilated limbs were stuck up in different parts of the kingdom. All of them might have saved their lives upon condition of renouncing the covenant; but this they absolutely refused. The executions were proceeding without mercy, when the king wrote a letter to the privy council, in which he ordered that such of the prisoners as simply promised to obey the laws for the future should be set at liberty, and that the incorrigible should be sent to the plantations. This letter was brought to the council by Burnet, but was not immediately delivered by Sharpe, whose renegade vengeance was not yet satiated. It had been customary to put these unfortunate men to the torture, in order if possible to make them confess that to be false which they believed to be true. By Sharpe’s criminal delay had been tortured Hugh Maceail, a young preacher, who would otherwise have escaped; and so violent were the torments inflicted on him by the iron boot, that he expired under them. He seemed to die in an ecstacy of joy. His last words, uttered with an accent which struck all the bystanders with astonishment, were in the highest degree impressive and sublime. “Farewell sun, moon, and stars,” exclaimed this lofty-minded enthusiast; “farewell world and time; farewell weak, frail body. Welcome eternity; welcome angels and saints; welcome Saviour of the world; and welcome God, the judge of all !”

In 1670 an act was passed against conventieles, with a professed design of mitigating the former persecuting laws, though even the mitigation was oppressive and tyrannical. By this act, the hearer in a conventicle, that is, in a dissenting assembly where more than five persons besides the family were present, was liable to a fine of five shillings for the first offence, and ten shillings for the second; while the preacher was fined twenty pounds for the first offence, and forty for the second. The person in whose house the conventicle assembled was declared subject to the same amount of fine as the preacher. In a remarkable clause it was provided, that if a doubt should arise as to the interpretation of any part of the act, the judges should always explain such doubt in the sense least favourable to [7:5:350]conventicles, inasmuch as it was the intention of parliament entirely to suppress them.

No religion was ever extirpated by subjecting its professors to imprisonment, confiscation, and death; and the government, which had plunged headlong into all the excesses of persecution, soon perceived that they had produced a very different effect from that which had been intended; that Presbytery had burst forth with fresh vigour in the midst of blood and oppression; and that the people, by being driven desperate, had become formidable. In this situation recourse was had to a notable expedient, which at once betrayed the jealousy of the government, and rendered it ridiculous. From some supposed analogy between the case of one subject dreading bodily harm from another, and a king jealous of his people, Sir George Mackenzie, afterwards king’s advocate, conceived the brilliant idea of causing his majesty to take out a general writ of lawburrows against his whole Scottish subjects. Accordingly, a bond of the peace was framed, by which the subscribers became bound, under heavy penalties, neither to frequent conventicles themselves, nor to allow their families and tenants to be present at such unlawful assemblies, and, in general, not in any way to infringe the public peace. By this extraordinary proceeding, the government, while it betrayed its fears, prostituted the dignity of the king, and incurred the ridicule of attempting to give additional sanction to public law by private contract.

But the violent methods used by the king having been found ineffectual to accomplish this purpose in Scotland, a Scheme of Comprehension was tried in 1678, by which it was proposed to diminish greatly the authority of the bishops, to abolish their negative voice in the ecclesiastical courts, and to leave them little more than the right of precedency among the presbyters. But this, too, was rejected by the people, who well knew its character and tendency. The next project was that of an Indulgence, by which the most popular of the expelled preachers, without being required to accede any terms of submission to the established religion, were settled in vacant churches; and small salaries of about twenty pounds a year were offered to the rest till they should be otherwise established. These tardy and suspicious boons were at first accepted by some of the less firm and decided preachers; but the trick,—for it was nothing more,—was soon discovered; and every man’s motto became Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. The replaced ministers soon repented their compliance; the bounty was rejected as the wages of criminal silence; conventicles multiplied; and the Covenanters, now at open hostility with the law, met in arms at their places of worship, though, after divine service, they dispersed quietly.

The expedients tried by the government having thus failed, the persecution of the Covenanters was renewed under the administration of Lauderdale, and strenuously abetted by Archbishop Sharpe. By an old law, but seldom put in execution, a man who was accused of any crime, and did not appear to take his trial, might be intercommuned·, that is, he might be publicly outlawed; and whoever afterwards, either on account of business, relationship, or even charity, had the least intercourse with him, was subjected to the same penalties which the law inflicted on the criminal himself. A great many Letters of ln-'' tercommuning ^[12. Letters of Intercommuning, which bore an analogy to the Aquoe et Ignis Interdictio of the Roman law, concluded thus: “We command and charge all our lieges and subjects, that none presume to reset, supply, or intercommune with any of the foresaid our rebels, nor furnish them with meat, drink, house, harbour, or victuals, nor any other thing useful or conformable to them; nor have any intelligence with them by word, writing, message, or otherwise, under pain of being repute and esteemed art and part with them in the crime foresaid, and to be pursued therefore with all rigour.” (Laing, iv. 77, 78, 2d ed.; Wodrow, i. 392, 416-418; Burnet, ii. 156-183.) ] were now issued against the Covenanters. By this severe and absurd proceeding, crimes and punishments went on multiplying in a geometrical progression; and, lest the cry of an oppressed people should reach the throne, the council prohibited, under severe penalties, all noblemen and gentlemen of landed property from leaving the kingdom.

The course of these violent proceedings was distinguished by an event which, in all its circumstances, is eminently characteristic of the men who bore rule at this period. We allude to the trial and execution of James Mitchell for an attempt to assassinate the Archbishop of St Andrews ten years before. One evening in July 1668, as Sharpe was sitting in his coach at the head of Blackfriar’s Wynd, waiting for the Bishop of Orkney, and while the latter was in the act of stepping into it, Mitchell, then a Presbyterian preacher, discharged a pistol at the dignified apostate; but the Bishop of Orkney, happening at the instant to extend his arm, intercepted the shot, and was severely wounded in consequence. This occurred in the principal street of the city; yet so generally was the archbishop hated, that the assassin was allowed to walk off without interruption; and, having turned down a street or two, he threw aside a partial disguise he had worn, re-appeared in public, and remained altogether unsuspected. Six years after this, Sharpe happening one day to notice a man who seemed to observe him narrowly, and dreading lest another attempt at assassination should be made, caused him to be arrested and examined. Two loaded pistols were found upon his person; and, as he was now concluded to have been the author of the former attempt, Sharpe promised, that if he would confess his guilt, he should be dismissed without any punishment. Mitchell (for it was he), was credulous enough to believe the archbishop, and was immediately produced before the council by the faithless primate. But this righteous conclave having no proof against him, and hoping to implicate in his crime the whole body of the Covenanters, solemnly renewed the promise of pardon, upon condition that he would make a full disclosure. Mitchell accepted the terras offered him; but when the council found, by this man’s confession, that only one person, then dead, had been privy to his design, their rage and disappointment knew no bounds. He was immediately carried before the Court of Justiciary, and required to adhere to his confession, with certification that if he did not comply, he would forfeit the benefit of ’ the assurance which had been given him. Mitchell now saw with whom he had to deal. On being judicially interrogated, he refused to confess, and was, in consequence, put to the torture, which he endured with singular fortitude; obstinately persisting in his refusal to criminate himself, till he fainted through excessive agony. As the boots (the instrument of torture) had failed to extort a confession, he was sent to the Bass, then used as a state prison for the persecuted Covenanters, and remained there loaded with irons, in the greatest misery, till the end of the year 1678, the period at which we have arrived. Infuriated at the failure of all their coercive measures, and resolved, by some new examples, to strike terror into the breasts of the [7:5:351]Covenanters, the council once more produced him; and he was now indicted at the instance of Sir George Mackenzie, his majesty’s advocate, upon 4 act of 16 Parl. of James VI., by which the invading of privy counsellors is made death. No proof of his guilt could be adduced except his former confession, which he judicially denied. But it was proved against him by the testimony of Lauderdale the commissioner, Rothes the chancellor, Maitland the lord-treasurer depute, and the archbishop of St Andrews, all of whom,—when it was alleged in behalf of the accused, that any confession he had emitted was upon promise of life etspe ren⅛,—expressly swore, that no assurance of life had been givčn him, although the records of the privy council remain to this hour the incontestible monument of their perjury ∕ The prisoner then produced a copy of the act of council which contained the assurance of his life, and moved that the original might be exhibited. This, however, was refused, on the pretence that the fact was already sufficiently established by the parole testimony of privy counsellors; and the unhappy man was accordingly condemned and executed.^[13. Sir George Maċkenzie, at whose instance Mitchell, as we have seen, was prosecuted and capitally convicted, asserts, in his ZIis- ∕ort∕, page 327, that when this unfortunate man was brought before the council, “he fell upon his knees and confessed the whole matter, without asking either life or promise of any favour which confession lie also signed. This is abominable equivocation'. Even supposing that Mitchell did not “ ask either life or promise of any favour,” if the council ultroneously gave him an assurance of pardon, was the obligation less binding on that account? But it appears from the face of the record, which still remains to impeach the Lord Advocate’s veracity, that Sir George Mackenzie assisted at the. council when Mitchell confessed and obtained assurance of ι his life ,∙ and, as ìŕ this had not been sufficient to overturn the statements of the public prosecutor, he himself, two sentences farther on, says that Mitchell, “being persuaded that extrajudicial Confession was not binding, resiled; Whereupon the council declared, that he had forfeited any promise that was made to him !" The same learned person affirms, that the act of council was “justly refused,” because, “being posterior to the confession, it could not prove that the confession was upon promise of life; ’ and that act designed to annul the confession, and so could not be made use of for astructing it.” The act of couucil however states, in the most explicit terms, that “the confession was emitted upon promise of life,” which implies that ’ the “promise” was unterixrXo the “confession and as to the legal sophism, that the “act designed to annul the confession, and so could not be made use of for astruciing it,” to the extent of proving the “promise of life,” it is sufficient to observe, that the act of council was legally probative of What had occurred there, and that if it was held competent to prove the “confession,” it must have been equally so to establish the “promise” on which it was emitted. No one can doubt, therefore, that the production of the act was “refused,” because it would have clearly instructed the “promise that was made” to Mitchell, and because four privy counsellors had, in order to effect this man’s destruction, resolved to peŋure themselves by sWearing, in the face of the record of their own procėédings, that no assurance of life had been given him. Mackenzie adds, that the pannel’s counsel, Sir George Lockhart, “refused to speak for him, being unwilling to offend Lauderdale" (History, ìibi uı_nrai\ ]

When Lauderdale, who probably felt some remorse on account of the iniquitous means which had been used to obtain his conviction, wished to commute Mitchell’s sentence, the unrelenting primate interposed, and insisted upon its execution, as the only way of securing his own life against a repetition of similar attempts in future. But he calculates ill who seeks protection by means of perjury, injustice, and cruelty. Some acts of local oppression, added to the hatred which was so generally entertained for him, brought down upon the primate the very fate which he thus sought to avoid. On the 3d of May 1679, he was waylaid and murdered in Magus Muir, near St Andrews, by a troop of fanatics, who had been driven to madness by his tyranny, and who, in perpetrating this unholy deed, were actuated solely by their own enthusiasm or revenge. But the act committed by these men was nevertheless imputed to the party to which they ostensibly belonged; and the consequence was, that all who attended field conventicles were ordered to be indiscriminately massacred. This brought matters to a crisis.

The Covenanters, finding themselves obliged to meet in large bodies, and bring arms for their own security, drew up a declaration against prelacy, which they published at Rutherglen, a small burgh near Glasgow; and in the market-place they burned the several acts of parliament which had established that mode of ecclesiastical government, and+ad prohibited all conventicles. For this purpose they chose the 20th of May, the anniversary of the Restoration, having previously extinguished the bonfires which had been kindled on that occasion. Graham of Claverhouse, afterwards Viscount Dundee, an active and merciless agent of the council, attacked a great conventicle upon Loudon Hill, but was repulsed with the loss of thirty men. The Covenanters, finding themselves thus unwarily engaged in rebellion, were obliged to persevere, and therefore pushed on to Glasgow, which, though repulsed at first, they afterwards made themselves masters of. Here they dispossessed the established clergy, and issued proclamations, in which they declared that they fought against the king’s supremacy, against popery and prelacy, and against a popish successor to the crown.

Alarmed at this rising, Charles dispatched against the Covenanters a small body of English cavalry under the Duke of Monmouth, who,having joined the Scottish guards, and some regiments of militia levied from the well-affected counties, marched with great celerity in quest of the insurgents. They had taken post at Bothwell Bridge, between Hamilton and Glasgow; a good position, to which there was no access but by the bridge, which a small body might have defended against the king’s army. The whole force of the Covenanters never exceeded 8000 men, and they had in reality no other generals than their clergymen. Monmouth attacked the bridge, and a party of the Covenanters stoutly maintained their post as long as their ammunition lasted. When they sent for a fresh supply, they received orders to quit their post and retire; and this imprudent measure occasioned an immediate defeat. Monmouth passed the bridge without opposition, and, drawing up his forces opposite to the enemy, soon put them to the rout, which, indeed, was effected by his cannon alone. About seven hundred were killed in the pursuit, for, properly speaking, there was no action. Twelve hundred were taken prisoners, and treated with humanity by Monmouth. Such as promised to live peaceably under the present government were dismissed; and about three hundred who refused this condition were shipped for Barbadoes, but unfortunately perished during the voyage. Two of their clergymen, however, were hanged. Soon afterwards an act of indemnity was passed; but Lauderdale took care that it should afford little protection to the unhappy Covenanters; for, although orders were given thenceforward to connive at all conventicles, he found means, under a variety of pretences, to elude the execution of them.

That Charles had formed a scheme for overturning the established religion, and substituting popery in its place, as well as for rendering himself absolute, is now certainly known. But in this he met with strenuous opposition from his parliaments; and as the present one seemed to surpass its predecessors in resisting the schemes of the court, the king was induced to dissolve them and to call another in 1680. By this step, however, he gained nothing[7:5:352]; for they voted the legality of petitioning the king, and fell with extreme severity on the Abhorrers, who, in their addresses to the crown, had expressed their disapprobation of such petitions. Great numbers of this class were seized by their order in all parts of England, and committed to close custody; and the liberty of the subject, which had been so carefully guarded by their own recent law, was violated by such arbitrary and capricious imprisonments. But one Stowel of Exeter put a stop to these proceedings. He refused to obey the serjeant at arms who had been sent to apprehend him; and, standing upon his defence, declared that he knew of no law by which the House of Commons could pretend to commit him. The house, finding it equally dangerous to proceed or recede, got off by an evasion. They voted that Stowel was indisposed; and a month was allowed him for his recovery, about which, as may well be supposed, they gave themselves no further concern.

But the chief point laboured by the present parliament was the exclusion bill, which, though voted by a former house, had never yet made any further progress. In the present House of Commons it passed by a great majority, but was thrown out by the House of Peers. All the bishops except three voted against it; being of opinion that the church of England was in greater danger from the prevalence of Presbyterianism than from the introduction of popery. The Commons were extremely mortified at the rejection of their favourite bill, and in retaliation they passed several other disagreeable acts. Amongst these was one which set forth, that, till the exclusion bill was passed, they could not, consistently with the trust reposed in them, grant the king any manner of supply; and that whoever should hereafter lend, by way of advance, any money upon the branches of the king’s revenue, should be responsible to parliament for his conduct. Finding that there were no hopes of extorting either money or compliance from the Commons, Charles came to a resolution of once more dissolving the parliament; and this accordingly took place while they were voting that the dissenters ought to be encouraged, and that the city of London had been burned by the papists.

It was for some time doubtful whether the king would ever call another parliament. But his necessities surmounted all his fears, and in 1681 he summoned a parliament to meet at Oxford, that he might thus have an opportunity of punishing the city of London, by showing his suspicions of their loyalty. In this, however, as in all former parliaments, the country party predominated; and they trode exactly in the footsteps of their predecessors. The same Speaker was chosen, and the exclusion bill urged more fiercely than before. Ernely, one of the king’s ministers, went so far as to propose that the duke should be banished five hundred miles from England, and that on the king’s decease the next heir should be appointed regent. Yet even this expedient, which left the duke only the barren title of king, failed to obtain the approbation of the house; nothing but a total exclusion could satisfy them.

The opposite factions had for some time indulged their animosities by reviling and ridiculing each other in pamphlets and libels; but this practice, too common in party warfare to deserve particular mention, was at length attended with an incident which deserves notice. One Fitzharris, an Irish adventurer, employed a Scotsman named Everard, who, like himself, hung loose on society, to write a libel against the king and the Duke of York. The Scot, who was actually a spy for the opposite party, supposing this a trick to entrap him, discovered the whole to Sir William Waller, a justice of the peace; and, to convince the magistrate of the truth of his information, secreted him and two other persons in a place where they overheard the whole conference between Fitzharris and himself. The libel concocted betwixt them was replete with the utmost rancour* and scurrility. Waller carried the intelligence to the king, and obtained a warrant for committing Fitzharris, who at the time happened to have a copy of the libel in his pocket. Finding himself in the hands of a party from which he could expect no mercy, Fitzharris resolved to change his game, and to throw the odium of the libel upon the court, who, he said, had employed him to draw it up with the view of imputing it to the exclusionists, and thus rendering them hateful to the people. And, in order to enhance his services in the estimation of the country party, he revealed to them a new popish plot, still more tremendous than any of those previously hatched, and accused the Duke of York as a principal accomplice in the conspiracy. The king, however, imprisoned Fitzharris in Newgate. But the Commons immediately espoused his cause, and voted that he should be impeached by themselves, in order to screen him from the ordinary forms of justice. The Lords rejected the impeachment; the Commons asserted their right; and a commotion was likely to ensue, when the king, in order to break off the contest, went to the house and dissolved the parliament, with a fixed resolution never to call another.

From this moment the king ruled with despotic sway. His temper, which had generally been easy and merciful, now became arbitrary and cruel; he entertained spies and informers round the throne, and imprisoned all those whom he thought most daring in their designs. In particular, he resolved to humble the Presbyterians. They were divested of all their employments, and their offices given to such as were favourable to the court, and approved the doctrine of non-resistance. The clergy began to testify their zeal and their principles by their writings and sermons; but although the partizans of the king were the most numerous, those of the opposite faction were the most enterprising. The king openly espoused the cause of the former; and thus placing himself at the head of a faction, he deprived the city of London, which had long headed the popular party, of their charter. Terror was also employed to confirm this new species of monarchy. Fitzharris was brought to trial, condemned, and executed. The whole gang of spies, witnesses, informers, and suborners, who had long been encouraged and supported by the leading patriots, finding now that the king was entirely master, turned short upon their ancient employers, and tendered evidence against those who had first put them in motion. The king’s ministers gave encouragement to these miscreants; and in a short time the same injustice and the same cruelties were practised underpre-tence of Presbyterian, as had formerly been committed under the delusive apprehension of Catholic treasons. But the king’s chief resentment was levelled against the Earl of Shaftesbury; and not without reason, as he had been very active in the late disturbances. No sums were spared to seek for evidence, nor even to suborn witnesses, against this intriguing and formidable man. A bill of indictment was presented to the grand jury, and witnesses were examined, who swore to such incredible circumstances as must have invalidated their testimony, even if they had not been branded as perjured villains. Amongst his papers, indeed, was found a draught of an association, which might have been construed into treason; but it was not in the earl’s handwriting, nor could it be proved that he had ever communicated this scheme to any body, or signified his approbation of any such project. But the sheriffshad taken care to summon a jury whose principles coincided with those of the earl; and in that, more than in any insufficiency of proof, consisted his safety. The bill was ignored by the grand jury; the hall resounded with applause[7:5:353]; and the day was closed with the ringing of bells, the burning of bonfires, and other demonstrations of popular joy.

But it was in Scotland that the character of the restored government appeared in its most hideous features. The duke, after a temporary exile from Britain, had been sent to that country; and there, during his administration, he exercised a tyranny, if possible still more frightful than that of Lauderdale. The battle of Bothwell Bridge had tamed the spirit of the Covenanters, and many of them, by frequenting the churches of the indulged ministers, succeeded in screening themselves from the vengeance of the government. But there was still left a remnant of faithful adherents of the covenant, inconsiderable in number, and despicable in point of influence, but men of stern character, exalted enthusiasm, and indomitable zeal, who followed their spiritual guides, Cargill and Cameron, into the wilderness, and, amidst the glens and morasses, were fed by them with the manna of the divine word. Hunted like partridges on the mountains, and subjected to military execution wherever they were caught, these men, naturally led to inquire into the authority of those by whom their sufferings were inflicted, came as naturally to the conclusion, that the king having broken the condition upon which he received the crown of Scotland, by rejecting the covenant, had therefore forfeited all right to the exercise of the regal authority. Deeply convinced of the truth of this doctrine, Cameron, accompanied by twenty persons of his sect, proceeded to Sanquhar, and there published u A Declaration and Testimonie of the true Presbyterian, Anti-Prelatic, Anti-Erastian, and persecuted Party in Scotland,” setting forth their grievances, disowning the king by reason of his tyranny, proclaiming war against him as a tyrant and usurper, and testifying against the reception of the Duke of York, a professed Papist, in Scotland, as repugnant to their principles, and their vows to the most high God. This persecuted remnant, who mustered in all twenty-six horse and forty foot, now prepared to support their bold defiance by force of arms; but they, were surprised, defeated, and dispersed, by three troops of dragoons, at Airmoss, in the district of Kyle. Cameron fell in the skirmish, fighting with heroic courage; his brother, with seven of his companions, shared his fate; Hackston of Rathillet, who had been a passive spectator merely of the murder of Sharpe, and a few others, were wounded and made prisoners. Cargill escaped from the field, and prepared to avenge the death of his friends. Having repaired to Torwood in Stirlingshire, and assembled a number of his disciples, henceforward known by the name of Cameronians, he proceeded, after a lecture and sermon, to excommunicate the king, “for his mocking of God, his perjury, his uncleanness of adultery, his drunkenness, and his dissembling with God and man the Duke of York, for idolatry; the Duke of Monmouth, for invading God’s people at Bothwell Bridge; the Duke of Lauderdale, for blasphemy, apostacy, and adultery; and the Duke of Rothes, Sir George Mackenzie, and Dalziel of Binns, for different offences. He concluded by declaring that “no power on earth, of kings, princes, magistrates, or ministers, of the gospel, could, without the repentance of the persons openly and legally appearing, reverse this excommunication and there can be no doubt whatever that his affirmation was most devoutly believed.

These proceedings exasperated the council beyond all measure, and hurried them into the commission of unparalleled atrocities. The prisoners brought from Airmoss were executed with every circumstance of barbarity; a strict search was made, not only after their associates, but also for the professors of their doctrines; and of the latter, many, including females, testified with the loss of their lives the sincerity of their belief. Even those innocent of all offence towards the government were insidiously involv- ’ ed in the same fate with those who had openly defied it. Taking advantage of the spirit which the cruelties of the government had alone excited and inflamed, the privy council sought to entrap fresh victims by means of ensnaring questions, thus imitating the great master they served, in tempting men to sin, that they might have the pleasure of punishing them for it. Was Archbishop Sharpe’s death murder? Was the rising at Bothwell Bridge rebellion? Is Charles a rightful king or a tyrant? Such were the interrogatories put to the victims of rage and suspicion, who being for the most part too sincere to dissemble their opinions, and too fearless to be intimidated even by the most cruel tortures, were commonly dismissed from the iron boot to the court of justiciary, and thence, by a rapid transition, to the scaffold.

But the mass of the people were not the only objects of this fierce and frantic tyranny. Anon it took a higher flight, and struck at the Earl of Argyll, a man whose only fault appears to have consisted in his submission to the frightful misrule under which his country had so long groaned; a submission dictated by a love of peace, not by an approval of its enormities. When required, as a privy counsellor, to take a self-contradictory test, which the Scottish parliament had prescribed, Argyll accepted it with an explanation, that he took it in as far as it was consistent with itself and the Protestant religion, adding, that he would “not debar himself from endeavouring in a lawful way, and in his station, to make such changes in the church and state as he might judge beneficial.” For this explanation he was imprisoned in the castle of Edinburgh, brought to trial, and, by an infamous perversion of his words, a charge of treason made out against him. Nairne, a superannuated judge, carried into court at midnight to make a majority on the relevancy of the indictment, fell asleep during the proceedings, and was only wakened to give his vote. A jury of Argyll’s personal enemies, with the Marquis of Montrose at their head, found him guilty of treason, leasing-making, and leasing-telling, though not of the perjury libelled; and he received sentence of death, although the execution of it was suspended during the king’s pleasure. But Argyll did not choose to trust to the tender mercies of his enemies. He escaped from the castle in disguise, and thus saved his life; but sentence of attainder was passed against him. After the defeat of the exclusionists, and the dissolution of parliament, the duke was recalled to England; but the consequent change of administration was productive of little or no relief to this oppressed country.

In 1683 the city of London was deprived of its charter, which was only restored upon terms of abject submission, and its giving up the nomination of its own magistrates. This was so arbitrary a proceeding, that all the other corporations in England began to dread the same treatment, and, in fact, were successively induced to surrender their charters into the hands of the king. Considerable sums were exacted for the restoration of these charters, and all the offices of power and profit were left at the disposal of the crown. Resistance now, however justifiable, was no longer safe; and prudent men saw no other expedient but submitting with patience to the present grievances.

There was a party in England, however, which still cherished their former ideas of freedom, and resolved to restore liberty to their country by dethroning the monarch who acted in a manner so despotic and arbitrary. The principal members of this confederacy were Monmouth, Shaftesbury, Russell, Essex, Howard, Algernon Sidney, and John Hampden, grandson to the great man [7:5:354]of that name. Monmouth engaged the Earl of Macclesfield, Lord Brandon, Sir Gilbert Gerard, and other gentlemen in Cheshire; Lord Russell entered into a correspondence with Sir William Courtney, Sir Francis Knowles, and Sir Francis Drake, who promised to raise the west; and Shaftesbury, with one Ferguson, a restless plotter, undertook to manage the city, upon the aid of which the confederates chiefly relied. Ťhese schemes had been laid in 1681. But the caution of Lord Russell, who induced the Duke of Monmouth to postpone the enterprise, saved the kingdom from the horrors of a civil war; whilst Shaftesbury was so struck with a sense of his impending danger, that he left his house, and lurking about the city, attempted in vain to force the Londoners into open insurrection. Enraged at the numberless cautions and delays which clogged and defeated his projects, he at last threatened to begin with his own friends singly; but after a long struggle between fear and exasperation, he abandoned all hopes of success, and fled to Amsterdam, where he soon afterwards died. But the loss of Shaftesbury, though it retarded, did not put an end to the designs of the patriots. The remaining six formed a council, corresponded with Argyll and the malcontents in Scotland, and, though they widely differed in principles from one another. resolved to prosecute the scheme of the insurrection. Monmouth aspired to the crown; Russell and Hampden proposed to exclude the Duke of York from the succession, and to redress the grievances of the nation; Sidney was for restoring the republic; and Essex shared the same wishes and opinions. Lord Howard was an abandoned man, who. having no fixed principles of any kind, sought to embroil the nation, in hopes of advancing his own private interest during the confusion.

Besides these there was a subordinate set of conspirators, who frequently met together, and carried on projects quite unknown to Monmouth and his council. Among them was Colonel Rumsey, a military adventurer; Lieutenant-Colonel Walcot, a man of the same stamp; Goodenough, under-sheriff* of London, a zealous and noted party-man; Ferguson, an independent minister; and several attorneys, merchants, and tradesmen of London. But Rumsey and Ferguson were the only persons who had access to the great leaders of the conspiracy. These men took the resolution of assassinating the king in his way to Newmarket; and as Rumboldt, one of the party, possessed a farm upon the road called the Eye-house, the conspiracy was thence called the Eye-house Plot. The scheme they had fixed on was to stop the king’s coach by overturning a cart on the highway at this place, and to shoot him through the hedges. But the house in which the king lived at Newmarket having accidentally taken fire, he was obliged to leave that place eight days sooner than was expected, and to this circumstance he owed his safety. Soon afterwards the conspiracy was discovered; Russell. Sidney, and Walcot, were executed; Essex cut his own throat; Hampden was fined forty thousand pounds; and scarcely one escaped who had been in any manner concerned, except the Duke of Monmouth, who was the most culpable of all.

This was the last blood shed on account of plots or conspiracies, which had abounded during the greater part of this reign. Severe punishments, however, were inflicted on many who had treated the Duke of York unworthily. The infamous Titus Oates was fined a hundred thousand pounds for calling him a popish traitor, and was imprisoned till he paid the mulct, which he was absolutely incapable of doing. A similar sentence was passed upon Dutton Colt; and Sir Samuel Barnadiston was fined ten thousand pounds for having in some private letters reflected on the government. The government of Charles was now as absolute as that of any prince in Europe; but to please his subjects by a popular act, he judged it proper to marry the Lady Anne, his niece, to Prince George, brother to the king of Denmark; which was the last transaction of this extraordinary reign.

On the second of February 1685, about eight in the morning, the king was seized with a fit of apoplexy, as he came dressed out of his closet, where he had been for some time after he rose from bed. Being immediately bled, he was restored to his senses, and hopes were entertained of his recovery. But on the fourth day the physicians despaired of his life, and therefore sent for the queen. He was in his perfect senses, when she arrived. She threw herself on her knees, and asked his pardon for all her offences. He replied that she had offended in nothing, but that he had been guilty of offences against her, and asked her pardon. He spoke with great affection to the Duke of York, and gave him excellent counsel for his future conduct, advising him to adhere to the laws with strictness, and invariably to support the church of England. But the duke seemed anxious to convince his brother before he died how little he intended to follow his advice. Having removed the bishops, and several of the lords who attended at the bedside of the king, he sent for Huddleston, a Catholic priest, who, in the presence of the duke, the Earl of Bath, and Trevannion, a captain in the guards, gave extreme unction to the king, and administered to him the sacrament according to the rites of the church of Rome. All this was done in about the space of half an hour. The doors were then thrown open; and six prelates, who had before attended the king, were sent for to give him the sacrament. Kenn, bishop of Bath and Wells, read the visitation of the sick, and, after the dying man had said that he repented of his sins, the absolution. The king assisted with seeming devotion at the service; but his mouth being distorted with fits, and his throat contracted, he could not swallow the elements. He professed, however, his satisfaction with the church of England, an¢l expired on the 6th of February, after a reign of twenty-four years, and in the fifty-fifth year of his age.

In person Charles was tall and well-proportioned, with a swarthy complexion and features austere and forbidding. His constitution, originally sound and robust, he had in his youth impaired by indulgence, and afterwards laboured to restore by attention to diet and exercise. In disposition he was kind, familiar, communicative; delighting in social converse; averse to parade and ceremony: and eager, on all occasions, to escape from the trammels of official dignity to the ease and comfort of colloquial familiarity. Fĭe had good talents; but these were joined to an insuperable antipathy to application, which disqualified him for business, and kept him in a state of ignorance disgraceful to one in his station. He sought amusement alone, and seems to have cared little for any thing beyond the gratification of this propensity. He looked upon the practice of dissimulation as the grand secret in the art of reigning. Surrounded by men who made it their object, as it was their interest, to deceive him, his only protection, he argued, consisted in the employment of the same weapon, and it was necessary for him to deceive, that he might not be deceived. During his whole reign he was the slave of women; and his coun became a school of vice, in which all the restraints of morality and even decency were laughed to scorn; whilst the distinctions he lavished on his mistresses enabled them to put a bold front on their infamy, and, holding out an encouragement to crime, tended to sap in youthtul breasts those principles of modesty which are the best guardians of female virtue, “There may have been other periods of our history in which immorality prevailed,” [7:5:355]says Dr Lingard; “but none in which it was practised with more ostentation, or brought with it less disgrace.” Of Charles’s pecuniary transactions with France it is impossible to think without feelings of shame, or to speak except in the language of reprobation. They were equally disgraceful in themselves, and humiliating to the nation, which had at its head a king who thus sold himself to its natural rival and enemy. That he cherished designs subversive of the liberties of the subject, is evinced by the whole tenor of his conduct, especially during the latter part of his reign; and had he been as active in his habits as he was unprincipled in his character and despotical in his disposition, the constitution might have been overthrown, and a monarchy as absolute as any in Europe erected on its ruins. With respect to what he was pleased to call his religion, he appears to have been a deist; and although he had embraced the Catholic worship before the restoration, yet he was not formally reconciled to the church of Rome until the eve of his death. By this means he was enabled to play the hypocrite, and, for five-and-twenty years, to hold himself out as an orthodox protestant, whilst he satisfied his conscience by secretly professing Catholicism, and in reality believed no religion at all. Finally, in all the relations of life, whether public or private, he was equally unprincipled, profligate, false, immoral, vicious, and corrupt; whilst, from the example of his debauched and licentious court, public morals contracted a taint, which it required little less than a century to obliterate, and which for a time wholly paralysed the character of the nation.

CHAP. VH.

REIGN OF JAMES II.

Accession of James II.—Slavish Addresses.—Remarkable one by the Quakers—Imprudent Measures of the King—Measure in favour of the Catholics—Monmouth’s Conspiracy—Defeat and Execution of Argyll—Landing of Monmouth.—Battle of Sedgemore—Defeat, Capture, and Execution of Monmouth.— James endeavours to establish Popery.—Parliament dissolved. —Catholics promoted—Opposition of the English Clergy—An ambassador sent to Rome—Declarations in favour of liberty of conscience—The seven Bishops imprisoned.—Popular commotions—Trial and acquittal of the Bishops—Attachment of the army to the Protestant Cause—Birth of the Prince of Wales—Treachery of Sunderland—Proceedings of the Prince of Orange—Invited to England by the malcontents.—James warned of his danger by the French king—Rejects all offers of assistance—Paralysed by the news of the intended invasion. —Perfidy of Sunderland—Vain attempts at conciliation.— Landing of William Prince of Orange—Defection of James’s army—Distressing situation of the King, who is deserted even by his own children—Conduct of William—James attempts to quit the kingdom, but is seized and detained His distress.—

Return to London—Ordered to leave the palace.—Urged to remain by some of his adherents—His refusal—Lands in France.—The throne declared vacant—William raised to the Sovereignty in conjunction with the Princess Mary his wife.

The first act of James II.’s reign was to assemble the privy council, in which, after bestowing some praise on the memory of his predecessor, he made professions of his resolution to maintain the established government both in church and state; and as he had heretofore ventured his life in defence of the nation, he declared that he would still go as far as any man in maintaining all its just rights and privileges.

This discourse was received with great applause, not only by the council, but by the whole nation. Addresses came from all quarters, full of duty, nay, of the most servile adulation. From this charge, however, must be excepted that of the Quakers, which is remarkable for its good, sense and simplicity. “We are come,” said they, “to testify our sorrow for the death of our good friend Charles, and bur joy for thy being made our governor. We are told that thou art not of the persuasion of the church of England, no more than we; wherefore we hope that thou wilt grant us the same liberty which thou allow-est thyself, which doing, we wish thee all manner of happiness.”

The king, however, soon showed, either that he was not sincere in his promises, or that he entertained so lofty an idea of his own regal power, that even his utmost sincerity could tend but little to the security of the liberties of the people. All the customs, and the greater part of the excise, which had been voted to the late king for his life only, were levied by James without any new act for that purpose. He went openly to mass with all the ensigns of his dignity, and even sent one Caryl as his agent to Rome to make submissions to the pope, and to pave the way for the re-admission of England into the bosom of the Catholic church. By the suggestions of these men all his measures were undertaken. One day when the Spanish ambassador ventured to advise his majesty against putting too much confidence in such kind of people, “Is it not the custom in Spain,” said James, “for the king to consult with his confessor ?” “Yes,” answered the ambas sador, “and that is the reason why our affairs succeed so very ill.”

James’s first parliament, which was composed mostly of zealous tories, was strongly inclined to comply with the measures of the crown, and passed a unanimous vote, settling on James during life all the revenue enjoyed by the late king till the time of his decease. For this favour James assured them that he would secure them in the full enjoyment of their laws: but with regard to religion no answer could be extorted from him, for that he was resolved at all hazards to change. In every thing except religion, however, James merited commendation. He applied himself to business with unremitting attention; he managed his revenue with the strictest economy; he retrenched superfluous expenses, and showed himself zealous for the glory of the nation; he endeavoured to expel from court the vice which had prevailed so much during the former reign, and to restore decency and morality; he presided daily at the council, and at the boards of admiralty and treasury; he even entered into the whole detail of the concerns of the great departments of the state. But his bigoted attachment to the Roman Catholic religion sullied all his good qualities, and rendered him feared for his violence, where he was not despised for his weakness.

But whilst every thing remained in tranquillity at home, a storm was gathering abroad. For a long time the Prince of Orange had entertained hopes of ascending the British throne, and had even used endeavours to exclude James. Monmouth, who, since his last conspiracy, had been pardoned, but ordered to depart the kingdom, had retired to Holland, where he was received by the Prince of Orange with the highest marks of distinction, and became his chief favourite. When the news of Charles’s death arrived, indeed, the prince made a show of changing his tone, and dismissed Monmouth, but still kept up a close correspondence with him. The duke retired to Brussels; and, having resolved to invade England, he was seconded by the Earl of Argyll, who formed the scheme of exciting an insurrection in Scotland. But the generosity of the Prince of Orange did not correspond with the warmth of his professions. The unfortunate duke derived from his own plate and jewels his whole supply for the war; whilst the enthusiasm of a rich widow supplied Argyll with ten thousand pounds, with which he purchased three vessels, and loaded them with arms and ammunition.
[7:5:356]

Having landed in Scotland, Argyll published his manifestoes, put himself at the head of two thousand five hundred men, and strove to influence the people in his favour. But a formidable body of the king’s forces having marched against him, his army fell away; and he himself, after being wounded in attempting to escape, was taken prisoner by a peasant, carried to Edinburgh, and, after suffering many indignities, publicly executed.

By this time Monmouth had landed in Dorsetshire with scarcely a hundred followers. His name, however, was so popular, and so great was the hatred of the people to James on account of his religion, that in four days he had assembled a body of above two thousand men, and continuing to make a rapid progress, in a short time found himself at the head of six thousand men; but he was daily obliged to dismiss great numbers for want of arms. Alarmed at his invasion, the king recalled six regiments of British troops from Holland; and a body of regulars, to the number of three thousand, was sent, under the command of the Earl of Feversham, and of Lord Churchill, to check the progress of the rebels. They took post at Scdgemore, a village in the neighbourhood of Bridgewater, and were joined by considerable numbers of the country militia. Here Monmouth resolved to make a stand; and having drawn up his followers in the best order he could, he drove the royal infantry from their ground, and was on the point of gaining a complete victory, when the cowardice of Gray, who commanded the horse, ruined all. This nobleman fled at the first onset; and the insurgents being charged in flank, gave way after a contest of three hours. About three hundred were killed in the engagement, and a thousand in the pursuit. Monmouth fled above twenty miles from the field of battle, till his horse sunk under him. He then alighted, and, exchanging clothes with a shepherd, fled on foot, attended by a German count who had accompanied him from Holland. Being at length quite exhausted with hunger and fatigue, they both lay down in a field, and covered themselves with fern. Meanwhile the shepherd being found in Monmouth’s dress, increased the diligence of the search; and by means of bloodhounds he was detected in his miserable situation, with raw peas in his pocket, on which he had subsisted for some days. He burst into tears when seized by his enemies, and petitioned, with abject importunity, for his life.

He also wrote to the queen dowager; he sent a letter to the reigning queen, as well as to the king himself; and he begged his life, when admitted into the presence of James, with a meanness unsuitable to his pretensions and high rank. But all his entreaties and submissions were of no avail. James told him that he was much affected at his misfortunes, but that his crime was too dangerous in its example to be left unpunished. In his last moments Monmouth behaved with a magnanimity worthy of his former courage. When he came to the scaffold, he conducted himself with decency and even with dignity. He spoke little, he made no confession, nor did he accuse any of his friends. The circumstances attending his death excited horror among the spectators. The executioner missed his aim, and struck him slightly on the shoulder. Monmouth raised his head from the block, and looked him full in the face, as if reproaching him for his mistake. The man struck twice again, but feebly, and then threw away the axe. The sheriff forced him to renew his attempt; and the head of the duke, who seemed already dead, was at last severed from his body.

Those concerned in the Duke of Monmouth’s conspiracy were punished with the utmost severity. Immediately after the-battle of Sedgemore, Feversham hanged up above twenty prisoners, and was proceeding with his executions when the Bishop of Bath and Wells informed him that these unhappy men were now by law entitled to a trial, and that their execution would be deemed murder. Nineteen were put to death in the same manner at Bridgewater by Colonel Kirke, a man of a thoroughly savage and bloody disposition. This miscreant, practised in the arts of slaughter at Tangiers, where lie had served in garrison, took pleasure in committing acts of wanton barbarity, and ravaged the whole country without making any distinction between friend and foe; bis own regiment being designated, by way of eminence, “Kirke’s Lambs.” The natural brutality of this man’s temper was inflamed by continual intoxication. No fewer than eighty were executed by his orders at Dorchester; and on the whole, at Exeter, Taunton, and Wells, two hundred and fifty are computed to have fallen by the hand of justice, as it was called, under the auspices of Judge Jefferies, who had been sent down to try the delinquents. This man, hot satisfied with the sacrifice of the principals, charged the juries to search out the aiders and abettors of the rebellion; and those personswho, in compassion for the wretched fugitives, had afforded them an asylum, were denounced and punished as such. Even women did not escape, and two, Lady Lisle and Mrs Gaunt, were sentenced to be burned alive for similar acts of humanity. Jefferies, on his return from his campaign in the west, was immediately created a peer, and soon after invested with the dignity of chancellor. In his Memoirs James complains, with apparent indignation, of “the strange havock made by Jefferies and Kirke in the west,” and attributes the unpopularity which afterwards deprived him of the crown to the violence and barbarity of those pretended friends of his authority.

James now began to throw off the mask, and to endeavour openly to establish popery and arbitrary power. He told the House of Commons that the militia were found by experience to be of no use; that it was necessary to augment the standing army; and that he had employed a great many Catholic officers, in whose favour he had thought proper to dispense with the test required to be taken by all who were employed by the crown. These stretches of power naturally led the Lords and Commons into some degree of opposition; but they soon acquiesced in the king’s measures, and then the parliament was dismissed for their tardy compliance.

The parliament being dissolved, James’s next step was to secure a Catholic interest in the privy council. Accordingly four Catholic lords, Powis, Arundel, Bellasis, and Dover, were admitted as members. Sunderland, who saw that the only way to gain preferment was by popery, became a convert. Rochester, the treasurer, was turned out of his office because he refused to conform. Even in Ireland, where the Duke of Ormond had long supported the royal cause, this nobleman was displaced as being a Protestant, and the Lord Tyrconnel, a furious Catholic, was placed in his stead. In his zeal for popery, it is said that James stooped so low as even to attempt the conversion of Colonel Kirke; but the daring soldier told him that he was pre-engaged, for he had promised the king of Morocco, when he was quartered at Tangiers, that if ever he changed his religion he would turn Mahommedan. At last the clergy of the church of England began to take the alarm, and commenced an opposition to court measures. The pulpits now thundered out against popery; and it was in vain that James attempted to impose silence on this topic. Instead of avoiding the controversy, the Protestant preachers pursued it with greater warmth.

To effect his designs, the king determined to revive the High Commission Court, which had formerly given the nation so much disgust, and which had been abolished for ever by act of parliament. An ecclesiastical commission was [7:5:357] accordingly issued,· by which seven commissioners were invested with full and unlimited authority over the whole church of England. The next step was to allow liberty of conscience to all sectaries. This was done in the belief that the truth of the Catholic, religion would, upon a fair trial, gain the victory. Besides, the same power that granted liberty of conscience might restrain it;, and the Catholic religion alone would thus predominate. He therefore issued a general indulgence, declaring that nonconformity to the established religion was no longer penal; but in Scotland he ordered his parliament to grant a toleration only to the Catholics, without interceding in the least for the other dissenters. In Ireland the Protestants were totally expelled from all offices of trust and profit, and Catholics put in their places. These measures sufficiently disgusted every part of the British empire; but to complete the work, James publicly sent the Earl of Cas-tlemaine as ambassador extraordinary to Rome, in order to express his obedience to the pope, and reconcile his kingdoms to the Catholic communion. This proceeding was too precipitate to be relished even by the pope himself; and therefore the only return he made to this embassy was the sending a nuncio into England. Soon after this the Jesuits were permitted to erect colleges in different parts of the kingdom, and to exercise the Catholic worship in the most public manner.

In 1686 a second declaration in favour of liberty of conscience was published almost in the same terms with the former, but with this particular injunction, that all divines should read it after service in their churches. The clergy resolved to disobey this order. Loyd, bishop of St Asaph, Kenn of Bath and Wells, Turner of Ely, Lake of Chichester, White of Peterborough, and Trelawney of Bristol, together with Sancroft the primate, concerted an address in the form of a petition to the king, which, with the warmest expressions of zeal and submission, signified that they could not read the declaration consistently with their consciences or the respect they owed the Protestant religion. The king received their petition with marks of surprise and displeasure. He said he did not expect such an address from the church of England, particularly from some amongst them; and persisted in his orders for their obeying his mandate. As the petition had been delivered in private, the king summoned the bishops before the council, and there questioned them whether they would acknowledge it. They for some time declined giving an answer; but being urged by the chancellor, they at last owned the petition. On their refusal to give bail, an order was immediately issued for their commitment to the Tower, and the crown lawyers received directions to prosecute them for a seditious libel. The king gave orders that they should be conveyed to the Tower by water, as the whole city was in commotion in their favour. But the people, when informed of their danger, ran to the river side in great multitudes, craving their blessing, and calling upon Heaven to protect them; whilst the very soldiers by whom they were guarded kneeled down before them and implored their forgiveness. The 29th of June 1686 was fixed for the trial of the bishops. Twenty-nine peers, a great number of gentlemen, and an immense crowd of persons, waited upon them to Westminster Hall. The discussion was learnedly managed by the lawyers on both sides. The jury withdrew into a chamber, where they passed the whole night; but next morning they returned into court, and pronounced the bishops not guilty. Westminster Hall instantly rang with loud acclamations, which were communicated to the whole extent of the city, and even reached the camp at Hounslow, where the king was at dinner in Lord Feversham’s tent. His majesty demanded the cause of those rejoicings, and being informed that it was nothing but the soldiers shouting for the delivery of the bishops, “Call you that nothing ?” said he; “but so much the worse for them.”

As the king found the clergymen everywhere averse to his measures, he was willing next to try what he could do with the army, thinking that if one regiment could be brought to promise implicit obedience, their example would soon induce others to comply. He therefore ordered one of the regiments to be drawn up in his presence, and desired that such as were against the late declaration of liberty of conscience should lay down their arms. He was surprised to see the whole battalion ground their arms, except two officers and a few Roman Catholic soldiers. A few days before the acquittal of the bishops the queen was delivered of a son. This, if any thing could at that time, might have served to establish James on the throne; but so violent was the animosity against him, that a story was propagated that the child was supposititious; and the monarch’s pride scorned to take any precautions to refute the calumny.

Though the enthusiasih of James himself was sufficiently extravagant, the wildest of his religious projects seem to have been suggested by his enemies in order to accomplish his ruin. The Earl of Sunderland, whom he chiefly trusted, was a man of abandoned principles, insatiable avarice, and fitted by nature for stratagem, deception, and intrigue. The love of money was his ruling passion, and he accordingly sold his influence to the highest bidder. To such a degree was he mercenary, that he became at once the pensioner of the Prince of Orange and of the king of France. The former, who had long fixed his eye on the English throne, watched James’s motions, and took every advantage of his errors. He had laid his schemes so extensively, that nothing but the birth of a male heir to the crown of England seemed likely to prevent him from obtaining an almost immediate possession of the kingdom; and he had the address to render two thirds of the powers of Europe interested in his success. The treaty of Augsburg, formed to break the power of France, could not accomplish its object without the accession of England. The house of Austria, in both its branches, preferred their political views to their zeal for the Roman Catholic faith, and promoted the dethronement of James as the only means of humbling Louis XIV. Odeschalchi, who under the name of Innocent XI. then filled the papal chair, was also gained to the measures of the Prince of Orange by other considerations, as well as through his fixed aversion to France.

Seeing the national discontent now raised to the highest pitch, the Prince of Orange resolved to take advantage of it. He began by giving one Dykevelt, his envoy, instructions to apply in his name to every religious sect ill the kingdom. To the church party he sent assurances of favour and regard; protesting that his education in Holland had no way prejudiced him against Episcopacy. To the non-conformists he sent exhortations not to be deceived by the insidious caresses of their known enemy, but to wait for a real and sincere protector. In consequence of these insinuations, the prince soon received invitations from the most considerable persons in the kingdom. Admirals Herbert and Russell assured him in person of their own and the national attachment. Henry Sidney, brother to Algernon, and uncle to the Earl of Sunderland, came over to him with assurances of a universal combination against the king. Lord Dumblane, son to the Earl of Danby, being master of a frigate, made several voyages to Holland, and carried from many of the nobility tenders of duty, and even considerable sums of money, to the Prince of Orange. Soon after, the Bishop of London, the Earls of Danby, Nottingham, Devonshire, Dorset, and several other lords, gentlemen, and principal citizens, united in their [7:5:358] addresses to him, and entreated his speedy descent. The people, though long divided between whig and tory, now joined against their misguided sovereign as against a common enemy. William therefore determined to accept their invitation; and this the more readily, as he perceived that the malcontents had conducted themselves with prudence and secrecy. Having the principal servants of James in pay, he was minutely informed of the most secret actions and designs of that prince. His intelligence came through Sidney from Sunderland, who betrayed the very measures which he himself had advised. The prince had a fleet ready to sail, and troops provided for action, before the beginning of June 1688.

The king of France was the first who gave James warning of his danger, and offered to assist him in repelling it. But he declined this friendly offer, lest it should be said that he had entered into a private treaty with that monarch to the prejudice of the Protestant religion. Being also deceived and betrayed by Sunderland, he had the weakness to believe, that the reports of an invasion were invented in order to frighten him into a strict connection with France. He gave credit to the repeated assurances of the States, that the armament preparing in their ports was not designed against England; nay, he even believed the assertions of the prince himself, whose interest it was to deceive. Sunderland descanted against the possibility of an invasion, and turned into ridicule all who believed the report. Having, with the consent of James, taken possession of all the foreign correspondence, he suppressed every kind of intelligence that might alarm; and all others whom James trusted, except Dartmouth, affected long to place no faith in the reports of an invasion. Louis finding his first offers rejected, next proposed to march down his army to the frontiers of the Dutch provinces, and thus detain their forces at home for their own defence. But this proposal met with no better reception than the former one. Still Louis, unwilling to abandon a friend and ally whose interest he regarded as closely connected with his own, ventured to remonstrate with the Dutch against the preparations they were making to invade England. But the Dutch treated his remonstrances as an officious impertinence, and James himself declined his mediation.

The king of England, having thus rejected the assistance of his friends, and being left to face the danger alone, was astonished with an advice from his minister in Holland, that an invasion was not only projected, but avowed. When he first read the letter containing this information, he grew pale, and the letter dropt from his hand. He saw himself on the brink of destruction, and knew not to whom to apply for protection. In this emergency, Louis wrote to James in his own hand, that to divert the Dutch from their intended invasion of England, he would lay siege to Maestricht with thirty thousand men. James communicated this intelligence to Sunderland, and the latter to the Prince of Orange, by whom six thousand men were thrown into Maestricht; and the design of Louis being thus rendered impracticable, it was laid aside.

James had now no resource but in retreating from those precipitate measures which had plunged him into inextricable distress. He paid court to the Dutch, and offered to enter into any alliance with them for their common security. He replaced, in all the counties of England, the deputy lieutenants and justices who had been deprived of their commissions for their adherence to the test and penal law. He restored the charters of such corporations as he had possessed himself of, annulled the High Commission Court, reinstated the expelled president and fellows of Magdalen College, and even caressed the bishops whom he had so lately persecuted and insulted. But all these concessions were now too late, and were regarded as the effects of fear, not of repentance.

In the mean time, William set sail from Helvoetsluys with a fleet of near five hundred sail, and an army of above fourteen thousand men. Fortune, however, seemed at first very unfavourable to his enterprise. He was driven back by a dreadful storm; but he soon refitted his fleet, and again set sail for England. It was given out that this invasion was designed for the coast of France; and many of the English, who saw the fleet pass along their coast, little suspected the place of its destination. It happened that the same wind which sent the Dutch to their place of destination, detained the English fleet in the river; so that the Dutch passed the Straits of Dover without molestation, and, after a voyage of two days, landed at Broxholme in Torbay, on the 5th of November 1688, the anniversary of the gunpowder treason.

But although the invitation from the English was general, the prince for some time had the mortification to find himself joined by very few. He continued for ten days in expectation of being joined by the malcontents, and at last was beginning to despair of success, and to deliberate about re-embarking his forces, when he was joined by several persons of consequence; and the whole country soon afterwards flocked to his standard. The first person who went over to the prince was Major Burrington, and he was quickly followed by the gentry of the counties of Devon and Somerset. Sir Edward Seymour made proposals for an association, which was signed by great numbers; and every day there appeared some new proof of that universal combination into which the nation had entered against the measures of the king. This was followed by the defection of the army. Lord Colchester, son to the Earl of Rivers, first deserted to the prince; Lord Cornbury, son to the Earl of Clarendon, carried off the greatest part of three regiments of cavalry at once; and several officers of distinction informed Feversham their general, that they could not in honour fight against the Prince of Orange. Soon after this the unhappy monarch found himself deserted by his own servants and creatures. Lord Churchill had been raised from the rank of page, and had been invested with a high command in the army; he had been created a peer, and owed his whole fortune to the king’s bounty; yet even he deserted among the rest, and carried with him the Duke of Grafton, natural son to the late king, besides Colonel Berkeley and others.

In this universal defection, James, not knowing where to turn, began to think of requesting assistance from France, when it was now too late. He also wrote to Leopold, emperor of Germany; but that monarch only returned for answer, that what he had foreseen had happened. James had some dependence on his fleet; but in reality they were entirely disaffected. In a word, his interests were deserted by all, for he had long deserted them himself. His army, however, still amounted to twenty thousand men; and had he led them immediately to battle, it is possible they might then have fought in his favour. But his misfortunes had deprived him of his natural firmness and resolution; and seeing himself deserted by those in whom he thought he could place most confidence, he became suspicious of all, and was in a manner deprived even of the power of deliberation. In this extremity of distress, the Prince of Denmark, and Anne, James’s favourite daughter, perceiving the desperation of his circumstances, resolved to take part with the Prince of Orange. Informed of this event, the king was stung with the most bitter anguish. “God help me,” said lie; “my own children have forsaken me.” To add to his distress as a parent, he was accused of being accessory to the death of his own child.

On the 30th of November 1688, James dispatched three [7:5:359]noblemen to treat with the Prince of Orange. But though the latter knew very well that th,c king’s commissioners were in his interests, his behaviour showed plainly that he now thought the period for treating was past. For some time he would not admit them to an audience; and when he did, he gave no satisfactory answer. James now began to be alarmed for his personal safety; but what most affected him was the terror of the queen for herself and her infant son. He therefore resolved to send them abroad. They crossed the river in a boat, at Whitehall, on a stormy day, and were carried to Gravesend in a coach, under the conduct of the Count de Lauzun; a yacht, commanded by Captain Gray, which lay there ready for the purpose, soon transported them in safety to Calais.

The king was now so dispirited and distracted, that he resolved to leave the kingdom at once, and thus plunge every thing in confusion. He threw the great seal into the Thames; he left none with any authority to conduct the government in his absence; and he vainly hoped to derive advantage to his affairs from anarchy and disorder. About twelve at night, on the 10th of December, he disguised himself, took a boat at Whitehall, and crossed the river. Sir Edward Hales, with another friend, met him at Vauxhall with horses. He mounted; and being conducted through by-ways by a guide, he passed in the night-time to the Medway, which he crossed by Ailesford-bridge. At Woolpeck he took fresh horses, sent thither before by Shelden, one of his equerries, who was in the secret of his flight. Having arrived at Embyferry near Feversham, he found a custom-house hoy, hired by Sir Edward Hales, lying ready to receive him on board. But the wind blew fresh, and the vessel had no ballast. The master, therefore, easily persuaded the king to permit him to take in some ballast at Shilness. It being half ebb when they ran ashore, they intended to sail as soon as the vessel should be afloat; but when the vessel was almost afloat, she was boarded by three fishing boats belonging to Feversham, containing fifty men, who seized the king and his two companions, under pretence of their being Papists who wanted to escape from the kingdom. They turned up Feversham water with the tide; but still the king remained unknown. Sir Edward Hales placed privately fifty guineas in the hands of the captain, as an earnest of more should he permit them to escape. He promised, but so far from keeping his word, he took what money they had, under pretence of securing it from the seamen; and having possessed himself of their all, left them to their fate. The unfortunate fugitives were at length carried in a coach to Feversham, amidst the insults, clamours, and shouts of the sailors. When the king was brought to the inn, a seaman who had served under him knew him, and melted into tears; and James himself was so much moved at this instance of his affection, that he wcpt. The other fishermen, who had previously treated him with indignity, when they saw his tears, fell upon their knees. The lower class of inhabitants gathered round him; but the better sort fled from his presence. The seamen, however, formed themselves into a guard, and declared, that “a hair of his head should not be touched.” In the mean time, Sir James Oxendon, under pretence of guarding him from the rabble, came with the militia to prevent his escape. The king found a change in his condition when he was taken out of the hands of the sailors. The commanders of the militia showed him no respect; and he was even insulted by the common soldiers. A letter which he intended to send to London for clothes, a change of linen, and some money, were stopped by those who pretended to protect his person.

In the mean time the Prince of Orange exercised in his own person all the functions of royalty. He issued a declaration to the disbanded army to re-assemble themselves. He ordered the secretary at war to bring him a list of the king’s troops. He commanded the Lord Churchill to collect his troop of horse guards. He sent the Duke of Grafton to take possession in his name of Tilbury Fort. The assembly of peers adjourned to the council-chamber at Whitehall, and, to give the appearance of legality to their meeting, chose the Marquis of Halifax as their president. Whilst this assembly was sitting, on the 13th of December, a poor countryman, who had been engaged by James, brought an open letter from that unfortunate prince to London. It had no subscription; and it was addressed to none. It described in one sentence only, his deplorable condition when in the hands of a desperate rabble. This poor messenger of a fallen sovereign waited long at the council door, without being able to attract the notice of any who passed; but when the Earl of Mulgrave became apprised of his business, his lordship had the courage to introduce him to the council. He delivered his open letter, and told the unhappy state of the king. The assembly were much moved, and sent the Earl of Feversham with two hundred of the guards towards Feversham. His instructions were first to rescue James from danger, and afterwards to attend him to the sea coast, should he wish to retire. He chose, however, to return to London; but the Prince of Orange sent a message to him, desiring him to approach no nearer the capital than Rochester. The messenger missed James by the way; and the king sent Feversham with a letter to the Prince of Orange, requesting his presence in London to settle the nation, while he himself proceeded thither, and arrived on the 16th of December.

The Prince of Orange received the news of his return with little satisfaction. His aim from the beginning was to force him by various means to relinquish the throne. The Dutch guards were ordered to take possession of Whitehall, and to displace the English; and the king was soon after commanded by a message, which he received in bed at midnight, to leave his palace next morning, and to depart for Ham, a seat of the Duchess of Lauderdale’s. But he desired permission to retire to Rochester, which was readily granted. The harsh measures of the prince had now taken effect, and the king meditated an escape to France. Surrounded by the Dutch guards, he arrived at Rochester on the 19th of December. The restraint put upon his person, and the manner in which he had been forced from London, raised the indignation of many, and excited the compassion of all. The English army, both officers and soldiers, began to murmur; and had it not been for the timidity and precipitation of James himself, the nation would probably have returned to their allegiance. He remained three nights at Rochester, in the midst of a few faithful friends, the Earls of Arran, Dumbarton, Ailesbury, Litchfield, and Middleton, and, amongst other officers of merit, Lord Viscount Dundee. They all argued against his intended flight; and several bishops, some peers, and many officers, entreated his stay in some part of England. They represented that the opinions of men began to change, and that events would daily rise in favour of his authority. Dundee added his native ardour to his advice. “The question, Sir,” said he, “is, Whether you shall stay in England or fly to France? Whether you shall trust the returning zeal of your native subjects, or rely on a foreign power? Here you ought to stand. Keep possession of a part, and the whole will submit by degrees. Resume the spirit of a king. Summon your subjects to their allegiance. Your army, though disbanded, is not dispersed. Give me your commission. I will gather ten thousand of your troops. I will carry your standard at their head through England, and drive before you the Dutch [7:5:360]and their prince." The king replied, that he believed it might be done, but that it would raise a civil war, and he would not do so much mischief to a nation that would soon come to their senses again. Middleton urged liis stay, though in the remotest part of the kingdom. “Your majesty,” said he, “may throw things into confusion by your departure; but it will be but the anarchy of a month. A new government will soon be settled, and you and your family will be' ruined.”

These spirited remonstrances had no effect upon James. He resolved to quit the kingdom; and having communicated his design to a few of his friends, he left the house where lie had lodged at midnight, accompanied by his son the Duke of Berwick, and went in a boat to a smack which lay waiting for him without the fort at Sheerness. In the morning of Tuesday the 25th December, the king landed at Ambleteuse in France, and taking post, soon joined bis consort at St Germains.

James having thus abandoned his dominions, the Prince of Orange remained master of all. By the advice of the House of Lords, the only member of the legislature remaining, he was desired to summon a parliament by circular letters; but the prince, unwilling to act upon so imperfect an authority, cbnvened all the members who had sat in the House of Commons during any parliament of Charles IL, to whom were added the mayor, aidermen, and fifty of the common council of London; and being thus supported by an assembly deriving its authority from himself, he wrote circular letters to the counties and corporations of England, directing them to return members to this parliament or convention. When the house met, thanks were voted to the Prince of Orange for the deliverance he had wrought; after which they proceeded to settle the kingdom. A vote soon passed both houses, that King James II. having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between the king and the people, and having by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn himself out of tlíe kingdom, had abdicated the government; and that the throne was thereby vacant.

The king being thus deposed, it was easy for William to get himself appointed as his successor. Proposals were indeed made by some for electing a regent; and others were íbr investing the Princess of Orange with regal power, and declaring the young prince supposititious. But to these proposals William opposed the decisive argument, that he bad been called over to defend the liberties of the British nation, and that he had happily effected his purpose; that he had heard of several schemes proposed for the establishing of the government; that, if they chose a regent, he thought it incumbent upon him to inform them that he would not be that regent; that he would not accept of the crown under the princess his wife, though he was convinced of her merits; that therefore, if either of these schemes was adopted, he could give them no assistance in the settlement of the nation, but would return home to his own country, satisfied with his aims to secure the freedom of theirs. Upon this, after a long debate in both houses, a new sovereign was preferred to a regent by a very small majority. It was agreed that the Prince and Princess of Orange should reign jointly as king and queen of England; whilst the administration of government should be placed in the hands of the prince only. The Marquis of Halifax, as Speaker of the House of Lords, made a solemn tender of the crown to their highnesses, in the name of the Peers and Commons of England. The prince accepted the offer; and that very day, the 13th of February 1689, William and Mary were proclaimed king and queen of Éngland.

CHAP. VIII.

REIGN OF WILLIAM AND MARY.

First measures of William.—National discontents—Scheme in favour of the Dissenters rejected—Precarious condition of William’s government.—Proceedings in Scotland—William acknowledged as King Attempts of Viscount Dundee in favour of James.—Battle of Killicrankie, and death of Dundee—State of Ireland—Insurrection in favour of James.—The Protestants take arms in their own defence, and are defeated at Drumore— Landing of James in Ireland.—Subsequent operations—Gallant defence of Londonderry.—Odious measures resorted to by Jani£s Disembarkation of King William’s army Its compo sition.—Arrival of William—Battle of the Boyne, and defeat of James.—Battle of Aughrim, and defeat of St Ruth, James’s General Siege of Limerick—Pacification of Ireland—Affairs of Scotland—Massacre of Gle∏co—Conduct of William respecting this atrocious barbarity.—-The Dover expedition.— Violent discontents in Scotland, in consequence of the supposed perfidy of the King—Plots in favour of James.—France declares in his favour—Battle of La Hogue, and total defeat of the French fleet under Tourville—James offered the crown of Poland, which he declined.—Offer by William to secure the succession to the Prince of Wales, James’s son, also declined by him Death of James—Conduct of Louis on this occasion—

The Pretender acknowledged by France as king of Great Britain and Ireland—Death of Queen Mary.—National discontent William forced to disband his troops—Altercations be tween the King and the Parliament—Confederacy against France Death and Character of William.

William began his reign with issuing a proclamation for continuing in office all Protestants who had been in place on the first of the preceding December. On the 17th of the month he formed his privy council, which consisted chiefly of those persons who had been most active in raising him to the throne. To gratify as many as possible of his friends, the several boards, and even the chancery, were put into commission. The benches of the Exchequer and Common Pleas were filled with persons who bad distinguished themselves against the measures of the late king. But the Earl of Nottingham, who had violently opposed the elevation of William, and the Earl of Shrewsbury, who had adhered to his views, were made secretaries of state. The Marquis of Halifax, and the Earl of Danby, though rivals in policy, were admitted into the cabinet; the first as lord privy seal, the second as president of the council. William’s Dutch friends in the mean time were not forgotten by the king. Bentinck, his favourite, was made a privy counsellor, groom of the stole, and privy purse; Auverquerque was appointed master of the horse; Zuylstein received the office of master of the robes; and Schomberg was placed at the head of the ordnance.

Though these instances of gratitude were no doubt necessary to William, the generality of the nation were displeased. The tories were offended at being excluded from favour, especially as they had departed from their usual principles in order to serve him. The nation in general were much prejudiced against foreigners, and universal discontent ensued upon seeing them preferred. The king, who had been bred a Calvinist, was also strongly inclined to favour that sect; and finding the clergy of the church of England but little inclined to take the oaths to the new government, he began openly to indulge his own prejudices in favour of dissenters. Having come to the House of Lords to pass some bills, on the 16th March, he made a speech, urging the necessity of admitting all Protestants indiscriminately into the public service. He informed them, that he was employed in filling up the vacancies in offices of trust; he expressed his hopes that they had become sensible of the necessity of a law to settle the oaths to be taken by such persons as should be admitted into place; and he doubted not, that whilst they [7:5:361]provided against Papists, they would at the same time leave room for the admission of all Protestants who were able and willing to serve their country. But this proposition was rejected with vehemence. The adherents of the church complained that the ruin which they feared from the Papists in the preceding reign was now to be dreaded from the Protestant dissenters; and they affirmed, that if the established religion was to be destroyed, it mattered little by whose hands it might fall. A bill brought in by the ministry for abrogating the former oaths of supremacy and allegiance was rejected; and an attempt to dispense with the sacramental test was made without success in another form. The court party proposed that any man, by producing a certificate of his having received the sacrament in any Protestant congregation, should be held sufficiently qualified for office. But this motion was also rejected in the House of Lords by a great majority. William repeated his attempts at a comprehension; but he was ultimately unsuccessful, and in the coronation-oath the church party inserted a clause, that the king should maintain the Protestant religion “as established by law.”

For these and other reasons the government of William was for some time in a very tottering condition. The king, either through want of health or inclination, interfered but little in the affairs of the nation; Ireland was strangely neglected; whilst Halifax and Danby, who had in a manner raised the king to the throne, caballed with his enemies. They perceived that the people, with the same levity which had induced them to desert their former sovereign, were beginning to be discontented with their new prince. Every thing seemed to tend to a change. Halifax himself declared, that were James to conform with the Protestants, he could not be kept four months from re-ascending his throne; and Danby averred, that, were the late king to give satisfaction for the security of religion, it would be difficult to oppose his restoration. From these apparent discontents of the nation, the friends and emissaries of James assumed more boldness in tampering with the servants of the crown and inflaming the army. The former they alarmed with the prospect of a sudden change; the latter they roused into indignation by the alleged preference shown by William for his countrymen the Dutch.

Though the kingdom of Scotland did not at first recognise the authority of William, yet the party of James never attained sufficient strength to be of any effectual service to him in that kingdom. Thirty Scottish Peers, and near eighty gentlemen, then in London, had waited on the Prince of Orange in the beginning of January, and, without any authority from the regency still subsisting in Edinburgh, formed themselves into a kind of cona r ention. The Prince of Orange in a formal manner asked their advice; and when he withdrew, they adjourned to the council chamber at Whitehall. The Duke of Hamilton being chosen president, explained the distracted state of Scotland, representing, that disorders, anarchy, and confusion prevailed, and urging the necessity of placing the power somewhere till a convention of estates should be called to form a lasting and solid settlement. When the heads of an address to the Prince of Orange had been settled, and ordered to be engrossed, the Earl of Arran unexpectedly arose, and proposed to invite back the king. The meeting, however, adhered to the Prince of Orange, and waited on him in a body, requesting him to take the administration into his own hands. He thanked them for the trust they had reposed in him; and a convention was ordered to meet at Edinburgh on the 14th of March, it being provided that no exception or limitation whatever should be made, except that the members should be Protestants.

This convention, however, was opposed by some of the partisans of James; and the archbishop of Glasgow, the Earl of Balcarras, and the Viscount Dundee, were authorized by an instrument signed by him, at that time in Ireland, to call a convention of the estates at Stirling. But this measure was disappointed, first by the wavering disposition of the Marquis of Atholl, and afterwards by the procrastination and folly of the party. At last Viscount Dundee, pretending alarm on account of a design alleged to have been formed by the Covenanters to assassinate him, left Edinburgh at the head of fifty horse. As he passed under the walls of the castle, the Duke of Gordon, who then held the command of the fortress, and favoured the cause of James, called him to a conference. Dundee scrambled up the precipice, and informed the duke of his designs in favour of James, at the same time conjuring him to hold out the castle, under a certainty of being relieved. The novelty of the sight collected a multitude of spectators. The convention took the alarm. The president ordered the doors to be locked, and the keys to be laid upon the table. The drums beat to arms in the town; and a parcel of ill-armed retainers were gathered together in the street by the Earl of Leven. Dundee in the mean time rode off with his party. But as soon as they found themselves secure, the Duke of Hamilton adjourned the convention, which relieved the adherents of James from dreadful apprehensions for their own safety. Fifty members retired from Edinburgh; and that circumstance produced unanimity in all the succeeding resolutions of the convention. Soon after this it was determined in a committee that James had “forefaulted” his right to the crown, by which was meant that he had perpetually excluded himself and his whole race from the throne, which was thereby become vacant. This resolution being approved by the convention, another was drawn up raising William and Mary to the vacant throne; and in consequence they were publicly proclaimed at Edinburgh on the 11th of April 1689.

The castle of Edinburgh was still kept in the name of James by the Duke of Gordon; but despairing of any relief, and pressed by a siege, his Grace surrendered it on the 13th of June, upon honourable terms. The adherents of James, terrified at this unexpected misfortune, now turned their eyes to the Viscount Dundee, who having been in vain urged by the convention to return, was at length declared a fugitive, an outlaw, and a rebel. General Mackay had been sent to Scotland by William, with four regiments of foot and one of dragoons. But Dundee, apprised of the general’s design to surprise him, retired to the Grampian Mountains with a few horse, and thence marched to Gordon Castle, where he was joined by the Earl of Dunfermline with fifty gentlemen. He next passed through the county of Moray to Inverness, which Macdonald of Keppoch had invested with seven hundred men, after having ravaged the lands of the clan of Mackintosh in his way from his own country. Dundee promised to the magistrates of Inverness to repay, at the king’s return, the money extorted from them by Macdonald, and thus induced the latter to join him with all his men. But as he could not prevent the Highlanders from first returning home with their spoil, he accompanied them to Lochaber, and on the 8th of May arrived in Badenoch, whence he wrote letters to the chiefs of the different clans, appointing them to meet at a general rendezvous in Lochaber on the 18th of the same month. In the mean time, passing suddenly through Athole, he surprised the town of Perth, and hoping to gain over two troops of Scottish dragoons who lay at Dundee, he marched suddenly to that place; but the fidelity of Captain Balfour, their commander, disappointed his views. Dundee then returned through Athole and Rannoch to hold the diet of rendezvous at Lochaber; and [7:5:362]there he was reinforced by several Highland chieftains, so that his little army was increased to about fifteen hundred men. He now turned against Mackay, who had advanced to Inverness, but on the approach of Dundee retreated to Strathbogie, leaving the whole Highlands exposed to the enemy.

But notwithstanding this partial success, Dundee found himself surrounded with many difficulties. The officers of the Scottish dragoons, who maintained a secret correspondence with him, sent him false intelligence, as an excuse for their own fears, informing him that a party of Irish, who had endeavoured to land in Scotland under the Duke of Berwick, were driven back, and the duke himself taken prisoner; and that Mackay had been reinforced with a regiment of English horse, and another of foot. Crediting this information, Dundee retreated to Badenoch; the natives of the low country who served in his little army quitted him without leave; the Highlanders plundered the country wherever they went; and he himself at last fell sick, while Mackay hovered on his rear. A slight skirmish occurred, in which the Highlanders had the advantage; but they nevertheless lost their baggage during the action. Dundee at length arrived at Ruthven; but Mackay, reinforced with a body of twelve hundred men, advanced against him, and other regiments had arrived at Perth and Dumblane, on their way to join. The Highlanders now deserted every night by hundreds, and their leader was forced to retire to Lochaber, where only two hundred of his whole force remained with him; whilst, to complete his misfortunes, he at the same time received intelligence of the surrender of the castle of Edinburgh.

Meanwhile, letters having arrived from King James promising immediate succours from Ireland, Dundee ordered the neighbouring clans to assemble round his standard. But still he wanted the necessary means for prosecuting the war. The Highlanders were armed only with their own proper weapons, and he had no more than forty pounds weight of powder in his whole army. All difficulties, however, were surmounted by the activity of the general, for whom his army entertained an enthusiastic zeal. Having collected a force of about two thousand five hundred men, including three hundred Irish recruits, he resolved to give battle to Mackay, who, with a force considerably superior in numbers, was advancing against him. The encounter took place on the 17th of July 1689, near the head of the Pass of Killikrankie. The Highlanders took post on the face of a hill, a little above the house of Urrard, and to the westward of the great Pass; whilst the king’s forces were drawn up on a level piece of ground, in the form of an amphitheatre, bounded on two sides by the heights, and on the third by the river Garry. Dundee delayed his attack until about sunset, when suddenly the Highlanders rushed down like furies, covering themselves from the fire of the king’s troops with their targets. “At last,” says an eye-witness, “they cast away their muskets, drew their broadswords, and advancing furiously on the king’s troops, broke them, and obliged them to retreat; some flying to the water, some another way.” The charge was like a torrent, fierce, rapid, irresistible; and the rout complete. The 21st or Scotch fusileers was on the left of General Mackay’s front line, Hastings’ and Leslie’s, now the 13th and 15th regiments, in the centre, and Lord Leven’s, now the 25th, on the right; the whole consisting of two regiments of cavalry and nine battalions of infantry. After the right of the line had given way, the regiments on the centre and the left, which were covered by the river Garry and the woody precipice below the house of Urrard, kept their ground, and for a short time withstood the shock of the Highland charge with the broadsword; but at length they gave way on all sides, Hastings’ flying through the Pass on the north side, and the fusilcers dashing across the river, followed by the Highlanders. But Dundee having fallen early in the attack/ the consternation occasioned by his death prevented an immediate pursuit through the great Pass. Had they been closely followed, and had a few men been placed at the southern entrance, not a man of the king’s troops would have escaped to tell the story of their defeat. As it was, they lost nearly two thousand men, and the remainder were completely broken and dispersed. But the victory, though gallantly achieved, was productive of nothing but barren glory; and with the fall of Dundee ended all the hopes of James in Scotland. Colonel Cannon, who succeeded him in the command, possessed neither his popularity nor his abilities. After some insignificant actions, in which the valour of the soldiers was more conspicuous than the conduct of their leader, the Highlanders dispersed in disgust; and the war soon afterwards ended favourably for William, without the trouble of repulsing his enemies.

During the troubles in England, which had terminated in placing William on the throne, the two parties in Ireland were kept in a kind of tranquillity by their mutual fears. The Protestants were terrified at the prospect of another massacre; and the Catholics expected every day to be invaded by the united force of the English and Dutch. Their terrors, however, were ill founded; for although Tyrconnel sent several messages to the prince, stating his readiness to deliver up the kingdom to any force that might make a surrender decent, his offers were always rejected. This “is said to have been owing to Halifax, who is alleged to have represented to the king, that if Ireland yielded, no pretence would remain for keeping an army in pay; that without an army to protect his authority, he might be as easily turned out as he had been brought in; that the English nation could never remain long in astate of contentment; and that they had already begun to show symptoms of strong disaffection with the new government.

Tyrconnel, disappointed in his views of surrendering Ireland to the Prince of Orange, affected to adhere to King James. The whole military force of the kingdom at that time amounted only to four thousand men, and of these six hundred were in Dublin; whilst all of them were so much disposed to quit the service, that the lord-deputy was obliged to issue commissions for levying new forces. The effect of this was, that there suddenly appeared in various parts of the kingdom a half-armed rabble, who, having no pay from the king, subsisted ,by depredation, and disregarded all discipline. The Protestants in the north armed themselves in their own defence; and the city of Londonderry, relying on its situation, and a slight wall, shut its gates against the newly-raised army. Protestant parties also appeared everywhere, declaring their resolution to unite in self-defence, to preserve the Protestant religion, to continue their dependence on England, and to promote the meeting of a free parliament.

In these circumstances William sent General Hamilton, an Irishman and a Roman Catholic, to treat with Tyrconnel; but instead of persuading that lord to yield to William, Hamilton advised him to adhere to James, ln the mean time James himself assured the lord-deputy that he was ready to sail from Brest with a powerful armament; upon which Hamilton marched against the northern insurgents, who were routed with considerable slaughter at Drumore, whilst Hillsborough, where they had fixed their head-quarters, was taken without resistance. The city of Londonderry, however, resolved to hold out to the last extremity.

On the 7th of March 1689, James embarked at Brest.
[7:5:363]

The whole force of his expedition consisted of fourteen ships of war, six frigates, and three fire-ships; whilst twelve hundred of his native subjects in the pay of France, and a hundred French officers, composed his army. He landed at Kinsale without opposition on the 12th of the month; and his first care was to secure, in the fort, the money, arms, and ammunition which he bad brought from France, and to put the town in some posture of defence. This done, he advanced to Cork, where Tyrconnel arrived soon after, and brought intelligence of the rout at Drumore. The king was so much pleased with his attachment and services, that he created him a duke, and then began his advance towards Dublin. But the condition of the rabble who flocked to his standard was not calculated to raise his hopes of success. Their very numbers distressed their sovereign, and ruined the country; insomuch that James resolved to disband the greatest part of them. More than one hundred thousand were already on foot in the different parts of the island. Of these he reserved fourteen regiments of horse and dragoons, and thirty-five regiments of foot; the rest he ordered to their respective homes, and armed those who were retained in the best manner he could.

On reaching Dublin, James immediately proceeded to business. He ordered all Protestants who had abandoned the kingdom to return; he commanded all Papists, except those in his army, to lay aside their arms, and put an end to the depredations which they had committed in the excess of their zeal; he raised the value of the currency by proclamation; and he summoned a parliament to meet on the 7th of May, in order to settle the affairs of the kingdom. The Protestant clergy represented their grievances in an address; and the university of Dublin appeared with complaints and congratulations. He assured the first of his absolute protection, and a full redress; and he promised the latter not only to defend, but even to enlarge, their privileges.

On the 8th of April he left Dublin, resolving to lead his army against the insurgents in person; but as they retired before him, he resolved to lay siege to Londonderry. The place, however, mafle a vigorous resistance; but being reduced to the last extremity, it would have been obliged to surrender had it not been relieved on the 28th of July by seven ships laden with provisions, upon which the siege was immediately raised. In the mean time, the distressed situation of James, and his absolute dependence upon France, drove him to the adoption of measures equally odious and impolitic. His soldiers had for some time been supported by their officers, or subsisted by depredation. But the funds of the officers were at length exhausted, and the country itself could no longer endure the riot and injustice of the soldiers. Pressed by these‘difficulties, he resolved, by the advice of his council, to coin copper pieces, which should be received in lieu of silver. The inconveniences and iniquity of this measure were obvious; but all Ireland possessed not the means of paying the army in current coin till the middle of June. Of the French remittances only 200,000 livres remained; and the king found it absolutely necessary to reserve that sum, in order to forward his measures regarding Britain, and to procure intelligence of the motions of his enemies. The army was satisfied even with this mock semblance of money, and the people received the fictitious coin in hopes of being repaid in a more favourable state of affairs. A tax of L.20,000 a month, granted for thirteen months by the parliament, furnished government with an appearance of resources; and in the mean time the king endeavoured to support the former revenue by opening a trade with France to supply the want of commerce with England.

To add to the distress of James, Ireland was now invaded by ten thousand men under the command of the Duke of Schomberg. On the 12th of August 1689, they appear-·* ed in ninety transports, on the coast of Donaghadee, in the county of Down; and next day Schomberg landed his army, horses, and train of artillery, without opposition. On the 15th he marched to Belfast, and continued in that place four days to refresh his troops. He then invested Carrickfergus, and threw into it a thousand bombs, which laid the houses in ashes. When the garrison had expended their powder to the last barrel, they marched out with all the honours of war; but Schomberg’s soldiers broke the capitulation, disarmed and stripped the inhabitants, without regard to sex or quality, and perpetrated many disgraceful cruelties by way of retaliation on the Papists. Schomberg was an experienced general, who had passed a life of eighty years almost continually in the field; yet he found himself at a loss how to carry on the war with Ireland. Not considering the dangers which threatened the health of his troops by confining them too long in one place, he kept them encamped in a low damp situation near Dundalk, almost without fuel; the consequence of which was, that the men were seized with fevers and fluxes, and died in great numbers. Nor were the enemy less afflicted with similar disorders. In both camps sickness prevailed; and as the rainy season was now approaching, the hostile armies, after remaining for some time in sight of each other, quitted their camps at the same time, and retired into winter quarters.

The ill success of this campaign, and the miserable situation of the Protestants in Ireland, at length induced William to attempt their relief in person. Accordingly, he left London on the 4tb of June 1690, and arrived on the 14th at Carrickfergus; whence he passed to Lisburn, the head-quarters of the Duke of Schomberg. At Lough-Britland he reviewed his army, which amounted to thirty-six thousand men, consisting of English, Dutch, Germans, Danes, and French; and being supplied with every necessary, as well as in high health and spirits, they seemed certain of victory. The Irish army abandoned Ardee at their approach, and fell back to the south of the Boyne, where they were joined by James, who had marched from Dublin at the head of his French auxiliaries. The banks of the Boyne were precipitous, and on the south side the ground was hilly, and intersected with ditches. The river itself was deep, and it rose to a considerable height in consequence of the tide. These advantages induced James, contrary to the opinion of his officers, to maintain possession of this post. His army was inferior in numbers, in discipline, and in every other quality, to that of his adversary; but convinced that a retreat would dispirit his troops, and tarnish his own reputation, he resolved to put the fate of Ireland on the issue of a battle. William had no sooner arrived on the ground than he rode along the river in sight of both armies, to examine the position of the hostile force, and make proper dispositions for battle; but being observed by the enemy, a cannon was privately brought out and pointed against the spot where for the moment he stood. The shot killed several of his followers, and he himself was slightly wounded in the shoulder. The report of his being slain was instantly propagated throughout the Irish camp, and even transmitted to Paris; but as soon as his wound was dressed, William rode through the camp, and quickly undeceived his army. The next day, being the 30th of June, the battle began at six o'clock in the morning. William directed the river to be forded in three different places, and the attack to be simultaneously commenced .from as many points. Schomberg, with the right wing, consisting of ten thousand men, passed the fords up the river, traversed a bog on the opposite side, and attacked [7:5:364]with great impetuosity the left of James, which, after a short resistance, gave way, and retired precipitately to secure the Pass of Dunleck, which formed the only line of retreat. The centre next crossed the river, but were gallantly opposed by the French and Irish, with whom they maintained a doubtful contest, till William, passing the river farther down at the head of his cavalry, threatened the enemy’s flank, and forced them to fall back on the rest of the army of James, which was retiring in a body around their king. The left met with little or no resistance from the force opposed to them; and, indeed, the whole of James’s dispositions seem to have been made for retreat rather than for battle. Hence, with a comparatively small loss, William succeeded in forcing his position at all points, and in establishing his whole army on the opposite bank of this deep and difficult river. Whilst the armies were yet engaged, James, who had so often shown the most heroic courage in battle, rode ingloriously off the field. This dispirited his troops, who fell into irretrievable disorder, and fled in all directions, neglecting his injunction to defend the Pass of Dunleck, and leaving nearly two thousand men killed and wounded on the field. The loss sustained by William’s army was, owing to the difficult nature of the ground, considerably greater, though much inferior to what it would have been if James had skilfully availed himself of the strength of his position, and headed the columns of attack as they debouched from the fords. Among the slain was the brave Duke of Schomberg. He was killed by a discharge from his own troops, who, not knowing that he had been accidentally hurried into the midst of the enemy, fired upon the body of men who surrounded him. When James first deserted his troops, O’Regan, an old Irish captain, was heard to observe, that if the English would exchange generals, the conquered army would fight them over again. James withdrew precipitately to Waterford, where he immediately embarked for France.

But the victory at the Boyne was by no means decisive, and the adherents of James resolved to continue their opposition. Sarsfield, a popular and experienced general, put himself at the head of the army which had been routed at the Boyne, and took measures for defending the banks of the Shannon. But James superseded him in the command, which he conferred on St Ruth, a proceeding which gave great dissatisfaction to the Irish. On the other hand, General Ginckel, who had been appointed to command the English army in the absence of William, who had gone over to England, advanced towards the Shannon to meet the enemy. The only place where the river was fordable was at Athlone, a strong walled town, situated on both banks of the river, and in the possession of King James’s party. The English soon made themselves masters of that part which was on the one side of the river; but the part on the opposite bank being defended with great vigour, it was resolved in a council of war that a forlorn hope should ford the stream in the face of the enemy; and this desperate enterprise being performed with great resolution, the enemy were driven from their works, and the town surrendered at discretion. St Ruth marched to its relief, but he came too late, and, as he approached, his own guns were turned against him. Upon this he instantly counter-marched, and took post at Aughrim, ten miles distant, where he determined to wait the English army. Ginckel, though he had only eighteen thousand men, whilst the Irish were above twenty-five thousand strong, did not decline the combat. A fierce contest ensued; but St Ruth having fallen, his troops gave way on all sides, and retreated in disorder to Limerick, where they determined to make a final stand, after having lost near five thousand of their best men.

Ginckel, wishing to put an end to the war at once, suffered as many of the Irish as chose, to retire to Limerick. In this last retreat, however, the Irish forces made a brave defence. ∙ The siege commenced on the 25th of August* 1691; and six weeks were spent before the place without any decisive effect. The garrison was well supplied with provisions, and provided with all means of defence. On the other hand, the winter was approaching, and Ginckel had orders to finish the war upon any terms. Accordingly, he offered conditions to the Irish, which, even had they been victors, they could scarcely have refused with prudence. He agreed that all persons in arms should be pardoned; that their estates should be restored,· their attainders annulled, and their outlawries reversed; that none should be liable for debts incurred through deeds done in the course of hostilities; that all Roman Catholics should enjoy the Same toleration in regard to their religion as in the reign of Charles II.; that the gentry should be permitted to retain their arms; that the inferior class should be allowed to exercise theirvarious callings and professions; that no oath but that of allegiance should be required of any one; and that if the troops, or any number of them, should choose to enter into any foreign service, they should be conveyed to the Continent at the expense of the king. Sarsfield, who had obtained the title of Earl of Lucan from James after his abdication, was permitted to retain a dignity which the laws could not recognise. The lords justices having arrived from Dublin on the 1st of October, signed the articles along with Ginckel, and thus the Irish Catholics put a period to a war which threatened their party with absolute ruin. In consequence of this treaty, about fourteen thousand of those who had fought for King James passed over to France in transports provided by government for conveying them thither; and in this manner all James’s expectations from Ireland were entirely frustrated, and the kingdom submitted quietly to the English government.

In the beginning of the year 1692 an action of unexampled barbarity disgraced the government of William in Scotland. In the August preceding, a proclamation had been issued, offering an indemnity to such insurgents as should take the oaths to .the king and queen on or before the last day of December; and the chiefs of such tribes as had been in arms for James soon after took advantage of the proclamation. But Macdonald of Glenco was prevented by accident rather than design from tendering his submission within the limited time. In the end of December he went to Colonel Hill, who commanded the garrison in Fort William, to take the oaths of allegiance to the government; and the latter having furnished him with a letter to Sir Colin Campbell, sheriff of the county of Argyle, directed him to repair immediately to Inverary to make his submission in a legal manner before that magistrate. But the way to Inverary lay through almost impassable mountains, the season was extremely rigorous,and the whole country was covered with a deep snow. Soeager, however, was Macdonald to take the oatlís before the limited time should expire, that, though the road lay within half a mile of his own house, he stopped not to visit his family, and, after various obstructions, arrived at Inverary. The time had elapsed, and the sheriff hesitated to receive his submission; but Macdonald prevailed by his importunities, and even tears, in inducing that functionary to administer to him the oath of allegiance, and to certify the cause of his delay.· At this time Sir John Dalrymple, afterwards Earl of Stair, being in attendance upon William as secretary of state for Scotland, took advantage of Macdonald’s neglecting to take the oaths within the time prescribed, and procured from the king a warrant of military execution against that chief and his whole clan. This was done at the instigation of the Earl of Breadalbane, whose [7:5:365]lands the Glenco men had plundered, and whose treachery to government in negociating with the Highland clans Macdonald had himself exposed. The king was accordingly persuaded that Glenco was the main obstacle to the pacification of the Highlands; and the fact of the unfortunate chief’s submission having been concealed, the sanguinary orders for proceeding to military execution against his clan were in consequence obtained. The warrant, was both signed and countersigned by the king’s own hand; and the secretary urged the officers who commanded in the Highlands to execute their orders with the utmost rigour. Campbell of Glenlyon, a captain in Argyll’s regiment, and two subalterns, were ordered to repair to Glenco on the first of February with a hundred and twenty men. Campbell, being uncle to young Macdonald’s wife, was received by the father with all manner of friendship and hospitality. The men were lodged at free quarters in the houses of his tenants, and received the kindest entertainment. Till the 13th of the month the troops lived in the utmost harmony and familiarity with the people; and on the very night of the massacre the officers passed the evening at cards in Macdonald’s house. In the night Lieutenant Lindsay, with a party of soldiers, called in a friendly manner at his door, and was instantly admitted. Macdonald, while in the act of rising to receive his guest, was shot dead through the back with two bullets. His wife had already dressed; but she was stripped naked by the soldiers, who tore the ringsoff her fingers with their teeth. The slaughter now became general, and neither age nor infirmity was spared. Some women, in defending their children, were killed; boys, imploring mercy, were shot dead by officers on whose knees they hung. In one place nine persons, as they sat enjoying themselves at table, were butchered by the soldiers. In Inverriggon, Campbell’s own quarters, nine men were first bound by the soldiers, and then shot at intervals, one by one. Nearly forty persons were massacred by the troops; and several who fled to the mountains perished by famine and the inclemency of the season. Those who escaped owed their lives to a tempestuous night. Lieutenantcolonel Hamilton, who had received the charge of the execution from Dalrymple, was on his march with four hundred men, to guard all the passes from the valley of Glenco; but he was obliged to stop by the severity of the weather, which proved the safety of the unfortunate clan. Next day he entered the valley, laid the houses in ashes, and carried away the cattle and spoil, which were divided among the officers and soldiers.

It can scarcely be imagined that a massacre attended with circumstances of such unparalleled treachery and cruelty could pass without some animadversion at the time, or escape the indignant reprobation of history afterwards. However willing we may be to ascribe to the immediate agents in this horrid business all that is most revolting and hideous in the execution of the sanguinary warrant obtained by Secretary Dalrymple at the instigation of Breadalbane, and to transfer to them a large share of the guilt and odium which will ever attach to it, still, after all allowances are made, it is impossible to exculpate William from knowingly consenting to a proceeding which nothing but dire necessity could ever justify. That he was beset by sanguinary ministers, and kept in ignorance of the fact of Macdonald’s submission, may be readily admitted; but it will also be observed that he signed and countersigned an order for exterminating a whole clan without instituting any previous inquiry; and that afterwards, when the truth became known, no punishment was inflicted on the instigators of the massacre. Besides, the extraordinary precaution of Secretary Dalrymple in requiring the king to countersign the order to which he had already affixed his sign-manual, a thing altogether unusual and unprecedented, might well have excited suspicion in the mind of William.;,nor, with the knowledge of∣this, fact, coupled i with the neglect of all inquiry in the first instance, and. the impunity of the instigators of the crime afterwards, is it easy to believe .that this otherwise excellent, prince was altogether free of guilty participation in the foul and bloody tragedy of Glenco. , ,. 1 j

To efface the remembrance of this massacre, and to blink the inquiry which had been commenced, the king now caused his commissioner to ,declare: in the Scottish parliament, “That if the members found it would tend to the advancement of trade that an act should be passed for the encouragement of such as should acquire, and establish a plantation in Africa, America, or any other part of the world where plantations might be lawfully acquired, that his majesty was willing to declare he would grant to the subjects of this kingdom, in favour of these, plantations, such rights and privileges as he granted in like cases to the subjects of his other dominions.” Relying on this and other flattering.promises, the nobility and gentry of Scotland advanced L.400,000 towards the establishment of a company for carrying on an East and West India trade; and twelve hundred veterans who had served in King William’s wars were sent to effect a settlement on the isthmus of Darien or Panama, which, from its situation, was equally adapted for trading with both the Indies. The new colony was well received by the natives, and matters began to wear a promising aspect, when the king, at the earnest solicitations of the English and l Dutch East India Companies, resolved to gratify the latter at the expense of his Scottish subjects, and sent orders to the governor of Jamaica and the English settlements in America to issue proclamations, prohibiting, under the severest penalties, all his majesty’s subjects from holding any correspondence with the Scottish colony, or assisting it in any way with arms, ammunition, or provisions. Thus the new settlers were abandoned to their fate, although many of them had been covered with wounds in fighting the king’s battles; and thus vanished all the hopes of the Scottish nation, which had engaged in the design with incredible alacrity, and with sanguine expectations that the misfortunes of their country would, by this new channel of commerce, be completely healed. The distresses of the people, upon receiving authentic accounts of the fortune of their colony, scarcely admit of any description; and the whole nation joined in reproaching their sovereign with double dealing, inhumanity, and base ingratitude, to a people who had lavished their treasure and best blood in support.of his government, and in the gratification of his ambition.

But the total reduction of Ireland, and the dispersion and extermination of the Highland chieftains who favoured his cause, did not entirely put an end to the hopes of James. His chief expectations were founded on a conspiracy among his English adherents, and in the succours promised him by the French king. A plot was first formed in Scotland by Sir James Montgomery, a person who, from being an adherent of William’s, now turned against him; but as the project was ill contrived, so it was as lightly discovered by the instigator. To this succeeded another, which seemed to threaten more serious consequences, as it was managed by the Whig party, the most formidable in the state, a number of whom joined themselves to the Tories, and made advances to the late king. They assembled together; and, in order to lose no time, it was resolved to send over to France two trusty persons, Lord Preston and Mr Ashton, to consult with the exiled monarch. Both of them, however, were seized by order of Lord Caermarthen, and condemned. Ashton was executed without making any confession; but Lord Preston [7:5:366]wanted equal virtue or resolution, for on an offer of pardon, he discovered a great number of associates, amongst whom were the Duke of Ormond, Lord Dartmouth, and Lord Clarendon.

The French having at last become sensible of their bad policy in not better supporting the cause of James, resolved to attempt a descent upon England in his favour; and, in pursuance of this scheme, James was supplied with an army consisting of a body of French troops, some English and Scottish refugees, and the Irish regiments which had been transported into France from Limerick, and by long discipline and severe duty had become excellent soldiers. This army was assembled between Cherbourg and La Hogue, and commanded by King James in person. More than three hundred transports were provided for landing the expedition on the opposite coast; and Tourville, the French admiral, at the head of sixty-three ships of the line, was appointed to favour the descent; his orders being at all events to attack the enemy in case they should oppose him. Every thing therefore promised a change of fortune to the exiled king, and he might now entertain hopes of recovering his crown. But these preparations on the side of France were soon known at the English court, and measures taken for a vigorous and effective resistance. The secret machinations of the banished king’s adherents were discovered to the English ministry by spies; and it was thus found that the Tories were more faithful than even the Whigs, who had placed King William on the throne. The Duke of Marlborough, Lord Godolphin, and even the Princess Anne herself, were violently suspected of disaffection.

Preparations, however, were made with great tranquillity and resolution, to resist the coming storm. Admiral Russell was ordered to put to sea with all possible expedition; and he soon appeared with ninety-nine ships of the line, besides frigates and fire-ships. At the head of this formidable fleet he set sail for the coast of France; and, near La Hogue, he discovered the enemy under Tourville, who prepared to give him battle. The engagement began between the two flag ships with the greatest fury, and the rest of the ships in succession followed their example. The battle lasted ten hours; but at length victory declared in favour of numbers, and the French fled for Con-quet road, having lost four ships in the action. The pursuit continued for the two days following. Three French ships of the line were destroyed on the day succeeding the principal conflict; and eighteen more, which had taken refuge in the bay of La Hogue, were burnt by Sir George Rooke. The ships were drawn up in the shallows, and seemed to be secure against attack; but nothing could resist the bravery and enterprise of the British seamen, who, crowding in barges, under cover of such frigates as could be brought sufficiently near, boarded the enemy’s ships, overpowered their crews, and then set them on fire. When James beheld his late subjects thus daringly occupied in completing the destruction of the French fleet, he could not restrain his admiration of their gallantry; and, whilst witnessing the wreck of all his hopes, exclaimed, “Ah, none but my brave English could do this.” And thus were frustrated the preparations of France, which from this time seemed to relinquish all claims to the empire of the ocean.

The battle of La Hogue, which took place on the 21st of May 1692, put a final period to the hopes of James. No further attempts were made in his favour, except some plots to assassinate King William, which ended only in the destruction of those who had formed them. But it was never thoroughly proved that James countenanced these designs; and it rather appears that he expressed abhorrence of such attempts. In 1697 the Abbé de Polignac, ambassador of France to Poland, wrote to his master that thoughts were entertained of the late kjng of Britain in the new election which happened on the death of John Sobi-^ eski; and that James had already been named by some of the diet as his successor. Louis was eager to seize an opportunity of ridding himself with honour of a prince whose pretensions he could no longer support; and the friends of James were also sanguine as to the project; but he himself refused it. The same year, at an interview between King William and Louis XIV. it was proposed that the Prince of Wales, James’s son, should succeed to the throne of England after the death of William. William with little hesitation agreed to this request, and even engaged to procure the repeal of the act of settlement, and the passing of another declaring the Prince of Wales his successor to the throne. But this proposal was also rejected by James. He told the king of France, that though he could endure with patience the usurpation of his nephew, he would never permit his own son to be guilty of the same injustice; that should his son reign in his father’s life-time, that circumstance would amount to a formal renunciation; and that the Prince of Wales, by succeeding to the Prince of Orange, would thereby yield his sole right, which devolved to him through his father alone.

From this time James lost every hope of being restored to the throne, and resigned himself entirely to religious austerities. His constitution, though vigorous and athletic, had for some time begun to yield to the infirmities of age, and to that melancholy which superstition, uniting with misfortune, had impressed on his mind. In the beginning of September 1701, whilst lie was at public prayers, according to his daily custom, he fell suddenly into a lethargy; and though he recovered his senses soon after, he languished for some days, and expired on the 6th of September. The French king paid him several visits during his sickness, and exhibited every symptom of compassion, affection, and even respect.

Embarrassed as to how he ought to proceed upon the unexpected death of James, Louis called a council to deliberate whether he should acknowledge the Prince of Wales as king of Great Britain and Ireland. The king himself had hesitated long in this delicate point; but the Dauphin, the Duke of Burgundy, and all the princes of the blood, declared that it would be unbecoming the dignity of the crown of France not to own that the titles of the father had devolved immediately on the son. Louis approved of this view, and determined in person to acquaint the dying king with his resolution. When he arrived at St Germains, James lay almost insensible from his disorder; but rousing himself, he began to thank his most Christian majesty for all his favours. Louis, however, interrupted him: u Sir,” said he, “what I have done is but a small matter; but what I have to say is of the utmost importance.” The people then began to retire, but Louis ordered them to remain. “I come to acquaint you, Sir,” he added, “that when God shall please to call your majesty from this world, I shall take your family under my protection, and acknowledge your son as king of Great Britain and Ireland.”

Though the defeat of the French fleet at La Hogue had put an end to all danger of any further attempt from that quarter, William by no means possessed his throne in any degree of tranquillity. The want of a common enemy produced dissensions amongst the people, and the king began to experience as much trouble from his parliament at home as from any enemy in the field. The uneasiness he felt on account of the refractory disposition of his subjects was not a little heightened by the death of his queen, who was carried off by the small-pox on the 28th of December 1694. The grief he felt for her loss [7:5:367]was deep and sincere; but all private concerns were soon merged in the greatness of his apprehensions for the balance of power and the fluctuating interests of Europe. William’s chief motive for accepting the crown had been to engage England more deeply in the concerns of Europe; and as his great object had been to humble the French, so his politics mainly consisted in forming alliances against France. But many of the English had no such animosity against that country; and considering the interest of the nation as sacrificed to foreign connections, they complained that the continental war fell most heavily on them, though they had the least interest in its success. These complaints were at first heard by William with indifference; and he continued to bestow all his attention on the balance of power and the interests of Europe. But in attending to foreign affairs he overlooked internal polity; and, as he formed alliances abroad, he increased the influence of party at home. In accepting the crown, William had resolved to preserve as much of the prerogative as could decently be retained; and he sometimes exerted a branch of it, the power of refusing his assent to bills which had passed both houses, with equal firmness and decision. Hence perpetual bickerings took place between him and his parliaments. But William at last became fatigued with opposition, and admitted every restraint which they chose to impose on the prerogative in England, upon condition of being properly supplied with the means necessary for humbling France.

The war with France continued during the greatest part of this king’s reign; but at length the treaty of Ryswick, in 1697, put an end to a contest in which England had engaged without policy, and from which she came off without advantage. In the general pacification her interests seemed entirely neglected; and for all the treasures she had transmitted to the Continent, and all the blood which had been shed there, the only equivalent received was an acknowledgment of William’s title by the king of France.

The king being now freed from foreign war, set himself to strengthen bis authority at home; and as he could not endure the thoughts of a king without an army, he conceived hopes of keeping up, in time of peace, those forces which had been granted him during the time of danger. The Commons, however, to his great mortification, passed a vote that all the forces in the pay of England, exceeding seven thousand men, should be forthwith disbanded, and that those retained should be natural-born subjects of England. At this vote the king’s indignation was kindled to such a degree, that he actually conceived a design of abandoning the government. From this, however, his ministers diverted him, and persuaded him to consent to the passing of the bill.

These altercations continued during the remainder of this reign. William considered the Commons as a body of men desirous of power for themselves, and consequently bent upon obstructing all his projects for securing the liberties of Europe; and he seemed but little attached to any particular party in the house, all of whom he found at times deserted or opposed him. He therefore inclined to Whigs and Tories indiscriminately, as interest or the immediate exigency demanded. He considered England as a place of labour, anxiety, and altercation. If lie had any time for amusement or relaxation, he retired to Loo in Holland, where, among a few friends, he indulged in such festivities as he was capable of relishing. Here he planned the succession of the different princes of Europe, and laboured to undermine the schemes and the power of Louis, his rival in politics and fame. But however feeble might be William’s desire of other amusements, he could scarcely exist without being at variance with France. Peace had hardly been concluded with that nation when he began to think of resources for carrying on a new war, and enlisting his English subjects in a confederacy against France. Several arts were used for inducing the people to second his aims; and the whole nation seemed at last to join in desiring a French Avar. He had been in Holland concerting with his allies operations for a new campaign; and he had entered into a negociation with the Prince of Hesse, who assured him that if he would besiege and take Cadiz, the admiral of Castile and several other grandees of Spain would declare for the house of Austria. The Elector of Hanover had concurred in the same measures; the king of the Romans, and Prince Louis of Baden, undertook to invest Landau; and the emperor promised to send a powerful reinforcement into Italy. But death unexpectedly put a period to the projects and ambition of this prince, who, with all his defects, was, in many particulars, a truly great man.

William was naturally of a very feeble constitution; and by this time it had become almost quite exhausted by a series of continual disquietude and action. He had endeavoured to repair his strength, or at least to conceal its decay, by exercise on horseback. But on the 21st of February 1702, whilst riding to Hampton Court from Kensington, his horse fell under him, and he was thrown with such violence that his collar-bone was fractured. FIis attendants conveyed him to the palace at Hampton Court, where the fracture was reduced; and in the evening he returned to Kensington in his coach. But the jolting of the carriage disunited the fracture; and although the bones were again replaced by Bidloo his physician, this accident proved ultimately fatal. For some time indeed he appeared to be in a fair way of recovery; but falling asleep in his couch, he was seized with a shivering, which terminated in a fever and diarrhoea, that resisted all remedial means employed to abate them. Perceiving his end approaching, Ire exhibited another example of the ruling passion strong in death. The objects of his former care lay nearest his heart; and the fate of Europe seemed to render him insensible to his own. The Earl of Albemarle arriving from Holland, he conferred with him in private on the posture of affairs abroad; and having received the sacrament from Archbishop Tennison, he expired on Sunday the 8th of March, having lived fifty-two years, and reigned thirteen. William was in his person of the middle stature; his body was slender and his constitution delicate. He had an aquiline nose, sparkling eyes, a large forehead, and a grave solemn aspect. He left behind him the character of a great politician, though he had never been popular; and of an able general, though he had seldom been victorious. Elis deportment was grave, phlegmatic, and sullen; nor did he ever show any fire or animation except in the day of battle. On such occasions he was all life, gaiety, energy, and alacrity. At the last moment, when his mind was otherwise oppressed, he retained a just sense of religion, and seemed impressed with anxiety fo r the welfare of his subjects. He lay quietly and composed, with his eyes fixed upon heaven; and when his speech failed him, he appeared so resigned that no man could die either better prepared or with greater constancy and piety, than this prince, whose memory will ever be respected by the lovers of rational liberty.

CHAP. IX.

REIGN OF QUEEN ANNE.

Accession of Anne—State of parties—War declared against France—Duke of Marlborough appointed general—His success in his first Campaign—Losses sustained at sea.—Gallantry and death of Admiral Benbow.—Continental army increased [7:5:368] Further successes of Marlborough.—French defeated at Blenheim—Gibraltar taken.—French defeated at sea—Ineffectual attempt of the Spaniards to recover Gibraltar—Charles declared king of Spain—War of the Succession—Barcelona taken— French defeated at Ramillies The King of France sues for peace—Change in the councils of Queen Anne—English defeated at Almanza.—Shipwreck of Sir Cloudesley Shovel— Union between Scotland and England—The articles violently-opposed in Scotland—Effects of this measure—Dissolution of the Scottish Privy Council—French defeated at Oudenarde. —Battle of Malplaquet—Last Campaign of Marlborough.— Forces Villars to quit his lines without striking a blow—Capture of Bouchain Marlborough dismissed from all his employments Peace of Utrecht—Attempt to dissolve the Union.—

Intrigues of the Whigs and Tories.—Death of Queen Anne.

William was succeeded by the Princess Anne, who had married George, Prince of Denmark. She ascended the throne in the thirty-eighth year of her age, to the general satisfaction of all parties. William had died on the eve of a war with France; and the present queen, who was generally guided by the advice of her ministry on every important occasion, was now urged by opposite councils, one part of the ministry being inclined for war and another for peace. At the head of those who opposed a war with France was the Earl of Rochester, lord lieutenant of Ireland, first cousin to the queen, and the chief of the Tory faction; whilst the opposite party was led by the Earl, afterwards Duke, of Marlborough, and subsequently so much and justly renowned for his victories over the French. After both parties had given their opinions, that of Marlborough preponderated. The queen resolved to declare war; and having communicated her intentions to the House of Commons, by whom it was approved, war was proclaimed accordingly. In this declaration Louis was taxed with having taken possession of a great part of the Spanish dominions; with a design to invade the liberties of Europe, and to obstruct the freedom of navigation and commerce; with having offered an unpardonable insult to the queen and her throne, by acknowledging the title of the pretender; and with attempting to unite Spain to his own dominions, by placing his grandson upon the throne of that kingdom, and thus endeavouring to destroy the balance of power that subsisted among the states of Europe. This declaration of war on the part of England was seconded by similar manifestoes by the Dutch and Germans.

Louis XIV., whose power had been greatly circumscribed by William, expected, on the death of the latter, to enter on a field open for new conquests and fame. At the news of the English monarch’s death, therefore, he could not suppress his satisfaction; whilst the people of Paris, and indeed throughout the whole kingdom, testified their joy in the most public manner. The French monarch was filled with indignation at seeing such a combination against him; but his resentment fell chiefly on the Dutch, and he declared with great emotion, that as for those gentlemen pedlars, they should one day repent their insolence and presumption in declaring war against him, whose power they had formerly felt and dreaded. By these threats, however, the affairs of the allies were no way influenced. Marlborough was appointed general of the British forces, and by the Dutch he was chosen generalissimo of the allied army; and indeed his subsequent conduct showed that no person could possibly have been chosen with greater propriety. He had learned the rudiments of war under Turenne, having served as a volunteer in his army; and that celebrated commander had prognosticated his future greatness.

The first attempt which Marlborough made to deviate from the general practice of the army was to advance the subaltern officers, whose merits had hitherto been neglected. Regardless of seniority, wherever he found ability he was sure to promote it; and thus all the upper ranks of command were filled with men rather remarkable for their skill and talents than for their age and experience. In his first campaign, in the beginning of July 1702, he repaired to the camp at Nimeguen, where he found himself at the head of sixty thousand men, well provided with all necessaries, and long disciplined by the best officers of the age. He was opposed on the part of France by the Duke of Burgundy, a youth of very little experience in the art of war; but the real acting general was Marshal Bouffiers, the second in command, an officer of courage and activity. But wherever Marlborough advanced, the French were obliged to retire before him, leaving all Spanish Guelderland at his discretion. The Duke of Burgundy, finding himself obliged to retreat before the allied army, rather than expose himself longer to such a mortifying indignity, returned to Versailles, leaving Bouffiers to command alone. The latter then retired to Brabant; and Marlborough ended the campaign by taking the city of Liege, in which he found an immense sum of money and a great number of prisoners.

This good fortune seemed to console the nation for some unsuccessful expeditions at sea. Sir John Munden having permitted a French squadron of fourteen ships to escape him by taking shelter in the harbour of Corunna, was dismissed the service. An attempt was made upon Cadiz by sea and land, Sir George Rooke commanding the navy, and the Duke of Ormond the land forces; but this also miscarried. At Vigo, however, the British arms were attended with better success; and the French fleet which had taken refuge there were burned in order to prevent their falling into the hands of the English, whilst ten ships of war were taken, together with eleven galleons, and above a million of money in silver. In the West Indies, Admiral Benbow, who had been stationed with ten ships to distress the enemy’s trade, having received information that Du Casse the French admiral was in those seas with a force equal to his own, resolved to attack him; and having discovered the enemy’s squadron near St Martha steering along the shore, he quickly gave the necessary orders to his captains, and forming the line of battle, began the action. But the rest of the fleet having taken some causeless disgust at his conduct, permitted the admiral to sustain, almost alone, the whole fire of the enemy. Nevertheless, the engagement continued till night, and he determined to renew it next morning; but he had the mortification to perceive that all the rest of his ships had fallen back except one, who joined him in urging the pursuit of the enemy. During four days this intrepid seaman, assisted by only one ship, pursued and fought the enemy, whilst his dastardly officers remained at a secure distance. In the last day’s battle, which was more furious than any of the preceding conflicts, the admiral’s leg was shattered by a cannon-ball, and he himself died soon after of his wounds. Two of his associates were shot on their arrival in England; one died on his passage home; and the remainder were justly disgraced.

The next parliament, which was convened by the queen, evinced great satisfaction at the success of the British arms on the Continent. The House of Commons, composed chiefly of Tories, voted forty thousand seamen, and the like number of land forces, to act in conjunction with those of the allies. But soon afterwards the queen informed her parliament that she was pressed by 7 the allies to augment her forces; and upon this it was resolved that ten thousand more men should be added to the continental army; on condition, however, that the Dutch should immediately break off all commerce with France and Spain.

In the beginning of April 1703 the Duke of Marlborough crossed the sea, and assembling the allied army, [7:5:369]opened the campaign with the siege of Bonn, the residence of the Elector of Cologne, which held out but a short time. He next retook Huy, the garrison of which, after a vigorous defence, surrendered prisoners of war. Limburg was then besieged, and surrendered in two days; and the campaign concluded by securing the country of Liege, the electorate of Cologne, and the Lower Rhine, against the designs of the enemy.

In the campaign of 1704, the Duke of Marlborough, having informed the Dutch of his intention to march to the relief of the empire, which had been for some time oppressed by the French forces, the states gave him full powers to act as he thought proper, with assurances of assistance in all his efforts. The French king, finding Bouffiers no longer capable of opposing Marlborough, appointed the Marshal de Villeroi to command in his room. But Marlborough, having no great fears from Villeroi, immediately marched to the assistance of the emperor. Taking with him about thirteen thousand British troops, he advanced by rapid marches to the banks of the Danube, defeated a body of French and Bavarians stationed qt Donawerth to oppose him, and, passing the river, laid under contribution the electorate of Bavaria, which had taken part with the enemy, Villeroi, who at first had attempted to follow his motions, soon lost sight of him; nor was the French commander apprised of his route till informed of his successes. But, in the mean time, Marshal Tallard prepared by another line to obstruct Marlborough’s retreat, with an army of thirty thousand men; and being soon after joined by the forces of the Elector of Bavaria, the French army in that part of the Continent amounted to sixty thousand veterans, commanded by two generals then reputed the best in France. To oppose this powerful force the Duke of Marlborough formed a junction with a body of thirty thousand men under the celebrated Prince Eugene; so that, with this reinforcement, the allied army amounted to about fifty-two thousand combatants. After various marches and countermarches, the two armies met at Blenheim. The French, under Tallard, were posted upon a hill near the towri of Hochstet, having their right covered by the Danube and the village of Blenheim, their left by the village of Lutzengen, and their front by a rivulet, the sides of which were steep and the bottom marshy; and in this strong position they seemed to bid defiance to their adversaries. But Marlborough and Eugene, having carefully examined the ground, resolved to attack them, and accordingly advanced upon the plain in front of their position. The battle began by a cannonade on both sides, which lasted from nine in the morning until half^an hour after mid-day. At this moment Marlborough, who had completed all his dispositions, crossed the rivulet at the head of the English, and attacked the cavalry of Tallard on the right, while that officer was engaged in reviewing his troops on the left. An hour elapsed, however, before Prince Eugene could bring up his forces to attack the other wing of the enemy commanded by the Elector of Bavaria; but, during this time, Marlborough’s attack had been completely successful; and when Tallard repaired to the scene of action he found that the French cavalry had been thrice repulsed. He then attempted to lead to the charge a large body of troops which he had posted in the village; but these being furiously assailed by a strong detachment of English troops, were scarcely able to maintain their ground, while the French, taken in flank and in reverse, were totally defeated. This success led to a movement which proved completely decisive. Penetrating between the two wings of the French army, through the space left open by the defeat of the cavalry, the English troops effected a total separation between them, whilst the large force imprudently posted in the village of Blenheim had its commu nications intercepted by another strong detachment. In this situation Tallard flew to rally some of his squadrons; but, being short-sighted, he mistook a Hessian for a French corps, and was made prisoner. On the left Prince Eugene had encountered a vigorous resistance and been thrice repulsed; but, having received some reinforcements from Marlborough, he at last succeeded in dislodging the enemy opposed to him. The battle was now won. The French fled in the utmost confusion, whilst the corps of thirteen thousand men which occupied Blenheim were surrounded and made prisoners. About twelve thousand French and Bavarians were killed on the field or drowned in the Danube; whilst one hundred colours, two hundred standards, three thousand tents, all the baggage, and the military chest of the French army, formed the trophies of this glorious day. Of the allies not less than thirteen thousand were killed, wounded, or missing; but the conquerors by the victory gained a territory of a hundred leagues in extent, and inflicted a blow on the power of France from which it did not soon recover. Having finished the campaign, the duke repaired to Berlin, where he procured a reinforcement of eight thousand Prussians to serve under Prince Eugene in Italy, and then proceeded to negociate for succours at the court of Hanover; after which he returned to England, and was received with every possible demonstration of joy. The manor of Woodstock was conferred upon him; and the lord-keeper, in the name of the Peers, honoured him with the praises which his talents and conduct had so well merited.

Nor were the arms of Britain less fortunate by sea than by land. The town of Gibraltar was taken by the Prince of Hesse and Sir George Rooke; but so little was the value of the conquest at that time understood, that it was for some time debated whether the admiral should be thanked for making it, and at last it was considered as unworthy of public gratitude. Soon after, the British fleet, to the number of fifty-three ships of the line, came up with that of France, consisting of fifty-two men of war, commanded by the Count de Toulouse, off the coast of Malaga. The battle began at ten in the forenoon, and continued with great fury for six hours, when the van of the French began to give way. The British admiral for two days attempted to renew the engagement; but this was cautiously declined by the French, who at last disappeared totally. Both sides claimed the victory, although the result showed that it was in favour of the British. Meanwhile the Spaniards, alarmed at the capture of Gibraltar, sent the Marquis of Villadurias with a large army to retake it. France also dispatched a fleet of thirteen ships of the line; but some of them parted company in a gale, and others were taken by the British. Nor was the land force more successful. The siege continued for four months, during which time the Spaniards repeatedly attempted in vain to scale the rock; and at last, losing all hopes of taking the place, they were contented to draw off their men and abandon the enterprise.

Whilst the British were thus victorious by land and sea, a new scene of contention was opened on the side of Spain. Philip V. grandson of Louis XIV. had been raised to the throne of that kingdom, having been nominated as successor to the crown by the late king of Spain’s will. But in a former treaty among the powers of Europe, Charles, son of the emperor of Germany, was appointed heir to that crown; and this treaty had been guaranteed by France herself, although she now resolved to recal that consent in favour of a descendant of the house of Bourbon. Charles was still further led to urge his pretensions to the crown of Spain by the invitation of the Catalonians, who declared in his favour, and promised, with the assistance of the British and Portuguese, to arm in his cause.
[7:5:370]

On his way to his new dominions, he landed in England, where, on his arrival, he was received by the Dukes of Somerset and Marlborough; kindly greeted by the queen; and furnished with two hundred transports, thirty ships of war, and nine thousand men, under the command of the Earl of Peterborough, a man of romantic bravery and high military genius. The first attempt of this general was on the city of Barcelona, at that time defended by a garrison of five thousand men. The fort of Monjuic, situated on a hill which commanded the city, was attacked; and the outworks being taken by storm, as well as the powder-magazine blown up, the fort surrendered, and in a short time afterwards the city capitulated. The conquest of all Valencia succeeded the capture of Barcelona; Charles became master of Aragon, Carthagena, Grenada, and Madrid; and the British general having entered the capital in triumph, there proclaimed Charles king of Spain, without opposition.

These successes, however, were soon eclipsed by the victories of the Duke of Marlborough, which alone engrossed public attention. In 1706 he opened the campaign with an army of eighty thousand men. The army of Villeroi, in the vicinity of Tirlemont, was of nearly equal strength, and he had orders to attack the allies before the Danish and Prussian contingents could join. But, whilst it was his intention to become the assailant, Villeroi was himself attacked, in a position which prevented his developing the whole of his force. He had the river Mehaigne on his flank, and his centre occupied the village of Ramillies, while a marsh covered his left. Marlborough skilfully availed himself of the disposition made by his antagonist; and knowing that Villeroi’s left was paralysed by reason of the marsh in front, which effectually prevented its acting on the offensive, he directed his principal attack upon the centre, which formed the key of the position. The issue of the conflict was never for a moment doubtful; the village was carried in the most gallant style, and both wings being at once separated and turned, a complete rout ensued. About six thousand French were made prisoners, and upwards of eight thousand killed or wounded. The whole of Brabant became the reward of the victors. The French troops were now dispirited; the city of Paris was in confusion; and Louis, who had long been flattered with conquest, was humbled to such a degree as almost to excite the compassion even of his enemies. He sued for peace, but in vain; the allies carried all before them; and his capital began to dread the approach of the conquerors. But what neither his armies nor his politics could effect, was brought about by the intrigues of a party in England. The dissensions between the Whigs and Tories saved France, which now seemed tottering on the very brink of ruin.

The councils of the queen had hitherto been governed by a Whig ministry; for though the Duke of Marlborough began his career in the interest of the opposite party, he soon joined the Whigs, whom he found most sincere in the design of humbling France. The people, however, were now in fact beginning to change their sentiments, and to imbibe the slavish spirit of Toryism. The queen’s personal virtues, her successes, her deference for the clergy, and their great veneration for her, all contributed to give her great influence with the nation. Persons of every rank were not ashamed to defend the most servile tenets, when these tended to flatter or increase the power of the sovereign, and to argue in favour of strict hereditary succession, divine right, and non-resistance to the regal power. The Tories, though joining in vigorous measures against France, were never very ardent enemies of that country; but they secretly hated the Dutch, and longed for an opportunity of breaking with that people. With this view they began to meditate schemes of opposition to the Duke of Marlborough, whom they represented as an interested man, who sacrificed the real interests of the nation, in protracting a ruinous war, for his own private emolument and glory; and as the country was oppressed with a load of taxes, which a continuance of the war would inevitably increase, discontent began to spread, and the Tories wanted only a few determined leaders to assist them in removing the present ministry.

In the meanwhile, a succession of losses began to dissipate the conquering mania which had seized the nation, and to incline them to wish for peace. The Earl of Galway, who commanded the English army in Spain, was completely defeated at Almanza by the Duke of Berwick; and in consequence of this victory all Spain, except the province of Catalonia, returned to their duty to Philip as their lawful sovereign. An attempt was made upon Toulon by the Duke of Savoy and Prince Eugene by land, and an English fleet by sea; but to no purpose. The fleet under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, having set sail for England, was driven by a violent storm on the rocks of Scilly, where his own ship was lost, and every person on board perished; while three more ships met with the same fate, and four others were saved with the utmost difficulty. In Germany, Marshal Villars carried all before him, and was upon the point of restoring the Elector of Bavaria. The only hopes of the people lay in the activity and conduct of the Duke of Marlborough, who opened the campaign of 1707, about the middle of May; but even here they were disappointed. The duke declined an engagement; and, after a variety of marches and countermarches, both armies retired into winter quarters about the end of October. The French made vigorous preparations for the next campaign; and the duke returned to England to meet with a reception which he did not at all expect, and which he certainly did not deserve.

The most remarkable transaction of this year, and indeed of this whole reign, was the union between the two kingdoms of Scotland and England. Though governed by one sovereign since the time of James I. of England, yet each nation had continued to be ruled by its respective parliament, and often professed to pursue interests opposite to those of its neighbour. The union had often been unsuccessfully attempted before, and had indeed been the cause of the bloody wars in the times of Edward I. and Edward Ill. of England. In all the former proposals on that head, both nations were supposed to remain free and independent; each kingdom having its own parliament, and being subject only to such taxes and other commercial regulations as those parliaments judged expedient for the benefit of their respective states. But after the destruction of the Darien colony in the manner already related, King William had endeavoured to allay the national ferment by resuming the affair of a union with as much assiduity as his warlike occupations would allow. The terms proposed were the same with those formerly tendered; namely, a federal union, somewhat like that of the states of Holland. With this view the Scots were prevailed on to send twenty commissioners to London, who, with twenty-three on the part of England, assembled at Whitehall in the month of October 1702. Here they were honoured with a visit from the queen, in order to enliven their proceedings and stimulate them to the more speedy dispatch of business; but the treaty was entirely broken off at this time by the Scottish commissioners insisting that the rights and privileges of their countrymen trading to Africa and the Indies should be preserved and maintained, lt was, however, resumed in the year 1706, when the commissioners again assembled on the 16th of April, in the council chamber of Whitehall. The Scottish commissioners [7:5:371]still proposed a federal union; but the English were determined on an incorporation, which should not afterwards be dissolved by a Scottish parliament. Nothing but this, they said, could settle a perfect and lasting friendship betwixt the two nations. The commissioners from Scotland, however, continued to resist the article which subjected their country to the same customs, excises, and regulations of trade as England; but the queen being persuaded to pay two visits in person to the commissioners, exerted herself so vigorously, that a majority was at last gained over; and all the rest yielded, though with reluctance, excepting Lockhart of Carnwath, who could not by any means be persuaded either to sign or seal the treaty.

The articles being fully prepared on the 22d of July, were presented next day to her majesty by the lord-keeper in the name of the English commissioners; and at the same time a sealed copy of the instrument was delivered by the lord chancellor of Scotland. The articles were most graciously received; and the same day the queen dictated an order of council, threatening with prosecution such as should be concerned in any discourse or libel, or in laying wagers, with regard to the union. But notwithstanding all this harmony the treaty was received with the utmost disapprobation in Scotland. The terms had been carefully concealed, so that nothing transpired till the whole was at once laid before parliament. The ferment then became general; and all ranks of people, however divided in other respects, united against this detested treaty. The nobility and gentry were exasperated at the annihilation of parliament, and the consequent loss of their influence and credit. The body of the people cried out, that the independence of the nation was sacrificed to treachery and corruption; and insisted, that the obligations laid on their members to stay so long at London, in their attendance on the British parliament, would drain the country of its money, impoverish the members themselves, and subject them to the temptation of being corrupted. Nor was the commercial part of the people better satisfied. The dissolution of the India Company; the taxes laid on the necessaries of life; and the vast number of duties, customs, and restrictions, laid upon trade, were all of them matter of complaint. Before this time Scotland had traded freely to the Levant, the Baltic, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and the Dutch plantations; and it seemed difficult to conceive how the commerce of the country could be advanced by laying restrictions upon it in regard to these places, especially as the compensation allowed, namely, the privilege of trading to the English plantations in America, formed a very trifling advantage, seeing that the amount of the whole exports to these places did not by any means equal the expense of defending them. The most violent disputes took plaće in the parliament. Lord Belhaven delivered a most pathetic speech, in which, enumerating the miseries that would attend this treaty, he drew tears from the audience, and uttered many prognostications, which to this day are reckoned prophetic by many of the Scottish nation. Almost every article of the treaty was the subject of a protest; and addresses against it were presented to parliament by the convention of royal burghs, the commissioners of the general assembly, and the company trading to Africa and the Indies, as well as from shires, stewartries, burghs, towns, and parishes, without distinction of Whig, Tory, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian. Nor was the resentment of the common people without doors less violent than that of the members within. A coalition was formed between the Presbyterians and Cavaliers; and to such a height did the resentment of the people rise, that they actually chose officers, formed themselves into regiments, provided horses and ammunition, burnt the articles of union, justified their conduct by a public declaration, and resolved to take the route to Edinburgh and dissolve the parliament.

In the mean time the privy council issued a proclamation against riots, commanding all persons to retire from the streets whenever the drum was beat; ordering the guards to fire on those who disobeyed this command; and indemnifying them from all prosecution for maiming or slaying the lieges. But even these precautions were insufficient. The Duke of Queensberry, the chief promoter of the union, though guarded by double lines of horse and foot, was obliged to pass through the streets at full gallop, amidst the curses and imprecations of the populace, who pelted his guards, and even wounded some of the persons who attended him in the coach. In opposition to all this fury, the friends of the measure magnified the advantages that would accrue to the kingdom from the union; they abated the resentment of the clergy, by promoting the insertion in the treaty of an act by which the Presbyterian discipline was declared to be the only government of the church of Scotland, unalterable in all succeeding times, and a fundamental article of the union. Emissaries were also employed to disunite the Cameronians and the Cavaliers, by demonstrating the absurdity, sinfulness, and danger, of such a proceeding. The India Company was flattered with the prospect of an indemnification for the losses they had sustained, and individuals by sharing an equivalent. And the last manoeuvre consisted in bringing over a*party in the Scottish parliament, nicknamed the Squadrone Volante, from their fluctuating between the ministry and the opposition, without attaching themselves to any party till the critical moment, which was either to cement both kingdoms by a firm union, or involve them in the calamities of war. By this unexpected stroke, the ministry obtained a decisive victory, and all opposition was henceforth vain. The articles of treaty were ratified by parliament, with some trifling variations, on the 25th of March 1707; when the Duke of Queensberry finally dissolved that ancient assembly, and Scotland ceased to be a separate independent kingdom.

On the conclusion of the treaty, the queen informed both houses of parliament that the treaty of union, with some additions and alterations, was ratified by an act of the parliament of Scotland; that she had ordered it to be laid before them, hoping it would meet their approbation; that they had now an opportunity of putting the last hand to a happy union of the two kingdoms; and that she would look upon it as a particular happiness if this great work, so often attempted before without success, could be brought to perfection in her reign. Objections, however, were started by the Tory party; but they were at that time too weak to be heard with any attention; and all their arguments were answered with such success by the opposite party, that the union was unalterably completed on the first of May 1707, and the island took the name of The United Kingdom of Great Eritaim

In this treaty it must be observed, that the commissioners on the part of England were not only able statesmen, but, for the most part, well skilled in trade; which gave them an evident advantage over those of Scotland, who consisted of lords and gentlemen who had no commercial knowledge. Hence they were overmatched by the former in the great objects which are more immediately connected with national prosperity; though they were very careful to preserve all their heritable offices, superiorities, jurisdictions, and other privileges and trappings of the feudal aristocracy. Had the English commissioners made a liberal use of the advantages afforded them at this time, it would have been in their power to have greatly enriched themselves as well as the inhabitants of Scotland; but instead of this they were influenced by the narrow and [7:5:372] short-sighted principle of commercial monopoly; and the consequences were such as might, with a small degree of reflection, have been foreseen.

In 1708 there was a warm debate in a grand committee of the House of Lords, occasioned by a bill passed by the Commons for rendering the union of the two kingdoms more entire and complete, by which it was enacted, that, from the first of May 1708, there should be but one privy council in the kingdom of Britain. The arguments for the dissolution of the privy council of Scotland were, its enormous stretches of power and acts of cruelty, and the circumstance that it could now be of no other use in Scotland except to enable the court to govern every thing at pleasure, and procure such members of parliament as it thought proper. The dissolution, however, was carried by fifty against forty, after which the nation, deprived of this last fragment of its ancient government, was thrown into a ferment by the opponents of the union; but after an ineffectual attempt in favour of the pretender, animosities began to subside.

We must now return to the Duke of Marlborough, who had gone over to Flanders to open the campaign. Peace had been more than once offered, and treaties entered upon, but as often frustrated. After the battle of Ramillies, the king of France had employed the Elector of Bavaria to write letters in his name to the Duke of Marlborough, containing proposals for opening a congress, and offering to renounce either Spain and its dominions, or the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, to Charles of Austria, and to concede a barrier to the Dutch in the Netherlands. But these terms were rejected; and the two armies once more met in nearly equal numbers at Oudenarde, on the Scheldt, where an engagement ensued, in which the French were defeated with immense loss; and Lisle, the strongest town in Flanders, with Ghent, Bruges, and all the other towns in that country, soon after fell into the hands of the victors. In this battle the electoral prince of Hanover, afterwards George II. of Britain, greatly distinguished himself, and had the merit of conducting the first attack. His horse was killed under him, and Colonel Luschki was slain close by his side. The campaign ended with fixing a barrier to the Dutch provinces, and it now only remained to force a way into the provinces of the enemy.

The French king, being now in a manner reduced to despair, again sued for peace; but the demands of the allies were so high, that he was obliged to reject them, and prepare for another campaign, in the year 1709. The first attempt of the allies was against the city of Tournay, garrisoned by twelve thousand men, and exceedingly strong both by nature and art. After a terrible siege of twenty-one days, the town capitulated; and a month afterwards the citadel, which was still stronger than the town, surrendered. Next followed the bloody battle of Malplaquet, where the allied army, consisting of a hundred and ten thousand men, attacked the French, consisting of a hundred and twenty thousand, strongly posted, and fortified in such a manner behind the woods of La Merte and Tanières, with triple entrenchments, that their position seemed quite impregnable. Nothing, however, could resist the energy of Marlborough and the bravery of his troops. The French were driven from all their positions, and totally defeated. But the victory cost the allies very dear; for twenty thousand of their best troops lay dead or wounded on the field of battle. The consequence of this victory was the surrender of the city of Mons, which ended the campaign.

The last campaign of the Duke of Marlborough, which happened in the year 1711, probably excelled all his former exploits. He was opposed by Marshal Villars, who had commanded the French in the battle of Malplaquet; but he contrived his measures so, that, by marching and countermarching, he, without striking a blow, forced the enemy to quit a strong line of entrenchments, which he afterwards took possession of. This enterprise was followed by the taking of Bouchain, which was the last military achievement of this great general. By a continuation of conduct and success almost unparalleled, he had gained to the allies a prodigious tract of country. From the beginning of the war, which had now continued nine years, he had perpetually advanced, and never retreated before his enemies, nor lost an advantage he had obtained over them. He frequently gained possession of the enemy’s posts without fighting; and where he was obliged to attack, no fortifications were able to resist him. He had never besieged a city which he did not take, nor fought a battle which he did not win. Thus the allies had reduced under their command Spanish Guelderland, Limburg, Brabant, Flanders, and Hainault; they were masters of the Scarpe; the capture of Bouchain had opened for them a way into the very heart of France; and another campaign might have made them masters of Paris. But on the duke’s return from this campaign, he was accused of having taken a bribe of six thousand pounds a year from a Jew who had contracted to supply the army with bread; and the queen thought proper to dismiss him from all his employments.

On the removal of this great general, the command of the British forces was conferred on the Duke of Ormond. The transactions which followed are by no means creditable to the character of the British nation. The people at large, blinded by a headstrong and furious clergy, wished to revive the ceremonies of the Romish religion, and to unite the English and Gallican churches; the general of the army acted a most insidious part, by giving the enemy intelligence of the designs of the allies before he had declared that he was not to act in concert with them; and the queen herself commanded him to pursue this shameful course, nay even acted in a similar manner herself. Prince Eugene complained much of the inactivity of the English general, though apparently unacquainted with his treachery; whilst the whole army loaded him with execrations, calling him a stupid tool, and a general of straw. All this, however, was in vain; the duke continued to prefer the commands of his sovereign to every other consideration, and Ormond lost what Marlborough had gained.

The disgrace of the Duke of Marlborough had been owing to the prevalence of the Tory party, who had now got the Whig ministry turned out; and the consequence was, that notwithstanding all the remonstrances and entreaties of the allies, the British army in Flanders was ordered not to act offensively. Hence the operations languished; a considerable body of the allies was cut off at Denain, and the French retook several towns. A peace, however, was at last concluded in 1713 between France and Britain. In this treaty it was stipulated that Philip, now acknowledged as king of Spain, should renounce all right to the crown of France, the union of two such powerful kingdoms being thought dangerous to the liberties of Europe. It was agreed that the Duke de Berri, Philip’s brother, and next after him in succession, should also renounce his right to the crown of Spain in case he became king of France. And it was stipulated that the Duke of Savoy should possess the island of Sicily with the title of king, together with Fenestrelles, and other places on the Continent; and this increase of dominion was in some measure provided out of the spoils of the French monarchy. The Dutch had the barrier granted them which they so much desired; and if the crown of France was deprived of some dominions to enrich the Duke of Savoy, the house of Austria was also taxed to supply the wants of the Hollanders, [7:5:373]who were put in possession of the strongest towns in Flanders. The fortifications of Dunkirk were demolished. Spain gave up Gibraltar and the island of Minorca. France resigned her pretensions to Hudson’s Bay, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, but was left in possession of Cape Breton, with the liberty of drying fish upon the shore. Among the articles creditable to the British nation, their setting free the French Protestants confined in the prisons and galleys for their religion was not the least meritorious. In behalf of the emperor, it was stipulated that he should possess the kingdom of Naples, the duchy of Milan, and the Spanish Netherlands; and the king of Prussia was to have Upper Guelderland. A period was fixed for the emperor’s acceding to these articles, as he had for some time obstinately refused to assist at the negociation. This famous treaty was signed at Utrecht on the last day of March 1713.

The same year was also remarkable for an attempt of the Scottish Peers and Commons to dissolve the union, which, as already stated, had proved exceedingly disagreeable and distressful to the nation. During the debates on this subject the Earl of Peterborough endeavoured to prove the impossibility of dissolving the treaty; but the Duke of Argyll, who had originally promoted the union, now declared against it, and said, that unless it were dissolved he did not long expect to have either property in Scotland or liberty in England. By some other Peers it was alleged, that the union had not produced its intended effect; that it had been designed to promote friendship between the two nations; that, so far from answering this purpose, the animosities between them were never so great as then; and that if separated again they would be better friends than in a state of nominal union and real dissension. This motion was however overruled; but the discontent of the people still continued; addresses were prepared throughout the kingdom; and matters were in danger of coming to the worst extremities, when the attempt of the pretender in 1715 so divided the minds of the people that no unanimous effort could ever afterwards be made for the repeal of the union.

The history of the latter portion of this reign consists entirely of the intrigues of the Whigs and Tories against each other, which, as they are now of no importance whatever, it is needless to take up time in relating, further than that the Tory influence continued to prevail. Whether the ministry at this time wished to alter the succession from the Hanoverian line, cannot now be clearly ascertained; but it is certain that the Whigs firmly believed it, and the Tories but faintly denied the charge. The suspicions of the former became every day stronger, particularly when they saw a total removal of the Whigs from all places of trust and confidence throughout the kingdom, and their employments bestowed on professed Tories, supposed to be devoted to the cause of unbroken hereditary succession.

The violent dissensions between these parties, with their cabals and tumults, made the queen’s situation very disagreeable; her health visibly declined. On the 28th of July 1714 she fell into a lethargic insensibility; and, notwithstanding all the medicines prescribed by the physicians, the distemper gained ground so fast, that next day her life was despaired of. The members of the privy council were now summoned from the different parts of the kingdom, and began to provide for the security of the constitution. A letter was sent to the Elector of Hanover, informing him of the queen’s desperate condition, and desiring him to repair to Holland, where a British squadron would attend to convey him to England; and instructions were at the same time dispatched to the Earl of Strafford at the Hague, to require the states-general to be prepared to guarantee the Protestant succession. Precautions were also taken to secure all the sea-ports; and the command of the fleet was bestowed upon the Earl of Berkeley, a professed Whig. These measures answered a double purpose, as they argued the alacrity of the Whigs in the cause of their new sovereign, and seemed to imply that the state was in danger from the disaffection of the opposite party. On the 30th of July the queen seemed somewhat relieved by the medicines which had been administered; and having risen from her bed about eight in the morning, she walked a little; but she was soon afterwards seized with an apoplectic fit; and although she recovered somewhat by the assistance of Dr Mead, she continued all night in a state of stupefaction, and expired the following morning, at seven, having lived forty-nine years, and reigned upwards of twelve. This princess was remarkable neither for learning nor capacity. Like all the rest of her family, she seemed rather fitted for the duties of private life than those of a public station, being a pattern of conjugal fidelity, a good mother, a warm friend, and an indulgent mistress; and to her honour it should be recorded, that during her reign none suffered for treason on the scaffold. In her ended the line of the Stuarts, a family who neither rewarded their friends nor punished their enemies, and whose misconduct and misfortunes are scarcely to be paralleled in history.

CHAP. X.

REIGN OF GEORGE I.

Accession of George I—His arrival in England—Favour shown by him to the Whigs—National Discontents—Dissolution of Parliament—New one assembled—Its violent proceedings— Rebellion in Scotland.—Battle of Sheriffmuir—Proceedings of the Jacobites in England—Expedition of the Earl of Derwentwater.—.Jacobites forced to surrender at Preston.—Ridiculous schemes of the Pretender.—He lands in Scotland without means, and quits it without necessity.—Cruel treatment of the rebels. —Execution of Derwentwater and Kenmuir.—Escape of others by various means.—Duration of Parliaments extended—Britain threatened with invasion by Charles XII. of Sweden— Quadruple Alliance.—War with Spain.—Intended invasion by the Spaniards defeated—Irish Parliament made dependent on that of Britain—South Sea Scheme—Origin and nature of this delusion.—The Directors punished.—Expedition of Admiral Hosier.—Death of George I.

The queen had no sooner resigned her breath than the privy council met, and three instruments were produced, by which the Elector of Hanover appointed several of his adherents to be added as lords justices to the great officers of the kingdom. Orders were also issued out for proclaiming George, son of Ernest Augustus, Elector of Brunswick, and of Sophia, grand-daughter of James I., king of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and the regency appointed the Earl of Dorset to carry to him the intimation of his accession to the crown, and to attend him in his journey to England.

The king landed at Greenwich, and walked to his house in the park, accompanied by a great number of the nobility and other persons of distinction. George I. was fifty-four years of age when he ascended the British throne; and his mature age, his experience and sagacity, his numerous alliances, and the general tranquillity of Europe, all contributed to establish his interests, and promise him a peaceable and happy reign. His virtues, though not shining, were solid; and he was of a very different disposition from the Stuart family whom he succeeded; for, soon after his arrival in England, he was heard to say, “My maxim is, never to abandon my friends, to do justice to all the world, and to fear no man.” To these qualities of resolution and perseverance he joined great application [7:5:374]to business; but, unfortunately for England, he studied the interests of the territory he had left more than those of the kingdom he came to govern.

The new king early discovered a natural enough inclination to support those who had raised him to the throne, or, in other words, the Whig party. Immediately after his landing, he sent for such of the nobility as had distinguished themselves by their zeal for his succession. He expressed the greatest regard for the Duke of Marlborough, who had just then arrived from the Continent, whither he had been driven by the violence of the Tories; and he professed the same friendship for the other leaders of the Whigs, while the Tories found themselves excluded from the royal favour. The king did not seem sensible that the monarch of a faction rules but one half of his subjects; and it was his misfortune to be surrounded by men who, whilst they pretended to secure the crown for the king, used all their arts to confirm their own interests, extend their connections, and give laws to their sovereign. In consequence of these partialities, the greatest discontent was excited throughout the whole kingdom. The Tories or Jacobites raised terrible outcries; and had the pretender been a man of judgment or ability, a fair opportunity now offered him of striking a decisive blow. Instead of this, he remained a calm spectator on the Continent, and only sent over his emissaries to disperse ineffectual manifestoes and delude the unwary. At this time the Catholic religion was much hated in England; but the principles of the Dissenters were little, if at all, more agreeable to the generality. The Tories affirmed that, under a Whig administration, heresy and impiety were daily gaining ground; whilst the lower orders of the clergy joined in these complaints, and pointed out several tracts published in favour of Arianism and Socinianism. The ministry, however, not only refused to punish the delinquents, but silenced the clergy themselves, and forbade their future disputations on these topics.

The parliament having been dissolved, another was now called by a very extraordinary proclamation, in which the king complained of the evil designs of men disaffected to his succession, and of their misrepresentations of his conduct and principles; expressed his hopes that his subjects would send up to parliament the fittest persons to redress the present disorders; and entreated that they would elect such in particular as had expressed a firm attachment to the Protestant succession. In the election of this important parliament, uncommon vigour was exerted on both sides; but by dint of the monied interest which prevailed in corporations, and the activity of the ministry, a great majority of Whigs was returned both in England and Scotland. Upon the assembling of the new parliament the most violent measures were resolved on against the late ministry. A committee was appointed to inspect all the papers relative to the recent treaty, and to select such of them as might furnish grounds of accusation against the former ministry; and the Earl of Oxford was impeached of high treason, and sent to the Tower. Nor was the violence of the Commons answered with less vehemence without doors. Tumults became every day more frequent, and each new ebullition served only to increase the severity of the legislature, which at length passed an act, declaring, that if any persons to the number of twelve, unlawfully assembled, should continue together one hour after being required to disperse by a justice of peace or other officer, and after hearing the act against riots read in public, they should be deemed guilty of felony without benefit of clergy. These proceedings excited the indignation of the people, who perceived that the avenues of royal favour were closed against all but a faction; and a rebellion commenced in the sister kingdom, where to other grievances was added that of the union, which all considered as an oppression. The malcontents of that country had all along maintained a correspondence with their friends in England, and some of the Tory party who were attached to the Protestant religion, and of moderate principles in government, began to associate with the Jacobites, and to wish in earnest for a revolution.

Scotland first showed them the example. The Earl of Mar, assembling three hundred of his vassals in the Highlands, proclaimed the pretender at Castleton, and setting up his standard at Braemar, assumed the title of Lieutenant-general of his Majesty’s Forces. To second these attempts, two vessels arrived from France with arms, ammunition, and a number of officers, together with assurances, that the pretender himself would shortly come over to head his own forces. In consequence of this promise, the earl soon found himself at the head of ten thousand men well armed and provided; and having secured the pass of Tay at Perth, where his head-quarters were established, he made himself master of the province of Fife, and the whole sea-coast on that side of the Frith of Forth. He then marched to Dumblane, as if with the intention of crossing the Forth at Stirling Bridge; but there he was informed that the Duke of Argyll, who had been appointed commander-in-chief of all the forces in North Britain, was advancing against him from Stirling with his own clan, assisted by some troops from Ireland. Upon this he at first judged it proper to retreat; but being soon afterwards joined by reinforcements under the Earl of Seaforth, and General Gordon, an experienced officer, who had signalised himself in the Russian service, he resolved to face the enemy, and directed his march towards the south. The Duke of Argyll, apprised of his intentions, and anxious to prove his attachment to the present government, resolved to give him battle in the neighbourhood of Duιnblane, though his forces did not amount to half the number of the enemy. Accordingly, in the morning he drew up his army, which did not exceed four thousand men, in order of battle; but he soon found himself greatly outflanked by the insurgents. The duke, therefore, perceiving the earl making attempts to surround him, was forced to alter his dispositions; but, from the scarcity of general officers, this was not done so expeditiously as to be completed before the insurgents began the attack. The left wing of the duke’s army received the centre of the enemy, and supporting the first charge without shrinking, seemed for a time victorious. The chief of Clanronald was killed; but Glengarry, who was second in command, waving his bonnet and crying out “Revenge !” animated the rebel troops to such a degree, that they followed him close to the points of the enemy’s bayonets, and got within their guard, when a total rout ensued of that wing of the royal army. General Witham, their commander, fled full speed to Stirling, and gave out that the rebels were completely victorious. But Argyll, who commanded in person on the right, having in the meanwhile attacked the left of the enemy, drove them before him for two miles, notwithstanding they often faced about and attempted to rally; and having entirely broken and driven them over the river Allan, he returned to the field of battle. Here, however, to his great mortification, he found the enemy victorious, and patiently waiting the attack. But instead of renewing the engagement, both armies continued to observe each other, neither caring to recommence the contest; and towards evening each drew off. Both sides of course claimed the victory; but all the advantages of success belonged to Argyll. He had arrested the progress of the enemy; and, in their circumstances, delay was defeat. In fact, the Earl of Mar soon found his losses and disapointments increase. The Castle of Inverness, of which he had obtained[7:5:375] possession, was delivered up by Lord Lovat, who had hitherto professed to act in the interest of the pretender; the Marquis of Tullibardine also forsook the earl, in order to defend his own part of the country; and many of the elans, seeing no likelihood of coming to a second engagement, returned quietly home.

Nor was the rebellion more successfully prosecuted in England. From the time the pretender had undertaken this wild project at Paris, in which the Duke of Ormond and Lord Bolingbroke were engaged, Lord Stair, the English ambassador there, had penetrated all his designs, and sent faithful accounts of all his measures and of all his adherents to the ministry at home. Upon the first rumour of an insurrection, therefore, several lords and gentlemen of whom they had suspicions were imprisoned; and although these precautions were insufficient to stop the insurrection in the western counties, where it had already begun, all the preparations of the insurgents were weak and ill conducted, while every measure was betrayed to government as soon as projected, and many revolts were repressed in the very outset.

But the insurrection in the northern counties attained to greater maturity. In the month of October 1715, the Earl of Derwentwater and Mr Forster took the field with a body of horse, and, being joined by some gentlemen from the borders of Scotland, proclaimed the pretender. Their first attempt was to seize upon Newcastle, in which they had many friends; but finding the gates shut against them, they retired to Hexham. To oppose them General Carpenter was detached by government with a body of nine hundred men; and an engagement was hourly expected. The rebels had two courses, by pursuing which they might have conducted themselves with prudence and safety. The one was, to march directly into the western parts of Scotland, and there join General Gordon, who commanded a strong body of Highlanders; and the other was. to cross the Tweed and boldly attack General Carpenter, whose forces did not exceed their own. But, from the infatuation attendant on the measures of the Jacobite party, neither of these courses was pursued. They took the route to Jedburgh, by which they hoped to elude Carpenter, and penetrate into England by the western border. But this was the most effectual means of cutting themselves off from either assistance or retreat. A party of Highlanders, who had by this time joined, at first refused to accompany them in so desperate an incursion, and one half of their number in consequence returned to their own country. At Brampton Mr Forster opened his commission of general, which had been sent him by the Earl of Mar, and there proclaimed the pretender. The insurgents then continued their march to Penrith, where a body of the militia, assembled to oppose them, fled at their approach. From Penrith they proceeded by the way of Kendal and Lancaster to Preston, of which they took possession without any kind of resistance. But this was the last stage of their ill-fated advance; for General Wills, at the head of seven thousand men, came up to attack them, and from his activity there was no escaping. They now, therefore, raised barricades about the town, put the place in a posture of defence, and repulsed with success the first attacks of the enemy’s force. But next day Wills, reinforced by Carpenter, invested the town on all sides. In this deplorable situation Forster proposed to capitulate with the general; and accordingly sent Colonel Oxburgh, who had been taken prisoner, with a trumpter, to propose terms. Wills, however, refused to listen to such a proposition, alleging that he could not treat with rebels, and that the only favour they had to expect was to be spared from immediate slaughter. This was a hard condition; but as no better could be obtained, they laid down their arms, and were put under a strong guard. All the noblemen and leaders were secured, and a few of their officers were tried for deserting from the king’s army, and shot by order of a court-martial. The common men were imprisoned at Chester and Liverpool; whilst the noblemen and considerable officers were sent to London, and led through the streets pinioned and bound together, in order to intimidate their party in the metropolis.

But, however ill the schemes of the pretender may appear to have been conducted in Britain, they were still more so in France. Bolingbroke had been appointed his secretary at Paris, and Ormond his prime minister. But these statesmen quickly found that nothing could be done in favour of his cause. The king of France, who had ever warmly espoused the interest of the exiled family, was just dead; and the Duke of Orleans, who succeeded to the government of the kingdom, was averse to lend the pretender any assistance. His party, however, which was composed of the lowest and the most ignorant exiles from the British dominions, affected the utmost confidence, and boasted of a certainty of success. The deepest seerets of his cabinet, and all his intended measures, were bandied about in coffee-houses by persons of the lowest rank both in fortune and abilities; whilst subaltern officers aspired to be generals, and even prostitutes were intrusted with the management of his negociations. From such instruments and such councils nothing could be augured but folly and disaster.

The pretender, in fact, might easily have seen that his affairs were desperate; yet, with his usual infatuation, he resolved to hazard his person among his friends in Scotland, at a time when such a measure was too late to serve any rational purpose. Accordingly, travelling through France in disguise, and embarking in a small vessel at Dunkirk, he arrived, after a short voyage, on the coast of Scotland, with only six gentlemen in his train. He passed unknown through Aberdeen to Fetteresso, where he was met by the Earl of Mar, with about thirty noblemen and gentlemen of the first quality, and solemnly proclaimed; and his declaration, dated at Comercy, was printed and dispersed. He then proceeded to Dundee, where he made a public entry; and in two days more he arrived at Scone, where he intended to have the ceremony of his coronation performed. He ordered thanksgivings to be offered for his safe arrival; he enjoined the ministers to pray for him in their churches; and, without the smallest share of power, he enacted all the ceremonial of royalty, which served to throw an air of ridicule upon his pretensions. Having thus spent valuable time in useless parade, he next abandoned the enterprise with the same levity with which it was undertaken. He made a speech to his grand council, in which he informed them of his want of the money, arms, and ammunition necessary for undertaking a campaign; and deploring the necessity he was under of leaving them, he once more embarked on board a small French ship that lay in the harbour of Montrose, accompanied with several lords, his adherents, and in five days arrived at Gravelines.

The rebellion being thus ended, the law was put in force in all its rigour; and the prisons of London were crowded with deluded persons, whom the ministry seemed resolved not to pardon. The Commons, in their address to the crown, declared they would prosecute, in the most rigorous manner, the authors of the late rebellion; and their measures were as vindictive as their resolutions were speedy. The Earls of Derwentwater, Nithsdale, Carnwath, and Wintoun, the Lords Widrinton, Kenmuir, and Nairne, were impeached; and, upon pleading guilty, all except Lord Wintoun received sentence of death. No entreaties could prevail on the ministry to spare these unhappy[7:5:376] men. The House of Lords even presented an address to the throne for mercy, but without effect; the king only answered, that on this, as on all other occasions, he would act in the manner which he thought most consistent with the dignity of the crown and the safety of the people. Orders were accordingly issued for the execution of the Lords Derwentwater, Nithsdale, and Kenmuir, immediately: the rest were respited. Nithsdale, however, had the good fortune to escape in woman’s clothes, which were brought him by his mother on the eve of the day fixed for his execution. Derwentwater and Kenmuir were brought at the time appointed to the scaffold on Tower Hill, where both underwent the sentence of the law with calm intrepidity, and apparently less moved than those who witnessed their execution.

An act of parliament was next passed for trying the private persons in London, and not in Lancashire, where they had been taken in arms. This was considered, by some of the best lawyers, as an alteration of the ancient constitution of the kingdom, according to which it used to be held, that every prisoner should be tried in the place where the offence charged against him had been committed. In the beginning of April, commissioners for trying the rebels met in the Court of Common Pleas, when true bills were found against Forster, brigadier Mackintosh, and twenty of their associates. Forster escaped from Newgate, and reached the Continent in safety; the rest pleaded not guilty to the charge. Pitts, the keeper of Newgate, having been suspected of conniving at Forster’s escape, was tried for his life, but acquitted. Mackintosh and several other prisoners subsequently broke from Newgate, having mastered the keeper and turnkey, and disarmed the sentinel. The court then proceeded to the trial of the remainder, and four or five were hanged, drawn, and quartered, at Tyburn. The judges appointed to try the rebels at Liverpool found a considerable number of them guilty of high treason; twenty-two were executed at Manchester and Preston; while about a thousand experienced the king’s mercy, and were transported to the plantations.

The rebellion being thus extinguished, the danger of the state was made a pretence for continuing the parliament beyond the term fixed for its dissolution. An act was therefore passed, repealing that which provided for the triennial dissolution of parliaments, and the term of their duration was extended to seven years. This attempt in a delegated body to increase their own power by extending it, is contrary to the first principles of justice. If it was right to extend their duration to seven years, they might also perpetuate their authority, and thus cut off even the shadow of representation. The bill, however, passed both houses, and all objections to it were considered as disaffection. The people might murmur at this encroachment, but it was too late for redress.

Domestic concerns being thus adjusted, the king resolved upon a voyage to the Continent. He foresaw a storm gathering from Sweden. Charles XII. highly provoked at his having entered into a confederacy with the Russians and Danes during his absence at Bender, and purchased from the king of Denmark the towns of Bremen and Verden, which constituted part of his dominions, maintained a close correspondence with the dissatisfied subjects of Great Britain; and a scheme was formed for landing a considerable body of Swedish forces, with the king at their head, in some part of the island, where it was expected they would be joined by all the malcontents in the kingdom. Count Gyllenburg, the Swedish minister in London, was peculiarly active in the affair; but having been seized, with all his papers, by order of the king, the confederacy was for the time broken up. A bill was, however, passed by the Commons, prohibiting all commerce with Sweden, although the trade with that country was at the time of the utmost consequence to the English merchants. George having passed through Holland to Hanover, in order to secure his German dominions, entered into a new treaty with the Dutch and the Regent of France, by which they agreed mutually to assist each other in case of invasion; and, for his further security, the Commons granted him L.250,000. But the death of the Swedish monarch, who was soon afterwards killed at the siege of Fredericsthal in Norway, put an end to all disquietude from that quarter.

Among the many treaties for which this reign was remarkable, one had been concluded, called the Quadruple Alliance, in which it was agreed between the emperor, France, Holland, and Britain, that the emperor shouldre-nounce all pretensions to the crown of Spain, and exchange Sardinia for Sicily with the Duke of Savoy; and that the succession to the duchies of Tuscany, Parma, and Placentia, should be settled on the queen of Spain’s eldest son, in case the present possessors should die without male issue. This treaty, however, was by no means agreeable to the king of Spain; and it became prejudicial to the English, as it had the effect of interrupting the commerce with that kingdom. A war soon afterwards commenced between Spain and the emperor, who was considered as the principal contriver of the treaty; and a numerous body of Spanish forces were sent into Italy to support Philip’s pretensions in that quarter. The regent of France attempted in vain to dissuade him, and the king of Britain offered his mediation with as little success, their interposition being considered as partial and unjust. A Spanish war was then resolved on, and a squadron of twenty-two ships equipped with all expedition. The command was given to Sir George Byng, who had orders to sail for Naples, which was at that time threatened by a Spanish army. He was received with the greatest joy by the Neapolitans, who informed him that the Spaniards, to the amount of thirty thousand, had then actually landed in Sicily. In this exigency, and whilst no assistance could be afforded by land, he resolved to proceed thither by sea, fully determined to pursue the Spanish fleet, on board of which the army was embarked. Upon coming round Cape Faro, he perceived two small Spanish vessels, and pursuing them closely, came upon their main fleet, which, before noon, he discovered in line of battle, amounting in all to twenty-seven sail. The Spaniards, however, notwithstanding their superiority of number, attempted to sheer off; but finding it impossible to escape, they kept up a running fight, the commanders behaving with great courage and activity, notwithstanding which they were all taken except three, which were saved by the conduct of their vice-admiral, a native of Ireland.

The rupture with Spain was thought favourable to the interest of the pretender; and it was hoped that, by the assistance of Cardinal Alberoni, a new insurrection might be excited in England. The Duke of Ormond was the person fixed upon to conduct this expedition; and he obtained from the Spanish court a fleet of ten ships of war and transports, having on board six thousand regular troops, with arms for twelve thousand more. But fortune was still as unfavourable as ever to the cause of legitimacy. Having set sail, and proceeded as far as Cape Finisterre, he encountered a violent storm, which disabled his fleet, and frustrated the expedition. This misfortune, together with the bad success of the Spanish arms in Sicily and other parts of Europe, induced Philip to agree to a cessation of arms; and at last he consented to sign the quadruple alliance, by which means peace was again restored to Europe.
[7:5:377]

Tranquillity being thus established, the ministry proceeded to take measures for securing the dependence of the Irish parliament upon that of England. One Maurice Annesley having appealed to the House of Peers of England from a judgment of the Irish Peers, the decree of the latter was reversed, and the British Peers ordered the Barons of Exchequer in Ireland to put Mr Annesley in possession of the lands which lie had lost by the decree of the Lords in that kingdom. The Barons obeyed this order; but the Irish Peers passed a vote against them, as having attempted to diminish the just privileges of the parliament of Ireland, and at the same time ordered the barons to be taken into custody by the usher of the black rod. On the other hand, the House of Lords in England resolved that the Barons of Exchequer in Ireland had acted with courage and fidelity; and addressed the king to signify his approbation of their conduct by some marks of his favour; while, to complete their object, a bill was prepared by which the Irish House of Lords was deprived of all right of final jurisdiction. This bill was opposed in both houses, but particularly in the Commons, where it was asserted by Mr Pitt that it would only serve to increase the power of the English Peers, who were already but too formidable· Mr Hungerford also demonstrated that the Irish Lords had always exercised the power of finally deciding causes; but, in spite of all opposition, it was carried by a great majority, and soon afterwards received the royal assent.

This blow was severely felt by the Irish, but it was by no means so great as that which the English about this time received from the South Sea Scheme, which commenced in the year 1721. To understand the genesis of this delusion, it is necessary to observe, that ever since the Revolution, owing either to the insufficiency of the supplies granted by parliament, or to the time required for collecting those which were actually granted, the government was obliged to borrow money from several different companies of merchants; and among the rest from that which traded to the South Seas. In the year 1716 the government were indebted to this company upwards of nine millions sterling, for which interest at the rate of six per cent, was agreed to be paid. But as this company was not the only creditor of the government, Sir Robert Walpole formed a design of lessening the national debt, by giving the several associations which had advanced funds for the public service an alternative of either accepting a lower rate of interest, namely five per cent., or of being paid the principal. In point of fact, the different companies chose rather to accept of the reduced rate of interest than to be paid the principal; and the South Sea Company in particular, having advanced loans to the extent of ten millions, were contented to take L.500,000 annually as interest, instead of L.600,000, which they previously received. And in the same manner, the governors and company of the Bank, and other associations, consented to receive a diminished interest for their respective loans, which of course lessened considerably the burdens of the nation.

In this situation of things, one Blount, a scrivener, proposed to the ministry, in the name of the South Sea Company, to buy up all the debts of the different associations, in order that the South Sea Company might become the sole creditors of the state. The terms he offered to government were extremely advantageous. The South Sea Company was to redeem the debts of the nation out of the hands of the private individuals who were creditors to the government, upon such terms as could be agreed on; and for the interest of the money thus redeemed and taken into their own hands, they were to be allowed by govern-I ment five per cent, for six years; after which the interest was to be reduced to four per cent, and to be at any time redeemable by parliament. For these purposes, accordingly, a bill passed both houses of parliament. But now came the part of the scheme which was big with fraud and ruin. As the directors of the South Sea Company could not of themselves be supposed to possess money sufficient to buy up the debts of the nation, they were empowered to raise it by opening a subscription to an imaginary scheme for trading in the South Seas; and as immense advantages were promised from this supposititious commerce, and still greater expected by the rapacious credulity of the people, all the creditors of government were invited to come in and exchange their securities for that of the South Sea Company. The directors’ books were accordingly no sooner opened for the first subscription, than crowds came to effect the exchange of government for South Sea stock; and the delusion was artfully propagated and continued. In a few days subscriptions or shares sold for double the price at which they had been purchased; the scheme succeeded beyond even the projector’s hopes; and the whole nation was infected with a spirit of avaricious enterprise. The infatuation, in fact, became epidemic, and the stock rose to a surprising degree, even to a thousand per cent, premium on the original value or price of the shares. But after a few months the people awaked from their dream of riches, and found that all the advantages which they expected were purely visionary, whilst thousands of families were involved in utter ruin. Many of the directors, by whose arts the people had been taught to expect such benefits from a traffic to the South Seas, had indeed amassed enormous fortunes in consequence of the credulity of the public; but it was some consolation to the people, to find that the parliament, sharing in the general indignation, had resolved to strip these plunderers of their ill-gotten wealth. Accordingly, orders were first given to remove all the directors of the South Sea Company from their seats in parliament, and the places they held under government; and the principal delinquents were punished by a forfeiture of all such possessions and estates as they had acquired during the continuance of the popular frenzy. The next care of parliament was to afford some relief to the sufferers. Several just and proper resolutions were in consequence adopted, and a bill was speedily prepared for alleviating the sufferings of the people as far as the power of the legislature in such a case could possibly extend. Out of the profits arising from the South Sea scheme, the sum of seven millions was restored to the original proprietors; several additions were also made to their dividends out of what was possessed by the company in their own right; and the remaining capital stock was also divided among the former proprietors at the rate of thirty-three per cent. Petitions from all parts of the kingdom were in the meanwhile presented to the house, demanding justice; and the whole nation seemed exasperated to the highest degree. Public credit sustained a terrible shock. Some leading members of the administration were deeply implicated in these fraudulent transactions. A run was made upon the bank; and nothing was heard but the ravings of disappointment and the cries of despair.

By degrees, however, the effects of this terrible calamity wore off, and matters returned to their former condition. A new war with Spain, however, commenced in 1726. Admiral Hosier was sent to South America to intercept the Spanish galleons; but the Spaniards, apprised of his design, relanded their treasure, and thus defeated the object of the expedition. Meanwhile the greater part of the British fleet sent on this service was rendered entirely unfit for service. The seamen were cut off in vast numbers by the malignity of the climate and the length of the voyage, whilst the admiral himself died, it is said, of a broken heart. By way of retaliation the Spaniards undertook the siege of Gibraltar; but they soon found that this attempt[7:5:378] was hopeless; and France offering her mediation, a temporary peace ensued, although both sides only watched an opportunity for renewing hostilities with the prospect of success.

Soon after the dissolution of the parliament in the year 1727, the king, resolving to visit his electoral dominions of Hanover, appointed a regency to govern in his absence, and, embarking for Holland, landed at a little town called Voet. Next day he proceeded on his journey; and in two days more, betwixt ten and eleven at night, he arrived at Belden, to all appearance in perfect health. He supped there very heartily, and continued his journey early the next morning; but betwixt eight and nine he ordered his coach to stop; and it being perceived that one of his hands lay motionless, Fabrice, who had formerly been servant to the king of Sweden, and now attended King George in the same capacity, attempted to quicken the circulation by chafing the royal hand between his own. As this had no effect, however, the surgeon who followed on horseback was called, and rubbed it with spirits. But the friction was unavailing; the king’s tongue began to swell, and he had just strength enough to bid them hasten to Osnaburgh; after which he fell insensible into Fabrice’s arms. He never recovered; but expired about eleven o’clock the next morning, in the sixty-eighth year of his age and thirteenth of his reign. His body was conveyed to Hanover, and interred among his electoral ancestors.

CHAP. XI.

REIGN OF GEORGE II.

Accession of George II—Court and Country Parties.—Charitable Corporation—Excise Scheme rejected—Parliament dissolved—War with Spain—Capture of Puerto Bello—Anson’s Expedition—Unsuccessful attempt on Carthagena—Retirement of Sir Robert Walpole Army sent into Flanders

Origin of the Continental War—Desperate situation of the Queen of Hungary—Relieved by the British forces—Battle of Dettingen—Intended invasion of Britain by France Bat tle of Fontenoy—Capture of Louisbourg—Landing of the Pretender in Scotland—Battle of Gladsmuir.—Advance into England—Consternation in London—Retreat of the Highland army from Derby—Siege of Stirling Castle—Battle of Falkirk—Advance of the Duke of Cumberland, and retreat of the Rebels.—Battle of Culloden.—Cruelty of Cumberland—Subsequent adventures and escape of Prince Charles Edward.— Execution of Rebels—Policy of the Government in regard to the Highlands of Scotland—Allies defeated in Flanders— Losses sustained by the French in other parts.—Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle—Death of the Prince of Wales—Hostilities renewed—Minorca invaded—Execution of Admiral Byng— Treaty with Russia—Opposition of the King of Prussia—New Combination of the European powers Unsuccessful expedition against France—2kccessi0n of Mr Pitt to office Success of the British arms in both hemispheres—Quebec taken and Canada reduced—Misconduct of Cumberland in Germany

Capitulation of Closter Seven—French defeated at Minden— German war continued with various success Death of George

II.

On the accession of George II. who succeeded to his father in the forty-fourth year of his age, the two great parties into which the nation had so long been divided again changed their names, and were now called the Court and Country Parties. Throughout the greatest part of this reign there seem to have been two objects of controversy, which rose up in debate every session, and tried the strength of the opponents; namely, the national debt, and the number of forces to be kept in pay. The government, on the present king’s accession, owed more than thirty millions of money; and although there was a long continuance of profound peace, yet this sum went on constantly increasing. How this could happen was much wondered at by the country party, and it was as constant ly the business of the court to give plausible reasons for the increase. Hence demands for new supplies were made every session of parliament, for the purpose of securing friends upon the Continent, of guarding the kingdom from internal conspiracies, or of enabling the ministry to act vigorously in conjunction with the powers in alliance abroad. It was vainly alleged that these expences were incurred without foresight or necessity; and that the increase of the national debt, by multiplying and increasing taxes, would at last become an intolerable burden to the poor. These arguments were offered, canvassed, rejected; the court party was constantly victorious, and every demand was granted with equal cheerfulness and profusion.

The next thing worthy of notice in the reign of George II. is the Charitable Corporation. A society of men had united themselves into a company under this name, with the professed intention of lending money at legal interest to the poor upon small pledges, and to persons of higher rank upon proper security. Their capital was at first limited to thirty thousand pounds; but they afterwards increased it to six hundred thousand. This money was supplied by subscription, and the care of conducting the capital was intrusted to a proper number of directors. The company having continued in existence for more than twenty years, the cashier, George Robinson, member for Marlow, and the warehouse-keeper, John Thomson, disappeared in one day; and five hundred thousand pounds of capital were found to be sunk or embezzled by means which the proprietors could not discover. In a petition to the House, therefore, they represented the manner in which they had been defrauded, and the distress to which many of them had in consequence been reduced; and a secret committee having been appointed to examine into this grievance, a most iniquitous scene of fraud was discovered, which had been carried on by Thompson and Robinson, in concert with some of the directors, for embezzling the capital and cheating the proprietors. Many persons of rank and quality were concerned in this infamous confederacy; and even some of the first characters in the nation did not escape censure. No less than six members of parliament were expelled for the most sordid acts of knavery; Sir Robert Sutton, Sir Archibald Grant, and George Robinson, for their frauds in the management of the Charitable Corporation scheme; Dennis Bond and Serjeant Burch, for a fraudulent sale of the unfortunate Earl of Derwentwater’s estate; and John Ward of Hackney, for the crime of forgery. It was at this time asserted in the House of Lords that not one shilling of the forfeited estates had ever been applied to the service of the public, but had become the reward of fraud, venality, and profligacy.

This happened in the year 1731. In 1732 a scheme was formed by Sir Robert Walpole of fixing a general excise; and he introduced it by enumerating the frauds practised by the factors in London employed in selling the American tobacco. To prevent these frauds, he proposed, that instead of having the customs levied in the usual manner, all the tobacco to be hereafter imported should be lodged in warehouses appointed for that purpose by the officers of the crown; and should from thence be sold, upon paying the duty of fourpence a pound, whenever the proprietor found a purchaser. This proposal raised a violent ferment, both within and without doors; and at last the fury of the people was worked up to such a pitch, that the parliament-house was surrounded by multitudes, who intimidated the ministry, and compelled them to abandon the scheme. The miscarriage of the bill was celebrated with public rejoicings in London and Westminster, and the minister was burned in effigy by the populace of London.
[7:5:379]

On this occasion an attempt was made to repeal the septennial bill, and bring back triennial parliaments, as settled at the Revolution. But notwithstanding the warmth of the opposition, the ministry, exerting all their strength, proved victorious, and the motion was defeated. However, as on this occasion the country party seemed to have gained strength, it was thought proper to dissolve the parliament, and to summon another by the same proclamation.

But the same disputes were carried on in this as in the former parliament. New subjects of controversy offered every day, and both sides were eager to seize them. A convention agreed on by the ministry with Spain became an object of warm altercation. By this the court of Spain had agreed to pay ninety-five thousand pounds to the English, as a satisfaction for all demands, and to discharge the whole in four months from the day of ratification; but this stipulation was considered as not containing an equivalent for the damages which had been sustained, and which were said to amount to three hundred and forty thousand pounds. A violent discussion ensued, in the course of which the minister was provoked into unusual vehemence, and branded the opposite party with the appellation of traitors. But he was, as usual, victorious; and the country party finding themselves out-numbered and out-voted in every debate, resolved to withdraw for ever; while Walpole, thus left without opposition, took the opportunity of passing several useful laws in their absence, in order to render his opponents odious or contemptible to the country.

In 1739 a new war commenced with Spain. Ever since the treaty of Utrecht, the Spaniards in America had insulted and distressed the commerce of Great Britain; whilst the British merchants, on the other hand, had endeavoured to carry on an illicit trade with their dominions. As a right of cutting logwood in the Bay of Campeachy, claimed by the British, gave them frequent opportunities of introducing contraband commodities into the continent, the Spaniards resolved to put a stop to the evil by refusing liberty to cut logwoo,d in that place. The guarda-costas exercised great severities, and many British subjects were sent to the mines of Potosi. One remonstrance followed another to the court of Madrid; but the only answers given were promises of inquiry, which produced no reformation. Accordingly, in 1739 war was declared with all proper solemnity; and soon after Admiral Vernon, with only six ships, destroyed all the fortifications of Puerto Bello, and came away victorious, with scarcely the loss of a man.

As the war was thus successfully begun, supplies were cheerfully granted to prosecute it with all imaginable vigour. Commodore Anson was sent with a squadron of ships to distress the enemy in the South Seas, and to co-operate occasionally with Admiral Vernon across the Isthmus of Darien. This squadron was designed to act a part subordinate to a formidable armament which was to be sent against Mexicoor New Spain; but through the mismanagement of the ministry both these schemes were frustrated. Anson was detained till too late in the season, when he set out with five ships of the line, a frigate, two store-ships, and about fourteen hundred men. But having entered the South Sea at the most unfavourable period of the year, he encountered terrible storms; his fleet was dispersed, and his crew deplorably afflicted with scurvy, so that with the utmost difficulty he reached the island of Juan Fernandez. Here, however, he was joined by one ship and a frigate of seventeen guns, and sailing from thence along the coast of Chili, he plundered and burnt the town of Paita. He next traversed the Pacific, in hopes of meeting with one of the rich galleons which traded from the Philippine Islands to Mexico Having refreshed his men at the island of Tinian, he set sail for China; and returning by the same route, he at last discovered the galleon, which he engaged and took; 1 and with this prize, valued at upwards of three hundred thousand pounds, together with other captures to the value of about as much more, he returned home, after a voyage of three years. By this expedition the public sustained the loss of a fine squadron of ships, but a few individuals became possessed of immense fortunes.

Another expedition which was fitted out ended still more unfortunately. The armament consisted of twenty-nine sail of the line, anff an almost equal number of frigates, furnished with all kinds of warlike stores, near fifteen thousand seamen, and as many land forces. The most sanguine hopes of success were entertained; but the ministry detained the fleet without any visible reason till the season for action in America was nearly past. At last, however, the squadron arrived before Carthagena, and soon captured the strong forts which defended the harbour. But though by this means they were enabled to approach nearer the town, they still found great difficulties before them. From an erroneous belief that the ships could not get near enough to batter the town, and that therefore the remaining forts must be attempted byescalade, this dangerous experiment was tried; but the guides were slain by the enemy’s fire, and the forces, mistaking their way, instead of attempting the weakest part of the fort, attacked the strongest, where they were exposed to the fire of the whole town. Their scaling ladders were also too short; and at last, after sustaining a dreadful fire with great resolution for some hours, they retreated, leaving six hundred men dead on the spot. The ravages of the climate now began to prove more dreadful than the casualties of war; and the rainy season commenced with such violence, that it was found impossible for the troops to continue in their encampment. And, as if to aggravate these calamities, dissension arose between the commanders of the sea and land forces, who blamed each other, and at last could only be brought to agree in one mortifying measure, namely, the re-embarkation of the troops.

The miscarriage of this enterprise produced the greatest discontents, more especially as other causes of complaint occurred at the same time. Sir John Norris had twice sailed to the coast of Spain at the head of a powerful squadron, without effecting any thing of consequence. The commerce of Britain was greatly annoyed by the Spanish privateers, who had taken upwards of four hundred ships since the commencement of the war; whilst the British fleets remained quite inactive, and suffered one loss after another, without endeavouring in the least to make proper reprisals. These discontents burst out all at once against Sir Robert Walpole; a majority was formed in the House of Commons in opposition to the ministry of which he was the head; he was created Earl of Orford; and the parliament having adjourned for a few days on purpose, he resigned all his employments.

The removal of this minister gave universal satisfaction. His antagonists entertained great hopes of seeing him punished; but he had laid his schemes too well to be under any apprehensions on that account; and, in fact, the new ministry had no sooner got into office than they trode in the footsteps of those whom they had so much exclaimed against. The nation had now become disgusted with naval operations. The people desired a renewal of their victories in Flanders, and the king ardently joined in the same wish. An army of sixteen thousand men was therefore shipped and sent to Flanders, to take part in the quarrels that were then beginning to break out on the Continent. Immense triumphs were expected from this undertaking; but it was somehow forgotten that the army was not now commanded by John Duke of Marlborough.
[7:5:380]

In order to give some notion of the origin of these continental disputes, it is necessary to go back for several years. After the Duke of Orleans, regent of France, died, Cardinal Fleury undertook to settle the confusion in which the kingdom was then involved; and under him France repaired her losses, and enriched herself by means of commerce. During the long interval of peace which this minister’s counsels had procured for Europe, two powers, hitherto disregarded, began to attract the notice and the jealousy of the neighbouring nations. These were Russia and Prussia, both of which had been gradually rising into power and consequence. The other states were but little prepared to renew the war. The empire remained under the government of Charles VI. who had been placed on the throne by the treaty of Utrecht; Sweden continued to languish, from the destructive projects of Charles XII.; Denmark was powerful enough, but inclined to peace; and part of Italy still remained subject to those princes who had been imposed upon it in consequence of foreign treaties. All these states, however, continued to enjoy profound peace, until the death of Augustus king of Poland; an event by which a general flame was once more kindled in Europe. The emperor, assisted by the arms of Russia, declared for the elector of Saxony, the son of the deceased king; whilst France, on the other hand, espoused the cause of Stanislaus, who had long ago been nominated king of the Poles by Charles of Sweden, and whose daughter the king of France had since married. Stanislaus was gladly received at Dantzic, and acknowledged as king of Poland; but having been besieged there by ten thousand Russians, the city was taken, and he himself with difficulty made his escape. France, however, still resolved to assist him, as the most effectual method of distressing the house of Austria; and her views were seconded by Spain and Sardinia, both of which hoped to be enriched by the spoils of Austria. A French army, therefore, overran the empire, under the conduct of the old Marshal Villars; whilst the Duke of Montemar, the Spanish general, was equally victorious in the kingdom of Naples. The emperor was soon obliged to sue for peace, which was granted; but Stanislaus was neglected in the treaty, it having been stipulated that he should renounce all claim to the kingdom of Poland; while the emperor gratified France with the duchy of Lorraine, and other valuable territories, as an indemnification.

The emperor dying in the year 1740, the French thought the opportunity favourable for their ambition, and, regardless of treaties, particularly that called the Pragmatic Sanction, by which the late emperor’s dominions were settled upon his daughter, caused the Elector of Bavaria to be crowned emperor. Thus the queen of Hungary, daughter of Charles VI. was at once stripped of her inheritance, and left for a whole year without any hopes of succour; and at the same time she lost the province of Silesia by an irruption of the young king of Prussia, who took the opportunity of her defenceless condition to renew his pretensions to that province. France, Saxony, and Bavaria, attacked the rest of her dominions; and Britain was the only ally who seemed willing to assist her; but Sardinia, Holland, and Russia, soon afterwards concurred in the same views. It must be owned that the only reason which Britain had for interfering in these disputes was, that the security of the electorate depended upon nicely balancing the different interests of the empire; but the ministry were nevertheless willing to gratify the king by engaging the country in a war. His majesty informed the parliament that he had sent a body of British forces into the Netherlands, which he had augmented by sixteen thousand Hanoverians, to operate a diversion on the side of France, in favour of the queen of Hungary. But when the supplies by which this additional number of Hanoverian troops was to receive pay from Britain for defending their own cause came to be considered, violent parliamentary debates ensued; and although the ministry carried their point by the strength of numbers, they had but little reason to boast of their victory.

Yet, however prejudicial these continental measures might be to the true interests of Great Britain, they effectually retrieved the queen of Hungary’s affairs, and soon turned the scale of victory in her favour. The French were driven out of Bohemia; while her general, Prince Charles of Lorraine, at the head of a large army, invaded the dominions of Bavaria. Her rival, the nominal emperor, was obliged to fly before her; and, abandoned by his allies, as well as stripped of his hereditary dominions, he retired to Frankfort, where he lived in obscurity. Meanwhile the British and Hanoverian army advanced in order to effect a junction with that under Prince Charles, by which they would have outnumbered their enemies; and to prevent this the French opposed an army of sixty thousand men, upon the Maine, under the command of Marshal de Noailles, who posted his troops on the eastern side of that river. The British army was commanded by the Earl of Stair, who, although he had learned the art of war under Eugene and Marlborough, suffered himself to be inclosed by the enemy on every side, near a village called Dettingen; and in this situation the whole army, with the king himself, wdio had by this time arrived in the camp, must have been taken prisoners, had the French behaved with ordinary prudence. But their impetuosity saved the combined force from destruction. They passed a defile which they ought to have contented themselves with guarding, and, under the conduct of the Duke de Grammont, their horse charged the British foot with great fury; but they were received with unshaken firmness, and at last obliged to repass the Maine with precipitation, and the loss of about five thousand men. The British monarch, who was present in the battle, displayed equal courage and conduct, and in some measure atoned for an error which might otherwise have proved fatal.

But though the British were victorious in this engagement, the French were very little disconcerted by it. They opposed Prince Charles, and interrupted his attempts to pass the Rhine; and in Italy they also gained some advantages; but their chief hopes were placed on an intended invasion of England. From the violence of parliamentary disputes in England, France had been persuaded that the country was ripe for a revolution, and only wanted the presence of the pretender to bring about a change. An invasion was therefore projected; the troops destined for the expedition amounted to fifteen thousand; and preparations were made for embarking them at Dunkirk and some of the ports nearest to England, under the eye of the young pretender. The Duke de Roquefeuille, with twenty ships of the line, was to see them safely landed on the opposite shore; and the famous Count Saxe was to command them when disembarked. But the whole project was disconcerted by the appearance of Sir John Norris, with a superior fleet, which obliged the French squadron to put back; while a severe gale of wind damaged their transports, and thus entirely frustrated the scheme of a sudden descent. But the national joy for Sir John Norris’s success was soon damped by the miscarriage of Admirals Mathews and Lestock, who, through a misunderstanding, suffered a French fleet of thirty-four sail to escape them near Toulon.

In the Netherlands the British arms were also attended with ill success. The French had there assembled an army of a hundred and twenty thousand men, commanded by Count Saxe, natural son of the late king of Poland, and an officer of great experience. The English were under [7:5:381]the Duke of Cumberland, whose army was much inferior in number to that of the enemy, whilst in point of knowledge of war the disparity between him and the French general was still greater. Count Saxe, therefore, carried all before him. In the year 1743 he besieged Fribourg, and in the beginning of the campaign of 1744 he invested the strong city of Tournay. To save the place, if possible, the allies resolved to hazard an engagement; and this brought on the memorable battle of Fontenoy. The French were posted behind the town of that name, on some eminences which completely commanded the defile which formed the only approach to the position. At two in the morning the assailants quitted their camp, and about nine the British infantry, formed in a kind of grand square, attacked the centre of the enemy’s line, which was drawn up in a sort of avenue to receive them. But from the confined nature of the ground, the obstinacy of the resistance in front, and the flanking fire kept up from some woody heights which domineered over the defile, this fine body of troops was never able to develope its attack nor to clear the defile; yet, in spite of every effort of the enemy, it maintained its ground till three in the afternoon, preserving its formation unbroken, notwithstanding the plunging fire of the French artillery, and the concentrated musketry of their infantry, to which it was without intermission exposed; and at last it retired in perfect order, facing round at intervals, and checking the pursuit of the enemy. The loss of the allies amounted to twelve thousand men, and that of the French was even greater; but the victory nevertheless gave them the superiority during the rest of the campaign, as well as during the remainder of the war. The capture of Tournay was the first fruit of this dear-bought success; and though the Elector of Bavaria, whom they had proclaimed emperor, was now dead, the French were too much elated by success to relax in their operations against the allies.

To balance the defeat at Fontenoy, however, Admirals Rowley and Warren retrieved the honour of the British flag, and made several rich captures at sea. The fortress of Louisbourg, a place of great consequence to the British commerce, surrendered to General Pepperel; and a short time afterwards two French East India ships, and a Spanish ship from Peru laden with treasure, put into the harbour, supposing it still their own, and were taken.

During this gleam of returning success, Charles Edward, the son of the old pretender to the British crown, resolved to make an attempt to recover what he called his right. Being furnished with some money from France, he embarked for Scotland on board of a small frigate, accompanied by the Marquis of Tullibardine, Sir Thomas Sheridan, and some others; and for the conquest of the whole British empire, he only brought with him seven officers, and arms for two thousand men. Fortune, however, seemed nowise more favourable to this attempt than to others similar to it. His convoy, a ship of sixty guns, was so disabled in an engagement with an English man of war, that it was obliged to return to Brest, whilst he continued his course to the western parts of Scotland. On the 27th of July 1745 he landed on the coast of Lochaber, and was in a little time joined by the Highlanders to the number of fifteen hundred men. The ministry at first could scarcely be induced to credit the story of his arrival; but when it could no longer be doubted, they sent Sir John Cope with a small body of forces to oppose his progress. A favourable opportunity offered for striking a blow at Corryarrick; but Cope, who seems to have been equally devoid of conduct and of energy, withdrew to Inverness, thus uncovering the road to the low country.

The young adventurer, availing himself of this blunder, immediately marched to the south, and arrived at Perth, where he performed the ceremony of proclaiming his father king of Great Britain. He then proceeded towards Edinburgh, and, his forces continually increasing, entered the capital without opposition; but he was unable, from want of cannon, to reduce the castle. Here he again proclaimed his father; and promised to dissolve the union, which was still considered as one of the national grievances. In the mean time Sir John Cope, having arrived from Inverness, and been reinforced by two regiments of dragoons, resolved to give battle to the enemy. The insurgents, however, attacked him at Gladsmuir, near Preston-pans, and in a few minutes put him and his troops to flight, with the loss of five hundred men. This victory gave the insurgents great hopes, from the impression it produced; and had the pretender marched directly to England, the result might perhaps have been fatal to the House of Hanover. But he was amused by the promise of succours which in fact never arrived, and thus induced to remain in Edinburgh till the season for action was lost. He was joined, however, by the Earl of Kilmarnock, Lord Balmerino, Lords Cromarty, Elcho, Ogilvy, Pitsligo, and the eldest son of Lord Lovat, who with their vassals considerably increased his army; and Lord Lovat himself, so remarkable for his treachery, was favourably disposed towards the pretender, although unwilling to act openly for fear of the government. But whilst Charles was thus trifling away his time at Edinburgh, the British ministry were taking most effectual methods to oppose him. Six thousand Dutch troops, which had come over to assist the government, were dispatched northward under the command of General Wade; but this force was then in some measure incapable of acting, being prisoners of France upon parole, and under engagements not to oppose that power for a year. Be this as it may, however, the Duke of Cumberland arrived soon afterwards from Flanders, and was followed by a detachment of dragoons and infantry, well disciplined and inured to action; whilst volunteers offered their services in every part of the kingdom.

At last Charles resolved upon an irruption into England. He entered that country by the western border, and took the town of Carlisle; after which he continued his march southwards, having received assurances that a considerable body of forces would be landed on the southern coasts to create a diversion in his favour. He established his head-quarters at Manchester, where he was joined by between two and three hundred English formed into a regiment under the command of Colonel Townley; and thence he pursued his march to Derby, intending to go by the way of Chester into Wales, where he hoped to be joined by a great number of malcontents; but in this he was prevented by the factions among his followers.

Having now advanced within a hundred miles of London, that capital was thrown into the utmost consternation; and had he proceeded with the same expedition which he had hitherto used, he might perhaps have made himself master of it. But he was prevented from pursuing this or any other rational plan by the discontents which began to prevail in his army. The young pretender was in fact but the nominal leader of his forces; and his generals, the Highland chiefs, were equally averse to subordination and ignorant of command. They now, however, became unanimous in their resolution to return to their own country; and Charles was forced to comply. Accordingly they retreated to Carlisle without sustaining any loss; and thence crossing the Eden and Solway, entered Scotland. They next marched to Glasgow, which was laid under severe contributions; and thence proceeding to Stirling, they were joined by Lord Lewis Gordon at the head of some forces which had been assembled in his absence. Other clans likewise came in; while some supplies of money received[7:5:382] from Spain, and some skirmishes with the royalists, in which he was victorious, caused the pretender’s affairs to assume a much more promising aspect. Being joined by Lord Drummond, he invested the castle of Stirling, in the siege of which much valuable time was consumed to no purpose. General Hawley, who commanded a considerable body of forces near Edinburgh, undertook to raise the siege, and with this view advanced as far as Falkirk in order to give battle to the Highland army. After some time spent in mutual observation, an engagement ensued on the 17th January 1746, in which the king’s troops were entirely defeated. The Highlanders advanced to the attack with their usual impetuosity, threw in a volley or two, and then drawing their claymores, rushed forward, sword in hand, to close with the enemy. The onset proved irresistible; infantry and cavalry were intermingled in one common rout; and the whole artillery and tents of the royal army fell into the hands of the conquerors.

But the victory of Falkirk was the last of the triumphs of the rebel army. The Duke of Cumberland having arrived, put himself at the head of the troops at Edinburgh, amounting to about fourteen thousand men; and with these he marched to Aberdeen, where he was joined by several of the nobility attached to the house of Hanover, the enemy in the mean time retreating before him. He next advanced to the banks of the Spey, a deep and rapid river, where the Highlanders might have successfully disputed his passage; but their mutual contentions had now risen to such a height that they could scarce agree in any thing. At last, however, they resolved to make a stand, and for this purpose selected Drummossie Muir, near Culloden, nine miles distant from Inverness; the only ground in the whole country where cavalry and artillery, the two arms which they had most reason to dread, could act with effect against them. Their numbers amounted to about eight thousand; and after an abortive attempt to surprise the royal army at Nairn, they returned to their position and drew out to receive the attack. At one in the afternoon of the 15th of April 1746, the cannonading commenced; and whilst the artillery of the rebels, from being miserably served, did little or no execution, that of the royal army, at every discharge, made frightful gaps in the Highland ranks. During the continuance of the cannonade, Cumberland observing that the right of the Highlanders was covered by a wall, ordered a body of men to advance and pull it down. The Campbells, to whom this service was committed, promptly obeyed the order; and the right wing of the Highlanders being thus uncovered, they became exposed to a flanking fire as well as to that in front, which was now kept up with the greatest vivacity. In this trying situation a body, chiefly Atholemen, about nineteen hundred strong, unable any longer to sustain the galling fire which was poured in on their ranks, and conscious that their real strength lay in close combat, advanced to the attack sword in hand; broke through Burrell’s and Monro’s regiments in an instant; and pressed on, with diminished numbers but dauntless resolution, against the second line of the royal army, amidst a concentrated and terrible fire from every gun that could be brought to bear upon them. The second line steadily awaited the onset of this forlorn hope, reserving their fire till it came quite close, when a destructive volley was thrown in, while Wolfe’s regiment, formed en potence·, opened at the same instant a flanking fire. The force of the charge was thus completely broken; a few and but a few of the assailants escaped; and the bravest, who did not fall by the murderous fire, perished in a desperate conflict with the English bayonets. Lochiel, advancing at the head of a small band, who had survived the encounter with the first line, was wounded in both ancles by a grape-shot while in the act of charging the second line; and in this state he was carried off the field by his two brothers, between whom he had advanced. Macdonald of Keppoch was also rushing on in like manner to the attack, when, receiving a wound which brought him to the ground, he was conjured by a friend not to throw away his life, but to retire and rejoin the main body; but desiring his friend to provide for his own safety, Macdonald got upon his legs, and, whilst preparing again to advance, received another shot, by which he fell to rise no more. Most of the chiefs who commanded the body that advanced to the charge, and almost every man in the front ranks, were killed. Unfortunately the Highland regiments on the left did not advance to close combat, or support the gallant attack which has just been described: had they done so, the issue might have been very different. After exchanging a volley or two with the right wing of the duke’s army, and answcringthe fire of some dragoons who hovered near, they retreated, and separating into small parties, were cut up in detail, losing more men in proportion than the brave band who had made so gallant and vigorous an effort to retrieve the fortune of the day. In less than thirty minutes the battle was lost, and with it a final period was put to all the hopes of the young adventurer. The conquerors behaved with the greatest cruelty, refusing quarter to the wounded, the unarmed, and the defenceless; and some were slain who had only been spectators of the combat; whilst soldiers were seen to anticipate the base employment of the executioner. The duke, immediately after the action, ordered thirty-six deserters to be executed; the conquerors spread terror wherever they went; and in a short time the whole country around became one dreadful scene of plunder, slaughter, and desolation.

Immediately after the battle, the pretender fled with a captain of Fitzjames’s cavalry; and when their horses were fatigued, they both alighted, and separately sought for safety. There is a striking resemblance between the adventures of Charles II. after the battle of Worcester, and those of the pretender after the battle of Culloden. For several days he wandered through the country; sometimes he found refuge in caves and cottages, without any attendants at all; sometimes he lay in forests with one or two companions of his distress, continually pursued by the troops, there being a reward of L.30,000 offered for taking him either dead or alive. In the course of his adventures he had occasion to trust his life to the fidelity of above fifty individuals, not one of whom could be prevailed on, even by so great a reward as that which was offered, to betray him whom they looked upon as the son of their king. For six months the unfortunate Charles continued to wander in the mountains of Glengarry, often hemmed round by his pursuers, but still rescued, by some providential accident, from the impending danger. At length a privateer of St Ma-loes, hired by his adherents, having arrived in Lochra-nach, he embarked on board that vessel for France. At this time he was reduced to a state of inexpressible wretchedness, being clad in a short coat of black frize, threadbare, over which was a common Highland plaid girt round him by a belt, from which hung a pistol and dagger. He had not been shifted for many weeks; his eyes were hollow, his visage was wan, and his constitution greatly impaired by famine and fatigue. Accompanied by Sullivan and Sheridan, two Irish adherents, who bad sharedall his calamities, together with Cameron ofLochiel, his brother, and a few other exiles, he set sail for France, and, after having been chased by two English men of war, arrived in safety at a place called Roseau, near Morlaix, in Bretagne.

While the pretender was thus pursued, the scaffolds and gibbets were preparing for his brave adherents. Seventeen officers were hanged, drawn, and quartered, at Kenning[7:5:383]ton Common, in the neighbourhood of London; nine were executed in the same manner at Carlisle, and eleven at York. A few obtained pardons, and a considerable number of the common men were transported to America. The Earls of Kilmarnock and Cromarty, and Lord Balmerino, were tried and found guilty of high treason. Cromarty was pardoned, but Kilmarnock and Balmerino were executed; as was also Mr Radcliffe, brother to the Earl of Derwentwater, who received sentence upon a former conviction. Lord Lovat was tried, and suffered some time afterwards.

Immediately after the suppression of the rebellion, the legislature undertook to establish regulations in Scotland, conducive to the happiness of the people and the tranquillity of the united kingdoms. The Highlanders had till that time continued to wear the military dress of their ancestors, and never went without arms; in consequence of which they considered themselves as a body of people distinct from the rest of the nation, and were ready upon the shortest notice to second the projects of their chiefs. Their habits were now reformed by an act of legislature, and they were compelled to wear clothes of the common fashion. But what contributed still more to destroy the spirit of clanship was the abolition of the hereditary jurisdictions which their chieftains exercised over them. The power of the chiefs was totally destroyed, and every subject in that part of the kingdom was liberated from the state of vassalage in which they had formerly lived.

Soon after the battle of Culloden the Duke of Cumberland proceeded to Flanders, where he resumed the command of the army, to which he was by no means equal. The French carried every thing before them, and reduced under their dominion all the strong places which had been taken by the Duke of Marlborough, and formed a barrier to the united provinces. They gained a considerable victory near Rocoux, though at a great sacrifice of men, which, however, they could easily spare, as they were much more numerous than their adversaries; and another victory which they obtained at Lafeldt served to depress still further the spirit of the allied army. But the taking of Bergen-op-Zoom, the strongest fortification of Brabant, was the event which naturally reduced the Dutch to the greatest alarm and distress.

These victories and successes in Flanders, however, were counterbalanced by almost equal disappointments. In Italy, the brother of Marshal Belleislc, attempting to penetrate into Piedmont at the head of thirty-four thousand men, was defeated and killed. A fleet had been fitted out for the recovery of Cape Breton, but without success; and two others were equipped, the one to make a descent upon the British colonies in America, and the other to carry on the operations in the East Indies; but these were attacked by Anson and Warren, and nine of their ships taken. Soon after this, Commodore Fox, with six ships of war, took above forty French ships richly laden from St Domingo ∙ r and about the same time the French fleet was defeated by Admiral Hawke, who took seven ships of the line and several frigates.

For a long time Louis had been desirous of peace, and this desire he even expressed to Sir John Ligonier, who had been taken prisoner at the battle of Lafeldt. But now the bad success of his admirals at sea, and his armies in Italy, the frequent bankruptcies of his merchants at home, and the election of a stadtholder in Fĭolland, who gave spirit to the opposition ;—all these contributed to make him weary of the war, and to propose terms of accommodation. This was what the allies had long wished for, but had been ashamed to demand. A congress was therefore held at Aix-la-Chapelle, and a treaty concluded, by which it was provided that all prisoners on each side should be mutually given up, and all conquests restored; that the duchies of Parma, Placentia, and Guastalla, should be ceded to 1 Don Philip, heir-apparent to the Spanish crown, and.after him return to the house of Austria; that the fortifications of Dunkirk towards the sea should be demolished; that the British ship annually sent with slaves to the’ coast of New Spain should have this privilege continued for four years; that the king of Prussia should be confirmed in the possession of Silesia; and that the queen of Hungary should be secured in the possession of her patrimonial dominions. But the most mortifying clause was, that the king of Great Britain should, immediately after the ratification of this treaty, send two persons of rank to France as hostages, until restitution should be made of Cape Breton and all other British conquests during the war. No mention whatever was made of the searching of British vessels in the American seas, though this was the original cause of the quarrel; the limits of their respective possessions in North America were not ascertained; nor did •they receive any equivalent for those forts which they had restored to the enemy.

In the year 1751 Frederick prince of Wales died of a pleurisy, which was not thought at first to be in any way dangerous. He was much regretted, for his good-nature had rendered him popular, and those who opposed the present administration had grounded their hopes of redress upon his accession to the throne.

Some time before this, in the year 1749, a scheme had been entered upon, from which the nation in general anticipated great advantages; namely, encouraging those who had been discharged from the army or navy to become settlers in Nova Scotia, a country cold, barren, and almost incapable of cultivation. Nevertheless, on account of this barren spot, the English and French actually renewed the war. The possession of this country was reckoned necessary for the defence of the English colonies to the north, and for preserving their superiority in the fisheries in that part of the world. The French, however, who had been long settled in the back parts, resolved to use every method to dispossess the new comers, and spirited up the Indians to begin hostilities. Another source of dispute also sprung up in the same part of the world. The French, pretending to have first discovered the mouth of the river IMississippi, claimed the whole adjacent country towards New Mexicoon the east, and to the Apalachian Mountains on the west; and, in order to assert their claims, as they found several English who had settled beyond these mountains, they dispossessed them of their new settlements, and built such forts as were calculated to command the whole country round about. Négociations and mutual accusations were followed by hostilities; and in 1756 four operations were undertaken by the British in America at once. Colonel Monkton had orders to drive the French from the province of Nova Scotia; General Johnson was sent against Crown Point; General Shirley against Niagara, to secure the forts on the river; and General Braddock against Fort du Quesne. In these expeditions Monkton was successful; Johnson was also victorious, though he failed in taking the fort against which he was sent; Shirley was thought to have lost the season of operation by delay; and Braddock was defeated and killed.

But, in return for this failure of success, the British made reprisals at sea; and here they were so successful that the French navy was unable to recover itself during the continuance of the war. The first measure of the French was to threaten an invasion. Several bodies of their troops were sent down to the coasts opposite Britain, and these were instructed in the manner of embarking and relanding from flat-bottomed boats, which were made in great numbers for the purpose. The number of men amounted [7:5:384]to fifty thousand, but all discovered the utmost reluctance to the undertaking. The ministry were greatly alarmed, and applied to the Dutch for six thousand men, which they were by treaty obliged to furnish in case of invasion. But this supply was refused, the Dutch alleging that their treaty was to send the troops in case of an actual, and not of a threatened, invasion. The king, therefore, finding he could not reckon upon the Dutch forces till their assistance would be too late, desisted entirely from his demand; and the Dutch with great cordiality returned him thanks for withdrawing his request. Upon this ten thousand Hessians and Hanoverians were brought over; a proceeding which occasioned great discontent. The ministry were reviled for such disgraceful conduct, as if the nation was unable to defend itself; whereas the people only demanded a vigorous exertion of their own internal strength, and then feared no force that could be led to invade them.

The threatened invasion, however, never took place. But a French army landed in Minorca, and invested the citadel of St Philips, which was reckoned the strongest in Europe, but the garrison was nevertheless weak, and nowise fitted to stand a vigorous siege. To raise this siege, Admiral Byng was dispatched with a squadron of ten men of war, with orders to relieve Minorca, or at any rate to throw a body of troops into the garrison. But this last he reckoned too hazardous an undertaking, nor did he even attempt it; and soon afterwards a French fleet appeared nearly equal in force to his own, when he resolved to act only on the defensive. The French advanced, and a slight engagement ensued with part of the English fleet; after which the enemy slowly withdrew, and no other opportunity occurred of coming to a close engagement. Upon this it was resolved in a council of war to return to Gibraltar to refit, and agreed that the relief of Minorca was impracticable. For such pusillanimous, if not treacherous conduct, Byng was brought home under arrest, tried, condemned to death, and shot. He suffered with the greatest resolution, after delivering a paper filled with protestations of his innocence as to any treacherous intention.

After the conquest of Minorca, the French declared that they would revenge all injuries which they might sustain in their colonies on the king of Britain’s dominions in Germany. Upon this the court of London, eager to preserve Hanover, entered into a treaty with the court of Russia, by which it was stipulated that a body of fifty thousand Russians should be ready to act in the British service, in case Hanover should be invaded by the French; for which the Czarina was to receive L.100,000 annually, to be paid in advance. But the treaty was opposed by the king of Prussia, who had long considered himself as guardian of the interests of Germany, and was therefore alarmed at a treaty which threatened to deluge the empire with an army of barbarians. Besides, he was already apprised of an agreement between the Austrians and Russians, by which the latter were to enter the empire and strip him of his late conquest of Silesia. He therefore declared that he would not suffer any foreign forces to enter the empire, either as auxiliaries or principals; so that the king of Britain found himself obliged to drop his Russian connection, and conclude a treaty with the king of Prussia. As both monarchs wished only to prevent the invasion of Germany, they soon came to an agreement to assist each other mutually; and from this alliance a new combination took place among the European powers, quite opposite to the former one. Britain opposed France in America, Asia, and on the ocean. France attacked Hanover, which the king of Prussia undertook to protect; whilst Britain promised him troops and money to assist his operations. Austria having aims on the dominions of Prussia, drew the Elector of Saxony into the same designs; and in these views the Austrians were seconded by France, Sweden, and Russia, who had hopes of acquiring a settlement in the west of 1 Europe.

Thus the king of Prussia launched into the tumult of war, having only the king of Britain for his ally; whilst the most powerful states of Europe were his antagonists. He now performed a series of exploits which, taken as a whole, are not surpassed in the annals of modern times, and of which a particular account will be given in the article Prussia. The British ministry, in order to create a diversion in his favour, planned an enterprise against the coast of France; but the destination of the fleet equipped for this purpose was kept a profound secret. At last, however, it appeared before Rochefort, where the commanders, having trifled away their time in deliberating how to proceed, took the little island of Aix, an easy and useless conquest, and soon afterwards returned home without attempting any thing else. By this miscarriage the ministry were so discouraged that they had thoughts of abandoning the king of Prussia to his fate; and the king was actually meditating a negociation of this nature, when he was prevented by the expostulations of his distressed ally. From motives of generosity, therefore, more than of interest, it was resolved to continue to assist him; and success, which had long fled from the British arms, once more began to return with double splendour.

It was in the East Indies where this return of good fortune first manifested itself; but the British conquests in the western part of the world speedily eclipsed those in the eastern. These successes must, in part at least, be ascribed to the vigorous administration of MrW τ illiam Pitt, who about this time came into power. An expedition was set on foot against Cape Breton, under General Amherst and Admiral Boscawen; another under General Abercrombie, against Crown Point and Ticoderago; and a third under Brigadier-General Forbes, against Fort du Quesne. The fortress of Louisbourg, which defended the island of Cape Breton, was strong both by nature and art; the garrison was numerous, the commander vigilant, and every precaution had been taken to prevent a landing; but the activity of the British surmounted every obstacle; and the place having been surrendered by capitulation, its fortifications were demolished. The expedition against Fort du Quesne was equally successful; but that against Crown Point once more miscarried. General Abercrombie attacked the French in their intrenchments, but was repulsed with great slaughter, and obliged to retire to his camp at Lake George. But though in this respect the British arms were unsuccessful, yet, upon the whole, the campaign of 1758 ended greatly in their favour. The taking of Fort du Quesne served to remove from their colonies the terror of the incursions of the Indians, whilst it interrupted the communication along a chain of forts with which the French had environed the British settlements in America; and the succeeding campaign promised still greater success.

In 1759 it was resolved to attack the French in seycral parts of their territory at once. General Amherst, with a body of twelve thousand men, was commanded to attack Crown Point; General Wolfe was to undertake the siege of Quebec; whilst General Prideaux and Sir William Johnson were to attempt a French fort near the cataracts of Niagara. This last expedition was the first that succeeded. The siege was begun with vigour, and promised an easy conquest; but General Prideaux being killed in the trenches by the bursting of a mortar, the command devolved on General Johnson. A body of French troops, sensible of the importance of the place, attempted to relieve it, but were utterly defeated and dispersed; and soon afterwards the garrison surrendered prisoners of war. On his arrival at the forts of Crown Point and Ticoderago, General[7:5:385] Amherst found them deserted and destroyed. There now remained, therefore, but one decisive blow to be struck in order to reduce the whole of North America under the British dominion; namely, by the capture of Quebec, the capital of Canada. This expedition was commanded by Admiral Saunders .and General Wolfe. The enterprise was attended with difficulties which appeared insurmountable; but all these were overcome by the admirable conduct of the general, and the great bravery of his men. He engaged and put to flight the French under Montcalm; but, to the great regret of the British, he was killed in the action nearly at the same instant that his adversary also fell. The surrender of Quebec was the consequence of this victory, and it was soon followed by the cession of all Canada. The next season, indeed, the French made a vigorous effort to recover the city; but by the resolution of Governor Murray, and the appearance of a British fleet under the command of Lord Colvile, they were obliged to abandon the enterprise. The whole province was soon after reduced by the prudence and activity of General Amherst, who obliged the French army to capitulate; and it has ever since remained as a dependency of the British empire. About the same time also the island of Guadaloupe was reduced by a force under Commodore More and General Hopson.

At the beginning of the war the British affairs in Germany had worn a very unfavourable aspect. The Hanoverians were commanded by the Duke of Cumberland, who, greatly outnumbered by the enemy, was obliged to retire beyond the Weser. The passage of this river by the enemymight have been disputed with success; but tlıĉ French were suffered to effect it unmolested. The Hanoverians were then driven from one part of the country to another, till at length they made a stand near a village called Has-tenbach, where it was hoped the numbers of the enemy would not avail them in a general engagement. The Hanoverians, however, left the field of battle to the French, after a feeble resistance. The latter pursued, and the duke retired towards Stade; by which means he marched into a country where he could neither procure provisions nor attack the enemy with any prospect of success. And here, being unable either to escape or advance, he was compelled to sign a capitulation, by which the whole army laid down their arms, and were afterwards dispersed into different cantonments. By this disgraceful surrender, which was called the capitulation of Closter Seven, Hanover was obliged to submit quietly to the French, and the latter were thus left at full liberty to turn their arms against the king of Prussia.

Soon after this capitulation, both sides began to complain that the treaty had not been strictly observed. The Hanoverians exclaimed against the rapacity of the French general and the brutality of his soldiers. The French retorted the charge, accusing the Hanoverians of insolence and insurrection; and being sensible of their own superiority, resolved to bind them strictly to their terms of agreement. The Hanoverians, however, only wished for a pretence to take arms, and for a general to head them; and neither was long wanting. The oppressions of the tax-gatherers whom the French had appointed were considered as so severe, that the army rose to vindicate the freedom of their country; and Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick put himself at its head. As soon as this became known in Britain, large supplies were granted, both for the service of the king of Prussia, and for enabling the Hanoverian army to act vigorously in conjunction with him. A small body of British forces was sent over to join Prince Ferdinand under the Duke of Marlborough; but after some inconsiderable successes at Crevelt, the Duke of Marlborough died, and the command of the British forces devolved on Lord George Sackvule. A misunderstanding, however, arose between him and Prince Ferdinand, the effects of which appeared at the battle of Minden, that was fought shortly after. Lord George, who commanded the British cavalry, pretended that he could not understand the orders sent him by the prince, and of consequence did not obey them. The allies gained the victory, but it would have been more decisive had the British commander obeyed his orders. He was soon after recalled, tried by a court-martial, found guilty of disobedience, and declared incapable of serving in any military command for the future. After this victory it was generally imagined that one reinforcement more of British troops would terminate the war in favour of the allies; and that reinforcement was accordingly sent. The British army in Germany was augmented to upwards ,of thirty thousand men, and sanguine hopes of conquest were generally entertained. But these hopes proved to be ill founded. The allies were defeated at Corbach, but retrived the honour of their arms at Exdorf. A victory at M arbourg followed shortly after, and this was succeeded by another at Zierenberg. But they suffered a reverse at Compen; after which both sides retired into winter quarters.

On the 25th of October 1760 died George II. He had risen at his usual hour, and observed to his attendants, that as the weather was fine, he would take a walk into the garden of Kensington, where he then resided. Butin a few minutes after his return, being left alone, he was heard to fall heavily on the floor; and the noise bringing his attendants into the room, they lifted him into bed, when he desired in a faint voice that the Princess Amelia might be sent for; but before she could reach the apartment his majesty expired, in the seventy-seven th year or his age and thirty-third of his reign. An attempt was made to bleed him, but without effect; and afterwards the surgeons, upon opening him, discovered that the right ventricle of the heart had been ruptured, and a great quantity of blood discharged through the aperture.

CHAP. XII.

REIGN OF GEORGE III.

Accession of George III.—Success of the British arms.—Proposals of peace A war with Spain proposed by Mr Pitt.—His resignation—Created Earl of Chatham War with Spain

France and Spain declare war on Portugal.—Invasion of that country.—Spaniards defeated—Taking of Havana—Philippine Islands reduced.—Extent of the conquests of Britain

Peace of 1/63 Discontents.—Cyder tax—Resignation of Lord

Bute.—New ministry Supposed influence of Lord Bute.—

Proceedings against John Wilkes Licentiousness of the time.

—Expedients resorted to in order to increase the revenue

Renewal of the Charter of the Bank—Taxation of America

Act against illicit trade with the Spaniards—Stamp Act— Violent resistance of the Americans.—Conduct of Administration—Disturbances in London—Illness of the King, and Regency Bill—Change of Ministry.—Death of the Duke of Cumberland—Stamp Act repealed—Consequences—Return of Wilkes—Differences with Spain about the Falkland Islands. —Négociations.—The affair terminated, and the settlement abandoned—Proceedings of the corporation of London Speech of Mr Beckford, the Lord Mayor—His death—Ex-officio Informations.—Law of Libel—Debates concerning the conduct of the Judges—Tumult in the House of Lords—Case of New Shoreham and its Christian Club Licentiousness of the Press. —Proceedings of the House of Commons against some printers. —Ridiculous expedient resorted to in order to avoid a contest with Wilkes—East India Affairs—Discouragement of the popular party Meeting of Parliament—Augmentation of the number of Seamen Subscription of the thirty-nine Articles

Royal Marriage Bill—Bill for the relief of the Dissenters rejected—East India Affairs.—Exportation of tea, and its consequences.—Regulation Bill—Reports of the Select and Secret Committees.—Lord Clive accused.—His acquittal.—American [7:5:386] affairs.—Boston Port Bill.—Repeal of the Tea-duty refused.— Administration of Justice Bill Quebec Bill—Lord Chat ham’s motion for the recal of the troops—Petitions of various kinds, and debates thereon »-Chatham’s Scheme of Conciliation rejected—Address on the American papers—Violent debates. —New England Restraining Bill—The American fisheries— War resolved on.

King George III. ascended the throne amidst the greatest successes both by sea and land. At this time, indeed, the efforts of Britain in every quarter of the globe were truly astonishing. The king of Prussia had received a subsidy; a large body of English forces commanded the extensive peninsula of India; another army of twenty thousand men confirmed the conquests in North America, while thirty thousand were employed in Germany; and a great many more were dispersed in garrisons in different parts of the world. But all this was surpassed by the naval force, which carried every thing before it, and totally annihilated the French maritime power. The courage and conduct of the English admirals excelled every thing that had been heard of before; neither superior force, nor numbers, nor even the terrors of the tempest, could intimidate them. Admiral Hawke gained a complete victory over an equal number of French ships in Quiberon Bay on the coast of Bretagne, in the midst of a storm, during the darkness of night, and, what a seaman fears still more, in the neighbourhood of a rocky shore.

When his majesty had met his parliament, which was on the 18th November 1760, he confirmed the hopes of his allies, and gave assurances of his intention to prosecute the war with vigour. By this time, however, the people were weary of conquests, especially those in Germany; and the general current of popular opinion seemed adverse to the German war. But for some time no change took place in the method of carrying it on. In 1761, however, proposals of peace were interchanged among the belligerent powers of Europe; but the French, designing to draw Spain into a confederacy with them, were not sincere in their intentions; and in this way the treaty came to nothing. An enterprise was projected against Belleisle, on the coast of France, which was conducted by Commodore Keppel and General Hodgson, and terminated in the capture of the island, with the loss of eighteen hundred men killed and wounded on the part of the British; and however unimportant such a conquest might be, the rejoicings on account of it were great. In Germany, however, the campaign was unsuccessful on the part of the allies. At first, indeed, they drove the French out of the territory of Hesse, and laid siege to the city of Cassel; but being defeated at Stangerod, they were forced to raise the siege, retire behind the Dymel, and again abandon Hesse to the enemy, after which they were followed and attacked by the French; and though the latter were defeated, they could with difficulty be prevented from making themselves masters of Munster and Brunswick.

During all this time appearances of negociation were kept up; but at length M. Bussy, on the part of France, delivered to Mr Pitt a private memorial, signifying, that, in order to establish peace on a lasting foundation, the King of Spain might be induced to guarantee the treaty; and to prevent the differences which then subsisted between Britain and Spain from producing a fresh war in Europe, it was proposed, that in this negociation the three points which had been disputed between the crown of England and Spain might be finally settled. These were, first, the restitution of some captures made upon the Spanish flag; secondly, a recognition of the privilege of the Spanish nation to fish upon the banks of Newfoundland; and, thirdly, the demolition of the English settlements in the Bay of Honduras. But this memorial was returned as wholly inadmissible. Mr Pitt declared that it would be looked upon as an affront to the dignity of his master, and incompatible with the sincerity of the negociation, to make any further mention of such a circumstance. Being now convinced of the sinister designs of Spain, this minister also proposed immediately to declare war against that country. But the proposal being rejected, he resigned his employment of secretary of state; upon which he was created Earl of Chatham, and had a pension of L.3000 per annum settled upon him for three lives.

The new administration, however, soon found that Mr Pitt was in the right; and war was accordingly declared against Spain. As Portugal was the ally of Britain, the French and Spaniards resolved to attack that kingdom, which was then in no condition to defend itself. The Portuguese monarch was haughtily commanded to accede to the confederacy against Britain, and threatened with the vengeance of France and Spain in the event of refusal. It was in vain that he promised to observe a strict neutrality, and urged the obligations he was under to the king of Britain. This moderate and reasonable representation only led to more haughty and insulting demands. His Portuguese majesty, however, continued to reject their proposals in the most resolute manner; and concluded his last declaration by stating, that it would affect him less to be reduced to the last extremity, than to sacrifice the honour of his crown, and all that Portugal held most dear, by submitting to become an unheard-of example to all pacific powers, which would no longer be able to enjoy the benefit of neutrality, whenever a war should be kindled between other powers with which the former were connected by defensive treaties. This declaration was issued on the 27th of April 1762; and soon afterwards France and Spain jointly declared war against Portugal.

As the design of the courts of France and Spain in making war with Portugal was professedly to deprive Great Britain of the military and commercial use of the harbours of that kingdom, their principal endeavours were directed against the two great ports of Oporto and Lisbon. With this view, three inroads were to be made; one to the north; another more to the south; and the third in the intermediate provinces, in order to sustain the other two bodies, and preserve a communication between them. The first body of troops was commanded by the Marquis of Sav-ria, and entering by the north-east of Portugal, marched towards Miranda, which he entered on the 9th of May, through the breaches made by the accidental explosion of a powder magazine. From Miranda the invaders marched to Braganza, which speedily surrendered; and Moncorvo was in like manner taken. They became masters of nearly the whole of the extensive province of Tras os Montes; and every thing being clear before them to the banks of the Douro, Oporto was given up for lost, and the admiralty prepared transports to carry off the effects of the British merchants. But on the Douro the career of this body was stopped by the peasants, who, animated and guided by some British officers, seized a difficult pass, and drove the enemy back to Moncorvo. The second body of Spaniards entered the province of Beira, and being joined by strong.detachments, immediately laid siege to Almeida, which surrendered on the 25th of August. The Spaniards then pushed forward to Castello Branco, and marching to the southward, approached the banks of the Tagus. During the whole of their progress, and indeed throughout the whole campaign, Great Britain and Portugal had nothing that deserved the name of an army in the field; and all that could be done was by the defence of passes, by skirmishes, and by surprises. The third Spanish army had assembled on the frontiers of Estremadura, with the design of invading the province of Alentejo; and if this body of troops had been joined to the others, they would probably, in spite of all opposition, [7:5:387] have forced their way to Lisbon itself; whilst by acting separately, it might have so distracted the defenders of the country as to enable the other invading forces to penetrate to that city. The Count of La Lippe Buckeburg, therefore, having arrived in Portugal, resolved if possible to prevent their entrance into that kingdom; and with this view he dispatched Brigadier-general Burgoyne to attack an advanced body of Spaniards which lay on the frontier in the town of Valentia de Alcantara. On the 27th of August the town was surprised, and the general who was to have commanded the invading force taken, together with one colonel, two captains, and seventeen subaltern officers, whilst one of the best regiments in the Spanish service was also entirely destroyed, and the enemy thus prevented from entering Alentejo. That part of the Spanish army which acted in the neighbourhood of Castello Branco having made themselves masters of several important passes, the combined army of British and Portuguese pretended to retire before them, in order to draw them into the mountainous tracts. They attacked the rear of the allies, but were repulsed with loss; yet they still continued masters of the country, and nothing remained but the passage of the Tagus to enable them to take up their quarters in the province of Alentejo. But this the count designed to prevent; and accordingly he employed General Burgoyne, who having formed a design of surprising them, committed the execution of it to Colonel Lee. In the night of the 6th of October this officer fell upon their rear, dispersed the whole body with considerable slaughter, destroyed their magazines, and returned with scarcely any loss. The season was now far advanced; immense quantities of rain fell; the roads were destroyed; and the Spaniards having obtained possession of no advanced post where they could maintain themselves, and being unprovided with magazines, fell back to the frontiers of their own country.

Nor were the British arms less successful in America and the East Indies. From the French were taken the islands of Martinico St Lucia, St Vincent, and Grenada; from the Spaniards the strong fortress called Havana, in the island of Cuba. The conquest of the latter cost a number of brave men, more of whom were destroyed by the climate than by the enemy. But it was at this place that the fleets from the several parts of the Spanish West Indies, called the galleons and flota, assembled before they finally set out on their voyage for Europe; and the acquisition of it, therefore, united all the advantages which can be acquired in war. Nine of the enemy’s men of war, with four frigates, were taken; three of their best ships had been sunk in the harbour at the beginning of the siege; and two more in great forwardness on the stocks were destroyed. In money and valuable merchandises the spoil did not fall short of three millions sterling. To this success in the western world may be added the capture of the Spanish register-ship called the Hermione, by the Active and Favourite king’s ships. This happened on the 21st of May 1762, just as the Hermione was entering one of the ports of Old Spain; and the prize was valued at little short of a million sterling. In the East Indies an expedition, undertaken against the Philippine Islands, was committed to Colonel Draper, who arrived on this service at Madras in the latter end of June 1762. The seventy-ninth regiment was the only regular corps that could be spared for the expedition; but every thing was conducted with the greatest celerity and judgment. The British forces landed at Manilla on the 24th of September; on the 6th of October the governor was obliged to surrender at discretion; and soon after, the galleon bound from Manilla to Acapulco, laden with rich merchandise to the value of more than half a million, was taken by the frigates Argo and Panther. By the conquest of Manilla there fell into the hands of the British fourteen considerable islands, which, from their extent, fertility, and convenience for commerce, were of the greatest importance. By this acquisition, joined to the successes in the western hemisphere, Britain secured every avenue of the Spanish trade, and interrupted all communication between the different parts of the vast but unconnected empire of Spain.

During this time the war in Germany had continued with the utmost violence; but although the allies under Prince Ferdinand had given the highest proofs of valour, no decisive advantage had been obtained over the French. It was, however, no longer the interest of Britain to continue a destructive contest. There never had been a period so fortunate or glorious for this island. In the course of the war she had conquered a tract of continent of immense extent. Her American territory approached to the borders of xA,sia, and the frontiers of the Russian and Chinese dominions. She had conquered twenty-five islands, all of them distinguishable for their magnitude, their riches, or the importance of their situation; by sea and land she had gained twelve battles, and reduced nine fortified cities, and about forty castles or forts; she had taken or destroyed above a hundred ships of war from her enemies, and acquired at least ten millions in plunder. Conquests so extensive and ruinous to the French and Spaniards naturally rendered them desirous of a peace, which was at length concluded at Paris on the 10th of February 1763. The terms granted, and which many thought too favourable, were, in substance, that the French king should relinquish all claims to Nova Scotia; that he should likewise give up the whole country of Canada; and that for the future the boundary betwixt the British and French dominions in America should be fixed by a line drawn along the middle of the river Mississippi from its source to the river Ibberville, and thence by a line along the middle of this river, and the Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain, to the sea. The islands of St Pierre, Miquelon, Martinico Guadaloupe, Marigalante, Desira de, St Lucia, and Bclleisle, were restored to France; whilst Minorca, Grenada, and the Grenadines, St Vincent, Dominica, and Tobago, were ceded to Great Britain. In Africa, the island of Goree was restored to France; and the river Senegal, with all its forts and dependencies, ceded to Great Britain. In the East Indies, all the forts and factories taken from the French were restored. In Europe, the fortifications of Dunkirk were to be destroyed; and all the countries, fortresses, and posts, belonging to the Electorate of Hanover, the Duke of Brunswick, arid the Count of La Lippe Buckeburg, restored. In regard to Spain, the British fortifications on the Bay of Honduras were to be demolished; and the Spaniards were to desist from their claim of right to fish on the Newfoundland bank. The Havana was restored, in consequence of which Florida, St Augustine, and the Bay of Pensacola, were ceded to Britain; the Spaniards were to make peace with Portugal; and all other countries not particularly mentioned were to be restored to their respective owners at the beginning of the war.

The conclusion of the war did not by any means tend to heal those divisions which had arisen on the resignation of Mr Pitt; on the contrary, it furnished abundant matter of complaint for the discontented party, whose views at that time seem to have been the embarrassment and disturbance of an administration which they were unable to subvert. When the treaty was under consideration, however, only some faint attempts were made to oppose it; but it soon appeared, that though this opposition had proved so feeble, the spirit of the party was far from being exhausted. The actual state of affairs indeed favoured the views of those who delighted in turbulence and [7:5:388]in faction. A long and expensive war had drained the national treasure, and greatly increased the public debt; whilst heavy taxes had already been imposed, and it was still as necessary to keep them up, and even to impose new ones, as though the war had not ended. Thus the bulk of the nation, who imagined that conquest and riches ought to go hand in hand, were easily induced to believe the administration arbitrary and oppressive, seeing it continued to load them with fresh taxes after such great successes as had for some years past attended the British arms. And indeed it must be owned, that the new administration appear not to have been sufficiently wary in this respect. Amongst various methods of raising the supplies for 1763, they had recourse to a duty of four shillings per hogshead upon cyder, payable by the maker, and to be collected in the same manner as the rest of the excise duties. The other articles of supply, as well as the duty in question, furnished matter of declamation for the members in opposition; but this inflamed the popular fury to a great degree, and made the people readily receive as truth whatever was said by the minority in the parliamentary debates. Besides the usual declamations, the smallness of the sum to be raised by it was particularly urged. This, it was said, showed that the supplying of the wants of government could not be the sole motive for imposing such a duty; and it was further urged, that now the houses of all orders of people, noblemen of the first rank not excepted, were liable to be entered and searched at the pleasure of excisemen, a proceeding which was denominated a badge of slavery. This was the language held throughout all the cyder counties, by the city of London, and by most of the incorporations throughout the kingdom; and in short the whole nation was thrown into a violent ferment. The friends of administration, indeed, urged plausible arguments in favour of their scheme; but the utmost force of reason will go only a very little way in quieting popular clamour; and whilst opposition was railing against ministry within doors, every method was taken to excite the fury of the people without. Virulent libels, the audacity of which far exceeded any thing known in former times, now made their appearance; and such was the general intemperance in this respect, that it would be difficult to determine which side paid least regard to any kind of decency or decorum.

In the midst of this general ferment, the Earl of Bute unexpectedly resigned his office of first lord of the treasury; and his resignation immediately became an object of general speculation. By some he was highly censured for leaving his friends at a time when a little perseverance might have defeated all the designs of his enemies, and established his own power on the most solid foundation. Such conduct, it was said, must discourage the friends of government, and at the same time give proportional encouragement to its adversaries to insult it. Others contended that the earl was very little, if at all, influenced by popular opinion. He had demonstrated his firmness by taking a lead in the difficult but necessary affair of concluding peace; and this being accomplished, he had fully obtained his end, and performed the service to his country which was required of him. The event, however, showed that the former reasoning was nearest the truth. The popular resentment was not in the least abated by the resignation of his lordship, who, though now withdrawn from the ostensible administration of affairs, was still considered as principal director of the cabinet; and this opinion gained the more ground that none of the popular leaders were called into office, nor any apparent change made in the conduct of the new administration.

No reasonable objection could now be taken to those who filled the great offices of state. Mr Grenville, who succeeded the Earl of Bute in the treasury, was a man of approved integrity, understanding, and experience. Lord* Holland was universally considered as a very able man in office, and bad already filled many high employments with a great degree of reputation. The other secretary, Lord Egremont, though he had not been long in office, was in every respect of an unexceptionable character. The rest of the departments were filled in a similar manner; yet the discontents and public clamours were not diminished. It was now alleged that the new ministers were not chosen on account of any superior gifts of nature or fortune, but merely because they had the art of insinuating themselves into favour at court; that the sole reason of their appointment was, that they might act as the passive instruments of the late minister, who, though he had thought proper to retire from office, had not yet abandoned his ambitious projects, but continued to direct every thing as if he had still been in power; that opposition to the new ministers was therefore opposition to him; and that it became those who understood the true interest of their country, and had a real regard to it, not to suffer such a scheme of clandestine administration.

Whether the party who made these assertions really believed them or not cannot be known; but the effect was exactly the same as if they had. The great object of both parties was power; but their different situations required that they should profess different political principles. The friends of Lord Bute, and of the succeeding administration, were for preserving to the crown the full exercise of the power of choosing its own servants. Their opponents, without denying this power, contended that, according to the spirit of the constitution, the crown should be directed in its exercise by motives of national utility, and not by private friendship. In appointing the officers of state, therefore, they insisted that respect should be paid to those who, possessing great talents, had done eminent services to the nation, who enjoyed the confidence of the nobility, and had influence amongst the landed and mercantile interests. The observance of this rule, they contended, was the only proper counterpoise against the enormous influence of the crown arising from the possession of so much patronage; nor could the nation be reconciled to such a power by any other means than a very popular use of it. Men might indeed be appointed according to the strict letter of the law; but unless these were persons in whom the majority of the nation already put confidence, they never would be satisfied, nor think themselves secure against attempts on the constitution of the kingdom.

In the mean time the disposition to libel and invective seemed to proceed beyond all bounds. The peace, the Scots, and the administration supposed to be directed by Scottish influence, afforded such subjects of abuse to the pretended patriots, that ministry resolved at last to make an example of one of them by way of deterring the rest from such licentiousness. For this purpose they made choice of the paper called the North Briton, which, in language somewhat superior to most other political productions of the time, had abused the king, the ministry, and the Scots, in an extravagant manner. One particular paper (No. xlv.) was deemed by those in power to be actionable; and John Wilkes, member for Aylesbury, was supposed to be the author of it. A warrant was therefore granted for apprehending the author, printer, and publishers, of this performance, but without mentioning Wilkes’s name; nevertheless three messengers entered the house of that person on the night between the 29th and 30th of April 1763, with an intention to seize him. He objected, however, to the legality of the warrant, because his name was not mentioned in it, and likewise to the lateness of the [7:5:389] hour; and on being threatened with violence, the messengers thought proper to retire for the night. Next morning he was apprehended without making any resistance, though some violence was necessary to get him into a hackney-coach, which carried him before the sceretaries of state for examination. On the first intimation of Wilkes’s being in custody, application was made for a habeas corpus; but as this could not be sued out till four in the afternoon, several of his friends desired admittance to him, which was, however, refused on pretence of an order from the secretaries of state. But the order, though repeatedly demanded, could not be produced, or at least was not so; and on this account the gentlemen, conceiving that they were not obliged to pay any regard to messengers acting only by a verbal commission, entered the place where be was without further hesitation.

This illegal step was followed by several others in rapid succession. Wilkes’s house was searched, and his papers seized in his absence; and though it was certain that a habeas corpus had now been obtained, he was nevertheless committed to the Tower. Here not only bis friends, but several noblemen and gentlemen of the first distinction, were denied access to him; nor was his brother even allowed to sec him. On the third of May he was brought before the Court of Common Pleas, where he made a speech, setting forth the great love he had for his majesty, the bad conduct of ministry, and especially his own grievances, alleging that he had been treated worse than a Scotch rebel. His ease having been argued by several eminent lawyers, he was remanded to the Tower for three days; after which he was ordered to be brought up, that the affair might be finally settled. Next day Lord Temple received a letter from Secretary Egremont, informing him that the king judged it improper that Wilkes should continue any longer a colonel of the Buekinghamshire militia; and soon afterwards Temple himself was removed from the office of lord-lieutenant of that county. Meanwhile the judges decided that the warrant of a secretary of state was in no respect superior to that of a common justice of peace; that Wilkes’s commitment was illegal; that his privilege as a member of parliament had been infringed; that this could not be forfeited except by treason, felony, or breach of the peace, none of which was imputed to him; and that a libel, even though it had been proved, had only a tendency to disturb the peace, without amounting to any actual breach of it. it was therefore resolved to discharge him; and the prisoner was accordingly set at liberty.

Wilkes having thus regained his freedom, resolved to make all the advantage he could of the errors committed by the ministry, and to excite as general a ferment as possible. For this purpose he wrote an impudent letter to the Earls of Egremont and Halifax, informing them that his house had been robbed, affirming that the “stolen goods” were in the possession of one or both of their lordships, and insisting upon immediate restitution. This letter was printed, and many thousand copies of it were dispersed; and soon afterwards an answer by the two noblemen was published in the newspapers, stating the real cause of the seizure of Wilkes’s·papers. The North Briton now again made its appearance, and the popular party were elated beyond measure with their success; whilst those who had suffered by general warrants sought redress at law, and commonly obtained damages far beyond their most sanguine expectations. During the whole summer, the minds of the people were kept in continual agitation by political pamphlets and libels of various kinds, whilst the affair of general warrants engrossed the general attention.

On the meeting of parliament his majesty mentioned in his speech the attempts which had been’made to divide the people; and before the addresses could be moved in return, a message was sent to the Commons, informing them of the supposed offence of Wilkes, and of the proceedings against him, while the exceptionable paper was also laid before the house. After warm debates, the North Briton was voted a false, scandalous, and seditious libel, tending to excite traitorous insurrections; and this was followed by a declaration that the privilege of parliament does not extend to the writing and publishing of seditious libels. The paper in question was therefore condemned and ordered to be burnt by the hangman; but this was not done without great opposition from the mob.

Wilkes, now determined to make the best use of the victory he had gained, commenced a prosecution in the Court of Common Pleas against the under secretary of state, for seizing his papers; and the cause being determined in his. favour, the defendant was subjected in L.1000 damages, with full costs of suit. The prosecution with which Wilkes had been threatened was now carried on with great vigour; but in the mean time, having grossly affronted Mr Martin, member for Camelford, by his abusive language in the North Briton, he was challenged by that gentleman, and dangerously wounded in the belly. Whilst he lay ill of his wound, the House of Commons put off his trial from time to time; but beginning at last to suspect that there was some collusion betwixt him and his physician, they ordered Dr Heberden, and Mr Hawkins, an eminent surgeon, to attend him, and report. Wilkes, however, did not think proper to admit these gentlemen; and soon afterwards took a journey to France. The Commons being informed that be had refused to admit the physician and surgeon sent by them, now lost all patience; and proceeding against him in absence, he was expelled the house. A prosecution was also commenced against him before the House of Lords, on account of an obseene and blasphemous attack on a spiritual peer; and failing to appear and answer the charges against him, he was outlawed. But the severity shown to Wilkes did not at all extinguish the spirit of the party. A general infatuation in favour of licentious and abusive writings seemed to have taken place. At the very time that Wilkes was found guilty of publishing the infamous pamphlet above mentioned, the common council of London presented their thanks to the city representatives for their zealous and spirited endeavours to assert the rights and liberties of the subject; and in gratitude to Lord Chief Justice Pratt for his decision in Wilkes’s affair, they presented him with the freedom of the city, and desired him to sit for his picture, which was to be placed in Guildhall.

But these clamours did not prevent administration from paying attention to the exigencies of the nation. The practice of franking blank letters had risen to an incredible height, and greatly prejudiced the revenue. The hands of members of parliament were counterfeited, and the covers publicly sold without the least seruple; and besides, the clerks of the post office claimed a privilege of franking, which extended even further than that of the members of the house. An act was accordingly passed for remedying the evil, by restricting the practice within reasonable limits. At this time it was proved that the annual postage of letters sent free amounted to L.70,000, and that the profits accruing to the clerks of the post office amounted to between L.800 and L.1700 each. Among the other plans for augmenting the revenue, were those for settling the island of St John, and for the sale of the lately acquired American islands. The former was proposed by the Earl of Egremont, who presented a memorial to his majesty on the subject. The sale of the conquered lands, consisting of the islands of Grenada, the Grenadines, Dominica, St Vincent, and Tobago, took place in March 1764. Sixpence an acre was to be paid as a quit-rent for cleared [7:5:390]lands, and a penny a foot for ground-rent of tenements in towns, and sixpence an acre for fields; but no person was to purchase more than three hundred acres in Dominica, or five hundred in the other islands. Amongst the most remarkable transactions of this year was the renewal of the charter of the bank, for which the latter paid the sum of L.1,100,000 into the exchequer as a present to the public, besides advancing a million of money to government upon the security of exchequer bills.

But by far the most momentous affair whicl⅛ at this time, occupied the attention of government, was the consideration of a project for raising a revenue from the American colonies. This had formerly been proposed to Sir Robert Walpole; but that prudent minister wisely declined to enter into such a dangerous scheme; observing, that he would leave the taxation of the colonies to those who came after him in office. The reason given for such a proceeding was the necessity of defraying the charge of defending them; and this, though extremely reasonable in itself, was effected in such a manner as raised a flame which could only be extinguished by the total overthrow of the authority of the parent state. Before this time, indeed, hints had been thrown out that it was not impossible for the colonists to withdraw their dependence on Britain; and some disputes had taken place betwixt the different provinces, which, although quieted by terror of the French, seemed to augur no good. But now, when the colonies were not only secured but extended, it was thought proper to make the experiment whether they would be obedient or not. They already contained more than two millions of people, and it was deemed absolutely necessary to raise a revenue from so numerous a body. Some thought it might be dangerous to provoke them; but to this it was replied by administration, that the danger must increase by forbearance, and that, as taxation was indispensable, the sooner the experiment was tried the better. The fatal trial being thus determined on, an act was accordingly passed for the prevention of smuggling, in order that the duties laid on the American trade might come into the hands of government. At this time there was carried on betwixt the British and Spanish colonies an illicit traffic, which seemed to bid defiance to all law and regulation, and which was no less obnoxious to the Spanish than to the British government. In some respects, however, the suppression of this commerce was very inconvenient to the colonists; for as the balance of trade with Britain was against them, they found it impossible to procure any specie except by trading with the Spaniards, who paid for their goods in gold and silver. This, with another act requiring them to pay certain duties in cash, was probably the cause of the resentment shown by the Americans to government, and their refusal to submit to the stamp act, which was also passed in the course of this year, having been carried through the Commons by a great majority.

The disposition to augment the revenue by all possible methods seems to have served to keep alive the general opinion as to the oppressive and arbitrary measures pursued by government. The ill humour of the British patriots stilí continued; and the stamp bills were received in America with the utmost indignation. The arguments for and against American taxation arc at present of little importance, excepting in as far as concerns the constitutional question evolved by them, and now almost universally admitted, that taxation without representation is tyranny; and the particulars of the opposition of the colonists will be related under another head. We may however observe here, that the resistance of the colonists proved very distressing to the mother country, on account of the immense sums due by the former. To the merchants of London alone they were indebted to the extent of four millions sterling; and so ready had the latter been to give them credit, that some of the American legislatures passed acts against incurring such debts for the future. A petition on the subject was also presented to the House of Commons; but as it denied the parliamentary right of taxation, it was not allowed to be read. It was then proposed, on the part of administration, that the agents should join in a petition to the house that they might be heard by counsel in behalf of their respective colonies against the tax; but the agents not thinking themselves empowered to prefer such a petition, the negociation was broken off, and matters went on in America as we have elsewhere related.

In other respects, the ministry took such steps as they judged necessary for supporting the honour and dignity of the nation. Some encroachments having been made by the French and Spaniards, remonstrances were made to their respective courts, and satisfaction obtained; and though every trifle was sufficient to set on the popular party, they were as yet unable to find any just cause of complaint. Nevertheless, the disposition to tumult and insurrection seems to have become general. The silk-weavers residing in Spitalficlds being distressed for want of employment, arising, it was thought, from the clandestine importation of French silks, laid their case before his majesty in the year 1764, and the sufferers were relieved by the bounty of the public; but this seemed to render matters worse, by confirming them in habits of indolence and idleness. At the same time a bill, which was believed to be calculated to conduce to their benefit, having been thrown out, they began to assemble in great numbers, and several disorders were committed; nor was it without the assistance of the soldiery, and the utmost vigilance of the magistrates, that the riot could be suppressed. During this disturbance the ferment between the court and popular parties continued unabated, and ministers were still reviled in numberless publications, as mere dependents and tools of the Earl of Bute.

An event which now occurred, however, produced a considerable revolution at court, though it had but little effect in calming the minds of the people. This was the illness which seized the king in the beginning of the year; and whilst it filled the public mind with apprehensions, produced a bill for settling the affairs of the kingdom in case of the crown devolving on a minor. In adjusting this bill, ministers were said to have acted with but little respect to the Princess-dowager of Wales, in excluding her from a share of the government; and this proceeding was thought to have in a great measure alienated the confidence of his majesty, with whom the ministry had hitherto been in great favour. Nor did their subsequent conduct prove that they were at all desirous of regaining the ground which they had lost. For having contrived to get the Earl of Bute’s brother turned out of a lucrative office he enjoyed in Scotland, they offended his majesty, without recommending themselves to the popular party in England, who manifested a perfect indifférence as to all that passed in Scotland. On this occasion Lord Chatham is said to have been solicited to accept the office which he had formerly filled so much to the satisfaction of the nation, and to have declined it. A new ministry, however, was soon formed, on the recommendation of the Duke of Cumberland. The Duke of Grafton, and Mr Conway, brother to the Earl of Hertford, were appointed secretaries of state; the Marquis of Rockingham, first lord of the treasury; and Mr Dowde-swell, chancellor and under treasurer of the exchequer. The office of lord privy seal was conferred on the Duke of Newcastle; and the other places were filled with men of known integrity, and supposed to be agreeable to the people. These changes, however, did not give general [7:5:391]satisfaction. The opinion that affairs were still managed by the Earl of Bute continued to prevail, and was industriously kept up by the political writers of the time; and the city of London expressed their discontent on the occasion of addressing his majesty upon the birth of a third son. This could not fail to offend both king and ministry; but before the latter could show any token of resentment, they lost their friend and patron the Duke of Cumberland who died on the 31st of October 1765. He had been that evening assisting at one of the councils, then frequently held, in order to put matters in a way of being more speedily dispatched by the privy council; and being seized with a sudden disorder of which he had shown some symptoms the evening before, he fell senseless in the arms of the Earl of Albemarle, and expired almost instantaneously.

In the mean time the discontents which had inflamed the American colonies continued also to agitate the minds of the people of Great Britain; nor indeed was it reasonable to expect that they could be satisfied with their present condition, commerce being nearly annihilated, manufactures at a stand, and provisions exorbitantly high priced. The large sums due to British merchants by the Americans also severely affected the trading and manufacturing part of the country; more especially as the colonists refused to pay unless the obnoxious laws should be repealed. The administration, therefore, were under the necessity of either enforcing the stamp act by the sword, or of procuring its immediate repeal in parliament. The loss of the Duke of Cumberland was now severely felt, as he had been accustomed to assist the ministry with his advice, and was respected by the nation for his good sense. But it seems doubtful if at this period human wisdom could have prevented the consequences which ensued. The administration endeavoured to avoid the two extremes, of rushing instantly into a civil war, or sacrificing the dignity of the crown or nation by irresolution and weakness; and suspended their decision until certain intelligence should be received from the American governors as to the state of affairs in that country. But the opposite party animadverted severely on this conduct, insisting on the most coercive methods being immediately adopted for enforcing the laws in which they themselves had had so great a share. Pacific measures, however, prevailed, and the stamp act was repealed; but at the same time another was passed, declaring the right of parliament not only to tax the colonies, but to bind them in all cases whatsoever. The repeal of the stamp act occasioned universal joy throughout Britain and America, though, as parliament insisted upon their right of taxation, which the opposite party denied, matters were still as far from any real accommodation as ever; and the ill humour of the Americans was soon afterwards increased by the duties laid upon glass, painters’ colours, and tea imported into their country; whilst at home the high price of provisions, and some improper steps taken by ministry to remedy the evil, kept up the general outcry against them.

In this state of affairs administration were once more disturbed by the appearance of John Wilkes, who had returned from exile, and, on the dissolution of parliament in 1768, whilst his outlawry was still unreversed, stood candidate for the city of London. Failing, however, in his design of representing the city of London, he instantly declared himself a candidate for Middlesex. Innumerable tumults and riots, immediately took place; and so great was the animosity betwixt the two parties, that a civil war seemed to be threatened. Any particular detail of these transactions would, however, be superfluous. It is sufficient to state, that on a trial the outlawry of Wilkes was reversed, and he was condemned for his offences to pay a fine of L.1000, and to be imprisoned for twelve months. Idolized by the people, however, and powerfully supported by merchants and persons of property, he was repeatedly chosen member for Middlesex, and as often rejected by the House of Commons. Tumults frequently occurred; and the interposition of the military was construed by the patriots as indicative of a design to establish ministerial authority by the most barbarous methods.

These dissensions did not pass unnoticed by the other European powers, particularly the French and Spaniards. Both had applied themselves with assiduity to the increase of their marine; and many began to prognosticate an attack from one or other or both of these nations. The Spaniards first showed an inclination to come to a rupture with Britain. The subject in dispute was a settlement formed on the Falkland Islands, near the southern extremity of the American continent. A scheme of this kind had been thought of as early as the reign of Charles IL, but it was not till after Lord Anson’s voyage that any serious attention had been paid to it. In the printed account of this expedition, his lordship pointed out the danger incurred by our navigators through the treachery of the Portuguese in Brazil, as well as the importance of discovering some place more to the southward, where ships might be supplied with necessaries for their voyage round Cape Horn; and, with this view, he indicated the Falkland Islands as an eligible rendezvous for vessels in these high southern latitudes. His lordship also, when at the head of the admiralty, forwarded the scheme, and some preparations were made for putting it in execution; but as it met with opposition at home, and gave offence to the court of Madrid, it was laid aside till the year 1764, when it was revived by Lord Egmont. Commodore Byron being then sent out with proper necessaries, took possession of these islands in the name of his majesty, and represented them in a favourable light; but his successor, Captain Macbride, affirmed that the soil was utterly incapable of cultivation, and the climate intolerable. Be this as it may, however, the islands in question had also attracted the notice of the French; but as that nation had been greatly reduced by the late war, no project of the kind could yet be put in execution at the public expense. Μ. Bougainville, therefore, undertook, with the assistance of his friends, to form a settlement on the Falkland Islands at their own risk; and the scheme was put in execution in the beginning of the year 1764, and a settlement formed on the eastern part of the same island in which Commodore Byron bad established an English colony on the western side. But the French adventurers soon became weary of their new colony; and Μ. Bougainville, having been reimbursed for his expenses, the French gave up every claim of discovery or right of possession; while the Spaniards, landing some troops in 1766, took possession of the fort built by the French, and changed the name of the harbour to Port Solidad. In 1769, Captain Hunt of the Tamar frigate happening to be on a cruize off the Falkland Islands, fell in with a Spanish schooner which had been at Port Solidad, and charged the commander to depart from that coast, which he declared to be the property of his Britannic majesty. The schooner, however, soon returned, bringing an officer from the governor of Buenos Ayres, who gave a similar warning to Captain Hunt; and the latter, not choosing to push matters to extremities, set sail for England, where he arrived in June 1770. On the departure of Captain Hunt, two frigates were left at the Falkland Islands; but one of these was lost a short time afterwards. On the 4th of June 1770, a Spanish frigate arrived at the English settlement named Port Egmont, with a number of guns and other warlike implements for carrying on a regular siege; and in three days four other frigates arrived laden in the same manner; so that the English [7:5:392]commander, finding all resistance vain, was obliged to capitulate. The English were ordered to depart within a limited time, carrying with them what stores they could; and the Spanish corcimander declared himself answerable for whatever they might leave on the island.

So audacious an insult to the British flag seemed to render war inevitable, if suitable reparation should be refused. It was accordingly mentioned in the speech from the throne in November 1770, when an immediate demand of satisfaction for the injury was promised; and it was further intimated that the necessary preparations for war, which had been begun, should not be discontinued. The affairs of America were also noticed; and, where grounds of complaint still existed, an assurance of redress was given. But these promises, especially in regard to the Falkland Islands, were far from giving satisfaction; and a motion was now made in both bouses for an inquiry into the conduct of the Spaniards, as well as for the production of all papers and letters relative thereto. But the demand was opposed by the ministry, upon the grounds that the interest of the public service precluded the idea of exposing letters or papers transmitted ip confidence while the negociation was depending, and that the king of Spain had disavowed the conduct of his officer, and promised satisfaction.

Some time before this, Mr Harris, the English minister at the court of Madrid, had dispatched a letter to Lord Weymouth, informing him that a ship had arrived from Buenos Ayres, with an account of the intended expedition against Port Egmont, the number of men to be employed, and the time fixed for its departure; but Prince Maserans, the Spanish ambassador, had declared his belief that the governor of Buenos Ayres had employed force at Port Egmont without any orders, and expressed a hope that, by disavowing the proceeding, he might prevent any misunderstanding betwixt the two kingdoms. To this Lord Weymouth replied by inquiring whether the prince had any orders to disavow the proceedings of the governor; and, on his answering in the negative, his lordship demanded a formal disavowal. After some time, it was stated, on the part of Spain, that the prince was authorized to disavow any particular orders given to Μ. Buca-relli, the governor of Buenos Ayres; that the island should be forthwith restored; and that it was expected the king of Britain would, on his part, disavow the conduct of Captain Hunt, whose menace had induced the governor to act as he did. But this proposition did not prove satisfactory. Mr Harris was ordered to quit the court of Madrid; and the correspondence between Prince Maserans and the court of England was discontinued. About this time Lord Weymouth resigned his office, and was succeeded by the Earl of Rochford; and the affair of the Falkland Islands ceased to be spoken of.

But, on the meeting of the parliament in January 1771, it was again brought before the house, when the declaration of the Spanish ambassador, and Rochford’s acceptance, were announced. Prince Maserans then disavowed, in the name of his master, the violence used at Port Egmont, the restitution of which was agreed to upon an understanding that such restitution should be considered as ample satisfaction, but not as affecting the question concerning the prior sovereignty of the islands. This produced a new demand for copies of all papers, letters, and declarations, relating to the Falkland Islands; and though it was now apparently complied with, the opposition affirmed that it was still only in part, since, besides a chasm of nearly two months, of which there was no account whatever, all copies of the claims or representations made by the court of Spain since the first settlement of the islands were kept back, and a suspicion was thus excited that the concealment of these papers might proceed from some misconduct during the periods in question, over which administration were willing to draw a veil. On the part of the government it was answered, that every paper which could be found in the several offices had been presented; that if there had been any correspondence between the two courts of which no notice was taken in them, it must have been verbal; and that, at any rate, there were papers sufficient to enable the house to determine the propriety or impropriety of their conduct throughout the whole transaction. But these excuses did not satisfy the opposition, and a motion was made to address his majesty for information as to whether any such interference had taken place, and of what nature it was, or in what manner it had been conducted. The motion, however, was lost by a great majority in both houses. Nevertheless this manner of deciding the question was far from allaying the ferment which prevailed. The transaction was considered as disgraceful to the British nation; nor were all the arguments which could be used by the ministerial party sufficient to shake the general opinion. The restitution of the island was thought to be an inadequate recompense for the affront that had been offered; and the objections to it were urged on a motion for an address of thanks on account of the communication of the Spanish declaration, which was not carried without considerable difficulty, and in fact produced a protest from nineteen peers. On the part of Spain, however, every article of the agreement was ostensibly fulfilled; Port Egmont was restored, and the British once more took possession of it, though it was in a short time afterwards evacuated.

In other respects great discontent prevailed throughout the kingdom. A fire which happened at Portsmouth in the year 1770 excited numberless jealousies, and was by some imputed to our enemies on the Continent. The affair of the Middlesex election was not forgotten; and notwithstanding many repulses, the city of London still ventured to send up new petitions to the throne. In one presented this year by Mr Beckford, the lord mayor, the petitioners lamented having incurred the royal displeasure, but renewed a request, frequently preferred before, for a dissolution of parliament. This, however, met with a very unfavourable answer. His majesty informed the lord mayor, that his sentiments on the subject continued unchanged; and that he should ill deserve the title of father of his people, were he to suffer himself to be prevailed on to make such a use of his prerogative as he could not but think inconsistent with the interest, and dangerous to the constitution, of the kingdom. Mr Beckford, far from being disheartened by this answer, demanded leave to address the king; and having obtained it, made a speech of considerable length, which he concluded by telling his majesty, that “whoever had already dared, or should hereafter endeavour, by false insinuations and suggestions, to alienate his majesty’s affections from his loyal subjects in general, and the city of London in particular, was an enemy to his majesty’s person and family, a violator of the public peace, and a betrayer of our happy constitution as it was established at the glorious revolution.” This behaviour of Mr Beckford was censured by the court party as indecent, unprecedented, impudent, and little short of high treason; whilst, on the other hand, it raised him to the highest pinnacle of popular favour. But he did not long enjoy the applause of the people; for he .died a short time afterwards, and his death was considered as an irreparable loss to the whole party. Several other petitions were presented on the subject of popular grievances; but the perpetual neglect with which they were treated at last brought that mode of application into disuse.

A new subject of contention, however, now presented [7:5:393]itself. The navy was in a bad condition, and the sailors everywhere avoided the service. Towards the end of August sixteen ships of the line were ready to be put to sea; but the legality of press warrants being questioned, the manning of them became a matter of great difficulty. The new lord mayor, Crosby, refused to back the warrants, which proved a very vexatious matter to the ministry; and they were further provoked by the unbounded licentiousness of the press. But, on the other hand, the mode of proceeding against some libellers had produced many complaints regarding the powers of the attorney-general. He had filed informations and carried on prosecutions ex officio, without going through the forms observed in all other cases of the kind; and this was described as inconsistent with the nature of a free government. Examples were cited of flagrant oppression and injustice occasioned by the exercise of this very power; the laws, it was said, had become changeable at the pleasure of a judge; and the liberty of the subject was taken from him whenever he became obnoxious to his superiors. Accordingly a motion was made in the House of Commons to bring in a bill for explaining and amending an act of the 4th and 5th of William and Mary, to prevent invidious informations, and for the more easy reversal of outlawries in the Court of King’s Bench. But this motion was rejected by a great majority, the ministerial party urging that the power of the attorney-general was the same as it had ever been, and founded on the common law; that the abuse of power was no argument against the legal exercise of it; that it was dangerous to overthrow established customs; and that the actions of the attorney-general were cognizable by parliament, which control must for ever prevent a licentious exercise of his powers. But these arguments did not put an end to the disputes on this head. The courts ofjustice were at the same time held up in a very despicable light, on account of some late decisions which had been deemed contrary to law and usual practice. By these the judges had assumed a power of determining whether a paper was a libel or not, whilst the business of the jury was confined to the determination of the fact regarding its publication; and thus it was alleged that the judges had it in their power to punish a man who had been found guilty of publishing a paper, whether it was seditious or not. Lord Chatham, in a speech on the Middlesex election, took occasion to mention these abuses; and was answered by Lord Mansfield, who looked upon himselfas particularly pointed at. The former, however, was so little convinced by the answer, that he drew from it an additional confirmation of his own arguments, and moved that a day should be appointed for taking into consideration the conduct of the judges; in which proposal he was ably seconded by the ex-chancellor. A committee was accordingly moved for on the 6th December 1770, to inquire into the matter; but after much debate the motion was rejected by a very large majority. The affair, however, did not yet seem to be terminated. Lord Mansfield gave notice next day, that on an early day lie would communicate to the House of Lords a matter of the utmost importance; but when that day arrived he produced nothing except a paper containing the case of Woodfall the printer, as tried in the Court of King’s Bench, that whoever pleased might read or take copies of it. This was looked upon as exceedingly frivolous, and greatly disappointed the expectations of the whole house. His lordship was asked whether he meant that the paper should be entered on the journals of the house; and he answered that he had no such intention, but only that it should be left in the hands of the clerk; on which the affair would probably have been altogether overlooked, had not the ex-chancellor, who all along strongly supported the motion, accused Lord Mansfield, from the very paper to which he appealed, of a practice repugnant to the law of England, proposed to him some queries relative to the power of juries, and challenged his antagonist to a debate either at that time or afterwards. But this method of proceeding was complained of as too precipitate, and an excuse was likewise made for not assigning a day for the debate at any future period, so that the matter soon sunk into oblivion. It was, however, loudly talked of without doors; and the judges, who had already sunk in the estimation of the people, now became much more obnoxious.

An accident which occurred soon afterwards contributed also to lessen in the eyes of the people the character, not only of the ministerial party, but that of both houses of parliament taken collectively; and indeed it must be owned that nothing could be more derogatory to the honour of the first assembly of the nation, or to that of the individuals composing it. On the 20th of December 1770 a motion was made by the Duke of Manchester, that an address be presented to his majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to give orders for quickening our preparations for defence in the West Indies and in the Mediterranean, and particularly for securing the posts of Gibraltar and Minorca. But whilst his grace was descanting on the negligence of the ministry in leaving posts of such importance in a defenceless state, he was suddenly interrupted by Lord Gower, who insisted on having the house immediately cleared of all except those who had a right to sit there. His lordship was answered by the Duke of Richmond, who complained of the interruption given to the Duke of Manchester as a proceeding both irregular and insidious. This produced a considerable degree of altercation; and the cry of “Clear the house” resounded from all quarters. Several members attempted to speak, but found it impossible; and, piqued at this shameful behaviour, eighteen or nineteen peers left the house in a body. The members of the House of Commons then present were not only commanded to depart, but some of the lords went personally to the bar, and insisted on their leaving the house immediately. The latter alleged in excuse, that they attended with a bill, and were there in the discharge of their duty; but this availed nothing; they were peremptorily ordered to withdraw till their message should be delivered, and at length turned out of doors amidst the greatest tumult and uproar. In the mean time the lords, who had just left their own house, repaired to the lower house, where they were listening to the debates, when the commoners who had been turned out of the Lords arrived, full of indignation, and ' loud in their complaints of the affront they had received. This was resented by turning out indiscriminately all the spectators; amongst whom were the eighteen peers just mentioned, who were thus excluded from both houses. This affair issued in a misunderstanding between the two houses, which continued during the remainder of the session. Sixteen lords joined in a protest, and censured in the warmest terms the treatment they had met with, as well as the unprecedented behaviour of administration, who had thus attempted to suppress the freedom of debate, and rendered the conduct of the house an object of contempt and ridicule to the whole world.

Soon after the discussion on the subject of the Falkland Islands, an extraordinary instance of corruption in the borough of New Shoreham, Sussex, was laid before parliament. The affair was brought by the returning officer, one Roberts, declaring a candidate duly elected who had only thirty-seven votes, whilst his opponent had eighty-seven suffrages; and when this man was brought to trial for so strange a proceeding, a scene of unparalleled villany was disclosed. A great number of the freemen of the borough had formed themselves into a society called the Christian [7:5:394]Club, which, instead of sustaining the character indicated by its denomination, was rendered instrumental in furthering the purposes of venality. A select committee of the members had been appointed to sell the borough to the highest bidder. The committee-men never appeared at elections themselves, but issued orders to the rest, directing them as to how they were to vote; and after the election terminated, they shared the profits among themselves. All this was clearly proved; but the returning officer was nevertheless dismissed with a reprimand from the Speaker for having trespassed upon the forms which ought to have been observed by such a functionary. A more severe punishment, however, was reserved for the borough, particularly the wretches who had assumed the name of the Christian Club. A motion for inquiry having been carried unanimously, a bill was brought in to incapacitate eighty-one freemen of the borough, whose names were mentioned, from ever voting at parliamentary elections; and, for the more effectual prevention of bribery and corruption, the attorney-general was ordered to prosecute the committee belonging to the Christian Club. After some opposition the bill for incapacitation at length passed, and received the royal assent on the last day of the session.

The unbounded licentiousness of the press now attracted the notice of parliament, though the evil appeared incapable of being effectually checked. At this period neither rank nor character formed any security against calumny; and indeed it was difficult to say which side went farthest in the career of detraction and abuse. The ministry, however, provoked by a long course of opposition, made loud complaints against the freedom taken with their names; but it was retorted by the opposition, that the abuse from one quarter was as great as that from the other. Some members of the House of Commons complained that their speeches had been misrepresented in the papers, and endeavoured to put a stop to the practice of reporting them. It was at this time considered as contrary to the standing order of the house to print the speeches of the members of parliament; and a motion for calling two of the principal printers to account was carried by a considerable majority. The printers, however, did not attend the summons of the messenger; and a final order for their appearance was directed to be left at their houses, and declared to be sufficient notice when left there. The disobedience of the printers was undoubtedly occasioned by the favour which they hoped to obtain with the popular party; and indeed it was only after severe animadversion that the ministry were able to carry the motion against them. And this opposition was heightened by its being further moved that they should be taken into custody by the ser-jcant at arms, for contempt of the orders of the house; a proceeding which was objected to on account of the temper and disposition of the people towards the house, and the great impropriety of adding to their alarms by any unnecessary stretch of the executive power. But the majority urged the necessity of preserving the dignity of the house, and putting an end to those excessive freedoms which had been taken with its members. The serjeant at arms next complained, that not being able to find the printers at their houses, he had been treated with indignity by their servants; on which a royal proclamation was issued for apprehending the two obnoxious typographers, Wheble and Thomson, with a reward annexed. But in the mean time six other printers, who had rendered themselves equally obnoxious on a similar account, were ordered to attend the house, though the motion had not been carried without great opposition. Some of the delinquents were reprimanded at the bar, and one who did not attend was ordered to be taken into custody for contempt. Wheble being apprehended in consequence of the proclamation, was carried before Alderman Wilkes, by whom he was discharged; Thomson was in like manner discharged; and the captors received certificates from the magistrates, in order to entitle them to the promised reward. Millar, one of the six who had refused to attend, was taken into custody at his own house by the messenger of the House of Commons; but he sent for a constable, and was carried along with the messenger before the lord mayor, and Aidermen Wilkes and Oliver, at the mansion-house. The lord mayor refused to deliver up the printer and messenger at the request of the serjeant at arms; and after some disputes the messenger was committed to prison, as he had been accused by Millar of assault and false imprisonment, and the serjeant had refused to find bail; but he was immediately released upon bail being given. The lord mayor was ordered to attend the house next day, when he pleaded that he had acted in no way inconsistent with the duties of his office, since by his oath he was bound to preserve the franchises of the city; and his conduct was further warranted by the terms of the city charters, as recognised by act of parliament. It was then moved that he should be allowed counsel; but this motion was overruled, upon the ground that no counsel could be permitted to plead against the privileges of the house. It was, however, carried that the lord mayor’s clerk should attend with the book of minutes; and, notwithstanding all opposition, he was obliged to expunge from it the recognisance of Whittam the messenger. This was followed by a resolution that there should be no more proceedings at law in the case; upon which a vehement altercation ensued, and several of the minority at last left the house in the utmost rage. Though it was now one o’clock in the morning, the ministerial party refused to adjourn, and proceeded to the case of Mr Oliver, who, like the lord mayor, declined to express any regret for what he had done. Some proposed to censure his conduct, others were for expulsion; but when it was proposed to send him to the Tower, the utmost confusion took place, some members declaring that they would accompany him to the place of his confinement, whilst others left the house. Meanwhile ministry used their utmost endeavours to persuade him to make some kind of apology or concession for what he had done; but finding him immovable, they at last carried the motion for his imprisonment, and he was committed accordingly. After the confusion had been in some measure dispelled, the debates concerning the lord mayor were resumed, and many arguments were urged against proceeding further in the matter; but these being disregarded, the minority left the house; and his lordship refusing the favour offered him of being committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms, was sent to the Tower. Alderman Wilkes, on being ordered to attend, wrote a letter addressed to the Speaker, in which he observed, that no mention had been made of his being a member; and that if his seat in parliament, to which he had been duly elected, was to be granted, he w ould attend and justify his conduct. Administration, however, were too wise again to encounter this demagogue; but being at the same time under no little embarrassment how to get off, they at last had recourse to the miserable shift of ordering him to attend on the 8th of April 1771, while they adjourned the house to the 9th.

The only other transaction of moment during this session related to the East India Company. It was now proposed to raise two thousand men in England for the service of the Company, by whom the officers appointed by the king were to be paid. But it was considered as unconstitutional and dangerous to keep up an armed force in the kingdom which was not paid by government; and it was likewise urged that it would prove an obstruction to the recruiting service of our own army, on account of the [7:5:395]superior advantages of enlisting in the Company’s service. • The session terminated on the 8th of May. In the speech from the throne it was observed, that the satisfaction obtained from his Catholic majesty for the injury done this kingdom, and the proofs of the pacific disposition which the courts of France and Spain had given, by laying aside their armaments, enabled his majesty to reduce the forces both by sea and land.

The many defeats which had been experienced by opposition during this and the preceding sessions now began to cool their ardour in the cause of patriotism. Many of them also had lost much of their popularity by taking part against the printers; and as every motion had been carried in favour of administration by nearly two to one, a general discouragement and languor ensued. The only gainers indeed by the late contentions were the city magistrates, and printers who had been punished by the House of Commons. On the rising of parliament, the lord mayor and aldermen were of course released from the Tower, and welcomed with every mark of congratulation. The city was illuminated; and the mob, as usual, took vengeance on the refractory by breaking their windows. A committee was even appointed to carry on a prosecution against the Speaker of the House of Commons; but as this did not seem likely to afford redress, they determined once more to have recourse to the throne. Accordingly, on the 10th of July 1771, another petition and remonstrance was presented, the subjects of which were the embankments on the Thames, the proceedings against the magistrates, and a request for a speedy dissolution of parliament. But this met with as unfavourable an answer as any of the preceding appeals to the sovereign.

In the speech from the throne, when the parliament assembled in January 1772, his majesty observed, that the performance of the king of Spain’s engagements, and the behaviour of the other European powers, promised a continuance of peace, and that although the necessity of keeping up a respectable naval force was evident, yet no extraordinary aid for that purpose would be necessary; and he concluded with recommending a vigilant and active attention to the concerns of the country, with an assurance of the interposition of the crown to remedy abuses or supply defects. Little discussion took place on the address in answer to this speech; but an ample subject of altercation was soon furnished by a motion on the part of the government, the object of which was to recognise the necessity of raising twenty-five thousand seamen for the service of the current year. A proposition of this kind, coming immediately after the assurances of peace that had been given from the throne, seemed very like a contradiction. Accordingly it was argued that the peace establishment would thus be augmented till we were overburdened by it; that a large sum would be added to the national expenses; and that as the same augmentation might every year be made on similar pretences, the nation would in this way be obliged to submit to the hardships of war in a time of profound peace. If the assurances of peace from the throne were well founded, the force in the East Indies was already too great; if, on the contrary, a war was at hand, it would be too small, notwithstanding the proposed augmentation; and in the same way Jamaica was likely to suffer from this inferiority. But these remonstrances were by no means sufficient to put a stop to the measure; and the question in favour of the augmentation was carried without a division.

The subject which came next to be discussed was religion. This was originated by the tendency which had for some time prevailed to resist the subscription of the church standards. Meetings had been frequently held by discontented members, in order to consider of some mode of relief; and in the beginning of February a number of them, with several professors of law and physic, joined in a petition to the House of Commons, expressing their dissatisfaction with subscription to any human forms, and praying for relief. In this petition they asserted that they held certain rights and privileges from God alone, without being subject to any other authority; that they accounted it a blessing to live under a government which maintained the sufficiency of the Scriptures to instruct in all things necessary to salvation; and that they had a right from nature, as well as from the principles of the reformed religion, to judge for themselves what was or was not contained in the Scriptures. They prayed therefore to be relieved from the burden of subscription, and to be restored to their undoubted right of interpreting Scripture for themselves, without being bound by any human explanation of it, or being required to acknowledge the truth of any formulary of religious faith and doctrine whatsoever, excepting the Holy Scripture itself. This petition was presented by Sir William Meredith, who, along with the other members favourable to the cause, enforced it by many arguments drawn from the principles of toleration, and maintained that nothing but hypocrisy and prevarication could arise from obliging men to subscribe what they did not believe; that the repeal of the laws for subscription would prevent the increase of dissenters, and incline many of them to return to the church; that the articles themselves were originally compiled in a hurry; that they contained doctrines highly controvertible; and that this restraint on the consciences of men constituted one of the greatest imaginable hardships. The majority of parliament, however, were found inimical to the petition, though some who then opposed it wished for time to consider it more deliberately, or to refer it to a committee of the clergy. At last, however, it was thrown out by a large majority.

The rejection of the subscription bill was followed by that of a bill for guarding the possessions of his majesty’s subjects against dormant claims of the church. After this the attention of parliament was called to one of the utmost importance, which had been introduced by a message from the king. This was the famous royal marriage bill, occasioned by the marriage of the Duke of Cumberland with Mrs Horton, a widow lady, daughter of Lord Irnham, and sister to Colonel Luttrell, and that of the Duke of Gloucester with the countess-dowager of Waldegrave. By the message it was recommended to both houses to take it into their consideration, whether it might not be expedient to supply the defects of the laws then in being, and by some new regulations more effectually to prevent the descendants of his late majesty,—excepting the issue of the princesses who had married, or might hereafter marry, into foreign families,—from marrying without the consent of his majesty, his heirs and successors. In consequence of this a bill was brought in, declaring all such marriages, without the consent above mentioned, to be null and void. The 'descendants of his majesty, however, if above the age of twenty-five years, might marry without the royal consent, provided they gave intimation twelve months beforehand to the privy council, and no opposition to the match was made by parliament during that interval. But this bill encountered the most violent and powerful opposition. The principal arguments against it were, that the immediate tendency of the measure was to create as many prerogatives in the crown as there were matters of importance in the state, and to extend them in a manner as exceptionable as had ever been done in the most despotic period; that the enacting part of the bill had an inconvenient and impolitic latitude, in extending to all the descendants of George II.; that the time of nonage l for the royal family [7:5:396]appeared to be improperly extended beyond the limit of twenty-one years; that the deferring their marriage to the age of twenty-six might also be attended with bad consequences, by driving them into a disorderly course of life; that the power given by this bill to a prince to marry after the age of twenty-six was totally defeated by the proviso which declared the consent of parliament to be ultimately necessary; that the right of conferring a discretionary power of prohibiting all marriages, was beyond the reach of any legislature whatsoever, being contrary to the inherent rights of human nature, which, as they are not derived from, or held under, the sanction of any civil laws, cannot in any case be taken away by them; that this bill had a natural tendency to produce a disputed title to the crown; and that it provided no security against the improper marriages of princesses into foreign families, and those of their issue, which might as materially affect the interest of this nation as the marriages of princes residing in the dominions of Great Britain. To these arguments it was answered, that the inconveniences so much talked of were merely imaginary; that if the king should make any improper use of his authority, parliament had it in their power either to prevent the consequences, or to punish the minister who advised it; that the crown was dishonoured by improper connections; that many of the greatest national calamities had proceeded from improper alliances between the royal family and subjects; and that if experience showed that any material grievances ensued from this act, it could as easily be repealed hereafter as thrown out now, and on much better grounds. The result was, that with great rapidity, and by considerable majorities, it passed through both houses.

Though the decision concerning the subscription of the thirty-nine articles did not promise much success to any proposed innovations in matters of religion, yet the case of dissenting ministers was introduced soon after the discussion of the royal marriage act; and a petition was presented by a great body of dissenters, praying to be relieved from the hardship of subscribing to the articles of a church to which they did not belong. This, however, was most violently opposed, though with very little success, in the House of Commons, where it was carried by a very great majority. In this branch of the legislature it was maintained that nothing can advance the true interest of religion so much as toleration; and that if articles of subscription are necessary, it must only be for men destitute of principle, who, in compliance with ambition or avarice, would as readily subscribe one set of articles as another. In the Höuse of Lords, however, the bill was rejected by a majority of seventy. Here the doctrine of universal toleration was vehemently scouted, and much was said of the danger to which the Church of England would be exposed by departing from the laws which guarded its privileges. The dissenters, it was alleged, had great cause to be satisfied with the favour they enjoyed by connivance; and the laws were only kept on record as a necessary curb, lest, in the degeneracy of auecliningkingdom, religion should require protection against heresy and blasphemy.

The only other business of this session was an attempt at inquiry into the affairs of the East India Company, which were then in a very critical situation. But the subject did not come under consideration till next session, which commenced in November 1772; the situation of the affairs of the Company being alleged as a reason why parliament had been called together sooner than usual. The greater part of the present session was accordingly occupied with the concerns of the Company.

It had been projected, as long ago as the year 1667, to bring them under the inspection of government; but the design did not succeed at that time, nor would it probably have been entertained now, had not the affairs of the Company been embarrassed by the misconduct of their servants. During the preceding session a bill had been brought in for restraining the governor and council from all kinds of trade, as well as for enlarging the power of the Company over its servants; but the bill was thrown out on the second reading, and indeed had probably been introduced merely to pave the way for what followed. The debates on the subject, however, produced a general belief that the affairs of the East India Company were, owing to the behaviour of its servants, in a very bad condition; that at any rate it was insufficient for the government of such extensive possessions; and that, in consequence, there was an evident necessity for giving up the management of it to the Crown. A motion was accordingly made for a select committee to inquire into the affairs of the Company; and although many reasons were urged against the proposition, it was carried without a division, and the members were chosen by ballot. But during the recess the affairs of the Company continued to retrograde, and the treasury at home was quite exhausted; whilst bills to a vast amount drawn on Bengal were nearly due, and these, together with the Company’s debt to the Bank and other public bodies, and the sum to be paid to government, reduced them almost to the verge of bankruptcy. They were therefore reduced to the necessity of asking a loan from administration; but their application was received with great indifference, and the minister desired them to apply to parliament. Meanwhile the reports of the select committee were published, and gave the public no very favourable opinion of the behaviour of the Company’s servants.

On the meeting of parliament, the minister moved for a secret committee, to consist of thirteen persons, and the members of which were to be chosen by ballot, in order that no objection might apply to them which did not militate equally against the whole house. This motion encountered some opposition; but, ultimately, the committee of secrecy was carried, as the other had been, without a division; and the members, though chosen by ballot, were almost all of them devoted to administration. The select committee was likewise revived, that these bodies might act as checks upon each other, and that between them the nation might have the requisite information respecting the whole matter.

In a short time after the appointment of the secret committee, a report was given in, stating that the Company were in great distress for want of money; and that a bill ought to be brought in for restraining them from sending out supervisors to India, a scheme which they at this time meditated. The minister and his adherents enlarged greatly on the utility of this bill, which they described as not only highly expedient, but absolutely necessary, in order to prevent the Company from engaging in an expensive commission, at a time when their affairs were so much embarrassed that they had no resource but to apply to government for a loan. But notwithstanding all the arguments used by administration in favour of the bill, the Company were so far from thinking it for their advantage, that they used every endeavour to prevent its passing into a law. They petitioned, and some of their servants were examined in the House of Commons, in order to show the necessity of sendingout supervisors, qualified to bring their affairs into some degree of order, and at the same time capable of curbing the excesses of which the Company’s servants had too frequently been guilty. In spite of all opposition, however, the bill was carried by a large majority; and in the House of Lords it met with similar success, although the minority thought proper to enter a protest.

The select committee now gave in their second report, containing a statement of the debt, credit, and effects of [7:5:397]the Company in England; beginning with an account of the cash in the Company’s treasury on the 1st of December 1772, and containing a statement of all the debts and claims against them in every part of the world. Thus it appeared that the cash, credit, and effects of the Company, amounted to L.6,397,299. 10s. 6d., and their debts to L.2,032,306, which being deducted from the above account of their effects, left a balance in favour of the Company of L.4,364,993. 10s. 6d., without any valuation of their fortifications and buildings abroad. The statement, however, was complained of as being unfair and partial; but the members protested their innocence, and administration insisted that, until proof to the contrary was brought, the house was bound to adhere to it as just. The business was revived after the holidays by an application from the Company to government for a loan of L.1,500,000, for four years, at four per cent, interest, with liberty of repaying the same according to the ability of the Company, in instalments of not less than L.300,000; and that they should not make a dividend of more than six per cent, until the loan was reduced to L.750,000, after which they might raise their dividend to eight per cent.; and when the whole loan was discharged, the surplus of the net profits arising in England, above the said dividend, was to be appropriated to the payment of the Company’s bonded debt, until it had been reduced to L.1,500,000, in which case the surplus profits were to be equally divided between the public and the Company. This request it was - udged expedient to grant, and it was accordingly resolved that the affairs of the East India Company are in such a state as to require the assistance of parliament; that a loan is necessary to reinstate the Company’s affairs; that the supply required be granted; and that care be taken that the Company be prevented from experiencing the like exigencies for the future. These restrictions were judged proper by administration for the security of the public; but the Company replied, that they were contrary to the proposals which had been made, and void of foundation, as being built on the erroneous reports of the secret committee. Some time was also demanded for consideration; but that being refused, the question was put and carried as ministry desired, by a considerable majority.

The next step was to deprive the Company of their territorial right to the countries which they possessed in the East Indies. This had been allowed them in the most explicit manner, as appears by some of the papers which passed between the French and English ministers during the negociations that issued in the treaty of Paris; but Lord North informed the house that it was the opinion of several great lawyers, that such territorial possessions as the subjects of any state shall acquire by conquest are virtually the property of that state, and not of those individuals who acquire them. He was of opinion, however, that it would be more beneficial for the public and the East India Company, to let the territorial acquisitions remain in the possession of the Company for a limited time; and at the same time it was moved, that no participation of profits should take place betwixt the public and the Company until after the repayment of L.1,400,000 advanced to the Company, and the reduction of the Company’s bonded debt to L.1,500,000; that, after the payment of the loan advanced to the Company, and the reduction of their bonded debts to the sums specified, three fourths of the net surplus profits of the Company at home, above the sum of eight per cent, upon their capital stock, should be paid into the exchequer for the use of the public, and the remaining fourth be set apart either for reducing the Company’s bonded debt, or forming a fund for discharging any contingent expenses to which the Company might be exposed.

These proceedings proved exceedingly disagreeable to the Company, who now presented a petition complaining of the injustice of demanding any further terms on account of a loan, after that loan had been discharged. But no regard was paid to this petition, and the motions were carried in favour of administration. To make some kind of compensation, however, it was agreed, that as the Company had a stock of teas amounting to about seventeen millions of pounds in their warehouses, they should be allowed to export as much of it as they thought proper free of duty, and to employ the money thence arising in the advancement of their own affairs.

This concession in favour of the East India Company proved in the event the loss of the American colonies; nor indeed could these arbitrary proceedings with so considerable a body tend to impress the mind of the nation with ideas favourable to the views of administration. In other respects the minister abated nothing of the disposition he had from first to last evinced with regard to the Company. On the 3d of May 1773 certain resolutions were laid down by him as the foundation of a bill to establish certain regulations for the better management of the East India Company, as well in India as in Europe. These were, that the court of directors should in future be elected for four years; that no person should vote at the election of the directors who had not possessed his or her stock twelve months; that the stock qualification for the future should be L.1000 instead of L.500; that the mayor’s court of Calcutta should henceforth be confined to small mercantile causes; that, instead of this court, a new one should be established, consisting of a chief justice and three puisne judges, appointed by the crown; and that a superiority should be given to the presidency of Bengal over the other presidencies in India. Each of these resolutions was carried by a great majority. By the friends of the Company, however, the bill was supposed to have a tendency to effect a total alteration of its constitution in England, as well as in the administration of all its presidencies in Asia, and to subject their affairs, both at home and abroad, to the immediate power of the crown. By cutting off the L.500 stockholders, the proprietary would become more manageable by the crown; nor was there any security that the directors would be faithful to the interests of the Company when they were no longer responsible to them for their actions. This class of proprietors presented a petition, which gave rise to a motion, bearing that the petitioners had not been guilty of any delinquency in the exercise of their chartered rights according to the several acts of parliament made in their behalf. But the motion was rejected, and the regulating bill passed both houses by large majorities.

During this time the select and secret committees were pursuing their inquiries. The affairs of the Company were investigated from the year 1756, and a report was at length presented by General Burgoyne, containing many charges of cruelty and rapacity, against several persons concerned in the management of the affairs of the Company, particularly with regard to the deposition of Surajah Dowlah in 1756, which was described as the cause of all the evils which had since happened. The report dwelt much on the treachery employed in bringing about that revolution, particularly the fictitious treaty with Omichund; and exposed the conduct of Lord Clive, who had caused Admiral Watson’s name to be affixed to the treaty, after the admiral himself had refused to sign it. It concluded with moving for the restitution of all the money received in presents or otherwise in India whilst the receivers acted in public capacities; and recommended the adoption of resolutions, bearing in substance that all acquisitions made under the influence of a military force, or by treaty with [7:5:398]foreign powers, belong of right to the state; that to appropriate acquisitions obtained by such means is illegal; and that great sums of money had been obtained by such means from the sovereign princes in India. The belief that many of the Company’s servants had acted in an infamous manner, was at this time so general and so strong, that these resolutions were carried almost unanimously. Lord Clive defended himself by general protestations of innocence, which, however, gained but little credit; and when he entered into a particular refutation of the charges against him, he did not succeed in making many converts to his reasoning. But his friends were not of opinion that the charges were of a very atrocious nature, and wished to excuse him on the ground of policy and necessity. The treaty with Omichund was justified on the plea of necessity. Some, indeed, observed that as Omichund had the character of being the most accomplished villain in Asia, the Englishman merely wished to have a trial of skill with the Asiatic. This sarcasm, however, was a mere piece of wit, without any solid foundation; for the crime, if there was any in the transaction, lay in dethroning a sovereign prince by means of traitors, and not in cheating the traitors out of their reward. And, in fact, if treachery be once admitted into transactions, whether civil or political, it is in vain to pretend any subjection to the rules of justice; for those who call in the aid of such an auxiliary are already beyond its jurisdiction. General Burgoyne, however, moved that Lord Clive had, in consequence of the powers with which he was vested in India, received at various times presents to the amount of L.234,000 sterling, to the dishonour and detriment of the state. But this being rejected, after a violent debate, it was moved that Lord Clive, in receiving such a sum, had abused the power with which he was intrusted, to the evil example of the servants of the public. This motion, however, was also rejected, and it was ultimately voted that Lord Clive, when he received the sum above mentioned, at the same time rendered great and meritorious services to his country. Thus the matter was concluded, and thus the affairs of the Company were delivered into the hands of administration.

The affairs of the East India Company, which had engrossed so much time and attention, now gave place to those of America, which by this time had assumed a very lowering aspect. The discontent occasioned by the taxes imposed on that country has already been noticed. The stamp act had excited among them a spirit of industry and economy, as well as a desire of providing themselves with manufactures of their own, which had not been foreseen. At the time, as well as afterwards, this was imputed to wilfulness, or to the discontent of a few, which would afterwards subside, or be suppressed by the voice of the majority, when things would revert to their former channels. But the trifling tax on tea, which had not been repealed, and the permission given to the Company to export whatever quantity they pleased, now threw matters into a ferment not to be quelled by any means whatever. Of the various proceedings in America, the tumults at Boston and elsewhere, the accidental circumstances which added fuel to the flame, and the war which ensued and ultimately terminated in the recognition of American independence, an account will be given under the article United States. It is only necessary here to give an account of the manner in which the legislature and people of Great Britain were affected by these events.

Ever since the conclusion of peace in 1763, the disposition shown by government to augment the revenue had produced in the popular party of Great Britain a spirit similar to that manifested by the Americans, though in an inferior degree; and hence the patriots of Britain affected to consider the Americans as oppressed by government, and suffering in the same cause with themselves. The wanton destruction of the tea at Boston and other places in America, however, considerably diminished the number of their friends, and rendered many of those who still adhered to them much less sanguine in their cause. The matter was announced to parliament by a special message from the throne. Lord North and the other ministers described the conduct of the colonists, particularly in the town of Boston, as most atrocious, and concluded that government was now perfectly justified in resorting to any measures they might think proper to repress the turbulent spirit which had been manifested, and inflict such punishment as the enormity of the offence seemed to deserve. The opposition did not pretend to exculpate, though it still attempted to excuse, the conduct of the colonists, by ascribing all the disturbances in that country to the arbitrary and absurd measures pursued and obstinately adhered to at home. But the ministry evaded this charge by drawing the attention of the house to the more important consideration, whether the Americans were now to be dependent on, or independent of, Great Britain. The Boston port bill was then brought in, and carried, but not without considerable opposition, both within and without doors. Mr Bollan, agent for the council of Massachusetts Bay, founding on an act of Queen Elizabeth, for securing the liberty of the colonies, drew up a petition, and caused it to be presented before the bill had actually made its appearance: but so little regard was paid to it, that, during the time it lay on the table, the bill was brought in by Lord North. After the second reading, the same gentleman presented another petition, desiring to be heard in behalf of the town of Boston, and for the council of Massachusetts Bay; but this was refused, because, although Mr Bollan was agent for the colony, he was not so for the corporation of Boston, and still less for the council of Massachusetts Bay, as the body which had appointed him was now no longer in existence. This appeared very inconsistent to many of the members, and produced a new petition from the lord mayor, in the name of such natives and inhabitants of North America as at that time resided in London, in which the petitioners insisted that the bill was illegal, unprecedented, unjust; and that, after such a precedent as it went to establish, no man or body of men in America could have a moment’s security. But as little regard was paid to this as to the former petitions, and the bill passed both houses without a division. That this obnoxious bill might not be sent to America without some mitigation, however, the minority, who had not chosen to divide formally on the first measure proposed by government for reducing the refractory colonists, proposed the repeal of the duty on tea laid on in 1767; but this was also rejected, probably from an erroneous impression that the opposition of the Americans was that of a mere tumultuous mob, and that by showing proper spirit the ministry would at last come off victorious.

The extreme pertinacity shown by ministers, in this instance, undoubtedly proved highly prejudicial to their cause, both by exasperating the Americans, and by rousing the indignation of the minority in parliament, and rendering opposition more, violent and determined. This appeared in every subsequent proceeding relative to the colonies. Even the bill for regulating the government of Massachusetts Bay did not pass without a protest; and a similar result ensued on the passing of the act for the impartial administration of justice. The opposition made to the Quebec bill was even more violent, insomuch that, ere it could be carried, the ministers were obliged to lower the high and aspiring tone to which they had accustomed themselves in talking of American affairs. The minority contended, that without any necessity pleaded, [7:5:399]or even suggested, an arbitrary influence was extended by act of parliament to that province; they likeavise argued in favour of the method of trial by jury; and they thought that the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion in that country gave it a preference over the Protestant, which was henceforth to be exercised only by toleration.

At the conclusion of the session his majesty declared himself satisfied with what had been done, and expressed his hopes that good effects would result from the new regulations. The reception which they met with in America will be related in the proper place; in Britain the people seemed to await the event with indifference. The parliament in the mean time was dissolved by proclamation, and a very short time allowed for the election of new members; so that if opposition at that time possessed any strength, they were not allowed sufficient time to exert it.

The new parliament met on the 30th of November 1774, when his majesty informed the two houses that a most daring spirit of resistance still prevailed in America, notwithstanding the means which had been taken to prevent the mischiefs thence arising; and assured them that they might depend on his firm resolution to withstand every attempt to weaken or impair the supreme authority of the legislature over all the dominions of the crown. In answer to the speech from the throne, the minority demanded a communication of all letters, orders, and instructions, relating to American affairs; but this was overruled, and the address being carried as a matter of form, the consideration of American affairs was delayed until after the holidays.

In the beginning of 1775 the minority received a considerable accession of strength by the return of Lord Chatham, who, after a long absence, again made his appearance in parliament. He now testified in the warmest terms his disapprobation of the measures which had been pursued regarding America; he moved for addressing the king to recal the troops from Boston; he predicted, that if ministers persisted in the course they had for some time pursued, they would make the crown not worth the king’s wearing; and he declared that the kingdom would be undone if measures of undue coercion were employed. But all the eloquence of this great man proved ineffectual; administration were determined upon reducing the Americans to subjection, and his motion was rejected by a very large majority. Lord North now presented the papers which had been called for by the minority; but lest the publication of particular names should prove detrimental to individuals, only such parts as administration thought proper for public inspection were laid before the house. This was complained of, but to no purpose; and the papers, in their mutilated state, were laid before a committee of the whole house.

In the mean time, petitions against the adoption of eo-ercive measures against America had been received from most of the trading companies in the kingdom; and as these, though highly displeasing to administration, could not be absolutely thrown overboard, a committee was appointed to consider them; but this was not to take place until American affairs were also considered. The reason given for this method of proceeding was, that the consideration of commercial matters ought not to interfere with those of a political kind, each of them being sufficiently embarrassing without the other. The delay in hearing these petitions, however, was supposed to be in effect an absolute rejection of them; and so indeed it proved, the committee to which they were consigned being humorously styled the “Committee of Oblivion.” The merehants of London, however, being determined not to give up the point until they had exerted themselves to the utmost, drew up a paper, in which they denied the distinction established by ministry, and affirmed that the connection between Great Britain and America was chiefly of a commercial nature, and that the manifold regulations adopted for the mutual prosperity of the colonies and of the mother country formed the great political chain which united them to one another. This remonstrance was vigorously seconded by the opposition; but the administration had already determined on the line of conduct they were to pursue, and therefore wished to hear as little as possible on the subject. War was now the word; and although no weightier reason could be given for disregarding what the merchants had to say, this was the motive which impelled ministers to refuse them a hearing, lest these should make it appear that the nation was unwisely precipitated into such a measure.

But though there is no reason to doubt that administration were now fully determined upon a war, and therefore wished to be troubled with as few objections as possible, they were by no means deficient in arguments in justification of their own conduct. They alleged that the petitions so strongly pressed on the attention of the house were principally the work of a factious party; that the advantages resulting from the trade with America arose from the dependent condition of the colonies, which now aimed at shaking off entirely the supremacy which the mother country had hitherto exercised over them without the smallest complaint; that the advantage of the merehants themselves was consulted in maintaining that supremacy; that they would be the first to feel the pernicious consequences of its being lost; that war, though no doubt a great evil, was sometimes necessary to prevent a greater; that were the government to yield in the present contest, no advocate of America could pretend to say what would be the last of its demands; that the Americans were not to be reclaimed by concessions; that the honour and character of the nation were at stake; and that Britain had often taken up arms for matters of less consequence, and should not now hesitate where honour and interest both called for the most vigorous and effective exertions.

These arguments prevailed, and the motion in favour of the merchants’ petitions was rejected by a prodigious majority. This point, however, had no sooner been disposed of, than a violent debate arose concerning the petition of congress to the king, which had been referred to parliament. It was argued by administration, that no petition could be received from the continental congress, which was not a legal body; that it would be admitting their legality to receive a petition from them; and that the general assemblies and their agents were the only lawful representatives of the colonies, and could alone be recognised as such. Opposition disputed these positions, but to no purpose; for, after an ineflectual struggle, the petition was rejected by a very large majority.

In the mean time a conciliatory plan, prepared by the Earl of Chatham, was presented on the first day of February 1775. The declared object and intent of this bill was to settle the troubles in America, and at the same time to assert the supreme legislative authority and superintending power of Great Britain over her colonies. No taxes were to be levied in America, but with the free consent of their assemblies. The right of the crown to station and maintain a military force established by law in any part of its dominions was pointedly asserted; but it was also declared, that it could not be legally employed to enforce implicit and unlawful submission. A congress was also to be held, in order to recognise the supreme sovereignty of Great Britain over the colonies, and to settle an annual revenue upon the crown, disposable by parliament, and applicable to the exigencies of the nation.
[7:5:400]

And on these conditions being complied with, the acts complained of by congress were to be suspended, with every other measure pointed out as a grievance, and the constitution of the different governments to remain as settled by their charters. This bill, however, was deemed totally inadmissible, on account of the various concessions it enacted, and particularly from its empowering the colonies to assemble in congress; a measure which was at that time the most offensive, and supposed to be the most injurious to the interests of Britain. Lord Chatham showed no deficiency of argument in support of his favourite scheme; but his reasoning, though enforced with all the powers of his eloquence, proved unsuccessful, and the proposal was ultimately rejected.

A petition was next presented to the House of Commons by the proprietors of estates in the West India islands, representing their alarm at the association of the Americans, and the intended stoppage of trade with the British islands, the situation of which, it was alleged, would be very calamitous, if the acts in question were not immediately repealed. To the administration, however, all petitions now appeared to be the contrivance of faction; but as it was deemed necessary to inform the nation as to the ultimate views of the government respecting America, Lord North, in a long speech, enumerated the most remarkable circumstances relating to the dispute with that country. He affirmed that the ferment then prevailing in America proceeded from the unwarrantable arts and practices used to inflame the people against the ruling powers in Britain; that, notwithstanding all their complaints, the public charges borne by individuals in America were not more than as one to fifty, compared with what was paid by individuals in England; that nothing but a settled determination to quarrel with the parent state could induce the Americans to persist in their disobedience to the lawful injunctions laid upon them, and which were neither injudicious nor oppressive; and that a spirit of resistance, not discontent at oppression, animated America. For these reasons he proposed to the house to send a greater force to America; and to pass a temporary act, suspending all the foreign trade of the different colonies of New England, and particularly the Newfoundland fishery, until they consented to acknowledge the supreme authority of the British legislature. New England was singled out upon this occasion, as being accounted the most guilty. The others, it was hoped, would yield with less compulsion; but the question now was, whether this country should at once abandon all claims on the colonies, and instantly give up the advantages arising from our sovereignty, and the commerce dependent on it, or whether it should resort to the measures which had become indispensably necessary to insure both.

An address was now carried, which, by the showing of opposition, amounted to a declaration of war. The consequences, therefore, were pointed out with the utmost freedom, and some even denied the charge of rebellion fixed on the province of Massachusetts Bay. The people there, they said, had done nothing but what the constitution allowed; they had resisted arbitrary measures; and the examples so frequently set them at home were sufficient to justify their conduct. The address, however, was carried as usual by a large majority. But so important was the subject of it deemed by the minority, that a motion was made for recommitting it, on account of the consequences that might probably result from the prosecution of the measures recommended. A very long and violent debate ensued, in the course of which the administration contended as usual for the necessity of enforcing obedience by the sword. The Americans, they said, had become incorrigible through forbearance; lenity was a subject of derision among them, and was imputed to imbecility and fear; they imagined themselves able to abolish the sovereignty of Britain in that country, and were now resolved to do it. It was therefore incumbent on every native of Britain in such a case to stand forth and vindicate the interest and glory of his country; and it was the duty of parliament and ministry to call forth the whole spirit of the nation to a contest in which every thing dear to them, both in their public and private capacities, was so deeply concerned. The views and principles of ministers were attacked in the most violent manner. They were said to be reviving the old exploded doctrines of hereditary right and passive obedience, and requiring the Americans to submit unconditionally to the will of Great Britain, for no other reason but because she was the parent state. But if no better reason could be produced, they could not be justly blamed for their disobedience. The ties between Great Britain and her colonies, however, were of a far more noble as well as more binding nature than even origin and consanguinity. These ties were the constitution transmitted from Britain, and the brotherly assistance hitherto afforded them by Englishmen, and which ought to render the name dear to them. While these ties remained unviolated, there was no room to complain of their behaviour; but they would never submit to despotic authority in Englishmen more than in any others. Such unwarrantable principles rendered it no longer a question whether the measures of administration should be considered, but whether the ministers themselves ought not to be deprived of the power which they exercised so unconstitutionally. The question was not now between Great Britain and America, but simply whether we should give up our colonies or our ministers. This kind of language excited the indignation of the ministerial party, who in return charged minority in plain terms with the guilt of all that had happened. There had gone forth, it was said, a factious and republican spirit, by which every person who wrote or spoke on the American cause was actuated, and which had not only induced the Americans to commence a rebellion against the parent state, but had filled the house with incendiaries. The final issue of the dispute was, that the recommitment of the address was lost by a majority of more than two to one. The debates were the most violent that had ever been known in the British parliament; and so important was the subject reckoned, that not only the people of this country, but even the foreign ministers in London, watched the motions of administration with the utmost anxiety.

But all these victories were not sufficient to prevent new enemies from starting up. Petitions had been preparing by the London merchants trading to America, and by those concerned in the West India trade, in order to be presented to the House of Lords. This task was undertaken by the Marquis of Rockingham; but he was prevented from executing it by a previous motion in favour of the address. A long and violent debate, however, ensued concerning the necessity and propriety of receiving them; but it was at length resolved that the petition could not be received consistently with the interest of the kingdom.

In the mean time matters became daily worse in New England; and it was soon perceived, either that the friends of government in that colony did not exert themselves, or that they were far from being so numerous as had been imagined. In order to render their coercive plan the more effectual, therefore, it was judged necessary to extend it so that every individual of the colony might become sensible of the punishment. This, it was supposed, would be done by a bill for restraining the four provinces of New England from commerce with Great Britain, Ireland, and [7:5:401]the British West India islands, and prohibiting them from carrying on the fishery at Newfoundland. The reasons alleged for this proceeding were in substance the same with those for the others; and indeed both parties had now so much exhausted their arguments, that very little new matter remained for either. Every step taken by ministry, and every proposal made by them, however, produced a violent debate; and though they constantly gained the victory, it was not without the mortification of hearing their principles and conduct reprobated in the most opprobrious manner. In the present instance the bill was carried by a very large majority; but a petition against it was quickly presented by the London merchants concerned in the American trade, setting forth the danger which would accrue to the fisheries of Great Britain from such a prohibition. From the evidence produced in support of this petition, it appeared that, ten years before, the American fisheries had been in such a flourishing state, that the four provinces of New England alone employed nearly forty-six thousand tons of shipping and six thousand seamen; and that the produce of the fisheries in the foreign markets had amounted, in the year 1764, to upwards of L.320,000. Since that time, however, they had greatly increased; and what rendered them particularly valuable was, that all the materials used in them, excepting only the timber for building the vessels, and the salt for curing the fish, were purchased in Britain, and the net proceeds of the trade were also remitted thither. Some other considerations were likewise urged as reasons against this bill, particularly the commercial concerns of New England with the city of London, to which alone the colony stood indebted in nearly a million sterling, and the bad consequences of it to the people of Nantucket, who, though inhabiting a barren island off the coast of New England, about fifteen miles in length and three in breadth, containing six thousand inhabitants, kept one hundred and thirty vessels constantly employed in the whale fishery, which they carried on in the north seas, to the coasts of Africa and Brazil, and even as far as the Falkland Islands. The case of Nantucket, in fact, was so strong that the administration were obliged to relax a little, and, of their own accord, afforded this industrious people the relief which they had such just reason to expect. The bill was debated with great animosity in the House of Peers, and produced a remarkable protest, in which the measures of government were spoken of with great severity.

CHAP. XIII.

REIGN OF GEORGE III. AMERICAN WAR.

Force to be sent to America—Lord North’s conciliatory Bill— Ineffectual endeavours of the West India Planters.—Violence of both parties.—Resignation of Lord Effingham and others— Conduct of London and Dublin—Distress of the Country— Last petition of Congress rejected—Whigs and Tories—Their mutual recriminations.—Misfortunes of the Newfoundland fleet. —Difficulty of procuring succours—France and Holland espouse the American cause Hessian auxiliaries—Supplies for the garrison of Boston destroyed or taken—Party animosities— Debates in Parliament—Military operations.—The cause of America believed to be desperate—Expense of the Avar—Surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga—Conduct of Ministers—The French resolve to assist America.—Treaty between France and America.—Charges against administration.—Invasion threatened by the French Exploits of D’Estaign in the West Indies.

—Encounter with Admiral Byron State of the Contest in

America and the West Indies—Condition of the British Navy. —Keppel’s engagement with the French fleet—Subsequent dissensions, and trial of the Admiral.—His acquittal—Board of Admiralty attacked—Resignations of Admirals Keppel, Howe, and others—Inquiry concerning the conduct of the American war—General Burgoyne’s affair.—Accession of Spain to the confederacy against Britain.—Measures for the defence of the nation.—Reduction of some British settlements in Africa.— Unsuccessful attempts on Jersey—Threatened invasion of Great ∣ Britain.—Appearance of the combined fleets of France and Spain in the Channel—Unpopularity of the American war.— Ministry become obnoxious to the people Schemes of economy rejected Unconstitutional influence of Ministers—Mr

Burke’s plan of economy—Defeat of the Ministry on Mr Dunning’s celebrated motion, Gth April 1780—They recover a majority in the House—Catholic Relief Bill.—Disturbances connected with it in Scotland—Conduct of the mob in Edinburgh. —The Protestant Association—Terrible riots in London.— Lord George Gordon committed to the Tower.—Power of the Ministry confirmed Important debate on the employment of military force in cases of disturbance.—Operations of the Avar. —Naval successes.—Armed neutrality—Origin of the war Avith Holland.—Battle off the Doggerbank.—Efforts of Britain— Events of the year 1781—Pertinacity of Ministers—King’s Speech—Debates on the Address—Motions against the American war—NeAv plan proposed by Lord North.—Debates.— Army Estimates—Elevation of Lord George Germaine to the Peerage, and discussion consequent thereon.—Protest.—Motions for an Address against the American war rejected.—One at length carried and presented to the King—Motion against the Ministry, Avho intimate their intention to resign.—Naval and Military operations of 1782 Rodney’s victory on the 12th of

April—Results of this glorious achievement—Spanish armament destroyed before Gibraltar, and the siege raised—Change of Ministry.—Rockingham Administration.—Négociations for Peace Sudden death of the Marquis of Rockingham He is succeeded by Lord Shelburne—Conduct of that Minister.— Provisional treaty Avith America Peace concluded with France,

Spain, and Holland—Estimate of the results of the contest— Narrative of less important events.

The final resolution to reduce the colonies by force being now taken, it became necessary to make proper preparations for the purpose; and in this the conduct of administration was little less censured than in other respects. As the opinion that the Americans were naturally timid, and incapable of becoming soldiers, prevailed greatly at this time, a force of a thousand men was judged sufficient to reduce the province of NeAv England to obedience. The project of ministers was vehemently opposed by the minority. They insisted that the force was totally inadequate, and only calculated to produce expense to no purpose. The first impression, they very justly observed, ought, if possible, to be decisive; and in order to render it so, it was necessary to send such a fleet and army as might insure the confidence of the public, and be certainly capable of surmounting all obstacles. Many of the friends of administration were of the same sentiments; and the only reason assigned for acting otherwise Avas founded on a hope that the Americans Avould, upon more mature consideration, desist from their opposition. That they might the more readily be induced to this submission, Lord North’s conciliatory proposition was formed, by which it was enacted, that when the governor, council, and assembly of any of the colonies, should propose to make a pro-vis∙on for the common defence, and Avhen such provision should be approved of by the king in parliament, the levying or imposing of taxes on that colony should then be forborne; those duties excepted which it might be expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce^ and the net produce of which should be carried to the account of the colony where it had been raised. But this proposal, though highly extolled by the friends of administration, was no less reprobated by the minority than the others had been. Nevertheless, after a lengthened debate, the question was carried in favour of administration by a majority of more than three to one.

A similar fate attended a petition to the throne from the island of Jamaica. Instead of relaxing any thing of their severity, the ministry now included the southern colonies in the restrictions imposed on New England. Still, however, the petitioners were indefatigable in their endeavours[7:5:402] to be heard. The West India merchants and planters seconded their last petition by entering into a lengthened detail of circumstances relating to the British islands in that part of the world. This affair was conducted by Mr Glover, a gentleman celebrated for his literary talents and commercial knowledge. From his investigations it appeared that, exclusive of the intrinsic worth of the islands themselves, their stock in trade and other property amounted to no less than sixty millions; that the exportation to Britain had of late been near two hundred thousand hogsheads and puncheons of sugar and rum, amounting to no less than four millions in value; and that the direct revenue arising from this source was seven hundred thousand pounds, besides that which accrued from the collateral branches depending upon it. These arguments, however, were urged in vain. Conciliatory proposals were made by Mr Burke and Mr Hartley, but they were rejected by great majorities, and instead of serving the cause they were meant to promote, had the very opposite effect. A ciread was entertained of the consequences which might ensue from the republican opinions now so prevalent in the colonies; and all partiality towards them was looked upon in so criminal a light, that their opponents became deaf, on many occasions, to the voice of reason and humanity when urged in their behalf. On the other hand, the favourers of America, urged on by a furious zeal, if not resentment, against those whom they looked upon as the promoters of arbitrary measures, erred equally in their opposition to ministry. And this violence of party spirit appeared not only among the people at large, but broke forth with the utmost fury in parliament, where the debates often resembled the railings of Billingsgate more than the deliberations of the representative assembly of a great and powerful nation.

In this temper of mind the state of affairs was scarcely ever truly represented by either party. Government continued to enact new laws, now in vain, against the Americans; whilst their antagonists opposed them in a manner so little different from that which has been already related, that any further account of the debates would be equally tedious and unnecessary. Other petitions were also presented, and treated with neglect. The union of the colonists, and their preparations for war, were described by the ministerial party as the mere commotions of a headstrong mob, but represented by the opposition as an association of an injured and virtuous people, who were about to found a mighty empire in the west, whilst Britain was doomed to sink into utter disgrace and contempt by their secession. In the same way, the event of the skirmish at Lexington, where the first blood flowed in the contest, was magnified by the one party into a disgraceful defeat, and treated by the other as a trifling affair, to which no regard whatever ought to be paid, far less any inference drawn as to the fate of the war. The battle of Bunkers’ Füll, and all the transactions of the year 1775, were in like manner exaggerated by both parties, though in opposite directions; and the consequence of these misrepresentations was to fan the flame of mutual resentment.

Whilst these altercations continued to agitate the minds of the superior classes of people in Britain, the middle and lower ranks remained in a kind of indifference, or rather were opposed to the proceedings of ministry. This opposition, indeed, had no influence on the councils of the nation, but in other respects it proved exceedingly troublesome. The levies were obstructed, and the recruiting service was never known to go on so heavily; numbers of that description of persons who usually fill the ranks of the army not only refusing the usual offers, but even reprobating loudly the cause in which they were solicited to engage. Several officers of high rank also showed a disinclination to the service. Lord Effingham, who had distinguished himself by his opposition to the ministerial measures, resigned the command of his regiment rather than fight against the cause which he had so warmly espoused; and his example was followed by that of several other officers. For this step Lord Effingham received the thanks of the cities of London and Dublin, both of which were extremely averse to hostilities with America; and the former, indeed, could scarcely restrain itself within any bounds of moderation. After the skirmish at Lexington, the city framed a remonstrance and petition, animadverting severely on the ministry and parliament; and it was not without the greatest difficulty that the more moderate party procured a counter-petition, couched in less reprehensible terms.

In the mean time serious inconveniences, arising from the stoppage of trade, began to be felt in different parts of the nation. The suspension of the sale and purchase of negro slaves in the West Indies and in North America, and the prohibition against exporting'arms and gunpowder, had seriously impeded the trade of Bristol and Liverpool with Africa; in consequence of which a great number of ships which had formerly sailed from these ports were laid up, and nearly three thousand sailors belonging to Liverpool were thrown out of employment. These distresses, however, made no impression' on administration; who having once laid it down as a maxim, that the subjection of America was the greatest political good that could happen to Britain, were, in a conformity with their own principles, obliged to consider every disaster that might occur during the prosecution of this object as a temporary inconvenience, which ought not to be put in comparison with the execution of so great and necessary a design. But whatever might be the views of administration in this respect, it was far otherwise with the generality of the nation. They felt severely the present inconveniences; whilst the probable subjugation of America afforded no solid reason to hope for an equivalent or compensation. It was with the utmost satisfaction, therefore, that they received the news of Mr Penn’s arrival in 1775, with another petition from the congress, to be presented to the king in the first instance, and then given to the public. But their expectations were speedily disappointed. The petition was delivered to Lord Dartmouth on the first of September, and in three days afterwards it was stated that no answer would be given to it. This laconic reply excited no small surprise, more especially as the language of the petition was respectful, and expressed a strong desire for peace and reconciliation; and hence it could only be considered as a formal and deliberate, if not insulting, renunciation of all friendly intercourse with the colonies.

The rejection of this petition served to inflame, more than ever, the mutual resentment of the adverse parties. The obsolete distinction of Whig and Tory was now revived, with such animosity, that Britain itself, as well as America, seemed in danger of becoming the theatre of war and bloodshed. The Torfes were accused of promoting sanguinary addresses, misinforming the government, and circulating false representations, in order to add fuel to the flame already kindled, and produce civil war. They were also upbraided with their attachment to the Stuart family; their incessant machinations to involve the country in civil war; the dissension at home and disgrace abroad which had invariably attended their councils; and their indifference to the honour and interest of the nation, which, from the peace of Utrecht to the present time, they had ever been ready to sacrifice for the advancement of their party. On the other hand, the Tories described the Whigs as the genuine descendants and representatives of the republican incendiaries who, in the last century, had overturned the [7:5:403] constitution and desolated the kingdom; as pretending, indeed, to uphold the liberty of Britain, but, under this mask, as desirous of engrossing all the authority to themselves, and of exercising arbitrary power under a mock semblance of freedom. The real question however was, whether the king and parliament, when united, were to be obeyed or resisted. The Tories insisted that they should be obeyed, the Whigs that they ought to be resisted; and hence there were two parties in Britain, the one of which was of opinion that the colonies, owing obedience to Great Britain in all cases whatsoever, ought, in case of refusal, to be compelled to obey; whilst the other, though it acknowledged as a general principle the existence of the same obligation, deemed it inexpedient and impolitic to enforce it.

The violence of these bickerings, however, was somewhat allayed by serious commercial misfortunes, which occurred abolit this time, and added greatly to the difficulties with which the government had to contend. During the last session of parliament, it had been affirmed that the bill for depriving the people of New England of the benefits of the Newfoundland fishery would redound to the interest of Great Britain, by throwing into her hands the profits which were formerly divided with the colonies. But this prediction was belied by the event. The number of ships fitted out this year was scarcely greater than usual, and the congress had prohibited them from being supplied with provisions; so that not only those on board the ships, but even the inhabitants on the island of Newfoundland itself, were in danger of perishing from want. Many of the ships, therefore, were obliged to go in quest of provisions instead of prosecuting the employment on which they had been sent; and, on the whole, instead of any increase, the profits of the fishery suffered this year a diminution of near L.500,000. Nor was this all. A storm of unprecedented violence occurred in these latitudes during the fishing season; the sea rose fully thirty feet above its ordinary level, and with such rapidity, that no time was allowed for avoiding its fury: upwards of seven hundred fishing boats perished; and several ships foundered, with their whole crews. Nor was the devastation confined to the sea; for the waters broke in upon the land and occasioned prodigious loss and destruction. By these misfortunes, the general stagnation of commerce, and the little success which had hitherto attended the British arms, the mercantile portion of the nation was plunged in despair, and petitions were poured in from all quarters.

But ministers had determined on their course; and the only question now considered was, how it might be most effectually put in execution. For this purpose, application was made to the petty states of Germany, which were wont to hire out their forces, and had frequently sent auxiliaries to Britain in former cases of exigency. But the scheme was fraught with difficulties, owing to the distance of the scene of contest, and the danger of mercenaries deserting a cause in which they had no manner of concern. The princes were also alarmed at the probability of losing for ever so many of their subjects; whilst the latter were not less startled at the prospect of being transported across the ocean into a new world, there to be exposed to all the miseries of war, with very little hope of ever again beholding their native country. Other resources were however devised, such as calling in the assistance of the Hessians, and obtaining from Holland the body of Scottish troops which had been so long in their service. But in these views administration were in a great measure disappointed. All the states of Europe looked upon Britain with an invidious eye; particularly Holland and France, the two powers who had most reason to hope for advantage from the quarrel. In Holland a very strong party contended warmly for the American interest; pamphlets were daily published at Amsterdam in justification of the colonies, whose case was compared to that of the Netherlands in former times; and the colonists were exhorted to persevere in their claims against the pretensions of Britain, which was represented as insatiably covetous of wealth and power; as domineering and intolerable, especially since her successes in the war of 1755; and as arrogating if not exercising an absolute sovereignty over the seas. But although these powers thus early expressed their hostile disposition towards Britain, it was otherwise with the Princes of Hesse and Brunswick, by whom a considerable number of troops was furnished; and, that as many British forces as possible might be employed, large draughts were made from the garrisons of Gibraltar and Minorca, which were supplied with an equal number of men from the electorate of Hanover. The garrison of Boston was liberally furnished with all sorts of necessaries; and although the expenditure already began to occasion considerable alarm, and to raise a suspicion that even the treasures of Britain would not be able to defray the charges of the war, yet some countervailing advantages wer? derived from this profusion; for the price of every thing was augmented, including that of shipping; and although the profits realized by contractors and their numerous friends occasioned complaints, great benefit accrued to multitudes employed in the various branches of the public service. Misfortune, however, seemed to attend every scheme in which Britain engaged, although in the present case it must, in part at least, be ascribed to mismanagement. The sailing of the transports for Boston was delayed till the proper season was lost. They remained for a long time wind-bound; and when at length they were enabled to weigh anchor, they met with such stormy weather that they were tossed about in the Channel till most of the live stock which they had on board perished. Nor did the misfortunes of the convoy end here. After clearing the coast of England, their progress was retarded by a continuance of foul weather; they were driven by the periodical winds from the coast of America; and while some made for the West Indies, others were captured by American privateers, and only a very few reached Boston, with their cargoes so much damaged as to be of little or no use whatever.

With respect to the parliamentary proceedings of this period little can be said, except that every measure of administration, whether right or wrong, was keenly opposed. The employment of foreign troops, and the admitting of them into the fortresses of Gibraltar and Minorca, were severely censured, as being contrary to the bill of rights. But the administration contended that this bill only forbade the introduction of a foreign military power into the kingdom during peace, that the times however were not peaceable, and that the introduction of the troops was evidently with a view to quell a rebellion. The force designed for the conquest of America was then declared to be inadequate to the purpose; but it was replied, on the part of ministry, that the design was to conciliate, not to conquer; that twenty-five thousand men were sufficient to strike terror; and that though this should not instantly be produced, conciliatory offers would still be held out after every blow that was struck.

In the mean time the Americans, sensible of the dangerous situation in which they stood, exerted themselves to the utmost to dislodge the British troops from Boston, which they at length accomplished in March 1776. They then proceeded to put their towns in a state of defence, and repulsed Sir Peter Parker at Charlestown; but they did not exert themselves with equal spirit in the defence of New York, where, besides losing the town, they sustained such a defeat as seemed to threaten their affairs with total ruin. This in fact was the view taken of their situation by the [7:5:404]generality of the people in Britain. The successful campaign of 1776 was looked upon as so decisive, that little room remained for supposing the Americans capable of ever retrieving their affairs. Opposition were much embarrassed, being almost reduced to the single argument about the interference of foreign powers; whilst the obstinacy of the Americans in refusing the offers of Lord Howe, even at the moment of their greatest depression, seemed a very bad omen. The ministry, however, now became so powerful, that whatever they proposed was immediately carried. The number of seamen for 1777 was augmented to forty-five thousand, and upwards of five millions were voted for the expense of the navy, and for discharging its debt. The expenses of the land service amounted to nearly three millions, besides the extraor-dinaries of the former year, which exceeded one million two hundred thousand pounds; and though this vast provision was the subject of great complaint and animadversion, the power of ministry silenced all opposition.

But however administration might now triumph, their exultation was of short continuance. The misfortune of General Burgoyne at Saratoga threw the whole nation into a kind of despair, and reduced the ministry to the utmost perplexity. The great difficulty now was to contrive means for raising a sufficient number of forces to carry on the war; but from this embarrassment they extricated themselves by encouraging levies for government service by cities and private persons; and as the design was kept a profound secret before the Christmas recess, they were not disturbed by the clamours of opposition. The recess was purposely extended in order to give time for the scheme to take effect; and before parliament met again it was actually accomplished, so that ministers could once more face their opponents without any fear.

Another and more weighty consideration, however, now occurred. The European states in general had long beheld the grandeur of Britain with an invidious eye. The news of the disaster at Saratoga was therefore received by them with the same undisguised exultation as the intelligence of the defeat of Charles XII. at Pultowa was by the powers whom he had so long overawed. Of these the French, for obvious reasons, were the most active in supporting the insurgent Americans. Numbers of the young nobility were eager to signalize themselves in the American cause; and among the rest the Marquis de la Fayette, a young nobleman of high rank and fortune, occupied a conspicuous place. Impelled by an enthusiastic ardour in favour of the American cause, he purchased a vessel, loaded her with military stores, and sailed with several of his friends to America, where he offered his services to congress; and meeting with a most gracious reception, he was invested with a command, in which he lost no opportunity of distinguishing himself. Besides this nobleman, several other officers from France and Germany actually entered the American service, and by their military talents greatly contributed to the exertions which the colonies were afterwards enabled to make. This assistance, however, would have been but trifling, had not the French court also interested itself in their behalf; and about the time when the news of General Burgoyne’s disaster arrived in Britain, a treaty was on foot between the French court and the United States of America. Even before this time France had shown such a partiality towards the Americans, as might plainly have indicated a design of ultimately assisting them in their national capacity. The encouragement given to the American privateers in all the ports of France had produced strong remonstrances on the part of Britain; and an order was at length demanded that all these privateers with their prizes should depart the kingdom. With this the French court found it neces sary at that time to comply, lest reprisals should be made by capturing their whole Newfoundland fleet then engag- l ed in the fishery. But so many delays were occasioned on various pretences, that not a single vessel was dismissed from any of their ports; and so far were the French court from entertaining any design of this kind, that in the month of July 1777 the whole body of merchants throughout the kingdom were assured by government that they might depend on protection for their trade with America. Meanwhile the greatest preparations for war were made throughout the whole kingdom of France; and, in fact, the most judicious politicians were of opinion that a rupture with that power would have immediately followed the commencement of hostilities with America. But, whatever might have been the motives of the British ministry, it is certain, that in defiance alike of probability, and of the acrimonious censures of opposition, they continued to pretend ignorance∙of any hostile intentions upon the part of France, until that country of its own accord thought proper to announce them. This was done by a formal notification to the court of Britain in the month of March 1778, couched in the most insolent terms. In this declaration it was announced, not only that a treaty of friendship and commerce had been concluded betwixt France and America, but Britain was insulted by being told that America was actually in possession of independence, as if the former had already exerted her utmost efforts without being able to reduce them. A merit was also made of having entered into no commercial stipulations in favour of France exclusive of Britain. Nothing, therefore, could be more offensive than this notification; and though it could not decently be said, on the part of the French monarch, that he wished for war, yet his pacific intentions were conveyed in such haughty terms, that the whole could only be considered as a declaration of that hostility which he pretended a desire to avoid.

Accordingly both parties now united in opinion that a war with France was unavoidable; but they were not for that reason any further advanced towards a reconciliation. It must be owned, indeed, that the minority had received great provocation. They had from the beginning reprobated the American war, and prognosticated its bad success. In this they had been overruled, and the character of the Americans represented in such a manner as almost to preclude the notion of their being able to resist. They had resisted, however, and by destroying or taking prisoners a whole army, had verified the predictions which had so often been treated with ridicule. The same party had frequently insisted in the most earnest manner for some kind of concession towards America; but this had constantly been refused with an obstinacy equally unparalleled and inveterate. They now, however, saw the very concessions offered to America after the defeat of Burgoyne, which, if granted in time, would have prevented all the mischief that had happened. Add to this, that every inquiry into the measures of government had been frustrated; that a motion on the state of the nation, which could not be absolutely rejected, was rendered ineffectual by delays and evasion; and that the country was involved in war with a nation well provided for all emergencies, whilst we had supinely suffered them to go on without making the least effort to put ourselves in a proper state of defence. For these reasons opposition insisted that, the present ministry ought no longer to be intrusted with the management of public affairs. An acknowledgment of the independence of America was now generally supposed to be the only rational step that could be taken, as it might at present be done with a good grace, and we should unavoidably be obliged to take it at last whether we would or not.
[7:5:405]

Notwithstanding the vehemence of these disputes, however, great courage and steadiness were manifested by the calm and deliberate portion of the nation. The French attempted to excite a general panic by threatening an invasion, which was evidently impracticable, until they had first obtained the superiority at sea; yet as multitudes in the country were apt to be terrified by the bare mention of a French invasion, orders were issued to call out and embody the militia, which was then composed of men in every respect as well exercised and disciplined as any regular troops. It was complained, however, that a French squadron of twelve ships of the line had sailed from Toulon without any obstruction, under the command of the Count d’Estaing. The most grievous apprehensions were entertained from the great inferiority of Lord Howe’s naval force; a circumstance which might expose his fleet to a total defeat, and the whole convoy of transports to be taken or destroyed. But whatever might have been the probabilities of the case, the fortune or conduct of this commander were such, that none of the anticipated dangers occurred. Addresses were, however, moved for recalling the fleets and armies from America, in order to station them in places where they might contribute most effectually to the defence of the kingdom; but this was opposed by administration, and even by some of the most popular members of opposition, including Lord Chatham and the Earl of Shelburne.

The operations of the French in America, with the various success of the war, will be more fully related under the head of United States. It is sufficient here to state that D’Estaing having equally failed in his attempt on the British fleet at New York, and in assisting the allies of France in their attempt on Rhode Island, sailed for the West Indies, where he attacked the island of St Lucia; but meeting with a repulse, he proceeded to Grenada, which he reduced, while a body of troops dispatched by him also took the island of St Vincent. By this time the French admiral had been powerfully reinforced, so that his fleet consisted of twenty-six sail of the line and twelve frigates. Whilst he was employed at Grenada, Admiral Byron, with the British squadron, accompanied the homeward-bound West India fleet till it was out of danger, and then sailed with a body of troops under General Grant for the recovery of St Vincent; but before reaching that island, certain intelligence was received of the descent made on Grenada. Byron then steered directly for that island, where, without hesitation, he encountered the’ French fleet, notwithstanding its great superiority. At this time the French squadron, amounted to twenty-seven sail of the line and seven frigates; whilst that of Britain consisted only of twenty-one line-of-battle ships and one frigate. The British admirals, Byron and Barrington, endeavoured to bring the enemy to a close engagement; but this was as studiously avoided by D’Estaing; and such was the dexterity and circumspection with which he acted, that it was only during the transient movements occasioned by the wind and weather that some of the British ships could close in with their antagonists. But when these occurred, the encounter became so unequal, that the British ships were terribly shattered. For some time Captains Collingwood, Edwards, and Cornwallis, stood the fire of the whole French fleet; and Captain Fanshaw of the Monmouth, a sixty-four gun ship, singly threw himself in the way of the enemy’s van to stop them. Several of the British ships forced their way to the very mouth of St George’s harbour in Grenada; but finding it in the hands of the French, an end was put to the action; nor did the latter care to renew it, although the British ships had suffered much from the greatly superior force to which they had been exposed.

D’Estaing having now received fresh reinforcements, set sail for the continent of America, after convoying the homeward-bound fleet of French merchantmen on their return from the West India islands-He made an attempt on the town of Savannah, but was repulsed with great loss; and the result was, that the fears which had been excited by the superiority of the French in the West Indian seas were effectually dissipated. The islands of Dominica, St Vincent, and Grenada, were indeed lost, the first being taken by the Marquis de Bouille, governor of Martinico and the last two by D’Estaing, as already stated; but these successes were balanced by the failure of the French commander in every other enterprise, by his disaster at the Savannah, and by the acquisition of St Lucia, which was taken in the year 1778 by Admiral Barrington and Generals Prescot and Meadows. In other parts of the West Indian seas also the honour of the British arms was very effectually supported by the bravery and vigilance of the commanders on that station. Admiral Hyde Parker, assisted by Admiral Rowley, kept the enemy in continual alarm, and intercepted the trade of the French islands in such a manner as greatly distressed them. Three large frigates dispatched by Count d’Estaing after his failure in America were taken, and a great part of a convoy seized or destroyed in sight of Μ. de la Motte-Piquet’s squadron in the harbour of Fort Royal at Martinico the admiral himself having narrowly escaped. He had sailed out of the harbour in order to favour the escape of the convoy already mentioned, and, having partly effected his object, withdrew; but he was so closely pursued, that he had scarcely time to shelter himself under the batteries on shore. These successes, which occurred in the years 1778, 1779, and beginning of 1780, kept the event of the war pretty much in a state of equipoise on the western seas and continent; but in the meanwhile the most unhappy dissensions prevailed in every department of the British government in Europe, and threatened to involve the nation in confusion and bloodshed.

Among other charges brought by the opposition against the ministry, that of neglecting the navy was one of the most considerable; nor indeed does it appear that the charge was altogether groundless. Without a fleet, however, it was now impossible to ward off the danger of an invasion. At this time, indeed, it was in a very weak condition; but the valour and experience of the officers seemed in some measure to compensate every deficiency. The chief command was conferred on Admiral Keppel, who had served with great reputation during the last war; whilst Admirals Sir Robert Harland and Sir Hugh Palliser, both officers of undoubted courage and capacity, acted under him. On arriving at Portsmouth, towards the end of March 1778, Admiral Keppel exerted himself so effectually, that, exclusive of those ships which it was found necessary to dispatch to the coast of North America under Admiral Byron, a fleet of twenty sail of the line was got in readiness by the beginning of June, and ten more in a very forward state of preparation. At the head of this fleet Admiral Keppel sailed from Portsmouth on the 13th of June, in order to protect the commercial shipping expected from all parts of the world, and at the same time to watch the motions of the French fleet at Brest.

When the British fleet arrived off the coast of France, two French frigates approached in order to make observations. These proved to be the Licörne of thirty-two, and the Belle Poule of twenty-six guns. A signal to give chase was instantly made, and the Milford frigate having come up with the Licorne towards the close of the day, requested the French, captain to heave to under the British admiral’s stern. The latter refused; but a ship of the line coming up, compelled him to obey. Next morning the Licorne seeming by her motions to be altering her course, a shot was [7:5:406]fired across her bows as a signal to keep it, upon which she discharged a broadside and a volley of small arms into the America of sixty-four guns which lay close to her, and immediately struck. The behaviour of the French captain was the more extraordinary, as Lord Longford, the captain of the America, was at that instant engaged in amicable conversation with him; but though such conduct merited severe chastisement, no return was made for this most unprovoked and wanton aggression. The Arethusa of twenty-six guns, commanded by Captain Marshall, with the Alert cutter, was meanwhile in pursuit of the Belle Poule, which was also accompanied by a schooner, and the chase was continued till both were out of sight of the fleet. On coming up, Captain Marshall informed the French captain of his orders to bring him to the admiral, and requested his compliance. The Frenchman refused to obey, upon which the Arethusa fired a shot across the Belle Poule, which the latter returned with a discharge of her broadside, and the engagement thus commenced continued upwards of two hours with the greatest fury. The Belle Poule was superior not only in numbers, but also in weight of metal; her guns being all twelve pounders, while those of the Arethusa were only six. But notwithstanding this inferiority, the latter maintained so desperate a fight, that the French frigate suffered a much greater loss of men than the British, having nearly a hundred killed and wounded, whilst the Arethusa scarcely lost half that number. During the engagement between the two frigates, Captain Fairfax in the Alert attacked the French schooner, which was of much the same force, and the contest continued two hours with great bravery on both sides, when the latter struck to the English cutter. The Arethusa received so much damage, that she became almost unmanageable; and although the captain endeavoured to put her in a condition to continue the engagement, he was unable to effect his object. Being at the same time upon the enemy’s coast, and close in the shore, the danger of grounding in such a situation obliged him to act with the more caution, more especially as by this time it was midnight. Meanwhile the Belle Poule stood into a small bay surrounded with rocks, where she was protected from all attacks; and as soon as it was day-light, a number of boats came out from the shore, and towed her into a place of safety. Notwithstanding the evident superiority of force on the side of the French, this action was extolled by them as a proof of singular bravery, and the account of it received with as much triumph as if it had been a victory.

On the 18th of June, the day following the action with the Belle Poule, another frigate fell in with the British fleet, and was seized by the admiral’s orders, on account of the behaviour of the Licorne. The capture of these French frigates furnished intelligence which proved of the utmost importance, at the same time that it was highly alarming. It was ascertained that the fleet at Brest consisted of thirty-two sail of the line and twelve frigates; and this proved in every respect a most fortunate discovery, as the admiral had under his orders only twenty ships of the line and three frigates. As the superiority of the enemy was so decided, and as the consequences of a defeat would have been fatal to this country, the admiral thought himself bound in prudence to return to Portsmouth for reinforcements. He reached Spithead on the 27th of June, and remained till the arrival of the ships from the Mediterranean and the Spanish and Portuguese trade; while the summer fleet from the West Indies brought him a further supply of seamen, and enabled him to put to sea again with an addition of ten ships of the line. But still there was a deficiency of frigates, owing to the great numbers on the American station, and the necessity of manning the ships of the line in preference to all others.

In the mean time the preparations at Brest being fully completed, the French fleet put to sea on the 8th of July. It consisted of thirty-two sail of the line, besides a large number of frigates; and Count d’Orvilliers commanded in chief, while the other principal officers were Counts Du-chaffault, de Guichen, and de Grasse, Μ. de Rochechoart and Μ. de la Motte-Piquet. A prince of the blood royal had also been sent to serve on board of this fleet; we mean the Duke of Chartres, son and heir to the Duke of Orleans, and first prince of the blood royal of France in the collateral line, who commanded one of the divisions in the capacity of admiral. On the 9th day of July, the British fleet sailed out of Portsmouth in three divisions; the first commanded by Sir Robert Harland, the third by Sir Hugh Palliser, and the centre by Admiral Keppel, accompanied by Admiral Campbell, an officer of great courage and merit. The French had been informed that the British fleet was greatly inferior to their own, which was true at the time when they received the information; and being yet unapprised of the reinforcement it had received, Count d’Orvilliers sailed at first in quest of it, intending to attack it while in the weak condition represented to him.

As the British admiral was equally intent on coming to action as soon as possible, they were not long before they met. The hostile fleets came in sight on the 23d of July; but the appearance of the British ships soon convinced the French admiral of his mistake, and he immediately determined to avoid an engagement as anxiously as he had formerly sought it; and in this he was favoured by the approach of night. All that could be done by the British, therefore, was to form the line of battle, in expectation that the enemy would follow the example. During the night the wind changed, and the French getting the weather-gage, had the choice of coming to action or of declining it entirely in their own power, whilst the British admiral was deprived of the opportunity of forcing them to engage as he had proposed. During the space of four days matters continued in this state; the French cautiously avoiding a battle, and the British beating up against the wind with a resolution to attack them. But notwithstanding all his efforts, the British admiral had the mortification to see his endeavours defeated by the vigilance and precaution of the enemy. The chase lasted till the 27th of July. But between ten and eleven in the morning of that day, an alteration of wind and weather occasioned several movements in both fleets, which brought them so near each other, that it was no longer in the power of the enemy to decline an engagement. Both fleets were now on the same tack, and had they so remained, the British fleet on coming up with the French would have had an opportunity of engaging ship to ship; but as this was a mode of combating quite contrary to the wishes of the enemy, their admiral, as soon as he found an action likely to ensue, put his ships on the contrary tack, by which means a close action was avoided. As soon as the van of the British fleet, consisting of Sir Robert Harland’s division, came up, they directed their fire upon it, though at too great a distance to make any impression; but the fire was not returned by the British ships till they came close enough to do execution. In this manner the hostile fleets passed close to each other on opposite tacks, keeping up a very heavy and destructive fire.

The centre division of the British line having passed the rearmost ships of the enemy, the first care of the admiral was to renew the engagement as soon as the ships of the different fleets yet in action had got clear of each other respectively. Sir Robert Harland, with some ships of his division, had already tacked, and stood towards the French; but the remaining part of the fleet had not yet tacked, and some had dropped to leeward, and were repairing[7:5:407] the damages which they had received in the action. His own ship the Victory had suffered too much to tack about instantly; and had he done it he would have thrown the ships astern of him into disorder. As soon as it was practicable, however, the Victory wore, and steered again upon the enemy before any other ship of the centre division, not above three or four of which were able to follow the example. The other ships not having recovered their stations near enough to support each other on a renewal of the action, in order to collect them more readily for that purpose the admiral made the signal for the line of battle ahead. It was now three in the afternoon; but the ships of the British fleet had not sufficiently regained their stations to engage. The Victory lay nearest the enemy, with the four ships above mentioned, and seven more of Sir Robert Harland’s division. These twelve were the only ships in any condition for immediate service; of the others belonging to the centre and to Sir Robert Harland’s division, three were a great way astern, and five at a considerable distance to leeward, much disabled in their rigging. Sir Hugh Palliser, who commanded the rear division during the time of action, in which he had behaved with signal bravery, came of course last out of it, and, in consequence of the admiral’s signal for forming the line of battle ahead, was to have led the van on renewing the fight; but his division was upon the contrary tack, and was entirely out of the line. The French, on the other hand, expecting to be directly re-attacked, had closed together in tacking, and were now spreading themselves into a line of battle. But on discovering the position of the British ships which had fallen to leeward, they immediately stood towards them in order to cut them off. This obliged the admiral to wear, and to steer athwart the enemy’s foremost division, in order to secure them; directing, at the same time, Sir Robert Harland to form his division in aline astern, in order to confront the enemy till Sir Hugh Palliser should come up, and enable him to act more effectually. In moving to the protection of the leeward ships the admiral was now drawing near the enemy. As Sir Hugh Palliser still continued to windward, he made a signal for all the ships in that quarter to come into his wake, and Sir Hugh repeated this signal; but it was unluckily mistaken by the ships of his division for an order to come into his own wake, which they did accordingly; and as he still remained in his position, they retained theirs of course. Sir Robert Harland was now directed to take his station ahead, and the signal was repeated for Sir Hugh Palliscr’s division to come into his wake; but this signal was not complied with, any more than a verbal message to that purpose, and other subsequent signals for Sir Hugh’s division coming into its station in the line, before it was too late to recommence any operations against the enemy. In the night, the French resolved to put it wholly out of the power of the British fleet to attack them a second time; and for this purpose three of their swiftest sailing vessels were fixed in the stations occupied during the day by the three flag ships of the respective divisions, with lights at their mast heads, to deceive the British fleet into the belief that the French fleet kept its position with an intent to fight next morning. Protected by this stratagem, the remainder of the French fleet drew off unperceived during the night, and retired with all speed towards Brest, which they entered the following day. Their departure was not discovered till break of day; but it was too late to pursue them, as they were only discernible from the mast heads of the largest ships in the British fleet. The admiral then made the best of his way to Plymouth, as being the nearest port, in order to put his fleet into a proper condition to return in quest of the enemy.

This action, whatever might have been the merit of the commanders, proved a source of fatal animosity. The bulk of the nation had so long been accustomed to hear of great and glorious victories at sea, that it was supposed a kind of impossibility for a French and British fleet to encounter without the total ruin of the former. The event of the last engagement, therefore, became an object of severe criticism; and complaints were made, that, through the bad conduct of the blue division, an opportunity had been lost of gaining a complete victory over the French fleet. These complaints were quickly introduced into the public papers; and were carried on with a warmth and vehemence which threw the whole nation into a ferment. The friends of Sir Hugh Palliser, the vice-admiral of the blue, were no less violent in the defence of his conduct than his opponents were in its condemnation; whilst those who espoused the cause of the admiral manifested equal determination in accusing him of being the real cause of the escape of the French fleet, through his disobedience of the signals and orders of his commander, and by remaining at a distance with his division, instead of coming to the assistance of the rest of the fleet. An accusation of so weighty a nature alarmed Sir Hugh Palliser, who in consequence applied to Admiral Keppel for a justification of his conduct, and required of him to sign and publish a paper relative to the engagement of the 27th of July, stating, that he did not intend by his signals on the evening of that day to renew the battle then, but only to be in readiness for the next morning. The admiral rejected this demand, on which Sir Hugh Palliser published, in one of the daily papers, a variety of details concerning the engagement, reflecting severely on the conduct of the admiral, and prefacing the whole by a letter signed with his name. An attack so public, and so detrimental to his character, induced Admiral Keppel to declare to the admiralty, that unless Sir Hugh Palliser explained this matter to his satisfaction, he could not, consistently with his reputation, ever again act in conjunction with that officer.

This altercation having occurred before the meeting of parliament, was of course noticed when it assembled. In the House of Peers an inquiry was demanded into the conduct of the commanders of the fleet on the 27th of July; and in the House of Commons it was urged, that as Admiral Keppel had expressed a public refusal to serve in conjunction with Sir Hugh Palliser, the cause of such a declaration ought to be investigated. Admiral Keppel and Sir Hugh Palliser, who were both present in the house upon this occasion, spoke severally on the point in question; and after a keen debate, a motion was made for an address to the crown to bring Sir Hugh Palliser to a trial for his behaviour in the late engagement with the French fleet. To this motion Sir Hugh Palliser replied, in a speech of great heat and vehemence, that he had already demanded and obtained a court-martial on Admiral Keppel, whom he now charged with having, through his misconduct, caused the failure of success in that engagement. This intelligence was received with astonishment in the house. It had been, and still continued to be, the general desire of individuals of all parties, to heal the breach between these officers at a time when the services of both were so much needed; and it was therefore with deep concern that the house learned the determination which had been taken to bring Admiral Keppel to a trial. The admiral, however, conducted himself on this occasion with remarkable temper and coolness. He acquiesced without reluctance in the orders which had been given him to prepare for a trial of his conduct; and he expressed a hope, that, upon inquiry, it would be found to have been neither dishonourable to his country nor discreditable to himself.

But the conduct of the board of admiralty in admitting [7:5:408]the charges against Admiral Keppel, and appointing a trial, was strongly censured in the house, upon the ground that it was their duty to labour with the utmost earnestness, and exert their whole official influence, to stifle an unhappy disagreement, the consequences of which might be highly detrimental to the public service, instead of promoting the dispute, by consenting to bring it to a judicial and public hearing. On the other hand, it was observed, that the admiralty could not, consistently with the impartiality which they owed to every officer of the navy, refuse to receive all matters of complaint relating to subjects in their department; that they .had no right to decide on the merits of any case laid before them, but were bound to refer it to a court composed of naval officers, who were the only proper and competent judges in professional matters; that, in conformity with these principles, they left the decision of the present altercation to the gentlemen of the navy, whose honour and integrity in all instances of this kind had never been called in question, and by whose verdict every officer in that branch of the service must wish to stand or fall. The arguments upon this subject being urged with much heat and vehemence, generated uncommon animosity, and gave rise to a spirit of contention which diffused itself among all classes of society. Individuals of every rank and profession engaged in it with as much zeal as if they had been personally concerned in the issue; and the dissatisfaction that prevailed among the upper classes in the navy appeared in a memorial presented to the king by twelve of’the oldest and most distinguished admirals, at the head of whom was Lord Hawke, condemning the conduct of Sir Hugh Palliser without reserve, and censuring that of the admiralty itself, as establishing a precedent pregnant with the most ruinous consequences to the naval service. The majority of those who subscribed this memorial were not only officers of the highest rank and importance in the navy, but unconnected with the opposition, and attached by various motives to the court and ministry; so that their conduct in this instance must have been uninfluenced by party considerations.

No business of consequence was discussed in either house of parliament during the trial, which began upon the 7th of January 1779, and lasted till the 11 th of February ensuing. After a lengthened and minute investigation, the court-martial acquitted Admiral Keppel, in the most complete and honourable manner, of all the charges which had been brought against him; he was declared to have acted the part of a judicious, brave, and experienced officer; and the accusation was censured in the severest manner. Both houses of parliament then voted him their thanks for the eminent services he had performed; the city of London conferred on him every mark of honour and respect it could bestow; and the nation re-eehoed with his praise; whilst the resentment against his accuser was so strong as to constrain him to retire wholly from public life, and to resign all his employments. But notwithstanding the high degree of national favour and esteem in which Admiral Keppel stood, he thought it prudent to withdraw from a situation in which he fouìĩd himself not acceptable to those in power, and accordingly resigned his command.

The conduct of those who presided at the admiralty board now became an object of severe censure; and a number of faets were cited to prove, that for many years past they had acted in a manner highly reprehensible. The debates were uncommonly animated; and a resolution for censuring the conduct of the admiralty was lost by a majority of only thirty-four. Administration, however, still kept their ground; and although a second attempt was made to show that the state of the navy was incommensurate with the vast sums bestowed upon it, the point was again lost by nearly the same majority as before. But however victorious they might be in divisions, the con- ’ duct of the admiralty was far from giving general satisfaction. Following the example of Admiral Keppel, Lord Howe declared his resolution to relinquish the service while it continued under the present system of management; and his resignation was followed by that of Sir Robert Harland, Sir John Lindsay, and several others; nay, so general bad the dislike to the service now become, that no fewer than twenty captains of the first distinction proposed to go in a body to resign their commissions at once; and they were prevented doing so only by the urgent occasion there was at that time for their services.

The same feeling whieh led to these resignations produced a direct attack upon Lord Sandwich, then first lord of the admiralty. But though in this as in other cases the ministry were victorious, they could not prevent an inquiry into the cause of our want of success in the American war. This was insisted upon by Lord Howe and General Howe, whose conduct had been so much reflected upon, that a vindication became absolutely necessary. The inquiry was indeed singularly disagreeable to the administration, and consequently evaded as long as possible. From the evidence of Lord Cornwallis and other officers of high rank, however, it appeared that the forces sent to America were at no time sufficient to reduce it; that the Americans were almost universally unfriendly to the British cause; and that from the nature of the country, the conquest of it would be attended with great difficulties. It was also proved, that, from its great strength, the camp of the Americans on Long Island could not have been attacked with any probability of success, after their defeat in 1776, owing to the want of artillery and other necessaries. In every instance, therefore, the general’s conduct was shown to have been judicious and proper. But these facts being directly at variance with the view which the ministry wished to countenance, counter-evidence was produced, in order to invalidate the testimony of the respectable witnesses above mentioned, and Major-general Robertson, and Mr Joseph Galloway, an American gentleman, were examined. According to the evidence of Mr Galloway especially, the conduct of General Howe had not been unexceptionable; the greater part of the Americans were friendly to the cause of Britain; the country was not so full of obstructions as had been represented; the woods and forests formed no obstruction to the marching of armies in as many columns as they pleased; and soldiers might carry provisions for nineteen days on their backs. Upon such extravagant assertions, proceeding undoubtedly from ignorance, no stress whatever could be laid; yet they fully answered the purpose of ministry at this time, namely procrastination, and preventing the disagreeable truths elicited in the course of the inquiry from striking the minds of the public too forcibly.

The event of this inquiry, however, encouraged General Burgoyne to insist for an examination of his conduct, which indeed had been so unmercifully censured, that even the ministers began to think he had suffered too much, and that he ought to be allowed to vindicate himself. He was accordingly permitted to bring witnesses in his own behalf, and from the evidence produced, it appeared that he had acted the part both of a general and a soldier; that the attachment of his army to him was so great, that no dangers or difficulties could shake it; and that, even when all their patience and courage were found to be ineffectual, they were still ready to obey his commands, and die with arms in their hands. A great number of other particulars relating to his expedition were also cleared up; several charges against him were refut-ęd; and it appeared that the Americans, far from being [7:5:409]the contemptible enemy they had been called, were intrepid and resolute antagonists.

After the resignation of Admiral Keppel, the command of the Channel fleet was bestowed on Sir Charles Hardy, a brave and experienced officer, but now advanced in years, having retired from the service with the design of not returning to it, and being at that time governor of Greenwich hospital. The choice of an admiral to command this fleet was now of the greatest importance, on account of the accession of Spain to the general confederacy which took place during the present year. This determination was formally intimated by the Spanish minister on the 17th of June 1779, and was attended with new but ineffectual proposals for an accommodation with America, and the removal of the ministry. The imminent danger, however, to which the nation was now exposed, required vigorous exertion; and various projects for its internal defence were laid before the parliament. The spirit and magnanimity displayed on this occasion did the highest honour to the national character, and fully justified the opinion entertained of its valour and resources. All parts of the kingdom seemed actuated by a desire to concur in every measure necessary for its defence; large sums were subscribed by persons of rank and affluence; and companies were raised, and regiments formed, with an alacrity which quickly banished all apprehensions for the safety of the country.

On the other hand, the French, thinking themselves secure of victory by the accession of Spain, began to extend their schemes of conquest; and a squadron was fitted out under the command of the Marquis de Vaudreuil, destined to reinforce the fleet commanded by D’Estaing. But before proceeding to its destination, this squadron made an attack on the British settlements on the rivers Senegal and Gambia, which were easily conquered. On this occasion the French quitted their own island of Goree, which was soon afterwards taken possession of by Sir Edward Hughes, when on his way to the East Indies. But these distant conquests being insufficient to produce any serious impression, it was resolved to strike a blow nearer home, by the conquest of Jersey and Guernsey. An attempt was accordingly made on these islands, but with so little success that not a single man could be disembarked on the spot which they intended to conquer. The enterprise, however, proved indirectly serviceable to the cause of America. A fleet of four hundred merchantmen and transports was at this time on the point of sailing for New York, under the conduct of Admiral Arbuthnot; but that officer, informed of the attack on Jersey, thought it his duty to go to the assistance of that island rather than proceed on his voyage; and this delay was followed by another, occasioned by bad weather, so that the fleet, which was laden with warlike stores and necessaries, did not arrive till the end of August, and several important enterprises projected by Sir Henry Clinton were in consequence abandoned. The French, however, determined to make a second attempt on Jersey; but their squadron, being attacked by another under Sir James Wallace, was driven on shore in a small bay on the coast of Normandy, under cover of a battery, and pursued by the British commander, who silenced the battery, took a thirty-four gun frigate, with two rich prizes, and burned two other frigates and several vessels besides.

Thus disappointed in the attempt on Jersey, the court of France next projected an invasion of Great Britain itself; and the preparations for the enterprise, whether serious or not, were so formidable, as justly to excite a considerable alarm iţı this country. Not only were the best troops in the French service marched down to the coasts of the British Channel, but transports were provided in great numbers, and many general officers promoted; the persons who were to .command this important expedition were also named by the government. A junction was formed between the French and Spanish fleets, in spite of the endeavours of the British to prevent it; and the combined fleets made their appearance in the British seas with upwards of sixty ships of the line, besides a vast number of frigates and other armed vessels. But all this formidable preparation ended in the capture of only a single ship, the Ardent, of sixty-four guns. The combined fleets had passed the British fleet under Sir Charles Hardy in the mouth of the Channel without observing him; and then sailing along the coast of England, they came in sight of Plymouth, .where they captured the Ardent, as already mentioned; after which they returned, without making the least attempt to effect a landing. The British admiral made good his entrance into the Channel without opposition, on the enemy quitting it, which a strong easterly wind obliged them to do; and he endeavoured to entice them up the Channel in pursuit of him; but the great sickness and mortality on board their ships obliged them to retire, in order, as they alleged, to recruit the health of their crews. Thus ended the first, and indeed the greatest exploit performed by the combined fleets in the British seas. An annual parade of a similar kind was afterwards kept up, and as formally opposed on the part of the British; but no act of hostility was ever committed by either of the Channel fleets against each other.

Though the pusillanimity manifested by the combined fleets was such that the French themselves were ashamed of it, the appearance of them in the Channel furnished opposition with abundance of matter for declaYňation. All ranks of men, indeed, now began to be wearied of the American war; and even those who had formerly been the most zealous in recommending coercive measures were at length convinced of their utter inutility. The calamitous effects produced by the continuation of these measures, indeed, had by this time rendered the greater part of the people exceedingly averse to the war; and the almost universal wish was, that the oppressive burden of the American contest should be cast off, and the entire national strength exerted against those whom we had been accustomed to consider as our natural enemies. Nevertheless, the national spirit continued to be exerted with unabated vigour. Large sums, subscribed in the several counties, were employed in raising volunteers, and forming them into independent companies; and associations were also entered into in the towns, where the inhabitants bestowed a considerable portion of their time in training themselves to the use of arms. The East India Company, too, forgot their quarrels with ministry, and not only presented government with a sum sufficient for levying six thousand seamen, but at its own cost added three seventy-four gun ships to the navy.

Administration, however, not yet weary of the plans which they had originally adopted, seemed still inclined to prosecute schemes of conquest. The virulence of opposition continued unabated; and, what was worse, every part of the kingdom seemed to imbibe the sentiments of the minority in parliament. Amongst the charges now brought against ministers was that of misapplying the national force. An hundred thousand men were employed for the internal defence of the kingdom. The army of Great Britain at this time fell little short of three hundred thousand men; the navy amounted to three hundred sail, including frigates and armed vessels; twenty millions had been expended on the service of the year 1779; and yet, with all this force and treasure, the utmost boast that ministers could make was, that the enemy had hitherto been kept at bay. Nor were the other charges of a less grave description. Veteran pfficers had been passed over to make room for persons of inferior merit; whilst the discontents and miserable state [7:5:410]of Ireland, the loss of the West India islands, and other disasters, were all put to the account of ministers; and it was alleged that the universal cry of the nation was for their dismission. To all this ministry replied by denying or attempting to refute every allegation, and at last, after several stormy debates, gained their point of an address without an amendment, by large majorities in both houses.

But the enormous expense incurred in carrying on the war occasioned such general alarm, that it was no longer possible to refuse complying with some scheme of economy, or at least giving it a patient hearing. The Duke of Richmond proposed that the crown should set the example, and moved for an address to this purpose; but the motion was negatived. The Earl of Shelburne next brought the subject under the consideration of parliament; and having, in a very elaborate speech, compared the expenses of former times with the present, and shown the immense disparity, he moved that the expenditure of the vast sums annually sunk in extraordinaries should be brought under some control, and that to extend the public expenses beyond the sums granted by parliament, was an invasion of its peculiar and exclusive rights. But although the Earl of Shelburne’s motion was rejected, and some others of a similar tendency shared the same fate, the minds of the people were far from being conciliated to the views of ministers. On the contrary, an opinion began to prevail that they exercised an unconstitutional influence over the representatives of the nation, and that as this influence had recently been greatly augmented, nothing short of a change in the constitution of parliament could remedy the evil complained of. Accordingly, on the 30th of December 1779, a petition to this effect was framed in the city of York, where a number of the most respectable people in the county had assembled; and sixty-one gentlemen were appointed as a committee for carrying into effect the object contemplated by the petitioners. The York petition was followed by others of a similar description from twenty-seven of the principal counties and largest towns in England; while severe and even opprobrious language was used in the county meetings respecting both the ministry and the parliament.

The emissaries of America and the other enemies of Great Britain are said to have been active in fomenting these discords, which at this period rose to a height unknown for a century past. But the ministry continued firm, and, previous to taking any of the petitions into consideration, insisted on going through the business of the supplies.

At length, in the beginning of February 1780, a plan was brought forward by Mr Burke, for securing the independence of parliament, and introducing economy into the various departments of government. He proposed the abolition of the offices of treasurer, comptroller, and cofferer of the household; of treasurer of the chamber, master of the household, the board of green cloth, and several other places under the steward of the household; of the great and removing wardrobe, the jewel office, the robes, board of works, and the civil branch of the board of ordnance. Other reformations were also suggested; but though the temper of the times obliged the minister to admit the bills, and even to pretend an approbation of the plan, he had no serious intention of acquiescing in the scheme to its full extent, or indeed in any part, if he could possibly help it. When.the plan, therefore, came to be considered in detail, he was provided with objections to every part of it. But the general temper of the people without doors had now affected many of the members of parliament, and caused them to desert their old standard. An economical plan proposed in the House of Lords by the Earl of Shelburne was rejected by a narrow majority, and in the lower house matters went still worse. The first proposition in Mr Burke’s plan was to abolish the office of secretary of state for the colonies; and the utmost efforts of administration could preserve this office only by a majority of seven. The board of trade, however, was abolished by a majority of nine; but this was the only defeat sustained by ministry at present, all the rest of the plan being rejected excepting only one clause, by which it was enacted that the offices of lieutenant and ensign in the yeomen of the guards should no longer be sold, but given to officers in the army and navy on half pay, and of fifteen years’ standing in their respective departments of service.

But the administration were destined to sustain a still more mortifying defeat than that which they had met with in the abolition of the board of trade. The 6th of April being the day appointed for taking into consideration the numerous petitions already mentioned, the subject of these was introduced by Mr Dunning, in an elaborate speech, in which he dwelt on the numerous attempts which had been made to introduce reformation and economy into the plans of government, and which had been defeated by ministerial artifice, or overthrown by mere dint of numbers; and he concluded by moving the celebrated resolution, that “the influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.” After a long and stormy debate, this motion was carried; upon which Mr Dunning further moved, that the House of Commons was as competent to examine into and correct abuses in the expenditure of the civil list as in any other branch of the public revenue; and this was followed by a third resolution, moved by Mr Thomas Pitt, that it was the duty of the house to provide an immediate and effectual redress of the abuses complained of in the petitions. The ministry now interposed with a request that nothing further might be done at that sitting; but such was the temper of the house, that both these motions were carried without a division.

Ministry had never experienced such a complete defeat, nor been treated with so much asperity of language. The news of the proceedings of the day were received by the people at large with as much joy as if a complete victory over a foreign enemy had been announced. Opposition, however, though masters of the field at present, did not imagine that they had obtained any permanent victory, and therefore resolved to make the most of the advantages they had gained. Accordingly, at the next meeting it was moved by Mr Dunning, that to ascertain the independence of parliament, and remove all suspicion of its being under undue influence, there should, every session, seven days after the meeting of parliament, be laid before the house an account of all the sums issued out of the civil list, or any other branch of the revenue, since the last recess, in favour of any of its members; and this passed with little difficulty. But when he moved that the treasurers of the chamber and household, the cofferer, comptroller, and master of the household, with the clerks of the green cloth, and their deputies, should be excluded from having seats in the house, a warm debate ensued, and the motion was carried only by a majority of two. This was the last triumph of the popular party; their next motion, for the exclusion of revenue officers, being thrown by a majority of twenty-seven. A final effort was however made by Mr Dunning, who proposed an address to the throne against proroguing or dissolving the parliament, until measures had been taken to prevent the improper influence complained of in the petitions; but on a division the motion was lost by a very considerable majority. Ministry would gladly have screened their friends from the vengeance of opposition, alleging the lateness of the hour, it being then past midnight; but the Speaker perceiving Mr Fox about [7:5:411]to rise, insisted that the house should remain sitting; and thus the deserters from the popular party were condemned to hear their conduct set forth in terms such as were never perhaps applied on any other occasion to members of the British senate.

The last victory of administration confirmed the unfavourable opinion which the people had conceived of the majority of their representatives; and in the height of the ill humour which the conduct of the parliament had created in the multitude, those discontents broke out which were so near involving the kingdom in a species of civil war. The hardships under which individuals of the Roman Catholic persuasion laboured in this country had lately engaged the consideration of enlightened and liberal-minded men; whilst the inutility as well as absurdity of persecuting people from whom no danger was to be apprehended, and who were not suspected of disaffection to the civil constitution of this country, had induced several persons of rank and influence to undertake to procure them relief from the disabilities under which they laboured. Meanwhile the calamities of the times had afforded the Catholics a proper occasion for manifesting their attachment to government; and accordingly they presented a loyal and dutiful address to the king, containing the strongest assurances of affection and fidelity to his person and civil government. They declared that their exclusion from many of the benefits of that constitution had not diminished their reverence for it; that they had patiently submitted to such restrictions and discouragements as the legislature thought expedient, and had thankfully received such relaxation of the rigour of the laws as the mildness of an enlightened age and the benignity of the British government had gradually produced; that they submissively waited, without presuming to suggest either time or measure, for such other indulgence as the happy causes alluded to could not fail in their own season to effect; that their dissent from the legal establishment in matters of religion was purely conscientious; that they held no opinions adverse to his majesty’s government, or repugnant to the duties of good citizens; that they thought it their duty to assure his majesty of their unreserved affection to his government, of their unalterable attachment to the cause and welfare of the country, and their detestation of the designs and views of any foreign power against the dignity of the crown and the safety and tranquillity of the people; and that, though they did not presume to point out the particular means by which they might be allowed to testify their zeal and their wishes to serve the country, they would be perfectly ready, on every occasion, to give such proofs of their fidelity, and of the purity of their intentions, as his majesty’s wisdom and the sense of the nation should at any time deem expedient. This address was presented to the king on the 1st of May 1778, and was signed by the Duke of Norfolk, the Earls of Surrey and Shrewsbury, the Lords Stourton, Petre, Arundel, Dormer, Teynham, Clifford, and Linton; and by a hundred and sixty-three commoners of rank and fortune.

The only obstacle which stood in the way was the difficulty of overcoming the prejudices of the lower classes, who were disposed to disapprove of and condemn any indulgence shown to those of a persuasion which they had been taught to regard with horror and detestation. But notwithstanding the prepossessions of the vulgar, it was resolved by several individuals of generous and liberal sentiments, to espouse their cause as far as it could be done consistently with the principles of the constitution and the general temper of the times. And the circumstance of their being patronized by some of the principal leaders of opposition was greatly in their favour; for it showed that those who professed to be the most strenuous friends of freedom and the constitution did not imagine that these would be endangered by treating the Roman Catholics with more lenity than they had hitherto experienced. Accordingly, about the middle of May, Sir George Saville made a motion for the repeal of some of the disqualifications under which the Catholics laboured. He grounded his motion on the necessity of vindicating the honour and asserting the true principles of the Protestant religion, of which the peculiar merit consisted in an abhorrence of persecution. He represented the address above quoted as a convincing proof of the loyal disposition of the Roman Catholics, and as an unfeigned testimony of the soundness of their political principles; and, to silence the objections of those who might suspect the Catholics of duplicity, a test was proposed of so binding and solemn a nature, that no authority could annul its efficacy.

The pains and penalties of the statutes to be repealed were laid before the house by Mr Dunning. By these statutes it was made felony in a foreign clergyman of the Catholic communion, and high treason in one who was a native of this kingdom, to teach the doctrines, or perform divine service according to the rites, of that church; the estates of persons educated abroad in the Catholic persuasion were forfeited to the next Protestant heir; a son, or any other nearest relation, being a Protestant, was empowered to take possession of his own father’s, or nearest kinsman’s estate, during their lives; and a Roman Catholic was disabled from acquiring any legal property by purchase. The mildness of the British government did not indeed countenance the enforcement of the severities enacted by these statutes; but still the prospect of gain subjected every man of the Roman Catholic persuasion to the ill usage of informers; and on the evidence of such miscreants the magistrates were bound, however unwilling, to put these cruel laws in execution.

In consequence of such representations, the motion made in favour of the Roman Catholics was received without a dissentient voice; and a bill conformable thereto was brought into and passed through both houses. The test or oath to be taken by the Catholics was conceived in the strongest terms. They were to swear allegiance to the king’s person and family, and to abjure especially the pretensions to the crown assumed by the person called Charles III. They were to declare their disbelief and detestation of the doctrines, that it is lawful to put individuals to death on pretence of their being heretics; that no faith is to be kept with heretics; that princes excommunicated by the pope and council, or by the see of Rome, or any other authority, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or by any others; and that the pope of Rome, or any other foreign prelate or sovereign, is entitled to any temporal or civil jurisdiction or pre-eminence, either directly or indirectly, in this kingdom. And they were solemnly to profess, that they made the aforesaid declarations with the utmost sincerity, and in the strictest and plainest meaning of the words and language of the test, without harbouring a secret persuasion that any dispensation from Rome, or any other authority, could acquit or absolve them from the obligations contracted by this oath, or declare it null and void.

The favour shown to the Roman Catholics in England encouraged those of the same persuasion in Scotland to hope for a similar relief; and several Scottish gentlemen of high rank and character, who had seats in the house, not only expressed their warmest wishes for the extension of the indulgence to their own country, but declared their intention to bring in a bill for the purpose the ensuing session. The design was approved of by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; and a petition on behalf of the [7:5:412]Roman Catholics in Scotland was in consequence prepared. But these favourable prospects were for a time obscured by a dense cloud of religious fanaticism, looming large and high in the political horizon. A pamphlet appeared, in which the doctrines and professors of the Roman Catholic religion were represented, the former as damnable, and the latter as the common foes of mankind and the disturbers of all states; and this inflammatory production being circulated among every class, raised up a great number of enemies to the intended petition. The opposition was at first chiefly conducted by persons at Edinburgh, who assumed the title of The Committee for the Protestant Interest, and under that denomination carried on a correspondence with all those who coincided in their opinions, being in fact a very large proportion of the common people in Scotland. This committee, from its residence in the capital of the kingdom, was naturally supposed to consist of persons of weight and influence; and hence it in a manner directed the motions of all the others. The persons of whom it was composed, however, acted from honest though mistaken views. They aimed only at the. preservation of the Protestant religion and the liberties of their country, which they conceived to be endangered by the indulgence shown to individuals of the Roman Catholic persuasion; and, actuated by these ideas, they exerted themselves so effectually, that the principal gentlemen of the Catholic persuasion thought it requisite to convey to the ministry an intimation of their desire to desist for the present from applying for an indulgence similar to that which had been extended to their fellow-subjects of the same communion in England. They published also in the newspapers the representation which they had made to the ministry, in hopes of convincing the country that they were sincerely disposed to remove any cause of dissatisfaction on their own account, and to submit to any inconvenience rather than occasion disturbance, even in the prosecution of a lawful and praiseworthy object. But matters had now gone too far to be conciliated by any concessions.

On the 2d day of February 1779, the populace met according to appointment, in order to carry into execution the various projects which they had in contemplation. They began by an attack upon the house inhabited by the Roman Catholic bishop, and others of his persuasion, which they committed to the flames, together with the place of worship adjoining to it; and having in the same manner destroyed another house, which also contained a chapel, they proceeded to vent their resentment on several individuals of the same persuasion by burning their effects. The next objects of their vengeance were those who had patronised the Roman Catholics. They beset the houses of Dr Robertson and Mr Crosby; but the friends of these eminent persons, on hearing of the intentions of the rioters, came to their assistance in such numbers, and so well prepared to repel force by force, that the populace did not dare to commit the violence they had premeditated. This spirited conduct, which was followed by the adoption of the necessary precautions against their malevolent designs, put an end to the attempts of the mob at Edinburgh. But the spirit of dissatisfaction on account of the intended indulgence remained in full force; and ministry being held out as harbouring a secret determination to undermine the Protestant religion, and to introduce popery, were in consequence loaded with the most outrageous invectives.

Matters, however, did not stop here. The same ungovernable spirit was soon communicated to a part of the English nation; the cry against popery became daily louder among the inferior classes; and that inveteracy which time appeared to have mitigated began to revive in as powerful a degree as if the nation were actually under the impending horrors of persecution. To this were added the secret fears of others, who still imagined that it was not inconsistent with good policy to discourage a religion, 1 from the professors of which so much danger had accrued to the constitution of this country in former times, and who, though averse to acts of violence, thought it necessary to keep alive the antipathy to the ancient faith, and by no means to show a willingness to grant any further indulgence than it had hitherto experienced. On these grounds they were of opinion, that a suspension of the laws enacted against it, although tacit and unauthorized, was sufficient to remove all complaints of harshness and oppression on the part of the Roman Catholics; and they looked upon the penal statutes as a requisite bar to confine the Catholics within the bounds of due submission to the laws of a Protestant state.

Hence a society was formed in London, under the designation of the Protestant Association, and Lord George Gordon, who had rendered himself conspicuous in Scotland by his opposition to the repeal, was elected its president; and this body now prepared to act in a decisive manner against the resolutions of the legislature.

On the 29th of May 1780 the members of the association held a meeting in order to settle as to the manner in which they should present a petition to the House of Commons against the repeal of the penal statutes; and on this occasion a long speech was delivered by the president, who represented the Roman persuasion as gaining ground rapidly in the country, and affirmed that the only method of stopping its progress, was to go up with a spirited remonstrance to their representatives, and to tell them in plain and resolute terms that they'were determined to maintain their religious freedom against all enemies, and at whatever sacrifice. This harangue being received with the loudest applause, Lord George next moved that the whole body of the association should meet on the second day of June, in St George’s Fields, at ten in the morning, to accompany him to the House of Commons for the presentation of the petition; which was also assented to unanimously. Lord George then informed the meeting, that if he found himself attended by fewer than twenty thousand persons he would not present the petition; he directed them to form into four divisions, the first, second, and third consisting of those who belonged to the city, Westminster, and Southwark, and the fourth of the Scottish residents in London; and all were requested, by way of distinction, to wear blue cockades in their hats. Three days previous to the presentation of the petition, he gave notice of it in the ordinary form to the house, and stated the manner in which it was to be presented; but this was received with as much indifference and unconcern as all his former intimations.

On the second day of June, according to appointment, about fifty or sixty thousand persons assembled in St George’s Fields; and drawing up in four divisions, as had been arranged, proceeded to the parliament house, with Lord George Gordon at their head. An immense roll of parchment was carried before them, containing the names of those who had signed the petition. On their way to the house they behaved with propriety and decency; but immediately on their arrival disturbances commenced. The rioters began by compelling all the members of both houses whom they met to put blue cockades in their hats, and call out “No Popery ;” they forced some to take an oath that they would vote for the repeal of the popery act, as they styled it; and they treated others with great indignity, posting themselves in all the avenues to both houses, the doors of which they twice endeavoured to break open. But their rage was chiefly directed against the members of the House of Lords, several of whom narrowly escaped being murdered.

During these disturbances Lord George Gordon moved [7:5:413]for leave to bring up the petition, which was readily granted; but when he moved that it should be taken into immediate consideration, his proposal was strenuously opposed by almost the whole house. Enraged at this opposition, he came out several times to the people during the debate, acquainting them how averse the house appeared to grant their petition, and naming particularly those who had spoken against it. Several members of the house expostulated with him in the warmest terms on the unjustifiableness of his conduct; and one of his relations, Colonel Gordon, threatened to run him through the moment any of the rioters should force their entrance into the house. It was some hours before the house could carry on its deliberations with any regularity, which was not done till the members were relieved by the arrival of a party of the guards. As soon as order had been restored, the business of the petition was resumed, when Lord George Gordon told the house that it had been signed by nearly a hundred and twenty thousand British Protestant subjects, and he therefore insisted that the petition should be considered without delay. But notwithstanding the dangers with which they were menaced, and the proof which the mover of the petition had given that no means would be left unemployed to compel them to grant it, the Commons continued immovable in their determination, and of two hundred members then present in the house, six only voted for taking the petition into immediate consideration.

In the mean time the mob had dispersed itself into various parts of the metropolis, where they demolished two Roman Catholic chapels belonging to foreign ministers, and openly vented the most terrible menaces against all persons of that persuasion. On the 4th of June they assembled in great numbers in the eastern parts of London, and attacked the chapels and houses of the Roman Catholics in that quarter, stripping them of their contents, which they threw into the street, and committed -to the flames. They renewed their outrages on the following day, destroying several Romish chapels, and demolished the house of Sir George Saville, in resentment of his having brought into parliament the bill in favour of the Roman Catholics. On the 6th both houses met as usual; but finding that no business could be done, they adjourned to the 19th.

During this and the following days the rioters were absolute masters of the metropolis and its environs. Some of those who had been concerned in the demolition of the chapels belonging to foreign ministers having been seized and sent to Newgate, the mob collected before that prison, and demanded their immediate release; and this being refused, they proceeded to throw into the keeper’s house firebrands and all manner of combustibles, which communicating fire to that and other parts of the building, the whole of the immense pile was soon in flames. Amidst this scene of confusion, the prisoners, amounting to about three hundred, were all released, including several who were under sentence of death. In the same manner they set fire to the King’s Bench and Fleet prisons, and to a number of houses belonging to Roman Catholics. The terror occasioned by these incendiaries was such that most people hung out of their windows pieces of blue silk, which was the colour assumed by the rioters, and chalked on their doors and shutters the words “No Popery,” by way of signifying they were friendly to their cause.

The night of the 7th of June concluded these horrors. Not less than thirty-six different conflagrations were counted at the same time. The Bank had been threatened, and was twice assailed; but being well guarded, both attempts failed. In the evening large bodies of troops arrived from all parts, happily in time to put a stop to the progress of the rioters, and falling upon them wherever they appeared, multitudes were killed and wounded, whilst numbers perished through intoxication. It was not until the afternoon of the 8th, however, that people began to recover from their consternation. During the greater part of the day, the disorders of the preceding nigĥt had created so terrible an alarm, that the shops were almost universally shut in every part of London. Nor were the melancholy effects of misguided zeal confined solely to the capital. The outrageous disposition of the populace was preparing to enact the like horrid scenes in other parts of England, and the mob actually rose in Hull, in Bristol, and in Bath; but through the timely interposition of the magistracy, these places were saved from their fury.

On the subsiding of this violent and unexpected commotion, Lord George Gordon was arrested, and committed close prisoner to the Tower after having undergone a long examination before the principal lords of the council.

On the 19th of June both houses met again pursuant to adjournment; and on this occasion a speech was.read from the throne, acquainting them with the measures which had been taken in consequence of the disturbances, and assuring them of the readiness of the crown to concur in any measures that might contribute to the maintenance of the laws and liberties of the people. The speech was highly approved; but the conduct of administration was severely censured, and charged with unpardonable neglect for not calling forth the civil power, and employing the military in due time to obviate the mischiefs which had been committed. Ministry excused itself, however, on the ground of not having sufficient strength to answer all the demands of assistance that were made during the riots, and the absolute impossibility of suppressing them till the arrival of troops from the country. The various petitions which had been presented for the repeal of the act which had occasioned the riots, were now taken into consideration; but the house continued in the same mind as formerly. Nevertheless it was thought proper to yield somewhat to the prejudices of the people, by passing a bill for preventing persons of the popish persuasion from teaching or educating the children of Protestants; but this was afterwards thrown out by the Lords.

Nothing could have happened more opportunely for the ministry than the Protestant riots; for such were the alarm and terror occasioned by them, that the ardour which had been manifested in favour of popular meetings and associations, as they were called, for opposing the measures of government, was in a great degree suppressed. The county meetings were also represented as having a tendency, like the Protestant association, to bring on insurrections and rebellions; many began to consider all popular meetings as extremely dangerous; and among the commercial and monied classes, some were so panic-struck by the late riots, that all attention to the principles of the constitution was overruled by their anxiety about the preservation of their property. Had it not been for these events, it is probable that the spirit of opposition which then prevailed in the different counties would have compelled administration to make some concessions to the people.

In the suppression of these riots, however, the interference of the military without the command of the civil magistrate became a matter of suspicion to the country; and in the House of Lords the Duke of Richmond expressed a desire that some of his majesty’s ministers would rise and give their lordships assurances, that the measures taken in order to suppress the riots, which were defensible only upon the ground of necessity, would be so stated, and that what had been illegally done, on the ground of necessity, would be cured by an act of indemnity. Various other observations were thrown out relative to the king’s prerogative and to military law; upon which [7:5:414]Lord Mansfield observed, that neither the king’s prerogative nor military law had any thing to do with the conduct of government in their endeavours to quell the late outrages. All men, of all ranks, descriptions, and denominations, were bound, by their oath of allegiance, to interpose for the prevention of acts of high treason or felony, wherever any attempts to perpetrate such crimes were made in their presence, and were criminal if they refused to do so. In the whole of these proceedings, therefore, the military had not acted in their technical capacity as military, but had merely exercised their duty as civil men, which they, in common with other civil men, had both a right and an obligation to exercise. When a body of men were convened, without proceeding to the actual perpetration of treasonable or felonious acts, then the presence of the civil magistrate was necessary before the military could interpose at all; and for this reason, that as no acts of felony were committed, they could have no plea in their civil character for meddling at all. But by the statute law of the country, it became felonious in any combination of men to persevere in that combination after the riot act had been read by a justice of the peace; and this being done, they had then, and not till then, a constitutional reason for their interposition, namely, the privilege and duty of hindering the commission of felony whenever they had it in their power to do so.

This extraordinary doctrine was far from being agreeable to the nation in general, and was very freely censured in publications of all kinds. It was admitted, that if soldiers came accidentally as individuals to any place where felonies were committing, they might interfere, as well as others of the king’s subjects, in the prevention of them. But this was a different case from that of bodies of armed troops being sent under officers commissioned by the king, and with orders to act against riotous and disorderly persons without any authority from the civil magistrate. The constitution of England knew no such character as a mercenary soldier, at the sole will of the executive power. Soldiers were held to their duty by laws which affected no other part of the community; and no soldier, as such, could be employed in the service of the constitution without a particular act of parliament in his favour. The idea that a military man was convertible into a soldier or a citizen, as royalty might move its sceptre, was a novelty got up for the present occasion. Mercenary armies were understood to consist of men who had either detached themselves or been forced from civil societies; and on these suppositions laws were made regarding their liberties and lives, such as no members of civil society could submit to. Soldiers were only tolerated by annual bills, and under repeated pretences; and the very idea of blending them with the common subjects of the state, and giving persons of their description a right of judging on its most important occurrences, would have filled our ancestors with horror. The laws tolerated an army for certain periods, and under certain restrictions; but there was no existing law which admitted the interference of the military in any of the operations of civil government. It was acknowledged that the late atrocious riots had rendered an extraordinary exertion of power absolutely necessary; but it was at the same time contended, that the interposition of the army in those outrages, without any authority from the civil magistrate, was an act of prerogative unconstitutional and illegal, although perfectly seasonable and beneficial. The public safety and benefit might sometimes excuse exertions of power, which would be injurious and tyrannical on ordinary occasions; but the utmost care ought to be taken that such extraordinary exertions should not be established as precedents, which might operate fatally to the constitution. If a large standing army was kept up, and the king was understood to be invested with a power of ordering the troops to act discretionally whenever he should judge proper, without any authority from the civil magistrate, the people could have no possible security for their liberties.

We now proceed to notice the operations of the war, which, notwithstanding the powerful confederacy against Great Britain, were rather in her favour than otherwise. The Spaniards had commenced their military operations with the siege of Gibraltar, but with very little success; and the close of the year 1779, and beginning of 1780, were productive of considerable naval advantages to Great Britain. On the 18th of December 1779, the fleet under the command of Sir Hyde Parker in the West Indies captured nine sail of French merchant ships under the convoy of some ships of war; and two days afterwards he detached Rear-Admiral Rowley in pursuit of three large French ships, which were supposed to form part of Μ. la Motte-Piquet’s squadron returning from Grenada. About the same time several other vessels were taken by the same squadron commanded by Sir Hyde Parker. Op the 8th of January 1780, Sir George Brydges Rodney, who had been intrusted with the command of a fleet, one object of the destination of which was the relief of Gibraltar, fell in with twenty-two sail of Spanish ships, and in a few hours captured the whole fleet. In little more than a week afterwards the same fortunate admiral met with still mere signal success. On the 16th of the month he engaged, near Cape St Vincent, a Spanish fleet, consisting of eleven sail of the line and two frigates, under the command of Don Juan de Langara. The Spaniards made a gallant defence; but four of their largest ships were taken, and carried into Gibraltar. These were, the Phoenix of eighty guns and seven hundred men, on board of which was the Admiral Don Juan de Langara; the Monarca, of seventy guns and six hundred men, Don Antonio Oyarvide commander; the Princessa, of seventy guns and six hundred men, Don Manuel de Leon commander; and the Diligente, of seventy guns and six hundred men, Don Antonio Abornoz commander. Two other seventy gun ships were also taken; but one of them was driven on shore on the breakers and lost, and the other was likewise driven on shore, but afterwards recovered. Four ships of the line and the two frigates escaped; but two of the former were much damaged in the action, during which one ship, the San Domingo, of seventy guns and six hundred men, was blown up. The five men of war taken were remarkably fine ships, and being afterwards completely refitted and manned, were put into the English line of battle. The Spanish admiral and his officers applied to Sir George Rodney to obtain the liberty of returning to Spain upon their parole of honour; but this he declined for some time, having received information that a great number of British seamen, who ought to have been released, were then prisoners in Spain. However, having afterwards received assurances that these captives would be immediately set at liberty, he released the Spanish admiral and officers upon their parole; and the prisoners in general were treated with a generosity and humanity which made a great impression upon the court of Madrid and the Spanish nation.

When Admiral Rodney had supplied the garrison of Gibraltar with provisions, ammunition, and money, he proceeded on his voyage to the West Indies; having sent home part of his fleet, with the Spanish prizes, under the command of Rear-Admiral Digby. On the twentieth of March an action was fought in the West Indies, between some French and English men of war, the former under the command of Μ. de la Motte-Piquet, and the latter, forming part of Sir Peter Parker’s squadron, under that of Commodore Cornwallis. The contest was maintained [7:5:415] on both sides w∙ith great spirit; but the French were at •length forced to sheer off, and make the best of their way for Cape François.

Soon after Admiral Rodney had arrived in the West Indies, and assumed the command of his majesty’s ships at the Leeward Islands, an action took place between the fleet under his orders and that of the French under the command of Count de Guichen. This occurred on the 17th of April. The British squadron consisted of twenty ships of the line, besides frigates; and the French fleet of twenty-three ships of the line, and several frigates. The action began a little before one, and continued till about a quarter after four in the afternoon. Admiral Rodney was on board the Sandwich, a ninety gun ship, which beat three of the French ships out of their line of battle, and entirely broke it. But the Sandwich and several other ships were so much crippled that an immediate pursuit was impossible, without compromising the safety of the disabled ships. The victory was accordingly claimed by both sides, but no ship was taken on either, and the French retired to Guadaloupe. Admiral Rodney’s ship, the Sandwich, had suffered so much, that for twenty-four hours she was with difficulty kept above water. Of the British upwards of three hundred were killed and wounded in this engagement. On the 15th of May another action took place between the same commanders. But as it did not commence till near seven in the evening, and only a few ships were engaged, nothing decisive took place. The fleets met again on the 19th of the same month, when a third action ensued; but this, like the former, terminated without any material advantage to either side. On this occasion the British lost upwards of two hundred men killed and wounded; while, according to the French accounts, the total loss sustained by the enemy in the three actions, amounted to nearly a thousand killed and wounded. The preceding details show that the French at this time had a formidable fleet in the West Indies; and its force was augmented in June by the junction of a Spanish squadron near the island of Dominica; so that the French and Spanish fleets, when united, amounted to thirty-six sail of the line. Notwithstanding their superiority, however, they did not attack any of the British islands, nor even reconnoitre the fleet under the command of Sir George Brydges Rodneys which then lay at anchor in Gros Islet bay. By the vigilance and good conduct of the admiral, indeed, their efforts were in a great measure paralysed; and so sensible were the inhabitants of these islands of his services, that the houses of assembly of St Christophers and Nevis presented addresses to him, testifying their gratitude for the security which they enjoyed in consequence of his spirited and seasonable exertions.

In the month of June, Admiral Geary, who commanded the grand fleet, took twelve valuable merchant ships bound from Port-au-Prince to Bourdeaux and other ports of France; but in the month of July a very unexpected and important capture was made by the Spaniards, which excited considerable alarm in Great Britain. On the 8th of August, Captain Moutray r , who had under his command the Ramillies of seventy-four guns, and two frigates, with a fleet of merchantmen bound for the East and West Indies under convoy, had the misfortune to fall in with the combined fleets of France and Spain, which had sailed from Cadiz the preceding day. The Ramillies and the two frigates escaped; but the rest were so completely surrounded, that five East Indiamen, and fifty merchant ships bound for the West Indies, were taken. This was one of the most complete naval captures ever made, and proved a heavy stroke to the commerce of Great Britain. The prize, however, great as it was, scarcely compensated the Spaniards for the capture of Fort Omoa, where upwards of three millions of dollars were secured by the victors, and other valuable commodities, including twenty-five quintals of quicksilver, for extracting the precious metals from their ores, and the loss of which consequently^ rendered the mines useless.

But whilst the British were making the most vigorous efforts, and upon the whole gaining advantages over the powers who opposed them in the field, enemies were raised up throughout all Europe, who, by reason of their acting indirectly, could neither be opposed nor resisted. The power which most decidedly manifested its hostile intentions was Holland; but besides this, a most formidable confederacy, under the title of the Armed Neutrality, was formed, evidently with the design of crushing the power of Great Britain. Of this powerful confederacy the empress of Russia avowed herself the head; and her resolution was intimated on the 26th of February 1780, in a declaration addressed to the courts of London, Versailles, and Madrid. In this paper it was alleged, that her imperial majesty’s subjects had often been molested in their navigation, and retarded in their operations, by the ships and privateers of the belligerent powers; that she found herself under the necessity of removing the vexations which were offered to the commerce of Russia, as well as to the liberty of commerce in general, by all the means compatible with her dignity and the welfare of her subjects; but that before adopting any serious measures, and to prevent all new misunderstandings, she thought it just and equitable to expose to the eyes of all Europe the principles which she had adopted as the guides of her conduct.

And these were contained in the following propositions: First, that neutral ships should enjoy a free navigation, even from port to port, and on the coasts of the belligerent powers; secondly, that all effects belonging to the subjects of the belligerent powers should be looked upon as free on board such neutral ships, excepting only such goods as were stipulated contraband; thirdly, that the principles recognised, and the articles enumerated as contraband, in the treaties between Great Britain and Russia in 1734 and 1766, should still be adhered to. In the former it was provided, that “the subjects of either party may freely pass, repass, and trade in all countries which now are, or hereafter shall be, at enmity with the other of the said parties, places actually blocked up or besieged only excepted, provided they do not carry any warlike stores or ammunition to the enemy,” whilst, “as for all other effects, their ships, passengers, and goods, shall be free and unmolested; but,” that “cannons, mortars, or other warlike utensils, in any quantity beyond what may be necessary for the ship’s provision, and may properly appertain to and be judged necessary for every man of the ship’s crew, or for each passenger, shall be deemed ammunition of war; and if any such be found, they may seize and confiscate the same according to law; but neither the vessels, passengers, nor the rest of the goods, shall be detained for that reason, or hindered from pursuing their voyage.” And in the treaty of 1766 the same enumeration was given of the goods stipulated as contraband, as in the treaty of 1734. Her imperial majesty further proposed, fourthly, that in. order to determine what characterizes a port blocked up, that denomination should not be granted, except to places before which there were actually a number of enemy’s ships stationed neaι∙ enough to render its entry dangerous; and, lastly, that these principles should serve as rules in judicial proceedings and in sentences as to the legality of prizes. Her imperial majesty declared, that she was firmly resolved to maintain these principles; that, in order to protect the honour of her flag and the security of the commerce and navigation of her subjects, she had given an order to fit out a considerable naval force; that [7:5:416]this measure, however, would have no influence on the strict and rigorous neutrality which she was resolved to observe, as long as she should not be forced to depart from her principles of moderation and impartiality; and that it was only in such an extremity that her fleet would be ordered to act, wherever honour, interest, or necessity, should require. This declaration was also communicated to the States-general by Prince Galitzin, envoy extraordinary of Russia, who invited them to make common cause with the empress for the protection of commerce and navigation; and similar communications and invitations were made to the courts of Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Lisbon, in order, as was alleged, that the navigation of all the neutral trading nations might be established and legalized, and a system adopted founded upon justice, and calculated to serve as a sort of maritime çode for future ages.

The memorial of the empress of Russia, though proceeding upon principles unfavourable to the views of Great Britain, and incompatible with her maritime superiority, received a civil answer from that court; but other powers, as might have been expected, received it with far greater cordiality. In the answer of France it was observed, that what her imperial majesty claimed from the belligerent powers was nothing more than the rules prescribed to the French navy; the execution of which was maintained with an exactness known and applauded by all Europe. Strong approbation was expressed of the principles and views of her imperial majesty; and it was declared, that from the measures now adopted by Russia, solid advantages would undoubtedly result, not only to her subjects, but also to those of all nations. Sweden and Denmark likewise acceded formally to the armed neutrality proposed by Russia; and the States-general, after an interval of some months, followed their example. It was further resolved by the parties to this armed league, to make common cause at sea against any of the belligerent powers who should violate, with respect to neutral nations, the principles which had been laid down in the memorial of Russia.

But though the British ministry could not openly engage in war with all the other powers of Europe, they determined to take signal vengeance on the Dutch, whose base ingratitude and perfidy now became a subject of general speculation. It has already been observed, that ever since the commencement of hostilities with the Americans, the Dutch had shown a decided inclination in their favour; and this partiality continued to be evinced to a degree beyond what might have been expected from the natural avidity of a mercantile people. Frequent memorials and remonstrances had in consequence passed between the two nations, and the breach gradually grew wider and wider, until at last matters came to extremities, by a discovery that the town of Amsterdam was about to enter into a commercial treaty with America. This came to light in the beginning of September 1780, by the capture of Mr Laurens, lately president of the American congress, and who had been empowered by that body to conclude a treaty with Holland. Mr Laurens himself was instantly committed prisoner to the Tower,' and a spirited remonstrance was addressed to the states of Holland, requiring a formal disavowal of the transaction. The states, however, answered evasively, that they would take the matter into consideration according to the forms and usages of the country, and that a reply would be given as soon as the nature of their government would admit.

The British government could not possibly mistake this pitiful equivocation; and accordingly the most vigorous measures were instantly resolved on. On the 25th of January 1781, it was announced to the House of Commons that his majesty had directed letters of marque and reprisal to be issued against the States-general and their subjects. For the causes and motives of his majesty’s conduct in this respect, the house were referred to a public manifesto against that republic, which had been ordered to be laid before parliament. The charges against the republic were briefly summed up by Lord North in his speech on the occasion. The states, he said, had, in open violation of treaties, not only refused to give Great Britain that assistance which those treaties entitled her to claim when attacked by the house of Bourbon, but had also, in direct violation of the law of nations, contributed to furnish France with warlike stores, and had now at length thought proper to countenance the magistracy of Amsterdam in the insult which they had offered to this country, by entering into a treaty with the rebellious colonies of Great Britain, as free and independent states. By the treaty of 1678, it had been stipulated, that in case Great Britain was attacked by the house of Bourbon, she had a right to take her choice of either calling upon the States-general to become parties in the war, and to attack the house of Bourbon within two months, or of requiring an aid of six thousand troops and twenty ships of war, which the states were to furnish immediately after the claim was made. But though this country had always preserved inviolate her faith with Holland, yet that republic had refused to fulfil the terms of this treaty. The States-general had also suffered Paul Jones, a Scotsman, and a pirate, acting without legal authority from any acknowledged government, to bring British ships into their ports, and to refit there.^[14. This man, who had formerly been a servant in Lord Selkirk’s house, had landed in 1778, and plundered it of the plate, but without doing any further mischief. The action, however, proved very disagreeable to his own party; and, at the desire of Dr Franklin, the plate was afterwards restored. After this exploit he attempted to set fire to the town of Whitehaven, but without success. In i779 he made a descent on the coast of Ireland, but without committing any act of hostility: his people indeed carried off some sheep and oxen, but their captain paid liberally for what they had taken. In the month of September 1779, he appeared in the Frith of Forth with several prizes, and advanced up above the island of Inchkeith, so as to be nearly opposite to Leith. His design was supposed to have been to burn the shipping there; but he was prevented from attempting this by a strong westerly wind; and such measures were also taken for the defence of the harbour, by erecting batteries and otherwise, that he would probably have miscarried had any attempt been made by him. On leaving the coast of Scotland he fell in with the Serapis and Scarborough, both of which he took after a desperate engagement, in which these vessels were reduced to almost total wrecks. These prizes were carried by Jones into a Dutch harbour; and it was this transaction to which Lord North now alluded. He was called a pirate, on account of his not being at that time properly furnished with a commission either from France or America; though this was denied by the opposite party. ] A rebel privateer had in like manner been saluted at the Dutch island of StEu-statius, after she had been suffered to capture two British ships within cannon-shot of their forts and castles. A memorial had been presented at the Hague in June 1779, on the breaking out of the war with Spain, to claim the aid we were entitled to require by the treaty of 1678; þut of this not the least notice had been taken on the part of the states. Two other notices had since been delivered, each of which met with the same reception. The British ministry had done all in their power to bring the states to a true sense of their interest; and when the necessity of the case compelled them to seize on the Dutch ships carrying stores to France, they had paid the full value of the cargoes, and returned the ships; so that neither the private merchant, the private adventurer, nor the [7:5:417]states, had suffered any loss.’ France only had felt the inconvenience, by her being deprived of that assistance which she would have received from those cargoes. The minister lamented the necessity of a war with Holland; but it appeared to him to be unavoidable. The difficulties with which the nation had to struggle were certainly great; but they were by no means insuperable. He was neither desirous of concealing their magnitude, nor afraid to meet them, great as they must be acknowledged; convinced, that when the force of this country was fully exerted, it would be found equal to the contest, and that the only means of obtaining an honourable and a just peace, was to show ourselves capable of carrying on the war with spirit and vigour.

But before this resolution could have been communicated officially to the naval commanders in the West Indies, the Dutch were actually attacked. The island of St Eustatius was, on the 3d of February 1781, summoned by Admiral Rodney and General Vaughan to surrender to the arms of Great Britain, and only one hour was given for consideration. Submission was inevitable. The island accordingly surrendered; the property found on it was confiscated, and a sale instituted, with circumstances of rapacity which afterwards became the subject of a discussion in parliament, and drew upon the nation the ill will of all Europe. The Dutch in fact seem to have acted with great imprudence, and, notwithstanding their provoking conduct towards Britain, to have made no preparations for war in the event of being attacked. But in spite of this inactivity, they still retained much of their ancient valour, and were in fact the most formidable naval enemies whom Britain had to contend with.

By August 1781 they had equipped a considerable squadron, the command of which was given to Rear-admiral Zoutman; and on the 5th of that month this squadron fell in with the British fleet commanded by Admiral Hyde Parker. The force under Zoutman consisted, according to the Dutch account, of one ship of seventy-four guns, one of sixty-eight, one of sixty-four, three of fifty-four, and one of forty-four, besides frigates; but the English account states the hostile fleet to have consisted of eight two-decked ships. No gun was fired on either side till the fleets were within half musket-shot distance. The action began about eight in the morning, and continued with the utmost fury for three hours and forty minutes. Both sides fought with equal ardour, and little advantage was gained by either. When the action ceased, both squadrons lay like logs on the water; but after a time the Dutch ships of war, with their convoy, bore away for the Texel, whilst the English were too much disabled to follow them. A Dutch seventy-four gun ship sunk soon after the action. On board the British fleet upwards of four hundred were killed and wounded; and the loss of the Dutch was probably greater. Admiral Zoutman, in his account of the engagement, states that his men fought like lions; and the British admiral, in the dispatch transmitted by him to the admiralty, observes that his majesty’s officers and men behaved with great bravery, nor did the enemy show less gallantry.

The impossibility of crushing the power of Great Britain by any force whatever was now beginning to be evident even to her most inveterate enemies. In Europe, the utmost efforts of France and Spain were able to effect nothing more than the annual parade of a mighty fleet in the Channel; and this called forth the apparition of a British fleet, so formidable that the enemy never durst attack it. The states of Holland had sent out their force; and this too was opposed by one which, if insufficient to conquer, was at least able to prevent their effecting any thing detrimental to our possessions. In the East Indies the united powers of the French and Indians had been conquered, and the Dutch settlements had suffered severely.

In the year 1781, however, the British naval power in the West Indies seemed to sink, and some events took place which threatened serious results. This was owing to the great superiority of the combined fleets of France and Spain, by which that of Britain was now so far outnumbered, that it could not achieve any thing of consequence. An ineffectual attempt was made by Admiral Rodney on the island of St Vincents, and an indecisive engagement took place on the 28th of April 1781, between Admiral Hood and the Count de Grasse, the event of which, however, was certainly honourable to Britain, as the French had a superiority of six ships of the line. But the damage done to the British ships having obliged them to retire to Barbadoes to refit, the French availed themselves of the opportunity to effect a descent on the island of Tobago; and although the governor made a gallant resistance, he was at last obliged to surrender. Admiral Rodney had sent Rear-admiral Drake with six sail of the line, three frigates, and some troops, to the assistance of the island; but they were dispatched too late, as the island had capitulated before the intended relief could have reached it.

But the great and decisive stroke, which happened this year, was the capture of Lord Cornwallis, with the division of the army under his command, at Yorktown. This was a great calamity; and other events were sufficiently mortifying. The province of West Florida had been reduced by the Spaniards; Minorca was besieged by them with every prospect of success; the island of St Eustatius had been surprised by the French; and in short every circumstance seemed to proclaim the necessity of putting an end to a war so calamitous and destructive. But all the disasters which had yet happened were insufficient to induce the ministry to abandon their favourite scheme of war with the colonies.

The parliament met on the 27th of November 1781. It has already been stated, that in the year 1780 the ministry had sustained a defeat so signal as seemed to prognosticate the ruin of their power. They had indeed afterwards acquired a majority, and the terror produced by the riots had contributed not a little to the re-establishment of their influence. The remembrance of what had passed, however, most probably induced them to dissolve parliament; whilst the successes at Charlestown and in other parts of America once more gave them a decided majority in both houses. But the disasters of the year 1781 involved them in the most serious difficulties. In the speech from the throne, his majesty observed, that the war was still unhappily prolonged by the restless ambition which had first excited the enemies of his crown and people to commence it. But he should not discharge the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, nor make a suitable return to his subjects for their zealous and affectionate attachment to him, if he consented to sacrifice, either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of Great Britain must depend. The events of war, he said, had been very unfortunate to his arms in Virginia, having ended in the loss of his forces in that province; but the misfortune in that quarter called loudly for the firm concurrence and assistance of parliament, in order to frustrate the designs of the enemy, which were as prejudicial to the real interests of America as to those of Great Britain. His majesty regretted much the additional burdens which a continuance of the war would unavoidably bring upon his subjects; but he still declared his perfect conviction of the justice of his cause, and hoped that, by the concurrence and support of his parliament, by the valour of his [7:5:418] fleets and armies, and by a vigorous, animated, and unit- ed exertion of the powers and resources of his people, he would be enabled to restore to his dominions the blessing of a safe and honourable peace.

A motion for an address of thanks, couched in the usual style, was made in the House of Commons; and it was urged, that a durable and advantageous peace could result only from the firm, vigorous, and unremitting prosecution of the war, and that the present was not the time to relinquish hope, but to resolve upon exertion. The motion, however, was vehemently opposed by Mr Fox and Mr Burke. The latter remarked, that if there could be a greater misfortune than had already been inflicted on this kingdom in the present disgraceful contest, it was hearing men rise up in the great assembly of the nation to vindicate such measures. If the ministry and the parliament were not to be taught by experience,—if neither calamities could make them feel, nor the voice of God make them wise,—what had this fallen and undone country to hope for? A battle might be lost, an enterprise might miscarry, an island might be captured, an army might be lost in the best of causes, and even under a system of vigour and foresight; because the battle, after all the wisdom and bravery of man, was in the hands of heaven; and if either or all of these calamities had happened in a good cause, and under the auspices of a vigilant administration, a brave people would not despair. But it was not so in the present case. Amidst all their sufferings and their misfortunes, they saw nothing so distressing as the weakness or wickedness of their ministers. They seemed still determined to go on, without plan and without foresight, in this war of calamities; for every thing that happened in it was a calamity. He considered them all alike, victories and defeats; towns taken and towns evacuated; new generals appointed, and old generals recalled; they were all alike calamities in his eyes, for they all spurred us on to this fatal business. Victories gave us hopes, defeats made us desperate, and both instigated us to go on. In the course of the debate, it was contended on the part of administration, and particularly by Lord North, that by the address, as originally proposed, the house did not pledge themselves to any continuance of the American war; but this was strongly denied by the gentlemen in opposition. However, the point was at last decided in favour of ministry by a large majority; and the address was then carried as originally proposed. In the House of Peers, a motion for an address similar to that of the House of Commons was made by Lord Southampton, and seconded by Lord Walsingham; but it was vigorously opposed by the Earl of Shelburne and the Duke of Richmond, whilst Lord Stormont and the lord chancellor defended the course adopted by ministers; and the address was ultimately carried by a majority of more than two to one. A short protest against the address was, however, entered by the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis of Rockingham, and Earl Fitzwilliam; in which they declared that they dissented, for reasons too often urged in vain for the last seven years, against the ruinous prosecution of the unjust war carrying on by his majesty’s ministers against the people of North America, and too fatally confirmed by repeated experience, and the disgraceful loss of a second army, to stand in need of repetition.

Though ministers thus succeeded in carrying the addresses in the usual form, they did not meet with equal success in their main design of carrying on the war. After the debate on the number of seamen, which was fixed at one hundred thousand for the ensuing year, Sir James Lowther moved as a resolution of the house, that the war carried on with America had been ineffectual for the purposes for which it was undertaken; and that all further attempts to reduce that continent by force of arms would be in vain, and must be injurious to this country, by weakening her power of resisting her ancient and confederated enemies. This was supported by a number of arguments interlarded with the most severe reflections on the conduct of ministers. But the motion was opposed by Lord North, who said that, if agreed to by the house, it would put an end to the American war in every shape, and even cripple the hands of government in other respects. It would point out to the enemies of this country what were to be the mode and conduct of the war; and thus inform the enemy in what manner they might best point their operations against this country during the next campaign. With respect to the American war in general, his lordship acknowledged that it had been extremely unfortunate; but he affirmed that the misfortunes and calamities which had attended it, though of a most serious and fatal nature, were matters rather to be deplored and lamented as the events of war, in themselves perpetually uncertain, than to be ascribed to any criminality in ministers. He added, that though he totally disapproved of the motion, yet he was willing to declare it to be his opinion, that it would not be wise nor right to go on with the American war as we had hitherto done; that is, to send armies to traverse from south to north the provinces in their interior parts, as had been done in a late case, and which had failed of producing the intended and desired effect.

On the other hand, General Burgoyne observed, that declaring a design of maintaining posts in America, of the nature of New York, was declaring a design of offensive war; and that such a maintenance of posts would prove an improvident and preposterous mode of warfare. With regard to the American war, the impracticability of it was a sufficient justification for supporting the present motion. But he was now convinced that the principle of the American war was wrong, though he had not been of that opinion when he formerly engaged in the service in America. He had been brought to this conviction by observing the uniform conduct and behaviour of the people of America. Passion, prejudice, and interest, might operate suddenly and partially; but when we saw one principle pervading the whole continent, and the Americans resolutely encountering difficulty and death for a course of years, it must be a strong vanity and presumption in our own minds which could lead us to imagine that they were not in the right It was reason, and the finger of God alone, which implanted the same sentiment in three millions of people.

After some further debate, Sir James Lowther’s motion was rejected by a majority of two hundred and twenty to one hundred and seventy-nine. This, however, was a majority in which the ministry had little reason to exult, as it was sufficiently apparent, from the numbers who voted against administration, that the uninfluenced sense of the house was clearly and decisively against any further prosecution of the American war.

Other arguments to the same purpose with those of General Burgoyne, just mentioned, were used in the debate on the army estimates. On the 14th of December, the secretary at war informed the house, that the whole force of the army, including the militia of this kingdom, required for the service of the year 1782, would amount to one hundred and eighty-six thousand two hundred and twenty men, and for this force the parliament had to provide. The sum required for these troops for pay, clothing, and other articles, amounted to four millions two hundred and twenty thousand pounds. This military force exceeded that of the last year by upwards of four thousand men; and the expense was consequently greater by upwards of twenty-nine thousand pounds. The increase was occasioned by the greater number of troops already sent, or then going, to .
[7:5:419]

the East Indies. But the expense of those troops was to be reimbursed by the East India Company. After some further statements relative to the military force of the kingdom, and its expense, had been made by the secretary at war, Colonel Barré declared, that the estimates of the army as then laid before the house were scandalous and evasive. There was a much greater number of non-effective men than was stated in the estimates; in fact, they amounted to a fifth part of the army. The house should also recollect, that the estimates lying on the table did not compose the whole expense of the army; for extraordinaries of several millions were yet to come. Neither were the men under the several descriptions given by the secretary at war the whole number of military force employed. Other troops were employed solely at the discretion of the minister, and paid irregularly and unconstitutionally, without the consent or knowledge of the legislature; particularly the provincial corps in America, amounting to nine thousand men in actual service, the statement of which force, though it had been called for from year to year, was never brought into the estimates. Lord George Germaine explained, that die reason why the provincial corps had not been included in the estimates was, that some share of the public money might be spared, by avoiding to vote an establishment for these troops. They were raised and paid in a manner by much the most economical for the nation. Sir George Saville expressed the strongest disapprobation of any further prosecution of the American war, or of raising any more troops for that purpose. General Conway also disapproved entirely of a continuance of the American war in any form. He considered an acknowledgment of the independence of America as a severe misfortune, and a heavy stroke against Great Britain; but of the two evils he would choose the least, and submit to the independence of America rather than persist a day longer in the prosecution of a ruinous war. Notwithstanding these and other arguments, however, the question was carried in favour of ministry by a considerable majority, and the supplies were voted accordingly.

Besides the grand question of the continuance of the American war, several other matters of smaller moment were agitated during this session, particularly the affair of St Eustatius, already mentioned, and an inquiry into the state of the navy. But on these, as on the greater question, the ministry prevailed, though not without a strength of opposition which they had seldom encountered before. A motion for censuring Lord Sandwich was lost only by nineteen; and so general was the desire for a change of administration, that it excited surprise how the ministry still retained their places. Nothing could place in a more striking point of view the detestation in which they were held, than the extreme repugnance to the admission of Lord George Germaine to the dignity of the peerage. On this occasion the affair of Minden was not only brought above board; but, after his actual investiture, and when he had taken his seat in the house, under the title of Lord Viscount Sackville, a debate ensued respecting the dishonour which the peers had sustained by his admission into their house. The Marquis of Caermarthen moved, that it was reprehensible in any minister, and highly derogatory to the honour of the house, to advise the crown to exercise its indisputable right of creating a peer, in favour of a person labouring under the heavy censure of a court-martial; and urged, in support of his motion, that the House of Peers being a court of honour, it behoved them most carefully to preserve that honour uncontaminated, and to endeavour to mark, as forcibly as possible, the disapprobation which they felt at receiving into their assembly, as a brother peer, a person stigmatized in the orderly books of every regiment in the service. The Earl of Abingdon could not help conceiving, that although there was not a right of election, there must 1 be a right of exclusion vested in the house, when the admission of any peer happened to be against the sense of its members; that he considered the admission of Lord George Germaine to a peerage as an insufferable indignity to the house, and as an outrageous insult to the people; that it was an indignity to that house, inasmuch as it connected them with one whom every soldier was forbidden to associate withal; and that it was an insult to the peo τ ple, as the person now raised to the peerage had done nothing to merit honours superior to his fellow-citizens. Lord Sackville defended himself as well as he could against this attack. He denied that he knew by whose advice he had been raised to the peerage; he impugned the justice of the sentence of the court-martial; he represented himself as the victim of an acrimony and hostility without example; he adverted to the time which had elapsed since the sentence of the court-martial was pronounced, and to the political offices which he had since been called to fill; and he contended that his elevation to the dignity of the peerage was virtually a repeal of the proceedings of the military tribunal in question. The Duke of Richmond replied with great ability to the various pleas which Lord Sackville had brought forward in his own justification. In particular, he observed, that their lordships were not ignorant, that the noble viscount rested a considerable part of the vindication of his behaviour at the battle of Minden upon the supposed existence of a striking variation in the orders delivered from Prince Ferdinand to the commander of the cavalry. It was understood that the first order was, that the cavalry should advance; and the second, that the British cavalry should advance. Yet even under these supposed contradictory orders, it was evident that the noble lord ought to have advanced, and, certainly, the distance being short, he enjoyed a sufficient space of time for obedience to his instructions. Lord Southampton, who delivered one of the messages, was now present in the house; and it would seem that he had no choice on this occasion but to acknowledge, either that he did not properly deliver such orders to the noble viscount, or that the latter, having properly received them, neglected to obey them. But whatever difficulties might have arisen during the endeavours to determine exactly how much time had actually been lost in consequence of the non-compliance of Lord Sackville with the orders which he received, he could with much facility have solved what all the witnesses examined as to this point were not able positively to determine. If, summoned as he was to appear upon the trial, his deposition had been called for, he could have proved, because he held all the while his watch in his hand, and seldom ceased to look at it, that the time lost by the noble viscount delaying to advance, under pretence of receiving such contradictory orders as made it impossible for him to discover whether he ought to advance with the whole cavalry, or only with the British cavalry, was one hour and a half. It was therefore extremely evident that the noble lord had had it in his power to bring up the cavalry from the distance of a mile and a quarter; the consequence of which would have been that, by joining in the battle, they might have rendered the victory more brilliant and decisive. But before the arrival of this cavalry, the engagement was concluded. Such was the testimony, said the duke, which, having had the honour to serve at the battle of Minden under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, he must have borne, if, being summoned, the members of the court-martial had thought proper to have examined him on the trial. Under such circumstances, the noble viscount could have but little reason to complain of the sentence of the court-martial, of the orders which [7:5:420]followed it, or of the loss of his commission. The motion was powerfully supported by other arguments, both by the Duke of Richmond himself and by other peers; but it was nevertheless rejected by a large majority. A protest was however entered, signed by nine peers, in which the sentence and the public orders were particularly stated; and in which they declared, that they looked upon the raising to the peerage a person so circumstanced as a measure fatal to the interests as well as to the glory of the crown, and to the dignity of the house.

The ruinous tendency of the American war was now so strikingly apparent, that it became necessary for those who had a just sense of the dangerous situation of the country, and wished well to its interests, to exert their most vigorous efforts to put an end to so fatal a contest. Accordingly, on the 22d of February, a motion was made by General Conway, that an humble address should be presented to his majesty, imploring him to take into his consideration the many and great calamities which had attended this unfortunate war, and to listen to the humble prayer and advice of his faithful Commons, that the war on the continent of North America might no longer be pursued for the impracticable purpose of reducing that country to obedience by force. The motion was seconded by Lord John Cavendish, but vigorously opposed by administration, who had still strength sufficient to carry their point, though only by a single vote, the motion being rejected by a hundred and ninety-four to a hundred and ninety-three.

The increasing power of the opposition now showed that the downfal of the ministry was at hand. The decision of the last question was considered as a victory gained by the former, and Mr Fox instantly gave notice that the subject would be resumed in a few days under another form. It was accordingly revived on the 27th of February, when a petition from the city of London was presented, soliciting the house to interpose in such a manner as to prevent any further prosecution of the American war; after which General Conway moved, as a resolution, that it was the opinion of the house that the further prosecution of offensive war on the continent of North America, for the purpose of reducing the revolted colonies to obedience by force, would be the means of weakening the efforts of this country against her European enemies, and would tend to increase the mutual enmity so fatal to the interests both of Great Britain and America. It appears from the journals, said the general, that from the days of Edward III. down to the present reign, parliament has at all times given advice to the crown in matters relating to war and peace. In the reign of Richard II. it was frequently done, and also in that of Henry IV. One remarkable instance of this occurred in the reign of Henry VII. when that prince consulted his parliament respecting the propriety of supporting the Duke of Brittany against France, and also of declaring war against the latter; and when he told his parliament that it was for no other purpose than to hear their advice on these heads that he called them together. In the reign of James I. the parliament interfered repeatedly with their advice respecting the palatinate, the match with Spain, and a declaration of war against that power. In the time of Charles 1. there were similar interferences; and in the reign of his son Charles II. the parliament made repeated remonstrances, but particularly in 1674 and 1675, on the subject of the alliance with France, which, they urged, ought to be renounced, and at the same time recommended a strict union with the United Provinces. To some of these remonstrances, indeed, answers were returned not very satisfactory; and the parliament were informed that they were exceeding the line of their duty, and encroaching upon the prerogative of the crown. But so little did the Commons of those days relish these answers, that they addressed the king to know who it was who had advised his majesty to return such answers to their loyal and constitutional remonstrances. In the reign of King William, repeated instances were to be found in the journals, of advice given by parliament relative to the Irish war and the war on the continent. The same thing occurred frequently in the reign of Queen Anne, who, in an address from the parliament, was advised not to make peace with France until Spain should be secured to Austria, and also not to consent to peace until Dunkirk should be demolished. In short, it was manifest from the whole history of English parliaments’, that it was ever considered as constitutional for parliament to interfere, whenever it thought proper, in all matters so important as those of peace and war. Other arguments were urged in support of the motion, which was seconded by Lord Althorp; and petitions from the mayor, burgesses, and commonalty of the city of Bristol, and from the merchants, tradesmen, and inhabitants of that city, against the American war, were also read. But in order to evade coming to any immediate determination on the question, a proposition was made by the attorney-general, that a truce should be entered into with America, and a bill prepared to enable his majesty’s ministers to treat on this ground; and under pretence of allowing time for this measure, he moved that the present debate be adjourned for a fortnight. This motion, however, was negatived by a majority of nineteen; and the original motion of General Conway was then put and carried without a division.

The general immediately followed up this victory with a motion for an address to the king, soliciting his majesty to put a stop to any further prosecution of offensive war against the colonies; which was agreed to, and presented to his majesty by the whole house on the lst of March. On this occasion his majesty answered, that there were no objects nearer to his heart than the happiness and prosperity of his people; that, in pursuance of the advice of the Commons, he should take such measures as might appear conducive to the restoration of harmony between Great Britain and her revolted colonies; and that his efforts should be directed in the most effectual manner against our European enemies, until a peace could be obtained consistent with the interests and permanent welfare of the kingdom. The proceedings of the House of Commons gave general satisfaction; but the royal answer was not thought sufficiently explicit. Accordingly, on the 4th of March, General Conway moved that an humble address be presented to his majesty, to return his majesty the thanks of that house for his gracious answer to their last address; the house being convinced that, in the present circumstances of this country, nothing could so essentially promote those great objects of his majesty’s paternal care for his people as the measures which his faithful Commons had most humbly but earnestly recommended to his majesty; and this motion was unanimously agreed to. The general then moved a resolution, that, after the solemn declaration of the opinion of the house, in their humble address presented to his majesty, and his majesty’s assurance of his gracious intentions, the house would consider as enemies to his majesty and the country all who should endeavour to frustrate his majesty’s paternal care for the happiness of his people, by advising the further prosecution of offensive war on the continent of North America. After some debate this motion was agreed to without a division; and, on the 6th, after a number of papers had been read in the House of Peers relative to the surrender of Earl Cornwallis and the army under his command, the Duke of Chandos moved, first, that, in the opinion of the house, the immediate cause of the capture of the army under Earl Cornwallis in Virginia, was the want of [7:5:421]a sufficient naval force to cover and protect the same; and, secondly, that the not covering and protecting of the army under Earl Cornwallis in a proper manner was highly blameable in those who advised and planned the expedition. But after considerable discussion these motions were rejected.

In spite of all these efforts, however, the ministry still kept their ground, and with astonishing resolution combated the force of opposition, which was daily increasing. On the 8th of March several resolutions were moved by Lord John Cavendish; one of which bore that the chief cause of the national misfortunes was the want of foresight and ability in his majesty’s ministers; and another respected the immense sum expended on the war, which was alleged to be little less than a hundred millions. But all inquiry was still frustrated, and these motions were lost by a majority of ten. Meanwhile, as the unpopularity of Lord North was further increased by the proposal of some new taxes, particularly on soap, the carriage of goods, and places of entertainment, opposition determined if possible to force him to resign; and on the 15th of March it was moved by Sir John Rous that the nation could have no further confidence in the ministers who had the ’conduct of public affairs. Lord North endeavoured to vindicate his own administration. He affirmed that it could not be declared with truth that the national calamities originated from the measures of the present administration. The repeal of the American stamp-act, and the passing of the declaratory law, took place before his entrance into office. As a private member of parliament he gave his vote in favour of both, but as a minister he was not responsible for either. When he accepted office the times were scarcely less violent than the present. He approached the helm when others had deserted it; and, standing there, he had used his utmost efforts to assist his country. That the American war was just and requisite, and prosecuted for the purpose of supporting and maintaining the rights of the British legislature, was a position for the truth of which he would ever contend, whilst he enjoyed the power of arguing at all upon the subject. As to peace, he not only wished most earnestly for it, but also for the formation of such a ministry as might at once prove acceptable to the country, and cordially co-operate for the welfare and honour of the state. The house at length divided upon the question, when there appeared a majority of nine in favour of administration.

But notwithstanding this decision, it was well known that the ministry could not stand their ground; and, accordingly, four days after, when a motion similar to that by Sir John Rous was about to be made by the Earl of Surrey, Lord North informed the house that his majesty had come to a full determination to change his ministers; and that, in fact, those persons who had for some time conducted the public affairs were no longer his majesty’s ministers. They were not now to be considered as men holding the reins of government and transacting measures of state, but merely as performing their official duty till other ministers were appointed to take their places. In consequence of the declaration of Lord North, the Earl of Surrey agreed to waive his intended motion, and, after some further debate, the house adjourned. And thus an end was put to an administration which had long been obnoxious to a great part of the nation, and whose removal contributed very much to allay those ferments by which every part of the British dominions had been agitated. Peace now became as much the object of ministry as war had been formerly. But before we proceed to any account of the negociations for that desirable object, it will be necessary to notice the military events which disposed the other belligerent powers to an accommodation.

The ill success of Britain in America has already been taken notice of. The disaster of Cornwallis had produced a sincere desire of peace with America; but this could not be accomplished without making peace with France also; and that power was still haughty and elated with success. Minorca had now fallen into the hands of the Spaniards; and though the capture of a few miserable invalids, attended with such extreme difficulty as the Spaniards had experienced, ought rather to have intimidated them than otherwise, they now projected the most important conquests. Nothing less than the entire reduction of the British West India islands was contemplated by the allies; and indeed there was too much reason to suppose that this object was within their reach. In the beginning of the year 1782 the islands of Nevis and St Christophers were obliged to surrender to Count de Grasse the French admiral, and the Marquis de Bouille, who had already signalized himself by several exploits; and Jamaica was marked out as the next victim. But the end of all these aspiring hopes was fast approaching. The advantages hitherto gained by the French in their naval engagements with the British fleet bad proceeded entirely from their keeping at a great distance during the time of action, and from their good fortune and dexterity in gaining the wind. At last the French admiral De Grasse, prompted by his natural courage, or induced by circumstances, determined, after an indecisive action on the 9th of April 1782, to risk a close engagement with his formidable antagonist, Admiral Rodney. The action was brought on by the count shortening sail to prevent the loss of a disabled ship, by parting with which he might have avoided the disaster that followed. This memorable engagement took place off the island of Dominica, three days after the former. The British fleet consisted of thirty-seven ships of the line, and the French of thirty-four. The engagement commenced at seven o’clock in the morning, and continued with unremitting fury till half past six in the evening. It is said that no other signal was made by the admiral but the general one for action, and that for close combat. Sir George Rodney was on board the Formidable, a ship of ninety guns; and the Count de Grasse was on board the Ville de Paris, a ship of a hundred and ten guns, which had been presented to the French king by the city of Paris. In the course of the action, the Formidable fired nearly eighty broadsides; and for three hours the admiral’s ship was involved in so thick a cloud of smoke that it was almost invisible to the officers and men of the rest of the fleet. The van division of the British fleet was commanded by Sir Samuel Hood, and the rear division by Rear-admiral Drake; and both these officers greatly distinguished themselves in the course of the action. But the decisive turn on this memorable day was given by a bold manoeuvre of the Formidable, which, taking advantage of a favourable shift in the wind, passed through the French line, and threw them into irretrievable confusion. The first French ship that struck was the Caesar, of seventy-four guns, the captain of which fought nobly, and fell in the action. When she struck she had scarcely a foot of canvass without a shot hole. Unfortunately, soon after she was taken possession of, she took fire by accident, and blew up, when about two hundred Frenchmen perished in her, together with an English lieutenant and ten English seamen. The Glorieux and the Hector, both seventy-four gun ships, were also taken by the British fleet; together with the Ardent of sixty-four guns; and a French seventy-four gun ship was also sunk in the engagement. It was almost dark when the Ville de Paris, on board of which the Count de Grasse had fought gallantly, struck her colours. Five thousand five hundred troops were on board the French fleet, and the havoc among them was very great, as well as among the [7:5:422]French seamen. The British lost in killed and wounded about a thousand men. Captain Blair, who commanded the Anson, and several other officers, were killed in the action; and Lord Robert Manners, who commanded the Resolution, died of his wounds on his return home. It was universally allowed that in this engagement the French, notwithstanding their defeat, behaved with the greatest valour. De Grasse himself did not surrender till four hundred of his people were killed, and only the admiral and two others remained without a wound. The captain of the Caesar, after his ensign-staff’ was shot away, and the ship almost battered to pieces, caused his colours to be nailed to the mast, and thus continued fighting till he was killed. The vessel, when taken, was a mere wreck. Other French officers behaved with equal resolution. The valour of the British requires no encomium; it was proved by their success on this glorious day.^[15. The Count de Grasse, after his defeat, was received on board the Barfleur man of war, and afterwards landed on the island of Jamaica, where he was treated with great respect. After continuing there some time, he was conveyed to England, and accommodated with a suite of apartments at the royal hotel in Pall-mall. His sword, which he had delivered up, according to the usual custom, to Admiral Rodney, was returned to him by the king. This etiquette enabled him to appear at court, where he was received by their majesties and the royal family in a manner suitable to his rank. From the time of his arrival in London to his departure, which was on the 12th of August 1782, he was visited by many persons of the first fashion and distinction, and was much employed in paying visits to the great officers of state and some of the principal nobility of the kingdom, by whom he was entertained in a very sumptu, ous and hospitable style. He received, indeed, every mark of civility which the British nation could bestow; and was treated with much respect even by the common people, from the opinion that was generally entertained of his valour and merit. ]

This victory was a very fortunate circumstance both for the interest and the reputation of the British admiral. Before this event the new ministry had appointed Admiral Pigot to supersede him in the command in the West Indies; and it was understood that they meant to set on foot a rigid inquiry into the transactions at St Eustatius. But the splendour of this victory put an end to all thoughts of the kind; he received the thanks of both houses of parliament for his services; and he was created an English peer, by the title of Baron Rodney of Rodney Stoke, in the county of Somerset. Sir Samuel Hood was also created Baron Hood of Catherington, in the kingdom of Ireland; and Rear-admiral Drake and Captain Affleck were created baronets of Great Britain. Some attempts were also made, in the House of Commons, to procure a vote of censure against the new ministry for having recalled Lord Rodney; but the motions for this purpose were rejected by a large majority.

Though the designs of the French against Jamaica were now effectually frustrated, the victory was not followed by those beneficial results which many had expected from it; and none of the British islands which had been taken by the French in the West Indies were afterwards recaptured. Some of the ships which had been taken by Admiral Rodney were also lost at sea, particularly the Ville de Paris, Glorieux, and Hector; and a British man of war, the Centaur, of seventy-four guns, foundered at sea on the 24th of September 1782. The Jamaica homeward-bound fleet was also dispersed by a hurricane off the banks of Newfoundland, when the Ramillies of seventy-four guns and several merchantmen foundered. About this time the British navy sustained a very considerable loss at home, by the Royal George, of a hundred guns 3 being upset and sunk at Portsmouth. This melancholy accident, which happened on the 29th of August, was occasioned by a partial heel given to the ship, in order to cleanse and sweeten her. The guns on one side being removed to the other, or at least the greater part of them, and her lower deck ports not being lashed in, the ship thwarted on the tide with a squall from the north-west, filled with water, and sunk in the space of about three minutes. Admiral Kempenfclt, a number of other officers, and upwards of four hundred seamen and two hundred women, besides children, perished on this occasion. The prosecution of the war was thus attended with dis·’ asters and difficulties to all parties. The signal defeat above mentioned not only secured the island of Jamaica against the attempts of the French, but prevented them from entertaining any other project than that of distressing commerce.

In the beginning of May an expedition was undertaken to the remote and inhospitable regions of Hudson’s Bay; and though no force existed there capable of making any resistance, a seventy-four gun ship and two thirty-six gun frigates were employed in the service. All the people in that part of the world either fled or surrendered at the first summons. The loss of the Hudson’s Bay Company, on this occasion, amounted to L.500,000; but the humanity of the French commander was conspicuous, in leaving a sufficient quantity of provisions and stores of all kinds for the use of the British who had fled at his approach. Another expedition was undertaken by the Spaniards to the Bahama Islands, where an equally easy conquest was obtained. The island of Providence, defended only by three hundred and sixty men, could make no resistance when attacked by five thousand. An honourable capitulation was granted by the victors, who likewise treated the garrison with kindness. Some settlements on the Mosquito shore were also taken by the Spaniards; but the Bay-men, assisted by their negroes, bravely retook some of them; and having formed a little army of the Indians in those parts, headed by Colonel Despard, they attacked and carried the posts on the Black River, making prisoners of about eight hundred Spanish troops. The greatest disaster which befel this power, however, was their failure before Gibraltar, which happened in the month of September 1782, and was accompanied with such circumstances of horror and destruction as evinced the absurdity of persisting in the enterprise. Thus all parties felt that it was high time to put an end to the contest. The affair of Cornwallis had shown that it was impossible for Britain to conquer America; the defeat of De Grasse had rendered the reduction of the British possessions in the West Indies impracticable by the French; the final repulse before Gibraltar, and its relief afterwards by the British fleet, put an end to that favourite enterprise, in which almost the whole strength of Spain had been employed; and the engagement of the Dutch with Admiral Parker showed them that nothing could be gained by a naval war with Britain.

The events which led to the removal of Lord North and the other ministers who had so long directed public measures in this kingdom have been already noticed. On this occasion it was said that his majesty expressed considerable agitation of mind at being in a manner compelled to make an entire change in his councils; for the members in opposition would form no coalition with any of the old ministry, the lord chancellor only excepted. On the 30th of March 1782, the Marquis of Rockingham was appointed first lord of the treasury; Lord John Cavendish chancellor of the exchequer; the Earl of Shelburne and Mr Fox principal secretaries of state; Lord Camden president of the council; the Duke of Richmond master of the ordnance; the Duke of Grafton lord privy seal; Admiral[7:5:423] Keppel first lord of the admiralty; General Conway commander in chief of all the forces in Great Britain; Mr Thomas Townshend secretary at war; Mr Burke paymaster of the forces; and Colonel Barré treasurer of the navy. Other offices and honours were likewise conferred on different members of the opposition; and some were raised to the peerage, particularly Admiral Keppel, Sir Fletcher Norton, and Mr Dunning.

The first business in which the new ministry engaged was taking the necessary measures for effecting a general peace. No time, in fact, was lost in the pursuit of this great object; and the empress of Russia, having offered her mediation, in order to restore peace between Great Britain and Holland, Mr Secretary Fox, within two days after his entrance in office, wrote a letter to Simolin, the Russian minister in London, informing him that his majesty was ready to enter into negociations for peace, on the basis of the treaty of 1674; and that, in order to facilitate such negociations, he was willing to give immediate orders for a suspension of hostilities, if the States-general were disposed to agree to that measure. But the states of Holland did notappear inclined to enter into a separate peace; nor perhaps would it have been agreeable to the principles of sound policy if they had consented to any propositions of this kind. But immediately after the change of ministry, negociations for a general peace were commenced at Paris; and Mr Grenville was invested with full powers to treat with all the parties at war, and to propose the independence of the thirteen United Provinces of North America in the first instance, instead of making it a condition of a general treaty. Admiral Digby and General Carleton were also directed to acquaint the American congress with the pacific views of the British court, and with the offer made to acknowledge the independence of the United States.

But before this work of pacification had made any considerable progress, the new ministry sustained an irreparable loss by the death of the Marquis of Rockingham in July 1782. Even before this event, considerable apprehensions were entertained of their want of union; but the death of the nobleman just mentioned occasioned an absolute dissolution. The Earl of Shelburne, who succeeded him as first lord of the treasury, proved so disagreeable to some of his colleagues, that Mr Fox, Lord John Cavendish, Mr Burke, Mr Frederick Montague, and two or three others, instantly resigned. Others, however, though little attached to the earl, continued in their places; and his lordship found means to attach to his interest Mr William Pitt, son to the late Earl of Chatham. Though then in an early stage of life, that gentleman had already distinguished himself greatly in parliament, and was now prevailed upon to accept the office of chancellor. The seceding members of the cabinet were at pains to explain to the house their motives for taking this step, which were in general a suspicion that matters would be managed differently from the plan which they had proposed while in office, and particularly that American independence would not be acknowledged. But this was positively' denied at the time, and with truth, as appeared by the event. There appeared, indeed, a duplicity in the conduct of the Earl of Shelburne not easily to be accounted for. Even after it had been intimated by General Carleton and Admiral Digby that the independence of the United Provinces would be conceded by his majesty in the first instance, instead of making it a condition of a provisional treaty, his lordship said, that “he had formerly been, and still was, of opinion, that whenever the independence of America was acknowledged by the British parliament, the sun of England’s glory was set for ever.” This had been the opinion of Lord Chatham and other able statesmen; nevertheless, as the majority of the cabinet were of a contrary way of thinking, he acquiesced in the measure, though his ideas were different. He did not wish to see England’s sun set for ever, but looked for a spark* to be left which might light us up a new day. He wished to God that he had been deputed to congress, that he might plead the cause of America as well as Britain. He was convinced that the liberties of the former were gone as soon as the independence of the states was allowed; and he concluded his speech with observing, that he was not afraid of his expressions being repeated in America, there being great numbers there who were of the same opinion with him, and perceived ruin and independence linked together.”

If his lordship really expected that by a flourish of rhetoric he could persuade the Americans to abandon a system for which they had fought so desperately, he greatly overrated his own powers, and mistook the men with whom he had to deal. No obstruction, however, arose to the general pacification. As early as the 30th of November 1782, the articles of a provisional treaty were settled between Britain and America. By these it was stipulated, that the people of the United States should continue to enjoy, without molestation, the right to take fish of every kind on the grand bank, and on all the other banks of Newfoundland; and that they should continue to exercise the same privilege in the Gulf of St Lawrence, and at every other place in the sea where the inhabitants used heretofore to fish. They were likewise to have the liberty to take fish of every kind on such parts of the coast of Newfoundland as British seamen resort to, but not to cure or dry them on that island. They were to enjoy the privilege of fishing on the coasts, bays, and creeks of the other dominions of his Britannic majesty in America; and the American fishermen were permitted to cure and dry fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador. But it was agreed that, after such places should be settled, this right could not be legally put in practice without the consent of the inhabitants and proprietors of the ground. It was arranged that creditors upon either side should meet with no impediment in the prosecution of their claims; that the congress should earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states, to provide for the restitution of all estates and properties which had been confiscated belonging to real British subjects, and of the estates and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession of his majesty’s arms, and who had not borne arms against the United States; that persons of any other description should have free liberty to go to any part whatsoever of any of the thirteen United States, and remain in it for twelve months unmolested in their endeavours to recover such of their estates, rights, and properties, as might not have been confiscated; that the congress should earnestly' recommend to the several states a revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render them perfectly consistent, not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit of conciliation which, on the return of the blessing of peace, should universally prevail; that no future confiscations should be made, nor prosecutions commenced against any' person, or body of men, on account of the part which he or they had taken in the war; that those who might be in confinement on account of such a charge at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America should be immediately set at liberty; that all hostilities by sea and land should immediately cease; that prisoners on both sides should be set at liberty'; that his Britannic majesty should expeditiously, and without committing destruction of any sort, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets, from every port, place, and harbour, of the United States; that the navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, should remain for ever free [7:5:424]and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States; and, finally, that if any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should be conquered by the arms of either before the arrival of the provisional articles in America, it should be restored without compensation or difficulty.

In the treaty between Great Britain and France it was agreed that Newfoundland should remain with England, as before the war; and, to prevent disputes about boundaries, it was arranged that the French fishery should commence at Cape St John on the eastern side, and, sweeping round by the north, should have for its boundary Cape Ray on the western side. The islands of St Pierre and Miquelon, which had been taken in September 1778, were ceded in full right to France. Great Britain was to restore to France the island of St Lucia, and to cede and guarantee to her that of Tobago; and France was to surrender to Great Britain the islands of Grenada and the Grenadines, St Vincent, Dominica, St Christophers, Nevis, and Montserrat. The river Senegal and its dependencies were to be given to France; and the island of Goree was also to be restored. Fort James and the river Gambia were guaranteed to his Britannic majesty; and the gum trade was to remain in the same condition as before the commencement of hostilities. The king of Great Britain was to restore to his most Christian majesty all the establishments which belonged to him at the breaking out of the war on the coast of Orixa and in Bengal; and became bound to secure to the subjects of France in that part of India, and on the coasts of Orixa, Coromandel, and Malabar, a safe, free, and independent trade, either as individuals, or under the direction of a company. Pondicherry, as well as Karical, was to be restored to France; the two districts of Valanour and Bahour, round Pondicherry, and the four contiguous Magans round Karical, were also to be given up; and the French were again to enter into the possession of Mahe, and of the comptoir at Surat. The allies of France and Great Britain were to be invited to accede to the present pacification; and in the event of their disinclination, no assistance on either side was to be given to them. Great Britain renounced all claims to Dunkirk. Commissioners were to be respectively appointed by both nations to inquire into the state of commerce, and to concert new arrangements of trade on the footing of mutual convenience. And all conquests on either side, in any part of the world whatsoever, not mentioned nor alluded to in the treaty, were to be restored without difficulty, and without requiring compensation. The prisoners on each side were also to be released without ransom, upon the ratification of the treaty, and on paying the debts which they might have contracted during their captivity; and each crown was respectively to reimburse the sums which had been advanced for the maintenance of their prisoners, by the country where they had been detained, according to attested and authentic vouchers. These preliminary articles of peace were concluded at Versailles on the 20th of January 1783, between Mr Alleyne Fitzherbcrt, minister plenipotentiary on the part of his Britannic majesty, and Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes, the minister plenipotentiary on the part of the king of France.

At the same time preliminary articles of peace between Great Britain and Spain were also concluded at Versailles between Mr Fitzherbert and the Conde d’Aranda, the minister plenipotentiary of the Spanish monarch. His Catholic majesty was to continue in possession of the island of Minorca, and to retain West Florida; whilst East Florida was to be ceded to him by the king of Great Britain. Eighteen months from the ratification of the definitive treaty were to be allowed to the subjects of Britain who had settled in the island of Minorca and in the two Floridas, to sell their estates, recover their debts, and transport their persons and effects, without being restrained upon account of their religion, or on any other pretence whatsoever, except that of debts and prosecutions for crimes. The liberty of cutting logwood, in a district of which the boundaries were to be ascertained, without molestation or disturbance of any kind whatsoever, was granted to Great Britain. The king of Spain was to restore the islands of Providence and the Bahamas, in the condition in which they were when conquered by his arms. And all other conquests of territories and countries upon either side, not included in the present articles, were also to be mutually restored without difficulty or compensation. But no sooner were these articles ratified and laid before parliament, than they excited the most vehement declamations against ministry. Never had the administration of Lord North himself been arraigned with more asperity of language. The ministry defended themselves with resolution, but found it impossible to avoid the censure of parliament. An address without any amendment was indeed carried in the House of Lords by a considerable majority; but it was lost in the lower house. On the 2lst of February some resolutions were moved in the House of Commons by Lord George Cavendish, of which the most remarkable were, that the concessions made by Britain were greater than its adversaries had a right to expect; and that the house would take the case of the American loyalists into consideration. The last motion indeed his lordship consented to waive, but the rest were carried against ministry.

These proceedings, however, made no alteration with regard to the treaty, which had already been ratified by all the contending powers, the Dutch only excepted. The terms offered the latter were a renewal of the treaty of 1674; which, though highly advantageous, they at that time positively declined. They afterwards, however, made an oífer to accept the terms which they had formerly rejected; but the compliment was then returned by a refusal on the part of Britain. When the preliminary articles had been settled with the courts of France and Spain, a suspension of arms with Holland ensued; but though the definitive arrangements with the other powers were finally concluded by the month of September, it was not till then that the preliminary articles were settled with Holland. The terms were a general restitution of all places taken on both sides during the war, excepting only the settlement of Negapat-nam in the East Indies, which was to remain in the hands of Britain, unless an equivalent should be given on the part of Holland. The navigation of the eastern seas was to remain free and unmolested to all British shipping. The remaining articles concerned only the exchange of prisoners, and such other matters as are common to all treaties.

Thus an end was put to the most dangerous war in which Britain had ever engaged, and out of which, notwithstanding the powerful combination against her, she came superior to all her enemies. The politicians who had imagined that the prosperity of Britain depended in a great measure on her colonies were singularly mistaken. This was shown at the time, and has been completely confirmed by subsequent experience. For a number of years she had not only been deprived of these colonies, but opposed by them with all their force; yet though attacked at the same time by three of the greatest powers in Europe, and looked upon with an invidious eye by all the rest, the damage done to her enemies still greatly exceeded that which she had received. Their trade by sea was almost ruined; and on comparing the loss of ships on both sides, the balance in favour of Britain was twenty-eight ships of the line and thirty-seven frigates, carrying in all near two thousand [7:5:425]guns. Notwithstanding this, however, the state of the nation appears to have been really such that a much longer continuance of the war would have been impracticable.

Having thus given as full an account as our limits admit of the great national events till the conclusion of the peace in 1783, we shall now advert to some others, which, though of sufficient importance to deserve notice, could not be previously introduced without interrupting the narrative. On the 8th of December 1776 a fire broke out in the ropehouse of the dock-yard at Portsmouth, which totally consumed it, but without doing any very material damage. For some time the affair passed as an accident; but in clearing away the rubbish a tin-box was found with a wooden bottom, containing matches which had been lighted, and underneath was a vessel filled with spirits of wine. The fire, however, not having been properly supplied with air, had gone out of itself before it touched the spirits of wine; for if it had caught fire, all the stores in the storehouse, sufficient to fit out fifty sail of the line, would have been destroyed. In the beginning of the year 1777 a fire happened at Bristol, which consumed six or seven warehouses; and by the discovery of machines similar to those already mentioned, it was evident that the fire had not been accidental. The terror of the public was now greatly increased, and violent mutual accusations were thrown out by the ministerial and popular parties. On this point, however, they soon came to a right understanding, by the discovery of the author of all this mischief.

This was one James Aitken, otherwise called John the Painter, a native of Edinburgh. Having from his early years been accustomed to a vagrant life, to which indeed his profession naturally led him, he had gone through a variety of adventures. He had enlisted as a soldier, deserted, and, when pinched by want, made no scruple of betaking himself to the highway, or of committing thefts. Having traversed a great part of America, he had there imbibed to such a degree the prejudices against Britain, that he at last took the extraordinary resolution of singly overturning the whole power of the nation; an achievement which he was to accomplish by setting fire to the dockyards at Portsmouth and Plymouth, and afterwards to the principal trading towns of the kingdom. With this view he carefully inspected the docks and other places on which his attempts were to be made, in order to ascertain in what manner they were guarded, which he found in general as negligent as he could desire: and had there not been some deficiency in the construction of his machines, he must have done incredible mischief; for as his attempts were always detected by the discovery of his machines, it is evident that he had met with abundance of opportunities. For some time the affair at Portsmouth, as has already been mentioned, passed for an accident. It was soon recollected, however, that a person had been seen loitering about the rope-house, and had even been locked up a night in it; that he had worked as a painter, and taken frequent opportunities of getting into that house, and other buildings in the yard. These circumstances exciting a suspicion that he was the incendiary, he was traced to different places, and at last found in a prison, to which he had been committed on a charge of burglary. On his examination, however, he behaved with an assurance and apparent consciousness of innocence which almost disconcerted those who were appointed to examine him; but at last he was deceived into a confession by another painter, a native of America, who pretended to compassionate his case. Evidence was thus procured against him, but he still maintained his character to the last, rejecting and invalidating the testimony of his perfidious friend, on account of his baseness and treachery. He received his sentence with great fortitude, but at length confessed his guilt, and left some directions for preventing the dock-yards and magazines from being exposed to similar danger in future. 1 Thus is appeared that the whole of the alarm of treason and American incendiaries was occasioned by the political enthusiasm of a wretched vagabond, who chose to stake his life on the wild venture we have described.

Still, however, it appeared that the French court were very well acquainted with many particulars relating to the state of this kindgom, and the movements of our squadrons, which ought by all means to have been kept secret. These treacherous communications were first detected in the month of June 1780. One Ratcliffe, master of a cutter, disclosed that he had been hired by a fellow called Roger to carry packets to France, for which he was to be paid L.20 each time, and to have L.100 besides at a certain period; but apprehending that he might incur some danger by continuing this employment, he gave information of what was going on to one Mr Steward, a merchant at Sandwich, by whom his last packet was carried to the secretary of state. After being opened and scaled up again, it was returned, and he was directed to carry it to France as formerly. Several succeeding packets were treated in the same fashion, though it was some time before Ratcliffe saw the principal party concerned; but this was at last accomplished by his complaining to Roger that he had not been paid the L.100 according to promise. A meeting having been procured, it was found that the person who furnished intelligence to the enemy was one M. Henri de la Motte, a French gentleman then residing in London. On searching his house, no papers of any consequence were found; but being absent when the messengers first arrived, he, on his return, threw some out of his pockets, unperceived, as he thought, by any body. The papers, however, were taken up by the messengers, and gave plain indications not only of a treasonable correspondence with the enemy, but also of his being connected with one Henry Lutterloch, a German, who then resided at Wickham near Portsmouth. This person being also apprehended, not only made a full disclosure of the treasonable correspondence with France, but gave abundant proofs of being himself one of the most depraved of mankind, and lost to every feeling excepting the desire of accumulating wealth. His evidence, however, and other strong circumstances, were sufficient to convict Μ. de la Motte, who was accordingly executed, though the king remitted the more dreadful part of his sentence. During his trial, and on every other occasion, he behaved in such a manner as showed him to be an accomplished gentleman, and not only excited the compassion, but the admiration, of every one who saw him.

During the whole course of the war, only one other person was detected in any act of treason; and he appears to have been actuated merely by mercenary motives. This was a man called David Tyrie, a native of Edinburgh. Having been bred in the mercantile line, and engaged in a number of speculations with a view to gain money, in all of which he had discovered considerable abilities, he at last engaged in the more dangerous one of conveying intelligence to the French, of the ships of war fitted out in Britain, the time of their sailing, and other particulars. For this he was apprehended in the month of February 1782. The discovery was made by means of one Mrs Askew, who passed for Tyrie’s wife. This person having delivered a bundle of papers in a hurry to a school-mistress, desired her not to show them to anyone; the latter, however, not only inspected them herself but showed them to another, by whom they were sent to the secretary at war. By this, and another packet discovered by William James, who had been employed to carry it to France, Tyrie was convicted of treasonable correspondence with the enemy, and executed in the month of August 1782.
[7:5:426]

On the whole, it appears that notwithstanding the excessive virulence of parties, which even proceeded so far as to produce duels between some members of parliament, neither entertained any designs against what was believed to be the true interest of the nation. The one seems to have regarded its honour too much, and to have been inclined to sacrifice even its existence to that favourite notion; the other perhaps regarded the national honour too little; nor indeed could an advantageous idea have been formed of the spirit of the nation which should have submitted to the dismemberment of its empire without a struggle. The event, however, has shown, that the loss of the colonies, so far from being a disadvantage, has been the very reverse. The commerce of Britain, instead of being dependent on America, has arrived at a much greater height than ever; whilst the consequent increase of wealth has enabled the nation to support that enormous debt, part of which was contracted, first in defending, and then in attempting to conquer, the colonies.

CHAP. XIV.

REIGN OF GEORGE III. INTERMEDIATE PERIOD.

Nature of the opposition to Lord Shelburne’s administration— States of Parties Coalition between Lord North and Mr Fox.

—Coalition Ministry—Taxes—Mr Pitt’s Motion for Reform in Parliament—Irish Independence Bill—Mr Dundas’s India Bill.—Mr Pitt’s Office-Reform Bill—Petition of the American Loyalists.—Establishment of the Prince of Wales—New Inventions—Opinion of the Public respecting the Coalition.— Mr Fox’s India Bills—Report of the Secret Committee— Sir T. Rumbold and Mr Hastings accused by Mr Dundas— Report of the Select Committee—Debates on Mr Fox’s Bills. —First Bill carried in the Commons His Majesty’s disapprobation intimated Rejected in the Lords.—Change of Ministry, and accession of Mr Pitt to Office Contest between the

Crown and the House of Commons—Resolutions of the House against the new Ministry—Mr Pitt’s Bill for regulating India rejected.—Further Disputes.—The Public take part with the Administration—New Coalition proposed—Mr Pitt refuses to resign, and the King also refuses to dismiss the Minister—Dissolution of Parliament.—Elections Total Defeat of the Coalition Consequences New Parliament.—Mr Pitt’s new India

Bill—Debates on this Measure.—Finance—Restoration of the Forfeited Estates Westminster Election—Nabob of Arcot’s Debts—Nature of these.—Exposition of JXIr Burke Mr Pitt’s

Plan of Parliamentary Reform—Rejected in limine —Finances. —Duke of Richmond’s Fortifications—Regulation of Public Offices.—Irish Propositions.—Foreign Affairs—League to protect the Germanic Constitution Commercial Treaties—Britain and Hanover Debate on the Duke of Richmond’s Plans.

—Militia Laws Mr Pitt’s Sinking Fund Discussion thereon—Fallacy of the Scheme—Wine Duties—Best size and form of Ships of War.—General State of the Empire—India.— Mr Burke’s Proceedings against Mr Hastings Mr Pitt’s In dia Bill amended by Mr Dundas’s act—Attempt against the King’s Life by Margaret Nicholson—Commercial Treaty with France—Debates thereon—Air Pitt’s Defence of the Treaty. —Consolidation of Taxes.—Corporation and Test Acts—Prince of Wales’s Debts—Accusation of Air Hastings—Air Sheridan’s celebrated Speech on the Begum Charge Articles of Impeach ment prepared—Impeachment Voted—Reflections on this Proceeding—Affairs of Holland State of Parties in the United Provinces.—Interference of the Neighbouring States.—Prussians invade Holland—AIeeting of Parliament—Conduct of the Government in regard to Holland approved of by the Opposition Naval Promotions, and Debates thereon Act against the Exportation of Wool—State of the Revenue Compensa tion to the American Loyalists—Slave Trade—Bill for Regulating the Transportation of Negroes—Indian Affairs—Declaratory Bill—Trial of Air Hastings—Burke’s Oration of Five Days.—AIode of Procedure.—Accusation of Siτ Elijah Impey. —State of European Politics Sweden—AVars between Sweden and Russia Danish Invasion of Sweden—Interposition of the British Envoy, and Recal of the Danish troops—The King’s Illness.—Regency Question.—Debates and Proceedings connected therewith—Manoeuvring and Procrastination of the AIinistry.—The Prinċe’s Correspondence—Regency Bill passed Recovery of the King—Conduct of the Irish Parlia-1

ment respecting the Regency—The Slave Trade—Air Wilberforce’s Propositions.—Jesuitical Support of Air Pitt—Air Addington chosen Speaker of the House of Commons—New Taxes Extension of the Excise Laws Proposed Repeal of

Religious Tests and Penal Statutes.—Indian Affairs.—Trial of Air Hastings—Affair of Nundcomar.

It has been already remarked, that in the debates in the House of Commons upon the treaties concluded under Lord Shelburne’s administration, by which the American war was brought to a close, the terms of those treaties were disapproved of by the majority of the house; and this disapprobation was expressed by carrying an amendment to the ministerial motion for an address of thanks to his majesty. It does not appear, however, that the nation at large disapproved of the conditions of the peace. All ranks of men had long been weary of the war with the colonies, and desirous to relinquish every claim of sovereignty over them; and this point being decided, other objects of negociation were of too little importance to excite any great degree of public interest. The majority which now voted against administration consisted of men brought together by views little connected with the accomplishment of any patriotic object, and in a manner which well merits the attention of the historian.

The death of the Marquis of Rockingham left in a very disjointed state the party which had opposed the American war. Lord Shelburne’s administration appears to have been formed under the influence of the crown alone, to the exclusion of Lord North and his friends, as well as of Mr Fox and the other principal members of the former opposition. Thus an attempt appears to have been made to govern the kingdom without supporting the royal prerogative by the strength of any political party. An event, however, occurred of a nature undoubtedly not a little dangerous to the constitution; but being new in itself, it seems not to have been foreseen by speculative writers upon the British government.

The American war had been conducted with a profusion of expense totally unexampled in former contests. The service of government became of itself an immense object of trade, an employment in which thousands of all kinds of artists, manufacturers, and merchants, engaged; and hence the patronage enjoyed by the minister for the time was proportionally extensive. The natural consequence was, that he and his friends, with a long train of their friends and dependents, were enabled to accumulate great wealth, and rise to the enjoyment of influence in all parts of the country'. The impracticability of accomplishing the great object of the war at last led to its termination; and the minister who had been unsuccessful in conducting it was dismissed, as had usually' been done upon such occasions in Britain, to make way for his antagonists, who had long recommended, and who could, therefore, with a better grace adopt, measures of pacification. But die dismission of the minister and his friends from their official situations did not at once destroy their political importance in the state. They constituted a very formidable body of men in both houses of parliament; and such was the influence which the possession of power had conferred upon Lord North, that to the latest period of his life he was understood to be able to carry along with him, at all times, upwards of forty votes in the House of Commons; a power which was evidently too dangerous to belong to a subject of a free state, and so indeed it proved by the event to be.

Mr Fox, and the other statesmen who had led the opposition to Lord North’s measures during the American war, but who had retired from administration on the accession of Lord Shelburne to the treasury after the death [7:5:427]of the Marquis of Rockingham, appear to have at last become weary of an unprofitable opposition, and desirous upon almost any terms of entering into the enjoyment of power. But their party, though possessing very great talents, was too weak in point of numbers to be able to contend against the minister of the day, supported by the whole patronage of the crown. On the other hand, though Lord North and his friends formed in both houses of parliament a very formidable phalanx, still they also were too few to contend against ministerial influence, and the party usually called the “king’s friends ;” while from the natural course of things they might also expect that their numbers would gradually diminish. They had risen by attaching themselves to the service of the state; and the changes which mortality produces would by degrees enable the existing government to supplant them by a new race of ambitious men. In this state of matters the two opposition parties, led by Lord North and Mr Fox, thought fit to come to an agreement to unite their strength, and thus, by forming a complete majority in parliament, to impose themselves upon the sovereign as his ministers. In this way the majority was produced which opposed Lord Shelburne’s administration, and it has since been known under the appellation of the Coalition.

The effect produced upon the public mind by this coalition was extremely important; and it is probable that even yet its consequences are not fully understood. In almost any other country than Britain, and indeed at many former periods of our history, such a combination of powerful men, possessing a predominance in the legislature, could not have failed to prove fatal to the constitution, and destructive of the internal tranquillity of the state. If the king gave way to such an aristocratical combination, and received its leaders into his service, it was to be feared that the whole patronage of the crown, together with the authority of the royal name, and the majority which they already possessed in the other branches of the legislature, might enable them to fortify themselves by new institutions and laws, and render them independent both of the king and people. No hope appeared from a dissolution of parliament, as the public at large were not at once aware of the critical situation to which the constitution had been brought by the Coalition; and a prince of a rash character would, in such circumstances, perhaps have seen no other resource for the protection of his prerogative, than to attempt to govern without a parliament, the majority of which were evidently acting, not the part of dutiful subjects or faithful representatives of the people, but of individuals conspiring to seize, for their own private advantage, the emoluments and authority of office. This judgment will not probably be regarded as too severe, when it is considered, that at the period in question there existed no pretext for opposition to the crown founded upon any complaint of the nation against the abuse of its prerogatives; and that the individuals who now coalesced could not have been induced to do so upon any pretence of political principle. Lord North, the steady assertor and supporter of the royal prerogative, and the conductor of the American war, now joined Mr Fox, the opponent of that war, and the eloquent champion of the privileges of the people; and neither of these men, nor their friends, ever pretended that they had relinquished their former opinions. The purpose of the present coalition was therefore notorious; whilst the outrageous abuse with which they had formerly treated each other served only to afford a new example how completely ambition is capable of subduing every resentment, and all the ordinary passions of the human mind.

The party now called the Coalition had displayed the superiority of their numbers in the House of Commons in the debates upon the treaty of peace in the middle of February. From that period it was considered as obvious that a new administration must be formed; and hence from that time public business remained at a stand, and the nation was kept in suspense. The period was critical, on account of the termination of the war, at which great bodies of troops and seamen were to be discharged, and many pecuniary arrears paid off. The different regiments of militia were also disembodied, and sailors and soldiers dismissed in a state of turbulence, natural to men accustomed to arms, and whose pay had not been regularly paid. These and other circumstances, joined with the unsettled state of the government, produced various disorderly proceedings at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and other places. In the mean time, a loan could not be negociated by the ministry whilst they wanted the countenance of the House of Commons. During the whole month of March, however, they still lingered in their places, and a variety of negociations were carried on by the court for the purpose of attempting to form a new ministry, without an unconditional transfer of the government of the kingdom to the Coalition. Confident of their own strength, however, this political combination were desirous of attaining power upon their own terms, and continued to display their superiority in the House of Commons, with a view to compel their own reception at court. On the 24th of March, on the motion of Mr T. W. Coke, seconded by Lord Surrey, an address was agreed to, requesting his majesty to take into consideration the distracted state of the empire after an exhausting war, and to comply with the wishes of the house, by forming an administration entitled to the confidence of his people. His majesty answered, that it was his earnest desire to do every thing in his power to comply with the wishes of his faithful Commons. The delay, however, continued; and all descriptions of men were involved in doubt, suspense, and anxiety. On the 31st of the same month, a new address, moved by Lord Surrey, was agreed to, urging in very earnest terms the formation of what was called an efficient and responsible administration, formed upon principles of strength and stability, and suited to the actual state of his majesty’s affairs both at home and abroad. And at last, on the 2d of April, his majesty, yielding to what appeared as necessity, appointed an administration consisting of the leaders of the Coalition.

The Duke of Portland was promoted to be first lord of the treasury; Lord North and Mr Fox were appointed principal secretaries of state; Lord John Cavendish was made chancellor of the exchequer; Lord Keppel was placed at the head of the admiralty; Lord Stormont was created president of the council; and the Earl of Carlisle was advanced to be keeper of the privy seal. These constituted the cabinet; and the other offices of government were filled by the supporters and friends of ministers. The right honourable Charles Townshend was appointed treasurer of the navy, Mr Burke paymaster general of the forces, and Lord Viscount Townshend master-general of the ordnance. The seals were put in commission, at the head of which was Lord Loughborough. The right honourable Richard Fitzpatrick was appointed secretary at war; James Wallace, Esq. was made attorney-general; John Lee, Esq. became solicitor-general; the Earl of Northington was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland; and, in Scotland, the honourable Henry Erskine was made lord-advocate, in the room of Mr Henry Dundas. But the new administration was no sooner installed, than an opposition was formed, which, in the House of Lords, was led by the Duke of Richmond and Lord Thurlow; and in the House of Commons by Mr Pitt, and Mr Jenkinson, afterwards created successively Lord Hawkesbury and Earl of Liverpool.

The Coalition administration, on entering into office, [7:5:428]were under the necessity of instantly negociating a loan of twelve millions, to supply the necessities of the state; and to provide for the interest of this loan various taxes were proposed by Lord John Cavendish, the chancellor of the exchequer. These were imposed on bills of exchange, receipts, probates of wills and legacies, bonds, and law proceedings, stage coaches, quack medicines, carriages, letters-patent, and other articles; whilst registers of births, marriages, and deaths, were also taxed. These taxes gave rise to debates which produced little interest. But the case was otherwise with regard to'another subject in which Mr Pitt took the lead.

Towards the close of the American war, when want of success had begun to render it unpopular, it had been repeatedly urged, both in parliament and in various publications, that the ministcrial majorities in favour of the measures pursued against the colonies would never have existed if the people of this country had been fairly represented in the House of Commons. By degrees this sentiment attracted attention; and to give countenance to parliamentary reform came to be regarded as a sure step towards the attainment of popular favour. Accordingly, Mr Pitt, then a young man, endeavoured to recommend himself to notice, by engaging eagerly in the pursuit of this object. He opened the subject in the House of Commons on the 7th of May, in an eloquent speech, in which, after declaring his admiration of the general fabric of the British constitution, and affirming that he wished not to alter but to restore its true spirit, which tìmeand changes, accident and events, had enfeebled and diminished, he asserted that the state of parliamentary representation was partial and inadequate, and the progress of undue influence alarming and ominous; that the true spirit of liberty had decayed, and that the powers of control, in different branches of the government, were greatly debilitated; that wild speculations of reform were afloat without doors; but that the measures he was about to propose were equally moderate and necessary. He stated his plan of reform to be,—first, that measures ought to be taken to prevent bribery and expense at elections; secondly, that for the future, when the majority of voters of any borough should be convicted of notorious corruption, the borough should be disfranchised, and the minority of voters not so convicted should be entitled to vote for the county in which the borough might be situated; thirdly, that an addition ought to be made to the representation, to consist of knights of the shire, and of representatives of the metropolis. Mr Pitt was opposed with much earnestness by Lords North and Mulgrave, and also by Mr Powis. He was supported, however, by Mr Fox and Mr Beaufoy, and also by Mr Thomas Pitt, who offered, as a testimony of his sincerity, to make a voluntary sacrifice of his borough of Old Sarum. Mr Henry Dundas, who now attached himself to Mr Pitt, supported on this occasion the motion of his friend, and asserted, that to comply with the wishes of the people would be the happiest means of putting an end to their complaints. Mr Pitt’s resolutions, however, were lost by a very large majority.

During the same session the new administration brought forward a bill, admitting in express terms the exclusive rights and absolute supremacy of the parliament and courts of Ireland in matters of legislation and judicature, and preventing any writs of error or appeal from the courts of that country to the courts of Great Britain. The bill passed with little opposition, and tended to gratify the people of Ireland, though, by increasing the line of separation between the countries, it evidently placed them in greater hazard of disunion.

During the prcsent session Mr Dundas obtained leave to bring into parliament a bill for regulating the affairs of India. The chief feature of his plan consisted in subjecting the presidencies of Madras and Bombay to a controlling jurisdiction, to be conferred on the government of Bengal, which he wished to vest in the person a of governor, entitled to act when he thought fit, in opposition to the opinion of his council. Another object of this bill was to secure to the native proprietors their estates in perpetuity, on payment of a fixed tribute, and to extend these provisions to the nabob of Arcot and the rajah of Tanjore. Mr Dundas contended that such a measure was rendered necessary in consequence of the improper conduct and tyranny of the servants of the East India Company, and especially of their principal servant Mr Hastings, whom he proposed to recal, and to send out to India Lord Cornwallis, as governor-general, in his stead. The scheme, however, proved abortive; but it led to other legislative efforts on the same subject.

Though Mr Pitt had been unsuccessful in his proposal to reform the representation of the people in parliament, he immediately brought forward a bill containing a project for an inferior species of reform, respecting the fees, gratuities, and perquisites in the different departments of the public offices. The object of this bill being economy, it passed through the House of Commons, but was rejected in the House of Lords.

Towards the close of the session, a petition from the American loyalists was, by his majesty’s command, presented to the House of Commons by Lord John Cavendish. It stated that the petitioners, some of whom were persons of the first character, fortune, and consideration, having adhered to Great Britain during the contest with the colonies, had been attainted in North America as traitors, and their effects confiscated by the legislatures of the different states. Many of the petitioners were widows and orphans, who had lost husbands and fathers by their adherence to the British cause; whilst others were military and civil officers, clergy and other professional men, who had lost their means of subsistence in the same manner. They prayed the House of Commons to grant them such relief as might seem adequate to their situation; and, on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, an act was accordingly passed, appointing commissioners to inquire into the circumstances of such persons as were reduced to distress by the late dissensions in America.

On the 23d of June his majesty, by a message, requested the aid of parliament in making a separate establishment for the Prince of Wales. Sixty thousand pounds only were demanded for this purpose; and it was stated by Lord John Cavendish, that his majesty intended to allow the prince L.50,000 a year out of the civil list, without requiring from the public any further assistance than the above sum of L.60,000, which would be requisite to defray the extraordinary expense attending a new establishment. This last sum was the more readily granted, because rumours had gone abroad, which were alluded to by Mr Pitt in the House of Commons, that an intention had existed on the part of the administration, particularly of Mr Fox, to give the prince a very splendid establishment at the public expense, but that this proposal had not proved acceptable to his majesty. Mr Fox said, that he undoubtedly considered the proposed establishment as much too low; and that if it had remained with him to have advised an establishment, he would most assuredly have proposed a sum more adequate to the object in view. The person, however, most proper to decide in the business had been of an opinion very different, and it was his duty to submit, x

Parliament was soon afterwards prorogued. The nation was now in a state of perfect tranquillity. Some anxiety, [7:5:429]however, existed in the minds of men with regard to the public welfare. The load of public debt which had been incurred seemed excessive; and though commerce began to flow into new and extensive channels, the returns of trade necessarily required some time to exhibit themselves in the form of a flourishing revenue. In the interval, therefore, between the period at which the ministerial expenditure for the support of the war ceased, and that at which the first profits of foreign trade were received, a considerable shortcoming took place in the public revenue, and individuals experienced many difficulties. These, however, gradually passed away; and two inventions were by degrees brought to perfection, which of themselves secured a profit to the public, almost equivalent to the burdens which it had incurred in consequence of the American war. These were the machine for spinning cotton, the invention of a man, originally of low station, Richard Arkwright; and the very valuable kinds of pottery contrived by Mr Wedgewood. The first of these, by producing at a cheap rate the most beautiful cotton fabrics, in a great measure put an end to the use of silk, and gave to the British manufacturers a kind of monopoly of many of the most useful articles of clothing; whilst the other not only drew to the nation immense sums from foreign countries, but, from the bulky nature of the commodity, employed an immense tonnage of shipping in its exportation.

In the mean time people had leisure to reflect upon the nature of the coalition of political parties which had recently taken place. The tendency of that measure, and the possible evils which might result from it, did not at once present themselves to the minds of men, because it was not known to the public at large that the sovereign had felt his own independence affected by the event. The general sentiment, however, was that of indignation against the political parties, who had so far forgotten all the principles which they had long and loudly professed, as to be capable of uniting with each other for the sake of power and emolument. It was universally said that no honesty was to be found among political men, and that no profession of patriotism ought henceforth to be trusted. Thus a severe wound was inflicted upon the public morals of the nation, by the want of consistency which its most conspicuous characters had exhibitecl; and the wound was only the deeper from the apparent strength of administration, which included in itself the men of greatest political influence in the kingdom, who were considered as likely to retain long the power which they now possessed.

In this state of affairs parliament assembled on the 11th of November. In the speech from the throne, the necessity of providing for the security of the revenue, and of attending to the situation of the East India Company, were stated to both houses, as apologies for calling them together after so short a recess. Some days passed in discussions relative to different parts of the revenue, when Mr Secretary Fox moved for leave to bring in two bills relative to the affairs of the East India Company. By the first of these, it was proposed to take from the East India Company the whole administration of their territorial and commercial affairs, and to vest it in seven directors, named in the bill, viz. Earl Fitzwilliam, the Right Honourable Frederick Montague, Lord Viscount Lewisham, the Honourable George Augustus North, Sir Gilbert Elliot, Sir Henry Fletcher, and Robert Gregory, Esq. These directors, or commissioners, were to hold their office during four years, and not to be removable by his majesty, without an address from either house of parliament; and they were to be aided by a board composed of nine assistant directors, who were to be removable by five of the principal directors, and were to have full authority over all the company’s servants and affairs, civil as well as military. The second bill, which accompanied the first in all its stages, was intended to regulate the administration of affairs in India. It forbade the.exchange, acquisition, or invasion of any territory in India, by the general council, or any presidency there. It abolished all monopolies in India, and prohibited the acceptance of presents, making them recoverable by any person for his sole benefit. It secured an estate of inheritance to the native landholders, and provided against the alteration or increase of rents. It prohibited the molestation of princes subject to the Company, and restrained the Company’s servants from collecting or farming their revenues, or having any pecuniary transactions with them. It prescribed a mode for adjusting the disputes between the nabob of Arcot and the rajah of Tanjore, and also between them and their British creditors. It disqualified the agents of the Company, or of any protected Indian prince, from sitting in the British House of Commons; and directed all offences against the act to be prosecuted in the courts of India or in the Court of King’s Bench.

The East India Company’s affairs had hitherto been governed, in terms of the charter of the Company, by a court of proprietors, and a court of directors elected by the proprietors. The rights of these courts, however, were to be absolutely taken away; and their whole powers, or the sovereignty of British India, was to be vested during four years certain in the hands of seven individuals, nominated by the present administration, through the medium of their parliamentary majority. It was undoubtedly a bold measure, openly to assault the privileges of such a body of men as the East India Company; but it was still more new and singular under the British constitution, in the form in which it had existed for more than a century, to vest a large portion of the executive power, including the command of armies, and an immense pecuniary patronage, in the hands of a few individuals, who were to hold their places for a fixed period, independently of the will of the crown. By taking possession in this manner of the patronage of Hindustan, the present administration would have found means to render themselves for a certain time avowedly independent of their sovereign, and they would not have failed to renew their own powers at the end of that period. It is to be observed, however, that the administration had in some degree been led by circumstances which previously occurred, and which did not originate with them, to adopt some decisive measures for reducing India under better management than that in which it had been placed by the East India Company; and of these it will not be improper here to take a short review.

The circumstance of a great and wealthy empire having been vanquished by a company of merchants, was a thing so new in the history of the world that it could not fail to be attended with a variety of inconveniences. The European nations have a near resemblance to each other in laws, manners, arts, and religion; and the mutual jealousy which for some centuries they had been accustomed to entertain of each other had prevented any of them from making great conquests. When any power, therefore, happened to acquire a portion of territory, this addition was never very great; and the laws of the neighbouring states being nearly alike, the conquered province scarcely experienced any misfortune from a change of masters. Hence the evils attending upon great conquests had ceased to be known among the nations of Europe; and the conquerors and the conquered being in all cases men of similar characters and talents, easily mingled with each other. The nobles of Alsace were as well received at the court of France as those belonging to the ancient dominions of the French crown; and the natives of the Netherlands regarded with [7:5:430]much indifference their transition from the dominion of Spain to that of Austria and of France. But when the British made conquests in Hindustan, all the evils occurred which naturally attend the loss of national independence, and that most wretched of all states of human affairs, in which a race of strangers enjoys permanent dominion, whilst the natives of a country are subjected to hopeless depression and slavery. The British invaders of India undoubtedly possessed, or speedily acquired, the same rapacity with other conquerors; and as they were the servants of a company of merchants whose only principle of exertion was profit, it is probable that under them avarice and extortion assumed more vexatious forms, because accompanied with greater assiduity, and a more persevering temper, than were exhibited by the former conquerors of that country, who issued from the deserts of Tartary and Arabia. The people of Great Britain, accustomed at home to the mildest government, and to the most equitable administration of justice that the world ever experienced, heard with horror of the crimes, robberies, perfidies, and massacres which their countrymen had committed, and by which the national name and character had been rendered odious in the East. The British government, also, being no party to these crimes, wished to see them repressed, and very naturally supposed that the best remedy would consist in taking India under its own immediate management. Some public-spirited individuals, indeed, dreaded the accession of influence which the crown would thus necessarily acquire; but men of humanity were willing to encounter considerable hazard, for the sake of altering the unjustifiable mode of management which had prevailed in the East.

Early in 1781, two committees were appointed by the House of Commons, to inquire into the mal-administration of the East India Company’s affairs both at home and abroad; and all parties in the house concurred in the appointment. The first, or select committee, conducted by some of the most distinguished members of opposition, was directed to inquire into the state of the administration of justice in the provinces of Bengal, Bahar, and Orixa, and consider how the British possessions in the East Indies might be governed with most advantage to this country, and with the greatest happiness to the natives. The second, or secret committee, under the management of persons in the confidence of administration, was directed to inquire into the causes of the war in the Carnatic, and the condition of the British possessions in those parts.

On the 9th of April 1782, Mr Henry Dundas, lord-advocate of Scotland, and chairman of the secret committee, moved that the reports of that committee be referred to a committee of the whole house. Upon this occasion, Mr Dundas, in a long speech, enumerated the causes of the calamities of the East, particularly the departure of the Company’s presidencies from the line of policy prescribed to them, namely, to avoid military operations with a view to conquest; the corrupt interference of their servants in the domestic and national quarrels of the country powers; their breaches of faith and disregard of treaties; their peculation and scandalous oppression of the natives; and the criminal relaxation on the part of the directors in the exercise of their controlling power over their servants, and their ready connivance at the grossest misconduct. Mr Dundas also brought forward a variety of other resolutions, which were adopted by the house; and criminated in strong terms Sir Thomas Rumbold, formerly governor of Madras, and Mr Hastings, then governor-general of Bengal. Among various charges, it was stated that Sir Thomas Rumbold had remitted to Europe, between the 8th of February 1778, the day of his arrival at Madras, and the beginning of August in the same year, the sum of L.41,000; and during the two subsequent years a fur ther sum of L.l 19,000, amounting in all to L.160,000; although his salary did not exceed L.13,335 per annum, 1 and he had no other fair means of acquiring wealth. He was charged with having abolished the committees instituted to superintend the payment of the revenue due by the zemindars, or natives holding lands under the Company; with having compelled them to travel many hundred . miles to negociate separately with himself the terms on which they were to hold their estates; with having suffered his private secretary to receive a bribe of no less than L.20,000; with having concealed other peculations of the Company’s servants; with having given a lease of lands to the nabob of Arcot, in direct disobedience of the Company’s orders; and with having violated the most solemn treaties entered into with the nizam of the Deccan. Charges so heavy could not be passed over, and leave was accordingly given to bring in a bill of pains and penalties against Sir Thomas Rumbold, and two of his associates, Peter Perry and John Whitehill, for breaches of public trust and high crimes and misdemeanours; and at the same time an act was passed restraining those persons from leaving the kingdom, and obliging a discovery of their property, and preventing its alienation.

In other resolutions brought forward on the 15th of April, Mr Dundas stated a variety of accusations against Mr Hastings and Mr Hornsby; and a resolution was adopted, declaring it to be the duty of the directors of the East India Company to recal the governor-general, and Mr Hornsby the president, from their respective offices. Accordingly, the court of directors issued orders for this purpose; but these were appealed from to a court of proprietors, who, on the 31st of October 1782, prohibited the court of directors from complying with the resolution of the House of Commons. The result was, that Mr Hastings retained his office, and Mr Dundas, in the following session of parliament, brought forward the bill which we have already mentioned, but which was not passed into a law.

At the same time that Mr Dundas, as chairman of the secret committee, brought forward the resolutions already mentioned, the select committee presented their report; and on the 18th of April, General Smith, their chairman, proposed various resolutions, in some of which Mr Hastings was criminated along with Sir Elijah Impey, chief justice of the supreme court of Bengal. By means of investigations carried on by this committee, the leading members of opposition, particularly Mr Fox and Mr Burke, qualified themselves for directing at a future period the attention of the legislature and of the public to the state of Indian affairs. Mr Fox made use of his knowledge to bring forward the two remarkable bills already mentioned; and to justify so strong a measure, it was alleged that, by the mismanagement of the courts of directors and proprietors, the affairs of the Company had been brought into such a state of extreme embarrassment as rendered it absolutely necessary to vest the administration in other hands.

These abuses were arranged under three heads, as they affected, first, the independent powers of India; secondly, the states in alliance with us; and, thirdly, our own territorial possessions. Under the first head were classed the extravagant projects and expensive wars entered into by the Company to extend their dominions; their violations of treaty; the sale of their assistance in support of the ambition, rapacity, and cruelty of others; and the betraying in turn almost every prince, without exception, with whom they had formed any connection in India. The second class of abuses comprehended the corrupt and ruinous interference .of the Company in the internal government of the princes dependent on them; the unjust [7:5:431]exaction of exorbitant aids and tribute; the enormous peculations of the Company’s civil servants; and the rapacity of the military. The third included the management of the countries under the immediate dominion of the Company, with respect to which it was affirmed, that the general system of their conduct in India was directed to a single end, the transmission of wealth from that country to this. With this view, monopolies had been established, not only of every article of trade, but even of the necessaries of life; the privilege of pre-emption had been secured to the Company; and a variety of no less ruinous and arbitrary preferences followed. By this oppressive conduct the merchants and bankers of India, many of whom in extent of trade and credit were scarcely equalled by those of the first class in Europe, fell gradually into decay; whilst the native cultivators and manufacturers were obliged to accept of a bare sufficiency for their maintenance, measured out to them by the judgment of those who alone were to profit by their labour. The ease of the zemindars, and of the cultivators under them, was, if possible, still more deplorable. At the time we obtained the dewannce or stewardship from the Mogul, the provinces of Bengal and Bahar had been laid waste by a famine, which earned off upwards of one third of the population. But the first thing done for their relief was to exact from the remainder the same tribute which had before been paid by the whole. Nor was this all. The Company’s government in India had set up to public auction the whole landed interest of Bengal, without the least regard to the rights of private property, or even giving a preference to the ancient possessors; and the zemindars, most of them persons of ancient families and respectable fortunes, were under the necessity of bidding against every desperate adventurer and schemer, or of seeing their estates delivered up to the management of strangers. The sufferings of the natives under our dominion in India were further aggravated by their being almost wholly excluded from any share in the expenditure of the Company’s government; all the principal collections of the revenue, all the honourable, all the lucrative situations in the army, all the supplies and contracts of every kind, were in the hands of the English; so that the natives, with few exceptions, were only employed as the servants or agents of Europeans, in subordinate stations in the army, and in the inferior department of collection, where it was impossible to proceed a step without their assistance. It was therefore urged, that the present government of India was not in its nature capable of reform. Nothing could be expected from the court of proprietors, because the members, as individuals, derived more profit from supporting Indian delinquents, than they could ever hope to receive from the fair dividends of the Company; and the court of directors, being a representative body, naturally partook of the imperfections of its constituents.

In these views Mr Fox was powerfully supported by the splendid eloquence of Mr Burke. But Mr Pitt contended, that although India undoubtedly wanted reform, the alteration to be adopted ought to be constitutional, and not such as in its principle endangered the safety of every chartered incorporation in the kingdom. The company’s charter was not the result of the mad prodigality of a Plantagenet, a Tudor, or a Stuart, but a fair purchase deliberately made from parliament, which could not be violated without a gross disregard to public faith. By vesting the whole patronage of India in commissioners nominally appointed by parliament, but actually selected by administration, the influence of the crown would be augmented to a degree which would enable it, like an irresistible torrent, utterly to overpower and sweep away the remaining liberties of the country. On the other hand, Mr Dundas did not object to the measure under consideration because it increased the influence of the crown, but because it did what was much worse, by placing a new and unexampled influence in the hands of the minister and his party for five years, which would be independent both of the crown and the parliament. The bills were further attacked, not merely by those persons who might be supposed to aspire to supplant ministers in their offices, but also by several country gentlemen of independent character and high reputation for integrity; whilst the ordinary members of opposition impugned the motives of their author in very pointed terms.

The principal supporters of the bills were the two secretaries of state, Mr Burke, Mr Sheridan, Mr Erskine, Mr Lee, Mr Adam, Sir Grey Coupar, Mr Anstruther, Mr Courteney, Mr Rigby, Lord Maitland, and Sir Henry Fletcher; and they were opposed by Mr William Pitt, Mr Thomas Pitt, Mr Jenkinson, Mr Powis, Mr Dundas, Mr Macdonald, Sir James Lowther, Mr Duncombe, Mr Martin, the Marquis of Graham, Mr Arden, Mr William Grenville, Mr Beaufoy, Mr Wilberforce, Lord Mulgrave, and Mr Wilkes. The first bill, however, was carried by a considerable majority; and on the 9th of December it was presented to the House of Lords by Mr Fox, attended by a great number of members. On the first reading, Earl Temple, Lord Thurlow, and the Duke of Richmond, reprobated the measure in the most unqualified terms, but without calling for a vote of the house; and Lord Thurlow, at the same time, pronounced a panegyric upon the character and services of Mr Hastings.

Meanwhile an alarm seems to have been excited in the mind of the sovereign. He had reluctantly given way to the strength of the coalition, and conferred upon its leaders the first offices of the state; and he now heard it alleged, with some plausibility, that this combination of ambitious men, not satisfied with the ordinary influence attending their situation, were about to fortify themselves in the possession of power in such a way as gradually to enable them to become independent both of him and his people. The moment seemed therefore to have arrived when temporizing measures could no longer be pursued, and a stand must be made for the support of the royal prerogative. Accordingly, on the 11th of December his majesty had a conference with Earl Temple, in which he confessed himself completely convinced of the correctness of the views entertained by opposition; and although it was now somewhat late to oppose a measure which had been brought forward by the ministers of the crown, and carried through the FIouse of Commons under the apparent sanction of the royal authority, a resolution was nevertheless adopted to endeavour to prevent its further progress by means of the House of Lords. A card was accordingly circulated, understood to be sent by Earl Temple, in consequence of written authority from his majesty, in which it was 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 that if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might use whatever words he should deem stronger or more to the purpose. The consequence of this interposition was, that, on the 15th of December, upon a question of adjournment in the House of Lords, the ministers were left in a minority of eight. On the same day Mr Baker brought forward a motion in the House of Commons, to declare, that, to report any opinion of his majesty, upon proceedings depending in parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanour, and a breach of the fundamental privileges of parliament. This motion was seconded by Lord Maitland, and supported by references to the journals, and by the principle, that [7:5:432] advice ought only to be given to the king by his ministers, who are responsible for all the measures of government. Mr Pitt, however, opposed it, as proceeding upon unauthenticated rumours, and asserted that the precedents alluded to in the journals were not applicable to the present case. But the motion was nevertheless carried by a large majority; and as it was feared that a dissolution would instantly take place, the hσαse resolved that they would consider any person as an enemy to his country who should advise his majesty to interrupt their discharging the important duty of providing a remedy for the abuses which prevailed in the East Indies, and that they would resolve themselves into a committee on the state of the nation on the 22d December. But on the 17th Mr Fox’s India bill was rejected in the House of Lords; and at twelve o’clock on the night of the 18th a message was delivered to the secretaries of state, requiring them to transmit to his majesty the seals of their offices, by the under secretaries, as a personal interview would be disagreeable to the king. Early next morning, letters of dismission, signed by Earl Temple, were sent to the other members of the cabinet, and a general resignation of offices followed.

A new administration was immediately formed, in which Mr Pitt was appointed first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer; the Marquis of Caermarthen and Mr Townshend, who had been created Lord Sidney, were made secretaries of state; Lord Thurlow became lord high chancellor; the privy-seal was transferred to the Duke of Rutland; Earl Gower became president of the council; the Duke of Richmond was made master of the ordnance, and Lord Howe first lord of the admiralty; Mr Grenville and Lord Mulgrave were appointed joint paymasters of the forces, and Mr Henry Dundas treasurer of the navy; the office of lord advocate of Scotland, which this gentleman had formerly held, being transferred from the Honourable Henry Erskine to Mr Ilay Campbell.

A spectacle was now about to be exhibited which had long been unknown in Britain,—that of an administration appointed by the crown, in direct opposition to the House of Commons. This, however, was no longer the House of Commons which had subdued the royal prerogative, and contended with success against our ablest and most ambitious monarchs. The late coalition had produced throughout the nation a general distrust of the character of those who formed the majority of its members; and it was soon found that a representative body possesses little power or influence, and may be safely disregarded, when it ceases to be the organ of the public sentiments. It was expected that an immediate dissolution of parliament would take place; but the change of the highest officers of the crown having been hastily made, it is probable that the new ministry dreaded entering instantly upon the business of an election against the powerful parties coalesced in opposition to them. The majority of the House of Commons also dreaded a dissolution, and, on Monday the 22d of December, they voted an address to the king, stating the present inconveniencies which would attend a prorogation or dissolution of parliament. His majesty returned an answer on the 24th, acquiescing, in general terms, in the sentiments contained in the address, and assuring the house that, after a short adjournment, their meeting would not be interrupted by any prorogation or dissolution.

When the house met on the 12th of January, Mr Fox attempted to introduce, previous to any other business, the discussion of certain resolutions which had been prepared by the opposition; whilst the new ministers endeavoured, by means of a stratagem, to be heard first, Mr Pitt declaring that he had a message to deliver from the king. But after some tumult, Mr Fox being allowed to proceed, called upon Mr Pitt to give the house an assu rance that no dissolution would take place; and the latter having declined to comply with this requisition, Mr Fox moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the state of the nation, and the motion was carried by a large majority. It was then resolved, that to issue public money after a prorogation or dissolution of parliament, unless an act had previously passed, appropriating the supplies to specific services, would be a high crime and misdemeanour; that, in the present state of his majesty’s dominions, it was necessary to have an administration possessing the confidence of the house and the public; that the recent appointments did not enjoy the confidence of the house; and that the second reading of the mutiny bill should be deferred till the 23d of February. Warm debates ensued upon these resolutions. The Coalition was branded as a corrupt confederacy of two desperate factions to seize upon the government of the country; and the India bill was represented as an experiment made by the late secretary of state, with a view to raise himself to a degree of power superior to that of the sovereign. On the other hand, the new administration was described as a coalition, not indeed of parties, but of the shreds and remnants, of the dregs and outcasts, of parties; as a body collected for the purpose of fighting the battles of secret and unconstitutional influence, of trampling on the power and dignity of the House of Commons, of establishing a government of cabal, intrigue, and favouritism, and of destroying the very principles of laudable ambition and honourable service in the state.

On the 14th of January Mr Pitt obtained leave to bring in a bill for the better government and management of the affairs of the East India Company. By this bill, commissioners were appointed by his majesty, authorized to superintend and control all operations of the courts of directors and proprietors of the East India Company, relative to the civil and military government or revenues of the territories and possessions of the Company. This board of control was to have access to all papers belonging to the Company; and the court of directors was on no pretence to send out orders to India, without the previous approbation of the board, which was also authorized to alter and amend the orders of the directors. FIis majesty was authorized to name the commanders-in-chief in India, and to remove any governor, general, or member of the councils, of any British settlement in India; and all nominations by the court of directors to these offices were declared to be subject to the approbation of his majesty; nor was the court of proprietors allowed, for the future, to revoke any proceeding of the court of directors which had been approved of by his majesty. It was objected to this bill, that it disfranchised the East India Company, or violated their charter, no less than Mr Fox’s bill had done; and although a meeting of the court of proprietors bad passed a vote in favour of the regulations contained in it, yet at the second reading, on the 22d of January, it was negatived by a small majority.

The discussion of this bill did not prevent the House of Commons from endeavouring to shake the determination of the court, and to intimidate the new administration. A resolution was moved and carried, declaring in pointed terms the disapprobation of the house, of the appointment and continuance in office of the present ministers, which they considered as unconstitutional. Mr Pitt was also called upon to explain upon what principle he ventured to remain in office after the House of Commons had declared him unworthy of their confidence. He answered, that though novel and extraordinary, his conduct was by no means unconstitutional; that the immediate appointment or removal of a minister did not rest with the house; that he neither could or ought to remain long in such a [7:5:433] situation; but that he was bound to use his „own discretion to prevent the consequences which might attend an instant resignation, from the country being left without an executive government. The public at large now began to be greatly interested in the dispute which had occurred between the king and the House of Commons. The common council of London voted an address of thanks to his majesty for the dismission of his late ministers; and this address was followed by similar addresses from the merchants and trades of the city of London, from the city of Norwich, and other parts of the kingdom. The Coalition made some attempts in the county of Middlesex, in Westminster, and in the county of York, to turn the tide of addresses in their own favour; but in these instances, if they avoided a defeat, they gained no victory.

In the meanwhile, a number of independent members of the House of Commons attempted to heal the present breach by proposing a new coalition of parties, and the formation of an administration upon a still broader basis than formerly. On the 26th of January, about seventy members of the House of Commons met at the St Albans tavern, and signed an address, to be presented, by a committee of their body, to the Duke of Portland and Mr Pitt, requesting them to communicate with each other on the arduous state of public affairs, and expressing a hope that, by a liberal intercourse, every impediment to a cordial cooperation of men of character, acting on the same public principles, might be removed. In answer to this address, both parties expressed themselves desirous to comply with the wishes of so respectable a meeting; but the Duke of Portland declined any interview with Mr Pitt, for the purpose of union, while that gentleman continued prime minister in defiance of the resolutions of the House of Commons; and, on the other hand, Mr Pitt refused to resign as a preliminary to negociation. To co-operate with the St Albans meeting, one of its members moved and carried unanimously a resolution, that the present critical state of publicaffairs required an efficient, extended, and united administration, entitled to the confidence of the people; and it was also resolved that the continuance of the present ministers in office was an obstacle to forming an efficient, extended, and united administration; resolutions which were ordered to be laid before his majesty. The meeting at the St Albans tavern next declared that an administration formed on the total exclusion of the members of the last or present administration would be inadequate to the exigencies of public affairs. Mr Fox expressed his wishes for a union, but insisted on the resignation of the chancellor of the exchequer in compliance with the resolutions of the House of Commons, as an indispensable preliminary. Mr Pitt, on the contrary, adhered to office, and declared that the house might address the crown for his dismission; but till the king should think proper to remove him from his situation, he held it to be neither illegal nor unconstitutional to retain it, and would not recede from his former determination. He at the same time suggested, that there might be persons on the opposite side of the house with whom he could not act. Lord North, understanding himself to be alluded to, declared his readiness to relinquish his pretensions to an official situation, if these should be deemed any obstacle to a union; and this selfdenying declaration was received with great applause. Mr Marsham, Mr Powis, and other members of the St Albans association, then called upon Mr Pitt to yield to the pressing exigencies of his country, but in vain. These gentlemen, however, still continued their efforts; and, to remove the difficulty arising from Mr Pitt’s refusal to resign, or to save the honour of the house upon that point, they procur’d the royal interference to the extent of requesting that ι negociation should be set on foot between the Duke of Portland and Mr Pitt. A message was accordingly sent by Mr Pitt, acquainting the duke that he was commanded to signify to him his majesty’s earnest desire that his grace should have a personal conference with Mr Pitt for the purpose of forming a new administration, on a wide basis, and on fair and equal terms. The duke requested an explanation of the message with regard to the words equal terms; but Mr Pitt declined any preliminary discussion. The Duke of Portland likewise proposed that he should be permitted to understand that the message implied a virtual resignation by Mr Pitt, or that he himself should receive his majesty’s commands personally relative to the conference. But both of these propositions were refused, and here terminated the efforts of the St Albans association.

On the 18th of February the chancellor of the exche~ quer, in his place in the House of Commons, being required to say, previous to the consideration of the question of supply for the ordnance department, whether any communication was to be expected relative to the resolutions of the house which had recently been laid before the king, replied, that his majesty, after considering all the circumstances of the country, had not thought fit to dismiss his ministers, and that his ministers had not resigned. This produced a warm debate, in which it was observed by Mr Fox, that it was the first instance since the revolution of a direct denial on the part of the crown to comply with the wishes of the House of Commons; and he threw out a hint that it might be necessary for the house to protect its own authority by refusing to vote the supplies. But to allow his majesty’s ministers time to consider well their situation, he proposed to defer the report of the ordnance estimate for two days. The refusal of the supplies was treated by the friends of the new administration as a threat which the utmost madness of faction would not seriously attempt to execute, and which could never be justified by his majesty’s refusal to dismiss ministers who had been condemned without a trial. On a division, however, there appeared a majority of twelve for postponing the supplies. On the 20th of February a new address to the throne for the removal of the ministers was carried by a majority of twenty-one; and on the 27th his majesty’s answer was reported by the speaker, in which it was stated that no charge or complaint had been suggested against the ministers, nor was any one of them specifically objected to; and that, on the other hand, numbers of his subjects had expressed to his majesty the utmost satisfaction with the change of his councils. This answer was abundantly artful, as it tended to alienate the people from the House of Commons, and, at the same time, to perplex the Coalition, who could not accuse the prime minister of any political crime, as he was a young man, who had never enjoyed the chief direction of any important affair. A second address to the throne, however, was moved in the House of Commons on the 1st of March, and agreed to by a majority of twelve, remonstrating against the answer to the former address. His majesty replied in civil terms; but persevering in his resolution to retain his ministers, the opposition resolved to make a last effort to overcome the royal determination. Mr Fox declared that he would not propose an address to the throne, because he wished for no answer, but a humble representation, to which it was not customary to make any reply. And this representation consisted of a long remonstrance against the alleged unconstitutional appointment of an administration in opposition to the wishes of the House of Commons; and concluded by stating, that the house had done its duty in pointing out the evil, and that the blame and responsibility must henceforth lie wholly upon those who had presumed to advise his majesty to act in contradiction to the [7:5:434]uniform maxims which had hitherto governed his own conduct, as well as that of every other prince of his illustrious house. This representation was carried by a majority of only one vote, which the Coalition appear to have considered as a defeat; for they finally yielded to their destiny, and suffered the mutiny bill, which had been their, last security against a premature dissolution, to pass in the usual terms.

Soon after the partial cessation of this struggle, parliament was dissolved; and in the elections which ensued, the new administration were extremely successful. Upwards of a hundred and sixty members of the former House of Commons lost their seats; and of these, nearly the whole were the friends of the previous administration. Thus the defeat of a powerful combination was completely accomplished, and its leaders were rendered of little importance in the legislature of the empire; and thus terminated the strength of the celebrated Coalition, the fate and effects of which ought never to be forgotten. That unfortunate measure may be said to have ruined the political fortunes of Mr Fox, undoubtedly one of the most accomplished statesmen whom Britain ever produced. From that period he was generally regarded as unfit to be intrusted with power; his eloquence ceased to persuade, and his counsels, even when full of wisdom, were regarded with distrust, because his coalition with Lord North constantly rose up against him, and suggested suspicions of his integrity, or at least of his wisdom. This coalition also had a tendency to diminish the attachment of the nation to the House of Commons, and its confidence in that branch of the legislature which, in fact, might be nothing mere than a combination of factious men aiming at personal aggrandizement, and in certain circumstances rendering it necessary for the people to arrange themselves behind the throne, in order to obtain protection against one of the worst and most oppressive of all governments, that of a corrupt aristocracy.

On the 18th of May the new parliament assembled; and in the speech from the throne his majesty assured both houses of his satisfaction in meeting them, after recurring, in so important a moment, to the sense of his people, and of his reliance on their being animated by the same sentiments of loyalty and attachment to the constitution which had been so fully manifested throughout the kingdom. He directed their attention to the affairs of the East India Company, but warned them against adopting any measures which might affect the constitution; and concluded with expressing his inclination to maintain, in their just balance, the rights and privileges of every branch in the legislature.

The affairs of the East India Company were speedily brought before parliament. On the 24th of June a bill was introduced by the chancellor of the exchequer to allow the Company to divide four per cent, on their capital for the half year concluding at midsummer 1784. The necessity of the case was urged in justification of this bill for supporting the credit of the Company; and it was alleged, that notwithstanding their present distresses, which were admitted to be great, there existed a sufficient probability that their affairs upon the whole might warrant such a dividend. The bill passed through both houses, and received the royal assent. On the 2d of July, Mr Pitt brought forward another bill, which had for its object to allow the Company a respite of duties due to the exchequer, to enable them to accept of bills beyond the amount prescribed by former statutes, and to establish the regularity of their future dividends. This act gave rise to various debates, particularly in consequence of a question put by Mr Philip Francis, how far the honour of parliament would be pledged by it to enable the East India Company to make payment of the bills accepted by them, in case the funds of the Company should prove deficient. But it neverthe- l less passed into a law; and Mr Pitt, still further to support the East India Company, brought forward a bill to diminish the duty upon tea, for the sake of preventing smuggling, and in lieu thereof to substitute a commutation tax upon windows. The amount of the revenue raised from tea was between L.700,000 and L.800,000; and the object of the new act was to proportion it in such a way as to raise upon that article in future no more than L.169,000, which it was supposed would enable the Company to sell thirteen millions of pounds of tea, instead of five millions and a half.

But these, which all passed and received the royal assent, were subordinate to the bill for regulating the general management of the affairs of the Company, which, though framed upon the same model with that proposed by Mr Pitt in the last parliament, yet differed from it in several particulars. The powers of the board of control were enlarged; in cases of urgency and secrecy, it was authorized to transmit its own orders to India without these being subject to the revision of the court of directors; in the governor-general and council of Bengal was vested an absolute power over the other presidencies in transactions with the country powers, and in all applications of the revenues and forces in time of war; the receiving of presents was declared to be extortion and disobedience of orders; the Company’s servants were required, on their return to England, to lodge in the exchequer a statement upon oath of their whole property; and for the effectual punishment of crimes committed in the East Indies, a new court of justice was instituted.

Mr Francis opposed in strong terms the general principle of this bill, as tending to create an incongruous power, nominal on the part of the directors, real on the part of administration; and Mr Fox affirmed that the proposed board of control violated the privileges of the India Company no less than the enactment of his bills had done, whilst it increased in a greater degree the dangerous influence of the crown. He treated with great contempt the new court of judicature, which he said might fairly be called a bed of justice, as justice would sleep upon it, and thereby embitter the calamities of India, by removing all fear of punishment. When the bill came to be discussed in the committee, Mr Pitt acted in a manner which afterwards on many occasions distinguished his mode of transacting the national business. Instead of coming forward, like the leader of a party, with a measure complete in all its parts, and prepared to receive the firm support of his adherents, he not only of himself proposed some essential alterations, but adopted those suggested by others, whether friends or antagonists. The consequence was, that, in the committee, it underwent important modifications. The power of issuing orders, in the first instance, was limited to the case of the court of directors neglecting to transmit dispatches to the board, after fourteen days’ notice, upon any subject which the board might think it necessary to take up. The directors were also empowered to elect a secret committee of three members, to communicate with the board concerning such orders as the board might of its own authority transmit to India. The appointment of the commander in chief of the army was withdrawn from his majesty, and left with the Company, together with the negative upon nominations in general. Mr Pitt himself also brought forward some amendments respecting the constitution of the new tribunal. Authority was now given to any person or persons to move the Court of King’s Bench for an information. The court was also authorized to issue commissions to the courts in India, for the purpose of taking depositions; and the directors[7:5:435] of the Company, and persons returning from India, were excluded from the judicature that was to be erected. The bill, thus amended, passed the House of Commons on the 28th of July, and the House of Lords on the 9th of August.

Early in July the chancellor of the exchequer informed the House of Commons that Sir Elijah Impey, chief judge of the supreme court of justice of Bengal, had arrived in England, in consequence of being recalled by his majesty, pursuant to an address of the house. The acute sensibility or powerful imagination of Mr Burke having induced him to interest himself greatly in the sufferings of the natives of India under the British government, he now called on the ministry to enforce the resolutions of the house respecting Sir Elijah Impey, by bringing him to trial; and he repeatedly endeavoured to introduce as the subject of deliberation the reports of the committees of the former parliament respecting Indian affairs; but he was either defeated, with little reply, by a motion for the order of the day, or overpowered and silenced by the loud and continual clamour of the house.

During the present session it was found necessary to have recourse to a loan of six millions, to settle the remaining expenses of the American war. The naval establishment was at the same time fixed on a higher scale than in former years of peace. The number of seamen and marines voted was twenty-six thousand; but the military force was not large, as it did not excced seventeen thousand five hundred men for guards and garrisons. Several new taxes were imposed upon linen and cotton manufactures, hats, paper, candles, bricks, postage of letters, horses, hackney-coaches, persons dealing in exciscable commodities, and persons engaging in the amusement of shooting game or hunting, none of which met with almost any opposition.

The session closed with a motion, brought forward by Mr Dundas, for the restoration of the estates forfeited in Scotland in the rebellion of 1745, to the descendants or other heirs of the rebels. As this measure had for its object the relief of individuals whose unequivocal attachment to his present majesty and his family could not be supposed to be tainted or affected by the crimes of their ancestors, it met with the approbation of the Commons; but in the House of Lords it was opposed by the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, on the ground both of its impolicy and its partiality; impolicy, as rendering nugatory the settled maxim of the British constitution, that treason was a crime of so deep a dye that nothing was adequate to its punishment but the total eradication of the person, the name, and the family, out of the society which he had attempted to injure; and partiality, because the estates forfeited in 1715, and which were forfeited upon the same grounds and principles as those in 1745, were passed over in silence, whilst a person who had been forfeited in 1690 was even included in the provision. The bill, however, passed the Lords, and received the royal assent.

At this time the British nation enjoyed profound peace; and the public attention being no longer excited by national efforts, or by the enterprises of any political faction, was easily directed to objects of less importance, among which may be mentioned the discoveries in aerostation, which had hitherto proved of more curiosity than utility.

Parliament assembled again on the 25th of January 1784. In the speech from the throne, the object particularly recommended to the attention of both houses was the final adjustment of the commercial intercourse between Great Britain and Ireland. The first business taken up related to the choice of two members of parliament for Westminster at the late general election. Lord Hood, Mr Fox, and Sir Cecil Wray, had offered themselves as candidates. Lord Hood easily carried his election; but between the other candidates the contest was carried on 1 with unexampled obstinacy. The engaging manners of Mr Fox, who had for some time represented the city of Westminster in parliament, enabled him, however, notwithstanding the general unpopularity of the Coalition, to engage with success in the contest. After the election had continued upwards of six weeks, it was concluded on the 17th May 1784, leaving a considerable majority in favour of Mr Fox. At this time, being the very day previous to the return of the writ for the election, the high bailiff, at the request of Sir Cecil Wray, granted a scrutiny into the votes which he had taken. This was protested against by Mr Fox and several of the electors; and immediately on the meeting of parliament, the conduct of the high bailiff was vehemently attacked by opposition, and no less vigorously defended by administration. On a motion of Lord Mulgrave, however, it was resolved that the high bailiff of Westminster should proceed in the serutiny with all practicable dispatch. In the beginning of February the business was resumed in the House of Commons. The scrutiny had continued eight months, and only two parishes out of seven had been scrutinized; so that it was admitted that probably more than two years longer would be necessary to finish the scrutiny. On the 8th of February, however, Mr Welbore Ellis moved that a return of the election be immediately made by the high bailiff of Westminster; and, after a variety of debates, it was at length carried, and Lord Hood and Mr Fox were returned as members for Westminster.

On the 18th of February, the attention of the House of Commons was called to the payment of the debts of the nabob of Arcot. The statute which Mr Pitt had got passed during the preceding summer authorized in general terms the court of directors to establish, in concert with the nabob, funds for the payment of such of his debts as should appear to be justly due. The court of directors accordingly ordered the council at Madras to investigate these debts; but the board of control, with some trifling limitation, ordered the whole debts to be paid out of the revenues of the Carnatic. Mr Dundas undertook the defence of the board of control, and treated with ridicule a declaration made by Mr Francis, that rumours were abroad of a collusion between the board of control and the creditors of 1777. He justified the whole of the nabob of Arcot’s debts. One set of debts incurred in 1767 consisted of money borrowed by the nabob at the rate of from thirty to thirty-six per cent, interest, to pay off a sum due by the nabob to the Company, which was at that time in the utmost distress, and the interest had afterwards been reduced to ten per cent. The second branch of the nabob’s debts had arisen from sums borrowed to pay off his own cavalry, which the Company had ordered him to reduce, but which he was unable to dismiss from want of money to pay their arrears. He had borrowed this money, and the Company had engaged its credit for the loan. A third class of debts, incurred or consolidated in 1777, were acknowledged by the nabob to be valid, and were only approved of by the board of control, subject to his objections, or to objections by the Company or the rest of the creditors.

Mr Burke stated a variety of objections to the nabob’s debts. It appeared that the nabob had contracted a debt with the Company’s servants to the amount of L.888,000 sterling, which, in the year 1767, was settled at an interest of ten per cent. In the year 1777 a second debt of the nabob of Arcot, amounting to L.2,400,000, was settled at twelve per cent, interest; and to this was added another debt, called the cavalry debt, of L.160,000, at the same interest. The whole of these four capitals, amounting to [7:5:436]L.4,440,000, produced at their several rates annuities amounting to L.623,000 a year, more than half of which stood chargeable on the public revenues of the Carnatic. These annuities, equal to the revenues of a kingdom, were possessed by a small number of individuals of no consequence, situation, or profession. Mr Burke admitted that the loan of 1767 was the fairest, as it could be convicted of nothing worse than the most enormous usury. The interest at thirty-six per cent, was first paid, then twenty-five, then twenty, and, lastly, the interest was reduced to ten per cent.; but all along the interest had been added to the principal, so that of L.888,000 Mr Burke doubted whether the nabob ever saw L. 100,000 in real money. With regard to the cavalry debt, Mr Burke stated, that instead of ready money, the English money jobbers engaged to pay the nabob’s cavalry in bills payable in four months, for which they were to receive immediately at least one per cent, per month, but probably two, such being the rate generally paid by the nabob, and that a territorial revenue was assigned to them for that purpose; but it was upwards of two years before the arrears of the cavalry were discharged; and these jobbers being all this time in receipt of the assigned revenue, they paid off the nabob’s troops with his own money. As to the debt of 1777, Mr Burke observed, that in different accounts the principal sum rose from L.1,300,000 to L.2,400,000, and the creditors had never appeared the same in any two lists. In the year 1781 they were satisfied to have twenty-five per cent, at once struck off from the capital, yet they were now to obtain payment of the whole. It appeared, therefore, that the nabob and his creditors were not adversaries, but collusive parties; and that when the nabob gave an acknowledgment of debt to a European, he received no money, and only endeavoured to support his own influence by receiving the servants of the Company into his pay. The motion for an inquiry into the conduct of the board of control on this occasion was however negatived on a division.

When Mr Pitt came into office, he had the singular good fortune of being highly popular with the nation, while he was selected to support the royal prerogative and authority against the majority of the House of Commons, then possessed by the Coalition. Accordingly, it became one of the features of his conduct to attempt, if possible, to reconcile the services expected from him by the crown with the apparent pursuit of whatever measure happened for the time to be an object of popular favour. The attempt to procure a reform in the representation of the people in the House of Commons was one of these objects. He had formerly engaged in it while acting in opposition; and now, after he had become the first minister of the crown, he still undertook to stand forward as its advocate. Every writer of history must be sensible of the defective nature of the details which he is able to give as to the causes which produce or regulate the most important events, and which often lie hidden in a region far beyond the limits of his penetration or research. In what way, or by what means, Mr Pitt contrived to retain the confidence of his master, whilst he at the same time stood forward as the champion of a reform which every body knew to be hateful at court, it is impossible to conjecture. Certain it is, however, that after he had attained to the chief place in the present administration, he still continued to correspond with the leading advocates of parliamentary reform, whose meetings he had been accustomed to attend. In a circular letter to Mr Wyvil, president of a committee of Yorkshire gentlemen, it was stated that Mr Pitt had given authority to declare, that he would bring forward the subject of a parliamentary reform as early as possible in the session; that he would support his intended propositions to the utmost of his strength; and that he would exert his whole power and credit, as a man and as a minister, honestly and boldly, to carry such a system as should place the constitution on a footing of permanent security. And at the commencement of the session, when the subject was alluded to, Mr Pitt took the opportunity to declare, that on this business he laboured incessantly; that it was that which of all others was nearest his heart, but at so early a period of the session it was impossible to state his plan specifically; that much remained to be done, but his ideas were not matured; that a reform in parliament comprehended a great variety of considerations, relating to the essentials of the constitution; that in this path he was determined to tread, but he knew with what tenderness and circumspection it became him to proceed; and he requested the house to come to the subject uninfluenced by any of those schemes and hypotheses which had hitherto been suggested.

It was not till the 18th of April, however, that he called the attention of the house to this important subject. He declared himself aware of the difficulties he must expect to encounter in proposing a plan of reform; but he entertained more sanguine hopes of success than formerly, because there never was a moment when the minds of men were more enlightened on this interesting topic, or more prepared for its discussion. He was particularly anxious to remove the objection of innovation. Anciently great fluctuations had taken place in the franchise. The number of members had varied, and even the representation of the counties was not uniform. As one borough decayed and another flourished, the first was abolished and the second enfranchised. This arose from a maxim the application of which was intrusted to the crown, that the principal places, and not the decayed boroughs, should be called upon to exercise the right of election. He was no advocate for a revival of this discretionary power, but the maxim upon which it was founded ought now to be carried into effect. The outline of his plan was this: To transfer the right of choosing representatives from thirty-six of such boroughs as had already fallen, or were falling into decay, to the counties, and such chief towns and cities as were still unrepresented; to provide a fund for the purpose of giving to the owners and holders of such boroughs disfranchised, an appreciated compensation for their property; and to make the receiving of this compensation a voluntary act of the proprietor, and if not received when tendered, to place it out at compound interest, until it became an irresistible bait to such proprietors. He also proposed to extend the right of voting for knights of the shire, to copyholders as well as freeholders. Besides the thirty-six boroughs already mentioned, he proposed to purchase the franchise of other boroughs, and to transfer the right of returning members to unrepresented large towns, which should petition parliament for the privilege. Thus a hundred members would be given to the popular interest of the kingdom, and the right of election extended to a hundred thousand additional persons. Mr Fox disapproved of purchasing from a majority of the electors of a borough the property of the whole, and of holding out pecuniary temptations to an Englishman to relinquish his franchise, though he declared himself a friend to the general principle of a more equitable representation. Mr Wilberforce supported Mr Pitt’s proposal, because, by putting an end to the representation of the decayed boroughs, dangerous aristocratical coalitions would in future be prevented. But it was warmly opposed by Mr Powis, who alleged that the people of England had not called for reform, and that the business in which Mr Pitt had unfortunately engaged himself was a volunteer crusade, or a piece of political knight-errantry. Lord North likewise [7:5:437] opposed all change, alleging that the people were actually contented, happy, and in full possession of their liberties. And, finally, leave to bring in the bill was refused by a large majority; which was probably the very result Mr Pitt not only anticipated, but also desired.

As the sole object for which the English monarchs anciently assembled their parliaments was to obtain money from their subjects, so the adjustment of the public expenses, and levying adequate supplies, always continue to occupy a large portion of the time of every session of parliament. The prodigal expenditure which had taken place during the war still required additional taxes. For this purpose new demands were made. Hawkers and pedlars, and attomies, were taxed; and the duties on male servants and post horses were enlarged. An impost laid upon retail shops, however, encountered persevering opposition in parliament, as well as much unpopularity in the nation. It was represented as unfair, because it fell upon a small number of industrious persons; and it was observed, that, unlike other taxes, those who imposed it were in no hazard themselves of paying any part of it. But of all the taxes proposed by the minister, none encountered such sareastie animadversion as that upon maid-servants; and Mr Pitt, who was understood to be something of a misogynist, was accused by Mr Sheridan of holding out a bounty to eeli-bacy. But the subject which excited most attention was that of the ordnance. As early as the year 1782, the Duke of Richmond had planned an expensive system of fortifications, for protecting the different dock-yards of the kingdom; the idea having originated in the alarm occasioned by the appearance of the combined fleet in the Channel. The works had for some time been earned on, and the sum of L.50,000 annually voted, without much attention being given to the subject. But during this session it was moved that an account should be laid before the house, of the expenses already incurred on fortifications, at Plymouth, Portsmouth, Gosport, Chatham, Dover, and Shcerness, with a report of the probable expense of completing the fortifications of Portsmouth and Plymouth; and afterwards the annual grant was opposed. Mr Pitt defended the Duke of Richmond, but agreed to a proposal which had been made to take the opinion of a council of officers; and this put an end to the debate.

A bill for better regulating the office of the treasurer of the navy passed without any sort of opposition; and another for the better examining of the public accounts met with little opposition; but a third brought in by Mr Pitt, for the general reform of public offices, encountered strenuous opposition. Mr Sheridan contended that it was unnecessary, as the treasury possessed ample power to make the necessary reforms; and Mr Burke contrasted, in strong terms, the trifling economy here proposed, with the prodigality of the ministers in their proceedings respecting the revenues of the Carnatic, and the sanction given by them to the pretended debts of the nabob of Areot. The bill, however, passed through both houses, and received the royal assent.

One of the most important subjects brought under the consideration of parliament during the session, was an attempt by Mr Pitt to establish a plan of commercial union between Great Britain and Ireland. This plan was proposed to the Irish House of Commons on the 7th of February, by Mr Ord, and consisted of ten articles, usually styled the Irish Propositions, which were passed with little debate, and an address of approbation voted to his majesty. On the 22d of the same month Mr Pitt introduced the subject to the British House of Commons. He expatiated on the false and oppressive policy which had long been pursued by government in regard to Ireland, in order to render her completely subservient to the interest and opu-

lence of this country; and concluded by proposing to allow the produce of the colonies to be imported into Britain through Ireland, and to equalize the duties on the produce and manufactures of both countries; in return for which concession it was stipulated, that the parliament of Ireland should irrevocably secure some provision for defraying the expense of protecting the commerce of the empire in time of peace. After some debates upon the subject, petitions from Liverpool, Paisley, Glasgow, Manchester, and other places, to the number of sixty, were presented against the measure; and from the 16th of March to the 12th of May the House of Commons were almost incessantly employed in hearing counsel and examining witnesses. Certain exceptions were now introduced to the general rule of admitting an equal commerce between the countries; corn, meal, flour, and beer, were excluded in favour of British agriculture; and various regulations were made to secure an effectual equality of duties upon every particular object of trade in both countries. The plan thus amended produced a variety of debates, in the course of which Lord North expressed his wish for a complete incorporative union of the two kingdoms, in preference to a partial settlement, which might prove the source of perpetual discord. The resolutions, however, were warmly opposed; and being carried by only a small majority, administration did not think proper to press the adoption of the scheme.

The American war had in somemeasure alienated the British nation from ideas of conquest and military splendour. Commercial pursuits were now chiefly valued, and formed the principal object of encouragement to the government, and of pursuit by the people; but to prosecute these with success, it was necessary to preserve a good understanding with the neighbouring powers; and this was effected, though with some difficulty, in consequence of certain foreign occurrences not unworthy of attention.

Joseph II. was at this time at the head of the house of Austria and of the Germanic body; and among the various projects which marked his restless career, there was one which, had it been attended with success, could scarcely have failed to affect the future condition of the Germanic body. He had entered seeretly into a negociation with the elector of Bavaria, then an infirm old man, for an exchange of the electorate of Bavaria in lieu of the provinces of the Austrian Netherlands, which were to be converted into a kingdom for the elector. Count Romanzof, the Russian minister to the diet of Frankfort, informed the Duke of Deuxponts, nephew and heir to the elector, of the substance of this treaty; and at the same time assured him that it would be carried into execution, whether he consented to the exchange or not. In the month of January of this year the duke gave notice of the intended measure to Frederick II. king of Prussia, who regarded it as a project dangerous to his own independence, as well as to that of the other German states, and endeavoured instantly to spread an alarm through Europe. He alleged, that the proposed exchange was in the highest degree iniquitous and unfair; that though the population on both sides was nearly equal, the extent of territory on the side of Bavaria more than doubled that of the Low Countries, while their respective revenues were equally disproportioned; that in Bavaria, agriculture, commerce, and finance, were notoriously neglected, whereas in the Austrian Netherlands these resources had been extended to their utmost pitch; that, whilst the territory which the emperor hoped to acquire was capable of considerable improvement, that which he gave away might be expected to retrograde rather than to advance; that these circumstances, however, were of little importance, comparedwith the political consequences which must result from such a measure; that the Netherlands[7:5:438] being situated at a distance from the other Austrian dominions, had always proved a source of weakness, rather than of strength, to that power; that, although a considerable revenue was derived from these provinces, it was often dearly bought, in consequence of the wars occasioned by the vicinity of France; that great political efforts had recently been made by the court of Vienna to avoid all future grounds of quarrel with the French monarchy, and this had been accomplished by the marriage of an Austrian princess to the king of France; that the possession of Bavaria, from its vicinity to the rest of the Austrian dominions, would secure to the emperor a chain of territory from the banks of the Rhine along a great part of the course of the Danube, and give him such a preponderance as would overturn all power in Germany capable of resisting the head of the empire; and that this mighty country might, at no remote period, be consolidated into one mass, and Austria would then probably rank in every sense as the first power in Europe.

Thus reasoned Frederick the Great. Succeeding events seem to warrant a belief that such an acquisition of strength by the house of Austria might have proved of considerable utility to Europe; but at the time when the scheme was proposed it excited general apprehensions. The treaty for the exchange had been concluded under the auspices of Russia and France, and to them accordingly the king of Prussia addressed his remonstrances. But the emperor of Germany and the elector of Bavaria soon found their project so strongly disapproved of by other powers, that they absolutely disavowed it; whilst the court of France contented itself with replying to the remonstrance of the king of Prussia, that the exchange had been proposed, as depending upon the voluntary arrangement of the parties, but that, as the Duke of Deuxponts had refused his consent, the proposition of course became fruitless.

Frederick, in the mean time, exerted himself with great assiduity in negociating a league with the electors of Hanover and Saxony, for the preservation of the Germanic constitution, and for preventing such cessions and exchanges of territory as might afterwards prove injurious to the balance of power in the empire. A treaty to this purpose was therefore concluded on the 23d of July, and several German princes acceded to it, among whom were the elector of Mentz, the landgrave of Hesse Cassel, the dukes of Brunswick, Namur, and Saxe-Gotha, and the prince of Anhalt. The elector of Hanover also entered readily into the transaction, and from that period an intimate connection commenced between the courts of London and Berlin. Some British politicians, however, supposed that the opposition made to the imperial project was unwise, as tending to excite a spirit of hostility against us on the part of Austria, which, of all the powers of the Continent, was considered as our most natural ally; and it was probably owing to the part taken by Britain in this transaction that the emperor published an edict prohibiting the importation of British manufactures into any part of the Austrian dominions. In the course of the summer also the French issued an edict restricting the sale of various articles of British manufacture, particularly saddlery, hosiery, woollen cloths, and hardware, unless upon payment of duties the amount of which was equivalent to a prohibition. To counteract these proceedings commercial treaties were negociated with the courts of Petersburgh and Versailles; that with the latter having been undertaken in pursuance of a provision in the definitive treaty of peace.

Parliament met on the 24th of January 1786. In the speech from the throne some notice was taken of the continental dispute above mentioned, which was said to have terminated in such a way as to threaten no interruption to the tranquillity of Europe. This excited some discussion; but Mr Pitt declined entering into any defence of the Germanic league, as he and his colleagues in office had not interfered in the formation of it; observing that accident alone had placed the sovereignty of Hanover and of this country in the same hands, and desiring to have it understood that Great Britain was by no means bound by any leagues entered into by the elector of Hanover. Mr Fox, however, denied that the affairs of Hanover could be really separated from those of Britain. Supposing that it should hereafter appear necessary for Great Britain to join the court of Vienna against the league of the Germanic princes, and that the elector of Hanover should appear as one of those princes at the head of his own troops, he put the question, Whether a British army could be directed to act in a hostile manner against troops led by their sovereign in his character of elector of Hanover? When George I. purchased Bremen and Verden from Denmark, the minister of that day, General Stanhope, used precisely the same language, and told the House of Commons that they had nothing to do with his majesty’s conduct respecting his electoral dominions. But the consequence was, that the resentment of the Swedish monarch Charles XII. on account of this transaction, threatened Great Britain with a most dangerous invasion; and the very next year General Stanhope was under the necessity of demanding additional supplies, to enable'his majesty to defray the expenses to which he was exposed in consequence of his purchase.

The attention of parliament was again directed to the Duke of Richmond’s plan of fortification. In consequence of the former debate on the subject, the project had been remitted to the consideration of a board of officers, of which the Duke of Richmond was appointed president; and which consisted, besides the president, of Lieutenant-generals Earl Percy, Earl Cornwallis, Sir Guy Carleton, Sir William Howe, Sir David Lindsay, Sir Charles Grey, Lord George Lennox, and John Burgoyne, and six major-generals, together with Vice-admirals Barrington and Milbank, Rear-admirals Graves and Lord Hood, and Captains Hotham, Macbride, Bowyer, Luttrell, Sir John Jervis, and Sir Andrew Snape Hammond. On the 10th of February Mr Pitt stated to the House of Commons that the board had reported to his majesty their approbation of the plan, as perfectly adequate to the defence intended, and as being at the same time the least expensive in the construction, and requiring a smaller force to defend the works, than any other that could be proposed. He also presented an estimate, which had been prepared by the board of engineers, of the expense necessary to construct the fortifications. The decision of the House of Commons, however, was delayed till the end of February, when the subject was again brought forward by Mr Pitt, who proposed a resolution, bearing, that to provide effectually for securing the dock-yards of Portsmouth and Plymouth by a permanent system of fortification, was an essential object for the safety of the state, intimately connected with the general defence of the kingdom, and necessary to enable the fleet to act with vigour and effect whenever its services were required. This led to a long and not very interesting debate, the result of which was, that upon a vote the house divided equally, when the speaker gave his casting vote in opposition to the measure. On the 17th of May, however, the question was revived by Mr Pitt, who proposed that the fortifications should still be carried on at Portsmouth and Plymouth, though upon a more limited scale; but the motion was opposed with much severity of language, and at length withdrawn.

The attention of parliament was for some time occupied with a proposal for reducing the laws relative to the militia into a general act, and providing for their being annually[7:5:439] called out and disciplined. Mr Pitt opposed the calling out of the militia annually; but afterwards, finding that a different opinion prevailed, he consented, on condition that, though the whole number of men were balloted for and enrolled, only two thirds should be actually employed. The measure, however, did not pass without opposition.

But the subject which occupied most attention during the session was the proposal of a sinking fund to be applied towards discharging the public debt. Mr Pitt had occa-. sionally mentioned it, during the preceding session, as a great and important national measure which he intended to bring forward; and early in the present session he moved that certain papers should be laid upon the table of the House of Commons, to enable them to form an estimate of the annual amount of the national revenue and expenditure, from which a judgment might be formed of the existing disposable surplus, and of the sum it would be further necessary to provide to raise the total to the amount requisite to form the basis of the intended sinking fund. On the 7th of March he proposed the appointment by ballot of a select committee of nine persons to examine these papers, and to report the result to the house*. He stated it as his intention to take every possible step to give complete satisfaction to the nation in a matter of such general concern; and he conceived that the solemnity of a committee, and the formality of a report, would answer the purpose better than a set of unconnected papers or the affirmation of a minister. The committee as balloted consisted of the Marquis of Graham, Mr William Grenville, Mr Edward Elliot, Mr Rose, Mr Wilberforce, Mr Beaufoy, Mr John Call, Mr Smith, and Mr Addington. When this committee had made its report, Mr Pitt, on the 29th March, proposed his plan to the Commons in a committee of the whole house. He congratulated parliament upon the prospects of the nation in a style of animated eloquence. He stated the revenue for the current year, as reported by the committee, to amount to L.15,397,000. The interest of the national debt was L.9,275,769, and the civil list L.900,000, which, together with the whole other expenditure for the army and navy, and other establishments, amounted to L.14,478,000; consequently there remained a surplus of the annual income, above the expenditure, of L.900,000. One million he stated to be the sum annually to be contributed to the sinking fund; and to make up the sum of L.100,000 wanted to complete this amount, he proposed small additional taxes upon spirits, timber, and hair powder and perfumery. The sum of L. 1,000,000 thus provided he proposed to place in the hands of commissioners appointed for that purpose, in quarterly payments of L.250,000 each, to begin on the 5th of the following July. It was his wish that the commissiodcrs should consist of persons of rank and distinction, the speaker of the House of Commons, the chancellor of the exchequer, the master of the rolls, the governor and deputy-governor of the bank of England, and the accomptant-general of the high court of chancery. He alleged, that by laying out the sinking fund regularly at compound interest, the million to be applied would rise to a great amount in a period that was not very long in the life of an individual, and but an hour in the existence of a nation. It would diminish the debt of this country so much as to prevent the exigencies of war from ever raising it to the enormous height which they had hitherto done. In the period of twenty-eight years, the sum of a million, annually appropriated, would produce an income of four millions annually. By placing the sum in the hands of commissioners, to be applied by them quarterly to the purchase of stock, no sum would ever lie within the grasp of a minister great enough to tempt him to infringe upon this national revenue. It could not be done by stealth, and a minister would not have the confidence to come to the house expressly to demand the repeal of so necessary a law.

Mr Fox approved in general of the institution of a sinking fund, but thought twenty-eight years too long a period to look forward to for the effect of the project. Before that term had arrived, it was not improbable that we might have another war; and a variety of circumstances might occur, which would operate as a temptation to a future chancellor of the exchequer, and a future House of Commons, to repeal the act, annul the institution, and divert the appropriation of its stock to the immediate services of the year. He stated two specific objections to the plan. The first was, that the sum appropriated ought not to have been made unalienable in time of war; and the second, that, by the institution, parliament being bound to nobody but itself, the whole plan was liable to be annihilated by a future parliament. Mr Fox repeated his objections at a future stage, and at last, in consequence of the acquiescence of Mr. Pitt, introduced an amendment, that whenever a new loan should hereafter be made, the minister should not only propose taxes sufficient to pay the interest of the loan, but also to make good whatever it should be found expedient to take from the sinking fund to supply the necessities of the nation; meaning, that if, when a new loan of six millions was proposed, there should be one million in the hands of the commissioners, then the commissioners should take a million of the loan, and the bonus of that million should be received by them for the public, who would thus have only five millions to borrow. In the House of Lords, the other objection stated by Mr Fox was urged with some variation by Earl Stanhope, who expatiated on the danger which might occur, in future wars, of diverting the fund from its proper destination. But the bill nevertheless passed into a law without any alteration.

The establishment of a sinking fund appears to have been one of Mr Pitt’s favourite schemes of finance; and, in fact, it was that which produced him the greatest degree of popularity; while, from his remaining in power during the long and expensive war which succeeded its establishment, it continued to be regularly and fully carried into effect. When a new loan was made, the minister not only proposed taxes sufficient to pay the annual interest of the new debt, but also to afford a surplus or sinking fund of one per cent, per annum, to be applied by the commissioners towards the extinction of the debt. It is almost superfluous to observe, that this scheme, from which such mighty results were anticipated, both by the political friends and opponents of the ministry, and which was loudly vaunted of as a monument raised to perpetuate bis fame, is now known to every tyro in political science to have been bottomed on principles wholly fallacious; and the consequence has been, that some of its firmest supporters, having abjured the opinions which they originally entertained respecting it, afterwards united with those who had all along entertained sounder views, in putting an end to this expensive and cumbrous delusion, which had for a time imposed on the arithmetic as well as on the sense of the nation. The only effect of such a fund, when well contrived and steadily adhered to, seems to be, that it enables a nation to maintain its credit in difficult circumstances, and thus to carry on the accumulation of public debt to the highest possible amount, as well as to make trial in the completest manner of all the moral and political consequences of the funding system. We may add, that the project was not of Mr Pitt’s contrivance; it formed only one, and that too not the most plausible, of three plans presented to him by Dr Price.

When the estimates for the navy were voted this year, [7:5:440]some observations were suggested by Captain Macbride, which are worthy of being recorded, on account of their relation to the progressive improvement of the chief defence of the British islands. He censured extremely the voting of large sums of money for the repair of sixty and sixty-four gun ships; and observed that our having so many vessels of this sort was a principal reason of the many defeats we had suffered in the last war. The French had now not more than three or four sixty-four gun ships, and they took care not to build any new ones upon that construction. Another thing against our navy was, that the French seventy-four gun ships were of two thousand tons burden, while our seventy-fours had been reduced to sixteen hundred tons. Captain Macbride expressed his belief, that if the number of our ships were reduced one third, the navy of England would prove one third stronger. He condemned the system of suffering the ships to remain in their copper bottoms during time of peace; and contended, that if we persisted in this practice there would he no occasion to argue whether ships of one size or another should be built, for we should soon have no navy in our possession. The French had discovered the folly of the practice, and had for some time left off the mode of sheathing their ships. We ought therefore to do the same, or at least to take off the copper when the ships were to remain long in still water. The copper corroded and destroyed their bolts more than either worms or time; and hence, the instant the ships which had been long laid up in ordinary were sent to sea, their bottoms would drop out, and thousands of brave seamen would perish in the ocean. The ideas of Captain Macbride were confirmed by Sir John Jervis, and, as far as related to the sheathing with copper, by Captain Luttrell.

At this time the British nation, recovered from the effects of the war, was enjoying considerable prosperity. The administration of justice, proceeding in the ordinary course sanctioned by the constitution, produced its usual and natural effects of tranquillity and general satisfaction. The sovereign, in consequence of his domestic virtues and regular life, was personally popular. The members of administration had obtained their offices under circumstances which originally secured the good will of the nation; and no public events had occurred to expose their characters to any severe trial, or to produce an alteration in the public opinion regarding them. Still, however, the most distinguished members of the late coalition, continuing to hold seats in parliament, naturally wished to attract the public notice, and to rescue themselves from the neglect into which they had of late fallen. For this purpose they appear to have looked towards our Indian empire for materials upon which to exert their talents and to demonstrate their public spirit; and accordingly, during the present session, an attempt was commenced by Mr Burke to bring to trial and punishment Warren Hastings, late governor-general of Bengal, for crimes alleged to have been committed in that country.

There is something in the nature of the British constitution, or rather, perhaps, in that of every free state, which renders conquest, or even the acquisition of foreign territories, in any form, not a little inconvenient. In the case of the British American territories, a constitution less or more resembling that of Great Britain had been established in every colony or province; and these separate constitutions had produced abundance of internal prosperity to the colonies; but the whole formed a disjointed empire, slightly bound together by a limited executive power, and destitute of a common legislature; and an attempt, made by the legislature of the parent state, to make laws for the whole of the subordinate communities, gave rise to a war which ended in the dismemberment of the empire. The remaining foreign possessions, such as Ireland and the West India islands, might be supposed to remain in union with the metropolitan country chiefly in consequence of their weakness, which rendered its protection necessary to their safety, or made them incapable of erecting themselves into separate governments in opposition to its will. But the territories which had been acquired by the British in India were, in this respect, in a very peculiar situation. It might perhaps have been possible, by an incorporating union, and an extension of the privilege of representation, to combine into one firm and consolidated government the whole British islands, together with the American colonies; but with regard to the territory of Hindustan, anything of this kind was altogether impracticable. That great and fertile country, inhabited by men of a feebler race, and of different language, character, and religion, is incapable of being united to the British nation upon principles of equal political freedom. It had been originally acquired, not by a conquest made under the direct authority of the executive government of Britain, but by a company of merchants, who, by uniting the military superiority of Europeans with the arts of commercial men, contrived gradually to subjugate one of the fairest portions of the globe, containing a population many times greater than that of their native country. The progress of such a power towards empire was necessarily attended with the most cruel hardships to the natives of the subjugated country. When the mercantile invaders possessed abundance of European troops, they employed them in making direct conquests of additional territory; when these troops were exhausted by war or by the climate, or, having enriched themselves, had returned to Europe loaded with the spoils of the East, and left their former employers in that quarter in a state of considerable weakness, the servants of the Company then exerted their ingenuity to foment divisions among the native princes; and when they could no longer act as principals, they appeared as seconds in every quarrel, and obtained new territories as the reward of their insidious aid. With such views they formed and broke alliances without scruple; and, on receiving supplies of troops from Europe, they were never at a loss for pretences upon which to extend their dominion. All this was the natural result of the situation of the British East India Company with regard to the natives of Hindustan. But as the jealousy of the neighbouring states of Europe, together with their equal progress in the art of war, had long put an end to the extension of conquests, and produced much political moderation in the transactions of nations, many of the people of Great Britain learned with astonishment that their countrymen had conducted themselves in Hindustan in a manner which in Europe would have been regarded with abhorrence. Efforts, however, had been made to ameliorate as much as possible the government of India, by subjecting it, in a considerable degree, to the direct authority of the executive government of this country, instead of suffering it to remain totally vested in a company of merchants; and here it appears to have been wished that the affair should be suffered to rest, and that whatever was past should be overlooked and forgotten.

This, however, did not suit the present views of opposition. Mr Burke, in particular, had been led by an ardent imagination to interest himself deeply in the calamities suffered by the natives of India; and the policy of his party at this time coincided entirely with his feelings. Accordingly he endeavoured with much eagerness to bring to trial and punishment the most distinguished person who had recently figured upon the great theatre of Indian affairs. But great obstacles stood in the way of Mr Burke’s proposed attempt to procure a parliamentary [7:5:441]conviction of Mr Hastings. He had to overcome a long series of unpopularity, the personal indifference which had been shown to him by the House of Commons, and their indisposition so much as to give him a hearing, together with the coldness of the nation at large regarding complaints of East India delinquency. All these, however, he surmounted by efforts of the most obstinate perseverance, and of consummate eloquence, upon the fertile subject of cruelty, oppression, and treachery, committed under the authority of the British government in the East; the public attention was gradually attracted to the subject; and at last it formed the chief subject of conversation and of political discussion in all parts of the island.

Mr Hastings had arrived in England on the 16th of June 1785, and on the 20th of that month Mr Burke had given notice of his intention to move for an inquiry into the conduct of the ex-governor-general. On the day of the meeting of parliament, in January this year, Major Scott, the particular friend of Mr Hastings, publicly reminded Mr Burke of the menace he had thrown out, and requested Mr Burke speedily to decide upon the course he was to pursue. Accordingly, about the middle of February, this gentleman having resolved to proceed against Mr Hastings, by moving the House of Commons to impeach him at the bar of the House of Lords, endeavoured to prepare for substantiating the charges which were to be brought, by proposing that the house should order production of various papers; and motions to this effect were renewed by him at different periods. These motions gave rise to a variety of debates, in which Mr Dundas, who, as president of the board of control, now acted as minister for India affairs, together with Sir Lloyd Kenyon, master of the rolls, chiefly opposed Mr Burke, and threw considerable difficulties in his way. Mr Pitt appeared also to be favourable to Mr Hastings; but, upon the whole, he preferred assuming the character of a candid and impartial judge upon the occasion, affording neither protection to the accused nor favour to the accuser. At last, in the month of April, Mr Burke presented to the house his charges against Mr Hastings, twenty-one in number; and to these an additional article was afterwards added. The charges were of various degrees of importance; and some of them had sufficient weight to excite a considerable degree of public interest. Mr Hastings was accused of driving a whole people, the Rohillas, from their territory, without any show of cause for so doing; of arbitrarily confiscating the property of the native princes, and imprisoning them and their servants for the purposes of extortion; of entering into war with the Mahrattas without necessity, and treacherously delivering the Mogul into their hands on the conclusion of peace; together with a variety of other offences of minor importance. On the 26th of April Mr Hastings presented a petition, requesting to be furnished with a copy of the articles of impeachment, and to be heard in his defence against them before any witnesses should be examined. This request was at once granted; and Mr Hastings having appeared at the bar, stated the great efforts which he had made for the aggrandisement of the British power in the East, and entered into a defence of his conduct on the particular points upon which he had been accused. He asserted that the Rohillas were a tribe of adventurers, in driving whom from a usurped territory he had only assisted in performing an act of necessary justice; that the princes or princesses whose property he was accused of having seized for the use of the conquerors, had deserved their misfortunes by their treachery and rebellion; that the war with the Mahrattas had not been commenced by him; that the terms of the pacification were almost universally considered as advantageous; and that the Mogul having thrown himself into their hands, was entitled to no protection from the British government. Upon the other points he in like manner asserted, not only the inno-* cence, but the meritorious nature of his conduct, resting his defence chiefly upon such arguments as conquering princes usually employ to justify encroachments upon their weaker neighbours.

On the 1st of June Mr Burke brought forward in the House of Commons his first charge, which related to the expulsion of the Rohillas from their country, to the number of sixty thousand men, women, and children. On this occasion Mr Burke, exerting all his eloquence, represented the prosecution as not merely a question respecting the character of an individual, or brought forward for the purpose of inflicting a hardship upon him, but as a measure necessary for the establishment of the principle of responsibility with regard to the future governors of our distant possessions, and therefore as a national and imperial question, decisive of the good or ill government of millions yet unborn. He described, in interesting terms, the character of the Rohillas, the simplicity of their manners, the prosperity of their country, and their zeal for agriculture and commerce; and he denied that there existed any plausible ground to justify the assistance which Mr Hastings had given to one of their rapacious neighbours to expel them from their territory. After a debate, however, the house decided that this charge did not contain sufficient matter of impeachment against Mr Hastings. The next article of crimination against Mr Hastings was founded upon his alleged oppressive conduct towards Cheit Sing, the rajah of Benares. From this prince he had first arbitrarily demanded payment of a sum of money, in addition to the ordinary tribute, and, on the rajah delaying payment, imposed upon him a fine of half a million sterling; then he insulted him by an ignominious arrest, and thereafter expelled him from his dominions. This charge was opened with great ability by Mr Fox, and opposed by Major Scott and Mr Grenville, who inveighed against the rajah for his alleged unwillingness to support the British power in a dangerous crisis, and for the favour he had shown the schemes of its enemies. By this time the repeated discussion of the subject had begun to interest the public; and pamphlets were published, in which Mr Hastings’ character was violently attacked, and as eagerly defended. His conduct as a governor-general of India, however, appeared to the majority of the people so totally inconsistent with those ideas of equity which regulate the opinions of men in this country, that a violent degree of popular indignation was excited against him. Hitherto, however, he had been supported in the House of Commons by those who usually adhered to administration; though Mr Pitt himself had on all occasions declared his wish to act candidly as a judge, and to avoid treating the matter as a question to be supported by a particular party. But upon this article of charge concerninġ the rajah of Benares he entered into the views of Mr Fox; and having declared himself satisfied that Mr Hastings had in this case acted unjustifiably, it was determined by a majority that the accusation contained matter of impeachment against the late governor-general of Bengal.

During this session some further provisions were enacted for the better regulation of the government of India. On the 7th of March a motion was made by Mr Francis, and seconded by Mr Windham, for leave to bring in a bill to explain and amend the act, formerly brought in and carried through by Mr Pitt, for regulating Indian affairs. Mr Francis censured strongly three different parts of Mr Pitt’s act; first, that which establishes a double government of India at home, by the court of directors and the board of control; secondly, the excessive power, by means of a constant casting voice in the council, which was bestowed [7:5:442]upon the governor-general of Bengal; and, thirdly, the institution of a special court of justice for the trial of Indian delinquents, which deprived such persons of the privilege of trial by jury. On the authority of Lord Macartney, Mr Dundas defended the powers conferred upon the governorgeneral of Bengal; and declared the necessity of a new court of judicature, from the voluminous nature of the evidence in the cases of Sir Thomas Rumbold and Mr Hastings, which could not be gone through by the ordinary form of jury trial. At the same time he stated it as his intention to bring forward a bill for amending, in certain respects, the regulating act of 1784. Mr Francis’s motion was accordingly rejected; and on the 16th of March Mr Dundas brought forward his new bill for the regulation of India, which conferred still further powers upon the governor-general, authorizing him to act in opposition to the sense of his council when he thought fit to take the responsibility upon himself; united the offices of commander-in-chief and governor-general; authorized the board of control to inquire into the fortunes of persons serving in India; and divided the service there into different branches, declaring that the servants of the Company should rise by gradation· only in those branches of service for which they had been prepared by their former habits. After a variety of debates in both houses, the bill was passed.

The session of parliament terminated on the 11th of July, and during the remainder of the year the British empire enjoyed profound tranquillity. An incident, however, occurred, which called forth demonstrations of attachment to the person of the king from all orders of men in the kingdom. On alighting from his carriage on the 2d of August, a woman approached his majesty, under the pretence of offering a petition, and at the same time aimed a thrust at him with a knife, which, however, did no harm. Being instantly seized, and examined by some members of the privy council, with the assistance of several medical gentlemen, this woman, whose name was Margaret Nicholson, proved to be insane, and was ordered to be confined for life in Bethlehem Hospital. A public thanksgiving was ordered for his majesty’s safety, and addresses of congratulation poured in from all parts of the country.

One of the most important measures of Mr Pitt’s administration was carried into effect in the autumn of this year. It consisted of a commercial treaty, which, as we have already stated, Mr Eden was sent to negociate with France, and which was concluded on the 26th of September. This treaty stipulated, in general terms, that there should be a perfect liberty of navigation and commerce between the subjects of the two sovereigns in all their European dominions, with the view of giving fair encouragement to the produce and manufactures of both countries; and a particular tariff was adjusted with regard to a great number of commodities, while all articles which it did not include were to be reciprocally imported on the terms allowed to the most favoured nations. Each of the monarchs reserved the right of countervailing, by additional taxes on certain commodities, the internal duties imposed on the manufactures, or the import charges paid on the raw material; and it was also declared, that if either of the sovereigns should be at war, every thing should be deemed free which might be found in the ships of the respective nations, with the exception of goods usually deemed contraband, even though the whole or a part of the lading should belong to the enemies of the other state.

This treaty appears to have been acceptable to a considerable majority of the nation. When parliament assembled on the 23d of January 1787, it was announced in the speech from the throne, and formed the first subject of deliberation. When the usual address to the throne was moved, Mr Fox remarked that the treaty in question ought to be examined with much jealousy, on account of its introducing an innovation into the established system * of our policy; that all the wars of Great Britain had been wars of necessity; and that the jealousy of the power of France has been founded upon the fullest experience of her ambitious character. If this was a mere commercial treaty, the framers of it had only to prove that the new channel of trade which it opened would not obstruct, or would be more beneficial than, the other ancient channels which this kingdom had long been in possession of, and which had been found to be the sources of her commercial wealth and prosperity. But if, on the other hand, the treaty was intended as a political measure, and if ministers had in view such a close and intimate connection with France as would in future render it difficult for the two countries to go to war, strong and satisfactory reasons would be required for having pursued and concluded a measure so new in the history of this kingdom, and of such vast magnitude and importance. Mr Pitt reprobated the principles stated by Mr Fox, in as far as they went to sanction the policy of a constant animosity with France. Such a doctrine militated in the most direct manner possible both against humanity and common sense; for if war is the greatest of all evils, and commerce the chief blessing which a country can enjoy, it must be the duty of those to whom public affairs are intrusted, to endeavour as much as possible to render the one permanent, and to remove the prospect and danger of the other. This was the object of the present treaty; and the advantages likely to arise from it would operate upon succeeding administrations in both countries, so as to induce them to avoid a war as long as it could be done with honour and prudence, and would also strengthen the resources of this nation for carrying on hostilities whenever these should become indispensably necessary. This was the true method of making peace a blessing. The quarrels between France and Britain had not only continued to harass those great nations themselves, but had frequently embroiled the rest of Europe, and had disturbed the tranquillity of the most remote parts of the world. In time past they had acted as if they were intended by nature for the destruction of each other; but he hoped the period had now arrived when they would justify the order of the universe, and show that they were better calculated for the purposes of friendly intercourse and mutual benevolence.

On the 12th of February the house resolved itself into a committee for the purpose of considering the commercial treaty with France, when Mr Pitt entered into a full explanation and defence of the measure. He considered it in three points of view; as affecting our manufactures, our revenues, and our political situation. With respect to the first, he showed, that though the treaty had been formed upon principles of strict reciprocity, yet that this country must, from the very nature of the case, unavoidably have the advantage. With regard to the effect of the treaty upon the revenue, he remarked, that although a considerable reduction must undoubtedly take place of the duties upon French wines, and even upon Portuguese wines, should the provisions of the Methuen treaty be still kept in force, yet this would be balanced by the increased consumption, and by putting an end to the fraudulent manufacture of home-made wine, which was brought to market as foreign wine, a practice which no regulations of excise had hitherto been able to suppress. And with reference to the political tendency of the treaty, he recurred to his former observations on that subject, which it is unnecessary to repeat.

On the part of the manufacturers, it had been objected to this treaty, that the proposed intimate connection with France would afford opportunities of enticing away our [7:5:443]workmen, and conveying the tools and raw materials of our manufactures out of the kingdom. But to this it was answered, that the law in regard to these matters would remain as formerly, and afford to our manufactures the same protection as at present, by restraining the interference of foreigners in regard to the matters alluded to. It was also objected in general, that the commodities in which France traded, being the produce of her soil, which could not suffer in their quantity or quality by lapse of time, whereas our commodities being principally manufactures, which owe all their value to skilful and ingenious labour, the French might by degrees become as industrious and skilful as ourselves, and thereby enter into a successful competition with us in every branch of our present trade, whilst our soil and climate rendered it impossible for us to equal them in the articles of their produce. To this it was answered, that the different nature of the objects of British and French commerce was favourable to Britain, on account of the superior population employed in bringing our manufactures to market; and, at all events, that the threatened change could not occur in twelve years, which was the whole duration of the treaty. The members of opposition objected to the treaty chiefly upon political considerations. Mr Fox contended that the only situation in which Great Britain could stand, in the general system of Europe, with honour, dignity, or safety, was as a counterpoise to the power of France. Mr Francis reproached Mr Pitt with a desertion of the principles of his fiither Lord Chatham, the most prominent feature of whose political character was Antigallicanism. Mr Flood, Mr Sheridan, and others, expressed the same sentiments; whilst Mr Powis and Mr Aiderman Watson opposed the treaty, as bringing the British commerce unnecessarily into hazard at a time when it was extremely prosperous. On the other hand, the treaty was defended by Mr Grenville, Mr Wilberforce, and Mr Dundas, and the resolution proposed by Mr Pitt was carried, on a division, by a large majority. In the House of Lords the treaty was warmly opposed by Dr Watson, bishop of Llandaff, and by Lords Loughborough, Stormont, and Porchester; but this opposition proved as unavailing as that in the lower house.

During the present session a plan for consolidating into one act of parliament the whole of the duties imposed by the statutes of customs and excise, was brought forward by Mr Pitt, and received the universal approbation of the House of Commons. The duties imposed upon French merchandise, in pursuance of the late commercial treaty, were also included in the same act, although that part of the measure was resisted by opposition.

On the 28th of March Mr Beaufoy, at the request of the deputies of the dissenting congregations about London, moved for the repeal of the corporation and test acts. He observed that the test act was originally levelled against the Roman Catholics, and the corporation act against those sectaries who had agitated the kingdom in the times of Charles I. and during the usurpation, but with whose character the dissenters of the present age had nothing in common; and he contended that, as every man had an undoubted right to judge for himself in matters of religion, he ought not, on account of the exercise of that right, to incur any punishment, or to be branded with what is undoubtedly a mark of infamy, an exclusion from military service and civil trust. He referred to the examples of Scotland, Holland, Russia, Prussia, and the dominions of the emperor, in none of which religious opinions were now made the ground of civil disqualification. Lord North spoke against the proposed repeal, chiefly on the footing of the hazard attending innovation. He denied that a man was subjected to any punishment because he did not choose to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper according to the usage of the church of England. He only deprived himself of a privilege which he might otherwise enjoy, and which the law, for the safety of the church, had limited to persons of particular opinions. Mr Pitt supported the same view of the question, upon the ground of the danger to the established church which would result from intrusting official situations to dissenters. Mr Fox supported the motion in favour of the dissenters; remarking, however, upon this occasion, that, from their conduct in a late political revolution, he could not be suspected of being biassed by an improper partiality towards them. The motion was lost on a division by a majority of seventy-eight.

On the 20th of April Mr Alderman Newnham brought under the view of the House of Commons the pecuniary situation of the Prince of Wales, whose affairs had at this time fallen into a state of embarrassment. In 1783, when the prince came of age, Mr Fox and his colleagues, who were then in office, wished to grant him an annual income of L.100,000; but his majesty insisted that he should only be allowed one half of that amount. In the year 1786 the prince, having contracted a debt of L.100,000, exclusive of L.50,000 expended upon Carlton House, applied to his majesty to obtain relief from this incumbrance; and on receiving a refusal, he instantly dismissed the officers of his court, ordered his horses to be sold and the works at Carleton House to be stopped, and reduced his household to the scale of that of a private gentleman. By these savings an annual sum of L.40,000 was vested in trustees for the payment of his debts. But this decisive and spirited conduct was represented at court as disrespectful to the king; and from the period in question his majesty’s dissatisfaction with the prince appears to have been no longer concealed. On the occasion of the assault made upon the king’s person by Margaret Nicholson, no notice of the accident was sent by the court to the Prince of Wales; and when, on receiving the intelligence, he instantly repaired to Windsor, he was received there by the queen, but the king did not see him. In these circumstances the prince permitted his situation to be brought before the House of Commons, with a view of submitting his conduct to the judgment of the public. Accordingly, on the day already mentioned, Mr Newnham demanded of the chancellor of the exchequer whether ministers intended to bring forward any proposition for the relief of the Prince of M r ales; at the same time alleging, that it would be disgraceful to the nation to suffer him to remain longer in his present reduced circumstances. Mr Pitt replied, that he had received no commands from his majesty upon the subject, and that without such it was not his duty to bring forward an affair of this nature. Mr Newnham then intimated his intention of bringing forward a motion on the subject upon the 4th of May. But on the 24th of April Mr Pitt requested to know the precise nature of the intended motion; stating his wish to avoid a discussion of the subject, and adding, that if it was persisted in, he would be under the necessity of bringing before the public some circumstances of extreme delicacy. At the same time Mr Rolle, an adherent of the ministry, declared that the question involved matter by which the constitution both in church and state might be essentially affected. This menace was believed to allude to an intimate connection supposed to subsist between the prince and Mrs Fitzherbert, a lady of a Roman Catholic family, with whom it was alleged that the prince had been married both by Catholic and Protestant clergymen, although such a proceeding, even if it had taken place, could be productive of no legal effects, in consequence of the provisions of the royal marriage-act. Mr Newnham replied, that his intended motion would be for an address to his majesty to relieve the Prince of Wales from his present difficulties; and when some members expressed a wish that [7:5:444]the affair might be privately accommodated, Mr Sheridan declared, that after the insinuations and threats which had been made, the prince could not possibly recede with honour. Accordingly, on the 30th of April, when the subject was again mentioned, Mr Fox, who had been absent during the former debate, stated, that he had authority from the prince to say, that there was no part of his conduct which he would not willingly submit to public investigation. The allusions made to something full of danger to the church and state he treated as a tale fit to be imposed only on the lowest of the vulgar; and added, that his royal highness was ready, in the other house, as a peer of parliament, to give his majesty, or his ministers, any assurances or satisfaction on the subject which they might require. Mr Fox, at the same time, directly assured the house that the whole story alluded to was untrue. The result therefore was, that an accommodation took place. The prince was allowed an annual addition to his income of L.10,000, and a sum of L.180,000 was granted by parliament for the payment of his debts.

But the subject which chiefly occupied the attention of parliament during the present session was the accusation of Mr Hastings. After examining Mr Middleton and Sir Elijah Impey as witnesses in the beginning of February, Mr Sheridan, on the 7th of that month, opened the third charge against Mr Hastings, which set forth, that without justice, or any excuse of political necessity, he had seized the lands, and confiscated the treasures, of the begums or princesses of Oude, the mother and grand-daughter of the reigning nabob, and that he had even compelled the latter to become the instrument of this robbery. Mr Sheridan’s speech lasted five hours and a half. The subject of the charge was well fitted for a display of all the powers of pathetic eloquence, owing to the rank and sex of the parties whom, on this occasion, Mr Hastings was accused of having treated with the most barbarous rapacity, treachery, and cruelty. Every advantage was taken of these circumstances by the eloquent accuser; and Mr Sheridan’s discourse was considered as a model of splendid and impressive oratory. When he sat down, the whole house, which was filled with members, peers, and strangers, instantly joined in a loud and long-continued tumult of applause, expressing their approbation in the irregular mode of repeatedly clapping with their hands. Mr Burke declared it to be the most astonishing effort of eloquence, argument, and wit united, of which there was any record or tradition; Mr Fox said, that all that he had ever heard or read, when compared with it, vanished like vapour before the sun; and Mr Pitt asserted, that it surpassed all the eloquence of ancient or modern times, and possessed every resource which genius or art could furnish to control and agitate the human mind. After a short suspension of the debate, some of Mr Hastings’ friends attempted to speak in reply, but found it impossible to procure a hearing. At last some members proposed, that for the sake of decorum, the debate should be adjourned; and this proposal was carried. On the following day Mr Francis resumed the charge, which was opposed by Mr Burgess, Major Scott, Mr Nichols, Mr Vansittart, and Mr Alderman le Mesurier. After having heard the arguments on both sides, Mr Pitt rose, and having stated the sense he entertained of the high importance of the procedure against Mr Hastings, and his endeavours to give to every fact stated in each particular charge the fullest investigation, declared himself fully satisfied that criminality was brought home to Mr Hastings, though not perhaps to the full extent alleged by the accusers. The motion for accusation was accordingly carried, upon a division, by a very large majority.

At a future period of the session other charges were brought forward, and opened by Mr Thomas Pelham, Sir James Erskine, Mr Windham, and Mr Francis. Mr Pitt adopted the cause of the accusers, and on some occasions, though in a very mild tone, Mr Dundas did the same. At one period Lord Hood stood forward, and, in a very solemn manner, requested the attention of the house to the consequences of proceeding, with too scrupulous a nicety, to canvass the conduct of those who had filled stations abroad of high difficulty and important trust. Certain actions, which appeared to those at a distance in a very criminal light, were yet, he alleged, on a nearer investigation, perfectly justifiable on the grounds of absolute and indispensable necessity; and if the dread of an impeachment by parliament were to be hung over every commander in whose hands was placed the defence of our national possessions, it must necessarily operate as a dangerous restraint on their exertions, when it was considered that no general nor admiral had scarcely ever been fortunate enough to conduct himself in the performance of his duty, so as not occasionally to fall into circumstances in which the public service compelled him to do things in themselves neither pleasing to his feelings, nor strictly legal, but, from the indispensable necessities of their situation, perfectly justifiable. But Mr Pitt denied that these sentiments had any application to the case of Mr Hastings, since no adequate political necessity had been pointed out which could justify his conduct. In the course of the proceedings, also, it appeared that several members were disposed to consider the merits of Mr Hastings as in some measure compensating his crimes; and thus, although they voted his conduct criminal on particular occasions, they had an intention of voting in his favour when the general question should come to be proposed about the propriety of proceeding to impeachment. But Major Scott took an opportunity to declare that Mr Hastings and his friends wished to decline such a mode of defence; and he read to the house as a part of his own speech, a paper signed by Mr Hastings, in which he requested, if a general vote of criminality should pass against him, that they would further proceed instantly to an impeachment, and thus afford him an opportunity of defending himself judicially.

A committee was at length appointed to prepare articles of impeachment against Mr Hastings. It consisted of Mr Burke, Mr Fox, Mr Sheridan, Sir James Erskine, the Right Honourable Thomas Pelham, the Right Honourable William Wyndham, the Honourable St Andrew St John, John Anstruther, Esq. William Adam, Esq. Μ. A. Taylor, Esq. Welbore Ellis, Esq. the Right Honourable Frederick Montague, Sir Grey Cooper, Sir Gilbert Elliot, Dudley Long, Esq. Lord Maitland, the Honourable George Augustus North, General Burgoyne, and Mr Grey. An attempt was made by Mr Burke to procure the appointment of Mr Philip Francis as a member of this committee, but without success. On the 25th of April Mr Burke presented the articles of impeachment, which were read, and ordered to be printed, and considered on the 9th of May. Upon that day Lord Hood repeated his former arguments, and was supported by Mr Smith and the notorious John Wilkes. This last person insisted strongly on the silence of the natives of India respecting the dreadful oppression said to have been practised against them, and attributed the greater part of what appeared criminal in the conduct of Mr Hastings to the craving and avaricious policy of this country, whose demands had in some instances driven Mr Hastings to the use of means not strictly justifiable. The amount of the charges, supposing the facts to be true, was, in his opinion, this, that Mr Hastings, by oppression, by injustice, and by corruption, had obtained for the East India Company nine millions and a half sterling. Mr Wilkes thought [7:5:445]the acts complained of politic and just, and declared that he could not vote for the impeachment of Mr Hastings, while he benefited by his misdeeds. He added, that it appeared incomprehensible to him how gentlemen who condemned his actions suffered a day to pass without proposing retribution to the sufferers. The lord advocate of Scotland, Mr Bay Campbell, also supported this view; considering the necessities of the Company, and the dangerous crisis of their affairs, as grounds of justification for the strong measures pursued by Mr Hastings, in order to extricate them; and declaring that, as the Company had actually reaped the benefit of them, and so far approved of them as never to signify any intention of restitution, he could not conceive with what propriety Mr Hastings could be impeached. Mr Pitt acknowledged that many measures during the administration of Mr Hastings were uncommonly brilliant, and that in these his merits were unquestionable; but he trusted that no man who seriously regarded the honour of the House of Commons would think that the justice of the country could admit of any compromise whatever.

The question of impeachment was therefore carried by a large majority; and on the 10th of May, at the bar of the House of Lords, Mr Burke, in the name of the House of the Commons of Great Britain, impeached Warren Hastings, Esq. late governor-general of Bengal, of high crimes and misdemeanors; and informed the Lords that the Commons would, with all convenient speed, exhibit and make good articles against him. On the 21st of the same month, upon the motion of Mr Burke, Mr Hastings was taken into the custody of the scrjeant at arms of the house; but he was immediately admitted to bail by the House of Lords, himself in the sum of L.20,000, and two sureties in L.10,000 each. But as the session of parliament was prorogued on the 30th of May, the trial was necessarily postponed to another session, and by various delays it was ultimately protracted to an extraordinary length.

The impeachment of Mr Hastings, from the attention which it excited, and the talents which were exerted in carrying it through, undoubtedly forms an event of considerable importance in British history. It ended in the acquittal of the party accused; but the immense expense which he incurred, and the uneasiness which he must have suffered from the odium excited against him, unquestionably amounted to a very severe punishment. A British House of Commons held him guilty of inhumanity, rapacity, perfidy, and tyranny, towards a numerous and civilised people, who had been subjected to his power; and these sentiments were so widely diffused throughout Great Britain, that the minister of the day, always studious of popularity, thought it necessary to join in the general current of opinion. But to enable the reader to appreciate correctly the merits of Mr Hastings, or the reasonableness of the accusations which were brought against him, it is necessary to consider correctly the situation in which that gentleman stood. He was invested by the British East India Company with absolute power over a large portion of Hindustan, in order to govern for the profit of the Company, and if possible to acquire for them still more extensive territories. To fulfil the purposes for which lie was employed, it was necessary for him to procure a large revenue for the Company, and at the same time to enable the young men of rank, whom they sent out in their service, to return speedily to Britain loaded with wealth; these being the only objects on account of which the East India Company, or the British nation, had made efforts for the conquest of the East. But such objects evidently imply, not that Hindustan was to be mildly and generously governed, but that it was to be plundered to the utmost extent which it could bear without ruin. Accordingly, in 1782, Mr Hastings, in one of his letters, complained strongly of the cruelty of his situation, and of the expensive establishments and offices which he was under the necessity of constituting in India, in order to gratify the avarice of his employers; declaring that he had at that time about him two hundred and fifty persons, the younger sons of the first families in Britain, all looking up to him for patronage, and expecting to be put in possession of sudden riches. But these riches, it is evident, could not be drawn from the natives of Hindustan without much oppression; and when this oppression produced rebellion, or combinations of the native princes against the British power, it became necessary to be guilty of further oppression, or more grievous extortion, to collect means by which to overcome the resistance of an oppressed people. It is admitted on all hands that Mr Hastings was almost unboundedly successful in the service of his employers. He sent home annually great numbers of men loaded with the plunder of the East; while at the same time, by great activity and intrepidity, he collected resources wherewith to maintain and extend the British power, and was enabled to support it in all quarters against the most extensive combinations of the princes of that country. Now there are two systems of morality according to which the character of such a man as Mr Hastings may be tried. The one is founded upon the principle of obedience to his employers, and fidelity to the trust reposed in him; and the other upon the eternal law of humanity. According to the first of these, that conduct is most worthy of applause which tends in the highest degree to promote the interest of those whom we serve; and, considered in this point of view, the merits of Warren Hastings have seldom been surpassed. It is true that he plundered the provinces of the East; but it was to aggrandise and enrich his country that he did so. He accounted their persons and fortunes as of little consideration; but he did so because he was the devoted servant of Britain. Accordingly, the French, whose public enemy he had been, regarded him with admiration, and uniformly extolled his actions as more than human. But if, in opposition to all this, we are to weigh the conduct of Mr Hastings by those maxims of morality which assume the immutable law of humanity as the rule by which human actions ought to be regulated, there can be no doubt that he must be condemned. He can only be regarded as one of those robbers of nations, to whose crimes historians and poets have given a too fatal celebrity. He was guilty of plundering and oppressing a pacific race of men, at the extremities of the earth, in whose affairs neither he nor his country had any right to interfere. But the principal criminals in this case were the British East India Company, the British legislature, and the British nation, who sent him upon such a service. Mr Hastings was only the guilty tool of a guilty people; and surely it ill became the British House of Commons, which had authorized the acquisition of conquests, or, in other words, sanctioned rapine and oppression, in the East, and whose constituents had become rich by the plunder or the profits of such enterprises, to accuse as a criminal the most successful servant of the state. John Wilkes and the lord advocate for Scotland appear, therefore, to have rested Mr Hastings’ defence upon an unanswerable footing, when they considered his crimes as services, which he was employed by his country to perform for its aggrandisement, and for the moral rectitude of which he could not be responsible to that power from which he derived his commission, and which scrupled not to reap the fruit of his labours.

During the year 1787, the amity subsisting between Britain and France seemed likely to be disturbed, in consequence of the affairs of Holland. The grounds of difference, [7:5:446]indeed, were speedily adjusted; but the events out of which they arose are worthy of notice, on account of their tendency to explain some future occurrences in the history of Europe. The state of the Dutch republic always had been regarded as of much importance by Great Britain. That country, being situated upon the mouths of the navigable rivers which communicate with some of the most important parts of the European continent, holds as it were the keys of the different passages by which our manufactures reach their places of ultimate sale and consumption; and in the most important efforts for reducing the power of France, the Dutch had acted along with the British nation. In the history of the United Provinces, during a couple of centuries, two parties were always found struggling for superiority. The one was that of the house of Orange, which had been originally raised to power in consequence of the talents of its chiefs, united with their rank and property, which had induced the states to intrust to them the direction of their armies, first against the Spanish monarchy, from which the united provinces had originally revolted, and afterwards against the power of France. By their great public services, the princes of the house of Orange had established in their own favour a kind of hereditary claim to the offices which they held in the republic, of stadtholder, captain-general of the forces, and admiral; and thus there existed in their persons, in succession, a kind of limited monarchy, by which the Dutch republic was influenced and led, rather than formally governed. The second party in the Dutch republic consisted of a kind of aristocracy, composed of the senates or town-councils of different cities, which possessed the power of nominating to the vacancies in their own order, that is, of electing their own successors in office. This party was usually denominated the Party of the States, or the Republican Party. Its members were, in point of form, the sovereigns of the country, as well as the wealthiest individuals in it; and the chief constitutional control which the stadtholder possessed over them, was founded on a regulation established by William III. prince of Orange, in 1674, by which he enjoyed a negative in the elections of town governments, and a power, in certain cases, of introducing members into them. But it is to be observed, that the mass of the people, who always find greater safety under the dominion of one superior than under that of a multitude of petty local chiefs, were decidedly attached to the house of Orange, or to the power of the stadtholder, in opposition to that of the town senates or republican party; and the ancient nobles also, together with the clergy of the established church, and the officers of the army and navy, adhered to the same family, and thereby enabled it on ordinary occasions to support its power against the party of the states.

During the participation of the United Provinces in the late war against Great Britain, a proposal had been made to enrol bodies of volunteers in the different towns, for the purpose of internal defence. The senates of the towns, that ís, the aristocratical, or, as they called themselves, the republican party, encouraged the formation of these armed bodies of burghers, over whom at their first enrolment they had complete influence, as affording them a kind of counterpoise against the military power, which, although paid by them, was commanded by the stadtholder. But these bodies of citizens, as soon as they had been trained to the use of arms, began to be sensible of their importance. The opinions propagated in North America during the war were known over all Europe, and being received with considerable avidity by the Dutch volunteers, produced in that country a kind of third or democratic party, the object of which was to procure for the citizens of the towns a share in the nomination of the magistrates. But as the volunteer associations were originally the creatures of the senates or aristocracy, for the purpose of counteracting the power of the stadtholder, so they appear, in their first movements, to have been directed by that faction. One of these movements took place at Utrecht. The armed burghers, amounting to upwards of two thousand, presented a petition to the states of the province of Utrecht, requesting them to abolish the regulation of 1674, by which the stadtholder was enabled to influence the nomination of the magistracy; and they presented an address of a similar nature to the town senate of Utrecht, and to the prince of Orange. As might have been expected, the answer of the prince was unfavourable; but the magistrates of Utrecht, in compliance with the wishes of the armed burghers, proceeded to fill up a vacancy in their own number without consulting the prince. This event occurred in January 1784; but it appears that, in the course of the same year, either from the intrigues of the stadtholder’s court, or a dread of betaking themselves to the assistance of the new and dangerous democratic party, the states of the province and town senate of Utrecht deserted the cause of the armed burghers, whom they themselves had instigated to action, and recalled or annulled the steps towards innovation which they had previously taken. Meanwhile the senate and the armed burghers continued alternately to menace each other. But, by degrees, a spirit of political reform diffused itself from Utrecht to the different towns in the provinces where bodies of volunteers or armed burghers had been established. The armed burghers of Utrecht elected a representative body to watch over the management of public affairs, and various other towns followed the example; but these representative bodies soon quarrelled with the old senates; and the prince of Orange appears to have had it in his power to select either of the parties he might think fit as his adherents. His ancient enemies were the aristocracy or town senates; but as he could not, without a total alteration of the constitution of the United Provinces, derive a regular and legal support from the bodies of armed burghers, he resolved to support the ancient magistracies, and to rest his power upon its former footing of influence over these magistracies, though he knew them to be his rivals in political importance. It would seem, however, that the aristocracy of the province of Holland, who had always been the most decided enemies of the family of Orange, were not satisfied with the disposition of the prince to support the ancient constitution, and resolved to undermine or overthrow his power, even at the hazard of a revolution, which must be equally fatal to their own. But this aristocratical body was not of an enterprising character, and rather waited than attempted to direct the course of political events; while, in consequence of the support afforded by the stadtholder to the senates of Utrecht and other places, the armed burghers throughout the whole United Provinces became disposed to act in opposition to him. Meanwhile the populace of the Hague retained their usual attachment to his person and family. On the 4th of September 1785, twelve volunteers of the corps of the town of Leyden appeared at the Hague in uniform. Offended by this apparent defiance, the populace attacked and drove them into a neighbouring house, the windows of which they smashed; but a part of the garrison, without interfering with the populace, took the volunteers into custody, and sent them home privately by night. This riot, however, served as a pretext to the states of Holland for superseding the prince of Orange in the command of the garrison at the Hague, which they intrusted to the deputies of Haerlem, a town long noted for its zeal in opposition to the stadtholder; and as the prince had been engaged in endless controversies with the states of Holland, in which the strength [7:5:447]of the aristocratical party was concentrated, this affront drove him to the resolution of leaving the Hague, which he did on the 14th September 1785. He applied for protection to Great Britain, whose cause he had uniformly supported, and to the king of Prussia, who was the uncle of his wife. The aristocratical party, on the contrary, made application to the court of Versailles, which it had supported by entering into the confederacy against Great Britain, and from which it had always received encouragement; and at the same time it endeavoured to effect a union with the armed burghers.

In the mean time Frederick II. of Prussia died, and was succeeded by his nephew, Frederick William, the brother-in-law of the stadtholder. The French court appeared to espouse with vigour the combined aristocratical and democratical parties in the United Provinces; but the new king of Prussia hesitated to engage in a dispute with France; and there is little doubt that, had the French on this occasion shown themselves ready to act with vigour in support of their party in Holland, the stadtholder must have fallen before his enemies. But the French monarchy, under a benevolent and well-meaning though weak prince, was at this period rapidly sinking into a state of great feebleness, owing to the extreme embarrassment of its finances. A negociation was indeed proposed between the courts of France and Berlin, for the purpose of adjusting, in some friendly manner, the differences between the stadtholder and his enemies. But the weakness of France becoming gradually more apparent, Prussia and Great Britain were induced to take a more decisive part in the affairs of Holland, chiefly in consequence of the suggestions of the British ambassador at the Hague, Sir James Harris. The stadtholder, who had now established himself at Nimeguen, was a man of little activity or enterprise; but his princess being of a different character, ventured to undertake a journey to the Hague, unaccompanied by her husband, probably with a view to what actually happened. On the 28th of June 1787 she was arrested by some troops of the opposite party; and this circumstance afforded an excuse to the king of Prussia for interfering in the internal affairs of the United Provinces, in order to demand reparation for the insult offered to his sister.

A Prussian army, commanded by the Duke of Brunswick, the brother-in-law of the king of Great Britain, immediately prepared to invade Holland; and to secure additional aid to the Prince of Orange, a treaty was concluded between Great Britain and the landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, for the assistance of twelve thousand troops. In the mean time the United Provinces remained in a state of great internal distraction. The defects of their political constitution had originally occasioned the appointment of a stadtholder; and there had yet been substituted in its stead no simple system, which, by doing away the distinctions of states and provinces, might unite the force of the country, for the purpose of enabling it to resist such powerful aggression as that with which it was now threatened. The promised aid from France did not arrive; and although troops had been levied by the states of Holland, the chief command of them was intrusted to the rhingrave of Salm, a man whose character appears to have inspired little confidence. Meanwhile the Duke of Brunswick, at the head of a powerful army, entered the country. The reputation of the Prussian armies in Europe was at this time extremely great; and the frontier towns of Holland, which were capable of resisting regular sieges, were now taken without a struggle. It is unnecessary to detail the progress of the Prussian troops, which was extremely rapid, since in little more than a fortnight the republican party found itself confined to the city of Amsterdam. This city was besieged on the first of October; and after much negocia tion, and a variety of attacks, it admitted a foreign garrison to take possession of its gates. The influence of France ' was thus totally annihilated in Holland, and the authority of the stadtholder restored; but it was restored by the power of Prussia and Britain alone; and the consequence was, that a decided enmity to these two countries, from that period, took possession of the minds of a great portion of the inhabitants of the Dutch territories.

When the British parliament met on the 27th of No-’ vember 1787, the most remarkable circumstance alluded to in the king’s speech was the state of Holland. It was there mentioned, that the disputes in the republic of the United Provinces had become so critical as to endanger their constitution and independence; that his majesty had endeavoured by good offices to maintain the lawful government of those countries, and judged it necessary to explain his intention of counteracting forcible interference on the part of France; that, accordingly, when his most Christian majesty, in consequence of an application for assistance by the party which had usurped the government of Holland, had notified his intention of granting their request, his majesty had declared that Britain could not remain an unconcerned spectator, and immediate orders had been issued for augmenting the forces both by sea and land; that the rapid success of the Prussian troops having soon after enabled the provinces to re-establish their lawful government, an amicable explanation had ensued between him and the most Christian king; and that both parties had engaged to disarm, and to place their naval establishments on the same footing as at the beginning of the year. When the address was moved, Mr Fox took an opportunity of expressing the fullest approbation of the measures which had been lately pursued, and took credit to himself as one of those who had invariably been of opinion that this country is at all times deeply interested in the situation of affairs upon the Continent, and ought, whenever occasion required, to take an active and vigorous part in preserving the balance of power in Europe. In the House of Lords the Bishop of Llandaff also expressed his satisfaction at seeing the republic of the United Provinces again united in its views with Great Britain.

During the interference of Great Britain and Prussia in the affairs of Holland, and whilst a dread was entertained that the discontented party in the provinces might receive assistance from France, and preparations were on that account made for fitting out a fleet, the lords of the admiralty had promoted sixteen captains of the navy to the rank of admirals. In this promotion a selection had been made, by which upwards of forty senior captains were passed over; a circumstance which gave rise to various debates in parliament. To understand the subject, it is necessary to remark, that in 1718 an order of council directed the lords of the admiralty, in promoting officers to the rank of admirals in the navy, to prefer the senior captains, providing only that they were duly qualified for the rank to which they were to be promoted. And by a subsequent order of 1747 the lords of the admiralty were authorized to place such captains as should be found incapable, by reason of age or infirmity, of serving as admirals, upon the list of superannuated admirals, usually called the list of the yellow admirals. In the promotion above mentioned the board of admiralty had offered to place upon the list of yellow or superannuated admirals most of the captains who were passed over; but these, from their capacity for future service, conceiving themselves entitled to the rank of acting admirals, had refused the retreat which was offered them; and a general disgust prevailed among the officers in the navy, on finding that their hopes of employment in active service must at all times depend on their interest with the first lord of the admiralty. On the 20th of February [7:5:448]1788 Lord Rawdon, in the House of Lords, stated their case, and proposed an address to his majesty upon the subject. But the first lord of the admiralty, Lord Howe, justified the exercise of a discretionary power by the board in promoting navy captains to the rank of acting admirals, upon the ground that a man might be fit to command a single ship who ought not to be intrusted with the care of a fleet; and Lord Sandwich admitted the impropriety of interfering with the executive government in an affair of this nature; upon which Lord Rawdon’s proposal was rejected. The same suþject was also brought before the House of Commons in various forms, and supported by almost all the naval officers who had seats in the house. But Mr Pitt defended the admiralty, by declaring that no degree of misconduct had been stated sufficient to authorize the interference of parliament with the exercise of its powers; and the board was protected from censure by a small majority· ...

At this time a bill was brought into parliament for subjecting to higher penalties than formerly all persons who should export wool from the country, the object of it being to confirm the monopoly enjoyed by our own manufacturers in that article. The manufacturers asserted, that thirteen thousand packs of British wool were annually smuggled into France, which tended to raise the price of the commodity against our own manufacturers. Several country gentlemen, however, opposed the bill, as an unjust hardship upon the profits of land in this country, which ought to have the world open as a market for its productions; but the minister, who was aware of the importance of enjoying popularity with the commercial part of the nation, gave full countenance to the bill, which accordingly passed into a law.

In his financial exposition of the revenue, Mr Pitt made some remarks as to the improving state of the country, which are not unworthy of being noticed. He stated that the receipt of the permanent taxes, in the year 1787, exclusive of the land and malt tax, had been L.13,000,000, whereas the receipt of the taxes in the year 1783 had only been L.10,184,000. Thus there was an increase of revenue amounting to three millions, of which not more than one million and a half accrued from new taxes. In trade, navigation, and fisheries, the progressive improvement had kept pace with the increase of revenue. In the year 1772 the imports were L.14,500,000, and the exports L.16,000,000; in 1787 the imports were about L.15,800,000, and the exports amounted to L. 16,600,000. Navigation had in like manner increased. The Newfoundland fishery in 1773 produced 516,000 quintals; but in 1786 it produced 732,000. In 1773 the Greenland fishery gave employment to 27,000 tons of shipping; but in 1786 the amount employed was 53,000. The southern whale fishery, a new and valuable branch of trade, which only commenced at the beginning of the last war, had also prospered equally. In this fishery, in 1785, there were employed eighteen ships, producing L.20,000, whereas in 1787 there were employed thirty-eight ships, producing L.107,000. The general result, therefore, showed that the commerce and industry of the country were in a prosperous condition, and extending themselves in every direction.

On the 8th of June Mr Pitt called the attention of the house to the compensation which was intended to be made to the American loyalists, on account of the losses sustained by them from their adherence to this country during the American war. He divided the loyalists who had made claims of compensation into four classes. In the first class he ranked those who had resided in America at the commencement of the war, and who had been obliged to abandon their estates and property, which were seized and confiscated by the Americans, and he proposed that loyalists of this class who had not lost more than L.10,000 should receive full compensation; for losses above 1 that sum, and below L.35,000, ninety per cent, on the excess above L. 10,000; for losses above L.35,000 and under L.50,000 eighty-five per cent, on the excess above L.10,000; and for losses above L.50,000 eighty per cent, on all above L.10,000. The next class of claimants, consisting of those who had lost property in America, but who had resided in England during the war, Mr Pitt proposed to indemnify also in full to the amount of L.10,000; but that all whose claimsamounted to from L.10,000 to L.30,000 should suffer a deduction of twenty per cent., and a further additional deduction of twenty per cent, in progression upon every additional L.50,000 claimed. Of the third class of claimants, consisting of loyalists who had enjoyed places and exercised professions in America, which, by adhering to this country, they had lost or been forced to abandon, he proposed to put upon half pay those whose incomes amounted to no more than L.400 per annum, and to grant forty per cent, upon any excess of income above L.400 per annum, unless the income exceeded L.1500 per annum, in which case thirty per cent, only was to be allowed upon the excess of income above L.400 per annum. Lastly, it was proposed to pay the full amount of their claims to persons connected with West Florida, because, by the treaty of peace, that country had been ceded by Britain to a foreign power. Mr Pitt concluded by moving, that, in order to satisfy these claims, L.1,228,239 should be voted to the several American claimants, and L.l 13,952 14s. ∣d. to the Florida claimants; and the motion was unanimously agreed to. The liberality with which the British nation acted upon this occasion merits high approbation, as an instance of the wisest policy, from its tendency, in future discontents or insurrections in the subordinate parts of the empire, to secure the attachment of persons of property to the cause of the mother country. As the claims of the American loyalists were stated by themselves, and not scrutinized with extreme severity, it was generally understood that these persons were in very few instances ultimate losers by the part which they had taken; a circumstance of which the public did not disapprove.

The trade carried on by Great Britain and other European nations upon the coast of Africa, for the purchase of negro slaves to be employed in the cultivation of the West India islands, and certain parts of the continent of America, does not appear to have been at this time considered with that general attention which a practice so abhorrent in its nature to the mild principles of modern policy and manners might have been expected to excite. This may probably have been owing, partly to the distance of the object, which tended both to conceal the sufferings, and to lessen the sympathy of the public for the unfortunate sufferers; and partly to the connivance of politicians, unwilling to examine too severely into the nature of the means by which distant colonies were enabled to pour luxury and wealth into the bosom of the mother country. The first public attempt made to put a stop to this traffic was by the Quakers of the southern provinces of America, who, soon after the establishment of their independence, not only presented a strong and pathetic address to their several legislative assemblies on this subject, but actually proceeded in many instances to emancipate the slaves in their own possession. In Great Britain the same sectappears also to have taken the lead; and, after the example of their American brethren, they presented, in 1787, a petition to the parliament of this kingdom. The cause soon afterwards became extremely popular, and was taken up with great zeal and earnestness by various descriptions of people. A society was formed; a considerable sum of money was subscribed for the purpose of collecting information[7:5:449] and supporting the expense of an application to •parliament; a great number of pamphlets were published upon the subject; several eminent divines recommended the abolition from the pulpit and in printed discourses; and, in the present session, petitions against the slave-trade were presented from the two English universities, and from several of the most considerable towns and corporations in the kingdom. By a sort of general consent, Mr Wilberforce had been intrusted with the care of bringing the business before the House of Commons; but he being prevented by ill health, Mr Pitt, on the 9th of May, proposed that the house should come to a resolution to take into consideration the circumstances of the slave-trade early in the next session. He added, that the privy-council had appointed a committee to inquire into the matter, and that next session the result would probably be laid before the house to facilitate their investigations. Mr Fox and Mr Burke expressed their regret on account of the proposed delay; lamenting that the privy-council, who had received no petitions from the people, should have instituted an inquiry, and that the House of Commons, whose table was loaded with them from every part of the kingdom, should not have instituted an inquiry at all. Sir William Dolben called the attention of the house to the condition of the slaves in that intermediate state of misery which they suffered in their transportation from the coast of Africa to the West Indies, entering into a short detail of the horrors of the middle passage, and declaring himself ready to bring evidence to the bar to prove the fact. This called aloud for a remedy, and that remedy ought to be applied immediately; for if parliament delayed doing so, ten thousand lives would be lost between the present session and the beginning of the next. This suggestion met with general approbation; and a bill was accordingly brought in and passed into a law for regulating the transportation of the natives of Africa to the British colonies in the West Indies.

During this session the affairs of India still continued to occupy the attention of the legislature and of the public. Under the apprehension of a rupture with France on account of the affairs of Holland, government had resolved to send out four additional regiments to India, on board the Company’s ships, for the protection of our possessions in that quarter; and the proposal had been received with approbation by the court of directors; but even after the danger was past, government still adhered to their resolution of sending out these regiments, with a view to form a permanent establishment of king’s troops in that quarter of the world. Hence a question arose with the court of directors of the East India Company, about the expense of sending out, and afterwards paying, these troops. By an act passed in the year 1781, the Company were declared liable for the expense attending such troops only as should be sent cut upon their own requisition. But administration now contended, that the act brought forward by Mr Pitt in 1784, which gave to the board of control a power of counteracting the orders of the court of directors, and of directing the application of the Company’s revenues, ought to be understood as authorizing that board to carry into effect the proposed measure. The court of directors, however, having obtained the opinion of some eminent lawyers in their favour, refused to take the troops onboard the ships which were about to sail for India; and for this reason, on the 25th of February, Mr Pitt proposed, in the House of Commons, that all difficulties should be removed by a declaratory act, stating the intention of the legislature, in the act of 1784, to have been conformable to the construction put upon it by the board of control. This mode of proceeding was strongly opposed, upon the grounds that the claims of government upon the Company ought to be tried in a court of law, instead of being brought be fore the House of Commons, where administration possessed an undue influence; that the measure was in itself' ill judged, as it would have been more economical to permit the Company to raise four regiments, which would have enabled them to provide for many of their own officers, who were living in India in very distressed situations, in consequence of having been reduced at the peace; and that the mode of sending out recruits to complete the king’s regiments at that time in India might have been adopted with more advantage to the Company, as it would have enabled them to avoid the additional burden of all the officers of four new regiments. But the point on which the declaratory act was chiefly resisted referred to its tendency to deprive the East India Company of the management of its own affairs, and of the patronage arising from its revenues, which, at the time when Mr Pitt’s bill was passed, had never been understood to be the intention of the legislature or of government. Mr Pulteney, and some other members who usually voted with Mr Pitt, now declared that they supported his bill in 1784 only because it appeared to preserve uninjured the rights of the East India Company; and that the construction attempted to be put upon it in the declaratory act rendered it fully as obnoxious as the celebrated bill rejected by the Lords in 1783; with this difference only, that what the one had for its professed object only and without disguise, the other was attempting to efteet by fraud and dissimulation. Other members also expressed similar sentiments, which excited great triumph on the part of Mr Fox and his friends, who loudly congratulated themselves upon the complete justification which his India bill had now obtained, by the taeit confession of his adversaries themselves. In support of the declaratory act, Mr Pitt contended, that the express object of the institution of the board of control was to take the entire management of the territorial possessions and the political government of India out of the hands of the Company, leaving them only the direction of their commercial concerns; that the board of control was in future to be responsible to the public for the prosperity and safety of our Indian possessions, and was therefore to be invested with the powers necessary for the due discharge of its important duties; and that administration in 1784 had not held any other language with regard to its nature, or the authority which it was to possess. On the 5th of March the bill was passed by a considerable majority. In the House of Lords the Marquis of Lansdown opposed it on nearly the same grounds as had been urged in the Commons, but with as little success. And upon the whole, if the augmentation of the power of the crown was at this period a misfortune, it was a misfortune which the conquest of India appears to have rendered inevitable. The East India Company, by whom the conquest had been made, was admitted to have shown itself unfit to govern that great country. The management of it, therefore, naturally devolved upon the executive government, unless the constitution itself was to be endangered, by intrusting the exercise of new and unusual powers to some branch of the legislature; or, unless a new kind of authority or power was to be created, like that attempted by Mr Fox’s India bill, the result of which, as a political experiment upon the constitution, or mode of administering part of the affairs of the empire, was necessarily hazardous, because heretofore entirely without example in our history.

The attention of the nation still continued to be occupied in no small degree by the prosecution of Mr Hastings. The members of the committee which during the preceding session had prepared the articles of impeachment, were now appointed to act as managers for the House of Commons in conducting the trial; and on the [7:5:450] 13th of February the trial commenced with extraordinary solemnity in Westminster Hall, which had been fitted up for the purpose. At an early hour the Commons, preceded by the managers, issued from their own house into the hall, Mr Burke leading the procession; and thereafter came the Peers in procession, preceded by the clerks of Parliament, the masters of chancery, the serjeants at law, and the judges. That and the following day were consumed in reading the articles of impeachment, and in receiving the answers of Mr Hastings. On the 15th of February, Mr Burke began an oration, which he continued during that and the four following days, and in which his talents were exerted with great splendour, and his eloquence listened to with admiration. After an appeal to the justice of the court on the part of the people of India, he entered into a detail of the history of Hindustan from the earliest times; sketched a luminous outline of the revolutions which had occurred in it, of the civil and religious institutions, with the arts, customs, and manners of the various classes of its inhabitants; traced the progress of British intrusion, and minutely described the establishments effected by our countrymen; gave an animated account of the blessings which India might have derived from communication with the most enlightened nation in Europe; lamented that, instead of acting as friends or instructors of the natives, our countrymen had marked their way by treachery and rapine, and taught vice rather than virtue; expatiated on their usurpations of power, and their frequent enormities; specified the acts of Mr Hastings, representing them as beyond all bounds arbitrary and rapacious, and endeavoured to hold him up to execration as a monster of tyranny. The governor-general had attempted to justify his oppressions, by asserting that the Asiatic governments were all despotic; that he did not make the people slaves, but found them such; that the sovereignty he was called to exercise was an arbitrary sovereignty; and that he had exercised it in no other way than was done by the other sovereigns of Asia, and the native princes of the country. Mr Burke reprobated this geographical morality, and these claims to absolute power; denied that either the East India Company or the British government had it to bestow; asserted that no such arbitrary government was attempted to be justified in the East, every Mahommedan government being regulated by the laws of the Koran, while those of the Gentoos proscribed the idea of arbitrary will in magistrates; and contended that the conduct of tyrants, or the corrupt practices of mankind, were no principles upon which to regulate the duty of a British governor, bound to act, and liable to be judged by his country, upon British principles. Mr Burke concluded by declaring, that he impeached Mr Hastings in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, whose parliamentary trust he had betrayed, and whose national character he had dishonoured; in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights, and liberties he had subverted, whose properties he had destroyed, and whose country lie had rendered desolate; and in the name of human nature, which he had cruelly outraged in both sexes, in every age, rank, and condition of life.

The managers of the impeachment next proposed that they should come to a conclusion on both sides, upon each article separately before they opened another; but the counsel for Mr Hastings insisted that the House of Commons ought first to proceed to a conclusion upon the whole charges, before any part of the defence was demanded; and the House of Lords having deliberated on the point, decided it in their favour. The managers for the Commons acquiesced in the decision, and entered upon the particular charges, two of which employed the House of Lords during the remainder of the session.

During the investigations occasioned by the trial of Mr Hastings, and the discussion of India affairs, the opposi- ’ tion were led to bring forward a series of charges, importing high crimes and misdemeanours, against Sir Elijah Impey, formerly chief justice of the supreme court of Bengal. The substance of these charges, six in number, and which were presented to the House of Commons by Sir Gilbert Elliot, was, that the chief justice had in a variety of instances rendered himself the agent and tool of Mr Hastings, particularly in the decision of a considerable number of important causes. Sir Gilbert stated that Sir Elijah Impey had been declared criminal by parliament, before the parties into which it was at present divided had any existence; and that the proceedings out of which this accusation arose had been carried on by persons of all connections, and countenanced by the different administrations which had succeeded each other during the last six years. He contended that the only means left of reforming Indian abuses, was the punishment, in some great and signal instances, of Indian delinquency; and this proposition he endeavoured to establish by comparing the different force and efficacy of laws, arising from their penal sanctions, when applied in our own internal administration, and in the government of distant possessions. Of the particular charges brought against Sir Elijah Impey, that respecting the fate of Nundcomar, a Hindu prince of the sacred caste of the Brahmins, was the most remarkable. This man having had the weakness or imprudence to lodge an information, or rather accusation, with the East India Company, against their principal servant, Mr Hastings, the governor-general, it was alleged, had procured an accusation to be brought against him, in the court where Sir Elijah Impey presided; and Nundcomar having been tried for forgery on an English statute, was condemned and executed. In the course of the session, witnesses were examined against Sir Elijah Impey; and his defence was undertaken by the chancellor of the exchequer, and the solicitor and attorney-general. On the 9th of May the first charge was rejected by a small majority; and on the 27th the house voted a delay of procedure during three months. This saved the accused, and no impeachment resulted from the inquiry.

During the interval which followed the prorogation of parliament, the only occurrence worthy of notice arose out of the contests of the northern nations. At this period the relative condition of the European powers had undergone a very important change. During a century and a half the power of the monarchy of France had been formidable to all Europe; and, at different periods, the most extensive combinations had been found necessary to resist its ambition. But since the termination of the American war, that monarchy had evidently lost much of its importance among the neighbouring nations. Its influence over Holland had ever been one of its favourite objects of pursuit; but during the preceding year it had suffered that influence to be overturned without a struggle,; and, as far as regarded any external effort, France appeared at this time to have fallen into a state of complete imbecility. The powers whose ambition had now become dangerous to the repose of Europe, were Austria and Russia. The latter, in particular, proved extremely restless and enterprising. The empress Catherine II. had contrived to engage in her views the emperor Joseph II. and had prevailed with him to engage in a sanguinary contest on the eastern frontiers of Europe, with a view to the partition of the provinces of Turkey; whilst France, the ancient ally of that power, was unable to afford it any countenance or aid.

In the mean time Catherine held in a state of dependence approaching to subjection the kingdoms of Sweden and Denmark. After the reign of Charles XII. whose [7:5:451]extravagant military enterprises had exhausted the resources of the country, Sweden sunk into a state of political weakness. The nobles had resumed the independence of the feudal times; the anarchy to which that form of government is so remarkably subject had returned; the crown and the people were equally insignificant; and the mutual animosities of the nobles exposed the state to the intrigues of neighbouring nations. In their diet there was a French party and a Russian party, but there was not an individual among them who supported the party of Sweden. Gustavus III., however, was now in the vigour of his age, and a man of an enthusiastic and enterprising character. By attaching to himself the peasantry of the country and their deputies in the diet, he had, in 1772, re-established absolute power; but the nobles having gradually recovered a portion of their authority, and having been aided by the intrigues of Russia, had now become dangerous to the throne. This rendered the situation of the Swedish monarch extremely uncomfortable, and, exciting in his mind a desire of shaking off all dependence upon Russia, he resolved to take advantage of the war, in which she was actually engaged with the Turks, in order to make an attack on her north-western frontier. To accomplish this object, however, it was necessary that Sweden should be safe on the side of Denmark. But that power had already contracted engagements with Russia; and Gustavus having, it is said, afforded countenance and encouragement to the malcontents of Norway in 1772, this circumstance has been alleged by the Danes as an excuse for the treaty into which their government secretly entered, and by which it was agreed that, if Russia were attacked, Denmark would assist her with twelve thousand auxiliary troops and six ships of the line. But whatever may have been the conduct of the king of Sweden in 1772, he now endeavoured in the most anxious manner to conciliate the good will of Denmark, and at the close of the year 1787 paid an unexpected visit to the Danish court at Copenhagen, where he endeavoured by every argument to prevail with the prince regent and his council to enter into his views regarding Russia. But the court of Denmark could not be induced to countenance his schemes, and appears to have concealed its secret engagements with Russia, as well as the part which it meant to take in the event of a war between Russia and Sweden.

In the month of July the king of Sweden commenced offensive operations on the side of Finland. But the discontents which had been fostered by Russia among the Swedish nobles soon broke out; several officers declared that the king had no right to make war without the consent of the states of the kingdom; and the troops refused to advance. Whilst the king was in this embarrassed situation, a Danish army suddenly advanced against Sweden under Prince Charles of Hesse-Cassel, accompanied by the prince of Denmark as a volunteer; and to give this force the appearance of an auxiliary army, the prince of Hesse had been created a field-marshal in the Russian service. The affairs of Sweden were now all but desperate. During the king’s absence the senate of Stockholm had assumed extraordinary powers, and summoned a meeting of the states of the kingdom; but Gustavus unexpectedly arrived at Stockholm from Finland, put an end to their proceedings, instantly sent off the whole regular troops from the capital, and having assembled the citizens, declared that he intrusted to their fidelity the defence of his capital, and the protection of the queen and the royal family. His audience were seized with a military enthusiasm; the citizens armed and embodied themselves, and performed the whole duty of the garrison; while such of the officers as had returned from the army in Finland were insulted as traitors, and compelled to conceal themselves. The king next hastened to the province of Dalecarlia, inhabited by a fierce and ignorant but honest people, celebrated for the share which they had in the revolution by which Gustavus Vasa rescued his country from the despotism and cruelty of Denmark, which had massacred the citizens of Stockholm, and almost exterminated the nobility of the kingdom; and the loyalty of these people being kindled to enthusiasm by this visit of the king to their mines and forests, four thousand of them instantly came forth as volunteers. In the mean time the Danish army, proceeding along the sea coast, which had been left undefended, took a body of Swedes prisoners, and advanced towards Gottenburg, which being mostly built of timber, was liable to instant destruction by bombardment. The place had actually been summoned, when the king, by unusual personal exertion, passed at the critical period unnoticed through the enemy’s parties, and entered the city. His presence had the effect of restoring the confidence of the inhabitants, who resolved to encounter every hazard in defence of the city; but the place was thus saved only for a moment, and its situation, as well as that of the king himself, was stilΓ extremely perilous. On this occasion, however, the city, the king, and perhaps the monarchy of Sweden, owed their safety to the interference of a British subject, Mr Hugh Elliot, the British envoy at Copenhagen. From the first notice of hostilities, this gentleman, discerning the interests of his country and of Europe, passed over into Sweden, and offered his mediation to the king, at the same time that he threatened the Danes with an immediate invasion by a Prussian army, supported by a British and Dutch fleet. The Danish commander became intimidated, and delayed his threatened hostilities; a Prussian envoy soon arrived, and confirmed all the menaces of Mr Elliot; and the consequence was, that after much negociation, a suspension of hostilities was concluded, and in the month of November the Danish troops evacuated the territory of Sweden.

At the close of autumn this year a domestic event of a singular nature, and new in the British history, occurred. The health of the sovereign had suffered, not from freedom of indulgence and excess of luxury, but from too severe a regimen, too laborious exercise, too rigid abstemiousness, and too short intervals of rest. As a remedy for the symptoms which manifested themselves, he was advised to resort to the medicinal waters of Cheltenham, and accordingly repaired thither immediately after the prorogation of parliament, and did not return to the metropolis till the 18th of August. But no material benefit had resulted from this excursion. His health continued in a precarious state; and on the 22d of October symptoms were observed by one of the royal physicians, of that alienation of mind which was afterwards the occasion of so many important and interesting transactions. For some time it was thought proper to observe the utmost secrecy respecting the nature of the king’s indisposition; and the retreat of the sovereign at Windsor was favourable for this purpose. For several days an opinion was entertained that his indisposition arose from fever, and that it had attained so alarming a height as to threaten speedy dissolution; but the real nature of the malady could not long be suppressed. By the law and practice of the English constitution, almost every species of public business is, in some manner, connected with the exercise of the royal prerogative. The administration of the general government, in particular, was by this event virtually suspended; and notwithstanding the critical situation of Europe, and the very active share which we had taken in its concerns, it was now deemed impracticable to return any sort of answer to the dispatches of foreign courts, or even to those of our own ambassadors. In this situation the most natural[7:5:452] expedient was to suffer the two houses of parliament, which stood prorogued to the 20th of November, to assemble at that time, and either to adjourn for a short interval, or proceed immediately to discuss the measures which it would be proper to adopt at such a juncture. Circular letters were accordingly addressed to the members of the legislature on the 14th, signifying that the indisposition of the sovereign rendered it doubtful whether there would be a possibility of receiving his commands for the further prorogation of parliament; that in such a case the two liouses must of necessity assemble; and that a numerous attendance of the members was extremely desirable.

When parliament assembled, the lord chancellor observed in the House of Lords, that the reason of their being thus unusually called together without the ordinary notice, for the dispatch of business, arose from the severity of the king’s indisposition, which had rendered it impossible for him to approach the royal person in order to receive his commands. Lord Camden remarked, that the customary practice of giving forty days’ notice previous to the meeting of parliament, was not in his opinion absolutely necessary; that there was an express act of parliament, which limited the notice, in case of treason or rebellion, to fourteen days; that he would therefore recommend an adjournment for that term; and that the chancellor should, by order of the house, address an official letter to every individual peer. In the House of Commons Mr Pitt stated that every authority had been consulted respecting the present singular situation of affairs; that none pointed out either the possibility of directing a new prorogation, or of enabling ministers to open the session of parliament in any regular way; that, under these circumstances, it would be improper for the house to proceed to the discussion of any public business; and that it was absolutely necessary to adjourn. He therefore recommended the interval of a fortnight, when, if the king’s illness should unhappily continue, it would be indispensably incumbent upon them to enter upon the immediate consideration of the state of public affairs; and he further moved a call of the house for the 4th of December, and that the speaker should be directed to send circular letters, requiring the attendance of every member on that day.

The tenor of the precedents afforded by the history of England was regarded upon the whole as in favour of a regency, under which the whole, or a considerable part of •the power of the state, should be confided to the next heir to the crown, or to the adult of the royal family most nearly related to the king; and what rendered this consideration the more mtif⅛⅜ial upon the present occasion was, that the Prince-of Wales was understood to entertain an avowed partiality for the political connection which had lately been instrumental in obtaining for him the discharge of his’debts and an increase of his annual income, as well as some personal resentment against the ministers now in possession of office.^Accordingly, soon after the indisposition of the king had been ascertained, the prince dispatched an express to Mr Fox, who was at that time in Italy, requesting his immediate presence to assist him in forming an administration. The ministers were also aware of the intentions of the Princ^ of Wales, and wished, if possible, to retain possession of office. Besides, as the duration of the king’s illness was necessarily uncertain, and he might speedily be able to resume the reins of government, it was obviously their interest to procrastinate as long as possible; and they were enabled to do so in consequence of the tranquil state of the nation, which rendered the exercise of the executive power of less injmediate necessity than in times of war or public alafm. ʹ The effect of mere reputation in supporting any political measure was remarkably illustrated on this occasion. Mr Pitt and his colleagues in office were in possession of the public favour in a degree in which perhaps no ministers had ever 1 before enjoyed it for so long a period of time. To Mr Fox and his associates still attached part of the odium which the coalition and the Indian bill had originally excited. The Prince of Wales himself was even less popular. The sobriety of his father’s life formed a contrast to his youthful indiscretions; and the rumour of his marriage with Mrs Fitzherbert was still propagated, and met with credit. In this state of affairs the king’s ministers, who had ceased to be any thing more than ministers by courtesy, had every advantage in their project of delaying as long as possible the relinquishment of their official situations, by placing the exercise of the royal authority in new hands. Mr Pitt likewise conducted himself with great dexterity in contriving subjects of discussion in the House of Commons; whilst his antagonists, in contending against him for victory upon speculative political questions, seem not to have been aware that they were in fact fighting his battle, by delaying the period of their own entrance into power.

Upon;the re-assembling of parliament on the 4th of December, a report of the privy council, containing an examination of the royal physicians, was presented to the two houses by Lord Camden and Mr Pitt; and it was suggested, that when the delicacy of the subject and the dignity of the person in question were considered, parliament would probably perceive the propriety of acting upon this report, rather than of demanding that more direct and ample information to which, in strictness, they were entitled. This suggestion seemed reasonable, as it could scarcely be supposed that the ministers of the crown would act so directly in opposition to their own interests, as falsely to represent their master as incapacitated by mental disease for the exercise of his royal functions. Mr Fox, Mr Burke, and others, however, would not take any assurance upon this point, but insisted on the solemnity of an inquiry by a committee of the two houses. This was accordingly agreed to, and the report of the committee was laid upon the table of the House of Commons on the 10th, when a further proposition was moved by Mr Pitt for the appointment of a committee to examine precedents respecting those cases in which the personal exercise of the royal authority had been prevented or interrupted by infancy, sickness, infirmity, or any other cause. Mr Fox observed, that though he had no objection to the appointment of a committee for the purpose proposed, yet as it was notorious that no precedent existed which could be applied to the present case, he took the opportunity of stating as a general principle, that the king being at present incapable of holding the executive government, the Prince of Wales had as clear and express a right to assume the reins and exercise the power of sovereignty during the continuance of the present incapacity, as if his father were actually dead; but he added, that though the prince’s right was perfect and entire, the two houses of parliament, as the organs of the nation, were alone qualified to pronounce when he ought to take possession of his right. In reply to this observation, Mr Pitt stated, that for any man to assert such a right in the Prince of Wales, otherwise than as it was voluntarily conferred upon him by the two houses of parliament, was little less than treason against the constitution; and that, except by their election, he had no more right, in point of principle, to assume the government, than any other subject in England.

On the following day the opinion which had been stated by Mr Fox was attacked in the House of Lords by Lord Camden, and defended by Lord Loughborough and Lord Stormont. Ministers had now got an abstract question as a subject of debate, and they resolved not to lose sight of it, especially as their side of the question was likely to be [7:5:453]most popular, from being founded on an assertion of the powers of parliament in opposition to hereditary right. Accordingly, when the subject was next mentioned, Mr Pitt said, that the question which had been started respecting the rights of parliament was of much greater magnitude and importance than those which related to the present exigency; and that it was impossible to dismiss the question of right without its being fully discussed and decided. And on the 16th of December, in a committee upon the state of the nation, he entered at large into the subject, and endeavoured to. prove by ancient precedents that the powers vested in a regent had always been inferior to those of the king, and that parliament had interfered in cases of royal infancy in appointing councils of regency, nay even a single regent or protector; but he at the same time admitted that it would be expedient to intrust the government to the Prince of Wales, whatever limitations it might be thought necessary to impose on him. Mr Fox, on the contrary, contended that his doctrine was supported by the very nature of a hereditary monarchy. Upon Mr Pitt’s principles, said 'fte√⅛f a man were questioned whether the monarchy is hereditary or not, the answer must be, I cannot tell; ask his majesty’s physicians. When the king of England is in health the monarchy is hereditary, but when he is ill and incapable of exercising the sovereign authority, it is then elective. He ridiculed the absurdity of Mr Pitt’s assertion, that the Prince of Wales had no more right than any subject of the realm, while he at the same time confessed that parliament was not at liberty to think of any other regent. But Mr Pitt’s motion on the question of right was carried by a considerable majority.

On the 22d of December Mr Pitt proposed in the House of Commons, a resolution, the object of which was to declare it necessary, for the purpose of supplying the present deficiency, and maintaining entire the constitutional authority of the king, that the two houses should determine on the means by which the royal assent might be given to the bill which they might adopt for constituting a regency. The object of this proposition was obvious. Administration had resolved not to confide the regency to the Prince of Wales except under certain restrictions; but without the royal assent, an act of parliament, fixing these restrictions, could not be passed. They wished, therefore, to devise a solemnity which, in this case, might be held as equivalent to the royal assent; and Mr Pitt proposed, that the great seal should be affixed by the lord chancellor to the act of parliament, and that this should be held as equivalent to the royal assent. Mr Fo^on the contrary, urged an immediate address to the Prince of Wales, requesting him to take upon himself the regency; and upon the point long debates occurred in both houses of parliament, in which administration cont⅛ued to be supported by the majority.

In the meanwhile Mr Pitt, in the name of the rest of the cabinet, explained to the Prince of Wales, in a letter, the restrictions which were meant to⅛e Inserted in the regency bill. These were, that the care of the king^s person, and the disposal of his household, should be committed to the queen; and that the power to be exercised by the prince should not extend to the personal property of his father, nor to the granting of any office, reversion, or pension, except where the law absolutely required it, as in the case of the judges, for any other term than during the king’s pleasure, nor to the conferring of any peerage, unless upon such persons of the royal issue as should have attained the age of twenty-one years. It was added, that these ideas were founded upon the supposition that the royal malady would only be temporary, and might be of short duration; that it was difficult to fix at present the precise period for which these provisions ought to endure; but that it would hereafter be open to the wisdom of parliament to reconsider them whenever circumstances might appear to render it eligible. In his answer, which was dated on the second of January 1789, the prince declared, that it was with deep regret he perceived, in the propositions of administration, a project for introducing weakness, disorder, and insecurity, into every branch of public business; for dividing the royal family from each other; for separating the court from the state, and depriving government of its natural and accustomed support; for disconnecting the authority to command service from the power of animating it by reward; and for allotting to him all the invidious duties of the kingly station, without the means of softening them to the public by any one act of grace, favour, or benignity. He stated it as a principle of the British constitution, that the powers and prerogatives of the crown were held in trust for the benefit of the people, and were sacred as conducing to preserve that balance of the constitution which formed the best security for the liberty of the subject; and he objected to making trial in his person, of an experiment to ascertain flith how small a portion of kingly power the executive government of the country could be conducted. He stated his conviction, that no event could be more repugnant to the feelings of his royal father on his recovery, than to know that the government of his son and representative had exhibited the sovereign power in a state of degradation and diminished energy, injurious in its practice to the prosperity of the people, and mischievous in its precedent to the security of the monarch and the rights of his family; but he nevertheless declared himself resolved to undertake, under every disadvantage, the office of regent, in order to avoid the evils which might arise from his following a different line of conduct.

The most singular part of this project for the government of the kingdom appears to have been that for confiding to the queen the p∣^er of removing, nominating, and appointing the officers of the royal household; assisted by a permanent council, to be selected by parliament, and to çonsist, in some measure, of the members of administration. The annual income of the royal household was computed at L.300,000, and the nufiber of officers of which it consisted amounted to four hundred; an influence which would certainly have been sufficiently formidable to a go-vertpŉ£nt in other respects restricted and limited. The lords of the bed=chamber had been mad¢ use of to defeat Mr Fox’s India bill, and might, under a separate establish· ment, have proved embarrassing to the existing government. It is obvious, however, that, on this occasion, administration were encouraged in the pursuit of the^hu which they had formed for restricting the prince’s power, by>the addresses presented to them from various parts of the kingdom, expressive of gratitude for the assertion byMie House of Commons of their right’of providing for the pre3ei>t r deficiency. 'S⅛*∙⅛

On the 16th of January Mr PitDζjnχ)posed his regency bill, resting it, in som⅛jneasure, upon the decisive opinion of Dr Willis, wh® expressed great hopes of the king’s recovery; and after long debates, the limitations were sanctioned by a considerable majority. In the House of Lords similar debates occurred^ but there also administration proved vietorious. On the 31st of January Lord Camden moved in th⅛House of Lords, that the lord chancellor£hould be directed, by authority of the two houses of parliament, to issue a commission in the name of the sovereign, for the purpose of immediately opening the session of parliament; and this resolution having been carried in both houses, tiesession was opened in the proposed form on the 3d- of February. '"Though the principles of the regency bill had been previously discussed, yet its various clauses ġWĕ rise to new divisions; in which administration still maintained [7:5:454]their superiority. The bill passed tĥc House of Commons on the 12th of February, and was presented on the following day to the House of Lords, where it was discussed on the !7thand 18th, and a few unimportant amendments introduced into it.

But here the whole of these proceedings terminated. On the 12th of February, the king having been declared by his physicians to be in a state of progressive amendment, an adjournment of the House of Lords was therefore proposed on the 19th. On the 25th his majesty was declared by his physicians free from complaint; and on the 10th of March the lord chancellor, by the king’s authority, addressed both houses of parliament in a speech, after which the ordinary business of the session commenced.

In the meanwhile the administration of Mr Pitt had been less fortunate in Ireland than in this country. The unexampled popularity which reconciled the people of Great Britain to all his measures, and the odium and suspicion which had fallen upon his opponents, had not hitherto been communicated to the neighbouring island. The prospect, therefore, of his departure from office excited little regret in that country, and its parliament made haste to worship what they accounted the rising sun. It had stood adjourned, previous to the royal incapacity, till the 20th January 1789; and the Marquis of Buckingham, then lord-lieutenant, with consent of the privy council of Ireland, ventured to defer its meeting till the 5th of February. On the 11th of that month, two motions were offered to the consideration of the House of Commons, the one by Mr Grattan, the member most distinguished for his talents; and the other by Mr Conolly, the richest of the Irish commoners. By the first the royal incapacity was declared; and by the second it was proposed to present an address to the Prince of Wales, requesting him to take upon himself the government, with its various powers, jurisdictions, and prerogatives. After a long debate, the propositions of Mr Grattan and Mr Conolly were carried by a large majority; and on the following day an address to the Prince of Wales was also voted, and sent to the House of Lords, where it was adopted by a great majority. On the 19th of February the address was carried to the lord-licuten-ant, who, however, refused to transmit it to England; upon which the two houses appointed six commissioners to present the address immediately to the prince: but these measures had scarcely been carried through parliament when the king’s recovery rendered them ineffectual, and the consequence was, that the majority of the Irish parliament, who were far from intending to engage in a contest with the British government, found themselves in an awkward situation.

The subject of the slave-trade, which had been brought under the consideration of parliament during the preceding session, was resumed upon the 12th of May. In the interval, petitions against the abolition of the traffic had been presented by persons in London, Liverpool, Bristol, and other places interested in the trade. Meanwhile, the report of the committee of the privy council, of which Mr Pitt had previously given notice, was presented to the House of Commons; and the enemies of the trade had been extremely active in endeavouring to excite the indignation of the public against this odious and inhuman traffic. Innumerable pamphlets were distributed, either gratuitously or at a low price, giving an account of the calamities endured by the unhappy natives of Africa; the wars in which petty princes were tempted to engage, with a view to sell their prisoners to European traders, were fully explained; the wretched manner in which these slaves were transported to the West India colonies, fettered and crowded together so as to occasion the destruction of multitudes by disease, was represented by prints, distributed along with the popular publications upon the subject; and, lastly, instances were given of the cruelty of the masters in the West Indies, tending to render the white inhabitants extremely odious. By these means the public were led to interest themselves in procuring, if not an abolition of the state of slavery, at least a complete prohibition of the importation of additional slaves from Africa; and to this last object the attention of the legislature was now confined. The business was opened by Mr Wilberforce, who stated the effects of the trade upon Africa; noticed the mode of transportation, which he very fully described; adverted to the diseases contracted on ship-board, with the astringents and washes employed to hide the wounds of the miserable sufferers; descanted on the wickedness of the trade, which he felt to be so enormous and irremediable, that he could stop at nothing short of abolition; asserted that the number of negroes in the West Indies might be kept up without the introduction of recruits from Africa; and moved twelve propositions, stating the number of slaves annually carried from Africa, imported into the British West Indies, and entered in the custom-house accounts; the consequences produced upon the inhabitants of Africa; the injury sustained by the British seamen; the fatal circumstances which attended the transportation of the slaves; the causes of the mortality of the negroes, and a calculation of die relative increase of population in Jamaica and Barbadoes; together with a declaration that no considerable or permanent inconvenience would result from discontinuing further importation. Mr Pitt supported that side of the question which had received die sanction of popular approbation; declaring himself satisfied that no argument, compatible with any idea of justice, could be assigned for the continuation of the slave-trade; and expressing a hope, that while Great Britain took the lead of other countries in a matter of so great magnitude, foreign nations would be inclined to share the honour, and contented to unite with us in so excellent a work. Mr Fox highly approved of what had fallen from Mr Pitt, and declared that he had considered the trade in human flesh as so scandalous, that it was in the last degree infamous to suffer it to be openly carried on by the authority of the government of any country. Mr Burke was of opinion that, whatever might be the present situation of Africa, it could never be meliorated under the present system; that while we continued to purchase the natives, they mustfor ever remain in a state of savage barbarity; that it was impossible to civilize a slave; and that there was no country situated like Africa into which the shadow of improvement had ever been introduced. On the other hand, Mr Wilberforce’s propositions met with considerable opposition. Mr Savage and Mr Newnham, on the part of the city of London, asserted, that the measure, if carried into effect, would render the metropolis bankrupt; Mr Dempster thought that Mr Wilberforce’s first proposal ought to be, to make good out of the public purse the losses which individuals would sustain from the abolition of the trade; Lord Penrhyn asserted, that as there were mortgages in the West India islands to the amount of seventy millions sterling, Mr Wilberforce’s project would subject the country in the repayment of that sum; Mr Henniker opposed the abolition, on account of the alleged depravity of the Africans, which rendered them incapable of civilization; and Lord Maitland, Mr Marsham, Mr Hussey, Mr Rolle, Mr Drake, and Mr Aiderman Watson, each alleged something intended to pass as a reason for entertaining similar views. Lastly, the matter ended in the renewal of Sir William Dolben’s act to regulate, for a limited time, the mode of conveying slaves in British vessels from the coast of Africa.

The annual business of the budget was not brought forward[7:5:455] this year till the 10th of June; and immediately previous to the discussion, the office of speaker of the House of Commons was vacated by the promotion of Mr Grenville to be one of his majesty’s principal secretaries of state. On this occasion Mr Henry Addington, the personal friend of the premier, and son of Dr Stephen Addington, physician to Mr Pitt’s family, was appointed to succeed Mr Grenville in the chair. His opponent was Sir Gilbert Elliot, who was proposed by the opposition; and both Mr Fox and Mr Burke animadverted on the youth and inexperience of his competitor; but on a division Mr Addington was elected by a large majority.

The expense incurred by the recent armament, the allowance to the American loyalists, and other circumstances, rendered it necessary to have recourse to a loan of one million, to defray the interest of which additional taxes were imposed upon newspapers, advertisements, cards, and dice, probates of wills, legacies to collateral relations, and carriages and horses. And as one of Mr Pitt’s methods of extending the revenue consisted in endeavouring to suppress smuggling, and as he had formerly transferred the management of the duty on wine from the customs to the excise, he now pursued the same course in regard to the article tobacco. The subject was opened in the House of Commons on the 16 th of June, when it was observed that tobacco had come to be considered as the staple of the smuggler, in the same manner as tea, wine, and spirits, had formerly been. The quantity of tobacco consumed in the kingdom had been found to bear a tolerably near proportion to the quantity of tea; and at least one half of this quantity was the exclusive commodity of the smuggler. The consumption amounted to fourteen millions of pounds; and the loss to the revenue upon the half of this consumption exceeded three hundred thousand pounds per annum. Under these circumstances, Mr Pitt thought it necessary to have recourse to the system of excise, by which the stock of the dealer was taxed, instead of the duty being collected on importation. A bill was accordingly introduced for effecting the transference proposed by the minister, and, after a good deal of discussion, passed by a large majority.

Mr Fox having annually brought forward a motion for the repeal of the shop-tax, which had proved extremely unpopular in the capital, Mr Pitt at length consented that it should be abolished. Mr Beaufoy again introduced a motion for the repeal of the corporation and test acts, which was supported by Mr Fox, opposed by Lord North and Mr Pitt, and rejected by a narrow majority. A bill in- l traduced into the House of Lords by Earl Stanhope, for relieving members of the church of England from various penalties and disabilities under which they laboured, and for extending freedom in matters of religion to persons of all denominations, Catholics excepted, was equally unsuccessful. The laws it intended to repeal were those which imposed penalties upon persons who did not frequent the established worship; prohibiting men from speaking or writing in derogation of the doctrine of the book of common prayer; enjoining the eating of fish on certain days; ιuthorizing the imprisonment of persons excommunicated; )rohibiting the exportation of women; and declaring all )ersons who went to court, without having previously made i ι certain declaration, to be in the eye of the law Popish ecusant convicts. But these absurd and obsolete enact-nents were stoutly defended by the episcopal bench; and he bill was ultimately rejected.

On the first of July the East India Company petitioned he House of Commons for permission to add a sum of one fillion to their capital; and the request was granted with .ttle difficulty. On the same day Mr Dundas, as presi-ent of the board of control, brought forward a statement of the revenues of India, which, after deducting every article of expenditure in that country, he calculated at L.1,820,000. During the present session, the trial of Mr Hastings still proceeded before the House of Lords. The third charge brought forward, respecting presents received by him during his government of Bengal, was opened by Mr Burke, who, in the course of his speech, alluded to the trial and execution of Nundcomar, and asserted that Mr Hastings had murdered that man by the hands of Sir Elijah Impey. But as the transaction respecting Nundcomar formed no specific part of the charges which had been preferred against Mr Hastings by the House of Commons, and as the question, in as far as Sir Elijah was implicated, had been examined and rejected during the preceding session, Mr Hastings presented a petition to the house, in which he entreated them, either to cause the additional allegations urged against him to be brought forward, and prosecuted in specific articles, or to afford him such other redress as they might judge suitable and proper. Mr Pitt supported the petition, upon the ground that the murder of Nundcomar formed no part of the crime of peculation, and every rule of evidence was against its being alleged; that it had been charged in order to discredit the character of the accused, although it was a rule in the courts of law that no fact could be given in evidence to discredit even a witness; that if the murder of Nundcomar was not admissible as evidence, it could only be urged as matter of aggravation, which it was impossible to allow; and that the common sense of the house, and of all mankind, would not permit the crime of murder to be urged as an aggravation of the crime of peculation. Mr Fox, on the contrary, cited the case of a captain of a ship, against whom murder was charged in having thrown his cargo of slaves overboard, in order to prove that he had by sinister means endeavoured to defraud the underwriters of the amount of the insurance; and maintained that the present case exactly corresponded to this. It was impossible to describe the corrupt transactions of Air Hastings without alluding to the crimes which had accompanied them, or to relate the crimes without mentioning the names of the persons by whom they had been committed. A resolution, however, was moved and carried, by which it was declared, that no authority had been given by the House of Commons for making any allegation against Mr Hastings respecting the death or Nundcomar, and that the words of Mr Burke, complained of in the petition, ought not to have been spoken.

The session of parliament was terminated on the 11th of August, by a speech from the lord chancellor in the name of the king. The summer passed away without producing any memorable event, and parliament assembled again on the 1st of January 1790, when they were met by the king in person, who, in the speech from the throne, observed that he continued to receive assurances of a pacific nature from the different powers in Europe, and at the same time congratulated the nation on the happiness it enjoyed, from the increasing advantages of peace.

CHAP. XV.

REIGN OF GEORGE III. FRENCH REVOLUTION.

Origin of the French Revolution Allusions thereto in the House of Commons—Approved of, in the first instance, by Mr Pitt— Hostility of Mr Burke Revolution defended by Mr Fox and

Sir Sheridan Conduct of Sir Pitt—Slotion for repeal of the

Corporation and Test Acts Mr Flood’s motion for a Reform in Parliament.—Affair of Nootka Sound—Disturbances in the Austrian Netherlands New Parliament—Schism amongst the members of Opposition.—Burke and Paine on the French Revolution.—Desertion of the Opposition by Sir Burke.—Slave-trade[7:5:456] and Sierra Leone Company—Dispute about Oczakow.— General state of Europe—Catholic Relief Bill—War in India. —Early popularity of the French Revolution.—Riots at Birmingham—State of Europe—Project for the partition of Poland and France—Treaty of Pilnitz.—Parliamentary proceedings— Project for the gradual abolition of the Slave-trade—Scotch Burgh Reform—War in India—Siege of Seringapatam.— Treaty of Peace with Tippoo Causes of the impending changes in Europe.—Royal Family of France—Defects of the new French Constitution—Society of Friends of the People.—Debate on Mr Grey’s notice of a motion for Reform in Parliament. —Paine’s Rights of Man.—Proclamation against Seditious Publications.—Its effects—France menaced with invasion.—Russians invade Poland.—Duke of Brunswick’s Manifesto—Its effects The Prussians enter France—Defeated at Valmy.—

Retreat.—Battle of Jemmappes—Proceedings of the French Government.—Ferment in Britain—Political Associations.— Friends of the People.—Constitutional and Corresponding Societies.—Meeting of Parliament.—Speech from the Throne— Debate on the Address.—Desertion from the ranks of Opposition.—Mr Fox’s motion to treat with France.—The Alien Bill. —Correspondence between Lord Grenville and Μ. Chauvelin. —The King’s message announcing War—Attempt by the French to re-open negociations.—Declaration of War.

During the preceding summer the eventful career of the French revolution had commenced. The extreme weakness into which the government of France had fallen, owing to the pressure of the public debts, and the embarrassment of the finances, had induced the king to call together the states general of the kingdom, which soon assumed the title of the national assembly. Their debates, which were held in public, diffused a love of innovation, and a desire to reform their ancient government, and establish a free constitution. The court became alarmed by the violence of their proceedings, and attempted to set bounds to their projects; but the populace of the capital rose in arms, and the military refused to act against them. Meanwhile the national assembly proceeded daily in the discussion of new plans of change. They seized the ecclesiastical property and tithes, resolving to limit the clergy for the future to fixed salaries; they put an end to the monastic institutions ; they abolished the whole order of nobility, and limited the power of the crown. These, and other proceedings, which will be stated in their proper place, excited much attention in Britain; and accordingly allusions to them became not unfrequent in parliament during the present session; indeed general questions were debated with more animation, and excited a higher degree of interest, than they had for many years done.

The supplies for the navy and army, which were stated at the same amount as in the preceding session, produced some animadversions from Mr Marsham and Mr Pulteney, who alleged that, in the actual state of Europe, the military establishment of Britain might safely be reduced. Mr Fox observed, that if ever there was a moment in which he could be less jealous than at another of an increase of the standing army, the present was that moment. The example of a neighbouring nation had proved that the former imputations upon standing armies were entirely unfounded and calumnious; and it was now universally known throughout all Europe, that a man by becoming a soldier did not cease to be a citizen. He thought the new form which the government of France was about to assume, would render her a better neighbour than when her affairs were controlled by the intrigues of ambitious and interested statesmen. Mr Pitt acknowledged that the tumultuous situation of France afforded a prospect of tranquillity; but he thought that the opportunity ought to be seized to raise our army to such a state of respectability as would leave no hopes of future hostility. The present convulsions of France must sooner or later terminate in the re-establishment of order; but there was a probability, that while the fortunate arrangements of such a situation might render her more formidable, they would also convert her into a less restless neighbour. As an Englishman 1 and as a man, he wished for the restoration of tranquillity in France, though that event appeared to him considerably distant. Whenever it arrived, and her inhabitants became truly free, they must be in possession of a freedom resulting from order and good government, and they would then stand forward as one of the most brilliant powers in Europe; nor could he regard with envious eyes an approximation towards those sentiments which were characteristic of every true British subject. But while Mr Pitt, who had commenced his public career as the champion of political reform, and still on important occasions represented himself as preserving his attachment to popular rights, was thus applauding the first revolutionary movements of the French, his friends considered themselves as at perfect liberty to give utterance to sentiments of a very different nature upon the subject. Viscount Valletort, who moved the address, expressed great compassion for the king of France, then almost a prisoner in his own palace, and for the families of distinction who had found it necessary to fly to foreign countries to avoid the unexampled barbarities which were committed with impunity at home; and Colonel Phipps declared that the praise bestowed by Mr Fox upon the conduct of the French military, was a poor compliment to the profession in general, and that, if he had wanted a subject for panegyric, he ought rather to have adverted to the conduct of the English army during the riots of 1780, when they were not led by false feelings to put themselves at the head of schemes leading to anarchy and cruelty.

On the 9th of February, when the vote of supply for the army came a second time under consideration, Mr Burke revived the subject of the French revolution. He declared himself, in decided terms, an enemy to the measures which had lately taken place in that country; and conceived that it would be the greatest of all calamities for Britain, if any set of men amongst us should represent the late transactions in France as fit objects of imitation. He, however, condemned the greatness of our military establishment, by reason of the weakness of France; and declared, that on looking over the geography of this part of the world, he saw a great gap, a vast blank, the space hitherto occupied by France, which had no longer any political existence. France had at different periods been as dangerous to us by her example as by her hostility. In the last age, we had been in danger of being entangled, -by her example, in the net of a relentless despotism. Our present danger, from the example of a people whose character knew no medium, was that of being led, through an admiration of successful fraud and violence, to imitate the excesses of an irrational, unprincipled, proscribing, confiscating, plundering, ferocious, bloody, and tyrannical democracy. They had a good political constitution the day their states general assembled in separate orders; but this they had destroyed. They had now no other system than a determination to destroy all order, subvert all arrangement, and reduce every description of men to one level. It was absurd to compare a proceeding like this to the revolution in England, which neither impaired the monarchy nor the church, and merely drove away a legal monarch, who was attempting arbitrary power.

Mr Fox expressed great concern at differing in opinion from Mr Burke, for whom he avowed the highest reverence and esteem. He repeated his former opinion upon the subject of French affairs, but declared himself an enemy of all absolute forms of government, whether monarchical, aristocratical, or democratical. Mr Sheridan in more unqualified terms stated his disapprobation of Mr Burke’s sentiments, expressed his surprise that any man [7:5:457]who valued the British government should feel such abhorrence of the patriotic proceedings in France, and declared himself as ready as Mr Burke to detest the cruelties which had been committed. He complimented individually the Marquis de Lafayette, Μ. Bailli, and other French patriots, and expressed a hope that the despotism of France would never be restored; but observed that he ought not on that account to be considered as approving of a wanton persecution of the nobility, or an insult to royalty. Mr Burke answered Mr Sheridan with indignation, and denied that he was the advocate of despotism; but declared that Mr Sheridan had sacrificed his friendship for the applause of clubs and associations.

It is probable that Mr Pitt had now become aware of the difficulty of his situation with regard to the French revolution, which at this period was generally regarded with approbation in Britain, as an imitation of that spirit by which our ancestors had raised their country to a state of unexampled prosperity and happiness. Mr Pitt must already have known that the court regarded it in a very different light; and that, at no distant period, his ambition and his love of popularity might become incompatible. On the present occasion he undoubtedly saw with satisfaction a division likely to occur among those who had hitherto been his competitors for popularity; and with that dexterity in debate for which he appears to have been remarkable, he instantly endeavoured to widen the breach, and to attach to himself a man of so much intellectual power as Mr Burke, declaring that he agreed with the latter in almost every thing he had urged respecting the late commotions in France; that the sentiments Mr Burke had professed respecting the British constitution filled him with the sincerest satisfaction; and that the manner in which he had pledged himself to maintain it for ever inviolate, entitled him to the gratitude of his fellow-citizens and the admiration of posterity.

A new effort was made on the 2d of March to procure a repeal of the corporation and test acts. The dissenters had prevailed with Mr Fox to introduce the motion; but the clergy of the church of England, alarmed no doubt at the downfal of the ecclesiastical establishment in France, were anxious to diffuse a spirit of opposition to the intended attack. Mr Fox represented his whole argument as resting upon this principle, that no government has a right to animadvert upon the speculative opinions of its subjects, till these opinions produce a conduct subversive of the public tranquillity. It had been remarked that certain errors in religion tended to disturb the public tranquillity; but surely political errors must have this tendency in a much greater degree; yet such was the absurdity of the test laws, that a man who favoured arbitrary power in his sentiments, who considered the abolition of trial by jury as no violation of liberty, and the invasion of the freedom and law of parliament as no infraction of the constitution, might easily pave his way to the first situations in the state. Mr Pitt, as usual, supported the privileges of the established church; asserting, that though opinions might not be a warrantable ground for criminal accusation, yet they might afford a good reason for excluding particular individuals from the public service; and that to discover dangerous opinions a test might be highly expedient. Mr Burke was decidedly hostile to the measure. Mr Fox had stated the principles of toleration and persecution, but abstract principles he always disliked. Of all abstract principles, however, those of natural right, upon which dissenters rested as their stronghold, were the most idle and the most dangerous; they superseded society, and snapped asunder all those bonds which had for ages constituted the happiness of mankind. He adjured the house not to suffer the fatal incidents which had attended the church of France, plundered and demolished in so disgraceful a manner, to abate their zeal in favour of our present happy and excellent establishment. Mr Fox in reply declared himself filled with grief and shame at the sentiment which Mr Burke had avowed, and asserted that all the principles he had stated had formerly received the sanction of his friend. He thought Mr Burke at present misled by his sensibility; his feelings had been shocked and irritated by a mistaken idea of the transactions in France, which were in reality nothing more than the calamities to which every country was unavoidably subject at the period of a revolution in its government, however beneficent and salutary. The proposed repeal was of course rejected on a division.

A few days afterwards Mr Flood brought forward a motion for the reform of the representation of the people in parliament, and proposed to add a hundred members to the House of Commons, to be elected by the resident householders in every county. Mr Windham opposed the motion, on the ground that the country had prospered under the representation as it stood, and because innovations bad become extremely dangerous. Where, said he, is the man who would repair his house in the hurricane season? Mr Fox, on the contrary, declared himself as much persuaded as ever of the necessity of reform; but he thought the majority of the nation of a different opinion, and was therefore of opinion that the motion ought to be withdrawn. Mr Pitt considered the proposal as brought forward at an improper time, and said he wished to wait for a more seasonable opportunity, when he would certainly again submit his ideas upon the subject to the consideration of the house. Mr Flood accordingly withdrew his proposition.

On the 5th of May a message from the king informed both houses of parliament of certain acts of hostility committed by the Spaniards in the seizure of three British vessels which had attempted to establish a foreign trade between China and Nootka Sound, on the west coast of North America. The Spaniards conceiving the whole of that part of the American coast to be their property, were the first to give information of what they had done, and required that steps should be taken by the British government to prevent future encroachments upon that coast. The British navy was instantly augmented; and as a war with Spain, unassisted by France, could not prove very formidable, the public seemed to regard the approach of hostilities with little concern. But the determination evinced induced the Spaniards to come to an accommodation, and the dispute ended without an appeal to arms. During the present session little progress was made in the trial of Mr Hastings; and both parties accused each other as the authors of the delay that had taken place, while the subject began to be neglected or forgotten by the public. On the 10th of June the king put an end to the session by a speech from the throne, and this parliament was dissolved.

At this period the Austrian Netherlands were in a state of great agitation. The people of these provinces had long been governed by a feudal constitution, which vested important privileges in the clergy, the nobles, and certain classes of citizens, but more especially in the clergy. Joseph II. had invaded these privileges, seized upon the greater part of the property belonging to the monasteries, and driven from the country all who opposed his innovations. At length, about the end of the year 1789, the exiles having united on the frontiers, entered the country, and being joined by others, formed a considerable army, which rapidly overran the whole of Austrian Flanders; while the emperor, engaged in a war with the Turks, was prevented from sending any considerable force against [7:5:458]them. In December, the states of Barbant having assembled, appointed an administration, at the head of which was Henry Vander Noot, a popular advocate; and in January 1790 were formed the outlines of a federal constitution, by which each of the Belgic provinces was to retain its peculiar constitution, whilst the general defence of the republic was to be intrusted to a congress. Meanwhile a considerable number of foreigners entered into the service of this new republic. But it soon appeared that the Belgic revolution would produce no lasting effects. The old aristocratical government, uncontrolled by the authority of a prince, was everywhere adopted; the power of the clergy was even increased; the very first step of the Belgian congress was a public declaration of religious intolerance; and the liberty of the press was prohibited, and state licensers appointed. The consequence was, that discontents speedily arose. But at this period the emperor Joseph died, and was succeeded by Leopold, archduke of Tuscany, who issued a proclamation, inviting the revolted provinces to return to their allegiance, and promising to restore their ancient political constitutions. And not trusting to peaceful measures alone, he sent an army against the insurgents, and at the end of the year the house of Austria had recovered its authority in the Netherlands.

The new parliament assembled on the 25th of November 1790. As no uncommon efforts had taken place at the preceding elections, nearly the same members as formerly were returned to the House of Commons; and Mr Addington was chosen speaker. On the following day the session was opened by a speech from the throne, in which his majesty informed parliament that the différences which had arisen with the court of Spain were brought to an amicable termination; that a separate peace had been concluded between Russia and Sweden; that, in conjunction with his allies, he had employed his mediation to negociate a treaty between Russia and the Porte; that he was endeavouring to assist in putting an end to the dissensions in the Netherlands; but that the peace of India had been interrupted by a war with Tippoo Sultan, son of the late Hyder Ali. The speech concluded with recommending to parliament a particular attention to the state of the province of Canada. Various debates, of little importance in a historical point of view, occurred respecting the negociations with Spain, the fur trade at Nootka Sound, and the expensive naval armament which had been fitted out to enforce the claims of Britain.

But in the beginning of March 1791 a bill was brought into parliament by Mr Pitt for regulating the government of the province of Canada in North America. This circumstance is chiefly worthy of notice on account of an altercation to which it gave rise between Mr Burke and Mr Fox. During the last session of the former parliament Mr Burke had declared his disapprobation of the French revolution, whilst Mr Sheridan and Mr Fox had expressed very opposite sentiments. Mr Pitt, as we have already seen, had dexterously laid hold of the opportunity to excite disunion among his antagonists, and had declared himself highly satisfied with Mr Burke’s attachment to the British constitution. Mr Burke, on the other hand, had long been engaged in a career of fruitless opposition to the existing government; and during the king’s illness, in the and of the year 1788, he had indicated such an indecent impatience when any expectation was expressed of his majesty’s speedy recovery, as sufficiently demonstrated how eager he was to obtain possession of office. It is not improbable, therefore, that the approbation expressed by Mr Pitt, of his fears on account of the French revolution, suggested a decisive opposition to that great national movement, as a mode of ingratiating himself with administration; and that this idea, concurring with his former sentiments, stimulated his eager mind to devote his principal attention to the subject. Accordingly, in November 1 1790, he published a treatise, in which he endeavoured to vilify the French national assembly, and to hold out the revolution as a subject of alarm and of detestation to all Europe. The style of copious and popular eloquence in which the book was written, together with the sentiments which it contained, produced a great impression; and replies to it were published by Dr Priestley and others; but that which proved most successful in gaining the attention of the public, was the production of Thomas Paine, who had formerly published in North America a pamphlet entitled Common Sense, which proved extremely prejudicial to the royal cause throughout the colonies. His present work contained a statement of the facts connected with the French revolution, together with satirical strictures upon what he accounted imperfections in the British constitution. He was not equal to his antagonist in copiousness of diction; but in shrewdness of remark and concise effective energy of style he was superior. Mr Burke’s love of literary fame was great; and it had been highly gratified by the attention which his book had attracted, particularly among the higher orders. Hence, when he saw his reputation rudely assailed, his temper became ruffled; and he appears to have wished for an opportunity of separating himself from his former political associates. Accordingly, on the 6th of May, when the clauses of the Quebec bill were about to be discussed in a committee of the whole house, he rose, as he said, to speak to the general principle of the bill, and enlarged upon the importance of the act which they were about to perform, namely, that of appointing a legislature for a distant people. But he thought the first consideration ought to be the competency of the house to such an act. By what were called the “rights of man,” a body of principles lately imported from France, all men are by nature free, and equal in respect to rights. If such a code were admitted, the power of the British legislature could extend no further than to call together the inhabitants of Canada to choose a constitution for themselves. But, rejecting this code, which was never preached without mischief, he assumed the principle, that Britain had acquired the right of legislating for Canada by conquest. The next question was, what model was to be followed in instituting a government for Canada; whether that of America, of 1'rance, or of Great Britain, which were the three great modern examples. In discussing this point, he diverged from the subject more immediately before the house, and took an opportunity to pronounce a vehement invective against the principles and enactments adopted by the French national assembly, in attempting to form a new constitution. He was called to order by some of his former friends, and an altercation ensued, in the course of which lie asserted that a design had been formed by certain persons in this country against the constitution. Mr Fox accused Mr Burke of leaving the question before the house to seek a difference with him, and to fortify misrepresentations of something which he had said in a former debate concerning the French revolution; and he adhered to his former sentiments in approving the revolution, though not the new constitution of France. Mr Burke repeated his attack upon the French revolution, and declared that his friendship with Mr Fox was dissolved by that accursed event. Mr Fox, with much apparent agitation, endeavoured to soften the asperity of Mr Burke, but without effect. He had evidently resolved upon the part he was to act; and this may be considered as the first occasion upon which any member of the British legislature represented his own conduct as seriously influenced, to the extent of deserting his former political views and associates, in consequence [7:5:459] of an alarm originating in the example of the French re- volution.

During the session, the question of the slave-trade was again brought forward by Mr Wilberforce, and was supported by Mr Pitt and Mr Fox; but his motion was nevertheless negatived by a considerable majority. The zeal of the nation in favour of abolition had however become very great; and as the evidence led before the House of Commons had represented the trade as the source of innumerable crimes and great misery, a company was established with the view of civilizing the natives of Africa, and of cultivating, by the hands of freemen, West India productions in that country; and having received a charter, they fixed on Sierra Leone as their principal settlement, and great expectations were entertained of the success of the project; expectations destined never to be realized.

On the 28th of March a message from his majesty announced that his endeavours to effect a pacification between Russia and the Turks having proved unsuccessful, he had judged it necessary to add weight to his representations, by making some further augmentation of his naval force. The point in dispute related to Oczakow, a town situated upon the Black Sea, at the mouth of the river Dnieper, which had been taken from the Turks, and was considered by Russia as a situation of great importance with reference to future operations against the Ottoman empire. The Turks, greatly exhausted by the contest, were reduced to the necessity of purchasing tranquillity at almost any price; but Prussia, alarmed at the growing power of Russia, had, in conjunction with Britain and Holland, offered to mediate a peace, with a view to procure the restoration of Oczakow to its former masters. Russia, however, refused the offered mediation, and also declined to renew any commercial treaty with Britain; though she had concluded one with France and another with Spain, and even entered into a quadruple alliance with these countries and with Austria, for the purpose of restraining the influence of Prussia, Britain, and Holland. In moving an address to his majesty on this message, Mr Pitt observed, that having entered into defensive alliances, which were admitted to be wise and politic, we ought to adhere to them; that Prussia was our ally, and any event calculated to affect that power, and diminish its influence on the Continent, would be injurious to us, as far as our mutual interests were concerned; and that the progress of the Russian arms against the Porte gave sufficient cause for alarm, since, if the power of the Porte were further humbled by its aspiring rival, Prussia would instantly feel it, and not Prussia alone, but all Europe. Mr Fox, on the contrary, expressed his conviction that Prussia could not be endangered by the progress of the Russian arms in Turkey, and that an alliance with Russia appeared to him the most natural and advantageous which we could possibly form. The address, however, was carried by a large majority. But the opposition, finding that they were supported by greater numbers than usual, and that a war with Russia was unpopular, brought the question repeatedly forward; and administration, perceiving the current of public opinion to run against them, abandoned their views, and refused to support Prussia in attempting to set bounds to the ambition of Russia.

On considering the state of Europe at the time, administration were probably guided, in their jealousy of Russia, by the maxims which had influenced the politics of Great Britain during the best periods of its history. The Spanish monarchy had long been in a state of debility, which rendered it of little weight or importance on the continent of Europe; and France had likewise suffered her armies to decline, and, by a sort of family compact, had fallen under the influence of Austria; whilst the revolution, or rather the weakness which preceded it, had incapacitated her for interfering in foreign affairs. In the mean time Austria and Russia, relinquishing all rivalship, had entered into a close combination, and acted in subserviency to their mutual ambition. Hence, to preserve some tolerable balance of power on the continent of Europe against these two great military empires, it became absolutely necessary for Great Britain and Holland to unite with Prussia and Sweden, and to protect the Turks, in order to prevent the further aggrandisement of these two great and warlike powers. The British ministry, however, finding a war with Russia likely to prove unpopular, consented that Great Britain should descend from her proud station of holding the balance of the Continent; and the consequences of this desertion speedily appeared; for Prussia, no longer backed by Britain, was under the necessity of joining Russia and Austria in their schemes of aggrandisement at the expense of the weaker powers, that she might strengthen herself by a share of the spoil, and maintain her position in relation to these powers. How far the British administration acted culpably in deserting what they accounted their duty, in compliance with the apparent wish of the nation, is a question which was never discussed, because the consequences of their conduct were soon overlooked and forgotten amidst the great events which speedily occurred. From the love of popularity, and the habit of resisting all the projects of administration, opposition at this time encouraged the pusillanimity of their countrymen; whilst the members of administration, fearful of losing their places, suffered their country to be degraded from its proper rank and influence in Europe, and prepared the way for the partition of Poland, the projected partition of France, the war of the revolution by which that project was resisted, and the immeasurable aggrandisement of the power which soon proved so dangerous to Britain and to all Europe.

An unsuccessful effort was made during this session of parliament by Sir Gilbert Elliot, to procure for the members of the church of Scotland an exemption from the test act. But the Roman Catholics in England were more fortunate in obtaining relief from certain penal statutes. As the Catholic church was the great object both of political and religious terror in the first stages of the reformation, the English statute book was loaded with the most rigorous edicts against the professors of that obnoxious faith; and though some of these were removed in the year 1780, yet in 1791 not less than seventy pages of Burn’s Ecclesiastical Law were occupied with the enumeration of the penal statutes in force against the Roman Catholics. Amongst these were some of the most sanguinary nature.' For example, it was high treason and death to make a convert to the Catholic faith; and severe penalties were enacted against papists for hearing mass by some statutes, whilst by others they were compelled to attend the established worship, however contrary to their consciences. A reform was therefore imperiously called for, and had become the more reasonable, as, in the year 1790, a body of Catholic dissenters had formally protested against the temporal power of the pope, and against his assumed authority to release men from their civil obligations, or to dispense with the sacredness of oaths. Mr Milford, therefore, brought forward a bill to relieve the protesting Catholics from the penalties and disabilities to which persons professing the Romish religion were subject by law; and the bill passed unanimously, excepting that Mr Fox wished to extend it, not merely to protesting, but to all Roman Catholics; upon the principle, that the state has no right to inquire into the opinions, either political or religious, of the people, but only to take cognizance of their actions.
[7:5:460]

The war now carrying on in India gave rise to some • debates during the present session. Like all other wars in that quarter of the globe, it had been undertaken on our part for the purpose of aggrandisement, and on the part of our antagonist from a jealousy of the British power. The ostensible cause of the war, however, was, that the Dutch had long been in possession of two forts upon the frontier of Hyder Ali’s kingdom of Mysore; that in the year 1780 Hyder had seized and garrisoned these forts, under the pretence that they belonged to a vassal of his; that having speedily thereafter induced the Dutch and French to join him against the British, the forts were given up to the Dutch; that in 1789, Tippoo had again claimed the forts; and that the Dutch, dreading his power, had sold the forts to the rajah of Travancore, a vassal or ally of the British. Tippoo, resenting this mode of evading his claim, made war upon Travancore; but as the rajah had effected the purchase under secret instructions from the British government in India, he was defended by them. Thus the war was said on our part to have been entered into in defence of the just rights of our ally, the rajah of Travancore; whilst on the other hand it was contended that this was nothing more than an attempt to subdue the sovereign of Mysore, and extend our eastern empire, at a time when the power of France was annihilated, and our own forces in great strength in that quarter. In the trial of Mr Hastings little progress was made during the present session. As parliament had been dissolved during the dependence of the trial, a question occurred, whether that circumstance did not put an end to the impeachment. The friends of Mr Hastings adopted the affirmative side of the question, and were supported by Mr Erskine and the attorney and solicitor general, Macdonald and Scott; whilst Mr Pitt, Mr Burke, and Mr Fox contended that a dissolution could have no effect upon an impeachment. After much discussion, it was carried in the House of Commons that the impeachment was still depending, and the same decision was adopted by the House of Lords. The session of parliament was concluded on the 10th of June.

As the avowed object of the first leaders of the revolution in France was the establishment of a system of political freedom, or of a representative government, with a hereditary monarch at its head; and as one of the consequences which they expected to follow from the establishment of the new system was the complete abolition of wars, which they ascribed entirely to the ambition of kings; the progress of the revolution was regarded with much favour by many persons in Great Britain. The reform of the Gallican church, though it alarmed the English clergy, was favourably regarded by the English dissenters; and the abolition of titles of honour was not disliked in a country where they are only enjoyed by a few individuals, and are chiefly valued on account of the privilege of hereditary legislation by which they are accompanied. The English also had long been accustomed to boast of their political freedom, and of their superiority in this respect over their French neighbours; and hence, when the populace of Paris rose in arms, when the military refused to act against them, and when the state prison or fortress of the Bastille was taken and demolished, many persons in Great Britain regarded as an imitation of the efforts of our ancestors the attempts made by the French to shake off the ancient despotism, and to renovate the order of society. The public at large indeed had not yet given much attention to the subject; but of the speculative and enthusiastic there was a sufficient number to form numerous convivial parties in commemoration of the 14th of July, the day on which the Bastille had been taken. These meetings, it is true, were on the whole regarded rather unfavourably by persons attached to the monarchical part of our constitution; but no public expression of disapprobation had hitherto appeared.

A festive meeting of this nature was to have been held at Birmingham on the 14th of July 1791; but several days preceding it, some unknown person had left in a public-house copies of an inflammatory handbill, representing the late transactions in France as proper to be imitated in England. The contents of this placard were very generally circulated, and produced much conversation in the town; upon which the magistrates offered a reward of a hundred guineas for discovering the author, printer, or publisher. Meanwhile the friends of the intended meeting disclaimed in the strongest terms the sentiments expressed in the seditious handbill; and finding their views misrepresented, they at first resolved that the meeting should not take place; but another determination was afterwards adopted, and the company assembled to the number of eighty. The party, however, had scarcely met when the house was surrounded by a tumultuous rabble, who expressed their disapprobation by hisses and groans, and by shouting “church and king.” Upon this the meeting immediately dispersed. But in the evening the mob attacked and burned a Unitarian meeting-house belonging to the congregation of Dr Priestley; and although this distinguished person had not been present at the meeting, his house, from which he was compelled to fly with his family, was also attacked, and his library, his valuable philosophical apparatus, and his manuscripts and papers, were destroyed. During the three succeeding days theydestroy-ed some other meeting-houses, together with the dwellinghouses of several eminent dissenters in the neighbourhood; and it was not till the night of the fourth day that some parties of light dragoons arrived. The damage done was very great; and the magistrates were accused of at first favouring and encouraging the mob, whose excesses they afterwards found it impossible to restrain. Five of the rioters were tried at Worcester, and one was convicted and executed. At Warwick twelve were tried, and four convicted of burning and destroying houses, three of whom were executed, and one was reprieved upon the application of the magistrates, as it appeared that his interference in the riot had been accidental.

At this time a foundation was laid on the Continent for the most important political changes. The various nations of Europe had for some centuries owed their independence to the jealousies which they mutually entertained. Many petty states were altogether unable to contend in war against their powerful neighbours; but they owed their safety to the circumstance of their neighbours being held in check by other great powers, who resisted all attempts at aggrandisement. When one nation became dangerous by its ambition, the combination of a number of other states repressed its machinations; and thus the Spanish, and afterwards the French monarchies, were restrained within due bounds. But in the course of the century the power of Russia had become formidable in Europe; and its rulers sought rather to undermine than to overthrow that balance of strength to which the lesser states of Europe had owed their safety. A former Russian sovereign had entered into a close alliance with the head of the house of Austria; and, notwithstanding the talents of the great Frederick, this union had nearly proved fatal to the Prussian monarchy. Finding the advantage of such an alliance, the house of Austria attempted at the same time to attach itself to France, its ancient hereditary enemy, by the marriage of the archduchess Marie Antoinette to the dauphin, afterwards Louis XVI.; and this marriage fully produced all its intended political effects. The French court, relinquishing its former policy of humbling [7:5:461]Austria, suffered its armies to fall into decay, and allowed itself to be led on all occasions by this more active power; and the revolution, which wrought so radical a change in the government of the nation and the order of society, by subverting every existing establishment, and exciting jealousy and discontent in every quarter, reduced the nation, in the eyes of foreign powers, to a state of utter debility. The king and royal family, exposed to endless insults and humiliations, had been compelled to submit to a new constitution, which placed the royal authority on a very precarious footing; the principal nobility had emigrated, and the king himself had attempted to follow their example; but being seized at Varennes, he was brought back as a fugitive, and placed at the head of a form of government which he had neither the power nor the inclination to administer.

In this state of affairs Russia and Austria, acting in conjunction, saw nothing to resist their ambition. They had recently wished to seize upon and divide the richest provinces of Turkey; but the Austrians having met with unexpected resistance, desisted from the attempt. The Russians however were more successful. The king of Prussia, with the aid of Britain and Holland, had attempted to restrain their progress; but being deserted by Britain, he now found it necessary to keep on fair terms both with Russia and Austria; and for this purpose, as well as to avoid being left behind in the career of usurpation and aggrandisement, he was compelled to enter into all their anjbiti-ous schemes. Poland and France were at this time two of the weakest states in Europe. For the sake of erecting a barrier to his own states, the Prussian monarch had encouraged the king and the leading nobles to form a new political constitution for Poland, by which its government might be strengthened; but Russia and Austria had cast their eyes upon this country, with a view, in imitation of what had been done in 1772, of seizing its best provinces; and the king of Prussia now found it necessary to acquiesce in the project. And the state of France at this period held out strong temptations for the formation of a similar project respecting it. Leopold, emperor of Germany, had a fair excuse for interfering in French affairs, namely, to rescue the king from the state of thraldom to which he had been reduced by his subjects; and the other princes of Europe had become alarmed at the example set by France, of limiting the authority of the monarch, of destroying the privileges of the nobility, and of reducing to a level all classes of persons in the state. The united powers of the north, therefore, now resolved to restore the French king and his nobles, but at the same time determined to divide among themselves and their allies some of the provinces of France. Towards the close of the summer 1791 these points were adjusted, at a conference held at Pilnitz in Saxony, between the emperor Leopold and the king of Prussia. The treaty entered into was intended to be kept secret; but the substance of it soon transpired, and afterwards, by the hatred which it excited in the French nation, proved the cause of important events. Its general object is understood to have been the dismemberment of Poland, and also of part of France. Poland was to be divided among the three great military powers in different portions. With regard to France, the emperor was to obtain Bavaria in exchange for the French Netherlands, which he was to conquer, and transfer, along with the Austrian Netherlands, to the elector of Bavaria. The Archduke Charles was to obtain the duchy of Lorrain; Strasburg and Alsace were to be restored to the empire; the king of Sardinia was to receive Dauphine, if he acceded to the coalition; Spain, on the same condition, was to be accommodated with the French portion of the island of St Domingo, with Corsica, Rousillon, and Bearn; and the Swiss cantons, if they became parties to the coalition, were likewise to receive certain territories. This treaty ' was publicly disavowed; but it was nevertheless universally believed throughout Europe to have been entered into, and was accordingly talked of under the appellation of the “Concert of Princes.”

Parliament assembled on the 31st of January 1792, and a variety of uninteresting debates occurred, the principal of which related to the armament which had been fitted out on account cι the dispute with Russia concerning the fortress of Oczakow. During the preceding autumn, the Duke of York, second son of the king, had married a daughter of the king of Prussia. This prince was believed to be a favourite son; and as the marriage in question had been contracted, not from political considerations, but the private choice of the parties, it gave general satisfaction. A provision ofL.37,000 per annum was readily made by parliament for the royal pair. On the 17th of February Mr Pitt brought forward a statement of the public revenue, from which it appeared that nearly half a million might be applied towards the extinction of taxes, or the payment of the national debt; and this was accordingly done; the additional tax recently laid on malt, the taxes on female servants, on carts and waggons, and on houses under seven windows, and part of the duty on candles, being those repealed. On the 2d of April the question of the slave-trade was again brought under the consideration of the House of Commons by Mr Wilberforce. He disclaimed any project of emancipating the negroes, but contended that, by the abolition of the importation of new slaves, the state of those in the West Indies would be improved. The slave-trade was defended on this occasion by Colonel Tarleton and Mr Jenkinson; while Mr Wilberforce was supported by Mr Montague, Mr Whitbread, and Mr Milbank. Mr Dundas professed himself a friend to the abolition, but entertained doubts with respect to the mode of effecting it. Mr Addington agreed in opinion with Mr Dundas. He thought the trade ought to exist for some years longer, and therefore could not vote for an immediate abolition. Mr Fox deprecated every kind of deception or delusion practised upon the country, and reprobated in strong terms Mr Addington’s views of the subject. Mr Dundas moved, as an amendment to Mr Wilberforce’s motion, that the trade should be abolished gradually; and although Mr Pitt declared his disapprobation of the amendment, the motion for a gradual abolition was carried by a considerable majority. Soon afterwards Mr Dundas stated the regulations which he meant to propose for the gradual abolition of the trade. The chief of these consisted in increasing the duties upon the age of the negroes imported; abolishing the trade as far as not necessary for the supply of our own islands; limiting the tonnage to be employed in it; punishing British subjects guilty of crimes in carrying it on; and providing that the importation of negroes into the British colonies should cease on the first of January 1800. Mr Wilberforce disclaimed all acquiescence in these propositions; and Mr Fox ridiculed them, by asking where the baptismal register was kept on the coast of Africa, by which the age of those who were to be exported could be ascertained. A variety of amendments were now proposed; and it was at length agreed that the period of abolition should be fixed for the first of January 1796. In the upper house the advocates of abolition were less successful; and they were not a little provoked at finding one of the younger branches of the royal family, the Duke of Clarence, now William IV., declaring himself decidedly hostile to their wishes. It was ultimately resolved that evidence should be heard at the bar, which necessarily produced delay, and little or no progress was made during the rest of the session. On the 18th of April [7:5:462]Mr Sheridan moved for an inquiry into certain grievances complained of by the royal burghs of Scotland, fifty out of the sixty-six having concurred in the petition upon which Mr Sheridan grounded his motion. The motion was resisted by Mr Anstruther, Mr Dundas, and Sir J. St Clair Erskine, upon the general ground that no serious grievance existed; and the inquiry was refused by a large majority. Excepting some debates relative to the French revolution, nothing further of any importance occurred during the present session.

That we may not afterwards have occasion to interrupt the detail of the transactions connected with the state of affairs in France, we shall here notice the war in India, and which was now brought to a fortunate termination. The western side of the peninsula of Hindustan consists of a level country for upwards of seventy miles inwards. Behind this tract, and parallel to the ocean, runs a chain of lofty mountains, presenting a front towards the west, broken into tremendous precipices, but on the other side consisting of an extensive plain, gradually descending eastward to the Bay of Bengal, and forming the territory of the Mahrattas, Mysore, Madras, the Carnatic, and other states. Now as Tippoo Sahib possessed territory on both sides of these mountains, which are denominated Ghauts, from the narrow paths or passes by which they are crossed, the army of the Carnatic, under General Meadows, was directed to attack this territory from the east; the Bombay army, under General Abercromby, was to reduce the country to the westward of the Ghauts; the Mahrattas, and the nizam of the Deccan, agreed to attack Tippoo’s country on the north and north-east, where it bordered on their own territories; and Seringapatam, his capital, was fixed upon as the point towards which the whole of the hostile armies were to direct and concentrate their efforts. On the 15th of June 1790, General Meadows entered Tippoo’s country. The grand army on this occasion amounted to fourteen thousand effective European troops, a body of men which no power in India could encounter in the field. A variety of operations occurred; but little appears to have been effected towards the subjugation of the enemy, except the capture of the country to the westward of the Ghauts, till the end of February 1791, when Lord Cornwallis assumed the command in person. His first operation was directed against Bangalore, which he reached on the 5th of March; and a practicable breach having been made in the walls, the fort was stormed on the 21st, with little loss to the British. Of the garrison not less than a thousand were bayoneted, and a small number taken. Being joined by above fourteen thousand of the nizam’s troops, and seven hundred Europeans, with four thousand five hundred and eighty troops under Colonel Oldham, Lord Cornwallis proceeded towards Seringapatam, where he arrived on the 13th of May, after a difficult march in bad weather over a hilly and barren country. Tippoolost no time in displaying a considerable force in the field, with the view of covering his capital; but being beaten, though with little loss, he was forced to retire within the walls of Seringapatam, which, defended by a river at this season swelled with the rains, seemed secure against attack. In fact, circumstances had completely defeated the object of the combined operation which had been so ably projected. Lord Cornwallis was in want of provisions for supporting his army during a protracted siege; and as General Abercromby had not been able to join him from the west, it was judged expedient to retire to Bangalore, after destroying the battering train. On his retreat Lord Cornwallis was joined by the Mahrattas to the number of about thirty thousand. General Abercromby also retired across the Ghauts with a fatigued and dispirited army; and thus for the present Tippoo escaped a siege in his capital.

After his retreat, Lord Cornwallis employed himself for some time in reducing various small forts in the neigh- 1 bourhood of Bangalore, some of them of such natural strength as, in any other hands but those of the feeble natives of that country, to be absolutely impregnable. Nun-didroog, built on the summit of a mountain 1700 feet in height, three fourths of which are altogether inaccessible, fell after a siege which lasted from the 22d of September to the 18th of October; the place being assaulted by a breach at midnight, and taken, though not by surprise. The fortress of Savendroog, eighteen miles to the westward of Bangalore, was still more strongly situated. It stood on the summit of an insulated rock, rising about half a mile in perpendicular height, from a table or base of eight or ten miles in circumference, and divided at its summit into two hills, each having its peculiar defences, capable of being maintained independent of the lower works; while the whole was surrounded by a strong wall, with cross walls and barriers in every accessible part. Yet this stupendous fortress was taken in ten days.

In December, General Abercromby once more crossed the Ghauts, and proceeded eastward towards Mysore; while Lord Cornwallis, in the beginning of February 1792, advanced from Bangalore, and arrived on the 5th within sight of Seringapatam. Tippoo Sultan occupied a position under the walls, and there resolved to make a stand in defence of his capital. On the 6th, at eight o’clock in the evening, the attack was made on the sultan’s camp. After a sharp engagement at different points, parties of the British crossed the river, and established themselves in the island on which Seringapatam stands. This movement proved decisive. Tippoo, finding himself in danger of having his retreat intercepted, was compelled to retire; and being pressed by the invaders on all sides, while his palace and gardens were in their possession, and his power reduced within the narrow limits of a fortress, he found it necessary to endeavour to purchase peace upon almost any terms. With this view he released two prisoners, Lieutenants Chalmers and Nash, and requested the former of these gentlemen to present a letter from him to Lord Cornwallis. The operations of the siege, however, still continued, and, on the 19th of February, the trenches were opened; whilst the Bombay army, under General Abercromby, invested the western side of the capital. But a cessation of hostilities was agreed to on the 23d of February, and a treaty of peace concluded, by which it was stipulated, first, that Tippoo was to cede one half of his dominions to the British and Indian powers; secondly, that he was to pay in money three crores and thirty lacs of rupees; thirdly, that all prisoners were to be restored; and fourthly, that two of the sultan’s sons were to become hostages for the due performance of the treaty. On the 26th, the two princes, each mounted on an elephant, richly caparisoned, proceeded from the fort to Lord Cornwallis’s camp, where they were received by his lordship with his staff. The eldest, Abdul Kallich, was about ten, and the youngest, Mooza-ud-deen, about eight years of age; and they were dressed in long white muslin gowns, with red turbans richly adorned with pearls. Educated from infancy with the utmost care, the spectators were astonished to behold in these children all the reserve, politeness, and attention, of maturer years. The kindness with which they were received by the British commander appeared to afford them satisfaction; some presents were exchanged; and the scene is described by an eye-witness as in the highest degree interesting. It was the 19th of March before the definitive treaty was finally adjusted, and delivered by the young princes into the hands of Lord Cornwallis.

In the meanwhile scenes of unparalleled interest were [7:5:463]about to be exhibited in Europe. These were produced by two causes; the ambition of the great military powers, and the French revolution. When, by an abuse of that policy which had once produced a vigilant attention to the balance of power, Russia and Austria had formed the project of extending their dominions, and when Prussia, probably nothing loth, found it expedient to concur in their policy, it became evident that the situation of Europe must speedily undergo great changes; whilst the French revolution, which had reduced that once powerful monarchy to a state of complete debility, seemed to afford an opportunity for the extension of the system of spoliation, by enabling the great powers to regard its ample territories as a further subject of partition. In another point of view, however, this revolution had now begun to be an object of no small alarm. The distinguished place which France had held among the nations of Europe rendered the late change of her government an object of universal attention; and there was a danger that it. might come to be regarded as an object of imitation. The public discussions which took place in her national assemblies, and in printed publications, were conveyed, through the medium of a language universally understood, to the most obscure corners of Europe; and kings, nobles, and priests, became apprehensive that the contagion of innovation might not be confined to the country in which it had originated. Hence a general wish prevailed among the ruling classes that an effort should be made, before it was too late, to overwhelm the country from which so much danger to established governments was anticipated. Nor was this alarm altogether groundless. Men had almost everywhere outgrown their institutions; and whilst the former had been rapidly advancing, the latter remained stationary. The diffusion of wealth and of knowledge had created new interests, and led to the formation of new opinions; whilst a new class, formerly considered by rulers as of little or no importance whatever, except as subjects of taxation or instruments of ambition, was gradually and steadily rising into importance. The power of the nobility was rapidly passing away. The establishment of standing armies rendered them of little importance in war; and their wealth, as the great landholders of Europe, was daily more and more eclipsed by the opulence of the industrious classes; while,'though titles of honour still remained, the estimation in which they were held was from various causes much diminished. But prodigious abuses remained. In those states which in former times had resisted the innovations produced by religious zeal, a wealthy priesthood and monastic orders still existed. The privileges of the nobles and of the clergy rendered taxation unequal; and commerce was embarrassed by restrictive laws and the privileges of old incorporations. There was therefore much to be reformed among the continental states of Europe, and the desire to obtain this reform was daily increasing.

In France, though the house of Bourbon had supported the Roman Catholic religion, yet, upon the whole, they were of a much more liberal spirit than any other royal family in Europe, and had given greater encouragement to letters, and to every kind of improvement. It is not wonderful, therefore, that the desire for improving the condition of mankind, and simplifying the arrangements of society, which had been so successfully pursued in other countries, should have become extremely prevalent in France. Unfortunately, however, though the character of the reigning monarch led him to encourage such projects, yet his undecided and inactive spirit, together with the embarrassed state of the finances, prevented him from taking the lead in these changes, or from repressing them when inordinately pursued by others. Meanwhile the example of prosperity enjoyed under the free constitution of Great Britain, and the pride of having recently contributed to the establishment of a republican government in North 1 America, fixed the character of any changes of a political nature, which at this period originated in France, whether among men of letters, the army, or the people at large. But in forming a political constitution, the vanity of the French, which induced them to avoid the appearance of servile imitation, had unhappily led them to differ in one most essential point from the British constitution. Their legislature consisted only of a king and a single house of representatives; whereas in Britain, by means of an intermediate estate, that of the peerage, naturally jealous of popular innovation, laws injurious to the royal prerogative are prevented from being enacted without the king being involved in dispute with the Commons. But in France the king himself was under the necessity, in such cases, of preventing the passing of the law, by personally interposing a negative; that is, he was placed in the unpopular and absurd situation of opposing his single judgment to the united will of a nation, and that too in perilous and critical times, when he could not fail to be suspected of disliking a constitution by which his power was taken away. Still, however, the representative government of Britain had been the model on which the French proceeded; and there is no doubt that they expected, during any contest in which they might be involved with the powers of the Continent, that they would enjoy, if not the support, at least the neutrality and favourable countenance of the British nation. But, on the other hand, the passion for innovation which seized the French nation, had in many instances proceeded to extravagant lengths; and there was reason to anticipate, on the part of the court of London, some alarm lest this passion might communicate itself in an inconvenient degree to Britain, where, though political abuses were less flagrant, and the passion would consequently find less food for its exertion, enough might yet exist to kindle disturbances and produce anxiety.

In the month of April 1792 a society was instituted in London, at the head of which appeared Mr Grey, Mr Baker, Mr Whitbread, Mr Sheridan, Mr Lambton, Mr Erskine, and several other distinguished members of parliament, for the purpose of obtaining a reform in the representation of the people. The association assumed the title of “The Friends of the People and it was speedilyjoined by some respectable characters in the commercial and literary world. Similar societies had, at former periods, existed in Great Britain; and the Duke of Richmond, Mr Pitt, and others, while they zealously advocated parliamentary reform, had attended meetings, not merely of persons acting in their individual capacity, but of persons appearing as delegates from other societies. At the present period, however, government appears to have regarded any association of this kind as unusually dangerous. The society had resolved that, early in the ensuing session, a motion should be brought forward in the House of Commons for a reform of parliament; and that the conduct of the business should be committed to Mr Grey and Mr Erskine; and, in conformity with the intentions of the association, Mr Grey, on the 30th of April, gave notice in the house of a motion which he intended, next session, to submit to their consideration, for a reform in the representation of the people. Its necessity, he said, had been admitted both by Mr Pitt and Mr Fox. The times were indeed critical, and the minds of the people agitated; but his object was to tranquillize them, by removing every cause of complaint. Mr Pitt declared, with unusual vehemence, that he objected both to the time and the mode in which this business was brought forward; that the present was not a time to make hazardous experiments; and that he saw with concern, gentlemen who [7:5:464]might only desire an amelioration of our institutions united in an association with others who professed not reform only, but direct hostility to the very form of our government, and who threatened the extinction of monarchy and every thing which promoted order and subordination in a state. Mr Fox declared himself satisfied concerning the necessity of a reform in the representation, but that he never entertained very sanguine hopes of its accomplishment. Had his honourable friend consulted him, he should have hesitated in recommending the part he had taken; but having taken it, he could not see why the period was improper for the discussion. He professed a strong attachment to the British constitution, but did not regard this as the only free country in the world. After a tumultuous debate, in which Mr Burke and Mr Wyndham opposed Mr Sheridan and Mr Erskine, the subject was dropt. In the mean time a variety of political pamphlets daily appeared, the most remarkable of which was a publication by Thomas Paine, entitled The Rights of Man. This being a direct and inflammatory attack upon the whole principles and practice of the British constitution, administration thought fit to issue a royal proclamation against the publishing and dispersing of seditious writings; enjoining the magistrates to exercise vigilance in attempting to discover the authors of such writings, and exhorting the people to guard against all attempts which aimed at the subversion of regular government. It is not easy to perceive what precise purpose government intended to serve by this proclamation. The authors of the seditious publications alluded to did not conceal themselves; and the publications were openly sold without any attempt to suppress them by prosecutions. Perhaps it was intended to prepare the minds of men for future measures of direct hostility against France; perhaps it was only meant to rouse in the friends of government a spirit of opposition to the schemes of innovation which were at this time afloat. But whatever object administration might have in view, the effect of their proclamation was to excite general curiosity, and to serve as a public advertisement to the dangerous writings of Thomas Paine and others. In all parts of the island multitudes of persons, who had not hitherto interrupted their ordinary occupations to attend to the transactions of the Continent, or the speculative discussions which the present state of France had excited, were now seen crowding to the shops of booksellers inquiring for the treatises, the names or titles of which they knew not, against which the king’s proclamation had issued; every printing press in the kingdom was occupied, and copies could scarcely be supplied in sufficient abundance to satisfy the demand. Nor did the folly of government stop here. On the 25th of May the master of the rolls moved an address to his majesty, in pursuance of the proclamation, the object of which he admitted to be Mr Paine’s works; and having read an extract from one of the pamphlets of that writer, importing that all kings were tyrants, and their subjects slaves, he complained of the circulation of such publications. Mr Grey asserted that the minister, apprehensive of the effects of the association of the friends of the people, had concerted this measure with an insidious view of separating those who had long been connected; and alleged that such sinister practices were delighted in by a gentleman whose political life was a tissue of inconsistency, and who never proposed a measure without intending to delude his hearers. Mr Fox disapproved of the proclamation, because it was insidious and ambiguous, tending to propagate vague and unnecessary alarm. Mr Pitt did not impute any improper design to the new association; but it might be taken advantage of by ill-disposed persons, who, under the shelter of a respectable body, might push forward their own sinister designs. The plan of the persons to whom he alluded was evidently to overturn the monarchy, and con-· vert the kingdom into a republic. The address to the throne was agreed to without a division. In the House of Lords, on the 31st of May, a similar address was voted after some debate; and parliament was prorogued a short time afterwards.

The eyes of all Europe were now turned towards France; and the combination which the continental monarchs were known to have formed against that country was expected speedily to issue in action. The king of Sweden, who was fond of war, having now settled all disputes with Russia, offered to lead in person the armies of the combined powers, to destroy in France those new institutions and opinions which threatened to subvert the whole ancient system of public order in Europe. But continuing at variance with his nobility, he was assassinated at a masquerade on the 16th of March, by an enthusiast of the name of Ankerstrom, who boasted, on being seized, that he had liberated his country from a tyrant. In the meanwhile Leopold, emperor of Germany, had also died, and been succeeded by his son Francis II. Leopold had chosen to temporize with France; but his successor thought it unnecessary to observe any measures of caution with that country. On some remonstrances being made by the French government against his permitting troops to assemble on the frontiers, he avowed the concert of princes against the constitution of France, and stated it to be one of the conditions necessary to the preservation of peace, that the neighbouring powers should have no reason for the apprehensions which arose from the present weakness of the internal government of France. This acknowledged intention to interfere in the internal affairs of the French nation produced a proposal on the part of the French king to the national assembly, which was readily acceded to, for declaring war against the king of Hungary and Bohemia; and in a short time war was in like manner declared against Prussia and Sardinia.

In the meanwhile, though the combined princes had not probably as yet completely adjusted their respective shares of the spoils of France and Poland, yet, that the latter might be kept in a state of weakness, and that all traces of the new principles might as far as possible be obliterated, the empress of Russia gave notice of her determination to invade Poland with an army of a hundred and fifty thousand men, for the purpose of overturning the new constitution. No provision had been made by the king to resist such a force; but an attempt was made by Kosciusko, a Polish nobleman, who had served under General Washington in America, to defend the independence of the country; and some battles were, in consequence, fought. But the Russians continued to advance; and on the 23d of July the king, despairing of the result of the contest, submitted without reserve to Russia, and consented to the restoration of the old constitution, with all its weakness and anarchy.

While the combined princes were thus successful in the north, a very different fate awaited their efforts against France. The French king and his ministry caused the Austrian Netherlands to be invaded; and four different detachments under Lafayette and other generals were directed to enter that country at different points. They made some progress, but their raw troops were speedily repulsed; and when Prussia and Austria, who had undertaken the extinction of the revolution in France, had completed their preparations, the Duke of Brunswick was appointed commander of the combined armies. In a long manifesto issued by the emperor and the king of Prussia, they thought it necessary to disclaim all views of aggrandisement, or interference in the internal administration of [7:5:465] France; but they declared themselves resolved to reestablish in that country public security, meaning the ancient order of things, and to protect the persons and property of all loyal subjects; threatened to punish as rebels all who resisted them; and declared their determination to give up the city of Paris to the most terrible vengeance if the least insult were offered to the king, the queen, or the royal family. The Duke of Brunswick also issued a manifesto, in his own name, dated from his head-quarters at Coblentz, in which he declared that the two allied courts had no intention to make conquests in France, and that they intended merely to deliver the king from captivity, and to restore his authority; he promised protection to all who submitted to the king, required the national guards to protect the public safety till further orders, and threatened to treat those who resisted him in arms as rebels to their king; enjoined the officers and soldiers of the French regular troops to submit to their legitimate sovereign; declared the French magistrates responsible, on pain of losing their heads and estates, for every disorder which they should not have attempted to prevent; menaced with death the inhabitants of towns and villages who should defend themselves against his troops, but promised protection to those who should submit; called upon the city of Paris to yield instantly to the authority of the king; declared the members of the national assembly, and the magistrates and national guards of Paris, personally responsible for disobedience, and amenable to military law; threatened, on the word of the emperor and king, if the palace of the Tuilleries were forced, or the least outrage offered to the king, queen, and royal family of France, or if they were not immediately placed in.safety and set at liberty, to inflict the most exemplary punishment, by giving up the city of Paris to military execution; and declared that no other laws could be acknowledged in France, excepting those derived from the king, who was invited to repair to a frontier town, where he might provide for the restoration of order, and the regular administration of his kingdom.

This fatal manifesto had no sooner been published than all France was in commotion. The insolent language employed by two foreign powers, one of which had for ages been regarded with a sort of hereditary hostility, wounded the pride and the patriotism of every Frenchman; many who were enemies of the revolution could not brook an open attack upon the national independence; the zeal of those who had been enthusiastic promoters of freedom was kindled into absolute frenzy; and multitudes from all quarters hastened to the frontiers to share the danger of protecting the independence of their country. Unhappily for the monarch, the enemies of the nation had loudly declared themselves as his friends; and the restoration of absolute power was made the excuse for a hostile invasion of France. The king, therefore, and all who were attached to him, became objects of public hatred. The republican party had previously been small, but every hour now procured it a fresh accession of strength; and as it appeared dangerous to intrust the national defence to the hands of the king, it was resolved to get rid of his authority altogether. He was therefore dethroned on the 10th of August, and a republic proclaimed; and soon afterwards the capital became the scene of a sanguinary massacre of those persons who had been imprisoned on suspicion of adhering to his cause.

The Duke of Brunswick was, in the mean time, advancing into the heart of the country at the head of the combined army. Verdun and Longwy had surrendered to his arms in the end of August, and by this time he had reached the neighbourhood of Chalons. But he had met with opposition at every step of his progress; and the people of the country had removed all kinds of provisions from the course of his march, while the French army under Dumouriez was supplied with every necessary. At length, as the French daily acquired discipline, General Kellerman was able to sustain at Valmy, with sixteen thousand men, an attack which, though made by a superior forec, and persevered in for fourteen hours, effected nothing. Unable to make any serious impression on the raw levies opposed to it, the combined army also suffered by disease, which thinned its ranks; whilst the French were rapidly augmenting in numbers and courage; so that the advance to Paris, which seems to have been regarded as a sort of holiday promenade, became an achievement beyond the power of the invaders to execute. The king of Prussia was personally present with the army, and enabled to judge of the difficulties as well as dangers of his position. A war of the people revealed itself to his astonished view; and he perceived, that before he could accomplish the object of the coalition, he must not only conquer an army animated with an enthusiastic spirit of patriotism, but subdue a whole nation, ready to rise in mass to resist the aggression on its territory. The prospect was abundantly gloomy; and his Prussian majesty was appalled by it. Accordingly a retrograde movement was commenced without any attempt being made to penetrate farther into the country; and some suspicions were at this time entertained by discerning men, that France would not have much to dread from the obstinate hostility of the king of Prussia. After his retreat, the French, with wonderful activity, commenced offensive operations. In October General Custine reduced Mentz; in the same month Dumouriez invaded the Netherlands; on the 4th of November he fought the celebrated battle of Jemmappes, in which the Austrians were defeated; and as the emperor Joseph II., trusting to his alliance with France, had demolished the fortifications of the towns in the Netherlands, excepting Luxembourg and the citadel of Antwerp, the whole of that country, as far as the frontiers of Holland, now fell into the hands of the French. After the victory of Jemmappes, the government of the French republic, in order to conciliate the inhabitants of the Austrian Netherlands, resolved to open the navigation of the river Scheldt, which for some centuries had been kept shut by the jealousy of the Dutch, and thus to revive the trade of Antwerp, anciently one of the first commercial cities in Europe; and at the same time, in order if possible to counteract the combination of princes which had been formed against them, and which was now rapidly extending itself, the convention endeavoured to represent theirs as the cause of the people in every country, in opposition to that of their princes or hereditary rulers, who were denominated tyrants. Accordingly, on the 19th of November; the convention passed a deeree, declaring, that they would give assistance, by means of their armies and otherwise, to every people who should attempt to establish a free government for themselves; and two months afterwards, the same body, by a majority of votes, ordered their imprisoned monarch to be put to death upon an accusation of having betrayed the cause of the nation.

The important transactions which were now taking place on the Continent produced a powerful impression upon the British nation, where the minds of men, as already remarked, had been directed to political questions by the royal proclamation against seditious publications. According as the sentiments of individuals varied, they perused with terror or with satisfaction the Duke of Brunswick’s manifesto. Men of a patriotic character, however, whatever their political opinions might be, were not dissatisfied to sec a nation capable, even amidst great public confusion, of repelling an invasion by the best disciplined armies, conducted by the most experienced commanders in Europe. But the [7:5:466] horrid massacres which took place in September, together with the treatment of the royal family, excited very different sentiments, and were justly regarded as instances of unparalleled barbarity and wanton bloodshed; and the general result was, that by the months of August and September the whole British nation was in a most agitated state. In all companies, questions as to the comparative merits of monarchical and republican government, together with the propriety of a reform in the British House of Commons, formed the subjects of conversation; and persons of every rank entered into these discussions with singular eagerness. At the commencement of the revolution, very few had any idea that a republican government would be found practicable in France; and with regard to Britain, which enjoyed a sound administration of justice and much internal prosperity, no change whatever seemed necessary. But, in proportion as the French proved victorious, a republican government seemed less and less impracticable; and, as the subject of political abuses was canvassed, new ideas concerning the state of government in Britain began to be entertained. The scenes of tumult and corruption which occurred at elections, the inattention of parliament to the petitions for the abolition of the slave-trade, the memory of the coalition, and the reproach under which the House of Commons since that time had fallen, induced many to think a reform in the representation of the people absolutely necessary. New notions were daily broached at home, or imported from the volcanic region of France; and one in particular, that of the boundless perfectibility of the human mind, which is so true in theory, but so false in fact, became extremely prevalent, and gained singular favour. Men of science or benevolence, who judged of others from the rectitude of their own intentions; men of ardent imaginations, who believed every thing practicable to their unbounded zeal; and the young and inexperienced, who were unacquainted with the imperfections of the human character; all imagined that the period had arrived when mankind, become rational and just, were no longer to engage in wars of ambition,—when good sense alone was to rule the world,—and when the public business of society, reduced to the narrow limits of administering justice, and constructing high roads, harbours, and other works of internal improvement, might be conducted with little trouble, and without the establishment of different ranks and orders of men, or the display of military force for the preservation of public tranquillity. In short, a species of delirium upon political subjects prevailed; and mankind were led to believe that the greatest changes in the order of society might be accomplished with facility and safety.

Besides the society called the Friends of the People, other associations of less distinguished persons, called the Constitutional and Corresponding Societies,were established in London; and during the autumn societies assuming the name of Friends of the People were established in most towns and villages throughout the country, for the avowed purpose of bringing about a reform of parliament. In proportion, however, as the character of the French revolution began to display itself, in the sanguinary scenes which were daily enacted, and in the extravagant projects and sentiments which were entertained, persons of rank and property became alarmed. In the month of November an association was instituted at the Crown and Anchor tavern in London, the avowed object of which was the protection of liberty and property against the attempts of republicans and levellers; and similar associations for the support of government were set on foot in other parts of the metropolis, and throughout the country.

Parliament assembled on the 13th of December 1792. The speech from the throne intimated that his majesty had judged it necessary to embody a part of the militia, and to assemble parliament previous to the time fixed for’ that purpose; and stated, as the causes of these measures, the seditious practices which had been discovered, and the spirit of tumult and disorder, shown in acts of riot and insurrection, which required the interposition of a military force in support of the civil magistrate. His majesty asserted, that he had observed a strict neutrality in regard to the war on the Continent, and had uniformly abstained from any interference with respect to the internal affairs of France; but that it was impossible for him to see, without the most serious uneasiness, the strong and increasing indications which had appeared there of an intention to excite disturbances in other countries, to disregard the rights of neutral nations, to pursue views of conquest and aggrandisement, and to adopt towards his allies, the States-general, measures which were neither conformable to the law of nations, nor to the positive stipulations of existing treaties. Under these circumstances he felt it his duty to have recourse to the means of prevention and internal defence with which he was intrusted by law, and to take the necessary steps for augmenting the naval and military force of the kingdom.

When the usual address was moved in the House of Commons, Lord Wycombc opposed it, on the ground that the speech from the throne had calumniated the people of England; that, so far from any spirit of insurrection existing, the kingdom was on the contrary overflowing with loyalty; that speculative political opinions had always been agitated under the free constitution of Britain; and that the persons who were thought most disaffected wished merely to reform that constitution. Mr Fox declared that the present was the most momentous crisis that he had ever read of in the history of this country; and that on the conduct of parliament depended, not merely the fate of the British constitution, but that of doctrines affecting the happiness and well-being of all human kind. He affirmed, that there was not a fact stated as such in the speech from the throne which was not false; he denied the existence of any insurrection; he justified the exultation which many persons had expressed on account of the retreat of the Duke of Brunswick; he described die calling out of the militia as a fraud, intended to induce the people to believe that cause of alarm existed, and thereby to bring them more completely under the influence of government; he treated the opening of the Scheldt as no just cause of war; and he recommended the removal of acknowledged grievances, as the certain means of appeasing the discontent of the people. Mr Windham now deserted the opposition, and joined administration in contending that there existed great danger to the constitution. He also declared his approbation of the march of the combined armies into France. Mr Dundas asserted, that under the pretext of reform, the example of France had been held out for imitation to the people of this country; and that the object of the French was evidently the aggrandisement of their dominions. Mr Sheridan denied the existence of any just cause of alarm, and declared that he would vote for the impeachment of any English minister who should enter into a war for the purpose of re-establishing the former despotism in France, or who should dare, in such a cause, to spend one guinea, or shed one drop of blood. From the commencement of Mr Pitt’s administration a considerable number of members of parliament, the remnant of the coalition, had remained in opposition to his measures. But in consequence of the alarm which had at this time diffused itself among persons of high rank, and perhaps also as a plausible excuse for deserting a fruitless and unprofitable opposition, a great number of the members of the party hitherto hostile to administration now joined [7:5:467] in supporting those measures which they perceived to be agreeable to the executive power. Accordingly, on a division there appeared for the address two hundred and seventy, and for the amendment only fifty. In the House of Lords similar debates took place upon the address, and opposition also experienced a desertion of part of its members. The Duke of Norfolk, the Marquis of Lansdown, Lord Rawdon, afterwards Earl of Moira and Marquis of Hastings, and Earl Stanhope, declared themselves averse to war; whilst Lord Grenville, Lord Stormont, the Marquis Townshend, and others, supported the sentiments expressed in the king’s speech.

After the French king had been dethroned, Earl Gower the British ambassador was recalled; but the French ambassador, Μ. Chauvelin, still continued to reside in London. On the 15th of December Mr Fox moved that a minister should be sent to Paris to treat with the provisional executive government of France; declaring, that by this motion he meant not to approve of the conduct of the French government, but simply to record it as his opinion, that it was the true policy of every nation to treat with the existing government of every other nation with which it had relative interests, without regarding how that government was constituted; and that we could have no stronger objection to the existing government of France, than to the governments of Algiers and Morocco, in both of which countries we had resident consuls. This motion gave rise to a very animated debate, in which the opposition were accused of desiring to encourage discontent and sedition, and were defended by Mr Taylor, Mr Grey, and Colonel Tarleton. But Mr Fox’s motion was negatived.

On the 19th of December Lord Grenville introduced into the House of Lords what has been called the alien bill, authorizing government to dismiss from the kingdom such foreigners as they might think fit, and which passed after some opposition from the Earl of Lauderdale and the Marquis of Lansdown. On the 28th of December Mr Secretary Dundas urged the House of Commons to adopt the alien bill, on account of the extraordinary influx of foreigners into the country, and the dissatisfaction of persons at home. Sir Gilbert Elliot, in supporting the bill, expressed his regret at being under the necessity of differing from his former political associates; and Mr Burke, as usual, spoke with very great vehemence on the subject. I vote, said he, for the present bill, because I consider it as the means of saving my life, and all our lives, from the hands of assassins. When they smile, I see blood trickling down their face; I see their insidious purposes; I see that the object of all their cajoling is blood. I now warn my country to beware of those execrable philosophers, whose only object is to destroy every thing that is good here, and establish immorality and murder by precept and example. While the alien bill was under consideration, another measure allied to it in principle was introduced; namely, a bill to prevent the circulation of assignats and other paper money under the authority of France. During the month of December an order of council was also issued for preventing the exportation of corn to France, and some ships which had grain on board were compelled to unload. On the 26th of December an act of indemnity passed upon the subject.

Affairs were now fast hastening to an open rupture with France. On the 17th of December Μ. Chauvelin transmitted a note to Lord Grenville, one of the secretaries of state, in which, in the name of the executive council of the French republic, he demanded to know whether his Britannic majesty was to be considered as a neutral or a hostile power. No wish, he said, existed on the part of France to entertain any doubt upon the subject; and they even desired toanswer previouslyall those reproaches which might be thrown out against them. With regard to the decree of the French convention of the 19th November, it had 1 been misinterpreted. The French republic did not intend to favour insurrections in neutral or friendly states; and the decree applied only to those people who, after having acquired their liberty, might request the assistance of the French republic by a solemn and unequivocal expression of the general will. As to the neutrality of Holland, it would be respected while that power confined itself within the bounds of strict neutrality; and with regard to the opening of the Scheldt, it was a question irrevocably decided by reason and justice. It was added, that on the fatal supposition of a war being resolved on, whilst the intentions of France were thus peaceful and conciliatory, the whole weight and responsibility of it would sooner or later fall on those who had provoked it.

Lord Grenville’s answer to this note, which bears date 31st December 1792, disclaimed considering Μ. Chauvelin in any other public character than that of minister from his most Christian majesty. It denied that the decree of the 19th November was satisfactorily explained, as the promoters of sedition in every country might still have in view the case in which they might count beforehand on the support of France. It affirmed that the neutrality of Holland had already been violated; and that the unimportance of the Scheldt would only render the opening of its navigation a clearer proof of the existence of an intention to insult the allies of England by violating their rights, which were guarded by the faith of treaties.

An official note from the executive power of France was transmitted through Μ. Chauvelin in reply to Lord Grenville’s answer, in which another effort was made to explain the obnoxious decree of the 19th November. In this document all intention of effecting a conquest of the Netherlands was disclaimed; and it was added, that if the Belgians, from any motive whatever, consented to deprive themselves of the navigation of the Scheldt, France would not oppose it. In an answer to this note by Lord Grenville, these explanations were declared to be unsatisfactory. On the 17th of January Μ. Chauvelin sent to Lord Grenville his credentials as ambassador from the French republic; but on the 20th of the same month Lord Grenville sent him a letter refusing to receive his credentials, or to consider him in any other character than as one of the mass of foreigners resident in England; and on the 24th his lordship sent Μ. Chauvelin a passport for himself and his suite, declaring that, after the fatal death of his most Christian majesty, he could no longer be considered as holding any public character in Britain.

In consequence of this correspondence the French convention declared war against England and Holland on the first of February; three days previous to which Mr Secretary Dundas presented to the House of Commons a message from the king, announcing that copies of the papers now mentioned were laid before the house. It was added, that his majesty thought it necessary to make a further augmentation of his forces by sea and land; and that he relied upon the zeal of the House of Commons to enable him to take the most effectual measures for maintaining the security of his dominions, supporting his allies, and opposing the ambition of France, at all times dangerous, and peculiarly so when connected with the propagation of principles utterly subversive of the peace and order of civil society. And thus Britain became a party in the most sanguinary and eventful war that ever desolated Europe or afflicted humanity. In the month of April the French government made another attempt to enter into negociations, and the minister, Le Brun, transmitted to England by a private gentleman letters to Lord Grenville, in which he requested passports for Μ. Maret to repair [7:5:468] to Britain in order to negociate peace; but no public notice whatever was taken of the application.

CHAP. XVI.

REIGN OF GEORGE III. WAR WITH FRANCE.

Remarks on the Causes of the War—Doubts as to its necessity. —Mr Pitt’s absence from Parliament—Debates on the French declaration of War Great failures in the Commercial world—

Mercantile Loan.—Government Loan—Traitorous Correspondence Bill Parliamentary Reform Board of Agriculture instituted Relief of the Scottish Catholics Renewal of the East

India Company’s Charter—Incidental Details—Political Trials in Scotland Mr Muir and Mr Fysche Palmer convicted of sedition British Convention—Foreign Treaties.—The War.

—Defection of Dumouriez—Favourable opportunity of making Peace lost Defective nature of the general plan of the War.—

Opening of Parliament in 1794—Debates on the Address— Sources of Alarm—Dread of Invasion, and of Plots and Conspiracies Secret Committee appointed—Finance—Policy of

Prussia—Maritime successes of Britain—Victory of the 1st June i794—Continental Campaign Conquest of Holland by

Pichegru Desertion of the Allies by Prussia—Trials for Trea son—Acquittal of Hardie and Horne Tooke—Trial of Watt and Downie Pop-gun Plot—Meeting of Parliament—Changes in the Cabinet.—Motion for entering into negociations with France. —Mr Pitt’s Amendment—Duke of Bedford’s Motion for Peace. —Mr Hastings’ Trial concluded—Debts of the Prince of Wales. —His Marriage War with Holland—Expedition to Quibe-

ron Bay Campaign in Germany—Riots at the Meeting of

Parliament Two Gagging Bills—Pacific Message from the

King Futile attempts at Négociation—Continental Campaign Maritime events Lord Malmesbury’s Négociation.

—Bank Restriction—Supplies—Loyalty Loan—War with Spain Mutiny in the Fleet Maritime operations—Dun can’s Victory—Preliminaries of Peace signed at Leoben between the Emperor and the French Republic.—Treaty 7 of Campo Formio Meeting of Parliament, and secession of the Opposition Relative situation of France and Britain—Alarm of

Invasion—Defence Act.—Redemption of the Land-tax—Navy Bill.—Duel between Mr Pitt and Mr Tierney.—Rebellion in Ireland.—Négociations at Rastadt—Switzerland seized by the French—Importance of this country—French Expedition to Egypt Battle of the Nile—Its political results—Russia joins the confederacy against France—Minorca taken—St Domingo abandoned-—Meeting of Parliament.—Income Tax—Its Defects—Union with Ireland proposed—Fall of Tippoo Sahib— Continental War—Suwarof’s brilliant Campaign in Italy

Attempt to drive the French from Switzerland.—Russians defeated by Massena at Zurich—Invasion of Holland by the British Bonaparte declared First Consul—Meeting of Parlia ment—King’s Speech.—Letter of Bonaparte to King George III—Lord Grenville’s Answer—Μ. Talleyrand’s Reply.— Rejoinder of the British Minister—Debates in Parliament on the subject of this Correspondence.—Union with Ireland effected—Debates on this subject—Discussion respecting the expedition to Holland—Mr Dundas’s defence of that enterprise

War in the East—Treaty of El Arish disavowed—Events in Egypt—Campaign on the Continent—Bonaparte enters Italy by the Great St Bernard, at the head of the Army of Reserve. —Battle of Marengo—Operations in Germany.—Battles of Schauŕľhausen, Moskirch, Biberach, Augsburg, and Hochstet— Continental truce—Renewed—Scarcity 7 in Britain War with the Northern Powers Campaign in Germany 7 —Battle of Ho henlinden.—Peace of Luneville—Change of Ministry and resignation of Mr Pitt.—Ostensible cause of Mr Pitt’s retirement from office.—Probable real cause—Character of his Administration—New Ministry—Royal indisposition—Imperial Parliament Speech from the throne—Debates on the Address

Motion on the State of the Nation Conduct of the War de fended by Mr Dundas—Mr Pitt’s account of the Change of Ministry Attack upon Copenhagen by Lord Nelson—Death of the Emperor Paul—Convention with Russia—Naval engagement off the coast of Spain.—Attack on Boulogne.—Campaign in Egypt.—Death of Sir Ralph Abercromby.—Cairo taken. —Surrender of Alexandria.—Preliminaries of Peace.

In the quarrels of nations the real causes and motives of hostility are often very different from those which are osten sibly held out to the world. It was for some time customary in Great Britain to dispute with great eagerness the ques- ’ tion as to who were the aggressors in this war; and in such disputes the friends of administration laboured under considerable difficulties, in consequence of the narrow ground upon which government had thought fit to rest the grounds or causes of hostility. The French government had been willing to explain away the offensive decree of the 19th November; the question about the Scheldt they were prepared to give up; and their ignorance of the nature of the British constitution, and of the elements which influence it in practice, prevented them from entertaining any idea that they were likely to encounter hostility from this country arising out of their revolution. Hence they not only neglected their navy, but had already in some measure ruined it, by sending their seamen to the frontiers in the character of soldiers. But though the French had not originally entertained hostile designs against this country, and though the ostensible causes of war on the part of Great Britain were weak, if not futile, it does not therefore follow that the motives which actually influenced the conduct of the British government on this occasion partook of the same character. France had been the ancient and dangerous enemy of England. She had suddenly fallen into a state of anarchy and consequent debility. All Europe was now leagued against her. Within she was divided by faction, and without she was assailed by immense hosts of the best disciplined soldiers in Europe, conducted by the most skilful leaders, to whom she had nothing to oppose but an undisciplined multitude, led on by inexperienced chiefs. In this state of things it seemed a safe measure to make war against her. To do so was only to retaliate the conduct she· had herself pursued when she effected the dismemberment of the British empire, by assisting our revolted colonies. And the moment seemed to have arrived when, by dismembering France, she might be rendered for ever incapable of becoming dangerous to Britain.

But the most powerful incitements to this war undoubtedly arose from the example of political innovation, which it was so much the interest of every government in which there existed any mixture of hereditary authority, completely to defeat and overwhelm. To comprehend the full force of this motive for going to war, it is necessary to recollect the ferment which universally prevailed in the minds of men, and to imagine the situation and the feelings of a prince, who, though still safe, yet saw in his immediate vicinity the first of European monarchs hurled from his throne to a prison, and from the prison to a scaffold, and his power assumed by subjects who represented their conduct as the triumph of reason and of freedom; while the contagion of their sentiments, extending itself into neighbouring kingdoms, threatened to break out into actions not less violent than those of the revolutionists of France. In such a state of things, and under the influence of such sentiments, a war against France seemed to be a war in defence of the whole arrangements of society; and princes and nobles considered themselves as engaged in the protection, not merely of their power and station, but even of their personal safety.

Still, however, there were not wanting at this time some individuals who thought the war altogether unnecessary for the support of the British constitution and government. The great amount of the national debt, the influence of the crown, and the general happiness and good feeling of the people at large, gave powerful assurances of stability to government and safety to property. Even before the war commenced, the crimes committed by the French revolutionists had greatly diminished the popularity of their cause; and the associations on the side of government [7:5:469]which were forming throughout the kingdom demonstrat- ∙ed the superiority of its adherents in wealth and numbers. It was therefore thought by many to be perfectly practicable to leather the storm without having recourse to hostilities; and there were even some who doubted the prudence of the war, notwithstanding the strength of the combination formed against France, and suspected, that in a sanguinary and desperate contest, armies conducted by princes, brought into power by the casualty of birth, might prove no match for French enthusiasm in the first instance, and far less ultimately for the superior tactics and enterprise which must speedily be introduced by men rising to command from the admiration produced by their talents and success. Lastly, if Great Britain, instead of assailing, had actively protected the independence of France, this would have secured such an ascendency over her councils as might have enabled us to protect Holland, and to preserve the life, perhaps even the crown, of Louis XVI.; and, at all events, it would have placed us in a condition speedily to terminate the contest, without any important changes being suffered to take place in the relative strength of the continental states of Europe.

At the close of the year 1792 Mr Pitt did not attend parliament when it first assembled; nor did he make his appearance in the House of Commons till the alien bill was passing through itslast stages in January, thediscussion ended, and the. relative strength of parties ascertained. The ostensible cause of his absence was, that having, on the death of the Earl of Guildford (Lord North), obtained the place of warden of the Cinque Ports, and thereby vacated his seat as a member of the House of Commons, he had gone down to Cambridge to secure his re-election. But the length of his absence suggested to some a suspicion that he was hesitating about engaging to support the court in its design of going to war; and in the mean time Mr Dundas stood forward in the House of Commons as the leading servant of the crown in support of the proposal for engaging in hostilities. On his return, however, Mr Pitt resumed his station in the debates of the house, and supported the measure with the utmost ardour. At this period Lord Thurlow was removed from the office of lord high chancellor, and succeeded by Lord Loughborough, who had originally owed his preferment to the support given by him to Lord North’s administration and measures, and who, though hitherto an adherent of opposition, had in the recent debates defended the plans of administration.

On the occasion of a message from the king announcing the declaration of war by France, Mr Pitt stated that his majesty had always declined taking any part in regard to the internal government of France; that during the summer, while France was engaged in war with Austria and Prussia, he had in no way departed from his neutrality; but that as the French seemed now determined to subjugate other nations to their principles, he was under the necessity of interfering for the protection of his allies the Dutch, who had not indeed made any formal requisition for assistance, but to whose government the French had at all times been notoriously hostile. Mr Pitt also represented the language of the men in power in France as intolerably menacing towards the government of Britain, and as pre-eminently dangerous, from its tendency 7 to introduce anarchy. He also adverted in strong terms to the death of the French king as a calamitous event; an outrage to every principle of religion, justice, and humanity; an act which, in this country and in the whole of Europe, had excited but one general sentiment of indignation and abhorrence, and could not fail to produce the same sentiments in every civilized nation. It was, he said, in all its circumstances, so full of grief and horror, that it must be a wish, in which all united, to tear it if possible from their memories, to expunge it from the page of history, and to remove it for ever from the observation and* comments of mankind. All the members who remained in opposition concurred in reprobating the conduct of the French revolutionists. Mr Fox, however, asserted, that the general maxim of policy was, that the crimes committed in one independent state could not be cognizable by another; he alleged that the topics adverted to by Mr Pitt were introduced into the debate to blind the judgment by exciting the passions; and he contended that the opening of the Scheldt, and the decree of the 19th of November, which were stated as the causes of the war, could never justify such a measure. He censured our past neutrality as unfair. While the French were invaded we remained quiet spectators; but on their becoming invaders in their turn, we said Europe was in danger, and interfered against them. He asserted that the real cause, always disavoaved by our government, but ever kept in mind, was the internal government of France. The destruction of that government was the avowed object of the combined powers; but, though about to join them, we were ashamed to own that Britain was engaging to aid the restoration of despotism, and therefore the Scheldt and Holland were collusively had recourse to as pretexts. In the House of Lords, when the same subject was discussed, the Marquis of Lansdown contended, that, by sending an able and experienced minister to Paris, our government might have saved the life of Louis XVI. He declared that the war would be wanton on our part, and without provocation on the part of France; and he highly disapproved of the insulting manner in which Μ. Chauvelin had been dismissed.

At the period of which we are now treating, British commerce had become extremely extensive, and, owing to the commercial treaty, British and French merchants had become closely connected in their transactions. But from the sudden stagnation of trade which the war now produced, added to the alarms which had been excited upon political subjects, a sort of paralysis appeared to seize the country, and the number of bankruptcies exceeded all that had ever happened in the most calamitous times. A general stoppage of commercial credit took place, and no bank would venture to advance money to merchants or manufacturers; the consequence of which was, that many 7 of them, with large quantities of goods in their possession, were unable to make the smallest payment. To apply a remedy to this alarming evil, several of the principal traders and merchants having waited upon Mr Pitt, requested the interference of government; and a select committee of the House of Commons was accordingly appointed to investigate the subject. After consulting with a variety of bankers, manufacturers, and merchants, the committee, on the 29th of April, gave in a report favourable to the solicitation of the merchants for relief; and a bill was introduced on the 1st of May. authorizing government to issue five millions by exchequer bills, in loans to such merchants and manufacturers as should deposit goods in security for the sum advanced. This measure proved extremely salutary. When it was found that the traders could obtain money from government, the bankers and other persons immediately evinced a willingness to advance them funds, or to give credit to their bills; trade gradually revived; and new channels were by degrees found out for the disposal of the productions of British industry.

On the 27th of March, Mr Pitt, in a committee of the House of Commons, stated, that he had borrowed for the service of the year the sum of L.4,500,000. The terras of the loan were, that for every L.72 advanced to the public the lenders should be entitled to L.100 stock, bearing an interest of three per cent., which would make a capital of L.6,210,000, the interest of which, to be paid by the public, [7:5:470]would amount to L.186,000 a year. But there was another charge attending the loan; for, by the act for appropriating a surplus million to a sinking fund, it was provided, that whenever a new loan should be made, a fund equal to one per cent, on the whole of it must be provided, and applied to the liquidation of the principal. This, therefore, required an annual charge of L.62,100, and made the whole, including interest, L.24δ,400 per annum.

On the 15th of March the attorney general brought forward a bill for preventing traitorous correspondence with the king’s enemies. The object of this bill was to prohibit the sale to the French government or the French armies, of arms, military stores, provisions, or clothes, under the penalty of high treason. The purchase of lands in France was also prohibited. No one was allowed to go from Britain to France without a license, under the penalty of a misdemeanour; and persons, though subjects of this country, coming from France, were prohibited from entering the kingdom without a passport, or presenting to the master of the vessel a declaration that, in the mean time, they would not quit the place where they had landed without the permission of a justice of peace, or finding security for their good behaviour. Lastly, the insurance of vessels either coming from France or going thither was prohibited. And this bill passed through both houses, supported by great majorities.

During the present session a very great number of petitions were presented to the House of Commons from different parts of the country, praying for a reform in the representation; and on the 6th of May Mr Grey brought forward the question, after presenting a petition which had been framed by the association called the Friends of the People in London. He asserted that the number of petitions now brought forward demonstrated that the House of Commons were not the real representatives of the people, and he gave a detailed statement of the various defects in the representation. The proposal of reform was chiefly resisted on account of the hazard attending it from the example of France, and on account of the extent to which its more ardent partizans out of doors wished it to be carried. Mr Pitt explained his motives for being formerly friendly to a parliamentary reform, and also his objections against it at the present moment. If the principle of individual suffrage, pointed at in several of the petitions, was to be carried to its utmost extent, it would subvert the peerage and depose the king, and, in fine, extinguish every hereditary distinction and privileged order, and establish that system of equalizing anarchy announced in the code of French legislation, and attested in the blood shed in the massacres at Paris. Mr Fox, on the contrary, represented in strong terms the inconsistency of Mr Pitt’s present conduct with his former professions. As to the time of attempting a reform, he said, it had been proposed at all periods, in war and in peace; but they had all been represented as improper. The present was not a more dangerous period than the year 1782, when Mr Pitt himself had brought forward a similar proposal. These dangers he ascribed to the councils, generally unwise, and often wicked, by which the country had recently been governed. Mr Grey’s motion was rejected upon a division by a majority of two hundred and eighty-two against forty-one.

During the present session several popular measures were adopted. On the recommendation of Sir John Sinclair, L.3000 per annum was voted by the House of Commons for the establishment of a board of agriculture; an institution which has been the means of collecting and conveying to the public much useful information respecting the most valuable of all arts. On a motion by the lord advocate of Scotland, Mr Robert Dundas, a bill was brought into parliament in the month of April for the relief of the Roman Catholics of Scotland. The persons of that proscribed sect were still incapacitated by law from holding or transmitting landed property, and were' liable to other severe restrictions; but these were removed by a bill which now passed without opposition. The passing of this bill was a popular measure, although a dozen years had scarcely elapsed since the people of Scotland had almost universally, and with the utmost violence, combined to oppose any relaxation of the penal laws affecting the Catholics. By the assistance of Mr Dundas, the inhabitants of the north of Scotland also obtained a repeal of the duty on coals carried coastwise, as far as respected that part of Great Britain; but the cities of London and Westminster were less fortunate in an attempt to procure a repeal of the taxes paid by them on the same article.

At this period the exclusive charter of the East India Company being within a year of its expiration, that body presented a petition for a renewal of it; and on the 23d of April the subject was considered in the House of Commons. Mr Dundas observed that the proposal which he was about to make of a renewal of the charter was undoubtedly attended with difficulties. No writer upon political economy had as yet supposed that an extensive empire could be administered by a commercial association; and no writer on commerce had thought that trade ought to be shackled with exclusive privileges. In deviating from these principles, which had been admitted and admired, he was sensible that his opinions had popular prejudices against them; but he was supported by successful experience; and when the house adverted to the peculiarities of the subject before them, they would at once see that he was not attempting to overturn theories, though he was unwilling to recede from old and established practice. It would be idle, and a proof of ignorance, to maintain that all the advantages which Great Britain possessed from its connection with India arose out of the present exclusive privilege of the Company; but it would be impossible to say what might be the political or commercial effects of a deviation from the present system. He then stated, that the shipping employed by the East India Company amounted to eighty-one thousand tons; that the seamen navigating those ships were about seven thousand men, who had constant employment; that the raw materials imported from India for the use of home manufactures amounted annually to about L.700,000; that the annual exports of British produce and manufacture to India and China in the Company’s ships amounted to upwards of a million and a half sterling; and that great difficulties would attend any alteration of the present system of government in India, especially from the effects which the innovation might produce on the minds of the natives. He therefore proposed a variety of resolutions, the most material of which was, that it appeared fit and proper to continue to the East India Company their exclusive trade, within the limits now enjoyed by them, for a further term of twentyyears, to be computed from the 1st of March 1794, but liable to be discontinued at the end of such a period, if three years’ notice should previously be given by parliament. The resolutions proposed by Mr Dundas having been carried, a bill for renewing the East India Company’s charter was brought in, and passed through both houses with little opposition. The trial of Mr Hastings still proceeded, though very slowly. It was now totally disregarded by the public.

During this year government sought to strengthen itself by erecting barracks in the vicinity of the great towns, in order that, by residing apart from the citizens, the soldiers might be removed beyond the contagion of popular opinions. But a considerable degree of political fermentation still prevailed in the minds of the people. In England, [7:5:471]a bookseller was prosecuted, and punished with imprisonment, for selling the second part of Paine’s Rights of Man; and one or two individuals of humble rank were committed for seditious publications. In Scotland the public attention was much excited by the prosecution of two gentlemen, Mr Thomas Muir of Hunter’s Hill, a member of the faculty of advocates; and Mr Fysche Palmer, a member of the university of Cambridge, who officiated as unitarian minister at Dundee. Mr ĴŃIuir had been extremely active during the autumn of the preceding year, when the political agitation was at its height, in promoting associations in Glasgow and its neighbourhood, for the purpose of procuring a reform of the representation in the House of Commons. In point of talents he was not above mediocrity, but he possessed the faculty of unpremeditated elocution in a surprising degree, and appeared to be actuated by the vanity of haranguing without end, which the daily meetings of these societies afforded him an opportunity of gratifying. In other respects he was not formidable, possessing little knowledge of the world, and still less discernment of the human character. He injured the cause which he meant to promote, by collecting assemblages of people, first at Glasgow, and afterwards at Edinburgh, and thus creating an appearance of disorder and turbulence, which alarmed the government, and intimidated persons who were otherwise disposed to favour the political sentiments which he professed. Mr Palmer was a man of eminent literary talents, and attended.political societies, but without making any remarkable efforts to distinguish himself in these assemblages. I4e was tried before the circuit court of justiciary at Perth, on the !7th of September, some months after Mr Muir’s conviction at Edinburgh, and found guilty of publishing a political libel, which had been written by some other person, but which he had corrected and ordered to be printed. Both of these gentlemen were sentenced to transportation, Mr Muir for fourteen, and Mr Palmer for seven years; and they were accordingly shipped off, among common felons, for Botany Bay. The disproportionate severity of these sentences excited general sympathy, and produced considerable discussion. The crime of which they were convicted was that of sedition or leasing-making, which by the law of Scotland is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or banishment; but as it is a rule in law, that penal statutes are to be strictly interpreted, it was doubted how far the punishment of transportation could be inflicted under a statute which points out, in general terms, banishment as the punishment of the offence. Not intimidated by these trials, a few persons of no public or political importance whatever met at Edinburgh in the month of November, and thought fit to call themselves a British Convention. They mimicked the proceedings of the French national convention as closely as possible, saluting each other with the title of citizen, holding public sittings, admitting strangers to the honours of the sittings, and mingling the solemn with the ludicrous in a singular style. At any other period their conduct would have excited nothing but ridicule; at this time it was considered in another light, for some of the members were brought to trial, and punished with the same severity which had been exercised towards Messrs Muir and Palmer.

To promote the success of the war, a convention had been concluded in the spring between our court and that of Petersburg, stipulating for the prosecution of hostilities till the French relinquished all their conquests. A treaty was soon afterwards entered into with the landgrave of Hesse Cassel, for a subsidiary body of eight thousand men, which, by a subsequent agreement, was extended to twelve thousand; and the king of Sardinia engaged, for L.200,000 per annum, to keep up an army of fifty thousand men, to be employed in the particular defence of his dominions, and in general service against the enemy. Compacts of alliance were also adjusted with Spain, Naples, Prussia, Austria, and Portugal; and besides the stipulation of vigorous hostility, it was agreed that the conduct of other powers should be watched with extraordinary circumspection, lest they should abuse their professed neutrality by protecting the commerce or property of the French.

The detail of the military transactions of this eventful contest will be given under another head. But we may observe here, that during the present campaign the independence of France seemed at one time to be in considerable hazard. The faction which had overturned the monarchy, assembled a convention of national representatives, and endeavoured to establish a republican form of government, soon divided itself into two parties, those of the Gironde and the Mountain. The leading party, when the republic was first proclaimed, consisted chiefly of men of letters, who were led by speculative considerations to expect a wonderful amelioration of the human character, and of the state of society, from the changes they were producing. They wished to avoid sanguinary measures at home, and to restore tranquillity to their country as speedily as possible; but being equally deficient in energy and in knowledge of the character of their countrymen, they were successfully opposed by a turbulent and feroeious minority, led by Robespierre, Danton, and other men of the most unprincipled and sanguinary temper. The moderate and ruling party were also deceived by many of those whom they had employed; and at last their favourite commandcr, Dumouricz, having been repulsed in the Netherlands by the united forces of Austria, Prussia, and England, entered into a negociation with these powers for the restoration of monarchy in France. But the treacherous project was rendered abortive by the fidelity of his army, which almost to a man deserted their general, and refused to bring the independence of their country into hazard by allowing foreign armies to interfere in the arrangement of its internal government. The defection of Dumouriez, together with the repulse of their armies, brought the moderate party, which still ruled in the French convention, into great difficulties; and it is an unfortunate circumstance that the British government did not then seize the opportunity of making peace with them. The hazard of innovation was now past. One of the maxims of the first French republicans was the love of peace and hatred of war; and the unsuccessful issue of the attempt made to penetrate into other countries must have added force to this sentiment. The tranquillity of Europe might thus have been insured; a mild party would have been preserved in power; Great Britain might have obtained an influence over their councils; and the sanguinary scenes which afterwards occurred in the interior of France, and upon the frontiers, might have been prevented. But this opportunity was unhappily disregarded; and from the distraction within, and the immense combination of force assailing France from without, the complete subjugation of that country was confidently anticipated. Meanwhile the failure of the military operations of the Girondists encouraged the wild party to attempt the overthrow of the more moderate French republicans, by exciting an insurrection of the populace in Paris - ,an attempt which unhappily proved but too successful. The national representatives were subdued, ninety members of the convention were imprisoned, and the minority were enabled to convert themselves into an apparent majority. By this event all France was thrown into eontusion. The authority of the convention, thus impaired, was utterly rejected by the south of France; and the town and harbour of Toulon, with its fleet and stores, were surrendered by negociation to the British admiral, Lord Hood, as trustee for the next heir of the monarchy. In the western parts of [7:5:472]France the standard of royalty was reared, and joined by immense multitudes, who adhered to it with the most obstinate bravery, and were not subdued till after a greater expenditure of blood than was found necessary for the repulse of the combined armies of Europe.

On the part of Britain the general plan of the war does not seem to have been well contrived or properly carried into effect. A great part of the western coast of France was in full possession of the royalists, whilst the British navy at the same time commanded the ocean. It would therefore have been comparatively an easy enterprise to land an army on the French coast for the assistance of the royalists, and to advance through an open country, destitute of fortified towns, to the capital, and against a convention whose authority was scarcely acknowledged by a third part of the nation. Instead of this, the combined armies were directed against the French Netherlands, where they wasted the summer, as well as their own strength, in the siege of a few of the fortresses which defend that frontier; and thus the attack upon France was made upon its strongest side, at a distance from the centre of its power, and where the means of protracted resistance were the greatest; whilst leisure was afforded to the convention to establish its authority, to call out immense levies for the defence of the country, and before the close of the year to turn the tide of success in its favour. Toulon was retaken under the masterly direction of Bonaparte, who then first appeared on the revolutionary stage; and the Spaniards were beaten in the south; whilst, on the northern frontier, the British army was repulsed before Dunkirk, and the commander in chief of the allies, the prince of Cobourg, before Maubeuge. The Duke of Brunswick and General Wurmser were also driven across the Upper Rhine near Mentz, in the last two weeks of the year, after a succession of sanguinary conflicts, in which the French, by daily bringing forward fresh troops, at last succeeded with their raw levies in wearing down the strength and the courage of their veteran enemies.

The British parliament assembled on the first of January 1794. In the speech from the throne his majesty called the attention of the two houses to the issue of the war, “on which depended the support of our constitution, laws, and religion, and the security of all civil society ;” to the advantages which had attended our arms both by sea and land; and to the expectation of ultimate success, founded on the circumstance that the efforts of the enemy, proceeding on an arbitrary system, which enabled them unjustly to dispose of the lives and properties of the people, must eventually introduce internal discontent and confusion. His majesty further stated the impossibility of making peace consistently with the permanent safety of the country, and the tranquillity of other nations; he noticed the treaties and conventions into which he had entered with foreign powers; and he mentioned the general loyalty which prevailed amongst all ranks, notwithstanding continued efforts to mislead and seduce the people.

As usual, the topics introduced into the king’s speech became the subject of debate, both in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons; but they excited little attention throughout the nation. Men of property were generally so much alarmed by the events which had occurred in France, that they reposed implicit confidence in the government; and as administration seemed resolved not to despair of success, they derived great support from the approbation of the public. A minority, indeed, existed throughout the country, by whom the war was openly disapproved of; but as they consisted in general of persons of little influence, they were unable seriously to embarrass the measures of administration. When the king’s speech was taken into consideration, Lord Wycombe moved an amendment to the address, recommending pacific measures. But Lord Mornington, on the other hand, contended that the alternative of war or peace did not at present exist. Before we could relinquish the principles on which the war had commenced, proof was necessary either that the opinions which we had conceived of the views of France were erroneous, that the war had become desperate and impracticable, or that, from some improvement in the system and principles of the French, the necessity which had prompted us to commence the war no longer existed. Nothing of this sort had occurred. France entertained unlimited views of aggrandizement and ambition, connected with principles subversive of all regular government. Mr Sheridan entirely dissented from these views, and affirmed that Britain had acted with as little regard to the independence of neutral states as the French; that she had endeavoured to compel Genoa, Switzerland, and Tuscany, to join the confederacy against France, by the most insulting menaces; and that, as far as prudence would permit, she had assumed the same language towards Sweden and Denmark. If the French system of fraternization with other nations who wished to overturn their own internal government formed a just cause of war, their dereliction of that system ought to be a reason for making peace. He denied that the French were the original aggressors. I am astonished, said he, that the minister who sits near the Noble Lord does not himself feel it necessary to his own dignity to oppose this paltry argument of the act of aggression having come from them, instead of leav∙ ing that task to us, to whom comparatively the fact is ⅛ different. When he hears this called a war of necessity and defence, I wonder he does not feel ashamed of the meanness which it spreads over the whole of his cause, and the contradiction which it throws among the greater part of his arguments. Will he meet the matter fairly? Will he answer this one question distinctly? If France had abstained from any act of aggression against Great Britain and her ally Holland, should we have remained inactive spectators of the last campaign, idle, apart, and listening to the fray, and left the contest to Austria and Prussia, and whatever allies they could themselves have obtained? Does he then mean to say that he would have sat still; that Great Britain would have sat still with arms folded, and, reclining with luxurious ease on her commercial couch, have remained an unconcerned spectator of this mighty^ conflict, and have left the cause of civil order, government, morality, and religion, and its God, to take care of itself, or to owe its preservation to the mercenary exertions of German and Hungarian barbarians; provided only that France had not implicated Great Britain by a special offence, and forced us into this cause of divine and universal interest by the petty motive of a personal provocation? Mr Sheridan admitted that enormities had been committed in France, which disgusted and sickened the soul. This was most true; but what relation had these to England? And if they had, what did it prove? What, but the eternal and unalterable truth, that a long-established despotism had so far degraded and debased human nature, as to render its subjects, on the first recovery of their rights, unfit for the exercise of them? That we and all the powers of Europe had reason to dread the madness of the French, he agreed; but was this difficulty not to be accounted for? Wild and unsettled as they must necessarily be from the possession of such power, the surrounding states had goaded them into a paroxysm of madness, fury, and desperation. We called them monsters, and hunted them as monsters. The conspiracy of Pilnitz, and the brutal threats of the abettors of that plot, had to answer for all the additional horrors that had since disgraced humanity. We had covenanted for their extermination, and now complained that they turned upon [7:5:473] us with the fury which we had inspired. No reasonable hope of success existed upon which we ought to proceed. What was the state of our allies when we entered into the confederacy? The force of Austria unbroken, though compelled to abandon Brabant, and the power of the veteran troops of Prussia absolutely untried, though the seasons and disease had induced them to retire from Champagne. What was their state now? Defeat had thinned their ranks, and disgrace had broken their spirit. They had been driven across the Rhine by French recruits, like sheep before a lion’s whelp, and that not after the mishap of a single great action lost, but after a succession of bloody contests of unprecedented fury and obstinacy. Where now was the scientific confidence with which we were taught to regard the efforts of discipline and experience, when opposed to an untrained multitude and unpractised generals? The jargon of professional pedantry was mute, and the plain sense of man was left to its own course. Mr Windham combated the opinion, that the enormities committed in France were the effects of the war. Mr Dundas defended the management of the war, and the activity which had been employed by government in conducting it. Our seamen in the beginning of the year were only fifteen thousand; in the course of the war fifty-four thousand men had been added. At the commencement of the war we had only thirteen ships of the line and thirty frigates fit for service; at the present time we had eighty ships of the line and a hundred frigates in actual employment, which, with the armed vessels now in the service of the public, made the whole above three hundred sail. In augmenting the army, the most effectual and economical system had been pursued; besides the militia, thirty thousand men had been added to the army. Mr Fox repeated that we were the aggressors in the war; contended that every state had a full right to regulate its internal government; and asserted, that the manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick had occasioned all the excesses of the French. He denied that the prodigal manner in which the French government conducted their affairs, and the confusion and ruin into which their finances were hastening, afforded any prospect of success to the allied powers. He remembered, that during the American war there was much talk of a vagrant congress, which was nowhere to be found, of their miserable resources, and their wretched paper money at three hundred per cent, discount, of which, with any few halfpence you had in your pocket, you might purchase to the amount of a hundred dollars. The Americans were represented as exercising on each other the most intolerable tyranny, on the royalists the most unheard-of cruelty; and it was then said, that if such principles were suffered to exist, if the cause of America were ultimately successful, there was an end of all civilised government, and England must be trodden in the dust. Yet then, said this statesman, I recommended negociation, and lived to see Great Britain treat with that very congress so often vilified and abused, and the monarchy remain in sufficient vigour. Mr Pitt recapitulated the arguments formerly employed to prove that the aggression had certainly taken place on the part of France. The system adopted by the French, their usurpation of foreign territory, their hostile intentions against Holland, and their unprecedented views of aggrandisement and ambition, were subversive of all regular government; and unless it could be proved that we had mistaken these principles, we were bound to continue the war, even supposing that difficulty and disappointment had occurred in the prosecution of it. He conceived there was not the least probability of the continuance of the present government of France. The efforts of the people had been merely the result of terror, and were supported by desperate resources, which could not possibly continue.

He admitted that a safe and advantageous peace ought to be concluded, as soon as it could possibly be obtained; but ' the security and benefits of peace with France must depend upon the establishment of a government essentially different from the present. After a lengthened discussion, the address was carried by an overwhelming majority. In the House of Lords a similar debate took place, and similar arguments and views were respectively urged by the adverse parties; but ultimately the address was carried by a majority as decisive as that in the Commons.

It is one of the characteristics of the British nation, to be at all times easily thrown into a state of anxiety and alarm, by any object which government for the time thinks fit to represent as dangerous. The two greatest objects of political terror to Englishmen have at all times been the fear of a foreign invasion, and the dread of secret conspiracies by a disaffected party. During many ages Britain has not been successfully invaded; and, since the time of the Spanish Armada, no such attempt has been made by any of those governments with which Britain has engaged in hostility; but this circumstance, which leads reflecting persons to regard such a project as extremely unlikely to occur, seems to produce a contrary effect upon the people at large. The evils attending invasion having never been felt, lay hold of their imaginations, in the wildest and most exaggerated forms; and from the terror thus produced, they are prevented from reflecting upon the difficulties attending the project, which deterred Louis XIV. from attempting it while in the height of his power, and with the advantage of a disputed succession to the crown. Yet such is the credulity of the British nation upon this head, that administration can at any time throw them into a state of the utmost consternation, by expressing an apprehension of a French invasion; and from this apprehension ministers usually derive very considerable advantages. The voice of faction is for a time silenced by patriotic terror, and all parties hasten to arrange themselves under the banners of government for the defence of their country. The dread of plots and conspiracies produces effects somewhat similar. It is true that no conspiracy of Englishmen was ever productive of danger to the government whilst it remained even tolerably popular; but this never prevents the nation from being thrown into consternation, by intimations, on the part of government, that some desperate conspiracy is secretly carrying on, and ready to burst forth, to the utter destruction of the public tranquillity.

During the war of which we are now treating, Mr Pitt’s administration derived incredible strength from these two sources of terror; the fear of invasion, and the dread of conspiracies by disaffected persons. Nor did he want skill to profit by them. At the commencement of the war it had been believed by most persons, and perhaps by government, that it would be of short duration, the state of anarchy which succeeded the overthrow of the monarchy in France seeming to render that country an easy prey to the powerful armies by which it was invaded; and when any doubt of success was expressed, it was answered, that after making trial of the war for a year, we might desist in case we were unsuccessful. But although the original state of affairs had been considerably altered by the successes of the French, yet the British government still resolved to persist in the war, which, however, was now daily becoming less popular. On the other hand, the French leaders were greatly irritated by the persevering hostility of the British ministry, and in the pride of victory menaced England with invasion. It is evident that they had still too , much business upon their hands on the Continent to be able to make the slightest attempt to carry their threats into execution; but the British administration, taking advantage [7:5:474]of the threat, expressed their fears that it misht be successful; and proposed the arming of associations of volunteers, both cavalry and infantry, throughout the island, for the defence of the nation against foreign invasion, and the efforts of disaffected persons at home. They also encouraged the raising of subscriptions to defray the expense of these armed associations; and although the measure was disapproved by the minority in parliament, as an unconstitutional mode of raising money, it was supported by the majority. An act was passed authorizing the embodying and training of volunteers, and the measure was carried to a considerable extent throughout the country. In like manner, though the political ferment occasioned by the French revolution had now considerably subsided, administration, aware of the strength derived from keeping the country in a state of anxiety upon political subjects, announced to parliament, by a royal message, that seditious practices had been carried on. by certain societies in London, with a view to overturn the constitution, and introduce the system of anarchy which prevailed in France; and that their papers had been seized, and were submitted to the consideration of the house. On the same day Thomas Hardie, a shoemaker in Piccadilly, who had acted as secretary to the London Corresponding Society, and Daniel Adams, the secretary to the Society for Constitutional Information, were apprehended for treasonable practices, upon a warrant from Mr Dundas. Mr Horne Tooke, well known for his ingenious philological writings, as well as for the political part he had formerly acted in the turbulent days of Wilkes, the Reverend Mr Jeremiah Joyce, Mr Holcroft a dramatic writer, Mr Kyd a barrister, and Mr John Thelwall, who had for some time entertained the town in the character of political lecturer, were also in a few days arrested and committed to the Tower on a charge of high treason.

For the sake of giving solemnity to the inquiries made into this conspiracy, a secret committee of the House of Commons was chosen by ballot, the members of which were the friends of the minister. The report of the committee concerning the alleged conspiracy amounted to little more than a recital of a number of advertisements from societies, or accounts of their debates, which had previously been inserted in the public newspapers; but it served as a pretext for suspending the Habeas Corpus act, and thereby enabling ministers to prevent any political movement, or avowed disapprobation of their measures, from being rashly exhibited out of parliament. In the meanwhile the dread of invasion, added to the political alarm which had previously diffused itself throughout the country, and which was thus artfully maintained, conferred upon ministers a degree of strength which, for a century and more, no British administration had possessed. Almost all men of property were their adherents; whilst their antagonists sunk into utter discredit, and suffered a species of persecution in every department of society; so that it became dangerous to a man’s prospects in the world, and in ordinary business, to express the slightest doubt of the propriety of any measure approved by government.

In the early part of his administration, Mr Pitt had endeavoured to rest his reputation, in a considerable degree, upon the improvement of the finances, and the hope which he held out of paying off the national debt. He now deserted all such views; and taking advantage of the uncontrolled power he possessed at home, and the pliability of parliament, he engaged in a career of unexampled expenditure, in corrupting successive parties in France, or in the management of the war.

From its first rise to eminence as a European power, Prussia considered France as its protector against the ambition of Austria. During the present year, notwithstanding the resistance of a party in Poland, headed by the brave Kosciusko, that country was partitioned, and Prussia obtained an ample share of its territory. But the partition of France was an object from which Prussia had every thing to fear, as it would destroy the only power by which Austria, the inveterate enemy of Prussia, had at all times been kept in awe. When the Prussian monarch found it necessary, in conjunction with his allies, to invade France in 1792, he retired upon the first appearance of a tolerably firm opposition, and gave the republic a respite of another winter, during which to arrange its strength, and call into action its resources. In the year 1793 the Prussians remained extremely inactive till towards the close of the campaign, when at last, in consequence of repeated remonstrances from their allies, they advanced against Alsace; but being there repulsed, and the republic beginning to exhibit on all sides a firm military front, the king of Prussia declared that the expenses of the war were more than his finances could sustain, and required the other German states to supply him with money, threatening in case of refusal to abandon the common cause; and on their declining to comply with his demands, he actually began to withdraw his troops. But by this time the British ministry had engaged in the war with a degree of eagerness which induced them to make every sacrifice to obtain success; and therefore, to avoid losing the assistance of Prussia, they offered a subsidy, which was finally adjusted, upon the condition that his Prussian majesty was to furnish sixty-two thousand troops, or thirty thousand beyond his contingent; for which his Britannic majesty was to pay him L.50,000 a month, L.100,000 a month for forage, L.400,000 to put the army in motion, and L.100,000 on their return, or in all, for the remaining nine months of the year, L.1,350,000. At this rate the expense of the whole year would amount to L.1,800,000, of which the states general were to pay L.400,000; and the forces thus subsidized were to be commanded by an officer to be named by the king of Prussia. By this treaty the king of Prussia was enabled to keep his army upon the war establishment with little additional expense to himself, and with the power of claiming a share of whatever conquests were made from France; whilst, by retaining the appointment of the general of the subsidized army, he preserved a complete command over it, and might prevent his troops from being worn out by active service, or restrain them from doing greater injury to the French republic than he should judge prudent or expedient in the circumstances.

All Europe looked forward with great anxiety to the approaching campaign as decisive of the contest; in which its whole powers, excepting Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, were actively engaged. At sea, where her strength could be most effectually exerted, Great Britain was eminently successful. An expedition under Sir Charles Grey and Sir John Jervis was sent to the West Indies, where Martinique, St Lucie, and other islands, were taken. In the Mediterranean the French were driven from the island of Corsica, and the inhabitants acknowledged the king of Great Britain as their sovereign. But the most signal victory was that gained by Lord Howe over the French fleet on the first of June near Brest. During the first years of the revolution France had suffered much distress from a scarcity of grain; and such was the inveteracy with which the present war was conducted, that the British government had formed a plan of subduing that nation by famine, by preventing their obtaining supplies of provisions from any foreign country. In their distress the French rulers had applied for assistance to the United States of America, which still owed a considerable debt to France, contracted during the war by which their own revolution[7:5:475] had been accomplished; and they now offered to accept payment of this debt in corn, a commodity abounding in America. The Americans, accordingly, delivered the grain in their own ports, and a hundred and sixty sail of vessels laden with grain set out for France. As soon as this became known, Lord Howe was dispatched, in order, if possible, to intercept this valuable convoy; while the French admiral, Villaret-Joyeuse, sailed from Brest to hazard an engagement with the British fleet, for the sake of preserving the convoy. The force of the hostile fleets was nearly equal, the British having twenty-six, and the French twenty-five sail of the line; but the French line was broken, and, after an obstinate engagement, six of their ships were taken, and two sunk. Before the battle, however, the French admiral had detached a considerable force for the protection of the convoy, which was thus enabled with safety to reach its destined port. This victory produced very great exultation in Britain; and the fear of invasion which had been previously excited was abated by so decided a proof of naval superiority.

On the part of the French, however, these colonial and naval losses were greatly overbalanced by the general result of the campaign. The allies still concentrated their principal force against the Netherlands, and with that view, at the commencement of the campaign besieged and took Landrecies; but the fortune of the war was speedily changed. General Pichegru advanced into maritime Flanders, and in a variety of engagements defeated Count Clairfayt, an Austrian general of great activity, who ruined his army by incessant and sanguinary efforts to drive back a superior enemy. An attempt made by the grand army to cut off the retreat of Pichegru proved unsuccessful; and the latter having in turn manoeuvred to intercept the communication of the imperialists with their magazines at Ghent, was in like manner repulsed; but the obstinate conflict which he maintained, and the steady fire of his troops, during a succession of conflicts, which lasted from daybreak till sunset, convinced the allied armies that the invasion of France had become a hopeless project. At last the French advanced, under General Jourdan, from the eastward, and at Fleurus gained a victory which cost the Austrians nearly fifteen thousand of their best troops. Mutual disgust, as well as discouragement, now prevailed among the allies. The Austrians retreated, leaving the Duke of York at the head of the British and Hanoverian forces in considerable peril; but, with the assistance of the Earl of Moira, his royal highness made good his retreat. This nobleman, who had distinguished himself in the American war, was opposed to the present war, which he had reprobated in his place in parliament. But having nevertheless been sent by administration with a feeble armament to assist the royalists on the western coast of France, and finding himself too weak to effect any thing of importance in that quarter, he had brought back his troops; and was afterwards sent with them to defend Ostend, where, learning the difficult nature of the Duke of York’s situation, and perceiving that Ostend could not long be protected after the rest of Flanders had been deserted, he marched across the country, and in the face of much danger, and under great hardships, effected a junction with the principal British army, to which this reinforcement afforded seasonable aid.

The French were no less successful on the Upper Rhine, and on the frontiers of Italy and of Spain. At the end of the campaign, an intense frost having set in, they reinforced their armies, and Pichegru invaded Holland. After a variety of engagements the British and Hanoverians, together with some Austrian auxiliaries, whom Britain had subsidized, were repulsed, and found it necessary to abandon Holland to its fate. Many Dutch families sought refuge in Britain. When Utrecht had submitted to the enemy, the stadtholder, knowing that Amsterdam would 1 not be defended, left his country, and escaped in a fishing-boat to England, where he and his family became immediate objects of royal liberality, and were treated with the respect due to their rank and misfortunes. The Dutch, who had viewed the English with a very unfriendly eye since the revolution of 1787, appeared to be highly pleased with this change in their affairs. They had treated our soldiers with great illiberality, and refused to alleviate by kindness or compassion the sufferings of the wounded, or the distress of the fugitives, who at length effected their retreat to Bremen, after a long and severe trial of their patience and fortitude. The United Provinces were now revolutionized on the French model. Liberty, equality, and the rights of man, were proclaimed; representatives of the people were chosen; and the regenerated state was named the Batavian Republic. But the pretended friends of the Hollanders, in rescuing them from what they termed a disgraceful yoke, did not suffer them to enjoy real freedom or independence.

The result of these successes was, that the king of Prussia perceiving France restored to more than her ancient energy, and capable of humbling his enemy and her ancient rival, the house of Austria, deserted the coalition, refused to accept of any further subsidy from Britain, and took under his protection, as neutral states, the whole princes of the north-west of Germany; thus becoming the ostensible head and guardian of a large division of the empire, which was enabled to recover its tranquillity, and to become a calm spectator of the prolonged contest, which the rest of the empire under Austria continued to carry on against France. Spain was also under the necessity of imitating the example of Prussia, though upon less favourable terms, being constrained to relinquish, as the price of peace, her half of the island of St Domingo; and the Duke of Tuscany also deserted a contest in which he had reluctantly engaged.

In the meanwhile administration pursued their system of alarming the friends of internal tranquillity, by the dread of conspiracies and attempts against the constitution. The persons who in the month of May had been imprisoned on a charge of high treason were brought to trial in the end of October. The first was Thomas Hardie. His indictment stated nine overt acts of high treason; first, forming an intention of exciting rebellion and insurrection, and conspiring to subvert the government and depose the king; secondly, writing various books, pamphlets, letters, and addresses, recommending delegates to a convention; thirdly, consulting as to the means of forming such a convention; fourthly, agreeing to form themselves into a society for the purposes aforesaid; fifthly, causing arms to be made in order to subvert the government and depose the king; sixthly, conspiring to levy war within the realm; seventhly, conspiring to aid the king’s enemies; eighthly, composing and publishing certain books, pamphlets, letters, exliortations, and addresses, for the purposes aforesaid; and, lastly, procuring arms for the purpose of levying war against the king, and exciting rebellion and insurrection. The written evidence consisted chiefly of advertisements and addresses, published in the newspapers, many of which were expressed in a very intemperate style; and of the proceedings of the societies, which were all public. With regard to the alleged charge about arming the people, it appears to rest upon no solid foundation; and the accusation and defence, therefore, turned chiefly upon the question of treasonable intention upon the part of the accused and his associates. Hardie was ably defended by the Honourable Thomas Erskine and Mr Vicary Gibbs, and the prosecution was conducted [7:5:476] by the attorney and solicitor general; but after the proceedings had been protracted to the eighth day, the jury, after some deliberation, brought in a verdict of not guilty. The next trial was that of Mr Horne Tooke, who endeavoured to prove that he had merely followed the example of Mr Pitt, in recommending a plan of parliamentary reform. The minister was examined on the occasion, chiefly regarding the proceedings of the popular party, before the close of the American war, with a view to establish this point; but he evaded most of the questions by alleging a want of recollection. The acquittal of Mr Tooke was followed by that of Mr Thelwall; and a despair of convicting any one of the supposed traitors led to the abandonment of the other indictments.

As the war was becoming unpopular, the acquittal of these persons, which tended to discredit the alarms kept up by the friends of administration, was felt by them as an additional misfortune. Had the indictments been laid for sedition only, the prosecutions would probably have proved successful; but ministers were led to carry matters the length of an accusation of treason, by their success in a similar charge at Edinburgh in the preceding month of September, against two persons named Robert Watt and David Downie. Watt had been a spy, employed by government to attend political societies, and discover the designs of the leaders; but as he was a needy person, and had been unable to communicate intelligence of much importance, he had received little pay. To earn more money, he thought fit to contrive a plot, which he communicated to Downie and some others, for seizing the castle and the public offices at Edinburgh, with a view no doubt of afterwards holding out his associates to government as criminals. Neither he nor they had any means of carrying such a plan into effect. But Watt having procured some pikes, deposited them in a cellar in his own house, where they were accidentally discovered; the spy was apprehended; and the persons to whom he had communicated his plan having come forward as witnesses against him and Downie, they were both found guilty of high treason. Downie, who had done little more than appear to approve of Watt’s plan, was recommended to mercy, and afterwards pardoned; but Watt was executed.

, Another source of encouragement to proceed with measures of severity arose at this time out of a plot brought to light by some informers, and by way of ridicule termed the Pop-gun Plot. The persons implicated in this charge were, John Peter Le Maitre, a native of Jersey, and apprentice to a watch-case-maker in Denmark Street, St Giles; William Higgins, apprentice to a chemist in Fleetmarket; and a man of the name of Smith, who kept a book stall in the neighbourhood of Lincoln’s-inn. Their accuser was one Upton, an apprentice or journeyman to a watchmaker. Le Maitre, Higgins, and Smith, were apprehended on Saturday the 27th of September, by a warrant from the Duke of Portland, as secretary of state, and examined on Sunday the 28th, before the privy-council, the lords of which were summoned again to attend on Tuesday upon the same important business. The charge, supported by the testimony of Upton, bore in substance, that an instrument was to have been constructed by the informer Upton, in the form of a walking stick, in which was to have been inserted a brass tube of two feet long; that through this tube a poisoned dart or arrow was to have been blown by the breath of the conspirator Le Maitre at his majesty, either on the terrace at Windsor, or in the playhouse; and that the poison was to have been of so subtle a nature, that if the point but glanced upon the king, it would produce instantaneous death. Nothing short of the most consummate ignorance of the state of human science could, on any ordinary occasion, have procured a moment’s at tention to so ridiculous a story as this; but such is the well-known credulity of the English nation regarding political dangers, that administration and their friends appear to have regarded this plot as an affair of some importance.

Parliament assembled on the 30th of December. In the speech from the throne his majesty urged the necessity of persisting in the war, however unfortunate it had been; and noticed the rapid decay of the resources of the enemy. The Dutch had, he observed, from a sense of present difficulties, entered into a negociation for peace with the prevailing party in France; but no established government could derive security from such a negociation. The most effectual means had therefore been employed for the further augmentation of the forces, on whose valour, as well as on the public spirit of the people, he placed the utmost reliance. This speech also mentioned the accession of the sovereignty of Corsica to the British dominions; a treaty of amity and commerce with America; and the conclusion of a treaty of marriage between the Prince of Wales and the Princess Caroline of Brunswick.

When an address to his majesty in similar terms with the speech was moved in common form, very animated debates took place in both houses of parliament. The war was attacked and defended upon the usual grounds, with this additional circumstance, that the events of the late campaign gave considerable countenance to the assertions of opposition, that all hope of ultimate success was irrational. Administration, however, were no less powerful than formerly. On the last day of the preceding session they had received into official situations some of those supporters of the war who in former years had opposed their measures. Earl Fitzwilliam had been appointed president of the council; the Duke of Portland became one of the secretaries of state; Earl Spencer was declared keeper of the privy seal; and Mr Windham was appointed secretary at war. But notwithstanding these official changes, Mr Pitt, with the aid of his friend Mr Dundas, and bis relation Lord Grenville, was understood to retain the efficient power of the state. Mr Dundas still retained the management of the war with France; and, as a kind of third secretary of state, he performed a considerable part of the business which would otherwise have devolved upon the Duke of Portland; while at the same time he continued, as president of the board of control, to superintend the affairs of India, and to hold the office of treasurer of the navy. Earl Fitzwilliam was soon got quit of, being sent to Ireland as lord-lieutenant, under an agreement that he was to have full power to promote the repeal of the penal statutes against the Catholics, and to concede certain privileges which had been withheld in 1793. But ministers having altered their sentiments about some of these points, prohibited him from proceeding; and as he insisted upon the terms on which he had accepted his situation, he was recalled and dismissed from office. By joining ministers for a time, he was prevented from acting along with opposition in reprobating the war, and thus he was left insulated and separated from both parties.

Among the debates of the present session, one of the most remarkable was that which occurred upon the motion of Mr Grey in the House of Commons on the 26th of January 1795, that the existence of the actual government of France ought not to be considered as precluding a negociation for peace. After two years of war, which had drained this country of its blood and treasures, we did not appear to be one point nearer the object for which it was undertaken. From certain words of the minister on a former occasion, Mr Grey inferred that this was a war of extermination, a mortal strife, to be carried on till one of the parties should be destroyed. He wished, by the motion, to put the question to issue w hether this opinion was [7:5:477]countenanced by the House of Commons. The public at large, and even the enemy with whom we were contending, had a right to know the length to which the contest was to be carried, and the terms upon which peace was to be obtained. He endeavoured to show that there existed no prospect or chance of success in overturning by force of arms the republican government of France, and that a war persisted in with that view must necessarily be absurd; that the people of France were too firmly attached to their new arrangements to be likely to give them up, however they might change their leaders; that a dependence upon a decay of their finances was equally ill founded; and that, both in the American war and in this, the affairs of the British nation were unfortunately intrusted to persons unable to distinguish between the fallacy of imperfect calculations and the energy of a people struggling for independence. Our own resources were, he doubted not, equal to every thing to which they ought to be applied, but not equal to the conquest of France, or to a war of aggression. The exhausted state of the emperor’s finances was evinced by a memorial he had recently addressed to the circles of the Upper Rhine. Was it then from him, from the Italian states, the kings of Sardinia, Naples, and Spain, or from our disgraceful alliance with the empress of Russia, that we expected assistance? Or was it from our good German ally, who had taken L.1,200,000 of our money, who had not brought into the field the sixty-two thousand men for which he stipulated, who had denied our right to command any of the Prussian troops, and contended that they ought not to march against the French, but to remain to defend Germany? The strongest reason which a great nation could have for war, was the defence of its honour; and this, he contended, we had so fully vindicated, as to secure us from future insult. The decree of the convention in November 1792 now formed no bar to a negociation, as that declaration had been repealed, and followed by a contrary declaration. As additional reasons, Mr Grey noticed the capture of Holland, and the debates in the diet at Ratisbon, in which all parties agreed for overtures to the enemy, except the elector of Hanover and the landgrave of Hesse. Mr Pitt, in reply, asserted that the motion was utterly inconsistent with the sentiments formerly expressed by his majesty and by parliament, and therefore proposed an amendment, importing that it was the determination of the house to prosecute the war, as the only means of procuring a permanent and secure peace. Mr Pitt contended that no nation at war with another ought to treat for peace with a government which could not give security; that this last was the great object by which alone the war could be terminated; that nothing but a series of revolutions had been generated under the system and principles now prevalent in France; that the agriculture and commerce of France were in the most disastrous situation, and justice almost unknown; that the house would never willingly consent to treat with a nation of atheists; that in April 1793, the French had enacted the penalty of death against any person who should propose peace with any country which did not acknowledge the French republic one and indivisible; that the admission of these principles amounted to a confession of the usurpation and injustice of every other government; and that treating with France would involve an acknowledgment of those principles which condemned the usurpation of all other governments, and denied the very power which they were exercising. Mr Fox accused the minister of tergiversation, and contended, that he had in fact found it necessary to alter his conduct; and that the impolitic speech which he had put into the mouth of his majesty, at the opening of the session, had made a serious impression upon the public. What, he asked, would have been the feelings of Englishmen, if the convention had determined never to treat with them until there was a reform in the English government? He recalled to the recollection of Mr Pitt the declaration of his father, that they should die in the last breach before they granted the independence of America; yet the first act of the political life of the son had been to sign the very independence which his father had deprecated. Necessity had dictated that act; and he must now, on the same account, retract his declaration respecting France. The motion was opposed by Mr Dundas, on the ground that it would fetter the executive government in their ncgociations for peace; and ultimately the motion was negatived, and the amendment adopted.

On the following day the Duke of Bedford brought forward, in the House of Lords, a motion similar to that which Mr Grey had introduced into the House of Commons; and Lord Grenville moved an amendment precisely similar to that which had been proposed by Mr Pitt and carried in the House of Commons. A great deal of discussion followed; but ultimately a large majority voted in favour of the amendment. The victories of the French during the last campaign, and the despair of ultimate success in the war, which now began to be entertained throughout the country, encouraged opposition to renew the subject under a variety of forms, and to urge ministers to enter into a negociation; but on every occasion the motions made by them were negatived by a similar superiority of numbers.

The number of seamen and marines voted during the present session amounted to a hundred thousand, whilst a hundred and nineteen thousand three hundred and eighty men were voted to form the guards and garrisons. In order to procure the requisite number of seamen, the parliament required the merchants to give up a part of the crews of their shipping, in proportion to the tonnage, and ordered every parish to furnish one man for the service. A loan of L. 18,000,000 was found necessary, together with a large issue of exchequer bills, as the supplies voted amounted to no less than L.29,307,000. The new taxes were made payable on wine, spirits, tea, coffee, stamps on deeds, insurance on ships and cargoes, timber, and on persons wearing hair-powder.

During the present session the trial of Mr Hastings was at length brought to a conclusion. Tb.e subject was discussed in a committee of the House of Lords. The lord chancellor and the Earl of Carnarvon considered Mr Hastings as criminal; but he was ably defended by Lord Thurlow, who was supported by the Marquis of Lansdown, the Bishop of Rochester, and others. When every part of the accusation had been disallowed by the' committee, the report was reviewed by the house; and after some debates on the mode of proceeding, it was resolved that the question should be put separately on sixteen points. The greatest number of peers who voted the defendant guilty in any one respect did not exceed six, whilst the votes of not guilty on some of the charges were twenty-six, in others twenty-three, and in one nineteen. The lord chancellor then intimated the decision of the court to Mr Hastings, who received it in silence, and withdrew.

At this time the debts of the Prince of Wales amounted to L.630,000; but it had been arranged at court that these debts should be paid, and that the prince should marry his cousin, the daughter of the Duke of Brunswick; and after some discussion in the House of Commons, his establishment was fixed at L.125,000, out of which lie was required to pay L.65,000 a year until his debts were liquidated. The rents of the duchy of Cornwall, amounting to L.13,000, were also set apart for the extinction of the debts; and further sums were voted to defray the expenses of the marriage, as well as the repairs and decorations of Carlton House.
[7:5:478]

Parliament was prorogued on the 27th of June by a speech from the throne, in which ministers thought it prudent to hold out to the public some prospect of negociation.

The incidents of the war during the year 1795 were less memorable than those of the preceding years. Lord Bridport, with an inferior force, attacked a French fleet near Port l’Orient, and took three of their ships. Vice-admiral Hotham pursued to the Genoese coast a fleet which had sailed from Toulon to attempt the recovery of Corsica, and had captured one of his detached ships; and having brought the enemy to a partial engagement, he took two sail of the line; but he afterwards lost one of his own ships in consequence of damage sustained in the conflict. On the western coast of France, the enemy, with thirteen sail of the line and fourteen frigates, avoided coming to an engagement with Vice-admiral Cornwallis, who had only eight ships including frigates. These events occurred early in summer. But notwithstanding the vigilance of the British navy, the French captured, in the month of July, thirty sail of a valuable convoy returning from the Mediterranean, and also made prize of part of a Jamaica fleet; but, on the other hand, their own commerce had sunk so low as to present few objects of attack to our cruizers and privateers.

As the Dutch, though nominally the allies of the French, had, in fact, become subject to them, letters of marque were issued against them by Great Britain, and directions given to seize their colonial territories, under the professed intention, however, of restoring them when the stadtholder’s government should be re-established. The Cape of Good Hope was taken, together with Trincomalee and the other Asiatic settlements of the Dutch, excepting only Batavia. Their territories in the West Indies were not attacked during the present year, on account of the difficulties which the British experienced in that quarter in keeping in subjection the islands captured from the French, where various insurrections were incited by their ancient masters. Jamaica was also kept in a state of great alarm by a small tribe of independent negroes, called Maroons, who had long existed in the mountainous parts of the island. These people, having quarrelled with the white inhabitants, committed many cruel ravages, and were not subdued till Spanish hunters and blood-hounds were procured from the island of Cuba, and employed against them, which induced them at last to submit to deportation from the island.

The British ministry resolved, when it was too late, to give assistance to the royalists in the western parts of France; and an expedition, planned by Mr Windham, and guided by French emigrant officers, with troops, many of whom consisted of prisoners of war, relieved from confinement on condition of bearing arms against their native country, set sail for the French coast, and landed upon the extremity of the narrow peninsula of Quiberon. Here they fortified themselves; but many of the troops proving unfaithful, and the expedition being otherwise ill conducted, they were speedily overpowered by the republicans, who put to death such of their countrymen as they found in arms fighting against them. By this feeble and ill-timed invasion of the French territory, nearly ten thousand men were killed or taken prisoners.

The continental campaign on the side of Germany was of little importance during this year, but upon the whole it proved unfavourable to the French. The convention had shaken off the yoke of that sanguinary faction which, under Robespierre and his frantic associates, had deluged the interior of France with blood, but had nevertheless the merit of calling forth with astonishing energy the powers of the country for the support of its independence. The present leaders possessing less activity, and affecting a milder course of conduct, the military operations languished; and the French army remained inactive till autumn, 1 when it crossed the Rhine near Mentz under General Pichegru, but was speedily repulsed, and an armistice concluded for the winter. The convention, however, established a new form of government, consisting of an executive directory of five persons, elected by two representative bodies, to which the powers of legislation were intrusted; and it was expected, that if the war continued, the new executive power would endeavour to distinguish itself by some important operations.

The British parliament was again assembled at an early period, namely, on the 29th of October. The state of public affairs wore at this period an unfavourable aspect. The French armies had been inactive during the summer, but they had lost nothing; for the new republic retained possession of the territory extending from the Pyrenees to North Holland, and consequently of an immense length of coast opposite to Great Britain. Meanwhile, a dearth of provisions began to prevail at home. The winter, which had set in with extreme severity at the close of the year 1794, and had enabled the French to conquer Holland with little difficulty, was followed by an ungenial summer, during which the crop failed in consequence of almost incessant rains. This state of things was productive of discontent among the lower orders, and the war was blamed as tending to aggravate the distress which they thus suffered? Previous to the assembling of parliament some meetings were held by the London Corresponding Society, for the purpose of petitioning the king and parliament in favour of peace and of parliamentary reform; and as the meetings were held in the open fields, they were very numerously attended, but the persons composing them dispersed without disturbance. At the opening of parliament, however, some riots took place.

His majesty proceeded from the palace to open the session of parliament at the usual hour; and the crowd in St James’s Park, which is always considerable on these occasions, was certainly much greater than usual. A fine day, and a rumour which had been circulated that a riot was likely to take place, contributed greatly to increase the multitude of the spectators. As the royal carriage passed along the park, the predominant exclamations uttered were “Peace, peace! Give us bread: No Pitt; no famine; no war !” and a few voices were heard to exclaim, “Down with George,” or words to that effect. In the park and the streets adjacent to Westminster, stones and other missiles were thrown, some of which struck the state coach, and one of them, supposed to have been thrown from a house in Margaret Street, perforated a window of the carriage by a small circular aperture. From this circumstance it was alleged to have been a bullet discharged by an air-gun, or by some similar engine; but no bullet was found; and happily it neither touched the king nor the noblemen who attended him. As his majesty returned from the house through the park, the gates of the horseguards were shut to exclude the mob; yet even this precaution was not sufficient to prevent a renewal of the outrages, and another stone was thrown at the carriage as it passed opposite to Spring Garden Terrace. After the king had alighted at St James’s, the populace attacked the state-carriage, and, in its way through Pall-mall to the Mews, it was almost entirely demolished. The speech from the throne stated that the general situation of affairs, notwithstanding many events unfavourable to the common cause, was materially improved; that the French had been driven back in Italy, and checked on the side of Germany; that their successes, and the treaties of peace which they had entered into, were far from compensating the evils they had suffered from the continuance of war; [7:5:479]that the unparalleled embarrassment and distress of their internal situation had produced an impression that their only relief must result from peace and a settled government; that the crisis in which they now were must probably produce consequences important to the interests of Europe; and that if this crisis terminated in any thing affording a reasonable expectation of security in any treaty, the appearance of a disposition to treat for peace on just and suitable terms would be met, on the part of the British government, with an earnest desire to give it the speediest effect. In the speeches for and against the usual addresses little novelty occurred, the expediency of continuing the war having been so often discussed before.

Meanwhile administration took advantage of the attack upon his majesty’s person to issue a proclamation, connecting the meetings of the Corresponding Society with the insults offered to his majesty, and also to bring forward two new penal statutes. The first was introduced into the House of Lords by Lord Grenville, and entitled an act for the preservation of his majesty’s person and governmentagainst treasonable and seditious practices. One clause enacted capital punishment against every one who should express, utter, or declare, by the publication of writings, or by any overtact, such imaginations, devices, or intentions, as were calculated to injure the king, impair his authority or that of the parliament, or promote an invasion of his dominions; another provided, that all declarations tending to excite hatred or contempt of the king should be considered as high misdemeanours; and a third, that a second offence might be punished, either in the ordinary mode, or by banishment from the realm for a term not exceeding seven years. The other bill, introduced by Mr Pitt into the House of Commons, provided, that no meeting of any description of persons, exceeding the number of fifty, except such as might be called by sheriffs or other officers or magistrates, should be holden for political purposes, unless public notice had been previously given by seven housekeepers; that if such a body should assemble without notice, and twelve or more individuals should continue together, even quietly, for one hour after a legal order for their departure, they should be punished as felons, without benefit of clergy; and that the same rigour might be exercised, if any person, after due notice of the meeting, should use seditious language, or propose the irregular alteration of any thing by law established. With regard to the delivery of lectures or discourses, or the exercise of debate on topics connected with the laws and government of the country, a license was declared to be necessary. Very animated discussions took place upon these bills in both houses of parliament, and many petitions were presented against them; whilst, on the other hand, various corporations and public bodies petitioned for their enactment. But the result nevertheless was, that the bills were passed by great majorities.

Still, however, administration were sensible that it would become necessary, for the sake of preserving their popularity, to assume an appearance of willingness to put an end to the war; and accordingly, whilst the bills were under discussion, each house received a message from the king, in which, alluding to the new constitution, and the directorial government of France, he stated that such an order of things had arisen as would induce him to meet any desire of negociation on the part of the enemy with a full readiness to give it the speediest effect. An address of thanks having been moved, Mr Sheridan suggested an amendment, tending to promote immediate negociation, and to remove all obstacles to the attainment of peace; and Mr Fox also wished that the first advances should proceed from our court; but Mr Pitt and Mr Dundas thought it advisable to wait until the enemy manifested a disposition to negociate. Similar observations were made in the House of Peers. A species of advance towards negociation was nevertheless made soon afterwards on the part of Britain, though in a very oblique and indirect mode. Mr Wickham, his majesty’s minister to the Swiss cantons, transmitted, on the 8th of March 1796, a note to Μ. Barthélemi, the French ambassador at Berne, stating that he himself was not authorized to enter into any negociation, but requesting information in writing on the part of the French court about three points; first, whether France was disposed to send ministers to a congress to negociate a general peace with his Britannic majesty and his allies; secondly, whether the French government were willing to state the general grounds upon which they would consent to conclude a treaty; and, thirdly, whether the French government would think fit to propose any other mode of arriving at a general pacification. Μ. Barthélemi returned an answer on the 26th of the same month, stating that the executive directory doubted the sincerity of these overtures of peace, from the proposal of a general congress, which would lead to endless negociations, and from Mr Wickham not having received powers to negociate; asserting the willingness of France to make peace; but declaring that the executive directory had no power to relinquish any of the territories which the constitutional act had declared to form an integral part of the French republic. With regard to the other territories occupied by the French armies, these might become objects of negociation. But as the Netherlands and the island of St Domingo had been declared by the new French constitution to form part of the territory of the republic, the British government immediately published a note intimating that these pretensions on the part of France were totally inadmissible; and that while they were persisted in, nothing was left but to prosecute a war equally just and necessary. This first attempt towards negociation for peace gave rise to various debates in the British parliament, m all of which administration were supported by their usual majorities.

Supplies were voted during this session to the amount of L.37,588,000, and upwards of twenty-five millions and a half were borrowed. As no prospect existed that British armies could be employed on the Continent, the guards and garrisons were reduced to forty-nine thousand men; the forces in the colonies were increased to seventy-seven thousand; and the sailors and marines amounted to a hundred and ten thousand. Taxes were imposed on legacies to collateral relations, and on horses, and dogs, and hats; the assessed taxes were increased, and also the duties on wine, tobacco, salt, and sugar. Parliament was dissolved on the 20th of May, and new elections immediately took place.

An extremely active campaign was now opened by the French upon the Continent. Their generals, Moreau and Jourdan, penetrated into Germany; but they were ultimately repulsed by the Archduke Charles, though not till they had reached the vicinity of Ratisbon. The retreat of Moreau, amidst hostile armies, and through the difficulties and entanglements of the Black Forest, formed one of the principal events of the war, and has been much lauded by some military writers, though severely criticised by Napoleon. On the side of Italy the French obtained greater success. Their new general in that quarter, Bonaparte, turned the Alps by the Col di Tende, and gaining in rapid succession the victories at Montenotte, Millesimo, and Dego, compelled the king of Sardinia to desert the allies, and to purchase peace at the expense of a considerable portion of his territory. He next descended into the Milanese; obliged the Italian states to surrender their finest paintings, statues, and other curiosities, together with large sums of money, as the price of peace; and after a [7:5:480]multitude of sanguinary conflicts at Lodi, Arcole, Lonato, Castiglione, Rivoli, and other places, he succeeded in subduing, by famine, Mantua, the only fortress that remained to the Austrians in Italy. Few maritime events of much importance occurred. The Dutch were deprived of their whole intertropical possessions, with the exception of the unhealthy but rich settlement of Batavia, in the island of Java; and they also lost a squadron which they had sent out to attempt the re-capture of the Cape of Good Hope, but which was itself made prize of by the British admiral Sir George Elphinstone, afterwards Lord Keith. On the other hand, the British were under the necessity of abandoning Corsica, in consequence of the conquests of Bonaparte in Italy, and the mutinous spirit of his countrymen the Corsicans. The result of the campaign was, that the British ministry, in order to appease the nation, found it necessary to send Lord Malmesbury to Paris on the pretence of attempting to negociate a peace; but it was afterwards admitted by Mr Pitt that they had no wish to conclude a treaty, and that the measure was adopted merely in compliance with the wishes of the public. Accordingly, as the French still refused to relinquish their hold of the Netherlands, this was accounted a sufficient reason for persevering in the war.

In the early part of the session of parliament, which met on the 6th of October, there occurred few debates, on account of the intention to attempt an immediate negociation, which had been announced in the king’s speech, and afterwards from expectation of its issue. But at the close of the year the French directory, in consequence of an invitation from a disaffected party in Ireland, sent an expedition of seventeen ships of the line and many smaller vessels, having on board an army of eighteen thousand men under General Hoche, to invade that country. The violence of the weather prevented this armament from assembling at the rendezvous in Bantry Bay, and no landing was in consequence attempted; so that the fleet returned home with the loss of two ships of the line and two frigates, which perished in a tempest, and of one frigate taken by the English. Shortly afterwards the French disembarked on the coast of Pembrokeshire twelve hundred and fifty criminals, whom they had sent as soldiers upon the Irish expedition, and knew not how to dispose of after the failure of that attempt.

At this period the first instance of serious difficulty occurred in the management of the British funding system. The large sums of money sent abroad as subsidies to foreign princes by government had diminished the quantity of gold and silver in Great Britain, whilst administration, through the medium of the Bank of England’s paper, had issued immense sums for the public expenses, and in payment of the additional interest of the national debt. The alarm occasioned by the Irish invasion coming in addition to these circumstances, produced a run upon the bank to exchange its paper for specie; and as their coffers were soon drained, they found themselves under the necessity of giving a premium for bullion, which they paid with their paper. This made matters worse, as certain persons secretly melted down the guineas which the bank had caused to be coined and issued, and sold the gold to the bank as bullion for the sake of the premium. A ruinous traffic was thus carried on by the bank, which purchased bullion at a high rate, while they gave out their guineas at par. The directors, therefore, were under the necessity of laying their case before the privy council, which, after considering the circumstances of the case, issued an order authorizing the bank to discontinue the payment of their notes in cash. Considerable alarm was occasioned by this step; and committees of both houses of parliament were appointed to inquire into the state of the bank’s affairs. But although these were reported as prosperous, yet each committee recommended a continuance of the restriction; and an act was therefore passed for confirming it, while, to render it less inconvenient, bank notes for one and two pounds were put into circulation. As the bank of England is the medium through which the British government issues all payments, and as these payments were made in the bank’s paper, which administration might induce the directors to augment indefinitely, many persons feared and predicted that this paper would speedily sink in value when compared with gold and silver, as the French assignats and the American paper currency had done when rendered inconvertible at pleasure into specie. The stability of the British funding system, however, speedily displayed itself. The credit of the bank’s paper remained unshaken, because government received it in payment of all taxes; and although depreciation soon followed, and prices necessarily rose, yet, from confidence in our resources, and a conviction of the immutability of the national faith, this depreciation was confined within narrower limits than it would have reached in other countries not so favourably circumstanced, and the credit of the paper continued unaffected by an operation which would have utterly ruined it anywhere else.

During the preceding year the emperor had received a subsidy, under the name of a loan, from the British government, and a new subsidy was now given him under a similar denomination. To supply this and the rest of the national expenses, L.27,647,000 were voted early in the session, and afterwards above fifteen millions additional were thought necessary, and voted. Two loans were negociated by government; one of sixteen millions and a half, in the usual way, from money-brokers; and another of eighteen millions, called the Loyalty Loan, from the nobility and gentry being requested to fill it up, which they did. with great eagerness. The troops voted consisted of a hundred and twenty thousand seamen; sixty thousand seven hundred and sixty-five soldiers for European service, and above sixty-four thousand for the dependencies of Great Britain. As the threat of invasion was now revived, a large supplementary body of militia was levied, together with a considerable force consisting of cavalry. The interest of the two loans was provided for by taxes upon houses, stage-coaches, horses, auctions, stamps on agreements and newspapers, ornamental plate, spirits, tea, coffee, and other articles. Towards the close of the session the opposition brought forward motions to address the king to dismiss his ministers, resume the negociation with France, and repeal the two acts introduced in the preceding session, by Lord Grenville and Mr Pitt, for extending the treason laws, and imposing restrictions upon popular meetings for political purposes. They were encouraged by a variety of addresses which were presented to his majesty at this time from different parts of the country, advising him to dismiss the present ministry; but, as usual, their efforts proved unavailing.

The French had now acquired such an ascendency over the Spanish monarchy, as to induce the government of that country to declare war against Britain; and soon afterwards the Spanish fleet, amounting to twenty-seven sail of the line, attempted to join a French armament; but they were attacked by Sir John Jervis on the 14th of February, near Cape St Vincent, with only fifteen sail of the line; and four of their ships, of from seventy-four to a hundred and twelve guns, were made prizes by the British fleet. This victory may be regarded as the first of that mighty series of naval triumphs with which the name of Nelson is indissolubly associated. The British force consisted of two ships of a hundred guns, two of ninety-eight, two of ninety, eight of seventy-four, and one of [7:5:481] sixty-four, with four frigates, a sloop, and a cutter. The Spaniards had one four-decker of a hundred and thirty-six guns, six three-deckers of a hundred and twelve, two eighty-fours, and eighteen seventy-fours; with ten frigates and a brig. The disparity of force was therefore prodigious. The British were formed in two lines in the most compact order of sailing; and, by carrying a press of canvass, Sir John Jervis came up with the enemy’s fleet at half-past eleven on the 14th, before it had time to collect and form a regular order of battle. Not a moment was to be lost; so, departing from the regular system, the British passed through their fleet, in a line formed with the utmost celerity, tacked, and thereby cut off nine ships, or one third, from the main body. The vessels thus separated attempted to form on the larboard tack; but only one of them succeeded, under cover of the smoke, which prevented her intention being discovered till she had reached the rear; whilst the others were so warmly received that they put about, and did not again appear in the action till towards its close. The admiral now made a signal to tack in succession; but Nelson, whose station was in the rear of the British line, perceiving that the Spaniards were bearing up before the wind with an intention of forming their line, going large, and joining their separated ships, or avoiding a close engagement, disobeyed the signal, without a moment’s hesitation, and ordered his ship to be wore. This at once brought him in contact with the Santissima Trinidad of a hundred and thirty-six guns, the San Josef of a hundred and twelve, the Salvador del Mundo of a hundred and twelve, the San Nicoas of eighty, the San Isidro of seventy-four, another seventy-four, and another first-rate; but Trowbridge, in the Culloden, immediately joined, and nobly supported him; and for nearly an hour did the Culloden and the Captain, Nelson’s ship, maintain the most terribly unequal contest recorded in the annals of naval warfare. At length the Blenheim, passing between them and the enemy, gave them a respite, while she poured in her fire upon the Spaniards. The Salvador del Mundo and San Isidro now dropped astern, and were fired into in a masterly style by the Excellent, Captain Collingwood. The San Isidrq struck, and the Salvador also hauled down her colours; but Collingwood, disdaining the parade of taking possession of beaten enemies, pushed on, with every sail set, to save his old friend and messmate, Nelson, in the Captain, which was at this time fired upon by three first rates, by the San Nicoas, and by a seventy-four; whilst the Blenheim was ahead, and the Culloden, crippled, astern. Ranging up in the noblest style, and hauling up his mainsail just astern, Collingwood passed within ten feet of the San Nicoas, and giving her a tremendous fire, passed on to the Santissima Trinidad. The San Nicoas then luffed up, when the San Josef fell on board her, and Nelson resumed his station abreast of them, and close alongside. But the Captain being now incapable of further service, either in the line or in chase, Nelson directed the helm to be put to starboard, and the boarders to be called up. His orders were instantly obeyed; the San Nicoas was boarded, and, after a short but sharp contest hand to hand, carried in the most brilliant manner. But a fire of pistols and musketry having been opened on the victors from the stern gallery of the San Josef, Nelson, directing his captain to send more men into the prize, gave orders for boarding that ship from the San Nicoas; and, leading the way himself, exclaiming “Victory or Westminster Abbey !” the thing was executed in an instant, with an energy and enthusiasm which rendered all resistance hopeless. But the Spaniards had still eighteen or nineteen ships which had suffered little or no injury; and as the part of the fleet which had been separated from the main body in the morning was now coming up, Sir John Jervis made signal to bring to. If the enemy had chosen at this moment to* avail themselves of their great superiority of force, the situation of the British admiral would have been most critical. His ships could not have formed without abandoning those which they had captured, and running to leeward; the Captain was lying a perfect wreck on board her two prizes, with her fore-topmast shot away, and not a sail, shroud, or rope left, while her wheel was smashed; and many of the other ships were so shattered in their masts and rigging as to be wholly unmanageable. But the Spanish admiral, Don Josef de Cordova, having inquired of his captains whether they judged it proper to renew the action, and nine having answered in the negative, whilst others gave their opinion in favour of delay, abandoned all idea of recommencing the battle, and drew off, leaving the British in possession of the prizes which they bad so gallantly won. For this victory the commander-in-chief was rewarded with the title of Earl St Vincent, and Rearadmiral Nelson had the order of the Bath given him. It was his skilful and daring disobedience of orders which rendered the battle decisive.

At the commencement of the summer an event occurred which, had the French been prepared to attempt an invasion of this country, might have been productive or serious evils. This was a mutiny in the fleet. Gross impositions had for some time been practised upon the seamen, both as to the quantity and quality of the provisions allowed them; and they had made an anonymous application for redress to Earl Howe. But the application was disregarded, because the strictness of discipline prevented the open avowal or appearance of discontent, which his lordship inconsiderately supposed had no existence; and the seamen, disappointed of the expected relief, resolved to enforce the consideration of their claims. Accordingly, when orders were given to prepare for putting to sea, the crew of the Queen Charlotte, and other ships lying at Spithead, refused to act; and treating with contempt the remonstrances of the officers, they made choice of delegates, who after a formal consultation drew up petitions to the board of admiralty and the House of Commons. Earl Spencer, first lord of the admiralty, dreading a dangerous mutiny, and not thinking the demands of the seamen unreasonable, promised compliance; and the king readily offered full pardon to all who should immediately return to their duty. But the seamen would not be satisfied till the parliament had confirmed the promises of the admiralty; and as some delay thus ensued, the irritation of their minds led to a contest with Vice-admiral Colpoys, in which some lives were lost. An act, however, was passed for the gratification of the seamen in point both of pay and provisions; and subordination was restored at Spithead and Plymouth. The concession of these claims encouraged the seamen at the Nore to insist on a more punctual discharge of arrears, a more equal distribution of prize-money, and a general abatement of the severity of discipline. A council of delegates was elected, at the head of which was a seaman named Richard Parker, who took the command of the fleet, and prevailed upon the men to reject repeated offers of pardon. He robbed two merchant ships of provisions, obstructed trade by the detention of other vessels, and fired on some ships of war which refused to accede to the mutinous combination. An act of parliament was passed in the beginning of June, denouncing capital punishment against all who should hold intercourse with the rebellious ships, or voluntarily continue on board; and as the public strongly disapproved of this last mutiny, for which no excuse could be offered, the seamen gradually returned to their duty. Parker was apprehended, and, along with several other mutineers, punished with death; and a [7:5:482]considerable number were also condemned after trial, but the greater part of them were pardoned. - ’ d

During the summer the port of Cadiz was blockaded by the British fleet under Sir John Jervis, now Earl St Vincent; and an attempt was made against the Spanish island of Teneriffe, but without success. Meanwhile another fleet under Admiral Duncan watched the Texel; but the blockading force having retired for a short time, the Dutch fleet, under Admiral De Winter, put to sea. Intelligence of this event having been brought,to Admiral Duncan at Yarmouth, he instantly proceeded in quest of the enemy; and about eleven o’clock in the forenoon of the 11th October 1797 he got sight of the r squadron which had been left to watch their motions, and which displayed signals of an enemy to leeward. Admiral Duncan immediately made signal for a general chase, and soon got sight of the Dutch, forming in a line on the starboard tack to receive him, the land between Camperdown and Egmont being then about nine miles to the Iceward. On making this discovery, he shortened sail to connect the squadron; and finding there was no time to be lost in making the attack, he made signal to bear up, break the enemy’s line, and engage each ship her opponent to leeward, without waiting to form the line of battle. The order was promptly and gallantly obeyed; Vice-admiral Onslow, in the Monarch, bore down on the enemy’s rear, his division following his example; and about forty minutes past twelve o’clock the battle commenced. Admiral Duncan, in the Venerable, also passed through the enemy’s line, at the head of his division, and began a close action with the enemy’s van, which lasted two hours and a half, when all the masts of the Dutch admiral’s ship were observed to go by the board, and she not long afterwards struck to her opponent. The Dutch vice-admiral’s ship being also dismasted, surrendered to Vice-admiral Onslow, and nine others became the prizes of the conquerors. The battle was obstinate and sanguinary; but its decisive results may be ascribed to the bold manoeuvre of instantly pushing between the enemy and the land, to which they were fast approaching. Had Admiral Duncan waited to form line of battle, in the ordinary way, there either would have been no action at all, or if the British had attacked, the Dutch admiral, by getting nearer to the shore, would probably have drawn both fleets on it, which would have been a victory to him. The force on both sides was nearly equal, each squadron consisting of sixteen ships of two decks; but of the British not more than ten ships were seriously engaged, and these captured eleven of the enemy. Had Admiral Duncan’s fleet been composed of the same materials as Lord St Vincent’s, every Dutch ship would have been taken; and the same result would have followed had all the ships followed the example set them by the Venerable. The fact is, however, that the British squadron was composed of very indifferent and inadequate vessels, many of them having been intended for 1ndiamcn; and that it was otherwise in many respects ill conditioned and deficient; but there was no want of gallantry on the part of the crews, and when the main-top-gallant mast of the Venerable was shot away, a seaman of the name of Crawford nailed the flag to the top-mast head.^[16. The following characteristic anecdote has been related of an officer who distinguished himself by his gallantry in this action. Captain Inglis of the Belliqueux of sixty-four guns, owing either to long absence from the service, or to an inaptitude not very uncommon among naval officers of the old school, had neglected to make himself master of the signal-book; and on the morning of the day of battle, when it became necessary to act with promptitude, in obedience to the signals, he found himself more puzzled than enlightened by it. After poring over it for some time, without being in any degree benefited by the perusal, he threw it with contempt upon the deck, exclaiming in broad Scotch, “Damn me, up wľ the hellem and gang into the middle o’t.” These words are instinct with the true spirit of battle, and show that Captain Inglis bravely anticipated the remedy in such cases provided by Nelson, who, in his celebrated memorandum on the eve of the mighty combat of Trafalgar, observes, that “if a captain should be at a loss, he cannot do very wrong if he lay his ship alongside of the enemy.” In strict conformity with this doctrine, the Belliqueux lost no time in “ganging into the middle o’t,” by attacking the enemy’s van, which she contributed to throw into confusion, although she got rather roughly treated by them before she could be supported. ] This victory excited the most lively joy in the British nation, from its tendency to put an end to all dread of invasion.

While their allies, or rather subjects, were suffering these disasters by sea, the French armies triumphed on the Continent. Bonaparte advanced from Italy against the centre of the Austrian dominions, and, after several sanguinary conflicts, crossed the Alps where they approach the frontiers of Hungary, and forced the emperor to conclude preliminaries of peace at Leoben, on the 18th of April, which were followed by a definitive treaty, signed at Campo Formio, near Udine, on the 17th of October. The emperor acquired the city of Venice; but he relinquished the Milanese and the Netherlands, and, by secret articles, consented that the Rhine should form the boundary of France. Britain being now left alone in the contest into which she had originally entered as an auxiliary to Austria and Prussia, the government opened a negociation towards the close of the summer; and as both the French and British nations eagerly wished for a termination of this sanguinary contest, it is probable that administration seriously wished to conclude a treaty; but at this time a party, headed by the director Barras, had gained the ascendency in France, and resolved to continue the war. A demand was therefore made that Britain should renounce every conquest as a preliminary to negociation, whilst France reserved a right to make further demands; and on this being refused, the British ambassador, Lord Malmesbury, was dismissed from Lisle, where the negociations had been opened.

Parliament assembled on the 2d of November, ln the speech from the throne his majesty stated his concern that his endeavours to restore peace had been rendered ineffectual, and expressed the fullest reliance on the magnanimity and courage of the people. During this session of parliament few or none of the members of opposition attended. At the close of the preceding session they had declared it to be their intention to retire from parliament; and they justified their conduct by alleging that, in times when every man who censured the measures of administration was regarded as in league with the enemy, it was equally painful and useless to incur such odium; that if they declared their sentiments, they were proclaimed as the enemies of the king, and if they tacitly acquiesced in the measures of the minister, they voluntarily took upon themselves a share of the responsibility; that they had done their utmost to prevent the war, and had urged repeatedly the necessity of bringing it to a speedy termination, without persuading their opponents; that events must now take their natural course; and that as they could not aid by their counsel, it should not be said that they embarrassed by their opposition. This retirement of opposition was much resented, and spoken of with great bitterness, by the friends of administration, as it suggested to the nation the idea that government was conducted by the power of the crown alone, unchecked by any discussion of its measures in the two legislative assemblies.

The inability of the bank of England to pay upon demand its notes in specie, according to ancient custom and [7:5:483]the terms of the obligation contained in these notes, appears now to have created in Mr Pitt’s mind some dread respecting the funding system, and an apprehension, that from the immense sums annually borrowed, and the corresponding quantity of paper-money necessarily issued to pay the interest of the loans, the system might be carried so far as to discredit the paper-money issued in the name of the bank of England. And this apprehension was strengthened by a fact, of which everybody was daily becoming more sensible, namely, that the money price of all kinds of property in Great Britain had rapidly risen during the war; and this rise of price was justly ascribed to a gradual sinking in the value of money, or of paper, the only money used in Britain, in consequence of its too great abundance. Mr Pitt therefore proposed, instead of borrowing the whole sum necessary to defray the expense of the war, and imposing no more taxes than were requisite to pay the interest of the loan, that heavier taxes should be imposed, in order to defray a portion of the extraordinary expenditure. Accordingly an act was passed for raising seven millions within the year; and this was to be effected by augmenting the assessed taxes, but so as not to compel any individual to pay more than one tenth of his income. The leading members of opposition attended to oppose this extraordinary measure, but without effect.

As the French were now disencumbered of all other adversaries, it was naturally expected that they would turn their arms in a more direct manner than formerly against the British empire. The result of the combination of the states of Europe for the partition of France had been extremely disastrous, and had left the new republic in possession of an extent of territory which the ablest and most ambitious of the French monarchs had in vain aspired to possess. The command which they had now obtained of Holland rendered France more dangerous than formerly, by the superior means of invasion which an additional extent of coast and the possession of a large quantity of shipping might afford; and had the French navy been less weak, or the French rulers possessed of greater ability, a dangerous crisis in the history of Great Britain might at this period have occurred. It never was the interest of any British administration to conceal from the public at large the possibility of a foreign invasion; and as the French government at this time boasted of their intention to make such an attempt, and ordered a considerable army to advance to the sea coast, it became the duty of ministers in Great Britain to make preparations to resist any such effort. Accordingly they came forward in parliament to propose measures of defence; and the danger with which the nation considered itself as threatened obliged all men in some measure still to adhere to an administration which in other respects might have lost their popularity from the ill success of their late measures. On the 8th of February 1798 Mr Dundas introduced into the House of Commons a bill to enable the king to incorporate in the regular militia a portion of the supplementary militia. And this bill being passed with little debate, the same minister, on the 27th of March, moved for leave to bring in another, to enable his majesty to provide for the security and defence of these realms, and to indemnify persons who might suffer injury in their property by the operation of such measures. The object of this bill was to provide for every possible emergency, by giving a power to his majesty to discover what persons were prepared to appear in arms and to be embodied for the public defence; and also to ascertain what number of the inhabitants of certain districts would be able to act as pioneers, or in other laborious situations. The other provisions were, that in the event of its being necessary to employ persons as pion'eers to remove stock, or assist in facilitating the carriage of military stores, proper compensation would be made; and the bill was also intended to give a power of embodying a portion of the regular militia, and employing them in the defence of the country. This bill was passed into a law after some unimportant debates, the principal members of opposition not usually attending.

As it was supposed that the war, on the part of Britain, would occasion greater expense than when all Europe had been -engaged in it along with her, the supplies were aug-mentĉd to L.35,000,000; and, with a view to draw resources from distant parts of the country, instead of raising large loans for the public service, which were negociated in London alone, Mr Pitt brought forward a scheme by> which proprietors of land were enabled to redeem the land-tax; in other words, the owner of land, and, failing him, any other person, was to be permitted to purchase this tax, by a transfer of stock, which produced a dividend greater than the amount of the impost. The measure became law, but produced little immediate effect.

On the 25th of May Mr Pitt brought forward a bill in the House of Commons, with a view to increase the navy, and to resist with greater success the threatened invasion. On this occasion an event occurred, which indicated, that by the long possession of power, and the support he had received from the nation, Mr Pitt had suffered to grow upon him a certain haughtiness of manner and impatience of contradiction, which, in former times, would have proved extremely inconvenient to a British minister. On the subject of his proposed bill, he observed, that the object he had in view was to suspend, for a limited time, the protections which various descriptions of persons enjoyed, to prevent them from being impressed into the service of the navy; and he stated it as his wish that the bill should that day pass through its different stages, with a suitable pause at each if required, and that it should be sent to the Lords for their concurrence. Mr Tierney remarked on the very extraordinary manner in which Mr Pitt called upon the house to adopt this measure. He had imagined that the augmentation of the navy was to be provided for in the usual way; or, if any very uncommon mode was to be resorted to for the attainment of that object, that notice would have been given to the house. He had heard no arguments that proved its propriety; and even if he had, some time ought to have been allowed to weigh the force of such arguments, before proceeding to give three or four votes on a measure, of which no notice of any kind had been given. If the ministers persisted in hurrying the bill through the house in the manner proposed, he must give it a decided negative; and, indeed, from what he had already seen, he must view all their measures as hostile to the liberties of the subjects of this country. Mr Pitt replied, that if every measure adopted against the designs of France was to be considered as hostile to the liberty of this country, then indeed his idea of liberty differed widely from that of the honourable gentleman. He observed that he had given notice before of the present motion, and that if it were not passed in a day, those whom it concerned might elude its effects. But if the measure was necessary, and if a notice of it would enable its effects to be eluded, how could the honourable gentleman’s opposition be accounted for, except from a desire to obstruct the defence of the country? Mr Tierney called Mr Pitt to order; and the Speaker observed, that whatever had a tendency to throw suspicion on the sentiments of a member, if conveyed in language that clearly marked that intention, was certainly irregular. Mr Pitt replied, that if the house waited for his explanation, he feared it must wait a long time. He knew very well that it was unparliamentary to state the motives that actuated the opinions of gentlemen; but it was impossible to go into arguments in favour of a [7:5:484]question, without sometimes hinting at the motives that induced an opposition to it. He submitted to the judgment of the house the propriety of what he argued; and he would not depart from any thing he had advanced, by either retracting or explaining it. The result of this altercation was a duel on the following Sunday between Mr Pitt and Mr Tierney. They went to Putney Heath, attended by seconds, and, standing at the distance of twelve paces, fired two shots each; but Mr Pitt discharged his second pistol in the air, upon which the seconds interfered, and thus the affair terminated.

During the summer of this year a rebellion broke out in Ireland, the particulars of which will be stated in their proper place. The enthusiasm which the French revolution had kindled in so many quarters of Europe extended itself to Ireland. There, some men of ardent imaginations, chiefly Protestant dissenters, persuaded themselves that they could regenerate their country, cast off the dominion of Great Britain, heal the unhappy divisions among the inhabitants of Ireland, and convert it into an independent republic. As early as the year 1793 these persons formed themselves into a society, under the name of the United Irishmen, and were gradually joined by a very large proportion of the population of the country. They applied for aid from France; and it was in consequence of their urgent invitation that the unsuccessful expedition under General Hoche was undertaken. From that period the country remained in a state of the greatest alarm. On the one side rigorous laws were enacted, and every effort was made, by severity of punishment, to repress all appearance of opposition to the existing government; whilst, on the other, the common people busied themselves in the fabrication and concealment of pikes, or broke into the houses of country gentlemen, to seize whatever fire-arms they could discover. The schemes of the disaffected party were greatly disconcerted by the discovery and apprehension of their principal leaders. A rebellion, however, actually broke out; but, though attended with considerable destruction of human lives and of property, it was of a partial nature, and speedily suppressed. During its existence some circumstances occurred which completely demonstrated of how visionary a nature had been the schemes of those persons who hoped to establish in Ireland an independent government upon any basis that could afford a tolerable hope of national prosperity. The disaffected party among the Protestants, too weak to be able of themselves either to shake off' the dominion of Great Britain, or to assume the ascendency in Ireland, were under the necessity of calling in the aid of the Roman Catholics, who constitute the great mass of Irish population; and they were the more readily induced to do so, from a notion, which of late years had very generally gained ground in Europe, that religious sentiments form no proper ground of distinction in civil society, and from perceiving the facility with which the Catholics of France had set at defiance the religion of their fathers, when placed in competition with what they accounted the interests of freedom, or the means of aggrandisement to their country. But it speedily appeared that these new maxims of conduct could not be adopted by the superstitious and illiterate peasantry of Ireland. The Catholics were no sooner in arms than their chief animosity came to be directed, not against the dominion of Britain, nor against any form of civil government, but against their own countrymen of the Protestant faith, who must thus ultimately have fallen a sacrifice to the success of their own schemes. In short, it became evident that Ireland could not possibly exist in tranquillity, or with safety to the Protestant part of its inhabitants, independent of the supremacy of Great Britain.

Upon the Continent, the world was amused with a né

gociation carried on at Rastadt, between the French directory and the German empire. It was conducted with much slowness, and ultimately proved ineffectual. But whilst it was in progress, the French government, having contrived to quarrel with the Swiss cantons, invaded and seized their country, and converted it into a new republic, under their own influence. Austria, however, had been so much humbled by recent losses, that she did not venture, on this occasion, to assert the independence of Switzerland, although it must have been evident that her own independence was ultimately connected with that object. Switzerland consists of a vast assemblage of lofty and precipitous mountains, situated in such a manner as to divide the most important countries of Europe from each other. On one side these mountains look down upon the fertile territory of Italy; to the north they command the very centre of Germany; and to the west they are bounded by France. For ages they have been inhabited by r a virtuous and fearless race of people, divided into petty communities, who contented themselves with maintaining their own independence; and though, as individuals, they entered into the military service of the neighbouring princes, yet, as a people, they had long ceased to take any part in the wars of Europe. For some centuries the independence of Switzerland proved the chief basis of the independence of the neighbouring nations. All parties respected and avoided any dispute with the Swiss, in a war against whom much might be lost, but nothing could be won. Accordingly, when the French attacked the Austrians, and when the Austrians attacked the French, the assailing party was under the necessity of· sending its armies to a great distance from the centre of its own power. If defeated, the march homewards was long and difficult; whilst, even if tolerably successful, the attack never proved seriously dangerous, in consequence of its having been made in a remote quarter with limited means Hence, in 1796, when the French generals Moreau and Jourdan marched through Suabia and Franconia to invade Austria, the length of their march afforded many opportunities of attacking them with success; and the invaded country had full leisure to call forth its whole resources against them. The result was, that when Jourdan sustained a defeat, the retreat of the other army became almost impracticable; and hence arose the unbounded reputation acquired by Moreau for accomplishing it with success. Had the French at that period occupied Switzerland, the retreat of Moreau would have been attended with little or no difficulty; because, by retiring into that rugged country, he could easily have made a stand against a very superior force for a considerable time, till he had received reinforcements. For the future, therefore, by commencing a war of invasion against Austria, not upon the frontiers contiguous to France, but at the eastern extremity of the Swiss mountains, the French, if successful, might reach the gates of Vienna in a few weeks. The independence of Switzerland, by placing these nations at a distance from each other, had hitherto prevented such an enterprise from being carried into effect; and the present removal of that barrier by the French directory, during a period of peace with Austria, displayed, upon their part, a correct knowledge of the cause which had at all times set bounds to the ambition of France, and at the same time evinced a determined spirit of hostility against the independence of the surrounding states.

Meanwhile the weakness of the French navy rendered it impossible for them to engage in any serious attack against the European part of the British empire. The French government, however, with the double view of attacking the rich empire which Britain had acquired in Asia, and of removing a successful military chief, whose ambition was already accounted dangerous, formed a design[7:5:485] of sending Bonaparte, with an army, to seize upon and colonize Egypt. To accomplish this scheme with the greater safety, the threats of invading England were loudly renewed; the troops stationed on the coast were denominated the Army of England; and Bonaparte being now appointed their commander, visited them in person. But suddenly departing, he embarked at Toulon with a powerful army, before his intentions were suspected in Great Britain; Malta was surrendered to him on his passage; and departing thence, he landed in safety in the vicinity of Alexandria, and soon made himself master of all Egypt. Here, however, his successes terminated. He was closely pursued by a British fleet under Admiral Nelson; and the French admiral, Brueys, having remained at anchor near the shore in the Bay of Aboukir, afforded an opportunity for the British navy to earn one of its proudest and most decisive triumphs.

Why Bonaparte, having effected a landing in Egypt, should not have suffered the fleet to return, has never been explained. He accused Admiral Brueys, after that officer’s death, of having lingered on the coast, contrary to orders; and the same charge is repeated in the memoirs which he transmitted from the place of his exile. But it is scarcely credible that any officer, situated as Brueys was, would have incurred the heavy responsibility which such disobedience incurs; and the more probable supposition therefore seems to be, that the fleet was detained by Bonaparte’s orders. It arrived at Alexandria on the first of July; and Brueys, not being able to enter the port which time had ruined, moored his ships in Aboukir Bay, in a strong and compact line of battle; the headmost vessel being close to the shoal on the north-west of the bay, and the rest of the fleet forming a curve along the line of deep water, so as not to be turned by any means in the south-west. He had in fact made the best of his situation, and chosen the strongest position which he could possibly take in an open roadstead; so much so, indeed, that the commissary of the fleet thought they were moored in such a manner as to bid defiance to a force double their own. Besides, the advantage of numbers, in ships, guns, and men, was in favour of the French. They had thirteen ships of the line and four frigates, carrying eleven hundred and ninety-six guns, and eleven thousand two hundred and thirty men. The English had the same number of ships of the line, and one fifty-gun ship, the Leander, carrying only a thousand and twelve guns, and eight thousand and eighty-six men. The French had one three-decker of a hundred and twenty guns, and three eightygun ships; whilst the English ships were all seventy-fours. The moment Nelson perceived the position of the enemy, his intuitive genius suggested to him the decisive conception, that where there was room for a French ship to swing, there was room for an English ship to anchor; and the plan he accordingly adopted was to keep entirely on the exterior side of the French, and station his ships, as far as he was able, one on the outer bow, and another on the outer quarter of each of the enemy’s, thus doubling on them in the way which had been projected by Lord Howe when he intended to attack the French fleet at their anchorage in Gourjean road.

As the British squadron advanced the enemy opened a fire from the starboard side of their whole line into the bows of the leading ships. It was received in silence and with stern composure; whilst the men on board of every ship were employed aloft in furling the sails, and below in tending the braces, and making ready for anchoring. Captain Foley led the way in the Goliath, outsailing the Zealous, which for some minutes disputed the post of honour with him; and intending to fix himself on the inner bow of the Guerrier, kept as near the edge of the shoal as the depth of water would admit; but his anchor hung, and having opened his fire, he drifted to the second ship, the Conquérant, before it was clear, then anchored by the stern inside of her, and in ten minutes shot away her masts. Captain Hood in the Zealous took the station which the Goliath intended to have occupied, and in twelve minutes totally disabled the Guerrier. The Orion, Sir James Saumarez, next passed to windward of the Zealous, discharging her larboard guns as long as they bore on the Guerrier; and running inside the Goliath, sunk a frigate which annoyed her, hauled round towards the French line, and anchoring inside between the fifth and sixth ships from the Guerrier, took her station on the larboard bow of the Franklin and the larboard quarter of the Peuple Souverain, receiving and returning the fire of both. The Audacious, Captain Gould, pouring in a heavy fire into the Guerrier and the Conquérant, fixed herself on the larboard bow of the latter, and, when that ship struck, passed on to the Peuple Souverain. The Theseus, Captain Millar, followed, and having brought down the Guerrier’s main and mizzen masts, anchored inside the Spartiate, the third ship of the enemy’s line. The sun was now nearly down; but Nelson’s decisive manoeuvre had already been completely executed in its most critical parts.

The Vanguard, bearing the admiral’s flag, and leading his division, now anchored on the outside of the enemy’s line, within half-pistol-shot of the Spartiate, and veering half a cable, instantly opened a tremendous fire, under cover of which the Minotaur, Bellerophon, Defence, and Majestic, passed ahead to occupy their several stations. On this side the French were completely prepared; and in a few minutes every man stationed at thefirst six guns in the fore part of the Vanguard’s deck was either killed or wounded. The Minotaur anchored next ahead of the Vanguard, and took off the fire of the Aquilon, the fourth in the enemy’s line. The Bellerophon passed ahead and anchored by the stern on the starboard bow of the Orient of a hundred and twenty guns, Brueys’ own ship, and the seventh in the line, “whose difference of force was in proportion of more than seven to three, and whose weight of ball from the lower deck alone exceeded that from the whole broadside of the Bellerophon.” The Defence took her station ahead of the Minotaur, and engaged the enemy’s sixth ship, the Franklin, by which judicious proceeding the British line remained unbroken. The Majestic having got entangled with the main rigging of one of the French ships astern of the Orient, suffered severely from the heavy fire of that three-decker; but she at length swung clear, and engaging the Heureux, or ninth ship, on the starboard bow, received also the fire of the Tonnant, which was the eighth in their line. The remaining four ships of the British squadron, having been detached previous to the discovery of the French, were at a considerable distance when the action commenced, which was at half past six; and as night closed about seven, they had no other light to guide them in going into action than the fire of the contending fleets.

Trowbridge in the Culloden, the foremost of the remaining ships, being two leagues astern, came on sounding as the others had done; but as he advanced the darkness increased the difficulty of the navigation; and suddenly, after having found eleven fathoms water, and before the lead could be hove again, he was fast aground; nor could all exertions get oft’ the ship in time to bear a part in the action. This accident, however, proved in some degree fortunate, since the Culloden served as a beacon to the Alexander and Swiftsure, which would otherwise have gone upon the reef, and thus enabled them to enter the bay and take their stations in the darkness. As the Swiftsure was bearing down she fell in with what at first [7:5:486]seemed to be a strange sail, but proved to be the Bellerophon, which, overpowered by the-Orient, was now drifting out of the line towards the lee side of .the bay, with her sails hanging loose, her lights knocked overboard, nearly two hundred of her crew killed or wounded, and all her masts and cables shot away. Suspecting how it was, Captain Hallowell, with great judgment, abstained from firing; and occupying with the Swiftsure the station of the disabled ship, he opened a heavy fire, on the quarter of the Franklin and the bows of the French admiral; whilst Captain Ball, in the Alexander, passed under the stern of the Orient, and anchoring with.in side on her larboard quarter, raked her, at the same time keeping up a severe fire of musketry on her decks. Lastly, the Leander, finding nothing could be done to get off the Culloden, advanced with the intention of anchoring athwart hawse of the Orient; but the Franklin being so near ahead that there was not room for him to pass clear of the two, he took his station athwart hawse of the latter.

This description will serve to convey an accurate idea both of the plan of attack and of the mode in which it was carried into execution. Though fiercely contested and sanguinary, the issue of the battle was never for an instant doubtful. The first two ships of the French line had been dismasted within a quarter of an hour after the commencement of the action, and the others had suffered so severely that victory was already certain. At half past eight o’clock the third, fourth, and fifth, were taken possession of; and about nine a fire broke out in the Orient, l which soon mastered the ship, illuminating the contending fleets with the light of the conflagration. About ten o’clock the ship blew up with an explosion so tremendous that the firing immediately ceased on both sides, and for a time no sound was heard to break, this awful pause, except the dash of her shattered yards, masts, and timbers falling into the water from the great height to which they had been projected. The firing recommenced with the ships to the leeward of the centre; and at daybreak the Guillaume Tell and the Généreux, the two rear ships of the enemy, formed the only portion of their line which had colours flying. Not having been engaged, these ships cut their cables in the forenoon and stood out to sea, accompanied by two frigates, being the only portion of the enemy’s fleet which escaped. It is needless to add that the victory was complete. Of thirteen sail of the line, nine were taken and two burnt; and of four frigates one was burnt and another sunk. The British loss in killed and wounded amounted to eight hundred and ninety-five; while of the French three thousand one hundred and five, including the wounded, were sent on shore by cartel, and five thousand two hundred and twenty-five perished. About two hours after the commencement of the action, Nelson received a severe wound on the head from a piece of langridge shot; and Captain Westcott of the Majestic fell. Brueys was killed before the fire broke out which destroyed his noble vessel. He had received three wounds, yet would not leave his post; but a fourth cut him almost in twain, and he died like a hero on the deck. From the description of this battle, or rather naval conquest, it must be obvious that its triumphant success was owing to a skilful repetition, with necessary variations, of the manoeuvre which had decided the victory at Camperdown; and in fact Nelson, although not acquainted with Lord Duncan, wrote to him, soon after the battle, to tell his lordship how “he had profited by his example.”^[17. Ekins’ Naval Battles, pp. 234, 23Ţ. Southey’s Life of Nelson, vol. i. p. 220 et seqq. We beg here, once for all, to acknowledge our obligations to this admirable and authentic biography for the principal materials of our condensed accounts of the battle off Cape St Vincent, the attack on Copenhagen, and the mighty crowning achievement of Trafalgar. ]

From the time of the battle of Actium, by which the sovereignty of the Roman empire was decided, no naval victory was ever attended with consequences so immediately and obviously important as this. The French directory had concealed their intended enterprise from the Ottoman Porte, which lays claim to the sovereignty of Egypt, but has never been able to make its claim fully effectual. The grand signior, however, considered the present attempt as an act of hostility against himself; and the maritime victory above mentioned encouraged him to declare war, in the name of all true Mahommedan believers, against that host of infidels which had invaded the land from which the sacred territory of Mecca is supplied with bread. In Europe similar consequences took place. The irresistible career of Bonaparte had compelled Austria to submit to peace, upon terms which left France in a state of most dangerous aggrandizement. But as this victorious chief, with the best part of his veteran army, was new held under blockade by the British fleet in a distant country, the hopes of Austria began to revive, and there seemed reason to expect, that by renewing the contest, her ancient rank in Europe might be recovered. The king of Naples entered into these views with great eagerness, and rashly declared war against France, without waiting for, and following, as he ought, the movements of the greater powers. The empress of Russia was now dead, and her son Paul had succeeded to the throne of the Czars. The empress had never contributed more than her good wishes towards the war which the other powers of Europe had waged against France; but her son, a man of a furious and passionate character, had not the sense to follow the same cautious policy, or to remain a quiet spectator of the issue of a contest against the French republic; and, encouraged by the naval victory of the Nile, which seemed to insure the absence of Bonaparte and his army, he declared his willingness, as far as his finances would permit, to join in a new combination against France.

Thus, by the victory of the Nile, Great Britain was enabled to procure allies, willing to send abundance of troops against her enemy, provided she consented to defray the necessary expense. In the mean time, the acquisitions and losses of Britain were nearly equally balanced in other quarters. An armament sailed towards the island of Minorca, and a descent was effected near the creek of Ad-daya. Here a body of Spaniards threatened to surround the first division of the invading army; but they were soon repulsed, and our troops gained a position from which they might have attacked the enemy with advantage, if the latter had not retired in the evening. The army seized the post of Mescadal, and a detachment took the town of Mahon and Fort Charles. It was expected that the principal stand would have been made at Civadella, where new works had been added to the old fortifications; but the approach of the English drove the Spaniards within the walls of the town, and General Stewart summoned the governor to surrender it without delay. Intimidated by the movements of the troops and the appearance of the squadron, the garrison capitulated, and thus the whole island was reduced without the loss of a single man. But towards the end of the same year, the British troops, which during a considerable length of time had occupied a great number of positions upon the coast of the island of St Domingo, found it necessary’· to abandon the whole. The power of the French government there had nearly been annihilated by a negro commander, Toussaint-Louverture, to whom the British surrendered Port-au-Prince and St Marc. The losses incurred in consequence of the unfortunate[7:5:487] attempt made by the British government to subjugate this island were immense.

Parliament assembled on the 20th of November; and in the speech from the throne it was observed, that the success which had attended our arms during the course of the present year had been productive of the happiest consequences, and promoted the prosperity of the country; that our naval triumphs had received fresh splendour from the memorable action in which Lord Nelson had attacked a superior enemy, and turned an extravagant enterprise to the confusion of its authors; that the magnanimity of the emperor of Russia and the vigour of the Ottoman Porte had shown that these powers were impressed with a just sense of the present crisis; that their example would be an encouragement to other states to adopt that line of conduct which was alone consistent with security and honour; that our preparatious at home had deterred the enemy from attempting to invade our coasts; that in Ireland the rebellion had been suppressed; that under the pressure of protracted war, the produce of the public revenue had been fully adequate to the increase of our permanent expenditure; that the national credit had been improved, and commerce flourished in a degree formerly unknown. The debates which occurred in the House of Commons upon this occasion were not remarkably interesting, as the leading members of the old opposition were usually absent. Administration was chiefly opposed by Mr Tierney, Sir Francis Burdett, Sir John Sinclair, and Sir William Pulteney. In the House of Lords, Earl Darnley moved the usual address to the throne, which was seconded by Lord Craven.

As a prospect had now opened of reviving, upon a most extensive scale, the continental war against France, it became necessary to provide great pecuniary resources to subsidize the armies which were to be brought forward, especially by the Russians, the poverty of whose country could ill afford to sustain the expense of supporting armies in Italy or on the banks of the Rhine. The same difficulties, or rather doubts, however, concerning the prudence of carrying to its utmost length the British practice of borrowing money to defray the extraordinary expense incurred during each year of the war, which had led to an augmentation of what are called the assessed taxes, still induced the minister to attempt to raise a proportion of the extraordinary or war expenditure within the year, not by a loan, but by taxes to the requisite amount. With this view he brought forward what was accounted a very bold measure, namely, a project for imposing a general tax upon the income of every individual throughout the nation. Mr Pitt stated in the House of Commons his plan to be, that no one whose income was less than sixty pounds per annum should be obliged to contribute more than the taxes he already paid; but that every one who had an income of or beyond that amount should be additionally burdened, some in the proportion of ten per cent, and others at a lower rate. All who had two hundred pounds a year would be required to sign a declaration of their willingness to pay a certain sum, not less than a tenth part of their income, without particularizing the modes in which it accrued; and a scale of easy computation would be adjusted for the rest. If doubts of the fairness of the statement should arise, the commissioners might summon an individual before them, and demand upon oath a minute specification of his income; and if, on a continuance of suspicion, full proof of accuracy should not be adduced, they might fix the amount of contribution. If they should require more than a tenth, no relief would be allowed unless the books of the tradesmen, or the ordinary accounts kept by others, should be submitted to inspection. Having stated the outlines of his plan, Mr Pitt mentioned the data upon which he formed an estimate of its produce. He was of opinion that the annual rent of all the land in England and Wales amounted to twenty-five millions of pounds sterling; a sum which, by the allowance of a fifth part for the exceptions under sixty pounds, and the modifications under two hundred pounds a-year, would be reduced to twenty millions. Six millions, he thought, might be assumed as the clear income of the land to tenants, the tithes might be valued at four millions, the produce of mines, canals, and the like, at three, the rents of houses at five, and the profits of the liberal professions at two; on all these heads it might be sufficient to allow an eighth part for Scotland, which would be five millions. Income drawn ‘from possessions beyond seas might be stated at five millions; annuities from the public funds at twelve; and those of internal trade, mechanical skill, and industry, at twenty-eight millions. These calculations formed an aggregate of a hundred and two millions; and from this source about, ten millions of supply were expected to arise. This measure was opposed, without success, by Mr Tierney, Sir John Sinclair, Mr Pulteney, and others. Its chief defects ∙were its inequality in point of principle, and the falsehood it occasioned with a view to evade it when carried into practice. Its inequality in point of principle is extremely obvious; because, under the tax upon income, a man without capital who earned two hundred pounds per annum by his industry, paid the same tax to government with a man living in idleness and enjoying a revenue of the same amount upon a land estate. In its collection this tax presented to merchants, and all other persons whose income depends upon their own industry, a powerful temptation to represent the amount of the latter as extremely low. It was expected, indeed, that the vanity of appearing weal thy and prosperous would counteract this tendency; but it was soon found that, in a commercial community, the love of gain is not easily subdued by any other passion; and as a general understanding soon prevailed among men with regard to each other’s feelings upon this subject, nobody regarded his neighbour as unprosperous, mereiy because he had reported his own income to government at a low rate.

The fear of a French invasion had in a former age induced the English nation so far to overcome their own prejudices as to consent to an incorporating union with Scotland. The rebellion in Ireland, together with the dread that by means of French aid Ireland might be dismembered from the British empire, as the American colonies had been, now produced a sense of the necessity of doing that which ought to have been done three centuries before this date; that is, of uniting Ireland to Britain, by incorporating into one the heretofore distinct legislatures of the two islands. The measure was at this period very practicable, because Ireland was in fact under the dominion of forty thousand troops, who had been collected to crush the rebellion, and protect the island against the French; and because the friends of government were too much intimidated by the confusion and the scenes of bloodshed which had recently occurred there, to venture to oppose vigorously a measure which promised for the future to preserve the tranquillity of the country inviolate. On the 3lst of January Mr Pitt proposed the measure in the British House of Commons. He observed, that a permanent connection between Britain and Ireland was essential to the true interests of both countries; and that, unless the existing connection should be improved, there was great risk of a separation. The settlement of the year 1782 was so imperfect, that it substituted nothing for that system which it demolished; and it was not considered as final even by the ministers of the time. It left the two realms with independent legislatures, connected only by the identity of the executive power; a very insufficient [7:5:488] tie, either in time of peace or of war, and inadequate to the consolidation of strength, or the mutual participation of political and commercial benefits. The case of the regency exhibited a striking instance of the weakness of the connection; and ií the two parliaments had differed on the subject of the war, the danger of a disjunction would have been seriously alarming. The entire dissociation of the kingdom was one of the greatest aims of our enemies; and as their eventual success in Ireland would expose Britain to extreme peril, the establishment of an incorporative union, by which their views might be effectually baffled, was a necessary act of policy. Among the advantages which would accrue to Ireland from an incorporation with Britain, he mentioned the protection which she would secure to herself in the hour of danger; the most effectual means of increasing her commerce and improving her agriculture; the command of English capital, and the infusion of English manners and English industry, necessarily tending to meliorate her condition; whilst she would see the avenue to honours, distinctions, and exalted situations in the general seat of empire, opened to all those whose abilities and talents enabled them to indulge an honourable and laudable ambition. The question was not what Ireland would gain, but what she would preserve; not merely how she might best improve her situation, but how she might avert a pressing and immediate danger. In this point of view her gain would be the preservation of all the blessings arising from the British constitution. As the supposed loss of national independence formed, in the minds of many, a strong objection to the scheme, he argued that this would be a real benefit; that the Irish would rather gain than lose in point of political freedom and civil happiness; and that though a nation possessing all the means of dignity and prosperity might justly object to an association with a more numerous people, Ireland, being deficient in the means of protection and civil welfare, could not be injured or degraded by such a union with a neighbouring and kindred state as would connect both realms by an equality of law and an identity of interest. Mr Sheridan opposed a union, as particularly unseasonable, amidst the irritation which at this period prevailed in Ireland; and he deprecated the accomplishment of the object by means of force or corruption. The measure, however, was approved of by a very large majority; and in the House of Lords the same subject was afterwards discussed with a similar result. But in the Irish parliament the proposal was resisted with such vehemence, that administration, finding themselves supported only by a small majority, thought fit to avoid pressing the matter further at this time.

During the present year the British power in India was greatly augmented, and its territory extended, by the fall of Tippoo Sultan, the son and successor of Hyder Ali. From the time when this prince bad been compelled by Lord Cornwallis, in 1792, to surrender one half of his dominions, it was understood that sooner or later he would make an attempt to recover what he had lost. It would even seem that he had entertained hopes of aid from the French, and that with this view he had privately sent envoys to the Isle of France, to attempt to form a connection with the present French rulers. But when intelligence reached India of the expedition to Egypt, and the victory of the Nile, the British governor-general demanded from Tippoo Sultan an explanation of his views; and after some fruitless negociation, a British army under General Harris invaded the territory of Mysore, which they found in a bad state of preparation for war. After some slight encounters the British army encamped before Seringapatam on the 6th of April; but it was not till the 2d of May that the besieging batteries began to breach the walk On the 4th, during the heat of the day, the place was stormed, and Tippoo himself perished fighting gallantly at one of the gates of the fortress. His dominions were seized by the British, who bestowed a portion of them upon the Mahrattas and the nizam their ally; whilst part was reserved under the direct sovereignty of the East India Company, and the remainder nominally bestowed upon a prince of the family which had lost its power by Hyder’s usurpation. The substantial authority over this last-mentioned portion of Tippoo’ş dominions, however, was in truth retained by the British government; and as the nizam himself soon became entirely dependent upon the British power, the whole peninsula of Hindustan, with the exception of the Mahratta states, which evidently could not long remain unsubdued, might now be considered as under the dominion of Great Britain.

In Europe the present campaign proved extremelyeventful. The French directory had been more anxious to establish its own power at home, than careful to maintain the armies upon the frontiers and in the conquered countries in a proper state of force and efficiency. A French army under General Jourdan advanced into Suabia in the month of March, but was encountered and beaten at Stockach by the Archduke Charles. The importance of the possession of Switzerland instantly displayed itself. The vanquished French army immediately crossed the Rhine into Switzerland, and in that mountainous country contrived to make a stand during the greater part of the summer. The Austrians advanced as far as Zurich, of which they obtained possession; but before they could proceed further, the French armies, having been reinforced towards the end of the season, wel , e enabled in their turn to assume the offensive.

In Italy the French manoeuvred unskilfully at the opening of the campaign. Instead of concentrating their forces, they attempted to retain possession of the whole of that country, and were thus beaten in various engagements at different points. The combined Austrian and Russian army was commanded by the Russian general Suwarof, who pressed upon the French with incredible activity and energy; carrying on a multiplicity of sieges, and bringing his troops together with wonderful celerity, whenever his enemy attempted to take advantage of the manner in which his forces were scattered. Macdonald, with the Neapolitan army, was defeated on the Trebbia; Moreau, who succeeded Joubert, killed at the commencement of the battle, was beaten at Novi; and in a number of combats of less magnitude the Austro-Russian army proved almost uniformly successful. The result of the whole was, that before the campaign terminated, Suwarof had driven the French out of Italy, with the exception of Savoy and the Genoese territory. But this was not accomplished without a great loss of men in sieges and battles, in which the hardy warriors of the north suffered very severely. Their leaders depended for success more upon the intrepidity of their troops, and the promptitude with which they rushed into action, than upon the skilful dispositions with which they arranged their force or harassed their enemy. Hence it happened that, amidst all Suwarof’s victories, no instance occurred of any column of French troops being compelled to surrender without fighting, nor was any advantage gained but by the efforts of superior force exerted in open battle. Such a warfare, carried on against a single enemy by a combined army, could not long be successful. The Austrian officers complained loudly of their northern allies as men destitute of military skill, who wasted armies without a proportional return of conquest; whilst, on the other hand, the Russians censured their associates as destitute of proper spirit, and as protracting the war by an ill-timed caution.
[7:5:489]

The advantage derived by the French from the possession of Switzerland having by this time begun to be understood, a resolution was in consequence formed to close the campaign, not by sending Suwarof from Italy into the South of France, but by directing him to turn his arms northward against the Alps. The Archduke Charles had spent the summer in pressing upon the French in that quarter, but had not been able to advance beyond Zurich; here, however, he left a considerable body of Austrians and Russians, and proceeded with a division of his army towards Manheim and Philipsburg. Suwarof advanced from Italy at the head of eighteen thousand men to take the command of these troops; but his views were anticipated by the French general Massena, who, finding the Archduke Charles and Suwarof at the distance of more than a day’s march on his left and right, instantly attacked the troops stationed near Zurich. The Austrians perceiving the hazardous nature of their situation, retreated with only a moderate loss; but the Russians, from an ill-judged contempt of their enemy, total ignorance of the country, and want of skill in the art of conducting war in it, maintained their ground till they were hemmed in on all sides. They attempted to resist the French, as they had often resisted the Turks, by forming a hollow square of great strength; but neither this nor their own courage afforded any safety against the artillery of the enemy, in the face of which an iron front of bayonets was presented in vain. Their order was at last broken, and their retreat converted into an utter rout Suwarof was at the same instant advancing rapidly to their relief; but the victorious enemy now turned quickly upon him, and attempted to encompass him on all sides. By incredible exertions, however, and following paths which were believed to be utterly impracticable, he effected his escape with about five thousand of his troops, in want of every thing, and retaining only the muskets in their hands.

Thus terminated on the eastern side of France this active and brilliant campaign. The allies remained masters of Italy; but France was still enabled to menace that country, as well as Germany, by retaining possession of Switzerland. In the meanwhile the British attempted, with the aid of Russian auxiliaries, to drive the French out of Holland. On the 27th of August, a landing was effected under Sir Ralph Abercromby at the mouth of the Texel; and the Zuyder Zee was immediately entered by a British fleet under Admiral Mitchell. Upon this the Dutch admiral, Storey, surrendered the fleet under his command, alleging that his men refused to fight. The ships were twelve in number, and eight of them mounted from fifty-four to seventy-four guns. Here, however, the effectual success of the expedition terminated. The Duke of York afterwards assumed the command, and forces amounting to thirty-five thousand men were landed; but it was soon discovered that the invasion had been ill concerted and ill directed. To have afforded a prospect of success, the invading army should have been landed in the vicinity of Rotterdam, which was full of Scotsmen, and where the supporters of the stadtholder were numerous; and then advanced rapidly into the centre of the country, to encourage the numerous enemies of the French to come forward in favour of the invaders. Instead of this the army was disembarked at the extremity of a long and narrow neck of land, having the sea on both sides, where the French and Dutch were able to arrest their progress for a considerable time with a mere handful of troops. The unusual wetness of the season, which greatly injured the roads, also added to the difficulties with which the invaders had to struggle; and the British commander was at length under the necessity of withdrawing his troops to the point at which they had originally disembarked. Here a convention was entered into, by which it was stipulated on the one hand that he should not injure the country, and that a number of French prisoners in England should be released; whilst, on the other hand, it was agreed that the Duke of York should be permitted to retire unmolested.

At the end of this campaign the French government underwent a new change. After the conquest of Egypt Bonaparte had invaded Syria, and subdued or conciliated most of the native tribes; but his career of victory was stopped at St Jean d’Acre by the Turkish governor of that town, assisted by the British under Sir Sidney Smith. He was forced to raise the siege of that place, after fifty-nine days of open trenches, and delivering five unsuccessful assaults; and having returned into Egypt, and destroyed a Turkish army at Aboukir, he ventured upon a step which is without example in the history of modern Europe. Having learned from an old newspaper the great reverses which the French armies had experienced in the early part of the campaign, and the general discontent produced by these misfortunes, he resolved to trust to fortune and return to France. With this view be secretly embarked, along with a select party of friends, on board a small vessel, leaving the command of his army, which was now completely insulated in the country, to General Kleber, an officer of high reputation for military genius and enterprise; and after escaping a thousand perils he landed safely at Frejus, in the south-east of France. The unexpected arrival of an officer who had never fought in Europe without success was welcomed by the public at large as a happy event; and in the first moment of joy little inquiry was made as to the manner in which he had abandoned his army, an act which in any other circumstances would have been regarded as one of the greatest of military crimes. Finding a party willing to second his views, Bonaparte now took advantage of the satisfaction occasioned by his arrival, together with the discontents arising from the corruption and mismanagement of the directorial administration, to usurp the government, cashier the directory, and to dissolve the representative legislature.

The British parliament was assembled as early as the 24th of September, in order to provide for an augmentation of force, which was thought necessary to give effect to the invasion of Holland, an enterprise of the success of which sanguine hopes were at that time entertained. The speech from the throne, after recommending the propriety of permitting to a considerable extent the voluntary service of the militia, in order to augment our forces abroad, stated that our prospects had been improved beyond the most sanguine expectation; that the deliverance of Italy might now be considered as secured; that the kingdom of Naples had been rescued from the French yoke, and restored to the dominion of its lawful sovereign; that the French expedition to Egypt had been productive of nothing but calamity and disgrace, whilst its ultimate views against our eastern possessions had been utterly confounded; that there was every reason to expect a successful result from our efforts for the deliverance of the United Provinces; and that to our ally the emperor of Russia we were in a great measure indebted for the favourable change in the general posture of affairs. It was further stated that, in pursuance of the recommendation of the British parliament, his majesty had communicated to both houses of parliament in Ireland their sentiments respecting a union with that kingdom.

In consequence of the recommendation from the throne, an act was passed, authorizing his majesty to receive into the army volunteers from the militia regiments, and some measures of finance were adopted; but government having received intelligence of the failure of the expedition against Holland, parliament was suddenly adjourned. In [7:5:490]the meanwhile affairs on the Continent began to assume a most unpropitious aspect. The emperor of Russia, being exasperated at the defeats sustained by his troops towards the close of the campaign, became dissatisfied with his allies; and there was reason to dread that his irascible and unreasonable temper might lead him not merely to desert but to quarrel with them. In the meanwhile Bonaparte, under the title he had assumed of First Consul of the French Republic, resolved to signalize his acquisition of power by an attempt to procure peace. With this view he thought proper to address a letter, signed by himself, to the king of Great Britain. In this document, after announcing his own appointment to the office of first magistrate of the republic, he asked, “Is the war which for eight years has ravaged the four quarters of the world to be eternal? Are there no means of coming to an understanding? How can the most enlightened nations of Europe, powerful and strong beyond what their safety and independence require, sacrifice to ideas of vain grandeur, commerce, prosperity, and peace? How is it that they do not feel that peace is of the first importance, as well as the highest glory ?” “France and England,”

he added, “by the abuse of their strength, may still for a long time, for the misfortune of all nations, retard the period of their being exhausted; but, I will venture to say it, the fate of all civilized nations is attached to the termination of a war which involves the whole world.” This letter was transmitted through the medium of an agent of the French government, who resided at London for the sake of managing the exchanges and other affairs relative to prisoners of war.

But Lord Grenville, as secretary of state for foreign affairs, informed the agent who had transmitted Bonaparte’s letter, that his majesty could not depart from the usual forms of transacting business, and therefore, that the only answer to be returned would be an official note from himself. In this note his lordship stated that the king wished for nothing more than to restore tranquillity to Europe; that he had only made war in defence of his people, against an unprovoked attack; and that it would be in vain to negociate while the same system continued to prevail in France which had ravaged Holland, Switzerland, Germany, and Italy. “While such a system therefore prevails,” continued his lordship, “and while the blood and treasures of a powerful nation can be lavished in its support, experience has shown, that no defence but that of open and steady hostility can be availing. The most solemn treaties have only prepared the way to fresh aggression; and it is by determined resistance alone, that whatever remains in Europe of stability for property, for personal safety, for social order, or the exercise of religion, can be preserved. For the security, therefore, of these essential objects, his majesty cannot place reliance on the mere renewal of general professions of pacific dispositions. Such professions have been repeatedly held out by all who have successively directed the resources of France to the destruction of Europe, and whom the present rulers have declared all to have been incapable of maintaining the relations of amity. Greatly will his majesty rejoice whenever it shall appear, that the danger to which his own dominions and those of his allies have been so long exposed has really ceased; whenever he shall be satisfied that the necessity of resistance shall be at an end, and, after so many years of crimes and miseries, better principles have prevailed, and the gigantic projects of ambition, endangering the very existence of civil society, have at length been relinquished. But the conviction of such a change can result only from the evidence of facts.” His lordship then went on to say, with insulting irony, that the best pledge of the reality and permanence of such a change would be the restoration of the princes of the house of Bourbon; that such an event would at once remove all obstacles in the* way of negociation, confirm to France the unmolested enjoyment of its ancient territory, and give tranquillity to other nations; that, however, his majesty did not limit the possibility of solid pacification to this mode, and made no claim to prescribe to France what should be the form of her government; that he only looked to the security of his own dominions, of his allies, and of Europe; that unhappily at present no such security existed, nor any sufficient evidence of the principles by which the new government would be directed, or even of its stability; and that in this situation, it remained for him to pursue, in conjunction with other powers, the exertions of a just and defensive war.

As one of the principal objects on account of which Bonaparte had commenced this negociation was probably to cast upon Great Britain the odium of continuing the war, he persevered in this purpose with uncommon dexterity. Appearing not to be disconcerted by the first rejection of his offers, he continued the correspondence through the medium of Talleyrand, his minister for foreign affairs, who, in a masterly note in answer to that of Lord Grenville, dissected the official communication of the British minister with consummate ability, and refuted the various statements and views which it embodied. He began with recriminating respecting the origin of the war, and presented a picture very differently sketched and coloured from that which Lord Grenville had portrayed in his letter. The charge of aggression brought against the French nation was haughtily repelled, and retorted on the coalesced powers, particularly on the British government. After expatiating on this subject, the French minister observed, that a sincere desire for peace ought to lead the parties to the discovery of the means of terminating the war, rather than to apologies or recriminations respecting its commencement; that no doubt could be entertained of the right of the French nation to choose its own government; that this was a point which could not be decently contested by the minister of a crown which was held on no other tenure; that at a time when the republic presented neither the solidity nor the force which it now possessed, negociations had been twice solicited by the British cabinet, and carried into effect; that the reasons for discontinuing the war were become if possible more urgent; that, on the contrary, the calamities into which the renewal of the war must infallibly plunge the whole of Europe, were motives which had induced the first consul to propose a suspension of arms which might likewise influence the other belligerent powers ;— and he concluded with pressing this object so far as to propose the town of Dunkirk, or any other, for the meeting of plenipotentiaries, in order to accelerate the re-establishment of peace and amity between the French republic and Great Britain. In the answer of the British minister to this note, the recrimination of aggression was as contemptuously repelled as it had been haughtily urged. Referring to his former note, Lord Grenville observed, that the obstacles which had been presented rendered hopeless for the moment any advantages which might be expected from a negociation; that all the representations made with so much confidence by the French minister, the personal dispositions of those in power, the solidity and consistence of the new government, were points which could not be admitted as motives for opening a negociation, since these considerations remained yet to be proved; and that the only evidence must be that already explained by his majesty, namely, the result of experience and the evidence of facts.

On the 22d of January copies of this correspondence were presented to the British parliament, along with a message from his majesty, announcing that he relied on the [7:5:491]support of his parliament, and the zeal and perseverance of his subjects, in carrying into effect such measures as would best confirm the signal advantages obtained in the last campaign, and conduct the contest to an honourable conclusion. On the 28th of the same month the subject was discussed in the House of Lords upon a motion made by Lord Grenville for an address of thanks to his majesty in consequence ĵf the message. Lord Grenville contended, that nothing n the state of Europe admitted a rational hope that there vas any security but in war; and that peace with a na-ion at enmity with order, religion, and morality, would ∙ather be an acquiescence in wrong than a suspension of inns in ordinary warfare. He entered into a comment ιpon the note of the French minister, and disputed all its )ositions, observing that the love of peace, on the part of France, had been displayed in a war of eight years with ĩvery nation in Europe excepting Sweden and Denmark; bat her disinclination to conquest had been evinced by the invasion of the Netherlands, of Italy, of Switzerland, and even of Asia; that no honourable or permanent peace Dould be made with the present rulers of France; and that every power with which she had treated could furnish melancholy instances of the perfidy, injustice, and cruelty of the republic. He remarked, that General Bonaparte, in the third year of the republic, imposed upon the French, at the mouth of the cannon, that very constitution which he had now destroyed at the point of the bayonet. If a treaty was concluded and broken with Sardinia, it was concluded and broken by Bonaparte; if peace was established and violated with Tuscany, it was established and violated by Bonaparte; if armistices were ratified and annulled with Modena and the other petty states of Italy, they were ratified and annulled by Bonaparte; if that ancient republic Venice was first drawn into a war, and compelled afterwards to conclude a treaty, it was that Bonaparte might more easily overthrow her constitution, and annihilate the political system by which she had existed with glory and security for ages past; if the government of Rome was subverted, it was subverted by Bonaparte; if Genoa was reduced to the same humiliating situation, her wealth and independence were sacrificed to Bonaparte; if Switzerland, deluded by offers of peace, was induced to surrender her rights and liberties, she was deprived of them by Bonaparte, , He had multiplied violations of all moral and religious ties; he had repeated acts of perfidy; his hypocrisies were innumerable; and in that country where he had affirmed that the French were true Moslemins, he had given us a correct idea of his sincerity and his principles. If the interest of Bonaparte were deeply concerned, he might be sincere, and there was no doubt but it was his interest to consolidate his power; but it ought not to be forgotten, that whenever any act’s of atrocity were to be accomplished by the French, they had been usually effected by a suspension of arms. The proposed negociation would relieve her from the actual pressure of alarming difficulties, but could not relieve England from any. The ports of France, which were now blockaded by our fleet and cruisers, would be thrown open to introduce naval stores, and a variety of necessary articles, of which the country was in want; and fleets would be sent to bring back the troops which were now deprived of all intercourse with the republic, and which might then be employed in augmenting the numbers of the French armies. To us a suspension of arms could not be productive of any benefit whatever; our ports were not blocked up, our commerce was not interrupted; and it should also be considered that there would be no security for the 1 maintenance of such a suspension. Was Bonaparte now prepared to sign a general peace? If he were not, he could not be sincere in his offers. It was necessary for him to keep an army of sixty thousand men to preserve tranquillity in the interior of France; every act of his government was supported by force; and if he even were sincere, it was hazarding too much to hazard all on his single life. What reliance could be placed on the unanimity of the French people? Men of the blackest characters had been appointed to situations of the greatest trust; men infamous for professed principles of anarchy had been raised to places of confidence and power; and those who were judges in the sanguinary tribunals of Robespierre were now exalted to a distinguished rank in the republic. His lordship concluded by disclaiming on the part of administration any wish to consider the restoration of the French monarchy as the object of the war.

The Duke of Bedford opposed the noble secretary’s motion, and contended, that all the objections against negociation might havebeen urged against the negociationswhich the ministers themselves had formerly opened at Lisle. He considered the conduct of the British government on the present occasion as unwise, because provoking and unconciliatory. He thought that, in a correspondence with the present French government, all discussion about the original commencement of the war ought to have been avoided. Whether England or France was the first aggressor, was a question to be reserved to posterity. The wild scheme of restoring the French monarchy was the sine qua non, if not of peace, at least of negociation; for notwithstanding that the noble secretary had denied the -charge, yet whilst he pointed out the impossibility of treating with the French government during all its stages to the present, and insisted upon vigorous hostilities being the only means of our security, no inference could be drawn, but that the war must be continued till monarchy was reestablished. If the restoration of monarchy was not the object, what was it? Were ministers contending that we ought to wait for a more favourable opportunity of entering into negociation? Was it to be obtained by railing at Bonaparte? There were no terms sufficiently strong to censure the littleness which attacked his character, in order to ruin him in the estimation of the French nation; as if by so doing, we could negociate with more effect, or gain a fairer prospect of peace. His grace contended that no confidence was to be reposed in our present continental allies; and as a severe scarcity at this period prevailed in the country, this circumstance was made use of as an additional argument against persevering in the war. The first consul, doubtless, sought to make a peace advantageous to himself and the nation over which he presided: like all other statesmen, his motives might not be influenced by humanity: it was to be supposed his aim would be to satisfy the French people, and consolidate his own power. As to the abuse which ministers threw upon his character, it was their constant habit to abuse every ruling power in France. But whenever they had been driven by the voice of the people to negociate, their former ill language had never been any impediment. The duke concluded with a motion for an address recommending a negociation for peace.

Lord Borington supported the views of ministers. But Lord Holland reprobated their conduct throughout the contest. At one time they asserted that the ambition of France was so insatiable, that she would listen to no terms; they were now driven from that pretext, and urged that a peace would be insecure. As to the ambition of the enemy, it was a consideration of weight in the arrangement of terms, not a preliminary objection preclusive of treaty. What proof could be given of the abandonment of dangerous views, but a negociation in which moderation would be displayed. Was it reasonable to suppose that he would admit that the guilt of the aggression lay ŵith [7:5:492]France? This was a point which ought not to have been discussed. The object was to treat upon actual circumstances and the real grounds of dispute. Suppose that Bonaparte, desirous to attain peace by any means, should sit down to consider how he could succeed; what does the note allow him to do? He would find that the restoration of the hereditary line of kings was the only case in which a speedy peace would be admitted as possible; in fact, therefore, this restoration was the sine qua non in which immediate negociation was admissible with ministers. But surely if the ambition of the republic was so formidable, we could not forget this ground of apprehension when we talked of restoring the house of Bourbon. Had we forgotten their proverbial ambition, and was their restoration the remedy for evils arising from such a source? We had now taken up the principle, so much objected to Jacobins, of distinguishing between the people and their government. But what .was the conduct of the French? Bonaparte distinctly renounced this principle in the letter to the king, and acknowledged the title and the character of his majesty’s government. The note of our ministers was a manifesto to the royalists, and formed for that purpose alone. Lord Holland further stated, that the people at large disapproved of the abrupt rejection of Bonaparte’s overtures; he therefore gave his most decided support to the amendment. The Earl of Carnarvon would not consider the answer of our ministers as a refusal to treat for peace, or a declaration of eternal war; it was a call upon the house and the country to pause before they rashly suffered themselves to enter into a negociation with an unsettled government. He did not expect any extraordinary faith to be manifested by Bonaparte, more than by any other chief or chiefs; but although he would be best pleased with the restoration of monarchy in France, in all times, in monarchies as well as republics, aristocracies, and every other species of government, good faith in treaties was preserved and exemplified only as long as it was the interest of the parties to maintain it. So little integrity had history left on record, that, at the very time they were signed, a secret intention was ofter, indulged to violate them at a particular period. The address, as moved by Lord Grenville, was then carried by a great majority.

In the House of Commons Mr Dundas moved a similar address, which gave rise to a similar debate. Mr Dundas said, that the leading feature of the French revolution was a disregard of all treaties, and a contempt for the rights of other powers; and in proof of this assertion, he considered it as necessary merely to recite the names of Spain, Naples, Sardinia, Tuscany, Genoa, Geneva, Modena, Austria, Russia, England, and Egypt, with Denmark and Sweden, though at all times neutral states. Britain had not at this time any reasonable cause to suppose that a change of principles had taken place. The Jacobinical form of government was indeed at an end; but in substance and essence all the qualities of the revolutionary government were in as full force at this moment as they were in the days of Robespierre. Mr Whitbread asserted, that, had it not been for the interference and ambition of the other powers of Europe, the French revolution would have assumed a very different character from that which it now exhibited. He remarked, that other powers had treated neutral states no less unjustly than had been done by the French; Lord Harvey and Lord Hood had ordered the French ministers to be dismissed from Florence; and by threats we had compelled Genoa to dismiss her French inhabitants. He compared Bonaparte with Suwarof, and the invasion of Egypt by France with that of Poland by Austria, Russia, and Prussia, whose friendship we had frequently courted. Mr Thomas Erskine entered at great length into the question, whether France or Great Britain had been guilty of the original aggression in the war, and contended that the British government had engaged in it unnecessarily, and persisted in it without necessity. Mr Pitt, on the other hand, affirmed that the French leaders had themselves begun the war, on the principle that it was necessary to consolidate the revolution. With regard to the proposal to negociate with their present leader, it was impossible to discuss fairly its propriety, without taking into consideration his personal character and conduct. Mr Pitt then expatiated on the conduct of Bonaparte at Campo Formio, in the Milanese, Genoa, Modena, Tuscany, Rome, Venice, Switzerland, and Egypt His arts of perfidy, he said, were commensurate with the number of treaties; and if we traced the history of the men in this revolution whose conduct had been marked by the most atrocious cruelty, the name of Bonaparte would be found allied to more of them than that of any other within these ten eventful and disastrous years. From these facts the house might judge what reliance might reasonably be placed on this conqueror, and what degree of credit might be given to his professions. It had been observed, indeed, that whatever had been his character, he had now an interest in making and preserving peace. This was a doubtful proposition. That it was his interest to negociate, would be readily acknowledged, and to negociate with this country separately, in order to dissolve the whole system of the confederacy on the Continent; to paralyse at once the arms of Russia, of Austria, or of any other country which might look to us for support; and then either to break off his separate treaty, or, if he should have concluded it, to apply the lesson taught in his school of policy in Egypt, and to revive at his pleasure those claims of indemnification which may have been reserved to some happier period. Under all these circumstances of his personal character and his newly acquired power, what security had he for retaining that power but the sword? His hold upon France was the sword, and he had no other. But was the inference to be drawn from these considerations, that we ought in no case to treat with Bonaparte? No; but we ought to wait for the evidence of facts. At present there was nothing from which we could presage a favourable disposition in the French consuls. There was the greatest reason to rely on powerful co-operation from our allies; the strongest indication in the interior of France of a disposition to resist this new tyranny; and every ground to believe, that if we were disappointed of complete success, the continuance of the contest, instead of making our situation comparatively worse, would make it comparatively better. With regard to the negociation at Lisle in 1797. to which allusions had been made, the Jacobin system of prodigality and bloodshed, by which the efforts of France had been supported, had at that period driven us to exertions which had exhausted the ordinary means of defraying our immense expenditure, and led many who were convinced of the necessity of the war to doubt the possibility of persisting in it. Under this impression we negociated, not from the sanguine hope that its result would be permanent security, but from the persuasion that the danger arising from peace in these circumstances would be less than the continuance of war with inadequate means. Mr Fox was decidedly of opinion that France, at the commencement of the war, was the defending party. The aggressions of Austria and Prussia could not be denied by any impartial person; nothing could be more decidedly hostile than their proceedings; they scrupled not to declare to France that it was her internal concerns, not her outward actions, which provoked them to confederate against her; they did not pretend to fear her ambition, her conquests, her troubling her neighbours; but they accused her of new-modelling her own government. In all this he [7:5:493]was not seeking to justify the French, either in their internal or external policy. On the contrary, he thought their successive governments had been as execrable in various instances as any of the most despotic and unprincipled governments which the world had ever seen. Mcn bred in the school of the house of Bourbon, once engaged in foreign wars, would naturally endeavour to spread destruction, and form plans of aggrandisement, on every side; they could not have lived so long under their ancient masters without imbibing the insatiable ambition and restless spirit, the perfidy and the despotism, inherent in the race; they had imitated their great prototype, and through their whole career of crimes had done no more than trace the steps of their own Louis XIV. Are we for ever, continued Mr Fox, to deprive ourselves of the benefits of peace, because France has perpetrated acts of injustice? With the knowledge of these acts, we had treated with them twice, and ought not now to refuse to do so? Much had been said of the short-lived nature of military despotism; yet such was the government erected by Augustus Caesar, which endured six hundred years. Indeed, it was too likely to be durable wherever it was established. Nor was it true that it depended on the life of the first usurper. Half of the Roman emperors were murdered, yet the tyranny continued; and this, it was to be feared, would be the case in France. On a division, however, the address was carried by a very large majority.

The great measure of a legislative union with Ireland was carried into effect during the present session of parliament. Administration had found it necessary to delay this matter in consequence of the opposition in the Irish parliament; but during the recess they had obtained a more ample majority; and as the British parliament had already, on Mr Pitt’s motion, passed resolutions in favour of the union, the project was formally introduced to the Irish parliament on the 5th of February 1800, by a message from the lord-lieutenant, in which his excellency stated that he had it in command from his majesty to lay before the houses of legislature the resolutions of the British parliament, and to express his majesty’s wish that they would take the same into their most serious consideration. After a long and spirited debate, the ministry prevailed by a majority of forty-three. The distinguished abilities of Mr Grattan were once more displayed on this interesting occasion. In the debate which took place on proposing the first article of the union, he opposed the measure with such vehemence, that the chancellor of the exchequer accused him of associating with traitors, and of disaffection to the government; but the reply of Mr Grattan was so pointed and severe, that the chancellor conceived himself under the necessity of resenting it by a challenge, and a meeting having taken place in consequence, he was wounded in the arm. The question, however, was carried by a considerable majority; and as the discussion proceeded, the numbers of opposition appeared to diminish. The last struggle, as it may be deemed, occurred on the 13th of March, when Sir John Parnell moved to petition his majesty to call a new parliament, in order that the sense of their constituents might be more fully ascertained; but this motion was also overruled. In the mean time the business proceeded with little opposition in the House of Lords, which, on the 24th of March, adopted the whole of the articles of union with few alterations; and soon afterwards both houses waited on his excellency with a joint address to this effect. No time was now lost in submitting the measure anew to the British parliament. On the 2d of April, a message from his majesty was presented to both houses of parliament, communicating the resolutions of the Irish parliament in favour of an incorporating union between the two kingdoms, and recommending the speedy conclusion of a work so interesting to the security and prosperity of the British empire. In the House of Lords' the measure was opposed by Lord Holland, on the ground that a union at this time was not the spontaneous offer of the parliament of Ireland, uninfluenced by corruption or menace; but the articles were afterwards carried in a committee of the house, after some debates of no great importance. In the House of Commons Mr Pitt stated that the principal act of the treaty, that which fixed the share of representation Ireland was to have in the united parliament, was founded upon a comparative statement of the population of both kingdoms, as well as the revenue of both. The number of members fixed for the counties and two principal cities was sixty-eight; and that for the most considerable cities, towns, and boroughs, was thirty-one, who would be selected without partiality. He next adverted to the arrangements respecting the House of Peers, and the members to be returned; and observed, that as the members for the Commons of Ireland were in number nearly double those of Scotland, the same rules would be observed with the peerage, which therefore was to consist of thirty-two members. It was also understood, that such peers of Ireland as might not be among the twenty-eight temporal peers, should be allowed to sit in the united parliament until elected. The only article consisting of minute details related to the apportionment of the shares of the revenue of each country respectively. Mr Grey opposed the union on nearly the same grounds as Lord Holland had done in the Upper House. It had been asserted in a speech of the lord-lieutenant to the Irish parliament, that five sevenths of the country, and all the principal commercial towns, except Dublin, had petitioned in favour of the union. But this only meant that nineteen counties had presented petitions, and that these counties constitute five sevenths of the surface of Ireland. He admitted the petitions in favour of the union; but by what means were they obtained? The lord-lieutenant, who, besides being the chief civil magistrate, is commander of a disciplined army of a hundred and seventy thousand men, and able to proclaim martial law when he pleases, procured these petitions, which were signed by few names, and those by no means the most respectable. But fortunately there were many petitions on the other side, not obtained by solicitation and at illegal meetings, but at public assemblies, of which legal notice had been given. Twenty-seven counties had petitioned against the measure; the petition from the county of Down was signed by seventeen thousand respectable, independent men; and all others were in a similar proportion. Mr Grey then adverted to some of the principal arguments of the unionists; and concluded by moving an address to his majesty for a suspension of all proceedings relative to the union, till the sentiments of the people of Ireland could be ascertained. Mr Sheridan represented the measure as an act of tyranny towards the people of Ireland, which must become the fatal source of new discontents and future rebellions. Mr Grey’s motion was, however, rejected by an overwhelming majority.

Early in the session mention had been made by opposition of the unfortunate invasion of Holland by the British forces; but ministers declined entering upon the subject, as the expedition had been carried on under the superintendence of Mr Secretary Dundas, and that gentleman, soon after the meeting of parliament, had gone down to Scotland in the depth of winter, without any ostensible business; a circumstance which gave rise to suspicions that some dissatisfaction existed at court on account of the result of the Dutch invasion, or the manner in which the Duke of York had been supported in it by the administration at home. On the 10th of February, however, the [7:5:494]subject was introduced in the House of Commons by Mr Sheridan, who moved for an inquiry into the causes of its failure. He treated the capture of the Dutch navy as of little value, or rather as pernicious, on account of the example of mutiny which it exhibited on the part of the seamen whom we had received into our service; he admitted that the restoration of the stadtholder was a justifiable motive for our interference, but contended that Britain had treated the people of Holland ill, by obliging them to enter into the present war, and avoiding to promise a restoration of their colonies in case of a successful invasion; he asserted that the expedition itself was ill arranged, as the army after its landing had no means of moving forward on account of the want of necessaries, and, instead of delivering the Dutch, was under the necessity of entering into a capitulation for its escape, and of holding out, as an inducement to enter into this capitulation, a threat of destroying for ever the commerce of that very people whom we had embarked to save; and he contended, that to vindicate the honour of the British army, it was necessary to inquire into the cause of its misfortunes upon this occasion. Mr Dundas defended the expedition against Holland with his usual dexterity. He stated its object to be threefold: first, to rescue the United Provinces from the tyranny of the French; secondly, to add to the efficient force of this country, and diminish that of the enemy, by gaining possession of the Dutch fleet; and, lastly, by hostile operations in Holland, to oblige the French to weaken their armies in various other quarters. Mr Dundas contended, that at the commencement of the expedition a great probability existed of the success of all these objects; two of them did actually succeed, and only one tailed. With regard to the capture of the fleet, he declared himself astonished that a doubt should exist about the value of such an acquisition. That fleet had been absolutely destined for the invasion of our dominions; along with it we took nearly seven thousand seamen, all of whom were liable to be employed in the French fleet, and forty thousand tons of shipping, which might have annoyed our commerce. By the invasion of Holland, also, the French had been compelled to weaken their other armies, which gave success to Suwarof in driving them from Italy, and to the archduke on the Upper Rhine and in Switzerland. They had indeed succeeded in defending Holland; but, as the price of this success, they had been severely pressed in every other quarter. At the moment our enterprise was undertaken, it was doubtful whether they would send their reinforcements thither, or to other parts of the Continent. They had poured prodigious reinforcements into Holland, by which means we were unable to rescue it from their yoke; but the result was, that they had lost every other point which they had contested during the whole campaign. With respect to the conduct of the enterprise, never was a commencement more prosperous than that of the late expedition. Sir Ralph Abercromby had sailed for the Helder on the 13th of August, and everything promised the most rapid success. On the 14th came on the most extraordinary hurricane that ever blew from the heavens; it was found impossible to land a single soldier on any part of the coast of Holland; and this continued till the 27th. The consequence was, that the enemy knew-where our army must land, and their troops came in shoals to oppose us; seven thousand men w ere collected; and as they were superior in number, Sir Ralph could not land his men to advantage. The ardour of the soldiers and the gallantry of the commander were never excelled on any occasion. Without any thing but their muskets and bayonets, against cavalry and artillery, they made good their landing, and by it they secured the Dutch fleet. It was alleged that the troops had no means of drawing their waggons; but they had no waggons at all, and could not possibly have landed them had they been there. Instantly on their landing they could not want them; for all they had then to do was to secure a landing place and a post of communication. Sir Ralph had to consider what position he should take till the 1st of September, when reinforcements would arrive. The same tempest prevented the Russian troops from arriving to reinforce the army; they did not come till the 18th. The Duke of York offered to the Russian general, D’Hermann, to delay the attack, if he thought his men were not sufficiently recovered from the fatigues of the voyage; but the general requested that the attack should be made, with a promptitude and alacrity which reflected the highest honour upon him; and this ardour led him into the field two hours sooner than the time appointed. The army, however, was gloriously successful until a late hour in the day. General d’Hermann and his troops were in possession of the village of Berghen, and crowned with victory, till his zeal led him beyond a given point, and turned the fate of the day. When the attack was made the French amounted to seven thousand, and the Dutch to twelve thousand men; yet, notwithstanding this superiority of force, our troops fought and conquered; but the French continually pouring in reinforcements, the duke was advised to accede to the terms of an armistice, which was by that time mutually wished for. The duke yielded to this advice; and, by so doing, consulted the dictates of reason and humanity. Mr Dundas contended that our army returned with as much honour as they entered Holland. The Duke of York, indeed, agreed to give up eight thousand French prisoners on condition that lris retreat should be unmolested; but he could not be wrong in doing so, because our prisons were overloaded with them; and he did not recede from any one article in which national dignity was concerned.

Mr Tierney supported the proposal for an inquiry. He disputed the advantages said to result from the expedition, and contended, that to a secret committee, or in some other form, ministers ought to account for their conduct, and exonerate themselves from suspicions too strong to be removed without proof. It was unconstitutional, and an insult on the house, to say this could not be done consistently with the preservation of secrecy. General Abercromby landed on the 22d of August with ten thousand men; he got possession of the Helder; he was reinforced by General Don on the 27tlu Was it not strange that fifteen .thousand men, headed by an able general, and going by invitation, should think it imprudent to advance? Had the Dutch been well affected, why did they not declare themselves? No French troops were then in Holland to keep them in awe. Why did not the Duke of York sail at the same time with General Don? Why were all our forces sent to one place, and forty-three thousand men cooped up in a narrow peninsula where but few could act at a time? It was strange that ministers, who were so fond of making diversions, did not think of making a diversion in some other quarter. This was a point which only military men could determine; and the house was bound to examine officers, that the truth might be known. The capitulation, he said, had fixed an indelible blot on the national character. A king’s son, commanding forty thousand men, had capitulated to a French general who had only thirty-five thousand. Mr Addington observed, that having maturely and dispassionately considered the nature of the proposed inquiry, it appeared to him to rest upon two grounds: first, the propriety of judging any measure by its event; and, secondly, that in consequence of a failüre, there was a necessity for investigation. It ought to be recollected, that the worst concerted plans had often produced the most brilliant success, and the best terminated [7:5:495]in disaster. No human being could command success, and no existing government control the elements. The proposed inquiry was accordingly negatived by a very large majority.

During the present year the war proved extremely eventful. The army which Bonaparte had left in Egypt under General Kleber being disgusted by the desertion of their leader, a negociation was entered into by Kleber with die Turkish grand vizier and Sir Sidney Smith; the result of which was, that the French agreed to abandon die whole of Egypt, on condition of being permitted to return unmolested to France. The convention was concluded at El Arish on the 24th of January; and the immediate return of this discontented army to France might have proved dangerous, if not fatal, to the newly-established power of the first consul. But here the usual fortune of Bonaparte prevailed. The British government, suspecting that some proposal of this kind might be made, sent secret orders to Vice-admiral Lord -Keith not to consent to any arrangement which might leave so large an army at liberty to act in Europe, or which should not include the surrender of all the ships in the port of Alexandria. The consequence was, that Lord Keith refused to ratify the treaty of El Arish which Sir Sidney Smith and die Turkish grand vizier had concluded, and detained as prisoners General Dessaix and a number of troops which had been sent from Egypt. The French general Kleber immediately intimated to the Turks a determination to resume hostilities. He attacked and totally routed their army, consisting of forty thousand men, in the neighbourhood of Grand Cairo; and multitudes perished by slaughter and in the desert, whije the French remained complete masters of the country. When it was too late, an order arrived from Britain to permit General Dessaix and the troops along with him to land in France, and to fulfil every part of Sir Sidney Smith’s treaty; but the state of affairs had changed; Kleber had been assassinated by a fanatical Arab, and his successor, Menou, refused to evacuate Egypt; so that it became necessary, at a future period, to send an army from Britain to drive the French out of the country which they had proposed to evacuate without firing a shot or shedding a drop of blood.

The Austrian armies in Germany and in Italy were respectively commanded by General Kray and by General Melas. The campaign was conducted on the part of the French government with great ability and decision. It had been publicly announced in all the French newspapers , that the armies were to be reinforced as powerfully as possible; and that an army of reserve was to be formed in a central position between Germany and Italy, from which the armies might be supplied with fresh troops according to the events of the war. Dijon was mentioned as the head-quarters of this army of reserve, and it already amounted to upwards of forty thousand men. Nobody suspected that any important plan of operations or military stratagem was concealed under the affected notoriety of this arrangement Accordingly the Austrians commenced the campaign by an attack upon Massena in the Genoese territory; and after a succession of obstinate conflicts the French were driven into Genoa, where they sustained a siege, till compelled to surrender from want of provisions. Whilst Melas besieged Genoa, and even pushed forward his parties through Nice into the ancient French territory, Bonaparte in person suddenly repaired to Dijon and joined the army, to the assembling of which Europe had paid little attention, on account of the appellation which it had received of an army of reserve; and immediately advancing, he crossed the Alps by the Great St Bernard, and descended into the Milanese with little opposition. At the same time powerful reinforcements joined him from Switzerland, of which the French troops continued to hold possession. Bonaparte thus placed himself in the rear of the Austrian general, and hazarded every thing upon the fortune of a single battle. He was accordingly attacked on the plain of Marengo, near Alessandria; and, as the Austrians were greatly superior in cavalry and artillery, they proved victorious during the greater part of the day. The French wings were turned, the centre division was broken, and scarcely six thousand men stood firm at any one point, when General Dessaix, late in the action, arrived with a reinforcement of six thousand troops, though fatigued by a rapid countermarch of several leagues. At this moment the battle seemed to be irretrievably lost. The French had been thrown back in the utmost disorder upon Montebello, where Lannes was still maintaining a furious though desperate resistance; the whole field of battle was" in possession of the Austrians; the French troops were crowded together in a disorganized mass, in which the enemy’s artillery were committing the most frightful havoc; and only one effort more seemed necessary on the part of the Austrians, with their fine cavalry, in which arm they were greatly superior, to complete the destruction of the French army. Matters were in this state when Dessaix arrived, who, per-cehing the desperate situation of affairs, instantly hurried his division into action. Surprised at, but not unprepared for this renewed attack, the Austrians developed a powerful force to oppose it; Dessaix fell mortally wounded; and his division were on the point of being overwhelmed, when an event almost unexampled in war not only saved the French army from destruction, but totally changed the fortune of the day, and converted a disastrous defeat into a complete victory. While a body of Austrian grenadiers, six thousand strong, were advancing to the charge along a broad causeway, and carrying all before them, they were suddenly and furiously attacked in flank by General Kellerman, at the head of six hundred horse, which he had managed to conceal among some mulberry trees. A panic immediately seized them, and believing themselves assailed by the mass of the French cavalry, they threw down their arms. The whole affair passed in an instant, and even the victors themselves were astounded at their own success. Bonaparte, however, lost not a moment in profiting by this extraordinary turn of fortune. The French rallied with their usual promptitude on Dessaix’s division, which still preserved some degree of order; resumed their former positions; recommenced the battle, which they had a few minutes before given up for lost; and, animated with the enthusiasm inspired by Kellerman’s extraordinary success, drove the Austrians from the field. In the French official account of this memorable conflict, which decided the fate of all Italy, no mention whatever is made of Kellerman’s gallant and decisive attack; and it reflects little credit on the memory of Bonaparte, that, though he afterwards heaped wealth and titles in boundless profusion on the man who had not only saved him and his army from destruction, but converted a disastrous defeat into a splendid triumph, he should never have made any public admission of the unparalleled achievement which changed the fortune of the day. The service was probably considered as too great to be acknowledged, because it could never be sufficiently rewarded; and it ill comported with the character of Bonaparte to admit that, in genius, promptitude, and energy, he could ever be surpassed by any of his lieutenants. On the following day Melas entered into negociation, and, as the price of an unmolested passage to the Austrian states, he agreed to abandon all Piedmont, and the basin of the Po, and to surrender twelve of the strongest fortresses in Europe.

On the side of Germany the French under General Moreau were scarcely less successful. They passed the Rhine [7:5:496]in the neighbourhood of Strasburg, where they were opposed by the Austrians. But this was only a feigned attack. Speedily retreating, the main body of their army descended from the mountains of Switzerland, and crossed the Rhine in the rear of the Austrian army near Schauff-hausen∙ After a desperate engagement, the Austrians were defeated with the loss of ten thousand men, of whom four thousand were taken prisoners. As the mode of attack had been unforeseen, and was consequently unprovided for, the loss of magazines and baggage was immense. In another and harder fought battle, at Moskirch, the Austrians lost upwards of eight thousand men. At Biberach, Augsburg, and Hochstet, the French were equally successful; and the result was, that the Austrians were under the necessity of crossing the Danube, leaving the French masters of the electorate of Bavaria, and in a condition to invest Ulm. A general suspension of hostilities was now agreed to, by which both parties retained possession of their actual positions; and a negociation for peace was entered into between the French and Austrians, which produced an attempt to negociate on the part of Great Britain; but as the French also demanded a naval armistice, the negociation was dropped; and after a considerable delay, during which the Austrian minister at Paris concluded a treaty which his court afterwards disowned, preparations were made for re-opening the campaign. But the French ultimately consented to renew the armistice with the Austrians, on condition of obtaining possession of the important fortresses of Ulm, Ingoldstadt, and Philipsburg. These armistices and negociations proved of great service to the French. The consent to a truce in the midst of an unexampled career of victory gave an appearance of moderation to the new consular government; whilst the conclusion of a treaty at Paris, to which the Austrian government afterwards refused to adhere, induced neutral nations to consider Bonaparte as anxious for the attainment of peace. Hence the wonderful success which attended his arms, during the early part of the campaign, was far from rousing the jealousy of the other states of Europe. The northern nations eagerly courted his alliance; and the emperor Paul of Russia, actuated by the natural instability of his temper, and an admiration of military success, not only entered into a close alliance with Bonaparte, but seized the British vessels in his ports; whilst the Danes, Swedes, and Prussians, formed a confederacy for evading the right claimed in war by maritime states, of preventing their enemies from being supplied with naval stores by means of neutral vessels.

In the meanwhile Great Britain was greatly distressed by a scarcity of provisions, and riots broke out in London and some provincial towns. On this account parliament assembled on the 11th of November, and the principal discussion which occurred in it related to the scarcity which prevailed throughout the country, and involved in great difficulties both the middle and lower classes of society. The members of opposition asserted that the war and the scarcity were closely connected; whilst Mr Pitt and his colleagues contended that a more obvious cause might be found in the deficiency of the two preceding crops, owing to cold and rainy seasons. A royal proclamation was issued in the beginning of December, exhorting all heads of families to reduce the consumption of bread by at least one third, to abstain from the use of flour in pastry, and to restrict the consumption of oats and other grain by horses; and acts of parliament were at the same time passed prohibiting the exportation, and offering bounties upon the importation, of grain. These measures, however, were of a very doubtful character. By increasing the alarm of scarcity they induced wealthy persons to buy up grain, and to withhold it from the markets; the prohibition of exportation of provisions was unnecessary, when a better price could be obtained in Britain than elsewhere; and the same high prices afforded a sufficient bounty for importation.

At the commencement of the following year government laid an embargo on all Russian, Danish, and Swedish ships in British ports; so that Great Britain was now at war with nearly all Europe. Austria, indeed, ventured to renew hostilities; but the French general Moreau, having defeated the Archduke John with tremendous loss, at Hohenlinden, drove back the Austrian army upon their capital, advancing within seventeen leagues of Vienna; whilst at the same time signal defeats were sustained by them both in Italy and in Franconia. From the necessity of their affairs, therefore, the Austrians were compelled to sue for peace, which was accordingly concluded at Luneville. The Netherlands and the Milanese were resigned; France extended her boundary to the Rhine; and Tuscany was relinquished by the grand duke, who was to receive an indemnification in Germany; whilst, on the other hand, the city of Venice and a portion of its ancient territory were given up to Austria. The German princes who suffered by the treaty were to receive an indemnification out of the ecclesiastical states of the empire; thereby weakening still further the influence of the house of Austria. By this treaty the French became masters of Europe to the southward of the Rhine and of the Adige.

The commencement of the year 1801 was marked in Great Britain by the termination of Mr Pitt’s administration. When this event was announced to the public, it created no small degree of astonishment. Since Mr Pitt had come into office a new generation had sprung up; and a succession of the most extraordinary public transactions had occurred, amidst all of which that minister, with his kinsman Lord Grenville, and his friend Mr Dundas, had remained firmly established in power. The authority and influence of these men had in some measure interwoven itself in the opinions of the people, and they were surrounded by a train of powerful adherents, dependent on their patronage; whilst, at the same time, Mr Pitt himself retained such a degree of popularity as caused his dismission or resignation to appear a very bold measure in the present state of affairs. The ostensible cause assigned for Mr Pitt’s dismission obtained little credit with any one. He was represented as having promised to the Irish Catholics an equalization of privileges with their fellowsubjects, on condition of their acquiescing in the treaty of union; but it was pretended that, since his majesty had been persuaded to oppose the measure, as contrary to his coronation oath, the ministry, in such a state of matters, could no longer honourably remain in office. Of the true cause of this change little is publicly known. It does not seem necessary, however, to search into secret history for an explanation of a transaction which may be sufficiently accounted for on principles which must be obvious to all. The influence acquired by Lord North, arising from the patronage he enjoyed during the American war, enabled him, by combining with others, to establish a formidable interest in the legislature. But the power possessed by him was trifling when compared with that which Mr Pitt and his friends possessed. The war which Mr Pitt had conducted had been expensive in a degree altogether unexampled in preceding times; whilst the circumstances under which it commenced had united, as a party under him, almost all the persons of property in the kingdom. During his long administration, too, the crown possessed, in a more direct manner than formerly, the increasing patronage of India; and hence the leading members of this administration might be regarded as having attained a degree of power and influence which could not easily be shaken, [7:5:497]and which might prove extremely inconvenient, when held by any combination of subjects in a free country. In such circumstances, it was natural for an experienced prince to wish for a change. Mr Pitt had been originally taken into office as the agent of the crown in the House of Commons, to support the royal prerogative there, against a combination of powerful and accomplished men; he had enjoyed great popularity, and had been considered as the man best qualified to conduct the war of the French revolution; and as he knew the high rank which he held in public estimation, and treated the House of Commons with but little deference, it is not improbable that in the cabinet he may have presumed upon the indispensable importance of his own services, and, accounting himself necessary to the administration of the empire, arrogated a degree of independence not at all graceful nor becoming in a mere instrument of the crown. Some, however, have thought that his retirement on this occasion is to be ascribed to a totally different cause; that as he had been mainly instrumental in plunging the country into the war with France, and as all his schemes for humbling that nation had proved abortive, he could neither admit his error, nor adopt the only means which now remained, in some degree to atone for it; and that he desired to escape the mortification of negociating a peace with a power which he had so often denounced, and which he wished to exclude from the palc of political and social relations in Europe. And, in support of this view, it may be mentioned that, on the dismissal of this administration, a resolution appears to have been at the same time adopted by the British court, seriously and earnestly to endeavour to obtain peace upon any tolerable terms.

With regard to the general merits of Mr Pitt’s administration, we are still probably too much involved in the passions and prejudices which it excited to be able to appreciate them with sufficient candour and intelligence. He derived great advantage from the copious and stately eloquence which he at all times displayed in the House of Commons; and certainly no man ever possessed so completely the art of managing the people of England, and retaining their attachment, at the same time that he continued to possess the confidence of his sovereign. Although he obtained the government of the British empire at a very youthful age, the prudence of his conduct and the magnitude of some of his designs entitle him to a very high rank as a statesman. His sinking fund, though not contrived by himself, and though based on erroneous principles, was a great and important measure, as it contributed to sustain the national credit at a period of unexampled difficulty and embarrassment, and enabled the country to weather a contest which might otherwise have proved fatal to its independence. His commercial treaty with France was also, whatever the political economists may say to the contrary, a measure recommended by the soundest wisdom. The most ambiguous circumstances in Mr Pitt’s public conduct were those which related to parliamentary reform, to the trial of Mr Hastings, and to the slave-trade, in which he adopted the popular side in the debate, although the court was known to be hostile to his avowed sentiments, which accordingly were never successful. The most difficult question relates undoubtedly to the war with France. Though by the forms of the British constitution Mr Pitt was responsible for engaging in this war, and for continuing in it, yet as he was not actually the head of the state, it is possible that the interference of Britain might not originate with him, and that he had only the alternative of engaging in the war or of relinquishing his power. If the war is to be considered as advised and conducted by him, he is responsible for all its consequences, the enormous aggrandisement of France, the subjugation of the weaker states, and the accumulation of that intolerable load of debt which hangs like a millstone round the neck of this country, and encumbers every effort it can make to develope its natural resources. Had Britain originally remained neutral, or rather, had she negociated in favour of the independence of France, brought into hazard as it was by the combination of the great military powers, that eoιmtry would have been confined within her ancient boundary; Italy, Switzerland, and Holland would have retained their independence; and the strength of Austria would have remained unbroken; or, if Britain had withdrawn early from the contest, and avoided urging and subsidizing the continental powers, until they were successively vanquished, the same result might have ensued. On the other hand, if the war is to be considered as undertaken to overturn the principles of the French, it was undoubtedly successful to a certain extent, as it compelled them to abandon these principles, and to have recourse to a military usurpation; but it ought to be remembered, that to Britain as a nation the political principles of the French were of no importance whatsoever, whilst their permanent aggrandisement was calculated to bring into hazard our very existence as an independent nation. NTr Pitt and his friends called forth the resources of the country for the support of the war to an astonishing extent. Immense treasures were lavished in supporting our allies in fruitless or absurd expeditions, and in schemes which served only to augment the public burdens, and to increase the influence of the crown by the extension of its patronage. The acquiescence of the public in the war was preserved by keeping the minds of men in a state of constant alarm, from the fear of danger to the constitution, in consequence of the alleged disaffection of a body of the people; and in this manner a constant spirit of persecution was maintained throughout the country, which thus seemed to be ruled rather by a jealous faction than by a legitimate government. The concluding measure of Mr Pitt’s administration, the union with Ireland, is entitled to much praise. It was suggested by the course of events, and tended to remedy a great defect in the constitution of the British empire, the want of consolidation into one united political body.

Of the associates of Mr Pitt, Lord Grenville, who acted as minister in the House of Lords, was the principal in England, and Mr Dundas in Scotland, and perhaps also in the rest of the empire. This last gentleman possessed the greatest share of power ever intrusted to any Scotsman since the union, excepting for a short time to Lord Bute. During a considerable length of time he appears to have conducted almost the whole public business of that vast assemblage of nations, in all the climates of the globe, which constitutes the British empire; and under his patronage, and that of his friend Mr Pitt, a numerous body of dependents rose to the possession of boundless opulence; whilst they themselves, engrossed by the pursuits of ambition, were understood to have been somewhat careless of their private concerns.

At the time when the change of ministry took place the king became affected with a severe illness, supposed to be the result of anxiety and agitation of mind. In making choice of a new prime minister, however, he avoided admitting into power the party which had opposed the war; and selected Mr Addington, who, as we have already mentioned, was originally patronized by Mr Pitt, and who, as speaker of the House of Commons, had gained approbation by his good temper, prudence, industry, and conciliating manners. This gentleman appears to have obtained from his predecessors in office a promise of support in parliament; and he was therefore represented throughout the country as nothing more than a nominal minister, holding a tern-porary[7:5:498] situation, which, on the first opportunity, he was to relinquish in favour of Mr Pitt and his friends. And this account of the state of affairs derives plausibility from the actual support which the new minister received from these gentlemen, and from the influence which they evidently retained in the nomination to all inferior offices. Mr Addington’s appointment as first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer was followed by the nomination of Lord Eldon to the office of lord high chancellor, of Lord St Vincent to that of first lord of the admiralty, of Lord Hawkesbury as secretary of state for the foreign department, of Lord Pelham for the home department, and of Colonel Yorke as secretary at war. Lord Eldon was succeeded by Sir Michael Pepper Arden, then created Lord Alvanley, as chief justice of the common pleas; and Mr Addington by Sir John Mitford, afterwards Lord Redesdale, as speaker of the House of Commons. Sir William Grant was made master of the rolls, and Mr Law and Mr Percival attorney and solicitor generals.

On the 2d of February the parliament of Great Britain and Ireland was opened; but as the king’s illness immediately succeeded that event, the new administration did not obtain formal possession of office until the month of March, and during the interval the old ministers continued to hold their former situations. At the opening of the imperial parliament, as it was now called, the speech from the throne expressed great satisfaction that the crown would now be able to avail itself of the advice of the united parliament of Great Britain and Ireland; hoped that this memorable era, distinguished by a measure calculated to consolidate the strength of the empire, would be equally marked by the energy and firmness which the present situation of the country so peculiarly required; and stated that the court of Petersburg had treated our representations of the outrages committed against our ships and property, and against Englishmen, with the utmost disrespect, and that acts of injustice and violence had aggravated the first aggressions. It mentioned that a convention had been concluded between Petersburg, Copenhagen, and Stockholm, the avowed object of which was to establish a new code of maritime law, inconsistent with the rights and hostile to the interests of this country; and that the earliest measures had been taken to repel this confederacy, and to support those principles essential to the maintenance of our naval strength. It recommended an inquiry into the high price of provisions, and promised a termination of the present contest whenever it could be done consistently with security and honour.

When the usual address was moved, some discussion occurred in both houses regarding the actual state of affairs, more particularly as connected with the combination of the northern powers against Britain. In the House of Commons Mr Grey deplored the prospect of a war with all Europe. Russia had evidently been guilty of the grossest violence and injustice towards this country, in the confiscation of the property of our merchants, and in the treatment of our sailors; but the emperor accused the British government of violating a convention by which he was to receive the island of Malta as the reward of his co-operation against France; and the truth of this assertion ought to be investigated. Concerning the northern confederacy, Mr Grey remarked, that the principles on which it was founded were of no recent origin, as indeed was very generally known. Mr Pitt, who still acted as chancellor of the exchequer, declared, that with every one of the three northern powers, independently of the law of nations, we had on our side the strict letter of engagements by which they were bound to us. In the convention signed between Great Britain and Russia, the latter bound herself to use her efforts to prevent neutral powers from protecting the commerce of France on the seas or in the ports of France; and Denmark and Sweden had expressed their readiness to agree on that very point which they were now disposed to contend. We did not indeed know the precise terms of their new convention; but as its existence and general object were acknowledged, we must necessarily act upon the supposition of their hostility.

In March Mr Grey moved for an inquiry into the state of the nation. We were now, he said, in the ninth year of a war with France, and threatened with a war by all the maritime states of Europe, if not actually involved in it; we had added L.270,000,000 to the capital of our national debt, and above L.17,000,000 to our annual taxes; we found ourselves opposed to France, which was now extended in territory, increased in population, and supported by all the states of the north. We were opposed to her with diminished means, exhausted strength, and stripped of every ally. It was, therefore, incumbent on the representatives of the people to enter into a serious inquiry into the means most likely to restore to us security and happiness. The conquests we had made during the war had not compensated our disasters or the acquisitions made by France. Her frontier now extended to the Rhine, to the Alps, and to the ocean; yet all these possessions we had consented to abandon as the price of peace which ministers might have made with France confined within her ancient limits, while our own country* was prosperous and happy. Our losses were thus irretrievable, and our triumphs empty. There was almost no shore from the Texel to the Adriatic which had not witnessed the defeat of our forces and the disgrace of our arms. The unfortunate attempt upon Dunkirk, the shameful retreat through Holland. the evacuation of Toulon, the abandonment of Corsica, and the expedition to Quiberon, were all fatal proofs of ill-concerted schemes; but the late expedition against Holland was more disgraceful than the rest, because it terminated in a capitulation to an inferior force. Administration had acted with such imprudence that even our very allies were new converted into enemies. The Swedes and other neutral nations had complained that their trade was molested, their ships detained, and justice refused them in our courts, or so long delayed that it was useless. These were points which undoubtedly deserved investigation. Nor did the internal condition of the country less require consideration. The sum of L.270,000,000, as already mentioned, had been added to the national debt, exclusive of imperial and other loans, and the reduction by the sinking fund; and yet the ex-ministers alleged that they left the country in a flourishing condition. Yet every Englishman, from diminished comfort, or from positive distress, felt this declaration to be an insult. The situation of the sister kingdom was also alarming in the extreme. Since the recal of Earl Fitzwilliam, Ireland had been the scene of transactions shocking to humanity. Was it now tranquil? Though rebellion had been crushed in the field, it lurked in secrecy; the mass of the population was disaffected ∙. and nothing prevented the separation of Ireland from Britain but the inability* of France to send a force to assist the rebels. Upon these groundshe called for an inquiry into the actual state of affairs, and demanded the support of the new administration, as a testimony of their disapprobation of the measures of their predecessors.

Mr Dundas defended, with plausible statements and arguments, the conduct of the war. The principle which he laid down was, that war ought to be directed to the destruction of the commerce and colonial possessions of the enemy, including their maritime power, which must depend upon their commerce. It was hardly possible for England to be long at war with France without being involved[7:5:499] in disputes on the Continent, which might deprive us of many of the markets which we had for our goods; and therefore it was peculiarly our interest to gain these colonies, that they might remain open for our commodities. In order then to judge how far the war. conducted on this principle, had been disastrous and disgraceful, he would state its progress and success. Hostilities commenced against France in February 1793; and in that year Tobago, St Pierre, Miquelon, Pondicherry, part of St Domingo, and the fleet at Toulon, were taken, besides the possessions of the Newfoundland fishery. In the year 1794 we captured Martinique, Guadaloupe, St Lucie, the Saints, Corsica, and Mariagalante; in 1795, Trincomalee and the Cape of Good Hope; in 1796, Amboyna, Berbice, andDemerara; in 1797, Trinidad, with four ships of the line either taken or destroyed; in 179S, Minorca; in 1799, Surinam; in 1800, Goree, Malta, and Curaçoa. These had been our successes. With regard to the expedition against Holland, he defended it on the same principles as formerly. As to the navy, he stated, that since the commencement of the present war we had taken or destroyed eighty sail of the line belonging to the enemy, a hundred and eighty-one frigates, two hundred and twenty-four smaller ships of war, seven hundred and forty-three French privateers, fifteen Dutch and seventy-six Spanish ships. The losses we had sustained were three sail of the line, one of which we had retaken; one fifty gun ship, which we also retook; and of the frigates captured by the enemy, the Ambuscade alone remained in their possession. One of the great advantages to be derived from the colonial possessions of the enemy was the markets they furnished for our manufactures. In the year 1793 the manufactures sent from this country to the West Indies amounted to above L. 1,800,000 sterling. Before the war our exports to the East Indies did not exceed one million, but in the preceding year they exceeded L.1,600,000, a proof that we had not lost the markets of Europe. The failure of an expedition was now considered as a decisive proof of misconduct in ministers; but in the glorious Seven Years’ War, which was in every body’s recollection, there were expeditions attempted which completely failed, though the failure was not considered as a proof of incapacity or neglect in Lord Chatham. The conquests which we then made were Senegal, Louisburg, St Lucie, Duquesne, Guadaloupe, Martinique, the Havannah, Montreal, Pondicherry, Grenada, Belleisle, besides destroying the fortifications of Cherbourg; and we took or destroyed thirty-two sail of the line and fifty-eight frigates, besides a proportionable number of smaller vessels. We were now in possession of every place taken in that war, excepting Guadaloupe, the Havannah, and Belleisle; but, on the other hand, we had gained the Cape of Good Hope, Ceylon, Demerara, Berbice, and all the Dutch possessions in the East and West Indies, added to Minorca and Malta. We had also destroyed the confederacy formed against us in the East Indies, and acquired a great increase of power and territory in that quarter of the world.

Mr Pitt, after expressing his respect for the new administration, observed that no point had been more disputed than that of confidence in ministers. By some people it was held that no person was entitled to it, till he had given proofs of having merited it. But this never could be carried in substance to the letter; for whoever entered into any employment, must at first be new to it: there could be no experience without trial; but when persons had been tried in one situation, and had acquitted themselves well in it, it was a rule to give them credit when they entered into another, until proof of their incapacity or misconduct appeared. He then lavished encomiums on Mr Addington, on Lord Hawkesbury, and on Earl St Vin cent, and asked the gentlemen of the opposition if they knew any one among themselves superior to Lord Hawkesbury, excepting one, Mr Fox, whose transcendent talents made him an exception to almost any rule. Of the other individuals composing the new administration, much might be said; but he would only add, that it showed little reflection or consideration to affirm that the present ministers were unentitled to a constitutional confidence; and the house was bound by the best principles of policy to wait to see the conduct of the servants of the crown before they withheld it. Epon the subject of the retirement or dismissal of the late administration, he contended that his majesty had a right to part with his servants, and his servants to retire, without any explanation being given to the public. Concerning the affairs of the Irish Catholics, and their connection with the dismissal of administration, he stated, that a memorandum had been sent, in the name of a noble lord at the head of the executive government of Ireland, who thought it essential to communicate the grounds of the change of administration to persons more immediately connected with the Catholics; and it had been at his express desire that this communication had been made, and the motives explained to them which led to the change, in order to prevent any misrepresentation. Emancipation of the Catholics was a term he disclaimed. He never understood the situation of the Catholics was such as to need what deserved to be called emancipation; but he thought the few benefits which they had not yet anticipated might easily have been added to those so bountifully conferred on them in the present reign, not as a matter of right, but of liberality and political expediency 7 . Had such a measure preceded the union, indeed, it would have been rash and destructive; and even now, if any attempt was made to push it so as to endanger the public tranquillity, or to pervert the affections of any of his majesty’s subjects, the ex-ministers would be forward and firm in resisting it. But he hoped the day would come when such a measure might be revived, and carried in the only way in which he wished to see it carried, conformably to the general tranquillity of the empire. To him it had appeared of such importance, that, being unable to bring it forward as a measure of government, he did not conceive it possible for him, with honour, to remain in the same situation; and he wished it to be understood, that whenever the same obstacles did not exist, he would do every thing in his power to promote its success. He denied, however, that any of those who had retired from office had so pledged themselves to the Catholics as to be under the necessity of resigning their offices because they could not perform their promise; and he also denied that ever the Catholics supposed they had received such a pledge. An expostulation was natural, but a pledge had never been given. He concluded that the British government had justice on its side, or rather was supported by 7 the law of nations, in the claims which it now maintained to search neutral vessels for military 7 stores on their way to the enemy, and to declare particular French or other ports under blockade, to the effect of thereafter having a right to arrest neutral vessels attempting to enter them.

Mr Fox observed, that it was undoubtedly a doctrine recognised by the law of nations, that free bottoms did not make free goods; but he doubted much the propriety of discussing it at this critical juncture. He thought our claims upon this subject were extended too far when they were made to reach to naval stores, as these had not been at former periods considered as contraband. He then adverted to the successes of the war, which had been enumerated by Mr Dundas. On the navy 7 he bestowed merited praise, and also on the late first lord of the admiralty, assigning his merit as the reason for the constant [7:5:500]and brilliant triumphs of the navy; whilst our military expeditions, though our troops were as brave as our seamen, had generally failed. In naval tactics almost every thing depended on the talents of the officers; whereas, in military movements, much depended on the original design. The boasted capture of islands was not the object of the war: our object had been to protect Europe against France; and how had we succeeded? Which of the two nations had been most aggrandised in the course of it? A country paying double its land-rent was in a state demanding inquiry. The war secretary had talked much about the diversion of war, and shown us its nature on his principles. He had sent the Duke of York and an army of thirty thousand men to the only neck of land perhaps in the world where a fifth part of their own numbers was equal to cope with them. Of the armistice of Hohenlinden, and the negociation which followed it, Mr Fox spoke with indignation, reprobating the conduct of the minister, which had so fatally proved that eloquence was distinct from wisdom. Time had now evinced that all the great objects of the war were defeated, and that our allies had deserted us; and when no prospect of success remained, we might resort to negociation. The same men who had rejected the proposals of Bonaparte with insolence, must approach with respect, suing for favour, to avoid participating in the disgrace. With regard to the Irish Catholics, no man ought to be deprived of his rights because he worshipped God according to the dictates of his own conscience; and it was a reflection upon parliament to say, as Mr Pitt had said, that he could not there propose a measure which he approved. He declared his belief that no such difficulty existed, but that the late minister might wish to retire for a season, till overtures of peace were made, which, he could not make, without mortification, to the man whom he had insulted. He spoke of the change of administration as a fortunate occurrence. Some indeed might suspect, from the panegyric of Mr Pitt, that the new ministers were the less gaudy puppets, directed by those who had quitted their stations; and if they adopted the system of their predecessors, with the additional blame of being hostile to the Catholic claims, acting in this point from their own motives, they would be unworthy of confidence.

The new chancellor of the exchequer, Mr Addington, observed, that the degree of confidence which the House of Commons ought to extend to the present ministers, it was not for him to conjecture; they only asked for that portion of it which should be constitutionally reposed in persons duly appointed by his majesty, unless it was precluded by antecedent character and conduct. He then commented on all the leading points in dispute with the northern powers; and after stating the grounds of the principle asserted by this country, and referring to the exception made by existing treaties, gave it as his opinion that the right for which we contended was vital and fundamental, and could neither be abandoned nor compromised. Lastly, he felt it incumbent on him to declare that it was the determination of his majesty’s servants to take such steps as appeared to them best calculated for the restoration of peace; that no form of government in France would obstruct negociation; and that if there was a corresponding disposition on the part of the enemy, the grand object would be accomplished. The motion for inquiry was then rejected by a majority of more than two to one.

Notwithstanding the change of ministry, Mr Pitt brought forward the business of the supplies in the House of Commons. Their amount was L.35,587,462; of which sum L.15,800,000 was for the navy, L.15,902,000 for the army, and L.1,938,000 for the ordnance. The income tax was now stated as only amounting to about L.6,000,000. As some deficiencies of former estimates required to be provided for, Mr Pitt stated, that the whole charge of the two countries, for the service of the year, would amount to L.42,197,000, which would be divided between the two countries thus: Great Britain for its fifteen seventeenths of the joint expense, and those charges which belonged separately to her, would have to defray, in round numbers, L.37,870,000; and the charges falling upon Ireland would be L.4,324,000. The sum of L.25,000,000 was raised by way of loan, and new taxes were imposed upon paper, tea, houses, lead, the post-office, and various other articles. The income tax was also further mortgaged, so that the debt for which it was pledged amounted to L.76,000,000.

In the meanwhile, to prevent the active co-operation of Denmark with Russia, and if possible to break up the northern confederacy, an armament was fitted out in the British ports, consisting of eighteen sail of the line, and as many frigates, sloops, bombs, fire-ships, and smaller vessels, as made the whole amount to about fifty-three sail. This fleet, under the command of Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, with Vice-admiral Lord Nelson as his second, sailed from Yarmouth on the 12th of March 1801, and soon afterwards reached its first rendezvous at the entrance of the Cattegat. The Danish navy at this time consisted of twenty-three ships of the line, with about thirty-one frigates and smaller vessels, exclusive of guard ships. The Swedes had eighteen ships of the line, fourteen frigates and sloops, seventy-four galleys and smaller vessels, besides gun-boats, all in a state of respectable equipment. The Russians had eighty-two sail of the line and forty frigates, and of these thirty-one sail of the line and a proportional number of frigates were in commission in the Baltic, being divided between Petersburg, Archangel, Cronstadt, and Revel; but their fleet was ill built, ill manned, ill officered, and ill-equipped; and, of the number in commission in the Baltic, probably not more than twenty sail of the line could have been put into a condition to act against an enemy. At this time the Swedes had eleven sail of the line at Carlscrona, ready for sea, and in tolerable fighting trim; the Danish fleet at Copenhagen consisted of ten sail of the line ready for sea, exclusive of about an equal number in an unserviceable state; and, assuming the available Russian force as above stated at twenty sail of the line, it thus appears that the entire effective strength of the fleets of the northern confederates amounted to forty-one sail of the line, besides frigates and smaller vessels. But as not more than twenty-five or twenty-six of these could by any means have been assembled at a given point, and as even the best of them were decidedly inferior to our ships in condition, equipment, discipline, and skill, eighteen, or even fifteen British sail of the line were more than a match for them. This explanation is necessary to show that the British government were not guilty of any rashness in sending to the Baltic a force apparently so small in comparison of that to which it was opposed; though they certainly deserve the strongest reprobation for allowing any petty consideration to prevent them from appointing Nelson to the command.

It was at first hoped that Denmark, notwithstanding her hostile demonstrations, would prefer negociation to war; but this expectation having been disappointed, and the Danish government, instead of conciliation, having assumed a tone of open defiance, preparations were made for forcing the passage of the Sound, though in these much valuable time was lost through the irresolution of the admiral, Sir Hyde Parker. At length, however, the British fleet weighed anchor at six o’clock in the morning of the 30th March, and with a fine breeze at north-north-west [7:5:501]entered the Sound in a line a-head, the van division commanded by Lord Nelson in the Elephant, the centre division by the commander-in-chief, and the rear division by Rear-admiral Graves. At seven the batteries at Elsineur, which had been represented as tremendous, commenced firing at the Monarch, which was the leading ship, and the other ships as they passed in succession; but the distance was so great that not a shot took effect, nor did any of the British ships fire in return except the van division, which only discharged a few broadsides. As the strait at Elsineur, however, is less than three miles across, a mid-channel passage would undoubtedly have exposed the ships to a fire from Cronenburg Castle, adjoining EIsineur, on the one side, and from the Swedish town of Helsinburg on the other; but the British having observed that the batteries of the latter mounted only eight guns of a small calibre, inclined to the Swedish shore, where not even a show of opposition was made, and passing within less than a mile of it, avoided a fire which, as proceeding from nearly a hundred pieces of cannon, could scarcely have failed to do much injury to the ships. About noon the fleet anchored at some distance above the island of Huen, which is about fifteen miles from Copenhagen; and the commander-in-chief, Viee-admiral Lord Nelson, and Rear-admiral Graves, accompanied by Captain Domett and the commanding officers of the artillery and troops (namely, the forty-ninth regiment, two companies of the rifle corps, and a detachment of artillery which had been embarked on board a division of the fleet in the Downs), proceeded in a lugger to reconnoitre the enemy’s defences. These were soon ascertained to be of the most formidable description. It was apparent that the Danes could not be attacked without great difficulty and risk; and when a council of war was called in the afternoon, much as usual was urged to show the propriety of foregoing, or at least delaying, the attack. Councils of war never fight. But happily the opinion of Nelson prevailed, and he offered his services for the attack, requiring ten sail of the line and all the small eraft. Sir Hyde Parker willingly accepted the tender, gave him two more line-of-battle ships than he asked, and wisely left every thing to his own judgment.

The force at Copenhagen was not the only obstacle to be contended with. The approach to it was by a channel extremely intricate and little known; and, to>increase the difficulty of navigating it, the Danes had removed or misplaced the buoys. But Nelson himself saw the soundings made, and buoys laid in the outer channel, between the island of Saltholm and the Middle Ground, boating it upon this exhausting service until it was completed. An attack from the eastward was first meditated; but a second examination of the Danish position, on the 31st, and a favourable change of the wind, determined the vice-admiral to attack from the south. Accordingly, on the morning of the first of April, the British fleet removed to an anchorage within two leagues of the town, off the northwestern extremity of the Middle Ground; a shoal extending along the whole sea front of the city of Copenhagen, and leaving an intervening channel of deep water called Konigstiefe, or King’s Channel, about three quarters of a mile wide. In the course of the forenoon Nelson, accompanied by Captain Riou of the Amazon, reconnoitred for the last time the position which he was about to attack; and soon after his return at one o’clock the signal to weigh appeared at the Elephant’s mast-head. It was received with a shout throughout the whole squadron, and promptly obeyed. They weighed with a light and favourable wind; the small eraft pointed out the course distinctly; Riou led the way in the Amazon; and coasting along the edge of the right hand shoal or Middle Ground until they reached and partly rounded its southern extremity, the squadron anchored off Draco Point just as the darkness closed, the headmost of the enemy’s line not being more 1 than two miles distant. Captain Hardy now proceeded in a small boat, under cover of the night, to examine the channel between the anchorage and the Danish line, and actually approached near enough to sound round the first ship of the latter, using a pole lest the noise of throwing the lead should occasion a discovery. Having completed his task, he returned about eleven o’elock, and reported to the admiral the depth of the water, and the practicability of the channel up to the Danish line. This was gratifying news to Nelson, though it added to his impatience, and prevented him from sleeping during the remainder of the night, the whole of which was spent in preparing instructions and receiving reports.

The force now about to be attacked was of the most formidable description. It consisted of eighteen vessels, all two-decked ships, but some of them old and dismantled, with frigates, praams, and radeaux, mounting altogether about six hundred and fifty guns, and moored in a line of about a mile in extent, flanked at the north end, or that nearest the town, by two artificial islands called the Trekròŉer or Crown Batteries, one of thirty twenty-four pounders, and the other of thirty-eight thirty-six pounders, with furnaces for heating shot, and commanded by two-decked block-ships. The entrance into the harbour and docks, which are situated in the heart of the city, was protected by a chain drawn across it, and also by some batteries on the northern shore, particularly the Trekröner already described; and, in addition to this, two seventy-four gun ships, Danne-marek and Trekröner, a forty-gun frigate, two eighteen gun brigs, and several armed zebecs, provided with furnaces for heating shot, were moored in advantageous positions off the mouth of the harbour. Along the shore of Amak island, a little to the southward of the floating line of defence, were gun and mortar batteries; and as the Danes were animated by an enthusiastic spirit of patriotism, and eager by every possible means to repel the assailants, there was no want of men, skilful and brave, to work the guns, either afloat or on shore.

The day of the second of April broke, as Nelson had hoped it would, with a favourable, south-easterly wind; and the signal for all the captains to come on board the flag-ship was hoisted as soon as it could be seen. As circumstances prevented the admiral’s plan of attack being strictly followed, it may suffice to state that all the line-of-battle ships were to anchor by the stern abreast of the different vessels composing the enemy’s line, an operation for which they were already prepared by having cables out of their stern-ports. The Amazon, Blanehe, Alemène, Arrow, and Dart, with two fire-ships, all under the direction of Captain Riou, were to eo-operate in the attack on the ships stationed at the mouth of the harbour, and to act otherwise as circumstances might require. The bombvessels were to station themselves outside the British line, and to throw their shells over it; while the Jamaica, with the brigs and gun-vessels, was to take a position for raking the southern extremity of the Danish line; and a similar station was assigned to the Desiree. It was also intended that the forty-ninth regiment, under Colonel Stewart, and five hundred seamen under Captain Freemantle of the Ganges, should storm the principal of the Trekròŉer batteries, the instant that its fire should be silenced by the cannonade from the ships. Between eight and nine o’elock the pilots, most of whom had been mates in Baltie traders, were ordered on board the Elephant. But as they hesitated about the bearing of the east and of the shoal, and the exact line of deep water, it became evident that their knowledge was not to be trusted. Nelson was extremely perplexed. The signal for action had been [7:5:502]made; the wind was fair; not a moment was to be lost. • They were urged to be steady, to be resolute, and to decide; but they wanted the only ground for steadiness and resolution in such a case; and Nelson had now reason to regret that he had not trusted to Captain Hardy’s single report. At length Mr Alexander Briarly, the master of the Bellona, undertook to lead the fleet; and his proposal being acceded to, the captains returned to their ships, and at halfpast nine the signal was made for the ships to weigh in succession, and advance to the attack.

The Edgar led the way; but the Agamemnon, which was next in order, having anchored rather outside than off the great shoal, could not weather it, and was obliged to bring up again in six fathoms water, where the current was so strong that, although she afterwards re-weighed, and continued for a long time to warp with the stream and kedge anchors, she was compelled again to bring up nearly in the spot from which she had last weighed. When the misfortune of the Agamemnon was discovered, the admiral made signal for the Polyphemus, which followed the Edgar; and the Isis steered after the Polyphemus. The Bellona, notwithstanding a fair wind and ample room, kept too close on the starboard shoal, and grounded abreast of the outer ship of the enemy. The Russell following the Bellona, also grounded; and although both were within range of shot, their absence from their intended stations was severely felt. Three ships of the squadron were now aground and comparatively useless; so that Nelson was compelled to begin the attack with one ship of the line less than he had calculated upon as absolutely necessary. In compliance with the wish of the pilots, each ship had been ordered to pass her leader on the starboard side, from a supposition that the water shoaled on the larboard; but, as Captain Hardy had proved, the water deepened all the way to the enemy’s line. The Elephant, flag-ship, came next; but Lord Nelson, as soon as he perceived the state of the Bellona and Russell, ordered his helm to be put a starboard, and passed within those ships; and all the ships astern followed his example. By this act of promptitude on the part of the admiral, the greater part of the fleet were saved from going on shore. At the moment when Lord Nelson’s squadron weighed, Admiral Parker’s eight ships did the same, and took up a position somewhat nearer the mouth of the harbour, so as to menace the northern wing of the defence; but a nearer approach was impracticable in time to render any active service in the engagement.

The cannonade commenced at five minutes after ten, and for nearly an hour the principal ships engaged were the Polyphemus, Isis, Edgar, Ardent, and Monarch. By half-past eleven, however, the Glatton, Elephant, Ganges, and Defiance, got to their respective stations, as did also several frigates and smaller vessels, and the action now became general. The Desiree proved of great service in raking the Provesteen, and drawing part of her fire from the Polyphemus and Isis; but owing to the strength of the current, the Jamaica, with the gun-vessels, could not get near enough to be of any service in the action; and the bomb-vessels were not able to execute much. The absence of the Agamemnon, Bellona, and Russell, disconcerted the plan of the attack, and caused several of the British ships to sustain a heavier share of the enemy’s fire than had been allotted to them, or they were well able to bear; and among the sufferers on this account was the Amazon frigate, which, along with four others under Captain Riou, had boldly taken a position right against the Trekröner batteries. The cannonade had continued three hours, and few if any of the Danish block-ships, praams, or radeaux, had ceased firing, nor had the contest as yet taken a decisive turn to either side. Meanwhile the commander-in-chief, near enough to the scene of conflict to know the unfavourable accidents which had deprived Nelson of one fourth of his force, and yet too distant to know 1 the real state of the contending parties, suffered the most dreadful anxiety: and from the reports made to him that signals of distress were flying at the mast-heads of two British line-of-battle ships, and the signal of inability on board a third; from observing the zig-zag course and slow progress of the Defence, Ramillies, and Veteran, which he had dispatched as a reinforcement; and from the distance of the London, which bore his flag, preventing his judging of the relative condition of the contending parties; Sir Hyde Parker was induced to throw out the signal for discontinuing the action. When this was reported to Nelson, he continued to walk the deck without appearing to take any notice of it. At the next turn the signal lieutenant met him, and having stated that the commanderin-chief had thrown out number thirty-nine, asked if he should repeat it. “No,” replied Nelson, “acknowledge it ;” and presently he called after the officer to know if the signal for close action was still flying. Being answered in the affirmative, he said, “Mind you keep it so ;” and, after pacing the deck for some time, moving the stump of his lost arm in a manner which always indicated great emotion, he accosted one of the officers thus: “Do you know,” said he, “what is shown on board the commanderin-chief? Number thirty-nine.” The officer asked what that meant. “Why, to leave off action.” Then, shrugging up his shoulders, he exclaimed, “Leave off action! No, damn me if I do. You know, Foley,” turning to the captain, “I have but one eye; I have a right to be blind sometimes and then putting the glass to his blind eye, in sportive bitterness, he exclaimed, “I really do not see the signal ;” adding, after a momentary pause, “Danin the signal! Keep mine for closer battle flying. That’s the way I answer such signals. Nail mine to the mast !” The three frigates and two sloops nearest to the London, however, obeyed the signal, and hauled off from the Trekröner batteries; when “the gallant, good Riou” was killed by a raking shot, which cut him in two, just as the Amazon presented her stern to one of the latter.

About half past one the fire of the Danes began to slacken, and at a little before two it had ceased along nearly the -whole of their line. Some of the praams and light vessels had also gone adrift; but few if any of the vessels whose flags had been struck would suffer themselves to be taken possession of, and fired on the boats as they approached; whilst the batteries on the isle of Amak aided them in this irregular warfare. Nelson was justly irritated at this conduct on the part of the Danes; and at one time had thoughts of sending in the fire-ships to burn the vessels which had surrendered. But, as a preliminary measure, he retired into the stern gallery, and wrote to the crown prince of Denmark that celebrated letter, which will ever be memorable in the history of England: “Vice-admiral Lord Nelson is commanded to spare Denmark when she no longer resists. The line of defenee which covered her shores has struck to the British flag; but if the firing is continued on the part of Denmark, he must set on fire all the prizes that he has taken, without having the power of saving the men who have so nobly defended them. The brave Danes are the brothers, and should never be the enemies, of the English.” This letter was carried on shore with a flag of truce by Sir Frederick Thesiger, who found the crown prince at a sally-port. Meanwhile a destructive cannonade was still kept up by the Defiance, Monarch, and Ganges, while the near approach of the Defence and Ramillies silenced the fire of the Indosfore-then, Holstein, and the ships next to them in the Danish line. But the great Trekröner still continued its fire. This formidable work, having had nothing but frigates and sloops [7:5:503]opposed to it, and that only for a time, was comparatively uninjured; and as it had just been manned with nearly fifteen hundred men, it was considered as too strong to be successfully stormed. It was now judged advisable to withdraw the fleet out of the intricate channel while the wind was fair; and preparations were making for this purpose, when the Danish adjutant-general Lindholm came, bearing a flag of truce; upon which the Trekròŉer discontinued its fire, and the action, after having lasted five hours, during four of which it had been hotly contested, was brought to a close.

The message from the crown prince being to inquire the purport of Lord Nelson’s note, the latter replied in writing, that humanity was the object; that he consented to stay hostilities in order that the wounded Danes might be taken on shore; that he would take his prisoners out of the vessels, and burn or carry off his prizes, as he should think fit; and that he would consider this as the greatest victory he had ever gained, if it should lead to a reconciliation between the two countries. Sir Frederick Thesiger was dispatched a second time with the reply; and the Danish adjutant-general was referred to the commander-in-chief for a final adjustment of terms. Lindholm, accordingly, proceeded to the London, about four miles off; and Nelson, availing himself of the opportunity thus afforded, made signal to the leading British ships, all of which were much crippled in their rigging and sails, to weigh in succession. The Monarch led the way, and touched the edge of the shoal; but the Ganges taking her amidships, drove her clear. The Glatton, drawing less water, passed free; but the Defiance and Elephant grounded about a mile from the Trekröner, and there remained fixed for many hours, in spite of the exertions of their crews. At the opposite end of the line, also, the Desiree, having gone to assist the Bellona, became fast on the same shoal. Soon after the Elephant grounded, Lord Nelson quitted her and followed Lindholm to the London. The boats of Sir Hyde Parker’s division were actively employed during the whole night of the 2d in bringing out the prizes, and in getting afloat the ships which were aground; and, by the morning of the 3d, the latter, except the Dcsirée, were got off. The negociations continued during the five following days; and, in the interval, all the prizes, except the Holstein, a sixty gun ship, which was sent home, were set fire to and destroyed. Six line-of-battle ships and eight praams had been taken. Of the former, the Zealand, a much finer ship than the Holstein, was included amongst those consigned to the flames, for what reason we have not been able to ascertain. On the 9th an armistice for fourteen weeks was, after much discussion, agreed to; and Denmark engaged to suspend all proceedings under the treaty of armed neutrality which she had entered into with Sweden and Russia.

This was a murderous action. Our loss in killed and wounded fell little short.of twelve hundred; whilst that of the Danes, including prisoners, amounted to about six thousand. Many of the British ships had suffered severely, from the steady hull-firing of the enemy; whilst, as to the Danish ships or floating hulks, the greater part of them were literally knocked to pieces; and had the pilots permitted the British ships to take a closer position, where the heavy carronades of the Glatton and Ardent would have produced their full effect, the destruction would have been still more complete, and certainly more rapid. For the battle of Copenhagen Nelson received the title of Viscount; a paltry reward for services equally splendid in themselves, and important to the maritime interests of England.

On the 12th the British fleet sailed from Copenhagen roads by the difficult channel of the Grounds, between the islands of Amak and Saltholm, and steered for the northern extremity of the island of Bornholm, in order to intercept a Swedish squadron, reported at nine sail of the line. The Swedish admiral, however, whose force consisted of only six sail of the line, sought refuge behind the forts of Carlscrona; and here a negociation was opened, which, on the 22d, ended in an agreement by his Swedish majesty to treat for the accommodation of all existing differences. On the 5th of May Sir Hyde Parker was recalled, and Nelson invested with the command, which ought never to have been for one moment intrusted to another. On the 8th he informed the Swedish admiral, by a flag of truce, that although Sir Hyde Parker had consented not to interrupt Swedish navigation, he, Lord Nelson, would act against the Swedish fleet if he found it at sea; and he left Captain Murray with six sail of the line, the Glatton, and a frigate, to cruise off Carlscrona. On the 14th his lordship anchored off Revel roads, prepared, if necessary, to let Russia feel “the Nelson touch,” under which Denmark and Sweden had quailed; but events had already occurred in that country which changed the aspect of affairs, and brought on an accommodation without any further hostilities.^[18. James’s Naval History of Great Britain, vol. ii. p. 518, et seqq. London, 1822; Southey’s Life of Nelson, vol. ii. p. 100, et seqq London, 1813. ]

On the 23d of March the emperor Paul, who had performed so versatile and extraordinary a part on the political stage, from the periodwhen he ascended the Russian throne, expired suddenly. His capricious tyranny, which was at last about to be directed against the members of his own family, proved fatal to him, and he fell the victim of one of those conspiracies to which despots are peculiarly exposed. His son and successor, Alexander, immediately disclaimed all hostility against Great Britain, and made reparation for the damage which our merchants had suffered from the embargo laid upon their ships. A convention was adjusted with Russia in the month of June, which put an end to the dispute with the northern states, as Sweden and Denmark could not of themselves hope to resist the power of Great Britain; and by the third article of the agreement it was stipulated, that effects embarked in neutral vessels should be free, with the exception of contraband stores of war, and the property of an enemy; that the latter designation should not include merchandise of the produce, growth, or manufacture of the countries at war, acquired by the subjects of the neutral state, and transported on their account; that the commodities prohibited should be such only as were declared contraband by the treaty of commerce concluded between Great Britain and Russia in 1797; that a port should be considered as under blockade when the ships of a belligerent power should be so stationed as to render it evidently dangerous to enter; that neutral vessels should not be stopped, except upon strong grounds; that the proceeding should be uniform, prompt, and legal; and that the right of searching mercantile ships sailing under convoy of a ship of war should only be exercised by the ships of the government, not by those of private adventurers. By this arrangement the chief points in dispute were settled in favour of this country.

The war between France and Great Britain was now reduced to merely maritime operations, and these were of no great magnitude. One of the most important occurred upon the coast of Spain, between Sir James Saumarez [7:5:504]and a squadron of French and Spanish ships of war. On the morning of the 6th of July, the British admiral stood through the Straits of Gibraltar, with the intention of attacking three French line-of-battle ships and a frigate, wbich were lying at anchor oft' Algesiras. On opening Cabrita Point he found that the ships lay at a considerable distance from the batteries on shore, and having the advantage of a leading wind, he conceived that he had every prospect of success. He had previously directed Captain Hood in the Venerable to lead the squadron; but the wind failing, this officer found it impossible to occupy the station assigned to him. Captain Stirling in the Pompée, however, having anchored opposite the inner ships of the enemy, commenced the action; while, in the ardour to engage, the Hannibal unfortunately ran aground. Every effort was now made by the admiral to cover this ship from the enemy’s fire; but as she was only three cables length from one of the batteries on shore, he was obliged to retire, and to leave her in their hands. The loss on board the English squadron was considerable. The admiral had scarcely reached harbour when he was apprised that the French line-of-battle ships, disabled in the action of the 6th, were on the 8th reinforced by a squadron of five Spanish ships of the line under the command of Don Juan de Mozen, and a French ship of seventy-four guns; and that they were all under sail on the morning of the 12th of July, together with their prize the Hannibal. He had almost despaired of having a sufficient force in readiness to oppose such numbers; but by great exertion he was able to warp out of the Mole with all the ships under his command, the Pompée excepted, which had not time to get in her masts. The object of the British admiral being to intercept this powerful force on its way to Cadiz, he observed, late in the evening, that the enemy’s ships had cleared Cabrita Point, and at eight he bore up after them. About eleven the Superb came up with the hostile squadron, and opened her fire at not more than three cables’ length. At this critical period a mistake of the enemy decided the fate of the action. In the darkness and confusion, the Spanish ships fired upon each other; the Real Carlos took fire and blew up; whilst the Hcrmenegildo, mistaking her for an enemy, ran on board of her, and shared her melancholy fate; and the San Antonio, of seventy-four guns and seven hundred and thirty men, being thus left unsupported, struck to the Superb. The remaining ships of the enemy now crowded all sail and stood out of the straits; and at daybreak there appeared in sight only one French ship, which was standing towards the shoals of Cavil. But at this juncture the wind failing her, the Venerable was able to bring her to action, and had nearly silenced her when the loss of the mainmast obliged the captain of the Venerable to desist; and this ship, which was one of eighty-four guns, escaped along with the rest.

As the French had now resumed their usual menacing project of invasion, and appeared to be collecting a force in the harbour of Boulogne, an attempt was made by Lord Nelson to obstruct their preparations; and he succeeded in doing some damage, which appears to have encouraged him to make a more serious effort. Boats intended for boarding the French vessels were sent off in the night in four divisions, under the conduct of the Captains Somerville, Parker, Cotgrave, and Jones; and launches furnished with howitzers were detached under Captain Conn to join in the enterprise. Parker’s division first approached the enemy, and commenced a furious attack, making strenuous efforts, with the most undaunted courage, and sanguine hopes of success. But an unforeseen obstacle baffled all their exertions. This was a very strong netting traced up to the lower yards of the French vessels, which were also fastened by chains to the ground and to each other; and so effectual was the resistance of the enemy thus protected, that the crew of Captain Parker’s boat were repulsed in their attempts to board a large brig, by a furious discharge of cannon and musketry, which killed a number of the assailants, while many more were wounded and maimed. The captain received a shot which carried off his leg and part of his thigh, and his boat would have been seized by the enemy, had not a cutter seasonably towed her off. In the mean time Somerville silenced the fire of a brig near the ])ier head; but so far from being able to bring her off, he found difficulty in securing the retreat of his own boats. Cotgrave, after a spirited attack, was deprived of the services of many of his men by a fire from the flotilla and the shore. And Jones felt so strongly the obstruction of the tide, that not being able to approach before the break of day, when the other captains were returning, he retired without making any hostile attempt. Captain Parker died of his wounds after the return of the fleet to the Downs. The number of British seamen killed and wounded on this occasion amounted to nearly two hundred.

Owing to the refusal of the former administration to ratify the capitulation of El Arish, negociated between General Kleber and Sir Sidney Smith, the French still retained possession of Egypt. To remedy this unpardonable blunder a considerable force had been dispatched from Great Britain, under the conduct of an experienced and gallant officer, Sir Ralph Abercromby. The British forces under Lord Keith and General Abercromby, after unexpected delays on the coast of Asia Minor, arrived off Alexandria on the 1st of March; and the following day the fleet made sail for the bay of Aboukir, where it anchored. The sea continued to run high until the 8th, and no disembarkation could be effected; but on that day the first division made good their landing at ten o’clock in the morning, in the face of a body of French, who, evidently aware of their intention, were posted in force, with considerable advantage, on some sand hills opposite the landing place. The front of the disembarkation was narrow, and a hill which commanded the whole appeared almost inaccessible; yet the British troops ascended it under a fire of grape and musketry with the utmost intrepidity, and forced the French to retire, leaving behind them seven pieces of artillery, and a number of horses. The disembarkation was continued during that and the following day; while the troops which landed on the 8th advanced three miles the same day. On the !2th the whole army moved forward, and came in sight of the French, who were formed advantageously on a ridge, with their left resting on the canal of Alexandria and their right towards the sea. As it was determined to commence the attack on the 13th, the British force marched in two lines by the left, with an intention of turning the right flank of the enemy. But the attack was in some measure anticipated by the French, who descended from the heights on which they were formed, and assailed the leading brigades of both lines. The British troops were therefore compelled to change their front, which, though one of the most difficult operations in war, was executed with the greatest precision; and the rest of the army immediately followed their example. After a severe conflict, victory deciaredin favour of the English, though not without considerable loss.

The French commander-in-chief, Abdallah Menou, appears to have acted upon this occasion with but little judgment. Instead-of bringing down nearly his whole force to the coast, which would have enabled him greatly to outnumber, and consequently, in all probability, to defeat the invaders, who were less acquainted with the country than his own officers, he thought fit to hazard an engagement on the 21st of March with only half his force. The battle commenced before day light in the morning, by a [7:5:505]false attack on the left of the English under Major-general Craddock, in which the French were repulsed. But the most vigorous efforts of the enemy were directed against the right of the English army, which they endeavoured by every possible means to turn. The attack on this point was begun with great impetuosity by the French infantry, sustained by a strong body of cavalry, who charged in column. The contest was unusually obstinate. The French were twice repulsed, and their cavalry were repeatedly intermixed with the English infantry. While this was passing on the right, the French attempted to penetrate the centre of the British army with a column of infantry, who were also repulsed and obliged to retreat. A corps of light troops, however, advanced, supported by infantry and cavalry, to keep in check the left of the English, which was the weakest of the line; but all their efforts were fruitless, and the British remained masters of the field. The loss on our side was great, amounting in killed, wounded, and missing, to upwards of fifteen hundred. The loss of the French was calculated in the English accounts at three thousand. One of the French generals, Roiz, was killed, and Generals Lanusse and Bo-det died of their wounds. A French regiment which had been styled Invincible was destroyed in this battle, and its colours fell into the hands of a serjeant of the 42d regiment, called Sinclair, having, it is said, been picked up on the field by a Maltese, named Anthony Lutz. The victory of the 2lst decided the fate of Egypt. In this battle, however, the British army suffered a great calamity in the loss of its general. This officer was at once beloved and esteemed by the soldiers whom he commanded; he preserved the strictest military discipline, while at the same time he secured the attachment of his troops by his obvious anxiety for their welfare. Early in the revolutionary war he had been employed on the Continent. He commanded the advanced guard in the action on the heights of Cateau, and he conducted the march of the guards from Deventer to Oldensaal in the retreat of the British troops in 1794. In the following years, till 1797, he commanded in chief in most of the successful enterprises of the British in the West Indies; and on his return to Europe he was invested with the rank of lieutenant-general, and appointed to the command of the forces in Ireland. In this station he made great efforts at once to protect the people and restore discipline to the army, both of which the violence of faction had induced the rulers of that country to neglect. Though a man of simple manners, yet he possessed great independence of character, and did not hesitate to express, in public orders, the indignation which he felt on observing the disorder and consequent misery which had been introduced into Ireland, by encouraging the licentious insolence of the troops towards persons accounted disaffected to the government; freely informing the army in that country that they were become formidable to every one but the enemy. In the expedition to Holland he displayed military talents which excited the admiration not only of his own army, but of the generals who were opposed to him.

• After the death of Sir Ralph Abercromby, the command devolved upon General Hutchinson, who lost no time in proceeding towards Alexandria, where the principal force of the enemy was now concentered. In the mean time the town and castle of Rosetta were taken by a division of the British army under Colonel Spencer, aided by a body of Turks. The French garrison, amounting to eight hundred men, made but a feeble resistance, and retired to the right bank of the Nile, leaving a few men killed and prisoners. While such was the state of affairs in the neighbourhood of Alexandria, Admiral Blanket, with a considerable force from the East Indies, effected a landing at Suez. The admiral had been separated from the rest of his squadron in the dangerous and difficult passage of the Red Sea;’but before the end of April he was joined by a large reinforcement under the command of General Baird, who had with him Colonels Wellesley and Murray, and other officers of distinction.

As the capture of Grand Cairo, next to that of Alexandria, was a great object with the allies, a force was detached early in May for its reduction. On the 9th General Hutchinson, with four thousand British and an equal number of Turks, attacked the French near Rhainanieh; and the latter being driven in, retreated in the night towards Cairo, leaving a small garrison at Rhamanieh, which on the following day surrendered to the British. The loss of the English on this occasion did not exceed thirty men. About the same time a body of French and Copts, who had moved forward from Cairo to attack the Turks, were defeated by the grand vizier, who was essentially assisted by Colonel Murray and other British officers. The French are said to have lost fifty men, and the Turks about thirty in this action. The whole number of French engaged amounted to nearly five thousand, and the Turkish army to about nine thousand.

From various causes, it was the middle of June before the British army under General Hutchinson reached the vicinity of Cairo, where he found the works very much extended, though the garrison did not exceed five thousand in number. The capitan pasha at the same time invested Gizch, a suburb of Cairo, on the left bank of the Nile, and the grand vizier took a position within cannon-shot of the city. Thus invested on every side, the garrison, on the 22d, sent a flag of truce to the English general, offering to treat for the evacuation of Cairo upon certain conditions. After a negociation of several days, the surrender was finally agreed upon in a convention of twenty-one articles; the substance of which was, that the French army at Cairo and its dependencies were to be conveyed in the ships of the allied powers, and at their expense, together with their baggage, arms, ammunition, and other effects, to the nearest French ports in the Mediterranean; and of this convention General Menou was to be at liberty to avail himself. The port of Alexandria was all that now remained in possession of the French; it was attacked by sea and land, and at length surrendered by capitulation on the 2d of September.

By the time when intelligence of this event reached England, the views of men had been turned to a new state of things. Administration had seriously entered into negociations for peace, which were conducted by Lord Hawkesbury on the part of Great Britain, and Μ. Otto, who resided in London as agent for the French prisoners of war, and who was now intrusted on the part of the French with this important business. The whole was managed with such secrecy, that not even persons who held official situations, except those immediately concerned, were acquainted with the state of the negociation; and the lord mayor of London was the first person out of the cabinet to whom the result was communicated. Thus no unfair advantage could be taken; and this treaty stands almost singular on our records, since, at a period when the practice of gambling in the public funds was, from the wide extension of public credit, more predominant than at any previous crisis, not a single instance occurred of any sinister practice. By the preliminary articles, which were signed at London on the 1st of October, by Μ. Otto on the part of the French republic, and Lord Hawkesbury on the part of his Britannic majesty, Great Britain agreed to the restoration of all her conquests, the island of Trinidad and the Dutch possessions of Ceylon excepted. The Cape of Good Hope was to remain a free port to all [7:5:506]the contracting parties, who were to enjoy the same advantages; the island of Malta was to be evacuated by the British troops, and∙restored to the order of St John of Jerusalem; Egypt was to be restored to the Ottoman Porte; the territory of Portugal was to be maintained in its integrity; the French troops were to evacuate the territories of Rome and of Naples; the republic of the Seven Islands was recognised by France; the fishery at Newfoundland was re-established on its former footing; and, finally, plenipotentiaries were to be named, and to repair to Amiens, in order to proceed with the arrangement of a definitive treaty of peace, in concert with the allies of the contracting parties. During the war, negociations for peace had so repeatedly proved unsuccessful, that a general incredulity prevailed with regard to the possibility of such an event; and accordingly all merchants conducted their speculations upon the supposition that there existed no probability of an immediate termination to the war. The state of the present negociation had been so carefully concealed, that, when the official intelligence of its issue was transmitted throughout the country, it excited everywhere the utmost astonishment, but nevertheless produced, almost instantaneously, the most unbounded expressions of joy among all orders of persons. The zealous adherents of the late administration, indeed, were upon the whole rather dissatisfied; but their voice was overwhelmed in the general acclamations which took place, and far surpassed the expressions of joy which had occurred at the termination of any former war; and, as an abundant harvest was at the same time reaped, the prospect of plenty added greatly to the public joy.

CHAP. XVII.

REIGN OF GEORGE III. FROM THE PEACE OF AMIENS TO

THE RENEWAL OF THE WAR IN 1803.

Meeting of Parliament—Speech from the Throne—The Peace impugned by Mr Windham—Debates on this subject—Definitive Treaty—Suspicious conduct of Bonaparte—Debates on the Definitive Treaty.—General Conduct of Administration— Effects of the Change of Ministry—Consequences of the Peace. —Conduct of the French Government French Expedition to

St Domingo—Abominable cruelty and oppression practised by the invading force—Conduct of the French in Europe—Despotism of Bonaparte—The First Consul and the English Newspapers.—Meeting of Parliament Execution of Despard and his Associates—Difficulties experienced in executing the Treaty of Amiens.—Bonaparte’s Conversation with Lord Whitworth— Transference of Louisiana.—Extraordinary Scene between the First Consul and the British Ambassador Ultimatum of the

British Court.—War renewed.—Declaration in justification of the renewal of the War—Situation of the Ministry.—State of Parties—Menace of Invasion Preparations for encountering the threatened attack—Patriotism of all classes The army, the militia, the army of reserve, and the volunteers.

Parliament assembled on the 29th of October. By this time the new administration, from the mildness of their conduct, and their successful negociations for peace, had obtained a powerful hold on the affections of the public. When they first came into office they appeared to have obtained a promise of support from their predecessors; but this kind of gratuitous support could scarcely be expected to be very consistent or uniform. Mr Pitt himself continued to give countenance to the minister; but some of his friends avowed their dissatisfaction on account of the treaty with France. The speech from the throne announced the conclusion of the negociations commenced during the last session of parliament; and expressed much satisfaction that the differences with the northern powers had been adjusted. It stated that the preliminaries of peace had been ratified between us and the French republic; that whilst this arrangement manifested the justice and moderation of our views, it would also be found conducive to the interests of the country and the honour of the British character; and that as the provision for defraying the expenses of maintaining an adequate peace establishment could not be made without large additional supplies, all possible attention would be paid to such economical arrangements as were consistent with the security of his majesty’s dominions. The speech concluded with applauding the operations of the last campaign, and particularly the glorious issue of the expedition to Egypt, which, however, has deserved and obtained a more fitting commemoration.

In the House of Lords the motion for the usual address passed unanimously. In the House of Commons, both Mr Fox and Mr Pitt declared that they joined in the general joy which the peace had produced, and gave it their approbation. On the other hand, Mr Windham differed as to there being any just cause for general joy and exultation; and he disapproved of the preliminaries of peace signed with France, as well as of the address, in as far as it implied an approbation of them. It behoved him to give his reasons for dissenting on so material a point. To stand as a solitary mourner in the midst of public rejoicings, to wear a countenance clouded with sadness whilst all others were lighted up with pleasure, certainly appeared ungracious. But were the circumstances of this peace such as justified our exultation upon former occasions? To him they appeared in a quite contrary view; and when he was desired to illuminate, he first endeavoured to learn whether it was to light him to a feast or a sepulchre. It was his firm persuasion, that in signing this peace his friends had put their signatures to the death-warrant of the country. He knew the inconsistency of human affairs, nor was he profane enough to set bounds to the dispensations of providence; but neither could he foresee what changes might be wrought in the disposition of the people of England by intrigues from without or convulsions from within; and upon no rational view could he see his way out of the evils it would entail upon this country. The only thing necessary to enable France to divide with us the empire of the seas was a participation of our commerce, and this she would effectually secure by the present peace; whilst, by the surrender of our conquests, we had thrown out of our hands the only means to prevent it, the extension of our colonial system. The motives which induced ministers to conclude these preliminaries, he knew not; some of them he had heard, but was not convinced, as they appeared wholly insufficient. If they were forced to accept this peace through inability, their conduct was the more excusable; and we had to thank them, not for what they had acquired, but saved to their country. If they could prove that, by ceding foreign colonies, they had preserved objects nearer and dearer to us, as Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Ireland, and the soil of England, from ravage and desolation, they were entitled to gratitude instead of censure, and had established, not a ground of apology, but a claim to thanks. But such a plea he did not recognise; and how far they were actuated by necessity, would be a matter for future discussion.

Mr Addington described the observations of Mr Windham as premature, since the articles of the treaty were not before the house; and, without referring to the terms of the peace, he affirmed, that all we had given up would have afforded us no sort of security against the dangers apprehended by Mr Windham, and that the best counterpoise to , the power of France consisted in the preservation [7:5:507] of our constitution, in our industry and skill, and in the right direction of our resources. Mr Sheridan, notwithstanding the unanimity with which the address was consented to, believed, that if men sincerely delivered their opinions, there never was a period of less real unanimity. The peace had been spoken of as glorious and honourable. It was a peace of which every Englishman might be glad, but no one proud; and it involved a degradation of national dignity such as the war might lead us to expect, though perhaps it was as good as any minister could make in the circumstances in which we were placed.

His majesty having by message communicated the preliminary treaty with the French republic, an address of thanks was moved on the 3d of November, when Earl Spencer expressed his regret at differing in sentiment from the ministers, with some of whom it was his pride to have coincided in principles, and co-operated in conduct. The great object of Britain, in former wars with France, had been the preservation of the balance of power. This was the point which had been considered, from king William’s confederacy against Louis XIV. to the present time; and to insure the maintenance of such an equilibrium, it was not only necessary that Britain should not be left by the peace in a worse political situation than in the beginning of the war, but that her strength, possessions, or acquisitions, should continue in proportion as high as those of France. In the present war, the acquisitions of France had been infinitely beyond all former conception; she had, by her arts or her arms, subdued the Netherlands, Holland, the left bank of the Rhine, and a great part of Italy; her power, compared with that of Great Britain, exceeded what she had been allowed to retain at any former treaty of pacification; nor could we be secure, when such immense acquisitions had been left to France, without any thing like an equivalent left to this country. He therefore condemned the conditions of the peace now concluded, as of very great inequality, whether with reference to the relative state of France and the Continent, or to that of France and England. Lord Pelham thought that the terms of peace were the best which could be procured, even in favour of our allies. Portugal was safe, the Roman and Neapolitan territories had been released from the French yoke; the French were expelled from Egypt, by which our Ottoman ally had been saved; and with regard to Malta, its retention would have been more injurious than beneficial to England, as a powerful garrison would have been requisite for its protection. In the East and West Indies we had been triumphant by sea and land; and our possessions had received important additions by the conquests we had made. As to the security of the peace, we had every security which could be expected; and besides, it was the policy and interest of France to preserve it. Lord Grenville thought that, as Britain was in a prosperous state, we ought to have obtained more honourable terms of peace, because we were in a condition to demand them. It was far from his intention to undervalue the acquisitions of France; on the contrary, he thought them much more important than was generally esteemed. She had made the Rhine the boundary of the empire, and extended her territories beyond the ambition of her monarchs, having her frontiers protected by dependent republics and tributary kings. On our side we had triumphs no less brilliant and striking. We had multiplied our colonies, and our navy sailed the seas invincible; we had rescued Egypt, captured Malta, possessed ourselves of Minorca, and shut up the Mediterranean from the ships of France and Spain; the Cape of Good Hope, the key of the East, was ours; in the East Indies we had every thing except Batavia, which we might also have possessed had we thought it worth the cost of an expedition; in the West Indies we had Martinico Trinidad, and other islands; upon the continent of South America we had an absolute empire, in extent almost equal to that power to which we restored it. Such were the colonial possessions acquired by the war; and if Europe could not have been restored to her pristine state, these ought to have been retained as a counterpoise to the power of France. He denied the fairness of comparing the present treaty with that proposed at Lisle. We now gave up Surinam, Malta, and Minorca. At no time during the contest was the spirit of the country so depressed as at the negociation of Lisle. A variety of causes combined to produce that despondency; the stoppage of the bank, the defection of our allies, and, above all, the mutiny in the fleet. The measure, therefore, was defensible on the score of necessity; but this was not the case at present; yet we had given to the French the only thing they wanted, the means of creating a navy, and of rivalling us in our commerce, while we had obtained nothing in return. The Earl of Moira was of opinion, that though the terms of the treaty were inadequate, they were unavoidable. Lord Nelson observed respecting Malta, that when he was sent down the Mediterranean, this island was in the hands of the French; and on his return from Aboukir, it was his first object to blockade it, because he deemed it an invaluable service to rescue it out of their possession. In any other view it was of no consequence, being at too great a distance from Toulon to watch the French fleet from that port; and in time of peace it would have required a garrison of seven thousand men, and in war as many more, without being of any real utility to us. The address was carried by a great majority.

When the same subject was discussed in the House of Commons, Lord Hawkesbury ascribed the origin of the war to the interference of France in the affairs of other nations; but the state of that country was now considerably amended, and it was impossible to look at the present condition of France without being convinced that we had at least effected this change. He then expatiated on the advantages we had gained, and the good faith we had maintained with our allies, releasing them from express stipulations when they were exposed to danger by continuing faithful to their engagements. With respect to Minorca, he did not consider that island as an acquisition worth retaining. Of Malta he spoke with less confidence, as, from its impregnable state, it was certainly of political consequence in the Mediterranean; but it was no source of trade and opulence; and, connected with the prosperity of the Levant, its consequence was considerably diminished. In a word, considering the results of the war, if the term glory were not taken into account, we had at least made an honourable peace; we had been engaged in a tremendous contest, and had come out of it, considering the circumstances, with advantage. Earl Temple considered those who had signed the peace as having signed the ruin of their country. Amongst the ill consequences likely to result from it, he lamented the encouragement given to republican principles; and as to the various ostensible objects of the war, not one of them had been accomplished. Mr Pitt said that it was undoubtedly the duty of government, in negociations, to obtain the best possible terms; but it was difficult to know how far insisting on some lesser points might endanger the whole treaty; and he declared that he would rather close with an enemy on any terms not inconsistent with the honour of his country, than continue a war for any particular possession. He did not pretend to state that this peace fully answered all his wishes; but the government had obtained the best conditions they could, and the terms for which we contended[7:5:508] would not have justified ministers in protracting the war. Mr Fox declared himself satisfied with the terms of the treaty, and asserted, that no perseverance in the war would have enabled us to make peace upon better conditions. There were persons who lamented the peace as glorious for France; but if it were so, and not inglorious to England, it gave him no concern. The opinions of men depended in a great degree upon their conceptions of the causes of the war; if one of its objects was the restoration of the accursed despotism of France, to him it was another recommendation of the peace, that it had been obtained without the accomplishment of such an object. In the terms and tone of the present treaty he perfectly coincided. He approved the terms, and thought the noble secretary had wisely tempered firmness of conduct with moderation of tone; but further than this he could not go. He would by no means agree respecting the time in which the treaty was made: it came many years too late. He would put it to the house, whether, at the time the opposition was most railed against for advising pacific measures, we could not have made peace on terms equally advantageous with the present. Would not France, on the breaking out of the war, have acceded to any? Would she not then have relinquished Holland, and perhaps abandoned her designs on the Netherlands? But, since that eventful period, could we not have negociated better after the surrender of Valenciennes; and again, at Lisle, when we only failed from the extravagant pretensions of administration? In January 1800, the first consul made a direct overture, and we returned an answer, that the most effectual mode of facilitating peace would be to restore the Bourbons. Did we hint then at the possession of Ceylon or Trinidad? Would not Bonaparte have added these? Yes, and the Cape into the bargain. We then might have had Egypt by the convention of El Arish. The gallant Abercromby, indeed, would not have fallen covered with laurels in the lap of victory, nor would our brave army have acquired immortal honour; but we should have gained Egypt without the loss of blood or treasure. The first consul might not perhaps have relinquished the Netherlands, nor the left bank of the Rhine; but in Italy he had only the Genoese territory, and we had nothing then to resist to the southeastward of the Alps, and our allies were victorious on the frontiers of France. At that time the instability of the government operated with us; but neither its stability nor its instability were of any real consequence. None of the convulsions and changes of the French revolution produced any material difference in her relation with foreign powers. She had at the beginning made peace with Prussia, and sedulously preserved it during the stormy times succeeding its ratification. We were told by the ministers to pause, and we did pause from January 1800 to October 1801, and added seventy-three millions to our national debt since we returned that impertinent answer to the overtures of Bonaparte; and this pause cost five times as much as all the Duke of Marlborough’s campaigns.

To negociate the definitive treaty of peace, the Marquis Cornwallis went to Paris towards the close of the year, and thence proceeded to Amiens, where the negociations went on very slowly, and were not concluded till the 27th of March 1802. The chief difficulty occurred with regard to Malta. But it was at last agreed that it should be restored to the knights of the order of St John of Jerusalem, under the protection and sovereignty of the king of Naples; that it should be under the guarantee of France, England, Russia, Spain, Austria, and Prussia; and that if the order should not have sufficient troops to defend the island, the guaranteeing powers should each contribute an equal portion of troops, the officers to be appointed by the grand master. It was settled that Malta should be a neutral port, that one half of the garrison should be Maltese, and that there should be no French nor English body of knights, or tongue as it is called. The king of Naples, however, was to be invited to garrison the island with two thousand men for one year from the restitution of the knights; which was to take place in three months after the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty. In other respects the definitive treaty differed little from the preliminaries formerly agreed to.

During the dependence of the negociation, the first consul, Bonaparte, had taken some steps which indicated little moderation, and showed that it would be difficult to remain upon terms of amity with him, while the desire of extensive dominion which at present governed his councils seemed of too restless a character to allow much hope of tranquillity to the world. Without waiting till a definitive treaty of peace had been concluded, he sent a large army to St Domingo, which obliged Britain to dispatch a powerful fleet to the West Indies in order to watch* its motions. On the Continent his measures were not less arbitrary. A considerable portion of Lombardy, with Milan as its capital, which had been erected into what was called the Italian or Cisalpine republic, and contained some millions of people, was now united to France, by the form of nominating Bonaparte to the office of president over it; a measure which at any other period would have involved all Europe in war: but at present no state ventured to interpose, and the British ministers finding no power in Europe disposed to resist this step towards the permanent aggrandisement of France, and being themselves anxious to restore peace, did not interrupt the negociations on this account.

On Thursday the 29th of April Lord Pelham, by his majesty’s command, laid before the House of Lords a copy of the definitive treaty of peace between his Britannic majesty and the French republic, and his Catholic majesty and the Batavian republic, signed at Amiens on the 27th of March. Several debates occurred in that house upon the subject; and at length, on the 15th of May, Lord Grenville moved the order of the day for the house to take into consideration the definitive treaty. He remarked, that it might be asked of what use was discussion, now that peace was concluded? Was it to abrogate, could it correct the treaty? To this question he answered, that this unfortunate treaty had been ratified by his majesty, and was therefore irrevocable; to its terms, however injurious, we were bound to accede. By evasion we should but add disgrace to disaster, and with the loss of national honour fill up the measure of national calamity. He wished not to impede the execution of the treaty, but to demonstrate to that house its dangerous tendency; to ascertain the situation in which it left the country; to point out the perils which impended, and the safety which yet remained. His objections to the preliminary treaty he had already stated; but to the definitive treaty there were objections yet more formidable. The two bases of negociation, the status ante bellum, which signified the actual situation of the parties previous to hostilities, and the uti possidetis, which referred to their position during the pacification, had both been applied in the most prejudicial manner to this country. With regard to herself England had adopted the status ante bellum; with regard to her rival, the ĩdi possidetis. England had ceded her own conquests, and confirmed to France her new acquisitions. France possessed dominion on the Continent; we had, to oppose that dominion, the colonies of France and Spain. It would have been just that France should purchase our colonial by her continental sacrifices. He contrasted the definitive treaty with that of 1763. It had been an invariable principle with Lord Chatham to make the prelimi-nary[7:5:509] as much as possible the definitive treaty. Our negociators had treated with France during a naval armistice. Immediately subsequent to the preliminary treaty, France had sent an armament to the West Indies, and obliged England to destine for the West Indies also a naval force more than double any squadrons which had been sent during the war. The necessity of keeping in the West Indies thirty-five sail of the line was the first fruit of the peace. It was obvious that the definitive treaty contained concessions more important than the preliminary articles; and it was palpably the object of the French government to exclude the commerce of this country from the continent of Europe. With respect to the situation in which Portugal and the Prince of Orange were left by the treaty, it had been said that it was a pity, and that the articles were read with regret. The proposed indemnity to the Prince of Orange was evidently at the option of France; for the Cape of Good Hope, no effort had been made to insure its independence; and Malta, whose independence had been expressly stipulated, with the provision that it should be guaranteed by one of the powers of Europe competent to its protection, was finally placed under the guarantee of six powers, who never could be brought to agree on the subject of it. Its restoration to the order was nominal and futile. The order of Malta was virtually extinct; it would be subject to the nomination, the influence, and the dominion of France. He then proceeded to take a retrospective view of the situation of this country at the commencement of the negociation. With a colonial territory of an immense extent, we had, in the very conquests achieved by our arms, the means of perpetuating our victories. From the West Indies, the produce of which amounted to two millions annually, a considerable revenue had arisen, which was now lost. By our naval superiority we had controlled the movements of the French fleet; they were now at liberty to steer for the West Indies, and we were under the necessity of sending fleets to watch them. We were in possession of resources adequate to the prosecution of the war, and held in our hands the means of extorting a just and reasonable peace. Instead of improving these advantages, we had resigned to France the preponderance of power on the Continent, established her sway in Italy, and annexed to her important possessions in India. Even our right of sovereignty in India was no longer recognised. It had been suggested that this right was guaranteed by the silence of the definitive treaty; a mode of argument which appeared equally strange and singular. He affirmed that the sovereignty of the Cape was necessary to the safety of our territories in India, and instanced the war with Tippoo Sultan, when a corvette had been sent to the Cape, from which fresh troops were immediately dispatched, who landed, marched, and co-operated at the siege of Seringapatam. By ceding the Cape to Holland, we had ceded it to France. In the West Indies we had restored to France Martinique and Tobago, and facilitated the recovery of St Domingo. France was also mistress of Louisiana, and in reality of Florida, which could not, from its vicinity to Louisiana, remain subject to Spain; and she possessed the key of Mexico which she might enter at any period. If we turned to the Mediterranean, it would be impossible to send a single ship there without the permission of France. We were stripped of Majorca, Minorca, and even of the island of Elba; we were excluded from Leghorn, and deprived of the means of maintaining a fleet in that sea; the king of Sardinia could no longer open to us his ports. The victory obtained by Lord Nelson at Aboukir was to be attributed to the assistance rendered by the king of Naples; and in return for these services, the British government had stipulated that the French republic should evacuate his dominions, without stipulating that they should not return to them. In short, whatever the valour of the British navy had won, 1 the incapacity of the British ministry had lost.

The Duke of Norfolk expressed his hope, that, now the sword was restored to its scabbard, it would not again be unsheathed for the acquisition of a station in the Mediterranean. Lord Auckland, in reply to Lord Grenville, stated, that it was an error to hold that all treaties between nations were annulled by war, and that, to be reinforced, they must be specially renewed on the return of peace. It was true, that treaties, in the nature of compacts and concessions, the enjoyment of which has been interrupted by the war, were thereby rendered null; but compacts which were not impeded by the course and effect of hostilities, such as the rights of a fishery on the coasts of either of the belligerent powers, the stipulated right of cutting logwood in a particular district, were not affected by war. There were also circumstances which might authorize the dissolution of treaties, without any rupture between the two parties. It had therefore been observed by Vattel and other writers, that treaties cease whenever an essential alteration in either of the contracting parties takes place. Applying this doctrine to Savoy, Switzerland, and other countries, the temporary victims of the French revolution, he admitted that the definitive treaty contained not a single provision, direct or indirect, for the renewal of treaties which had subsisted previous to the war; but it was not true that, by the non i renewal of our treaties with Holland, the vessels of that republic would be exonerated from the ancient practice of striking their flag to British ships of war in the British seas; for that practice had existed independently of the treaty of 1782, or even of the treaty of Breda in 1767, which were only recognitions of a previously admitted claim. The same remark was applicable to the sixth article of the treaty of 1764, by which the states-general promised not to obstruct the navigation of British subjects in the Eastern seas. That article was no new grant, but an acknowledgment of a right, and a notification to merchants that they would not be disturbed in the exercise of that right. With respect to France, the commercial treaty of 1786 had expired, but not till it had reached the natural era of decay; nor would he feel solicitude for its resuscitation, unless our negociator at Amiens should prove that the French manufacturers were able, in 1802, to resume the competition to which they were unequal, in 1786, under the existing tariff. With regard to our sovereignty in India, it had been confirmed and extended by various treaties, recognised by all the powers of Europe and India who had accepted privileges from us, and finally established by undisturbed possession. On the contrary, Lord Carnarvon represented the treaty as pregnant with danger to the country. It had been hoped, that some articles relative to our allies, and involving our own national honour, would be altered; but the definitive treaty, instead of realizing, had annihilated these hopes; concession was heaped on concession, and disgrace on disgrace. By omitting to renew former treaties, ministers had unadjusted all former adjusted disputes, and, without the customary acknowledgment of our rights, had left us to the honour andjustice of France. Lord Ellenborough expressed much surprise that the non-renewal of treaties should have been urged as a serious objection to the definitive treaty. To what purpose was this solemn nonsense to be revived? Were not these treaties replete with articles wholly inapplicable to the present political state of Europe? For himself, he could as well think of the revival of the condition of mankind, in some remote period, as of the ancient treaties, which had become inapplicable and obsolete. Our sovereignty in India rested on the rights of conquest in legitimate war, upon the repeated recognition [7:5:510] of all the powers of Europe, and on the best of all rights, possession.

The same subject, after being repeatedly alluded to, was finally discussed in the House of Commons on the 13th of May. Mr Windham attacked the treaty in several of its prominent parts. With regard to Malta, he contended, that it must ultimately fall into the hands of the French. The little order of Malta, which contained in itself the great characteristic and distinctive qualities which the French revolution had subverted, was now destroyed. The German knights had already refused to serve in a body so degraded and debased; the Neapolitan soldiers would form no security for the independence of the island; the state of Malta was a virtual surrender, and our position in the Mediterranean untenable. The Cape of Good Hope was ceded, in full sovereignty, to the Dutch, who were thus at liberty to resign it to France. Our Indian empire was our sheet anchor; and whatever was necessary for its preservation was of the last importance. The disadvantages upon our side he then contrasted with the advantages in favour of France. By the restitution of Cochin China to the Dutch, they had acquired the means of annoying our possessions in the East Indies. In defining the boundaries of France and Portuguese Guiana, ministers had enabled France to obtain her great object, the navigation of the river Amazons; and the Portuguese settlements were left exposed to the foe. He deplored the cession of Louisiana to France, which, considering the almost indefinite extent of Guiana, was a surrender of the two greatest rivers in the world; the Mississippi in the north, the river of Amazons in the south of America. In aggravation of this thoughtless prodigality, ministers had abandoned the whole continent of Europe to France. We already knew the French too well to doubt that they would scruple what means they used to accomplish their ends. Had they not fraudulently obtained the restitution of Porto Ferrajo to the king of Etruria, in order to secure it to themselves? Regardless of stipulations and treaties, they had seized on the island of Elba; and, to bestow a compensation on the king of Etruria, had extorted Piombino from Naples. The French were a new race of Romans; and in ten years they had even acquired more than the Romans were able to achieve in fifty-three. On the map of Europe two nations only stood erect; and of these, the one from distance more than from strength. Austria was indeed still rich in resources, but destitute of foreign aid. There was no single power which could enter the lists with France. In the first conflict it would be crushed by her tremendous mace. He repeated, that we had given away two continents, and that the object of France obviously was the attainment of universal empire. He admitted that the peace must be observed, now that it had been entered into; but concluded with a motion for an address, expressive of disapprobation of it.

Lord Hawkesbury observed, that from some observations of Mr Windham’s, it would seem that whenever any continental power, however unconnected with us, became involved with France, it was our duty to volunteer our interference and assistance. That we were deeply interested in the destiny of the Continent, he was willing to admit; but he conceived our interference with its commotions to be optional, neither instigated by necessity nor extorted by honour. At the end of nine years of war, we had found ourselves deserted by our allies; and with the first intimation which his majesty’s ministers received of the new constitution of the Italian republic, they had heard of its acceptance by the courts of Vienna, Berlin, and Petersburg. Under these circumstances, he submitted, whether it was incumbent on us to continue the war on account of the Italian republic. The cession of Louisiana by Spain to France was another ground of complaint. That province had originally been a French colony, when the Mississippi was the boundary between it and Great Britain; and it had been ceded by France to Spain, in a private convention, between the preliminaries and the definitive treaty of 1763; a proof that conventions of this nature, if not right, were at least not new. The value of Louisiana was at present only nominal; as a naval station it was allowed to be insignificant; and its vicinity to America was calculated to diminish, rather than augment, the attachment of that country to France. Concerning the non-renewal of certain treaties and conventions, he observed, that the principle on which treaties had usually been renewed appeared not to be understood. The treaty of Westphalia formed a distinct era in the history of Europe; and in order to ascertain the relative situations of the different powers, it had been customary to renew that treaty, together with any particular conventions subsequent to it. But it was to be considered, that formerly all preceding treaties had been renewed by the other powers of Europe, whereas in the present war no European power had done so; and consequently, if we had renewed former treaties, we only should be bound whilst other nations were free. By renewing former treaties, we should have been forced to sanction all the recent encroachments of France; and by sanctioning the treaty of Luneville we should have been accessory to the dismemberment of the Germanic empire. His lordship represented the definitive treaty as coinciding with the preliminary treaty which had previously received the sanction of the house. In regard to the permanence of the peace, he was willing to admit, and to deplore, that, in the present state of the world, any peace must be insecure; but the precarious tenure on which this blessing was to be held formed no reason for rejecting it. He concluded with moving an address to his majesty, to testify the satisfaction of the house on the conclusion of the definitive treaty. Mr Dundas also opposed Mr Windham. In his judgment, however, the Cape and Ceylon formed our two great bulwarks, and he never would have consented to the surrender of the former. The cession of Malta was also to him a subject of equal regret; and to the relinquishment of either of those places he should have refused his assent had he continued in administration. But he would not support the address moved by Mr Windham, because it contained an invective against the peace. Sir William Young contended, that when a standing army was deemed essential to the preservation of peace, it was proper that the people should be informed of the state of affairs which justified such a measure. Lord Castlereagh remarked, that our grand object, from the commencement to the close of the war, had been the establishment of general security; and that the gradual extinction of jacobin principles, and the gradual restoration of order and tranquillity, had been given as sureties for the peace. With regard to the territorial acquisitions of France, they might eventually become of infinite importance; but they were not pregnant with immediate mischief, and could only be the sources of distant danger. Mr Addington desired not that the treaty should be praised; he had never regarded it with sentiments of exultation, nor lavished on it panegyric; he was content that the honour of the country was unsullied by the measure which had been adopted. He acknowledged that the territorial acquisitions of France could not be viewed without regret; but there were events which we could not control, and dispensations in which we must acquiesce; and he should rejoice to see the resources of this country economized by peace. Mr Sheridan treated the subject with some gaiety. He said he supported the peace, because he was convinced that ministers could obtain no better; their predecessors [7:5:511]had left them to choose between an expensive, bloody, fruitless war, and a hollow, perilous peace. He attacked the new oppositionists, who had been supporters of the former administration, and demanded, for what did we go to war? Why, to prevent French aggrandisement: Have we done that? No. Then we are to rescue Holland: Is that accomplished? No. Brabant is the sine qua non: Is it gained? No. Then come security and indemnity: Are they obtained? No. The late minister told us, that the example of a jacobin government in Europe, founded on the ruins of a holy altar, and the tomb of a martyred monarch, was a spectacle so dreadful and infectious to Christendom, that we could never be safe while it existed, and could do nothing short of our last effort for its destruction. For these fine words, which had at last given way to security and indemnity, we had laid out near two hundred thousand lives, and nearly three hundred millions of money —and had gained Ceylon and Trinidad. But one grand consolation remained. Bonaparte was to be the extirpator of jacobinism; the champion of jacobinism was to become a parricide; the child of sin was to destroy his mother; he had begged pardon of God and man, piously restored bishops with the salaries of curates, and penitently extorted of them a solemn oath to turn spies and informers in his favour. It had been said, that France must have colonies to be afraid of war; that that is the way to make Bonaparte love peace. He has had, to be sure, a rough military education; but if you put him behind the counter a little, he will mend exceedingly. When he was reading the treaty he thought all the names of foreign places, Pondicherry, Chandernagore, Cochin, Martinico all cessions. No such thing; they are so many traps or holes to catch this silly fellow in, and make a merchant of him. At this moment, nobody in Britain knew who was minister, as the present ministers continued to identify themselves with the former. Of the late minister, he said that none more admired his splendid talents than he did. If ever man was formed to give lustre to his country, he was that man. He had no low, little, mean, petty vices; he had too much good sense, taste, and talents, to set his mind upon ribands, stars, and titles; he was not of a nature to be the tool and creature of any court. But great as were his talents, he had misapplied them in the politics of this country; he had augmented our national debt, and diminished our population. He had done more to abridge our privileges, and to strengthen the crown at the expense of the constitution, than any minister he could mention. He concluded by moving, as an amendment to Lord Hawkesbury’s address, that it was the opinion of that house, that the omission of various opportunities of negociating peace with advantage to this country, more especially the rejection of the overtures made by the first consul of France in January 1800, appeared to have led to that state of affairs which rendered peace so necessary as to justify the painful sacrifices which his majesty had been advised to make for the attainment thereof. But the address proposed by Lord Hawkesbury was carried by a very great majority. _

During this session of parliament the most important operation of finance consisted of the repeal of the tax upon income, which gave great satisfaction. Indeed, in their whole conduct administration conducted themselves with a degree of moderation and prudence which greatly conciliated towards them the minds of the public. On all occasions they defended the former ministry against the attacks of the old opposition; and, in return, they were supported by a very considerable number of the members of that administration, including Mr Pitt. At the same time they did not appear unwilling to enter into political connections with the members of the old opposition. Parliament was prorogued on the 28th of June, and dissolved on the following day. The elections which immediately , succeeded exhibited the singular spectacle of an administration which avoided interfering in the choice of the members of parliament. The members and friends, however, of the old administration, together with their opponents, were abundantly active.

The effect of the change of ministry had by this time been very sensibly felt over the whole of the island. During the preceding ten years the minds of men had, in a greater or less degree, been kept in a state of constant alarm from the fear of plots and conspiracies against the government, and from the apprehension that a most dangerous disaffected party was at all times ready to burst forth into action, and that the British constitution was only preserved in consequence of the suspension of the habeas corpus act and other legislative restraints, aided by the extreme vigilance of administration, and of their friends, in repressing disaffected persons. Hence society existed under a sort of general apprehension and distrust; and persons originally unfriendly to the war suffered in all departments of business, and in every quarter of the country, no inconsiderable degree of political persecution. All this had now passed away. The new ministers suffered the penal and restraining laws quietly to expire, and the constitution to depend for support upon its own strength and the ancient provisions of the law; they gave themselves no trouble about the general sentiments of the people with regard to speculative subjects, and seemed desirous to conciliate the good will of all orders of the state. The consequence was, that the fears and anxieties which formerly existed about the safety of the constitution passed away like a dream; a universal attachment to the institutions of the country sprung up; and political animosities, being no longer fed by alarms artfully excited by the government, were, as if by a sort of enchantment, appeased and forgotten.

With regard to the effects of peace upon the British and French nations, these promised at first to prove favourable to the general interests of humanity. The French had successfully defended their own independence, and in their turn assailed those by whom it had been menaced, with such a persevering energy as secured to them a portion of respect from the British nation; whilst, on the other hand, the maritime triumphs of Britain had been so splendid, and the valour of her troops in Egypt so distinguished, as to secure to this country a high degree of consideration in the eyes of the French. The people of the two countries accordingly seemed eager to unite in habits of the most amicable intercourse; considerable numbers of Frenchmen came over to Britain; and multitudes of persons of all ranks hastened from Britain to visit a country which had of late years excited, in so remarkable a degree, the attention of all the nations of Europe, and had been the scene of such extraordinary transactions. On this reciprocal tendency of the two nations to abandon their animosities, a system of commercial intercourse might have been reared of a nature much more simple and perfect than that which had been created by Mr Pitt’s treaty; and there is no reason to believe that any disposition existed, on the part of the British government, to stand aloof from France, or to avoid, for any political reason, the extension of our commerce with that country. Such an intercourse would have proved favourable to France in every possible way. It would have enabled her people to derive considerable assistance from the capital of British merchants, which would have been rapidly and liberally advanced towards promoting the culture of their most valuable productions; and even in a political point of view France must have been aggrandised by such a connection.
[7:5:512]

What she wanted was a navy to defend her colonies, and to enable her to cope with Britain in the event of a future war; and this advantage she could only obtain by means of commerce, more especially with Britain.

But it soon appeared that a man may be qualified to lead armies successfully to battle, to overrun provinces, and to attain the envied title of a conqueror, who at the same time possesses but a moderate portion of magnanimity, self-command, or knowledge of the maxims of sound policy and the best interests of nations. The French government, instead of seizing the opportunity thus afforded of encouraging the people to become commercial and acquire wealth, and seeking to form a maritime power by opening their ports, and holding out to Britain a commercial treaty arranged on liberal principles, shut their harbours more closely than during the most violent period of the war. Vainly fancying that in this way they would enable their own manufacturers to rival those of Britain, they in fact only excluded their wines from the British market; and by thus losing a sure and ready mode of attracting riches to their country, they prevented the acquisition of capital by enterprising individuals, and ruined the very industry which they intended to encourage and promote. They idly thought that they were in this way limiting the trade of Britain, which, having all the rest of the world open to its efforts, could not be injured; and, in truth, by their narrow views and illiberal policy they only injured themselves. By similar miscalculation, or from a restless spirit of ambition, the French government sought aggrandisement by those efforts of violence which are only tolerable in the midst of war, but which in peace justly excite the jealousy and indignation of mankind.

One of the first enterprises of Bonaparte, in consequence of the peace, was an attempt to reduce under his power the island of St Domingo. During the revolution that great and fertile island had suffered the most severe calamities, which had terminated in the emancipation of the negroes; and the latter had formed themselves into a sort of regular government, at the head of which was one of their own race, Toussaint-Louverture, a man of humanity, and possessed of considerable talents. Reports were circulated in Europe that he wished to render St Domingo independent of France; but of this there is no proof, and it is probable that his chief offence consisted in the general estimation and personal consequence to which he had attained, and that the despotic spirit of Bonaparte could brook no appearance of independence or rivalry in any part of the French territory. Nor was it unnatural that, under a military government, force should have been employed in preference to any method of conciliation. At the end of the year 1801 an army of twenty-five thousand men was sent to St Domingo; and as single ships and small squadrons continued to sail during the winter, loaded with troops, it is believed that nearly forty thousand men were employed in what might be called the first division of the expedition. The accounts of their proceedings are very defective; but, from all that has transpired, the conduct of the French appears to have been extremely disgraceful. The negro chiefs having refused unconditional submission, they were attacked, and defeated in several battles; and disunion, as usual, following disaster, Toussaint was at last induced to enter into negociation. The terms of the treaty were concealed; but, as he was still at the head of a respectable force, it is believed that not only the possession of his personal freedom, but the undisturbed enjoyment of his property, was secured to him, and that his followers were promised a full indemnity. This occurred in the beginning of May 1801. The French general, Le Clerc, brother-in-law of the first consul, no sooner found the negro chief in his power, and the tranquillity of the colony apparently re-established, than he committed one of the basest acts of treachery that ever disgraced a government. The abdicated general was accused of a conspiracy, though it was evident that from the period of his submission to that of his seizure he had not had time to meditate, much less to organize, such a measure; and on the 12th of May Toussaint and his whole family were put on board a frigate, and shipped off for France, where he soon died of a broken heart in a prison. The negroes perceived that they were deceived and betrayed; and as an attempt was made to reduce them again into a state of slavery, after they had enjoyed freedom for several years, no doubt could remain as to the real object for which the expedition had been fitted out. The chiefs who had been prevailed on to desert Toussaint, and whose desertion had led to his surrender, now justly fearing that they were destined to share the miserable fate of their deluded associate, betook themselves to flight ;—the whole island revolted ;—pestilence came in aid of these avengers of tyranny and falsehood ;—and the miserable instrument of the first consul’s cruelty fell himself the victim of the climate. After a series of horrors and atrocities, even darker and deeper than those which blacken the memory of Robespierre, Marat, St Just, and Carrier, and which will for ever remain a disgrace to the French character, the republic had to regret the loss of sixty thousand of her best troops, in a vain attempt to subdue a colony which might, with temper and humanity, have been conciliated and retained.

In Europe the conduct of the French government was scarcely less arbitrary. The whole fortresses of Piedmont were dismantled, and that country was ultimately annexed to France; and the duchy of Parma and Placentia was treated in the same way. Meanwhile the Swiss, whose form of government had been altered in imitation of that of France, wished to restore the ancient constitutions of the cantons, under which their ancestors had prospered during so many ages. But their present leaders, who had risen to power under the protection of France, solicited the interference of Bonaparte in their favour; and he accordingly sent a numerous army against Switzerland, and, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the British court, placed the sovereignty in the hands of his own dependents or adherents. After all their struggles for freedom, the French nation also submitted to a confirmed military despotism. U hen Bonaparte assumed the appellation of first consul, it was under the declaration that the office, in terms of the constitution then promulgated, was to endure for only ten years. But this constitution was now altered, and the assent of the people being demanded to a new one, by. which Bonaparte was to remain consul for life, and even to possess the power of nominating his successor, suffrages in favour of this measure were obtained to the number of between three and four millions. The event was celebrated with the greatest magnificence in Paris; and addresses of congratulation were presented from the different courts of the continent of Europe, and even from the emperor of Germany.

These transactions could scarcely fail to be noticed in Britain, and to become the subject of animadversion in the public newspapers. In fact the unprincipled ambition of Bonaparte, and the degraded character and state of the French nation, formed topics of frequent discussion in the public journals, and were criticised with unexampled severity. Even the personal character of the first consul was not spared; and it cannot be denied that he was often libelled in the grossest manner. Bonaparte appears to have early become sensitive and irritated on this head. The English, owing to their political freedom, had long boasted of their superiority as a people over their enslaved[7:5:513] neighbours of France; and the first consul, no doubt, dreaded lest the vanity of his subjects should be wounded by continual representations, coming from the free press of England, of the degraded state into which it was alleged they had fallen. A great degree of irritation was thus produced in the French government against England; and the first consul even went so far as not only to prohibit the importation of English newspapers into France, but to demand from our government that the best bulwark of British freedom should be destroyed, by imposing restrictions upon the liberty of the press. He was even weak enough, through the medium of the French official journal, to commence a contest of argument, eloquence, and vituperation, against the writers of English newspapers. But in such a warfare he could not fail to be beaten; because they had nothing else to do but to write; and because the obscurity of their situation as individuals enabled them to inflict deep wounds without fear of reprisals. Newspaper writers also had much to gain by the contest, and certainly could wish for nothing more favourable to their interests, than to be enabled, during a dull, monotonous period of peace, to render their lucubrations interesting, and to amuse their readers by engaging in a paper war with Bonaparte. These circumstances, however, added to the restless ambition of this wonderful person, and his obvious want of discernment as to the true interests of France, or of patience to pursue them, left but little reason to hope that the peace so recently concluded would be of any long duration.

The new parliament assembled on the 16th of November, and Mr Abbot was chosen speaker of the House of Commons. On the 22d, his majesty, in a speech from the throne, after congratulating the country on the abundant harvest, remarked, that the state of the manufactures, commerce, and revenues of the united kingdom was flourishing beyond example; that the loyalty and attachment which were manifested to his person and government afforded the strongest indication of the just sense entertained of the numerous blessings enjoyed under the protection of our happy constitution; that, in his intercourse with foreign powers, he had been actuated by a sincere disposition for the maintenance of peace; that nevertheless he could not lose sight of that established and wise system of policy by which the interests of the other states were connected with our own, or be indifferent to any material change in their relative condition and strength; that his conduct would be invariably regulated by a due consideration of the actual situation of Europe, and a watchful solicitude for the permanent welfare of his people; and that he would not fail to adopt those means of security which were best calculated to preserve to his subjects the blessings of peace. In both houses the usual address was agreed to unanimously and without debate.

About this time Colonel Despard, and six persons of low rank, were executed for high treason. Despard was an Irishman, and of good family. Having long been under close confinement during the late administration, on suspicion of entertaining criminal designs against the government, his imagination, while under seclusion from society, had become inflamed nearly to madness; and after his liberation, in consequence of the habeas corpus act being no longer suspended, he had associated with a number of mean persons, whom he had induced to imagine that they were capable of overturning the government and altering the constitution. They accordingly took an oath to this effect, and agreed to attack the king at the meeting of parliament, to seize the Tower and the bank, and to incite a general insurrection. But their wild scheme was discovered, and their criminal engagements being fully proved, they were convicted and executed.

In the meanwhile some difficulties occurred in the execution of the treaty of Amiens. The British ministry had 1 avoided engaging in a quarrel with Bonaparte on account of his continental usurpation, because they found no power willing to join them in resisting him; but his restless ambition induced him to endeavour to lay hold of the island of Malta; and his impatient spirit prevented his conducting the plan in such a manner as might have enabled him to avoid suspicion and insure success. That island was destined by the treaty to be intrusted to the order of St John of Jerusalem. Without waiting till the British had abandoned it, Bonaparte instantly set on foot negociations with the different countries to which the knights of the order belonged, to procure the abolition of the order, the confiscation of its revenues, and the prohibition of the future enrolment of knights, and their departure for Malta. And having accomplished these objects, he required the British government to deliver up the island to a grand master, appointed, at his instigation, by the pope; or to the king of Naples, who was to receive possession, in the first instance, for behoof of the knights. Strictly speaking, there was thus no longer any order of Malta to defend the island; and as the king of Naples was at all times at the mercy of France, the evacuation of Malta by the British troops would, in the actual posture of affairs, have been equivalent to the transferring it to the latter power. The British ministry had submitted to the late continental acquisitions of France from want of means to oppose them; but they resolved to oppose the seizure of this island, which maybe considered as the key of the Mediterranean, because the superiority of the British fleet enabled them successfully to do so. This determination appears to have greatly perplexed the vehement and irritable mind of the first consul. No successful resistance had hitherto been offered to any of his continental enterprises; and as the attempt now made to refuse delivery of the island to the king of Naples, and the nominal grand master of the order of St John, could only be justified by accusing him of having acted fraudulently against the spirit of the treaty, so an acquiescence on his part in the retention of the island, contrary to the express stipulations of the treaty of Amiens, would have been equivalent to a confession of guilt. In this situation he found himself detected in a deceit which he was unwilling to acknowledge; whilst, at the same time, he suffered the additional mortification of having sacrificed his reputation without any profit in return, the irresistible power of the British navy rendering it impossible for him to seize Malta by force. In this dilemma, a conversation occurred between him and the British ambassador Lord Whitworth, which, as the fortunes of Bonaparte have been so extraordinary, it may be worth while to record, in the terms in which it was reported to the British court. In a letter to Lord Hawkesbury, dated the 21st February, Lord Whitworth says:—

“I received a note from Μ. Talleyrand, minister for foreign affairs, informing me the first consul desired to converse with me, and that I would come to him at the Thuilleries at nine o’clock. He received me in his cabinet, with tolerable cordiality; and after talking on different subjects for a few minutes, he desired me to sit down, as he himself did on the other side of the table, and began. He told me that he felt it necessary, after what had passed between me and Μ. de Talleyrand, that he should in the most clear and authentic manner make known his sentiments to me, in order to their being communicated to his majesty; and he conceived this would be more effectually done by himself, than through any medium whatever. He said that it was a matter of infinite disappointment to him, that the treaty of Amiens, instead of being followed by conciliation and friendship, the natural effects [7:5:514]of peace, had been productive only of continual and increasing jealousy and mistrust; and that this mistrust was now avowed in such a manner as must bring the point to an issue. He now enumerated the several provocations which he pretended to have received from England. He placed in the first line our not evacuating Malta and Alexandria, as we were bound to do by treaty. In this he said that no consideration on earth would make him acquiesce, and of the two, he had rather see us in possession of the Fauxbourg St Antoine, than Malta. He then adverted to the abuse thrown out against him in the English public prints; but this, he said, he did not so much regard, as that which appeared in French papers published in London. This he considered as much more mischievous, since it meant to excite this country against him and his government. He complained of the protection given to Georges, and others of his description, who, instead of being sent to Canada, as had been repeatedly promised, were permitted to remain in England, handsomely pensioned, and were constantly committing all sorts of crimes on the coasts of France, as well as in the interior. In confirmation of this, he told me that two men had within these few days been apprehended in Normandy, and were now on their way to Paris, who were hired assassins, and employed by the Bishop of Arras, by Georges, and by Duthiel, as would be fully proved in a court of justice, and made known to the world. He acknowledged that the irritation he felt against England increased daily, because every wind (I make use as much as I can of his own ideas and expressions) which blew from England brought nothing but enmity and hatred against him. He now went back to Egypt, and told me, that if he had felt the smallest inclination to take possession of it by force, he might have done it a month ago, by sending twenty-five thousand men to Aboukir, who would have possessed themselves of the whole country, in defiance of the four thousand British in Alexandria. That instead of that garrison being a means of protecting Egypt, it was only furnishing him with a pretence for invading it. This he would not do, whatever might be his desire to have it as a colony; because he did not think it worth the risk of a war, in which he perhaps might be considered as the aggressor, and by which he should lose more than he could gain, since, sooner or later, Egypt would belong to France, either by the falling to pieces of the Turkish empire, or by some arrangement with the Porte. As a proof of his desire to maintain peace, he wished to know what he had to gain by going to war with England. A descent was the only means of offence he had, and that he was determined to attempt by putting himself at the head of the expedition. But how could it be supposed, that after having gained the height on which he stood, he would risk his life and reputation in such a hazardous attempt, unless forced to it by necessity, when the chances were that he and the greatest part of his expedition would go to the bottom of the sea. He talked much on this subject, but never affected to diminish the danger. He acknowledged that there were a hundred chances to one against him; but still he was determined to attempt it, if war should be the consequence of the present discussion; and such was the disposition of the troops, that army after army would be found for the enterprise. He then expatiated much on the natural force of the two countries. France with an army of four hundred and eighty thousand men (for to this amount it is, he said, to be immediately completed), all ready for the most desperate enterprises; and England with a fleet that made her mistress of the seas, and which he did not think he should be able to equal in less than ten years. Two such countries, by a proper understanding, might govern the world, but by their strifes might overturn it. He said, that if he had not felt the enmity of the British government on every occasion since the 1 treaty of Amiens, there would have been nothing that he would not have done to prove his desire to conciliate; participation in indemnities as well as in influence on the Continent, treaties of commerce, in short, any thing that could have given satisfaction, and have testified his friendship. Nothing had, however, been able to conquer the hatred of the British government, and, therefore, it was now come to the point, whether we should have peace or war. To preserve peace, the treaty of Amiens must be fulfilled; the abuse in the public prints, if not totally suppressed, at least kept within bounds, and confined to the English papers; and the protection so openly given to his bitterest enemies (alluding to Georges, and persons of that description) must be withdrawn. If war, it was necessary only to say so, and to refuse to fulfil the treaty.”

The result of this conversation, and of some circumstances in the conduct of the French, was, that on the 8th of March, the following message was addressed by the king to the House of Commons. “His majesty thinks it necessary to acquaint the FIouse of Commons, that as very considerable military preparations are carrying on in the ports of France and Holland, he has judged it expedient to adopt additional measures of precaution for the security of his dominions. Though the preparations to which his majesty refers are avowedly directed to colonial service, yet as discussions of great importance are now subsisting between his majesty and the French government, the result of which must at present be uncertain, his majesty is induced to make this communication to his faithful Commons, in the full persuasion, that while they partake of his majesty’s earnest and unvarying solicitude for the continuance of peace, he may rely with perfect confidence on their public spirit and liberality, to enable his majesty to adopt such measures as circumstances may appear to require, for supporting the honour of his crown, and the essential interests of his people.” On the motion of Mr Addington, the house voted an address, agreeing unanimously to support the crown in the measures proposed. It speedily appeared that the preparations which had been alluded to in the king’s message were extremely trifling indeed. Bonaparte had obliged the Spaniards to cede to him the sovereignty of Louisiana; and an armament, with about four thousand troops, was now preparing to leave the ports of Holland to take possession of the territory thus acquired. The government of the United States opposed this measure; and the state of Kentucky sent notice to the president that ten thousand volunteers had enrolled themselves, and were resolved, with or without the aid of the union, to resist the settlement of the French in their neighbourhood. Meanwhile Bonaparte, who probably had no serious intention of effecting such a settlement, sold for a sum of money to the United States of North America the territory of Louisiana; a country inhabited by many independent tribes of savages, and to which, upon the principles of natural justice, neither he, nor the Spaniards, nor the Americans, had any right. But the inhabitants of Europe, and even the Transatlantic race of Euro-ropeans, had now for some ages been accustomed to regard all foreign countries as unoccupied property, which they might seize and transfer to each other, without regard to the natural inhabitants, whom they considered as beings of a subordinate race and character. Accordingly this transference of Louisiana excited no surprise in Europe.

Meanwhile, as the king’s message to the House of Commons, already mentioned, evinced a determination on the part of the British government to prefer a new war rather than suffer Bonaparte to carry further his ambitious projects[7:5:515], the mind of that extraordinary person seems to have been wrought up to an extraordinary degree of irritation. In his palace he affected to use all the forms of the ancient French court. At the drawing-room, where he was waited upon by the whole ambassadors of Europe, and by a numerous assemblage of persons of high rank from all countries, he could scarcely observe the ordinary forms of civility to the British ambassador; and Lord W hitworth, in a dispatch dated the 14th of March, which was afterwards communicated to parliament, gave the following account of the behaviour of the first consul on one occasion at the court of the Thuilleries :—

“He accosted me evidently under very considerable agitation. He began by asking me if I had any news from England? I told him I had received a letter from Lord Hawkesbury two days ago. He immediately said, ‘ And so you are determined to go to war.’ ‘ No,’ I replied; ‘ we are too sensible of the advantages of peace. We have had war for fifteen years already.’ As he seemed to wait for an answer, I observed only, ‘ We have had too much of it.’ ‘ But you wish to carry it on for fifteen years longer, and you force me to it.’ I told him that it was very far from his majesty’s intentions. He then proceeded to Count Marcof and the Chevalier Azara, who were standing together at a little distance from me, and said to them, t The English wish for war, but if they are the first to draw the sword, I shall be the last to sheath it. They have no regard to treaties, henceforth they should cover them with black crape.’ In a few minutes he came back to me, and resumed the conversation by something personally civil to me. He began again, ‘ Why these armaments? Against what are these measures of precaution? I have not a single ship of the line in the ports of France; but if you wish to arm, I will arm also. If you wish to fight, I will fight also. You may perhaps destroy, but you will never intimidate France.’ ‘ We wish neither the one nor the other. It is our desire to live in good understanding with her.’ ‘ You must regard treaties then. Confusion to those who have no regard to treaties: (i malheur à ceux qui ne respectent pas les traités !’) they will be responsible for it to all Europe.’ He was too much agitated to make it advisable for me to prolong the conversation. I therefore made no answer; and he retired to his apartment repeating the last phrase. It is to be remarked, that all this passed loud enough to be heard by two hundred people who were present; and I am persuaded that there was not a single person who did not feel the impropriety of his conduct, and the total want of dignity as well as of decency on the occasion.” The negociations in the mean time proceeded; and Bonaparte still insisted upon the literal fulfilment of the treaty of Amiens. He appears to have flattered himself that the British ministry would not venture to renew the war on account of Malta. Their pacific dispositions were well known; they had suffered him to make great encroachments upon the Continent without engaging in hostilities; they were understood to consist of men who were not the leaders of any party, but had only held a subordinate rank as supporters of Mr Pitt’s administration; and they had been loudly accused in Britain by the ex-ministers, and by many of the old opposition, of want of talents and want of spirit, on account of the apparent tameness with which they had recently acted. It seems likely, therefore, that Bonaparte presumed that they would ultimately give way to his demands. But the good temper and forbearance of administration had the effect of rousing the spirit of the British nation, and of inducing, in a large proportion of the people, a wish to engage in a war against a man whom they now detested as an odious usurper. Thus encouraged, administration rose in their demands; and on the 12th of May Lord Whitworth presented the ultimatum of the British government, which was in substance that the French government should engage to make no opposition to the cession of the island of Lampedosa to his majesty by the king of the Two Sicilies; that, in consequence of the present state of the island of Lampedosa, his majesty should remain in possession of the island of Malta until such arrangements should be made by him as might enable him to occupy Lampedosa as a naval station, after which period the island should be given up to the inhabitants, and acknowledged as an independent state; that the territories of the Batavian republic should be evacuated by the French forces within one month after the conclusion of a convention founded on the principles of this project; that the king of Etruria and the Italian and Ligurian republics should be acknowledged by his majesty; that Switzerland should be evacuated by the French forces; that a suitable territorial provision should be assigned to the king of Sardinia in Italy; and, in a secret article, that his majesty should not be required by the French government to evacuate the island of Malta until after the expiration of ten years. The proposed stipulations relative to the king of Etruria, the Italian and Ligurian republics, and the king of Sardinia, were merely inserted as make-weights; and accordingly, in an additional article, it was provided that they might be omitted, but that, if inserted at all, they must be inserted together.

This ultimatum having been rejected, war was announced on the 16th of May, by a message from the king to the two houses of parliament; and on the 21st of May a declaration, justifying this measure, appeared in the London Gazette. As the statements contained in this document exhibit a detail of the public acts alleged to have occasioned the renewal of the war, it may be proper to insert a few of its leading paragraphs.

“As soon as the treaty of Amiens was concluded, his majesty’s courts were open to the people of France for every purpose of legal redress. All sequestrations were taken off their property; all prohibitions on their trade, which had been imposed during the war, were removed; and they were placed on the same footing, with regard to commerce and intercourse, as the inhabitants of any other state in amity with his majesty with which there existed no treaty of commerce.

“To a system of conduct thus open, liberal, and friendly, the proceedings of the French government afforded the most striking contrast. The prohibitions which had been placed on the commerce of his majesty’s subjects during the war have been enforced with increased strictness and severity. Violence has been offered in several instances to their vessels and their property; and in no case has justice been afforded to those who may have been aggrieved in consequence of such acts; nor has any satisfactory answer been given to the repeated representations made by his majesty’s ministers or ambassadors at Paris. Under such circumstances, when his majesty’s subjects were not suffered to enjoy the common advantages of peace within the territories of the French republic and the countries dependent upon it, the French government had recourse to the extraordinary measure of sending over to this country a number of persons for the professed purpose of residing in the most considerable seaport towns of Great Britain and Ireland in the character of commercial agents or consuls. These persons could have no pretensions to be acknowledged in that character, as the right of being so acknowledged, as well as the privileges attached to such a situation, could only be derived from a commercial treaty, and as no treaty of that description was in existence between his majesty and the French republic.
[7:5:516]

“There was consequently too much reason to suppose that the real object of their mission was by no means of a commercial nature; and this suspicion was confirmed, not only by the circumstance that some of them were military men, but by the actual discovery, that several of them were furnished with instructions to obtain the soundings of the harbours, and to procure military surveys of the places where it was intended they should reside. His majesty felt it to be his duty to prevent their departure to their respective places of destination, and represented to the French government the necessity of withdrawing them; and it cannot be denied, that the circumstances under which they were sent, and the instructions which were given to them, ought to be considered as decisive indications of the dispositions and intentions of the government by whom they were employed.

“If the French government had really appeared to be actuated by a due attention to such a system, if their dispositions had proved to be essentially pacific, allowance would have been made for the situation in which a new government must be placed, after so dreadful and extensive a convulsion as had been produced by the French revolution. But his majesty has unfortunately had too much reason to observe and to lament, that the system of violence, aggression, and aggrandisement, which characterised the proceedings of the different governments of France during the war, has been, continued with as little disguise since its termination. They have continued to keep a French army in Holland, against the will and in defiance of the remonstrances of the Batavian government, and in repugnance to the letter of their solemn treaties. They have, in a period of peace, invaded the territory and violated the independence of the Swiss nation, in defiance of the treaty of Luneville, which had stipulated the independence of their territory, and the right of the inhabitants to choose their own form of government. They have annexed to the dominions of France, Piedmont, Parma, and Placentia, and the island of Elba, without allotting any provision to the king of Sardinia, whom they have despoiled of the most valuable part of his territory, though they were bpund by a solemn engagement to the emperor of Russia to attend to his interests, and to provide for his establishment. It may indeed with truth be asserted, that the period which has elapsed since the conclusion of the definitive treaty has been marked with one continued series of aggression, violence, and insult, on the part of the French government.”

With regard to Malta, the declaration proceeded to state, “that when the French government demanded its evacuation, several articles of the treaty of Amiens respecting it remained unexecuted. The tenth article had stipulated that the independence of the island should be placed under the guarantee and protection of Great Britain, France, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Prussia. The emperor of Germany had acceded to the guarantee, but only on condition of a like accession on the part of the other powers specified in the article. The emperor of Russia had refused his accession, except on the condition that the Maltese langue should be abrogated; and the King of Prussia had given no answer whatever to the application which had been made to him to accede to the arrangement. That the fundamental principle upon which depended the execution of the other parts of the article had been defeated by the changes which had taken place in the constitution of the order since the conclusion of the treaty of peace. It was to the order of St John of Jerusalem that his majesty was by the first stipulation of the tenth article bound to restore the island of Malta. The order is defined to consist of those langues which were in existence at the time of the conclusion of the treaty.

The three French langues having been abolished, and a Maltese langue added to the institution, the order consisted therefore at that time of the following langues, viz. Arragon, Castile, Germany, Bavaria, and Russia. Since the conclusion of the definitive treaty, the langues of Arragon and Castile have been separated from the order by Spain, and part of the Italian langue had been abolished by the annexation of Piedmont and Parma to France. There is strong reason to believe that it has been in contemplation to sequestrate the property of the Bavarian langue, and the intention has been avowed of keeping the Russian langue within the dominions of· the emperor.”

The French were also accused of having instigated or effected the whole of these changes, and of thus having rendered it impossible to fulfil that part of the treaty; and it was further remarked, that from a report published by an accredited agent of the French government, Colonel Sebastiani, it appeared that France entertained views hostile to the Turkish empire, the integrity of which had been expressly stipulated, and that this rendered the retention of Malta more necessary. The behaviour of the first consul to Lord Whitworth at his audience was also noticed, together with some other offensive occurrences; and it was observed that “his majesty might add to this list of indignities, the requisition which the French government have repeatedly urged, that the laws and constitution of this country should be changed, relative to the liberty of the press. His majesty might likewise add the calls which the French government have on several occasions made to violate the laws of hospitality, with respect to persons who had found an asylum within his dominions, and against whose conduct no charge whatever has at any time been substantiated. It is impossible to reflect on these different proceedings, and the course which the French government have thought proper to adopt respecting them, without the thorough conviction that they are not the effect of accident, but that they form a part of a system which has been adopted for the purpose of degrading, vilifying, and insulting his majesty and his government.”

Administration were now placed in a very singular situation. Mr Fox, who opposed the war, proposed that an attempt should be made to prevail with the emperor of Russia to mediate a peace, upon the supposition that, if his mediation was rejected by France, we might be able to secure an alliance with him; and to this proposal administration acceded; but although Mr Fox opposed the war, almost the whole of the other members of the old opposition, including Mr Sheridan and Mr Tierney, strongly approved of it, while Mr Pitt and the rest of the exministry joined in the opinion. As Bonaparte had threatened to attempt an invasion, the parties out of power laid hold of this circumstance to excite alarm, and industriously represented the actual ministers as men of moderate capacity, unfit to be intrusted with the defence of the empire in a perilous crisis. Mr Pitt and his colleagues, in their speeches in parliament, represented the nation as in danger of being instantly invaded by an innumerable host of experienced troops, who could not be expected to delay more than a few days the attempt to land upon our shores; the members of the old opposition held precisely the same language; and the views of both probably were in some degree to terrify the country to call for their services, as men of greater energy than the present rulers. The militia, both ordinary and extraordinary, were called out; a new body of troops was ordered to be raised by ballot, under the appellation of an army of reserve; and corps of volunteers were formed throughout the whole island. An act of parliament was also passed for calling out, in case of actual invasion, the whole male population of the kingdom, [7:5:517]in classes according to their age or their situation in life; and to meet the expense of these different armaments, and of the augmentation of the navy, the income tax was restored with certain modifications.

The administration thus found their adversaries, unlike any former opposition, striving with emulation to do their work for them, and to strengthen government by new armaments of every kind. The consequence was, that during the ensuing autumn, ministers seemed to become perplexed by the multiplicity of business in their hands, and to entertain doubts , about the propriety of some of the measures in which they had embarked. The plan of raising such numerous bodies of troops by ballot, while substitution was at the same time permitted to those upon whom the ballot fell, became a most unequal mode of raising an army for the defence of the state, as it fell upon persons not according to their means, but according to their age. But it was attended with one good effect, that as the bodies of volunteers raised by permission of government enjoyed an exemption from certain ballots, this operated, along with the spirit of the country, as a sufficient' premium to induce great multitudes of persons to enrol themselves for the purpose of acquiring the military exercise. Ministers at times hesitated to receive the numerous bodies of volunteers who offered themselves; but as they afterwards departed from this reluctance, nearly four hundred thousand men were trained to the usc of arms, exclusive of the regular army, the militia, and the army of reserve.

In the meanwhile the ports of France were closely blockaded, and the foreign possessions of the French seized; while the only step of retaliation in their power to exert consisted in seizing the electorate of Hanover, which they plundered unmercifully. Bonaparte offered to give up Hanover as the price of Malta; but his offer was refused.

The most inconvenient circumstance to Great Britain, arising out of those political transactions, consisted in the great embarrassment occasioned to persons engaged in commerce, which proved the cause of numerous bankruptcies. Towards the close of the former war trade had found out for itself regular channels; and, in particular, the port of Hamburg had become the great store-house of British merchandise, from which, as a neutral state, it was distributed amongst the countries engaged in the war. The conclusion of a treaty of peace produced the daily expectation of a renewal of the intercourse with France, and therefore put a stop to the circuitous trade by Hamburg. But as no place was substituted instead of the latter, a suspension of operations in some manufactures occurred; and when these difficulties were coming to a close, the renewal of the war produced a new uncertainty as to the channels in which the European trade would hereafter flow. The difficulty was increased in consequence of the invasion of Hanover by the French, and their excluding the British from the navigation of the Elbe, while the latter in their turn blockaded the river with ships of war, and thus excluded all the world.

Parliament assembled on the 22d of November. In the speech from the throne his majesty said,—“Since I last met you in parliament, it has been my chief object to carry into effect those measures which your wisdom had adopted for the defence of the united kingdom, and for the vigorous prosecution of the war. In these preparations I have been seconded by the voluntary exertions of all ranks ofmypeople, in a manner that has, if possible, strengthened their claims to my confidence and affection. They have proved that the menaces of the enemy have only served to rouse their native and hereditary spirit; and that all other considerations are lost in a general disposition to make those efforts and sacrifices which the honour and the safety of the kingdom demand at this important and critical conjuncture. Though my attention has principally been directed to the great object of internal security, no opportunity has been lost of making an impression on the foreign possessions of the enemy. The islands of St Lucie, Tobago, St Pierre, and Miquelon, and the settlements of Demerara and Essequibo, have surrendered to the British arms. In the conduct of the operations by which these valuable acquisitions have been made, the utmost promptitude and zeal have been displayed by the officers employed in those services, and by my forces acting under their command by sea and land. In Ireland, the leaders and several inferior agents in the late traitorous conspiracy have been brought to justice, and the public tranquillity has experienced no further interruption. I indulge the hope that such of my deluded subjects as have swerved from their allegiance are now convinced of their error; and that having compared the advantages they derived from the protection of a free constitution, with the condition of those countries which are under the dominion of the French government, they will cordially and zealously concur in resisting any attempt that may be made against the security and independence of my united kingdom.”

The usual address to the throne was unanimously carried, though Mr Fox complained that nothing had been said respecting the state of our negociations with Russia. The debates in parliament during the present session were by no means interesting. In the course of the winter, the French government continued to repeat with much confidence their threats of invasion, and the people of Great Britain remained in daily expectation that a landing would be attempted. But nothing of any importance took place. Bonaparte travelled repeatedly from Paris to the sea-coast, and back again to Paris. It was announced that a body of guides had been formed to conduct the invading army after it had landed in England; and the generals and admirals by whom the expedition was to be conducted were said to have gone to their respective posts. Nothing however occurred, excepting the sailing from one French port to another, under the cover of land-batteries, of small parties of flat-bottomed boats, which, at times, evaded the vigilance of the British cruisers, though they were frequently captured, driven ashore, or sunk.

CHAP. XVIII.

REIGN OF GEORGE III. RESUMPTION OF HOSTILITIES.

WAR WITH FRANCE AND HER ALLIES.

Parliamentary Proceedings.—Change of Ministry, and return of Mr Pitt to power—Military Events—Occupation of Hanover. —Boulogne Armament—Internal Defence—Volunteer System.—Naval Operations—Colonial Conquests Spain declares

War against Britain.—Battle of Trafalgar, and Death of Lord Nelson—Continental Affairs in 1805—Surrender of General Mack and his Army at Ulm.—Austrians and Russians defeated at Austerlitz—Parliamentary Proceedings.—Session of 1805— Charges against Lord Melville—Illness and Death of Mr Pitt, 23d January 1806—New Ministry, called “All the Talents.” —Act for a Limited Tenn of Military Service—Budget— Trial and Acquittal of Lord Melville—New Parliament— Lord Henry Petty’s Plan of Finance—Abolition of the Slave-Trade Catholic Relief Bill—Fall of the Grenville or Fox

Administration Observations on the Ministry of 180G—The

Ministry of 1807, or Perceval Administration—Events of the War Naval Actions in 1806—Négociations at Paris—Failure of these Prussia War between that Power and France

Battle of Jena, and subsequent Military Operations in Poland— . Battles of Eylau and Friedland—Treaty of Tilsit, 1st J uly 1807∙ —Expedition to Copenhagen.—Buenos Ayres.—Whitelock’s Disastrous[7:5:518] Expedition.—Battle of Maida.—Threatened Attack on Constantinople—Sicily—Sweden—Portugal and Spain Bat tle of Vimiera—Convention of Cintra—Sir John Moore’s Campaign—His Advance and Retreat—Battle of Corunna Ses sion of 1808—Local Militia.—Orders in Council—Session of 1809—Charges against the Duke of York—Changes in the Cabinet—Campaign of 1809—Battle of Talavera—Attack on the French Fleet in Basque Roads—Movements of Austria. —Expedition to the Scheldt—Session of 1810—λValcheren Expedition Committal of Sir Francis Burdett to the Tower.

—Scottish Clergy and Judicature Acts—Campaign of 1810 in Portugal and Spain—Battle of Busaco.—Subsequent Operations—Advance of Massena—Lines of Torres Vedras.—Retreat of the French under Massena—Battle of Barrosa.

The parliamentary proceedings in the summer session of 1803 were remarkable, as indicating the existence of three or four distinct parties, amidst an almost general concurrence in support of the war. These parties were, first, that of the ministry and their usual followers; secondly, that of the Grenvilles and Mr Windham, who had all along blamed the peace of Amiens, and predicted that it would prove a mere truce; thirdly, that of Mr Pitt and Lord Melville, who, after approving that peace, had, on the continued aggressions of Bonaparte, become ardent supporters of war; and, fourthly, that of Mr Fox, with a part of the old opposition, who were of opinion that the war might have been avoided. But the last were so far from being numerous, that a motion, made on the 23d of May, to express the concurrence of parliament in the war, was opposed by a minority of only ten in the Peers and sixty-seven in the Commons. A subsequent measure, in the same spirit, namely, an act for arming a large part of the population, was carried in July by a great majority; and similar ardour was evinced in submitting anew to war taxes, particularly to a five per cent, income-tax. After the adoption of several other measures of a like description, and a most interesting session of nine months, parliament was prorogued on 12th August.

The next session opened on the 22d of November, and discovered the same alacrity for the prosecution of the war, mixed, however, with a growing opposition to ministers. Mr Pitt had, from the beginning of the war, foreborne to commend them, and, since the failure of a negociation to bring him into office, had assumed a language occasionally hostile. He continued to support their propositions for the public defence, and frequently improved them in their progress through parliament; but he disclaimed all personal connection with ministers, and at last treated them as incapable of originating any measure of vigour or utility. This disposition could scarcely fail to be turned to account by those busy intermediaries, who find means to combine the efforts even of opposite parties for the purpose of getting into power. On the 15th of March Mr Pitt, aware of the side on which the public was most alive to alarm, brought forward a motion for an inquiry into the management of the navy. On this occasion, severe as was his language in regard to Lord St Vincent, then at the head of the admiralty, he received the support of the opposition, and had on his side a hundred and thirty votes against two hundred and one. From this time forward the strength of ministers was visibly shaken. On the 23d of April Mr Fox brought forward an eagerly-expected motion on the defence of the country, in which Mr Pitt joined, with great animosity against the ministers. On a division, government had a majority of fifty-two, which, in a second debate, on the 25th of April, was reduced to thirty-seven. Soon after this, ministers resigned, and Mr Pitt, called to the royal presence, was desired to form an administration, exclusive, however, of Mr Fox. This peremptory order, and Mr Pitt’s too ready acquiescence in it, proved the source of the greatest difficulties.

The Grenvilles had recently so connected themselves with Mr Fox and his friends, that a separation would have been 1 altogether dishonourable; and their united strength, joined to the occasional support of Mr Addington’s adherents, was the cause, during the remainder of the session, of very strong divisions against the new ministers, particularly in the Commons. Their chief measure, entitled the Additional Force Bill, was carried by only two hundred and sixty-five to two hundred and taventy-three. The session soon afterwards closed, but not without passing a corn bill, evidently intended to dispose the landed interest to submit to the new taxes, and prohibiting the importation of foreign wheat whenever our own should be at or below sixty-three shillings the quarter.

On the continent of Europe, the only great operation was the invasion, or rather occupation, of Hanover, to which allusion has already been made. War having been declared by us on the 18th May, the French troops advanced from Holland, and entered the electoral capital by the 5th of June. To attempt resistance would have been folly; but in a season when soldiers were so much wanted in England, and so great an expense was incurred in training them, it was matter of regret that the Hanoverian troops, in number about fifteen thousand, should not have been marched down to the coast, and embarked in a body, instead of being disbanded and obliged to pledge themselves not to serve against France until exchanged.

On the side of France the aspect of war was displayed in a great encampment at Boulogne, and in the dispatch, from all the ports along the coast, of flotillas of boats to join the armament preparing in that central rendezvous. These petty convoys had instructions to tempt our cruisers to attack them, and to draw them, at fit occasions, under the fire of land-batteries; and they were sometimes successful in doing so. The main object of Bonaparte was to excite alarm; a course which, however politic toward some countries, was certainly ill judged in regard to one where the executive power, in its inability to coerce, often seeks support in the apprehensions of the public. The general impression of dread facilitated the measures of defence, and led to the volunteer system, which was carried to an unparalleled extent. Never did a country exhibit so many of the middle and higher classes under arms as England and Scotland in 1803; and never did individuals in these stations make more personal sacrifices for the object of national defence. The result was effectual to as great a degree as the situation of the individuals permitted. The volunteers made as near an approach to regularity of discipline as was practicable in the case of men full of ardour, and submitting for a season to the restraint of military service, but necessarily devoid of experience in the field. The error lay in carrying volunteering too far; for the system ought never to have been allowed to extend to a length that absorbed no inconsiderable part of the time and money of men whose lives were too valuable to be indiscriminately exposed, and whose proper aid to the public cause was the tribute of their industry. The volunteer system was of real use only in as far as it promoted cordiality in the common cause, and, by assuring the maintenance of tranquillity at home, enabled government to dispose of the regulars in the field.

The plan of collecting flotillas of boats, from east to west, in the central depot of Boulogne, was continued by Bonaparte, during two years, from the middle of 1803 to that of 1805. A great parade was made of the number of troops ready to embark, and of the determination to encounter all hazards; but there was no efficient support by ships of war, until the spring of 1805, when the sailing of squadrons for the West Indies took place, first from Rochefort, and afterwards from Cadiz. These, it was calculated, [7:5:519]might excite alarm for our colonies, and induce government to send thither a portion of the men of war hitherto reserved for home defence; after which the hazardous attempt of a descent might have entered seriously into the calculations of the French ruler. That it did so at this time was positively affirmed by him in conversations held with English gentlemen in the island of Elba, and afterwards in that of St Helena; but these conversations were marked by sundry misrepresentations; for he attributed the non-execution of the attempt entirely to the threatened coalition on the Continent, and would not acknowledge that it was impracticable ;—a matter of nautical calculation, when our government kept our channel fleet at home, instead of sending it, as he had anticipated, to the West Indies.

Such was the aspect of the war during two years, in which our naval superiority led to an easy conquest of several of the Dutch and French West India colonies. St Lucie surrendered on the 22d of June 1803; Tobago, on the lst of July; Demerara and Berbice, on the 23d of September; and Cape Town, the last spot in the French half of St Domingo, occupied by French troops, capitulated to the Blacks on the 30th of November. Next year was taken the small island of Goree, on the coast of Africa, and soon after the important Dutch colony of Surinam. On the other hand, we were not successful in our attempts on the French flotillas on their own shores. One of these was directed against a convoy on the coast between Flushing and Ostend; another, on a larger scale, and very different plan, was pointed at the Boulogne armament, which it was proposed to blow up by catamarans; an attempt no less unsuited to open and generous warfare than the torpedoes of the Americans. Fortune was more favourable to us in encounters with the enemy in the open ocean, where, in the early part of 1804, a striking proof of the effects of intrepidity was given in the case of a fleet of merchantmen from China, which beat off, or at least deterred from action, a French squadron under Admiral Linois, consisting of a ship of eighty guns and three frigates.

The war hitherto had been with France and Holland only; but a new power was now to be added to the list of our antagonists. Spain had been allowed by Bonaparte to avoid participating in the contest, on condition of paying a large annual contribution; a condition so contrary to real neutrality, that for some time past our government had kept a vigilant eye on the expected arrival of her treasure ships from America. A small squadron of four frigates, sent out to intercept these valuable supplies, met, on the 5th of October 1804, a Spanish squadron of a similar number proceeding towards Cadiz; and the Spanish commodore refusing to surrender, an engagement ensued, attended with the capture of three of the Spanish frigates, and the explosion of the fourth, accompanied with the loss of many lives. This decisive act, approved at home by the advocates of vigorous measures, was productive of the worst impressions in regard to our national honour both in Spain and her colonies, and led soon afterwards to a declaration of war by that power.

Bonaparte was now provided with additional means of threatening our distant possessions. A squadron of five sail of the line escaping from Rochefort, landed a body of nearly four thousand men on the island of Dominica, and burned the chief town; the island of St Kitt’s escaped with paying a contribution and the loss of some merchantmen. But this was only a prelude to the arrival of a much more formidable fleet, which, to the number of eighteen sail of the line, French and Spanish, reached the West Indies in the end of May, and spread alarm throughout the islands; an alarm not dispelled till the arrival of a force inferior by nearly one third, but commanded by Lord

Nelson. The hostile fleet soon after set out on its homeward voyage. Intelligence to that effect was opportunely received by Lord Barham, then at the head of the admiralty; and a fleet, detached to cruise on their supposed track, had the good fortune to fall in with them on 22d July. An action took place; two sail of the line, Spanish ships, were captured; night terminated the conflict; and though it might have been renewed on the succeeding days, an unfortunate indecision on the part of our admiral, Sir Robert Calder, allowed the enemy to escape. They soon afterwards repaired to Ferrol, whence they sailed with augmented force, and reached Cadiz.

To watch them there, or to engage them on their coming out, was now an object of the highest moment; and it was to Lord Nelson that this important trust was committed. Joining our fleet off Cadiz on the 20th September, he avoided keeping in sight, and even dispensed with the aid of six sail of the line, which he sent to a distance along the coast; judging that the enemy, when apprized of their absence, would be induced to come out. Accordingly, the combined fleet left Cadiz on the 19th of October, to the number of thirty-three sail of the line, eighteen French and fifteen Spanish, commanded by Admiral Villeneuve, and early on the 21st came in sight of the British fleet, consisting of twenty-seven sail of the line, off Cape Trafalgar, about half way between Cadiz and Gibraltar. The enemy, convinced that their former defeats at sea had been owing to the want of concentration and mutual support, now formed a double line, every alternate ship being about a cable’s length to windward of her second ahead and astern, so that any of our ships, attempting to penetrate, would be exposed to the fire of two or of three antagonists. Nelson, while yet distant, perceived their arrangement, and understood its object. It was new, but he was satisfied that no concentration in the open sea could prevent our vessels from coming to close action with their opponents, in which case the result could not long be doubtful. He consequently made no alteration in his previous plan, which was to make the order of sailing the order of battle, the fleet being in two lines, with an advanced squadron pf eight of the fastest sailing two-deckers; but directed the fleet to advance to the attack in two divisions, one of which, under Admiral Collingwood, intersected that part of the enemy’s line which gave it nearly an equal number of ships to encounter; whilst Nelson, with the other division, acted on a similar plan. Such was the only general manoeuvre in this great action. By our superior seamanship, and our ships keeping near each other, we had in some cases a local superiority; but the general character of the fight was a conflict of ship to ship; and its decision in our favour was owing to that skill in working the guns, to that dexterity in an occasional change of position, and that confidence of success which characterizes a naval force in a high state of discipline. Our loss, amounting to sixteen hundred men, was in part caused by the riflemen in the enemy’s rigging; an ungenerous mode of warfare, which may deprive an opposing force of officers, but can have little effect on the general issue of a conflict. The fighting began at noon, became general in less than half an hour, and lasted from two to three hours; in the case of a few ships it continued longer, but all firing was over by half-past four o’clock. The victory was complete, but purchased by the death of Nelson, who was mortally wounded by a musket ball fired from the mizen-top of the Redoutable, by one of the enemy’s riflemen, and expired just as the action closed. Nineteen sail of the line struck; but unfortunately gales of wind, after the action, wrecked part of our prizes, and necessitated the destruction of others. Four sail, however, were preserved; and four more, which had escaped, under Rear-admiral Dumanoir, were [7:5:520]met on their northward course, on the 2d of November, and captured off Cape Ortegal, by a squadron under Sir Richard Strachan.

But upon the continent of Europe the course of public events was very different. The year had been ushered in by a letter of Bonaparte to our sovereign, containing pacific expressions couched in general terms. An answer was given, not by the king, but, according to diplomatic usage, by our minister for foreign affairs, to the French minister in the same station, expressing a similar wish for peace, but adding, that it was incumbent on us to consult our allies, particularly the emperor of Russia. The French ridiculed the assertion of our being on confidential terms with that court; but Russia had in fact begun to listen to the proposal of forming a coalition against France on an extensive scale. The basis of this compact was a treaty signed at St Petersburg in April. Russia, Austria, Sweden, Naples, all acceded to it, and hopes were entertained of the co-operation of Prussia. Bonaparte, apprized of this, affected to be absorbed in arrangements for immediately invading England, but secretly prepared to march his troops from Boulogne to the Rhine. After throwing on the Austrians the odium of aggression, by allowing them to attack Bavaria before he acted, he proceeded to execute a plan singularly adapted to the overweening confidence of his opponent, General Mack, who by this time had traversed Bavaria and advanced to Ulm. By executing forced marches, and violating part of the neutral territory of Prussia, Bonaparte reached first the flank, and soon afterwards the rear, of the enemy, who clung with blind pertinacity to the position of Ulm. The result to the Austrians was a series of checks in the field, and eventually the surrender, by capitulation, of more than thirty thousand men. The road to Vienna was thus opened to Bonaparte. He marched thither, crossed the Danube, proceeded northward, and at Austerlitz, on the 2d of December, displayed his military combinations in all their lustre, gaining over the Austrians and Russians, with forces not superior, a victory which compelled Austria to immediate peace; and thus by one blow broke up the coalition.

Before the opening of the session of 1805, an over ; ture, suggested, it is said, by the sovereign personally, was made to Mr Addington; and, after some discussion, it was accepted, Mr Addington receiving the presidency of the council for himself, and corresponding situations for his friénds. With this support ministers met parliament; and in one of the first great questions the approval of the war with Spain obtained the concurrence of three hundred and thirteen votes against a hundred and six. In subsequent divisions, the majorities, though less decisive, were considerable, until the 6th of April, when Mr Whitbread brought forward a most interesting discussion on the tenth report of the commissioners of naval inquiry, which implicated Lord Melville. This question, debated in a full house, produced a division of two hundred and sixteen against two hundred and sixteen, when, after a most anxious pause, the resolutions moved by Mr Whitbread were carried by the casting vote of the speaker. This led immediately to the resignation by Lord Melville of his office of first lord of the admiralty, and was followed by the erasure of his name from the list of privy counsellors. Some time after, his lordship was, at his own desire, heard before the House of Commons; and whilst he acknowledged that temporary irregularities in the appropriation of the public money had taken place when he was treasurer of the navy, he disclaimed, on his honour, the alleged participation in the profits of Mr Trotter, who had acted as his paymaster. But the expectations of the public were raised, and a prosecution, in some shape or other, was indispensable. A motion for an impeachment before the Lords, made by Mr Whitbread, was lost by two hundred and seventy-two to a hundred and ninety-five; but the Addington party joining opposition in a motion for a criminal prosecution, the latter was carried by two hundred and thirty-eight against two hundred and twenty-nine. Lord Melville and his friends, dreading this more than an impeachment, found means, by a sudden division of the house, to rescind the vote to that effect, and to decide on an impeachment before the Lords. And parliament was prorogued after giving ministers a vote of credit to the extent of three millions, to be applied, if necessary, in subsidies to continental powers.

The proceedings against Lord Melville made a deep impression on Mr Pitt, and deprived him of his only efficient coadjutor, at a time when, from the magnitude of his public cares, he was more than ever in want of support. The consequent fatigue and anxiety made severe inroads on a constitution naturally not strong. His indisposition became apparent in the early part of winter, and, on the meeting of parliament, it was understood to have reached a dangerous height. His death took place on the 23d January 1806. A motion, brought forward a few days after, to grant a public funeral, and to erect a monument to the late excellent minister, excited much discussion. Mr Fox paid a high tribute to the financial merits of his great rival, which, in fact, were extremely questionable; but he could not join in ascribing the epithet of “excellent” to measures which he had so often opposed. Mr Windham also opposed the vote; and the Grenvilles chose to be absent. Still the motion was carried by two hundred and fifty-eight against a hundred and sixty-nine. To a subsequent proposition for a grant of L.40,000 for the payment of Mr Pitt’s debts, no opposition was made.

The public attention was now fixed on the approaching change of ministry. The king, in concurrence, it is said, with the death-bed recommendation of Mr Pitt, sent for Lord Grenville, desired him to form a ministry, and made no opposition to the admission of Mr Fox into the cabinet; but he is said to have expressed a desire that the Duke of York should retain the office of commander-in-chief. The new administration was formed on a broad basis, comprising the friends of Lord Grenville, those of Mr Fox, and those of Lord Sidmouth. But hardly had they entered upon office when circumstances occurred which placed in a striking light the different conduct of men when in and out of power. Lord Grenville thought fit to bold the incompatible offices of first lord and auditor of the treasury, and the chief justice was admitted to a seat in the cabinet, whilst Mr , Fox consented to come forward as the vindicator of both.

The defence of the country against the great military power of France being still the most anxious consideration, the first measure of a comprehensive nature was brought forward by Mr Windham, whose station in the new ministry was the war department. It proposed the repeal of Mr Pitt’s additional force bill, and a plan for improving the regular army, by substituting a limited for an unlimited term of service, and by granting a small increase of pay after the expiration of the prescribed term. These propositions, brought forward in the end of April and beginning of May, were warmly opposed: they passed, however, by a great majority in both houses, and would, doubtless, have conduced materially to the improvement of our army had they received a fair trial; but the succeeding ministries sought, during the whole war, to procure enlistments for life. In France, since 1817, the rule is, to be scrupulous about the character of recruits, to give little or no bounty, but to limit the period of service, and to increase the pay after the expiration of the specified term. The same principle, differently modified, prevails both in Prussia and in Austria.
[7:5:521]

Of the budget, the most remarkable feature was an increase of the property-tax from six and a half to ten per cent., the odium of which ministers sought to lessen by the appointment of a board of auditors to examine the long-standing arrears in public accounts. In regard to trade, the principles of this ministry, though little understood, and even disliked by the great majority of merchants, were entitled to much attention. They attempted to introduce into our practical policy some of the doctrines of Dr Smith, doctrines which Mr Pitt had studied in his early years, but to which circumstances had not allowed him to give an extensive application. The letter of our navigation laws forbade all intercourse between our colonies and other countries; but our West India colonies were, in time of war, so dependent on the United States for provisions, that it had been customary with the island governors to take on themselves the responsibility of infringing these acts, and to obtain regularly a bill of indemnity from parliament Mr Fox now brought in a bill termed the American Intercourse Act, the purport of which was, to authorize the governors of our colonies to do, during the remainder of the war, that which they had hitherto done from year to year, and to dispense with any application for indemnity. This bill, moderate and politic as it in fact was, met with keen opposition in parliament, and with still keener out of doors from the shipping and commercial interests. It passed into a law; but it was denounced as a glaring infraction of our navigation code, and contributed, more than any other measure, to shake the popularity of ministers.

The trial of Lord Melville before the House of Peers began on the 29th of April 1806. The charges against him, little understood by the public at large, related to an infraction of his official duty, not as a member of the cabinet, but in his early and inferior station of treasurer of the navy. These charges may be comprised under the following heads: That he had allowed Mr Trotter, his paymaster, to take the temporary use and profit of sums of money lodged in the bank for the naval expenditure; that he had himself participated in such profits; and, finally, that he had applied certain sums of the public money to his private use. All participation in the speculations or profit of his paymaster his lordship positively denied, but he acknowledged a temporary appropriation of the sum of L.10,000 in a way which private honour and public duty forbade him to reveal. The trial closed on the 12th of June. The articles of impeachment had been extended to the number of ten, and on all of them there was a majority of peers for his acquittal; but whilst in regard to the charge of conniving at stock speculations by Trotter, or converting the public money to his private use, the majorities were triumphant, the case was otherwise in regard to his lordship’s permitting an unauthorized appropriation of the public money by Trotter, and receiving from him temporary loans, the records of which were afterwards destroyed.

Though the present parliament had completed only four sessions, ministers determined on a dissolution, doubtless from a wish to have the benefit of the government influence in the new elections. They knew their weakness at court, and flattered themselves that a decided ascendency in parliament would enable them to press, with greater confidence, measures for which they could not boast the cordial concurrence of their royal master. For the time of the new election they chose the moment of national excitement caused by the recal of our ambassador from the French capital. The first debate in the new House of Commons related to the abortive negociation for peace; and although the publication of the official papers excited some surprise, and showed that Bonaparte had at one time carried his offers of concession considerably farther than the public had supposed, there prevailed so general' a distrust towards him, that Mr Whitbread stood almost alone in the opinion that the negociation ought to have been continued. After some renewed discussions on Mr Windham’s military measures, Lord Henry Petty, then chancellor of the exchequer, brought forward a plan of finance, which, assuming the expense of the current year as equal to that of subsequent years of war, professed to provide, without new taxes, for a contest of fourteen years or more. This plan contained an anticipated calculation of the loans necessary for several years to come, and supposed that a sum equal to ten per cent, on each loan should be appropriated from the war taxes, of which five per cent, should serve to pay the interest of the loan, and the other five per cent, form a sinking fund, which, by the operation of compound interest, would redeem the capital in fourteen years; leaving the whole ten per cent, again applicable to the same purpose should the war continue. That this plan possessed, no more than those of Pitt or Vansittart, the merit of increasing the productive power of our revenue, has been already shown by Dr Hamilton in his well-known Treatise on the National Debt. Its merit, had it been tried, would have been found to consist, as that of such plans generally does, in a support, perhaps a temporary increase, of public credit. It may even be questioned whether the same ministry, had they continued in office, would have restricted themselves to a limited expenditure in 1808, when the Spanish struggle called forth such a burst of national enthusiasm. There cannot, however, be a doubt that they would have avoided the orders in council, which, by depriving us of the unseen but powerful aid of neutral traffic, gave the first great blow to our bank paper, and consequently to our public funds.

The bill for the abolition of the slave-trade was now brought forward with all the weight of government support, and carried by triumphant majorities; in the Lords by a hundred to thirty-six, in the Commons by two hundred and eighty-three to sixteen. This prompt termination of a struggle of twenty years showed how easily the measure might have been carried had not Mr Pitt declined to give it ministerial support; a course suggested to him probably by a dread of offending the West India planters, but founded in a great measure on misapprehension, since the most respectable part of that body, the proprietors of long-settled estates, were far from being adverse to the abolition, calculated as it was to prevent that superabundance of produce which to them is the most serious of evils. This proved the last important bill of the Grenville ministry, whose removal from office took place very unexpectedly, in consequence of a difference with the sovereign about the Irish Catholics.

The bill which produced this sudden change was introduced by Lord Howick on the 5th of March, and entitled, “A bill to enable his majesty to avail himself of the services of all his liege subjects in his naval and military forces in the manner therein mentioned that is, by their taking an oath contained in the bill, after which they should be left to the free exercise of their religion. Here, as in the case of the American intercourse with the West Indies, the intention was less to introduce a new practice, than to permit by law what was already permitted by connivance. The draught of the bill had been previously submitted to the king, and returned by him without objection; but the royal attention was more closely drawn to it on its introduction into parliament, and on a vehement opposition from Mr Perceval, who described it as part of a system of dangerous innovation, and as a precursor of the abolition of all religious tests. The king now intimated his disapprobation of the bill to ministers, who endeavoured to modify [7:5:522]it, but still without succeeding in rendering it acceptable to their sovereign. They then felt the necessity of withdrawing the bill, but inserted in the cabinet minutes a declaration, reserving to themselves two points: the liberty of delivering their opinion in parliament in favour of the proposed measure, and of bringing it forward at a future period. This minute was unfortunately couched in terms too positive, if not disrespectful to the king, who, always tenacious on the Catholic question, and never personally cordial with Lords Grenville and Howick, insisted that they should pledge themselves in writing never to press him again on the subject. Ministers declining to comply, the king consulted with Lord Eldon about forming a new ministry, and, receiving a ready assurance of the practicability of such a measure, refused to listen to a modified acquiescence with his late order, offered rather tardily by Lord Grenville. Ministers gave up the seals of office on 25th March; and next day the change and the causes which led to it were fully discussed in parliament. A short adjournment now took place, after which there occurred some remarkable trials of strength between the two parties. An independent member, Mr Brand, with reference to the conditions on which the ministry had come into office, made a motion, that it was contrary to the duty of members of the cabinet to restrain themselves by a pledge from advising the king on any subject. This motion produced a very long debate, but was lost by two hundred and fifty-eight against two hundred and twenty-six; while a corresponding motion in the Lords was lost by a hundred and seventy-one to ninety. A subsequent proposition, to express the regret of the house at the removal from office of so firm and stable an administration, was lost by two hundred and forty-four against a hundred and ninety-eight; and it became apparent, that in parliament, as at court, the fall of the Grenville ministry was decided.

It remains to make a few observations on their conduct when in office; and here an impartial inquirer will not be long in discovering that both their merits and demerits have been greatly exaggerated. Their war measures proved unimportant, particularly in the point which, in the then ardent state of the public mind, superseded all others —the annoyance of France; and the result was, an unconsciousness in the greater part of the people of what was really valuable in their views and conduct. Yet Mr Fox brought to the department of foreign affairs an intimate knowledge of continental politics, and an exemption from national prejudices, far, however, from being accompanied, as the vulgar supposed, by an indifference to our national interests. Lord Grenville, if naturally less conciliating, and less fitted for grand views, possessed a practical knowledge of business, and had become aware in retirement of the various errors which had arisen from a too early introduction into office. They had a liberal feeling towards Ireland and the United States; and though by no means lukewarm in their resistance to Bonaparte, they all held the impracticability of making any impression on his power by force of arms, until the occurrence of some combination of circumstances which should justify a grand and united effort. In what manner they would have acted had they been in power when the general insurrection in Spain burst forth, the public have no means of judging; so different is the language, and even the feeling, of politicians when in and out of office. Several of their measures, such as the introduction of the lord chief .justice to a seat in the cabinet, and the assent to the appointment of such a commander as Whitelocke, were singularly ill-judged. To place Lord Grey, and after him Mr T. Grenville, at the head of the admiralty, was to declare to the public that professional knowledge was unnecessary in that high station, as if its effects had not been most beneficially displayed in the administration, short as it was, of Lord Barham. Finally, 1 their intemperate declaration in the cabinet minute of the 12th of March evinced a strange miscalculation of their strength, when put in opposition to the personal will of the sovereign and the existing prejudices of the public. The result was, that their fall caused no regret to the majority of the nation, and that the errors of their successors excited no wish for their recal.

Of the new ministry, the efficient members were, Mr Perceval, chancellor of the exchequer; Mr Canning, minister for foreign affairs; Lord Castlereagh for the war, and Lord Liverpool for the home department. One of their first measures was a prorogation of the parliament, followed by a dissolution, which gave them, in the elections, the advantage so lately enjoyed by their predecessors, with the further advantage of an alarm, strangely excited in the public mind, on the ground of popery. The new parliament met on the 22d of June, and, after passing the bills requisite for the army, navy, and other current business, was prorogued on the 14th of August.

The alternation of fortune by sea and land was so great, that 1806 had hardly commenced when fresh successes were obtained over the French navy. A division of the Brest squadron, after landing troops in the Spanish part of St Domingo, was overtaken by a superior force, and three sail of the line captured and two burned. Admiral Linois, returning from India, was captured in the Marengo of eighty guns; and, at a subsequent date, of a squadron of frigates detached from Rochefort for the West Indies, four fell into our hands.

It was under these circumstances that a negociation for peace was for some months carried on at Paris. It began in consequence of an overture from Talleyrand, eagerly embraced by Mr Fox; and Lord Yarmouth, who happened to be under detention in France, was made the first medium of communication and conference. In its more advanced stage, the negociation was intrusted to Lord Lauderdale; and at one period, namely, in September, the conciliatory tone of the French inspired a hope of peace; a hope soon disappointed, when it was found that the offers of Bonaparte were followed by the demand of Sicily, and that, whilst professing an ardent wish for peace, he was extending his usurpations in Germany, and secretly preparing to subvert the power of Prussia.

The humiliation of Austria left Bonaparte at liberty to direct his manoeuvres, both diplomatic and military, against her northern rival. Affecting great indignation at the friendly disposition shown by Prussia, in the preceding autumn, towards the coalition, he demanded the cession of a portion of her territory in the south-west, and, in return, transferred to her Hanover, in the hope of kindling the flame of discord between her and England. The Prussians accordingly entered Hanover; the local government making no resistance, and our cabinet taking no retaliatory measure, except the detention of vessels bearing the Prussian flag; a measure adopted, not in the spirit of hostility, but to satisfy popular clamour in England. The discussions between France and Prussia continued during the summer of 1806, and, from the blind confidence of one party, and the artifice of the other, assumed at last a serious aspect. War was declared; the battle of Jena deprived Prussia of her army, her capital, and her fortresses; and her court was fugitive in the north of Poland, ere there had been time to send, or even to concert the sending of succours from England. The Grenville ministry, less eager than their predecessors to embark in continental war, confined themselves to sending a general officer, Lord Hutchinson, to the Russian head-quarters, and to the grant of a limited subsidy. For some time the difficulties of the country, and the firm [7:5:523]resistance of the Russians, particularly at Eylau, encouraged the hope of arresting the progress of Bonaparte; but this hope was disappointed by the battle of Friedland, and still more by the approximation of the court of Russia to that of France.

The treaty of Tilsit excited alarm, less from its specific provisions, than from the probable consequences of the co-operation of the contracting powers. Among these, some persons reckoned, or pretended to reckon, the equipping against us of the Danish navy, a force of sixteen sail of the line, not manned or ready for sea, but capable of being fitted out without a great sacrifice. The ministry of 1807 founded their claim to public favour on a system of vigour,—on a course altogether opposite to the cautious calculations of their predecessors. No sooner were they apprized of the treaty of Tilsit, than, without waiting for its effect on the Danish government, they determined on the as yet unexampled measure of taking forcible possession of a neutral fleet. A powerful armament of twenty thousand troops and twenty-seven sail of the line, prepared ostensibly against Flushing and Antwerp, was directed to proceed to the Sound, there to await the result of a negociation opened at Copenhagen. This negociation was intrusted to a special envoy, who represented the danger to Denmark from France and Russia, and demanded the delivery of the Danish fleet to England, under a solemn stipulation of its being restored on the termination of our war with France. The Danes, justly offended at this proposal, and aware that their agreeing to it would expose them to the loss of the continental part of their territory, refused: our envoy returned on board our fleet: our army was landed, and Copenhagen invested by sea and land, while a part of our fleet cut off all communication between the continent and the island on which it stands. After a fortnight passed in preparations, a heavy fire was opened on the city, and continued during two days with very great effect. A capitulation now took place; the citadel, dockyards, and batteries were put into our hands, and no time was lost in fitting out the Danish men of war for sea. All stores, timber, and other articles of naval equipment, belonging to government, were taken out of the arsenals, embarked, and conveyed to England.

The expedition to Copenhagen excited much discussion and difference of opinion in England, particularly when it was avowed that ministers had no evidence of an intention in Russia to coerce Denmark, and still less of a disposition in Denmark to give way to such coercion. The only tenable ground was, to acknowledge at once that the Danes had given no provocation whatever; that their conduct had been strictly neutral; but that they would evidently have been unable to defend themselves had Russia and France united against them. Still it was extremely questionable, whether we, to ward off a contingent annoyance, should have committed a present aggression. The success of our attempt, considering our naval superiority, the insulated position of Copenhagen, and its unprepared state, admitted of little or no doubt. But this was not all. There remained further and more important considerations; the odium that would be thus excited against us in the Danish nation, and that closer approximation of Russia to France, which could hardly fail to follow so open an affront to a power professing to take a lead in the political arrangements of the Baltic.

The Cape of Good Hope surrendered in January 1806 to an armament sent from England. After this, Sir Home Popham, who commanded the naval part of the expedition, ventured to make, without the sanction or even knowledge of government, an attempt on Buenos Ayres. Our troops, although under two thousand in number, effected a landing, and occupied the town. Intelligence to this effect having reached England, the popular notion that Buenos Ayres would prove a great market for our manufactures, induced 1 government to take measures for completing the new conquest. And though the inhabitants soon rose and drove out the feeble detachment under Sir Home Popham, an armament, which arrived in January 1807, under the command of Sir Samuel Auchmuty, attacked the strongly fortified town of Monte Video, and carried it by assault, which was conducted with great skill and gallantry. But a very different fate awaited our next enterprise,—an attack on Buenos Ayres, planned by General Whitelocke, an officer wholly unfit for this or any other kind of service. Our troops, eight thousand in number, were, under every disadvantage, successful in some parts; but failing in others, the result was a negociation, and a convention that we should withdraw altogether from the country, on the condition of our prisoners being restored.

But in another part of the world, and against an enemy in general far more formidable, our arms had been attended with success. Naples had been engaged in the coalition of 1805, with a view to assail the French on the side of Lombardy; but an Anglo-Russian army, landed for that purpose, had been prevented from marching northward by the disastrous intelligence from Germany. They were subsequently re-embarked, the British withdrawing to Sicily, and Palermo becoming once more the refuge of the Neapolitan court. That court, eager to excite insurrection against the French in Calabria, prevailed on General Sir John Stuart, in the beginning of July 1806, to lead thither a detachment of our troops. They landed, and soon after received intelligence, that at Maida, distant only ten miles from our encampment, was a French corps, already equal to our own, and hourly expecting considerable reinforcements. Our troops marched to attack them on the morning of 4th July, and at nine o’clock drew near to their position, which had a river in front. But General Regnier, who commanded the French, having received his reinforcements the preceding evening, and seeing that our small army was unprovided with cavalry, caused his men to march out of their camp, and advance to charge us on the plain. Our force, including a regiment landed that morning, was nearly six thousand; that of the enemy above seven thousand. The French, who knew our troops only by report, marched towards them with great confidence, not expecting them to stand the charge. Our line, however formed, faced the enemy, and advanced; the forward movement of the opposing lines lessening the intervening distance in a double ratio. On a nearer approach the enemy opened their field-pieces, but, contrary to the usual practice of the French artillery, with little effect. Not so the British; for when our artillery opened, every shot told, and carried off a file of the enemy’s line. The lines were now fast closing, being within three hundred yards distance, and a fire having commenced between the sharpshooters on the right. At this moment the enemy seemed to hesitate, halted, and fired a volley. The British line also halted, returned the salute, and having thrown in a second volley, advanced at full charge. The enemy, apparently resolved to stand the shock, kept perfectly steady, till, intimidated by the advance, equally rapid and firm, of an enemy whom they had been taught to despise, their hearts failed, and they faced about and fled, but not in confusion. When they approached within a short distance of their second line, they halted, fronted, and opened a fire of musketry on our line, which did not follow up the charge to any distance, but halted to allow the men to draw breath, and to close up any breaks in their formation. They were soon ready, however, to advance again; and the order to charge having once more been given, our brave troops rushed forward to the onset, the enemy, as [7:5:524]before, making a show of determination to remain firm. But their courage again failed them; they would not stand the shock; and giving way in greater confusion than before, their first line was thrown upon the second, and both became intermingled in great disorder. Seeing himself thus completely foiled in his attack on the front, and being driven back more than a mile, Regnier now made an attempt to turn the left flank'; but this was defeated by the British second line, which, refusing its left, opened an admirably directed and destructive fire, which quickly drove back the enemy with great loss. Their efforts were equally unsuccessful against the right of our line, which also charged in the most gallant and decisive manner, and the field of battle remained entirely in our possession. 1 The French loss in killed and wounded was upwards of two thousand; ours only between three hundred and four hundred. This brilliant exploit produced the evacuation of part of Calabria by the French, but had no other result; our small force returning soon afterwards to Sicily.

Our next operation in the Mediterranean was an unsuccessful menace of the Turkish capital. That court refusing to enter into our plans of hostility to France, our ambassador withdrew, and re-entered the Straits of the Dardanelles with a squadron of seven sail of the line, exclusive of frigates and bombs. They suffered considerably in passing the narrow part of the straits, between the ancient Sestos and Abydos, now called the castles of Romania and Natolia. Anchoring at a distance of eight miles from Constantinople, our admiral, Sir J. Duckworth, threatened to burn the seraglio and the city, but in vain. The Turks continued adverse to our demands, and employed the interval, wasted by the British commander in useless negociations, in strengthening the formidable batteries of the Dardanelles. It soon became indispensable therefore to withdraw, and to repass the straits; but this was not accomplished without a considerable loss in killed and wounded, the cannon at the castles being of great size, and discharging granite balls, one of which, weighing eight hundred pounds, cut in two the mainmast of the Windsor man of war. A descent made soon after in Egypt was equally unfortunate. A detachment of troops landing at Alexandria, occupied that town, but suffered a severe loss at Rosetta, and eventually withdrew, on the Turks consenting to give up the prisoners they had taken. Peace was soon after concluded with the Turks, and our operations in the Levant were confined to the capture of the Ionian Islands from the French. Zante, Ccphalonia, Ithaca, and Cerigo, were taken by a small expedition in 1809, and Santa Maura the succeeding year.

On the side of Sicily, our commanders, though pressed by the court of Palermo, refused to make descents on Calabria, which could lead to nothing but partial insurrections, followed, on the return of a superior force, by the death of the most zealous of our partisans. We took, however, in June 1809, the small islands of Ischia and Procida, near the coast of Naples; and, in the autumn of 1810, repelled an attempt of Murat to invade Sicily. A body of nearly four thousand Italians, who had landed on this occasion, were driven back with loss; a failure which, joined to our decided naval superiority, put an end to all attempts of the kind.

The hostility of Russia consequent on her connection with France produced a menaced invasion of Sweden, now our only ally in the north. To aid in repelling it, Sir John Moore was sent to Gottenburg with a body of ten thousand men. This force did not land; but the general, repairing to Stockholm, entered into communications with^[19. Stewart’s Sketches and Military Service of the Highland Regiments, vol. ii. p. 265 et seqq. 2d edition. ] the king, and had the mortification of finding that prince wholly incapable of rational conduct, and bent on projects which would necessarily involve the sacrifice of the British troops. On this he lost no time in returning to Gottenburg, and soon afterwards brought back the armament to England, to be employed on a more promising service.

The influence possessed by Bonaparte over Spain had long inspired him with the hope of overawing Portugal, and of obliging that country to dissolve her alliance with England. To this hope the humiliation of Germany, and his new alliance with Russia^ gave double strength; and, in the latter part of 1807, the most peremptory demands were made orí the court of Lisbon. To part of these, implying the exclusion of British merchantmen from the harbours of Portugal, compliance was promised; but the demand of confiscating English property, and detaining the English resident in Portugal, was met by a decided refusal. A French army now marched towards Lisbon, and threatened openly to overthrow the house of Braganza; but the latter, after some momentary indications of indecision, took the determination of abandoning their European dominions, and proceeding to Brazil. This spirited, and by many unexpected measure, was carried into effect in the end of November, and Lisbon was forthwith occupied by French troops. A few months afterwards occurred the transactions at Bayonne, and the general declaration of hostility by the Spaniards to Bonaparte. Our cabinet now determined to postpone all other projects to that of a vigorous effort in Spain and Portugal. With that view, an armament of ten thousand men, collected at Cork, and said to be intended for Spanish America, sailed in July for the Peninsula, and offered its co-operation to the Spaniards in Galicia. They, however, thought it best that we should confine our aid to Spain to arms and money, directing our military force against the French army in Portugal. Accordingly, our troops, after passing an interval at Oporto, were landed to the southward, in Mondego Bay, where, after receiving the co-operation of another division of British, and of a few Portuguese, they proceeded on their southward march towards Lisbon. The first actions took place with French detachments at the small town of Obidos, and at Rorica. Neither was of much importance: the French, inferior in number, retreated; but their commander at Lisbon was Junot, an officer trained in the school of revolutionary enterprise, and disposed, like most of his brethren at that time, to make light of British land forces. He determined forthwith on assuming offensive operations, advanced from Lisbon, and reaching the British army on the 21st of August 1808, attacked it in its position at the small town of Vimicro. The force on either side was about fourteen thousand men. The French marched to the onset in columns, with their wonted confidence; but they had to encounter an enemy equally firm with Germans or Russians, and far superior in discipline, equipment, and activity. The principal column of the enemy, headed by General Laborde, and preceded by a multitude of light troops, mounted the face of the hill forming the crest of the British position, with great fury and loud cries, and, forcing in our skirmishers upon the lines, crowned the summit; but, shattered by a terrible fire of the artillery, breathless from their exertions, and riddled by a discharge of musketry from the fifteenth regiment at half-pistol shot distance, they were vigorously charged in front and flank, and overthrown.^[20. Napier’s History of the Peninsular IVar, vol. i. p. 213. ] Equal success attended our efforts in [7:5:525]other parts of the line, and the loss of the enemy was three thousand men and thirteen pieces of cannon. The object now ought to have been to follow up our success, before the French had time to recover themselves, and fortify the almost impenetrable mountains on the road to Lisbon. In vain did Sir Arthur Wellesley urge this, first on Sir Harry Burrard, who had now taken the command, and next day on Sir Hew Dalrymple, who arrived and replaced him. Reinforcements were daily expected; and, till their arrival, neither of these officers could be persuaded to. incur hazards for the attainment of an advantage which, from their unacquaintance with localities, they were not competent to appreciate. A precious interval was thus lost. The French occupied the passes, opened their negociation in a tone of confidence, and obtained, by the treaty called the Convention of Cintra, a free return to France on board of British shipping. The ministry, though disappointed, determined to defend this convention; judging it indispensable, partly from the communications of Sir Hew Dalrymple, more from its bearing the unqualified signature of Sir Arthur Wellesley, who was, even then, their confidential military adviser. The public, however, called for inquiry; ministers felt the necessity of acceding; the three generals were ordered home from Portugal; and, after a long investigation, and divided opinions, the chief error was found to consist in stopping General Ferguson in the career of victory, when about to cut off the enemy’s retreat to Lisbon, and in the loss of the twenty-four hours which followed the battle of Vimicro.

The public disappointment at the convention of Cintra was soon counterbalanced by gratifying intelligence from the Baltic. Bonaparte, whose plan was to subjugate all Europe, by making one nation instrumental in overawing another, had sent the Spanish regiments in his service into Denmark; but he could not prevent their receiving intelligence of the rising spirit of their countrymen, and the vicinity of a British fleet happily facilitated their evasion. Ten thousand Spaniards were thus brought off, and carried, with their arms, stores, and artillery, to join the standard of their country.

Meantime the command of our troops in Portugal was vested in Sir John Moore, and arrangements were made for moving them forward into Spain. But from the badness of the roads, it was necessary to advance in two divisions, one marching due east, and another north-east; while a further force, which had arrived from England at Corunna, was instructed to hold a south-east course. The lateral divisions received, in their progress, orders to adapt the direction of their march to existing circumstances; but the result was, that both converged towards the central division, conducted by Sir John Moore in person.

In their march our officers had an ample opportunity of witnessing the fallacious and exaggerated impressions entertained in England with regard to the supposed enthusiasm of the Spaniards. They saw a country wretchedly cultivated and thinly peopled; a nation hostilely disposed, indeed, to the French, but unaccustomed to exertion, and incapable of combination. Instead of recruits, supplies of provisions, or offers of voluntary service, all was inactivity and stagnation; and, amidst the general poverty, our commissariat had great difficulty in obtaining provisions. Another great source of perplexity was the want of information. The natives, whether in the civil or military service, were too ignorant and credulous to be capable of detecting exaggeration, or of distinguishing truth from falsehood; and our officers were obliged to judge for themselves under the most contradictory rumours.

Sir John Moore reached Salamancaon the 13th of November, aware that the Spaniards had been defeated at Burgos, and soon after apprised that a French corps was advancing to Valladolid, within sixty miles of his front. In this situation he received from Madrid the most urgent solicitations to advance thither with his army, either in whole or in part. He knew the ardour of his country for the cause of Spain, and directed his movements in the view of complying, as far as should be at all advisable, with the representations pressed on him; but day after day the intelligence became more discouraging. At last, the fall of Madrid, ascertained by an intercepted letter of General Berthier, removed every doubt, and left him no other plan but that of uniting his three divisions, and determining on a retreat; but, as his army was now augmented to twenty-five thousand men, he determined, if possible, to strike a blow against the detached French army under Soult, stationed at some distance to the north-east. With this view, our troops advanced on the 11th of December towards the small town of Sahagun, and a partial action, which took place between the opposite vanguards, was to our advantage; but intelligence arriving that Bonaparte was directing, by the passes of the Guadarama, a superior force on a point in rear of the British, it became indispensable to make a prompt and uninterrupted retreat. Bonaparte, pressing forward with his vanguard, reached our rear at Benavente, saw, for the first time, British soldiers, and witnessed a cavalry action, in which several squadrons of his guard were very roughly handled, and their commanding officer, Lefebre Desnouettes, made prisoner. Meanwhile, Soult, marching by a different road, hoped to cross our line of retreat at Astorga; and the Spaniards having abandoned the position which covered the access to that town, it required both prompt and skilful exertion to enable our army to occupy it before the enemy. Here, pressed as we were, it became necessary to destroy a great part of our camp equipage. Our army was ahead of the enemy, but had before it a long and difficult march over the mountains of Galicia. The weather was severe, provisions scanty, the inhabitants cold and unfriendly; while privations and disappointment .relaxed the discipline of our soldiers, who called loudly to be led to action, as the close of their distress. Retreat, however, was unavoidable; and, in this state of suffering and insubordination, the army performed a march of more than two hundred miles; the general keeping in the rear to check the French, who followed with their usual audacity. At Lugo, about sixty miles from Corunna, circumstances seemed to justify our awaiting the enemy, and fighting a general battle. Our soldiers repaired with alacrity to their ranks, but Soult did not accept the challenge, and the retreat was continued. It closed on the 12th January 1809, having been attended with the loss of many men, from disorder, and the sacrifice of many horses, from want of forage, but without losing a standard, or sustaining a single check in action. On the 13th, 14th, and 15th, the sick and artillery were embarked on board our men of war; while the troops remained on shore, to await the enemy, and to cover the reproach of retreat by some shining exploit. This led to the battle of Corunna. On that day our position was good on the left,-but very much otherwise on the right; thither, accordingly, ,the French pointed their strongest column, and thither also Sir John Moore repaired in person. He directed the necessary movements, first to obstruct, and afterwards to charge, the advancing enemy. These orders were gallantly executed, and the attack of the French repelled; but our lamented general received a wound, which soon after proved mortal, from a cannon ball, that struck him on the shoulder, and knocked him off his horse. Subsequent attacks, first on our centre, and next on our left, were equally foiled; and, in the evening, we occupied an advanced position along our whole line. Enough having now been done for the honour of our arms, the embarkation was continued on the 17th, and [7:5:526]completed on the 18th, after which the whole set sail for England.^[21. The following masterly defence of the necessity as well as the conduct of this celebrated retreat, is extracted from Napier’s History of the Peninsular ĭĭrar, vol. i. p. 525. “Lord Bacon observes, that ‘ honourable retreats are no ways inferior to brave charges, as having less of fortune, more of discipline, and as much of valour.’ That is an honourable retreat in which the retiring general loses no trophies in fight, sustains every charge without being broken, and finally, after a severe action, re-embarks his army in the face of a superior enemy without being seriously molested. It would be honourable to effect .his before a foe only formidable from numbers, but it is infinitely more creditable, when the commander, while struggling with bad weather and worse fortune, has to oppose veterans with inexperienced troops, and to contend against an antagonist of eminent ability, who scarcely suffers a single advantage to escape him during his long and vigorous pursuit. All this Sir John Moore did, and finished his work by a death as firm and glorious as any that antiquity can boast of “Put to Lord Bacon’s test, in what shall the retreat to Corunna be found deficient? something in discipline, perhaps, but that fault does not attach to the general. Those commanders who have been celebrated for making fine retreats were in most instances well acquainted with their armies; and Hannibal, speaking of the elder Scipio, derided him, although a brave and skilful man, forthat, being unknown to his own soldiers, he should presume to oppose himself to a general who could call to each man under his command by name; thus inculcating, that unless troops be trained in the peculiar method of a commander, the latter can scarcely achieve any thing great. Now Sir John Moore had a young army suddenly placed under his guidance, and it was scarcely united, when the superior numbers of the enemy forced it to a retrograde movement under very harassing circumstances; he had not time, therefore, to establish a system of discipline; and it is in the leading events, not the minor details, that the just criterion of his merits is to be sought for.” ]

The session of 1808 was opened on 31st January by a speech of uncommon length, which enlarged on the Copenhagen expedition; our relations with Russia, Austria, and Sweden; the departure of the royal family of Portugal to Brazil; and our orders in council respecting neutrals. The chief debates of the session related to these subjects. The Copenhagen expedition was much canvassed, as unprovoked by Denmark, and incompatible with the honour of England. Still that measure received the support of a great majority, Mr Ponsonby’s motion for the production of papers relating to it being negatived by two hundred and fifty to a hundred and eight, and a similar motion in the House of Lords by a hundred and five to forty-eight. Even a motion for preserving the Danish fleet, to be restored, after the war, to Denmark, was negatived in both houses.

The volunteer system had, since 1804, been greatly relaxed, and the country evidently stood in need of a more constant and efficient force. The Grenville ministry, adverse to the volunteer system, had determined to let it fall into disuse, and to replace it by a levy of two hundred thousand men, to be trained to act, not in battalions, but separately, and as irregulars, on the principle that local knowledge was the chief recommendation, and a continuance of previous habits the proper exercise, of such a force. The new ministry, however, pursued a different course, and passed an act for a local militia; a body which, with the exception of the officers, was composed of the lower orders, pledged to regular training during one month in the year, and subjected to all the strictness of military discipline. Such of the volunteers as chose were to remain embodied; the total of the local militia was about two hundred thousand, and the mode of levy was by a ballot of all persons, not specially exempted, between the age of eighteen and thirty-one.

The orders in council were frequently discussed during this session, but they were as yet imperfectly understood either in their immediate operation or in their consequences. Unfortunately for the advocates of moderation, Bonaparte now lost all regard to justice, and committed the most lawless of all his acts, the seizure of the Spanish crown. Indignation at this atrocity, and a firm determination to support the Spanish cause, were manifested by men of all parties, among whom were remarkable, as habitual members of opposition, the Duke of Norfolk and Mr Sheridan; the latter making, on this occasion, one of the most brilliant speeches of his latter years.

The session of 1809 was opened on 13th January by a speech declaring a decided determination to adhere to the cause of the Spaniards, notwithstanding the failure of the campaign, and the retreat of our army under Sir John Moore. The intelligence that arrived soon after the death of that commander drew from the house a unanimous eulogy of his character, and regret for his fall. There still prevailed, both in parliament and the public, a strong attachment to the Spanish cause; and, in the various motions made by the opposition to censure ministers for mismanaging our armaments, or ill planning our operations, the minority seldom exceeded a third of the members present.

But the attention of parliament and the public was withdrawn even from this interesting question, and absorbed by the charges against the Duke of York, brought forward by Colonel Wardle, on evidence given or procured by Mrs Mary Anne Clarke, a forsaken mistress of the duke. Ministers, unaware of the extent of the proofs, brought the inqyiry before the house instead of referring it to a committee, and a succession of singular disclosures were thus made to parliament and the public. Of these the most remarkable were produced by the friends of the duke persisting in examinations begun under an impression of his entire innocence. It is hardly possible to describe how much this subject engaged the public attention during the months of February and March. Of the influence of Mrs Clarke in obtaining military commissions from the duke, and of her disposing of them for money, there could be no doubt. The question was, whether the duke was apprised of this traffic; and though he might not be aware of its extent, there seems hardly room to doubt that, in certain cases, he suspected its existence. The debate on the collective evidence was uncommonly long, being adjourned from night to night, and exhibited a great difference of opinion on the part of the speakers. Several resolutions, varying in their degree of reprehension, were proposed; and though those finally adopted condemned only the immorality of the connection formed by the duke, without asserting his knowledge of the pecuniary abuses, the result was his resignation of the office of commanderin-chief.

The success of this investigation prompted an inquiry into other abuses, particularly the sale of East India appointments, and disclosed a negociation of Lord Castlereagh to barter a nomination to a Bengal writership, for the return of a member to parliament. The house declined to proceed to any resolution against his lordship, or to entertain a motion relative to the interference of the executive government in elections. A bill for parliamentary reform, brought in by Mr Curwen, was not directly opposed, but so materially altered in its progress as to be nugatory when it passed into a law. The further business of the session consisted in the annual votes for the public service, and in motions by Sir Samuel Romilly, on a subject[7:5:527] which has been but lately followed up with effect, the amendment of our criminal law, by lessening the severity, but insuring the application, of punishments.

The failure, in autumn, of the expedition to the Scheldt, and the resignation of the Duke of Portland when on the verge of the grave, led to the disclosure of a remarkable secret in cabinet history—the attempts made, during several months, by Mr Canning, to obtain from the Duke of Portland the removal of Lord Castlereagh from the war department, on the ground of incompetency to the station. On making this mortifying discovery, the complaint of Lord Castlereagh was, not that his brother minister should think with slight of his abilities, but that, during all the time that he laboured against him, he should have maintained towards him the outward manner of a friend. This led to a duel, followed, not by serious personal injury, but by the resignation of both; causing, in the ministry, a blank which, to all appearance, could be filled only by bringing in the leaders of opposition. An overture to this effect, whether sincere or ostensible, was made by Mr Perceval. Lord Grenville, on receiving it, came to London; Lord Grey, more indifferent about office, answered it from his seat in Northumberland; but both declared a determination to decline taking part in the administration so long as the existing system should be persisted in. Marquis Wellesley, who had gone as ambassador to the Spanish junta, now returned, and was invested with the secretaryship for foreign affairs. Mr Perceval was appointed premier; and the new ministry, feeble as they were in talent, received the support of a decided majority in parliament; so general was the hatred of Bonaparte, and the conviction that our safety lay in a vigorous prosecution of the war.

Our failure in the campaign of 1808-9 was far from discouraging our government from new efforts. Austria was preparing to attack the allies of Bonaparte in Germany; and the Spaniards, though repeatedly beaten in close action, continued a destructive warfare in the shape of insulated insurrections. Sir Arthur Wellesley was accordingly sent with afresh army to Lisbon, and General Beresford with a commission to discipline the Portuguese forces. They found the French threatening Lisbon in two directions; from the east, with a powerful force under Victor; from the north, with a less numerous body under Soult. Sir Arthur Wellesley advanced against the latter, drew near his rear guard on the banks of the Douro, drove it over that river, and crossing immediately after, forced Soult to a precipitate retreat from Oporto. Returning to the southward, our commander obliged the force under Victor to draw back; and having, some time after, effected a junction with a Spanish army, took the bold determination of moving forward in the direction of Madrid by the valley of the Tagus. The French now sent reinforcements to the army of Victor, and the opposing forces met at Talavera de la Reyna, a town to the north of the Tagus, near the small river Alberche. The British force was nineteen thousand, and that of the Spaniards above thirty thousand; the French army amounted to upwards of forty-seven thousand men. Lord Wellington was too distrustful of the discipline of his allies to venture an attack on the French, but he saw no imprudence in trying, as at Vimicro, the chance of a defensive action. Stationing the Spaniards on strong ground on the right, he occupied with the British a less strong but yet favourable position on the left. Against the army thus posted the French advanced in the afternoon of 27th July, driving in our advanced post, and attacking an eminence on our left. This eminence, the key of the position, would have been assailed from the beginning by Bonaparte, with a formidable column; but the rifle corps and a single battalion sent against it by Victor were speedily driven back by our troops. A second attack, made in the evening by three regiments of infantry, was at first successful, but it was soon repelled by a fresh division of British troops. The main body of the French, surprised at this failure, waited impatiently for morning to renew the attack; they advanced, marched through a destructive fire to the top of the rising ground, approached our cannon, and were on the point of seizing them, when our line rushed forward with the bayonet, and drove them back with great loss. Their commanders now determined to suspend all attacks on the right of the position, and to bring a mass of force against the front and flank of the British left. A general attack took place at four in the afternoon, and the troops directed against the height now consisted of three divisions of infantry, or about eighteen thousand men. Crossing the ravine in their front, the first division scaled the height amidst volleys of grape-shot; but its general fell, a number of officers shared his fate, and retreat became unavoidable. No attempt was now made to carry the eminence in front; attacks were made on its left and right, but all were ineffectual. The left, indeed, was the weak part of the British position; but an event, unfortunate in its immediate results, served to check their audacity in this quarter, and to prevent the renewal of any serious attempt against this part of our line. Sir Arthur Wellesley having observed a French division (Villatte’s), preceded by grenadiers, and supported by two regiments of light cavalry, advancing up the valley against the left, while another (Ruffin’s) was directing its march towards a mountain which flanked the left transversely, in order to turn it, directed Anson’s brigade of cavalry, consisting of the twenty-third light dragoons and the first German hussars, to charge the head of these columns. The order was instantly obeyed; the brigade moved off at a canter, and increasing its speed as it advanced, rode headlong against the enemy; but in a few moments it came upon the brink of a cleft which was not perceptible at a distance. The French threw themselves into squares, and opened their fire. Colonel Arentschild, commanding the German hussars, promptly reigned up, exclaiming, “I will not kill my young mens ;” and it would have been well if the twenty-third had followed the example of the experienced veteran. But English impetuosity was not to be restrained. The twenty-third rode wildly down into the hollow; men and horses fell over each other in dreadful confusion; yet the survivors, still untamed, mounted the opposite banks by twos and threes; and Major Ponsonby rallying all who came up, they passed through the midst of Villatte’s columns, reckless of the musketry from each side, and fell with inexpressible violence upon a brigade of French chasseurs in the rear. The combat was fierce but short. Attacked by Victor’s Polish lancers and the Westphalian light horse, exposed on both sides to the fire of the squares of infantry, and engaged with the chasseurs in front, they were at length broken; and those who were not killed or taken escaped behind a Spanish division, leaving behind about half the number which went into action. But, however unfortunate in its circumstances, the desperate fury of this charge appalled the French, and effectually checked their advance on a point where the chances of success were otherwise much in their favour. This battle, which was one of hard, honest fighting, reflected little credit on the generalship of either party. The loss on both sides was unusually severe; that sustained by the British, in the two days’ fighting, amounting to upwards of six thousand in killed and wounded, and that of the French to about seven thousand four hundred.

Notwithstanding this dear-bought success, it became necessary for the allied army to retire; the French divisions[7:5:528] in the north-west of Spain having united and begun to march in a direction which would soon have brought them on our rear. Our army crossed the Tagus at Arzobispo, and held a south-west course till it reached Badajos, where it remained during the rest of the year, in aposition which covered that fortress, and showed the Spaniards that we had not abandoned their cause, however dissatisfied with their co-operation, and convinced of the impracticability of combining offensive operations with such allies.

While by land the fortune of war was thus chequered, at sea the French experienced nothing but disasters. Eight ships of the line in Brest, eluding our blockade, sailed southward to Basque Roads, near Rochefort, where they were joined by four sail of the line from that port. Our fleet blockaded them in their new stations; and preparation having been made to attempt their destruction by fire-ships, Lord Cochrane sailed in with these dreadful engines on the evening of the 11th of April 1809. Our seamen broke the boom in front of the French line, disregarded the fire from the forts, and, after bringing the fire-ships as near to the enemy as possible, set fire to the fusees and withdrew in their boats. The French, surprised and alarmed, cut their cables and run on shore. Four sail of the line that had accompanied Lord Cochrane attacked them, and though the main body of our fleet was prevented by the wind and tide from coming up, the result of ou? attack, and of the effect of the fire-ships, was the loss of four sail of the line, and one frigate burned or destroyed. At a later period of the year a French convoy of three sail of the line and eleven transports, proceeding from Toulon to Barcelona, was attacked and destroyed by a division from Lord Collingwood’s fleet.

Doubtful as was the aspect of the great contest in Spain, it employed a large portion of Bonaparte’s military establishment, and revived the hope of independence in Germany. Prussia was too recently humbled, and too closely connected with Russia, at that time the ally of France, to take up arms; but Austria was unrestrained, and thought the season favourable for a renewal of the contest. Her troops took the field in April, and invaded Bavaria under the Archduke Charles, but were worsted at Eckmuhl, after a series of the most splendid military combinations, and Vienna was a second time entered by Bonaparte. His impatience to attack the Austrian army on the north side of the Danube led to his failure in the sanguinary battle of Aspern, and necessitated the advance of almost all his regular troops into the heart of Germany, at a distance of several hundred miles from the coast. But the battle of Wagram at length decided the fate of the campaign, and placed Austria again at the feet of France.

Of the naval stations exposed in consequence of the withdrawal of the troops, by far the most important was Antwerp, situated on a part of the Scheldt of as great depth and as accessible to ships of the line as the Thames at Woolwich. From Antwerp to the mouth of the Scheldt is a distance of about fifty miles. The first fortified town, on coming in from the sea, is Flushing, the batteries of which, though formidable, are not capable of preventing the passage of ships of war through a strait of three miles in width. Our armament, consisting of nearly forty sail of the line and thirty-eight thousand military, was the most powerful that had ever left our shores. It crossed the narrow sea with a fair wind; and, in the morning of the 30th of July, the inhabitants of the tranquil coast of Zealand were astonished by an unparalleled display of men of war and transports. Our troops landed and forthwith occupied Walcheren and the islands to the north. No resistance was offered except at Flushing; but our commander, the Earl of Chatham, showed himself wholly in capable of discriminating the causes of success or failure when he stopped to besiege that place. It ought only to 1 have been watched, whilst the main body of the troops should have landed in Dutch Flanders, on the south of the Scheldt, and marched straight to Antwerp, which, even with artillery, might have been reached in a few days. The French, never doubting the adoption of this plan, and conscious of their weakness, had moved their men of war up the river, beyond the town, previous to setting them on fire. But a delay of a fortnight took place before Flushing, and time was thus given to the enemy to strengthen the forts on the river, and to collect whatever force the country afforded. Still, as an attack by water was not indispensable to success, there yet remained a chance; ten days more, however, were lost; the relinquishment of the main object of the expedition became thus unavoidable; a»d the only further measure was to leave a body of fifteen thousand men in the island of Walcheren. There, accordingly, they remained during several months, suffering greatly from an unhealthy atmosphere, and doing nothing except destroying, on their departure, the dockyards of Flushing. Never was a gallant force more grossly misdirected; the choice of our general was as unaccountable as the choice of Mack in 1805; and the historian, were he to reason from the inferior numbers of the enemy, might pronounce this expedition as inglorious to our arms as the battles of Poitiers and Agincourt were to our enemies of a former age.

The session of 1810 opened on the 28th of January, and the leading subject of debate was our unfortunate expedition to Walcheren and the Scheldt. A motion leading to inquiry was carried after a close division, namely, a hundred and ninety-five to a hundred and eighty-six; and the investigation was conducted chiefly at the bar of the House of Commons, a secret committee being appointed for the inspection of confidential papers. The Earl of Chatham, and other officers concerned in planning or conducting the expedition, were examined. The inquiry lasted several weeks, and disclosed, clearly enough, the imbecility of our commander; but the speeches of the opposition were pointed, not against the management of the expedition, but against its expediency as an enterprise; not against the general, but the cabinet. In this they were not seconded by the majority of the house. On the policy or impolicy of the expedition being put to the vote, the former was supported by two hundred and seventy-two in opposition to two hundred and thirty-two; and even the less tenable ground of keeping our soldiers in an unhealthy island for three months after relinquishing all idea of an attempt on Antwerp, was vindicated by two hundred and fifty-three votes against two hundred and thirty-two; a decision too remarkable to be forgotten, and which has since stamped this with the name of the Walcheren Parliament. The only ministerial change consequent on the inquiry was the removal of Lord Chatham from his seat in the cabinet, and from the master-generalship of the ordnance; but this was in consequence of privately delivering a statement to the king, professing to vindicate himself at the expense of Sir Richard Strachan and the navy. The resolution adopted on this occasion was, “that the house saw with regret that any such communication as the narrative of Lord Chatham should have been made to his majesty, without any knowledge of the other ministers; that such conduct is highly reprehensible, and deserves the censure of the house.”

The exclusion of strangers from the gallery of the house during the Walcheren inquiry gave rise to a discussion which, though at first unimportant, soon engaged much of the public attention. A Mr John Gale Jones, well known among the demagogues of the age, and at that [7:5:529]time president of a debating club, animadverted on the House of Commons in a handbill, in a style which induced the house to order his commitment to Newgate. A few weeks after, Sir Francis Burdett brought in a motion for his liberation, on the broad ground that the house had no right to inflict the punishment of imprisonment in such a case. Baffled in this way by a great majority, Sir Francis wrote and printed a letter to his constituents, denying this power, and applying contemptuous epithets to the houses. This imprudent step provoked a debate, which ended in a resolution by the House of Commons to commit Sir Francis to the Tower. The speaker issued his warrant, and the serjeant at arms carried it to the house of Sir Francis, but withdrew on a refusal of Sir Francis to obey. Next day the serjeant repeated his demand, accompanied by messengers; but the populace had by this time assembled in crowds near the baronet’s house, and prevented his removal until an early hour on the 9th, when the civil officers burst into his house, put Sir Francis into a carriage, and conveyed him to the Tower in the midst of several regiments of horse. Sir Francis brought actions against the speaker and other officers; but they fell to the ground by non-suits, and he continued in confinement during the remainder of the session.

Among the further acts of this session were two which regarded Scotland; one for the increase of the smaller church livings, of which none in this part of the kingdom are now under L.150; the other relative to judicial proceedings, and reducing the heavy expenses caused by the compulsory extract of office papers. The court of session had been previously divided into chambers by an act passed in 1808; and the trial by jury in civil causes was introduced into Scotland by an act of 1815.

We turn with impatience from the banks of the Scheldt to a scene more honourable to our arms. Our troops under Sir Arthur Wellesley, now Lord Wellington, had passed the winter in the interior of Portugal, moving northward as spring advanced, but delaying active operations. Offensive war was unsuited to our situation, and the French awaited reinforcements from the north. Bonaparte’s determination now was to make Massena penetrate into Portugal, and to expel those auxiliaries who were the mainspring of the obstinate resistance experienced by him in Spain. The first enterprise of the French army was the siege of the frontier fortress of Ciudad Rodrigo, which surrendered on the 10th of July. The next object of attack was the Portuguese fortress of Almeida, which was invested in the end of July, and taken unfortunately too soon, in consequence of the explosion of the magazine. Soon after, the French army, now a formidable body, advanced into Portugal, Lord Wellington retiring before them, but determined to embrace the first opportunity of fighting on favourable ground. This occurred when occupying the highest ridge of the mountain of Busaco, directly in face of the enemy. The French, always impetuous, and not yet aware of the firmness of our men, marched up the mountain; one division reached the top of the ridge, where they were immediately attacked by a corps of British and Portuguese, and driven from the ground. In other parts the same result took place before the French reached the top. The loss on our side was a thousand men, that of the enemy between two and three thousand. Massena desisted from further attacks; but turning the flank of our position by a mountain, Lord Wellington, instead of heading the enemy’s columns as they debouched from the defile, retreated in the direction of Lisbon, till he reached the ground which he had previously determined to occupy at Torres Vedras, in order to cover that capital.

The track of country to the north of Lisbon is not above twelve miles in breadth, having the sea on the wcŝt and the Tagus on the east; the ground is extremely mountainous, and accessible only by passes, which were occupied by our troops and by batteries. Massena felt all the strength of this position, and the repulse at Busaco made him beware of a second encounter on disadvantageous ground. It was now for the first time that the impetuous bands of Bonaparte stopped short in their career; the armies remained opposite to each other above four months, during which time the French were greatly straitened for provisions and forage, being obliged to get convoys of biscuit under escort from France, whilst the command of the sea secured abundance to the British. Still Massena persisted in keeping his position, hoping to combine his operations with the army of Soult, then advancing from the south-east of Spain; an army which was but too fortunate, having attacked and taken by surprise a Spanish camp on the banks of the Guadiana. A number of boats had been constructed by Massena to cross the Tagus and co-operate with Soult; but in the beginning of March in telligence arrived that a convoy of biscuit long expected from France had been intercepted by the Guerillas. There was now an end to all offensive projects, and there remained only the alternative of retreat. It began on the 5th of March; the British followed; and the movements of either army, during a very long march, afforded an admirable exemplification of the rules of war. Our advance was so rapid that the French were frequently obliged to move hastily from one position to another; but they kept their best troops in the rear, collected in solid bodies, and affording no opening to our vanguard. The retreat lasted a month, and closed near the fortress of Almeida, on the frontier of Spain. The French, however, were soon again in a condition to act, and advanced to relieve Almeida, of which we had now begun the siege. The chief fighting took place on the 3d and 5th of May 7 , near a village called Fuentes de Honor, which was repeatedly taken and retaken; but’all their efforts were ultimately ineffectual, and Almeida was left to its fate. The chief part of the garrison, however, found means to escape by a nocturnal march.

Meanwhile the south or rather the south-west of Spain was the scene of very active operations. A body of Spaniards and British, marching northward from Gibraltar, approached the south-western extremity of the line occupied by the French troops engaged in the blockade of Cadiz. General Graham commanded the British, and on 5th March, at noon, was drawing near to the close of a long march, when he received intelligence of the advance of a French force. Knowing the height of Barrosa, which he had just left, to be the key of the position, he immediately countermarched his corps, and had proceeded but a short way when he found himself unexpectedly near to the enemy, whose left division was seen ascending the hill of Barrosa, while their right stood on the plain within cannon-shot. To retreat was wholly unadvisable; an immediate attack was therefore determined on by General Graham, though unsupported by 7 the Spaniards, and inferior to the enemy. A battery opened against the right division of the French caused them considerable loss, but they continued to advance until a charge with the bayonet drove them back with great slaughter. With the other division on the ascent of the hill there took place a similar conflict with a similar issue; both sides fought with courage, and both sustained a heavy loss; that of the British was above twelve hundred, and that of the enemy nearly double. The action lasted an hour and a half; our success was owing partly to the effect of our guns, but more to the firmness of the troops, who showed themselves determined rather to fall than yield.

About the same time, but at a distance of two hundred miles to the north of Cadiz, the important fortress of Badajos[7:5:530] fell into the hands of the French. This painful intelligence reached Lord Wellington when following up the retreat of Massena; and no time was lost in detaching a body of troops to the south of Portugal, to enable Marshal Beresford to advance and’form the siege of Badajos. This called from the south the army of Soult, twenty-three thousand strong. On their approach Marshal Beresford raised the siege of Badajos, and prepared to meet the enemy with a force numerically superior, but of which only seven thousand consisted of British troops. Soult quitted Seville on the 10th May 1811, but Beresford remained in a state of uncertainty till the 12th, when he commenced raising the siege. On the 13th he held a conference with the Spanish at Valverde, where it was agreed to receive battle at the village of Albuera. The 14th was spent in a variety of movements; and in the morning of the 15th the British occupied the left of the position of Albuera, a ridge about four miles long, having the Aroya Val de Sevilla in rear, and the Albuera river in front. This position was now occupied by thirty thousand infantry, above two thousand cavalry, and thirty-eight pieces of artillery, eighteen of which were nine-pounders; but a brigade of the fourth division being still absent, the British infantry, “the pith and strength of the battle,” did not amount to seven thousand. The French had fifty guns and above four thousand veteran cavalry, but only nineteen thousand chosen infantry; yet being of one nation, obedient to one discipline, and animated by one spirit, the excellence of their composition amply compensated for the inferiority of numbers. Soult examined Beresford’s position on the evening of the 15th, and having learnt that the fourth division was left before Badajos, and that the corps of Spaniards under Blake would not arrive before the 17th, he resolved to attack the next morning. We shall now adorn our pages with the incomparable description of this conflict, given by the great historian of the peninsular war.

“The hill in the centre, commanding the Valverde road, was undoubtedly the key of the position if an attack was made parallel to the front; but the heights on the right presented a sort of table-land, trending backwards towards the Valverde road, and looking into the rear of the line of battle. Hence it was evident that, if a mass of troops could be placed there, they must be beaten, or the right wing of the allied army would be rolled up on the centre and pushed into the narrow ravine of the Aroya: the Valverde road could then be seized, the retreat cut, and the powerful cavalry of the French would complete the victory. Now the right of the allies and the left of the French approximated to each other, being only divided by a wooded hill, about cannon-shot distance from either, but separated from the allies by the Albuera, and from the French by a rivulet called the Feria. This height, neglected by Beresford, was ably made use of by Soult. During the night he placed behind it the artillery under General Ruty, the fifth corps under Girard, and the heavy dragoons under Latour Maubourg; thus concentrating fifteen thousand men and forty guns within ten minutes’ march of Beresford’s right wing, and yet that general could neither see a man nor draw a sound conclusion as to the real plan of attack.

“The light cavalry, the division of the first corps under General Werlé, Godinot’s brigade, and ten guns, still remained at the French marshal’s disposal. These he formed in the woods extending along the banks of the Feria towards its confluence with the Albuera; and Godinot was ordered to attack the village and bridge, and to bear strongly against the centre of the position, with a view to attract Beresford’s attention, to separate his wings, and to double up his right at the moment when the principal attack should be developed.

“During the night Blake and Cole arrived with above sixteen thousand men; but so defective was the occupation of the ground, that Soult had no change to make in his plans from this circumstance, and, a little before nine o’clock in the morning, Godinot’s division issued from the woods in one heavy column of attack, preceded by ten guns. He was flanked by the light cavalry, and followed by Werlé’s division of reserve, and, making straight towards the bridge, commenced a sharp cannonade, attempting to force the passage; at the same time Briché, with two regiments of hussars, drew further down the river to observe Colonel Otway’s horse.

. “The allies’ guns on the rising ground above the village answered the fire of the French, and ploughed through their columns, which were crowding without judgment towards the bridge, although the stream was passable above and-below. But Beresford, observing that Werlé’s division did not follow closely, was soon convinced that the principal effort would be on the right, and therefore sent Blake orders to form a part of the first and all the second line of the Spanish army on the broad part of the hills, at right angles to their actual front. Then drawing the Portuguese infantry of the left wing to the centre, he sent one brigade down to support Alten, and directed General Hamilton to hold the remainder in columns of battalions, ready to move to any part of the field. The thirteenth dragoons were posted near the edge of the river, above the bridge; and, meanwhile, the second division marched to support Blake. The horse artillery, the heavy dragoons, and the fourth division, also took ground to the right, and were posted; the cavalry and guns on a small plain behind the Aroya, and the fourth division in an oblique line about half musket shot behind them. This done, Beresford galloped to Blake, for that general had refused to change his front, and, with great heat, told Colonel Hardinge, the bearer of the order, that the real attack was at the village and bridge. Beresford had sent again to entreat that he would obey, but this message was as fruitless as the former; and, when the marshal arrived, nothing had been done. The enemy’s columns were, however, now beginning to appear on the right, and Blake, yielding to this evidence, proceeded to make the evolution, yet with such pedantic slowness, that Beresford, impatient of his folly, took the direction in person.

“Great was the confusion and the delay thus occasioned, and ere the troops could be put in order the French were amongst them. For scarcely had Godinot engaged Alten’s brigade, when Werlé, leaving only a battalion of grenadiers and some squadrons to watch the thirteenth dragoons and to connect the attacks, countermarched with the remainder of his division, and rapidly gained the rear of the fifth corps as it was mounting the hills on the right of the allies. At the same time the mass of light cavalry suddenly quitted Godinot’s column, and crossing the river Albuera above the bridge, ascended the left bank at a gallop, and, sweeping round the rear of the fifth corps, joined Latour Maubourg, who was already in face of Lumley’s squadrons. Thus half an hour had sufficed to render Beresford’s position nearly desperate. Two thirds of the French were in a compact order of battle on a line perpendicular to his right, and his army, disordered and composed of different nations, was still in the difficult act of changing its front. It was in vain that he endeavoured to form the Spanish line sufficiently in advance to give room for the second division to support it; the French guns opened, their infantry threw out a heavy musketry, and their cavalry, outflanking the front and charging here and there, put the Spaniards in disorder at all points; in a short time the latter gave way, and Soult, thinking the whole army was yielding, pushed forward his columns, [7:5:531]while his reserves also mounted the hill, and General Ruty placed all the batteries in position.

“At this critical moment General William Stewart arrived at the foot of the height with Colonel Colborne’s brigade, which formed the head of the second division. The colonel, seeing the confusion above, desired to form in order of battle previous to mounting the ascent; but Stewart, whose boiling courage overlaid his judgment, led up without any delay in column of companies, and attempted to open out his line in succession as the battalions arrived at the summit. Being under a destructive fire, the foremost charged to gain room; but a heavy rain prevented any object from being distinctly seen, and four regiments of hussars and lancers, which had passed the right flank in the obscurity, came galloping in upon the rear of the line at the instant of its development, and slew or took two thirds of the brigade. One battalion only (the thirty-first) being still in column, escaped the storm and maintained its ground; while the French horsemen, riding violently over every thing else, penetrated to all parts. In the tumult a lancer fell upon Beresford, but the marshal, a man of great strength, putting his spear aside, cast him from his saddle; and a shift of wind blowing aside the mist and smoke, the mischief was perceived from the plains by General Lumley, who sent four squadrons out upon the lancers and cut many of them off.

“During this first unhappy effort of the second division, so great was the confusion, that the Spanish line continued to fire without cessation, although the British were before them; whereupon Beresford, finding his exhortations to advance fruitless, seized an ensign and bore him and his colours by main force to the front; yet the troops would not follow, and the man went back again on being released. In this crisis the weather, which had ruined Colborne’s brigade, also prevented Soult from seeing the whole extent of the field of battle, and he still kept his heavy columns together. His cavalry, indeed, began to hem in that of the allies; but the fire of the horse artillery enabled Lumley, covered as he was by the bed of the Aroya, and supported by the fourth division, to check them on the plain, while Colborne still maintained the heights with the thirty-first regiment; the British artillery, under Major Dickson, was likewise coming fast into action, and William Stewart, who had escaped the charge of the lancers, was again mounting the hill with General Houghton’s brigade, which he brought on with the same vehemence, but, instructed by his previous misfortune, in a juster order of battle. The weather now cleared, and a dreadful fire, poured into the thickest of the French columns, convinced Soult that the day was yet to be won.

“Houghton’s regiments soon got footing on the summit, Dickson placed the artillery in line, the remaining brigade of the second division came up on the left, and two Spanish corps at last moved forward. The enemy’s infantry then recoiled, yet soon recovering, renewed the fight with greater violence than before; the cannon on both sides discharged showers of grape at half range, and the peals of musketry were incessant and often within pistol shot; but the close formation of the French embarrassed their battle, and the British line would not yield them one inch of ground nor a moment of time to open their ranks. Their fighting was, however, fierce and dangerous. Stewart was twice hurt, Colonel Duckworth of the forty-eighth was slain, and the gallant Houghton, who had received many wounds without shrinking, fell and died in the act of cheering his men. Still the struggle continued with unabated fury. Colonel Inglis, twenty-two other officers, and more than four hundred men out of five hundred and seventy that had mounted the hill, fell in the fifty-seventh alone, and the other regiments were scarcely better off; not one third were standing in any. Ammunition failed, and, as the English fire slackened, the enemy established a column in advance upon the right flank; the play of Dickson’s artillery checked them a moment, but again the Polish lancers charging, captured six guns. And in this desperate crisis, Bereford, who had already withdrawn the thirteenth dragoons from the banks of the river, and brought Hamilton’s Portuguese into a situation to cover a retrograde movement, wavered I destruction stared him in the face, his personal resources were exhausted, and the unhappy thought of a retreat rose in his agitated mind. Yet no order to that effect was given, and it was urged by some about him that the day might still be redeemed with the fourth division. While he hesitated, Colonel Hardinge boldly ordered General Cole to advance; and then riding to Colonel Abercrombie, who commanded the remaining brigade of the second division, directed him also to push forward into the fight. The die being thus cast, Beresford acquiesced, and this terrible battle was continued.

“The fourth division had only two brigades in the field; the one Portuguese under General Harvey; the other, commanded by Sir W. Myers, and composed of the seventh and twenty-third British regiments, was called the fuzileer brigade. General Cole directed the Portuguese to move between Lumley’s dragoons and the hill, where they were immediately charged by some of the French horsemen, but beat them off with great loss: meanwhile he led the fuzileers in person up the height.

“At this time six guns were in the enemy’s possession, the whole of Werlé’s reserves were coming forward to reinforce the front column of the French, and the remnant of Houghton’s brigade could no longer maintain its ground; the field was heaped with carcasses, the lancers were riding furiously about the captured artillery on the upper part of the hill, and on the lower slopes a Spanish and an English regimenLin mutual error were exchanging volleys; behind all, General Hamilton’s Portuguese, in withdrawing from the heights above the bridge, appeared to be in retreat. The conduct of a few brave men soon changed this state of affairs. Colonel Robert Arbuthnot, pushing between the double fire of the mistaken troops, arrested that mischief; while Cole, with the fuzileers, flanked by a battalion of the Lusitanian legion under Colonel Hawkshawe, mounted the hill, dispersed the lancers, recovered the captured guns, and appeared on the right of Houghton’s brigade exactly as Abercrombie passed it on the left.

“Such a gallant line, issuing from the midst of the smoke, and rapidly separating itself from the confused and broken multitude, startled the enemy’s heavy masses, which were increasing and pressing onwards as to an assured victory; they wavered, hesitated, and then vomiting forth a storm of fire, hastily endeavoured to enlarge their front, while a fearful discharge of grape from all their artillery whistled through the British ranks. Myers was killed; Cole, and the three colonels, Ellis, Blakeney, and Hawkshawe, fell wounded; and the fuzileer battalions, struck by the iron tempest, reeled and staggered like sinking ships. Suddenly and sternly recovering, they closed on their terrible enemies; and then was seen with what a strength and majesty the British soldier fights. In vain did Soult, by voice and gesture, animate his Frenchmen; in vain did the hardiest veterans, extricating themselves from the crowded columns, sacrifice their lives to gain time for the mass to open out on such a fair field; in vain did the mass itself bear up, and fiercely striving, fire indiscriminately upon friends and foes, while the horsemen Covering on the flank threatened to charge the advancing line. Nothing could stop that astonishing infantry. No sudden burst of [7:5:532]undisciplined valour, no nervous enthusiasm, weakened the stability of their order; their flashing eyes were bent on the dark columns in their front; their measured tread shook the ground; their dreadful volleys swept away the head of every formation; their deafening shouts overpowered the dissonant cries that broke from all parts of the tumultuous crowd, as foot by foot and with a horrid carnage it was driven by the incessant vigour of the attack to the farthest edge of the hill. In vain did the French reserves, joining with the struggling multitude, endeavour to sustain the fight; their efforts only increased the irremediable confusion, and the mighty mass giving way like a loosened cliff, went headlong down the ascent. The rain flowed after in streams discoloured with blood, and fifteen hundred unwounded men, the remnant of six thousand unconquerable British soldiers, stood triumphant on the fatal hill !”

Lord Wellington reached the army some time after the battle of Albuera, and determined to renew the siege of Badajos. Breaches were made in the walls, and two attempts at assault were hazarded (6th and 9th June), but in vain; the advance of the French army from the north, in concert with that of the south, necessitated the raising of the siege. Here ended the active operations of the year. Our army remained some time encamped in the central part of Portugal, after which Lord Wellington marched northward and threatened Ciudad Rodrigo, but retreated before a superior force collected by the French.

CHAP. XIX.

THE REGENCY. WAR WITH FRANCE.

The Regency.—Campaign of 1812—Battle of Salamanca—Consequences of this victory—Session of 1812.—Overtures to the Opposition—Orders in Council—Session of 1812-1813— Princess of Wales—East India Charter.—Campaign of 1813— Operations in the east of Spain Failure of the attempt on

Tarragona—Operations in the West—Battle of Vittoria

Siege of San Sebastian—Battles of the Pyrenees.—Invasion of France Battles of theNive, Nivelle, Orthès, and Toulouse

Session of 1813-1814—General Pacification and Settlement of Europe.—Origin of our differences with the United States of America Suspension of Neutral Trade War declared 18th

June 1812 Naval Operations—Operations in Canada.—Ame rican Campaign of 1813—Affair at Sackett’s Harbour.—Campaign of 1814 Operations on the Lakes—Operations in the central parts of the United States Attack on New Orleans.—

Peace—Ruinous effects of the war—Session of 1814-1815— Corn Laws—Return of Bonaparte from Elba—Effects of this extraordinary attempt—Military Operations—Campaign in the Netherlands—Battle of Quatre Bras.—Battle of Ligny— Battle of Waterloo, and Overthrow of Napoleon Advance of the Allies, and Second Treaty of Paris Reflections on the

War.—Session of 181G—Loss of the Property-Tax Bill.— Battle of Algiers—Session of 1817∙—Suspension of Habeas Corpus.

The session of 1810-11 opened in November 1810, more early than was intended, in consequence of the mental indisposition of the king. Repeated adjournments, however, took place in the vain hope of a recovery, and it was not till the 20th of December that resolutions for a regency were moved in both houses. They formed the chief subject of discussion during the ensuing month. Their principal characteristics consisted in the restrictions imposed on the prince for the succeeding year, during which he was not permitted to confer the rank of peer, to grant an office in reversion, or even a place or pension, except during the king’s pleasure; whilst the management of the royal household was vested in the queen. Resolutions so obnoxious to the prince called forth a strong opposition; and a motion that the royal power should be conferred on him without restriction was supported by two hundred against two hundred and twenty-four. But the divisions in favour of ministers became stronger after the question of the regency was settled, and great part of the session passed without any contest between government and the opposition, the latter considering the present arrangement as temporary; an opinion in which they were confirmed by the language of the regent, who entered on his functions by declaring, that he continued ministers in office solely from a feeling of filial respect. Among the successive topics of discussion were the county meetings of the Catholics in Ireland, and the steps taken by government to repress them; an act to authorize government to send English militia into Ireland, and Irish militia into England; and finally, the re-appointment of the Duke of York to his office of commander-in-chief; a step which excited some surprise*, but received the decided support of parliament, a motion made to censure it being negatived by two hundred and forty-nine to forty-seven. But the most anxious topics of parliamentary and public attention were the distress of trade and the state of our paper currency. Towards the relief of the former, an issue of exchequer bills was authorized under certain limitations; and to support the credit of the latter, a law was passed which, when joined to former enactments, had nearly the effect of making bank-notes a legal tender.

The campaign of 1812 commenced very early, Lord Wellington investing Ciudad Rodrigo on the 8th of January. The siege was pressed with activity, and a breach being made, the town was carried by storm on the 19th of January, though with a great loss, particularly in officers, among whom was General Mackinnon. So prompt had been our operations, that the French army approaching to the relief of the place would not at first believe the news of its capture. Soon afterwards Lord Wellington turned his forces to the south, and invested Badajos, already the scene of such obstinate contests. Here, also, the operations were pressed with great rapidity, that they might be brought to an issue before the arrival of the French army from Cadiz. On the night of the 6th April, Badajos was attacked on several points by escalade; but we were repulsed in every direction except at the castle, which was fortunately carried; and as it commanded all the works, the consequence was the surrender of the town next day, after a siege which, short as it had been, cost us very nearly five thousand men. Secure on the south, Lord Wellington now marched towards the north, and detached Sir Rowland Hill to make a sudden attack on the French station at Almaraz, where the bridge over the Tagus served as the chief military communication between the northern and southern army. The expedition was successful, the entrenchments being stormed and destroyed. Lord Wellington now marched against the French army in the north, commanded by Marmont, and reached Salamanca on the 16th of June. The forts in that town being taken after some sharp fighting, the French retreated to the Douro; but being soon reinforced, resumed the offensive, and obliged our army to retreat in its turn. These movements continued several weeks, Lord Wellington being obliged to yield ground to his opponent, but ready to attack him on the commission of any material fault. Such an opportunity at last occurred on 22d July, near Salamanca, when the French, rendered confident by our continued retreat, extended their left, and presented an opening, which was instantly seized by their vigilant adversary. Columns were sent forward against the enemy’s left and centre; the former succeeded completely, the latter met with much opposition. Great gallantry was shown, and heavy loss sustained on both sides. At last the French centre and right were both driven from the field. The darkness prevented our making prisoners, but a body of cavalry join·
[7:5:533]

ing in the night, the hostile rear-guard was attacked next morning, and obliged to surrender. Our loss was about three thousand British and two thousand Portuguese; that of the enemy in killed and wounded was at least equal, and we took between six and seven thousand prisoners. The British force in the field was twenty-two thousand.

The consequences of the victory of Salamanca were the pursuit of the French army; the occupation of Madrid on the 12th of August by the allies; the abandonment by the French of the works constructed at vast expense against Cadiz; the evacuation of Andalusia, Grenada, and all the south of Spain. But as this loss of territory was not attended by a loss of troops, it became incumbent on Lord Wellington to prepare against a vigorous attack from forces that were rapidly concentrating. He made repeated attempts to take the castle of Burgos, and the military stores collected there; but this fort, defended by a strong garrison and a vigilant commander, General Dubreton, baffled all our efforts, and proved the cause of a considerable sacrifice of lives. Meantime the approach of Soult from the south, and of the army that had fought at Salamanca from the east, obliged Lord Wellington to adopt the alternative of retreat. He began his march on the 20th of October, and proceeded westward, in a line nearly parallel to the Douro, taking above three weeks to recross the country to the scene of his victory at Salamanca. There, united with General Hill, and at the head of fifty thousand men, he remained on ground lately so propitious, hoping that an opportunity might offer to attack the enemy, though now increased, by the junction of their two armies, to the number of seventy thousand. But Soult’s positions were found too strong for attack, and the interval afforded him by Lord Wellington was diligently employed in pushing forward detachments to cut off our communications with Portugal. Retreat now became indispensable; and here, amidst hasty marches, and a scarcity of five days, there occurred scenes of insubordination which recalled all the disorders of our march to Corunna, and drew from Lord Wellington a most severe censure in general orders. Fortunately, similar privations on the side of the French prevented them from making many prisoners, and, on 20th November, on the frontier of Portugal, was closed this eventful campaign.

The session opened on the 7th of January, and the early discussions related to arrangements for the royal household, and to a motion by Mr Brougham to exclude the droits of admiralty from the civil list. In this he was unsuccessful; and a similar fate attended a motion by Lord Morpeth, for an inquiry into the state of Ireland, with a view to admitting Catholics to the enjoyment of political rights. The next measures of general interest were two acts against frame-breaking; a practice which the Nottingham workmen, pressed by the loss of the American market, and the consequent fall of wages, had carried to an alarming length. The public attention was soon after engaged by ministerial changes. Marquis Wellesley finding himself unable to lead the cabinet, or to prevail on his colleagues to extend the scale of our operations in Spain, resigned in February the secretaryship of foreign affairs, and was succeeded by Lord Castlereagh. The restrictions on the power of the regent now drawing to a close, consistency required an overture for the admission into office of the leaders of the opposition, intimate as they had been in former years with his royal highness. This prompted the well-known letter of the 13th February from the prince to the Duke of York, professing a wish to unite with the present ministers “some of those persons with whom the early habits of his public life had been formed.” The answer of Lords Grey and Grenville explained their reasons for declining a union with an administration differing so much from them in the most important points of national policy, namely, the claims of the Irish Catholics, the orders in council, and the over-issue of bank paper. With this explanation the correspondence closed, and the ministry proceeded unchanged until the assassination of Mr Perceval, when Lord Liverpool succeeded to the first station, and was directed by the prince to make an overture to Marquis Wellesley and Mr Canning. This led to nothing; and a motion made in the House of Commons to address the regent, praying him to appoint an efficient administration, was carried by a hundred and seventy-four against a hundred and seventy. This most unexpected vote necessitated a second overture to the opposition, the management of which was committed, first to the Marquis of Wellesley, and afterwards to Lord Moira. It now seemed highly probable that the opposition would come in; yet the negociation entirely failed, in consequence partly of existing animosities, partly of the stiffness of Lord Grey, partly, perhaps, of a secret reluctance in the court to admit the opposition. Lords Liverpool and Castlereagh remained in office with all the benefit of a declared readiness on their part, and of an apparent unreasonableness in the demands of opposition.

The most urgent question now before parliament was the continuation or repeal of the orders in council. The distress of the manufacturers had become general, and had led, among the lower orders, to commotion and riot; among the higher, to petitions to parliament complaining of our pertinacious adherence to these orders as the cause of the loss of the great market of the United States. An inquiry was instituted on the motion of Mr Brougham. It was conducted by him with astonishing knowledge and talent during several weeks, and every step in its progress gave the evidence a more serious aspect. Still there was a prevailing disposition to cling to those measures, when the accession of Lord Liverpool to the leading station in the cabinet produced their repeal, though unfortunately too late to prevent the American war.

Though parliament had sat during five years only, the victory of Salamanca and our other successes in Spain afforded ministry a favourable opportunity for appealing to the people. A dissolution was proclaimed on the 29th of September; and on the 30th of November the new parliament was opened by the regent in person, who spoke for the first time from the throne. Our partial reverses in the close of the campaign in Spain, and the murmurs of Marquis Wellesley and Mr Canning at the inadequacy of our financial contributions to the peninsular contest, were silenced by the cheering intelligence from Russia, from which Bonaparte was now retreating with tremendous loss. In the progress of the session the attention of the house and of the public was strongly excited by an appeal from the Princess of Wales to parliament, demanding an investigation of her conduct. This led to a motion for a copy of the report delivered by the noblemen charged with the inquiry of 1806; and this motion being negatived, the result was the publication in the newspapers of a succession of papers relating the whole transaction. These papers, however indicative of want of discretion on the part of her royal highness, produced, on the whole, an impression in her favour, as unjustly attacked in her honour. The most interesting debates of the session related to the Catholic question, and the renewal, with important changes, of the charter of the East India Company. The new charter, granted for twenty years from 1814, reserved to the Company the exclusive trade to China, but laid open to the public, with slight qualifications, the trade to all other parts of the East. Among the minor proceedings of the session were an act for lessening the endless delays of chancery, by appointing a vice-chancellor; and an act, which, if it did not enforce clerical residence, held out a strong inducement to it, by obliging incumbents to increase [7:5:534]the stipends of their curates. After granting ministers a liberal vote of credit, parliament was prorogued on the 22d of July, amidst a general hope of favourable intelligence from the Continent; Spain being nearly delivered from the invaders, and the Germans having risen with ardour to assert their independence.

The campaign of 1813 opened in the east of Spain, by an attack on the allied army under Sir John Murray, stationed not far from Alicant. The ground it occupied was strong, but the length of the position, two miles and a half, made Suchet, who commanded the French, conceive the hope of penetrating it at one point or another. In this, however, he was foiled with a loss of from two to three thousand men; this being the only check of importance received by that commander in all his campaigns in Spain. Soon after this success, our army was engaged in the bold plan of proceeding by sea to Catalonia, and besieging Tarragona. The wind proved favourable; the main body was landed near Tarragona; and a detachment succeeded, by great exertion, in taking Fort St Philip on the mountain called the Col de Balaguer, which blocked the nearest road for the arrival of the French from the south. Suchet, however, lost no time in marching northwards; and our general, Sir John Murray, considered his force, which was chiefly Spanish, as unable to withstand the French. He therefore embarked and returned to Alicant, a measure which incurred censure, but appears fully justified by circumstances, and still more by the conduct of his successors in the command.

Suchet, though successful on this occasion, soon found himself unable to retain his extensive line of occupation. The battle of Vittoria brought a new enemy on his rear, and obliged him to withdraw, first from Valencia, and subsequently as far as Barcelona. Our army now advanced by land, and resumed the siege of Tarragona, with the power of retreating, not, as before, by sea, but on the country behind; an alternative to which a second advance by Suchet soon compelled our new commander, Lord William Bentinck. The French, however, unable to occupy an extended position, blew up the works of Tarragona and retired. Our army advanced anew, but was again checked and obliged to draw back, exhibiting a striking proof of the impracticability of opposing an active enemy with a mixed force, of which the Spaniards formed a large proportion.

We now turn to the western part of the peninsula, the field of the commander-in-chief, and of the far larger portion of our force. Lord Wellington, averse to open the campaign till every part of his troops was ready to co-operate with efficiency, did not move from quarters till after the middle of May. He knew that he would have much ground to traverse, retreat being evidently the policy of the French, weakened as they were by the recall of twenty-five thousand veterans, who had been feebly replaced by a body of conscripts. Lord Wellington was now, for the first time, at the head of a superior force, which he wielded with consummate skill. The strength of the enemy lay in the line of the Douro, which they expected to defend with advantage, so far at least as to make us purchase dearly its acquisition; but all this was prevented by Lord Wellington making his left division cross the river on the Portuguese territory,and advance along its northern bank; whilst he and Sir Rowland Hill, at the head of separate corps, marched, after several feints, in a diagonal direction, so as to support this movement, and effect a junction in an advanced position. The French, threatened with being taken in the rear, evacuated one town after another, and, even at Burgos, declined to fight on ground where late recollections would have been so animating; they continued to retreat, increasing from time to time their numbers by the garrisons of the evacuated towns, until at last they took a position at Vittoria, a town in Biscay, near the north-east frontier of Spain.

The position of the French extended from north to south, and was of great length. Their left rested on heights; part of their centre also occupied heights, and their right was near the town of Vittoria. The Zadorra, a stream of considerable size, but crossed by several bridges, ran nearly parallel to their front. Both armies were numerous, particularly that of the allies. It was the first time that nearly forty thousand British had fought together in Spain. Lord Wellington acted on the offensive throughout, and began active operations by taking possession of the heights near the extreme left of the enemy. This was easily effected; but their importance being soon perceived by the French, a strong effort was made to recover them; and an obst⅛ate contest took place, but the British on the heights repelled every assault. Under cover of these heights our right wing advanced and took a village (Sabijana) in front of the enemy’s centre. It was in vain that the French attempted to retake this village. The centre of the allies crossed the river near it, and the centre of the French withdrew from their position, retreating to the town of Vittoria. At first this retreat was effected in good order; but an alarming account soon reached the French from their right. That part of their position had been defended by the river and two tetes-de-pont; but the troops of our left wing had taken, first the heights commanding these forts, and soon after the forts themselves, baffling every effort of the enemy to retake them. The great road leading to the north was thus in possession of the allies; hence general alarm and confusion spread throughout the French army. Their reserve was hastily withdrawn from its position, and pressed, with the whole army, along the only remaining road to the eastward; abandoning all their artillery, their ammunition, and their baggage. The loss of the battle was imputed by the French to Jourdan, whom Bonaparte, in a luckless hour, had allowed his brother to substitute for Soult, and who here, as at Talavera, was too late in discovering the importance of commanding positions. The loss in men was not particularly severe; that of the allies in killed and wounded was under four thousand, and that of the French probably not much greater. The temptation afforded by the plunder of the baggage prevented our troops from making many prisoners; but the spirit of the enemy was shaken, and the loss of their artillery and stores obliged them to retreat across the Pyrenees.

The next operation of consequence consisted in the siege of San Sebastian, a frontier fortress of great importance, which the French made the most vigorous efforts to relieve. Their army, provided anew with ammunition and cannon, advanced under the command of Marshal Soult, and, after some sharp actions, drove back the British corps posted in the passes of the Pyrenees. Our troops retreated to the vicinity of Pamplona, where, on the 27th, and still more on the 28th, they sustained a succession of impetuous attacks from the enemy. On the 29th Lord Wellington resumed the offensive, drove the French from their position, strong as it was, and obliged them to retrace their steps through the Pyrenees. Our loss in these actions was about six thousand men in killed and wounded; that of the enemy was still greater, exclusive of about four thousand prisoners.

At San Sebastian we had been repulsed in an assault on the 25th of July; the siege was continued, and a final assault, on the 31st of August, led to the capture of the place, though with the loss of two thousand five hundred men. The further operations were, the entrance of our army on the French territory on 7th October, the capitulation of Pamplona on the 26th, and a general attack on the position [7:5:535]of the French near St Jean de Luz on ĬOth November, after which they retreated across the Nivelle. But this mountainous country afforded a number of positions, and our next task was to drive the enemy from behind the Nive, a large river flowing northward from the Pyrenees. This was partly accomplished on the 9th of December; but on several succeeding days the French, commanded by Soult, made impetuous attacks on the allied army, all anticipated by Lord Wellington, and all repulsed with heavy loss. Still the rains of the season, and the size of the mountain streams, retarded our operations. In January 1814 our army made some further progress, and, on the 25th of February, attacked the French in a position near Orthès, behind the Gave de Pau, another large river flowing from the Pyrenees. This attack was successful; and the retreat of the French was followed by the desertion of a number of their new levies. Soult’s army now drew back, not in a northerly, but easterly direction, to join detachments from the army of Suchet in Catalonia. At Tarbes, on the 20th of March, the fighting was of short duration; but a sanguinary battle took place at Toulouse on the 10th of April; a battle attended with a loss to the allies of nearly five thousand men, which, as well as a great sacrifice of lives on the part of the French, might have been prevented had earlier intelligence arrived of the overthrow of Bonaparte, and the change of government at Paris.

The causes of this great change will be fully explained under another head. They are but partly to be found in the operations above described; for although the Spanish war had proved extremely injurious both to the finances and military establishment of Bonaparte, his power was so great, that nothing could have shaken it but a vast and sudden catastrophe. From the moment that he lost his armies in Russia, there existed substantial grounds for hope; and after the accession of Austria to the coalition, there was little reason to doubt his overthrow. The resources of France continued indeed unreservedly at his disposal; and the dread of a counter-revolution gave him the support of the majority of a nation long disgusted with his domineering spirit and never-ending wars. But the preponderance of military means was irresistible; in vain did he struggle against it in Saxony in 1813, and in Champagne in 1814. His partial successes served only to excite a temporary illusion; and the occupation of Paris by the allies proved, like its possession by successive parties in the revolution, decisive of the fate of France.

The cheering expectations with which parliament separated were happily realized in the course of the autumn; and parliament re-assembled on the 4th of November with the knowledge that the victory at Leipsic had secured the independence of Germany, and enabled our allies to shake the throne of the usurper. There was but one opinion, that at such a juncture every exertion, whether financial or military, should be made to complete the deliverance of the Continent. All the propositions of ministers were adopted; and on the 17th of November parliament adjourned to the 1st of March, evidently in the hope that before that period the advance of the allied arms into France would lead to a general pacification. This result, justified by sound calculation, was delayed by the precipitancy of the Prussians, and the consequent checks received by them and their allies; so that parliament, when it met on the 1st of March, adjourned to the 21st; and, on their assembling at that date, Lord Castlereagh being still absent on the Continent, the business transacted during several weeks was of inferior interest. Next came the discussions on the corn trade, the budget of the year, and an additional measure for the preservation of tranquillity in Ireland. A general pacification had by this time taken place; and the arrangements of ministers afforded little opening for animadversion, except as to the compulsory transfer of Norway from Denmark to Sweden. That question was warmly debated in both houses; and a motion relative to it, made in the House of Lords by Earl Grey in a speech of uncommon eloquence, received the support of eighty-one votes against a hundred and fifteen. The further proceedings of the session were an address, praying the regent to interest himself with foreign powers for a prompt and general abolition of the slave-trade; a vote of L.400,000, in addition to the L.100,000 of the preceding year, to the Duke of Wellington; and grants, but on a far smaller scale, to Generals Graham, Hill, and Beresford, who were now raised to the peerage. On the Princess of Wales a settlement of L.35,000 was definitively made.

We have now arrived at the period when, after a contest which, as far as regards England and France, may be termed a war of twenty years, Europe was restored to a condition which promised long-continued peace. The principal provisions of the treaty of Paris in 1814, and the congress of Vienna in 1815, were as follow:—

France was circumscribed within her former territory,, with the addition of part of Savoy, which, however, was relinquished in 1815 to the king of Sardinia.

Austria recovered Lombardy, and added to it Venice with its adjacent territory, possessing thus a population of twenty-nine millions, being very nearly equal to that of France, and considerably greater than that which she possessed in 1792.

Germany was declared a great federal body, as before the French revolution, with the distinction that a number of petty districts and principalities were incorporated into the larger, such as Bavaria, Wirtemberg, Hesse-Cassel, and Hesse-Darmstadt; and with the further distinction, that there is now no imperial head, but an understood division of influence between the two great powers, Austria being the protectrix of the south, and Prussia of the north. These are progressive advances towards consolidation; and to them may be added the formation of a diet, still devoid of unity and slow in deliberation, but not altogether so tardy or disunited as its predecessors at Ratisbon.

Russia has during the present age suffered no reduction of her territory, but has proceeded in a regular course of acquisition. Her power, though less colossal than is vulgarly supposed, has received a substantial addition by the acquisition of Finland and of the greater part of Poland. Two thirds of what once was Prussian Poland, and a part of Galicia, were formed in 1815 into a kingdom, which, however, has recently been overthrown.

Prussia, on the other hand, has exhibited a striking example of the mutability of political greatness. Raised by the talents of Frederick II. to a rank above her real strength, but making after his death successive additions to her territory by the dread of her arms, and by diplomatic combinations, she saw the whole fabric overturned by Bonaparte in one fatal campaign. From 1807 to 1813 her dominions continued circumscribed, and her population hardly exceeded six millions. But the arrangements of 1814 restored to her a third of Russian Poland, and a valuable tract of country on the Lower Rhine; and her population is now above ten millions.

Of her colonial conquests from France, England retained Tobago, St Lucie, and the Isle of France. The peace confirmed also our possession of Malta and the Cape. Of the other Dutch settlements, Surinam and Java were restored; but Demerara, Berbice, and Essequibo, containing a number of British settlers, were retained; the merchants of Holland, however, enjoying certain privileges of trade with these colonies. On the continent of Europe we effected a long-desired, though (as the event has shown) insecure measure, the union of the seven Dutch and ten [7:5:536] Belgic provinces into one kingdom. The latter, in their detached state, presented too tempting an object for France, and would have proved the cause of repeated wars, in which England, from her interest in the independence of Holland, and her dread of invasion, could hardly fail to participate.

The losses of Denmark rank among the most painful consequences of the wars of the French revolution. To strip that pacific and inoffensive kingdom, first of its navy, and next of a kindred country, governed by the same sovereign during four hundred years, were acts that called forth the regret and condemnation of every unprejudiced observer. The transfer of Norway was opposed by the inhabitants; and we add with regret, that our navy was ordered to take part against them by blockading their ports. At last the affair was terminated by a convention pronouncing the union of Sweden and Norway under the same sovereign, but reserving to the latter her separate constitution. Pomerania was transferred from Sweden to Prussia, and Denmark received a small territory to the south of Holstein.

Sweden had enjoyed during many years the advantage of neutrality, and, like Denmark, increased gradually her shipping and trade. Deviating from this in 1805, and becoming a party to the coalition against France, she was saved from hostilities by the rapid overthrow of Austria; and Pomerania was not attacked until 1807, when Gustavus IV. chose to refuse peace at the time when he had not the support of a single continental ally. This and other acts of madness led to his deposition in 1809; and the year after, Europe saw with surprise the nomination of Bernadotte as the efficient head of the Swedish government. This choice, attributed at first to the interference of Bonaparte, was due, it seems, to the personal exertions of Bernadotte himself. The acquisition of Norway, and the introduction into Sweden of various improvements by an active-minded foreigner, are advantages of magnitude, and calculated to form some counterpoise to the loss of Finland and the increased danger from Russia.

Spain and Portugal preserved their territory unaltered; both had received rude shocks from the invader, but in both the reign of superstition and indolence seemed so firmly fixed as to bid defiance to political change, whether introduced by mild or by harsh means. The events of 1820, however, have shown, that in Spain there exists that sense of the abusive nature of their institutions, and that desire of reform, which in France produced the revolution; while in Portugal, notwithstanding her degraded condition, results ultimately favourable may be expected from the natural course of events.

Switzerland, without being made a province of France, had been obliged to furnish a military contingent in the wars of Bonaparte. The arrangements of 1814 maintained her as a federal state, but with nineteen cantons instead of thirteen; an increase derived, not from extended territory, but from the independent form acquired by certain districts, such as the Pays de Vaud, incorporated formerly with the original cantons.

The king of Sardinia was restored to Piedmont, and his other continental possessions, with the addition of the territory of Genoa.

The country of all Europe most likely to profit by the occupancy of the French was Italy. The substitution of an efficient government for the feeble administrations of Naples and Rome, the diminution of superstition, the increase of industry, the extirpation of robbery on the high ways, and the new modelling of the military establishment, were all objects of the highest importance. To these was added a hope of blending all the states of the peninsula into a common union; a union most ardently desired by the Italian nation, and calculated, above all things, to preserve their country from war and the intrusion of foreigners. The selfish policy of Bonaparte, whose object was merely to extract from every country the utmost possible supply of revenue and recruits, prevented the adoption of this grand measure, until the re-assumed sway of foreigners, in particular of the Austrians, removed it to an indefinite distance, and reinstated the territorial divisions of Italy on the footing of 1792, with the exception of the republics of Venice and Genoa.

The royal family of Naples remained in Sicily during 1814; but Murat was not recognised by the Bourbons, and dreaded, with reason, that the allies would deem their task incomplete if they did not restore the crown of Naples to the ancient family. He armed in self-defence, and no sooner did he hear of Bonaparte’s entrance into Lyons, than he advanced against Lombardy, and called upon all the Italians to unite in the assertion of their national independence. But his troops were unable to cope with the Austrians; after some partial successes they were obliged to retreat; and finding, in some sharp actions on their own territory, the continued superiority of their opponents, the eventual result was, the dispersion of the Neapolitan army, and the surrender of their capital on the 22d of May. The royal family now returned from Palermo to Naples, and resumed their sovereignty. Murat then escaped to Toulon; but, after the second return of the Bourbons, he proceeded to Corsica, and conceived the wild project of landing in the Neapolitan territory at the head of a feeble detachment, in the hope of being joined, like Bonaparte on returning from Elba, by thousands of his ancient followers. He disembarked in Calabria, but was forthwith attacked by the inhabitants, taken, and shot by order of the royal family, who were thus left in undisturbed possession of the crown.

Turkey was no party to the treaty of 1814, but remained on the footing on which the treaty with Russia in 1812 had placed her. Stationary in an age of change, and inflexible in her adherence to traditionary usages, she saw the French revolution pass without sustaining any injury from it; or rather she was indebted to it for a relaxation in the shocks to which the European part of her empire is exposed from Austria and Russia. The peace of 1790 had been preserved uninterrupted by Austria; that of 1791 was infringed by Russia by only one war, viz. from 1807 to 1812. The temporary occupation of Egypt by the French, and the more permanent establishment of England in the Ionian Islands, have had no effect on the interior of the Turkish empire.

We must now proceed to record military operations conducted in a very different quarter, and involving considerations very distinct from those which animated the contest on the continent of Europe. The United States of America continued on friendly terms with us during several years after the beginning of the war of 1803. There existed discussions, and of rather a serious nature, between the two countries, particularly in regard to the practice of our naval officers of impressing American seamen on suspicion, or pretended suspicion, of their being British subjects; but these contests were happily confined to diplomatists. Meantime the navigation of the Americans was in a course of rapid extension; for their neutral flag enabled them to act as carriers to the continental belligerents, and, in particular, to convey to Europe the produce of the French and Spanish West Indies. The depression of our West India trade in 1805, though the unavoidable result of too great a growth of produce for a system of monopoly, was attributed to the successful rivalship of the Americans in the continental markets. Mr Pitt was assailed by our ship-owners, and prevailed on to take measures which obliged the Americans to forbear the direct passage [7:5:537] across the Atlantic, and to give such cargoes a neutral character by carrying them in the first instance to their own ports. The Grenville ministry maintained what Mr Pitt had done, and went no farther; but they were succeeded by men actuated by different views. A parliamentary committee, appointed in June 1807 to inquire into the distress of our West India colonies, received evidence calculated to strengthen an impression already very general, that a total stop ought to be put to the conveyance of French or Spanish colonial produce in neutral bottoms. No sooner did the successful termination of the Copenhagen expedition give popularity to the system of vigour than we issued the orders in council of November 1807, the object of which, however disguised, was to put a stop to neutral traffic, except when carried on by license from our government; thus assuming the power of restricting or extending that traffic as we should find beneficial to our interest, or rather, as we should imagine to be beneficial, since, in questions of commerce, the real is frequently far different from the anticipated result.

In this explanation of these ill-understood orders, we exclude from the motives of ministers all participation in that jealousy of America which actuated so many of our countrymen. We consider them as acting from conviction, as seeking in this measure only a source of benefit to our commerce, and of annoyance to our enemies in Europe; yet, even with these qualifications, the orders in council have contributed more than any other measure in the present age to the distress which afterwards afflicted our country. Their first practical result was a suspension of the navigation of the Americans by a general embargo imposed by their own government; and this preliminary measure was in a few months succeeded by a non-intercourse act, which continued in operation above a year, during which our exports to America were greatly reduced, and our manufacturers distressed to a degree that ought to have served as a warning of the consequences of a further contest with our best customers. In 1809, in consequence of a temporary arrangement, the intercourse was resumed, and exports from England to America took place to a great amount. But the offensive part of our system was soon afterwards revived; the Americans were prevented from trading with France, Italy, or Holland, and the only conciliatory answer given by our government, was a promise to recall our orders in council whenever the Americans should obtain from Bonaparte the repeal of his Berlin and Milan decrees. This repeal was in some measure obtained in 1810, but nothing could wean our ministry from their predilection for what they accounted a grand political measure; and those who inspect the official communications of the two governments, will see with surprise the expedients devised, and the promises held out, to gain time and to delude the Americans, while, in fact, there never was an intention of recalling the obnoxious decrees. The Americans offered explicitly^[22. Letter from Mr Monro to Mr Foster, 2Gth July 1811. ] to recall all hostile edicts “if we revoked our orders ;” but this not being complied with, their ports were definitively shut against us, and our manufacturers reduced to great distress; a distress pourtrayed in colours unfortunately too impressive in the parliamentary papers on the orders in council, printed in the early part of 1812. But no change could be effected in our measures till the accession of Lord Liverpool to the first ministerial station, when a repeal took place, but unhappily too late, the Americans having declared war before this intelligence could reach them. From this time forward the impartial narrator finds it his duty to transfer the charge of aggression from England to America. We had now a minister aware of the evil tendency of our orders in council, and prepared to make reasonable concessions to the Americans; whilst they, heated by the contest, and attributing the change to the dread of losing Canada, refused our offers of accommodation.

The naval conflicts in the first year of the war were of a nature greatly to surprise the public, accustomed as it was to our almost uninterrupted triumphs at sea. The Guerrière frigate was captured on 19th August 1812, by the Constitution American frigate; and the Macedonian on the 25th of October by another American frigate called the United States. If these losses could in any degree be attributed to the fault of our officers, no such charge could be brought in the case of Captain Lambert of the Java, a brave and intelligent commander, who, after a dreadful conflict, was obliged, on the 29th of December, to strike to the Constitution. In this, as in the preceding actions, the real cause of failure lay in the disproportion of strength; the Guerrière having only two hundred and sixty-three men, her antagonist four hundred and seventy-six; the Macedonian only three hundred, the United States four hundred and seventy-eight. Even the Java, though a large frigate, had only three hundred and sixty-seven men, her opponent four hundred and eighty. The inequality in weight of metal was still greater, each of these American frigates having been originally intended for a ship of the line. No sooner did the two nations meet on an equal footing, in the case of the Chesapeake and Shannon, June 1st 1813, than the superiority was found to rest with us.

The operations by land were offensive on the part of the Americans, and directed to the conquest of Canada, of which the frontier adjoins their northern states, extending in a long line from south-west to north-east. The boundary consists in a great measure of water, being formed partly by the immense lakes Erie and Ontario, partly by the course of the St Lawrence. On the south-west part of this frontier a body of two thousand three hundred Americans, regulars and militia, advanced in July 1812 from the small fort of Detroit. Their operations, at first successful, were soon checked by a British detachment; retreat became unavoidable, and our troops assuming the offensive in their turn, the result was the surrender, on the 16th of August, of the whole body of Americans and of the fort of Detroit. Not discouraged by this failure, another detachment of Americans assembled near Niagara; but, after a sharp action on the 13th of October, were obliged, like their countrymen, to surrender. A further attempt, on the part of die Americans, to force the Niagara frontier on the 28th November was likewise unsuccessful; whilst, in a different quarter, at a distance of nearly three hundred miles to the north-east, the advance of their main body to Champlain proved ineffectual, the preparations on our side necessitating their retreat. Lastly, a detachment advancing, in January 1813, in the hope of retaking Fort Detroit, were themselves attacked by a British division, and obliged to surrender.

These repeated failures were the result, not of a deficient " activity or courage, but of impatience and insubordination, the restraint of discipline being ill suited to a nation that acknowledges no master. But, in the next campaign, the Americans took the field with augmented forces and an improved plan of action. A strong division crossing Lake Ontario, landed on the 27th April at York, the chief town of Upper Canada, and took it, with its stores and part of the garrison. A check was indeed given to them in a very different quarter, on the Miami, a river falling into Lake Erie; but next month a strong body of Americans pene-trated[7:5:538] the Niagara frontier; and an attempt made by the British on Sackett’s harbour, a port in Lake Ontario, failed through the misconduct of the general. Still the progress of the American main body into Canada from the Niagara was obstructed, and checks experienced by them in a way that clearly demonstrated the inexperience of their troops. They forbore, therefore, to advance by land, and directed their efforts to a naval superiority. On Lake Erie, the more remote of the two from our Canada settlements, this superiority was acquired in September, after the capture of our petty squadron under Captain Barclay; and the consequence was our abandoning the more distant posts in Upper Canada. On Lake Ontario the naval contest was long maintained; and an attempt made, in November, by a strong division of Americans, to descend the St Lawrence in small craft, and to threaten Montreal, was rendered abortive by the activity of our troops. Th» campaign was then closed by our opponents without making any serious impression on Canada, though their force exceeded twenty thousand men. On our part, the campaign terminated by taking Fort Niagara by surprise, and repulsing, near the small town of Buffalo, a corps of two thousand men brought forward to check our advance. The town was burned in retaliation for a similar excess committed by the Americans.

The inclemency of an American winter suspended hostile operations for some months. The first exploit of consequence in next campaign took place on Lake Ontario, and consisted in an attack by a British division and squadron on Fort Oswego, which, with its stores, fell into our hands. In the beginning of July an American division, five thousand strong, crossed the Niagara, already so often traversed, and obliged the opposing force to retreat. But the opportune arrival from Bourdeaux of some regiments which had served in France soon enabled our troops to make a stand; and on the 25th of July there took place an action more obstinate, and better sustained on the part of the Americans, than any that had yet occurred in the war. They were finally repulsed, but the loss was heavy on both sides. Some time after, a sally made by the garrison of Fort Erie against a detachment of British entrenched in the vicinity, though at first successful, was eventually repulsed. But a very different result attended an offensive enterprise, on a large scale, attempted by us on the side of Lake Champlain. For this purpose our commander, Sir G. Prevost, assembled all his disposable force, amounting, with the reinforcements from Europe, to nearly fifteen thousand men, crossed the American frontier, and marched southward to attack Plattsburgh, a fortified town on Lake Champlain. The attack on the land side was combined with that of a flotilla, consisting of a frigate and several smaller vessels, which, coming within sight on the 11th of September, engaged an American flotilla of nearly equal force. Unfortunately our commanding officer was killed, and our flotilla captured; a check which, . though in itself of no great moment, induced our general to make a sudden retreat. This retreat, in the face of so inferior an enemy, was altogether inexplicable, and excited general surprise and disappointment. With it closed the operations on the side of Canada, each party having entirely relinquished the idea of offensive war.

As long as there remained a hope of treating with the Americans, our government had avoided offensive operations, and kept the command of our fleet in that station in the hands of Sir John Borlase Warren, an officer who joined diplomatic to nautical habits. At last, however, it became necessary to replace him by one whose spirit of enterprise was more conformable to the impatient ardour of our navy. Admiral Cochrane arrived, and lost no time in concerting an attempt on the American capital, by sailing up the Patuxent, destroying a flotilla in that river, and landing a military force under Major-General Ross, which attacked the American division posted to defend Washington, drove them from their ground, and entered the capital in the evening. Here private property was respected; but of the public buildings there were destroyed not only the arsenal, the dock-yard, and the war office, but the houses of the senate and representative body, the residence of the president, and the bridge across the Potowmac. Our troops, being few in number, retreated soon after; and embarking anew, proceeded against Baltimore, where they landed, drove the defending force of the Americans from their position, and approached the town. But the entrance to the harbour being closed by a barrier of sunk vessels, co-operation on the part of the navy was impracticable, and our troops were re-embarked without any loss of consequence, except that of their commander General Ross. A better result had been obtained in an expedition against Alexandria, a trading town on the Potowmac, whence a quantity of stores and shipping was brought away. Success also attended an expedition in a very different quarter, namely, in the river Penobscot, at the northern extremity of the Un⅛ed States, adjoining the British province of New Brunswick. Far different was the result of an expedition on a larger scale, directed against New Orleans. Our troops disembarked from the Mississippi, repelled an assault by the Americans, moved forward, and came within six miles of the town, where they found the enemy posted behind a canal, with a breast-work in front, and their right flanked by the Mississippi. After a fortnight passed in mutual preparations, a night attack was at last determined on; but, unexpected difficulties retarding it till day-light, the fire of the Americans from behind their breast-work was pointed with unerring aim, and proved extremely destructive. In the short space of twenty minutes, our three principal officers, and nearly two thousand privates, were killed or wounded; and though, on the opposite side of the river, our attack had been successful, it was determined to relinquish the expedition, and re-embark the troops. This distressing failure was poorly compensated by the capture of Fort Mobile, the last land operation of the war. At sea, our final exploit was the capture of the American frigate President, of fifty-four guns and four hundred and ninety men.

The peace was signed at Ghent, on the 24th of December 1814, and its terms afforded a curious exemplification of the futility of warlike struggles. The territorial possessions of both countries were, with a very trifling exception, left on the same footing as before the war; and not the slightest notice was taken of the questions which had most strongly'excited the spirit of hostility on both sides,—neither of the impressment of seamen, a point so important to the Americans, nor of the limitation of the rights of neutral traffic, a topic so often urged among us.

The United States, in no respect a manufacturing country, purchased from us merchandise to an extent annually increasing, and which, in 1807, had reached the amount of L.12,000,000 sterling. Every addition to their capital, every year that they passed in peace and prosperity, increased their value to us in a commercial sense; while every blow given to their productive funds necessarily operated in diminution of their purchases and payments. But, far from acting on these impressions, the ministry of 1807 eagerly seized the opening given them by the violence of Bonaparte to assail the trade of America, and issued, in November, those orders which “prohibited all direct intercourse from a neutral port to France, or her tributary states, unless the neutral vessels intended for such voyages touched first at a port in the British dominions, and paid a duty.” This singular measure was vindicated, not as legal [7:5:539]in itself, but as a trespass on neutral rights justified by the previous trespasses of the French government. It would, it was argued, distress that part of the Continent subject to Bonaparte, and excite discontent against his government; but the real motive was to cramp and control the trade of neutrals. That the Americans would not submit to such humiliating conditions, our government was well aware; but it knew also that they had neither army nor navy, and would not, at least for several years, resort to the alternative of war. So far our calculation was correct; but the question of national advantage we entirely misconceived. For what was the practical operation of these restrictive edicts? The trade of the Americans with the Continent was suspended, and the remittances formerly made to us from the sale of their goods—remittances not overrated at four or five millions a year—were made no more. Our bank paper fell, more from that than from any other cause, into a discredit which occasioned a loss of twenty, thirty, and eventually nearly forty per cent, on all subsidies and other government expenditure on the Continent. The mercantile insolvencies in America which followed the orders in council recoiled, in a great degree, on England, whose exporting merchants were the chief creditors of the bankrupts. Next came the burdens and the havoc of war; and of every million of American capital thus diverted from productive industry, the half at least was lost to the British manufacturer. But this wâs not all; the suspended intercourse, and the subsequent appeal to arms, induced the Americans to attempt to manufacture for themselves. This for several years excluded our goods; and when, upon the return of peace, British merchandise was poured into the United States, at prices so low as to defy competition, the consequence, particularly in the year 1819, was a scene of general insolvency in the States, which once more recoiled with the most distressing effects on the British creditor. All this was the result of a policy bad in every point of view, and which neither had nor could have any decisive influence on the grand contest in Europe.

We now return from this necessary digression to the ordinary course of our narrative. Parliament assembled on the 18th November, and, after the transaction of some business, relative chiefly to keeping the English militia embodied, and preserving the peace of Ireland, adjourned on the 2d December. They met again on the 9th February, and were soon after called on to discuss a most important department of home policy, namely, the corn laws. The prospect of the return of peace, and of large imports of corn from the Continent, had early excited the attention of the landed interest; and a committee, appointed in the spring of 1813, had made a report to parliament recommending the prohibition of foreign corn, except when wheat at home should be at or above the very high price of a hundred and five shillings the quarter. No proceedings on the subject took place that session, and next year the sense of the public was so unequivocally declared against this extravagant proposition, that a great reduction was indispensable; and, on bringing forward the resolutions connected with the subject, it was proposed to allow the importation of foreign wheat whenever our own should be at or above eighty-seven shillings. Still this limit appeared too high; the debates were warm; the petitions against the bill numerous; and, ministers suspending their support, the main part of the question was in consequence adjourned to next year. In the summer and autumn corn underwent a great fall, and the farmers experienced much distress; the consequence of which, and of the evidence given before the parliamentary committees, was, that government determined to support a corn bill on a reduced scale, foreign wheat being rendered inadmissible when our own should be at or below eighty shillings. Resolutions to that effect were moved on the 17th February, and a bill founded on them was soon afterwards brought in. It still experienced opposition, particularly from Mr Baring and others, who argued that the limitation price ought not to be permanent, but subject to a graduated abatement during a series of years, till at last the corn trade should arrive at that unrestrained state so essential to commerce at large. But notwithstanding these arguments, and a tumultuous opposition without doors, the bill was carried by large majorities in both houses of parliament.

But from discussions of internal policy, the attention of parliament was suddenly directed to a more urgent topic; we mean the return of Bonaparte from Elba, and a notice of an immediate augmentation of our forces. An address to the regent, in support of this augmentation, was carried by great majorities; and a subsequent motion by Mr Whitbread, to prevent our interference for the reinstatement of the Bourbons, was lost by two hundred and seventy-three against seventy-two. Finally, the addresses in approbation of the treaties with the continental powers were supported by Lord Grenville, Mr Grattan, and other oppositionists; the numbers in the Lords being a hundred and fifty-six against forty-four; and in the Commons, three hundred and thirty-one against ninety-two. The further proceedings were an approval of the treaty of peace with America, and of the very questionable transfer of Genoa to the king of Sardinia. The session was concluded by a repeal of the law for fixing the price of bread in London by assize.

The ratification of the peace with America had not been received from the other shore of the Atlantic, when Bonaparte returned from Elba and raised in Europe a fresh alarm of war. He ventured to land with a force barely sufficient to secure his personal safety in a march, and to supply emissaries for mixing with the opposite ranks. The French soldiers are fond of glory, and their attachment revived at the sight of their leader. They first refused to oppose, and soon after pressed forward to join him; and he proceeded in a rapid and unresisted march to the capital. Ought England to participate in the coalition formed to expel this intruder, and to reinstate the Bourbons? On this question there existed, either in parliament or the public, very little difference of opinion; so great was the enmity inspired by Bonaparte, and such the dread of incessant war under his sway. Our ministry soon took their determination; our continental allies were unanimous in the cause; and not a day was lost in preparing for the invasion of France. The Netherlands, it was evident, would be the first scene of operations. Thither the Prussians pressed with all the ardour inspired by recent wrongs and a present desire of vengeance; thither were conveyed from England troops, ammunition, and stores, with all the dispatch afforded by the undisputed command of the sea. By the end of May or beginning of June the Prussian and British force in the Netherlands was superior to any that could be mustered by Bonaparte. It was not till the second week of June that his disposable force, to the number of a hundred and fifteen thousand men, was collected in front of the allied line. This was effected with great secrecy and dispatch. He joined the camp on the 14th, and caused his troops to march early on the 15th, driving in successively the Prussian outposts at Charleroi and Fleurus. From the point whence he marched to Ligny, the Prussian head-quarters, the distance was thirty miles; to Brussels, the head-quarters of Lord Wellington, was nearly twice as far; and all Bonaparte’s hope rested on fighting his opponents separate and unsupported. Intelligence of the first movements of the French reached Lord Wei-lington[7:5:540] in the afternoon of the 15th, and made him forthwith prepare for the march, which, however, he delayed until the arrival of a second courier from the Prussians, and of advices from his own outposts, which should show whether there was any serious attack on other points. In the evening accounts arrived which left no doubt that the mass of the French army was directed against the Prussians; and orders to march were in consequence issued in all directions, so as to reach even remote stations between three and four in the morning. Our troops began their march from almost every point at day-light, all moving on to Quatre Bras, a spot where four roads meet, and distant seven miles from Ligny. After marching between six and seven hours, several of the divisions stopped to take rest and refreshment; but they were hurried from their unfinished meal by dragoons dispatched to accelerate their advance, for Lord Wellington had by the way'received intelligence of the rapid approach of the French. Proceeding promptly with his escort, he had time to reach the head-quarters of the Prussians, and to learn from their impatient commander, that, without knowing the numbers of the French, or their plan of attack, he was determined to accept battle on that day, and upon the ground which he then occupied. Lord Wellington had no controlling power. All he could do was to lessen the pressure on his allies, by pushing, as much as possible, such part of the French as might be opposed to the British. This interview took place between one and two o’clock; and his lordship, returning forthwith to Quatre Bras, found the French tirailleurs already in possession of the wood which skirted and commanded the road. Immediate orders were given to drive them out, a task which devolved on the highlanders arriving from Brussels, and the guards from Enghein, each after a march of twenty-five miles. They succeeded in expelling the French; but the want of artillery and cavalry, neither of which came up till late at night, prevented them from pushing forward with effect. Fresh bodies of the French were now seen advancing; and, on the other hand, regiments of British successively reached the ground. The conflict spread, and was maintained with greatgallantry on both sides,but with hardly any other plan than that of fighting straight forward. At first the French possessed considerable advantages, and their cavalry, charging rapidly through the fields of rye, a grain which grows in Flanders to a great height, came unexpectedly on some of our battalions, which suffered severely in consequence, but fairly repelled their antagonists. As our reinforcements came up, the superiority was progressively acquired by us. The French were driven back, and Ney, who commanded, sent to order up a body of twenty thousand men, which had arrived within three miles of Quatre Bras; but the answer was, that they had countermarched to Ligny by order of Bonaparte. They were soon afterwards ordered back, but were unable to join Ney until nine at night, when the fighting had ceased, and the field of action remained in possession of the British. The force engaged on either side did not exceed twenty-five thousand men. Our loss amounted to about five thousand; whilst that of the French appears to have been considerably greater. Both sides fully expected a new battle the next morning. The British, by the arrival of all their divisions, now formed a large army. The French, still strangers to the firmness of our troops, attributed their failure to accidental causes, and declared that their cavalry had been repulsed, parce quits n avaient pas franchement aborde l’ennemi.

Meanwhile there had been fought at Ligny a battle on a larger scale, and with greater preparation. On the slope of a rising ground, which, however, was much exposed, a Prussian army, of no less than eighty thousand men, awaited the attack of Bonaparte. The fighting began between two and three o’clock, by the French gaining possession of the village of St Amand, on the Prussian right. To reoccupy this village Blucher made repeated efforts; and it was during one of the most furious of these that Bonaparte is understood to have ordered round the corps, the absence of which was so bitterly regretted by Ney. The battle now raged fiercely along the whole line. The masses of Prussian infantry drawn up on the slope were much thinned by the French artillery; but in the village of Ligny, which was repeatedly taken and retaken, the slaughter was peculiarly great. Such was the course of the engagement till the evening at half-past eight o’clock, when the French reserve, marching forward in columns, obliged the Prussians to leave the long-contested field. Their loss on this dreadful day was little short of twenty thousand; that of the French exceeded ten thousand.

Next day Bonaparte adopted the plan of detaching under Grouchy a body of thirty-four thousand men to follow the retiring Prussians, whilst, with themassof hisforce, seventy-one thousand in number, he turned against the British, in the hope of fighting a battle at the head of superior numbers. Lord Wellington knew not the retreat of his allies till morning, when a similar measure on his part became indispensable; but as his army was in the best state, and as the Prussians had just received a reinforcement, retreat was necessary only until reaching a position favourable for fighting, and for awaiting the co-operation of his allies. Waterloo, he well knew, presented these advantages: his march thither met with no annoyance from the French; and the only fighting which took place on the 17th was at Genappe, in a cavalry action begun by our rear-guard. Bonaparte following with his van-guard, reached the ground opposite to our position, and in the evening ordered a partial cannonade to ascertain if we occupied the latter with an intention to remain. Concluding in the affirmative, he began arrangements for a battle; and next morning he continued under a similar impression, although in his army there was a general belief that we would not venture to await their onset. At ten o’clock he perceived by his glass, in march at a great distance, a corps which he immediately concluded to be Prussians. This necessitated his posting a body of above eight thousand men on his right to receive them; a disposition which deprived him of his numerical superiority, and caused the battle of Waterloo to be fought between equal or nearly equal forces. It began soon after mid-day by an attack on the post of Hou-goumont, a chateau or country-seat in front of our right, surrounded by an orchard. The possession of this point would have favoured the approach of the French to our right wing; but though they drove us from the orchard, all their efforts proved ineffectual against our troops, a detachment of guards, stationed in the building and within the court wall. This attack, though very obstinate and sanguinary, was in the eye of either commander only a prelude to the great onset in the centre, which commenced towards two o’clock, being planned by Bonaparte, and conducted by Ney, whose station during the action was in the high road leading straight to our centre. Our army made little show, the battalions being formed in squares, and partly concealed from view by the sinuosities of ground; whilst between each square there were openings sufficient to enable the battalions to deploy into line, as well as to afford our cavalry space to advance and charge. The squares were further placed en echiquier^ like a chess-board, so that the enemy’s cavalry, in venturing through an opening, exposed itself to a fire in front from the opposite square, and to a double flank fire from the squares which it had passed. Yet this firm array did not appal the French cuirassiers, who, confiding in past successes and in the protection of their armour, repeatedly tried the deadly experiment of [7:5:541] attack. Never was the impetuosity of the French more conspicuous, and never was it more effectually opposed, whether we consider the firmness of our troops, the judgment of our general, or the efficiency of our artillery. The only ground gained by the French was the central point of La Haye Sainte and the space immediately in front of our line,—the whole being attended, said Ney, by a carnage the most dreadful he had ever seen. Meanwhile Bonaparte watched anxiously the moment when a partial breach or disorder in our line should afford him a favourable opportunity of attacking with his reserve. Ney repeatedly intimated an expectation of great success, but could report no positive advantage, even after the double charge made by the imperial horse guards at five in the afternoon. It became, however, indispensable to act, and Bonaparte could hardly doubt that the long-continued conflict must by this time have greatly weakened our line. Accordingly, between six and seven o’clock, the imperial foot guards, to the number of nearly thirteen thousand, were drawn from behind the ridge which had hitherto covered them from our fire; directed to advance along the high road leading to our centre; ' and harangued by Bonaparte, whom they answered with reiterated cries of Vive ιEmpereur. We are now come to the decisive part of the battle, that part in which, till now, whether at Marengo, at Austerlitz, or at Ligny, success had uniformly attended the charge of a fresh and numerous corps. By what means did it fail at Waterloo? The answer is, that our line, though thinned, - was nowhere disordered; that our battalions, though reduced, were firm in their position. Besides, the duke, apprised of the approach of his allies, moved round an additional force from his left to his centre, and directed our battalions to deploy from their squares into a line four deep. Its formidable aspect, and the knowledge of the approach of the Prussians, prevented Ney from attempting the last resource, namely, a bayonet charge by the guards. Their ranks, however, were rapidly thinned, for the fire from the British line was much more extensive and destructive than that of the columns of the enemy. It was now that the duke perceived the approach of the Prussian main body, and ordered a general forward movement; the French retired, at first slowly and in good order; but seeing that behind them all was falling into confusion, the artillerymen and waggon train cutting the traces of their horses, and pressing to gain the high road to which the Prussians were fast advancing, the retreat soon became a rout. Our troops advanced over the field of battle, crossed the hollow beyond it, and towards nine at night reached the ridge occupied by the French staff during the day. Their task was now fûlfilled, and the Prussians were left to pursue the flying enemy. The loss on our side amounted to thirteen thousand men; that of the French opposed to us, exclusive of the loss caused by the Prussians, was about twenty thousand.

This great battle displayed no manoeuvring; the plan was formed, and the whole was a succession of impetuous attacks and obstinate repulses; but the talents of either commander were not the less conspicuously displayed; the one in making no fruitless application of his force, the other in never permitting the ardour of his troops to lead them from their ground or to deviate from a defensive plan. Bonaparte committed two errors; first, throwing away his superb cavalry so early in the action; and, secondly, as a consequence of this, ordering the advance of his guards, who, though they might penetrate our line at a particular point, had no chance of gaining a victory when unsupported by cavalry, and were besides likely to 1 be soon wanted as a rear-guard to their own army. In the battle Lord Wellington appears to have committed no error. On the preceding days his fault lay in supposing Blucher likely to act with discretion, and in remaining personally at Brussels instead of keeping near to his impatient coadjutor. Had the latter avoided fighting on the 16th, and retreated only twelve or fifteen miles, the allied forces would have been completely in co-operation; and their numbers, a hundred and sixty thousand, would have deprived Bonaparte of every chance of success.

From Waterloo to Paris, the advance of the allies was an almost uninterrupted march; marked on our part by the capture, by escalade, of two towns, Cambray and Pe-ronne, and on that of the Prussians by an unremitting pursuit of the enemy. On one occasion (the 2d of July, near Versailles), a corps of French cavalry re-asserted their claim to fame, and taught the Prussians the hazard of a precipitate advance; but the success was partial, the evacuation of Paris unavoidable, and resistance hopeless, now that almost all Europe was pouring her armies into the French territory. Hence the second treaty of Paris, concluded after many vain appeals to the generosity of the allies, and which burdened France with contributions to the amount of nearly thirty millions sterling, exclusive of the support of an allied army on her frontier. This army, amounting at first to a hundred and fifty thousand men, was reduced in 1817 to a hundred and twenty thousand, and withdrawn in the end of 1818, when all bore the aspect of continued tranquillity on the Continent.

The time is scarcely yet arrived for viewing, with the calm impartiality of history, our war against Bonaparte; but the more reflecting part of our countrymen can hardly 7 fail to regret our participation in the war of 1793. Those who know the inoffensive state of the French nation at that time, their general wish for peace, and the reduced condition of their army, can have no doubt that the efforts which subsequently 7 poured forth such a host of combatants owed their existence solely to the threats of the allied powers. Without these the jacobins would not have triumphed, nor would a military adventurer, like Bonaparte, have had the means of acquiring an ascendency. Louis XVI. might have been brought to the scaffold, and republican visions might have prevailed for a season; but the eyes of the people would have been opened to the blessings of a constitutional monarchy much earlier than when threatened with invasion, and obliged, in self-defence, to throw undue power into the hands of their new rulers. The first great error, that of the coalition of 1792, was the act of Austria and Prussia; but of the continuance of the continental war after 1795 we were almost the sole cause. Belgium and Holland had, it is true, fallen into the hands of France, and to recover them was an object of the highest interest; but in attempting this, our ministers made no adequate allowance for the jealousies, the prejudices, we may add the incapacity, of the governments whose aid was indispensable to success. In 1803 circumstances had become extremely embarrassing. France was confirmed in the possession of the Netherlands and Italy, and at the disposal of an ambitious ruler, who studied in peace only the means of further encroachment. What course was our government to follow? Were they to continue in peace, and to trust for our eventual safety to the progressive extension of our resources and the improvement of our army; or were they 7 to resort to immediate war, and present, by our declared hostility, a rallying point to other powers? An experienced government would have preferred the former; the ministry of 1803 adopted the latter, not from views of ambition, but from yielding to that popular impulse, which it would not, however, have been impracticable to guide and control. As to the course of the war, it was, during the first two years, a contest without decided success on either side. In its third year, an ill-conducted coalition gave to France that superiority which was to be expected in the [7:5:542]case of a great military power directed by a single head. Such, in a further degree, was the result of the continental operations of 1806 and 1807. In 1808 Spain occasioned an unexpected change in the calculations of politicians, and showed, in an encouraging light, the power of popular resistance; still its effects, aided even by our military means, produced little decisive of the grand, objects of the war. We were proceeding with great zeal and gallantry, but without any definite hope or object, when a catastrophe, as little expected by ourselves as by the French, entirely changed the aspect of affairs, and made it incumbent on us to omit no exertion, financial or military, to redeem the independence of Europe. The success was complete; but it was not till the close of the struggle that we became aware of the amount of the sacrifices which had been incurred in its prosecution.

Parliament met on the 1st of February, and, after some business of minor importance, proceeded, in March, to discuss the interesting question of our military peace establishment. The navy had been reduced with sufficient promptitude; but there seemed, on the part of government, a disposition to keep the army on a scale neither required by the general tranquillity of Europe, nor justified by our financial means, which exhibited several symptoms of decline. Yet a motion for so moderate a reduction as ten thousand from the proposed number of land forces was negatived by two hundred and two to a hundred and thirty; and, in long debates which ensued relative to the army estimates, ministers carried every point, and were likely to keep up the whole upon an expensive scale; when, on the 18th of March, after a long and animated discussion, the question of continuing the property-tax, modified to five per cent., was decided against them by a majority of thirty-seven; there being two hundred and thirty-eight against two hundred and one. This signal and unexpected defeat necessitated a relinquishment of the war malt-duty, and a general reduction of expenditure, which we should have in vain expected from the reason or reflection of our rulers. • Another measure of importance was the regulation, after a long investigation, of the civil list, on a footing which was adopted as a standard in the beginning of the present reign. This was followed by acts for the consolidation of the English and Irish exchequers, and for the exemption of the bank from cash payments during two years; and, finally, by an act for striking off a new silver coinage. Among the minor proceedings of the session may be mentioned a grant of L.60,000 a year to the Princess Charlotte and her husband, with a provision, unfortunately too soon required, of L.50,000 to the latter in the event of her demise.

This year was distinguished by an important naval operation, namely, the attack upon Algiers. A project had been submitted to the sovereigns assembled at Vienna in 1814, and at Paris in 1815, for the expulsion of the Turkish militia from the Barbary states; but the representatives of the cabinet of London opposed this proposition, on the pretext that the existence of these states had been guaranteed by treaties; and as the scheme for expelling the Turks had been coupled with an absurd proposal to replace the janissaries with the conventual and military order of the knights of Malta, the success of the English opposition excited no regret.^[23. Speaking of this scheme, Colonel Juchereau de Saint Denys remarks, “C’était mettre le fanatisme Catholique à la place du fanatisme Mahométan; c’était substituer à one classe oisive et improductive, one classe également ennemie du travail et également dé-pourvue d’industrie. C’était d’ailleurs un acte du pure demence et cruauté que de vouloir faire gouverner one population entièrement Mussulmane par des moines militaires qui n’avaient été crées que pour combattre perpétuellement et à outrance tous les ennemis du nom Chrétien, et particulièrement les disciples de Mahomet. Cependant ce projet absurde avait pu trouver des échos parmi les diplomates du congrès de Vienne.” Pp. 118, 119. ] It was generally agreed, however, that an end ought to be put to Christian slavery. This was a necessary consequence of the principle which had been adopted and promulgated relative to negro slavery; and England, which had procured the recognition of the one, undertook the honourable task of effecting the other. But the measures at first resorted to were by no means adequate to the accomplishment of the end in view, and of course failed. An attempt was made to mediate between the regency of Algiers and the kingdoms of Sardinia and Naples; and Lord Exmouth, with a fleet of twenty-six ships, of which six were of the line, was employed to superintend this negociation. FIis Lordship accordingly appeared before Algiers in the month of April 1816; the dey yielded; and peace was re-established between these powers “en favorisent l’avarice du gouvernement Algérien.” But all of a sudden the English government assumed a higher tone, and transmitted orders to Lord Exmouth to demand of the dey, first, the immediate liberation of all Christian slaves; secondly, restitution of the sums which had been paid by the courts of Naples and Sardinia for the ransom of such of their subjects as had been dragged into slavery; thirdly, the renunciation for ever of the practice of reducing to slavery the subjects of the Christian powers of Europe; fourthly, an obligation to treat the subjects of Hanover on the same footing and in the same manner as those of Great Britain.

The situation of Lord Exmouth was disagreeable and embarrassing; inasmuch as he was called upon to present, in the month of May, conditions altogether different from those which had been tendered and accepted in the month of April immediately preceding. But the die was now cast. Omar Pasha indignantly rejected the new propositions which the admiral was commanded to submit to him; and having assembled a general divan, obtained the concurrence of the tchiorbagis, the odobachys, and the yoldaches, who rent the air with their ferocious cries, declaring that they would rather perish than submit to propositions so humiliating. Pressed by the admiral, however, to give a distinct and categorical answer, the dey had recourse to finesse. He was a subject, he said, of the Ottoman Porte. The question at issue was one of the highest importance, and could not be resolved in a definitive manner by him and the militia of Algiers. It was therefore indispensable that he should take the orders of the grand seignior respecting it. Lord Exmouth was not deceived by this specimen of Algerine diplomacy. He knew that the pasha was a man of resolution as well as of address; that he was certain of the support of his furious and fanatical subjects; and that his sole object was to gain time in order to prepare for the conflict which, he foresaw, was impending. However, he affected to be for the present satisfied with the dey’s answer, and withdrew to Gibraltar, ostensibly to wait for the decision of the Porte, but in reality for definitive orders from his own government. The latter had already decided on its course.

A powerful squadron was accordingly fitted out at Portsmouth, and dispatched to Gibraltar to reinforce the admiral, who, after its arrival, had under his orders five sail of the line, two of them three-deckers, five frigates of the largest and second class, five sloops of war, four bomb vessels, five gun-boats, furnished each with a sixty-eight-pound carronade, and a dock-yard sloop converted into a fire-ship or explosion vessel; in all twenty-five ships and vessels of war. At Gibraltar six Dutch frigates, under the orders of Vice-admiral Van Capellen, requested to [7:5:543]join the British fleet in the approaching attack, and probably had stations assigned them, although it does not appear in the very precise and masterly order of battle given out by Lord Exmouth. The fleet arrived before Algiers on the 27th of August 1816. The wind was favourable, and a light breeze enabled the ships to take the positions which had been assigned to them. Lord Exmouth then transmitted his ultimatum to the dey. It embodied in substance the propositions presented in May, and required an immediate answer. None whatever was returned. The decision of the question was left to the arbitrement of battle. The fleet instantly weighed, and, led by the flag ship, Queen Charlotte, of a hundred and twenty guns, came to anchor within pistol shot, or rather less, of the batteries on the Mole, and those situated towards the western part of the town. The Queen Charlotte anchored across the entrance of the port, so as to take in flank and reverse such of the batteries as were furthest advanced, and she was supported by the Superb and Impregnable, which were directed to anchor as close to her as possible, to be made fast to each other, and hove together in order to concentrate their fire. The Albion had orders to supply the place of either of the two last mentioned ships that might be thrown out; and, in case of both getting their places, to present her broadside against a flanking battery of three guns, and enfilade the northern part of the works by throwing part of her fire upon the upper tier of the light-house battery. The Dutch appear to have taken their station on the left, in order to produce a diversion by commanding the exterior batteries and forts of the eastern part of the place. All these movements were executed with that admirable order and precision which distinguish the operations of the British navy, and also without opposition. The dey, it is said, wished to avoid the reproach of being the first to commence hostilities; and it has been thought that this capital fault contributed to decide the fate of the action. But this is a mistake. Had the Algerines opened their fire on the ships as they approached, the casualties might have been more numerous, but the result would have been the same.

When the British line of attack had been completely established, two shots were fired on the flag ship from the grand battery of the Mole. The instant he saw the flash of the guns, Lord Exmouth gave the word “Fire away my lads,” and the cannonade immediately became general. The battle commenced at three o’clock in the afternoon, and continued without any intermission until nine in the evening, when a land breeze springing up, the ships weighed anchor, and gained an offing, to prepare, if necessary, for a renewal of the attack. While the combat was at the hottest, a detachment of English seamen and marines entered the harbour amidst a murderous fire of grape and musketry, and succeeded in setting fire to and destroying the whole of the Algerine fleet; an event which made a terrible impression on the population of Algiers, and in fact completed its demoralization. They then found what a formidable and daring enemy they had had the hardihood to contend withal; and horror soon gave way to despair. The dey durst not risk a renewal of the combat; but next day (the 28th of August) gave his unqualified assent to the propositions which, twenty hours before, he had scorned even to entertain. The terms which Lord Exmouth had the glory to dictate were, first, the total abolition of Christian slavery in future; secondly, the immediate liberation of all slaves within the territories and dependencies of Algiers, of whatever nation they might be; thirdly, the restitution into the hands of the English admiral of the various sums which had been paid since the commencement of the year by Christian powers for the ransom of their subjects dragged into slavery; fourthly, an indemnification to the English consul for the losses he had sustained, and an apology by the dey in the presence of his ministers and officers for the indignities which the consul had suffered in being arrested and detained in prison during the battle. This was followed by the conclusion of a treaty of peace with the Netherlands, by which all arrears were discharged, and that country ceased to figure among the tributaries of Algiers. Such were the results of this memorable battle, which, to use the words of Sir Charles Ekins (Naval Battles, p. 304), “bore the character of a crusade in behalf of Europe, rather than on the part of Great Britain alone, which excited a prodigious sensation throughout all Christendom, and which was believed to have put a final stop to Barbary piracies and depredations.”

A general want of work and reduction of wages continued during the year, subjecting the lower orders to great distress, and exposing them to the arts of designing demagogues. Large assemblages, particularly in Spafields, took place previous to the meeting of parliament; and on the day of its opening (the 28th of January) the regent was insulted on his way to the House of Lords. A secret committee of each house was soon afterwards appointed to examine papers in the possession of government, said to bear evidence of serious projects of insurrection; and each made a speedy report, declaring the existence of very dangerous societies. There was in these reports a strain of confident allegation, unaccompanied by specific proof or temperate reasoning, which brought to recollection the declamatory state papers of the French revolution, and gave the reports the appearance of documents framed to disseminate alarms, and justify extreme measures. They engaged, however, the serious attention of the house, and the result was a bill for the suspension of the habeas corpus act during the current session of parliament; a measure carried in the Lords by a hundred and fifty to thirty-five, and in the Commons by two hundred and sixty-five to a hundred and three. Towards the close of the session a second report from the secret committees produced an act for continuing the suspension of the habeas corpus to the 1st of March 1818.

The continued want of work, and the distress of the lower orders, led to an act for authorizing the issue of exchequer bills to persons finding employment for the poor. The same causes inducing the public to call loudly for retrenchment, the opposition, on the 25th of February, took the sense of the House of Commons on a motion to reduce the number of the lords of the admiralty, and mustered a hundred and fifty-two votes against two hundred and eight. As an offering on the part of government to the prevailing demand for retrenchment, an act was passed for abolishing the two sinecure offices of justice in Eyre.

Mr Abbot, who had filled the office of speaker of the house since 1802, finding himself incapable, from continued indisposition, of performing its arduous duties, sent in his resignation, and was succeeded by the Right Honourable Charles Manners Sutton. Mr Abbot was forthwith raised to the peerage by the title of Baron Colchester; and, on the 6th of June, a vote passed the Commons for settling on him a life annuity of L.4000.

Parliament was opened on the 27th of January under circumstances which indicated that the want of work and the distress of trade, though still considerable, were less serious than in the preceding year. A secret committee, appointed anew by each house, reported to that effect; and on their recommendation was brought in a bill to indemnify persons, chiefly magistrates, who had acted in apprehending and detaining individuals suspected of treasonable practices. This bill was not carried without considerable opposition.
[7:5:544]

The death of the Princess Charlotte having caused a blank in the succession to the crown, the marriage of the royal dukes became a subject of consideration; but the provision for any increase of expenditure was exposed to difficulty, as well from the distress of the public, as from the near approach of the time when the members were to meet their constituents. A motion made by ministers to grant L.10,000 additional to the Duke of Clarence was not successful, an amendment for reducing it to L.6000 having been carried by a hundred and ninty-three to a hundred and eighty-four. Votes, equally restricted, were passed in the case of the Dukes of Kent and Cambridge; and an attempt to obtain a similar grant to the Duke of Cumberland, who had been several years married, was negatived by a hundred and forty-three to a hundred and forty-six; but a provision of L.6000 a year was made for the duchess in case she should survive him.

Among the transactions of this year was a* grant of L.400,000 to Spain, as a compensation for losses attendant on an early abolition of the slave-trade by that power. Certain acts were also passed for the humane treatment of negroes in our sugar colonies. The bank exemption act being about to expire, Mr Vansittart brought in a bill for continuing it another year, on the ground that the loans now contracting in England for France and Prussia carried capital out of the country, and prevented the bank, for a time at least, from diminishing its paper circulation.

Mr Brougham having, early in the session, brought in a bill for investigating the abuses of public charities, it was referred to a committee, and, after some discussion in the Commons, passed to the Lords. There it encountered opposition from Lords Eldon and Redesdale, and was returned to the Commons with material alterations; the commissioners charged with the inquiry being limited in their powers, and restricted to charities connected with education. The act, however, passed in this state, and the labours of the commissioners, like those of the committee on the education of the poor, have been productive of much public advantage. The session was closed on 10th June by a speech from the regent, containing a notice, not only of the prorogation, but of the dissolution of parliament; a measure which for many years had been announced by proclamation.

The new parliament met on the 14th of January 1819, and on the 21st proceeded to business. The demise of the queen having taken place during the recess (on the 17th November), one of the first measures was to vest the eus-, tody of the king’s person in the Duke of York, who, very imprudently, under the circumstances of the country, demanded and received from parliament an annual allowance of L.10,000 for discharging an act of filial duty. This formed a striking contrast to the conduct of the Marquis of Camden, who, possessed of the lucrative sinecure of teller of the exchequer, relinquished L.9000 a year of it to the public; a sacrifice noticed in honourable terms in a vote passed in parliament on the occasion.

Such was the addition made to opposition, by an election under circumstances of general distress, that several measures were carried in this session against ministers; in particular, a motion on the 2d of March, by Sir James Mackintosh, for a revision of the criminal code, where the numbers were a hundred and forty-seven against a hundred and twenty-eight, and a motion for a committee on the state of the Scottish burghs, carried by a hundred and forty-nine to a hundred and forty-four. In the division on the grant of L.10,000 to the Duke of York, the opposition mustered a hundred and eighty-six votes against two hundred and eighty-one. But the impression excited by these successes was greatly enfeebled by a motion, which arrayed on one side all the strength of government and that of the neutral party. We allude to Mr Tierney’s motion for an “inquiry into the state of the nation,” which was negatived by three hundred and fifty-seven to a hundred and seventy-eight; a division evincing that, though disposed to co-operate with opposition occasionally and for specific objects, the neutral party had no wish for a change of ministry. Encouraged by this success, Mr Vansittart came forward with the bold proposition of new taxes, to the extent of L.3,000,000, on the ground of a sum of that amount being absolutely necessary to give efficiency to the sinking fund. Of this sum the chief part was expected from an increase of the duties on malt, spirits, and tobacco; but part also was to be derived from a tax on foreign wool (6d. per lb.); a most singular impost in a country where the exportation of manufactured wool forms a main branch of the national industry. Ministers were conscious of its injurious tendency, but were obliged to bring it forward as an equivalent to the landed interest, for the fresh burden exacted from them in the malt-duty.

The further debates of the session related to the Catholic question and the resumption of cash payments. In the contest pending at this time between Spain and her American colonies, ministers took part with the mother country, so far at least as to discourage by act of parliament the enlistment of our officers and soldiers on the side of the insurgents. In the preceding session L.1,000,000 had been voted for building additional churches and chapels for the established religion in England; and this year L.100,000 was appropriated for a similar purpose to the established church of Scotland. The last act of the session was a grant made in July, of the limited sum of L.50,000, to be shared by government among persons settling on particular conditions at the Cape of Good Hope. This was the first pecuniary aid given by government towards emigration, which is accounted by some the only remedy for our overstock of labourers and manufacturers.

The revival of commercial activity in 1818 proved unfortunately of short duration. Distress returned towards the end of that year, and assumed an aggravated aspect in the course of 1819. This produced popular assemblages, and led, on 16th August, to an unfortunate scene at Manchester, in which the interference of the yeomanry cavalry to disperse a very numerous meeting of the people was productive of loss of life to a number of persons, and of bodily injury to a great many. The irritation excited among the lower orders by this proceeding, and by the continued pressure of poverty, led to the dissemination of a spirit of discontent and insurrection which necessitated the assembling of parliament on the 23d November. The speech of the regent, as well as the discussions of both houses, were directed to this painful subject; and the alarm excited among the aristocracy, joined to other considerations, having finally detached the Grenville party from the opposition, the latter now mustered in less formidable array. On the division for an amendment upon the address to the regent, the numbers were a hundred and fifty against three hundred and eighty.

Several bills were afterwards introduced by ministers for the prevention of disturbances. These consisted in imposing a tax on the petty publications circulated among the lower orders; impeding the circulation of libels; authorizing the seizure of arms; and forbidding military training or seditious meetings. These bills produced long and animated debates; but the most considerable division on the side of opposition, namely, that for limiting the act against seditious measures to three years instead of five, consisted of only a hundred and fifty votes against three hundred and twenty-eight. A motion of a more comprehensive nature for a committee on the state of the country was negatived [7:5:545]in the Lords by a hundred and seventy-eight to forty-seven; in the Commons by three hundred and ninety-five to a hundred and fifty.

After transacting this and other business of an urgent nature, parliament adjourned; but was soon after brought together by an event which, however conformable to the course of nature, was not at that time expected, namely, the death of George III. The day after the demise, agreeably to established usage, both houses met, and took the oath of allegiance to the new sovereign. On the 2d February they adjourned till the 17th, the day after the interment of his majesty. On that day both houses voted an address of condolence to the present king, after which they proceeded to transact such business as was pressing, and might, according to law, have continued to sit during six months; but ministers judged fit to resort to a dissolution. Another election now took place under circumstances of general distress. The new parliament met on the 2lst April, and was opened on the 27th by George IV., in a speech declaring his anxiety for strict economy, but regretting that the state of the country was such as to admit of no reduction of the military force.

The peace of Amiens at first gave hopes of the improvement of Ireland by the introduction of British industry and capital; but these hopes were soon clouded by the renewed contest of 1803. In that contest the public in England and Scotland joined with almost unexampled zeal; but Ireland was less cordial, although it would be altogether erroneous to connect with any political party, whether Catholic or Protestant, the miserable insurrection of the 23d of July 1803. A plot to seize Dublin, almost as extravagant as that of the Cato Street conspiracy in London, was framed by a few infatuated individuals; and in the tumult, which burst forth with great violence but with feeble means, Lord Kilwarden, the chief justice, unhappily lost his life. A party of military soon dispersed the rabble; and of their leaders, most of whom were afterwards apprehended and executed, the only one entitled to notice was Robert Emmett, a young man whose education and talents ought to have placed him above such desperate attempts. The alarm thus excited engaged some time after the attention of parliament, and led to the enactment of two bills, one for a renewed suspension of the habeas corpus act in Ireland, the other for trying rebels by martial law.

The encouragement so generally given to the volunteer system in England and Scotland was not extended to Ireland, from a dread of embodying indiscriminately a people of whom so great a proportion were disaffceted. The yeomanry, however, or select volunteers of Ireland, were very numerous, being about eighty thousand; and they had been highly instrumental in putting down the unfortunate insurrection of 1798. In addition to these, Ireland requir-cd a body of our regulars and militia amounting to nearly fifty thousand men as a defence against invasion, a guarantee of public tranquillity, and a cheek on illicit distillation and smuggling. The return yielded by Ireland in the shape of revenue was small, but her supply of recruits to our army and navy was very considerable.

The suspension of the habeas corpus act continued in 1805, a year remarkable as the first in which the Catholic question was submitted to parliament. It was brought forward in the Commons by Mr Fox, in the Peers by Lord Grenville; and curiosity was strongly excited in regard to Mr Pitt, who had lately accepted office without carrying his professed object, the grant of political privileges to the Catholics. The minister, however, extricated himself with address; declaring that if his vote could give the Ca- .holics what they desired, they should not long want it, but hat at present the prevailing sentiment was against their claims; and this, in fact, was sufficiently shown by the division which ensued, and exhibited three hundred and thirty-six votes against them, with only a hundred and twenty-four in their favour. Next year the appointment to office of Lord Grenville and Mr Fox raised high the hopes of the Catholics; but the known repugnance of the sovereign to their claims induced these ministers to dissuade a direct discussion of the question in parliament, under an assurance that they would do whatever should be otherwise practicable for obtaining the removal of disabilities. Hence the bill of February 1807, which caused the dismissal of the Grenville ministry, and excited such a ferment in England against the Catholics, as to render it wholly unadvisable to bring forward the question for several years.

In 1809 the Catholic committee in Dublin held public meetings, but confined themselves to preparing a new petition to parliament. Next year they went much farther, and sought to assume an imposing attitude, proposing that ten persons should be deputed by each county to Dublin, and there form an assembly, charged not only with the duty of preparing petitions to parliament, but of taking measures for the redress of the general grievances of the Catholic body. The secretary for Ireland, Mr Wellesley Pole, alarmed at this design, addressed circular letters to the sheriffs of counties, requiring them to prevent the election of the proposed delegates, and even to arrest all persons taking part in such elections. But this order appeared too peremptory to the opposition, and a debate took place, in which Mr Wellesley Pole explained, that, so long as the Catholics confined their proceedings to petitioning, they had received no interruption; but that the delegates proposed to go much farther, and that a body, under the name of a Committee of Grievances, had assembled weekly in Dublin with all the forms of parliament. The house supported the measure adopted by Mr Wellesley Pole, and disapproved of the proceedings of the Catholics. Still the latter deemed this session not unfavourable to the discussion of their political claims, on account of the laurels lately won by our armies in Spain and Portugal, which counted many Catholics in their ranks. The question was brought forward by Mr Grattan, but lost by a large majority in both houses.

The same fate attended its discussion next spring. Another year elapsed; and in the session of 1813 it was brought forward with more combination and better prospects. Mr Grattan, supported by a part of the Cabinet, obtained the assent of the house to several preliminary resolutions; first, that the Catholic disabilities ought to be removed; secondly, that the Catholic clergy should bind themselves by oath to hold no correspondence with Rome except on ecclesiastical business; and, thirdly, that two commissioners should be appointed for examining into the loyalty of persons recommended as deans or bishops among the Catholics. The time occupied in these discussions was considerable, and gave occasion to the Catholic clergy in Ireland to testify their dissent from several of the provisions, particularly from that which restricted their correspondence with Rome. The knowledge of this dissatisfaction made a deep impression on parliament, and gave a turn to the question which induced the supporters of the bill to withdraw it for that session.

The ensuing year unfortunately gave further evidence of the want of temper and union among the Catholics. The court of Rome recommended their acquiescence with the propositions of Mr Grattan; but meetings of the Catholic board at Dublin disclaimed indignantly all foreign interference; and the clergy passed resolutions against the appointment of any Catholic bishop by the British government. The intemperate proceedings of the Catholic board [7:5:546]now led government to dissolve that body, and declare its meetings contrary to law.

These dissensions prevented the question from being submitted to parliament in 1814. Next year it was brought forward by Sir Henry Parnell, not by Mr Grattan, who declared that an unconditional grant of the demands of the Catholics was not to be expected, and that, without cultivating a spirit of conciliation, they never would succeed. The motion was lost by a great majority. In 1816 it was again brought before parliament, but in two distinct petitions, of which the more temperate, introduced by Mr Grattan, received the support of a hundred and forty-one against a hundred and seventy-two.

In the year 1817 the question was proposed by Mr Grattan, with the same views as in 1813, and supported by two hundred and twenty-one votes against two hundred and forty-five. The disappointment caused by this failure was soothed not only by the large minority, but by a very substantial concession, obtained soon after, on the proposition of ministers, namely, an act to enable Catholic officers in the army and navy to attain rank nearly on the plan proposed by the Grenville ministry in 1807. In 1818 the Catholic question was not agitated; but in 1819 the tone of that body having become more conciliating, Mr Grattan’s motion for taking it into consideration was supported by two hundred and forty-one votes against two hundred and forty-three. Further details of the progress of this great measure towards a successful conclusion will be given in the course of the narrative.^[24. The following table exhibits, in a synoptical form, the times and results of the parliamentary discussion of the Catholic Question from 1805 to 1819 inclusive. [table] ]

There is another subject which deserves a particular notice in this place, more especially as it is connected with an event of deep and lasting interest. We allude to reform in the representation of the people. For several years anterior to 1816, the question had been but little agitated, and seemed to be abandoned to occasional de-claimers and mere pot-house politicians. But the general distress which prevailed during that and the following years, with the discontent consequent on the privations to which the working classes were exposed, redirected their attention to a subject which they had too long lost sight of; and as it seemed obvious that the pressure of taxation, added to the evils occasioned by a transition from a state of war to a state of peace, formed the principal obstacle to the development of our resources, and the expansion of the productive powers of industry, an opinion began to gain ground among the people, that the evils under which they suffered would never be materially mitigated, much less effectually cured, until a reform had been effected in our system of representation. One of the first symptoms or manifestations of the revival of an interest in this question was afforded by the Spafields meeting, which took place on the 2d December 1816; and although the tumult and violence in which that assemblage issued produced considerable alarm, and brought no little discredit on the cause, yet the defeat of government in the state prosecutions which followed, the continued pressure of distress, and, above all, the invincible truth that the people were inadequately represented, and that they experienced many of the evils of the worst government under one held forth as the best, served to overcome every disadvantage, and to keep alive the interest which had previously been excited. The Spafields riots were soon forgotten; and although no overt manifestations of any consequence took place during the two following years, still the conviction of the necessity of parliamentary reform continued to gain ground, and the cause began to find advocates in quarters where it had previously been regarded with indifference, if not with aversion. Reformers, though agreed in principle, were indeed much divided in regard to detail, or rather as to the extent to which the principle ought to be carried; and extreme doctrines began to be openly and boldly promulgated by many persons, who about the year 1819 received the appellation of radical reformers, and were at this time regarded with affected contempt, but with real terror, by the partizans of the existing system. But neither this diversity of views, nor the dread which many persons entertained or pretended of radical theories, retarded the progress of the cause, or prevented it from daily gaining new converts. On the 12th of July 1819 Birmingham ventured on the bold experiment of electing a legislatorial attorney to represent that great town in the House of Commons; and on the 16th of August following took place that memorable meeting at Manchester, already mentioned as accompanied with such disastrous results.

Such were the final acts of 1819, and of the reign of [7:5:547]George III. The public conduct of this monarch, and the tendency of the political principles by which it was governed, the reader will judge of for himself, from the narrative of the events of his reign; as to his private and domestic character, it is admitted on all hands to have been highly respectable. He was distinguished for probity and a sense of religious obligation; in his habits and manners he displayed equal moderation and simplicity; his disposition, though unyielding, was benevolent; and both as a husband and a parent he was highly estimable. His intellectual faculties, originally of no high order, were permanently clouded by the constitutional malady which exhibited itself at an early period of his life; he adhered with invincible obstinacy to the maxims of government instilled into his mind by his early instructors; and he cherished an attachment to the church of which he was the head, that amounted to a species of blind and blundering bigotry. Yet he loved and patronized the fine arts, particularly music and painting; he collected a noble library; he had a taste for agriculture and some of the mechanic arts; and he was at once plain and unpretending in his manners; all which circumstances go very far in the case of a king. Hunting and the penal laws against the Catholics formed the things which, next to his own family, he was most attached to; and his scruples of conscience long stood in the way of national justice.

CHAP. XVIII.

REIGN OF GEORGE IV.

Accession of George IV.—Assembling of Parliament.—Message from the King—Debates.—Parliament dissolved—Cato Street Conspiracy—Thistlewood and his Accomplices seized, convicted, and executed—Discontent.—Fomented by Government Spies Severe Measures—The Queen—Aversion of the King.

—She Lands at Dover—Message from the King respecting the Conduct of the Queen Bill of Pains and Penalties introduced Proceedings thereupon—Bill of Pains and Penalties thrown out.—Scene in the House of Commons.—Character of the Proceedings against the Queen—State of the Country.— General Distress—Parliamentary Proceedings—Grampound Disfranchisement Bill.—Droits of the Admiralty Brougham’s Education Scheme—Excitement connected with the Queen’s Case Parliamentary Session of 1821 Proceedings Circular

Dispatch to our Missions Abroad.—Earl Grey’s Motion.— Other Proceedings connected with it.—Motion relative to the Declaration issued by the Congress of Laybach.—Internal Affairs Mr Plunkett’s Motion for a Committee on the Catholic

Question carried.—Resolutions adopted—Bills brought in.— Consolidated into one—Passed by the Commons.—Thrown out in the Lords—Parliamentary Reform—Mr Lambton’s Scheme. —Defeated by a manoeuvre—Resolutions proposed by Lord John Russell—Other Projects—Grampound disfranchised.— Mr Hume’s efforts in favour of Retrenchment—Attempts to humanize the Criminal Code defeated Constitutional Asso ciation—Distress of the Agricultural and Manufacturing Population—Consequent Proceedings in Parliament—Coronation—Death of Queen Caroline.—State of Affairs at the commencement of 1822.—Session of Parliament—Ireland—Insurrection Act, and Suspension of Habeas Corpus—Other Measures of Severity—Insurrectionary Spirit unsubdued—Unpopularity of the Lord-Lieutenant Reform—Lord John Russell’s Motion.—Air Brougham’s proposed Resolution respecting the Influence of the Crown.—Burgh Reform—Mr Canning’s Bill for the Admission of Catholic Peers passed by the Commons but thrown out in the Lords.—Finance—Retrenchment. —Reduction of the Navy Five per Cents.—Scheme concerning the Naval and Military Pensions carried, but rendered abortive. —Measures for the Relief of the existing Distress—Commercial Affairs—Repeal of the Navigation Laws—Death of Lord Londonderry—Changes in the Administration—New Government. I —Reform.—Continental Relations.—Congress of Verona Af fairs of Spain—French Invasion and Overthrow of the Constitution.—Appointment of Commercial Agents to the New South

American States—Financial Operations Reduction of Taxes.

—Sir James Mackintosh’s Resolutions Acts for the Amend-1

ment of the Criminal Law.—Ireland Catholic Claims Colonial Affairs.—Resolutions in regard to the Treatment of Slaves

Government Circular—Character of Air Canning’s Policy.— Independence of the South American States recognised AIea-

sures for unfettering Commercial Intercourse Combination

Laws repealed—Other AIeasures of a similar kind—Reciprocity System—Legal Reform Finanical Arrangements.—Ireland.—The Catholic Association—The Catholic Rent Con duct of the West India Planters.—Proceedings in Canada and at the Cape of Good -Hope Domestic Affairs—AIeeting of

Parliament.—.Catholic Association—Bill for suppressing it.— Debates on this subject—Association reconstituted.—Bill for the Relief of the Catholics introduced.—Two subordinate Bills. —Declaration of the Duke of York.—The Bill passed by the Commons, but thrown out in the Lords.—State of Ireland— Report of the Committee of the Lords Other Proceedings—

Bill for the Protection of AIasters and Workmen against Combinations—Alodification of the Colonial System carried by Air Huskisson—Details.—Reduction of Taxation.—Consequences of Excessive Speculation of 1825.—General Panic and Distress. —Affairs of 1826—AIeeting of Parliament—State of the Country—AIeasures for alleviating the general Distress—Small Note Circulation.—Opposition of Scotland to the Destruction of its Small Note Currency.—Successful Branch Banks established.—Advances on Deposits of Goods and other Securities. —Discussions as to the Cause of the late Panic.—Emigration Committee—Petitions from the Silk AIanufacturers and Shipowners Air Huskisson’s triumphant Reply.—System of Free

Trade.—Budget—Discussion thereon.—Termination of the Burmese War.—Origin and Progress of this Contest Dissolu tion of Parliament—General Election.—Effects produced in Ireland by the Catholic Association—Deficient Crop.—Scarcity.—Order in Council for relieving the Distress AIeeting of Parliament—Lord Liverpool struck with Apoplexy—Air Canning’s Interviews with the King—He receives the Royal Commands to reconstruct a Cabinet.—Consequent Négociations. —Combination against Air Canning.—Cabinet formed Air

Canning joined by the Whigs.—His AIinistry irresistible.— Air Canning’s Death.—His Character as an Orator and Statesman—Succeeded by Lord Goderich.—Dissolution of his Government—Parliamentary Session of 1826-27 Com Laws

Resolutions—New Bill passed by the Commons Abandoned in consequence of the Duke of Wellington’s Amendment in the Lords—A temporary Bill passed—Other Questions.—Interference in behalf of Portugal—Catholic Emancipation Lost by a AIajority of four—Duke of Wellington’s Administration. —Dismission of Air Huskisson Foreign Policy of Britain-State of our Relations with other Powers.—Portugal. Greece.

—Turkey.—Treaty of London.—Consequent Interference in the Contest between the Ottoman Porte and the Greeks.—Battle of Navarino—Results of this Action.—Expressions applied to it by the New Cabinet—Finance Committee.—Government Annuities—Error in regard to them.—Settlement of the Corn Laws by Compromise.—State of the Common Law Courts.— Efforts of Air Brougham.—Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts—Sir F. Burdett’s AIotion on the Catholic Claims carried by a AIajority of six AIotion in the Lords to concur in the

Resolution of the Commons negatived.—Proceedings of the Catholics—Air Fitzgerald defeated in Clare Air O’Connell re turned for Clare—Re-assembling of the Catholic Association in its original form.—Proceedings—Pledges to be proposed to Candidates—Party Feuds among the Peasantry hushed.— Clubs General Organization.—Air Dawson’s Speech at Der ry.—Protestant Ascendency.—AIeasures Orange Lodges— Brunswick Clubs—Divisions in the Cabinet on the Catholic Question—Opposition of the King—Duke of Wellington’s Letter to Dr Curtis.—Recall of the AIarquis of Anglesey— Meeting of Parliament.—Catholic Question recommended in the Speech from the Throne Catholic Association denounced—

Bill introduced for putting it down Association dissolves it self.—Bill passed.—Committee on the Civil Disabilities affecting Catholics.—Air Peel’s Speech in proposing it.—Nature of the AIeasure proposed for the relief of the Catholics.—Character of the Debates Large AIajority in the Committee.—Dis cussion in the Lords—Relative Division in 1828 and 1829— Royal Assent given to the Relief Bill—Disfranchisement of the Irish Forty-shilling Freeholders—Injustice of this AIeasure— Parliament prorogued—State of the Country—Character of the Administration Parliamentary Reform—Assembling of

Parliament in 1830—Sir James Graham’s Resolution—Various[7:5:548] Motions and Proceedings.—Cry for Reform daily increasing—Death and Character of George the Fourth.

George III. closed his career on the 29th of January 1820. He had been so long withdrawn from the eyes of the world, that the event could scarcely be called the termination of a reign. The prince who succeeded him on the throne had virtually discharged all the offices of king for nearly eight years. The same line of policy continued to be persevered in, as nearly as events permitted; the same ministers continued to manage the affairs of state; the prosperity of the country received no sudden shock nor increase; and public opinion went on to form itself, without experiencing any sudden impulse. The customary bell, which announced by its monotonous clang that a king had been gathered to his fathers; the sorrow, real or affected, of personal friends; a slight alterationSn the tenor of writs; and some unimportant changes in the arrangements of office, were the only indications that a new reign had commenced.

The ministers, as a matter of form, resigned their places the day after the death of the old king, but were all of them immediately reinstated. It is the law and custom of the country, that if no parliament be in existence at the death of the king, the last immediately revives, and continues to sit for six months, unless dissolved at an earlier period by the new monarch. If a parliament, however, be in existence but not sitting at the time, it assembles with the least possible delay. The House of Commons met, on the present occasion, about noon of the 31 st of January, and the Lords a little later in the same day. At this meeting no business was transacted beyond the simple ceremony of taking the oaths of allegiance. Some additional members were sworn next day, when the house adjourned till the 17th of February. This was done in conformity with the uniform practice of parliament on the demise of a king to suspend its operations until after the funeral.

On the day appointed both houses again met; and by this time ministers had fully resolved upon the course they were to pursue. Messages from the king were presented by Lord Liverpool to the Peers, and by Lord Castlereagh to the Commons. The tenor of both was the same. The king felt persuaded that the House of Lords, and his faithful Commons, sympathized with the late loss which he and the nation had sustained. He reminded them that the melancholy event imposed upon him the necessity of summoning a new parliament within a limited period; intimated his opinion, that in the present state of public sentiment it was expedient to take this step without delay; and recommended to the Commons to adopt, and to the Lords to concur in, such measures as might be found necessary to provide for the public exigencies during the interval which must elapse between the dissolution of the old and the opening of a new parliament.

The reasons assigned by ministers for thus precipitating the assembling of a new parliament were in themselves quite satisfactory. The quantity of business before the legislative bodies was so great, that it could not possibly be completed within the prescribed period. The assizes would take place during its continuance, and render the absence of many members necessary; while the cares and bustle of an approaching election would distract the attention of all. Notwithstanding the weight of these arguments, the opposition discovered, or affected to discover, another reason for the resolution which had been taken of dissolving parliament immediately. The unpardonable assault upon the people at Manchester during the preceding year, and the subsequent policy of ministers, had deeply exasperated a large body of the lower orders; and the violence of their language had added to the ministerial party, already numerous among the wealthier portion of 1 the community, all the timid and wavering adherents of opposition. That party saw, therefore, in the attempt to precipitate a general election, the desire of ministry to obtain a parliament returned at a moment when the influence of fear had materially swelled their majority, and secured, by the prospect of a long career, against that popular influence which uniformly exercises greater control over the members in proportion as an appeal to their constituents approaches.

In the desultory opposition, however, which was offered to the course recommended in the king’s message, Mr Brougham was the only speaker who ventured to take this ground. The rest of his party, both in the Lords and the Commons, discussed the question as one of form and privilege. Lords Lansdown, Grosvenor, and Carnarvon, in the upper house, and Mr Tierney in the lower, while they admitted the dissolution of parliament to be regular and constitutional, objected to the recommendation to provide for it, as savouring of dictation, and infringing the liberty of the legislature. The ministerial party, however, strengthened as it had been by its accession of numbers, was too strong to be resisted. Bills were introduced, continuing the mutiny act and the marine mutiny act until the 24th of June. Certain sums of money were voted towards defraying the expenses of the army and the extraordinary civil charges. And in addition to these, two hundred thousand pounds were granted “towards satisfying such annuities, pensions, or other payments, as would have been payable out of the consolidated fund of Great Britain, or out of the civil list, in case the demise of his late majesty had not taken place before the 5th of April 1820.” This grant is in no other way remarkable than as having afforded the first opportunity of introducing a discussion which was destined to engross almost the whole attention of parliament during that year. The opposition, understanding that in this sum of two hundred thousand the queen’s allowance was included, made a stand to have an express provision made for her. The resolutions were, however, agreed to without any alteration in their form. When carried to the House of Lords, they experienced some further opposition from Lord Lauderdale, on the plea that the power which had been assumed by the House of Commons, of appropriating the supplies and authorizing the payment of pensions otherwise than by the constitutional method of passing the appropriation bill, was an infringement on their lordships’ privileges. This difficulty was met by Lord Liverpool, who moved an amendment, “that this house, from the state of public business, acquiesce in the resolutions of the Commons, although no act may be passed to give them effect.” These necessary arrangements having been completed, parliament was dissolved in the usual form on the 29th of February, and a new one summoned to meet on the 23d of April.

In the mean time government was beginning to learn by experience the effects of attempting to repress by arbitrary enactments the public expression of popular feeling, in the growth of those dark and sanguinary plots which are ever the consequence of violent attempts to stifle complaint. Arthur Thistlewood, a man of respectable connections, and originally of some property, but who, by r his own profligate habits, had been reduced to a state of abject poverty, entered into a conspiracy, with a few others of like desperate fortunes, to overturn the government. Thistlewood’s plan was to seize the opportunity of the late king’s funeral, when it was expected that all the military would be engaged at Windsor, to make themselves masters of London, and plunder the shops. Having, by the license they held out, attracted a sufficient [7:5:549] force of the needy and discontented to rally round them, he proposed to establish a provisional government, and send to the sea-ports, to prevent all gentlemen from leaving England without passports. The more sanguinary brutality of his uneducated companions in part overruled him. It was resolved to assassinate the ministers, when assembled at a cabinet dinner at Lord Harrowby’s. While one party effected the massacre, others were to seize the two pieces of cannon in Gray’s-inn Lane, and the six pieces in the artillery ground. Emissaries at Hyde Park were to intercept any messenger dispatched to Windsor. A body . of conspirators were to cross the Thames and take the telegraph, to prevent any communication with Woolwich. The Mansion House was fixed upon as the seat of the provisional government. A few disbanded soldiers had been induced to join in the plot; a motley assortment of arms had been provided; and proclamations were written out in the name of the provisional government, for the purpose of being stuck up on the walls.

The conspirators were as deficient in caution as their plot was in any reasonable likelihood of success. They were surprised in the garret or hay-loft in Cato Street where their meetings were held, on the evening of the 23d of February, the same on which the massacre of the ministers was to have been perpetrated. After a desperate resistance, in which one police-officer was killed, and several severely wounded, the greater part of the band were apprehended. Thistlewood and some others were not secured till next day. A few of the more cowardly turned king’s evidence, and the guilt of the conspirators was clearly established. Five of them, Thistlcwood the originator of the plot, Brunt his lieutenant, Ings, who was to have been secretary to the provisional government, Tidd, and Davidson, a man of colour, were ordered for execution, and suffered the penalty annexed to treason on the 29th of April.

The most diligent inquiries of government could not discover any ramifications of the plot. Every thing that has since transpired strengthens the belief that these desperadoes stood alone. Thistlewood had, a short time before his arrestment, made a tour through the manufacturing districts of England and Scotland. There can be no doubt that he had endeavoured to engage the radical party in some undertaking equally violent with that for which he suffered, but more extensive. About the close of 1819, or early in 1820,’a messenger was dispatched to Thistlewood from Leeds, to assure him that he need look for no assistance from the country in his attempt. The opinion of his want of success in the attempt to stir up the working classes to co-operate with him, is further corroborated by the coarse manner in which he affirmed to one of his associates, that “no one who was worth ten pounds was worth any thing for the good of this country.”

Still, although even the discontented portion of the community turned with disgust from projects of assassination, there was much in the disposition of the lower orders to afford grounds for apprehension to the ministers under whose auspices Castlereagh’s acts had been introduced and passed into a law. Throughout the manufacturing districts the working classes were associated in unions. The writer of this sketch remembers in the autumn of the preceding year to have accidentally overheard a discussion held by a pretty numerous body of weavers in the neighbourhood of Glasgow. The prevailing sentiment seemed to be, that the interests of the rich were diametrically opposed to those of the poor; and the conviction was pretty generally expressed, that a time was near at hand when the relative positions of the parties would be nverted. In this state of affairs spies were liberally dispersed through the disaffected districts; and these men, whether with or without the encouragement of ministers, endeavoured to break the force of public discontent by' encouraging partial explosions. In the course of the month of March, inconsiderable bodies of the people rose in arms in Lanarkshire and Yorkshire. These demonstrations, by alarming the holders of property, attached them more firmly to government. The punishment of the insurgents cast a damp over the spirits of the disaffected; and, to strengthen the impression, the most severe measure authorized by the 4atc laws was likewise awarded to every man who expressed in strong language his disapprobation of the policy of ministers.

The events to which we have hitherto adverted served either to indicate the strength of the ministry or to increase it. The elections to the new parliament left them much in the same position in which they were at the dissolution of the old. But a discussion was impending over them, which threatened to task their powers to the utmost. The dispute between the Prince and Princess of Wales was a matter of very secondary importance compared with that between the king and queen of England. The hatred which George IV. entertained for his consort was invincible. He had relinquished his early principles and most intimate friends, rather than struggle with a party which he found firmly established in power; he had conformed to the system of policy they had adopted, without suggesting one modification; he was contented that the course of national exertions should be controlled and guided by other minds; but his passive disposition left him the moment the question was urged of conceding even the external resemblance of respect to the queen. Her name was omitted in the liturgy; the utmost anxiety was displayed to avoid, if possible, making any parliamentary provision for her as queen; the common civility of announcing to her the death of her father-in-law, who was moreover her blood relation, was not observed; and she was given to understand, that if she attempted to return to England, she would be instantly visited with a bill of pains and penalties. But her majesty stood upon her rights; and after several ineffectual negociations on the part of those friends of the royal disputants, who feared the consequences of a public agitation of the question at issue between them, she landed at Dover in the month of June. Her journey to London was a triumphant progress; and her reception there by the populace most enthusiastic.

On the 6th of June, the Earl of Liverpool in the Peers, and Lord Castlereagh in the Commons, presented a message from the king, recommending to the immediate attention of these bodies “certain papers respecting the conduct of her majesty since her departure from the country.” The Lords, after slight discussion, referred the communication to a secret committee. The same course was adopted by the Commons, but after a more violent debate. Her majesty’s friends had in that house touched upon the subject even before the dissolution of the old’ parliament. Lord Archibald Hamilton had complained of the unconstitutional dictation to the church of Scotland on the point of praying for the queen. The resolutions by which a temporary supply was voted to the king had not been allowed to pass without the question being asked, in what manner the interests of the queen were to be secured. Now the storm burst in its full strength on the heads of ministers. Not a few members declared, that without examining witnesses, they were convinced of her majesty’s innocence by the line of conduct which the government had pursued.

The guilt or innocence of Queen Caroline is a question of very subordinate importance in an outline like the present. It deserves attention merely because of the influence it exerted upon the public mind, and its effects upon the subsequent course of events. Now that the excitement of [7:5:550]the contest has subsided, few, we believe, would assert her • innocence; but if ever suspicious conduct was susceptible of an apology, it was in her case. Viewed as a private individual, the king had no right to complain of her behaviour. The allegation that the honour of the country was at stake, was a transparent disguise, through which his obstinate indulgence of a private pique, at the hazard of national tranquillity, was clearly discernible; while the ministers, who were servile enough to pander to this royal self-will, disgraced themselves for ever; and that this was the feeling of the wealthy, as it was of the poorer classes, is evident from the narrow majorities which an administration so strong on every other question commanded in behalf of their bill against the queen.

A brief sketch of the proceedings in the House of Lords will suffice to show the character of the prosecution. On the 5th of July Lord Liverpool presented* a bill of pains and penalties against the queen. Her petition to be heard by counsel was presented the same evening, and refused. On the 6th her majesty again petitioned the house, requesting, that if their Lordships were resolved to refuse her a hearing at that stage, and likewise to refuse a list of the witnesses to be adduced against her, they would at Ieast allow her counsel to state at their bar the nature of her claims. This request was in so far complied with, that Messrs Brougham and Denman were heard relative to the mode and manner of the proceedings to be had upon the bill, and the time when these proceedings should take place. Their arguments were ineffectual. A list of witnesses was refused. The bill was ordered to be read a second time, and evidence to be led during its second reading. The proceedings commenced on the 17th of August, and were continued, with scarcely any intermission, till the 4th of November. On that day the Lords resolved that the bill should be read a second time, by a majority of twenty-eight, in a house of two hundred and eighteen. The divorce clause was warmly attacked in the committee, but finally retained by a majority of sixty-seven in a house of a hundred and ninety-one. When their Lordships came to divide upon the question of the third reading, it was still carried in the affirmative, a hundred and eight voting for, and ninety-nine against it. Lord Liverpool immediately announced, that, looking to the narrow majority and the temper of the country, he had come to the determination not to proceed further with the measure. He accordingly moved that the bill do pass that day six months.

During the trial repeated attempts had been made by the House of Commons to put a stop to the proceedings. Ministers, unable to parry the reiterated and vehement attacks directed against them, had recourse to repeated adjournments. No sooner had the bill been thrown out than the House of Lords adjourned to the 23d of November, to which day the House of Commons at that time also stood adjourned. There was a call of the house for that day, and Mr Brougham having communicated to the speaker that a message would be sent down from the queen, suggested at the same time his taking the chair at one o’clock, in order that there might be an opportunity of receiving the message before the meeting of the Lords. At one o’clock about a hundred members, chiefly of the opposition party, were present, but the speaker did not appear. He was understood to be closeted with Lord Castlereagh. At length he entered the house, and exactly at two the reading of prayers concluded. Mr Denman immediately rose and announced that he held in his hand amessage which the queen had commanded him to present to the house. Before he could proceed the deputy usher of the black rod entered. His appearance was the signal for uproar. “Mr Denman !” “Withdraw !” were vociferated from fifty throats.

The usher summoned the house to attend the lords commissioners in the House of Peers. Amid the surrounding clamour he was inaudible; nevertheless the speaker rose, and, accompanied by Lord Castlereagh and the chancellor of the exchequer, followed, amid cries of“Shame !” both from the opposition and ministerial members. The speaker on his return declared the house adjourned to the 23d of January.

Respecting the rank injustice of the proceedings against the queen there cannot now be two opinions. She was attacked by an anomalous procedure, which was neither trial nor bill of divorce. The pains and penalties inflicted by the bill were such as could not have been extended to any other English subject. The law of England guarded every other woman in the kingdom against such a measure. Again, by adopting the mode of procedure by bill, her prosecutors escaped the necessity of furnishing her with a list of witnesses, and thus crippled her defence. Lastly, by allowing the measure to drop after the third reading had been carried, the ministers clearly established that the personal degradation of the queen was all they sought for, and that the vindication of the national honour was a mere pretext. In what other instance was that iron administration known to pause out of respect to public opinion? The effect of the proceedings upon the power of the ministry was twofold. It distracted the attention of the country for a time, and men ceased to brood so incessantly over their distress; but, on the other hand, it swelled the ranks of opposition, and embittered its tone of feeling.

Amid these stormy discussions, in which the remotest districts keenly participated, the more vital interests of the country were comparatively neglected. Still the universal stagnation of business, and the consequent suffering of all classes, did not admit of their being entirely neglected. A petition from the merchants of London, presented by Mr Baring, elicited an animated and instructive discussion of the causes and remedies of mercantile distress, but without leading to any result. The subject was resumed on the 11th, when a petition was presented from Birmingham, but with as little effect. On the 16th Lord Stanhope called the attention of the Lords to the distress of the working classes, and moved for a committee “to inquire.into the best means of giving employment to the poor, especially in the manufacturing districts.” Lord Liverpool exposed in the most lucid manner the visionary nature of the schemes suggested by Lord Stanhope, and the motion was negatived without a division. The Marquis of Lansdown’s motion on the 26th, for a committee to inquire into the means of extending the foreign commerce of the country, which was agreed to, drew from Lord Liverpool an exposition of his views of commercia' policy. He insisted upon the necessity of adopting a comprehensive system, and adhering to it; remarked that the fewer laws there were, the better; disapproved of the views adopted by those who represented the interests of the farmer and the manufacturer as adverse; and, after propounding many excellent principles, and protesting against their practical application, came to the conclusion that there was no harm in inquiry, but great danger in action. On the motion of Mr Baring, a similar committee was appoint· ed by the Commons on the. 5th of June. The first report of Lord Lansdown’s committee was presented on the 3d of July. It was confined to an inquiry into the state of the timber trade, and an investigation of the means of its improvement. A motion made by Lord Milton the same evening in the House of Commons, for repealing the duty on the importation of foreign wool, was negatived without a division.

The distress was not confined to the manufacturers; for the table of the House of Commons groaned beneath a [7:5:551]load of agricultural petitions. Mr Holme Sumner moved, on the 30th of May, that they be referred to a select committee to examine and report on them. The interests of the country gentlemen were at stake, and, notwithstanding the earnest opposition of ministers, a majority of twenty-nine determined in favour of a committee. Mr Baring moved an adjournment of the house, in order that the committee might be appointed at a time when there was a full attendance. Mr Robinson (president of the board of trade) proposed next evening, with a view to neutralize the effect of Mr Sumner’s motion, that the labours of the committee should be restricted to devising means for the prevention of frauds in striking the averages under the corn laws of 1815. This motion was carried by a majority of a hundred and twenty-three. When Mr H. Sumner presented the report of the committee on the 8th of July, he complained of the narrow limits within which the inquiries of the committee had been restricted, and expressed his conviction, that unless much more was done for the agricultural interest, the difficulties under which it laboured must ultimately prove overwhelming. Mr Western added, that the committee had recommended a new mode of taking the averages, but that it was one which would rather facilitate than retard the opening of the ports.

The only other important discussions in parliament during this agitated year regarded parliamentary and financial reform, and the education of the poor. To the first-mentioned head belongs the fate of a bill passed by the Commons for suspending the issue of writs to four boroughs convicted of corrupt practices, and which was allowed to fall to the ground in the Lords, not having reached a second reading at the time when parliament was dissolved. Lord John Russell’s bill for the disfranchisement of Grampound was read the first and second time on the 9th and 17th of May. Lord Castlereagh and Mr Canning attacked with much inveteracy the clause which proposed to transfer the franchise to the town of Leeds, on the ground that this would be “to admit all that had been urged on the question of parliamentary reform.” On the 25th of May Lord Archibald Hamilton called the attention of the house to the absurd and unjust system by which, in Scotland, the right of voting had been detached from the possession of the soil. He intimated an intention of submitting a measure to restore the franchise to the real landowners, continuing their votes to all such as now possessed them. Under the head of finance we may class the attack made by Mr Brougham on the droits of admiralty. In an eloquent speech he demonstrated that the property claimed in that fund by the crown was unwarranted by the constitution; dangerous to the liberties of the subject, since parliament had no control over it; an inducement to the piratical commencement of hostilities, without a declaration of war; and burdensome in the highest degree. Mr Canning spoke at great length, but adduced only one argument. “The system of the civil list was more adapted to a monarchical constitution than that of the American government could be; and he would not be induced by any pecuniary temptation to the sovereign, to strip off trappings which were neither costly to the people nor dangerous to the constitution.” Sir James Mackintosh and other eminent members of the opposition argued on Mr Brougham’s side of the question at great length; but the only other speaker of the ministerial party was the chancellor of the exchequer, who contented himself with pointing out some discrepancies of opinion among his antagonists. Mr Brougham’s motion was lost by a majority of a 1 hundred and eighteen.

We have now arrived at the last topic which we indicated as having in the course of the year 1820 occupied he attention of the House of Commons. On the 28th of June Mr Brougham moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better education of the poor in England and Wales. 1 He stated that there were, in the endowed and unendowed schools of England, means of educating six hundred and fifty-five thousand children; and that taking the whole children of the kingdom as one ninth or one tenth of the population, this provision would suffice for no more than one fourteenth or one fifteenth of their number. But from this six hundred and fifty-five thousand were to be deducted thirty-three thousand who were at dames’ schools, where they learnt next to nothing; a deduction which would reduce the number educated to one sixteenth. Previous to the establishment of schools under the Bell and Lancaster system, it was only one twentieth. There were three thousand five hundred parishes in England without schools. The proportion educated varied in the different counties from one forty-sixth to one eighth. It was found that crime kept pace with the want of education. Mr Brougham’s bill embraced four objects;—the foundation of schools; the appointment and removal of masters; the admission of scholars; and the improvement of the old education endowments. According to the ratio of schools in the county of Devon, the total outfit would be eight hundred and fifty thousand pounds; according to that of Cumberland, only four hundred thousand pounds. The annual expense might average a hundred thousand pounds. The motion having been agreed to, Mr Brougham brought in his bill on the 8th of July.

During the closing months of the year the queen continued the great object of attention, and the press laboured incessantly to keep up the excitement. The Whigs and reformers, encouraged by the popular feeling which was thus excited against ministers, again put themselves in motion. Meetings were held in different parts of the country, at which strong resolutions were adopted respecting the necessity of a reform in parliament. In this temper of the country the legislative session of 1821 commenced on the 23d of January.

The opening speech from the throne was eminently vague and unsatisfactory. The only allusion to the revolutions in Spain, Portugal, and Naples, consisted of an assurance that the country continued at peace with foreign powers, and an expressed determination, should the events in Italy lead to hostilities, to preserve this country from participation in them. The truth was, that Lord Castlereagh had committed himself with the allied sovereigns more than the spirit of the country could tolerate; and the only course left open for ministers was, to profess a strict neutrality, even between opposing principles. About the opening of the session a circular dispatch to his majesty’s ministers at different courts, disavowing, on the part of Great Britain, any participation in the plans of the allies, dated the 19th of January 1821, was communicated to both houses. This document was by no means satisfactory to the opposition. Lord Grey moved, on the 19th of February, for the production of all the communications between the British government and that of Naples relative to the late occurrences in that kingdom. The noble earl maintained that “England, by assuming the tone of neutrality at the moment she did, gave her tacit approbation to the conductor Austria.” The ministers asserted the right of an independent nation to regulate its own government, but admitted the case of Naples to be an exception. The Earl of Liverpool affirmed, that the document already submitted to the house afforded sufficient evidence of the good faith of government towards Naples; and the motion was ultimately negatived without a division. Lord Ġrey’s motion was followed up by one on the part^of Lord Lansdown on the 2d of March. His lordship proposed to thank the king for laying before the house copies of the dispatch to [7:5:552]his majesty’s ministers at foreign courts; to express the satisfaction felt by the house at his majesty’s refusing to participate in the designs of the allied sovereigns; and to intimate its earnest hope that his majesty would exert his influence with the allied powers to prevent or repair the consequences of measures which might eventually disturb the tranquillity of Europe, and which threatened the independence of sovereigns and the security of nations. Lord Liverpool condemned the principles of the allies; but maintained that England had no right to prescribe a rule of conduct to Austria, and that it was .unwise to remonstrate when we were not prepared to enforce our suggestions by arms. The result of the debate was a majority of forty-seven in favour of ministers. A like series of hostile attacks were made almost simultaneously upon ministers in the House of Commons. The motion of Sir James Mackintosh for the papers called for by Lord,Grcy was made and negatived on the 21st of February. The only novelty in the ministerial defence was Lord Castlereagh’s assertion, that the declaration emitted by the allied sovereigns assembled at Troppau did not contain their final determination. The event has not borne his lordship out in this assertion. The motion was negatived by a considerable majority. The pretext laid hold of for resuming the discussion in the Commons differed from that of Lord Lansdown. Sir Robert Wilson moved, on the 20th of March, for the production of a letter from the English ambassador Sir William A’Court to the Neapolitan minister for foreign affairs, in which it was declared that England intended to remain neutral, unless interference “should be rendered indispensable by any personal insults or danger to which the royal family may be exposed.” Sir Robert maintained that the right claimed to interfere if the royal family of Naples were exposed to personal insult or danger, was incompatible with the rights of independent nations. Ministers contended that the interpretation of Sir William A’Court’s letter was strained and unjust. The motion was subsequently withdraw n. Flere the matter rested till after the breaking up of the congress of Laybach. The final declaration of its members, that “useful or necessary changes in legislation, and in the administration of states, ought only to emanate from the free will, the intelligent and well-weighed conviction of those whom God hath rendered responsible for power,”—and that they regarded “as legally null, and as disavowed by the principles which constitute the public right of Europe, all pretended reforms operated by revolt and open hostility,”— was regarded by the whole English nation as directly condemnatory of its constitution, and subversive of the independence of all nations. Mr Hutchinson attacked ministers on the 20th of June for their tame acquiescence in the monstrous doctrines promulgated by the despots of the Continent, and proposed an address to the throne, calling upon the king to assume an attitude of more determined opposition to the introduction of new principles into the laws of nations, which, if acted upon, “would not only prevent the establishment of all rational liberty, but tend to render perpetual despotisms of the worst kind.” The motion was negatived by a large majority, on the ground that the circular of the 19th of January sufficiently expressed the views entertained on these points by the English nation. A yet stronger indication of the feeling of the country on this point was given to ministers next day, when one of their most influential and strenuous supporters, Mr StuartWortley, in moving for copies of the declaration issued by the courts of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and of the circular dispatch published at Laybach on the 12th of May 1821, called upon the house to express strongly and markedly its disapprobation of the principles advanced in these documents. Lord Londonderry (Lord

Castlereagh had by this time succeeded, on the death of his father, to the paternal title) opposed to this motion· his never-failing answer, that it was unnecessary. “The declaration of the 19th of January had announced to the world Our dissent from the principles acted upon at Troppau and Laybach, and no good could result from engaging in a war of state papers.” Mr Wortlcy’s motion was accordingly negatived. The only other discussions respecting the foreign policy of Britain which occurred during the year 1821 were, an address from both houses of parliament to the throne on the state of the slave-trade, agreed to without the sanction of ministers, but likewise without any active opposition on their part; and Mr Hume’s motion for inquiry into the conduct of Sir Thomas Maitland, the lord high commissioner of the Ionian Islands, which was negatived.

The speech glanced at the internal affairs of the nation in a manner quite as unsatisfactory as that in which it treated foreign relations. Several branches of manufactures and commerce were said to have improved, and the amount of revenue to have increased, avowedly from new taxes. The speech concluded with an expression of confidence in the popular attachment to the king’s person and government, and an exhortation to preserve respect for established institutions. The opposition, still much inferior in numbers to the ministerial adherents, but strong in its reliance upon the popular feeling, and encouraged by the wavering allegiance of the country gentlemen, whose sufferings had led them to doubt the infallibility of the party to which they had hitherto adhered, made no hostile demonstrations upon the moving of the address, which, as usual, was a mere echo of the speech.· It scarcely allowed, however, a day to elapse before it commenced a series of attacks upon the whole system of ministerial policy. The session of 1821 was one of unintermitting hostilities directed against ministers in every department, the administration preserving in almost every instance the attitude of defence.

The first question started by the members of opposition was one of constitutional reform. With considerable tact they selected one, upon the merits of which the ministerial phalanx, nay the cabinet itself, was known to be divided in opinion, namely, that of Catholic emancipation. By this arrangement they secured a prospect of disturbing, in some measure, the harmony of their adversaries, and at the same time exposed themselves to less unanimous hostility in the opening of their campaign. Mr Plunkett moved, on the 28th of February, that the state of the laws affecting Roman Catholics be taken into consideration by a committee of the whole house. Mr Peel stood forward as the champion of the party opposed to concession, and the members of that party mustered in strength; but the motion was carried by a majority of six. On the 2d of March the house accordingly resolved itself into a committee for the purpose of taking into consideration the Catholic claims. Mr Plunkett was prepared to prosecute his advantage, and submitted six resolutions for the adoption of the house. Their purport was, that such parts of the oaths required to be taken by persons qualifying for the enjoyment of offices, franchises, and civil rights, as merely disclaimed a belief in the speculative religious opinions of the Roman Catholics, ought to be repealed; that the word “spiritual,” which occurred in the oaths of supremacy, should be declared to import merely “that the kings of this realm should govern all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain, with the civil sword, the stubborn and evil doer ;” that the act of repeal and explanation should be accompanied with such exceptions and regulations as might be found necessary for preserv∙
[7:5:553]

ing the Protestant succession to the crown, and maintaining inviolate the Protestant episcopal church of Ireland and the church of Scotland. The resolutions were agreed to pro forma, and leave given to bring in a bill founded on them. Mr Peel declared his determination to oppose the measure in all its stages. Mr Plunkett digested his scheme into two bills, the one containing the civil, the other the spiritual arrangements, which it was proposed to pass into a law. They were read a first time, without discussion, on the 7th of March. An attempt was made on the part of the opponents to concession, aided by some discontented members of the Catholic church, to represent the measure as odious to the class of the community whose enfranchisement it contemplated, but without success. Various amendments, calculated to defeat the object in view, were proposed by Messrs Bankes, Peel, and Goulburn, but successfully combated. Sir John Newport, when moving the commitment of the bills on the 26th of March, gave notice of his intention to move their consolidation; and on the 28th his motion was submitted and agreed to. The consolidated bill, notwithstanding the strenuous opposition which it encountered from the high church party within the house, and latterly from the Catholic clergy without, passed the Commons on the 2d of April by a majority of nineteen. It was accordingly carried to the House of Lords and read a first time without any debate, but ultimately thrown out on the 16th of April, upon the motion that it be read a second time, by a majority of thirty-nine.

The support given by the house to this effort for the relief of the Catholics, and the loud cry of the country for parliamentary reform, encouraged opposition to moot that question, upon which every rational hope of amelioration in church and state depended. Mr Lambton was first in the field. He submitted a plan of reform to the consideration of the House, the very evening that the Catholic relief bill was rejected by the Lords. The principal features of the measure which he contemplated were, the limitation of the duration of parliament to three years; the extension of the elective franchise to all persons possessing property, however small in value, which contributed to taxation; and the abolition of rotten boroughs. The attendance was thin and the debate languid, although adjourned on the first evening. It was resumed on the 17th, but abruptly terminated by a manoeuvre of the ministerial party. Mr Lambton and his friends were rather late of appearing, and their antagonists taking advantage of their absence, instead of prosecuting the discussion, called for the vote, and thus defeated the wish of the reformers to go into committee. Such a stratagem was more worthy of a knot of mischievous school-boys than of men deliberating upon the interests of the empire; yet the skilful employment of the result by the ministerial press succeeded for a considerable time in alienating the public confidence from MrLambton,and neutralising his utility in parliament. The opposition were disappointed by this result, but not defeated. Lord John Russell re-introduced the subject on the 9th of May, in a more indefinite shape; several members having declared, on the occasion of Mr Lambton’s motion, that they were ready to entertain the general question of reform, although they objected to the specific measure proposed. Lord John proposed for the adoption of the house four resolutions, declaratory of the corrupt state of the elective system; the necessity of extending the elective franchise to wealthy and populous places hitherto un- 'epresented; the propriety of appointing a select committee! io consider the best measure of effecting this innovation; I ιnd the expediency of referring to the same committee he consideration of the best mode of proceeding against uch boroughs as should in future be convicted of bribery and corruption. The first resolution was lost by a majority of thirty-one, in a house consisting of two hundred and seventy-nine members: the others were negatived without a division. The last attempt made during the session for the attainment of a general reform, was Mr H. G. Bennet’s motion for leave to bring in a bill for the better securing of the independence of parliament. His plan was to continue to the great officers of government their seats in the house, but to exclude clerks and underlings. Of fifty-one persons holding scats in the house at the pleasure of government he proposed to exclude twenty-nine. This motion was negatived like the rest. On the ĪOth of May, Lord Archibald Hamilton made an attempt to induce the house to pledge itself that it would next session take into consideration the state of representation in the counties of Scotland, but without success. -The only instance in which the cause of reform was at all successful during the lapse of this session, was the passing of the bill for the disfranchisement of Grampound. Even this slender victory was incomplete .in itself. The bill, as agreed to by the Commons, transferred the franchise which Grampound was declared to have forfeited to Leeds, vesting the electoral qualification in all the inhabitants renting houses at L.20 yearly. Lord Liverpool moved in the House of Lords, that, instead of giving two representatives to Leeds, the whole county of York should in future be allowed the privilege of returning four. The amendment was agreed to; and the House of Commons decided that the measure, even in its mutilated state, was not to be rejected.

While these two great constitutional questions were thus keenly contested, Mr Hume kept up a continual fire upon the ministerial system of finance. He opened his battery with the first introduction of the estimates. When the army estimates were introduced, he directed the attention of the house to the enormous augmentation of the numbers of the army on the peace establishment which had taken, place since 1792, and the corresponding increase of expenditure; and proposed that the resolution recommended by the finance committee of 1817 of approximating the military establishment as near as possible to that of 1792, should be adopted. The motion was negatived. Nothing daunted by defeat, Mr Hume returned to the attack on the production of the navy estimates. His motion was similar to that which he had brought forward in regard to the army; and, resting upon the same principles, it was not pressed to a division. A motion by the same gentleman, on the production of the ordnance estimates, in which he urged, in addition to a statement similar to those made on the former occasions, a transgression by this department of the orders of the house, was equally unfortunate. In his resolutions respecting a possible saving in the collection of the land and assessed taxes, he was more successful. The ministers did not dare to meet him, as they had the year before, with a direct negative; but suggested a reference to a committee, in which Mr Hume acquiesced. The chancellor of the exchequer brought forward the budget on the 1st of June. The amount of supply he estimated at L.20,018,200; of ways and means at L.20,031,569. He sought to make it appear that a reduction of ten millions had been effected on the national expenditure since 1820. Mr Hume was again at his post, and recapitulated, with new illustrations and calculations, the arguments he had already adduced in opposition to each particular estimate. He concluded by moving an address to the king, requesting that his majesty would be pleased to direct a minute investigation into the expense of the management and collection of the revenue; a careful revision and adjustment of all salaries and allowances; and the exercise of a vigilant superintendence over the expenditure of the country, [7:5:554]especially in everything connected with the military establishment. The ministry, in order to avoid the disagreeable necessity of adopting a suggestion from Mr Hume, moved an amendment, differing from the original motion in nothing but its more courtly tone, and its vagueness of expression. A resolution similar to Mr Hume’s was submitted to the Peers by Lord Darnley on the 2d of July, and evaded in the same manner. During the time that this extended plan of financial reform continued to be pressed upon a reluctant ministry, the country gentlemen were busy striving to shift as large a proportion of the national burdens off their own shoulders as possible. Mr . Western attempted to introduce a bill for repealing the additional duties imposed on malt in 1819; and Mr Curwen succeeded in obtaining a repeal of the tax imposed on horses employed in agriculture.

All attempts to shake the attachment-of the majorities in both houses to the ministry, or give such a voice to the nation as might deprive its supporters of their seats, having failed, the ameliorations in our legal institutions so warmly desired by all friends ofhumanity and justice made but slow progress. Their bigoted adversaries still maintained an ascendency in the cabinet. Sir James Mackintosh brought forward three bills ;—for abrogating capital punishment in certain cases of forgery, and in cases of stealing in dwelling-houses, and on navigable rivers. The first, after having been thrice read in the Commons, was thrown out, in consequence of a manoeuvre of Lord Londonderry on the question that it do pass. The second and third were carried through the lower house, but thrown out in the Lords. Another attempt to humanize the criminal code was made by Mr Martin of Galway, who introduced a bill for allowing the benefit of counsel to persons accused of felony; but - on the second reading it was negatived without a division. Mr Kennedy directed the attention of the house to the faulty mode of constituting juries in Scotland; but the hostility of government and the Scottish law officers to any improvement was so marked, that he forbore to press his measure for remedying the defect. Sir John Newport submitted a series of resolutions to the House of Commons, complaining of the dilatory proceedings of the commission appointed in 1815 to inquire into the state of the English courts of justice. The resolutions were negatived, the ministers taking upon themselves the defence of their nominees. Although the party in power thus strenuously opposed in parliament every modification of the laws, their adherents out of doors hesitated not to appoint officers not recognised by the constitution, to watch over the strenuous enforcement of the law of libel. An association was formed in London on the 12th of December 1820 for the purpose of suppressing seditious publications; and bills of indictment were preferred by the law agent of this body against several booksellers. Mr Brougham took an opportunity of directing the attention of the house to its proceedings; insisting strongly on the dangerous character of men associated to prosecute individuals selected at the discretion of political prejudice. He contended, likewise, that such a union had a tendency to destroy the impartiality of juries. The subject was again brought before the house by Mr S. Whitbread. No conclusion was come to; but the society, after being thus held up to public reprobation, languished and died.

The attention of the house was this year again directed to the continued distress both of the agricultural and manufacturing population. The committee appointed in 1820 to investigate the mode of striking the corn averages, reported immediately upon the sitting of parliament. In consequence of the recommendation contained in the report, a bill was introduced on the 26th of February, by which considerable changes were effected in the then ex isting system. Their general object was clearly to calculate the averages so as to diminish them in apparent· amount; in other words, to raise the importation price. Not contented with this arrangement, the country gentlemen made another and successful attempt on the 7th of March, to obtain the appointment of a committee to take into consideration the petitions relative to the distress of the agricultural interest. The committee reported, on the 18th of June, that the agricultural suffering was mainly owing to the change in the currency; that it would decrease as contracts, and prices, and wages of labour, assimilated themselves to the new value of money; and that considerable progress had already been made towards this desirable consummation. All interference on the part of the legislature was deprecated. Mr Curwen suggested the imposition of a duty on the transfer of stock, and Mr Baring adverted to the expediency of allowing the bank to pay either in gold or silver; but neither of these gentlemen pressed the adoption of any measure. With a view to alleviate the depressed state of commerce and manufactures, committees were appointed by both houses to inquire into the regulations affecting our foreign trade, and how far benefit might accrue from modifying them. The Lords’ committee reported on the 11th of April, confining its attention to the advantages likely to be derived from an extension of the AsiaticΛrade. All the suggestions of the report were consequently in a great measure at the mercy of the East India Company. The report submitted to the Commons by their committee related to the intercourse with the Baltic, and was followed up by a resolution declaring the expediency of diminishing the preferences given to the colonial timber trade over that from the north of Europe, allowing that of Russia and Prussia superior advantages over the timber of Norway. This paltry advance in liberality was with difficulty carried into a law. A more important step, suggested by the committee, was the leave granted by the house to introduce bills for the amendment of the navigation laws; a measure which was allowed to stand over till next session.

While these important debates were agitating the legislature and the country, the monarch was engrossed with the childish pageantry of his coronation, and pleasure excursions to Ireland and Hanover. All three entailed a great expense upon the country, and not one of them was rendered conducive to any useful purpose. Devolving upon other shoulders the cares of state, George IV. would have led a life of unalloyed ease, but for that thorn in his side, the queen. Her safety once assured, and an allowance settled upon her by parliament, she naturally ceased to have any interest for the public, which had been led to espouse her cause from a conviction of the injustice with which she had been treated, not from any personal attachment, which her character was but ill qualified to inspire. She made one last desperate effort to regain her notoriety, which was rapidly subsiding at the time of the coronation; but failing in her attempt, she was seized with such chagrin that she soon afterwards died. Her death in some measure re-awakened the national sympathy; and an attempt on the part of the ministers to interfere with an expression of respect to her remains increased the unpopularity of the sovereign..

The aspect of affairs at the commencement of 1822 was stormy in the extreme. The distresses of the agriculturists continued unmitigated; and meetings of farmers and landholders, clamorous for assistance, were held in every county. One called for corn laws, another for the abolition of tithes, and another for a reduction of the national debt. Each thought his own remedy sufficient, and refused to listen to the suggestions of others. In Ireland matters were still worse. The distress there was even more [7:5:555]overwhelming than in England, owing to a redundant population, and the absence of any variety of employments. The pressure of tithes, ever odious to the Irish peasant, as a tax levied for the support of a heretical church, and of an unjustly apportioned local taxation, bore down the population, and embittered their spirit. Men’s minds were, moreover, even in times of prosperity, alienated by bitter theological feuds. The increasing strictness of the precautions taken by government against smuggling had driven many lawless men into the mountainous district in the northern baronies of the county of Cork, and in Kerry; and there, accordingly, the most extensive and seemingly organised devastations were perpetrated. The flame, it is true, broke out at intervals over the whole of Ireland, but in that district was its head-quarters.

Under these inauspicious circumstances parliament assembled on the 5th of February. In the House of Commons, the ministerial party, which had never quite recovered the secession of Mr Canning from office at the time of the queen’s trial, was strengthened by the appointment of Mr Peel to be home secretary. In both houses its numbers had been increased by an amalgamation with the Grenville party, some of whom accepted of office.

The theme most emphatically dwelt upon in the speech from the throne, and first submitted to the attention of parliament by ministers, was the state of Ireland. Lord Castlereagh and his coadjutors had only one remedy for the disturbances of that country—coercion. Two bills were immediately introduced into the Commons, and with the most indecent haste hurried both through that house and the Peers, receiving the royal assent on the 11th of February. The first contained a re-enactment of the insurrection act, empowering any two justices to cause an extraordinary session of the peace to be held, and the justices, when assembled in such session, to the number of seven in a county and three in a city, to signify to the lord-lieutenant their opinion that the county was in a state of disturbance, assigning at the same time their reasons, and praying him to proclaim it. The proclamation which the lord-lieutenant was empowered to issue warned the inhabitants of the disturbed district after a certain day to remain within their houses between sunset and sunrise. After that day any justice of peace, or any person authorized by his warrant, might enter into any house in the proclaimed district between one hour after sunset and sunrise, and give orders for the apprehension of such of the inhabitants as were found absent. These, along with all persons found out of their abodes between the same hours, all persons having in their possession offensive arms, all persons not travellers or inmates found assembled after nine at night and before six in the morning, in any house where malt and spirituous liquors were sold, and a multitude of others, were to be tried without a jury, by a court of special sessions, to be held within seven days from the date of the proclamation, and prolonged by adjournments as long as the district continued proclaimed. Dispersing seditious papers was declared punishable by twelve months’ imprisonment, and all other offences specified in the act, by transportation for seven years. This strong measure was enforced by the second bill, which suspended the ι habeas corpus act. The operation of both acts was limited to the first of August following. The opposition arrayed against these enactments was vehement, but not numerous. The more timid Whigs palliated their acquiescence by their confidence in the character of Lord’Wellesley, who was then lord-lieutenant. Two other measures were shortly after introduced, and carried through parliament by the 11th of March. The first was an act to indemnify all persons who, since the first of November preceding, had, with a view to the preservation of peace, but without legal authority, seized arms or gunpowder; the second imposed severe restrictions on the’ importation of arms and ammunition into Ireland, on the manufacturing of these articles in the country, and also on the removal of them from one place to another. The bills passed through both houses without observation.

The additional powers conferred by these acts were vigorously exercised by the Irish government. Every district in which an act of violence occurred was immediately proclaimed. The whole country was patrolled by large bodies of military and police. Special sessions were held for the purpose of putting the laws into immediate execution. At Cork alone there was a calendar of three hundred and sixty-six offenders, of whom thirty-five received sentence of death. The regular assizes soon followed, at which similar scenes were repeated. The most worthless testimony was lightly credited by terrified jurors. But all this vigilance, although it succeeded in rendering resistance to the constituted authorities less daring and systematic, failed to give peace to Ireland. The country continued in a state of feverish insecurity, and violence extended its sphere of action. As the spring advanced, however, and the nights shortened, outrages diminished in number; and a famine which ensued, accompanied in many places by a virulent typhus fever, the result of bad and insufficient diet, effectually tamed the spirit of insubordination. The humanity of England was awakened, and great exertions were made to relieve the sufferers, but not until their misery had almost exceeded what human nature, if untried, could be conceived capable of enduring.

On the 8th of July a bill was introduced by Mr Goulburn, prolonging the duration of the insurrection act, and the suspension of the habeas corpus, till the 1st of August 1823. A feeble opposition was offered to it. Only seventeen voted against the principle of the measure in the Commons, whilst in the House of Lords it was suffered to pass almost without remark. A more permanent measure of coercion was introduced at the same time. By the constabulary act, the lord-lieutenant was empowered to appoint, by warrant under his own hand, a chief constable for every barony, or division of a barony; and to require by his proclamation the county magistrates to appoint constables and sub-constables at the rate of sixteen to a barony. If the magistrates did not obey the proclamation within fourteen days, the lord-lieutenant was to appoint the constables himself. The chief constable was to have a house provided for him, and a salary not exceeding L.100 per annum; the salaries of the others were not to exceed L.35 a year. The lord-lieutenant was likewise authorized to nominate superintendents or inspectors of the chief constables and constables, with salaries of L.500 a year. By a clause of this act, his lordship was authorized, upon application from seven or more justices, to appoint a resident magistrate for any district, possessing all the powers of a justice of the peace, bound not to leave his district except in the prosecution of his official duty, and obliged to make monthly returns of the state of the country within his jurisdiction. This official was to enjoy an annual salary not exceeding L.500, and a house and furniture not exceeding L.200. A keen opposition was offered to this enactment. It was alleged that it entailed an enormous expense on the country; that it was unconstitutional, and would prove ineffective. These arguments received additional weight from the quarter whence they came. Mr Charles Grant, a strenuous partizan of ministers, and who had governed Ireland for three years with great prudence and popularity, was the person who urged them with most energy. The utmost concession, however, that could be wrung from ministers was the omission of some of the most obnoxious details.
[7:5:556]

Notwithstanding all these rigorous enactments, the insurrectionary spirit began to show itself again as the winter came on. It was, however, kept within narrow limits, and the elamour of Orange partizanship effectually drowned its noise. A revision of the magistracy had been begun, and almost completed during Mr Grant’s secretaryship. The task was one of infinite labour, and its completion required both time and caution. The new list was completed by the end of 1820, and the commissions issued. The change proved great. In seven counties alone no fewer than two hundred noblemen and gentlemen had writs of supersedeas directed to them. The whole fury of these parties was directed against Lord Wellesley. On the 4th of November his lordship yet further offended the zealots of the Protestant ascendency, by his prevention of the annual insult offered to their Catholic countrymen. The press teemed with libels-against his person and government; and when he appeared in the theatre on the 14th of December, he was received with every expression of dislike, and some manifestations of violence.

Amid the anxious discussions on these local disturbances and their remedies, which engrossed the legislature, the important question of a general reform of the representative system continued to be forced upon its attention. Petitions on that subject were presented from most of the large towns and important counties of the empire. On the 29th of April, accordingly, Lord John Russell moved in the Commons, “that the present state of the representation of the people in parliament required the most serious consideration of the house.” His lordship did not propose any specific plan, but indicated one or two which might be worthy the attention of the house. Mr Canning took upon himself the burden of opposing the motion, and, referring to his approaching departure for India, concluded in these words a tissue of splendid declamation. “That the noble lord will carry his motion this evening, I have no fear; but with the talents he has shown himself to possess, and with, I sineerely hope, a long and brilliant career of parliamentary distinction before him, he will no doubt renew his efforts hereafter. Although I presume not to expect that he will give any weight to observations or warnings of mine, yet on this, probably the last opportunity which I shall have of raising my voice on the question of parliamentary reform, while I conjure the house to pause before it consents to adopt the proposition of the noble lord, I cannot help conjuring the noble lord himself to pause before he again presses it upon the country. If, however, he shall persevere, and if his perseverance shall be successful, and if the results of that success shall be such as I cannot help apprehending, his be the triumph to have precipitated these results, be mine the consolation, that to the utmost and latest of my power I have opposed them.” Mr Canning seems to have had a prophetic consciousness of the approaching dissolution of that system to which he had yoked himself; a consciousness justified by the division. Only a hundred and sixty-four voted for Lord John’s motion, and two hundred and sixty-nine against it; but the ranks of the minority were swelled by the heirs of the noblest families in Britain, whose talents and energy promised an immense accession of force on every future occasion. This attack was followed up on the 24th of June by another, in the form of a resolution, proposed by Mr Brougham, “that the influence of the crown is unnecessary to the maintenance of its due prerogatives, destructive of the independence of parliament, and inconsistent with the good government of the state.” The mover intimated, on the conclusion of his speech, that he considered his resolution, if adopted by the house, as nothing less than a pledge to parliamentary reform. A languid debate ensued, which terminated in a negative being put upon the motion by a large majority. The party attached to parliamentary reform in Scotland received this year an accession in consequence of the contemptuous indifference with which Lord Archibald Hamilton’s measure for removing the abuses which had crept into the administration of royal burghs was refused a hearing.

The only attempt made this year in favour of the Catholics was Mr Canning’s bill for the admission of Catholic peers to the right of sitting and voting in the House of Lords. The idea of this measure was exactly suited to the calibre of Mr Canning’s mind, showy and unsubstantial. The bill passed the Commons, but was of course rejected by the Lords.

The most serious opposition against which ministers were this year called to contend, was in the matter of finance. Mr Hume renewed his detailed attacks upon every item of the estimates and budget, and, although he failed in effecting any immediate change, kept alive the public attention, and rendered government more cautious and attentive. In other efforts Mr Hume and his coadjutors were yet more successful. Ministers announced, as the whole amount of their projected alleviation of national burdens, the repeal of the malt tax, which produced nearly a million and a half per annum. With a view to force them to do what they refused to undertake spontaneously, Mr Calcraft on the 28th of February brought forward a motion for the progressive repeal of the salt tax, by taking off one third of the duty in each of the three succeeding years. The motion was lost by a majority of only four in favour of ministers. Next day they received a still more effectual lesson. In a discussion of the expenses of the admiralty office, Sir Μ. W. Ridley moved a reduction of two thousand pounds in the vote, the amount of the salaries enjoyed by the two junior lords of the admiralty. These two useless offices were consequently abolished by the votes both of Lords and Commons, although ministers continued to defend them vehemently to the last. A similar defeat was sustained by government on the 2d of May, when, in despite of every exertion, an address to the king was carried, praying him to abolish the office of one of the postmasters-general. In its other attempts to enforce retrenchment the opposition was unsuccessful; yet so well had its partial success worked upon the apprehension of ministers, that the amount of taxes repealed during the course of the session, notwithstanding their original declaration, may be estimated thus :—
[table]

But the severest wound received by the financial reputation of ministers was inflicted by the hands of the chancellor of the exchequer. Mr Vansittart undertook two great financial operations; the one with a view to diminish permanently the charge of the public debt, the other to diminish part of the annual expense of government. The first was the reduction of the navy five per cents. to four per cent. Some objections were stated to the manner in which this object was proposed to be attained; but the advantage was too apparent, and Mr Vansittart’s plan obtained the assent of parliament. His other scheme, however, proved a singular failure. The amount of naval and military pensions was about five millions annually. The chancellor of the exchequer proposed to provide for this branch of public expenditure by granting to certain contractors a fixed annuity for forty-five years; in return for [7:5:557]which they were to pay into the public treasury such a sum in each of the forty-five years as should upon calculation be sufficient to pay the pensions that should then be in existence. The scheme was, in other words, to contract now for annual loans to be advanced to government in each of the next fifteen years, and to be repaid by a gradually increasing annuity, to commence at the end of fifteen years, and continue for thirty years from that time. This new mode of loan was improvident and grossly unjust, as tending to throw the whole load of the burden on posterity. It was attacked by Mr Ricardo and Mr Brougham with the most biting sarcasm, but nevertheless most pertinaciously forced, with the whole strength of the ministerial phalanx, through both houses. A fate awaited it, however, compared with which Mr Brougham’s withering sneer was gross flattery: not one capitalist could be found to engage in the contract. The prudence of the monied men saved the minister from the effects of his own imbecility. He again submitted his scheme to the House of Commons in a form so modified, that the only objection to which it was liable was its intricacy and confusion. This, however, was considered necessary to the honour of the financier.

The continued distress of the agricultural interest occupied the attention of parliament to a yet greater extent than in the preceding year. At the commencement of the session Mr Brougham submitted a resolution to the House of Commons, declaratory of the necessity of affording relief to the agriculturists by the removal of taxes. The motion was negatived, upon the declaration of Lord Londonderry that ministers had a plan of their own to propose. This plan his lordship developed on the 15th of February, when moving for the production of some financial documents. The remedies which it contemplated were the repeal of the malt-tax, already noticed, and a loan to the agricultural interest by means of exchequer bills. In order to clear the way for an exposition of this measure, the marquis moved, on the 18th of February, for the renewal of the agricultural committee. This body laid its report before the house on the lst of April, and the same day three different schemes were submitted for the relief and protection of farmers and landlords. Lord Londonderry proposed a loan of a million to the agriculturists by means of exchequer bills, under certain circumstances; the opening of the ports to the importation of foreign grain whenever the average price of British corn exceeded a specified sum; and the subjection of the foreign grain thus admitted to certain duties. Mr Ricardo proposed no loan, but the opening of the ports, when British corn reached a specified price, to foreign grain, subjected to certain duties, and a bounty or drawback on the exportation of corn to foreign countries. Mr Huskisson’s resolutions contained a narrative of the state of the British agriculturist, from which the proper method of coming to his assistance was logically deduced. His plan was a gradual repeal of the prohibitory corn laws, and the establishment of a permanently free trade in foreign grain, subject to the imposition of moderate duties. Lord Londonderry subsequently withdrew his proposal to extend a loan to the agriculturists. Mr Ricardo withdrew his resolutions, two of them, having reference to the scale of duties upon imported grain, and the drawback upon such as should be exported, having been adopted by Mr Huskisson. The final discussion in the Commons took place on the 7th of May. Sir Thomas Lethbridge proposed a series of protecting duties, including almost every species of agricultural produce, down to apples and pears, which received a very feeble support from a small minority. The conjoined resolutions of Mr Huskisson and Mr Ricardo were likewise negatived. Lord Londonderry’s resolutions were agreed to; and a bill founded upon them passed into a law, against which Lords Lauderdale and Erskine entered a protest.

The commercial interest likewise attracted a considerable portion of the attention of the legislature, although, as there was on this point less difference of opinion, the debates were less noisy. The mania for speculating in foreign funds, which had begun to show itself so early as 1817, reached its height, and experienced its first check, this year. The Colombian bonds received the first shock. The depression of Spanish stock followed. A series of panics convulsed every money market in Europe. The price of all foreign stocks fell rapidly, and thousands were ruined or impoverished by the change. Nevertheless it appeared, by returns from the manufacturing districts, procured by the secretary for the home department, and laid upon the table of the House of Commons, that the rate of profits, although low, was sufficient to induce persons to enter into trade; and that in most places the operatives were fully employed. The plans announced by Mr Wallace in the preceding session of parliament, for benefiting the commerce of the country, were this year carried into effect by means of five acts. The first repealed all the acts affecting navigation and commerce passed by British parliaments previous to the enaetment of the navigation laws under Charles II. The second repealed the third clause of the navigation law, which enacted, that no goods of the growth, product, or manufacture of Asia, Africa, or America, shall be imported into England, but in such ships as do truly belong to English people, and are navigated by a master and three parts English mariners; the fourth, which enacts that no goods or commodities of foreign growth, production, or manufacture, which shall be brought into England otherwise than in ships built and navigated as above, shall be shipped from any other place but the place of their growth, production, or manufacture, or from those parts where they can only be or usually have been brought; the eighth, which relates to the importation of goods from Turkey and from Russia; the twelfth and fourteenth, which relate to the importation of goods from the Levant, from Spain, and Portugal, and their dependencies; and all acts from the time of Charles II. downwards, which stood in the way of the provisions contained in the third act. This statute established the principle of the old navigation laws, but with important modifications. Foreign ships were allowed to bring enumerated goods from any port in Europe, provided the ship belonged to the port in question. The ships of Holland, so long the objects of a pitiful jealousy, were allowed the same privileges with those of the rest of Europe. Goods of any country or place in South America or the West Indies, belonging to, or which had belonged to Spain, might be imported direct from the place of growth, in ships of the country. No importation was permitted from any port where British ships were not admitted. The fourth act regulated the trade between the British possessions in America and the West Indies, and other places in America and the West Indies; and the fifth between the same colonies and the rest of the world. The object of the two last-mentioned laws was to benefit the West India planter. An attempt was also made by government to induce the East India Company to permit ships measuring less than three hundred and fifty tons to participate in the private trade to India. But the Company stood upon its charter, and refused to comply unless the full rights of British registry were extended to India built ships, and East India sugars for home consumption admitted on equal terms with those from the West India colonies. Mr Hume drew the attention of the Commons on several occasions to the exorbitant consular fees, which [7:5:558]operated as a heavy tax upon merchandise; and govern- • ment at last declared that the board of trade was framing a law to alleviate this evil.

The death of Lord Londonderry, which happened shortly after the prorogation of parliament, whilst the king was absent in Scotland, was eventually the cause of an essential change in the system pursued by the British government. Lord Liverpool entertained very liberal opinions in matters of commercial and international policy. His sentiments were in general shared by such members of the Grenville party and of Mr Canning’s friends as were in office. Mr Peel was a minister of comprehensive mind, extensive acquirements, and a disposition that could adapt itself to associates of any principles. The liberal inclinations of these men were completely neutralized by the bigoted ultra∙toryism of Eldon, Londonderry, and Wellington, with their retainers Bathurst, Westmoreland, Mary- ∙ borough, Sidmouth, and Vansittart. Of this clique, Londonderry, by his plausible manners, ready flow of language, and relentless pertinacity of purpose, was the animating spirit. After his death it offered to its more enlightened associates no resistance beyond that of mere vis inertiae. In opposition to its wishes, and in opposition to the king’s personal dislike, Lord Liverpool installed Mr Canning into the office left vacant by the death of the Marquis of Londonderry. The new foreign secretary was further strengthened in the commencement of 1823, by the resignation of Mr Vansittart, to whose financial reputation the last session of parliament had given the finishipg stroke, upon receiving a peerage and the sinecure chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster. He was succeeded as chancellor of the exchequer by Mr Frederick Robinson. Mr ITuskisson was at the same time appointed president of the board of trade; his seat in the cabinet he did not receive till a later period. A government of force had been found not to answer, and one of specious pretence was now to be tried.

The line of policy observed by government during the continuance of Mr Canning, Mr Robinson, and Mr Hus-kisson in office, was such as to conciliate the confidence of a large body of the people. It was indeed a material improvement upon that persisted in by Lord Londonderry and Mr Vansittart; and the nation, long unaccustomed to such a parade of liberality on the part of ministers, conceived an exaggerated idea of its excellence. To this circumstance, and to the more determined and better organized efforts of the Catholics of Ireland, which for some years shared, with questions of commercial arrangements and foreign policy, almost the exclusive attention of the public, we are to attribute the fact that, subsequent to the year 1823, the very name of parliamentary reform seemed for a time to have been forgotten. During the early part of the session of parliament in this year, the table of the House of Commons was loaded with petitions for reform. On the 24th of April Lord John Russell moved that the state of parliamentary representation required the most serious consideration of the house. The motion, however, was negatived. Lord Archibald Hamilton submitted a series of resolutions to the house on the 2d of June, descriptive of the state of county representation in Scotland, and containing a pledge of early redress. But these were negatived by a narrow majority. Nevertheless we hear no more in parliament for several years of reform, except in some futile attempts to obtain an amendment in the representation of Edinburgh.

The topic on which the discussions in parliament for the most part turned during the session of 1823 were the relations of continental Europe. Mr Canning’s system was to record a protest against the doctrines of the allied sovereigns, and to endeavour to prevent any attack upon

Spain on their part, but if possible to avoid war. A few days after Mr Canning’s acceptance of office, the Duke of< Wellington left London for Vienna. The topic of deliberation at the congress appointed to be held in that city was the existing state of affairs between Russia and the Porte. That question having been disposed of, the members of the congress, with the exception of the British minister, were to have adjourned to Verona, there to sit in judgment on the Italian peninsula. It was the wish of Mr Canning that the absence of the English minister from Verona should mark England’s refusal to interfere with the independence of the Italian states. The Duke of Wellington, however, being detained by indisposition, did not reach Vienna until a few days before the proposed adjournment, and the urgency of affairs rendered it advisable that he should follow the sovereigns to Verona. He had learned from a conversation with Μ. de Villèle al Paris, that it was the intention of the French ministers to call upon the congress to come to some decision on the relative positions of France and Spain. By Mr Canning’s instructions the Duke of Wellington opposed most vigorously any interference on the part of the allied sovereigns with the internal arrangements of Spain. This unexpected opposition checked them in their arbitrary projects; and the result was, that they abstained from a combined demonstration, resolving to assist France, in case of any aggression upon the part of Spain, of any outrage on the person of the king, or of any attempt to change the dynasty of that kingdom. With this resolution the congress separated, and Mr Canning’s negociations for preserving the peace of Europe and the principle of national independence were adjourned to Paris.

The British envoys in that capital were amused by different pretences, from the termination of the congress in November 1822 till the 7th of April 1823, when tire Duke d’Angouleme crossed the Bidassoa. According as timid or rash counsels prevailed, the French ministers expressed pacific or warlike intentions; but whatever their expressions might be, French gold and French intrigue were incessantly employed in stirring up factions in Spain. The reasons for declaring war, ultimately published by France, however frivolous, rested the justification of the matter upon a national quarrel alone, and thus precluded the interference of Britain. The popular feeling in England ran very high in favour of Spain; but the indifference manifested by the body of that nation towards the constitutional cause reconciled the country to the pacific policy of ministers.

The most embarrassing circumstance which attended these negociations was the necessity of a serious remonstrance with the Spanish ministry respecting certain aggressions perpetrated on British subjects in consequence of the disputes between Spain and her colonies. The constitutional government was as averse to the recognition of colonial independence as the old despotism. Britain had, however, acquired, during the Peninsular war, a right of commerce with the Spanish South American possessions, and this she was not inclined to relinquish; while British vessels had been captured by cruizers carrying Spanish colours, under the pretext that they had infringed a nominal blockade of the provinces in a state of insurrection. After various ineffectual representations, the British ministry assumed the right of redressing themselves, and sent notification of the fact to the Spanish court. It was a matter of great delicacy to press for the recognition of rights which that government could not fail to grant with reluctance, at a moment when England was the only barrier to which it could look against the encroachments of the holy alliance. The Spanish ministry, however, frankly admitted the justice of the procedure on [7:5:559]the part of England, and the intercourse between that country and Spanish America was allowed to remain upon the footing that had been established for years without any complaints on the part of the mother country. The success of the French army rendered it expedient to adopt yet more decided steps. In the month of July a number of respectable merchants connected with South America applied to the foreign office, requesting the appointment of commercial agents to protect British interests in that quarter of the world. Their prayer was granted, and consuls and consuls-général appointed to the pincipal stations in Mexieo, Colombia, Peru, Chili, and Buenos Ayres.

The system adopted or intended to be adhered to by government in these questions of foreign poliey was explicitly declared in the speech from the throne. The only complaint urged against the declaration was its coldness. Mr Canning was not at that time in parliament. Lord Liverpool’s explanation of the views of ministry, and Mr Brougham’s indignant denunciations of the nefarious projects of the continental sovereigns, rendered his absence less felt. The Spanish question was not immediately urged by opposition, it being understood that negociations were still in progress. The diplomatic papers relative to these transactions were submitted to both houses on the 14th of April; Lord Liverpool and Mr Canning seizing the opportunity of addressing to their respective houses explanatory statements of their conduct. The opposition leaders intimated their opinion that the explanation given by ministers was by no means satisfactory; but more minute discussion was reserved for a future occasion, when members should have had time to examine the correspondence. Before that discussion occurred, Lord Al-thorpe moved for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of the act prohibiting British subjects from engaging in foreign military service, or fitting out in his majesty’s dominions, without the royal license, vessels for warlike purposes. It was argued in opposition, that, under existing circumstances, such an alteration of the law would operate exclusively in favour of Spain; and by this frivolous argument a majority of the house was influenced to negative the motion. The main question of the correctness of the ministerial measures was resumed both by the Lords and Commons a few evenings later. In both houses an address to the king was moved, expressive of regret that his majesty’s ministers had not adopted a more dignified tone, and supported with more energy the cause of Spain. The universal sentiment was so apparently in favour of ministers, that the opposition endeavoured to avoid coming to a division in the House of Commons. The ministerial members, however, succeeded in foreing the house to divide, by which means they gave to the lately re-constructed ministry the sanction of an overwhelming majority.

The finaneial operations of the government increased the popularity which its avowed secession from the interests of the holy alliance had gained for it. The increase of the revenue enabled the new chancellor of the exchequer to commence his career with a spontaneous alleviation of national burdens. In addition to this circumstance, Mr Robinson’s lucid statement of accounts, and explanation of the measures contemplated by government, contrasted most favourably with the complicated and imbecile attempts of his predecessor. Mr Robinson’s calculations showed a surplus of seven millions, five of which he proposed to appropriate to the reduction of the debt, ιnd two to the remission of taxes. The latter object was ιccomplished by the introduction of the necessary bills, in order to secure the former, Mr Robinson laid before )arliament a bill, the purport of which was to apply an ιnnual sum of five millions as a sinking fund, and at the ame time materially to simplify the superfluous machi nery with which former sinking funds had been eneum-bered. Mr Maberly proposed to substitute for a sinking fund, which he disapproved of as illusory, an extinction of four millions of three per cent, stock in the course of seven years, by the redemption of the land tax. It was objected that this project, as involving a necessary diminution of revenue, was totally nugatory; and it was accordingly rejected. Mr Hume fought hard for further reductions of the national burdens; but such was the popularity of ministers, that he met with less support than he had experienced on former occasions. JFIis motion for censure against the ministry for appointing a lieutenant-general of the ordnance after that office had been declared unnecessary by the report of commissioners, was pressed to a division by Mr Canning, who was dissatisfied with the possession of power if not allowed to enjoy its parade, and negatived by a great majority.

Intent upon winning golden opinions from all sorts of men, ministers exerted themselves to secure the rejection of Sir James Mackintosh’s resolutions for the improvement of the criminal eode, only to introduce bills of their own tending professedly to the same end. The resolutions introduced by Sir James were nine in number, and their purport was to declare the expedieney of abrogating the punishment of death in the eases of most flagrant hardship; of substituting in these cases transportation for life or a term of years, or imprisonment with or without hard labour at the discretion of the judge; of making provision that sentence of death should not be pronounced in cases where there was no expectation of its being carried into effect; and of doing away with the forfeiture of goods and chattels in cases of suicide, and putting an end to the indignities offered to the remains of the dead in eases of suicide and high treason. The acts introduced in the course of the same session under the auspices of government, and passed, contained provisions to the same effect, with some concessions to vulgar prejudice in the treatment of the remains of suicides. In the department of civil law some amendments were introduced into the law regulating the relations of agent and principal; a commission was appointed to inquire into the forms of process in the courts of Scotland, and into the course of appeals from the court of session; a resolution was adopted by the House of Lords to devote five days of the week instead of three to hearing appeals; and some modifications of the law for preventing elandestine marriages were wrested from its reluctant propounders. Every attempt to obtain an amendment of the court of chancery proved unavailing. The dogged obstinacy of Lord Eldon, and the unwillingness of the ministry to admit the existence of abuse in one of their own offices, proved insuperable obstructions.

The conduct of ministers towards Ireland was far from being marked by the same eagerness to conciliate popular affection. The violent conduct of the Orangemen necessarily embittered the spirits of the opposite faction, and acts of violence occurred even more frequently than before. Under these circumstances Lord Wellesley found himself called upon to apply for a continuation of the insurrection act, which was coneeded by parliament. This anxious moment was selected by Mr Canning to hang coldly back for the first time when the question of the Catholic claims was stirred. He expressed himself averse to their discussion at that time. Mr Plunkett, however, insisted upon bringing them before the house on the 17th of April. On that day Sir Francis Burdett and several other friends to Catholic concession declared that the annual discussion of the question was a mere farce, from which the honest advocates of emancipation ought henceforth to withdraw. Mr Brougham indulged in a strain of indignant[7:5:560] invective that stung M∙r Canning beyond the power of maintaining a parliamentary appearance of equanimity, or even the decency of polished society. Mr Plunkett insisting upon bringing forward his motion, Sir Francis and many other opposition members rose and left the house. The debate was soon adjourned, and not renewed during the course of the session. In the House of Lords the Duke of Devonshire endeavoured to excite attention to the condition of Ireland, but in vain. In the House of Commons Mr Brougham called for investigation into the gross inequality of the Irish law wherever Catholic and Protestant were opposed, and to the yet more oppressive mode of its administration; but the house refused to entertain the question. Mr Hume exposed the iniquity of the church establishment, but could scarcely obtain a hearing. Ireland perceived that government was deaf to her wrongs, and England, won by - the graceful and conciliatory manners of that government, careless of her grievances. A conviction began to gain ground that the country must help herself, √∖,nd in the course of a few years, this sentiment animating an organized body, impelled by the restless activity of an agitator of high talents, wrung from a reluctant government the boon which had so long been prayed for humbly and in vain.

The affairs of the colonies and other dependencies excited this year more than the usual share of attention. An act was passed, establishing courts, and making other regulations for the administration of justice in New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land. A bill for remedying abuses in the administration of justice in Newfoundland was announced by ministers as in preparation. A strenuous effort was made on the part of the East India merchants to obtain an equalization of the duties imposed on the sugars imported from Hindustan, and those which were the growth of the West Indian colonies; but it was defeated by the exertions of the planters. But the measure most important, both in regard to the test it afforded of the progress of liberal opinions, to the consequences it has already produced, and the still greater results it must ultimately lead to, was the ministerial circular of the 24th of May, relating to the treatment of slaves in the British colonies. This document followed up the resolutions adopted by the House of Commons on the 15th of the same month at Mr Canning’s suggestion. The resolutions declared the anxiety of the house that immediate measures should be adopted for securing such a gradual improvement of the slave’s character as might render safe his ultimate admission to participation in the civil rights and privileges of other classes of his majesty’s subjects. The circular commanded the abolition of the punishment of flogging in the case of females, and forbade the carrying of whips on the field in the crown colonies. Enactments to the same effect were recommended for the adoption of the legislative bodies of the chartered colonies. The burst of indignation in the sugar colonies was violent and unanimous. Jamaica spoke of asserting its independence. In Barbadoes, the chapel of a missionary suspected of having transmitted unfavourable accounts of the treatment which the slaves experienced at the hands of the planters was demolished, and the clergyman himself obliged to abscond. In Demerara the promulgation of the order in council was deferred, and all knowledge of it attempted to be withheld from the negroes. Some vague surmises having spread among them, the mysterious silence of their masters excited the most unreasonable expectations, and hope deferred precipitated them into insurrection. The planters in their blind fury accused the missionaries of exciting a revolt which had been caused solely by their own illegal and unwise proceedings. A court-martial convicted Mr Smith, one of the Wesleyan clergymen, in the face of the clearest exculpatory evidence. They, did not dare to inflict their unjust sentence, but the unhappy martyr died 1 in prison before the news arrived that the king had rescinded his condemnation.

The policy of government, liberal in the highest degree when compared with what the nation had been accustomed to, blinded men to its defects. The brilliant and somewhat gaudy eloquence of Capning strengthened the charm. His speech delivered at Plymouth in October completed his achievement. The splendid diction and imagery with which he adorned his development of the system adopted by himself and his colleagues carried away all who heard and all who read that magnificent oration. A palpable object to be attained, one of the most winning appearance, seemed to be placed within their view, nay within their reach. They soothed themselves with the idea that the honour to be gained would be shared by themselves. They forgot that nothing beyond fair words had been afforded to the falling constitutional governments of the Continent; that the reduction of national burdens so ostentatiously paraded had left them much as they were; that the sister island remained convulsed by faction, and robbed of her rights. All these they forgot and forgave for the sake of a few fair promises. Castlereagh had endeavoured for years to tame the spirit of the country by whips and dungeons, but in vain. Canning sung its stern resolves to peace in the course of twelve months. At the expense of slight concessions, a corrupt, expensive, and oppressive oligarchy had renewed its lease of power for an indefinite term.

During the year 1824 ministers continued, by perseverance in their new sprung liberality, to grow in the good graces of the nation. The opposition found it extremely difficult to muster a respectable minority. Attempts to attach to government the stigma of having played a double game with the Spanish constitutionalists, and given underhand encouragement to the French, were successfully repelled. Calls for an acknowledgment of the independence of the South American states were answered by the declarations of Lord Liverpool and Mr Canning, that to all useful intents they had been declared independent. They were allowed the privileges of free states under the new navigation act, and consuls had been appointed at their most important maritime towns. A formal acknowledgment of independence could be made only by the power which claimed dominion over another. Ministers therefore contended that one thing only remained to be done, namely, the opening a diplomatic intercourse with these countries; but the power of deciding at what period this step ought to be taken, they maintained, was unquestionably the prerogative of the crown. Parliament declare itself satisfied with these reasons; and a further declaration by Mr Canning, that government had refused a second and urgent application to become a party to a new congress, made the walls of the House of Commons ring again with applause.

Notwithstanding the caution with which ministers avoided any express pledge to recognise the independence of the rising states in the new world, active preparations were making for paving the way to such a step. So early as the end of August 1823 the diplomatic agent of the United States in England had been sounded as to whether “the moment had not arrived when the governments of Great Britain and the United States might come to some understanding with each other on the subject of the Spanish American colonies; and whether, if they could arrive at such understanding, it would not be expedient for themselves, and beneficial for the world, that the principles of it should be clearly settled and plainly avowed.” The American envoy did not feel himself authorized to enter, on the part of his government, into any express[7:5:561] understanding on the subject. Mr Canning next turned to the French ambassador, with whom be opened a conference in October of the same year. The reply of this diplomatist was evasive and unsatisfactory, and seems to have fixed the British ministers in the resolution to wait no longer for the co-operation of any other power. In fulfilment of the promise made to the South American traders, consuls were dispatched to all the principal seaports within the Spanish provinces on that continent and Mexico Commissioners were at the same time dispatched to Colombia and Mexico with directions to report on tire political state of these countries. The measures of the British government were precipitated by the urgency of opposition, by the reluctance manifested on the part of France to withdraw her troops from Spain, and by the intelligence which arrived early in 1824 of the preparatory steps taken by the president and congress of the United States towards recognising the independence of South America. Towards the end of July Mr Parish was dispatched to Buenos Ayres, intrusted with powers to negociate a commercial treaty with that state, in the contingency of the government continuing to afford a reasonable prospect of being able to maintain its authority. On the 14th of December it was determined to recognise forthwith the independence of Colombia and Mexieo; and by the first day of the year 1825 instructions and full powers had left the coasts of England, and the ambassadors of the allied courts received intimation that measures for recognising the independence of the three most powerful of the new states of Spanish America had been taken, past recall, by the British government.

Great Britain might in the year 1824 be regarded as emancipated from the false position in which, as a free and commercial nation, she had long found herself entangled. The good work was carried on by the adoption of several important measures both in and out of parliament. The first was the removal of certain stoppages and impediments to a free internal circulation. An act passed in the former session for repealing some, and providing for the progressive discontinuance of other duties to which the manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland respectively were subject, on their importation from either country into the other, had been found so beneficial, that all the duties left in existence were repealed. Next in importance was the measure introduced by Mr Huskisson for placing the home silk manufacture on a more natural basis, by lowering the duty on raw silk, repealing the bounty on the exportation of silk goods, and substituting a duty of thirty per cent. on the importation of foreign silk manufactures. The interests of the operatives received also a share of legislative attention. The old laws against combinations of workmen for the purpose of regulating the price of labour and the hours and manner of working, were abolished by an act which denounced severe punishments against those who should attempt to influence or overawe by violence or intimidation. The laws against the emigration of artizans were likewise repealed. An act was passed of the greatest consequence to commercial dealings, establishing a uniformity of weights and measures, to commence from the 1st of May 1825. A bill for the repeal of the usury laws, a measure even more vitally important than any we have now enumerated, was thrown out by a manoeuvre; its opponents having moved that it be read that day six months, at a late hour, when many of the supporters, expecting no further division, had left the house. While the legislature was thus employed, the executive was busy giving a wider extension to the system of reciprocity in commerce. Commercial treaties with Portugal and the United States of America, including this reciprocity arrangeant (not however extending to the colonies), had exist ed since 1810 in the case of the former nation, and 1815 in that of the latter. A similar convention was concluded 1 with Prussia in the April of the year the occurrences of which we are now narrating. The next arrangement was with Sweden. It was at first effected without treaty, and matters remained in this unauthenticated condition till 1826. A convention for reciprocal equality, to endure for ten years, was concluded with Denmark in June. In May the kingdom of Hanover, and in October the duehy of Oldenburg, were admitted to the footing of reciprocity by an order in council. France and the Netherlands adhering to their impositions upon British vessels, were subjected to retaliation.

Government continued to advance with a hesitating and timorous step along the path of legal reform, into which it bad reluctantly been forced. The reversal of attainders of several noble Scottish families may be viewed as falling under this head, but was a measure of little general importance. The different bankrupt Jaws were consolidated into one act, which, however, never received effect, a new enactment having been found necessary before the time arrived at which it was to have come in force. An attempt to procure for persons accused of felony the benefit of counsel was again defeated by the technicality of lawyers and the bigotry of the country gentlemen. The utmost attempts of the friends of law reform could this year procure nothing more than the appointment of commissioners to inquire into the proceedings of the court of chancery. The commission consisted of the chancellor, master of the rolls, and vice-chanceilor, together with some masters in chancery, barristers, and members of parliament. From such a body nothing was to be expected.

The financial arrangements of ministers encountered little opposition. The revenue of the preceding yèar had exceeded the expenditure by L.6,718,985. From this it was necessary to deduct L.5,000,000, the sum set aside for the gradual diminution of the national debt. The surplus immediately available was L.1,7l8,985. Ministers anticipated an additional surplus of L.1,Q52,076 during the current year. This excess of income over expenditure was accounted for partly by retrenchment and partly by savings in management. Various items of charge which intercepted a part of the revenue in its progress to the exchequer were reduced. A saving of one half per cent. on the interest of the debt was effected. The bounties on the whale and other fisheries were allowed to expire. Under these favourable circumstances, and with a prospect of their continuance, ministers felt themselves authorized to commence a system of alterations in the commercial and fiscal regulations of the country. They proposed to begin by putting rum, in regard to the duty with which it was chargeable, on a level with spirits produced by British distillation. The duty on coals and wool was diminished. The alteration on the laws regulating the silk trade, which has already been adverted to, was the last measure proposed for immediate adoption. The total reduction thus effected upon the national burdens was :—
[table]

The relief was kept within the limits of the fund which afforded the means of granting it.

Ireland continued to experience but a small share of this conciliatory policy. Although disturbances had in a great measure ceased, the insurrection act was again renewed. The claims of the Catholics continued to be urged with increasing feebleness, and operated with additional [7:5:562]inveteracy. Committees were demanded both in the • Lords and Commons for investigating into the state of Ireland. Ministers, however, evaded the inquiry by limiting it to the nature and extent of the disturbances that had prevailed in the districts of Ireland subject to the operation of the insurrection act. At a subsequent period of the session, Mr Hume moved “that it is expedient to inquire whether the present church establishment of Ireland be not more than commensurate to the services to be performed, both as regards the number of persons employed, and the incomes they receive.” In a house of two hundred and thirty-two, only seventy-nine members supported the motion. This coldness had the good effect of confirming Ireland’s resolution to rely upon herself. The Catholic Association now began to assume a bolder tone, extend its connections and operations, and take decided measures. Its members held regular sessions in Dublin, constituted themselves the medium of communication between Ireland and parliament, ordered a census of the population to be taken, and appointed collectors in every district for the receipt of the “Catholic Rent.” Mr O’Connell may be regarded as the effective founder and organizer of this body. The violent and theatrical character of many of its proceedings cannot be denied; but it had the effect of giving concentration, and a rational aim, to the angry efforts of the oppressed Irish. It at once added a fresh energy to their demands for redress of grievances, and withdrew from them the temptation to illegal and atrocious acts of vengeance. Beneath its influence, and the restraining force of the new constabulary, outrage subsided to such a degree, that shortly after the close of the session the operation of the insurrection act was suspended in several of the disturbed districts. The clamours of Protestant and Catholic zealots were loud and bitter, but they abstained from personal violence. Increased tranquillity, the loosening of the restrictions upon commercial exertions, and a limited but certain increase of the means of education, shone through the troubles of Ireland like the first dull beams of a tempestuous day-break.

The West India colonies still continued in an unsettled state. A numerous military establishment maintained quiet in Demerara. Such, however, was the malignant spirit of the planters, that a missionary who had been heard to speak favourably of Mr Smith was obliged to quit the colony. In Trinidad the regulations of the order in council were submitted to under protest. In Barbadoes a bill for admitting the evidence of slaves in certain cases miscarried, and Mr Canning’s plans were contemptuously neglected. In Dominica the governor recommended to the legislature the incorporation of the whole of the slave-laws into one act, comprising the substance of the order in council, and repealing such statutes as were at variance with its spirit. The House of Assembly refused, and expressly declined, to contribute any pecuniary aid towards the instruction of the slaves. In Jamaica the temper of the planters had been ruffled by a partial insurrection of the slaves; which, however, had been suppressed without loss either of lives or property. A fresh alarm was given during the month of June. On both occasions a number of negroes were executed. The revolt was supposed to have originated in some vague expectations on the part of the slaves of aid from England. The House of Assembly, which met in November, was informed that the general government had appointed a bishop for the island, and appropriated a fund for the support of the Episcopal clergy. One important office confided to the bishop was the superintendence of the religious instruction of the slaves; and the return required for this benefit was the adoption of the order in council. The angry planters, instead of complying, appointed a committee to inquire into the loss occasioned by the late revolt, and to report on the best mode of obtaining compensation from England. An attempt was likewise made to repeal the registry act, and much violent and foolish language was uttered. All the other colonies were tranquil, except Lower Canada and the Cape of Good Hope. In the former province, constitutional questions of an essential and grave nature were urged. The House of Assembly on the one hand, and the governor, supported by the legislative council, on the other, were at issue on the claim of the former to the unlimited right of disposing of the whole revenue. The governor and council would not admit the claim to its full extent; the Assembly refused the supplies; a dissolution ensued, and the different branches of the legislative body parted in very bad humour with each other. The disquiets of the Cape were caused by the petty tyranny of the governor Lord Charles Somerset. Sixty of the most respectable individuals of Cape Town were desirous of establishing a literary society, a museum, and a library. A fundamental article of the constitution of this body, was the exclusion from their discussions of controversial theology, the question of slavery, and all purely professional subjects; but the governor condemned the scheme as illegal, and induced the chief justice and some other members to withdraw their names. The reasons which he assigned for calling the society illegal were, first, because they had presumed to form themselves into a society “without any previous reference to his excellency,” which he designated as a “wilful” disregard of the existing authorities at the Cape; secondly, because it was improper to permit the establishment of an association which might have a tendency to produce “political discussion.” Another instance of the governor’s oppression was his conduct towards Mr Greig, the editor of a newspaper, who published an article which Lord Charles conceived to be disrespectful to his administration. The offender was ordered to quit the colony within a month. He abandoned his employment, and advertised his effects for sale; but by this time a new whim had seized the governor, and Mr Greig received intimation that he was at liberty to remain in the colony.

England was this year involved in two wars by her foreign possessions. The Burmese war will fall to be noticed when we come to narrate the events of 1826, when it was terminated. The petty skirmishes with the barbarians of Ashantee were the cause of much private grief, and materially enhanced the expenses attendant upon the maintenance of an unhealthy and useless establishment; but were too trifling to affect the majestic interests of Britain. The shock which had been communicated both to the agricultural and manufacturing interests, by the transition from a state of commerce in which, although exposed to hostile depredation, they were encountered by no competition, to the rivalry of every nation,, and increased in vehemence by the measures taken to restore the currency to a sound state, had begun to pass away. The prospect of a government acting upon a rational system cheered men’s spirits; and under such auspices national industry, although still trammelled and burdened by an unnecessarily complicated, wasteful, and extravagant executive system, was beginning to regain a healthy tone. There was a regular demand for labour, and wages were rising. Manufactures of every kind were prospering. The abundance of capital led to many new devices for its employment. The lately opened trade to South America was prosecuted, with all the sanguine hope of ignorance, to an absurd extent. Joint-stock companies were formed for working the mines and conducting its pearl fisheries. The rage for such associations spread through every department of domestic industry. The wildest anticipations [7:5:563]of profit were indulged. The nation, drunken with the •sudden increase of its mercantile transactions, was preparing for itself a sudden and tremendous reflux of its spring-tide of prosperity.

Parliament met in 1825 on the 3d of February. The question most urgently pressed upon its consideration was the necessity of suppressing the Catholic Association. The coldness of lukewarm friends, and the open enmity of avowed enemies, had rallied the whole of the Catholics and a great number of the Protestants of Ireland around this body. A contempt for the rights of citizens had called it into existence and invested it with power; and now the oppressors were the first to discover the might with which they had invested it, but without feeling inclined to betake themselves to the only effectual method of destroying it, namely, removing the grievances which gave it birth.

The expressions in the king’s speech applicable to the Catholic Association were these :—“It is to be regretted that associations should exist in Ireland, which have adopted proceedings irreconcilable with the spirit of the constitution, and calculated, by exciting alarm, and by exasperating animosities, to endanger the peace of society, and retard the course of national improvement. His majesty relies upon your wisdom to consider without delay the means of applying a remedy to this evil.” The address in answer to the speech from the throne was agreed to without a division. Several of the opposition members, however, protested against the line of policy indicated in the passage which we have quoted,, In the Lords, the Marquis of Lansdown cautioned ministers not to be hasty in repressing open complaint, and not to beguile themselves with the idea of curing a malady merely by removing a few of the outward symptoms. Mr Brougham, in the Commons, maintained that the delay of redress had driven the Irish to seek it at their own hands. He exposed the insincerity that lurked under the plural “associations.” It was a juggling attempt to assume the appearance of dealing equal justice to the Orangemen and the members of the Association.

Ministers were not slack in following up their denunciation. On the second day of the session Mr Goulburn gave notice that he would, on the 10th of February, move for leave to bring in a bill to amend certain acts relating to unlawful societies in Ireland. The acts referred to were two in number. The oldest, enacted by the Irish parliament in 1793, prohibited all assemblies for the appointment of deputies, or which assumed in any manner the right of representing the people of that country. The other, passed in 1823, with the view of conciliating party feuds, was directed against Orange societies and Orange processions. Neither touched the Catholic Association. Mr Goulburn, when propounding his measure, dwelt at great length on the members of the Association. According to him, it was composed mainly of priests, men of disappointed ambition, and the familiar friends of Tone and Emmett. The Roman Catholic gentry who belonged to it were acting, he averred, under intimidation. The objects of the institution he described as being the levying of an unauthorized tax by the agency of the priests; instituting prosecutions against individuals accused of perpetrating outrages, or acting as incendiaries; and assuming the right to call upon the illegal societies to disband. With regard to the last charge, Mr Goulburn expatiated at considerable length on one part in the Association’s “Address to the People of Ireland,” in which they adjured them to refrain from secret and illegal societies, “by the hate you bear the Orangemen, who are your natural enemies.” The members who, in the course of the debate, supported Mr Goulburn’s motion, adhered most pertinaciously to his line of argument. Mr Canning alone attempted to awe the house by insinuating that its vote against the motion would be tantamount to a declaration that it had satisfied itself “that his majesty had been deceived by false information; and that the description applied in his majesty’s speech to the associations in Ireland was altogether incorrect.” On the part of the opposition, Sir Henry Parnell showed that Mr Goulburn had misrepresented the mode of collecting the Catholic rent, and the share taken by the priests in the operation; and Mr Tierney affirmed that he had exaggerated its amount. Mr Denman contended that the analogy which had been attempted to be established between the case of the constitutional association and that before the house, did not hold. The former sullied the fountain of justice, because men who accused a man because he entertained certain opinions, might sit upon his trial as jurors. The latter was at the most but on a footing with associations for the prosecution of thieves and swindlers. The members only bound themselves to contribute to the prosecution of men guilty of offences which were allowed by the whole world to be such. Each might bring to the consideration of the individual case a mind free from prejudice. Mr Plunkett, although in favour of the motion, admitted that it was quite legal to associate for the purposes professed by the Association. Mr Goulburn’s motion was, however, agreed to, after a debate which lasted four nights. The Catholic Association made application to be heard at the bar of the Commons; and being denied that privilege, they repeated the request to the Lords with the same want of success. The bill passed both houses, and received the royal assent on the 9th of March. But the Association, strong in the national affection, was not so easily discomfited. It submitted without a struggle; but no sooner was the session closed than an aggregate meeting of the Catholics re-established it with a constitution which did not come under the law. Like Milton’s spirits, it re-united, seemingly incapable of “mortal wound” in its “liquid texture.”

The friends of the Catholics laid hold of the occasion, when the pretended advocates of emancipation were protesting the more violently their continued attachment to the cause that they were busy binding those who petitioned for it, and when some of its opponents were shaken in their firmness by the determination of the people, to renew the question. Sir Francis Burdett, after some preliminary discussion in committee, introduced a bill for the relief of the Catholics on the 23d of March. Two subordinate bills were introduced at the same time for the purpose of conciliating the most determined enemies of concession. By the one the qualification of a voter was raised to a freehold of L.10 per annum, while the object of the other was to make a provision for the Catholic clergy. The friends of the principal measure were by no means agreed as to the auxiliaries; but their variance was rendered of less consequence by the fate of the bill. While it was yet before the committee of the House of Commons, the Duke of York rose in his place in the Upper House, and in a long and confused speech declared his resolution to oppose every concession “up to the latest moment of his existence, whatever might be his situation in life, so help him God.” This uncalled for and illiberal declaration of the heir-apparent exasperated the Catholics and grieved their friends. The bill passed the Commons notwithstanding; but was, as every one anticipated, thrown out in the Lords.

While parliament was thus refusing their just rights to the Catholics in one breath, and in the next forbidding, under heavy penalties, every attempt to vindicate them, the committee appointed by the Lords during the previous session to collect information respecting the state [7:5:564]of Ireland, were proceeding with the investigation. The evidence led established the existence of the most extensive and pervading misery. The peasantry were described as being constantly on the verge of starvation, the victims of disease produced by the state of their squalid habitations. They were servilely dependent on their landlords, and harassed incessantly by the unprincipled extortions of the tithe-agents. The law which was devised to protect them had been perverted into an engine of oppression. The report of the committee was presented at too late a period of the session to admit of its being made the basis of any enactment. Various attempts were, however, made in the House of Commons to procure redress of specific grievances. Sir John Newport, founding upon the report of the commissioners on education, moved an address to the king, praying his majesty to give orders for instituting prosecutions against different individuals connected with the charter-schools of Ireland, who had been accused of gross acts of cruelty; which was agreed to unanimously. Mr Hume renewed his attack upon the established church in Ireland, but with a diminished number of supporters. And after, wasting the best part of five months in violent declamation, and passing some nugatory and some oppressive laws, parliament abandoned Ireland to the rage of party spirit, with scarcely any thing to preserve the country from anarchy but the vigilance of a maligned and persecuted body, the Catholic Association.

Meanwhile discussions leading to a more satisfactory result had been agitated in parliament. On the 29th of March Mr Huskisson called the attention of the House of Commons to the effects of Mr Hume’s bill of the previous session, repealing both the common and statute law against combinations among workmen. It was to be expected that men new to liberty should in some measure abuse it. Every unaccustomed pleasure is apt to be indulged in to excess. Accordingly it was found, that in several parts of the country, and more particularly in the west of Scotland and the sea-ports, the operatives had immediately availed themselves of the privilege of combination to an extent that endangered the just rights of their employers, and threatened to place themselves at the mercy of the more artful and unprincipled of their own body. The treasurer of the navy concluded his exposition of the state of combinations by moving for a committee to report their opinion how far it might be necessary to repeal or amend the act 5th George IV. cap. 95. The motion was agreed to; and in consequence of the report of the committee, a bill was introduced having for its object to afford protection to masters, and to such workmen as declined entering into associations. A summary jurisdiction was established, with power to convict for offences against the act on the oath of one credible witness, and to inflict an arbitrary punishment to the extent of six months imprisonment with hard labour. Some protection to the capitalist was undoubtedly necessary; but it must at the same time be admitted, that the vague manner in which the act was worded left open a wide field for oppression; and that the removal of the constitutional protection of a jury was an infringement upon the rights of the subject. The other measures introduced by Mr Huskisson were less exceptionable. The first was an important modification of the colonial system. The commerce of the colonies was thrown open to a certain extent to all friendly powers. They were entitled to trade thither with goods of their own produce in their own ships. The bonding system was likewise introduced into the colonies, and five warehousing ports appointed; Kingstown in Jamaica, Bridgetown in Barbadoes, St John’s in New Brunswick; Halifax, and Quebec. The large fees levied in the colonial ports were abolished. Two further alterations of a local nature were contemplated. The sugar of the Mauritius was admitted at the same rate as that of the West Indies; and the corn of Canada was admitted into Great Britain on payment of a moderate duty. This last provision, however, was limited in its operation to the space of two years. This measure was accompanied by a second, which had for its object the promotion of commerce by the diminution of duties imposed for protection, and not for revenue. A third was added, tending to relieve the navigation of the country. Quarantine duties were abolished. All fees on commerce with the colonies were done away. The duty imposed upon the transfer of ships was removed. And, lastly, the system of consular establishments was reformed by the substitution of fixed salaries, payable out of the public purse, for the burdensome and unequal fees which had previously been levied. These measures, although viewed with apprehension by some members of the legislature, were approved of without a dissenting voice. The surrender of its charter by the Levant Company at the same time conferred an additional benefit on the mercantile interest. The repeal of the usury laws was again attempted, but without success. A further reduction of taxation was effected by the chancellor of the exchequer, but hot to any great extent.

The excessive speculation occasioned by the increasing commercial prosperity of the country led, in the autumn of 1825, to such a reverse as migh l t have been anticipated. Lord Liverpool and Mr Huskisson had raised their warning voices against the excess of speculation. Mr Tooke and Mr M ς Culloch distinctly foretold the convulsion which was about to happen. The process of the change was this:—“The depressed state of trade in 1821 and 1822 had led to a diminished production and importation of goods, and to an advance of prices in 1823; and the very high prices of 1824 and 1825 were the result, first, of this diminished production and-importation; secondly, of an improvement in the state of agricultural produce; thirdly, of the acknowledgment of the independence of the South American republics, which opened new markets to British commerce; and, lastly, of the loans which were raised for these republics, and transmitted in manufactured goods.”^[25. On Paper-Money, Banking, and Over-Trading, by Sir Henry Parnell. ] The consequences of a want of due foresight under these circumstances were, production on the part of the manufacturer beyond what could find vent, and importation on the part of the merchant beyond what could find a market. The delusion was kept up longer than it otherwise would have been, through the facilities afforded by large issues of paper. The first symptom of something being wrong was the turning of the exchange against England. The bank immediately, in conformity with its established policy, diminished its issues and discounts. Merchants wére now pressed for funds to supply the place of those which had been vested in a mode unavailable for immediate demand. The bankers, induced by the low rate of interest, had discounted bills at unusually long dates, and laid out their funds upon securities which could not be quickly realized. Several important commercial failures took place, and the country became alarmed. A run upon the banks ensued, and several of them gave way. On the 12th of December it was announced that a London house, upon which no less than forty-seven country banks drew, had stopped payment. Next day the stoppage of another equally important house was announced. Mr [7:5:565]Baring thus described the scene which ensued :—“A panic seized the public. Men would not part with their money on any terms, nor for any security, and the consequence was general distress. Persons of undoubted wealth and real capital were seen walking about the streets of London, not knowing whether they should be able to ’ meet their engagements for next day.” On the Wednesday the bank began to increase its discounts; it purchased exchequer bills, and discounted on stock. Before the end of the week it had issued in gold and notes not less than eight millions. In the mean time meetings were held in London, and in most of the trading towns, in which resolutions were adopted for the support of commercial credit. The public mind gradually became re-assured, but in the interval banks had broken down in every district of England. Between Oetober 1825 and February 1826 fifty-nine commissions of bankruptcy were issued against English country banks; and at such a time the number of private compositions are estimated to be to the number of commissions m the proportion of four to one. In a mercantile nation such a suspension of the circulation paralyses every effort. The ship-owners suffered from their inability to procure freights; while the artizans were thrown out of employment, and exposed to famine. In Scotland the momentary distress was equally great, but the more solid system of banking materially alleviated the after-pressure. Mistrust and apprehension darkened the close of 1825, and threw their shade over the prospects of the opening year.

Parliament was opened on the 2d of February 1826 by commission. Almost the only topic touched upon in the speech was the distress which pervaded the nation. “The embarrassment,” it said, “did not arise from any political events either at home or abroad. It was not produced by any unexpected demand upon the public resources, nor by the apprehension of any interruption to the general tranquillity. Some of the causes to which this evil must be attributed lie without the direct reach of parliamentary interposition, nor can security against the recurrence of them be found, unless in the experience of the sufferings which they have occasioned. But to a certain portion of this evil, correctives, at least, if not effectual remedies, may be applied, and his majesty relies upon your wisdom to devise such measures as may tend to protect both private and public interests against the like sudden and violent fluctuations, by plaeing on a more firm foundation the currency and circulating credit of the country.”

The answer proposed by the ministerial party to be returned to this recommendation was agreed to in both houses without opposition; but many members embraced the opportunity of stating their opinions of the state of the country, and the measures that ought to be adopted. Lord King attacked the corn laws, and proposed that the Lords should pledge themselves to their révisai during the session. Mr Brougham thought the causes of the distress more complicated than those adverted to in the speech, and dwelt upon its universality as a sufficient proof that its origin was not to be sought in the adoption of more liberal commercial principles. Mr Hume maintained that the true cause of the distress was the heavy pressure of taxation, and the wasteful expenditure of government. The members connected with the country bankers defended the characters of these gentlemen; and Mr Baring and others eulogised the conduct of the Bank of England. Ministers announced that the palliatives they meant to apply were, first, to prohibit the circulation, after a certain period, of notes under two pounds, whether issued by the Bank of England or any private banker; secondly, to increase the stability of private banks, by enabling them to augment their capital, and with that view to repeal the clause in the charter of the Bank of England which made it unlawful for any private banking establishment to' consist of more than six partners. ı

The first of these projects carried into execution was that which contemplated the destruction of the small notes. Government entertained apprehensions that during the interval which must necessarily elapse between the announcement of their plan and its receiving’ the sanction of law, an infinite number of small notes might be stamped, and immediately gave orders to put an end to the stamping of such notes. The step was animadverted on in both houses as a most dangerous assumption of power, but defended as necessary to insure the success of the measures in contemplation. On the 10th of February the chancellor of the exchequer, in a committee of the rôhole house, fully developed that part of the plan which related to the small-note circulation. He proposed that· no new notes under the value of five pounds should be stamped; and that all promissory notes payable to the bearer on demand, issued by license, and under the value of five pounds, and stamped previous to the 5th of February 1826, should be allowed to circulate until the 5th of February 1829, and no longer. Ministers at a later period consented to allow the Bank of England the power to issue one and two pound notes, stamped at any time prior to the 10th of October, but not to continue them in circulation after the lapse of three years, the limited date of the existence of such a circulation. This measure met with vehement opposition in the Commons, but from a very small minority. In the Lords it was less pertina-ciously opposed. Ministers had from the beginning limited the immediate operation of their bill to England, but declared that they could not see on what principle different systems of currency should prevail on the opposite sides of the Tweed. Scotland took the alarm; a smallnote currency was there identified with every step in the march of national improvement. The tables of both houses of parliament were instantly loaded with petitions from that country against any restrictions on its paper currency. It was necessary to pay attention to representations in which men of all political parties and every rank in life concurred. Select committees were appointed to investigate the matter; and the result of their inquiries was, that the small-note currency of Scotland remained untouched. Ireland was also left in possession of her small notes.

In order to give effect to the other measure contemplated by ministers, it was neecssary to interfere to a certain extent with the chartered privileges of the Bank of England, and the consent of that body was therefore requisite even to its introduction. A communication was accordingly made by the first lord of the treasury and the chancellor of the exchequer, to the governor of the bank, on the 13th of January, containing a detailed and luminous exposition of the views of ministry, and expressing their hopes “that the bank will make no difficulty in giving up their exclusive privileges, in respect to the number of partners engaged in banking, as to any district fifty miles from the metropolis.” The directors, in their answer of the 20th, declined the task of recommending to the proprietors the abandonment of their exclusive privileges. Several papers were interehanged, and finally, a general court, held on the 3d of February, consented to waive their privilege, except within a district of fifty miles round the city of London. In the course of this correspondence the propriety of the bank establishing branches was suggested by government. The measure founded upon this arrangement was first introduced into the House of Lords; but no discussion took place upon it, until on the 17th of March Lord Liverpool moved the second reading. The debate even then wandered[7:5:566] entirely from the subject, and lost itself in vague disquisitions on the history and fluctuations of the currency. In the committee Lord Liverpool moved the addition of a clause authorizing the Bank of England to establish branch banks throughout the country. The adoption of this clause rendered another proviso necessary, declaring the notes issued by the branch banks payable at the place where they were issued. The bill experienced a warmer opposition in the House of Commons, but was ultimately, with some slight alterations, agreed to.

Public confidence was not however yet quite restored, and ministers were pressed to take some step for the alleviation of the immediate pressure. After some hesitation, an arrangement was made with the bank, in virtue of which it agreed to make advances to private individuals upon the deposit of goods, merchandise, and other securities. The whole sum advanced was not to exceed three millions. The adoption of this measure rendered it necessary, for the security of the bank, to introduce a new bill regarding the law of principal and agent. This act enabled all persons in the possession of goods, possessed likewise of documents conferring the property of them, although such persons should be merely factors or agents, to pledge with the bank as effectually as if they had been the actual owners. Its operation was confined to deposits made with the bank. Commissioners were immediately appointed by the bank in the principal provincial towns. They were almost uniformly merchants resident in the district. The applications for advances were much fewer than had been anticipated: either men were unwilling to disclose their necessities to local competitors, or the knowledge that a fund was provided restored confidence.

During these transactions the cause of the late panic continued to be keenly canvassed both in parliament and beyond its walls. Emigration was suggested as a source of relief for the labouring classes, and a committee appointed to collect information on the subject. The corn laws were most vehemently exclaimed against, and even forced upon the notice of parliament. Ministers acknowledged the necessity that existed for thoroughly revising them, but deprecated the introduction of so extensive a topic during a session which, as the last of that parliament, must necessarily prove a brief one. The general question was evaded; yet before the end of the session, it was found necessary to introduce two bills to modify the strict operation of these laws. The first allowed wheat in bond to come into the market on payment of a duty of ten shillings per quarter, and other kinds of grain at inferior rates. The second gave ministers a discretionary power of admitting foreign grain during the recess to the limited quantity of five hundred thousand quarters. These slender concessions to justice and common sense were wrung with the utmost difficulty from the reluctant landed interest. On the other hand, a portion of the manufacturing and mercantile interest showed themselves equally unreasonable. The silk trade, a hot-house plant, which has not been long enough exposed to our bracing atmosphere out of doors to become sufficiently acclimatized, was as usual the first to complain. Petitions flowed in upon parliament from every district where this employment had struck root. An attempt was made to have them referred to a select committee, as a first step towards checking the advance made by government in liberal commercial policy; but without success. The ship owners, next to the landholders the most hardened and remorseless monopolists in the nation, were the next to make their voice heard. Mr Huskisson met their allegations by a prompt appeal to facts, moving for “returns of ships built in the British dominions between 1814 and 1825 both inclusive, distinguishing the number in each year, and the amount of their tonnage.” The advantages likely to result from the gradual emancipation of the country from ill-judged trammels upon its industry were too apparent to allow, in any enlightened mind, of the thought of a retrograde movement.

In the discussions of this session to which we have hitherto alluded, the ministers had found themselves uniformly in triumphant majorities, swelled indeed more frequently by their habitual opponents than by some of their avowed supporters. The restriction of the small-note currency was a step of questionable expediency, but was susceptible of a plausible defence. The curtailment of the bank privileges could only be disapproved of by a member of that powerful incorporation. The relaxation of the corn laws, and the removal of commercial restrictions, were measures based alike upon justice and expediency. Every honest and enlightened man lent a willing support to the projectors of such a system of policy. But finance was their weak side. Robinson and Huskisson entertained clear business notions, and were willing to have adopted an honest system. Canning saw that their views were popular, and coveted the glory of enforcing them. But they and their friends knew right well that their places in the cabinet were held but by sufferance of the faction which, in virtue of its hold upon the House of Commons, domineered over England. They were kept in office to transact business, while the real holders of power reaped the profits. They might make what parade of liberal sentiments they pleased in order to conciliate the nation, so long as they did not trench upon the emoluments of their patrons. The conglomeration of offices ostensibly provided for discharging the executive functions of government, was frail, cumbrous, and ineffective, but it afforded “buttress and coigne of vantage” for scions of nobility to build “their pendant beds and procreant cradles,” and its structure was in no event to be interfered with. They were bound to defend what in their souls they believed to be indefensible; and the event gives it proof.

The chancellor of the exchequer, on opening the budget on the 13th of March, took a large review of the whole financial system of the country from the conclusion of peace. It will be sufficient if we confine ourselves at present to what related more immediately to the period during which he himself had held office. Considerable retrenchment had been effected between 1815 and 1819. During the last-mentioned year an increase of taxation had been made to the amount of three millions. In 1820 there had been no change, and little in 1821. In 1822 Mr Vansittart was reluctantly forced to remit rather more than three millions of taxes. Matters were thus placed upon the same footing as in 1819. Mr Robinson claimed to have remitted during his administration L.8,073,000. The annual charge on the whole debt on the 5th of January 1823 he stated at L.29,286,000; and on the 5th of January 1826 at L.27,946,000; being a reduction of L.1,339,000 in three years. But he omitted to remind the house that during each of these three years he had been professedly setting apart an annual sum of five millions as a sinking fund. In his estimate of the amount of the debt he omitted the bargain commenced by Mr Vansittart, and completed by himself, for the payment of military and naval pensions,—an annuity ofL.2,800,000, which had forty-one and a half years to run, paid by government to trustees who had undertaken to discharge that burden. Mr Robinson was likewise reminded by Mr Hume that the decrease on taxation was more apparent than real. The taxes in 1818 had produced a sum of L.52,000,000; and in 1825 their amount was L.52,540,000. In 1818 the taxes were payable in paper not convertible into gold, on an average of three years, at a lower rate than L.5 per ounce. In 1825 they were payable in gold, or in paper money convertible into gold, [7:5:567]at the rate of seventy-seven shillings and tenpence half-; penny per ounce. In reality there had been an increase ι of taxation instead of a reduction. The chancellor of the exchequer evaded Mr Hume’s statements and arguments, under the pretext that they were too complicated to be discussed at once. There was nothing in the argument he advanced, that the amount of revenue being derived chiefly from the excise and customs, indicated increased consumption. If the officials of government were adequately remunerated in the depreciated currency, they were extravagantly paid after its value had been raised. Undue burdens were imposed upon the country; but these were never adverted to. The majorities were the only answer relied upon by ministers; and they were applied with great success to meet motions for reduction of the naval, military, and diplomatic expenditure.

The discussions which arose during this session on the state of Ireland were as vain and fruitless as might be expected from a legislature indifferent to or ignorant of the merits of either question.

In the speech by which the session was prorogued, allusion was made to the termination of hostilities with the Burmese empire. The origin, progress, and termination of this war were briefly these :—For many years the Burmese officers had been in the practice of committing acts of encroachment and aggression on the East India Company’s territories. Towards the close of the year 1823 they had crossed the frontiers, and entrenched themselves within the limits belonging to the British. During January and February 1824 they were driven from several of their stockades; but on the 21st of February they succeeded in repulsing a British force, which inspired them with fresh audacity. The governor-general, by the advice of his council, issued a declaration of war on the 5th of March. A considerable naval and military armament, drawn partly from Madras and partly from Calcutta, was assembled at Port Cornwallis in the beginning of May, under the command of Sir Archibald Campbell and Commodore Grant. It attacked Rangoon, the principal sea-port of Ava, on the 10th of May, and took it after a feeble resistance, without the loss of a single man, capturing on the occasion a considerable quantity of artillery and ammunition. A detachment sent against the island of Cheduba, on the Arracan coast, and another against Negrais Isle, at the mouth of the Nerbudda, were equally successful. On the 10th of June General Campbell moved upon the enemy’s camp at Kemmendine, which he attacked in concert with the flotilla. The position was evacuated by the Burmese troops, after sustaining a cannonade of a few hours. The British maintained their advantage in several engagements, and the enemy withdrew to a greater distance; but the inundations, and the necessity of collecting a large supply of provisions, induced General Campbell to continue his head-quarters at Rangoon up to the end of the year. Expeditions were, however, detached against the most important maritime stations; and by the end of October the whole of the Burmese coast from Rangoon to the eastward was subjected to the British arms. On the 1st of December Maha Bundoolah, who had been lately appointed to the command of the Burmese army, appeared in front of General Campbell’s position with from fifty to sixty thousand men. He was allowed to extend his line round the British flanks, and to the rear, and even to entrench himself in that position. On the 5th General Campbell attacked and entirely routed his left wing. Bundoolah reinforced his centre and right with the scattered remnant during the night, and presented himself next day in front, having pushed his entrenchments close up to the British lines. General Campbell attacked them at noon, and drove them from all their entrenchments.

Bundoolah having received some reinforcements, took up a strong position with twenty-five thousand men, “with a judgment,” says Sir Archibald Campbell, “which would do credit to the best instructed engineers of the most civilized and warlike nations.” On the 15th a body of thirteen hundred of General Campbell’s infantry stormed the works, and the enemy fled, leaving their camp standing, with all their baggage and a large proportion of their arms and ammunition. Whilst these operations were carrying on, demonstrations had been made by the Burmese on the Chittagong frontier. Their arms were at first attended by success, and they continued to hover around Ramao till the end of July. Colonel Innes having taken the command of the Sylhet frontier, they gradually fell back; and the end of October saw Cachar completely evacuated, and the enemy in full retreat for Munnipoor. Aboùt the middle of February 1825 Sir Archibald Campbell moved from Rangoon upon Prome. The inhabitants of the country through which he passed saw with pleasure the expulsion of the Burmese. Having reached Sorrawah, fifty miles in advance of Rangoon, the commander-in-chief halted in the hope of hearing of the fall of Donabew, which was to be attacked by the column advancing under General Cotton by the Irawuddy τ . But the attack was foiled. On the 11th of March General Campbell commenced a retrograde movement on Donabew, before which he arrived on the 25th, and established a communication with the water column on the 27th. The batteries were opened on the 1st of April; and Maha Bundoolah having been accidentally killed, the Burmese garrison abandoned the fort. Sir Archibald immediately resumed his march upon Prome, which he entered on the 25th of April without firing a shot. By the 1st of February the Burmese were expelled from Assam. A series of brilliant operations on the 26th, 27th, 28th, and 29th'of March gave General Morrison possession of Arracan. In Cachar General Shuldham was advancing upon Munnipoor, which lies two hundred miles north-west of Ammerapoora, the capital of the Burmese empire. The main body of the army was arrested at Prome by the rainy season, and felt somewhat straitened for provisions, the country through which their route lay having been entirely depopulated. The mortality among the troops was also considerable. The Burmese had twenty thousand men at Mecadore, fifty miles from Prome, and the same number at Patana-go. An equally numerous body was interposed between the British force in Arracan and the troops under the commander-in-chief. In September negociations for the restoration of peace were set on foot. A cessation of hostilities was agreed to on the 17th, to continue till the 17th of October. Commissioners from the king of Ava met the British general at Neounben-zick on the 2d of October. They endeavoured to elude his demands for territoriaI cessions and indemnification; but finding him immovable, requested a prolongation of the armistice, that they might consult their court. It was accordingly extended till the 2d of November. Preparations were in the meanwhile made to prosecute the war with activity in case the armistice did not lead to a definite treaty. On receiving the proposed terms of peace, his majesty of the golden foot burst into a violent passion, and gave orders to renew offensive operations. Before the termination of the armistice it was haughtily announced to the British leader— “If you wish for peace you may go away; but if you wish either money or territory, no friendship can exist between us. This is Burman custom.” The whole army of Ava, nearly sixty thousand strong, advanced against Prome, occupied by six thousand British and native troops. The left division of fifteen thousand, commanded by Maha Nemiow, approached close to Prome, keeping the east[7:5:568]ern bank of the river. By the end of November the centre, between twenty-five and thirty thousand strong, under the Kee Wonghee, showed itself on the heights of Napadee, on the same side of the river, five miles above Prome. The right, consisting of fifteen thousand men under Sudda Woon, were posted on the opposite side of the river. All these bodies were, according to the military system of the Burmese, strongly entrenched. Sir Archibald Campbell, after expecting an attack for some days in vain, marched on the 1st of December to dislodge the corps of Maha Nemiow; and in this he succeeded after a desperate resistance. The leader fell, and the dispersion of his followers was so complete that they did not even attempt to form a junction with their centre. Sir Archibald, after allowing his troops only two hours repose, returned to Zeouke, having marched twenty-nine miles and fought a battle in the course of a day. Next day the British stormed the heights of Napadee under a heavy cannonade, entirely dispersed the centre, and captured the whole of its artillery, ammunition, and military stores. The position of the right wing was attacked on the 5th; the Burmese were driven from their defences, which were set on fire; and a considerable amount of military stores was captured. The road to the capital was now open, and Sir Archibald, after allowing his men one day’s repose, advanced upon it in two columns. The Burmese once more indicated a desire to make peace; but as their shuffling and equivocation rendered it impossible to repose confidence in their professions, the commander-in-chief continued to advance; nor was it till the army had arrived within four days’ march of the capital that the king agreed to accept of the terms which were offered to him. He renounced all claims to Assam, Cachar, and Jyntia, and recognised Gumbheer Singh as rajah of Munnipoor. He ceded to the Company the four great divisions of Arracan, and the provinces Yeh, Tavoy, Mergui, and Tenasscrim. And to indemnify the British government he agreed to pay the sum of one crore of rupees. Twenty-five lacs of rupees were to be paid before the British retired upon Rangoon; the same sum before they evacuated the king’s dominions; and the remaining half by equal annual instalments within two years from the date of the treaty. The handful of troops which had achieved this triumph commenced its return on the 5th of March. The India Company obtained by this conquest the removal of a troublesome neighbour, an increase of territory, and a consequent increased perplexity in its affairs. Britain gained nothing but an augmentation of its military and naval establishments.

Parliament was prorogued on the 31st of May 1826, and dissolved on the 2d of June; and writs were ordered to be issued for a new election, returnable on the 25th of July. The elections afforded a test of the success which had attended the new system of ministers. They showed how far the confidence of the people had been won by the concessions made to the spirit of the age and the popular eloquence of Mr Canning. In Scotland, as was to be expected from its miserable system of mock representation, there was a dull silent adherence to the old routine, from which nothing could be gathered. In Ireland the Catholic Association prosecuted with success its sacred task of forcing from an unwilling government the nation’s rights. The bond of union, in defiance of the law, was kept up among its members; “the rent” continued to be levied; and the priests had been won to lend it their confidence. In every district of Ireland the new allies struggled with unwearied assiduity to turn the angry energies of the peasantry into a legal channel, and to teach them to direct their efforts to the attainment of some real good. The elections offered them an opportunity of strengthening the phalanx of their friends in parliament, and of testifying the national sentiment. The forty-shilling freeholders, a body of men who had been encouraged by unprincipled political gamblers to increase and multiply beyond what the land seemed able to support, and more neglected by their suzerains than the beasts of the field, except when the time arrived that they were to be driven to the poll, were converted into an engine to overthrow the power of their creators. The tenantry were besieged by the exhortations of clerical and lay emancipators to remember that they had rights as well as their landlords, and that they owed duties to themselves as well as to others. The great landholders now found the automata upon whom they had hitherto relied asserting wills of their own. The most splendid victory of the Catholics was gained in Waterford, where a member of the Beresford family was compelled to withdraw from the contest. The Catholic Association might point with pride to the change it had worked in the character of the Irish peasant; for, amidst all the heat of contested elections, bloodshed and lawless violence were on the decline, even while the hungry artizans of England were driven by want to violate the law. In England the ministers were almost everywhere triumphant. Mr Brougham experienced a more marked defeat in Westmoreland than on any former occasion. Lord Howick and Mr Beaumont, the Whig candidates for Northumberland, both failed. Mr Huskisson was again returned for Liverpool. The metropolis alone adhered to its old principles. The usual topics were advanced by the candidates for popular favour. Only one is worthy of being recorded. In proportion as the Catholic cause advanced in Ireland it seemed to grow weaker in England. The same ignorance, prejudice, and sectarian spirit of which the Catholics stood accused was appealed to by their adversaries, and the almost absolute watchword “no popery” was revived.

The bustle of the elections was succeeded by grave apprehensions of famine. Wheat had proved an average crop through England; but a long drought threatened a dearth in every other sort of grain. Barley was deficient; there was every appearance of a scarcity of pulse; oats, in many districts the most important article of food to the lower classes, and the potato crop, the sole stay of Ireland, threatened to fail altogether. The farmers, too, were suffering; for the violent and continued heats had dried up the richest meadow-land in England, till it became necessary to feed cattle with dry fodder, as if it were the depth of winter. A seasonable change of weather averted a great portion of the impending calamity; but in the month of September prospects were most alarming, and the rise in the price of grain pressed with unwonted severity upon the working classes, who were still suffering from the effects of the late panic. The price of oats in reality exceeded the importation price; but the crafty devices of the landlords’ committee respecting the taking of averages precluded the opening of the ports before the 15th of November, although in the interim a famine might have depopulated the country. Ministers generously resolved to risk a violation of the law rather than incur the deeper moral responsibility of allowing the people to perish by famine. On the first of September they issued an order in council, authorizing the immediate importation of oats, oatmeal, &c. upon the persons importing becoming bound to pay a conditional duty. The necessity of obtaining an act of indemnity for this step occasioned the assembling of parliament at an earlier season than usual.

The first session of the eighth parliament of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland commenced on the 14th of November 1826, and terminated on the 2d of July 1827. It adjourned twice; from the 13th of December to the 8th of February, and from the 12th of April to the 1st of May. It will be necessary', in order to preserve[7:5:569] the current of our narrative free from perplexity, to detail briefly the changes in administration, and the intrigues by which they were effected, before narrating the legislative proceedings of this session.

Lord Liverpool was struck with apoplexy on the morning of the 17th of February 1826. As it was possible that he might recover sufficiently to resume his share in public business, a feeling of delicacy kept both the king and ministers from taking any immediate steps to re-organize the government. The disunion between the two incompatible parties which composed the cabinet continued to increase after the removal of their connecting link; and a sense of this, aided by the urgency of opposition, forbade longer delay. The first practical discussions respecting a new arrangement took place between the king and Mr Canning, at the royal lodge, on the 28th of March. His majesty’s first idea was, to retain the services of Mr Canning and his friends, and to place at the head of administration a peer holding Lord Liverpool’s opinions on the Catholic question. Mr Canning explicitly stated, that if those whose sentiments were favourable to the Catholics were to be excluded, solely on account of these sentiments, from the highest offices of state, he could “not consent to be the individual in whose person such a principle should be established.” He therefore felt himself bound honestly to state, that “the substantive power of first minister he must have, and, what was more, must be known to have,” or he must beg leave to retire from a situation which he could “no longer fill with satisfaction to himself or with benefit to the king’s service.” Mr Canning felt, in short, that in any administration of which he should form a part, whoever might be the ostensible, he must be the real prime minister, and he was naturally and justly indignant at the demand that he should yield up his laurels to grace the brow of titled imbecility.

With the exception of an interview, during which nothing of moment occurred, Mr Canning had no more communication with the king till the lOth of April, when he received the royal commands to prepare, “with as little delay as possible, a plan for the reconstruction of the administration.” There were, however, frequent conferences in the interim between Mr Canning, the Duke of Wellington, and Mr Peel. The last-mentioned gentleman frankly declared that he had made up his mind to resign if an individual favourable to the Catholics were placed at the head of government. The duke urged strongly the necessity of having a prime minister opposed to concession. Mr Peel’s professions “of respect and regard” for Mr Canning were unbounded; so much so that Mr Canning expressed himself as feeling “it quite impossible to do sufficient justice to his frankness and straightforwardness, and to feelings for which he owned he had not before given Mr Peel credit.” The subsequent conduct of that minister has proved that Mr Canning’s first impressions were correct. The haughty character of the Duke of Wellington prevented him from wearing the mask to so much purpose. The language of the Duke of Newcastle, and other adherents of the Duke of Wellington, not disapproved of if not sanctioned by his Grace, had naturally irritated Mr Canning. By the intervention of mutual friends several interviews took place between the duke and Mr Canning, but without producing any effect beyond a re-establishment of the outward show of cordiality, and a conviction in the mind of Mr Canning that the duke coveted the post of prime minister for himself. The justice of this conclusion is established by the eagerness with which that eminent soldier on two subsequent occasions grasped ąt the office, and by Mr Peel’s waiting upon Mr Canning at the king’s command, on the 9th of April, to suggest the appointment of the duke as premier, an arrangement which Mr Peel conceived likely to solve all difficulties.

Mr Canning left the king late in the afternoon of the 10th of April; and as parliament was to adjourn for the Easter recess on the 12th, there was not a moment to be lost. He found Lord Grenville, Mr Huskisson, and Mr Planta at the foreign office. Lord Grenville was requested to bear to his brother-in-law, Lord Harrowby, a verbal announcement of Mr Canning’s having been ordered to construct an administration; Mr Huskisson was charged with a similar mission to Lord Melville and Mr Wynn; and Mr Planta to Mr Robinson. The same communication was made by Mr Canning in writing to the Duke of Wellington, Lord Bathurst, Lord Westmoreland, and Lord Bexley. The lord chancellor and Mr Peel were waited upon by Mr Canning in person. The projected cabinet, it was intimated, was to “adhere to the principles on which Lord Liverpool’s government had so long acted. Lord Eldon “had long felt anxious to resign; but wished to procrastinate the time, not for his own sake, but on account of the business of his court. In about four months he would wind up its affairs and retire.” Finding, however, his colleagues determined to secede from Mr Canning, his lordship at last vacated the woolsack, “with coy, reluctant, amorous delay.” The Duke of Wellington inquired who was the individual intended to be put at the head of the government. To Mr Canning’s reply that the king “usually intrusted the formation of an administration to the individual whom it was his majesty’s gracious intention to put at the head of it,” his Grace rejoined by requesting Mr Canning to desire his majesty “to excuse him from belonging to his councils.” Lord Westmoreland hesitated to pledge himself, and ultimately declined office on the ground that “the chief office was in the hands of a person of different principles from Lord Liverpool’s.” Mr Canning replied to this insinuation; but only received a brief and haughty note, intimating that Lord Westmoreland “declined to enter into a literary conflict upon principles.” Lord Bexley first accepted office, and afterwards drew back. Lord Bathurst wished to see Mr Canning, but sent in his demission before an interview took place. The reason afterwards assigned was the resignation of so many of his colleagues. Mr Peel adhered to his first determination. Lastly, Lord Melville made up his mind to resign, because, as he expressed himself in the House of Lords, he doubted the “stability” of Mr Canning’s administration.

It was impossible for Mr Canning not to see that these answers were the result of combination. The king took the same view of the transaction; and, already moved by the dictatorial tone of the Dukes of Wellington and Newcastle, was roused, by this pertinacious opposition to the minister of his choice, to long unwonted decision. He immediately confirmed Mr Canning’s appointment by giving him his hand to kiss. The new premier lost not a moment in gathering the friends who had stood true to him,—Lord Harrowby, Mr Robinson, Mr Wynn, and Mr Huskisson,—and preparing to fill up vacancies. Lord Melville was the last to resign, and his office was the first filled up. Before twenty-four hours had elapsed, his royal highness the Duke of Clarence, the heir-presumptive to the throne, was placed at the head of the admiralty. Lords Anglesey and Lyndhurst accepted the offices vacated by the Duke of Wellington and Lord Eldon; the Duke of Portland, Lord Dudley, and Mr Sturges Bourne, joined the administration. A negociation was opened with the Whigs through the medium of Lord Lansdown. Some difficulties occurred to prevent the immediate accession of the party to the number of Mr Canning’s avowed supporters. In general, however, they cordially co-operated with him; [7:5:570]and it was settled, that at the close of the session Lords Lansdown and Carlisle, and Mr Tierney, should have seats in the cabinet.

The ministry seemed irresistible. Supported by triumphant majorities in both houses—opposed by the virulent but powerless hatred of a talentless faction of discontented place-hunters—suspected only by Lord Grey in the House of Lords, and Mr Hume and his small band of sturdy reformers in the Commons—it swayed the legislature to its will. The great body of the nation saw, in the junction of the Whigs with Mr Canning’s friends, a further guarantee of administrative reform. The question of parliamentary reform had been postponed by universal consent, and the concession of it by the Whigs was less noticed than perhaps it ought to have been. Ireland, relieved from a portion of her fears by the death of the Duke of York, was waiting in breathless expectation of the change which the new arrangements were to work in her favour. The calculations of all were, however, rendered nugatory by the death of Mr Canning on the 8th of August 1827.

George Canning was more the orator, and specious organ of a party, than a statesman. He had no political principles, and it may even be doubted whether he was capable of comprehending any. In his youth he advocated despotic opinions, and the policy of restriction; towards the close of his career he patronized popular rights, and advocated a liberal commercial system; and the weapons which he used, dazzling declamation and ready wit, were alike available on either side. It would be in vain to seek in his numerous orations any clear and palpable delineation of a system, or definition of principle; they are mere showy superstructures, based on the vulgar assumptions of a party man. His favourite maxim, “to hold the balance between contending principles,” is the severest satire that has been pronounced against him. It was an explicit confession that his mind was so. constructed as to be incapable of apprehending truth. Even his eloquence was showy, not substantial. Its most beautiful passages are tricked out abstractions and common-places, not those burning expressions of sentiment which strike conviction, and convey new ideas to the auditor. His jokes were not always either new or select. Canning’s, power consisted in a generous disposition, which hankered after the love and admiration of all he came in contact with; in a physical vehemence, which compensated to a certain extent for his deficiency in reasoning and sentiment; and a feeling of rhetorical beauty, which, from its common-place character, kept him uniformly within the range of the comprehension of those he was addressing. In a popular government Canning would have sunk before men of business and fluent expression; in a despotic government his irritable temperament would have incapacitated him for competition with the cool and guarded courtier. Even in the House of Commons, his vehement disposition, alike incapable of enduring opposition or bearing triumph· with moderation, if it sometimes enabled him to bear down petulance, as in the case of the celebrated “yes” with which he met some captious questions from Mr Dawson, at times prompted him to a strain of declamation revolting to every generous feeling, as in the case of his ungentlemanly joke at the expense of Lord Nugent. But on the whole, in a government such as he found England, where a despotic oligarchy sought to juggle the nation with the show of free discussion, he was an invaluable tool. He put a fair face on their worst proceedings, and he could adapt himself to every change in public opinion. Too late be awakened to a sense of his own dignity. The cold-hearted oppressors to whom he had sold his youthful vigour turned the whole energy of their concentrated malice upon him the moment he asserted his equality with them. Their scorn and persecution preyed upon his spirits, harassed and undermined his constitution. His death was an ex- 1 ample of retributive justice: he died the victim of the false god to whom he had sold himself.

The cabinet he had collected did not long survive him. His personality was the only cement that kept it together. Had he survived, time might have given it consistency; but both he and his immediate friends must have purchased it at the price of large concession to popular demands. He had thrown himself into the arms of the Whigs, and both parties must have thrown themselves, as the latter have since done, into the arms of the people, to enable them to make a stand against the aristocracy. His cabinet at the moment of his death consisted of three incompatible parties ;—some adherents of the old far niente system; Mr Huskisson and others, who wished to govern in accordance with popular principles, but without conceding any direct influence to the people; and the Whigs, whose professions had ever been a desire to afford the people a more direct voice in public councils. At the head of this discordant mass was placed Lord Goderich, an intelligent and well-meaning man, but totally destitute of promptitude and decision. Mr Herries, whose personal attachments bound him to the Duke of Wellington and Mr Peel, was placed in an important office. This ill-assorted shadow of a government was huddled up after the prorogation in 1827, and did not survive to meet the session of 1828. Lord Goderich resigned on the 8th of January. Some violent recrimination ensued between the parties, worthy only of ephemeral notice. One or other, or both parties, might have behaved, in fact did behave unhandsomely; but the real cause of the dissolution of Lord Goderich’s government lay deeper, —in the very nature of its constitution.

Before proceeding to the history of his successors in office, and the fortunes of the nation under their sway, it will be necessary to revert to the proceedings of the session 1826-27; a session interrupted by two long recesses, and frittered away by vehement personal disputes.

The subject of the corn laws was almost the only one that met with serious and continued attention. The king’s speech was studiously silent upon the general question, .but this very silence was made a pretext for introducing it. Lord King in the House of Lords moved an amendment to the address, condemning the corn laws. Mr Western in the Commons moved an amendment to the address, calling for investigation into the state of the agricultural interest, and pointing at additional restrictions in its favour. Ministers objected to the discussion, on the ground that parliament had been summoned to meet before Christmas, not for purposes of general legislation, but to pass an act of indemnity in favour of ministers, in consequence of their having opened the ports before the averages indicated that the price of grain warranted such a step. Lord Liverpool and Mr Canning assured parliament that ministers were prepared to propose a general measure regarding the corn laws, and that they would produce it immediately after the holidays. In consequence of these representations, the only step taken before the close of 1826 was the. passing of the indemnity act. Mr Whitmore took occasion to remark that the measure was a new proof of the absurdity of a law which they had been obliged to break thrice in the course of three years. It was intended to introduce the subject of the proposed alterations to the notice of both houses on the same evening, namely, the 17th of February.

The illness of Lord Liverpool prevented the propositions being submitted to a committee of the upper house, and Mr Canning’s indisposition caused a postponement ol the committee of the lower till the 1st of March. On that day the foreign secretary proposed a series of resolutions [7:5:571]respecting the future regulation of the corn trade, to be •adopted by the committee as the foundation of a bill. The object of the proposed measure he stated to be to afford as much protection to the land-owner as was necessary, at the expense of as little pressure upon the commercial interest as was possible. The mode in which this was to be accomplished was by imposing a scale of regulated duties upon foreign grain, rising and falling inversely with the fall and rise of prices. The medium price of wheat assumed was sixty shillings, and the corresponding duty was one pound per quarter. For every shilling wheat rose above the medium price there was to be a reduction of two shillings of duty until the price reached seventy shillings, at or above which it was liable to a duty of one shilling per quarter. For every shilling wheat fell below the medium price, there was imposed an additional two shillings of duty. The duty upon other kinds of grain was in proportion, and varied upon the same principle. A duty equal in amount to the duty payable on five bushels of wheat was imposed upon every barrel of wheat-meal and flour, being a hundred and ninety-six pounds. A duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of oats was imposed upon every quantity of two hundred and fifty-two pounds of oatmeal. The averages regulating the amount of duty were to be taken weekly. Mr Canning having submitted his measure to the house, postponed its consideration for a week, in order that every appearance of precipitation should be avoided. The debate, when resumed, turned chiefly upon the question of too much or too little. It was waged, however, with all that pertinacity and violence which characterize the disputes of men who differ little from each other in opinion. Some concessions were made by ministers, but they were all in favour of the land-owners. Mr Hume took no part in the discussion in committee, but when the report was brought up he entered his protest against the measure. He manfully argued for a free trade in corn as in every thing else. He maintained, that if there was truth in the allegation of the land-owners, that they bore a heavier burden of taxation than the rest of the community, the proper way to afford them relief was by a countervailing duty, or the repeal of taxes. The country needed foreign grain; it could not one year with another grow enough for its own support. When the ports were sometimes open and sometimes shut, no foreign nation could rationally venture on the speculation of raising grain for the English market; the demand was too uncertain. Mr Hume suggested the imposition of a duty of fifteen shillings on foreign wheat, to decrease annually one shilling until it was reduced to ten shillings, which was to remain the permanent duty. Only fifteen members voted for this amendment. The House of Commons having approved of Mr Canning’s resolutions, a bill enacting them into a law was introduced, which reached its third reading on the 12th of April, was passed, and sent to the Lords.

A strong opposition to the provisions of the bill had been mustering and threatening before it made its appearance in the upper house. Various unimportant amendments were made in committee; but one brought forward by the Duke of Wellington sealed the fate of the bill. His Grace moved, that “no foreign corn in bond should betaken out of bond until the average price of corn should have reached sixty-six shillings.” This amendment, which completely altered the nature of the bill, was carried by considerable majorities, both in committee and when the report was brought up. Ministry in consequence abandoned the mutilated measure. A temporary bill was introduced by Mr Canning, lest a year should be allowed to elapse without any legal provision on the subject; and this passed through both houses without any serious opposition. The Duke of Wellington asserted that his amendment met with the concurrence of his majesty’s* ministers, and produced a letter from Mr Huskisson in corroboration of his assertion. One expression in the letter was certainly liable to misapprehension, and might have contained the original hint of the duke’s amendment; but Mr Huskisson expressly said, even of his own suggestion, that it would hazard the safety of the measure, and therefore he could not'approve of it. The duke, also, when charged with having sought to defeat a measure to which he had given his assent during Lord Liverpool’s life, replied that he had only approved of the general principle of it. But his measure was subversive of the principle of the bill. No wonder then that Mr Canning saw in the duke’s amendment, and the hearty support it found, a personal attack. His only mistake lay in calling him an instrument in the hands of others. His previous intriguing, and his subsequent political career, show him to have been an instrument possessed of a perfect consciousness of the purposes to which he was applied. Mr Canning was thus far in the right. He was the objector the most intense animosity to the high Tories. They hated with all a woman’s hatred one of the democracy who aspired to an equality with them, who they felt surpassed them in intellectual power, and who they were conscious knew that he surpassed them.

The other questions brought before the session of parliament which witnessed the termination of Mr Canning’s career, were discussed with a considerable degree of listlessness and impatience. Mr Canning’s vindication of the prompt interference of Britain, when Spain threatened to disturb by violence the internal arrangements of Portugal, was splendid and convincing. The establishment of a constitutional form of government in Portugal had given rise to much faction and intrigue; and there had been numerous desertions from the army. The disaffected had been well received, and allowed to organize themselves behind the Spanish frontier, and had even dared to violate the Portuguese territory. A large force of Spanish troops was mustering upon the frontier. Under these circumstances the regency, after losing some time in fruitless negociations at Madrid, claimed the aid of England, which was frankly and promptly granted. Five thousand British troops were immediately embarked, the first division of which arrived in the Tagus on the 25th of December 1826. The course of events rendered it unnecessary for them to encounter the rebels in the field. Home affairs were discussed with the same want of keenness. On the 5th of March the House of Commons refused to entertain the question of Catholic emancipation, bya majority of four. Notices of one motion on the subject, and another for the repeal of the test act, were withdrawn immediately after the instalment of Mr Canning in the premiership, lest a premature collision between him and his new allies should be brought about. Mr Hume’s motion for the repeal of Lord Castlereagh’s act against cheap publications was smothered by the voluntary absence of the Whigs, aided by the apostacy of Sir James Scarlett and of Sir Robert Wilson. Such was the aspect of affairs when the fate of the nation was confided to the guardianship of the Duke of Wellington.

Lord Goderich had no sooner resigned than the king sent for the Duke of Wellington, and commissioned him to form an administration with himself at its head. His Grace immediately entered into communication with Mr Peel and others of Lord Liverpool’s ministry who had seceded on the elevation of Mr Canning. The new government was speedily constructed. The Whigs were dismissed, the friends of Mr Canning remained in office, and the leading members of Lord Liverpool’s cabinet returned[7:5:572]. The public were not satisfied at seeing the pertinacity with which Mr Huskisson and his friends clung to office. The duke indeed seemed to have retained them solely for the purpose of disgracing them in the eyes of the country; for, after forcing·upon the House of Commons measures which obliged them, out of a regard to common decency, to declare they supported with reluctance, and merely for the sake of preserving unity in the cabinet, he took the opportunity afforded him by Mr Huskisson, when he voted for transferring the franchise of Penryn, convicted of corruption, to Birmingham or Manchester, to get quit of him, and with him of his retainers. Their places were immediately filled by creatures of the duke. The only other change made by the premier was his superseding the Duke of Clarence in the admiralty.

The Duke of Wellington found the country at peace, and looked up to as the head of constitutional Europe. The state of peace seemed to run little risk of being interrupted. The British troops dispatched to Portugal were still stationed there, but almost one of the first steps taken by the new minister was to withdraw them. The relation in which England stood to the Ottoman Porte was more delicate. From the commencement of the Greek struggle for independence till the year 1827 Britain had observed a strict neutrality between the Turks and their former vassals. The prolongation of the contest between the infuriated nations, however, promoted the growth of piracy to such a degree that the countries principally interested in the commerce of the Levant felt themselves bound to put an end if possible to the state of things in which it originated. These resolves were confirmed by their feelings of humanity, revolted by the Turkish cruelties. On the 6th of July a treaty was signed at London by the ministers of Britain, France, and Russia, declaratory of the necessity of putting an end to this sanguinary contest. The intervention of France and Britain was justified on the ground that their mediation had been requested by the Greeks. The object of the treaty was declared to be the effecting of a reconciliation between the Porte and its Grecian subjects. An armistice was to be insisted on from both parties as an indispensable preliminary to the opening of any negociation. Before the Porte could be brought to declare its sentiments with regard to this interference, Ibrahim Pacha, with the Egyptian fleet of ninety-two sail, arrived in the Morea. The British squadron under Admiral Codrington was cruizing off Navarino when this armament approached. The Porte not having yet refused to accede to the armistice, the English admiral gave the Egyptian his choice of returning to Alexandria or entering Navarino, to which in that case he must confine himself. The latter branch of the alternative was accepted. Ibrahim took advantage of the absence of the British and French squadrons to put to sea on the 30th of September, but returned to Navarino on the approach of Admiral Codrington. Chafed by these obstructions, he attacked the Greeks by land, and ravaged the surrounding districts with fire and sword. It was immediately resolved by the British, Russian, and French admirals, to enter the harbour, in the hope that their imposing attitude would induce Ibrahim to desist from his savage devastation. This movement produced an attack from several of the Turkish ships; and after a vain attempt at explanation the action became general. The Egyptian fleet was completely dismantled. It was feared that the sullen silence with which the intelligence of this disaster was received at Constantinople might eventually break out into war. If it happened that there was little reason to dread a transition from the peace which Europe was enjoying, owing to the accession of a military premier, the confidence in the liberal policy of England was considerably shaken. No decided steps of the minister justified the suspicions of his own country and Europe; but the lenient eye with which the proceedings of Don Miguel were regarded, and the disparaging terms applied to the action at Navarino in the king’s speech, were laid hold of as unfavourable symptoms.

The first step taken by the new ministry after the meeting of parliament was to appoint a finance committee. The nomination of its chairman was the ostensible reason of that schism in the late cabinet which had caused its dissolution. On the 15th of February Mr Peel proposed “That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of the public income and expenditure of the united kingdom, and to consider and report to the house what further regulations and checks it may be proper in their opinion to adopt, for establishing an effectual control upon all charges incurred in the receipt, custody, and application of public money; and what further measures can be adopted for reducing any part of the public expenditure without detriment to the public service.” The sub· ject of inquiry to which the mover adverted as most worthy of the attention of the committee, and most likely to be productive of benefit, was the simplification of the public accounts. He alluded to the superior manner in which those of France and the United States were kept. This admission of the propriety of taking a lesson on such a subject from these countries, when viewed in connection with Mr Canning’s declamatory opposition to Mr Brougham’s motion respecting the droits of admiralty in 1820, was a most remarkable sign of the times. A minister who had opposed that very Mr Canning on the ground that he conceded too much to the innovating spirit of the age, was ready to advance before him in the path of innovation. Mr Peel’s motion encountered no stronger opposition than arose from a proposal made by Mr Hume, that as one committee was inadequate to overtake the immense number of topics embraced by the proposed investigation, several should be appointed. Mr Brougham, with a view to reconcile the two plans, suggested -the division of the committee into sub-committees, each taking a specific subject of inquiry. Ministers persisted in adhering to their original plan. Two measures of financial reform were submitted by the committee to the House of Commons during the session. The first related to the system on which government annuities were granted. Mr Perceval’s bill for regulating the granting of annuities of 1808 was calculated upon Dr Price’s tables. So early as 1819 Mr Finlayson demonstrated to Mr Vansittart that, in consequence of the errors of these tables, the country was losing L.8000 per month on the annuities granted by government. The subject was of course beyond the comprehension of that enlightened chancellor of the exchequer; but even his judicious and economical successor Mr Robinson paid no attention to the representation. The finance committee soon convinced itself that the annuities occasioned loss. Nothing could be done to alter those which had been already sold; but on the recommendation of the committee a bill was passed to suspend the operation of the act under which they had been granted, until a more correct system should be settled. The other measure recommended by the committee was the abolition of the office of lieutenant-general of the ordnance; but such a concession was not to be expected from the Duke of Wellington.

The next undertaking of the ministry was the settlement of the corn laws. The bill introduced with their sanction adopted the principle of that proposed by their predecessors, but increased the duties imposed. Mr Charles Grant, to whom was intrusted the task of bringing forward the measure, described the enactment as the [7:5:573]fruit of a compromise, and confessed that he thought it imperfect. Some other members of the government expressed a similar opinion. The bill was finally carried by large majorities.

While ministers were thus carrying into effect the measures originated by men with whom they had refused to co-operate, Mr Brougham was astonishing the nation with the display of a degree of legislative industry, of a mind at once indefatigable and comprehensive, that threw into the shade even bis own exertions in the cause of education. On the 7th of February he directed the attention of the house to the state of the common law courts, and of the common law itself. He omitted equity in every branch, because he considered it as in some sort already taken up by parliament. For the same reason he passed over the criminal law. The inquiries pressed upon the house by Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir James Mackintosh had, it was true, been followed up timidly and on a narrow scale by Mr Peel; still the exertions of that minister were a pledge that something was to be done. The commercial law, as of modern growth, was comparatively pure. In regard to the law of real property, much had been done and more was hoped for. But to the conflicting jurisdictions, the inadequate and cumbrous forms of the common law courts, and the incongruities of the anomalous mass of consuetudinary and statutory law to which their judgments were conformed, the hand of reform had never yet been stretched out. Mr Brougham entered at great length into the constitution of the English courts, and the state of the law administered in them. For seven hours did his lucid arrangement and impressive earnestness fetter the attention of an assembly little qualified by habits or education to take pleasure in dry legal discussions. He pointed out the danger of paltry piece-meal reform, and concluded by moving an address to the throne, praying the appointment of“a commission for inquiring into the defects occasioned by time and otherwise in the laws of this realm, and into the measures necessary for removing the same.” All debate on this motion was suspended until the 29th of February, when Mr Brougham substituted a modified resolution, which, with the assent of government, was unanimously carried. It prayed his majesty to take such measures as might “seem most expedient for the purpose of causing due inquiry to be made into the origin, progress, and termination of actions in the superior courts of common law in this country, and matters connected therewith; and into the state of the law regarding the transfer of real property.” The field of inquiry was materially narrowed, and the prospect of efficient reform correspondingly diminished.

It has already been remarked, that the old aristocrats who rebelled against the presumption of a commoner aspiring to the chief honours of the administration, had felt themselves obliged, on their return to office, to pay homage to public feeling, and adopt the very line of policy which they had blamed in others. A more striking proof that they were merely allowed to hold the reins of government by sufferance was this year afforded in the success of the dissenters in asserting their rights. Lord John Russell moved on the 26th of February that the house should resolve itself into a committee for the purpose of taking into consideration the regulations of the corporation and test acts. A keen debate ensued, which terminated in a division, when two hundred and thirty-seven voted for the com- rnι ttee and a hundred and ninety-three against its appointment. This was the first successful blow aimed at the ļ’Upremacy of the church of England since the revolution.

he committee, notwithstanding the earnest entreaties 't ministers for delay, agreed to a resolution approving of he instant repeal of the obnoxious acts. It was evident, from the temper of the house, that concession was the only course left open for government. A bill founded upon 1 the resolution was introduced and read a second time without opposition. When the motion for going into committee was made, Mr Peel rose and declared, that after the decision to which the house had come, he was prepared to dismiss at once from his mind every idea of adhering to the existing law. All that he asked for was, the substitution of a declaration that the predominancy of the established church should be secured for the sacramental test. His request being complied with, the ministers withdrew their opposition to the bill, which was speedily passed, notwithstanding the tears of the Earl of Eldon.

But a more serious exaction of popular right remained to be conceded by ministers; they had yet to purchase the endurance of that power to which they clung so desperately, at the price of a more glaring abandonment of their previous professions, of the adoption of a line of policy which left them to choose between the brand of previous insincerity or subsequent apostacy.

On the 8th of May Sir Francis Burdett moved for a committee of the whole house to take into consideration the claims of the Catholics, with a view to a final and conciliatory adjustment. The debate on this motion, which was continued for three evenings, ended in a majority of six in favour of the house going into committee. The resolution subsequently adopted was, that the time had arrived when a final settlement of the Catholic claims was expedient. A conference with the Lords was requested, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the sentiments of that house had undergone the same change with those of the Commons. The managers for the Lords having received the resolution, it was ordered to be taken into consideration by their house on the 9th of June. The discussion was entirely destitute of interest beyond what resulted from its being the first occasion on which the Duke of Wellington had expressed his opinion of the question at length. He grounded his opposition to Concession entirely on expediency. The discussion would lead, he thought, to no practical result, and would tend only to disturb the public mind. He was desirous that the agitation of the country might be allowed to subside; and in the end it might be possible to do something, for he was most desirous of seeing the subject brought to an amicable conclusion. The motion of the Marquis of Lansdown, that the house should concur in the resolution which had been adopted by the Commons, was lost by a majority of forty-four.

While the claims of the Catholics stood in the legislative assemblies “like the swan’s down at full of tide, which neither way inclines,” the power which was to establish justice was carrying all before it in Ireland. The Catholics had paused to see what measures would be adopted by Mr Canning; but the elevation of the Duke of Wellington set them again in motion. The first opportunity of showing their determined spirit of opposition to him was afforded by the election for the county of Clare. Mr Vesey Fitzgerald, one of the members representing that county, had vacated his seat by accepting the office of president of the board of trade when Mr Charles Grant resigned. He had uniformly given his vote and influence in favour of emancipation; but he had identified himself with the Duke of Wellington, and was esteemed no longer worthy of confidence. Besides, a new mode of annoying government had suggested itself to the fertile invention of the Association. The laws might prevent a Catholic from taking his seat in parliament, by ordering that an oath should be tendered to him when he appeared to claim his right of sitting; but they did not forbid his being returned to serve. Taking advantage of this omission would afford the administration a test of the absolute sway which the Association exercised[7:5:574] over the tenantry of Ireland. Accordingly Mr O’Connell was proposed as a candidate for the honour of representing Clare in parliament, in opposition to Mr Fitzgerald. Emissaries of the Association were dispatched to every barony and parish of the county. The priests, with one exception, exhorted their flocks to vote for the advocate of their rights. A fund was prepared to pay up the arrears of all tenants distrained on account of the votes they might give, upon their finding security for repayment within a reasonable time. The day of election came. Mr Fitzgerald threatened the voters with the displeasure of their landlords. “Is it,” he asked, “the payment of an arrear of rent by any body of men that will compensate to the unfortunate peasant for being deprived of his natural protector? Is it the payment of a few pounds that can compensate to the unfortunate peasant for the total alienation of his landlord? When the poor man is sick, and his family famishing with hunger, where will those men be, who, to gratify a public, perhaps a private, pique, burst the bonds which for years have bound together the landlord and tenant by what was considered an indissoluble tie? Alas! they will be far distant; and the unfortunate tenant will have nobody to look to for relief and comfort, except that landlord whom he is now called upon to desert.” Mr O’Connell, on the other hand, dwelt upon the utter hopelessness of good legislation for Ireland so long as the people were not represented. He expatiated upon the impossibility of men achieving their rights who shrunk back from asserting them in person, and were willing to receive them from the bounty of a patron. He reminded his hearers of the unjust and unequal taxation under which they were labouring. He warned government that “the young blood of Ireland was in a ferment.” The result of the election proved that the Catholics of Ireland had determined to rely upon their own efforts alone. The tenantry had awakened to a sense of their degraded situation; a race of paupers tolerated in the land because once in seven years they were of use, and allowed to perish of hunger and cold except when it became necessary to win their voices at an election. They were determined to assert their right to equal laws and legislative attention to their interests. This spirit was mainly owing to the efforts of the Association; and to the credit of the gentlemen composing that body, a spirit of forbearance from violence had likewise been fostered in the peasantry. Notwithstanding the violence of party feeling, the Clare election was attended with less outrage than the average of English county elections; and Mr O’Connell, notwithstanding a protest taken by some of the freeholders, was declared duly elected.

In the month of July the law which had been directed against the Catholic Association expired, and that body immediately re-assembled in its original form, to improve the victory it had gained in Clare. They issued an enumeration of four pledges to be required of every person who should at any time come forward as candidate for a seat in parliament. By the first he was to bind himself to oppose the Duke of Wellington’s ministry in every thing until emancipation was conceded; by the second, to support religious and civil liberty; by the third, to procure the repeal of the sub-letting act; and by the fourth, to support refornf in parliament. It was declared that every candidate refusing to take these pledges should be opposed by the men, influence, and funds of the Catholic Association. The next step was to organize local clubs. These bodies speedily spread throughout the three southern provinces, and embraced in their number many of the higher as well as of the lower orders. As far as possible, a club was instituted in every parish, consisting of the principal gentry, clergy, churchwardens, and such respectable far mers as could read. The club was to meet monthly. It was to keep a register of all electors within its bounds; to have every man in readiness for future elections; and to promote good order, perfect subordination to the laws, political knowledge, and liberal feeling, as much as possible. Every club was to report once in three months to the secretary of the Association, and to receive a weekly paper for a weekly contribution of three pence. Aggregate meetings of these clubs were held during the autumn in the provinces of Leinster and Munster, and countenanced by many of the aristocracy. The party feuds which raged among the peasantry, and occasioned unintermitting scenes of riot and bloodshed, were hushed at the bidding of the Association. The superfluous flow of Irish animal spirits was turned from the path of crime, and concentrated for the achievement of a great national conquest. Well might Mr Shiel say—“What has government to dread from our resentment in peace? An answer is supplied by what we behold. Does not a tremendous organization extend over the whole island? Have not all the natural bonds by which men are tied together been broken and burst asunder? Are not all the relations of society which exist elsewhere gone? Has not property lost its influence— has not rank been stripped of the respect which should belong to it—and has not an internal government grown up, which, gradually superseding the legitimate authorities, has armed itself with a complete domination? Is it nothing that the whole body of the clergy are alienated from the state, and that the Catholic gentry, and peasantry, and priesthood, are all combined in one vast confederacy? So much for Catholic indignation while we are at peace; and when England shall be involved in war 1

pause; it is not necessary that I should discuss that branch of the division, or point to the cloud which, charged with thunder, is hanging over our heads.”

The first symptom of intimidation on the part of the supporters of Protestant ascendency, was Mr Dawson’s speech at a public dinner in Londonderry on the 12th of August. This gentleman was a minister of the crown, brother-in-law of Mr Peel, the leader of the Anti-Catholic party in the House of Commons, and himself distinguished for more than ordinary vehemence in opposing Catholic claims. He now declared that his sentiments were changed; that there was but one alternative, either to crush the Association, or to settle the question; that the former was impossible, the latter inevitable.

The bigots of the Protestant ascendency were on their part no less active. No sooner had the act against illegal societies expired, than the Orange lodges were revived, and the grand Orange lodge in Dublin again opened. New associations were formed in various parts of the country, but particularly in Dublin and Ulster, under the name of Brunswick clubs. A Protestant rent was collected in emulation of the Catholic rent. The mass of the Irish population seemed arrayed into two mighty and adverse armies. Men’s minds grew heated, and the war-cry of religious intolerance rose fiercer and fiercer. The Protestant friends of emancipation began to hold back from the Association. The mania of Brunswick clubs spread to England, and the spirit first showed itself in Kent, at a great meeting on Pennenden Heath. The Catholics m England were few; the question of emancipation was there regarded with comparative indifference; and there was a possibility of the prejudices of the lower orders being 111 flamed, and the Catholic claims made a ground ol ♭ m enmity between the sister islands.

The silence and inactivity of ministers while ^ ιs stor was gathering merited the taunt of Mr Shiel. i e3 while the government stands by, and the minister o his arms as if he were a mere indifferent observer, a [7:5:575]the terrific contest only afforded him a spectacle for the amusement of his official leisure. He sits as if two gladiators were crossing their swords for his recreation. The cabinet seems to be little better than a box in an amphitheatre, from whence his majesty’s ministers may survey the business of blood.” The truth was, that the members of the cabinet were irresolute, and divided among themselves, and that the king was unmanageable. His pride was hurt at the opposition to his sovereign will, displayed in the proceedings of the Association; and his worn-out and irritable constitution was stung to frenzy by the interruption of his pleasures. The Duke of Wellington, in a communication to the Marquis of Anglesey, dated the 28th of September, told the lord-lieutenant that the Catholic question was “a subject of which the king never hears or speaks without being disturbed.” On the 11th of November the duke wrote to the same nobleman :—“I cannot express to you adequately the extent of the difficulties which these and other occurrences in Ireland create, in all discussions with his majesty. He feels that in Ireland the public peace is violated every day with impunity, by those whose duty it is to preserve it, and that a formidable conspiracy exists, and that the supposed principal conspirators—those whose language and conduct point them out as the avowed principal agitators of the country—are admitted to the presence of his majesty’s representative in Ireland, and equally well received with the king’s most loyal subjects.” Again, on the 19th of November:—“I might have at an earlier period expressed the pain I felt at the attendance of gentlemen of your household, and even of your family, at the Roman Catholic Association. I could not but feel that such attendance must expose your government to misconstruction; but I was silent, because it is painful to notice such things. But I have always felt, that if these impressions on the king’s mind should remain, and I must say that recent transactions have given fresh cause for them, I could not avoid to mention them to you in a private communication, and to let you know the embarrassment you occasion.”

The silence and inaction of the duke, circumstanced as he was, were unavoidable. They tended, however, to precipitate the final issue. Dr Curtis, the Catholic primate of Ireland, had long cultivated an intimacy with the Duke of Wellington, which had its origin in some important services rendered to the army in Spain, the doctor having held a high office in the university of Salamanca. He availed himself of the footing on which he stood with the premier to address to him a letter on the state of the country, and the importance of settling the Catholic question. The duke’s reply was in these words :—“I assure you that you do me but justice in believing that I am sincerely anxious to witness the settlement of the Roman Catholic question, which, by benefiting the state, would confer a benefit upon every individual belonging to it. But I confess that I see no prospect of such a settlement. I arty has been mixed up with the consideration of the question to such a degree, and such violence pervades every discussion of it, that it is impossible to expect to prevail upon men to consider it dispassionately. If we could bury it in oblivion for a short time, and employ that time diligently in the consideration of its difficulties on all sides (for they are very great), I should not despair of seeing a satisfactory remedy.” A copy of the duke s letter was forwarded to Mr O’Connell, and received by him a ∏d the Association as a declaration that the minister was ∏o longer unfavourable to the Catholic claims. A copy of the letter was likewise transmitted to the Marquis of An- § esey. In his reply to Dr Curtis the marquis pointed ŷut that the duke could only be considered as wavering ln his previous opinions; advised the adoption of such lan-

guage as might further conciliate him; an d earnestly dissuaded from every appeal to brute force. The most remarkable passage in the letter was the following·. “I

differ from the opinion of the duke, that an attempt should be made to bury m oblivion the question for a short time. First, because the thing is utterly impossible; and next it the thing were possible, I fear that advantage might be taken of the pause, by representing it as a panic achieved by the late violent re-action, and by proclaiming, that if the government at once and peremptorily decided against concession, the Catholics would cease to agitate, and then all the miseries of the last years of Ireland will have to be re-acted. What I do recommend is, that the measure should not for a moment be lost sight of—that anxiety should continue to be manifested—that all constitutional (in contradistinction to merely legaD means should be resorted to to forward the cause; but that, at the same time, the most patient forbearance—the most submissive obedience to the laws—should be inculcated; that no personal and offensive language should be held towards those who oppose the claims.” This letter was produced at a meeting of the Association, and received with the warmest encomiums. The next wind that blew from England brought the mandate recalling the Marquis of Anglesey, and appointing the Duke of Northumberland to succeed him. The rage of the Catholics was unbounded, as their hopes had been premature. The storm howled more loudly than ever.

Wellington’s resolution was at last fixed. It may be that pride had some share in prompting his resolves. It was known, or believed, that in his own person he had no great objections to concede what was claimed by the Catholics; and he was not a man to defer to the prejudices of others, however high in station, although he might to his own. The danger was too imminent to allow him to hesitate longer. Having secured the assent of his colleagues, and wrung his slow leave from the king, he prepared to force upon parliament a measure which it had often with seeming loathing rejected. The session of 1829 was opened on the oth of February by a speech from the throne, which contained the following unwonted expressions :—“His majesty recommends that you should take into your deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland; and that you should review the laws which impose civil disabilities on his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects. You will consider whether the removal of these disabilities can be effected consistently with the full and permanent security of our establishments in church and state, with the maintenance of the reformed religion established by law, and of the rights and privileges of the bishops and of the clergy of this realm, and of the churches committed to their charge. These are institutions which must ever be held sacred in this Protestant kingdom, and which it is the duty and determination of his majesty to preserve inviolate. His majesty most earnestly recommends to you to enter upon the consideration of a subject of such paramount importance, deeply interesting to the best feelings of his people, and involving the tranquillity and concord of the united kingdom, with the temper and the moderation which will best insure the successful issue of your deliberations.” The Anti-Catholics were not taken by surprise, for it had been whispered about, a lew days before the meeting of parliament, that ministers intended to recommend concessions to the Catholics. But they were not yet sufficiently masters of the course intended to be pursued by the duke to organize an effective opposition, and their first burst of discontent is unworthy of beinaľ recorded. - . ,

The first measure of the ministry was one of punis ment to the sturdy beggars whose importunity had extorted[7:5:576] their charity. The Catholic Association was denounced in the king’s speech as dangerous to the public, and inconsistent with the constitution. This flourish of trumpets was followed up by a bill, which Mr Peel introduced on the 10th of February, to terminate the existence of the Association. He proposed to give to the lordlieutenant, and to him alone, the power of suppressing any association or meeting which he might think dangerous to the peace, or inconsistent with the due administration of law; together with the power of interdicting the meeting· of any assembly of a similar character, of which previous notice had been given. In case it should be necessary to enforce the provisions of the law, the lord-lieutenant was authorized to select two magistrates, for the purpose of suppressing the meeting, and requiring the people to disperse. Finally, every meeting and association which fell under the provisions of the act were prohibited from receiving and placing at their disposal any monies, by the name of rent, or any other name. The operation of the act was limited to the end of the then next session of parliament. This bill met with no opposition. The friends of the Catholics regarded it as a part of the system of emancipation—as a concession to the wounded feelings of men in power. Their adversaries were pleased even with this dying blow at the Association. Several members who voted felt themselves called upon to apologise for supporting the bill; whilst others taunted them for not having introduced such a measure before. It received the royal assent on the 5th of March; but the Association had already declared itself dissolved. The last blow struck for the gratification of offended vanity was lost in the empty air.

On the same day that the bill aimed at the Catholic Association received the royal assent, Mr Peel moved in the House of Commons that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the laws which imposed disabilities on the Catholics. A call of the house had been moved for that day, and the consequence was an unusually crowded attendance. The speech with which the home secretary prefaced his recommendation of the ministerial measure had two remarkable features. In the first place, every fact that he stated as influencing the decision to which he had come, must have been known for years, or he must have been unfit for his office. In the second place, while confessing that the object of the measure was to mediate between contending interests, he conceived it necessary for the honour of government to affect a stern disregard of all. His reasons for yielding to the Catholic claims were,—That the evils of divided councils were palpably so great, that something must be done to form a government with one common opinion on the subject; that a united government must either grant further political rights to the Catholics, or deprive them of those they already possessed; and that the latter alternative was impossible. Having made up their minds to bring back the Catholics within the pale of the constitution, ministers wisely brushed off all the incumbrances with which the concession had from time to time been surrounded, with the view of assuring alarmists. The great object of the measure was to abolish civil distinctions, and establish equality of civil rights. The Catholic, when promoted to office, was only called upon to swear allegiance in the usual terms; to disclaim the deposing power of the pope; and to abjure any intention of employing his privileges to weaken the Protestant religion or government. The only offices from which Catholics were excluded were that of lord-lieutenant of Ireland, that of lord high chancellor, and appointments in any of the universities, colleges, or ecclesiastical schools. No official insignia were to be borne to a Catholic place of worship; no Catholic prelate was to assume the name and title of any dignitary of the church of England; and the names and numbers of the individuals composing monastic societies were to be registered. Making allowance for the necessity of gilding the pill inorder that it might be swallowed, the measure was as liberal as could be desired. It was, however, beyond the power of the narrow-minded faction into whose hands fortune, in one of her freaks, had placed the office of effecting this great act of justice, to have kept it pure from every indication of their own want of magnanimity. The provision that the oath recited in the act, and no other, should be taken by a Catholic, was expressly limited to the case of “any person professing the Catholic religion who shall, after the commencement of this act, be returned as a member of the House of Commons.” This specification was evidently levelled against Mr O’Connell, who had been returned for Clare before “the commencement of this act and was worthy of the temper that punished the Catholic Association at the very moment it confessed that that body had demanded no more than justice. Ministers had been terrified into an honest action, and were determined to show their resentment by performing it with as bad a grace as possible.

The burden of defending the measure fell upon the recently-converted ministerialists; the old and tried friends of emancipation contenting themselves with throwing in an occasional word of encouragement to their new allies. The line of argument adopted by all was much the same as that made use of by Mr Peel. The opposition was characterized rather by a dogged and sullen pertinacity, than by debating talent. The speakers had followed the lord of the ascendency; and the only things that enlivened the dulness of the minority were some savage sneers at the deserters. The main argument relied upon was, that a majority of the nation was opposed to concession. Ministers were repeatedly challenged to appeal to the sense of the nation by a dissolution of parliament. They who urged such reasons knew right well, that as parliament was constituted, a new election would not have given the voice of the nation. They knew that even though England and Scotland had been bigoted enough to wish to rivet the fetters of the Catholics, Ireland had still a right to appeal from their decision. Ireland was all but unanimous on the question ;—Ireland was the principal party interested ;—Ireland had assented to the union under the impression that emancipation was to be conceded ;—Ireland had a right, if it was withheld, to demand the repeal of an alliance into which she had been inveigled under false pretences, in order, after arranging this domestic matter, to re-unite herself on equal terms to England. Parliament was certainly not the fairest tribunal; but, ae the circumstances of the case, it was the best that could be had.

The majority 7 in the committee, three hundred and forty-eight for the motion, and a hundred and sixty against it, decided the fate of the measure in the Commons. No important variation in the relative numbeis occurred during the remaining discussions, neither was any new argument adduced. The speakers came forwar for the purpose of recording their own opinions, not∣" 1 the hope of influencing those of others. The bnl carried up to the Lords, and read a first time on the s of March. .,

In this house the demands of the Catholics had.hi ı to met with the most determined and uniform resistanc ' Its members were men of high feelings, of personal 1101101 ’ and independent circumstances. They were contemp a by the panegyrists of the constitution as. the repιese tives of what was permanent in the English frame 0 ≡of vernment, and as the check upon the over-hasty ιε s0 v [7:5:577]a popular assembly, let they evinced as much haste and dexterity in following the veering inclinations of the minister as their humbler colleagues in the task of legislation. On the 11th of June 1828 a majority of forty-four refused even to entertain the question of the Catholic claims. On the 10th of April 1829 a majority of a hundred and four passed a bill granting every thing that the Catholics asked for. The debates were equally lengthy and unsatisfactory with those in the lower house. The bill received the royal assent on the 13th of April.

The bill which admitted Catholics to both houses of parliament, and to almost every office of political power, trust, and emolument, was accompanied throughout its progress by another bill for disfranchising the whole body of forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland. This measure, as described by Mr Peel, restricted the possession of the elective franchise to the possessors of a real ten-pound freehold. This restriction did not extend to corporate towns; for had the franchise been raised within their jurisdictions to ten pound, the corporations could have overpowered the public voice by their right to make freemen. The bill fixed a day for the opening, in every county in Ireland, of a bona fide register of ten-pound freeholds. An act of more flagrant injustice was never perpetrated. The landlords finding that the serfs, whom they had bred for electioneering purposes, had emancipated themselves, threw them carelessly away. The wealthier Catholics had served their own purposes, and abandoned those who had fought their battles. The Irish forty-shillings freeholder had as good a title to his elective franchise as the proudest nobleman to his barony. He might be all that his calumniators represented him, but the fault lay in the system under which he was born, and in the ambitious landholders who had made it an engine to serve their own selfish purposes. He was punished for having rescued himself from the degradation of being a mere unthinking tool. Lords Duncannon and Palmerston, and Mr Huskisson, deserve to be had in remembrance for having raised their voices against this filching of men’s rights. Only seventeen members voted against the bill in the Commons, and scarcely a murmur was heard from Ireland when it passed into a law. And thus a question which had vexed the nation for half a century was set at rest.

No other question of importance succeeded in arresting the attention of parliament during this agitated year. Even the budget was hurried over without its due allowance of wrangling. On the 24th of June parliament was prorogued, in order that the nation and the government might have time to reflect upon their novel situation.

The ceding of the Catholic claims was the last important act of the reign of George IV. The ministers gained by this desertion of their professed principles what every body of men adopting a similar line of conduct may reasonably expect, the enmity of their former friends, and a cold distrustful toleration at the hands of their former opponents. The country was partially disquieted during the autumn and winter of 1829. The labourers were suffering in many places from want of employment, and distress to a considerable extent was insinuating itself among the agricultural classes. England’s productive powers continued unabated, and the prevalence of want showed that there was something wrong in her internal arrangements, interfering with the natural tendency of wealth to 1 *ιuse itself. In Ireland public tranquillity was far from ein g re-established, nor was such a consummation reasonably to fle hoped for from the redress of one grievance? one in a country which had been governed for centuries y men ignorant of its wants and feelings. The boon of mancipation had been attended, as we have seen, by an ‘Ct of injustice and a gratuitous insult. The former was scarcely remembered m the hour of triumph, but it afforded a topic for declamation when the hour of agitation should arrive; and the latter sent back to Ireland?as the avowed and embittered enemy of government, the man w ho had more power than any other over popular feeling. O Connells progress through Ireland was a continued triumph. His re-election for Clare was not contested. And wherever lie went he held out ministers to the popular odium, recounting all their misdeeds, real or imaginary, and appealing in turns to every passion that could be supposed to animate the peasant. The Orangemen on the other hand, galled by the loss of their ascendency, continued to vociferate empty menaces, which had at least the effect of producing irritation. The waves of popular hatred and prejudice continued to dash after the storm that raised them had blown over.

Amid all this trouble a conviction began to gam ground that ministers were inadequate to the task of holding the reins of government. It was apparent that they had chalked out for themselves no system to which to square their conduct. They undertook nothing of their own accord, and they adopted every suggestion. Nor was this strange. With the exception of some inferior officials, men trained in the discharge of routine duties, but who could only discharge a task prescribed to them, there was not one man among them who had a knowledge of public business. The leaders were the remnant of that imbecile aristocratic faction who had revolted at the idea of following the lead of a parvenu like Canning. They believed the honours of the state to belong to them in virtue of their birth; they managed to secure them by influence and underhand intrigue; but they could not use the power which they had succeeded in acquiring. Masters of their wishes, they gaped idly around, asking what they were to do next. The dilemma in which they had involved themselves was soon visible to every eye, and its effect was to revive dormant feelings. At the commencement of the reign of George IV. parliamentary reform was loudly called for by two bodies of men; by the Whigs, with whom the belief of its necessity partook largely of the character of a theoretical tenet; and by the radicals, who, without correct or extensive views, felt that something was wrong, and stumbled upon the remedy. The conciliatory policy of the cabinet after the accession of Mr Canning deluded the nation with the hope that an efficient and enlightened government might be obtained even under the old system; and the cry of reform was stilled for a time. But the intrigues by which it was sought to keep Mr Canning out of the premiership, and the success with which they were employed after his death, revived the conviction that an enlightened ministry, acting for the national good, must remain weak, unless, by parliamentary reform, the body of the people obtained a more direct control over the executive. This spirit, to which subsequent events soon imparted a more determined character, was rapidly spreading when parliament re-assembled in February 1830.

The ministers were conscious that they did not command a majority of the house. The old Tories stood in an attitude of avowed hostility. The Whigs lent a patronising but uncertain support. The Duke of Wellington, however, flattered himself that the incompatible principles of these two parties would keep them from coalescing against him. He dreamed of receiving alternate assistance from both, and, by playing off their mutual J≡ al θ"^ of avoiding the necessity of throwing himself into the arms of either. Thus situated, his conduct was marked with the same tinge of feebleness as during the preceding session. When any measure to which he was averse was energetically pressed upon him, he evaded the appearance of a defeat by introducing one slightly varied in form, but [7:5:578]of the same tendency. On the 12th of February, Sir James Graham moved a resolution to the effect—“That whereas subsequently to the act of the 37th George III., by which a suspension of cash payments was effected, large augmentations had taken place in the salaries and pay of persons in civil and military employments, on account of the diminished value of money; and whereas the alleged reason for such augmentations had ceased to operate, in consequence of the passing of 59th George III., which restored a metallic standard of value; it was expedient, in order to relieve the country from its excessive load of taxation, to revise our present system of expenditure, for the purpose of making every possible reduction that could be effected, without violation of good faith or public justice.” This motion was opposed by ministers; but, in the temper of the house, it was judged expedient merely to substitute a motion to the following effect :— “That whereas his majesty has been graciously pleased, &c. to assure the house that he would cause an inquiry to be made into all the departments of the civil government, with a view of reducing the number of persons employed, and the amount of the salaries paid; resolved, that an humble address be presented to his majesty, that his majesty might be graciously pleased to lay before the house an account of the progress which had been made in such inquiry: also, that it was the opinion of the house that, in every establishment of the state, every saving ought to be made consistently with the due performance of the public service, and without the violation of existing engagements.” Ministers did not insist upon taking the lead; they only asked leave to walk foremost. So that they rode on the crest of the billow, they cared not in what direction it was impelled.

A variety of subjects forced on the attention of parliament, confirmed the fact that men’s minds were full of doubts and questionings. Lord Stanhope moved for an inquiry into the state of the nation. Mr P. Thomson moved for a committee to revise the whole system of taxation. The question of the East India charter was unavoidably brought forward. Parliamentary reform was suggested in the most various forms, and from the most unexpected quarters. The Marquis of Blandford, once a violent Tory, proposed, on the 18th of February, the appointment of a committee by ballot, to take a review of all the boroughs and cities in the kingdom, and to report to the home secretary such as had fallen into decay or forfeited their right to representation. That minister was immediately to relieve these places from the burden of sending members to parliament in future, and to fill up the vacancies by towns hitherto unrepresented. The elective franchise was to be enjoyed by all persons paying scot and lot. The plan of the marquis contemplated the revival of the custom of paying wages to members in parliament. Lord John Russell moved, on the 23d of the same month, for leave to bring in a bill to enable Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, to return members to the House of Commons. Mr O’Connell brought his plan of reform before parliament on the 28th of May. He moved for leave to bring in a bill to establish triennial parliaments and vote by ballot, and extend the franchise to every man who paid a tax or was liable to serve in the militia. The same day Lord John Russell submitted two resolutions to the house, first, “That it was expedient Jhe number of representatives in the house should be increased and secondly, “That it was expedient to give members to the large manufacturing towns, and additional members to counties of great wealth and population.” All these schemes were negatived by large majorities, and their discordant nature showed that the reformers,—for the old parties of Whigs and Tories had now well nigh merged into reformers and anti-reformers,—had not come to a right understanding with each other. But taken in connection with the voice of the public out of doors, they showed that the cry for reform, silenced for a while, was again rising with increased urgency, and that an extensive change in the constitution of the House of Commons could not much longer be evaded.

At this ominous crisis George IV. breathed his last. He had long been in an infirm state, but no immediate danger was anticipated till the commencement of April. On the loth of that month the first bulletin was issued. He continued to grow weaker, and latterly the slightest exertion became intensely painful. A message was sent to both houses of parliament on the 24th of May, stating that his majesty found it painful to sign with his own hand documents which required his sign-manual, and requesting parliament to provide for the temporary discharge of that function of the crown. A bill was immediately passed, allowing the sign manual to be adhibited by a stamp. The disease continued to run its course, and upon the 26th of June his majesty expired.

George IV. had no public virtues. By those who knew him he is said to have possessed a taste for the arts and for letters. The only instances given of his attachment to the latter indicate a pretty correct estimate of tlie merits of some works of lighter literature. The buildings erected under his patronage evince an utter absence of the sense of architectural beauty and grandeur. In rich and voluptuous decoration of apartments he excelled. His taste in painting does not seem to have gone beyond a feeling of neat execution, and a recognition of strongly-expressed vulgar character. Neither science, literature, nor art, found in him an active patron; and as little interest did he take in affairs of government. He was in habits of intimacy at one time with the leading Whigs; but finding their opponents firmly seated in power, he allowed them to remain there. The character of his minister, and the course of policy adopted by him, was a matter of the most perfect indifference, so that the royal repose was left undisturbed. An intense and wilful self-indulgence and deep-rooted personal vanity regulated all his actions. It was this that made him bestow more thought upon his coronation dress than upon the government of three kingdoms. He could enjoy the pageantry of monarchy, but could not comprehend its duties. It was this that made him hazard the peace of the empire to wreak his spite on a woman. It was this that made him so pertinaciously resist concession to the Catholics. He looked upon agitation as a personal affront. The utmost that his adulators have ventured to say in his behalf is, that his manne'rs were refined. Alternately hooted and cheered, he never possessed the affections of his subjects. In private life he might have been an agreeable companion, little thought of when absent; as a king, he was nothing, or worse—an expensive cumberer of the royal seat.

Yet his reign was not uneventful. It commenced at the close of the extensive wars which had desolated Europe. The nation, no longer engrossed with its own exploits in foreign lands, but deranged as to its interna economy by a long-continued struggle, was forced to turn its eyes inwards. The consequences of this reflex stu y developed themselves slowly. First the government shoo itself free from the alliance of despots; and next endea^ voured to check the gambling spirit of trade, by g wl ⅛ a healthy and substantial character to the currency, more frank and liberal intercourse with other nations wa encouraged. Retrenchment of state expenditure, an a equable apportionment of national burdens, were ou y demanded, and in outward show at least attempter. old inadequate customs of the law began gradua V 0 cede before a more rational system. The una ae, t right of a nation to regulate its internal concerns wı [7:5:579] foreign interference was recognised. It was not to be expected that such important changes could be effected without exciting individual discontent, and causing individual suffering. The consequent discussions led men to inquire into the distribution of power and privilege. The rights of citizens were warmly asserted. The equal political rights of all religious denominations were conquered. The adherents of rational principles of government felt their strength, and prosecuted their assaults upon antiquated prejudice and abuses with more vivacity. This period of preparation was. terminated by the death of George IV. The seeds of future activity were germinating in silence. The unsettled state of men’s minds was as a chaos, upon which the news of the expulsion of the Bourbons from France descended like an animating spirit. The huge mass heaved at once with the throes of new life. The first fruits have been the achievement of parliamentary reform.

CHAP. XX.

REIGN OF WILLIAM IV.

Accession of William IV—Popularity of the new King—No change made in the Ministry—Dissolution of Parliament The Revolution of July in France.'—Effect produced by it in Britain Parliamentary Reform—Result of the Elections unfa vourable to the Ministry—Disturbed state of the Country— Ireland—Anti-Union Associations.—Distress and outrages in the English Agricultural Counties—Demand for Reform.— Political Unions and Reform Associations Meeting of Parlia ment—Speech from the Throne—Debates on the Address— Duke of Wellington’s Declaration against Reform—The King and Queen induced to decline dining at Guildhall on the Lord Mayor’s Day—Sir Henry Parnell’s motion on the Civil List— Ministers defeated—Their Resignation Earl Grey authori zed to form a New Administration, on the basis of making Reform a Cabinet Question—Parliament adjourned till February 1831—Decline of the outrages in the agricultural districts

Punishment of the Rioters.—Meeting of Parliament—Ministerial plan of Reform—Its reception by the country—Debate on Lord John Russell’s Motion.—Leave granted to bring in Bills to amend the Representation of Scotland, England, and Ireland—Bills introduced Debate on the Second Reading of the English Bill—Second Reading carried by a majority of one—General Gascongne’s Motion carried by a majority of eight—Dissolution of Parliament Scene oil this occasion—Result of the Elections Bill re-introduced and car ried through the House of Commons.—Debate on the Second Reading in the Lords—Bill thrown out by a majority of forty-one—Indignation of the country Proceedings of the Commons—Parliament prorogued Riots at Derby, Nottingham, and Bristol—Re-assembling of Parliament on Ġth December 1831—English Bill again introduced Debates—Passed on 22d March 1832—Carried to the House of Lords—Read a second time by a majority of nine Adjournment of the House during the Easter Recess Great Public Meetings in all parts of the country—Secret intrigues Meeting of the House—

Lord Lyndhurst’s amendment carried Resignation of Ministers—Lord Ebrington’s Motion State of the Country—

Duke of Wellington undertakes to form a Cabinet on the principle of carrying the Reform Bills His utter failure—Lord

Grey recalled—Subsequent discussions on the Bills—Secession of the Opposition.

William IV. ascended the throne of Great Britain on the 26th of June 1830. The change of the monarch did n ðt .occasion any immediate change on the state of public afrairs. The Duke of Clarence had accepted office under Ar Canning, and had been rather unceremoniously deprived of it by the Duke of Wellington; hence, some people augured that he would be unfavourable to his ministry, n the political world he was scarcely known. An *old grudge existed against him from the time of the queen’s Jial. she Tories, who more than half feared his revolt, , pread caricatured accounts of. the proceedings at Bushy

House during his brother’s illness. The plainness of the new king’s manners, however, soon rendered him highly popular. He mingled with the people, and his familiar address and unostentatious appearance contrasted so strongly with those of the late king, that he completely won the affections of that part of the community which, as it is the first to deify a monarch, is also the first to cast him off again. No change, however, took place in the ministry. William IV. declared himself friendly to their policy, and determined to retain them.

They were, however, incapable of being much longer sustained in office, even by the royal support. The party which they had irritated by carrying the Catholic bill was strong in the Commons, and stronger in the Lords. The Whigs had lost confidence in the Duke of Wellington and his coadjutors, whose system of policy was temporising, calculated to keep themselves in power, but not to forward the business of the country. It was evident that every measure having in view the better organization of the state must be wrung from them, like Catholic emancipation, by demonstrations of power. War was in consequence declared against the cabinet, and prosecuted vehemently by the Ultra-Torics, but by the Whigs with more caution. The first question that gave rise to serious discussion was, whether the parliament, after voting such supplies as were immediately necessary, should be at once dissolved, or whether provision ought first to be made for a regency in the event of the king’s demise before the re-assembling of that body. Ministers obtained a small majority after a violent debate. A few matters of business which could not be postponed were afterwards hurried through the house with little opposition, and on the 23d of July parliament was prorogued by the king in person; and being next day dissolved by proclamation, writs were issued for the election of a new one, returnable on the 14th of September.

A few days afterwards the news of the revolution, by which the elder branch of tìie Bourbons was finally expelled from France, reached England. The intelligence, as already mentioned, had a powerful effect. The delusion which the conciliatory policy of Canning had occasioned, and the belief that an enlightened and energetic government was attainable under the old rotten system of parliamentary election, had received a severe shock from the circumstances of his death. The liberal measures into which the Duke of Wellington had reluctantly been forced, had for a short time delayed the disabusing of the nation. But late events had shown that nothing was to be expected from him and the men of mere routine who formed his ministry. The longing for parliamentary reform returned with redoubled efficacy. Men were not prepared with any definite scheme, nor were they at one as to the principles on which they vindicated the justice of innovation. The news of the three days in Paris ripened men’s views; they showed that wishes were useless while unproductive of action. The French received the homage of universal sympathy. This circumstance was turned to use by some active friends of liberty. Meetings were called in every important town to congratulate the freemen of trance; and thus reformers were brought together, and taught how numerous a body they were.

All these circumstances operated unfavourably for ministers at the elections. Wherever the election was popular, the reformers supported a candidate or their own principles; and of the close burghs, with the exception of those commanded by government, a decided majority were in the hands of the Duke’s adversaries. The suspicions under which his administration lay, of coqueting with Prince Polignac, added materially to his unpopularity. Not one candidate appeared on the hustings to claim the [7:5:580]suffrages of the electors as a supporter of ministers. The general result of the election diminished by fifty the votes upon which the government could depend.

At the same time the disturbed state of the country, by showing the incapacity of government, went far to swell the ranks of its enemies. Ireland had not been pacified, because the concession of its claims had been accompanied by personal insult and perseverance in a hostile attitude. Emancipation had never been demanded by any reasonable man as a measure that could do good further than by allaying religious feuds, and bringing the nation to a temper in which an honest government might with rational hopes of success look for support in pursuing measures of reform. But, on every question that regarded Ireland, government evinced a hostile spirit, the growth either of ignorance or bigotry. The cry for the repeal of the union was again raised, and a society established, bearing the title of “The Friends of Ireland of all religious denominations.” This body announced its determination to agitate till every one of its objects should be conceded. The most essential of these were, a repeal of the sub-letting act, a radical reform in the representation, and a repeal of the union. Mr O’Connell was at the time absent in England; and there being no other man of his party equally fertile in resources and undaunted in pertinacity, the lord-lieutenant easily suppressed the new association under the act passed along with that which admitted the Catholics to a participation in the privileges of the constitution. But no sooner did the dissolution restore O’Connell to Ireland than he engaged in re-organizing his adherents into an “Anti-Union Association.” This society was likewise prohibited by proclamation of the lord-lieutenant, but was succeeded by the “Association of Irish volunteers for the repeal of the Union.” Many who had hitherto acted with Mr O’Connell, felt the necessity of a legislative union with England, and took alarm at these proceedings. A numerous meeting, convened by the Duke of Leinster, declared their adherence to the union. After this step the lord-lieutenant’s proclamation directed against the volunteers was obeyed, nor was the repeal of the union proposed at any of the elections as a test to candidates.

Even England began to rival Ireland in misery and disturbances. While parliament continued to sit, its table was covered with petitions, describing in the strongest terms the distress suffered by the lower classes engaged in agriculture. It was predicted that unless a change for the better took place it would be impossible to restrain them from outrage. The harvest was scarcely concluded when this prophecy was fulfilled. The disturbances began in the county of Kent. Threatening letters were dispersed throughout the county, machinery destroyed, money extorted, and barns and stack-yards set on fire. The commotions were the wild aimless efforts of men suffering almost beyond nature and without hope. Viewing the matter in this light, the first rioters apprehended were treated with a degree of lenity which encouraged fresh outrages. During October, November, and December, the riots increased in frequency and boldness, and spread from Kent into Hants, Wilts, Bucks, Sussex, and Surrey. The frame of civil society seemed breaking up, and a wild deluge of human passion, untamed by moral feeling, unchecked by law, threatened to overwhelm all.

With a nation apparently resolving into anarchy, and a government helpless and stubborn, there was no hope. Like sailors in a shipwreck, men began to search for something to cling to in the impending convulsion. The demand for reform was raised more clamorously than ever. Political unions and reform associations, having for their object the propagation of definite political principles, and a demonstration of the physical strength of the reformers, were everywhere established. The most important of these bodies were the Birmingham union, the model of all the others; the great northern union, extending over the counties of Northumberland and Durham; and the Renfrewshire political union. But others of less note were to be found in almost every town and village in the kingdom.

Such was the threatening aspect of the country when parliament opened on the 2d of November. The speech from the throne contained no indications of the means by which ministers proposed to meet the threatening emergency. It was simply announced in regard to France, that “the elder branch of the Bourbons no longer reigned,” and that “the Duke of Orleans had been called to the throne by the title of King of the French.” The events in Belgium were branded with the title of “revolt.” The disturbances among the peasantry were attributed to “efforts industriously made to excite discontent and disaffection.” A determination was expressed to exert every means which the constitution had placed at the king’s disposal for the repression of outrage. No distant allusion was made to that reform which the nation demanded as with one voice. The ministerial declaration showed that the Duke of Wellington, in proud ignorance, was determined to cling to a system whose props one after another had for years been dropping down.

Any doubt that remained upon this subject was removed by the debate which took place in the House of Lords when the address to the throne was moved. Earl Grey, adverting to the opprobrious designation applied in the king’s speech to the Belgian revolution, observed,— “We ought to learn wisdom from what was passing before our eyes. He felt persuaded, that unless reform were granted, we must make up our minds to witness the destruction of the constitution. He had been a reformer all his life, and at no period had he been inclined to go farther than he would be prepared to go now, if the opportunity were offered.” The Duke of Wellington’s reply to this portion of this speech is only memorable by the declaration made in it, which occasioned his subsequent downfal. “The noble earl has alluded to something in the shape of a parliamentary reform, but he has acknowledged that he is not prepared with any measure of reform; and I have as little scruple to say, that his majesty’s government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on my own part, I will go farther and say, that I have never read or heard of any measure up to the present moment, which could in any degree satisfy my mind that the state of representation could be improved or rendered more satisfactory to the country at large. * * * I am fully convinced that the country possesses at the present moment a legislature which answers all the good purposes of legislation ;. and this to a greater degree than any legislature ever has answered in any country whatever. * * * Under these circumstances I am not only not prepared to bring forward any measure of this nature, but I will at once declare, that, as far as I am concerned, as long as I hold any station m the government of the country, 1 shall always fee it my duty to resist such measures when proposed by others.”

The tone assumed by the opposition in both houses after this haughty declaration convinced ministers of their rashness in venturing to meet such a parliament in an o - ficial capacity. Their embarrassment was increased in consequence of an injudicious manoeuvre, intended to t. er ^ rify the more timid of their opponents, by impressing them with an exaggerated notion of popular violence, kiiig and queen were to dine at Guildhall on the or Mayor’s day; but, under the pretext that there was a co spiracy on th"e part of some abandoned, characters to a the Duke of'Wellington, their majesties were mducea [7:5:581] retract their assent. This attempt, by stimulating the loyalty of the nation, and adroitly confounding the king with his advisers, to give greater firmness to a wavering government, failed signally. The ministers became ridiculous. The invectives of the opposition in parliament became more pointed and inveterate; and on the 15th of November Sir Henry Parnell moved “that a select committee be appointed to take into consideration the estimates and accounts presented by command of his majesty respecting the civil list.” After a short debate ministers were left in a minority of twenty-nine in an unusually full house. Mr Hobhouse asked Sir Robert Peel whether it was the intention of ministers to retain their places after such an expression of the sentiments of the house, but received no answer. Next day the Duke of Wellington in the Peers, and Sir Robert Peel in the Commons, announced, that in consequence of the vote of the preceding evening, they had tendered, and his majesty had accepted, their resignations.

The king immediately authorized Earl Grcy to form an administration upon the basis of making parliamentary reform a cabinet question. His lordship had refused his support to the Canning administration on the ground that its premier was opposed to reform. His son-in-law Lord Durham, Lord Althorp, the Marquis of Lansdown, and Lord John Russell, were tried adherents of the Whig party, and friendly to reform. These, with Lord Holland, may be regarded as the nucleus of the reform administration. Its ranks were filled up by Mr Canning’s friends, who had gathered from the signs of the times the impossibility of longer withstanding those innovations which timidity of character or the prejudices of education had led them to oppose. The treatment which their leader had experienced at the hands of the high aristocratic party rendered them less averse to any measure that promised to sap its power. The Duke of Richmond was the only leading member of the old Tory party who accepted office under Earl Grcy. Others of that party had joined, after the concession of the Catholic claims, in calling for reform; but their object was merely to raise a clamour against a political adversary, and they ceased the moment they saw there was danger of their request being granted. Mr Brougham was appointed lord high chancellor.

There was necessarily a suspension of business in parliament till the ministers who had vacated their seats by accepting office should be re-elected. By the time that they were all restored to their places, it was too late to think of maturing and developing their system of policy before the Christmas holydays. Accordingly, Earl Grcy contented himself with declaring, that it was the intention of the cabinet to introduce a plan for the reform of the Commons House of Parliament. The regency bill was passed in conformity with the recommendation in the speech from the throne. And on the 23d of December 1830 both houses adjourned to the 3d of February; ministers having declared that a long interval was necessary to enable them to concoct that plan of reform to which they had pledged themselves on accepting office.

The interval of parliamentary exertion was an uneasy one for the country. The riots and outrages in the agricultural districts had begun to decline; but the duty of punishing the convicted transgressors of ‘the law remained to be fulfilled. During the latter half of December and the beginning of January, upwards of eight hundred rioters were tried before special commissions. Of those against whom sentence of death was recorded, only our were executed; the rest were ultimately sentenced to various terms of transportation and imprisonment. Comparative tranquillity was restored; but the mischief that had been done was not amended, nor was a healthy confidence between the lower classes and their employers restored.

Neither had the change of administration been entirely successful in restoring public confidence in the constituted authorities. The stern unbending adherence of Earl Grey and his immediate friends to the cause of reform was in their favour; but the country was determined to trust no man, and meetings were held in every county and town to petition for such an alteration of the elective system as might have a tendency to secure good government.

Parliament met, as appointed, on the 3d of February 1831. Ministers announced that their plan of parliamentary reform should be brought forward by Lord John Russell on the 1st of March. The interim was occupied by discussions on the arrangement of the civil list prepared by ministers, on the budget, and on a plan for reforming abuses in the court of chancery, proposed by the lord chancellor. On that evening accordingly his lordship explained the nature and extent of the ministerial plan. The general outline bore a marked resemblance to that of the measure brought forward on a former occasion by Mr Lambton, and thrown out by a manoeuvre on the part of Mr Canning. The chief grievances complained of by the people, it was remarked by Lord John, were the nomination of members by individuals, and elections by close corporations, the limited extent of the elective franchise, and the expense of elections. With a view to do away with the two first-mentioned evils, in as far as regarded England, ministers proposed to introduce a bill proceeding upon the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and extension of the right of suffrage. In order to reduce expense, they intended to recommend an alteration in the system of registering voters and of taking the votes at elections. The extent of disfranchisement deemed necessary to extirpate close and nomination boroughs went to deprive such places as had a population of fewer than two thousand inhabitants of their right to send any members to parliament, and to restrict such as had a population of only four thousand to one member each. Weymouth, which had previously returned four members, was to lose tw 7 o of them. By this measure sixty burghs would be totally disfranchised, and forty-seven partially, exclusive of Weymouth. The number of members thus withdrawn would amount to 168. Ministers did not propose to fill up the former number of the House. Seven large towns, which had previously been wholly unrepresented, were to receive two members each. Twenty other towns, smaller in size, and of less importance, were to receive one member each. The metropolis was to be subdivided into four additional districts, which were to return among them eight members. An addition of two members was to be given to each of the twenty-seven largest counties, and each riding of the county of York was to return two additional members, and the Islc of Wight one. The distribution of the elective franchise through the country having been thus arranged, the next point to be settled was the persons to whom the right of voting should extend. The object of ministers was not to communicate the franchise to every subject, but at the same time to extend it so far that every man who persevered in habits of honest industry might fairly calculate upon being able to attain it. Non-resident voters, as productive of much expense and bribery, were deprived of their privilege. Every householder rated at ten pounds per annum, whether the house he inhabited were his own or rented, received the right of voting. In counties, the possession of copyhold property rated to the amount of ten pounds per annum, or a lease for twenty-one years of the yearly value of fifty pounds, likewise entitled to a vote. The last object contemplated by the ministerial [7:5:582]plan of reform was the diminution of election expenses. With a view to prevent the disgraceful tricks frequently practised on the hustings, the most fertile source of expense, a list of all qualified persons in every parish was ordered to be prepared by the parish officers and church wardens. This list was to be placed on the church door, and at a certain period of the year the returning officer in towns, and a person appointed by the judge of assize in counties, was to hold a court for the purpose of hearing and deciding upon the claims of persons whose votes had. been held objectionable. The list, as finally adjusted, was to be published, so that every person might obtain a copy, and was to serve as the election roll for the ensuing year. The duration of the poll was limited to two days in towns', and three in counties. The counties were to be divided into polling districts, so arranged that no voter should have to go more than fifteen miles in order to exercise his franchise. This ample measure of reform for England it was proposed to follow up by similar measures applicable to Scotland and Ireland. With regard to the former country, it was to receive five additional members. Twenty-two counties were to return one member each. The remaining twelve were to be conjoined into pairs, returning one each. Edinburgh and Glasgow were each to return two members; while Aberdeen, Paisley, Dundee, Greenock, and Leith, were each to return one member. The remaining thirteen districts of royal burghs were to return each one member, as before, but the elective franchise was transferred from the delegates of the town councils to the inhabitants possessed of a certain qualification. The qualification required in burghs was the occupancy of a dwelling-house of ten pounds per annum; in counties, the ownership of land or houses worth ten pounds a year, or holding as a tenant at the annual value of fifty pounds on lease for nineteen years or upwards. The reform of the Irish system was much less extensive, because, as was alleged, the representation of that country had been entirely re-modelled little more than thirty years before, at the time of the union. It was proposed that occupancy to the amount of ten pounds per annum should give the right of voting for burghs, and that Belfast, Waterford, and Limerick should each return an additional member. It was calculated that by this great measure 500,000 persons would be added to the national constituency, all having a stake in the country, and so dispersed over its extent as to place them beyond the influence of any faction.

This bold measure produced an electrical effect upon parliament. The sincere reformers hailed its searching character as indicative of the honesty of its authors, and fruitful of good to the nation. The timid wavering reformers stood aghast, and so did all the champions of old abuses. Mr Hume, a fair representative of the radical party, said the plan of ministers had so far exceeded his expectations, that he felt himself bound to admit that they had completely redeemed the pledge which they had given. Mr Macaulay, speaking the sentiments of the young and highly educated liberals, thought it “a great, noble, and comprehensive plan.” Lord Ebrington, the model of a sturdy, sagacious, independent country gentleman, “hailed the measure, as it gave due weight to every interest, and was calculated to stem the torrent of corruption.” Sir R. Inglis, as the organ of the high-church party, declared that the “plan of the noble lord meant revolution, not reformation.” Sir Charles Wetherell, as representative of the legal formalists, denounced the measure as “a corporation robbery.” The debate on Lord John Russell’s motion for leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people of England, was kept up with extreme keenness, for seven successive meetings, but terminated on the 9th of March without a division. Leave was on the same evening given, after a short discussion, to bring in bills to amend the representation of the people in Scotland and Ireland. The English bill was introduced by Lord John Russell on the 14th of March, and read a first time; the same step was taken with the Scotch bill by the Lord Advocate on the 15th, and with the Irish bill by Mr Stanley on the 24th. The discussion on the second reading of the English bill was characterized by a yet more fierce and inveterate spirit of hostility to all reform, than that which took place when the measure was first propounded; After a debate which lasted for two evenings, the motion that the bill be read a second time was carried by a majority of one. The opposition, therefore, went into committee with a fair prospect of beinţŗ able to mutilate, and finally defeat the bill. Their first demonstration was a declaration, moved by General Gascoyne, “that it is the opinion of the house that the total number of members returned to parliament for England and Wales ought not to be diminished.” The General’s motion was carried by a majority of eight; a result which intimated to ministers that they had not such a hold upon the house as afforded them the most distant chance of carrying the measure by which they stood pledged to stand or fall. In order to appreciate the propriety of the line of conduct adopted by them on this occasion, it will be necessary to look to the effect which the promulgation of the ministerial plan had produced upon the national mind.

The boldness of the measure, so much beyond what had been expected, had conciliated the radical party, of whom the unions may be considered as the representatives. Even the vital questions of the shortened duration of parliaments, and a secret mode of taking the votes, were postponed by one consent, lest any difference of opinion should endanger the success of so efficient a measure. The popular sense accepted the bills as satisfactory, and the nation crowded to their defence. Riot and destruction ceased; for every man was intent upon the prospect held out of good government and better days. The tables of both houses were loaded with petitions in favour of the bill. The more apparent it became that the Commons would not pass it, the more intense became the affection manifested by the people for its provisions. It was evident that they regarded it as the standard to which they were to look as a rallying point amid the whirls and eddies of the headlong fight in which they were engaged. With the people in such a mood, and the king remaining true to his promises, the ministers were quite safe in throwing themselves upon the sense of the electors by a dissolution of parliament.

But the intimation that such a step was in contemplation was received with anger and alarm by the opponents of reform. They were not prepared for so determined a measure; and notwithstanding their declarations that the bill was contrary to the national wish, they knew that the people were against them. The exhibition of petty anger which took place in both houses, but particularly in the Lords, on the day of dissolution, baffles all description. An eye-witness speaks thus: “ A hope had remained that the project of stopping the king’s speech, and interposing an address, might succeed. That hope rested entirely upon the speech being read by the chancellor or by his majesty in person. Suddenly the thunder of the guns was heard to roar, breaking the silence of the anxious crowds withou , and drow ning even the noise that filled the walls of P ar liament. In the fulness of his royal state, and attente by all his magnificent court, the monarch approaches t’ e House of Lords. Preceded by the great officers st3 e and of the household, he moved through the vast to ζ which were filled with troops in iron mail, as the ou si courts were with horse, while the guns boomed, an ma [7:5:583]tial music filled the air. Having stopped in the robing chamber in order to put on his crown, he entered the house and ascended the throne, while his officers and ministers crowded around him. As soon as he was seated, he ordered the usher of the black rod to summon the Commons; and his majesty, after passing some bills, addressed them. By those who were present the effect will not soon be forgotten, of the first words he pronounced, or the firmness with which they were uttered, when he said, that ‘ he had come to meet his parliament in order to prorogue it with a view to its dissolution !’ He then with an audible voice commanded the lord chancellor to prorogue, which being done, the houses dispersed, and the royal procession returned amidst the hearty and enthusiastic shouts of thousands of the people.”^[26. Edinburgh Review, No. cvi. p. 484. ]

In the state of the national mind, the result of the elections could not be doubted. “The bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill,” was the war-cry of the reforming electors; and to this the candidates were called to pledge themselves at every open election. The Duke of Newcastle, who had formerly returned two members for Newark, and two for the county of Notts at large, found his interest reduced to four rotten borough seats, where no man could interfere with him. The Duke of Beaufort’s brother, and his eldest son, both justly popular noblemen, were flung out, solely because they were opposed to reform. The Duke of Rutland’s nominees were rejected in his own county. In Northumberland the minister’s son, who had not ventured to enter the field at the preceding election, was returned, notwithstanding the indolence of his friends. In short, out of eighty-two county members, England returned seventy-six pledged to support the bill; the members for the cities and great towns were for it to a .man. Ireland returned a great majority, and even Scotland a majority of friends to reform.

The success of the ministerial measure in a FIouse of Commons so constituted was beyond a doubt. Its enemies, however, exerted every device to delay and baffle the English reform bill. By trifling motions pushed repeatedly to division, the opposition succeeded in retaining the English bill in the House of Commons from the 15th of June till the 22d of September, when it was finally agreed to by a majority of one hundred and nine.

The eyes of the people followed it with anxiety to the House of Lords. It. struck at the roots of an influence which that body possessed over the house which ought to have been the representative of the people; and this influence, it was known, a majority of their number were resolved to preserve. When submitted to them, the bill was brought before a tribunal of prejudiced and interested judges. Its fate, if left to the House of Lords as then constituted, was sealed before the debate had begun. The nation knew this, and loudly and urgently was the necessity of a new creation of peers pressed upon ministers, but in vain. Earl Grey had determined to give his noble colleagues an opportunity of dealing justly by the nation.

The debate on the second reading commenced on the 3d of October, and continued during that and four succeeding evenings. The arguments brought forward against the bill were various and contradictory. After this long and fatiguing debate, the Peers of England, by a majority °f forty-one, decided, in opposition to a majority nearly triple that amount of the House of Commons, and to the almost unanimous voice of the nation, that a system of cunningly veiled oppression and corruption should be perpetuated.

The indignation of the country was great, although happily prevented from breaking out into open violence by the firmness of ministers and the House of Commons. The chancellor of the exchequer declared in the House of Commons on the lOth of October, the earliest day on which that house assembled after the rejection of the bill by the Lords, “that unless he entertained a hope that a measure of reform equally efficient with that which had been rejected would be carried hereafter, he would not remain in office a single hour longer.” Lord Ebrington brought forward the same evening a motion for a vote of confidence in ministers, which was carried by a majority of a hundred and thirty-one in a house of five hundred and twenty-seven; and the house by this means pledged to support ministers and the reform bill. On the 20th, parliament was prorogued by the king in person.

Owing to the firmness of the king, his ministers, and the House of Commons, the decision of the Lords was received by the people with deep-felt disgust; but, except in two or three isolated cases, without any alarming bursts of violence. At Derby the rabble broke open the town jail, and demolished the property of some anti-reformers, and were only prevented from the perpetration of further violence by the interference of the military. The castle at Nottingham, the property of the Duke of Newcastle, was burned by a band of rioters. Some rioting, but not of a very serious character, took place in Somersetshire and Devonshire. And at Bristol, the arrival of Sir Charles Wetherell, a strenuous anti-reformer, to discharge his judicial duties, excited a popular ferment, which, being met on the part of the magistrates at first with precipitate violence, and afterwards by cowardly supineness, hurried the populace on to works of extensive destruction. In every other part of the kingdom, however, large meetings were held, and perfect obedience to the law enforced.

Parliament re-assembled on the 6th of December 1831. In the speech from the throne, a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the question of reform was urgently recommended. The ministry adhered to their original purpose of remodelling the representation by three separate bills applicable to the varying social relations of the three incorporated nations. That which had for its object the reform of the English representation was introduced on the 12th of December. It was confessedly superior to the former in precision of expression; and some of the subordinate arrangements had been modified with a view to avoid the captious quibbling of the preceding session. The opposition modestly claimed all the improvements as their own, and yet attacked the measure as inveterately as ever. The ministerial members adopted the prudent resolution of leaving all the speaking to their opponents; but, nevertheless, the pertinacious volubility of these orators was so far successful in retarding the bill, that it did not pass through the House of Commons before the 22d of March.

It was carried up to the Lords with even more gloomy anticipations than on the former occasion. No new peers had been created. Lords Harrowby and M harncliffe, who had seemed at one time inclined to come to terms, resumed a hostile attitude. Between the first and second reading of the bill, however, these noblemen and their followers determined to make a concession to public feeling, and allow the bill to go into committee. In consequence of their wavering, the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of nine, and the bill ordered to be committed the first day on which the house should [7:5:584]sit after the Easter recess. The house, immediately after coming to this resolution, adjourned for the holydays. During the interval, the whole country was kept in a ferment by meetings assembled for the purpose of expressing their satisfaction that the bill had passed the second reading, and earnestly adjuring the Lords to give it the sanction of a law. These assemblages were more frequent, and attended by greater multitudes, than had ever previously been witnessed; and at all of them it was unequivocally declared that nothing would satisfy the nation short of the full measure introduced by Earl Grey.

While the people were thus openly busy, their enemies were privately at work with equal assiduity, and not without some success. Earl Grey, unsuspicious of the mine about to be sprung under his feet, moved, on the 7th of May, in a committee of the wholehouse, theadoption of the clause disfranchising all burghs having a population beneath two thousand. Lord Lyndhurst moved, as an amendment, the postponement of the first and second clauses until the question of enfranchisement should have been taken into consideration. The object of this manoeuvre was to leave the opposition an opportunity of conciliating the unrepresented great towns before it proceeded to mutilate the bill. A suspicion to this effect was raised by the care which some noble lords took to vindicate the fairness of their intentions before anybody had called it in question; and suspicion was rendered certainty when Lord Ellenborough favoured the house with an outline of the plan of reform which he and his friends had in contemplation. Ministers were left in a minority of thirty-five. They immediately postponed the discussion, and next day recommended to the king, in prosecution of a former understanding. a creation of peers sufficient to insure the passing of the bill. His majesty refused, and ministers immediately resigned.

Lord Althorp no sooner announced the ministerial resignation in the House of Commons, than Lord Ebrington gave notice of a motion to address the king on the state of affairs next evening. The address which, in pursuance of this notice, his lordship moved, expressed the most entire confidence in the late ministry, warned the king of the unabated ardour of the nation in favour of reform, and prayed that no men might be called to his majesty’s councils who were not prepared to carry into effect the reform bill, unimpaired in all its essential provisions. The debate which ensued was eminently characterized by boldness and determination on the part of the reformers. The address was agreed to by a majority of eighty, in a house of four hundred and ninety-six. The House of Commons was supported by the nation. Wherever the news arrived of the resignation of Earl Grey, and it was circulated with unexampled rapidity, the inhabitants rose in mass, and feeling confidence in their representatives, petitioned them to stop the supplies; while it was announced in many places, that in the event of the House of Commons refusing to do its duty, no more taxes would be paid until the reform bill passed into a law. Not one act of rioting was perpetrated from one end of the kingdom to the other, but the orderly conduct of the assembled multitudes only made their anger the more terrible.

The Duke of Wellington undertook to form an administration which should take office upon condition of carrying through a large measure of reform. At the first hint of this project, the national indignation blazed up more fiercely; the more timid politicians shrunk from the side of their leader; the duke abandoned the task as hopeless; and the king was obliged to recal Lord Grey.

On the evening of Friday the 18th May, Lord Altĥorp announced to the House of Commons that ministers had again accepted office, after receiving assurance that every power would be placed in their hands which should be found necessary to secure the passing of the reform bill unmutilated. The discussions of the measure in the House of Lords, subsequent to this communication, were mere matters of form. Few of the amendments proposed were ever pushed to a division. Even the most obnoxious clause of all, that which gave members to the metropolitan districts, was carried by a majority of fifty-five, in a house of a hundred and twenty-seven. A creation of peers was not resorted to for the purpose of carrying the bill. In order to render that supposed evil unnecessary, a sufficient number of noble lords absented themselves from the house to leave ministers in a majority on the third reading. The few who remained, however, expressed in their speeches the concentrated anger of all the absentees. The royal assent was given to the English bill by commission on the 7th of June 1832.

The bills for Scotland and Ireland had been merely read a first time, and then allowed to lie over until the keystone of the arch, the English bill, had been secured. As soon as that object was attained, the discussions upon the other two were resumed. Those regarding the Scotch bill were little more than a mere matter of form, no serious opposition being offered. It received the royal assent by commission on the 17th of July. Greater difficulty threatened to arise on the question of the Irish bill, for a strong body of the Irish members were dissatisfied with the provisions for the extension of the franchise, regarding them as insufficient. A timely concession on the part of ministers conciliated the malcontents; and the bill passed the Commons on Friday the 20th of July. As no essential alterations are likely to be made by the Lords, England’s new constitution of parliament may be regarded as established.
[7:5:585]

Britain, New, a large country of North America, called also Terra Labrador, has Hudson’s Bay and Strait on the north and west, Canada and the river St Lawrence on the south, and the Atlantic Ocean on the cast. It is subject to Great Britain, but yields only skins and furs. See Hudson’s Bay. Britain, New, in the Pacific Ocean. See Australasia.