On the 8th of March Sir Robert Inglis took occasion to remind Lord

Palmerston of the address which had been carried on the subject of the

Portuguese slave-trade, and begged to be informed whether the government

had succeeded in obtaining a treaty with Portugal, or were prepared to

resort to the measures promised by the noble lord in the event of the

failure of such negociations. In reply, Lord Palmerston stated, that

after four years spent in negociation, a note, which had just been

received from Lord Howard de Walden, assured him that there was no

longer any hope of procuring the assent of the Portuguese cabinet to

a treaty for the suppression of the traffic. It was, therefore, the

intention of government to introduce a bill which should give to her

majesty’s cruisers and commissioners the same right of search with

regard to slave-trading vessels met with below the line, which they

already possessed in the case of those which were found north of the

equator. This bill was introduced on the 10th of July, and it passed

through all its stages in silence until it arrived at the second reading

in the house of lords. On that occasion Lord Minto said, that he deemed

it necessary to state the present condition of the law relating to

the slave-trade, and the existing treaties between Great Britain and

Portugal. The most important of these treaties, his lordship said,

was that of 1815, by which the slave-trade was declared illegal; and

Portugal undertook to bring about its eventual abolition, consenting in

the meantime not to suffer her flag to be employed in that traffic

for any other purpose than to furnish slaves for her own transatlantic

dominions. For this concession England had agreed to pay, and had paid,

£600,000. In 1817, an additional convention was entered into, defining

still more precisely the limits within which the slave-trade to the

Brazils was to be exercised. By this treaty the Portuguese government

undertook, within two months from the date on which it was signed, to

pass a law declaring the commerce in question unlawful, and subjecting

persons implicated therein to punishment. It was further stipulated

that, within a specified period, Portugal should treat with this

country for the final abolition of the slave-trade, and assimilate its

legislation on the subject with that of Great Britain. His lordship

went on to say, that when Portugal ceased to hold the Brazils, the

slave-trade ought to have been abolished, as there were no longer any

transatlantic possessions to which the terms of the treaty would apply.

Yet, notwithstanding these engagements, the traffic had been carried on

almost entirely under the flags of Portugal and Spain. With the latter

country, however, we had concluded an efficient treaty, which gave

us the power of seizing vessels equipped for the slave-trade, without

waiting till they had taken on board their miserable cargo, which gave

rise to hopes that this would have the effect of extinguishing the

trade. It was desirable that we should obtain similar conditions from

Portugal; and he was bound to say that the persons opposed to the

abolition were not the Portuguese people, but certain influential

parties who were interested in the maintenance of the contraband

commerce, and continued to violate the treaty with the sanction of the

Portuguese government. In conclusion, his lordship entreated the house

to pass this bill, which had been introduced in redemption of the pledge

given by government in the last session, and formed an indispensable

preliminary to any undertaking upon a greater: scale. Through the

influence of the Duke of Wellington the bill was rejected by a majority

of thirty-eight against thirty-two.

On the 2nd of August Lord Brougham moved the following resolution on

the same subject:—“That an humble address be presented to her majesty,

praying her majesty, by all the means within her majesty’s power, to

negociate with the governments of foreign nations, as well in America as

in Europe, for their concurrence in effectually putting down the traffic

in slaves; and also, that her majesty will be graciously pleased to

give such orders to her majesty’s cruisers as may be most efficacious

in stopping the said traffic, more especially that carried on under

the Portuguese and Brazilian flags, or by the Brazilian and Portuguese

ships, assuring her majesty that this house will cheerfully concur with

the other house of parliament in whatever measure might be rendered

necessary, if her majesty shall be graciously pleased to comply with

this prayer.” Lord Brougham intimated that he moved this address under

the apprehension that if it went out to Portugal that the bill recently

rejected was done so by the unanimous opinion of the house of lords,

their lordships might be represented as giving a sanction, which none

of them had ever contemplated, to so odious a traffic. The motion for

an address, after some observations from the Duke of Wellington, the

Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Earl of Minto, was agreed to, and ordered

to be communicated to the other house. On the 8th of August the Duke

of Argyle, as lord-high-steward of the household, announced that her

majesty had been waited on with the address, and returned the following

gracious answer:—“I receive this address with great satisfaction. I

will direct orders to be given to my cruisers in accordance with your

wishes, fully relying upon your assurance that you will concur in the

measures which will thus be rendered necessary.”

On the same evening, in the house of commons, Viscount Palmerston moved

for leave to introduce another bill in the place of that which had been

rejected. After stating the grounds of objection against the former

bill, the noble lord proceeded to unfold the nature of the clauses in

the new bill. Although, he said, the crown might undoubtedly, by its

prerogatives, take measures which would effectually put down Portuguese

slavers, there were still inconveniences which demanded a remedy. The

officers, his lordship said, acting under its orders, would be exposed

to harassing suits in the courts of law at London; and, although we

might capture ships, and deal with them accordingly, it would not be

proper of this country to dispose of vessels which were the _prima

facie_ property of subjects of other states without having proved

before some court of record the grounds of such proceedings. An act was

therefore required to define what constituted a slave-trader. It was not

considered necessary for the slaves to be on board: a ship equipped in a

certain manner was a proof that she was engaged in the slave-trade; but

the courts of admiralty could not condemn a ship on that ground without

an act of parliament. It was further requisite, to enable the crown, by

the same proceeding, to give to those who capture slave-vessels under

this treaty bounties similar to those secured by conventions with other

powers. These provisions, his lordship thought, would be sufficient to

put down the commerce carried on by the Portuguese flag, and a great

point would thereby be accomplished. After, indeed, that they had

united all the flags in Christendom to put down this horrid traffic,

the slavers might repudiate all flags, and divest themselves of

every document which might enable th captor to identify them with any

particular nation. That would be the last refuge of despairing crime;

and in order to meet those circumstances, he would propose a clause

by which such a ship should be dealt with as though it were an English

trader, unless it appeared, in the course of the trial, that she

belonged to some particular state, in which event the case should not

be adjudicated by the court of admiralty, but dealt with as if at the

outset she had been of the nation to which she was ultimately shown to

belong. His lordship added, that when the nations of Europe were once

united in giving a mutual right of search, or the power of condemning

by a mixed commission, there would no longer remain any defence for

carrying on the slave-trade under any European flag; and he reminded

the house that he had already concluded treaties with Chili, Grenada,

Venezuela, and that intelligence had recently arrived of a treaty made

with Buenos Ayres. After a few words from Dr. Lushington, Sir E. Inglis,

and Captain Pechell, leave was given to bring in the bill, and it was

brought in and read a first time. The next evening it was read a

second time, went through a committee, and passed the commons without a

division.

The second reading of this new bill for the suppression of the

slave-trade was moved by Lord Melbourne on the 15th of August. Previous

to making this motion the noble viscount requested that the address

of the house of lords on the slave-trade, together with her majesty’s

gracious answer, should be read; and after explaining the provisions of

the measure, he stated that, in compliance with the prayer contained in

the address, her majesty had given directions to her cruisers to take

the most efficacious measures for putting down the traffic, and

that this bill was necessary in order to fulfil their lordships’ own

intentions and wishes, as expressed in their petition to the crown. The

Duke of Wellington still continued his opposition to this measure, and

he moved as an amendment that it should be read that day six months. He

was supported by Lord Ellenborough, who demanded that any orders which

had been issued to her majesty’s cruisers should be laid before the

house. The measure, however, was supported by the Bishop of London,

the lord chancellor, the Earl of Minto, and Lords Brougham, Denman, and

Colchester, and the second reading was eventually carried by a majority

of thirty-nine against twenty-eight. On the next evening, when the bill

was in committee, Lord Lyndhurst moved an amendment to the following

clause;—“That in case her majesty should please to issue orders to her

cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or

vessels of any state whatever engaged in the slave-trade, not having

on board, or the masters whereof should neglect to produce, on demand,

papers showing of what state she belongs;” which amendment was to this

effect:—“That in case her majesty should please to issue orders to her

cruisers to capture Portuguese vessels engaged in the slave-trade, or

any other vessels engaged in the slave-trade, and Hot justly entitled to

claim the protection of any flag.” This amendment, which was intended to

confine the operation of the bill to Portuguese vessels, and piratical

vessels engaged in the slave-trade, after some remarks from Lord

Brougham in opposition to it, was finally adopted, and on the 19th of

August it was read a third time without discussion. After it had passed,

the Duke of Wellington, who had put in a protest both against the second

and third reading, stated, that he still retained all his objections to

the principles of the bill; it still exhibited its criminal character,

for it was a breach of the law of nations, a violation of international

treaties, and would rather tend to encourage than to prevent the

traffic against which its enactments were directed. On the motion of the

chancellor of the exchequer the amendments were agreed to in the house

of commons, and the measure became law.

MOTION FOR THE BALLOT.

Circumstances had revived the interest attending the question of voting

by ballot, and thus encouraged, on the 18th of June Mr. Grote again

brought the subject forward in the house of commons. The motion was

seconded by Lord Worsley, and supported by Mr. Macauley; but was opposed

by Lord John Russell, who, on this occasion, spoke with unusual energy.

It was further opposed by-Lord Howick, Sirs J. Graham and Robert Peel,

and Messrs. Gaskell and Milnes. On a division it was rejected by a

majority of three hundred and thirty-five against two hundred and

seventeen: one cabinet minister only voted with Mr. Grote; but others,

who were in favour of it, absented themselves on the occasion.

ACT FOR THE BETTER ORDERING OF PRISONS.

During this session an act was passed for the “better ordering of

prisons.” By this act it was provided that prisoners might be separately

confined, though that separate confinement should not be deemed solitary

confinement. No cell was to be used for the separate confinement of

any prisoner which was not of such a size, and lighted, warmed, and

ventilated in such a manner as might be required by a due regard to

health, and which did not furnish the means of enabling the prisoner to

communicate at any time with an officer of the prison. Every prisoner so

confined was to have the means of taking air and exercise at such times

as should be deemed necessary by the surgeon, and was to be furnished

with the means of moral and religious instruction, and with suitable

books, as well as with labour or employment. All prisoners were to be

divided into the following classes: namely, debtors in those prisons in

which debtors might be lawfully confined; prisoners committed for trial;

prisoners convicted and sentenced to hard labour; prisoners convicted

and not sentenced to hard labour; and prisoners not included in either

of the foregoing classes.

MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE TO CONSIDER THE NATIONAL

PETITION.

On the 12th of July Mr. Attwood moved for a committee of the whole

house, to take into consideration a “National Petition,” which had been

presented on the 14th of June. In making this motion, Mr. Attwood stated

this petition was signed by 1,200,000 persons of the working classes. In

it the petitioners urged five demands: namely, universal suffrage,

vote by ballot, annual parliaments, remuneration of members for

their attendance in parliament, and the abolition of the property

qualifications. This proposal gave rise to a considerable discussion;

but it was rejected by a majority of two hundred and thirty-five against

one hundred and eighty-nine.

BIRMINGHAM RIOTS, ETC.

The defeat of Mr. Attwood’s motion was contemporaneous with alarming

riots at Birmingham. These riots arose out of the proceedings of the

Chartists. That dangerous body of men had recently resorted to many

methods, in order to impose upon the majority of the people that they

were the strongest party in the country, and that they could carry their

plans into effect without resistance. One mode of proceeding was to go

round from house to house with two books, and to say that those persons

who subscribed should be registered in one book, while those who did not

subscribe were entered in another. Those who put down their names paid

a small contribution, and received in return a ticket, which was to be

their security in a time of danger: non-subscribers were warned that a

time would come when their refusal would be remembered. Another practice

of these rash demagogues was to go in procession to the churches some

time before divine service commenced, and to take possession of the body

of the edifice; some smoking their pipes, and others wearing their hats.

These Chartist combinations were very prevalent throughout the country,

and in the early part of this year, these combinations in the different

cities of the United Kingdom proceeded to the election of deputies,

in order to form a national convention, which was to have moveable

sittings, and to be entrusted with the ultimate direction of their

proceedings. Out of this arrangement arose the “National Petition,”

mentioned in the previous article, and which was presented by Mr.

Attwood on the 14th of June. Having discharged this duty imposed on

them, the deputies proceeded to hold a national convention in the

city of Birmingham. By this step great activity was contributed to the

motions of the Chartists. It was their practice to assemble in great

numbers every evening, on the open place called the Bullring. They met

as usual on the 5th of July; but by this time the borough magistrates

had communicated with the home-office, and it was resolved to send down

sixty policemen from the metropolis to disperse them. The railway train

delivered them at Birmingham that evening, and they proceeded to

the scene of confusion, and directed the people to disperse. This

injunction, however, was unheeded, and then the police filed off four

abreast, and made for the monument of Lord Nelson, which stood in the

centre of the Bullring, and which was decorated with the flags of the

convention. The flags were captured by them; but the mob, when they

saw them in the hands of the police, recovered them by force, broke

the poles up into short sticks, and after a fierce struggle overpowered

their antagonists: several of the policemen were seriously hurt, and

more than one of them stabbed. At that juncture the 4th dragoons arrived

on the spot; riding by concert up every avenue which led to the place,

the Bullring was completely enclosed. Their appearance was the signal

for the people to disperse, and the routed mob proceeded, with the

cavalry in close pursuit, down Digbeth and up Broomsgrove-street, to

St. Thomas’s church. Hero they tore up the palisades, and made a brief

stand; but the tumult was eventually reduced: by midnight quiet was

restored, and the military, planting a guard in the great square,

returned to their barracks. In this encounter several Chartist leaders

were captured; as Dr. Taylor, the Paisley delegate to the convention,

and Messrs. Lovett and Collins. There was still, however, an

under-current of agitation: in fact, the late event was but the

precursor to a more furious storm. While it was taking place, Mr.

Attwood brought forward his motion for taking the National Petition

into consideration. The rejection of’ his motion irritated the already

inflamed minds of the Chartists. It was generally expected that Mr.

Attwood would on the 15th of July address them on his old ground at

Holloway-head. Under this apprehension the spot was occupied during the

day by small groups of artisans, who amounted at half-past six to about

two hundred. Several speakers addressed them; but when it was found

that Mr. Attwood would not come, an orator recommended them to form into

line, and parade through the principal streets. He recommended that they

should walk orderly; but instead of that they proceeded tumultuously to

the Bullring. No police were on the spot; and thus favoured, the mob,

having been reinforced from all quarters, proceeded down Moor-street to

the public office. All the windows of this building were broken by them;

and, under the impression that neither the police nor the military were

able to withstand them, the tumultuous concourse poured back into the

square. Weapons were now sought: broken flagstones, heavy bludgeons, and

scythes were brought into use, while some loosened the pavement for the

purpose of arming empty hands with missiles. The work of demolition

soon commenced: the houses of Mr. Bourne, a grocer, and Mr. Leggett, an

upholsterer, were plundered and set on fire. A simultaneous attack was

next made upon the Nelson hotel; and by casting the lighted brands into

other shops, which had been forcibly driven in, the mob were on the

point of kindling a general conflagration. At this point, however, the

police made their appearance; and at ten o’clock they were followed

by some magistrates and the military. The first onset was followed

by complete discomfiture: before the troops came up the ringleaders

escaped, and by midnight quiet again reigned. The morning, however,

showed a dismal scene of devastation: besides the premises which

were consumed by fire, nearly twenty shops were destroyed; and it was

reckoned that £40,000 would not cover the damages.

In consequence of these lamentable occurrences, and the excited state

of the northern districts of the kingdom, on the 22nd of July, Lord John

Russell announced his intention of taking the requisite precautions for

securing the tranquillity of the country, by placing at the hands of the

magistrates a better organized constitutional force for putting the law

into execution, and providing sufficient military means for supporting

them in the performance of their duty. On the next evening he moved

a resolution to authorize the treasury to advance £10.000 out of the

consolidated fund, for the purpose of establishing an efficient police

force at Birmingham, which was to be repaid out of the rates to be

levied on the said town. In explanation of this resolution, his

lordship stated, that there were difficulties in the way of an immediate

organization of such a force on account of the excited state of

Birmingham, and from the question lately raised in Manchester, with

regard to the corporation, whether the municipal body of Birmingham

had the power to impose a rate for the establishment of a police. Under

these circumstances he proposed that the state should interfere so far

as to advance certain funds, to be repaid by the town. This would not

be a vote of supply, but a vote forming the foundation of a bill which

should provide for the recovery of the money by a rate on the borough,

to be imposed by an act of parliament, and, therefore, irrespective of

the authority of the corporation. This resolution was carried, and a

bill was brought in, which became law. Similar bills, with the exception

of the advance of funds from the treasury, were subsequently applied to

Manchester and Bolton, to remain in force until the power of the civil

functionaries to raise a rate should be determined. A bill was also

passed, with the same intention, to enlarge the powers of the justices

of the peace for appointing county and district constables, and charging

their support upon the districts to which they might be nominated. This

measure, however, was not intended to be imperative; but justices in

quarter-sessions were authorized to report to the secretary of state

the necessity of an additional appointment of constables, wherever the

circumstances of their district should call for such an augmentation, in

a proportion not exceeding one for every one thousand of the population.

At the same time magistrates were to create one or more chief-constables

of the county, with whom should rest the nomination of petty-constables

and a deputy. A further enactment forbade any constable under the

provisions of this hill from voting at an election, or exercising any

other employment. In order further to secure the peace of the country,

Lord John Russell subsequently moved that an addition of five thousand

men should be made to the present military establishment; and after

an amendment by Mr. Hume, which was unsuccessful, the house went into

committee, and a vote of £75,000 was carried for the increase of the

army.

THE BUDGET—PROPOSED REDUCTION OF POSTAGE DUTIES, ETC.

The chancellor of the exchequer brought forward his financial statement

on the 5th of July. From his statement it appeared that the expenditure

had exceeded the estimates; chiefly in consequence of the war in Canada.

The estimates were £46,974,000, and the expenditure £47,760,000, so that

there was a deficiency of £786,636. Mr. Rice, however, stated that he

did not think himself justified in laying a permanent charge on that

account upon the country, and he proposed to meet the deficiency by a

vote of exchequer-bills on a subsequent occasion, in the nature of

a vote of credit. The chancellor of the exchequer next stated the

estimated income and expenditure of the present year; the former being

£48,128,000, and the latter £47,988,000, leaving an excess of £140,000.

In his statements the chancellor of the exchequer took a cheerful view

of the commercial prospects of the country; and he referred to the

increase of exports for the present year over those of 1838 as a symptom

of returning prosperity. So confident was he of a return of prosperity,

that he proposed to reduce the rates of postage. At this time there was

a committee sitting on the post-office acts; and Mr. Rice moved this

resolution:—“That it is expedient to reduce the postage charged on

letters to the uniform rate of one penny, for every letter of a weight

to be hereafter fixed by law; parliamentary privileges of franking being

abolished, and official franking strictly regulated. This house pledges

itself at the same time to make good any deficiency of revenue which

may be occasioned by such an alteration in the rates of the existing

duties.” In moving this resolution the chancellor of the exchequer said

that he proposed a penny rate, because he had been convinced by the

arguments and evidence of the committee that the latter expedient would

involve less loss to the revenue than a twopenny postage, which had been

recommended by the committee. After some observations from Mr. Goulburn

and Sir Kobert Peel, both of whom intimated further hostility to such a

change, the resolution was agreed to without a division. On the 12th of

July, when the order of the day was read for receiving the report of

a committee on the postage-acts, Mr. Goulburn rose for the purpose of

proposing a series of resolutions to be substituted for the report.

These resolutions were:—“That with a deficiency of revenue during

the three years ending on the 5th day of April, 1840, of not less than

£8,860,987, it is not expedient to adopt any measure for reducing the

rates of postage on inland letters to an uniform rate of one penny,

thereby incurring the risk of a great present loss to the revenue, at a

period of the session so advanced, that it is scarcely possible to

give to the details of such a measure, and to the important financial

considerations connected with it, that deliberate attention which they

ought to receive from parliament.” This amendment was opposed by the

chancellor of the exchequer, and supported by Sir Kobert Peel. After

a few words from Messrs. P. Thomson and Warburton in favour of the

proposition, the original question was carried by a majority of two

hundred and fifteen against one hundred and thirteen. The report was

then brought up and read; and on the question that the resolution

agreed to by the committee be read a second time, Sir R. Peel moved an

amendment to omit such part of the resolution as pledged the house to

supply any deficiency of the revenue occasioned by the reduction. This

amendment, however, was rejected, and the report agreed to; and on the

18th of July Mr. S. Rice brought in a bill, intituled, “An act for

the further regulation of the duties on postage until the 5th day of

October, 1840.” This bill was read a second time without a division, and

by the 29th of July it passed the commons.

The second reading was moved by Lord Melbourne in the house of lords on

the 5th of August; on which occasion the Duke of Wellington criticised

the manner and circumstances under which it had been brought forward in

the face of a deficiency of more than one million, which, considering

the state of our affairs both at home and abroad, was likely to be

greatly augmented by the 5th day of October, 1840. At the same time the

noble duke said that he would vote for the bill, and would recommend

their lordships to follow his example. Several other noble lords

addressed the house, chiefly in favour of the measure; and the bill was

then read a second time, and subsequently became law without further

opposition.

In his remarks on the postage-bill the Duke of Wellington recommended

ministers to reduce the amount of the floating debt, under the pressure

of which the market had been labouring, by funding exchequer-bills.

Apparently acting upon this suggestion, on the 12th of August Viscount

Melbourne and the chancellor of the exchequer made public their

determination, subject to the approval of parliament, to effect the

funding of four millions of exchequer-bills in the three per cent,

consolidated annuities. This arrangement was effected on the 17th.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

In the house of lords the labours of the session were brought to a

close by a long and animated discussion on a motion made on the 24th of

August, by Lord Lyndhurst, for “a return of all bills that had arrived

from the house of commons since the commencement of the session, with

the dates at which they were brought up.” In his speech, the noble

lord directed the attention of the house to the fate of four important

subjects—the Irish municipal corporations, the affairs of Canada,

the recommendations of the ecclesiastical commissioners, and tire

administration of justice; after which he went on to pass under a

searching review, the whole parliamentary conduct of ministers in the

course of the expiring session. Lord Melbourne replied in an effective

speech. Lord Brougham contended that the country would be glad to see

the Conservatives return to office.

Parliament was prorogued by her majesty in person on the 27th of August.

After being addressed by the speaker on the various measures which had

occupied the attention of parliament, and after having given the

royal assent to several bills, her majesty read the speech, which the

lord-chancellor put into her hands, in her usual distinct and impressive

manner. The speech referred to the various topics which had engaged the

attention of parliament, and the differences which had lately sprung up

between the British government and that of Persia.

AFFAIRS IN THE EAST INDIES.

Her majesty, in her speech on the prorogation of parliament, alluded to

an army which the governor-general had led across the Indus. This

“army of the Indus” was put in motion for the western frontier at the

commencement of the present year; and the circumstances which led to so

important a proceeding were briefly these. The kingdom of Affghanistan

has been called the land of transition between eastern and western Asia:

a proverb says, “No one can be king of Hindoostan without first becoming

lord of Cabool.” The founder of the Affghan empire was Ahmed Shah, who

died in 1773. Ahmed Shah made several victorious incursions into the

East; and his son, Timour Shah, followed his example. The decease of

Timour Shah, however, delivered over the Affghan empire to the domestic

hostilities of his sons; and the rival tribe of the Barukzyes

took advantage of their dissensions to precipitate them from their

sovereignty. When, indeed, Sir Alexander Burnes visited Affghanistan in

1833, the only portion which remained in the hands of a descendant of

Ahmed Shah was the principality of Herat. The remainder was parcelled

out in the following manner between the usurping family:—Dost Mohammed

Khan ruled in Cabool; Sirdar Sooltan Mohammed Khan ruled Peshawar,

although his two brothers. Peer and Sared Mohammed Khan, shared its

revenues; and Candahar was governed by Kohun Dil Khan, assisted by

Ruhun Dil and Shere Dil, his two brothers. The chief of Cabool owed his

success to Futteh Khan, the chief of the great family of Barukzyes, and

the most powerful of the Affghan nobles. Futteh Khan, in fact, governed

the kingdom under the designation of vizier, while Mahmood abandoned

himself to debauchery. If Mahmood, however, submitted to the ascendancy

of his able minister, not so did his son, the prince Kamrau. By his

orders Futteh Khan was seized at Herat and deprived of his eyesight;

and a few months afterwards the unhappy vizier was literally hacked to

pieces by the courtiers of Mahmood, in the presence of that monarch.

In the days of his power Futteh Khan had distributed the different

governments of his kingdom among his numerous brothers, and this act

drove them into rebellion. Mahmood abandoned his throne without a

struggle, and, although he retained Herat, with the title of king,

became, in effect, a vassal of Persia. The Barukzye brothers were

left to dispose of his dominions at pleasure, and they determined on

recalling Shoojah to the throne, who after many perilous adventures had

fallen into the hands of Runjeet Sing at Lahore. Shoojah escaped from

Lahore; but the Barukzye brothers having taken offence at his arrogant

treatment of one of their friends, transferred their support to his

brother, Gyooh: the trappings of royalty were given to him, while

they retained to themselves the power and revenues of the kingdom. The

dismemberment of the Affghan empire, however, from this time proceeded

more rapidly. Runjeet Sing seized some of its finest provinces,

including Cashmere; Shere Dil Khan established himself at Candahar as an

independent prince; Dost Mohammed made himself master of Cabool; Sirdar

Sooltan Mohammed Khan became tributary governor of Peshawar; Balkh was

annexed to the kingdom of Bokhara; and the Ameers of Scinde declared

themselves independent. Gyooh fled to Lahore; and the only province of

the kingdom which remained in the hands of a descendant of the royal

family was Herat. The prince who governed Herat was Kamrau, who had

directed that the eyes of his lather’s vizier, Futteh Khan, should

be put out. Without directly acknowledging the sovereignty of Persia,

Prince Kamrau had been for some years in the practice of rendering an

occasional tribute to the shah, as often as the governor of the Persian

province of Khorassan was strong enough to extort it from him. At

this time, however, the prince of Herat refused to perform any such

engagement; and he even permitted his vizier to pass through Siestan

into Khorassan, where he compelled the chiefs of Khiva and Khafin to

pay tribute to his master, and carried away twelve thousand persons, and

sold them as slaves. This conduct of Kamrau furnished Mohammed Shah, the

Persian monarch—who had recently ascended the throne by tire

assistance of British officers, and supplies of money from the English

treasury—with a pretext for endeavouring to make himself master of

Herat. There was an existing treaty between England and Persia, which

stipulated “that if war should ensue between the Persian and Affghan

governments, the English government should take no part in it; nor

should give assistance to either party, except as a mediator, at the

solicitation of both parties, for the purpose of producing peace.” Had

the Persian monarch limited his views to an attack upon Herat, this

treaty would have been binding on the English nation; but it soon became

evident that he extended them to Ghizni and Candahar. Mr. Ellis, who had

been sent to Persia as British envoy in the year 1835, thus wrote at the

commencement of the following year:—“The intention cannot be mistaken:

Herat once annexed to Persia, may become the residence of a Russian

consular agent, who would from thence push his researches and his

communications, avowed and secret, throughout Affghanistan. Indeed, in

the present state of the relations between Persia and Russia, it cannot

be denied that the progress of the former in Affghanistan is tantamount

to the advance of the latter, and ought to receive every opposition

from the British government that the public faith will permit.” Russian

influence, was, in fact, predominant in the councils of Mohammed Shah,

and the power of Russia appeared to stand higher in the general opinion

than that of Great Britain. Moreover, the Russian ambassador was urgent

upon the shah to complete his designs against Herat, and he even offered

his military services in the expedition. Under these circumstances Mr.

Ellis signified to the Persian ministers the extreme displeasure with

which the English would look upon the prosecution of any extended

schemes of conquest in Affghanistan: without disputing their right to

obtain redress from the prince of Herat, he intimated that the British

government would be better pleased if that purpose could be effected

by negotiation; and offered to send a British officer to Herat for the

purpose of facilitating the adjustment of the existing differences.

To this proposal the Persian ministers at first assented, but they

afterwards rejected it altogether. In the meantime Uzeez Khan arrived

on a mission from Kohun Dil Khan and his brothers at Candahar, with the

object of effecting an alliance offensive and defensive, with the shah,

and uniting in the attack upon Kamrau. Towards the close of 1835, Dost

Mohammed Khan, the chief of Cabool, also dispatched an agent to the

court of Persia with letters, in which he offered to co-operate in an

attack upon Herat, and sought in general the protection of the shall

against the Sikhs. The real objects of the chiefs of Candahar was also

to obtain protection from the same enemies; and neither they nor the

chief of Cabool had any disposition to become feudatories of Persia.

Thus supported, the shah set forth on his expedition; but owing to the

appearance of the cholera by the 3rd of November, 1836, he had only

reached Asterabad. His army was in fact reduced to such a deplorable

condition, from the scarcity of provisions and the predatory incursions

of the Turcomans, that all hopes of undertaking a winter campaign

against Herat were given up, and, despite the remonstrances of the

Russian plenipotentiary, the shah led back his forces into Persia. In

the meantime Mr. M’Neill had succeeded Mr. Ellis, and he did not fail to

make known the advice which had been tendered by the Russian ambassador

in the late expedition; and Lord Palmerston directed the Earl of Durham,

our envoy at Russia, to inquire of Count Nesselrode whether the Russian

envoy was acting in accordance with the instructions of his government.

It was stated in reply that if Count Simonich had acted in the manner

mentioned, it was done in direct opposition to his instructions: he had

been ordered to dissuade the shah from prosecuting the war at any time

and in any circumstances. It was added, that our minister in Persia must

have been misinformed; but in a subsequent despatch, Mr. M’Neill stated

that tire information he had given had been confirmed by the concurrent

testimony of all the Persians with whom he had conversed on the subject,

including the prime-minister. The allegations against Count Simonich

were, in fact, indisputable; and the prospect of a combination of

Russian and Persian influence could not fail to alarm the government of

India; and as the shah’s designs against Herat were not given up, Mr.

M’Neill was instructed to inform him that any attempt to prosecute

schemes of aggrandizement in Affghanistan would diminish the cordiality

existing between England and Persia. Mohammed Shah, however, was so far

from giving up his designs upon Herat, that he sought to obtain a more

intimate alliance with Russia; and he was so far successful, that an

envoy was dispatched by him with presents from himself and the Russian

envoy resident at his court, to Candahar and Cabool. His preparations

for war were still continued; and in the midst of them a messenger

arrived from Herat to negotiate an arrangement. Mr. M’Neil was invited

to take part in the conference. The terms brought by the envoy from

Herat were so advantageous that the British envoy recommended the

Persian government to accept them, lest the British government should

suspect that Persia, in persisting to prosecute the war, had other

objects in view than those avowed. The conditions, however, were

rejected, and it was evident that the shah would only be satisfied with

the sovereignty of Herat. His troops were again put in motion on the

23rd of July; but in consequence of obstructions, on the 14th of October

they had advanced no further than Nishapoor, about half the distance

from Teheran to Herat. About this time an emissary from Russia appeared

in the Persian camp, from whence he proceeded to Candahar and Cabool;

everywhere giving out that he was sent to intimate the arrival of a

large Russian army to co-operate with the army against Herat. Dost

Mohammed, the chief of Cabool, had sent agents to St. Petersburg, as

well as Teheran, to procure assistance against the Sikhs; and shortly

after, he applied with the same intention to Lord Auckland, who had just

arrived in India as governor-general. Lord Auckland decided on sending

Captain Burnes on a commercial mission to Cabool; and that officer

reached the capital of Dost Mohammed about the time that the Persian

and Russian agents arrived in Candahar and Cabool. Negotiations were

commenced between these various agents and the chief of Cabool; and

they were not concluded when the Persian army arrived before Herat. The

shah had previously captured the border fortress of Ghorian; but he was

destined to meet with a different reception before the city of Kamrau

Shah: week after week elapsed, and not the slightest impression was made

upon its walls. While the siege was proceeding, Lord Auckland directed

Mr. M’Neill to proceed to the camp, and make one more endeavour to

effect a pacific adjustment, and to obtain redress. He had so far

succeeded as to bring the mind of the shah to be favourable to a

treaty; but all his efforts were again set aside by the arrival of Count

Simonich, the Russian envoy, in the Persian camp. The siege, therefore,

continued, nor could subsequent efforts made by Mr. M’Neill set it

aside. His failure was made known to the British government; and on

the 21st of May he received a despatch from Lord Palmerston, which

authorized him to inform the shah that his designs were in complete

contravention of the spirit of the alliance subsisting between the two

nations; and that he must expect the cessation of intercourse in the

event of such hostile proceedings being persevered in. In consequence

of this direction Mr. M’Neill wrote the following letter to the Shah of

Persia:—“I am directed to inform your majesty that if Herat should have

surrendered to your majesty, the British government will consider your

continuing to occupy that or any other portion of Affghanistan as an

hostile demonstration against England. Your majesty is no doubt informed

by your government of Fars, that a body of British troops, and a naval

armament, consisting of five ships of war, have already arrived in the

Persian Gulf, and that for the present the troops have been landed in

the Island of Karrak. The measures your majesty may adopt in consequence

of this representation, will decide the future movements and proceedings

of that armament; but your majesty must perceive, from the view which

her majesty’s government has taken of the present state of affairs,

and from the effect which must have been produced upon the minds of her

majesty’s ministers and the British authorities in India, and by the

subsequent proceedings of the Persian government, with which they were

not then acquainted, that nothing but the immediate adoption of measures

complying with the demands of the British government, can induce the

authorities acting under the orders of that government to suspend the

measures that are now in progress for the defence of British interests,

and the vindication of British honour.” Before this declaration had come

to the hands of the Shah, the Persian army, after six days of incessant

battering, had made a general assault upon Herat; but although the

troops went forward courageously, and had even planted their standards

three several times upon the breach, they were finally defeated in

their attempt: the Affghans attacked them sword in hand, with energy too

resolute to be resisted, and drove them with great slaughter across the

ditch: nearly two thousand Persians were slain. This failure, however,

had not the immediate effect of forcing the Shah to raise the siege.

In the meantime Captain Burnes had failed in his mission to Cabool, and

Lieutenant Leach, who had been sent to Candahar, had met with the same

ill-success. A treaty had been concluded between Persia and the latter

state, under the warrant of the Russian minister; and a treaty of nearly

similar import was in progress at Cabool. Under these circumstances

preparations were set on foot for marching an army into Affghanistan.

The moment was very critical: there was a prospect of Persian dominion

and Russian supremacy in all the Affghan states. By Russian subsidies,

Kohun Dil Khan, chief of Candahar, besieged Furrah, a dependency of

Herat; and Dost Mohammed Khan, chief of Cabool, commenced a system of

hostile intrigues even in India. The Ameers of Scinde were called upon

to join the league against the English even by the Shah himself; and his

efforts were seconded by the Russian emissary, who had so successfully

fulfilled his mission at Candahar and Cabool. But notwithstanding all

these efforts, the failure of the recent assault of Herat, together with

the debarcation of troops at Karrak, and the military preparations which

were being made in the north of British India, finally led the Shah to

comply with all the demands of the British ambassador, and to abandon

his enterprise: the camp broke up on the 9th of September, 1838, and

returned to Teheran. Later in the year Count Nesselrode disclaimed

on the part of the Emperor of Russia all intentions of disturbing the

tranquillity of the British possessions in India; and by the month of

February, after considerable negociation, harmony was restored between

the Russian and the British governments. The operations of the British

army in India were not, however, wholly set aside by these events. At

the time of the raising of the siege of Herat, and the retreat of the

Shah of Persia, “the army of the Indus” was encamped at Simla, and was

about to be put in motion for Ferozepore, on the Sutledge. At Simla,

Sir Harvey Faroe, who commanded the troops, under the direction of the

governor-general, published a manifesto, which set forth the causes for

the assembling of the army, and the objects which the British government

had in view. As regarded the objects in view, the governor-general

said, in the manifesto, that he felt the importance of taking steps

for arresting the rapid progress of foreign aggressions towards our own

territories, and that his attention was naturally drawn to the position

and claims of Shah Soojah, who had, when in power, cordially acceded

to measures of united resistance against internal enmity; and as the

Barukzye chiefs were unfitted, under any circumstances, to be useful

allies to Great Britain, or aid us in our measures of national defence,

the governor-general felt warranted in espousing the cause of Shah

Soojah, whose popularity had been proved by the best authorities. A

tripartite treaty had, therefore, been concluded between the British

government, Runjeet Sing, and Shah Soojah, whereby the maharaja of the

Sikhs was guaranteed in his present possessions, and bound to co-operate

in the restoration of the Shah. The manifesto further set forth that a

guaranteed independence would be tendered to the Àmeers of Scinde; that

Herat would be left in the possession of its present ruler; and that

Shah Soojah should enter Affghanistan surrounded with his own troops,

and supported against opposition, foreign or domestic, by a British

army. As soon as these objects were effected, the British army was to

be withdrawn from the Affghan territory; but British influence was to

be used to further every measure of general benefit, and heal the

distractions which had so long afflicted the Affghan people: even those

chiefs whose hostile proceedings had been the cause of the measure,

would receive a liberal and honourable treatment. The grand objects,

therefore, for which the British troops were assembled at Simla, on tire

Jumna, were to dethrone the hostile chiefs of Candahar and Cabool, and

to re-establish the Shah Soojah in his dominions. On hearing of the

raising of the siege of Herat, the intentions of the Indian government

were in some degree modified. It was determined not to send forward the

whole force, a part only being thought sufficient to effect the objects

in view. The army of the Indus was in fact reduced to a _corps d’armée_,

and it was to be commanded by Sir John Keene, the commander-in-chief at

Bombay. The army was divided, and proceeded by two different routes; the

Bombay division being destined to bring Scinde to submission. The first

step of this division was to march upon Hyderabad, which was captured

without any effectual resistance. The seizure of the capital was

followed by the occupation of Kouratchee, the richest city in Scinde. By

these means the Ameers were brought to contract a fresh treaty with the

Indian government; agreeing to make an immediate payment of £300,000; to

abolish the tolls on the Indus; to maintain an auxiliary corps of four

or five thousand men under the command of British officers; and to pay

a tribute amounting to nearly one-half of their revenue. Each Ameer,

moreover, was for the future to look upon the English government as

his suzerain, and procure his separate recognition at its hands. In the

meantime the Bengal division was descending the bank of the Sutledge to

unite with the Bombay army at Shikarpore, on the confines of Scinde

and Affghanistan. The whole army assembled at Shikarpore, with the

contingent of Shah Soojah, towards the beginning of March. The fatigues

of the march, together with the assaults of the Beloches, had already

made fearful havoc with the ranks of the expedition; and as they

proceeded their sufferings increased. In the midst of trials and

difficulties, however, they pressed forward., and towards the middle

of April, they assembled beyond the reach of danger, in the valley of

Pisheen. How dreadfully they suffered in their route may be inferred

from the fact, that of 6,000 men which comprised the contingent of Shah

Soojah, only 1,500 escaped. Their greatest dangers were encountered

in the defiles of Bolau, where they not only had to contend with the

natural difficulties of the pass, but with the elements and fierce wild

robbers, who hovered upon their flank day and night. In the valley

of Pisheen, however, the survivors recruited their strength, and then

proceeded to action. Candah offered them no resistance; Kohun Dil Khan

quitted the capital and took refuge with his brother, Dost Mohammed., at

Cabool. The Bengal division entered the city of Candahar on the 24th of

April, and the Shah Soojah was solemnly crowned on the 8th of May. The

troops spent several weeks at Candahar, but on the 27th of June they

marched forward to Ghisneh. Operations, however, did not recommence till

the 21st of July. Ghisneh was captured, after a fierce struggle, on the

22nd, and the son of Dost Mohammed taken prisoner. The capture of

this strong fortress made a great impression upon the Affghans. It was

expected that the fortress would have kept the English in check for some

time; and under this impression Dost Mohammed was proceeding towards the

capital with his cavalry and a park of artillery. On hearing of the fall

of Gisneh, however, his army broke up, and Sir J. Keene then resumed his

march along the rich valley from Ghisneh to Cabool. Shah Soojah entered

Cabool on the 7th of August; and his rival, Dost Mohammed, being

abandoned by all but the members of his own Barukzye tribe, fled beyond

the mountains of the Hazareh into Bokhara. In order to complete the

conquest Major Outram was sent into certain disturbed districts between

Cabool and Candahar to tranquillize the disaffected Ghilzee tribes,

who had not yet acknowledged Shah Soojah, and replace the refractory

chieftains with newly-appointed governors. Khelat was also reinvested:

that fortress was captured by General Willshire, and the khan, Mehrat,

with many of his chiefs, fell fighting, sword in hand. Having achieved

these conquests, Sir J. Keene, leaving a detachment for the protection

of Shah Soojah, returned home with the main body. Mr. M’Naughten

remained as resident at the court of Cabool. Such was the issue of the

campaign in Afghanistan. Subsequently her majesty rewarded the services

of the more eminent actors in the war. The governor-general was created

Earl of Auckland, Sir John Keene was created Baron Keene of Ghuznee

in Affghanistan; and baronetcies were conferred on Mr. M’Naughten and

Colonel Pottinger.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

This year witnessed the virtual conclusion of the war in Spain. The

principal event which contributed to this consummation was the rupture

between the chief Maroto and Don Carlos. Maroto, indeed, with the

battalions of Castile, made their submission, and his defection was

followed by twenty-one more Carlist battalions. The terms of this

pacification were effected by Espartero; and having concluded them, he

led his army towards Don Carlos at Lecumberri. Not daring to await his

arrival, Don Carlos withdrew into the defiles of the Bastan; and from

the Bastan he fell back to Elisonda; and, finally, on the 14th of

September, with six Alavese and two Navarrese battalions, he took refuge

in France. The French government assigned to him the city of Bourges for

his temporary residence, and he was escorted thither by Marshal Soult.

The Carlist chief, Cabrera, continued for some months to maintain

his ground in the central provinces; but the struggle finally became

hopeless, and at the commencement of the succeeding year, he, with

20,000 men, followed the example of his master, and took refuge in

France. In Portugal the arrival of the bill which had been passed for

the suppression of the slave-trade, gave rise to much dissatisfaction.

The author of the measure, Lord Palmerston, was loudly charged with

hostility to Portugal, and a great estrangement prevailed for some time

between the two governments. The breach was widened by the demand made

by the British upon the Portuguese government for the payment of the

long pending civil and military claims due to the subjects of Great

Britain. The requisition was, it is said, accompanied by a menace, that,

in the event of a non-compliance, the British government would resort to

coercive measures. During this year the territorial differences between

Belgium and Holland were settled. The terms which the five powers

resolved should be agreed upon between the two parties have been seen in

a previous article; and it may be sufficient to state that Belgium, at

least accepted them with great reluctance. In Turkey events occurred

which attracted the notice of European powers. In 1838 the pacha of

Egypt had refused to pay any further tribute to the Porte; and this

announcement, together with the usurpation on the part of Meliemet

Ali of attributes peculiar to the commander of the faithful alone,

determined the sultan to make another effort for the reduction of his

vassal. He assembled a large army on the eastern bank of the Euphrates,

which menaced the Syrian dominions of the pacha; while Ibrahim, on

the other hand, proceeded to concentrate his forces around Aleppo.

The governments of France and England were apprehensive lest the

discomfiture of the Turkish army should be followed by the arrival of a

Russian force in the Bosphorus, in accordance with the stipulations of

the treaty signed on an analogous juncture at Unkiar Skelessi. Under

this apprehension the representatives of their respective courts at

Constantinople and Alexandria were directed to make every effort to

prevent war. Large concessions were made by Ibrahim through their

mediation; but the interpreters of the law at Constantinople assured

the sultan that it was the duty of every true believer to take up

arms against an impious usurper, and a solemn declaration of war was

accordingly read in all the mosques. In the month of June a great battle

took place between the contending armies near Nezib, in which the Turks,

under Hafiz Pacha, were utterly discomfited; six thousand of them were

left dead on the field, and ten thousand were left in the hands of

Ibrahim Pacha, together with fifteen thousand muskets, and more than

one hundred pieces of artillery. The sultan did not live to hear of

this disaster; he died on the 1st of July, and Abdul Mcdjio, a youth of

seventeen, assumed the reins of empire. The death of Sultan Mahmoud the

Second gave rise to negociation. The first act of the new sultan was to

forward to the viceroy of Egypt an offer of pardon, together with the

hereditary possession of the province of Egypt, on the condition that he

conformed to his duties of obedience and submission. Mehemet Ali appears

to have been willing to submit to these terms; but about the same time

that he received them, Achmet, the capitan pacha, had revolted from

the sultan, and had arrived at Alexandria. The Ottoman monarchy was

tottering to its fall; but at this critical juncture England, France,

Russia, Austria, and Prussia resolved to uphold the independence of

Turkey, as an essential element of the balance of power. The year,

however, closed before the negociations commenced were perfected.

CHAPTER LI.

{VICTORIA. 1840—1841}

Meeting of Parliament: Announcement of the Queen’s

Marriage..... Bill for the Naturalization of Prince

Albert..... The Civil List..... Question of Privilege:

Hansard and Stockdale..... Affairs of China..... Irish

Municipal Corporations Bill, &c. Financial

Statement..... The Union of the Canadas.....

Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill..... The Regency

Bill..... Prorogation of Parliament..... Affairs of British

India..... The Marriage of the Queen..... State of the

Continent.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.—ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUEEN’S MARRIAGE.

{A.D. 1840}

Parliament was opened on the 16th of January by her majesty in person.

The opening of her majesty’s speech was one of great interest. It read

thus:—“My lords and gentlemen—Since you have last assembled, I have

declared my intention of allying myself in marriage with the Prince of

Saxe Cobourg and Gotha. I humbly implore that the divine blessing

may prosper this union, rendering it conducive to the interests of my

people, as well as my own domestic happiness; and it will be to me a

source of the most lively satisfaction, to find the resolution I have

taken approved of by parliament. The constant proofs I have received

of your attachment to my person and family, persuade me that you will

enable me to provide for such an establishment as may appear suitable to

the rank of the prince, and the dignity of the crown.” In continuance,

her majesty congratulated parliament on the termination of civil war in

Spain; expressed a hope that the five powers would be able to preserve

the integrity of the Ottoman empire, and the peace of Europe; and

referred to the success of the European and native troops in India with

great satisfaction. Her majesty also declared her confident hope of

adjusting our difference with the court of Persia; and intimated that

serious attention had been given to her commercial relations with China.

In conclusion, her majesty recommended to the early consideration of

parliament two important measures relating to our home policy: namely,

the state of the municipal corporations in Ireland, and the measures

suggested by the ecclesiastical commissioners with respect to the church

establishment in this country. In the lords the address was moved by the

Duke of Somerset, and seconded by Lord Seaford. The Duke of Wellington

fully concurred in the expression of congratulation to her majesty upon

the alliance which had been announced to the country. But, his grace

continued, every precedent of the reign of George III. had been followed

in this matter except one, and that was the declaration that this prince

was a Protestant. He knew the prince was a Protestant; but as this was a

Protestant state, the fact that the prince was a Protestant should have

been officially declared. The house of lords could not omit this; and

therefore he moved the insertion of the word Protestant before the word

prince, in the first paragraph of the address. Lord Melbourne said that

he considered the amendment superfluous. The act of settlement required

that the prince should be a Protestant, and it was not likely that

ministers would advise her majesty to break through the act of

settlement. All the world knew that Prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg was

a Protestant, and that he was descended from the most emphatically

Protestant house in Europe. Lord Winchilsea did not regard the insertion

of the word Protestant as unnecessary. Near and dear relations of the

prince had become Roman Catholics, and the husband of the Queen of

Portugal, a first cousin of this very prince, was an avowed Romanist. In

the close of his observations, Lord Winchilsea adverted to the alarming

state of the country, and censured Lord Melbourne for having recently

presented Mr. Owen to the queen—a man who was the notorious advocate

of doctrines which struck at the root of all religion and morality.

The amendment was agreed to, and the address, as amended, ordered to be

presented to her majesty.

In the commons the address was agreed to; and her majesty subsequently

replied to the addresses of both houses, expressing satisfaction

at their loyalty and affection; thanking them for their support and

concurrence in her intended marriage; and assuring them that it would

be her endeavour to make her reign conducive to the happiness of all

classes of the community.

BILL FOR THE NATURALIZATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.

On the 20th of January, in the house of lords, a bill for naturalizing

his serene highness Prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg and Gotha was passed

through all its stages. On the second reading, the Duke of Wellington

objected that it was not only an act for the naturalization of Prince

Albert, but contained also a clause entitling the prince, “for and

during the term of his natural life, to take precedence in rank after

her majesty, in parliament and elsewhere, as her majesty may think

fit and proper; any law, statute, or custom to the contrary

notwithstanding.” Under these circumstances, his grace moved that the

debate be adjourned, as the house had not sufficient notice of the

contents of the bill, and as the title of it did not state anything

respecting the precedence of the prince. Lord Melbourne replied,

that the omission was purely accidental, and, in his opinion, of no

importance. At the same time his lordship admitted that this bill

differed in form from any other bills, inasmuch as it gave her majesty

an ability to bestow on Prince Albert a higher station than that

assigned to Prince George of Denmark, or Prince Leopold. But the reason

for the difference, he contended, was to be looked for in the relative

situation of the parties. The arrangements with regard to the marriage

of the Princess Charlotte were temporary; in this act it was intended

to raise the prince to a station next to that of the queen; and

no opposition had been offered to this course by those peculiarly

interested in point of rank. After a few observations from Lords

Brougham and Londonderry, the debate was adjourned till the following

week, when the lord-chancellor stated that he should propose that power

be given to the crown to allow the prince to take precedence next after

any heir-apparent to the throne.

Subsequently, however, Lord Melbourne, in moving the committal of the

bill, expressed himself so anxious that it should pass with all

possible expedition, that he had determined to leave out all relating to

precedence, and reduce it to a naturalization bill, as expressed in the

title. In that shape the bill passed without further opposition. In the

commons the bill was passed without discussion.

THE CIVIL-LIST.

On the 24th of June, after moving that the paragraph in the queen’s

speech relative to Prince Albert’s annuity be read, Lord John Russell

went into a long detail of precedents of grants to princes and

princesses allied to the royal family of England; and concluded by

moving “that her majesty be enabled to grant an annual sum of £50,000

out of the consolidated fund, for a provision to Prince Albert, to

commence on the day of his marriage with her majesty, and to continue

during his life.” The debate was adjourned for a few days, and on

its resumption Mr. Hume moved as an amendment, that £21,000 be voted

annually to Prince Albert, instead of £50,000. In his opinion, indeed,

no grant should be made during her majesty’s lifetime. The chancellor

of the exchequer replied to Mr. Hume, and several members spoke

in opposition to the grant; after which the house divided, on the

amendment, which was lost by a majority of three hundred and five

against thirty-eight. Ministers, however, were doomed to be defeated on

this question. Colonel Sibthorp had given notice that he would move an

amendment that £30,000 should be the extent of the annuity; and on

the defeat of Mr. Hume’s motion, the gallant colonel rose to move this

amendment. On a division it was carried by a large majority, the numbers

being two hundred and sixty-two against one hundred and fifty-eight.

This was a great triumph over the ministers, and Colonel Sibthorp was

so elated by it, that he endeavoured to follow it up a week or two

afterwards by moving for the insertion of a clause in the bill for

Prince Albert’s provision, to the effect that the annuity of £30,000

should cease altogether in case his serene highness should reside for a

less period than six months consecutively in each year within the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or should ally himself in marriage

with any foreign princess who should not be a Protestant, or should

cease to profess and adhere to the Protestant religion as by law

established in these realms. Both Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell

contended that such restrictions were inexpedient and inconsistent, and

the gallant colonel, finding that there was no chance of success, did

not press his motion to a division.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE—HANSARD AND STOCKDALE.

In the year 1835, a bill was proposed in the house of lords, by the Duke

of Richmond, for the purpose of appointing inspectors of prisons. In the

report of these inspectors, which was printed by Messrs. Hansard, it was

stated, that amongst other books in use by the prisoners, one published

by John Joseph Stockdale, in 1827, was of the most disgusting nature,

the plates being obscene and indecent in the extreme. In 1836, Stockdale

brought an action against Messrs. Hansard for the sale of this report,

on the ground that the allegation therein contained about the work was

a libel. The defendants pleaded two picas: first, “Not guilty;” and,

secondly, “That the words complained of in the declaration were true.”

The jury gave a verdict for the defendants on the second plea; and in

his charge to the jury, Lord Denman said that the fact of the house

of commons having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish all their

parliamentary reports, is no justification for them, or for any

bookseller, who publishes a parliamentary report containing a libel

against any man. On the 6th of February, 1837, Messrs. Hansard

communicated to the house of commons that legal proceedings had been

instituted against them by Stockdale, for the publication of the report,

in which he conceived himself to have been libelled. A select committee

was then appointed by the house to examine precedents, and report upon

the question of its privileges in regard to the publication of reports

and other matters. This committee decided in favour of the privilege,

which would protect any publication ordered by the house from being made

the subject of an action for libel; and the house of commons, on the

30th of May, 1837, passed the following resolutions:—“First, that the

power of publishing such of its reports, votes, and proceedings as

it shall deem necessary, or conducive to the public interest, is an

essential incident to the constitutional freedom of parliament, more

especially of this house, as the representative portion of it.—Second,

that by the law and privileges of parliament, this house has the sole

and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of

its privileges; and that the institution or prosecution of any action,

suit, or other proceedings, for the purpose of bringing them into

discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than a

parliament, is a high breach of such privilege, and renders all

parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to

the punishment consequent thereon.” The action, however, went on;

and Messrs. Hansard pleaded to the declaration to the effect that the

publication in question was a privileged one, on the ground that it was

issued by the authority of the house of commons. This plea was demurred

to as insufficient in point of law; and judgment was given by the court

against the defendants, and damages afterwards assessed, which were paid

over to the plaintiff. On the 31st of July, 1839, Messrs. Hansard

again informed the house that similar legal proceedings were threatened

against them on behalf of a Mr. Polack on account of some alleged

defamatory matter contained in a report of the state of New Zealand,

which had been published by order of the house of commons. In this case

they were directed by the house not to take any step towards defending

the action with which they were threatened; but subsequently Mr. Polack

communicated to the house that proceedings had been commenced without

his sanction, and that he had no intention of taking any legal steps

in the matter. The matter seemed thus set at rest; but on the 26th of

August, Stockdale commenced a third action against Messrs. Hansard, for

again publishing the same libel; the sale of each copy of the report

containing the alleged libel being, in contemplation of law, a fresh

publication of it. This was also communicated to the house of commons;

and Messrs. Hansard were again directed that the action should not

be defended. In consequence of this direction Messrs. Hansard served

Stockdale with formal notice of the resolutions of the house of commons;

but notwithstanding this, on the 26th of October, Stockdale filed

a declaration in the said action, wherein the damages were laid at

£50,000. On the 1st of November intercalatory judgment was signed for

want of a plea; and then Messrs. Hansard again caused notices against

proceeding with the said action, together with fresh copies of the

resolutions, to be served upon Stockdale. The action, however, went on;

notice was given that a writ of inquiry of damages would be executed

before the sheriff of Middlesex on the 12th of November. This writ was

executed, when the sheriffs’ jury assessed the damages at £600. Stockdale

then applied to the court of Queen’s Bench for a rule to compel the

sheriff to return the writ of inquiry. This was ordered; and on the

23rd of November a writ of _fieri facias_ was issued and lodged with the

sheriff, who thereupon took possession of the printing-office, premises,

and stock in trade of Messrs. Hansard. On the 16th of December, Mr.

Winsland, a builder, purchased of the sheriff goods belonging to Messrs.

Hansard to the amount of £695. The sheriff, however, had not paid this

money into the hands of Stockdale, when, on the 16th of January, the

case of Messrs. Hansard was brought before the commons by Lord John

Russell, who presented a petition from them, which prayed for such

relief, under the circumstances, as the house should deem proper. His

lordship said that it was incumbent upon the house to come to a decision

upon the question. There was, he continued, many ways in which they

might dispose of it. They might act upon their ancient and undoubted

right, and vindicate the violation of their privilege by the ancient

mode of commitment. That was the most constitutional course, and the one

most consistent with the dignity and privileges of the house. Again, the

house could, if it thought fit, direct that Messrs. Hansard should

plead in all cases of future action, and thereby bring the question of

privilege before the courts. They could abandon all their privileges,

confining all their papers to a circulation among the members only;

or they might proceed, if they thought it necessary to have the papers

circulated for general use, to provide for the settlement of the

question by a bill brought in for that purpose. But their present

position was one which ought not to continue; and he should move

that, John Joseph Stockdale, the plaintiff, Thomas Barton Howard,

his attorney, William Evans, the sheriff, Mr. Burchell, the deputy

under-sheriff, and the bailiff who acted in this case, be called to

the bar of the house, and then it would be in the power of the house to

adopt that course which, under all circumstances of the case, it might

think proper to pursue. After a long discussion, in which Sir. E.

Sugden, the attorney-general, and other members took part, this motion

was agreed to by a majority of two hundred and eighty-six against one

hundred and sixty-seven. On the following clay, January 17th, the

order of the clay for taking into consideration the petition of Messrs.

Hansard was read, and Lord John Russell moved that John Joseph Stockdale

be called to the bar. He was accordingly called in, and placed at the

bar, when the attorney-general interrogated him concerning the facts of

the different actions against Messrs. Hansard in which he was plaintiff.

After examining him, he was ordered to withdraw; when Lord John Russell

moved that John Joseph Stockdale, having brought an action against

Messrs. Hansard for the publication of a report ordered by this house

to be printed, has been guilty of a high contempt and breach of the

privileges of the house. Mr. Law proposed as an amendment that Mr.

Stockdale be discharged from his attendance at the bar; but, after an

animated discussion, the original question was carried by a majority of

two hunded and forty-nine against one hundred. Lord John Russell then

moved, that John Joseph Stockdale, for the said breach of privilege, be

committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, and that the speaker

do issue his warrant for the committal. After a brief discussion, this

was carried by a large majority; and on the next day the sheriffs and

bailiffs were called in, and, after examination, ordered to attend

on the following Monday. On that clay, the 20th of January, Lord John

Russell said that it became him now to state the precise course which

should be taken in the present stage of the proceedings; and, after

going at length into the whole question of privilege, he moved, “that

it appeared to the house that an execution in the cause of Stockdale

v. Hansard had been levied to the amount of £640, by the sale of the

property of Messrs. Hansard, in contempt of the privileges of that

house; and that such money then remained in the hands of the sheriff

for Middlesex.” If that resolution should be carried, he should move

further, “that the said sheriff be ordered to refund the said amount

forthwith to Messrs. Hansard.” Mr. F. Kelly opposed this motion, and

moved, by way of amendment, the following resolutions:—“That, it

appearing to this house that an action has been brought against James

Hansard and others, for the publication by them, under an order of this

house, of certain papers containing libellous matter upon John Joseph

Stockdale, and that judgment has been obtained, and execution issued

by due course of law against the said James Hansard and others in

such action: it is expedient that the said James Hansard and others be

indemnified against all costs and damages by them sustained in respect

of such action.” This amendment was supported by Sir Edward Sugden, and

opposed by Sir Robert Peel and the attorney-general; and, on a division,

the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and five

against ninety. Subsequently the sheriffs were called in, and committed

to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms; and Mr. Howard, the attorney

of Stockdale, reprimanded by the speaker at the bar, when he was

discharged. The matter, however, was not yet at rest.

On the 27th of January Lord John Russell gave notice that he had

received a petition from Messrs. Hansard, stating that a fresh action

had been commenced against them by Stockdale, and that a writ of summons

had been issued upon them on the 25th of January, by Thomas Burton

Howard, as attorney for Stockdale. A motion was carried, ordering the

said Thomas Burton Howard, forthwith to attend the house: but it was not

till the 6th of February that he could be found, and on that evening

he was ordered to be committed to her majesty’s gaol of Newgate.

Subsequently, on the 17th of February, Lord John Russell presented

another petition from Messrs. Hansard, to the effect, that the fifth

action had been renewed against them by Stockdale, for the same cause as

before, and praying to be directed as to the course they should pursue.

His lordship moved to the effect, that Stockdale, by commencing this

fresh action, had been guilty of a contempt of the house, and of a

breach of its privileges, and that the sheriffs, under-sheriffs, and

others, who should aid in the prosecution of the said action, would be

guilty of a contempt of the house, and of a violation of its privileges,

and would subject themselves to the severe censure and displeasure of

the house. This was carried; and on the following evening Thomas

Howard, jun., the attorney in this action, was, on the motion of the

attorney-general, committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms.

In the meantime several motions had been made for the discharge of the

sheriffs from prison, on the plea of ill-health. These had been all

negatived; but on the 5th of March, Mr. Sheriff Evans was allowed to be

set at liberty, being at the same time directed to attend at the bar

of the house on Monday, the 6th of April. On the same evening Lord John

Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill to give summary protection to

persons employed in the publication of parliamentary papers, which was

carried by a large majority; and the bill was brought in and read a

third time on the 12th of the same month. On the 31st of March the

sergeant-at-arms appeared at the bar, and acquainted the house that

on Saturday last the assistant-sergeant and four other officers of the

house had been served with notice that an action had been commenced

against them in the court of Queen’s Bench, at the suit of Thomas Burton

Howard. Under the impression that a verdict would certainly be given for

the defendants, the attorney-general moved that they should be allowed

to appear and defend the action; a motion which, after a few words in

opposition by Viscount Howick, was carried by a majority of one hundred

and forty against ninety-one. On the 6th April the bill relating to

the protection of persons employed in the publication of parliamentary

papers was sent up to the lords; and, after making some amendments

in committee, the lords passed it and returned it to the commons, who

agreed to the amendments; and on the 14th April the royal assent was

given to it by commission. On the 15th of April, on the motion of Sir R.

Inglis, Mr. Sheriff Evans and Mr. Howard, jun., were discharged. Messrs.

Thomas Burton Howard, sen., and Stockdale were still left in Newgate;

but, on the 15th of May, on the motion of Mr. T. Duncombe, they were

liberated likewise, and thus terminated this much-agitated and important

question. In the course of the discussion in the commons the ablest

lawyers spoke in favour of the particular privilege of free publication

claimed by the house, as essential to the due discharge of its functions

as a constituent branch of the legislature; but many of them dissented

from the doctrine that it was a breach of their privilege to bring them

under the cognizance of a court of law. Above all, they thought that

having once submitted the case to the court of Queen’s Bench, by

pleading in the action, they were bound to respect the judgment of the

court; and if they considered it erroneous, to bring it under the review

of a court of error, in the legal and constitutional mode, and not

proceed by arbitrary imprisonment against officers who merely acted

in their ministerial capacity, and who would have stood exposed to the

process of attachment, if they had refused to obey the writs which the

court called upon them to execute. Sir William Follett, indeed, broadly

stated that the commons were enforcing their privileges in a manner

that could not be maintained; that they were assuming powers which the

constitution did not give them; and that he was not able to vote for any

of the committals which had taken place. He did not deny that the house

was the exclusive judge of its own privileges, and that they had the

power of committal; but he did not think that if a servant of the house

should be questioned for any act done under their orders, that they had

a right to deprive the courts of law of their jurisdiction over that

servant.

AFFAIRS OF CHINA, ETC.

During the last year a serious collision took place between the Chinese

authorities and the British subjects at Canton. This arose out of the

contraband traffic in opium. The government of China resolved to put

an end to the commerce altogether, and with this view an imperial

commissioner arrived at Canton. He resorted at once to decisive

measures, by demanding that every particle of opium on board the ships

should be at once delivered up to the government to be destroyed; at

the same time requiring a bond that the ships would never again dare

to introduce that article. In the event of any opium being thereafter

brought, the goods were to be confiscated, and the parties were to

submit to death. Should the foreigners fail to comply with these

requisitions, Commissioner Lin threatened that they would be overwhelmed

by numbers and sacrificed. The whole foreign community was thrown into

a state of the deepest distress at these demands; and the chief

superintendent, Captain Elliot, considered it to be his duty to take his

own countrymen under his protection. He issued a circular, requiring the

surrender into his hands of all the English opium actually on the coast

of China. On the 3rd of April, however, 20,283 chests of opium were

delivered over to the commissioner, from the ships which had assembled

for that purpose below the Bocca Tigris. Some merchants had been

imprisoned by the Chinese authorities; but on the 4th of May leave was

given for all to quit Canton with the exception of sixteen individuals,

who ultimately took their departure with injunctions never to return.

Captain Elliot immediately ordered every subject of her majesty out of

the river; but he did not himself remove from Canton until the 25th of

May, when the proscribed persons had been released, and there remained

no other British subject in jeopardy. When they were out of danger,

he immediately wrote to the governor-general, detailing the course of

violence and spoliation which had broken up this great trade; and at the

same time applied for armed vessels from the Indian station to protect

life and property. Later in the year the breach was widened by an affray

which took place at Macao, between some English sailors and Chinese

villagers, in which, unfortunately, one of the latter was killed.

Commissioner Lin demanded of Captain Elliot that the homicide should be

given up; but this was refused, and in consequence an edict was issued

by Lin prohibiting any provisions or other articles being supplied to

the British at Macao. The British superintendent subsequently removed

his residence to Hong Kong, off which lay the _Volage_ frigate,

commanded by Captain Smith. At the latter end of the year Commissioner

Lin issued an edict against the importation of any British goods,

in which he ordained that a bond should be required from any vessel

entering the port, certifying that it did not contain any British

property on board, and consenting to the confiscation of the ship

and cargo, if any such should be therein discovered. In his edict,

Commissioner Lin gave all foreigners to understand that it was no use to

deceive the Chinese; for there were skilful translators and interpreters

among them, who would certainly ascertain the country from whence

they came. In this state of affairs. Captain Elliot sent a petition

to Commissioner Lin,’ entreating for the restoration of the trade with

Canton, until he received further advice from England. The commissioner

replied by a haughty refusal; enumerating all the offences of which, in

the eyes of the “great pure dynasty,” the British had been guilty; and

declaring that, until the murderer of the Chinese was given up,

there could be no intercourse allowed between the two nations. But

notwithstanding this peremptory refusal, a temporary adjustment of the

matters in difference so far took place, that Commissioner Lin permitted

the commerce of Great Britain to be carried on below the Bocca Tigris

until further instructions should be received from England. The

high-commissioner still insisted that the captains of all vessels

which traded with Canton should sign the required bond; and this was

unfortunately consented to by Mr. Warner, master of the ship _Thomas

Coutts_. The consequence of this consent was, that Commissioner Lin

determined to break off the arrangement concluded, unless the whole

British shipping which was re-entering the Bocca Tigris should agree

to the same terms: if not, the vessels were again to depart, or be

destroyed. Matters now proceeded to extremities; and the Chinese soon

received a lesson from British artillery. Finding that the inhabitants

of the celestial empire were preparing to attack the fleet, and that

Admiral Kwan lay in considerable force near Chuenpee, two English

frigates, the _Volage_ and _Hyacinth_, were removed to that

neighbourhood. Captain Elliot now prepared another address to

Commissioner Lin, and then went on board the _Volage_ frigate. That

vessel took up her station, on the 2nd of November, not far below the

first battery, where an imposing force of war-junks and fire-vessels was

collected. On the 3rd, the Chinese squadron, consisting of twenty-nine

sail, anchored close to the British vessels, and their attitude became

so menacing that Captain Smith, of the _Volage_, resolved to compel them

to return to their former anchorage. A brief action took place, which

told with terrible effect on the celestials: one war-junk blew up at

a pistol-shot distance from the _Volage_, three were sunk, and several

others water-logged. In about half-an-hour Admiral Kwan and his squadron

retired in great distress to their former anchorage, no obstruction

being offered to their retreat. But notwithstanding their palpable

defeat, as the English ships soon after set sail for Macao, the Chinese

claimed the victory. But this was only the beginning of their sorrows.

At the close of the year the English government determined to send an

expedition into the Chinese seas, which should be sufficient to attain

all the ends we had in view, and compel the great pure dynasty to

acknowledge the principles of international law which were acted upon by

all the civilized nations of the earth. This armament, which consisted

of eight ships of war with frigates, transports, and steamers, arrived

at its place of rendezvous at Singapore, in the month of April of

the present year. It was placed under the command of Admiral Elliot;

Commodore Sir J. J. Gordon Brewer was next in command, and Major-General

Burrell had the command of the military force. Previous to this an edict

had been issued, warning all foreign vessels from anchoring near the

devoted English ships, lest they should be involved in the destruction

preparing for the latter—“lest the gem should be consumed with the

common stone.” The first arrival of this armament in the Canton river

was her majesty’s ship _Alligator_, Captain Kuper, on the 9th of June.

Previous to this the Chinese authorities at Canton had sent a boat-load

of poisoned tea, packed in small parcels, to be sold to the English

sailors. This boat was captured by Chinese pirates, and her cargo

sold to their own countrymen, many of whom died in consequence. A

proclamation was issued, by the Chinese authorities, offering rewards to

all who should destroy the English, and who should be able to capture

an English man-of-war. An attempt was indeed made to burn the British

shipping, but this happily failed, and then Sir J. J. Gordon Brewer gave

public notice, that on and after the 28th of June, a blockade of the

river and port of Canton would be established. The commodore, however,

with several ships, sailed northward in the direction of Cliusan, and

he was followed on the 28th by Admiral Elliot and Captain Elliot. The

Chinese authorities now bestirred themselves vigorously to meet the

danger. By a proclamation issued on the 2nd of July, the people were

called upon to unite heart and hand with the government in opposing

the barbarians. All the proclamations and precautions of the Chinese,

however, were vain. On Sunday, the 5th of June, the British captured

Chusan: for the first time British cannon wrested from his celestial

majesty a portion of his dominions.

The policy of government with reference to the affairs of China was made

the subject of a series of condemnatory resolutions in parliament.

These were brought forward by Sir James Graham on the 7th of April,

who introduced the subject by calling the attention of the house to the

magnitude of the interests involved in our relations with China. The

right honourable baronet then went into a detailed history of the

disputes of which a brief account is given above; and finally concluded

by moving, that “it appears to the house, in consideration of the

papers relating to China, presented to this house by command of

her majesty, that the interruption in our commercial and friendly

intercourse with that country, and the hostilities which have since

taken place, are mainly to be attributed to the want of foresight and

precaution on the part of her majesty’s present advisers in respect to

our relations with China; and especially to their neglect to furnish

the superintendent at Canton with powers and instructions calculated to

provide against the growing evils connected with the contraband traffic

in opium, and adapted to the novel and difficult situation in which the

superintendent was placed.” Mr. Macauley replied to Sir James Graham;

and a long debate ensued, in which the motion was supported by Sir

W. Follett, Messrs. Thesiger, Sidney Herbert, W. E. Gladstone, and G.

Palmer; and opposed by Sirs George Staunton, S. Lushington, and J. C.

Hobhouse, and Messrs. Hawes, C. Buller, and Ward. The debate was closed

by powerful speeches from Sir Robert Peel in support of the motion, and

Viscount Palmerston against it. On a division the motion was negatived

by a majority of two hundred and seventy-one against two hundred and

sixty-two.

THE IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL, ETC.

The second reading of the Irish municipal corporations bill was moved on

the 14th of February in the commons by Viscount Morpeth. It was carried

by a majority of one hundred and forty-nine against fourteen; and the

house, on the 24th of February, went into committee on the bill, when

several amendments were proposed and negatived. The bill was read a

third time in the commons on the 9th of March; but the second reading

was not moved in the lords until the 4th of May. The Earl of Winchilsea

moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months, which

amendment was supported by the Marquis of Westmeath; but the Duke of

Wellington recommended their lordships to vote for the second reading;

and, after a few words from Viscount Melbourne, it was carried by a

large majority. The house went into committee on the 19th of June,

when the Bishop of Exeter delivered a powerful speech against it. Their

lordships, however, went into committee, and Lord Lyndhurst proposed

several amendments, which were ordered to be printed. On a subsequent

evening, Lord Lyndhurst explained the nature of his amendments, and when

the house was in committee, he moved and carried an amendment which went

to preserve the inchoate rights of freemen, which under this bill were

threatened. Several other amendments were agreed to without a division,

and some clauses were struck out; and on the 6th of July the bill was

recommitted in the house of lords. The third reading was moved by

Viscount Duncannon on the 31st July, when Lord Lyndhurst proposed and

carried an amendment relating to the recorder of Dublin. He proposed to

strike out of the 161st clause, which had reference to the holding of

the recorder’s court, these words, “or as the lord-lieutenant shall

from time to time think fit to direct.” This proposition was resisted

by ministers, but was carried by a majority of sixteen. On the question

that the bill do now pass, it was again opposed by the Bishop of Exeter,

who predicted that “it would not, and could not come to good;” but it

passed, and the bill was, on the 3rd of August, brought down to the

commons.

After a brief discussion in the lower house, managers were appointed to

conduct a conference with the lords on the subject of their amendments,

and the result was more harmonious than heretofore: in some things the

commons gave way to the lords, and in others, the lords gave way to the

commons; and by this mutual concession, the bill finally received, on

the 10th of August, the royal assent.

On the 14th of February Mr. Labouchere moved the second reading of the

importation of flour info Ireland bill, which, after some opposition

offered by Mr. E. Tennent, was carried by a majority of one hundred and

fifty-four against one hundred and two.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT, ETC.

The ministerial budget was brought forward on the 15th day of May. The

total income of the year 1840 amounted to £47,685,000, and the total

expenditure £49,300,000; leaving a deficiency of £1,457,000. With a

view of meeting this deficiency, however, a vote of £1,000,000 of

exchequer-bills had been taken, which reduced the balance to £457,000.

Mr. Baring calculated the expenditure of the current financial year to

be £49,432,000, and the income £46,700,000. To meet the deficiency he

proposed to increase the assessed taxes fen per cent.; the customs and

excise five per cent.; to lay an additional duty of fourpence per gallon

on all spirits, British, colonial, and foreign; and to take a vote of

credit of £395,000. He, expected, also, that by a more strict collection

of the assessed taxes he should obtain £150,000. His income and

expenditure would thus be made equal; but as the increase to be derived

from raising the duties would not be available to the full extent this

year, he thought it would be necessary to take a vote of credit for

£350,000. He concluded by moving resolutions authorizing him to make the

proposed additions to the taxes.

THE UNION OF THE CANADAS.

On the 23rd of March Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in

a bill for the union of the Canadas. His lordship said, that he had

allowed no time to elapse since the arrival of the propositions from

the governor-general of Canada, who had taken the greatest pains to

ascertain the sentiments of the people in that colony upon the measure

he was about to introduce. In his opinion the union would not have

been expedient, had it been repugnant to the feelings of the Canadians

themselves. “But,” continued his lordship, “the council of Lower Canada

have been called together, and have passed resolutions agreeing to

the principle of an union, but leaving the details to the imperial

parliament. In Upper Canada, the measure has been much discussed,

both in the assembly and the legislative council; and, after a full

consideration of the whole question, a resolution in favour of the union

was passed, unfettered by any restrictions or conditions.” His lordship

proceeded to state the nature of the proposed union. With regard to the

legislative council and assembly, it was proposed, that, together with

the governor, they should form the legislature; and that the crown, or

the governor on the part of the crown, should appoint the legislative

crown councillors. The nomination of the council was to be for life, the

only disqualification being bankruptcy or crime. It was further proposed

that the number of representatives sent by Upper and Lower Canada should

be equal, with the power of adding members as the population increased.

Thirty-nine members were to be allowed to each province, and distributed

without any great alteration of the existing boundaries. In Upper

Canada, the towns of Kingston, Hamilton, Brockville, London, Niagara,

and Cornwall, and in Lower Canada, Montreal, Quebec, and the three

Rivers were each to send one member; the rest of the members for each

province were to be returned by districts which were to be denominated

“counties.” Lord John Russell next entered upon the question relating

to the laws, and to the mode in which they were to be enacted. A general

power only was to be given to the assembly to enact laws: certain

subjects were to be reserved for the assent of the crown, such as those

pointed out by the constitutional act of 1791. It was proposed that

money-votes should not originate with the assembly; but that a message

from the governor, giving the assembly the power of addressing him,

should precede any vote on such matters. A permanent appropriation was

to be made for the governor and judges, and the civil secretary and all

the various expenses connected with the civil establishments were to be

voted, either for a period of years, or during the life of the queen. It

was also proposed that the duties included in the act introduced by the

Earl of Ripon, and collected under the 14th George III., should become

part of the crown revenue. His lordship continued to say, that in Upper

Canada there was already the form of a municipal government: there were

townships and elective offices; and they had likewise districts formed

of two or more counties, which were attached to the local courts for the

administration of justice: but their powers were limited. He proposed

that the power of these municipal councils should be increased, and

that they should be enabled to lay a tax of threepence an acre upon

all lands. The same authority in local matters was to be granted to

the municipal courts in Lower Canada—that of forming districts and

settling the boundaries of such districts. His lordship concluded by

making some remarks on the clergy reserves, in the course of which he

stated that a bill had been passed by the Upper Canada assembly, which

proposed that the clergy reserves should be sold, and that one half of

the proceeds should be given to the churches of England and Scotland,

and that the remaining half should be divided among the clergy of all

denominations of Christians recognised by certain acts of the province,

such as that of registration. His lordship thought that this bill would

give general satisfaction; but Mr. Hume stated that the noble lord

was mistaken in supposing that such a bill would settle discontent in

Canada. The Canada union bill was read a first and second time without

opposition; and on the 29th of May Lord John Russell moved that the

house should go into committee on its details. After a few words in

opposition from Messrs. Pakington and O’Connell, and in support of it by

Messrs. Gladstone and Charles Buller, the house went into committee, and

the various clauses of the bill were all agreed to almost unanimously.

The third reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and fifty-six

against six. In the course of the discussion Sir Robert Peel had

suggested that the civil-list should be charged on the consolidated fund

of the provinces, and Mr. Ellis had proposed the omission of all the

clauses relating to district councils; and on a subsequent evening Lord

John Russell intimated that he should adopt those suggestions. On

the second reading in the house of lords, on the 30th of June, a

considerable discussion took place; but the bill was allowed to go into

committee without a division. In committee the Duke of Wellington moved

that the commencement of the operation of the act should be postponed

to fifteen months, instead of six, after its passing, as proposed by

government; and Lord Ellenborough moved a clause to empower the governor

and two-thirds of the council to suspend any member guilty of unworthy

and disreputable conduct. Both these amendments were agreed to, and the

bill afterwards was read a third time. A bill introduced by Lord John

Russell for the sale of the Canada clergy reserves also subsequently

passed, without much opposition, through both houses of parliament.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES BILL.

During Sir Robert Peel’s administration in 1835 an ecclesiastical

commission had been appointed for the purpose of considering what

changes could be made in the distribution of the revenues of the church

of England with benefit to the establishment and to the community at

large. These commissioners had made their report, and her majesty in her

speech at the opening of parliament had advised the prosecution of the

measures recommended by the commissioners. The plan chiefly consisted in

a modification of the constitution of chapters and cathedral colleges,

and in the reduction of the expenses of cathedral establishments to a

large amount; the saving to be expended in the augmentation of small

livings, and the supplying the existing want of spiritual instruction

by means of additional churches and resident clergymen. The measure

for these purposes, which was introduced in the commons by Lord John

Russell, created but little discussion and still less opposition; but

in the house of lords it was not looked upon with so much favour. The

second reading was moved by Lord Melbourne on the 27th of July, and

was carried by a majority of ninety-nine against forty-eight. The house

subsequently went into committee, and some amendments were proposed, but

none which affected the leading principles of the bill.

THE REGENCY BILL.

In consequence of a message from the crown, a bill was passed during

this session, appointing his royal highness Prince Albert regent in

the possible event of her most gracious majesty’s decease, during the

minority of any issue to her majesty, whilst such issue should be under

the age of eighteen years, and for the care and guardianship of such

issue. This bill was introduced by the lord-chancellor on the 16th of

July, and was passed with the unanimous approbation of both houses of

parliament.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by her majesty in person on the 11th of August.

The speech congratulated both houses on the termination of the civil

war in Spain; and informed them that the government of Portugal had made

arrangements for satisfying certain just claims of some of her majesty’s

subjects, and for the payment of a sum due to this country under the

stipulations of the convention of 1827. Her majesty further said that

she was engaged, in concert with the Emperors of Austria and Russia

and the King of Prussia, in measures tending to effect the permanent

pacification of the Levant. After alluding to the disputes with China,

her majesty proceeded to make some remarks on the subject of Canada and

the legislative bodies of Jamaica, &c.: and the speech concluded with

an expression of regret that it had been found necessary to impose

additional burdens upon the people.

AFFAIRS OF BRITISH INDIA.

The army of the Indus having achieved the object for which it had

been sent to the north-western extremity of India, by seating Shah

Soojah-ool-Moolk on the throne of Cabul, and by storming the fortresses

of Ghuznee and Khelat, commenced its retrograde march in the middle of

October. 1839. The army marched in two divisions, one to Bengal, under

Sir J. Keene and the other to Bombay, by the Bolau Pass and Scinde. At

this time Dost Mohammed seemed shorn of his power; he had retired across

the Hindoo Koosh, the passes of which were guarded, and the chiefs

of Balkh and Bokhara refused to join him. But although the prowess of

British arms had wrested from him the throne of Afghanistan, Shah Soojah

was by no means secure of it a moment longer than he was supported by

European aid, The precarious tenure by which he held his power was seen

early in this year, when Syed Hoshein, the chief of Koona, sent a letter

to his majesty, couched in the most insulting terms, and stating that,

as he had heard the Russians were advancing, it was his intention to

join them. On hearing this Sir Willoughby Cotton, who commanded one

division of the force which was returning to Bengal, despatched Colonel

Orchard from Jellalabad, with a body of troops to attack the fort of

Pooshat, where the Koona chief resided. Pooshat was captured, but Syed

Hoshein escaped. The state of Affghanistan, however, still remained

unsettled, for Dost Mohammed was employed with restless activity in

intriguing among the native princes, with a view to recovering the

throne which he had lost; and at the close of the year the British

troops which had been left to support Shah Soojah imperatively demanded

refreshment and repose. In testimony of the services of the army of the

Indus, Lord Auckland resolved that all the corps, European and native,

in the service of the East India Company, which proceeded beyond

the Bolau Pass, should have on their regimental colours the word

“Affghanistan,” and such of them as were employed in the reduction of

the fortress of that name the word “Ghuznee” in addition. In the same

general order he stated, on behalf of the queen’s regiments, that he

would recommend to her majesty that the same distinction should be

granted to them. Besides this complimentary notice, Lord Auckland

ordered that a donation of six months’ full or field batta should

be given to officers and men of every rank attached to the army who

advanced beyond the Bolau Pass.

THE MARRIAGE OF THE QUEEN.

Her most gracious majesty Queen Victoria was married to Prince Albert

of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha on the 10th of February. This event gave great

satisfaction to the people generally, both in the dominions of her

majesty and in the duchy of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year the Carlists in Spain were compelled to give up the

contest which they had so long carried on against the queen regent. All

the principal places held by the chiefs of that party still remaining in

the country, fell into the hands of the Christino generals; and Cabrera

and Balemaseda took refuge in France, while Borso, another Carlist

leader, was captured and shot. In the spring of this year a question

arose with the Neapolitan government and the British cabinet, which led

to hostilities on the part of England, and at one time threatened to

involve other powers in Europe in a general quarrel. This question

related to the “sulphur monopoly.” A treaty existed which gave certain

commercial advantages to England in respect of sulphur, and the treaty

set forth that the Neapolitan government was not to grant any

state mercantile privileges hostile to the British interests. But

notwithstanding this distinct stipulation, the King of Naples granted

some natives of France, in 1838, as well as others of different

countries, a monopoly of all the sulphur produced and worked in Sicily.

Great Britain naturally considered this grant to be a direct infraction

of the stipulation of the existing treaty; and Lord Palmerston called on

the Neapolitan government for the immediate termination of the monopoly,

and full indemnity for all losses sustained by British subjects arising

therefrom. The king professed to comply: Prince Cassaro, the minister

for foreign affairs, wrote a note to Mr. Kennedy, stating that the

monopoly should be abolished, and that the King of Naples acted thus

in deference to England. Shortly afterwards, however, his Neapolitan

majesty signified to the British minister that he had determined not to

consent to the demands of Great Britain, he not considering the sulphur

contract a violation of the treaty of 1816. The British government now

proceeded to enforce its demands: orders were sent to Admiral Sir R.

Stopford, in the Mediterranean, to hold himself in readiness to commence

active hostilities against the Neapolitan flag. Hostilities commenced on

the 17th of April by the British ships of war in the vicinity of Naples;

an embargo was laid on all in the ports of Malta that bore the Sicilian

flag. At first the king prepared to resist: but he was induced finally

to accept the proposed mediation of France, in adjusting the quarrel,

on the principle that the monopoly should be dissolved, and an indemnity

given to the contractors. Early in May amicable relations between the

courts of England and Naples commenced. In the month of July this year,

the affairs of the Levant were brought to a crisis. A convention was

signed at London between England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia—France

declined to concur in it; whereby the following ultimatum was offered

to the viceroy of Egypt. He was to have the hereditary sovereignty of

Egypt, and the possession of the pashalic of St. Jean d’Acre for life.

If within ten days from the notification of these terms the pasha should

not accept them, the Sultan was to offer him Egypt alone; and, if he

still persisted in refusing, the four powers were to compel him by force

to accede to the proposed settlement. Disliking the terms, Mehemet Ali

endeavoured to gain time by offering a negociation with the Porte: Rifat

Bey was sent to Constantinople with certain proposals; but these were

not deemed satisfactory; and the Sultan, acting upon intemperate

advice, pronounced the formal deposition of the Sultan of Egypt from his

pashalic, and sent a firman to Alexandria to notify that event. Mehemet

Ali intimated his intention of repelling force by force; and it was then

resolved by the four powers that the ports of Syria and Egypt should

be declared to be in a state of blockade. Captain Napier immediately

captured some Egyptian vessels off the coast of Syria; and on the 9th of

September, Admiral Stopford appeared off Beyrout, and the next day made

preparations for bombarding and taking that town and fortress. Beyrout

was captured, and the troops of Ibrahim Pasha, which consisted of 14,000

men, subsequently dispersed, while he himself fled to Damascus. The

ports of Syria and Alexandria were now strictly blockaded, and in a

short time after, Tripoli, Tortosa, and Latakia were evacuated by their

Egyptian garrisons, St. Jean d’Acre was next captured, and the Egyptian

garrisons in Caiffa and Jaffa immediately evacuated those places; and

while they were endeavouring to force for themselves a passage through

Palestine into Egypt, were taken prisoners of war. The Syrian tribes,

which had hitherto been in the interest of the Pasha of Egypt, now

declared in favour of the Sultan, and on the 19th of November the

Seraskier was informed that the garrison and inhabitants of Jerusalem

had returned to their allegiance to the Porte. About this time

negociations were commenced between Commodore Napier and the Pasha of

Egypt, but the year closed before a convention was ratified. In Holland,

this year was signalized by the abdication of its monarch, William I.

In the month of October he voluntarily laid down the crown, and was

succeeded by his eldest son, the Prince of Orange, who ascended the

throne by the title of William II. In Prussia there was also a change

in the monarchy: Frederick William III. expired at Berlin on the 7th of

June, and he was succeeded by his son Frederic William IV.

CHAPTER LII.

{VICTORIA. 1841—1842}

Meeting of Parliament..... Poor-law Amendment Act.....

Jews’ Civil Disabilities Removal Bill..... Church of

Scotland; Non-intrusion Question, &c. Law Reform.....

Financial Statements..... Discussion on the Corn-laws.....

Resolution of Want of Confidence in the Government.....

Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament..... State of

Parties..... Meeting of the new House of Commons,

&c. Resignation of Ministers..... Sir Robert Peel’s

Administration..... Statement of Sir Robert Peel as to his

intended Course of Proceeding, &c. Financial

Statement..... Poor-laws, &c. East India Affairs.....

State of the Continent.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1841}

Parliament was opened by her majesty in person, on the 26th of January.

Her majesty’s speech chiefly referred to the posture of affairs in the

Levant and China, and to serious differences which had arisen between

Spain and Portugal about the execution of a treaty concluded by those

powers in 1835, for regulating the navigation of the Douro.

On the 4th of February the Earl of Minto moved the thanks of the house

to Admiral Sir Robert Stopford, G.C.B., and the officers and men under

his command in the late operations on the coast of Syria. This motion

was carried _nem. con_. The same unanimity prevailed also in the commons

on the same subject.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

On the 29th of January Lord John Russell moved in the house of commons

for leave to bring in “a bill to continue the poor-law commission for a

time to be limited, and for the further amendment of the laws relating

to the poor in England.” The powers of the commissioners were to be

continued for ten years, and when his lordship had made this known,

several members, as Sir. Burdett, and Messrs. Wakley and Hume, opposed

such an extension of powers to them. Leave, however, was given to bring

in the bill on the 8th of February; and an important debate took place

on the second reading. The debate was opened by Mr. D’Israeli, who

opposed the bill, and moved that it should be read that day six months.

Mr. Wakley seconded this amendment. The motion was carried by a majority

of two hundred and one against fifty-four. But although the principle of

the bill was thus emphatically confirmed, yet on several occasions the

attacks upon it were renewed by its opponents with much acerbity. Upon

the motion for the committal of the bill, Mr. Townley Parker moved, and

Mr. Grimsditch seconded the motion, that it should be committed that day

six months: but this was negatived by a large majority, and the bill was

committed. When the bill was in committee, government gave up the

longer period of ten years for the continuance of the powers of the

commissioners, and reduced it to five, in deference to the opinion

expressed by Sir Robert Peel, and other members. After this, the

bill was considerably delayed in its progress by a great variety of

amendments suggested by members on both sides of the house, to several

of which government assented, and one or two of which were carried

against the wishes of ministers.

JEWS’ CIVIL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.

During this session, Mr. Divett, one of the members for Exeter,

introduced a bill, the object of which was to do away with the

declaration required by the municipal corporations act from all persons

taking corporate offices, by reason of which members of the Jewish

persuasion had been debarred from holding civic magistracies. This bill

was opposed on the second reading by Sir R. Inglis; but on a division

it was carried by a majority of one hundred and thirteen against

twenty-four. On the third reading Mr. Gladstone moved that it be read

that day six months; a motion which was seconded by Mr. Pringle; both

objecting to the principle of the bill, as hostile to the constitution

and repugnant to the feelings of Christians. Mr. Macauley and Lord

Sandon supported, and Mr. Goulburn and Sir R. Inglis opposed the

measure. The third reading was carried in the commons by a majority of

one hundred and eight against thirty-one; but the bill experienced a

different fate in the house of lords. It passed a second reading; but

on the third reading its rejection was moved by the Bishop of Llandaff,

which was carried by ninety-eight against sixty-four: the bill was

consequently lost.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: NON-INTRUSION QUESTION, ETC.

On the 1st of May, the Duke of Argyle introduced a measure with

reference to the right of patronage in the church of Scotland: a

question which had been long the subject of controversy. In introducing

his bill, the noble duke, after referring to the history of the various

acts of the legislature affecting the right of patronage in the church

of Scotland, proceeded to read some letters from Drs. Gordon and

Chalmers, and others of the dominant party in the church, with the view

of showing that the total abolition of patronage, as by law established,

was not the means by which this party desired the settlement of the

existing differences. The object of the bill proposed, the noble

duke subsequently explained, was to give effect to the principle of

non-intrusion on the right of the congregation to give their approval or

dissent to the appointment of any presentee that might be offered them

by the patron. He felt convinced, he said, that unless some measure to

this effect were passed, the most lamentable consequences to the church

of Scotland would ensue, and there can be no doubt but a secession of

a large number of the members of the church would take place; while, if

the principle of non-intrusion were conceded, the surest means would

be taken to put an end to the agitation of those who were opposed to

patronage. Lord Aberdeen said that he wished to give full expression

to the genuine and honest feelings and wishes of the people in these

matters, but he could not give his support to a measure which might lead

to the monstrous consequence of compelling the presbytery to reject a

presentee, though he were objected to for no other reason than because

he had been presented, or because he had been compelled to take the oath

of allegiance. Lord Dunfermline and the earl of Haddington opposed, and

the marquess of Breadalbane supported the measure, and it was read a

first time. On the 27th of May, the general assembly of the church of

Scotland deposed seven clergymen of the presbytery of Strathbogie, and

these seven ministers appealed to parliament. A petition was presented

from them on the 15th of June, by Lord Aberdeen, in which they called

upon the house to save them, by its interference, from the consequences

of the sentence which had been pronounced. This petition gave rise to

a discussion in the house of lords, but no step was taken for the

restoration of the deposed ministers.

LAW-REFORM.