1

considered as the ostensible reason, and not the real one." Nevertheless there can be no doubt that the explanation thus denounced was perfectly correct. Mr. Tooke shows 1 that by the latter part of 1817 the value of bank-paper had been virtually restored, and that the bank was then in a position to resume cash payments. "And the directors," he adds, "so far from taking advantage of the prolonged term of the restriction, were adopting measures for anticipating it; for in the months of April and September, 1817, they actually undertook by public notice to pay, and did pay, a large proportion of their notes in coin." It is understood that the payments in gold in pursuance of these notices exceeded five millions sterling. Mr. Tooke blames the bank and the government for coöperating to reduce the rate of interest on exchequer bills in the summer of 1817, while it was notorious that negotiations were going forward for the raising of loans to a very large amount by France and others of the continental states. The government," he argues, "ought to have taken the opportunity of the comparatively high price of stocks in the summer of 1817, to have diminished instead of increasing the unfunded debt; and the bank, instead of extending its advances upon exchequer bills at a reduced interest, ought, with a view to counteract the effect, which would otherwise be inevitable, of the tendency of British capital to investment in foreign loans, not only not to have extended its advances, but to have diminished its existing securities." But now commenced both a depression of the exchanges and a diminution of the circulation from the operation of a fresh set of disturbing causes. "Foremost among these causes," Mr. Tooke continues, "doubtless were the large loans negotiated for the French and Russian governments, the high rate of interest granted by them, and the comparatively low rate in this country, holding out a great inducement for the transmission of British capital to the continent. The importations of corn in the latter part of 1817, and through the whole of 1818, were on a large scale and at high prices, our ports being then open without duty. And there was at the same time, as has before been noticed, a very great increase of our general imports; while a great part of the exports of 1817 and 1818 were speculative, and on long credits, the returns for which, therefore, would not be forthcoming till 1819 and 1820. Under these circumstances it is rather matter of surprise that the exchanges were not more depressed, than that they were so much depressed in 1818." For this state of things the bank and the government might, indeed, have made preparation; they ought at least to have abstained from pursuing a course which gave additional facilities to the negotiation of the foreign loans; but, that mis

1 History of Prices, ii. p. 50, &c.

CHAP. XIII.]

ROYAL MARRIAGES.

201

chief having been done, the depression of the exchanges thereby produced certainly furnished a good reason for the postponement of the resumption. A bill was eventually brought into the House of Commons for continuing the restriction till the 5th of July, 1819; various amendments were moved in both Houses, but were only supported by insignificant minorities, and the bill was passed in the end of May. The measure, however, drew two long protests from Lord Lauderdale, in one of which his lordship declared the ground on which it had been introduced and supported that the raising of foreign loans would drain this country of its coin- to be " an opinion founded on gross

misconception and ignorance of the subject.”

Some rather remarkable proceedings took place in the course of the session in relation to the royal family, no fewer Royal marthan four members of which were married in the riages. earlier part of this year. The first of the four marriages was that of the Princess Elizabeth, his majesty's third daughter, to His Serene Highness Frederic Joseph Louis Charles Augustus, Landgrave and Hereditary Prince of Hesse Homburg, on the 7th of April. In this case the two Houses of Parliament were asked only to offer their congratulations to the Regent, the Queen, and the new-married couple. As the bride had nearly completed her forty-eighth year, her marriage could not be expected to contribute anything towards continuing the line of the old King, who now, notwithstanding his fifteen sons and daughters, twelve of whom were still alive, was left without any descendant beyond the first generation. A few days afterwards, however on the 13th of April - Lord Liverpool brought down a message from the Regent to the Lords, and Lord Castlereagh to the Commons, in which his royal highness informed the House that treaties of marriage were in negotiation between the Duke of Clarence and the Princess (Adelaide Louisa Theresa Caroline Amelia) of Saxe Meiningen, eldest daughter of the late reigning Duke of Saxe Meiningen; and also between the Duke of Cambridge and the Princess (Augusta Wilhelmina Louisa) of Hesse, youngest daughter of the Landgrave Frederic, and niece of the Elector of Hesse; and which went on to say, that after the afflicting calamity which the Prince and the nation had sustained in the loss of the Princess Charlotte, his royal highness was fully persuaded that the House of Commons would feel how essential it was to the best interests of the country, that he should be enabled to make a suitable provision for such of his royal brothers as should have contracted marriages with the consent of the This last expression was designed to intimate both that the proposed provision was not to be extended to the Duke of Sussex, and that it was to comprehend the Duke of Cumberland,

crown.

who had been married, three years ago, to the Princess Frederica Sophia Charlotta, daughter of Frederic V., Duke of Mecklenburg Strelitz, and previously the wife, first, of Frederic Louis Charles, Prince of Prussia, from whom she had been divorced, and, secondly, of Frederic William, Prince of Solms Braunfels. The Duchess of Cumberland was niece to the Queen; but for some unexplained reason, her majesty refused to receive her royal highness after she came over to this country. It was generally understood that the refusal was occasioned by the conduct of the Duchess in breaking off a previous negotiation of marriage with the Duke of Cambridge. The Duke of Cumberland, however, was not popular; and when, soon after his marriage, a bill was brought in by ministers to grant him an additional allowance of 6000l. a year, advantage was taken of the Queen's disapprobation, and the bill, which had been resisted by formidable minorities both on the motion for leave to bring it in and on the first reading, was thrown out on the second reading by a majority of one, the numbers being 126 against 125. It was hoped that now this decision might be reversed. Considerably larger sums were originally contemplated; but ministers were induced, by strong manifestations of adverse feeling both in and out of parliament, to pause and modify their proposition; and they determined to ask only an additional 10,000l. a year for the Duke of Clarence, and 60007. for the Dukes of Cumberland and Cambridge, and for the Duke of Kent if he too should marry. When Lord Castlereagh, on the 15th, moved a resolution to the effect that 10,0007. a year should be granted to the Duke of Clarence, Mr. Canning observed that in voting for this sum "they would vote only for one half of the sum originally proposed, a sum the propriety of which both his noble friend and himself thought then, and still thought, maintainable by fair argument, but which they had no hesitation in surrendering to the expressed opinion of that House." But on Mr. Sumner moving that the 10,000l. should be reduced to 60007., this amendment was carried by a majority of 193 to 184. "The result,” it is stated,1" was received with loud shouts of approbation; amidst which Lord Castlereagh rose and observed, that, since the House had thought proper to refuse the larger sum to the Duke of Clarence, he believed he might say that the negotiation for the marriage might be considered at an end." On the following day, his lordship informed the House that the duke declined availing himself of the inadequate sum which had been voted to him. He then proposed the 6000%. a year for the Duke of Cambridge, which was carried, but not till after a debate of some length, and a division, in which the numbers were 177 for the resolution, and 95 against it. Rising

1 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, xxxviii. p. 114.

CHAP. XIII.] NEW GRANTS TO THE PRINCES.

203

Yet

again, his lordship moved that a similar grant should be made to the Duke of Cumberland; but this motion, after a warm debate, was negatived by a majority of 143 to 136. "Loud cheering," we are told,1 "took place in the House when the result of the division was known." On the 13th of May, another message was brought down announcing that the Prince Regent had given his consent to a marriage between the Duke of Kent and Her Serene Highness Mary Louisa Victoria, daughter of the Duke of Saxe Coburg Saalfeld, widow of Enrich Charles, Prince of Leiningen, and sister of Prince Leopold. Of all these royal marriages this was the one which the heart of the country went most along with; the Duke of Kent had attached himself to the popular party, and the relationship of the lady to Prince Leopold and the lamented Princess Charlotte was of itself sufficient to awaken a strong interest in her favor. If the nation might have had its wish, it would have been from the first that that should happen which has actually fallen out, that to the issue of this marriage the inheritance of the crown should descend. even the grant of the additional 6000l. a year to the Duke of Kent was stoutly opposed in the Commons; 51 members, among whom were Lord Althorpe, Mr. Coke of Norfolk, Lord Folkestone, Mr. Lambton, and Mr. Tierney, voting against it. The number of votes in its favor, however, was more than four times as many. Meanwhile, the public had learned, with some surprise, that the marriage of the Duke of Clarence was to take place after all. That of the Duke of Cambridge was solemnized on the 1st of June; those of the Dukes of Clarence and Kent on the 13th of the month following. In connection with the subject of the royal family, it may be here mentioned, that the portion of the Regency Act relating to the custody of the King's person was this session altered by a short bill which ministers introduced, repealing the clause which made it necessary that parliament should reassemble immediately in case of the death of the Queen, and also adding four members to the council appointed to assist her majesty. As at first drawn up, the bill gave the nomination of the four new members to her majesty; but it was ultimately conceded that they should be appointed by parliament. In other words, their names were inserted in the bill. What occasioned this measure was an illness with which the Queen had been attacked; but she had nearly recovered before the bill passed.

On the subject of the slave-trade, acts were passed for carrying into effect a treaty with Spain, and a convention with Portugal. The Spanish treaty, signed at Madrid

Slave-trade.

on the 23d of September in the preceding year, went the full

1 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, xxxviii. p. 151.

length of declaring the traffic in slaves illegal, from the 30th of May, 1820, throughout the entire dominions of his Catholic majesty, and of recognizing the right of search on the part of the two contracting powers, to be exercised by vessels of war, provided with special instructions for that purpose. It was stipulated that the sum of 400,000l. should be paid by Great Britain to Spain, in compensation for losses sustained by the subjects of his Catholic Majesty engaged in the traffic. The convention with Portugal, a much more important power in reference to this matter, did not accomplish nearly so much for the interests of humanity and civilization; all that his Most Faithful Majesty would consent to do being to abolish the traffic in slaves carried on by his subjects in any part of the coast of Africa lying north of the equator. This was done by a royal alvara, or law, given at Rio Janeiro, on the 6th of May in the present year. The subject of the condition and treatment of the slaves in several of our West India colonies was also brought before the House of Commons in a succession of motions by Sir S. Romilly; none of which were opposed, but which resulted in nothing except the production of some papers, and the appointment of a select committee to consider certain cases of cruelty alleged to have taken place in the island of Nevis.

Alien Act.

The principal subject which occupied parliament during the last six weeks of the session, was the renewal of the Alien Act. This measure, differing altogether from the Alien Act which subsisted during the war, had been first introduced after the peace of Amiens in 1802. It no longer fixed the residence of aliens, but only reserved to government and to magistrates the power of removing any of them who might become objects of suspicion. Nor had it ever been enacted as a permanent law. When it was reintroduced, after the peace in 1814, its duration had been limited to two years; and in 1816 it had been renewed for the same term. On the latter occasion, however, it had encountered the strongest opposition in its passage through parliament. And now, when it was proposed to be continued for two years more, the fight against it was resumed by the Whig party, and the ground contested with the greatest obstinacy at every step. Its opponents, in the Commons, even divided the House on the motion for leave to bring in the bill, meeting the majority of 55 votes in its favor with a minority of 18. This was on the 5th of May. Hostile motions for papers were then made by Mr. Lambton in the one House, and by Lord Holland in the other, Mr. Lambton pushing his to a division, when 30 opposition patriots were counted against 68 ministerialists. On the 15th, the second reading in the Commons, supported by 97 votes, was resisted by 35. Another division took place on the