History of Civilization in England, Vol. 1 of 3

924

In 1792, and therefore before the war broke out, Lord Lansdowne, one of the extremely few peers who escaped from the prevailing corruption, said,‘The present instance recalled to his memory the proceedings of this country previous to the American war. The same abusive and degrading terms were applied to the Americans that were now used to the National Convention, —the same consequences might follow.’ Parl. Hist. vol. xxx. p. 155.

925

Compare Belsham's Hist. of Great Britain, vol. viii. p. 490, with Tomline's Life of Pitt, vol. ii. p. 548. The letter to Lord Gower, the English minister in Paris, is printed in Parl. Hist. vol. xxx. pp. 143, 144. Its date is 17th August, 1792.

926

Just before the Revolution, Robert de Saint-Vincent pertinently remarked, by way of caution, that the English ‘have dethroned seven of their kings, and beheaded the eighth.’ Mem. of Mallet du Pan, vol. i. p. 146; and we are told in Alison's Europe (vol. ii. pp. 199, 296, 315), that in 1792 Louis ‘anticipated the fate of Charles I.’ Compare Williams's Letters from France, 2nd edit. 1796, vol. iv. p. 2.

927

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

928

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

929

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

930

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

931

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

932

The insertor of the notice in the newspaper ‘shall cause such notice and authority to be carefully preserved, … and cause a true copy thereof (if required) to be delivered to any justice of the peace for the county, city, town, or place where such person shall reside, or where such newspaper shall be printed, and who shall require the same.’ 36 George III. c. 8, § 1.

933

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

934

‘It shall be adjudged,’ says the Act, ‘felony without benefit of clergy; and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony without benefit of clergy.’ 36 George III. c. 8, § 6.

935

Stat. 39 George III. c. 79, § 15.

936

The license ‘shall be in force for the space of one year and no longer, or for any less space of time therein to be specified; and which license it shall be lawful for the justices of the peace’ &c. ‘to revoke and declare void, and no longer in force, by any order of such justices; … and thereupon such license shall cease and determine, and be thenceforth utterly void and of no effect.’ 39 George III. c. 79, § 18.

937

Such things are so incredible, that I must again quote the words of the Act: ‘Every house, room, or place, which shall be opened or used as a place of meeting for the purpose of reading books, pamphlets, newspapers, or other publications, and to which any person shall be admitted by payment of money’ (if not regularly licensed by the authorities), … ‘shall be deemed a disorderly house;’ and the person opening it shall ‘be otherwise punished as the law directs in case of disorderly houses.’ 39 George III. c. 79, § 15. The germ of this law may be found in 36 George III. c. 8, § § 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Nowhere are the weakest parts of the human mind more clearly seen than in the history of legislation.

938

See the particulars in Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers, vol. i. pp. 281–4. Mr. Hunt says, p. 284: ‘In addition to all these laws, directed solely towards the press, other statutes were made to bear upon it, for the purpose of repressing the free expression of popular opinion.’ In 1793, Dr. Currie writes: ‘The prosecutions that are commenced by government all over England against printers, publishers, &c. would astonish you; and most of these are for offences committed many months ago. The printer of the Manchester Herald has had seven different indictments preferred against him for paragraphs in his paper; and six different indictments for selling or disposing of six different copies of Paine, – all previous to the trial of Paine. The man was opulent, supposed worth 20,000l.; but these different actions will ruin him, as they were intended to do.’ Currie's Life, vol. i. pp. 185, 186. See also a letter from Roscoe to Lord Lansdowne, in Life of Roscoe, vol. i. p. 124; and Mem. of Holcroft, vol. ii. pp. 151, 152: ‘Printers and booksellers all over the kingdom were hunted out for prosecution.’ See further, Life of Cartwright, vol. i. pp. 199, 200; Adolphus's Hist. of George III. vol. v. pp. 525, 526; Mem. of Wakefield, vol. ii. p. 69.

939

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

940

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

941

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

942

It was called at the time the ‘Reign of Terror;’ and so indeed it was for every opponent of government. See Campbell's Chancellors, vol. vi. p. 441; Mem. of Wakefield, vol. ii. p. 67; and Trotter's Mem. of Fox, p. 10.

943

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

944

Life of Currie, vol. ii. p. 160; Stephens's Mem. of Tooke, vol. ii. pp. 118, 119.

945

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

946

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

947

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

948

Life of Cartwright, vol. i. p. 209; Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers, vol. ii. p. 104; Belsham's Hist. vol. ix. p. 227; Adolphus's Hist. vol. vi. p. 264; Annual Register for 1795, pp. 156, 160; Stephens's Mem. of Tooke, vol. ii. p. 118; Life of Currie, vol. i. p. 172; Campbell's Chancellors, vol. vi. p. 316, vol. vii. p. 316; Life of Wilberforce, vol. iv. pp. 369, 377; Parl. Hist. vol. xxxi. pp. 543, 667, 668, 1067, vol. xxxii. pp. 296, 302, 366, 367, 374, 664, vol. xxxv. pp. 1538, 1540; Holcroft's Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 190.

949

In addition to the passages referred to in the preceding note; compare Hutton's Life of Himself, p. 209, with Campbell's Chancellors, vol. vi. p. 441, vol. vii. p. 104, and Adolphus's Hist. of George III. vol. vi. p. 45. In 1798, Caldwell wrote to Sir James Smith (Correspondence of Sir J. E. Smith, vol. ii. p. 143): ‘The power of the crown is become irresistible. The new scheme of inquisition into every man's private circumstances is beyond any attempt I have ever heard of under Louis XIV.’

950

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

951

See decisive evidence of this, in Porter's Progress of the Nation, vol. ii. pp. 283–285; and, on the enormous increase of expense and taxation, see Pellew's Life of Sidmouth, vol. i. p. 358, vol. ii. p. 47.

952

A careful observer of what was going on late in the eighteenth century, expresses what, early in the nineteenth century, was becoming the conviction of most men of plain, sound understanding, who had no interest in the existing corruption: ‘Immoderate taxation, the result of the unnecessary wars of the reign of George III., is the cause of our embarrassments; and that immoderate taxation has been occasioned by the House of Commons being composed of men not interested to protect the property of the people.’ —Nicholl's Recollections, vol. i. p. 213.

953

Bishop Horsley, the great champion of the existing state of things, said in the House of Lords, in 1795, that he ‘did not know what the mass of the people in any country had to do with the laws, but to obey them.’ Cooke's Hist. of Party, vol. iii. p. 435. Compare Godwin on Population, p. 569.

954

Lord Cockburn (Life of Jeffrey, 1852, vol. i. pp. 67, 68) says: ‘If there was any principle that was reverenced as indisputable by almost the whole adherents of the party in power sixty, or even fifty, or perhaps even forty years ago, it was that the ignorance of the people was necessary for their obedience to the law.’ One argument was, ‘that to extend instruction, would be to multiply the crime of forgery!’ Porter's Progress of the Nation, vol. iii. p. 205.

955

See chapters ix. and x., on the history of the protective spirit.

956

Sir A. Alison notices in his History, (vol. iv. p. 213) ‘how widely the spirit of discontent was diffused’ in 1796; and the only wonder is, that the people were able to keep it in bounds. That, however, is a question which writers of his stamp never consider.

957

Bishop Burgess, in a letter to Lord Melbourne, bitterly complained that Catholic emancipation was ‘the extinction of the purely Protestant character of the British legislature.’ Harford's Life of Burgess, p. 506: see also pp. 238, 239, 369, 370. There can be no doubt that the bishop rightly estimated the danger to his own party; and as to the Corporation and Test Acts, which, says another bishop (Tomline's Life of Pitt, vol. ii. p. 604), ‘were justly regarded as the firmest bulwarks of the British constitution,’ the feeling was so strong, that at an episcopal meeting in 1787, there were only two members who were willing to repeal these persecuting laws. See Bishop Watson's Life of Himself, vol. i. p. 262. Lord Eldon, who to the last stood up for the church, pronounced the bill for repealing these acts to be a ‘revolutionary bill.’ Twiss's Life of Eldon, vol. ii. p. 202.

958

Sir C. Lewis, though in his learned work he over-estimates the resources possessed by politicians, does nevertheless allow that they are rarely able to anticipate the manner in which their measures will work. Lewis on the Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, 1852, vol. ii. pp. 360–362. A writer of repute, M. Flassan, says (Hist. de la Diplomatie, vol. i. p. 19): ‘On doit être très-indulgent sur les erreurs de la politique, à cause de la facilité qu'il y a à en commettre, erreurs auxquelles la sagesse même quelquefois entraîne.’ The first part of this sentence is true enough; but it conveys a truth which ought to repress that love of interfering with the natural march of affairs which still characterizes politicians, even in the freest countries.