England in 1841, being a series of letters written to friends in Germany, during a residence in London ... Translated from the German by H. E. Lloyd

Front matter

ENGLAND IK 1841 BEING A SERIES OF LETTERS WRITTEN TO FRIENDS IN GERMANY, DURING A RESIDENCE IN LONDON AND EXCURSIONS INTO THE PROVINCES; BY FREDERICK VON RAUMER, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AT THE T'NIVEIISITV OF BERLIN, AUTHOR OF THE ' HISTORY OF THE HOHENSTAtTFEN ; ' OP THE ' HISTORY OF EUROPE FROM THE END OF THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY ;' OF ' ILLUS- TRATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES,' OF 'ENGLAND IN 1835,' etc. etc. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN By H. EVANS LLOYD. TWO VOLS. VOLUME THE FIRST. LONDON: JOHN LEE, 440, STRAND. MDCCCXLII. J. MALLETT, PRINTER, WARDOUR STREET, SOHO, LONDON. CONTENTS OF VOL I. Page Author's Preface ' v Translator's Preface vii

Preface

. A NEW edition of the work, " England in 1835," being required, the author was induced to visit Great Britain in 1841, for the third time. He took this opportunity of adding to the new edition, the volumes now offered to the Public, which relate to the further development of many important subjects from 1835 to 1841. Though this new work is chiefly intended for German readers, he hopes that it will be likewise welcome to the possessors of the pre ceding volumes in England. Tbe Appendix, containing extracts from letters to his friends, will, he trusts, be received with indul gence. With respect to these extracts, he begs leave to observe, that he long hesitated whether he should publish any part of them, or confine himself entirely to the letters treating upon the great ques tions which he chiefly had in view ; some critics have censured all these lighter matters, as unne- VI THE AUTHOR'S

PREFACE.

. cessary and tiresome ; while many readers, whom he is happy to reckon among his friends, affirm, that they prefer these familiar letters, to long, dry essays, and statistical tables. He bas endea voured to satisfy both parties, by printing the po litical and statistical letters by themselves, re serving for the Appendix the extracts from the other letters, written in 183G and 1841 ; from which, however, he has struck out every thing relating to himself personally, as well as the continual expres sions of gratitude for services and kindnesses which he received from so many quarters*. * The author cannot, however, deny himself the gratification of acknowledging, in the name of himself and his countrymen who have visited England, the unvarying kindness and courtesy of B. Hebeler, Esq. the Consul General of Prussia, who is always ready to afford his valuable counsel and assistance when and where they may be required : and invaluable as these courtesies are in themselves, they are yet further enhanced by the cordial and sincere manner in which they are bestowed, and therefore cannot fail to be highly appreciated by every one who receives them. TRANSLATOR'S

PREFACE.

. The Author's Preface having sufficiently explained the origin and intention of the following continuation of his Letters on England in 1835, which were so favourably received by the English public, the trans lator will merely observe, that though it was impracticable, and hardly necessary for him to consult the very numerous works quoted, or alluded to by the Author, he has, however, in some instances, where the Author gives long, continuous extracts, taken care to quote them in the original English. Such are the Bishop of LlandafPs letters to Sir Robert Peel ; the Rev. Sidney Smith, on the Ballot ; Sir Robert Peel's Address on the Opening of the Li terary Institution at Tamworth ; the Remarks of the British Critic on that Address ; and Mr. Lewis's Work on the Disturbances in Ireland. London, Feb. 1, 1842. ENGLAND IN 1841.

Letter I

The Queen — Prince Albert. London, July 10, 1841. After an absence of five years, I have been en abled to pay a third lengthened visit to England, and again carefully to investigate, to the utmost of my ability, its manners and public institutions. Were I to compress within a few words the total result of my observations, I must express myself in a very different manner from the publications and journals of the several parties in England ; according to which, we should believe that England is either fanatically averse from every departure from long established customs, or animated by a restless desire for incessant and rash innovations. While it cannot be denied, that many countries and people almost exclusively embrace and pursue the one or the other of these partial views and tendencies, the calm ob server, who stands beyond the influence of party VOL. I. B THE QUEEN. spirit, sees that there is in England an immense solidity of the existing institutions, combined with immeasurable progressive energy.

Hence arises the true equipoise of the life and the powers of indivi duals as of nations ; and I shall have occasion to prove the truth of this eulogium, as manifested in several striking facts, with special reference to the last five years. Entertaining this conviction, I would ask, has not the one or the other of these tendencies of the efforts of the government and the people sometimes gone too far ? has not the one checked improvement, or the other been too precipitate in desiring to effect it ? Such exceptions do not ab rogate the rule ; such doubts are proof of the impar tiality of the reporter. My observations commence in the highest quar ter. In place of an aged King, I found a youthful Queen. "A retrograde movement!" would some exclaim—" A woman instead of a man, and inexpe rience in the place of wisdom !"

But, may we not answer, that female sovereigns, in proportion to their numbers, make as distinguished a figure in the pages of history as kings ; and where is the King of England whom we may compare to the great Elizabeth ? Queen Victoria was fortunate to find, in Lord Melbourne, a paternal friend, who, far from seeking, THE QUEEN. 3 with short-sighted presumption, to give her a dislike for public business, endeavoured rather to habituate and attach her to it. Accordingly, the reproach that the Queen was inexperienced and indifferent was soon changed into the opposite extreme ; and it was loudly affirmed, that she took too decided a part, and that her firmness of character degenerated into unconstitutional self-will. I am the less disposed to join in these reproaches, because they are connected with general views of the royal authority which strike me as erroneous.

Many adherents of the modern political doctrines desire entirely to set aside the personal character of kings : they imagine that the less knowledge and individual will, thought, and feeling, the less decision of character, a monarch possesses, the better is he qualified to fill the place of a symbol at present indispensable. As Diogenes presented the cock stripped of his feathers as the repre sentative of a perfect man, so do they present a king, stripped of all kingly qualities, as their ideal of roy alty ! Wherefore assign this royal office to a man, if, in fact, all he has to do is passively to nod assent to whatever a majority requires ? In this instance, as is so often the case, opposite extremes approximate more closely than might be imagined. Certain leaders of a very different school, who consider the deaf, the dumb, and the B PRINCE ALBERT. blind, as qualified for the exercise of royalty, second, under a thin veil, the views of their opponents.

It bas been affirmed, especially with reference to the kings of the House of Hanover, that a sovereign of moderate capacity is the best for England. Undoubtedly it migbt have been difficult for men of such strongly marked character as Frederick the Second and Napoleon to confine themselves to the course prescribed by the British Constitution. But, then, have not kings of very inferior minds, such as James the First, Charles the Second, and James the Second, acted on their own narrow prejudices ; while Elizabeth never disagreed with her Parliament, and William the Third combated with admirable perse verance for the liberty of England and of Europe. In a kingdom, where every one claims, as an inviolable right, the liberty of maintaining his political and religious opinions, where the most decided ex tremes exist together, and each party endeavours to assert its own views, how can it be required that the Queen alone should have no opinion, no thoughts, no feelings of her own ?

Lord Melbourne has always justly maintained that a Queen of England must govern with the party at any time predominant in the na tion ; but it does not follow that she is never to judge of principles, conduct, and objects, — never to throw her own conviction into the scale. Queen Victoria PRINCE ALBERT. 5 has, in no instance, violated the Constitution, to fol low her own ambition. She was silent when her consort (certainly with the observance of the legal forms) was refused what was immediately afterwards granted him : it was only when demands were made of her, without sufficient reason, which the meanest of her subjects would not have tolerated, that she manifested becoming spirit and feeling, and proved tbat she knew how to assert her own liberty. The Tory leaders may understand every thing better than tbe other party ; but they did not then under stand how to treat a young and high-minded Queen.

In Prince Albert she has found a consort worthy of her : his position as a foreigner, as the husband of a reigning queen, was in itself difficult ; and persons were not wanting who endeavoured to make it still more so. By discretion, combined with good under standing, he has daily overcome opposition, and gained applause. This is proved by his having been unanimously appointed eventual guardian of the young Princess. His position will, every year, become more firm ; and in the Royal Pair and their children the British Empire has secured, for a long time to come, what many other nations are destitute of, or despise.

Letter II

Lord Palmerston— Difference between France and England. London, July 11, 1841. •I DO not know, in the history of the world, a more noble destiny than that to which England is called, which she has already accomplished, or will infallibly accomplish in due time. The great projects of Alexander fell to the ground at his premature death ; Rome established her power by the sword alone, and the destruction of other nations, and she perished in the sequel by her own fault, of along-protracted dis ease. Mahometanism, in relation to Christianity, was a deplorable retrogression, and the Empire of Napo leon only a meteor of arrogant tyranny. The Papal dominion of the middle ages had an eternal value for the education of the human race ; but it extended, at that time, only to Europe, and fell into numerous errors.

The errors, however, are not the essence ; and this essence will survive all the trials of political mountebanks. England is the first empire, which embraces the whole earth, every nation ; yet the chief weight and the chief value are not in the extent of its dominion, but in the highest activity, united with progress in the sciences, and the most laudable solicitude for the spread of religion. England is the intellectual eye which turns to every quarter, penetrates through every zone, and prepares an exalted future destiny for the human race. Before this noble, comprehensive, glorious destination, the low and violent disputes of domestic parties lose all their importance, or are but shadows that relieve the higher lights. There never was, in the history of the world, a mass of business at all comparable to what the mi nisters of Foreign Affairs and of Colonies have now to attend to ; and a full account of their proceedings during the last five years only, could not be given without great preparatory study and investigation.

An acquaintance with the general outlines of their sphere of action, the more easily leads to partial opinions, as most of the public journals do their ut most to lead to such a result. Even success, which most men consider as a sufficient ground for decision, cannot produce dispassionate and unanimous judg ments, when totally different objects are proposed and desired: for instance, the protection or expulsion of Don Carlos, the increase or the restriction of the powers of Mehemet Ali, &c. What conflicting and acrimonious reproaches have been made on these subjects against Lord Palmerston ! What a mass of the most singular and contradictory demands have been made on him, and what numberless obstacles have been thrown in his way, both by friends and enemies ! Whatever opinion may be entertained or the course and tendency of his policy, nobody can deny that he succeeded ; and the late period is one of the most glorious in English history.

In Spain, Portugal, Naples, Syria, Egypt, Persia, India, and China*, the will of England has been carried, at least for the moment, carried for a thousand reasons, and with very diverse and immense means ; but his tory will one day confirm, that, without Lord Pal merston's restless activity, -strength of mind, and energy of character, this triumphant success would probably never have been accomplished. He is very far, however, from ascribing, with petty vanity, this success to himself alone. On tbe contrary, in reply to an attack made by Sir William Molesworth on the Colonial Minister, he very justly observed, " According to the constitution of this country, the government is not an accumulation of independent spheres of action ; but all important measures in each department are submitted to the whole Cabinet ; and all are answerable for the great outlines of the measures that are adopted, though the execution of If China appears to be an exception, I would say — wait till you see the end '. each is left to the head of the respective depart ments."

In whatever manner the glory and honour for the success of so many enterprises may be dis tributed, and whatever blame may be interwoven in tbe wreaths of victory, one encomium, and it is the highest, is due to Lord Palmerston— " He is a MAN, and that is enough." Lord Palmerston, they say, is fortunate. Very true ; but fortune generally accompanies energy and resolution. It was certainly an unexpected, an in conceivable piece of good fortune, that the turbid stream of time brought to the surface, and opposed to Lord Palmerston, a person who may be any thing in the world, but certainly not a man in the exalted sense of the great poet. Never was a man so com pletely defeated in a diplomatic or rather political combat, so driven from all his positions, as M. Thiers by Lord Palmerston. The mountebank challenge of the French minister did not move the English minis ter from his dignified attitude, which is necessarily combined with great penetration and noble princi ples.

While M. Thiers endeavoured to dazzle the French nation by fireworks, in defiance of facts, of principles, and treaties, in proclaiming the fanciful caprices of every day and of every fool, as questions of the highest concern to humanity, the English nation assumed an attitude so lofty and dignified, that M. Thiers could not comprehend it, and had rather expected an opposite effect from his rhodomontades. The Duke of Wellington's observation, " It is my duty to uphold all treaties, even though I did not originally approve of them," is a conclusive axiom, in direct opposition to those principles which some Frenchmen would bring into vogue, in order clan destinely to introduce, under their cover, their own arbitrary will, and conceal their own insignificance. We may foresee, or at least hope, that this evil after birth of the Revolution in France will soon be dead and buried.

Even the Times and the Quarterly Review, otherwise the violent opponents of Lord Palmer ston, much to their credit, defended him against un just attacks in and out of England. Thus the latter, in reference to Mr. Urquhart and his partisans, says, " by exaggerated assertions, perversion of facts, and a general confusion of thought and ex pressions, they have almost forced upon us the con viction, that Russia is the most innocent and harm less of all states, and Lord Palmerston the most judicious and patriotic of all ministers ;" and, in an other place, the Review says, " the only blame that can be thrown upon the confederates (with respect to France) is, in fact, the constant humility with which they endeavoured to satisfy the caprices of one DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRANCE AND ENGLAND. 11 who was resolved, from the very first, not to be satisfied*."

Nothing can be more erroneous than, on ac count of the resemblance of some subordinate points, to overlook the great difference between England and France. There we find the greatest predilection for self-government ; here for centralization : there for specialties ; here for generalities ; there for aristocratic gradations of all kinds ; here for equality : there for the rights of primogeniture *. here for an equal division of property : there, in the elections, the preponderance of landed property ; here of money : there activity in all the cities and towns by meetings, associations, public dinners, speeches, parliaments in miniature ; here the supremacy of the capital : there very few civil offices ; here an extraordinary number: there improvements by agreement and reciprocal concessions ; here by coups d'6tal, &c. &c. In reference to this state of things, an English authors says, "An unlimited centralization, such as we see in France (where no road, path, bridge, canal, harbour, and the like, can be made or repaired without application to the capital and the approbation of the government), is a system so destructive of the * Quarterly Review, cxxxiii, 259, 288. f Sandley on Discretionary Power, p. 39.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRANCE AND ENGLAND. internal prosperity of a nation, that it is scarcely possible to imagine a worse. It destroys all local energy and talent, deters from new and useful enter prises, converts men into machines, considers their minds as so many blank leaves, and makes a rich and fertile province dependent upon a distant and ignorant minister."

Letter III

Parliamentary Reform — Qualification — Exclusion of the Bishops — Privileges of Parliament — the Ballot — Annual Parliaments — the Elective Franchise. London, July 12, 1841. In my former letters upon England, I endeavoured to explain the motives and the substance of tbe parliamentary reform. Experience has since corrected many prejudices and allayed many pas sions ; some over-zealous advocates of the measure have become convinced that a change in the form of political rights can work no miracles, nor remove all the sufferings of humanity ; while the most vio lent opponents confess that their apprehensions were in a great measure unfounded, and that many a loss has been more than compensated by other means. Though all proposals, which have been made since the Reform Bill, for further changes in the constitu tion, have been rejected, they deserve however a more particular notice.

I. A motion of Mr. Ewart's*, to subject landed property to the same laws as other property, was that which met with the least support. This would have led to tbe abolition of all the rights of primogeniture, Hansard, xxxvi, 734. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. QUALIFICATION. 14 which are so necessary a part of the English constitution, and so interwoven with the general feeling of the people, that even those who do not enjoy these rights, prefer the English law of inheritance to the French and German, and, in fact, changes of tbe laws in England have scarcely ever proceeded from gene ral, abstract considerations and doctrines. II. There appeared to be more in favour of the proposal, not to require in future, as heretofore, that every member of the House of Commons shall pos sess a certain amount of landed property.

Messrs. Molesworth, Leader, Ewart, Hume, and others, supported this motion by the following arguments*. In Scotland, no proof of property is required ; and in England, only since the time of Queen Anne ; and is no proof of either moral or intellectual excel lence; nay, these qualities are often impaired by riches, and the poorest man takes as much interest in good laws and good government, and is as much interested in them, as the richest. Those who are excluded, are injured without sufficient reason, and have more inclination and leisure to attend to public business than the rich, who rather look to their own affairs. It is notorious that the sons of peers, who often possess no property, are admitted into the Hansard, xxxvii, 524 : xxxvii, S02. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. QUALIFICATION. 15 House of Commons without proving their qualifica tion, and that many other members of the House, notwithstanding what the law requires, possess no landed property.

They must either help themselves with pretexts and unfounded statements, or, if they are more conscientious, fall into the class of the ex cluded. To these arguments it was replied, if no proof of property is demanded of the elected, soon there will be none required of the electors, and in the House of Commons persons will legislate upon property who do not possess any. As it was evident that the existing law was daily evaded, and had been passed in the reign of Queen Anne only to increase the influence of the land owners, Lord John Russel proposed to convert the illegal practice into a legal one, by enacting that every species of property, and not merely landed property, might be admitted as a qualification. As the first proposal, however, was intended much rather to re move all claims founded on property, than to extend them, Sir William Molesworth refused this com promise ; his motion was hereupon rejected by a majority of 133 to 104 ; and it was not till the 27th of July 1838, that a law was passed, that every member for a county should possess an annual income of £600, and a member for a city or borough £ 300, derived from land or other property.

EXCLUSION OF THE BISHOPS. III. A third proposal, made by Mr. Lushingtou (supported by Ewart, Bulwer, &c), was entirely to exclude the Bishops from the Upper House, because this privilege was incompatible with their other duties, and because their voices and votes were in general contrary to the wishes and wants of the country. Lord John Russel was the first to defend the Bishops*; he observed that so important a point in the Constitution must not be altered without the most weighty reasons, nor men excluded who represented so great an amount of property. Political and spiritual duties were in England connected in various ways, and might be performed without any de triment worth notice to tbe one or the other. Sir Robert Peel assented to these arguments, and com mended Lord John Russel for his defence of the Bishops, though they had often voted against his motions.

Mr. Lushington's motion was rejected by a majority of 197 to 92. The arguments for and against such a change were certainly more completely developed in the 17th centuryt ; and, with a reference to long experience, it was hardly to be denied that the latter still have the preponderance in England. Nay, it might be much easier to prove that the interests of the church * Hansard, xxxvii, 619 — 1S37. t Raumer Geshichte von Furo^a, \ol.v. p. 30. PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT. 17 are too insufficiently, rather than too powerfully, represented. Proposals for the entire abolition or an essential reform of the whole of the Upper House have not been made of late years, because the great majority of the English are convinced of its necessity and use fulness, as well as of the weakness and superficialness of all the plans for improving it.

IV. Important questions on the extent and the limits of the privileges of Parliament were discussed on occasion of an action by Stockdale against Han sard. Stockdale affirmed that something which Han sard had printed by order of Parliament contained calumnies upon him, and was to be considered as a libel. While the action was pending, Lord Denman, Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, said, " I know of no body whatever in this country which can autho rize any one of its servants to print libels." When the matter came to be discussed in Parliament, the lead ing members of both parties, and the majority of the House of Commons, declared that no action was allowable in this case. Nay, on the 14th of April 1840, a law was passed that no civil or criminal action could be instituted on account of the printing of papers and documents, as soon as it was proved that it had been done by command of Parliament.

Not* PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT. withstanding this decision, the important question remains, when and how a person really calumniated in this manner is to look for and find redress. He is not to bring an action against the printer, nor against the whole House, nor against individual mem bers, nor against the Speaker. A law-suit, a punishment of the offender, was therefore out of the ques tion ; and redress was chiefly to be found in the pub lic refutations and an extra-judicial proof of innocence. On this subject one author* says — " the omnipotence of Parliament has become such a favourite principle, that men quietly allow tyranny of the worst kind to be introduced under the vague pretext of remedying abuses and introducing improvements." I cannot enter in any way into the legal principles which were brought forward in that process, since even Sir Robert Peel was reproached with not understanding the substance of it.

These, however, are certainly of less importance than the general and infinitely more weighty questions, — how far is the administration of justice, are the judges and jury, in dependent of Parliament ? and how far, on the other hand, is the Parliament subject to the decision of the judge and tribunals. The courts of justice, said Sir John Campbell, the Attorney -General, are subordi nate to the Houses of Parliament, and are therefore * Quarterly Review, cxxi, 205. not authorized to decide a question on the privileges of Parliament*. To this it was replied, the Lower House does not possess the entire legislative authority, nor can everything be claimed as parliamentary privilege, and the administration of justice be thereby defeated. The times of Charles I shew us instances of fatal exaggerations and errors of both kinds.

Parliamentary legislators giving undue preponderance to considerations of alleged public rights, overthrew private rights and private property ; and, on the other hand, udges, on the ground of partial private right, rejected every political improvement, and pronounced in favour of the tyranny of existing institutions. If all private right is placed in the application of a dead letter to individual relations, if public right is con sidered as the arbitrary result of a temporary all powerful majority, we are involved in a two-fold error ; which, however, increases and becomes appa rent so rapidly, that a correction founded on mutual understanding cannot be long delayed, without lead ing to the entire dissolution of social order. V. Another motion, which has been brought forward more than once, and with increasing vehe mence, is to introduce the ballots, in the parliamentary * Report of the Case of Stockdale against Hansard, page 23. t See Index, article Ballot. elections.

On the whole, the same arguments, pro and con, have been again and again brought forward, which I have already noticed in my preceding letters; yet it is instructive to hear how they have been further developed, and more decisively expressed. At every new election for members of Parlia ment (said the advocates for the ballot, Messrs. Grote, Elphinstone, &c), bribery, intimidation, and the undue influence of the wealthy and of landowners, increase*. Many vote directly against their conviction, many do not vote at all, in order that they may offend neither party; and thus, instead of the vaunted freedom of election, we have, in truth, only constraint and deplor able slavery. In every other society, every social union, the ballot is introduced as the only certain means of maintaining perfect independence, and giv ing an opinion without molestation or embarrassment.

The ballot would give the same security in parliamen tary elections ; it would put an end to bribery and in timidation. Such, in substance, are the arguments of the ad vocates of the ballot. I proceed to state in a similar manner the main arguments against it. We must try every other means, said Mr. Poulter, to root out any existing evils before we have recourse to the ballot, — that temptation to lying and falsehood. The t Hansard, xxxvii— 1837; xc, 1131— 1838 ; xcvii. 458— 1839. ballot, said Mr. Vernon Smith, exposes the poor to a two-fold superintendence and intimidation ; both which the rich easily avoid. It makes it impossible to distinguish friend from foes ; it suppresses the sin cere expression of .conscientious convictions, and hin ders the development and establishment of the truth.

We ought to abide, said Mr. Borthwick, by a system where every one must boldly come forward and do his duty in the sight of God and man. Public canvassing and public voting, said Lord Howick, increase the knowledge of things and persons; inform the ignorant, and check the evil-disposed. The ballot, on the contrary, throws immense power into the hands of the returning officers, makes it impossible to express one's sentiments with manly courage, facilitates bri bery, and substitutes moral cowardice for noble in dependence. In America, which is quoted as an ex ample, there is no real freedom of voting ; and nobody has the courage to offer opposition to the ruling pas sions of the multitude. The ballot, said Mr. Milnes, puts an end to public life, at least amongthe middling classes ; instead of free development of ideas and feelings, secret intrigues come in, and the worst and most ignorant have equal importance and weight with the most noble and best-informed.