One of these meetings, which excited considerable apprehension, was held

at Kennington Common, on the 13th of March. Much preparation appeared

to be made by the chartist leaders to give it the appearance of a very

great popular demonstration. Nearly fifteen thousand persons assembled,

the greater number from curiosity, the love of mischief, or any other

than political feeling. The speeches were inferior to those usually

made at such meetings, and except in the more than usual amount of abuse

offered to all who were not operatives, the meeting was not remarkable,

and was dispersed by a shower of rain. The consequences of the

assemblage were of more importance: many respectable persons were robbed

and beaten; provision dealers were plundered, and a pawnbroker’s house

of business was stripped of all valuable articles. Rioting subsequently

occurred, although nearly four thousand police were in the neighbourhood

or in reserve. This meeting seriously damaged the chartist cause in

the metropolis. The upper and middle classes saw that plunder and

molestation awaited them and the peaceable portion of the poor, if

Chartism should gain the ascendant; and a determination arose to meet

and suppress, with a resolute hand, the first outbreak. Early in April,

fifteen of the rioters were put upon their trial for robbery with

violence; eleven were convicted, and sentenced to various terms of

transportation. This infuriated their confederates, and preparations

were made for another demonstration of immense magnitude, to which Mr.

Fergus O’Connor gave all his energy and influence. It was proposed

to hold another meeting at Kennington Common on the 10th of April,

ostensibly to carry a petition to the parliament house for making “the

Charter” law. One hundred and fifty thousand Chartists were expected to

assemble from very great distances. It was generally believed that the

intention was to effect an English socialist revolution. Probably on no

occasion, since the apprehension of invasion from the great Napoleon,

was the London public so much alarmed. The subject, of course, fell

under the consideration of parliament, where Fergus O’Connor was accused

of attending seditious meetings and making treasonable speeches; this he

denied with the greatest effrontery, affecting to be a pattern of order

and law, although it was notorious that he was bent upon revolutionary

attempts, and that his main motive was to resent certain affronts

offered to himself by the Whigs. He had been jealous of O’Connell, whom

that party to a certain extent petted, giving him private power and

patronage, while Fergus was treated, as he himself believed, without

consideration. His first attempts at agitation were in his own country,

Ireland; but O’Connell turned him into ridicule, and eventually

denounced him. Fergus then saw that the only hope of becoming an

agitator of name and influence lay among the discontented English

operatives; and he sought fame and power in that direction by means

unworthy of any man, and ultimately ruinous to himself and to many of

his dupes. On Tuesday, the 5th of April, the following conversation

occurred in the commons, which showed the apprehensions of government

and of the public, the hypocrisy of Mr. O’Connor, and the folly of Mr.

Hume, who, always meaning well, so often inflicted injury on the liberal

cause by his imperfect judgment and decided prejudices:—

“Mr. J. Walsh inquired of the secretary of state for the home

department, if the attention of the government had been directed to

the notice issued by the chartist body, of their intention to hold a

numerous public meeting on Kennington Common on Monday next, and to

go thence in procession to the House of Commons, for the purpose of

presenting a petition in favour of ‘the people’s Charter;’ and if the

right honourable baronet was prepared to take any steps to prevent the

independence of the House of Commons from being overawed by any public

meeting, or to protect the loyal and peaceable inhabitants of London?

—Sir G. Grey replied that the attention of her majesty’s government

had been directed to the notice in question, emanating from a convention

consisting of forty-nine delegates elected at public meetings held in

several of the large towns of the kingdom. This notice stated that

those delegates met in London for the purpose of superintending the

presentation of a petition in favour of the Charter to the House of

Commons, and to adopt any other course that might be deemed advisable in

order to secure the passing of the Charter into law. It likewise stated

that a great public meeting would be held on Kennington Common on

Monday next, and that the parties composing that assemblage would march

in a procession, regulated and superintended by marshals, with their

petition to the House of Commons. The attention of the government having

been called to that notice, and other information having reached them

respecting the intended proceedings, the government had directed a

notice to be issued, which would be published in the course of half an

hour throughout London, pointing out that, by the statute and common law

of these realms, the intended procession was illegal, warning the loyal

and peaceable subjects of her majesty to abstain from taking any part

in the procession, and calling upon them to give their best aid to the

constituted authorities towards preventing any disturbance, maintaining

public order, and preserving the public peace.—Mr. F. O’Connor said, if

there were the slightest intimation of committing a breach of the peace

on the occasion of this procession, he would not be a party to the

proceeding—that the parties concerned in the affair were peaceably

disposed—and that every man of them would consider himself as a special

constable, upon whom the preservation of peace was incumbent. Their

whole object was to present to that house a petition, signed by between

five and six millions of the people. The present announcement would

certainly take the people by surprise.—Sir G. Grey could not see how

they could be taken by surprise. The government had, at the earliest

moment, taken the subject into deliberation, and resolved to take the

course he had indicated.—Mr. Hume was sorry to find the government

had taken up the subject so seriously, and advised them to rescind the

proclamation.”

Notwithstanding Mr. Hume’s advice, the government did take it up as a

serious matter, and the opinion of the public was with the government.

Among other measures which the executive took to ensure security, the

following were conspicuous:—“A large supply of fire-arms and cutlasses

have been sent from the Tower to the East India House, and their

different warehouses, the Custom House, Excise-office, the Post-office,

Bank of England, the Mansion House, the various departments at Somerset

House, the Ordnance-office, Pall-Mali, the Admiralty, and the different

government offices at the West-end; also to a great many banking-houses

in the city, and the dock companies. The clerks and persons employed

in these establishments will be ready to act, if absolutely necessary,

against any outrage that may be committed by a mob. The swearing-in

of special constables is proceeding rapidly in Lambeth, Walworth,

Camberwell, the Borough, and the districts on the Surrey side of the

water, where the tradespeople and householders all show their desire to

protect the public peace if called upon.”

These preparations were followed by the following proclamation:—

“_NOTICE_

“Whereas the assemblage of large numbers of people, accompanied with

circumstances tending to excite terror and alarm in the minds of her

majesty’s subjects, is criminal and unlawful.

“And whereas not only those persons who take an active part in such,

assemblage, but those also who by their presence wilfully countenance

it, are acting contrary to law, and are liable to punishment; and

whereas an act of parliament, passed in the thirteenth year of the reign

of his late majesty King Charles II., intituled, ‘An act against tumults

and disorders, upon pretence of preparing or presenting public petitions

or other addresses to his majesty in the parliament,’ it was enacted,

‘that no person or persons whatsoever shall repair to his majesty, or

both or either of the houses of parliament, upon pretence of presenting

or delivering any petition, complaint, remonstrance, or declaration, or

other addresses, accompanied with excessive numbers or people, nor at

any one time with above the number of ten persons.’

“And whereas a meeting has been called to assemble on Monday next, the

10th instant, at Kennington Common, and it is announced in the printed

notices calling such meeting, that it is intended by certain persons to

repair thence in procession to the House of Commons, accompanied with

excessive numbers of people, upon pretence of presenting a petition

to the Commons house of parliament; and whereas information has been

received that persons have been advised to procure arms and weapons,

with the purpose of carrying the same in such procession; and whereas

such proposed procession is calculated to excite ‘terror and alarm in

the minds of her majesty’s subjects.

“All persons are hereby cautioned and strictly enjoined not to attend,

or take part in, or be present at, any such assemblage or procession.

“And all well-disposed persons are hereby called upon and required to

aid in enforcing the provisions of the law, and effectually to protect

the public peace, and suppress any attempt at the disturbance thereof.

“(Signed) C. Rowan,

“R. Maxne,

“Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis.

“Metropolitan Police Office, Whitehall Place,

“April 6, 1848.”

The government resolved wisely to permit the meeting to assemble, at the

same time announcing that any attempt to cross the bridges in a formal

procession would be resisted. By this means, which it was alleged

had been taken by the advice of the Duke of Wellington, the immense

concourse of the seditious was placed at the side of the river where

they could do least mischief, and the passages of which by the bridges

could be easily defended by a small force. The government thus

showed the impotency of the chartist party, and its own respect for

constitutional rights.

On the morning fixed for the great experiment London presented a strange

appearance. A vast body of persons was called out to act as special

constables. Men of every rank of life might be seen in this capacity,

among them Prince Louis Napoleon Buonaparte, afterwards Emperor of the

French, stood with his constable’s baton as a custoder of order. The

troops, which had been called from distances, and were billeted in the

suburbs, rapidly concentrated at tap of drum and call of bugle. The

Duke of Wellington, having the command, so disposed them that, without

appearing through the day, they were ready to act at a moment’s notice,

wherever their presence might be necessary, and so posted that each

detachment could readily render support to another, in a regular chain

of defensive positions. From every part of the provinces chartist

delegates arrived, by railway and coach, bringing large rolls of

petitions to be appended to the general roll.

Very early in the morning the Chartists gathered, in large bodies, at

each separate rendezvous. Russell Square, Clerkenwell Green, and Stepney

Green, were the grand points of meeting, where the greatest numbers

assembled before marching to Kennington Common. Some of these

processions were composed, to a great extent, of old men, boys, and

women, and were attended by bands. Poles, surmounted by caps of liberty,

flags, and streamers, were borne in the ranks or in carts. All these

detachments were watched by mounted police and special constables, and

at each rendezvous a large body of special constables on foot was drawn

up to prevent any breach of the peace. The police being concentrated on

various points, their ordinary duty was performed by special constables,

who were distinguished by official staves and a white band round the

arm. The shops were closed, and the public buildings were all well

guarded and fortified. Buckingham Palace seemed the only place upon

which no extra care was expended. No one supposed that the home of her

majesty would be insulted, no matter what party was in the ascendant. As

the troops took up their several positions within the public buildings,

they were loudly cheered by the people in the streets, for it was

evident, notwithstanding the immense chartist concourse, that an

overwhelming majority of the Londoners was opposed to their proceedings.

While matters were taking this course with the general public, the

chartist delegates met in their usual place, the Literary and Scientific

Institution, John Street, Fitzroy Square; Mr. Reynolds was called to

the chair at nine o’clock. Mr. Doyle, the secretary, announced that a

communication had been received from the head police-office, Scotland

Yard, intimating that no procession from Kennington Common to the

parliament house with the petition would be allowed, but that the

petition itself would be permitted to pass the bridge in the custody of

a suitable number of persons. Several speakers urged that the government

should be set at defiance, and the petition proceeded with at all risks,

until delivered at the House of Commons. Fergus O’Connor dissuaded them

from any collision with the authorities. In a speech full of bombast and

egotism, he declared that he was personally marked out for slaughter by

the authorities. Thus, after all the bluster of this great tribune,

as his followers called him, he showed the white feather. He was not

prepared, like Smith O’Brien, gallantly to go out, with his life in his

hand, and verify, by exposing himself to every peril and penalty, the

words which he uttered when it was safe to utter them. Mr. O’Connor’s

dissuasions in the interest of peace did not meet the approbation of

the delegates, who seemed unanimously resolved to force their way across

Westminster Bridge when the hour should arrive for so doing. In this

spirit the meeting was adjourned to Kennington Common. The following

graphic account of the departure of the delegates, their progress

thither, and their arrival, was given by an eye-witness:—

“During this discussion two newly-constructed cars had driven up to the

doors of the institution. The one intended for the conveyance of the

monster petition was on four wheels, and drawn by as many very splendid

farm horses. The body of the car was square, and surmounted by a

tastefully constructed canopy. The attendants bore streamlets in

the varied colours of red, green, and white, having appropriate

inscriptions. The van or car in waiting for the delegates was upwards

of twenty feet in length, with seats arranged transversely, in so

commodious a manner as to afford comfortable accommodation to the

delegates, as well as several representatives of the press. The body

of the car was inscribed with the motto, ‘The Charter. No surrender.

Liberty is worth living for and worth dying for.’ On the left, ‘The

voice of the people is the voice of God;’ while on the back of the car

was inscribed, ‘Who would be a slave that could be free?’ ‘Onward, we

conquer; backward, we fall.’ Eight banners were fixed (four on each

side) to the car, inscribed, ‘The Charter.’ ‘No vote, no muskets.’ ‘Vote

by ballot,’ ‘Annual parliaments,’ ‘Universal suffrage,’ ‘No property

qualification,’ ‘The payment of members,’ and ‘Electoral districts.’ To

the vehicle were harnessed six farm-horses of superior breed, and in the

highest possible condition. The marshals (designated by a silk sash of

the colours red, white, and green) having announced, at ten minutes past

ten o’clock, all in readiness, Mr. F. O’Connor was the first to ascend

the car. The honourable gentleman was received with loud cheers by the

crowd which thronged John Street, and took his seat in front of the van.

He was followed by Mr. Ernest Jones, Mr. Harney, Mr. M’Grath, Mr.

Clark, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Reynolds, Dr. Hunter, and other leaders of the

convention. The rest of that body having also taken their seats, the

_cortege_ set forth amidst loud cheers. Passing along Goodge Street into

Tottenham Court Road, along High Street, Bloomsbury, the National Land

Company’s office was reached, and from that building five huge bales or

bundles, comprising the petition, with the signatures, were brought out,

and secured on the first car, prepared for their reception. Again the

cavalcade moved forward, and progressing along Holborn and Farringdon

Street, reached New Bridge Street, the crowd increasing the train at

every step. So far the shops in the line which had been passed were only

partially closed. The utmost order prevailed, though the delegates were

recognised by numerous friends and adherents, and at intervals most

vociferously cheered. At the Waithman obelisk the alderman of the ward,

Sir James Duke, was in attendance, with his deputy, Mr. Obbard; but up

to this spot not a single policeman was to be seen. The windows of the

houses in New Bridge Street were filled with spectators, and, amidst

much applause, the moving mass took an onward course across Blackfriars

Bridge. At this time, a strong detachment of a battalion of pensioners,

under arms, and fully accoutred, were observed to have just landed

at the city pier, from Woolwich, and were loudly cheered by the vast

concourse that now crowded the bridge. On reaching the Surrey side, the

first display of the civil force appeared. On each side of Albion Place,

were drawn up, in military order, a strong body, in double file, of the

L division of the metropolitan police, while the city police maintained

the ground on each side of the bridge, which was within the limits of

the city jurisdiction. This force was under the orders of Mr. Henry, one

of the magistrates at Bow Street. Opposite the end of Stamford Street,

a party of the mounted police, fifteen strong, under the command of an

inspector, was stationed. In its passage along the Blackfriars Road to

the Elephant and Castle, the crowd continued to increase, and hem in

the vehicles on both sides; still, everything was peaceable and

well-conducted. At the Elephant and Castle a new mass joined in the rear

of those who, walking eight abreast, and followed the train from the

place of departure, and on reaching Newington Church the appearance of

the masses was most bewildering. Proceeding along the Kennington Road

the common was reached at half-past eleven o’clock. Here had already

assembled the Irish confederalists, and the various bodies of the

trades of London, who had intimated their intention of joining in the

demonstration. These had taken their position in numerical order on

the common, having arrived from their different rendezvous some

time previously. Each trade had its emblematic banner, and the Irish

confederalists displayed a very splendid green standard, emblazoned with

the harp of Erin, and the motto ‘Erin go bragh.’”

The delegates addressed the meeting, and recommended peace, but chiefly

on the ground that they were not prepared to contend with the armed

force directed upon all the strategetic points where it might be

made available. The magistrates and some of the chiefs of police were

assembled at the Horns Tavern, Kennington, where they sent for Mr.

O’Connor, requesting an interview. The mob supposed that he was

arrested, and loud cries arose for his rescue. They were pacified,

however, by his return, accompanied by Mr. M’Grath, and he was welcomed

by the people with a tumult of cheers. He had given the magistrates

assurance that order should be preserved, and he communicated the fact

to the people, many of whom, believing that the day would issue in a

revolution, were dissatisfied. Discussions arose on Cuffey advising the

people to force Westminster Bridge, and present the petition themselves.

The more moderate of the leaders, having their recommendations well

backed by the statement that the troops were under arms and the police

provided with cutlasses and pistols, prevailed, and the mob at last

consented that the petition should be taken in a cab by Mr. O’Connor and

certain others, and be presented by the honourable member for Nottingham

that night. Upon the departure of Mr. O’Connor and the other delegates

with the petition, a Mr. Clark moved the adoption of a petition to the

House of Commons against the bill for providing more effectually for

the security of the crown and government:—“The humble petition of the

inhabitants of the metropolis of England, in public meeting assembled,

showeth: That your petitioners have heard, with feelings of indignation

and astonishment, that, by a bill which is now before your honourable

house, for the ostensible purpose of providing more efficiently for the

security of the crown and the government of these realms, it is sought

to alter the law relating to the indefinite charge of sedition, and to

punish by transportation that which is at present punishable by fine and

imprisonment. That your petitioners regard this bill as an attempt to

deprive the people of the right of expressing their just horror at the

atrocious legislation which is generally practised by your honourable

house, and your petitioners beg your honourable house to stamp this

infamous measure with condemnation, by its unanimous and ignominious

rejection.”

This resolution was seconded by a Mr. Kydd, and eloquently supported by

Mr. Reynolds, and at half-past one the assembly broke up. The multitudes

of course pressed to the bridges, but found their progress everywhere

obstructed by police. Those who chose to cross the toll-paying bridges,

were permitted to do so upon payment, under the eye of strong bodies

of police. At London Bridge and Blackfriars, the crowd made desperate

efforts to force their way across, and repeatedly swept the police

before them, but were encountered by stronger efforts, and inch by

inch driven back again. At Westminster Bridge the chief struggle was

maintained, so that fears were entertained lest the bridge should give

way beneath the swaying masses. On these three points many of the more

sturdy of the mob were severely wounded by the swords of the mounted

police, and many were arrested and placed in custody under the charge of

riot. When the “monster petition” was brought over Westminster

Bridge, the excitement of the multitude assembled in Bridge Street and

Parliament Street was very great, and the police had to disperse or

capture many ill-disposed persons who had no public object in collecting

together. The petition and chartist executive committee arrived at the

lobby of the commons by half-past three o’clock.

The house met at the usual hour. When the gallery was opened, the

chartist petition, of awful bulk, stood rolled up in front of the table.

An unusual number of members were present; several peers occupied

the seats allotted to them in the chamber, and the public gallery was

filled. Mr. Smith O’Brien was in his place, and he was the object of

much observation. After the transaction of private business, Mr. F.

O’Connor rose and said—“Sir, I have the honour to present a petition

signed by five million seven hundred and six thousand persons,

and another signed by thirty thousand persons, praying for annual

parliaments, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, equal electoral

districts, no property qualification, and the payment of members. As

I have already received so much courtesy from the house, I will say

nothing further at present, but move that the petition be read at the

table.”

The petition having been read by the clerk, Lord Morpeth rose to

apologise for the necessary absence of the home-secretary. The noble lord

said that the secretary of state would have been in his place, only

that he was occupied with the numerous details of his office. It was his

opinion, with regard to the matters of the petition, that he would

not willingly be wanting in proper respect to a petition so numerously

signed.

The petition was then received, and was, with difficulty, rolled down

the floor of the house to the bar.

Mr. Lushington gave notice that on Friday night he would ask the first

lord of the treasury whether he could hold out a distinct hope that,

in the present session, he would introduce himself, or support the

introduction of any measure for the extension of the suffrage, the

abridgment of the duration of parliaments, the formation of electoral

divisions, and the vote by ballot. This motion was hailed with loud

cheers.

The strangers’ gallery, and wherever spectators could be accommodated,

was full during this scene, and the public desire to hear what notice

the lords would take of these events was nearly as great; there also

every allowable space was occupied by anxious expectants, to hear the

Duke of Wellington and other ministers express their opinions.

The Marquis of Lansdowne, in reply to a question from the Marquis of

Northampton, stated that the meeting which had caused so much alarm

throughout the metropolis had taken place at Kennington Common that day,

and the multitude had been dispersed by the police without requiring the

aid of the military, and without any difficulty. The petition had, he

believed, been brought to the House of Commons in a cab, and had been

presented according to the usual form.—Lord Brougham, who made his

first appearance in the house since Christmas, remarked that however

high he held the right of petitioning, and of meeting for the purpose

of discussing public affairs, he was decidedly of opinion that such

a multitudinous meeting as that referred to, as well as the monster

meetings of Ireland, could be viewed in no other light but as

demonstrations intended to overawe the parliament and the crown by an

exhibition of physical force. Although he had condemned the manner in

which the Manchester meeting in 1819 was put down, it was his opinion,

as well as the opinion of Lord Plunkett and the late Lord Abinger, that

such a meeting could not be considered _bonâ fide_ meant for discussion,

and that it was illegal.—The Duke of Wellington quite concurred in the

law as declared by Lord Brougham, and considered that the metropolis

had deep reasons for complaint in having trade interrupted, commerce

suspended, the inhabitants kept in a state of alarm and terror for

several days, owing to the assemblage of large bodies of people, whose

only object could be, by meeting in such multitudes, to overawe the

legislature. He sincerely rejoiced that the peace had been preserved

without the appearance of a single soldier.—The Marquis of Northampton

heard the explanations given with pleasure. He thought the country was

greatly indebted to the noble duke, and also to all concerned, for their

exertions in maintaining the peace.—The Marquis of Lansdowne declared

that it was most gratifying to him and to the government to find

the enthusiasm displayed by all the respectable inhabitants of the

metropolis, who had come forward to enrol themselves as special

constables. The noble marquis said that the exemplary conduct of the

police was also deserving of the highest commendation.

Allegations having been made that the names attached to the petition

were not nearly so numerous as alleged, and that many of them were

forgeries, an inquiry was called for, and the committee on public

petitions had the task assigned to it of making the investigation. The

report made by the chairman to the house was most singular, showing that

in fact the privilege of petition had been abused, and the house trifled

with. On the 13th of April Mr. Thornley brought up the report of

the committee on public petitions, which stated that upon the 26th of

November last, a committee was appointed to report to the house the

number of signatures attached to all petitions presented to that house,

and that they had felt it their duty to make a special report to the

house upon the subject of the national petition, presented on the 10th

of April by the honourable member for Nottingham, signed by subjects of

the British crown. The committee attached the utmost value to the right

of petitioning, and to the exercise of that most important privilege by

the subjects of this realm, and felt deeply the necessity of preserving

the due exercise of such privilege from abuse, and having also a due

regard to the importance of a petition so very numerously signed, had

made that petition the subject of their present report. They felt bound,

in the discharge of their duty, to represent to the house that with

respect to that petition there had been a gross abuse of that privilege.

The honourable member for Nottingham, upon presenting the petition,

had stated that the petition was signed by upwards of five millions of

persons. Upon the most careful examination of the number of signatures

in the committee, with the assistance of thirteen law-stationer’s

clerks, who acted under the superintendence of the various clerks of the

committees, the number of signatures attached to the petition does not,

in the opinion of the committee, amount to two millions. It is further

found that a large number of the signatures were consecutively written

by the same hand. It was likewise observed that a large number of the

signatures were those of persons who could not be supposed to have

concurred in its prayer; among these were the name of her majesty,

signed Victoria Rex, the Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, &c, &c.

There was also noticed a large number of names which were evidently

fictitious, such as “Pugnose,” “Longnose,” “Flatnose,” “Punch,”

“Snooks,” “Fubbs,” and also numerous obscene names, which the committee

would not offend the house or its dignity by repeating, but which

evidently belonged to no human being. Upon the motion that the report do

lie upon the table, a somewhat angry and personal discussion arose, in

which Mr. Cripps was very severe in his censure of the conduct of Mr.

O’Connor, in alleging that upwards of five millions of signatures had

been attached to the petition. The motion was eventually agreed to. At

the conclusion of the discussion Mr. F. O’Connor left the house; and a

hostile meeting between him and Mr. Cripps having been presumed likely,

in consequence of the personal nature of what had passed, Mr. O’Connor

was, on an order of the house at a late period of the evening, taken

into the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, but was subsequently released,

and a reconciliation with Mr. Cripps effected.

Throughout the year attempts were made by the Chartists to create

disturbances, and many of them were arrested and punished for riot,

assault, or sedition. The leaders were very active in disseminating

among the working classes opinions adverse to the rights of property and

of society at large. These proceedings injured the cause of electoral

and parliamentary reform. There were many members in the House of

Commons, and many persons of influence throughout the country, who were

favourable to some of the principal political opinions put forth in

“the people’s Charter,” but there was no sympathy among these classes for

the economical and social theories of the party by which the Charter

was chiefly upheld. Reform in parliament, which was still desired by the

people at large, was thus postponed by the alarm which the extreme views

and violent temper of the Chartists created amongst the classes who

possessed property, and amongst religious and peaceable citizens.

VISIT OF FRENCH NATIONAL GUARDS TO LONDON.

The political excitement of the times was much increased by a visit to

London, made at the end of October, by more than a thousand National

Guards of Paris, in full uniform. Aged persons who remembered the first

French revolution, and the subsequent wars, were somewhat alarmed at

this sudden appearance of French uniforms. The masses of the people

welcomed the peaceful invaders, and the British Guards fraternised with

them. Every public place was thrown open to them, and in the theatres

and public gardens they were greeted with applause, the bands performing

French national music. The visitors departed, expressing their high

sense of the cordiality with which they had been received.

COMMERCIAL AFFAIRS.

This year was one of severe trial to Great Britain. The credit of many

great mercantile houses was shaken, and many failed. The distress

which prevailed at the beginning of the year, both in Great Britain

and Ireland, disheartened the trading community, and impeded the usual

course of business. When the French revolution suddenly burst forth,

business received a shock such as only political events of the greatest

magnitude can communicate; but when that event was followed by a series

of continental revolutions, destroying the old European system, and

convulsing nearly all the great monarchies, commercial affairs were

nearly paralysed. The threatened disturbances in Ireland, and the

chartist agitation at home, aggravated the evil effects which so many

other causes produced. Banking accommodation was extremely difficult of

attainment, and the funds fell very low. About the end of March affairs

assumed some hopefulness, and the funds rose; but so many events crowded

on in rapid succession, like dark clouds impelled by the storm, that

these encouraging indications were checked. Still, public confidence in

the stability of British institutions sustained public credit, and the

disturbed state of other countries likewise caused the investment of

capital in England to a surprising extent, keeping up the funds,

and extending commercial transactions. As soon as the great chartist

demonstrations of April were over, and the safety of the government

placed beyond doubt, monetary and mercantile matters rapidly

improved; and although English merchants and bankers suffered from the

fluctuations of credit on the continent, yet the security of England

reacted upon all European commerce, and caused the continental losses of

our capitalists and traders to be far less than could have been expected

in a season so politically tempestuous.

THE COBDEN TESTIMONIAL.

Soon after the repeal of the corn laws, it was resolved by certain

friends of that measure to give Mr. Cobden a testimonial of national

gratitude for his services. The public knew his deserts, but they did

not know that he had consumed his fortune in their behalf. The business

of Mr. Cobden was that of a calico-printer, which he carried on in

the neighbourhood of Manchester. By the excellence of his colours, his

execution, and the novelty and good taste of his patterns, he created

a vast and distinctive trade, which he necessarily neglected while

conducting the agitation against the corn laws; and the result was

perilous to his business and ruinous to his purse. Viewed in this

respect the national testimonial was but an act of justice, apart from

any consideration of the great services which he rendered to the cause

of free-trade. None but those immediately cognizant of his efforts could

conceive his herculean labours to promote the repeal of the corn laws.

His eloquence was characterised by intelligence, directness, the absence

of all meretricious ornament, and an eagerness to convince and carry his

hearers with him, which was singularly effective. His addresses were

not only free from all ambition as to ornate or attractive language, but

also as to original or characteristic thought. There was such an

entire absence of all self-seeking about the man, and he so thoroughly

identified himself with the people whose interests he pleaded, that,

possessing a fair readiness of speech, and aptness for _ad captandum_

argument, he could not fail to secure the favourable attention of

earnest men on a subject where their interests were largely engaged.

Although Mr. Cobden promoted the agitation of the question on broad

national grounds, he, nevertheless, looked at it from a class point of

view more particularly, and this was one of the elements of his power

with the traders. When he began the agitation it was as a manufacturer,

for the redress of a grievance which affected his class; it was as he

went on in the agitation for that object, that he began to look upon

the question as one of general interest; and then his speeches assumed

a higher tone and a larger scope, and sound principles of political

economy were uttered by him with all the force of truth which he felt,

and which he had capacity ably to express. It could, however, scarcely

fail to strike men that whether in Free-Trade Hall, in Manchester, or in

the commons house of parliament, his speeches on free-trade were rather

those of the merchant than the philosopher or the statesman. On all

political and politico-economical questions, the tone of his mind was

the same: he regarded them rather in reference to the effect likely to

be produced upon commerce in its immediate or proximate interests,

than in the ulterior consequences, or the great political and ethical

principles involved. The interests of trade, rather than the honour

of England, engaged his heart. He was, consequently, accused of being

deficient in patriotism; but no public man was more willing to sacrifice

himself for the welfare of the people of England, or was personally less

selfish. He was kind, amiable, truthful, honourable, and upright; and

desired with all his energies to promote, not only the welfare of his

countrymen, but of all men.

A public subscription having been set on foot, the committee by whom

it was conducted reported the result of their labours about the end of

April. Seventy-nine thousand pounds were contributed; it would have

been twice the sum, but for the distress, and the disturbance of

public affairs by the torrent of revolution which was sweeping over the

continent. The birthplace of Mr. Cobden, in Sussex, was purchased for

him, and the remainder of the money invested according to his wish. A

sum of £10,000 was raised for Mr. Bright, whose services, however great,

were justly deemed inferior to those of Mr. Cobden. Mr. Bright, however,

was supposed to possess considerable pecuniary resources, although he

also spent freely his private property for the public welfare; and it

was alleged that, but for his liberality in this respect, Mr. Cobden

could not have maintained his post in the face of so many personal

sacrifices. Mr. Bright was the less popular man of the two, partly from

temper, and a certain _hauteur_ which contrasted unfavourably with the

more simple and cordial manners of Mr. Cobden, partly from his religious

opinions bringing him, under a sense of duty, into collision with

the Established Church on various irritating questions, such as

church-rates. The general attainments of Mr. Bright were higher, and

his oratorical talents far superior to those of Mr. Cobden. The latter

frequently fell beneath his ordinary standard of effectiveness, Mr.

Bright scarcely ever. The author of these lines has frequently attended

public meetings in which these gentlemen took part, and he hardly

remembers a single instance in which Mr. Blight’s speech did not possess

a high order of eloquence; whereas many of Mr. Cobden’s speeches were

only interesting on account of the facts they detailed, and the clear

manner in which they were communicated.

Some time after these contributions of goodwill from the country to the

two principal orators of the Anti-cornlaw League, a similar tribute was

paid to the services of Mr. Archibald Prentice, for many years editor

and proprietor of the _Manchester Times_. This gentleman was the founder

of the Anti-corn-law Association, out of which the League sprung, and, as

an able writer and public speaker, did much to prepare the way for the

men who afterwards conducted that agitation to victory. Mr. Prentice

fought bravely and pertinaciously for the repeal of the corn laws, long

before the wealthy supported it, or the suffrages of statesmen and men

of influence gave it a leading position in the questions of the day.

It was not to the credit of some others (a very small number) who

were advocates of the League, that they were as eager to set on foot

subscriptions for themselves, as the public were for those who had

really earned them. One individual, who hung about “the League

rooms,” and made speeches often undesired by the committee, and

when inconvenient to their arrangements, was very indignant that a

subscription was not raised for him. Without eloquence in speech,

temperance in council, or discretion in action, he became prominent only

by overbearing boldness, and an ever-meddling officiousness.

AGITATION CONCERNING THE NAVIGATION LAWS.

Early in the parliamentary session, the government indicated an

intention to repeal the navigation laws. In this they were supported

very ardently by Mr. Hume, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, Mr.

Milner Gibson, and by many other ardent friends of the Manchester

school. The time was ill-chosen for any movement on this subject,

because the seamen as well as the shipowners were opposed to any

alteration, and the disturbed state of continental Europe, and indeed of

the British Isles, made it extremely unwise for government to irritate a

class whose physical energy, peculiar position, and popularity with the

people, gave them, if disposed, peculiar capacity to disturb the peace.

The party which desired the repeal of the navigation laws maintained

that free-trade in ships and seamen was as necessary as in other

matters, and the cotton districts called loudly for the change. The

leader of the shipping interest was James Mather, Esq., of South

Shields, a gentleman not connected with ships or shipowners, but moved

by patriotic feelings alone. Mr. Mather possessed all the qualities

necessary for a leader in the agitation of a great political and

politico-economical question. With a highly cultivated intellect,

conciliatory address, fearless spirit, and astonishing physical energy,

he was just the man to please at once the educated mariners, and the

rough, bold, hardy tars. The gentlemanly bearing of Mr. Mather was

also calculated to impress his opponents favourably, and a graceful

persuasiveness of mien and language, aided in qualifying him for that

object. Mr. Mather grappled with the arguments of Cobden, Bright, and

the other leaders of the cotton districts, whose influence at that time,

fresh from their victory over the corn interest, made it important to

confute the arguments they addressed to the public. Mr. Mather addressed

a letter to the editor of the _Shipping Almanack and Gazette_, which

produced a great impression where the arguments of the Lancashire

leaders had been accepted as irrefutable. It is desirable to reproduce

this document, as the controversy was one of the most important in its

day, and the policy ultimately adopted remained longer open to question

than any other of the anti-protectionist measures which were adopted.

Mr. Mather’s letter was the more effective, because it exposed an

artifice to which Mr. Gladstone especially resorted, but in which he was

supported by the Lancashire members:—

“The combined attack of Messrs. Gladstone, Bright, Cobden, and two

or three others in the House of Commons, upon the navigation laws, on

account of their preventing the importation of a few cargoes of cotton

lying at Havre, and demanding a suspension of these laws for the

immediate necessities of the manufactories, and the advantage of British

shipping, was as unfair and discreditable a proceeding as party men have

for a long time been guilty of. For the sixty-five thousand bales of

cotton at Havre, brought across the Atlantic chiefly by French ships, it

is, they assert, of advantage to British shipping to destroy that amount

of carriage on the long voyage, and allow this cotton to be brought from

France to England, which a few trips of a steamer would easily effect.

The very statement of the matter, in plain language, refutes the absurd

assertion. You are losing the carriage of thirty cargoes of cotton,

these gentlemen asserted. No, it is replied, for by preventing their

admission from France, as there is a great abundance of cotton in

America, we are gaining the carriage of thirty cargoes on the long

voyage—a portion in British ships; and you will get cotton just as

cheap, nay cheaper for the manufacturers, as the expense of transhipment

will be saved.

“But the cotton is immediately wanted, they assert. Now this was a mere

pretence, which the parties clearly understood, to give a momentary

effect to a most untenable charge. Events have corroborated this.

“Within a few days thirty-three vessels have brought seventy-three

thousand six hundred and forty-nine bales of cotton from America; and

such is the great want of it, sufficient to annihilate or suspend the

navigation laws, that the manufacturers only bought nineteen thousand

six hundred and sixty bales, while nine hundred and seventy bales were

bought for exportation; that, instead of requiring cotton, they are

exporting it from the manufacturing district in which it was stated to

be so much required.

“If cotton was in such demand, would it be upwards of thirty per cent,

lower than it was last year, and would it be falling in price as it is

now? Prices are at present within ⅛d. per lb. of the lowest they were

ever reduced to. For two months it has been a falling market, and at

the very moment these men were advancing such assertions, was the cotton

market in a state of decline, giving the broadest contradiction to them.

If cotton had been wanted, the price, as in any other article, would

have been high, not low, and would have been advancing, not receding,

especially with a limited supply.

“The importation last year was the smallest for ten years. Increasing

previous to 1845 for fifty years, it has since rapidly decreased, and

now it has been found that nearly one-third less stock is required than

there was in 1843, 1844, and 1845.

BALES.

In 1843 it was.......................... 1,557,597

1844.................................... 1,490,984

1845.................................... 1,652,731

1846.................................... 1,134,194

1847.................................... 1,087,058

“And in this year (1848), up to this month, it has been ascertained that

one-third less stock than in the previous low year of 1847, is more

than enough. (See _George! Holt &c.; Co.’s Circular, and Liverpool Prices

Current_, for the 7th of April). In addition, a reduction of upwards

of thirty per cent, in price, from that of last year, indicates a still

more limited requirement.

“While the stock is only, up to this period for this year, three hundred

and twenty-two thousand eight hundred bales, against the corresponding

period last year, four hundred and ninety-two thousand six hundred

bales; showing, with upwards of one-third less stock one-third less

price—a demonstrative proof that the supply is infinitely greater than

the demand. Whenever the price advances, indicating demand, the

American supply will be poured into the market without any necessity

for importations from France. Had the navigation laws been suspended, as

urged by some of their opponents, and the French cotton brought in, it

would only have been a drug in the market, useless and unsaleable. More

has since been brought in than was lying at Havre, at thirty per cent,

less than they have had it for two years, and they will not buy it.

It was not wanted; only an excuse was wanted to strike a blow—a most

unfair one—at the navigation laws, and the British commercial marine,

which all the little opponents throughout the country, in their gross

ignorance, have quoted and applauded.”

Meanwhile, the agitation of the mariners and shipowners was exceeding

great, especially in the three grand centres of maritime activity—the

Thames, the Mersey, and the Tyne. Along the north-east coast of England,

the tidings that the government meant to repeal the navigation laws sped

with rapidity, and produced the most intense excitement. Public

meetings were called at Hull, Scarborough. Whitby, Sunderland,

Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Shields, and Berwick, which were attended by great

numbers, and which were eloquently addressed. The sailors attended these

meetings with boisterous enthusiasm. They were under the impression that

a great wrong was about to be perpetuated, and they were resolved to do

anything which loyalty allowed to defeat the meditated alterations in

the law. Under the guidance of a man less just and scrupulous, and less

jealous for the constitution than Mr. Mather was, much mischief might

have arisen from the sense of grievance which the sailors entertained.

That gentleman, however, so conducted the agitation as to gain a large

measure of public support, and to defeat, during that year, the proposed

alterations.

A convention of shipowners and seamen of the Tyne was held at Shields,

one of the largest and most important ever held in England. Mr. Mather

proposed the following resolutions, which were enthusiastically adopted:

they will disclose the purpose and opinion of that community:—

“Resolved—That we will resist, by every legal and constitutional means

in our power, the repeal of the navigation laws, so violently agitated

by theorists and self-interested men, which were adopted, and have been

sustained, by the wisest statesmen in all ages for the support of the

shipping and seamen of Britain, to prevent the cheap ships and ill-fed

and badly-paid foreigners from underselling and destroying the British

mercantile marine.

“Resolved—That we pledge ourselves, on arriving in London, to take

measures, in conjunction with all the seamen there, loyally and

respectfully, as becomes British seamen, to lay, personally, an urgent

memorial at the feet of her majesty, warning her of the consequence of

driving British seamen into the service of a foreign state, where that

protection and encouragement are freely given them that, by the repeal

of the navigation laws, will be denied them in their own country; and

humbly entreating her majesty to interpose her royal authority for the

protection of that class of men who, in time of war and danger, her

ancestors and this kingdom have ever found their best protection and

their greatest glory.”

At this meeting Mr. Mather was deputed to proceed to London, and lay the

statements of the shipowners before the government. A speech made by

that gentleman at Shields, places the controversy in the light in which

it was then viewed by the shipping interest:—

“All the maritime laws that have guided the policy of this great state

for centuries, that have made her ‘great, glorious, and free,’ are to be

repealed under the most frivolous pretexts. Mr. Labouchere, the organ

of the government, a supporter of reciprocity and equal rights to

the commercial marine of the world—British and foreign—propounds a

measure in which he bestows all the preponderating advantages upon the

opponents of his own country. Had the act being that of an enemy it

would have been proper. The whole foreign and colonial trade is to be

given up to foreign shipping, free and unfettered, while that of Britain

is to be bound down hand and foot, and scarcely capable of moving.

First, then, your ships are to be built of taxed timber, 15s. and 20s.

per load, exclusive of its freight, and expenses as much more, and to

go into competition with the foreign ships with not a shilling per

load duty or freight. You are not only obliged to compete with your

heavily-taxed ships, and to pay foreigners freight to bring you the

timber to build them, but you are obliged to carry three-fourths British

crews in these offered-up trades, while the foreigner’s crews are to be

all of his own country, half-paid and half-fed. You know well the wages

and feeding of foreign crews; you have all been witnesses and are daily

witnesses of it. It is a truth, and undeniable, that these foreigners

have only from 15s. to 25s., the highest wages per month. It is thus

with Danes, Russians, Prussians, Swedes, and Norwegians, while your

wages are more than twice as much—60s. per month. They can be fed,

too, on 6d. per day—in most instances, much less; while British seamen

cannot be fed under 1s. per day, to feed them as their climate and

constitutions require—hence their extraordinary energies. Yet, with

these great disadvantages, in ships, wages, and provisions, it is

determined to risk three-fourths of the commercial marine of Britain in

a contest with foreigners that must be overwhelming. But Mr. Labouchere

feels no difficulties, has no political qualms of conscience, in thus

offering up a sacrifice three-fourths of the commercial marine of Great

Britain. He says, ‘Look at the results of the same system tried so far

back as the beginning of the seventeenth century in Holland—the Dutch

by free trade became the most prosperous nation in Europe. Look at her

great commercial marine. Under it the carriers of the world—her ships

were on every sea.’ It is very surprising that this gentleman did not

continue to follow history in that country and at home since that period

downwards. The iron-headed Cromwell, great by his acts, had the sagacity

to perceive that the commercial marine was the soul of the navy, and

that as long as the Dutch had the carrying trade, Britain and other

colonies were in danger. So he strengthened the old restrictive laws of

Richard II., Henry VII., and Elizabeth, and passed the navigation laws,

under which the British commercial marine has been protected to the

present time, with the exception of the tampering they have met with

lately. And what has been the result? The Dutch, with her free-trade

system, has sunk her commercial marine to the lowest condition, while

Britain, with her protective system, has grown a commercial marine,

the greatest the world ever saw—her ships in every sea, her flag

overshadowing the world. How does it happen—and let Mr. Labouchere

and the whig government answer—how does it happen that the Dutch

commercial marine has been ruined by the free-trade system, and that we

have grown great, _pari passu_, by a restrictive system? But figures

are appealed to by the present government to show that since the

introduction of the reciprocity treaties, or free trade in a limited

extent, our commercial marine has greatly increased.

“These figures Mr. Labouchere adduces as a strong argument in favour of

Mr. Huskisson’s relaxations, commencing at the former period. Observe

these figures more closely, and you will find that the tonnage of the

United Kingdom, to which the reciprocity treaties apply, have increased

considerably under one-half, while the trade to which they did not apply

has more than trebled its tonnage. To overwhelm the defalcations in

the British trade with the reciprocity states, by the extended or more

prosperous state of the general trade, was both unfair and disingenuous.

Yet, this has Mr. Labouchere not a moment hesitated to do. Knowing, for

he must have known, that the British commercial marine, in its trade

with the reciprocity states, had either decreased or only in a smaller

proportion increased with those states, it was a great fallacy and a

deceit for him to proclaim it as the source of prosperity. How stand the

facts with the reciprocity countries.

“In twenty-two years, then, there has been a decrease of British tonnage

employed in three of the five principal reciprocity states, and an

enormous increase of foreign tonnage in four of the five states. In

the two states where British tonnage has increased, the foreign, or the

tonnage of the same states, has infinitely surpassed it; in Denmark,

2793 to 82,284; and in the United States, 160,129 to 281,924; and yet

a British minister of state cites the cause of the increase of British

tonnage to the reciprocity treaties as a reason for this momentous

change. In thirty years averaging twenty of the reciprocity treaties,

our tonnage has increased only 38 per cent., while our population and

its wants have increased 50 per cent., and imports 104 per cent. Thus,

in every phase that the question is presented to us, the shipping

appears to have kept no pace with the other interests of the kingdom,

presenting to our view some great obstructive cause; and that cause, I

humbly submit, is the reciprocity system adopted so generally in

1824. Notwithstanding which, here have we a government insisting upon

extending, without a moment’s hesitation, this system which has already

so deeply injured us, to three-fourths of the commercial marine of

this country. And what are the flimsy pretences in addition? Why, that

Prussia has threatened on one hand, and the United States coaxed on the

other, and that British masters and mates are intemperate, and

British seamen insubordinate. I will take the libel first, and ask Mr.

Labouchere and the whig government how it happens that British ships,

commanded by such masters and manned by such crews, are at the great

marine insurance office of the world, Lloyds, always insured 1 per

cent., 1 ½ and 2 per cent, lower than the eulogised foreign ships,

with their masters and crews? Will they explain that indubitable fact?

And also, I beg to know of these sage legislators the cause that in

the winters of 1846–47, out of two hundred and ninety-four corn-laden

British ships from America, there were only three foundered, while out

of four hundred and thirty United States’ ships performing the same

voyage, with similar cargoes, seventeen foundered. And how out of the

same number four British only were stranded, while there were twelve

American? Not a fourth part of the casualties amongst the British that

there were amongst the United States ships; yet the Americans are an

experienced, gallant, and well-conducted race of seamen. These things

gave the broadest refutation to such a calumnious charge. It is not wise

for a minister of state of Britain to proclaim to the world a character

of the bravest and most important class of men of Britain, that

disgraces them indelibly, injures the property of their employers, and

dishonours the country. The twenty thousand gallant schoolmasters afloat

that are busy day and night, educating and developing the powers of

the future defenders of Britain, making them able and worthy sons—the

ablest and worthiest of their great country—to be thus traduced by

those who should ever and above all protect them, is an act of the most

revolting nature.”

The effect of Mr. Mather’s exertions were seen in a grand demonstration

on the 9th of February, in London, which, in deference to the civic

authorities, was made on the river, rather than, as originally intended,

in the streets of London and Westminster. According to the _Shipping

Gazette_, there were ten thousand seamen from the Tyne and its

neighbourhood in the port of London that day. On the evening previous to

the demonstration, the crews of all British vessels in the Thames were

in a high state of excitement, full of preparation for the morrow.

Between three and four hundred vessels were in the Pool, the Gallions,

Bugsby’s Hole, and Longreach, and their crews manifested the utmost

eagerness to show their sense of what they considered their rights.

The next day a grand procession of boats, partly tugged by steamers,

proceeded to Westminster Bridge. The vessels and boats carried the

union jack, and various flags; the sailors were dressed in their holiday

suits, and bore the words “Navigation Laws” round their hats, in large

yellow letters, the masters and mates in gilt letters. The _Standard_

newspaper estimated the number of seamen in the procession at about

fifteen thousand. The banks of the river and the bridges were crowded

with spectators, whose sympathy was shown in every way that the most

enthusiastic popular feeling could evince. Cheers rang along the river,

cannons were fired, and the leaders of the demonstration, Mr. Mather,

Captain Smith, and Mr. Butchert, were received everywhere with the

loudest plaudits of the people. The appearance of the boats and

steamers, manned by tars in their best attire, and bearing gay flags,

was exceedingly picturesque. Perhaps no metropolitan sight so imposing

had been witnessed by the generation of Londoners then living. The wind

was boisterous and the sky lowering; the procession had also to make its

way against tide; but these obstacles only broke the formality of the

line of procession, while evoking an activity on the part of those who

manned the boats, which heightened the interest of the scene, giving

characteristic traits to a procession afloat, which in gentler weather

it would not have exhibited. Even the cloudiness of the sky aided

the picture, which would have been seen to less advantage under a

glaring sunshine; yet, occasionally, the clouds broke away, and the sun

fell upon the scene with that splendour, which, if wholly wanting, would

have deprived the view of much of its effect.

The following is a copy of the memorial presented by the deputation:—

“TO HER MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY.

“_The loyal and humble memorial of the masters, mates, seamen,

shipwrights, and other naval artizans now assembled in London, and the

delegates representing the outports of the kingdom_.

“May it please tour Majesty,—We, your majesty’s loyal and dutiful

subjects, beg most respectfully to approach your majesty to lay

this humble memorial at the foot of the throne, believing that

the subject-matter of it involves not only the well-being of your

memorialists, but the security of your majesty’s dominions in every part

of the world.

“Your majesty’s memorialists have learnt with deep regret and

indignation that it is seriously contemplated to repeal the navigation

laws, the principle of which, for the protection and encouragement of

British ships and British seamen has been the undeviating policy of this

maritime state for nearly five hundred years.

“Your memorialists most respectfully and loyally, but firmly, as ardent

friends of their country, which they sincerely love, beg to represent to

your majesty that the repeal of the navigation laws will bring ruin on

your memorialists and the commercial marine of Britain.

“That by such a measure, admitting the cheap foreign ships, half-paid

and ill-fed foreign seamen, of which your memorialists have the most

correct personal knowledge, it will reduce, by a competition, the lowest

in the world, the condition of your memorialists, and their families,

and strike a blow at their very existence.

“That thus your memorialists will be driven to seek employment in

another state, speaking the same language and possessing similar laws,

where seamen’s interests and seamen’s rights are carefully attended to,

and where thousands of British seamen have already found protection—so

weakening your majesty’s empire, and giving additional strength to an

already great maritime competitor.

“Your memorialists, therefore, urgently pray your majesty to throw your

royal protection around your memorialists, and the commercial marine of

Great Britain, whose predecessors in all ages in time of war and danger,

your ancestors and this kingdom have ever found their best protection

and their greatest glory.

“God bless your majesty, and counsel you in wisdom, your petitioners

will ever pray.”

This demonstration, while it postponed the repeal of the navigation

laws, did not avert various modifications in our maritime code,

which were made in the ensuing year. The consequences were not so

disadvantageous as those who objected to the experiment feared, whereas

the abettors of repeal contend that free trade in ships and sailors has

proved, like free trade in corn, advantageous to the country.

Soon after the demonstration, Sir George Grey wrote to Mr. Mather,

assuring him that her majesty had received the memorial in the most

gracious manner.

REWARDS FOR INDIA SERVICE.

The conduct of the officers and men, who had served so gallantly in

the Punjaub, received the approval of the country, parliament, and the

throne. Medals were struck off for officers and privates alike, and

clasps appended for the separate battles of Sobraon, Aliwal, and

Perozashooshah. Honours of various kinds were conferred upon the

officers who had distinguished themselves. Lieutenant Edwardes was

promoted to the rank of major; but the Company’s being a seniority

service, the friends of routine vigorously opposed the gallant and

skilful young lieutenant’s promotion. He was also made a C.B. The

Company, in other and substantial forms, indicated its approval of this

officer’s very valuable services.

REFORM OF THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.

The syndicate, regarding the study of classics and mathematics as the

basis of a superior education, yet nevertheless was of opinion that

greater encouragement ought to be afforded to the pursuit of various

other branches of learning, which in the general community were

acquiring more importance, recommended various improvements in the

curriculum to that end. The study of mental and moral philosophy,

natural history, chemistry, &c, were in future to be stimulated, and

every facility afforded to those who desired high attainments in these

and some other branches of learning. This movement was not very popular

in the university, but gave great satisfaction to the general public.

THE COURT.

There were but few incidents which especially concerned the royal

family, but these were important. On the 18th of March her majesty gave

birth to a princess, her fourth daughter. The baptism took place on the

13th of May, in the private chapel at Buckingham Palace. The Archbishop

of Canterbury officiated. The Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, the Duchess

of Saxe-Meinengen, and the Grandduchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, were

the sponsors, represented by Prince Albert, the queen-dowager, and the

Duchess of Cambridge, as proxies. The name of the princess was Louisa

Carolina Alberta. The queen gave a state banquet in the picture-gallery,

in honour of the occasion, and afterwards an evening party..

On the 27th of May her Royal Highness the Princess Sophia died at

Kensington Palace. She expired in her arm-chair, painlessly, at the age

of seventy-one. She was the twelfth daughter of George III., and was

born on the 3rd of November, 1777.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

_West-India Interest_.—On the 3rd of February parliament reassembled

after the Christmas recess. When the usual preliminaries on those

occasions were over, the first matter of business was in connection

with the West India interest, which complained much of distress, and

attributed it to imperial legislation. Lord George Bentinck, who became

the leader of the West-India, as well as of the country party, moved

for a select committee of inquiry into the condition of the West-India

colonies. Mr. James Wilson and Mr. Bernai delivered themselves more

happily than the other honourable members who engaged in the discussion.

The motion was agreed to without a division. This was followed by a

motion on the part of the chancellor of the exchequer for a loan of

£200,000 to certain of the West-India colonies. On the 10th of June

Lord John Russell proposed certain remedial measures for the West-India

colonies, which gave rise to long and intensely bitter discussions; but

the government succeeded in carrying substantially through parliament

its proposals. During these discussions Mr. Hume made himself very

conspicuous as a champion of the West-India planters, and showed an

indifference to the rights, liberties, and interests of the labourers,

irreconcilable with correct views of civil and religious liberty, and

with the honourable member’s own professed liberalism where popular

claims were concerned. The part taken by Mr. Bright gave great offence

to the anti-slavery party, who considered it more consistent with his

interests as a Lancashire cottonspinner, than with his profession as

a quaker and an anti-slavery man. In the course of these debates, Lord

George Bentinck, in indignant terms, denounced Lord Grey, as the head of

the Colonial-office, for returning to parliament garbled extracts from

the reports and despatches of colonial governors. In the lords, Earl

Grey defended his conduct from this imputation; but Lord Stanley, with

uncommon eloquence, reiterated the charge. No public man ever came out

of a personal discussion less favourable than the noble minister for

the colonies on this occasion. The simple truth evoked was, that while

a committee of the house supposed that they were possessed of full and

complete reports, they were supplied with only curt and crude extracts,

calculated to place matters in the ministerial light, but not really

affording the committee the opinions of those whose views they purported

to be. This practice was, unfortunately, common with great officers of

state; but it seemed to be so much beneath the high reputation of Earl

Grey, that the public were astonished and scandalised. Few modern events

tended more to destroy the popular confidence in eminent public men, and

with the people Lord Grey never recovered his popularity. He had been

guilty of a trick which ought to have been punishable by parliament, for

it was incompatible with all just views of ministerial responsibility.

_Financial Measures of the Government_.—The Whigs had for some time

proved themselves to be indifferent financiers. In this respect Sir R.

Peel had for years maintained a reputation superior to that acquired

by any of the whig leaders. During this year the government was not

successful in reconciling either parliament or the country to their

plans of revenue. Their defeats were signal, and their victories very

hardly won. Soon after the meeting of parliament, Lord John Russell made

a financial statement, from which it appeared the income fell short of

the expenditure by nearly three millions. Lord John estimated that the

balance for the year 1848–9 would show a deficiency of more than two

millions. To meet these adverse balances upon two years, his lordship

proposed that the income-tax, which was to expire in April, should be

continued for five years, and be increased from sevenpence in the pound

to one shilling. This proposal was received by a burst of ironical

cheers, and other sounds indicative of the strong disapprobation of the

house. His lordship stated that Ireland would not be included in the

measure, as from her recent and present sufferings, she was unable

to bear increased taxation. This statement was received with the most

violent and vehement shouts of disapprobation from the English and

Scotch members on the ministerial side of the house, and the most

boisterous cheers from the Irish members on both sides—the opposition,

generally (with the exception of the exultant Irish conservative

members), remaining silent. The opposition to the income-tax out of

doors was very energetic, so that on the 28th of February the chancellor

of the exchequer came forward with an amended budget. He proposed that

the income-tax should continue at the same rate for three years. After

a warm parliamentary opposition, led by Mr. Hume, the government

resolutions were carried.

_Bill to legalise diplomatic intercourse with Rome_.—A bill for this

purpose was introduced in the lords by the Marquis of Lansdowne. It was

opposed by the Duke of Newcastle and the Bishop of Winchester with

great earnestness, the latter particularly objecting to the expression

“sovereign pontiff” in the bill. The influence of the Duke of

Wellington secured the second reading without a division. On the

committal of the bill, the illustrious duke proposed the substitution

of the words “sovereign of the Roman states” for those of “sovereign

pontiff.” The Whigs, always ready to conciliate their Roman Catholic

supporters at the expense of principle, offered the utmost resistance

to the duke’s proposal, which, in spite of his great authority in the

house, was only carried by a majority of three. In the commons the bill

was also carried, and by large majorities. The opposition to it was

badly led by Mr. Anstey; the chief champion of the measure was the

celebrated Irish orator, Richard Lalor Shiel. During these debates the

Whigs, and especially the members of government, adopted the vocabulary

of Roman Catholics, such as “the holy father,” “the holy see,” “the head

of the church,” &c. Mr. Shiel exceeded the bounds of prudence in this

respect. Still, while from some quarters a warm opposition out of doors

was offered, the great bulk of the people in Great Britain regarded the

progress of the measure with indifference.

_Bill for the Alteration op the Navigation Laws_.—It has been already

shown that the intention of the government to make some alteration in

these laws was the occasion of a fierce agitation, and of one of the

most remarkable popular demonstrations ever made in this country.

A variety of circumstances tended to determine the government. The

free-trade party insisted upon it as necessary to carry out their

principle; and the legislative council and assembly of Canada, had, in

1847, adopted a joint address to the queen, praying for the opening of

the St. Lawrence to all nations, and the abolition of the navigation

laws. From various other colonies remonstrances as to the operations

of these laws were constantly arriving at the Colonial office; foreign

powers had also expressed complaints and offered reciprocity. On these

grounds, as well as on sound principles of political economy, the

government pressed for a decision of the house against the continuance

of the state of the laws as they stood. Sir Robert Peel gave the

government a very effective support, declaring that these laws could not

possibly be preserved on their present basis. Mr. Hume, who was a very

forward champion of English radicalism and colonial monopoly, at first

objected to the new policy, but in equivocal and undecided terms, and

finally supported the government. Mr. Gladstone spoke as if for the

purpose of showing that he could consistently support either side, as he

practically opposed both. Mr. Cobden made a “peace-society” speech,

as illogical as it was inappropriate, in reply to which Mr. Disraeli

delivered an oration, the statistics of which were for him unusually

accurate; and confuted the allegations upon which Mr. Cobden based his

theory, that we did not require to nurse a marine for martial purposes.

Mr. Disraeli satirised with great effect the representations of the

_quies gentium sine armis_, which Mr. Cobden had been so much in the

habit of making before 1848. The appeal to the patriotism and glory of

the country, with which the honourable member concluded his speech,

was followed by the cheers of the whole house The government, however,

triumphed, but was deterred by the opposition out of doors, and the

feelings of the seamen, which their demonstration had so plainly

indicated, from pressing forward its views in the form of a bill.

Leave, however, was granted to bring in a bill on the subject, the

consideration of which was postponed to another session.

_Bill for the Removal of Jewish Disabilities_.—The impossibility of a

Jew sitting in parliament, in consequence of the form of oath containing

the expression “upon the true faith of a Christian,” gave much umbrage

to the Israelitish community, and the general public sympathised.

The election of Baron Rothschild, along with the premier, in the

representation of the city of London, drew attention to this subject

with revived force. The government brought in a bill to enable Jews to

sit in parliament, the house, in their case, dispensing with the form of

oath to which they were opposed. Mr. Augustus Stafford proposed that

the bill be read a second time that day six months. He was very ably

and eloquently answered by Mr. Monckton Milnes. After adjournments

and fierce discussions the government, as usual, triumphed by a large

majority. In the House of Lords it was especially opposed by the Earl of

Ellenborough. The most effective speech delivered by the opposition was

that made by the Bishop of Oxford; but it was marked by a party acrimony

so intense as to weaken much the force of its eloquence.

He accused the premier of having gained his return for the city by the

bribery to which rich Jews resorted on his behalf. This he found

it necessary to apologise for and withdraw. The bill was lost by a

considerable majority against it.

_Irish Encumbered Estates Bill_.—Very early in the session the

lord-chancellor introduced a measure to facilitate the sale of

encumbered estates in Ireland. This bill was resisted chiefly by those

it was designed most to benefit; it was, however, ultimately carried,

and under its administration a very large portion of landed property in

Ireland changed hands. The operation of the measure was beneficial, but

was not sufficiently sweeping in its powers, and failed to produce all

the good that a better concerted scheme might have worked out.

_Measures for Repressing Insurrection in Ireland_.—On other pages

a minute account of Irish suffering and sedition has been given, and

references were then made to the proceedings in parliament which had

reference to these transactions. On the 21st of July, Lord John Russell,

amidst the cheers of the house, gave notice of motion to enable the

lord-lieutenant of Ireland to arrest and detain persons suspected of

treasonable designs against her majesty’s throne and government. The

same night the Earl of Glengall brought under the notice of the peers

the existence of treasonable clubs, the manufacture of pikes and the

importation of fire-arms, the treasonable correspondence with France and

America, the denunciations made by the rebel press and rebel orators,

and the atrocious anti-social doctrines propounded—among others, the

right and duty of exterminating the eight thousand Protestant landlords.

Lord Brougham startled the house by reading a private letter, written to

a friend by Daniel O’Connell a short time before his death, in which he

declared it necessary for Ireland that coercion should be employed, and

that the suspension of the habeas corpus was, in his opinion, the best

and least oppressive way of putting down Irish disturbance. The publicly

expressed opinions of the agitator had been so very adverse to those

conveyed in this private communication, that its perusal caused a great

sensation in the house. As O’Connell’s writing was well known to Lord

Brougham, and most of the noble lords who sat around him, there could be

neither misapprehension nor imposition. The government measures were

opposed by some Irish members, but their opposition was deficient in

dignity and good sense. Mr. Fergus O’Connor so nearly approached treason

in one of his speeches, that the premier was obliged to interfere

formally, as did Sir Robert Peel on another occasion. Mr. Sharman

Crawford, with excellent temper, but substantially with absurdity and

impracticability, rivalled Mr. O’Connor in the earnestness of his

opposition. The measure of the ministry was carried, much to the

satisfaction of the country.

_Bill for the better Security of the Crown and Government_—This

measure was introduced by Sir George Grey, for the double purpose of

quelling Irish insurrection, and repressing the disturbances caused

by the English Chartists. One of the clauses of the bill was for the

suppression of “open and unadvised speakings.”

This gave offence to the liberal party, and there was a general

suspicion throughout the country that under the disguise of putting down

chartism, the government was solicitous to check the increase of public

meetings for reform in church and state, which became very numerous,

especially in the north of England, and most especially in Lancashire.

In those parts of the country, the disapprobation of the clause was very

strong, and occasion was taken at public meetings, even of a religious

nature, to denounce it. Mr. Hume, Mr. G. Thompson, and Mr. Fox argued

well against the “gagging clause” as it was called, and eloquently

pointed out the consequences which, upon a forced construction, might

ensue. Mr. M. J. O’Connell declared that some such measure was necessary

to the peace of Ireland, and he would give the government his support.

This circumstance, taken in connection with the private letter read by

Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, left a strong impression

among liberal members of the commons, and of the community, that the

O’Connells had been insincere in their professions to Ireland. The

press, both in the Old and Young Ireland interest, censured Mr. M. J.

O’Connell, in terms of bitter severity, and the cry was raised that the

younger O’Connells were more of place-hunters than patriots. After some

warm personal altercations, the bill passed.

Mr. Samuel Martin, afterwards Sir Samuel Martin, and a baron of the

exchequer, much increased his personal and legal reputation by opposing

“the gagging clause.” This, however, he did in a temper and mode which

secured the respect of the government as well as of the country.

_Alien removal Bill_.—The vast number of foreigners in England, and

especially in London, was at that time a source of uneasiness to

the well-disposed, and eventually became so to the government. These

immigrants so conducted themselves as to expose the country to the

danger of being embroiled with foreign powers; and they expressed openly

their sympathy with English Chartists and Irish Confederates. A bill

was brought into the House of Lords by the Marquis of Lansdowne, giving

power to the home secretary to remove foreigners whose presence might be

an inconvenience. Their removal was to be determined by their conduct

in England, not in the place from which they had come. This bill was

introduced in the middle of April. It readily passed the lords. On the

first of May it was introduced to the commons by the home secretary,

and after an opposition of great force, from Sir William Molesworth and

others, was carried.

_Motion for Extension of the Franchise, Triennial Parliaments,

and Apportionment of Members to Population_.—A very extensive and

influential agitation for these objects, headed by Mr. Hume, was

maintained throughout the country, by persons much opposed to the

socialist doctrines and riotous practices of the Chartists. On the 21st

of June, Mr. Hume moved a resolution declaring the opinion of the house

to be in favour of these measures, It was seconded by Dr. Bowring,

afterwards so famous in connection with the government of Hong-Kong.

Mr. Henry Drummond partly supported the views of those gentlemen,

but nevertheless exposed, in very able and eloquent terms, the

inconsistencies of Mr. Hume’s speech, who seemed to have no clear and

definite notions of the way in which his own theory should be carried

out. Lord John Russell opposed the resolution in a speech as anti-reform

in its character as if it had been made by Sir Charles Wetherell. Mr.

Fergus O’Connor bitterly opposed Mr. Hume’s motion, and afterwards voted

for it. Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Anstey offered to it an opposition foolish

and factious. Mr. Cobden supported Mr. Hume’s resolution, but not

upon any political principle, but exclusively in reference to his own

economical views, which he considered it would, if carried, promote.

Mr. Cobden was ably answered and exposed by Mr. Sidney Herbert. The

resolution found only eighty-four supporters in a house of four hundred

and thirty-five members.

_Discussions on Foreign Policy_.—The conduct of the government in

sending Lord Minto to Italy, as a sort of _quasi-envoy_, and its

interference in the quarrel between Sicily and Naples, led to long

discussions, in which Lord Stanley and Mr. Disraeli laboured with

unusual energy to gain a party victory over the government. The reply

of Lord Palmerston was, however, so luminous and convincing that it

dispelled all doubt of the wisdom of the policy which he had pursued.

His lordship resumed his seat amidst cheers from both sides of the

house—the government was triumphant. Nevertheless there existed

throughout the country a strong antipathy to the mission of Lord Minto;

nor did the public feel quite sure that the management of the Sicilian

affair was discreet—and it certainly was not successful.

The differences with Spain, in connection with the dismission of

our ambassador, gave rise to another warm debate. The wisdom of the

ambassador and of the foreign minister was impeached, while the conduct

of the Spanish government was deemed rash, unnecessary, and insulting.

The conduct of the government in exposing the country and its queen to

such insult was now called in question. Lord Stanley on the 6th of May,

called for the correspondence between Lord Palmerston, Mr. Bulwer, and

the Duke of Soto Mayer. In his speech, which was very eloquent, the

noble lord expressed the highest respect for the person and powers of

Lord Palmerston, but considered that, in this particular case, he had

erred. It was evoked, during the discussion, that the published despatch

of Lord Palmerston did not contain certain words used by the noble

foreign secretary, which gave to the ambassador a discretion as to the

propriety of making the communication dependent upon the tone of public

opinion in Spain, and the nature of events. It was generally considered

by the lords, that any indiscretion which had taken place was at the

embassy in Madrid, and not in the Foreign-office. The ambassador at

the court of Madrid had been appointed by the Earl of Aberdeen, whose

management of the Foreign-office was in every direction disastrous. The

Peel foreign policy required men of a certain stamp, whose agency little

suited the policy or character of Lord Palmerston’s foreign-office

administration. Mr. Bankes withdrew his motion, and Mr. Urquhart was

clamoured down in a subsequent attempt to address the house upon the

subject. That gentleman seized every opportunity, in and out of the

house, to vituperate Lord Palmerston, and persisted in reiterating as

facts, fallacies which had been many times exposed. The house and

the country became utterly weary of his absurd harangues, hence the

extraordinary ebullition of feeling among honourable members on that

occasion.

CLOSE OF THE SESSION.

On the 30th of August, Mr. Disraeli reviewed the labours of the session

after the manner so effectively observed by Lord Lyndhurst in the other

house. The oration was ingenious, and eloquently amusing; it entertained

honourable members very much, but it neither instructed nor edified

the commons or the country. Some curiosity was entertained as to how he

would notice the measure for removing Jewish disabilities; he declared

that he “personally approved of that measure, but condemned the policy

of government in bringing it forward without the hope of carrying it,

for by that means the cause lost ground.” This was mere pretence on the

part of the honourable and rhetorical leader of the opposition; he knew

well that, assured of the support of the commons, the government acted

justly to the country and to those aggrieved by bringing the measure

through the lower house, and throwing the responsibility of rejecting it

upon the lords. Besides, the election of Baron Rothschild for the city

of London constrained the government to adopt some course, and that

which they chose was the most dignified and constitutional. Mr.

Hume made some able strictures on the speech of “the reviewer of the

session,” and Lord John Russell replied to it at length with skill and

dignity. Nevertheless, the brilliant periods of “the oriental orator”

had their effect on both sides of the house; and Mr. Disraeli was on

the whole a more popular man, so far as admiration of his genius was

concerned.

On the 5th of September the house closed its labours. It had been one

of the longest sessions on record; but from various causes, such as the

indifferent management of the government, the failure of the chancellor

of the exchequer, the obstructions offered by the opposition, and the

disturbed state of public affairs, very little was accomplished. Her

majesty prorogued parliament in person in the new chamber of peers,

which was made ready for the occasion. The Dukes of Nemours and

Joinville (sons of the fallen French monarch) were present. The usual

formalities on these occasions took place, rendered remarkable only by

the congratulations expressed in the address to her majesty, delivered

by the speaker of the House of Commons, on the loyalty of her majesty’s

people, notwithstanding the efforts of some “misguided men.” Her

majesty’s speech briefly, and in the usual common-place terms, referred

to the various legislative measures of the session, and she alluded,

in terms of strong approbation, to the conduct of the lord-lieutenant of

Ireland (the Earl of Clarendon), and to the loyalty of her people, in

promptly suppressing the efforts of evil-disposed persons to disturb the

public peace, for purposes of malice and pillage. The parliament stood

prorogued to the 2nd of November.

The wearied members, after ten months’ almost unremitting and patient

exertions, went to the moors, the seaside, and upon excursions of

pleasure at home and abroad, to prepare themselves for renewed labour.

Many went to Paris, to study the progress of the revolution there,

and the practical working of those recent changes which had shaken the

world. Probably that capital was never before, at one time, visited by

so many English senators.

Although tranquillity was not perfectly established in either England

or Ireland, and there was rioting in the former and assassination in the

latter, yet the executive was left strong to cope with any old or new

form of turbulence and crime, and the confidence of parliament and

people was firm, that the executive would be found equal to any

emergencies that might arise.

DEATHS OF EMINENT PERSONS.

Many persons celebrated in arts and arms were removed by death in this

eventful year. On the 6th of January the country lost the services of

Sir Thomas Usher, C.B., K.C.H., Rear-admiral of the White, and naval

commanderin-chief on the Irish station. This gallant sailor was born

near Dublin, in the year 1779, and was said to have been a descendant of

the great Archbishop of Armagh, whose name he bore. He was the officer

who, when a post-captain, brought the great Napoleon to Elba after his

abdication. The day following saw the decease of Admiral Sir Robert

Laurie, who had also seen much service.

On the 19th of January, at Bradenham House, Buckinghamshire, died

Isaac Disraeli, Esq., aged eighty-two. This gentleman was the son of a

Venetian merchant, who had long been settled in this country, and was

the father of Benjamin Disraeli, who occupies so important a place

in the politics and literature of the day. Mr. Isaac Disraeli was a

literary man of much eminence, his chief work, “The Curiosities of

Literature,” having won for him a great reputation. In his day, literary

history and criticism were but little valued, and he conduced much to a

higher appreciation of that department of letters. He was the author

of many pieces of great merit in the periodicals of the day. He also

published many separate treatises which met with great public favour,

such as “A Dissertation on Anecdotes,” “Essay on the Manners and Genius

of the Literary Character,” “Miscellanies, or Literary Recreations,”

“Calamities of Authors; including some Inquiries respecting their Moral

and Literary Characters,” “Quarrels of Authors, or some Memoirs for our

Literary History; including Specimens of Controversy to the Reign of

Elizabeth,” “Inquiry into the Literary and Political Character of King

James the First,” “Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles the

First,”—the University of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of a

doctor of the civil law for this production, which it absurdly called

“Optimi regis, optimo defensori” “Amenities of Literature,”—this work

he wrote when blind, his daughter acting as his amanuensis; he notices

eloquently and feelingly her devoted services. Mr. Disraeli was the

friend, of literary merit in the obscure and unfortunate, in which he

was the rival of Sir Robert Peel, as his son Benjamin became in the

career of parliamentary oratory and politics. He married, in 1802, Miss

Basseni, of Brighton, aunt to the celebrated architect Basseni, and who

became the mother of the celebrated leader of the tory and protection

party in the commons, after the decease of his less able predecessor,

Lord George Bentinck. Few men ever pursued literature, for its own sake,

with more heartiness than Isaac Disraeli. It was no wonder that his son

should set out in life with the ambition of writing a great book, and

being a great orator—an ambition which can seldom be realised by the

same man, requiring mental qualities so different.

At Tunbridge Wells, in his eighty-fifth year, died General Frederick

Maitland, who had seen many fields of war, and had always distinguished

himself. During this month, in which death was so busy with eminent

persons, especially in the profession of arms, there died also,

at Edinburgh, Pringle Stoddardt, Rear-admiral of the White, and

Lieutenant-general Sir John Maclean, officers who had served in almost

every clime, and always with honour.

The eminent persons who died in February were Major-general Carlo

Joseph Doyle; Major-general William Goodday Scott, Governor of Quebec;

Lieutenant-general Sir Thomas Reynel, the sixth baronet of the kingdom

of Ireland, K.C.B., and K.C.H.; Dr. Hamley, Archbishop of Canterbury,

and primate of all England; the Honourable James William King,

Rear-admiral of the Red, seventh son of the second Earl of Kingstown, of

Mitchelston Castle, Ireland; the Right Honourable Lord Graville

Charles Henry Somerset, a privy-councillor, and M.P. for Monmouthshire;

Rear-admiral Inglefield.

In March, Rear-admiral Warren; Major-general Sir W. Gosset, Bart.,

Serjeant-at-arms attending the House of Commons—he was a native of

Jersey, and had seen some active service; at Aix-la-Chapelle, John

Burke, Esq., the compiler of the “Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary

of the Peerage and Baronetage of the United Kingdom,” “The Commoners of

Great Britain,” “A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the landed

gentry of Great Britain and Ireland,” “A Genealogical and Heraldic

History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England,” “A general

Armoury of England, Scotland, and Ireland,” republished under the

title of “Burke’s Encyclopaedia of Heraldry,” “Heraldic Illustrations,

comprising the Armorial Bearings of all the principal Families of the

Empire, with Pedigrees and Annotations,” “The Royal Families of England,

Scotland, and Wales, and the Families descended from them.” This learned

and laboriously-compiled collection of heraldic works gained for the

author great and well-merited fame.

At Brompton, a western suburb of the great metropolis, died Madame

Guizot, at the age of eighty-three. This lady was a native of France,

but joined her son, who was exiled with his king, Louis Philippe, whom

he had served too faithfully, but faithlessly to his country. Madame

Guizot was a lady of indomitable will, and abounding charity; she was

most remarkable for her unconquerable and zealous attachment to the

Protestant Church of France.

In April several very eminent persons were removed by death: among them

was Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick, LL.D., F.S.A. He was the author of several

works of considerable reputation: “The History and Antiquities of the

County of Cardigan;” he united with Captain Smith in producing a book on

the subject of the costume of the early inhabitants of these islands. He

also published “A critical Inquiry into ancient Armour as it existed

in Europe, but particularly in England, from the Norman Conquest to the

Reign of King Charles the First, with a Glossary of Military Terms

of the Middle Ages.” Several arch geological works were subsequently

written by him, and he left behind him the reputation of a profound

antiquarian.

In May, the death of some valuable persons took place. Baron Ashburton,

who, as a cabinet minister and a financier, and in one instance as a

negotiator, earned distinction. Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, of Haddington,

distinguished as a writer, especially in the region of fiction; also Sir

William Hotham, Admiral of the Red.

June saw an equal number of famous men laid low. Among them none was

more remarkable than Tom Steele, an ardent follower of O’Connell, and

his “head pacificator.” Steele was a gentleman and a Protestant; he had

studied with great success at Cambridge University, and was a proficient

in mathematics. He began life with bright prospects; talents, education,

connections, and property—all were his. He wrecked all in the service

of Ireland, as he believed—in the service of an Irish faction, as the

event proved. Steele burned with indignation at the disabilities of his

Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, and joined in every exertion to obtain

them justice. He conscientiously believed that Ireland could never

prosper while in connection with England, and he struggled for their

separation. O’Connell and his party had ulterior objects—the ascendancy

of their religion, and the persecution of Protestants; but Steele’s

honest nature refused to believe what was so opposed to their

professions, notwithstanding the warnings which he received from many

whose experience of that party, and of Ireland, qualified them to offer

him counsel. He was only undeceived shortly before his death, which took

place at Peel’s Coffee House, Fleet Street, London, where he had taken

up his abode in sickness and in poverty, his fortune and his heart

broken. He felt bitterly the desertion of his old confederates, and much

bitter censure has been heaped upon the Irish Catholic and Repeal party,

for thus abandoning the man they had flattered and used when he was

in the heyday of his prosperity. It must be admitted that every one in

Ireland said “poor Tom Steele!” when his sorrows were heard of, and

his death was announced; but none came to the rescue, and few words of

sympathy were afforded to him. It is but just to say that Ireland was

at that time in the throes of a revolutionary struggle, and all were

forgotten who dropped for a moment out of public view. Besides, the

distress of the country spread alarm and grief on every side. These

circumstances will, in great measure, account for the neglect which

Ireland showed to her sinking patriot. But a similar excuse cannot be

offered on behalf of the eminent and wealthy Roman Catholics of England,

of Irish repeal members of parliament, and of other prosperous Irishmen

in England attached to that party. As soon as the distress of the brave

and patriotic man was known to his former opponents, English and Irish,

they literally rushed to his relief, for all believed him to be an

honest man and a pure patriot. Among the first in the work of kindness

was Lord Brougham, an inflexible and terrible opponent. May the

generosity of the deed be ever recorded to his honour! Colonel Perceval,

one of the chief ringleaders of the Irish Orangemen was another; he

sought the bedside of the sufferer, and consoled his closing hours.

Proffers of aid on a large scale were made by his old opponents; but the

stern and disinterested man died in his poverty, accepting only those

acts which aided and soothed the closing scene. It was bitterly but

too justly said by an eloquent writer, an old opponent of poor Steele,

“Ireland gave him words, England deeds; Ireland took his life, England

gave him a grave.”

In August, Captain Marryat of the royal navy, whose early life had

been full of heroic adventure, and whose latter days were honoured by

successful authorship. His “Diary in America” gave just displeasure to

the American people, and betrayed a national invidiousness unworthy of a

literary man and a British naval officer.

Mr. Edward Baines, the proprietor of the _Leeds Mercury_, and for many

years M.P. for Leeds. This indefatigable and able man entered the town

of Leeds a poor printer, and earned his first wages there through the

influence of Mr. Obadiah Williams, a cloth manufacturer, a man of shrewd

judgment of character, and whose benevolent disposition prompted

him continually to generous actions. Mr. Baines worked as a

journeyman-printer on the _Leeds Mercury_, then a mere local paper; he

ultimately became the proprietor, and under his management it became one

of the most ably conducted papers in the kingdom, and had a wide-spread

circulation. Mr. Baines represented Leeds as successor to Mr. Macaulay,

and as representative of that town was one of the most useful members of

parliament. He was not a man of refined bearing or mental cultivation;

as a public speaker he was ungainly in manner, his pronunciation common

and provincial, his voice monotonous, and his style dry and common-place;

but he was serviceable, practical, pertinent, experienced; and the

soundness of his judgment, and the weight of his character, gave force

to what he said. His son, Matthew Baines, Esq., a barrister, became a

member of the cabinet, and another son, Edward, became proprietor of the

_Leeds Mercury_, and an enlightened leader of the dissenters of the west

riding of York. He sustained the business reputation of the paper,

after his father’s decease, and raised it to a much higher place as a

literary journal. Few good men have had sons so worthy of their sire.

In August also died George Stephenson, Knight of the Order of Leopold,

F.B.S., the originator of our railway system. This eminent engineer is

a rare example of a self-taught genius. Born of parents too poor to

give him any schooling, at eighteen years of age, when full grown, and

following the occupation of a fireman, he was not ashamed to

commence his education at an evening school. His steady industry and

unconquerable perseverance ultimately won for him a position second to

none in his profession. Looking at the influence of his labours on

the whole human race, there are few names on the pages of history so

pre-eminent as that of George Stephenson.

On the 21st of September, Lord William George Frederick Cavendish

Bentinck, M.P. for Lynn, was suddenly removed by death. He was found

dead in the grounds where he had been walking alone. As leader of the

opposition, his death, so unexpected and so painfully sudden, made a

great sensation.

In November Lord Melbourne, who had filled the office of premier in the

beginning of her majesty’s reign, departed this life. The queen was much

indebted to the courtly and constitutional skill of this nobleman in

her first essays of government. He was her majesty’s faithful subject,

minister, and friend, and she was justly much attached to her preceptor.

He was too indolent, and too little acquainted with the tone and temper

of the whole people for the office of premier. He was, however, a man

of superior intellect and extensive culture, and was well versed in

constitutional law.

Dr. James Pritchard, the celebrated naturalist and ethnologist, died in

this month.

The death of Colonel Sir Frederick Augustus D’Esté, K.C.B., son of the

Duke of Sussex by Lady Augustus Murray, daughter of the Earl of Dunmore,

was the last decease of a remarkable person publicly noted in this year.

The marriage of his royal highness without the consent of the crown

rendered it invalid, and Sir Augustus was unable to obtain the

inheritance or title of his father.

Thus terminated the events of 1848 which admit of record in a work like

the present. The year expired leaving England on the whole stronger, and

more confident in her stability and power. The whirlwind which had swept

over the nations, shaking down the trophies and glories of antiquity

which had remained after the first great French revolution, did not

affect England—she heard its fury, but felt not its power.

CHAPTER LXI.

{VICTORIA. 1849}

Colonial Affairs..... Termination of the War in the

Punjaub..... Operations against Borneo Pirates, and in the

Chinese Seas..... Cape of Good Hope; Agitation against

making it a Penal Colony..... Canada: Disturbances.....

West Indies: Economical Discussions; Discontent of the

Planters..... Ionian Isles: Insurrection..... Foreign

Affairs..... General State of the Continent, and Relations

to England..... Naples and Sicily: Interference of England

and France..... Demand upon Turkey by Russia and Austria

for Extradition of Refugees; Interposition of England.....

Ireland: Potato Blight; Great Distress of the People;

Cholera; Political Agitation; Continuance of Crime and

Outrage..... Great Britain: Prevalence of Cholera; State

of Trade and Agriculture; Parliamentary Debates; Deaths of

Eminent Persons.

{1849}

The year 1849 was one of more importance to continental Europe than to

the nations of any other portion of the world. It was, however, a year

of considerable events for the British empire. In India a sanguinary

war was brought to a successful termination, and a large and fertile

territory added to the British dominions. At the Cape of Good Hope the

colonists successfully resisted the authority of the mother country.

In Canada, insurrectionary violence interrupted the usual order of

government. In Cephalonia the disloyalty and fanaticism of the Greek

population found violent vent, and generally the greatest circumspection

was required on the part of the home government in reference to our

vast colonial empire. In foreign affairs England preserved a dignified

non-interference, except in the case of Naples and Sicily, where her

interposition brought neither honour nor profit. In the case of Turkey

it was otherwise; the advice tendered to the Porte by the British

ambassador averted conflict, and saved an ancient ally from humiliation.

The chief difficulty of the empire was Ireland. Constitutional

government was there impossible, crime was rampant, distress

all-penetrating, and the people seditious. At home the visitation of a

fearful pestilence caused distress and sorrow, while party fury rent the

parliament and disturbed the repose of the country. Through every trial

to which she was put, the genius and resolution of England conducted

her, under the care and blessing of Him who can elevate and abase

empires, and the great law of whose moral government is, “Righteousness

exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.”

PROSECUTION OF THE WAR IN INDIA, AND ANNEXATION OF THE PUNJAUB.

The general consequences of the battle of Chillianwallah (an account of

which engagement concluded our relation of the war in India, in the

last chapter) were the encouragement of the Sikh sirdars, soldiery,

and people, and the renewal of exertion on the part of the civil and

military authorities of India for the vigorous continuance of the war.

In England the news of the battle produced sensations of alarm, and

indignant dissatisfaction. In parliament the subject was mooted angrily,

not only by the opposition, but by the more radical supporters of

the government. Lord John Russell, however, quieted many fears by

announcing, which he did in his most pompous manner, that Sir Charles

Napier had been selected to command the army in India. This was received

with loud cheers and every demonstration of confidence. Had Lord John

stated that an army of thirty thousand European soldiers was about to be

dispatched to save the glory of the British arms in India, the tidings

could not have inspired a sense of security more complete than appeared

to be entertained by the house from the announcement of this one name.

Sir Charles had retired from the government of Scinde, having quarrelled

with the Company and the governor-general. No two human beings could

be assorted with less likelihood of concord than Lord Dalhousie and

Sir Charles Napier. With Lord Hardinge the eccentric general could have

agreed better; but he was a man so much more just than that nobleman,

and so much more able and original in his conceptions as a military man

and a statesman, that they also would have been very ill-assorted. Sir

Charles Napier, during his government of Scinde, had acquired such a

knowledge of the government of India, civil and military, and differed

so widely from the principles applied to that government, that there

could be little hope of his long retaining any command or government in

India. Sir Charles had complained warmly of the way in which the army of

India was officered; of the love of ease, and the indulgence in luxury

which had begun to characterise the officers of that service; of the

little sympathy with their men which the officers of some portions of

the Company’s troops betrayed; and of the mode of recruiting, especially

in selecting soldiers from the Brahmin caste, rather than from

Ghoorkhas, Beloochees, and low-caste Hindoos. These views were so

distasteful to the governor-general and chief officers of state in

India, that the gallant general was set down as a very troublesome

fellow, whose presence in India was more mischievous than useful, who

prided himself more on Meannee than Scinde was worth, and whose essays

of government there were odd, oppressive, and out of the routine

of Indian government. Sir Charles had given just cause for as many

complaints against himself as he had made of others; this the government

at home knew well; but the board of control, and the board of directors

also, felt that the public dissatisfaction caused by the battle of

Chillianwallah, must be soothed, and knowing the supreme confidence

which the public felt in the eccentric but heroic and intellectual

general, they nominated him to the post of commander-in-chief of the

army in India. Sir Charles was very unwilling to accept this command,

and it was alleged that he only yielded to the importunities of his

friend, the Duke of Wellington, then commander-in-chief of the army,

who was represented as having said, “Either you go, or I go.” This high

compliment was so felt by the sturdy old warrior, that he is said to

have instantly acquiesced. The opinions of this brave chief on Indian

affairs were much canvassed at the time, and much more canvassed since.

Circumstances arose to justify many of them, and in few instances did

his predictions fail. It was supposed that the Punjaub would be the

earliest scene of his exploits, and concerning it he thus expressed

himself:—“A large country full of rivers, mountains, climates, plains,

deserts, supplies scarce, and a hostile, well-armed, brave people,

apparently resolved to wage a partizan warfare.” The population was,

on the whole, better inclined to us than the army, nor did they show so

much a disposition to wage what is called a partizan war, as to risk

the fate of their country and the endurance of their power upon regular

warfare, conducted in well-arranged campaigns and general battle. So far

Sir Charles somewhat mistook the people against whom he was sent out as

the especial champion of his country, but whom he was never destined to

encounter.

His opinion on the constitution of the army has been already glanced at.

Concerning its dangers in a campaign, involving long marches and distant

operations, he thus wrote:—“Suppose the army in march, and to consist

of ten thousand fighting men, and that an enemy attacks the fighting

men and camp followers, amounting in the mass to forty thousand or

sixty thousand men, of which thirty thousand or fifty thousand are

unorganised, unmanageable camp-followers; suppose them to be attacked

suddenly, and that when so attacked, they all rush back upon the column

of fighting men, as they always do, and always will do, until well

organised. When you have painted this pretty picture in your mind—this

picture of noise, confusion, danger, and slaughter—I will ask you how

the column of ten thousand fighting men are to fight? borne down by

multitudes—confused by noise—how are they to form in order of battle?

If once, by the exertion of their officers, they do form, how are they

to fire?—on their own followers! their own animals! What may happen no

one can tell; but human foresight says that the whole will stand a fair

chance of being utterly defeated. It is said that this took place, and

caused, in a great measure, the Cabul massacre. I can easily believe

it.”

The following warnings were prophetic:—“Let the army be in every way

worthy of the empire that it won and holds—holds by _discipline!_ Let

not the word become an empty boast. Let it not lose its reality. Let not

victory lull our soldiers to sleep. Let every British officer recollect

that powerful nations surround our Indian empire; that they are rapidly

acquiring our military system, our tactics, our arms. Let him compare

our earlier battles with our last—Plassey with Ferozashooshah and

Sobraon—setting our losses in killed and wounded at each battle in

juxta-position. Let us look to these matters, that we may not have to

exclaim with Pyrrhus at Asculum, ‘Another such victory will undo us!’”

But notwithstanding the dangers which were thus the subject of the

military seer’s discourse, he had a high opinion of the Indian army as

a whole, as the following quotation proves:—“The Indian army, when well

commanded is indomitable: it is capable of subjugating all the countries

between the Black and Yellow Seas. The population from which it is drawn

is so numerous and warlike—the land so wealthy—that the noble

Indian army may vie with any force existing, in numbers, courage,

and equipment. Its discipline and intelligence are in proportion. The

European officers are all English, Irish, and Scotch gentlemen, whose

honour and courage have created in their troops such an intrepid spirit

as to render India secure against every evil from which an army can

protect a country.”

Notwithstanding the supposed necessity of Sir Charles Napier’s

appointment, no great dispatch was used in his departure, and the public

began to suppose that the object of the government in this delay was to

gain time for Lord Gough to redeem his honour. This increased the public

irritation, which was exasperated by the private letters that reached

England from Lahore, and from Lord Gough’s own camp. These letters led

the English public to believe that a general panic prevailed, not only

in the Punjaub, but at the head-quarters of Lord Gough’s army. The

following are specimens of the letters, which, on their arrival in

England, so disturbed the public mind:—

“I have much pleasure in giving you the following latest information

from the commander-in-chief’s camp, dated 16th instant; it indeed has

been a sad business, and it is impossible to predict when our mishaps,

and such fearful butchery and wanton sacrifice of life will end or stop,

under such a commander-in-chief. Unless the governor-general recalls Lord

Gough to the provinces, the chances ate he will not only lose the

splendid army under his command, which he has already done his best to

cripple and weaken, but he will so compromise the government that the

most serious apprehension may be entertained as to the ultimate result

of this contest.

“I told you Gholab Singh had an army of ten thousand men not far in

advance of the commander-in-chief’s camp, doing nothing, but alive and

awake to take every advantage of the first serious mishap that might

occur to our army under its present chief; in addition to which Dost

Mohammed has a force of ten thousand to twelve thousand Affghans, at

a short distance from Attock, ready to co-operate with Chuttur Singh.

Gholab. Singh has fourteen pieces of cannon with his ten thousand men,

but he is not present in person; the wary chief is abiding his time in

the hills; he has, however, deputed a vakeel to offer a nuzzur at Lahore

to our resident; but deep craftiness and the most wily treachery are at

the bottom of this proceeding. The vakeel has been instructed to apprise

his master of every single occurrence that takes place at Lahore, and

to keep him well informed of all movements on our part. It is extremely

strange our government will not believe in the treacherous intentions of

Gholab Singh.

“There are from thirty to forty thousand men in arms leagued against

our power and supremacy north of the Jhelum, with a park of artillery,

varying, according to reports, from fifty to seventy guns.