Site. —A great part of London is built on sands and gravels belonging to the Drift period, marking the ancient bed of a much larger river than the present Thames. This formation, resting immediately on the London Clay, extends along both banks of the present river, with an average breadth of about 2 miles; but in some parts there is immediately adjoining the banks a considerable breadth of alluvial deposits, or occasionally of artificially constructed embankments. On the north bank the alluvial soil comprehends the greater part of Westminster; on the south bank it stretches east from Lambeth Bridge, gradually widening to a breadth of about half a mile, and from Southwark to Deptford occupying a still wider area. The sands and gravels again occur at Greenwich Hospital, but are succeeded by the Greenwich and Woolwich marshes. The Isle of Dogs opposite Greenwich is constructed wholly of artificial embankments, and at one time the area it now occupies formed part of the mouth of the Lea, along whose banks the alluvial formation runs northwards between Bow and Stratford to Stoke Newington, widening to a considerable area at the marshes of West Ham and Plaistow. At Fareham, Battersea Park, Cheapside, Victoria Park, and to the south of Stoke Newington, there are considerable areas occupied by brick earth. The London Clay crops to the surface throughout the whole of north-west London, with the exception of a small portion to the south of Regent’s Park, which is encroached upon by the sands and gravels, and the summits of Hampstead and Highgate, which are occupied by the silicious sands of the Bagshot series. In west London the Clay extends south to Kensington Gardens, and in north London it occupies part of Islington and the district north of Highbury and Stoke Newington. South of the Thames it encroaches irregularly on Wandsworth, Clapham, Camberwell, and Deptford, and comprehends nearly all the district round Sydenham. The Lower Tertiaries are represented by the Thanet sands at Greenwich and in the neighbourhood of Deptford, by the Woolwich and Reading beds, which occur at Camberwell, Dulwich, and Lewisham, and by the Blackheath beds, which are best seen at Blackheath. Chalk, the basement rock of the London basin, and the source of the water supply for the deep wells, only crops to the surface in the neighbourhood of Greenwich.

The original surface of the soil of London has been much altered in the course of generations, the depth of made earth being often very great. At one period the Thames flowed straight from Lambeth to Limehouse, and the greater part of the district now stretching south and east of the river to the range of heights in the neighbourhood of Sydenham and Greenwich was occupied by marshes or shallow lagoons. North of the Thames the greater part of London is built on several ranges of small eminences lying between the river and the northern heights of Hampstead (430 feet), Highgate, and Hornsey. The original city clustered round the eminence now crowned by St Paul’s, and formerly intersected by the ravine of the Walbrook. To the north and east it was bounded by an extensive fen, from which Finsbury takes its name. To the west was the Fleet river, which flowed from Hampstead in a southeasterly direction to King’s Cross, and then more southerly to Clerkenwell, where on account of the steepness of its banks it received the name of Holebourne or Hollowburn. It was navigable to King’s Cross, and for a long period formed a convenient and well-protected harbour for the city. A more extended elevation, included in the district now occupied by the Inns of Court, Bloomsbury, and Soho, was bounded on the west by the Tyburn, which rose near the Swiss Cottage and, after an easterly course till reaching the present Regent’s Park, flowed southwards nearly in the line of Marylebone Lane and Bond Street. Tyburn Hill was bounded on the west by the Westbourne; and to the south and west an extensive range of low ground, now included in Westminster, Pimlico, Chelsea, and Kensington, was in early times for the most part covered by water. Westwards the low ground is bounded by Notting Hill, whence an elevated region lying between the smaller eminences and the “northern heights,” and including Primrose Hill, runs in a north-westerly direction to Camden Town, Islington, and Highbury. The hilly regions in the neighbourhood of Kensington and Notting Hill formed part of an extensive forest, and St John’s Wood was originally a dense thicket.

Government and Administration. —At first the municipal constitution of London was loose and disjointed in its form, resembling that of the shire rather than the town, but even from the time of Henry I. the independence of its jurisdiction was complete, and the citizens, besides the right of inheritance and tenure not then possessed by the rest of England, enjoyed exemption from the Danegeld and from similar obligations. By the 13th century the later form of the municipality was already shaped in its main features, although at this stage residence in the borough and not membership in a trade guild was the basis of citizenship. This in some respects premature development of municipal functions has always given to London a peculiar and unique position in respect of municipal government. Its charters, which in early times served as the model for charters to new incorporations, have defied the attacks of reform. The system of government was more heterogeneous and complicated than that of other English towns. London is practically a borough by prescription, and its special rights and privileges have made those who possess them distrustful of change. The mere extent of the new city surrounding the old, and the rapidity of its growth, have also tended to postpone the attempt to grapple with the problem of its government. Until 1855, when the Metropolitan Board of Works was formed, the whole administration of the metropolis was of a mediaeval character. The City was governed by old charters, confirmed but not interpreted by a special Act of William and Mary, and the various parishes of the rest of the metropolis had each its own peculiar system of administration, regulated by local Acts which differed widely in different localities. No direct change of vital importance was made in the constitution and functions of the City corporation by the Metropolis Local Management Act of 1855, but the very existence of the Metropolitan Board implied a certain limitation of its authority, and the additional functions conferred by successive Acts on the Metropolitan Board have in some degree circumscribed its influence. As modified by the Act of 1855, the government of London within what is known as the metropolitan area consists of the City Corporation, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and thirty-eight vestries and district boards; while various authorities, to be afterwards mentioned, exercise jurisdiction in special matters over the whole area of the metropolis or in separate localities.

The City of London, which is a county in itself, and with which the borough of Southwark is assimilated, is governed by a lord mayor, twenty-six aidermen, and two hundred and six common councilmen, forming a Court of Common Council. This court has a certain independent power to enact regulations for the government of the City, is entrusted with the management of the finances and the estates of the corporation, elects most of the officials, and controls the police. The City elects a sheriff of Middlesex as well as a sheriff of London; and the lord mayor is elected by the trade guilds in common hall from among the aidermen who have served as sheriffs. He is lord lieutenant within the City, the dispenser of its hospitality, the chairman of the courts of the corporation, and holds certain other offices, the dignity of which is now almost entirely nominal. The aidermen, who hold office for life, are chosen by the several wards, each ward electing one. Since 1867 the power of election has been enjoyed by all possessing the household and lodger franchise. The Court of Aidermen has the power of appointment to certain offices, exercises judicial functions in regard to licensing and in disputes connected with the ward elections, has some power of disposal over the City cash, and possesses magisterial control over the City, each aiderman being a judge and magistrate for the whole City, and by virtue of his office exercising the functions of a justice of the peace. The common councillors were chosen originally in the reign of Edward I. as assistants to the aidermen, and in 1384 were constituted a standing committee to regulate the affairs of the City, each ward chosing four, six, or eight, according to its size. A gradual increase in their number took place until 1840, when it was fixed at two hundred and six. From the time of Richard II. the election was vested in freemen householders, but it is now regulated by the Act of 1867. The Court of Common Hally formerly the popular assembly or ancient folkmote, is now composed of the lord mayor, four aidermen, and the liverymen of the city guilds, and nominates yearly two aidermen, who must previously have been sheriffs, for the Court of Aidermen to select one for the office of lord mayor. The sheriffs are themselves chosen by the Court of Common Hall, which also appoints the chamberlain, the bridge masters, and the city auditors.

The fragmentary and indirect participation in the government of London at present exercised by the livery companies represents the remnants of an influence which was paramount from the time of Edward III., when enactments were passed which made admission to the freedom of the city dependent on membership in a trade or mystery. Originally established to afford mutual aid to members of their “craft,” the guilds of London gradually assumed a certain control over their trade or manufacture, and by the payment of large sums of money obtained various monopolies, with the power to make by-laws for the regulation of their craft. From gifts for charitable purposes, and from entrance money and fines, many of the guilds, on account of the rise in the value of property, have amassed enormous wealth. Within the limits of the City alone the gross annual rental of the land possessed by them is over £500,000, and it is believed that the land they possess outside its limits is of equal value. At one time their number was Over one hundred, but they now number seventy-six, and some represent trades which are extinct. Twelve so-called “great companies” claim precedence over the others, but of these some are not so wealthy as a few of the less highly privileged. The “livery” or dress of the companies, first formally adopted in the reign of Edward III., was ultimately worn only by a higher grade of the members called liverymen. The extension of London beyond the City limits and changes in trade maxims and in social life have now left them little more than the shadow of their formèr authority over trade and manufacture, but a few, such as the fishmongers, the stationers, the goldsmiths, and the apothecaries, still discharge certain functions in the regulation of their several crafts. Besides administering their charities, many of the companies contribute largely to benevolent objects of pressing need, and some take an interest in promoting technical instruction, and in various matters relating to their special trade or manufacture; but the business of most of them is now chiefly of a ceremonial kind. The halls of the companies number thirty-five, and many of them are of interest either from their architectural merits, their antiquarian associations, or the portraits or other objects they contain. Their annual assessed value is over £60,000. The hereditary connexion of the companies with the corporation, their large ownership of property in the City, and their control over so many charities still enable them to exercise a very great influence in municipal affairs.

The following list (Table I. ) gives details regarding the twelve great companies, and six other companies which may be ranked next to them in importance :— [table]

The corporation of the City of London still retains certain exceptional prerogatives. The lord mayor’s court still exercises civil jurisdiction, the two courts of the sheriffs’ compter survive in the City of London court, and the lord mayor exercises the functions of judge in the central criminal court, which superseded the court of oyer and terminer in 1834, and extends beyond the radius of the Metropolitan area. The corporation possesses the sole right to establish markets within 7 miles of the City; it enjoys a metage of grain, partially commuted in 1872 to a fixed duty chargeable by weight, and applied to the preservation of Epping Forest and other open spaces; and it levies coal and wine duties, continued by various Acts, for defrayment of the cost of public improvements. Most of the work of the corporation is performed by committees; and “commissioners of sewers,” under Act of Parliament, have charge of the cleaning, lighting, and paving of the streets.

A large portion of the City income is derived from rents, which have increased from £3488 in 1692 to £19,199 in 1785, £45,269 in 1825, and £117,781 in 1881. In 1692 the City markets were farmed for £8100, the profit being about £2500; in 1785 their revenue was £15,631, and the profit £2621; in 1825 these were respectively £58,958 and £52,271; and in 1881 they were £152,816 and £20,911. The total revenue of the City in 1692 was £11,658, in 1785 £59,356, and in 1881 £896,688, not including the public and trust accounts, which are regulated by various Acts of Parliament. They include the Bridge-House estate account, the sewers rate, the Metropolitan Board of Works sewers rate, the police rate, the ward rate, and the duties on coal, wine, and grain. The total charge of the government establishment in 1692 was £3947, and in 1881 it was £51,855, not including £7856 spent in pensions of officials. In 1692 the lord mayor received an annual sum of £100 for his care of the market, and an ancient fee of £80 out of the chamber. He has now an annual salary of £10,000, and in addition to this his personal expenses in 1881 amounted to £4433. The salaries of the recorder, the chamberlain, the common sergeant, the town-clerk, and some other officers have risen in a somewhat similar proportion. The City in 1692 spent nothing on special acts of hospitality or on the promotion of literature, science, or art, while its contribution to the poor rates was only £66. It now spends several thousands annually on the reception of eminent persons, while to the London almshouses it in 1881 contributed £1884, to general charitable purposes £5179, foreducation £5394, for technical instruction £2000, for the Guildhall library and museum £5398, and for music £3027. The debt of the corporation, which is solely connected with the construction of improvements and public markets, was on December 31, 1881, £5,496,150, the money spent for these purposes since 1759 being nearly £10,000,000. The rateable value of the City and liberties has since 1801 increased sevenfold, having risen from £507,372 to £3,535,494.

The Guildhall, rebuilt by Dance in 1789, contains the greater part of the walls of the old building of 1411, which was damaged by the fire of 1666, and also the crypt divided into three aisles by clustered columns of marble supporting a groined roof richly adorned with carvings. The principal front was restored in 1867 in the Gothic style. In addition to the great hall used for state banquets and receptions, the building contains the common council chamber, the aidermen’s room, and several courts of justice. Adjoining the Guildhall is the free library of the corporation, and a museum of antiquities relating to the City. The Mansion House at the east end of the Poultry, ejected in 1740 from the designs of Dance, is the official residence of the lord mayor. In addition to the justice room and various reception rooms, it contains the Egyptian hall, in which certain special banquets of the lord mayor are held.

By the Metropolis Local Management Act of 1855, the metropolis was divided into thirty-nine vestries or district boards, which elect the forty-five members who form the Metropolitan Board of Works, the city of London electing three members, each of the six great parishes of Islington, Marylebone, St Paneras, Lambeth, St George’s (Hanover Square), and Shoreditch two members, and the other districts one each or one in combination. The board was originally established for the formation and maintenance of main sewers, but later Acts have made it the administrative authority of the metropolis in a great variety of other matters, including the construction of main thoroughfares, the carrying out of great metropolitan improvements, the formation of new streets, the construction and maintenance of parks, the preservation of commons and open spaces, the maintenance of the fire brigade, and the administration of certain enactments specially applicable to the metropolitan area. The total sum raised by the board for application to its various purposes since 1856 to 31st December 1881 was <£28,689,749, and its net liability on the 31st December 1881 was <£13,437,940. The capital required for the execution of great works is raised by the issue of stock bearing interest at the rate of 3J and 3 per cent., which has the same facilities of transfer as the Government stocks, and is redeemable in sixty years from creation. The rate per pound levied by the board has varied very greatly, being 2O9d. in 1856, and as high as 6 ’ 99d. in 1867, while for 1883 it is estimated at 6 ’ 2d∙ The total net charge in 1880 was £652,213, and for 1882 it is estimated at £715,822. The rateable annual value of property in the metropolis has risen from £11,283,663 in 1856 to £27,386,086 in 1882.

The vestries and district boards are entrusted with the management of local sewers, the lighting, paving, and cleaning of their own thoroughfares, and the removal of nuisances. For paving, except in the old main thoroughfares, they have power to charge adjoining properties, and in several districts a small income is obtained from realized property. The total amount of money advanced to them on loan by the Board of Works up to 31st November 1881 was £3,631,769, of which £3,297,430 was redeemable by 1929, and £334,338 by 1941.

The School Board of London has in regard to education a rating and legislative authority over a district corresponding with that of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The metropolitan police force outside the City limits and within a radius of 12 miles of Charing Cross is under the control of the Home Secretary. The Tower of London is governed by the constable of the Tower, assisted by fifty magistrates, and the borough of Westminster is still under the nominal care of the dean and burgesses. The Metropolitan Asylums Board, the Burial Board, the Thames Conservancy Board, and the Lea Conservancy Board constitute the principal other direct governing authorities having relation to London, but the water and gas companies enjoy monopolies which imply a certain degree of irresponsible authority, and a right of taxation not sufficiently defined and limited. Within an area less than the district of the Board of Works there are ten parliamentary boroughs, which return in all twenty-two members, the City returning four members, and Southwark (from 1295), Westminster (1547), Marylebone (1832), Finsbury (1832), Tower Hamlets (1832), Greenwich (1832, extended in 1868), Lambeth (1832), Hackney, (1868), and Chelsea (1868) two each. London University (1868) returns one member.

Growth and Population. —For some centuries after the Conquest there are almost no data for an estimate of the extent and population of London, but a great impulse was given to its increase by the settlement of Normans and the opening up of intercourse with the Continent. The statement of Fitzstephen that it furnished, in the reign of Stephen, 60,000 men-at-arms and 20,000 knights cannot be accepted as applying only to the City. Peter of Blois, under Henry II., only estimated its numbers at 40,000, although he may possibly have referred only to adults (Opera, ed. Giles, vol. ii. p. 85). In any case, previous to the great plague of 1349 it must have numbered at least 90,000, for in that year, according to Stow, as many as...

Agriculture.— The excessive rainfall and the cold and uncertain climate are unfavourable for agricultural operations, and except in the valleys the soil is unsuitable for tillage. In the basalt region large tracts are partially submerged, and the hard and firm portions consist chiefly of rock Along the sea-coast there is an extensive district of red clay formed by the decomposition of sandstone, and near the mouth of the Roe there is an extensive tract of a marly nature. Along the valleys the soil is often very fertile, and the elevated districts of the clay-slate region afford rich pasture for sheep.

In 1880 181,239 acres were under tillage, 206,044 were pasture, 5305 plantation, and 120,451 waste. The total number of holdings in the same year was 17,351, of which 1377 were under 1 acre. More than half of the total number were included in those between 5 and 15 acres and those between 15 and 30 acres, which numbered 5467 and 4848 respectively. The following table shows the area under the principal crops in 1855 and 1881 :— [table]

The increase in the area under crops is due chiefly to the increase in that under flax and meadow, although there is an increase in all other crops except wheat and oats.

The number of horses since 1855 has increased very slightly— from 20,331 to 20,749, of which 17,053 were used for agricultural purposes. Cattle in 1855 numbered 102,185, and in 1881 only 96,693, an average of 25 to every 100 acres under cultivation, the average for Ireland being 25 - 8. The number of milch cows was 39,393. Sheep numbered 29,888 in 1855, and 30,161 in 1881, pigs in the same years numbering 22,828 and 23,946. Goats in 1881 numbered 4666, and poultry 368,436.

According to the latest return, the land in 1873 was divided amongst 2178 proprietors possessing 511,838 acres, with a total annual value of £364,732, the annual value per acre being 14s. 3d. Of the owners about 36 per cent, possessed less than 1 acre. As many as 153,419 acres were possessed by the Irish Society and seven of the livery companies of London—the Irish Society possessing 6075 acres; the Drapers’ Company, 27,025; the Fishmongers’, 20,509; the Grocers’, 11,638; the Ironmongers’, 12,714; the Mercers’, 21,241; the Salters’, 19,445; and the Skinners’, 34,772. In addition to this Sir H. H. Bruce owned 20,801 acres, S. C. Bruce 13,651, the representatives of T. R. Richardson 18,159, Church Temporalities Commissioners 13,413, C. S. M ζ Causland 12,886, and J. B. Beresford 10,420.

Manufactures. —The staple manufacture of the county is linen. In 1880 the number of scutching mills was 185. The manufacture of coarse earthenware is also carried on, and there are large distilleries and breweries and some salt-works. There are important fisheries of salmon and eels on the Bann.

Railways. —The only railways in the county are those which skirt its northern and western boundary,—the Belfast and Northern Counties line passing by Cookstown and Coleraine to Londonderry, and another line connecting Londonderry with Enniskillen.

Administration and Population.— The county comprises 6 baronies, with 43 parishes and 1202 townlands. It is in the northwest circuit. Assizes are held at Londonderry, and quarter sessions at Coleraine, Londonderry, Magherafelt, and Limavady. Within the county there are 14 petty sessions districts. It includes two poor-law unions and portions of other three. Londonderry is in the Belfast military district and Omagh subdistrict. The county is represented in parliament by two members, and the boroughs of Londonderry (28,947) and Coleraine (6684) by one each. The population of the county, which in 1760 was only 46,182, had increased by 1821 to 193,869, and by 1841 to 222,461, but in 1851 had diminished to 192,269, in 1871 to 173,906, and in 1881 to 164,714, of whom 79,138 were males and 85,576 females. From the 1st May 1851 to 31st December 1881 the number of emigrants was 73,725. For every 1000 of the population the death-rate in 1880 was 19’2, the marriage-rate 4 , 2, and the birth-rate 23’2.

History and Antiquities.— At an early period the county was inhabited by the O’Cathans, or O’Catrans, who were tributary to the O’Nials or O’Neils. Towards the close of the reign of Elizabeth the county was seized with the purpose of checking the power of the O’Neils, when it received the name of Coleraine, having that town for its capital. In 1609, after the confiscation of the estates of the O’Neils, the citizens of London obtained possession of the towns of Londonderry and Coleraine and adjoining lands, 60 acres out of every 1000 being assigned for church lands, and certain other portions to three native Irish gentlemen. The common council of London undertook to expend £20,000 on its reclamation, and elected a body of twenty-six for its management, who in 1613 were incorporated as the Irish Society, and retained possession of the towns of Londonderry and Coleraine, the remainder of the property being divided among twelve of the great livery companies of the city. Notwithstanding the expenditure of large sums by these companies in its management, their estates were afterwards sequestrated by James I., and in 1637 the charter of the Irish Society was cancelled. Cromwell restored the society to its former position, and Charles II. at the Restoration granted it a new charter, and confirmed the companies in the possession of their estates. In the insurrection of 1641 Moneymore was seized by the Irish, and Magherafelt and Bellaghy, then called Vintner’s Town, burned, as well as other towns and villages. The most remarkable ancient ruin is that of the Cyclopean fortress of the Giant’s Sconce or Ring, situated in the pass between Drumbo and Lar-gantea, the interior of which, 600 feet in diameter, is partly hollowed out of a knoll of basalt, by which it is enclosed on all sides except the north-east, where it is defended by a wall of great thickness, with access for only one person in a stooping posture. The most remarkable of the Druidical circles is that at Slacht Manus. There are a large number of artificial caves. The most ancient castle of Irish origin is that of Carrickreagh; and of the castles erected by the English those of Dungiven, Salterstown, and Muff are still in good preservation. The old abbey of Dungiven, founded in 1109, and standing on a rock about 200 feet above tho river Roe, is a very picturesque ruin.

Londonderry, or Derry, a county of a city, parliamentary borough, and the chief town of the county of Londonderry, is situated on an eminence rising abruptly from the west side of the river Foyle to the height of about 120 feet, 4 miles from the junction of the river with Lough Foyle, and 80 miles north-north-west of Belfast. It is still surrounded by an ancient rampart about a mile in circumference and having seven gates, but the buildings now extend considerably beyond this boundary. The summit of the hill, which is at the centre of the town, is occupied by a quadrangular area from which the main streets, which for the most part are spacious, diverge at right angles. Some of the original houses with high pyramidal gables remain, but they have been much modernized. The river is crossed by an iron bridge 1200 feet in length. The cathedral in the Later English style, and consisting of nave and aisles separated by pointed arches, with tower and spire at the west end, was completed in 1633 at a cost of £4000, contributed by the city of London. The building is 240 feet in length with a breadth of 62 feet, and the height of the tower and spire is 228 feet. The spire was added in 1788, when the old tower was raised 21 feet, and in 1302 the spire was rebuilt. The bishop’s palace, erected in 1716, occupies the site of the abbey founded by Columba. The abbot of this monastery, on being made bishop, erected in 1164 Temple More or the “Great Church,” one of the finest buildings in Ireland previous to the Anglo-Norman invasion. The original abbey church was called the “Black Church,” but both it and the “Great Church” were demolished in 1600, and their materials used in fortifying the city. There is a large Roman Catholic cathedral. The court-house was completed in 1824 at a cost of about £34,000. For the free grammar school, founded in 1617, a new building was erected in 1814 at a cost of over £14,000. There are a number of charitable foundations. The staple manufacture of the town is linen, and there are also shipbuilding yards, iron foundries, saw-mills, manure-works, distilleries, breweries, and flour-mills. The salmon fishery on the Foyle is also very valuable. The river affords facilities for a secure and commodious harbour, its greatest depth being 33 feet, with a depth of 12 feet at low water. The port has a considerable coasting trade with Great Britain, exporting agricultural produce and provisions. For the last five years its imports have averaged over £600,000 (chiefly grain and provisions), and its exports, which vary very greatly, over £10,000. In 1880 the number of vessels that entered the port was 1569, with a total tonnage of 335,544, the number that cleared 1452, with a tonnage of 326,178. Londonderry returns one member to parliament. The population of the city, which in 1857 was 19,399, had increased in 1871 to 25,242, and in 1881 to 28,947.

Derry, the original name of Londonderry, is derived from Doire, the “place of oaks.” It owes its origin to the monastery founded by Columba in 546. From the 9th to the 11th century the town was frequently in the possession of the Danes, and was often burned and devastated, but they were finally driven from it by Murtagh O’Brien about the beginning of the 12th century. In 1311 it was granted by Edward II. to Richard de Bnrgo. After the Irish Society of London obtained possession of it, it was in 1613 incorporated under the name of Londonderry. The fortifications, which were begun in 1600, were completed in 1618 at a cost of nearly £9000. Its charter was confirmed in 1662 by Charles II. From April 18, 1690, the Protestants of the north defended themselves within its walls against James II. until the siege was raised in the following August. See the History by Hempton (1861).

LONDONDERRY, Robert Stewart, second Marquis of (1769-1822), better known by his courtesy title Of Viscount Castlereagh, which he held until the last year of his life, the statesman who brought about the union with Ireland, who was foreign minister for ten eventful years, who represented England at the congress of Vienna, and who was the recognized leader of the aristocratic and reactionary party which owed its being to the excesses of the French Revolution, was born on June 18, 1769, and was thus one year older than his great rival George Canning. His father, Robert Stewart of Ballylawn in the county of Londonderry, and Mount Stewart in Down, had represented the latter county in two Irish parliaments; and his marriage with Lady Sarah Seymour Conway, daughter of the earl of Hertford, in 1766, had brought him into connexion with many of the great Whig families of England, as did also his second marriage with the eldest daughter of Lord Camden. His elder son, the future minister, was educated at a school in Armagh, and proceeded in 1786 to St John’s College, Cambridge. He spent only a single year at the English university, and was on his grand tour through Europe when he was summoned home by his father, who had just been created Lord Londonderry in the peerage of Ireland, to stand for the county of Down as the candidate of the smaller landholders against the influence of the marquis of Downshire. The election cost the new Lord Londonderry £60,000, a sum which crippled him for his whole life. But he was successful, and the young Stewart entered the Irish parliament as one of the few really independent members who sat there, bound by no ties to a great lord, but the representative of three thousand freeholders of the richest county of the most educated province of Ireland. He joined the opposition, like his father before him, and eagerly pressed for the extension of the franchise to the Roman Catholics, even going so far, said his enemies later, as to become a contributor to the northern Star of Belfast, the organ of the seditious party in Ulster; but the great events of the French Revolution soon showed their influence on his opinions, as on those of most landed proprietors. His thoughts on politics already clearly pointed towards the necessity of a union between England and Ireland, a necessity by this time obvious to all political thinkers and practical politicians. But for the time he held firmly to the popular side, voting for the removal of Catholic disabilities, and the right of Irishmen to trade with India. At last, however, Lord Camden came over to Ireland, in March 1795, as lord-lieutenant, with Mr Pelham as his secretary, on a mission to tell the Catholics and reformers that they must expect no further relief and no further reform. He took much notice of his sister’s step-son, young Robert Stewart, who was quite willing to be won over from the opposition, and who had in the previous year married Lady Emily Hobart, daughter of the late earl of Buckinghamshire, and near relative of many great political personages. Lord Camden used his influence to obtain for his brother-in-law a viscountcy as Viscount Castlereagh in October 1795, and in the following August an earldom as earl of Londonderry. In that same August 1796 he made Robert Stewart, who by his father’s promotion had become Viscount Castlereagh, keeper of his signet, an honorary post which merely marked his accession to the Government, and in February 1797 acting secretary in the place of Mr Pelham. Taking office at a time when everything was at the height of confusion, Lord Castlereagh soon began to show his splendid administrative genius, which, indeed, consisted in his “infinite capacity for taking pains” and careful mastery of details. During the rebellion of 1798, when Lord Camden resigned in panic, Castlereagh showed all the qualities of a splendid minister of police, and heartily co-operated with the wise measures of Lord Cornwallis, by which the rebellion was soon brought to an end. He was equally useful to Cornwallis in the second part of his mission to Ireland, namely, the union with England, The measure was to be carried; the means were bribery whether in honours or in money. The details of the passage of the measure through the House can be studied in the correspondences of Cornwallis and Castlereagh, in which appear clearly the utter disgust of Cornwallis at the work he was doing and the country he was in, and Castlereagh’s pride in his successful manipulation of men. The Union carried (1800), then came the fulfilment of promises made to secure support or disarm opposition, and first in importance those to the Catholics. It was thoroughly understood between Pitt, Cornwallis, and Castlereagh that full rights of citizenship were to be given to the Catholics as a reward for the loyal behaviour of the greater men during the rebellion, and to induce them not to oppose the Union. But the promise was not fulfilled. Pitt had indeed promised to carry the measure; but the king’s conscience was worked upon by Lord Loughborough, and to Pitt’s surprise and disgust his resignation was accepted, and immediately followed by that of the abler half of the cabinet, and necessarily of Cornwallis and Castlereagh. With his resignation ends the first epoch of Castlereagh’s political life. On very many occasions in his correspondence Cornwallis mentions him with warm praise of his “talents, temper, and judgment,” and only qualifies his opinion in one place, when he says, on July 3,1800, that “Littlehales very much surpasses Lord Castlereagh in the private management of mankind from his good humour and kind attention to everybody.” Here Cornwallis touches the greatest political fault of Castlereagh, which destroyed his popularity and ruined his reputation—his want of sympathy for human weaknesses.

Castlereagh was sworn of the English privy council in December 1799, and returned to the first united parliament for the county of Down. He had no intention of permanently losing office by his advocacy of the Catholic claims, and therefore, instead of going into violent opposition like Canning and others of the late administration, he supported the weak Addington ministry, and in June 1802 was appointed president of the Board of Control. On Pitt’s return to power in December 1804 he kept Castlereagh in office, and in 1805 made him secretary of state for war and the colonies, as well as president of the Board of Control. For the six months he held the war office he was Pitt’s right hand in administration, as Canning was in debate. He now prepared a great expedition of thirty thousand men, who were to land in Hanover and make a diversion in northern Germany in favour of the Russians and Austrians. The expedition was too late to be of any use, but it deserves notice as illustrating Castlereagh’s favourite idea that England should carry on “grande guerre,” which was to appear to a greater extent later. His present tenure of office was but short, for Pitt’s Government resigned on his death in January 1806.

When Pitt died, Castlereagh was prime mover in the attempt to make Lord Hawkesbury premier, and when that failed, sooner than give up all hope of place, he declared that he and his friends “looked to” Lord Grenville. Grenville, however, formed his ministry of “all the talents” out of the sections which followed Fox, Windham, and Sidmouth. The opposition was led in the House of Commons by Castlereagh and Canning. Now began the close association of these two celebrated men, each of whom hoped to lead the Tory party, and who did so in turn, both Irishmen from the same county of Londonderry, both in the prime of life, and distinguished —the one for his surpassing eloquence, the other for his administrative powers. Each rival despised the other: Castlereagh, conscious of his high birth and noble connexions, looked down on the son of the actress; Canning, conscious on his side of his great talents for debate, looked down on the clumsy debater and laborious parliamentary tactician, who looked to governing the country rather by a careful manipulation of boroughs and patronage than by eloquence and statesmanship. Castlereagh again, proud of his position as an ex-cabinet minister, pretended to lead Canning, who had held but inferior posts; while Canning, in his ardent devotion to the memory of Pitt, sneered at the man who had taken a seat in Addington’s cabinet. This rivalry was increased almost to personal dislike by the marriage of Castlereagh’s sister to the son and heir of that uncle of Canning’s, Paul, in whose favour his own father had been disinherited, and who some years later was made Lord Garvagh. The rivals were not long in opposition, the new ministry resigning in 1807. The duke of Portland formed a new administration on strictly anti-Catholic principles, in which Castlereagh and Canning, both advocates of the Catholic claims, were secretaries of state, the former for war and the colonies, the latter for foreign affairs. During the two years they remained in office together each chafed at the other. The chief events connected with the war office during this tenure of office were the expeditions to Copenhagen, the Peninsula, and Walcheren. Of the Copenhagen expedition the chief credit or discredit must rest with Canning, but the merits of its execution rest entirely with Lord Castlereagh, who showed himself a war minister far superior to Dundas and Windham, and despatched in perfect secrecy a large military and naval expedition, which was swiftly and entirely successful. On the subject of the Portuguese expedition and the assistance to be afforded to the Spanish insurgents, the two secretaries were of different opinions. Canning sent the Spaniards officers, money, and arms in profusion, but was reluctant to send a great army, while Castlereagh planned the Portuguese expedition, chose Sir A. Wellesley to command it, and deserves the credit of Vimiera. Napier in his Peninsular JK<zr proves how wrong Canning was, how impossible it was to organize out of the Spaniards a force able to resist Napoleon, and how right Castlereagh was in believing in the efficacy of a British army. The Walcheren expedition went far utterly to ruin Castlereagh’s reputation, and completed the difference between Canning and himself. Yet the conception was good. Castlereagh prepared the expedition with skill and secrecy, though with slight regard for men’s lives, as appeared in his choice of the unhealthy island of Walcheren for debarkation, in his refusal to send enough doctors or hospital ships, and in his appointment of Lord Chatham to command in chief. In this appointment of Chatham appears the radical vice of his war administration: he looked before giving a command on active service to parliamentary influence, not tried ability. The failure of the expedition brought about a crisis in the cabinet. In April 1809 Canning had sent in his resignation to the duke of Portland, declaring that he could no longer serve with Castlereagh, but the matter was put off from time to time, and at length Canning consented to wait till the Walcheren expedition was over. In September he insisted once for all that something must be done, and then for the first time Castlereagh heard that his dismissal had been determined on for some months. He was naturally indignant, and, being unable to challenge Lord Camden, his benefactor, who had really behaved worst to him, or the old duke of Portland, he challenged Canning, who had throughout protested against the manner in which Castlereagh had been treated. On September 21 they met on Putney Heath, when Canning was slightly wounded in the thigh, and Castlereagh had a button shot off his coat. After this duel both resigned, and remained out of office two years, but Castlereagh did not intend to remain so, and through the influence of his aunt, old Lady Hertford, with the prince regent he was, after the refusal of Canning, offered the secretaryship of state for foreign affairs in March 1812 in the room of Lord Wellesley. On Perceval’s assassination in May 1812, the leadership of the House of Commons was given to Castlereagh. The first ten years of Lord Liverpool’s administration were the palmy days of the Tory aristocracy, and during them Lord Castlereagh was the guiding spirit of foreign policy in the cabinet, and the faithful interpreter of Lord Sidmouth’s home policy in the House of Commons. Once in power, he perceived that Napoleon must be beaten in Germany, and that, though Lord Wellington’s army in Spain must be supported to maintain the credit of English soldiers, and occupy as many French troops as possible, the important point was for the Russian and Prussian monarchs to be joined by the Austrian emperor, and follow up the blow Napoleon had dealt himself in his invasion of Russia. To bring Austria into the field, manage the crown prince of Sweden, maintain the alliance of the great powers and the harmonious working of their armies and policies, Castlereagh gave the English ambassadors at the courts of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, full powers to correspond with each other, and follow the allied forces. The ability with which these instructions were carried out is to be read in the history of the whole campaign of 1813, and of the congresses of Mannheim and Frankfort. When the allies entered France, Castlereagh himself left England to attend the congress of Chatillon. He remained with armies of the allies, entered Paris with them, and signed the preliminaries of peace. Great was the applause he received on his return from the people, and above all in the House of Commons. The prince regent made him a Knight of the Garter, an honour which had only been conferred on two commoners, Sir R. Walpole and Lord North, for the last two hundred years, and when the allied sovereigns visited London they treated him with marked favour, so that it was no wonder, when he started to take his seat as British plenipotentiary at the congress of Vienna, he believed himself to be a great diplomatist. That he was mistaken in this was conclusively proved by that congress where, as Von Gentz said, England could have done anything, and did nothing. Throughout he supported Metternich, partly because Metternich’s nature had mastered him, but more because he had imbibed a blind distrust of Russia. "When the return of Napoleon from Elba put an end to the quarrels which were nearly ending in a general war between Prussia and Russia on the one side and England, France, and Austria on the other, and united all parties against him, Castlereagh returned to England, and expressed his confidence in a speedy termination of the new struggle, which indeed was closed at Waterloo. He signed the second peace of Paris on behalf of England, and on his return his father was created marquis of Londonderry. From this time his career can be sketched very shortly. At home the grand harvest of 1815 was followed by very bad ones, and great discontent existed both among the agricultural and manufacturing classes. The Government pursued the same tactics which had in 1793 united nearly all the upper classes in a fever of reaction; they established a secret committee which declared the existence of a widespread conspiracy, and it was often their spies who threw into the meetings of the discontented sufficient politics to make them look like conspiracies. The bad feeling existing came to a climax with the Peterloo massacre, and Lord Sidmouth introduced his Six Acts to check a network of conspiracies which mostly did not exist. Castlereagh had to introduce the Six Acts in the House of Commons, and as usual spoke of the people with the air of hauteur and contempt which made him so particularly obnoxious to them. His foreign policy during these years was chiefly inspired by a real desire to maintain the peace of Europe, which he believed was only to be preserved by the harmony of all the monarchs and their foreign ministers, and to preserve this harmony he was so loth to differ from them on any subject that it was commonly believed among the people that he had signed the Holy Alliance. At the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 it was for this reason that he recommended that France should be freed from the army of occupation. The death of George III. in January 1820 made no difference to Castlereagh, who was greatly in the favour of the new king, and who had no difficulty in supporting the Bill of Pains and Penalties against the queen. Scarcely was the excitement of the queen’s trial and the king’s coronation over, when Lord Londonderry, for he had succeeded to that title in this very year, accompanied the king to Hanover in October 1821 to discuss the revolutions in Greece and Spain with Metternich. The interviews which then took place are fully described in Metternich’s Autobiography (vol. iii. pp. 552-560), and exhibit clearly the paramount influence of Metternich over Lord Londonderry, whom he persuaded to take part in a congress at Verona in the following year. While he was making preparations to start, he became possessed by many strange delusions, which clearly indicated that his mind was unhinged by over work, as it had been once before after the passing of the Union with Ireland. This soon became obvious to every one; the king noticed it; and the duke of Wellington sent a physician down to Foots Cray to see him. The doctor found him suffering from melancholia, and ordered his razors to be taken away, but in spite of all precautions he procured a penknife and committed suicide on August 12,1822. His body was conveyed to London to be buried in Westminster Abbey, and just as it was being lowered into the grave a cry of exultant hatred arose from that rabble he had so despised.

Castlereagh’s character illustrates the strange difference which in corrupt times can exist between public and private morality. In private life he was a strictly honourable and affectionate man; he was a good husband, a good son, a good brother, and a good master; but even in his private relations that want of warmth which made Cornwallis declare he was utterly unlike an Irishman, and Wilberforce liken him to a fish, seems to have existed, and seems to have been part of his temperament In public life he played quite a different part, and, though he had one or two firm political principles, as appears in his steady advocacy of Catholic emancipation, he seems as a rule to have regarded politics as a game, in which all means were fair to win, and very extraordinary some of his means appear to be. Though a very bad and confused speaker, he was very successful as a parliamentary leader, from the care with which he used his patronage, and the amount of votes he won by it. While not a great diplomatist, as the mastery Metternich obtained over him clearly proved, as an administrator he deserves the highest praise, steadily punctual to his work, never allowing arrears to accumulate, and never neglecting a detail; but his parliamentary necessities stood in his way: every appointment was given from a party point of view, and if, as in the case of Sir A. Wellesley, chance sometimes led him right, jobbing more often led him wrong. But the chief interest which centres in Lord Londonderry is that he was the last leader of an extinct class. The old aristocrats who lived by politics, and thought all means fair in politics, are gone for ever, and with Londonderry’s death the unnatural tension of the reaction from the excesses of the French Revolution ceased, and modern Conservatism, containing indeed many prejudices and an exaggerated admiration for what is fixed, came into being with its real sympathy for all mankind, which the old Tories, and more especially Lord Londonderry, would have despised.

The best materials for studying Londonderry’s life and opinions are his Despatches edited by his brother, the third marquis, in 12 volumes. They are, however, very incomplete from the loss of the most valuable at sea in the wreck of the ship which was taking Mr Turner, Lord Londonderry’s chosen biographer, to India. The Cornwallis Correspondence for his Irish work, and the supplementary Wellington Despatches should also be used. Alison’s Dives of Lord Castlereagh and Sir Charles Stewart are interesting reading, but abound with that celebrated author’s usual faults, and should be corrected by Walpole’s History of England, from 1815. Of contemporary diaries, Rose’s, Lord Colchester’s, Romilly’s, and Wilberforce’s , with Pellew’sZî/è of Lord Sidmouth, should be consulted, and Metternich’s Autobiography for the later foreign policy. Mr Thornton has a short biography in his Lives of the Foreign Secretaries from 1800, which is chiefly valuable from his access to the unpublished memoranda of Lord Bexley, who as Mr Vansittart was chancellor of the exchequer, and helped to lead the Commons from 1812 to 1822. (H. Μ. S.)