the late excitement, their error has been rather on the side of remissness than of undue rigour. I will not now give any opinion on the proceedings at Manchester, as all the facts are to be laid before a jury. This only I owe it to myself to say,-that it is my fixed, my unqualified opinion, that the meeting at Manchester, on the 16th of August, was, in every sense of the word, an illegal meeting."

Such a declaration of the law, while inquiry was denied, I think was very exceptionable. One bad consequence which it produced was, that when Mr. Hunt's trial came on, Mr. Justice Bayley, a very learned and honest, but not very strong-minded, judge-to show his independence, expressed considerable doubts respecting the character of the meeting, and actually advised Sir James Scarlett, who was leading counsel for the Crown, after the trial had lasted some days, to give up the prosecution. Indeed, it was owing to the firmness and extraordinary ability of that gentleman, who considered himself bound to exert himself the more from being politically opposed to the Government, that justice was not defeated by an acquittal.* What would have been the consequence if the Lord Chancellor's advice had been taken, and the indictment had charged Mr. Hunt with "traitorously imagining the death of our lord the King, and levying war against him in his realm ? "+

Now was passed the unconstitutional code, called "The Six Acts,' the latest violation of our free Constitution, and I believe the last: for we have seen, both under Whig and Tory rule, considerably greater danger from tumultuary meetings and secret associations, and yet on these occasions tranquillity was restored and preserved, and protection was afforded to life and property, by a skilful and vigorous use of the ordinary powers of the law. The most obnoxious bills then passed, which, fortunately have all expired or been repealed, were-to prevent public meetings without the license of magistrates,-to permit a search in private houses for arms,--to impose a high stamp-duty on newspapers, for the avowed purpose of checking their circulation,-and to subject to transportation beyond the seas any person who should be convicted a second time of publishing a libel. These, I presume, were all suggested by the Lord Chancellor, and they were all gallantly defended by him. "I ask the House," said he, " what they think England would be like if these bills should not pass? The Arms Bill does not authorize the searching of a house on the mere information that the owner of it has arms in his possession; such possession must be for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.' The principle of the right of the King's subjects to possess arms for their defence, is not quite so broad as it has

* When he returned to London he was warmly thanked for his exertions by Lord Liverpool, who acknowledged to him that, if Mr. Hunt had been acquitted, there must have been a change of Administration.

† Being convicted of a misdemeanor, he was very properly sentenced by the Court of King's Bench to imprisonment for two years in Dorchester jail. An attempt to have him hanged, drawn and quartered, would have insured him an ovation, amidst the plaudits of hundreds of thousands, all over England.

treason."

been frequently represented; it is accompanied with the qualification that 'the arms so to be possessed by them are suitable to their situation in life.'* If the object of the persons to whom these bills are to be applied is to give to their meetings, by the collection of great numbers, the quality of physical force for the purpose of procuring, by the display of that physical force any alteration in the government in Church or State, I must declare that such a proceeding is an overt act of high With respect to the bill for the transportation of libellers, he said, “I maintain, my Lords, that it is necessary for the suppression of libels, that the Courts should have the power which we now propose to vest in them. As the law stands, if a man, between the times of his prosecution and his judgment, think proper, day by day, and hour by hour, to repeat his offence by means of his servant, his wife, or some other authorized person, there is nothing to prevent him. Until a great lawyer, and a great reformer of laws, [meaning poor Michael Angelo Taylor, who had not only introduced the Pillory Abolition Bill, but made a yearly motion on the delays in Chancery,] had thought proper to take away the punishment of the pillory, there was some check on this species of pertinacity; but now the Court can only imprison and fine, and often the fine is imposed where it cannot be paid.† It is true that each of these publications may form the subject for a distinct prosecution; but if they extend to the number of 500, or 1000, or 1500, is it possible for the duration of human life to afford a sufficient space for a punishment equal to the incalculable mischief which their circulation will effect? I vote for these measures because I consider them as tending to secure the peace, and to promote the happiness, of the people. The alarm caused by such language was very great, so that for a time the Ministry was strengthened, and the bills were all carried by vast majorities. I make no doubt that Lord Eldon acted conscientiously in proposing and supporting them; but in doing so he showed at once a total disregard of the principles of the English Constitution, and entire ignorance of the feelings of the English people. The "Six Acts," bringing unspeakable odium on the Government, increased and prolonged the ferment which they were intended to suppress.

The two Houses finished their work with unexampled despatch, and were, on the 29th of December, adjourned to the 15th of February following.

Before that day arrived, the aspect of public affairs was greatly altered by Death, who impartially visits the cottage and the palace. On the 22d of January, 1820, expired his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, a prince who had continued to keep aloof from party politics,

* He might have added,—and I wonder that he did not,-another condition specified by the Bill of Rights," that the King's subjects who claim to use arms in their defence are Protestants.

وو

†This would be contrary to Magna Charta, and the Chancellor can hardly have thrown such an imputation on the Judges. The inefficacy of fines legally imposed proceeds from their being paid by a subscription.

but, performing in an exemplary manner all the duties of his station, was universally beloved and respected.

Six days afterwards, George III., whose mind was too much weakened to allow him to be conscious of his bereavement, [JAN. 29, 1819.] was released from suffering. This event produced a

deep sensation, although it was not likely to be attended with any political change, and ten years before, his reign had in reality terminated. But his name had still been preserved in all public acts; his image appeared on the coin; the nation still considered itself under his auspices; much sympathy had been excited by the thought that a mighty monarch, reduced to a state of mental imbecility and blindness, was cut off even from the intercourse of his own family, to whom he had been so tenderly attached; and, his faults being forgotten, people were disposed to think only of his singleness and sincerity of purpose, his determined resolution, and his truly English heart. He certainly was a prince possessed of very valuable qualities; and it is only fair to state, that every thing discovered concerning him since his death has tended to raise our opinion both of his abilities and of his generosity.*

CHAPTER CCIV.

CONTINUATION OF THE LIFE OF LORD ELDON TILL THE CONCLUSION OF THE QUEEN'S TRIAL.

ALTHOUGH the day on which the death of George III. was announced was a Sunday, according to the requisition of the statute 6 Anne, c. 7, both Houses of Parliament met. Lord [A. A. D. 1820.] Eldon merely appeared on the woolsack, and as soon as prayers were read the House of Peers was adjourned.

Shortly after, a council was held at Carlton House, when the usual ceremonies were observed as upon the commencement of a new reign. On this occasion, all the Ministers delivered up the emblems of their

* I have had an opportunity of reading his private correspondence with Lord North, which conveys a wonderful idea of his activity, familiarity with business, and knowledge of character. His steady attachment to that Minister is highly creditable to his heart. With a better education, he might have been one of the greatest sovereigns who ever filled the throne of England.

From a mot of his, recorded by Lord Eldon, he might even have displayed a talent for delicate sarcasm :-"On one occasion George III., when he came out of the House of Lords, after opening the session of Parliament, said to me, 'Lord Chancellor, did I deliver the speech well? Very well indeed, Sir,' was my answer. 'I am glad of that,' replied the King, for there was nothing in it.”” I remember being told, when I was a boy, although I never saw the anecdote in print, that having knighted a gentleman of the name of Day, at a levee held on the 29th of September, he said, "Now I know that I am a King, for I have turned Day' into Knight, and made LADY-DAY at Michaelmas."

Of Lord

different offices, and were all graciously re-appointed.* Eldon's part in this ceremony we have an account from himself in the following letter from him to his sister-in-law, Mrs. H. Ridley:

"DEAR FANNY,

"London, Jan. 31st, 1820.

"I have lost the master whom I have long served, and whom I have most affectionately loved.

The Acts of Parliament now in being would have continued me in office till the Royal pleasure should remove me; but I determined that, as I was acting under the appointment of him who was no more, I owed it as matter of respect to him, and as matter of respect to his successor, to consider my office as determined by the death of him who gave it me, and that I ought not, with respect to the latter, to leave him to the pain of removing me if he thought that fit-and especially as I know, and to his credit I say it, that he kept us, and me among the rest, originally, only because we were his father's servants.

"I therefore yesterday resigned into his hands the Seals; and, as I told him, I hoped unsullied by any act of mine. Out of office, he thought proper to call me back into it; and now I am in the very singular situation-that of a third Chancellorship †

"Remain in it long I cannot-to be restored to it I did not wish; but I could not for the present withdraw from the offer graciously made to me by the son of my greatest benefactor, who certainly has behaved with great kindness to me, though he had been taught heretofore to hate me.

"With our love to you all—to you all-
"Believe me affectionately yours,
"ELDON."

It is amusing to observe how he enhances the delight he felt at the commencement of his third Chancellorship by protestations that he was reluctantly induced again to accept the worthless bauble, lest by declining it he should be chargeable with ingratitude.

*"30th January, 1820.-Memorandum, that the Right Hon. John Lord Eldon, Lord High Chancellor of that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, called Great Britain, delivered the Great Seal to his Majesty in Council, at Carlton House, when his Majesty was graciously pleased to re-deliver to him the said Seal, with the title of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain; and on the 1st day of February, his Lordship, between the hours of ten and eleven in the forenoon, went into the Court of Chancery, at Westminster, attended by Masters Campbell, Stratford, and Alexander, and, standing in his place there in open court, took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and also the oath of the Lord Chancellor, which oaths were read to him by the Deputy Clerk of the Crown, Master Campbell, the senior Master present, in the absence of the Master of the Rolls, (who was prevented from attending by indisposition,) holding the book, which being done, the Attorney General moved that it might be recorded, which was ordered accordingly."-Min. Book, No. 2, fol. 118.

† His immediate successor has been four times Chancellor, and Lord Cottenham three times. He was probably not aware that one of his predecessors had been Chancellor five times.

Parliament again met for a few days, but only to vote addresses of condolence and congratulation; for this House of Commons having been several times a little refractory, the resolution was taken to get rid of it as soon as possible. The Marquess of Lansdowne pointed out that there was not the usual reason for a dissolution which occurred upon a demise of the Crown; but Lord Eldon explained that, at common law, the Parliament died with the Sovereign in whose name it was called, and although by the statute of William III. it might sit six months longer, it was liable to be dissolved sooner; and constitutionally it ought to be dissolved as soon as public business will allow-so that noble lords who started any business to delay the dissolution [FEB. 28, 1820.] would be obstructing the due exercise of the royal prerogative. He, as Lord Commissioner, concluded the session by delivering the Royal Speech, which deplored the loss of a Sovereign, "the common father of all his people," and praised the prudence and firmness with which the Lords and Commons had counteracted the designs of the disaffected.*

Yet the new laws were insufficient to prevent the formation of the most diabolical and the most preposterous plot recorded in our annals— "the Cato Street conspiracy,"-by which it was intended to upset the monarchy by assassinating the Lord Chancellor and all his colleagues while assembled together at a Cabinet dinner. One Thistlewood, who had been a subaltern officer in the army, with about a score of others,--butchers, shoemakers, and of such low trades,-had agreed that when the Cabinet Ministers were dining at Lord Harrowby's, one of the confederates should gain admission at the outer door by pretending to deliver a letter; that all the others should then rush in, and, having exccuted their bloody purpose, they should constitute themselves the Government of the country. But two of them having "'peached," they were all apprehended in their conclave in Cato Street, when about to 'set forth for Lord Harrowby's. Being speedily brought to trial, the charge of high treason was satisfactorily made out against them, and five of them were executed.

I do not think that Ministers deserved any censure for the manner in which they conducted themselves in this affair, unless that they somewhat unscrupulously yielded to the temptation of arguing that the plot was a justification of their recent coercive laws, and of pretending to infer from this insane scheme that there was a revolutionary spirit generally prevailing in the country. Lord Eldon, who considerably overrated his actual danger, piously wrote to a lady of his family: "For the past,- thankfulness and gratitude, I trust, will relieve all other feelings: as to the future, I trust there is something to be hoped for of protection in human caution, and that we may all fully depend upon that Providence to which we are so largely indebted.'

* 41 Parl. Deb. 1642.

†This plot bears a considerable resemblance to that of Caliban, Stephano, and Trinculo, in "The Tempest "-to murder Prospero, and make themselves Kings of the Enchanted Island.