ONE:But the question of the restrictions upon Dissenters was again taken up by Lord Stanhope, in 1811. On the 21st of March he presented to the House of Lords a short Bill "For the better securing the liberty of conscience." It had the same fate as his former ones. Ministers seemed rather inclined to abridge the liberty of conscience, for immediately afterwards, namely, on the 9th of May, Lord Sidmouth brought in a Bill to limit the granting of licences to preach, asserting that this licence was made use of by ignorant and unfit persons, because having such a licence exempted them from serving in the militia, on juries, etc. The Bill excited great alarm amongst the Dissenters, and Lord Stanhope and Lord Grey, on the 17th of the month, when Lord Sidmouth moved for the second reading of the Bill, prayed for some time to be allowed for the expression of public opinion. The second reading was, accordingly, deferred till the 21st, by which time a flock of petitions came up against it, one of which was signed by four thousand persons. Lord Erskine said that these petitions were not a tenth part of what would be presented, if time were afforded for the purpose; and he ridiculed the idea of persons obtaining exemption from serving in the militia by merely taking out licences to preach. Lord Grey confirmed this, saying that it was impossible for persons to obtain such licences, except they were ministers of separate congregations. This was secured by an Act passed in 1802, and still more, the party applying for such licence was restricted from following any trade, except that of keeping a school. These regulations, he stated, were most minutely adhered to, both in the general and local militia, and he challenged Lord Sidmouth to show him a single instance, since the Act of 1802, where exemption had been improperly obtained by a Dissenter. Lord Grey proved from actual returns that the whole number of persons who had been licensed during the last forty-eight years had only been three thousand six hundred and seventy-eight, or about seventy-seven[165] annually on an average, and that the highest number reached in any one year had been only about one hundred and sixty. He contended that these facts demonstrated the non-necessity of the Bill. It was lost.The American Congress, which had imagined Gates a greater officer even than Washington, because he had captured Burgoyne through the ability of Arnold, though Washingtonfrom envy, as they supposedhad always held a more correct opinion, now saw their error. No sooner was this victory at Camden achieved, than Cornwallis dispatched Tarleton after General Sumter, who was marching on the other side of the Wateree on his way into South Carolina. Tarleton started after him with a couple of hundred of cavalry, and rode so sharply that he had left half his little force behind him, when he came up with him near Catawba Ford, and fell upon his far superior force without a moment's hesitation, killing and wounding one hundred, and taking captive upwards of two hundred, with all Sumter's baggage, artillery, and one thousand stand of arms.
THREE:[See larger version]Comedy and farce occupied the middle portion of the reign, but neither of them rose to the height of Sheridan. In tragedy, Murphy's "Arminius," Godwin's "Antonio," and Madame D'Arblay's "Edwy and Elgiva," were the best. Amongst the comedies, Holcroft's "Road to Ruin," Morton's "Speed the Plough," Mrs. Inchbald's "Wives as they Were, and Maids as they Are," and Colman's "Sylvester Daggerwood," were the most popular.
TWO:On the 3rd of February the Commons attended to hear the commission read at the bar of the Lords, which was done by Earl Bathurst, in the absence of Thurlow. On returning to their House now as an authorised Parliament, the Commons read the Bill for the first time without a division, but on the second reading, on the 6th of February, Burke attacked it with unabated ferocity. He wanted to know how they were to determine when the king was sane again. Who was to inform them of it? Who was to certify it? He asserted the utter impossibility of adducing proof whether a person who had been insane were perfectly recovered or not. If this doctrine had been established, the regency must have become permanent. But this mode of reasoning was too metaphysical for the House of Commons; the debate passed on, and the Bill was committed. The clause providing against the non-residence of the prince, and against his marrying a papist, again brought up Mr. Rolle. He said that he had given his assent to the appointment of the prince regent on the assurance of his friends, that he was not married to a certain lady, either in law or in fact; but that he had since read a famous pamphlet, which affirmed that the facts were in opposition to those avowals. This was a brochure of Horne Tooke's, in the shape of a letter to a friend, in which he declared his positive knowledge of the prince's marriage with "the late Mrs. Fitzherbert," who, he contended, in spite of the Marriage Act, was his lawful wife. Rolle was answered by Lord North, who declared that the object of the pamphleteer was simply to make mischief by throwing out assertions that he never meant to prove, and Welbore Ellis called for the reading of the Royal Marriage Act, and showed that no royal marriage could be valid without the king's consent, and that, therefore, whatever was the case, all those objections were a mere waste of words. Rolle did not press the question to a division. The other clauses of the Bill raised much debate, but were all passed, and on the 10th of February the council was appointed to assist the queen in her charge, and Pitt named as members of it[347] the four principal officers of the household, the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, the Master of the Horse, and the Groom of the Stole, with the addition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Chancellor Thurlow, the Archbishop of York, and Lord Kenyon. The names of the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, several of the other princes, the Lord Mayor of London, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, were all strongly urged upon Parliament as persons who ought to be members of this council, but they were, to a man, rejected by a majority of about fifty.
TWO:The movement going forward in the Established Church of Scotland during this reign related almost exclusively to the subject of patronage. This church, though drawing its origin from Switzerland, a thoroughly Republican country, and rejecting bishops, took good care to vest the right of presenting ministers to parishes in the clergy. The Government insisted on this right continuing in lay patrons; but for some time after the Revolution the people asserted their right to choose their own pastors, and continued to carry it. But in 1698 the General Assembly took the opportunity, when it had been accused by the English Church of throwing the office of choosing ministers amongst the people, to repudiate all such notion on their part. They declared unanimously that "they allowed no power in the people, but only in the pastors of the Church, to appoint and ordain to such offices."
TWO:The Free Trade journals did not fail to observe that what they called "this remarkable lecture on Free Trade, Protection, and smuggling, delivered from the Tory Treasury bench," was wound up by the avowal that the principles of Free Trade were now beyond a question, and that the rule to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest was[490] the only valid theory of commerce. In the House some opposition was offered to the reduction of duties on pigs, apples, butter, fish, and other articles; but the Government proposals were affirmed by large majorities, except in the case of apples, which were made to pay 6d. in the bushel. The Opposition, however, raised the old question of the sugar duties, which had been omitted from the list of changes; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to give way, and the Tariff Bill passed the Commons on the 28th of June. It was fiercely debated in the Upper House, but the Whigs did not carry any material amendments.
TWO:"Royal Highness,A victim to the factions which distract my country, and to the enmity of the greatest Powers of Europe, I have terminated my political career, and I come, like Themistocles, to throw myself on the hospitality of the British people. I put myself under the protection of their laws, which I claim from your Royal Highness, as the most powerful, the most constant, and the most generous of my enemies. Napoleon's Designs on SpainThe Continental SystemTreaty of FontainebleauJunot marches on PortugalFlight of the Royal FamilyThe Milan DecreeThe Pope imprisoned in the QuirinalImbecility of the Spanish GovernmentQuarrels of the Spanish Royal FamilyOccupation of the Spanish FortressesThe King's Preparations for FlightRests at MadridAbdication of Charles IV.Murat occupies MadridThe Meeting at BayonneJoseph becomes King of SpainInsurrection in SpainThe Junta communicates with EnglandFerocity of the WarOperations of Bessires, Duchesne, and MonceyDupont surrenders to Casta?osJoseph evacuates MadridSiege of SaragossaNapoleon's Designs on PortugalInsurrection throughout the CountrySir A. Wellesley touches at CorunnaHe lands at FiguerasBattle of Roli?aWellesley is superseded by BurrardBattle of VimieraArrival of DalrympleConvention of CintraInquiry into the ConventionOccupation of LisbonNapoleon's Preparations against SpainWellesley is passed over in favour of MooreMoore's AdvanceDifficulties of the MarchIncompetency of Hookham FrereNapoleon's Position in EuropeThe Meeting at ErfurthNapoleon at VittoriaDestruction of the Spanish ArmiesNapoleon enters MadridMoore is at last undeceivedThe RetreatNapoleon leaves SpainMoore retires before SoultArrival at CorunnaThe BattleDeath of Sir John MooreThe Ministry determine to continue the WarScandal of the Duke of YorkHis ResignationCharges against Lord CastlereaghWellesley arrives in PortugalHe drives Soult from Portugal into SpainHis Junction with CuestaPosition of the French ArmiesFolly of CuestaBattle of TalaveraState of the CommissariatWellesley's RetreatFrench VictoriesThe Lines of Torres VedrasThe Walcheren ExpeditionFlushing takenThe Troops die from MalariaDisastrous Termination of the ExpeditionSir John Stuart in Italy and the Ionian IslandsWar between Russia and TurkeyCollingwood's last ExploitsAttempt of Gambier and Cochrane on La Rochelle.
[See larger version]The eyes of the world were now turned upon Rome. It was not to be expected that the Catholic Powers would allow the bark of St. Peter to go down in the flood of revolution without an effort to save it. Spain was the first to interpose for this purpose. Its Government invited France, Austria, Bavaria, Sardinia, Tuscany, and Naples to send plenipotentiaries to consult on the best means of reinstating the Pope. Austria also protested against the new state of things, complaining that the Austrian flag, and the arms of the empire on the palace of its ambassador at Rome, had been insulted and torn down. On the 8th of February a body of Austrian troops, under General Haynau, entered Ferrara, to avenge the death of three Austrian soldiers, and an insult offered to an Austrian consul. He required that the latter should be[587] indemnified, that the Papal colours should be again displayed, that the murderers of the soldiers should be given up, and that the city should support 10,000 Austrian troops. This was a state of things not to be endured by the French Republic, and its Government determined to interpose and overreach Austria, for the purpose of re-establishing French ascendency at Rome, even though based upon the ruins of a sister republic. The French Republicans, it is well known, cared very little for the Pope, but they were ready to make use of him to gratify their own national ambition. Their attack on the Roman Republic would therefore be fittingly described by the language which Pius IX. applied to that republic itself, as "hypocritical felony.""May 10th, 1839.Meanwhile, the attention of the Western Powers was called to the constitutional monarchy of Spain. For, whatever were its merits in comparison with the systems that preceded it, it had not the merit of securing good government, protecting life and property, and maintaining public tranquillity. During the summer of 1836 that country, always more or less disturbed, was the scene of fresh tumults and insurrections, breaking out at different points, at Malaga, Cadiz, Seville, and Cordova. The Constitution of 1812 was proclaimed, and provincial juntas were established in defiance of the queen's authority. Madrid was also the scene of insurrection, which was repressed, and the city was put in a state of siege. Soon afterwards a more determined demand was made for the Constitution of 1812, when a regiment of militia forced themselves into the apartments of the queen regent, in spite of the remonstrances of the French and British Ambassadors, and extorted from her a promise to accept that Constitution. This daring act was the signal for a general rising in the capital. The Prime Minister, Isturitz, fled to Lisbon, and there took ship for England. He was fortunate in escaping with his life, for had he fallen into the hands of the enraged populace he would probably have shared the fate of General Quesada, the military governor of Madrid, who was caught about three miles from the capital and killed. Order was at length restored by the queen regent proclaiming the Constitution, subject to the revision of the Cortes and by the appointment of a decidedly Liberal Administration, which commenced by calling for a conscription of 50,000 men to carry on the war against the Carlists, who were still in active rebellion. The Constitution so imperatively demanded by the people was first proclaimed at Cadiz in 1812, and again by Riego in 1820. It now was brought forward once more, and on the 24th of February, 1837, adopted by the general Cortes assembled for the purpose, having been previously revised by a committee.The retired Ministers showed for the most part a very hostile attitude, and Pulteney denounced the new Ministry as a "German Ministry." Walpole, for a little time, affected a liberal conduct, declaring, when the Supply of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds was voted, that, as he had before spoken in its favour, he should now vote in its favour, and would show by his proceedings that he had never intended to make the king uneasy, or to embarrass his affairs. But it was not in Walpole's nature to maintain this air of temperance long. He was as violent in opposition as he was able and zealous in office. Whether in or out of office, he was, in fact, equally unscrupulous. He very soon joined himself to Shippen, Wyndham, Bromley, and the other violent opponents of the reigning family; so that Shippen himself ere long said exultingly that he was glad to see that Walpole was no longer afraid of being styled a Jacobite.But these proceedings had not been effected without continual tumults. On the day that Wilkes was arrested by order of the King's Bench (the 27th of April), and, being refused bail, was sent to the King's Bench prison, the mob stopped the hackney coach as it proceeded over Westminster Bridge, took out the horses, and, with shouts of "Wilkes and Liberty!" drew him, not to the prison, but into the City, and took him into a tavern in Cornhill, where they kept him till midnight, declaring that he should enjoy his freedom in spite of the law. But Wilkes knew his position better than his champions, and, stealing away, he went voluntarily to the King's Bench, and surrendered himself. The next morning, when the mob knew that he was in prison, they assembled in furious throngs, and demanded, under the most terrible menaces, his liberation. They were at length dispersed by a detachment of Horse Guards, but not until the mob had abused and pelted the soldiers. These riots were kept up in different places from day to day; and on the 10th of May, twenty people were killed or wounded. When the soldiers who had fired on the rioters were brought to trial, they were not only acquitted, but the new Parliament voted loyal addresses on the occasion; and the Government, through Lord Barrington, the Secretary at War, and in the king's name, thanked publicly the officers and men for their signal service in protecting the public peace. This only added fresh fuel to the popular flame. To protect the public peace by shooting the people, and to assure the perpetrators of this outrage, as Lord Barrington did, that they should have every assistance from Government in defending them from all legal consequences, was rightly deemed most un-English conduct. The riots spread on all sides.
荣誉榜
THREE:[470] The Repeal AgitationDebate in the Dublin CorporationThe Monster MeetingsO'Connell's Speech at TaraThe Arms BillDismissal of the Repeal MagistratesSpeeches of the Duke of WellingtonThe Arms Bill becomes LawProclamation of the Clontarf MeetingO'Connell's Counter-ProclamationArrest and Trial of O'ConnellThe SentenceIt is reversed by the House of LordsRejoicings on O'Connell's LiberationThe Excitement at CorkDecline of O'ConnellHis Breach with the Young Ireland PartyIrish Debates in ParliamentApproach of the Irish FamineThe Devon CommissionIts ReportArrival of the Potato DiseaseThe FamineThe Relief Committee of the Society of FriendsThe Famine in UlsterA Description of Cork and SkibbereenDemoralisation of the PopulationPolicy of the Whig CabinetLord George Bentinck's Railway PlanFailure of the new Poor Law and of the Public WorksThe Temporary Relief ActFather MathewPrivate BenevolenceMunificence of the United States.
THREE:LONDON BRIDGE IN 1760.But Joseph did not live to see the full extent of the alienation of the Netherlands. He had despatched Count Cobentzel to Brussels on the failure of Trautmansdorff's efforts. Cobentzel was an able diplomatist, but all his offers were treated with indifference. On the last day of 1789 the States of Brabant, in presence of the citizens of Brussels, swore to stand by their new freedoman act which was received by the acclamations of the assembled crowds. They soon afterwards ratified their league with the other States, and entered into active negotiation with the revolutionists of France for mutual defence. On the 20th of February, 1790, Joseph expired, leaving a prospect full of trouble to his brother Leopold, the new Emperor.
