however, gained some important victories over his adversaries. The most
important victory was obtained on the 7th of April, and Sir Robert
Sale thus describes the contest:—“The troops issued from the Cabul and
Peshawar gates at daylight this morning. So far from the Sirdhar (i.e.
Akbar Kahn) having made any dispositions to avoid the encounter, his
whole force (not falling short of 6,000 men) was formed in order of
battle, for the defence of his camp, its right resting on a fort, and
its left on the Cabul river; and even the ruined works, within eight
hundred yards of the place, recently repaired, were filled with Ghilzie
marksmen, evidently prepared for a stout resistance. The attack was led
by the skirmishers, and a column, under Captain Havelock, which drove
the enemy in the most satisfactory manner from the extreme left of his
advanced line of works, which it pierced, and proceeded to advance into
the plain; whilst the central column directed its efforts against a
square fort upon the same base, the defence of which was obstinately
maintained. With the deepest regret I have to record that, whilst
nobly leading his regiment to the assault, Colonel Dennie, C.B., of her
majesty’s thirteenth light infantry, received a shot through his body,
which shortly after proved fatal. The rear of the work having been
finally gained by passing to its left, I gave orders for a combined
attack upon the enemy’s camp. It was in every way brilliant and
successful. The artillery advanced at the gallop, and directed a heavy
fire upon the Affghan centre, whilst two of the columns of infantry
penetrated his line near the same point; and the third forced back his
left from its support on the river, into the stream of which some of his
horse and foot were driven. The Affghans made repeated attempts to
check our advance by a smart fire of musketry, by throwing forward heavy
bodies of horse, which twice threatened in force the detachments of foot
under Captain Havelock, and by opening on us three guns screened by
a garden wall, and said to have been served under the personal
superintendance of the Sirdhar; but in a short time they were dislodged
from every point of their positions, their cannon taken, and their camp
involved in a general conflagration. The battle was over, and the enemy
in full retreat in the direction of Lugliman by about seven a.m. We have
made ourselves masters of two cavalry standards; recaptured four guns
lost by the Cabul army and Gundamuck forces; and seized and destroyed a
great quantity of _materiel_ and ordnance stores, and burned the whole
of the enemy’s tents. In short, the defeat of Mahomet Akbar in open
field, by the troops whom he had boasted of blockading, has been
complete and signal.” After his defeat Akbar Khan retired in the
direction of Cabul, but his troops deserted from him to a man. Such was
the state of affairs when the junction between the forces of General
Sale and General Pollock took place at Jellalabad. The garrison was
suffering severely from want of provisions, but plentiful supplies
soon began to pour in from Peshawar, and the two generals subsequently
resolved upon offensive operations. At this time the monarch whom the
British power had placed on the throne at Cabul was dead: he had ordered
a general levy of troops to be made in his capital, to march upon
Jellalabad; and, while he was on his way to join these troops at Seeah
Sung, he was fired upon by fifty Juzdilchees, who were placed in ambush,
and was killed. General Pollock remained at Jellalabad upwards of four
months, during which time his troops suffered severely from sickness,
and their ranks were greatly thinned by death; and it was not until the
20th of August that he commenced his march towards Cabul. The prisoners,
male and female, which were captured by Akbar Khan were in separate
forts within the valley of Tezeen, where General Elphinstone died; and
during the period of General Pollock’s stay at Jellalabad, Akbar
Khan sent two of the British officers in captivity to treat for the
liberation of the whole. He wished, however, to make our evacuation
of Affghanistan the condition of restoring the prisoners; but as this
proposal could not be entertained, all negotiations ceased, and the
prisoners were subsequently removed from Tezeen to forts between Cabul
and Bameean. Previous to his departure from Jellalabad, General Pollock
had issued a manifesto to the chiefs at Cabul, stating his intention
of marching upon the city, and promising them that if they restored the
prisoners, their property would be protected and their city spared; but
that if they allowed Akbar Khan to remove them, they must all be held
responsible for the consequences, and that every house in Cabul should
be razed to the ground. At length, on the 20th of August, General
Pollock advanced from Jellalabad. The first conflict with the enemy
took place at Mammoo Khail, about two miles from Gundamuck, where about
12,000 troops under the command of the chiefs Hadji Ali and Kyrrollah
Khan were defeated. The two chiefs retreated towards Cabul, and General
Pollock advanced thither on the 7th of September. On the 8th he reached
the Soorkah, a small river, from which he had to traverse the formidable
pass in order to arrive at Jugdulluck, which is about twenty miles
distant. An obstinate opposition was made to his progress from the
heights by which this pass is surrounded; but it was overcome by the
prowess of the British forces, and the enemy took refuge in flight.
Their onward march still lay through a difficult country; but General
Pollock did not again encounter the enemy until he arrived at the valley
of Tezeen. Here the pass was occupied by Akbar Khan himself; and while
the British troops were halting to allow the cattle to recover from the
effects of the fatigue of their forced march, they were attacked by the
Affghans, though without success. A general action took place on the
13th of September, which General Pollock has thus described:—“The
valley of Tezeen, where we were encamped, is completely encircled by
lofty hills; and on the morning of the 13th it was perceived that the
Affghans had occupied in great force every height not already occupied
by our troops. I commenced my march towards the mouth of the Tezeen
Pass, where I had left two guns, two squadrons of her majesty’s third
dragoons, a party of first light cavalry, and the third irregular
cavalry. The enemy’s horse appeared in the valley, with the intention
of falling upon the baggage; but the dragoons and native cavalry made a
most brilliant charge, and with such effect that the whole body of the
enemy’s force was completely routed, and a number of them cut up.
The Pass of Tezeen affords great advantages to an enemy occupying the
heights; and on the present occasion Mahomed Akbar neglected nothing to
render its natural difficulties as formidable as numbers could make
it. Our troops mounted the heights, and the Affghans, contrary to their
general custom, advanced to meet them, and a desperate struggle ensued;
indeed their defence was so obstinate that the British bayonet, in many
instances, alone decided the contest. The light company of her majesty’s
ninth foot, led by Captain Lushington, ascending the hills on the
left of the pass under a heavy cross-fire, charged, and overthrew their
opponents, leaving several horses and their riders, supposed to be
chiefs, dead on the hill. The slaughter was considerable; and the
fight continued during the greater part of the day, the enemy appearing
resolved that we should not ascend the Huft Kothul. One spirit seemed
to pervade all, and a determination to conquer overcame the obstinate
resistance of the enemy, who were at length forced from their numerous
and strong positions; and our troops mounted the Huft Kothul, giving
three cheers when they reached the summit. Here Lieutenant-colonel
Cunningham, with a party of sappers, pressed the enemy so hard, that
they left in their precipitation a twenty-four pound howitzer and
limber, carrying off the draft-bullocks. Having heard that another gun
had been seen, and concluding that it could not have gone very far,
I detached a squadron of dragoons, under Captain Tritton, and two
horse-artillery guns, under Major Delafosse, in pursuit; the gun, a
twelve-pound howitzer, with bullocks sufficient for two guns, were
soon captured. The dragoons again got among the enemy, and succeeded in
cutting up many of them. Captain Broadfoot with the sappers advanced,
and, with the dragoons, happened to fall in with another part of the
enemy, of whom upwards of twenty were killed. I have ascertained there
were about 16,000 men in the field opposed to me, of whom a considerable
portion was cavalry. Mahomed Akbar Khan, Mahomed Shah Khan, Ameen Oolla,
and many other chiefs with their followers were present.” After this
decisive battle Akbar Khan made no further resistance; and on the 15th
of September they encamped on the race-ground at Cabul. During their
march from Jellalabad, Prince Futteh Jung had arrived in the camp as a
wanderer; and on the 16th, General Pollock, accompanied by him, marched
to the Bala Hissar, and there planted the British colours. Several of
the English prisoners had already joined the camp; and before the
21st of the month, the whole of them, with the exception of Captain
Bygrave—who was subsequently liberated—were restored to British
protection. By these successes the stain brought upon the British arms
was effaced, and the prestige of our name regained its former influence
in the East. It was, however, resolved that we should leave Cabul; and
a proclamation to that effect was made by the governor-general. But,
before leaving Cabul, General Pollock despatched General M’Caskill with
a body of troops into Kohistan, where the Affghan chiefs were still
assembled in considerable force. On the 29th of September, General
M’Caskill made himself master of the strong town of Istalif, totally
defeating the numerous bodies of Affghan troops collected for its
defence, under Ameenoollah Khan and other chiefs of Cabul and Kohistan.
This town was set on fire; and a work of plunder and savage slaughter
commenced, which brought a great stain upon the British arms. For two
days the place was given up to fire and sword; and all the bitterness of
hatred was manifested by the soldiery, both European and native. “Not a
man was spared; the Affghans were hunted down like vermin; and whenever
the dead body of an Affghan was found, the Hindoo sepoys set fire to
the clothes, that the curse of a ‘burnt father’ might attach to his
children.” General Pollock also determined to destroy the Char Chouk,
the principal bazaar in Cabul, where the remains of the unfortunate Sir
William M’Naghten had been exposed to insult. This bazaar was destroyed
by gunpowder; and indeed the whole city, with the exception of the Bala
Hissar and the quarter of the Kuzzilbashes, was laid in ruins. About
this time General Pollock was joined by General Nott from Candahar; and
on the 12th of October the two armies left Cabul, the advanced column
being under the command of General Pollock, and that in the rear under
General Nott. No event of consequence occurred during their march, and
on arriving at the fortress of Jellalabad it was levelled with the dust,
and rendered unfit for human habitation. Along the whole line of march,
indeed, every kind of devastation was committed by the troops, who were
exasperated by the sight of the unburied skeletons of their unfortunate
companions in arms, who fell during the fatal retreat early in this
year. When the British forces at length emerged from the Bolan Pass,
which they did on the 1st of October, thereby evacuating the whole
of Affghanistan, they had left behind them a name which will long be
execrated in that country. It is true they had suffered deep wrongs; but
mercy to the vanquished is a nobler quality than unlimited revenge.
The spirit of revenge appears to have pervaded the whole of the British
community in India. Even the governor-general, Lord Ellenborough,
exhibited it in a proclamation issued to all the princes, and chiefs,
and people of India. He writes:—“My brothers and my friends,—Our
victorious army bears the gates of the temple of Somnauth in triumph
from Affghanistan, and the despoiled tomb of Sultan Mahmoud looks upon
the ruins of Ghuznee. The insult of eight hundred years is at last
avenged. The gates of the temple of Somnauth, so long the memorial
of your humiliation, are become the proudest record of your national
glory—the proof of your superiority in arms over the nations beyond the
Indus. To your princes and chiefs of Sirhind, of Bajwarra, of Malwa, and
Guzerat, I shall commit this glorious trophy of successful war. You will
yourselves, with all honour, transmit the gates of sandalwood through
your respective territories, to the restored temple of Somnauth. The
chiefs of Sirhind shall be informed at what time our victorious army
will first deliver the gates of the temple into their guardianship at
the foot of the bridge of the Sutlej.” In another proclamation Lord
Ellenborough announced that all the Affghans then in the power of the
British government should be permitted to return to their own country,
and that the Affghan chiefs who were thus released, were, before they
passed the Sutlej, to present themselves at the durbar, or levee, of the
governor-general in his camp at Ferozepore.
The insurrection at Cabul, which has been described, was not confined to
that quarter of Affghanistan. At the time it broke out, General Nott was
in command at Candahar, with a force of nearly 10,000 men. The hostility
of the Affghans in this part of the country soon displayed itself;
Candahar was invested by a large body of insurgents under the command of
Mahomed Atta. This chief was joined by Sufter Jung, one of the sons of
Shah Soojah; but Tiniour, the eldest brother of that family, remained
nominal governor of Candahar. His fidelity, however, was afterwards
suspected, and he was placed in confinement. On the 12 th of January the
insurgent chiefs took up a strong position on the right bank of a river
running through the Achuzye country, about five miles from Candahar.
They mustered about 5,000 men; and General Nott attacked them with a
force consisting of five regiments and a half of infantry, 1,000
horse, and sixteen pieces of artillery. The position of the army was
formidable, being protected in front by canals and a marsh, and both
flanks resting on strong gardens. The enemy, however, was routed, and
compelled to flee in all directions. Tin’s success was followed by
another victory over the insurgents, on the 10th of March; after which
they disappeared from the neighbourhood of Candahar. The situation
of the British troops, however, at Candahar, Khelat-i-Ghilzee, and
Gliuznee, being thought precarious in the midst of a population
universally hostile, Brigadier-general England, who commanded the forces
in Scinde, determined to march to the relief of General Nott. In his
route General England encountered a formidable opposition at the Rujjuk
Pass, where Mahomed Seedez, with a large army, was posted to impede his
progress. In an engagement, General England, indeed, lost nearly one
hundred men, and he was compelled to return to Quetta: This attempt,
therefore, for the relief of Candahar failed; and, not long before this,
the British had another humiliation in the surrender of Ghuznee. Ghuznee
was garrisoned by about 1,000 troops, under the command of Colonel
Palmer, and when the general rising on the part of the Affghan
population took place, that fortress and Khelat-i-Ghilzee, in which was
a garrison of five hundred men, were invested by the insurgents. Colonel
Palmer was obliged to capitulate; and on the 6th of March the garrison
marched out from the citadel, and were quartered in a portion of
the town immediately below. Scarcely, however, had the troops
taken possession of the quarter assigned them by the terms of the
capitulation, when they were suddenly attacked by the infuriated
Ghuznees. Day after day the murderous attacks continued; and in the end
the whole were either slain, or sent in camel-chairs to Cabul, to be
kept in custody by Akbar Khan. It was these events that determined
General Nott, on evacuating Candahar, in order to co-operate with
General Pollock, in case the resistance offered by Akbar Khan should
be of such a nature as to render a reinforcement of the British troops
necessary. Candahar was evacuated on the 7th and 8th of August, and the
troops marched onwards without molestation till they came to Gonine,
about thirty miles south-west of Ghuznee. Here General Nott found that
Shumsooden, the Affghan governor of that fortress, was awaiting his
approach with about 12,000 men. This force, however, was quickly
defeated, and their guns, tents, and ammunition captured; General Nott
then moved on Ghuznee, which he found full of armed men, under the
command of Sultan Jan. Ghuznee was stormed, and the enemy driven from
thence in all directions; after which the city and the whole of its
works were destroyed. General Nott now advanced upon Cabul, and at Mydan
he again encountered the enemy; but the British troops dislodged them
from their strong positions; and General Nott effected a junction with
General Pollock without further molestation.
In China the British troops still pursued an inglorious war. In the
month of August, last year, Sir Henry Pottinger and Sir W. Parker had
sailed for Hong-Kong, which was the place of rendezvous for the ships
destined for the expedition to the northward. On the 21st they sailed
from that island, and anchored on the 25th in the harbour of Amoy. This
city is said to have been inhabited by about 70,000 people; and the
Chinese army garrisoning it was 10,000 strong. The number of guns
possessed by the garrison was about five hundred; and the place was so
strongly fortified by nature and art, that the Chinese fancied the place
to be impregnable. Amoy, however, wanted a brave and skilful garrison;
and lacking this, the place was soon captured. The mandarins and
soldiers fled, leaving the city occupied by only a few coolies. This
success was attained without the loss of a man on the part of the
British; and the number of Chinese killed is supposed not to have
exceeded one hundred and fifty. Sir Hugh Gough was mainly instrumental
in effecting this conquest; but, on the 30th of August, the troops were
withdrawn from the city, a garrison of five hundred men only being left
on the island of Cohun-soo, which is distant about 1,200 yards from
Amoy. In the proclamation addressed by Sir H. Pottinger on this occasion
to “her Britannic majesty’s subjects in China,” he says:—“Her majesty’s
plenipotentiary deems it quite superfluous to say one word as to the
manner in which this important service has been performed. The facts
require no eulogium. The Chinese government vainly imagined that they
had rendered Amoy impregnable; but they were undeceived in presence of
the viceroy of the provinces of Chekeang and Fokien (who, with a number
of high officers, witnessed the attacks from the heights above the
town), in the short space of four hours from the firing of the first
gun; and had the opposition been a hundred times greater than it was,
the spirit and bearing of all employed showed that the result must have
been the same.” The state of the weather prevented the expedition from
putting to sea and continuing its progress northward before the 5th
of September. On the 21st it reached the Chusan group of islands, and
afterwards reconoitered the Tinghae and Chusan harbour. The walls of
Tinghae were escaladed, and the British colours soon waved over the
fortifications. In this attack upon Tinghae the enemy suffered severely;
several mandarins were killed, while, on the side of the British, two
only were killed, and twenty-four wounded. The next place attacked
was Chinghae, which was captured with the same ease, although it was
enclosed by a wall thirty-seven feet in thickness, and twenty-two feet
in height. Sir William Parker writes concerning this conquest:—“About
eleven o’clock we had the gratification of seeing the British colours
planted by the troops in one of the batteries on the opposite side
of the shore: and in a few minutes the others on that side were all
carried, and the Chinese observed flying in every direction before our
gallant soldiers on the heights. At a quarter past eleven the wall of
the citadel was breached by the fire from the ships; and the defences
being reduced to a ruinous state, the Chinese abandoned their guns,
which they had hitherto worked with considerable firmness, and a large
portion of the garrison retreated precipitately towards the city. Not a
moment was lost in making the signal for landing the battalion of seamen
and marines, with the detachments of artillery and sappers. Before
noon, the boats were all on shore; every impediment presented by the
difficulty of landing on rugged rocks was overcome, and the force
gallantly advanced to the assault, with a celerity that excited my
warmest admiration. An explosion at this time took place in a battery
near the citadel gate; and the remnant of the garrison fled without
waiting to close it. The citadel was therefore rapidly entered, and the
union-jack displayed on the walls. Our people had scarcely passed within
them when another explosion occurred, happily without mischief, but
whether by accident or design is uncertain.” Captain Herbert having
secured this post, quickly reformed his men, and advanced towards the
city; the Chinese still occupying in considerable force the walls of it,
as well as the two batteries beneath the hill on the river side, against
which our troops had already turned some of the guns taken on the
right bank. A few volleys of musketry speedily dislodged them from both
positions, and the battalions of seamen and marines pushed on in steady
and excellent order to attack the city.
The wall was escaladed in two places, and in a short time complete
possession was taken of Chinghae, the Chinese troops having made their
escape through the western gate. Subsequently Sir Hugh Gough captured
Ningpo with the same facility, after which no event of importance
occurred during the past year. Early in the present year the district
cities of Yuydo, Tsikee, and Ftmghwa were temporarily occupied by the
British troops; and the Chinese made a bold but ineffectual attempt to
recover Ningpo. After their unsuccessful attack upon Ningpo, the Chinese
attempted to annoy the British garrison by obstructing the supply of
provisions. A body of about 4,000 Chinese soldiers were encamped at the
town of Tse-kee, about eleven miles westward of Ningpo; but they were
quickly driven from thence by Sir Hugh Gough with great loss. Ningpo was
evacuated by the British on the 7th of May, and on the 16th the fleet
came to the city of Chapoo, which was captured. Sir H. Pottinger, who
had recently been to Canton rejoined the squadron before it sailed
from Chapoo: and its subsequent operations were detailed by him in
a “circular,” dated on board the steam-frigate _Queen_, in the
Yang-tze-Kiang river. Its operations were first chiefly confined to the
destruction of batteries along the Woosung river; after which the fleet
entered the great river Yang-tze. In this river operations were directed
against the cities of Suyshan, Chin-Keang-foo, and Nankin. The two
former were captured: but when preparations had been made for attacking
the latter, Sir Hugh Gough and Sir William Parker received instructions
from Sir Henry Pottinger to suspend hostilities, in consequence of
negociations which he was carrying on with the Chinese high officers who
had been appointed by the emperor to treat for peace. Full powers had
been given to three commissioners, Keying, Elepoo, and Newkéén, to
negociate a treaty of peace which was finally concluded on the 26th of
August. The conditions of this treaty were:—That the Chinese should
pay 21,000,000 dollars; that the ports of Canton, Amoy, Foo-chow-foo,
Ningpo, and Shanghae, should be open to British merchants, with
permission to consular officers to reside there; that the island
of Hong-Kong should be ceded to the British in perpetuity; that
correspondence should be conducted on terms of perfect equality between
the officers of both governments; and that the islands of Chusan and
Kolang-soo should be held by the British until the money payments were
made and arrangements for opening the ports completed.
CHAPTER LIV.
{VICTORIA. 1843—1844}
State of the Country..... Meeting of Parliament.....
National Distress..... The Corn-law Question..... Address to
the Crown on the Subject of Education..... Affairs of India,
&c. The Corn-law Question resumed..... Irish
Affairs..... Financial Statements, &c.
Education..... Church Extension, &c. Law Reform.....
Prorogation of Parliament..... Agitation; Ireland.....
Formation of the Free Church in Scotland..... The State of
India..... Continental Affairs.
STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
{A.D. 1843}
AT the opening of this year the aspect of public affairs was such as to
create disquietude and anxiety. In every branch of trade and industry
there was great depression, which was by some attributed to the workings
of the new tariff, and by others to a groundless panic occasioned by
that measure. Whatever it arose from it certainly existed; and the fact
of its existence was clearly proved by the diminished consumption of
those articles which contribute in so large a proportion to the public
revenue. The total decrease in the excise, stamps, customs, and taxes
on the quarter was £1,379,057, which was equivalent to a total yearly
deficiency of £5,516,222. The distress which prevailed naturally
give rise to various opinions as to the remedies to be applied. Some
suggested and advocated the repeal of the corn-laws; others threw the
blame upon the income-tax, and the other financial measures of Sir
Robert Peel’s government; some attributed the distress to the poor-laws;
and others pointed to emigration as the natural safety-valve and outlet
for the pressure of a too rapidly increasing population. All these
subjects were discussed at length in both houses of parliament; but few
practical results arose from these discussions.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament was opened by commission on the 2nd of February. The speech,
read by the lord-chancellor, referred to a treaty which had been
concluded with the United States of America and the adjustment of
differences which, from their long continuance had endangered the
preservation of peace. Allusion was also made to the termination of
hostilities in China; and a hope expressed “that, by the free access
which would be opened to the principal mart of that populous and
extensive empire, encouragement would be given to the commercial
enterprise of her majesty’s people.” The speech continued:—“In
concert with her allies, her majesty has succeeded in obtaining for
the Christian population of Syria, the establishment of a system of
administration which they were entitled to expect from the engagements
of the Sultan, and from the good faith of the country. The differences
for some time existing between tire Turkish and Persian governments
had recently led to acts of hostility; but as each of these states has
accepted the joint mediation of Great Britain and Russia, her majesty
entertains a confident hope that their mutual relations will be speedily
and amicably adjusted. Her majesty has concluded with the Emperor of
Russia a treaty of commerce and navigation, which will be laid before
you. Her majesty regards this treaty with great satisfaction, as the
foundation for increased intercourse between her majesty’s subjects
and those of the emperor.” The affairs of India and the events in
Afghanistan were next adverted to; satisfaction being expressed at the
victories obtained “on the scenes of former disasters.” Concerning
the decrease of revenue the speech remarked:—“Her majesty regrets the
diminished receipt from some of the ordinary sources of revenue.
Her majesty fears that it must be in part attributed to the reduced
consumption of many articles, caused by that depression of the
manufacturing industry of the country which has so long prevailed, and
which her majesty has so deeply lamented. In considering, however, the
present state of the revenue, her majesty is assured that you will
bear in mind, that it has been materially affected by the extensive
reductions in the import duties which received your sanction during the
last session of parliament, and that little progress has hitherto
been made in the collection of those taxes, which were imposed for the
purpose of supplying the deficiency from that and other causes. Her
majesty feels confident that the future produce of the revenue will be
sufficient to meet every exigency of the public service.” The speech
concluded by adverting to her majesty’s recent visit to Scotland;
to disturbances which had taken place in some of the manufacturing
districts; and to measures connected with the improvement of the law
which were to be brought forward during this session.
The address was agreed to, and the house adjourned.
In the house of commons also the address was agreed to without a
division, and the house adjourned.
NATIONAL DISTRESS.
Allusion had been made in the royal speech to the distress which
pervaded the country at this time; and in this state of things Lord
Howick give notice for a committee of the whole house to investigate the
causes of this distress. The debate commenced on the 18th of February,
by Lord Howick, calling attention to the paragraph in her majesty’s
speech referring to diminished revenue. This having been read by the
clerk at the table, his lordship then moved that the house do now
resolve itself into a committee upon the said passage in her majesty’s
speech. The debate on the motion continued during five nights: various
members on both sides of the house supporting or opposing the motion. On
the fifth and last night Mr. Cobden said that his chief objection to
the motion was, that it did not include agricultural as well as
manufacturing distress. The agricultural labourers were in a wretched
state; neither them nor the farmers were any gainers by the corn-laws.
With neither of these classes had landlords any right to identify
themselves. The landlord was no agriculturist: he might live all his
days in London or in Paris. He was no more an agriculturist than a
shipowner was a sailor. The real agriculturists were beginning to get a
glimmering of light upon this question. The member for Dorsetshire had
attacked the league; he protested against the notion that the league had
been the movers of sedition and assassination. He would next inquire
why the present motion was to be resisted by the government. When Sir R.
Peel took the reins of government, he took with them the responsibility
of introducing the measures necessary for the country..The ministers
were advocates of free-trade: why did they not carry it into effect?
They adopted it, it was said, only in the abstract: the house had
nothing to do with abstractions. Length of time was pleaded; he should
like to know whether that would be a defence to the claim of a just
plaintiff in a court of law? It could not be said that the period was
unsuitable; the year lay before them, and there was no pressure of
legislative business, publie or private. Had government any other
remedy? They had last year imposed a corn-law which gave umbrage to
all classes of mercantile men. That law had not given any extension to
regular trade, and had ruined the speculators. The tariff had reduced
the duty on seven hundred articles, and had omitted the only two which
would have done anything for tire people—corn and sugar. Sir R. Peel
had it in his power to carry the measures necessary for the people; and
if he had not that power as a minister, he would have it by resigning
his office. The right honourable baronet should be held responsible
individually: the electoral body would compel him to do them justice.
Sir Robert Peel declared that no responsibility which Mr. Cobden could
fix upon him, or induce others to fix upon him, should deter him from
doing his duty. He then proceeded to analyse the nature of the motion,
in order to show that it could not be conceded. It was not a motion, he
said, to inquire into the causes of the distress; but a motion that the
house should resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, Lord
Howiok having some proposition to bring forward for the relief of the
distress. Lord John Russell justified the form of the present motion,
and the fitness of the time at which it was brought forward; but on a
division it was rejected by a majority of three hundred and six against
one hundred and ninety-one.
ADDRESS TO THE CROWN ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION.
On the 28 th of February Lord Ashley moved the following resolution
in the house of commons:—“That an humble address be presented to her
majesty, praying that her majesty will be graciously pleased to take
into her instant and serious consideration the best means of diffusing
the benefits and blessings of a moral and religious education among the
working classes of her people.” The motion was agreed to.
AFFAIRS OF INDIA, ETC.
In the early part of this session, some interesting discussions
occurred in both houses of parliament, on the recent events and military
operations in India. The first of these discussions took place on the
9th of February, when Mr. Vernon Smith moved for the production of some
papers relative to Indian affairs. The motion was agreed to.
The following resolutions, after considerable discussion, were carried
in both houses:—“That the thanks of this liouse be given to the
Right Honourable Lord Ellenborough, governor-general of the British
possessions in the East Indies, for the ability and judgment with which
the resources of the British empire in India have been applied to the
support of the military operations in Affghanistan. That the thanks
of this house be given to Major-general Sir George Pollock, G.C.B.,
to Major-general Sir William Nott, G.C.B., to Major-general Sir John
M’Gaskill, K.C.B., to Major-general Richard England, and the other
officers of the army, both European and native, for the intrepidity,
skill, and perseverance displayed by them in the military operations in
Affghanistan, and for their indefatigable zeal and exertions throughout
the late campaign. That this house doth highly approve and acknowledge
the valour and patient perseverance displayed by the non-commissioned
officers and private soldiers, both European and native, employed in
Affghanistan, and that the same be signified to them by the commanders
of the several corps, who are desired to thank them for their gallant
behaviour.” About the same time resolutions were passed both in the
lords and commons, with respect to the services of the fleet and army
employed in the late operations in China. The affairs of India became
the subject of discussion again in the house of commons on the 2nd of
March, when Mr. Roebuck moved for a select committee to inquire into the
causes which led to the late war in Affghanistan; but it ended in
mere words: the motion was rejected by a majority of one hundred and
eighty-nine against seventy-five.
THE CORN-LAW QUESTION RESUMED.
This great question—a question which interested all parties, and all
classes of society—formed the subject of several debates during this
session. It was first brought prominently forward by Mr. Ward, who,
on the 14th of March, moved, “That a select committee be appointed to
inquire whether there are any peculiar burdens especially affecting the
landed interest of this country, or any peculiar exemptions enjoyed by
that interest; and to ascertain their nature and extent.” This motion
was negatived, after a lengthened discussion, by a large majority; but,
on the 13th of May, the whole subject of the corn-laws was brought under
discussion upon the motion annually brought forward by Mr. Villiers, for
a committee of the whole house to consider the duties on the importation
of foreign corn. This was met by Mr. Gladstone with a direct negative.
The most remarkable speeches delivered were those of Sir Robert Peel and
Mr. Cobden. Mr. Cobden combated the notion that if the corn-laws were
repealed, the whole system of revenue must be cut down; and declared
that the anti-corn-law league would persist in agitation until the
attainment of their object. On a division, the motion was rejected by
a majority of three hundred and eighty-one against one hundred and
twenty-five. Another general debate on the same subject occupied the
house on the 13th of June, when Lord John Russell again proposed the
consideration of the corn-laws in a committee of the whole house;
which, however, was negatived by a large majority. But, previous to this
debate, a measure partially effecting the operation of the corn-laws had
been proposed in the house of commons by Lord Stanley, the secretary for
the colonies. His lordship moved the following resolutions—“Resolved
that, on the 12th day of October, 1842, an act was passed by the
legislative council and legislative assembly of the province of Canada,
and reserved by the governor-general for the signification of her
majesty’s pleasure, imposing a duty of 3s., sterling money of Great
Britain, on each imperial quarter of wheat imported into Canada, except
from the United Kingdom, or any of her majesty’s possessions, and being
the growth and produce thereof. That the said act recites that it was
passed in the confident belief and expectation that, upon the imposition
of a duty upon foreign wheat imported into the province, her majesty
would be graciously pleased to recommend to parliament the removal or
reduction of the duties on wheat and wheat flour imported into the
said United Kingdom from Canada. That, in consideration of the duty so
imposed by the said act of the legislature of Canada, it is expedient
to provide that, if her majesty shall be pleased to give her sanction
to the said act, the duties imposed upon wheat and wheat flour imported
into the United Kingdom from Canada should be reduced. That, during the
continuance of the said duty, in lieu of the duties now payable upon
wheat and wheat flour imported into the United Kingdom from Canada,
under an act passed in the last session of parliament, entitled ‘An act
to amend the laws for the importation of corn,’ there shall be levied
and paid the duties following:—viz., for every quarter of wheat,
1s.; for every barrel of wheat, meal, or flour, being one hundred
and ninety-six pounds, a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on
thirty-eight and a half gallons of wheat.” In moving these resolutions,
Lord Stanley said that exaggerated notions of the measure had prevailed
on all sides; and if he had not given a direct promise to the Canadian
legislature, he would not have brought forward a question tending to
create uneasiness among them. He brought it forward, in fact, only as a
boon to Canada, which he had reason to expect, and of which the refusal
would be highly injurious to her interests and feelings. His proposal
was, not to let American wheat into England, but to let into England
Canadian wheat, and flour ground in Canada, from whatever growth it
might be manufactured. That was in accordance with the broad principle
of the navigation act—“that all manufactured goods shall be deemed
to be the produce of the country in which they are manufactured.” The
resolutions of Lord Stanley, after a stormy debate, were confirmed by
a majority of two hundred and forty-four against one hundred and
eighty-eight. A few days afterwards the house went into committee on
them, when Lord John Russell moved an amendment, which proposed to
omit that part of them which referred to the Canadian legislature, his
lordship objecting to the making of the legislation of the imperial
depend on that of the colonial parliament. Lord Stanley defended the
course taken by government as necessary to secure the object; and
after a desultory conversation, the amendment was negatived. Another
amendment, to the effect that no alteration should be made in the
corn-law of the preceding session, and in the degrees of protection
which it afforded to British agriculture, was moved by Lord Worsley;
but this also was negatived; and after some further discussion the house
divided on the original resolutions, which were carried by a majority
of two hundred and eighteen against one hundred and thirty-seven. On the
2nd of June, a bill founded on the resolutions was brought in when Lord
Worsley moved that it be read that day six months. This led to a renewed
debate on the measure: but ultimately the second reading was carried
by a majority of two hundred and nine against one hundred and nine. A
debate in the house of lords took place on the committal of the bill,
which was moved by Earl Dalhousie on the 4th of July. Lord Brougham
seconded the motion, not “because the measure was a step in the right
direction”—that is, towards the removal of the corn-laws—“but because
it removed an anomaly.” Earl Stanhope moved, as an amendment, that
the bill be committed that day six months; and he was supported in
his opposition by the Duke of Richmond, the Earl of Radnor, and Lords
Beaumont and Teynham. The amendment was, however, negatived by a
majority of fifty-seven against twenty-five. The house subsequently went
into committee, and the bill passed without amendment.
IRISH AFFAIRS.
Towards the close of the session the unusually agitated state of
Ireland, produced by the repeal movement, noticed in a subsequent
article, gave rise to angry debates in parliament. In the month of May
ministers proposed a bill requiring the registration of fire-arms, and
restricting the importation of arms and ammunition. The second reading
of this bill was moved on the 29th of May by Lord Eliot, the secretary
for Ireland, who, in introducing the subject, gave a short history of
the origin and successive renewal of the Irish arms acts, beginning with
the 33rd George III. c. 2, and ending with the bill introduced by Lord
Morpeth in 1838. This measure was opposed with uncommon energy and skill
by the Irish Roman Catholic members, and by several liberal Protestants
among the representatives of Ireland. Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Buller, and
other liberal representatives of Great Britain were also its strenuous
opponents. Mr. Shiel, always eloquent, made a brilliant speech in
resisting it, which won members of various schools of politics to his
opinion. The general feeling of the house and of the country was in
favour of the bill, and the Protestants of Ireland declared by their
petitions, and through their representatives, that it was necessary to
their safety, as in many districts of the country property and life were
in constant danger, armed bands of lawless ruffians prowling about by
night, committing outrage, incendiarism, and murder upon those who were
obnoxious to their political or religious opinions. The second reading
was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy against one hundred
and five. On the motion for committing the bill, Mr. Smith O’Brien
moved as an amendment, “that a select committee be appointed to inquire
whether the condition of Ireland was such as to require statutory
enactments different from those of Great Britain; and, if so, to
ascertain to what cause the difference of legislation was to be
attributed.” This amendment was negatived without a division, and the
bill was then ordered to be committed. In the committee the measure
encountered the most pertinacious and protracted opposition from many
members, who moved repeated amendments, and divided again and again on
some of the most obnoxious sections. It was, in fact, the 9th of August
before the Irish arms bill reached its final stage in the house of
commons. On that day Lord Eliot moved that it should be read a third
time, which motion was met by an amendment by Lord Clements, that it be
read a third time that day six months. Another warm discussion followed,
but the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five
against fifty-nine. In the house of lords two nights’ discussion took
place upon the bill; but it met with a much easier passage in that
house, and towards the close of August it passed into law.
In the meantime discussions of a different nature took place in
both houses of parliament on Irish affairs. On the 14th of July Lord
Clanricarde moved resolutions declaring the dismissal of certain
magistrates by the Lord Chancellor, for taking part in the movement
in favour of repeal, unconstitutional, unjust, and inexpedient.
Their dismissal, he said, had given a great impulse to the prevailing
agitation, manifested by the rise in the repeal-rent; and he imputed
the state of Ireland, bordering on anarchy, to the policy of the present
government. The Duke of Wellington met these resolutions by a direct
negative, and contended that repeal agitation originated in the time
of the later ministers; the acts impugned were forced upon the present
administration. A long discussion ensued; but on a division the
resolutions were negatived by a majority of ninety-one against
twenty-nine. The state of Ireland again came under discussion in the
house of lords on the 8th of August, when Lord Rod en presented a
petition from upwards of five thousand of her majesty’s Protestant loyal
subjects residing in the county of Down, praying for measures to repress
the rebellious spirit in Ireland, and expressing surprise at seeing
the marked difference made between Protestants and Roman Catholics in
respect of the enforcement of the law against processions.
In the house of commons, on the 4th of July, Mr. Smith O’Brien moved,
“That this house will resolve into a committee for the purpose of taking
into consideration the causes of the discontent prevailing in Ireland,
with a view to the redress of grievances, and to the establishment of
a system of just and impartial government in that part of the United
Kingdom.” The debate which this motion gave rise to occupied five
nights, and, unlike the other debates on Irish affairs, it was conducted
in a calm, practical, and dispassionate temper. The chief speakers for
the motion were Messrs. Wyse, Charles Wood, Smythe, Mr. J. O’Connell,
Captain Rous, and Viscount Howick; against it, Lord Eliot, Sirs J.
Graham and R. Peel, and Messrs. B. Cochrane, Lascelles, and Colquhoun.
On a division the motion was negatived, by a majority of two hundred and
forty-three against one hundred and sixty-four.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
Mr. Goulburn made his annual statement of ways and means on the 8th of
May. His statements were by no means cheering. The revenue, he said,
calculated upon by Sir Robert Peel for the year, from the customs, had
been £22,000,000, but the actual produce had only reached £21,750,000.
On the estimated produce of the excise, there had also been a deficiency
of £1,200,000; and upon the whole the revenue had fallen short of the
estimate by somewhat more than £2,000,000. That defalcation, however,
had been diminished to about £1,250,000, by a payment from China of
about £725,000. Against the deficiency thus constituted also was to be
set the produce of the income-tax, which had exceeded the expectation
formed of it: the net revenue from that source would be about
£5,100,000. It might be asked, Mr. Goulburn continued, in what way he
intended to meet the deficiency:—he had no new measure to propose; his
calculation was, that the causes which had occasioned the deficiency
of the last year were of a temporary character; that in the next and
subsequent years there would be a surplus of revenue, and out of that he
proposed to discharge the deficiency of the past year. Mr. Goulburn next
proceeded to present his estimate for the ensuing year. There were two
heavy charges, he said, which did not form part of the ordinary expenses
of the year—the one a payment of £800,000 to the owners of opium seized
in China; the other a payment of £1,250,000 to the East India Company,
on account of expenses borne by them for the Chinese war. He proposed
to advance the money requisite for these two payments, and to take
repayment from the future remittances of China. The total estimate of
revenue stated by Mr. Goulburn was £50,150,000, in which, however, he
included a sum of £870,000 from the Chinese government; and the
total estimated outlay was £49,387,645, which being deducted from the
£50,150,000, would leave a surplus of £762,000 in favour of revenue
above expenditure. In conclusion, the chancellor of the exchequer said,
that though he was not in a condition to make a flattering statement of
the country’s resources, he trusted the time was not far distant when he
should be able to come down with a proposal for easing the industry of
the country by important resolutions. He moved a vote of £47,943,000,
which, after some discussion, was granted.
At a later period of the session the state of the public finances was
made the subject of debate in the house of lords. On the 14th of August
Lord Monteagle moved this series of resolutions:—“1. That this house
observes with much concern and disappointment, that the expectation held
out of a surplus revenue, exceeding £500,000, for the year ending the
5th of April. 1843, has not been realized; but that there has been an
actual deficiency of £2,421,000, notwithstanding the imposition of a tax
on property, the application to the public service within the year of
£511,406, obtained from the government of China, and a receipt exceeding
£1,300,000, as duties upon grain imported. 2. That the charge for
the permanent debt has been increased during the last two years,
the exchequer balances have been reduced, and upwards of £1,000,000
exchequer-bills held by the trustees of the savings’ banks converted
into stock. 3. That under these circumstances it is most peculiarly the
duty of the legislature, and of her majesty’s government, to enforce the
strictest economy which is consistent with the public service, and
to adopt all such measures as may increase the ordinary revenue, by
insuring to British industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or
commercial, its widest and freest extension, and its largest reward;
thus averting from the country the calamity of the reenactment of a
tax upon property in time of peace, and promoting the well-being of
all classes of her majesty’s subjects.” The object of Lord Monteagle in
introducing these resolutions was to vindicate the Whig administration
of the public finances, and to show that the same line of conduct which
had been censured in the late ministry had been pursued by the present
government. His lordship delivered a long and able speech to this end,
which was replied to with equal ability by the Duke of Wellington and
Lord Brougham.
Another question, involving fiscal considerations, which occupied
the attention of parliament, related to the sugar duties. Government
proposed a renewal of tire duties of the year preceding, on which
the free-trade party in the house of commons made their usual protest
against the preference shown to the produce of the British colonies. On
the 22nd of June, when it was moved that the speaker should leave the
chair, in order to the house going into committee on the subject, Mr.
Cobden moved: “That it is not expedient to compel payment of a higher
price for colonial than for other commodities; and that, therefore, all
protective duties on colonial produce ought to be abolished.” As this
resolution, however, extended further than the mere sugar question, on
which it had been moved “that the speaker leave the chair,” it could not
be put; and the house then went into committee on the sugar duties.
In committee Mr. Ewart, who condemned the policy of government on this
subject, proposed that one uniform duty on foreign and colonial sugar
should be levied; but this motion was lost by a majority of one hundred
and thirty-five against eighty-five. Mr. Hawes subsequently proposed
that the house should cease to maintain an impost which was equivalent
to total prohibition, and should lower the duty to 34s.; but this was
negatived by a still larger majority, and the proposition of government
was confirmed. On a later day, the 17th of July, another important
article of traffic was brought under consideration. As an amendment on
the motion for going into a committee of supply, Mr. Charles Wood moved
“that the house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house,
to consider so much of the 5th and 6th Victoria, c. 47, customs’ act, as
relates to the duties on the importation of foreign sheeps’ and lambs’
wool.” Mr. Wood supported his motion on the ground that the trade
had been declining for nearly thirty years; but it was opposed by the
chancellor of the exchequer; and after a desultory conversation, it was
rejected by a majority of one hundred and forty-two against seventy.
About the same time, however, government showed that they were not
disinclined to all further commercial relaxation; for at their instance
the restrictions on the importation of machinery, imposed by an act of
King William the Fourth, were taken off. A bill for this purpose was
brought in by the president of the board of trade, and, being supported
by all parties in the house, passed without difficulty. After some
opposition from Earl Stanhope, it was subsequently carried in the lords,
and was incorporated finally into “an act for amending the customs,”
which received the royal assent before the close of the session.
EDUCATION.
It has already been seen that, on the motion of Lord Ashley, an address
was voted to the crown on the subject of the education of the working
classes. The queen’s answer to this address was delivered by Earl Jermyn
at the bar of the house, on the 8th of March. It read thus:—“I have
received your loyal and dutiful address. The attention of my government
had been previously directed to the important object of increasing the
moral and religious education among the working classes of my people;
and the assurance of your cordial co-operation in measures which I
consider so necessary, confirms my hope that this blessing will be
secured by legislative enactment.” On the same day Sir James Graham
introduced his promised bill for regulating the employment of children
and young persons in factories. Its clauses were, in fact, strongly
opposed both in parliament and by the people, being objected to chiefly
on the ground of giving a too exclusive management of the schools to
the clergy of the church of England, thereby prejudicing dissenters and
Roman Catholics. This objection was forcibly urged by several members
in the discussion which ensued; while, on the other hand, it was
controverted by several members with equal force. Avoiding this source
of contention, Lord Ashley earnestly enforced the arguments respecting
the necessity of the measure. The bill was finally read a second time.
The measure, however, met with so much opposition from the dissenting
and Roman Catholic bodies, and appeared to be so distasteful to a large
section of the community, that Sir James Graham, on the 1st of May,
produced a series of amendments which had been prepared by government.
But although the bill was thus altered to meet the views of all classes,
it was still strenuously opposed by several members, though eventually
it was recommitted. Such was the animosity still displayed by the Roman
Catholic and dissenting bodies against the measure, that government
at length came to the resolution of abandoning it. The home secretary
announced this intention on the 15th of June, on which occasion he
promised to state on an early day the future intentions of government.
In fulfilment of this promise, on the 19th he declared that government
did not mean to give up the remainder of the factories’ bill; and on his
motion it was recommitted.
CHURCH EXTENSION, ETC.
On the 5th of May Sir Robert Peel brought forward, in a committee of the
whole house, a plan for relieving the spiritual wants of the kingdom by
the endowment of additional churches, and augmentation of small livings.
In explaining his measure, the right honourable baronet said that at the
end of 1834 he had advised the crown to issue a commission to ascertain
whether aid might not be obtained for religious instruction from
ecclesiastical resources. The result of the inquiries of this commission
had been to show that the revenues of certain bishoprics, cathedrals,
and other ecclesiastical establishments, were larger than their purposes
required. The commissioners recommended the transfer of such surplus
receipts of the church to a new fund, which now amounted to £25,000.
Out of this fund about £16,700 per annum had been applied to the
augmentation of small livings; and other analogous purposes had been
marked out, which, with the sum applied for, would absorb about
£32,000. In a few years the fund would be increased by the falling in of
canonries and other preferments; and the question was whether it would
be better to wait till that increase should have been realized, or to
anticipate that increase by some immediate measure. Government were in
favour of the latter course, and for this purpose it would be necessary
to combine the instrumentality of two bodies—the ecclesiastical
commissioners and the board of Queen Anne’s bounty for the augmentation
of small livings. The latter board possessed about £1,200,000, invested
in the funds; and what he now proposed, was to authorize the advance
of £600,000 by this board, to the ecclesiastical commissioners, on the
security of the before-mentioned revenue of the ecclesiastical fund,
existing and hereafter accruing. This advance to the extent of £30,000
a year he would apply in endowments for ministers of the church of
England; and that annual sum, with the interest on the principal at
three per cent., being £18,000 a year, would in seventeen years
exhaust the whole. By that time the accumulation in the hands of the
ecclesiastical commissioners would, even upon the narrowest calculation,
exceed £100,000 a year, and the commissioners would thenceforth continue
the £18,000 a year interest, and the proposed augmentation of £30,000 a
year, together with the £32,000 already applied, or destined by them
to similar or analogous purposes; and they would then possess a
considerable surplus, applicable to future improvement. In conclusion,
Sir Robert Peel said that he should have rejoiced if he could likewise
have carried a grant of public money for these purposes with general
goodwill; but he did not think that a public grant without such
goodwill would have effectually accomplished the benefits which he
anticipated from the application of ecclesiastical revenues. Several
members spoke in terms of approbation of the measure, and the motion was
unanimously voted.
The great secession in the church of Scotland gave occasion to the
introduction of a bill proposed by Lord Aberdeen, on the part of the
government to remove doubts respecting the admission of ministers to
benefices. This bill provided that the presbytery, or church court,
to which objections should be referred to be cognosced, should be
authorized to inquire into the whole circumstances of the parish, and
the character and number of persons by whom the objections and reasons
should be preferred; and if the presentee should be found not qualified
or suitable for that particular parish, the presbytery should pronounce
to that effect, and should set forth the special grounds upon which
their judgment was founded. The bill further abolished the veto, to
guard against any doubt or difficulty on that point; providing that it
shall not be lawful for any presbytery, or other ecclesiastical court,
to reject any presentee upon the ground of any mere dissent or dislike,
expressed in any part of the congregation of the parish in which he
was presented, and which dissent or dislike should not be founded upon
objections or reasons to be fully cognosced, judged of, and determined
in the manner aforesaid, by the presbytery, or other ecclesiastical
court. Lord Aberdeen declared his belief that the adoption of this
measure would retain in the establishment a numerous body of ministers
then in a state of suspense. Those parish ministers who had seceded
were about two hundred and forty, or one-fourth of the whole number; the
unendowed ministers, about two hundred, or about one-third of the entire
clergy of Scotland. He did not apprehend, he said, any fatal consequence
from the secession; but the bill would tend to tranquillise those who
remained within the pale. The measure encountered the most strenuous
opposition of Lords Brougham, Cottingham, and Campbell in all its
stages; but it passed the upper house, and was introduced in the commons
by Sir James Graham on the 31st of July. After explaining the nature of
the bill, and supporting it by all the arguments he could bring forward
in its favour, the right honourable baronet expressed a hope that the
church of Scotland would find a haven of peace and security, and in that
spirit of hope and peace he moved its second reading. Mr. Wallace said
that the bill would create more doubts than had heretofore existed, and
would make the people renounce the church; on which grounds he moved
that it be read that day six months. This amendment was supported by
Lord John Russell, and Messrs. Rutherford, Hume, Cochrane, and
Alexander Campbell. On the other hand the bill was supported by the
solicitor-general, Sir George Clerk, Mr. Hope Johnstone, and Sir Robert
Peel; and on a division the second reading was carried by a majority of
ninety-eight against eighty. The opponents of the measure renewed their
attempts of throwing it out on the motion for going into committee, when
Mr. P. M. Stewart moved that it be committed that day three months; but
this was negatived, and the bill finally passed, and received the royal
assent.
LAW REFORM.
Several reforms in the law were made during this session. One of the
most important of these changes was the registration act. This passed
the commons without any difficulty; and the second reading of the bill
was moved in the upper house by Lord Wharncliffe, on which occasion his
lordship thus explained its leading provisions. The objects of the bill,
he said, were first, to establish in every part of the country a real
and _bona fide_ list of voters; secondly, to settle certain doubts with
respect to qualifications which had arisen in the revising barristers’
courts; and, thirdly, to prevent the personation of voters, or the
possibility of individuals voting twice at the same election. One of the
greatest alterations in the bill was that which related to the right of
voting, as it depended on the payment of taxes. As the law at present
stood a person could not have his name placed on the list of voters
unless he had paid all his rates and taxes up to the time of making his
claim. By this bill it was provided, that persons should be allowed
to have their names inserted in the list of voters if they paid, on or
before the 20th of July next ensuing after making their claim, all the
poor’s-rates and assessed taxes payable from them for twelve calendar
months before the 6th day of the preceding April. One great objection to
the existing law was, that the decisions of the revising barristers
were final; but by this measure an appeal from their decisions, on legal
points, was allowed to the court of common-pleas. Provision was also
made to clear up doubtful points as to the right of voting in counties,
and likewise with reference to the place where a claim to the right
of voting should be made, when the party resided in an extra-parochial
district where there was no overseer. Another important point provided
for by the bill was that which related to votes on account of trusts on
mortgage estates. It was now provided that no mortgagee of any lands
or tenements should have a vote for members unless he was in actual
possession or receipt of the rents and profits of the lands or tenements
mortgaged; but that the mortgager in actual possession, or in receipt
of the rents or profits, should be allowed to vote in respect of the
property, notwithstanding the mortgage. Another bill carried this
session made some alterations in the law relating to defamation and
libel. By this bill, which was introduced by Lord Campbell, it was made
lawful to give evidence of the truth of the allegations complained of in
any criminal proceedings for libel, but subject to this limitation—that
the truth shall not, _ipso facto_, constitute a defence, unless the
party shall also make out that the publication of it was for the
public benefit. Provision was also made for the case of publication
of libellous matter by inadvertence in newspapers. In such case the
defendant was empowered to plead the facts in extenuation, and also
to pay money into court by way of amends. Other clauses were directed
against that nefarious system practised by some conductors of
newspapers, who drive a trade in slander; while others imposed
additional penalties upon those who make the publication of libels,
or the threat of such publication, a means of extorting money from
individuals. Two other measures brought in by government during this
session—namely, a measure for the reform of the ecclesiastical court,
and a bill for the extension of county courts—were not received with so
much favour as the preceding: both met with stern opposition, and were
in consequence postponed.
PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament was prorogued by the queen in person on the 24th of August.
In the speech her majesty alluded with satisfaction to the various
measures passed during the session; and thanked both houses for the
measures they had adopted for enabling her to give full effect to the
several treaties which had been concluded with foreign powers. Her
majesty also alluded to the lawless combinations and commotions which
had disturbed the public peace in some districts of Wales; and to the
agitation in Ireland for a repeal of the legislative union.
AGITATION IN IRELAND, FORMATION OF THE FREE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND, ETC.
After the attainment of the Roman Catholic relief act, Mr. O’Connell had
from time to time held out the repeal of the legislative union to the
deluded people of Ireland as the great ultimatum, in his view, for
their benefit. His exertions in this pursuit were at times relaxed, or
diverted in favour of some other object; and there were many who
thought his sincerity in this matter demanded a doubt. During this
year, however, he took up the cause of repeal with redoubled energy.
Abandoning the house of commons, he gave himself wholly up to the task
of raising the banner of national independence in Ireland. In this work
he resorted to the same plan of organization which had been adopted
with success in prosecuting the Roman Catholic claims. An association,
indeed, for the furtherance of repeal, provided with all the machinery
requisite to give effect to its comprehensive designs, formed the main
instrument by which the union was to be assailed. This body, which was
styled the National Loyal Repeal Association, consisted of associates,
members, and volunteers. The distinction of these classes was marked
out by money-payments; for it was the “rent” to which the agitator was
mainly looking. Thus associates were to pay one shilling each; while
members were to pay one pound each. Cards were issued to all sections of
the association; but those issued to members, or those who paid the most
“rent,” were distinct from the rest. This card bore the names of four
places in Ireland, the scenes of fights in which the Irish had conquered
either the Danes or the English. A printed document described these
victories. In another part of the card the geographical position of
Ireland was contrasted with various states with the following words
underneath:—“Ireland has not a parliament.” The card further set forth
the revenue expended by Ireland during the last great war in France, and
stated that the commander-in-chief, and two-thirds of the officers and
men of the English army and navy on that occasion were Irishmen. Added
to these features there was a scroll at the top of the card, bearing the
following words:—“Resolved unanimously that the claims of any body of
men, other than the king, lords, and commons of Ireland to make laws to
bind this kingdom are unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance;” which
resolution was agreed to by the Dungannon volunteers in 1782. At the
bottom of the card was an extract from a speech of Mr. Saurin, declaring
the union not to be binding on conscience. In addition to the several
kinds of members, the Repeal Association comprised officer’s, consisting
of general inspectors, repeal-wardens, and collectors. Repeal-wardens
were appointed by the association on the recommendation of the clergymen
of their parishes; and a book of instruction was prepared, in which the
several functions which they were to execute were described. One leading
branch of their duties was the transmission and circulation among the
associates in every district of certain newspapers devoted to the repeal
cause, to be purchased out of the subscriptions in aid of the general
object. The main object of the association appears to have been to
provide a machinery of the most effective kind for the collection of
funds, and to train the people to combination, and prepare them for
simultaneous movements at the bidding of their leaders. How well
calculated it was for the former object the weekly reports of the “rent”
show; and its effectiveness in the latter design was proved by the
“monster meetings,” which were held at Trim, Mullingar, and other places
throughout Ireland. At all these meetings the most violent language was
used by Mr. O’Connell and his coadjutors; and government was importuned
to adopt some energetic measures for the suppression of this dangerous
conspiracy. The only measures, however, adopted by the ministry for some
time was the Irish arms bill, and the removing from the commission of
the peace the names of those magistrates who attended or participated
in any of the repeal meetings. But the more lenient government showed
itself, the more bold and insolent the repealers became. At a “monster
meeting” held at Tara on the 15th of August, Mr. O’Connell spoke
out with unequivocal significancy. Another “monster meeting” was
subsequently held at Roscommon, which Mr. O’Connell said, from its
numbers, ought “to strike their enemies with terror, and to give their
friends a great consolation.” At a later period of the year other
“monster meetings” were held; and at each succeeding meeting the
language of the repealers grew bolder and bolder. At length government
was roused to action. A great meeting was announced for the 8th of
October, to be held at Clontarf, the scene of an Irish victory over
the Danes; and the programme of the proceedings to take place on this
occasion, and the regulations to be observed by those who should attend
it, had been announced with more than common ostentation and solemnity.
Against this meeting government issued a proclamation; and as soon as
the issue of it was known, Mr. O’Connell called a special meeting of the
repeal association, at which, speaking with marked calmness, he said, in
consequence of the step taken by government, there would be no meeting
on the next day at Clontarf. A counter-proclamation was adopted by this
meeting, in which the abandonment of the intended assembling at Clontarf
was announced, and the people were exhorted not to assemble. As,
however, the proclamation and the counter-proclamation were issued only
the day before the intended meeting was to take place, thousands knew
nothing of their promulgation, and consequently repaired to Clontarf, in
the expectation of meeting their leaders. Instead of Mr. O’Connell
and his associates, they met with troops; and thus disappointed, they
returned home. Happily the day passed off with tranquillity; for,
notwithstanding the vast concourse who thronged to the scene throughout
the day, no disturbance took place. But the operations of government
against the repealers did not stop here. A few days afterwards the
public were startled by the announcement of the arrest of Mr. O’Connell
and his coadjutors, on charges of conspiracy, sedition, and unlawful
assembling. Mr. O’Connell entered into recognisances, himself in £1000,
with two sureties of £500 each, to abide his trial on the charges
preferred against him. Both Mr. O’Connell and his coadjutors were
bound to appear on the first day of Michaelmas term, at the court of
Queen’s-Bench at Dublin; and on their appearance the grand jury brought
in the indictment, “a true bill;” but the proceedings of the trial were
so much hindered by the various pretexts of the prisoners’ counsel,
that it was finally agreed that it should be deferred till the 15th of
January, 1844.
One of the most remarkable events which occurred in the course of this
year, was the secession of a considerable number of the ministers
and laity of the established church of Scotland from that body. This
secession arose out of a controversy which had been raised upon the
limits of ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction, and the agitation which
had been produced in tire minds of the non-intrusion party since
the adverse decision of the law-courts and the house of lords in the
Auchterarder case. The final act of separation took place in the month
of May, during the meeting of the General Assembly of the church of
Scotland. A committee had been appointed to consider the propriety of
separation; and on the 22nd of May, at a general meeting in the church
of Dr. Candlish, the report of this committee was produced, and a
resolution incorporating the recommendations of the report was adopted,
in which it was resolved that an act of separation should be reported
to the Assembly on the morrow. The next day, accordingly, the act of
separation was produced; which act solemnly renounced for those who
should affix their names to it the status, privileges, and emoluments
derived from the establishment, reserving to ministers the right to act
as pastors of particular congregations, or portions thereof, adhering to
them, with the rights and benefits accruing from the ministers’ widows’
fund. This document contained an order that the act of separation should
be transmitted to the Moderator of the General Assembly—denominated
by the seceders “Ecclesiastical Judicatory, by Law Established.” The
signing of the document occupied four hours, and the act of separation
was then transmitted to the General Assembly. The number of ministers
who signed it, or were enrolled in the list of the secession during its
first assembly, was three hundred and ninety-five; but the ranks of the
separatists were subsequently swelled by the addition of a considerable
number of ministers and others, who from time to time gave in their
adhesion to the “free church.” This secession is one of the most
remarkable ecclesiastical revolutions on record; and its effects were
extensively felt throughout Scotland. The secession even gave rise to
outrages on the part of the people. In the course of the autumn several
serious disturbances took place throughout the country in connection
with the free church movement; but it is just to remark that those who
took part in these disgraceful proceedings formed only a minority cf the
people: the general demeanour of the population during this change in
their domestic affairs, was that of peace and good order.
In South Wales there was a commotion of a very different nature. The
disturbances which took place there, and which were denominated the
“Rebecca riots,” were equally singular and unexpected. The grievance
which gave rise to them was the heavy and vexatious tolls to which
the peasantry were subjected by the mismanagement and abuses of the
turnpike-system. Galled by this burden, they resolved to take the law
into their own hands, and to break down the gates in every part. There
was, in fact, a crusade against toll-gates commenced during this year,
in almost every part of South Wales. The supposed head or chief of the
gate-breakers was called “Rebecca,” a name derived from this passage in
the book of Genesis: “And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Let
thy seed possess the gates of those which hate them.” (Gen. xxiv. ver.
60.) “Rebecca,” who was in the guise of a woman, always made her marches
by night; and her conduct of the campaign exhibited much dexterity
and address. Herself and band were mounted on horseback; and a sudden
blowing of horns, and firing of guns, announced the arrival of the
assailants at the turnpike selected for attack. The work of demolition
was soon effected: gate, posts, and tollhouse were razed to the ground;
and the work was no sooner done than the mysterious assailants galloped
off, firing their guns and blowing their horns; and no trace was to be
found of the quarter whence they had come, or to what place they had
retreated. At first the trustees re-erected some of the gates; but
“Rebecca,” and her associates speedily demolished them; so that the
trustees were finally compelled to desist, and to leave the roads free
from toll. All the efforts of the magistrates were unavailing; and they
were obliged to appeal to government for protection and support. In
the meantime the unchecked success of the insurgents began to work its
natural effect in beguiling them into further violations of the laws.
Other grievances, as the poor-law amendment act, the working of the new
tithe-law, the fees paid to magistrates’ clerks in the administration of
justice, and the alleged extortionate rents taken by the landowners for
their farms, were all considered burdens too heavy to be borne, and fit
objects for removal. Meetings were held in secluded spots, where plans
for carrying on the warfare against the ills to be redressed were
concocted; and these deliberations soon broke out into action. On the
10th of June “Rebecca” and her followers visited Caermarthen, and in
open day proceeded to attack the workhouse. In the midst of their work
of demolition, however, the military arrived, and the whole force was
compelled to decamp, leaving behind them about one hundred, who
were taken prisoners. The insurrection, notwithstanding this, still
continued, and even assumed a more malignant aspect. Houses in which
persons lived who were obnoxious to the rioters were attacked; and
a growing feeling of alarm and insecurity pervaded the peaceable and
well-disposed portion of the community. One poor woman, who kept
the Hendy turnpike-gate, on the confines of Glamorganshire and
Caermarthenshire, was barbarously murdered by the rioters; and such
was the influence of fear exercised over the minds of the jurymen who
investigated the case, that they brought in a verdict to the effect,
“That the deceased died from suffusion of blood, which produced
suffocation, but from what cause is to the jurors unknown.” By the
continuance of these outrages, government at length sent down to Wales
a large body of troops, under a general officer, who was to take the
command of the disturbed districts. At the same time a strong body of
the London police was sent to exercise their skill in ferreting out the
rioters, who had long escaped detection. These measures did not wholly
prevent violence under cover of night; but, in a short time, some of
the more active leaders of the riots were captured in an affray with the
county police, on the borders of Glamorganshire; and from this event,
and various other causes, the spirit of disturbance, towards the close
of the year, began to decline. Perhaps the most effectual cause of
this decline was a prospect of the redress of those hardships which had
formed the theme of so much complaint. In October government sent down
a commission, which was to examine into the operation of the
turnpike-laws, and other alleged grievances of the country. From the
report of this commission, poverty and the hardness of the times had
more to do with the outbreak than any other specific cause; but, at the
same time, the inquiries instituted, and the report itself, showed
that the turnpike-laws as administered in Wales did afford a real and
substantial ground of complaint.
DISPUTES WITH AMERICA.
During last year the boundary question, which had formed a subject of
dispute between England and America, had been happily adjusted by Lord
Ashburton, who had been sent to the United States for that purpose.
There still, however, remained serious questions of dispute between the
two countries; namely, the Oregon territory, the right of search, and
the non-payment of state debts. In the year 1818, a treaty between Great
Britain and America had been ratified by the prince-regent; and in the
month of January, 1819, by the President of the United States, the third
article of which stipulated that “whatever territory may be claimed
by one or other of the contracting parties on the north-west coast of
America, to the west of the Rocky Mountains, as also all bays, creeks,
or rivers thereon, shall be free and open to the ships, citizens, and
subjects of both powers for ten years from the date of the signature
of the present convention.” In accordance with this stipulation of the
treaty, the Oregon territory had been conjointly occupied up to the
present time—the period of ten years being afterwards indefinitely
extended by consent of both governments. In the early part of this
session of congress, the president announced that he was about to
negotiate with the British government for finally settling the claims
of the two countries to this territory. Whilst these negotiations were
pending, a bill for the occupation and military organization of the
Oregon territory was brought into congress by Mr. Linn. This bill, which
stated that “the title of the United States to the territory of Oregon
is certain, and will not be abandoned,” was carried by a majority of
twenty-three against twenty-two. On being sent down, however, to the
house of representatives, the committee on foreign affairs reported
against it, and it was abandoned for this session. Another object which
gave rise to dissension between the government of Great Britain and the
United States, was the repudiation of public debts by several states of
the union. A third subject of dispute between the governments of Great
Britain and America was the right of search. Conflicting interpretations
existed between them of the treaty of Washington, which gave rise to a
tedious and disputatious correspondence. The year closed, also, before
the question was settled; but at the same time, though there were
signs of an open rupture between the two governments, yet there were
circumstances which gave rise to a well-founded hope, and it has happily
proved to be correct, that the swords of England and America would
not again be drawn against each other. There was especially a desire
existing in America of entering into a commercial treaty on the basis
of mutual reductions of import duties; so that it was clear that
the Americans saw, equally with the English, that it was their best
interests to avoid that dread ultimatum—war.
THE STATE OF INDIA.
The events of the present year in India, although not so exciting as
those which occurred in the last, possess deep interest. In Affghanistan
nothing of importance occurred after its evacuation by the British,
except that Dost Mahomed, who had been permitted to leave our
territories when we left Affghanistan, concentrated the chief power of
that country in his own hands, and became in effect its ruler. A more
important event occurred in the annexation of Scinde to our dominions
in the East. Scinde lies between the 23° and 29° of N. latitude, and the
67° and 70° of E. longitude. It is bounded on the south and south-east
by the Indian Ocean and Cutch; on the west by Beloo-chistan; on the
north by the southern portion of Affghanistan and the Punjaub; and on
the east by a sandy desert, separating it from the districts of Ajmeer.
The river Indus flows nearly in the centre of the country, through its
whole extent, from north to south; and a little below the city of Tatta
is divided into two great branches, between which lies a delta, through
which smaller channels force their way. Scinde had recently been
governed by four chiefs of the Beloochee tribe called Talpoor. The name
of the eldest of these chiefs was Futteh Ali Khan, who had the principal
direction of affairs, inasmuch as he had been the chief instrument in
overthrowing the dynasty of the Caleras, on the ruins of whose throne
the Talpoor chiefs sat. The brothers of Futteh Ali Khan were Gholam
Ali, Kunn Ali, and Moorad Ali; and the four brothers enjoyed a joint
sovereignty over Scinde, under the name of the _Char Yar_, or the “Four
Friends.” All these rulers died by the year 1833, the whole leaving male
issue except Kunn Ali. Their deaths were followed by a civil war between
the sons of the deceased chiefs, which resulted in a distribution of
territory amongst them. They were distinguished respectively as Ameers
of Hyderabad, Khyrpore, and Meerpore. At the beginning of the present
year, the Ameers of Scinde consisted of the following persons:—at
Hyderabad, Nusseer Khan, Shabad Khan, Hussein Ali Khan, Mahomed Khan,
and Sobhdar Khan; at Khyrpore, Rustum Khan, Nusseer Khan, Ali Moorad
Khan, and Chakur Khan; at Meerpore, Shere Mahomed Khan. All of these
were Talpoor chiefs, and several of them had sons who were associated
with them in the government. They ruled over Scinde with a rod of iron,
living entirely for themselves, and wallowing in wealth, while their
people were living in the most wretched condition. In 1832, a treaty,
bearing date the 20th of April, was executed between the British
government in India and Meermoorad Ali, who at that time was the
principal Ameer of Scinde, in which a bond of friendship was entered
into, and mutual commerce was agreed upon. Another treaty was concluded
in 1834, by which the British obtained a reduction of tolls upon vessels
navigating the Indus; and it was agreed that a native British agent
should be allowed to reside at the mouth of the river. In 1838, in
consequence of the incursions of Runjeet Sing, the ruler of the Punjaub,
in the Scinde territory, which were checked by British mediation, it was
further conceded that an accredited British minister should reside at
Hyderabad, attended by such an escort as might be deemed suitable by his
government. Captain Pottinger was appointed to this service. It was soon
found, however, that the Ameers of Scinde were not in heart friends of
the British. When, in the autumn of 1838, the great military expedition
into Affghanistan was undertaken, a large body of Bengal troops marched
through a portion of Upper Scinde towards the Bolan Pass. The Bombay
troops, also, under the command of Sir John Keane, took their route into
Cabul by the way of the Indus; in doing which they encountered great
difficulty in prosecuting their onward progress, from the jealousy and
disaffection of the Ameers. Their conduct, in fact, became so hostile,
that a force was sent from Bombay to be stationed as a reserve in
Scinde, to keep the Ameers in check. This force was established at
Kurrachee; and before the army of the Indus left Hyderabad in February,
1839, another treaty was concluded with the Ameers, by which it was
stipulated that a British force should be stationed to the westward of
the Indus: that three of the Ameers—Noor Mahomed, Nusseer Khan, and
Meer Mahomed—should pay one lac of rupees (£10,000) each annually,
to defray part of the expenses of this force; that all tolls on boats
navigating the Indus within the Scinde territories should be abolished;
and that the Ameers should rule absolutely in their respective
territories; and in case of difference, the British representatives in
Scinde should mediate between them. A similar treaty was also concluded
with the Khyrpore Ameers; and shortly afterwards Shere Mahomed, Ameer of
Meerpore, on his own application was allowed, on the payment of half a
lac of rupees yearly, to participate in the treaty granted to the
Ameers of Hyderabad. From this time up to the end of 1840, when serious
disturbances occurred at Khelat, the state of Scinde was comparatively
tranquil. There were, however, strong reasons to suspect that the Ameers
were holding communications with the refractory Brahoe tribes, with a
view of attacking the British on a favourable opportunity. At this time
Major Outram was British resident at Hyderabad; and he had on several
occasions to mediate in family discords between the courts of Hyderabad
and Khyrpore. In the year 1840 Noor Mahomed died, and was succeeded by
his two sons, Meer Sliahdad and Meer Hossein Ali. Their uncle, Nusseer
Khan, wished, on the death of his brother to be acknowledged by the
British government as the rais or head of the Hyderabad branch of the
Tulpoor family, which distinction was not conceded. From that time he
seems to have meditated plans of active hostility against the British.
The indications of his enmity were so apparent, that he was threatened
by Lord Ellenborough with the loss of his dominions if he proved
faithless. But he was not the only Ameer hostile to the British
government. They were all in arrears with reference to the contribution
they were bound by treaty to supply towards the support of the British
force at Tatta; and when pressed for payment they evaded compliance, and
concerted measures of hostility against us, which rendered it possible
they would attack our forces on the first favourable opportunity. Under
these circumstances Sir Charles Napier was invested with the chief
command of all the forces in Scinde, and also with the authority of
a political functionary. He was invested with authority by the
governor-general of India, to propose a new treaty to the Àmeers of
Hyderabad and Khyrpore, which was to contain these stipulations:—That
the Ameers should be relieved from the payment of any subsidy for the
support of British troops; that the British government should have the
right to fell wood within one hundred yards of either bank of the Indus
for the use of steamers; and that Karrachu, Tatta, and three other
towns, with a strip of land on each side, should be ceded in perpetuity
to the British government. Sir Charles Napier appointed Major Outrarn
to conduct these negociations; and as it was necessary to maintain a
resolute front in the management of this treaty, Sir Charles himself
marched in February with his troops towards Khyrpore. Meer Rustum Khan
fled from his capital to a fort in the desert called Emaumghur, whither
he was followed by Sir Charles Napier, who, on arriving at this fort,
and finding it deserted, destroyed it with gunpowder, that it might not
form a place of refuge. The Ameers were at first adverse to the terms of
the treaty; but ultimately they agreed to the stipulations, which were
signed on both sides. There was, however, treachery among the Beloochee
chieftains. On the 15th of February the British residences at Hyderabad
were attacked by a body of 8000 troops, with six guns, who were
commanded by Meer Shahdad Khan. Major Outrarn, and the small garrison,
of about one hundred men, were compelled to take refuge in flight: they
fled to the Indus, where they were received on board one of the British
steamers, which conveyed them to Sir C. Napier at Hala. This event was
the signal of war; and bitterly did the Ameers pay for their treachery.
A great battle was fought at Meeanee, in which the Beloochee rulers
suffered a signal defeat: about 5000 of their followers were slain, and
the whole of the enemy’s artillery, ammunition, standards, and camp,
with considerable stores, were captured by the British. Meer Rustum
Khan, and Meer Nusseer Khan; Meer Wullee Mahomed, of Khyrpore; Meer
Nusseer Khan, Meer Shadad Khan, and Meer Hossein Khan, all came into Sir
Charles Napier’s camp, and surrendered their swords as prisoners of war.
Hyderabad, also, was given up to the British commander; and on the
20th of February the British flag waved over that city. The contest
in Scinde, however, was not yet over. There was still a large body of
troops on the banks of the Fullahi, one of the branches of the Indus,
under the command of Shere Mahomed. This body of troops, indeed,
consisted of 20,000 men, and they were strongly posted behind one of the
large nullahs by which that country is intersected in all directions;
but after a combat of three hours they were wholly defeated, and all
their standards and cannon were captured. After this latter victory Sir
Charles Napier took possession of Meerpore, and on the 4th of April the
fortress of Oomercote, an important stronghold in the desert, opened its
gates to the victorious British. By these events Scinde was subdued,
and the “Scindian population,” says the conqueror, “everywhere expressed
their satisfaction at the change of masters.” At a subsequent period
of the year Shere Mahomed and Shah Mahomed gathered each an army around
them, in order to recover their lost power; but the former was
defeated by a detachment under Captain Jacob, and the latter by another
detachment under Colonel Roberts. No further disturbance took place this
year in Scinde, and the governor-general was able to announce that
that country had become a part of our eastern dominions. The six fallen
Ameers were conveyed to Bombay; and although they were treated kindly,
they arrived there “the very pictures of unmingled grief and hopeless
despondency.” It should be mentioned that Ali Moorad, the Ameer of
Khyrpore, remained faithful; and a portion of the territories of the
Koostum Khan and Nusseer Khan was transferred to him; but he seems to
have imagined that he ought to have had all that the British had taken
from the defeated Ameers. Shortly after the country was conquered Sir
Charles Napier was appointed governor of Scinde, and empowered to
take such measures as might appear best calculated to suppress the
slave-trade in every part of the country, and to abolish all duties of
transit in every part occupied by the British army. The gallant conduct
of Sir Charles Napier obtained the warmest praise of the people of
England.
During this year, also, the British troops gained two brilliant
victories over the Mahratta forces. The events which led to these
contests are briefly these. On the decease of the Maharaja, Jhunkojee
Rao Scindia, the British government acknowledged as his successor the
Maharaja Jyajee Rao Scindia, who was the nearest in blood to the late
Maharaja. During the minority of the new ruler of Mahratta the dignity
and power of regent were conferred upon the Mama Sahib. The widow of the
late Maharaja and the chiefs concurred in this adoption of a regent,
and the British government confirmed their choice. After a short time,
however, notwithstanding the remonstrance of the British resident,
Mama Sahib was violently compelled to quit the Gwalior state. On this
occurrence becoming-known, the British resident was instructed to
withdraw from Gwalior; and a British army was sent into Scindia, “not
as an enemy, but as a friend to the Maharaja, bound by treaty to respect
his highness’s person, and to maintain his sovereign authority against
all who were disobedient and disturbers of the public peace.” Having
established a strong government at Gwalior, capable of maintaining the
authority of the Maharaja, the British armies were subsequently ordered
to withdraw to their own territory. They were not, however, destined to
return without a severe conflict with the Mahratta forces. They had left
Agra in the early part of December; and on the 23rd they crossed the
Chumbul river, and halted at Hingona, about twenty miles distance from
Gwalior. The governor-general was with the British troops; and during
the interval of five days’ halt at Hingona, the Mahratta Vakeels, or
agents for the Gwalior Durbar, had an interview with him. He supposed
that they were desirous of peace, but war was in their hearts. They were
evidently desirous only of gaining time by negociation to assemble
and concentrate their forces. This at last became so evident that the
governor-general determined on active measures of hostility. While the
main body of our army moved on under the command of Sir Hugh Gough from
Agra, another division, under Major-general Grey, advanced on Gwalior
from Bundle Khand. The main division crossed the Khoraee river early in
the evening of the 29th of December; and they found the Mahratta forces
drawn up in front of the village of Mahrajpoor, in a strong position.
The British troops were about 14,000 strong, with forty pieces of
artillery; and the Mahrattas numbered 18,000 men, including 3000
cavalry, and one hundred guns. An obstinate battle was fought, in which
the British lost about one hundred killed, and had about seven hundred
wounded; while the Mahrattas are said to have lost more than three
thousand men. The British were victorious, not only defeating the enemy,
but capturing many of their standards, and most of their guns. On the
same day, Major-general Grey, with a force of only 2000 men gained
another victory at Punniar over a Mahratta force, estimated at 12,000
in number. The consequence of these victories was the submission of the
Mahratta Durbar to the demands of the Indian government; Colonel Stubbs
was appointed by the Maha Ranee governor of the fort of Gwalior, which
commands the city; the Mahratta troops were disbanded: and a British
contingent, consisting of seven regiments of infantry and two of
cavalry, was to be maintained in the country at the cost of the Gwalior
government, which government was also to pay forthwith the expenses of
the campaign.
During this year Sir Henry Pottinger issued a proclamation, in which
he announced that the ratification of the treaty, mentioned in the last
chapter, between Great Britain and China had been exchanged, and that he
had concluded with the Chinese high commissioner, Keying, a commercial
treaty and tariff. The ports to which the British were admitted by this
treaty were those of Canton, Amoy, Foo-chow-foo, Ningpo, and Shanghae;
and an order in council was issued, in which her majesty prohibited her
subjects from resorting, for the purposes of trade and commerce, to any
other ports than these in the dominions of the Emperor of China, under
a penalty not exceeding £100 for every such offence, or a term of
imprisonment not exceeding three months, at the discretion of the court
before which the conviction should take place. Mr. T. Lay was appointed
consul at Canton, and Sir Henry Pottinger formally assumed the
government of the island of Hong-Kong. The town destined for the seat
of government, and the residence of merchants and others, was founded
on the northern side of the island, and named Victoria. It was not long
before the cupidity of trade displayed itself. Sir Henry Pottinger had
refused to allow opium to be stored in warehouses in Hong-Kong; and
six of the merchants at Victoria withdrew to Macao on account of this
decision. In consequence of this manifestation of dissatisfaction, a
proclamation was published in order to point out the risk which those
subjected themselves to who were resolved at all hazards to import
opium.
CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.
An interesting event took place in September of this j’ear, when
her majesty Queen Victoria, accompanied by Prince Albert, paid Louis
Philippe a visit in his own dominions. They arrived in their steam-yacht
at Tréport, close to Eu, where the royal family of France were
sojourning; and after receiving a most cordial reception from their
illustrious host and the French people, they proceeded on their voyage
to Ostend. About the same time one of the French monarch’s sons, the
Prince de Joinville, was married to Princess Francisca, the sister of
the Emperor of Brazils, and the Queen of Portugal. But while in France
all were merry as a “marriage bell,” the unhappy country of Spain was
disturbed from one end to the other by insurrections. Madrid was even
captured by Generals Narvaez and Aspirez, who headed the insurgent
forces; and Espartero was compelled to take refuge on board an English
ship of war at Cadiz, after having in vain bombarded Seville. Espartero
proceeded to Lisbon, whence he issued a manifesto to the Spanish nation,
after which he sailed to England. At the close of this year, indeed,
Spain was torn in pieces by factions, though the queen was still enabled
to keep her seat on the throne.
CHAPTER LV.
{VICTORIA. 1844–1845}
Meeting of Parliament..... Motion of the Stoppage of
Supplies..... Affairs of India..... Irish Affairs: Irish
Municipal Franchise, The Irish Church Question, Irish
Charitable Trusts Bill, Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal
Bill..... Restrictions on Labour in Factories, &c. The
Corn Laws and Free Trade Question..... Financial
Statements..... Sugar Duties Bill, &c. Bank Charter
and Banking Regulations..... Dissenters’ Chapels
Bill..... Sees of Bangor and St. Asapli..... Miscellaneous
Measures of the Session..... Prorogation of Parliament.....
The State of India..... Proceedings against Mr.
O’Connell..... Continental Affairs.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
{A.D. 1844}
Parliament was opened by the queen in person on the 1st of February. Her
majesty’s speech first alluded to her friendly relations with foreign
powers; to the treaty concluded with China; to the annexation of Scinde
to the British empire in India; to the estimates; and to the improved
condition of several important branches of the trade and manufactures
of the country. The speech then recommended attention to the revision of
the charter of the Bank of England; to the state of the law and practice
with regard to the occupation of land in Ireland; and to the law of
registration in that country.
The debates on the address in both houses were not in any way
remarkable, except for a bold speech by Mr. Sharman Crawford, demanding
redress of the grievances of which the people of both England and
Ireland complained. A contest also occurred between Lord John Russell
and Sir Robert Peel in reference to the duties on the importation of
foreign corn, the opposition leader maintaining that a fixed duty was
desirable, and the ministerial leader advocating the system of variable
duties, called a sliding-scale.
MOTION FOR THE STOPPAGE OF SUPPLIES.
In his speech during the discussion on the address, Mr. Sharman Crawford
had threatened to move the stoppage of supplies. In accordance with this
threat, on the 6th of February, after enumerating the grievances which
the house had refused to inquire into, such as class legislations
consisting of various commercial monopolies, he moved his resolution.
After a few words in favour of the motion by Mr. Hume, and against it by
Colonel Sibthorp and Mr. Trelawny, it was negatived by a majority of one
hundred and thirty against twenty-two.
AFFAIRS OF INDIA.
During this session the policy of government in relation to the affairs
of India became the subject of discussion on several occasions. On the
12th of February motions were brought forward in both houses for the
thanks of parliament to Sir Charles Napier and the army employed in the
operations of Scinde, which motions were agreed to unanimously. Soon
after this an event occurred which produced a startling effect. On the
21st of April Sir Robert Peel, in answer to a question put to him by
Mr. T. B. Macaulay, said, “I beg to state that, on Wednesday last,
her Majesty’s government received a communication from the court of
directors, that they had exercised the power which the law gives them,
to recall at their will and pleasure the governor-general of India.”
This announcement soon spread abroad; and in the house of lords, on the
29th of April, Lord Colchester addressed to the Duke of Wellington these
questions:—“Whether the communication from the court of directors to
government alleged any reason for the recall of the governor-general?
If so, whether there was any objection to state such reason? and whether
the reasons were considered satisfactory by government?” In reply, the
noble duke stated that reasons had been given for the recall of the
governor-general, but that those reasons had not been concurred in
by her majesty’s government; nay, more, they remonstrated against
the measure. The noble duke, in fact, roundly condemned the court
of directors for taking such a step, pronouncing it to be the most
indiscreet exercise of power he had ever known. Several discussions
subsequently took place in both houses of parliament on the recall
of Lord Ellenborough; and motions were moved for copies of the
correspondence between the court of directors and her majesty’s
government relative to this subject; but these motions were negatived,
and the discussions led to no practical result. They were, in truth,
only made the medium of giving utterance to party sentiments and
opinions.
IRISH AFFAIRS.
The subject which gave rise to the most animated discussions in
parliament this session was the ministerial policy towards Ireland;
especially their conduct in reference to the trial of Mr. O’Connell and
his associates. On the 13th of February, the Marquis of Normanby moved
in the house of lords, a resolution condemnatory of the government
administration of Irish affairs. After a very long and angry discussion,
the debate was adjourned, and on the next evening was continued by Earl
Fitzwilliam and Lord Monteagle on one side, and the Earls of Haddington
and Ripon on the other. On a division, the motion was negatived by a
majority of one hundred and seventy-five against seventy-eight.
In the house of commons, on the 13th, Lord John Russell, in a speech of
three hours’ continuance, opened a discussion on the subject of Irish
policy, which was protracted for nine evenings. The motion which he made
on this occasion nominally aimed at the appointment of a committee
of the whole house to consider the state of Ireland. The debate which
ensued presented much sameness and repetition. On a division, Lord
John Russell’s motion was negatived by a majority of three hundred and
thirty-four against two hundred and twenty-five.
It had been announced in the speech from the throne that government
would, in the present session, take up the question of the registration
of voters in Ireland. In fulfilment of this announcement, Lord Eliot,
early in April, introduced a bill into the house of commons for that
purpose; leave was given to bring in the bill; but it was evidently so
distasteful to the Irish members and their supporters, that, on the 1st
of July, Sir Robert Peel announced that it was abandoned by government.
On the 9th of May Mr. Hume moved:—“That an humble address be presented
to her majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to consider
whether it would not be for the advantage of Ireland, and for the
interest of the United Kingdom, to abolish the office of lord-lieutenant
of Ireland.” Mr. Hume contended that this office was one of the
principal causes of repeal agitation, and that by abolishing it peace
would be restored to the country. His motion was seconded by Captain
Bernai, and opposed by Lords John Russell and Eliot, Sir Robert Peel,
and Captain Layard. Ultimately, Mr. Hume withdrew his motion. On the
11th of July Mr. Ward brought on his annual motion about the Irish
church. On a division it was rejected by a majority of two hundred and
seventy-four against one hundred and seventy-nine.
A measure of great importance to the Roman Catholic community in Ireland
was introduced by government, and passed during this session; namely, a
bill which had for its object the making of a provision for the better
security and regulation of moneys settled upon charitable and religious
trusts. This bill was first introduced in the house of lords, where it
passed with very little opposition. Sir James Graham moved its second
reading in the commons on the 29th of July. In making this motion,
he explained the law as it then stood relative to the management
and supervision of charitable bequests and donations in Ireland. The
existing system was regulated by a statute passed at the beginning of
the present century, by which a board was constituted for the government
and administration of charitable trusts. This board consisted almost
exclusively of Protestants; whereas nearly three-fourths of the bequests
placed under its jurisdiction were Roman Catholic endowments. By the
bill now proposed, it would be enacted that the master of the rolls, the
chief baron of the exchequer, and the judges of the Prerogative Court,
should be _ex officio_ members of the board; and that in the presence of
them, or any of them, one or the other should preside, according to his
rank—first, the master of the rolls; in his absence, the chief baron
of the exchequer; or, in the absence of the other two, the judge of the
prerogative court. The bill next provided that the crown should appoint
ten commissioners, five of whom should be Protestants, and five Roman
Catholics. By the sixth section it was further provided, with respect
to matters concerning the doctrine, discipline, or constitution of the
church of Rome—that if a question arose as to the _status_ or condition
of any person who had a right, or claimed to have a right, under any
of the deeds of bequest brought under the consideration of the
commissioners, such question should be referred, if the claimant were
a Roman Catholic, to the Roman Catholic commissioners only; and it was
provided that they should grant a certificate of their decision,
which certificate should be received as evidence. One of the principal
objections to the existing law was removed by the tenth clause, which
limited the power of the commissioners to apply donations and bequests
according to the intention of the donor or donors. The thirteenth clause
also obviated the existing difficulty under the statute of mortmain,
which made bequests chargeable upon land for a given class of persons,
or their successors. This clause would enable real or personal property,
without limitation as to its amount, to be held in perpetuity,
for building and maintaining chapels, for building and maintaining
residences for the Roman Catholic clergy, or for the use of the priests
for the time being, for the purpose of any particular charge. In
conclusion, Sir James Graham said that he could only anticipate one
objection to the bill on tire part of the Roman Catholics, and that
arose from the peculiarity of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He
believed they would object to the decision of any ecclesiastical matters
relating to their church by persons who were not in holy orders of the
church of Rome; but he would remind them that under the existing law,
such matters might be brought before the supreme judicial tribunal
of the country—the judge of that court, the lord-chancellor, being a
Protestant. According to the present bill, however, such matters
would be left to the decision of a board, composed of Protestants and
Catholics equal in number. The bill was loudly condemned by Messrs.
More, O’Ferral, Bellew, and Shiel; while, on the other hand, Lord
Arundel thanked government for the conciliatory spirit it displayed. Mr.
Hume said that the bill seemed to him to be framed in a spirit of peace,
and he wished all the Irish grievances were met in the same feeling. The
proposed tribunal was a fair and proper one, and he should be glad to
see as good a one for the administration of English charities: there
ought to be “justice to England.” The second reading was carried by a
majority of seventy-one against five; and on the motion that the bill
should be committed, Mr. M. J. O’Connell gave notice that he should in
committee move amendments. The bill having been subsequently reported,
and being moved for a third reading, Mr. Dominick Browne expressed a
wish for its postponement. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, he said, was
entirely opposed to it; although he admitted that he believed it to be
proposed in a spirit of conciliation. He moved that the bill be read
that day three months; but the amendment found no one to second it; and
after a few observations from Mr. M. J. O’Connell, who now expressed
himself in favour of it, the bill passed.
During this session Lord Beaumont, a Roman Catholic peer, brought in
a bill for the abolition of a number of penal acts, for the most
part obsolete, though still retained in the Irish statute-book. The
lord-chancellor urged Lord Beaumont to abstain from pressing his bill,
as government were about to revise the whole of the penal laws; but
finding his lordship resolved to press the matter, he took the bill into
his own hands. The measure having been amended by the lord-chancellor,
was brought before the house of lords on the 30th of July. In explaining
the various enactments which it was intended to repeal, Lord Lyndhurst
said that the first was a statute of Elizabeth’s reign, directing a
particular form of prayer to be used, under a penalty of three months’
imprisonment for a first offence, six months for a second, and for life
for a third. The second act intended to be repealed punished the denial
of the sovereign’s supremacy in ecclesiastical and religious matters:
first, with forfeiture of goods and chattels; second, with the
penalties of a premunire; and for a third offence, with the penalties
of high-treason. Another act made reconcilement to the see of Rome
high-treason; and imposed a fine of two hundred marks on every priest
performing, and one hundred marks on every person hearing the ceremony.
By another, a Jesuit remaining in England a certain number of days was
made liable to be prosecuted for high-treason; and persons residing
abroad for the purpose of being educated, who should not return within
six months after proclamation to that effect, were also rendered liable
to the penalties of high-treason. Other statutes imposed penalties on
any Roman Catholic who should be found more than three miles distant
from his abode; on parents who sent their children abroad to be
educated; and for not going to church. Another act declared any one
newly converted to the Roman Catholic faith, and his children, if
educated in that faith, incapable of holding any place of trust or
profit. A statute of William and Mary enacted that no Roman Catholic
should come within ten miles of the metropolis, and forbade them to have
any weapons of defence in their houses. By the same bill it was also
provided that if they possessed a horse worth more than five pounds, it
was liable to be forfeited and seized. The bill would also repeal the
act of the 31st George III., which act was an extraordinary jumble of
legislation: they had an act of Elizabeth which required a party to take
a certain oath, and if he refused he was guilty of high-treason; but
by the subsequent act they provided that if he took another oath, and a
much milder one, he was free: yet if a man professing the Roman Catholic
religion did not take either of the oaths, he would be guilty of
high-treason, and liable to all the penalties which attached to that
crime. The only “non-content” to this measure in the house of lords
was the Bishop of London: and he only opposed it because government had
taken it up at the eleventh hour, and without consulting the hierarchy.
The second reading was moved in the house of commons on the 5th of
August by Sir Robert Peel, who took occasion to explain that it did
not do away with any security which had been taken for the established
church by the act passed in 1829 for the relief of Roman Catholics; the
acts to be repealed were mere dead letters, encumbering and discrediting
the statute-book. Mr. Hawes requested to know whether, if obsolete
statutes of a similar nature were to be found on the statute-book,
applicable to the same or other denominations of Christians, government
would be prepared to frame a measure for repealing them. Sir Robert Peel
replied that he would not make any pledge upon the subject; but if there
were any statutes which compelled a conscientious dissenter from the
church of England, upon a heavy penalty, to attend divine service in
that church, he could see no objection to its being erased from the
statute-book. The bill then passed, and received the royal assent.
RESTRICTIONS ON LABOUR IN FACTORIES, ETC.
On the 5th of February Sir James Graham introduced a bill for
the regulation of labour in factories. In explaining the proposed
enactments, he said, that with respect to age, it was resolved that
the term “child” should be defined to mean children between nine and
thirteen, instead of eight and thirteen. Such children were not to be
employed for more than six hours and a half each day, and were not to
be employed in the forenoon and afternoon of the same day. In the
existing law, “young persons” were defined to be persons between the
ages of thirteen and eighteen: he did not wish any alteration in this
respect; but he should propose that such young persons should not be
employed in any silk, cotton, wool, or flax manufactory, for any portion
of the twenty-four hours, longer than from half-past five o’clock to
seven in the summer, and from half-past six o’clock to eight in the
winter:—thus making thirteen hours and a half each day, of which one
hour and a half, should be allowed for meals and rest. In respect to
females, they were not, under any circumstances, to work more than
twelve hours. By this bill, moreover, the recovery of lost time, from
the use of steam and water, would not be allowed, except where the power
used was water-power only: no person so employed was to work more than
thirteen hours. Inspectors would be empowered to notify to mill-owners
whenever they observed that any portion of their machinery was
dangerous, and that in their opinion it required to be cased or covered
up: and if after such notification any accident should occur injurious
to any of the workmen employed, then the inspector would be empowered
to institute a suit for recovering compensation for such injury, and the
damages awarded should be given to the injured party. As to education,
all that the bill would do, would be to give the child from eight to
thirteen years old time for receiving instruction: he was not to be
employed more than six hours and half daily—the remaining portions of
the day _might_ be devoted to education. Leave was given to bring in the
bill, and the house went into committee upon it on the 15th of March.
On one of the clauses being proposed which fixed the limitations of the
hours of labour, Lord Ashley, after forcibly depicting the effects of
factory labour, the injury it inflicted on those employed in it as the
system now existed, both physically, mentally, and morally, moved that
the night, instead of being computed from eight o’clock in the evening,
should be computed from six o’clock. This amendment gave rise to an
animated and earnest debate, which lasted two nights; and on a division,
it was carried by a majority of one hundred and seventy-nine against
one hundred and seventy. The proposal of government having been thus
negatived, Sir James Graham said it would not be consistent with his
duty to drop the measure at the present stage. On the eighth clause,
Lord Ashley would have to move the substitution of “ten” for “twelve”
hours, and the question could then be considered in a more substantive
form. On the next day Lord Ashley said that it was his intention to
make this proposition; and if affirmed, he should then prepare a clause,
enacting that the present duration of labour, twelve hours, should
continue till the 1st of October, 1844; the period should then fall to
eleven hours, to continue so till the 1st of October, 1846, when the
period of ten hours should commence. In pursuance of this intention,
on the 22nd, when the eighth clause was taken into consideration, which
provided that no young person should be employed daily more than twelve
hours, Lord Ashley moved an amendment, substituting “ten” for “twelve.”
A contest followed this motion; but the debate which ensued was
characterized by very little novelty, and on a division it was rejected
by a majority of one hundred and eighty-eight against one hundred and
eighty-one. At the same time the clause for twelve hours was rejected by
one hundred and eighty-six against one hundred and eighty-three. Sir
J. Graham then moved that the chairman report progress; stating that he
should take until the following Monday, the 25th, to consider the course
proper for him to adopt under these circumstances. On the 25th Sir James
Graham announced that government had resolved to abandon the bill in
order to bring in a new one. This was not effected without considerable
opposition; but ministers finally triumphed, and leave was given to
bring in a new bill on the 27th. The new bill stood for the second
reading on the 22nd of April; previous to which Lord Ashley announced
that he was determined to move, on the third reading of the bill,
the addition of certain clauses, for the purpose of carrying out the
amendments which he had proposed in the former bill. On the 22nd, the
second reading of the bill having been moved, with an understanding that
the main question was to be considered at a subsequent stage, Mr.
T. Duncombe said that in agreeing to such a course Lord Ashley had
surrendered the whole case. He now merely proposed to take a flying shot
at the bill when it was leaving the house after the third reading: if
that shot missed, the bill would be gone before he could fire a second
barrel. Under these circumstances, on the order of the day for going
into committee of the whole house, he would move that the bill should be
referred to a select committee above stairs. This motion was made,
but it was rejected, and the bill passed through committee without
alteration. The debate on the third reading commenced on the 10th of
May, and was continued for two nights by adjournment. The new bill
enacted that no young person should be employed more than “twelve” hours
daily, as in the abandoned measure: but Lord Ashley, according to his
notice, moved on this occasion a clause restricting the hours of labour
to eleven from October, 1844. On a division, however, this amendment
was negatived by a majority of two hundred and ninety-seven against one
hundred and fifty-nine, and the bill then passed the commons. In the
house of lords this controverted bill passed without much discussion.
THE CORN-LAWS AND FREE-TRADE QUESTION.
During this session, as Sir Robert Peel had proclaimed at its
commencement the intention of government to maintain the recent
settlement of the corn-laws, the exertions of the free-trade party
in parliament were confined to two or three desultory motions, rather
indicating their protest against the existing system than tending to
practical results. On the 12th of March Mr. Cobden brought the corn-law
question before the house of commons, in the shape of a motion for
a committee to inquire into the effects of protective duties on
agricultural labourers and tenants. This motion gave rise to a
considerable debate, but it was negatived by a majority of two hundred
and twenty-four against one hundred and thirty-three. About the same
time Mr. Ricardo moved, “That an humble address be presented to her
majesty, praying that her majesty will be graciously pleased to give
directions to her servants not to enter into any negociation with
foreign powers which would make any contemplated alterations of the
tariffs of other countries; and humbly expressing to her majesty the
opinion of this house that the great object of relieving the commercial
intercourse between this country and foreign nations from all injurious
restrictions will be best promoted by regulating our own customs’
duties, as may be most suitable to the financial and commercial
interests of this country, without reference to the amount of duties
which foreign powers may think it expedient for their own interests to
levy on British goods.” In advocating this motion, Mr. Ricardo dwelt on
the inutility of all our recent commercial diplomacy; and contended that
our objects might be as effectually attained by judicious legislation
with respect to our imposts, as by intricate negociations with respect
to exports. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and supported by Sir
J. Hanmer and Mr. Hume; but there not being forty members present, the
house was counted out. Mr. Villiers brought forward his annual motion
against the corn-laws on the 25th of June. He moved:—“That it appears
by a recent census, that the people of this country are rapidly
increasing in number. That it is in evidence before this house that a
large proportion of her majesty’s subjects are insufficiently provided
for with the first necessaries of life. That, nevertheless, a corn-law
is in force, which restricts the supply of food, and thereby lessens its
abundance. That any such restriction, having for its object to impede
the free purchase of an article upon which depends the subsistence of
the community is indefensible in principle, injurious in operation, and
ought to be abolished. That it is therefore expedient that the act 5 &
6 Vic. c. 14, shall be repealed forthwith.” The debate on this motion
occupied two evenings. Mr. Villiers supported it on the same ground
which had been traversed by former argument on the same subject. By the
facts and arguments which he adduced, he contended that he established
these positions:—“That the supply of food had been deficient; that
great inconvenience had resulted; and that the protective system had
led to the cultivation of the land in a most slovenly manner.” Mr.
Gladstone, on the part of government, announced his intention of calling
upon the house to give a direct negative to the original resolutions.
Lord John Russell said that the motion placed him in a difficult
position: he could not vote for the total and immediate repeal of
the protective duty, neither could he assent to maintain the existing
corn-law. Sir Robert Peel, who spoke towards the close of the debate,
said that the performance of the evening had been for the benefit of the
company which usually performed at Covent Garden Theatre. Mr. Villiers,
in closing the debate, said, that there was nothing for him to reply to,
since no one had controverted his arguments. The speech which Sir Robert
Peel had delivered would please the agriculturists; but he had made
the same sort of speech for them in 1839, and had thrown them overboard
afterwards, because the state of the season and the distress of the
people had made it indispensable to give some relief to the country.
He predicted that the same thing would happen again. The motion was
rejected by a majority of three hundred and twenty-eight against one
hundred and twenty-four.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.