524 ALARM IN ENGLAND-DISQUIET OF MINISTERS. [19 He remained to show how a resolute will and a clear head can surmount every difficulty. The battle of Talavera won for sir Arthur Wellesley the name by which we shall henceforth speak of him-Wellington: first Viscount, then E. then Marquis, then Duke. By what name he was to be called was almost: matter of chance. "Talavera" was thought of. Of" Wellesley" his brothe wore the honours. Wellington" was chosen-the household word fr all time. In December the British army had crossed the Tagus at Abrants When his head-quarters were at Badajoz, in October, lord Wellington hal gone to Lisbon, "to arrange finally for the defence of Portugal." He is conceived the grand project of the lines of Torres Védras. In January, 1810 his head-quarters were at Viseu; and he was in constant communication with lieutenant-colonel Fletcher, an officer of engineers, on the execution this gigantic work. The scheme was not to be paraded before the world It was to be proceeded with steadily and unostentatiously. He would claim no merit with the English government, or the English people, for prepari a stronghold, from which he might go forth to do battle with armies for times as strong as his own, and retire thither on any emergency, to laugh s their efforts to dislodge him. During the spring of 1810 he steadily devote himself to the organization of the British and Portuguese armies. He w wholly left to his own resources. The government at home could send him no reinforcements. He had no support in their confidence that he woul surmount the difficulties by which he was encompassed. At the end d October, four questions were put to him by lord Liverpool,† which required all his prudence and sagacity to answer upon his own responsibility. Wellington thought:-1. That if the Spaniards were commonly prudent, the enemy would require a very large reinforcement before they could subjugate the country: 2. He thought that if the French did not make an immediate attack upon Portugal, they would require an army of seventy or eighty thousand men to succeed, but he believed they would make the attack: 3 He thought that if they made the attack at once they would be successfully resisted: 4. He was convinced that if defeated his army could embark! At the end of 1809 intelligence had arrived of the defeat of two Spanish armies; and then lord Liverpool talks as if all the efforts of the British and Portuguese armies for the defence of Portugal would be unavailing.§ In March, lord Liverpool apprises lord Wellington, "That a very considerable degree of alarm exists in this country respecting the safety of the Britis army in Portugal;" and that he "would rather be excused for bringing away the army a little too soon, than, by remaining in Portugal a little to long, exposing it to those risks from which no military operations can be wholly exempt." He could not " recommend any attempt at what may be called desperate resistance." It must have been a satisfaction to Welling. ton, who cared very little for "alarm in England," and was not easily depressed by ministerial timidity, to have received the encouragement of the stout-hearted old king to persevere in the course which appeared right and 1809.] DUEL BETWEEN CASTLEREAGH AND CANNING. 525 safe in his own judgment. Colonel Herbert Taylor was then the official secretary to George III., who was nearly or totally blind. He had read to the king a private letter from lord Wellington to lord Liverpool; and he conveys to the minister his sovereign's sentiments upon the correspondence which had taken place. This letter of colonel Taylor, dated April 21, lord Liverpool forwards to lord Wellington. It contains the following passage: "The king observed that the arguments and remarks which this letter contains, the general style and spirit in which it is written, and the clearness with which the state of the question and of prospects in Portugal is exposed, have given his majesty a very high opinion of lord Wellington's sense, and of the resources of his mind as a soldier; and that as he appears to have weighed the whole of his situation so coolly and maturely, and to have considered so fully every contingency under which he may be placed, not omitting any necessary preparation, his majesty trusted that his ministers would feel with him the advantage of suffering him to proceed according to his judgment and discretion in the adherence to the principles which he has laid down, unfettered by any particular instructions which might embarrass him I in the execution of his general plan of operations."* The worry from Downing-street continued, especially from the Treasury. In June, Wellingston asks this question of the ministry-" Are we at war with France for the existence and independence of the country? and is it advisable to maintain the contest as long as possible at a distance from home? . . . I see more, and must know more, of what is going on here than others; and I certainly have no prejudice in favour of the continuance of our exertions here, founded upon any partiality for the business of guiding them. But I sincerely feel what I write-that if the resources of Great Britain were fairly applied to this contest, as they have been to any other in which the country has been engaged, the French would yet repent the invasion of Spain."+ When two Cabinet Ministers meet to fight a duel, and one is wounded, the natural consequence is, that the house divided against itself must fall. Lord Castlereagh, the Secretary at War, challenged Mr. Canning, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and they had a hostile meeting on Wimbledon Common on the 22nd of September. Canning was slightly wounded. It is scarcely possible to investigate the causes of this transaction without encountering the difficulties that arise from the partizanship of contemporary narratives. After the lapse of half a century the subject is scarcely worth investigation by a writer who has only to present a rapid view of the more important public affairs. Upon the surface it might appear that Canning had been intriguing for six months to remove Castlereagh from office for some motive of personal ambition. He "was much and unjustly blamed at the time." The duke of Portland, the Prime Minister, wrote to the Chancellor in June, "The great object, and indeed the sine quá non with Canning, is to take from lord Castlereagh the conduct of the war." Lord Castlereagh, in his letter of challenge, complained that Mr. Canning, after receiving a promise that the seals of the War Office should be transferred from their holder, continued to act with him as his colleague, and permitted him to originate the "Supplementary Despatches," p. 515. Ibid., vol. vi. p. 531. 526 THE JUBILEE. [1809. Walcheren enterprize. There seems to be no doubt, however, that Canning several times tendered his own resignation, but was over-persuaded to remain in office, believing that Castlereagh had been apprised by the duke of Portland, and other members of the Cabinet, of the desire and the intention to make the change which so materially affected the public service. Both the Secretaries of State were injured by the want of moral courage in the head of the government to do a disagreeable act-by telling the truth to take out of the hands of the War Minister the completion of a great enterprize which he had devised. The end of the affair was that Canning and Castlereagh both quitted the administration. The duke of Portland also resigned; and, long broken in health, died on the 29th of October. There were many difficulties in constructing a new administration. Mr. Perceval became Premier; the marquis Wellesley came from Spain to be Secretary for Foreign Affairs; lord Liverpool took lord Castlereagh's post as Secretary of State for the department of War and Colonies; the Secretary at War was lord Palmerston. The 25th of October was celebrated throughout the kingdom as "The Jubilee"-the fiftieth anniversary of the accession to the throne of George the Third. Romilly considered "this Jubilee as a political engine of ministers;" but the people fell into the proposal of the celebration with a very hearty spontaneity. Romilly also thought that when posterity should look at the measures of the king's government, his popularity for many years would appear unaccountable.* The people were not only gay amidst bell-ringing, and bonfires, and dinners in civic halls. There was a feeling of enthusiastic attachment to their old sovereign, manifested amongst the many who pitied his growing infirmities; who sympathized with his sturdy hatred to Bonaparte and French domination; and who were not quite sure that what the wiser called his prejudices were not great public virtues. One thing the people dreaded— that this reign should come to a close; that the example of the domestic virtues that prevailed at Windsor should be succeeded by the licence of Carlton House; that the scandals about the princess of Wales-which rival factions were constantly speculating upon as weapons of political offence or defence should become a source of national danger and disgrace when the unhappy quarrel should be between a king and a queen. Caroline of Brunswick could not be put aside as easily as Josephine Beauharnais. If the time should come, when the Fourth George should turn over the chronicles of the Eighth Harry to search for precedents, it would not suit the genius of representative government, that he should proclaim his will to his assembled family that his wife should be divorced, as Napoleon proclaimed his will at the Tuileries on the 15th of December; that an obsequious senate should confirm the dissolution of the marriage; and that the ruler of England should be free to look around for a Princess to share his throne, after the fashion in which the ambitious Corsican first threw the handkerchief at a Grand Duchess of Russia, and then-a slight hesitation being manifested-at an Archduchess of Austria. Such a crisis was postponed in England by the life of George the Third being prolonged beyond another decade. When parliament was opened on the 23rd of January, the failure of the * "Diary"-October. 1810.] QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. 527 expedition to Walcheren naturally became a subject of grave inquiry. The Opposition and the country were in ill-humour, and they mixed up their reproofs of the unhappy policy of the Scheldt enterprize with the operations of sir Arthur Wellesley, contending that the government which had given him a peerage must stand or fall by him. They little knew how time would accomplish this result in a different manner from that which they anticipated. The pension which was proposed to be granted to lord Wellington was carried by a very small majority. A constitutional question arose upon a motion of censure, moved by Mr. Whitbread, against lord Chatham, in presenting to the king a narrative of his proceedings in the Scheldt, with a request of secresy, and without communicating it to the other members of the cabinet. The motion was carried. Lord Mulgrave succeeded lord Chatham in the office of Master-General of the Ordnance. The constitutional law was sufficiently asserted without any further proceedings. A time of great popular excitement was coming in England. The old question of Privilege, in which the House of Commons had manifested such an impotent tyranny in the case of John Wilkes, was about to be renewed in a struggle with a favourite of the democracy, who was bent upon asserting what he held to be popular rights. Sir Francis Burdett, the member for Westminster, was in 1810 the subject of a contest which had no real bearing upon the liberties of the people, but which gratified the vanity of one who aspired to be their leader. The interest of the war in the Peninsula; the marriage of Napoleon with a daughter of the emperor of Austria, by which his complete ascendancy over the continent appeared to be established; the commercial effects of the Orders in Council; the difficult problem of the · depreciation of the Currency which was under discussion ;-these matters became of small importance compared with the resistance of the member for Westminster to an order of the Speaker for his arrest. The turmoil was soon over, and as it had no lasting consequences our relation must be very brief. John Gale Jones, the manager of a Debating Society, on the occasion of the enforcement of the Standing Order for the exclusion of strangers during the Walcheren inquiry, issued a handbill, announcing that the Society had decided that the enforcement was "an insidious and ill-timed attack upon the liberty of the press, tending to aggravate the discontents of the people, and render their representatives objects of jealousy and suspicion." Jones was brought to the bar; confessed himself the author of the bill; and was committed to Newgate, the House resolving that he having published a paper containing libellous reflections upon the conduct and character of the House, was guilty of a high breach of its privileges. Sir Francis Burdett, having made an unsuccessful motion for the discharge of Jones, published a violent letter in Cobbett's "Register," in which he contended that the House had no authority to imprison for such an offence. Sir Thomas Lethbridge, on the 27th of March, moved" that the publication of which Sir Francis had acknowledged himself to be the author, was a scandalous libel upon the rights of the House." There was a debate of two nights. Romilly doubted the right of commitment. The Master of the Rolls maintained the right, in which he was supported by some members of the Opposition, but who nevertheless objected to the agitation of the question. During the violence of debate there was an amusing interlude. Sir Joseph Yorke angrily called Whitbread "a brewer of 528 COMMITTAL TO THE TOWER OF SIR FRANCIS BURDETT. [1810. bad porter." There was a furious uproar. Whitbread, with perfect good humour, rose and said, " Mr. Speaker, I rise as a tradesman to complain of the gallant officer for abusing the commodity which I sell ;" and the House burst into laughter and approbation. On the 5th of April, in an adjourned debate, the House divided at six in the morning upon the question whether the paper by sir Francis Burdett was a breach of privilege, an amendment for postponing the question for six months being rejected by a large majority, But the question whether the baronet should be committed to the Tower, or reprimanded, was carried by 190 against 152, the same morning at half-past seven. In the course of that day the populace began to break the windows of members who had taken part against their favourite. The tumult became serious on the 7th, when sir Francis declared his determination to resist the warrant for his committal, and to defend himself in his own house in Piccadilly. The Riot Act was read; the Guards were called out; several persons were wounded; and troops arrived from the country. On Monday, the 9th, the house of Sir Francis was broken open; and he was conveyed to the Tower, under a strong military escort. On the return of the troops they were grossly insulted and attacked by a furious mob, and several persons were killed when the soldiers at length fired, having had to fight their way through Eastcheap. The subsequent proceedings upon this question of privilege have been succinctly stated by a recent constitutional historian: "Overcome by force, sir Francis brought actions against the Speaker and the Sergeant, in the Court of King's Bench, for redress. The House would have been justified by precedents and ancient usage, in resisting the prosecution of these actions, as a contempt of its authority; but instead of standing upon its privilege, it directed its officers to plead, and the Attorney-General to defend them. The authority of the House was fully vindicated by the Court; but Sir Francis prosecuted an appeal to the Exchequer Chamber, and to the House of Lords. The judgment of the Court below being affirmed, all conflict between law and privilege was averted. The authority of the House had indeed been questioned; but the Courts declared it to have been exercised in conformity with the law." When Parliament was prorogued on the 22nd of June, the imprisonment of sir Francis came to an end. A procession was announced to convey him home in triumph; but he departed secretly by water, and the mob followed an empty car to Piccadilly. When Parliament was prorogued on the 21st of June, the royal speech briefly alluded to the Peninsular war. It said, that Portugal, with the assistance of his majesty's arms, had exerted herself with vigour and energy, in making every preparation for repelling any renewed attack on the part of the enemy; and that in Spain, notwithstanding reverses which had been experienced, the spirit of resistance against France still continued unsubdued and unabated. The nation could scarcely have expected from this somewhat cheerless notice of the operations of the British army, with no mention of the British general, that he had been doing some useful work. His retreat to Portugal after Talavera had been denounced in Parliament as having converted victory into defeat. The Common Council of London presented a * Lord Colchester's "Diary," vol. ii. p. 242. May-Constitutional History of England," vol. i. p. 450. |