In the autumn of 1814, Canning accepted the Lisbon Embassy. In the spring of 1816, having returned to England, he entered the Ministry as President of the Board of Control, an office equivalent in most respects to that of Secretary of State for India in the present time. In the autumn of 1816, the prolonged war being now terminated, the artificial state of trade begotten thereby likewise came to an end, and a painful reaction set in. A bad harvest supervened, followed by symptoms of widespread disaffection throughout the country; marked, in particular, by a vast but abortive insurrectionary meeting which took place in Spa Fields, London. In 1817 the disturbed state of the country continued unabated, or rather, aggravated; discontent and scarcity prevailed, and four Acts of Parliament for suppressing sedition were passed; the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, in the first instance to the end of the session, and then during the recess. In 1818 an increase in the supply of food temporarily alleviated the distress of the people, popular discontent abated, and the stringency of the repressive measures was relaxed. In 1819 a return of scarcity again afflicted the nation; more popular violence broke out, and again a large meeting directed against existing institutions took place, this time at Manchester. The crisis rose to such a height that in November Parliament was called together to pass what were known as 'the Six Acts,' for more effectually suppressing revolutionary conspiracies and violence. Altogether, during these four years the nation appeared to be greatly suffering in material respects, and deeply discontented in matters political; while the Government, under the guidance of Lords Castlereagh and Sidmouth, limited its efforts to maintaining order and suppressing outbreaks of violence, and apparently never thought of setting itself to devise adequate means of mitigating or abating the grievances complained of by the people. As to foreign affairs, in 1815, while Canning was absent from England and from power, the treaties of Vienna had been concluded, under the auspices of Lord Castlereagh, upon terms singularly regardless of the rights and liberties of various countries and peoples on the Continent: the formation of the Holy Alliance as a European Police naturally followed, to enforce the unpopular obligations of the Vienna treaties; in consequence, by the time of the year 1819 a spirit of bitter disaffection to the then existing forms of government, never altogether absent from the European populations, had spread and intensified to a dangerous degree on the Continent. The German nations had been grievously disappointed of their promised 'free constitution,' and found themselves under the rod of 1820 1820 iron despotism; both the Italian and the Spanish peninsulas groaned under Governments forced upon them, and in France a formidable proportion of the population undisguisedly hated and abused the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty. Finally, England, in participating in the treaties of Vienna, appeared to lend her countenance to the reign of tyranny on the Continent, and, without winning the respect of the Governments, lost all touch with the peoples of Europe. Such was the critical state of affairs at home and abroad at the end of 1819. In the course of 1820 three revolutionary explosions occurred in the south of Europe-in Spain, Portugal, and Naples respectively. The utility of the Holy Alliance now became manifest, and the despotic monarchs began to arrange conferences, and to take counsel how best to employ their good understanding and organised confederation in suppressing with the least possible delay these dangerous and infectious movements of the people. In January of the same year George III. had died, and George IV. became king; on June 7 following, Caroline, the separated and disgraced wife of George IV., now become Queen Consort, entered London amidst great popular excitement, to lay claim to her regal position; on the 25th of the same month Canning warned George IV. that he could not join in action against the Queen. Early in August Canning went abroad to avoid becoming mixed up in the proceedings against the Queen; on August 17 the trial commenced ; on November 10 the Government carried the Bill of Pains and Penalties on the second reading by a majority of only nine in the House of Lords; on the next day they withdrew the Bill; on December 11 Canning resigned office. In June 1821 Lord Liverpool found himself in a position to offer either the Admiralty or the Home Office to Canning, but the King resisted; and Canning wrote the first letter of the present series to hold back Lord Liverpool from pressing him on the King. Lord Liverpool again brought the question of Canning's return to office before the King after the King came back from Ireland in August 1821; the King would not listen, and departed for Hanover without settling the matter. Shortly afterwards there took place negociations for Canning's appointment to the Governor-Generalship of India, which appears to have originated with the King with a view to escape Lord Liverpool's continual importunities, and to get Canning out of the way. The King's object was now less difficult, inasmuch as the Government had been strengthened by the accession of the Grenville party to their official ranks, and of the Marquis Wellesley and Mr. Plunket to the Irish Administration, which had diminished Lord Liverpool's political necessities, and reduced the urgency of his demands for help. At the beginning of April 1822, Canning accepted India, and spent the ensuing summer in making preparations for departure; on August 12 Lord Londonderry died; on September 12 Canning received the seals of the Foreign Office. It has been said that the first problem to be met with in these papers is to account satisfactorily for Canning's absence from office from December 1820 to September 1822. That this is a genuine problem appears in the difficulty of recognising the adequacy of the reasons publicly assigned for this voluntary eclipse. Canning had had no kind of scruple in serving with the same colleagues from 1816 to 1820. The Cabinet continued to be made up of his personal and political friends. A very particular friend, Lord Liverpool, remained at its head. During these four troublous years he had supported his colleagues in their measures to preserve order and to suppress sedition, and had co-operated with them in their opposition to reform of Parliament. He had entered into friendly relations with Lord Castlereagh, which had extended even to collaboration in Foreign Office work. Lord Castlereagh, in a letter expressing regret at Canning's retirement, dated December 19, 1820, and published in 'Life and Times,' p. 319, cordially thanked Canning for the uniform attention with which you have followed ' up, and the kindness with which you have assisted me in the business 'of the department for the conduct of which I am more immediately ' responsible.' Mr. Stapleton, in the 'Political Life,' vol. i. pp. 299-302, points out the various circumstances which make it probable that one of the most important State papers issued from the Foreign Office in May 1820, about a month before Canning ceased to attend the Cabinet, owed its composition to Canning's pen adopted by Lord Castlereagh. With India to supervise, with this degree of influence at the Foreign Office conceded by his colleagues, and with an apparent general harmony of domestic policy, it seems hard to say exactly why Canning found it impossible for him to continue in the confidential counsels of his friends in the time of the summer of 1820. This is not quite the same question as why George IV. so persistently opposed Canning's succession to Lord Castlereagh in August 1822. The one now under consideration depends upon Canning and his political views of the state of the nation in 1820. The later question depends upon George IV., and the opinion his Majesty had formed of Canning, and of Canning's political conduct just before. Each has its difficulties, only they are not the same on the two occasions. 1820 1820 There can be no question, as appears from the papers published It may On the question of the temporary retirement, it appears from This concession to Canning did not necessarily create any serious difficulty at the time, as all the autumn proceedings took place in the House of Lords, so that there was no urgent need for auxiliary eloquence to assist the Government in the House of Commons. By the time the Queen's trial was over, there is no evidence of pressure being brought to bear on Canning to retire, either on the part of the King, or on the part of his colleagues; on the contrary, from what is known the general tone seems to have been one of regret and remonstrance against it. On December 12, 1820, Canning again submitted his resignation; his only excuse is in paragraph 5 of the letter to the King published at pp. 316-17 of 'Life and Times,' where he alleges that 'the dis'cussions respecting the Queen which may now be expected in the 'House of Commons will be so much intermixed with the general 'business of the session, that a Minister could not absent himself 'from them without appearing virtually to abandon the Parliamen'tary duties of his station. On the other hand, to be present as a 'Minister taking no part in the discussions must produce not only 'the most painful embarrassment to himself, but the greatest per'plexity to his colleagues, and the utmost disadvantage to the conduct 'of your Majesty's affairs.' Now, it is evident from the superlatives of this passage that it magnifies as much as possible the inconvenience to be apprehended from Canning's retirement, and implies that Canning considered his position in the House of Commons would forbid his continuing to hold his peace when matters respecting the Queen came on for discussion. The Parliamentary services of an ordinary Minister can be often dispensed with, and as regards particular offices, some of them rarely call upon their holders for efforts in debate; of such offices H the Board of Control, the India Office of the period, least of all demanded that its President should mingle in the daily political fray of the House of Commons: to mix up India with the Queen's trial really required an ingenuity which it was unnecessary to anticipate. Canning apparently wished to excuse himself somewhat as follows:-'Holding the views I do, if I remain in office it is desirable 'I should be silent; and yet both my own reputation as a debater ' and a statesman, and also the credit of the Government to which I 'belong, would alike suffer seriously from such reserve.' The precise weight of this argument for separation is a matter of opinion: an argument which mainly depends upon the estimate a man may place upon his own powers and importance can never be conclusive, but always liable to contradiction. Great as was Canning's position, it may be doubted whether it imposed this kind of inevitable necessity for speaking in Parliament; and perhaps Canning was not quite sincere when he insisted that it did. Moreover, the Queen's position in December by no means remained what it appeared in June. In June, in the absence of the presumptions of guilt subsequently brought into formal publicity, she could claim to be treated as innocent, and could appeal to the country for protection against the penal proceedings which threatened her; but in December, though the proceedings had failed, a heavy presumption of her guilt had been publicly established, while in points of personal peril she was perfectly safe from molestation. The exigency which previously rested on her former or present friends to aid and countenance her to the best of their ability had indefinitely diminished in force; they might acknowledge a call to shield her from aggression, but hardly to sustain her pretensions to the honours of innocence. It is conceivable that Canning, as a former friend and adviser of the Queen, might without censure, and even with praise, have adopted in the session of 1821 a position nearly to the following effect: he could decline to join in a sense hostile to her Majesty in any discussion on her affairs in Parliament; on the other hand, if such absti nence did not involve the displeasure of the King or of the Cabinet, he might honourably insist that, as already a confidential servant of the Crown, it was not imperative on him to resign his post only to attain a liberty of action already conceded to him. He might repudiate the idea that, even if free from the trammels of office, he was bound to enter on any undertaking to avenge the wrongs of the Queen, seeing that, however badly the King had behaved, her Majesty's conduct had been proved, to say the least, to be wanting in discretion and outward decency. It is apparently a paradox, but none the 1820 |