[1817-1819 A.D.]

tive power the despotic privilege of imprisoning without trial, was not carried without a struggle, in which Earl Grey, Lord Wellesley, Lord Darnley, Sir Arthur Pigott, and other members of both houses, distinguished themselves by their opposition to the measure. Although the suspension of the habeas corpus act was decreed, it was to continue in force only till the 1st of July; and it only passed in consequence of the fresh alarms of meetings and conspiracies with which the ears of parliament had been assailed. The event dismayed the leaders and orators of reform who had been so active and so loud in the propagation of their doctrines; and they either retired into obscurity or maintained a cautious silence. Even Cobbett, the boldest as well as ablest of them all, was fain to withdraw to America until the season of danger had expired.

TROOPS WITHDRAWN FROM FRANCE (1818 A.D.)

The chief political event by which the year 1818 was signalised was the full and complete reconciliation of the allied powers with France by withdrawing their army of occupation. This occupation was a painful reminiscence of past wars and mutual injuries; it was galling to a high-spirited people like the French; and as long as it was continued there was no assurance to Europe of international amity or a lasting peace. According to the terms of the original treaty, this military hold upon France would have continued two years longer, had not the present stability of the Bourbon throne and the general tranquillity given assurance that such a precaution was no longer required. A congress was therefore assembled at Aix-la-Chapelle during the autumn of the current year, where the emperor of Russia, the king of Prussia, and the emperor of Austria, with their principal ministers, the duke of Wellington and the representatives of some other powers, agreed that the army of occupation might be safely withdrawn, and the nation left to its own control. A negotiation to this effect was accordingly opened by the allied sovereigns with Louis XVIII; the pecuniary obligations of France were discharged, and the army, with its commander, the duke of Wellington, was recalled in October, after having been in France three years.

REFORMS OF 1819

The beginning of the year 1819 was signalised by the opening of the new parliament, which assembled on the 14th of January, and Mr. Manners Sutton was re-elected speaker without competition. A very important subject of this session was the revision of the criminal code. The sanguinary character of English law had long been a wonder and reproach among foreigners, as well as a matter of regret among the reflective people of England; and it was felt that the time had come when the frequency of capital punishments might very safely be diminished. Repeatedly the subject had been brought before parliament by that upright and talented lawyer, Sir Samuel Romilly; but in consequence of his death in the preceding year, it was now adopted and advocated with equal ability by Sir James Mackintosh. The time also was favourable, on account of a petition from the corporation of London complaining of the increase of crime, and pointing out the advantage that might accrue from the commutation of capital punishments for others of less severity. This momentous inquiry it was resolved to consign to a committee employed upon the examination of prison discipline, when, on the following day, Sir James Mackintosh proposed that the examination of the penal code

[1819 A.D.] should have a distinct committee of its own. After showing the subterfuges which the severity of the laws occasioned, and the difficulty of obtaining a conviction, in consequence of which the worst culprits escaped and the statutes became a dead letter, he explained his views of those circumstances under which alone capital punishment should be administered, whereby not less than one hundred and fifty offences needed to be expunged from the catalogue. His motion was carried, and before the end of the session a committee of inquiry was formed, of which he was appointed chairman.

Another very momentous affair of this session was the consideration of the national currency. The commencement of the war in 1793, and the return of peace in 1815, had equally produced an abrupt diversion of capital, which was keenly felt by the productive classes, and finally by the whole community. To this was added the want of money accommodations during the period of agricultural distress, in consequence of the Bank of England, at the return of peace, having been obliged to reduce its paper circulation, from the apprehension of soon being called upon to pay in gold. Country bankers were in like manner compelled to limit their issues, until the question of the resumption of cash payments by the Bank of England should be settled. It was no wonder that a subject of such vital importance to every individual should have given rise to about fifty debates and conversations in both houses of parliament. The principal parts of the government plan, which was finally adopted, were the following: That it was expedient that the restrictions on payments in cash by the bank should be continued beyond the 5th of July, 1819, the term fixed by law; that a definite period should be fixed for the termination of the restriction, and that in the mean time certain preparatory measures should be taken; that provision should be made for the gradual repayment to the bank of £10,000,000 of its advances for the public service; that from the 1st of February, 1820, the bank should be obliged to give in exchange for its notes gold, assayed and stamped, in quantities of not less than sixty ounces, at the rate of 81s. per ounce; that from the 1st of October, 1820, it should be obliged to pay gold for its notes in the same manner, at the rate of 79s. 6d. per ounce; that after the 1st of May, 1821, the rate should be 77s. 101d. per ounce; that from the 1st of May, 1823, the bank should pay its notes on demand, in the legal coin of the realm; and that the laws prohibiting the melting and exportation of the coin should be repealed.

THE MANCHESTER RIOTS (1819 A.D.)

The session was closed by the regent in person, on the 13th of July. In the close of his speech he adverted to the seditious spirit still at work in the manufacturing districts; and notwithstanding the self-gratulations of ministers at the opening of parliament, the existence of such a spirit was too notorious to be denied. The extravagant hopes which the many had founded upon the return of peace had been disappointed; for its benefits, instead of being instant and immediate, were of slow growth, while low wages and highpriced provisions were still the order of the day. Under such circumstances it was easy for restless demagogues to persuade the ignorant multitudes that their continued depression arose from a corrupt court, a venal ministry, and unjust taxes; and that the blessing of peace and the fruits of their own industry could not be realised until these obstacles were removed. It was even queried in their more private meetings, whether the people had not a right to destroy the Bank of England, and to equalise all classes by an agrarian

[1819 A.D.]

division of the landed property of the country. In such a state of things the government could not look tranquilly on, or its adherents be without alarm; and the commencement of open strife and bloodshed was nothing more than a question of time and place, which circumstances were sure to settle. This was done at Manchester on the 16th of August, 1819. The reformers of that city having convened a great public meeting on the 9th, with the object of proceeding, in their own way, to the choice and election of a parliamentary representative, were apprised by the magistrates that the object was illegal, and that such meeting was illegal; upon which the design was modified, and a meeting convened for the 16th to petition for a sweeping reform in parliament.

A little before noon on the 16th the first body of reformers began to arrive on the scene of action, which was a piece of ground called St. Peter's Field. These persons bore two banners surmounted with caps of liberty, and bearing the inscriptions-"No Corn Laws," "Annual Parliaments,' "Universal Suffrage," "Vote by Ballot." The flags, after being paraded round the field, were planted on a wagon, on which the orators of the day had taken their stand; but other flags appeared and remained stationary in different parts of the crowd. Numerous large bodies of radicals continued to arrive from the towns in the neighbourhood of Manchester till about one o'clock, all preceded by flags, and many of them came up in regular marching order, five deep, as if they had been well drilled and trained. Two clubs of female reformers advanced, one of them numbering more than 150 members, and bearing a white silk banner. There was a body of reformers who timed their steps to the sound of a bugle, with much of a disciplined air; there was another that had assumed the motto of the illustrious Wallace, "God armeth the patriot." The multitude now amounted to a number roundly computed at eighty thousand, and the arrival of the hero of the day was impatiently looked for by the radicals. Nothing less than a fearful riot, with murder and plunder, was expected by the merchants, mill-owners, and the prosperous classes generally. At last orator Hunt made his appearance, and, after a rapturous greeting, was invited to preside. Mounting a scaffolding, he began to harangue his admirers. A band of special constables who had taken up a position on the field without resistance now disposed themselves so as to form a line of communication from a house where the magistrates were sitting to the stage or platform erected for Mr. Hunt.

The orator had not proceeded far when the appearance of the yeomanry cavalry advancing at a brisk trot excited a panic in the outskirts of the meeting. The civic force entered the inclosure, and after pausing for a minute to recover their disordered ranks, they drew their swords and brandished them in the air. The multitude, by the direction of their leaders, gave three cheers, to show that they were undaunted by this intrusion, and the orator had just resumed his speech to assure the people that this was only a trick to disturb the meeting, and exhorted them to stand firm, when the yeomanry dashed into the crowd, making for the platform. That immense mob offered no resistance; they fell back on all sides, overturning one another. The commanding officer approached orator Hunt, and brandishing his sword, told him that he was his prisoner. Some of the yeomanry then cried out, "Have at their flags!" and upon this the troop began to strike down the banners raised in various parts of the fields, cutting to right and left to get at them. The people scampered off in all directions, and the yeomanry spurred after them, losing all command of temper. There was then a dreadful scene of confusion; numbers were trampled under the feet of men and horses; many

[1819-1820 A.D.] women as well as men were cut down by sabres; several were slain on the spot, and among these were a peace officer and a female-for the undisciplined heroes scarcely knew what they were doing, and slew where they wished to save. The whole number of persons more or less injured was set down at between three hundred and four hundred; but it should appear that this number was exaggerated by the suffering party, and that nine-tenths of the injuries received were of a very trifling nature. In their retreat the reformers threw stones and brickbats at the yeomanry. It is said that some stones were thrown in the same direction before the yeomen charged the people, and that the riot act was read by the magistrates before a sword was used; but some doubt rests upon one, if not upon both, of these assertions. The yeomanry was chiefly composed of a set of hot-headed young men belonging to rich families, who entertained a too great contempt and dislike of spinners, and weavers, and dyers, machine makers, and other artisans, who made up the reform assemblage. The riot act was read, but it seems to have been read when nobody could hear it. In less than ten minutes from the first charge of the yeomanry the ground was entirely cleared of its former occupants, and was filled by various bodies of military, both horse and foot. Mr. orator Hunt, with the broken staves of two of his banners carried in mock procession before him, was hurried before the magistrates, who sent him to prison on a charge of high treason.

THE SIX ACTS (1820 A.D.)

As soon as the news of this riot and its suppression reached London a cabinet council was held; and acting on the partial statements of the despatch, the thanks of government were returned to the magistrates, and to all the military engaged, for their prompt and efficient conduct in the affair. This was a signal for the opponents of government and friends of reform in London; and at a numerous meeting held in the palace yard, Westminster, on the 2nd of September, at which Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. John Cam Hobhouse, his colleague in the representation of Westminster, were the principal speakers, the affair of Peter's Field was denounced as a massacre, and a foul attempt to destroy the liberties of Englishmen; and an address founded on these resolutions was sent to the prince regent. The opposite party were provoked by the occasion to call meetings of their own, in which counter addresses were drawn up, justifying the suppression of the Manchester meeting, and offering to raise yeomanry corps for the support of government and the maintenance of public order. Under such auspices the prisoners were brought to trial; but the capital charge of treason against them was abandoned, and imprisonment, from one to two years and a half, was the utmost punishment inflicted upon five of the chief leaders of the meeting. Still the alarm had been too great and the supporters of government were too numerous to allow the present state of affairs to go on unchecked; and to obtain the restoration of order and secure the inviolability of their own property they were but too ready to place an undue power in the hands of the ministry. The well-known "Six Acts" were introduced, and were carried by large majorities through both houses. In the lords they were proposed by Viscount Sidmouth; in the commons by Lord Castlereagh. They consisted of the following bills: 1. To take away the right of traversing in cases of misdemeanor. 2. To punish any person found guilty on a second conviction of libel, by fine, imprisonment, and banishment for life. 3. For preventing seditious meetings, requiring the names of seven householders to the requisition which, in future,

[1819-1820 A.D.]

convened any meeting for the discussion of subjects connected with church or state. 4. To prohibit military training, except under the authority of a magistrate or lord lieutenant. 5. To subject cheap periodical pamphlets on political subjects to a duty similar to that on newspapers. 6. To give magistrates the power of entering houses by night or by day, for the purpose of seizing arms believed to be collected for unlawful purposes. The only one of these bills which passed without opposition was that for the prevention of secret military training. The entering of houses by night, and the restrictions on the press, were strongly objected to. These acts were to continue in force for the term of five years.

The year 1820 commenced with gloomy auspices in the political horizon. On the 21st of January the humane, benevolent, and popular duke of Kent died, leaving behind him an infant daughter, Alexandrina Victoria. Only eight days after the duke's death the great bell of St. Paul's again sent forth its deep knell, to announce a demise of still higher importance, for his father, the king of the realm, had departed.

DEATH OF GEORGE III (1820 A.D.)

George III died in Windsor Castle on the night of Saturday, the 29th of January, 1820, in the eighty-second year of his age, and (counting the ten years of the regency) in the sixtieth year of his reign. For some years before his death he had been totally blind; and it does not appear that any temporary return of reason allowed him to comprehend and rejoice at the issue of the momentous struggle in which he left his country engaged in 1810, when his malady drove him into retirement. We only know that when others desponded his hopes were high, and that, so long as he had reason, he never despaired of the final triumph of England. No man within his realms had a more thoroughly English heart, or a more ardent desire to promote the welfare of the people and the interests and honour of the country. Unpopular in his youth and earliest government, he became endeared to the people in the midst of the misfortunes of the first American war; and perhaps no sovereign had ever been more popular than he was during the last twenty-five years of his reign. Nearly every circumstance concerning him which has been brought to light of late years, and nearly every conversation which has been reported, or letter written by him which has been published, have tended to clear away the prejudices of former times, and to raise our estimate, not merely of the goodness of his heart and intentions, but also of the powers of his intellect, and of his capacity for public business.'

THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV (1820 A.D.)

The accession of George IV to the throne was merely nominal, for virtually he had been king for the last ten years; but the glories of his regency, through the success of our arms, had eclipsed whatever could be expected from his sovereignty, surrounded as he was by political and domestic troubles, which his new position could only tend to aggravate. He had also passed the bright meridian of life, and at the period of his accession was laid upon a bed of sickness, from which it was at one time feared he would never rise. Even his assumption of the royal title was accompanied with a great embarrassment. George IV was king, but who was queen of Great Britain? In the alter

["Expressed in concise terms," says Aubray, "the long reign of George III comprises sixty years of blundering, injustice, and repression."