Chapter VII (8)

It is a relief to turn from so painful a subject, even though we descend to the petty, huckstering politics of the English court. And truly, the history of the treatment experienced by the most illustrious of our politicians, is highly characteristic of the prince under whom he lived. While Burke was consuming his life in great public services, labouring to reform our finances, improve our laws, and enlighten our commercial policy,--while he was occupied with these things, the king regarded him with coldness and aversion.[900] But when the great statesman degenerated into an angry brawler; when, irritated by disease, he made it the sole aim of his declining years to kindle a deadly war between the two first countries of Europe, and declared that to this barbarous object he would sacrifice all other questions of policy, however important they might be;[901]--then it was that a perception of his vast abilities began to dawn upon the mind of the king. Before this, no one had been bold enough to circulate in the palace even a whisper of his merits. Now, however, in the successive, and eventually the rapid decline of his powers, he had fallen almost to the level of the royal intellect; and now he was first warmed by the beams of the royal favour. Now he was a man after the king's own heart.[902] Less than two years before his death, there was settled upon him, at the express desire of George III., two considerable pensions;[903] and the king even wished to raise him to the peerage, in order that the House of Lords might benefit by the services of so great a counsellor.[904]

[900] 'I know,' said Burke, in one of those magnificent speeches which
mark the zenith of his intellect,--'I know the map of England as
well as the noble lord, or as any other person; and I know that
the way I take is not the road to preferment.' _Parl. Hist._ vol.
xvii. p. 1269.

[901] See, among many other instances, an extraordinary passage on
'Jacobinism,' in his _Works_, vol. ii. p. 449, which should be
compared with a letter he wrote in 1792, respecting a proposed
coalition ministry, _Correspond._ vol. iii. pp. 519, 520: 'But my
advice was, that as a foundation of the whole, the political
principle must be settled as the preliminary, namely, "a total
hostility to the French system, at home and abroad."'

[902] The earliest evidence I have met with of the heart of George III.
beginning to open towards Burke, is in August 1791; see in
_Burke's Correspondence_, vol. iii. p. 278, an exquisitely absurd
account of his reception at the levee. Burke must have been
fallen, indeed, before he could write such a letter.

[903] 'Said to have originated in the express wish of the king.'
_Prior's Life of Burke_, p. 489. Mr. Prior estimates these
pensions at 3,700_l._ a-year; but if we may rely on Mr. Nicholls,
the sum was even greater: 'Mr. Burke was rewarded with two
pensions, estimated to be worth 40,000_l._' _Nicholls's
Recollections_, vol. i. p. 136. Burke was sixty-five; and a
pension of 3,700_l._ a-year would not be worth 40,000_l._, as the
tables were then calculated. The statement of Mr. Prior is,
however, confirmed by Wansey, in 1794. See _Nichols's Lit. Anec.
of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. iii. p. 81.

[904] _Prior's Life of Burke_, p. 460; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iii.
p. 81; _Bisset's Life of Burke_, vol. ii. p. 414.

This digression respecting the character of Burke has been longer than I had anticipated; but it will not, I hope, be considered unimportant; for, in addition to the intrinsic interest of the subject, it illustrates the feelings of George III. towards great men, and it shows what the opinions were which in his reign it was thought necessary to hold. In the sequel of this work, I shall trace the effect of such opinions upon the interests of the country, considered as a whole; but for the object of the present Introduction, it will be sufficient to point out the connexion in one or two more of those prominent instances, the character of which is too notorious to admit of discussion.

Of these leading and conspicuous events, the American war was the earliest, and for several years it almost entirely absorbed the attention of English politicians. In the reign of George II. a proposal had been made to increase the revenue by taxing the colonies; which, as the Americans were totally unrepresented in parliament, was simply a proposition to tax an entire people without even the form of asking their consent. This scheme of public robbery was rejected by that able and moderate man who was then at the head of affairs; and the suggestion, being generally deemed impracticable, fell to the ground, and seems, indeed, hardly to have excited attention.[905] But what was deemed by the government of George II. to be a dangerous stretch of arbitrary power, was eagerly welcomed by the government of George III. For the new king, having the most exalted notion of his own authority, and being, from his miserable education, entirely ignorant of public affairs, thought that to tax the Americans for the benefit of the English, would be a masterpiece of policy. When, therefore, the old idea was revived, it met with his cordial acquiescence; and when the Americans showed their intention of resisting this monstrous injustice, he was only the more confirmed in his opinion that it was necessary to curb their unruly will. Nor need we be surprised at the rapidity with which such angry feelings broke out. Indeed, looking, on the one hand, at the despotic principles which, for the first time since the Revolution, were now revived at the English court; and looking, on the other hand, at the independent spirit of the colonists,--it was impossible to avoid a struggle between the two parties; and the only questions were, as to what form the contest would take, and towards which side victory was most likely to incline.[906]

[905] 'It had been proposed to Sir Robert Walpole to raise the revenue
by imposing taxes on America; but that minister, who could
foresee beyond the benefit of the actual moment, declared it must
be a bolder man than himself who should venture on such an
expedient.' _Walpole's George III._ vol. ii. p. 70. Compare
_Phillimore's Mem. of Lyttleton_, vol. ii. p. 662; _Bancroft's
American Revolution_, vol. i. p. 96; _Belsham's Hist. of Great
Britain_, vol. v. p. 102.

[906] That some sort of rupture was unavoidable, must, I think, be
admitted; but we are not bound to believe the assertion of Horace
Walpole, who says (_Mem. of George II._ vol. i. p. 397) that in
1754 he predicted the American rebellion. Walpole, though a keen
observer of the surface of society, was not the man to take a
view of this kind; unless, as is hardly probable, he heard an
opinion to that effect expressed by his father. Sir Robert
Walpole may have said something respecting the increasing love of
liberty in the colonies; but it was impossible for him to foresee
how that love would be fostered by the arbitrary proceedings of
the government of George III.

On the part of the English government, no time was lost. Five years after the accession of George III., a bill was brought into parliament to tax the Americans;[907] and so complete had been the change in political affairs, that not the least difficulty was found in passing a measure which, in the reign of George II., no minister had dared to propose. Formerly, such a proposal, if made, would certainly have been rejected; now the most powerful parties in the state were united in its favour. The king, on every occasion, paid a court to the clergy, to which, since the death of Anne, they had been unaccustomed; he was, therefore, sure of their support, and they zealously aided him in every attempt to oppress the colonies.[908] The aristocracy, a few leading Whigs alone excepted, were on the same side, and looked to the taxation of America as a means of lessening their own contributions.[909] As to George III., his feelings on the subject were notorious;[910] and the more liberal party not having yet recovered from the loss of power consequent on the death of George II., there was little fear of difficulties from the cabinet; it being well known that the throne was occupied by a prince whose first object was to keep ministers in strict dependence on himself, and who, whenever it was practicable, called into office such weak and flexible men as would yield unhesitating submission to his wishes.[911]

[907] The general proposition was introduced in 1764; the bill itself
early in 1765. See _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. pp. 82,
85; and _Grenville Papers_, vol. ii. pp. 373, 374. On the
complete change of policy which this indicated, see _Brougham's
Polit. Philos._ part iii. p. 328.

[908] The correspondence of that time contains ample proof of the
bitterness of the clergy against the Americans. Even in 1777,
Burke wrote to Fox: 'The Tories do universally think their power
and consequence involved in the success of this American
business. The clergy are astonishingly warm in it; and what the
Tories are when embodied and united with their natural head, the
crown, and animated by their clergy, no man knows better than
yourself.' _Burke's Works_, vol. ii. p. 390. Compare _Bishop
Newton's Life of Himself_, pp. 134, 157.

[909] 'The overbearing aristocracy desired some reduction of the land
tax, at the expense of America.' _Bancroft's Hist. of the
American Revolution_, vol. ii. p. 414. The merchants, on the
other hand, were opposed to these violent proceedings. See, on
this contrast between the landed and commercial interests, a
letter from Lord Shelburne, in 1774, and another from Lord
Camden, in 1775, in _Chatham Correspond._ vol. iv. pp. 341, 401.
See also the speeches of Trecothick and Vyner, in _Parl. Hist._
vol. xvi. p. 507, vol. xviii. p. 1361.

[910] It was believed at the time, and it is not improbable, that the
king himself suggested the taxation of America, to which
Grenville at first objected. Compare _Wraxall's Mem. of his own
Time_, vol. ii. pp. 111, 112, with _Nicholl's Recollections_,
vol. i. pp. 205, 386. This may have been merely a rumour; but it
is quite consistent with everything we know of the character of
George III., and there can, at all events, be no doubt as to his
feelings respecting the general question. It is certain that he
over-persuaded Lord North to engage in the contest with America,
and induced that minister to go to war, and to continue it even
after success had become hopeless. See _Bancroft's American
Revolution_, vol. iii. pp. 307, 308; _Russell's Mem. of Fox_,
vol. i. pp. 247, 254; and the _Bedford Correspond._ vol. iii. p.
li. See also, in regard to the repeal of the Stamp Act, the
_Grenville Papers_, vol. iii. p. 373; a curious passage, with
which Lord Mahon, the last edition of whose history was published
in the same year (1853), appears to have been unacquainted.
_Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. p. 139. In America the
sentiments of the king were well known. In 1775, Jefferson writes
from Philadelphia: 'We are told, and everything proves it true,
that he is the bitterest enemy we have.' _Jefferson's
Correspond._ vol. i. p. 153. And in 1782 Franklin writes to
Livingston, 'The king hates us most cordially.' _Life of
Franklin_, vol. ii. p. 126.

[911] 'A court,' as Lord Albemarle observes,--'a court that required
ministers to be, not the public servants of the state, but the
private domestics of the sovereign.' _Albemarle's Mem. of
Rockingham_, vol. i. p. 248. Compare _Bancroft's American
Revolution_, vol. ii. p. 109. In the same way, Burke, in 1767,
writes: 'His majesty never was in better spirits. He has got a
ministry weak and dependent; and, what is better, willing to
continue so.' _Burke's Correspond._ vol. i. p. 133. Ten years
later, Lord Chatham openly taunted the king with this disgraceful
peculiarity: 'Thus to pliable men, not capable men, was the
government of this once glorious empire intrusted.' _Chatham's
Speech in 1777_, in _Adolphus_, vol. ii. pp. 499, 500.

Everything being thus prepared, there followed those events which were to be expected from such a combination. Without stopping to relate details which are known to every reader, it may be briefly mentioned that, in this new state of things, the wise and forbearing policy of the preceding reign was set at naught, and the national councils guided by rash and ignorant men, who soon brought the greatest disasters upon the country, and within a few years actually dismembered the empire. In order to enforce the monstrous claim of taxing a whole people without their consent, there was waged against America a war ill-conducted, unsuccessful, and, what is far worse, accompanied by cruelties disgraceful to a civilized nation.[912] To this may be added, that an immense trade was nearly annihilated; every branch of commerce was thrown into confusion;[913] we were disgraced in the eyes of Europe;[914] we incurred an expense of 140,000,000_l._;[915] and we lost by far the most valuable colonies any nation has ever possessed.

[912] For some evidence of the ferocity with which this war was
conducted by the English, see _Tucker's Life of Jefferson_, vol.
i. pp. 138, 139, 160; _Jefferson's Mem. and Correspond._ vol. i.
pp. 352, 429, vol. ii. pp. 336, 337; _Almon's Correspond. of
Wilkes_, vol. v. pp. 229-232, edit. 1805; _Adolphus's Hist. of
George III._ vol. ii. pp. 362, 391. These horrible cruelties were
frequently mentioned in parliament, but without producing the
least effect on the king or his ministers. See _Parl. Hist._ vol.
xix. pp. 371, 403, 423, 424, 432, 438, 440, 477, 487, 488, 489,
567, 578, 579, 695, 972, 1393, 1394, vol. xx. p. 43. Among the
expenses of the war which government laid before parliament, one
of the items was for 'five gross of scalping knives.' _Parl.
Hist._ vol. xix. pp. 971, 972. See further _Mém. de Lafayette_,
vol. i. pp. 23, 25, 99.

[913] In Manchester, 'in consequence of the American troubles, nine in
ten of the artisans in that town had been discharged from
employment.' This was stated in 1766, by no less an authority
than Conway. _Mahon's Hist. of England_, vol. v. p. 135. As the
struggle became more obstinate the evil was more marked, and
ample evidence of the enormous injury inflicted on England will
be found by comparing _Franklin's Correspondence_, vol. i. p.
352; _Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. ii. p. 261; _Burke's
Works_, vol. i. p. 111; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xviii. pp. 734, 951,
963, 964, vol. xix. pp. 259, 341, 710, 711, 1072; _Walpole's Mem.
of George III._ vol. ii. p. 218.

[914] Even Mr. Adolphus, in his Tory history, says, that in 1782 'the
cause of Great Britain seemed degraded to the lowest state; ill
success and the prevalent opinion of mismanagement rendered the
espousal of it among the selfish powers of the continent almost
disreputable.' _Hist. of George III._ vol. iii. pp. 391, 392. For
proof of the opinions held in foreign countries respecting this,
I cannot do better than refer to _Mém. de Ségur_, vol. iii. pp.
184, 185; _[OE]uvres de Turgot_, vol. ix. p. 377; _Soulavie_,
_Mém. de Louis XVI._ vol. iv. pp. 363, 364; _Koch_, _Tableau des
Révolutions_, vol. ii. pp. 190-194; _Mem. of Mallet du Pan_, vol.
i. p. 37.

[915] Sir John Sinclair, in his _Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. ii. p. 114,
says 139,171,876_l._

Such were the first fruits of the policy of George III. But the mischief did not stop there. The opinions which it was necessary to advocate in order to justify this barbarous war, recoiled upon ourselves. In order to defend the attempt to destroy the liberties of America, principles were laid down which, if carried into effect, would have subverted the liberties of England. Not only in the court, but in both houses of parliament, from the episcopal bench, and from the pulpits of the church-party, there were promulgated doctrines of the most dangerous kind--doctrines unsuited to a limited monarchy, and, indeed, incompatible with it. The extent to which this reaction proceeded is known to very few readers, because the evidence of it is chiefly to be found in the parliamentary debates, and in the theological literature, particularly the sermons of that time, none of which are now much studied. But, not to anticipate matters belonging to another part of this work, it is enough to say that the danger was so imminent as to make the ablest defenders of popular liberty believe that everything was at stake; and that if the Americans were vanquished, the next step would be to attack the liberties of England, and endeavour to extend to the mother-country the same arbitrary government which by that time would have been established in the colonies.[916]

[916] Dr. Jebb, an able observer, thought that the American war 'must be
decisive of the liberties of both countries.' _Disney's Life of
Jebb_, p. 92. So, too, Lord Chatham wrote in 1777, 'poor England
will have fallen upon her own sword.' _The Grenville Papers_,
vol. iv. p. 573. In the same year, Burke said of the attempt made
to rule the colonies by military force, 'that the establishment
of such a power in America will utterly ruin our finances (though
its certain effect), is the smallest part of our concern. It will
become an apt, powerful, and certain engine for the destruction
of our freedom here.' _Burke's Works_, vol. ii. p. 399. Compare
vol. i. pp. 189, 210; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xvi. pp. 104, 107, 651,
652, vol. xix. pp. 11, 1056, vol. xx. p. 119, vol. xxi. p. 907.
Hence it was that Fox wished the Americans to be victorious
(_Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. i. p. 143); for which some writers
have actually accused him of want of patriotism!

Whether or not these fears were exaggerated, is a question of considerable difficulty; but after a careful study of that time, and a study too from sources not much used by historians, I feel satisfied that they who are best acquainted with the period will be the most willing to admit that, though the danger may have been overrated, it was far more serious than men are now inclined to believe. At all events, it is certain that the general aspect of political affairs was calculated to excite great alarm. It is certain, that during many years, the authority of the crown continued to increase, until it reached a height of which no example had been seen in England for several generations. It is certain that the Church of England exerted all her influence in favour of those despotic principles which the king wished to enforce. It is also certain that, by the constant creation of new peers, all holding the same views, the character of the House of Lords was undergoing a slow but decisive change; and that, whenever a favourable opportunity arose, high judicial appointments and high ecclesiastical appointments were conferred upon men notorious for their leaning towards the royal prerogative. These are facts which cannot be denied; and, putting them together, there remains, I think, no doubt, that the American war was a great crisis in the history of England, and that if the colonists had been defeated, our liberties would have been for a time in considerable jeopardy. From that risk we were saved by the Americans, who with heroic spirit resisted the royal armies, defeated them at every point, and at length, separating themselves from the mother-country, began that wonderful career, which, in less than eighty years, has raised them to an unexampled prosperity, and which to us ought to be deeply interesting, as showing what may be effected by the unaided resources of a free people.

Seven years after this great contest had been brought to a successful close, and the Americans, happily for the interests of mankind, had finally secured their independence, another nation rose up and turned against its rulers. The history of the causes of the French Revolution will be found in another part of this volume; at present we have only to glance at the effects it produced upon the policy of the English government. In France, as is well known, the movement was extremely rapid; the old institutions, which were so corrupted as to be utterly unfit for use, were quickly destroyed; and the people, frenzied by centuries of oppression, practised the most revolting cruelties, saddening the hour of their triumph by crimes that disgraced the noble cause for which they struggled.

All this, frightful as it was, did nevertheless form a part of the natural course of affairs; it was the old story of tyranny exciting revenge, and revenge blinding men to every consequence except the pleasure of glutting their own passions. If, under these circumstances, France had been left to herself, the Revolution, like all other revolutions, would soon have subsided, and a form of government have arisen suited to the actual condition of things. What the form would have been, it is impossible now to say; that, however, was a question with which no foreign country had the slightest concern. Whether it should be an oligarchy, or a despotic monarchy, or a republic, it was for France to decide; but it was evidently not the business of any other nation to decide for her. Still less was it likely that, on so delicate a point, France would submit to dictation from a country which had always been her rival, and which not unfrequently had been her bitter and successful enemy.

But these considerations, obvious as they are, were lost upon George III., and upon those classes which were then in the ascendant. The fact that a great people had risen against their oppressors disquieted the consciences of men in high places. The same evil passions, and indeed the same evil language, which a few years before were directed against the Americans, were now turned against the French; and it was but too clear that the same results would follow.[917] In defiance of every maxim of sound policy, the English ambassador was recalled from France simply because that country chose to do away with the monarchy, and substitute a republic in its place. This was the first decisive step towards an open rupture, and it was taken, not because France had injured England, but because France had changed her government.[918] A few months later, the French, copying the example of the English in the preceding century,[919] brought their king to a public trial, sentenced him to die, and struck off his head in the midst of his own capital. It must be allowed that this act was needless, that it was cruel, and that it was grossly impolitic. But it is palpably evident that they who consented to the execution were responsible only to God and their country; and that any notice of it from abroad, which bore the appearance of a threat, would rouse the spirit of France, would unite all parties into one, and would induce the nation to adopt as its own a crime of which it might otherwise have repented, but which it could not now abjure without incurring the shame of having yielded to the dictation of a foreign power.

[917] In 1792, and therefore before the war broke out, Lord Lansdowne,
one of the extremely few peers who escaped from the prevailing
corruption, said,'The present instance recalled to his memory the
proceedings of this country previous to the American war. The
same abusive and degrading terms were applied to the Americans
that were now used to the National Convention,--_the same
consequences might follow_.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxx. p. 155.

[918] Compare _Belsham's Hist. of Great Britain_, vol. viii. p. 490,
with _Tomline's Life of Pitt_, vol. ii. p. 548. The letter to
Lord Gower, the English minister in Paris, is printed in _Parl.
Hist._ vol. xxx. pp. 143, 144. Its date is 17th August, 1792.

[919] Just before the Revolution, Robert de Saint-Vincent pertinently
remarked, by way of caution, that the English 'have dethroned
seven of their kings, and beheaded the eighth.' _Mem. of Mallet
du Pan_, vol. i. p. 146; and we are told in _Alison's Europe_
(vol. ii. pp. 199, 296, 315), that in 1792 Louis 'anticipated the
fate of Charles I.' Compare _Williams's Letters from France_, 2nd
edit. 1796, vol. iv. p. 2.

In England, however, as soon as the fate of the king was known, the government, without waiting for explanation, and without asking for any guarantee as to the future, treated the death of Louis as an offence against itself, and imperiously ordered the French residents to quit the country:[920] thus wantonly originating a war which lasted twenty years, cost the lives of millions, plunged all Europe into confusion, and, more than any other circumstance, stopped the march of civilization, by postponing for a whole generation those reforms, which, late in the eighteenth century, the progress of affairs rendered indispensable.

[920] Belsham (_Hist. of Great Britain_, vol. viii. p. 525) supposes,
and probably with reason, that the English government was bent
upon war even before the death of Louis; but it appears
(_Tomline's Pitt_, vol. ii. p. 599) that it was not until the
24th of January 1793, that Chauvelin was actually ordered to
leave England, and that this was in consequence of 'the British
ministers having received information of the execution of the
king of France.' Compare _Belsham_, vol. viii. p. 530. The common
opinion, therefore, seems correct, that the proximate cause of
hostilities was the execution of Louis. See _Alison's Hist._ vol.
ii. p. 522, vol. v. p. 249, vol. vi. p. 656; and _Newmarch_, in
_Journal of Statist. Soc._ vol. xviii. p. 108.

The European results of this, the most hateful, the most unjust, and the most atrocious war, England has ever waged against any country, will be hereafter considered;[921] at present I confine myself to a short summary of its leading effects on English society.

[921] Lord Brougham (_Sketches of Statesmen_, vol. i. p. 79) rightly
says of this war, that 'the youngest man living will not survive
the fatal effects of this flagrant political crime.' So eager,
however, was George III. in its favour, that when Wilberforce
separated himself from Pitt on account of the war, and moved an
amendment on the subject in the House of Commons, the king showed
his spite by refusing to take any notice of Wilberforce the next
time he appeared at court. _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. ii. pp.
10, 72.

What distinguishes this sanguinary contest from all preceding ones, and what gives to it its worst feature, is, that it was eminently a war of opinions,--a war which we carried on, not with a view to territorial acquisitions, but with the object of repressing that desire for reforms of every kind, which had now become the marked characteristic of the leading countries of Europe.[922] As soon, therefore, as hostilities began the English government had a twofold duty to perform it had to destroy a republic abroad, and it had to prevent improvement at home. The first of these duties it fulfilled by squandering the blood and the treasure of England, till it had thrown nearly every family into mourning, and reduced the country to the verge of national bankruptcy. The other duty it attempted to execute by enacting a series of laws intended to put an end to the free discussion of political questions, and stifle that spirit of inquiry which was every year becoming more active. These laws were so comprehensive, and so well calculated to effect their purpose, that if the energy of the nation had not prevented their being properly enforced, they would either have destroyed every vestige of popular liberty, or else have provoked a general rebellion. Indeed, during several years the danger was so imminent, that, in the opinion of some high authorities, nothing could have averted it, but the bold spirit with which our English juries, by their hostile verdicts, resisted the proceedings of government, and refused to sanction laws which the crown had proposed, and to which a timid and servile legislature had willingly consented.[923]

[922] In 1793 and subsequently, it was stated both by the opposition,
and also by the supporters of government, that the war with
France was directed against doctrines and opinions, and that one
of its main objects was to discourage the progress of democratic
institutions. See, among many other instances, _Parl. Hist._ vol.
xxx. pp. 413, 417, 1077, 1199, 1200, 1283, vol. xxxi. pp. 466,
592, 649, 680, 1036, 1047, vol. xxxiii. pp. 603, 604; _Nicholls's
Recollections_, vol. ii. pp. 156, 157.

[923] Lord Campbell (_Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. vi. p. 449) says,
that if the laws passed in 1794 had been enforced, 'the only
chance of escaping servitude would have been civil war.' Compare
_Brougham's Statesmen_, vol. i. p. 237, vol. ii. pp. 63, 64, on
our 'escape from proscription and from arbitrary power ... during
the almost hopeless struggle from 1793 to 1801.' Both these
writers pay great and deserved honour to the successful efforts
of Erskine with juries. Indeed the spirit of our jurors was so
determined, that in 1794, at Tooke's trial, they only consulted
eight minutes before bringing in a verdict of acquittal.
_Stephens's Mem. of Horne Tooke_, vol. ii. p. 147; see also, on
this crisis, _Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. p. 210. The people
sympathised throughout with the victims; and while the trial of
Hardy was pending, the attorney-general, Scott, was always mobbed
when he left the court, and on one occasion his life was in
danger. _Twiss's Life of Eldon_, vol. i. pp. 185, 186. Compare
_Holcroft's Memoirs_, vol. ii. pp. 180, 181.

We may form some idea of the magnitude of the crisis by considering the steps which were actually taken against the two most important of all our institutions, namely, the freedom of the public press, and the right of assembling in meetings for the purpose of public discussion. These are, in a political point of view, the two most striking peculiarities which distinguish us from every other European people. As long as they are preserved intact, and as long as they are fearlessly and frequently employed, there will always be ample protection against those encroachments on the part of government which cannot be too jealously watched, and to which even the freest country is liable. To this may be added, that these institutions possess other advantages of the highest order. By encouraging political discussion, they increase the amount of intellect brought to bear upon the political business of the country. They also increase the total strength of the nation, by causing large classes of men to exercise faculties which would otherwise lie dormant, but which by these means are quickened into activity, and become available for other purposes of social interest.

But in the period we are now considering, it was deemed advisable that the influence of the people should be lessened; it was, therefore, thought improper that they should strengthen their abilities by exercising them. To relate the details of that bitter war, which, late in the eighteenth century, the English government carried on against every kind of free discussion, would lead me far beyond the limits of this Introduction; and I can only hastily refer to the vindictive prosecutions, and, whenever a verdict was obtained, the vindictive punishments, of men like Adams, Bonney, Crossfield, Frost, Gerald, Hardy, Holt, Hodson, Holcroft, Joyce, Kidd, Lambert, Margarot, Martin, Muir, Palmer, Perry, Skirving, Stannard, Thelwall, Tooke, Wakefield, Wardie, Winterbotham: all of whom were indicted, and many of whom were fined, imprisoned, or transported, because they expressed their sentiments with freedom, and because they used language such as in our time is employed with perfect impunity, by speakers at public meetings, and by writers in the public press.

As, however, juries in several cases refused to convict men who were prosecuted for these offences, it was determined to recur to measures still more decisive. In 1795, a law was passed, by which it was manifestly intended to put an end for ever to all popular discussions either on political or religious matters. For by it every public meeting was forbidden, unless notice of it were inserted in a newspaper five days beforehand;[924] such notice to contain a statement of the objects of the meeting, and of the time and place where it was to assemble. And, to bring the whole arrangement completely under the supervision of government, it was ordered, that not only should the notice, thus published, be signed by householders, but that the original manuscript should be preserved, for the information of the justices of the peace, who might require a copy of it: a significant threat, which, in those days, was easily understood.[925] It was also enacted that, even after these precautions had been taken, any single justice might compel the meeting to disperse, if, in his opinion, the language held by the speakers was calculated to bring the sovereign or the government into contempt; while, at the same time, he was authorized to arrest those whom he considered to be the offenders.[926] The power of dissolving a public meeting, and of seizing its leaders, was thus conferred upon a common magistrate, and conferred too without the slightest provision against its abuse. In other words, the right of putting an end to all public discussions on the most important subjects, was lodged in the hands of a man appointed by the crown, and removable by the crown at its own pleasure. To this it was added, that if the meeting should consist of twelve, or upwards of twelve persons, and should remain together for one hour after being ordered to separate,--in such case, the penalty of death was to be inflicted, even if only twelve disobeyed this the arbitrary command of a single and irresponsible magistrate.[927]

[924] 'Five days at least.' _Stat. 36 George III._ c. 8, § 1. This
applied to meetings 'holden for the purpose or on the pretext of
considering of or preparing any petition, complaint,
remonstrance, or declaration, or other address to the king, or to
both houses, or either house, of parliament, for alteration of
matters established in church or state, or for the purpose or on
the pretext of deliberating upon any grievance in church or
state.' The only exceptions allowed were in the case of meetings
called by magistrates, officials, and the majority of the grand
jury.

[925] The insertor of the notice in the newspaper 'shall cause such
notice and authority to be carefully preserved, ... and cause a
true copy thereof (if required) to be delivered to any justice of
the peace for the county, city, town, or place where such person
shall reside, or where such newspaper shall be printed, and who
shall require the same.' _36 George III._ c. 8, § 1.

[926] C. 8, §§ 6 and 7, referring to 'meetings on notice;' and to
persons holding language which shall even 'tend to incite.' These
two sections are very remarkable.

[927] 'It shall be adjudged,' says the Act, 'felony without benefit of
clergy; and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and
shall suffer death as in case of felony without benefit of
clergy.' _36 George III._ c. 8, § 6.

In 1799, another law was passed, forbidding any open field, or place of any kind, to be used for lecturing, or for debating, unless a specific license for such place had been obtained from the magistrates. It was likewise enacted, that all circulating-libraries, and all reading-rooms, should be subject to the same provision; no person, without leave from the constituted authorities, being permitted to lend on hire in his own house, newspapers, pamphlets, or even books of any kind.[928] Before shops of this sort could be opened, a license must first be obtained from two justices of the peace; which, however, was to be renewed at least once a year, and might be revoked at any intermediate period.[929] If a man lent books without the permission of the magistrates, or if he allowed lectures or debates, 'on any subject whatever,' to be held under his roof, then, for such grievous crime, he was to be fined 100_l._ a-day; and every person who aided him, either by presiding over the discussion, or by supplying a book, was for each offence to be fined 20_l._ The proprietor of so pernicious an establishment was not only to suffer from these ruinous fines, but was declared liable to still further punishment as the keeper of a disorderly house.[930]

[928] _Stat. 39 George III._ c. 79, § 15.

[929] The license 'shall be in force for the space of one year and no
longer, or for any less space of time therein to be specified;
and which license it shall be lawful for the justices of the
peace' &c. 'to revoke and declare void, and no longer in force,
by any order of such justices; ... and thereupon such license
shall cease and determine, and be thenceforth utterly void and of
no effect.' _39 George III._ c. 79, § 18.

[930] Such things are so incredible, that I must again quote the words
of the Act: 'Every house, room, or place, which shall be opened
or used as a place of meeting for the purpose of reading books,
pamphlets, newspapers, or other publications, and to which any
person shall be admitted by payment of money' (if not regularly
licensed by the authorities), ... 'shall be deemed a
disorderly house;' and the person opening it shall 'be otherwise
punished as the law directs in case of disorderly houses.' _39
George III._ c. 79, § 15. The germ of this law may be found in
_36 George III._ c. 8, § § 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Nowhere are the
weakest parts of the human mind more clearly seen than in the
history of legislation.

To modern ears it sounds somewhat strange, that the owner of a public reading-room should not only incur extravagant fines, but should also be punished as the keeper of a disorderly house; and that all this should happen to him, simply because he opened his shop without asking permission from the local magistrates. Strange, however, as this appears, it was, at all events, consistent, since it formed part of a regular plan for bringing, not only the actions of men, but even their opinions, under the direct control of the executive government. Thus it was that the laws, now for the first time passed, against newspapers, were so stringent, and the prosecution of authors so unrelenting, that there was an evident intention to ruin every public writer who expressed independent sentiments.[931] These measures, and others of a similar character, which will hereafter be noticed, excited such alarm, that, in the opinion of some of the ablest observers, the state of public affairs was becoming desperate, perhaps irretrievable. The extreme despondency with which, late in the eighteenth century, the best friends of liberty looked to the future, is very observable, and forms a striking feature in their private correspondence.[932] And although comparatively few men venture to express such sentiments in public, Fox, whose fearless temper made him heedless of risk, openly stated what would have checked the government, if anything could have done so. For this eminent statesman, who had been minister more than once, and was afterwards minister again, did not hesitate to say, from his place in parliament, in 1795, that if these, and other shameful laws which were proposed, should be actually passed, forcible resistance to the government would be merely a question of prudence; and that the people, if they felt themselves equal to the conflict, would be justified in withstanding the arbitrary measures by which their rulers sought to extinguish their liberties.[933]

[931] See the particulars in _Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. i. pp.
281-4. Mr. Hunt says, p. 284: 'In addition to all these laws,
directed solely towards the press, other statutes were made to
bear upon it, for the purpose of repressing the free expression
of popular opinion.' In 1793, Dr. Currie writes: 'The
prosecutions that are commenced by government all over England
against printers, publishers, &c. would astonish you; and most of
these are for offences committed many months ago. The printer of
the _Manchester Herald_ has had seven different indictments
preferred against him for paragraphs in his paper; and six
_different_ indictments for selling or disposing of six different
copies of Paine,--all previous to the _trial_ of Paine. The man
was opulent, supposed worth 20,000_l._; but these different
actions will ruin him, as they were intended to do.' _Currie's
Life_, vol. i. pp. 185, 186. See also a letter from Roscoe to
Lord Lansdowne, in _Life of Roscoe_, vol. i. p. 124; and _Mem. of
Holcroft_, vol. ii. pp. 151, 152: 'Printers and booksellers all
over the kingdom were hunted out for prosecution.' See further,
_Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. pp. 199, 200; _Adolphus's Hist. of
George III._ vol. v. pp. 525, 526; _Mem. of Wakefield_, vol. ii.
p. 69.

[932] In 1793, Dr. Currie, after mentioning the attempts made by
government to destroy the liberty of the press, adds: 'For my
part, I foresee troubles, and conceive the nation was never in
such a dangerous crisis.' _Currie's Mem._ vol. i. p. 186. In
1795, Fox writes (_Russell's Mem. of Fox_, vol. iii. pp. 124,
125): 'There appears to me to be no choice at present, but
between an absolute surrender of the liberties of the people and
a vigorous exertion, attended, I admit, with considerable hazard,
at a time like the present. My view of things is, I own, very
gloomy; and I am convinced that, in a very few years, this
government will become completely absolute, or that confusion
will arise of a nature almost as much to be deprecated as
despotism itself.' In the same year, Dr. Raine writes (_Parr's
Works_, vol. vii. p. 533): 'The mischievous conduct of men in
power has long made this country an uneasy dwelling for the
moderate and peaceful man; their present proceedings render our
situation alarming, and our prospects dreadful.' See also p. 530.
In 1796, the Bishop of Llandaff writes (_Life of Watson_, vol.
ii. pp. 36, 37): 'The malady which attacks the constitution
(influence of the crown) is without remedy; violent applications
might be used; their success would be doubtful, and I, for one,
never wish to see them tried.' Compare vol. i. p. 222. And, in
1799, Priestley dreaded a revolution; but, at the same time,
thought there was 'no longer any hope of a peaceable and gradual
reform.' _Mem. of Priestley_, vol. i. pp. 198, 199.

[933] In this memorable declaration, Fox said, that 'he had a right to
hope and expect that these bills, which positively repealed the
Bill of Rights, and cut up the whole of the constitution by the
roots, by changing our limited monarchy into an absolute
despotism, would not be enacted by parliament against the
declared sense of a great majority of the people. If, however,
ministers were determined, by means of the corrupt influence they
possessed in the two houses of parliament, to pass the bills in
direct opposition to the declared sense of a great majority of
the nation, and they should be put in force with all their
rigorous provisions, if his opinion were asked by the people as
to their obedience, he should tell them, that it was no longer a
question of moral obligation and duty, but of prudence. It would,
indeed, be a case of extremity alone which could justify
resistance; and the only question would be, whether that
resistance was prudent.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxii. p. 383. On
this, Windham remarked, and Fox did not deny, that 'the meaning
obviously was, that the right hon. gentleman would advise the
people, whenever they were strong enough, to resist the execution
of the law;' and to this both Sheridan and Grey immediately
assented, pp. 385-387.

Nothing, however, could stop the government in its headlong career. The ministers, secure of a majority in both houses of parliament, were able to carry their measures in defiance of the people, who opposed them by every mode short of actual violence.[934] And as the object of these new laws was, to check the spirit of inquiry, and prevent reforms, which the progress of society rendered indispensable, there were also brought into play other means subservient to the same end. It is no exaggeration to say, that for some years England was ruled by a system of absolute terror.[935] The ministers of the day, turning a struggle of party into a war of proscription, filled the prisons with their political opponents, and allowed them, when in confinement, to be treated with shameful severity.[936] If a man was known to be a reformer, he was constantly in danger of being arrested; and if he escaped that, he was watched at every turn, and his private letters were opened as they passed through the post-office.[937] In such cases, no scruples were allowed. Even the confidence of domestic life was violated. No opponent of government was safe under his own roof, against the tales of eavesdroppers and the gossip of servants. Discord was introduced into the bosom of families, and schisms caused between parents and their children.[938] Not only were the most strenuous attempts made to silence the press, but the booksellers were so constantly prosecuted that they did not dare to publish a work if its author were obnoxious to the court.[939] Indeed, whoever opposed the government was proclaimed an enemy to his country.[940] Political associations and public meetings were strictly forbidden. Every popular leader was in personal danger; and every popular assemblage was dispersed, either by threats or by military execution. That hateful machinery, familiar to the worst days of the seventeenth century, was put into motion. Spies were paid; witnesses were suborned; juries were packed.[941] The coffee-houses, the inns, and the clubs, were filled with emissaries of the government, who reported the most hasty expressions of common conversation.[942] If, by these means, no sort of evidence could be collected, there was another resource, which was unsparingly used. For, the habeas-corpus act being constantly suspended, the crown had the power of imprisoning without inquiry, and without limitation, any person offensive to the ministry, but of whose crime no proof was attempted to be brought.[943]

[934] 'Never had there appeared, in the memory of the oldest man, so
firm and decided a plurality of adversaries to the ministerial
measures, as on this occasion (_i.e._ in 1795): the interest of
the public seemed so deeply at stake, that individuals, not only
of the decent, but of the most vulgar professions, gave up a
considerable portion of their time and occupations in attending
the numerous meetings that were called in every part of the
kingdom, to the professed intent of counteracting this attempt of
the ministry.' _Note in Parl. History_, vol. xxxii. p. 381. It
was at this period that Fox made the declaration which I have
quoted in the previous note.

[935] It was called at the time the 'Reign of Terror;' and so indeed it
was for every opponent of government. See _Campbell's
Chancellors_, vol. vi. p. 441; _Mem. of Wakefield_, vol. ii. p.
67; and _Trotter's Mem. of Fox_, p. 10.

[936] 'The iniquitous system of secret imprisonment, under which Pitt
and Dundas had now filled all the gaols with parliamentary
reformers; men who were cast into dungeons without any public
accusation, and from whom the habeas-corpus suspension act had
taken every hope of redress.' _Cooke's Hist. of Party_, vol. iii.
p. 447. On the cruelty with which these political opponents of
government were treated when in prison, see _Stephens's Mem. of
Tooke_, vol. ii. pp. 121, 125, 423; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxiv.
pp. 112, 113, 126, 129, 170, 515, vol. xxxv. pp. 742, 743;
_Cloncurry's Recollections_, pp. 46, 86, 87, 140, 225.

[937] _Life of Currie_, vol. ii. p. 160; _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_,
vol. ii. pp. 118, 119.

[938] In 1793, Roscoe writes: 'Every man is called on to be a spy upon
his brother.' _Life of Roscoe_, vol. i. p. 127. Compare Fox's
statement (_Parl. Hist._ vol. xxx. p. 21), that what government
had done was, 'to erect every man, not merely into an inquisitor,
but into a judge, a spy, an informer,--to set father against
father, brother against brother; and in this way you expect to
maintain the tranquillity of the country.' See also vol. xxx. p.
1529; and a remarkable passage, in _Coleridge's Biog. Lit._ (vol.
i. p. 192), on the extent of 'secret defamation,' in and after
1793. For further evidence of this horrible state of society, see
_Mem. of Holcroft_, vol. ii. pp. 150, 151; _Stephens's Mem. of
Horne Tooke_, vol. ii. pp. 115, 116.

[939] There was even considerable difficulty in finding a printer for
Tooke's great philological work, _The Diversions of Purley_. See
_Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol. ii. pp. 345-348. In 1798, Fox
wrote to Cartwright (_Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. p. 248): 'The
decision against Wakefield's publisher appears to me decisive
against the liberty of the press; and, indeed, after it, one can
hardly conceive how any prudent tradesman can venture to publish
anything that can, in any way, be disagreeable to the ministers.'

[940] Those who opposed the slave-trade were called jacobins, and
'enemies to the ministers;' and the celebrated Dr. Currie was
pronounced to be a jacobin, and an 'enemy to his country,'
because he remonstrated against the shameful manner in which the
English government, in 1800, allowed the French prisoners to be
treated. _Life of Currie_, vol. i. pp. 330, 332; _Life of
Wilberforce_, vol. i. pp. 342-344, vol. ii. pp. 18, 133; _Parl.
Hist._ vol. xxx. p. 654, vol. xxxi. p. 467, vol. xxxiii. p. 1387,
vol. xxxiv. pp. 1119, 1485.

[941] _Life of Cartwright_, vol. i. p. 209; _Hunt's Hist. of
Newspapers_, vol. ii. p. 104; _Belsham's Hist._ vol. ix. p. 227;
_Adolphus's Hist._ vol. vi. p. 264; _Annual Register for 1795_,
pp. 156, 160; _Stephens's Mem. of Tooke_, vol. ii. p. 118; _Life
of Currie_, vol. i. p. 172; _Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. vi. p.
316, vol. vii. p. 316; _Life of Wilberforce_, vol. iv. pp. 369,
377; _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxi. pp. 543, 667, 668, 1067, vol.
xxxii. pp. 296, 302, 366, 367, 374, 664, vol. xxxv. pp. 1538,
1540; _Holcroft's Memoirs_, vol. ii. p. 190.

[942] In addition to the passages referred to in the preceding
note; compare _Hutton's Life of Himself_, p. 209, with
_Campbell's Chancellors_, vol. vi. p. 441, vol. vii. p. 104, and
_Adolphus's Hist. of George III._ vol. vi. p. 45. In 1798,
Caldwell wrote to Sir James Smith (_Correspondence of Sir J. E.
Smith_, vol. ii. p. 143): 'The power of the crown is become
irresistible. The new scheme of inquisition into every man's
private circumstances is beyond any attempt I have ever heard of
under Louis XIV.'

[943] In 1794, Fox said, in his speech on the habeas-corpus suspension
bill: 'Every man who talked freely, every man who detested, as he
did from his heart, this war, might be, and would be, in the
hands and at the mercy of ministers. Living under such a
government, and being subject to insurrection, comparing the two
evils, he confessed, he thought the evil they were pretending to
remedy, was less than the one they were going to inflict by the
remedy itself.' _Parl. Hist._ vol. xxxi. p. 509. In 1800, Lord
Holland stated, in the House of Lords, that, of 'the seven years
of the war, the habeas-corpus act had been suspended five; and,
of the multitudes who had been imprisoned in virtue of that
suspension, few had been brought to trial, and only one
convicted.' vol. xxxiv. pp. 1486. See also vol. xxxv. pp. 609,
610. On the effect of the suspension of the habeas-corpus act
upon literature, see _Life of Currie_, vol. i. p. 506.

Such was the way in which, at the end of the eighteenth century, the rulers of England, under pretence of protecting the institutions of the country, oppressed the people, for whose benefit alone those institutions ought to exist. Nor was even this the whole of the injury they actually inflicted. Their attempts to stop the progress of opinions were intimately connected with that monstrous system of foreign policy, by which there has been entailed upon us a debt of unexampled magnitude. To pay the interest of this, and to meet the current expenses of a profuse and reckless administration, taxes were laid upon nearly every product of industry and of nature. In the vast majority of cases, these taxes fell upon the great body of the people,[944] who were thus placed in a position of singular hardship For the upper classes not only refused to the rest of the nation the reforms which were urgently required, but compelled the country to pay for the precautions which, in consequence of the refusal, it was thought necessary to take. Thus it was that the government diminished the liberties of the people, and wasted the fruit of their industry, in order to protect that very people against opinions which the growth of their knowledge had irresistibly forced upon them.

[944] See decisive evidence of this, in _Porter's Progress of the
Nation_, vol. ii. pp. 283-285; and, on the enormous increase of
expense and taxation, see _Pellew's Life of Sidmouth_, vol. i. p.
358, vol. ii. p. 47.