Chapter IV: , VII (18)

"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.