lived intermingled, in order to overthrow the institutions of the prophet; that all the negotiations which had been entered into, all the humility towards the Christian powers, all the apparent apathy about the loss of the fleet at Navarino, had been merely for the purpose of gaining time for military preparations; and that it was needless to explain that in the cause of Islamism, there was no obligation to keep faith with infidels; that it was of the utmost consequence to defer the outbreak of war till the summer approached; and that every art had been employed, and would be employed, to protract the negotiations till that time; and that, meanwhile, every effort must be used by the officers of the empire to make the people understand that this was a holy war, in which failure was a misfortune too great to be contemplated, as not only would the faithful and the infidels be made to exchange social positions, but the mosques would be converted into churches, and perhaps profaned by the sound of bells. Let the faithful, then,' this document concluded, 'have no thought of their arrears, or of pay of any kind. Let us sacrifice willingly our properties

and our persons, and struggle, body and soul, for the support of our religion. The worshippers of the prophet have no other means of working out their salvation in this world and the next.' After this, there could be no doubt of what would happen; and preparations for war went on in both countries. In this same month of January, lists were made of the Christians resident in Constantinople, and they were ordered off, with very few exceptions. Even the Armenians, subjects of the Porte, were treated like the foreign merchants, or worse. Some of the most respectable were put into prison, and about twelve thousand were banished. The Bosphorus was closed; and the corn in the vessels of any nation, then in harbour, was seized. Reinforcements were sent to the fortresses on the Danube; and a great camp was formed near Adrianople. The loss of the fleet was a terrible misfortune, as it left Russia mistress of the Black Sea; but all that could be done was done, in the interval before April, when the emperor formally declared war against the Porte. Thus stood matters six months after the battle of Navarino. No terms had been obtained for the Greeks; and if

CHAP. IV.]

succession of speakers, and seen at once to be both disgraceful, and in other ways injurious. The government opposition was conducted by Mr Peel and Mr Huskisson. It was not surprising in those days, however it might be now, that Mr Peel was on the side of old fashion and orthodox assumption; but that Mr Huskisson should appear in behalf of intolerance and injury for opinion, was mortifying to those who appreciated him most. Both, however, were as feeble as the friends of religious liberty could desire; their ground was the narrowest and the most temporary that could be held; and it was taken solely because there was no other. Both admitted the principles involved in Lord John Russell's motion and speech; but Mr Peel argued that the Dissenters did not really suffer, as they were incessantly relieved by Indemnity Bills; and Mr Huskisson feared injury to the Catholic cause by releasing the Dissenters from a condition of disability which kept them vigilant on the subject of the rights of conscience, and from the insult that it would be to the Catholics to release others from disabilities while theirs remained. The House decided in favour of the committee by a majority of 44 in a IIouse of 430. Mr Peel had, happily, declared his belief that the existence of the Church of England was not bound up with these restrictions; so he could give up the contest, and bow to the will of parliament, without such struggles and agonies as those of Lord Eldon and others, who believed that all was over now with the true Protestant religion in our country. The question arising, what was the government now to do? it was a matter of importance to decide whether the rejection of the expected bill should be secured in the Upper House, or whether government should provide such securities, to be attached to the bill, as might make it least objectionable. This last course was decided on-the will of the Commons being so declared as to make the thought of opposition too hazardous. After the bill had been read twice, and when the House was about to go into committee, Mr Sturges Bourne proposed the substitution of a declaration for the sacramental test; a declaration of the person entering upon office, that he would not use any of the powers or influence of his office for the subversion of the Established Church. And, as there would be some absurdity in regarding such a declaration from officials in the service of the crown, another clause was proposed, which rendered it optional with the crown to require or omit the declaration. There was nothing in the first of these proposals to which the Dissenters could object so seriously, as to endanger the bill; as they had no thought of taking office for the purpose of injuring the Church, but only for the sake of doing the duties and enjoying the rights of equal citizenship; and they were pleased at the second clause, because it left open a probability that the declaration itself the last badge of difference on account of their religious opinions-would fall into disuse. They therefore contented themselves with protesting, through their advocates in the House, against the imposition of any badge whatever; and pushed their bill. When it arrived in the Upper House, the Duke of Wellington spoke in its favour, saying that

245

the only reason why the government had at first opposed it in the Commons was that the system had appeared to work well hitherto; but, as it was clear that the Commons thought the time was come for a change, and as the principle of the old exclusion or opprobrium was not in itself defensible, he now thought it the duty of the peers to pass the bill, if they were satisfied, as he was, that the declaration afforded sufficient security against injury to the Established Church. Thus was it regarded by government, and by some of the spiritual peers; the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of Lincoln, Durham, and Chester, speaking in favour of the bill. 'We who oppose,' says Lord Eldon, 'shall be in but a wretched minority, though the individuals who compose it will, as to several, I think, be of the most respectable class of peers; but the administration have to their shame be it said-got the archbishops and most of the bishops to support this revolutionary bill.' Again: 'All the Whig lords will be against us; as government began in the Commons by opposition, and then ran away like a parcel of cowards, I suppose government also will be against us; but what is most calamitous of all is, that the archbishops and several bishops are also against us. What they can mean, they best know, for nobody else can tell; and, sooner or later, perhaps in this very year-almost certainly in the next-the concessions to the Dissenters must be followed by the like concessions to the Roman Catholics. That seems unavoidable; though, at present, the policy is to conceal this additional purpose.' We should like now to know how many influential members of both Houses entertained this expectation, at this date of April 1828. On the 12th of the month, the chancellor again writes: We, as we think ourselves, sincere friends of the Church of England, mean to fight, as well as we can, on Thursday next, against this most shameful bill in favour of the Dissenters, which has been sent up to us from the Commons-a bill which Peel's declaration in the House as to the probability of its passing in the Lords, has made it impossible to resist with effect

If the Lords won't at least alter it, which don't believe they will, I don't see how, if the Commons act consistently with themselves, Sir F. Burdett can fail in his motion on the 29th, in favour of the Roman Catholics. The state of minds and feelings in the Tory part, and aristocratical part, of the friends of Liverpool's administration is, at present, excessively feverish, and they support ministers, because they know not where to look for others. It is obvious that the ministers who were Canning's followers, to use a vulgar phrase, rule the roast, or at least have too much influence.' In his speeches Lord Eldon declared his principle broadly; and he was so angry with the bishops, and so pertinacious with his amendments, that it is clear that he considered this measure of the last importance, from its involving release from all religious disabilities, as well as those of Protestant Dissenters. He said: The constitution required that the Church of England should be supported; and the best way of affording that support to her was to admit only her own members to offices of trust and emolument.'

Most people thought, by this time, that Lord Eldon's method was likely to be fatal to the Church, by inflicting injury and indignity on nearly half the population of Great Britain and Ireland; for to that number did Protestant Dissenters, Catholics, and Jews, now amount. Lord Eldon declared, 'that if he stood alone, he would go below the bar, and vote against the bill; and were he called that night to render his account before heaven, he would go with the consoling reflection that he had never advocated anything mischievous to his country.' The Lords would not receive his proposed amendments; and he was very unhappy-' hurt, distressed, and fatigued,' he declares, by what has lately been passing in the House of Lords. I have fought like a lion, but my talons have been cut off.'

Such amendments as the Lords did pass were called 'poor things' by the old earl; but there was one whose practical bearing would have gratified his bigotry, if he could have foreseen it. It would have solaced him to know that the principle of exclusion from offices of citizenship for religious opinion was to be extended and perpetuated by a sort of accident. The Bishop of Llandaff proposed to add to the declaration a few words expressive of belief in Christianity. This was in consequence of a hint from Lord Harewood; not because he supposed it necessary, but merely decorous. He proposed it 'for the credit of parliament.' These words were: 'On the true faith of a Christian.' By the carrying of this clause, the Jews have since been excluded from offices which they were before competent to hold. This was not the first time that the Jews were unintentionally wronged by measures proposed to affect a different party. As Lord Holland informed the House, there was nothing to keep Jews out of parliament since the reign of Charles II., except the abjuration oath, which was introduced into the Toleration Act-the act brought in against the adherents of the House of Stuart. And now they were again excluded-freshly wronged-by words which were imposed, not for any purpose of necessity, but for the credit of parliament! However much a subject of regret, it is not one of surprise to those who have experimental knowledge of the operation of laws restrictive on opinion. The principle of mutual judgment for matters of opinion, and of legislative partiality for opinion, is so radically unjust and mischievous, that it ought to be no matter of surprise if the injury spread beyond its designed bounds, and the tyranny works out retributive consequences. Lord Holland entered his protest against these words on the journals of the House': 'Because the introduction of the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" implies an opinion in which I cannot conscientiously concur-namely, that a particular faith in matters of religion is necessary to the proper discharge of duties purely political or temporal.' And also because it had been found, in preceding cases, that a suspension of this clause had taken place in regard to persons not contemplated in the imposition of the declaration. The amendments of the Lords were agreed to by the Commons; and in the beginning of May, the bill, which, in its finished state, Lord Eldon characterised as being, in

his 'poor judgment, as bad, as mischievous, and as revolutionary as the most captious Dissenter would wish it to be,' received the royal assent. Lord Eldon's only idea of a Dissenter was, that he was a captious and revolutionary man, always bent upon the destruction of the Church of England; and this being the image in his eye, we may pity him for the terror of his soul. A wiser man, who knew something of Dissenters, and of their strong resemblance to other men, felt happier on the occasion. Lord Holland said, that in performing the pleasing duty of moving that this bill do pass,' he could not refrain from expressing his feelings in language both of gratitude and congratulation-gratitude to the House, for the manner in which it had discharged its duty to the country; and congratulation to the country upon the achievement of so glorious a result.

This was universally considered the great measure of the session-the great achievement of the year; and it was no small achievement to have obtained an equal position of citizenship for as loyal, and peaceable, and principled a set of men as any in the kingdom. The credit is due, not to either the aristocratic or the liberal section of rulers and their adherents, but to the liberal members of each House unconnected with government. Government yielded only when it could not resist. And now, men looked anxiously to see what would be done about the Catholics, after this practical protest against exclusion from office on account of religious opinion.

CHAPTER V.

ORE dissensions in the cabinet ! There had been rumours about hidden troubles there as early as March; and when the Corn Bill was brought forward on the 31st of that month, it became clear that there had been difficulties among its framers. It could hardly be otherwise when Mr Huskisson was necessarily the chief authority in the matter, and the Duke of Wellington, who had thrown out the bill of the preceding year, was the head of the government. His principle of prohibition was disavowed by the government in regard to the present bill. The measure was declared to be in principle exactly that of last session; but the duties proposed were higher. It was generally understood that the premier had met with a firmer adherence to Mr Canning's measure than he expected among his colleagues; and he yielded-as he had now become practised in doing. He had yielded to the expediency of taking the premiership, after openly declaring that he should be mad if he ever did such a thing. He had yielded to the necessity of forming a mixed cabinet, when the king had hoped to have a united one by placing him at the head. He had yielded the emancipation of the Dissenters, and he now yielded his own particular objection to the Corn

CHAP. V.]

Bill. Truly, it was now evidently too late to look for the old-fashioned 'consistency' which had been formerly the first requisite in statesmanship. If it was not to be found in the honest, resolute, imperious Wellington, it need not be looked for anywhere; or rather, it must be admitted that consistency meant now something different from what it used to mean. The duke went, with a good grace, through the process of bringing forward the government Corn Bill, destitute of the provision which he had thought indispensable a year before, and of any substitute for it; and his liberal colleagues did not pretend to approve of the higher rate of duties. It was a compromise throughout. The agricultural interest complained of the absence of all prohibitory provisions; and other interests complained of the duties, and of the point at which they were fixed — the pivot-point from which ascent and descent of duties began; which they conceived to be virtually raised from 60s. to 64s. by the increased duties charged on the intervening prices. But the bill passed on the 26th of June. Mr Huskisson made no secret of his opinions on the corn-laws. He condemned them in themselves, but thought they could not be abolished in the existing state of affairs. However expedient to prevent other evils, in the present state of the country,' he said,' they are in themselves a burden and a restraint upon its manufacturing and commercial industry.' The cabinet compromise appearing to be successful as far as this bill was concerned, it was supposed that the disagreements in the government were surmounted, and that all might now go on smoothly. But it was not to be.

There had been in February a serious call for explanations from the Duke of Wellington and Mr Huskisson, about some expressions of the latter, uttered to his constituents at Liverpool on his late re-election; and both made these explanations in parliament. Mr Huskisson was reported to have said on the hustings that he did not enter upon office under the duke, without having obtained from him guarantees that Mr Canning's policy would be followed out. The duke, of course, rejected with scorn the idea that any gentleman would propose to him any guarantee of the sort; or that he could for an instant listen to such a proposal. 'Is it to be supposed,' said the duke, 'that the right honourable gentleman to whom I suppose the noble earl to allude, could have used the expressions ascribed to him at the Liverpool election? If my right honourable friend had entered into any such corrupt bargain as he was represented to describe, he would have tarnished his own fame, as much as I should have disgraced mine. It is much more probable-though I have not thought it worth my while to ask for any explanation on the subject-that my right honourable friend stated, not that he had concluded any wholesale bargain with me, but that the men of whom the government is now composed are in themselves a guarantee to the public, that their measures will be such as will be conducive to his majesty's honour and interests, and to the happiness of the people.' And Mr Huskisson, supported by abundance of needless testimony, declared that this was nearly what he did mean and say-namely, that in the

247

composition of the cabinet would be found a sufficient guarantee for the carrying out of a liberal policy. Still, though this matter was cleared up, affairs did not work easily; and a disruption of the cabinet took place in May-the immediate occasion being a misunderstanding between the same two members of the government.

Mr Huskisson's popularity was somewhat declining. He had lost some of the sympathy of the country by re-entering office with Mr Canning's enemies; and when it was seen with what different ministries he could sit in cabinet, and how, among many changes, he, the bosom friend of Canning, could abide in office, the old sneer-of his being a 'political adventurer '-was revived, with perhaps greater effect than in a more aristocratic time. The events of this month of May damaged his reputation seriously; and he never, during the short remainder of his life, got over it. Those who knew him well, and those who, not knowing him, were duly sensible of the compass and value of his policy, understood his feelings so as to acquit him of everything morally wrong-of everything in the least questionable about personal honour-of everything but uncertainty and error of judgment; but they could not complain of the world in general for forming a somewhat severer judgment. Those who knew the man understood his sensitiveness about responsibility-his timidity about breaking up the government of the country on account of difficulties of his own. And those who appreciated the importance of his free-trade policy—the charge of which he could not depute to any one till some were educated up to his point-could well understand that he would bear with much, and hesitate long, before he would vacate a position in which alone he could effectually promote that policy. He seems indeed to have lingered too long; and to have mismanaged his method of retiring, so as to have made his secession look too much like an expulsion from the cabinet; but those who knew his state of health, his need and desire of rest and travel, and his suffering in public life since the death of his friend, were well aware that his self-regards would have led him into private life long before. We cannot doubt that he often wished that he had followed his inclinations. Many and many a time within the last eight months must he have wished that he had resisted the desire of the king and Lord Goderich, and, seeing more clearly than they, remained abroad; and from this time-this May 1828-he could have had few but bitter thoughts connected with the last stages of his public career. His final ministerial struggle is a strange instance of strong impulse followed by infirmity of purpose.

Bills were brought into parliament to disfranchise the boroughs of Penryn and East Retford; the movers-Lord John Russell and Mr Tennysonproposing to transfer the franchise to Manchester and Birmingham. About the disposal of the franchise there were two opinions; one, that it should be given to the neighbouring hundreds; the other, that it should be transferred to populous towns. Mr Peel, whose opinion was the most important in the House, had declared that, if there