During the month of September panic pervaded the monetary and commercial

world. Failures in every branch of business in London and in the

provinces were numerous and disastrous. The following were among the

most extensive in London:—

Liabilities.

Sanderson and Co...................... £1,725,900

J. and S. Woolley ..................... 90,500

Reid, Irving, and Co................... 1,500,000

Gower, Nephews........................ 450,000

Cockerell and Co...................... 600,000

Bensusan and Co...................... 60,000

Perkins, Schlusser, and Mullens...... 150,000

Luall, Brothers, and Co................ 400,000

Philips and Co......................... 150,000

Prime, Ward, and Co................... 100,000

Robinson and Co......................... 96,000

Castellain................................. 100,000

Giles and Co............................ 160,000

Some of these persons, and many others who incurred like misfortune, had

been regarded as opulent merchants or bankers, and were men of position

and influence. Mr. Robinson was, at the time of his failure, a governor

of the Bank of England; Sir John Rae Reid had lately filled that

office. Mr. Gomer and Mr. Settle were bank directors at the time of

their stoppage.

The Bank of England not only raised its rate of interest to eight per

cent., but contracted the time of accommodation to thirty days. The

funds, always susceptible of the influence of an uneasy state of public

affairs, and of violent changes in the money market, were at this

juncture peculiarly so, falling as much as two per cent, in a single

day. Consols were as low as eighty-four. Railway shares suffered more

than any other kind of stock or scrip, becoming so depreciated in

the market as to be unsaleable. A great outcry was raised against the

monetary policy which had been initiated by Sir Robert Peel. “Peel’s

bill” was the subject of unmeasured denunciation by all who were

accustomed to obtain bank accommodation, but to whom that advantage

was no longer open. Early in October a deputation from the city bankers

waited upon the government for the purpose of inducing some relaxation

upon the stringency of Sir Robert Peel’s bill. The deputation consisted

of most influential men—such as Mr. Masterman, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr.

Glynn, Mr. Bevan, Mr. Barnett. The chancellor of the exchequer addressed

the deputation in terms which led them to expect that the object for

which they were deputed would be accomplished. Their expectations

were not disappointed, for the following letter was addressed to the

governors of the Bank:—

“Her majesty’s government have seen with the deepest regret the pressure

which has existed for some weeks upon the commercial interests of the

country, and that this pressure has been aggravated by a want of that

confidence which is necessary for carrying on the ordinary dealings of

trade. They have been in hopes that the check given to transactions of a

speculative character, the transfer of capital from other countries,

the influx of bullion, and the feeling which a knowledge of these

circumstances might have been expected to produce, would have removed

the prevailing distrust. They were encouraged in this expectation by

the speedy cessation of a similar state of feeling in the month of April

last. These hopes, however, have been disappointed, and her majesty’s

government have come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when

they ought to attempt, by some extraordinary and temporary measure, to

restore confidence to the mercantile and manufacturing community. For

this purpose, they recommend to the directors of the Bank of England,

in the present emergency, to enlarge the amount of their discounts

and advances upon approved security; but that, in order to retain this

operation within reasonable limits, a high rate of interest should be

charged. In present circumstances they would suggest that the rate of

interest should not be less than eight per cent. If this course should

lead to any infringement of the existing law, her majesty’s government

will be prepared to propose to parliament, on its meeting, a bill of

indemnity. They will rely upon the discretion of the directors to reduce

as soon as possible the amount of their notes, if any extraordinary

issues should take place within the limits pi escribed by law. Her

majesty’s government are of opinion that any extra profit derived from

this measure should be carried to the account of the public, but

the precise mode of doing so must be left to future arrangement. Her

majesty’s government are not insensible to the evil of any departure

from the law which has placed the currency of this country upon a sound

basis; but they feel confident that, in the present circumstances, the

measure which they have proposed may be safely adopted; and that, at

the same time, the main provision of that law and the vital principle

of preserving the convertibility of the bank-note may be firmly

maintained.”

The Bank directors passed resolutions consequent upon this letter, which

were of great importance to the trading community. These resolutions

were conveyed to the government by a letter from the governor and

deputy governor of the Bank:—

_Bank Resolutions_.

“Resolved,—That this Court do accede to the recommendation contained in

the letter from the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of

the Exchequer, dated this day, and addressed to the Governor and

Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, which has been read;

“That the minimum rate of discount on bills not having more than 95 days

to run be 8 per cent;

“That advances be made on Bills of Exchange, Stock, Exchequer Bills,

and other approved securities, in sums of not less than £2000, and for

periods to be fixed by the Governors, at the rate of 8 per cent, per

annum.”

The immediate effects of this measure can be most briefly shown by the

following reference made a few days afterwards by an authority in such

matters:—“As soon as the correspondence between the Bank of England

and the Government was made public, a rise of nearly two and a half per

cent, immediately ensued. Consols on Saturday left off at 80 ¾ to ⅞,

and on Monday 83 ½ ⅝. Several fluctuations, however, occurred in the

course of the day; and a fall of one per cent, on the announcement by

the Bank broker of the truth of the correspondence alluded to above,

excited much surprise. On Tuesday, the market was very unsettled,

operations being nearly confined to Consols. The opening quotation was

83 ⅝, and the highest quotation 84 ⅜, with numerous fluctuations.

A tendency to reaction was visible on Wednesday; the first price was 83

¼ for money, which declined to 82 ⅜, but afterwards rallied to 82

½¾, at which price they closed. On Thursday, there was scarcely any

fluctuation until towards the close of business. The news of a banking

failure in the West of England caused a fall of nearly ½ per cent.;

and, at closing, 82 ¼ for Money, to 82 ⅜ to ½ for Time, were the

current quotations. Exchequer Bills have considerably fluctuated during

the week; about 20s. dis. for large bills is the closing quotation. Bank

Stock has rather improved, but India Bonds continue very much depressed,

quoting about 30s. dis.”

The prevailing feeling among political economists was unfavourable

to the measure; and there were many effects attending upon it which

vindicated their judgment. In the provinces banks gave way, and

mercantile houses of eminence were closed; a general apprehension among

the more skilful financiers was entertained that no _ultimate_ benefit,

but considerable ultimate injury, would ensue. The judgment of this

class of persons may be best combed in the following review of the

event:—“On this resolve being generally circulated, nothing could

exceed the agitation that prevailed. Everywhere it became the engrossing

subject of conversation; and, while many who were favourable to

the ‘expansion’ objected to the high rate of interest, others, more

experienced, remembering 1825 and 1836, with all the train of evils that

resulted upon the withdrawal of the notes then issued, loudly expressed

their disapprobation of this invasion of the most valuable clause in

the Bank charter bill. Its mere relaxation, it was observed, robs the

measure, at once and for ever, of the powerful check to over-trading

that a knowledge that, under no circumstances whatever, a relaxation

would be resorted to, was calculated to produce. The immediate effect in

Liverpool has been to raise the value of cotton one per cent. This is

a direct hindrance to manufacturing, and Manchester, Leeds, &c,

consequently suffer. It is remarked at Liverpool that eight per cent.,

although high, is nothing in comparison with being obliged to sell.

It follows, therefore, that, when sold, all the charges incident

to withholding must be paid by the purchaser, and ultimately by the

consumer. From Manchester, advices have been received of the failure

of Messrs. Fairbridge and Mr. Robert Gardner (the latter is greatly

regretted); from Leeds, of a firm it would be premature to mention. In

the meantime, money in London is rather dearer than cheaper. Discount

houses, and the joint-stock banks, are taking money repayable at short

dates at six percent., five having hitherto been the current rate.

Good bills will not be done under eight per cent., and second-rate at

scarcely any price. The Directors of the Bank of England at present have

not been subject to any great demands since Monday; the difficulty of

offering good security being at once an obstacle to firms partially

insolvent. At present, it is almost premature to judge, but doubts are

entertained whether the benefits resulting, even for the present, from

the ‘relaxation,’ will at all balance the baleful effects anticipated.”

The government did not expect that such opinions would be entertained by

so large and influential a portion of the public, and were desirous to

retrace their steps as soon as they could do so with a good grace,

for before a month had passed measures were taken to that effect. The

following letter was addressed by the cabinet to the governors of the

Bank:—

“Her majesty’s government have watched with the deepest interest the

gradual revival of confidence in the commercial classes of the country.

They have the satisfaction of believing that the course adopted by the

Bank of England on their recommendation, has contributed to produce this

result, whilst it has led to no infringement of the law. It appears,

from the accounts which you have transmitted to us, that the reserve of

the Bank of England has been for some time steadily increasing, and now

amounts to £5,000,000. This increase has in great measure arisen from

the return of notes and coin from the country. The bullion exceeds

£10,000,000, and the state of the exchange promises a further influx

of the precious metals. The knowledge of these facts by the public is

calculated to inspire still further confidence. In these circumstances

it appears to her majesty’s government that the purpose which they had

in view in the letter which we addressed to you on the 25th October has

been fully answered, and that it is unnecessary to continue that letter

any longer in force.”

The harvest of 1847 was such as to restore confidence in some degree,

and from that and other causes, especially the cessation of all

speculative undertakings, money became easier. The government, however,

claimed credit for their plan, which, in the opinion of so many

qualified to judge, did more harm in some directions than it did good in

others. If the number and magnitude of the different commercial failures

were to be taken into account, there appeared as much necessity for the

government measure when it was withdrawn, as when, twenty-eight days

before, it was introduced. The following were announced to the end of

November:—

IN GLASGOW. Liabilities.

Campbell of May......................... £600,000

A. and J. Bournie...................... 200,000

IN LIVERPOOL.

Ashburner ............................ 30,000

Napier of Camlachie..................... 40,000

IN NEWCASTLE.

Carrand Co.............................. 70,000

IN MANCHESTER.

David Ainsworth ..................... 30,000

IN BLACKBURN.

Roget and Co............................. 76,000

IN LONDON.

Freemanand Cook.......................... 350,000

Sargeant, Garden, and Co................. 150,000

Thurbonand Co............................ 120,000

Coates and Co............................ 100,000

Leaf, Barnet, and Co..................... 100,000

Farmer and Ward......................... 55,000

Ryder, Wimbolt, and Co.................. 50,000

Pemberton and Co........................ 30,000

Abbot and Co............................ 30,000

Besides the great number of mercantile firms which failed, several banks

were reduced to the same necessity: the West India, the Shrewsbury,

Market Drayton, and the Honiton, were among the principal. Many foreign

mercantile establishments which had connections with British houses also

stopped payment, adding to the distress and alarm.

During the ensuing month large imports of bullion arrived from the

continent and America, and the aspect of affairs became more hopeful.

Throughout the year the English populace experienced much distress, and

bore it with patience; still there were food riots and disturbances of

various sorts, which had to be put down by the strong arm of the law.

Notwithstanding the gloomy condition of all monetary and mercantile

transactions, there were men of enterprise, who contemplated future

undertakings of great magnitude. Among these projects was one proposing

the formation of a ship canal across the Isthmus of Suez, which,

however, was not carried into effect. The French government and people

were very desirous to have such a work accomplished; but English

politicians regarded it with jealousy, especially Lord Palmerston, then

the highest authority in England on foreign affairs. By him the

measure was regarded as impracticable, at all events, as a pecuniary

speculation; and in its political tendency, likely to separate Egypt

from Turkey, and to give France, as a great Mediterranean power,

an undue preponderance. He also regarded it as endangering, and not

remotely, English empire in India. At all events, Mr. Stephenson, the

great English engineer, investigated the subject, and surveyed the line

through which certain French speculators proposed that the canal should

be cut. As the subject is technical, Mr. Stephenson’s views are given in

his own words, used ten years afterwards:—

“In 1847, in conjunction with a French and Austrian engineer,

he investigated the matter, feeling how important would be the

establishment, if possible, of a communication between the Red Sea and

Mediterranean. The levels given by a French engineer, who visited Egypt

in 1801, during the French invasion, indicated a difference between the

Red Sea and the Mediterranean of something like thirty-two feet. It was

suggested that if the old canal of Ptolemy were opened again, a current

might be established between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, which

would not impede steam navigation, and would at the same time scour

the canal and enable a perfect channel to be maintained. However, after

investigation, he and the other engineers found that, instead of there

being thirty-two feet difference of level between the Red Sea and the

Mediterranean, there was no difference at all, though the notion of that

difference of level had been entertained for upwards of fifty years.

While that notion existed it was believed by professional men that a

canal, or a new Bosphorus, as it was called, might be maintained between

the Red Sea and the Mediterranean; but the difference of level being

found to be _nil_, the engineers with whom he was associated abandoned

the project altogether, and he believed justly. Since that time he

had walked over the district, at some considerable inconvenience, and

investigated the feasibility of opening a canal between the two seas,

assuming them to be on a level, and supposing the canal to be supplied

with water from the higher level of the Nile, but he had come to the

conclusion that the thing was, he would say, absurd, were it not that

other engineers, whose opinion he respected, had been to the spot since

and declared it to be practicable. He coincided in opinion with the

first lord of the Treasury. Money, it was true, would overcome any

difficulty, but, commercially speaking, he must frankly declare that

he believed this scheme to be unfeasible. Whatever its political import

might be, he believed it to be an undesirable scheme, speaking as an

engineer. In his opinion, the railway now nearly completed would be more

effective, as far as India and postal arrangements were concerned, than

this new Bosphorus between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.”

POLITICAL AGITATION IN ENGLAND.

The commercial distress gave an opportunity for certain political

charlatans to stir up the minds of the people. The Chartists, headed

by Fergus O’Connor, took advantage of the privations of the populace by

appealing to their passions and their sufferings, representing them as

the dupes of the upper and middle classes, especially the latter, who

were described as enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. The

“people’s charter” was declared to be the panacea; all social evils were

to vanish before the application of that political remedy. Some of the

political demands of the chartists were just; all classes of liberal

politicals felt that the people were entitled to a wider distribution of

the franchise, but many who thus felt were deterred from the concession

by the intemperate language and impracticable schemes of Fergus O’Connor

and the lesser leaders of the confederacy. Whatever might be supposed

imprudent as a measure of political agitation in a rich country,

and where the vast mass of the people had a strong aversion to all

constitutional, or as it was the fashion to name them, “organic

changes,” by sanguinary or violent means, was resorted to by Mr.

O’Connor and his coadjutors. He propounded principles of political

economy so absurd, that it was difficult to suppose he could have any

faith in his own theories,—holding out the hope of an ultimate division

of the land among the people: others propounded the doctrine of a law by

which every man should be provided with “a fair day’s wages for a fair

day’s work,” and the duty of supplying that “fair day’s work” for him

rested, it was alleged, with the government. These men, in fact, did

their utmost to bring about a social war, and the doctrines of communism

were actively propagated and eagerly received among large numbers of

the operatives in the metropolis and the north of England, and among the

labourers elsewhere. There was, probably, no important town in England

that had not its chartist association, which looked forward to a violent

political revolution by which high wages could be procured by little

labour. The Chartists, like the Irish repealers, were divided into

sections, characterised respectively by their profession of physical

force or moral force. The moral force Chartists were like the Old

Irelanders, not generally very sincere in their belief of its efficacy.

They professed it merely as a cover to conceal what they meditated; they

were as much physical-force men as those who were so designated, but

did not deem it politic to make the avowal.

After the dissolution of parliament (which will be recorded in its

details upon another page), Mr. O’Connor succeeded in gaining his

election. This circumstance filled his followers with revived hopes, and

the agitation became more enthusiastic and demonstrative. Large public

meetings were convened, which were conducted with order, and dispersed

peaceably, although the speeches on these occasions were very

inflammatory. The government regarded these “monster meetings” with

uneasiness, and they were closely watched. The loyalty of the middle and

of large sections of the poorer classes, however, gave the government

a sense of security, notwithstanding the menacing attitude of the

Chartists; and this loyal feeling was extended as the peaceably disposed

became alarmed by the seditious and unprincipled harangues which the

chartist orators addressed to such large assemblages. Many of the most

active Chartists were socialists, and used the confederacy as a means

of propagating their atrocious doctrines. As a specimen of the tone

and method which characterised the chartist gatherings where order was

maintained, the following account of one which took place after the

elections will suffice:—“A meeting of Chartists, to the number of

nearly ten thousand, took place at Newton Common, on Sunday. The

object was to address the operatives in the manufacturing districts of

Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton, Buy, Preston, Liverpool, Wigan,

&c., on the land and labour questions. Shortly after one o’clock, Mr.

Fergus O’Connor, M.P., accompanied by Mr. W. H. Roberts, the miners’

attorney-general, appeared in the crowd, on their way to the platform.

Both these gentlemen were received amidst the loudest demonstrations of

applause. Mr. Roberts having been duly proposed and seconded, assumed

the office of chairman. He addressed the meeting at much length, on the

progress and prospects of Chartism, and encouraged the vast multitude

then before him to take courage from the past, and work with

determination and zeal for effecting the great cause of the people’s

charter. A resolution, proposing that a committee, or a conference of

delegates, should go to London, to escort Mr. O’Connor into Parliament

on its opening, was agreed to. Mr. O’Connor then came forward and spoke

at great length. He reviewed the great progress of Chartism, abused

the Whigs, and browbeat the press. He next narrated the plans he had

adopted, and was adopting, for the benefit of all who became Chartists.

He anticipated great results from his scheme of labour palaces—denied

the propriety of being placed in the election returns as a feather in

the quill of Whiggery—was an earnest advocate for the amelioration of

Ireland, and still willing and determined to agitate for their cause.

He would go to parliament, and record his first motion for ‘The people’s

charter, and no surrender.’ The meeting was conducted in a very orderly

manner.”

As very considerable numbers of the working classes in Lancashire and

Yorkshire had been taught in Sunday-schools, and the Sabbath day was

much regarded in that part of the country, the collection of such a vast

concourse of persons from great distances, on a day so sacred, created

prejudices against the chartist confederacies even in their own

strongholds, which, irrespective of every other difficulty, ensured

their defeat. The agitation, however, did not come to a head during

the year of which we write, and it is unnecessary further to trace its

progress in this chapter.

This was not the only agitation which disturbed the equanimity of Great

Britain throughout the year. The Protectionists, led by Lord George

Bentinck, were active and acrimonious. Agricultural dinners and public

meetings gave opportunities for the most violent denunciations against

Sir Robert Peel, the government, and free trade. The manufacturers—the

creators of wealth, and who sustained so large a portion of the public

burdens—were represented as a selfish, callous set of men, eager only

to acquire riches, even at the expense of all other classes of the

community. They were described as disloyal and revolutionary, and bent

upon the destruction of throne and constitution. It would be difficult

to determine whether the orations at the protectionist groupings,

or those at the chartist gatherings were most characterised by class

invidiousness; nor could it be adjudged in which the less sound

views of political economy were enunciated. The eloquence greatly

preponderated on the side of the Chartists. Cotton was also quite as

patriotic as corn. The operatives declared that “the country” was ruined

by class legislation, and therefore desired that their own class should

thenceforward possess the legislative power. The landowners declared

that “the country” although not yet destroyed, was on the brink of

destruction, and must speedily perish amidst blood and bankruptcy,

unless the landed interest had again the power to make laws of which

the Reform Bill had deprived it, and unless agricultural produce was

“protected,” by legislatively enhancing its price for the benefit of the

producers. “A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work,” and the state to

have the responsibility of securing it to the liking of those who

made the demand, was as much the principle of squires as of operative

cotton-spinners. Lord George Bentinck was a Fergus O’Connor for “the

country party,” and Fergus was the Lord George Bentinck of the labouring

town populations.

The public demonstrations of both these parties were often very

unfortunate, in consequence of mismanagement by those to whom the

getting up of these affairs were committed. These occurrences tended to

lower both Chartists and Protectionists in public estimation, as various

witty publications lampooned the prominent actors, and exposed them to

overwhelming ridicule. The most signal opportunity afforded to the wits

in this way was by the Chartists. On the 25th of October they announced

a great public dinner to be given in London to eighteen members of

parliament, whom they alleged had been returned to the House of

Commons by their influence, and to represent their opinions. When the

dinner-party assembled, not one of the eighteen honourable gentlemen

appeared, nor did it transpire that even one had given any acceptance of

the invitation! Fergus O’Connor was an exception from the application

of these remarks. He was there as a matter of course, and elaborately

puffed his absurd land scheme, by which so many were afterwards ruined.

The anti-slavery party were in many respects active, notwithstanding the

home incidents which occupied the public mind. It was necessary to

watch the conduct of government in reference to the recent enactment

concerning the sugar duties, and also their general policy in regard to

the sugar question, and the West India interest. The conduct of the

West India party was suspicious, and required the vigilance of the

anti-slavery men; and the coalition between that party and Lord George

Ben thick added another motive still for watchfulness. Many of the

anti-slavery people turned their attention to India, and were supported

by gentlemen of influence, military and mercantile, in efforts to rouse

public interest in the resources of India, and the adaptation of

these resources to English requirements, rendering the importation of

commodities produced by slave labour unnecessary. George Thompson, Esq.,

who had been returned for the Tower Hamlets, one of the largest and

most influential constituencies in the kingdom, a man of surpassing

eloquence, took a very active part in this movement. A correct

insight as to its object and spirit may be imparted to the reader by

a resolution passed at a great meeting of the inhabitants of the Tower

Hamlets on the 26th of October:—“After an eloquent address, expository

of the subject, G.Thompson, Esq., M.P., moved a resolution to the

general effect that it had been demonstrated that India had the capacity

of producing every tropical raw commodity required by England for the

constant and profitable employment of her population. That England,

although mistress of India, was rendered year by year more dependent

upon the United States for her supply of raw cotton and tobacco; both

being the produce of slave labour. That, consequently, the prosperity

of this country, and the stability of a large portion of the public

revenue, were made dependent upon the vicissitudes of the seasons,

upon the maintenance of peace between England and America, and upon

the continuance of internal peace among the Slave States. That such

dependence, besides perpetuating slavery, was to a great extent, the

source of existing calamities, and pregnant with future evils to the

interests of England. That the free agricultural population of British

India would become the natural customers of this country in the

exact measure that they would if permitted to become the producers

of commodities for the wants of England, but that they were rendered

incapable of competing with the United States, by reason of the burdens

imposed upon their soil and industry. Therefore, resolved—That it is

the duty of the people of England, for the sake alike of England, of

India, and of the enslaved throughout the world, to require of the

legislature the immediate removal of all imposts which depress the

agricultural energies of the native population; and the institution of

a strict and impartial inquiry, in India, into the condition of the

natives, and into the conduct and the acts arising out of the peculiar

government ruling over them, which affect their well-being, and retard

their prosperity. Mr. W. Howitt seconded the resolutions, which were

carried unanimously, and the meeting separated.”

THE COURT.

There were few incidents of interest connected with the court during

the year. In February Prince Albert was proposed to the University of

Cambridge as candidate for the chancellorship. He was opposed by Earl

Powis, and with such effect as to prove very mortifying to the court..

Prince Albert was elected by a majority of only one hundred and sixteen

votes, and it was obvious that but for the prodigious exertion of

government patronage, that result would not have been obtained. His

royal highness was installed publicly at Cambridge early in July. Her

majesty, having determined to accompany her husband on this occasion, a

vast concourse of persons repaired to Cambridge, and the government made

every effort to give _éclat_ to the event. The royal party travelled

by the Eastern Counties railway, and were received by the mayor and

corporation of Cambridge with much pomp. Repairing to the Hall of

Trinity, they were received by the dignitaries of the university.

There her majesty took her seat on a chair of state on a dais. The

new chancellor, accompanied by the Duke of Wellington (Chancellor

of Oxford), and other great personages, presented an address to her

majesty, congratulating her on her arrival. The prince, having read

the address, retired with the usual profound obeisances, which not only

amused the spectators, but afforded much diversion to her majesty, whose

mode of smiling indicated how much she enjoyed the burlesque of the

scene.

The following day, the Installation Ode was performed in the presence

of the new chancellor. Her majesty was present as a visitor. The ode was

composed by Wordsworth, the poet-laureate, and set to music by Professor

Walmisley. Flower-shows, public breakfasts, concerts, levees, grand

university dinners, entertained the numerous visitors of rank during the

stay of the royal party. Her majesty had seldom before been attended

by so august and splendid a retinue, consisting of Prince Waldemar of

Prussia, Prince Laurenstein, Prince Peter of Oldenburg, the Prince of

Saxe-Weimar, Lieutenant-General Sir Harry Smith (the hero of Aliwal),

the Bishop of Oxford, and nearly all the gentry of the eastern counties.

Cambridge had probably never witnessed such a festal occasion, and never

before did her majesty seem so much to enjoy herself. It was generally

observed that her fondness for the prince was carried to excess, and

that her enjoyment was mainly derived from the honour done to him. That

this amiable character, so much calculated to ensure her own domestic

happiness, and to set a good example to her people, belonged to her

majesty in a degree seldom evinced by royal personages, many proofs had

been given before, and many were given after, the visit to Cambridge.

A work entitled “The Journal of Thomas Baikes, Esq.,” professed to

make many singular revelations to that effect. Mr. Baikes, the son of

a wealthy London merchant, had somehow an early introduction to _haut

ton_, and continued, in London and Paris, to live in the society of men

of rank and fashion, a species of Beau Brummel. The Duke of Wellington

gave to Mr. Baikes the following incident, which took place at the

marriage of the Princess Augusta: “When we proceeded to the signatures,

the King of Hanover was very anxious to sign before Prince Albert, and

when the queen approached the latter, he placed himself by her side,

watching the opportunity. She knew very well what he was about; and just

as the archbishop was giving her the pen, she suddenly dodged round the

table, placed herself next the prince, then quickly took the pen from

the archbishop, signed, and gave it to Prince Albert, who also signed

next, before it could be prevented. The queen was also very anxious to

give the precedence at court to King Leopold before the King of Hanover,

and she consulted me about it, and how it should be arranged. I told her

majesty that I supposed it should be settled as we did at the Congress

of Vienna. ‘How was that,’ said she, ‘by first arrival?’—‘No, ma’am,’

said I, ‘alphabetically, and then, you know B comes before H.’ This

pleased her very much, and it was done.”

This was hardly fair to the Duke of Cumberland, and shows her majesty’s

strong attachment to the Cobourgs; but his grace of Cumberland and

majesty of Hanover never acted as an uncle to the queen, and would have

gladly made the Orange party available to mount her throne. The Duke

of Wellington knew all this; and as he regarded it to be one of his

especial missions to watch over her majesty, he willingly lent himself

to those little artifices which tended to place the King of Hanover in

an inferior position relative to that of Prince Albert, or of the King

of the Belgians.

The only other event connected with the court, except such as will

appear in the history of parliamentary transactions, was the visit to

Scotland in August. This visit was paid in compliance with the wishes

of the prince, who had on a previous occasion greatly enjoyed the

opportunities of sporting which Scotland afforded. On the 11th of

August, the queen, the prince, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal,

and suite left Osborne House in the _Victoria and Albert_ yacht, with

the _Fairy_ as tender, and escorted by a fleet of war-steamers. Her

majesty stayed one night at the Scilly Islands, then passed through the

Menai Straits, and steered for the Isle of Man. The fleet sailed close

to the island, but her majesty did not land. On Monday, the 16th, the

fleet anchored in Loch Ryan: their entrance to the mouth of the Clyde

was very picturesque, and was observed by great numbers, in yachts and

steamers, who had made excursions for the purpose. On the following

day her majesty landed at Dumbarton, and inspected the old castle. The

squadron anchored for the night under the castle of Rothsay, from which

place the Prince of Wales derives his Scottish ducal title. On the

Wednesday they proceeded up Loch Fyne; at Tarbut her majesty gazed with

long and deep interest upon the glorious scenery. The royal party landed

at Inverary, where the Duke of Argyll and the Campbells paid feudal

homage, the clansmen assembling in their national costume.

From Inverary the court proceeded to Staffa, where they examined the

cave. The prince also landed at Iona, where so many ancient kings and

heroes of Scotland found sepulture. On Friday morning they arrived off

Fort William, where, on Saturday morning, her majesty and suite left

the squadron and proceeded by land to her Scottish autumn residence. The

accounts of this expedition published in the journals of the day greatly

interested the British public. A periodical not remarkable for its

loyalty thus referred to the voyage:—“Never, certainly, were the

habitual life and disposition of a sovereign exhibited to a nation

in more favourable guise than those of Queen Victoria during her sea

voyages. The history of the cruise to Scotland is like those which have

preceded it. It displays the chief traveller in the most engaging light.

We see her, the ruler of a maritime people, recurring for her holiday

pleasures to the enjoyment of the sea; riding the waves with a fearless

familiarity that yet has in it nothing unfeminine. The sovereign is

pleased to gratify her people by going among them and reciprocating

courtesies. Less reserved than some other predecessors, Queen Victoria,

surrounded by her family, still seems attended by a thoroughly English

spirit of domesticity; the manner in which the children accompany their

parents, share the walks of their father on shore, and enter into the

whole spirit of the voyage, is simply a model of the national manners

according to their best type. And while her husband and the children are

‘stretching their legs’ on shore, the accomplished lady is seen with her

pencil, exercising her talents by sketching the scenery around.”

Her majesty’s progress after the landing was such as to give her the

happiest assurances of the loyalty and love of the Scottish people.

The following description of the latter part of her journey is

picturesque:—“The road to Ardverikie passes round the north end of Loch

Laggan, crossing the Padtock Water by an ingenious boat bridge. At this

point Macpherson, of Cluny Macpherson, with about thirty of his tenantry

in the costume of his clan; Duncan Davidson, of Tulloch, and a few

of his followers; Sir John Mackenzie, of Selvin, and others, were

assembled, the Highlandmen armed with broadsword and target. About

eighty, thus armed, lined one side of the road, and the same number,

unarmed, lined the other; while about five hundred persons of both

sexes, in holiday costume, posted themselves on the face of the hill.

The Marquis of Abercorn, in full Highland costume, and wearing the order

of the garter, with the Duchess of Bedford, was also present. Shortly

after eleven o’clock a signal was made from Ben Nead that the royal

party were approaching, and’ presently the royal carriages were seen

rounding a hill half a mile distant. Cluny then put himself at the head

of the Highlandmen, and behind him stood the standard-bearer, with the

venerable green silk flag of the Macphersons, which was ‘out’ in the

rebellions of 1715 and 1745. Cluny himself wore the shield which Prince

Charles Stewart carried at Culloden. The royal carriage drew up opposite

the bridge, the path to which, as well as the bridge, was carpeted.

Having greeted the marquis and Cluny, her majesty shook hands with the

Duchess of Bedford, and, with the prince, repeatedly acknowledged the

cheering of the people. Prince Leinengen was also in the royal carriage,

and shared the attentions of the people. Next to her majesty and her

royal consort, the Prince of Wales was the object of interest, as, led

by his royal father, and wrapped in a tartan cloak, he walked down to

the bridge. The royal party then entered a carriage in waiting on the

south shore, and drove slowly off to the lodge. The Duchess of Norfolk

and Lady Jocelyn followed; and in a third carriage came the Duke of

Norfolk, Earl Grey. General Wemyss, and Sir J. Clark, who were received

with demonstrations of respect. The last carriage having passed, an

anker of whiskey was brought forth, with cakes and cheese, to feast

both great and small. Cluny then proposed ‘Health and happiness to her

majesty,’ which was drank with nine cheers enthusiastically given; and

the crowd, after discussing some forty gallons of whiskey, dispersed.

“Her majesty was not accompanied by military, and in the evening all

the county police were dismissed, the force of seven London police being

considered more than sufficient for the protection of her majesty and

the royal party.”

Ardverikie, where her majesty sojourned during her visit to the north,

was formerly a hunting park of Fergus, King of Scotland. In front is

Loch Laggan, which is very extensive, being about eight miles in length,

although not so picturesque as most of the Highland lochs.

On the 17th of September, her majesty left her Highland residence, and

sailed from Fort William to the Isle of Man, where the prince

landed. Thence the royal party steered to Fleetwood, in Morecomb Bay,

Lancashire, whence they proceeded by rail to London.

The conjugal and parental love shown by her majesty, and, indeed, her

affectionate interest in all her royal relatives, endeared her to her

people, the more so because it was the general impression that the house

of Brunswick was deficient in these virtues. In proof of that absence of

family kindness which has in most instances characterised her majesty’s

royal predecessors, the following was extensively circulated in the

periodicals of the day, which, at the same time, held up the queen’s

loving spirit to public admiration:—“Ever since the accession of the

house of Guelph royalty has freed itself from one of the most universal

and honourable, though somewhat expensive duties of kindred, and this,

too, without observation, much less censure. The poorest of mankind mark

the grave of parents, wife, and children by some humble memorial; the

richer place tablets or raise tombs to their relatives. So gratifying

to the heart is this duty, that rarely, if ever, is it omitted from any

other cause than poverty. A foreigner visits the royal depository in

St. George’s Chapel, and asks where are the royal monuments? But no son,

daughter, brother, nephew, or niece of the present dynasty has erected a

funeral monument of any kind to the kindred dead. Even if affection did

not produce such a testimonial, it might have been expected from regard

to ancient custom, and from desire to conform to the habits of civilised

life. The only monuments to our kings and their descendants, with the

exception of the statue to George III. in Windsor Park, by George IV.,

and of the beautiful mausoleum which the King of Hanover is building

in memory of his consort, have been erected by the public; and in the

instance only of the Princess Charlotte’s monument, which was raised

by subscription, has one been placed in church or chapel. There is

absolutely nothing—not even an engraved slab—to tell where the ashes

of George I., II., III., and IV., and William IV., or of any one of

all their numerous progeny, repose. No doubt the world knows; and the

omission is only remarkable or important from its being at variance with

the custom of the country, from the injury which it has caused to art,

and from the idea which it creates of heartlessness in the survivors;

not one of whom has expended a shilling on what would appear to be the

most natural of social duties.”

HOME NAVAL AND MILITARY AFFAIRS.

The naval and military incidents of the year at home, which were of a

nature to record in history, were not numerous. The most important of

them was the organization of a coast defence, which was thus described

in a paper of the day, having a character for accurate naval and

military intelligence:—“The organization of the coast-guard for the

national defence, is the plan of the Earl of Auckland, first lord of the

Admiralty, under the approbation of the commissioners of customs. The

carrying out of the system is vested entirely in the hands of Captain

Houston Stewart, C.B., the controller-general of the coast-guard, in

whose hands a sum of money has been placed for the purpose. It will be

recollected that this gallant officer commanded the _Benbow_, 72, at the

siege of Acre. Commander Jerningham is an additional commander appointed

to the _Excellent_ gunnery-ship, and has been selected for the purpose

of carrying into operation the plans and arrangements of Captain

Stewart, and to superintend the system of instruction of the men at

great gun exercise, which is precisely the same as that laid down in the

‘Rules for exercise and service of great guns in her majesty’s ships.’

Wherever guns have been placed for the instruction of the coast-guard,

warranted gunners from the _Excellent_ have been appointed to instruct

the men, under the superintendence of Commander Jerningham, who was

gunnery-lieutenant of the _Wellesley_, in China. They receive four

shillings a day, in addition to their present pay, and the men who are

brought to the guns for instruction receive one shilling a day for six

days, during which time they are excused from all other duty. It is

proposed to instruct the coast-guard by means of ship platform

batteries of one gun each, constructed exactly similar to the ports of

a man-of-war, placed in a position in each district convenient for

the drill of fifty men, and in a situation in which it may be rendered

available for defence, as well as affording a range to sea for

practice.”

In after years this institution proved of great value. Lord Auckland’s

administration of the Admiralty will, on this account, be memorable,

although certainly on no other.

The return of Sir Harry Smith from India was hailed by the public, who

sought every opportunity of demonstrating their respect for a hero who

had so nobly sustained the military reputation of England. Theregiment

of lancers, upon which so much depended in Sir Harry’s separate command

connected with the events of Loodiana and Aliwal, had also returned

to England. The following exciting and singular scene occurred in the

autumn at Brighton. The address delivered by the general was remarkable

for the interesting incidents which it brought out, and its reference to

the opinion of the Duke of Wellington:—“On Friday afternoon, Sir Harry

Smith paid a visit of inspection to the 16th Lancers at Brighton. The

gallant general arrived by railway at two o’clock, and was met at the

terminus by Colonel M’Dowall who went out with the regiment in 1822 as a

lieutenant. He accompanied the general to the cavalry barracks,

situate a mile north-west of Brighton. Shortly after his arrival at the

barracks, Sir Harry and Colonel M’Dowall, went into the barrack yard,

where the regiment was drawn up for an undress parade. As soon as the

general made his appearance the band struck up, ‘See, the

conquering hero comes.’ The regiment was drawn up in squadrons by

Lieutenant-colonel Smithe, who so gallantly led it into the field at

Aliwal. Sir Harry inspected the troops, occasionally stooping as he

proceeded down the line, addressing some of the veterans, who bore upon

their breasts medals and stars, presented to them for their victories in

India. Sir Harry inspected them on foot; but afterwards mounted a

horse, and put the regiment through a variety of evolutions, which were

performed to his great satisfaction. This done, the regiment was drawn

up in close column. Sir Harry rode up to the front, and addressed the

troops as follows:—‘Soldiers of the 16th Lancers, I hope you are now

as happy as you made your enemies unhappy. You served in India with the

highest honour. Whenever you were called on, you were ready to obey your

officers, either in the field or in quarters. If I have not this day

addressed each separate individual whom I know, it is not because I do

not feel towards you all as I know you all feel towards me, but because

I do not keep you and your officers on the ground. I have served many

years, and commanded many soldiers; but never did I know a regiment of

dragoons or of infantry superior, either in the field or in quarters,

to my gallant comrades of the 16th Lancers. I think I now see you on the

morning of Aliwal, marching in that order which would have done honour

to a barrack parade—your hearts in the right place, your hands on your

lances, and doing what I believe was never before done—charging twice

through a dense mass of infantry. On the following morning I saw half of

you, I believe, with your heads bound up, looking in the field of battle

for your dead and wounded comrades. I saw you also, when the enemy had

taken your baggage, with a cheerful heart and ready hand, willing to

redeem what was considered to be a reverse, when I asked you to do it,

and to make the enemy and the world know that you were equal to all

trials. The Duke of Wellington has often talked to me about this

regiment of dragoons, who have frequently distinguished themselves under

his command, and also of the memorable morning of Aliwal. Soldiers of

the 16th, I have on this occasion more particularly addressed you. I beg

to address Colonel M’Dowall and the officers of the 16th Lancers: That

you are gentlemen we all know, and none know it more than the privates

of the regiment, and that they have a commander and officers who will

ask nothing of them which they will not obey. I regard the 16th Lancers

as the nucleus of another corps, which in future times will achieve

another Aliwal. I tell you again, what I told you at Lahore, where

Runjeet Singh asked if you were all gentlemen, and if her majesty had

many such regiments of gentlemen; on that morning I told you I loved

you. I repeat it, and the love of a comrade is known to none but to

soldiers. My dear fellows, I rejoice to be amongst you again.’ Sir Harry

then said (turning to Colonel M’Dowall)—’ Pray do not let them be kept

any longer.’ The troops then gave a loud huzza, and marched off the

ground with the band playing.”

On the 1st of June a general order was issued from the Horse-guards, to

the following effect:—“Her majesty having been graciously pleased to

command that a medal should be struck to record the services of her

fleets and armies during the wars, commencing 1793, and ending in 1814,

and that one should be conferred on every officer, non-commissioned

officer, and soldier of the army who was present in any battle or siege,

to commemorate which medals had been struck by command of her majesty’s

royal predecessors, and had been distributed to the general or

superior officers of the several armies and corps of troops engaged,

in conformity with the regulations of the service at that time in

force,—general and other officers, non-commissioned officers, and

soldiers, who consider that they have claims to receive this mark of

their sovereign’s respect, are each to apply to the secretary of the

board of general officers, Whitehall, London, and to send in writing a

statement of their claim, for what action, at what period of time, and

the names of the persons, and the titles of the documents by which their

claim can be proved.”

The occasions for which medals were granted, in pursuance of the general

order of which the above is an extract, were:—

Maida, 4th July, 1806.

Bolein, 17th August, 1808.

Vimeira, 21st August, 1808.

Sahagun Benevento, December and January, 1809.

Corunna, 16th January, 1809.

Martinique, February, 1809.

Talaveia, 27th and 28th July, 1809.

Guadaloupe, January and February, 1810.

Busaco, 27th September, 1810.

Barrosa, 5th March, 1811.

Fuentes d’Onor, 5th May, 1811.

Albuera, 10th May, 1811.

Java, August and September, 1811.

Ciuclad Rodrigo, January, 1812.

Badajoz, 17th March and 10th April, 1812.

Salamanca, 22nd July, 1812.

Fort Detroit, America, August, 1812.

Vittoria, 21st June, 1813.

Chateauguay, America, 26th October, 1813.

Nivelle, 10th November, 1813.

Chrystler’s Farm, America, 11th November, 1813.

Nive, 9th to 13th December, 1813.

Orthes, 27th February, 1814.

Toulouse, 10th April, 1814.

The Admiralty issued an order similar to that of the Horse-guards. Gold

medals to flag officers and captains were issued by the Admiralty for

the actions undermentioned:—

Lord Howe’s victory over the French fleet, 1st June, 1794.

Lord St. Vincent’s victory over the Spanish fleet, 14th February, 1797.

Lord Duncan’s victory over the Dutch fleet, 11th October, 1797.

Captain Sir Edward Hamilton. Surprise and recapture of the _Hermione_,

15th October, 1799.

Lord Nelson. Battle of Trafalgar, 21st October, 1805.

Sir R. Strachan. French squadron taken, 4th November, 1805.

Sir J. Duckworth. Action off St. Domingo, 6th February, 1806.

Captain Bresbane, of the _Arethusa_, and three other ships, take

Curaçoa.

Captain M. Seymour, of the _Thetis_, captured the _Amethyst_, 10th

November, 1808.

Captain Stewart, of the _Seahorse_, captured Turkish frigate, _Badere

Zaffer_, 6th July, 1809.

Captain Mounsey, of the _Bonne Citoyenne_, captured the _Furieuse_, 6th

July, 1809.

Captain C. Cole, of the _Caroline_, captured the _Banda Neira_, 9th

August, 1810.

Captain W. Hoste, with the _Antphion_ and three other ships, action off

Lissa, 13th March, 1811.

Captain Talbot, _Victorious_, captured Rivoli, 22nd February, 1812.

Captain Broke, of the _Shannon_, captured the _Chesapeake_, 1st June,

1813.

Captain E. Palmer, of the _Helvis_, captured _L’Etoile_, 27th March,

1814.

Captain E. Hope, of the _Endymion_, defeated the _President_, 25th

January, 1815.

The issue of these orders, and the grant of the medals, gave general

satisfaction; but severe animadversions were offered in the London

press against the want of public spirit, on the part of successive

governments, in allowing such actions so long to remain without the

honour thus tardily accorded. Many of the heroes who contributed to

this glorious list of victories by sea and land, had passed away, their

breasts unhonoured by the badge which they would have prized so much. It

was no new thing for England’s braves to be neglected by their country,

or rather, by those to whom the government of the country was so often

unworthily committed.

GENERAL HOME INCIDENTS.

The year was remarkable for many railway accidents, resulting from the

carelessness and mismanagement of the various companies, exciting public

indignation, and causing uneasiness generally, in respect to personal

safety in railway travelling. In the first six months of the year,

according to parliamentary returns, one hundred persons were killed, and

an equal number more or less injured.

In September an interesting event occurred in connection with the memory

of the great national poet. In pursuance of the will of the deceased

owner, the house at Stratford-upon-Avon, popularly known as the

birthplace of Shakspere, was sold by public auction. When the writer of

these lines visited the place, the house had nothing very remarkable in

its appearance. It was old, of course, but did not look so venerable

as might be expected. It was situated in the High Street of the obscure

little town. It had been originally a mansion, but, at the date of its

sale, part had been removed and the rest was let in small tenements. It

was “knocked down,” in auctioneers’ phraseology, for the price of £3000,

the purchasers being a committee appointed by an association formed for

the purpose of obtaining possession of the building. The house was given

to the government in trust to be preserved as a public memorial of the

great man who first saw the light beneath its roof. This proceeding was

very creditable to the national feeling, for though no certain proof

exists that Shakspere was born there, still, as it was in possession of

his father before, at, and after the birth of the great dramatist, there

is probable ground for believing that it was his birthplace. It had been

purchased from the descendants of the original possessor for £250, by

the gentleman under whose will it was put up to auction.

During the autumn and winter, numerous disasters occurred at sea,

especially on the east coasts of England and Scotland. By these wrecks

many lives and much property were lost.

Few events in England excited such general interest among all classes as

the arrival of Jenny Lind, the celebrated vocalist and actress. She made

her first appearance at the Italian Opera House on the 4th of May, and

was received with an enthusiasm never before lavished on any performer:

during her stay in England this enthusiasm never abated.

Under the head of “General Home Incidents,” seems hardly the most

suitable place to record the proceedings of the Hudson’s Bay Arctic

Expedition. Yet, as it did not belong to the foreign or colonial affairs

of the country, and as the expedition had been determined upon and

ordered at home, this may be the most appropriate place in which to

introduce it. From the nature of the transactions, it is necessary to

give the relation in the words of the authorised report:—

“In July, 1846, the Company dispatched an expedition of thirteen

persons, under the command of Doctor John Rae, from Fort Churchill, in

Hudson’s Bay, for the purpose of surveying the unexplored portion of the

Arctic coast, at the north-eastern point of the American continent. The

expedition, which has just returned, has traced the coast all along from

the Lord Mayor’s Bay, of Sir John Ross, to within a few miles of the

Straits of the Fury and Hecla, proving thereby the correctness of Sir

John Ross’s statement that Boothia Felix is a peninsula. From Doctor

Rae’s Report to the Company the following interesting details are

gathered:—Having divided his men into watches, the doctor started

from Churchill on the 5th of July, 1846, and reached the most southerly

opening of Wager River on the 22nd, where they were detained all day by

immense quantities of heavy ice driving in with the flood and out again

with the ebb tide, which ran at the rate of seven or eight miles an

hour, forcing up the ice and grinding it against the rocks, causing

a noise resembling thunder. On the 24th the party succeeded in making

Repulse Bay, and cast anchor within eight miles of the head of the bay

under shelter of a small island. Here Doctor Rae found some Esquimaux

Indians, with whom he quickly established friendly relations, and from

a chart drawn by one of the party he inferred that the Arctic Sea (named

Akhoolee) to the west of Melville Peninsula was not more than forty

miles distant, in a N.N.W. direction, and that about thirty-five miles

of the distance was occupied by deep lakes; so that they would have only

five miles of land to drag their boat over—a mode of proceeding he had

decided upon even had the distance been much greater, in preference

to going round by the Fury and Hecla Strait. Here he established a

wintering party, and having unloaded the boats, and placed one of them,

with the greater part of her cargo, in security, the other was hauled

three miles up a rapid and narrow river which flowed from one of the

lakes they were to pass through. This work occupied them the whole of

the 26th, as the current was very strong, and the channel so full of

large boulder stones, that the men were frequently up to the waist

in ice-cold water whilst lifting or launching the boat over these

impediments. Their landing-place was found to be in latitude 66° 32′ 1″

north. The rate of the chronometer had become so irregular that it could

not be depended upon for finding the longitude, and during the winter it

stopped altogether.

“Proceeding according to the course he had adopted, the party and their

adventurous leader on the 3rd of August, at 11 o’clock a.m., rounded

a high bluff cape, which they called after the lady of Sir John Henry

Pelly, Bart., Governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company. It is situated in

latitude 67° 28′ 00″ north; longitude, by account, 87° 40′ west.

“Having succeeded, after surmounting many difficulties, in reaching

Melville Peninsula, he was ultimately obliged to retreat from the

numerous obstacles that rendered his progress impossible; he therefore

paid a short visit to the wintering party at Repulse Bay, to ascertain

how they were getting on. Ultimately he found himself obliged to give up

all hope of prosecuting the survey on that occasion. His reasons we give

in his own words:—’ My reasons for arriving at this conclusion I shall

here briefly mention, as such a step may seem somewhat premature. I saw,

from the state of the ice, and the prevalence of northerly winds, that

there was no likelihood of our completing the whole of the proposed

survey this season; and although part of the coast, either towards the

Strait of the Fury and Hecla or towards Dease and Simpson’s furthest,

might be traced, yet to accomplish even this might detain us so long,

that there would be no time to make the necessary preparations for

wintering, and we should thus be under the necessity of returning to

Churchill without accomplishing the object of the expedition; or, if we

remained at Repulse Bay, run the risk of starving, for I could obtain

no promise of supplies from the natives, and all the provisions that

we carried with us amounted to not more than four months’ expenditure,

which was all that our boats could carry. We should have thus to depend

almost altogether on our own exertions for the means of existence, both

in regard to food and fuel.’

“The party, therefore, commenced preparations for passing the winter,

and on the 2nd of September their house was furnished. Its internal

dimensions were 20 feet long by 14 feet broad; height in front, 7 ½

feet, sloping to 5 ½ at the back. The roof was formed of oil-cloths

and morse skin coverings, the masts and oars of our boats serving as

rafters. The door was made of parchment deer skins stretched over a

frame of wood. It was named Fort Hope, and was situated in latitude 66°

32′ 16″ north, longitude (by a number of sets of lunar distances) 86°

55′ 51″ west. The variation of the compass on the 30th August, 1846, was

62° 50′ 30″ west; dip of the needle, 88° 14′; and the mean time of 100

vertical vibrations in the line of declination 226.

“On the 5th of April in the present year, Doctor Rae commenced his

spring journeys in company with three men, the Esquimaux, Ibit-Chuck,

and Oulibuck’s son, as interpreter; and, on the 15th, which was very

stormy, with a temperature of 20° below zero, they arrived at the steep

mud banks of a bay, called by their guide Ak-ku-li-guwiak. Its surface

was marked with a number of high rocky islands, towards the highest of

which (six or seven miles distant) they directed their course, and

were, before sunset, comfortably housed under a snow roof. Early in the

morning of the 17th, he set out in company with two of the men, for the

purpose of following the coast to some point surveyed by Sir John Ross,

as he felt confident that the veteran discoverer was correct in his

opinion as to Boothia Felix being part of the American continent. They

directed their course to the furthest visible land, which bore N.W.

(true). Cape Berens (the point alluded to) is equated in latitude 69° 4′

12″ north, and longitude 90° 35′ west. It is formed entirely of granite

partially covered with moss. Thirteen miles beyond this they arrived at

two narrow points in the small bay, between which they built their snow

hut.

“As they were now near the latitude and longitude of Lord Mayor’s Bay of

Sir John Ross, he struck across land nearly in a north direction, and at

noon, when passing over a considerable lake, the latitude of 69° 26′

1″ north was observed. Advancing three miles beyond this, he reached

another lake. A walk of twenty minutes brought him to an inlet not more

than a quarter of a mile wide. This he traced to the westward for three

miles, when his course was again obstructed by land. Ascending some high

rocks, from which a good view could be obtained, he thought he could

distinguish rough ice in the desired direction. With renewed hopes, he

set out at a rapid pace, plunging among deep snow, scrambling over rocks

and through rough ice, until he gained some rising ground close to the

beach. From the spot where he now stood, as far as the eye could see

to the north-west, lay a large extent of ice-covered sea, studded with

innumerable islands. Lord Mayor’s Bay was before him, and the islands

were those named by Sir John Ross ‘The Sons of the Clergy of the Church

of Scotland.’

“The isthmus which connects the land to the northward with Boothia Felix

is only one mile broad, and, judging by the number of stone marks set up

on it, it appeared to him to be a favourite resort of the natives. Its

latitude is 69° 31′ north; longitude, by account, 91° 29′ 30″ west.

“After taking possession of his discoveries with the usual formalities,

the Doctor returned to his quarters on the island above-mentioned,

where, as they were all more or less affected with snow-blindness, and

the dogs were still weak, they remained on the island, which he found

to be situated in latitude 68° 53′ 44″ north; longitude, by account, 89°

56′ 00″ west. It is formed almost entirely of granite, and is upwards

of seven hundred and thirty feet above the level of the sea. From the

highest point of it, he obtained a fine view of the bay, and was thus

saved the trouble of tracing its shores. It extends sixteen or eighteen

miles to the southward, and contains a number of rocky islands, the

highest of them being that on which they encamped. The bay was named

Pelly Bay, after the governor of the company; and the group of islands,

Harrison Islands.

“The party, on their return, traced the shores of the tracts across

which they had made overland journeys when coming out. The country was

low, flat, and very regular in outline. They arrived at Repulse Bay on

the 5th of May, all safe and well, but as black as negroes, from the

combined effects of frost-bites and oil-smoke. The Doctor subsequently

traced the west shore of Melville Bay, and for that purpose started on

the evening of the 13th of May.

“The nature of the service, and the hardships to be endured on such

expeditions, may be understood from the few short extracts from the

report in reference to this last exploring visit:—‘Our snow-house, on

the 25th, was built in lat. 68° 48′ N., long. 85° 4′ W., near a small

stream, frozen (like all others that we had passed) to the bottom. We

had not yet obtained a drop of water of nature’s thawing, and fuel

being rather a scarce article, we sometimes took small kettles of snow

under the blanket with us, to thaw it with the heat of our bodies.

Leaving two men to endeavour to fish and shoot, I went forward with the

others, and crossed Garry Bay, passing inside a number of islets.’

“The party returned to their snow hut on the 25th, where, says the

report—’ The men we had left here were well, but very thin, as they

had neither caught nor shot anything eatable, except two marmots. Had

we been absent twelve hours more, they were to have cooked a piece of

parchment skin for supper.’ The whole party returned safe and well to

York Factory on the 6th of September last.”

During the year 1847, several eminent men were called away from the

sphere of their earthly honour and usefulness. Among these was Mr.

Gurney, of Norwich, a man who attracted a considerable share of public

attention by his talents, energies, and benevolence. As a member of the

Society of Friends, he became very influential in that body, and was

recognised as one of the most enlightened of their ministers. He took

part with his sister, the celebrated Mrs. Fry, in prison visitations.

His interviews with M. Guizot concerning negro slavery were very

influential with that statesman. Mr. Gurney was an author, especially on

Biblical and polemical topics. He also wrote on scientific subjects, but

chiefly in their relation to theology. As a writer he was more scholarly

than elegant, more learned than profound, more discursive than logical.

He lived and died an eminently good man.

On the 13th of February, in the 66th year of his age, Sharon Turner,

the historian of the Anglo-Saxons, departed this life. He was a

distinguished archaeologist and historian.

On the 22nd April, Thomas B. Martin, Esq., M.P. for Galway, died. He was

the largest landed proprietor in Ireland, and a very noted man in the

political and social affairs of that country.

The 27th of April witnessed the death of a very remarkable man, Lord

Cowley, in the 75th year of his age. He was the youngest son of the

first Earl of Mornington, and consequently youngest brother of the Duke

of Wellington. Mr. Henry Wellesley began professional life as aprecis

writer in the Foreign Office. After serving for two years there,

he accompanied the embassy of Lord Malmesbury to Lisle. In 1797 he

accompanied his brother, the Marquis Wellesley to India, as private

secretary. He was, after twelve months’ service in that capacity,

appointed one of the commissioners to Mysore. In that office he showed

not only talent but genius. Subsequently he was sent to Oude, on an

especial mission, and conducted his diplomacy with so much tact, that he

obtained the cession of territory which brought the company a revenue

of nearly a million sterling. He was subsequently appointed to the

government of the country thus ceded. On his return from India he

entered parliament, where his mode of speaking very much resembled that

of his brother Arthurshort, pointed, and to the purpose. He resumed his

diplomatic engagements, and was appointed envoy to Spain. He resigned

his position in the treasury, under the government of the Duke of

Portland, for this office, in 1809, and continued in it until 1811, when

he was directed to continue his services at that court, with the title

of ambassador. In 1812 he was made a Knight of the Bath. He continued

in Spain until 1822. He was then sent to Vienna, and ultimately to the

court of the Tuileries, as the representative of his country. He was

made a peer, and various other public honours were conferred upon him.

Upon the breaking up of Sir Robert Peel’s administration, he gave place

to the Marquis of Normanby, but took up his residence at Paris, and

remained there until the time of his decease. He was twice married;

in the first instance to Lady Charlotte Cadogan, which marriage was

dissolved. His second wife was Lady Georgiana Cecil, daughter of the

Marquis of Salisbury. The talent which characterised the whole of

the Wellesley family was very extraordinary; every member of it

distinguished himself in some way in the service of his country, and

obtained honour, won by his own assiduity and genius.

Sir Robert Stopford, admiral of the red, vice-admiral of the United

Kingdom, and governor of Greenwich Hospital, died on June 25, in the

88th year of his age. This distinguished sailor had entered the navy in

very early youth, and was in most of the great actions that were fought

during his eventful life. He was much beloved by the navy. His life was

remarkably free from disputes with public men, especially in his own

profession. There was one notable instance, however, to the contrary.

Sir Charles Napier, who served under him off the coast of Syria,

disobeyed orders, and added to the disobedience fierce attacks upon the

gallant old admiral, who came out of the discussion with honour, while

his disputatious antagonist suffered much in public opinion by the

attacks which he made upon his superior officer.

On the 28th of July, the death of John Walter, of Bearwood, Berkshire,

caused a great sensation. To that gentleman the _Times_ newspaper

owes its progressive power. His inventive genius, his business habits,

dispatch, punctuality, and enterprise, raised the paper to the pitch

of popularity it afterwards attained, and which it has ever since

preserved.

On the same day another eminent man passed away, Sir George Martin,

G.C.B., admiral of the fleet, and vice-admiral of the United Kingdom. His

services were innumerable. Through a long life he endured the perils and

shared the glory of naval war, and died regretted by his country.

On the 7th of December, Mr. B. Liston, the celebrated surgeon, died; and

during the same month many professional men, and many men of letters.

The space allotted to this history would not allow of even a brief

notice of all the eminent persons who passed from life during this year

in the British Isles, and subjects of Great Britain in other countries.

Many distinguished men were lost to the navy and army, whose valour and

renown were precious in the esteem of the nation; but so numerous are

the heroes of Great Britain, in all ages, that the names of deceased

warriors are only noticed with ordinary respect and regret, whose

death would, in any other nation, be an event to attract the sustained

attention of the people. The year made sad havoc especially in the navy

list, from which the names of many of the best and bravest were removed.

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF THE YEAR.

The distressed condition of the poor of the British Isles, the

disarrangement of commercial affairs, the famine in Ireland, and the

crime prevailing in that country, rendered it necessary to open the

session of 1847 earlier than usual. Accordingly, on the 19th of January

her majesty, in person, read the speech from the throne. It referred to

all these subjects in a manner appropriate to the occasion. The marriage

of the Infanta of Spain to the Duke of Montpensier, was simply

noticed as having given rise to a correspondence between her majesty’s

government and that of France. When her majesty came to the passage

referring to the Montpensier marriage, the house was intensely still,

and every eye watched the royal countenance to see if any indication of

her private feelings would be given. This portion of the royal speech

was read with a peculiar expression of displeasure by her majesty, never

before witnessed in her countenance on a public occasion. In private,

the royal lady did not hesitate to denounce the conduct of Louis

Philippe as utterly faithless, and she was accustomed to refer to him as

incapable of acting with the honour of a private gentleman, for he had

given his hand to her while making a solemn promise that this marriage

should not take place. This state of feeling on the part of her majesty

was well known to the King of the French, who, while he regretted it,

took credit to himself for having frustrated her majesty’s own

intention to have the infanta married to a Cobourg. Her reference to

the extinction of the free city and state of Cracow was made in terms of

great severity, as a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna, and her

intention of laying before the house copies of her protests to the three

states was expressed. Allusion was made to the action of the combined

squadrons of France and England in the River Plate. Her majesty read the

passages which described the condition of Ireland with a subdued tone,

as if mingled shame and sympathy struggled within her breast.

The debates which ensued upon the address were neither remarkable for

judgment nor eloquence. Lord Stanley, in the lords, was, as usual,

apt, ready, and ingenious, but dealt in platitudes unworthy of his

reputation. Lord Brougham was bitter against his former friends,

allowing his personal spleen to interfere with his patriotism and the

public welfare. He did not succeed either in embarrassing the ministry

or enlightening the lords. The debates in the commons were regarded with

more interest by the country than those in the lords. Mr. Disraeli’s

sarcasm that the house of lords had become “the high court of registry,”

had truth in it. The address gave rise to much animated discussion,

envenomed by party spirit. Smith O’Brien laid the grievances of Ireland

before the house in terms more patriotic and honest than wise. Lord

George Bentinck taunted the government with the failure of their

remedial measures for Ireland, political and material, and his taunts

were keenly felt. The cabinet was not equal to the crisis.

On the 21st of January Lord John Russell moved that the house should

go into committee on the corn importation acts; and he announced his

intention to follow that up by a motion on the navigation laws, by which

they should be suspended until the 6th of November. He accordingly first

proposed the suspension of the duties on the importation of foreign corn

until September. Bills were brought in, and passed both houses with

the utmost rapidity, the standing orders being waived. On the 25th they

received the royal assent. On that day ministers communicated their

plans for the melioration of Irish suffering. So overwhelming was the

wretchedness of Ireland, that the amount of relief for January was

calculated by Lord John Russell at three-quarters of a million sterling.

Colonel Jones, who was at the head of the board of works in Ireland,

with very little advantage to his country, and no moral advantage to

himself, had, in a letter dated the 19th, stated the difficulties which

were admitted to stand in the way of employing labourers. The people

were so reduced by famine that task-work could not be imposed upon them,

and Colonel Jones was therefore of opinion that to give food was, on the

whole, cheaper than to employ such labour. Lord John Russell made very

effective use of this letter in support of the views which he presented

to the house. He stated that the money advanced for public works should

not be exacted in full, but half remitted upon the payment of each

instalment. The next proposal of the premier was for a grant of £50,000

in advance, to enable proprietors to procure seed for the land. His

lordship animadverted in very indignant terms upon the conduct of men

of mark in Ireland, who, instead of paying their rates for the relief

of the poor, invited them to make demands with which no government could

comply. He instanced the union of Castlebar, in the county of Mayo,

where there was room in the workhouse for six hundred persons, and only

one hundred and twenty were admitted, while the Marquis of Sligo and

Mr. Moore addressed a letter to the people of the district, calling upon

them to meet at Castlebar and “demand their rights.” Lord John dwelt

eloquently upon the want of self-reliance and co-operation displayed in

Ireland, and affirmed the utter impossibility of government or any

human power interposing so as to prevent the continuance of many of

the painful consequences of harvest failure already experienced. His

lordship’s counsels and cautions were badly received, both by the Irish

members and by the people of Ireland, and notwithstanding his liberal

measures of relief, his speech added to his unpopularity in that

country. The Irish were very unwilling to adopt the philosophy of Mr.

Disraeli, “Whether, under any circumstances, it should be the office

of a government to supply the people with food is a very interesting

question. When famine prevails there will always be a numerous party

who will maintain the affirmative. Death and decimation are stern facts

which seem to bring conviction. Yet it is the duty of a minister to

consider whether, if the government were to interfere, the death might

not be increased, and the rate of mortality aggravated.”

Another measure for the relief of Ireland was proposed by ministers to

enable government to make advances from the treasury on the security of

the rates, and excited a debate, when its committal was moved on the 8th

of February. This debate was remarkable as giving an opportunity to the

great agitator for his last parliamentary effort. He declared that two

millions of the Irish population must perish if the parliament did not

come forward with adequate relief; while he proclaimed their measures

totally inadequate, and showing either ignorance of the state of the

country, or want of sympathy for its sufferings. He affirmed that in the

ruin which had fallen on the land, any attempt to levy rates would

be abortive, and drive the people to desperation. The honourable and

venerable member depicted the condition of the people with truthful

eloquence, and he was no less correct in showing the shortcomings of the

government schemes of relief. His speech was delivered in a faint voice,

and with every symptom of physical exhaustion. He was heard with the

most profound attention and respect. His predictions, unfortunately,

came to pass. His dissolution was hastened by his inability to procure

an assent to his views in the house, and by the consequences which he so

clearly foresaw.

Lord John’s measures for the relief of Ireland having been carried, he

on the 1st of March proposed a permanent measure to compel the land

to support the pauper poor. On the 12th of March his lordship made an

elaborate defence of his scheme, which was warmly debated, Mr. Roebuck

acrimoniously attacking Irish landlords, and Mr. Smith O’Brien insisting

that the blame of the condition of Ireland rested upon the government.

Government, however, was not left alone to initiate measures of Irish

relief. Lord George Bentinck, on the 4th of February, brought forward

a motion for the reproductive employment of Irish labour by the

construction of railways in Ireland. This motion his lordship advocated

eloquently, and it has been agreed that his oration was the best he ever

delivered. His plan was in all respects sound considered in reference to

the principles of political economy, and more useful, practically, than

any which the government had devised; yet the ministerial side of the

house treated it with ridicule. An advance of sixteen millions sterling

to promote railways in Ireland they scouted as preposterous; but no

effective answer was given to the facts and figures of Lord George, who

was singularly careful on this occasion in his preparation of both. The

bill was brought in without any opposition from the government, but it

was foreseen that the influence of the cabinet would be used for its

defeat. Accordingly, on the 12th of February, on the proposal of the

second reading, government opposition was offered: the debate, after an

adjournment, was resumed on the 15th, and continued through that day and

the next, when the bill was thrown out by an overwhelming majority.

On the 22nd of February the chancellor of the exchequer made his

financial statement, and made a demand for an eight millions loan on

behalf of Ireland, noticed elsewhere. He gave an appalling picture of

the state of the English poor, showing that, in Manchester alone, nearly

thirty thousand workmen and labourers were out of employment, while the

prospect of the augmentation of the unemployed there was disheartening.

The grant for Ireland was especially opposed by two members of the

house, who, while they sympathised beyond most other members with the

political agitators of Ireland, looked upon her material condition

without an equally warm interest, and regarded her rather from an

English than an imperial point of view; these members were Mr. Hume and

Mr. Roebuck. Government was triumphant in those measures, so far as the

support of a majority in the commons was concerned. It was, however,

felt that neither the men nor the measures were adequate to the

exigencies of party, any more than to the magnitude of the occasion.

Lord John Russell was vacillating and time-serving, although with a show

of resolution in resisting and defeating measures which afterwards

met, at all events, his qualified approval. This was most singularly

exemplified in connection with Lord George Bentinck’s measure for an

advance of money to create railways in Ireland. On the 26th of April

the house was taken by surprise when the chancellor of the exchequer

proposed a loan to certain Irish railways. The proposed sum was

£620,000, half a million of which was to be advanced to one particular

railway—“the great South Western.” This gave great offence to many. Mr.

Hume led off the opposition, Mr. Roebuck followed, of course, with fiery

impetuosity; Sir Robert Peel disapproved of it, and the whole Peel party

echoed his objections. Lord George Bentinck exulted in the homage paid

to his counsels by the tardy, trimming, half measure, or less than

half measure of her majesty’s advisers. Notwithstanding so rigorous an

opposition from so many quarters, government was so well backed by

the Irish members and the ministerial hacks who represented British

constituencies, that they carried this and several other measures to

which a similar opposition was offered. The remark that the railway

scheme of Sir Charles Wood was the fag-end of Lord George Bentinck’s

measure, was received with loud cheers by the house, and was repeated

much “out of doors.” During these debates the grossest ignorance of

Ireland, her people, resources, and financial relation to Great Britain,

was evinced by English representatives. Mr. Hume and Mr. Roebuck were

very conspicuous in this respect. Mr. Disraeli had the folly to say

that the railway scheme of Lord George Bentinck would be beneficial to

Ireland, in a political, moral, and social point of view, irrespective

of material advantage, because the Roman Catholic and Protestant

populations would be brought to work together as “navvies!” Mr.

Disraeli did not know that not one man, probably, out of five thousand

in that class of labourers in Ireland was a Protestant, and that

if working together in the same employments would be sufficient

to reconcile them, the reconciliation must have been long ago

effected—over the whole of Ulster, at least. The differences between

Irish Protestants and Roman Catholics were founded in principle,

cherished deeply and warmly by them respectively, and were not, and

are not, to be healed by the political or economical quackery of Mr.

Disraeli, or politicians who, like him, share with neither party in the

earnestness of their opinions. The Irish Protestant and the Irish Roman

Catholic believe that the political ascendancy of their respective

creeds is necessary to the development of their power and usefulness,

and strive, therefore, with jealous eagerness and honesty for that

ascendancy. Whatever concessions on this ground the Protestants might be

induced to make, the spirit of Irish Romanism is ultramontane in every

province and in every social grade of the people.

The Earl of Lincoln and Lord Monteagle united in bringing under the

notice of the commons and lords the subject of Irish emigration,

and each of these noble persons occupied the time and attention

of parliament with an impracticable measure. The general want of

parliamentary tact and practical sagacity evinced by the members of

both houses at this juncture was discouraging to those who regarded

parliament as the hope of the nation.

Parliament was much occupied with Irish and financial questions during

the session; several other matters, however, occupied earnest attention.

Mr. Fielden, member for Oldham, brought before the commons a measure for

shortening the hours of labour of women and children, and young persons

in factories. His agitation of this subject derived additional interest

from the fact that he himself had been a poor factory boy, and had,

to use his own expression, always “stood by his order.” His measure

proposed the limitation of labour to twelve hours a clay, allowing two

hours out of the twelve for meals, and he would apply this rule to all

young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen. On Saturday,

however, he would limit the hours to eight, making a total of

sixty-three hours in the week until the 1st of May, 1848, after which

the total hours of labour for each young person in the week should

be fifty-eight. These restrictions he would apply to all females,

of whatever age, engaged in factory labour. The working-classes were

strongly in favour of Mr. Fielden’s motion. Mr. Cobden had said the

previous year that, if the matter was postponed for twelve months, the

feelings of the working-classes would change; but that eloquent and

philanthropic man very often proved himself a bad prophet, and never

more signally than in this instance. The desire of the working-classes

for some such law had greatly increased since the time Mr. Cobden

declared that it would abate. On the second reading of the bill a fierce

opposition was offered, based upon principles of political economy.

Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Hume, Mr. Trelawney, Sir Charles Wood, Mr. Mark

Philips, and Mr. Bright, were the chief opponents of the measure. Mr.

Bright very ably animadverted upon the vacillation of Lord John Russell

upon this subject, and the mischief inflicted upon the interests in

question by the noble lord’s indecision.

Lord John Russell avowed his support of the principle of the measure,

because parliament had already given its sanction to that principle,

but he objected to the details. The bill was very ably supported by

Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Duncombe. Several speeches were made on its behalf,

which were calculated to damage it, and to awaken the alarm of the

manufacturing interest; these were made by Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr.

Ferrand, Mr. Borthwick, Sir Robert Inglis, and Mr. Newdegate. Mr.

Roebuck offered an able and formidable opposition to it. Mr. Brotherton

made a feeling appeal to the house, assuring it that the working-classes

were borne down by the oppressive number of their hours of toil; that it

was impossible for them to accomplish a better arrangement by voluntary

agreement; that he himself had worked in a factory, and felt the

oppressiveness of the burden, resolving, if ever he could, to contribute

to the emancipation of the workmen from so great an evil, and declaring

that he still retained in their original freshness the feelings he

then cherished. This noble appeal was received by the house with warm

demonstrations of applause. Sir James Graham endeavoured to remove the

effect which it produced, setting out with the paltry sophism that Mr.

Brotherton had risen by the long-hour system, ergo, he should not oppose

it! The fair implication of Mr. Brotherton’s speech was that he had

risen _in spite_ of the long-hour system, and if Sir James could have

regarded the arguments of the honourable member for Salford with common

candour, he must have drawn that inference. The bill was carried through

both houses with rapid success, after undergoing certain modifications.

Lord Brougham took occasion to launch his thunders against his former

friends in the ministry for their varying opinions, forgetful that from

him this reproach, however well founded, came with the worst possible

grace.

On the 22nd of March Mr. Fox Maule moved the second reading of a bill

for shortening the period of service in the army. The bill was opposed

by Sir Howard Douglas, who did not on this occasion give his last

mistaken opinion on military affairs. Colonel Sibthorp, the opponent

of every improvement in the law, was an appropriate companion for Sir

Howard Douglas in this opposition. Colonel Reid also denounced the

measure. It received support from Major Layard, who exposed the

injustice of the Duke of Wellington’s Horse-guards’ administration by

instances of the gross political partiality displayed in the promotion

of officers. Sir De Lacy Evans, the friend of the soldier, the supporter

of every liberal opinion and just law, supported Mr. Maule. Mr. Sidney

Herbert afforded a qualified support. The measure passed the commons,

and received an eloquent and powerful advocacy in the lords from the

Duke of Wellington. This mainly contributed to the success of the bill,

for the lords were disposed to throw it out. The Earl of Lucan proposed

a plan calculated to reconcile parties; but the Duke of Wellington was

so strenuously in favour of the plan of the government, that it was

carried, but by a very small majority.

GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION.

Few subjects had engaged the attention of the country more than that of

popular education. The government resolved upon an enlarged scheme, and

submitted their views to parliament. The plan was essentially in the

interest of the Established Church, and had the appearance of being

intended not only as a means of proselytizing dissenters, but also

to disparage them. No measure could be more adapted to aggravate the

differences between the two great sections of English Protestants. An

opposition was awakened among all the dissenting communities of the most

hearty nature, and the government sowed the seeds of distrust of the

whig party, which their old abettors, the dissenters, have cherished to

this day, although ten years have since elapsed. It is unlikely that

the Whigs, as a party, will ever regain the confidence of the Protestant

dissenters of Great Britain. The whig government showed its usual

inaptitude to perceive the real state of public feeling among the

lower strata of the middle classes, and the unhappy faculty of making

unpalatable measures, as _mal apropos_ as possible in the time and mode

of their introduction.

Lord Lansdowne introduced the measure to the lords. Upon certain minutes

emanating from the privy council the government based their measure.

It comprised a system of educational grants, and of school inspection,

which virtually consigned the education of the country to the custody

of the clergy of the Established Church. In the lords the measure of

the ministers passed with little question; in the commons numerous and

stormy debates ensued. Mr. Macaulay, on the one hand, and Mr. Bright,

on the other, threw some acrimony into these debates, but probably the

former never appeared to less advantage in parliament, nor the latter

to more advantage than in this discussion. Government succeeded in

disarming the Roman Catholic members from opposition by a private

understanding that, although by the minutes of the educational committee

of the privy council then under consideration, they were debarred from

any grant, separate minutes would afterwards be introduced in their

especial behalf. There was also an understanding with the Wesleyan

Methodists on the principle of the grants to their schools, the

inspection to be exercised, and the selection of pupil teachers,

which disarmed the opposition of that numerous and energetic body. The

Unitarians were also conciliated by the explanations which were offered

to them, and that body was so extremely anxious for the spread

of education, that they were ready to accept a position of great

denominational disadvantage, in order to see the extension of some

plan that would conduce to the mitigation of popular ignorance. The

Congregationalists and Baptists, Presbyterians and Friends, and various

other bodies of Methodists who adopted the voluntary principle, were

beyond conciliation. They boldly demanded equal rights for all, and

perfect freedom of education. This large class of persons were much

maligned by the Earl of Surrey, when he consented to have Boman

Catholics excluded from the minutes, because, in his opinion, if they

were placed within the circle of advantage which the government was

willing to accord, all the dissenting sects would assail them with

an increased and perhaps successful opposition. The objections of the

“voluntary dissenters,” and more liberal sections of churchmen, were

unaffected by theological considerations; they desired that their

schools should be protected from government interference, and

remain uncorrupted by government patronage, and they objected to the

unconstitutional authority, as they deemed it, exercised by the

privy council. No public man out of their own party ever had so much

intercourse with those classes as Lord Brougham, who, at the same time,

understood them so little. His lordship affected to “live and move and

have his being” in an atmosphere of liberality and enlightenment too

high for the earnestly religious men of the country to attain. From

this elevation he looked down upon their conflicts with an affected

compassion, which if meant to cover his disdain was very unsuccessful,

and it brought out more prominently his lordship’s thorough ignorance of

the tone and principles of these classes, many of whom had studied the

merits of the whole question with far more undivided attention, and not

less capacity, than he had.

Lord Lansdowne could not introduce a more comprehensive plan, but he

admitted the impossibility of his so doing, because society was divided

into two great classes, churchmen and dissenters, who loved education

much, but controversy more. Never was a sentence uttered in parliament

where the religious feelings and opinions of the people were concerned,

even by Lord Brougham himself, more unfounded in fact. The assertion was

certainly true of a great many, both churchmen and dissenters, but there

was a far greater number of each who loved education very much, and who

did not regard controversy with any favour—men of strong conscientious

principles, and of deep and earnest piety, who were not prepared

to sacrifice their opinions to any government, or to any view of

expediency, whatever the end proposed.

Instead of making these classes the object of his constant sneers, Lord

Brougham would have rendered more service to his country, and have been

more just, had he honoured their scruples, and devoted himself to the

production of some scheme which, whether successful or not in passing

the legislature, would have laid the basis of an ultimate acceptance by

its respect for the religious rights of all. No plan of education

will ever gain acceptance in England, so long as there is freedom of

discussion and religious liberty, which recognises either a sectarian or

a state ascendancy in education. As the Bishop of Oxford once said, as

to the feasibility of a compulsory system of education—“We are too

free a people for such a scheme ever to be carried out amongst us.”

Carlisle showed his philosophy and accuracy of historical knowledge

when he described the Roundheads and Cavaliers as honest, earnest men,—

heroes, because nobly true to the principles they had espoused, and

fearless of all consequences in their avowal; but that eloquent writer

showed, like Lord Brougham, his ignorance of the classes of men which,

in the present age, succeed to the opinions of Roundheads and Cavaliers,

when he declares that there are no such men in the England of to-day.

They are now as earnest and more numerous: let the same circumstances

call them forth and they will be found. A superior civilisation, a

clearer understanding of the principles of civil and religious

liberty, a more tolerant temper now prevail, but there is as much

conscientiousness still; and now as ever, in this and in every land,

men, deeply imbued with the principles of Christianity, will be found

ready to bear the testimony of the advocate or the confessor, as events

demand. The spirit evinced by Lord Brougham pervaded, to a less extent,

a large number of the members of both houses, and produced impressions

amongst the numerous classes thus contemptuously treated, which worked

deeply into their hearts, and influenced for many a year the votes

at elections, and the general feeling of the people towards the great

historical parties by which parliament had been divided.

The government carried its measure; £100,000 was devoted to educational

purposes on the plan provided by the minutes of the Committee of

Education of the Privy Council. The discussions so long existing on the

question of education received, however, a new impetus, and became

more acrimonious than before. A very large party was gradually created

favourable to a national system of secular education, leaving the

religious care of the scholars to denominational supervision. A very

large class of earnest men became still more devoted than ever to the

voluntary system of education, and prodigious efforts were made to

promote it. It was found, however, that the expense was such as to defy

voluntary efforts, except as sustained through a long period, while

the deficiency to be met was urgent and extensive. To carry out any

government system that would at all meet the necessity, and respect the

scruples of all classes would also entail an enormous burden upon the

nation. In the debate on the question to which this section refers, Mr.

Duncombe depicted the heavy public burdens that would be thus imposed:

Mr. Macaulay exclaimed, “A penny ahead.” Mr. Duncombe’s retort, that

this statement was a romance was merited. Mr. Macaulay could never have

examined the financial bearing of this great question thoroughly, or his

acute mind must have discovered the fallacy of the opinion he so rashly

hazarded.

The discussions in and out of parliament brought to light a vast mass

of statistics as to the crime and ignorance with which the worthful

elements of society had to contend. The alarm felt by good men in the

result of these revelations strengthened the hands of government

in passing the bill. Objections were raised by many in view of the

magnitude of the evil to be encountered, and a sense of responsibility

in connection with some immediate and extensive action. The reverend

Doctor Guthrie, on a different and subsequent occasion, eloquently

expressed what was at this juncture so generally felt:—“When men die,

corruption commonly begins after death, but when nations die, it always

begins before it. And as in that man’s gangrened extremities, and

swollen feet, and slow circulation, I see the heralds of death

approaching,—in these godless masses, sunk in ignorance, lost to the

profession of religion, and even to the decent habits of civilised

society, I see the most alarming signs of a nation’s danger, unless

remedies are promptly applied, the unmistakeable forerunners of a

nation’s death. Unless early, active, adequate measures are employed

to arrest the progress of our social maladies, there remains for this

mighty empire no fate but the grave—that grave which has closed over

all that have gone before it. Where are the Assyrian and Egyptian

monarchies? Where is the Macedonian empire? Where the world-wide power

of Rome? Egypt lies entombed amid the dust of her catacombs. Assyria is

buried beneath the mounds of Nineveh. Rome lives only in the pages of

history, survives but in the memory of her greatness, and the majestic

ruins of the ‘Eternal City.’ Shall our fate resemble theirs? Shall it

go to prove that Providence has extended the same law of mortality to

nations that lies on men—that they also should struggle through the

dangers of a precarious infancy; grow up into the beauty, and burn with

the ardour, of youth; arrive at the vigour of perfect manhood; and then,

slowly sinking, pass through the blindness and decay of old age, until

they drop into the tomb? Under God, it depends upon ourselves whether

that shall or shall not be our fate. Matters are not so far gone but it

may yet be averted. A great French general, who reached the battle-field

at sundown, found that the troops of his country had been worsted in

the fight; unskilful arrangements had neutralised Gallic bravery, and

offered the enemy advantages they were not slow to seize. He accosted

the unfortunate commander; having rapidly learned how matters stood,

he pulled out his watch, turned his eye on the sinking sun, and said,

‘There’s time yet to gain the victory.’ He rallied the broken ranks; he

placed himself at their head, and launching them with the arm of a giant

in war, upon the columns of the foe, he plucked the prize from their

hands—won the day. There is no time to lose. To her case, perhaps, may

be applied the words, which we would leave as a solemn warning to every

worldly, careless, Christless man, ‘Behold, now is the accepted time;

behold, now is the day of salvation.’”

BILL FOR CREATING A NEW DIOCESS OF MANCHESTER.

The government brought in a bill for this purpose which excited much

discussion in parliament, and much discontent in the locality more

immediately interested. The second reading was proposed by Lord

Lansdowne on the 7th of June. The bill also created a new archdeaconry

of Liverpool, The bill proposed to exclude the new bishop from a seat in

parliament. This evoked opposition from the high church party, but the

success of the measure was secured by this proviso; for the opposition

raised in Lancashire was so great that the government could hardly have

proceeded with the bill had a seat in the House of Peers been associated

with the new see. It was provided, however, that when a vacancy, by

death or otherwise, occurred on the bench of bishops, the bishop of

Manchester should succeed to a seat in that house. This introduced a new

principle in the relations of the episcopal bench to the peerage; for

a bishop would not in future have a seat in their lordships’ house as a

matter of course, but would occupy his see without such privilege until

a vacancy occurred.

DEBATE ON THE ANNEXATION OF CRACOW.

The annexation of Cracow to the Austrian empire has been already related

in this chapter. Several allusions were made to this in the debates

on the address, but on the 4th of March Mr. Hume brought the subject

forward in a formal manner. Mr. Hume, however, so mixed up the subject

with the Russo-Dutch loan, that his resolutions as far as regarded

Cracow were impracticable, and he withdrew them after uselessly

occupying the time of the house by a long debate.

There were few matters of interest connected with the remainder of the

session. Lord Palmerston delivered a speech in which he animadverted

so severely on the bad faith of the Spanish government, in reference to

Spanish bonds, as to produce great indignation in Spain. It was supposed

that the good effects of the speech, however, would be felt by those

interested in the punctual disbursements of the Spanish government. That

government had too little probity to meet the calls of honour, and too

little shame to be moved by the disapprobation of honest men.

It was resolved by the government of Lord John Russell to advise her

majesty to dissolve parliament, so that the elections might terminate

before harvest; various bills were therefore postponed or abandoned.

Lord Lyndhurst had been accustomed to take a retrospective view of each

session, in a speech which recapitulated the doings and misdoings of

government, according to his lordship’s view of them. Lord Brougham,

ambitious to do everything, even when he knew others could do it

better, resolved to perform the task usually sustained by his brother

ex-chancellor. The performance was inferior to that usually accomplished

by the noble Baron Lyndhurst, although in declamatory force Lord

Brougham’s oration was perfect. All the bills passed in the session he

described as bad ones. Many of those lost or abandoned, if introduced by

government, he represented as useless, and their introduction as a waste

of time. Every epithet of contempt furnished by the English language,

and by any other which his lordship knew, however imperfectly, was

heaped upon the defunct bills. They were consigned to the shades

below, to that “lean world” where—

“Ibant obseuri sola sub nocte per nmbram

Perque domos Ditis vacuas et mania regna.”

What his lordship said of the defunct measures will be true of himself,

when his great energies are still, and his eloquent tongue silent for

ever—“A thousand faults and a thousand freaks died with them.” His

lordship appended a condemnatory motion to his speech, which, like most

of his motions, came to nothing. The house was greatly amused, and even

instructed, by the noble lord’s oration, but not at all edified. The

Marquis of Lansdowne replied with that calm and graceful dignity by

which that venerable peer was so much distinguished; and his reply

carried with it the weight of his consistent political character, for

the house unanimously adopted his course.

PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

On the 23rd of July, parliament was prorogued by her majesty. As the

parliament which had been called together in 1841 had been one of the

longest during the century, the prorogation, which was made by her

majesty in person, excited very great public interest, and the queen’s

speech was looked for with unusual public attention. The streets leading

to the House of Lords presented the same animated appearance as is usual

on similar occasions. Her majesty, accompanied by Prince Albert,

and attended by the usual great officers of state, entered the royal

carriage, and proceeded from Buckingham Palace to the House of Lords

shortly before two o’clock. As the royal procession passed through

St. James’s Park, and along the line of road, her majesty and her

illustrious consort were loudly cheered by the spectators who had

assembled to witness this splendid pageant. On the arrival of the royal

_cortège_ at the House of Lords, it was announced by a discharge of

cannon.

Her majesty having robed, she immediately proceeded to the house, and

took her seat on the throne. Prince Albert occupied a state chair on

the right of the sovereign. The entrance of her majesty to the house was

announced by a nourish of trumpets. The peers and peeresses all rose as

the queen entered. The new house was crowded, and presented a brilliant

spectacle. All, or nearly all, the foreign ambassadors and ministers

were present. The dresses of the ladies were very elegant.

Her majesty having taken her seat, the Lord Chancellor directed Sir

Augustus Clifford, Usher of the Black Rod, to summon the House of

Commons to hear the royal speech on the prorogation of parliament. In a

short time the speaker, accompanied by a number of members, appeared at

the bar, when the right honourable gentleman, as is usual, addressed her

majesty in a short speech, recounting the business of the session, and

concluded by praying the royal assent to several bills which had passed

both houses. Her majesty then read the following most gracious speech:—

“_My Lords and Gentlemen_,—I have much satisfaction in being able to

release you from the duties of a laborious and anxious session. I cannot

take leave of you without expressing my grateful sense of the assiduity

and zeal with which you have applied yourselves to the consideration of

the public interests. Your attention has been principally directed

to the measures of immediate relief which a great and unprecedented

calamity rendered necessary.

“I have given my cheerful assent to those laws which, by allowing the

free admission of grain, and by affording facilities for the use of

sugar in breweries and distilleries, tend to increase the quantity of

human food, and to promote commercial intercourse.

“I rejoice to rind that you have in no instance proposed new

restrictions, or interfered with the liberty of foreign or internal

trade; as a mode of relieving distress. I feel assured that such

measures are generally ineffectual, and, in some cases, aggravate the

evils for the alleviation of which they are adopted.

“I cordially approve of the acts of large and liberal bounty by which

you have assuaged the sufferings of my Irish subjects. I have also

readily given my sanction to a law to make better provision for the

permanent relief of the destitute in Ireland. I have likewise given

my assent to various bills calculated to promote the agriculture and

develop the industry of that portion of the United Kingdom. My attention

shall be directed to such further measures as may be conducive to those

salutary purposes.

“My relations with foreign powers continue to inspire me with confidence

in the maintenance of peace. It has afforded me great satisfaction to

find that the measures which, in concert with the King of the French,

the Queen of Spain, and the Queen of Portugal, I have taken for the

pacification of Portugal, have been attended with success; and that the

civil war which for many months had afflicted that country has, at last,

been brought to a bloodless termination. I indulge the hope that future

differences between political parties in that country may be settled

without an appeal to arms.

“_Gentlemen of the House of Commons_,—I thank you for your willingness

in granting me the necessary supplies; they shall be applied with due

care and economy to the public service.

“I am happy to inform you that, notwithstanding the high price of food,

the revenue has, up to the present time, been more productive than I

had reason to anticipate. The increased use of articles of general

consumption has chiefly contributed to this result. The revenue derived

from sugar, especially, has been greatly augmented by the removal of the

prohibitory duties on foreign sugar.