Adams J.T. Empire on the Seven Seas. The British Empire 1784-1939
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
THE
EMPIRE
OVERSEAS
In
Canada there
was
something
of
the same
difficulty,
owing
to
the
large
French
population
in
Lower
Canada.
The
Act
of
1791
had
established
a
representative
government,
but
in
practice
the
Colonial
Office
control and
the
patronage
that
went
with
it
largely
nullified
the intentions of
the
Act,
and
there
was
little
common
ground
between
the
governing
clique
and the electorate,
A
leader,
Louis
Papineau,
came
to
represent
all
the
French
stood
for,
whereas
the
Governor,
Lord
Dalhousie,
represented
English
ideas.
In
London,
Lord
Bathurst
had
long
held
sway
in
the
Colonial
Of-
fice,
but
after
his
retirement in
1827
his
successors
were
to
prove
more
friendly
to
a
genuinely
popular government
and
expressions
of
opinion.
The
time seemed
ripe
to
send a
delegation
to
England
to
lay
the
whole
situation
before
Parliament,
a
move
which was
to
eventuate
in
the famous
Report
by
Lord
Durham
some
years
after,
in
1839,
which
is
now a
landmark
in the
history
of British
imperial policy
and
which
will
be
considered
later.
Thus
in
the
post-war period,
one
always
to
be
dreaded,
Britain
in
spite
of
many
ills
and acute distress
had
not
only
avoided
revo-
lution
and
armed
strife
but had
continued
to
build
up
her
power
abroad
and
to
set her
course
at
home in
the direction of
reform
and
a wider
extension
of
liberty
for all
classes.
The
period
of
stupid
repression
had
passed,
and
the
years
of her
greatest
power
and
prestige
lay
just
ahead,
in
spite
of
problems
yet
to be solved.
CHAPTER
VI
THE
REVOLUTION
IN
IDEAS
I.
THE SENSE OF
LAW
AND
ORDER
THE
FEW YEARS
covered
in
this
chapter,
1830-1837,
were
among
the most fateful
and
characteristically
British
in
the
long
history
of
empire.
Amid revolution
elsewhere
Eng-
land succeeded
in
transferring
power
peacefully
and
by
Parliamen-
tary
action
from one
class
to another.
Also the accession
of
Victoria
completely
altered
the moral
atmospliere
of
the
Court,
enabling
the
Crown
to
gain
the
affection
and
respect
of
the
British
peoples
at home and
'overseas,
and
to
become
the
mystic
symbol
of
unity.
Both these
events,
the
transfer
of
political power
largely
to
the
middle
class,
and
the
position
which
the
Queen
and
the Crown
assumed in the
consciousness
of
the
race,
were
of
profound
in-
fluence
upon
the destinies
not
only
of Britain
but
of
the whole
Empire.
"\George
IV
had
died in
1830
and been
succeeded
by
his
brother,
the
fourth
William,
who was
eccentric and whom
many
thought
likely
to
become insane like
his father.
In
any
case,
the
change
of
monarch had
done
nothing
to
restore
the
position
of
the
royal
family
in
popular
regard, though
William
adopted
an ultra-
democratic manner in
public
which
tended
to
lower rather than
to
raise
him
in
the
esteem
of
the
people.
The
question
of
"the
peo-
ple"
was
looming
very
large
everywhere
in
1
830.
In
France,
that
year,
a
popular
revolution
deposed
the
King,
Charles
X,
and
en-
throned a
distant
kinsman,
Louis
Philippe,
in
his
stead with
the
THE
SENSE
OF
LAW
AND
ORDER
new
and
significant
title
of
Cf
King
of
the
French"
instead of
"of
France." The
movement
was
largely
of
the
middle
class,
who ob-
jected
to
Charles
chiefly
because he had
ignored
them
and
used
his
autocratic
power
solely
on
behalf of himself
and the
aristocracy.
In
that
respect
his
overthrow exerted a
considerable
influence
on
the
English
situation
where
the middle class
was
also
to
demand
transfer
of
power
from
the
great
landed
magnates
to
themselves.
The
situation
on
the
Continent
was,
however,
in
reality
very
different
from
that
in
Britain. The
repressive
system
of Metter-
nich and
the
other
rulers
had
suppressed
freedom
of
speech
from
Waterloo
to the
overthrow of
Charles. Without
liberal
institutions
and
the
habit
of
peaceful
discussion,
the
peoples
resorted
to
vio-
lent
revolution,
upheavals
in
Germany,
Italy,
Poland
and
Belgium
following
immediately
upon
that in
France.
No
permanent
gains,
however,
were
made,
and
eighteen years
later
in the
vast revolu-
tionary
wave of
1848
practically
every
government
was to be
en-
gulfed
except
the
despotic
one of Russia
and
the free
one
of Great
Britain,
It was
typical
of
the
British,
as contrasted
with their
Con-
tinental
neighbors,
that
their
revolution,
if we
may
call
it
so,
of
1
830-32
was
comparatively
peaceful,
as
well as
constitutional,
and
lasting,
i
The
long English
history
of
give
and
take,
with
compromise
at
the last
and
often
critical
moment,
might
have
indicated that
such
would
be the
case,
but
many
were
by
no means
sure
it
would
be so
in
1830.
In
Birmingham
Thomas Attwood
had
organized
his
Po-
litical
Union
with
thousands
of
members,
demanding
the
reform
of
Parliament.
In
the
counties
south
of
London occurred
a
revolt
of
the
agricultural poor
with
much
burning
of
hayricks
and
de-
struction
of
farming
machinery.
It
was
wholly
non-political
but
it
terrified farmers
and
the
large
landowners and
was
put
down
with merciless
severity
by
the
government^
In
London itself
there
were
large meetings
of
radicals
who
did
nothing
worse
than
make
threatening
speeches,
but
so
great
was
the alarm
that
it
was
judged
better not to allow the
new
King
to
drive
through
the
streets
for
the
opening
of Parliament.
In
the
industrial North
there
were
many
strikes
with
wild talk of overthrow
of the
existing
order and
99
EMPIRE
ON THE
SEVEN SEAS
a
inarch
on
London,
which
did not materialize. Nowhere
was
there
any
genuine
revolutionary propaganda,
leader
or
party.
The
scat-
tered and
uncoordinated
mutterings,
threats,
and even
burnings
were
the
more
or
less
simultaneous
expression
of
men driven
des-
perate
by
their
economic
condition,
low
wages,
the burden of tithes
to
the
clergy
and
the
unsatisfactory
Poor
Laws. Even
among
the
farm
laborers,
who were
the
most
violent,
although
many
threats
were
used
there
were
many
cases of
talking
the situation over with
the
clergyman
or
landowner,
and settlements
peaceably
reached,
as
with
Lord
Gage
of Sussex.
In
reading
some of the
papers pre-
senting
the
grievances
of
the
poor,
one
is
impressed
equally
by
their
reality
and
by
the clear
and moderate
way
in
which
they
are
set
forth.
Nevertheless,
the well-to-do
were in a
panic,
and
this
fact,
contrasted
with the actual amount
of
violence,
allows
us
to
infer
how
deeply
rooted the
sense
of
law
and
order
had
become
in the
nation.
II. IRELAND
AFLAME
There
had also been trouble in
Ireland,
There,
racial,
economic
and
religious
problems
were
inextricably
entwined.
To
a
large
ex-
tent
the
great
landowners were
Protestants,
and
many
were
absen-
tee
English.
jThe
Irish land
system
was
always
worse
than that in
England,
the Irish
landlord
refusing
to
make the
improvements
which
were
customary
on
English
estates,
and
even
charging
higher
rents
whenthe
impoverished
tenant
made
any
himself.
As
elsewhere
in
this
period,
population
was
rapidly increasing,
and
may
have
been
7,500,000
by
1
830,
much
too
large
for
the
rack-rent
farming
without
the
industries
which
it
had
been
hoped
might
be
established
after
the
Union
in
1800.
That
Union,
from
which
so much
good might
have
flowed,
had
been
disliked
by
the
Irish,
and
with
just
cause.
Catholic
Emanci-
pation,
which
it
had
been
believed
would
follow,
was
denied,
and
if
the
Irish
Parliament in
Dublin
had been inefficient
that at
West-
minster
proved
to
be
more so. It
did
nothing
whatever to
relieve the
desperate
economic
situation
which
even
before the
serious
famine
of
1
822
had
been
reducing
the
peasantry
to almost
incredible
pov-
100
IRELAND
AFLAME
erty
and
which
was the
cause
of most
of the constant
agrarian
out-
rages.
For
these
repression
was
the
only policy adopted.
Parlia-
ment acted
much
like
a
doctor who
in
treating
a
seriously
ill
pa-
tient
refuses
to
consider
the
disease and
merely
knocks
the
patient
on the
head
when
he has
an
attack of
delirium.
Even the Irish
re-
formers
gave
most of their
attention
to
the
religious problem.
Grattan,
who
had
realized
he could
do
nothing
as
a member of
the
Parliament
in
London,
died in
1820,
and
the
new
Irish
leader,
Daniel
O'Connell,
was
a
man
of
different
type.
In
Ireland,
there
was no
middle
class
to
mediate
between the downtrodden
peas-
antry,
almost
wholly
Catholic,
and the
Protestant landlords
who
controlled their
votes under
threat
of
eviction,
a
threat almost
uni-
versally
effective,
for,
bad as
was
the
English
Poor Law at
this
time,
the
Irish
peasant
thrown off
his
bit
of
land had not
even
that
slight
protection
against
beggary
and
starvation.
For
a
dozen
years
before
the
famine,
Catholic
Emancipation,
which
among
other
things
would have
permitted
Irish
Catholics
to
hold
public
office,
might
have
passed
the
Commons several
times,
but was
always
blocked
by
the
Lords.;
In
Ireland
O'Connell
built
up
his
organi-
zation of
the
Catholic Association
to
snatch
political
power
from
the
landlord
class,
mixing
racialism,
economics
and
religion
in
the
stew
he
offered
to
the
starving
Irish,
and
in 1
828,
in
County
Clare,
he
won election to Parliament
for
himself
against
one
of the
most
popular
landlords
in
the
country.
It was a momentous
event.
O'Connell,
who
had
become the
recognized
leader of
the
Irish
people,
had
been
elected but
because
he
was
a
Catholic
he was not
allowed
to
take
the seat
he
had
won. Ireland
was
aflame,
and
the
question
which
had simmered
so
long
now
threatened
civil
war.
The Duke
of
Wellington,
who
was
Prime
Minister and
who,
like
the
recent
sovereigns,
had been
strongly
opposed
to
Catholic
Emancipation,
now
realized
that
such
an Act
must
be
passed
to
avoid
revolution or
civil
war,
and in
1829
it
was
carried
through
Parliament
against
the
wishes
of
George
IV,
the
University
of
Oxford
and almost
all
of
the
Tory
elements,
who
were
furious..
Though
the
Act
was
passed
the
British
showed
themselves
as
little
magnanimous
in
carrying
it
out
as
they
had
to
the
American
col-
101
EMPIRE
ON
THE
SEVEN
SEAS
onies
after
their
successful
revolt.
A
number
of
important
results,
however,
ensued.
O'Connell,
who
was
required
to
be
re-elected,
was
able
to
gather
about
him
a
group
of
Irish members
in Par-
liament
who
were
in
the
future
often
to hold the
balance of
power
between
the
English
parties,
and
Wellington's
Tory
government
had
to
resign.
III. THE
GREAT
REFORM BILL
The
Duke
had
lost
practically
the
support
of all
the
factions in
his
party,
and
the
way
was
open
for
the reinstatement
of
the
Whigs,
a most
fortunate
event
pregnant
with vast
consequences
for
the
Kingdom
and
Empire.
The
Tory party
had been
shipwrecked
on
the
rock of Catholic
Emancipation.
The Irish
question
had
ceased
to
have
repercussions merely
in Ireland.
It
had broken
up
a
great
historic
party
in
England,
and
O'Connell had
also
pre-
pared
the
way
for
the
coming
Reform Bill
by
showing
how
effec-
tive mass
action
by
the
people
could
prove.
These were the
Irish
contributions
to
reform in
Britain,
where
an
added
impetus
was
to
be
given
by
the acute
depression
in
1831.
The
times were fast
changing,
and
everywhere
the
peoples
were
demanding
a
larger
share
of
self-government,
which
meant
a
re-
organization
of the old
order.
This,
in
the
shape
of
Parliamentary
reform,
had
been
bitterly
opposed
by
the Duke
and
the
Tories.
Catholic
Emancipation
and
the
seating
of Irish
members
in
Par-
liament and
on
the bench
formed
the first breach in
the walls
of
entrenched
privilege,
but
the
whole
system
had to
go.
The
prob-
lem
for
the
men
of
that
day
was
whether
the
system
would be
overthrown
by
revolution or
transformed
by
constitutional
meth-
ods.
Had
the
Duke,
with
his narrow
military
mind,
and his reac-
tionary
party
followers
remained in
power,
the
first alternative
might unhappily
have
been
the
one
which
would
have had to be
chosen.
Fortunately
the
accession
of
the
Whigs
enabled the
people
to
follow
the
path
of
peace
though
not without
excitement
and
danger.
The
new
government,
headed
by
Lord
Grey
and
including
such
men as Lord
John
Russell,
Lord
Palmerston
and
Viscount
Mel-
102
THE
GREAT REFORM BILL
bourne,
brought
in a
Reform
Bill on
March
i,
1831.
Lord
Grey
and a
few
other
reformers
had believed
since 1826
that
a wide-
sweeping
change
was
essential. This
seems
clearly
obvious
to
us,
to
whom
the
then
existing
system
of election
to the
House
of
Com-
mons
appears
utterly
absurd. The
qualifications
of
electors
and
the
basis of
representation
of
towns,
boroughs
and counties
varied
all
over
the
United
Kingdom
and Ireland.
To mention
only
a
few
of
the
glaring
anomalies we
may
note that
in Scotland less
than
4000
electors
returned all
the
45
members
for
that
country,
there
being
only
34
voters in
the
entire
county
of Sutherland
and
33
who
elected the
member
for
Edinburgh.
The
counties and
boroughs
of
Catholic Ireland
were for
the most
part
under the control
of
the
Protestant
landlords. In
England
there were
a
few
boroughs
in
which there
was
genuine representation
and the
county
members
were
fairly
representative
of the
smaller
gentry
and
larger
farm-
ers.
These
members,
however,
were
swamped
in the House
by
the
403
members
from
boroughs
which
were
almost
wholly
owned
or controlled
by
certain
magnates
or small
oligarchies.
It was esti-
mated
in
1827
that
276
of
the
borough
members out of the
total
number
of
seats
in
the
House
of
658
were owned
by
large
land-
lords.
Of
these
203
belonged
to Tories.
These
seats
could be
bought
and
sold
like
any
other
personal
property
and
sometimes
almost
the
entire
value of
a
country
estate
would lie
in
the
ownership
of
a
seat in
Parliament.
Seats were
some-
times
sold for
as
high
as
twenty
or
thirty
thousand
pounds,
and
a
general
election
might
thus
bring
a handsome
fortune
to
the
lucky
owner
of
a
seat. In
some
places
a
mere handful
of
electors,
who
could
be
easily
bought
for small
sums,
elected two members.
The
most notorious
case was that of
the
borough
of
Old
Sarum
which
sent
two
representatives
to
Westminster,
though
it had
no
inhabi-
tants
at
all,
the
members
being
appointed
by
the owner
of
the
vacant
land!
On
the other
hand such
large
new
cities
as
Sheffield,
Leeds,
Birmingham
and Manchester
had
no
representation
what-
ever,
though
the last
had a
population
of
180,000.
To
cite
other
figures,
it was
stated in the
Black Book of
1
820
that
144
peers
nomi-
nated
300
members
of
Parliament
and that the
government
with
103
EMPIRE
ON
THE
SEVEN SEAS
123
other
persons
could
nominate
187
more,
a
heavy
majority
en-
tirely
under
control
of
the landed
aristocracy
and the
government
with
its
hangers-on.
Thus
the
working
class
was
practically wholly
disfranchised,
the
middle
class
mostly
so,
as
were
also the
rapidly
rising
business
and
industrial
magnate
groups,
unless
here and there a
few
of the
latter
might
buy
landed
estates
with
a
seat
attached
or
combine
to
buy
a
borough.
Absurd
as
this
system may
seem,
it had
been
many
cen-
turies
in
developing
and
involved vested
interests
in
the
private
ownership
of
seats and
in the
control of
government
by
a
class.
Not
only
does no
class
ever
give up
its
privileges
without a
strug-
gle
but
it
is
human
nature to
regard
one's own
privileges
as some-
how
the
basis of
a
sound
and
orderly society.
Moreover,
any
situa-
tion,
whether
it
be that of the American
revolutionists
in
1776
or
the
Tories
struggling
to
maintain
themselves in
1830,
is
always
rationalized. It
was
claimed that
the
Parliamentary
system,
odd
as
it
was,
had
made Britain
great
j
that all
classes
were
"virtually"
if not
directly
represented}
that it enabled
brilliant
young
men
to
enter
public
life
and
developed
a
governing
class made
up
of
the
most
substantial
ranks in
the
country
j
and
that
the liberties
of
Eng-
land,
from
Magna
Carta
down,
had been
won without
any
such
dangerous
broadening
of
the franchise as
the
reformers
proposed.
Some
of
these
statements
could
not be
gainsaid,
but nevertheless
both
the
middle and
working
classes were
insistent,
and
properly
so,
when Lord
Grey
introduced
his bill. In
considering
any
his-
torical
crisis
we have
to allow
for the
atmosphere,
the
conditions
and
prejudices
of
the
time,
and
not
of
our
own,
if
we are
to be
fair. To do otherwise is to
be
unjust
to
those
who were
opposed
to
the
course
history
was
to
take and
to
detract from
the
vision
and
ability
of those who
aligned
themselves
with
the future.
The
old
system
was
fast
breaking
down.
During
the nineteenth
century
the
House
of
Lords,
including
both
peers
and
bishops,
was
to
remain
an almost
steady
drag
on social
progress
of
every
sort.
In the last
years
before
the
Reform
Bill
the
level
of
intelligence
and
public
spirit
had
also
fallen
low
in
the
Commons,
and the
"spoils
system,"
which still
plagues
the
United
States,
was
at its
104
THE
GREAT
REFORM
BILL
height
in
England.
Members of
Parliament,
stubbornly
resisting
reform
of
their own
body,
were
inclined
to resist
change
or
reform
in
any
other
department
of
the national
life
lest
the
flood once
let
loose
should
carry
away
their own
privileged
position.
In
spite
of
all,
however,
and
with
all
its
faults,
the form
of Parliamen-
tary
government
in
Britain
was
the most democratic
in
Europe,
and
the
anti-reformers
could
justifiably
point
to
this
fact,
as
well
as to
the excesses
of "reform"
or
revolutionary
movements
on the
Con-
tinent.
Such
was
the situation when
Lord
Grey
introduced
his
measure.
He had been
placed
in
power
not
merely by
the
Whigs
but
by
the ultra-Tories
as
well,
who had
helped
to force
the
resignation
of
Wellington.
All
parties
believed
that whatever measure
of re-
form
might
be
introduced
would be
very
moderate
and,
while
throwing
a
sop
to
the
reformers,
would
not
in
reality
change
mat-
ters much.
When
it
was
proposed
that
sixty
boroughs
should
be
totally
disfranchised,
one
member
taken
from
forty-seven
more
each,
and
other
drastic
changes
be
made,
including
a uniform
10
householder
qualification
in
all
boroughs,
the
cry
went
up
at
once
that
the
Constitution
was in
danger.
The 10
clause,
that
is,
the
occupying
of
premises
renting
for
45.
a
week,
would have
given
the
vote
to small
shopkeepers
and
higher-grade
workmen,
and
al-
though
the old
supposed
balance
between
King,
Lords
and
Com-
mons
had
long
been
upset
in
favor of the
first
two,
it
was
now
claimed that it would
be
upset
wholly
in favor of the last.
The
way
seemed
opening
for
manhood
suffrage
and mob
rule,
with
gov-
ernment
by
whim
and
passion
without the
steadying
influence of
property.
The
French
Revolution
and the
Reign
of
Terror,
only
a
generation
back,
came
forcibly
to men's minds.
Many
believed
that not
only
was
all
property
endangered
but the
very
stability
of
society
and
the state which
had been
built
up
through
many
centuries.
On
the
other
hand
the
Whig
leaders
had
undoubtedly
spoken
for
the
bulk
of the nation and
a
part
at
least
of
the
governing
class
had
taken
the
popular
side. The
fight,
however,
was to
be
terrific.
Not
only
the
150
members
of Parliament
who
were told
that
105
EMPIRE
ON THE SEVEN
SEAS
their
seats
were
to
be
abolished,
but the
governing
class in
gen-
eral
felt that
the
whole
life
they
had known
was
to
be
ruined,
while
excitement
among
the
general
populace
was
intense.
The
debates
in
Parliament,
which
were
by
this time
being published,
filled
the
,news
sheets,
and
discussion
was
universal
throughout
the
country.
On
the
second
reading
of the
bill
(the
first on
which a
vote
is
taken),
it
passed
by
a
majority
of
only
one
vote
in
the
Commons,
and
a
general
election
was called for. To
the new
Parliament
came
a
large
majority
pledged
in favor of the
bill,
and
this time
the
Com-
mons
passed
it
by
over
one hundred.
In
the
Lords it
was
heavily
defeated,
and
the
aroused
people
expressed
the
vehemence of their
resentment
not
only
in
huge
mass
meetings
but in some
places by
mob
violence. Public
buildings
were
sacked,
jails
burned,
and the
great
Birmingham
Political
Union
pledged
its
members to
pay
no taxes
until the bill was
passed.
The whole
nation
was in a
tur-
moil, and,
after the measure was
passed
for a third
time
in the
Commons,
the
now
frightened
Lords
passed
it in
March,
1
832,
by
a
majority
of
nine,
but
shortly
after
undid their work
by
altering
it so that the
pocket-boroughs
should
not
be abolished. The
gov-
ernment
at once
asked
the
King
to
create
new
peers,
as
Queen
Anne had done to
overcome
the
opposition
of the
Lords on a
pre-
vious
occasion,
but
he
refused
and
the
government resigned.
The
storm was
now
at its
height.
So
strong
was the
public feeling
that
Wellington
was
unable
to form
a
ministry
and
Grey
had to be
recalled.
A
run
started on the Bank
of
England
and
plans
were
made
for
open
revolt.
Finally
the
King
consented
to
create
the
necessary
number
of
peers
to
force "the
Bill,
the
whole
Bill,
and
nothing
but
the Bill"
through
the
Upper
House. He
was most
reluctant
to do
so,
but
the
threat
was to suffice. At
his
suggestion
Wellington
and
enough peers
refrained from
voting
to
allow
the bill to
be
passed by
its
supporters,
and on
June
7
it was
signed
by
the
King.
Even
in
the
unreformed
Parliament it had
been
shown that the
Lords could
not
permanently
hold
out
against
the
expressed
wili
of
the
people,
and
with the
reformed Commons a new era
began
*
The moment
had been
one
of the most
critical
in
English history
106