Chapter II (part 5 of 23)

Chapter II (part 5 of 23)

"Whereas it is notorious that Charles Stuart, the now king of England, not content with the many encroachments which his predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and freedom, hath had a wicked design totally to subvert the antient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and in their place to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government; and that, besides all other evil ways and means to bring his design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and sword, levied and maintained a civil war in the land, against the parliament and kingdom; whereby this country hath been miserably wasted, the public treasure exhausted, trade decayed, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other mischiefs committed; for all which high and treasonable offences the said Charles Stuart might long since have justly been brought to exemplary and condign punishment: whereas also the parliament, well hoping that the restraint and imprisonment of his person after it had pleased God to deliver him into their hands, would have quieted the distempers of the kingdom, did forbear to proceed judicially against him; but found, by sad experience, that such their remissness served only to encourage him and his accomplices in the continuance of their evil practices and in raising new commotions, rebellions, and invasions: for prevention therefore of the like or greater inconveniences, and to the end no other chief officer or magistrate whatsoever may hereafter presume, traiterously and maliciously, to imagine or contrive the enslaving or destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for so doing; be it enacted and ordained by the [Lords] and commons in Parliament assembled, and it is hereby enacted and ordained by the authority thereof, That the earls of Kent, Nottingham, Pembroke, Denbigh, and Mulgrave; the lord Grey of Warke; lord chief justice Rolle of the king's bench, lord chief justice St. John of the common Pleas, and lord chief baron Wylde; the lord Fairfax, lieutenant general Cromwell, &c. [in all about 150,] shall be, and are hereby appointed and required to be Commissioners and Judges, for the Hearing, Trying, and Judging of the said Charles Stuart; and the said Commissioners, or any 20 or more of them, shall be, and are hereby authorized and constituted an High Court of Justice, to meet and sit at such convenient times and place as by the said commissioners, or the major part, or 20 or more of them, under their hands and seals, shall be appointed and notified by public Proclamation in the Great Hall, or Palace Yard of Westminster; and to adjourn from time to time, and from place to place, as the said High Court, or the major part thereof, at meeting, shall hold fit; and to take order for the charging of him, the said Charles Stuart, with the Crimes and Treasons above-mentioned, and for receiving his personal Answer thereunto, and for examination of witnesses upon oath, (which the court hath hereby authority to administer) or otherwise, and taking any other Evidence concerning the same; and thereupon, or in default of such Answer, to proceed to final Sentence according to justice and the merit of the cause; and such final Sentence to execute, or cause to be executed, speedily and impartially. {883} And the said court is hereby and required to chuse and appoint all such officers, attendants, and other circumstances as they, or the major part of them, shall in any sort judge necessary or useful for the orderly and good managing of the premises; and Thomas lord Fairfax the General, and all officers and soldiers, under his command, and all officers of justice, and other well-affected persons, are hereby authorized and required to be aiding and assisting unto the said court in the due execution of the trust hereby committed unto them; provided that this act, and the authority hereby granted, do continue in force for the space of one month from the date of the making hereof, and no longer."

Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, volume 3, pages 1254-1255.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY). The Commonwealth established.

"England was now a Republic. The change had been virtually made on Thursday, January 4, 1648-9, when the Commons passed their three great Resolutions, declaring

(1) that the People of England were, under God, the original of all just power in the State,

(2) that the Commons, in Parliament assembled, having been chosen by the People, and representing the People, possessed the supreme power in their name, and

(3) that whatever the Commons enacted should have the force of a law, without needing the consent of either King or House of Peers.

On Tuesday, the 30th of January, the theory of these Resolutions became more visibly a fact. On the afternoon of that day, while the crowd that had seen the execution in front of Whitehall were still lingering round the scaffold, the Commons passed an Act 'prohibiting the proclaiming of any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions thereof.' It was thus declared that Kingship in England had died with Charles. But what of the House of Peers? It was significant that on the same fatal day the Commons revived their three theoretical resolutions of the 4th, and ordered them to be printed. The wretched little rag of a House might then have known its doom. But it took a week more to convince them." On the 6th of February it was resolved by the House of Commons, "'That the House of Peers in Parliament is useless and dangerous, and ought to be abolished, and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Next day, February 7, after another long debate, it was further resolved 'That it hath been found by experience, and this House doth declare, that the office of a King in this realm, and to have the power thereof in any single person, is unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the People of this nation, and therefore ought to be abolished, and that an Act be brought in to that purpose.' Not till after some weeks were these Acts deliberately passed after the customary three readings. The delay, however, was matter of mere Parliamentary form. Theoretically a Republic since January 4, 1648-9, and visibly a Republic from the day of Charles's death, England was a Republic absolutely and in every sense from February 7, 1648-9." For the administration of the government of the republican Commonwealth, the Commons resolved, on the 7th of February, that a Council of State be erected; to consist of not more than forty persons. On the 13th, Instructions to the intended Council of State were reported and agreed to, "these Instructions conferring almost plenary powers, but limiting the duration of the Council to one year." On the 14th and 15th forty-one persons were appointed to be members of the Council, Fairfax, Cromwell, Vane, St. John, Whitlocke, Henry Marten, and Colonels Hutchinson and Ludlow being in the number; nine to constitute a quorum, and no permanent President to be chosen.

D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 4, book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. Lingard, History of England, volume. 10, chapter 5.

A. Bisset, Omitted Chapters of History of England, chapter 1.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY). The Eikon Basilike.

"A book, published with great secrecy, and in very mysterious circumstances, February 9, 1648-9, exactly ten days after the late King's death, had done much to increase the Royalist enthusiasm.

'Eikon Basilike: The True Portraicture of His Sacred Majestie in his Solitudes and Sufferings.—Romans viii. More than conquerour, &c.—Bona agere et mala pati Regium est. MDCXLVIII': such was the title-page of this volume (of 269 pages of text, in small octavo), destined by fate, rather than by merit, to be one of the most famous books of the world. … The book, so elaborately prepared and heralded, consists of twenty-eight successive chapters, purporting to have been written by the late King, and to be the essence of his spiritual autobiography in the last years of his life. Each chapter, with scarcely an exception, begins with a little narrative, or generally rather with reflections and meditations on some passage of the King's life the narrative of which is supposed to be unnecessary, and ends with a prayer in italics appropriate to the circumstances remembered. … Save for a few … passages … , the pathos of which lies in the situation they represent, the Eikon Basilike is a rather dull performance, in third-rate rhetoric, modulated after the Liturgy; and without incision, point, or the least shred of real information as to facts. But O what a reception it had! Copies of it ran about instantaneously, and were read with sobs and tears. It was in vain that Parliament, March 16, gave orders for seizing the book. It was reprinted at once in various forms, to supply the constant demand—which was not satisfied, it is said, with less than fifty editions within a single year; it became a very Bible in English Royalist households. … By means of this book, in fact, acting on the state of sentiment which it fitted, there was established, within a few weeks after the death of Charles I., that marvellous worship of his memory, that passionate recollection of him as the perfect man and the perfect king, the saint, the martyr, the all but Christ on earth again, which persisted till the other day as a positive religious cultus of the English mind, and still lingers in certain quarters."

D. Masson, Life and Times of John Milton, volume 4, book 1, chapter 1.

{884}

"I struggled through the Eikon Basilike yesterday; one of the paltriest pieces of vapid, shovel-hatted, clear-starched, immaculate falsity and cant I have ever read. It is to me an amazement how any mortal could ever have taken that for a genuine book of King Charles's. Nothing but a surpliced Pharisee, sitting at his ease afar off, could have got up such a set of meditations. It got Parson Gauden [John Gauden, Bishop of Exeter and Worcester, successively, after the Restoration, and who is believed to have been the author of the Eikon Basilike] a bishopric."

T. Carlyle, History of his Life in London, by Froude, volume 1, chapter 7, November 26, 1840.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (APRIL-MAY). Mutiny of the Levellers.

See LEVELLERS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1649-1650. Cromwell's campaign in Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (JULY). Charles II. proclaimed King in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (MARCH-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER). War with the Scots and Cromwell's victory at Dunbar.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651 (SEPTEMBER). The Scots and Charles II. overthrown at Worcester.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1653. The Army and the Rump.

"'Now that the King is dead and his son defeated,' Cromwell said gravely to the Parliament, 'I think it necessary to come to a settlement.' But the settlement which had been promised after Naseby was still as distant as ever after Worcester. The bill for dissolving the present Parliament, though Cromwell pressed it in person, was only passed, after bitter opposition, by a majority of two; and even this success had been purchased by a compromise which permitted the House to sit for three years more. Internal affairs were simply at a dead lock. … The one remedy for all this was, as the army saw, the assembly of a new and complete Parliament in place of the mere 'rump' of the old; but this was the one measure which the House was resolute to avert. Vane spurred it to a new activity. … But it was necessary for Vane's purposes not only to show the energy of the Parliament, but to free it from the control of the army. His aim was to raise in the navy a force devoted to the House, and to eclipse the glories of Dunbar and Worcester by yet greater triumphs at sea. With this view the quarrel with Holland had been carefully nursed. … The army hardly needed the warning conveyed by the introduction of a bill for its disbanding to understand the new policy of the Parliament. … The army petitioned not only for reform in Church and State, but for an explicit declaration that the House would bring its proceedings to a close. The Petition forced the House to discuss a bill for 'a New Representative,' but the discussion soon brought out the resolve of the sitting members to continue as a part of the coming Parliament without re-election. The officers, irritated by such a claim, demanded in conference after conference an immediate dissolution, and the House as resolutely refused. In ominous words Cromwell supported the demands of the army. 'As for the members of this Parliament, the army begins to take them in disgust. I would it did so with less reason.' … Not only were the existing members to continue as members of the New Parliament, depriving the places they represented of their right of choosing representatives, but they were to constitute a Committee of Revision, to determine the validity of each election, and the fitness of the members returned. A conference took place [April 19, 1653] between the leaders of the Commons and the officers of the army. … The conference was adjourned till the next morning, on an understanding that no decisive step should be taken; but it had no sooner reassembled, than the absence of the leading members confirmed the news that Vane was fast pressing the bill for a new Representative through the House. 'It is contrary to common honesty,' Cromwell angrily broke out; and, quitting Whitehall, he summoned a company of musketeers to follow him as far as the door of the House of Commons."

J. R Green, Short History of England, chapter 8, section 9.

ALSO IN: _J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

J. A. Picton, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 22.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1651-1672. The Navigation Acts and the American colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672; also, NAVIGATION LAWS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1652-1654. War with the Dutch Republic.

"After the death of William, Prince of Orange, which was attended with the depression of his party and the triumph of the Dutch republicans [see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1647-1650], the Parliament thought that the time was now favourable for cementing a closer confederacy with the states. St. John, chief justice, who was sent over to the Hague, had entertained the idea of forming a kind of coalition between the two republics, which would have rendered their interests totally inseparable; … but the states, who were unwilling to form a nearer confederacy with a government whose measures were so obnoxious, and whose situation seemed so precarious, offered only to renew 'the former alliances with England; and the haughty St. John, disgusted with this disappointment, as well as incensed at many affronts which had been offered him, with impunity, by the retainers of the Palatine and Orange families, and indeed by the populace in general, returned into England and endeavoured to foment a quarrel between the republics. …. There were several motives which at this time induced the English Parliament to embrace hostile measures. Many of the members thought that a foreign war would serve as a pretence for continuing the same Parliament, and delaying the new model of a representative, with which the nation had so long been flattered. Others hoped that the war would furnish a reason for maintaining, some time longer, that numerous standing army which was so much complained of. On the other hand, some, who dreaded the increasing power of Cromwell, expected that the great expense of naval armaments would prove a motive for diminishing the military establishment. To divert the attention of the public from domestic quarrels towards foreign transactions, seemed, in the present disposition of men's minds, to be good policy. … All these views, enforced by the violent spirit of St. John, who had great influence over Cromwell, determined the Parliament to change the purposed alliance into a furious war against the United Provinces. To cover these hostile intentions, the Parliament, under pretence of providing for the interests of commerce, embraced such measures as they knew would give disgust to the states. They framed the famous act of navigation, which prohibited all nations from importing into England in their bottoms any commodity which was not the growth and manufacture of their own country. … The minds of men in both states were every day more irritated against each other; and it was not long before these humours broke forth into action."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 60 (volume 5).

{885}

"The negotiations … were still pending when Blake, meeting Van Tromp's fleet in the Downs, in vain summoned the Dutch Admiral to lower his flag. A battle was the consequence, which led to a declaration of war on the 8th of July (1652). The maritime success of England was chiefly due to the genius of Blake, who having hitherto served upon shore, now turned his whole attention to the navy. A series of bloody fights took place between the two nations. For some time the fortunes of the war seemed undecided. Van Tromp, defeated by Blake, had to yield the command to De Ruyter. De Ruyter in his turn was displaced to give way again to his greater rival. Van Tromp was reinstated in command. A victory over Blake off the Naze (November 28) enabled him to cruise in the Channel with a broom at his mast-head, implying that he had swept the English from the seas. But the year 1653 again saw Blake able to fight a drawn battle of two days' duration between Portland and La Hogue; while at length, on the 2d and 3d of June, a decisive engagement was fought off the North Foreland, in which Monk and Deane, supported by Blake, completely defeated the Dutch Admiral, who, as a last resource, tried in vain to blow up his own ship, and then retreated to the Dutch coast, leaving eleven ships in the hands of the English. In the next month, another victory on the part of Blake, accompanied by the death of the great Dutch Admiral, completed the ruin of the naval power of Holland. The States were driven to treat. In 1654 the treaty was signed, in which Denmark, the Hanseatic towns, and the Swiss provinces were included. … The Dutch acknowledged the supremacy of the English flag in the British seas; they consented to the Navigation Act."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 2, page 701.

ALSO IN: W. H. Dixon, Robert Blake, Admiral and General at Sea, chapters 6-7.

D. Hannay, Admiral Blake, chapters 6-7.

J. Campbell, Naval History of Great Britain, chapter 15 (volume 2).

G. Penn, Memorials of Sir William Penn, chapter 4.

J. Corbett, Monk, chapter 7.

J. Geddes, History of the Administration of John De Witt, volume 1, books 4-5.

See, also, NAVIGATION LAWS, ENGLISH: A. D. 1651.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (APRIL). Cromwell's expulsion of the Rump.

"In plain black clothes and gray worsted stockings, the Lord-General came in quietly and took his seat [April 20], as Vane was pressing the House to pass the dissolution Bill without delay and without the customary forms. He beckoned to Harrison and told him that the Parliament was ripe for dissolution, and he must do it. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'the work is very great and dangerous.'—'You say well,' said the general, and thereupon sat still for about a quarter of an hour. Vane sat down, and the Speaker was putting the question for passing the Bill. Then said Cromwell to Harrison again, 'This is the time; I must do it.' He rose up, put off his hat, and spoke. Beginning moderately and respectfully, he presently changed his style, told them of their injustice, delays of justice, self interest, and other faults; charging them not to have a heart to do anything for the public good, to have espoused the corrupt interest of Presbytery and the lawyers, who were the supporters of tyranny and oppression, accusing them of an intention to perpetuate themselves in power. And rising into passion, 'as if he were distracted,' he told them that the Lord had done with them, and had chosen other instruments for the carrying on His work that were worthy. Sir Peter Wentworth rose to complain of such language in Parliament, coming from their own trusted servant. Roused to fury by the interruption, Cromwell left his seat, clapped on his hat, walked up and down the floor of the House, stamping with his feet, and cried out, 'You are no Parliament, I say you are no Parliament. Come, come, we have had enough of this; I will put an end to your prating. Call them in!' Twenty or thirty musketeers under Colonel Worsley marched in onto the floor of the House. The rest of the guard were placed at the door and in the lobby. Vane from his place cried out, 'This is not honest, yea, it is against morality and common honesty.' Cromwell, who evidently regarded Vane as the breaker of the supposed agreement, turned on him with a loud voice, crying, 'O Sir Henry Vane, Sir Henry Vane, the Lord deliver me from Sir Henry Vane.' Then looking upon one of the members, he said, 'There sits a drunkard;' to another he said, 'Some of you are unjust, corrupt persons, and scandalous to the profession of the Gospel.' 'Some are whoremasters,' he said, looking at Wentworth and Marten. Going up to the table, he said, 'What shall we do with this Bauble? Here, take it away!' and gave it to a musketeer. 'Fetch him down,' he cried to Harrison, pointing to the Speaker. Lenthall sat still, and refused to come down unless by force. 'Sir,' said Harrison, 'I will lend you my hand,' and putting his hand within his, the Speaker came down. Algernon Sidney sat still in his place. 'Put him out,' said Cromwell. And Harrison and Worsley put their hands on his shoulders, and he rose and went out. The members went out, fifty-three in all, Cromwell still calling aloud. To Vane he said that he might have prevented this; but that he was a juggler and had not common honesty. 'It is you,' he said, as they passed him, 'that have forced me to do this, for I have sought the Lord night and day, that He would rather slay me than put me on the doing of this work.' He snatched the Bill of dissolution from the hand of the clerk, put it under his cloak, seized on the records, ordered the guard to clear the House of all members, and to have the door locked, and went away to Whitehall. Such is one of the most famous scenes in our history, that which of all other things has most heavily weighed on the fame of Cromwell. In truth it is a matter of no small complexity, which neither constitutional eloquence nor boisterous sarcasm has quite adequately unravelled. … In strict constitutional right the House was no more the Parliament than Cromwell was the king. A House of Commons, which had executed the king, abolished the Lords, approved the 'coup d'état' of Pride, and by successive proscriptions had reduced itself to a few score of extreme partisans, had no legal title to the name of Parliament. The junto which held to Vane was not more numerous than the junto which held to Cromwell; they had far less public support; nor had their services to the Cause been so great. {886} In closing the House, the Lord-General had used his office of Commander-in-Chief to anticipate one 'coup d'état' by another. Had he been ten minutes late, Vane would himself have dissolved the House; snapping a vote which would give his faction a legal ascendancy. Yet, after all, the fact remains that Vane and the remnant of the famous Long Parliament had that 'scintilla juris,' as lawyers call it, that semblance of legal right, which counts for so much in things political."

F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: J. K. Hosmer, Life of Young Sir Henry Vane, part 3, chapter 17.

F. P. Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell, book 4 (volume l).

L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th century, book 11, chapter 5 (volume 3).

W. Godwin, History of the Commonwealth, volume 3, chapters 27-29.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER). The Barebones, or Little Parliament.

Six weeks after the expulsion of the Rump, Cromwell, in his own name, and upon his own authority, as "Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief," issued (June 6) a summons to one hundred and forty "persons fearing God and of approved fidelity and honesty," chosen and "nominated" by himself, with the advice of his council of officers, requiring them to be and appear at the Council Chamber of Whitehall on the following fourth day of July, to take upon themselves "the great charge and trust" of providing for "the peace, safety, and good government" of the Commonwealth, and to serve, each, "as a Member for the county" from which he was called. "Of all the Parties so summoned, 'only two' did not attend. Disconsolate Bulstrode says: 'Many of this Assembly being persons of fortune and knowledge, it was much wondered by some that they would at this summons, and from such hands, take upon them the Supreme Authority of this Nation; considering how little right Cromwell and his Officers had to give it, or those Gentlemen to take it.' My disconsolate friend, it is a sign that Puritan England in general accepts this action of Cromwell and his Officers, and thanks them for it, in such a case of extremity; saying as audibly as the means permitted: Yea, we did wish it so. Rather mournful to the disconsolate official mind. … The undeniable fact is, these men were, as Whitlocke intimates, a quite reputable Assembly; got together by anxious 'consultation of the godly Clergy' and chief Puritan lights in their respective Counties; not without much earnest revision, and solemn consideration in all kinds, on the part of men adequate enough for such a work, and desirous enough to do it well. The List of the Assembly exists; not yet entirely gone dark for mankind. A fair proportion of them still recognizable to mankind. Actual Peers one or two: founders of Peerage Families, two or three, which still exist among us,—Colonel Edward Montague, Colonel Charles Howard, Anthony Ashley Cooper. And better than King's Peers, certain Peers of Nature; whom if not the King and his pasteboard Norroys have had the luck to make Peers of, the living heart of England has since raised to the Peerage and means to keep there,—Colonel Robert Blake the Sea-King, for one. 'Known persons,' I do think; 'of approved integrity, men fearing God'; and perhaps not entirely destitute of sense anyone of them! Truly it seems rather a distinguished Parliament,—even though Mr. Praisegod Barbone, 'the Leather merchant in Fleet-street,' be, as all mortals must admit, a member of it. The fault, I hope, is forgivable. Praisegod, though he deals in leather, and has a name which can be misspelt, one discerns to be the son of pious parents; to be himself a man of piety, of understanding and weight,—and even of considerable private capital, my witty flunkey friends! We will leave Praisegod to do the best he can, I think. … In fact, a real Assembly of the Notables in Puritan England; a Parliament, Parliamentum, or Speaking-Apparatus for the now dominant Interest in England, as exact as could well be got,—much more exact, I suppose, than any ballot-box, free hustings or ale-barrel election usually yields. Such is the Assembly called the Little Parliament, and wittily Bare-bone's Parliament; which meets on the 4th of July. Their witty name survives; but their history is gone all dark."

T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, part 7, speech. 1.

The "assembly of godly persons" proved, however, to be quite an unmanageable body, containing so large a number of erratic and impracticable reformers that everything substantial among English institutions was threatened with overthrow at their hands. After five months of busy session, Cromwell was happily able to bring about a dissolution of his parliament, by the action of a majority, surrendering back their powers into his hands,—which was done on the 10th of December, 1653.

F. P. Guizot, History of Oliver Cromwell, book 5 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. A. Picton, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 23.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (December). The Establishment and Constitution of the Protectorate. The Instrument of Government.

"What followed the dissolution of the Little Parliament is soon told. The Council of Officers having been summoned by Cromwell as the only power de facto, there were dialogues and deliberations, ending in the clear conclusion that the method of headship in a 'Single Person' for his whole life must now be tried in the Government of the Commonwealth, and that Cromwell must be that 'Single Person.' The title of King was actually proposed; but, as there were objections to that, Protector was chosen as a title familiar in English History and of venerable associations. Accordingly, Cromwell having consented, and all preparations having been made, he was, on Friday, December 16, in a great assembly of civic, judicial and military dignities, solemnly sworn and installed in the Chancery Court, Westminster Hall, as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. There were some of his adherents hitherto who did not like this new elevation of their hero, and forsook him in consequence, regarding any experiment of the Single Person method in Government 'as a treason to true Republicanism, and Cromwell's assent to it as unworthy of him. Among these was Harrison. Lambert, on the other hand, had been the main agent in the change, and took a conspicuous part in the installation-ceremony. In fact, pretty generally throughout the country and even among the Presbyterians, the elevation of Cromwell to some kind of sovereignty had come to be regarded as an inevitable necessity of the time, the only possible salvation of the Commonwealth from the anarchy, or wild and experimental idealism, in matters civil and religious, which had been the visible drift at last of the Barebones or Daft Little Parliament. … The powers and duties of the Protectorate had been defined, rather elaborately, in a Constitutional Instrument of forty-two Articles, called 'The Government of the Commonwealth' [more commonly known as The Instrument of Government] to which Cromwell had sworn fidelity at his installation."

{887}

D. Masson, Life of John Milton, volume 4, book 4, chapters 1 and 3.

ALSO IN: _J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 12, chapter 1 (volume 3).

S. R. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, introduction, section 4 and pages 314-324.

Cobbett's Parliamentary History of England, volume 3, pages 1417-1426.

The following is the text Of the Instrument of Government:

The government of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging.

I. That the supreme legislative authority of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, shall be and reside in one person, and the people assembled in Parliament; the style of which person shall be the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

II. That the exercise of the chief magistracy and the administration of the government over the said countries and dominions, and the people thereof, shall be in the Lord Protector, assisted with a council, the number whereof shall not exceed twenty-one, nor be less than thirteen.

III. That all writs, processes, commissions, patents, grants, and other things, which now run in the name and style of the keepers of the liberty of England by authority of Parliament, shall run in the name and style of the Lord Protector, from whom, for the future, shall be derived all magistracy and honours in these three nations; and have the power of pardons (except in case of murders and treason) and benefit of all forfeitures for the public use; and shall govern the said countries and dominions in all things by the advice of the council, and according to these presents and the laws.

IV. That the Lord Protector, the Parliament sitting, shall dispose and order the militia and forces, both by sea and land, for the peace and good of the three nations, by consent of Parliament; and that the Lord Protector, with the advice and consent of the major part of the council, shall dispose and order the militia for the ends aforesaid in the intervals of Parliament."

V. That the Lord Protector, by the advice aforesaid, shall direct in all things concerning the keeping and holding of a good correspondency with foreign kings, princes, and states; and also, with the consent of the major part of the council, have the power of war and peace.

VI. That the laws shall not be altered, suspended, abrogated, or repealed, nor any new law made, nor any tax, charge, or imposition laid upon the people, but by common consent in Parliament, save only as is expressed in the thirtieth article.

VII. That there shall be a Parliament summoned to meet at Westminster upon the third day of September, 1654, and that successively a Parliament shall be summoned once in every third year, to be accounted from the dissolution of the present Parliament.

VIII. That neither the Parliament to be next summoned, nor any successive Parliaments, shall, during the time of five months, to be accounted from the day of their first meeting, be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved, without their own consent.

IX. That as well the next as all other successive Parliaments, shall be summoned and elected in manner hereafter expressed; that is to say, the persons to be chosen within England, Wales, the Isles of Jersey, Guernsey, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall be, and not exceed, the number of four hundred. The persons to be chosen within Scotland, to sit and serve in Parliament, shall be, and not exceed, the number of thirty; and the persons to be chosen to sit in Parliament for Ireland shall be, and not exceed, the number of thirty.

X. That the persons to be elected to sit in Parliament from time to time, for the several counties of England, Wales, the Isles of Jersey and Guernsey, and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and all places within the same respectively, shall be according to the proportions and numbers hereafter expressed: that is to say,

Bedfordshire, 5; Bedford Town, 1; Berkshire, 5; Abingdon, 1; Reading, 1; Buckinghamshire, 5; Buckingham Town, 1; Aylesbury, 1; Wycomb, 1; Cambridgeshire, 4; Cambridge Town, 1; Cambridge University, 1; Isle of Ely, 2; Cheshire, 4; Chester, 1; Cornwall, 8; Launceston, 1; Truro, 1; Penryn, 1; East Looe and West Looe, 1; Cumberland, 2; Carlisle, 1; Derbyshire, 4; Derby Town, 1; Devonshire, 11; Exeter, 2; Plymouth, 2 Clifton, Dartmouth, Hardness, 1; Totnes, 1; Barnstable, 1; Tiverton, 1; Honiton, 1; Dorsetshire, 6; Dorchester, 1; Weymouth and Melcomb-Regis, 1; Lyme-Regis, 1; Poole, 1; Durham, 2; City of Durham, 1; Essex, 13; Malden, 1; Colchester, 2; Gloucestershire, 5; Gloucester, 2; Tewkesbury, 1; Cirencester, 1; Herefordshire, 4; Hereford, 1; Leominster, 1; Hertfordshire, 5; St. Alban's, 1: Hertford, 1; Huntingdonshire, 3; Huntingdon, 1; Kent, 11; Canterbury, 2; Rochester, 1 Maidstone, 1; Dover, 1; Sandwich, 1; Queenborough, 1; Lancashire, 4; Preston, 1; Lancaster, 1; Liverpool, 1; Manchester, 1; Leicestershire, 4 Leicester, 2; Lincolnshire, 10; Lincoln, 2; Boston, 1; Grantham, 1; Stamford, 1; Great Grimsby, 1; Middlesex, 4; London, 6; Westminster, 2; Monmouthshire, 3; Norfolk 10; Norwich, 2; Lynn-Regis, 2 Great Yarmouth, 2 Northamptonshire, 6; Peterborough, 1; Northampton, 1; Nottinghamshire, 4; Nottingham, 2; Northumberland, 3; Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1; Berwick, 1; Oxfordshire, 5; Oxford City, 1; Oxford University, 1; Woodstock, 1; Rutlandshire, 2; Shropshire, 4; Shrewsbury, 2; Bridgnorth, 1; Ludlow, 1; Staffordshire, 3; Lichfield, 1; Stafford, 1; Newcastle-under-Lyne, 1; Somersetshire, 11; Bristol, 2; Taunton, 2; Bath, 1; Wells, 1; Bridgwater, 1; Southamptonshire, 8; Winchester, 1; Southampton, 1 Portsmouth, 1; Isle of Wight, 2; Andover, 1; Suffolk, 10; Ipswich, 2; Bury St. Edmunds, 2; Dunwich, 1; Sudbury, 1; Surrey, 6; Southwark, 2; Guildford, 1; Reigate, 1; Sussex, 9; Chichester, 1; Lewes, 1; East Grinstead, 1; Arundel, 1; Rye, 1; Westmoreland, 2; Warwickshire, 4; Coventry, 2; Warwick, 1; Wiltshire, 10; New Sarum, 2; Marlborough, 1; Devizes, 1; Worcestershire, 5; Worcester, 2.

YORKSHIRE. West Riding, 6; East Riding, 4; North Riding, 4; City of York, 2 Kingston-upon-Hull, 1; Beverley, 1; Scarborough, 1; Richmond, 1; Leeds, 1; Halifax, 1.

{888}

WALES. Anglesey, 2: Brecknoekshire, 2; Cardiganshire, 2; Carmarthenshire, 2; Carnarvonshire, 2; Denbighshire, 2; Flintshire, 2; Glamorganshire, 2; Cardiff, 1; Merionethshire, 1; Montgomeryshire, 2; Pembrokeshire, 2; Haverfordwest, 1; Radnorshire, 2.

The distribution of the persons to be chosen for Scotland and Ireland, and the several counties, cities, and places therein, shall be according to such proportions and number as shall be agreed upon and declared by the Lord Protector and the major part of the council, before the sending forth writs of summons for the next Parliament.

XI. That the summons to Parliament shall be by writ under the Great Seal of England, directed to the sheriffs of the several and respective counties, with such alteration as may suit with the present government to be made by the Lord Protector and his council, which the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal shall seal, issue, and send abroad by warrant from the Lord Protector. If the Lord Protector shall not give warrant for issuing of writs of summons for the next Parliament, before the first of June, 1654, or for the Triennial Parliaments, before the first day of August in every third year, to be accounted as aforesaid; that then the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal for the time being, shall, without any warrant or direction, within seven days after the said first day of June, 1654, seal, issue, and send abroad writs of summons (changing therein what is to be changed as aforesaid) to the several and respective sheriffs of England, Scotland, and Ireland, for summoning the Parliament to meet at Westminster, the third day of September next; and shall likewise, within seven days after the said first day of August, in every third year, to be accounted from the dissolution of the precedent Parliament, seal, issue, and send forth abroad several writs of summons (changing therein what is to be changed) as aforesaid, for summoning the Parliament to meet at Westminster the sixth of November in that third year. That the said several and respective sheriffs, shall, within ten days after the receipt of such writ as aforesaid, cause the same to be proclaimed and published in every market-town within his county upon the market-days thereof, between twelve and three of the clock; and shall then also publish and declare the certain day of the week and month, for choosing members to serve in Parliament for the body of the said county, according to the tenor of the said writ, which shall be upon Wednesday five weeks after the date of the writ; and shall likewise declare the place where the election shall be made: for which purpose he shall appoint the most convenient place for the whole county to meet in; and shall send precepts for elections to be made in all and every city, town, borough, or place within his county, where elections are to be made by virtue of these presents, to the Mayor, Sheriff, or other head officer of such city, town, borough, or place, within three days after the receipt of such writ and writs; which the said Mayors, Sheriffs, and officers respectively are to make publication of, and of the certain day for such elections to be made in the said city, town, or place aforesaid, and to cause elections to be made accordingly.

XII. That at the day and place of elections, the Sheriff of each county, and the said Mayors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and other head officers within their cities, towns, boroughs, and places respectively, shall take view of the said elections, and shall make return into the chancery within twenty days after the said elections, of the persons elected by the greater number of electors, under their hands and seals, between him on the one part, and the electors on the other part; wherein shall be contained, that the persons elected shall not have power to alter the government as it is hereby settled in one single person and a Parliament.

XIII. That the Sheriff, who shall wittingly and willingly make any false return, or neglect his duty, shall incur the penalty of 2,000 marks of lawful English money; the one moiety to the Lord Protector, and the other moiety to such person as will sue for the same.

XIV. That all and every person and persons, who have aided, advised, assisted, or abetted in any war against the Parliament, since the first day of January 1641 (unless they have been since in the service of the Parliament, and given signal testimony of their good affection thereunto) shall be disabled and incapable to be elected, or to give any vote in the election of any members to serve in the next Parliament, or in the three succeeding Triennial Parliaments.

XV. That all such, who have advised, assisted, or abetted the rebellion of Ireland, shall be disabled and incapable for ever to be elected, or give any vote in the election of any member to serve in Parliament; as also all such who do or shall profess the Roman Catholic religion.

XVI. That all votes and elections given or made contrary, or not according to these qualifications, shall be null and void; and if any person, who is hereby made incapable, shall give his vote for election of members to serve in Parliament, such person shall lose and forfeit one full year's value of his real estate, and one full third part of his personal estate; one moiety thereof to the Lord Protector, and the other moiety to him or them who shall sue for the same.

XVII. That the persons who shall be elected to serve in Parliament, shall be such (and no other than such) as are persons of known integrity, fearing God, and of good conversation, and being of the age of twenty-one years.

XVIII. That all and every person and persons seised or possessed to his own use, of any estate, real or personal, to the value of £200, and not within the aforesaid exceptions, shall be capable to elect members to serve in Parliament for counties.

XIX. That the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal, shall be sworn before they enter into their offices, truly and faithfully to issue forth, and send abroad, writs of summons to Parliament, at the times and in the manner before expressed: and in case of neglect or failure to issue and send abroad writs accordingly, he or they shall for every such offence be guilty of high treason, and suffer the pains and penalties thereof.

XX. That in case writs be not issued out, as is before expressed, but that there be a neglect therein, fifteen days after the time wherein the same ought to be issued out by the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal; that then the Parliament shall, as often as such failure shall happen, assemble and be held at Westminster, in the usual place, at the times prefixed, in manner and by the means hereafter expressed; that is to say, that the sheriffs of the several and respective counties, sheriffdoms, cities, boroughs, and places aforesaid, within England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Mayor and Bailiffs of the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and other places aforesaid respectively, shall at the several courts and places to be appointed as aforesaid, within thirty days after the said fifteen days, cause such members to be chosen for their said several and respective counties, sheriffdoms, universities, cities, boroughs, and places aforesaid, by such persons, and in such manner, as if several and respective writs of summons to Parliament under the Great Seal had issued and been awarded according to the tenor aforesaid: that if the sheriff, or other persons authorized, shall neglect his or their duty herein, that all and every such sheriff and person authorized as aforesaid, so neglecting his or their duty, shall, for every such offence, be guilty of high treason, and shall suffer the pains and penalties thereof.

{889}

XXI. That the clerk, called the clerk of the Commonwealth in Chancery for the time being, and all others, who shall afterwards execute that office, to whom the returns shall be made, shall for the next Parliament, and the two succeeding Triennial Parliaments, the next day after such return, certify the names of the several persons so returned, and of the places for which he and they were chosen respectively, unto the Council; who shall peruse the said returns, and examine whether the persons so elected and returned be such as is agreeable to the qualifications, and not disabled to be elected: and that every person and persons being so duly elected, and being approved of by the major part of the Council to be persons not disabled, but qualified as aforesaid, shall be esteemed a member of Parliament, and be admitted to sit in Parliament, and not otherwise.

XXII. That the persons so chosen and assembled in manner aforesaid, or any sixty of them, shall be, and be deemed the Parliament of England, Scotland, and Ireland; and the supreme legislative power to be and reside in the Lord Protector and such Parliament, in manner herein expressed.

XXIII. That the Lord Protector, with the advice of the major part of the Council, shall at any other time than is before expressed, when the necessities of the State shall require it, summon Parliaments in manner before expressed, which shall not be adjourned, prorogued, or dissolved without their own consent, during the first three months of their sitting. And in case of future war with any foreign State, a Parliament shall be forthwith summoned for their advice concerning the same.

XXIV. That all Bills agreed unto by the Parliament, shall be presented to the Lord Protector for his consent; and in case he shall not give his consent thereto within twenty days after they shall be presented to him, or give satisfaction to the Parliament within the time limited, that then, upon declaration of the Parliament that the Lord Protector hath not consented nor given satisfaction, such Bills shall pass into and become laws, although he shall not give his consent thereunto; provided such Bills contain nothing in them contrary to the matters contained in these presents.

XXV. That [Henry Lawrence, esq.; Philip lord vise. Lisle; the majors general Lambert, Desborough, and Skippon; lieutenant general Fleetwood; the colonels Edward Montagu, Philip Jones, and Wm. Sydenham; sir Gilbert Pickering, sir Ch. Wolseley, and sir Anth. Ashley Cooper, Barts., Francis Rouse, esq., Speaker of the late Convention, Walter Strickland, and Rd. Major, esqrs.]—or any seven of them, shall be a Council for the purposes expressed in this writing; and upon the death or other removal of any of them, the Parliament shall nominate six persons of ability, integrity, and fearing God, for everyone that is dead or removed; out of which the major part of the Council shall elect two, and present them to the Lord Protector, of which he shall elect one; and in case the Parliament shall not nominate within twenty days after notice given unto them thereof, the major part of the Council shall nominate three as aforesaid to the Lord Protector, who out of them shall supply the vacancy; and until this choice be made, the remaining part of the Council shall execute as fully in all things, as if their number were full. And in case of corruption, or other miscarriage in any of the Council in their trust, the Parliament shall appoint seven of their number, and the Council six, who, together with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal for the time being, shall have power to hear and determine such corruption and miscarriage, and to award and inflict punishment, as the nature of the offence shall deserve, which punishment shall not be pardoned or remitted by the Lord Protector; and, in the interval of Parliaments, the major part of the Council, with the consent of the Lord Protector, may, for corruption or other miscarriage as aforesaid, suspend any of their number from the exercise of their trust, if they shall find it just, until the matter shall be heard and examined as aforesaid.

XXVI. That the Lord Protector and the major part of the Council aforesaid may, at any time before the meeting of the next Parliament, add to the Council such persons as they shall think fit, provided the number of the Council be not made thereby to exceed twenty-one, and the quorum to be proportioned accordingly by the Lord Protector and the major part of the Council.

XXVII. That a constant yearly revenue shall be raised, settled, and established for maintaining of 10,000 horse and dragoons, and 20,000 foot, in England, Scotland and Ireland, for the defence and security thereof, and also for a convenient number of ships for guarding of the seas; besides £200,000 per annum for defraying the other necessary charges of administration of justice, and other expenses of the Government, which revenue shall be raised by the customs, and such other ways and means as shall be agreed upon by the Lord Protector and the Council, and shall not be taken away or diminished, nor the way agreed upon for raising the same altered, but by the consent of the Lord Protector and the Parliament.

XXVIII. That the said yearly revenue shall be paid into the public treasury, and shall be issued out for the uses aforesaid.

XXIX. That in case there shall not be cause hereafter to keep up so great a defence both at land or sea, but that there be an abatement made thereof, the money which will be saved thereby shall remain in bank for the public service, and not be employed to any other use but by consent of Parliament, or, in the intervals of Parliament, by the Lord Protector and major part of the Council.

{890}

XXX. That the raising of money for defraying the charge of the present extraordinary forces, both at sea and land, in respect of the present wars, shall be by consent of Parliament, and not otherwise: save only that the Lord Protector, with the consent of the major part of the Council, for preventing the disorders and dangers which might otherwise fall out both by sea and land, shall have power, until the meeting of the first Parliament, to raise money for the purposes aforesaid; and also to make laws and ordinances for the peace and welfare of these nations where it shall be necessary, which shall be binding and in force, until order shall be taken in Parliament concerning the same.

XXXI. That the lands, tenements, rents, royalties, jurisdictions and hereditaments which remain yet unsold or undisposed of, by Act or Ordinance of Parliament, belonging to the Commonwealth (except the forests and chases, and the honours and manors belonging to the same; the lands of the rebels in Ireland, lying in the four counties of Dublin, Cork, Kildare, and Carlow; the lands forfeited by the people of Scotland in the late wars, and also the lands of Papists and delinquents in England who have not yet compounded), shall be vested in the Lord Protector, to hold, to him and his successors, Lords Protectors of these nations, and shall not be alienated but by consent in Parliament. And all debts, fines, issues, amercements, penalties and profits, certain and casual, due to the Keepers of the liberties of England by authority of Parliament, shall be due to the Lord Protector, and be payable into his public receipt, and shall be recovered and prosecuted in his name.

XXXII. That the office of Lord Protector over these nations shall be elective and not hereditary; and upon the death of the Lord Protector, another fit person shall be forthwith elected to succeed him in the Government; which election shall be by the Council, who, immediately upon the death of the Lord Protector, shall assemble in the Chamber where they usually sit in Council; and, having given notice to an their members of the cause of their assembling, shall, being thirteen at least present, proceed to the election; and, before they depart the said Chamber, shall elect a fit person to succeed in the Government, and forthwith cause proclamation thereof to be made in an the three nations as shall be requisite; and the person that they, or the major part of them, shall elect as aforesaid, shall be, and shall be taken to be, Lord Protector over these nations of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging. Provided that none of the children of the late King, nor any of his line or family, be elected to be Lord Protector or other Chief Magistrate over these nations, or any the dominions thereto belonging. And until the aforesaid election be past, the Council shall take care of the Government, and administer in an things as fully as the Lord Protector, or the Lord Protector and Council are enabled to do.

XXXIII. That Oliver Cromwell, Captain-General of the forces of England, Scotland and Ireland, shall be, and is hereby declared to be, Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, for his life.

XXXIV. That the Chancellor, Keeper or Commissioners of the Great Seal, the Treasurer, Admiral, Chief Governors of Ireland and Scotland, and the Chief Justices of both the Benches, shall be chosen by the approbation of Parliament; and, in the intervals of Parliament, by the approbation of the major part of the Council, to be afterwards approved by the Parliament.

XXXV. That the Christian religion, as contained in the Scriptures, be held forth and recommended as the public profession of these nations; and that, as soon as may be, a provision, less subject to scruple and contention, and more certain than the present, be made for the encouragement and maintenance of able and painful teachers, for the instructing the people, and for discovery and confutation of error, hereby, and whatever is contrary to sound doctrine; and until such provision be made, the present maintenance shall not be taken away or impeached.

XXXVI. That to the public profession held forth none shall be compened by penalties or otherwise; but that endeavours be used to win them by sound doctrine and the example of a good conversation.

XXXVII. That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ (though differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship or discipline publicly held forth) shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in, the profession of the faith and exercise of their religion; so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts: provided this liberty be not extended to Popery or Prelacy, nor to such as, under the profession of Christ, hold forth and practice licentiousness.

XXXVIII. That all laws, statutes and ordinances, and clauses in any law, statute or ordinance to the contrary of the aforesaid liberty, shall be esteemed as null and void.

XXXIX. That the Acts and Ordinances of Parliament made for the sale or other disposition of the lands, rents and hereditaments of the late King, Queen, and Prince, of Archbishops and Bishops, &c., Deans and Chapters, the lands of delinquents and forest-lands, or any of them, or of any other lands, tenements, rents and hereditaments belonging to the Commonwealth, shall nowise be impeached or made invalid, but shall remain good and firm; and that the securities given by Act and Ordinance of Parliament for any sum or sums of money, by any of the said lands, the excise, or any other public revenue; and also the securities given by the public faith of the nation, and the engagement of the public faith for satisfaction of debts and damages, shall remain firm and good, and not be made void and invalid upon any pretence whatsoever.

XL. That the Articles given to or made with the enemy, and afterwards confirmed by Parliament, shall be performed and made good to the persons concerned therein; and that such appeals as were depending in the last Parliament for relief concerning bills of sale of delinquent's estates, may be heard and determined the next Parliament, anything in this writing or otherwise to the contrary notwithstanding.

{891}

XLI. That every successive Lord Protector over these nations shall take and subscribe a solemn oath, in the presence of the Council, and such others as they shall call to them, that he will seek the peace, quiet and welfare of these nations, cause law and justice to be equally administered; and that he will not violate or infringe the matters and things contained in this writing, and in all other things will, to his power and to the best of his understanding, govern these nations according to the laws, statutes and customs thereof.

XLII. That each person of the Council shall, before they enter upon their trust, take and subscribe an oath, that they will be true and faithful in their trust, according to the best of their knowledge; and that in the election of every successive Lord Protector they shall proceed therein impartially, and do nothing therein for any promise, fear, favour or reward.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1654. Re-conquest of Acadia (Nova Scotia).

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1654 (April). Incorporation of Scotland with the Commonwealth.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1654.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1654-1658. The Protector, his Parliaments and his Major-Generals. The Humble Petition and Advice. Differing views of the Cromwellian autocracy.

"Oliver addressed his first Protectorate Parliament on Sunday, the 3d of September. … Immediately, under the leadership of old Parliamentarians, Haslerig, Scott, Bradshaw, and many other republicans, the House proceeded to debate the Instrument of Government, the constitutional basis of the existing system. By five votes, it decided to discuss 'whether the House should approve of government by a Single Person and a Parliament.' This was of course to set up the principle of making the Executive dependent on the House; a principle, in Oliver's mind, fatal to settlement and order. He acted at once. Calling on the Lord Mayor to secure the city, and disposing his own guard round Westminster Hall, he summoned the House again on the 9th day. … Members were called on to sign a declaration, 'not to alter the government as settled in a Single Person and a Parliament.' Some, 300 signed; the minority—about a fourth—refused and retired. … The Parliament, in spite of the declaration, set itself from the first to discuss the constitution, to punish heretics, suppress blasphemy, revise the Ordinances of the Council; and they deliberately withheld all supplies for the services and the government. At last they passed an Act for revising the constitution de novo. Not a single bill had been sent up to the Protector for his assent. Oliver, as usual, acted at once. On the expiration of their five lunar months, 22d January 1655, he summoned the House and dissolved it, with a speech full of reproaches."

F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 11.

"In 1656, the Protector called a second Parliament. By excluding from it about a hundred members whom he judged to be hostile to his government, he found himself on amicable terms with the new assembly. It presented to him a Humble Petition and Advice, asking that certain changes of the Constitution might be agreed to by mutual consent, and that he should assume the title of King. This title he rejected, and the Humble Petition and Advice was passed in an amended form on May 25, 1657, and at once received the assent of the Protector. On June 26, it was modified in some details by the Additional Petition and Advice. Taking the two together, the result was to enlarge the power of Parliament and to diminish that of the Council. The Protector, in turn, received the right of appointing his successor, and to name the life-members of 'the other House,' which was now to take the place of the House of Lords. … In accordance with the Additional Petition and Advice, the Protector summoned 'certain persons to sit in the other House.' A quarrel between the two Houses broke out, and the Protector [February 4, 1658] dissolved the Parliament in anger."

S. R. Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, pages lxiii-lxiv., and 334-350.

"To govern according to law may sometimes be an usurper's wish, but can seldom be in his power. The protector [in 1655] abandoned all thought of it. Dividing the kingdom into districts, he placed at the head of each a major-general as a sort of military magistrate, responsible for the subjection of his prefecture. These were eleven in number, men bitterly hostile to the royalist party, and insolent towards all civil authority. They were employed to secure the payment of a tax of 10 per cent., imposed by Cromwell's arbitrary will on those who had ever sided with the king during the late wars, where their estates exceeded £100 per annum. The major-generals, in their correspondence printed among Thurloe's papers, display a rapacity and oppression beyond their master's. … All illusion was now gone as to the pretended benefits of the civil war. It had ended in a despotism, compared to which all the illegal practices of former kings, all that had cost Charles his life and crown, appeared as dust in the balance. For what was ship-money, a general burthen, by the side of the present decimation of a single class, whose offence had long been expiated by a composition and effaced by an act of indemnity? or were the excessive punishments of the star-chamber so odious as the capital executions inflicted without trial by peers, whenever it suited the usurper to erect his high court of justice? … I cannot … agree in the praises which have been showered upon Cromwell for the just administration of the laws under his dominion. That, between party and party, the ordinary civil rights of men were fairly dealt with, is no extraordinary praise; and it may be admitted that he filled the benches of justice with able lawyers, though not so considerable as those of the reign of Charles II.; but it is manifest that, so far as his own authority was concerned, no hereditary despot, proud in the crimes of a hundred ancestors, could more have spurned at every limitation than this soldier of a commonwealth."

H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, chapter 10, part 2.

"Cromwell was, and felt himself to be, a dictator called in by the winning cause in a revolution to restore confidence and secure peace. He was, as he said frequently, 'the Constable set to keep order in the Parish.' Nor was he in any sense a military despot. … Never did a ruler invested with absolute power and overwhelming military force more obstinately strive to surround his authority with legal limits and Parliamentary control."

F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 11.

"To this condition, then, England was now reduced. After the gallantest fight for liberty that had ever been fought by any nation in the world, she found herself trampled under foot by a military despot. All the vices of old kingly rule were nothing to what was now imposed upon her."

_J. Forster, Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Cromwell._

{892}

"His [Cromwell's] wish seems to have been to govern constitutionally, and to substitute the empire of the laws for that of the sword. But he soon found that, hated as he was, both by Royalists and Presbyterians, he could be safe only by being absolute. … Those soldiers who would not suffer him to assume the kingly title, stood by him when he ventured on acts of power as high as any English king has ever attempted. The government, therefore, though in form a republic, was in truth a despotism, moderated only by the wisdom, the sobriety and the magnanimity of the despot."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 1.

England: A. D. 1655-1658. War with Spain, alliance with France. Acquisition of Dunkirk.

"Though the German war ['the Thirty Years' War,' concluded in 1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia] was over, the struggle between France and Spain was continued with great animosity, each country striving to crush her rival and become the first power in Europe. Both Louis XIV. and Philip IV. of Spain were bidding for the protector's support. Spain offered the possession of Calais, when taken from France; France the possession of Dunkirk when taken from Spain (1655). Cromwell determined to ally himself with France against Spain. … It was in the West Indies that the obstructive policy of Spain came most into collision with the interests of England. Her kings based their claims to the possession of two continents on the bull of Pope Alexander VI., who in 1493 had granted them all lands they should discover from pole to pole, at the distance of 100 leagues west from the Azores and Cape Verd Islands. On the strength of this bull they held that the discovery of an island gave them the right to the group, the discovery of a headland the right to a continent. Though this monstrous claim had quite broken down as far as the North American continent was concerned, the Spaniards, still recognizing 'no peace beyond the line,' endeavoured to shut all Europeans but themselves out of any share in the trade or colonization of at least the southern half of the New World. … While war was now proclaimed with Spain, a treaty of peace was signed between France and England, Louis XIV. agreeing to banish Charles Stuart and his brothers from French territory (October 24, 1655). This treaty was afterwards changed into a league, offensive and defensive (March 23, 1657), Cromwell undertaking to assist Louis with 6,000 men in besieging Gravelines, Mardyke, and Dunkirk, on condition of receiving the two latter towns when reduced by the allied armies. By the occupation of these towns Cromwell intended to control the trade of the Channel, to hold the Dutch in check, who were then but unwilling friends, and to lessen the danger of invasion from any union of Royalists and Spaniards. The war opened in the year 1657 [Jamaica, however, had already been taken from the Spaniards and St. Domingo attacked], with another triumph by sea." This was Blake's last exploit. He attacked and destroyed the Spanish bullion fleet, from Mexico, in the harbor of Santa Cruz, island of Teneriffe, and silenced the forts which guarded it. The great sea-captain died on his voyage home, after striking this blow. The next spring "the siege of Dunkirk was commenced (May, 1658). The Spaniards tried to relieve the town, but were completely defeated in an engagement called the Battle of the Dunes from the sand hills among which it was fought; the defeat was mainly owing to the courage and discipline of Oliver's troops, who won for themselves the name of 'the Immortal Six Thousand.' … Ten days after the battle Dunkirk surrendered, and the French had no choice but to give over to the English ambassador the keys of a town they thought 'unsi bon morceau' ['a good …'] (June 25)."

B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts, King and Commonwealth, chapter 15.

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, book 9, speech 5 and book 10, letters 152-157.

J. Campbell, Naval History of Great Britain, chapter 15 (volume 2).

J. Waylen, The House of Cromwell and the Story of Dunkirk, pages 173-272.

W. H. Dixon, Robert Blake, chapters 9-10.

D. Hannay, Admiral Blake, chapter 9-11.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660. The fall of the Protectorate and Restoration of the Stuarts. King Charles II.

When Oliver Cromwell died, on the 3d day of September, 1658—the anniversary of his victories at Dunbar and at Worcester—his eldest son Richard, whom he had nominated, it was said, on his death-bed, was proclaimed Protector, and succeeded him "as quietly as any King had ever been succeeded by any Prince of Wales. During five months, the administration of Richard Cromwell went on so tranquilly and regularly that all Europe believed him to be firmly established on the chair of state." But Richard had none of his father's genius or personal power, and the discontents and jealousies which the former had rigorously suppressed soon tossed the latter from his unstable throne by their fierce upheaval. He summoned a new Parliament (January 27, 1659), which recognized and confirmed his authority, though containing a powerful opposition, of uncompromising republicans and secret royalists. But the army, which the great Protector had tamed to submissive obedience, was now stirred into mischievous action once more as a political power in the state, subservient to the ambition of Fleetwood and other commanders. Richard Cromwell could not make himself the master of his father's battalions. "He was used by the army as an instrument for the purpose of dissolving the Parliament [April 22], and was then contemptuously thrown aside. The officers gratified their republican allies by declaring that the expulsion of the Rump had been illegal, and by inviting that assembly to resume its functions. The old Speaker and a quorum of the old members came together [May 9] and were proclaimed, amidst the scarcely stifled derision and execration of the whole nation, the supreme power in the Commonwealth. It was at the same time expressly declared that there should be no first magistrate and no House of Lords. But this state of things could not last. On the day on which the Long Parliament revived, revived also its old quarrel with the army. Again the Rump forgot that it owed its existence to the pleasure of the soldiers, and began to treat them as subjects. Again the doors of the House of Commons were closed by military violence [October 13]; and a provisional government, named by the officers, assumed the direction of affairs." The troops stationed in Scotland, under Monk, had not been consulted, however, in these transactions, and were evidently out of sympathy with their comrades in England. Monk, who had never meddled with politics before, was now induced to interfere. {893} He refused to acknowledge the military provisional government, declared himself the champion of the civil power, and marched into England at the head of his 7,000 veterans. His movement was everywhere welcomed and encouraged by popular demonstrations of delight. The army in England lost courage and lost unity, awed and paralyzed by the public feeling at last set free. Monk reached London without opposition, and was the recognized master of the realm. Nobody knew his intentions—himself, perhaps, as little as any—and it was not until after a period of protracted suspense that he declared himself for the convening of a new and free Parliament, in the place of the Rump—which had again resumed its sittings—for the settlement of the state. "The result of the elections was such as might have been expected from the temper of the nation. The new House of Commons consisted, with few exceptions, of persons friendly to the royal family. The Presbyterians formed the majority. … The new Parliament, which, having been called without the royal writ, is more accurately described as a Convention, met at Westminster [April 26, 1660]. The Lords repaired to the hall, from which they had, during more than eleven years, been excluded by force. Both Houses instantly invited the King to return to his country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A gallant fleet convoyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent. When he landed [May 25, 1660], the cliffs of Dover were covered by thousands of gazers, among whom scarcely one could be found who was not weeping with delight. The journey to London was a continued triumph."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 1.

The only guarantee with which the careless nation took back their ejected kings of the faithless race of Stuarts was embodied in a Declaration which Charles sent over from "Our Court at Breda" in April, and which was read in Parliament with an effusive display of respect and thankfulness. In this Declaration from Breda, "a general amnesty and liberty of conscience were promised, with such exceptions and limitations only as the Parliament should think fit to make. All delicate questions, among others the proprietorship of confiscated estates, were in like manner referred to the decision of Parliament, thus leaving the King his liberty while diminishing his responsibility; and though fully asserting the ancient rights of the Crown, he announced his intention to associate the two Houses with himself in all great affairs of State."

F. P. Guizot, History of Richard Cromwell and the Restoration, book 4 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: G. Burnet, History of My Own Time, book 2, 1660-61.

Earl of Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, book 16 (volume 6).

D. Masson, Life of Milton, volume 5, book 3.

J. Corbett, Monk, chapter 9-14.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1660-1685. The Merry Monarch.

"There never were such profligate times in England as under Charles the Second. Whenever you see his portrait, with his swarthy ill-looking face and great nose, you may fancy him in his Court at Whitehall, surrounded by some of the very worst vagabonds in the kingdom (though they were lords and ladies), drinking, gambling, indulging in vicious conversation, and committing every kind of profligate excess. It has been a fashion to call Charles the Second 'The Merry Monarch.' Let me try to give you a general idea of some of the merry things that were done, in the merry days when this merry gentleman sat upon his merry throne, in merry England. The first merry proceeding was—of course—to declare that he was one of the greatest, the wisest, and the noblest kings that ever shone, like the blessed sun itself, on this benighted earth. The next merry and pleasant piece of business was, for the Parliament, in the humblest manner, to give him one million two hundred thousand pounds a year, and to settle upon him for life that old disputed 'tonnage and poundage' which had been so bravely fought for. Then, General Monk, being made Earl of Albemarle, and a few other Royalists similarly rewarded, the law went to work to see what was to be done to those persons (they were called Regicides) who had been concerned in making a martyr of the late King. Ten of these were merrily executed; that is to say, six of the judges, one of the council, Colonel Hacker and another officer who had commanded the Guards, and Hugh Peters, a preacher who had preached against the martyr with all his heart. These executions were so extremely merry, that every horrible circumstance which Cromwell had abandoned was revived with appalling cruelty. … Sir Harry Vane, who had furnished the evidence against Stratford, and was one of the most staunch of the Republicans, was also tried, found guilty, and ordered for execution. … These merry scenes were succeeded by another, perhaps even merrier. On the anniversary of the late King's death, the bodies of Oliver Cromwell, Ireton, and Bradshaw, "Were torn out of their graves in 'Westminster Abbey, dragged to Tyburn, hanged there on a gallows all day long, and then beheaded. Imagine the head of Oliver Cromwell set upon a pole to be stared at by a brutal crowd, not one of whom would have dared to look the living Oliver in the face for half a moment! Think, after you have read this reign, what England was under Oliver Cromwell who was torn out of his grave, and what it was under this merry monarch who sold it, like a merry Judas, over and over again. Of course, the remains of Oliver's wife and daughter were not to be spared, either, though they had been most excellent women. The base clergy of that time gave up their bodies, which had been buried in the Abbey, and—to the eternal disgrace of England—they were thrown into a pit, together with the mouldering bones of Pym, and of the brave and bold old Admiral Blake. … The whole Court was a great flaunting crowd of debauched men and shameless women; and Catherine's merry husband insulted and outraged her in every possible way, until she consented to receive those worthless creatures as her very good friends, and to degrade herself by their companionship. A Mrs. Palmer, whom the King made Lady Castlemaine, and afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, was one of the most powerful of the bad women about the Court, and had great influence with the King nearly all through his reign. Another merry lady named Moll Davies, a dancer at the theatre, was afterwards her rival. So was Nell Gwyn, first an orange girl and then an actress, who really had good in her, and of whom one of the worst things I know is, that actually she does seem to have been fond of the King. The first Duke of St. Albans was this orange girl's child. In like manner the son of a merry waiting-lady, whom the King created Duchess of Portsmouth, became the Duke of Richmond. {894} Upon the whole it is not so bad a thing to be a commoner. The Merry Monarch was so exceedingly merry among these merry ladies, and some equally merry (and equally infamous) lords and gentlemen, that he soon got through his hundred thousand pounds, and then, by way of raising a little pocket-money, made a merry bargain. He sold Dunkirk to the French King for five millions of livres. When I think of the dignity to which Oliver Cromwell raised England in the eyes of foreign powers, and when I think of the manner in which he gained for England this very Dunkirk, I am much inclined to consider that if the Merry Monarch had been made to follow his father for this action, he would have received his just deserts."

C. Dickens, Child's History of England, chapter 35.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1661. Acquisition of Bombay.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1661. The Savoy Conference.

"The Restoration had been the joint work of Episcopalian and Presbyterian; would it be possible to reconcile them on this question too [i. e., of the settlement of Church government]? The Presbyterian indeed was willing enough for a compromise, for he had an uneasy feeling that the ground was slipping from beneath his feet. Of Charles's intentions he was still in doubt; but he knew that Clarendon was the sworn friend of the Church. The Churchman on the other hand was eagerly expecting the approaching hour of triumph. It soon appeared that as King and Parliament, so King and Church were inseparable in the English mind; that indeed the return of the King was the restoration of the Church even more than it was the restoration of Parliament. In the face of the present Presbyterian majority however it was necessary to temporise. The former incumbents of Church livings were restored, and the Commons took the Communion according to the rites of the Church; but in other respects the Presbyterians were carefully kept in play; Charles taking his part in the elaborate farce by appointing ten of their leading ministers royal chaplains, and even attending, their sermons." In October, 1660, Charles "took the matter more completely into his own hands by issuing a Declaration. Refusing, on the ground of constraint, to admit the validity of the oaths imposed upon him in Scotland, by which he was bound to uphold the Covenant, and not concealing his preference for the Anglican Church, as 'the best fence God hath yet raised against popery in the world,' he asserted that nevertheless, to his own knowledge, the Presbyterians were not enemies to Episcopacy or a set liturgy, and were opposed to the alienation of Church revenues. The Declaration then went on to limit the power of bishops and archdeacons in a degree sufficient to satisfy many of the leading Presbyterians, one of whom, Reynolds, accepted a bishopric. Charles then proposed to choose an equal number of learned divines of both persuasions to discuss alterations in the liturgy; meanwhile no one was to be troubled regarding differences of practice. The majority in the Commons at first welcomed the Declaration, … and a bill was accordingly introduced by Sir Matthew Hale to turn the Declaration into a law. But Clarendon at any rate had no intention of thus baulking the Church of her revenge. Anticipating Hale's action, he had in the interval been busy in securing a majority against any compromise. The Declaration had done its work in gaining time, and when the bill was brought in it was rejected by 183 to 157 votes. Parliament was at once (December 24) dissolved. The way was now open for the riot of the Anglican triumph. Even before the new House met the mask was thrown off by the issuing of an order to the justices to restore the full liturgy. The conference indeed took place in the Savoy Palace. It failed, like the Hampton Court Conference of James I., because it was intended to fail. Upon the two important points, the authority of bishops and the liturgy, the Anglicans would not give way an inch. Both parties informed the King that, anxious as they were for agreement, they saw no chance of it. This last attempt at union having fallen through, the Government had their hands free; and their intentions were speedily made plain."

O. Airy, The English Restoration and Louis XIV., chapter 7.

"The Royal Commission [for the Savoy Conference] bore date the 25th of March. It gave the Commissioners authority to review the Book of Common Prayer, to compare it with the most ancient Liturgies, to take into consideration all things which it contained, to consult respecting the exceptions against it, and by agreement to make such necessary alterations as should afford satisfaction to tender consciences, and restore to the Church unity and peace; the instrument appointed 'the Master's lodgings in the Savoy' as the place of meeting. … The Commissioners were summoned to meet upon the 15th of April. … The Bill of Uniformity, hereafter to be described, actually passed the House of Commons on the 9th of July, about a fortnight before the Conference broke up. The proceedings of a Royal Commission to review the Prayer Book, and make alterations for the satisfaction of tender consciences were, by this premature act, really treated with mockery, a circumstance which could not but exceedingly offend and annoy the Puritan members, and serve to embitter the language of Baxter as the end of these fruitless sittings approached."

J. Stoughton, History of Religion in English, volume 3, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: E. Calamy, Nonconformists' Memorial, introduction, section 3.

W. Orme, Life and Times of Richard Baxter, chapter 7.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1662. The sale of Dunkirk.

"Unable to confine himself within the narrow limits of his civil list, with his favorites and mistresses, he [Charles II.] would have sought even in the infernal regions the gold which his subjects measured out to him with too parsimonious a hand. … [He] proposed to sell to France Dunkirk and its dependencies, which, he said, cost him too much to keep up. He asked twelve million francs; he fell at last to five millions, and the treaty was signed October 27, 1662. It was time; the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London, informed of the negotiation, had determined to offer Charles II. whatever he wished in behalf of their city not to alienate Dunkirk. Charles dared not retract his word, which would have been, as D'Estrades told him, to break forever with Louis XIV., and on the 2d of December Louis joyfully made his entry into his good city, reconquered by gold instead of the sword."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV., translated by M. L. Booth, chapter 4 (volume 1).

{895}

England: A. D. 1662-1665. The Act of Uniformity and persecution of the Nonconformists.

The failure of the Savoy Conference "was the conclusion which had been expected and desired. Charles had already summoned the Convocation, and to that assembly was assigned the task which had failed in the hands of the commissioners at the Savoy. … The act of uniformity followed [passed by the Commons July 9, 1661; by the Lords May 8, 1662; receiving the royal assent May 19, 1662], by which it was enacted that the revised Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordination of Ministers, and no other, should be used in all places of public worship; and that all beneficed clergymen should read the service from it within a given time, and, at the close, profess in a set form of words, their 'unfeigned assent and consent to everything contained and prescribed in it.' … The act of uniformity may have been necessary for the restoration of the church to its former discipline and doctrine; but if such was the intention of those who framed the declaration from Breda, they were guilty of infidelity to the king and of fraud to the people, by putting into his mouth language which, with the aid of equivocation, they might explain away, and by raising in them expectations which it was never meant to fulfil."

J. Lingard, History of England, volume 11, chapter. 4.

"This rigorous act when it passed, gave the ministers, who could not conform, no longer time than till Bartholomewday, August 24th, 1662, when they were all cast out. … This was an action without a precedent: The like to this the Reformed church, nay the Christian world, never saw before. Historians relate, with tragical exclamations, that between three and four score bishops were driven at once into the island of Sardinia by the African vandals; that 200 ministers were banished by Ferdinand, king of Bohemia; and that great havock was, a few years after, made among the ministers of Germany by the Imperial Interim. But these all together fall short of the number ejected by the act of uniformity, which was not less than 2,000. The succeeding hardships of the latter were also by far the greatest. They were not only silenced, but had no room left for any sort of usefulness, and were in a manner buried alive. Far greater tenderness was used towards the Popish clergy ejected at the Reformation. They were suffered to live quietly; but these were oppressed to the utmost, and that even by their brethren who professed the same faith themselves: not only excluded preferments, but turned out into the wide world without any visible way of subsistence. Not so much as a poor vicarage, not an obscure chapel, not a school was left them. Nay, though they offered, as some of them did, to preach gratis, it must not be allowed them. … The ejected ministers continued for ten years in a state of silence and obscurity. … The act of uniformity took place August the 24th, 1662. On the 26th of December following, the king published a Declaration, expressing his purpose to grant some indulgence or liberty in religion. Some of the Nonconformists were hereupon much encouraged, and waiting privately on the king, had their hopes confirmed, and would have persuaded their brethren to have thanked him for his declaration; but they refused, lest they should make way for the toleration of the Papists, whom they understood the king intended to include in it. … Instead of indulgence or comprehension, on the 30th of June, an act against private meetings, called the Conventicle Act, passed the House of Commons, and soon after was made a law, viz.: 'That every person above sixteen years of age, present at any meeting, under pretence of any exercise of religion, in other manner than is the practice of the church of England, where there are five persons more than the household, shall for the first offence, by a justice of peace be recorded, and sent to gaol three months, till he pay £5, and for the second offence six months, till he pay £10, and the third time being convicted by a jury, shall be banished to some of the American plantations, excepting New England or Virginia." … In the year 1665 the plague broke out"—and the ejected ministers boldly took possession for the time of the deserted London pulpits. "While God was consuming the people by this judgment, and the Nonconformists were labouring to save their souls, the parliament, which sat at Oxford, was busy in making an act [called the Five Mile Act] to render their case incomparably harder than it was before, by putting upon them a certain oath ['that it is not lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take arms against the king,' &c.], which, if they refused, they must not come (unless upon the road) within five miles of any city or corporation, any place that sent burgesses to parliament, any place where they had been ministers, or had preached after the act of oblivion. … When this act came out, those ministers who had any maintenance of their own, found out some place of residence in obscure villages, or market-towns, that were not corporations."

E. Calamy, The Nonconformist's Memorial, introduction, sections 4-6.

ALSO IN: J. Stoughton, History of Religion in England, volume 3, chapters 6-9.

D. Neal, History of the Puritans, volume 4, chapter 6-7.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1663. The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury, and others.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1663. The King's charter to Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1664. The conquest of New Netherland (New York).

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1664-1665. The first refractory symptoms in Massachusetts.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1665. The grant of New Jersey to Carteret and Berkeley.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1665-1666. War with Holland renewed. The Dutch fleet in the Thames.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668. The Triple Alliance with Holland and Sweden against Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668. Cession of Acadia (Nova Scotia) to France.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670. The secret Catholicism and the perfidy of the King. His begging of bribes from Louis XIV. His betrayal of Holland. His breaking of the Triple Alliance.

In 1668, the royal treasury being greatly embarrassed by the king's extravagances, an attempt was made "to reduce the annual expenditure below the amount of the royal income. … But this plan of economy accorded not with the royal disposition, nor did it offer any prospect of extinguishing the debt. Charles remembered the promise of pecuniary assistance from France in the beginning of his reign; and, though his previous efforts to cultivate the friendship of Louis had been defeated by an unpropitious course of events, he resolved to renew the experiment. {896} Immediately after the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, Buckingham opened a negotiation with the duchess of Orleans, the king's sister, in France, and Charles, in his conversations with the French resident, apologised for his conduct in forming the triple alliance, and openly expressed his wish to enter into a closer union, a more intimate friendship, with Louis. … About the end of the year the communications between the two princes became more open and confidential; French money, or the promise of French money, was received by the English ministers; the negotiation began to assume a more regular form, and the most solemn assurances of secrecy were given, that their real object might be withheld from the knowledge, or even the suspicion, of the States. In this stage of the proceedings Charles received an important communication from his brother James. Hitherto that prince had been an obedient and zealous son of the Church of England; but Dr. Heylin's History of the Reformation had shaken his religious credulity, and the result of the inquiry was a conviction that it became his duty to reconcile himself with the Church of Rome. He was not blind to the dangers to which such a change would expose him; and he therefore purposed to continue outwardly in communion with the established church, while he attended at the Catholic service in private. But, to his surprise, he learned from Symonds, a Jesuit missionary, that no dispensation could authorise such duplicity of conduct: a similar answer was returned to the same question from the pope; and James immediately took his resolution. He communicated to the king in private that he was determined to embrace the Catholic faith; and Charles without hesitation replied that he was of the same mind, and would consult with the duke on the subject in the presence of lord Arundell, lord Arlington, and Arlington's confidential friend, sir Thomas Clifford. … The meeting was held in the duke's closet. Charles, with tears in his eyes, lamented the hardship of being compelled to profess a religion which he did not approve, declared his determination to emancipate himself from this restraint, and requested the opinion of those present, as to the most eligible means of effecting his purpose with safety and success. They advised him to communicate his intention to Louis, and to solicit the powerful aid of that monarch. Here occurs a very interesting question,—was Charles sincere or not? … He was the most accomplished dissembler in his dominions; nor will it be any injustice to his character to suspect that his real object was to deceive both his brother and the king of France. … Now, however, the secret negotiation proceeded with greater activity; and lord Arundell, accompanied by sir Richard Bellings, hastened to the French court. He solicited from Louis the present of a considerable sum, to enable the king to suppress any insurrection which might be provoked by his intended conversion, and offered the co-operation of England in the projected invasion of Holland, on the condition of an annual subsidy during the continuation of hostilities." On the advice of Louis, Charles postponed, for the time being, his intention to enter publicly the Romish church and thus provoke a national revolt; but his proposals were otherwise accepted, and a secret treaty was concluded at Dover, in May, 1670, through the agency of Charles' sister, Henrietta, the duchess of Orleans, who came over for that purpose. "Of this treaty, … though much was afterwards said, little was certainly known. All the parties concerned, both the sovereigns and the negotiators, observed an impenetrable secrecy. What became of the copy transmitted to France is unknown; its counterpart was confided to the custody of sir Thomas Clifford, and is still in the keeping of his descendant, the lord Clifford of Chudleigh. The principal articles were:

1. That the king of England should publicly profess himself a Catholic at such time as should appear to him most expedient, and subsequently to that profession should join with Louis in a war against the Dutch republic at such time as the most Christian king should judge proper.

2. That to enable the king of England to suppress any insurrection which might be occasioned by his conversion, the king of France should grant him an aid of 2,000,000 of livres, by two payments, one at the expiration of three months, the other of six months, after the ratification of the treaty, and should also assist him with an armed force of 6,000 men, if … necessary. …

4. That if, eventually, any new rights on the Spanish monarchy should accrue to the king of France, the king of England should aid him with all his power in the acquisition of those rights. 5. That both princes should make war on the united provinces, and that neither should conclude peace or truce with them without the advice and consent of his ally.".

J. Lingard, History of England, volume 11, chapter 6.

ALSO IN: H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11.

O. Airy, The English Restoration and Louis XIV., chapter 16.

G. Burnet, History of My Own Time, book 2 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1671. The Cabal.

"It was remarked that the committee of council, established for foreign affairs, was entirely changed; and that Prince Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, Secretary Trevor, and Lord-keeper Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great confidence, were never called to any deliberations. The whole secret was intrusted to five persons, Clifford, Ashley [afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury], Buckingham, Arlington, and Lauderdale. These men were known by the appellation of the Cabal, a word which the initial letters of their names happened to compose. Never was there a more dangerous ministry in England, nor one more noted for pernicious counsels."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter. 65 (volume 6).

See, also, CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673. The Declaration of Indulgence and the Test Act.

"It would have been impossible to obtain the consent of the party in the Royal Council which represented the old Presbyterians, of Ashley or Lauderdale or the Duke of Buckingham, to the Treaty of Dover. But it was possible to trick them into approval of a war with Holland by playing on their desire for a toleration of the Nonconformists. The announcement of the King's Catholicism was therefore deferred. … His ministers outwitted, it only remained for Charles to outwit his Parliament. A large subsidy was demanded for the fleet, under the pretext of upholding the Triple Alliance, and the subsidy was no sooner granted than the two Houses were adjourned. {897} Fresh supplies were obtained by closing the Exchequer, and suspending—under Clifford's advice—the payment of either principal or interest on loans advanced to the public treasury. The measure spread bankruptcy among half the goldsmiths of London; but it was followed in 1672 by one yet more startling—the Declaration of Indulgence. By virtue of his ecclesiastical powers, the King ordered 'that all manner of penal laws on matters ecclesiastical against whatever sort of Nonconformists or recusants should be from that day suspended,' and gave liberty of public worship to all dissidents save Catholics, who were allowed to practice their religion only in private houses. … The Declaration of Indulgence was at once followed by a declaration of war against the Dutch on the part of both England and France. … It was necessary in 1673 to appeal to the Commons [for war supplies], but the Commons met in a mood of angry distrust. … There was a general suspicion that a plot was on foot for the establishment of Catholicism and despotism, and that the war and the Indulgence were parts of the plot. The change of temper in the Commons was marked by the appearance of what was from that time called the Country party, with Lords Russell and Cavendish and Sir William Coventry at its head—a party which sympathized with the Nonconformists, but looked on it as its first duty to guard against the designs of the Court. As to the Declaration of Indulgence, however, all parties in the House were at one. The Commons resolved 'that penal statutes in matters ecclesiastical cannot be suspended but by consent of Parliament,' and refused supplies till the Declaration was recalled. The King yielded; but the Declaration was no sooner recalled than a Test Act was passed through both Houses without opposition, which required from everyone in the civil and military employment of the State the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, a declaration against transubstantiation, and a reception of the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. Clifford at once counseled resistance, and Buckingham talked flightily about bringing the army to London, but Arlington saw that all hope of carrying the 'great plan' through was at an end, and pressed Charles to yield. … Charles sullenly gave way. No measure has ever brought about more startling results. The Duke of York owned himself a Catholic, and resigned his office as Lord High Admiral. … Clifford, too, … owned to being a Catholic, and … laid down his staff of office. Their resignation was followed by that of hundreds of others in the army and the civil service of the Crown. … The resignations were held to have proved the existence of the dangers which the Test Act had been passed to meet. From this moment all trust in Charles was at an end."

J. R. Green, Short History of England, chapter 9, section 3.

"It is very true that the [Test Act] pointed only at Catholics, that it really proposed an anti-Popish test, yet the construction of it, although it did not exclude from office such Dissenters as could occasionally conform, did effectually exclude all who scrupled to do so. Aimed at the Romanists, it struck the Presbyterians. It is clear that, had the Nonconformists and the Catholics joined their forces with those of the Court, in opposing the measure, they might have defeated it; but the first of these classes for the present submitted to the inconvenience, from the horror which they entertained of Popery, hoping, at the same time, that some relief would be afforded for this personal sacrifice in the cause of a common Protestantism. Thus the passing of an Act, which, until a late period, inflicted a social wrong upon two large sections of the community, is to be attributed to the course pursued by the very parties whose successors became the sufferers."

J. Stoughton, History of Religion in England, volume 3, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: D. Neal, History of the Puritans, volume 4, chapter 8, and volume 5, chapter 1.

J. Collier, Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, part 2, book 9 (volume 8).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1674. Alliance with Louis XIV. of France in war with Holland.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1673. Loss of New York, retaken by the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1674. Peace with the Dutch. Treaty of Westminster. Recovery of New York.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1675-1688. Concessions to France in Newfoundland.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679. The Popish Plot.

"There was an uneasy feeling in the nation that it was being betrayed, and just then [August, 1678] a strange story caused a panic throughout all England. A preacher of low character, named Titus Oates, who had gone over to the Jesuits, declared that he knew of a plot among the Catholics to kill the king and set up a Catholic Government. He brought his tale to a magistrate, named Sir Edmund Bury Godfrey, and shortly afterwards [October 17] Godfrey was found murdered in a ditch near St. Pancras Church. The people thought that the Catholics had murdered him to hush up the 'Popish plot,' and when Parliament met a committee was appointed to examine into the matter. Some papers belonging to a Jesuit named Coleman alarmed them, and so great was the panic that an Act was passed shutting out all Catholics, except the Duke of York, from Parliament. After this no Catholic sat in either House for a hundred and fifty years. But worse followed. Oates became popular, and finding tale-bearing successful, he and other informers went on to swear away the lives of a great number of innocent Catholics. The most noted of these was Lord Stafford, an upright and honest peer, who was executed in 1681, declaring his innocence. Charles laughed among his friends at the whole matter, but let it go on, and Shaftesbury, who wished to turn out Lord Danby, did all he could to fan the flame."

A. B. Buckley, History of England for Beginners, chapter 19.

"The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a state of siege. The train bands were under arms all night. Preparations were made for barricading the great thoroughfares. Patroles marched up and down the streets. Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter. 2 (volume 1).

{898}

"It being expected that printed Bibles would soon become rare, or locked up in an unknown tongue, many honest people, struck with the alarm, employed themselves in copying the Bible into short-hand that they might not be destitute of its consolations in the hour of calamity. … It was about the year 1679 that the famous King's Head Club was formed, so named from its being held at the King's Head Tavern in Fleet Street. … They were terrorists and spread alarm with great effect. It was at this club that silk armour, pistol proof, was recommended as a security against assassination at the hands of the Papists; and the particular kind of life-preserver of that day, called a Protestant flail, was introduced."

G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, chapter 5 (volume 1).

"And now commenced, before the courts of justice and the upper house, a sombre prosecution of the catholic lords Arundel, Petre, Stafford, Powis, Bellasis, the Jesuits Coleman, Ireland, Grieve, Pickering, and, in succession, all who were implicated by the indefatigable denunciations of Titus Oates and Bedloe. Unhappily, these courts of justice, desiring, in common with the whole nation, to condemn rather than to examine, wanted neither elements which might, if strictly acted upon, establish legal proof of conspiracy against some of the accused, nor terrible laws to destroy them when found guilty. And it was here that a spectacle, at first imposing, became horrible. No friendly voice arose to save those men who were guilty only of impracticable wishes, of extravagant conceptions. The king, the duke of York, the French ambassador, thoroughly acquainted as they were with the real nature of these imputed crimes, remained silent; they were thoroughly cowed."

A. Carrel, History of the Counter-Revolution in England, part 1, chapter 4.

"Although, … upon a review of this truly shocking transaction, we may be fairly justified … in imputing to the greater part of those concerned in it, rather an extraordinary degree of blind credulity than the deliberate wickedness of planning and assisting in the perpetration of legal murders; yet the proceedings on the popish plot must always be considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation, in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses, prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not equal, shares."

C. J. Fox, History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II., introduction, ch.

"In this dreadful scene of wickedness, it is difficult not to assign the pre-eminence of guilt to Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. If he did not first contrive, he certainly availed himself of the revelations of Oates, to work up the nation to the fury which produced the subsequent horrors. … In extenuation of the delusion of the populace, something may be offered. The defamation of half a century had made the catholics the objects of protestant odium and distrust: and these had been increased by the accusation, artfully and assiduously fomented, of their having been the authors of the fire of the city of London. The publication, too, of Coleman's letters, certainly announced a considerable activity in the catholics to promote the catholic religion; and contained expressions, easily distorted to the sense, in which the favourers of the belief of the plot wished them to be understood. Danby's correspondence, likewise, which had long been generally known, and was about this time made public, had discovered that Charles was in the pay of France. These, with several other circumstances, had inflamed the imaginations of the public to the very highest pitch. A dreadful something (and not the less dreadful because its precise nature was altogether unknown), was generally apprehended. … For their supposed part in the plot, ten laymen and seven priests, one of whom was seventy, another eighty, years of age, were executed. Seventeen others were condemned, but not executed. Some died in prison, and some were pardoned. On the whole body of catholics the laws were executed with horrible severity."

C. Butler, Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics, chapter 32, section 3 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, chapter 89 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (May). The Habeas Corpus Act.

"Arbitrary imprisonment is a grievance which, in some degree, has place in almost every government, except in that of Great Britain; and our absolute security from it we owe chiefly to the present Parliament; a merit which makes some atonement for the faction and violence into which their prejudices had, in other particulars, betrayed them. The great charter had laid the foundation of this valuable part of liberty; the petition of right had renewed and extended it; but some provisions were still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasion or delay from ministers and judges. The act of habeas corpus, which passed this session, served these purposes. By this act it was prohibited to send anyone to a prison beyond sea. No judge, under severe penalties, must refuse to any prisoner a writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to produce in court the body of the prisoner (whence the writ has its name), and to certify the cause of his detainer and imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days; and so proportionably for greater distances; every prisoner must be indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged by order of court, can be recommitted for the same offence."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 67 (volume 6).

"The older remedies serving as a safeguard against unlawful imprisonment, were—

1. The writ of Mainprise, ensuring the delivery of the accused to a friend of the same, who gave security to answer for his appearance before the court when required, and in token of such undertaking he held him by the hand ('le prit par le main').

2. The writ 'De odio et atiâ,' i. e., of hatred and malice, which, though not abolished, has long since been antiquated. … It directed the sheriff to make inquisition in the county court whether the imprisonment proceeded from malice or not. …

3. The writ 'De homine replegiando,' or replevying a man, that is, delivering him out on security to answer what may be objected against him.

A writ is, originally, a royal writing, either an open patent addressed to all to whom it may come, and issued under the great seal; or, 'litteræ clausæ,' a sealed letter addressed to a particular person; such writs were prepared in the royal courts or in the Court of Chancery. The most usual instrument of protection, however, against arbitrary imprisonment is the writ of 'Habeas corpus,' so called from its beginning with the words, 'Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum,' which, on account of its universal application and the security it affords, has, insensibly, taken precedence of all others. {899} This is an old writ of the common law, and must be prayed for in any of the Superior courts of common law. … But this writ … proved but a feeble, or rather wholly ineffectual protection against the arbitrary power of the sovereign. The right of an English subject to a writ of habeas corpus, and to a release from imprisonment unless sufficient cause be shown for his detention, was fully canvassed in the first years of the reign of Charles I. … The parliament endeavoured to prevent such arbitrary imprisonment by passing the 'Petition of Right,' which enacted that no freeman, in any such manner … should be imprisoned or detained. Even this act was found unavailing against the malevolent interpretations put by the judges; hence the 16 Charles I., c. 10, was passed, which enacts, that when any person is restrained of his liberty by the king in person, or by the Privy Council, or any member thereof, he shall, on demand of his counsel, have a writ of habeas corpus, and, three days after the writ, shall be brought before the court to determine whether there is ground for further imprisonment, for bail, or for his release. Notwithstanding these provisions, the immunity of English subjects from arbitrary detention was not ultimately established in full practical efficiency until the passing of the statute of Charles II., commonly called the 'Habeas Corpus Act.'"

E. Fischel, The English Constitution, book 1, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: Sir W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, book 3, chapter 8.

H. J. Stephen, Commentaries, book 5, chapter 12, section 5 (volume 4).

The following is the text of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679:

I. Whereas great Delays have been used by Sheriffs, Gaolers and other Officers, to whose Custody any of the King's Subjects have been committed, for criminal or supposed criminal Matters, in making Returns of Writs of Habeas Corpus to them directed, by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas Corpus, and sometimes more, and by other Shifts, to avoid their yielding Obedience to such Writs, contrary to their Duty, and the known Laws of the Land, whereby many of the King's Subjects have been, and hereafter may be long detained in Prison, in such cases where by Law they are bailable, to their great Charges and Vexation.

II. For the Prevention whereof, and the more speedy Relief of all Persons imprisoned for any such Criminal, or supposed Criminal Matters: (2.) Be it Enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority thereof, that whensoever any Person or Persons shall bring any Habeas Corpus directed unto any Sheriff, or Sheriffs, Gaoler, Minister, or other Person whatsoever, for any Person in his or their Custody, and the said Writ shall be served upon the said Officer, or left at the Gaol or Prison, with any of the under Officers, under Keepers, or Deputy of the said Officers or Keepers, that the said Officer or Officers, his or their Under Officers, Under Keepers or Deputies, shall within three Days after the Service thereof, as aforesaid (unless the Commitment aforesaid were for Treason or Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment), upon Payment or Tender of the Charges of bringing the said Prisoner, to be ascertained by the Judge or Court that awarded the same, and endorsed upon the said Writ, not exceeding Twelve-pence per Mile, and upon Security given by his own Bond, to pay the Charges of carrying back the Prisoner, if he shall be remanded by the Court or Judge, to which he shall be brought, according to the true Intent of this present Act, and that he will not make any Escape by the way, make Return of such Writ. (3.) And bring or cause to be brought the Body of the Party so committed or restrained, unto or before the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England for the time being, or the Judges or Barons of the said Court from whence the said Writ shall Issue, or unto and before such other Person or Persons before whom the said Writ is made returnable, according to the Command thereof. (4.) And shall then likewise certifie the true causes of his Detainer, or Imprisonment, unless the commitment of the said party be in any place beyond the Distance of twenty Miles from the Place or Places where such Court or Person is, or shall be residing; and if beyond the Distance of twenty Miles, and not above One Hundred Miles, then within the Space of Ten Days, and if beyond the Distance of One Hundred Miles, then within the space of Twenty Days, after such Delivery aforesaid, and not longer.

III. And to the Intent that no Sheriff, Gaoler or other Officer may pretend Ignorance of the Import of any such Writ, (2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all such Writs shall be marked in this manner, Per Statutum Tricesimo Primo Caroli Secundi Regis, and shall be signed by the Person that awards the same. (3.) And if any Person or Persons shall be or stand committed or detained, as aforesaid, for any Crime, unless for Felony or Treason, plainly expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, in the Vacation-time, and out of Term, it shall and may be lawful to and for the Person or Persons so committed or detained (other than Persons convict, or in Execution by legal Process) or anyone on his or their Behalf, to appeal, or complain to the Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or anyone of His Majesty's Justices, either of the one Bench, or of the other, or the Barons of the Exchequer of the Degree of the Coif. (4.) And the said Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper, Justices, or Barons, or any of them, upon View of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer, or otherwise upon Oath made, that such Copy or Copies were denied to be given by such Person or Persons in whose custody the Prisoner or Prisoners is or are detained, are hereby authorized and required, upon Request made in Writing by such Person or Persons, or any on his, her, or their Behalf, attested and subscribed by two Witnesses, who were present at the Delivery of the same, to award and grant an Habeas Corpus under the Seal of such Court, whereof he shall then be one of the Judges, (5.) to be directed to the Officer or Officers in whose Custody the Party so committed or detained shall be, returnable immediate before the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or such Justice, Baron, or any other Justice or Baron, of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the said Courts. (6.) And upon Service thereof as aforesaid, the Officer or Officers, his or their under Officer or under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or their Deputy, in whose Custody the Party is so committed or detained, shall within the times respectively before limited, bring such Prisoner or Prisoners before the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or such Justices, Barons, or one of them, before whom the said Writ is made returnable, and in case of his Absence, before any of them, with the Return of such Writ, and the true Causes of the Commitment and Detainer. {900} (7.) And thereupon within two Days after the Party shall be brought before them the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or such Justice or Baron, before whom the Prisoner shall be brought as aforesaid, shall discharge the said Prisoner from his Imprisonment, taking his or their Recognizance, with one or more Surety or Sureties, in any Sum, according to their Discretions, having regard to the Quality of the Prisoner, and Nature of the Offence, for his or their Appearance in the Court of King's Bench the Term following, or at the next Assizes, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery, of and for such County, City or Place, where the Commitment was, or where the Offence was committed, or in such other Court where the said Offence is properly cognizable, as the Case shall require, and then shall certify the said Writ with the Return thereof, and the said Recognizance or Recognizances into the said Court, where such Appearance is to be made. (8.) Unless it shall appear unto the said Lord Chancellor, or Lord Keeper, or Justice, or Justices, or Baron or Barons, that the Party so committed is detained upon a legal Process, Order, or Warrant out of some Court that hath Jurisdiction of Criminal Matters, or by some Warrant signed and sealed with the Hand and Seal of any of the said Justices or Barons, or some Justice or Justices of the Peace, for such Matters or Offences, for the which by the Law, the Prisoner is not bailable.

IV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person shall have wilfully neglected by the Space of two whole Terms after his Imprisonment to pray a Habeas Corpus for his Enlargement, such Person so wilfully neglecting, shall not have any Habeas Corpus to be granted in Vacation-time in Pursuance of this Act.

V. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Officer or Officers, his or their under Officer, or under Officers, under Keeper or under Keepers, or Deputy, shall neglect or refuse to make the Returns aforesaid, or to bring the Body or Bodies of the Prisoner or Prisoners, according to the Command of the said Writ, within the respective times aforesaid, or upon Demand made by the Prisoner, or Person in his Behalf, shall refuse to deliver, or within the Space of six Hours after Demand shall not deliver, to the Person so demanding, a true Copy of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment and Detainer of such Prisoner, which he and they are hereby required to deliver accordingly; all and every the Head Gaolers and Keepers of such Prisons, and such other Person, in whose Custody the Prisoner shall be detained, shall for the first Offence, forfeit to the Prisoner, or Party grieved, the Sum of One Hundred Pounds. (2.) And for the second Offence, the Sum of Two Hundred Pounds, and shall and is hereby made incapable to hold or execute his said Office. (3.) The said Penalties to be recovered by the Prisoner or Party grieved, his Executors or Administrators, against such Offender, his Executors or Administrators, by any Action of Debt, Suit, Bill, Plaint or Information, in any of the King's Courts at Westminster, wherein no Essoin, Protection, Priviledge, Injunction, Wager of Law, or stay of Prosecution, by Non vult ulterius prosequi, or otherwise, shall be admitted or allowed, or any more than one Imparlance. (4.) And any Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of any Party grieved, shall be a sufficient Conviction for the first Offence; and any after Recovery or Judgment at the Suit of a Party grieved, for any Offence after the first Judgment, shall be a sufficient Conviction to bring the Officers or Person within the said Penalty for the Second Offence.

VI. And for the Prevention of unjust Vexation, by reiterated Commitments for the same offence; (2.) Be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no Person or Persons, which shall be delivered or set at large upon any Habeas Corpus, shall at any time hereafter be again imprisoned or committed for the same Offence, by any Person or Persons whatsoever, other than by the legal Order and Process of such Court wherein he or they shall be bound by Recognizance to appear, or other Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause. (3.) And if any other Person or Persons shall knowingly, contrary to this Act, recommit or imprison, or knowingly procure or cause to be recommitted or imprisoned for the same Offence, or pretended Offence, any Person or Persons delivered or set at large as aforesaid, or be knowingly aiding or assisting therein, then he or they shall forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds; any colourable Pretence or Variation in the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment notwithstanding, to be recovered as aforesaid.

VII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That if any Person or Persons shall be committed for High Treason or Felony, plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court the first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol Delivery, to be brought to his Tryal, shall not be indicted sometime in the next Term, Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery after such Commitment, it shall and may be lawful to and for the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, and Justices of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, and they are hereby required, upon Motion to them made in open Court the last Day of the Term, Sessions or Gaol-Delivery, either by the Prisoner, or anyone in his Behalf, to set at Liberty the Prisoner upon Bail, unless it appear to the Judges and Justices upon Oath made, that the Witnesses for the King could not be produced the same Term, Sessions, or general Gaol-Delivery. (2.) And if any Person or Persons committed as aforesaid, upon his Prayer or Petition in open Court, the first Week of the Term, or first Day of the Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, and general Gaol-Delivery, to be brought to his Tryal, shall not be indicted and tryed the second Term, Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general Gaol-Delivery, after his Commitment, or upon his Tryal shall be acquitted, he shall be discharged from his Imprisonment.

VIII. Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall extend to discharge out of Prison, any Person charged in Debt, or other Action, or with Process in any Civil Cause, but that after he shall be discharged of his Imprisonment for such his criminal Offence, he shall be kept in Custody, according to the Law for such other Suit.

{901}

IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Person or Persons, Subjects of this Realm, shall be committed to any Prison, or in Custody of any Officer or Officers whatsoever, for any Criminal or supposed Criminal Matter, that the said Person shall not be removed from the said Prison and Custody, into the Custody of any other Officer or Officers. (2.) Unless it be by Habeas Corpus, or some other legal Writ; or where the Prisoner is delivered to the Constable or other inferiour Officer, to carry such Prisoner to some common Gaol. (3.) Or where any Person is sent by Order of any Judge of Assize, or Justice of the Peace, to any common Workhouse, or House of Correction. (4.) Or where the Prisoner is removed from one Prison or Place to another within the same County, in order to his or her Tryal or Discharge in due Course of Law. (5.) Or in case of sudden Fire, or Infection, or other Necessity. (6.) And if any Person or Persons shall after such Commitment aforesaid, make out and sign, or countersign, any Warrant or Warrants for such Removal aforesaid, contrary to this Act, as well he that makes or signs, or countersigns, such Warrant or Warrants, as the Officer or Officers, that obey or execute the same, shall suffer & incur the Pains & Forfeitures in this Act before-mentioned, both for the 1st & 2nd Offence, respectively, to be recover'd in manner aforesaid, by the Party grieved.

X. Provided also, and be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for any Prisoner & Prisoners as aforesaid, to move, and obtain his or their Habeas Corpus, as well out of the High Court of Chancery, or Court of Exchequer, as out of the Courts of King's Bench, or Common Pleas, or either of them. (2.) And if the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, or any Judge or Judges, Baron or Barons for the time being, of the Degree of the Coif, of any of the Courts aforesaid, in the Vacation time, upon view of the Copy or Copies of the Warrant or Warrants of Commitment or Detainer, or upon Oath made that such Copy or Copies were denied as aforesaid, shall deny any Writ of Habeas Corpus by this Act required to be granted, being moved for as aforesaid, they shall severally forfeit to the Prisoner or Party grieved, the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds, to be recovered in manner aforesaid.

XI. And be it declared and enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That an Habeas Corpus according to the true Intent and meaning of this Act, may be directed, and run into any County Palatine, the Cinque Ports, or other priviledged Places, within the Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the Isles of Jersey or Guernsey, any Law or Usage to the contrary notwithstanding.

XII. And for preventing illegal Imprisonments in Prisons beyond the Seas; (2.) Be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That no Subject of this Realm that now is, or hereafter shall be, an Inhabitant or Resiant of this Kingdom of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, shall or may be sent Prisoner into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Tangier, or into Parts, Garrisons, Islands, or Places beyond the Seas, which are, or at any time hereafter shall be within or without the Dominions of his Majesty, his Heirs or Successors. (3.) And that every such Imprisonment is hereby enacted and adjudged to be illegal. (4.) And that if any of the said Subjects now is, or hereafter shall be so imprisoned, every such Person and Persons so imprisoned, shall and may for every such Imprisonment, maintain by Virtue of this Act, an Action or Actions of False Imprisonment, in any of his Majesty's Courts of Record, against the Person or Persons by whom he or she shall be so committed, detained, imprisoned, sent Prisoner or transported, contrary to the true meaning of this Act, and against all or any Person or Persons, that shall frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any Warrant or Writing for such Commitment, Detainer, Imprisonment or Transportation, or shall be advising, aiding or assisting in the same, or any of them. (5.) And the Plaintiff in every such Action, shall have judgment to recover his treble Costs, besides Damages; which Damages so to be given, shall not be less than Five Hundred Pounds. (6.) In which Action, no Delay, Stay, or Stop of Proceeding, by Rule, Order or Command, nor no Injunction, Protection, or Priviledge whatsoever, nor any more than one Imparlance shall be allowed, excepting such Rule of the Court wherein the Action shall depend, made in open Court, as shall be thought in justice necessary, for special Cause to be expressed in the said Rule. (7.) And the Person or Persons who shall knowingly frame, contrive, write, seal or countersign any Warrant for such Commitment, Detainer, or Transportation, or shall so commit, detain, imprison, or transport any Person or Persons contrary to this Act, or be any ways advising, aiding or assisting therein, being lawfully convicted thereof, shall be disabled from thenceforth to bear any Office of Trust or Profit within the said Realm of England, Dominion of Wales, or Town of Berwick upon Tweed, or any of the Islands, Territories or Dominions thereunto belonging. (8.) And shall incur and sustain the Pains, Penalties, and Forfeitures, limited, ordained, and Provided in and by the Statute of Provision and Premunire made in the Sixteenth Year of King Richard the Second. (9.) And be incapable of any Pardon from the King, his Heirs or Successors, of the said Forfeitures, Losses, or Disabilities, or any of them.

XIII. Provided always, That nothing in this Act shall extend to give Benefit to any Person who shall by Contract in Writing, agree with any Merchant or Owner, of any Plantation, or other Person whatsoever, to be transported to any part beyond the Seas, and receive Earnest upon such Agreement, altho' that afterwards such Person shall renounce such Contract.

XIV. Provided always, and be it enacted, That if any Person or Persons, lawfully convicted of any Felony, shall in open Court pray to be transported beyond the Seas, and the Court shall think fit to leave him or them in Prison for that Purpose, such Person or Persons may be transported into any Parts beyond the Seas; This Act, or any thing therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

XV. Provided also, and be it enacted, That nothing herein contained, shall be deemed, construed, or taken to extend to the Imprisonment of any Person before the first Day of June, One Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and Nine, or to any thing advised, procured, or otherwise done, relating to such Imprisonment; Any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

{902}

XVI. Provided also, That if any Person or Persons, at any time resiant in this Realm, shall have committed any Capital Offence in Scotland or Ireland, or any of the Islands, or foreign Plantations of the King, his Heirs or Successors, where he or she ought to be tryed for such Offence, such Person or Persons may be sent to such Place, there to receive such Tryal, in such manner as the same might have been used before the making this Act; Any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

XVII. Provided also, and be it enacted, That no Person or Persons, shall be sued, impleaded, molested or troubled for any Offence against this Act, unless the Party offending be sued or impleaded for the same within two Years at the most after such time wherein the Offence shall be committed, in Case the Party grieved shall not be then in Prison; and if he shall be in Prison, then within the space of two Years after the Decease of the Person imprisoned, or his, or her Delivery out of Prison, which shall first happen.

XVIII. And to the Intent no Person may avoid his Tryal at the Assizes, or general Gaol Delivery, by procuring his Removal before the Assizes at such time as he cannot be brought back to receive his Tryal there; (2.) Be it enacted, That after the Assizes proclaimed for that County where the Prisoner is detained, no Person shall be removed from the Common Gaol upon any Habeas Corpus granted in pursuance of this Act, but upon any such Habeas Corpus shall be brought before the Judge of Assize in open Court, who is thereupon to do what to Justice shall appertain.

XIX. Provided nevertheless, That after the Assizes are ended, any Person or Persons detained may have his or her Habeas Corpus, according to the Direction and Intention of this Act.

XX. And be it also enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if any Information, Suit or Action, shall be brought or exhibited against any Person or Persons, for any Offence committed or to be committed against the Form of this Law, it shall be lawful for such Defendants to plead the general Issue, that they are not guilty, or that they owe nothing, and to give such special Matter in Evidence to the Jury, that shall try the same, which Matter being pleaded, had been good and sufficient matter in Law to have discharged the said Defendant or Defendants against the said Information, Suit or Action, and the said Matter shall be then as available to him or them, to all Intents and Purposes, as if he or they had sufficiently pleaded, set forth, or alleged the same Matter in Bar, or Discharge of such Information, Suit or Action.

XXI. And because many times Persons charged with Petty-Treason or Felony, or as Accessaries thereunto, are committed upon Suspicion only, whereupon they are bailable or not, according as the Circumstances making out that Suspicion are more or less weighty, which are best known to the Justices of Peace that committed the Persons, and have the Examinations before them, or to other Justices of the Peace in the County; (2.) Be it therefore enacted, That where any Person shall appear to be committed by any Judge, or Justice of the Peace, and charged as necessary before the Fact, to any Petty-Treason or Felony, or upon Suspicion thereof, or with Suspicion of Petty-Treason or Felony, which Petty-Treason or Felony, shall be plainly and specially expressed in the Warrant of Commitment, that such Person shall not be removed or bailed by Virtue of this Act, or in any other manner than they might have been before the making of this Act.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1679 (June). The Meal-tub Plot.

"Dangerfield, a subtle and dexterous man, who had gone through all the shapes and practices of roguery, and in particular was a false coiner, undertook now to coin a plot for the ends of the papists. He … got into all companies, and mixed with the hottest men of the town, and studied to engage others with himself to swear that they had been invited to accept of commissions, and that a new form of government was to be set up, and that the king and the royal family were to be sent away. He was carried with this story, first to the duke, and then to the king, and had a weekly allowance of money, and was very kindly used by many of that side; so that a whisper run about town, that some extraordinary thing would quickly break out: and he having some correspondence with one colonel Mansel, he made up a bundle of seditious but ill contrived letters, and laid them in a dark corner of his room: and then some searchers were sent from the custom house to look for some forbidden goods, which they heard were in Mansel's chamber. There were no goods found: but as it was laid, they found that bundle of letters: and upon that a great noise was made of a discovery: but upon inquiry it appeared the letters were counterfeited, and the forger of them was suspected; so they searched into all Dangerfield's haunts, and in one of them they found a paper that contained the scheme of this whole fiction, which, because it was found in a meal-tub, came to be called the meal-tub plot. … This was a great disgrace to the popish party, and the king suffered much by the countenance he had given him."

G. Burnet, History of My Own Time, book 3, 1679.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1679-1681. The Exclusion Bill.

"Though the duke of York was not charged with participation in the darkest schemes of the popish conspirators, it was evident that his succession was the great aim of their endeavours, and evident also that he had been engaged in the more real and undeniable intrigues of Coleman. His accession to the throne, long viewed with just apprehension, now seemed to threaten such perils to every part of the constitution as ought not supinely to be waited for, if any means could be devised to obviate them. This gave rise to the bold measure of the exclusion bill, too bold, indeed, for the spirit of the country, and the rock on which English liberty was nearly shipwrecked. In the long parliament, full as it was of pensioners and creatures of court influence, nothing so vigorous would have been successful. … But the zeal they showed against Danby induced the king to put an end [January 24, 1679] to this parliament of seventeen years' duration; an event long ardently desired by the popular party, who foresaw their ascendancy in the new elections. The next house of commons accordingly came together with an ardour not yet quenched by corruption; and after reviving the impeachments commenced by their predecessors, and carrying a measure long in agitation, a test which shut the catholic peers out of parliament, went upon the exclusion bill [the second reading of which was carried, May 21, 1679, by 207 to 128].

{903}

Their dissolution put a stop to this; and in the next parliament the lords rejected it [after the commons had passed the bill, without a division, October, 1680]. … The bill of exclusion … provided that the imperial crown of England should descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons successively during the life of the duke of York as would have inherited or enjoyed the same in case he were naturally dead. … But a large part of the opposition had unfortunately other objects in view." Under the contaminating influence of the earl of Shaftesbury, "they broke away more and more from the line of national opinion, till a fatal reaction involved themselves in ruin, and exposed the cause of public liberty to its most imminent peril. The countenance and support of Shaftesbury brought forward that unconstitutional and most impolitic scheme of the duke of Monmouth's succession. [James, duke of Monmouth, was the acknowledged natural son of king Charles, by Lucy Walters, his mistress while in exile at the Hague.] There could hardly be a greater insult to a nation used to respect its hereditary line of kings, than to set up the bastard of a prostitute, without the least pretence of personal excellence or public services, against a princess of known virtue and attachment to the protestant religion. And the effrontery of this attempt was aggravated by the libels eagerly circulated to dupe the credulous populace into a belief of Monmouth's legitimacy."

H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: A. Carrel, History of the Counter-Revolution in England, part 2, chapter 1.

G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, chapter 4-8 (volume 1).

G. Burnet, History of My Own Time, book 3, 1679-81.

Sir W. Temple, Memoirs, part 3 (Works, volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1680. Whigs and Tories acquire their respective names.

"Factions indeed were at this time [A. D. 1680] extremely animated against each other. The very names by which each party denominated its antagonist discover the virulence and rancour which prevailed. For besides petitioner and abhorrer, appellations which were soon forgotten, this year is remarkable for being the epoch of the well-known epithets of Whig and Tory, by which, and sometimes without any material difference, this island has been so long divided. The court party reproached their antagonists with their affinity to the fanatical conventiclers in Scotland, who were known by the name of Whigs: the country party found a resemblance between the courtiers and the popish banditti in Ireland, to whom the appellation of Tory was affixed: and after this manner these foolish terms of reproach came into public and general use."

D. Hume, History of England, chapter 68 (volume 6).

"The definition of the nickname Tory, as it originally arose, is given in 'A New Ballad' (Narcissus Luttrell's Collection):—

The word Tory's of Irish Extraction, 'Tis a Legacy that they have left here They came here in their brogues, And have acted like Rogues, In endeavouring to learn us to swear."

J. Grego, History of Parliamentary Elections, page 36.

ALSO IN: G. W. Cooke, History of Party, volume 1, chapter 2.

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 2.

For the origin of the name of the 'Whig party,

See WHIGS (WIGGAMORS); also, RAPPAREES.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1681-1683. The Tory reaction and the downfall of the Whigs. The Rye-house Plot.

"Shaftesbury's course rested wholly on the belief that the penury of the Treasury left Charles at his mercy, and that a refusal of supplies must wring from the King his assent to the exclusion. But the gold of France had freed the King from his thraldom. He had used the Parliament [of 1681] simply to exhibit himself as a sovereign whose patience and conciliatory temper was rewarded with insult and violence; and now that he saw his end accomplished, he suddenly dissolved the Houses in April, and appealed in a Royal declaration to the justice of the nation at large. The appeal was met by an almost universal burst of loyalty. The Church rallied to the King; his declaration was read from every pulpit; and the Universities solemnly decided that 'no religion, no law, no fault, no forfeiture' could avail to bar the sacred right of hereditary succession. … The Duke of York returned in triumph to St. James's. … Monmouth, who had resumed his progresses through the country as a means of checking the tide of reaction, was at once arrested. … Shaftesbury, alive to the new danger, plunged desperately into conspiracies with a handful of adventurers as desperate as himself, hid himself in the City, where he boasted that ten thousand 'brisk boys' were ready to appear at his call, and urged his friends to rise in arms. But their delays drove him to flight. … The flight of Shaftesbury proclaimed the triumph of the King. His wonderful sagacity had told him when the struggle was over and further resistance useless. But the Whig leaders, who had delayed to answer the Earl's call, still nursed projects of rising in arms, and the more desperate spirits who had clustered around him as he lay hidden in the City took refuge in plots of assassination, and in a plan for murdering Charles and his brother as they passed the Rye-house [a Hertfordshire farm house, so-called] on their road from London to Newmarket. Both the conspiracies were betrayed, and, though they were wholly distinct from one another, the cruel ingenuity of the Crown lawyers blended them into one. Lord Essex, the last of an ill-fated race, saved himself from a traitor's death by suicide in the Tower. Lord Russell, convicted on a charge of sharing in the Rye-house Plot, was beheaded in Lincoln Inn Fields. The same fate awaited Algernon Sidney. Monmouth fled in terror over sea, and his flight was followed by a series of prosecutions for sedition directed against his followers. In 1683 the Constitutional opposition which had held Charles so long in check lay crushed at his feet. … On the very day when the crowd around Russell's scaffold were dipping their handkerchiefs in his blood, as in the blood of a martyr, the University of Oxford solemnly declared that the doctrine of passive obedience, even to the worst of rulers, was a part of religion." During the brief remainder of his reign Charles was a prudently absolute monarch, governing without a Parliament, coolly ignoring the Triennial Act, and treating on occasions the Test Act, as well as other laws obnoxious to him, with contempt. He died unexpectedly, early in February, 1685, and his brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the throne, as James II., with no resistance, but with much feeling opposed to him.

J. R. Green, Short History of England, chapter 9, sections 5-6.

{904}

ALSO IN: G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth; chapters 8-10 (volume 1).

D. Hume, History of England, chapters 68-69 (volume 6).

G. W. Cooke, History of Party, volume 1, chapters 6-11.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685. Accession of James II.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (February). The new King proclaims his religion.

"The King [James II.] early put the loyalty of his Protestant friends to the proof. While he was a subject, he had been in the habit of hearing mass with closed doors in a small oratory which had been fitted up for his wife. He now ordered the doors to be thrown open, in order that all who came to pay their duty to him might see the ceremony. When the host was elevated there was a strange confusion in the antechamber. The Roman Catholics fell on their knees: the Protestants hurried out of the room. Soon a new pulpit was erected in the palace; and, during Lent, a series of sermons was preached there by Popish divines."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 4 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (May-July). Monmouth's Rebellion.

"The Parliament which assembled on the 22nd of May … was almost entirely Tory. The failure of the Rye-House Plot had produced a reaction, which for a time entirely annihilated the Whig influence. … The apparent triumph of the King and the Tory party was completed by the disastrous failure of the insurrection planned by their adversaries. A knot of exiled malcontents, some Scotch, some English, had collected in Holland. Among them was Monmouth and the Earl of Argyle, son of that Marquis of Argyle who had taken so prominent a part on the Presbyterian side in the Scotch troubles of Charles I.'s reign. Monmouth had kept aloof from politics till, on the accession of James, he was induced to join the exiles at Amsterdam, whither Argyle, a strong Presbyterian, but a man of lofty and moderate views, also repaired. National jealousy prevented any union between the exiles, and two expeditions were determined on,—the one under Argyle, who hoped to find an army ready to his hand among his clansmen in the West of Scotland, the other under Monmouth in the West of England. Argyle's expedition set sail on the 2nd of May [1685]. … Argyle's invasion was ruined by the limited authority intrusted to him, and by the jealousy and insubordination of his fellow leaders. … His army disbanded. He was himself taken in Renfrewshire, and, after an exhibition of admirable constancy, was beheaded. … A week before the final dispersion of Argyle's troops, Monmouth had landed in England [at Lyme, June 11]. He was well received in the West. He had not been twenty-four hours in England before he found himself at the head of 1,500 men; but though popular among the common people, he received no support from the upper classes. Even the strongest Whigs disbelieved the story of his legitimacy, and thought his attempt ill-timed and fraught with danger. … Meanwhile Monmouth had advanced to Taunton, had been there received with enthusiasm, and, vainly thinking to attract the nobility, had assumed the title of King. Nor was his reception at Bridgewater less flattering. But difficulties already began to gather round him; he was in such want of arms, that, although rustic implements were converted into pikes, he was still obliged to send away many volunteers; the militia were closing in upon him in all directions; Bristol had been seized by the Duke of Beaufort, and the regular army under Feversham and Churchill were approaching." After feebly attempting several movements, against Bristol and into Wiltshire, Monmouth lost heart and fell back to Bridgewater. "The Royalist army was close behind him, and on the fifth of July encamped about three miles from Bridgewater, on the plain of Sedgemoor." Monmouth was advised to undertake a night surprise, and did so in the early morning of the 6th. "The night was not unfitting for such an enterprise, for the mist was so thick that at a few paces nothing could be seen. Three great ditches by which the moor was drained lay between the armies; of the third of these, strangely enough, Monmouth knew nothing." The unexpected discovery of this third ditch, known as "the Bussex Rhine," which his cavalry could not cross, and behind which the enemy rallied, was the ruin of the enterprise. "Monmouth saw that the day was lost, and with the love of life which was one of the characteristics of his soft nature, he turned and fled. Even after his flight the battle was kept up bravely. At length the arrival of the King's artillery put an end to any further struggle. The defeat was followed by all the terrible scenes which mark a suppressed insurrection. … Monmouth and Grey pursued their flight into the New Forest, and were there apprehended in the neighbourhood of Ringwood." Monmouth petitioned abjectly for his life, but in vain. He was executed on the 15th of July. "The failure of this insurrection was followed by the most terrible cruelties. Feversham returned to London, to be flattered by the King and laughed at by the Court for his military exploits. He left Colonel Kirke in command at Bridgewater. This man had learned, as commander at Tangier, all the worst arts of cruel despotism. His soldiery in bitter pleasantry were called Kirke's 'Lambs,' from the emblem of their regiment. It is impossible to say how many suffered at the hands of this man and his brutal troops; 100 captives are said by some to have been put to death the week after the battle. But this military revenge did not satisfy the Court."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 2, pages 764-768.

The number of Monmouth's men killed is computed by some at 2,000, by others at 300; a disparity, however, which may be easily reconciled by supposing that the one account takes in those who were killed in battle, while the other comprehends the wretched fugitives who were massacred in ditches, cornfields, and other hiding places, the following day."

C. J. Fox, History of the Early Part of the Reign of James II., chapter 3.

ALSO IN: G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, chapters 13-28 (volumes 1-2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (September). The Bloody Assizes.

"Early in September, Jeffreys [Sir George Jeffreys, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench], accompanied by four other judges, set out on that circuit of which the memory will last as long as our race and language. … At Winchester the Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not been the theatre of war; but many of the vanquished rebels had, like their leader, fled thither." Two among these had been found concealed in the house of Lady Alice Lisle, a widow of eminent nobility of character, and Jeffreys' first proceeding was to arraign Lady Alice for the technical reason of the concealment. {905} She was tried with extraordinary brutality of manner on the part of the judge; the jury was bullied into a verdict of guilty, and the innocent woman was condemned by the fiend on the bench to be burned alive. By great exertion of many people, the sentence was commuted from burning to beheading. No mercy beyond this could be obtained from Jeffreys or his fit master, the king. "In Hampshire Alice Lisle was the only victim: but, on the day following her execution, Jeffreys reached Dorchester, the principal town of the county in which Monmouth had landed, and the judicial massacre began. The court was hung, by order of the Chief Justice, with scarlet; and this innovation seemed to the multitude to indicate a bloody purpose. … More than 300 prisoners were to be tried. The work seemed heavy; but Jeffreys had a contrivance for making it light. He let it be understood that the only chance of obtaining pardon or respite was to plead guilty. Twenty-nine persons, who put themselves on their country and were convicted, were ordered to be tied up without delay. The remaining prisoners pleaded guilty by scores. Two hundred and ninety-two received sentence of death. The whole number hanged in Dorsetshire amounted to seventy-four. From Dorchester Jeffreys proceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, comparatively few persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most fearful vengeance. In this county two hundred and thirty-three prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn and quartered. At every spot where two roads met, on every market place, on the green of every large village which had furnished Monmouth with soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads and quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the traveller sick with horror. … The Chief Justice was all himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that many thought him drunk from morning to night. … Jeffreys boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his predecessors together since the Conquest. … Yet those rebels who were doomed to death were less to be pitied than some of the survivors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable to bring home the charge of high treason were convicted of misdemeanours and were sentenced to scourging not less terrible than that which Oates had undergone. … The number of prisoners whom Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and forty-one. These men, more wretched than their associates who suffered death, were distributed into gangs, and bestowed on persons who enjoyed favour at court. The conditions of the gift were that the convicts should be carried beyond sea as slaves, that they should not be emancipated for ten years, and that the place of their banishment should be some West Indian island. … It was estimated by Jeffreys that, on an average, each of them, after all charges were paid, would be worth from ten to fifteen pounds. There was therefore much angry competition for grants. … And now Jeffreys had done his work, and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor from the West, leaving carnage, mourning and terror behind him. The hatred with which he was regarded by the people of Somersetshire has no parallel in our history. … But at the court Jeffreys was cordially welcomed. He was a judge after his master's own heart. James had watched the circuit with interest and delight. … At a later period, when all men of all parties spoke with horror of the Bloody Assizes, the wicked Judge and the wicked King attempted to vindicate themselves by throwing the blame on each other."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: Sir James Mackintosh, History of the Revolution in England, chapter 1.

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, chapter 100 (volume 3).

G. Roberts, Life of Monmouth, chapter 29-31 (volume 2).

See, also, TAUNTON: A. D. 1685.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1686. Faithless and tyrannical measures against the New England colonies.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687; and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1685-1689. The Despotism of James II. in Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1686. The Court of High Commission revived.

"James conceived the design of employing his authority as head of the Church of England as a means of subjecting that church to his pleasure, if not of finally destroying it. It is hard to conceive how he could reconcile to his religion the exercise of supremacy in an heretical sect, and thus sanction by his example the usurpations of the Tudors on the rights of the Catholic Church. … He, indeed, considered the ecclesiastical supremacy as placed in his hands by Providence to enable him to betray the Protestant establishment. 'God,' said he to Barillon, 'has permitted that all the laws made to establish Protestantism now serve as a foundation for my measures to re-establish true religion, and give me a right to exercise a more extensive power than other Catholic princes possess in the ecclesiastical affairs of their dominions.' He found legal advisers ready with paltry expedients for evading the two statutes of 1641 and 1660 [abolishing, and re-affirming the abolition of the Court of High Commission], under the futile pretext that they forbade only a court vested with such powers of corporal punishment as had been exercised by the old Court of High Commission; and in conformity to their pernicious counsel, he issued, in July, a commission to certain ministers, prelates, and judges, to act as a Court of Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes. The first purpose of this court was to enforce directions to preachers, issued by the King, enjoining them to abstain from preaching on controverted questions."

Sir James Mackintosh, History of the Revolution in England, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: D. Neal, History of the Puritans, volume 5, chapter 3.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1686. The consolidation of New England under a royal Governor-General.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1687. Riddance of the Test Act by royal dispensing power.

"The abolition of the tests was a thing resolved upon in the catholic council, and for this a sanction of some kind or other was required, as they dared not yet proceed upon the royal will alone. Chance, or the machinations of the catholics, created an affair which brought the question of the tests under another form before the court of king's bench. {906} This court had not the power to abolish the Test Act, but it might consider whether the king had the right of exempting particular subjects from the formalities. … The king … closeted himself with the judges one by one, dismissed some, and got those who replaced them, 'ignorant men,' says an historian, 'and scandalously incompetent,' to acknowledge his dispensing power. … The judges of the king's bench, after a trial, … declared, almost in the very language used by the crown counsel:

1. That the kings of England are sovereign princes;

2. That the laws of England are the king's laws;

3. That therefore it is an inseparable prerogative in the kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular cases, and upon particular necessary reasons;

4. That of those reasons, and those necessities, the king himself is sole judge; and finally, which is consequent upon all,

5. That this is not a trust invested in, or granted to the king by the people, but the ancient remains of the sovereign power and prerogative of the kings of England, which never yet was taken from them, nor can be.

The case thus decided, the king thought he might rely upon the respect always felt by the English people for the decisions of the higher courts, to exempt all his catholic subjects from the obligations of the test. And upon this, it became no longer a question merely of preserving in their commissions and offices those whose dismissal had been demanded by parliament. … To obtain or to retain certain employments, it was necessary to be of the same religion with the king. Papists replaced in the army and in the administration all those who had pronounced at all energetically for the maintenance of the tests. Abjurations, somewhat out of credit during the last session of parliament, again resumed favour."

A. Carrel, History of the Counter-Revolution in England, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: J. Stoughton, History of Religion in England, volume 4, chapter 4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688. Declarations of Indulgence. Trial of the Seven Bishops.

"Under pretence of toleration for Dissenters, James endeavoured, under another form, to remove obstacles from Romanists. He announced an Indulgence. He began in Scotland by issuing on the 12th of February, 1687, in Edinburgh, a Proclamation granting relief to scrupulous consciences. Hereby he professed to relieve the Presbyterians, but the relief of them amounted to nothing; to the Romanists it was complete. … On the 18th of March, 1687, he announced to the English Privy Council his intention to prorogue Parliament, and to grant upon his own authority entire liberty of conscience to all his subjects. Accordingly on the 4th of April he published his Indulgence, declaring his desire to see all his subjects become members of the Church of Rome, and his resolution (since that was impracticable) to protect them in the free exercise of their religion; also promising to protect the Established Church: then he annulled a number of Acts of Parliament, suspended all penal laws against Nonconformists, authorised Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to perform worship publicly, and abrogated all Acts of Parliament imposing any religious test for civil or military offices. This declaration was then notoriously illegal and unconstitutional. James now issued a second and third declaration for Scotland, and courted the Dissenters in England, but with small encouragement. … On the 27th of April, 1688, James issued a second Declaration of Indulgence for England. … On the 4th of May, by an order in Council, he directed his Declaration of the 27th of April to be publicly read during divine service in all Churches and Chapels, by the officiating ministers, on two successive Sundays—namely, on the 20th and 27th of May in London, and on the 3d and 10th of June in the country; and desired the Bishops to circulate this Declaration through their dioceses. Hitherto the Bishops and Clergy had held the doctrine of passive obedience to the sovereign, however bad in character or in his measures—now they were placed by the King himself in a dilemma. Here was a violation of existing law, and an intentional injury to their Church, if not a plan for the substitution of another. The Nonconformists, whom James pretended to serve, coincided with and supported the Church. A decided course must be taken. The London Clergy met and resolved not to read the Declaration. On the 12th of May, at Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Prelates assembled. They resolved that the Declaration ought not to be read. On Friday, the 18th of May, a second meeting of the Prelates and eminent divines was held at Lambeth Palace. A petition to the King was drawn up by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his own handwriting, disclaiming all disloyalty and all intolerance, … but stating that Parliament had decided that the King could not dispense with Statutes in matters ecclesiastical—that the Declaration was therefore illegal—and could not be solemnly published by the petitioners in the House of God and during divine service. This paper was signed by Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough, and Trelawny of Bristol. It was approved by Compton, Bishop of London, but not signed, because he was under suspension. The Archbishop had long been forbidden to appear at Court, therefore could not present it. On Friday evening the six Bishops who had signed were introduced by Sunderland to the King, who read the document and pronounced it libellous [and seditious and rebellious], and the Bishops retired. On Sunday, the 20th of May, the first day appointed, the Declaration was read in London only in four Churches out of one hundred. The Dissenters and Church Laymen sided with the Clergy. On the following Sunday the Declaration was treated in the same manner in London, and on Sunday, the 3d of June, was disregarded by Bishops and Clergy in all parts of England. James, by the advice of Jeffreys, ordered the Archbishop and Bishops to be indicted for a seditious libel. They were, on the 8th of June, conveyed to the Tower amidst the most enthusiastic demonstrations of respect and affection from all classes. The same night the Queen was said to have given birth to a son; but the national opinion was that some trick had been played. On the 29th of June the trial of the seven Bishops came on before the Court of King's Bench. … The Jury, who, after remaining together all night (one being stubborn) pronounced a verdict of not guilty on the morning of the 30th June, 1688."

W. H. Torriano, William the Third, chapter 2.

{907}

"The court met at nine o'clock. The nobility and gentry covered the benches, and an immense concourse of people filled the Hall, and blocked up the adjoining streets. Sir Robert Langley, the foreman of the jury, being, according to established form, asked whether the accused were guilty or not guilty, pronounced the verdict 'Not guilty.' No sooner were these words uttered than a loud huzza arose from the audience in the court. It was instantly echoed from without by a shout of joy, which sounded like a crack of the ancient and massy roof of Westminster Hall. It passed with electrical rapidity from voice to voice along the infinite multitude who waited in the streets. It reached the Temple in a few minutes. … 'The acclamations,' says Sir John Reresby, 'were a very rebellion in noise.' In no long time they ran to the camp at Hounslow, and were repeated with an ominous voice by the soldiers in the hearing of the King, who, on being told that they were for the acquittal of the bishops, said, with an ambiguity probably arising from confusion, 'So much the worse for them.'"

Sir J. Mackintosh, History of the Revolution in England in 1688, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: _A. Strickland, Lives of the Seven Bishops._

R. Southey, Book of the Church, chapter 18.

G. G. Perry, History of the Church of England, chapter 30 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (July). William and Mary of Orange the hope of the nation.

"The wiser among English statesmen had fixed their hopes steadily on the succession of Mary, the elder daughter and heiress of James. The tyranny of her father's reign made this succession the hope of the people at large. But to Europe the importance of the change, whenever it should come about, lay not so much in the succession of Mary as in the new power which such an event would give to her husband, William, Prince of Orange. We have come, in fact, to a moment when the struggle of England against the aggression of its King blends with the larger struggle of Europe against the aggression of Lewis XIV."

J. R. Green, Short History of England, chapter 9, section 7.

"William of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the republic of the United Provinces, was, before the birth of the Prince of Wales, first prince of the blood royal of England [as son of Princess Mary, daughter of Charles I., and, therefore, nephew as well as son-in-law of James II.]; and his consort, the Lady Mary, the eldest daughter of the King, was, at that period, presumptive heiress to the crown."

Sir J. Mackintosh, History of the Revolution in England, chapter 10.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (JULY-NOVEMBER). Invitation to William of Orange and his acceptance of it.

"In July, in almost exact coincidence of time with the Queen's accouchement [generally doubted and suspected], came the memorable trial of the Seven Bishops, which gave the first demonstration of the full force of that popular animosity which James's rule had provoked. Some months before, however, Edward Russell, nephew of the Earl of Bedford, and cousin of Algernon Sidney's fellow-victim, had sought the Hague with proposals to William [prince of Orange] to make an armed descent upon England, as vindicator of English liberties and the Protestant religion. William had cautiously required a signed invitation from at least a few representative statesmen before committing himself to such an enterprise, and on the day of the acquittal of the Seven Bishops a paper, signed in cipher by Lords Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, and Lumley, by Compton, Bishop of Northampton, by Edward Russell, and by Henry Sidney, brother of Algernon, was conveyed by Admiral Herbert to the Hague. William was now furnished with the required security for English assistance in the projected undertaking, but the task before him was still one of extreme difficulty. … On the 10th of October, matters now being ripe for such a step, William, in conjunction with some of his English advisers, put forth his famous declaration. Starting with a preamble to the effect that the observance of laws is necessary to the happiness of states, the instrument proceeds to enumerate fifteen particulars in which the laws of England had been set at naught. The most important of these were—

(1) the exercise of the dispensing power;

(2) the corruption, coercion, and packing of the judicial bench;

(3) the violation of the test laws by the appointment of papists to offices (particularly judicial and military offices, and the administration of Ireland), and generally the arbitrary and illegal measures resorted to by James for the propagation of the Catholic religion;

(4) the establishment and action of the Court of High Commission;

(5) the infringement of some municipal charters, and the procuring of the surrender of others;

(6) interference with elections by turning out of all employment such as refused to vote as they were required; and

(7) the grave suspicion which had arisen that the Prince of Wales was not born of the Queen, which as yet nothing had been done to remove.

Having set forth these grievances, the Prince's manifesto went on to recite the close interest which he and his consort had in this matter as next in succession to the crown, and the earnest solicitations which had been made to him by many lords spiritual and temporal, and other English subjects of all ranks, to interpose, and concluded by affirming in a very distinct and solemn manner that the sole object of the expedition then preparing was to obtain the assembling of a free and lawful Parliament, to which the Prince pledged himself to refer all questions concerning the due execution of the laws, and the maintenance of the Protestant religion, and the conclusion of an agreement between the Church of England and the Dissenters, as also the inquiry into the birth of the 'pretended Prince of Wales'; and that this object being attained, the Prince would, as soon as the state of the nation should permit of it, send home his foreign forces. About a week after, on the 16th of October, all things being now in readiness, the Prince took solemn leave of the States-General. … On the 19th William and his armament set sail from Helvoetsluys, but was met on the following day by a violent storm which forced him to put back on the 21st. On the 1st of November the fleet put to sea a second time. … By noon of the 5th of November, the Prince's fleet was wafted safely into Torbay."

H. D. Traill, William the Third, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: _G. Burnet, History of My Own Time, 1688 (volume 3)._

L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 18, chapters 1-4 (volume 4).

Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, chapters 106-107: Somers (volume 4).

T. P. Courtenay, Life of Danby (Lardner's Cab. Cyclop.), pages 315-324.

{908}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1688 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER). The Revolution. Ignominious flight of James.

"The declaration published by the prince [on landing] consisted of sixteen articles. It enumerated those proceedings of the government since the accession of the king, which were regarded as in the greatest degree opposed to the liberty of the subject and to the safety of the Protestant religion. … To provide some effectual remedy against these and similar evils, was the only design of the enterprise in which the prince, in compliance with earnest solicitations from many lords, both spiritual and temporal, from numbers among the gentry and all ranks of people, had now embarked. … Addresses were also published to the army and navy. … The immediate effect of these appeals did not correspond with the expectations of William and his followers. On the 8th of November the people of Exeter received the prince with quiet submission. The memory of Monmouth's expedition was still fresh and terrible through the west. On the 12th, lord Cornbury, son of the earl of Clarendon, went over, with some officers, and about a hundred of his regiment, to the prince; and most of the officers, with a larger body of the privates belonging to the regiment commanded by the duke of St. Alban's, followed their example. Of three regiments, however, quartered near Salisbury, the majority could not be induced to desert the service of the king. … Every day now brought with it new accessions to the standard of the prince, and tidings of movements in different parts of the kingdom in his favour; while James was as constantly reminded, by one desertion after another, that he lived in an atmosphere of treachery, with scarcely a man or woman about him to be trusted. The defection of the lords Churchill and Drumlaneric, and of the dukes of Grafton and Ormond, was followed by that of prince George and the princess Anne. Prince George joined the invader at Sherburne; the princess made her escape from Whitehall at night, under the guardianship of the bishop of London, and found an asylum among the adherents of the prince of Orange who were in arms in Northamptonshire. By this time Bristol and Plymouth, Hull, York, and Newcastle, were among the places of strength which had been seized by the partisans of the prince. His standard had also been unfurled with success in the counties of Derby, Nottingham, York, and Cheshire. … Even in Oxford, several of the heads of colleges concurred in sending Dr. Finch, warden of All Souls' College, to invite the prince from Dorsetshire to their city, assuring him of their willingness to receive him, and to melt down their plate for his service, if it should be needed. So desperate had the affairs of James now become, that some of his advisers urged his leaving the kingdom, and negotiating with safety to his person from a distance; but from that course he was dissuaded by Halifax and Godolphin. In compliance with the advice of an assembly of peers, James issued a proclamation on the 13th of November, stating that writs had been signed to convene a parliament on the 15th of January; that a pardon of all offences should previously pass the great seal; and that commissioners should proceed immediately to the head-quarters of the prince of Orange, to negotiate on the present state of affairs. The commissioners chosen by the king were Halifax, Nottingham, and Godolphin; but William evaded for some days the conference which they solicited. In the meantime a forged proclamation in the name of the prince was made public in London, denouncing the Catholics of the metropolis as plotting the destruction of life and property on the largest possible scale. … No one doubted the authenticity of this document, and the ferment and disorder which it spread through the city filled the king with the greatest apprehension for the safety of himself and family. On the morning of the 9th of December, the queen and the infant prince of Wales were lodged on board a yacht at Gravesend, and commenced a safe voyage to Calais. James pledged himself to follow within 24 hours. In the course of that day the royal commissioners sent a report of their proceedings to Whitehall. The demands of the prince were, that a parliament should be assembled; that all persons holding public trusts in violation of the Test-laws should relinquish them; that the city should have command of the Tower; that the fleet, and the places of strength through the kingdom should be placed in the hands of Protestants; that the expense of the Dutch armament should be defrayed, in part, from the English Treasury; and that the king and the prince, and their respective forces, should remain at an equal distance from London during the sitting of parliament. James read these articles with some surprise, observing that they were much more moderate than he had expected. But his pledge had been given to the queen; the city was still in great agitation; and private letters, intimating that his person was not beyond the reach of danger, suggested that his interests might possibly be better served by his absence than by his presence. Hence his purpose to leave the kingdom remained unaltered. At three o'clock on the following morning the king left Whitehall with sir Edward Hales, disguising himself as an attendant. The vessel provided to convey him to France was a miserable fishing-boat. It descended the river without interruption until it came near to Feversham, where some fishermen, suspecting Hales and the king to be Catholics, probably priests endeavouring to make their escape in disguise, took them from the vessel. … The arrest of the monarch at Feversham on Wednesday was followed by an order of the privy council, commanding that his carriage and the royal guards should be sent to reconduct him to the capital. … After some consultation the king was informed that the public interests required his immediate withdrawment to some distance from Westminster, and Hampton Court was named. James expressed a preference for Rochester, and his wishes in that respect were complied with. The day on which the king withdrew to Rochester William took up his residence in St. James's. The king chose his retreat, deeming it probable that it might be expedient for him to make a second effort to reach the continent. … His guards left him so much at liberty, that no impediment to his departure was likely to arise; and on the last day of this memorable year—only a week after his removal from Whitehall, James embarked secretly at Rochester, and with a favourable breeze safely reached the French coast."

R. Vaughan, History of England under the House of Stuart, volume 2, pages 914-918.

ALSO IN: Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapters 9-10 (volume 2).

H. D. Traill, William the Third, chapter 4.

Continuation of Sir J. Mackintosh's History of the Revolution in 1688, chapters 16-17.

Sir J. Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, part 1, books 6-7 (volume 2).

{909}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY). The settlement of the Crown on William and Mary. The Declaration of Rights.

"The convention met on the 22nd of January. Their first care was to address the prince to take the administration of affairs and disposal of the revenue into his hands, in order to give a kind of parliamentary sanction to the power he already exercised. On the 28th of January the commons, after a debate in which the friends of the late king made but a faint opposition, came to their great vote: That king James II., having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of this kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant. They resolved unanimously the next day, That it hath been found by experience inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince. This vote was a remarkable triumph of the Whig party, who had contended for the exclusion bill. … The lords agreed with equal unanimity to this vote; which, though it was expressed only as an abstract proposition, led by a practical inference to the whole change that the whigs had in view. But upon the former resolution several important divisions took place." The lords were unwilling to commit themselves to the two propositions, that James had "abdicated" the government by his desertion of it, and that the throne had thereby become "vacant." They yielded at length, however, and adopted the resolution as the commons had passed it. They "followed this up by a resolution, that the prince and princess of Orange shall be declared king and queen of England, and all the dominions thereunto belonging. But the commons, with a noble patriotism, delayed to concur in this hasty settlement of the crown, till they should have completed the declaration of those fundamental rights and liberties for the sake of which alone they had gone forward with this great revolution. That declaration, being at once an exposition of the mis-government which had compelled them to dethrone the late king, and of the conditions upon which they elected his successors, was incorporated in the final resolution to which both houses came on the 13th of February, extending the limitation of the crown as far as the state of affairs required: That William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be, and be declared, king and queen of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them; and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and executed by, the said prince of Orange, in the names of the said prince and princess, during their joint lives; and after their decease the said crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess; for default of such issue, to the princess Anne of Denmark [younger daughter of James II.], and the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. … The Declaration of Rights presented to the prince of Orange by the marquis of Halifax, as speaker of the lords, in the presence of both houses, on the 18th of February, consists of three parts: a recital of the illegal and arbitrary acts committed by the late king, and of their consequent vote of abdication; a declaration, nearly following the words of the former part, that such enumerated acts are illegal; and a resolution, that the throne shall be filled by the prince and princess of Orange, according to the limitations mentioned. … This declaration was, some months afterwards [in October], confirmed by a regular act of the legislature in the bill of rights."

See ENGLAND: 1689 (OCTOBER).

H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, chapters 14-15 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 10 (volume 2).

L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 19, chapters 2-3 (volume 4).

R. Gneist, History of English Constitution, chapter 42 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST). The Church and the Revolution. The Toleration Act. The Non-Jurors.

"The men who had been most helpful in bringing about the late changes were not all of the same way of thinking in religion; many of them belonged to the Church of England; many were Dissenters. It seemed, therefore, a fitting time to grant the Dissenters some relief from the harsh laws passed against them in Charles II.'s reign. Protestant Dissenters, save those who denied the Trinity, were no longer forbidden to have places of worship and services of their own, if they would only swear to be loyal to the king, and that his power was as lawful in Church as in State matters. The law that gave them this is called the Toleration Act. Men's notions were still, however, very narrow; care was taken that the Roman Catholics should get no benefit from this law. Even a Protestant Dissenter might not yet lawfully be a member of either House of Parliament, or take a post in the king's service; for the Test Acts were left untouched. King William, who was a Presbyterian in his own land, wanted very much to see the Dissenters won back to the Church of England. To bring this about, he wished the Church to alter those things in the Prayer Book which kept Dissenters from joining with her. But most of the clergy would not have any change; and because these were the stronger party in Convocation—as the Parliament of the Church is called—William could get nothing done. At the same time a rent, which at first seemed likely to be serious, was made in the Church itself. There was a strong feeling among the clergy in favour of the banished king. So a law was made by which every man who held a preferment in the Church, or either of the Universities, had to swear to be true to King William and Queen Mary, or had to give up his preferment. Most of the clergy were very unwilling to obey this law; but only 400 were found stout-hearted enough to give up their livings rather than do what they thought to be a wicked thing. These were called 'non-jurors,' or men who would not swear. Among them were five out of the seven Bishops who had withstood James II. only a year before. The sect of non-jurors, who looked upon themselves as the only true Churchmen, did not spread. But it did not die out altogether until seventy years ago [i. e., early in the 19th century]. It was at this time that the names High-Church and Low-Church first came into use."

J. Rowley, The Settlement of the Constitution, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. Stoughton, History of Religion in England, volume 5, chapters 4-11.

_T. Lathbury, History of the Non-jurors._

{910}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (MAY). War declared against France. The Grand Alliance.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER). The Bill of Rights.

The following is the text of the Bill of Rights, passed by Parliament at its sitting in October, 1689:

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully, and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the Thirteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-eight [o. s.], present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain Declaration in writing, made by the said Lords and Commons, in the words following, viz.:

"Whereas the late King James II., by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom:

1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of Parliament.

2. By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power.

3. By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the Great Seal for erecting a court, called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes.

4. By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament.

5. By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law.

6. By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.

7. By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament.

8. By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognisable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal causes.

9. And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons have been returned, and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders.

10. And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects.

11. And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted.

12. And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied.

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes, and freedom of this realm. And whereas the said late King James II. having abdicated the government, and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs, and Cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two-and-twentieth day of January, in this year One Thousand Six Hundred Eighty and Eight, in order to such an establishment, as that their religion, laws, and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted; upon which letters elections have been accordingly made. And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:

1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal.

2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.

3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious.

4. That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence and prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.

5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.

6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law.

7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

8. That election of members of Parliament ought to be free.

9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

11. That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders.

12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.

13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, Parliament ought to be held frequently.

{911}

And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties; and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings, to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example. To which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange, as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights, which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights, and liberties:

II. The said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, assembled at Westminster, do resolve, that William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be, and be declared, King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them the said Prince and Princess during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them; and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and executed by, the said Prince of Orange, in the names of the said Prince and Princess, during their joint lives; and after their deceases, the said crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said Princess; and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do pray the said Prince and Princess to accept the same accordingly.

III. And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be required by law instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated. 'I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary: So help me God.' 'I, A. B., do swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: So help me God.'"

IV. Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration.

V. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased, that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted; to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, did agree and proceed to act accordingly.

VI. Now in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration, and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein contained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted, That all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come.

VII. And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God, in his marvellous providence, and merciful goodness to this nation, to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto Him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly, and in the sincerity of their hearts, think, and do hereby recognise, acknowledge, and declare, that King James II. having abdicated the Government, and their Majesties having accepted the Crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are, and of right ought to be, by the laws of this realm, our sovereign liege Lord and Lady, King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown, and dignity of the said realms, with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions, and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining, are most fully, rightfully, and entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed.

VIII. And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm, by reason of any pretended titles to the Crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquillity, and safety of this nation doth, under God, wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established, and declared, that the Crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties, and the survivor of them, during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them. And that the entire, perfect, and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in, and executed by, his Majesty, in the names of both their Majesties, during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said Crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty: and for default of such issue, to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body; and for default of such issue, to the heirs of the body of his said Majesty: And thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of all the people aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for ever: and do faithfully promise, that they will stand to, maintain, and defend their said Majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the Crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers, with their lives and estates, against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

{912}

IX. And whereas it hath been found by experience, that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a Papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted, That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise, any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance, and the said Crown and government shall from time to time descend to, and be enjoyed by, such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or professing, or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead.

X. And that every King and Queen of this realm, who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the Imperial Crown of this kingdom, shall, on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament, next after his or her coming to the Crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation, before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her, at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirteenth year of the reign of King Charles II., intituled "An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." But if it shall happen that such King or Queen, upon his or her succession to the Crown of this realm, shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such King or Queen shall make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or her coronation, or the first day of meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid, which shall first happen after such King or Queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years.

XI. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted, and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain, and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted, or established accordingly.

XII. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after this present session of Parliament, no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any statute, or any part thereof, shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

XIII. Provided that no charter, or grant, or pardon granted before the three-and-twentieth day of October, in the year of our Lord One thousand six hundred eighty-nine, shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law, and no other, than as if this Act had never been made.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1689-1696. The war of the League of Augsburg, or the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV. (called in American history "King William's War ").

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692; 1693 (JULY); 1694; 1695-1696.

Also, CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697; and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE). The Battle of Beachy Head. The great peril of the kingdom.

"In June, 1690, whilst William was in Ireland, the French sent a fleet, under Tourville, to threaten England. He left Brest and entered the British Channel. Herbert (then Earl of Torrington) commanded the English fleet lying in the Downs, and sailed to Saint Helens, where he was joined by the Dutch fleet under Evertsen. On the 26th of June the English and French fleets were close to each other, and an important engagement was expected, when unexpectedly Torrington abandoned the Isle of Wight and retreated towards the Straits of Dover. … The Queen and her Council, receiving this intelligence, sent to Torrington peremptory orders to fight. Torrington received these orders on the 29th June. Next day he bore down on the French fleet in order of battle. He had less than 60 ships of the line, whilst the French had 80. He placed the Dutch in the van, and during the whole fight rendered them little or no assistance. He gave the signal to engage, which was immediately obeyed by Evertsen, who fought with the most splendid courage, but at length, being unsupported, his second in command and many other officers of high rank having fallen, and his ships being fearfully shattered, Evertsen was obliged to draw off his contingent from the unequal battle. Torrington destroyed some of these injured ships, took the remainder in tow, and sailed along the coast of Kent for the Thames. When in that river he pulled up all the buoys to prevent pursuit. … Upon his return to London he was sent to the Tower, and in December was tried at Sheerness by court-martial, and on the third day was acquitted; but William refused to see him, and ordered him to be dismissed from the navy."

W. H. Torriano, William the Third, chapter 24.

"There has scarcely ever been so sad a day in London as that on which the news of the Battle of Beachy Head arrived. The shame was insupportable; the peril was imminent. … At any moment London might be appalled by news that 20,000 French veterans were in Kent. It was notorious that, in every part of the kingdom, the Jacobites had been, during some months, making preparations for a rising. All the regular troops who could be assembled for the defence of the island did not amount to more than 10,000 men. It may be doubted whether our country has ever passed through a more alarming crisis than that of the first week of July 1690."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 15 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: J. Campbell, Naval History of Great Britain, chapter 18 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1690-1691. Defeat of James and the Jacobites in Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1692. The new charter to Massachusetts as a royal province.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.

{912}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1692. Attempted invasion from France. Battle of La Hogue.

"The diversion in Ireland having failed, Louis wished to make an effort to attack England without and within. James II., who had turned to so little advantage the first aid granted by the King of France saw therefore in preparation a much more powerful assistance, and obtained what had been refused him after the days of the Boyne and Beachy-Head,—an army to invade England. News received from that country explained this change in the conduct of Louis. The opinion of James at Versailles was no better than in the past; but England was believed to be on the eve of counter-revolution, which it would be sufficient to aid with a vigorous and sudden blow. … Many eminent personages, among the Whigs as well as among the Tories, among others the Duke of Marlborough (Churchill), had opened a secret correspondence with the royal exile at Saint-Germain. James had secret adherents in the English fleet which he had so long commanded before reigning, and believed himself able to count on Rear-Admiral Carter, and even on Admiral Russell. Louis gave himself up to excessive confidence in the result of these plots, and arranged his plan of naval operations accordingly. An army of 30,000 men, with 500 transports, was assembled on the coast of Normandy, the greater part at La Hogue and Cherbourg, the rest at Havre: this was composed of all the Irish troops, a number of Anglo-Scotch refugees, and a corps of French troops. Marshal de Bellefonds commanded under King James. Tourville was to set ut from Brest in the middle of April with fifty ships of the line, enter the Channel, attack the English fleet before it could be reinforced by the Dutch, and thus secure the invasion. Express orders were sent to him to engage the enemy 'whatever might be his numbers.' It was believed that half of the English fleet would go over to the side of the allies of its king. The landing effected, Tourville was to return to Brest, to rally there the squadron of Toulon, sixteen vessels strong, and the rest of our large ships, then to hold the Channel during the whole campaign. They had reckoned without the elements, which, hitherto hostile to the enemies of France, this time turned against her." The French fleets were detained by contrary winds and by incomplete preparations. Tourville was not reinforced, as he expected to be, by the squadrons of Toulon and Rochefort. Before he found it possible to sail from Brest, the Jacobite plot had been discovered in England, the government was on its guard, and the Dutch and English fleets had made their junction. Still, the French admiral was under orders which left him no discretion, and he went out to seek the enemy. "May 29, at daybreak, between the Capes of La Hogue and Barfleur, Tourville found himself in presence of the allied fleet, the most powerful that had ever appeared on the sea. He had been joined by seven ships from the squadron of Rochefort, and numbered 44 vessels against 99, 78 of which carried over 50 guns, and, for the most part, were much larger than a majority of the French. The English had 63 ships and [4,540] guns; the Dutch, 36 ships and 2,614 guns; in all, 7,154 guns; the French counted only 3,114. The allied fleet numbered nearly 42,000 men; the French fleet less than 20,000." Notwithstanding this great inferiority of numbers and strength, it was the French fleet which made the attack, bearing down under full sail "on the immense mass of the enemy." The attempt was almost hopeless; and yet, when night fell, after a day of tremendous battle, Tourville had not yet lost a ship; but his line of battle had been broken, and no chance of success remained. "May 30, at break of day, Tourville rallied around him 35 vessels. The other nine had strayed, five towards La Hogue, four towards the English coast, whence they regained Brest. If there had been a naval port at La Hogue or at Cherbourg, as Colbert and Vauban had desired, the French fleet would have preserved its laurels! There was no place of retreat on all that coast. The fleet of the enemy advanced in full force. It was impossible to renew the prodigious effort of the day before." In this emergency, Tourville made a daring attempt to escape with his fleet through the dangerous channel called the Race of Alderney, which separates the Channel Islands from the Normandy coast. Twenty-two vessels made the passage safely and found a place of refuge at St. Malo; thirteen were too late for the tide and failed. Most of these were destroyed, during the next few days, by the English and Dutch at Cherbourg and in the bay of La Hogue,—in the presence and under the guns of King James' army of invasion. "James II. had reason to say that 'his unlucky star' everywhere shed a malign influence around him; but this influence was only that of his blindness and incapacity. Such was that disaster of La Hogue, which has left among us such a fatal renown, and the name of which resounds in our history like another Agincourt or Cressy. Historians have gone so far as to ascribe to this the destruction of the French navy. … La Hogue was only a reprisal for Beachy-Head. The French did not lose in it a vessel more than the allies had lost two years before, and the 15 vessels destroyed were soon replaced."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV: (translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2.'

ALSO IN: Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 18 (volume 4).

L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 20, chapter 4 (volume 5).

Sir J. Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, part 2, book 7 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1695. Expiration of censorship law. Appearance of first newspapers.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1695.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1696-1749. Measures of commercial and industrial restriction in the American colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1697. The Peace of Ryswick. Recognition of William III. by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1698. The founding of Calcutta.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1698-1700. The question of the Spanish Succession. The Treaties of Partition. The Spanish king's will.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1701. The Act of Settlement. The source of the sovereignty of the House of Hanover or Brunswick.

"William and Mary had no children; and in 1700 the young Duke of Gloucester, the only child of Anne that lived beyond infancy, died. There was now no hope of there being anyone to inherit the crown by the Bill of Rights after the death of William and of Anne. In 1701, therefore, Parliament settled the crown on the Electress Sophia of Hanover, and her heirs. Sophia was one of the children of that Elizabeth, daughter of James I., who in 1613 had married the Palsgrave Frederick. She was chosen to come after William and Anne because she was the nearest to the Stuart line who was a Protestant. The law that did this is called the Act of Settlement; it gives Queen Victoria her title to the throne. Parliament in passing it tried to make the nation's liberties still safer. It was now made impossible (1) for any foreigner to sit in Parliament or to hold an office under the Crown; (2). for the king to go to war in defence of countries that did not belong to England, unless Parliament gave him leave; or (3) to pardon anyone so that the Commons might not be able to impeach him."

J. Rowley, The Settlement of the Constitution, book 1, chapter 5.

{914}

"Though the choice was truly free in the hands of parliament, and no pretext of absolute right could be advanced on any side, there was no question that the princess Sophia was the fittest object of the nation's preference. She was indeed very far removed from any hereditary title. Besides the pretended prince of Wales, and his sister, whose legitimacy no one disputed, there stood in her way the duchess of Savoy, daughter of Henrietta duchess of Orleans, and several of the Palatine family. These last had abjured the reformed faith, of which their ancestors had been the strenuous assertors; but it seemed not improbable that some one might return to it. … According to the tenor and intention of the act of settlement, all prior claims of inheritance, save that of the issue of king William and the princess Anne, being set aside and annulled, the princess Sophia became the source of a new royal line. The throne of England and Ireland, by virtue of the paramount will of parliament, stands entailed upon the heirs of her body, being protestants. In them the right is as truly hereditary as it ever was in the Plantagenets or the Tudors. But they derive it not from those ancient families. The blood indeed of Cerdic and of the Conqueror flows in the veins of his present majesty [George IV.]. Our Edwards and Henries illustrate the almost unrivalled splendour and antiquity of the house of Brunswic. But they have transmitted no more right to the allegiance of England than Boniface of Este or Henry the Lion. That rests wholly on the act of settlement, and resolves itself into the sovereignty of the legislature.

H. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, chapter 15 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover, book 10 (volume 2).

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1714.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1701-1702. The rousing of the nation to war with France.

When Louis XIV. procured and accepted for his grandson the bequest of the Spanish crown, throwing over the Partition Treaty, "William had the intolerable chagrin of discovering not only that he had been befooled, but that his English subjects had no sympathy with him or animosity against the royal swindler who had tricked him. 'The blindness of the people here,' he writes sadly to the Pensionary Heinsius, 'is incredible. For though the affair is not public, yet it was no sooner said that the King of Spain's will was in favour of the Duke of Anjou, that it was the general opinion that it was better for England that France should accept the will than fulfil the Treaty of Partition.' … William dreaded the idea of a Bourbon reigning at Madrid, but he saw no very grave objection, as the two treaties showed, to Naples and Sicily passing into French hands. With his English subjects the exact converse was the case. They strongly deprecated the assignment of the Mediterranean possessions of the Spaniard to the Dauphin; but they were undisturbed by the sight of the Duke of Anjou seating himself on the Spanish throne. … But just as, under a discharge from an electric battery, two repugnant chemical compounds will sometimes rush into sudden combination, so at this juncture the King and the nation were instantaneously united by the shock of a gross affront. The hand that liberated the uniting fluid was that of the Christian king. On the 16th of September 1701 James II. breathed his last at St. Germains, and, obedient to one of those impulses, half-chivalrous, half-arrogant, which so often determined his policy, Louis XIV. declared his recognition of the Prince of Wales as de jure King of England. No more timely and effective assistance to the policy of its de facto king could possibly have been rendered. Its effect upon English public opinion was instantaneous; and when William returned from Holland on the 4th of November, he found the country in the temper in which he could most have wished it to be." Dissolving the Parliament in which his plans had long been factiously opposed, he summoned a new one, which met on the last day of the year 1701. "Opposition in Parliament—in the country it was already inaudible—was completely silenced. The two Houses sent up addresses assuring the King of their firm resolve to defend the succession against the pretended Prince of Wales and all other pretenders whatsoever. … Nor did the goodwill of Parliament expend itself in words. The Commons accepted without a word of protest the four treaties constituting the new Grand Alliance. … The votes of supply were passed unanimously." But scarcely had the nation and the King arrived at this agreement with one another than the latter was snatched from his labors. On the 21st of February, 1702, William received an injury, through the stumbling of his horse, which his frail and diseased body could not bear. His death would not have been long delayed in any event, but it was hastened by this accident, and occurred on the 8th of March following. He was succeeded by Anne, the sister of his deceased queen, Mary, and second daughter of the deposed Stuart king, James II.

H. D. Traill, William the Third, chapters 14-15.

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of England, 17th Century, book 21, chapters 7-10 (volume 5).

See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1701-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702. Accession of Queen Anne.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702. Union of rival East India Companies.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702. The War of the Spanish Succession. Failure at Cadiz. The treasure ships in Vigo Bay. Marlborough's first campaigns.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1702; and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1711. The War of the Spanish Succession in America (called "Queen Anne's War").

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710; CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

{915}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1714. The Age of Anne in literature.

"That which was once called the Augustan age of English literature was specially marked by the growing development of a distinct literary class. It was a period of transition from the early system of the patronage of authors to the later system of their professional independence. Patronage was being changed into influence. The system of subscription, by which Pope made his fortune, was a kind of joint-stock patronage. The noble did not support the poet, but induced his friends to subscribe. The noble, moreover, made another discovery. He found that he could dispense a cheaper and more effective patronage than of old by patronising at the public expense. During the reign of Queen Anne, the author of a successful poem or an effective pamphlet might look forward to a comfortable place. The author had not to wear the livery, but to become the political follower, of the great man. Gradually a separation took place. The minister found it better to have a regular corps of politicians and scribblers in his pay than occasionally to recruit his ranks by enlisting men of literary taste. And, on the other hand, authors, by slow degrees, struggled into a more independent position as their public increased. In the earlier part of the century, however, we find a class of fairly cultivated people, sufficiently numerous to form a literary audience, and yet not so numerous as to split into entirely distinct fractions. The old religious and political warfare has softened; the statesman loses his place, but not his head; and though there is plenty of bitterness, there is little violence. We have thus a brilliant society of statesmen, authors, clergymen, and lawyers, forming social clubs, meeting at coffee-houses, talking scandal and politics, and intensely interested in the new social phenomena which emerge as the old order decays; more excitable, perhaps, than their fathers, but less desperately in earnest, and waging a constant pamphleteering warfare upon politics, literature, and theology, which is yet consistent with a certain degree of friendly intercourse. The essayist, the critic, and the novelist appear for the first time in their modern shape; and the journalist is slowly gaining some authority as the wielder of a political force. The whole character of contemporary literature, in short, is moulded by the social conditions of the class for which and by which it was written, still more distinctly than by the ideas current in contemporary speculation. … Pope is the typical representative of the poetical spirit of the day. He may or may not be regarded as the intellectual superior of Swift or Addison; and the most widely differing opinions may be formed of the intrinsic merits of his poetry. The mere fact, however, that his poetical dynasty was supreme to the end of the century proved that, in some sense, he is a most characteristic product. Nor is it hard to see the main sources of his power. Pope had at least two great poetical qualities. He was amongst the most keenly sensitive of men, and he had an almost unique felicity of expression, which has enabled him to coin more proverbs than any writer since Shakespeare. Sensitive, it may be said, is a polite word for morbid, and his felicity of phrase was more adapted to coin epigrams than poetry. The controversy is here irrelevant. Pope, whether, as I should say, a true poet, or, as some have said, only the most sparkling of rhymesters, reflects the thoughts of his day with a curious completeness. … There is, however, another wide province of literature in which writers of the eighteenth century did work original in character and of permanent value. If the seventeenth century is the great age of dramatists and theologians, the eighteenth century was the age in which the critic, the essayist, the satirist, the novelist, and the moralist first appeared, or reached the highest mark. Criticism, though still in its infancy, first became an independent art with Addison. Addison and his various colleagues set the first example of that kind of social essay which is still popular. Satire had been practised in the preceding century, and in the hands of Dryden had become a formidable political weapon; but the social satire of which Pope was, and remains, the chief master, began with the century, and may be said to have expired with it, in spite of the efforts of Byron and Gifford. De Foe, Richardson, Fielding, and Smollett developed the modern novel out of very crude rudiments; and two of the greatest men of the century, Swift and Johnson, may be best described as practical moralists in a vein peculiar to the time. … The English novel, as the word is now understood, begins with De Foe. Though, like all other products of mind or body, it was developed out of previously existing material, and is related to the great family of stories with which men have amused themselves in all ages, it is, perhaps, as nearly an original creation as anything can be. The legends of saints which amused the middle ages, or the chivalrous romances which were popular throughout the seventeenth century, had become too unreal to amuse living human beings. De Foe made the discovery that a history might be equally interesting if the recorded events had never happened."

L. Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, chapter 12, sections 23-56 (volume 2).

"This so-called classic age of ours has long ceased to be regarded with that complacency which led the most flourishing part of it to adopt the epithet 'Augustan.' It will scarcely be denied by its greatest admirer, if he be a man of wide reading, that it cannot be ranked with the poorest of the five great ages of literature. Deficient in the highest intellectual beauty, in the qualities which awaken the fullest critical enthusiasm, the eighteenth century will be enjoyed more thoroughly by those who make it their special study than by those who skim the entire surface of literature. It has, although on the grand scale condemned as second-rate, a remarkable fulness and sustained richness which endear it to specialists. If it be compared, for instance, with the real Augustan age in Rome, or with the Spanish period of literary supremacy, it may claim to hold its own against these rivals in spite of their superior rank, because of its more copious interest. If it has neither a Horace nor a Calderon, it has a great extent and variety of writers just below these in merit, and far more numerous than what Rome or Spain can show during those blossoming periods. It is, moreover, fertile at far more points than either of these schools. This sustained and variegated success, at a comparatively low level of effort, strikes one as characteristic of an age more remarkable for persistent vitality than for rapid and brilliant growth. The Elizabethan vivida vis is absent, the Georgian glow has not yet dawned, but there is a suffused prosaic light of intelligence, of cultivated form, over the whole picture, and during the first half of the period, at least, this is bright enough to be very attractive. Perhaps, in closing, the distinguishing mark of eighteenth-century literature may be indicated as its mastery of prose as a vehicle for general thought."

_E. Gosse, The Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature (New Princeton Rev., July, 1888, page 21)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1703. The Methuen Treaty with Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1703; and SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704.

{916}

England: A. D. 1703. The Aylesbury election case.

"Ashby, a burgess of Aylesbury, sued the returning officer for maliciously refusing his vote. Three judges of the King's Bench decided, against the opinion of Chief Justice Holt, that the verdict which a jury had given in favor of Ashby must be set aside, as the action was not maintainable. The plaintiff went to the House of Lords upon a writ of error, and there the judgment was reversed by a large majority of Peers. The Lower House maintained that 'the qualification of an elector is not cognizable elsewhere than before the Commons of England'; that Ashby was guilty of a breach of privilege; and that all persons who should in future commence such an action, and all attorneys and counsel conducting the same, are also guilty of a high breach of privilege. The Lords, led by Somers, then came to counter-resolutions. … The prorogation of Parliament put an end to the quarrel in that Session; but in the next it was renewed with increased violence. The judgment against the Returning Officer was followed up by Ashby levying his damages. Other Aylesbury men brought new actions. The Commons imprisoned the Aylesbury electors. The Lords took strong measures that affected, or appeared to affect, the privileges of the Commons. The Queen finally stopped the contest by a prorogation; and the quarrel expired when the Parliament expired under the Triennial Act. Lord Somers 'established the doctrine which has been acted on ever since, that an action lies against a Returning Officer for maliciously refusing the vote of an elector.'"

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 5, chapter 17.

ALSO IN: Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors: Somers, chapter. 110 (volume 4).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1704-1707. Marlborough's campaigns in the War of the Spanish Succession. Campaigns in Spain.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704; SPAIN: A. D. 1703-1704, to 1707; NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1705, and 1706-1707.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1707. The Union with Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1707-1708. Hostility to the Union in Scotland. Spread of Jacobitism.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707-1708.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1708-1709. The War of the Spanish Succession: Oudenarde and Malplaquet.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1708-1709; and SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1709. The Barrier Treaty with Holland.

"The influence of the Whig party in the affairs of government in England, always irksome to the Queen, had now began visibly to decline; and the partiality she was suspected of entertaining for her brother, with her known dislike of the house of Hanover, inspired them with alarm, lest the Tories might seek still further to propitiate her favour, by altering, in his favour, the line of succession, as at present established. They had, accordingly, made it one of the preliminaries of the proposed treaty of peace, that the Protestant succession, in England, should be secured by a general guarantee, and now sought to repair, as far as possible, the failure caused by the unsuccessful termination of the conferences, by entering into a treaty to that effect with the States. The Marquis Townshend, accordingly, repaired for this purpose to the Hague, when the States consented to enter into an engagement to maintain the present succession to the crown, with their whole force, and to make the recognition of that succession, and the expulsion of the Pretender from France, an indispensable preliminary to any peace with that kingdom. In return for this important guarantee, England was to secure to the States a barrier, formed of the towns of Nieuport, Furnes and the fort of Knokke, Menin, Lille, Ryssel, Tournay, Conde, and Valenciennes, Maubeuge, Charleroi, Namur, Lier, Halle, and some forts, besides the citadels of Ghent and Dendermonde. It was afterwards asserted, in excuse for the dereliction from that treaty on the part of England, that Townshend had gone beyond his instructions; but it is quite certain that it was ratified without hesitation by the queen, whatever may have been her secret feelings regarding it."

_C. M. Davies, History of Holland, part 3, chapter 11 (volume 3 ). _ ENGLAND: A. D. 1710-1712. Opposition to the war. Trial of Sacheverell. Fall of the Whigs and Marlborough.

"A 'deluge of blood' such as that of Malplaquet increased the growing weariness of the war, and the rejection of the French offers was unjustly attributed to a desire on the part of Marlborough of lengthening out a contest which brought him profit and power. The expulsion of Harley and St. John [Bolingbroke] from the Ministry had given the Tories leaders of a more vigorous stamp, and St. John brought into play a new engine of political attack whose powers soon made themselves felt. In the Examiner, and in a crowd of pamphlets and periodicals which followed in its train, the humor of Prior, the bitter irony of Swift, and St. John's own brilliant sophistry spent themselves on the abuse of the war and of its general. … A sudden storm of popular passion showed the way in which public opinion responded to these efforts. A High-Church divine, Dr. Sacheverell, maintained the doctrine of non-resistance [the doctrine, that is, of passive obedience and non-resistance to government, implying a condemnation of the Revolution of 1688 and of the Revolution settlement], in a sermon at St. Paul's, with a boldness which deserved prosecution; but in spite of the warning of Marlborough and of Somers the Whig Ministers resolved on his impeachment. His trial in 1710 at once widened into a great party struggle, and the popular enthusiasm in Sacheverell's favor showed the gathering hatred of the Whigs and the war. … A small majority of the peers found him guilty, but the light sentence they inflicted was in effect an acquittal, and bonfires and illuminations over the whole country welcomed it as a Tory triumph. The turn of popular feeling freed Anne at once from the pressure beneath which she had bent; and the skill of Harley, whose cousin, Mrs. Masham, had succeeded the Duchess of Marlborough in the Queen's favor, was employed in bringing about the fall both of Marlborough and the Whig Ministers. … The return of a Tory House of Commons sealed his [Marlborough's] fate. His wife was dismissed from court. A masterly plan for a march into the heart of France in the opening of 1711 was foiled by the withdrawal of a part of his forces, and the negotiations which had for some time been conducted between the French and English Ministers without his knowledge marched rapidly to a close. … At the opening of 1712 the Whig majority of the House of Lords was swamped by the creation of twelve Tory peers. Marlborough was dismissed from his command, charged with peculation, and condemned as guilty by a vote of the House of Commons. He at once withdrew from England, and with his withdrawal all opposition to the peace was at an end."

J. R. Green, Short History of the English People, section 9, chapter 9.

{917}

Added to other reasons for opposition to the war, the death of the Emperor Joseph I., which occurred in April, 1711, had entirely reversed the situation in Europe out of which the war proceeded. The Archduke Charles, whom the allies had been striving to place on the Spanish throne, was now certain to be elected Emperor. He received the imperial crown, in fact, in December, 1711. By this change of fortune, therefore, he became a more objectionable claimant of the Spanish crown than Louis XIV. 's grandson had been.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

Earl Stanhope, History of England, Reign of Anne, chapters 12-15.

"Round the fall of Marlborough has gathered the interest attaching to the earliest political crisis at all resembling those of quite recent times. It is at this moment that Party Government in the modern sense actually commenced. William the Third with military instinct had always been reluctant to govern by means of a party. Bound as he was, closely, to the Whigs, he employed Tory Ministers. … The new idea of a homogeneous government was working itself into shape under the mild direction of Lord Somers; but the form finally taken under Sir Robert Walpole, which has continued to the present time, was as yet some way off. Marlborough's notions were those of the late King. Both abroad and at home he carried out the policy of William. He refused to rely wholly upon the Whigs, and the extreme Tories were not given employment. The Ministry of Godolphin was a composite administration, containing at one time, in 1705, Tories like Harley and St. John as well as Whigs such as Sunderland and Halifax. … Lord Somers was a type of statesman of a novel order at that time. … In the beginning of the eighteenth century it was rare to find a man attaining the highest political rank who was unconnected by birth or training or marriage with any of the great 'governing families,' as they have been called. Lord Somers was the son of a Worcester attorney. … It was fortunate for England that Lord Somers should have been the foremost man of the Whig party at the time when constitutional government, as we now call it, was in course of construction. By his prudent counsel the Whigs were guided through the difficult years at the end of Queen Anne's reign; and from the ordeal of seeing their rivals in power they certainly managed, as a party, to emerge on the whole with credit. Although he was not nominally their leader, the paramount influence in the Tory party was Bolingbroke's; and that the Tories suffered from the defects of his great qualities, no unprejudiced critic can doubt. Between the two parties, and at the head of the Treasury through the earlier years of the reign, stood Godolphin, without whose masterly knowledge of finance and careful attention to the details of administration Marlborough's policy would have been baffled and his campaigns remained unfought. To Godolphin, more than to any other one man, is due the preponderance of the Treasury control in public affairs. It was his administration, during the absence of Marlborough on the Continent, which created for the office of Lord Treasurer its paramount importance, and paved the way for Sir Robert Walpole's government of England under the title of First Lord of the Treasury. … Marlborough saw and always admitted that his victories were due in large measure to the financial skill of Godolphin. To this statesman's lasting credit it must be remembered that in a venal age, when the standards of public honesty were so different from those which now prevail, Godolphin died a poor man. … Bolingbroke is interesting to us as the most striking figure among the originators of the new parliamentary system. With Marlborough disappeared the type of Tudor statesmen modified by contact with the Stuarts. He was the last of the Imperial Chancellors. Bolingbroke and his successor Walpole were the earlier types of constitutional statesmen among whom Mr. Pitt and, later, Mr. Gladstone stand pre-eminent. … He and his friends, opponents of Marlborough, and contributors to his fall, are interesting to us mainly as furnishing the first examples of 'Her Majesty's Opposition,' as the authors of party government and the prototypes of cabinet ministers of to-day. Their ways of thought, their style of speech and of writing, may be dissimilar to those now in vogue, but they show greater resemblance to those of modern politicians than to those of the Ministers of William or of the Stuarts. Bolingbroke may have appeared a strange product of the eighteenth century to his contemporaries, but he would not have appeared peculiarly misplaced among the colleagues of Lord Randolph Churchill or Mr. Chamberlain."

R. B. Brett, Footprints of Statesmen, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, Memoirs of Marlborough, chapters 89-107.

W. Coxe, Memoirs of Walpole, volume 1, chapters 5-6.

_G. Saintsbury, Marlborough._

G. W. Cooke, Memoirs of Bolingbroke, volume 1, chapters 6-13.

_J. C. Collins, Bolingbroke._

A. Hassall, Life of Bolingbroke, chapter 3.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714. The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.

"The Test Act, making the reception of the Anglican Sacrament a necessary qualification for becoming a member of corporations, and for the enjoyment of most civil offices, was very efficacious in excluding Catholics, but was altogether insufficient to exclude moderate Dissenters. … Such men, while habitually attending their own places of worship, had no scruple about occasionally entering an Anglican church, or receiving the sacrament from an Anglican clergyman. The Independents, it is true, and some of the Baptists, censured this practice, and Defoe wrote vehemently against it, but it was very general, and was supported by a long list of imposing authorities. … In 1702, in 1703, and in 1704, measures for suppressing occasional conformity were carried through the Commons, but on each occasion they were defeated by the Whig preponderance in the Lords." In 1711, the Whigs formed a coalition with one section of the Tories to defeat the negotiations which led to the Peace of Utrecht; but the Tories "made it the condition of alliance that the Occasional Conformity Bill should be accepted by the Whigs. {918} The bargain was made; the Dissenters were abandoned, and, on the motion of Nottingham, a measure was carried providing that all persons in places of profit or trust, and all common councilmen in corporations, who, while holding office, were proved to have attended any Nonconformist place of worship, should forfeit the place, and should continue incapable of public employment till they should depose that for a whole year they had not attended a conventicle. The House of Commons added a fine of £40, which was to be paid to the informer, and with this addition the Bill became a law. Its effects during the few years it continued in force were very inconsiderable, for the great majority of conspicuous Dissenters remained in office, abstaining from public worship in conventicles, but having Dissenting ministers as private chaplains in their houses. … The object of the Occasional Conformity Bill was to exclude the Dissenters from all Government positions of power, dignity or profit. It was followed in 1714 by the Schism Act, which was intended to crush their seminaries and deprive them of the means of educating their children in their faith. … As carried through the House of Commons, it provided that no one, under pain of three months' imprisonment, should keep either a public or a private school, or should even act as tutor or usher, unless he had obtained a licence from the Bishop, had engaged to conform to the Anglican liturgy, and had received the sacrament in some Anglican church within the year. In order to prevent occasional conformity it was further provided that if a teacher so qualified were present at any other form of worship he should at once become liable to three months' imprisonment, and should be incapacitated for the rest of his life from acting as schoolmaster or tutor. … Some important clauses, however, were introduced by the Whig party qualifying its severity. They provided that Dissenters might have school-mistresses to teach their children to read; that the Act should not extend to any person instructing youth in reading, writing, or arithmetic, in any part of mathematics relating to navigation, or in any mechanical art only. … The facility with which this atrocious Act was carried, abundantly shows the danger in which religious liberty was placed in the latter years of the reign of Queen Anne."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century, chapter 1.

The Schism Act was repealed in 1719, during the administration of Lord Stanhope.

Cobbett's Parliamentary History, volume 7, pages 567-587.

ALSO IN: J. Stoughton, History of Religion in England, volume 5, chapters 14-16.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1713. Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession. The Peace of Utrecht. Acquisitions from Spain and France.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714; CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713; also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713; and SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1698-1776.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1713. Second Barrier Treaty with the Dutch.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1713-1714. The desertion of the Catalans.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1714. The end of the Stuart line and the beginning of the Hanoverians.

Queen Anne died, after a short illness, on the morning of August 1, 1714. The Tories, who had just gained control of the ministry, were wholly unprepared for this emergency. They assembled in Privy Council, on the 29th of July, when the probably fatal issue of the Queen's illness became apparent, and "a strange scene is said to have occurred. Argyle and Somerset, though they had contributed largely by their defection to the downfall of the Whig ministry of Godolphin, were now again in opposition to the Tories, and had recently been dismissed from their posts. Availing themselves of their rank of Privy Councillors, they appeared unsummoned in the council room, pleading the greatness of the emergency. Shrewsbury, who had probably concocted the scene, rose and warmly thanked them for their offer of assistance; and these three men appear to have guided the course of events. … Shrewsbury, who was already Chamberlain and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, became Lord Treasurer, and assumed the authority of Prime Minister. Summons were at once sent to all Privy Councillors, irrespective of party, to attend; and Somers and several other of the Whig leaders were speedily at their post. They had the great advantage of knowing clearly the policy they should pursue, and their measures were taken with admirable promptitude and energy. The guards of the Tower were at once doubled. Four regiments were ordered to march from the country to London, and all seamen to repair to their vessels. An embargo was laid on all shipping. The fleet was equipped, and speedy measures were taken to protect the seaports and to secure tranquility in Scotland and Ireland. At the same time despatches were sent to the Netherlands ordering seven of the ten British battalions to embark without delay; to Lord Strafford, the ambassador at the Hague, desiring the States-General to fulfil their guarantee of the Protestant succession in England; to the Elector, urging him to hasten to Holland, where, on the death of the Queen, he would be met by a British squadron, and escorted to his new kingdom." When the Queen's death occurred, "the new King was at once proclaimed, and it is a striking proof of the danger of the crisis that the funds, which had fallen on a false rumour of the Queen's recovery, rose at once when she died. Atterbury is said to have urged Bolingbroke to proclaim James III. at Charing Cross, and to have offered to head the procession in his lawn sleeves, but the counsel was mere madness, and Bolingbroke saw clearly that any attempt to overthrow the Act of Settlement would be now worse than useless. … The more violent spirits among the Jacobites now looked eagerly for a French invasion, but the calmer members of the party perceived that such an invasion was impossible. … The Regency Act of 1705 came at once into operation. The Hanoverian minister produced the sealed list of the names of those to whom the Elector entrusted the government before his arrival, and it was found to consist of eighteen names taken from the leaders of the Whig party. … Parliament, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, was at once summoned, and it was soon evident that there was nothing to fear. The moment for a restoration was passed."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century, chapter 1 (volume 1).

{919}

"George I., whom circumstances and the Act of Settlement had thus called to be King of Great Britain and Ireland, had been a sovereign prince for sixteen years, during which time he had been Elector of Brunswick-Lüneburg. He was the second who ever bore that title. By right of his father he was Elector; it was by right of his mother that he now became ruler of the United Kingdom. The father was Ernest Augustus, Sovereign Bishop of Osnaburg, who, by the death of his elder brothers, had become Duke of Hanover, and then Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg. In 1692 he was raised by the Emperor to the dignity of Elector. … The mother of George I. was Sophia, usually known as the Electress Sophia. The title was merely one of honour, and only meant wife of an Elector. … The Electress Sophia was the daughter of Elizabeth, daughter of King James I., and Frederick, the Elector Palatine [whose election to the throne of Bohemia and subsequent expulsion from that kingdom and from his Palatine dominions were the first acts in the Thirty Years' War]. … The new royal house in England is sometimes called the House of Hanover, sometimes the House of Brunswick. It will be found that the latter name is more generally used in histories written during the last century, the former in books written in the present day. If the names were equally applicable, the modern use is the more convenient, because there is another, and in some respects well known, branch of the House of Brunswick; but no other has a right to the name of Hanover. It is, however, quite certain that, whatever the English use may be, Hanover is properly the name of a town and of a duchy, but that the electorate was Brunswick-Lüneburg. … The House of Brunswick was of noble origin, tracing itself back to a certain Guelph d'Este, nicknamed 'the Robust,' son of an Italian nobleman, who had been seeking his fortunes in Germany. Guelph married Judith, widow of the English King, Harold, who fell on the hill of Senlac. … One of Guelph's descendants, later, married Maud, the daughter of King Henry II., probably the most powerful king in Europe of his day, at whose persuasion the Emperor conferred on the Guelphs the duchy of Brunswick."

E. E. Morris, The Early Hanoverians, book 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: P. M. Thornton, The Brunswick Accession, chapters 1-10.

Sir A. Halliday, Annals of the House of Hanover, book 10 (volume 2).

J. McCarthy, History of the Four Georges, chapters 1-4.

W. M. Thackeray, The Four Georges, lecture 1.

_A. W. Ward, The Electress Sophia and the Hanoverian Succession (English History Review, volume 1)._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1701, THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1714-1721. First years of George I. The rise of Walpole to power and the founding of Parliamentary Government.

"The accession of the house of Hanover in the person of the great-grandson of James I. was once called by a Whig of this generation the greatest miracle in our history. It took place without domestic or foreign disturbance. … Within our own borders a short lull followed the sharp agitations of the last six months. The new king appointed an exclusively Whig Ministry. The office of Lord Treasurer was not revived, and the title disappears from political history. Lord Townshend was made principal Secretary of State, and assumed the part of first Minister. Mr. Walpole [Sir Robert] took the subaltern office of paymaster of the forces, holding along with it the paymastership of Chelsea Hospital. Although he had at first no seat in the inner Council or Cabinet, which seems to have consisted of eight members, only one of them a commoner, it is evident that from the outset his influence was hardly second to that of Townshend himself. In little more than a year (October 1715) he had made himself so prominent and valuable in the House of Commons, that the opportunity of a vacancy was taken to appoint him to be First Commissioner of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. … Besides excluding their opponents from power, the Whigs instantly took more positive measures. The new Parliament was strongly Whig. A secret committee was at once appointed to inquire into the negotiations for the Peace. Walpole was chairman, took the lead in its proceedings, and drew the report." On Walpole's report, the House "directed the impeachment of Oxford, Bolingbroke, and Ormond for high treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanours mainly relating to the Peace of Utrecht. … The proceedings against Oxford and Bolingbroke are the last instance in our history of a political impeachment. They are the last ministers who were ever made personally responsible for giving bad advice and pursuing a discredited policy, and since then a political mistake has ceased to be a crime. … The affair came to an abortive end. … The opening years of the new reign mark one of the least attractive periods in political history. George I. … cared very little for his new kingdom, and knew very little about its people or its institutions. … His expeditions to Hanover threw the management of all domestic affairs almost without control into the hands of his English ministers. If the two first Hanoverian kings had been Englishmen instead of Germans, if they had been men of talent and ambition, or even men of strong and commanding will without much talent, Walpole would never have been able to lay the foundations of government by the House of Commons and by Cabinet so firmly that even the obdurate will of George III. was unable to overthrow it

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

Happily for the system now established, circumstances compelled the first two sovereigns of the Hanoverian line to strike a bargain with the English Whigs, and it was faithfully kept until the accession of the third George. The king was to manage the affairs of Hanover, and the Whigs were to govern England. It was an excellent bargain for England. Smooth as this operation may seem in historic description, Walpole found its early stages rough and thorny." The king was not easily brought to understand that England would not make war for Hanoverian objects, nor allow her foreign policy to be shaped by the ambitions of the Electorate. Differences arose which drove Townshend from the Cabinet, and divided the Whig party. Walpole retired from the government with Townshend, and was in opposition for three years, while Lord Stanhope and the Earl of Sunderland controlled the administration. The Whig schism came to an end in 1720, and Townshend and Walpole rejoined the administration, the latter as Paymaster of the Forces without a seat in the Cabinet. "His opposition was at an end, but he took no part in the active work of government. … Before many months had passed the country was overtaken by the memorable disasters of the South Sea Bubble.

See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.

{920}

All eyes were turned to Walpole. Though he had privately dabbled in South Sea stock on his own account, his public predictions came back to men's minds; they remembered that he had been called the best man for figures in the House, and the disgrace of' his most important colleagues only made his sagacity the more prominent. … He returned to his old posts, and once more became First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer (April 1721), while Townshend was again Secretary of State. Walpole held his offices practically without a break for twenty-one years. The younger Pitt had an almost equal span of unbroken supremacy, but with that exception there is no parallel to Walpole's long tenure of power. To estimate aright the vast significance of this extraordinary stability, we must remember that the country had just passed through eighty years of revolution. A man of 80 in 1721 could recall the execution of Charles I., the protectorate of Oliver, the fall of Richard Cromwell, the restoration of Charles II., the exile of James II., the change of the order of succession to William of Orange, the reactionary ministry of Anne, and finally the second change to the House of Hanover. The interposition, after so long a series of violent perturbations as this, of twenty years of settled system and continuous order under one man, makes Walpole's government of capital and decisive importance in our history, and constitutes not an artificial division like the reign of a king, but a true and definite period, with a beginning, an end, a significance, and a unity of its own."

J. Morley, Walpole, chapters 3-4.

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, chapters 9-21 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1715. The Jacobite rising.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1715.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1716. The Septennial Act.

The easy suppression of the Jacobite rebellion was far from putting an end to the fears of the loyal supporters of the Hanoverian dynasty. They regarded with especial anxiety the approaching Parliamentary elections. "As, by the existing statute of 6 William and Mary [the Triennial Act, of 1694], Parliament would be dissolved at the close of the year, and a new election held in the spring of 1717, there seemed great probability of a renewal of the contest, or at least of very serious riots during the election time. With this in view, the ministers proposed that the existing Parliament should be continued for a term of seven instead of three years. This, which was meant for a temporary measure, has never been repealed, and is still the law under which Parliaments are held. It has been often objected to this action of Parliament, that it was acting arbitrarily in thus increasing its own duration. 'It was a direct usurpation,' it has been said, 'of the rights of the people, analogous to the act of the Long Parliament in declaring itself indestructible.' It has been regarded rather as a party measure than as a forward step in liberal government. We must seek its vindication in the peculiar conditions of the time. It was useless to look to the constituencies for the support of the popular liberty. The return of members in the smaller boroughs was in the hands of corrupt or corruptible freemen; in the counties, of great landowners; in the larger towns, of small place-holders under Government. A general election in fact only gave fresh occasion for the exercise of the influence of the Crown and of the House of Lords—freedom and independence in the presence of these two permanent powers could be secured only by the greater permanence of the third element of the Legislature, the House of Commons. It was thus that, though no doubt in some degree a party measure for securing a more lengthened tenure of office to the Whigs, the Septennial Act received, upon good constitutional grounds, the support and approbation of the best statesmen of the time."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 3, page 938.

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, volume 1, chapter 6.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1717-1719. The Triple Alliance. The Quadruple Alliance. War with Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; also, ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1720. The South Sea Bubble.

See SOUTH SEA BUBBLE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1721-1742. Development of the Cabinet System of ministerial government.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1725. The Alliance of Hanover.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1726-1731. Fresh differences with Spain. Gibraltar besieged. The Treaty of Seville. The Second Treaty of Vienna.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1727. Accession of King George II.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1727-1741. Walpole's administration under George II.

"The management of public affairs during the six years of George the First's reign in which Walpole was Prime Minister, was easy. … His political fortunes seemed to be ruined by George the First's death [1727]. That King's successor had ransacked a very copious vocabulary of abuse, in order to stigmatise the minister and his associates. Rogue and rascal, scoundrel and fool, were his commonest utterances when Robert Walpole's name was mentioned. … Walpole bowed meekly to the coming storm," and an attempt was made to put Sir Spencer Compton in his place. But Compton himself, as well as the king and his sagacious queen, soon saw the futility of it, and the old ministry was retained. "At first, Walpole was associated with his brother-in-law, Townsend. But they soon disagreed, and the rupture was total after the death of Walpole's sister, Townsend's wife. … After Townsend's dismissal, Walpole reigned alone, if, indeed, he could be said to exercise sole functions while Newcastle was tied to him. Long before he was betrayed by this person, of whom he justly said that his name was perfidy, he knew how dangerous was the association. But Newcastle was the largest proprietor of rotten boroughs in the kingdom, and, fool and knave as he was, he had wit enough to guess at his own importance, and knavery enough to make his market. Walpole's chief business lay in managing the King, the Queen, the Church, the House of Commons, and perhaps the people. I have already said, that before his accession George hated Walpole. But there are hatreds and hatreds, equal in fervency while they last, but different in duration. The King hated Walpole because he had served his father well. But one George was gone, and another George was in possession. Then came before the man in possession the clear vision of Walpole's consummate usefulness. The vision was made clearer by the sagacious hints of the Queen. It became clear as noonday when Walpole contrived to add £115,000 to the civil list. … Besides, Walpole was sincerely determined to support the Hanoverian succession. He constantly insisted to George that the final settlement of his House on the throne would be fought out in England. … Hence he was able to check one of the King's ruling passions, a longing to engage in war. … {921} It is generally understood that Walpole managed the House of Commons by bribery; that the secret service money was thus employed: and that this minister was the father of that corruption which was reported to have disgraced the House during the first half of the last century. I suspect that these influences have been exaggerated. It is a stock story that Walpole said he knew every man's price. It might have been generally true, but the foundation of this apothegm is, in all likelihood, a recorded saying of his about certain members of the opposition. … Walpole has been designated, and with justice, as emphatically a peace minister. He held 'that the most pernicious circumstances in which this country can be, are those of war, as we must be great losers while the war lasts, and cannot be great gainers when it ends.' He kept George the Second at peace, as well as he could, by insisting on it that the safety of his dynasty lay in avoiding foreign embroilments. He strove in vain against the war which broke out in 1739. … I do not intend to disparage Walpole's administrative ability when I say that the country prospered independently of any financial policy which he adopted or carried out. … Walpole let matters take their course, for he understood that the highest merit of a minister consists in his doing no mischief. But Walpole's praise lies in the fact, that, with this evident growth of material prosperity, he steadily set his face against gambling with it. He resolved, as far as lay in his power, to keep the peace of Europe; and he was seconded in his efforts by Cardinal Fleury. He contrived to smooth away the difficulties which arose in 1727; and on January 13, 1730, negotiated the treaty of Seville [see SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731], the benefits of which lasted through ten years of peace, and under which he reduced the army to 5,000 men." But the opposition to Walpole's peace policy became a growing passion, which overcame him in 1741 and forced him to resign. On his resignation he was raised to the peerage, with the title of Earl of Orford, and defeated, though with great difficulty, the determination of his enemies to impeach him.

J. E. T. Rogers, Historical Gleanings, volume 1, chapter 2.

"It is impossible, I think, to consider his [Walpole's] career with adequate attention without recognising in him a great minister, although the merits of his administration were often rather negative than positive, and although it exhibits few of those dramatic incidents, and is but little susceptible of that rhetorical colouring, on which the reputation of statesmen largely depends. … He was eminently true to the character of his countrymen. He discerned with a rare sagacity the lines of policy most suited to their genius and to their needs, and he had a sufficient ascendancy in English politics to form its traditions, to give a character and a bias to its institutions. The Whig party, under his guidance, retained, though with diminished energy, its old love of civil and of religious liberty, but it lost its foreign sympathies, its tendency to extravagance, its military restlessness. The landed gentry, and in a great degree the Church, were reconciled to the new dynasty. The dangerous fissures which divided the English nation were filled up. Parliamentary government lost its old violence, it entered into a period of normal and pacific action, and the habits of compromise, of moderation, and of practical good sense, which are most essential to its success, were greatly strengthened. These were the great merits of Walpole. His faults were very manifest, and are to be attributed in part to his own character, but in a great degree to the moral atmosphere of his time. He was an honest man in the sense of desiring sincerely the welfare of his country and serving his sovereign with fidelity; but he was intensely wedded to power, exceedingly unscrupulous about the means of grasping or retaining it, and entirely destitute of that delicacy of honour which marks a high-minded man. … His estimate of political integrity was very similar to his estimate of female virtue. He governed by means of an assembly which was saturated with corruption, and he fully acquiesced in its conditions and resisted every attempt to improve it. … It is necessary to speak with much caution on this matter, remembering that no statesman can emancipate himself from the conditions of his time. … The systematic corruption of Members of Parliament is said to have begun under Charles II., in whose reign it was practised to the largest extent. It was continued under his successor, and the number of scandals rather increased than diminished after the Revolution. … And if corruption did not begin with Walpole, it is equally certain that it did not end with him. His expenditure of secret service money, large as it was, never equalled in an equal space of time the expenditure of Bute. … The real charge against him is that in a period of profound peace, when he exercised an almost unexampled ascendancy in politics, and when public opinion was strongly in favour of the diminution of corrupt influence in Parliament, he steadily and successfully resisted every attempt at reform. … It was his settled policy to maintain his Parliamentary majority, not by attracting to his ministry great orators, great writers, great financiers, or great statesmen, … but simply by engrossing borough influence and extending the patronage of the Crown."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter. 3 (volume 1).

"But for Sir Robert Walpole, we should have had the Pretender back again. But for his obstinate love of peace, we should have had wars, which the nation was not strong enough nor united enough to endure. But for his resolute counsels and good-humoured resistance, we might have had German despots attempting a Hanoverian regimen over us: we should have had revolt, commotion, want, and tyrannous misrule, in place of a quarter of a century of peace, freedom and material prosperity, such as the country never enjoyed, until that corrupter of parliaments, that dissolute tipsy cynic, that courageous lover of peace and liberty, that great citizen, patriot and statesman governed it. … In private life the old pagan revelled in the lowest pleasures: he passed his Sundays tippling at Richmond; and his holidays bawling after dogs, or boozing at Houghton with Boors over beef and punch. He cared for letters no more than his master did: he judged human nature so meanly that one is ashamed to have to own that he was right, and that men could be corrupted by means so base. But, with his hireling House of Commons, he defended liberty for us; with his incredulity he kept Church-craft down. … He gave Englishmen no conquests, but he gave them peace, and ease, and freedom; the Three per Cents. nearly at par; and wheat at five and six and twenty shillings a quarter."

W. M. Thackeray, The Four Georges, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole, chapters 31-59 (volume 1).

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 15-23 (volumes 2-3).

_Lord Hervey, Memoirs of the Reign of George II._

{922}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1731-1740. The question of the Austrian Succession. Guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1732. The grant of Georgia to General Oglethorpe.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1733. The first Bourbon Family Compact. Its hostility to Great Britain.

See FRANCE, A. D. 1733.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1733-1787 The great inventions which built up the Cotton Manufacture.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741. The War of Jenkins' Ear.

"In spite of Walpole's love of peace, and determined efforts to preserve it, in the year 1739 a war broke out with Spain, which is an illustration of the saying that the occasion of a war may be trifling, though its real cause be very serious. The war is often called the War of Jenkins' Ear. The story ran that eight years before (1731) a certain Captain Jenkins, skipper of the ship 'Rebecca,' of London, had been maltreated by the Spaniards. His ship was sailing from Jamaica, and hanging about the entrance of the Gulf of Florida, when it was boarded by the Spanish coast guard. The Spaniards could find no proof that Jenkins was smuggling, though they searched narrowly, and being angry at their ill-success they hanged him to the yardarm, lowering him just in time to save his life. At length they pulled off his ear and told him to take it to his king. … Seven years later Captain Jenkins was examined by the House of Commons, on which occasion some member asked him how he felt when being maltreated, and Jenkins answered, 'I recommended my soul to God and my cause to my country.' The answer, whether made at the time or prepared for use in the House of Commons, touched a chord of sympathy, and soon was circulated through the country. 'No need of allies now,' said one politician; 'the story of Jenkins will raise us volunteers.' The truth of the matter is that this story from its somewhat ridiculous aspect has remained in the minds of men, but that it is only a specimen of many stories then afloat, all pointing to insolence of Spaniards in insisting upon what was after all strictly within their rights. But the legal treaty rights of Spain were growing intolerable to Englishmen, though not necessarily to the English Government; and traders and sailors were breaking the international laws which practically stopped the expansion of England in the New World. The war arose out of a question of trade, in this as in so many other cases the English being prepared to fight in order to force an entrance for their trade, which the Spaniards wished to shut out from Spanish America. This question found a place amongst the other matters arranged by the treaty of Utrecht, when the English obtained almost as their sole return for their victories what was known as the Assiento. This is a Spanish word meaning contract, but its use had been for some time confined to the disgraceful privilege of providing Spanish America with negroes kidnapped from their homes in Africa. The Flemings, the Genoese, the Portuguese, and the French Guinea Company received in turn from Spanish kings the monopoly in this shameful traffic, which at the treaty of Utrecht was passed on for a period of thirty years to England, now becoming mistress of the seas, and with her numerous merchant ships better able than others to carry on the business. The English Government committed the contract to the South Sea Company, and the number of negroes to be supplied annually was no less than 4,800 'sound, healthy, merchantable negroes, two-thirds to be male, none under ten or over forty years old.' In the Assiento Treaty there was also a provision for the trading of one English ship each year with Spanish America; but in order to prevent too great advantage therefrom it was carefully stipulated that the ship should not exceed 600 tons burden. There is no doubt that this stipulation was regularly violated by the English sending a ship of the required number of tons, but with it numerous tenders and smaller craft. Moreover smuggling, being very profitable, became common; it was of this smuggling that Captain Jenkins was accused. … Walpole, always anxious for peace, by argument, by negotiation, by delays, resisted the growing desire for war; at length he could resist no longer. For the sake of his reputation he should have resigned office, but he had enjoyed power too long to be ready to yield it, and most unwisely he allowed himself to be forced into a declaration of war October 19, 1739. The news was received throughout England with a perfect frenzy of delight. … A year and a day after this declaration of war an event occurred—the death of the Emperor—which helped to swell the volume of this war until it was merged into the European war, called the War of the Austrian Succession, which includes within itself the First and Second Silesian Wars, between Austria and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The European war went on until the general pacification in the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 1748. Within another ten years war broke out again on somewhat similar grounds, but on a much wider scale and with the combatants differently arranged, under the title 'Seven Years' War.' The events of this year, whilst the war was only between Spain and England, were the attacks on Spanish settlements in America, the capture of Porto Bello, and the failure before Cartagena, which led to Anson's famous voyage."

E. E. Morris, The Early Hanoverians, book 2, chapter 3.

"Admiral Vernon, setting sail with the English fleet from Jamaica, captured Porto Bello, on the Isthmus of Darien, December 1st—an exploit for which he received the thanks of both Houses of Parliament. His attempt on Carthagena, in the spring of 1741, proved, however, a complete failure through his dissensions, it is said, with General Wentworth, the commander of the land forces. A squadron, under Commodore Anson, despatched to the South Sea for the purpose of annoying the Spanish colonies of Peru and Chili, destroyed the Peruvian town of Paita, and made several prizes; the most important of which was one of the great Spanish galleons trading between Acapulco and Manilla, having a large treasure on board. It was on this occasion that Anson circumnavigated the globe, having sailed from England in 1740 and returned to Spithead in 1744."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 6, chapter 3.

{923}

ALSO IN: _R. Walter, Voyage around the World of George Anson._

Sir J. Barrow, Life of Lord George Anson, chapter 1-2.

W. Coxe, Memoirs of the Bourbon Kings of Spain, chapter 43 (volume 3).

See, also, FRANCE, A. D. 1733, and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1740-1741. Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1742. Naval operations in the Mediterranean.

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745. Ministries of Carteret and the Pelhams, Pitt's admission to the Cabinet.

"Walpole resigned in the beginning of February, 1742; but his retirement did not bring Pitt into office. The King had conceived a violent prejudice against him, not only on account of the prominent and effective part he had taken in the general assault upon the late administration, but more especially in consequence of the strong opinions he had expressed on the subject of Hanover, and respecting the public mischiefs arising from George the Second's partiality to the interests of the Electorate. Lord Wilmington was the nominal head of the new administration, which was looked on as little more than a weak continuation of Walpole's. The same character was generally given to Pelham's ministry, (Pelham succeeded Wilmington as Premier, on the death of the latter in 1743,) and Pitt soon appeared in renewed opposition to the Court. It was about this time that he received a creditable and convenient addition to his private fortune, which also attested his celebrity. In 1744, the celebrated Duchess of Marlborough died, leaving him a legacy' of 10,000 l. on account of his merit in the noble defence he has made of the laws of England, to prevent the ruin of his country.' Pitt was now at the head of a small but determined band of Opposition statesmen, with whom he was also connected by intermarriages between members of their respective families and his own. These were Lord Cobham, the Grenvilles, and his schoolfellow Lord Lyttelton. The genius of Pitt had made the opposition of this party so embarrassing to the minister, that Mr. Pelham, the leader of the House of Commons, and his brother, the Duke of Newcastle, found it necessary to get rid of Lord Carteret, who was personally most obnoxious to the attacks of Pitt, on account of his supposed zeal in favour of the King's Hanoverian policy. Pitt's friends, Lyttelton and Grenville, were taken into the ministry [called the Broad-bottomed Administration], and the undoubted wish of the Pelhams was to enlist Pitt also among their colleagues. But 'The great Mr. Pitt,' says old Horace Walpole—using in derision an epithet soon confirmed by the serious voice of the country—'the great Mr. Pitt insisted on being Secretary at War';—but it was found that the King's aversion to him was insurmountable; and after much reluctance and difficulty, his friends were persuaded to accept office without him, under an assurance from the Duke of Newcastle that 'he should at no distant day be able to remove this prejudice from his Majesty's mind.' Pitt concurred in the new arrangement, and promised to give his support to the remodelled administration. … On the breaking out of the rebellion of 1745, Pitt energetically supported the ministry in their measures to protect the established government. George the Second's prejudices against him, were, however, as strong as ever. At last a sort of compromise was effected. Pitt waived for a time his demand of the War Secretaryship, and on the 22nd of February, 1746, he was appointed one of the joint Vice-treasurers for Ireland; and on the 6th of May following he was promoted to the more lucrative office of Paymaster-General of the Forces. … In his office of Paymaster of the Forces Pitt set an example then rare among statesmen, of personal disinterestedness. He held what had hitherto been an exceedingly lucrative situation: for the Paymaster seldom had less than 100,000 l. in his hands, and was allowed to appropriate the interest of what funds he held to his own use. In addition to this it had been customary for foreign princes in the pay of England to allow the Paymaster of the Forces a per-centage on their subsidies. Pitt nobly declined to avail himself of these advantages, and would accept of nothing beyond his legal salary."

Sir E. Creasy, Memoirs of Eminent Etonians, chapter 4.

"From Walpole's death in 1745, when the star of the Stuarts set for ever among the clouds of Culloden, to 1754, when Henry Pelham followed his old chief, public life in England was singularly calm and languid. The temperate and peaceful disposition of the Minister seemed to pervade Parliament. At his death the King exclaimed: 'Now I shall have no more peace'; and the words proved to be prophetic. Both in Parliament and in the country, as well as beyond its shores, the elements of discord were swiftly at war. Out of conflicting ambitions and widely divergent interests a new type of statesman, very different from Walpole, or from Bolingbroke, or from Pelham, or from the 'hubble-bubble Newcastle,' was destined to arise. And along with the new statesman a new force, of which he was in part the representative, in part the creator, was to be introduced into political life. This new force was the unrepresented voice of the people. The new statesman was an ex-cornet of horse, William Pitt, better known as Lord Chatham. The characteristics of William Pitt which mainly influenced his career were his ambition and his ill-health. Power, and that conspicuous form of egotism called personal glory, were the objects of his life. He pursued them with all the ardour of a strong-willed purpose; but the flesh was in his case painfully weak. Gout had declared itself his foe while he was still an Eton boy. His failures, and prolonged withdrawal at intervals from public affairs, were due to the inroads of this fatal enemy, from whom he was destined to receive his death-blow. Walpole had not been slow to recognise the quality of this 'terrible cornet of horse,' as he called him."

R. B. Brett, Footprints of Statesmen, chapter 7.

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 24-28 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1743. The British Pragmatic Army. Battle of Dettingen.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER). The second Bourbon Family Compact.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1743-1752. Struggle of French and English for supremacy in India. The founding of British empire by Clive.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1744-1745. War of the Austrian Succession: Hostilities in America.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744: and 1745.

{924}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1745 (MAY). War of the Austrian Succession in the Netherlands. Fontenoy.

See NETHERLANDS (THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCES): A. D. 1745.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1746. The Young Pretender's invasion. Last rising of the Jacobites.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747. War of the Austrian Succession British incapacity. Final successes at Sea.

"The extraordinary incapacity of English commanders, both by land and sea, is one of the most striking facts in the war we are considering. … Mismanagement and languor were general. The battle of Dettingen was truly described as a happy escape rather than a great victory; the army in Flanders can hardly be said to have exhibited any military quality except courage, and the British navy, though it gained some successes, added little to its reputation. The one brilliant exception was the expedition of Anson round Cape Horn, for the purpose of plundering the Spanish merchandise and settlements in the Pacific. It lasted for nearly four years. … The overwhelming superiority of England upon the sea began, however, gradually to influence the war. The island of Cape Breton, which commanded the mouth of Gulf St. Lawrence, and protected the Newfoundland fisheries, was captured in the June of 1745. In 1747 a French squadron was destroyed by a very superior English fleet off Cape Finisterre. Another was defeated near Belleisle, and in the same year as many as 644 prizes were taken. The war on the part of the English, however, was most efficiently conducted by means of subsidies, which were enormously multiplied."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century, chapter 3 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1746-1747. War of the Austrian Succession in Italy. Siege of Genoa.

See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1748 (OCTOBER). End and results of the War of the Austrian Succession.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748; and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1748-1754. First movements to dispute possession of the Ohio Valley with the French.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1749-1755. Unsettled boundary disputes with France in America. Preludes of the final contest.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753; and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1751. Reformation of the Calendar.

See CALENDAR, GREGORIAN.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1753. The Jewish Naturalization Bill.

See JEWS: A. D. 1662-1753.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1754. Collision with the French in the Ohio Valley.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755. The Seven Years War. Its causes and provocations.

"The seven years that succeeded the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle are described by Voltaire as among the happiest that Europe ever enjoyed. Commerce revived, the fine arts flourished, and the European nations resembled, it is said, one large family that had been reunited after its dissensions. Unfortunately, however, the peace had not exterminated all the elements of discord. Scarcely had Europe begun to breathe again when new disputes arose, and the seven years of peace and prosperity were succeeded by another seven of misery and war. The ancient rivalry between France and England, which had formerly vented itself in continental struggles, had, by the progress of maritime discovery and colonisation, been extended to all the quarters of the globe. The interests of the two nations came into collision in India, Africa and America, and a dispute about boundaries in this last quarter again plunged them into a war. By the 9th article of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, France and England were mutually to restore their conquests in such state as they were before the war. This clause became a copious source of quarrel. The principal dispute regarded the limits of Acadia, or Nova Scotia, which province had, by the 12th article of the Treaty of Utrecht, been ceded to England 'conformably to its ancient boundaries'; but what these were had never been accurately determined, and each Power fixed them according to its convenience. Thus, while the French pretended that Nova Scotia embraced only the peninsula extending from Cape St. Mary to Cape Canseau, the English further included in it that part of the American continent which extends to Pentagoet on the west, and to the river St. Lawrence on the north, comprising all the province of New Brunswick. Another dispute regarded the western limits of the British North American settlements. The English claimed the banks of the Ohio as belonging to Virginia, the French as forming part of Louisiana; and they attempted to confine the British colonies by a chain of forts stretching from Louisiana to Canada. Commissaries were appointed to settle these questions, who held their conferences at Paris between the years 1750 and 1755. Disputes also arose respecting the occupation by the French of the islands of St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago, which had been declared neutral by former treaties. Before the Commissaries could terminate their labours, mutual aggressions had rendered a war inevitable. As is usual in such cases, it is difficult to say who was the first aggressor. Each nation laid the blame on the other. Some French writers assert that the English resorted to hostilities out of jealousy at the increase of the French navy. According to the plans of Rouillé, the French Minister of Marine, 111 ships of the line, 54 frigates, and smaller vessels in proportion, were to be built in the course of ten years. The question of boundaries was, however, undoubtedly the occasion, if not also the true cause, of the war. A series of desultory conflicts had taken place along the Ohio, and on the frontiers of Nova Scotia, in 1754, without being avowed by the mother countries. A French writer, who flourished about this time, the Abbé Raynal, ascribes "this clandestine warfare to the policy of the Court of Versailles, which was seeking gradually to recover what it had lost by treaties. Orders were now issued to the English fleet to attack French vessels wherever found. … It being known that a considerable French fleet was preparing to sail from Brest and Rochefort for America, Admiral Boscawen was despatched thither, and captured two French men-of-war off Cape Race in Newfoundland, June 1755. Hostilities were also transferred to the shores of Europe. … A naval war between England and France was now unavoidable; but, as in the case of the Austrian Succession, this was also to be mixed up with a European war. {925} The complicated relations of the European system again caused these two wars to run into one, though their origin had nothing in common. France and England, whose quarrel lay in the New World, appeared as the leading Powers in a European contest in which they had only a secondary interest, and decided the fate of Canada on the plains of Germany. The war in Europe, commonly called the Seven Years' War, was chiefly caused by the pride of one Empress [Maria Theresa], the vanity of another [Elizabeth of Russia], and the subserviency of a royal courtezan [Madame Pompadour], who became the tool of these passions."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 6, chapter 5 (volume 3).

"The Seven Years' War was in its origin not an European war at all; it was a war between England and France on Colonial questions with which the rest of Europe had nothing to do; but the alliances and enmities of England and France in Europe, joined with the fact that the King of England was also Elector of Hanover, made it almost certain that a war between England and France must spread to the Continent. I am far from charging on the English Government of the time—for it was they, and not the French, who forced on the war—as Macaulay might do, the blood of the Austrians who perished at Leuthen, of the Russians sabred at Zorndorf, and the Prussians mown down at Kunersdorf. The States of the Continent had many old enmities not either appeased or fought out to a result; and these would probably have given rise to a war some day, even if no black men, to adapt Macaulay again, had been previously fighting on the coast of Coromandel, nor red men scalping each other by the great lakes of North America. Still, it is to be remembered that it was the work of England that the war took place then and on those lines; and in view of the enormous suffering and slaughter of that war, and of the violent and arbitrary proceedings by which it was forced on, we may well question whether English writers have any right to reprobate Frederick's seizure of Silesia as something specially immoral in itself and disastrous to the world. If the Prussians were highway robbers, the English were pirates. … The origin of the war between England and France, if a struggle which had hardly been interrupted since the nominal peace could be said to have an origin, was the struggle for America."

A. R. Ropes, The Causes of the Seven Years' War (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, new series, volume 4).

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 31-32 (volume 4).

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapters 1-7.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756; CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753; and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (APRIL). Demand of the royal governors in America for taxation of the colonies by act of Parliament.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1755.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JUNE). Boscawen's naval victory over the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (JULY). Braddock's defeat in America.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER). Victory at Lake George.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1756. Loss of Minorca and reverses in America.

See MINORCA: A. D. 1756; and CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1759. Campaigns on the Continent. Defence of Hanover.

See GERMANY: A D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), to 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760. The great administration of the elder Pitt.

"In 1754 Henry Pelham died. The important consequence of his death was the fact that it gave Pitt at last an opportunity of coming to the front. The Duke of Newcastle, Henry Pelham's brother, became leader of the administration, with Henry Fox for Secretary at War, Pitt for Paymaster-general of the Forces, and Murray, afterwards to be famous as Lord Mansfield, for Attorney-general. There was some difficulty about the leadership of the House of Commons. Pitt was still too much disliked by the King, to be available for the position. Fox for a while refused to accept it, and Murray was unwilling to do anything which might be likely to withdraw him from the professional path along which he was to move to such distinction. An attempt was made to get on with a Sir Thomas Robinson, a man of no capacity for such a position, and the attempt was soon an evident failure. Then Fox consented to take the position on Newcastle's own terms, which were those of absolute submission to the dictates of Newcastle. Later still he was content to descend to a subordinate office which did not even give him a place in the Cabinet. Fox never recovered the damage which his reputation and his influence suffered by this amazing act. … The Duke of Newcastle's Ministry soon fell. Newcastle was not a man who had the slightest capacity for controlling or directing a policy of war; and the great struggle known as the Seven Years' War had now broken out. One lamentable event in the war has to be recorded, although it was but of minor importance. This was the capture of Minorca by the French under the romantic, gallant, and profligate Duc de Richelieu. The event is memorable chiefly, or only, because it was followed by the trial and execution [March 14, 1757] of the unfortunate Admiral Byng.

See MINORCA: A. D. 1756.

The Duke of Newcastle resigned office, and for a short time the Duke of Devonshire was at the head of a coalition Ministry which included Pitt. The King, however, did not stand this long, and one day suddenly turned them all out of office. Then a coalition of another kind was formed, which included Newcastle and Pitt, with Henry Fox in the subordinate position of paymaster. Pitt now for the first time had it all his own way. He ruled everything in the House of Commons. He flung himself with passionate and patriotic energy into the alliance with that great Frederick whose genius and daring were like his own."

Justin McCarthy, History of the Four Georges, volume 2, chapter 41.

"Newcastle took the Treasury. Pitt was Secretary of State, with the lead in the House of Commons, and with the supreme direction of the war and of foreign affairs. Fox, the only man who could have given much annoyance to the new Government, was silenced with the office of Paymaster, which, during the continuance of that war, was probably the most lucrative place in the whole Government. He was poor, and the situation was tempting. … The first acts of the new administration were characterized rather by vigour than by judgment. Expeditions were sent against different parts of the French coast with little success. … But soon conquests of a very different kind filled the kingdom with pride and rejoicing. A succession of victories undoubtedly brilliant, and, as it was thought, not barren, raised to the highest point the fame of the minister to whom the conduct of the war had been intrusted. {926} In July, 1758, Louisburg fell. The whole island of Cape Breton was reduced. The fleet to which the Court of Versailles had confided the defence of French America was destroyed. The captured standards were borne in triumph from Kensington Palace to the city, and were suspended in St. Paul's Church, amidst the roar of guns and kettle-drums, and the shouts of an immense multitude. Addresses of congratulation came in from all the great towns of England. Parliament met only to decree thanks and monuments, and to bestow, without one murmur, supplies more than double of those which had been given during the war of the Grand Alliance. The year 1759 opened with the conquest of Goree. Next fell Guadaloupe; then Ticonderoga; then Niagara. The Toulon squadron was completely defeated by Boscawen off Cape Lagos. But the greatest exploit of the year was the achievement of Wolfe on the heights of Abraham. The news of his glorious death and of the fall of Quebec reached London in the very week in which the Houses met. All was joy and triumph. Envy and faction were forced to join in the general applause. Whigs and Tories vied with each other in extolling the genius and energy of Pitt. His colleagues were never talked of or thought of. The House of Commons, the nation, the colonies, our allies, our enemies, had their eyes fixed on him alone. Scarcely had Parliament voted a monument to Wolfe when another great event called for fresh rejoicings. The Brest fleet, under the command of Conflans, had put out to sea. It was overtaken by an English squadron under Hawke. Conflans attempted to take shelter close under the French coast. The shore was rocky: the night was black: the wind was furious: the waves of the Bay of Biscay ran high. But Pitt had infused into every branch of the service a spirit which had long been unknown. No British seaman was disposed to err on the same side with Byng. The pilot told Hawke that the attack could not be made without the greatest danger. 'You have done your duty in remonstrating,' answered Hawke; 'I will answer for everything. I command you to lay me alongside the French admiral.' Two French ships of the line struck. Four were destroyed. The rest hid themselves in the rivers of Brittany. The year 1760 came; and still triumph followed triumph. Montreal was taken; the whole Province of Canada was subjugated; the French fleets underwent a succession of disasters in the seas of Europe and America. In the meantime conquests equalling in rapidity, and far surpassing in magnitude, those of Cortes and Pizarro, had been achieved in the East. In the space of three years the English had founded a mighty empire. The French had been defeated in every part of India. Chandernagore had surrendered to Clive, Pondicherry to Coote. Throughout Bengal, Bahar, Orissa and the Carnatic, the authority of the East India Company was more absolute than that of Acbar or Aurungzebe had ever been. On the continent of Europe the odds were against England. We had but one important ally, the King of Prussia; and he was attacked, not only by France, but also by Russia and Austria. Yet even on the Continent, the energy of Pitt triumphed over all difficulties. Vehemently as he had condemned the practice of subsidising foreign princes, he now carried that practice farther than Carteret himself would have ventured to do. The active and able Sovereign of Prussia received such pecuniary assistance as enabled him to maintain the conflict on equal terms against his powerful enemies. On no subject had Pitt ever spoken with so much eloquence and ardour as on the mischiefs of the Hanoverian connection. He now declared, not without much show of reason, that it would be unworthy of the English people to suffer their King to be deprived of his electoral dominions in an English quarrel. He assured his countrymen that they should be no losers, and that he would conquer America for them in Germany. By taking this line he conciliated the King, and lost no part of his influence with the nation. In Parliament, such was the ascendeney which his eloquence, his success, his high situation, his pride, and his intrepidity had obtained for him, that he took liberties with the House of which there had been no example, and which have never since been imitated. … The face of affairs was speedily changed. The invaders [of Hanover] were driven out. … In the meantime, the nation exhibited all the signs of wealth and prosperity. … The success of our arms was perhaps owing less to the skill of his [Pitt's] dispositions than to the national resources and the national spirit. But that the national spirit rose to the emergency, that the national resources were contributed with unexampled cheerfulness, this was undoubtedly his work. The ardour of his soul had set the whole kingdom on fire. … The situation which Pitt occupied at the close of the reign of George the Second was the most enviable ever occupied by any public man in English history. He had conciliated the King; he domineered over the House of Commons; he was adored by the people; he was admired by all Europe. He was the first Englishman of his time; and he had made England the first country in the world. The Great Commoner, the name by which he was often designated, might look down with scorn on coronets and garters. The nation was drunk with joy and pride."

_Lord Macaulay, First Essay on William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (Essays, volume 3)._

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 33-36 (volume 4).

Sir E. Creasy, Memoirs of Eminent Etonians, chapter 4.

England: A. D. 1758 (JUNE-AUGUST). The Seven Years War. Abortive expeditions against the coast of France.

Early in 1758 there was sent out "one of those joint military and naval expeditions which Pitt seems at first to have thought the proper means by which England should assist in a continental war. Like all such isolated expeditions, it was of little value. St. Malo, against which it was directed, was found too strong to be taken, but a large quantity of shipping and naval stores was destroyed. The fleet also approached Cherbourg, but although the troops were actually in their boats ready to land, they were ordered to re-embark, and the fleet came home. Another somewhat similar expedition was sent out later in the year. In July General Bligh and Commodore Howe took and destroyed Cherbourg, but on attempting a similar assault on St. Malo they found it too strong for them. The army had been landed in the Bay of St. Cast, and, while engaged in re-embarkation, it was attacked by some French troops which had been hastily collected, and severely handled."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 3, page 1027.

{927}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-NOVEMBER). The Seven Years War in America: Final capture of Louisbourg and recovery of Fort Duquesne. Bloody defeat at Ticonderoga.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758; and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1758-1761. Breaking of French power in India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1759. Great victories in America. Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point, Quebec.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1759 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER). British naval supremacy established. Victories off Lagos and in Quiberon Bay.

"Early in the year [1759] the French had begun to make preparations for an invasion of the British Isles on a large scale. Flat-bottomed boats were built at Havre and other places along the coasts of Normandy and Brittany, and large fleets were collected at Brest and Toulon, besides a small squadron at Dunkirk. A considerable force was assembled at Vannes in the south of Brittany, under the command of the Duc d'Aiguillon, which was to be convoyed to the Irish coasts by the combined fleets of Brest and Toulon, while the flat-bottomed boats transported a second army across the channel under cover of a dark night. The Dunkirk squadron, under Admiral Thurot, a celebrated privateer, was to create a diversion by attacking some part of the Scotch coast. The design was bold and well contrived, and would not improbably have succeeded three or even two years before, but the opportunity was gone. England was no longer in 'that enervate state in which 20,000 men from France could shake her.' Had a landing been effected, the regular troops in the country, with the support of the newly created militia, would probably have been equal to the emergency; but a more effectual bulwark was found in the fleet, which watched the whole French coast, ready to engage the enemy as soon as he ventured out of his ports. The first attempt to break through the cordon was made by M. de la Clue from Toulon. The English Mediterranean fleet, under Admiral Boscawen, cruising before that port, was compelled early in July to retire to Gibraltar to take in water and provisions and to refit some of' the ships. Hereupon M. de la Clue put to sea, and hugging the African coast, passed the straits without molestation. Boscawen, however, though his ships were not yet refitted, at once gave chase, and came up with the enemy off [Lagos, on] the coast of Portugal, where an engagement took place [August 18], in which three French ships were taken and two driven on shore and burnt. The remainder took refuge in Cadiz, where they were blockaded till the winter, when, the English fleet being driven off the coast by a storm, they managed to get back to Toulon. The discomfiture of the Brest fleet, under M. de Conflans, was even more complete. On November 9 Admiral Sir Edward Hawke, who had blockaded Brest all the summer and autumn, was driven from his post by a violent gale, and on the 14th, Conflans put to sea with 21 sail of the line and 4 frigates. On the same day, Hawke, with 22 sail of the line, stood out from Torbay, where he had taken shelter, and made sail for Quiberon Bay, judging that Conflans would steer thither to liberate a fleet of transports which were blocked up in the river Morbihan, by a small squadron of frigates under Commodore Duff. On the morning of the 20th, he sighted the French fleet chasing Duff in Quiberon Bay. Conflans, when he discerned the English, recalled his chasing ships and prepared for action; but on their nearer approach changed his mind, and ran for shelter among the shoals and rocks of the coast. The sea was running mountains high and the coast was very dangerous and little known to the English, who had no pilots; but Hawke, whom no peril could daunt, never hesitated a moment, but crowded all sail after them. Without regard to lines of battle, every ship was directed to make the best of her way towards the enemy, the admiral telling his officers he was for the old way of fighting, to make downright work with them. In consequence many of the English ships never got into action at all; but the short winter day was wearing away, and all haste was needed if the enemy were not to escape. … As long as daylight lasted the battle raged with great fury, so near the coast that '10,000 persons on the shore were the sad spectators of the white flag's disgrace.' … By nightfall two French ships, the Thésée 74, and Superb 70, were sunk, and two, the Formidable 80, and the Héros 74, had struck. The Soleil Royal afterwards went aground, but her crew escaped, as did that of the Héros, whose captain dishonourably ran her ashore in the night. Of the remainder, seven ships of the line and four frigates threw their guns overboard, and escaped up the river Vilaine, where most of them bumped their bottoms out in the shallow water; the rest got away and took shelter in the Charente, all but one, which was wrecked, but very few ever got out again. With two hours more of daylight Hawke thought he could have taken or destroyed all, as he was almost up with the French van when night overtook him. Two English ships, the Essex 64, and the Resolution 74, went ashore in the night and could not be got off, but the crews were saved, and the victory was won with the loss of 40 killed and 200 wounded. The great invasion scheme was completely wrecked. Thurot had succeeded in getting out from Dunkirk, and for some months was a terror to the northern coast-towns, but early in the following year an end was put to his career. For the rest of the war the French never ventured to meet the English in battle on the high seas, and could only look on helplessly while their colonies and commerce fell into the hands of their rivals. From the day of the fight in Quiberon Bay, the naval and commercial supremacy of England was assured."

F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years War, chapter 12, section 3.

ALSO IN: C. D. Yonge, History of the British Navy, volume 1, chapter 12.

J. Entick, History of the late War, volume 4, pages 241-290.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760. Completed conquest of Canada. Successes of the Prussians and their allies.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760; and GERMANY: A. D. 1760.

{928}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763. Accession of George III. His ignorance and his despotic notions of kingship. Retirement of the elder Pitt. Rise and fall of Bute. The Grenville Ministry.

"When George III. came to the throne, in 1760, England had been governed for more than half a century by the great Whig families which had been brought into the foreground by the revolution of 1688. … Under Walpole's wise and powerful sway, the first two Georges had possessed scarcely more than the shadow of sovereignty. It was the third George's ambition to become a real king, like the king of France or the king of Spain. From earliest babyhood, his mother had forever been impressing upon him the precept, 'George be king!' and this simple lesson had constituted pretty much the whole of his education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant king that ever sat upon the English throne; and so far as general culture is concerned, this opinion is undoubtedly correct. … Nevertheless … George III. was not destitute of a certain kind of ability, which often gets highly rated in this not too clear-sighted world. He could see an immediate end very distinctly, and acquired considerable power from the dogged industry with which he pursued it. In an age where some of the noblest English statesmen drank their gallon of strong wine daily, or sat late at the gambling-table, or lived in scarcely hidden concubinage, George III. was decorous in personal habits and pure in domestic relations, and no banker's clerk in London applied himself to the details of business more industriously than he. He had a genuine talent for administration, and he devoted this talent most assiduously to selfish ends. Scantily endowed with human sympathy, and almost boorishly stiff in his ordinary unstudied manner, he could be smooth as oil whenever he liked. He was an adept in gaining men's confidence by a show of interest, and securing their aid by dint of fair promises; and when he found them of no further use, he could turn them adrift with wanton insult. Anyone who dared to disagree with him upon even the slightest point of policy he straightway regarded as a natural enemy, and pursued him ever afterward with vindictive hatred. As a natural consequence, he surrounded himself with weak and short-sighted advisers, and toward all statesmen of broad views and independent character he nursed the bitterest rancour. … Such was the man who, on coming to the throne in 1760, had it for his first and chiefest thought to break down the growing system of cabinet government in England."

J. Fiske, The American Revolution, chapter 1 (volume 1).

"The dissolution of Parliament, shortly after his accession, afforded an opportunity of strengthening the parliamentary connection of the king's friends. Parliament was kept sitting while the king and Lord Bute were making out lists of the court candidates, and using every exertion to secure their return. The king not only wrested government boroughs from the ministers, in order to nominate his own friends, but even encouraged opposition to such ministers as he conceived not to be in his interest. … Lord Bute, the originator of the new policy, was not personally well qualified for its successful promotion. He was not connected with the great families who had acquired a preponderance of political influence; he was no parliamentary debater: his manners were unpopular: he was a courtier rather than a politician: his intimate relations with the Princess of Wales were an object of scandal; and, above all, he was a Scotchman. … Immediately after the king's accession he had been made a privy councillor, and admitted into the cabinet. An arrangement was soon afterwards concerted, by which Lord Holdernesse retired from office with a pension, and Lord Bute succeeded him as Secretary of State. It was now the object of the court to break up the existing ministry, and to replace it with another, formed from among the king's friends. Had the ministry been united, and had the chiefs reposed confidence in one another, it would have been difficult to overthrow them. But there were already jealousies amongst them, which the court lost no opportunity of fomenting. A breach soon arose between Mr. Pitt, the most powerful and popular of the ministers, and his colleagues. He desired to strike a sudden blow against Spain, which had concluded a secret treaty of alliance with France, then at war with this country.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

Though war minister he was opposed by all his colleagues except Lord Temple. He bore himself haughtily at the council, —declared that he had been called to the ministry by the voice of the people, and that he could not be responsible for measures which he was no longer allowed to guide. Being met with equal loftiness in the cabinet, he was forced to tender his resignation. The king overpowered the retiring minister with kindness and condescension. He offered the barony of Chatham to his wife, and to himself an annuity of £3,000 a year for three lives. The minister had deserved these royal favours, and he accepted them, but at the cost of his popularity. … The same Gazette which announced his resignation, also trumpeted forth the peerage and the pension, and was the signal for clamors against the public favourite. On the retirement of Mr. Pitt, Lord Bute became the most influential of the ministers. He undertook the chief management of public affairs in the cabinet, and the sole direction of the House of Lords. … His ascendency provoked the jealousy and resentment of the king's veteran minister, the Duke of Newcastle: who had hitherto distributed all the patronage of the Crown, but now was never consulted. … At length, in May 1762, his grace, after frequent disagreements in the cabinet and numerous affronts, was obliged to resign. And now, the object of the court being at length attained, Lord Bute was immediately placed at the head of affairs, as First Lord of the Treasury. … The king and his minister were resolved to carry matters with a high hand, and their arbitrary attempts to coerce and intimidate opponents disclosed their imperious views of the prerogative. Preliminaries of a treaty of peace with France having been agreed upon, against which a strong popular feeling was aroused, the king's vengeance was directed against all who ventured to disapprove them. The Duke of Devonshire having declined to attend the council summoned to decide upon the peace, was insulted by the king, and forced to resign his office of Lord Chamberlain. A few days afterwards the king, with his own hand, struck his grace's name from the list of privy councillors. … No sooner had Lord Rockingham heard of the treatment of the Duke of Devonshire than he … resigned his place in the household. A more general proscription of the Whig nobles soon followed. The Dukes of Newcastle and Grafton, and the Marquess of Rockingham, having presumed, as peers of Parliament, to express their disapprobation of the peace, were dismissed from the lord-lieutenancies of their counties. … Nor was the vengeance of the court confined to the heads of the Whig party. {929} All placemen, who had voted against the preliminaries of peace, were dismissed. … The preliminaries of peace were approved by Parliament; and the Princess of Wales, exulting in the success of the court, exclaimed, 'Now my son is king of England.' But her exultation was premature. … These stretches of prerogative served to unite the Whigs into an organised opposition. … The fall of the king's favoured minister was even more sudden than his rise. … Afraid, as he confessed, 'not only of falling himself, but of involving his royal master in his ruin,' he resigned suddenly [April 7, 1763],—to the surprise of all parties, and even of the king himself,—before he had held office for eleven months. … He retreated to the interior cabinet, whence he could direct more securely the measures of the court; having previously negotiated the appointment of Mr. George Grenville as his successor, and arranged with him the nomination of the cabinet. The ministry of Mr. Grenville was constituted in a manner favourable to the king's personal views, and was expected to be under the control of himself and his favorite."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., chapter 1-10 (volume 1).

The Grenville Papers, volumes 1-2.

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 2-3 (volume 1).

G. O. Trevelyan, Early History of Charles James Fox, chapter 4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1775. Crown, Parliament and Colonies. The conflicting theories of their relations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762. The third Family Compact of the Bourbon kings. War with Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1761 (AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1761-1762. The Seven Years War: Last Campaigns in Germany.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1761-1762.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1 762. Capture of Havana.

See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1762-1764. "The North Briton," No. 45, and the prosecution of Wilkes.

"The popular dislike to the new system of Government by courtiers had found vent in a scurrilous press, the annoyance of which continued unabated by the sham retirement of the minister whose ascendancy had provoked this grievous kind of opposition. The leader of the host of libellers was John Wilkes, a man of that audacity and self-possession which are indispensable to success in the most disreputable line of political adventure. But Wilkes had qualities which placed him far above the level of a vulgar demagogue. Great sense and shrewdness, brilliant wit, extensive knowledge of the world, with the manners of a gentleman, were among the accomplishments which he brought to a vocation, but rarely illustrated by the talents of a Catiline. Long before he engaged in public life, Wilkes had become infamous for his debaucheries, and, with a few other men of fashion, had tested the toleration of public opinion by a series of outrages upon religion and decency. Profligacy of morals, however, has not in any age or country proved a bar to the character of a patriot. … Wilkes' journal, which originated with the administration of Lord Bute [first issued June 5, 1762], was happily entitled 'The North Briton,' and from its boldness and personality soon obtained a large circulation. It is surpassed in ability though not often equalled in virulence by the political press of the present day; but at a time when the characters of public men deservedly stood lowest in public estimation, they were protected, not unadvisedly perhaps, from the assaults of the press by a stringent law of libel. … It had been the practice since the Revolution, and it is now acknowledged as an important constitutional right, to treat the Speech from the Throne, on the opening of Parliament, as the manifesto of the minister; and in that point of view, it had from time to time been censured by Pitt, and other leaders of party, with the ordinary license of debate. But when Wilkes presumed to use this freedom in his paper, though in a degree which would have seemed temperate and even tame had he spoken to the same purport in his place in Parliament, it was thought necessary to repress such insolence with the whole weight of the law. A warrant was issued from the office of the Secretary of State to seize—not any person named—but 'the authors, printers, and publishers of the seditious libel, entitled the North Briton, No. 45.' Under this warrant, forty-nine persons were arrested and detained in custody for several days; but as it was found that none of them could be brought within the description in the warrant, they were discharged. Several of the individuals who had been so seized, brought actions for false imprisonment against the messengers; and in one of these actions, in which a verdict was entered for the plaintiff under the direction of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the two important questions as to the claim of a Secretary of State to the protection given by statute to justices of the peace acting in that capacity, and as to the legality of a warrant which did not specify any individual by name, were raised by a Bill of Exceptions to the ruling of the presiding judge, and thus came upon appeal before the Court of King's Bench. … The Court of King's Bench … intimated a strong opinion against the Crown upon the important constitutional questions which had been raised, and directed the case to stand over for further argument; but when the case came on again, the Attorney-General Yorke prudently declined any further agitation of the questions. … These proceedings were not brought to a close until the end of the year 1765, long after the administration under which they were instituted had ceased to exist. … The prosecution of Wilkes himself was pressed with the like indiscreet vigour. The privilege of Parliament, which extends to every case except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, presented an obstacle to the vengeance of the Court. But the Crown lawyers, with a servility which belonged to the worst times of prerogative, advised that a libel came within the purview of the exception, as having a tendency to a breach of the peace; and upon this perversion of plain law, Wilkes was arrested, and brought before Lord Halifax for examination. The cool and wary demagogue, however, was more than a match for the Secretary of State; but his authorship of the alleged libel having been proved by the printer, he was committed close prisoner to the Tower. In a few days, having sued out writs of habeas, he was brought up before the Court of Common Pleas. … The argument which would confound the commission of a crime with conduct which had no more than a tendency to provoke it, was at once rejected by an independent court of justice; and the result was the liberation of Wilkes from custody. {930} But the vengeance of the Court was not turned aside by this disappointment. An ex-officio prosecution for libel was immediately instituted against the member for Aylesbury; he was deprived of his commission as colonel of the Buckinghamshire militia; his patron, Earl Temple, who provided the funds for his defence, was at the same time dismissed from the lord-lieutenancy of the same county, and from the Privy Council. When Parliament assembled in the autumn, the first business brought forward by the Government was this contemptible affair—a proceeding not merely foolish and undignified, but a flagrant violation of common justice and decency. Having elected to prosecute Wilkes for this alleged libel before the ordinary tribunals of the country, it is manifest that the Government should have left the law to take its course unprejudiced. But the House of Commons was now required to pronounce upon the very subject-matter of inquiry which had been referred to the decision of a court of law; and this degenerate assembly, at the bidding of the minister, readily condemned the indicted paper in terms of extravagant and fulsome censure, and ordered that it should be burned by the hands of the common hangman. Lord North, on the part of the Government, then pressed for an immediate decision on the question of privilege; but Pitt, in his most solemn manner, insisting on an adjournment, the House yielded this point. On the following day, Wilkes, being dangerously wounded in a duel with Martin, one of the joint Secretaries to the Treasury, who had grossly insulted him in the House, for the purpose of provoking a quarrel, was disabled from attending in his place; but the House, nevertheless, refused to postpone the question of privilege beyond the 24th of the month. On that day, they resolved 'that the privilege of Parliament does not extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of the laws in the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and dangerous an offence.' Whatever may be thought of the public spirit or prudence of a House of Commons which could thus officiously define its privilege, the vote was practically futile, since a court of justice had already decided in this very case, as a matter of strict law, that the person of a member of Parliament was protected from arrest on a charge of this description. The conduct of Pitt on this occasion was consistent with the loftiness of his character. … The conduct of the Lords was in harmony with that of the Lower House. … The session was principally occupied by the proceedings against this worthless demagogue, whom the unworthy hostility of the Crown and both Houses of Parliament had elevated into a person of the first importance. His name was coupled with that of Liberty; and when the executioner appeared to carry into effect the sentence of Parliament upon 'The North Briton,' he was driven away by the populace, who rescued the obnoxious paper from the flames, and evinced their hatred and contempt for the Court faction by 'burning in its stead the jack-boot and the petticoat, the vulgar emblems which they employed to designate John Earl of Bute and his supposed royal patroness. … Wilkes himself, however, was forced to yield to the storm. Beset by the spies of Government, and harassed by its prosecutions, which he had not the means of resisting, he withdrew to Paris. Failing to attend in his place in the House of Commons on the first day after the Christmas recess, according to order, his excuse was eagerly declared invalid; a vote of expulsion immediately followed [January 19, 1764], and a new writ was ordered for Aylesbury."

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: J. E. T. Rogers, Historical Gleanings, volume 2, chapter 3.

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 41-42 (volume 5).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763. The end and results of the Seven Years War: The Peace of Paris and Peace of Hubertsburg. America to be English, not French.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1763-1764. Determination to tax the American colonies. The Sugar (or Molasses) Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1764. The climax of the mercantile colonial policy and its consequences.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1765. Passage of the Stamp Act for the colonies.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1765-1768. Grenville dismissed. The Rockingham and the Grafton-Chatham Ministries. Repeal of the Stamp Act. Fresh trouble in the American colonies.

"Hitherto the Ministry had only excited the indignation of the people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency Bill should be brought in, limiting the king's choice of a Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers, however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry, persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult on his parent, apparently through lack of consideration. Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of them. With this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], offering almost any terms." But no arrangement was practicable, and the king was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be detested. "He was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a burden to him under George Grenville's domination, and he determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ again. Pitt and Temple still proving obdurate, Cumberland opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. … The new Ministry was composed as follows: Rockingham became First Lord of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer; Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. … {931} Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power of language or government. … He was totally free from any suspicion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than talent in the Ministry altogether. … The back-bone of the party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to effect certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused so much indignation among the Americans; and at the same time passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. … The king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his Ministers. … The conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them was a decided mistake, and more. He was really at one with them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to form a coalition, in which were included men of the most opposite views—'King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham refused to take any office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham. Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington, Barrington, Camden, Granby—all men of the most opposite views. … This second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage. … As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an uncongenial atmosphere. … His name, too, had lost a great deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.' … There were other difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout, that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His disease later almost approached madness. … The Ministry drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and wave of opinion like a water-logged ship; and it was only the utter want of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet, and he rapidly assumed the most prominent position. He had always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and paper [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. … This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its author, in September; and then the weakness of the Ministry became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable, some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich joined the Ministry. Lord Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst that had governed England since the days of the Cabal; and the short period of its existence was marked by a succession of arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed to Chatham's views; and yet with singular irony his nominal connection with it was not severed for some time"—that is, not until the following year, 1768.

B. C. Skottowe, Our Hanoverian Kings, pages 234-239.

ALSO IN: The Grenville Papers, volumes 3-4.

C. W. Dilke, Papers of a Critic, volume 2.

E. Lodge, Portraits, volume 8, chapter 2.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1767-1769. The first war with Hyder Ali, of Mysore.

See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770. The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774. John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again. The Middlesex elections.

In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed by the court, returned to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king; but his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved and writs issued for a new election, he offered himself as a candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247 votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex. The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At the close of the poll the numbers were—Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; Mr. Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which astonished the public and terrified the ministry. The mob was in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to illuminate their houses and to shout for 'Wilkes and liberty.' It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. … A month after the election he wrote to Lord North: 'Though relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes appears to be very essential, and must be effected.' What the sovereign counselled was duly accomplished. Before his expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal; consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000, and imprisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he was rescued by the mob; but as soon as he could escape out of the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench. Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense multitude assembled before the prison, but, balked in its purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House, became furious, and commenced a riot. {932} Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired, wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house, and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against the magistrate who ordered the firing, and the soldier who did the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a reward for his services, a pension of one shilling a day. A general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed, assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and protection that the law can authorise and this office can give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext for his expulsion from the House of Commons. Ten days afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five votes only. On the following day the House resolved 'that John Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex returned him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for Luttrell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had been outraged in the persons of the Middlesex electors, and a subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal resentment of a revengeful and obstinate king. The cry of 'Wilkes and liberty' was raised in quarters where the very name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident that not the law only had been violated in his person, but that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound. Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed to pay his debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at length done what was right between him and one of the Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the other having been removed by death beyond the reach of justice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages. These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid succession to the offices—then much sought after, because held in high honour—of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting the resolutions of his incapacity to sit in the House formally expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although the latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and energetic opponent of the war with America."

_W. F. Rae, John Wilkes (Fortnightly Review, September, 1868, volume 10)._

ALSO IN: W. F. Rae, Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox, part 1.

G. O. Trevelyan, Early History of Charles James Fox, chapters 5-6, and 8.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772. The Letters of Junius.

"One of the newspapers in London at this period was the 'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the day; and he readily received any contributions of a like tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a writer whose letters beginning at the latest in April, 1767, continued frequent through that and the ensuing year. It was the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and Brutus. It does not appear, however, that these letters (excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in ability, or still less in acrimony. … Such was the state of these publications, not much rising in interest above the common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st of January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or superior moderation; it contained, on the contrary, a fierce and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places, including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, General in the army and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed with his own name, and defending the character and conduct of Lord Granby. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow, Sir William more than once replied; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the controversy. … These victories over a man of rank and station such as Draper's gave importance to the name of Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly expected by the public, and carefully prepared by the author. {933} He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names; sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main and most elaborate attacks were made. Nor was it long before he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton. Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford,—an attack, however, of which the sting is felt by his descendants to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known statesmen or well-known writers—Burke or Dunning, Boyd or Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Hamilton—flew from mouth to mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground. Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' cries Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that 'the Bible and Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient to the popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The verdict in Woodfall's case was: Guilty of printing and publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to ulterior proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives against the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who had presided at the trials of the printers; he plunged into the full tide of City politics; and he engaged in a keen controversy with the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke. The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to 69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. … Besides the letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to Mr. George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe; all three were written in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important of all, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr. Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in length; but many of great value towards deciding the question of authorship. It seems that the packets containing the letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself; more commonly they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at the bar of some coffee-house. … It may be doubted whether Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. … When dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it shall perish with me.'"

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 47 (v. 5).

The following list of fifty-one names of persons to whom the letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and Pseudonyms":

James Adair, M. P.; Captain Allen; Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.; William Henry Cavendish Bentinck; Mr. Bickerton; Hugh M'Aulay Boyd; Edmund Burke; William Burke; John Butler, Bishop of Hereford; Lord Camden; John Lewis De Lolme; John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton; Samuel Dyer; Henry Flood; Sir Philip Francis; George III.; Edward Gibbon; Richard Glover; Henry Grattan; William Greatrakes; George Grenville; James Grenville; William Gerard Hamilton; James Hollis; Thomas Hollis; Sir George Jackson; Sir William Jones; John Kent; Major-General Charles Lee; Charles Lloyd; Thomas Lyttleton; Laughlin Maclean; Rev. Edmund Marshall; Thomas Paine; William Pitt, Earl of Chatham; the Duke of Portland; Thomas Pownall; Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Robert Rich; John Roberts; Rev. Philip Rosenhagen; George, Viscount Sackville; the Earl of Shelburne; Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield; Richard Suett; Earl Temple; John Horne Tooke; Horace Walpole; Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough; John Wilkes; James Wilmot, D. D.; Daniel Wray.

ALSO IN: G. W. Cooke, History of Party, volume 3, chapter 6.

C. W. Dilke, Papers of a Critic, volume 2.

_Lord Macaulay, Warren Hastings (Essays, volume 5)._

A. Bisset, Short History of the English Parliament, chapter 7.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770. Fall of the Grafton Ministry. Beginning of the administration of Lord North.

"The incompetency of the ministry was … becoming obvious. In the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which had brought discontent in England to the verge of open outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own Cabinet. {934} France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again to the necessities of party, made a public profession of friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the murrain among 'horned beasts,'—a speech not of a king, but, said Junius, of 'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an amendment when the address in answer to this speech was proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America, which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent. Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby, one of the most popular men in England, followed the same course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General, also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of the nation. … Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion. The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands, but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. … The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so that while the different sections of the Opposition were still unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity gone. The new Prime Minister … had great capacity for business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep, during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the support of all royal influence from whatever source derived, North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill effects of such a system of government, and of the King's policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of the reign—the struggle of the King, supported by the unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of those who were represented, against the domination of the House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He did not understand that the people had other objects much beyond his own."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 3, pages 1057-1060.

ALSO IN: Correspondence of George III. with Lord North, volume 1.

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 10-13 (volume 1).

J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapter 17 (volume 1).

_E. Burke, Thoughts on the Present Discontents (Works, volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773. Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea. The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1771. Last contention of Parliament against the Press. Freedom of reporting secured.

"The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors. It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament, under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the 'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an article which purported to be a report of the debates in Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and derived his information from persons who could seldom give him more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius. Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify, the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was no order of either House specifically prohibiting the publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting, therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the proceedings of Parliament should take place during the session. {935} There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses, had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow, member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable members."

William Massey, History of England, volume 2, chapter 15.

"Certain printers were in consequence ordered to attend the bar of the House. Some appeared and were discharged, after receiving, on their knees, a reprimand from the Speaker. Others evaded compliance; and one of them, John Miller, who failed to appear, was arrested by its messenger, but instead of submitting, sent for a constable and gave the messenger into custody for an assault and false imprisonment. They were both taken before the Lord Mayor (Mr. Brass Crosby), Mr. Alderman Oliver, and the notorious John Wilkes, who had recently been invested with the aldermanic gown. These civic magistrates, on the ground that the messenger was neither a peace-officer nor a constable, and that his warrant was not backed by a city magistrate, discharged the printer from custody, and committed the messenger to prison for an unlawful arrest. Two other printers, for whose apprehension a reward had been offered by a Government proclamation, were collusively apprehended by friends, and taken before Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, who discharged the prisoners as 'not being accused of having committed any crime.' These proceedings at once brought the House into conflict with the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London. The Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, who were both members of Parliament, were ordered by the House to attend in their places, and were subsequently committed to the Tower. Their imprisonment, instead of being a punishment, was one long-continued popular ovation, and from the date of their release, at the prorogation of Parliament shortly afterwards, the publication of debates has been pursued without any interference or restraint. Though still in theory a breach of privilege, reporting is now encouraged by Parliament as one of the main sources of its influence—its censure being reserved for wilful misrepresentation only. But reporters long continued beset with many difficulties. The taking of notes was prohibited, no places were reserved for reporters, and the power of a single member of either House to require the exclusion of strangers was frequently and capriciously employed. By the ancient usage of the House of Commons [until 1875] any one member by merely 'spying' strangers present could compel the Speaker to order their withdrawal."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, chapter 17.

ALSO IN:

R. F. D. Palgrave, The House of Commons, lecture 2.

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1772. The ending of Negro slavery in the British Islands.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1685-1772.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1773. Reconstitution of the Government of British India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774. The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act and the Quebec Act. The First Continental Congress in America.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1774. Advent in English industries of the Steam-Engine as made efficient by James Watt.

See STEAM ENGINE: A. D. 1765-1785.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775. The beginning of the War of the American Revolution. Lexington. Concord. The colonies in arms and Boston beleaguered. Ticonderoga. Bunker Hill. The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1775-1776. Successful defence of Canada against American invasion.

See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776. War measures against the colonies. The drift toward American independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1776-1778. The People, the Parties, the King, and Lord North, in their relations to the American War.

"The undoubted popularity of the war [in America] in its first stage had for some time continued to increase, and in the latter part of 1776 and 1777 it had probably attained its maximum. … The Whigs at this time very fully admitted that the genuine opinion of the country was with the Government and with the King. … The Declaration of Independence, and the known overtures of the Americans to France, were deemed the climax of insolence and ingratitude. The damage done to English commerce, not only in the West Indies but even around the English and Irish coast, excited a widespread bitterness. … In every stage of the contest the influence of the Opposition was employed to trammel the Government. … The statement of Wraxall that the Whig colours of buff and blue were first adopted by Fox in imitation of the uniform of Washington's troops, is, I believe, corroborated by no other writer; but there is no reason to question his assertion that the members of the Whig party in society and in both Houses of Parliament during the whole course of the war wished success to the American cause and rejoiced in the American triumphs. … While the Opposition needlessly and heedlessly intensified the national feeling against them, the King, on his side, did the utmost in his power to embitter the contest. It is only by examining his correspondence with Lord North that we fully realise how completely at this time he assumed the position not only of a prime minister but of a Cabinet, superintending, directing, and prescribing, in all its parts, the policy of the Government. … 'Every means of distressing America,' wrote the King, 'must meet with my concurrence.' He strongly supported the employment of Indians. … It was the King's friends who were most active in promoting all measures of violence. … The war was commonly called the 'King's war,' and its opponents were looked upon as opponents of the King. The person, however, who in the eye of history appears most culpable in this matter, was Lord North. … {936} The publication of the correspondence of George III. … supplies one of the most striking and melancholy examples of the relation of the King to his Tory ministers. It appears from this correspondence that for the space of about five years North, at the entreaty of the King, carried on a bloody, costly, and disastrous war in direct opposition to his own judgment and to his own wishes. … Again and again he entreated that his resignation might be accepted, but again and again he yielded to the request of the King, who threatened, if his minister resigned, to abdicate the throne. … The King was determined, under no circumstances, to treat with the Americans on the basis of the recognition of their independence; but he acknowledged, after the surrender of Burgoyne, and as soon as the French war had become inevitable, that unconditional submission could no longer be hoped for. … He consented, too, though apparently with extreme reluctance, and in consequence of the unanimous vote of the Cabinet, that new propositions should be made to the Americans." These overtures, conveyed to America by three Commissioners, were rejected, and the colonies concluded, in the spring of 1778, their alliance with France. "The moment was one of the most terrible in English history. England had not an ally in the world. … England, already exhausted by a war which its distance made peculiarly terrible, had to confront the whole force of France, and was certain in a few months to have to encounter the whole force of Spain. … There was one man to whom, in this hour of panic and consternation, the eyes of all patriotic Englishmen were turned. … If any statesman could, at the last moment, conciliate [the Americans], dissolve the new alliance, and kindle into a flame the loyalist feeling which undoubtedly existed largely in America, it was Chatham. If, on the other hand, conciliation proved impossible, no statesman could for a moment be compared to him in the management of a war. Lord North implored the King to accept his resignation, and to send for Chatham. Bute, the old Tory favourite, breaking his long silence, spoke of Chatham as now indispensable. Lord Mansfield, the bitterest and ablest rival of Chatham, said, with tears in his eyes, that unless the King sent for Chatham the ship would assuredly go down. … The King was unmoved. He consented indeed—and he actually authorised Lord North to make the astounding proposition—to receive Chatham as a subordinate minister to North. … This episode appears to me the most criminal in the whole reign of George III., and in my own judgment it is as criminal as any of those acts which led Charles I. to the scaffold."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, chapter 14 (volume 4).

"George III. and Lord North have been made scapegoats for sins which were not exclusively their own. The minister, indeed, was only the vizier, who hated his work, but still did not shrink from it, out of a sentiment that is sometimes admired under the name of loyalty, but which in such a case it is difficult to distinguish from base servility. The impenetrable mind of the King was, in the case of the American war, the natural organ and representative of all the lurking ignorance and arbitrary humours of the entire community. It is totally unjust and inadequate to lay upon him the entire burden."

J. Morley, Edmund Burke: a Historical Study, page 135.

"No sane person in Great Britain now approves of the attempt to tax the colonies. No sane person does otherwise than rejoice that the colonies became free and independent. But let us in common fairness say a word for King George. In all that he did he was backed by the great mass of the British nation. And let us even say a word for the British nation also. Had the King and the nation been really wise, they would have let the colonies go without striking a blow. But then no king and no nation ever was really wise after that fashion. King George and the British nation were simply not wiser than other people. I believe that you may turn the pages of history from the earliest to the latest times, without finding a time when any king or any commonwealth, freely and willingly, without compulsion or equivalent, gave up power or dominion, or even mere extent of territory on the map, when there was no real power or dominion. Remember that seventeen years after the acknowledgment of American independence, King George still called himself King of France. Remember that, when the title was given up, some people thought it unwise to give it up. Remember that some people in our own day regretted the separation between the crowns of Great Britain and Hanover. If they lived to see the year 1866, perhaps they grew wiser."

E. A. Freeman, The English People in its Three Homes (Lectures to American Audiences), pages 183-184.

ALSO IN: Correspondence of George III. with Lord North.

Lord Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen in the Reign of George III.

T. Macknight, History of the Life and Times of Edmund Burke, chapters 22-26 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1778. War with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (FEBRUARY).

ENGLAND: A.D. 1778-1780. Repeal of Catholic penal laws. The Gordon No-Popery Riots.

"The Quebec Act of 1774 [see CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774], establishing Catholicism in Canada, would a generation earlier have been impossible, and it was justly considered a remarkable sign of the altered condition of opinion that such a law should be enacted by a British Parliament, and should have created no serious disturbances in the country. … The success of the Quebec Act led Parliament, a few years later, to undertake the relief of the Catholics at home from some part of the atrocious penal laws to which they were still subject. … The Act still subsisted which gave a reward of £100 to any informer who procured the conviction of a Catholic priest performing his functions in England, and there were occasional prosecutions, though the judges strained the law to the utmost in order to defeat them. … The worst part of the persecution of Catholics was based upon a law of William III., and in 1778 Sir George Savile introduced a bill to repeal those portions of this Act which related to the apprehending of Popish bishops, priests, and Jesuits, which subjected these and also Papists keeping a school to perpetual imprisonment, and which disabled all Papists from inheriting or purchasing land. … It is an honourable fact that this Relief Bill was carried without a division in either House, without any serious opposition from the bench of bishops, and with the concurrence of both parties in the State. The law applied to England only, but the Lord Advocate promised, in the ensuing session, to introduce a similar measure for Scotland. {937} It was hoped that a measure which was so manifestly moderate and equitable, and which was carried with such unanimity through Parliament, would have passed almost unnoticed in the country; but fiercer elements of fanaticism than politicians perceived were still smouldering in the nation. The first signs of the coming storm were seen among the Presbyterians of Scotland. The General Assembly of the Scotch Established Church was sitting when the English Relief Bill was pending, and it rejected by a large majority a motion for a remonstrance to Parliament against it. But in a few months an agitation of the most dangerous description spread swiftly through the Lowlands. It was stimulated by many incendiary resolutions of provincial synods, by pamphlets, hand-bills, newspapers, and sermons, and a 'Committee for the Protestant Interests' was formed at Edinburgh to direct it. … Furious riots broke out in January, 1779, both in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Several houses in which Catholics lived, or the Catholic worship was celebrated, were burnt to the ground. The shops of Catholic tradesmen were wrecked, and their goods scattered, plundered, or destroyed. Catholic ladies were compelled to take refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The houses of many Protestants who were believed to sympathise with the Relief Bill were attacked, and among the number was that of Robertson the historian. The troops were called out to suppress the riot, but they were resisted and pelted, and not suffered to fire in their defence. … The flame soon spread southwards. For some years letters on the increase of Popery had been frequently appearing in the London newspapers. Many murmurs had been heard at the enactment of the Quebec Act, and many striking instances in the last ten years had shown how easily the spirit of riot could be aroused, and how impotent the ordinary watchmen were to cope with it. … The fanatical party had unfortunately acquired an unscrupulous leader in the person of Lord George Gordon, whose name now attained a melancholy celebrity. He was a young man of thirty, of very ordinary talents, and with nothing to recommend him but his connection with the ducal house of Gordon. … A 'Protestant Association,' consisting of the worst agitators and fanatics, was formed, and at a great meeting held on May 29, 1780, and presided over by Lord George Gordon, it was determined that 20,000 men should march to the Parliament House to present a petition for the repeal of the Relief Act. It was about half-past two on the afternoon of Friday, June 2, that three great bodies, consisting of many thousands of men, wearing blue cockades, and carrying a petition which was said to have been signed by near 120,000 persons, arrived by different roads at the Parliament House. Their first design appears to have been only to intimidate, but they very soon proceeded to actual violence. The two Houses were just meeting, and the scene that ensued resembled on a large scale and in an aggravated form the great riot which had taken place around the Parliament House in Dublin during the administration of the Duke of Bedford. The members were seized, insulted, compelled to put blue cockades in their hats, to shout 'No Popery!' and to swear that they would vote for the repeal; and many of them, but especially the members of the House of Lords, were exposed to the grossest indignities. … In the Commons Lord George Gordon presented the petition, and demanded its instant consideration. The House behaved with much courage, and after a hurried debate it was decided by 192 to 7 to adjourn its consideration till the 6th. Lord George Gordon several times appeared on the stairs of the gallery, and addressed the crowd, denouncing by name those who opposed him, and especially Burke and North; but Conway rebuked him in the sight and hearing of the mob, and Colonel Gordon, one of his own relatives, declared that the moment the first man of the mob entered the House he would plunge his sword into the body of Lord George. The doors were locked. The strangers' gallery was empty, but only a few doorkeepers and a few other ordinary officials protected the House, while the mob is said at first to have numbered not less than 60,000 men. Lord North succeeded in sending a messenger for the guards, but many anxious hours passed before they arrived. Twice attempts were made to force the doors. … At last about nine o'clock the troops appeared, and the crowd, without resisting, agreed to disperse. A great part of them, however, were bent on further outrages. They attacked the Sardinian Minister's chapel in Duke Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. They broke it open, carried away the silver lamps and other furniture, burnt the benches in the street, and flung the burning brands into the chapel. The Bavarian Minister's chapel in Warwick Street Golden Square was next attacked, plundered, and burnt before the soldiers could intervene. They at last appeared upon the scene, and some slight scuffling ensued, and thirteen of the rioters were captured. It was hoped that the riot had expended its force, for Saturday and the greater part of Sunday passed with little disturbance, but on Sunday afternoon new outrages began in Moorfields, where a considerable Catholic population resided. Several houses were attacked and plundered, and the chapels utterly ruined."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of English in the 18th Century, chapter 13 (volume 3).

"On Monday the rioters continued their outrages. … Notwithstanding, however, that the town might now be said to have been in the possession of the rioters for more than three days, it does not appear that any more decided measures were adopted to put them down. Their audacity and violence, as might have been expected, increased under this treatment. On Tuesday afternoon and evening the most terrible excesses were perpetrated. Notwithstanding that a considerable military force was stationed around and on the way to the Houses of Parliament, several of the members were again insulted and maltreated in the grossest manner. Indeed, the mob by this time seem to have got over all apprehensions of the interference of the soldiers." The principal event of the day was the attack on Newgate prison, which was destroyed and the prisoners released. "The New Prison, Clerkenwell, was also broken open … and all the prisoners set at large. Attacks were likewise made upon several … private houses. … But the most lamentable of all the acts of destruction yet perpetrated by these infuriated ruffians was that with which they closed the day of madness and crime—the entire demolition of the residence of Lord Mansfield, the venerable Lord Chief Justice, in Bloomsbury Square. … {938} The scenes that took place on Wednesday were still more dreadful than those by which Tuesday had been marked. The town indeed was now in a state of complete insurrection: and it was felt by all that the mob must be put down at any cost, if it was intended to save the metropolis of the kingdom from utter destruction. This day, accordingly, the military were out in all quarters, and were everywhere employed against the infuriated multitudes who braved their power. … The King's Bench Prison, the New Gaol, the Borough Clink, the Surrey Bridewell, were all burned today. … The Mansion House, the Museum, the Exchange, the Tower, and the Bank, were all, it is understood, marked for destruction. Lists of these and the other buildings which it was intended to attack were circulated among the mob. The bank was actually twice assaulted; but a powerful body of soldiers by whom it was guarded on both occasions drove off the crowd, though not without great slaughter. At some places the rioters returned the fire of the military. … Among other houses which were set on fire in Holborn were the extensive premises of Mr. Langdale, the distiller, who was a Catholic. … The worst consequence of this outrage, however, was the additional excitement which the frenzy of the mob received from the quantities of spirits with which they were here supplied. Many indeed drank themselves literally dead; and many more, who had rendered themselves unable to move, perished in the midst of the flames. Six and thirty fires, it is stated, were this night to be seen, from one spot, blazing at the same time in different quarters of the town. … By Thursday morning … the exertions of Government, now thoroughly alarmed, had succeeded in bringing up from different parts so large a force of regular troops and of militia as to make it certain that the rioters would be speedily overpowered. … The soldiers attacked the mob in various places, and everywhere with complete success. … On Friday the courts of justice were again opened for business, and the House of Commons met in the evening. … On this first day after the close of the riots, 'the metropolis,' says the Annual Register, 'presented in many places the image of a city recently stormed and sacked.' … Of the persons apprehended and brought to trial, 59 were capitally convicted; and of these more than 20 were executed; the others were sent to expiate their offences by passing the remainder of their days in hard labour and bondage in a distant land. … Lord George Gordon, in consequence of the part he had borne in the measures which led to these riots, was sent to the Tower, and some time afterwards brought to trial on a charge of high treason," but was acquitted.

Sketches of Popular Tumults, section 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: J. H. Jesse, Memoirs of the Life and Reign of George III., chapter 34 (volume 2).

H. Walpole, Journal of the Reign of George III., volume 2, pages 403-424.

Annual Register, 1780, pages 254-287.

_C. Dickens, Barnaby Rudge._

W. J. Amherst, History of Catholic Emancipation, volume 1, chapters 1-5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1782. Declining strength of the government. Rodney's great naval victory. The siege of Gibraltar.

"The fall of Lord North's ministry, and with it the overthrow of the personal government of George III., was now close at hand. For a long time the government had been losing favour. In the summer of 1780, the British victories in South Carolina had done something to strengthen, yet when, in the autumn of that year, Parliament was dissolved, although the king complained that his expenses for purposes of corruption had been twice as great as ever before, the new Parliament was scarcely more favourable to the ministry than the old one. Misfortunes and perplexities crowded in the path of Lord North and his colleagues. The example of American resistance had told upon Ireland. … For more than a year there had been war in India, where Hyder Ali, for the moment, was carrying everything before him. France, eager to regain her lost foothold upon Hindustan, sent a strong armament thither, and insisted that England must give up all her Indian conquests except Bengal. For a moment England's great Eastern empire tottered, and was saved only by the superhuman efforts of Warren Hastings, aided by the wonderful military genius of Sir Eyre Coote. In May, 1781, the Spaniards had taken Pensacola, thus driving the British from their last position in Florida. In February, 1782, the Spanish fleet captured Minorca, and the siege of Gibraltar, which had been kept up for nearly three years, was pressed with redoubled energy. During the winter the French recaptured St. Eustatius, and handed it over to Holland; and Grasse's great fleet swept away all the British possessions in the West Indies, except Jamaica, Barbadoes, and Antigua. All this time the Northern League kept up its jealous watch upon British cruisers in the narrow seas, and among all the powers of Europe the government of George could not find a single friend. The maritime supremacy of England was, however, impaired but for a moment. Rodney was sent back to the West Indies, and on the 12th of April, 1782, his fleet of 36 ships encountered the French near the island of Sainte-Marie-Galante. The battle of eleven hours which ensued, and in which 5,000 men were killed or wounded, was one of the most tremendous contests ever witnessed upon the ocean before the time of Nelson. The French were totally defeated, and Grasse was taken prisoner,—the first French commander-in-chief, by sea or land, who had fallen into an enemy's hands since Marshal Tallard gave up his sword to Marlborough, on the terrible day of Blenheim. France could do nothing to repair this crushing disaster. Her naval power was eliminated from the situation at a single blow; and in the course of the summer the English achieved another great success by overthrowing the Spaniards at Gibraltar, after a struggle which, for dogged tenacity, is scarcely paralleled in modern warfare. By the autumn of 1782, England, defeated in the United States, remained victorious and defiant as regarded the other parties to the war."

J. Fiske, American Revolution, chapter 15 (volume 2).

"Gibraltar … had been closely invested for nearly three years. At first, the Spanish had endeavoured to starve the place; but their blockade having been on two occasions forced by the British fleet, they relinquished that plan, and commenced a regular siege. During the spring and summer of 1781, the fortress was bombarded, but with little success; in the month of November, the enemy were driven from their approaches, and the works themselves were almost destroyed by a sally from the garrison. Early in the year, however, the fall of Minorca enabled the Spanish to reform the siege of Gibraltar. {939} De Grillon himself, the hero of Minorca, superseding Alvarez, assumed the chief command. … The garrison of Gibraltar comprised no more than 7,000 men; while the force of the allied monarchies amounted to 33,000 soldiers, with an immense train of artillery. De Grillon, however, who was well acquainted with the fortress, had little hope of taking it from the land side, but relied with confidence on the formidable preparations which he had made for bombarding it from the sea. Huge floating batteries, bomb-proof and shot-proof, were constructed; and it was calculated that the action of these tremendous engines alone would be sufficient to destroy the works. Besides the battering ships, of which ten were provided, a large armament of vessels of all rates was equipped; and a grand attack was to take place, both from sea and land, with 400 pieces of artillery. Six months were consumed in these formidable preparations; and it was not until September that they were completed. A partial cannonade took place on the 9th and three following days; but the great attack, which was to decide the fate of the beleaguered fortress, was commenced on the 13th of September. On that day, the combined fleets of France and Spain, consisting of 47 sail of the line, besides numerous ships of inferior rate, were drawn out in order of battle before Gibraltar. Numerous bomb ketches, gun and mortar boats, dropped their anchors within close range; while the ten floating batteries were moored with strong iron chains within half gun-shot of the walls. On the land 170 guns were prepared to open fire simultaneously with the ships; and 40,000 troops were held in readiness to rush in at the first practicable breach. … The grand attack was commenced at ten o'clock in the forenoon, by the fire of 400 pieces of artillery. The great floating batteries, securely anchored within 600 yards of the walls, poured in an incessant storm, from 142 guns. Elliot had less than 100 guns to reply to the cannonade both from sea and land; and of these he made the most judicious use. Disregarding the attack from every other quarter, he concentrated the whole of his ordnance on the floating batteries in front of him; for unless these were silenced, their force would prove irresistible. But for a long time the thunder of 80 guns made no impression on the enormous masses of wood and iron. The largest shells glanced harmless from their sloping roofs; the heaviest shot could not penetrate their hulls seven feet in thickness. Nevertheless, the artillery of the garrison was still unceasingly directed against these terrible engines of destruction. A storm of red-hot balls was poured down upon them; and about midday it was observed that the combustion caused by these missiles, which had hitherto been promptly extinguished, was beginning to take effect. Soon after, the partial cessation of the guns from the battering ships, and the volumes of smoke which issued from their decks, made it manifest they were on fire, and that all the efforts of the crews were required to subdue the conflagration. Towards evening, their guns became silent; and before midnight, the flames burst forth from the principal floating battery, which carried the Admiral's flag. … Eight of the 10 floating batteries were on fire during the night; and the only care of the besieged was to save from the flames and from the waters, the wretched survivors of that terrible flotilla, which had so recently menaced them with annihilation. … The loss of the enemy was computed at 2,000; that of the garrison, in killed and wounded, amounted to no more than 84. The labour of a few hours sufficed to repair the damage sustained by the works. The French and Spanish fleets remained in the Straits, expecting the appearance of the British squadron under Lord Howe; and relying on their superiority in ships and weight of metal, they still hoped that the result of an action at sea might enable them to resume the siege of Gibraltar. Howe, having been delayed by contrary winds, did not reach the Straits until the 9th of October; and, notwithstanding the superior array which the enemy presented, he was prepared to risk an engagement. But at this juncture, a storm having scattered the combined fleet, the British Admiral was enabled to land his stores and reinforcements without opposition. Having performed this duty, he set sail for England; nor did the Spanish Admiral, though still superior by eight sail of the line, venture to dispute his passage. Such was the close of the great siege of Gibraltar; an undertaking which had been regarded by Spain as the chief object of the war, which she had prosecuted for three years, and which, at the last, had been pressed by the whole force of the allied monarchies. After this event, the war itself was virtually at an end."

W. Massey, History of England, Reign of George III., chapter 27 (volume 3).

ALSO IN: Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England, 1713-1783, chapters 62-66 (volume 7).

_J. Drinkwater, History of the Siege of Gibraltar._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1780-1783. Second war with Hyder Ali, or Second Mysore War.

See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1781-1783. War with Holland.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782. Legislative independence conceded to Ireland.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1778-1794.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783. Fall of Lord North. The second Rockingham Ministry. Fox, Shelburne, and the American peace negotiations. The Shelburne Ministry. Coalition of Fox and North.

"There comes a point when even the most servile majority of an unrepresentative Parliament finds the strain of party allegiance too severe, and that point was reached when the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown became known in November, 1781. 'O God, it is all over!' cried Lord North, wringing his hands, when he heard of it. … On February 7, a vote of censure, moved by Fox, upon Lord Sandwich, was negatived by a majority of only twenty-two. On the 22nd, General Conway lost a motion in favour of putting an end to the war by only one vote. On the 27th, the motion was renewed in the form of a resolution and carried by a majority of nineteen.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (FEBRUARY-MAY).

Still the King would not give his consent to Lord North's resignation. Rather than commit himself to the opposition, he seriously thought of abdicating his crown and retiring to Hanover. … Indeed, if it had not been for his large family, and the character of the Prince of Wales, already too well known, it is far from improbable that he would have carried this idea into execution, and retired from a Government of which he was no longer master. {940} By the 20th [of March], however, even George III. saw that the game could not be kept up any longer. He gave permission to Lord North to announce his resignation, and parted with him with the characteristic words: 'Remember, my Lord, it is you who desert me, not I who desert you.' … Even when the long-deferred blow fell, and Lord North's Ministry was no more, the King refused to send for Lord Rockingham. He still flattered himself that he might get together a Ministry from among the followers of Chatham and of Lord North, which would be able to restore peace without granting independence, and Shelburne was the politician whom he fixed upon to aid him in this scheme. … Shelburne, however, was too clever to fall into the trap. A Ministry which had against it the influence of the Rockingham connection and the talents of Charles Fox, and would not receive the hearty support of Lord North's phalanx of placemen, was foredoomed to failure. The pear was not yet ripe. He saw clearly enough that his best chance of permanent success lay in becoming the successor, not the supplanter, of Rockingham. … His game was to wait. He respectfully declined to act without Rockingham. … Before Rockingham consented to take office, he procured a distinct pledge from the King that he would not put a veto upon American independence, if the Ministers recommended it; and on the 27th of March the triumph of the Opposition was completed by the formation of a Ministry, mainly representative of the old Whig families, pledged to a policy of economical reform, and of peace with America on the basis of the acknowledgment of independence. Fox received the reward of his services by being appointed Foreign Secretary, and Lord Shelburne took charge of the Home and Colonial Department. Rockingham himself went to the Treasury, Lord John Cavendish became Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Keppel First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Camden President of the Council. Burke was made Paymaster of the Forces, and Sheridan Under-Secretary to his friend Fox. At the King's special request, Thurlow was allowed to remain as Chancellor. … The Cabinet no sooner met than it divided into the parties of Shelburne and of Fox, while Rockingham, Conway, and Cavendish tried to hold the balance between them, and Thurlow artfully fomented the dissensions. … Few Administrations have done so much in a short time as did the Rockingham Ministry during the three months of its existence, and it so happened that the lion's share of the work fell to Fox. Upon his appointment to office his friends noticed a change in habits and manner of life, as complete as that ascribed to Henry V. on his accession to the throne. He is said never to have touched a card during either of his three short terms of office. … By the division of work among the two Secretaries of State, all matters which related to the colonies were under the control of Shelburne, while those relating to foreign Governments belonged to the department of Fox. Consequently it became exceedingly important to these two Ministers whether independence was to be granted to the American colonies by the Crown of its own accord, or should be reserved in order to form part of the general treaty of peace. According to Fox's plan, independence was to be offered at once fully and freely to the Americans. They would thus gain at a blow all that they wanted. Their jealousy of French and Spanish interests in America would at once assert itself, and England would have no difficulty in bringing them over to her side in the negotiations with France. Such was Fox's scheme, but unfortunately, directly America became independent, she ceased to be in any way subject to Shelburne's management, and the negotiations for peace would pass wholly out of his control into the hands of Fox. … Shelburne at once threw his whole weight into the opposite scale. He urged with great effect that to give independence at once was to throw away the trump card. It was the chief concession which England would be required to make, the only one which she was, prepared to make; and to make it at once, before she was even asked, was wilfully to deprive herself of her best weapon. The King and the Cabinet adopted Shelburne's view. Fox's scheme for the isolation of France failed, and a double negotiation for peace was set on foot. Shelburne and Franklin took charge of the treaty with America [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782 (SEPTEMBER)], Fox and M. de Vergennes that with France and Spain and Holland. An arrangement of this sort could hardly have succeeded had the two Secretaries been the firmest of friends; since they were rivals and enemies it was foredoomed to failure." Fox found occasion very soon to complain that important matters in Shelburne's negotiation with Franklin were kept from his knowledge, and once more he proposed to the Cabinet an immediate concession of independence to the Americans. Again he was outvoted, and, "defeated and despairing, only refrained from resigning there and then because he would not embitter Rockingham's last moments upon earth." This was on the 30th of June. "On the 1st of, July Rockingham died, and on the 2nd Shelburne accepted from the King the task of forming a Ministry." Fox, of course, declined to enter it, and suffered in influence because he could not make public the reasons for his inability to act with Lord Shelburne. "Only Lord Cavendish, Burke, and the Solicitor-General, Lee, left office with Portland and Fox, and the gap was more than supplied by the entrance of William Pitt [Lord Chatham's son, who had entered Parliament in 1780] into the Cabinet as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fortune seemed to smile on Shelburne. He … might well look forward to a long and unclouded tenure of political power. His Administration lasted not quite seven months." It was weakened by distrust and dissatisfaction among its members, and overturned in February, 1783, by a vote of censure on the peace which it had concluded with France, Spain and the American States. It was succeeded in the Government by the famous Coalition Ministry formed under Fox and Lord North. "The Duke of Portland succeeded Shelburne at the Treasury. Lord North and Fox became the Secretaries of State. Lord John Cavendish returned to the Exchequer, Keppel to the Admiralty, and Burke to the Paymastership, the followers of Lord North … were rewarded with the lower offices. Few combinations in the history of political parties have been received by historians and posterity with more unqualified condemnation than the coalition of 1783. … There is no evidence to show that at the time it struck politicians in general as being specially heinous."

H. O. Wakeman, Life of Charles James Fox, chapters 3-5.

ALSO IN: Lord J. Russell, Life of Fox, chapters 16-17 (volume l).

W. F. Rae, Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox, pages 307-317.

Lord E. Fitzmaurice, Life of William, Earl of Shelburne, volume 3, chapters 3-6.

{941}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783. The definitive Treaty of Peace with the United States of America signed at Paris.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1783-1787. Fall of the Coalition. Ascendancy of the younger Pitt. His extraordinary grasp of power. His attempted measures of reform.

"Parliament met on the 11th of November; on the 18th Fox asked for leave to introduce a Bill for the Better Government of India. That day month[?] the Government had ceased to exist. Into the merits of the Bill it is not now necessary to enter. … It was clear that it furnished an admirable weapon against an unpopular Coalition which had resisted economical reform, demanded a great income for a debauched prince, and now aimed at securing a monopoly of the vast patronage of India,—patronage which, genially exercised by Dundas, was soon to secure Scotland for Pitt. In the House of Commons the majority for the Bill was over 100; the loftiest eloquence of Burke was exerted in its favour; and Fox was, as ever, dauntless and crushing in debate. But outside Parliament the King schemed, and controversy raged. … When the Bill arrived at the House of Lords, the undertakers were ready. The King had seen Temple, and empowered him to communicate to all whom it might concern his august disapprobation. The uneasy whisper circulated, and the joints of the lords became as water. The peers who yearned for lieutenancies or regiments, for stars or strawberry leaves; the prelates, who sought a larger sphere of usefulness; the minions of the bedchamber and the janissaries of the closet; all, temporal or spiritual, whose convictions were unequal to their appetite, rallied to the royal nod. … The result was overwhelming. The triumphant Coalition was paralysed by the rejection of their Bill. They rightly refused to resign, but the King could not sleep until he had resumed the seals. Late at night he sent for them. The messenger found North and Fox gaily seated at supper with their followers. At first he was not believed. 'The King would not dare do it,' exclaimed Fox. But the under Secretary charged with the message soon convinced them of its authenticity, and the seals were delivered with a light heart. In such dramatic fashion, and the springtide of its youth, fell that famous government, unhonoured and unwept. 'England,' once said Mr. Disraeli, 'does not love coalitions.' She certainly did not love this one. On this occasion there was neither hesitation nor delay; the moment had come, and the man. Within 12 hours of the King's receiving the seals, Pitt had accepted the First Lordship of the Treasury and the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. That afternoon his writ was moved amid universal derision. And so commenced a supreme and unbroken Ministry of 17 years. Those who laughed were hardly blamable, for the difficulties were tremendous. … The composition of the Government was … the least of Pitt's embarrassments. The majority against him in the House of Commons was not less than 40 or 50, containing, with the exception of Pitt himself and Dundas, every debater of eminence; while he had, before the meeting of Parliament, to prepare and to obtain the approval of the East India Company to a scheme which should take the place of Burke's. The Coalition Ministers were only dismissed on the 18th of December, 1783; but, when the House of Commons met on the 12th of January, 1784, all this had been done. The narrative of the next three months is stirring to read, but would require too much detail for our limits. … On the day of the meeting of Parliament, Pitt was defeated in two pitched divisions, the majorities against him being 39 and 54. His government seemed still-born. His colleagues were dismayed. The King came up from Windsor to support him. But in truth he needed no support. He had inherited from his father that confidence which made Chatham once say, 'I am sure that I can save this country, and that nobody else can'; which made himself say later, 'I place much dependence on my new colleagues; I place still more dependence on myself.' He had refused, in spite of the King's insistance, to dissolve; for he felt that the country required time. … The Clerkship of the Pells, a sinecure office worth not less than £3,000 a year, fell vacant the very day that Parliament met. It was universally expected that Pitt would take it as of right, and so acquire an independence, which would enable him to devote his life to politics, without care for the morrow. He had not £300 a year; his position was to the last degree precarious. … Pitt disappointed his friends and amazed his enemies. He gave the place to Barré. … To a nation inured to jobs this came as a revelation. … Above and beyond all was the fact that Pitt, young, unaided, and alone, held his own with the great leaders allied against him. … In face of so resolute a resistance, the assailants began to melt away. Their divisions, though they always showed a superiority to the Government, betrayed notable diminution. … On the 25th of March Parliament was dissolved, the announcement being retarded by the unexplained theft of the Great Seal. When the elections were over, the party of Fox, it was found, had shared the fate of the host of Sennacherib. The number of Fox's martyrs—of Fox's followers who had earned that nickname by losing their seats—was 160. … The King and Pitt were supported on the tidal wave of one of those great convulsions of feeling, which in Great Britain relieve and express pent-up national sentiment, and which in other nations produce revolutions."

Lord Rosebery, Pitt, chapter 3.

"Three subjects then needed the attention of a great statesman, though none of them were so pressing as to force themselves on the attention of a little statesman. These were, our economical and financial legislation, the imperfection of our parliamentary representation, and the unhappy' condition of Ireland. Pitt dealt with all three. … He brought in a series of resolutions consolidating our customs laws, of which the inevitable complexity may be estimated by their number. They amounted to 133, and the number of Acts of Parliament which they restrained or completed was much greater. He attempted, and successfully, to apply the principles of Free Trade, the principles which he was the first of English statesmen to learn from Adam Smith, to the actual commerce of the country. … The financial reputation of Pitt has greatly suffered from the absurd praise which was once lavished on the worst part of it. {942} The dread of national ruin from the augmentation of the national debt was a sort of nightmare in that age. … Mr. Pitt sympathised with the general apprehension and created the well-known 'Sinking Fund.' He proposed to apply annually a certain fixed sum to the payment of the debt, which was in itself excellent, but he omitted to provide real money to be so paid. … He proposed to borrow the money to payoff the debt, and fancied that he thus diminished it. … The exposure of this financial juggle, for though not intended to be so, such in fact it was, has reacted very unfavourably upon Mr. Pitt's deserved fame. … The subject of parliamentary reform is the one with which, in Mr. Pitt's early days, the public most connected his name, and is also that with which we are now least apt to connect it. … He proposed the abolition of the worst of the rotten boroughs fifty years before Lord Grey accomplished it. … If the strong counteracting influence of the French Revolution had not changed the national opinion, he would unquestionably have amended our parliamentary representation. … The state of Ireland was a more pressing difficulty than our financial confusion, our economical errors, or our parliamentary corruption. … He proposed at once to remedy the national danger of having two Parliaments, and to remove the incredible corruption of the old Irish Parliament, by uniting the three kingdoms in a single representative system, of which the Parliament should sit in England. … Of these great reforms he was only permitted to carry a few into execution. His power, as we have described it, was great when his reign commenced, and very great it continued to be for very many years; but the time became unfavourable for all forward-looking statesmanship."

_W. Bagehot, Biographical Studies: William Pitt._

ALSO IN: Earl Stanhope, Life of William Pitt, chapters 4-9 (volume 1).

G. Tomline, Life of William Pitt, chapters 3-9 (volume 1-2).

Lord Rosebery, Pitt, chapters 3-4.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1788 (FEBRUARY). Opening of the Trial of Warren Hastings.

See INDIA: A. D.1785-1795.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1788-1789. The King's second derangement.

The king's second derangement, which began to show itself in the summer of 1788, was more serious and of longer duration than the first. "He was able … to sign a warrant for the further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th November. … According to long established law, Parliament, without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion, for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had given rise." By Mr. Fox it was maintained that "the Prince of Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of sovereignty during the king's incapacity as if the king were actually dead; and that it was merely for the two Houses of Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence, the exercise of his right. … Mr. Pitt, on the other hand, maintained that as no legal provision had been made for carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of Parliament to make such provision." The discussion to which these differences, and many obstructing circumstances in the situation of affairs, gave rise, was so prolonged, that the king recovered his faculties (February, 1789) before the Regency Bill, framed by Mr. Pitt, had been passed.

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, volume 1, chapter 3.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1789-1792. War with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1793. The Coalition against Revolutionary France. Unsuccessful siege of Dunkirk.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER), and (JULY-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1793-1796. Popular feeling towards the French Revolution. Small number of the English Jacobins. Pitt forced into war. Tory panic and reign of terror. Violence of government measures.

"That the war [of Revolutionary France] with Germany would widen into a vast European struggle, a struggle in which the peoples would rise against their oppressors, and the freedom which France had won diffuse itself over the world, no French revolutionist doubted for an hour. Nor did they doubt that in this struggle England would join them. It was from England that they had drawn those principles of political and social liberty which they believed themselves to be putting into practice. It was to England that they looked above all for approbation and sympathy. … To the revolutionists at Paris the attitude of England remained unintelligible and irritating. Instead of the aid they had counted on, they found but a cold neutrality. … But that this attitude was that of the English people as a whole was incredible to the French enthusiasts. … Their first work therefore they held to be the bringing about a revolution in England. … They strove, through a number of associations which had formed themselves under the name of Constitutional Clubs, to rouse the same spirit which they had roused in France; and the French envoy, Chauvelin, protested warmly against a proclamation which denounced this correspondence as seditious. … Burke was still working hard in writings whose extravagance of style was forgotten in their intensity of feeling to spread alarm throughout Europe. He had from the first encouraged the emigrant princes to take arms, and sent his son to join them at Coblentz. 'Be alarmists,' he wrote to them; 'diffuse terror!' But the royalist terror which he sowed would have been of little moment had it not roused a revolutionary terror in France. … In November the Convention decreed that France offered the aid of her soldiers to all nations who would strive for freedom. … In the teeth of treaties signed only two years before, and of the stipulation made by England when it pledged itself to neutrality, the French Government resolved to attack Holland, and ordered its generals to enforce by arms the opening of the Scheldt [see FRANCE: A. D.1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY)]. To do this was to force England into war. Public opinion was already pressing every day harder upon Pitt. … But even while withdrawing our Minister from Paris on the imprisonment of the King, to whose Court he had been commissioned, Pitt clung stubbornly to a policy of peace. … {943} No hour of Pitt's life is so great as the hour when he stood lonely and passionless before the growth of national passion, and refused to bow to the gathering cry for war. … But desperately as Pitt struggled for peace, his struggle was in vain. … Both sides ceased from diplomatic communications, and in February 1793 France issued her Declaration of War. From that moment Pitt's power was at an end. His pride, his immovable firmness, and the general confidence of the nation, still kept him at the head of affairs; but he could do little save drift along with a tide of popular feeling which he never fully understood. Around him the country broke out in a fit of passion and panic which rivalled the passion and panic oversea. … The partisans of Republicanism were in reality but a few handfuls of men. … But in the mass of Englishmen the dread of these revolutionists passed for the hour into sheer panic. Even the bulk of the Whig party believed property and the constitution to be in peril, and forsook Fox when he still proclaimed his faith in France and the Revolution."

J. R. Green, History of the English People, book 9, chapter 4 (volume 4).

"Burke himself said that not one man in a hundred was a Revolutionist. Fox's revolutionary sentiments met with no response, but with general reprobation, and caused even his friends to shrink from his side. Of the so-called Jacobin Societies, the Society for Constitutional Information numbered only a few hundred members, who, though they held extreme opinions, were headed by men of character, and were quite incapable of treason or violence. The Corresponding Society was of a more sinister character; but its numbers were computed only at 6,000, and it was swallowed up in the loyal masses of the people. … It is sad to say it, but when Pitt had once left the path of right, he fell headlong into evil. To gratify the ignoble fears and passions of his party, he commenced a series of attacks on English liberty of speaking and writing which Mr. Massey, a strong anti-revolutionist, characterizes as unparalleled since the time of Charles I. The country was filled with spies. A band of the most infamous informers was called into activity by the government. … There was a Tory reign of terror, to which a slight increase of the panic among the upper classes would probably have lent a redder hue. Among other measures of repression the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended; and the liberties of all men were thus placed at the mercy of the party in power. … In Scotland the Tory reign of terror was worse than in England."

Goldwin Smith, Three English Statesmen, pages 239-247.

"The gaols were filled with political delinquents, and no man who professed himself a reformer could say, that the morrow might not see him a prisoner upon a charge of high treason. … But the rush towards despotism against which the Whigs could not stand, was arrested by the people. Although the Habeas Corpus had fallen, the Trial by Jury remained, and now, as it had done before, when the alarm of fictitious plots had disposed the nation to acquiesce in the surrender of its liberties, it opposed a barrier which Toryism could not pass." The trials which excited most interest were those of Hardy, who organized the Corresponding Society, and Horne Tooke. But no unlawful conduct or treasonable designs could be proved against them by creditable witnesses, and both were acquitted." The public joy was very general at these acquittals. … The war lost its popularity; bread grew scarce; commerce was crippled; … the easy success that had been anticipated was replaced by reverses. The people clamoured and threw stones at the king, and Pitt eagerly took advantage of their violence to tear away the few shreds of the constitution which yet covered them. He brought forward the Seditious Meetings bill, and the Treasonable Practices bill. Bills which, among other provisions, placed the conduct of every political meeting under the protection of a magistrate, and rendered disobedience to his command a felony."

G. W. Cooke, History of Party, volume 3, chapter 17.

ALSO IN: J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 81-89 and 95 (volumes 5-6).

J. Gifford, History of the Political Life of William Pitt, chapters 23-24, and 28-29 (volumes 3-4).

W. Massey, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 32-36 (volumes 3-4).

_E. Smith, The Story of the English Jacobins._

A. Bisset, Short History of the English Parliament, chapter 8.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794. Campaigns of the Coalition against France. French successes in the Netherlands and on the Rhine. Conquest of Corsica. Naval victory of Lord Howe.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794. Angry relations with the United States. The Jay Treaty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1794-1795.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1794-1795. Withdrawal of troops from the Netherlands. French conquest of Holland. Establishment of the Batavian Republic. Crumbling of the European Coalition.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1795. Disastrous expedition to Quiberon Bay.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1795. Capture of the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER). Evacuation and abandonment of Corsica.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER). Unsuccessful peace negotiations with the French Directory.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1796-1798. Attempted French invasions of Ireland. Irish Insurrection.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1793-1798.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1797. Monetary panic and suspension of specie payments. Defeat of the first Reform movement. Mutiny of the Fleet. Naval victories of Cape St. Vincent and Camperdown.

"The aspect of affairs in Britain had never been so clouded during the 18th century as at the beginning of the year 1797. The failure of Lord Malmesbury's mission to Paris had closed every hope of an honourable termination to the war, while of all her original allies, Austria alone remained; the national burdens were continually increasing, and the three-per-cents had fallen to fifty-one; while party spirit raged with uncommon violence, and Ireland was in a state of partial insurrection. A still greater disaster resulted from the panic arising from the dread of invasion, and which produced such a run on all the banks, that the Bank of England itself was reduced to payment in sixpences, and an Order in Council appeared (February 26) for the suspension of all cash payments. This measure, at first only temporary, was prolonged from time to time by parliamentary enactments, making bank-notes a legal-tender; and it was not till 1819, after the conclusion of peace, that the recurrence to metallic currency took place. {944} The Opposition deemed this a favourable opportunity to renew their cherished project of parliamentary reform; and on 26th May, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Grey brought forward a plan chiefly remarkable for containing the outlines of that subsequently carried into effect in 1831. It was negatived, however, after violent debates, by a majority of 258 against 93. After a similar strife of parties, the motion for the continuance of the war was carried by a great majority in both houses; and the requisite supplies were voted. … Unknown to the government, great discontent had for a long time prevailed in the navy. The exciting causes were principality the low rate of pay (which had not been raised since the time of Charles II.), the unequal distribution of prize-money, and undue severity in the maintenance of discipline. These grounds of complaint, with others not less well founded, gave rise to a general conspiracy, which broke out (April 15) in the Channel fleet under Lord Bridport. All the ships fell under the power of the insurgents; but they maintained perfect order, and memorialised the Admiralty and the Commons on their grievances: their demands being examined by government, and found to be reasonable, were granted; and on the 7th of May the fleet returned to its duty. But scarcely was the spirit of disaffection quelled in this quarter, when it broke out in a more alarming form (May 22) among the squadron at the Nore, which was soon after (June 6) joined by the force which had been cruising off the Texel under Lord Duncan. The mutineers appointed a seaman named Parker to the command; and, blockading the mouth of the Thames, announced their demands in such a tone of menacing audacity as insured their instant rejection by the government. This second mutiny caused dreadful consternation in London; but the firmness of the King remained unshaken, and he was nobly seconded by the parliament. A bill was passed, prohibiting all communication with the mutineers under pain of death. Sheerness and Tilbury Fort were armed and garrisoned for the defence of the Thames; and the sailors, finding the national feelings strongly arrayed against them, became gradually sensible that their enterprise was desperate. One by one the ships returned to their duty; and on 15th June all had submitted. Parker and several other ringleaders suffered death; but clemency was extended to the multitude. … Notwithstanding all these dissensions, the British navy was never more terrible to its enemies than during this eventful year. On the 14th of February, the Spanish fleet of 27 sail of the line and 12 frigates, which had put to sea for the purpose of raising the blockade of the French harbours, was encountered off Cape St. Vincent by Sir John Jarvis, who had only 15 ships and 6 frigates. By the old manœuvre of breaking the line, 9 of the Spanish ships were cut off from the rest; and the admiral, while attempting to regain them by wearing round the rear of the British line, was boldly assailed by Nelson and Collingwood,—the former of whom, in the Captain, of 74 guns, engaged at once two of the enemy's gigantic vessels, the Santissima Trinidad of 136 guns, and the San Josef of 112; while the Salvador del Mundo, also of 112 guns, struck in a quarter of an hour to Collingwood. Nelson at length carried the San Josef by boarding, and received the Spanish admiral's sword on his own quarterdeck. The Santissima Trinidad—an enormous four-decker—though her colours were twice struck, escaped in the confusion; but the San Josef and the Salvador, with two 74-gun ships, remained in the hands of the British; and the Spanish armament, thus routed by little more than half its own force, retired in the deepest dejection to Cadiz, which was shortly after insulted by a bombardment from the gallant Nelson. A more important victory than that of Sir John Jarvis (created in consequence Earl St. Vincent) was never gained at sea, from the evident superiority of skill and seamanship which it demonstrated in the British navy. The battle of St. Vincent disconcerted the plans of Truguet for the naval campaign; but later in the season a second attempt to reach Brest was made by a Dutch fleet of 15 sail of the line and 11 frigates, under the command of De Winter, a man of tried courage and experience. The British blockading fleet, under Admiral Duncan, consisted of 16 ships and 3 frigates; and the battle was fought (October 16) off Camperdown, about nine miles from the shore of Holland. The manœuvres of the British Admiral were directed to cut off the enemy's retreat to his own shores; and this having been accomplished, the action commenced yard-arm to yard-arm, and continued with the utmost fury for more than three hours. The Dutch sailors fought with the most admirable skill and courage, and proved themselves worthy descendants of Van Tromp and De Ruyter; but the prowess of the British was irresistible. 12 sail of the line, including the flagship, two 56-gun ships, and 2 frigates, struck their colours; but the nearness of the shore enabled two of the prizes to escape, and one 74-gun ship foundered. The obstinacy of the conflict was evidenced by the nearly equal number of killed and wounded, which amounted to 1,040 English, and 1,160 Dutch. … The only remaining operations of the year were the capture of Trinidad in February, by a force which soon after was repulsed from before Porto Rico; and an abortive attempt at a descent in Pembroke Bay by about 1,400 French."

Epitome of Alison's History of Europe, sections 190-196 (chapter 22, volume 5 of complete work).

ALSO IN: J. Adolphus, History of England: Reign of George III., chapters 100-103 (volume 6).

R. Southey, Life of Nelson, chapter 4.

E. J. De La Gravière, Sketches of the Last Naval War, volume 1, part 2.

Captain A. T. Mahan, Influence of Sea Power on the French Revolution and Empire, chapters 8 and 11 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1798 (AUGUST). Nelson's victory in the Battle of the Nile.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798 (MAY-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1798. Second Coalition against Revolutionary France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (APRIL). Final war with Tippoo Saib (third Mysore War).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-OCTOBER). Expedition against Holland. Seizure of the Dutch fleet. Ignominious ending of the enterprise. Capitulation of the Duke of York.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER), and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1800. Legislative union of Ireland with Great Britain. Creation of the "United Kingdom."

See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

{945}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801. The first Factory Act.

See FACTORY LEGISLATION.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1802. Import of the Treaty of Luneville. Bonaparte's preparations for conflict with Great Britain alone. Retirement of Pitt. The Northern Maritime League and its summary annihilation at Copenhagen. Expulsion of the French from Egypt. The Peace of Amiens.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806. Pitt's promise to the Irish Catholics broken by the King. His resignation. The Addington Ministry. The Peace of Amiens. War resumed. Pitt at the helm again. His death. The Ministry of "All the Talents."

"The union with Ireland introduced a new topic of party discussion, which quickly became only second to that of parliamentary reform. In transplanting the parliament of College Green to St. Stephen's, Pitt had transplanted the questions which were there debated; and, of these, none had been more important than the demand of the Catholics to be admitted to the common rights of citizens. Pitt, whose Toryism was rather the imperiousness of a haughty master, than the cautious cowardice of the miser of power, thought their complaints were just. In his private negotiations with the Irish popular leaders he probably promised that emancipation should be the sequel to the union. In his place in parliament he certainly gave an intimation, which from the mouth of a minister could receive no second interpretation. Pitt was not a minister who governed by petty stratagems, by ambiguous professions, and by skilful shuffles: he was at least an honourable enemy. He prepared to fulfil the pledge he had given, and to admit the Catholics within the pale of the constitution. It had been better for the character of George III. had he imitated the candour of his minister; had he told him that he had made a promise he would not be suffered to fulfil, before he had obtained the advantage to gain which that promise had been made. When Pitt proposed Catholic emancipation as one of the topics of the king's speech, for the session of 1801, the royal negative was at once interposed, and when Dundas persisted in his attempt to overcome his master's objections, the king abruptly terminated the conference, saying, 'Scotch metaphysics cannot destroy religious obligations.' Pitt immediately tendered his resignation. … All that was brilliant in Toryism passed from the cabinet with the late minister: When Pitt and Canning were withdrawn, with their satellites, nothing remained of the Tory party but the mere courtiers who lived upon the favour of the king, and the insipid lees of the party; men who voted upon every subject in accordance with their one ruling idea—the certain ruin, which must follow the first particle of innovation. Yet from these relicts the king was obliged to form a new cabinet, for application to the Whigs was out of the question. These were more strenuous for emancipation than Pitt. Henry Addington, Pitt's speaker of the house of commons, was the person upon whom the king's choice fell; and he succeeded, with the assistance of the late premier, in filling up the offices at his disposal. … The peace of Amiens was the great work of this feeble administration [see FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802], and formed a severe commentary upon the boastings of the Tories. 'Unless the monarchy of France be restored,' Pitt had said, eight years before, 'the monarchy of England is lost forever.' Eight years of warfare had succeeded, yet the monarchy of France was not restored, and the crusade was stayed. England had surrendered her conquests, France retained hers; the landmarks of Europe had been in some degree restored; England, alone, remained burdened with the enduring consequences of the ruinous and useless strife. The peace was approved by the Whigs, who were glad of any respite from such a war, and by Pitt, who gave his support to the Addington administration. But he could not control his adherents. … As the instability of the peace grew manifest, the incompetency of the administration became generally acknowledged: with Pitt sometimes chiding, Windham and Canning, and Lords Spencer and Grenville continually attacking, and Fox and the Whigs only refraining from violent opposition from a knowledge that if Addington went out Pitt would be his successor, the conduct of the government was by no means an easy or a grateful task to a man destitute of commanding talents. When to these parliamentary difficulties were added a recommencement of the war, and a popular panic at Bonaparte's threatened invasion, Addington's embarrassments became inextricable. He had performed the business which Pitt had assigned him; he had made an experimental peace, and had saved Pitt's honour with the Roman Catholics. The object of his appointment he had unconsciously completed, and no sooner did his predecessor manifest an intention of returning to office, than the ministerial majorities began to diminish, and Addington found himself without support. On the 12th of April it was announced that Mr. Addington had resigned, and Pitt appeared to resume his station as a matter of course. During his temporary retirement, Pitt had, however, lost one section of his supporters. The Grenville party and the Whigs had gradually approximated, and the former now refused to come into the new arrangements unless Fox was introduced into the cabinet. To this Pitt offered no objection, but the king was firm—or obstinate. … In the following year, Addington himself, now created Viscount Sidmouth, returned to office with the subordinate appointment of president of the council. The conflagration had again spread through Europe. … Pitt had the mortification to see his grand continental coalition, the produce of such immense expense and the object of such hope, shattered in one campaign. At home, Lord Melville, his most faithful political supporter, was attacked by a charge from which he could not defend him, and underwent the impeachment of the commons for malpractices in his office as treasurer of the navy. Lord Sidmouth and several others seceded from the cabinet, and Pitt, broken in health, and dispirited by reverses, had lost much of his wonted energy. Thus passed away the year 1805. On the 23d of January, 1806, Pitt expired. … The death of Pitt was the dissolution of his administration. The Tory party was scattered in divisions and subdivisions innumerable. Canning now recognised no political leader, but retained his old contempt for Sidmouth and his friends, and his hostility to the Grenvilles for their breach with Pitt. Castlereagh, William Dundas, Hawkesbury, or Barham, although sufficiently effective when Pitt was present to direct and to defend, would have made a hopeless figure without him in face of such an opposition as the house of commons now afforded. {946} The administration, which was ironically designated by its opponents as 'All the Talents,' succeeded. Lord Grenville was first lord of the treasury. Fox chose the office of secretary for foreign affairs with the hope of putting an end to the war. Windham was colonial secretary. Earl Spencer had the seals of the home department. Erskine was lord chancellor. Mr. Grey was first lord of the admiralty. Sheridan, treasurer of the navy. Lord Sidmouth was privy seal. Lord Henry Petty, who, although now only in his 26th year, had already acquired considerable distinction as an eloquent Whig speaker, was advanced to the post of chancellor of the exchequer, the vacant chair of Pitt. Such were the men who now assumed the reins under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty."

G. W. Cooke, History of Party, volume 3, chapters 17-18.

ALSO IN: Earl Stanhope (Lord Mahon), Life of Pitt, chapters 29-44 (volumes 3-4).

A. G. Stapleton, George Canning and His Times, chapters 6-8.

Earl Russell, Life and Times of Charles James Fox, chapters 58-69 (volume 3).

G. Pellew, Life and Correspondence of Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth, chapters 10-26 (volumes 1-2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1802 (OCTOBER). Protest against Bonaparte's interference in Switzerland. His extraordinary reply.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1803.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1802-1803. Bonaparte's complaints and demands. The Peltier trial. The First Consul's rage. Declaration of war. Napoleon's seizure of Hanover. Cruel detention of all English people in France, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802-1803.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1804-1809. Difficulties with the United States. Questions of neutral rights. Right of Search and Impressment. The American Embargo.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809, and 1808.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL). Third Coalition against France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1805. Napoleon's threatened invasion. Nelson's long pursuit of the French fleet. His victory and death at Trafalgar. The crushing of the Coalition at Austerlitz.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806. Final seizure of Cape Colony from the Dutch.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806. Cession of Hanover to Prussia by Napoleon. War with Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806. Attempted reinstatement of the dethroned King of Naples. The Battle of Maida.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806. Death of Pitt. Peace negotiations with Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1807. Expedition against Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1810. Commercial warfare with Napoleon. Orders in Council. Berlin and Milan Decrees.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812. The ministry of "All the Talents." Abolition of the Slave Trade. The Portland and the Perceval ministries. Confirmed insanity of George III. Beginning of the regency of the Prince of Wales. Assassination of Mr. Perceval.

The "Ministry of All the Talents" is "remarkable solely for its mistakes, and is to be remembered chiefly for the death of Fox [September 13, 1806] and the abolition of the slave-trade. Fox was now destined at the close of his career to be disillusioned with regard to Napoleon. He at last thoroughly realized the insincerity of his hero. … The second great object of Fox's life he succeeded in attaining before his death;—this was the abolition of the slave-trade. For more than thirty years the question had been before the country, and a vigorous agitation had been conducted by Clarkson, Wilberforce, and Fox. . Pitt was quite at one with them on this question, and had brought forward motions on the subject. The House of Lords, however, rejected all measures of this description during the Revolutionary War, under the influence of the Anti-Jacobin feeling. It was reserved for Fox to succeed in carrying a Bill inflicting heavy pecuniary punishments on the traffic in slaves. And yet this measure—the sole fruit of Fox's statesmanship—was wholly inadequate; nor was it till the slave-trade was made felony in 1811 that its final extinction was secured. The remaining acts of the Ministry were blunders. … Their financial system was a failure. They carried on the war so as to alienate their allies and to cover themselves with humiliation. Finally, they insisted on bringing forward a measure for the relief of the Catholics, though there was not the slightest hope of carrying it, and it could only cause a disruption of the Government. … The king and the Pittites were determined to oppose it, and so the Ministry agreed to drop the question under protest. George insisted on their withdrawing the protest, and as this was refused he dismissed them. … This then was the final triumph of George III. He had successfully dismissed this Ministry; he had maintained the principle that every Ministry is bound to withdraw any project displeasing to the king. These principles were totally inconsistent with Constitutional Government, and they indirectly precipitated Reform by rendering it absolutely necessary in order to curb the royal influence. … The Duke of Portland's sole claims to form a Ministry were his high rank, and the length of his previous services. His talents were never very great, and they were weakened by age and disease. The real leader was Mr. Perceval, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a dexterous debater and a patriotic statesman. This Government, being formed on the closest Tory basis and on the king's influence, was pledged to pursue a retrograde policy and to oppose all measures of Reform. The one really high-minded statesman in the Cabinet was Canning, the Foreign Minister. His advanced views, however, continually brought him into collision with Castlereagh, the War Minister, a man of much inferior talents and the narrowest Tory views. Quarrels inevitably arose between the two, and there was no real Prime Minister to hold them strongly under control. … At last the ill-feeling ended in a duel, which was followed by a mutual resignation on the ground that neither could serve with the other. This was followed by the resignation of Portland, who felt himself wholly unequal to the arduous task of managing the Ministry any longer. {947} The leadership now devolved on Perceval, who found himself in an apparently hopeless condition. His only supporters were Lords Liverpool, Eldon, Palmerston, and Wellesley. Neither Canning, Castlereagh, nor Sidmouth (Addington) would join him. The miserable expedition to Walcheren had just ended in ignominy. The campaign in the Peninsula was regarded as a chimerical enterprise, got up mainly for the benefit of a Tory commander. Certainly the most capable man in the Cabinet was Lord Wellesley, the Foreign Minister, but he was continually thwarted by the incapable men he had to deal with. However, as long as he remained at the Foreign Office, he supported the Peninsular War with vigour, and enabled his brother to carry out more effectually his plans with regard to the defence of Portugal. In November, 1810, the king was again seized with insanity, nor did he ever recover the use of his faculties during the rest of his life. The Ministry determined to bring forward Pitt's old Bill of 1788 in a somewhat more modified form, February, 1811. The Prince of Wales requested Grey and Grenville to criticize this, but, regarding their reply as lukewarm, he began to entertain an ill-will for them. At this moment the judicious flattery of his family brought him over from the Whigs, and he decided to continue Perceval in office. Wellesley, however, took the opportunity to resign, and was succeeded by Castlereagh, February, 1812. In May Perceval was assassinated by Mr. Bellingham, a lunatic, and his Ministry at once fell to pieces."

B. C. Skottowe, Our Hanoverian Kings, book 10, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: F. H. Hill, George Canning, chapters 13-17.

S. Walpole, Life of Spencer Perceval, volume 2.

R. I. and S. Wilberforce, Life of William Wilberforce, chapter 20 (volume 3).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807. Act for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1792-1807.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-SEPTEMBER). Operations in support of the Russians against the Turks and French. Bold naval attack on Constantinople and humiliating failure. Disastrous expedition to Egypt.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY). Alliance formed at Tilsit between Napoleon and Alexander I. of Russia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (AUGUST-NOVEMBER). Bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of the Danish fleet. War with Russia and Denmark.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1807 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER). Submission of Portugal to Napoleon under English advice. Flight of the house of Braganza to Brazil.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (MAY). Ineffectual attempt to aid Sweden. Expedition of Sir John Moore.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808 (JULY). Peace and alliance with the Spanish people against the new Napoleonic monarchy. Opening of the Peninsular War.

See SPAIN: A. D.1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808. Expulsion of English forces from Capri.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D.1808-1809.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1808-1809. Wellington's first campaign in the Peninsula. Convention of Cintra. Evacuation of Portugal by the French. Sir John Moore's advance into Spain and his retreat. His death at Corunna.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY). Wellington sent to the Peninsula. The passage of the Douro and the Battle of Talavera.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (JULY-DECEMBER). The Walcheren Expedition.

"Three times before, during the war, it had occurred to one or another, connected with the government, that it would be a good thing to hold Antwerp, and command the Scheldt, seize the French ships in the river, and get possession of their arsenals and dockyards. On each occasion, men of military science and experience had been consulted; and invariably they had pronounced against the scheme. Now, however, what Mr. Pitt had considered impracticable, Lord Castlereagh, with the rashness of incapacity, resolved should be done: and, in order not to be hindered, he avoided consulting with those who would have objected to the enterprise. Though the scene of action was to be the swamps at the mouths of the Scheldt, he consulted no physician. Having himself neither naval, military, nor medical knowledge, he assumed the responsibility—except such as the King and the Duke of York chose to share. … It was May, 1809, before any stir was apparent which could lead men outside the Cabinet to infer that an expedition for the Scheldt was in contemplation; but so early as the beginning of April (it is now known), Mr. Canning signified that he could not share in the responsibility of an enterprise which must so involve his own office. … The fleet that rode in the channel consisted of 39 ships of the line, and 36 frigates, and a due proportion of small vessels: in all, 245 vessels of war: and 400 transports carried 40,000 soldiers. Only one hospital ship was provided for the whole expedition, though the Surgeon General implored the grant of two more. He gave his reasons, but was refused. … The naval commander was Sir Richard J. Strachan, whose title to the responsibility no one could perceive, while many who had more experience were unemployed. The military command was given (as the selection of the present Cabinet bad been) to Lord Chatham, for no better reason than that he was a favourite with the King and Queen, who liked his gentle and courtly manners, and his easy and amiable temper. … The fatal mistake was made of not defining the respective authorities of the two commanders; and both being inexperienced or apathetic, each relied upon the other first, and cast the blame of failure upon him afterwards. In the autumn, an epigram of unknown origin was in every body's mouth, all over England:

'Lord Chatham, with his sword undrawn, Stood waiting for Sir Richard Strachan; Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em, Stood waiting for the Earl of Chatham.'

The fleet set sail on the 28th of July, and was on the coast of Holland the next day. The first discovery was that there were not boats enough to land the troops and the ordnance. The next was that no plan had been formed about how to proceed. The most experienced officers were for pushing on to Antwerp, 45 miles off, and taking it before it could be prepared for defence; but the commanders determined to take Flushing first. They set about it so slowly that a fortnight was consumed in preparations. {948} In two days more, the 15th of August, Flushing was taken. After this, Lord Chatham paused to consider what he should do next; and it was the 21st before be began to propose to go on to Antwerp. Then came the next discovery, that, by this time two intermediate places had been so strengthened that there must be some fighting on the way. So he did nothing more but take possession of two small islands near Flushing. Not another blow was struck; not another league was traversed by this magnificent expedition. But the most important discovery of all now disclosed itself. The army had been brought into the swamps at the beginning of the sickly season. Fever sprang up under their feet, and 3,000 men were in hospital in a few days, just when it became necessary to reduce the rations, because provisions were falling short. On the 27th of August, Lord Chatham led a council of war to resolve that 'it was not advisable to pursue further operations.' But, if they could not proceed, neither could they remain where they were. The enemy had more spirit than their invaders. On the 30th and 31st, such a fire was opened from both banks of the river, that the ships were obliged to retire. Flushing was given up, and everything else except the island of Walcheren, which it was fatal to hold at this season. On the 4th of September, most of the ships were at home again; and Lord Chatham appeared on the 14th. Eleven thousand men were by that time in the fever, and he brought home as many as he could. Sir Eyre Coote, whom he left in command, was dismayed to see all the rest sinking down in disease at the rate of hundreds in a day. Though the men had been working in the swamps, up to the waist in marsh water, and the roofs of their sleeping places had been carried off by bombardment, so that they slept under a canopy of autumn fog, it was supposed that a supply of Thames water to drink would stop the sickness; and a supply of 500 tons per week was transmitted. At last, at the end of October, a hundred English bricklayers, with tools, bricks, and mortar, were sent over to mend the roofs; but they immediately dropped into the hospitals. Then the patients were to be accommodated in the towns; but to spare the inhabitants, the soldiers were laid down in damp churches; and their bedding had from the beginning been insufficient for their need. At last, government desired the chief officers of the army Medical Board to repair to Walcheren, and see what was the precise nature of the fever, and what could be done. The Surgeon-General and the Physician-General threw the duty upon each other. Government appointed it to the Physician-General, Sir Lucas Pepys; but he refused to go. Both officers were dismissed, and the medical department of the army was reorganized and greatly improved. The deaths were at this time from 200 to 300 a week. When Walcheren was evacuated, on the 23rd of December, nearly half the force sent out five months before were dead or missing; and of those who returned, 35,000 were admitted into the hospitals of England before the next 1st of June. Twenty millions sterling were spent on this expedition. It was the purchase money of tens of thousands of deaths, and of ineffaceable national disgrace."

H. Martineau, History of England, 1800-1815, book 2, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 7, chapter 20.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER). Difficulties of Wellington's campaign in the Peninsula. His retreat into Portugal.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1810. Capture of the Mauritius.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1810-1812. The War in the Peninsula. Wellington's Lines of Torres Vedras. French recoil from them. English advance into Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1800-1810 (OCTOBER-SEPTEMBER), and 1810-1812.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1811. Capture of Java from the Dutch.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1811-1812. Desertion of Napoleon's Continental System by Russia and Sweden. Reopening of their ports to British commerce.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JANUARY). Building of the first passenger Steam-boat.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST). The Peninsular War. Wellington's victory at Salamanca and advance to Madrid.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1813. The Liverpool Ministry. Business depression and bad harvests. Distress and rioting. The Luddites.

"Again there was much negotiation, and an attempt to introduce Lord Wellesley and Mr. Canning to the ministry. Of course they could not serve with Castlereagh; they were then asked to form a ministry with Grenville and Grey, but these Lords objected to the Peninsular War, to which Wellesley was pledged. Grenville and Grey then attempted a ministry of their own but quarrelled with Lord Moira on the appointments to the Household; and as an American war was threatening, and the ministry had already given up their Orders in Council (one of the chief causes of their unpopularity), the Regent rather than remain longer without a ministry, intrusted Lord Liverpool with the Premiership, with Castlereagh as his Foreign Secretary, and the old ministry remained in office. Before the day of triumph of this ministry arrived, while Napoleon was still at the height of his power, and the success of Wellington as yet uncertain, England had drifted into war with America. It is difficult to believe that this useless war might not have been avoided had the ministers been men of ability. It arose from the obstinate manner in which the Government clung to the execution of their retaliatory measures against France, regardless of the practical injury they were inflicting upon all neutrals. … The same motive of class aggrandizement which detracts from the virtue of the foreign policy of this ministry underlay the whole administration of home affairs. There was an incapacity to look at public affairs from any but a class or aristocratic point of view. The natural consequence was a constantly increasing mass of discontent among the lower orders, only kept in restraint by an overmastering fear felt by all those higher in rank of the possible revolutionary tendencies of any attempt at change. Much of the discontent was of course the inevitable consequence of the circumstances in which England was placed, and for which the Government was only answerable in so far as it created those circumstances. At the same time it is impossible not to blame the complacent manner in which the misery was ignored and the occasional success of individual merchants and contractors regarded as evidences of national prosperity. … {949} A plentiful harvest in 1813, and the opening of many continental ports, did much to revive both trade and manufactures; but it was accompanied by a fall in the price of corn from 171s. to 75s. The consequence was widespread distress among the agriculturists, which involved the country banks, so that in the two following years 240 of them stopped payment. So great a crash could not fail to affect the manufacturing interest also; apparently, for the instant, the very restoration of peace brought widespread ruin. … Before the end of the year 1811, wages had sunk to 7s. 6d. a week. The manufacturing operatives were therefore in a state of absolute misery. Petitions signed by 40,000 or 50,000 men urged upon Parliament that they were starving; but there was another class which fared still worse. Machinery had by no means superseded hand-work. In thousands of hamlets and cottages handlooms still existed. The work was neither so good nor so rapid as work done by machinery; even at the best of times used chiefly as an auxiliary to agriculture, this hand labour could now scarcely find employment at all. Not unnaturally, without work and without food, these hand workers were very ready to believe that it was the machinery which caused their ruin, and so in fact it was; the change, though on the whole beneficial, had brought much individual misery. The people were not wise enough to see this. They rose in riots in many parts of England, chiefly about Nottingham, calling themselves Luddites (from the name of a certain idiot lad who some 30 years before, had broken stocking-frames), gathered round them many of the disbanded soldiery with whom the country was thronged, and with a very perfect secret organization, carried out their object of machine-breaking. The unexpected thronging of the village at nightfall, a crowd of men with blackened faces, armed sentinels holding every approach, silence on all sides, the village inhabitants cowering behind closed doors, an hour or two's work of smashing and burning, and the disappearance of the crowd as rapidly as it had arrived—such were the incidents of the night riots."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 3, pages 1325-1332.

ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 7, chapter 30.

Pictorial History of England, volume 8, chapter 4 (Reign of George III., volume 4).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1812-1815. War with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809; 1808; and 1810-1812, to 1815 (JANUARY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813 (JUNE). Joined with the new European Coalition against Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1814. Wellington's victorious and final campaigns in the Peninsular War.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1813-1816. War with the Ghorkas of Nepal.

See INDIA: A. D.1805-1816.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814. The allies in France and in possession of Paris. Fall of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and (MARCH-APRIL).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (May-June). Treaty of Paris. Acquisition of Malta, the Isle of France and the Cape of Good Hope.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER). The Treaty of Ghent, terminating war with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1814-1815. The Congress of Vienna and its revision of the map of Europe.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (MARCH). The Corn Law.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

[Transcriber's Note:]

INDONESIA: A. D. 1815 (APRIL). Eruption of Mount Tambora precipitating the "Year without a Summer" and widespread famine.

"Low temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests in Britain and Ireland. … With the cause of the problems unknown, hungry people demonstrated in front of grain markets and bakeries. Later riots, arson, and looting took place in many European cities. On some occasions, rioters carried flags reading "Bread or Blood". Though riots were common during times of hunger, the food riots of 1816 and 1817 were the highest levels of violence since the French Revolution. It was the worst famine of 19th-century mainland Europe.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer#Europe_

[End Transcriber's Note]

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JUNE). The Waterloo campaign. Defeat and final Overthrow of Napoleon.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-AUGUST). Surrender of Napoleon. His confinement on the Island of St. Helena.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE-AUGUST).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER). Wellington's army in Paris. The Second Treaty.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1815 (SEPTEMBER). The Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820. Agitation for Parliamentary Reform. Hampden Clubs. Spencean philanthropists. Trials of William Hone. The Spa-fields meeting and riot. March of the Blanketeers. Massacre of Peterloo. The Six Acts. Death of George III. Accession of George IV.

"From this time the name of Parliamentary Reform became, for the most part, a name of terror to the Government. … It passed away from the patronage of a few aristocratic lovers of popularity, to be advocated by writers of 'two-penny trash,' and to be discussed and organized by 'Hampden Clubs' of hungering philanthropists and unemployed 'weaver-boys.' Samuel Bamford, who thought it no disgrace to call himself 'a Radical' … says, 'at this time (1816) the writings of William Cobbett suddenly became of great authority; they were read on nearly every cottage hearth in the manufacturing districts of South Lancashire, in those of Leicester, Derby, and Nottingham; also in many of the Scottish manufacturing towns. Their influence was speedily visible.' Cobbett advocated Parliamentary Reform as the corrective of whatever miseries the lower classes suffered. A new order of politicians was called into action: 'The Sunday-schools of the preceding thirty years had produced many working men of sufficient talent to become readers, writers, and speakers in the village meetings for Parliamentary Reform; some also were found to possess a rude poetic talent, which rendered their effusions popular, and bestowed an additional charm on their assemblages; and by such various means, anxious listeners at first, and then zealous proselytes, were drawn from the cottages of quiet nooks and dingles to the weekly readings and discussions of the Hampden Clubs.' … In a Report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons, presented on the 19th of February, 1817, the Hampden Clubs are described as 'associated professedly for the purpose of Parliamentary Reform, upon the most extended principle of universal suffrage and annual parliaments'; but that 'in far the greater number of them … nothing short of a Revolution is the object expected and avowed.' The testimony of Samuel Bamford shows that, in this early period of their history, the Hampden Clubs limited their object to the attainment of Parliamentary Reform. … Bamford, at the beginning of 1817, came to London as a delegate from the Middleton Club, to attend a great meeting of delegates to be assembled in London. … {950} The Middleton delegate was introduced, amidst the reeking tobacco-fog of a low tavern, to the leading members of a society called the 'Spencean Philanthropists.' They derived their name from that of a Mr. Spence, a school-master in Yorkshire, who had conceived a plan for making the nation happy, by causing all the lands of the country to become the property of the State, which State should divide all the produce for the support of the people. … The Committee of the Spenceans openly meddled with sundry grave questions besides that of a community in land; and, amongst other notable projects, petitioned Parliament to do away with machinery. Amongst these fanatics some dangerous men had established themselves, such as Thistlewood, who subsequently paid the penalty of five years of maniacal plotting." A meeting held at Spa-fields on the 2d of December, 1816, in the interest of the Spencean Philanthropists, terminated in a senseless outbreak of riot, led by a young fanatic named Watson. The mob plundered some gunsmiths' shops, shot one gentleman who remonstrated, and set out to seize the Tower; but was dispersed by a few resolute magistrates and constables. "It is difficult to imagine a more degraded and dangerous position than that in which every political writer was placed during the year 1817. In the first place, he was subject, by a Secretary of State's warrant, to be imprisoned upon suspicion, under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Secondly, he was open to an ex-officio information, under which he would be compelled to find bail, or be imprisoned. The power of ex-officio information had been extended so as to compel bail, by an Act of 1808; but from 1808 to 1811, during which three years forty such informations were laid, only one person was held to bail. In 1817 numerous ex-officio informations were filed, and the almost invariable practice then was to hold the alleged offender to bail, or, in default, to commit to prison. Under this Act Mr. Hone and others were committed to prison during this year. … The entire course of these proceedings was a signal failure. There was only one solitary instance of success—William Cobbett ran away. On the 28th of March he fled to America, suspending the publication of his 'Register' for four months. On the 12th of May earl Grey mentioned in the House of Lords that a Mr. Hone was proceeded against for publishing some blasphemous parody; but he had read one of the same nature, written, printed, and published, some years ago, by other people, without any notice having been officially taken of it. The parody to which earl Grey alluded, and a portion of which he recited, was Canning's famous parody, 'Praise Lepaux'; and he asked whether the authors, be they in the cabinet or in any other place, would also be found out and visited with the penalties of the law? This hint to the obscure publisher against whom these ex-officio informations had been filed for blasphemous and seditious parodies, was effectually worked out by him in the solitude of his prison, and in the poor dwelling where he had surrounded himself, as he had done from his earliest years, with a collection of odd and curious books. From these he had gathered an abundance of knowledge that was destined to perplex the technical acquirements of the Attorney-General, to whom the sword and buckler of his precedents would be wholly useless, and to change the determination of the boldest judge in the land [Lord Ellenborough] to convict at any rate, into the prostration of helpless despair. Altogether, the three trials of William Hone are amongst the most remarkable in our constitutional history. They produced more distinct effects upon the temper of the country than any public proceedings of that time. They taught the Government a lesson which has never been forgotten, and to which, as much as to any other cause, we owe the prodigious improvement as to the law of libel itself, and the use of the law, in our own day,—an improvement which leaves what is dangerous in the press to be corrected by the remedial power of the press itself; and which, instead of lamenting over the newly-acquired ability of the masses to read seditious and irreligious works, depends upon the general diffusion of this ability as the surest corrective of the evils that are incident even to the best gift of heaven,—that of knowledge."

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 8, chapter 5.

In 1817 "there was widespread distress. There were riots in the counties of England arising out of the distress. There were riots in various parts of London. Secret Committees were appointed by both Houses of the Legislature to inquire into the alleged disaffection of part of the people. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended. The march of the Blanketeers from Manchester [March, 1817] caused panic and consternation through various circles in London. The march of the Blanketeers was a very simple and harmless project. A large number of the working-men in Manchester conceived the idea of walking to London to lay an account of their distress before the heads of the Government, and to ask that some remedy might be found, and also to appeal for the granting of Parliamentary reform. It was part of their arrangement that each man should carry a blanket with him, as they would, necessarily, have to sleep at many places along the way, and they were not exactly in funds to pay for first-class hotel accommodation. The nickname of Blanketeers was given to them because of their portable sleeping-arrangements. The whole project was simple, was touching in its simplicity. Even at this distance of time one cannot read about it without being moved by its pathetic childishness. These poor men thought they had nothing to do but to walk to London, and get to speech of Lord Liverpool, and justice would be done to them and their claims. The Government of Lord Liverpool dealt very roundly, and in a very different way, with the Blanketeers. If the poor men had been marching on London with pikes, muskets and swords, they could not have created a greater fury of panic and of passion in official circles. The Government, availing itself of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, had the leaders of the movement captured and sent to prison, stopped the march by military force, and dispersed those who were taking part in it. … The 'Massacre of Peterloo,' as it is not inappropriately called, took place not long after. A great public meeting was held [August 16, 1819] at St. Peter's Field, then on the outskirts of Manchester, now the site of the Free Trade Hall, which many years later rang so often to the thrilling tones of John Bright. The meeting was called to petition for Parliamentary reform. It should be remembered that in those days Manchester, Birmingham, and other great cities were without any manner of representation in Parliament. {951} It was a vast meeting—some 80,000 men and women are stated to have been present. The yeomanry [a mounted militia force], for some reason impossible to understand, endeavoured to disperse the meeting, and actually dashed in upon the crowd, spurring their horses and flourishing their sabres. Eleven persons were killed, and several hundreds were wounded. The Government brought in, as their panacea for popular trouble and discontent, the famous Six Acts. These Acts were simply measures to render it more easy for the authorities to put down or disperse meetings which they considered objectionable, and to suppress any manner of publication which they chose to call seditious. But among them were some Bills to prevent training and drilling, and the collection and use of arms. These measures show what the panic of the Government was. It was the conviction of the ruling classes that the poor and the working-classes of England were preparing a revolution. … During all this time, the few genuine Radicals in the House of Commons were bringing on motion after motion for Parliamentary reform, just as Grattan and his friends were bringing forward motion after motion for Catholic Emancipation. In 1818, a motion by Sir Francis Burdett for annual Parliaments and universal suffrage was lost by a majority of 106 to nobody. … The motion had only two supporters—Burdett himself, and his colleague, Lord Cochrane. … The forms of the House require two tellers on either side, and a compliance with this inevitable rule took up the whole strength of Burdett's party. … On January 29, 1820, the long reign of George III. came to an end. The life of the King closed in darkness of eyes and mind. Stone-blind, stone-deaf, and, except for rare lucid intervals, wholly out of his senses, the poor old King wandered from room to room of his palace, a touching picture, with his long, white, flowing beard, now repeating to himself the awful words of Milton—the 'dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon—irrecoverably dark'—now, in a happier mood, announcing himself to be in the companionship of angels. George, the Prince Regent, succeeded, of course, to the throne; and George IV. at once announced his willingness to retain the services of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool. The Whigs had at one time expected much from the coming of George IV. to the throne, but their hopes had begun to be chilled of late."

J. McCarthy, Sir Robert Peel, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: J. Routledge, Chapters in the History of Popular Progress, chapters 12-19.

H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years' Peace, book 1, chapters 5-17 (volume 1).

E. Smith, William Cobbett, chapters 21-23 (volume 2).

See, also, TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1818. Convention with the United States relating to Fisheries, etc.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820. Accession of King George IV.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1822. Congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona. Projects of the Holy Alliance. English protests. Canning's policy towards Spain and the Spanish American colonies.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827. The Cato Street Conspiracy. Trial of Queen Caroline. Canning in the Foreign Office. Commercial Crisis of 1825. Canning as Premier. His death.

"Riot and social misery had, during the Regency, heralded the Reign. They did not cease to afflict the country. At once we are plunged into the wretched details of a conspiracy. Secret intelligence reached the Home Office to the effect that a man named Thistlewood, who had been a year in jail for challenging Lord Sidmouth, had with several accomplices laid a plot to murder the Ministers during a Cabinet dinner, which was to come off at Lord Harrowby's. The guests did not go, and the police pounced on the gang, arming themselves in a stable in Cato Street, off the Edgeware Road. Thistlewood blew out the candle, having first stabbed a policeman to the heart. For that night he got off; but, being taken next day, he was soon hanged, with his four leading associates. This is called the Cato Street Conspiracy. … George IV., almost as soon as the crown became his own, began to stir in the matter of getting a divorce from his wife. He had married this poor Princess Caroline of Brunswick in 1795, merely for the purpose of getting his debts paid. Their first interview disappointed both. After some time of semi-banishment to Blackheath she had gone abroad to live chiefly in Italy, and had been made the subject of more than one 'delicate investigation' for the purpose of procuring evidence of infidelity against her. She now came to England (June 6, 1820), and passed from Dover to London through joyous and sympathizing crowds. The King sent a royal message to the Lords, asking for an inquiry into her conduct. Lord Liverpool and Lord Castlereagh laid before the Lords and Commons a green bag, stuffed with indecent and disgusting accusations against the Queen. Happily for her she had two champions, whose names shall not readily lose the lustre gained in her defence—Henry Brougham and Thomas Denman, her Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. After the failure of a negotiation, in which the Queen demanded two things that the Ministers refused—the insertion of her name in the Liturgy, and a proper reception at some foreign court—Lord Liverpool brought into the Upper House a 'Bill of Pains and Penalties,' which aimed at her degradation from the throne and the dissolution of her marriage. Through the fever-heat of a scorching summer the case went on, counsel and witnesses playing their respective parts before the Lords. … At length the Bill, carried on its third reading by a majority of only nine, was abandoned by the Ministry (November 10). And the country broke out into cheers and flaming windows. Had she rested content with the vindication of her fair fame, it would have been better for her own peace. But she went in public procession to St. Paul's to return thanks for her victory. And more rashly still in the following year she tried to force her way into Westminster Abbey during the Coronation of her husband (July 19, 1821). But mercy came a few days later from the King of kings. The people, true to her even in death, insisted that the hearse containing her remains should pass through the city; and in spite of bullets from the carbines of dragoons they gained their point, the Lord Mayor heading the procession till it had cleared the streets. … George Canning had resigned his office rather than take any part with the Liverpool Cabinet in supporting the 'Bill of Pains and Penalties,' and had gone to the Continent for the summer of the trial year.

{952}

Early in 1822 Lord Sidmouth … resigned the Home Office. He was succeeded by Robert Peel, a statesman destined to achieve eminence. Canning about the same time was offered the post of Governor-General of India," and accepted it; but this arrangement was suddenly changed by the death of Castlereagh, who committed suicide in August. Canning then became Foreign Secretary. "The spirit of Canning's foreign policy was diametrically opposed to that of Londonderry [Castlereagh]. … Refusing to interfere in Spanish affairs, he yet acknowledged the new-won freedom of the South American States, which had lately shaken off the Spanish yoke. To preserve peace and yet cut England loose from the Holy Alliance were the conflicting aims, which the genius of Canning enabled him to reconcile [see VERONA, CONGRESS OF]. … During the years 1824-25, the country, drunk with unusual prosperity, took that speculation fever which has afflicted her more than once during the last century and a half. … A crop of fungus companies sprang up temptingly from the heated soil of the Stock Exchange. … Shares were bought and gambled in. The winter passed; but spring shone on glutted markets. depreciated stock, no buyers, and no returns from the shadowy and distant investments in South America, which had absorbed so much capital. Then the crashing began—the weak broke first, the strong next, until banks went down by dozens, and commerce for the time was paralyzed. By causing the issue of one and two pound notes, by coining in great haste a new supply of sovereigns, and by inducing the Bank of England to lend money upon the security of goods—in fact to begin the pawnbroking business—the Government met the crisis, allayed the panic, and to some extent restored commercial credit. Apoplexy having struck down Lord Liverpool early in 1827, it became necessary to select a new Premier. Canning was the chosen man." He formed a Cabinet with difficulty in April, Wellington, Peel, Eldon, and others of his former colleagues refusing to take office with him. His administration was brought abruptly to an end in August by his sudden death.

W. F. Collier, History of England, pages 526-529.

ALSO IN: Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself, chapters 12-18 (volume 2).

A. G. Stapleton, George Canning and His Times, chapters 18-34.

_A. G. Stapleton, Some Official Correspondence of George Canning, 2 volumes_

F. H. Hill, George Canning, chapters 19-22.

Sir T. Martin, Life of Lord Lyndhurst, chapter 7.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1824-1826. The first Burmese War.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1825-1830. The beginning of railroads.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828. Removal of Disabilities from the Dissenters. Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts.

"Early in 1827 a private member, of little influence, unexpectedly raised a dormant question. For the best part of a century the Dissenters had passively submitted to the anomalous position in which they had been placed by the Legislature [see above: A. D. 1662-1665; 1672-1673; 1711-1714]. Nominally unable to hold any office under the Crown, they were annually 'whitewashed' for their infringement of the law by the passage of an Indemnity Act. The Dissenters had hitherto been assenting parties to this policy. They fancied that the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts would logically lead to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics, and they preferred remaining under a disability themselves to running the risk of conceding relief to others. The tacit understanding, which thus existed between the Church on one side and Dissent on the other, was maintained unbroken and almost unchallenged till 1827. It was challenged in that year by William Smith, the member for Norwich. Smith was a London banker; he was a Dissenter; and he felt keenly the hard, unjust, and unnecessary' law which disabled him from holding, any office, however insignificant, under the Crown,' and from sitting 'as a magistrate in any corporation without violating his conscience.' Smith took the opportunity which the annual Indemnity Act afforded him of stating these views in the House of Commons. As he spoke the scales fell from the eyes of the Liberal members. The moment he sat down Harvey, the member for Colchester, twitted the Opposition with disregarding 'the substantial claims of the Dissenters,' while those of the Catholics were urged year after year' with the vehemence of party,' and supported by 'the mightiest powers of energy and eloquence.' The taunt called up Lord John Russell, and elicited from him the declaration that he would bring forward a motion on the Test and Corporation Acts, 'if the Protestant Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do so.' A year afterwards—on the 26th of February, 1828—Lord John Russell rose to redeem the promise which he thus gave." His motion "was carried by 237 votes to 193. The Ministry had sustained a crushing and unexpected reverse. For the moment it was doubtful whether it could continue in office. It was saved from the necessity of resigning by the moderation and dexterity of Peel. Peel considered that nothing could be more unfortunate for the Church than to involve the House of Commons in a conflict with the House of Lords on a religious question. … On his advice the Bishops consented to substitute a formal declaration for the test hitherto in force. The declaration, which contained a promise that the maker of it would 'never exert any power or any influence to injure or subvert the Protestant' Established Church, was to be taken by the members of every corporation, and, at the pleasure of the Crown, by the holder of every office. Russell, though he disliked the declaration, assented to it for the sake of securing the success of his measure." The bill was modified accordingly and passed both Houses, though strenuously resisted by all the Tories of the old school.

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 10 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. Stoughton, Religion in England from 1800 to 1850, volume 1, chapter 2.

H. S. Skeats, History of the Free Churches of England, chapter 9.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1828. The administration of Lord Goderich. Advent of the Wellington Ministry.

"The death of Mr. Canning placed Lord Goderich at the head of the government. The composition of the Cabinet was slightly altered. Mr. Huskisson became Colonial Secretary, Mr. Herries Chancellor of the Exchequer. The government was generally considered to be weak, and not calculated for a long endurance. … The differences upon financial measures between Mr. Herries … and Mr. Huskisson … could not be reconciled by Lord Goderich, and he therefore tendered his resignation to the king on the 9th of January, 1828. {953} His majesty immediately sent to lord Lyndhurst to desire that he and the duke of Wellington should come to Windsor. The king told the duke that he wished him to form a government of which he should be the head. … It was understood that lord Lyndhurst was to continue in office. The duke of Wellington immediately applied to Mr. Peel, who, returning to his post of Secretary of State for the Home Department, saw the impossibility of re-uniting in this administration those who had formed the Cabinet of lord Liverpool. He desired to strengthen the government of the duke of Wellington by the introduction of some of the more important of Mr. Canning's friends into the Cabinet and to fill some of the lesser offices. The earl of Dudley, Mr. Huskisson, lord Palmerston, and Mr. Charles Grant, became members of the new administration. Mr. William Lamb, afterwards lord Melbourne, was appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland. The ultra-Tories were greatly indignant at these arrangements. They groaned and reviled as if the world was unchanged."

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 8, chapter 13.

ALSO IN: Sir T. Martin, Life of Lord Lyndhurst, chapter 9.

W. M. Torrens, Life of Viscount Melbourne, volume 1, chapter 15.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1827-1829. Intervention on behalf of Greece. Battle of Navarino.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1828. Corn Law amendment. The Sliding Scale.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1829. Catholic Emancipation.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1830. The state of the Parliamentary representation before Reform. Death of George IV. Accession of William IV. Fall of the Wellington Ministry.

"Down to the year 1800, when the Union between Great Britain and Ireland was effected, the House consisted of 558 members; after 1800, it consisted of 658 members. In the earlier days of George III., it was elected by 160,000 voters, out of a population of a little more than eight millions; in the later days of that monarch, it was elected by about 440,000 voters, out of a population of twenty-two millions. … But the inadequacy of the representation will be even more striking if we consider the manner in which the electors were broken up into constituencies. The constituencies consisted either of counties, or of cities or boroughs. Generally speaking, the counties of England and Wales (and of Ireland, after the Union) were represented by two members, and the counties of Scotland by one member; and the voters were the forty-shilling freeholders. The number of cities and boroughs which returned members varied; but, from the date of the Union, there were about 217 in England and Wales, 14 in Scotland, and 39 in Ireland,—all the English and Welsh boroughs (with a few exceptions) returning two members, and the Scotch and Irish boroughs one member. How the particular places came to be Parliamentary boroughs is a question of much historic interest, which cannot be dealt with here in detail. Originally, the places to which writs were issued seem to have been chosen by the Crown, or, not unfrequently, by the Sheriffs of the counties. Probably, in the first instance, the more important places were selected; though other considerations, such as the political opinions of the owners of the soil, and the desire to recognise services (often of a very questionable character) rendered by such owners to the King, no doubt had their weight. In the time of Cromwell, some important changes were made. In 1654, he disfranchised many small boroughs, increased the number of county members, and enfranchised Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. All these reforms were cancelled after the Restoration; and from that time very few changes were made. … In the hundred and fifty years which followed the Restoration, however, there were changes in the condition of the country, altogether beyond the control of either kings or parliaments. Old towns disappeared or decayed, and new ones sprang up. Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds were remarkable examples of the latter,—Old Sarum was an example of the former. … At one time a place of some importance, it declined from the springing up of New Sarum (Salisbury); and, even so far back as the reign of Henry VII., it existed as a town only in imagination, and in the roll of the Parliamentary boroughs. … Many other places might be named [known as Rotten Boroughs and Pocket Boroughs]—such as Gatton in Surrey, and Ludgershall in Wiltshire—which represented only their owners. In fact, the representation of owners, and of owners only, was a very prominent feature of the electoral system now under consideration. Thus, the Duke of Norfolk was represented by eleven members, who sat for places forming a part of his estates; similarly, Lord Lonsdale was represented by nine members, Lord Darlington by seven, the Duke of Rutland and several other peers by six each; and it is stated by one authority that the Duke of Newcastle, at one time, returned one third of all the members for the boroughs, while, up to 1780, the members for the county of York—the largest and most influential of the counties—were always elected in Lord Rockingham's dining-room. But these are only selected instances. Many others might be cited. According to a statement made by the Duke of Richmond in 1780, 6,000 persons returned a clear majority of the House of Commons. In 1793, the Society of the Friends of the People asserted, and declared that they were able to prove, that 84 individuals returned 157 members; that 70 individuals returned 150 members; and that of the 154 individuals who thus returned 307 members—the majority of the House before the Union with Ireland—no fewer than 40 were peers. The same Society asserted in the same year, and declared that they were able to prove, that 70 members were returned by 35 places, in which there were scarcely any electors; that 90 members were returned by 46 places, in which there were fewer than 50 electors; that 37 members were returned by 19 places, with not more than 100 electors; and that 52 members were returned by 26 places, with not more than 200 electors: all these in England alone. Even in the towns which had a real claim to representation, the franchise rested upon no uniform basis. … In some cases the suffrage was practically household suffrage; in other cases the suffrage was extremely restricted. But they all returned their two members equally; it made no difference whether the voters numbered 3,000 or only three or four. Such being the state of the representation, corruption was inevitable. Bribery was practised to an inconceivable extent. Many of the smaller boroughs had a fixed price, and it was by no means uncommon to see a borough advertised for sale in the newspapers. … {954} As an example of cost in contesting a county election, it is on record that the joint expenses of Lord Milton and Mr. Lascelles, in contesting the county of York in 1807, were £200,000. … It is not to be supposed that a condition of things which appears to us so intolerable attracted no attention before what may be called the Reform era. So far back as 1745, Sir Francis Dashwood (afterwards Lord de Spencer) moved an amendment to the Address in favour of Reform; Lord Chatham himself, in 1766 and 1770, spoke of the borough representation as 'the rotten part of the constitution,' and likened it to a 'mortified limb'; the Duke of Richmond of that day, in 1780, introduced a bill into the House of Lords which would have given manhood suffrage and annual parliaments; and three times in succession, in 1782, 1783, and 1785, Mr. Pitt proposed resolutions in favour of Reform. … After Mr. Pitt had abandoned the cause, Mr. (afterwards Earl) Grey took up the subject. First, in 1792, he presented that famous petition from the Society of the Friends of the People, to which allusion has been already made, and founded a resolution upon it. He made further efforts in 1793, 1795, and 1797, but was on every occasion defeated by large majorities. … From the beginning of the 19th century to the year 1815—with the exception of a few months after the Peace of Amiens in 1802—England was at war. During that time Reform dropped out of notice. … In 1817, and again in 1818 and 1819, Sir Francis Burdett, who was at that time member for Westminster and a leading Reformer, brought the question of Reform before the House of Commons. On each occasion he was defeated by a tremendous majority. … The next ten years were comparatively uneventful, so far as the subject of this history is concerned. … Two events made the year 1830 particularly opportune for raising the question of Parliamentary Reform. The first of these events was the death of George IV. [June 26],—the second, the deposition of Charles X. of France. … For the deposition of Charles—followed as it was very soon by a successful insurrection in Belgium—produced an immense impression upon the Liberals of this country, and upon the people generally. In a few days or weeks there had been secured in two continental countries what the people of England had been asking for in vain for years. … We must not omit to notice one other circumstance that favoured the cause of Reform. This was the popular distress. Distress always favours agitation. The distress in 1830 was described in the House of Lords at the time as 'unparalleled in any previous part of our history.' Probably this was an exaggeration. But there can be no doubt that the distress was general, and that it was acute. … By the law as it stood when George IV. died, the demise of the Crown involved a dissolution of Parliament. The Parliament which was in existence in 1830 had been elected in 1826. Since the beginning o£ 1828 the Duke of Wellington had been Prime Minister, with Mr. (soon after Sir Robert) Peel as Home Secretary, and Leader of the House of Commons. They decided to dissolve at once. … In the Parliament thus dissolved, and especially in the session just brought to a close, the question of Reform had held a prominent place. At the very beginning of the session, in the first week of February, the Marquis of Blandford (afterwards Duke of Marlborough) moved an amendment to the Address, in which, though a Tory, he affirmed the conviction 'that the State is at this moment in the most imminent danger, and that no effectual measures of salvation will or can be adopted until the people shall be restored to their rightful share in the legislation of the country.' … He was supported on very different grounds by Mr. O'Connell, but was defeated by a vote of 96 to 11. A few days later he introduced a specific plan of Reform—a very Radical plan indeed—but was again ignominiously defeated; then, on the 23d of February, Lord John Russell … asked for leave to bring in a bill for conferring the franchise upon Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, as the three largest unrepresented towns in the kingdom, but was defeated by 188 votes to 140; and finally, on the 28th of May—scarcely two months before the dissolution—Mr. O'Connell brought in a bill to establish universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and triennial parliaments, but found only 13 members to support him in a House of 332. … Thus, the question of Reform was now before the country, not merely as a popular but as a Parliamentary question. It is not too much to say that, when the dissolution occurred, it occupied all minds. … The whole of August and a considerable part of September, therefore, were occupied with the elections, which were attended by an unparalleled degree of excite merit. … When all was over, and the results were reckoned up, it was found that, of the 28 members who represented the thirteen greatest cities in England (to say nothing of Wales, Scotland, or Ireland), only 3 were Minsterialists. … Of the 236 men who were returned by elections, more or less popular, in England, only 79 were Ministerialists. … The first Parliament of William IV. met on the 26th of October, but the session was not really opened till the 2d of November, when the King came down and delivered his Speech. … The occasion was made memorable, however, not by the King's Speech, but by a speech by the Duke of Wellington, who was then Prime Minister. … 'The noble Earl [Grey],' said the Duke, 'has alluded to something in the shape of a Parliamentary Reform, but he has been candid enough to acknowledge 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 further, 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 the representation could be improved, or be rendered more satisfactory to the country at large than at the present moment. … 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 in the government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to resist such measures when proposed by others.' Exactly fourteen days after the delivery of this speech, the Duke's career' as Prime Minister came for the time to a close. On the 16th of November he came down to Westminster, and announced that he had resigned office. In the meantime, there had been something like a panic in the city, because Ministers, apprehending disturbance, had advised the King and Queen to abandon an engagement to dine, on the 9th, with the Lord Mayor at the Guildhall. {955} On the 15th, too, the Government had sustained a defeat in the House of Commons, on a motion proposed by Sir Henry Parnell on the part of the Opposition, having reference to the civil list. This defeat was made the pretext for resignation. But it was only a pretext. After the Duke's declaration in regard to Reform, and in view of his daily increasing unpopularity, his continuance in office was impossible."

W. Heaton, The Three Reforms of Parliament, chapters 1-2.

ALSO IN: A. Paul, History of Reform, chapters 1-6.

W. Bagehot, Essays on Parliamentary Reform, essay 2.

_H. Cox, Antient Parliamentary Elections._

S. Walpole, The Electorate and the Legislature, chapter 4.

_E. A. Freeman, Decayed Boroughs (Historical Essays, 4th series)._

England: A. D. 1830-1832. The great Reform of Representation in Parliament, under the Ministry of Earl Grey.

"Earl Grey was the new Minister; and Mr. Brougham his Lord Chancellor. The first announcement of the premier was that the government would 'take into immediate consideration the state of the representation, with a view to the correction of those defects which have been occasioned in it, by the operation of time; and with a view to the reestablishment of that confidence upon the part of the people, which he was afraid Parliament did not at present enjoy, to the full extent that is essential for the welfare and safety of the country, and the preservation of the government.' The government were now pledged to a measure of parliamentary reform; and during the Christmas recess were occupied in preparing it. Meanwhile, the cause was eagerly supported by the people. … So great were the difficulties with which the government had to contend, that they needed all the encouragement that the people could give. They had to encounter the reluctance of the king,—the interests of the proprietors of boroughs, which Mr. Pitt, unable to overcome, had sought to purchase,—the opposition of two thirds of the House of Lords; and perhaps of a majority of the House of Commons,—and above all, the strong Tory spirit of the country. … On the 3d February, when Parliament reassembled, Lord Grey announced that the government had succeeded in framing 'a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised moderation,' and which 'had received the unanimous consent of the whole government.' … On the 1st March, this measure was brought forward in the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, to whom,—though not in the cabinet,—this honorable duty had been justly confided. … On the 22d March, the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of one only, in a House of 608,—probably the greatest number which, up to that time, had ever been assembled at a division. On the 19th of April, on going into committee, ministers found themselves in a minority of eight, on a resolution proposed by General Gascoyne, that the number of members returned for England ought not to be diminished. On the 21st, ministers announced that it was not their intention to proceed with the bill. On that same night, they were again defeated on a question of adjournment, by a majority of twenty-two. This last vote was decisive. The very next day, Parliament was prorogued by the king in person, 'with a view to its immediate dissolution.' It was one of the most critical days in the history of our country. … The people were now to decide the question;—and they decided it. A triumphant body of reformers was returned, pledged to carry the reform bill; and on the 6th July, the second reading of the renewed measure was agreed to, by a majority of 136. The most tedious and irritating discussions ensued in committee,—night after night; and the bill was not disposed of until the 21st September, when it was passed by a majority of 109. That the peers were still adverse to the bill was certain; but whether, at such a crisis, they would venture to oppose the national will, was doubtful. On the 7th October, after a debate of five nights,—one of the most memorable by which that House has ever been distinguished, and itself a great event in history,—the bill was rejected on the second reading, by a majority of forty-one. The battle was to be fought again. Ministers were too far pledged to the people to think of resigning; and on the motion of Lord Ebrington, they were immediately supported by a vote of confidence from the House of Commons. On the 20th October, Parliament was prorogued; and after a short interval of excitement, turbulence, and danger [see BRISTOL: A. D. 1831], met again on the 6th December. A third reform bill was immediately brought in,—changed in many respects,—and much improved by reason of the recent census, and other statistical investigations. Amongst other changes, the total number of members was no longer proposed to be reduced. This bill was read a second time on Sunday morning, the 18th of December, by a majority of 162. On the 23d March, it was passed by the House of Commons, and once more was before the House of Lords. Here the peril of again rejecting it could not be concealed,—the courage of some was shaken,—the patriotism of others aroused; and after a debate of four nights, the second reading was affirmed by the narrow majority of nine. But danger still awaited it. The peers who would no longer venture to reject such a bill, were preparing to change its essential character by amendments. Meanwhile the agitation of the people was becoming dangerous. … The time had come, when either the Lords must be coerced; or the ministers must resign. This alternative was submitted to the king. He refused to create peers: the ministers resigned, and their resignation was accepted. Again the Commons came to the rescue of the bill and the reform ministry. On the motion of Lord Ebrington, an address was immediately voted by them, renewing their expressions of unaltered confidence in the late ministers, and imploring his Majesty 'to call to his councils such persons only as will carry into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions, that bill for reforming the representation of the people, which has recently passed this House.' … The public excitement was greater than ever; and the government and the people were in imminent danger of a bloody collision, when Earl Grey was recalled to the councils of his sovereign. The bill was now secure. The peers averted the threatened addition to their numbers by abstaining from further opposition; and the bill,—the Great Charter of 1832,—at length received the Royal Assent. It is now time to advert to the provisions of this famous statute; and to inquire how far it corrected the faults of a system, which had been complained of for more than half a century. {956} The main evil had been the number of nomination, or rotten boroughs enjoying the franchise. Fifty-six of these,—having less than 2,000 inhabitants, and returning 111 members,—were swept away. Thirty boroughs, having less than 4,000 inhabitants, lost each a member. Weymouth and Melcombe Regis lost two. This disfranchisement extended to 143 members. The next evil had been, that large populations were unrepresented; and this was now redressed. Twenty-two large towns, including metropolitan districts, received the privilege of returning two members; and 20 more of returning one. The large county populations were also regarded in the distribution of seats,—the number of county members being increased from 94 to 159. The larger counties were divided; and the number of members adjusted with reference to the importance of the constituencies. Another evil was the restricted and unequal franchise. This too was corrected. All narrow rights of election were set aside in Boroughs; and a £10 household franchise was established. The freemen of corporate towns were the only class of electors whose rights were reserved; but residence within the borough was attached as a condition to their right of voting. … The county constituency was enlarged by the addition of copyholders and leaseholders, for terms of years, and of tenants-at-will paying a rent of £50 a year. … The defects of the Scotch representation, being even more flagrant and indefensible than those of England, were not likely to be omitted from Lord Grey's general scheme of reform. … The entire representation was remodelled. Forty-five members had been assigned to Scotland at the Union: this number was now increased to 53 of whom 30 were allotted to counties, and 23 to cities and burghs. The county franchise was extended to all owners of property of £10 a year, and to certain classes of leaseholders; and the burgh franchise to all £10 householders. The representation of Ireland had many of the defects of the English system. … The right of election was taken away from the corporations, and vested in £10 householders; and large additions were made to the county constituency. The number of members in Ireland, which the Act of Union had settled at 100, was now increased to 105."

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860, chapter 6 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: _W. N. Molesworth, History of the Reform Bill of 1832._

_W. Jones, Biographical Sketches of the Reform Ministers._

Lord Brougham, Life and Times, by Himself, chapters 21-22.

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 11 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1831. First assumption of the name Conservatives by the Tories.

See CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1831-1832. Intervention in the Netherlands. Creation of the kingdom of Belgium. War with Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833. Abolition of Slavery in the West Indies. Trade monopoly of the East India Company withdrawn. Factory Bill. Irish tithes.

"The period which succeeded the passing of the Reform Bill was one of immense activity and earnestness in legislation. … The first great reform was the complete abolition of the system of slavery in the British colonies. The slave trade had itself been suppressed so far as we could suppress it long before that time, but now the whole system of West Indian slavery was brought to an end [see SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1834-1838]. … A long agitation of the small but energetic anti-slavery party brought about this practical result in 1833. … Granville Sharpe, Zachary Macaulay, father of the historian and statesman, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Wilberforce, Brougham, and many others, had for a long time been striving hard to rouse up public opinion to the abolition of the slave system." The bill which passed Parliament gave immediate freedom to all children subsequently born, and to all those who were then under six years of age; while it determined for all other slaves a period of apprenticeship, lasting five years in one class and seven years in another, after which they attained absolute freedom. It appropriated £20,000,000 for the compensation of the slave-owners. "Another reform of no small importance was accomplished when the charter of the East India Company came to be renewed in 1833. The clause giving them a commercial monopoly of the trade of the East was abolished, and the trade thrown open to the merchants of the world [see INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833]. There were other slaves in those days as well as the negro. There were slaves at home, slaves to all intents and purposes, who were condemned to a servitude as rigorous as that of the negro, and who, as far as personal treatment went, suffered more severely than negroes in the better class plantations. We speak now of the workers in the great mines and factories. No law up to this time regulated with anything like reasonable stringency the hours of labour in factories. … A commission was appointed to investigate the condition of those who worked in the factories. Lord Ashley, since everywhere known as the Earl of Shaftesbury, … brought forward the motion which ended in the appointment of the commission. The commission quickly brought together an immense amount of evidence to show the terrible effect, moral and physical, of the over-working of women and children, and an agitation set in for the purpose of limiting by law the duration of the hours of labour. … The principle of legislative interference to protect children working in factories was established by an Act passed in 1833, limiting the work of children to eight hours a day, and that of young persons under eighteen to 69 hours a week [see FACTORY LEGISLATION]. The agitation then set on foot and led by Lord Ashley was engaged for years after in endeavouring to give that principle a more extended application. … Irish tithes were one of the grievances which came under the energetic action of this period of reform. The people of Ireland complained with justice of having to pay tithes for the maintenance of the church establishment in which they did not believe, and under whose roofs they never bent in worship." In 1832, committees of both Houses of Parliament reported in favor of the extinction of tithes; but the Government undertook temporarily a scheme whereby it made advances to the Irish clergy and assumed the collection of tithes among its own functions. It only succeeded in making matters worse, and several years passed before the adoption (in 1838) of a bill which "converted the tithe composition into a rent charge."

J. McCarthy, The Epoch of Reform, chapters 7-8.

ALSO IN: C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 8, chapter 17.

H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years' Peace, book 4, chapters 6-9 (volumes 2-3).

{957}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1840. Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement. The capture of Acre. Bombardment of Alexandria.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845. The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.

See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1834-1837. Resignation of Lord Grey and the Reform Ministry. The first Melbourne Administration. Peel's first Ministry and Melbourne's second. Death of William IV. Accession of Queen Victoria.

"On May 27th, Mr. Ward, member of St. Albans, brought forward … resolutions, that the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland much exceeded the spiritual wants of the Protestant population; that it was the right of the State, and of Parliament, to distribute church property, and that the temporal possessions of the Irish church ought to be reduced. The ministers determined to adopt a middle course and appoint a commission of inquiry; they hoped thereby to induce Mr. Ward to withdraw his motion, because the question was already in government hands. While the negotiations were going on, news was received of the resignation of four of the most conservative members of the Cabinet, who regarded any interference with church property with abhorrence; they were Mr. Stanley, Sir James Graham, the Duke of Richmond, and the Earl of Ripon. … Owing to the difference of opinion in the Cabinet on the Irish coercion bill, on July 9, 1834, Earl Grey placed his resignation as Prime Minister in the hands of the king. On the 10th the House of Commons adjourned for four days. On the 14th, Viscount Melbourne stated in the House of Lords that his Majesty had honored him with his commands for the formation of a ministry. He had undertaken the task, but it was not yet completed. There was very little change in the Cabinet; Lord Melbourne's place in the Home Department was filled by Lord Duncannon; Sir John Cam Hobhouse obtained a seat as First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, and Lord Carlisle surrendered the Privy Seal to Lord Mulgrave. The Irish Church Bill was again brought forward, and although it passed the Commons, was defeated in the Lords, August 1st. The king much disliked the church policy of the Whigs, and dreaded reform. He was eager to prevent the meeting of the House, and circumstances favored him. Before the session Lord Spencer died, and Lord Althorpe, his son, was thus removed to the upper House. There was no reason why this should have broken up the ministry, but the king seized the opportunity, sent for Lord Melbourne, asserted that the ministry depended chiefly on the personal influence of Lord Althorpe in the Commons, declared that, deprived of it as it now was, the government could not go on, and dismissed his ministers, instructing Melbourne at once to send for the Duke of Wellington. The sensation in London was great; the dismissal of the ministry was considered unconstitutional; the act of the king was wholly without precedent. … The Duke of Wellington, from November 15th to December 9th, was the First Lord of the Treasury, and the sole Secretary of State, having only one colleague, Lord Lyndhurst, who held the great seal, while at the same time he sat as Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer. This temporary government was called a dictatorship. … On Sir Robert Peel's return from Italy, whence he had been called, he waited upon the king and accepted the office of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. With the king's permission, he applied to Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham, entreating them to give him the benefit of their co-operation as colleagues in the Cabinet. They both declined. Prevented from forming a moderate Conservative ministry, he was reduced to fill his places with men of more pronounced opinions, which promised ill for any advance in reform. … The Foreign, Home, War, and Colonial offices were filled by Wellington, Goulburn, Herries, and Aberdeen; Lord Lyndhurst was Lord Chancellor; Harding, Secretary for Ireland; and Lord Wharncliffe, Privy Seal. With this ministry Peel had to meet a hostile House of Commons. … The Prime Minister therefore thought it necessary to dissolve Parliament, and took the opportunity [in what was called 'the Tamworth manifesto'] of declaring his policy. He declared his acceptance of the Reform Bill as a final settlement of the question. … The elections, though they returned a House, as is generally the case, more favorable to the existing government than that which had been dissolved, still gave a considerable majority to the Liberals. … Lord John Russell, on April 7th, proposed the resolution, 'That it is the opinion of this House that no measure upon the subject of the tithes in Ireland can lead to satisfactory and final adjustment which does not embody the temporalities of the Church in Ireland.' This was adopted by a majority of 27, and that majority was fatal to the ministry. On the following day the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, stated that in consequence of the resolution in the House of Commons, the ministry had tendered their resignation. Sir Robert made a similar explanation in the Commons. Ten days later, Viscount Melbourne, in moving the adjournment of the House of Lords, stated that the king had been pleased to appoint him First Lord of the Treasury. … On June 9, 1837, a bulletin issued from Windsor Castle informing a loyal and really affectionate people that the king was ill. From the 12th they were regularly issued until the 19th, when the malady, inflammation of the lungs, had greatly increased. … On Tuesday, June 20th, the last of these official documents was issued. His Majesty had expired that morning at 2 o'clock. William died in the seventy-second year of his age and seventh year of his reign, leaving no legitimate issue. He was succeeded by his niece, Alexandrina Victoria."

A. H. McCalman, Abridged History of England, pages 565-570.

ALSO IN: W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, volume 2, chapters 10-12.

W. M. Torrens, Memoirs of Viscount Melbourne, volume 2, chapters 1-8.

J. W. Croker, Correspondence and Diaries, chapters 18-20 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1836-1839. Beginning of the Anti-Corn-Law Agitation.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837. Separation of Hanover.

See HANOVER: A. D. 1837.

{958}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839. Opening of the reign of Queen Victoria. End of personal rule. Beginning of purely constitutional government. Peel and the Bedchamber Question.

"The Duke of Wellington thought the accession of a woman to the sovereign's place would be fatal to the present hopes of the Tories [who were then expecting a turn of events in their favor, as against the Whig administration of Lord Melbourne]. 'Peel,' he said, 'has no manners, and I have no small talk.' He seemed to take it for granted that the new sovereign would choose her Ministers as a school-girl chooses her companions. He did not know, did not foresee, that with the accession of Queen Victoria the real reign of constitutional government in these islands was to begin. The late King had advanced somewhat on the ways of his predecessors, but his rule was still, to all intents and purposes, a personal rule. With the accession of Victoria the system of personal rule came to an end. The elections which at that time were necessary on the coming of a new sovereign went slightly in favour of the Tories. The Whigs had many troubles. They were not reformers enough for the great body of their supporters. … The Radicals had split off from them. They could not manage O'Connell. The Chartist fire was already burning. There was many a serious crisis in foreign policy—in China and in Egypt, for example. The Canadian Rebellion and the mission of Lord Durham involved the Whigs in fresh anxieties, and laid them open to new attacks from their enemies. On the top of all came some disturbances, of a legislative rather than an insurrectionary kind, in Jamaica, and the Government felt called upon to bring in a Bill to suspend for five years the Constitution of the island. A Liberal and reforming Ministry bringing in a Bill to suspend a Constitution is in a highly awkward and dangerous position. Peel saw his opportunity, and opposed the Bill. The Government won by a majority of only 5. Lord Melbourne accepted the situation, and resigned [May 7, 1839]. The Queen sent for the Duke of Wellington, and he, of course, advised her to send for Peel. When Peel came, the young Queen told him with all the frankness of a girl that she was sorry to part with her late Ministers, and that she did not disapprove of their conduct, but that she felt bound to act in accordance with constitutional usages; Peel accepted the task of forming an Administration. And then came the famous dispute known as the 'Bedchamber Question'—the 'question de jupons.' The Queen wished to retain her ladies-in-waiting; Peel insisted that there must be some change. Two of these ladies were closely related to Whig statesmen whose policy was diametrically opposed to that of Peel on no less important a question than the Government of Ireland. Peel insisted that he could not undertake to govern under such conditions. The Queen, acting on the advice of her late Ministers, would not give way. The whole dispute created immense excitement at the time. There was a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides. It was quietly settled, soon after, by a compromise which the late Prince Consort suggested, and which admitted that Peel had been in the right. … Its importance to us now is that, as Peel would not give way, the Whigs had to come back again, and they came back discredited and damaged, having, as Mr. Molesworth puts it, got back 'behind the petticoats of the ladies-in-waiting.'"

J. McCarthy, Sir Robert Peel, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830-1874, volume 2, chapter 1.

H_. Dunckley, Lord Melbourne, chapter 11._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1837. The Victorian Age in Literature.

"It may perhaps be assumed without any undue amount of speculative venturesomeness that the age of Queen Victoria will stand out in history as the period of a literature as distinct from others as the age of Elizabeth or Anne, although not perhaps equal in greatness to the latter, and far indeed below the former. At the opening of Queen Victoria's reign a great race of literary men had come to a close. It is curious to note how sharply and completely the literature of Victoria separates itself from that of the era whose heroes were Scott, Byron, and Wordsworth: Before Queen Victoria came to the throne, Scott, Byron, Coleridge, and Keats were dead. Wordsworth lived, indeed, for many years after; so did Southey and Moore; and Savage Landor died much later still. But Wordsworth, Southey, Moore, and Landor had completed their literary work before Victoria came to the throne. Not one of them added a cubit or an inch to his intellectual stature from that time; some of them even did work which distinctly proved that their day was done. A new and fresh breath was soon after breathed into literature. Nothing, perhaps, is more remarkable about the better literature of the age of Queen Victoria than its complete severance from the leadership of that which had gone before it, and its evidence of a fresh and genuine inspiration. It is a somewhat curious fact, too, very convenient for the purposes of this history, that the literature of Queen Victoria's time thus far divides itself clearly enough into two parts. The poets, novelists, and historians who were making their fame with the beginning of the reign had done all their best work and made their mark before these later years, and were followed by a new and different school, drawing inspiration from wholly different sources, and challenging comparison as antagonists rather than disciples. We speak now only of literature. In science the most remarkable developments were reserved for the later years of the reign."

_J. McCarthy, The Literature of the Victorian Reign (Appletons' Journal, January, 1879, page 498)._

"The age of Queen Victoria is as justly entitled to give name to a literary epoch as any of those periods on which this distinction has been conferred by posterity. A new tone of thought and a new colour of style are discernible from about the date of the Queen's accession, and, even should these characteristics continue for generations without apparent break, it will be remembered that the Elizabethan age did not terminate with Elizabeth. In one important respect, however, it differs from most of those epochs which derive their appellation from a sovereign. The names of Augustus, Lorenzo, Louis XIV., Anne, are associated with a literary advance, a claim to have bequeathed models for imitation to succeeding ages. This claim is not preferred on behalf of the age of Victoria. It represents the fusion of two currents which had alternately prevailed in successive periods. Delight and Utility met, Truth and Imagination kissed each other. Practical reform awoke the enthusiasm of genius, and genius put poetry to new use, or made a new path for itself in prose. The result has been much gain, some loss, and an originality of aspect which would alone render our Queen's reign intellectually memorable. {959} Looking back to the 18th century in England, we see the spirit of utility entirely in the ascendant. Intellectual power is as great as ever, immortal books are written as of old, but there is a general incapacity not only for the production, but for the comprehension of works of the imagination. Minds as robust as Johnson's, as acute as Hume's, display neither strength nor intelligence in their criticism of the Elizabethan writers, and their professed regard for even the masterpieces of antiquity is evidently in the main conventional. Conversely, when the spell is broken and the capacity for imaginative composition returns, the half-century immediately preceding her Majesty's accession does not, outside the domain of the ideal, produce a single work of the first class. Hallam, the elder Mill, and others compose, indeed, books of great value, but not great books. In poetry and romantic fiction, on the other hand, the genius of that age reaches a height unattained since Milton, and probably not destined to be rivalled for many generations. In the age of Victoria we witness the fusion of its predecessors."

R. Garnett, Literature (The Reign of Queen Victoria, edited by T. H. Ward, volume 2, pages 445-446).

"The most conspicuous of the substantial distinctions between the literature of the present day and that of the first quarter or third of the century may be described as consisting in the different relative positions at the two dates of Prose and Verse. In the Georgian era verse was in the ascendant; in the Victorian era the supremacy has passed to prose. It is not easy for anyone who has grown up in the latter to estimate aright the universal excitement which used to be produced in the former by a new poem of Scott's, or Byron's, or Moore's, or Campbell's, or Crabbe's, or the equally fervid interest that was taken throughout a more limited circle in one by Wordsworth, or Southey, or Shelley. There may have been a power in the spirit of poetry which that of prose would in vain aspire to. Probably all the verse ages would be found to have been of higher glow than the prose ones. The age in question, at any rate, will hardly be denied by anyone who remembers it to have been in these centuries, perhaps from the mightier character of the events and circumstances in the midst of which we were then placed, an age in which the national heart beat more strongly than it does at present in regard to other things as well as this. Its reception of the great poems that succeeded one another so rapidly from the first appearance of Scott till the death of Byron was like its reception of the succession of great victories that, ever thickening, and almost unbroken by a single defeat, filled up the greater part of the ten years from Trafalgar to Waterloo—from the last fight of Nelson to the last of Wellington. No such huzzas, making the welkin ring with the one voice of a whole people, and ascending alike from every city and town and humblest village in the land, have been heard since then. … Of course, there was plenty of prose also written throughout the verse era; but no book in prose that was then produced greatly excited the public mind, or drew any considerable amount of attention, till the Waverley novels began to appear; and even that remarkable series of works did not succeed in at once reducing poetry to the second place, however chief a share it may have had in hastening that result. Of the other prose writing that then went on what was most effective was that of the periodical press,—of the Edinburgh Review and Cobbett's Register, and, at a later date, of Blackwood's Magazine and the London Magazine (the latter with Charles Lamb and De Quincey among its contributors),—much of it owing more or less of its power to its vehement political partisanship. A descent from poetry to prose is the most familiar of all phenomena in the history of literature. Call it natural decay or degeneracy, or only a relaxation which the spirit of a people requires after having been for a certain time on the wing or on the stretch, it is what a period of more than ordinary poetical productiveness always ends in."

G. L. Craik, Compendious History of English Literature, volume 2, pages 553-555.

"What … are the specific channels of Victorian utterance in verse? To define them is difficult, because they are so subtly varied and so inextricably interwoven. Yet I think they may be superficially described as the idyll and the lyric. Under the idyll I should class all narrative and descriptive poetry, of which this age has been extraordinarily prolific; sometimes assuming the form of minstrelsy, as in the lays of Scott; sometimes approaching to the classic style, as in the Hellenics of Landor; sometimes rivalling the novellette, as in the work of Tennyson; sometimes aiming at psychological analysis, as in the portraits drawn by Robert Browning; sometimes confining art to bare history, as in Crabbe; sometimes indulging flights of pure artistic fancy, as in Keats' "Endymion" and "Lamia." Under its many metamorphoses the narrative and descriptive poetry of our century bears the stamp of the idyll, because it is fragmentary and because it results in a picture. … No literature and no age has been more fertile of lyric poetry than English literature in the age of Victoria. The fact is apparent. I should superfluously burden my readers if I were to prove the point by reference to Byron, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats, Wordsworth, Rossetti, Clough, Swinburne, Arnold, Tennyson, and I do not know how many of less illustrious but splendid names, in detail. The causes are not far to seek. Without a comprehensive vehicle like the epic, which belongs to the first period of national life, or the drama, which belongs to its secondary period, our poets of a later day have had to sing from their inner selves, subjectively, introspectively, obeying impulses from nature and the world, which touched them not as they were Englishmen, but as they were this man or that woman. … When they sang, they sang with their particular voice; and the lyric is the natural channel for such song. But what a complex thing is this Victorian lyric! It includes Wordsworth's sonnets and Rossetti's ballads, Coleridge's' Ancient Mariner' and Keats' odes, Clough's 'Easter day' and Tennyson's 'Maud,' Swinburne's 'Songs before Sunrise' and Browning's 'Dramatis Personæ,' Thomson's 'City of Dreadful Night' and Mary Robinson's 'Handful of Honeysuckles,' Andrew Lang's Ballades and Sharp's 'Weird of Michael Scot,' Dobson's dealings with the eighteenth century and Noel's 'Child's Garland,' Barnes's Dorsetshire Poems and Buchanan's London Lyrics, the songs from Empedocles on Etna and Ebenezer Jones's 'Pagan's Drinking Chant,' Shelley's Ode to the West Wind and Mrs. Browning's 'Pan is Dead,' Newman's hymns and Gosse's Chant Royal. {960} The kaleidoscope presented by this lyric is so inexhaustible that any man with the fragment of a memory might pair off scores of poems by admired authors, and yet not fall upon the same parallels as those which I have made. The genius of our century, debarred from epic, debarred from drama, falls back upon idyllic and lyrical expression. In the idyll it satisfies its objective craving after art. In the lyric it pours forth personality. It would be wrong, however, to limit the wealth of our poetry to these two branches. Such poems as Wordsworth's 'Excursion,' Byron's 'Don Juan' and 'Childe Harold,' Mrs. Browning's 'Aurora Leigh,' William Morris's 'Earthly Paradise,' Clough's 'Amours de Voyage,' are not to be classified in either species. They are partly autobiographical, and in part the influence of the tale makes itself distinctly felt in them. Nor again can we omit the translations, of which so many have been made; some of them real masterpieces and additions to our literature."

J. A. Symonds, A Comparison of Elizabethan with Victorian Poetry (Fortnightly Review, January 1, 1889, pages 62-64).

The difference between the drama and the novel "is one of perspective; and it is this which in a wide sense distinguishes the Elizabethan and the Victorian views of life, and thence of art. … It is … the present aim of art to throw on life all manner of side-lights, such as the stage can hardly contrive, but which the novel professes to manage for those who can read. The round unvarnished tale of the early novelists has been dead for over a century, and in its place we have fiction that seeks to be as complete as life itself. … There is, then, in each of these periods an excellence and a relative defect: in the Elizabethan, roundness and balance, but, to us, a want of fulness; in the Victorian, amplified knowledge, but a falling short of comprehensiveness. And adapted to each respectively, the drama and the novel are its most expressive literary form. The limitations and scope of the drama are those of its time, and so of the novel. Even as the Elizabethan lived with all his might and was not troubled about many things, his art was intense and round, but restricted; and as the Victorian commonly views life by the light of a patent reading-lamp, and so, sitting apart, sees much to perplex, the novel gives a more complex treatment of life, with rarer success in harmony. This rareness is not, however, due to the novel itself, but to the minds of its makers. In possibility it is indeed the greater of the two, being more epical; for it is as capable of grandeur, and is ampler. This largeness in Victorian life and art argues in the great novelists a quality of spirit which it is difficult to name without being misunderstood, and which is peculiarly non-Elizabethan. It argues what Burns would call a castigated pulse, a supremacy over passion. Yet they are not Lucretian gods, however calm their atmosphere; their minds are not built above humanity, but, being rooted deep in it, rise high. … Both periods are at heart earnest, and the stamp on the great literature of each is that of reality, heightened and made powerful by romance. Nor is their agreement herein greatly shaken by the novel laying considerable stress on the outside of life, while the drama is almost heedless of it; for they both seek to break into the kernel, their variance being chiefly one of method, dictated by difference of knowledge, taste, and perception."

T. D. Robb, The Elizabethan Drama and the Victorian Novel (Lippincott's Monthly Magazine, April, 1891, pages 520-522).

England: A. D. 1838-1842. The Chartist agitation.

"When the Parliament was opened by the Queen on the 5th of February, 1839, a passage in the Royal Speech had reference to a state of domestic affairs which presented an unhappy contrast to the universal loyalty which marked the period of the Coronation. Her Majesty said: 'I have observed with pain the persevering efforts which have been made in some parts of the country to excite my subjects to disobedience and resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and illegal practices.' Chartism, which for ten subsequent years occasionally agitated the country, had then begun to take root. On the previous 12th of December a proclamation had been issued against illegal Chartist assemblies, several of which had been held, says the proclamation, 'after sunset by torchlight.' The persons attending these meetings were armed with guns and pikes; and demagogues, such as Feargus O'Connor and the Rev. Mr. Stephens at Bury, addressed the people in the most inflammatory language. … The document called 'The People's Charter,' which was embodied in the form of a bill in 1838, comprised six points:—universal suffrage, excluding, however, women; division of the United Kingdom into equal electoral districts; vote by ballot; annual parliaments; no property qualification for members; and a payment to every member for his legislative services. These principles so quickly recommended themselves to the working-classes that in the session of 1839 the number of signatures to a petition presented to Parliament was upwards of a million and a quarter. The middle classes almost universally looked with extreme jealousy and apprehension upon any attempt for an extension of the franchise. The upper classes for the most part regarded the proceedings of the Chartists with a contempt which scarcely concealed their fears. This large section of the working population very soon became divided into what were called physical-force Chartists and moral-force Chartists. As a natural consequence, the principles and acts of the physical-force Chartists disgusted every supporter of order and of the rights of property."

C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 8, chapter 23.

"Nothing can be more unjust than to represent the leaders and promoters of the movement as mere factious and self-seeking demagogues. Some of them were men of great ability and eloquence; some were impassioned young poets, drawn from the class whom Kingsley has described in his 'Alton Locke'; some were men of education; many were earnest and devoted fanatics; and, so far as we can judge, all, or nearly all, were sincere. Even the man who did the movement most harm, and who made himself most odious to all reasonable outsiders, the once famous, now forgotten, Feargus O'Connor, appears to have been sincere, and to have personally lost more than he gained by his Chartism. … He was of commanding presence, great stature, and almost gigantic strength. He had education; he had mixed in good society; he belonged to an old family. … There were many men in the movement of a nobler moral nature than poor, huge, wild Feargus O'Connor. There were men like Thomas Cooper, … devoted, impassioned, full of poetic aspiration, and no scant measure of poetic inspiration as well. Henry Vincent was a man of unimpeachable character. … {961} Ernest Jones was as sincere and self-sacrificing a man as ever joined a sinking cause. … It is necessary to read such a book as Thomas Cooper's Autobiography to understand how genuine was the poetic and political enthusiasm which was at the heart of the Chartist movement, and how bitter was the suffering which drove into its ranks so many thousands of stout working men who, in a country like England, might well have expected to be able to live by the hard work they were only too willing to do. One must read the Anti-Corn-Law Rhymes of Ebenezer Elliott to understand how the 'bread tax' became identified in the minds of the very best of the working class, and identified justly, with the system of political and economical legislation which was undoubtedly kept up, although not of conscious purpose, for the benefit of a class. … A whole literature of Chartist newspapers sprang up to advocate the cause. The 'Northern Star,' owned and conducted by Feargus O'Connor, was the most popular and influential of them; but every great town had its Chartist press. Meetings were held at which sometimes very violent language was employed. … A formidable riot took place in Birmingham, where the authorities endeavoured to put down a Chartist meeting. … Efforts were made at times to bring about a compromise with the middle-class Liberals and the Anti-Corn-Law leaders; but all such attempts proved failures. The Chartists would not give up their Charter; many of them would not renounce the hope of seeing it carried by force. The Government began to prosecute some of the orators and leaders of the Charter movement; and some of these were convicted, imprisoned and treated with great severity. Henry Vincent's imprisonment at Newport, in Wales, was the occasion of an attempt at rescue [November 4, 1839] which bore a very close resemblance indeed to a scheme of organised and armed rebellion." A conflict occurred in which ten of the Chartists were killed, and some 50 were wounded. Three of the leaders, named Frost, Williams, and Jones, were tried and convicted on the charge of high treason, and were sentenced to death; but the sentence was commuted to one of transportation. "The trial and conviction of Frost, Williams, and Jones, did not put a stop to the Chartist agitation. On the contrary, that agitation seemed rather to wax and strengthen and grow broader because of the attempt at Newport and its consequences. … There was no lack of what were called energetic measures on the part of the Government. The leading Chartists all over the country were prosecuted and tried, literally by hundreds. In most cases they were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. … The working classes grew more and more bitter against the Whigs, who they said had professed Liberalism only to gain their own ends. … There was a profound distrust of the middle class and their leaders," and it was for that reason that the Chartists would not join hands with the Anti-Corn-Law movement, then in full progress. "It is clear that at that time the Chartists, who represented the bulk of the artisan class in most of the large towns, did in their very hearts believe that England was ruled for the benefit of aristocrats and millionaires who were absolutely indifferent to the sufferings of the poor. It is equally clear that most of what are called the ruling class did really believe the English working men who joined the Chartist movement to be a race of fierce, unmanageable, and selfish communists, who, if they were allowed their own way for a moment, would prove themselves determined to overthrow throne, altar, and all established securities of society."

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 5 (volume 1).

Among the measures of coercion advocated in the councils of the Chartists was that of appointing and observing what was to be called a "'sacred month,' during which the working classes throughout the whole kingdom were to abstain from every kind of labour, in the hope of compelling the governing classes to concede the charter."

W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830-1874, volume 2, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: T. Cooper, Life, by himself, chapter 14-23.

W. Lovett, Life and Struggles, chapters 8-15.

T. Frost, Forty Years' Recollections, chapters 3-11.

H. Jephson, The Platform, part 4, chapters 17 and 19 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1839-1842. The Opium War with China.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1840. Adoption of Penny-Postage.

"In 1837 Mr. Rowland Hill had published his plan of a cheap and uniform postage. A Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1837, which continued its inquiries throughout the session of 1838, and arrived at the conviction that the plan was feasible, and deserving of a trial under legislative sanction. After much discussion, and the experiment of a varying charge, the uniform rate for a letter not weighing more than half an ounce became, by order of the Treasury, one penny. This great reform came into operation on the 10th of January, 1840. Its final accomplishment is mainly due to the sagacity and perseverance of the man who first conceived the scheme."

C. Knight, Crown History of England, page 883.

"Up to this time the rates of postage on letters were very heavy, and varied according to the distance. For instance, a single letter conveyed from one part of a town to another cost 2d.; a letter from Reading, to London 7d.; from Brighton, 8d.; from Aberdeen, 1s. 3½d.; from Belfast, 1s. 4d. If the letter was written on more than a single sheet, the rate of postage was much higher."

W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830-1874, volume 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: _G. B. Hill, Life of Sir Rowland Hill._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1840. The Queen's marriage.

"On January 16, 1840, the Queen, opening Parliament in person, announced her intention to marry her cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg-Gotha—a step which she trusted would be 'conducive to the interests of my people as well as to my own domestic happiness.' … It was indeed a marriage founded on affection. … The Queen had for a long time loved her cousin. He was nearly her own age, the Queen being the elder by three months and two or three days. Francis Charles Augustus Albert Emmanuel was the full name of the young Prince. He was the second son of Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, and of his wife Louisa, daughter of Augustus, Duke of Saxe-Gotha-Altenberg. Prince Albert was born at the Rosenau, one of his father's residences, near Coburg, on August 26, 1819. … A marriage between the Princess Victoria and Prince Albert had been thought of as desirable among the families on both sides, but it was always wisely resolved that nothing should be said to the young Princess on the subject unless she herself showed a distinct liking for her cousin. {962} In 1836, Prince Albert was brought by his father to England, and made the personal acquaintance of the Princess, and she seems at once to have been drawn toward him in the manner which her family and friends would most have desired. … The marriage of the Queen and the Prince took place on February 10, 1840."

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 7 (volume 1).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842. Interference in Afghanistan. The first Afghan War.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838; 1838-1842; 1842-1869.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1841-1842. Fall of the Melbourne Ministry. Opening of the second administration of Sir Robert Peel.

In 1841, the Whig Ministry (Melbourne's) determined "to do something for freedom of trade. … Colonial timber and sugar were charged with a duty lighter than was imposed on foreign timber and sugar; and foreign sugar paid a lighter or a heavier duty according as it was imported from countries of slave labour or countries of free labour. It was resolved to raise the duty on colonial timber, but to lower the duty on foreign timber and foreign sugar, and at the same time to replace the sliding scale of the Corn Laws then in force [see TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1815-1828] with a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter. … The concessions offered by the Ministry, too small to excite the enthusiasm of the free traders, were enough to rally all the threatened interests around Peel. Baring's revision of the sugar duties was rejected by a majority of 36. Everybody expected the Ministers to resign upon this defeat; but they merely announced the continuance of the former duties. Then Peel gave notice of a vote of want of confidence, and carried it on the 4th of June by a single vote in a House of 623 members. Instead of resigning, the Ministers appealed to the country. The elections went on through the last days of June and the whole of July. When the new Parliament was complete, it appeared that the Conservatives could count upon 367 votes in the House of Commons. The Ministry met Parliament on the 24th of August. Peel in the House of Commons and Ripon in the House of Lords moved amendments to the Address, which were carried by majorities of 91 and 72 respectively." The Ministry resigned and a Conservative Government was formed, with Peel at its head, as First Lord of the Treasury. "Wellington entered the Cabinet without office, and Lyndhurst assumed for the third time the honours of Lord Chancellor." Among the lesser members of the Administration—not in the Cabinet—was Mr. Gladstone, who became Vice-President of the Board of Trade. "This time Peel experienced no difficulty with regard to the Queen's Household. It had been previously arranged that in the case of Lord Melbourne's resignation three Whig Ladies, the Duchess of Bedford, the Duchess of Sutherland, and Lady Normanby, should resign of their own accord. One or two other changes in the Household contented Peel, and these the Queen accorded with a frankness which placed him entirely at his ease. … During the recess Peel took a wide survey of the ills affecting the commonwealth, and of the possible remedies. To supply the deficiency in the revenue without laying new burthens upon the humbler class; to revive our fainting manufactures by encouraging the importation of raw material; to assuage distress by making the price of provisions lower and more regular, without taking away that protection which he still believed essential to British agriculture: these were the tasks which Peel now bent his mind to compass. … Having solved [the problems] to his own satisfaction, he had to persuade his colleagues that they were right. Only one proved obstinate. The Duke of Buckingham would hear of no change in the degree of protection afforded to agriculture. He surrendered the Privy Seal, which was given to the Duke of Buccleugh. … The Queen's Speech recommended Parliament to consider the state of the laws affecting the importation of corn and other commodities. It announced the beginning of a revolution which few persons in England thought possible, although it was to be completed in little more than ten years."

F. C. Montague, Life of Sir Robert Peel, chapter 7-8.

ALSO IN: J. R. Thursfield, Peel, chapter 7-8.

W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, volume 3, chapters 3-5.

J. W. Croker, Correspondence and Diaries, chapter 22 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1842. The Ashburton Treaty with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846. Repeal of the Corn Laws and dissolution of the League.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1845-1846.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1845-1846. First war with the Sikhs.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846. Settlement of the Oregon Boundary Question with the United States.

See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846. The vengeance of the Tory-Protectionists. Overthrow of Peel. Advent of Disraeli. Ministry of Lord John Russell.

"Strange to say, the day when the Bill [extinguishing the duties on corn] was read in the House of Lords for the third time [June 25] saw the fall of Peel's Ministry. The fall was due to the state of Ireland. The Government had been bringing in a Coercion Bill for Ireland. It was introduced while the Corn Bill was yet passing through the House of Commons. The situation was critical. All the Irish followers of Mr. O'Connell would be sure to oppose the Coercion Bill. The Liberal party, at least when out of office, had usually made it their principle to oppose Coercion Bills, if they were not attended with some promises of legislative reform. The English Radical members, led by Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, were certain to oppose coercion. If the protectionists should join with these other opponents of the Coercion Bill, the fate of the measure was assured, and with it the fate of the Government. This was exactly what happened. Eighty Protectionists followed Lord George Bentinck into the lobby against the Bill, in combination with the Free Traders, the Whigs, and the Irish Catholic and national members. The division took place on the second reading of the Bill on Thursday, June 25, and there was a majority of 73 against the Ministry."

J. McCarthy, The Epoch of Reform, page 183.

{963}

The revengeful Tory-Protectionist attack on Peel was led by Sir George Bentinck and Benjamin Disraeli, then just making himself felt in the House of Commons. It was distinctly grounded upon no objection in principle to the Irish Coercion Bill, but on the declaration that they could "no longer trust Peel, and, must therefore refuse to give him unconstitutional powers.' … He had twice betrayed the party who had trusted his promises. … 'The gentlemen of England,' of whom it had once been Sir Robert's proudest boast to be the leader, declared against him. He was beaten by an overpowering majority, and his career as an English Minister was closed. Disraeli's had been the hand which dethroned him, and to Disraeli himself, after three years of anarchy and uncertainty, descended the task of again building together the shattered ruins of the Conservative party. Very unwillingly they submitted to the unwelcome necessity. Canning and the elder Pitt had both been called adventurers, but they had birth and connection, and they were at least Englishmen. Disraeli had risen out of a despised race; he had never sued for their favours; he had voted and spoken as he pleased, whether they liked it or not. … He was without Court favour, and had hardly a powerful friend except Lord Lyndhurst. He had never been tried on the lower steps of the official ladder. He was young, too—only 42—after all the stir that he had made. There was no example of a rise so sudden under such conditions. But the Tory party had accepted and cheered his services, and he stood out alone among them as a debater of superior power. Their own trained men had all deserted them. Lord George remained for a year or two as nominal chief: but Lord George died; the conservatives could only consolidate themselves under a real leader, and Disraeli was the single person that they had who was equal to the situation. … He had overthrown Peel and succeeded to Peel's honours."

J. A. Froude, Lord Beaconsfield, chapter 9.

Although the Tory-Protectionists had accomplished the overthrow of Peel, they were not prepared to take the Government into their own hands. The new Ministry was formed under Lord John Russell, as First Lord of the Treasury, with Lord Palmerston in the Foreign Office, Sir George Grey in the Home Department, Earl Grey Colonial Secretary, Sir C. Wood Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Macaulay Paymaster-General.

W. C. Taylor, Life and Times of Sir Robert Peel, volume 3, chapter 11.

The most important enactment of the Coercion Bill "(which subsequently gave it the name of the Curfew Act) was that which conferred on the executive Government the power in proclaimed districts of forbidding persons to be out of their dwellings between sunset and sunrise. The right of proclaiming a district as a disturbed district was placed in the hands of the Lord-Lieutenant, who might station additional constabulary there, the whole expense of which was to be borne by the district."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, page 137.

ALSO IN: S. Walpole, Life of Lord John Russell, chapter 16 (volume 1).

B. Disraeli, Lord George Bentinck, chapter 14-16.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1846. Difference with France on the Spanish marriages.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1848. The last Chartist demonstration.

"The more violent Chartists had broken from the Radical reformers, and had themselves divided into two sections; for their nominal leader, Feargus O'Connor, was at bitter enmity with more thoroughgoing and earnest leaders such as O'Brien and Cooper. O'Connor had not proved a very efficient guide. He had entered into a land scheme of a somewhat doubtful character. … He had also injudiciously taken up a position of active hostility to the free-traders, and while thus appearing as the champion of a falling cause had alienated many of his supporters. Yet the Parliament elected in 1846 contained several representatives of the Chartist principles, and O'Connor himself had been returned for Nottingham by a large majority over Hobhouse, a member of the new Ministry. The revolution in France gave a sudden and enormous impulse to the agitation. The country was filled with meetings at which violent speeches were uttered and hints, not obscure, dropped of the forcible establishment of a republic in England. A new Convention was summoned for the 6th of April, a vast petition was prepared, and a meeting, at which it was believed that half a million of people would have been present, was summoned to meet on Kennington Common on the 10th of April for the purpose of carrying the petition to the House in procession. The alarm felt in London was very great. It was thought necessary to swear in special constables, and the wealthier classes came forward in vast numbers to be enrolled. There are said to have been no less than 170,000 special constables. The military arrangements were entrusted to the Duke of Wellington; the public offices were guarded and fortified; public vehicles were forbidden to pass the streets lest they should be employed for barricades; and measures were taken to prevent the procession from crossing the bridges. … Such a display of determination seemed almost ridiculous when compared with what actually occurred. But it was in fact the cause of the harmless nature of the meeting. Instead of half a million, about 30,000 men assembled on Kennington Common. Feargus O'Connor was there; Mr. Maine, the Commissioner of Police, called him aside, told him he might hold his meeting, but that the procession would be stopped, and that he would be held personally responsible for any disorder that might occur. His heart had already begun to fail him, and he … used all his influence to put an end to the procession. His prudent advice was followed, and no disturbance of any importance took place. … The air of ridicule thrown over the Chartist movement by the abortive close of a demonstration which had been heralded with so much violent talk was increased by the disclosures attending the presentation of the petition." There were found to be only 2,000,000 names appended to the document, instead of 5,000,000 as claimed, and great numbers of them were manifestly spurious. "This failure proved a deathblow to Chartism."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages 176-178.

ALSO IN: S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, chapter 20 (volume 4).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1848-1849. Second war with the Sikhs. Conquest and annexation of the Punjab.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1849. Repeal of the Navigation Laws.

See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1849.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850. The Don Pacifico Affair. Lord Palmerston's speech.

The little difficulty with Greece which came to a crisis in the last weeks of 1849 and the first, of 1850 (see GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850), and which was commonly called the Don Pacifico Affair, gave occasion for a memorable speech in Parliament by Lord Palmerston, defending his foreign policy against attacks. {964} The speech (June 24, 1850), which occupied five hours, "from the dusk of one day till the dawn of another," was greatly admired, and proved immensely effective in raising the speaker's reputation. "The Don Pacifico debate was unquestionably an important landmark in the life of Lord Palmerston. Hitherto his merits had been known only to a select few; for the British public does not read Blue Books, and as a rule troubles itself very little about foreign politics at all. … But the Pacifico speech caught the ear of the nation, and was received with a universal verdict of approval. From that hour Lord Palmerston became the man of the people, and his rise to the premiership only a question of time."

L. C. Sanders, Life of Viscount Palmerston, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: Marquis of Lorne, Viscount Palmerston, chapter 7.

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 19 (volume 2).

J. Morley, Life of Cobden, volume 2, chapter 3.

T. Martin, Life of the Prince Consort, chapter 38 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850. The so-called Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with the United States, establishing a joint protectorate over the projected Nicaragua Canal.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850. Restoration of the Roman Episcopate. The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1850-1852. The London protocol and treaty on the Schleswig-Holstein Question.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1851. The Great Exhibition.

"The first of May, 1851, will always be memorable as the day on which the Great Exhibition was opened in Hyde Park. … Many exhibitions of a similar kind have taken place since. Some of these far surpassed that of Hyde Park in the splendour and variety of the collections brought together. Two of them at least—those of Paris in 1867 and 1878—were infinitely superior in the array and display of the products, the dresses, the inhabitants of far-divided countries. But the impression which the Hyde Park Exhibition made upon the ordinary mind was like that of the boy's first visit to the play—an impression never to be equalled. … It was the first organised to gather all the representatives of the world's industry into one great fair. … The Hyde Park Exhibition was often described as the festival to open the long reign of Peace. It might, as a mere matter of chronology, be called without any impropriety the festival to celebrate the close of the short reign of Peace. From that year, 1851, it may be said fairly enough that the world has hardly known a week of peace. … The first idea of the Exhibition was conceived by Prince Albert; and it was his energy and influence which succeeded in carrying the idea into practical execution. … Many persons were disposed to sneer at it; many were sceptical about its doing any good; not a few still regarded Prince Albert as a foreigner and a pedant, and were slow to believe that anything really practical was likely to be developed under his impulse and protection. … There was a great deal of difficulty in selecting a plan for the building. … Happily, a sudden inspiration struck Mr. (afterward Sir Joseph) Paxton, who was then in charge of the Duke of Devonshire's superb grounds at Chatsworth. Why not try glass and iron? he asked himself. … Mr. Paxton sketched out his plan hastily, and the idea was eagerly accepted by the Royal Commissioners. He made many improvements afterwards in his design; but the palace of glass and iron arose within the specified time on the green turf of Hyde Park."

J. McCarthy, History of Our Own Times, chapter 21 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: T. Martin, Life of the Prince Consort, chapters 33-36, 39, 42-43 (volume 2).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852. The Coup d'Etat in France and Lord Palmerston's dismissal from the Cabinet. Defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell. The first Derby Disraeli Ministry and the Aberdeen coalition Ministry.

The "coup d'etat" of December 2nd, 1851, by which Louis Napoleon made himself master of France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1851) brought about the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the British Ministry, followed quickly by the overthrow of the Ministry which expelled him. "Lord Palmerston not only expressed privately to Count Walewski [the French ambassador] his approval of the 'coup d'etat,' but on the 16th of December wrote a despatch to Lord Normanby, our representative in Paris, expressing in strong terms his satisfaction at the success of the French President's arbitrary action. This despatch was not submitted either to the Prime Minister or to the Queen, and of course the offence was of too serious a character to be passed over. A great deal of correspondence ensued, and as Palmerston's explanations were not deemed satisfactory, and he had clearly broken the undertaking he gave some time previously, he was dismissed from office. … There were some who thought him irretrievably crushed from this time forward; but a very short time only elapsed before he retrieved his fortunes and was as powerful as ever. In February 1852 Lord John Russell brought in a Militia Bill which was intended to develop a local militia for the defence of the country. Lord Palmerston strongly disapproved of the scope of the measure, and in committee moved an amendment to omit the word 'local,' so as to constitute a regular militia, which should be legally transportable all over the kingdom, and thus be always ready for any emergency. The Government were defeated by eleven votes, and as the Administration had been very weak for some time, Lord John resigned. Lord Derby formed a Ministry, and invited the cooperation of Palmerston, but the offer was declined, as the two statesmen differed on the question of imposing a duty on the importation of corn, and other matters.'

G. B. Smith, The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria, pages 264-265.

"The new Ministry [in which Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of the Exchequer] took their seats on the 27th of February, but it was understood that a dissolution of Parliament would take place in the summer, by which the fate of the new Government would be decided, and that in the meantime the Opposition should hold its hand. The raw troops [of the Tory Party in the House of Commons], notwithstanding their inexperience, acquitted themselves with credit, and some good Bills were passed, the Militia Bill among the number, while a considerable addition to the strength of the Navy was effected by the Duke of Northumberland. No doubt, when the general election began, the party had raised itself considerably in public estimation. But for one consideration the country would probably have been quite willing to entrust its destinies to their hands. {965} But that one consideration was all important. … The Government was obliged to go to the country, to some extent, on Protectionist principles. It was known that a Derbyite majority meant a moderate import duty; and the consequence was that Lord Derby just lost the battle, though by a very narrow majority. When Parliament met in November, Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli had a very difficult game to play. … Negotiations were again opened with Palmerston and the Peelites, and on this occasion Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert were willing to join if Lord Palmerston might lead in the House of Commons. But the Queen put her veto on this arrangement, which accordingly fell to the ground; and Lord Derby had to meet the Opposition attack without any reinforcements. … On the 16th of December, … being defeated on the Budget by a majority of 19, Lord Derby at once resigned."

T. E. Kebbel, Life of the Earl of Derby, chapter 6.

"The new Government [which succeeded that of Derby] was a coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with Sir William Molesworth thrown in to represent the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen became Prime Minister, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer. The other Peelites in the Cabinet were the Duke of Newcastle, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert."

G. W. E. Russell, The Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, chapter 5.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1852. Second Burmese War. Annexation of Pegu.

See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1852-1853. Abandonment of Protection by the Conservatives. Further progress in Free Trade.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1846-1879.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1855. Civil-Service Reform.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1856. The Crimean War.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1855. Popular discontent with the management of the war. Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry. Palmerston's first premiership. A brightening of prospects.

"Our army system entirely broke down [in the Crimea], and Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle were made the scapegoats of the popular indignation. … But England was not only suffering from unpreparedness and want of administrative power in the War department; there were dissensions in the Cabinet. … Lord John Russell gave so much trouble, that Lord Aberdeen, after one of the numerous quarrels and reconciliations which occurred at this juncture, wrote to the Queen that nothing but a sense of public duty and the necessity for avoiding the scandal of a rupture kept him at his post. … At a little later stage … the difficulties were renewed. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the condition of the army before Sebastopol, and Lord John definitively resigned. The Ministry remained in office to await the fate of Mr. Roebuck's motion, which was carried against them by the very large majority of 157. Lord Aberdeen now placed the resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the Queen [January 31, 1855]. … Thus fell the Coalition Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen. In talent and parliamentary influence it was apparently one of the strongest Governments ever seen, but it suffered from a fatal want of cohesion."

G. B. Smith, Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria, pages 227-230.

"Lord Palmerston had passed his 70th year when the Premiership came to him for the first time. On the fall of the Coalition Government the Queen sent for Lord Derby, and upon his failure for Lord John Russell. Palmerston was willing at the express request of her Majesty to serve once more under his old chief, but Clarendon and many of the Whigs not unnaturally positively refused to do so. Palmerston finally undertook and successfully achieved the task of forming a Government out of the somewhat heterogeneous elements at his command. Lord Clarendon continued at the Foreign Office, and Gladstone was still Chancellor of the Exchequer. The War Department was reorganised, the office of Secretary at War disappearing, and being finally merged in that of Secretary of State for War. Although Palmerston objected to Roebuck's Committee, he was practically compelled to accept it, and this led to the resignation of Gladstone, Graham and Herbert; their places being taken by Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir Charles Wood, and Lord John Russell."

Marquis of Lorne, Viscount Palmerston, chapter 10.

"It was a dark hour in the history of the nation when Lord Palmerston essayed the task which had been abandoned by the tried wisdom of Derby, Lansdowne, and John Russell. Far away in the Crimea the war was dragging on without much hope of a creditable solution, though the winter of discontent and mismanagement was happily over. The existence of the European concert was merely nominal. The Allies had discovered, many months previously, that, though Austria was staunch, Prussia was a faithless friend. … Between the belligerent powers the cloud of suspicion and distrust grew thicker; for Abd-el-Medjid was known to be freely squandering his war loans on seraglios and palaces while Kars was starving; and though there was no reason for distrusting the present good faith of the Emperor of the French, his policy was straight-forward only as long as he kept himself free from the influence of the gang of stock-jobbers and adventurers who composed his Ministry. Nor was the horizon much brighter on the side of England. A series of weak cabinets, and the absence of questions of organic reform, had completely relaxed the bonds of Party. If there was no regular Opposition, still less was there a regular majority. … And the hand that was to restore order out of chaos was not so steady as of yore. … Lord Palmerston was not himself during the first weeks of his leadership. But the prospect speedily brightened. Though Palmerston was considerably over seventy, he still retained a wonderful vigour of constitution. He was soon restored to health, and was always to be found at his post. … His generalship secured ample majorities for the Government in every division during the session. Of the energy which Lord Palmerston inspired into the operations against Sebastopol, there can hardly be two opinions."

L. C. Sanders, Life of Viscount Palmerston, chapter 10.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1855. Mr. Gladstone's Commission to the Ionian Islands.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1856-1860. War with China. French alliance in the war. Capture of Canton. Entrance into Pekin. Destruction of the Summer Palace.

See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

{966}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1857-1858. The Sepoy Mutiny in India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1858. Assumption of the government of India by the Crown. End of the rule of the East India Co.

See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us