During this session there was a further mitigation of the criminal code.

Two bills were introduced for this purpose in the house of commons. The

first of these was introduced by Mr. Kelly, who proposed to abolish the

punishment of death for all the crimes still capital, except murder and

treason. This motion was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and the bill was brought

in; but shortly afterwards a measure was introduced on the part

of government, by Lord John Russell, which proposed to abolish the

punishment of death in certain cases of embezzlement; for the offence of

returning from transportation; for burning ships, where the act involved

no treasonable intent; and for the crime of rape. Mr. Kelly approved of

this measure as far as it went, but contended for the superiority of his

own more comprehensive measure. He particularly objected to leaving the

offence of setting fire to ships in the royal dock-yards capital, and to

retaining the punishment of death for attempts to murder. Mr. Kelly’s

bill went first into committee; but he experienced so many defeats that

he was induced to leave government to deal with their own measures on

the same subject. The result was, that near the close of the session a

bill was passed, whereby the punishment of transportation for life is

substituted for death in all cases of forgery and embezzlement, which

had before remained capital, and the crime of rape is made subject to

the same mitigated penalty.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

On the 31st of April, the chancellor of the exchequer entered into his

financial statement. When he came forward last year, he said, he had

anticipated that the expenditure would amount to £49,499,000, and the

income to £48,641,000; leaving a deficiency of £858,000. The results

of the year had proved less favourable than he had anticipated: the

expenditure had amounted only to £49,285,000, but the income had only

reached £47,443,000, leaving a deficiency of more than £1,840,000.

He calculated that the expenditure for the ensuing year would be

£50,731,226, and the income £48,310,000, which would leave a deficiency

of £2,421,000 to be provided for. In order to raise the revenue, Mr.

Baring proposed to deal with the two articles, timber and sugar. The

present duty on colonial timber, he said, amounted to ten shillings

a load, and on Baltic timber fifty-five shillings. These duties he

proposed to modify, by raising that on colonial to twenty shillings,

and reducing that on Baltic to fifty shillings a load, by which he

anticipated an increased revenue of £750,000. He next explained that the

alteration which he intended to propose in the sugar-duties would still

leave a protection of fifty per cent. to colonial sugar. He would leave,

he said, the duty on colonial sugar at the present amount of twenty-four

shillings per cwt., but that on foreign sugar, amounting to sixty-three

shillings, he proposed to reduce to thirty-six shillings per cwt.; from

which change he expected an augmentation of revenue of £700,000. There

would still, he said, be a deficiency to be provided for. But Lord

John Russell had that evening given notice of his intention at an early

period to submit the question of the corn-trade to the consideration of

the house; and if the propositions of his noble friend were agreed to,

he should be under no uneasiness about the deficiency; if not, it would

be his duty to make provision by direct taxation. Messrs. Hume, Ward,

Villiers, and other members, expressed their satisfaction at the

propositions of the chancellor of the exchequer, while Lord Francis

Egerton, Viscount Sandon, Sir Robert Peel, and Messrs. Goulburn and

Christopher, complained of them, and especially of the announcement of

an intended alteration in the corn-laws. The debate on the budget was

protracted to a considerable length, and the nature of the discussion

will be seen in the following article.

DISCUSSION ON THE CORN-LAWS.

The announcement made by Mr. Baring, that an alteration in the corn-laws

was contemplated by government, caused the anti-corn-law party to set to

work with activity to organize new associations, to despatch lecturers

and emissaries, which might rouse the public mind throughout the

country, and to get up requisitions for public meetings in the principal

towns. In parliament, also, the opposition lost no time in coming to the

attack. On the 3rd of May, the Duke of Buckingham presented one hundred

and twenty petitions against a repeal of the corn-laws.

In the house of commons, Viscount Sandon gave notice of the following

resolution, which he would move on going into the committee of ways and

means: “That, considering the efforts and sacrifices which parliament

and the country have made for the abolition of the slave-trade and

slavery, with the earnest hope that their exertions and example might

lead to a mitigation and final extinction of those evils in other

countries, this house is not prepared, especially with the present

prospects of the supply of sugar from the British possessions, to adopt

the measure proposed by her majesty’s government for the reduction of

the duty on foreign sugars.” Lord John Russell gave notice, in the event

of the house not going into committee on the sugar duties, and

Viscount Sandon’s resolution being put from the chair, he should move

a counter-resolution; namely, “That it is the opinion of this house,

that it is practicable to supply the present inadequacy of the revenue

to meet the expenditure of the country, by a judicious alteration of

protective and differential duties, without any material increase of the

public burdens; that such a course will, at the same time, promote the

interests of trade, and afford relief to the industrious classes, and is

best calculated to provide for the maintenance of the public faith and

the general welfare of the people.” A third notice was given by Mr.

O’Connell, to the effect that any diminution of the duty on foreign

sugar should be limited to that which was produced by free labour, and

not extend in any way to the produce of slave labour. The debate on the

sugar question was preceded by the presentation of petitions both for

and against the alterations proposed by government. In commencing the

debate, which lasted eight nights, Lord John Russell took the formal

motion for going into committee out of Mr. Baring’s hands, and

availed himself of the opportunity for pre-occupying the ground, and

anticipating the arguments of his opponents. In his speech his lordship

remarked, that if this had been merely a financial question, he should

have left it in the hands of the chancellor of the exchequer. He

regarded it, however, as constituting, by the variety and magnitude of

its relations, a great national subject. Government were well aware,

he continued, at the commencement of the year, that the finance of

the country was matter of great difficulty, and would require great

attention. Their resolution to consider the corn-laws was formed before

the 11th of March, when the notice was given that the colonial duties

would be reviewed.

Government had to meet a deficiency of £2,400,000. It was open to the

house to have objected to the expenditure at the time; but now to oppose

the going into committee of ways and means, without suggesting any other

plan as preferable to that of the government, was unworthy of a great

party. Ministers had preferred the plan of altering the import duties,

as now proposed, for the purpose of relieving instead of oppressing the

people. Being prepared to deal with sugar and timber as questions of

revenue, they would not have been justified in excluding the other great

question, that of corn; especially with their opinions on the merits of

that question, and their belief that, sooner or later, it must be made

the means of an extensive change in the commercial situation of this

country. Before the house had gone into committee, Lord John Russell had

announced the rate of duties which he meant to propose on corn; namely,

on wheat, a duty of eight shillings per quarter; on rye, of five

shillings; on barley, of four shillings and sixpence, and on oats, of

three shillings and sixpence. His lordship now said that the duties he

meant to propose, added to the charge of freight, would constitute a

sufficient protection, keeping the price of wheat, in all probability,

at from fifty to sixty shillings a quarter. With respect to sugar,

he considered the true principle was protection, not prohibition. He

entered into some details, for the purpose of showing that West Indian

interests would be protected under the proposals of ministers, and

that freedom of commercial intercourse among nations had a tendency to

improve and cheapen the productions of each. By the admission of foreign

sugar, his lordship said, the industry of the West Indies would be

stimulated to better means of production, and the English labourer would

obtain his sugar on more reasonable terms. His lordship next entered

into various statistical details, to prove that the great measure of

slave emancipation had been eminently successful; and that the condition

of the negroes was not only promising, but prosperous. On Lord

John Russell’s resuming his seat, Viscount Sandon rose to propose a

resolution of which he had given notice.

Lord John Russell then moved _pro forma_ the resolution of which he had

given notice as an amendment to Viscount Sandon’s; but it was negatived

without a division; and that of Viscount Sandon’s being carried, the

house adjourned. After this defeat it was generally expected that

ministers would resign; but on the next day business was resumed,

and carried on as though nothing of importance had happened; and when

business was over Lord John Russell simply moved that the house at its

rising should adjourn to the Monday following. The Earl of Darlington,

on hearing this, said that he had been relieved of all suspense as to

the intentions of government: it was plain that they meant to stay in

office with a tenacity unparalleled in the history of governments,

and with the deliberate decision of the house of commons unequivocally

declared against them. He asked when Lord John Russell intended to bring

forward the question of the corn-laws. And his lordship replied, “On

Friday, the 4th of June;” but before that day arrived ministers had

suffered another signal defeat, and were compelled to postpone the

subject.

RESOLUTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT.

On the first day on which the house met after its temporary adjournment,

Sir Robert Peel gave notice that he should move, on the 27th of May,

this resolution:—“That her majesty’s ministers do not sufficiently

possess the confidence of the house of commons to enable them to carry

through the house measures which they deem of essential importance to

the public welfare; and that their continuance in office under such

circumstances is at variance with the spirit of the constitution.” On

the day named the right honourable baronet introduced this resolution

with a speech of considerable length and ability. The debate which

ensued lasted five nights; in the course of which much was said for

and against the motion. The leading speakers in support of it were Lord

Stanley, Sirs James Graham and William Follett, and Messrs. Christopher

and Sergeant Jackson; those against it were Viscount Morpeth, Sir George

Grey, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Macauley, Handley, O’Connell, and

Shiel. Towards the close of the debate, Lord John Russell denied that

the motion was in the spirit of the constitution, and ably defended his

own conduct and that of his colleagues in retaining office. Sir Robert

Peel briefly replied; and on a division the motion was carried by a

majority of three hundred and twelve against three hundred and eleven.

After this division, Lord John Russell announced that he would state

on the following Monday the course which the government should resolve

under existing circumstances to pursue.

PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

At the meeting of the house on the following Monday, after moving the

order of the day for the committee of supply, Lord John Russell said

that he and his colleagues had come to the determination not to bring

on the alteration of the corn-laws as a government measure. He further

stated that, after the late division, he felt that tire government could

expect no further majorities in the house of commons, and that they

would not make any further struggle for the retention of their offices

until the opinion of the nation had been ascertained. A desultory

conversation followed, in which his lordship expressly declared that the

intentions of government were to advise that no time should be lost in

dissolving the present Parliament, and that a new one should be summoned

without delay. Subsequently the house resolved itself into a committee

of supply; and the estimates were voted without opposition. The session

was now virtually at an end, although the condemned parliament lingered

on for about a fortnight after the ministerial announcement of a

dissolution. In the course of that period Lord John Russell announced

many bills, in more or less advanced stages, as abandoned; but he still

sought to carry the bill for the better administration of justice. This

bill, however, was opposed by Sir E. Sugden, who moved that it should

not come into operation till the 10th day of October. This motion was

carried; and Lord John Russell then declared his determination to throw

up the bill altogether. It thus fell to the ground; but it was revived

in the next session, and then passed into a law. After this discussion

nothing worthy of note occurred; and on the 22nd of June, parliament

was prorogued by the queen in person, after having previously given her

assent to the appropriation and other bills. The lord-chancellor then

declared parliament to be prorogued to Tuesday, the 29th of June; and

on the following day the queen’s proclamation was issued, by which the

parliament thus prorogued was declared to be dissolved; and writs for a

new one were issued, returnable on the 19th of August. Thus terminated

the first session of 1841; a more barren and unprofitable one than which

is not to be found in the annals of modern parliaments. It lasted nearly

five months, and yet all the great questions brought forward were still

in an unsettled state. It has indeed been well remarked, that “the whole

operations of this session might have been at once blotted out of the

records of parliament, with scarcely any sensible effects upon the laws

or institutions of the country.”

STATE OF PARTIES.

On the dissolution of parliament both the great parties in the

state—the Conservatives and Liberals—prepared themselves for the

struggle which was immediately to ensue at the general election. The

hopes and expectations of the two parties were essentially different. On

the one hand, the Conservative party had been for some time increasing

in numbers throughout the country. Their ranks had been recruited

by those who had been accustomed to identify themselves with their

opponents, but who believed that the time was come when the exigencies

of the country demanded a strong and efficient government, and who were

willing to accord to Conservative statesmen the merit of being ready to

support all measures of real amendment; knowing that they only had the

power of carrying such measures into effect. There were, moreover,

many who although they stood aloof from the Conservative party, and

professed jealous suspicion of its future policy, who were not averse

to give it once more a trial in the possession of power. It was clear,

indeed, that the Conservative party at this period stood the highest in

the estimation of the people. The landowners and farmers were united in

their favour, and the mercantile body, alarmed at the attack which had

been made upon our West Indian and Canadian interests in the articles of

sugar and timber, agreed, too, in an anxious desire for their return to

power. The Liberal party, however, could still reckon confidently upon

the support of the Radicals; and they had an advantage even from their

recent defeat. The defeat happened in consequence of certain financial

measures which they brought forward in their budget, which measures

assumed the character of a removal of disabilities from trade. This

afforded good grounds for an appeal to the people, and an attack

upon monopoly. Land-owners and West Indian proprietors were styled

monopolists: the former, because the legislature had imposed a duty on

corn for the protection of agriculture; and the latter, because their

interests were protected by a duty on sugar. In like manner it was

attempted to excite popular odium against other classes, as favoured

in the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the community: all who

supported the Conservatives were subjected to the same charge, while the

supporters of government were exultingly denominated anti-monopolists.

The watchword of the Liberal party was, in truth, “anti-monopoly;”

and a strenuous effort was made to enlist popular feeling in its behalf.

This cry, however, did not succeed.. Even the city of London, which had

before returned four Liberals, now returned only two, which were coupled

with two Conservatives. As for the elections, in the counties they went

everywhere against the ministry: and in the towns and manufacturing

districts the cry of “Low wages!” was raised against that of “Cheap

bread!” with considerable effect. In a word, the returns proved more

favourable to the Conservative party than the most sanguine among them

had anticipated; and it appeared certain that Sir Robert Peel would

command a stronger and more efficient majority than had supported any

minister for a long period.

MEETING OF THE NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS, ETC.

The new session of parliament was opened by commission on the 19th of

August, and the speech was read by the lord-chancellor on the 24th of

the same month. The speech referred to a treaty concluded on the 15th of

July, 1840, between her majesty and the Emperor of Austria, the King of

Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the Sultan, the objects of which,

it was said, had been fully accomplished. The speech also informed the

house that her majesty had ordered the return of her minister to the

court of Persia, and announced that the 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 had

been amicably adjusted. In reference to the disputes with China, a hope

was expressed that the emperor would see the justice of the demands

which her majesty’s plenipotentiaries had been recently instructed to

make. The speech concluded thus:—“My lords and gentlemen,—We are more

especially commanded to declare to you that the extraordinary

expenses which the events in Canada, China, and the Mediterranean have

occasioned, and the necessity of maintaining a force adequate to the

protection of our extensive possessions, have made it necessary to

consider the means of increasing the public revenue. Her majesty

is anxious that this object should be effected in the manner least

burdensome to her people: and it has appeared to her majesty, after

full deliberation, that you may at this juncture properly direct your

attention to the revision of duties affecting the productions of foreign

countries. It will be for you to consider whether some of these duties

are not so trifling in amount as to be unproductive to the revenue,

while they are vexatious to commerce. You may further examine whether

the principle of protection upon which others of these duties are

founded be not carried to an extent injurious alike to the income of the

state and the interests of the people. Her majesty is desirous that you

should consider the laws which regulate the trade in corn. It will be

for you to determine whether these laws do not aggravate the natural

fluctuation of supply—whether they do not embarrass trade, derange the

currency, and by their operation diminish the comfort and increase the

privations of the great body of the community.” In the house of lords

the address was moved by Earl Spencer, and seconded by the Marquess of

Clanricarde, both of whom in their speeches vindicated the conduct of

government, and advocated the repeal of the corn-laws. The address was

opposed by the Earl of Ripon, who arraigned government on many points,

more especially on their financial operations. He concluded a long and

able speech by proposing as an amendment, that an address be presented

to her majesty, “humbly to represent to her majesty, that we observe

with great concern that the public expenditure has of late, in each of

several years, exceeded the annual income, and that we are convinced of

the necessity of adopting measures for the purpose of remedying so

great an evil: To assure her majesty that we are deeply sensible of

the importance of those considerations, to which her majesty has been

graciously pleased to direct our attention in reference to the commerce

and revenue of the country, and to the laws which regulate the trade in

corn: That in deciding the course which it may be advisable to pursue

with reference to such matters, it will be our earnest desire to consult

the interest and promote the welfare of all classes of her majesty’s

subjects: That we feel it, however, to be our duty humbly to submit

to her majesty that it is essential to the satisfactory results of our

deliberations upon these and other matters of public concern that her

majesty’s government should possess the confidence of this house and

of the country; and respectfully to represent to her majesty that that

confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of her majesty: To

assure her majesty that in the gracious expression of her majesty’s deep

sympathy with those of her subjects who are now suffering from distress

and want of employment, we recognise an additional proof of her

majesty’s tender regard for the welfare of her subjects; and that we

cordially join in the prayer of her majesty that all our deliberations

may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of her

people.” Viscount Melbourne expressed himself to the effect that

the Earl of Ripon’s motion came like a thunder-clap upon him. He was

ignorant that there existed in the house the spirit on which the motion

seemed to proceed. The Duke of Wellington, after alluding to the various

allegations brought against government by the Earl of Ripon, said that

they sufficiently justified him in calling on that house to vote

against the address. He continued to animadvert upon, and to condemn the

introduction of her majesty’s name in the royal speech, in such a way

as to give the country to believe that those who opposed the proposed

alterations in commerce opposed her majesty. At the same time the

noble duke passed a warm eulogium upon the general conduct of Viscount

Melbourne in his relation to the crown, frankly admitting that the noble

viscount had rendered the greatest possible service to her majesty, in

making her acquainted with the mode and policy of the government of this

country; initiating her into the laws and spirit of the constitution;

and teaching her to preside over the destinies of the empire of Great

Britain. His grace concluded by making some severe remarks on the

budget, about which so much had been said; and by expressing himself to

be still adverse to any alteration in the corn-laws. The noble duke was

followed by the Duke of Richmond, who, in a short speech, advocated the

interests of the agriculturists. The Marquess of Lansdowne said that

the government had not proposed a repeal of the corn laws _in toto_, as

the Duke of Richmond seemed to have understood: they simply contemplated

some change. After a few words from the Earl of Coventry and the

Marquess of Northampton, in support of the amendment, and from Lord

Brougham, partly in favour of the address, and partly condemnatory of

the measures of government, their lordships divided on the original

question, when there appeared for it only ninety-six, and against it one

hundred and sixty-eight; so that ministers were left in a minority of

seventy-two.

In the commons the first business performed was the election of a

speaker, and Mr. Shaw Lefevre was re-elected by the consent of all

parties. The house then adjourned; after which several days were

consumed in swearing in members. This being done, the speaker having

read from the chair the speech delivered in the other house by the

lords-commissioners, an address was moved in consonance with it by Mr.

Mark Phillips, and seconded by Mr. John Dundas. An amendment was moved

by Mr. J. S. Wortley, which expressed the regret of the house at the

recent increase of expenditure; its determination to provide for that

increase; its earnest desire to promote the welfare of her majesty’s

subjects; and respectfully to represent to her majesty the necessity

that her ministers should enjoy the confidence of the country, which the

present administration did not possess. This amendment was seconded

by Lord Bruce; and a long discussion followed, in which many members

expressed their views. The result showed that ministers were even

deserted by some of their tried friends: even Mr. Roebuck declared that

he should vote in favour of the amendment. On this occasion Mr. Cobden,

who had been elected in the new parliament, and who was destined to be

the greatest antagonist of the corn-laws that had ever appeared in the

house of commons, came forward to express his views on the subject. On

a division the amendment was carried by a majority of three hundred and

sixty, against two hundred and sixty-nine. When the house of commons

met for the purpose of receiving the report on the amended address,

Mr. Sharman Crawford proposed another amendment, to the effect that the

house would feel it their duty so to extend the suffrage as to give

to the working classes their just weight in legislation; but this was

negatived by an overwhelming majority.

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.—SIR ROBERT PEEL’S ADMINISTRATION.

At the next meeting of the house of commons, Lord Marcus Hill appeared

at the bar, and read this answer to the address:—“It is the greatest

satisfaction to me to find that the house of commons are deeply sensible

of the importance of those considerations to which I directed their

attention in reference to the commerce and revenue of the country, and

the laws which regulate the trade in corn; and that, in deciding on the

course which it may be desirable to pursue, it will be their earnest

desire to consult the welfare of all classes of my subjects. Ever

anxious to listen to the advice of my parliament, I will take immediate

measures for the formation of a new administration.” The division on Mr.

J. S. Wortley’s amendment had so emphatically declared the sense of the

new house of commons upon the continuance of the Whig government,

that no other course remained to them but retirement from office.

Accordingly, on the 30th of August, Viscount Melbourne in the lords,

and Lord John Russell in the commons, intimated that they and their

colleagues had resigned, and that they only continued to hold their

respective offices till their successors were appointed. The task of

forming a new government was assigned by the queen to Sir Robert Peel,

and this time he was successful; the change embracing the queen’s

household. The following were the principal members of the new

administration:—the Duke of Wellington was leader in the lords; Sir

Robert Peel himself was first lord of the treasury; Lord Lyndhurst

became lord-chancellor; the honourable H. Goulburn, chancellor of the

exchequer; Lord Wharncliffe, president of the council; the Duke of

Buckingham, privy-seal; Sir James Graham, home-secretary; Earl of

Aberdeen, foreign secretary; Lord Stanley, colonial secretary; Earl of

Haddington, first lord of the admiralty; Lord Ellenborough, president

of the board of control; Earl of Ripon, president of the board of trade;

Sir H. Hardinge, secretary-at-war; Sir E. Knatchbull, treasurer of the

navy and paymaster of the forces; and Lord Lowther, postmaster-general.

After the new government was formed, writs were moved for in the commons

for various places, in consequence of the acceptance of office of those

members who belonged to that house; and the house afterwards adjourned

until the 16th of September.

STATEMENT OF SIR ROBERT PEEL AS TO HIS INTENDED COURSE OF PROCEEDING,

ETC.

The re-election of the members of government took place without the loss

of a seat, and the house of commons reassembled on the day appointed.

Business was commenced by Sir Robert Peel moving _pro forma_ for a copy

of the letter of the first commissioners of woods and forests, on the

subject of warming and ventilating the new houses of parliament. The

right honourable baronet on this occasion stated his intentions as to

the course to be pursued with respect to the public business of the

country.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Mr. Goulburn brought forward his financial statement in a committee

of ways and means on the 27th of September. He first stated what was

wanted, showing that the house was called on to provide for a deficiency

of £2,467,432. This sum, he said, did not differ materially from the

deficiency anticipated by his predecessor; and to meet it he proposed

funding a portion of the unfunded debt. He had, indeed, already made

proposals to the public, which, he said, had been completely successful;

the subscription he had obtained would enable him to give the requisite

relief. The sum subscribed exceeded £3,500,000; and the terms he had

offered were not higher than those offered by Mr. Spring Rice in 1838.

The bonus would be found to be about 18s. 10d. per cent. With respect to

the requisite supply, immediate taxation was out of the question; and he

should therefore propose a mode of supply, which as a permanent resource

he should deprecate, by an issue of exchequer-bills or a sale of stock,

at the option of government. He suggested this alternative method,

in order that the market might not be presently flooded again with a

quantity of exchequer-bills equal to that from which it had just been

relieved. Mr. Goulburn concluded by moving a resolution in accordance

with the plan which he had explained, for funding the recent

subscriptions in three per cent, consols. This proposition met with

considerable opposition from Mr. Baring and other members; but the

resolutions necessary for carrying it out were, nevertheless, passed

without a division.

POOR LAWS, ETC.

The only measures of importance brought forward this session, after the

supplies had been granted, were the bill for the better administration

of justice in the court of Chancery, and the poor-law commission

continuance bill. The former of these measures was merely a revival of

that which was thrown up by the former government, as seen in a previous

page; and it now quickly passed both houses, and received the royal

assent. The latter subject gave rise to more opposition and debate.

It was brought forward by Sir Robert Peel on the 21st of September,

by moving for leave to bring in a bill to continue the office of

commissioners for six months only; namely, till 31st July, 1842. In the

course of the discussion, Mr. Lefroy bore testimony to the generally

successful working of the Irish poor-law. On the house going into

committee, Mr. R. Yorke moved an instruction to the committee, to

the effect that the poor-law commissioners should not be empowered to

enforce separation between man and wife, except where application for

relief arose from idleness, vice, or crime. The honourable member quoted

the injunction of Scripture against separating those whom God had joined

together, and called on members on the ministerial side to redeem the

pledges they had given to their constituents. After some discussion,

this instruction was negatived.

The bill went through the committee and passed.

Parliament was prorogued by lords-commissioners on the 7th of October.

EAST INDIA AFFAIRS, ETC.

It has been seen in the last chapter that Dost Mohammed was still in

arms. About the close of the last year his army was completely routed

at Bamean by Brigadier Dennie, and he then fled across the Hindoo

Koosh into the Khoohun territory. In the mean time, Sir Robert Sale was

employed in reducing the strongholds of the partizans of the ex-king in

Kohistan; a work in which he experienced considerable difficulty, owing

to the determined manner in which the forts were defended. Dost Mohammed

subsequently summoned his son Afzul Khan to join him, and he moved

from the Nijrow towards the Ghorebund Pass, leading into the Kohistan

valley, to effect the junction. Sir Robert Sale, hearing of this

movement, resolved to frustrate its object, and breaking up his camp at

Bolan, proceeded towards Purwau. At Purwau a battle took place, and Dost

Mohammed again received a signal defeat. His soldiers refused to make

any further efforts against the British forces, and Dost Mohammed threw

himself upon the generosity of his foes, surrendering himself to

Sir William M’Naghten on the 3rd of November. His confidence was not

misplaced; he was permitted to take up his residence at Loodianah, and a

yearly pension of three lacs of rupees (£30,000) was granted to him. His

treatment was so generous that he wrote to his three sons, who were

in different parts of the country, to follow his example, and deliver

themselves up to the British. During the remainder of this year

Afghanistan remained comparatively tranquil; nothing occurred of a

hostile nature except the capture of the old fort of Khelat-i-Ghilzee by

Major Lynch, on which occasion the garrison was destroyed by a mistake,

an event which caused great commotion among the whole of the Ghilzee

tribe, as will be seen in a future page. It may be mentioned that in

Scinde, during this year, the fortress of Khelat, which had again

fallen into the hands of the enemy, was recaptured, and the whole of the

Punjaub fell into a state of disorganization; but the British were not

called upon to interfere in the internal dissensions which shook the

throne, so long and ably occupied by our steadfast ally, Runjeet Sing,

whose death gave rise to the commotions.

In China, after Chusan fell into our hands. Admiral Elliot, accompanied

by Captain Elliot, sailed to the Pechelee harbour, where he arrived

on the 9 th of August, 1840. On the 30th of that month an interview took

place between Captain Elliot and Keshen, the-imperial commissioner, the

third man in the empire, and the negociations were protracted until the

15th of September, on which clay the admiral sailed away from the Peho.

When the squadron returned to Chusan, it was discovered that Admiral

Elliot had consented to transfer the negociations from the Pechelee

to Canton, where all details were to be settled, and where the Chinese

government promised to arrange everything to the satisfaction of the

British. Negociations were carried on; but in the meantime Keshen was

busily employed in erecting new batteries at the Bogue, barricading

the bars in the rivers by sinking boats laden with stones, throwing up

breast-works near Canton, and levying troops. It was so evident that the

Chinese commissioner was insincere, that hostilities recommenced on the

7th of January. Two of the Bogue forts were reduced, and Keshen then

offered to adjust matters without delay. These arrangements were made

between Captain Elliot and the imperial commissioner:—“1. The cession

of the harbour and island of Hong-Kong to the British crown. All just

charges and duties to the empire upon the commerce carried on there to

be paid as if the trade were conducted at Whampoa. 2. An indemnity to

the British government of 6,000,000 of dollars, 1,000,000 payable at

once, and the remainder in equal annual instalments, ending in 1846.

3. Direct official intercourse between the two countries upon an equal

footing. 4. The trade of the port of Canton to be opened within ten days

after the Chinese new year (the 2nd of February), and to be carried

on at Whampoa till further arrangements are practicable at the new

settlement. Details to remain matter of negociation.” The terms of this

convention were much censured; and Lord John Russell declared in the

house of commons, on the 6th of May, that they were not approved of by

her majesty’s government; that Captain Elliot had been recalled; and

that Sir Henry Pottinger had been appointed plenipotentiary in his

stead. In the meantime it had become evident that the Chinese had no

intention of fulfilling these engagements. On the morning of the 19th of

February, a hostile shot was fired at the boat of the _Nemesis_ steamer

from North Wangtong, and hostilities again commenced. The British

squadron now attacked the Anunghoy batteries, which were soon silenced,

and they then landed, and both the ships and land troops proceeded

towards Canton. The British colours were soon hoisted on Howqua’s fort;

and while Sir George Brewer and General Gough were preparing to attack

those forts which still remained between them and Canton, the Kwang-chow

Foo, as prefect, accompanied by the Hong merchants, came down and

admitted that Keshen had been degraded, and that no commissioner had yet

arrived to treat for peace, or make any new arrangements. Keshen had, it

appeared, delayed the execution of the treaty until he could obtain the

emperor’s confirmation of it. The emperor, however, looking upon the

English “as dogs and sheep in their dispositions,” and considering that

“both gods and men were indignant at their conduct, refused to ratify

a treaty with them; and Keshen was ordered to be delivered over to the

board of punishment.” The Chinese again contemplated hostilities, and in

the month of May the British commanders again determined to advance upon

Canton. All the surrounding forts were captured, and it was determined

that the city should be taken by assault; but a flag of truce was

hoisted on the walls, and Captain Elliot again requested Sir H. Gough

to suspend hostilities. He was employed, he said, in a settlement of

the difficulties upon the following conditions:—“1. The imperial

commissioner, and all the troops, other than those of the province, to

quit the city within six days, and to remove to a distance exceeding

sixty miles. 2. 6,000,000 dollars to be paid in one week for the use

of the crown of England; 1,000,000 dollars payable before to-morrow at

sunset. 3. British troops to remain in their actual positions till the

whole sum be paid. No additional preparations on either side; but all

British troops and ships of war to return without the Bocca Tigris as

soon as the whole be paid. Quang-tong also to be evacuated; but not

to be re-armed by the Chinese government till all the difficulties are

adjusted between the two governments. 4. The loss occasioned by the

burning of the Spanish brig, _Bilbaino_, and all losses occasioned

by the destruction of the factories, to be paid within one week.” In

consequence of this arrangement, the British flag was lowered in the

various captured forts, and the troops inarched out, and returned to

Tsing-hae. The 6,000,000 of dollars amounted to about £120,000, and

Captain Elliot appropriated about half that sum to reimburse those who

had surrendered their opium-chests to him at the commencement of the

disturbances; but this payment was subsequently disallowed by the

British government. Matters were at this point, when, on the 9th of

August, Sir Henry Pottinger, the new plenipotentiary, arrived in the

Canton waters, accompanied by Sir William Parker, who assumed a command

of the fleet in the Chinese seas. Having published a copy of his

credentials, authorizing him to negociate and conclude with the minister

vested with similar power and authority on the part of the Emperor of

China, any treaty or agreement for the arrangement of the differences

now subsisting between Great Britain and China; and having warned all

her majesty’s subjects and foreigners against putting themselves in the

power of the Chinese authorities, during the anomalous and unsettled

state of our relations with the emperor, Sir Henry Pottinger embarked

for Hong-Kong, whither Sir William Parker had preceded him. The

superseded plenipotentiary, Captain Elliot, left China on the 24th of

August.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

An important treaty was signed in London in December, between France,

Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain, whereby the former powers

agreed to adopt the English laws relating to the slave-trade. Spain

still remained in a state of insecurity. A quarrel took place between

that country and Portugal, relative to the navigation of the Douro, and

both countries prepared for war; but the question was finally settled

without an appeal to arms. Later in the year there was an insurrection

at Pampeluna and Vittoria, in behalf of the queen-mother, and a

desperate attempt was made to seize the queen in the palace at Madrid,

but, through the energetic measures of Espartero, the insurrection was

suppressed: Don Diego Leon, one of its leaders, was tried and executed.

During this year the long agitated question of the East rapidly

approached a settlement. On the 11th of January. Mehemet Ali gave up the

whole of the Turkish fleet; and about the same time a finnan was

sent from Constantinople, whereby the sultan accorded to Mehemet the

hereditary possession of Egypt. At the same time also Ibrahim Pacha

was directed by his father to evacuate Syria. Several causes, however,

combined against the complete restoration of peace between the sultan

and the pacha; and the year closed before negociations were concluded.

CHAPTER LIII.

{VICTORIA 1842—1843}

Meeting of Parliament..... Debate on the Corn-Laws:

Proposition of Ministers on the subject of the Corn-

Laws..... Financial Measures; Income-Tax Bill, &c.—New

Tariff..... Mr. Villiers’s Motion on the Corn Laws..... The

Great Chartist Petition..... Bill for Restraining the

Employment of Women and Children in Mines and

Collieries..... Bribery at Elections..... Law Reforms.....

Bill for the Protection of the Royal Person..... Copyright

Act..... Poor Law Amendment Bill..... Prorogation of

Parliament..... East India Affairs, &c.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1842}

Parliament reassembled on the 3rd of February. The session was opened

under circumstances of unusual splendour, occasioned by the presence

of the King of Prussia, who had arrived in England, in order to stand

sponsor at the christening of the infant Prince of Wales. Her majesty

again addressed lier parliament in a speech of considerable length, and

which embraced a variety of interesting and important topics. The chief

of these were, the birth of an heir to the throne, the treaty which had

been concluded with the other great powers of Europe for the suppression

of the slave-trade: the pending negociations with China; the restoration

of friendly intercourse with Persia; and a treaty which had been

concluded with the Emperors of Austria and Russia, and the Kings of

France and Prussia, having for its object the security of the Turkish

empire, and the maintenance of the general tranquillity. In conclusion,

her majesty recommended attention to the state of the finances and

expenditure of the country; urged the consideration of the corn-laws;

stated that measures would be submitted for the amendment of the law

of bankruptcy; and expressed regret at the continued distress in the

manufacturing districts.

In the house of commons, on the 4th of February, Sir Robert Peel gave

notice that he would, on the 9th, move that the liouse resolve itself

into a committee of the whole house, to take into consideration the laws

which affect the importation of corn. The address was agreed to _nem.

con_.

DEBATE ON THE CORN-LAWS—PROPOSITION OF MINISTERS ON THE SUBJECT.

On the 9th of February, the day on which Sir Robert Peel had announced

he would develop the ministerial plan for the alteration of the

corn-laws, extraordinary interest was exhibited both in and out of the

house of commons. Every avenue of the house was thronged at an early

hour by persons eager to obtain admission; and when the doors were

opened every seat in the strangers’ gallery was instantly occupied. A

number of the anti-corn-law delegates attempted to station themselves in

the lobby; but being prevented by the police they stationed themselves

outside the house, where they saluted the members as they passed with

the cries of “No sliding-scale!” “Total repeal!” “Fixed duty!” &c.

Shortly after five o’clock Sir Robert Peel moved: “That this house

resolve itself into a committee, to consider the trade in corn.” He then

requested that the clerk of the house should read that portion of her

majesty’s speech which related to that subject. This being done, he

observed that it was difficult to discuss this subject without making

statements or admissions which would be seized upon by his opponents:

but that he trusted to the reason, moderation, and judgment of

parliament. The right honourable baronet then proceeded to state that

he would not excite a hope that his measure would tend immediately to

mitigate the existing commercial distress, and to enumerate the causes

which had given rise to that distress. He then adverted to the various

opinions obtained in the country as to a change of the corn-laws. Some

opposed, he said, all change; others demanded immediate and instant

repeal; and others required some modification. His own opinion was,

that a total repeal of the corn-laws would aggravate the manufacturing

distress; the prosperity of the two classes being identical. There were

advantages in a fixed duty which did not apply to a variable duty; but

the objection to the principle of imposing any duty on corn was equally

applicable to both. Nor could, he argued, a fixed duty be permanent: he

did not think they could impose any amount of fixed duty sufficient for

the protection of agriculture in years of average supply, which

they could determinately and fixedly impose in times of distress and

scarcity. Sir Robert Peel next entered into a variety of arguments to

show that this country, in ordinary years, was able to supply its own

population. From the arguments he used he came to the conclusion that it

was not advisable for parliament to alter the principle of the existing

law; and the alteration which he would therefore propose went on the

principle of retaining a duty on corn, varying inversely with the

price of corn in the home market. He continued by observing that the

maintenance of that principle involved the maintenance of a system of

averages; and after expressing doubts whether there had not been

much exaggeration as to the frauds and combinations to influence

the averages, he thus stated the proposals of government respecting

them:—“We shall propose to take the averages in the present mode, from

the factor, the miller, or the purchaser. We shall propose that the duty

of collecting the returns shall devolve on the excise. The excise is

perfectly competent to this duty; it has officers employed in each

market-town fully competent for the discharge of this duty by having

greater duties to perform, and who will be able at a comparatively

small increase of expense to fulfil this employment; and by their

intelligence, their business habits, and the responsibility which

attaches to them as public officers, they will afford far greater

security against fraud than can be obtained by intrusting this duty to

private individuals.” After stating that the averages were to be taken

in all the principal corn-markets, Sir Robert stated the amount of

protection to be given to the produce of this country. Having shown how

the duty varied under the existing laws, and that they induced fraud,

and having made some remarks on the term “remunerating price,” he thus

described his new scale:—“We propose that when corn is at 50s. and

under 51s. in price, a duty of 20s. shall be taken; but that in no case

shall that duty be exceeded. We propose that when the price is 51s. and

under 52s., the duty shall be 19s.; and after this we propose that there

shall be what I should term a rest in the scale. That at the next items

of price the duty should be uniform. Thus it would be: When the price is

52s. and under 53s. and 54s., 18s.; and when 54s. and under 55s., still

18s. When the price is 55s. and under 56s., we propose that the duty be

17s.; when 56s. and under 57s., that it shall be 16s.; and when 57s. and

under 58s., that it shall be 15s.; and when 58s. and under 59s.. that it

shall be 14s.; and when 59s. and under 60s., that it shall be 13s.; when

60s. and under 61s., that it shall be 12s.; when 61s. and under 62s.,

that it shall be lis.; when 62s, and under 63s., that it shall be 10s.;

when 63s. and under 64s., that it shall be 9s.; when 64s. and under

65s., that it shall be 8s.; and when 65s. and under 66s., that it shall

be 7s. At the three next items of price I propose another rest in the

scale similar to the former. I should propose on the next three a duty

of 6s., that is to say, when the price is 66s. and under 67s., when it

is 67s. and under 68s., and when it is 68s. and under 69s. In each of

these cases the duty would be 6s. When the price is 69s. and under 70s.,

I propose a duty of 5s.; when 70s. and under 71s., a duty of 4s.; when

71s. and under 72s., a duty of 3s.; when 72s. and under 73s. a duty of

2s.; and when 73s. and under 74s., a duty of Is. the quarter. When that

price is arrived at, I propose that the duty should altogether cease;

the sum of the proposition, then, is this, that when corn in the British

market is under the price of 51s. the quarter, a duty of 20s. shall be

levied, which duty shall never be exceeded, for I am quite satisfied

that it is useless to take any greater amount of duty.” With respect to

other grain than wheat, Sir Robert Peel proposed to adopt the proportion

of value and duty which he found in the present law. “Colonial wheat and

flour,” he continued, “shall be imported at a duty of 5s. whenever the

price of British wheat is below 67s.; that when the price of British

wheat exceeds 67s. it shall then be admissible at a duty of 6d. I

propose to give the same advantage to colonial wheat, respecting

the reduction of prices at which it shall be admissible, as is given to

other descriptions of wheat. But considering that the sudden drop in

the prices from 5s. to 6d., on account of the difference of Is. in the

price, is at variance with the principle of the law, which seeks to

establish as equable and uniform a reduction of duty as possible, we

propose to make this arrangement respecting colonial wheat—that when

the price of British wheat is under 55s., the duty upon every quarter of

British colonial wheat shall be 5s.; that when at 55s. and under 56s.,

it shall be 4s.; and when at 56s. and under 57s., it shall be 3s.; and

when at 58s. and upwards it shall be Is., thus taking away that sudden

fall in the amount of duty, levied upon colonial wheat, which takes

place under the existing law; but giving the colonial wheat that

advantage in the reduction of the price which is given to other

descriptions of wheat.” Sir Robert Peel finally thus recapitulated the

reduction which his new scale would effect:—“When corn is 59s. and

under 60s., the duty I propose is 13s. When the price of corn is at 50s.,

the existing duty is 36s. 8d., increasing as the price falls; instead of

which I propose, when corn is at 50s., that the duty shall be only 20s.,

and that the duty shall in no case be exceeded. At 56s., the existing

duty is 30s. 8d.; the duty I propose at that price is 16s. At 60a., the

existing duty is 26s. 8d., the duty I propose at that price is 12s. At

63s., the existing duty is 23s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 9s. At 64s.,

the existing duty is 22s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 8s. At 70s., the

existing duty is 10s. 8d.; the duty I propose is 5s. Therefore it is

impossible to deny, in comparing the duty which I propose with that

which exists at present, that it will cause a very considerable decrease

of the protection which the present duty affords to the home grower, a

decrease, however, which, in my opinion, can be made consistently with

justice to all the interests concerned.” In conclusion, Sir Robert Peel

disclaimed the idea of legislating in favour of particular interests,

and expressed his conviction that the present was a favourable time

for the settlement of the question. After a few words from Lord John

Russell, and a brief reply from Sir Robert Peel, the house adjourned. On

the following day Lord John Russell gave notice that he should, on the

ensuing Monday, move a resolution condemnatory of a sliding-scale. The

resolution was couched in these terms:—“That this house, considering

the evils which have been caused by the present corn-laws, and

especially by the fluctuations of the graduated or sliding-scale, is

not prepared to adopt the measure of her majesty’s government, which is

founded on the same principle, and is likely to be attended by the same

results.” Mr. Villiers next announced that, on going into committee, he

should take the sense of the house on the policy of imposing any duty

whatever on foreign corn or food imported into this country. A third

notice was given by Mr. Christopher that he should move in committee a

scale of wheat duties, instead of Sir Robert Peel’s, imposing a maximum

duty of 25s. when the price is 50s., and a minimum duty of Is. when

the price is 73s., the duty falling by Is., as the price rises by Is.;

except that at the rise of price from 59s. to 60s., the duty falls by

2s. The debate commenced on the 14th, when Sir Robert Peel moved that

the speaker do leave the chair, in order to a committee of the whole

house on the corn-laws. Lord John Russell then brought forward

his amendment, and stated his objections to the sliding-seale. He

remarked:—“The first objection I have to a sliding-scale, is, that a

high, I would say a prohibitory duty, always forms part of it. I could

understand a scale not exceeding 10s. or 12s., and going down to 4s.,

to 3s., or to Is.; but I find that whenever gentlemen speak of a

sliding-scale, it is of such a nature as to contain a prohibitory duty.

The first duty, when the price is at 50s., and under 51s., is 20s.;

and I shall now proceed to show that that is a prohibitory duty. I

have looked over the papers containing the latest information. From the

information obtained by Mr. Meek, who was sent to the north of Europe

expressly to collect information on the subject, it appears that the

original price of Dantzie wheat, when brought from the interior of

the country, is 35s.; that the charges, which seem to satisfy that

gentleman’s mind amount in all to 10s. 6d.; thus making the price at

which it could be sold in England in ordinary years 45s. 6d. If you add

to that the proposed duty of 20s., you make the entire price of Dantzie

wheat, 65s. 6d., when the price at home, is 50s.; showing of course that

20s. amounts to a prohibitory duty. In the same way at Odessa, as stated

in the consul’s returns, the price would be 26s.; adding to which 10s.

for freight, and some further charges, which cannot be taken or less

than 5s., as on the former occasions, and adding then the proposed

duty of 20s., you would have the price up to 61s., without counting the

profit of the merchant who had to deal with this corn; and therefore,

though you may say that you have reduced the duty to 20s., to 19s., and

to 18s., yet in all three instances it can be shown that the duty is

prohibitory; and that when the price is at 55s. or 56s., the price at

which the right honourable gentleman said it would please him to see it,

nobody can tell why, there would then be a prohibitory duty upon

foreign corn.” Lord John Russell concluded by moving his amendment. The

amendment was opposed by Mr. E. Gladstone, who thought that some of Lord

John Russell’s opinions ought to have led him to support the government.

The debate which followed lasted three nights, and the principal

speakers were, on the ministerial side, Lord Sandon, Sir J. Graham and

E. Knatchbull, and Messrs. Childers, Ormsby Gore, and B. Ferrand; and in

favour of the amendment, Lord Worsley, and Messrs. C Wood, Labouchere,

Ward, E. Buller, and Roebuck. The greater part of the speeches delivered

consisted of recapitulations and reproductions of the reasonings and

statements used by the leaders of either party. On a division the

amendment was rejected by a majority of three hundred and forty-nine

against two hundred and twenty-six. The house having thus pronounced in

favour of the principle of a sliding-scale of corn-duties, it might have

seemed illogical and superfluous afterwards to discuss a proposition

of which the affirmative had been involved in the preceding decision;

namely, whether corn should be subjected to any duties at all. Nothing

daunted, however, Mr. Villiers brought forward his intended motion to

that effect; a motion which, after five nights’ debate, was rejected by

a majority of three hundred and ninety-three against three hundred and

three. Subsequently Mr. Christopher brought forward his scale of duties

as a substitute for those of Sir Robert Peel; but the original

proposition was carried by an equally overwhelming majority. In

committee various amendments were proposed, but they were all rejected

or withdrawn, and the bill was, on the 5th of April, read a third time,

and passed.

The second reading of the corn-law bill was moved in the house of lords,

on the 18th of April, by the Earl of Ripon. Lord Brougham rose and

moved the total and absolute repeal of the duty on foreign corn; but

his amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority. On the following

day, on the motion to go into committee, Viscount Melbourne moved,

“That it is the opinion of this house that a fixed duty upon the

importation of foreign corn and flour would be more advantageous to

trade and more conducive to the general welfare of all classes of the

people than a graduated duty, varying with the average of prices in

the markets of this country.” This proposition gave rise to a lengthy

discussion; but it was rejected by a majority of one hundred and

seventeen against forty-nine. Subsequently Lord Brougham moved these

resolutions:—“That no duty ought to be imposed upon the importation of

foreign corn, for the purpose of protecting the agriculturist, by taxing

the introduction of food. That no duty ought to be imposed upon the

importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of regulating trade, by

taxing the introduction of food. That no duty ought to be imposed upon

the importation of foreign corn, for the purpose of raising the revenue,

by taxing the introduction of food.” These resolutions were rejected, as

were others moved by Earl Stanhope, Lord Beaumont, and Lord Mountcashel,

and the bill passed in its original state.

FINANCIAL MEASURES—INCOME-TAX BILL, ETC.

On the accession of Sir Robert Peel to office he was embarrassed with

great financial difficulties. For the ensuing year he had to deal with

a deficiency of £2,570,000; with contingencies in China and India of

uncertain amount. The present juncture, indeed, demanded a remedial

measure of a bold and comprehensive character, and Sir Robert did

not fail to bring forward such a measure. On the 11th of March, in a

committee of ways and means, the right honourable baronet said, that for

the year ending April, 1843, the estimated revenue would be £43,350,000,

and the estimated expenditure £50,819,000, leaving a deficiency of

£2,469,000. With the contingencies in India and China, indeed, he

calculated that the deficit, in the two years ending May next, would not

be less than £4,700,000. How, he asked, were these deficiencies to be

met? Should the system of loans and exchequer-bills be continued? Was

there the prospect of any considerable reduction in expenditure? Was the

present deficiency a casual one? Should he impose a tax on articles of

consumption and the necessaries of life? Should he revive old taxes?

Should he go back to the post-office? or revive the taxes upon salt,

leather, or wool? Finally, should he resort to locomotion for the

purposes of taxation? All these expedients Sir Robert repudiated; and

he fixed upon one which, while it justly gave offence to a large body

of the people, has proved to fully answer the end for which it was

designed. This was an imposition of an income-tax of sevenpence in the

pound upon all incomes from £150 and upwards, and in which was included

not only landed but funded property, whether in the hands of British

subjects or of foreigners. He estimated the assessable yearly value

of the land at £39,400,000; of houses, at £25,000,000; and of tithes,

shares in railways and mines, and other similar property, at £8,400,000:

total, £72,800,000. From this he would deduct one-fourth for the

exemption which he proposed to give to all incomes under £150, and

then the tax thus far would give him £160,000. The occupiers of land,

assessed at half their rent, would yield £120,000. Next came funded

property. The dividend paid in 1841 was £29,400,000, from which he would

deduct £1,000,000 in respect of savings’ banks; but he added upon

bank, foreign, and other stocks £1,500,000, making a total of almost

£30,000,000, from which, deducting one-fourth for incomes under £150

a year, he would derive £646,000. Sir Robert Peel next proceeded to

incomes of trades and professions, from which he expected to obtain

£1,253,000; and he then stated that from the incomes of public officers

he calculated upon £150,000. The total would be £3,771,000. With respect

to the duration of this impost, he said, that government might probably

require it for five years; but he would in the first instance propose

its continuance for three years. In case of war he should deem it

reasonable that Ireland should bear her proportion of this tax; but

during peace, and for a limited period, he should prefer to raise the

quota of that country by other means. He proposed, therefore, a duty of

one shilling per gallon upon spirits; the equalization of the stamp-duty

with that of England; and a tax of four shillings upon coal exported

in British vessels from this country. The aggregate revenue from

these sources and the income-tax in England would be about £4,380,000;

constituting a considerable surplus, after covering the deficiency on

the votes of annual expenditure. This surplus Sir Robert Peel proposed

to apply in relaxing the commercial tariff. The duties on raw materials

were in no case to exceed five per cent.; the duties upon articles

partially manufactured were to be diminished, the highest being twelve

per cent.; and upon complete manufactures no duty was to be imposed

higher than twenty per cent. He laid upon the table this amended scale

of duties, which had been distributed under twenty different heads; in

which, he said, would be found an abatement in about seven hundred and

fifty articles, and that on about four hundred and fifty the duty had

been left untouched. The total diminution of revenues occasioned by

the reductions was estimated by the right honourable baronet at about

£270,000. He regretted to say that upon sugar, ministers could not offer

any reduction; but with respect to coffee he proposed a reduction of

fourpence upon British, and eightpence upon foreign, which he calculated

would cause a loss of £171,000 to the revenue. On the subject of timber,

he said that his measure would be the reverse of that which was brought

forward by his predecessors in office; he would advise a great reduction

of duty, which would benefit all classes, from the agriculturist to the

shipbuilder. His propositions were to lower the duty on foreign timber

to twenty-five shillings a load, and to let in the timber of Canada at

a duty of one shilling a load; causing a probable loss to the revenue

of £600,000. There were yet two other reductions he had to propose:

one upon the export of certain British manufactures, and another upon

stage-coach duties. These two heads of reduction would produce a loss

of £70,000. On the whole these reductions, in addition to the excess

of expenditure, would increase the deficit to about £3,700,000; but the

estimated produce of the income-tax would not only cover this, but leave

more than £500,000 applicable to the contingencies of war in India and

China. Sir Robert Peel concluded with an earnest appeal to the house to

support the name which the English had inherited from their forefathers,

untarnished: and he then moved his first resolution, which was to

grant a duty on Irish spirits. No discussion followed Sir Robert Peel’s

speech: the motion was agreed to, and the house resumed.

A few nights subsequently, Sir Robert Peel entered into an explanation

of the details of the measures he had announced; especially with respect

to the machinery by which the income-tax was to be collected. On the

motion to go into a committee of ways and means, Mr. T. Baring found

fault with Sir Robert Peel’s calculations; and he was followed by Lord

Howick, who strongly censured the income-tax, and Lord John Russell, who

condemned the construction of tire tariff for not working out its own

principle, but sparing certain articles, as sugar, merely from fear

of the influential interests connected with them. After three several

motions by Messrs. Cobden, H. Berkeley, and Bernai, “That the chairman

do report progress,” which were all negatived by large majorities, Sir

Robert Peel was compelled to defer the measure till the 4th of April.

The income-tax was resumed immediately after the Easter recess. The

first resolution, to impose a tax of sevenpence on every pound upon all

incomes, except the incomes of occupiers of land, was put and carried

without discussion. On the second resolution, however, imposing a tax on

the occupation of laud, calculated at the rate of threepence-halfpenny

in the pound on the yearly value being read, Lord John Russell pointed

out the operation’ the tax might have in inducing landlords to split

their farms, so as to make the rental of each below the amount liable

to taxation; and gave notice that, on the report of the resolutions, he

should move this amendment:—“That it has been stated to this house,

on official authority, that the deficiency of income to meet the

expenditure of the country, may be estimated for the years ending the

5th day of April, 1842, at £2,350,000, and on the 5th day of April,

1843, at £2,569,000. That this house is fully sensible of the evil of a

continued inadequacy of the public income to meet the expenditure, and

will take measures for averting the same in future years. That, by

a judicious alteration of the duties on corn, by a reduction of the

prohibitory duty on foreign sugar, and an adjustment of the duties on

timber and coffee, the advantage of a moderate price to the community

may be combined with an increased revenue to the state. That, in

addition to those main articles of general consumption, the interests of

trade will be promoted by the repeal or reduction of various prohibitory

and differential duties, and that extended commerce will improve the

revenue, whilst it gives employment to industry. That the amount of

taxes taken off, or reduced, from the termination of the last war to the

end of the year 1836, exclusive of the tax on income, may be stated in

round numbers at £23,873,000. That the income-tax, having been first

imposed in a period of extreme emergency and during a most perilous war,

was repealed on the re-establishment of peace; and having been again

imposed on the renewal of war, was again repealed in 1816, on the

termination of hostilities. That considering the various means of

supplying the deficiency without enhancing the price of the necessaries

of life, or embarrassing trade, it is the opinion of this house that

the renewal of a tax, inquisitorial in its character, unequal in its

pressure, and which has hitherto been considered as the financial

reserve of the nation in time of war, is not called for by public

necessity, and is therefore not advisable.” The second resolution

was then put and agreed to; as was also the third, equalizing certain

stamp-duties in Ireland with those of England; and the report was

ordered to be brought up. Lord John Russell’s amendment came on for

discussion on the 8th of April, when his lordship, in a speech of great

length, charged the government with taking too gloomy a view of

affairs, comparing the present aspect of the finances with that when an

income-tax was formerly proposed. If new taxes must be resorted to, his

lordship recommended a tax on the succession to real property, or the

revival of some of the repealed assessed taxes. Mr. Goulburn defended

the ministerial policy; and Sir Robert Peel vindicated himself from the

charge of over-rating difficulties, and contrasted the state of finances

which the Melbourne government found on entering office in 1835, with

that which they left on their departure, in the British and Indian

empire. The debate on Lord John Russell’s amendment lasted four nights,

most of the principal speakers on both sides taking part in it. On the

fourth night the house divided; when it was lost by a majority of three

hundred and eight against two hundred and two. The report was then

brought up and read, and leave given to bring in a bill founded on Sir

Robert Peel’s resolutions. On the motion for the first reading of the

bill, on the 18th of April, Lord John Russell moved that it be read a

first time that day six months. A debate of considerable length ensued,

in which arguments urged for or against the measure were repeated;

after which the amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred and

eighty-five to one hundred and eighty-eight. The bill was then read a

second time, and a few days afterwards the house went into committee.

In committee the first question discussed was the period when the tax

should commence; and the time finally decided was the 5th of April,

1842. The original proposition respecting schedule A was then affirmed,

as was also schedule B. On schedule C Mr. Ricardo moved an amendment

to exempt terminable annuities, and to subject them to special scales

according to their market value; but, on a division, the motion was

rejected by a large majority. In considering schedule D, which rendered

incomes derived from professions, trades, and employments liable to the

tax of sevenpence in the pound, Mr. Roebuck moved that it be fixed at

half that sum. This motion was warmly supported by several speakers; but

it was rejected, as was also another amendment to defeat this clause,

moved by Mr. Sharman Crawford. Sir Charles Napier made a proposition on

schedule E, to exempt officers in the army and navy from taxation; but

this was also rejected: and after this the progress of the bill went

on rapidly, more than eighty clauses being disposed of in one night’s

debate. A second sufficed to get through the bill; amendments moved by

Messrs. Baring, Hume, and Benjamin Wood, being all rejected by large

majorities. On the third reading, Mr. Sharman Crawford moved an

amendment, to the effect that the present house of commons could not be

considered a fair representation of the people; and that therefore it

was unfit that any system of increased taxation should be imposed by

parliament until all just causes of complaint, with regard to the mode

of electing members, should be redressed. Lord John Russell himself

opposed this motion, and it was at once rejected; and after some further

discussion on the bill, it was read a third time by a majority of one

hundred and ninety-nine against sixty-nine. The bill then passed.

NEW TARIFF.

The question of the income-tax being thus settled, government proceeded

to carry into effect the other great branch in their financial

scheme—the alterations in the tariff or customs duties. A complete

copy of the tariff was placed in the hands of each member of parliament

previously to the 5th of May, on which day it was announced that it

would be moved to go into committee on this important subject. On

that day the proceedings in the house of commons, were commenced by an

elaborate preliminary statement on the part of the prime-minister, in

which he showed that the general object of the present government was to

simplify the existing law. Sir Robert Peel then went over in detail

some of the chief alterations proposed in duties on what is called raw

material. Among the articles under this denomination were clover-seed,

woods, ores, oils, extracts, and timbers, on all of which he proposed

to reduce the duties. On articles of foreign manufacture, Sir Robert

continued to explain that he proposed to levy an amount of duty,

generally speaking, not to exceed twenty per cent. He next proceeded

to combat the argument of his opponents, that he had begun at the wrong

end, that he should have reduced the duties on articles of provision,

and have dealt more largely with the corn-laws. Taking the whole tariff,

he contended that it would be seen that the cost of sustenance was

greatly reduced. At that moment, he said, under the old law the duty on

foreign wheat would have been 27s. a quarter; under the new law it

was 13s. Then again, beef, fresh or slightly salted, was absolutely

prohibited; but he proposed to admit it at 8s. a hundred-weight. He

further proposed to lower the duties on lard, hams, salmon, herrings,

hops, &c. Sir Robert then explained that in the amended tariff, on the

representation of straw-plait makers, the duty had been increased from

5s. to 7s 6d. in the pound; at the same time he showed that it would be

no protection to them, inasmuch as the article was of such a nature that

it could be easily smuggled into this country without detection. He then

endeavoured to convince those who feared the reduction of duties on live

cattle, that their alarm was groundless, arguing that the English grower

had substantial security in the quality of the article, and that England

from this circumstance might become an exporting country. Mr. Labouchere

said that he had heard the speech of the right honourable baronet with

great pleasure. At the same time he asserted that the late government

had announced a tariff reform; and that it was only the want of success

which attended its plans with respect to corn, timber, and sugar, which

had prevented it from submitting to the house measures of a similar

character to those now brought forward. After a protracted discussion,

the house divided on the question, that the speaker do now leave the

chair, which was carried by a majority of two hundred and nineteen

against one hundred and fifty-two. On the 13th of May, on the motion of

going into committee on the customs’ duties bill, Lord Howick proposed

this resolution:—“That in making a new arrangement of the customs’

duties, it is not expedient to impose different rates of duty upon

the same articles when imported from foreign countries or from British

possessions, in any case where no such difference now exists; and that

in those cases in which such a difference already exists, it is not

expedient that it should be increased.” He argued that such differences

would injure the revenue without benefiting the consumer; while they

would force colonial traders into precarious existence. This view of the

case was ably combated by Mr. Gladstone; and on a division the motion

was negatived by a majority of two hundred and eighty-one against one

hundred and eight. The house considered the tariff in detail after the

Whitsuntide recess; when the duties on cattle and provisions excited

keen discussion, the agricultural members being alarmed at the prospect

of foreign competition, which they anticipated from the reduced duties.

On the house going into committee on the 23rd of May, the motion being

made, “That in lieu of the present rates of duty now payable on the

articles enumerated in the annexed schedules, there shall be raised,

levied, and paid upon the importation of the said articles into the

United Kingdom, the rates of duty proposed in the annexed schedules;”

Mr. Miles moved, by way of amendment, the following words:—“All live

stock imported from foreign countries being charged by weight.” In

support of his amendment Mr. Miles went into a variety of calculations

to show the injury that would result to the farmer from the proposed

arrangement of duties, contending that the United States, Denmark,

Holland. Prussia, and the various states of Germany, would fatten cattle

for the English market, and thus render it impossible for the farmers at

home to compete with the foreign breeder. He was supported by the Earl

of March, and Messrs. H. Palmer and G. Heathcote, and opposed by

Lords Alford and Norreys, Colonel Wyndham, and Messrs. Gaily Knight

and Gladstone. The latter said that a material omission in Mr. Miles’s

argument, was the want of proof that a large quantity of cattle could

be imported so as to injure the English farmer. Lord John Russell, in

continuation, said that he rejoiced to hear the principles laid down

by Sir Robert Peel; but he argued that they should have been extended

to the corn-laws. Other members spoke on both sides of the question; and

after a reply from Mr. Miles, the amendment was rejected by a majority

of three hundred and eighty against two hundred and sixty-seven.

When the committee resumed on the following day, Mr. Miles moved an

amendment, imposing a duty of 5s. 6d. per cwt. on live cattle, and 9s.

4d. per cwt. on the dead meat. This amendment, however, was withdrawn;

and one moved by Mr. Villiers, that the duty of one shilling per head

on oxen and bulls be substituted for the government proposition,

was rejected. The items in the tariff were then taken _seriatim_.

Discussions took place, and amendments were proposed on the duties

affecting swine and hogs, foreign fish, apples, butter, potatoes,

timber, cotton manufactures, foreign silk, &c.; but in each case the

duties affixed by government were affirmed by large majorities. The

third reading of the customs’ act was at length moved on the 28th

of June, on which occasion Mr. John Jervis moved a clause to grant a

drawback on coals proved to be exported for the consumption of British

steam-vessels. This motion was rejected; and on the question that the

bill do pass, Lord John Russell made some few remarks on its general

provisions, and Sir Robert Peel acknowledged the support which he had

generally received from both sides of the house. The question being then

put from the chair, the bill was read a third time, and passed in the

midst of loud cheers.

The customs’ act was read a first time in the house of lords two days

after it had passed the commons, and the Earl of Ripon moved the second

reading on the 5th of July. Two days afterwards the house went into

committee on the bill, and every amendment proposed by opposition lords

was negatived without division, and the bill passed through committee,

and was reported.

The subject of the duties on sugar was brought forward in a committee of

ways and means, on the 3rd of June, by the chancellor of the exchequer,

who explained the reasons why government could not consent to the

admission of foreign sugar at a lower rate of duty, and moved a

resolution that the present duties should be continued one year; which

proposition, after a lengthened discussion, was confirmed.

MR. VILLIERS’S MOTION ON THE CORN-LAWS.

On the 11th of July, it having been moved to go into committee of

supply, the opposition party brought forward the subject of the state

of the nation. Mr. Villiers having moved as an amendment for the

appointment of a select committee on the laws regulating the importation

of corn, with a view to their total repeal, prefaced his motion with

a speech, in which he said that he brought the subject forward in

compliance with the request of the anti-corn-law delegates; and because,

in the late discussion on the state of the nation, a taunt had been

thrown out on the ministerial side, that, if the opposition thought that

a repeal of the corn daws would remedy the evil, they ought to submit

that proposition to the house. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fielden,

and supported by Mr. Aglionby, who declared the new sliding-scale was a

delusion. Sir Charles Napier and Mr. Gaily Knight conceived that these

debates ought not to be protracted: it was an unfair way of conducting

any opposition to a government. Sir Robert Peel bitterly complained of

the continual interruption to public business, and of the impediments

opposed to a fair trial of the new corn-law. Lord J. Russell, Viscount

Howick, Sir John Hanmer, and Mr. Cobden supported the motion; but, on

a division, it was rejected by two hundred and thirty-one against one

hundred and seventeen.

While these discussions were taking place in the house of commons, the

same class of topics were brought forward in the house of lords by Lord

Brougham, who moved that a select committee be appointed to inquire into

the distress of the country. This motion was supported by Lord Kinnaird

and the Marquis of Clanricarde; and opposed by the Earl of Ripon,

Viscount Melbourne, and Earl Stanhope. On a division it was rejected by

a majority of sixty-one against fourteen.

THE GREAT CHARTIST PETITION.

The most striking shape in which the grievances of the working classes

presented themselves to the notice of the legislature during this

session, was the presentation of a petition, which, for bulk and

signatures, was unparalleled in the annals of parliament. The signatures

attached to it exceeded 3,000,000; and in conveying it to the house of

commons, it required sixteen men to support it. It was, in fact, too

large to be admitted into the door of the house of commons; and, in

order to effect its enhance, it was divided into sections. It was

presented by Mr. T. Duncombe, who, in calling the attention of the

house to its contents, thanked them for the kind and respectful manner

in which it had been received. The petition, he remarked, had nearly

3,500,000 signatures; and, making allowance for the signatures of youths

and females, he was prepared to prove that there were above 1,500,000

of families of the industrious classes subscribers to that petition. The

prayer of the petition was for the enactment of the great constitutional

changes which form the “six points” in the Chartist creed, to which

was added a demand for the abolition of all kinds of monopolies. Mr.

Duncombe concluded by moving, “that the petitioners of the national

petition be heard at the bar of this house, by themselves, their

counsel, or agents, in support of the allegations of then-petitions.”

The motion was seconded by Mr. Leader. The spirit of this petition was

bitter, and its language offensive. It was pervaded by a desire for

class legislation, and propounded doctrines subversive of the rights

of property, and of the national faith and credit. On a division, the

motion was negatived by two hundred and eighty-seven against forty-nine.

BILL FOR RESTRAINING THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN MINES AND

COLLIERIES.

In a previous session, after having been the means of carrying a

humane law to prevent the cruelties inflicted on children employed in

factories, Lord Ashley procured the appointment of commissioners for

inquiry into the employment of children. These commissioners examined

into the state of young persons in mines and collieries; and the course

of their inquiries brought to light more than the sufferings of children

alone; for they found the cases of the women in many places equally

pitiable. This subject was brought forward by Lord Ashley in the house

of commons on the 7th of June, when his lordship moved for leave to

bring in a bill for restraining the employment of women and children

in mines and collieries. The speech of Lord Ashley disclosed a state

of things in the mining districts the most appalling. Cruel oppressions

were perpetrated by the mine owners and overseers, especially upon women

and children; and frequently parents showed an utter callousness to

the sufferings of their offspring. The work assigned to girls and young

women was destructive of health, and was conducted under circumstances

so indecent that it was difficult for the noble speaker to state

the details to the house. The commons received the intelligence with

amazement and indignation; they had no conception that such outrages

upon female decency, and upon humanity, existed in England. Lord Ashley

proceeded to state the means, which he should call upon the legislature

to adopt for an immediate removal of the most hideous and appalling

features of the system he had described. The means explained by his

lordship were fourfold: the total exclusion of female labour from all

mines and collieries in the country; the exclusion of all boys under

thirteen years of age; the prevention of the employment of males

under twenty-one years of age as engineers; and the abolition of

apprenticeship. Lord Ashley concluded his able and humane speech in this

appropriate and emphatic language of scripture:—“Let us break off our

sins by righteousness, and our iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.”

A hearty concurrence was manifested on all sides of the house in the

proposition; and the bill having been brought in, was passed rapidly

through all its stages, and finally read a third time amidst loud

cheers. Before the measure came into the upper house, it was announced

by Lord Wharncliffe that ministers would be passive respecting it,

each individual member taking what part they deemed prudent. The second

reading was moved by the Earl of Devon, who, after vindicating the

measure, contended that without any evidence the house would be

justified in preventing the employment of women in the places described.

Subsequently, the earl explained the alterations which it had been

thought advisable to make in the bill; namely, the postponement of the

time at which the employment of females should cease until the 1st of

March next; the abandonment of a clause for regulating the hours

during which children should be employed; the restricting the term of

apprenticeship in any mine or colliery to eight years instead of entire

prohibition; and the enacting that no boy be apprenticed under ten years

of age. Several noble lords spoke for and against the measure; but the

motion for going into committee was carried by forty-nine against three.

In committee several amendments were successively proposed by Lords

Beaumont, Littleton, Skelmersdale, Dunmore, and Mount Cashel; but they

were all rejected, and the several clauses were agreed to, with some

verbal amendments, and the bill reported. The third reading was opposed

by Lord Londonderry, but without success; and the bill passed. The

amendments were subsequently agreed to in the commons.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

On the 6th of May, Mr. Roebuck, having given notice previously of his

intention, moved for a committee of inquiry into the election of the

members for Reading, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn, and Harwich. In making

this motion Mr. Roebuck entered into particulars concerning these

elections, in all of which he contended bribery had been practised. He

wished to inquire into these transactions in order to expose them to the

people of this country. He had not, he said, confined his accusations to

one side of the house or the other. He had made no party question of it:

he stood up for the purity of the house; and, God willing, it should be

made pure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzroy, member for Lewes, who

warmly challenged inquiry into his conduct. Captain Plumridge, also,

member for Penryn, declared that he had never given one penny towards

the expenses of his election. On the other hand, Mr. Elphinstone,

another of the accused members, declared frankly that, in his election,

both parties had been guilty of bribery, and that if the inquiry had

proceeded, none of the four candidates for his seat would now have been

members of parliament. After a lengthened discussion a committee was

appointed, and at the latter part of July the report of this committee

was presented to the house, shortly after which Mr. Roebuck gave

notice of his intention to move the following resolutions:—“That the

compromises of election petitions, as brought to the knowledge of this

house by the Report of the Select Committee on Election Proceedings,

must, if for the future they be allowed to pass without punishment or

censure, tend to bring this house into contempt with the people, and

thereby seriously to diminish its power and authority. That all such

practices are hereby declared to be a violation of the liberties of the

people, and a breach of the privileges of this house; which it will in

all future cases inquire into, and severely punish. That whereas in the

late elections for Harwich, Nottingham. Lewes, Reading, Falmouth, and

Penryn, and Bridport, the present laws have been found insufficient to

protect the voters from the mischievous temptations of bribery, it be

ordered that Mr. Speaker do issue no writ for any election of members

for the said towns, till further legislative enactments have been

adopted to protect the purity of elections.” In moving these resolutions

Mr. Roebuck said that they mentioned no names, but simply provided for

future mischiefs. He had proved all his assertions, and much more:

and would the reflecting and honest people of England believe, that

in buying up poor voters, in debauching, poor constituencies, and

afterwards shielding themselves by a contemptible quibble, and buying

off the consequences, the conduct of members was either honourable to

themselves, or beneficial to their constituents? He believed the people

would say the chief criminal was the briber; the rich man who went

down with money in his pocket to a large constituency.—some of them

oppressed by poverty—and offered them bribes to sell their consciences.

A lengthened and stormy debate took place; but the resolutions were all

negatived. But, notwithstanding the house of commons refused to affirm

these resolutions, the investigation that had taken place had some

practical result. One of the terms on which the petition against the

return of one of the members for Reading was compromised, was the

acceptance of the Chiltern hundreds within a limited time. When that

time arrived, however, for carrying this stipulation into effect, an

unexpected difficulty occurred. The chancellor of the exchequer now made

aware, by the publication of the report, for what the application

was preferred, declined to grant it; and the individual who had bound

himself to resign his seat, found it beyond his power to do so. The

course of proceeding adopted by the chancellor of the exchequer became

the subject of discussion in the house of commons on the 6th of August,

when Lord Palmerston moved for “copies of any correspondence which had

taken place since the 1st day of July last, between the chancellor of

the exchequer and any member of this house, upon the subject of the

stewardship of the Chiltern hundreds;” the result of which motion was

that the copies were ordered. Subsequently, the writs for filling up

vacancies created by the unseating or collusive resignation of members

at Ipswich, Southampton, Nottingham, and Newcastle-under-Lyne were all

ordered to be issued. The disclosures before the committee concerning

Sudbury, induced Mr. Redington, the chairman, to bring in a bill for the

disfranchisement of that borough; but though this bill was supported by

government, and passed through the commons, owing to the late period at

which it was sent up to the lords, it only reached a second reading in

that house. The writ, however, was suspended _sine die_. In connection

with this subject, it may be mentioned that Lord John Russell brought in

a bill for the prevention of bribery, and remedying some of the abuses

to which election proceedings were liable; which bill, with some

modifications in committee, passed both houses, and received the royal

assent.

LAW REFORMS.

In the early part of this session the lord-chancellor gave notice of

bills respecting bankruptcy, lunacy, and county courts. Adverting first

to the subject of bankruptcies, he commenced by paying a compliment to

Lord Brougham, upon the improvements in that department of the law

which he had introduced. His lordship continued:—“That system, however,

excellent as it was, comprised within its jurisdiction only a circuit

of forty miles round London. He proposed to extend the metropolitan

district to a hundred miles round London; which would add a fifth to the

business of the commissioners, without inconvenience to them. For

the country, it was proposed to appoint commissioners at five central

points, in five great towns, beyond the London district, invested with

the same power which was at present reposed in the London commissioners.

They would perform the same quantity of duty now performed by the London

commissioners, having a similar range and a similar jurisdiction.” The

course respecting the law of lunacy was somewhat similar. His lordship

remarked:—“The law of lunacy was administered like that of bankruptcy,

the London commissioners having jurisdiction for twenty miles round the

metropolis; and the country commissions being like those of bankruptcy,

directed to persons of little or no experience, though the inquiries

were of the nicest and most delicate character. He proposed that two

commissioners should be appointed, for the purpose of executing

all those commissions, not only in the metropolitan districts, but

throughout the country. From an examination of details he was satisfied

that those two commissioners would be amply sufficient for discharging

those and other important duties connected with lunacy. The payment of

commissioners by fees would be abolished, and they would be added to the

visitors at present appointed to inspect the condition of lunatics. They

would be taken from among the highest members of the bar.” Concerning

the county courts, his lordship said that he was averse to any sweeping

change: his measure went merely to extend their jurisdiction. They were

presided over by the county clerk, whose jurisdiction extended to forty

shillings. “If,” said his lordship, “I appoint a particular place,

and give them a jurisdiction to the extent of five pounds, and appoint

persons of respectability and learning, I think I do not innovate upon

ancient institutions.” His lordship proposed further, that for the

recovery of debts to the amount of twenty pounds, persons should be

appointed judges of these courts, who should not reside in the provinces

where they administered the law, but that they should make circuits,

like the judges of the land, into the provinces with which they were not

acquainted, and where they had no local connections or prejudices. His

lordship proposed that there should be six or eight circuits in the

year, to be made by barristers of a certain standing, to be appointed by

the crown; who should return to the metropolis after the circuits, where

they could mix with their colleagues in the profession, and thus give

a security for the uniformity of the law which they administered.

The bills were generally approved of, and they passed the upper house

unopposed. In the commons an attempt was made to induce government to

postpone the consideration of them; and that relating to the county

courts was postponed till the following year, but those respecting

bankruptcy and lunacy were passed. Another bill, introduced by Sir James

Graham, for the amendment of the law relating to the registration

of votes in England, was delayed; and three bills proposed by Lord

Campbell, to alter the administration of the house of lords as a court

of appeal, to alter the system of appeal to the judicial committee

of the privy council, and to amend the administration of the court of

chancery, were rejected. A question of general interest respecting

the marriage law was also raised this session in the commons, by Lord

Francis Egerton, who moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter the

laws relating to marriage within certain degrees of affinity. The chief

feature of this bill was, that it would enable a widower to marry a

deceased wife’s sister; but, on a division, the motion for leave to

bring in the bill was lost by one hundred and twenty-three against one

hundred.

BILL FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE ROYAL PERSON.

During this session, in consequence of an attempt upon the queen’s life,

by an insane person of the name of Bean, Sir Robert Peel brought in a

bill on the subject, which met with the unanimous approbation of the

house. In introducing this bill, after adverting to the act passed in

the reign of George III., for the protection of that monarch, Sir Robert

said that he proposed to extend the change of procedure involved in that

act, namely, the abolition of the forms usually attendant on trials of

high treason, &c., to cases where the offence was that of compassing

the wounding of the sovereign. Concerning the class of offences against

which his measure was to provide, Sir Robert remarked:—“I propose that,

after the passing of this act, if any person or persons shall wilfully

discharge, or attempt to discharge, or point, aim, or present at or

near the person of the queen, any gun, pistol, or other description of

fire-arms whatsoever, although the same shall not contain explosive or

destructive substance or material; or if any person shall strike, or

attempt to strike the person of the queen with any offensive weapons, or

in any manner whatever; or if any person shall wilfully throw or attempt

to throw any substance whatever at or on the person of the queen, with

intent, in any of the cases aforesaid, to break the public peace, or

with intent, in any of the cases-aforesaid, to excite the alarm of the

queen; I propose that any party so offending—that is, intending to

hurt the queen, or to alarm the queen, shall be subject to the same

penalties which apply to cases of larceny; that is, he be subject to

transportation not exceeding seven years. I propose, also, another

punishment, more suitable to the offence, and more calculated to repress

it, that there be a discretionary power of imprisonment for a

certain period, with authority to inflict personal chastisement.” In

continuance, Sir Robert Peel expressed an opinion that such a punishment

would awe miscreants capable of harbouring such designs, and that the

provisions of the bill would be amply sufficient for the purpose of

protecting her majesty. “For,” he added, “observe what we have to guard

against—it is not any traitorous attempt against the peace of the

nation by conspiring to take away the life of the sovereign, but it is

the folly or malignity of wretches who are guilty of acts prompted by

motives which are scarcely assignable. The law, in its charity to human

nature, has omitted to provide for the case of any being formed like a

man who could find a satisfaction in firing a pistol at a young lady,

that lady a mother, and that mother the queen of these realms. It

never entered into the conception of former law-makers that anything

so monstrous should arise, as that the queen of these realms should not

enjoy a degree of liberty granted to the meanest of her subjects. I am

sure the house will respond to the proposition to give the security of

this law for the protection of her majesty.” The bill was passed with

unanimity.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

During this session government proposed and carried a bill re-enacting

the poor-law commission for five years, abolishing the Gilbert unions,

and forming districts for the purposes of education and various minor

matters. This bill, however, was not carried without much opposition.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 12th of August by the queen in person.

Having given the royal assent to several bills, her majesty expressed

her grateful sense of the assiduity and zeal with which both houses

had applied themselves to the discharge of their public duties. In her

speech her majesty also alluded to the measures which had been

taken into consideration; thanked her parliament for the loyalty and

affectionate attachment shown to her person by the act passed for her

protection; and made some allusions to reverses which had befallen a

division of the army westward of the Indus, and to a victory gained at

Jellalabad.

EAST INDIA AFFAIRS, ETC.

During the preceding year the British power in India came into hostile

collision with the Ghilzies. This collision was thus brought about. The

Khoord Cabul Pass is a long and dangerous defile through which the

road between Cabul and Jellalabad runs, and which, therefore, it was

necessary to keep open for the purpose of safe intercourse between Cabul

and British India. This part of Affghanistan was occupied by the eastern

Ghilzies: and it was thought advisable to purchase from them the right

of traversing the pass without molestation. An agreement was, in fact,

entered into with the Ghilzee chiefs, whereby it was stipulated that

a certain sum of money should be paid them yearly out of the Cabul

treasury, if they would keep the pass open, and offer no molestation

to our troops on their passage between Cabul and Jellalabad. Owing,

however, to the financial difficulties of the Cabul treasury, or to some

mismanagement on the part of the officer who was appointed to disburse

the money, the whole amount of the stipulated sum was not paid, and

the Ghilzies immediately rose in arms and closed the passes. It was

necessary to open it by force; and Major-general Sir Robert Sale was

sent by General Elphinstone from Cabul for that purpose. The brigade

which Sir Robert commanded entered the pass on the 12th of October. The

Ghilzies were posted behind a breastwork near the middle of the pass;

and as the assailing body approached, the enemy withdrew from this

position, and occupied the steep and precipitous ridges of the mountains

on either side, from whence they opened a well-directed fire. General

Sale was wounded in the ankle and obliged to leave the field; and

Lieutenant-colonel Dennie then took the command. Under his direction

one section of the brigade got possession of the heights, and their guns

were established in a deserted fort on the southern gorge of the pass;

but the other division marched back through the defile to the camp at

Boothak. But, although the Khoord Cabul Pass was thus cleared, the force

under General Sale was compelled to fight with the enemy during eighteen

days in their route to Gundamuek, which was reached on the 30th of

October. After this the British troops commanded the route to Sookhab;

and on the 12th of November they reached Jellalabad. In the meantime

a fearful tragedy, which ended in the total destruction of our Cifeul

force, had commenced in that city. The British troops were placed in

a cantonment on the north side of the city, which cantonment consisted

only of a low rampart and narrow ditch, in the form of a parallelogram,

thrown up along the line of the Kohistan road, one thousand yards long

and six hundred broad, with round flanking bastions at each corner,

every one of which was commanded by some fort or hill. The “Mission

Compound,” where Sir William M’Naghten, the envoy, and his suite

resided, was attached to the cantonment on the north side, and

surrounded by a single wall. On the eastern side, about a quarter of

a mile off, the Cabul river flowed in a direction parallel with the

Kohistan road; and between the river and cantonments there was a

wide canal. In itself this cantonment was most insecure; but General

Elphinstone threw a bridge over the river so as to render the

communication between the Seeah Sung camp and the cantonment still more

easy. The most extraordinary oversight, however, was the allowing

the commissariat stores to be placed in an old fort detached from the

cantonment, and in such a state as to be wholly indefensible. The troops

were thus placed when a rebellion took place under Ameenoollah and

Abdoolhah Khan. It commenced by an attack on the dwellings of Sir

Alexander Barnes and Captain Johnson, who resided in the city of Cabal;

Sir Alexander, his brother, Lieutenant Burnes, and Lieutenant Broadfoot

were murdered. On discovering this, General Elphinstone sent an order to

Brigadier Shelton to march forthwith with a body of troops to the Bala

Hissar, or royal citadel, situated at the eastern extremity of the city;

the rest of the troops in that camp were withdrawn into the cantonment,

and the whole of the camp followers when collected amounted to twelve

thousand, exclusive of women and children. A long and miserable siege

now took place. The Affghans surrounded the cantonments, and poured in

a constant fire from every quarter; and, at length, on the 11th of

December, the commissariat fort being captured by the enemy, Sir William

M’Naghten was compelled to sign this humiliating agreement with

the rebel chief:—“That the British should evacuate the whole of

Affghanistan, including Candahar, Ghuznee, and Jellalabad: that they

should be permitted to return unmolested to India; and that supplies

should be granted to them on their road thither—certain men of

consequence accompanying them as hostages; that means of transport

should be furnished to the troops; that Dost Mahomed Khan, his family,

and every Affghan then detained within our territory should be allowed

to return to their own country; that Shah Soojah and his family should

have the option of remaining at Cabul or proceeding with the British

troops to Loodianah, in either case receiving from the Affghan

government one lac of rupees per annum; that an amnesty should be

granted to all who had taken the part of Shah Soojah; that all prisoners

should be released; that no British force should ever be sent into

Affghanistan, unless invited by the Affghan government.” The chiefs,

in retiring from the conference, took with them Captain Trevor as a

hostage. Much delay took place in carrying any of these terms into

effect; and in the meantime a trap was laid for Sir William M’Naghten,

into which he fell. On the 22nd of December two Affghans came into the

cantonment, and had a private conference with him, in which they made

a proposal on the part of Akbar Khan, that Ameenoolah Khan should be

seized the next day, and delivered up to the British as a prisoner; that

the Bala Hissar should be occupied by one of our regiments: that Shah

Soojah should continue king, and Mahomed Akbar become his Wuzeer, or

prime-minister; and that our troops should remain in the cantonment

until the following spring. To these specious terms the envoy unwarily

assented; and on the 23rd of December, accompanied by three officers, he

left the Mission-House to attend a conference with Mahomed Akbar Khan

in the plain toward Seeah Sung. While in the act of conference, however,

Sir William M’Naghten and the officers were seized from behind by armed

men; and he and Captain Trevor were murdered; the other officers escaped

with difficulty. The situation of the British troops was now evidently

desperate, and Major-general Elphinstone deemed it necessary to provide

for their safety by again attempting to negociate with the enemy. A

convention was entered into, in pursuance of which the troops commenced

their march on the 6th of January. In the whole there were 4,500

fighting men about 12,000 camp followers, and a large number of women

and children. Their retreat was most disastrous. The snow lay deep upon

the ground, and the rear-guard had scarcely quitted the camp before it

was attacked by the enemy. As far as Bareekhur the whole way was strewed

with the dead and dying, who were immediately stripped and left naked

by the Affghans; while the merciless Ghuzees hacked the dead corpses to

pieces with their long knives. While at Bareekhur a communication was

opened with Akbar Khan, who now offered to restrain the Affghans from

further outrages, provided hostages were delivered to him as a security

that the British would not march beyond Tezeen, until General Sale had

evacuated Jellalabad. The proposal was accepted, and Major Pottinger

and Captains Lawrence and Mackenzie became hostages. The troops now

proceeded to the Khoord Cabul Pass; but Akbar Khan’s promise was futile:

they had to force the difficult pass with considerable loss. The next

morning the treacherous chief sent to the encampment, professing his

concern at his inability to restrain the Ghilzies, who had been most

active in the attacks of the preceding day; but he offered to protect

the ladies, provided they would put themselves under his care. Eight

ladies, including Lady Sale and Lady M’Naghten, placed themselves under

his protection; those who had husbands being solaced by their company.

In resuming the march the contest recommenced, and it did not cease

until they reached Jugdulluck. Few, however, reached that place. Of the

whole force which had left Cabul, amounting to more than 16,000 persons,

not more than three hundred are said to have escaped. At Jugdulluck,

Akbar Khan effectually interfered, and the unfortunate British were

allowed to occupy, without molestation, a ruined enclosure, where they

lay down, worn out by fatigue, and helpless, in the snow. Out of this

number only one man, Dr. Brydon, lived to reach Jellalabad; the rest,

subsequent to the protection afforded them by Akbar Khan at Jugdulluck,

were all slain, either by the Affghan troops, or by the inhabitants of

the villages through which they passed in their flight. As for General

Elphinstone, he was detained prisoner by Akbar Khan, who sent for him

under pretence of treating personally with him.

The enemy now approached Jellalabad, which was occupied by Sir Robert

Sale, who had maintained his position there since the day on which he

reached it. This gallant general had been engaged in several encounters

with the enemy, in which he had uniformly punished them. When the enemy

approached Jellalabad, Lady Sale, then a prisoner in the hands of the

Affghans, wrote a letter, exhorting lier husband to defend his position;

saying that she preferred death to dishonour. Sir Robert Sale refused,

when summoned, to abandon his post, and he was consequently besieged

by the enemy. Vigorous efforts were soon made to relieve the besieged

garrison. Lord Auckland was about to retire from the government of

India, and a new governor-general, Lord Ellenborough, had arrived at

Calcutta on the 18th of February. In the meantime Sir Jasper Nicholls,

who was commander-in-chief of the British forces in India, was urged by

Lord Auckland to push on to Peshawar as many troops as he could spare.

A body of 3500 men arrived at Peshawar on the 27th, but he having failed

to force the Khyber Pass, was compelled to remain passive until joined

by Major-general Pollock, who, when he arrived, took command of the

forces destined for the relief of Jellalabad. A portion of the forces

under his command consisted of Sikhs, the troop of the Maha Rajah Shere

Sing, ruler of the Punjaub, under General Abitabile. On the arrival

of Major-general Pollock at Peshawar, accounts were received from

Jellalabad, representing General Sale as in want of immediate succour.

Two brigades, consisting of 4,000 men, under the command of Colonel

Bolton, had not yet joined his forces; but General Pollock nevertheless

resolved to advance forthwith, having under his command about 8,000 men.

The task he had to perform was one of the most difficult nature. From

Jamrood, on the eastern side, the Khyber Pass extends for twenty-eight

miles towards Jellalabad; and the defiles had hitherto been considered

as impassable to an army if opposed by an enemy. The pass was defended

by the Khyberries; but, despite their opposition, his whole force

cleared it by the 14th of April; the first instance in history of an

army forcing its way through these dreaded defiles in face of an enemy.

The Sikh troops were left in possession of the pass, and on the morning

of the 16th of April the troops, under the command of General Pollock,

came in sight of Jellalabad, and were loudly greeted by the beleaguered

garrison.