Читать книгу When William IV. Was King - John Ashton - Страница 10

Table of Contents

Incendiary fires — Captain Swing — The result of Cobbett's lectures — Special Commission — Prosecution of Carlile — Election expenses — List of Close boroughs — Collapse of Reform Bill — The King stoned — Debût of Princess Victoria — The Times and the House of Lords — Bribery at elections — Action for libel — "The King v. Cobbett" — Prince Leopold made King of the Belgians.

"The Red Cock" still crowed, and incendiary fires were still the order of the day, in spite of the commissions to examine the numerous prisoners in several counties. Captain Swing was rampant, and his letters, if not always logical, as in the following instance, were very numerous. The Exeter Gazette, quoted in the Times of January 3rd, says—

"The following 'Swing' letter is the most ingenious commentary which we have met with on the present infatuated attempts to destroy machinery. Here is a fellow threatening the life of a respectable person, because he is the means of reducing the number of water-carriers, and supplies the inhabitants with a quantity of that prime necessary of life, on terms cheaper than they could obtain it from the moveable reservoirs which convey some fifty or sixty gallons at a time round the town, at the rate of a halfpenny a pailfull. The climax of the joke is the threat which it holds out, of burning the Waterworks!

"'Golsworthy.—This is to inform you that you and your waterworks being the pest of the City of Exeter, not only by taking the bread out of the mouths of the poor watermen, but by your overbearance and pride, this is to inform you that if you do not destroy that vile machine of yours, in 9 days, it shall be burnt to the ground; and, further, if you neglect this notice, you shall not only have your property burnt, but a mark shall be made of your body.

"'From your deadly enemy,

"'Swing.

"'Neglect not this, or you will know the weight of lead.'"

Cobbett's lectures and writings undoubtedly influenced the minds of the ignorant agricultural labourer, and one man, under sentence of death for incendiarism at Battle, wrote the following confession:—

"I, Thomas Goodman, once herd of one Mr. Cobbit going a Bout gaveing out lactuers; at length he came to Battel and gave one their, and there was a gret number of Peopel came to hear him and i went: he had A verry long conversation concerning the states of the country, and telling them that they war verrey much impose upon, and he said he would show them the way to gain their rights and liberals, and he said it would be very Proper for every man to keep gun in his house, espesely young men, and that they might prepare themselves in readyness to go with him when he called on them, and he would show them wich way to go on, and he said the peopel might expect fire as well as other places.—this is the truth and nothing But the truth of A deying man.

"Thomas Goodman."

There was a very curious case connected with these agrarian riots, which occurred at the Special Commission at Salisbury, where Isaac Locker was indicted for sending a threatening letter to John Rowland, in these words—

"Mr. Rowland, Haxford Farm.—Hif you goes to sware against or a man in prisson, you have here farm burnt down to ground, and thy bluddy head chopt off."

Some evidence was produced to show that the prisoner, in his conversation, had justified the machine-breakers and fire-raisers, and that the magistrates and military, who disturbed the proceedings of the mobs, were the only breakers of the peace; but the case turned on the question, whether the letter was in the handwriting of the prisoner. Locker was found guilty, and the judge, in spite of the man's asseverations of his innocence, sentenced him to transportation for life.

The judge and jury retired for some refreshment, and in their absence, the man's son, Edward Locker, came forward and declared that he had written that and other letters. The judge expressed his surprise that this evidence had not been brought before him previously, and proceeded to try the prisoner on two similar indictments, when his son got into the witness box and testified that the letters were in his handwriting. The trial ended in the father's acquittal on those two counts, and the judge said that he would lose no time in getting the former conviction and sentenced quashed. An indictment was immediately prepared, and found against the son, to which he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to transportation for seven years.

The Special Commission ended its labours on the 15th of January, having hanged many rioters, and sentenced very many more to long terms of transportation.

Besides Cobbett, there was a noted atheist, named Richard Carlile, who is still looked upon as a persecuted martyr by Freethinkers. On the 10th of January, he was indicted at the Old Bailey for having written and published two seditious libels—one tending to bring the Crown into disrepute, and the other, which was addressed to the insurgent agricultural labourers, tending to produce an insurrection among the labouring and agricultural population. He was acquitted on the first, but found guilty on the second count, and he was sentenced to pay a fine to the King of £200, be imprisoned in the Compter of the City for the space of two years, and at the expiration of that time, to find sureties for ten years to come, himself in £500, and two sureties in £250 each, and to be imprisoned until such fine was paid, and such sureties provided.

The question of the reform of Parliament was now taken in hand seriously, and it was not before it was needed. The expenses attendant on elections were something enormous. The Leeds Mercury, quoted in the Times of August 30, 1830, speaking of the county of Yorkshire, says—

"At the great contested Election of 1807 the expenses of the three candidates amounted to a quarter of a million—and, at the Election for 1826, when there was no contest, but only a preparation for one, the four candidates had to pay £150,000."

An example of how the money went may be found in the election bills of the Hon. S. Wortley, in contesting Forfarshire, in 1830. One dinner bill is thus—

	£	s.	d.
Ginger beer, 6/-; Brandy, 20/-	1	6	0
Champagne, £20; Claret, £21	41	0	0
Gin, 20/-; Ale, 16/-	1	16	0
Brandy Toddy, £2; Gin Toddy, £1	3	0	0
Dinner, £4 10/-; Madeira, £17 10/-	22	0	0
	——	——	——
	£69	2	0

And here is one of his tavern bills.

"The Hon. S. Wortley to John Morrison.
1830.		£	s.	d.
July	21.		The Dinner above mentioned	69	2	0
"	22.		Champagne, £13; Gin, 12/-	13	12	0
"	"		Brandy	0	15	0
"	23.		Whisky Toddy, 10/-; Brandy Toddy, 18/-	1	8	0
"	24.		Claret, £9 10/-; Champagne, £10	19	10	0
"	26.		Supper, £1; Brandy, 10/-; Gin 12/-	2	2	0
"	"		Gin Toddy, 20/-; Whisky Toddy, 16/-	1	16	0
"	"		Champagne, £12 10/-; Claret, £13	25	10	0
"	27.		Brandy Toddy, 18/-; Gin Toddy, 20/-	1	18	0
"	"		Sherry, £5 2/-; Port, £4 16/-	9	18	0
"	28.		Champagne, £8 10/-; Whisky Toddy, 10/-	9	0	0
"	29.		Supper, £1 7/6; Perry Cider, 20/-	2	7	6
"	"		Brandy Toddy, £1 4/-; Gin Toddy, £1 10/-	2	14	0
"	"		Champagne, £13; Ginger beer, 6/-	13	6	0
"	30.		Suppers, 22/6; Gin, 8/-; Brandy, 7/6	1	18	0
"	"		Gin Toddy; 30/-; Brandy Toddy, 30/-	3	0	0
"	"		Champagne	12	0	0
Aug.	1.		Claret, £8; Sherry, £5 8/-; Port, £7 4/-	20	12	0
"	2.		Suppers, 17/6; Gin, 16/-; Brandy, 30/-	3	3	6
"	"		Whisky Toddy, 20/-; Champagne, £7 10/-	8	10	0
"	3.		Claret, £10; Gin, 15/-; Brandy, 18/-	11	13	0
"	6.		Champagne, £8; Gin, 5/-	8	5	0
"	9.		Whisky Toddy, 13/10; Brandy Toddy, 18/-	1	11	10
"	12.		Madeira, £6; Champagne, £9	15	0	0
"	12.		Madeira, £7 10/-; Champagne, £8	15	10	0
"	21.		Champagne, £5; Claret, £7 10/-	12	10	0
"	23.		ditto £2 10/-; do. £5 10/-	8	0	0
"	25.		ditto £6 10/-; Port, £1 4/-	7	14	0
Sep.	15.		ditto	6	0	0
	——	——	——
	£308	5	10

And the representation wanted a thorough reorganization, as may be seen by the following list of close boroughs which were intended to be disfranchised, with the number of voters in each:—

Aldborough	60
Aldeburgh	80
Appleby	110
Bedwin	70
Beer Alston	90
Bishop's Castle	45
Bletchingly	70
Borough Bridge	48
Bossiney	30
Brackley	32
Bramber	19
Buckingham	13
Callington	45
Camelford	24
Castle Rising	43
Corfe Castle	55
Dunwich	18
Eye	95
Fowey	76
Gatton	5
Haslemere	58
Heden	246
Heytesbury	45
Higham Ferrers	145
Hindon	250
Ilchester	70
East Looe	50
West Looe	55
Lostwithiel	30
Ludgershall	70
Malmesbury	13
Midhurst	18
Milborne Port	90
Minehead	10
Newport (Cornwall)	62
Newton (Lancashire)	60
Newton (Isle of Wight)	40
Okehampton	230
Orford	20
Petersfield	140
Plympton	210
Queensborough	270
Reigate	200
Romney	150
St. Mawe's	20
St. Michaels (Cornwall)	32
Saltash	36
Old Sarum	7
Seaford	98
Steyning	110
Stockbridge	110
Tregony	100
Wareham	20
Wendover	140
Weobly	90
Whitchurch	70
Winchelsea	40
Woodstock	400
Wootton Bassett	100
Yarmouth	50

For the following list it was proposed to have only one member:—

Amersham	125
Arundel	450
Ashburton	170
Bewdley	13
Bodmin	36
Bridport	340
Chippenham	135
Clitheroe	45
Cockermouth	180
Dorchester	200
Downton	60
Droitwich	12
Evesham	600
Grimsby	300
Morpeth	200
Northallerton	200
Penryn	400
Richmond	270
Rye	25
St. Germains	70
St. Ives	200
Sandwich	955
Sudbury	800
Shaftesbury	30
East Grinstead	30
Guildford	250
Helston	36
Honiton	350
Huntington	240
Hythe	150
Launceston	15
Leominster	700
Liskeard	100
Lyme Regis	30
Lymington	70
Malton	270
Marlborough	21
Marlow	235
Tamworth	300
Thetford	21
Thirsk	60
Totness	58
Truro	26
Wallingford	180
Westbury	70
Wilton	20
Wycombe	65

Lord John Russell prepared the first Reform Bill, and introduced it into Parliament on March 1st. The first division for the second reading was taken on March 22nd, the numbers for, 302; against, 301. Majority 1. General Gascoyne, on the motion for a committee, moved the following amendment: "That the number of representatives for England and Wales ought not to be diminished," which was carried by 299 to 291. Of course, after this, there was nothing to be done but dissolve Parliament at the earliest period possible, and this the King did on April 22nd.

The King on this occasion was loudly cheered, but it was not always so—for Greville records under date of February, that—

"The King went to the play the night before last; was well received in the house, but hooted and pelted coming home, and a stone shivered a window of his coach, and fell into Prince George of Cumberland's lap. The King was excessively annoyed, and sent for Baring, who was the officer riding by his coach, and asked him if he knew who had thrown the stone; he said it terrified the Queen, and was very disagreeable, as he should always be going somewhere."

On the 24th of February the Queen's birthday drawing-room was held, at which the Princess Victoria made her debût in society. The following is the official account by the Court newsman:—

"Their Royal Highnesses, the Duchess of Kent and the Princess Victoria, with their suite, came in state, in three carriages, escorted by a party of the Life Guards. Their Royal Highnesses were attended by the Duchess of Northumberland, Lady Charlotte St. Maur, Lady Catherine Jenkinson, the Hon. Mrs. Cust, Lady Conroy, Baroness Lehzen, Sir John Conroy, and General Wetherall. The dresses of their Royal Highnesses were made entirely of articles manufactured in the United Kingdom. The Duchess's robe was of silk embroidered with silver, and was made in Spitalfields; the train was of Irish poplin, blue figured with silver. The Princess Victoria was dressed with great simplicity in a frock of English blonde.... The Princess Victoria stood to the left of her Majesty."

We next find the Princess and her mother at Covent Garden Theatre on April 14, witnessing the performance of Spohr's Opera Zamira and Azor.

Before the dissolution of Parliament, the Times newspaper got into a scrape with the House of Lords on account of some remarks in its issues of April 15th, which were as follows:—

"Yet mean, cruel, and atrocious as every civilized mind must consider the doctrine, that Ireland has no need of poor laws, or some equivalent for them,—hateful and abominable as is such a screen for inhumanity,—there are men, or things with human pretensions, nay, with lofty privileges, who do not blush to treat the mere proposal of establishing a fund for the relief of the diseased or helpless Irish, with brutal ridicule and almost impious scorn. Would any man credit that an Irish absentee Lord could say what he is reported to have uttered in the House of Peers last night, when Lord Roseberry presented a petition, praying that a compulsory tax on land might be introduced into Ireland, towards alleviating her poor? We shall not name him, because the House of Lords is armed with a thing called a 'Bar' and other disagreeable appendages. But there are members of that House who surprise nobody by declaring their indifference to 'popular odium'—especially when they are at such a distance from Ireland as to ensure the safety of their persons."

The peer alluded to was the Earl of Limerick, who moved, on the 18th of April, "That the editor of the Times newspaper be ordered to attend at the bar of that House to-morrow." The legal citation would be on the printer, and, accordingly, on the 19th Mr. Lawson attended, and a debate ensued, at the end of which he was ordered into custody of the Usher of the Black Rod, to be produced next morning, and was taken by two messengers of the House to Oliver's Coffee House, where he was kept in durance. But, before their lordships met, he sent them a petition—

"That your petitioner feels the sincerest regret at having given offence to your right honourable House, and to the Earl of Limerick in particular, and craves pardon for the same; and humbly begs, in consequence of this acknowledgment of his error and regret, he may be set at liberty by your right honourable House."

All that day, and a great part of the next, the House debated upon the crime of this wicked man, until it came to the conclusion that the Lord Chancellor should reprimand and discharge him, which was accordingly done; and the Times, in revenge, on the 26th of April, published the following:—

"Epigram.

To call a Lord a 'thing' is voted treason:

To call him 'no-thing,' then, must be in season."

The elections for the new Parliament now engaged the popular attention; and, as elections were conducted in the "good old times" on very different principles than at present, one or two little items respecting them may be acceptable. Times, May 10th.

"Reduced Price of Votes.

"A police constable belonging to a division at the east end of the Metropolis, who has a vote for a borough not more than thirty miles from London, applied to his inspector for permission to go into the country to poll for one of the anti-reform candidates, on Saturday morning. 'What do you expect to make by going down?' inquired the inspector, from motives of curiosity. 'Only £10 and the payment of my expenses,' was the reply of the 'independent freeman.' 'Is that all?' exclaimed the inspector. 'I thought you would make double that sum by your vote.' 'Oh no,' replied the policeman, 'they don't come down now as they used to do. I have had as much as £40 for my vote, and never less than £25; but now I am glad to get £10.' 'Well, you may go,' said the inspector; 'it will be the last time you will be wanted to vote, I have no doubt.' 'I hope not, sir,' ejaculated the policeman, with a long-drawn sigh; 'and if that Reform Bill passes, it will be a sad loss to me and my brother freemen.'"

Again (ib., May 11th), quoting the Scotsman:—

"Strange stories are abroad as to the sale of services at the election for the City of Edinburgh. Two persons are named as having received round sums; and the daughter of one of them, when asked by some civic functionaries of a humble class whether her father had not received £500, is said to have answered, 'No; he only received £300.'"

In connection with electioneering, there was a curious action for libel tried on June 18th, at the Court of King's Bench, before Lord Tenterden and a jury. It arose out of certain proceedings at Great Grimsby, during the General Election in 1830. The plaintiff was lieutenant of the Greyhound Revenue cutter; the defendant, an attorney at Great Grimsby. The libel was the following letter, dated from Great Grimsby, and published in some of the London papers. The blues were the Whig party; the reds, their opponents:—

"At the late election, some extraordinary interferences took place on the part of the persons employed in his Majesty's Revenue Service here. The Collector of the Customs was observed to join in the parade of the red party, and in its greetings and huzzas. His Majesty's Revenue cutters, Greyhound and Lapwing, landed from seventy to eighty of their crews, who kicked up occasional rows, to intimidate the peaceful inhabitants and the blue party; and in one of these, which became a serious riot and affray, they were actually led on by one of their commanders, Lieutenant Howe, of the Greyhound. This gentleman canvassed for the reds, attended their parades in their uniform, and wore a red ribbon, the cognizance of the party his efforts were intended to support. Several sailors were employed to erect a booth in front of the lodgings of the red candidates. A top-mast from the stores of the Greyhound was raised up, to which a stage was fixed, for the red candidates to make speeches from. Custom House flags were carried in the red parades, and hung out of public-houses in the red interest, and a Custom House ensign was suspended from the top-mast in front of the red candidates lodgings. The Greyhound was laid in the Humber, about two miles from Grimsby, to receive such of the blue party as could be made intoxicated, and kidnapped on board her; and two of them were actually confined there until the election was over. Are such things tolerated by Government?"

This letter, with the exception of the passage in italics, was published in the Globe of August 6, 1830. A similar letter, with that passage included, was published in the Courier on the 20th of the same month. Evidence was given confirming the truth of the libel in every respect, whilst Captain Harris and Colonel Challoner, the red candidates, stated that they and the plaintiff did every thing in their power to prevent disturbance, though the attack was commenced by the blue party. These and several other witnesses went into details in contradiction to the testimony of the defendant's witnesses, but the jury found for the plaintiff, damages £10.

There was a law case much talked about at this time. The King v. Cobbett, tried before Lord Tenterden, in Court of King's Bench, on 7th July. It was an action against the notorious William Cobbett, charging with the publication, in the Weekly Political Register, of December 11, 1830, of a libel, with intent to raise discontent in the minds of the labourers in husbandry, and to incite them to acts of violence, and to destroy corn, machinery, and other property. The trial lasted all day, and as the jury could not agree, they were locked up all night. Lord Tenterden came to Court next morning, at eight o'clock, and finding that the jury, after having been locked up for fifteen hours, could not agree, discharged them.

On July 16th, Prince Leopold, the husband of the late Princess Charlotte, left London for Brussels, having been made King of the Belgians.