Volume II Part 9 (1/2)
When in the House of Commons in 1793, he (then Mr. Jenkinson) was foremost in opposing the memorable pet.i.tion for parliamentary reform, brought forward by Mr. (now Earl) Grey, and defended the then existing state of the representation, maintaining, ”that the House of Commons, const.i.tuted as it was, had answered the end for which it was designed,”--namely, we suppose, to subdue the people!
Upon the a.s.sa.s.sination of Mr. Perceval in 1812, Lord Liverpool became first lord of the Treasury, by the especial request of the regent. Upon his lords.h.i.+p's advancement to this high and important office, Lord Sidmouth and Mr. Vansittart were announced as new members of the ministry. The first act of Lord Liverpool, or what may be termed his first important measure, was the introduction of a bill to increase the magisterial power in various districts of the country, where the inhabitants were suffering from want of employment. By this bill, such persons were not allowed the use of fire-arms, and forbidden to meet in companies. His lords.h.i.+p here mistook tyranny for justice, and appeared to set at defiance the opinion of the admirable Locke, that ”there is a way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislature and the prince, or either of them, act contrary to their trust.”
Another grievous inroad upon the liberties of the people, during the administration of this puissant lord, was his frequent union of offices diametrically opposite to each other; one of which, appointing the clergy to sit on the judicial bench, must ever be considered as an infringement upon that religion which his lords.h.i.+p considered as ”part and parcel of the law of the land.” The studies of clergymen were originally designed to fit them for the diffusion of ”peace and good-will towards men,” and not to form them for the exercise of _temporal_ power. We do not mean to say that, when people become clergymen, they are to renounce their rights as men; but this is a widely-different matter from investing them with the power of punis.h.i.+ng a delinquent. Christ himself exercised no such functions, but left them to the secular authorities. Why, then, should those who pretend to be the followers of Christ presume to that which their master condemned?
Alas! their conduct has too often proved them to be no followers of his; yet Lord Liverpool, well knowing the general vindictiveness and domineering austerity of their hearts, considered them the better fit for the magisterial office, as his intention was to rule by forcing the people into obedience, instead of soothing their irritated minds by a few timely concessions. For the sake of Christianity itself, we hope to see such an unholy union of spiritual and secular power speedily abolished.
It was also under Lord Liverpool's administration that the most revolting scenes of MILITARY FLOGGING occurred. We might relate numerous instances of this barbarous custom, but one will be sufficient for the purpose of ill.u.s.tration: Three soldiers, (MERE BOYS!) in July, 1817, in company with others, met at the Rose and Crown public-house, Tower Hill, where at length a fight ensued. A court-martial being held, Thomas Hayes, Francis Hayes, and George Staniford were ordered to receive eight hundred lashes each! The execution of this sentence, so disgraceful to a civilized country, was commenced; but after Thomas Hayes (who was only twenty years of age) had received six hundred and seventy-five lashes, the surgeon p.r.o.nounced his life to be in danger, and he was, therefore, carried away. Francis Hayes, only sixteen years of age, received three hundred and thirty-five lashes; and George Staniford, only seventeen years of age, two hundred lashes!--when both the latter had the remaining part of their sentence commuted, upon condition of their entering a condemned regiment! Thus three of our fellow-creatures, who had the misfortune to be English soldiers, and therefore, of all other men in the world, alone liable to be subjected to a system of refined cruelty, alike distinguished for its cold-blooded atrocity and the utter absence of any reasonable plea for its infliction, were tortured in this _Christian_ land as long as nature would bear the anguish, and that, too, before the number of lashes awarded by their unmerciful judges had been inflicted upon their poor backs! Is there a man whose heart retains a spark of feeling,--who has not been hardened by military education and habits,--that does not feel an involuntary shudder, a sickening of the heart, when he learns that three of his countrymen--_free-born Englishmen_, (oh, what a satire has that term become!)--were sentenced to have ”the living flesh torn from their backs” by the horrid laceration of the ”cat-o'-nine-tails,” for being guilty of a public-house brawl! In the name of an all-merciful Providence, of what materials are military officers composed that they can endure such disgusting spectacles? We wonder how they have so long dared to set at defiance the indignation of the public, and tempt the just vengeance of heaven! Can they, after witnessing such scenes of unbearable torture,--of worse than Russian barbarity,--return to their wives and families, and eat their food with an appet.i.te? But officers are GENTLEMEN,--_young sprigs of n.o.bility_, in most cases,--and the sufferings of the private soldier may possibly be SPORT TO THEM! We hope, however, to see a law pa.s.sed to give equal rights to the soldier as to the _brute_, at least; for no man in England, be he whom he may, is permitted to treat a dog as soldiers have been and are even _now_ treated. Were all Englishmen punished in the same manner for the offence of brawling and drunkenness, where would the flogging system terminate?
Certainly not with the private soldier or the foremast sailor; it would a.s.suredly find its way to their _officers_, to the _n.o.ble_, the _bishop_, and the _prince_!!!
Lord Liverpool allowed himself to be a prominent actor in the unprecedented persecutions against the Princess of Wales. Had not his lords.h.i.+p arranged the form of the secret proceedings abroad, and consented to the lavish expenditure of our means to suppress truth in that partial business, both the queen and her daughter might, at this time, have been in the enjoyment of health and happiness. His lords.h.i.+p said publicly, that the prosecution against her majesty in 1820 was ”the most embarra.s.sing question which ever perplexed any government.” This short declaration spoke volumes; for truth is simple, and requires no adornment of language. At the conclusion of the mock trial of her majesty, there appeared, in the House of Lords, a majority of NINE for the Bill against the queen; yet, under these circ.u.mstances, his lords.h.i.+p thought proper to abandon the charges against her majesty! His motives for acting thus, we shall presently explain; but in the mean time we contend that such a proceeding was unconst.i.tutional, and not to be defended on any honourable grounds. If the peers had really voted _conscientiously_, they were ent.i.tled to the award from their majority; if they had _not_ so voted, then they ought to have been expelled from the House for ever, as well as from all honourable society. Either way, therefore, Lord Liverpool acted wrong, and fully proved the verity of the old adage, ”Power usurped is weakness when exposed; conscious of wrong, it is pusillanimous, and p.r.o.ne to flight.”
At the period of which we are speaking, certain doc.u.ments were laid before Lord Liverpool, relative to the bonds and promissory notes entered into so solemnly by certain royal princes; and his lords.h.i.+p was a.s.sured that, if the bill of pains and penalties did pa.s.s, these disgraceful engagements, together with the attendant circ.u.mstances, should immediately meet the public eye. Here then was one of the secret reasons of his lords.h.i.+p's abandoning the infamous bill against the queen!
The following is a true copy of the letter conveying this unwelcome intelligence, and which was delivered into Lord Liverpool's own hand:
”_Nov. 6th, 1820._
”MY LORD,
”Fearless of your displeasure, I beg to submit my sentiments to your lords.h.i.+p without further ceremony. I am in the possession of a copy of _a certain bond_, upon the execution of which your royal master was the first named, and to whom the largest share was to be advanced. If the bill against the queen _pa.s.s_, I will expose the whole transaction to the nation, and that will be sufficient to open the eyes even of the wilfully blind. You know the danger, and may provide against it in some degree. I shall also explain the unhappy consequences attendant upon some of the INJURED persons connected with this transaction.
”I am, my lord, ”Your humble servant, ”&c. &c. &c.”
”To the Right Hon.
Lord Liverpool.”
We here subjoin an exact copy of the bond referred to in this letter:
=Know all Men= by these presents, that We, George Prince of Wales, Frederick Duke of York, and William Henry Duke of Clarence, all living in the City of Westminster, in the County of Middles.e.x, are jointly and severally, justly and truly, indebted to John Cator, of Beckenham, in the County of Kent, Esquire, and his Executors, Administrators, and a.s.signs, in the penal sum of _Sixty Thousand Pounds_, of good and lawful money of Great Britain, well and truly paid to Us, at or before the sealing of these presents. Sealed with our Seals this 16th day of December, in the Twenty-ninth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the Grace of G.o.d, King, Defender of the Faith, anno domini 1788.
The condition of the above-written obligation is such, that if the above bounden George Prince of Wales, Frederick Duke of York, and William Henry Duke of Clarence, or any or either of them, or any of their Heirs, Executors, or Administrators, shall well and truly pay, or cause to be paid, unto the above-named John Cator, his Executors, Administrators, or a.s.signs, the full sum of _Sixty Thousand Pounds_ of lawful money of Great Britain, within the s.p.a.ce or time of six calendar months next, after any one or either of us, the said George Prince of Wales, Frederick Duke of York, and William Henry Duke of Clarence, shall come to and ascend the Throne of England, together with lawful interest on the same; to be computed from the day that such event shall happen, upon whom, to the time of paying off this obligation, then, and in such case, the same shall become null and void; otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue.
{ GEORGE PRINCE OF WALES. L. S.
_Signed_ { FREDERICK. L. S.
{ WILLIAM HENRY. L. S.
To save the exhibition of this bond, as well as several others of a similar description, much to the discredit of the sovereign, Lord Liverpool readily gave his a.s.sistance, and thus was _forced_ to abandon the bill against the queen.
In 1823, Lord Liverpool said in the House, that ”The policy of the British government rested on the principle of the law of nations, which allowed every country to judge how it could best be governed, and what ought to be its inst.i.tutions.” This paragraph in his lords.h.i.+p's speech sufficiently proved him to be an _aristocrat_, in the true sense of the word. The policy of _his_ government was, doubtless, to concentrate power in the hands of the rulers, and to _force_ the ma.s.s of the people to submissive degradation and wretchedness.
In 1825, his lords.h.i.+p was again disturbed by an inquiry into some state arrangements, relative to the mysterious demise of the Princess Charlotte, which had been made in 1817, and to which his lords.h.i.+p had been privy. But he declined all inquiries into this disgraceful subject, in a manner not very consistent with his own honour, or the importance of the question. In 1826, his lords.h.i.+p was once more solicited to receive the information, but he still declined, though he must have been aware of the justness of the claim. As we have fully explained these appeals to his lords.h.i.+p in a former part of our work, we have only considered it necessary to glance at them in this place.
At length this statesman, after serving his king in direct opposition to the interests of the people, fell into the stupor of apoplectic and paralytic disease, and expired as previously stated.
In this year, an inquiry was inst.i.tuted into the death of the patriot HAMPDEN; and, in order to ascertain, if possible, the sort of wound by which he had been killed, his body was disinterred from Hampden church, Bucks. The exhumation was attended by Lord Nugent, Mr. Denman, and several other gentlemen. The following account of the investigation was given to the public by one of the party: