1819] The "Manchester Massacre."—The Six Acts 581

secret committees (almost identical in composition with the previous committees) again presented reports. The majority in both Houses, relying on the statements of committees, which virtually reported on themselves, passed the Bill into law.

The ministry then adopted a strange measure. In spite of the need for economy, a million pounds were granted for the purpose of building new churches for the Establishment, apparently in the belief that irreligion had been a prime cause of Radical outbreaks in 1816-7. But even more practical measures could hardly have done much to mitigate the effects of the bad harvests and industrial depression which marked the year 1819, and produced an almost exact repetition of the political discontents and the governmental repressions of 1816-7. The increasing agitation for reform culminated in a gigantic meeting, held at Manchester on August 16, 1819. Fifty thousand persons assembled to listen to the eloquence of Hunt; and banners were displayed bearing the mottoes, " Equal Representation or Death," " Liberty or Death." The magistrates became terrified, attempted to arrest Hunt, and finally ordered the yeomanry to charge the crowd. The result was the "Manchester Massacre " or " Battle of Peterloo," in which one man was killed and some forty were wounded or otherwise injured. The Ministry, within a day of receiving the news, dispatched a letter signed by the Regent, approving the action of the magistrates. This ludicrous haste to commend the magistrates for the use of violence, before it was clear whether it had been employed wisely and in accordance with the law, did much to discredit the Ministry.

Parliament now met, and the Government proceeded to the passage of the notorious " Six Acts." These formed a new edition, revised and enlarged, of the temporary measures of 1817. It was not thought needful again to suspend Habeas Corpus; but Acts, and not circulars, now empowered magistrates to seize arms, and to prevent the publication of seditious and blasphemous libels. Another Act extended the Stampduty to all pamphlets, and thus made it impossible for Cobbett to issue his " Twopenny Trash." The most important of all the Acts restricted the right of assembly. It confined public meetings in parishes to the ordinary parochial meetings or to those summoned by five magistrates, in corporate towns to those summoned by the Mayor, in counties to those summoned by the Lord-Lieutenant. The power to grant the assemblage of large meetings was practically placed in the hands of the wealthy upper-class, at the discretion of magistrates or LordsLieutenant. It would be difficult to secure assemblages of any kind in unincorporated towns, such as Wolverhampton, Sheffield, Birmingham, and Manchester. The hardship in the case of the last two towns was extreme; for, as they returned no members to the Commons, they had no legal means of making their grievances or distresses known to Parliament. Lord Holland recorded a protest in the Lords, that the laws already existent

582 ThistlewoooV s plot. — Riot at Glasgow [1819-20

were sufficient to prevent confusion arising in popular meetings ; that the powers entrusted to the magistrates were liable to abuse; and that sweeping restrictions were extended to the whole kingdom, on account of disturbances confined to particular districts. Lastly, he used the strong argument, that large meetings acted as " a vent, comparatively innoxious, of that ill-humour and discontent which, if suppressed, might seek refuge in secret cabals and conspiracies." This put the new attitude of the Whigs with force and clearness. They had regarded the measures of 1817-8 as immediate and temporary remedies for specific evils. They now feared that the Government advocated force, as a general method of dealing with all popular movements and opinions. Hence arose the vigour and unanimity with which they now opposed the Six Acts.

Just after the Hills became law two extraordinary events occurred. Thistlewood, forbidden to address meetings or declare opinions, sought other means for the satisfaction of his anger and discontent. With the assistance of a government spy, he hatched a monstrous plot to murder the whole Cabinet. It was discovered on February 23, 1820; and he and other conspirators were executed. Atrocious as were their crimes, their dying utterances are really pathetic. They are those of men utterly unable to understand the severity of their rulers, and goaded to their crimes by a belief in the malign intentions of the Government. This event went far to support Lord Holland's contention, that the suppression of open meetings led to the creation of secret conspiracies. A second event, however, worked for the justification of the Government. On April 2 a riotous mob assembled near Glasgow and was dispersed by arms. The " Battle of Bonnymuir" was a Scotch version of the " Battle of Peterloo," and was the last disturbance for ten years serious enough to give any justification to the governmental policy. But the repressive policy had succeeded, and Radicals were temporarily silenced. The reasons were not far to seek; Hobhouse, Carlisle, and " Orator " Hunt were in prison. Lord Fitzwilliam had been dismissed from his lord-lieutenancy for allowing a meeting to be held to protest against the conduct of the magistrates of Peterloo. Cobbett had fled to America, influenced in about equal proportions by fear of arrest for debt and fear of persecution by the authorities. At the election of 1818, despite every effort of Government and boroughmongers, popular influences had reduced the ministerial majority by thirty or forty; at the dissolution of 1820 but very little impression was made. The popular movement was crushed, only to reappear in ten years, when it supported and made resistless the great movement for Parliamentary Reform.

It mighthave been thought that the only political result from the death of a King, who had ruled in nothing but name for ten years, would have been to compel a dissolution. In fact, the mere change of title, occurring on January 29, 1820, produced a crisis which shook the throne, all but

1820-2] The King's Divorce Bill.—Death of Castlereagh 583

overturned the Ministry, and profoundly agitated the people. The announcement that the new King, George IV, contemplated a divorce from Queen Caroline, on the ground of her misconduct and adultery, produced universal indignation. Since his profligacy was open and notorious, his action was viewed, with some justice, as hypocritical and violent. In point of fact, the charges against the Queen, though not proved, rested on very strong circumstantial evidence. But to the public she was an injured woman, whose cause they chivalrously espoused. To the politicians her trial was largely a move in the political game, enabling the Whigs to harass the King for his cavalier treatment of them during the negotiations of 1811-2. A Divorce Bill was introduced into the Lords, which Lord Brougham, the Queen's official defender, opposed with splendid eloquence. During these proceedings he reached the culminating point of his fame. It was largely owing to his efforts that the majority in its favour sank to nine upon the third reading. Ministers thereupon decided that they would not proceed with the Bill. This triumph enabled the Whigs to regain the confidence of the people, who hailed this decision with transports of delight.

Other results of the trial were no less important. For the last time a measure was brought forward as the direct result of the personal influence of the sovereign ; almost for the first time a measure, advocated by both King and Ministry, was abandoned owing to the violence of popular agitation. At the very moment when the Government appeared to have suppressed all popular demonstrations, the popular influence upon Parliament was manifested in unmistakable fashion. Nor did this influence cease. During the sessions of 1821-2 the Government was driven, by equally pronounced expressions of popular opinion, to make immense reductions of expenditure. The unpopularity of the Government continually increased and its fall seemed inevitable, when Castlereagh died by his own hand on August 9,1822. In point of fact, the period of five years, for which the Ministry was yet to survive, proved the most important and the most popular of its existence.

In spite of royal opposition, the Foreign Office and the lead in the Commons were offered to Canning. He had resigned office in 1820, in order to dissociate himself from any measures against the Queen. He now accepted the whole heritage of Castlereagh. With the death of George 111 and Castlereagh all men felt that an epoch had closed, and that the triumph of extreme or Eldonian Toryism was ended. Castlereagh had appeared to be the disciple of Pitt after 1793, the Pitt who suspended Habeas Corpus and gagged the Press. Canning seemeda truer disciple, and recalled the memory of the Pitt who reformed our finance and promoted our commerce. Though he had supported the Six Acts, Canning was penetrated with the consciousness that speedy and drastic remedies must be applied to the evils of the time. He was convinced of the danger of delaying and the need of anticipating reforms, and he at

584: Canning succeeds Castlereagh [1822-7

last found others to share his opinions. In 1815 more than three-fourths of the Cabinet were peers ; in 1823 nearly half sat in the Lower House, of which Canning was the leader. New changes had placed two devoted followers of his in the Cabinet: Huskisson, the greatest practical financier of the age, at the Board of Trade; Robinson at the Exchequer. Sidmouth, Canning's old opponent, left the Ministry; Liverpool promised Canning his hearty support in his new projects. Thus Canning was able to give immediate and practical effect to a more Liberal domestic policy.

Castlereagh, without any real grasp of finance, had been suspicious of, or indifferent to, financial reforms; Canning had a firm general grasp of financial problems and a resolve to expedite their settlement. Castlereagh had allowed no one except himself to introduce important domestic measures. Thus legislation had been retarded by his inability to combine, with the Foreign Office and the leadership of the Commons, a comprehension of every suggested domestic reform. The less exacting though not less industrious Canning wisely contented himself with a general supervision and encouragement. But the efforts of Canning and his friends were not the only motive force. A new spirit of mildness and benevolence had grown up; an eagerness to reform abuses and remove evils was everywhere prevalent. From the emancipation of Catholics to the emancipation of slaves, from the abolition of obsolete duties to the abolition of the death penalty for the pettiest crimes, from the first legislative attempts at preventing cruelty to dumb animals to the first assaults on the sacred code of game-laws, the influence of a larger tolerance and sympathy is everywhere apparent. Wealthy men of the upper middle-class, such as Zachary Macaulay, the first Sir Robert Peel, and Sir James Mackintosh, had the chief hand in promoting this legislation. The ideas of the middle classes were not always practical and not seldom interested ; but the clash of their opinions with those of the landed class generally worked, during these years, for the interests of the people as a whole. Canning and Huskisson thoroughly understood the middle classes, and together created a popular interest in finance and legislation, similar to that which Canning had aroused in foreign policy. Between 1815 and 1822, such reforms as were accomplished resulted almost wholly from private member legislation; and the Opposition exhausted their vocabularies in denunciation and abuse of the Government. Between 1822 and 1827, Ministers were found adopting the suggestions and encouraging the motions of individual members ; and the Opposition not infrequently praised and supported Government proposals. The result was an outburst of reforming activity, proceeding on the model of Pitt's legislation between 1784 and 1793, but far surpassing it in effect and importance.

The legislation of this period may be considered under the aspect of legal and judicial reforms, social legislation, and the changes in colonial, commercial, and industrial policy. After frequent correspondence and

1822-7] Legal and social reforms 585

consultation with Brougham, Mackintosh, and Bentham, the father of all law reform, Peel introduced his measures. Aided by a magnanimous support from the Opposition, he thoroughly revised and humanised the criminal code, abolishing the penalty of death for many petty crimes. He attacked the old and wasteful system of needlessly multiplying courts and offices, and prepared the way for a reform of Chancery, and for an introduction of uniform procedure in the Courts of Common Law. Peel crowned his work by substituting for the old and incompetent watchmen a thoroughly new and efficient police force.

In social as distinguished from legal reforms less progress was made. The terrible extravagances and abuses of the old poor-law remained; but the laws defining the relations between labour and capital were revised. Laws forbidding the export of machinery and the emigration of labourers could only be framed in one interest. They were constantly evaded in practice, and served only as degrading reminders to the workmen of the inequality existing between them and their employers. They were accordingly abolished amid universal satisfaction. Other difficulties still remained. Owing to the laws against combination, a man attending a peaceful meeting of fellow-workers was at any time liable to a prosecution for conspiracy. The extreme of tyranny was succeeded by the extreme of liberty, and all combinations whatsoever were legalised by an Act for the repeal of the Combination Laws, passed hastily through Parliament in 1824. Various disturbances and riots compelled Huskisson to revise this Act in 1825. A new Act prohibited certain kinds of meetings, and gave the magistrates summary jurisdiction in the case of threats being used on the part of either workman or employer. This compromise continued to regulate all the relations of capital and labour for more than a generation.

The spirit of these reforms might be described as the adjustment of old institutions and policies to new and unforeseen demands and necessities. The abuses which had crept in during almost a quarter of a century of reaction and repression were insensibly removed ; and so much of the old principles was retained as suited the needs of an age and a country more scientific and commercial. This spirit is to be discerned in the new colonial and financial policy with even more clearness than in legal reforms or in social legislation. Despite the lesson of America, England had done little to modify the old colonial system. In 1819 Goulburn officially declared our colonial system to be that England retained a complete monopoly of the trade of her Colonies in return for affording them protection and defence. In the complete reversal of this policy, undertaken by Huskisson and Canning during 1822-3, the first object of attack was the Navigation Laws. The first of these laws allowed the produce of Europe to come to England only in British ships, or in the ships of the country producing the goods. The second permitted the goods of Asia, Africa, and America to be imported into England only