Volume II Part 2 (1/2)
The liberation of his victims, after long confinements, ruined in circ.u.mstances, wounded in mind, and some of them destined to premature death, through their unwholesome confinement, complete the picture of this n.o.bleman's LEGISLATION! To prevent an investigation into such cruel acts, a bill of indemnity screened his lords.h.i.+p, his agents, and minions, from the tribunals of that day; but if _earthly_ justice should never be vindicated, there is a tribunal before which he must one day meet his victims! The part which Lord Sidmouth had in the _reward of the Manchester ma.s.sacre_ is well known, and will not be likely to add to the quiet of his repose. This lamentable portion of his history involves the double charge of misadvising his prince, and patronising a violation of the laws, in the most wanton and cruel manner! No man, indeed, has been more instrumental in the ruin of his country, and he may probably live to reap some of the bitter fruits himself!
During this year, the _affable_ king made his pompous entrance into Hanover, where he threw gold and silver amongst the crowd, with as much confidence as if it had been his own!! If he had allowed some of this said ”gold and silver” to have remained in the pockets of its real owners, it would have redounded much more to his credit.
In one single week this year, eleven persons were hung for forging Bank of England notes. Such a sanguinary penal code of laws as our's would really disgrace a nation of savages! Even our common laws, which ought to be intelligible to the meanest understanding, are an unfathomable abyss, and frequently exceed the utmost penetration of even the ”gentlemen of the long robe.” Indeed, our laws appear designed to perplex rather than to elucidate, to breed contentions rather than to prevent them. The princ.i.p.al MERIT of the English jurisprudence seems to consist in its _intricacy_, and the learned professors of it may almost be said _to live upon the vitals of their clients_. It not unfrequently happens that, for trivial omissions upon some useless observance of forms, the victim is incarcerated in a prison, and, after enduring all the horrors of these dens of thieves, expires in want, disease, and apparent infamy!
The year
1822
was one of great interest and importance, both abroad and at home; but to the latter we shall chiefly confine ourselves.
On the 18th of January, a cabinet council was held, at which Lord Sidmouth was present, notwithstanding his previous resignation of the seals of office. From this, it is evident that, though out of OFFICE in reality, this _n.o.ble_ lord was in place _specially_.
Ireland, at this time, presented a sad appearance; outrages of every kind were of daily occurrence, and famine, with its appalling front, stared the lower cla.s.ses in the face. Much blood was shed, and yet no efficient means were taken to subdue the cause of these fatal insurrections. The King of England, though he had professed so much _love_ for his dear Irish subjects in his late _eloquent_ speech, screened himself, under his a.s.sumed popularity, from blame on such serious charges, while his incompetent and mean advisers, believing their persons safe under the protection of their PUISSANT PRINCE, gave themselves no trouble about so _insignificant_ a matter. Disgrace and infamy, however, will ever be attached to their names for so flagrant a dereliction of duty to the Irish people!
In April, Thomas Denman, esq., the late queen's solicitor-general, was elected to serve the office of common-sergeant for the city of London; and, on the 27th of May, he commenced his career with trying the unnamed servant of a bookseller for selling an irreligious and seditious book.
Mr. Denman sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment in the House of Correction and, at the end of that time, to find sureties for five years, himself in one hundred pounds, and two others in forty pounds each!
In narrating this circ.u.mstance, we cannot forbear expressing our detestation of all prosecutions in matters of RELIGION. They neither redound to the honour of Christianity, nor effect the slightest benefit to morality. Every one has an undoubted right to entertain what religious opinions may best accord with the dictates of that all-powerful monitor--CONSCIENCE; and all endeavours to _force_ different opinions are only so many attempts to make men _hypocrites_.
”But,” say our religious prosecutors, ”the Bible must not be attacked, or the true religion will fall into contempt.” As an answer to this argument, we say, that if the said true religion will not bear the test of examination and argument, the sooner it falls into contempt the better! The glorious truths of the New Testament, however, are sufficiently manifest, and do not require the puny and advent.i.tious advocacy of Cant. The strong arm of the law is not requisite to uphold Christianity, for it possesses within its own pure doctrines sufficient to recommend it to the admiration and grat.i.tude of mankind. When these doctrines are attacked, let Christians endeavour, by fair and mild reasoning, to support their beneficence and purity, and they will be sure to make converts. But, if they once attempt to FORCE CONVICTION, their defeat is inevitable! It is, therefore, contrary to common sense, as well as being unjust and deplorable, that a man should be punished for disbelieving any particular sentiment. What proof did Mr.
Denman[40:A] give of the mild and forgiving doctrines of Christianity in his severe sentence against this man? Was it from motives of Christian charity that he traduced him before a public tribunal? Were the proceedings of the court at all calculated to impress the man's mind with the true spirit of Christianity? The contrary might well be said.
For neither was the accusation distinguished by that moderation which ought to be observed even against the worst of criminals, nor was it very humane to imprison him eighteen months, and afterwards keep the arm of justice suspended by binding him in sureties for five years not to so offend again. It will be but fair to ask, whether, if the _religious_ welfare of this man had been deemed by his prosecutors worthy of the slightest consideration, they would not have proceeded directly contrary to what they did? But, as Dr. Watts has justly observed, when speaking of religious prosecutors, ”They are too apt to denounce d.a.m.nation upon their neighbours without either justice or mercy; and, while p.r.o.nouncing sentences of divine wrath against supposed heretics, they _add their own human fire and indignation_!” Such prosecutions, therefore, only tend to excite the contempt of those very persons who are expected to be made better by them. With respect to the other count of the foregoing indictment, ”that the publication was calculated to bring the king and his ministers into contempt,” we think such an attempt of the publisher was totally unnecessary; for both the king and his ministers were then in the full zenith of their _fame_, and had the sincere prayers of the greater part of the community for their speedy deliverance from--this world!
[40:A] Mr. Denman has since been created ”Sir Thomas,” and, at the period of our writing this, holds the office of attorney-general. On the 21st of May, 1832, Lord Stormont brought forward a motion in the House of Commons relative to a general crusade against the press, for what his lords.h.i.+p pleased to term ”infamous, obscene, and scandalous libels.” It must ever be gratifying to patriots when public men openly confess their errors; and we are, therefore, most happy to record the following extract from Sir Thomas Denman's speech, delivered on the above occasion, relative to the prosecution upon which we have so freely commented:
”In May, 1822, he (Sir Thomas Denman) first sat as common-sergeant, and was called upon to try a case of most atrocious libel in 'The Republican:' it contained a summing up of all the blasphemies which had ever been promulgated in that paper, and direct incitements to insurrection. The prosecution was inst.i.tuted by a const.i.tutional a.s.sociation, which thought the attorney-general was negligent of his duty; but he believed that that a.s.sociation obtained but little credit for thus undertaking his functions. There were two aldermen upon the bench, one of whom thought that two years' imprisonment was the least that could be awarded as a punishment, while the other thought that one year would be sufficient. The middle course was pursued, and the man was sentenced to _eighteen_ months'
imprisonment. Though this was the _mildest_ punishment which had been awarded on any case of a similar description at that time, yet he (the attorney-general) had been held up to odium as a cruel judge. THE PUBLIC, IT WAS CLEAR, HAD REAPED NO BENEFIT WHATEVER, and he (the attorney-general) had experienced some pain during the whole of the eighteen months that that man was in prison; for he felt a strong disinclination to proceed against any man who was fairly stating his opinions. The young man was twenty-one years of age, and what he was doing was certainly mischievous; _but when his imprisonment expired, he could a.s.sure the House that it was to himself a great comfort_. The liberty of the press was established in this country, and that alone was enough to induce people to publish those opinions; and that liberty would make him extremely cautious of prosecuting merely for opinion. During periods of public excitement, the cla.s.ses from which juries were taken gave no encouragement to prosecutions, and if only one juryman stood out upon a case, the prosecution was obliged to be dropped.
He, therefore, except some very atrocious circ.u.mstances should occur, did not think it expedient to proceed. In striking special juries, it was impossible to go into the heart of society, and act as spies in families to ascertain the sentiments of jurymen. _It was necessary to submit to a great deal, lest by legal proceedings bad should be made worse._ PROSECUTIONS AGAINST THE PRESS WERE BETTER LEFT ALONE.”
The last sentence of this speech contains advice which we hope to see _practised_ by all future attorney-generals. In the case of Sir Thomas Denman, however, it is only adopted through _necessity_; for he freely confesses his wish to prosecute, if he could only insure the verdict of a jury! It is, indeed, a gratifying truth, that attorney-generals cannot controul the decisions of juries; and it is well for the people of England that they cannot. Were it otherwise, the press would soon become worse than useless, and every independent writer speedily be consigned to a prison. We cannot, consequently, join Sir Thomas Denman in his lamentation; and we regret that a gentleman of such lofty pretensions to liberality and patriotism should have tarnished his fame by thus exposing himself to the censure of his countrymen. While upon this subject, we would give a word of advice to Lord Stormont. His lords.h.i.+p has been described as a young man of considerable natural abilities, which have been highly improved by a liberal education. How, then, can he be so blind to the spirit of the present age as to suppose himself capable of restoring the very worst part of Toryism,--that of undermining the glorious LIBERTY OF THE PRESS? His n.o.ble father (who was educated in the Pitt school of politics) may have impressed him with an idea of its practicability; but the people are now changed, the age is changed, and we warn him not to expose himself to the disgust of the English people, by making futile attempts to destroy the grand palladium of national liberty.
As well, indeed, might he essay to execute Herod's commands to slay the innocents, as to restore, by such means, the absolute power which the Tories so unfortunately exercised during the last two reigns!
In the early part of this month, an elegant service of plate was presented to Alderman Wood, as an acknowledgement for his _disinterested_ services in the cause of the late queen; while, strange to say, the large service of plate subscribed for the queen by the country, at only one s.h.i.+lling each, never reached its destination! The funds for this purpose were entrusted to the care of Messrs. Wood, Hume, and others; the amount collected was more than three thousand pounds during the first few months of the subscription, which regularly increased till the queen's death. The cause of the opening of this subscription was owing to the fact of her majesty being refused all suitable conveniences for the dinner table, as she could only have a dinner served upon blue-and-white earthenware! To this fact, the n.o.blemen and gentlemen who dined at her majesty's table can fully attest. We are inclined to think, however, that the alderman's services to the queen have been a little overrated. That Mr. Wood was her majesty's best and most disinterested friend, thousands were led to believe; but that he was not so, we shall endeavour to PROVE.
When a subscription was proposed for a service of plate for her majesty, a Scotch lady forwarded one hundred guineas towards it. Alderman Wood had the chief management of this subscription, as of almost every thing else that related to the queen. The alderman employed one Pearson to collect the money. This Pearson was the fellow that cut such a figure in the Manchester ma.s.sacre; and, therefore, he was thought, we suppose, a _very capable person_ for such an undertaking. After collecting a considerable sum of money, Pearson was about taking his leave of this country for America; but, intimation having been given of his perfidy, he was stopped.
Alderman Wood said his friends also wished _him_ to have a service of plate, but his subscription was to be raised by _half-crowns_; indeed it was expected that four or eight friends would join, and not present the alderman with less than a GOLDEN PIECE. Unfortunately, the poor queen died before the money the people intended to raise for her plate was completed. At first, her friends wished to have a monument erected to her memory in Hammersmith; but no ground could be obtained for this purpose, and it was feared that her enemies would treat any pillar to her honor with the same indignity that they had treated herself.
Alms-houses were then proposed to be built, but _NOTHING HAS YET BEEN DONE WITH THE MONEY_, (amounting to about three thousand pounds) either princ.i.p.al or interest. Mr. Wood has been frequently applied to, through the public papers, concerning this money, but no answer has ever been given. The alderman managed the subscription for his own plate much better; for he took good care to receive it as soon as possible! The alderman is known now to be very _rich_ from his Cornwall mines; he has, besides, two distant relations in Gloucester, brothers, worth a million between them, which he may probably share, they having no relations.
When, however, he went for the queen, his mines were unprofitable, and himself embarra.s.sed. Be that as it may, the queen certainly, by his urgent entreaties, employed _his_ coach-maker in South Audley-street, and most of _his_ other tradespeople.
The ill-natured world will talk; and some people went so far as to accuse the _disinterested_ and _patriotic_ alderman with sinister motives in these recommendations, and that he had actually ”a feeling in every thing that came into her majesty's house!” Whether or not this was the case, the alderman most a.s.suredly spoke to the queen, very animatedly, to purchase Cambridge House, opposite to his own, in South Audley-street, though her majesty said she would never sleep in it, nor did she. The enormous sum which Mr. Wood persuaded the queen to give for this house was sixteen thousand pounds! but, notwithstanding her majesty made several improvements in it, it only sold at the queen's death for six thousand pounds!! This fact will speak volumes. Are no interested motives to be traced here?
We do not wish to deprive Alderman Wood of any merit that may justly be his due; but, though he accompanied her majesty to England, he certainly did not persuade her to come over, as some people have imagined. He, nor any one else, had any hand in that; it was the spontaneous determination of the queen herself! That the alderman REFUSED the house, 22, Portman-street, which was offered for the queen's accommodation till a better could be provided cannot be denied; he preferred receiving her majesty into his own house. It is also well known that the alderman, by his officious and ungentlemanly, nay, we may say, IMPUDENT conduct, lost her majesty many friends in the higher circles, who would not act with _him_. Nor can this be wondered at when his vulgar manners to his superiors are taken into consideration. That we may not be supposed to a.s.sert this without reason, we will here relate a few instances, which came immediately under our own observation.
The queen gave a dinner to the Duke of Bedford, Earl Grey, Lord Tankerville, and other n.o.blemen and gentlemen. His grace of Bedford handed her majesty down the room, and sat on her right, and Earl Grey on her left. Instead of the vice-chamberlain (according to etiquette) sitting at the top of the table to carve, Mr. Wood seated himself _there, above every one_, and, _grinning_, ordered her vice-chamberlain to go to the other end opposite him, thus publicly proclaiming his ignorance and impudence! Earl Grey is reckoned the proudest man in England, and it was said, he observed, ”It is the first, and shall be the last, time that the alderman shall sit above me.”
When the queen came from Dover to town, accompanied by this alderman and Lady Anne Hamilton, he presumptuously seated himself by her majesty's side, thus forcing her lady to take the seat opposite, with her back to the horses! We need hardly offer a remark upon so great a breach of good manners; for any individual, possessing the spirit of an Englishman, would always give precedence to a lady.
When her majesty went to St. Paul's cathedral, Mr. Wood placed himself at the coach door to attend her out, and kept laughing and talking to her till they arrived near the statue of Queen Elizabeth, where the lord mayor and his retinue met her, after coming from the church for that purpose; but when his lords.h.i.+p (Thorpe, naturally a modest man) perceived that the queen was so engaged that she never lifted up her eyes, he and his procession were turning back in confusion to re-enter the church, when one of the queen's followers caught firmly hold of the officious alderman's gown, stopped them, and said, ”Mr. Wood, Mr. Wood, don't you see the lord mayor come to hand the queen?--you would not affront the city so as not to let him?” Sir Robert Wilson, who was near, said, ”Do run and call the lord mayor back, thousands of eyes are upon us!” His lords.h.i.+p turned round, and the procession proceeded into the church, as it ought to have done from the carriage door; but Mr. Wood was exceedingly angry, and would follow next to her majesty, though repeatedly told that it was Lady Anne Hamilton's place, as her majesty's lady in waiting.