Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed]

been foreign secretary since 1812. He held high office in 1802. By the force of his character he bore down the calumnies which had attached to his connection with the government of Ireland before the union. The triumphs of the Peninsula had obliterated the recollections of Walcheren. He comes now to parliament at the very summit of his power, having taken but little part in its debates during the mighty events of the two previous years. There is a general impression that he has a leaning towards arbitrary principles, and that his intercourse with the irresponsible rulers of the continent has not increased his aptitude for administering a representative government. He will be attacked with bitter

ness; he will be suspected, perhaps unjustly. But he will stand up against all attack with unflinching courage, and unyielding self-support. No consciousness of the narrowness of his intellect and the defects of his education will prevent him pouring out torrent after torrent of unformed sentences and disjointed argument. It is a singular consideration that mere hardihood and insensibility should have stood up so successfully against untiring eloquence within the walls of parliament, and determined hostility without. Lord Castlereagh even succeeded in living down popular hatred. Round this most fortunate minister of 1816 are grouped his colleaguesNicholas Vansittart, the chancellor of the exchequer,

CHAP. I.]

THE OPPOSITION-MR BROUGHAM.

'the noblest work of God,' according to Pope's maxim; the secretary of war, Lord Palmerston; the chief secretary for Ireland, Mr Peel; and, somewhat out of his place, the friend whom Canning raised to office when he ingloriously went to Lisbon in 1814 -Mr Huskisson.

The accredited leader of the opposition is George Ponsonby, formerly chancellor of Ireland. He is a prudent and temperate leader, not remarkable for great powers as a debater, but a safe guide for partymen to rally round. One who did not act with him says: 'He was the least eminent man that ever filled such a station.' One who did act with him writes in his diary: 'He was a very honest man, had many excellent qualities, and possessed very considerable talents; but he was by no means fit for the situation which he has for ten years occupied-that of leader of the party of opposition.' Beside him sits George Tierney, a parliamentary veteran, who has been fighting for twenty years, chiefly in the ranks of opposition, once as a member of the Addington administration-a financier, a wit. Of ready powers as a debater, of great practical sense, of unblemished private character, he seemed fitted for higher eminence than he attained in the nation's eyes. He was a parliamentary man of business at a time when that high quality was not valued as it ought to have been; and, whether in or out of office, the best committee man, the clearest calculator, was held as a very subordinate person in affairs of legislation. He redeemed, however, the character of the opposition in regard to this quality, in which they were held, unjustly enough, to be singularly deficient ; and he almost succeeded in persuading his hearers and the public, that genius and industry may be united. The nation seemed then to have confidence in its administration, because it regarded its chiefs and subordinates as essentially men of business. Mr Tierney was to claim this confidence as the man of business of the opposition. He had declaimers enough about him to make the attribute not too infectious. Mr Tierney was the man of financial detail. There was one who then chiefly dedicated himself to the neglected walk of political economy. Francis Horner had won a high reputation by the unremitting assertion of large principles which indolence and prejudice had shrunk from examining. More than any man he had gone to the root of financial difficulties. His opinions were to be adopted when he lived not to expound them-others were to carry them into practice. It is something to be an earnest thinker in an age of debaters. His are labours that have more endurance than mere party eminence. In the same ranks are a few other labourers 'for all time.'

On the bench of honour sits one whose lofty port and composed features shew him to be a man of no common aspirations. His habitual expression is earnest, solemn, almost severe. He has a great mission to fulfil, far above party politics and temporary contentions. Yet he is a partisan, but not in the ordinary sense of the word. He is sometimes bitter, prejudiced, perhaps vindictive-yet no one more deeply feels than himself that this is not the temper for the attainment of great social improve

9

ments. His hopes are not sanguine. He sees little of amelioration in the present aspect of affairs; he fancies that evil principles are in the ascendant. He has nearly reached his sixtieth year; he has been in parliament only ten years. But during that short period he has left an impression upon that assembly never to be obliterated. That lawyer, the acknowledged head of his own class, who in the House of Commons has won the highest reputation for sincerity of purpose, for vast ability, for the eloquence of a statesman as distinguished from that of an advocate, never rises without commanding the respect of a body not favourable to the claims of orators by profession. His forensic duties are too vast, his devotion to them too absorbing, the whole character of his mind too staid—perhaps too little imaginative and pliant to make him the leader of his own scattered party. But as the founder of the noblest of our improvements, the reform of our hateful and inoperative penal laws, he will do what the most accomplished and versatile debater would have left undone. He will persevere, as he has persevered, amidst neglect, calumny, the frowns of power, the indifference of the people. The testament which he bequeaths will become sacred and triumphant. That man is Sir Samuel Romilly.

The place which Whitbread filled is vacant. A sudden, mysterious, and most melancholy death had silenced that fearless tongue, which, as it was the last to denounce the war of 1815, would have been the first to tear in pieces the treaties which that war had consummated. The miserable and oppressed listened to him as their friend and deliverer. His political enemies acknowledged his inflexible honesty. His love of justice made him generous even to those whom he habitually opposed. He had been for several years the true leader of the opposition, and he had led them with right English courage. Others might win by stratagem; he was for the direct onslaught. He perished the day after Paris capitulated. Two nights before, he had spoken in the House of Commons. His health had been long

broken. He was desponding without a cause. Insanity came, and then the end. A French writer has had the vulgar audacity to say that Whitbread destroyed himself because he could not bear the triumph of his country at Waterloo. The same

writer affirms that Canning betrayed to Fouché the plans of Castlereagh for the expedition to Walcheren. Both falsehoods may sleep together. No two men more dearly loved their country, whatever they might think of its policy. The place of Whitbread is vacant. He that comes to earn the succession to the same real leadership is not an unknown man— he is the Henry Brougham who, having appeared at the bar of the House of Commons, in 1808, as counsel for the great body of merchants and manufacturers against the orders in council, carried the repeal of those impolitic orders in 1812, after seven weeks of the most laborious and incessant exertion, almost unexampled in the records of parliament. For three years, the place which he had won by a combination of industry and talent almost unprecedented had been surrendered to other tribunes of the people. The moment in which he reappears is

somewhat unfavourable to the highest exertions of his powers, for he has no worthy opponent. George Canning is not in his place in parliament. He, who had sighed for peace, as Pitt sighed in the gloomy days of Austerlitz and Jena, was out of office during the triumphs of Leipsic and Vitoria. The peace of 1814 was accomplished without his aid. He had bowed before the humbler talents of his rival colleague, whom military success abroad had raised up into a disproportioned eminence at home. Time has shewn how Canning was hated and feared by a large number of those who professed a common allegiance with himself to the principles of the son of Chatham. The hate and the fear applied as much to his principles as to his talents. The government of 1814 had secured his allegiance, and drawn the sting of his dreaded adherence to Liberal policies. They disarmed him; they had well-nigh degraded him. They opened the session of 1816 in the confidence that they could do without him. They wondered what use he could be of, and why Lord Liverpool could have thought of making any terms with him. On the 10th June, Canning took his place in the House of Commons as president of the Board of Control. The ten years which followed look like the last days of parliamentary eloquence. What is left us may work as well; but at any rate it is something different.

The cross-benches of neutrality in the House of Commons are not over full. The party of Canning has been scattered. But there sit a knot of men who hold the scales in one of the greatest questions -perhaps the most interesting question-that was ever agitated within the walls of parliament. It is the party of the abolitionists of the slave-trade. Victory abroad is to them defeat, if it bring not the consummation of their hopes in the acts of foreign governments. At the peace of 1814, France-the restored government of France-restored by our money and our arms-refused to consent to the immediate abolition. Bonaparte, amidst his memorable acts of the Hundred Days, abolished the hateful traffic by a stroke of his pen-and it was abolished. The Bourbon government, a second time restored, dared no longer refuse this one demand of Great Britain. Had they refused, the British minister could scarcely have met the parliament. He is now come to say that France has decreed that there shall be an end to this sin and shame. Other nations have promised. But-is it to be told that where we might have commanded, there alone is resistance ?-Spain and Portugal still maintain the traffic. The firm band of abolitionists are secure that their silver-tongued leader-he who resigned every meaner ambition to give freedom to the oppressed-will persevere through good report and evil report, with or without friends in power, till the chains of the negro are broken for ever. They fear not enemies, they truckle not for friends; they have a support above what the world can give. This 'band of brothers '-reviled or honoured, proselytising or solitary-will hold their ground. They are the only united body of enthusiasts in an age ci political calculation. They will manifest, as ney have manifested, what enthusiasm may accomplish.

CHAPTER II.

HE House of Commons of 1816 presented a remarkable spectacle. The ministry met the representatives of the people with all the pride and confidence of a triumph beyond hope. The ministerial leader came flushed from his labours of restoration and partition, and took his seat amidst shouts such as saluted Cæsar when he went up to the Capitol. The march to Paris, twice over, says a conspicuous actor in the politics of that hour, was sufficiently marvellous; but it appeared, if possible, still more incredible, that we should witness Lord Castlereagh entering the House of Commons, and resuming, amidst universal shouts of applause, the seat which he had quitted for a season to attend as a chief actor in the arrangement of continental territory. The opposition, considered numerically, were a broken and feeble body; but, intellectually and morally, their strength was far more formidable in this the fourth session of the parliament than at any previous period of its duration. In opposing the enormous war expenditure from 1812-in resisting the determination to make no peace with Napoleonthey had not with them the national sympathy. The tables were turned. They had now to contend against the evident partiality for continental alliances the enormous standing army-the excessive peaceexpenditure-the desire to perpetuate war-taxes. They were supported by public opinion, for the once accredited indivisibility of peace and plenty appeared to be wholly at an end The people were suffering, and the excitement of the struggle against the domination of France having passed away, they were not. disposed to suffer in silence.

tion.

The speech from the throne, delivered by commissioners, was necessarily a speech of congratulaSplendid successes, intimate union, precautionary measures, these were the key-notes to our foreign policy: manufactures, commerce, and revenue were, somewhat rashly, declared to be flourishing at home; economy was hinted at-economy consistent with the security of the country, and with that station which we occupy in Europe.' In the House of Lords there was no amendment to the address. In the Commons a bootless amendment, which was seconded by Lord John Russell,* declared the country to be suffering under 'unexampled domestic embarrassments,' and demanded a careful revisal of our civil and military establishments, according to the principles of the most rigid economy.' The chancellor of the exchequer on this occasion declared his intention to continue the property or income tax, on the modified scale of five per cent. This avowal was the signal for one of the chief battle-cries which were to lead on the scanty powers of opposition. Party hostility was not disarmed by the deportment of the foreign minister. Mr Brougham having enounced Ferdinand of Spain as 'a contemptible tyrant,' Lord Castlereagh thereupon deprecated 'that

* Lord John Russell was in parliament in 1814.

[blocks in formation]

scrutinising criticism of the internal policy of foreign countries, which could only be properly exercised at home.' The lecture was not forgotten.

The treaties with foreign powers were presented to parliament on the first day of the session. The formal debate upon them was deferred for a fortnight. Mr Brougham had previously brought forward a motion for the production of a copy of the treaty between Russia, Austria, and Prussia, of the 26th September 1815-the treaty of Holy Alliance. Lord Castlereagh had declared, when notice of Mr Brougham's motion was given, with reference to this extraordinary document, that 'its object was confined solely to the contracting parties, and breathed the pure spirit of the Christian religion.' The motion was of course rejected. It was not till a later period of our history that it was shewn that there was cause for alarm, 'when sovereigns spoke of leading armies to protect religion, peace, and justice. Mr Brougham also moved for a copy of a treaty said to have been concluded at Vienna in January 1815. Lord Castlereagh admitted the existence of such a treaty, and that this country had been a party to it; but he refused to produce it, affirming that it was a mere matter of history. 'Yes,' said Mr Tierney; 'and like other matter of history, it was necessary that it should be known, because the knowledge of it bore on other times.' It appears to have been considered in the House of Commons that this alliance was directed solely against Russia. The 'historical fact' has become clearer: the contracting powers, thus prepared for the last resort, had not a common danger once more united them, were Austria, France, and England, against Russia and Prussia. The motion for the production of this treaty was also rejected.

Before the great discussion upon the general treaties took place, the government declared its intention with regard to the peace establishment. There was to be an army of a hundred and fifty thousand men, maintained at an expense of little short of thirty millions; and the secretary for foreign affairs justified this course by the example of the large military establishments of the other nations of Europe. It was on a debate in the committee of supply that Lord Castlereagh used the memorable expression which roused a spirit in the country of deep hostility, almost of disgust: 'He felt assured that the people of England would not, from an ignorant impatience to be relieved from the pressure of taxation, put everything to hazard, when everything might be accomplished by continued constancy and firmness. From the moment of this offensive declaration, the income-tax was doomed. The people had not borne the taxation of so many years of war with a heroism such as no people had ever before shewn, to be taunted with ignorant impatience of taxation, now that they had won peace. The presumption of the government at this period was calculated to produce a violent reaction throughout the land. In parliament it produced alarms which now look exaggerated, but which men of unquestioned integrity most certainly entertained. The minor questions of continental arrangements were less

11

regarded, and wisely so, than the peculiarities of our internal position. Men really thought that the old English spirit of freedom was about to be trampled upon. Lord Grenville, who on the first night of the session had given his heartiest assent to the address, rejoicing in the mode by which the peace had been accomplished-the restoration of the Bourbonsnow caused the Lords to be summoned; and on the 14th February, in moving for the estimates for the military service for the year, delivered a speech that spoke something of the spirit of 'the good old cause.' He said: "The question which their lordships had now to consider was, whether, after a struggle of twenty-five years, maintained by such immense efforts, and at such vast expense, they were at length to obtain the blessings of that real peace for which they had so long contended, or whether their situation was to be exactly the reverse? Whether they were still to be charged with an immense military establishment; whether they were now to be called upon to take their rank among the military states of the continent; whether they were to abandon the wise maxims and policy of their forefathers, by which the country had risen to such a height, and had been enabled to make such great exertions, and, at an humble distance, turn servile imitators of those systems which had been the cause of so much distress and calamity to the nations by which they had been adopted and maintained?' The prime minister, in replying to Lord Grenville, called these 'extraordinary and unreasonable fears.' But they were re-echoed on many sides. When the great debates on the treaties at length took place, in which the Earl of Liverpool moved the address, Lord Grenville proposed an amendment which deprecated in the strongest language 'the settled system to raise the country into a military power.' The House divided, the government having a majority of sixty-four. Lord Holland protested against the address, in terms which embodied his speech upon the treaties, and expressed the opinions of that section of the opposition: 'Because the treaties and engagements contain a direct guarantee of the present government of France against the people of that country; and in my judgment imply a general and perpetual guarantee of all European governments against the governed.' In the House of Commons the foreign secretary moved the address upon the treaties. An amendment was proposed by Lord Milton, which deprecated the military occupation of France, and the unexampled military establishments of this country. The debate lasted two nights, the address being finally carried by a majority of a hundred and sixty-three. Romilly, in his diary, has noted down the heads of his own speech: As I consider this as the most important occasion that I ever spoke on, I have been desirous of preserving the memory of some of the things I have said.' The importance of the occasion could not have been over-estimated. But what was said on both sides was, to a considerable extent, the regular display of party conflict. The exultations of the government at the settlement of their war labours look now scarcely more inflated than the fears of some members of the opposition

that the confederated arms of the despots of Europe might be turned against the liberties of England. The practical business that was at hand-the enforcement of economy, the alleviation of distress -was the matter of real importance that was to grow out of these debates. There can be no doubt, however, that there was a strong and sincere belief amongst many good men that the liberties of this country were in eventual peril. Horner, in the debate on the treaties, made a very powerful speech; and a week after, he thus writes in the confidence of

private friendship: 'We are nearly declared to be a military power. If this design is not checked, of which I have slender hopes, or does not break down by favour of accidents, we shall have a transient glory for some little while. The bravery of our men, the virtues which the long enjoyment of liberty will leave long after it is gone, and the financial exertions of which we are still capable, will insure us that distinction; but it is a glory in which our freedom will be lost, and which cannot maintain itself when the vigour, born of that freedom, is

[graphic][merged small]

spent.' Visionary as we may now regard these opinions to be, the expression of them had its use. When Horner rejoiced that he had 'his breath out about the Bourbons and Castlereagh,' he, in common with other eminent men of his party, did something to repress the spirit which success had produced in high places. The ultra-Whigs, when they groaned over the captivity of Napoleon-when they shut their eyes to much that had been really high-minded in the conduct of the allies towards France-when they saw only danger in the future, overlooking the mighty peril from which we had escaped-had not the country with them. They had not the support of the great bulk of the intelligent population, who, except on special occasions, are not party politicians. But when they addressed themselves, not as partisans, but as earnest representatives of the people, to reduce the public burthens, and to repress a career of wasteful expenditure, they were on safer ground.

The corporation of London took the lead in the

national expression of opinion against the propertytax. Their petition complained of the violation of the solemn faith of parliament; of the injustice, vexation, and oppression of this tax-of the partiality of taxing, in the same proportion, incomes of a short duration, and those arising from fixed and permanent property; they acknowledged the depressed state of the agricultural interests, but they contended that the manufacturing and trading interests were equally depressed, and equally borne down with the weight of taxation; they finally called for reduction in the public expenditure, and the abolition of all unnecessary places, pensions, and sinecures. It was not alone the anti-ministerial party of the city that joined in the petition; the judgments of mercantile men against the continuance of the tax were almost universal. The dislike of the rural population was as fixed as that of the inhabitants of towns. The battle against this tax was one of the most remarkable examples of

« PreviousContinue »