Perkin Harold. The Origins of Modern English Society

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

methods were so transparently propagandist, so politically aggressive, and so

socially condescending that they served rather to antagonize than to seduce the

emergent working class, as the most cursory reading of Cobbett, Carlile and the

other Radicals will show.

They often antagonized the rich also—far more than their historian-admirers

admit. Blackwood’s described their views on the sexual immorality of the sons

of George III as ‘mere hypocritical cant, overstrained prudery, in those who

affect to be scandalized,’ and saw in the Evangelical campaign against slavery

‘intrigue, worldliness, heartlessness, and the spirit of money-getting in all its

crooked ways, mingling with a cause that inscribes upon its banners

philanthropy, honour, and religion.’

In spite of their social conservatism they

were recognized by their opponents as representatives of the entrepreneurial

ideal. To the Christian Socialists, Evangelicalism was the only form of

Christianity compatible with the selfish economic doctrine of competition, and

made religion ‘a scheme or method for obtaining selfish prizes which men are to

compete for, just as they do for the things of the earth.’

This indeed was their strength, and explains why nearly all the credit for the

moral revolution has been claimed for them. They were borne along by the tide of

middle-class moral superiority to the aristocracy which, pushed by economic and

demographic pressures entirely outside their influence, was flowing so strongly

in the early nineteenth century. If they had a special function it was,

paradoxically, to help to undermine from within the morality of the aristocracy.

Their connections, through Wilberforce and his friends, with the ruling élite were

so good and their credentials as gentlemen so impeccable that criticism which

from others might have been brushed aside as impertinent had some chance of

sticking. When Wilberforce on religious grounds refused a challenge to a duel

his reputation as a man of honour survived intact, and made it possible for others

to do the same. Yet the Evangelicals could hardly have succeeded even here if

the aristocratic code had not already been crumbling. When the Duke of

Wellington fought Lord Winchelsea in 1829, Blackwood’s asked how the High

Tories could trust a premier who ‘wantonly exposed his life, and proved that his

country was less dear to him than the gratification of a splenetic passion!’

The loss of confidence in aristocratic morality which the Evangelicals

exploited-went deeper than a growing sense of the shamefulness of duelling. The

W.Godschall, A General Plan of Parochial and Provincial Police (1787), p. 101;

Quinlan, op. cit., p. 56.

Jaeger, op. cit., p. 14.

Cf. J.Lackington, Confessions (1804), pp. 165–6: ‘I sent for about 3,000 of them, and

many of them I have already given away to farmers, labourers, soldiers, etc.’—Quinlan,

op. cit., pp. 192–3.

Blackwood’s, 1824, XV. 197; 1830, XXVII. 465.

Maurice, On the Reformation of Society, pp. 10–13.

234 TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL

use of morality to defend the existing social system was a weakness rather than a

strength, in that moral bonds were made to hold together what economic

pressures were beginning to push apart, and they eventually found the strain

insupportable. There had always been a defensiveness about the inequities of

property, which found classic expression in Paley’s parable of the pigeons, in

which ninetynine busily heaped up every grain of corn for one, ‘and this one,

too, oftentimes the feeblest and worst of the whole set—a child, a woman, a

madman, or a fool.’

With the emergence of class antagonism morality became

the last defence of property short of repression by force. In an article on the

ineffectiveness of the death penalty which was itself a contribution to the moral

revolution, Blackwood’s in 1830 implicitly admitted that propertied society was

unjust and was only held together by the most powerful moral causes:

The division of the ranks of society which, with advancing society, is

continually proceeding, while it separates one portion of the community to

affluence and refinement, separates another portion to indigence and

abasement. The first great distinction which so early takes place, into the

holders of property and those who are born to labour, must appear from the

beginning to establish a natural warfare between the rights of one part of

the community and the cravings of another. Yet moral institution is found

sufficiently powerful, while it has power, to keep down this hostility, and

to maintain the order of society; but take morality away, and there is no

human power of avail to guard against the boundless depredation that is let

loose upon it.

It was obvious that the code of honour and the lax versions of the Christian ethic

associated with it gave no support to the moral defences of property mounted by

the Evangelicals. In the dangerous times for property and aristocracy which

followed the French Revolution, the obvious recourse of the propertied class was

that very morality which they themselves, armed with Evangelical tracts,

preached to the poor. How could the poor be expected to accept the discipline of

Christian morality unless the rich set them a good example? As Arthur Young put

it in 1798,

The true Christian will never be a leveller, will never listen to French

politics or to French philosophy. He who worships God in spirit and in

truth will love the Government and laws which protect him without asking

by whom they are administered. But let it not be imagined that such

characters will abound among the lower classes while the higher by their

Sunday parties, excursions and amusements and vanities; by their neglect

Blackwood’s, 1829, XXVI. 227.

W.Paley, Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1817 ed.), pp. 68–9.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 235

of public worship and their families show that they feel not themselves

what perhaps they talk of, or recommend for the poor.

Hence the crowded churches and queues of carriages to them noted by the

Annual Register in the same year.

The effect would have lasted no longer than

the immediate cause but for the post-war birth of class, which made it

permanent. In this way the Evangelicals—if not their own common sense—

taught the new morality to the aristocracy.

If the Evangelicals worked from the inside, operating through their friends,

such as the Duke of Grafton, Lord Darlington and Lady Huntingdon, a sort of

fifth column within the aristocracy, the Dissenters and the Benthamites worked

mainly from the outside, bolstering the self-confidence of the middle-class

morality and fostering emancipation and antagonism. With the possible

exception of Priestley, Price and the ‘Rational Dissenters’, the Nonconformists,

including the Methodists, were at first as loyal to the established order as the

Evangelicals, and the morality of all of them was just as quietist. Indeed, many

Dissenters worked closely with the latter and accepted the name, as did the group

of Baptists and Congregationalists who joined them to found the Evangelical

Magazine in 1793.

From the beginning, however, they had a propensity to

condemn even more vigorously than the Clapham Sect the characteristic vices of

the aristocracy: excessive drinking, gambling, sexual transgressions, dancing,

theatre-going, and duelling. Condemnation of the vice spilled over more easily

into condemnation of the class. For the Eclectic Review in 1805 it was not

enough to condemn Richardson’s Sir Charles Grandison as a duellist and a

hypocrite; it had to add: ‘To reconcile the modern fine gentleman with the

disciple of Christ is impossible.’

Competition between the Church and the Sects

led to competition between the classes. ‘The Dissenting ministers act upon the

regular clergy much as the Opposition acts upon the Ministry,’ admitted

Blackwood’s in 1824. The result of their competition was that ‘Public morals are

therefore in an excellent state in every class; conscience operates powerfully; in

many of our parties turpitude is punished by the party without the aid of law; and

men cannot publicly offend against integrity and good principles, without being

gibbetted by public opinion.’

The moral superiority of the middle ranks to the

aristocracy was forged by the Dissenters long before the birth of class. It required

only a small impulsion to turn moral superiority into class antagonism. That

impulsion was given by the Benthamites and classical economists.

We have already seen the role of the Benthamites and Ricardians in the birth of

the middle class. They acted as the spokesmen and ideologists of the class,

Blackwood’s, 1830, XXVII. 876.

A.Young, An Enquiry into the State of the Public Mind (1798), p. 25; Annual Register,

1798, p. 229.

Quinlan, op. at., p. 185.

236 TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL

formulating its antagonism towards the aristocracy and rationalizing its claim to

superior social worth which was also a claim to moral superiority. Yet, apart

from the special contribution of such near-Benthamites as Samuel Romilly and Sir

James Mackintosh to penal reform, their share in the moral revolution has largely

been passed over. This neglect arises from the common misapprehension that

morality in general and the moral revolution in particular are exclusively the

concern of religion and the religious, and that a group of men led by the sceptic

Bentham and the atheist James Mill could have nothing to do with them.

Utilitarianism, however, was as much a movement for moral as for political and

social reform. The principle of utility, the universal test of the greatest happiness

of the greatest number, was a moral imperative more categorical than the

Evangelical version of the Christian ethic, in that it was pursued for its own sake,

as good in itself, and not motivated by supernatural reward and punishment.

The Benthamites were in fact ‘secular Evangelicals’, burning with a passion

for moral reform which blazed the more fiercely because it was less inhibited in

attacking existing norms and institutions, particularly the aristocracy and the

Church. That is why the Dissenters, although theologically closer to the

Evangelicals and perfectly aware of the irreligious tendencies of the Benthamites,

increasingly turned from the former to the latter in proportion as they became

alienated from the political and ecclesiastical establishments. The Benthamites

were more reliable allies in every field: toleration, education, the tithe and

Church rate questions, Church disestablishment, and so on. And, in spite of their

un-Dissenter-like permissiveness in matters of opinion and belief, their attitude

to life and work was the apotheosis of puritanism. Religion apart, nothing could

have been more puritanical than the education of John Stuart Mill, and if

labouring in one’s vocation, seriousness of mind, the exclusion of all but

intellectual pleasures, the consciousness of being of the elect, compulsive

preaching to potential converts, and coercion of the stubbornly unenlightened,

are marks of the puritan, then the Benthamites were puritans to a man. They

appealed to just those tendencies in the more secular minds of the capitalist middle

class which the Dissenters appealed to in the religious. Their converts were, if

anything, still more dedicated to the entrepreneurial ethic.

It was the entrepreneurial ethic, however, with a difference, a difference due to

the predominantly professional character and outlook of the Benthamites. With

their characteristically professional emphasis on justification by service to

society and their denunciation of idleness and waste as anti-social as well as

immoral, they helped to add a new dimension to the moral revolution,

transforming it from an attempt merely to moralize the individual within the

existing social framework into an attempt to moralize society itself. Other

Eclectic Review, 1805, I. 126.

‘Y.Y.Y.’ [Robinson], ‘The Church of England and the Dissenters’, Blackwood’s, 1824,

XVI. 395, 398.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 237

professional men were no doubt working in the same direction: the Evangelical

clergymen, like John Newton and John Venn, who formed the backbone of the

Clapham Sect, the High Churchmen, like Coleridge, Southey and John Sterling,

who were trying to moralize the aristocracy, and the Dissenting ministers and

editors, like Rev. Dr. Dale and the Baineses, who were trying to moralize the

industrial middle class. But it was the Benthamites who consciously put the

revolution into the moral revolution, and turned the moral superiority of the

Dissenting middle class into a deliberate attack on the ‘immorality’ of the

aristocracy.

The Benthamites and Dissenters, then, worked together to reinforce the moral

superiority of the middle class and to impose its puritanism upon the rest of

society. With the help of the Evangelicals and the moral inferiority complex of

the aristocracy they soon succeeded with the upper class. By 1827 the Morning

Chronicle could say,

Our men of rank may occasionally assume a virtue which they have not,

they may sometimes be greater hypocrites than their forefathers were, but

hypocrisy is, at all events, an homage offered to public opinion, and

supposes the existence of a fear of the people.

In 1844 the Army’s Articles of War were amended to discourage duelling by

making apology for an insult permissible within the code of honour, and the last

duel in England is said to have been fought in 1852.

Long before that, however,

duellists had become evolutionary throwbacks, as out of place as a cannibal at a

chapel tea party, and the aristocratic version of the gentleman and his code of

honour were dead.

With the working class the process took somewhat longer, although the

Benthamites were claiming good progress by the 1820’s. Francis Place told the

Select Committee on Artisans and Machinery in 1824 that the journeyman

tailors, ‘like all other journeymen, are greatly improved in morals,’ and instanced

the disappearance of the gin bottle from their workshops. Five years later he was

writing that the working classes in the last thirty years ‘have become wiser,

better, more frugal, more honest, more respectable, more virtuous than they ever

were before.’

James Mill wrote of them in similar strain:

In manners, in all the little moralities of daily intercourse, there is even

within the memory of men still living, a prodigious amelioration. There is a

gentleness and a civility in their deportment towards one another, not to

speak of their superiors, rarely met with a century ago. Riot and

drunkenness are greatly diminished.

Morning Chronicle, 1 October 1827; Quinlan, op. cit., p. 119.

Christie, op. cit., pp. 132, 134.

238 TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL

This optimism clearly suited the Benthamite belief in the improvability of the

working class by middle-class leadership and propaganda. It is difficult to

reconcile, however, with the enormous increase in crime between 1800 and 1830,

which has now been shown to have been real, and not a statistical effect of more

efficient police or a greater willingness with penal reform to prosecute;

or with

the known and possibly increasing drunkenness and immorality of the great

towns observed by Gaskell, Porter, Foucher, Engels, Mayhew and others.

There was of course a considerable gap in all classes between the moral code

and moral practice. Indeed, as standards rise the distance by which sinners fall

short of them becomes greater, and there is not much doubt that there was more

prostitution, drunkenness, and furtive pornography amongst rich and poor, as

well as a greater consciousness of the sinfulness of sin, in Victorian England than

before the moral revolution.

Nevertheless, in spite of the efforts of the

Methodists and Evangelicals, the Dissenters and the Benthamites, it patently took

longer for acceptance of the new moral standards to penetrate the mass of the

working class than the more sophisticated, and more readily hypocritical, upper

class. Moreover, there was a difference between outward conformity to external,

patently middle-class standards and inward conviction of the need for a new

moral code. It was, paradoxically, not so much the middle class who imposed

their morality on the working class, as the working class who imposed it on

themselves. The need recognized by their leaders to moralize the working class

in preparation for the new moral world based on the ideal of labour exposed their

Achilles’ heel to the darts of middle-class moralists. To meet the remoter need for

a new and higher morality they were forced to accept the immediate expedient of

a puritanical, self-improving attitude to themselves. This exposed them to the

entrepreneurial ideal of the self-made man, the capitalist version of the puritan

pilgrim. But the role of the myth of the self-made man in the struggle between

the ideals brings us to the battle for the mind, where it can best be explained.

P.P., 1824, V, S.C. on Artisans and Machinery, p. 46; Wallas, Place, p. 61.

West.Rev., 1826, VI. 264.

K.K.Macnab, ‘Aspects of the History of Crime in England and Wales between 1805 and

1860’, D.Phil, dissertation, University of Sussex, 1965; for statistics of crime see Porter,

op. cit., (1851), pp. 635, 646–64.

Cf. Steven Marcus, The Other Victorians: a Study of Sexuality and Pornography in

Mid-19th-century England (New York, 1966); B.Harrison, ‘Underneath the Victorians’,

Victorian Studies, 1967, X. 239f.; P.T.Cominos, ‘Late Victorian Sexuality and the Social

System’, Int.Rev. of Soc.Hist., 1963, VIII. 18f. and 216f., esp. pp. 228–30; for the record

consumption of beer in the mid-Victorian age, rising to an all-time maximum in 1876, see

Burnett, op. cit., p. 91.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 239

THE BATTLE FOR THE MIND

By all the rules of intellectual warfare the aristocratic ideal should have won the

battle for the mind. The aristocracy was the army in possession, defending a

prepared position, and in control of the most powerful organs of opinion and

most of the institutions of education. It also had the enormous moral advantage

of long and successful experience of preaching its ideal. At the outset it

controlled nearly all the most widely read ‘quality’ journals and newspapers. The

largest quarterly, monthly and daily circulations belonged to the Tory Quarterly

Review, Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, and The Times.

The Whig

publications were more open to Radical influence, but their editors, taunted their

enemies, walked in fear of being ‘cut by the great aristocractical Whigs’.

Of the

leading national journals only the Westminster Review, founded by Bentham and

James Mill in 1824, and the Morning Chronicle, edited by Mill and Place’s

protégé John Black were unequivocally anti-aristocratic, and their circulations

were comparatively small.

Below the ‘quality’ level the only popular papers before Cobbett brought out his

‘Twopenny Trash’ in 1817 were Sundays like Bell’s Weekly Messenger and the

Observer, crude scandal sheets with no politics other than a vague inclination to

support the Government. The commonest reading matter at this level were the

broadsheet ballads and Vulgar and indecent penny books’, and even here the

defenders of the old society were not without success. In the 1790’s Hannah

More and Sarah Trimmer’s Cheap Repository Tracts—‘sheep in wolves’

clothing’—sold more than two million copies in one year, though most of them

to the rich for free distribution to the poor.

The aristocracy, moreover, knew how to use its power to influence the press.

Government journals were subsidized, and Tory editors like William Gifford of

the Quarterly, John Bowles of the Anti-Jacobin Review, and John Walter I of

The Times granted pensions.

The newspaper stamp duty was progressively

raised between 1789 and 1815 from 1½d. to 4d., with the aim of restricting

political discussion to the propertied classes, and regular prosecutions for

blasphemous and seditious libel from 1816 to 1834 reinforced the repression.

Aristocratic control over the institutions of education was still more complete.

The two English universities, small, expensive and practically closed to

Dissenters, were the preserve of ‘the aristocractical, political, professional and

clerical sections of society’, while the Scottish ones were still chiefly schools for

‘noisy and illiterate urchins’ from twelve to sixteen, with lectures on medicine,

law and theology ‘for those of rather riper years’.

The seven great public

Blackwood’s, 1820, VIII. 80–1; A.P.Wadsworth, Newspaper Circulations, 1800–1954

(Manchester Statistical Society, 1955), pp. 8–9.

‘Timothy Tickler’ [J.G.Lockhart], ‘Letter to Francis Jeffrey’ [ed. of Edin. Rev.],

Blackwood’s, 1824. XV. 147.

240 TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL

schools were monopolized by the landed class and its dependants, and the other

secondary schools, with a few Dissenting exceptions like the Quakers’ Ashworth

(1777) and the Presbyterian Mill Hill (1807), were ancient grammar schools

either moribund or recently transformed into expensive and predominantly

Anglican boarding schools for the propertied and professional classes.

Elementary education, apart from the utterly inefficient dame-schools, was

dominated by the charity schools organized chiefly by the Church through the

auspices of the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge until 1811,

and thereafter by the National Society for the Education of the Poor in the

Principles of the Church of England.

The aristocracy’s position, however, was marred by fatal weaknesses. In spite

—or perhaps because—of its fear of an uncontrolled press, it was far more

susceptible to public opinion than Continental autocracies. ‘The grand

characteristic of Mr. Pitt’s system,’ its supporters claimed, was ‘deference to

public opinion’, and Parliamentary Reform was opposed on the grounds that ‘a

single newspaper is worth, in this point of view, all the members for the

Aberdeen and Fife districts of boroughs— with those of Westminster,

Southwarkand Winchelseato boot.’

We have already seen, however, how

susceptible Pitt and his followers were to certain entrepreneurial ideas, and we

shall find that it was by infiltration rather than frontal attack that the aristocratic

citadel fell.

Similarly in education, the aristocracy and its church possessed the institutions,

but the ideas taught there were increasingly those of their middle-class rivals,

who possessed a self-confidence in this field entirely lacking in their opponents.

Indeed, Anglican enthusiasts for education of the poor had to contend with

enemies in their midst, who from Mandeville’s time never ceased to oppose it as

politically and morally dangerous.

As late as 1827 a High Tory could argue:

As education has increased amidst the people, infidelity, vice, and crime

have increased. At this moment the people are far more vicious and

criminal, in proportion to their numbers, than they were when

Wadsworth, op. cit., p. 9.

Martha More, Mendip Annals (ed. A.Roberts, 1859), p. 6.

[John Wade], The Black Book (1820), pp. 43–4.

A.Aspinall, Politics and the Press, c. 1780–1850 (1949), pp. 16–23; J.Hamburger,

James Mill and the Art of Revolution (1963), pp. 9–10.

M.Pattison, Suggestions on Academic Organization (1869), p. 102; Blackwood’s, 1823,

XIII. 94.

P.P., 1867–8 [3966], XXVIII. Pt. I. 1, Report of the Schools Inquiry [Taunton]

Commission, esp. chap. ii, § 1.

‘Bandana [John Galt] on the Abandonment of the Pitt System’, Blackwood’s

1823, XIII. 515–18.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 241

comparatively uneducated. The majority of criminals consist of those who

have been ‘educated’.

And when the enthusiasts had won the main battle for education, they still had to

fight over any extension of it, as in the case of the Mechanics’ Institutes in 1825:

We are as friendly to the instruction of the working classes as Mr.

Brougham,…(but) the educating of the working adults of a great nation is

a thing without precedent…. Whenever the lower orders of any great

nation have obtained a smattering of knowledge, they have generally used

it to produce national ruin.

The effect of this division in their ranks was not so much to prevent the

development of education as to restrict it to self-consciously elementary

education, mainly in reading plus religion and morality. The fact was that they

feared education of the poor above their station because they lacked confidence

in their own inherent superiority and in the ability of their ideal of property to

stand up to intellectual examination by hostile critics:

It is unquestionable that the natural powers of the poor are quite equal to

those of the rich; and it is alike unquestionable, that they are not more equal.

Educated workers, whether by school or by the press, were potential

revolutionaries.

In marked contrast to the aristocracy, the middle-class protagonists of working-

class education had no such inhibitions. Not that the entrepreneurs themselves

were automatically enthusiastic for such education. Charles Knight found it

difficult in 1828 to interest Manchester millowners in the Society for the

Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and Engels in 1844 declared them ‘so recklessly

stupid and smug that in their blind egotism they do not even take the trouble to

instruct the workers in their own bourgeois moral code.’ Yet Kay-Shuttleworth,

who knew Manchester better than either, remarked in 1847 that ‘on Sunday

many thousands of the middle class devote three hours of their rest from business

life to the pious office of instructing the children of the humblest ranks.’

Any lack of enthusiasm on their part, however, was more than made up for by

the zeal of the spokesmen of their ideal, the Benthamites and classical

Cf. M.G.Jones, The Charity School Movement: a Study of 18th-Century Pur-

itanism in Action (1938), pp. 43–4 and passim.

[Robinson], ‘The Faction’, Blackwood’s, 1827, XXII. 427.

[Robinson], ‘Brougham on the Education of the People’, ibid.

1825, XVII. 534–5.

Ibid., p. 536.

242 TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL

economists. Their unshakeable faith in education derived from their professional

belief in the power of intellectual argument and the innate superiority of the

middle class. As James Mill put it in the Westminster Review in 1826,

Of the political and moral importance of this class, there can be but one

opinion. It is the strength of the community. It contains, beyond all

comparison, the greatest portion of the intelligence, industry, and wealth of

the state…. The people of the class below are the instruments with which

they work; and those of the class above, though they may be called their

governors, and may really sometimes seem to rule them, are more often,

more truly, more completely, under their control.

The High Tories admitted as much when they complained of ‘the Holy Mother

Church of Political Popery’ which ‘assumes its dogmas to be perfectly infallible;

and this is acquiesced in by its opponents. Of course this renders everything

defenceless to which these dogmas are opposed.’

And Earl Grey for the Whigs

acknowledged that the middle classes ‘form the real and efficient mass of public

opinion,…without whom the power of the gentry is nothing.’

This meant that, in spite of the failure of the Benthamites and their allies to

create alternative systems of education for the various classes capable of

completely replacing those of the aristocracy and its Church, they were able to

stimulate the latter to reform and extend the existing provision and to do so in

accordance with the spirit of the entrepreneurial ideal. Thus, although their

British and Foreign Schools Society which grew out of the Royal Lancastrian

Society of 1808 failed to make more than a dent in the Anglican monopoly of

working-class education,

they decisively tipped the balance within the Church

party in favour of education, provoked into existence the rival National Society,

and by their competition and constant agitation for State education stimulated the

expansion of elementary education which, with State aid invoked by Roebuck’s

agitation in 1833, grew from 675,000 attenders, one in seventeen of the

population, in 1818 to 2,144,000, one in eight, in 1851.

Even more important was their effect on what was taught in the schools and

how it was taught. The traditionalists could no longer confine the teaching to

religious and moral education, reading the Bible and learning the Catechism and

the Ten Commandments. ‘Useful knowledge’ became the watchword: all ‘three

R’s’—writing and arithmetic as well as reading—plus the rote learning of

geographical locations, historical dates, and elementary ‘science’ for which

C.Knight, Passages of a Working Life (1863), II. 83; Engels, op. cit., p. 129; J.Kay-

Shuttleworth, On the School in its Relation to State, Church, and Community (1847), p. 3.

West.Rev., 1826, VI. 254.

Blackwood’s, 1827, XXII. 411f.

Earl Grey, ed., Correspondence of William IV and Earl Grey (1927), I. 376n.

TRIUMPH OF THE ENTREPRENEURIAL IDEAL 243