240 THE CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL PASSED. [1829. sible.' The great Captain was assailed as virulently as Mr. Peel was assailed, by the most furious of those who assumed to be the only true supporters of Church and State. The earl of Winchelsea published a letter in which he insinuated that the duke had supported the establishment of King's College, that he "might the more effectually, under the cloak of some outward show of zeal for the Protestant religion, carry on his insidious designs for the infringement of our liberties, and the introduction of Popery into every department of the State." The duke demanded that the letter should be withdrawn; the earl refused to do so. On the 21st of March the two peers had a hostile meeting in Battersea fields. The duke of Wellington fired without effect; the earl of Winchelsea discharged his pistol in the air, and then tendered a written apology. In a letter to the duke of Buckingham a month after this transaction the duke of Wellington thus defended a conduct which he admitted must have "shocked many good men :"-" The truth is that the duel with lord Winchelsea was as much part of the Roman Catholic question, and it was as necessary to undertake it, and carry it out to the extremity to which I did carry it, as it was to do everything else which I did do to attain the object which I had in view. I was living here in an atmosphere of calumny. I could do nothing that was not misrepresented as having some bad purpose in view." When lord Winchelsea published his letter the duke determined to act upon it. "The atmosphere of calumny in which I had been some time living cleared away. The system of calumny was discontinued." Mr. Peel had to endure calumnies even more galling than those which the duke of Wellington decided to resist by the course which a brave soldier, jealous upon the point of honour, was then almost compelled to take in deference to the false opinions of society. Twenty years after this great political struggle sir Robert Peel wrote the following solemn appeal to protect his memory: "I can with truth affirm, as I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God, to whom all hearts be open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid,' that in advising and promoting the measures of 1829 I was swayed by no fear except the fear of public calamity, and that I acted throughout on a deep conviction that those measures were not only conducive to the general welfare, but that they had become imperatively necessary in order to avert from interests which had a special claim upon my supportthe interests of the Church and of institutions connected with the Churchan imminent and increasing danger." The Catholic Relief Bill received the royal assent on the 13th of April. Lord Eldon at two previous audiences of George IV. had urged him to refuse the royal assent. The king, who was a great actor, not only in the power of mimicry which he possessed but in exhibiting a well-feigned passion, deceived his ex-chancellor into the belief that his old master would peril everything, even his throne, by this obsolete exercise of the royal prerogative. Dangerous, almost infatuated, as was this advice of lord Eldon, we cannot doubt his sincerity; we cannot believe that any corrupt motive, or even any * Hansard, vol. xxi. col. 45. Duke of Buckingham, "Court of George IV.," vol. ii. p. 397. 1829.] MR. O'CONNELL'S SECOND RETURN FOR CLARE. 241 personal ambition, prompted his interference to avert what he believed would be a great political evil. He distrusted the Roman Catholics, not from a blind adherence to a worn-out bigotry, but from a reliance upon that unstatesmanlike caution which could not look beyond a dark Present into a brighter Future. Happily, he had to deal with a sovereign of different character than he who compelled Pitt-in the fear that he might drive the king into insanity-to lay aside the implied pledges of the Union, and thus to make the Legislature equivocate for thirty years with the just expectations of disappointed millions. A few childish lamentations, and there would be an end of the opposition of George the Fourth to the resolve of his Ministry. He would go to Hanover-he would return no more to England-let them get a Catholic king in Clarence-were his ejaculations at the interview of the 9th of April. On the 14th lord Eldon wrote to his daughter,—“The fatal Bill received the royal assent yesterday afternoon. After all I had heard in my visits not a day's delay."* About a month after the passing of the Bill Mr. O'Connell was introduced to the House of Commons for the purpose of taking his seat for Clare. A petition against his return had been referred to a Committee, who declared that he was duly returned. Mr. O'Connell had been elected before the passing of the new Act, and the Clerk of the House accordingly tendered to him the oath of supremacy which was required to be taken under the old law. This oath Mr. O'Connell refused to take, claiming to take the oath set forth in the Relief Act. He was the next day heard at the bar. His courtesy, his moderation, his legal knowledge, surprised the House, and called forth the approving voices of the great law officers who had opposed his claim at once to take his seat. Upon a division a new writ was ordered for Clare. A large subscription was entered into for securing Mr. O'Connell's second return, which took place on the 30th of July. His violence at that election was a painful and disgusting contrast to his assumed gentleness at the bar of the House of Commons. His unmeasured words almost induced a general apprehension that the great measure of Catholic Emancipation had been too readily yielded to that sense of an overwhelming necessity which had converted opposing statesmen into its responsible promoters. There was a higher principle than the expediency which changed the policy of Mr. Peel-a principle thus proclaimed out of the walls of Parliament, to assert the Christian obligation of passing this law :"It is the direct duty of every Englishman to support the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, even at the hazard of injuring the Protestant Establishment; because those claims cannot be rejected without great injustice; and it is a want of faith in God and an unholy zeal to think that he can be served by injustice, or to guard against contingent evil by committing certain sin." This was a great truth, maintained in words not to be forgotten, by a bold thinker who did not fear evil tongues -one whose tolerant zeal for the Church establishment, which he ardently desired to uphold, could not shut his eyes to the exclusive pretensions of those Twiss, vol. iii. p. 87. : + Dr. Arnold, "Christian Duty of considering the Roman Catholic Claims."-Miscellaneous Works, p. 6. VOL. VIIL. R 242 MEETING OF PARLIAMENT-MOTIONS FOR REFORM. [1830. who would have built its security upon a rotten foundation. It was a truth whose constant recognition would support every conscientious statesman through the perils with which Ireland would yet be surrounded; would neutralize the interested agitation for the Repeal of the Union which the chief Agitator would for years carry forward to the verge of rebellion; would produce the general conviction that the "great injustice" being effectually removed, a fair field would be left for the removal or amelioration of social evils; would convert even the terrible calamity of a famine into a final blessing; would "assert eternal Providence" in manifesting that a righteous act would at last have its reward, in rendering the once wronged Ireland no more a terror to England, but the sharer of her liberty and her prosperity-a true sister, no longer to be alienated by just complaints, much less by demagogic violence and priestly stratagem. The Parliament was prorogued on the 24th of June. The landowners when they returned to their country mansions did not find happy faces amidst either tenants or labourers. The summer and autumn were wet and cold; the harvest was protracted; the crops were ill got in, and were hurried to market. They were found to be of inferior quality, and prices suffered temporarily a great depression. Then came the severest winter since 1813-14. Parliament met on the 4th of February, 1830. The King's Speech lamented that notwithstanding the indication of active commerce afforded by increased exports, distress should prevail amongst the agricultural and manufacturing classes. One effectual mode of mitigating the pressure upon industrial capital was announced in the intention to propose a considerable reduction in the amount of public expenditure. The promise was realized. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, on the 15th of March, the total remission of the excise duties on beer, cider, and leather. Increased duties on spirits were to supply a portion of the deficiency. The propositions of the government were finally agreed to. Motions for Reform of Parliament were brought forward, with the usual fate of every previous attempt to carry a sweeping or a partial measure. Again was it resolved that the seat which was vacant through the corruption of East Retford should not be transferred to Birmingham. Mr. O'Connell proposed to bring in a Bill to establish universal suffrage, triennial parliaments, and vote by ballot. Lord John Russell had a counter-proposition for additional representatives for populous counties and large unrepresented towns. The solution of this difficult problem seemed as far off as ever. It was helped forward by the imprudent conduct of a great peer who openly proclaimed what too many of the aristocracy felt in their hearts. A petition was presented to the House of Commons complaining of the interference of the duke of Newcastle in the elections for the borough of Newark, and praying that his power of ejecting tenants from the property which he held as lessee of Crown lands, should be prevented in future by the non-renewal of his lease. The government declared that it was not their intention to renew this lease: it was unnecessary, therefore, to grant a committee to inquire into this matter. The debate, however, disclosed a correspondence which roused a feeling of indignation throughout the land. A public meeting had been held at Newark to condemn the proceedings of the nobleman who appeared to have held in small respect the well-known resolution of the House of Commons that it 1830.] ILLNESS AND DEATH OF GEORGE IV. 243 is a violation of the privileges of Parliament for Peers of the Realm to interfere in elections. The duke of Newcastle was invited to attend that meeting. He declined to attend, and asked the bold question, "May I not do what I will with mine own?" It was the argument of Shylock, when he demanded the pound of flesh," "Tis mine, and I will have it." These words went forth to teach Englishmen that property had its duties as well as its rights, preparing the way for that quickly-coming change when the democratic element would assert its claim to be more respected-when the franchise would cease to be considered as a chattel which the great could call their own. One measure of great importance was proposed this session by Mr. Brougham, as a specific measure connected with his extensive views of Law Reform which he had developed in 1828. On the 29th of April, 1830, he moved for leave to bring in a Bill to establish Local Jurisdiction in certain districts in England. He showed that to recover small sums in the superior courts was a process involving delay and expense which prevented a creditor obtaining the satisfaction of his just demands. It was his hope that he might be eventually able to establish the system of local jurisdiction, from which he expected benefits unspeakably valuable to the country. That hope was long deferred. The County Courts, which were founded upon the recommendation of the Common Law Commissioners, arising out of Mr. Brougham's views in 1830, and upon their further enforcement when he became Lord Chancellor, were not established till queen Victoria had been eight years upon the throne. On the 24th of May, a message was sent to both Houses of Parliament by the king, announcing his illness and stating the inconvenience of signing public instruments with his own hand. A Bill was introduced for the appointment of commissioners to affix the king's sign-manual by a stamp, in the king's presence, and by his immediate order given by word of mouth. The Bill received the royal assent on the 29th of May. On the 26th of June, at three o'clock in the morning, king George the Fourth expired at Windsor Castle. It is difficult to look back upon the career of this prince, whose sovereignty either as Regent or King formed one of the most important eras in the annals of our country, without feeling how much his life had been one of great opportunities wasted and of natural powers perverted; how the circumstances by which he had been surrounded from his youth were almost wholly injurious to his character and his happiness. The present generation,-in some degree by the force of contrast-have come to look very severely upon the faults of this erring brother. They were painfully visited upon him by the absence of all domestic happiness, by the feeling that he was not beloved or respected by the people he was appointed to rule over. The duke of Wellington has given a character of the monarch who held in dread the great captain's strong sense and inflexible resolution: "He was indeed," said the duke, "the most extraordinary compound of talent, wit, buffoonery, obstinacy, and good feeling-in short, a medley of the most opposite qualities, with a great preponderance of good-that I ever saw in any character in my life." * Raikes's "Diary," vol. i. p. 92 Oath of allegiance taken by Peers and Commoners-Business of Parliament commenced-Unmeasured language in the House of Commons-Motion for a Regency in the event of the king's demise-France--Retrospect of government in reign of Charles X.-Prince Polignac appointed President of the Council-Sudden prorogation of the Chambers-Algiers-The Royal Ordinances promulgated-The three days of July-Duke of Orleans LieutenantGeneral of the Kingdom-Abdication of Charles X.-Duke of Orleans KingRecognition by England of the new government of France-Revolution of Belgium-The opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway-Early opposition to the Railway system-The Locomotive Engine-George Stephenson-His son Robert-Anticipations of the triumphs of Railways--Death of Mr. Huskisson-Opening of Parliament-Declaration of the duke of Wellington-The king's visit to the City postponed-Defeat of Ministers on the Civil List-They resign-Mr. Brougham's parliamentary position-Administration of earl Grey completed-List of the Ministry. On Friday, the 25th of June, both Houses of Parliament had adjourned to the following Monday. The death of George the Fourth having taken place at three o'clock on the morning of the 26th, summonses were issued for the immediate attendance of the Peers for the purpose of taking the oath of allegiance to King William the Fourth as administered by the Lord Chancellor. According to ancient practice the oath to the Commons was to be administered by the Lord Steward. At an early hour, therefore, many members of the Lower House attended in the Long Gallery for the purpose of taking this oath. The Lord Steward, the Marquis of Conyngham, did not arrive till late. When the House did meet, Mr. Brougham made an indignant protest against the treatment which the Commons of England had experienced; for many members had that morning, like himself, been kept for hours dancing attendance in the Long Gallery, and waiting the pleasure of the Lord Steward. On the following Monday Mr. Brougham explained |