Page images
PDF
EPUB

sion of the military ascendance implied in this objection was like that of the poor insane gentleman, who was afraid of his own sword after he had hung it up on the wall;-that the character and constitution of our army, as well as the principles and education of our officers, were such as to warrant us against any apprehension of their being led to consider their own interest, or that of their profession, as distinct from the liberty and welfare of their country; that as Britain could not repay by more solid bounty the actions of her best and bravest sailors and soldiers, the least which could be assigned to them was the empty honour of rank and precedence;-that there was no novelty in the precedence of the Companions of the Order, since an Esquire of the Bath took rank of all Esquires, except those of the King's body, by the original statute of the order; and, finally, that the gentry of England, who had been protected in their rights by these gallant men, could feel no degradation in giving place to their distinguished

merit.

Viewing the matter generally, we can see no impropriety in the establishment or extension of a military order, to reward past services, and afford an honourable object of emulation in future wars. Something perhaps may be objected to the terms Grand Crosses and Commanders, both as unknown to our English chivalry, whose dialect affords modes of distinction as significant; and as approaching too nearly, in sound at least, to the phraseology of foreign orders, the lowest ranks of which are usually distributed with injudicious and indiscriminate profusion. This, however, is a trifle; for the respectability of the Order of the Bath, and every other honorary institution,

must depend, not upon its titles or classes, but on the mode in which it is conferred. At present, there is no want of breasts, often exposed to danger for their country, on which the badges of the various classes may be honourably displayed. But we hope, (for the hope implies a prospect of long and continued peace) that the time will arrive when worthy candidates for military honours must necessarily be more scarce. If the sovereign, withstanding favour and importunity, shall then refuse to grant the distinctions of the order to all who have not honourably earned them, it will retain its lustre in the eyes of those who wear it, of those who aspire to win it, of the country, and of posterity. Should it be otherwise, this, like other honours, will cease to be the badge of merit, and sink into a distinction of little value, to be obtained by court-intrigue or favouritism, honouring neither the wearer, nor the sovereign by whom it is conferred. And it is further to be remarked, that the supposed degradation cannot take place, even in the lowest rank of the Order, without transgression of the fundamental rule, that the officers on whom it is conferred, shall have been distinguished for some special act of service communicated to the public in the London Gazette.

The trial of Sir John Murray by a court martial next engaged the attention of the public. The reader may remember, that while the Duke of Wellington was pursuing his victorious career in the south-west of Spain, in summer 1813,* Sir John Murray, at the head of an army of English and Sicilians, had the difficult task to keep in check Suchet, who occupied Catalonia with a large French force. With this view Sir John undertook the siege

* See the Edinburgh Register for that year, Chapter X.

of Tarragona, and being compelled to raise it by the advance of a very superior French force, succeeded indeed in embarking his men with safety, but left behind some battering guns and mortars, and stores of no great value. We have given the particulars of his expedition in our volume for the year in which it took place, with so much minuteness, that we may dispense with resuming the subject. The charges brought against Sir John Murray were three in number, the two first being supported by the judgeadvocate, Mr Larpent, and the third by Admiral Hallowell, who commanded the naval force of the expeditions. The first charge related to the siege of Tarragona, and the delay in raising it, even after, in Sir John Murray's own former opinion, the success of the enterprise had become hopeless. The second was, that he had disobeyed his instructions in embarking only a part of his army, and in subsequently disembarking them. The third charged, that the force was embarked in a hurried and precipitate manner, so as to sacrifice the object pointed out in Lord Wellington's letter, and to disgrace the military character of the country, by abandoning various guns and trophies to an approaching enemy. Upon these charges, the first and third of which are not easily reconciled to each other, a quantity of evidence was led, and Sir John Murray adduced many witnesses to support his defence. The decision of the court found Sir John Murray Not Guilty of the two first charges. Upon the third, they found that LieutenantGeneral Sir John Murray, Bart. is Guilty only of so much of the charge as states, "That he unnecessarily abandoned a considerable quantity of artillery and stores, which he might have embarked in safety, such conduct being detrimental to the service; and the court does therefore find him Guilty of such part, but does acquit

him of the remainder of that charge; and the court, under all the circumstances of the case, considering the conduct of Sir John Murray to have proceeded from a mere error in judgment, is of opinion, and does adjudge, that for the part of the third charge of which Lieutenant-General Sir J. Murray has been so found guilty, he be admonished in such manner as his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief may think proper." It was probably considered by his Royal Highness the Duke of York, that the error of judgment of which Sir John Murray was found to be guilty, arose from his preferring the certain loss of a few guns and stores of no great value, to the possible and even probable chance of the troops being exposed to the attack of a superior enemy when in the very act of re-embarkation. It was, therefore, the conclusion of his royal highness, that as an error in judgment alone was charged against Sir John Murray, and that it proceeded from a cautious regard to the safety of his army, engaged in what always must be a perilous operation, the case did not appear to call for any further observation. The decision of the commander in chief was generally acceptable to the public, for the temporary prejudices against Sir John Murray had been long removed when the impossibility of success against Tarragona was made fully manifest, and the necessity of a retreat no less so. The third charge, comparatively unimportant in itself, was supposed to be in some degree founded upon the rivalry between the army and navy, which had in former times done so much prejudice to both, and which has occasionally disposed the officers of the one service to think and judge somewhat harshly of the conduct of those belonging to the other.

Another incident, of an extravagant and even ludicrous nature, occupied for a few days the public attention. We regret to say it again

related to Lord Cochrane, whose original exploits were of a nature so widely different from those which it has been lately our painful duty to record concerning him. About the 6th or 7th of March, his lordship (condemned to a year's imprisonment for his share in the imposture practised on the Stock Exchange), effected his escape from the King's Bench prison. Upon the 21st, about a fortnight after his disappearance, Lord Cochrane, to the great surprise of those by whom he was first observed, was discovered seated with great composure upon the Treasury Bench, in the House of Commons, engaged in reading a pamphlet. Tidings of his re-appearance speedily flew to the prison from which he had escaped, and the marshal and tip-staff of the King's Bench, with a party of peace officers, appeared in the House to demand their prisoner. Lord Cochrane resisted the attempt to seize him, and was only secured after being overpowered in a personal struggle. He was forcibly removed to a carriage, and re-conducted to his former place of confinement,

Bawling, till his lungs were spent, Privilege of parliament.

The marshal at first shewed some diffidence at laying hands upon his eccentric prisoner, being probably apprehensive that he might use fire-arms in defence of his person. But the only ammunition with which his lordship had provided himself was as singular as the rest of his conduct, being a quantity of snuff which he proposed to have thrown in the eyes of those who came to arrest him, had they not prevented him. Lord Cochrane soon afterwards published an address to his constituents, stating that it was always his intention, so soon as he had effected his escape from prison, to repair to the House of Commons; but that the

commotions attending the discussion of the corn bill induced him to suspend his purpose, lest his escape and sudden appearance in parliament should have increased the spirit of disturbance. Having thus stated an honourable and considerate motive for remaining concealed, his lordship proceeded to say, that every engine had been set at work to allure him back to his place of confinement, or to compel him to leave the country. He had even been assured, he said, that if he chose to return to the custody of the marshal, he would find the doors of the prison open to him at midnight, and be received with secrecy, courtesy, and indemnity. In conclusion, he severely attacked the state of the prison, and alleged, that such were the deleterious effects of the damp and unwholesome cell in which he was confined, which he described as so dreadful, that a prisoner must certainly within a few months totally lose the use of his limbs. Lord Cochrane was afterwards tried for breaking prison, and had a sentence of farther confinement passed upon him.

The next important event in the annals of 1815, is the effect produced upon the populace of the metropolis by the discussions concerning the corn bill. We have, in the last chapter, traced with some minuteness the political reasons urged for and against this measure; but it is not to be supposed that the common people in London, and other large towns, were either disposed to admit, or capable of comprehending, the arguments urged by the speakers on either side. Least of all were they inclined to trust to the reasoning which urged, that to preserve an adequate supply of grain in years of scarcity, it was necessary to fall on some measure to keep up the price in seasons of plenty; for a plan which infers immediate privation for the purpose of tuture advantage, is of all others what

an impassioned and short-sighted populace is least willing either to comprehend or submit to with patience. Laying aside, therefore, alike the soundness and the subtleties of economics, the populace only saw, in the proposed bill, a measure for raising the price of grain, the most necessary article of their subsistence, for interposing a legal barrier as it were be tween the poor and the blessings of a plentiful harvest, and for enriching the corn-factor, farmer, and landholder, the engrossers, as they esteemed them, of the fruits of the earth, at the expence of the poor, who could not exist without that article, of which they held the monopoly. Causes much less nearly affecting the immediate interests of the lower class will often excite riots in great cities; but any measure which touches, or threatens to touch, their subsistence, comes strait home to their business and bosoms, and never fails to do so. In the present instance, the mob of London, like Shakespeare's plebeian Romans, conceived that the object of their misery was but "an inventory to particularize patrician "abundance;"their sufferance proposed as a gain to the landed gentry. Their natural disposition to tumult was greatly aided by placards at the corner of every street, which, while ostensibly they only invited the people to petition parliament against the obnoxious measure, had in fact the effect of irritating the public discontent, and instigating the populace to acts of riot and disorder. The consequence was, as in Rome, a cry, "to the Capitol."

Accordingly, on the 6th of March, when the corn bill was in discussion in a committee of the House of Commons, a riotous mob taking possession of all the avenues to the House, and of the entrance to the lobbies, not only interrupted the members by threats and indignities, but even by acts of

personal violence endeavoured to extort from individuals a promise to oppose the bill. The secretary to the admiralty was insulted, hustled, and even struck, because he refused firmly either to tell his name, or give them any satisfaction concerning his intended vote. He escaped with difficulty from their hands, and made his way into the House, while his servants were maltreated, and his carriage broken to pieces. The power of eloquence was never more favourably displayed than in the case of the Attorney General (Sir W. Garrow), who, by expostulation, succeeded in persuading the rioters to let him enter the House without personal injury, upon a solemn promise that he would vote according to his conscience. Other members were insulted and hustled, one of whom (Sir Frederick Flood), excited some laughter by declaring, that he had been bandied about in the hands of the mob like a basket of mackerel at Billingsgate, and that at one time he verily believed he had been quartered alive. The interference of the peace-officers being unable to put a stop to these disgraceful scenes, the military were sent for to support the civil magistrate, and their exertions, which were made without harming an individual, soon cleared away the mob from Falace-yard, and the avenues to the House of Commons. Their appearance, however, gave such alarm to an honourable Member (Mr Lambton), that, with the feverish apprehension, or affectation of apprehension, of the standing army, which it is thought patriotic to express in season and out of season, he gravely rose, insisted upon know. ing why the House was surrounded by bayonets, and demanded an instant adjournment. At this moment the ears of the honourable member might have been regaled by the clamorous menaces of a furious populace,

assembled in the very lobby of the House, for the avowed purpose of intimidating the members of the legislature in their deliberations; and his eyes, if theirs be the channel of communica tion he is most in the habit of trust ing, might have read an answer to his question in the marks of ill-usage exhibited by such members as had undergone the discipline of the mob. But, notwithstanding the evidence of his own senses, it was not until several witnesses had been examined at the bar, that Mr Lambton became finally satisfied that the soldiery were brought down, not to overawe the House of Commons, but to protect them from the threats and actual violence of a riotous populace.

Upon the whole (as might have been expected from the British spirit of our legislators) the violence, by which the populace attempted to overawe the House, produced exactly the opposite effect. Several members, whose opinions were not before completely made up, were decided in favour of the bill, from the determination to shew they were not to be debarred from their duty by popular clamour and violence. Many of those who opposed the bill, and had advised that the measure should be at least postponed, now agreed with its supporters that a dilatory course might inspire the populace with a dangerous belief that their measures of intimidation had made some impression, and consented therefore to the immediate and final discussion. And the vote of the night was decisive in favour of the corn bill, by a more triumphant majority than had accompanied the measure in any former stage of its progress. The resentment of the populace did not subside upon their being driven from the vicinity of the House of Commons by the military. They divided into parties, in order, by a simultaneous attack, to destroy the pro

perty and houses of the members understood to favour the corn bill. A small and desperate band, which at first did not exceed seventy or eighty in number, went to the house of the right honourable F. J. Robinson, the original mover of the bill, and obtaining admittance by a stratagem, procceded to destroy the whole furniture, with books, pictures, papers, and property of every description, and ended by dashing the windows into the street, and breaking the doors down. Having thus completely sacked the habitation of the obnoxious member with whom the bill originated, they proceeded to those of others, whom they regarded as its supporters. Lord Darnley's house and Mr Yorke's were attacked. The rioters were unable to force admittance into the latter, and were alarmed in their attack upon the former, when they had penetrated into the hall, so that less damage was sustained than at Mr Robinson's.

Neither peace officers nor military appeared in sufficient force to disturb the mob in these riotous proceedings. If this was little creditable to the police of the metropolis, the conduct of two eminent law-lords shewed the firmness and spirit worthy of those selected to administer justice to a great nation. The rabble assembled before the Lord Chancellor's house in Bedford-square, and having giving three cheers, deliberately proceeded to force their way into the premises, by breaking open the doors. Lord Eldon, by a private door, through which he had let out his lady and family into the gardens of the British Museum, introduced two files of soldiers; and finding the mob had succeeded in forcing their way into his house, and were commencing the destruction of his property, his lordship exhibited the Chancellor of England in a new character, by personally leading his military auxiliaries to the charge.

« PreviousContinue »