GEORGE IV. 1820-1830.

PAGE
1820  Precarious position of the ministry,1364
Cato Street conspiracy,1365
The Queen's trial,1366
1821  Consequent alienation between ministry and people,1368
1822  Peel and Wellesley join the ministry,1369
Death of Castlereagh. Canning Foreign Secretary,1369
Retrospect of the affairs of Europe,1370
1816  Position of England abroad,1370
Effect of Castlereagh's policy,1371
1820  Insurrections in Spain, Portugal, Naples,1371
Arbitrary action of the Holy Alliance,1372
England refuses to join the Congress at Troppau,1373
1821  Popular anger at Castlereagh's weak policy,1373
Insurrection in Greece,1374
Complications between France and Spain,1374
1822  Congress at Verona,1375
Canning's policy,1375
Partial success of his diplomacy in Spain,1375
1823  Changes in commercial policy effected by Huskisson,1376
Change of the Navigation Act,1379
1824  Improvement in the silk trade,1380
Improvement in the wool trade,1381
1823  Discussion on slavery,1382
Effect of Canning's circular in Jamaica,1382
1824  Persecution of Mr. Smith,1383
1825  Disastrous effects of wild speculations,1383
Success of the healing measures of Government,1384
1826  Temporary change in the corn laws,1385
Canning's vigorous policy in Portugal,1386
Division in the ministry,1387
1827  Illness of Lord Liverpool,1388
Difficulties attending the formation of a new ministry,1388
Disturbances in Ireland,1389
Wellesley's administration,1389
1823  The Catholic Association,1390
1826  Rejection of the Catholic Relief Bill,1390
1827  Rejection of Burdett's resolution,1391
Canning Prime Minister,1391
Canning's death,1393
His character and policy,1393
Goderich's ministry,1394
1828  Wellington's ministry,1395
Difficulty of the Turkish question,1395
1824  Canning's diplomacy on the subject,1396
1826  Protocol between England and Russia,1397
Enthusiasm for Greek independence in England,1397
1827  Turkey refuses the armistice,1398
The Treaty of London,1398
Attempt to enforce the armistice,1399
Battle of Navarino,1399
Goderich's inaction renders the victory nugatory,1400
1828  Wellington refuses to coerce Turkey by arms,1400
Character of Wellington's Government,1401
Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts,1401
The Corn Bill passed,1402
Huskisson and his friends resign,1402
The Catholic Emancipation question,1402
Renewed agitation in Ireland,1403
Election of O'Connell for Clare,1403
Influence of the Association,1404
1829  Resignation of Lord Anglesey,1406
Peel and Wellington see the urgency of Catholic emancipation,1406
Opposition of the King,1407
The Catholic Emancipation Bill passed,1408
O'Connell's agitation for repeal,1409
Wellington's foreign policy,1410
1826  Affairs of Portugal,1410
1828  Miguel usurps the throne,1411
Maria acknowledged in England,1411
1829  Wellington's neutrality,1411
Non-intervention in the affairs of Greece,1412
The Revolution in France,1413
Supposed influence of Wellington in Polignac's appointment,1413
Increasing opposition to the French ministry,1414
1830  Abdication of Charles X.,1416
Death of George IV.,1416

WILLIAM IV. 1830-1837.

PAGE
1830  Character of the King,1418
Effects of the July Revolution,1419
Position of Wellington's ministry,1420
Danger from O'Connell's agitations,1421
And from rick-burning, etc.,1421
Death of Huskisson,1421
Anxiety felt in Parliament,1422
Wellington resigns,1422
Grey's ministry,1423
Difficulties attending reform,1423
1831  The first Reform Bill,1425
The second reading,1426
Dissolution of Parliament,1426
The Bill passes in the Commons,1427
The Bill rejected in the Lords,1427
Consequent riots in the country,1428
Organized action of the political unions,1428
Opposition of the King,1429
1832  The second Bill passes second reading in the Lords,1429
Preparations during the recess,1429
The Bill again rejected in the Lords,1430
The ministers resign,1430
They return to office,1430
The Reform Bill passes,1430
Description of the Bill,1430
Importance of the change,1432
Anxiety as to the effect of the change,1433
1833  Character of the reformed Parliament,1434
Critical questions to be settled,1434
Condition of Ireland,1434
Position of the Irish Church,1435
Irish Tithe Composition Bill passed,1436
Althorp's Irish Church Bill,1436
The Coercion Bill,1438
Changes in the ministry,1439
Weakness of the ministry,1440
Renewal of the Bank charter,1441
Settlement of the East India Company,1442
Emancipation of the Slaves,1442
Condition of trade in the West Indies,1443
1831  Opposition of planters to the orders in Council,1444
1833  The Bill passed,1445
1834  Weakness of the ministry shown in Parliament,1445
Split in the Cabinet on Ward's motion on the Irish Church,1446
Resignation of Stanley, Graham, Richmond, and Ripon,1447
Difficulties of Grey's position,1447
Grey resigns. Lord Melbourne's ministry,1449
His Church policy,1450
Reform of the Poor Law,1451
Discontent and misery of the poor,1453
Increase of trades unions,1454
Dispute between Brougham and Durham,1455
Dismissal of the Melbourne ministry,1455
Peel's ministry,1456
1835  The Tamworth Manifesto,1456
Irish appropriation clause again introduced,1457
Peel resigns. Melbourne's ministry reconstituted,1457
Condition of municipal corporations,1459
The Municipal Reform Bill,1460
Foreign diplomacy of Palmerston,1461
1831  Absorption of Poland,1461
Formation of Belgium,1462
Affairs of Portugal,1463
1832  Affairs of Spain,1463
1834  The Quadruple Alliance,1464
Retrospect of affairs in India,1465
1805  Cornwallis Governor-General,1466
Sir George Barlow,1466
1807  Lord Minto,1466
1813  Marquis of Hastings,1467
1814  War with Nepaul,1467
1815  War with the Pindaries and Mahrattas,1468
1823  Lord Amherst,1471
War with Burmah,1471
1826  Capture of Bhurtpore,1472

LIST OF MAPS.

1. COUNTRIES TO THE NORTH OF FRANCE,At end of Book.
2. NORTH AMERICA,"       "        
3. SPAIN,"       "        
4. PORTUGAL,"       "        
5. EUROPE,"       "        
6. INDIA,"       "        
7. ENGLISH POSSESSIONS IN INDIA,"       "        


WILLIAM AND MARY.

1689-1702.

CONTEMPORARY PRINCES.

France. Austria. Spain. Prussia. Russia.
Louis XIV., 1643. Leopold I., 1658. Charles II., 1665. Frederick I., 1701. Peter the Great, 1689.
    Philip V., 1700.    
Denmark and Norway. Sweden.
Christian V., 1670. Charles XI., 1660.
Frederick IV., 1699. Charles XII., 1697.

POPES.— Alexander VIII., 1689. Innocent XII., 1691. Clement XI., 1700.
Archbishops. Chancellors.
William Sancroft, 1678. (In Commission, 1689.)
John Tillotson, 1691. Sir John Somers, 1693.
Thomas Tenison, 1694. Sir Nathan Wright, 1700.

First Lord of the Treasury. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
1689. Mordaunt. 1689. Delamere.
1690. Lowther. 1690. Hampden.
1690. Godolphin. 1694. Montague.
1697. Montague. 1699. Aaron Smith.
1699. Tankerville. 1701. Henry Boyle.
1700. Godolphin.
1702. Carlisle.

Secretaries of State.

1689 { Nottingham 1697 { Shrewsbury
{ Shrewsbury { Vernon
1690 { Nottingham 1699 { Jersey
{ Sidney { Vernon
1693 { Shrewsbury 1700 { Hedges
{ Trenchard { Vernon
1695 { Shrewsbury 1702 { Manchester
{ Trumbal { Vernon

Before the Crown was absolutely offered to William, the Convention was eager to reform a number of the most prominent abuses of the last reign. It was shown by the wiser leaders among them that such reforms would entail a mass of legislation which, The Declaration of Right. to be done well, must occupy several years. It was therefore determined that, for the present, a solemn declaration of principles only should be drawn up. This is known as the Declaration of Right. In it, after enumerating the evils from which the country had suffered, the Lords and Commons declared that the dispensing power does not exist, that without grant or consent of Parliament no money can be exacted by the sovereign, and no army kept up in time of peace. They also affirmed the right of petition, the right of free choice of representatives, the right of Parliament Crown accepted by William and Mary. to freedom of debate, the right of the nation to a pure administration of justice, and the necessity, in order to secure these things, of frequent Parliaments. This Declaration having been read to William and Mary, the Crown was solemnly offered them by Halifax, and by them accepted. They were immediately proclaimed amid general plaudits.

Thus was consummated, with scarcely any bloodshed, and by what Character of the Revolution. appeared an almost unanimous action on the part of the nation, a complete revolution. It was not the less a revolution because it was held that the whole Constitution of England passed on in its minutest detail unchanged. By it was overthrown for ever the theory which came into existence under the Tudors, and was brought to perfection under the Stuarts; henceforward it was impossible that the King should be regarded either as the proprietor of the country, or as a ruler by divine right, the representative of God upon earth. In the place of this theory was substituted that great Whig theory, which, arising among the Puritans, had enjoyed a brief triumph in the successes of the Great Rebellion, and, violently overthrown at the Restoration, had succeeded in making good its position during the reigns of the two last Stuarts,—the theory which regarded the King as reigning by the will of the people and in virtue of an implied contract with them. As a natural consequence of the position thus taken by the nation as the supreme power in the State, Parliament, its representative, became in its turn supreme, and although the change was not yet fully understood, the representatives of the people were gradually taking to themselves not only the duties of legislation, but also the executive. The ministry, therefore, however much they may have been still regarded as the King's ministers, became by degrees the national ministers, answerable for their conduct in Parliament, and before long became in fact little else than the executive Committee of the majority in Parliament.

The unanimity of parties which had secured the triumph of William Personal unpopularity of William. was of short duration, nor was his personal popularity long-lived. The apparent coldness of his demeanour, his carelessness of the pomps of the Court, his wretched health, which obliged him to withdraw from London and establish his Court at Kensington, speedily rendered him personally unpopular; while, as soon as the general danger which had caused their union was removed, the fundamental differences which divided political parties at once made themselves obvious. Moreover, the tendency to reaction, visible after all political excitements, began to show itself. Two classes were by no means ready to accept kindly the revolution which had been wrought. These were the clergy Discontent of the clergy and the army. The greater part of the clergy had spent their lives in inculcating the duty of passive obedience. Although that theory had broken down in practice when the attacks of the Crown were directed against themselves, they could not bring themselves to submit without difficulty to a complete reversal of their political creed, nor could they help seeing that the success of William implied nothing short of the substitution of the Whig doctrine for that of monarchy by divine right. A very large portion of them were therefore disaffected. The and the army. army, though it had disliked the introduction of Catholics and of Irish among its ranks, and was not prejudiced in favour of any theory of monarchy, felt its professional honour injured by the sorry part it had played in the late events. So deep was the disaffection that one regiment quartered at Ipswich broke out into open mutiny, marched northward in arms, and was only brought to obedience after a skirmish with some Dutch troops under Ginkel, which had been rapidly sent in pursuit. The signs of general disaffection at the same time were so obvious that it was thought necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act.

The Convention changed into a Parliament.

Before this happened, William had had to form a ministry and to furnish himself with a Parliament. For this latter purpose, in spite of the opposition of many of the old Tories, who regarded a Parliament not summoned by the King's writ as no Parliament at all, the Convention was changed into a Parliament, and proceeded to act in that capacity. It was not indeed reasonable that a freely elected body, whose choice of a king both sides were willing to allow, should still be regarded upon technical grounds as incapable of settling matters of much less importance. The choice of ministers was a matter of more difficulty.