ONE:[See larger version]
CLOSE
ONE:But far more remarkable were the effects of the championship of French principles in the celebrated Dr. Joseph Priestley. Priestley was now nearly sixty years of agea time of life when men rarely become great enthusiasts in any cause. He was a Unitarian minister, and was now the pastor of a congregation at Birmingham. He was well known for various theological writings, in which he had announced his doubts of the immateriality of the sentient principle in man, especially in his "Disquisition on Matter and Spirit." He had been tutor to Lord Shelburne, first Lord Lansdowne; but had quitted that post, as supposed, in consequence of the objection of Lord Shelburne to these principles, retaining, however, an annuity of one hundred and fifty pounds a-year. But Priestley was far more known and esteemed for his researches and discoveries in natural philosophy, especially in electricity, chemistry, and pneumatics. Orthodoxy and Toryism were extremely rampant in Birmingham, and Priestley was regarded as the very patriarch and champion of Socinianism and Republicanism. There wanted only a spark to fire trains of fierce intolerance against Priestley and his party, and, unfortunately, this was furnished by themselves. They resolved to celebrate, by a dinner, the anniversary of the taking of the Bastille, on the 14th of July. Before the dinner took place, such were the rumours of impending riots that the party proposed to defer the celebration to a future day; but the landlord had prepared the dinner, and declared his opinion that there would be no danger if the party dispersed early, without stopping to drink many toasts. Darbley, the innkeeper, curiously enough, was a Churchman, and in good odour with the Tory party. Satisfied by his representations, about eighty persons determined to hold the dinner on the appointed day, though a considerable number stayed away, and amongst those Priestley himself. The company were hooted as they entered the inn, but chiefly by a crowd of dirty lads, who cried "Church and King!" On the table were ranged three figures: a medallion of the king encircled with a glory, an emblematical figure of British Liberty, and another of French Slavery bursting its chains. In the evening a fierce riot broke out, instigatedaccording to Priestley's accountby some prominent magistrates, though the statement was never proved. The mob rushed to Darbley's hotel after the dinner was over and most of the people were gone. There they raised the cry of "Church and King!" and began to throw stones. Some one cried out, "Don't break Darbley's windows; he is a Churchman!" But the Church-and-King people and their set, now flushed with wine and loyalty, waved their handkerchiefs from the windows of the opposite inn, and hurrahed the mob on. With this encouragement, which seemed to the crowd to legalise their proceedings, the mob rushed into the house, declaring that they wanted to knock the powder out of Dr. Priestley's wig. They did not find the doctor, so they smashed most of the furniture in the house, and dashed in the windows, notwithstanding the host's orthodoxy. Some one then cried, "You have done mischief enough here; go to the meetings!" and the mob rolled away, first to the new meeting-house, where Priestley preached, which they soon demolished and set fire to. They then proceeded to the old meeting-house, and destroyed that too, being hounded on by people of decent station in the place, and made furious by the beer which was distributed among them.As for Wilkes, he counselled them earnestly to introduce a paragraph into their Address to the king, stating their conviction that the chief discontents of the nation arose from the violation of the rights of representation in his expulsion from the Commons. "I am," said the eloquent earl, "neither moved by his private vices nor by his public merits. In his person, though he were the worst of men, I contend for the safety and security of the best; and God forbid that there should be a power in this country of measuring the civil rights of the subject by his moral character, or by any other rule than the fixed laws of the land."
ONE:But far more remarkable were the effects of the championship of French principles in the celebrated Dr. Joseph Priestley. Priestley was now nearly sixty years of agea time of life when men rarely become great enthusiasts in any cause. He was a Unitarian minister, and was now the pastor of a congregation at Birmingham. He was well known for various theological writings, in which he had announced his doubts of the immateriality of the sentient principle in man, especially in his "Disquisition on Matter and Spirit." He had been tutor to Lord Shelburne, first Lord Lansdowne; but had quitted that post, as supposed, in consequence of the objection of Lord Shelburne to these principles, retaining, however, an annuity of one hundred and fifty pounds a-year. But Priestley was far more known and esteemed for his researches and discoveries in natural philosophy, especially in electricity, chemistry, and pneumatics. Orthodoxy and Toryism were extremely rampant in Birmingham, and Priestley was regarded as the very patriarch and champion of Socinianism and Republicanism. There wanted only a spark to fire trains of fierce intolerance against Priestley and his party, and, unfortunately, this was furnished by themselves. They resolved to celebrate, by a dinner, the anniversary of the taking of the Bastille, on the 14th of July. Before the dinner took place, such were the rumours of impending riots that the party proposed to defer the celebration to a future day; but the landlord had prepared the dinner, and declared his opinion that there would be no danger if the party dispersed early, without stopping to drink many toasts. Darbley, the innkeeper, curiously enough, was a Churchman, and in good odour with the Tory party. Satisfied by his representations, about eighty persons determined to hold the dinner on the appointed day, though a considerable number stayed away, and amongst those Priestley himself. The company were hooted as they entered the inn, but chiefly by a crowd of dirty lads, who cried "Church and King!" On the table were ranged three figures: a medallion of the king encircled with a glory, an emblematical figure of British Liberty, and another of French Slavery bursting its chains. In the evening a fierce riot broke out, instigatedaccording to Priestley's accountby some prominent magistrates, though the statement was never proved. The mob rushed to Darbley's hotel after the dinner was over and most of the people were gone. There they raised the cry of "Church and King!" and began to throw stones. Some one cried out, "Don't break Darbley's windows; he is a Churchman!" But the Church-and-King people and their set, now flushed with wine and loyalty, waved their handkerchiefs from the windows of the opposite inn, and hurrahed the mob on. With this encouragement, which seemed to the crowd to legalise their proceedings, the mob rushed into the house, declaring that they wanted to knock the powder out of Dr. Priestley's wig. They did not find the doctor, so they smashed most of the furniture in the house, and dashed in the windows, notwithstanding the host's orthodoxy. Some one then cried, "You have done mischief enough here; go to the meetings!" and the mob rolled away, first to the new meeting-house, where Priestley preached, which they soon demolished and set fire to. They then proceeded to the old meeting-house, and destroyed that too, being hounded on by people of decent station in the place, and made furious by the beer which was distributed among them.As for Wilkes, he counselled them earnestly to introduce a paragraph into their Address to the king, stating their conviction that the chief discontents of the nation arose from the violation of the rights of representation in his expulsion from the Commons. "I am," said the eloquent earl, "neither moved by his private vices nor by his public merits. In his person, though he were the worst of men, I contend for the safety and security of the best; and God forbid that there should be a power in this country of measuring the civil rights of the subject by his moral character, or by any other rule than the fixed laws of the land."
CLOSE
ONE:
ONE:
CLOSE
ONE:Although the division took no one by surprise, as the rejection of the Bill by the Lords was expected, yet the shock to society was very violent. The Funds suddenly fell, and there was that feeling of vague anxiety in the public mind which often portends some great calamity. At Derby they broke open the gaol and demolished the property of the anti-Reformers of the place. At Nottingham there was serious rioting, which ended in the utter destruction by fire of the ancient castle, once the property of the Duke of Newcastle, who had given violent offence by his rash declaration with regard to his voters at Newark, "that he had a right to do what he pleased with his own." The popular fury, however, soon subsided, and the public mind regained tranquillity, in the full assurance that the carrying of the Bill was only a question of time, and that the popular cause must ultimately triumph. What[340] most materially contributed to the restoration of public confidence was the fact that the king, alarmed at the prospect of a revolution, implored the Ministers to retain their places, and to shape their Bill so as to disarm their opponents; and on the following Monday, in the House of Commons, Lord Ebrington moved a vote of confidence in the Government, to the effect that, while the House lamented the present state of a measure in favour of which the opinion of the country had been so unequivocally expressed, and which had been matured after the most anxious and laborious discussions, they felt imperatively called upon to reassert their firm adherence to its principles and leading provisions, and their unabated confidence in the integrity, perseverance, and ability of the Ministers, who, in introducing it and conducting it so well, had consulted the best interests of the country. This motion was carried by the large majority of 131; the numbers being 329 to 198. Thus supported by the Commons, the Ministers retained their places; and the king, on the 20th of October, prorogued Parliament in person, in a Speech which the Lords might take as the king's answer to their vote, telling them in effect that by their obstinate bigotry they were setting themselves in antagonism to the two other estates of the realm, and that in their conduct and position lay the real danger to the Constitution. His Majesty said: "To the consideration of the important question of the Reform of the House of Commons the attention of Parliament must necessarily again be called at the opening of the ensuing Session; and you may be assured of my unaltered desire to promote its settlement by such improvements in the representation as may be found necessary for securing to my people the full enjoyment of their rights, which, in combination with those of the other orders of the State, are essential to the support of our free Constitution."
ONE:Although the division took no one by surprise, as the rejection of the Bill by the Lords was expected, yet the shock to society was very violent. The Funds suddenly fell, and there was that feeling of vague anxiety in the public mind which often portends some great calamity. At Derby they broke open the gaol and demolished the property of the anti-Reformers of the place. At Nottingham there was serious rioting, which ended in the utter destruction by fire of the ancient castle, once the property of the Duke of Newcastle, who had given violent offence by his rash declaration with regard to his voters at Newark, "that he had a right to do what he pleased with his own." The popular fury, however, soon subsided, and the public mind regained tranquillity, in the full assurance that the carrying of the Bill was only a question of time, and that the popular cause must ultimately triumph. What[340] most materially contributed to the restoration of public confidence was the fact that the king, alarmed at the prospect of a revolution, implored the Ministers to retain their places, and to shape their Bill so as to disarm their opponents; and on the following Monday, in the House of Commons, Lord Ebrington moved a vote of confidence in the Government, to the effect that, while the House lamented the present state of a measure in favour of which the opinion of the country had been so unequivocally expressed, and which had been matured after the most anxious and laborious discussions, they felt imperatively called upon to reassert their firm adherence to its principles and leading provisions, and their unabated confidence in the integrity, perseverance, and ability of the Ministers, who, in introducing it and conducting it so well, had consulted the best interests of the country. This motion was carried by the large majority of 131; the numbers being 329 to 198. Thus supported by the Commons, the Ministers retained their places; and the king, on the 20th of October, prorogued Parliament in person, in a Speech which the Lords might take as the king's answer to their vote, telling them in effect that by their obstinate bigotry they were setting themselves in antagonism to the two other estates of the realm, and that in their conduct and position lay the real danger to the Constitution. His Majesty said: "To the consideration of the important question of the Reform of the House of Commons the attention of Parliament must necessarily again be called at the opening of the ensuing Session; and you may be assured of my unaltered desire to promote its settlement by such improvements in the representation as may be found necessary for securing to my people the full enjoyment of their rights, which, in combination with those of the other orders of the State, are essential to the support of our free Constitution."
CLOSE
ONE:[See larger version]
ONE:[See larger version]
CLOSE
ONE:Granville being got rid of, and the Opposition bought up with place, the only difference in the policy which had been pursued, and which had been so bitterly denounced by the noblemen and gentlemen now in office, was that it became more unequivocally Hanoverian and more extravagant. "Those abominably Courtly measures" of Granville were now the adopted measures of his denouncers. The king had expressed, just before his fall, a desire to grant a subsidy to Saxony; but Lord Chancellor Hardwicke had most seriously reminded his Majesty of the increased subsidy to the Queen of Hungary, which made it impracticable: now, both the increased subsidy to Maria Theresa and the subsidy to Saxony were passed without an objection. A quadruple alliance was entered into between Britain, Austria, Holland, and Saxony, by which Saxony was to furnish thirty thousand men for the defence of Bohemia, and to receive a hundred and fifty thousand pounds, two-thirds of which were to be paid by England, and one-third by Holland. The Elector of Cologne received twenty-four thousand pounds, the Elector of Mayence eight thousand pounds. Nay, soon discovering that, as there was no opposition, there was no clamour on the subject, Ministers the very next year took the Hanoverians into their direct pay again, and in 1747 increased the number of them from eighteen thousand to twenty thousand.
ONE:Granville being got rid of, and the Opposition bought up with place, the only difference in the policy which had been pursued, and which had been so bitterly denounced by the noblemen and gentlemen now in office, was that it became more unequivocally Hanoverian and more extravagant. "Those abominably Courtly measures" of Granville were now the adopted measures of his denouncers. The king had expressed, just before his fall, a desire to grant a subsidy to Saxony; but Lord Chancellor Hardwicke had most seriously reminded his Majesty of the increased subsidy to the Queen of Hungary, which made it impracticable: now, both the increased subsidy to Maria Theresa and the subsidy to Saxony were passed without an objection. A quadruple alliance was entered into between Britain, Austria, Holland, and Saxony, by which Saxony was to furnish thirty thousand men for the defence of Bohemia, and to receive a hundred and fifty thousand pounds, two-thirds of which were to be paid by England, and one-third by Holland. The Elector of Cologne received twenty-four thousand pounds, the Elector of Mayence eight thousand pounds. Nay, soon discovering that, as there was no opposition, there was no clamour on the subject, Ministers the very next year took the Hanoverians into their direct pay again, and in 1747 increased the number of them from eighteen thousand to twenty thousand.
CLOSE
ONE:His arguments seemed to satisfy the Home Government, and a large force was sent from Agra to Gwalior, under Sir Hugh Gough, then Commander-in-Chief of India, as successor of Sir Jasper Nicholls. So much interest did Lord Ellenborough feel in this invading expedition that it was accompanied by him in person. The Mahrattas of course prepared to defend themselves. They were met at Maharajpore. After a severe struggle, in which the enemy were bayoneted at their guns, and a series of bloody conflicts had taken place in the streets, the British were victorious, and got possession of twenty-eight guns, with the key of the enemy's position. The battle, however, was not over when this vantage ground was gained; for though the enemy had fallen back, they were prepared for a desperate resistance in other less favourable positions. A general attack was then ordered. Brigadier Scott, at the head of the 10th Light Horse, and Captain Grant, with his Horse Artillery, had scattered their cavalry which covered the extreme right. General Vaillant then led on the 40th Queen's, and successively gained three strong positions, which the enemy defended with the utmost firmness and courage, not quitting their guns till they were cut down by their fierce assailants. In this attack they lost six regimental standards. The 2nd Native Infantry also acted bravely on this occasion. The 39th Queen's also made an impetuous attack, and the result was that the enemy were driven from all their entrenchments in utter confusion, with the loss of nine standards and sixty-four guns. Seven of our officers were killed on the spot or wounded mortally. Our total loss was 106 killed, and 684 wounded. The Commander-in-Chief wrote in his despatch:"I regret to say that our loss has been very severeinfinitely beyond what I calculated upon. Indeed, I did not do justice to the gallantry of my opponents." It was a loss certainly almost unprecedented in Indian warfare, and it is remarkable that this misfortune repeatedly occurred while Lord Gough was Commander-in-Chief. Lord Ellenborough, with his suite, was rash enough to be under fire during part of the engagement. The loss of the enemy was estimated at 3,000. Major-General Gray, with only 2,000 men, on the same day won a victory over 12,000 of the Mahrattas, in the fortified village of Mangor, about twelve miles from Gwalior. Here, too, the loss of the victors was very heavy, more than a tenth of the little army having fallen.[288]
ONE:His arguments seemed to satisfy the Home Government, and a large force was sent from Agra to Gwalior, under Sir Hugh Gough, then Commander-in-Chief of India, as successor of Sir Jasper Nicholls. So much interest did Lord Ellenborough feel in this invading expedition that it was accompanied by him in person. The Mahrattas of course prepared to defend themselves. They were met at Maharajpore. After a severe struggle, in which the enemy were bayoneted at their guns, and a series of bloody conflicts had taken place in the streets, the British were victorious, and got possession of twenty-eight guns, with the key of the enemy's position. The battle, however, was not over when this vantage ground was gained; for though the enemy had fallen back, they were prepared for a desperate resistance in other less favourable positions. A general attack was then ordered. Brigadier Scott, at the head of the 10th Light Horse, and Captain Grant, with his Horse Artillery, had scattered their cavalry which covered the extreme right. General Vaillant then led on the 40th Queen's, and successively gained three strong positions, which the enemy defended with the utmost firmness and courage, not quitting their guns till they were cut down by their fierce assailants. In this attack they lost six regimental standards. The 2nd Native Infantry also acted bravely on this occasion. The 39th Queen's also made an impetuous attack, and the result was that the enemy were driven from all their entrenchments in utter confusion, with the loss of nine standards and sixty-four guns. Seven of our officers were killed on the spot or wounded mortally. Our total loss was 106 killed, and 684 wounded. The Commander-in-Chief wrote in his despatch:"I regret to say that our loss has been very severeinfinitely beyond what I calculated upon. Indeed, I did not do justice to the gallantry of my opponents." It was a loss certainly almost unprecedented in Indian warfare, and it is remarkable that this misfortune repeatedly occurred while Lord Gough was Commander-in-Chief. Lord Ellenborough, with his suite, was rash enough to be under fire during part of the engagement. The loss of the enemy was estimated at 3,000. Major-General Gray, with only 2,000 men, on the same day won a victory over 12,000 of the Mahrattas, in the fortified village of Mangor, about twelve miles from Gwalior. Here, too, the loss of the victors was very heavy, more than a tenth of the little army having fallen.[288]
THREE:per cent., while the actual increase in England and Wales, in the same space of time between 1801 and 1831, as found by numeration, reached to 5,024,207 souls, or 56BENJAMIN DISRAELI.
THREE: