Towards the end of the session the New Zealand question again became

the subject of a lengthened investigation. Intelligence continued to be

received from New Zealand of the hostile disposition and violent

conduct of the natives, and the precarious tenure on which the lives and

properties of the settlers depended. Under these circumstances, on

the 21st of July, a petition was presented by the New Zealand Company,

praying the house “not to separate without taking measures calculated

to allay the apprehensions prevalent among the colonists of New Zealand,

and to revive confidence in the company, by which its usefulness would

be restored, the friendly communication between the colonists and the

aboriginal races renewed, and the prosperity of New Zealand secured.”

On the same day Mr. C. Buller proposed a resolution to the effect, that

“the house regarded with regret and apprehension the state of affairs in

New Zealand, and that those feelings were greatly aggravated by the want

of any sufficient evidence of a change in the policy which had led to

such disastrous results.” A long debate ensued, which was continued by

adjournment; but on a division the motion was negatived by one hundred

and fifty-five against eighty-nine. A few nights afterwards, on the vote

being proposed, in a committee of supply of £22,565 for New-Zealand,

Mr. J. A. Smith stated that negociations had been resumed between the

Colonial office and the New Zealand Company, and that the result only

waited the final approval of Lord Stanley, who was absent from town. He

asked, if the hope of a favourable issue were not realized, whether Sir

Robert Peel would afford another opportunity, before the close of the

session, for some remarks on the present state of New Zealand, Sir

Robert Peel promised to do so; but expressed a strong desire to

co-operate in the colonization of New Zealand, and to bring the

differences with the company to a conclusion. It would seem that

government were now, indeed, convinced that the policy of the government

of New Zealand was unfavourable to the prospects of the colony; for

about this time Captain Fitzroy was recalled. Government also appears

to have been convinced that some better policy must be adopted; for Mr.

Hope, on the occasion of the last debate on New Zealand, stated, that

a gentleman unconnected with the subject had been called in to give

his advice, and he was now engaged in arranging the matter for his full

consideration.

QUESTION OF THE OREGON TERRITORY.

The great question of this year between Great Britain and the United

States was the boundary-line running through the Oregon territory. The

proposals of the British government to Congress were not acceded to; and

up to this period, negociation, in which the British cabinet had shown

themselves desirous of terminating the dispute amicably, had failed. The

American authorities asserted a valid claim to all the territory, and

were unwilling to allow any portion of it to be given up to England. In

the present year, the dispute assumed more the aspect of war than it

had hitherto done; for Mr. Polk had been chosen president, and he was

decidedly hostile to the claims of the British to this or any portion of

this territory. His hostility was clearly unfolded to the world by his

presidential message to congress.

The inaugural address of President Polk being of such a belligerent

nature, naturally created strong apprehensions in the public mind of

England of an intended encroachment upon our rights in the matter of the

Oregon territory. The subject was introduced in the house of lords,

by Lord Clarendon, on the 4th of April, with a view to elicit from

government some information as to our relations with the United States

upon this question, and the course it was intended to pursue, in case

congress, acting upon the president’s express opinion, should proceed to

take possession of the country. His lordship expressed an anxious hope,

that, while whatever could be justly claimed by the United States should

be readily conceded, government would not shrink from vindicating, if

necessary, the nation’s honour, and upholding her interests. In reply,

Lord Aberdeen said that our position was precisely the same as it

had been for the last eighteen years, under the treaty of 1827. The

provisions of that treaty had been prolonged for an indefinite period,

subject to the right of either party to terminate it by giving a year’s

notice. This could not be done without a vote of congress, and that body

would not assemble until December; so that sufficient time was still

left to bring the matters in dispute to a satisfactory conclusion.

The same subject was brought before the commons on the same day by Lord

John Russell.

The Oregon question was introduced into the discussions of the American

Senate on the 15th of December, by General Cass, who made a violent

speech in favour of President Polk’s views of the subject. Referring to

the above debate in Parliament, and particularly to the speeches of Lord

John Russell and Sir Robert Peel, he dwelt strongly upon the rapacities

of England; and congratulated his country that it had secured Texas in

spite of her attempts to wrest it from America. The object of the speech

of General Cass was clearly to involve the United States in a war with

Great Britain; but there were men in the American senate who, conscious

of the weakness of their cause, stood in the breach. This year closed,

however, before the dispute was terminated: it was still left open to

arbitration.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES OF THE SESSION.

Early in the present session Lord-chancellor Lyndhurst introduced a bill

into the upper house, having for its object the relief of persons,

of the Jewish persuasion from certain tests which had previously been

required from them upon their election to municipal offices. The bill

was read a second time in the house of lords on the 10th of March,

without a division; and having passed through that house, it came down

to the commons, where the second reading was moved by Sir Robert Peel

on the 17th of July. It was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis, who regretted

that Sir R. Peel had lent the sanction of his name to it. And moved

that it be read that day three months. On a division the amendment was

negatived by a majority of ninety-one against eleven. The second reading

was then carried, and the bill subsequently became law.

During this session a bill was introduced by the Lord-advocate for the

amendment of the poor-laws in Scotland. The chief objects of this bill

were thus described by Sir James Graham on the debate on the second

reading:—“Provisions had been made for local inspection; for a

responsible supervision by a board sitting in the capital; for perfect

publicity; for an appeal to the sheriff of the county on the part of the

poor man to whom relief was refused; for empowering the sheriff to

order relief; and, if the quantum were too small, for a power of appeal,

without expense, to the central board, which had complete power, without

limitation, to deal with the quantum of relief; and on the other hand,

if the quantum was too great, the parish might appeal to the court

of session. Provision had also been made for subscription to lunatic

asylums; for the education of pauper children; for medical attendants;

and for building poor-houses in large cities.” This bill encountered

much opposition in both houses; but it finally passed into law, with

very trifling alteration made in the house of lords.

Among the minor fruits of this session were two bills introduced by Lord

Ashley; one for the regulation of juvenile labour in calico-print works,

and the other to provide for the better care of lunatics. The former

of these bills was a supplement to Lord Ashley’s exertions in former

sessions, for the protection of persons employed in factories.

In introducing the latter, Lord Ashley startled the house by some

distressing statements of the abuses by which the law had been perverted

in the treatment of pauper lunatics.

Mr. Duncombe opposed it; but the feeling of the house was strongly in

its favour, and it was adopted.

Two bills were this year brought in by Sir Robert Peel, for the

regulation of banking in Scotland and Ireland, based on similar

principles to that by which he had remodelled the English banking system

in the preceding year. In explaining these measures he first touched

upon a peculiarity in Irish banking as distinct from Scottish—the

existence of the national bank of Ireland. It enjoyed the exclusive

privilege of issuing and paying notes, except of large amounts and

at longdates, within a circle of sixty-four English miles radius. Its

capital was £6,729,000.; and there was a debt due by government of

£2,630,000, on which three and a half per cent, interest was paid. There

were eight other banks of issue in Ireland—joint-stock banks: those

banks had four thousand shareholders, and many thousand more customers;

to many of whom it was a serious inconvenience that they could not

transact business through the national bank. He proposed, with the

willing concurrence of its directors, to withdraw all the exclusive

privileges of the national bank, except that he would continue to it the

government business, and the present rate of interest on the government

debt, as payment for conducting the official business. He would also

abolish the oaths in that establishment, distinguishing Roman Catholic

office-bearers from Protestants. The bank would also make a weekly

return, like that of the Bank of England. In Scotland, as in Ireland,

there were no private banks of issue: all were joint-stock banks. There

were nineteen banks, to which number they were restricted by the acts

of last session. Three had charters; two were incorporated under act of

parliament; the rest were not incorporated. It would be better to

give them all charters of incorporation; but still he would make that

permissive. He would not abolish the power of issuing notes under five

pounds in amount either in Scotland or Ireland—he would not run the

risk of encountering the opposition which such a proposal would excite;

though he did not know that the use of tire small notes could be

justified by argument. He would not establish any fixed proportion

between the notes under £5, or above; but he would, as in the case of

the English banks, restrict the future issues of the banks to the amount

of the average issues for a ces tain time past; namely, the period

of the 27th of April, 1844, thirteen lunar months. In Ireland it was

necessary to take an extended time, because there had been a greater

increase on the issues within the last three or four months. He would

solve the doubt in Scotland as to the question of law, whether Bank of

England notes were a legal tender or not, by making them _not_ a legal

tender. There was in this country a security against derangement of the

currency, in the general diffusion of gold coin, probably not less than

£30,000,000 or £35,000,000, through every part, a security which did not

exist in Ireland or Scotland: he would therefore oblige any excess of

the issues of the banks, over the amounts now fixed, to be based not on

bullion or Bank of England notes, but on bullion alone; gold or silver

bullion; making silver under two pounds a legal tender. It would be

advantageous to encourage an increase of silver, especially in Ireland.

The banks would, in future, be obliged to make weekly returns of the

notes in circulation: but in Scotland, returns of the circulation each

day would be fallacious, on account of exchanges with other banks; and

therefore he would continue the present system of making a return of the

last day in each week; the average would be struck on the returns for

four weeks, and the circulation, or any excess, calculated on that

average. Several statistical particulars, such as the amount of gold

in each bank, or distinction between the £5 and the lower notes, the

description of issues, &c., would be required; but the information

thus exacted by government would be in confidence: the monthly returns

published by the stamp-office resembling those now made in England. The

average circulation of the Scotch banks in the thirteen months since the

27th of April was £3,041,000; but there was in the November of each year

an excess in the issues of about £500,000, which would of course have

to be based on bullion. The average circulation in Ireland would

in future be, of the national bank, £3,706,000; of the other banks,

£2,565,000; in all. £6,271,000. As there was in Scotland no national

bank to supply any deficiency caused in the circulation by the failure

of any joint-stock bank, he would give permission for any bank to

dispose of its circulation to another bank; the aggregate of the two

amounts to be taken as the joint circulation. To avoid any inconvenience

or precipitancy, the plan would not come into operation until the 1st of

January, 1846. Sir Robert Peel concluded by expressing his belief that

this plan would add to the stability of the circulation in the United

Kingdom, and would be an equitable way of making Ireland and Scotland

bear their share of the burden of providing a guarantee against

commercial panic. These bills passed through both houses without much

discussion, and became law.

During this session a measure was passed by government for facilitating

the enclosure of commons in England and Wales, by appointing a board

of commissioners with extensive powers, and removing the necessity of

obtaining private acts of parliament for the enclosing of lands.

The business of the session was closed by Lord John Russell’s taking

the opportunity for a formal motion for papers, to enter into a critical

review of the results of the session, and the general policy of the

administration.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by the queen in person on the 9th of August.

After the speaker had addressed her majesty on the measures of the

session, and some bills had received the royal assent, her majesty read

the royal speech.

THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA.

In the early part of this year the important subject of railroads in

India was taken into serious consideration. Various companies were

formed in England, for the purpose, if possible, of carrying out schemes

of railway communication in that country. In order that full preliminary

information might be obtained before any project was sanctioned, the

court of directors sent a despatch to the governor-general, directing

him to take the subject into his best consideration, as one in which the

interests of India were deeply concerned.

Until the close of the year, peace pervaded the whole of India, and Sir

Henry Hardinge was employed in promoting the interests of the natives,

by giving his attention to the important question of education. While

thus humanely employed, the state of our north-western frontier summoned

him to engage in warlike preparations. The Anglo-Indian dominion on the

left bank of the Sutlej was suddenly invaded by a Sikh army. What part

the government at Lahore took in this invasion is uncertain. It is

alleged on the part of the Ranee, the queen-mother, and the other

advisers of the youthful monarch, Dhuleep Singh, and the Durbar at

Lahore was at the mercy of the army; and that the restless and mutinous

Sikh soldiers, in defiance of government, determined to cross the

Sutlej, in hopes of finding the British unprepared, and carrying off an

immense quantity of booty. This sounds like fiction; and it would rathe

appear that the Lahore government, standing in awe of the Sikh army, was

glad of any pretext for finding it employment in British India, in order

to avoid violence within the Punjaub territory. Be this as it may, the

Sikhs invaded our borders; and we had no alternative but to treat

the invasion as a formal declaration of war on the part of the Lahore

government, and to take measures for proceeding against the Punjaub

government as a hostile state. On the 2nd of December Sir Henry Hardinge

arrived at Umballah; on the 6th he removed from Umballah towards

Loodianah; and on the 12th his whole force marched towards the Sutlej,

and took up a position at Busseeau, an important point, where the roads

leading from Umballah and Kurnaul meet. It was not till the 13th that

the Sikh army crossed the Sutlej, and on that day Sir Henry Hardinge

issued the following proclamation:—“The British government has ever

been on terms of friendship with that of the Punjaub. In the year 1809 a

treaty of amity and concord was concluded between the British government

and the late Maharaja Runjeet Singh, the conditions of which have

always been faithfully observed by the British government, and were

scrupulously fulfilled by the late Maharaja. The same friendly relations

have been maintained with the successors of Maharaja Runjeet Singh, by

the British government, up to the present time. Since the death of

the late Maharaja Shere Singh, the disorganized state of the Lahore

government has made it incumbent on the governor-general in council to

adopt precautionary measures for the protection of the British frontier;

the nature of these measures, and the cause of their adoption were

at the time fully explained to the Lahore Durbar. Notwithstanding the

disorganized state of the Lahore government, during the last two years,

and many most unfriendly proceedings on the part of the Durbar, the

governor-general in council has continued to evince his desire to

maintain the relations of amity and concord which had so long existed

between the two states, for the mutual interests and happiness of

both. He has shown on every occasion the utmost forbearance, from

consideration to the helpless state of the infant Maharaja Dhuleep

Singh, whom the British government had recognised as the successor to

the late Maharaja Shere Singh. The governor-general in council sincerely

desired to see a strong Sikh government re-established in the Punjaub,

able to control its army and protect its subjects. He had not, up to

the present moment, abandoned the hope of seeing that important object

effected by the patriotic efforts of the Sikhs and people of that

country. The Sikh army recently marched from Lahore towards thu British

frontier, as it was alleged, by the orders of the Durbar, for the

purpose of invading the British territory. The governor-general’s agent,

by direction of the governor-general, demanded an explanation of this

movement; and no reply being returned within a reasonable time, the

demand was repeated. The governor-general, unwilling to believe in the

hostile intentions of the Sikh government, to which no provocation

had been given, refrained from taking any measures which might have

a tendency to embarrass the government of the Maharaja, or to induce

collision between the two states. When no reply was given to the

repeated demand for explanation, and while active military operations

were continued at Lahore, the governor-general considered it necessary

to order the advance of troops towards the frontier, to re-enforce the

frontier posts. The Sikh army has now, without a shadow of provocation,

invaded the British territories. Tire governor-general must, therefore,

take measures for effectually protecting the British provinces; for

vindicating the authority of the British government; and for punishing

the violaters of treaties and the disturbers of public peace. The

governor-general hereby declares the possessions of Maharaja Dhuleep

Singh, on the left, or British bank of the Sutlej, confiscated and

annexed to the British territories. The governor-general will respect

the existing rights of all jagheerdars, zemindars, and tenants in the

said possessions, who, by the course they now pursue, evince their

fidelity to the British government. The governor-general hereby

calls upon all the chiefs and sirdars in the protected territories to

co-operate cordially with the British government, for the punishment

of the common enemy, and for the maintenance of order in these states.

Those of the chiefs which show alacrity and fidelity in the discharge

of this duty, which they owe to the protecting power, will find their

interests promoted thereby; and those who take a contrary course will

be treated as enemies to the British government, and will be punished

accordingly. The inhabitants of all the territories on the left bank of

the Sutlej are hereby directed to abide peaceably in their respective

villages, where they will receive efficient protection by the British

government. All parties of men found in armed bands, who can give no

satisfactory account of their proceedings, will be treated as disturbers

of the public peace. All subjects of the British government, and those

who possess estates on both sides of the river Sutlej, who by their

faithful adherence to the British government, may be liable to sustain

loss, shall be indemnified and secured in all their just rights and

privileges. On the other hand, all subjects of the British government,

who shall continue in the service of the Lahore state, and who disobey

this proclamation, by not immediately returning to their allegiance,

will be liable to have their property on this side of the Sutlej

confiscated, and declared to be aliens and enemies of the British

government.” On crossing the Sutlej, the Sikh army, under the command

of Sirdar Tej Sing, invested Ferozepore on one side, and took up an

intrenched position at the village of Ferozeshah, about ten miles

in advance of Ferozepore, and nearly the same distance from Moodkee.

Ferozepore was garrisoned with about 5000 troops, with twenty-one guns,

under the command of Major-general Sir John Littler. The great object

of the governor-general was to effect a junction between the separated

portions of the Anglo-Indian army before an attack could be made

upon them by the Sikhs. For this purpose orders were issued by the

governor-general, while on his route, to the force at Umballah, with

Sir Hugh Gough at their head, to move up towards Ferozepore by rapid

marches. On the 18th those troops reached the village of Moodkee, and

on that day a battle was fought, which will be best told in Sir Hugh

Gough’s own words. In his dispatch he writes:—“Soon after midday, the

division under Major-general Sir Harry Smith, a brigade of that under

Major-general Sir J. M’Caskill, and another of that under Major-general

Gilbert, with five troops of horse-artillery, and two light

field-batteries, under Lieutenant-colonel Brooke, of the

horse-artillery, and the cavalry division, consisting of her majesty’s

3rd light-dragoons, the body-guard, 4th and 5th light-cavalry, and 9th

irregular cavalry, took up their encamping ground in front of Moodkee.

The troops were in a state of great exhaustion, principally from the

want of water, which was not procurable on the road, when, about three

p. m., information was received that the Sikh army was advancing;

and the troops had scarcely time to get under arms and move to their

positions, when the fact was ascertained. I immediately pushed forward

the horse-artillery and cavalry, directing the infantry, accompanied by

the field-batteries, to move forward in support. We had not proceeded

beyond two miles, when we found the enemy in position. They were said

to consist of from 15,000 to 20,000 infantry, about the same force of

cavalry, and forty guns. They had evidently either just taken up this

position, or were advancing in order of battle against us. To resist

their attack, and to cover the formation of the infantry, I advanced

the cavalry, under Brigadiers White, Gough, and Martier, rapidly to

the front, in columns of squadrons, and occupied the plain. They were

speedily followed by the five troops of horse-artillery, under Brigadier

Brooke, who took up a forward position, having the valley then on his

flanks. The country is a dead flat, covered, at short intervals, with

a low, but in some places, a thick low jungle, and dotted with sandy

hillocks. The enemy screened their infantry and artillery behind this

jungle, and such undulations as the ground afforded; and whilst our

twelve battalions formed from echellon of brigade into line, opened a

very severe cannonade upon our advancing troops, which was vigorously

replied to by the battery of horse artillery under Brigadier Brooke,

which was soon joined by the two light field-batteries. The rapid and

well-directed fire of our artillery appeared soon to paralyse that of

the enemy. And as it was necessary to complete our infantry dispositions

without advancing the artillery too near the jungle, I directed the

cavalry, under Brigadiers White and Gough, to make a flank movement on

the enemy’s left, with a view of threatening and turning that flank, if

possible. With praiseworthy gallantry, the 3rd light-dragoons, with

the 2nd brigade of cavalry, consisting of the body-guard and 5th

light-cavalry, with a portion of the 4th lancers, turned the left of the

Sikh army, and, sweeping along the whole rear of its infantry and

guns, silenced for a time the latter, and put their numerous cavalry

to flight. Whilst this movement was taking place on the enemy’s left,

I directed the remainder of the 4th lancers, the 9th irregular cavalry,

under Brigadier Martier, with a light field-battery, to threaten their

right. This manouvre was also successful. Had not the infantry and guns

of the enemy been screened by the jungle, these brilliant charges would

have been productive of greater effect. When the infantry advanced to

the attack, Brigadier Brooke rapidly pushed on his horse-artillery close

to the jungle, and the cannonade was resumed on both sides. The infantry

under Major-generals Sir Harry Smith, Gilbert, and Sir John M’Caskill,

attacked in echellon of lines the enemy’s infantry, almost invisible

amongst wood and the approaching darkness of the night. The position

of the enemy was such as might have been expected from troops who had

everything at stake, and who had long vaunted of being irresistible.

Their ample and extended line, from the great superiority of numbers,

far outflanked ours; but this was counteracted by the flank movements of

our cavalry. The attack of the infantry now commenced, and the roll of

fire from this powerful arm soon convinced the Sikh army that they had

met with a foe they little expected; and their whole force was driven

from position after position, with great slaughter, and the loss of

seventeen pieces of artillery, some of them of heavy calibre; our

infantry using that never-failing weapon, the bayonet, whenever the

enemy stood. Night only saved them from worse disaster; for this stout

conflict was maintained during an hour and a half ot dim starlight,

amidst a cloud of dust from the sandy plain, which yet more obscured

every object.” This victory, however, was dearly purchased: amongst

those who fell was Sir Robert Sale, the hero of Jellalabad, and Sir

John M’Caskill. After remaining encamped for two days, Sir Hugh Gough

moved with his whole force towards Ferozeshah, where the Sikh army was

posted in a strongly entrenched camp, defended by a formidable park of

artillery. Here a junction was formed between the troops under Sir John

Littler and those of Sir Hugh Gough. About four o’clock on the afternoon

of the 21st, the united forces advanced to attack the entrenched camp of

the Sikhs. At this time Sir Henry Hardinge himself had joined Sir Hugh

Gough; and he took an active part in the events of the day, as second

in command. The camp of the enemy was in the form of a parallelogram, of

about a mile in length, and half a mile in breadth, including within its

area the strong village of Ferozeshah: the shorter sides looking towards

the Sutlej and Moodkee, and the longer towards Ferozepore and the open

country. The British troops moved against the last-named place, and

their operations were thus detailed by Sir Hugh Gough:—“The divisions

of Major-general Sir John Littler, Brigadier Wallace, and Major-general

Gilbert, deployed into line, having in the centre our whole force

of artillery, with the exception of one on either flank, and one in

support, to be moved as occasion required. Major-general Sir Harry

Smith’s division and our small cavalry force moved in second line,

having a brigade in reserve to cover each wing. I committed the charge

of the left wing to Lieutenant-general Sir Henry Hardinge, while I

personally conducted the right. A very heavy cannonade was opened by

the enemy, who had dispersed over their position upwards of one hundred

guns, more than forty of which were of battering calibre: these kept

up a heavy and well directed fire, which the practice of our far less

numerous artillery, of much lighter metal, checked in some degree, but

could not silence: finally, in the face of a storm of shot and shell,

our infantry advanced, and carried these formidable entrenchments: they

threw themselves upon their guns, and with matchless gallantry wrested

them from the enemy; but when the batteries were partially within our

grasp, our soldiery had to face such a fire of musketry from the Sikh

infantry, arrayed behind their guns, that, in spite of the most heroic

efforts, a portion only of the entrenchment could be carried. Night fell

while the conflict was raging. Although I now brought up Major-general

Sir Harry Smith’s division, and he captured and long retained another

part of the position, and her majesty’s 3rd light-dragoons charged, and

took some of the most formidable batteries, yet the enemy remained in

possession of a considerable portion of the great quadrangle, whilst

our troops, mingled with theirs, kept possession of the remainder, and

finally bivouacked upon it, exhausted by their gallant efforts, greatly

reduced in numbers, and suffering extremely from thirst, yet animated by

an indomitable spirit. In this state of things the long night wore away.

Near the middle of it, one of their heavy guns was advanced, and

played with deadly effect upon our troops. Lieutenant-general Sir

Henry Hardinge immediately formed her majesty’s 80th foot, and the 1st

European light-infantry. They were led to the attack by their commanding

officers, and animated in their exertions by Lieutenant-colonel Wood,

who was wounded in the outset. The 80th captured the gun; and the enemy,

dismayed by this countercheck, did not venture to press on further.

During the whole night, however, they continued to harass our troops by

fire of artillery, wherever moonlight discovered our position. But with

daylight of the 22nd came retribution. Our infantry formed in line,

supported on both flanks by horse-artillery, whilst a fire was opened

from our centre, by such of our heavy guns as remained effective, aided

by a flight of rockets. A masked battery played with great effect upon

this point, dismounting our pieces, and blowing up our tumbrils. At this

movement Lieutenant-general Sir Henry Hardinge placed himself at the

head of the left, whilst I rode at the head of the right wing. Our line

advanced, and, unchecked by the enemy’s fire, drove them rapidly out of

the village of Ferozeshah and their encampment; then, changing front to

its left, on its centre, our force continued to sweep the camp, bearing

down all opposition, and dislodged the enemy from their whole position.

The line then halted, as if on a clay of manoeuvre, receiving its two

leaders, as they rode along its front, with a gratifying cheer, and

displaying the captured standards of the Khalsa army. We had taken

seventy-three pieces of cannon, and were masters of the whole field. The

force assumed a position on the ground which it had won; but even here

its labours were not to cease. In the course of two hours, Sirdar Tej

Sing, who had commanded in the last great battle, brought up from the

vicinity of Ferozepore fresh battalions and a large field of artillery,

supported by 30,000 Ghorepurras, hitherto encamped near the river. He

drove in our cavalry parties, and made strenuous efforts to regain the

position at Ferozeshah. This attempt was defeated; but its failure had

scarcely become manifest, when the sirdar renewed the contest with more

troops, and a large artillery. He commenced by a combination against

our left flank; and when this was frustrated, made such a demonstration

against the captured village, as compelled us to change our whole front

to the right. His guns during this manouvre maintained an incessant

fire; whilst, our artillery ammunition being completely expended in these

protracted combats, we were unable to answer him with a single shot.

I now directed our almost exhausted cavalry to threaten both flanks at

once, preparing the infantry to advance in support, which apparently

caused him suddenly to cease his fire, and to abandon the field.” This

victory, by which the enemy was driven to the banks of the Sutlej,

was not achieved without heavy loss; and among the slain were Major

Broadfoot, political agent in the north-western provinces, Colonels

Wallace and Taylor, and Major Fitzroy Somerset, military secretary

to the governor-general. The Sikh army retreated on the fords of the

Sutlej, and, disheartened by the capture of its artillery, and the loss

it had sustained in killed and wounded, crossed over to the other side

of the river. Early in the next year the victorious British followed

them, and pressed onwards to Lahore. Terms of peace were agreed on; and

one of the stipulations between the two states was the disbandment of

the Sikh force. The importance of these victories was acknowledged by

government, and the people of England at large; who joined in admiration

of the conduct of the governor-general, the commanders, and the troops,

by whom the victory was achieved.

In the vicinity of Scinde Sir Charles Napier was employed in military

operations against the mountain desert tribes on the right bank of the

Indus, north of Shikarpoor.

This was a hazardous service, requiring, as Sir Henry Hardinge remarked,

“on the part of the general, the utmost prudence, skill, and foresight;

and on the part of the troops, the greatest fortitude in enduring

the fatigues and privations to which they were exposed.” In these

operations, however, Sir Charles Napier was completely successful. On

the 9th of March he wrote to the governor-general an account of his

victory in these terms:—“I have to report to you the conclusion of the

war against the mountain and desert tribes, who, driven into their last

refuge, the stronghold at Truckee, have this day laid down their arms:

the fort of Deyrah is destroyed; and Islam Boogtie, the only chief not a

prisoner, is said to be a lonely fugitive in the Ketrau country, far in

the north, and ruled by a chief whose daughter Islam married. To detail

the movements which led to this result, would produce a despatch

of greater length than is necessary; nor, indeed, could it be well

understood, as no map exists of this part of Schwistan and Cutchee;

suffice it therefore to say that the mountain tribes occupy a country of

extensive deserts and barren mountains, stretching about one hundred

and forty miles from east to west. Into this apex, or smaller part, we

succeeded in driving the robber chiefs; but with great difficulty, for

this part of the country is full of the most dangerous defiles. To

enter them with a regular force is an operation which threatens it with

destruction. The only credit to be acquired in such a war is that which

results from patience, under privations created by the dearth of water,

and the difficulty of getting supplies. These deprivations were borne

by this whole force with so much good humour as to show that the eager

desire of every one to do his duty absorbed all other feelings; and

deserves my highest praise. These privations fell especially hard upon

those hard-working and much-enduring men, called camp-followers. The

result of this campaign may be divided into two parts—the physical

effect and the moral effect. With regard to the first the results are

as follows:—First, the total destruction of the robber tribes; Deyriah

Khan, chief of the Jackranies, Dinanah Moondrannee, Sooliman Ramdanee,

and Toork Ali, and their tribes, all surrendered on the 5th, accompanied

by Jumea Khan, nephew of Beeja Khan Doomkie, with a large portion

of that tribe. These men I pardoned, and saved from plunder, but on

condition of their being transplanted into the Scinde territory. The

great chief, Beeja Khan, and the rest of the Doomkies, refused to

surrender on the proffered conditions. They held out till this day, when

they were forced to submit unconditionally, together with Meer Hussen

Notanee, a leading chief ot the Boogtie tribe, and his followers; also

Mundoo Khan Doomkie, nephew to Beejar Khan, and Wuzeer Doomkie, son of

Beejar Khan: Ali Sher Boordie, a minor desert chief, surrendered a week

ago, and was the first who broke the coalition. The chiefs and their

tribes who have held out have been deservedly plundered by the troops

which I had despatched in all directions to intercept their retreat,

with their baggage, cattle, and household furniture; almost everything

has been taken except what was in possession of their women and

children, who have been in no way molested, or even approached by the

troops. The moral effect of this expedition has been:—1st. To spread

a wholesome respect for our arms among the neighbouring nations, who,

seeing that tribes so warlike and honoured among them have been broken

to pieces without daring to fight a battle, even when posted in the

celebrated fastness of Truckee, will form a just idea of the British

power. Indeed, I have already received, within the last few days,

letters from neighbouring tribes, asking me to attach their territory to

Scinde, to be under the British rule, and thus to be protected from the

pillage and misery in which they live. 2nd. The moral effect in Scinde

will be to give confidence to the people; especially those bordering on

the desert frontier, whose cries against the government during the last

summer, for not affording them protection against the robber tribes,

were both frequent and just; but the great heat at that time rendered

it impossible to give them that protection. The example now made of the

robber tribes, will show the people of Scinde that the government has

both the will and the power to protect them.”

THE STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

The war which France had waged in Algeria for a considerable period

continued throughout the whole of this year and was marked by several

reverses experienced by its forces.

Little of interest occurs in the annals of Spain during this year. The

chiefs, Zurbano and Muro, were captured near Logrono, and were both

shot. The hopes of Don Carlos were now cut off, and he was under

the necessity of issuing this farewell address to the Spanish

nation:—“Spaniards, my faithful defenders, called to the crown of

Spain by imprescriptible rights, my sole desire has constantly been,

the happiness of my beloved country. That happiness now requires my

renunciation in behalf of my very dear eldest son, Charles Louis, prince

of the Asturias. No sacrifice could be too great to me when the welfare

of my land was at stake. I have willingly made that of the renunciation

in behalf of my son, whom you will acknowledge as my lawful successor,

and surround with the same affection and fidelity. He will, on his side,

know how to reward, as they deserve to be, your loyalty and constancy in

upholding the sound principles which alone can save Spain. In quitting

public life, I feel great satisfaction and consolation in expressing my

gratitude for the heroic achievements by which you have astonished the

world, and which will ever remain engraven on my heart. Farewell, my

constant defenders and faithful companions. Pray unto God with me

that He may take pity on the miseries of our country, and vouchsafe us

quieter and happier days.” During the year some disturbances occurred

at Madrid, and the state of Catalonia caused government considerable

uneasiness; but these insurrectionary movements were finally put down,

though not without loss of life.

At Rimini, in Italy, on the 23rd of September, a revolt broke out

against the papal authority. A number of persons, armed with muskets,

assembled in the Square-del-Corso; and when the garrison was called out

the soldiers joined the populace, and a provincial junto was appointed.

Other towns followed the example of Rimini, and emigrants from the

Tuscan dominions united with the insurgents. Their leaders were Counts

Biancoli, Pasi, and Beltrami; and they took up a position near Faenza;

but being attacked by detachments of pontifical and Austrian soldiers

at this place, they were finally compelled to fly for refuge into the

Tuscan states, where they were protected by the grand duke, and whence,

subsequently, they set sail for Marseilles.

During this year the King of Holland paid a visit to her majesty Queen

Victoria, to which event, on his return to his dominions, in his speech

to the States-general, he thus referred:—“The visit which I have

paid to her majesty the Queen of England will contribute, I hope,

to consolidate the good understanding which exists between the two

countries and their governments. For my part, I shall retain the most

agreeable impression of the welcome which I received on that visit.”

CHAPTER LVII.

{VICTORIA. 1845–1846}

State of Public Affairs at the Commencement of this Year,

&c. Meeting of Parliament..... Settlement of the Corn

Law Question.

STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS YEAR, ETC.

{A.D. 1846}

The close of the last year and the commencement of the present, were

marked by great activity among all classes on the subject of the

corn-laws. The agents of the anti-corn-law league were everywhere

active. Meetings were held in every part of England; and converts to the

free-trade doctrine were made daily. Even the farmers at this time began

to think that their interests were concerned in the matter; and some

landowners adopted the views of the great leader of the movement, Mr.

Cobden. A stimulus was given to the exertions of the free-traders in the

failure of the potato crop in the autumn of 1845, both in England and

Ireland. It was generally felt, indeed, that some alterations in the

corn-laws must be made, and that government itself would be compelled to

throw the trade open. While the hopes of the free-traders in Sir Robert

Peel were thus excited, those of his own party seemed proportionably

cast down. They, too, held meetings, and formed agricultural protection

societies in every part of the United Kingdom. It was, in truth, evident

to every man that a change was coming; and while the mass hailed the

prospect with delight, the great landowners, with some exceptions,

stretched every nerve to stem the onward progress of free-trade

principles. The hopes of the one party, and the fears of the other, were

heightened by the quarrel with America concerning the Oregon territory.

It was thought by all that the abolition of the corn-law would for

ever destroy all chance of war between England and the United States,

inasmuch as the latter country would see that its interest was concerned

in cultivating that great blessing of life—peace. Coming events thus

cast their broad and ample shadows before.

From the thirteenth century, downwards, there are numerous instances on

record of the interference of the legislature with the course of trade

in every department. A few centuries ago, indeed, it was usual to fix

the prices of many articles of consumption; and that of corn was more

interfered with than any other. One circumstance which led to this

interference was scarcity; and another, the want of adequate means of

internal communication, which often rendered it more profitable to the

corn-factor to ship the surplus produce of our maritime districts to a

neighbouring country, than to send it to other counties in England. As a

remedy for these evils, exportation was prohibited. But such a measure,

inasmuch as exportation would not take place except when a better

price could be got abroad than at home, was a palpable injustice to the

grower. On the other hand, when the general supply was supposed to be

more than sufficient, importation was prohibited; but as wheat could

never be imported except when it was cheaper in foreign countries than

in our own, an injustice was done to the consumer. These restrictions

failed to effect their object, and a third party was then fixed upon

as the object of further legislation; from alternately restricting

the export and import of corn, stringent restrictions were laid on the

buying and selling of corn within the country itself. The buying of corn

in one place, to sell in another, was even looked upon as an unnecessary

and improper interference on the part of the dealers. Both the farmers

and the people looked upon them as interlopers: men who had no right to

deal in corn, and who, to enhance their own gains, increased the price

without any profit to the former, and the manifest detriment of the

latter. The complaints against them were so general that the legislature

interfered. Protection to the growers of corn pervaded the legislature

down to the period of 1815; but so badly were the arrangements for this

purpose laid, that the protective laws were often abortive. Generally,

the country raised more corn than it consumed—a sufficient cause for

rendering protection inoperative. In 1773 the period closed during

which this country commonly raised a surplus of corn beyond its own

consumption, and the duties on importation became oppressive. Mr.

Robinson brought forward the resolutions which were embodied in the

celebrated corn-law of 1815. The report of a committee in 1814 fixed the

remunerating price at 80s., and it was proposed absolutely to prohibit

the importation of foreign wheat till it reached that price, and

of colonial wheat till it reached 67s.; when over those prices,

respectively, the imports were to be free. This measure was in itself

oppressive, but it was made doubly so by the mode adopted for fixing

the averages. These were fixed every three months upon the prices of the

previous six weeks, and continued the same until the expiration of the

quarter. However great might be the demands of the country for import,

no rise of price could affect the scale of duties until the arrival

of the next period for fixing the averages. The measure created a great

sensation throughout the country, and met with much opposition in both

houses of parliament; but it passed into law. Agriculturalists now

considered that the price of 80s. per quarter for their corn was

certain, and cheerfully entered into contracts with their landlords upon

that basis. It soon, however, proved to be mere delusion. The three next

years witnessed deficient harvests, which had the effect at one time of

raising the price to 112s. 7d.; but the ports were at length opened, and

in September, 1817, the price had fallen to 74s. The harvest of 1819 was

an average one, and the price of corn through’ the year, ranged at 72s.

But this was a remunerating price, and the farmers and landowners were

induced to increase the breadth of land sown, in the hope of selling the

produce at remunerating prices. They were still convinced that the act

of 1815 was efficient to protect their interests, and they should still

flourish. But the harvest of 1821 was abundant, and the effect was such

as to surprise, though it did not instruct them. The price of corn in

July, 1821, was 51s., and the two next harvests being abundant likewise,

the price sunk in August, 1822, to 42s. The law of 1815, therefore, had

the effect of seducing the farmer into a course of conduct which induced

ruin rather than prosperity. Committees were appointed to inquire into

the causes of distress then prevailing among them. These inquiries were

useless; but, by the year 1824, much of the capital invested in the

poorer description of soils, under the stimulus of the high prices of

previous years, was withdrawn, and less corn being brought to market,

the price rose considerably, and an improved condition of the farmer

took place accordingly. For several years nothing was done permanently

to settle the terms upon which foreign corn could be admitted into the

market. Colonial corn was still excluded till the average price reached

67s. In 1825, however, an act was passed, admitting corn from our North

American colonies at a fixed duty of 5s. per quarter, till July, 1827;

and by another act passed at the same time, corn from our other colonies

was admitted at reduced duties: the stocks of corn in bond were further

admitted for consumption at lower duties. In 1826 there was a partial

failure of the corn-crops, and an order in council was issued in

September 1st, admitting for home consumption oats and oatmeal, rye,

peas, and beans, on the ground that there was great cause to fear that

much distress might ensue to all classes of his majesty’s subjects. A

meeting of parliament was summoned in November, to indemnify ministers

for this order in council, on which occasion Mr. Canning announced the

intention of government early in the ensuing session to introduce a

general measure on the corn-trade. This measure was brought forward soon

after the next meeting of parliament; and its plan was a sliding-scale,

with a more regular and artificial range of duties than those of the

existing law; the object being to keep the price of wheat somewhere

between 55s. and 65s. This bill passed the house of commons by a large

majority; but the bill met with so much opposition in the upper house,

that Mr. Canning, whose health was now declining, dropped the measure,

and announced another of a similar character early in the ensuing

session. Before that period arrived, however, Mr. Canning died, and

the task of introducing the measure of 1828 fell to the share of Mr. C.

Grant, then president of the board of trade. His resolutions differed

from those of Mr. Canning, chiefly in making the protection afforded

when the average price should range between 60s. and 70s. more

restrictive by an amount varying from 3s. to 7s. per quarter. The new

scale was also less regular in its construction; and thus afforded

greater inducements to the commission of frauds upon the averages. This

bill, notwithstanding, passed both houses: it being accepted by the

landed interest as the best to be obtained in the then state of parties,

and by their opponents as a step towards further reform. The scale of

duties as established by this law fixed the price of 1s. per quarter

when the average of six weeks per quarter was 73s.; but when the average

was 60s. no less a sum than 36s. 8d. was to be paid for duty. From

this period down to 1842 no further change took place in the corn-laws,

though year after year the subject was agitated in one shape or the

other, and committees were appointed to inquire into the state of

agriculture. In the year 1842 her majesty’s speech at the opening of the

session recommended the taking of “the state of the laws which affected

the import of corn” into consideration, and expressed regret at the

continued distress in the manufacturing districts. For the measure

brought forward by Sir Robert Peel, the reader is referred to the

parliamentary debates of that year; it will be sufficient here to state,

that in his resolutions he retained the sliding-scale, and introduced

such amendments as he conceived would diminish the oscillations

previously experienced under that mode of levying the duties. Up to the

year 1846, Sir Robert Peel resolutely defended the measure passed in

1842; giving a decided negative to all the free-trade propositions moved

by Lord John Russell and Messrs. Cobden and Villiers, with other members

of parliament. His constant reply was, to these propositions, that

his experience of the present system was not such as to induce him to

propose “further change at present.” He was at length convinced by the

arguments of his opponents that the corn-laws were no longer tenable. He

resigned office, promising Lord John Russell, whom he recommended to her

majesty as his successor, his support in the final adjustment of this

great question. There was no one, however, able to settle this

question but himself; and when Lord John Russell failed in forming an

administration, he resumed office with a fixed resolution, at the risk

of being denominated a changeling and a deceiver of party, to open the

English ports to all the world. How he grappled with and settled the

question will be seen in the ensuing debates.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled on the 19th of February. As her majesty proceeded

to the walls of St. Stephen, a significant incident occurred: at the

corner of Bridge-street, one of the spectators exclaimed, “No monopoly!”

at which her majesty smiled, graciously bowing, at which a hundred

voices united in the shout of “God save the queen!” The speech delivered

by the queen first referred to friendly relations with allied powers; to

an adjustment of differences between the Ottoman Porte and the King of

Persia, to negociations pending for the pacification of the states of

Rio de la Plata, in which for several years a desolating and sanguinary

war had existed; and to the convention concluded with France last year

for the more effectual suppression of the slave-trade. On the dispute

with America her majesty remarked:—“I regret that the conflicting

claims of Great Britain and the United States, in respect of the

territory on the north-western coast of America, although they have been

made the subject of repeated negociation, still remain unsettled. You

may be assured that no effort consistent with national honour shall

be wanting on my part to bring this question to an early and peaceful

termination.” Having adverted to the estimates, and to the crime of

assassination in Ireland, which was more flagrant than even in former

years, her majesty proceeded to say:—“I have to lament that in

consequence of a failure of the potato crop in several parts of the

United Kingdom, there will be a deficient supply of an article of food

which forms the chief subsistence of great numbers of my people. The

disease by which the plant has been affected, has prevailed to the

utmost extent in Ireland. I have adopted all such precautions as it was

in my power to adopt for the purpose of alleviating the sufferings which

maybe caused by this calamity; and I shall confidently rely on your

co-operation in devising such other means for effecting the same

benevolent purpose as may require the sanction of the legislature. I

have had great satisfaction in giving my assent to the measures which

you have presented to me from time to time, calculated to extend

commerce, and to stimulate domestic skill and industry, by the repeal of

prohibitory and restrictive duties. The prosperous state of the revenue;

the increased demand for labour, and the general improvement which

has taken place in the internal condition of the country, are strong

testimonies in favour of the course you have pursued. I recommend you to

take into your early consideration, whether the principles on which you

have acted, may not with advantage be yet more extensively applied,

and whether it may not be in your power, after a careful review of the

existing duties upon many articles the produce or manufacture of other

countries, to make such further reductions and remissions as may tend to

insure the continuance of the great benefits to which I have adverted,

and, by enlarging our commercial intercourse, to strengthen the bonds of

amity with foreign powers.”

Before proceeding with the address, Sir Robert Peel announced that on

the next Monday, he should propose the appointment of a committee to

consider the mode in which the house should deal with railway bills; and

that on Tuesday, the following day, he would make, in committee of the

whole house, a statement as to the intention of her majesty’s government

with respect to the commercial policy of the country, and the corn-laws.

The address was moved in the commons by Lord Francis Egerton. Lord

Francis had long been a noted Conservative, and a supporter of the

corn-laws; but he now avowed himself favourable to free-trade. The

address was seconded by Mr. Beckett Denison. Sir Robert Peel rose to

explain the late ministerial crisis, and his own views and measures.

He attributed the cause which led to the dissolution of the cabinet, to

that great and mysterious calamity—the failure of the potato crop. At

the same time he confessed, that it would be uncandid to attribute undue

importance to that one cause. “That particular cause,” he continued,

“appeared to me to preclude any further delay, and to require immediate

decision—decision, not only upon the measures which it was necessary

at the time to adopt, but as to the course to be ultimately taken with

regard to the laws which govern the importation of grain.” Sir Robert

Peel continued to say he should have wished that another parliament

should have had the opportunity of considering this question; but in

the course of last autumn occurred that visitation of Providence, the

consequences of which it was still difficult to foresee—the failure of

the potato crop in Ireland, and in some parts of England—and it became

a question whether it was not desirable to take immediate steps to

meet the threatened evil. Government had instituted inquiries, and had

received much correspondence from foreign countries on the subject;

and from all the accounts they had received, it became evident that

something must be done. The right honourable baronet next came to the

explanation of what had occurred in the cabinet, and how he had been

led to tender his resignation. He would not have abandoned his post, he

said, if he had been supported by an unanimous government; but that was

not the case, and he had no alternative but to quit office. Her majesty

accepted his resignation, and of her own choice sent for Lord John

Russell, who undertook the task of forming an administration. Their

appeared every probability that the question would have devolved on his

lordship; but before he went to Windsor to take a final farewell of the

queen, he learned that Lord John had failed to form a government. On

meeting Sir Robert, the queen informed him that so far from taking

leave, she was obliged to require him to continue his services; and the

colleagues who differed from him not having advised the formation of a

cabinet on the principles of protection, and Lord John having failed, he

did not hesitate to withdraw his resignation. Accordingly he resolved

to meet parliament, prepared to submit those measures which he thought

necessary to meet the emergency. These measures would be brought forward

on Tuesday next, and therefore he would not anticipate the discussion.

Lord John Russell rose to explain his conduct during the recent

negociations, and how he had failed in forming an administration. Having

received her majesty’s commands, he called together those with whom he

had been in the habit of acting, and had stated that he would endeavour

to frame an outline of a measure on the corn-laws. He had previously

been informed by Sir Robert Peel that it was not advisable he should

state the details of the measure he should have brought forward under

the responsibility of his own government: and, therefore, he had to

consider what it would be the duty of his government to propose, should

he succeed in forming one. The result of his exertions on this subject

would be best explained by reading a letter which he addressed to her

majesty:—“Lord John Russell presents his humble duty to your majesty,

and has the honour to state that he has found it impossible to form an

administration. Lord John Russell was aware from the first moment, when

your majesty was pleased to propose this commission, that there were

very great difficulties in the way, which it required the most cordial

co-operation on the part of his friends, and the firm support of a large

portion of those who followed Sir Robert Peel to surmount. Those who

have served your majesty and your royal predecessor in cabinet-offices

during the administration of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne, who were now

in political connexion with Lord John Russell were consulted by him.

They agreed on the principles by which they would be guided in framing

a measure for the repeal of the corn-laws. Thus one great difficulty was

surmounted. But, as the party which acts with Lord John Russell is in a

minority in both houses of parliament, it was necessary to ascertain

how far they were likely to obtain the support of Sir Robert Peel. Your

majesty is acquainted with all that has passed on this subject. Lord

John Russell is quite ready to admit that Sir Robert Peel has been

willing, from the commencement to the end, to diminish the difficulties

in the course of a new government prepared to attempt the settlement

of the corn-laws. But Sir Robert Peel could not, of course, rely on the

support of his political friends should the proposed measure be in their

eyes dangerous and unwise. In this uncertainty of obtaining a majority

in the house of commons it was absolutely necessary that all those who

were prominent in the political party to which Lord John Russell is

attached should give their zealous aid, and act in concert in the new

administration. Lord John Russell has, in one instance, been unable to

obtain this concert; and he must now consider this task as hopeless,

which has been from the beginning hazardous. Lord John Russell is deeply

sensible of the embarrassment caused by the present state of public

affairs. He will be ready, therefore, to do all in his power, as a

member of parliament, to promote the settlement of that question which,

in present circumstances, is the source of so much danger, especially

to the welfare and peace of Ireland. Lord John Russell would have

formed his ministry on the basis of a complete free trade in corn, to

be established at once, without gradation or delay. He would have

accompanied that proposal with measures of relief to a considerable

extent of the occupiers of land from the burdens to which they are

subjected. But he will be little disposed to insist, as a member of

parliament, on what may seem to your majesty’s advisers an impracticable

course. The country requires, above all things, an early and peaceable

settlement of a question, which, if not soon settled, may, in an

adverse state of affairs, cause a fearful convulsion.” Lord John Russell

concluded by expressing the obligations he felt to her majesty for the

gracious manner in which she entrusted him with the task of forming the

administration; and by stating that, whether in office or out of office,

he should be ready to give his assent to measures calculated to benefit

the country, without reference to the proposer. Mr. D’Israeli was not so

liberal in his sentiments. As the champion of protection, he asked,

what would be thought of a statesman who, having served under four

sovereigns, came forward and declared that, after an observation of

three years, he had found it necessary to change his convictions on a

subject which must have presented itself for more than twenty years to

his notice?

The peers waved their right to discuss these great topics on the first

night of the session; awaiting the discussion in the commons. The

Duke of Richmond endeavoured to bring on a debate; but ministers were

taciturn; and after a long and discursive speech delivered by Lord

Brougham, which touched upon the subjects of the Oregon dispute, the

corn-laws, and Irish affairs, the address was carried. In the course

of the evening, the Duke of Richmond wished the Duke of Wellington

to explain the reasons which induced the government to accept and to

re-accept office; but his grace said that he could not do so without her

majesty’s permission. On the following Monday, however, the noble

duke explained their reasons in his own plain, straightforward, and

characteristic manner. What these reasons were has been touched upon

before.

SETTLEMENT OF THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

The house of commons resolved itself into committee on Tuesday, the

3rd of February, to consider that portion of the speech from the throne

referring to the commercial policy of the government. Sir Robert Peel

commenced his speech by bespeaking the patient indulgence of the house.

He was about to act, he said, on the assumption adopted in the queen’s

speech, that the repeal of prohibitory duties, and the relaxation of

protective duties is in itself a wise policy. He was about to act on

the presumption, that during the last three years, notwithstanding the

relaxation of heavy taxes, there had been increased revenue, increased

demand for labour, increased commerce, increased comfort, contentment,

and peace in the country. Passing on to the explanation of his views and

designs, the right honourable baronet said, that within the last three

years, the tariff, that is, the whole scheme of customs’ duties, had

been submitted to the review of parliament; and the general principle of

the changes then effected was, to remit the duty on raw materials,

and to subject foreign manufactures to a duty of twenty per cent.

Notwithstanding the fears of a falling revenue, those remissions were

carried further: in 1844, the duty on wool was altogether reduced; in

1845, the duty on cotton-wool. Almost the only articles of the nature of

raw material still subjected to duty were timber and tallow; and he

now proposed to reduce these. Tallow, which was chiefly imported from

Russia, had a duty on it of 3s. 2d. per hundred weight; he proposed,

mainly with a view to our own interests, and partly to induce Russia

to follow our liberal policy, to reduce it to Is. 6d. With respect

to timber, he could not yet state particulars, as the details needed

careful adjustment. The course which government would probably take

would be a gradual reduction of the existing amount of duty, where it

should rest a certain time lower than at present: the reduction being

so apportioned, if possible, as to prevent any derangement of internal

trade by inducing parties to withhold the supply of timber, in the hope

of realising a large amount of duty; and yet at the same time, as the

importation of timber from the Baltic partook in some respect of a

monopoly, care would be taken that the reduction of duty should be an

advantage, not so much to the producer as to the consumer. Having given

the manufacturer the advantage of a free command, without any impost, of

the raw materials which enter into his fabrics, he should call upon the

manufacturers of the three great articles which entered into consumption

as the clothing of the great body of the community, to give a proof

of the sincerity of their convictions as to the impolicy of protective

duties, by consenting to relax the protection on their manufactures.

These three great articles were linen, woollen, and cotton manufactures;

and he asked the manufacturers of these at once to set the example to

others, by relaxing, voluntarily and cheerfully, the protection they

enjoyed. It should not be said, that he considered only the “great

interests,” and injured the minor interests. As the case now stood, the

great articles of the cotton manufacture, such as calicos, prints, &c.,

were subject to a duty of 10 per cent, on importation; while cottons

made up, as cotton stockings, &c., were subject to a duty of 20 per cent.

With respect to the former articles, he proposed that they should

be duty free; and that the duty of 20 per cent, on the manufactured

articles of cotton in a more advanced state should be reduced to 10 per

cent. He proposed also to call on the manufacturers of linen and

woollen to relinquish protection on the coarser manufactures used in the

clothing of the great body of the people. There would be some loss

to the revenue; but he believed that the importation of some articles

competing with the production of our manufacturers would stimulate their

skill; and, with the capital and enterprise of this country, he did not

doubt but they would beat foreign manufactures. At present woollen goods

which were made up were subject to a duty of 20 per cent.: he proposed

they should be reduced to 10 per cent. Flax was a raw material, he

continued, imported free of duty: the duty will be taken off the coarser

manufactures; on the finest and made up kinds it would be reduced one

half. Silk enjoyed apparently a protection of 30 per cent., practically

ranging indeed to 78, or even 145 per cent, on some made up articles,

such as net and bonnets, or turbans: but a false reliance was placed

on that protection. It was a delusion: many houses in London and Paris

undertook to introduce silken goods into this country at half the

duty. The revenue and the trade were robbed by the smuggler; and the

manufacturer was deluded by an unreal protection. With respect to silks,

he proposed, therefore, to adopt a new principle. The general rule would

be, enumerating each article of silk manufacture, to levy a duty of so

much per pound, giving an option to the custom-house officers of levying

for every £100 value of silk, a duty of 15 per cent. Sir Robert Peel

went on to explain the reduction of duties on paper-hangings, carriages,

metal manufactures, soap, &c., most of which articles are noticed in a

subsequent page. By the measure of 1842, he continued, the tariff was

greatly simplified. There were one thousand articles still on the list,

five hundred of which were free of duty: he proposed that many other

articles should be relieved from duty. Brandy and foreign spirits were

to be reduced from 22s. 10d. per gallon to 15s. With respect to sugar,

he could not enter into details; and he feared his proposition would not

satisfy all parties. He would still exclude slave-labour sugar; but on

free-labour sugar, the differential duties would be reduced from lis.

8d. for clayed sugar, to 8s.; for Muscovado, from 9s. 4d. to 5s. 10d. He

next came to the articles connected with agriculture; first taking those

not immediately used as food for the people. On leek and onion seed, he

said, the duty was 20s. per cwt.: he proposed to reduce it to 5s. With

reference to maize, or Indian corn, he proposed that the duty upon it

should hereafter and immediately be nominal. By removing this duty he

did not conceive that he was depriving agriculture of any protection.

Maize was generally used in the United States, and partly for human

food: and he believed that, though it was disregarded in this country,

on parts of the Continent it was made into excellent food. His object

in providing for its free importation was the better feeding of

cattle, which would be an advantage rather than a detriment to the

agriculturist. Buck-wheat was to be subject to the same rule: maize and

buck-wheat, and the flour of these corns, were to be admitted duty free.

“Rice feed,” as a substitute for the expensive article of linseed-cake

was also to be introduced, for the better feeding of cattle, duty free.

He now came to the food of man. He feared that his proposal would not

satisfy both sides—those who insisted on protection, and those who

insisted on its total abolition. He could assure both that his desire

was, without any favour or undue partiality, to suggest that which he

believed to be just, and calculated to terminate that conflict, the

continuance of which all must regret. He considered that it was for the

public advantage, at least, to lay the foundation of a final settlement

of this question; but he was not about to propose the immediate repeal

upon grain. But first he explained his course with reference to other

articles. Butter, the duty of which was 20s. per cwt., hops £4 10s.,

and cured fish 2s., were each to be reduced one half. On those articles

which constituted meat as distinguished from grain, namely, fresh or

salted beef, salt or fresh pork, potatoes, vegetables of all sorts,

and un-enumerated articles of the kind, he proposed a total repeal. The

duties on live animals also would be abolished. Some urged him to make

a distinction in the importation of lean or fatted cattle, as it was

unfair to levy an equal amount on both kinds: his proposal to admit

materials for fattening cattle would meet that objection. He hoped that

these advantages would be considered as somewhat a compensation for any

immediate loss that might be felt by the introduction free of the

other animals. He asked those connected with agriculture, while he was

proposing these reductions, to bear in mind that he had already proposed

the removal of protection from some of the great articles of manufacture

connected with clothing in this country. He directed their attention

not merely to the protection connected with the land, but asked them

to remember that he had called on the manufacturers to set the first

example of the relinquishment of protection. They would bear in mind

that their farm servants and domestics would be able to command a

cheaper supply of clothing; and they would, therefore, be disposed to

follow the example of those whom he had called upon to make the first

example of relinquishment. Sir Robert continued:—“I will now state,

with the permission of the house, the proposal which I mean to make on

the subject of grain. I propose that, from the passing of the act, some

articles shall be admitted duty free. On the one hand, I do not propose

the immediate repeal of the corn-laws; but in the hope of a final

arrangement, of preventing undue apprehensions, and giving time for the

adjustment of agriculture to the new state of circumstances, though

I propose a temporary continuance of protection, I propose it on the

distinct understanding, that, after the lapse of a certain time,

foreign grain shall be imported into this country duty free. I am deeply

convinced that any intermediate proposal would be of no avail. It

would have been entirely out of my power to explain or to suggest any

modification of the existing corn-law with a guarantee that it should

be continued. The choice is either between the maintenance intact of

the existing amount of protection in every particular, or laying the

foundation for an ultimate settlement by means of ultimate freedom. I

propose, therefore, a considerable reduction in the existing amount of

duties; and I propose that the continuance of the duty so reduced shall

be for a period of three years; that it shall then continue till that

period of the year in which I believe there will be least inconvenience

in the termination of that protection. I propose that on and after the

1st of February, 1849, oats, barley, and wheat shall be subject only to

that nominal rate of duty which I have proposed to apply to maize and

buck-wheat. But what shall be the intermediate state of the law during

the continuance of these three years?” Sir Robert Peel then explained the

duties on wheat, oats, and barley, which will be found in a subsequent

page; after which, he stated that the arrangement of them would

be accompanied by other provisions, calculated, if not to give

compensation, at least to advance the interests of the agriculturists.

“Take,” he said, “some of the burdens on land, and see whether they

are not capable of alleviation, not by their transfer to others, but

by introducing reforms into their administration. Take that admitted

grievance, the highway-rates. As railways advance, the parish highways

will become of increased importance. There are 16,000 local authorities

that have charge of these highways. There is a nominal surveyor to each

parish—a surveyor who knows nothing about rates. Such a division of

authority makes lax expenditure and bad management. An existing act

of parliament authorizes the union of parishes for the management of

highways; but the act is permissory—the union must be voluntary; and

in very few cases has advantage been taken of the statute. I propose

to make what is now voluntary, compulsory. Taking the scale of the

poor-law, there will be 600 district authorities, instead of 16,000.”

Further aid would be given to agriculture in loans of public money for

improvement of estates, to persons applying for assistance; the public

to be secured against ultimate loss. The loans were to be made by the

exchequer-bill commissioners, and the administration of the measure

entrusted to the newly-appointed inclosure-commissioners; the

preliminary expenses to be borne by the applicant for aid. An annual

repayment by instalments was to be secured as a rent-charge, having

priority over other charges; but the commissioners would have the

discretion left to them of allowing objections made by parties already

having a charge on the land. This alteration, Sir Robert said, he

believed would lay the foundation for great agricultural improvement

throughout the country. He further proposed to relieve the counties of

the whole expense of prisoners, and place it upon the consolidated

fund: the charges of that fund to be subject to periodical review in the

house. The estimated cost of that change was £64,900. In England

half the expense of the prosecutions, in Scotland all, is paid by the

treasury: he proposed to make the treasury pay the whole in England

and in Ireland. The relief would not be great; but it would be of

importance, as giving greater control over prosecutions: the estimated

expense in England was £100,000; in Ireland, £17,000. At present part of

the police force in Ireland was borne by the land: he proposed to impose

the whole expense on the state. He proposed, also, that government

should bear a share in the cost of medical relief under the new poor-law

act; half to be defrayed by government, half by local authorities—the

estimated cost was £100,000 for England, and £15,000 for Scotland. Aid

also would be given in providing education in workhouses; the unions to

appoint, and government to pay the schoolmasters. The expense of this

would be £30,000. Finally, government proposed to pay the poor-law

auditors in England and Ireland, which would cost £15,000. Sir Robert

concluded by thanking the house for the patience with which they had

listened to his financial exposition.

A long and desultory conversation followed this explanation of the

ministerial measure of free trade; several members avowing their

determined hostility, and others promising unlimited support. At the

suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, Monday, the 9th of February, was fixed

for the day on which the discussion should commence. In order to enable

the reader to understand rightly the reductions and alterations proposed

in the tariff, it is necessary to glance at the resolutions proposed by

Sir Robert Peel in committee of the whole house on the customs and corn

act. The first resolution related to the importation of corn, grain,

meal, or flour, setting forth the duties to paid until the 1st day of

February, 1849, when the duties were wholly to cease. Thus, on wheat,

when under 48s. per quarter, 10s. duty was to paid; and this duty was to

be lowered Is. on the rise of wheat up to 53s., when there was to be a

duty paid of 4s. for every quarter. Barley, oats, rye, peas, and beans,

wheat-meal and flour, barley-meal, oatmeal, rye-meal, pea-meal, and

bean-meal were by tire same resolution, taxed in equal proportion, until

the 1st day of February, 1849, when these duties were likewise to cease

and determine; or, at least, to pay only a nominal duty of 1s. per

quarter on wheat, let the price be what it might, and the other corn in

proportion to its value. By the second resolution, in lieu of duties of

customs then chargeable on certain articles, reduced duties were, from

the passing of the bill, to be exacted. These articles consisted of what

might be termed the necessaries and luxuries of life; and the duties

were reduced on some to the amount of one hundred per cent. The articles

enumerated in the resolution were agates, or cornelians; ale and beer;

almonds; amber (manufactures of); arrowroot; band-string twist; bailey,

pearled; bast-ropes; twines, and strands; beads: coral; crystal; jet;

beer or mum; blacking; brass manufactures; brass (powder of); brocade

of gold or silver; bronze (manufactures of); bronze-powder; buck-wheat:

butter; buttons; candles; canes; carriages of all sorts; casks;

cassiva-powder; catlings; cheese; china or porcelain; cider; citron;

clocks; copper manufactures; copper or brass wire; cotton; crayons;

crystal (cut and manufactured); cucumbers; fish; gauze of thread; hair,

manufactures of hair or goats’ wool, &c.; hams; harp-strings; hats

or bonnets of straw, silk, beaver, felt, &c.; hops; iron and steel,

wrought; japanned or lacquered ware; lace, made by the hand,

&c.; latten-wire; lead (manufactures of); leather (manufactures

of)—calashes, boots, and shoes, of all sorts; linen, or linen and

cotton, viz., cambrics, lawns, damasks, &c.; maize, or Indian corn;

musical instruments; mustard-flower; paper, painted or stained paper,

&c.; pencils, lead and slate; perfumery; perry; pewter; pomatum; pots

of stone; puddings and sausages; rice; sago; seeds, garden, &c.; silk

(manufactures of), &c.; silkworm gut; skins (articles manufactured of);

soap, hard and soft; spa-ware; spirits, viz., brandy, geneva, and other

foreign spirits, &c.; steel manufactures; tallow; tapioca; tin; tobacco;

tongues; turnery; twine; varnish; wafers; washing-balls; wax (sealing);

whipcord; wire; woollen manufactures. If any of the articles here

enumerated was the production of a British possession, they were to be

admitted at a reduced duty. Thus, while the woollen goods of foreign

countries were to pay £10 for every £100 value, those of British

possessions were only to pay £5. By a third resolution the duties of

customs, chargeable upon certain goods, wares, and merchandise imported

into the United Kingdom, were to cease and determine. These goods,

wares, and merchandise were—living animals: viz., asses, goats, kids,

oxen, and bulls; cows, calves, horses, mares, geldings, colts, foals,

mules, sheep, lambs, swine, and hogs, and sucking-pigs; bacon; beef

(fresh and salted); bottles of earth and stone; casts of busts, statues,

or figures; caviare; cranberries; cotton manufactures, not being

articles wholly or in part made up, not otherwise charged with duty;

enamel; gelatine; glue; hay; hides, tawed, curried, or in any way

dressed, not otherwise enumerated; ink for printers; inkle (wrought);

lamp-black; linen, manufactures of linen, or of linen mixed with cotton,

or with wool, not particularly enumerated, or otherwise charged with

duty, not being articles wholly or in part made up; magna-grocia ware;

manuscripts; maps, and charts; matresses; meat, (salted or fresh), not

otherwise described; medals; palmetto-thatch manufactures; parchment;

pens; plantains; potatoes; pork, fresh and salted; silk, thrown or

dyed, viz., silk, single or tram, organzine, or crape-silk; thread, not

otherwise enumerated or described; woollens, viz., manufactures of wool,

not being goats’ wool, or of wool mixed with cotton, not particularly

enumerated or described, not otherwise charged with duty, not being

articles wholly or in part made up; vegetables, all, not otherwise

enumerated or described; and vellum.

Sir Robert Peel announced the intentions of government with respect to

the reductions in the timber duties on Tuesday, the 10th of February.

He was anxious to make the statement at the earliest opportunity, on

account of the importance of the subject, and as the American mail was

on the eve of sailing from Liverpool. “We propose,” he said, “to make

ultimately a reduction in the differential duty on foreign timber, so

that the duty shall remain after the reduction at 15s., instead of the

present amount. I think on hewn timber the duty is now 25s.; we propose

to reduce it 15s. But, with the view of insuring to the consumer as

great a benefit as possible, the Baltic timber-trade partaking now

very much of the nature of a monopoly, in consequence of the very great

demand for it, we do not propose that the reduction shall be immediate.

We propose that from the 5th of April, 1847, the period of the year we

think most suitable for making a reduction of duty, the duty on hewn

timber shall be reduced by 5s.; and on the 5th of April, 1848,

by another 5s. With respect to sawn timber maintaining the same

proportions, the reduction of duty ought to be 6s. on the 5th of April,

1847, and another 6s. on the 5th of April, 1848. With respect to the

smaller description, such as lath-wood, spars, and oars, the reduction

will be proportionate.”

Such were the great measures of free-trade brought forward by

the government. By the people they were not met with any national

demonstration, or by any well-pronounced declaration. The signs of

the prevalent opinion, however, were well seen in various quarters,

particular as well as general, official as well as popular. Meetings

were held in various parts of the country, but success was very partial;

and if there was no enthusiastic and unqualified manifestation of the

abolition of the corn-laws on the part of “the country,” the opposition

to it proved, to be disjointed and petty in the extreme. In parliament

the Conservatives put forth all their remaining strength to check the

onward progress of free-trade. On the 10th of February, the day fixed

for the resumption of the discussion, a “monster debate” commenced,

which, as will be seen, continued for some weeks. It was brought on by

Mr. P. Miles, who, on the motion that the house resolve itself into

a committee, moved that it should do so on that day six months. The

measure was further opposed by Lord Norrys, Sirs W. Heathcote and J.

Walsh, and Mr. W. S. Lascelles: Lord Sandon and Mr. Cochrane, both of

whom were Conservatives, supported it. Lord John Russell proceeded to

discuss the mode in which Sir Robert Peel had treated the question.

With the principles of the measure he agreed; but he advocated immediate

abolition of the corn-laws, and hoped that Sir Robert Peel would

reconsider that part of his plan. His lordship concluded by drawing

a contrast between the disinterested support which the Whigs were now

giving to the free-trade measures of a Tory government, and the factious

opposition which the Tories gave to the same measure when proposed by a

Whig government. He thought that if the free-trade measures of the Whig

government had been allowed to pass when originally proposed, much of

the sufferings of 1842 would have been avoided; and that if Sir Robert

Peel had then been true to himself, he would have escaped, much of the

invective now heaped upon him. After a few words from Sir Robert Inglis

and Captain Fitzmaurice in support of the amendment, and from Mr. S.

Herbert in favour of the measure, he having “changed his opinion on the

subject,” on the motion of Mr. S. O’Brien, the debate was adjourned. The

debate continued by adjournment up to February 28th, before any division

or amendment took place: the opposition wishing to stop it on the very

threshold. On the last night of the debate the house was addressed by

Mr. Cobden, who complained that extraneous matter had been introduced

into the discussion to a greater extent than had ever been introduced

previously into any corn-law debate. The two main topics, he said, on

which it had turned, were the conduct of ministers and the propriety

of an appeal to the country. The people of England believed that the

discussion on the first topic was a quarrel got up for no other purpose

than to evade the real question, and to conceal from public observation

that there was no justification for the corn-laws. He assured their

opponents that the more they covered ministers with obloquy, the more

sympathy they would obtain from the country. In point of fact they

were making ministers popular: if Sir Robert Peel were to visit the

manufacturing districts, his march through them would, be one continued

triumph. Even Sir James Graham, who had rendered, himself unpopular by

certain measures, by his magnificent contribution to free trade, and

still more by the nightly attacks which had been made upon him during

this debate, had become an object of popular sympathy in Manchester

and Liverpool. As to the wish of the protectionists to appeal to the

country, nobody knew better than they did, that they had no chance of

obtaining a majority at the next election. Three months ago he had

said that the advocates of a free trade had no chance of obtaining that

majority; but now that the protectionists were a broken party, and

had lost all the talent and intelligence which formerly directed their

tactics, the case was altered, and it was they who had now no chance of

success in an appeal to the constituency. Speaking of the intelligence

of the people on this subject, Mr. Cobden remarked:—“I will tell you

what my thoughts were, as T sat at home patiently reading these debates.

As I read speech after speech, and saw the fallacies which I had knocked

on the head seven years ago reappearing afresh, my thought was, What

fun these debates will afford the men in fustian jackets! All these

fallacies are perfectly transparent to these men; and they would laugh

at you for putting them forward. Dependence on foreigners! Who in the

world could have supposed that that long-buried ghost would come again

to light! Drain of gold! Wages rising and falling with the price of

bread! Throwing land out of cultivation, and bringing corn here at 25s.

a quarter! You forget that the great mass of the people now take a very

different view of these questions from what you do. Seven years ago they

gave in to your reiterated assertions that wages rise and fall with the

price of bread. You had a very fair clap-trap against us, as we happened

to be master manufacturers, in saying that we wanted to reduce wages.

But the right honourable baronet at the head of the government, and the

right honourable baronet, the home-secretary, are not suspected by the

English people of having such motives on these questions. The English

people have no disinclination to refer to high authorities on these

matters. They assume that men high in office have access to accurate

information; and they generally suppose that those men have no sinister

motive for deceiving the great body of the people on a question like

the present. You see I do not underrate the importance of your leaders

having declared in favour of free trade. On the contrary, I avow that

that has caused the greatest possible accession to the ranks of the free

traders. Well then, the working classes, not believing that wages rise

and fall with the price of bread, when you tell them that they are to

have corn at 25s. per quarter, instead of being frightened, are rubbing

their hands with the greatest satisfaction. They are not frightened at

the visions which you present to their eyes of a big loaf, seeing they

expect to get more money, and bread at half the price. And then the

danger of having your land thrown out of cultivation! Why, what would

the men in smock-frocks in the south of England say to that? They would

say, ‘We shall get our land for potato-ground at ½ d. a lug, instead

of paying 3d. or 4d. for it.’ These fallacies have all been disposed of;

and if you lived more in the world, more in contact with public opinion,

and less within that charmed circle which you think the world, but which

is anything but the world—if you gave way less to the excitement of

clubs, less to the buoyancy which arises from talking to each other

as to the effect of some smart speech in which the minister has been

assailed, you would see that it is mere child’s play to attempt to balk

the intelligence of the country on this great question, and you would

not have talked as you have talked for the last eleven days.” Mr. Cobden

proceeded to discuss the effect of the march of free trade on farmers;

proving to demonstration that they were not alarmed by it, and that

they were at the very time the discussion was going forward, and with a

certainty of the repeal of the corn-laws in prospect, taking farms at

a higher rent, and engaging to drain lands at great cost. Speaking

of public opinion on protection, he said:—“What is this boasted

protection? The country has come to regard it as they regard

witchcraft—as a mere sound and a delusion. They no more regard your

precautions against free-trade than they regard the horse-shoes that

are nailed over stables to keep the witches from the horses. They do

not believe in protection; they have no fear of free-trade; and they are

laughing to scorn all the arguments by which you are trying to frighten

them. How can protection, think you, add to the wealth of a country? Can

you by legislation add one farthing to the wealth of a country? You may

by legislation, in one evening, destroy the fruits and accumulations of

a century of labour: but I defy you to show me how, by the legislation

of this house, you can add one farthing to the wealth of this country?

That springs from the industry and intelligence of the people of this

country.” In conclusion, Mr. Cobden called upon the protectionists

cheerfully to make concessions for the good of the community. The debate

was closed by Lord George Bentinck, who condemned the proposition of

government as vicious in principle, and likely to be deeply injurious,

not only to agriculturists, but to all the great interests of the

country, On a division, the amendment was negatived by a majority of

three hundred and seven against two hundred and forty.

This great fact was now apparent to all men. The Conservatives, however,

did not yet give up the struggle, though they fought as men in despair.

Having failed in defeating the measure in the whole, they sought to

defeat it in its details. On the house resolving itself into committee

on the customs’ acts, amendment after amendment was moved by them; and

when these were all negatived, they commenced another struggle to defeat

the second reading. A division on the second reading took place on the

28th of March, which was carried by a majority of three hundred and

two against two hundred and fourteen. Nor yet was the battle won. As if

exhausted by the struggle, both parties rested awhile from the strife;

but it recommenced on the 5th of May, on a motion that the house resolve

itself into a committee of the whole house on the corn-importation bill.

This was opposed by Lord George Bentinck, who was considered as the

champion of protection; he moved that the speaker do leave the chair

that day three months. No division took place on his lordship’s

amendment, and the house resolved into committee on the corn-law

importation act. Amendments were moved on some of its clauses, but they

were all either negatived or withdrawn; and by the 9th of May the report

was brought up. Sir G. Burrell moved that the report should be received

that day six months; but after a long discussion, which was more

distinguished for personal attacks than for sober argument, the

amendment was withdrawn, and the bill was ordered to be printed, and

to be read a third time on the 12th. The third reading was on that

day moved by Sir James Graham, and the final struggle in the house of

commons on this great subject commenced. The Marquis of Granby moved

that the bill be read a third time that day six months; and in doing

so, he did not believe the measure would pass the legislature; but if

it did, he hoped their anticipations of evil would prove inaccurate,

and that the anticipations of Sir Robert Peel, however vague, would be

verified. The debate on the third reading continued by adjournment up

to the 16th of May, its opponents putting forth all their strength to

defeat it—arguing and pleading for the corn-laws as though the very

existence of England depended on their continuance.

On a division, the third reading was carried by a majority of three

hundred and twenty-seven against two hundred and twenty-nine, and the

bill was then read a third time, and passed amidst loud cheering.

The report of the customs’ duties bill was brought up in the commons on

Monday the 18th of May, and though strenuously opposed by Lord George

Bentinck, and others of his party, was agreed to without a division;

and on the morrow it was read a third time without either discussion or

division, and passed.

On the 18th the corn-importation bill was introduced into the lords

by the Duke of Wellington, who moved its first reading. The Duke of

Richmond said that he could not permit the bill to be read even a first

time without entering his protest against it. The first reading was

carried without a division, the Duke of Richmond being the only peer who

expressed dissent. The Duke of Wellington gave notice that he would

move the second reading of the bill on Monday the 25th. This motion

was introduced, however, on that day by the Earl of Ripon. The Duke of

Richmond moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months;

feeling it to be a measure likely to inflict a deadly blow upon

British agriculture and the national greatness. The debate continued

by adjournment up to Thursday the 28th of May, most of the peers

being anxious to deliver their sentiments on this great subject.

Lord Ashburton justified the principles of protection. The system of

protection, he said, was founded upon three grounds: it was necessary

in order to secure industry; it secured us against dependence on foreign

countries for food; and there were peculiar burdens upon the land, for

which landowners were entitled to compensation. The debate was closed by

the Duke of Wellington, who justified the measure in an emphatic speech,

and warned their lordships, that if they rejected it, it would only be

to have another brought before them. On a division, the second reading

was carried by a majority of two hundred and eleven against one hundred

and sixty-four.

The customs’ duties bill was read a first time, after the stern

opposition of the Duke of Richmond, in the house of lords, on the 20th

of May. The second reading was moved by the Earl of Dalhousie on the 4th

of June; in doing which is lordship stated generally the ground on which

it was based. The noble lord went through the detail of the several

articles of the tariff on which reductions were proposed, and concluded

by repudiating the notion that the measure was one of pure free trade,

and therefore did not go far enough: it was no free-trade measure at

all; but one for the removal of prohibitive, and the gradual repeal of

protective duties. The Duke of Richmond said, that after the decision to

which their lordships had come on the corn-importation bill, he felt it

was little use to trouble them with any remarks; and therefore he should

content himself with moving that the bill be read a second time that

day six months. After a few words from the Earl of Wicklow and Lord

Ashburton against the bill, and from Earl Grey and Lord Monteagle in its

support, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on

Monday week. Before proceeding with the tariff, however, their lordships

went into committee on the corn-importation bill. The first night of

the committee’s sitting was Friday, June 12th; and the opponents of the

measure brought forward so many amendments, that the several clauses

were not gone through till the 19th. On that day, after all the

amendments had been negatived, it was arranged that the report should

be brought up on the 22nd; that afterwards the tariff bill should be

proceeded with, as far as possible, and continued on the following

day; and that on the 25th the corn-bill should be read a third time. In

accordance with this agreement the report of the corn-bill was brought

up on the following Monday, and the house went into committee upon the

tariff-bill. Several amendments were proposed and negatived, and

at length the opponents of the measure gave up the contest. On the

following day the bill was reported without amendments, and ordered to

be read a third time on Thursday with the corn-importation bill. Upon

the motion for the third reading of these bills several noble lords,

in opposition, urged their previous arguments, and entered their solemn

protests against them; but all opposition was futile: they passed their

final stage triumphantly, and on the morrow, Friday, the 26th, the royal

assent was given to them by commission, and they became laws.

Thus triumphed Sir Robert Peel. Yet with his triumph as a patriot came

his downfall as a minister. Simultaneous with these great and twin

measures, the corn-bill and the customs-bill, he had brought in a

protection life-bill for Ireland. The premier, in bringing in this bill,

was aware that the Whigs, who had supported him in his great free-trade

measures, would be to a man adverse to any coercive measure for that

country; and his only hope of success was that those of his recent

colleagues whom he had so grievously offended by striking the final blow

at their darling measure, the corn-laws, would forget their resentment,

and act according to their conscience, in a matter which, under ordinary

circumstances, and according to their usual policy, would have obtained

their hearty support. That hope was vain. They, his former stanch

adherents, considered that government had forfeited all claim to their

confidence, and therefore declined “to supply them with unconstitutional

powers.” The protection life-bill was thrown out by the commons—the

Tories uniting with the Whigs, that they might crush a man whom they had

idolized—by a majority of seventy-three, although it was urged by stern

necessity, and enforced with the whole weight of a triumphant cabinet.

On the day after the triumph of the corn-bill and the customs-bill,

the premier went down to Osborne-house to tender the resignation of

his ministry, in his retirement he carried with him the sympathy and

admiration of the great body of the people. All felt that he had not

only benefited England by these great measures, but all the world. Nor

must the name of Cobden be forgotten in this achievement. The retiring

premier, indeed, nobly attributed the whole triumph to that long-tried

champion of free-trade. But the names of Peel and Cobden will ever

be associated in the annals of the country, as the names of those who

struck the final blow at laws which enriched the few at the cost of the

whole population.

CHAPTER LVIII.

{VICTORIA. 1846}

Position of the Conservative Party on the Defection of Sir

Robert Peel, and the Parliamentary Success of his Free-

Trade Measures..... Formation of a Whig Cabinet..... The

Sugar Duties..... Dreadful Condition of Ireland.....

Decline of Mr. O’Connell..... The Young Ireland Leaders.....

Colonial Affairs..... War with the Sikhs..... Foreign

Affairs..... Coolness with France..... Spanish Marriages

POSITION OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY ON THE DEFECTION OF SIR ROBERT PEEL,

AND THE PARLIAMENTARY SUCCESS OF HIS FREE-TRADE MEASURES.

{A.D. 1846}

The adoption of a free-trade policy by Sir Robert Peel disorganised the

conservative party, then more frequently designated Protectionist. The

chief difficulty arose from the scarcity of talent in its ranks, and,

therefore, the apparent impossibility of procuring a leader. At last

the commons and the country were startled by the announcement of a

new conservative chief in the person of Lord George Bentinck. So

unfavourable were the antecedents—at all events, the immediate

antecedents—of this nobleman, that the announcement of his name as

the leader of the Protectionists excited the mirth of parliament, which

found a loud echo in the country. After the public press had lampooned

him—the _Times_ scarcely condescending to launch its thunders,

only allowing a distant rumble to be heard—after the _Examiner_ had

exhausted its pungent and polished satire, and _Punch_ had caricatured

the noble member for King’s Lynn, and while yet his own party scarcely

ventured to hope anything from his leadership, Lord George proved

himself an orator and a debater, a party tactician, and an energetic,

vigilant, intelligent chief of opposition. Perhaps no public man

ever burst so suddenly upon the house of commons as a leading party

politician. He had been well known as a member of parliament, had

conciliated general esteem, and won extensive respect, as a private

gentleman, from both sides of the house; but as a politician he had

scarcely been noticed, nor had he taken any pains to make himself

felt in debate: his irruption, so to speak, upon the ranks of the

ministerialists, was sudden and effective. Mr. Disraeli has written an

elaborate memoir of the noble lord, which exaggerates his capabilities

and achievements, and in a style less eloquent than showy, holds up his

policy to the admiration of his country. Mr. Disraeli, however, pays in

many respects a tribute that is no more than just to the memory of Lord

George, and his book affords material for an impartial judgment. At

that period the noble lord was a distinguished patron of the turf: all

England knew him as a sporting gentleman, a first-rate judge of horses,

and an extensive winner on the course. In allusion to his habits

in these respects, it became a popular sneer that the Conservatives

required “a stable mind,” after the versatile performances of Sir Robert

Peel, and they had at last found such in Lord George. But although his

whole mind had apparently been given up to the turf, it was not actually

so. He had been a member of parliament for eighteen years, and was a

shrewd observer of party, as he was of men and things in general life.

Before entering parliament he had for three years served as private

secretary to Mr. Canning, whose sagacity was seldom at fault in the

selection of persons of indisputable ability. The great statesman was

connected with Lord George, for he married the sister of the Duke of

Portland. The young nobleman’s powers of observation were such, that he

was not likely to be in constant and intimate communication with such

a man as Canning, without gleaning some political intelligence and

experience. After Lord George entered parliament he remained for some

time in the army, but gradually abandoned his military tastes for those

of the turf, and his speculations in that direction were carried out

on a scale of unprecedented magnitude. Politically, his sympathies and

opinions appear to have been what might be designated Conservative-Whig.

When the partisans of Mr. Canning left the Duke of Wellington’s

administration, Lord George Bentinck ranged himself in opposition. Under

Earl Grey’s administration, he sat on the ministerial side of the

house. The Mends of Mr. Canning, who were associated with Lord Grey,

entertained high opinions of Lord George’s talents for official and

administrative service, so that he was requested to accept office,

but he declined. These offers were repeatedly renewed, under the same

auspices, and as often rejected. He desired to be unfettered in his

parliamentary position, and freely gave up the chances of Downing Street

for those of the race-course. He voted for the reform bill, and afforded

a cordial and constant support to that and nearly every measure of the

whig administration, until Lord Stanley abandoned the party. To that

noble lord he was personally and politically much attached, and of Mr.

Spring Rice, afterwards Lord Monteagle, he also had a high opinion; but

no friendship nor influence was sufficient to retard what may be called

his retrograde course: like his friend, Lord Stanley, he became less and

less a Whig, and finally stood in the foreground of Conservatism. He was

a warm supporter of the Irish Roman Catholics, but did not appear ever

to have understood their political tactics. His sympathy for what

is termed Puseyism may have accounted for his leanings to the Irish

Romanist party, although in this respect, according to Mr. Disraeli, “he

was for the Established Church, and nothing more.” According to the

same author he was a Whig of 1688. It is admitted that his personal

prejudices were strong; but those who allow this maintain that he had no

prejudice as to things, but examined all doctrines and theories with

a strong common sense and a clear judgment. His painstaking to inquire

after truth is much vaunted by his biographer; but his speeches as

leader of the Protectionists do not reveal this quality,—for while

no orator of the time, not even Sir Robert Peel, relied more upon

statistics, or at least made a larger use of them, no advocate of any

cause was ever more unfortunate in the data selected as groundwork for

argument. Such was the man in whom the conservative opposition found

a leader, when despairing of being again able to form an effective and

organised opposition. It was on the 27th of February, 1846, that Lord

George made his _début_ in his new capacity. His speech was excellent in

everything but its logic. Modest yet courageous in manner, plain but not

ungraceful in style, his address told upon the house. The tone, however,

was too aristocratic for the place and the times, and his arguments

proved that he had not mastered the controversy, into the midst of which

he had so chivalrously launched. He brought forward numerous details;

but his facts were, as they say in Ireland, “false facts.” He had not

investigated the science of political economy, or the condition of the

nation, but had only “crammed,” as they say in college phrase, for the

occasion and the controversy. He had industriously read whatever was

written, and listened to whatever was said on the side of protection,

but had not followed the counsel of an ancient adviser—_audi alteram

partem_; and the result was that even the most transparent fallacies of

the Protectionists were uttered by him with an air of serious but honest

importance, as if they were truths which he was raised up irrefragably

to establish by new and original arguments. When a free trade in corn

was at last sanctioned by the legislature, Lord George continued to

offer an industrious, courageous, and ingenious opposition, and by the

vigour of his mind and the incessant energy of his attacks, kept up the

party life of the opposition, which he resuscitated and led. Lord George

looked upon himself as the champion of a class; to save or serve the

aristocracy, irrespective of the interests of the masses of the people,

was, in his opinion, patriotism, and he was willing “to spend and be

spent” in that service. Throughout the debates on the customs bill, and

upon the measures of reduction of duties generally which Sir Robert Peel

proposed, Lord George offered an animated and pertinacious, although

unavailing opposition.

At this juncture the state of Ireland was melancholy in the extreme.

Unlawful confederacies were formed among the peasantry and small

farmers, and outrages of the most sanguinary character were perpetrated

in the open day. Disaffection pervaded the masses of the Roman Catholic

population, and language of daring menace was employed towards the

government by the popular leaders of every rank, both in and out of

parliament. Neither life nor property was safe, in any part of the

country, except where the Protestants predominated. The loyal and

peaceable petitioned for some measures of protection, and this class was

indignant that the government did not propose laws which would afford

security to the well-disposed. Sir Robert Peel listened to these

demands, and prepared a bill, known as the “life-protection bill,” which

was very stringent in its nature, and proposed utterly to disarm the

whole population, except under restrictions which would not be felt by

the peaceable inhabitants, but would reach effectually the disaffected

masses. This bill was at first supported by both the Whigs and Tories,

acting under a sense of the common danger to society in Ireland, which

would exist so long as the refractory populace had easy access to arms.

The efforts to procure both fire and side-arms, all over the country,

were extraordinary; this fact alarmed the Whigs, and made them feel

disposed to support Sir Robert: the Conservatives were always ready

to entertain repressive measures for Ireland. Both parties at last

perceived that the tendency of the bill was to strengthen Sir Robert’s

government, and, therefore, although they supported the first reading,

they determined to give it, in its future stages, a determined

opposition. The ground taken by Lord John Russell, as the whig leader,

was, that if Ireland was criminal she was also oppressed; that measures

of coercion and redress should proceed _pari passu_. He would not

support repression, unless accompanied by relief. Lord George Bentinck,

as the conservative leader, took different ground. He admitted that the

state of Ireland was such as to require extra constitutional remedies,

but such ought not to be entrusted to any but constitutional ministers;

that Sir Robert did not advise her majesty in the spirit of the

constitution, and he (Lord George) would not therefore confide so large

a responsibility to his administrative discretion. The union of the two

parties ensured the minister’s defeat, although the first reading was

carried after seven nights’ debate. Sir W. Somerville, then a popular

and influential member of the whig party, proposed an amendment on the

9th of June, when the bill was brought up for a second reading; the

amendment was its postponement for six months, and was carried by a

large majority. This decided the fate of the Peel administration. During

the debate Lord George Bentinck gave an unhappy proof of his inaccuracy

of statement and party spirit. He accused Sir Robert Peel of having made

up his mind in favour of Roman Catholic emancipation, before he turned

Mr. Canning out of office on that very question. This allegation was

made in terms of the bitterest reproach, and was placed in such a form

and light before the house, as, if true, must have left the impression

that Sir Robert was a man destitute of all principle and honour. The

following Friday, the 12th of June, the honourable baronet exculpated

himself in one of the happiest speeches which he ever delivered in

parliament. On this occasion Mr. Roebuck defended Sir Robert, and

assailed Lord George with much justice and more acrimony; but the speech

was well received by the house, and by the country, and increased the

honourable member’s reputation as a debater and a politician. Mr. Hume,

then in the zenith of his influence, followed up the blows so heavily

dealt by Sir Robert and Mr. Roebuck. The efforts of Lord George’s

followers to cover his disastrous defeat were feeble and fruitless.

It was not until the 20th that the amendment proposed by Sir William

Somerville on the 9th was carried, and on the 29th the announcements

were made in the lords and commons that ministers had resigned. The Duke

of Wellington made it known to the lords, as the ministerial leader

in that house, and never was a similar communication so laconically

delivered. Sir Robert made a long speech, vindicating his policy and

his personal consistency, and declaring his unabated confidence in the

measures in favour of free-trade, which he had been enabled to carry,

and which he averred would bring peace, contentment, and prosperity to

the country. The farewell address of the minister was rendered still

more remarkable than it otherwise would have been, by his announcing

that the Oregon dispute with the United States had been amicably

adjusted. This was well received by the house and by the country,

although, perhaps, neither had given such attention to the nature of the

differences between the two countries on that subject, or the character

of the adjustment. The foreign policy of Sir Robert had neither been

firm nor dignified, and the basis of the settlement of the Oregon

dispute was simply concession on the part of England. There can be no

great merit in a minister preserving peace by giving up everything,

or nearly everything, for which he might have to go to war. On

this principle our foreign politics would be easy enough to all

administrations, and the only talent really necessary would be, the

ability to persuade parliament that, in conceding what was justly ours,

we saved the expense of defending it, and that such a course was wise,

honourable, and statesman-like. The spirit infused into our foreign

policy by Sir Robert, and which the Earl of Aberdeen too faithfully

represented, proved, afterwards, costly alike to our resources and our

honour.

On the resignation of Sir Robert, her majesty sent for Lord John

Russell, and confided to him the task of forming an administration. His

lordship succeeded in this object, and presented himself to parliament

as first lord of the treasury and prime-minister, with Lord Cottenham as

lord-chancellor, Lord Lansdowne as president of the council, Mr. Charles

Wood as chancellor of the exchequer, and the three chief secretaries of

state—home, foreign, and colonial—were Sir G. Grey, Lord Palmerston,

and Earl Grey.

The public were not displeased with the formation of a whig ministry,

although, had the parliament been dissolved upon the question simply

of Sir Robert or Lord John, the former would have had an overwhelming

majority. Some discontent was expressed with the prevalence of the Grey

family in the cabinet—three members of that connexion in three of the

principal offices gave too much patronage and influence to a single

family, especially as their nepotism had brought discredit upon the late

earl, even in the height of his popularity. The chancellorship of the

exchequer, and the home and colonial secretaryships, being now in the

hands of this aristocratic house, the departments, it was alleged,

would be overwhelmed with scions and _proteges_ of the noble lord, the

representative of the race. Some of the liberal journals sneered at the

administration as “the Grey government” from the beginning, and

prepared the minds of the more radical portion of the people for an

administrative failure. The conservative press caught up the tone of

the Radicals, and ridiculed the new whig government in similar terms,

affecting to feel a constitutional alarm and jealousy at the prevailing

influence of “the Grey sept.”

When Lord John appeared in the house as the head of the government,

Mr. Duncombe, one of the members for Finsbury, a popular and patriotic

commoner, challenged the premier to make a full and explicit statement

of the principles upon which he intended to administer the affairs of

the country. This appeal met with a noble response in a clear, manful

enunciation of free-trade principles, justice to Ireland, peace as far

as that could be maintained in justice and honour, and the “maintenance

and extension of religious liberty, which, together with its civil

liberty, had made England conspicuous as one of the greatest nations of

the world.”

The first parliamentary measure introduced by the Whigs was a plan for

the better regulation of the sugar duties. On the 20th of July Lord

John introduced his plan, which he professed would meet the wishes

and expectations of the producer, the consumer, and the treasury. His

proposal was substantially a protective duty of twenty shillings the

cwt. upon all foreign Muscovada sugar, to be diminished annually in a

certain ratio, so that in 1851 it would be only fifteen shillings and

sixpence, and after that year permanently fourteen shillings. This was

a great advantage to the consumers as compared with the old prohibitory

duty of sixty-three shillings, and the protective duty of twenty-three

shillings and fourpence. Lord John met the objections of “the negroes’

friends,” as to the admission of slave-grown sugar, by showing that the

exclusion of such sugar was impracticable, inasmuch as by treaty, states

producing slave-grown sugar were entitled to demand its admission

under “the most favoured nation clause.” To conciliate the West-India

interest, his lordship announced that it was his intention to introduce

a bill giving the queen power to assent to any act of the West-India

legislatures, modifying or abolishing the differential duties

established there in favour of British goods. As these differential

duties were only five or seven per cent., the West-India interest

considered that his lordship mocked them by a show of concession. The

whole of that interest was “up in arms,” as their parliamentary and

colonial opposition, moral and political, was described. This interest

had not joined the Conservatives in resisting the repeal of the corn

laws, but, nevertheless, it now supplicated conservative support in

impeding the measures of the ministry. The English landed interest was

anxious to strengthen itself by the aid of the West-India planters and

merchants, and therefore affected to be generous, and to repay evil

by good. Lord George Bentinck’s boastful words were paraded before all

monopolists to induce their co-operation with his party—“If we are a

proud aristocracy, we are proud of our honour, inasmuch as we have never

been guilty, and never can be guilty, of double-dealing with the farmers

of England, of swindling our opponents, deceiving our friends, or

betraying our constituents.” The West-India party was happy to gain help

from any quarter, and joined “the farmers’ friends” in adopting

Lord George Bentinck as their leader. The premier had proceeded by

“resolution,” as it is constitutional to do in all measures affecting

the public revenue. When the resolution was reported, Lord George moved

as an amendment, “That in the present state of the sugar cultivation in

the East and West-India possessions, the proposed reduction of duty upon

foreign slave-grown sugar is alike unjust and impolitic, as tending to

check the advance of sugar produced by British free labour, and to

give a great additional stimulus to slave labour.” In support of this

amendment the noble mover paraded a vast array of “facts and figures,”

which made a wonderful show of industry and knowledge; but his

statistical statements were illusory as his logic was unsound. The

awkward manner in which his amendment was expressed embarrassed his

arguments and those of his party, justifying the description of him in

the following passage of his memoir, written by Disraeli:—“He had not

much sustained his literary culture, and of late years, at any rate,

had not given his mind to political study.” Sir Robert Peel gave the

government a qualified and hesitating support. He started so many

objections to the government measure that the opposition might have

fairly looked for his support, but he answered his speech by his vote.

In the course of his oration he predicted evils which never came to

pass, and after all that had occurred, even his own glorious triumph

in repealing the corn laws, the speech proved that he was not only an

unwilling reformer, but that he had not clear and fair convictions of

the truth of the great principles of political economy, that he was

still the man of mere political expediency, and almost as jealous

as ever of all bold attempts at theoretical or practical reform. The

support of Sir Robert, such as it was, saved the government, for on this

question, at all events, he held the balance of power. The debate

lasted through the nights of the 27th and 28th, the West-India interest

affecting great horror of slavery, and depicting the encouragement the

measure would give to that evil in terms of great and even pious alarm.

Never did a party resort more scandalously to cant and hypocrisy to

serve a purpose than this, on the memorable occasion of “the sugar

debate.” The resolution was carried, and a bill embodying it rapidly

passed the commons, but was resisted in the lords with much tenacity of

purpose. This was in a considerable measure the result of a remarkable

petition presented to that house by Mr. Clarkson, of whom Mr.

Wilberforce had been a disciple. Mr. Clarkson was a philanthropist and

a Christian, but neither a political economist nor a politician. The

Bishop of Oxford proposed an amendment, on the second reading, which

would have virtually destroyed the bill; but the original motion was

carried, and the remaining stages were unobstructed.