---

CONTEMPORARY PRINCES.

---

POPES.—Pius VII., 1800. Leo XII., 1823. Pius VIII., 1829.

---

---

It was no longer as Regent but as King that George, the new monarch, met the Parliament on its reassembling. He had so long acted virtually as sovereign that scarcely any visible effect was Precarious position of the ministry. produced by the change. Yet during the first days there was considerable probability that the change of reign would be marked by a change of ministry, for there were two questions on which the ministers felt it their duty to oppose the new King—the one an increase of his private revenue, the other the divorce of his unfortunate wife. On the latter point, unfortunately for themselves, they were induced to make a compromise, believing that they were acting safely. Extremely anxious to avoid a public scandal, they refused at first to move in the matter of the divorce as long as the Queen remained quietly abroad, but promised to gratify the King's wishes should she make her appearance in England. On these terms they remained in office.

But, at the very time that their position as ministers was in danger, their lives were threatened by a conspiracy which in its atrocity and feebleness gives a fair measure of the power and intentions of the worst part of those engaged in the agitations of the day. As in the case of the Derby insurrection, it is impossible to acquit the authorities of the guilt of having employed spies who, though probably without Government authority, did in fact aggravate the crime of the conspirators. Information was given as early as November by a man named Edwards of a plot against the lives of the ministers, and from that time till the day of the explosion of the Cato Street conspiracy he continued to play the double part of conspirator and police agent. The form the plot ultimately assumed was the murder of all the ministers in a body at a Cabinet dinner, which Edwards informed the conspirators was to be held at Lord Harrowby's on the 23rd of February. The assassination was to be followed up by an attempt to fire the barracks, and to rouse the people to an assault upon the Bank and the Tower. As the ministry were well informed of the plot, the dinner was of course postponed. The guests arriving at the house of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was giving a dinner-party that day, and who lived next door to Lord Harrowby, prevented the conspirators from discovering the postponement of the ministerial meeting; and they were arming themselves in a stable in Cato Street, near Edgeware Road, when the police came upon them. The capture was badly managed; the first officer who entered the room was stabbed, and in the confusion Thistlewood (already mentioned as the confederate of the Watsons), who was the soul of the present conspiracy, with fourteen others, contrived to escape; the rest, nine in number, were apprehended when the soldiers, who should have accompanied the police, arrived. Early the next morning, however, Thistlewood was captured. He and four others were executed, and five more transported for life. The terror excited throughout England was strangely exaggerated; the design appears to have been confined entirely to a few desperate men, and to have been scouted by all the more earnest Radicals to whom it had been suggested. About the same time the other prisoners, Hunt and his friends from Manchester (April), Wolseley and Harrison from Stockport (July), were tried, and sentenced to various periods of imprisonment. One advantage at least came from the trials; the true character of Hunt was discovered, his friends and companions learnt the worthlessness and egregious vanity of the man, and his influence was entirely destroyed.

The Parliament had assembled, according to law, upon the demise of the King, and after going through the necessary business, was dissolved. In April the new Parliament met. But any interest which Importance of the Queen's trial. might otherwise have attended its labours disappeared before the absorbing interest of the year, the trial of the Queen. Though in itself wholly unconnected with politics, no event produced a stronger influence on the course of political growth. The loyalty of the country, and respect for authority and for the established powers, received a rude shock. It could not be otherwise when the people saw a ministry, many of whose severest and most unpopular measures had been based on the specious ground of the desire to maintain morality, forcing into public notice scandalous details, which the papers spread to every corner of the country for the satisfaction of prurient curiosity; when they saw the sovereign having recourse to all the foul and mean resources of the private inquiry office, which fill right-minded men with disgust even in the cases of private individuals, and the Government lending the whole weight of its authority to the vindictive prosecution of an unfortunate and ill-used woman. The effect was a complete severance between the Government and the more liberal-minded of the middle classes, whom fear of popular extravagances had hitherto united with it, and from the close of this trial may be dated the serious determination of the people at large to insist upon some great measure of reform.

Whatever may have been her folly or her guilt, no one can question the misfortune of the Queen. Giddy by nature and badly educated, she had been forced (1795) against her will upon a man whose immoral and selfish character wholly unfitted him for the difficult position of a husband of a frivolous and unwise wife. His distaste had been exhibited at their very first meeting, and he could only force himself to assume a gracious demeanour by having recourse to wine or spirits. From the very first he seems to have designed to part from her; she was early sent into a sort of banishment at Blackheath, a watch was set upon her conduct, an investigation before the Lords was set on foot, and though declared innocent of any grave offence, disgusted at such treatment, she unwisely withdrew abroad in 1814. She was followed in her retirement, by the advice of Sir John Leach, by emissaries to collect evidence against her, unknown to herself. It would have been wise had she remained abroad, but the treatment she had received rendered her desperate; she had been excluded from foreign courts, and when her husband came to the throne her name was omitted from the Liturgy. It seems to have been this last insult which roused her to action. In June she came to England, and was received with enthusiasm by the people, who regarded her as a persecuted woman. She thus placed the ministers in the awkward position of being obliged to fulfil the compromise under which they had retained office and to proceed to extremities against her. On the 6th of June the King sent a message to the Lords, ordering them to institute an inquiry into the Queen's conduct, and proofs were laid on the table. On the following day, Mr. Brougham, who undertook the management of her case as her Attorney-General, read a letter to the Commons demanding a public inquiry. Some efforts were made to effect a compromise, but as the King refused to demand her reception abroad or to insert her name in the Liturgy, all negotiations failed. The secret committee of the Lords therefore proceeded to make its report, declaring Trial of the Queen. Aug. 17. that a solemn inquiry was necessary; and Lord Liverpool shocked public feeling by introducing, for the purpose of producing such an inquiry, a Bill of pains and penalties to deprive her Majesty of her position as Queen, and to dissolve the King's marriage. The trial in fact came on with the second reading of the Bill, when the charges against the Queen were stated before the Lords; and for nearly a month the House was occupied in hearing witness. By this time the feeling in England was strongly excited. The ministers were insulted whenever they appeared abroad, and every opportunity was taken by the crowd of showing their sympathy with the Queen. The question had become in fact a political one, and the Queen lent herself only too readily to a somewhat ostentatious display of her sufferings. In October the defence commenced, and at length, on the 6th of November, the second reading of the Bill was passed by a majority of twenty-eight. Two days afterwards, on the third reading, there was a majority of only nine. As this was in the House of Lords, where the ministers were strongest, they saw it was useless to persevere, and Lord Liverpool declared that the Bill was abandoned. A burst of joy was heard throughout the country, for three nights London was illuminated, even Prince Leopold joining in the rejoicings. Declining all offers from the Government, the Queen placed her cause in the hands of the Commons. An annuity of £50,000 was given her the following session. But she was determined upon some more public announcement of her innocence; she still tried, though in vain, to secure the introduction of her name in the Liturgy, and was foolish enough on the occasion of the coronation in July of the following year to attempt to force her way into the Abbey. She had already begun to lose the sympathy of the people when, in August, she died.

However right it may have been to raise the question of the Queen's guilt, there was a general feeling that the ministers had at all events mismanaged the question, and after exciting strongly the temper of the people, had dropped their Bill without excuse or apology. Advantage was taken of the popular anger, excited by what was thought an act of oppression, to give currency to all sorts of charges against the ministry, and to impute to them unconstitutional principles, and connivance or even approbation of scandalous conspiracies against the Queen's character, of which they were certainly guiltless. But, before all, the late events had given a popular rallying-point for all sections of the Opposition, and had demonstrated how deep was the alienation between the ministry and the body of the people. It is from this time that we find serious and sometimes successful efforts made to begin the work of reform, which it was believed would render such an alienation impossible. Although, as was to be expected in a House elected under the old system, any wide measure, such as that produced by Lambton (subsequently Lord Durham, April 1821), recommending equal electoral districts, was sure to be defeated by a large majority, Lord John Russell succeeded in procuring the disfranchisement of Grampound, a notoriously corrupt borough in Cornwall (May 30). He and his friends were wise enough to accept this small beginning, even though his Bill was changed in the Upper House, where the vacant seat was transferred, not to one of the great unrepresented cities, as would have been just, but to the county of York. In the same way the great question of Catholic disabilities was brought forward with renewed strength. Those who were in favour of their removal were successful in the Lower House, and the Bill was only lost after passing through most of its stages in the Lords.

So shaken indeed was the predominance of the extreme Tory party, that in the year 1821 they found it necessary to strengthen themselves by a coalition with the Conservative section of the Opposition, hoping by this means to give a more broad and liberal Peel joins the ministry. appearance to the administration. Lord Grenville himself declined office, but several of his followers were admitted to the ministry, while a still further improvement was made by the retirement of Lord Sidmouth, who had played so prominent a part in all the late repressive measures, and the substitution in his place of Mr. Peel, as yet Tory in his views, but capable, as was subsequently proved, of constant advance, and of an intellect so clear and sensible as to be able to learn, as his predecessor never could, the growing requirements of the time. At the same time Lord Wellesley was sent as Lord-Lieutenant to Ireland, with Mr. Plunkett as his Attorney-General, both of them supporters of the Catholic claims; and although Wellesley's statesmanlike character and moderation excited the anger of extreme men on both sides, the mere fact of such a man being placed at the head of the Irish Government was a clear mark of the relaxation of the principles of the Tory system. These new appointments were but the beginning, to be followed in a few months by other changes far more important, which were to effect an entire alteration in the position which England occupied in Europe, and in the principles which governed her financial policy. These changes were the admission, in 1822 and 1823, of Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson to the ministry. Throughout the trial of Queen Caroline, Canning had held himself studiously aloof. He had been early one of the Queen's advisers, had declared from the first his intention to avoid any participation in her trial, and had in fact remained abroad during its continuance. On his return in December, thinking it impossible for a minister to be entirely absent from his duties, but determined to take no part in the discussions on the trial which were inevitable, he insisted on resigning his place at the Board of Trade. He was therefore at first excluded from the new ministerial arrangements. The India Company indeed had decided upon sending him as Governor-General to India. His preparations Death of Castlereagh. Canning Secretary of State. Sept. 11, 1822. for taking the post were being made, and he was at Liverpool on a farewell visit to his constituents, when a piece of news was heard which caused a profound movement both at home and abroad,—Lord Castlereagh, now become Lord Londonderry, had committed suicide. The man who was regarded as the real soul of the Tory party, as the type of the arbitrary and absolutist temper which distinguished it, had passed away. Honourable and amiable in his private life, he had contrived to render himself so unpopular that the news of his death was received with unseemly rejoicings, and his coffin was followed to the Abbey with shouts of gladness from his enemies. Europe was in a critical condition. Lord Londonderry had been in the act of going to an European Congress held at Verona. Canning appeared to be the only man fitted to supply his place. When asked to join the ministry as Secretary of State for foreign affairs, after some consideration, he threw up the great post for which he was at the moment destined, and accepted the office.

To understand the importance of this change it is necessary to say a few words on what had passed in Europe since the Peace. The hopes of the liberal party in Europe had received a heavy blow at the Congress of Vienna. England had so constantly put herself forward as the champion of Position of England abroad. freedom, and her influence had been so preponderating in the late events of the war, that she was expected to have taken up strong ground in the settlement of Europe, and to have demanded and secured some sort of popular rights in the countries to which her assistance had been given. The nation had shown itself so full of resources, and had been so exceptional in the success of its opposition to Napoleon, that a general belief had arisen that there was something peculiarly excellent in the character of its constitution. So strong was this feeling, that many of the sovereigns of Europe promised constitutions to their people. It was forgotten that the freedom for which England had been fighting meant deliverance from external conquest, and had no connection with the internal freedom of national constitutions, that, on the contrary, the war against France had been originally undertaken, if not ostensibly yet really, to oppose the revolutionary temper of France. It was a severe disappointment when the English minister was seen joining with Talleyrand in upholding legitimacy, and for the sake of that principle, and to preserve in its old lines the balance of European power, himself demanding the destruction of the liberty of Belgium and of Genoa, and calmly acquiescing in the absorption of much of Saxony, the final division of Poland, and the destruction of Norway. Even the one constitutional effort which was made, the establishment of a limited monarchy in France, was rendered nugatory by the fact, that the privileges were given as a grant and charter from the crown, and the first principle of the English Constitution—that power is from the people—ignored.

But though in the general triumph of the moment his foreign policy was accepted and even approved, it will be remembered that even Castlereagh felt himself compelled to respect public opinion at home and to hold aloof from the Holy Alliance, which seemed to assert the unity of interests of the crowned heads and their sole right, Effect of Castlereagh's policy. as of divine origin, to be the governors of the world. It was the extension of the principles of the Holy Alliance which had produced the present critical state of Europe, with which his moderate abilities, his natural tendency towards repressive government, aggravated by domestic affairs, and the entanglements in which his policy at the Vienna Treaty had involved him, rendered Castlereagh unable to cope. It was no use to ignore the fact that the French Revolution had given a great impulse to the ideas of constitutional freedom. Even the conquests of Napoleon, followed as they always were by democratic changes, had fostered these ideas in the very countries which had suffered most from them; and when it appeared that all hopes and promises of freedom were entirely illusory, insurrections of the deceived people burst out in several parts of Europe, and where the strength of the government rendered such outbreaks impossible, secret societies, more dangerous and extravagant because they were secret, sprang everywhere into existence.

The first outbreak was in Spain, where Ferdinand had entirely refused the constitution to which he was pledged, and had shown his character by directing his vengeance chiefly against those very men who had been most prominent in saving his kingdom from the French. During the occupation of Spain by the French, when the central authority of the mother country was virtually destroyed, the South American colonies had, one after the other, thrown off their allegiance, and were still engaged in making good their independence. It was an army collected at Cadiz for the purpose of reducing the victorious colonies which set the example of insurrection. It mutinied in the beginning of the year 1820, and was so successful that the King was compelled, on the 7th of March, to accept the constitution of 1812, which had been drawn up under the influence of Napoleonic and American ideas. In August the constitutional spirit passed to Portugal. Since the departure of the royal family from Lisbon in 1808, the King had not returned to his European dominions. Brazil became the seat of government, the restrictions formerly put Insurrection in Portugal. upon its trade were removed, it was elevated nominally to the rank of a kingdom, and Portugal seemed to occupy the position of a colony of its former dependency. The discontent which had thus been fostered displayed itself in August, when national Juntas were established both in Oporto and Lisbon; subsequently, on the 1st of October, the provincial assembly coalesced with that of the capital, and the regency was compelled to resign its functions. When at length in the following spring the King set out for his continental dominions, it was a question whether he would arrive in time to save them. Almost at the same time similar events took place in Naples. Ferdinand IV. could not entirely disregard Insurrection in Naples. popular wishes and rule despotically, as his nephew in Spain had done, for the longer and more complete hold which Murat, Napoleon's nominee, had obtained upon the throne had given time for ideas of constitutional government to become prevalent, and the army was full of Napoleonic soldiers. But in spite of the comparative liberality of his government, Ferdinand's army was full of discontented soldiers, and the secret and revolutionary societies of the Carbonari undermined society. At the same time, in the island of Sicily a constitution had been established under the influence of Lord William Bentinck, and had been swept away on the restoration. In July the garrison at Nola mutinied, and before a week was over the King was obliged to accept the Spanish constitution, which had become the formula of the Liberal party, although there was actually no copy of that document to be found, and no one in fact knew anything about it. Sicily soon followed Naples; but recollections of its old independence prevented it at first from joining the revolutionary government of the mainland, and its complete acquiescence in the movement had to be secured by force of arms.

It was in presence of these disturbances that the true principles of the Holy Alliance began to show themselves. The three Eastern powers seemed to consider themselves authorized to introduce into Europe a new form of international law. Regarding themselves as the only legitimate and divinely appointed powers, and holding themselves pledged to mutual support against their enemies, and having declared their intention to act as a brotherhood in international questions, they appear to have believed that the enemies against whom their mutual assistance was required were all those who resisted established authority, and that any disturbances thus arising ought to be regulated by European congresses. In other words, they arrogated to themselves, for the sake of suppressing what they considered revolutionary movements, the right of federative action in the cause of legitimacy and absolutism. Already, at Vienna and Aix-la-Chapelle, they had acted more or less on this principle, and now they summoned a similar Congress England refuses to join. at Troppau (1820). It was impossible for an English minister to accede to this new doctrine, however much he may have had at heart the cause which the allied sovereigns were supporting, and Lord Castlereagh, as early as April, declared that the alliance to which England was a party existed for particular cases only, and was not to be generalized as the Eastern sovereigns appeared to wish to generalize it. It shows how the position of England had sunk under Castlereagh's management, that the monarchs determined to act without England, and it shows the weakness of Castlereagh's mode of action that he allowed, under these circumstances, an English minister to be present at the meeting, not to take part in the discussions, but merely to report their progress to his Government. The Holy Alliance proceeded to act upon its own principles. In November the English minister learnt that the three powers intended to join and to act in common for the restoration of Ferdinand of Naples, whom they had invited to meet them at Laibach, whither the Congress was adjourned. Early in December 1820 a circular to that effect was issued in the name of the three sovereigns, which, in spite of what Castlereagh had said, proceeded to declare that, as what they were now doing was in accordance with the late treaties, they felt no doubt of the adhesion of France and England. On the 19th of that month, without knowledge of this circular, Castlereagh wrote an explicit declaration that England would not join in any united action. Had he openly declared this intention and withdrawn the English ambassador he would not have acted otherwise than as became an English minister. But on the 19th of January 1821 a letter of Castlereagh's, purporting to be an answer to the circular of December 8th, which had been published by some indiscretion in the public prints, while reasserting the position he had taken up in his previous declaration, went on to confess that the Government had looked with the strongest disapproval on the insurrection in Naples. This weak document, coming as it did just before the meeting of Parliament, Popular anger at Castlereagh's weak policy. 1821. after the popular temper had been roused by the knowledge of the arrogant circular of December, and taken in connection with the facts that diplomatic relations had not been renewed with the constitutional Government of Naples, and that an English fleet was cruising off the coast, seemed to show that the minister's heart was really with the sovereigns, and that his letter was only written to suit party purposes in England. At the opening of Parliament (Jan. 23, 1821) the Government had to withstand the most bitter assaults from the Opposition, headed by Lords Grey and Holland in the Lords, by Mackintosh, Brougham, and Tierney in the Lower House, and although a public vote of censure, considering the constitution of the House, was out of the question, it was plain that the feeling of all parties was strong against the action of the Holy Alliance. The attacks on the minister were still continuing when the uselessness of English interference was demonstrated by the entrance of an Austrian army into Italy, by which the revolution was summarily suppressed.

It was not only in the West of Europe that difficulties arose. The Christian populations under the power of the Ottoman Porte rose in insurrection. They naturally looked, as they have always looked, to the Czar for protection. Their method of proceeding was closely analogous to that of the revolutionists in the rest of Europe; and in Greece, as in Italy, secret societies were organized against the existing powers. It has always been a part of Russian policy to secure as much influence in Turkey as possible. On the other hand, it was impossible for the English, at that time in constant diplomatic rivalry with Russia, to wish to see that power in possession of Constantinople or the Black Sea. In the affairs of Greece therefore a complete inversion of the principles which had been predominant at the Congress of Troppau was visible. The interests of Russia demanded that she should assist a revolutionary movement backed up by secret societies and directed against a legitimate sovereign, while England felt itself compelled to allege the doctrines of legitimacy and to call to its aid old alliances in order to shelter Turkey. The difficulty was so great that it was determined that this question also should be referred to a Congress, which was held first at Vienna, and subsequently moved to Verona.

But meanwhile fresh complications had arisen in the West. A terrible visitation of the yellow fever had come upon Spain. Under pretext of excluding the infection from their own country, the French had massed troops along the borders; but it soon became evident that something beyond sanitary precautions had inspired this movement. When the illness disappeared there was still an army of 100,000 men lying within reach of the Pyrenees. In fact, the Legitimists of France had seen with extreme dislike the revolution in Spain; it was political infection they were chiefly anxious to avoid, and the more advanced members of that party, which had a large majority in the French Houses, were thinking of the invasion of Spain, and the re-establishment by force of arms of the absolutist rule of Ferdinand. Lord Congress at Verona. Sept. 1822. Londonderry was preparing to attend the Congress at Verona when his health and reason gave way and he committed suicide. In his place the Duke of Wellington attended the Congress, and was somewhat surprised to find that, instead of the Greek question, the real point at issue was the demand of France for a joint action on the part of the Legitimist Courts of Europe to suppress the revolution in Spain.

It was to the management of this difficult affair that Canning was called. It cannot be said that he introduced a new system into our diplomacy. He had been a party to some of the declarations of his predecessor, and had accepted the responsibility of them. In fact, as has been seen in his public despatches, Castlereagh had already declared the impossibility of English co-operation in any general scheme of repressive action on the Continent, and his dislike to the government of Europe by congresses. It is the way in which Canning acted up to and rendered practical those declarations which makes it possible to say that his accession to office was an era in English politics. His instructions to Wellington were clear and precise. If a declaration of any such determination—that is, of joint action—should be made at Verona, come what might the Duke was to refuse the King's consent to become a party to it, even though the dissolution of the alliance should be the consequence of his refusal. Canning's object was to secure European peace and to allow nations freedom of choice as to their own government—to re-establish, in fact, in England and throughout Europe a policy based upon national grounds, as distinguished from that system of united and general policy by means of European congresses under which Europe since the peace had been labouring.

In the first of his objects Canning was partially successful. The distinct refusal of Wellington to join in united action, and his subsequent withdrawal from the Congress, prevented a general European attack upon Spain. He could not entirely prevent the war, but he succeeded in reducing it to the dimensions of a national war. He used his best endeavours to persuade France not to attack Spain. He declared that the free institutions of the Spanish people could not, as the French King had asserted, be only held legitimately from the spontaneous gift of the sovereign; the Spanish nation could not be expected to subscribe to that principle, nor could any British statesman uphold or defend it; it was in fact a principle that struck at the root of the British Constitution. In his eagerness to avert hostilities he even entreated the Spaniards to make changes in their constitution. His efforts on both sides were vain. The French invaded Spain; on the 2nd of May 1823 they entered Madrid; on the 1st of October Cadiz was surrendered, and Ferdinand and his absolute government were re-established. But in the matter of English interests Canning declared himself plainly. Portugal might be involved, and an effort might be made by Spain, with the assistance of France, to reconquer her colonies. Should Portugal join with Spain voluntarily, England would take no notice; but if that country were invaded, England would of necessity come to the assistance of her old ally. With regard to the colonies he took a similar ground. They were virtually independent; during the contest, true to his principle of neutrality, he had abetted Government in preventing Englishmen from joining the insurgents; but the trade with the colonies being now open, the interests of England were so involved with their independence that he would not allow any foreign nation to join in reconquering them; if Spain was itself unable to subdue them, no foreign country, he declared, should subdue them for her. He followed up this policy by declaring that he would send English consuls to protect British trade, and their appointment was in fact the recognition of the independence of the colonies.

The new minister's conduct at the negotiations at Verona was subjected to warm discussion at the beginning of the year 1823. The firm attitude of neutrality which he had taken up did not satisfy the aspirations of those who looked upon his accession to office as the triumph of the Whig party. But his vindication was so complete that, upon the division, the opinion of the House appeared to be quite unanimous. The Opposition was only twenty in a House of 372, and of those twenty some were professed ministerialists, who had been shut out from voting by the crowd of their own adherents.

But it was not only in our foreign policy that a change of spirit now became obvious. In the winter of 1823, a few months after the accession of Canning to office, further changes took place in the ministry. Mr. Vansittart resigned the place of Chancellor of the Exchequer, for which he was very unfit, and went into the Upper House as Lord Bexley. Mr. Robinson (afterwards Lord Goderich) succeeded him, and, much more important, Mr. Huskisson was in January made President of the Board of Trade, and with him a complete alteration came over our commercial policy, and the reign of restriction began to give way and yield place to free trade. The questions at issue had not yet become party tests, as they subsequently were, and Huskisson, as member of a Tory ministry, was able by his comprehension of the true principles of trade to set on foot a new system without separating from his colleagues.

The expenses of the war had been enormous, perhaps inevitably so, and the taxes were proportionately heavy. During the last year of the war in taxes and loans upwards of £170,000,000 had been raised. The National Debt amounted to nearly £800,000,000, and to meet the necessities of the moment this had been raised by very expensive methods, so that the nominal sum on which interest was paid was considerably higher than the actual money which had passed into Government hands. Mr. Vansittart, who had had the management of the finances, had no real knowledge of financial principles, and had acted on the simple plan of increasing taxes when more money was necessary, and supplying the deficit by loans contracted in an extravagant fashion, or taken from the sinking fund. He did not see that doubling a tax by no means doubled the returns from it, as it inevitably compelled some people, and those the most numerous and poorest, to surrender the taxed article; and in common with many people at the time, he believed in the magical effect of the sinking fund, although the sum yearly paid to it was derived from loans contracted at considerably higher interest than the fund itself bore. The sinking fund indeed had, in the hands of the present Government, almost lost its original object, and was openly declared both by Vansittart and Castlereagh to be chiefly useful for supplying the ministry with an easy means of getting money to meet emergencies, instead of a sacred deposit to be used only for the extinction of debt. The ease with which all money demands of Government were granted during the war had also engendered a spirit of extravagance, and economy had been one of the earliest cries of the Opposition on the resumption of peace. At first the support of the large standing army which still remained on foot, and other expenses which were regarded as necessary, had apparently prevented any relaxation of taxes, but by degrees the universal discontent excited by their pressure had compelled Government to grant some relief, and a certain number of taxes had been taken off or reduced.

But all this time the real resources of England, the development of which would have largely increased the revenue, and at the same time have admitted of large decrease of taxation, had been restricted by unwise commercial legislation, having its origin in distant times and in a different state of society. The interests of the landowners and agriculturists were so closely connected with the predominance of the Tory party, and they had played so large a part in the conduct of England of late years, that the agriculturists had succeeded in making good the advantages of their class to the detriment of all others. They claimed nothing less than the exclusive right of supplying the whole nation with food, and by their clamour and influence in the House of Commons had succeeded in procuring corn laws which went far to secure them that monopoly. But meanwhile, within the last fifty years, the manufacturing interest, principally through the introduction of machinery, had relatively enormously increased. In the twenty years between 1811 and 1831, while the agricultural population increased but 2½ per cent., the manufacturing population had increased 31½ per cent. The time was rapidly approaching when the growing and increasing manufacturing and commercial element would of necessity claim its due position in opposition to the landed aristocracy. But at present the manufacturers themselves, ignorant of the true principles of political economy, were constantly seeking the benefit of their own class as distinguished from that of the general public, and restrictive, or, as they were called, protective, laws were extended over nearly every branch of industry.

Robinson, an exceedingly well-meaning man, had succeeded Vansittart as Chancellor of the Exchequer. But his plans and resources extended but little beyond those of his predecessor. He accepted and kept in operation some of his most unwise financial measures, and, without any change of general view, continued, what was no doubt a good thing in its way, to remit occasionally various small taxes. But he had beside him Huskisson as President of the Board of Trade, who acted in a very different spirit. Like his friend Canning, who gave him his full support, he was a self-made man, and belonging to none of the prominent ruling classes, was able to look at matters in a broader and more national light. And though, like his friend, he was constantly spoken of as an adventurer, and in consequence had to undergo much opposition, he was able by the reasonableness of his views, and by the success which attended their execution, to launch England upon a new course of commercial policy, as Canning had been able to do with regard to foreign affairs. As yet free trade as a whole was not to be thought of, but Huskisson took every advantage of the demands of various classes of industrialists to introduce small reforms. In his first year of office, though he indicated the tendency of his policy, he was not able to affect much except with regard to the navigation laws. The three great industries of England were wool, silk, and cotton. Of these cotton alone had been left unrestricted, and there alone had a very remarkable increase been seen. In the wool trade considerable depression having been felt, numerous petitions from manufacturers were presented begging for the free importation of foreign wool, but at the same time asking that the export of British wool should be forbidden; in other words, claiming to buy the raw material of their manufacture at a price artificially lowered. Government replied that the import tax was a valuable source of revenue, but that it should be willingly foregone if free export was allowed also. As the manufacturers declined this, the movement for the present dropped. In the same way an attempt was made to free the Spitalfields silk manufacture from restrictions, such as the settlement of their wages by the magistrates. It was plain that as long as wages were not allowed to change with the varying requirements of the trade, the manufacturers were under disadvantages as compared with their rivals elsewhere. But 11,000 of the journeymen petitioned against this change, and although the Bill passed the Lower House by small majorities, it was so altered by amendments in the Upper House that Huskisson thought fit to drop it.

In dealing with the Navigation Act he was more successful. This law, passed in Cromwell's time, and completed in the 12th of Charles II., allowed the produce of Asia, Africa, and America to be brought to England in English ships only, and European goods only in English ships or in ships of the country producing the goods. The close of the American War had given the first blow to this system. American shipping, now become the shipping of a foreign country, was subject to the restrictions of the Act. The Americans retaliated, and the ships of both countries had to perform one half of the voyage empty; the consumers therefore paid double freight. This absurdity continued till the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, when the Governments agreed to drop their restrictions. The course which had been successful with America was subsequently adopted by the mercantile states of Europe. Portugal, the Netherlands, and Prussia, all raised the dues on British vessels, and Huskisson, on the 6th of June 1823, took the opportunity of introducing the Bill known by the name of the Reciprocity of Duties Bill, by which the ships of British and foreign powers were put upon an equal footing, the right being retained to keep up restrictive duties upon the ships of nations who rejected the reciprocal equality of trade thus offered. The outcry against this change was very great, especially among the shipowners, whose business was trammelled by the heavy duty on Baltic timber. Huskisson expressed a hope that this duty might shortly be remitted, and meanwhile offered to return to shipbuilders all the duties paid on their materials. The offer was declined, and the grumbling continued, nevertheless the increase of British ships was enormous; in the last nineteen years of the restrictive duties the tonnage had increased ten per cent.; in twenty-one years after their abolition it increased forty-five per cent.

The first failure of his plans did not dishearten Huskisson, and the prosperity of the year 1824 enabled him to carry Bills for the relief both of the wool and silk trades. The silk trade had been principally established in England by the persecuted Protestants in 1685, and to support it laws had been passed excluding from England foreign silks, which had previously been admitted free. Early in the eighteenth century the spinning of silk in the Italian method had been introduced by two brothers of the name of Lombe; to protect them heavy duties were laid upon foreign-spun silk. The material for the manufacture of silk goods was thus raised in price, and the manufacture had languished for many years, especially after the introduction of cotton. The production of spun silk in India, whence it was very plentifully supplied, had lately improved this state of things; it was believed that at this time 400,000 people were employed in the manufacture of silk goods. But there was a distinct preference for silks of French manufacture, and the smuggling of such goods into England was a serious damage both to the trade and to the revenue. The silk manufacturers, especially those about London, had immediately, upon Huskisson's accession to office, petitioned for the removal of duties on spun silk, but at the same time, with true class feeling, were eager to exclude foreign manufactured silks. In the same way the silk spinners were eager for the removal of duties upon raw silk, but bitterly opposed to the introduction of spun silk, while the journeymen believed that ruin stared them in the face if foreign manufactured silks were introduced. Between these varying interests Huskisson had to steer his course. The duty on raw silk was immediately reduced to threepence from five and sevenpence halfpenny the pound. The clamour was too great to allow of a similar reduction in the duties on spun silk, which were lowered about half, from fourteen and eightpence to seven and sixpence; and similarly, though Mr. Huskisson wished for an immediate change, the admission of foreign manufactured silks was postponed for two years, when they were to be admitted at an ad valorem duty of thirty per cent. The outcry against the change was great; the workmen thanked the House for the temporary postponement of the day of their destruction; the manufacturers expressed a hope that they should get out of the trade before the fatal day arrived. But the event thoroughly proved the wisdom of Huskisson's plans, and the truth of his prophecy that competition only was wanted to enable English manufacturers to rival the French; ten years after the passing of the Bill England exported to France £60,000 worth of manufactured silk.

The duties on wool, which came next into consideration, were of newer creation. In 1803 it had been subjected to a tax of a halfpenny a pound, raised by Mr. Vansittart in 1819 to sixpence. The same variety of interests was here at work as in the silk trade. The agriculturists and wool-growers wished for the retention of duties to secure a monopoly of the supply of wool, the manufacturers, to whom foreign wool for certain purposes is an absolute necessity, wished for free importation, but for the retention of an export duty to keep the price of English wool low. With perfect justice Mr. Huskisson determined to relieve both classes. Foreign wool was admitted, according to its excellence, at a penny or a halfpenny a pound; English wool might be exported at a similar rate. Again the effect justified his view. The fear of a large exportation of English wool proved so completely groundless that by 1826 only 100,000 pounds weight had been exported, while 40,000,000 pounds of foreign wool had been introduced. The low price of wool of which the growers had complained had been caused by the increase of the article in England and the general slackness of the trade; the large introduction of foreign wool had enabled the British producers to sell all their stock at remunerative prices to be worked up with it.

As befitted the dawning liberality of the English legislation, the question of the slave trade now again came prominently forward. It was indeed the late changes in commercial legislation which again brought it into notice. Since the opening of the Indian trade in April 1814 a complete alteration had taken place in the character of our commerce with that country. Originally restricted to Indian produce paid for in bullion, it had lately become much extended; India received from England woollen goods to the value of a million and a half, and strangely enough even cotton goods, originally an Indian production, to the value of upwards of a million. But as the duties on East India sugar were higher than those charged on West India sugar, India was practically unable to pay for the goods thus imported with its sugar. It was urged in Parliament, that as the power of India to receive English goods was limited only by what it could give in exchange, one great source of purchasing power was thus denied it, and that an equality of duties should be established. Of course the West India interests were violent in opposition, but while objecting to the change at present, Huskisson allowed that the production of slave labour was more costly than that of free labour, and that slavery was not only a crime but a commercial mistake. This confession called the abolitionists again into activity. They had already succeeded in getting the trade condemned by most civilized nations, and the slave who touched English ground was free; but the institution continued in all its severity in our own colonies. Sir Fowell Buxton, who now became the prominent supporter of abolition, brought in a resolution (May 15, 1823) declaring that slavery should be gradually abolished throughout the British colonies. Gradual abolition presents great difficulties. It is not logical, as slavery is either right or wrong; it is difficult to carry out, because slaves still left unenfranchized, while others are freed, are naturally discontented. Canning therefore distinctly objected to the motion; he declared that no half measures were possible, and that as for immediate abolition the Constitution of England was against it. At the same time he proposed resolutions declaring the expediency of improving the condition of the Effect of Canning's circular in Jamaica. slaves preparatory to freedom. This was followed up in a circular issued on the 24th of May 1823, ordering the cessation of the use of the whip in the field and of the flogging of women. The circular excited great anger among the planters, the House of Assembly in Jamaica began to talk of independence and of addressing the King to remove Lord Bathurst, the Colonial Secretary. In Barbadoes the mean whites, that is, those who possessed no slaves and who were the outcasts of society, rose in riot, and razed to the ground the chapel of a missionary who had spoken of them as an ignorant and depraved class. In Demerara the purport of the circular and the way in which it was spoken of by the planters came to the ears of the negroes, and caused a rising (Aug. 18), which was only kept from becoming a dangerous insurrection by the influence of an Independent missionary of the name of Smith. In two days the riot was quelled, with considerable bloodshed and nearly fifty executions of negroes. But the importance of the affair lies chiefly in the conduct of the whites and the Government of the island towards Mr. Smith. There had already been some efforts made to injure the influence of the dissenting missionaries, who had been most active in instructing the negroes, and Persecution of Mr. Smith. although a clergyman of the Episcopalian Church who was in Demerara gave full testimony of Mr. Smith's excellence, he was apprehended, kept in a disgraceful prison for two months, and then died of his hardships (Feb. 6, 1824). Before he died he had been sentenced to death, as having been aware of the intended rising. The sentence of the court-martial was quashed in England, but before the news arrived he was dead. The treatment of Smith in his imprisonment, and of his widow, who was not even allowed to be present at his funeral, was marked by great cruelty, and his death was followed by a meeting of slave-owners, who petitioned that all missionaries should be expelled from the colony, and prohibited from coming there for the future. In fact, they declared that any attempt to improve the moral or intellectual condition of the slaves was undesirable and a crime against the planters. The shock given by this violent action to the public feeling in England virtually secured the predominance of abolitionist views.

The years 1823 and 1824 were thus marked by a distinct advance in liberality on the part of the English Government. But the beneficent action of Huskisson's legislation was postponed during the following year by a period of unexampled distress. During the past year there had been much hope of increased prosperity. The opening of Misery caused by wild speculation. 1825. new markets in South America had excited the hope of speedy profits, and introduced a spirit of rash speculation which has more than once disastrously affected British commerce. The consequence was the very rapid formation of a vast number of joint-stock companies, with their attendant symptoms of unprincipled stock-jobbing and dishonesty on the part of financial agents and promoters of companies. It is impossible not to be reminded of the similar excitement in the time of the South Sea Bubble,—again acts of fabulous folly were performed; it is said that in their eagerness to get a sale for British goods both warming-pans and skates were exported in considerable numbers to the Tropics; while a company of Scotch milk-maids was formed and transferred to Buenos Ayres, where, after conquering the preliminary difficulty of milking wild cattle, it was found that the inhabitants would not eat butter, and preferred the oil of their own country. Though many schemes to be carried on in foreign parts did not even take the trouble to secure charters, 286 private Bills were passed in the session of 1825. The speculation was assisted by a great apparent profusion of money, and by the careless action of both the Bank of England and the private provincial banks. In spite of signs that gold and silver were leaving the country, the Bank of England continued to increase its issue of notes, and the provincial banks followed its example; there was far too much paper money in the country; between June 1824 and October 1825 ten millions of coin and bullion were exported. At the same time the Bank of England lowered its rate of interest. Money was thus exceedingly easily obtained, and prices rose suddenly and very rapidly. The readiness of all the banks to discount bills even at long dates enabled speculators to buy up and hold back goods, thus still further raising the prices. There was naturally soon an end of this fictitious state of things. As the goods which had been bought up were brought into the market their prices necessarily fell; foreign speculations could not produce very rapid returns; the insecure bills, or those which had been discounted at very long dates, could not be realized, consequently the banks found it difficult to meet the demands upon them; the Bank of England then took alarm, raised the rate at which it discounted bills, and contracted the issue of bank notes. In all ways therefore money began to get exceedingly scarce; firms and companies began to break, credit was shaken, a run on the banks was the consequence. At length even the London houses were affected, and on the 5th of December the great banking-house of Pole & Company, on which as many as forty-four country banks depended, broke. In six weeks between sixty to seventy banks had stopped payment, of which six or seven were London houses.

The misery attendant on these disasters was so great that the Government thought it necessary to interfere. The bank and the mint set hard to work to supply notes and coin; 150,000 sovereigns a day were turned out, but even thus, the story is told that the credit of the Bank was only saved by the accidental discovery of a forgotten chest with 700,000 one-pound notes. By the end of the year the worst of the panic was over, but during 1826 bankruptcies continued with fearful rapidity. In the opinion of the Government some part of the late misfortune was to be attributed to bad legislation, and might be altered, but the greater part arose from a spirit of over-speculation, over which no legislative enactments could have any power. The healing measures proposed were the prohibition of the issue of one and two pound notes; for it began to be generally acknowledged that unrestricted paper currency could not exist with coin, that in times of prosperity the paper would be preferred, gold and silver would seek other markets, and in times of necessity would be unprocurable. Many of the banks had paid for the privilege of issuing notes, but the Government risked the infringement on their rights, acknowledging it, and confessing that an Act of indemnity would be necessary. Secondly, they induced the Bank directors to give up one of their privileges, by which private banking-houses were restricted to six partners. Beyond a radius of sixty-five miles from London, the number of partners was henceforward unlimited, and much greater security was thus obtained. At the same time, for the instant relief of commerce, the ministers, unwilling to issue Exchequer bills, because they thought that commerce had better on the whole be left to right itself, succeeded in persuading the Bank to advance £3,000,000 to merchants upon the security of their goods. The effect of these measures was a restoration of credit and the gradual subsidence of the alarm.

But the misfortunes of the preceding years had of necessity been attended by extreme suffering among the poorer classes, and although they had on the whole borne their privations remarkably well, it was Riots and machine breaking. April 1826. impossible, considering the excited temper of the times, to avoid riots. These were as usual directed principally against machinery, which was still ignorantly regarded by the artisans as the chief cause of their misery. The riots were very widely spread, every power-loom in Blackburn was smashed, the operatives in Manchester held stormy meetings, and in Carlisle, Staffordshire, and Norfolk uproars took place. To the miseries caused by depression of trade were added those of an unfavourable season; the summer of 1826 was marked by a very severe drought. On all grounds, therefore, the ministers thought it Temporary change in the corn laws. May 26, 1826. their duty to introduce some measures which should tend to the lowering of the price of corn; it was ordered that corn in bond in the warehouses, waiting till prices should rise to the level which allowed importation, should be released at once and sent into the market, and that Government should be authorized to import, within a space of two months, 500,000 quarters more. Bills to this effect were passed through the House, having been earnestly pressed forward because the Parliament was on the point of dissolution, and had the ministers been obliged to open the ports without leave, their conduct would have been unconstitutional and would have required an Act of indemnity. But, after all, their efforts were unavailing; prices rose, so that on the 1st of September the legal price was reached; but as it was only when the average price was above a certain point that corn was admitted, and a month must elapse before that average could be taken, it was thought desirable to forestall the time and open them at once. The new Parliament assembled in November, and remained a short time in session for the purpose of giving the required indemnity.

The attention of Parliament was called to one other important topic, which may be regarded as the finishing stroke to Canning's foreign policy. It will be remembered that he had always declared that any attack on Portugal would be regarded as a sufficient cause for the entrance of England into the war. The French troops still occupied Spain, and in the civil war which was continued in that country the royalists had been joined by several regiments of the Portuguese army. In spite of urgent demands and repeated promises that these deserting troops should be disbanded, they were allowed, if not encouraged, by the Spanish royalists to make inroads into constitutional Portugal. The Princess Regent applied to England for assistance; Canning at once acted vigorously according to his principles. At first the information given was not accurate, but on Friday the 8th of December precise information arrived, and Canning could triumphantly assert in the House—"On Saturday his Majesty's confidential servants came to a decision, on Sunday that decision received the sanction of his Majesty, on Monday it was submitted to both Houses of Parliament, and this day (Tuesday) on which I have the honour of addressing you the troops are on their march for embarkation." It was plain to all men that the honour of England was safe in such hands, and proof was afforded to all Europe that England had distinctly broken from her old connections; and that her sympathies were on the side of political freedom and national independence.

It is not to be supposed that the changes worked by Canning and by Huskisson, and the decided preponderance of the more liberal-minded members of the Cabinet, were regarded with favour by all their colleagues. Personally distasteful to many of them because of their want of aristocratic connection, the innovating character of their policy, and their views, which were closely assimilated on most points to those of the Whigs separated them entirely from the representatives of the old Tory party. They seem to have had but one point in common—their opposition to parliamentary reform. Lord Liverpool's Government had from the first been one of compromise. One of the greatest questions of the day, which had already caused the fall of more than one ministry, had been allowed to fall from the list of Cabinet questions, and it had been agreed that Catholic emancipation should stand entirely upon its own merits. But this was a point on which men felt very keenly, and there had thus arisen a complete division in the ministry; on the one side were ranked the followers of Canning, including such men as Huskisson, Wellesley; Robinson, Sturges-Bourne, and Lord Palmerston; and on the other the high Tory or Protestant party, at the head of which was Liverpool himself, Lord Eldon, and the Duke of Wellington, and, although he was regarded as less bigoted, Peel. How great the split between the parties was is made plain not only by the strong if decorous language to be found in Lord Eldon's correspondence, but by the more outspoken expressions of Palmerston in his private letters. In the election of 1826, though himself a member of the ministry, Palmerston had been opposed at Cambridge by Goulbourn (also one of the administration), and all the influence of the Tory section had been used against him. In a letter describing the effects of that election, he says, "As to the commonplace balance between Opposition and Government, the election will have little effect upon it. The Government are as strong as any government can wish to be, as far as regards those who sit facing them; but in truth the real Opposition of the present day sit behind the Treasury bench. It is by the stupid old Tory party, who bawl out the memory and praises of Pitt, while they are opposing all the measures and principles which he held most important, it is by these that the progress of the Government in every improvement which they are attempting is thwarted and opposed. On the Catholic question, on the principles of commerce, on the corn laws, on the settlement of the currency, on the laws regulating the trade in money, on colonial slavery, on the game laws, which are intimately connected with the moral habits of the people; on all these questions, and everything like them, the Government find support from the Whigs and resistance from their self-denominated friends." While again, speaking of the foolish obstruction to the Catholic claims, he writes of his colleagues in most unmeasured terms: "I can forgive old women like the Chancellor, spoonies like Liverpool, ignoramuses like Westmoreland, old stumped-up Tories like Bathurst, but how such a man as Peel, liberal, enlightened, and fresh-minded, should find himself running in such a pack is hardly intelligible." It is plain that a Government thinking so differently on the most important topics of the day must have been near its dissolution. It was held together in fact only by the Illness of Lord Liverpool. Feb. 1827. tact and personal influence of Lord Liverpool; and when, on the 17th February, the Premier was found struck with an apoplectic fit it was certain that a ministerial crisis must arise.

The difficulty in the formation of a new permanent Government was likely to be increased by the two great questions which were expected to occupy the session. One of these was a change in the corn laws, and an attempt to bring them more into harmony with the new commercial views of Huskisson and his friends; the other the Catholic emancipation, on which already the existing Cabinet was so much divided. The constant repetition of temporary measures required by the existing state of the law, Necessity of a change in the corn laws. the fluctuation of prices, and the consequent suffering of the poor, proved to those who were not pledged to the interests of the landowning and agricultural party that some alteration in the arrangements with regard to corn was necessary. With much care Canning and Huskisson, although both were too ill to allow of personal communication, had arranged a joint measure, by which foreign corn might be imported free of duty, to be warehoused and admitted to the market for home consumption, regardless of the price of corn, on the payment of duties varying in accordance with a certain scale; when wheat was at seventy shillings the duty was to be one shilling, and to increase two shillings with every decrease of one shilling in price. The Bill was passed on the 12th of April, during the interval it was thought decent to allow for the possible restoration of Lord Liverpool's health. It did not come on in the Upper House till after the new Government was formed, but it was there thrown out in favour of an amendment produced by the Duke of Wellington, declaring that foreign corn should not be taken out of bond till corn had reached sixty-six shillings. The object of the Bill, which was to supply foreign corn whenever the sale of it was remunerative, was thus entirely frustrated and the Bill abandoned.

It was during the same period, while the Government was in abeyance, that the Roman Catholic question was brought on. The settlement of this question in one way or other had become almost a necessity. It has been seen how Pitt was compelled, by fear of the old King's health, to give up a cause which he undoubtedly regarded as just, and how the obstinacy of George III. upon the same point had ruined Lord Grenville's ministry. During Mr. Perceval's ministry, which was formed on the avowed principle of withstanding the claims of the Catholics, the dangers attendant upon the war afforded sufficient excuse for alleging that the time was inconvenient to move so critical a question; but during the whole of that period they had, by means of an organization and the establishment of a central Catholic committee, kept their claims before the world, waiting till a favourable time should come. Lord Liverpool had found it impossible, as already stated, to form a ministry unanimous on the point, and year after year, as Bills in favour of the Catholics were introduced in the House, Castlereagh and Canning had been seen supporting them in opposition to most of their colleagues.

In Ireland, meanwhile, the question had naturally become the watchword of parties, and, like every other political question in that country, had assumed a national form and was leading to a division of races. Both the Protestant Orange Lodges and the Catholic Associations of White Boys had again sprung into existence, and so great was the disorder that in 1822 the Habeas Corpus Act had been suspended. At the same time, in agreement with the uncertain and half-hearted policy of Lord Liverpool's Government, Lord Wellesley, a favourer of the Catholic claims, was made Lord-Lieutenant, and Plunkett (in whose hands the chief management of Catholic parliamentary affairs was) Attorney-General, but yoked to Mr Goulbourn, who was a strong anti-Catholic, as Chief Secretary. The hopes of the Irish, not unreasonably raised by Failure of Wellesley's administration. 1822. these appointments, were disappointed. Received upon his arrival with every sign of admiration and attachment, before long Wellesley was publicly assaulted and pelted in the theatres. He had attempted, in the midst of the wild excitement of the passionate Irishmen of both parties, to follow a cool and impartial policy. His chief object was to suppress secret societies and to compel all parties to submit quietly to the law. By the use of very stringent measures, by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, and by the Insurrection Act, which allowed him to establish where necessary something nearly equivalent to martial law, he had succeeded in weakening the secret societies and in lessening the amount of crime; he thus earned for himself the hearty dislike of the extreme Catholics. At the same time the restraint which he put upon the Orange societies and Protestant demonstrations roused the extreme Protestants to fury, so that riots took place in Dublin which could only be checked by the military. He thus laid himself open to the charges brought against him by the ultra-Protestants of England, who urged, with a show of truth, that he had proved himself inefficient, and that it was plain that lenity and conciliatory measures would not produce the expected effect. And now, seeing that their hopes in their Lord-Lieutenant were Formation of the Catholic Association. 1823. not realized, and wishing to gain favour with classes to whom secret societies were abhorrent, the Catholic party of Ireland, under the leadership of O'Connell, set on foot the great organization known as the Catholic Association, which, while it held aloof from secret societies, and kept itself as far as possible within the limits of the law, was inspired as completely with fanaticism as any of its predecessors had been. Its avowed object was the preparation of petitions to Parliament; but it held regular sessions, had its committee of grievances, ordered a census of the population, and exacted a tax known as the Catholic rent. The effect of this Association was for a time to alienate the Catholics of England, and to make the question a more distinctly national one, and by 1825 the Association had become so formidable that, by a large majority, a Bill was passed rendering it illegal and attempting to dissolve it. The Bill declared that political associations were incapable of adjournment for more than fourteen days, incapable of having corresponding societies, of levying contributions, or of requiring oaths. The dissolution of the Association was only nominal, a new Association was immediately formed, and the Catholic body were advised to proceed by all political and legal means.

The Catholics had in fact gained a very important step in compelling Parliament to recognize the existence of the Association. It was no longer possible to postpone the consideration of their claims, and in March 1826, Sir Francis Burdett brought in what was called a Relief Bill, of which O'Connell, entirely falsely, claimed to be the chief author. Besides the Bill for the relief of disabilities there were two subsidiary Bills, the one raising the Catholic franchise to £10 instead of £2, which was thought to be a sop to the Protestants, the other to supply a State provision for the Catholic clergy, by which it was thought the other party might be pleased. Freed from the dread of the Association, the English partisans of the Catholic claims used all their influence and eloquence in favour of the Bill, and it passed the Commons by a considerable majority. Its fate in the House of Lords was different. It there encountered an opposition verging upon the unconstitutional; the Duke of York, the heir to the crown, adopting all his father's old scruples, declared, in distinct allusion to his probable succession to the throne, that under no circumstances and in no position would he assent to such a Bill. He succeeded in obtaining its rejection by a majority of forty-eight. The Duke's action was highly popular; it seems pretty certain that the feeling of the majority of Englishmen was against the Catholics. The plea that the Coronation Oath stood in the way of the royal assent to such a Bill no longer found defenders except with the extremest Tories, but the feeling of race which had been excited, the fear, not wholly ungrounded, that a measure so anxiously desired by the priests must hide some considerable advantage to the Roman Church, and the occasional rash declaration of some furious partisan that obedience to the Papal See was superior to any earthly obedience, made the majority of those who were not guided by reason and principle desire to retain the disabilities which still existed. The effect of their defeat in the House of Lords was not to dishearten the Catholics, on the contrary, they took courage at their success in the Commons, and were only eager if possible to complete their triumph before the accession of the bigoted Duke of York should Rejection of Burdett's resolution. March 5, 1827. throw a fresh obstacle in their way. A Catholic petition was therefore prepared, which Sir Francis Burdett presented during the illness of Lord Liverpool, proposing at the same time a resolution that the affairs of Ireland required immediate and earnest attention. But an election had taken place since the last Bill had been introduced, and the anti-Catholic feeling had apparently gained ground in the new Parliament; in spite of all the support which Canning could give it, the resolution was rejected. It was the last defeat the champions of emancipation were destined to meet.

While Canning was thus defeated on the two questions he had most at heart,—the improvement of the corn laws and the Catholic emancipation,—he found himself called upon to undertake the duties of Prime Minister. There was indeed no one in the existing ministry who could well compete with him, and the popular voice at once nominated him as Lord Liverpool's successor. Yet from the first it was clear that his appointment implied a complete change of ministry. It was not to be expected that his opponents in the Cabinet, whether on aristocratic and personal or on political grounds, would consent to serve under him. The King, who had lately been drawing more towards the anti-Catholic party, himself hesitated, but when a cabal of Tory Lords threatened him with the loss of their support should he appoint Canning, his mind was at once made up to resent the affront, and Canning was sent for. His appointment was followed by the resignation of all the most important members of the ministry; Wellington, Melville, Eldon, Bathurst, Westmoreland, Bexley, and Peel, chiefly on account of the obligations under which he felt as member for the Protestant University of Oxford, with several less important ministers, withdrew. As Canning was willing to consent that the Catholic question should still remain open, this great defection seems to show how clearly defined his general liberal tendencies had become. From among his own friends, Canning's new ministry. 1827. and such of the Tories as would still serve with him, by the 27th of April a new Government was formed. The Duke of Clarence, since the death of the Duke of York (Jan. 5, 1827) heir-presumptive, was made Lord High Admiral, Copley, made Lord Lyndhurst, became Chancellor, Lord Dudley, a very able though eccentric man, went to the Foreign Office, Mr. Robinson became Lord Goderich, and led the party in the Upper House as Secretary for the Colonies, Sturges-Bourne went to the Home Office, Mr. Huskisson remaining at the Board of Trade. These first appointments were however provisional; so also was Canning's own acceptance of the place of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The new Prime Minister, after the secession of his colleagues, was received with such marked approbation by the Whigs, that it was not difficult to see that his coalition with them would be only a matter of time; and as they would require their fair share in the administration, it was necessary to keep some of the high places in hand, or only provisionally filled. As far as the support of parties in the House went, the union between the Canningites and the Whigs was accomplished; Brougham, Burdett, and Tierney sat on the Government side of the house; but, although Lord Lansdowne had already a seat in the Cabinet, Canning did not live long enough to complete the fusion of parties in the ministry. After the Easter holidays, during which the ministry were got together, little business of public importance was transacted, and the session was spent in a series of vehement attacks and personalities directed against Canning by his old friends. The only fact of importance was the failure of the Corn Bill in the Upper House, which has been already mentioned. In July, to the relief of all parties—for the bitter feelings lately excited had rendered the session an unusually disagreeable one—Parliament Death of Canning. Aug. 8, 1827. was prorogued. On the 8th of the next month Canning died of an illness caught at the funeral of the Duke of York, and rendered worse by the effects of the constant attacks to which he had been subjected acting upon his sensitive nature. Thus was prematurely terminated a change in the position of parties which, by uniting the moderate Tories and the Whigs, and placing the united forces under the command of so able a leader as Canning, seemed full of promise for the constitutional advance of England.

The death of Canning was felt to be a national loss. In spite of every effort to render his funeral private, vast crowds attended, and Whigs and Tories joined in doing him honour. It was only the exclusive clique which, like Chatham, he had broken through which retained its enmity and regarded him to the end as a renegade adventurer. His title to greatness can scarcely be questioned. Adorned with the richest gifts of body and mind, a noble and attractive presence, overflowing wit, and a majestic eloquence, he showed himself an essentially practical statesman. On most subjects his views were large and liberal; by his assistance his friend Huskisson was enabled to launch England upon a fresh course of commercial prosperity, and by so doing to alleviate the miseries under which the people were groaning. As a foreign minister he enabled the country to assume a great place among nations. Two principles formed the bases of his policy—peace, and the greatness of his native country, which he regarded as indissolubly connected with its national individuality. He thus broke from the trammels of the Holy Alliance, and set on foot the policy of non-intervention, which, though its misuse has much destroyed its credit, is, when the dignity of the country is properly supported, the true policy to be pursued by a people at once desirous to secure peace and to allow to other nations the opportunity of working out their own development, and of securing that national freedom of action which it claims for itself. There were undoubtedly inconsistencies in his political views. Like his successor, Peel, he belonged to a transition time, and had a mind capable of growth. Several remnants of his early political creed hung about him to the last. He was always a firm opponent to parliamentary reform; while supporting continually the claims of the Catholics, he would listen to no arguments in favour of the relaxation of the Test and Corporation Acts; and he always upheld the repressive measures of Lord Sidmouth. It is to be remembered that his youth had been passed in the midst of the French Revolution, against which all the weapons of his wit had been directed, and that he was the favourite disciple of Pitt at the time when that minister's energies were chiefly directed to the suppression of revolutionary and Jacobinical tendencies; while, in his prime, temperate reform had become so connected with the exaggerated views of the radical reformers, that it is not to be wondered at that a statesman trained as Canning had been should object to measures which might open a door to the admission of so violent a flood of change.

Though its chief was gone, it was determined to continue the ministry which Canning had formed on the same principle of compromise on the subject of Catholic reform. The King could not make up his mind to take any decided step one way or the other, and fixed upon Goderich's ministry. Lord Goderich, a colourless man, as best fitted to carry on the system. The changes necessary were few, but some of them important for the future. Lord Goderich's own place was taken by Huskisson; Lord Lansdowne accepted, at the King's personal request, the Home Office; the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, which Canning had held, was, with some want of wisdom, considering the connection of the Canningites and Whigs, given to Mr. Herries, a Tory, an appointment which at once shook the administration. Another important nomination was that of the Duke of Wellington, who, immediately upon Canning's death, was without difficulty persuaded to resume the command of the army, showing how far personal enmity had been the cause of his previous resignation. The accession of these two Tories was at the time regarded as a sure augury for the early break up of the Cabinet. "Before six months are over," said Lord Anglesey, who had been the agent in securing Wellington's adhesion, "he will trip up all your heels." These forebodings were speedily fulfilled. A quarrel broke out about the appointment of a chairman to a Finance Committee which was to be formed at the opening of the session. The position naturally belonged to Mr. Herries, but Tierney and Huskisson appear to have secured the appointment of Lord Althorp without Mr. Herries' knowledge (Nov. 29). Both Huskisson and Herries sent in their resignation; it seemed impossible to keep them both, and Lord Goderich, unable to take a firm course in the matter, sent in his own resignation, which, after he had once weakly withdrawn it, was finally accepted (Jan. 8, 1828). After seven months of useless life the abortive ministry expired.

There was great difficulty in finding a successor for Goderich. Lord Harrowby declined the position. Huskisson, who was thought of, was supposed unable to lead the Commons, and the King, weary of compromise, determined to have recourse to the Tories, and, at the Wellington made Prime Minister. Jan. 1828. advice of Lord Lyndhurst, applied to the Duke of Wellington, whose supposed firmness of character inspired him with confidence. But even yet George attempted to postpone the final settlement of the Catholic question; the conditions he laid on Wellington were only to avoid a union with Lord Grey and to establish a lasting Government. The Duke therefore, in spite of his late conduct, asked and received the adhesion of Dudley, Palmerston, Huskisson, and some others. The Whigs of the late Government naturally retired, and in their place the Tories of Lord Liverpool's Government resumed office. In fact the attempt was made to reconstitute the Liverpool Cabinet. Mr. Huskisson declared to his constituents at Liverpool that the presence of so many Canningites was a guarantee that that minister's policy would be continued, but it was generally understood that the accession of Wellington to the premiership was in fact a Tory triumph, and such it speedily proved. In a very few months an opportunity, arising from a slight difference of opinion, enabled the Duke to insist upon the resignation of Mr. Huskisson; with him the rest of Canning's party left the ministry, and the Government was constituted entirely on a Tory basis (May).

The continuation of Canning's policy in some way or other was indeed almost a necessity, but the way in which his plans were completed by Wellington would hardly have satisfied Canning. He had died, leaving unfinished in the hands of his successors one of the most difficult diplomatic questions which he had undertaken. For six years a war, marked by extreme barbarity, had been carried on between the Turks and their Greek subjects. It will be remembered that on this point the Czar, who regarded himself as the natural protector of the Greeks, and who nourished the traditional desire of conquest on the side of Turkey, had found himself at variance with his own principles. His mind was divided between a wish to seize the opportunity offered of extending his influence over Turkey, and his love of legitimacy, which, as chief of the Holy Alliance, he constantly upheld, and which seemed to forbid him to take the part of insurgents against their legitimate sovereign. Lengthened conferences between the representatives of the sovereigns of Europe had been held at St. Petersburg, where France and Austria, bitterly opposed to the English policy, both with regard to the constitutionalists of Spain, and the acknowledgment of the independence of the South American colonies, had shown themselves eager upon the side of legitimacy, and where Austria especially had expressed a constant wish that the Greeks should be treated merely as insurgents. Supported therefore by the advice of Austria, and trusting to the well-known feeling in favour of the Mahomedan rule in Turkey which existed among the Tories in England, the Porte had refused to listen to any offers of mediation. Nor did it seem possible that the English ministry, anxious at once to prevent Russia from attacking Turkey and yet to save the Canning's diplomacy on the subject. Greeks, could intervene with any hope of honourable success. At last, in 1824, an opening occurred, and the hope was raised in Canning's mind that these two apparently contrary objects might be obtained. The provisional government in Greece in its despair made a formal appeal to the English, and showed itself quite as fearful of the warlike views of Russia as Turkey itself, in the belief that the outbreak of a war with Turkey would ensure its own immediate destruction. The English minister now thought it possible to bring the conferences, from which he had hitherto held quite aloof, under his own hand in London. The course of events tended to assist his plan. In 1825 the conferences at St. Petersburg broke up without action, the other powers having refused to join Russia in mediation. It was the conduct of Metternich, who dreaded before all things any tampering with the principles of legitimate sovereignty, and constantly abetted the obstinacy of the Porte, which had rendered the mediation futile. Thus thwarted in his plans, and feeling that his failure was due to Metternich, the Czar found a point of union with Canning in their dislike to the Austrian minister. England was represented at Constantinople by Sir Stratford Canning, and by his skilful management the ambassadors of the two courts there began to draw together; and at last, in November 1825, Canning had a triumphant proof of the success of his policy and of the importance of England, when all the ministers of the great powers in London confessed that they saw no way out of their difficulty but by English intervention. This favourable state of things was for the moment crossed by the death of Alexander (Dec. 1, 1825). The view which his successor Nicholas would take became in the last degree important; Canning, with great wisdom, chose Wellington—opposed indeed to his policy, but personally acceptable to the Russian Czar—as his special ambassador to take the royal congratulations upon the new Emperor's accession, and to continue the negotiations if possible. The appointment met with universal approbation; even Metternich believed that in the hands of Wellington the question must be settled in accordance with his views. It was with much surprise and anger that the Turks and Austrians heard that, on the 4th of April, an arrangement had been Protocol between England and Russia. April 1826. arrived at between the Courts of England and Russia. Taking advantage of the very moderate claims of the Greeks, who demanded no more than to be placed on the same footing as the Danubian Principalities, remaining as self-governing but dependent vassals of the Turkish Government, the English minister had succeeded in procuring the signature of a protocol embodying a plan for peaceful intervention.

The cause of Greek independence had already excited enthusiasm in England, many volunteers had joined the armies, and money had been subscribed for them. In this enthusiasm Canning in his heart fully joined; from early youth one of his favourite dreams had been the independence of that race to which as an ardent lover of the classics he felt he owed so much. But, true to his principles, and determined to maintain the strict neutrality of England, he had done his best to check any active assistance to the insurgents. According to his view it was necessary that England should intervene with clean hands, and as the friend of both parties. He was also in constant dread of the watchfulness of his Tory enemies, fearing lest any sign of too great favour to Russia should enable them entirely to thwart his plans. Nevertheless the knowledge of the approaching intervention gave a great impetus to the feeling in favour of Greece in England, and men and money were poured in considerable quantities into the peninsula. Lord Cochrane, the most dashing and adventurous of English sailors, had joined the insurgents with an American frigate, General Churchill took command of their armies, yet their destruction seemed imminent. The Egyptians, under Ibrahim Pasha, had come to the assistance of their enemies; their fleet, which was little better than a body of pirates, was swept from the sea; Missalonghi was for the third time taken, and in spite of General Churchill's efforts, Athens and the Acropolis had fallen. If the protocol was to be of any use the time for acting upon it had arrived. The allies received a great accession of strength when, after a visit of Canning to Paris in the spring of 1826, the French Government and the King himself entered heartily into their plans. It was plain that for the second time Canning had struck a severe blow at the principles of the Holy Alliance. In April 1827 the three powers proceeded to act with renewed strength. They demanded an immediate armistice, pointed out that the war did Turkey refuses the armistice demanded by the allies. April 1827. not seem to be approaching its conclusion, that it caused interference with the traffic of the world, and that in the interests of Europe it must cease. Almost of course the Turks, still trusting to Austria, and still unable to believe in the changed posture of England, rejected this demand. Therefore, in accordance with the expressed wish of the French, which no doubt agreed with Canning's own wishes, the protocol was changed The Treaty of London consequently signed. into a treaty known as the Treaty of London, signed on the 6th of July by Lord Dudley, Count Lieven, and the Prince of Polignac. In strict accordance with the terms of the protocol, it set forth the necessity of European action, it stated the terms which must be given to Greece, and which went no further than establishing its self-government under Turkish supremacy and saddled with a tribute to the Porte, and declared that none of the parties to the treaty sought territorial increase or commercial advantages. Fear of Russian aggrandizement was thus withdrawn, the intervention was at first to be purely friendly; but secret articles went on to say that, if the intervention were rejected, more stringent means must be used to oblige its acceptance both by one party and by the other, and that it would be necessary to show countenance to Greece, by acknowledging her as a belligerent power, and establishing consuls at her ports. It was not expressly stated what the further means of coercion were to be. A month was given to the Porte for consideration of the terms offered. If no answer, or an unfavourable answer came, the secret articles were to be put into execution. If the armistice was refused by the Turks, the allied squadrons then in the Mediterranean were to unite, to enter into friendly relations with the Greeks, and to intercept all ships freighted with men and arms destined to act against the Greeks, whether from Turkey or from Egypt. At the same time they were carefully to avoid hostilities. It is doubtful whether Canning could have succeeded in carrying out this his last measure of peace policy and non-intervention without having recourse to war. When the affair had reached this point he died, and the completion of his work fell into weaker and less competent hands.

In August, a joint note having been again sent, and all satisfactory answer having been entirely refused by Reis Effendi, the Turkish minister, consuls were appointed according to the treaty, and the fleets ordered to compel the armistice. The execution of this delicate duty was intrusted to Admiral Codrington on the part of the English, to the French Admiral de Rigny, and to Count Heyden, who commanded the Russian fleet. Twenty-eight Turkish and Egyptian ships of war lay in Navarino Bay awaiting fresh reinforcements from Egypt. Had the union taken place, the combined fleets of Turkey and Egypt would have entirely destroyed the Greek Government then in the Ionian Islands, and have swept away what remained of the Greek fleet. The allies appeared before Navarino, explained to Ibrahim Pasha, who was in command, the negotiations which were proceeding, and declared that the Turkish fleet should not sail. Ibrahim, nothing daunted, while asserting that he would take orders from his own sovereign only, pledged himself, on the 25th of September, that the fleet should remain quiet for twenty days to enable him to receive an answer from Constantinople. In spite of this promise, Codrington, who had withdrawn, heard on the 1st of October that the fleet had left harbour. He at once went to meet it, and turned back the first squadron he encountered. On the 13th the combined fleets were in front of Navarino. Then Ibrahim in anger let loose his troops on the wretched people, and before the eyes of the allies terrible scenes of barbarity were enacted. Codrington, though with difficulty, kept himself in restraint, but on the 20th his fleet sailed into the harbour, to say that they would convoy the Turkish ships to Turkey, the Egyptian ships to Egypt. They found the Turks and Egyptians Battle of Navarino. Oct. 20, 1827. drawn up in the form of a horseshoe and ready for battle. Strict orders were given not to fire unless the enemy proceeded to hostilities, and Codrington, bringing his ship close to that of the Turkish admiral, opened communications with him. Meanwhile, a boat from the Dartmouth was fired upon, and a cannon shot was fired against the French flagship. In spite of this Codrington went on parleying till his pilot was shot by his side and a broadside fired upon his ship. The battle then began in earnest, and in four hours the hostile fleet was entirely destroyed.

The news of the victory was received with delight in France and Russia, and at first with triumph in England, where at the instant Sir Edward Codrington met with the full approval of the Government. None the less did it present to the weak and tottering Cabinet of Lord Goderich difficulties of the gravest kind. The peaceful policy of their late chief had ended in a fierce and destructive battle; they hardly knew whether to accept the whole responsibility of it or not. At all events they did not follow up the blow or act with any vigour under the circumstances. The effect of this delay was to strengthen in Constantinople the belief that the union between the three powers was not hearty, and to encourage the Turks in their obstinacy. The foreign merchants in Constantinople were apprehended, the Porte determined on war, demanding that the allies should refrain entirely from interfering on the Greek question, pay the fleet, and indemnify the Sultan for his losses. In spite of the efforts of the ambassadors, before they had left Constantinople, which they did upon the 8th of December, nothing could be gained beyond an offer of a general amnesty to the Greeks. Had the allied fleets proceeded at once to Constantinople, which was the wish both of Sir Stratford Canning and of Codrington, it is probable that they might have put an end to the war with Greece, and have succeeded in carrying out at least one part of the London Treaty, by saving Turkey from the invasion of Russia, which now became inevitable. As it was, England had in fact only handed the country up, weakened by the loss of its fleet, to the hands Wellington retains his alliance with Turkey. 1828. of that power. The weakness of the Goderich Government prevented such efficient action, and the accession of Wellington to office rendered it still more impossible. True to his Tory traditions, while pretending to continue the policy of Canning, he fell back upon the words of the London Treaty, which were no doubt intended to be pacific. The speech at the opening of Parliament, on the 29th of January 1828, mentioned the battle of Navarino in somewhat disparaging terms as "the untoward event," which it was hoped would not be followed by further hostilities, and the Duke himself declared that the preservation of the Ottoman Porte as an independent and powerful state was necessary to the wellbeing of this country. In fact, he suffered the matter again to fall back into negotiations. England kept out of war, and Russia was allowed to overrun Turkey, to take Adrianople (Aug. 20, 1828), and from thence to dictate terms which left the Porte for ten years at least defenceless in their hands. Among the terms demanded by Russia was necessarily the independence of Greece. The limits were arranged by the three powers in London. Neither Turkey nor Greece were allowed a voice in the matter; the frontiers were fixed, and a monarchical form of government established; the crown for a while went begging; it was declined by the Saxon Prince John, and by Prince Leopold (May 1830), subsequently King of the Belgians, nor was it till the year 1832 that Otho of Bavaria, a lad of eighteen, was found to undertake a post which offered almost insuperable difficulties and but very little honour.

The Duke of Wellington had been no doubt first called to the Premiership for the purpose of continuing as far as possible the system of the Tories. His conduct as head of the Government was so peculiar that it would scarcely have been tolerated in a less influential man. He regarded his office as he would have regarded a military command,—a trust not lightly to be laid down. He fought till his opponents became irresistible and then suddenly retreated, without thinking it necessary to resign office on account of his defeat. This view of his duty had the same practical results as the most determined place-hunting, and reduced his Government to that most dangerous form of weakness which consists in driving opposition to irresistible extremes, and then suddenly yielding to pressure. This peculiar tendency to give up his opinion and yet retain office was visible at the very outset. He had taken the Premiership, although a few months before he had declared himself wholly unfit for it; he had formed a mixed Government, though his views and Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. May 1828. those of the King were in favour of a united one. His next concession was upon the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. In the first session of 1828, Lord John Russell moved for a Committee upon those Acts. Canning had always withstood their repeal; the Duke and Mr. Peel were known to share the late minister's opinion. But when a majority of forty-four in a full House decided in favour of Lord John Russell's Committee, the leaders of the Government accepted their decision, and declared themselves satisfied with the substitution of a declaration that the incoming office-holder would do nothing to injure the Church, instead of the old sacramental test. After a lengthened and bitter opposition, led by Lord Eldon in the Upper House, the Bill was carried. The old Chancellor's view of the conduct of Government was very unfavourable. "They began in the Commons," he said, "by opposition, and then ran away like a parcel of cowards."

The second important Bill of the session was the Corn Bill, to be substituted for that which Wellington had himself succeeded in throwing out in the preceding session. Here again he yielded to circumstances. Entirely leaving his previous standing-ground, the Premier now supported the Bill on exactly the same principle of duties on a graduated scale as that he had previously thwarted. The fixed point in the scale was a few shillings higher, but in principle the Bill was identical.

No doubt the necessity for such concessions was very irksome to the Duke, and, as before mentioned, an opportunity soon occurred for ridding himself of the more liberal members of his Cabinet, whose pressure he had been unable to resist. On a trivial question as to the disposition of the seats of two disfranchised boroughs Huskisson had thought it his duty to vote against his colleagues. It had been before settled that the question should not be a Cabinet one; but Huskisson, while still under excitement, thought it right to send the Duke a letter offering to retire should the Premier wish it. The Duke seized his opportunity, treated the letter as an absolute resignation, would listen to no explanation, and obliged Huskisson to resign. With him went Palmerston, Dudley, Lamb, and Grant; their places were filled with Tories, and the Government seemed at length thoroughly homogeneous.

Yet the establishment of this Tory Cabinet was followed almost immediately by a far greater concession than any of the preceding ones, in the passage of the Catholic Emancipation Bill. The Government had been constituted as far as possible on a Protestant basis. It was known that the King was strong in his anti-Catholic propensities. Although a small majority in the Commons had, on the 8th of May, declared in favour of bringing the question to a settlement, and although both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister had confessed, while opposing the motion successfully in the Lords, that they saw no way at present out of the great difficulty, thereby apparently implying a wish for a settlement, the declarations both of Wellington and of Peel gave little hope of any relaxation of the disabilities. But meanwhile events were occurring which rendered some settlement obviously necessary. There was indeed a general and growing feeling that a question which in the last thirty-five years had ruined more than one Cabinet, which was in fact uppermost in all men's minds at the time of every new ministerial arrangement, and which had kept Ireland permanently uneasy, could no longer be left uncertain. Events were now occurring in Ireland which would have rendered the further postponement of the settlement little short of madness.

The agitation in that country, which had almost subsided during the administration of Canning, a well-known supporter of the Catholic claims, and which had only slightly revived during Goderich's administration, broke out again in full force when the hostile ministry of Wellington came into office. The law for the suppression of the Association would expire in the coming July, and meanwhile, keeping within the limits of the law, for all practical purposes the organization remained alive. The last general election had opened the eyes of the leaders of the Association to a new and irresistible source of power; it had proved that the power of the priests was in some cases stronger than that of the landlords. In their eagerness to secure their parliamentary influence, the landlords had followed the disastrous plan of breaking up their estates into small forty shilling freeholds, taking advantage of the low franchise which existed in Ireland. Several instances had occurred in which the tenantry had broken loose from their landlords, and at Waterford, among other places, they had proved themselves too strong even for the great Beresford interest. What had then been done in a few instances it was the intention of the Association to carry out in a large scale, and great efforts were made to secure the votes of those who were known as the Irish "forties" in the coming general election. The anger of the proprietors thus assaulted in their strongholds was very great, and class animosity reached a terrible pitch. The power of the Association was soon brought to the test. With the rest of the Canningites, Grant, President of the Board of Trade, had resigned; his place had been given to Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, member for Clare, whose re-election thus became necessary. Aware that, even if they succeeded in excluding the Government candidate, the election of a Protestant representative would be of no great value to them, the Association determined to strike a great blow, Election of O'Connell for Clare. June 1828. and to bring forward O'Connell himself to dispute Mr. Fitzgerald's seat. His triumph was complete; after a few days' polling Mr. Fitzgerald withdrew. But more wonderful and more terrible than his mere success was the admirable discipline and order with which it was obtained. Lord Palmerston thus narrates the event:—"The event was dramatic and somewhat sublime. The Prime Minister of England tells the Catholics in his speech in the House of Lords that if they will only be perfectly quiet for a few years, cease to urge their claims, and let people forget the question entirely, then after a few years perhaps something may be done for them. They reply to this advice, within a few weeks after it is given, by raising the population of a whole province like one man, keeping them within the strictest obedience to the law, and by strictly legal and constitutional means hurling from his seat in the representation one of the Cabinet ministers of the King. There were 30,000 Irish peasants in and about Ennis in sultry July, and not a drunken man among them, or only one, and he an Englishman and a Protestant, O'Connell's own coachman, whom O'Connell had committed upon his own deposition for a breach of the peace. No Irishman ever stirs a mile from his house without a stick, but not a stick was to be seen at the election. One hundred and forty priests were brought from other places to harangue the people from morning to night, and to go round to the several parishes to exhort and bring up voters.... All passed off quietly. The population of the adjoining counties was on the move, and large bodies had actually advanced in echelon, as it were, closing in upon Ennis, the people of one village going on to the next, and those of that next advancing to a nearer station, and so on." The sheriff and his assessor declared that the election was legal, the only obstacle to O'Connell's appearance in the House being the oaths he would have to take on his admittance. It was determined to follow up the success. O'Connell declared that Catholic representatives must be elected for all the counties of Ireland. The funds of the Association, which assumed its old form in July on the expiration of the suppression law, were partially devoted to the support of those on whom the vengeance of the landlords fell; and not content with declaring the necessity of the election of Catholic members, the Association drew up certain pledges to be required of all future Catholic candidates. These consisted in a promise to be the determined opponents of the ministry of Wellington and Peel till it granted Catholic emancipation, to support religious and civil liberty, to procure a repeal of the Subletting Act (which was an attempt to restrain the minute subdivision of property), and to support a reform of Parliament.

The power the Association had already exhibited, and its determination to have those representatives whom it should elect thus closely bound to pursue the line of conduct it dictated, much increased the Influence of the Association. dread with which it was regarded. Symptoms were already visible of the influence it might exert; only ten days after the establishment of the pledges (Aug. 2), Mr. Dawson, Peel's brother-in-law, and himself in the Administration, after a lively picture of the enormous power of the Association, concluded with the unexpected assertion, that as this power could not be crushed it ought to be conciliated. Coming from such a source the assertion was received as a certain proof that the cause of the Catholics was winning its way. Consequently the efforts of the Association were pressed forward with redoubled zeal. Parochial clubs were established, and great aggregate meetings held in various parts of Ireland. Mr. Shiel, one of its most ardent supporters, thus describes the condition of Ireland under its influence:—"Does not a tremendous organization extend over the whole island? Have not all the natural bonds by which men are tied together been broken and burst asunder? Are not all the relations of society which exist elsewhere gone? Has not property lost its influence? Has not rank been stripped of the respect which should belong to it? Has not an internal government grown up, which, gradually superseding the legitimate authorities, has armed itself with a complete domination? Is it nothing that the whole body of the clergy are alienated from the State, and that the Catholic gentry and peasantry and priesthood are all combined in one vast confederacy?" His description was true; the Association was omnipotent, and in nothing did it show its power so much as in the complete restraint it held over the excitable people. Faction and faction fights disappeared; crime of a graver sort almost vanished; and though the people were drilled and brought into something resembling military organization, although they were eager to know against whom they were to fight, the influence of the Association restrained them from all demonstrations likely to provoke hostilities, and on one occasion a few words from O'Connell at once broke up and dispersed a body of 50,000 men. This was the more admirable as the temper of the Protestants had naturally been roused, and Brunswick clubs had sprung up, to take the place of the Orange organization, which do not seem to have been as self-restrained as the Catholics. During the whole of this time the Duke was painfully making up his mind to his retreat. The peculiarity of his action was that he became absolutely silent; so complete was his silence, that Mr. Shiel thus describes the situation:—"The minister folds his arms as if he were a mere indifferent observer, and the terrific contest between Protestant and Catholic only afforded him a spectacle for the amusement of his official leisure; he sits as if two gladiators were crossing their swords for his gratification: the Cabinet seems to be little better than a box in a theatre from which his Majesty's ministers may survey the Resignation of Lord Anglesey. Jan. 1829. business of blood." Indeed, so strangely reticent was the Duke, that he ceased to correspond at all with his Lord Lieutenant, the Marquis of Anglesey. Uninstructed from home, Lord Anglesey, who was a Liberal, and inclined to the emancipation, naturally followed the dictates of his own opinions, and rendered the conduct of the Government almost treacherous from the indirect support he gave to the Liberals, while his chief in London was supporting the opposite party. The inevitable consequence was that he shortly committed an indiscretion which necessitated his recall. His place was taken by the Duke of Northumberland, a strong Tory.

Peel, the most influential member of the ministry next to the Premier, had already, since the Clare election, arrived at the conclusion that the solution of the question could no longer be postponed, and that only one form of solution was possible. The election of Catholics, while still unable to sit in Parliament, would deprive Ireland of its representation. So important an event as O'Connell's election could not possibly pass unnoticed and the question be left unmoved. With the present House a high-handed repression of the Association was impossible; were it attempted by a new House a civil war was inevitable: there remained but a third course—to give way. Early in August 1828, Peel had stated this opinion forcibly to the Duke, and told him that he considered that an attempt to settle the Catholic question was a lesser evil than to continue to leave it open; at the same time he wished himself to resign, and to leave the bringing in of the measure to other hands. Although aware of the penalty he should be called upon to pay for this change of opinion, the attacks to which he should be subject, and the loss of friends, he was at length persuaded by Wellington, who felt it impossible to carry on the Government without him, to retain his place. Peel's representations had had their effect upon the Duke's mind, and he was by degrees becoming convinced that further obstruction was impossible. During the autumn he learned to see that his choice lay between the reconquest of Ireland, the repeal of the Union, or the emancipation of the Catholics. He could not hesitate which of the three to choose. But though his own mind and that of his colleague were made up, great difficulties lay in the way of the execution of their plans, the chief of which was the temper of the King, who had now begun to declare that he, like his father, was troubled with conscientious scruples. At length, in January, the King consented that the question should be brought before the Cabinet. The two ministers found little or no opposition, and it was determined to take in hand the final settlement of the question. Accordingly, in the royal speech at the opening of Parliament (Feb. 5), it was stated that measures must first of all be taken to establish authority by the destruction of the Association, and that then the whole condition of Ireland should be taken into consideration, with a view to altering the laws so as to remove civil disabilities from his Majesty's Catholic subjects. The speech came as an unexpected blow to the high Tories, but immediate discussion was postponed at the request of the ministry till the actual Bill could be introduced in its completed form. Meanwhile the preliminary measure for the destruction of the Association was brought in. Its necessity was however forestalled by the clever tactics of the Irish, who dissolved their Association before the Bill obtained the force of law. Having declared his change of opinion, Peel, who throughout acted as honourably as circumstances would allow, thought it incumbent on him to resign his seat for Oxford, which he no doubt owed chiefly to his supposed anti-Catholic views. The events of the election proved that he was right, the seat was contested by Sir Robert Inglis, who was elected by a considerable majority. Peel found a seat at Westbury.

The coast seemed now clear for the great measure, but the King made a final stand. The very day before the Bill was to be introduced (March 4), he sent unexpectedly for Wellington, Lyndhurst, and Peel, declared he had been misunderstood, withdrew his sanction, and asked what they now intended to do about Ireland. In fact he had been incessantly worked on by the Tory Lords who had access to him; and, weak and miserable, apparently thought that the fear of offending him might even yet postpone the measure. Peel at once declared that nothing remained for him but to resign. The Duke and the Chancellor expressed the same intention, and they left the presence of the King, who bade them a most friendly farewell, in the belief that the ministry was at an end. Late at night Wellington received a letter, in which the King said that he was convinced of the impossibility of forming another ministry, and begged them to remain. Knowing his weak character, it was only on receiving express leave to declare that the measure was brought in with his consent that they agreed to remain, and it was with the assertion that he was acting in full accordance with the King's wishes that Peel began his speech. The proposed Bill Introduction of the Bill. March 5, 1829. was of a sweeping but simple character. It substituted a new form of oath for the old oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and abjuration; thus, if a Catholic bound himself to support the State and not injure the Church, he could sit in either House of Parliament, had a perfect equality with his Protestant neighbours, and was eligible for all offices, civil, military, or municipal, with the exception of the office of Regent, of Lord Chancellor, of Viceroy of Ireland, or royal commissioner of the General Assembly of Scotland. From offices connected with the Church, or participation in Church patronage, he was naturally excluded. The second point of the Bill was the position to be occupied by the Roman Church. It was to be left as a dissenting community, unendowed and unrestricted, but the use of episcopal titles, the increase of monks, and the introduction of more Jesuits, were forbidden. This Bill for the remission of all restrictions was to be coupled with another for the establishment of certain securities, the chief of which consisted in the raising of the franchise to £10. In a long and careful speech Peel explained his views, and vindicated his change of policy. The same course was pursued by Wellington in the Upper House, where he alleged that the chief grounds for his present conduct was his horror of civil war, which he regarded as inevitable. "I am one of those who have probably passed a longer period of my life engaged in war than most men, and principally, I may say, in civil war, and I must say this, that if I could avoid by any sacrifice whatever even one month of civil war in the country to which I am attached, I would sacrifice my life in order to do it. There is nothing which disturbs property and wellbeing so much, which so deteriorates character as civil war, and that, my Lords, would have been the event to which we must have looked, that the means to which we must have had recourse." As was natural, there was a strong opposition, but in both Houses Canningites, Whigs, and Ministerialists combined to swell the majority; on the first reading it numbered 188, on the second 180. Not one amendment was carried in Committee, and the Bill finally passed by a majority of 178 in a House of 452. In the The Bill passed. April 1829. House of Lords it was as favourably received, and on the 10th of April it was passed on the third reading by 213 to 209. There was yet one more struggle, in which the King played a pitiful part. Lord Eldon relates two interviews he had with him, in which George seemed inclined to deny that he had ever authorized his ministers to bring in the Bill, and to represent himself as forced to consent by repeated threats of resignation. Lord Eldon was honest enough to say, after he had seen written evidence of the fact, that the King's consent had been given, and that it could not now be withdrawn, and the interview closed in the midst of petulant and childish exclamations of anger on the part of the King. Lord Eldon probably hoped that in spite of what he had said there might be still some delay, but the royal assent was at once given, and the Bill became law on the 14th of April.

The Bill for the disfranchisement of the forty shilling freeholders passed at the same time as the Catholic Emancipation Bill, and received the royal assent with it. The conduct of O'Connell, who quietly allowed the passing of this Bill, caused much surprise. "The forties" had been his best supporters, he had pledged himself in the strongest language to support their claims, but he quietly allowed them to be disfranchised. It was strange how little commotion so sweeping a measure produced. A few of the more advanced reformers of England regarded it as an enormous price paid for a still greater advantage. But in fact the quarrel had been rapidly assuming the form of a division of races, and the English Catholics, without whom the measure could not have been carried, were far more anxious for the equality of their Church than for the enlargement of Irish liberty. To O'Connell the question assumed a different shape. Although he repeatedly declared that the passing of the Bill would quiet Ireland, he by no means intended that such should be the case. With him the question was far more Irish than Catholic, as was soon made evident by his conduct. He presented himself to take his seat in Parliament (May 15), and offered to take the new oath, but as he had been elected while the old law was in force, it was held that he was still under its requirements. With excellent temper and ability he argued his case, which was however given against him, and a new writ for Clare was issued. His return was unopposed (July 30), yet he allowed himself the utmost freedom of language, abused with all the powers of his invective the English Government, and gave it clearly to be understood that he meant to continue the struggle till it should end in the repeal of the Union. These preliminary operations took so much time that it was not till the next session that he could take his seat. From this time onwards it is impossible to regard him as the champion of a good cause; he sank into the position of a demagogue, exciting the people for an impracticable object, which he must have known no English statesman or English Parliament could possibly grant.

The interest of this Catholic Bill had been so absorbing that little else had been thought of, but when that obstacle was once cleared away, there was room to consider what was equally important, the foreign policy of the Government, in which there was much to excite the anger of the Liberal party, and to raise a belief that where Wellington could act without pressure his sympathies were in accordance with the system of Castlereagh rather than with that of Canning. While holding strictly to the principle of non-intervention, he appeared to use it so as to throw its advantages almost entirely upon the side of arbitrary power. It was the affairs of Portugal, of Greece, and of France which chiefly required his attention.

John VI. had at length come back from South America to attempt to establish his power in Portugal in 1821. During his absence Brazil declared itself independent, and put Don Pedro, John's son, upon the throne with the title of Emperor. On the death of John in 1826, Don Pedro was called to the throne of Portugal also. He had to choose between his South American and his European dominions. He preferred to remain in Brazil. He therefore gave a constitution to his Portuguese subjects, and then abdicated in favour of his young daughter Maria. For a while his sister acted as Regent, but in February 1828 Don Pedro thought it better to quiet his ambitious brother Miguel by appointing him Regent, and guardian of his niece, to whom he was to be ultimately married. Miguel always declared his intention, as was of course his duty, to uphold the constitution, which had been supported by English troops sent, it will be remembered, by orders of Canning, but had been opposed by a strong party of absolutists, and had not produced any marked improvement in the condition of the country. The priests, the nobility, and the soldiery were deeply infected with dislike to the constitution. In January 1828, just after Wellington had assumed the reins of power, Miguel had visited England for the purpose, it was understood, of studying the working of the constitution, and had voluntarily declared that if he violated the constitution in his own country he should be a perjured usurper. After some delay he accepted the constitutional oath, but with circumstances which made it doubtful even then whether he intended to keep it. So obvious were the signs of his intention to usurp the throne, that when Wellington determined to recall the English troops as though their duty was now completed, the English ambassador on his own authority retained them. Their retention was but temporary. On the 2nd of April they were recalled, although the Chamber of Deputies had been suddenly dissolved in the middle of March; for Wellington, clinging to the narrowest interpretation of the principle of non-intervention, held that the troops were sent to guard Portugal against foreign invasion, and not to be used in party quarrels. Their departure was almost immediately followed by open riots in favour of the absolutists. Restrained for a short time by the threat that all the ambassadors would leave his Court, on the 3rd of May Miguel Miguel usurps the throne. May 1828. began to throw away disguise. He summoned the three ancient estates of the realm instead of the new constitutional Parliament, and signed the decree as King Miguel I. This act of usurpation was followed by the withdrawal of all the ministers except those of Spain and Rome. A violent reaction set in, the uneducated masses, the aristocracy, and the clergy had it all their own way, and raised a general cry against the Freemasons, as they were pleased to call the Liberal party. While Miguel was planning his usurpation of the throne the act of abdication on the part of Don Pedro was finally completed, and the young Queen set sail for Europe. She was at first intended to visit her uncle the Emperor of Austria; but the Queen Maria acknowledged in England. Sept. 1828. news of what had happened in Portugal induced her guardians to bring her to England, where she was received with all the honour due to a queen both by the ministers Wellington and Aberdeen, and by King George himself. Meanwhile the government of the reactionists in Portugal had been marked by much violence and contempt of law. In the beginning of October, in the prisons of Lisbon alone, there were 2400 prisoners, of whom 1600 were confined for political crimes. The total number of prisoners throughout the kingdom amounted to upwards of 15,000, among whom were forty-two members of the Chamber of Peers and seven members of the Chamber of Deputies; and so unrestrained was the wickedness of Miguel that he even attempted the life of his sister, the late Regent, because she refused to give up to him some of her jewels.

The withdrawal of the troops from Lisbon on the one hand, and the recall of the English minister and the acknowledgment of the young Queen on the other, appeared to be in accordance with the strictest rules of neutrality. At the same time it was obvious that that neutrality as yet had been entirely in favour of Don Miguel. The principle had yet to be put to harder trials; a number of Portuguese refugees of the constitutional party were assembled in England, headed by the Marquis Palmella, the Portuguese ambassador, and General Saldanha, late constitutional War Minister. Besides their continental dominions, the Portuguese possessed the islands of the Azores; and although the islands had declared for Donna Maria, and therefore might be supposed to be under the protection of the English, Miguel had been allowed to capture Madeira, and had attempted, though unsuccessfully, a similar attack upon Terceira. In expectation of a repetition of this effort, application was made to the Portuguese in England for assistance. A body of between 3000 and 4000 men, the relics of an insurgent army which had attempted in vain to prevent Miguel's usurpation, had been kept together at Plymouth, but the representations of the usurper had been listened to, and the Duke had ordered that they should be distributed throughout England. Rather than submit to this, Palmella proposed to send them to Brazil; but Wellington, mistrusting their intentions when once they had left England, declared his intention of placing them under the escort of the English fleet. On receiving the application from Terceira, Palmella, seeing an opportunity for employing his countrymen usefully, determined to send them thither, but unarmed, to avoid any breach of the neutrality of England; and, in spite of the avowed intention of Wellington to prevent this step by force, in the beginning of January 1829 the expedition actually sailed under Saldanha. Some English frigates were sent to prevent a landing, and fired upon the leading vessel. Saldanha then retired to Brest. Thus in the eyes of the Liberals not only had the Duke been impartial, but he had fired upon an expedition fitted out in favour of a sovereign acknowledged by and at peace with England, and who intended to make good her possession of an island of which she was at the moment actually Queen. Such an interpretation of the duties of neutrality, especially considering the bitter tyranny under which Portugal was groaning, afforded good grounds for the anger of the English Liberal party.

In the affairs of Greece the same determination under no circumstances to draw the sword was obvious. While the French sent an army to the Morea and rescued the peninsula from the Turks, and while Russia pursued her victorious course towards Constantinople, the English clung tenaciously to the peaceful side of the Treaty of London. Their negotiations were so far successful that Russia consented not to act as a belligerent in the Mediterranean, but the power of Turkey was none the less annihilated from the north. Meanwhile Wellington seemed chiefly bent in restraining the French from advancing beyond the Morea, and in curtailing as far as possible the limits which the powers intended ultimately to fix for the new kingdom of Greece.

In respect to France the effect of the sympathies of the English Government were perhaps rather fancied than real. The reactionary tendencies of Charles X.'s minister, M. de VillÈle, and the contest in which he had engaged with the press had excited so much discontent, that the ministry had been compelled to resign in January 1827. There were in France three parties, the moderate royalists, of which VillÈle was nominally representative, the ultra-royalists, and the liberals. On VillÈle's retirement a colourless and inefficient ministry was called to office, and found itself opposed by a coalition between the liberals and the ultras. At the beginning Supposed influence of Wellington in Polignac's appointment. of 1829 the most important and able of the ministers, De Peyronnet, retired. It was supposed that his resignation would break up the ministry, unless it was much strengthened by the admission of some new element; the arrival from London of Prince Polignac, a friend of Wellington and a strong royalist, was thought to mean that the English minister was using his influence to insist that the required strength should be derived from the introduction of a strong royalist element, and that an attempt should be made to rule France upon more strictly monarchical principles. The ministry however for the moment continued unchanged, but found itself in a complete minority in the Chamber of Deputies, and was defeated in an attempt to reform the departmental and municipal governments. Its plan ostensibly aimed at reducing the power of the prefects, who were government nominees, by the establishment of municipal councils, but in fact it secured the ascendancy of the more aristocratic part of the nation in the local government by rendering a high qualification necessary for the electors to these councils. So obviously inefficient had the ministry proved itself to carry on the business of the state, that immediately on the close of the session it was dismissed. But the King had no idea of replacing it by a more liberal Cabinet; his thoughts turned rather towards repression, and he summoned the ultra-royalists to his ministry. While the new appointments were received with absolute distrust and dislike in France, they met with nothing but praise from the London journals; so clear did the connection between the Cabinets of the two countries appear, that the nickname of the Wellington Ministry was given to Polignac's administration.

It was a time of much depression both in trade and agriculture, and general discontent became prevalent. The mistrust with which the ministry was regarded was strengthened by the repeated and not always successful press prosecutions which were undertaken. It was even feared that, as the Chamber of Deputies was certainly hostile to the ministry, some attempt would be made to set aside the charter and to obtain a more favourable Chamber by unconstitutional means. But things had not yet reached that pass. The old Chamber was quietly opened on the 2nd of March with a speech in which the King, in the usual language of a constitutional ruler intending to have recourse to unconstitutional means of repression, after expatiating on the excellent condition of the country, went on to assert that if obstacles to the Government should arise, which he as yet did not foresee, he should find strength to overcome them in the loyalty of his people. The covert threat was not lost upon his audience; the address moved in the Lower House expressed the prevailing mistrust. Concurrence between the sovereign and the interests of his people was, it declared, the necessary condition for the good working of the charter; that sympathy was now broken, the administration had acted, and was continuing to act, as though the people were disaffected. The King was intreated to choose between his faithful Parliament and these evil counsellors. Charles did not refuse to receive the address, but stated in reply to it, that though grieved to hear that sympathy between himself and his people no longer existed, he had no intention of receding from his former view. The next day the Chamber was summarily prorogued, the first instance since the restoration of so strong a measure, and in May dissolved, a new Parliament being summoned for August. The elections went constantly against the Government, in spite of an attempt to rouse the love of glory in the people by an expedition to Algiers, and of a personal address by the King, who begged the electors to rally round him for the support of the royal prerogative. "It is your King who requires this of you, it is as a father he summons you, do your duty and I will do mine," were his closing words.

Their ill success in the elections reduced the ministers to a dilemma. They must either resign or again meet a hostile Parliament, or (a third alternative) proceed in some unconstitutional way. To all outward appearance they intended to pursue the second course, and the deputies actually set out on their journey towards Paris. Polignac and his friends had hoped to purchase leave to carry on the Government in their own way by introducing a popular budget, while the eyes of the people were dazzled by the military successes in Algiers. Finding this out of the question, at the last hour they determined upon an unconstitutional act. On the 21st of July, three ordinances were introduced to the Council, with an explanatory memorial. This memorial declared that the charter contained no promise of protection to the periodical press, and that the periodical press had been injurious, especially to the military affairs in Algiers, and that it must therefore be suppressed; while the highest duty of Government (its own preservation) authorized the setting aside of the charter, when all efforts to secure a favourable house had been exhausted in vain. The three ordinances suspended the liberty of the periodical press, dissolved the Chamber of Deputies, and altered, to suit the views of the Court, the structure of the chamber hereafter to be chosen.

The ordinances were kept a profound secret, and were given to the Moniteur to publish at midnight on the 25th of July. Their effect was an immediate outbreak, headed by the opposition newspaper editors. A protest, signed by forty-four of them, was issued on the 26th, declaring that the Government had forfeited its right to obedience. There was a panic on the Exchange, and all things promised a revolution, the success of which could scarcely be doubtful, as the army was deeply infected with disaffection, and there were not more than 6000 trustworthy troops, under the command of Marmont, himself inclined to constitutional views. However, the ministry seem to have persuaded themselves that the effervescence was temporary, and on the 27th an attempt was made to suppress the protest of the press; the printing offices were closed, and while the police hammered at the doors unaided by the lookers-on, the papers were distributed by thousands from the upper windows. The case even came before one of the courts of law, as one of the printers was sued for breach of contract for refusing to print; the Tribunal of Commerce declared that the ordinance, being against the charter, could not be binding. So highly-strung a state of public feeling could not last long. Some deputies had assembled to discuss how they should act; the electors of Paris sent to them, and begged them to assume the command of the movement, asserting that the insurrection was already begun, the armourers' shops had been cleared, and that other signs of immediate revolution were visible. The deputies postponed their reply till the following morning; by that time the people had taken the law into their own hands. On all sides barricades were being rapidly thrown up; the HÔtel de Ville was seized, the tricolour flag hoisted, and the tocsin rang, while the troops were distributed in various parts of the town. Marmont, who knew the temper of the army, despatched a messenger to the King at St. Cloud to urge upon him the necessity of concession. The ministry was in permanent session in the Tuileries, and a state of siege having been declared, Marmont became head of the Government. With him the populace tried to treat. Himself inclined to peace, he could only answer that his orders were to use force. He however offered to send another messenger to St. Cloud; the reply brought was to concentrate his forces, and to act with masses. The answer, which implied the suppression of the revolt at all hazards, was quite useless—the soldiers had rapidly deserted; those who kept to their allegiance had not been supplied with food, and weary and dispirited, were gradually withdrawn. The uproar continued all night, and fresh barricades were hourly springing up. On the 29th the same scenes continued, the troops constantly fraternizing more and more with the mob, and in the afternoon Marmont found himself obliged to march with all the Abdication of Charles X. troops he could collect to St. Cloud to secure the safety of the King. It seems that up to that evening Charles and his courtiers still believed that they had only an Émeute to encounter, but the next day, as no good news arrived, the King found himself gradually deserted, and at three in the morning of the last day of July himself drove off. When he heard that Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, had accepted the post of Lieutenant of the kingdom, he made a final effort to save his dynasty by abdicating in favour of his grandson, the Duke of Berri. The step was entirely fruitless; he was recommended to withdraw quietly. He took the advice, repaired to Cherbourg, and arrived at Spithead on the 17th of August. After some residence at Lulworth, Charles accepted the hospitality of the English King, who had offered him the use of Holyrood House.

In the midst of this revolution, George IV., who had for some years been seriously ill, and who since the trial of his wife had withdrawn himself much from public observation, died. His danger had been hidden from the people, probably at his own request. But on the 26th of June he died, a victim to a complication of diseases which had rendered his later years miserable.

Throughout the last session of the reign Wellington had occupied a position which could not long be maintained. There was no doubt that an earnest effort might immediately have driven his administration from office. He had broken with the old high Tories by the Catholic Emancipation and by his financial policy. He had quarrelled with the Canningites by insisting upon the resignation of Huskisson. He had indeed made His isolated position. some approaches towards the Whigs, and admitted both Scarlet and Lord Roslin to office, but his views rendered it impossible that any real union with them should be thought of. He thus stood absolutely alone, allowed to remain in office chiefly because men thought him the only minister fit to deal with the vacillating and unprincipled King, and because a speedy change on George's death was expected. Consequently the session was passed in somewhat meaningless discussions, and in attacks to which the arbitrary and self-confident character of Wellington laid him open. Though the settlement of Greece was finally completed, his foreign policy, as we have seen, which seemed to aim at little else than at keeping things exactly as they were, met with little approbation. Attacks against the press in which he engaged seemed at once somewhat to lower his dignity, and to give openings for the assaults of the Liberals. His financial measures, although he effected a saving of upwards of a million in the payment of the Civil Service, diminished but little the weight of taxation, while continued disturbances in Ireland, and widespread discontent and misery among the working-classes, especially in the silk trade, threw gloom over all the country.

---