hood. Always careful to preserve appearances, I wrote immediately, as it had been agreed upon, to my friend the Mayor, stating the pain it gave me to have supplanted my friend Lord Bladno's candidate, in whose favour I would most willingly retire. My answer, declaring I might retire if I pleased, but that the Corporation were determined in that case to name Squire Sober (Bladno's particular aversion), together with a copy of the letter I had written, were forwarded to Bladno House, with a note expressing my deep regret at what had occurred, of which I certainly should not avail myself, but for the conviction that my nomination would be more agreeable than Mr. Sober's. To have beaten a Whig Lord in his own borough was no trifling triumph with my political friends; and shortly afterwards having, "from the force of necessity," changed my opinions on the Catholic Questions, in compliment to Mr. Canning, I received, as an exchange of compliments, the situation I had been desiring. I now continued, in the receipt of 1500l. a year, during a variety of changes, to fill my situation in Parliament with honour to myself and advantage to my country. Mr. Canning, Lord Goderich, the Duke of Wellington, were all very able men, and it was a great pleasure to me (considering, if I had done otherwise, my office must have been relinquished) to support them. Thus it was until the 1st of May, 1830. The Rev. Dr. Supple on that day breathed his last, and left me, his sole surviving and disconsolate son, 30,000/. (how my dear parent got such a sum I can hardly say) in hard money. His widow, my mother, he recommended to my filial care, and I immediately settled a pension of 801. a year upon her, which was very handsome, since I found her out a boarding-house (in a damp and marshy country to be sure-but then she's not subject to the ague), where she could have fire and candles included, for 407. My large capital now opened to me the most inspiring hopes. "If,” said I, “I could purchase the whole property of the borough of and thus have lawyer, butcher, and timber-merchant in my sure dependance-then the other member named by me-with my talents, I should be a person of no inconsiderable consequence." Bladno, who was heartily sick of the whole concern, and had just quarrelled with his cousin, Capt. Spitfire, for certain familiarities with Miss Betsey, was quite willing to come to terms, and, by dint of much artifice and cunning, for a few of the fools hardly liked to sell what they called their independence-I bought up, with my 30,000l. the whole borough, and what was more, let out my first seat for 1500l. per annum. Two seats in Parliament-30007. a year, and great expectations, I flattered myself that I was in the fair way of founding the family of the Supples. It would be difficult to paint the ecstacy that danced in my heart when the news arrived of the French Revolution; I fondly gloated over the horrors that would take place there-the guillotine, (splendid contrivance) in the Place de Grêve !—and then the fears that would paralyze John Bull-the dread of Robespierre and Danton-perhaps a second twenty years' war, and another Mr. Pitt! Besides I had all the immortal Burke by heart-what splendid material for firstrate speeches! In short every thing was exactly what I wished it; and I amused myself in preparing, against the opening of Parliament, such discourses as would be wanted in favour of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, and the recurrence to the worthy Lord Castlereagh's memorable "Acts." The first thing that astounded, and indeed showed me the frightful and insane state of the country, was the division on the Civil List. I called, however, the next morning on Palmerston and the Grants, and quarrelled with C, who, notwithstanding, is a capital fellow, just after my own heart, for asking me to write a song in "John Bull" against the new Administration. However it would not do those Whigs, for once, were not to be humbugged, and my 15007. a year was obliged to be surrendered. Still there was hope-that Reform Question was a trap which could hardly fail to catch them. Too great a measure would lose them the House-too small a one would kick them out of the favour of the public. I consoled myself, practised attitudes before my glass, and resolved to crush the d d fellows on the first opportunity. But who can imagine my horror, my ineffable horror and disgust, when on that awful night, never to be forgotten, little Lord John lisped away my 30,000l. and the Borough of without any more regard for me, or for Burke, or the vested rights of our ancient Constitution, than a Brobdignagian would have had in stamping on a Lilliputian. Thank God, H. Twiss gave it him well; and we all of us laughed heartily, though rather on the wrong side of our mouths. Then came that division; and a majority of one. That our constitution that my thirty thousand pounds-that the whole fortune of the Supples should have depended on one miserable individual ! And now hardly had General G- given me hopes, when followed the dreadful dissolution! Well might our dear Duke say, "Who is silly Billy now?" as the guns fired! I confess honestly that I should have despaired, but the vices of the age and our noble subscription-(by-the-by, what became of that subscription?)—reassured me. Those pledges on the hustings, however, played the devil with us. I pass over the frightful divisions which succeeded one after the other in so Republican a House of Commons. At last we got the execrable Bill among our excellent friends the Bishops. -Alas! their pious patriotism will have been exerted in vain! But here's a burning, there's a riot-we may be saved yet. Do, my good friends, be frightened; all these things are caused by that wicked, impious Reform Bill; they are really-so is the cholera! "Hiatus valde deflendus." Sunday morning, December 18th.-The division, death and destruction! the division two to one against us. The poor dear-dear constitution! My 30,0007.! Is there but one step from the Capitol to the Tarpeian Rock-from a Borough-monger to a beggar! My Lords, I again appeal to you!-be once more firm and resolute ! Morality Public Happiness-and the Borough of Schedule A! Virtueare all in A LETTER TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW MONTHLY MAGAZINE, RELATIVE TO MR. CANNING'S FOREIGN POLICY. 'Stapleton's Political Life of Canning."-" Foreign Policy of England."- GENTLEMEN:-Although, in the observations which I am about to address to you on the subject of Mr. Canning's Foreign Policy, I may make some remarks at variance with your own political principles, yet such is my opinion of your readiness to serve the cause of truth, that I confidently hope you will insert this letter, and thereby give your readers an opportunity of judging on a somewhat important question respecting the Foreign Policy of this country, which has been discussed at great length in the pages of one of your contemporaries.* The point at issue relates to the character of that policy, when respectively under the guidance of Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning. Mr. Stapleton, the private secretary of the latter, (who has lately published the "Political Life of Mr. Canning,") maintains that a fundamental difference existed between the principles of these two statesmen. The Reviewer argues that there was nearly an exact similarity between them. Mr. Stapleton's work treats chiefly of the last five years of Mr. Canning's existence, during which he enjoyed a greater share of political power than at any other period of his life. The work is founded on copies of official documents, left at Mr. Canning's decease in the hands of his widow and executrix, who placed them in Mr. Stapleton's hands for the purpose of his work. At the time when this work was commenced, it was the fashion to deny that Mr. Canning had any system of policy—that is, " a scheme of policy regulated by fixed principles of action, and operating to produce definite and foreseen results;" and it was also repeatedly asserted, that his measures, far from being parts of one comprehensive whole, were determined solely by the peculiar circumstances of each particular case. It was further maintained by those men of little minds, whose narrow grasp of intellect rendered them unable to take an enlarged view of any subject, that it is the part of a wise statesman to decide every question, as it may arise, without reference to any general principle. To expose the fallacy of such reasoning, by explaining Mr. Canning's system, is evidently one of the main objects of Mr. Stapleton's work; and it seems difficult to conceive how this object could have been honestly and effectually accomplished without touching upon the measures of Mr. Canning's immediate predecessor, Lord Castlereagh. It appears, however, that, in the Reviewer's opinion, Mr. Stapleton ought to have concealed his real sentiments with respect to Lord Castlereagh, since his "taste "t is called in question for speaking somewhat disparagingly of that Minister's proceedings. What a notion does this convey to us of the principles of some statesmen! As if the truths of history were the proper concern of a master of the ceremonies! The substance of the work is, however, stated almost correctly in the Review; and since the summary has likewise the merit of brevity, the words may be quoted : : "It is said that England, during Lord Castlereagh's administration, was a party assisting, if not contracting, to a league of sovereigns for the suppression of liberal and popular institutions, under the name of the Holy Alliance that Mr. Canning, when Secretary for Foreign Affairs, disconnected England from this alliance, and gave her powerful support to the cause of liberty in Europe; that the Duke of Wellington and Lord Aberdeen returned to the illiberal policy of Lord Castlereagh."§ To make this statement in perfect conformity with Mr. Stapleton's book, it is only necessary to alter the words printed in italics as follows: and aided the Foreign Quarterly Review, No. XVI. pages 391 and following. + Stapleton, Vol. I. page 474. § Foreign Quarterly Review, No. XV. Foreign Quarterly Review, page 401. page 35. Jan.-VOL. XXXIV. NO. CXXXIII. Ꭰ cause of liberty in Europe, by withdrawing the powerful support of England from those who endeavoured to suppress all liberal opinions. The propositions contained in the summary thus corrected, Mr. Stapleton, one would have thought, had established beyond controversy, if they had not been controverted by the Reviewer, whose comments are those of an individual having a strong personal interest in making out his case; of one sensitively anxious that his political character should not be deprived of the semblance of consistency, in consequence of his having supported with equal energy Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, and the Duke of Wellington. Into the latter branch of the subject, however, he has not yet entered. It is to prove that there is no essential difference between the Foreign Policy of the two first-mentioned Ministers, that all his labours have been directed. In the first place, if this were true, we must believe that both Mr. Canning's widow, and Mr. Canning's confidential secretary, knew nothing whatsoever of Mr. Canning's policy: in the second, the present Lord Londonderry must have been equally ignorant of his brother's policy; for he, on the 2nd of May, 1827, declared in the House of Lords, that he opposed Mr. Canning because "he had departed from the political principles and diplomatic relations of his late brother." Again, Lord Grey must also have been ignorant of the policy of both; for he, on the 9th of August, 1831, avowed that Mr. Canning's "Foreign Policy met with his approbation, as far as it went to recover the country from the effects of the policy to which he had been alluding," (viz. that of Lord Castlereagh,)" and the establishment of another system." Against the opinions of all these individuals, of adverse parties and opposite interests, the Reviewer sets up his own; and, for the sake of getting something like an authority on his side, he drags into the controversy the late Lord Liverpool : "The allegation," it is observed, "of a fundamental difference of policy between Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, includes a charge of inconsistency against Lord Liverpool, who co-operated with both. He approved cordially, as Mr. Stapleton says, of the policy of Mr. Canning. Who has a right to say that he did not approve of the policy of Lord Castlereagh ?" * The answer to this question is, that it is an undoubted fact, that some time before Lord Castlereagh's death, Lord Liverpool was uneasy at the state of 'Foreign Affairs. But it must be remembered, that diplomacy is, in a great degree, carried on in personal conferences between the Secretary of State and the Foreign Ambassadors; that in those conferences a tone may be given calculated to change entirely the aspect of the matter in discussion; that to lament the necessity of deference to national feeling might be a safeguard to a foreign government; that its measures would not be efficiently resisted, although they might be publicly condemned; and thus an anti-liberal character might be given to the diplomacy of the country without the knowledge of the First Minister; and this especially of one in the position of Lord Liverpool, whose Government was confessedly a Government of departments, in consequence of his having been elected Premier by his colleagues. Not, therefore, feeling himself as free to interfere, as an ordinary head of an Administration, he might have been uneasy at the state of Foreign Affairs without being able exactly to define the reason; and without inconsistency, he might have cordially approved Mr. Canning's system without sufficiently disapproving, or being cognizant of Lord Castlereagh's, to induce him to break up his Government, in order to rid himself of the responsibility of sauctioning it. But whether Lord Liverpool acted consistently or not, cannot alter the question at issue, which can only be decided by an examination of facts. The first position which the Reviewer undertakes to make out, in order to invalidate the correctness of Mr. Stapleton's views, is, "That Mr. Canning came into office in 1822, not only without any avowed disapprobation of the policy of Lord Castlereagh, and intention to change it, but with the decided and unequivocal recognition of it, as the principle of his own Administration." * Foreign Quarterly Review, No XVI. The first half of this assertion may readily be admitted. Not so the latter half, even if the accuracy of the premises on which it is founded is not disputed. With respect, however, to these premises, Mr. Stapleton and his Reviewer differ as to a matter of fact. The point in dispute is as follows. There were two circulars issued by the Foreign Office in the time of Lord Castlereagh; the first before Mr. Canning quitted the Government in 1820; the second subsequently to his resignation, in 1821, after the Congress at Laybach. In alluding to the one or the other of these state papers, Mr. Canning observed, that in it "The principles on which the Government were acting were reduced to writing ;" and that "upon the execution of these principles, and upon that alone, was founded any claim that he might have to credit from the House." And subsequently, speaking in explanation of these remarks, which he said had been "much misunderstood," he observed, again alluding to the same document, that “ it laid down the principle of non-interference, with all the qualifications properly belenging to it, as broadly, clearly, and definitively, as it was possible for any statesman to wish to lay it down.”†' According to Mr. Stapleton, these words refer to the circular of 1820, which, there is little doubt, was corrected by Mr. Canning. According to the Reviewer, they refer to the circular of 1821, with which Mr. Canning had no concern. They are, therefore, triumphantly cited as an irrefragable proof of the precise similarity of the two systems. Now, admitting, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Canning did allude to the circular of 1821, the Reviewer gains nothing for his cause. For, supposing that Mr. Canning did adopt the principle of noninterference, as laid down by Lord Castlereagh, and did bona fide apply it in respect to the invasion of Spain by France, still it is not sufficiently fundamental to establish the fact of similarity of policy. Mr. Stapleton describes the fundamental principle of Mr. Canning's system as being to make England preserve "the balance, not only between contending nations, but between conflicting principles," a maxim at once comprehensive and intelligible, bearing upon every measure of foreign policy, and serving as a test by which all might be tried. But the principle of non-interference with the internal concerns of foreign states, is one which obviously will not bear upon many of the most important 'measures; and, so far from identifying one system with another, may be common to those which are directly opposed to each other. Abstinence from interference in the case of Spain would have been beneficial to the cause of liberty. In the case of Poland it has benefited the cause of despotism. How absurd is it, then, to argue, because Mr. Canning adopted one of Lord Castlereagh's principles, that therefore he adopted all of them, so that the general course of their policy had exactly the same direction. In the last chapter of the third volume of Stapleton's Life, (pp. 477, 478,) it is shown how materially the progress of events may be varied by the "bias" of the British Foreign Minister, who may assist one side of the question "without aught being able to be proved against him." The work imputes to Lord Castlereagh a leaning towards arbitrary principles so strong as to make him sympathise in all the proceedings and principles of the Holy Alliance, and ascribes the formidable power of that Alliance as arising from the good-will which Lord Castlereagh manifested towards it. Of Mr. Canning the work affirms, that he looked with disfavour on the measures and doctrines of that Alliance, and attributes the dwindling away of its strength, and its final extinction, to that disfavour. The Reviewer does not deny that the prosperity of the Alliance coincided in time with the Administration of Lord Castlereagh-its decline and fall with that of Mr. Canning. But nevertheless he contends, somewhat perversely, that these were curious coincidences, and not the causes and effects resulting from the character of our policy, which he maintains was unvaried. He admits, however, that "Mr. Canning was dissatisfied with the growing intimacy between Lord Castlereagh Foreign Quarterly Review, No. XVI. pages 400 and 401; and Stapleton, Vol. 1. pages 399 and 400. |