National Assembly of 1789, the Continent of Europe returned to the old feudal laws and corrupt administration of the despotic monarchies of Europe.

Thus, the English Government, in conquering Napoleon, and quenching the flame of Jacobin Revolution, did not succeed in establishing a satisfactory or permanent settlement. Pitt, in 1805, had drawn out a sketch of a restored Europe, such as he wished it to be, should fortune crown the arms of the Powers then at war with France. In this sketch Belgium was given to Prussia. A military Power of that magnitude might have had a chance of suppressing a Belgian insurrection; the supremacy of Holland was sure to tempt a foreign people to resistance, and to provoke a combat in which the Belgians might meet the Dutch on equal terms, and thus bring on European intervention.

In 1830, such an insurrection took place, and nothing but the temperate wisdom of the then ruler of France, and the judicious firmness of Lord Grey and Lord Palmerston, prevented a European war.

Italy could only be coerced, not governed, by Austrian Archdukes and Austrian armies.

The treaty by which France was given over to the Bourbons, and liberty kept in check by the passive submission of France, was attacked by Mr. Horner in a most able argumentative speech. The cause of the ancient republic of Genoa, and of the old public law of Europe, was pleaded with great weight of reason and authority by Sir James Macintosh.

But a question touching England more nearly than the state of the Continent, was now to be submitted to her Government, her Parliament and her people. What was to be thenceforward her home policy? Before the great convulsions of France, in 1785, Mr. Pitt had proposed parliamentary reform, not indeed as Minister, but with all the weight of his personal character. In 1786, in concluding

a commercial treaty with France, he had founded his measure on the principles of free trade, temperately and gradually introduced. In 1792, Pitt and Fox had lauded, as the source of all our prosperity and all our greatness, the principles of the British Constitution. In 1801, in framing the measure for a legislative Union with Ireland, Pitt had proclaimed as its basis, that England, Scotland and Ireland were to be placed on a footing of equality. He contemplated the admission of Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament, and with few exceptions to all civil and military employments. He projected a permanent grant to the Roman Catholic clergy, which would have placed them on a footing of virtual equality with the clergy of the Established Church.

Questions of this importance, which occupied Pitt's mind before and during the war, were thrust aside by the imminent perils of the war itself; and by the necessity of combining the elements of a majority who might agree upon the policy of continuing the war, although they might differ upon all other questions.

Thus he renounced his views on reform of Parliament in gratitude to the supporters who had opposed what he called the Jacobin party; he put free trade in abeyance in order to raise the supplies for the year; and, after a temporary retirement from office, he consented to suspend the pacification of Ireland in deference to the King's scruples and the strong anti-popery feeling of the country.

But now, with the war concluded, a very large debt contracted, trade embarrassed and manufactures depressed, these questions were sure to arise. Free trade, parliamentary reform, pacification of Ireland, might each be expected to excite popular discussion and parliamentary

movement.

Had Pitt lived till 1815, he might have recurred to

his study of Adam Smith, and promoted freedom of trade with foreign countries; he might have introduced a temperate reform of the representation; he might have pacified Ireland without waiting for the threat of civil war, or fearing the conscientious scruples of the Prince Regent. For the Prince Regent, in 1812, had empowered Lord Wellesley to form a Ministry on the basis of granting what was called 'Catholic Emancipation.'

But these are questions belonging to the hypotheses of what might have been; my task is to record what was the policy of the Ministry of Lord Liverpool.

Lord Liverpool, of whom Lord Melbourne said after his resignation, that he had been clear in his great office,' had the merits of unblemished character, of great fairness in debate, and of avoiding extremes in policy. He was a man of very moderate understanding, not averse to some relaxations in matters of trade, but utterly averse to parliamentary reform, and too much imbued with the prejudices of the Tory party to admit the claims of Roman Catholics to seats in Parliament or political office. He had been the butt of Canning at Oxford; he was his master in Downing Street and Lord Castlereagh, who was the leader of the Government in the House of Commons, had in fact the superior power in domestic as well as in foreign affairs.

Lord Castlereagh had entered the Irish House of Commons early in life. He had professed opinions favourable to parliamentary reform. But having received from the Irish Government the offer of the high and responsible office of Chief Secretary, with the lead of the Irish House of Commons, he accepted it, and became the exponent of the policy of the Government on the critical questions of the Rebellion and the Union. There can be no doubt that the insurrection was suppressed with little regard to humanity, and that the Union was carried by means of political corrup

tion.

But Lord Castlereagh, while he obtained the praise of Lord Cornwallis for his ability, judgment and habits of business, did not incur any peculiar reproach for want of feeling or want of integrity. After the Union, it was proposed to him to lead the Irish supporters of Government in the House of Commons. But he declined this separate position, and chose rather to be merged in the general body of the ministerial party than to be the leader of the Irish members. He did not resign with Pitt; on the contrary, he held an important office in the Addington administration. Yet he was favourable to the claims of the Roman Catholics, and gave them his support as soon as George III. ceased to have personal control over public measures. It is said that many years afterwards, when Grattan's friends were assembled round his bed, the dying patriot said to them, 'Don't be hard upon Castlereagh-he loves our country.' It is added that when Lord Castlereagh heard of these words of his great opponent, he burst into tears. I cannot vouch for the truth of this anecdote, but I think it probably authentic.

Lord Castlereagh, who had been often pointed out as the successor of Pitt, wanted the large views of that great man. Still more obviously did he fail in following the magnificent march of Pitt's eloquence. Lord Castlereagh was obscure, garnishing his speeches with confused metaphors. He took three-quarters of an hour in telling the House of Commons that he did not mean to make any motion on the Treaties of Vienna, but that any private member was at liberty to do so. On another occasion, he had gone on for an hour speaking upon what subject no one could guess, when of a sudden he exclaimed, So much, Mr. Speaker, for the law of nations.' On another occasion, when he had spoken for an hour tediously and confusedly, he declared, I have

2

now proved that the Tower of London is a common law principle.' Of Spain he declared, that the pendulum had swung so far on the side of Jacobinism, that it afterwards swung quite as far on the side of anti-Jacobinism, which had prevented its settling in a middle point.' Every one has heard of his exhortation to the country gentlemen not to turn their backs upon themselves. He is said to have ended one of his long orations with the little word 'its.' He had no classical quotation, no happy illustration, no historical examples with which to adorn argument and enforce conviction. Yet his influence with his party was very great, and he was, till near the close of his life, a successful leader of the House of Commons.

For this end he possessed, besides the halo of glory encircling his brow as the Minister who had successfully concluded an arduous war, very considerable advantages. He was, as a man of business, clear, diligent, and decided. His temper was admirable-bold and calm, goodhumoured and dispassionate. He was a thorough gentleman; courteous, jealous of his own honour, but full of regard for the feelings of others. No ore doubted his personal integrity, however much they might dislike his policy. That policy was detestable. None of the great subjects which had been in abeyance during the warfree trade, parliamentary reform, the grievances of Ireland -were made the basis of ministerial measures. The Tory party dreaded free trade doctrines, as likely to lead to the subversion of the corn laws. Mr. Canning, who had again become one of the Ministry, was a vehement opponent of parliamentary reform. On a motion of mine to disfranchise Grampound, he said to his constituents at Liverpool, 'In disfranchising Grampound, if that is to be So, I mean to preserve Old Sarum.' With respect to the Catholic question, brought forward in 1816 by Mr. Grattan, Mr. Peel, then Chief Secretary of the Lord

im

3,718