The year did not begin or end very prosperously in business and monetary

matters. The successive blights of the potatoe crop, the advances to

Ireland, the ruinous bankruptcies of 1848, the enormous railway

calls, the many failures upon the continent of both banking-houses

and commercial establishments, by which English firms sustained great

losses, and the continued disturbance of commercial relations in

consequence of the civil conflicts on the continent, were causes

sufficiently numerous and potent to create and sustain apprehension,

and embarrass the usual proceedings of trade. Still money flowed

into England from continental Europe, as the place of security which,

whatever might betide the world, was supposed to be beyond the range of

political convulsion. Thus capital was plentiful, and money was easily

obtained by all creditable establishments. The peace, good order,

and constitutional liberty by which these blessings were established,

afforded England a source of prosperity amidst so much that was

calculated to impoverish. The wrecks of many nations floated around

her shores, but within her borders all was safe; the shadow of the

thundercloud passed over her, and she heard its peals, as it burst in

lightning and torrent on less favoured lands.

THE CHOLERA.

There was one calamity, which befel so many nations, from which England

was not spared. The mysterious cholera, which appeared in 1848 in some

places, broke out in the autumn of this year with surprising fury. Its

ravages were far more extensively fatal than in 1832. In 1832 the number

attacked in London was 14,154, and the number of those who fell victims

was 6729. In 1848–49, the number attacked exceeded 30,000, and

nearly half the number perished. In 1832, one out of every 250 of the

population died; in 1848–49, one out of every 150. More than 80,000

persons died of cholera and diarrhoea in Great Britain during the latter

period. The disease spared neither sex nor age. It was found in London

to prevail most near the banks of the Thames, and on the south side

of the river, where the ground was lower and worse drained than on the

north. In the higher grounds, north and south, the disease inflicted but

little injury. Where the water supply was from the less pure portions of

the Thames, the havoc was greater than where it was drawn from a portion

of the river further up, or from other sources. The disease prevailed

most during hot weather both in Great Britain and Ireland. The faculty

was as little able to treat it as when it first appeared; and there was

a disposition to rely too much on general sanitary measures, without

regard to the specific virus of the disease.

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF 1849—OPENING OF THE SESSION.

On the second of February the queen in person opened a new session. Her

majesty’s speech referred to most great matters which had occurred in

the latter part of 1848, and to such subjects as formed the leading

features of the policy of the ministry for 1849. Her majesty especially

recommended an alteration in the navigation laws, and she asked for

further administrative power to preserve order in Ireland. The general

tone and tenor of the speech were congratulatory. Lord Stanley, in the

lords, moved an amendment to the usual address, which represented that

the state of the country was not such as to call for or justify an

address pervaded by a spirit of gratulation. The amendment was rejected,

but only by a majority of two. In the commons Mr. Disraeli moved an

amendment upon the address, similar to that which Lord Stanley had

proposed in the lords, and with no better success. Mr. Disraeli

especially contended for keeping up a much larger fleet and army than

the government proposed. His arguments were singularly opposed to those

which, without any professed change of principle, he used eight years

afterwards, against the government of Lord Palmerston, for refusing to

reduce the army and navy when serious perils demanded their increase in

the judgment of that astute and experienced minister. Mr. Grattan, son

of the distinguished Irishman who assisted Irish independence in 1782,

proposed an amendment adverse to the ministerial policy for Ireland, but

it was rejected in a very decisive manner. The temper of the house, as

displayed towards Mr. Grattan, was harsh, invidiously national on all

sides, and especially offensive to the popular party in Ireland.

REPEAL OF THE NAVIGATION LAWS.

On the 14th of February Mr. Labouchere renewed the motion for the repeal

of the navigation laws, which had been defeated the previous year by the

agitation of the shipowners and sailors, particularly those of the Tyne,

under the leadership of James Mather, Esq., of South Shields. On the

9th of March the second reading came on, and was met by an amendment

proposed by Mr. Hemes, such as is usually offered in order to defeat

a bill. This amendment was negatived, in a house of four hundred and

seventy-six members, by a majority of fifty-six. The government was much

mortified that the minority was so very considerable. In committee Mr.

Labouchere modified the bill in a manner which proved the want of proper

forethought and decided policy in its preparation. This was the

case with most whig measures. On the 23rd of April Mr. Hemes again

endeavoured to defeat the bill, securing a very large minority, which

further annoyed the ministry, but failed to obstruct the progress of the

measure. In the lords the bill was opposed vehemently by Lord Brougham,

who denied that it was based upon the principles of free trade. By a

majority of ten only the government succeeded in carrying it, and it

was generally believed that it would have been lost, only that the

government raised a report of intended resignation if the bill had

been lost. This decided the opposition of Lord Brougham, who desired

to produce such a result, and influence the doubtful among the

Conservatives, as they were not prepared at that moment to resume the

reins of power. The Bishop of Oxford proposed an amendment intended, by

securing the anti-slavery lords, to defeat the measure by a “side wind;”

but his object was transparent, and his end was not attained. The bill

was carried, and ordered to take effect from the beginning of 1850.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS—MOTION FOR GOVERNMENTAL RELIEF.

The agricultural interest was as discontented as it had been since the

repeal of the corn-laws. It was still hoped that the greater part of

the public burdens would be shifted to the shoulders of the commercial

middle classes; and the party calling itself “the agricultural

interest,” but in reality adverse to the prosperity of the farmers and

farm-labourers, clamoured for public relief. Mr. Disraeli had now fairly

succeeded Lord George Bentinck as the leader, and he on the 5th of March

proposed a resolution for a committee of the whole house, to consider

such measures as might relieve the owners and occupiers of real

property, and establish a more equitable apportionment of the public

burdens. Sir Charles Wood, in an awkward and clumsy speech, confuted Mr.

Disraeli, no difficult matter even in such a speech, for the honourable

leader of “the country party” had collected his statistics carelessly,

and used them illogically. His speech was also deficient in the

eloquence so striking generally in his elaborate orations. It failed to

produce any effect upon any party, even upon his own, and he could

only muster the support of seventy members against three hundred and

ninety-four. This motion greatly damaged the prestige of Mr. Disraeli:

it was thought that he was not competent to lead a great party, and

but for the paucity of talent in the conservative ranks, his leadership

would have immediately terminated. In the country generally, but

especially in the large cities and manufacturing districts, the speech

excited a stronger political hostility to Mr. Disraeli than had before

prevailed.

IRELAND.

A very considerable portion of the session was occupied by the affairs

of Ireland. Under the section devoted to the concerns of that country

such notice was taken of the proceedings in parliament bearing reference

to her, as makes it unnecessary to enter at length into their record in

this place. Early in the session the government requested the house

to renew the act for the suspension of Habeas Corpus: it was granted.

Measures bearing upon the poor-laws, and the commercial state of the

country, were subsequently discussed, the government always succeeding

in obtaining the support of the house. A bill for facilitating the

transfer of encumbered estates was introduced on the 26th of April;

its object was, chiefly, to amend a similar act of 1848, which had

been found to a great extent impracticable, the usual fate of most whig

measures. The new bill was carried; but while it did much good, it was

sometimes an instrument of injustice, very imperfectly answered its

own objects, and was not conceived or framed in a comprehensive or

statesman-like spirit. The great changes which its abettors predicted it

would create in the social condition of Ireland were not realized. The

estates brought into the court were often purchased by their former

owners, or occupiers, or by other Irish landowners, who borrowed money

for the purchase at a heavy interest, on the credit of the estates

themselves, which soon became as much encumbered as they had been

before. English companies and assurance offices were also purchasers:

their management was generally bad, expending large sums without

obtaining an adequate return. Ignorance of the habits of the people

caused much loss to such occupiers, and a species of quackery in

cultivation sprung up which was injurious to the interests of the owners

and of the country.

VOTE OF THANKS TO THE ARMY IN INDIA.

Votes of thanks to the troops engaged in the war of the Punjaub were

proposed and carried on the 24th of April. These were advocated with

eloquence, and conceded with enthusiasm. Sir Robert Peel passed an

eloquent eulogy on Lord Gough, which was as just to the brave old

veteran, after having served his country with honour for fifty-six

years, as it was creditable to the impartiality, temper, and talent of

Sir Robert.

MR. COBDEN’S MOTION FOR REDUCING THE ARMY AND NAVY.

The Whigs were not good financiers. Sir Robert Peel excelled his

contemporaries, and more especially his opponents, in the practicability

of his financial arrangements. The government had been placed in

circumstances of great difficulty by events purely of a providential

nature; but there existed a general impression that they did not

meet the emergency with skill. A society called the Financial Reform

Association grew into existence in consequence of this feeling. Its

head-quarters was at Liverpool. Many important facts were brought to

light by it, and much information extended, but there was a want of

tact in the management which defeated these laudable and enlightened

exertions. The society had a singular fatality for urging particular

measures precisely at the juncture when there was least likelihood of

gaining the ear of either the public or the legislature. Mr. Cobden

made himself conspicuous in this agitation, and began that career of

impracticability which gradually limited his public usefulness, and

at last expelled him from parliament. When the whig budget came on

for discussion, Mr. Cobden was agitating a scheme for returning to the

expenditure of 1835, by which he alleged ten millions annually would

have been saved. The state of Ireland and the continent rendered it

unlikely that the country would consent to any very great reduction in

its military and naval defences, yet it was in these departments Mr.

Cobden contemplated his economical experiments. On the 26th of February

he submitted a motion to the house embodying the principles for which he

had contended at public meetings. The chancellor of the exchequer showed

that no reductions which even Mr. Cobden himself dare submit to the

house would reduce the national expenditure to the proposed extent, and

proved that the defence of the commerce and independence of the country

forbade any such reduction. Mr. Cobden only obtained seventy-seven to

support him, in a house of three hundred and fifty-three members. This

did not arise from any indisposition to reduce the public burdens, but

from a conviction that Mr. Cobden rested his motion upon false data,

and that his scheme was utterly inapplicable to the circumstances of the

times.

THE BUDGET.

On the 29th of June the chancellor of the exchequer brought forward

his budget. He estimated the ordinary income at £51,550,000, and the

extraordinary income at £580,000. The expenditure he estimated at

£53,287,000. He contemplated a surplus income for the ensuing year of

about three quarters of a million sterling. The statement was received

favourably, but a general impression existed that the chancellor might

have carried retrenchment much farther. The supplies, however, were

granted upon the basis of the statement offered.

MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE NATION

On the 2nd of July Mr. Disraeli moved for a select committee on the

state of the nation. He did not expect that the government would

concede, or the house support it; but he made it the occasion for a

general attack upon the whig policy, and especially the free-trade

policy which that party had originated in parliament, although Sir

Robert Peel, their successful rival in this department, carried away the

credit of having done so. The speech of Mr. Disraeli was rhetorically,

and only rhetorically, successful. He reenumerated the misfortunes which

befel Ireland and the colonies during the three previous years, and all

the monetary difficulties which befel England, and attributed them, with

dextrous dishonesty, to whig impolicy and free trade. These calamities,

which were chiefly caused by delaying free trade too long, he ascribed

to that measure. The perverted ingenuity thus displayed did not serve

his party or convince his opponents. He was opposed in a blunt and

candid speech by Mr. Hume, and in one of the happiest orations ever

delivered by Sir Robert Peel. Lord John Russell also made an effective

reply. Mr. Disraeli received small support from his followers. If the

chief was not equal to the exigencies of the party, neither was

the party worthy of the chief. Only one hundred and fifty-six votes

sustained him, although Mr. Disraeli did his utmost to induce a decided

display of strength. The motion was lost by an overwhelming majority.

THE PROROGATION.

Few events of public interest occurred in the parliamentary history

of the session except those which are here recorded. The prorogation

occurred on the 1st of August. The president of the council read the

queen’s speech, which referred in the usual vague and general manner

to the topics which had been discussed, but paid a generous tribute of

acknowledgment to the heroism of the troops in the Punjaub. The blessing

of domestic peace, and of the prospects of a good harvest were dwelt

upon in terms of thankfulness to the Divine goodness.

The session of 1849 was not in any way remarkable. Few good laws were

passed, few good speeches made, and no incidents of striking importance

entered into its history. The state of parties remained what it had been

when the session commenced; perhaps, if any change took place, the Whigs

were on the whole strengthened. Sir Robert Peel gave them a qualified

support, taking care frequently to express his want of confidence in

their Irish policy, although nothing in his own past policy warranted

the expectation that he would have governed Ireland substantially better

than his rivals.

THE COURT.

Outrage on her Majesty.—There were various occurrences in the course

of the year of interest or importance to the court, and to the public as

having reference to the court.

On the 19th of May her majesty held a drawing-room, and shortly after

her return, drove out with three of her children in the park. She was

returning a little before six o’clock, when a shot was fired as the

carriage passed down Constitution Hill by a man who stood within the

railing of the Green Park. He was seized, and narrowly incurred being

torn to pieces by the people, who were in a state of furious excitement

at the occurrence. He was eventually rescued from the populace by the

park-keepers and police and conducted to the guardhouse of the palace.

Her majesty displayed the coolest self-possession and courage. Prince

Albert, who rode on before, heard the occurrence from her majesty’s lips

as she alighted. The name of the criminal was Hamilton; he was a native

of Adair, county Limerick, Ireland. General Wemyss, who rode exactly in

the line between her majesty and the criminal, thought that the pistol

was fired at him, and was of opinion that, had it been loaded with ball,

he must have been struck; he also considered the report to be from a

blank cartridge. This opinion proved to be correct, he had no intention

of hurting any person, and seemed either to have been actuated by a

desire for display, or to place himself in the hands of the authorities

as a criminal, for sake of maintenance, as he was in great destitution.

He was sentenced to seven years’ transportation.

THE QUEEN’S VISIT TO IRELAND.

The ministry had, with much wisdom, advised her majesty to visit Ireland

in the autumn of 1849. It was supposed by them that such an event would

soothe the spirit of party, and restore the loyalty which was supposed

to exist before 1848. Such was its tendency; but it ought to have been

understood that the people were no more disloyal in that year than in

the year which preceded it, or any other previous one; and the visit

of her majesty, although beneficial for a time, on the whole, was not

likely to give any permanent effect to the loyalty of those who might,

during her visit, display the like. The Young Ireland press denounced

the policy of the visit as a trick to ensnare the generosity of the

Irish character, and to divert the people from the only true political

pursuit for Irishmen—the separation of their country from Great

Britain; and those papers predicted that the reception of her majesty,

notwithstanding that national generosity which they truly asserted,

would be painful to the royal lady, and demonstrate the unwillingness of

the Irish people to be her subjects. The Old Ireland press, like the

Old Ireland leader in parliament (Mr. John O’Connell), gave a very

“uncertain sound”—it “blew hot and cold with the same mouth,”

protesting that the Irish people were most loyal, but at the same

time in a very treasonable state; spurned, doubted, and encouraged the

ministerial policy by turns. The newspapers made a point of averring,

that if her majesty would only grant repeal and justice to Ireland, and,

in fact, whatever the party demanded, she would find the Irish people,

always excepting Orangemen and “swadlers,” most peacefully disposed. The

words of the national poet were echoed by these persons:—

“There never were hearts, if our rulers would let them,

More formed to be tranquil and blest than ours.”

The Irish people not connected with these two parties made every

exertion to prove their real and unaffected loyalty and devotion to

her majesty; and they boldly declared that the prophecies of the Young

Irelanders, and the doubts of the Old Irelanders, as to the probability

of the queen receiving insult, were unworthy of notice. The Irish

are too gallant a nation to insult a lady and a queen under any

circumstances, and there was not a man among either Old Ireland or Young

Ireland who would do the like, however wavering in loyalty; nor was

there one among them who would not risk his life to chastise such

conduct, had it happened in his presence.

After the prorogation, the court proceeded to Cowes, where a squadron

was in readiness, and her majesty, with her husband and children,

embarked and proceeded on their voyage on the night of the 1st of

August. The next night, at one o’clock, the squadron arrived at Cove,

“amidst a blaze of illumination by sea and land.” In the morning, the

little town of Cove received the designation of Queenstown from her

majesty, at the request of the inhabitants, as commemorative of her

arrival there. It was noticed that the moment her majesty set her foot

on shore, the sun, which had been clouded, burst forth with brilliancy.

In the afternoon, the royal party visited the city of Cork, to receive

various deputations, and afford the queen an opportunity of seeing the

city. She proceeded up the river, and never did the scenery on the banks

of the beautiful Lee look finer than on that bright autumnal day. Her

majesty’s reception in Cork was most enthusiastic. There is no country

in the world where public enthusiasm appears to greater advantage than

in Ireland, when displayed in a good cause; and in no part of Ireland

are the people more hearty in any feeling than m the sunny south. The

reception of her majesty and suite was everything she could wish it

to be. She received an address from the city, while seated on the

quarter-deck of the royal tender. As the first address presented to her

in Ireland, it has historic interest:—

_May it please your Majesty_,—

We, your majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, the mayor, aldermen, and

councillors of the ancient city of Cork, humbly approach your majesty to

tender to you, on behalf of ourselves and our fellow-citizens at large,

the homage of our profoundest loyalty, and of our deepest affection and

attachment to your majesty’s sacred person and crown.

We gratefully beg to express our deep sense of the high honour and

distinction conferred on us by your majesty graciously condescending to

select our city as the place where you, and your royal and much-loved

consort, pay your first visit to this portion of the kingdom; and we

hail with the sincerest feelings of joy and exultation your august

presence here, and ardently hope that your majesty will be graciously

pleased to cheer and gladden us by frequent visits, and thus diffuse

pleasure and happiness amongst us. We sincerely hope that your majesty’s

gracious visit will be like those of the angel of mercy, with healing

on its wings, and that it is the harbinger of bright and better days

for our country, which your majesty must be aware is passing through a

fearful ordeal.

We know that your majesty deeply sympathises in the sufferings and

privations which your people have undergone, and are still going

through; and we are convinced that nothing would afford a higher

gratification to your royal breast than to mitigate and relieve

those sufferings, and to raise the moral and social condition of

your majesty’s much and long enduring, but patient and faithful Irish

subjects.

We trust that your royal advent here will lay the foundation of a

better order of things than lias hitherto existed; be the means of fully

developing the great and varied natural resources of our beautiful and

fertile country; and that its prosperity, and the consequent comfort,

happiness, and contentment of its people, will be the glorious and

blessed results of your auspicious visit.

That your majesty may enjoy a long and prosperous reign over a united,

happy, and contented people, and that you, your royal consort and

family, may possess every happiness that this world can afford, is

the ardent and sincere prayer of your loyal and attached subjects, the

council and citizens of Cork.

Her majesty’s sail down the Lee was even more picturesque than her

voyage up; and her departure from Cove was such a scene as, no doubt,

the royal lady, as well as her subjects of the south, will long

and vividly remember. Her majesty’s yacht tarried the next night at

Waterford harbour, but she did not visit the city.

On Sunday, the 5th, her majesty was expected to arrive at Kingstown,

and the people of the metropolis, and the surrounding country for many a

mile, poured multitudinously along the beautiful shores of Kingstown and

Killany. When in the evening the squadron approached, the enthusiasm

of the people was boundless. At twenty minutes past seven, the squadron

dropped anchor in the deep clear waters of Kingstown harbour, and

every token of cordial greeting that a people could express, or a queen

receive, indicated the popular spirit. The sea was crowded with barques,

the shore with people. The former were gaily decked, the latter in

elegant attire; and over sea and shore rang the loud cheers of a vast

and excited multitude. Few sights were ever presented to her

majesty equal in scenic effect. She appeared on deck, and bowed in

acknowledgment of the cheers of her people. Prince Albert next presented

himself, and was received with an ardour as great as that which marked

the welcome of the queen. Her majesty and the prince having retired,

the people renewed their cheers, when the royal pair again came forward,

with their four children, and, amidst renewed demonstrations of welcome,

bowed to the people in the boats, and on the shore. The attempt at

illumination in Kingstown was a failure. It had been intended to light

bonfires on the Wicklow and Dublin mountains; this would have been a

picturesque and national welcome, but the scheme was not executed.

On Monday, the 6th, according to previous announcement, her majesty was

to land, and proceed by rail to Dublin, about six miles. The morning

broke over the beautiful bay and the bold hills of Wicklow in peculiar

loveliness. From Howth to Bray Head the mellow light of an autumn

morning shed its richness; the clear waters of the noble bay, the green

hills of Dublin, the majestic city, west and south the granite peak of

“the Sugar-loaf,” and the broad forehead of Bray Head, glistened in

the glorious day. The very earth and heavens welcomed the Island Queen.

Amidst all the loveliness on which she looked, the fairest spot was that

which was washed by the waters of Killany Bay, where the soft sweet

vale of Shanganah, with its silver strand, its green bosom, and noble

background, stretched away between Bray Head and Kingstown. They were

scenes amidst which one of queenly taste might love to linger, and were

well calculated to impress her majesty and family with the beauty of the

fair but sorrowful land upon which she was about once more to tread.

At ten minutes to ten on Monday morning, her majesty, consort, and

children, came upon deck, and were received with acclamations. The

moment she set foot on Irish ground, the harbour master hoisted the

royal standard, and the cannon sent their thunders echoing over the bay,

and among the hills.

The royal suite proceeded by rail to Dublin, the line profusely

decorated, and the banks thronged with people, waving hats and

handkerchiefs, and filling the air with their hurrahs. At the

Sandy-Mount station the royal carriages were in waiting, and a grand

procession of the authorities and gentry of the county. Seated in open

carriages, the royal personages then drove, attended by a splendid

military escort, to the vice-regal Lodge, Phoenix Park. The route was

indeed triumphal, everywhere along the magnificent course which the

cortege pursued, the national expression, “_caed mile failthe_” (a

hundred thousand welcomes), was heard. There were several halts in the

line of progress: the first to afford opportunity to the lord mayor

to present the keys of the city to her majesty; the second was of her

majesty’s spontaneous desire, in order to admire the beautiful church

of St. George; the third was at the triumphal arch at the foot of Eccles

Street, where a scene of much interest was presented. As the

royal carriage was about entering the triumphal arch, a beautiful

fawn-coloured dove, ornamented with a white ribbon, was lowered to

her majesty by Mr. Robert Williams. Her Majesty received this suitable

emblem of the effect which her royal visit was expected to produce with

smiles, and most graciously acknowledged the simple but significant

gift. The bird was held out by her majesty to the royal children, to

whom it at once became an object of attraction. The Prince of Wales soon

obtained possession of the bird, which seemed to absorb his

attention. In the evening Dublin was illuminated, and maintained its

well-established fame for pyrotechnic displays.

Her majesty during her stay held a brilliant court, which was attended

by the nobility and gentry of Ireland, numbering many among them of

those most famed for arts and arms, literature and politics. The royal

party visited most of the public institutions, in which they appeared

to take an interest, and many expressions were said to have dropped

incidentally from the queen indicative of her concern for the peace and

welfare of Ireland, as well as of her admiration of the country. On the

Tuesday evening the illuminations were spontaneously renewed, and with

more brilliancy than before, and on the Wednesday evening all the public

buildings were a third time illuminated. On the morning of that day a

levee was held at the Castle, the most brilliant ever known in Ireland.

The costume of the queen attracted the highest admiration. She wore

a robe of exquisitely shaded Irish poplin, of emerald green, richly

wrought with shamrocks in gold embroidery. Her hair was simply parted on

her forehead, with no ornament save a light tiara of gold studded with

diamonds and pearls. On the Friday the royal party visited the Duke of

Leinster, the premier peer of Ireland, and the same evening embarked at

Kingstown for Belfast. Her departure, like her arrival, was attended by

vast multitudes. Her majesty ascended the paddle-box of the steamer, and

waved her hand again and again in response to the adieus of the great

multitude. On Saturday morning the royal squadron arrived at Belfast,

where her majesty and suite landed, and received as hearty a welcome as

elsewhere. The same night she embarked, and steamed through a violent

gale for the Scottish coast, but was obliged to defer the attempt until

Sunday, in the evening of which the squadron arrived at Loch Ryan, in

Argyleshire.

THE ROYAL VISIT TO SCOTLAND.

After her majesty’s triumphal visit to Ireland, the loyal Scottish

people were most anxious to show her their warm affection and deep

respect. Arrangements were accordingly made for public entry into

Glasgow and Perth, by which route her majesty determined to proceed to

her autumn residence at Balmoral. Ardent as was the hospitality of the

Irish, it was rivalled by the patriotic fervour of the Scots, and the

cities of Glasgow and Perth made demonstrations of attachment of which

the royal lady might well be proud. On the 15th of August the court

reached Balmoral, and entered upon those happy and private recreations

which the royal family were wont to enjoy at their delightful Highland

home. On the 29th of September the court was once more at Osborne.

DEATH OF THE QUEEN DOWAGER.

On Sunday morning, the 2nd of December, the queen dowager died at

Stanmore Priory. The royal lady was the relict of King William IV., the

uncle of Queen Victoria. She was supposed to have been much attached,

through her husband’s reign, to the Conservative party, and to have

favoured those intrigues in that interest which kept alive so long

and so fiercely the spirit of faction during the discussions about

the reform bill, and for some time after that measure was carried. Her

majesty was buried on the 13th, at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, where

her coffin was placed beside that of her husband.

DEATHS OF EMINENT PERSONS.

It is always a subject of deep interest to a nation when its most

eminent citizens are called away from the duties and honours of their

citizenship. How frequently has the decease of a great person turned the

scale of party, baffled armies or states, restored a country from peril,

or placed it in the imminency of danger? Such was not the case with

England in 1849, yet many very remarkable persons were that year

numbered with the dead; the most notable person whose removal took place

in this way, was the queen dowager.

On the 1st of January the Earl of Auckland died. This nobleman had

attracted for some years previously a large share of public attention.

He was not remarkable in youth for any special gift. In the House of

Commons, which he entered in early life, he made no figure. The public

were therefore amazed when, in November, 1830, he was appointed by Earl

Grey a member of the cabinet, with the important post of president of

the board of trade, and also the office of master of the Mint. In

1834, he was made first lord of the Admiralty. In 1835 he was appointed

governor-general of India. In 1841 he was displaced, a conservative

government coming into office. In 1846 he again appeared at the head of

the Admiralty board. His business habits and good sense qualified him

for office, and at the Admiralty he rendered some service, but had he

not been a peer and a friend of Lord Grey, he would never have occupied

so prominent a place in the government.—On the 7th Earl Talbot died.

His career was remarkable only for his having proved himself very unfit

to govern Ireland, having exemplified, when lord-lieutenant, how little

the conservative party at that time considered the importance of placing

a man in the important situation because of his aptitudes.—On the 20th

Mr. Cadell, the eminent Scotch publisher, and, in great degree, founder

of cheap literature in Great Britain. He was identified with Sir Walter

Scott in the cheap issue of his immortal volumes.

Feb. 1st. Lieut.-general Sir Thomas Arbuthnot, a very distinguished

officer. He was born in the county of Mayo, in Ireland, and died

at Salford, Manchester, while in military command of the northern

district.—19th. Bernard Barton, the quaker poet, the amiable and useful

author of so many pious and instructive compositions. He was born near

London, and died at Woodbridge, in the sixty-fifth year of his age.

May 9th. General Sir Robert Thomas Wilson, Bart. This officer had

distinguished himself through a long series of years in the most active

and daring military services, especially in Germany, Poland, and

Russia. He was particularly known as having, in conjunction with two

other British officers, effected the escape of Count Lavalette, after

the battle of Waterloo. He was a native of London, and died at an hotel

there in the seventy-third year of his age.—13th. General the Hon. Sir

Edward Paget, the last surviving brother of the Marquis of Anglesea. Sir

Edward’s services in the Peninsular war are matters of pride and honour

in British history.—19th. Sir Nesbit Josiah Willoughby, Rear-admiral

of the White. This gallant officer served both by land and sea, having,

when not engaged by the British Admiralty, joined the Russian army, in

which, as a colonel, he greatly distinguished himself. He was born

in Warwickshire, at the family seat, and died in London, in the

seventy-third year, of his age.—21st. At Edgeworthstown, county

of Longford, Ireland, in her eighty-fifth year, Miss Edgeworth,

so celebrated as a novelist, and deserving equal celebrity as a

metaphysician, for her novels abound with the most accurate and acute

speculations in mental philosophy, incidentally occurring in the course

of her narratives. She was small in stature, lively in disposition,

vivacious in thought, a good correspondent, and an affectionate

friend. The opinion has gained currency since her death, that the more

intellectual portions of her writings were the products of her father’s

genius, whose hand appeared in nearly all her novels.—22nd. At his

house in Pall Mall, aged seventy-five, William Vernon, Esq., an artist

and a tasteful collector of pictures. He had been a successful man of

business, and left a large fortune to the nation in works of art, the

productions of native artists, which reveal the talent prevailing among

native painters, whom it was the fashion to undervalue.

June 4th. The Countess of Blessington. This beautiful and accomplished

lady, so well known as the friend of Byron, was born at Curragheen,

county Waterford, Ireland, and she was distinguished through life for

literary eminence as well as personal beauty. She possessed a noble

generosity, especially to obscure men of talent. Her house at Kensington

Gore, near London, was for many years the resort of the most eminent

literary men. She died at Paris.

July 8th. Mr. Wilson, the celebrated Scotch vocalist, at the early age

of forty-nine. He was born in Edinburgh, and died at Quebec.—12th.

Horace Smith, the author, known in connection with “The Pic-nic

Papers,” “The Rejected Addresses,” &c. He was born in London, and died

at Tunbridge Wells, at the age of seventy.

Sept. 12. William Cooke Taylor, LL.D. This learned and gifted man was

born in Youghall, county of Cork, Ireland. He fell a victim to cholera,

in Dublin, in the fiftieth year of his age.

Nov. 3rd. Mr. Duncan, the African traveller, on board her majesty’s ship

_Kingfisher_. He was a native of Wigtonshire, in Scotland.

Dec. 1. Ebenezer Elliott, “the Corn-law Rhymer.” He was born and died

in Yorkshire. He was the author of several pleasing poems, of a somewhat

epigrammatic character.

The year 1849 was remarkable for the death of eminent general officers

and military men of inferior rank. Naval heroes, of a reputation

extensive as the world, were also called away. The numbers of persons

of great mark in the nation who died during the year were too great to

receive notice within the limits of this history. To point out a few in

whom the public of the present day take most interest is all which space

will allow in this volume.

CHAPTER LXII.

{VICTORIA. 1850}

Foreign Relations..... Colonial Affairs..... Ireland.....

Home Incidents-Debates in Parliament..... Deaths of

Remarkable Persons.

{A.D. 1850}

The year 1850 was not a striking period of English history. There was no

foreign war, no colonial revolt, no great question to be solved at home;

yet in every department of the national affairs there were occurrences

of importance, as might be expected in so vast an empire, with so many

and complicated interests.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.

_Spain_.—The interruptions of diplomatic relations with Spain, in

consequence of the offence taken by General Narvaez at the interference

of Sir Henry L. Bulwer, was brought to a termination by the appointment

of Lord Howden as envoy extraordinary, and ambassador plenipotentiary of

the Queen of Great Britain to the court of Madrid. This event seemed to

give great satisfaction to the Spanish court and people, and her Iberian

majesty, on the assembling of the cortes, made the matter a prominent

topic in her address; but little interest was taken in Great Britain in

connection with the event.

_Greece_.—The independence of the Greek kingdom was not followed by any

improvement in the condition or character of the people. The government

constituted by the three protecting powers (England, France, and Russia)

was corrupt and incompetent, and the king despotic and faithless. Russia

had an interest in keeping Greece disturbed, and especially in exciting

both king and people to ambitious projects against Turkey, and Louis

Philippe, King of the French, aided in promoting the corruption, and

founded a policy for France inimical to the permanent advantage of

Greece and the peace of Europe. The Greek government well knowing the

unfavourable feeling of both Russia and France to England, treated

British subjects with insult, and frequently allowed Greek subjects to

treat them with wanton and unprovoked injury. The remonstrances of the

English minister were unavailing, the wrongs of English citizens were

unredressed. At last, the British foreign minister determined to make

a categorical demand for justice, and in case of refusal to take

reprisals. The demands made by Lord Palmerston were for satisfaction of

the following claims:—

1. Mr. Finlay, an English subject, was deprived of land in 1838, which

was enclosed in the gardens of the royal palace at Athens, in 1840.

2. M. Pacifico, a native of Gibraltar, was insulted, his house broken

into at Athens in open day by a mob, aided by soldiers and gendarmes,

in 1847. The mob supposed that certain measures of the government were

incited by the British, and that M. Pacifico had personally some part in

the matter. The government made no effort to restrain the rioters, and

refused all reparation.

3. In October, 1846, six Ionian boats were plundered at the custom-house

of Salcina. The Greek government refused all satisfaction.

4. Two Ionians were illegally arrested at Pyrgos, in 1847, and cruelly

flogged.

5. The police at Paints arrested two Ionians, and subjected them to

various cruelties and indignities for putting up some English, Ionian,

and Greek flags on the awning of a coffee-shop.

6. The boat’s crew of a British man-of-war landed the son of the British

consul at Patras, in January, 1848, when Greek soldiers seized the

unarmed sailors, beat and imprisoned them. The Greek government refused

to apologise for the outrage.

After these claims were made, another was added—that the isles or rocks

of Corvi and Lapienza belonged to the Ionian Isles, and that, therefore,

the Greek government should forego all acts of sovereignty in respect to

them.

On the 28th of December, 1849, Mr. Wyse, the English minister at the

court of Athens, called the attention of M. Londos, the minister for

foreign affairs at the court of Athens, to the claims of England,

declaring, that the long forbearance of her majesty’s government must

not be construed into indifference. No notice was taken of the note;

the Greek king and his ministers had for so many years been permitted

to offer insults to the English government with impunity, they could not

conceive that it was now in earnest. The conduct of Lord Aberdeen in the

English foreign office had especially encouraged this state of feeling,

and Lord Palmerston had found no opportunity during the eventful

years 1847–8–9, to enter upon the matter with such purpose as the case

required, from the known sympathies of Russia and France. On January

10th, Mr. Wyse and Admiral Parker had an interview with M. Londos, who

listened to their representations, but reserved a formal reply. The next

day he read a note, refusing the concessions required. No allusion was

made in any of these transactions to the cession of the islets. Mr. Wyse

then made a formal written demand, and allowed twenty-four hours for

a reply. During that time the agents of both Russia and France were

consulted by the Greek minister, who was encouraged by them to resist

the English requisitions. This was notorious at Athens; yet, at the

expiration of the twenty-four hours, M. Londos offered to submit the

matter to the arbitration of France and Russia. Her majesty’s minister,

of course, refused to bring in the arbitration of the powers whose

jealousy and intrigue had led to the situation. He accordingly declared

the blockade of the Piræus by the English fleet, and himself embarked

on board Sir W. Parker’s flag-ship. The Greek government treated the

blockade with contempt, and sent out the _Otho_, and other government

vessels. These were seized and sent to Salamis by the admiral, or

detained near his own ships. On the 20th, M. Londos sent a protest to

Mr. Wyse against these proceedings, and an hint that the other nations

of Europe would interfere. Sir W. Parker next laid an embargo upon all

Greek ships, and made arrangements for the capture of all he might find

at sea.

On the 5th of February, M. Drouyn de Lhuys made an offer in London of

friendly offices on the part of France, which were accepted, and on

the 12th official notes were exchanged to that effect. Orders were,

consequently, sent to Mr. Wyse and Admiral Parker to suspend coercive

measures, pending the friendly intervention of France. The French

government sent out a negotiator, Baron Gros, who arrived at Athens on

the 5th of March. That gentleman, on examining the claims, fixed upon

those of M. Pacifico as exaggerated, and no agreement between him and

the British negotiator could be concluded; and on the 23rd of April, he

notified the failure of his mission to the Greek government.

While this was going on at Athens, the French ambassador in London and

the English foreign minister had agreed upon a plan of settlement, and

the French government sent immediately a frigate with despatches

for Baron Gros, instructing him to that effect. From some mistake or

oversight the English government sent no orders to Mr. Wyse, and the

result was that he refused to recognise the instructions sent out to the

baron by his government. Hostilities commenced next day, which compelled

the Greek government to submit to the demands of the English minister.

When tidings of these transactions reached France the French ambassador

quitted London, but the difference between France and England was

ultimately arranged by friendly explanations, and by the English

government substituting the terms of agreement which had been made by

the two governments at London, for the mere stipulations accepted by the

Greek government at Athens.

The czar was enraged at these proceedings, and his ministers addressed

a remonstrance to the British cabinet, couched in terms indignant and

affrontful. The diplomatic turmoil in connection with the affairs of

Greece caused considerable discussion in the country and the commons,

which will be noticed under the section appropriated to parliamentary

proceedings.

_Liberia_.—The British government, in its desire to put down negro

slavery, took a deep interest in the prosperity of the free black colony

of Liberia. The English public regarded it as a great experiment as

to the adaptation of the negro race for self-government and modern

civilization. The origin of the colony was not as philanthropic as was

supposed in England. It did not originate in the benevolence of American

citizens anxious to promote the advantages and progress of the negro,

but in the selfishness of those who favoured slavery, and were desirous

to exile the free blacks from the land of their birth, where their good

conduct was a reproach to oppressors, and their freedom a temptation to

the whole negro race to break their own bonds. In 1848–9 negotiations

for a treaty of commerce, based on reciprocal advantages, was opened

between the infant black state and her Britannic majesty. It consisted

of eleven articles, which stipulated perpetual peace and friendship,

freedom of commerce, mutual protection of the subjects of the respective

states, the establishment of consuls, the slave trade to be piracy,

English vessels of war in pursuit of slavers to be received with

hospitality, and at liberty to visit any suspected vessels sailing

under the Liberian flag. This treaty belongs strictly to the history of

the previous year, but became known to the British public generally at

the beginning of 1850.

_Costa Rica_.—The trade of England with the South American republics

having for many years assumed considerable importance, a formal

recognition of the principles by which it was desirable to conduct that

trade became necessary with this particular state. This treaty consisted

of sixteen articles, which engaged the powers mutually to preserve

perpetual amity; freedom of commerce; freedom of correspondence; “the

most favoured nation” clause; personal freedom and protection; exemption

from forced loans and military conscriptions; establishment of consuls;

in case of any interruption of friendly intercourse, citizens on the

coasts to be allowed six months, and in the interior twelve months, to

wind up their affairs, and safe conduct to be afforded to them; liberty

of Christian burial and protection of places of sepulture; total

prohibition of the slave trade. This treaty was signed at San Jose de

Costa Rica, November 27th, 1849, and ratified at London, February, 1850.

The treaty to exist for seven years, or longer, unless either party gave

notice to the contrary after that date.

_St. Domingo_.—This was a treaty of eleven articles, engaging the

respective powers named to mutual friendship; freedom of commerce;

personal protection and protection of property; “the most favoured

nation” clause; consular immunities and privileges; religious freedom

for the subjects of each state within the territory of the other;

perpetual prohibition of slavery; “right of search;” existence of treaty

to be ten years, and after that, until due notice on either party had

expired. Subsequently, an additional article was inserted, providing for

the possible suspension of the previous articles in case the Dominican

republic should continue at war with Hayti, or be again at war with that

nation.

The treaty was signed at St. Domingo on the 6th of March, and the

ratifications were exchanged at the same place on the 10th of September.

_Coast of Guinea_.—On the Gold Coast, or Coast of Guinea, the Danes

had long held certain positions or forts, named Christiansbergh,

Augustabergh, Kongensteen, and Prindsensteen; connected with these was

an undefined amount of territory. The Danish merchants, who at first

derived some profit from these establishments, soon found that they

could obtain from Great Britain more cheaply the various articles of

that commerce, than by direct communication with the country itself.

This arose from the numerous interests of Great Britain, and the broader

foundation of her commercial speculations. The Danish government felt

the African possessions cumbersome and expensive, and agreed to cede

them, with their guns, stores, property, territorial rights, &c, to her

Britannic majesty for the sum of £10,000. A treaty to this effect was

signed in London on the 17th of August, and ratified there September

11th.

COLONIAL AFFAIRS.

_Australia_.—Considerable excitement existed in the Australian colonies

for a more constitutional form of government, and at last the imperial

legislature took up the subject with earnestness. Constitutions were

granted to the Australian colonies in harmony with their British origin.

These concessions of the mother country were hailed with delight in

the colonies. The general prosperity of Australia secured peace. Crime,

however, prevailed to a great extent in New South Wales, Victoria, and

Van Dieman’a Land: in the first and last named, from the presence of

convicts, or those who had been such. Many of this class had made their

escape to the colony of Victoria, where they committed depredations and

violence, and brought some disrepute upon the settlement.

_Canada_.—The annexation movement continued to disturb the province and

disquiet the government. Persons holding civil situations, and officers

of militia who took any part in the agitation, were dismissed; and by a

vigilant repressive policy the government gradually brought the Canadas

into a more quiescent state. A reaction at last set in, and general

expressions of loyalty prevailed where opinions in favour of an

independent confederation of the British American provinces had been

boldly announced. The ministry by which the indemnity bill was carried

during the previous year were not able to retain power. The governor,

on opening the provincial parliament at Toronto, delivered a speech in

French and English, which was well received by both parties. Before the

year closed it was proved that a large majority of the people of the

Canadas were against separation from the mother country.

_The West Indies_.—The West India Islands were in a discontented

state throughout the year. Jamaica led the way in the expression of

dissatisfaction. The English free-trade measures were the chief source

of the disquietude, and tinged every disappointment or misfortune that

befel the colonists. The post-office arrangements; the local finance;

the provision required by the imperial government for the support of the

various colonial administrations; the relation of the planters to the

negro free labourers, were all topics of angry debate in the colonial

press and legislatures. A very general desire to unite with the North

American States was felt, or at all events, expressed; the desire being,

as in Canada, to escape free trade, and the additional motive that,

by such a change, negro slavery might possibly be restored. A fear and

hatred of freedom was the grand source of colonial sedition throughout

the continent and islands of British America.

INDIA.

The vast territory comprised in British India was seldom wholly at

peace, the agitations of contiguous countries extending to it, and

requiring the constant vigilance of the government, lest mischief

beginning beyond the borders should spread within them.

In the early part of the year there were signs of disaffection

throughout the north-west districts, and the native garrison of Delhi

manifested some insubordination on account of batta which they demanded

if ordered beyond the Sutlej, and which the government had determined

to refuse. Sir Charles Napier persevered in his attempts to reform the

army, and put down drunkenness and gaming among the officers, and some

severe examples were made even in the case of officers of professional

merit. In these efforts the commander-in-chief was not seconded by the

governor-general and the authorities at Calcutta.

In the Nizam’s territory disturbances occurred which compelled the

attention of the Indian government. At Sikhim, in the latter part of

the previous year, two British officers were seized by the independent

sovereign of that country, formerly a dependency of Nepaul. The offence

of these officers was entering the territory without permission; and the

severity, and even cruelty and indignity with which they were treated,

called for the interposition of the authorities at Calcutta; but it

was necessary to move troops against the tyrant before he gave the

satisfaction required.

The border tribes in the neighbourhood of Peshawur gave great uneasiness

notwithstanding that severe chastisement was inflicted upon them at the

close of the previous year by Colonel Lawrence. Sir Colin Campbell

was sent against them, at the head of a considerable force, but his

expedition was not attended with success. Dost Mohamed used every

exertion to prevent the peaceful occupation of the province by the

English, his hope being that they would abandon it as too troublesome

and expensive, and that he might take possession of it on their

retirement. Early in June one of the most terrible calamities which

had ever occurred in British India took place at Benares. A number of

magazine boats were in the river, which by some means ignited and

blew up, spreading destruction far and wide. One thousand persons were

killed, many of them blown to pieces, and great numbers besides were

injured. Rumours reached England of the dissatisfaction expressed by

Sir Charles Napier with many things connected with the native armies

in India. The extravagance and dissipation of the officers, and the

constitution generally of the army of the Bengal Presidency, were named

as the subjects of his displeasure.

IRELAND.

The condition of this unhappy country during the year 1850 was only a

little less miserable than it had been in what were emphatically called

the “famine years.” Great distress prevailed, aggravated by bad laws,

and the general social state and spirit of the people. The

moral condition of the country was still worse than its material

circumstances. Scarcely had the year opened, when a series of the most

atrocious murders that ever disgraced a country were perpetrated. A

gentleman, steward to a person of large landed property in the county

Tipperary, was shot near his own dwelling by cowardly assassins, who

fired upon him from behind a hedge. Two brothers, in the same county,

disputed about land; the younger clove the skull of the elder with

the spade which he held in working. A poor emaciated man, in the same

blood-stained county, while in a state of starvation pulled a turnip in

a turnipfield, and was caught by the owner in the act of satisfying his

hunger upon it; the inhuman wretch shot the miserable delinquent on the

spot.

These atrocities were but samples of the barbarous deeds which took

place over many districts in Ireland throughout the year. The criminals

were not always poor men; farmers, farmers’ sons, and even men of this

class possessing what might be called affluence, either committed, or

caused others to commit, the savage acts which disgraced their country

and shocked all civilized nations. Sometimes the murders were effected

by men who had no wrong to complain of, no injury to redress, but who

for a small sum of money, or being chosen by the ballot of the ribbon

lodges, assassinated men whom they had never seen before, having been

pointed out by their associates in the ribbon conspiracy. Sometimes the

assassinations were on account of religion; in a few cases, for personal

vengeance; but, generally, they were in connection with disputes about

land. The state of the law was such as to have enabled the government to

put down these societies, and to disarm the people, who were unworthy to

be trusted with the liberty of keeping dangerous weapons; but the Whigs

were unwilling to incur unpopularity, and only acted with spirit and

determination when the government itself was endangered, and anarchy

impended. The Conservatives charged the government with tolerating, to

a certain extent, for political purposes, evils which nothing could

justify a government for allowing to be perpetrated. This imputation was

deserved.

The political agitations were of the usual character, but gradually

diminished; the events of the two preceding years having nearly

extinguished the Young Ireland party, and so lowered the tone of its

rival, as to deprive it of much notice either in Ireland or England.

An agitation for what was called tenant right extended itself, but

especially in Dublin, the great centre of all Irish agitation, and in

the north. The character of this movement will more fully appear when

noticing the debates in parliament which afterwards took place on the

subject: it is here only necessary to say, that the ostensible and real

objects of the agitators were very different. They professed to seek

justice for the occupying tenant; they desired to inflict injustice upon

the owner of the soil. The Irish tenant suffered much from an unfair

state of the law in favour of the landlord, who often used to the

uttermost the inequitable advantage thus afforded him. In the province

of Ulster this was less the case; a more generous disposition prevailed

among the landlords, and a more confiding one among the tenantry; the

relations between the two classes were, as described by themselves,

“live, and let live.” The outgoing tenant claimed a right to a certain

sum for his improvements and interest, from the incoming tenant, which

was altogether irrespective of any bargain between the latter and the

owner of the soil. This prescriptive right was so generally recognised,

that all parties were satisfied. In the other provinces of Ireland it

was otherwise. The English and Scottish settlers in Ulster found this

usage, which was an old Celtic tradition, and adopted it; their power

enabled them to assert it; but the vanquished Celts themselves were not

permitted by those to whom the estates were confiscated, to retain

a custom so favourable to the occupier. The professed object of the

agitation was to secure compensation to the occupying tenant all

over the country for his improvements, and such certainty of tenure,

according to the nature of his lease or taking, as would secure him

from vexatious lawsuits and inequitable ejectments, against which,

notwithstanding that they were inequitable in the eyes of all men, there

was no redress. As the agitation was developed, it was plain that the

real object was political and religious on the part of the prime movers.

It became noticeable that while the clergy of the Established Church,

the Methodists, Congregationalists, &c, abstained from all participation

in the struggle, those of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian communions

fiercely fanned it. The higher classes were generally episcopal

Protestants, the former in the north, to a large extent, were

Presbyterians, and in the other provinces Roman Catholics; it was

the interest of the clergy of both sects that their flocks and chief

supporters should be placed in as independent position as possible.

Ultimately, however, the two parties ceased to coalesce, their objects

became so dissimilar, that all co-operation was impossible. The

tenant-right league became a focus of Roman Catholic agitation, for

purely Roman Catholic objects. Mr. Lucas, an English proselyte to the

Church of Rome, who had formerly been a Quaker, became a very prominent

person, and he carried his fanaticism to great lengths. Charles Gavan

Duffy coalesced with him, and these men, abetted by others, so disgusted

their Presbyterian confederates, that the latter seceded altogether from

the confederacy. The doctrines taught by the party which remained became

increasingly bold, and it was soon apparent that the league was a

knot of conspirators, whose object was to transfer the property of the

Protestant landlords of Ireland to the hands of their Roman Catholic

tenants, the former having a sort of rent-charge upon their own land,

which would in time have been also taken from them. The state of the law

of landlord and tenant was so unjust, that a well-organized opposition

to it, conducted with truth, dignity, and honour, must have speedily

adjusted matters. The imperial legislature could not have resisted

demands so fair. But the movement, like almost all others in Ireland,

no matter for what object originally framed, became a mere sectarian and

party one, conducted without justice or decency, and with designs

that were disloyal to the government, and insidious to all classes of

Irishmen not identified with it. These remarks anticipate the progress

and character of this unprincipled agitation, as it soon became, but in

doing so, an explanation is afforded to the reader which enables him

to comprehend occurrences and debates which entered into the history of

subsequent years.

The remaining matters of interest connected with Ireland will be found

in the section given to the affairs of parliament.

HOME EVENTS.—PROPOSAL FOR AN EXHIBITION OF THE INDUSTRY OF ALL NATIONS.

Early in the year a project was mooted for bringing together in one vast

building specimens of the industry of all nations, The object in view

was to promote commerce and national amity. The persons who projected

this scheme had several consultations at the Institution of Civil

Engineers, in Westminster, and it was finally agreed, if possible, to

interest Prince Albert in the matter, give him all the credit of its

origin, and its chief direction. On communicating the matter to the

prince, he accepted the responsibility, and from that moment her majesty

became deeply concerned in its success. The interest taken by the queen

and her consort soon communicated itself to the rest of the royal family

and to the government, and every exertion was made to secure the aid of

foreign courts and governments, and the sympathy of foreign nations. A

committee was organized of the most likely persons to conduct such an

undertaking to a fortunate conclusion, and the powerful influence of the

court was exerted throughout the British Isles. It was resolved to erect

a building in Hyde Park for the display of the various productions that

might be forwarded, and although a fierce opposition was raised by the

aristocracy of Kensington and Knightsbridge, the court and government

supported the committee as to the site they had chosen. A design was

made by Mr. Paxton, gardener to the Duke of Devonshire, to erect a

structure of glass, which was accepted, and Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and

Co., of Birmingham, contracted for the erection. The contemplated size

of the “Palace of Industry” was such as to make the undertaking one of

much courage and enterprise on the part of those who made themselves

responsible for its construction: the particulars will be most properly

given under another chapter.

On the 2nd of March, the Lord Mayor of London gave a splendid

entertainment at the Mansion House to the chief magistrates of as

many towns and cities of Great Britain and Ireland as could accept the

invitation. There were present two hundred and two chief magistrates of

English and Welsh cities and boroughs, ten provosts of Scotch burghs,

and five mayors of Irish cities and boroughs. Prince Albert was present

on the occasion. The assembled magistrates received such information as

enabled them in their respective localities to promote the object. The

bringing together so unusual an assembly attracted the notice of the

empire and of the civilized world; the project was in that way greatly

accelerated.

A very large portion of the upper classes were, however, very much

opposed to the whole design. An alarm was spread that men would be

brought together from all nations, revolutionists and anarchists,

especially from France, Italy, and Germany, and that possibly, with the

assistance of these invaders landing upon our shores in the disguise of

promoters of peace and industry, a revolution of the disaffected among

ourselves would be attempted. Many were the dissuasions resorted to for

the purpose of checking the zeal of the committee, and causing the

court to swerve from its patronage of so bold a measure! The court,

the government, the committee, and the leading men in the mercantile

interests of the metropolis and the provinces, pursued the even tenor of

their way, amused at the folly of so many persons in a condition of life

to know better. These fears proved how large a portion of the classes

who occupy the higher positions in society are ignorant of their own

countrymen, and of the world. They could not comprehend the scheme,

sympathise with its objects, or appreciate its benefits. Many men of

strong conservative tendencies who wished to persevere in what they

called the good old ways for ever, declared that the shopkeepers of

London would be ruined, and that western London would be lost in a

deluge of immorality, the result of such an influx of wicked foreigners

from every clime. All these apprehensions were destined to be

dissipated; but it was in vain that men eminent for wisdom and

experience, pointed out their groundlessness; they were indulged until

facts confuted them.

Meanwhile, communications were transmitted from foreign courts and

governments that the most eminent persons in their respective countries

were nominated as commissioners to collect and arrange the products of

those countries in the form and way most calculated to ensure the end

in view. Intelligence of this sort was received from Russia, Sweden,

Norway, Denmark, Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, the Hanse Towns, Nassau,

Hanover, Oldenburgh, Mechlenburgh, France, Holland, Belgium, Spain,

Turkey, Sardinia, Switzerland, the United States, Venezuela, and some

other foreign countries, as well as from the governors of all our

colonies, and from various Indian princes.

It would appear as if the exhibition which had been held in France for

various limited objects, and that intended to be held in Vienna, in

1851, had suggested to the English projectors the feasibility and

desirableness of uniting all nations in one grand attempt to exhibit

together their products, natural and industrial, in the great centre of

finance, commerce, and power—the metropolis of the world. The Emperor

of Austria, however, entered heartily into the views of Prince Albert,

and postponed the exhibition intended at Vienna to the year 1852.

Throughout the year the great preparations were pursued, and at the

appointed time in the ensuing year reached a happy consummation, to the

amazement of all, and gratification of most of those whose vaticinations

were so gloomy.

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.

The commercial condition of Great Britain throughout the year was

favourable. The railway speculations of previous years exercised a

prejudicial influence upon the money market, and “calls” were severely

felt; but the foreign commerce of the country increased rapidly, and the

revenue was in a state which tended to preserve public confidence, and

showed that the resources of the nation were unimpaired notwithstanding

so many recent calamities. Free trade began already largely to tell upon

the great interests which it affected, and justified its advocates and

promoters.

The farming interest was, however, distressed; free trade in corn had

deranged their habits, and rendered alterations necessary in their

customary procedure as to the landowners, their farms, and the markets

which they were reluctant to adopt. The landlords were unwilling to

concede lower rents, and kept up those which were brought about by war

prices during the great struggle with France. Hence a protectionist

agitation pervaded the country, unsettling the minds of the farmers,

inspiring false hopes, irritating the trading classes, producing counter

agitation, and by all these means inflicting injury upon the country.

THE CHOLERA.

The cholera, which broke out at the close of 1848, slumbered during

the winter and spring, 1849, and then ravaged the country, continued to

afflict, more or less, during this year also. The mitigation and removal

of the disease during the year enabled medical and scientific men to

give more calm and undisturbed investigation as to its phenomena. Some

of the laws which characterized its advance, prevalence, and removal,

were discovered and brought before the public; but the cause or source

of the pestilence still remained a mystery, and no specific treatment

was discovered. It was remarked that it appeared generally in the same

districts, towns, streets, houses, and some persons affirmed, even

apartments, which had entered in the year 1832.

PAPAL AGGRESSION.

The most striking home incident of the year, was the event which

went generally under the name of papal aggression. England, since the

Reformation, had been exceedingly jealous of any exercise of authority

by the Roman pontiff within her dominions, and in consequence of this

feeling it had been deemed politic at Rome to govern the Roman Catholics

of England by vicars apostolic. For some years, however, the church

and court of Rome had been encouraged by the Romanist tendencies of

the “High Anglican” and Puseyite parties in the English church. Many

clergymen and laymen went over to Rome, especially of the former, and

very many more were known to be inclined to follow. It was also alleged

that a large body of the clergy and gentry were favourable to a union of

the Church of England with the Church of Rome. In many of the churches,

the communion-table was turned into an altar; lighted candles were

employed in the daytime, crucifixes were placed above what was called

the altar, and the clergy practised genuflexions and intonations which

were supposed to be peculiar to Roman Catholicism. All these things

prepared the minds of the people, who were in the main attached

to Evangelism, and were steady in their Protestantism, to meet any

aggressive action on the part of Rome with anger, and even exasperation.

An occasion arose to put this to the test. The pope issued “a brief,”

constituting an episcopal hierarchy in England instead of the vicars

apostolic. One archiepiscopal and twelve episcopal sees were created,

and the territorial limits of the province and the sees were marked out.

Dr. Wiseman, elevated to the rank of cardinal, was appointed Archbishop

of Westminster. The language of the brief was arrogant in the extreme,

and literally outraged the feelings and the honour of the English

people. It was followed by a document still more offensive, written

by Cardinal Wiseman, which he termed a pastoral, and dated “Out of the

Flaminian Gate at Rome.” This was addressed to the faithful about to

become, and whom he treated as though they had already become, his

subjects. The arrogance of this document was such as to move the

Protestant feeling of the country, and to awaken a spirit of hostility

to the Church of Rome which seemed unlikely ever to be quenched. The

irritation created among the Protestant population was greatly increased

by the tone in which the cardinal and his newly-created bishops

addressed their followers upon their appointment to their new offices.

The cardinal adopted the style of a prince, commencing with the

royal “We,” his authority to “rule over” the province to which he was

nominated. His vindication of the course pursued by the pontiff was a

bitter sneer at English and Protestant institutions, mingled with an

insulting defiance of the established authorities of the British nation.

He reminded his hearers and the whole British nation (whom he knew

would at such a crisis peruse his address) that he had no authority in

Westminster, or in Westminster Abbey, by law, and that he would still

pay the entrance fee to go into Westminster Abbey like other liege

subjects, resign himself meekly to the guidance of the beadle, and

“listen without rebuke when he pointed out to his admiration detestable

monuments, or show a hole in the wall for a confessional.” “He would

still visit the shrine of St. Edward, and meditate on the olden times

when the church would fill without a coronation, and multitudes hourly

worshipped without a service.”

The popish Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. Ullathorn, went beyond his master

in boasting, and uttered the following blasphemous address:—“The people

of England, who for many years had been separated from the see of Rome,

were about, of their own free will, to be added to the Holy Church. He

did not recollect any people on earth, but those of Great Britain, who,

having rejected the religion of God, were again restored to the bosom of

the Church. The hierarchy was restored, the grave was opened, and Christ

was coming out.”

Great as was the excitement produced throughout the country by the event

itself, and by the preposterous pretensions of the new Roman bishops,

the public feeling was much intensified by a letter of Lord John

Russell’s to the Bishop of Durham. The prelate was supposed to be an

ardent and consistent Protestant, and the circumstance of a man of such

a character being selected by the premier as the medium through which to

give his opinions to the public, parliament not being then sitting, led

the country to believe that his lordship really sought its support

for some great and practical purpose; that the letter was intended to

indicate an anti-papal policy for the future, for which the support of

the nation was sought. It was as follows:—

_TO THE RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DURHAM_.

My dear Lord,—I agree with you in considering “the late aggression

of the pope upon our Protestantism” as “insolent and insidious,” and I

therefore feel as indignant as you can do upon the subject.

I not only promoted to the utmost of my power the claims of the

Roman Catholics to all civil rights, but I thought it right, and even

desirable, that the ecclesiastical system of the Roman Catholics should

be the means of giving instruction to the numerous Irish immigrants in

London and elsewhere, who, without such help, would have been left in

heathen ignorance.

This might have been done, however, without any such innovation as that

which we have now seen.

It is impossible to confound the recent measures of the pope with the

division of Scotland into dioceses by the Episcopal Church, or the

arrangement of districts in England by the Wesleyan Conference.

There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come

from Rome—a pretension to supremacy over the realm of England, and a

claim to sole and undivided sway, which is inconsistent with the queen’s

supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the

spiritual independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catholic

times.

I confess, however, that my alarm is not equal to my indignation.

Even if it shall appear that the ministers and servants of the pope in

this country have not transgressed the law, I feel persuaded that we are

strong enough to repel any outward attacks. The liberty of Protestantism

has been enjoyed too long in England to allow of any successful attempt

to impose a foreign yoke upon our minds and consciences. No foreign

prince or potentate will be permitted to fasten his fetters upon a

nation which has so long and so nobly vindicated its right to freedom of

opinion—civil, political, and religious.

Upon this subject, then, I will only say, that the present state of

the law shall be carefully examined, and the propriety of adopting

any proceedings with reference to the recent assumption of power

deliberately considered.

There is a danger, however, which alarms me much more than any

aggression of a foreign sovereign.

Clergymen of our own church, who have subscribed the Thirty-nine

Articles, and acknowledged in explicit terms the queen’s supremacy, have

been the most forward in leading their flocks, “step by step, to the

very verge of the precipice.” The honour paid to saints, the claim of

infallibility for the church, the superstitious use of the sign of the

cross, the muttering of the liturgy so as to disguise the language in

which it is written, the recommendation of auricular confession, and the

administration of penance and absolution, all these things are pointed

out by clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of adoption, and

are now openly reprehended by the Bishop of London in his charge to the

clergy of his diocese.

What, then, is the danger to be apprehended from a foreign prince of no

great power, compared to the danger within the gates from the unworthy

sons of the Church of England herself?

I have little hope that the propounders and framers of these innovations

will desist from their insidious course; but I rely with confidence on

the people of England; and I will not bate a jot of heart or hope

so long as the glorious principles and the immortal martyrs of the

Reformation shall be held in reverence by the great mass of a nation

which looks with contempt on the mummeries of superstition, and with

scorn at the laborious endeavours which are now making to confine the

intellect and enslave the soul.

I remain, with great respect, &c.,

J. Russell.

Downing-street, Nov. 4.

Whether the noble writer of this letter was sincere in the feelings

he expressed was doubted by few at the time, although his subsequent

turning and time-serving justified the public in believing that the

letter was used merely for the party purpose of forestalling the

opposition by an appeal to the Protestant feeling which then seemed

irresistible. The immediate effect of the letter upon the country was

to stimulate afresh the indignation which had been so keenly felt and

warmly expressed. Public addresses were presented to the Queen, the

Archbishop of Canterbury, and other notable persons, by the clergy of

the various dioceses, the universities, the corporations of cities,

and voluntary assemblies, pledging those who presented them to the

most loyal support of her majesty and the legislature in resisting the

pretensions of popery. On the 5th of November, the anniversary of the

gunpowder plot, there was a burst of anti-popish feeling all over the

kingdom, such as had not been witnessed since the glorious revolution

of 1688. The pope, Cardinal Wiseman, the new bishops, members of the

conclave at Rome, and various other persons, offensive by their popery,

were burnt in effigy, and “Guys” were carried about through London

and the provincial cities in mockery of their assumed dignity and

pretensions.

These events produced very opposite effects upon the Roman Catholics

themselves. Cardinal Wiseman manifested some alarm, and endeavoured

to appease the popular wrath by directing his emissaries to speak

slightingly of the importance of the matter, and to represent it as

an ecclesiastical arrangement only of any interest to Roman Catholics

themselves. Lord Beaumont, and other members of the Latin church, who

were men of culture and enlightenment, deprecated the whole proceeding

of the court of Rome, and the haughty spirit in which its English agents

proclaimed them. In Ireland the Roman Catholic party were stirred up

to perfect fury, and “Conciliation Hall” echoed with blustering attacks

upon the government, and upon Protestantism. The following extract of

a speech of John O’Connell’s depicts the spirit of the Irish sympathies

with Cardinal Wiseman and his English coadjutors:—“If a cry be

raised against the Catholic Church, cannot a cry be raised against

the Protestant Church? In Ireland, at least, we shall do so. Does the

Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster send tax-gatherers and bring the

force of law to bear upon Protestants to compel them to contribute to

the support of his dignity? No; he will be supported by the voluntary

contributions of the Catholics; he will receive no money under false

pretences; he will take no money for services he does not render. But

the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and the Protestant archbishop

and bishops of other sees are not so; they receive money under false

pretenses—they exact money for services they do not perform. The

Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, or the other Catholic bishops in

England or Ireland, do not enforce the payment of tithes at the point of

the bayonet; the life of no widow’s son is taken on their account. The

soil of Ireland has been saturated with blood in the forced collection

of this odious impost, and the Catholic people are still compelled to

pay it indirectly, for they cannot get their receipts for their rent

until they pay the tithes to the landlord, who has to pay it to the

parson in the first instance. We must put an end to this. I hope the

country will rally, and meet the cry against popery by a cry against the

Protestant Church establishment.”

The cardinal and his colleagues persisted in their assumption

of territorial ecclesiastical authority, and the ceremony of his

enthronisation was attended with extraordinary pomp and parade, while

the doctrines propounded on the occasion showed Rome to be, as to her

ambition and purpose, _semper eadem_.

Finally, a bill rendering illegal and punishable the assumption of

ecclesiastical titles was brought into parliament under the auspices

of the premier: the right of prosecution was, however, reserved to the

government, and as it was well known that the Whigs would never

exercise that right from fear of losing the parliamentary support of

the Romanists, their bill was seen by the public to be a sham. This

circumstance, taken in connection with the premier’s vehement letter

to the Bishop of Durham, threw an imputation of inconsistency and

insincerity upon the political character of Lord John Russell, which

impaired his subsequent usefulness and credit.

COMPLIMENT TO LORD PALMERSTON.

The keystone of the whig political arch was Lord Palmerston. He was by

far the ablest man attached to the party. It was well understood that

the connection of the noble viscount with the whig government was not

from any partizan predilections, but from approval of their foreign

policy, and from a patriotic desire to maintain the honour and credit of

the country in its relation to other states, by devoting his diplomatic

talent and experience to the conduct of the foreign office. The

conservative party, knowing the powerful support which the presence of

the noble lord in the whig cabinet gave to it, was unscrupulous in its

desire to weaken his prestige, and “the peace party,” considering

that his lordship would be prompt in claiming redress for any injuries

offered to British subjects, affected to believe that his policy was

rash, and to desire on public grounds his removal from office. The

policy of Sir Robert Peel, and his foreign minister, Lord Aberdeen, was

essentially one of compromise: it preserved peace by a concession of

everything that the national temper would allow to be conceded. This

answered the views of the peace party, and of those whose commercial

interests were subserved by peace at any price, and who therefore

identified themselves with “the peace party on principle,” although not

holding at heart its theory. The House of Commons supported the policy

of Viscount Palmerston, and early in June originated a subscription

among its members for the purpose of presenting to Lady Palmerston a

picture of her gifted husband. On the 22nd of that month a deputation,

consisting of about ninety members, waited upon her ladyship, and

presented the portrait, with a suitable address. The picture was a full

length, and represented Lord Palmerston in cabinet council, a portrait

of Canning, his political preceptor and exemplar, being suspended in the

council-room. It was a curious and happy coincidence, that on the day

on which this tribute of respect to her husband was presented to Lady

Palmerston, a telegraphic despatch from Paris announced the settlement

of the Greek question.

ARRIVAL OF THE KOH-I-NOOR.

Considerable excitement was created by the arrival of this magnificent

diamond. “The mountain of light,” as its eastern designation means, was

valued at two millions sterling, and was the most costly precious stone

in the world. A certain Brazilian gem in the crown of Portugal was alone

admitted to be a rival. Its discovery was made in the mines of Golconda,

and passed into possession of the Mogul emperors from the king of that

country. From Delhi it was borne away by the conquering Persian, and

when his rebellious subjects assassinated him (Nadir Shah), Ahmed Shah

carried away to Affganhistan this treasure. Runjeet Singh obtained it

thence by inhospitable and unjust stratagem. At the conquest of Lahore

the gem became the property of the British crown. The great diamond at

the top of the Russian sceptre weighed a greater number of carats,

but was not so beautiful. The arrival of the “glittering carbon” was

opportune for the great Exhibition of 1851. Many events of political

importance caused less conversation and curiosity than the arrival of

this “mountain of light.”

ATTACK UPON GENERAL HAYNAU.

During the struggles between the Kasir and his insurgent provinces, one

of his most efficient and successful generals was Haynau. He was also,

unfortunately, one of the most cruel and sanguinary, women having been

frequently subjected by his orders to the most indecent and merciless

application of the lash.

This officer visited England during the autumn, and his presence excited

much indignant comment, and various demonstrations of personal

dislike. It occurred that, on the 5th of September, he, with two other

foreigners, presented themselves at Barclay’s brewery for permission to

inspect that very great establishment, so much an object of curiosity

among foreign visitors. According to the rules of the establishment,

visitors sign their names in a book, and this circumstance caused the

general to be identified by the numerous work-people, who were excited

with an intense disgust of his presence. The draymen and brewers

abandoned their occupations, and cried out. “Down with the Austrian

butcher,” “Down with the woman-flogger,” and many other expressions too

truly descriptive of the general’s character. He was assailed with every

form of indignity, even with blows, and sought for safety in flight,

pursued by a large and furious mob, every moment increasing. The general

ran along Bankside, and found refuge in the “George” public-house,

whither the mob pursued him, forcing open every door but that in which

the general found concealment. The police opportunely arrived, and with

difficulty dispersed the mob; the general was then brought out upon the

wharf, and brought up the river to Somerset House in the police galley,

crowds following along shore, uttering menaces and execrations. None of

the perpetrators of the attack were identified or punished; and it

is beyond question that the authorities did not pursue the matter as

international relations with Austria gave that power a right to

expect. A diplomatic quarrel between the two governments ensued, which

threatened the interruption of all friendly communication. The

Austrian foreign minister dispatched an indignant protest against the

inhospitality shown to a dignified subject of the Kasir, and the apathy

of the British government in reference to the offence of the offenders.

It was the cause of much bad feeling to England in the higher circles

of Vienna; yet it impressed the government of his imperial majesty, and

other foreign governments, with the fact, that the people of England

sympathised with liberal policy, and hated cruelty and oppression; that

no European state could be guilty of the atrocities which Austria had

committed, and hold the respect or esteem of the English people.

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY.—OPENING OF THE SESSION.

Parliament was opened by commission on the last day of January. The lord

chancellor read the royal speech from the throne. The speech referred

to the leading events, the history of which have been already related

in this chapter. It also gratified the house by the intelligence that

Sweden and the United States of America had taken steps to reciprocate

the advantages conceded to the ships of these nations. Her majesty

referred to her visit to Ireland with great satisfaction, and the

countenances of the audience expressed sympathy with these statements.

The address to her majesty in the Lords, was moved and seconded by the

Earl of Essex and Earl Methuen. The former complimented the press

in eloquent and judicious terms for the great services which it had

rendered to the cause of law and order during the tumultuous seasons

that had so recently passed. An amendment was proposed declaring that

recent legislative enactments, and heavy local taxation, oppressed the

agricultural interest and caused distress. The mover of this amendment

was the Earl of Stradbroke, and it found a seconder in the Earl of

Desart.

It was obvious thus early in the session that the Protectionists

were prepared to urge their principles, and if possible compel the

legislature to retrace its steps on the subject of free trade. “Out

of doors” this produced anger and discontent among the numerous

and powerful classes who had carried the free-trade agitation to a

successful issue. It had the effect of lowering the reputation of the

conservative party for wisdom, discretion, and disinterestedness. The

leaders of the party were boldly reproached by the press as anxious to

sustain their luxurious living by taxing the necessaries of the people,

and the House of Lords was denounced by the popular press, and at

popular meetings, as “a normal school of agitation,”—the title given by

Lord Lyndhurst as speculatively applicable to popular corporations. Lord

Stanley lent his great name and his able advocacy to the support of the

amendment; it was opposed by the free-trade lords and the ministry, and

defeated. In the commons, a similar amendment to the address was moved

by Sir J. Trollope, and seconded by Colonel Chatterton. After a debate

of two nights, the amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority.

AFFAIRS OF GREECE.

The political campaign of the session might be said to have opened

on the 4th of February, when Lord Stanley demanded explanations

from ministers in reference to the affairs of Greece. The Marquis of

Lansdowne gave a clear, temperate, and just exposition of the facts, and

of the policy of the government. Lord Aberdeen animadverted upon that

policy in a manner that was deficient in all those qualities which

characterized the speech of the ministerial leader. It was neither

clear, temperate, nor just.

In the commons, Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Milner Gibson, both addressed

demands for explanation, Mr. Disraeli in the interest of the tory

opposition, and Mr. Gibson in the interest of the “Peace at all price”

party, as a certain knot of gentlemen in the house was designated. The

answers of Lord Palmerston were lucid and statesman-like; his opponents

were no more than children in his hands. He had neither the eloquence of

Disraeli, nor the assurance, which ignorance alone can supply, possessed

by Mr. Milner Gibson, who, whatever his merits, was innocent of all

knowledge, for good or evil, on subjects of foreign policy; but his

lordship showed his perfect cognizance of all the bearings of the

dispute, of international law, and of the policy which his country

could alone pursue, with honour to herself, and justice to her injured

subjects.

So long as the Greek question remained open both these sections of

opponents tormented the ministry, and when, on the 15th of May, the

French ambassador suddenly left London, a perfect storm of hostility

fell upon the cabinet. Lord Palmerston defended the policy of the

foreign office throughout with candour, courtesy, and yet with a

satirical wit, which keenly annoyed the opposition, while no excuse

was left them to impeach the veteran minister’s politeness, or

constitutional respect for the house. The ministry were not apprised

that the French ambassador had been withdrawn from any dissatisfaction

with England, but the explanations given in the French Assembly soon

left no doubt of that. Lord Stanley brought on a debate on the 18th of

June. He arraigned the policy of government with an eloquence which was

most formidable. He was supported by Lord Aberdeen in a disingenuous and

un-English speech. The government was never more feebly defended, and

the result was a signal defeat, Lord Stanley’s motion of censure being

carried by a large majority.

In the commons, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a resolution of confidence

in the cabinet on the 24th of June. The speech of the honourable member

was constitutional and effective. Lord Palmerston delivered a most

powerful _exposé_ of his foreign policy. Sir Robert Peel took much

the same views in the commons as Lord Aberdeen did in the lords, and,

considering that both these statesmen had by their impolicy allowed

the grievances to accumulate which it devolved upon Lord Palmerston

to redress, their conduct was equally inequitable and ungenerous in

withholding from him their support, not to say opposing him. The speech

of Sir Robert Peel was the last he ever delivered, and was remarkable

for that circumstance as well as for the ability it displayed; but the

principles of foreign policy put forth by the illustrious baronet were

such as tended to make the country weak in its foreign relations, and

were more calculated to subserve the immediate interests of Lancashire

than the permanent interests of that powerful district, or the honour

and weal of the empire at large. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden were also

among the prominent opponents of Lord Palmerston’s policy. The minority

was large, the government policy having been supported only by a

majority of forty-six.

CONSTITUTIONS FOR THE COLONIES.

On the 8th of February, Lord John Russell made a statement in regard

to colonial government. His lordship denounced the imprudence of

the Colonial Reform Association, which, by its correspondence with

disaffected persons, kept alive discontent wherever it existed, and

indirectly promoted it everywhere else. The pith of the noble lord’s

statement was, that the colonies were a source of strength in peace and

war, contrary to the doctrine propounded by Messrs. Cobden and Bright:

that it was the duty of England to preserve her colonial influence, and

to extend civilization and freedom wherever her flag was planted; and

that in most cases the colonies were in a position, as to population

and intelligence, to justify the institution of a constitutional form

of government in harmony with that of the parent state. The noble lord’s

speech was received with loud cheering, especially on the conservative

side of the house, when he announced the opinion of the government that

the colonies were sources of commercial and political strength, and

ought to be retained. The speech was followed by the proposal of

resolutions in harmony with its statements. A very wide diversity of

opinion was expressed by the house, Mr. Gladstone animadverting with bad

temper upon such portions as did not meet his approbation.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES’ BILL.

On the 18th of February, in pursuance of these resolutions, Lord John

Russell moved “the Australian Colonies’ Bill.” Mr. Roebuck criticised

the measure in a tone of severity, in which he was followed by other

members, but the second reading was easily carried. On its committal,

considerable opposition was offered, in the form of amendments, to which

the government could not accede. Mr. Roebuck and Sir William Molesworth

led this species of opposition, and neither in a fair or national

spirit. The bill was carried, with some slight modifications; but, upon

bringing up the report, Sir William Molesworth moved the re-committal of

the bill, and was seconded by Mr. Gladstone. The object of Sir William

was to initiate a broad and liberal line of policy in colonial affairs

on principles which, it appeared to the government, would be adverse to

the interests and subversive of the authority of the parent country. Mr.

Gladstone was actuated by sheer party opposition. Only forty-two votes

were found in favour of the re-committal.

Mr. Gladstone then moved an additional clause, giving the Church of

England in the colonies the power of synodical action. The speech of the

honourable member was so thoroughly sectarian as to forbid any chance

of success, as it awakened prejudices in many directions which a more

prudent politician would have endeavoured to allay. The portion of the

house usually known as “Young England,” sustained Mr. Gladstone, but the

government opposed him, and the house at large went with it.

On the third reading, Mr. Gladstone made another attempt to oppose

its progress by moving that it be suspended until the opinion of the

colonies could be taken as to its provisions. This motion was plausible,

and this time the obstructor spoke plausibly, concealing the temper

which really pervaded his opposition. Mr. Roebuck seconded it, although

his motives and policy were utterly opposite to those of the mover.

The majority was large which rejected the postponement. Other modes of

obstruction less prominent were unattended by success.

In the lords the second reading was carried _nemine contradicente_.

Afterwards, Lord Brougham, who co-operated with Mr. Roebuck in the

commons, moved that counsel should be heard at the bar against the bill;

this motion was defeated. The Bishop of Oxford, who co-operated with Mr.

Gladstone in the commons, moved that the bill be referred to a select

committee; the motion was refused. The lords accepted the bill with

great reluctance, but continued to deal with it in good faith; they

amended it in various particulars, to which the commons afterwards

consented, and the bill became law.

LOCAL BURDENS ON LAND.

On the 19th of February, Mr. Disraeli moved for a committee of the whole

house to consider the burden of the poor law and other local burdens

borne by the land, and with a view to such revision as would relieve

that interest. The debate was a renewal, under another form, of the

protectionist controversy. Mr. Bright, Mr. James Wilson, and Sir Robert

Peel, made very effective speeches against the motion. On a division,

Mr. Disraeli secured a powerful minority, his motion having been

defeated by a majority of only twenty-one votes.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

On the 28th of February, Mr. Hume brought on a motion for the extension

of the franchise. Like most of that honourable gentleman’s measures,

this was as ill-timed as it was well-intended. Sir Joshua Walmsley

seconded it. Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Fergus O’Connor, and some other members

advocated it, who did not bring any parliamentary or moral influence to

its support. Only ninety-six votes were given in its behalf.

IRISH DISTRESS.

The parliamentary measures concerning Ireland have been noticed under

the section of the chapter devoted to its history, and therefore only

require a passing reference. Early in the session Lord John Russell made

a statement to the house concerning Irish distress, and proposed various

resolutions pertinent to the repayment of loans, and the modes of

dealing with insolvent “unions.” These resolutions were agreed to, and a

bill founded on them was passed.

IRISH FRANCHISE BILL.

At the passing of the Reform Bill Ireland was not placed on an

equality with England, and this fact operated strongly in promoting the

disloyalty which had prevailed there. But for the Irish liberal members

the reform bill for Great Britain could not have been carried, and the

Irish people expected from the liberal representatives of Great Britain

similar support, which was not accorded. This filled the minds of the

Irish with strong resentment, and caused them to agitate for a reform

bill on terms substantially as popular as that accorded to Great

Britain. Moved by considerations of this sort, Lord John Russell

resolved to enlarge the Irish franchise, and a bill was brought in for

that purpose. It was warmly supported by Mr. Hume, Mr. Bright, and other

English members of the liberal party, who desired even a more democratic

measure for Ireland.

The main feature of the bill was the extension of the franchise to all

occupiers of land to the amount of £8 per annum, adopting the rating as

the ultimate standard of value. The bill was read a second time, after a

fierce conservative opposition, which continued until it finally passed

the commons. In the lords it was vehemently opposed by Lord Brougham

upon principles not reconcilable with his well-known political creed.

Lord Desart proposed to raise the qualification to £15, and carried

his proposition. Lord Stanley made a proposal intended to obstruct the

registration, and carried it against the government. In this state the

bill passed.

In the commons the amendments of the lords were discussed with bitter

acrimony, and a strong sense of injury, deepened into resentment, was

circulated in Ireland, when the tidings of the lords’ amendments reached

that country. This reacted upon the commons, and the government was

considerably embarrassed by the suspicions and anger of its own general

supporters among the Irish members. Lord John proposed that the commons

should confer with the lords upon the feasibility of establishing a £12

franchise instead of the £8 or the £15. Some other amendments of the

lords were rejected. A conference ensued, and the lords conceded to the

commons on the basis of their new proposals.

BILL FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE LORD-LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.

On the 18th of May, the premier moved for leave to bring in a bill for

this purpose. This was one of the many ill-digested and inconsiderate

measures by which Lord John Russell’s government was characterised.

The Irish people almost unanimously opposed it, and so did their

representatives. Mr. Shiel, however, who had become a mere ministerial

hack, took part with the government against the known feeling of his

countrymen. He was chastised by Mr. Disraeli in one of that gentleman’s

most eloquent and happy orations.

The second reading was carried by a large majority, but it was so

obvious that if the bill were proceeded with, it would be by virtue of

an English majority on an Irish question, against the feeling of the

Irish members and their constituents, that the government abandoned it.

Much evil was inflicted by its introduction in the temper it evoked in

Ireland; and much evil was also accomplished by abandoning it, for it

exposed the vacillation of the premier and the government, so as to

lessen their moral influence in both Great Britain and Ireland.

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS OF DEBATE.

There were few other measures of importance as to general government or

law introduced by the cabinet, but the subjects introduced by private

members were very various, such as—the conduct of government on the

question of the extradition of Hungarian refugees from Turkey, brought

on by Lord Dudley Stuart; the abandonment of the naval efforts on the

coasts of Africa to suppress the slave-trade, introduced by Mr. Hutt,

and efficiently opposed by Mr. Buxton; different party questions,

connected with outrage in Ireland, on the social condition of that

country; bill for a new tribunal instead of the judicial committee of

privy council; reform of the universities; alteration of the law of

marriage as to degrees of affinity; Sunday labour in the Post-office;

amendment of the factory act; debate on the continuation of the annuity

of £12,000 per year to the Duke of Cambridge, on occasion of the death

of his father, &c. The city of London having elected Baron Rothschild,

a Jew, as their representative, and he having refused to take the oaths,

“on the faith of a Christian,” a debate ensued of much importance in the

commons. Mr. Hume moved that the oath should be administered to Baron

Rothschild on the Old Testament. This was obstinately resisted by the

tory members, but ultimately carried. The next day, Baron Rothschild

was sworn on the Old Testament, but refusing to adopt the words, “on the

true faith of a Christian,” he was ordered to withdraw. Sir F. Thesiger

moved that a new writ should be issued for the city of London. The

attorney-general proposed two resolutions:—1st, that the oath taken by

Baron Rothschild was not according to law, and did not entitle him to

take his seat; 2nd, pledging the house to a bill in the next session,

altering the form of the oath. A debate ensued, which was confused and

desultory, and much opposition from both sides of the house was offered

to the resolutions, which were, however, eventually carried. The issue

was not satisfactory to the city of London, the members of the Jewish

persuasion, or the country.

FINANCE.

The financial campaign may be represented as having opened on the 8th of

March, when Mr. Cobden made a series of resolutions, pledging the house

to retrenchment. The basis of the honourable member’s speech and

motion was, that warlike armaments were not necessary, there being no

likelihood of any nation going to war with us; and the costly character

of such armaments affecting the progress of commerce and civilization,

and depriving the people of comfort by an oppressive taxation. The

honourable member was of opinion that the differences between states did

not require a resort to arms, and that if our government only adopted

proper means to effect it, they would find it possible to adjust all

disputes with foreign countries by arbitration. The resolutions were

rejected by an overwhelming majority.

On the 13th, Mr. Drummond submitted to the house a resolution,

recommending economy in the public outlay. This was entertained as a

party resolution by the protectionists, who thus suddenly became

the professed advocates of economy for the purpose of allowing the

agricultural burdens to be relaxed. Being a party motion, it was well

supported, and the motion was rejected by a majority of less than fifty

members.