Chapter 22

{GEORGE III. 1791–1792}

Debate on the War in India..... Dispute with Russia..... Bill for the Regulation of Canada..... Slave-trade Abolition bill..... Catholic Relief Bill, etc...... Bill to amend the Law on Libels..... Financial Measures..... Impeachment of Warren Hastings..... Parliament prorogued..... Progress of the Revolution in France..... State of Public Opinion in England, etc.

{A.D. 1791}

DEBATE ON THE WAR IN INDIA.

Soon after the Christmas recess, Mr. Francis, having first eulogised Tippoo Sultaun, and contended that it was both impolitic and unjust to think of extending our territories in Hindustan, moved thirteen resolutions for the purpose of censuring the origin and preventing the continuance of the war, which he represented as having been begun without provocation, as being ruinously expensive, and as not likely to be productive of any great advantage. Pitt and Dundas vindicated the war, and showed to demonstration that the war originated in Tippoo’s restless ambition, hostility to the British, and long-premeditated design of subduing Travancore, which would open to him an easy entrance into the Carnatic, and thus enable him to attack Madras and all our possessions in that part of the East Indies. A war on our part, it was argued, was therefore necessary, unless we wished to sacrifice both our honour and interest, and to forfeit all respect among the native powers. The feelings of the house were with Pitt and Dundas, especially as great confidence was placed in the moderation and justice of Lord Cornwallis, the present Governor-general of India, and hence Francis let his thirteen resolutions drop without a division. Seconded by the feelings of the house, a few days after, Dundas moved three counter resolutions; namely, that it appeared to the house that the attacks made by Tippoo Sultaun on the lines of Travancore were unwarranted and unprovoked infractions of the treaty of Maugalore, concluded in 1784; that the conduct of the governor-general, in determining to prosecute the war against Tippoo for these attacks on Travancore, was highly meritorious; and that the treaties entered into with the Nizam and with the Mahrattas were calculated to add vigour to the operations of the war, and to promote the future tranquillity of India, and that the faith of the British nation stood pledged for the performance of the engagements contained in the said treaties. These resolutions were adopted by the house without a division.

DISPUTE WITH RUSSIA.

In proposing to continue the additional number of seamen which had been engaged for the expected war with Spain, Pitt had said that there were circumstances in the present situation of Europe, which made it necessary to keep up a naval armament, for a time, of more than ordinary extent. This had reference to the warlike attitude of Russia. At the congress of Reichenbach, the defensive alliance had proposed to the Czarina that she should accede to the peace which they were negociating with Austria, and that all conquests should be restored. This she flatly refused; but subsequently, being deprived of lier ally, and seeing that it was at present impossible for her to subjugate Turkey to her sway, she offered to restore all her acquisitions, except the city and dependencies of Oczakow, an important place, commanding the mouth of the Dnieper, at a distance of less than two hundred miles off the Turkish capital. As this offer exhibited an inclination on the part of the Czarina to recommence the war at some future period, the allies projected a more effectual interference, and on the 28th of March Pitt delivered a message from the king on the subject. His majesty acquainted his faithful commons, that his endeavours, in conjunction with his allies, to accomplish a pacification with Russia and the Porte had proved abortive; and that the consequences which might arise from the continuance of the war being important to his own interests, as well as those of his allies and to Europe in general, he judged it requisite, in order to add weight to his representations, to augment his naval forces, relying on the zeal and affection of the house of commons to make good such expenses as might be incurred. After delivering this message, Pitt moved an address to the king, thanking him for it, and promising him the support of the house. In doing so the minister represented, that, if Russia should be allowed to gather any material strength at the expense of Turkey, the effect would be injurious to the interests of all Europe; and that the interference of England was indispensable for the preservation of that balance of power, which all statesmen and men of all parties held to be essential for the security of Europe. This doctrine was very ancient, and had long been the doctrine of both Whig and Tory, but it was now despised by the opposition, who, to a man, became the champions of the Czarina. It was argued that it would be folly to sacrifice all the advantages of our immense trade with Russia for the sake of a Turkish fortress; that neither wisdom nor policy could justify Great Britain in going to war to preserve a barbarian power, which for the sake of religion, justice, and humanity ought to be utterly extirpated; and that, as we had received no injury from Russia, all hostile interference on our part was wholly unnecessary. On the other hand, it was argued by ministers that the aggrandisement of Russia at the expense of Turkey would injure both our commercial and political interests; and that the possession of Oczakow would facilitate the acquisition, not only of Constantinople, but of Alexandria and Lower Egypt. The address was carried, and several resolutions afterwards moved against the armament were rejected by large majorities. The armament therefore continued, and the Czarina was soon compelled to give up Oczakow with all her other acquisitions in Turkey, acquisitions which had cost her many thousand men to obtain.

BILL FOR THE REGULATION OF CANADA.

When Canada became a British colony the king had promised its inhabitants the benefits of the British constitution. Since that time the French settlers in that country, and the Canadians, had been joined by many British subjects, and by loyal emigrants from America, who were anxious to secure the advantages which the royal promise held out to them. Ministers had for some time directed their attention to the subject, and on the 4th of March Pitt moved for leave to bring in a bill for regulating the government of Canada, and entered into a minute detail of every provision which he meant to propose. He proposed to divide Canada into two provinces, Upper and Lower, and to establish distinct legislatures; the division being meant to separate the parts which were chiefly inhabited by French Canadians, from those inhabited by more recent settlers. The legislature of each province was to consist of a council and house of assembly. The members of the council were to hold their seats for life, with a reservation of power to the crown for annexing to certain honours an hereditary right of sitting in the council; and the members of the assembly were to be chosen by freeholders possessing landed property to the amount of forty shillings, or occupiers of houses worth twenty pounds per annum. The _habeas corpus_ act was to be rendered a permanent law of the colony; and a provision was to be made for the Protestant clergy by an allotment of lands. Appeals were to be made to the privy-council in the first instance, and from thence to the house of lords. The British government gave up the right of taxation, asserting only that of regulating external commerce: no taxes were to be imposed except such as were necessary for this regulation. This bill was read twice; it passed the committee, and the report was received by the house, before any disapprobation of it was expressed. On the second consideration of the report, however, Fox condemned its every principle. He observed, that the object of all popular assemblies was that the people should be fully and fairly represented, but as the assembly of one province was to consist of sixteen, and the other of thirty, the people were deluded by a mockery of representation. Fox also objected to the representatives being elected for the term of seven years, and contended that there should be annual, or at most triennial elections. Even in England, he said, where the frequent return of elections was attended with great inconvenience, the propriety of the septennial bill might justly be doubted. Fox further objected, that the legislative councils were unlimited as to numbers by any other restriction than the pleasure of the king, to whom a power was reserved of annexing to certain honorary and titular distinctions an hereditary right of sitting in council. As to hereditary honours, he remarked, as a general proposition, it was difficult to say whether they were good or not, but he saw no good in their being introduced into a country where they had hitherto been unknown. It might not be wise to destroy them where they existed, but it was unwise to create them where they did not exist. He could not account for this step, unless it was that Canada having formerly been a French colony, there might be an opportunity of reviving those distinctions, the loss of which some gentlemen so deplored, and to revive in the west that spirit of chivalry which had fallen into so much disgrace in a neighbouring country. In the course of his speech Fox made one unhappy allusion to the extinction of nobility in France, and its forced revival by us in Canada: “nobility,” he said, “stunk in the nostrils of the people of America.” At this time, indeed, Fox and his party embraced every opportunity of extolling the “glorious revolution” in France, whence, on the re-commitment of the bill, Burke again sounded the trumpet of alarm at that event. In enlarging upon the importance of the act which they were now about to perform, he said, “The first consideration was the competency of the house to such an act.” “A body of rights,” he continued, “commonly called the Rights of Man, had been lately imported from a neighbouring kingdom; the principle of which code was, that all men were, by nature, free and equal in respect of those rights. Now, if this code were admitted, he argued, the power of the house could extend no further than to call the Canadians together to choose a constitution for themselves. But the practical effects of such a system might be seen in St. Domingo and the other French islands. Until they heard of the Rights of Man they were flourishing and happy, but as soon as this system arrived among them, Pandora’s box, replete with every mortal evil, seemed to fly open; hell itself to yawn; and every demon of mischief to overspread the country. Blacks rose against blacks, whites against blacks—and each against the other in murderous hostility: subordination was destroyed, the cords of society snapped asunder, and every man appeared to thirst for the blood of his neighbour. The mother country, France, not receiving any pleasure in contemplating this image of herself reflected in her child, sent out a body of troops to restore order and tranquillity. But these troops, well instructed in the new principles, immediately upon their arrival felt themselves bound to become parties in the universal rebellion; and, like most of their brethren at home, began the assertion of their freeborn rights by murdering their own general! Should such an example induce us to ship off for Canada a cargo of the Rights of Man?” Burke next proceeded to describe the deplorable condition of France itself, and to comment on the conduct of the national assembly towards their monarch. In the midst of his speech he was called to order by Mr. Baker, and a scene of indescribable confusion ensued, and much time was wasted in violent altercation: one side of the house contending that Burke was in order, and the other that he was out of order. In the midst of this discord Fox sarcastically said, that he conceived his honourable friend could hardly be said to be out of order, since it seemed to him that this was a day of privilege, upon which any gentleman might abuse any government he chose, whether it had any reference or not to the question before the house. Nobody had said a word about the French revolution, but nevertheless his right honourable friend had risen up and abused that event. Burke had certainly as much right to abase the revolution, as Fox and his party had to extol it; and he attempted to explain why he thought that he was in order, but the roar of voices which was raised from the opposition benches drowned his voice, so that he was compelled to sit down. Lord Sheffield now rose and moved, “That dissertations on the French constitution, and to read a narrative of transactions in France, are not regular or orderly on the question before the house.” Fox seconded this motion, and this gave rise to the utter disruption of the friendship which had subsisted between him and Burke:—there had been heart-burnings before, arising from a difference of opinion on the subject of the French revolution, but now their political union was brought to a close. After Pitt had defended Burke, and declared that he should give his negative to the motion, Fox rose to defend his former sentiments respecting the French revolution, and repeated that he thought it, upon the whole, one of the most glorious events in the history of mankind. As for the Rights of Man, which his right honourable friend had ridiculed as visionary, he contended that they were the basis and foundation of every rational constitution. The rights of the people, he said, were recognized in our statute-book, and no prescription could supersede, no accident could remove or obliterate them. This at one time had been the doctrine of his friend, who had said, with great energy and emphasis, that he could not draw a bill of indictment against a whole people. He was sorry to find, however, that his right honourable friend had learned to draw such a bill of indictment, and moreover to crowd it with all the technical epithets which disgraced our statute-book: such as false, malicious, wicked, by the instigation of the devil, and the like. He added, that having been taught by his right honourable friend that no revolt of a nation was caused without provocation, he could not help rejoicing at the success of a revolution resting upon the same basis with our own—the Rights of Man: no book his friend could write, no words he could utter, could ever induce him to change or abandon his opinion; he must differ with his friend upon that subject _toto colo_. Throughout the whole of his speech Fox alternately rebuked and complimented Burke, and while he vindicated his own opinion he questioned the consistency of his friend. Fox even ventured to speak contemptuously of Burke’s book on the subject of the French revolution, and to assert that he had written it in haste, and without due information. His whole speech, in fact was ungenerous in the highest degree, whence it is no wonder that when Burke rose to reply it was under the influence of strongly excited feelings. Having touched upon the main question, and vindicated his conduct in putting the country on its guard against the dangerous doctrines which prevailed in France, and which had found many advocates in England, he complained of being treated with harshness and malignity—of being personally attacked from a quarter where he least expected it, and that after a close intimacy of twenty-two years. His whole conduct, words, and writings, he said, had not only been misrepresented and arraigned in the severest terms, but confidential conversations had been brought forward in order to prove his political inconsistency. He had been accused of writing and speaking on the subject of the French revolution without due information, but nevertheless he was ready to meet Fox, hand to hand, and foot to foot, in a fair and temperate discussion relative to that event. It was his imperative duty, he exclaimed, to speak upon French affairs, and to point out the danger of extolling, upon all occasions, that preposterous edifice, the French constitution; an edifice which the right honourable gentleman had termed the most stupendous and glorious which had been erected on the foundation of human integrity in any time or country. Our own government, he continued, was in danger, for there were political clubs in every quarter, meeting and voting resolutions of an alarming tendency. Dangerous doctrines were also promulgated from the pulpit, and infamous libels on the British constitution were everywhere circulated. There might not, indeed, be any immediate clanger, since we had a king in full power, ministers responsible for their conduct, a country blessed with an opposition of great strength, and a common people that seemed to be united with the gentlemen; but, nevertheless, there was cause for circumspection, as in France there were 300,000 men up in arms, who would be glad to intermeddle, and as a season of scarcity might arrive, when the low intriguers and contemptible clubbists, which abounded on every hand, might rise in revolt against the government. Burke again adverted to the unkindness with which he had been treated by his old associate, and remarked, that though he had frequently differed with him there had still been no interruption of personal friendship. But, he added, although at his time of life it might not be discreet to provoke enemies or to lose friends, yet if his steady adherence to the British constitution placed him in such a dilemma, he would risk all, and, as public duty required, would exclaim with his last breath, “Fly from the French constitution!” Fox here whispered that there was no loss of friendship, but Burke rejoined—“Yes there is: I know the price of my conduct; I have done my duty at the price of my friend; our friendship is at an end!” Burke then addressing himself to the two great rivals, Pitt and Fox, expressed a hope that whether they hereafter moved in the political hemisphere, as two flaming antagonist meteors, or walked like brethren hand-in-hand, they would preserve and cherish the British constitution against innovation and new-fangled theories. Fox rose to reply, but the tears trickled down his cheeks, and emotion for some time impeded his utterance. He felt the loss of his friend: yet, on recovering himself, while he made an eloquent appeal to the remembrance of the past, and to the reciprocal affection which had subsisted between them, as dear as that between father and son, he still gave utterance to some bitter sarcasms, and repeated some of his objectionable remarks. Rejoinders on both sides followed, and the dispute was renewed on the 11th of May, the house being again in committee on the Quebec Bill, but no concessions were made on either side, and the connexion between these illustrious men were dissolved for ever.

They stood aloof; the scars remaining— Like cliffs which had been rent asunder.

The Quebec Bill, which had given rise to this dispute, was finally carried through the house of commons, with some amendments, on the 18th of May; and it subsequently passed the lords, though not without much opposition, and obtained the royal assent at the close of the session.

SLAVE-TRADE ABOLITION BILL.

On the 18th of April, the evidence on the slave-trade being closed, Mr. Wilberforce moved “for a bill to prevent the further importation of African negroes into the British colonies.” He introduced this motion with a copious and convincing display of arguments in its favour, grounded on the principles of justice, humanity, and Christianity, but though it was supported by Pitt and Fox, self-interest prevailed: the motion was negatived by one hundred and sixty-three against eighty-eight. The advocates of humanity, however, completed at this time the establishment of the Sierra Leone Company, by which they proposed to introduce free labour and Christianity into Africa. A bill was brought in for this purpose by the excellent Henry Thornton, and it passed through both houses without opposition.

CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL, ETC.

During this session Mr. Mitford moved for a committee of the whole house, to enable him to bring in “a bill to relieve, upon conditions, and under restrictions, persons called Protestant Catholic Dissenters, from certain penalties, to which Papists are by law subject.” A reform in the penal statutes was at this time peculiarly called for, since a large body of Catholic Dissenters had recently formally protested against the temporal power of the pope, and his right to excommunicate princes, or to absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance; and had likewise disavowed the lawfulness of breaking faith with heretics, and the power claimed by their priests, of exempting men from moral obligations. The principles of the bill were generally approved, and it passed both houses without opposition: the bishops themselves expressing sentiments in its favour. Encouraged by this liberality of parliament, the church of Scotland transmitted from the general assembly a petition praying for the relief of the Test Act, as far as it applied to that country; and subsequently Sir Gilbert Elliot made a motion on the subject, but it was rejected by a large majority.

BILL TO AMEND THE LAW ON LIBELS.

On the 20th of May, Fox brought in a bill for empowering juries to try the question of law as well as fact, in prosecutions for libel. This subject was debated as a constitutional right, and not as a party question, and having obtained the support of Pitt, it passed the commons with very little opposition. In the lords, however, it was objected to as an innovation on the laws of the kingdom, and though warmly supported by Lords Camden, Grenville, and Loughborough, the motion for the second reading was negatived.

FINANCIAL MEASURES.

Previous to the introduction of his financial measures, Pitt proposed the appointment of a committee to inquire what had been the amount of the income and expenditure during the last five years, and what they might be expected to be in future; and also what alterations had occurred in the amount of the national debt since the 5th of January, 1786. This committee made its report on the 10th of May, when it appeared that the annual income had been £16,030,285, and the expenditure, including £1,000,000 for liquidating the national debt, £15,909,178, thereby leaving an excess of the income over the expenditure to the amount of £61,107. In his account of the state of finances on the 18th of May, Pitt referred to this report as a proof of their flourishing condition. Sheridan, however, still questioned the correctness of the figures; and on the 3rd of June he moved forty resolutions, calculated to discredit the management of the finances, and to show that he could have taken—spendthrift as he was—better care of the public money. These resolutions were all rejected; and ministers brought forward sixteen counter resolutions, which went to prove that the finances had never been so well managed before, and that there was every prospect, not only of keeping the expenditure within the limits of the income, but of reducing the national debt. This was visionary; but, at all events, Pitt was enabled to provide for the services of the year without a loan or any additional taxes. On a subsequent day, Dundas laid a flattering account of the finances in India before the commons; the revenues there, he stated, amounted to £7,000,000, and after defraying all expenses, there was left a clear surplus of nearly £1,500,000. His statement was questioned by Paul Benfield who had recently returned from India, and who asserted that he could prove it to be erroneous, but for the late period of the session.

IMPEACHMENT OF WARREN HASTINGS.

Early in this session a question arose, whether an impeachment by the house of commons did not remain _in statu quo_, notwithstanding the intervention of a dissolution of parliament. Upon the solution of this question it depended whether the present parliament could take up the proceedings against Hastings where they had been left by the last, or whether they must be commenced anew. Much discussion arose upon the question; lawyers and members of parliament alike being at issue upon it; but Burke finally succeeded in carrying this motion:—“That it appears that an impeachment by this house, &c., against Warren Hastings, Esq., late Governor-general of Bengal, for sundry high crimes and misdemeanors, is now depending.” The trial, therefore, was to be resumed at the point where it was left by the recent parliament; and in order to shorten it, on the 14th of February, Burke moved “that, in consideration of the length of time which has already elapsed since carrying up the impeachment against Warren Hastings, Esq., it appears to this house to be proper, for the purpose of obtaining substantial justice with as little delay as possible, to proceed to no other parts of the said impeachment than those on which the managers of the prosecution have already closed their evidence; excepting only such parts of the impeachment as relate to the contracts, pensions, and allowances.” This motion was carried without a division; but the resolution of the commons, that an impeachment did not cease with the dissolution of parliament, was strongly contested in the house of lords; and it was not till the 16th of May that their lordships agreed to proceed with the trial. On that day Lord Porchester moved, “that their lordships do now proceed with the trial;” and this motion being carried by a large majority, a message was sent to the house of commons that they were ready to resume proceedings. The charge respecting contracts, pensions, allowances, frauds, and extortions, was opened by Mr. St. John on the 23rd of May, and was gone through in three days. The prosecution closed its evidence on the 30th of May; and when the court broke up, the managers proposed an address to the king, praying him not to prorogue parliament until the trial was finished. This was negatived; and Hastings seeing that he could not expect to bring his defence before the court during the present session, begged to be allowed one day for stating what he deemed of importance respecting the further progress of the trial. This request was readily granted; and on the 2nd of June he delivered a long and able discourse, vindicating his administration in India, and entering at large into the principles which had actuated his conduct. He finally appealed to his accusers in the following energetic peroration:—“To the commons of England, in whose name I am arraigned for desolating the provinces of their dominion in India, I dare to reply, that they are, and their representatives annually tell them so, the most flourishing of all the states in India. It was I who made them so! The valour of others acquired—I enlarged, giving shape and consistency to the dominion which you hold there. I preserved it. I sent forth its armies with an effectual but economical hand, through unknown and hostile regions, to the support of your other possessions; to the retrieval of one from dishonour and degradation, and of another from utter loss and subjection. I maintained the wars which were of your formation or that of others, not of mine. I won one member of the great Indian confederacy from it by an act of seasonable restitution; with another I maintained a secret intercourse, and converted him into a friend; a third I drew off by diversion and negociation, and employed him as an instrument of peace. When you cried out for peace, and your cries were heard by those who were the object of it, I resisted this and every other species of counteraction by rising in my demands, and accomplished a peace, a lasting and I hope an everlasting one, with one great state; and I, at least, afforded the efficient means by which a peace, if not so durable, more seasonable at least, was accomplished with another. I gave you all, and you have rewarded me with confiscation, disgrace, and a life of impeachment. I am, above all things, desirous that your lordships should come to an immediate decision upon the evidence before you. But if the shortness of time should prevent you from complying with this, my earnest desire, and the trial must, of necessity, and to my unspeakable sorrow, be prolonged to another session, then, my lords, I trust you will not consider me, by anything I have said, as precluded from adopting such means of defence as my counsel may judge most advisable for my interest. I am so confident of my own innocence, and have such a perfect reliance upon the honour of your lordships, that I am not afraid to submit to judgment upon the evidence which has been adduced on the part of the prosecution.” After this plea of general merit, in extenuation of specific charges, their lordships passed a resolution to proceed with the trial on the first Tuesday in the next session of parliament.

PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

Parliament was prorogued by the king in person on the 10th of June. His majesty expressed great satisfaction at the zeal with which the two houses had applied themselves to the consideration of the different objects which he had recommended to their attention; and said, that he regretted he was not yet able to inform them of the result of the steps which had been taken with a view to the re-establishment of peace between Russia and the Porte.

PROGRESS OF THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE.

The notes of alarm sounded by Burke in the British house of commons at the progress of the French revolution, did not proceed from an overheated imagination; for, during this year, events transpired which showed in a clearer light than ever that there was cause for alarm. The audacity of the Jacobins daily increased; and in order to oppose a barrier to it, the wiser of the national assembly had recourse to royalty. Lafayette, Mirabeau, the two Lameths, and others, foreseeing the danger in which the new constitution was placed from their proceedings, acted thus, though it proved all to no purpose. In the midst of his exertions to stem the coming ruin of the country, Mirabeau, who was of all men in France the most able to effect such a work, died. It was proposed in the assembly, on the 28th of February, that the tide of emigration should be stopped, by entrusting the power of granting passports to a committee of three persons. Against this iniquitous measure Mirabeau loudly exclaimed; and his opposition to the measure raised such a clamour against him, that, in his exertions to silence their voices, he was so overcome, that he returned thence to a bed of sickness, from which he never arose. His last words were—“After my death the factions will soon tear the last shreds of the monarchy.”

Before Mirabeau had closed his mortal career, he had counselled the king to retire to Metz, beyond the power of the Parisians; and there, at the head of an independent force, to treat with the nation, if he could not with the assembly, and obtain a more equitable adjustment between the rights of the crown and those of the people. Exposed to daily renewed mortifications, Louis finally resolved upon flight; and a plan was concerted with the Marquis de Bouille, who formed a camp of some faithful regiments near Montmedy, for his escape thither. The king and his family left the Tuilleries and the capital on the night of the 20th of June, and arrived undisturbed as far as St. Menehauld; but here he was recognized by the postmaster Drouet, who, by taking prompt measures, had him arrested at Varennes. On the fifth day of his flight he was conducted back to Paris as a prisoner, surrounded by an angry populace and the national guards. He had left behind him, on his departure from the Tuilleries, a declaration, in which he protested against the decrees of the national assembly which he had sanctioned, and manifested his intention of overthrowing the new order of things. Had he succeeded, therefore, France was threatened with civil war and executors; and now that he had failed, vengeance was to fall upon his own head. On his return the national assembly suspended him provisionally from his functions, and appointed commissioners to interrogate him. Louis, however, supported by the moderate party, was silently reinstated in his authority, and the national assembly went on as before. But this only tended to increase the rage of the Jacobins. They wanted at once to proclaim the republic; and, being defeated in their designs, they turned to the people. They caused a petition to be prepared for dethroning the monarch, and made an attempt to lay it on “the altar of the country,” in the field of Mars, for universal signature. A violent tumult ensued, which Lafayette quelled at the edge of the sword: much blood was shed. But this triumph of the assembly only served to render them unpopular. The people became as weary of them as of the monarch; so having collected their constitutional decrees into one code, and having presented this constitution to the king, and received his solemn acceptance of it, on the 30th of December the national assembly declared itself dissolved. This was a fatal step to both king and country. Before the dissolution of this assembly, on the motion of Robespierre, a measure was passed, declaring that none of the members should be capable of re-election. Now, although few among them were capable of legislating for a great country, as most of their acts had proved, yet it was manifest that the members, generally, were wiser, and even more moderate than the people at large. The consequence of this fatal step was, in fact, to sink the representation of the people into a still lower grade of society; to exalt the dregs of the people into the responsible office of legislators. This was soon made manifest; of seven hundred and fifty-eight members who were elected for the legislative assembly, which arose on the ruins of the national assembly, not more than fifty were possessed of one hundred pounds per annum. Those who were elected, indeed, were chiefly men whose zeal had distinguished them in the clubs; men whose sole aim was the subversion of all religion, and of that order which is so necessary to the well-being of a state. There were three classes of persons in this new assembly; the Feuillans, so called from the name of their club, who advocated a mitigated aristocracy; the Girondins, or professed republicans, who had a fixed aversion to even the shadow of royalty which had been preserved; and the Jacobins, whose aim was to sweep away rank, wealth, and talent from the land. The two former of these divisions represented the middle classes, and the latter the rabble; but the Girondins were the most powerful and popular. Such was the nature of this assembly. Compared with it the “rump parliament” of Oliver Cromwell was the perfection of wisdom and moderation. Ignorance, passion, and inexperience became united; and those who looked for great things at the hands of its members—and there were those even in England who looked for such things—must have been grossly infatuated with the principles of the revolution. What the monarch might expect from them was seen on the first meeting of the assembly, when they took an oath upon the constitutional act to live freemen or die. Their next measures were in accordance with this oath. At this time, the emigrants, who had greatly increased since the king had failed in his attempt at flight, had begun to arm foreign courts in their own favour and for the support of the tottering throne of France. Austria, Russia, and Prussia had definitely promised their aid; the King of Sweden, Gustavus III., had offered to be the commander of the allies; and other European courts, though they had not yet resolved to resort to arms, shared in their sentiments. At this time, also, the discontented priesthood, who were scattered through the realm, were stirring and preparing the peasantry universally to revolt. There was, in fact, a tempest gathering round the heads of the patriots; and alarmed at it, and in order to counteract the danger, during the months of October and November, the legislative assembly declared all emigrants who continued hostile on the frontiers beyond the month of January, 1792, civilly dead, and their properties confiscated; and similar rigorous measures were ordained against those priests who should refuse the oath binding them to the constitution, and continue to excite agitation. The king refused to sanction these decrees; and then was seen the absurd balance of power provided against the constitution. The rage of the revolutionists knew no bounds; and unable to attack the monarch directly, they turned their rage against the ministers and the constitutionalists from whose ranks they had been chosen. To effect their overthrow the Girondins and Jacobins united, and were successful. Such of the constitutionalists as were in the ministry were compelled to resign, and the whole party lost its influence in the senate. Nor had this party any power now in the municipality, for Bailly had been superseded in his mayoralty, and Lafayette had resigned his command of the national guard; and these important offices had fallen into the hands of the Jacobins, and by their influence democracy gained the ascendency in the capital, and, by a natural consequence, throughout the whole kingdom. The monarch was even compelled to choose his ministers out of the fiery Jacobin party; for neither royalist nor constitutionalist dared to sit in the council. At the close of this year it was manifest that the king was on the high-road to the scaffold. Red-caps were worn in public by the victorious Jacobins as a party badge, and as a declaration of war against all the moderate and all the friends of right; and the guillotine, beneath which thousands of victims were to bleed, was introduced. France had already assumed the aspect of an arena of wild beasts: Danton, Robespierre, and Marat were already licking their jaws in anticipation of the prey.

{GEORGE III. 1791–1792}

STATE OF PUBLIC OPINION IN ENGLAND, ETC.

As every day manifested more and more that the principles of the revolution in France were fraught with mischief, and as great exertions were made by Burke and others to enlighten the public mind on their evil tendency, it might have been expected that Englishmen, who enjoyed a free constitution, although they had generously sympathised with the French people at the outset of their work of regeneration, from a conviction that it would tend to their benefit and happiness, would, by this year, have seen that they were in error, and would, therefore, have somewhat abated in their admiration of that work. This might have been the case to a certain extent; but, nevertheless, those who professed republican principles in England were still very numerous, and had become bolder in their advocacy of such principles. A fierce war was carried on by the newspapers of the day against Burke’s “Reflections,” and pamphlets and volumes of all sizes were published, in order to show that it was a mere flimsy piece of rhetoric and fine writing. The most conspicuous of these volumes were the “_Vindictæ Gallicæ_;” or “Defence of the French Revolution,” written by Sir James Mackintosh; the “Rights of Man,” written by that fierce democrat, Tom Paine; and “Letters to the Right Honourable Mr. Burke, on his Reflections on the Revolution of France,” written by the celebrated Unitarian preacher, Dr. Priestley. Perhaps, the most popular of these books was the “Rights of Man,” which, crude and undigested as the arguments it contained were, was extolled by the republican party in England as a master-piece of human intelligence and genius, and as a complete refutation of all the arguments of Burke’s “Reflections.” This may have arisen from the fact that Paine’s doctrine was much more plain and intelligible to the common people: it was operatical and proposed immediate excision; that is, it advocated the total overthrow of monarchy, and the establishment of republicanism. To the honour of Sir James Mackintosh it must be mentioned, that he, subsequently, when he read of the massacres and atrocities committed in Paris, retracted the bold assertions he had made in the _Vindicio Gallico_, and, finally, declared that democracy was “the most monstrous of all governments, because it is impossible at once to act and to control; and, consequently, the sovereign power in such a constitution must be left without any check whatsoever.” Sir James Mackintosh, indeed, lived to regret that he had written his essay; nor does it appear that when he wrote he had any idea of the fatal consequences that would result from the principles he defended: like many others he indulged the hope that the revolution would correct its own vices. His essay, like those of Paine’s and Priestley’s, however, had an evil tendency at this period of public excitement. At the same time the _Vindicio Gallicio_ was not calculated to work such mischief as the “Rights of Man,” and the “Letters to the Right Honourable Mr. Burke,” since the one was addressed to the educated, and the others to the uneducated classes of the public. Cheap editions of the two latter works were, in truth, industriously circulated throughout the country, by the various clubs which abounded on every hand. But notwithstanding the exertions of the press to promulgate revolutionary principles, there was still a sound conservative principle abroad: the main body of the people were loyal to their king, and few comparatively among the upper ranks were found to countenance the efforts of sedition. This was manifested in an unequivocal manner at Birmingham, where Dr. Priestley acted as a Socinian or Unitarian minister: a manner, indeed, which must be condemned, inasmuch as it was unworthy of the friends of order, and as it set an example of ungovernable fury to those who were represented as the foes of all established institutions. In most of the large towns of England associations were formed for the celebration of the French revolution on the 14th of July, the anniversary of the taking of the Bastille. Such an association was formed at Birmingham, and a few days before the appointed feast a printed handbill was circulated throughout the town, which seemed to be intended as a direct challenge and defiance to the anti-revolutionists; to those who were advocates for church and state. This handbill was without signature, and it read thus:—“My countrymen, the second year of Gallic liberty is nearly expired. At the commencement of the third, on the 14th of this month, it is devoutly to be wished that every enemy to civil and religious despotism, would give his sanction to the majestic common cause by a public celebration of the anniversary. Remember that on the 14th of July the Bastille, that ‘High Altar and Castle of Despotism,’ fell! Remember the enthusaism peculiar to the cause of liberty with which it was attacked! Remember that generous humanity that taught the oppressed, groaning under the weight of insulted rights, to save the lives of oppressors! Extinguish the mean prejudices of nations, and let your numbers be collected and sent as a freewill offering to the national assembly! But is it possible to forget that your own parliament is venal? Your ministers hypocritical? Your clergy legal oppressors? The reigning family extravagant? The crown of a certain great personage becoming every day too weighty for the head that wears it? Too weighty for the people who gave it? Your taxes partial and excessive? Your representation a cruel insult upon the sacred rights of property, religion, and freedom? But on the 14th of this month prove to the political sycophants of the day that you reverence the Olive Branch; that you will sacrifice to public tranquillity till the majority shall exclaim ‘The peace of slavery is worse than the War of Freedom’! Of this moment let tyrants beware!” This paper occasioned a great ferment in the good town of Birmingham. It was considered generally by the people to have proceeded from the republicans that had appointed to feast at the tavern on the 14th of July; while, on the other hand, it was affirmed by the republicans that it had been written, printed, and distributed by the opposite party for the purpose of disturbing their convivial meeting. It was thought advisable to give up the feast, and notice was given to that effect; but mine host of the tavern represented that he had prepared the viands, and that they might feast without danger if they did not sit too long at the table, and so the company, to the number of eighty or ninety, met at the appointed time. One Keir, a man well known for his attainments in several branches of science, and a member of the Established Church, was in the chair; but the party had scarcely assembled, before the tavern was surrounded by a tumultous crowd, who shouted long and loudly, “Church and King!” “Church and King!” Strange rumours soon got abroad of the doings within the tavern. It was said that mine host had set three figures upon the table: one a medallion of the king encircled with glory; another an emblematical figure of British liberty; and a third an emblematical figure of Gallic slavery breaking its chains. It was likewise said, that the patriots within doors had cut off the king’s head and placed it on the table! Finally it was reported that the very first toast of the assembly was, “Destruction to the present government, and the king’s head upon a charger.” This was too much for the feelings of the loyal people of Birmingham to endure. No sooner had this toast been made known, than loyalty “swift as lightning shot through their minds, and a kind of electrical patriotism animated them to instant vengeance.” Before the second course was well on the table, they rushed into the tavern, broke windows and glasses, and compelled the carousers to take refuge in flight. So writes one authority; but another more authentic states, that it was some hours after, when most of the company had departed, that the mob broke in, and that the peculiar object of their search was Dr. Priestley, from whose wig they wanted to knock out the powder. Dr. Priestley had long been offensive to the townspeople of Birmingham for his bold advocacy of the principles of the French revolution; and now that their passions were excited, when they could not discover him at the tavern, and after they had smashed all the windows, they resolved to seek him elsewhere—at his dwelling-house on Fair Hill. Had they proceeded direct to his residence, they might have tried their skill in knocking the powder out of his wig, and, had they done nothing further, they would not have committed much mischief, inasmuch as the doctor could soon have had it re-powdered. A hint had been given them, however, that they had done sufficient mischief at the tavern, and that they had better go to the meetings. In a brief hour, therefore, the new meeting-house where Dr. Priestley preached was broken into, and set on fire; and in another brief hour the old meeting-house sent up its flame towards heaven likewise. The mob now sought the doctor at his house on Fair Hill, but, timely warned, he and his family had taken refuge in flight. His house now shared the fate of the meeting-houses: together with the whole of his valuable library, his still more valuable apparatus for philosophical experiments, and the furniture; it was destroyed by fire. All this was done on the 14th of July, and it was hoped that the mob would go no further. But, unfortunately, they had in part been stimulated to these violences by strong drink, which had been given them by some of the more respectable loyalists of the town. On the morrow, therefore, the rabble of the town again sounded the cry of “Church and King,” and being joined by the rabble of the mining and foundery districts in the neighbourhood, they resumed their dreadful avocation. On that day the houses of Messrs. John Ryland, Taylor, and Hutton, were destroyed; the magistrates making no effectual preparations to stop the ravages. It does not appear that the mob had been furnished with any drink on this day by the loyalist magnates of the town; but they had extorted whole hogsheads of ale from Mr. Hutton to save his house—though they afterwards destroyed it—and had moreover found plenty of good wine in the cellars, and this incited them again to action. On the following day no less than eight houses within the town, and in its vicinity, wore destroyed, exclusive of the residence of Mr. Coates, a Unitarian minister, which was plundered and damaged, but not demolished. The following clay was Sunday, but it was no day of rest for the rioters, except those who were too drunk to move; they went into the country, it is true, but it was only to destroy chapels, and to plunder, and burn clown houses. On this day, however, their work of destruction was stopped. By the evening of the day, probably not finding sufficient drink in the cellars of the Dissenters, they had begun to break open and to destroy the houses of churchmen. They were busy in breaking open the house of Dr. Withering, at some distance from the town, when the words “light horse” sounded in their ears, and the whole mob melted away as if by magic; when the light-horse appeared, not a shadow of them could be found. In fact, the mob of Birmingham was the very counterpart of that which had been engaged in Lord George Gordon’s riots. Throughout their whole career they had not shown any disposition for fighting, except with fists and sticks, and on one occasion they fled when resisted by a single pistol. The riots had, doubtless, been raised by men of a better stamp than those engaged in it; but who, like the prime movers of the riots in London, kept in the background. At the same time it manifested that the great body of the people of Birmingham had no fellow-feeling with those who advocated the principle of the French revolution. It was from this cause, perhaps, that government was backward in exhibiting sympathy for the sufferers, and a disposition for punishing the offenders. Troops were, indeed, sent to restore peace, but no proclamations were issued from the secretary of state’s office until some days elapsed, and then the reward offered for discovering and apprehending a chief rioter was a mere bagatelle. In the whole, seventeen were arrested and tried, five of whom only were found guilty; three were executed. The losses sustained by the sufferers were made good by the hundred, in the way which the law directs; and Dr. Priestley at least was a gainer in point of money, for in addition to the compensation awarded by law, his friends and admirers opened their purses freely on his behalf. He gained by the event, also, in point of popularity, and more especially in France and America. Testimonials, condolences, and flattering compliments were sent to him from all quarters, and he was even compared to Galileo and Socrates! The event, in truth, had the effect of making him more bold in his advocacy of revolutionary principles. Both from the pulpit and the press he loudly denounced the bigotry of England, and as loudly applauded the enlightened toleration of France. In this he was encouraged by those who entertained similar views to his own, and who in their addresses extolled him as a martyr. On the other hand, those who supported “church and state,” and various bodies of Dissenters, who could not tolerate either his extreme views of republicanism or his attacks on the mystery of the Trinity, assailed him in the most bitter manner. England, in fact, became too hot to hold him, for, in 1794, he expatriated to America. The national convention had nominated him a citizen of the French Republic, but by that time he had, doubtless, become convinced that there was no safety for him in France, whence he wisely forbore entering that wide arena of strife and bloodshed. So ended the Birmingham riot: it reflects no honour on our annals, but it shows that the mass of the population were satisfied with the English constitution, and it may serve as a warning to deter men from the exhibition of that malignant party-spirit which reflects disgrace on the best cause. “Let your moderation be known unto all men.”