unpleasant, if not hopeless. I cannot better exemplify this than by the instance of an allowance of £500 a year to the lower servants, in lieu of small-beer. The history is, when allowed small-beer in kind, they were all allowed access to the cellar ad libitum, and often would not take the trouble to turn the cock after having drawn the quantity; but let hogsheads run off from very wantonness. The then officer in power (I know not who he was; but it was in Blomefield's time), instead of punishing them, thought it right to turn the beer into money (the servants having ale and porter besides, sufficient); and hence this £500 a year compensation for not being able to continue this frightful extravagance. The above is, to be sure, an extreme case; but the prodigality of the steward's room and the servants' hall is almost as bad. Every person belonging to either, seems allowed to carry away as much provision as he can scramble for after being himself satisfied. If a bottle of wine or porter is opened for a glass, the rest is carried off: the meat in a napkin, which seldom finds its way back again. And, in addition to this, scores of persons who have no connection with the domestic establishment, appear to run riot upon the unlimited allowance for these tables. All this, after conferring with the deputy comptroller, I find may be checked by authority; and the Lord Steward having willingly promised it, it has been agreed to strike off no less than £1,600 a year from this expense alone. The footmen and maids, moreover, have been allowed charwomen and helpers (in fact, to allow them to be idle); and the reduction of these will save £400 or £500 a year more. The calculation of meat, per day, for each individual family, has been two pounds, which, the principal cook allows, is too much by half a pound: this alone will save £500 a year; and an allowance of what is called bread money (which I could not get explained, it having been made before the present officers came into place), may also be reduced to the amount of £300. This is the more right, because the allowance in money does not preclude the supply of bread in kind over and above the allowance. I mention this specifically, because they seem gross abuses, which you ought to be apprised of. Other deductions will arise, more from better regulations than abolitions; particularly in the gardens, upon which the Lord Steward, &c., have themselves ordered a diminution (agreed to by Mr. Aiton) of £2,600 a year; and the whole put together, as per table enclosed, will amount to £6,456."

Such a peep as this at the scandalous way in which money was wasted, renders quite intelligible the cry raised by Joseph Hume and Sir James Graham, in the House of Commons, for reduction of expenditure-a cry to which the Duke of Wellington was quite inclined to listen, and, in his stern decisive way, to respond to. William IV. was anxious that his expenses should be on as moderate a scale as possible. This, coupled with apprehensions of parliamentary comments, made the treasurer of the household watch any extraordinary expenditure with uneasiness, especially as the Marquis of Blandford stated in the House of Commons"Every labouring man who earns £30 a year, has £18 taken from him by the whole of the cruel and harassing excise laws, and those cheating indirect taxes." Well might Mr. Daniel O'Connell exclaim, at the end of one of his harangues in the House of Commons-" Ye place-holders who revel on the hard earnings of the people-ye pensioners who subsist on public money-ye tax consumers, and tax devourers, assault me as you please. I am not to be intimidated by you." To which appeal, the answer was a saving to the nation of £161,000 a year. It was the intention of government, says the Duke of Buckingham, to have followed up this first step with other financial reforms. The civil list was "the first of a series in contemplation for retrenching the national expenditure, and lessening the burdens of the people." But it was otherwise decreed. It was on this point that the opposition determined to give battle. Lord Althorp, after the motion had been put, recommended the appointment of a committee to examine into the details of the proposed arrangement, of which he expressed his disapproval. Sir Henry Parnell followed on the same side; as did Messrs. Hume and Brougham. d Palmerston's short speech was a wily one-he supported the amendment: at

the same time he was very anxious to disclaim all intention of diminishing the revenue of his majesty. Hansard tells us, Lord Palmerston saw, with regret, that the government was not convinced of the propriety of a more simplified arrangement. He was of opinion, that when the expenses of the civil list were to be settled for the whole reign, it must be of great importance indeed that the accounts should be considered fully. The opposition triumphed by a majority of twenty-nine; and thus a debate, which was of little interest, and which was very brief, became one of historic importance, as it was the occasion of the entry of the Whigs into the promised land of office. The ministry were surprised at the result; and it is said that the Duke of Wellington was very angry at the carelessness which had allowed it. Mr. Roebuck tells us, that the duke's notion of discipline was sorely disturbed by the conduct of the subordinates on this occasion; while his confidence in the generalship of the leader of the House of Commons was also greatly shaken. In proof of the assertion that the result was not anticipated, Lord Sidmouth's evidence may be adduced-"Last night's division was a surprise to ministers and their opponents."

It is clear that the opposition would rather have gained the victory on any other question. The ministry were wise in going out on that particular one. As financial reformers, Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington were quite equal to the Whigs. On one occasion, the latter is reported to have said, that he and his colleagues had done all in their power to relieve the people, and had taken off taxation to the extent of £3,950,000. By retiring on the question of the civil list, they placed their adversaries in a delicate position. The Whigs, of course, were anxious to gain the favour of the king; but if, to do this, they were liberal with their votes of money, they would certainly give offence to the people, and weaken their popularity. If, on the other hand, they sought, by economy, to strengthen their power with the public, they would infallibly make enemies among those who influenced and surrounded the king. The mere discussion, besides, was dangerous. As Mr. Roebuck writes-"In the hurry and excitement of debate, expressions fall from unwary or unskilful speakers, which, by them, may easily be forgotten, but which rankle deeply in royal bosoms, and for a longer time than in those of less exalted persons. The less a man has to think of, and the more highly he is taught to think of himself, the more easily is he offended, and the more lasting is his anger, and the more bitter is his hate." In the preceding reign, this truth had been sufficiently illustrated to the Whigs by the exclusion of Earl Grey and Mr. Brougham from office. In the same way had George III. acted with regard to Mr. Fox. "To an opposition seeking office," continues Mr. Roebuck, "the discussion of a civil list must always prove difficult and full of peril." Sir Henry Parnell, at any rate, in moving his amendment, took care that his speech should be seasoned sufficiently to suit the royal appetite. William IV., who had but just ascended the throne-who had done nothing whatever to win the popular regard― he described "as the most popular monarch, and the most deservedly popular monarch, that ever sat on the throne of these realms." Can any censure be too strong for such language as this?

The Whigs triumphed; but their professions of economy, put forward by them as a means of party warfare, in the speech of Sir H. Parnell, were long remembered against them.

To the last, the duke would have it that his going out of office had nothing to do with the question of reform. "I was defeated," said he "on the civil list : in short, the government was placed in a minority. Upon thus finding I had the misfortune no longer to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, I thought proper to resign the situation I held in his majesty's service. Upon that occasion, parliamentary reform had no more to do, as far as I was concerned, with the resignation which I tendered to his majesty on the day following the defeat on the civil list, than anything else in the world. I admit," adds the duke, with amusing simplicity, "I resigned next morning, because I did not wish to expose his majesty

and the country to the consequences that might result from the government going out on the success of the question of parliamentary reform; but, to say I resigned on account of parliamentary reform, is wrong." Sir Robert Peel said, in the House of Commons, subsequently "That though we retired on the civil-list question, with regard to which we were in a minority, yet it is impossible to deny that the anticipation of the probable manifestation and opinion on the question of reform in this House, entered into the consideration of the government."

The new parliament, elected on the accession of William IV., was, undoubtedly, unfavourable to government. "The general election was considered," says a writer in the Annual Register, "to have diminished the number of votes on which ministers could depend:" and the relation in which they now stand to the more populous part of the representation, was stated to be as follows:-" Of the eightytwo members returned by the forty counties of England, only twenty-eight were steady adherents of ministry; forty-seven were avowed adherents of the neutral opposition; and seven of the neutral cast did not lean much to government. Of the thirteen great popular cities and boroughs, with hundreds (London, Westminster, and Aylesbury, &c.), returning twenty-eight members, only three seats were held by decidedly ministerial men; twenty-four by men of avowed opposition. There were sixty other places, which might have contests, being more or less open, returning 126 members. Of these, only forty-seven were ministerial; all the rest were avowed opposition men, save eight, whose leaning was rather more against the government than for it. Of the 236 men then returned by elections, more or less popular in England, only seventy-nine were ministerial votes; 141 were in avowed opposition; and sixteen of a neutral cast. Ministers, therefore, could only look for a majority among the close boroughs, and the Scotch and Irish members; and, unfortunately for them, the great families who commanded the largest number of close boroughs, were among their opponents."

To this state of things many causes contributed. First and foremost may be placed the enthusiasm created in this country by the successful revolution in France, of which the Whig leaders had wisely availed themselves. Another cause, and one very creditable to the Duke of Wellington, was his determination not to influence the various contests by any exercise of the power of government. For this fact we must quote Mr. Roebuck, who, after stating it, adds-" I have, of late years, also on the highest authority, heard the same assertion made; and made under circumstances which, if the assertion had been incorrect, must have brought denial." That such conduct was greatly to the duke's honour, it must be admitted; but, at the same time, it was very disastrous to his government. And then the bigots and high churchmen were all against the duke: he had committed, in their eyes, an unpardonable sin-he had relieved dissenters and Roman Catholics from persecution; he had admitted them to equal civil rights; he had preferred to rid the statute-books of intolerant edicts, rather than to plunge the country into all the horrors of civil war. While the government thus rested on its merits, the various parties opposed to it were particularly active. But, as we have not yet told the tale of how the Tory party came to be divided-how it was that such peers as Lords Winchelsea and Londonderry, and such M.P.'s as Sir Edward Knatchbull, the Marquis of Blandford, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. Holme Sumner, left their own ranks, and joined the opposition in their furious attacks on government-we retrace our steps, to chronicle the growth of that religious freedom, the concession of which the ultra-Tories considered ruinous to church and state.

254

CHAPTER XXII.

THE REPEAL OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.

THE battle of religious liberty in this country has yet to be won. Much has been gained, but not all.

I am not in a position to tolerate the religious opinions of my brother-man. He has as much right to his as I have to mine. This truth was not recognised till lately. In the time of Henry VIII. there was no such recognition.

"Established Protestantism, as denoting a scheme of doctrine as well as a scheme of polity, dates," says a well-informed writer in the British Quarterly Review, "from the accession of Edward VI." Under Queen Elizabeth the system ripened. The act vesting ecclesiastical supremacy in the crown became a test act. All ecclesiastical persons, from the highest to the lowest-all persons taking degrees in the universities, or holding any civil office requiring homage to the crown, were to bind themselves to obedience according to this instrument. And all persons who should, by word or deed, advisedly, maliciously, and directly affirm contrary to this act, were liable, for the first offence, to a forfeiture of lands and goods; for a second, to the penalty of the premunire statute, which added excommunication and outlawry to forfeiture: the third offence became high treason. The clergyman not duly using the Book of Common Prayer, or chargeable with doing or uttering anything in depreciation of it, was fined to the value of his living for one year, and imprisoned for six months. For a second offence, his preferment was wholly forfeited; and a third subjected him to imprisonment for life. The punishment of a layman offending against this act, was, in the first instance, imprisonment during one year; imprisonment during life in the second instance; and the penalty of the third offence was imprisonment, with the loss of lands and goods. It was further enacted, that all persons failing to attend their parish church, or some recognised place of worship, on the Lord's-day, should pay the fine of one shilling for each absence, unless reasonable cause for such absence could be shown.

But, before this, Wycliffe had sown in the land the seeds of Puritanism. This Puritanism in the establishment gave Queen Elizabeth a good deal of trouble. In her time, also, appeared a new, and, as it seemed, an alarming heresy. There were men, claiming to read the New Testament, who said that the church was but a congregation of believers; and that Christ alone was the head of the church. The haughty spirit of the queen revolted at such a doctrine. If this were so, what was to become of her prerogative to frock and unfrock bishops, and to tune her pulpits, as she termed it? All the Tudor blood in her veins boiled up at such a revolting idea.

The origin of this doctrine in our history is commonly attributed to a clergyman named Robert Browne. He was related to Cecil, her majesty's Secretary of State, who often shielded his kinsman from the consequences of his extravagance. Better men-Thacker, Copping, Barrow, Greenwood, and Penryheld the same opinions; and, for holding them, were sentenced to death. The terrible penalty did not deter from crime. Sectaries of this order flourished. Sir Walter Raleigh declared, that in Norfolk, and in parts about London, there were not less than 20,000.

Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, was an able opposer of this heresy. From his articles there was no way of escape.

Once upon a time, the arch enemy of mankind engaged a monk in a theological controversy, with a view to prove him a heretic. "What do you believe?" Satan is reported to have asked. "Id credo quod credit ecclesia," was the

reply. But, said the tormentor, "Quid credit ecclesia;" whereupon the monk replied, "Id quod ego credo." Whitgift and the queen did not allow such evasive replies.

Bancroft followed in Whitgift's steps. In the second year of King James II.'s reign, 300 ministers were deprived, imprisoned, or banished. The Puritans had prayed him that "the Lord's-day be not profaned." His answer was the Book of Sports.

Dr. Laud took care still further to alienate the people, and nurse dissent. Under him, one bishop alone (Bishop Wren, of Norwich) drove upwards of 3,000 persons to seek their bread in a foreign land.

Cromwell encouraged the Independents, or Brownists.

Charles II. was inclined to discourage religious persecution. At Breda he had pledged himself to a lenient course; and it was not natural that he should wish to incur the odium of violating that pledge. But, above all, he was concerned that the laws which bore hardly on the Catholics should be relaxed. Clarendon and the bishops were of another way of thinking. The royal promise was broken; the Savoy Conference was a failure; terms of subscription were enforced, more objectionable than ever; and on St. Bartholomew's-day, 2,000 pious men were ejected from their livings, and, for conscience' sake, became beggars and wanderers on the face of the land. Nothing more clearly shows the numbing influence of subscriptions, than the fact that, from that day to this there has been scarcely a secession from the ranks of the clergy. Baptist Noel, in our time, is almost the only instance of a clergyman leaving the church in obedience to the teaching of a higher law.

The spirit of the statesmanship of that time we get from a passage in Clarendon's life. With reference to the nonconforming divines at the Savoy Conference, he writes—“It is an unhappy policy, and always unhappily applied, to imagine that that class of men can be recovered and reconciled by partial concessions, or granting less than they demand. And if all were granted they would have more to ask, somewhat for the security of the enjoyment of what is granted, that shall preserve their power, and shake the whole frame of the government. Their faction is their religion. Nor are those combinations ever entered into upon real or substantial motives of conscience, how erroneous soever; but consist of many glutinous materials of will and humour, folly and knavery, and ambition and malice, which make them cling inseparably together till they have satisfaction in all their pretences, or till they are actually broken or subdued, which may always be more easily done than the other." The Clarendon theory is untenable. In 1828, parliament began by abandoning it. An innovation was commenced, of which we have not as yet seen the end.

The result of the Clarendon theory was, that 60,000 persons suffered for dissent between the Restoration and the Revolution; of whom it was said that 5,000 died in prison. Another result was, that dissent flourished; and actually, at this time, in numbers and activity, it is far superior to the church.

But we return to the Test and Corporation Acts. In the time of Charles, as our readers are aware, every attempt was made to favour popery. For this purpose an indulgence was granted to dissenters. When the latter saw that they were only to be tools to advance the Romish religion, Alderman Lowe (a city member, and a leading Presbyterian) spoke against it with great warmth, and said that they would rather go without their desired liberty, than have it in a way so detrimental to the nation. "The House of Commons," writes Dr. Warner, "which, for ten years, had been loading them with penal laws, were so wrought upon by this sacrifice of their liberty to the interest of the nation and religion, that they ordered a bill to be brought in to take off the penalties of the Act of Uniformity, and require only the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. It passed in the Commons; but being detained for amendments in the Lords, the parliament was prorogued before it was ready for the royal assent. But the king having, at the remonstrance of the Commons,