The royal lady was then made aware that she was legatee to a large
fortune, bequeathed by a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn. He was a man of
singularly penurious habits, allowing himself to be in want of necessary
food, and neglecting cleanliness. An old housekeeper, who had served
him twenty-six years, he left without any provision whatever. The sum
bequeathed to his sovereign was £250,000.
[Illustration: 819.jpg SOUTHAMPTON]
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AND PARTY CONFLICTS DURING 1852.
The parliamentary history of 1852 was in various respects eventful. It
was rendered so by the character of the debates both on home and foreign
questions, by the rivalry of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, for
the leadership of the whig party, the changes of ministry, and the last
effort of the tory and protectionist party to gain ascendancy.
On the 3rd of February the queen opened parliament in person. “The
speech” referred to the necessity of amending the Reform Bill. Lord John
Russell hoped by this means to prolong his lease of power, which was
seriously menaced in consequence of his dismissal of Lord Palmerston
from the cabinet the previous year. Such was the confidence reposed in
that noble lord by the commons and the country for the management
of foreign negotiations, that from the moment it was understood
that serious differences existed between the premier and the foreign
secretary, the government lost its moral power. An impression also
gained ground throughout the country that Prince Albert interfered with
the legitimate transaction of business at the foreign office, that the
premier was so much of a courtier as to connive at this, and that Lord
Palmerston, having asserted the dignity and independence of an
English minister, became an object of dislike to the prince, Lord John
sacrificing his colleague to the caprices of the court. Whatever might
have been the truth, these impressions prevailed among the people, and
contributed to Lord John Russell’s displacement from office. Even
after both those noblemen gave explanations in the commons, the public
retained the impressions, sympathised with Lord Palmerston, and withdrew
much of their confidence from Lord John, nor has his lordship been able
to regain the popularity he previously possessed, even up to the time
these sheets are passing through the press, near the commencement of the
year 1860.
Parliament had only just met when Sir Benjamin Hall, by questions
directed to the premier, brought out a statement of the circumstances
which led to his dismissal of the popular foreign minister. It appeared
that without any instigation from Lord John, the queen complained to him
of the management of the foreign office. Her majesty demanded that all
despatches should be shown to her, that no decision on foreign questions
should be made by the foreign minister until her opinion was taken, that
no despatch which she had signed should be arbitrarily altered by the
minister, and that she should receive early and prompt intimation of
all negotiations between the foreign office and the ministers of foreign
courts. Her majesty directed Lord John Russell to show the document
conveying her demands to the foreign secretary. From the production of
this stern, severe, and rebukeful missive from the royal hand, it became
evident either that Lord Palmerston had failed in his duty, abused
the confidence of her majesty, and behaved with intolerable insolence,
assumption, and arrogance, or that a conspiracy existed to prejudice the
mind of the queen against a faithful and most competent minister, and
that the premier either aided that conspiracy, or took no decided stand
to resist it. It appeared that the main occasion of the cabinet and
court differences with Lord Palmerston was in connection with the _coup
d’état_ in Paris. The court and the premier sympathised with the house
of Orleans, and consequently with the opposition given by the French
assembly to the president of the republic. Lord Palmerston believed
that the assembly provoked the conduct of the president by invading his
constitutional rights, and by violating the constitution formed by the
constituent assembly, and in virtue of which the legislative assembly
of France existed. Despatches sent to the English minister at Paris, the
Marquis of Normanby, of a private nature, were by that nobleman shown to
the French minister for foreign affairs, and out of that event arose
the complication. Lord Palmerston pleaded unqualified innocence of the
impeachment implied in her majesty’s written commands to Lord John. Lord
Normanby was well known to be of Lord John’s section of the whigs, and
a court favourite. From all these circumstances, the country drew
the following conclusions with extraordinary unanimity:—that Lord
Palmerston acted with more independence of the first minister than
was customary on the part of a secretary of state, but that his great
talents, great experience, great influence at home and abroad, justified
him; that Lord John Russell was imprudent in overlooking the peculiar
claims and qualifications of the foreign minister, displayed an unworthy
jealousy of his great colleague, and probably by his private complaints
of insubordination, caused the letter of her majesty, so humiliating to
her long-tried and most able minister; that Lord Normanby either
showed grave indiscretion, or played his part in a plot adverse to Lord
Palmerston; and finally, that the court was unduly sympathetic with the
Orleans dynasty. No efforts on the part of Lord John Russell’s friends
could root out these convictions from the general public, and although
the House of Commons said little about it, there were sufficient
indications given that such convictions were largely shared there. In
the debate that ensued, all sides of the house expressed confidence
in Lord Palmerston’s sense of duty and responsibility, and respect and
admiration for his talents. It became at once evident that the days of
Lord John Russell’s ministry were numbered, and that it must be long, in
any fresh ministerial combinations, before he could occupy the same high
post in the counsels of her majesty.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
On the 9th of February, Lord John made a statement as to his views of
parliamentary reform. His lordship proposed the disfranchisement of all
small constituencies proved to be corrupt by a system of inquisition
adapted to the purpose. He declared that a ten-pound franchise in
boroughs was too high, and proposed a five-pound franchise. The
county franchise of fifty pounds he would reduce to twenty pounds. The
copyholds and long leaseholds of ten-pound qualification he would reduce
to five pounds. All persons living within boroughs paying two pounds
a-year assessed taxes he would enfranchise as county voters. Boroughs
having less than five hundred electors were to have the number of
the enfranchised augmented by adding neighbouring towns in the same
representations. Property qualification of members to be repealed.
Reform, mainly on the game plan, to be extended to Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. Hume expressed dissatisfaction with any measure that did not
comprise the ballot and triennial parliaments, and a large number of
liberal members sympathised with the radical leader. The majority of
the liberal members received the announcement of the premier with
great favour. His lordship proposed introducing a bill on the 23rd of
February. Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Newdegate opposed the measure with
expressions of earnest apprehension, because it was proposed by Lord
John to abolish the oath of abjuration. Mr. Disraeli, however, offered
the chief opposition to the measure. He endeavoured to lead the house to
postpone the consideration of the bill, but obviously for the object of
gaining time to throw out the bill itself. Sir George Grey, in a speech
of unusual felicity, exposed the dishonesty of Mr. Disraeli’s pretences
as to the necessity of delay in order to perfect measures which he was
eager to defeat.
The house gave leave to bring in the bill. It never was brought in, new
events depriving its author and the cabinet of the power to carry any
measure. The foregoing statement of the character of the proposed reform
bill of 1852 is, however, important, as the question of reform occupied
attention for several years subsequently in a serious degree, and “the
proposed bill of 1852” was constantly referred to by all parties in the
discussions which took place.
THE MILITIA BILL.—DEFEAT AND RESIGNATION OF THE CABINET.
On the 16th of February, Lord John, in a committee of the whole house,
explained his intentions in reference to the local militia acts. This
question excited considerable interest, as the Duke of Wellington and
Sir John Burgoyne had pointed out the possibility of an invasion, and
the defenceless state of the coasts and of the country generally. The
_coup d’état_ in France had also created considerable public uneasiness.
The secrecy, sternness of purpose, swiftness of action, boldness, and
indifference to bloodshed shown by the president of the French republic,
caused most men to reflect upon the possibility of some terrible _coup
de main_ being attempted against England; the president, in his writings
as Prince Charles Louis Napoleon Buonaparte, having so often asserted
that he represented a defeat, the defeat of Waterloo, which France
must avenge. Lord John proposed to allow the plan of “the old regular
militia” to fall out of use, and to establish a new scheme for a local
militia. Ireland was to be exempt from the measure. In twelve months,
the number of men to be raised was 70,000, in two years 100,000, in
three years 130,000, after which period Great Britain alone should
furnish, if necessary, 180,000 men.
Lord Palmerston’s expulsion from the cabinet was then about to tell on
the ministry, and the future history of party. His lordship opposed the
ministerial measure; and, released from ministerial privacy, declared
that he had urged upon Lord John in vain since the year 1846 the
organization of a militia. His lordship opposed the plan of a local
militia, preferring the old force, and, as an Irish peer, expressed some
warmth that Ireland was excluded from the arrangement.
When the bill came forth from the committee, Lord Palmerston proposed
amendments in harmony with the principles upon which he had criticised
the measure on going into committee. The two noble lords were now fairly
pitted against one another as rivals for parliamentary influence, and
the result was the defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell. The
Irish members supported Lord Palmerston in great force, and threw out
the ministry. His lordship also received considerable support from the
Derby-Disraeli party. From that moment it was obvious that Lord John
ceased—at all events for many years, should Lord Palmerston survive—to
be the leader of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF DERBY’S ADMINISTRATION.
The majority in favour of Lord Palmerston’s measure caused the
adjournment of the house. The queen sent for Lord Derby, and committed
to him the reins of power.
One of the first acts of his lordship, after conferring with Mr.
Disraeli and a few of his most attached adherents, was to offer a seat
in his cabinet to Lord Palmerston. Mr. Disraeli had, however, in the
debate upon the address, renewed his agitation of the previous year for
re-adjusting taxation in favour of the landed interest, as compensation
for the loss of high prices for corn, which had been secured by
protection. As this was only another mode of re-enacting protectionist
laws, and one which was especially offensive to all the community not
inheriting land, it was impossible for Lord Palmerston to accept office
with Lord Derby, even if their political differences were less. Failing
to strengthen his government by the accession of Lord Palmerston, Lord
Derby, had recourse to Mr. Gladstone, but his repugnance to act with
Disraeli personally, and his opposition to the protectionist schemes
of both that minister and Lord Derby, rendered all negotiations
unsuccessful. The ministry, therefore, became a pure tory and
protectionist cabinet, except so far as Lord Stanley was concerned,
whose opinions were supposed to be liberal, although connected with the
ministry by the influence of his father.
The following ministry was ultimately formed:—
_In the Cabinet._
First Lord of the Treasury ... Earl of Derby.
Lord Chancellor ............... Lord St. Leonards.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Disraeli.
President of the Council ...... Earl Lonsdale.
Privy Seal....................... Marquis of Salisbury.
Home Secretary ............... Mr. Horace Walpole.
Foreign Secretary............... Earl of Malmesbury.
First Lord of the Admiralty..... Duke of Northumberland.
President of the Board of Control Mr. Hume.
Post-Master General ............ Earl of Hardwicke.
President of the Board of Trade Mr. Henley.
First Commissioner of Woods/Forests Lord J. Manners
_Not in the Cabinet._
Commander-in-Chief
of Her of Majesty’s Land Forces ...... Duke of Wellington.
Master-General of the Ordnance Viscount Hardinge.
Paymaster of the Forces,
and Vice-President of the Board of Trade Lord Colchester.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.... Mr. Christopher.
Secretary at War .................... Major Beresford
Secretary of the Admiralty........... Mr. O’Brien Stafford.
Attorney-General...................... Sir Frederick Thesiger.
Solicitor-General .................. Sir Fitzroy Kelly.
Judge Advocate-General................ Mr. Banks.
Chief Poor-Law Commissioner........... Sir George Trollope.
SCOTLAND.
Lord-Advocate.................. Mr. Anderson.
Solicitor-General .............. Mr. Inglis.
IRELAND.
Lord-Lieutenant ............... Earl of Eglinton.
Lord-Chancellor ............... Rt. Hon. Mr. Blackburn.
Chief Secretary................. Lord Naas.
Attorney-General................ Mr. Napier.
Solicitor-General ............. Mr. Whiteside.
QUEEN’S HOUSEHOLD.
Lord-Steward..................... Duke of Montrose.
Lord-Chamberlain................. Marquis of Exeter.
Master of the Horse.............. Earl of Jersey.
Mistress of the Robes .......... Duchess of Athole.
This ministry was but slightly modified during the year, and altogether
apart from political changes. The death of the Duke of Wellington led
to the appointment of Lord Hardinge to the Horse Guards, Lord Raglan
becoming master-general of the Ordnance.
This ministry was not popular. In the cabinet the lord-chancellor was not
an accession of strength. Although a very high Tory, he was not liked by
the aristocracy; and although a very good lawyer, he was believed by
the country to be narrow-minded and prejudiced. Lord John Manners
was extremely unpopular, in consequence of his well-known couplet,
expressive of the desire that learning and commerce should perish rather
than that the power of the aristocracy should be diminished. The Duke
of Northumberland was considered utterly unfit for the important duties
imposed on him, and it was supposed that he would patronise “jobbing,”
and promotion by unfair means.
Out of the cabinet, the English appointments were generally severely
criticised, except those of the household and the law officers. These
latter were considered able men, but bigoted partizans—clever enough
for attorney-general and solicitor-general, but very unsuitable for
judges, to which honours the offices notoriously led.
All the Irish appointments were popular in Ireland, although the
gentlemen who filled them belonged to a party of so small a minority.
Lord Eglinton was a gentleman personally liberal and generally esteemed,
generous, and off-hand, fond of Ireland, and adapted to intercourse
with the Irish. Mr. Blackburn, the lord-chancellor, was considered the
greatest equity lawyer in Ireland, and an impartial judge. Lord Naas,
the chief secretary, was an Irishman who knew the country well, and was
connected with many popular families. Joseph Napier was held to be
a first-rate lawyer and scholar, a polished gentleman, and a sincere
Christian. Whiteside was regarded as having too much of the clever,
eloquent, fiery Irish agitator in his own constitution, not to have some
complaisant sympathy with such qualities in his countrymen. Accordingly,
the government worked well in Ireland for its own ascendancy, but every
step it took in England rendered the hope of ministerial longevity
impossible. Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli were personally liked; both were
believed to be more liberal than their relation to their party allowed,
and their brilliant eloquence made the country proud of them in or out
of office.
The time soon arrived for testing the House of Commons as to the amount
of toleration it was likely to show to the new ministry. On the 27th
of February, Lord Derby offered the lords an exposition of his views,
which, even while he was yet speaking, found its way substantially to
the commons, and was buzzed about among the members. In his speech, his
lordship disavowed any intention to interfere violently with free-trade
principles, but avowed himself still a Protectionist, declaring, that
in his opinion, the importation of all articles which competed with the
industry of the country ought to be taxed, and that corn ought not to
be exempt. A report of his lordship’s speech had scarcely reached the
commons, when it was evident that so far as the parliament then sitting
was concerned, the doom of his ministry was sealed. When, the next
day, the wings of the press bore to the country his lordship’s oration,
indignation was everywhere excited, and the free-traders were united and
strengthened, in a manner they had not been from the time of the repeal
of the corn-laws.
Lord Derby made a statement connected with reform, which proved to be
nearly as distasteful to a majority of the people out of doors as that
on free-trade. He expressed his intention not to proceed with Lord John
Russell’s reform bill, which he described as unsettling everything and
settling nothing, which began by exciting the country, and finished by
dissatisfying it.
His lordship, as if not satisfied with the opposition such statements
were likely to raise against him, provided himself with a third
element of hostility, by invoking the assistance of his hearers for the
extension of the established church, and of an education entirely under
the control of the parochial clergy. The dissenters and Roman Catholics
were much alarmed ly this portion of his lordship’s speech, and quietly,
but extensively and effectually, prepared to give a strenuous opposition
to his government. Thus, in his _début_ as premier, Lord Derby contrived
to set against him the free-traders, reformers, dissenters, and Roman
Catholics, at a moment when there was a majority against him in the
commons. The premier’s oratorical onslaught was so indiscreet, that only
the most headstrong and ignorant of his own party had any hope that he
would display the tact, sagacity, self-control, and party-moderation
which alone could enable him to hold his ground against the opposition
in the commons, and the general want of confidence in his ministry.
Such was the imprudence of the first minister, that although Earl
Grey gave him an easy opportunity of withdrawing his anti-free-trade
doctrines, the most in the form of concession which he (Lord Grey) could
extort was, that the government had no _present_ intention of proposing
a tax on the importation of corn, but regarded it as a question still
open, and remaining with the intelligence of the country for solution.
Some of the high whig peers expressed their approbation of his
lordship’s views in terms of warm support. On the other hand, the
Earl of Aberdeen strenuously opposed the purpose which the government
evidently contemplated, of imposing a new corn-tax.
In the commons, an adjournment to the 12th of March was proposed and
carried.
When the houses resumed their sittings, it became evident to the
government that the imprudent speech of Lord Derby had roused the
opposition to a high pitch of excitement. Demands were made as to
whether the government intended to re-impose the corn-laws. No honest
answer could be extracted in either house—experience had made the
leaders wary: the answers given were, in effect, that the government
would abide by the decision of the country. This reply made it evident
that parliament was to be dissolved on the question of free-trade and a
corn-law. After the country had reasonably concluded that the question
was settled, fierce disputes from end to end of the kingdom were
about to be raised. The old members of the Corn-law League accordingly
convoked meetings in London and Manchester, and it was determined
to resuscitate that powerful body, and with new and more effectual
instrumentalities of agitation, upon the first proposition for imposing
a tax upon the importation of corn. The uneasiness throughout the
country became very great, and a personal ill-will to the two tory
leaders began to show itself in the north of England, and throughout
Scotland.
On the 15th of March, Lord Beaumont presented a petition from certain
inhabitants of the West Biding of Yorkshire, praying the house to set at
rest the question of free-trade, as commercial enterprise was seriously
injured. Lord Derby answered that he did not consider the question
settled, and that the next general election must decide it. On the
same evening, Mr. Villiers, the leader of the anti-cornlaw party in the
commons, demanded final and explicit explanations from the government,
alleging that distrust and alarm filled the country. Mr. Disraeli denied
the statements, and resorted to the usual tricks of words to evade the
interrogatory; the inference from his reply was that a desperate effort
would be made to gain a corn-law majority in a new House of Commons,
and, in case of success, re-impose the corn-laws. Lord John Bussell, Sir
James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Palmerston, Sir A. Cockburn, and
other prominent men on the liberal side of the house, expressed their
determination to offer every resistance they could employ to the
re-imposition of any duty, in any form, upon the importation of corn.
Rumours began to circulate, that the government would endeavour to go on
with the public business in the face of an adverse majority, and on the
19th of March, the Duke of Newcastle demanded explanations in the lords
from the premier. The duke presented a petition from the Commercial
Association of Manchester, praying for relief from the confusion and
uncertainty thrown into commercial operations by the speeches of the
leading members of government, in fact, demanding that the question of a
corn-law should once more be submitted to the country. Lord Derby
denied the assertions of the Manchester Association, refused to dissolve
parliament, or to give any explicit information as to his intentions in
reference to free-trade.
In the House of Commons, the same night, Lord John Bussell demanded that
the public should be at once relieved from all uncertainty by an appeal
to the country. So decided and angry was the aspect of the house, and so
loud the demonstrations of its determination not to be trifled with on
the great subject of a corn-law, that Mr. Disraeli was compelled to give
that assurance which Lord Derby refused, and pledged the government to
dissolve parliament, and meet the new house within the year, and as soon
after the public business necessary to the country was disposed of.
It was, however, found difficult to transact business—the house was so
excited; so that the question of dissolution was again and again renewed
in angry and almost boisterous terms. Mr. Cobden called the attention
of the house to the fact that the country had once more a protectionist
government; that the fact was indisputable, and ought to be met with
that intelligence and decision which became the greatest question of the
day. He urged the house to limit the rates of supply, until the country
decided whether it wished a tax upon bread, to enrich the landlords. Mr.
Cardwell, in language as decided as that of Mr. Cobden, urged the house
to fulfil its constitutional obligations, and compel the government of
the minority to give suitable assurances of an early dissolution. Lord
John Bussell declared that the government had taken a course for which
there was no precedent in the constitutional history of England. He
followed Mr. Cobden and Mr. Cardwell in insisting upon the government
adopting such a course as to a dissolution, as would remove from
the house the necessity of taking measures to assert its own high
prerogatives. Mr. Disraeli declined pledging the government more
definitely than he had done, which drew from Mr. Bright an invective
full of fire, yet marked by a dignity unusual with that honourable
member; he demanded that the supplies should be stopped, or the house be
assured that no effort would be made by the government to retain power
by unconstitutional methods. The result of these vigorous proceedings
were statements made in both houses on the part of the ministry, that it
was the intention to dissolve parliament and have an autumn session
to settle the question of protection. It does not appear that these
promises were made in good faith;—at all events no autumn session was
called, although a new parliament met in November, and the question in
debate set at rest.
The government introduced a militia-bill, which Lord John Bussell and
the Whigs generally opposed. Lord Palmerston supported the government,
as did the Peel party, his lordship criticising the tactics of Lord
John with severity. The opposition between these two statesmen kept the
liberal party divided, and alone enabled the government to maintain its
course.
Lord Brougham introduced a bill to enable parliament to meet thirty-five
days after a dissolution. The bill was carried through both houses
without opposition.
The government took up a bill of Lord John Russell’s for the
disfranchisement of the borough of St. Albans, on account of gross
bribery and corruption. The bill was carried, no opposition being
offered except by a small number of Lord Derby’s own party in the House
of Lords.
Sudbury and St. Albans being disfranchised, a question arose as to
the appropriation of the four seats. On the 10th of May, Mr. Disraeli
brought in a bill for the purpose, proposing that the four vacant seats
be given to great county constituencies in the north of England. Mr.
Gladstone opposed the measure, on the ground that the government was
trifling with the prerogatives of the house. It was a government in a
minority, and its duty was to pass no measures but such routine business
as the country absolutely required. Mr. Disraeli had given this promise,
and, notwithstanding, sought to appropriate to county constituencies
the four borough votes of which other constituencies had been penally
deprived. The speech of Mr. Gladstone was received with enthusiasm by
the house, and his amendment, “That the house do pass to the order of
the day,” was carried by a very large majority. That this was purely
a party movement of Mr. Gladstone was soon made evident enough, for he
assisted the government soon after in carrying a bill for giving New
Zealand a constitution; and he himself brought in a measure termed “the
Colonial Bishops’ Bill.”
Various motions were brought under the consideration of the house, but
were received with impatience, and all further attempts of government
to prolong the session by inducing the house to entertain bills, were
fruitless; all were bent upon one object,—that of bringing to an issue
before the country the question of the re-imposition of a tax upon corn.
FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.—OUTRAGE ON MR. MATHER AT FLORENCE.
The impatience of the house for a dissolution did not prevent it from
discussing the foreign policy of the government. It was considered that
Lord Malmesbury had shown a sympathy for despotic states, and had by
his diplomacy played into-the hands of Austria, and the petty tyrannical
Italian governments. Lord John Russell brought his lordship’s conduct,
as well as the policy of the government, before the house on the 14th of
June.
In the last chapter, our readers were informed that a young English
gentleman of moral excellence and high culture, the son of a patriotic
and influential gentleman of the county of Durham, named Mather, was
wantonly cut down in the streets of Florence by an Austrian officer.
Lord John Bussell exposed the conduct of Lord Malmesbury in this affair,
and was ably supported by Lord Palmerston. The government suffered much
in reputation, both in the house and throughout the country, from this
debate. Their defence was extremely feeble, while the attacks of the
opposition glowed with indignant eloquence. Probably at no period of
party strife did the two great parties in the house appear more
strongly contrasted than during that debate. Lord John Russell and Lord
Palmerston spoke with exceeding force, and uttered sentiments worthy of
British patriotism and British statesmanship. Mr. Disraeli, on the
other hand, spoke with an apathy, where insults to England and to a
defenceless Englishman were concerned, which was discreditable to a
statesman of any free country, or indeed to any speaker that had a
sympathy with manhood and national dignity. In the elections which
ensued, the tone adopted on that occasion by the chancellor of the
exchequer, and the conduct of Lord Malmesbury, told effectively against
the government in various constituencies in the north of England. A
feeling was created that the rights of Englishmen in foreign countries
were neglected by their own government, and that so far as English
ambassadors and ministers were concerned, Englishmen abroad were at
the merey of any foreign tyrant who thought proper to wrong them. This
feeling had extended for some years upon the continent, and the debate
in the commons promoted by Lords John Russell and Palmerston, brought
out such glaring criminality on the part of the English foreign office
in connection with Mr. Mather, that the sentiment became strengthened on
the continent that unless an English traveller had powerful connections
in his own country, he might be made the object of foreign outrage with
impunity. Mr. Bernai Osborne only expressed the truth in the strong
language with which he concluded his speech, “Lord Malmesbury had
trifled with the honour of the country, and disgraced it in the eyes
of the whole continent of Europe.” In the House of Lords, warm debates
arose upon the same question, in which Lord Malmesbury made a defence
still more disingenuous and unpatriotic than it was feeble.
LAW REFORM.
Notwithstanding the difficulties of the government, various useful bills
which had been prepared by the Whigs, but which the Russell government
was unable to carry, were passed into law. By the end of June, all these
measures were enacted as laws.
PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.—GENERAL ELECTION.
On the 1st of July, her majesty in person prorogued her parliament, and
announced her intention of speedily dissolving it. This event took place
shortly after, and was followed by a general election, when the voice
of the country was so decidedly given against protection as to cause
the abandonment of all idea by the protectionist party of re-imposing a
corn-law. The orators of the government, however, announced throughout
the country their intention to promote a parliamentary struggle for
the re-adjustment of the public burdens, so as to relieve the landlord
interest of a large share of the proportion of the taxes borne by them.
MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.
The houses of parliament assembled on the 4th of November. On the 11th
her majesty in person delivered the speech from the throne. The speech
referred to commercial policy in terms which the Hon. Mr. Villiers
denounced as “vague and equivocal.”
BOTH HOUSES CARRY RESOLUTIONS PLEDGING THEM TO THE FREE-TRADE POLICY.
On the 23rd of November, the Hon. Mr. Villiers proposed a series of
resolutions affirming the prosperity of the country, and the comfort of
the poorer classes, as resulting from the policy of free-trade, and more
especially in corn, pledging the house to support the measure of
1846, by which all duties on corn were repealed. The chancellor of
the exchequer moved an amendment with the intention of defeating these
resolutions. The government, however, assumed the tone of converts to
free-trade on the ground that the country had pronounced for it. Mr.
Frederick Peel, with bitter and eloquent irony, in the best speech he
probably ever delivered in parliament, reminded Mr. Disraeli of his
taunts and abuse of Sir Robert Peel for changing his opinions on the
subject of a corn-law, and invited the right honourable satirist to
account for his own change, if it were effected by any other motive than
to retain office. He went to the country advocating the re-imposition of
a corn-tax, and on his return presented himself to the house a convert
to the opinion that it would be wrong to disturb the settlement of 1846.
After a protracted debate, Lord Palmerston proposed an amendment which
more generally embodied the public opinion, and was more adapted to
party exigencies. All opposition to it on the part of the government
was so hopeless, that most of their supporters left the house. Eighty
remained, and voted against his lordship; four hundred and eight members
supported it. The House of Commons was pledged to the free-trade policy.
A similar debate took place in the lords with nearly identical results.
Various measures were discussed without leading to any parliamentary
decision or useful law. It was evident that on all subjects of
free-trade and financial philosophy the government and the majority of
the house were at issue—the one desiring to restore protection under
various sly and indirect pretences, the other anxious to develop
free-trade principles, and a system of national finance in harmony with
the principles of political economy.
THE GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF FINANCE.—DEFEAT AND RESIGNATION OF THE
MINISTRY.
On the 3rd of December, the chancellor of the exchequer stated to the
house the views which the government entertained of the principles
of finance which were applicable to the condition of the country. He
declared that he accepted as irreversible the decision of the country in
favour of a free commercial policy, and that his object was to harmonize
with that the system of national taxation. He proposed to relieve
certain interests which he considered had suffered by the free-trade
policy. The first of these named by him was the shipping interest. His
views connected with that subject met with general approbation, as
they comprehended only the removal of special and unjust taxation. He
proposed to satisfy the West India interest by allowing sugar to be
refined in bond. The opinions stated by the right honourable gentleman
were so at variance with his former violent orations in favour of the
shipping interest, and that of the sugar-growing countries, as to excite
astonishment and amusement in the house. Observing this feeling, he
exclaimed, “I may be called a renegade, I may be called a traitor—” but
the sentence remained unfinished amidst shouts of laughter from all
sides of the house, and reiterated bursts of derisive cheers from the
opposition. In fact, the leader of the commons gave up the shipping and
colonial interests, with some slight show of concession, which nearly
the whole house was prepared to make. The third interest for which he
demanded relief was that of the owners of land. He adverted to the
local burdens which he had so often pointed out as intolerable to the
landowners, and admitted, amidst long-continued peals of laughter, that
the agricultural interest had no longer ground of complaint on such
matters, and denounced contrary opinions as obsolete. For the relief
of the agricultural interest he announced his intention to reduce the
malt-tax one half, and to abolish the drawback from spirits made in
Scotland. He would reduce one half the duty on hops; he would continue
the income-tax, about to expire, but reduce that of farmers by one-half.
This announcement was received with demonstrations of astonishment and
anger by the opposition. He would impose the income-tax in Ireland, but
would exempt the landed interest of that country from its application.
This announcement threw the house into extraordinary agitation.
Perceiving this, the right hon. gentleman expressed sympathy with the
sufferings through which Ireland had passed, and drew from the fact of
these sufferings the inference that while imposing new taxes upon other
portions of the community in that country, the landed interest ought
to be exempt. He would also increase the house-tax, in order that the
inhabitants of the metropolis might bear a proportion of the burden from
which land would be relieved, and would extend the tax to all houses
rated at £10. The right hon. gentleman intimated that his financial
scheme should be considered as a first step in a new direction.
The financial statement of the chancellor excited an intense ferment
through the country. The landed, the West Indian, and the shipping
interests, which were all supposed to derive advantage from protection,
supported him, all the rest of the community exhibited an angry
opposition. The monied and commercial classes in Ireland, the English
manufacturers, and the London householders, were Mr. Disraeli’s fiercest
opponents. Besides the popular hostility, Mr. Disraeli had to encounter
that of the political economists, and all the leading financiers in
the country. The monied interest ridiculed the estimates, and it became
evident in a few days after the announcement of his plan to the house,
that it had seriously impaired the reputation of its propounder. His
unfitness for the post of chancellor of the exchequer was proclaimed
everywhere, and every where accepted as true.
On the 6th of December, on the report of the Committee of Supply being
brought up, the House of Commons, led on by Mr. Gladstone, showed an
uncompromising opposition to the whole scheme of Mr. Disraeli.
After a series of adjournments, Mr. Disraeli replied to the criticism
of his opponents in language personally offensive, and full of party
violence. This led to a scene of singular excitement: Mr. Gladstone
retorted in the most eloquent speech he ever delivered in parliament.
Attempts were made by the government party to stifle his voice in
uproar, but the house sustained him by repeated and long-continued
rounds of applause. Mr. Gladstone’s denunciation of the budget as a
delusive and dishonest scheme was followed by a vote which rejected
it. The protectionist members voted to a man with the government, but a
majority was against them, and the government resigned.
FORMATION OF A NEW MINISTRY.
The queen sent for Lord Lansdowne, by whom she was advised to send for
Lord Aberdeen, as the most prominent member of the Peel party, upon whom
it would properly devolve to form a government, as that of Lord Derby
was defeated on a question of political economy and finance.
On the 27th of December the new government appeared before parliament.
Its constitution was as follows:—
_In the Cabinet_
First Lord of the Treasury...... Earl of Aberdeen.
Lord-Chancellor ............... Lord Cranworth.
Chancellor of the Exchequer...... Mr. Gladstone.
President of the Council........ Earl Granville.
Privy Seal....................... Duke of Argyle.
Home Secretary ................ Viscount Palmerston.
Foreign Secretary................ Lord John Russell.
Colonial Secretary ............ Duke of Newcastle.
First Lord of the Admiralty .... Sir James Graham.
President of the Board of Control Sir Charles Wood
Secretary at War................. Mr. Sidney Herbert.
Commissioner of Works/Buildings Sir W. Molesworth.
Honorary.........,.............. Marquis of Lansdowne.
On meeting parliament, an adjournment until February was approved by all
parties.
The government was not popular: few of the positions were occupied by
those whom the country regarded as the men for the place. The premier
had, as foreign minister, neglected the honour of England more than Lord
Malmesbury had done. He had been outwitted by Louis Philippe, and
had been the sycophant of Russia and Austria. He was, to use his own
phraseology, “regarded as a sort of Austro-Russian.” His sympathy with
Puseyism made him unpopular with large and influential sections of the
religious public. Indeed the Aberdeen cabinet was regarded as, on the
whole, more Puseyite than any which England had seen since the rise of
the party in the established church. The Duke of Newcastle, to whom the
administration of colonial affairs was entrusted, was of the Puseyite
school, and his appointment, when known in the colonies, gave great
dissatisfaction. The chancellor of the exchequer was more a champion of
ecclesiastical exclusiveness than any member of the Derby cabinet, and
Mr. Sidney Herbert rivalled Mr. Gladstone in this respect. The Lord
Chancellor was also of this politico-ecclesiastical party, and was
regarded as a crotchetty man, of little intellectual strength. As an
equity lawyer, he had won reputation; as a judge there had been more
appeals from his decisions than from all the other judges of the bench.
The appointment of Lord John Russell to the foreign-office, while Lord
Palmerston was placed in the home-office, was regarded as an absurd
inversion of their appropriate positions, and the arrangement was
considered as an unwarrantable concession by Lord Aberdeen to the vanity
of the ex-premier. Events justified the suspicions and dislikes of the
public, except in the instance of Lord Palmerston, who proved himself to
be the most efficient home-minister the country ever possessed.
The Irish appointments were very unpopular amongst the Protestants in
Ireland, and among those in England who gave themselves any concern
about Irish appointments. The Irish ministry of Lord Derby was greatly
superior to that of Lord Aberdeen, in talent, moral standing, and
influence in the country where their functions were to be sustained.
With the adjournment of the house closed the parliamentary history of
1852.
IRELAND.
The distracted state of Ireland was, as usual, a source of uneasiness
to the empire. There was, indeed, no insurrectionary movement, but
the spirit of agrarian outrage continued, and numerous murders were
perpetrated of a most savage nature—the country people conniving at
the crimes, and secreting the criminals. These evils were, to a great
extent, provoked by the unjust state of the law between landlord and
tenant. Efforts were made in parliament to mitigate the injustice and
oppression to which the tenantry in Ireland were subjected; but the
landed interest in England upheld that in Ireland in resisting all
melioration.
Religious intolerance continued to agitate every other malady of
Ireland. Indeed this was the _fons et origo mali_, for it deprived
honest men and patriots of opportunity to combine for their country’s
freedom and prosperity. During the elections caused by Lord Derby’s
dissolution of parliament, the priests incited the populace, in some
places, to acts of disturbance and violence. At Six Miles Bridge the
soldiery were attacked while protecting voters in the free exercise of
their franchise. Proceedings were taken against a Roman Catholic priest
for the part which it was alleged he took in those disturbances. Public
opinion considered him to have been the cause of the outbreak, but the
tory government, anxious for party purposes to conciliate the Roman
Catholics, did not dare to prosecute him.
The Young Ireland agitation was not extinguished, and it received
some new inspiration of hope from the escape of Thomas Meagher, from
Australia. That adventurous young man made his way from his penal abode
at the antipodes to America, where he became a citizen. He was a true
patriot, and an ardent friend of liberty; he had no sympathy with
the pro-slavery and red republican opinions of his former coadjutor,
Mitchell, nor with the raving and malignant bigotry of Charles Gavan
Duffy. In the United States he was an object of universal respect,
his amiability and eloquence winning, in private and public, “golden
opinions from all sorts of men.”
Ireland showed various symptoms of returning prosperity. The only
agitation in which the higher classes took part was in opposition to the
unjust scheme of Disraeli, to tax the Irish fundholder for the advantage
of the English and Irish landholder. This measure was denounced by the
capitalists of Ireland as a violation of faith to the public creditor,
and sapping tire foundations upon which the security and sacredness of
property rested.
The ribbon conspiracy was active during the year, and no suitable effort
was made by Lord Derby’s government to uproot it.
COLONIES.
The colonies were generally prosperous throughout the year, and quietude
and contentment prevailed. The Cape of Good Hope, and even India, were
less disturbed than usual; but in each of these places a few events
occurred to which we shall especially refer.
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
In the early part of the year, the troubles which harassed the colony in
the previous year exercised some influence. The efforts of the governor
to establish tranquillity and good government met with co-operation from
the colonists. The Boers, however, showed a disposition hostile to
the British, chiefly because they hated the liberty which the English
enjoyed and extended to the coloured population. The eagerness of the
Boers to subdue to slavery the natives who came within their control,
was not abated by the bitter lessons which their past experience had
received. Before the year had far advanced, the whole colony was in
repose, law and order for a time having been everywhere established.
INDIA.
India generally was quiet throughout this year, except upon the
frontiers of Birmese territory. The vast regions comprehended under
the name of British India, are never free from some tumults, local
insurrections, and sudden and almost unaccountable revolts of petty
chiefs. The year 1852 was not without events of this sort, but there
was no startling incident except a war with Birmah, which of course was
waged from India, and by the governor-general. A brief account of it
will appear most appropriately in the relation of the foreign affairs of
the empire.
The author of “The Three Presidencies” relates the political events of
interest to the English in India, with the following brief but correct
summary:—“Throughout India, with the exception of the north-western
frontier, the most profound peace has reigned. The only disturbance
which broke this complete tranquillity was the periodical incursion of
some of the hill-tribes, especially of the Momunds. Their forays
were mainly directed against the inhabitants of the villages in their
vicinity, where they frequently committed great destruction of life and
property. These marauders occupied the forces under Sir Colin Campbell
from early in January, at various periods, until quite the end of the
year, often falling upon our troops when not expected, and inflicting
considerable loss. These freebooters mustered very strong in light
horse, by the rapidity of their movements and their intimate knowledge
of every mile of the country, bade defiance to such of our troops as
were brought against them. In Scinde, the occurrence of the year was the
deposition of Ali Morad from his princedom. The plots and falsehoods of
this designing intriguer having been completely brought home to him, and
it being made clear how nefariously he had deprived both his brothers
and the British government of large tracts of territory, no time
was lost in stripping him of his ill-gotten honours and estates, and
reducing him to the rank of a simple chief. An attempt was made, during
1852, to establish an annual fair at Kurrachee, for the supply of the
great commercial marts above the Indus with European goods, and the
disposal of their produce in return.”
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.—BIRMESE WAR.
The general relations of Great Britain with other nations were tranquil
during the year, although some alarms were entertained as to the
intentions of her nearest neighbour on the European continent. The
war with Birmah was, however costly and sanguinary and was the most
prominent matter of public interest in the foreign relations of the
British empire. It was in 1851 that the occasion for hostilities was
given by the Birmese, and that the governor-general took measures for
reprisal. Various acts of oppression and cruelty to British subjects
were perpetrated by the authorities of Ava.*
* For a minute and extended account of the causes of both
the wars with Birmah, see Nolan’s “History of the British
Umpire in India and the East.” Virtue: City-road.
It was not, however, until 1852 that the conflict assumed a serious
character, and that tidings reached the English public of this new
Indian war. Early in January, 1852, the King of Ava pretended a
willingness to settle the differences between him and the British
by negotiations. By this means he succeeded in capturing a number
of English residents at Rangoon, whom he subjected to indignity and
suffering. Commodore Lambert, who commanded the naval expedition,
blockaded the Birmese ports. The governor-general despatched from
Calcutta, and the Governor of Madras, from the capital of that
presidency, strong bodies of troops. Preparations of an extensive
nature were made to bring the war to a speedy issue. Several officers of
eminent ability, among them the great and good Havelock, afterwards
Sir Henry, and the saviour of India, joined the force. By the 24th of
February, six steamers left Bombay for Madras, where they embarked the
troops destined for the Birmese campaign, under the command of General
Godwin, viz., two European and four native regiments, with four corps of
artillerymen, chiefly Europeans. These left Madras on the 29th of March,
whilst at Calcutta the armament had been equally hastened. The last of
the force despatched there left the Hoogly on the 25th of March, the
total having been similar to the Madras force—two European and four
native regiments, with their accompaniments of artillery, in four
steamers and four transports. These amounted in the aggregate to about
eight thousand men.
The 1st of April was the clay appointed for the ultimatum. A steamer was
sent to Rangoon, to obtain the king’s reply. The English envoy found the
river lined with stockades, and from thence a heavy fire was opened
upon him; this was the only answer to the British ultimatum his Birmese
majesty deigned to give.
Admiral Austin, with the Bengal force, arrived at this juncture, and at
once attacked and conquered Martaban, so that, by the evening of the
5th of April, the British were masters of the place. The Madras troops
arrived on the 7th, and the forces of the two presidencies proceeded up
the river and attacked the stockades, which were defended by twenty-five
thousand men.
Early in May, the British resolved upon attacking Bassein, sixty miles
up one of the branches of the Irriwaddy. From that point, the Birmese
commander contemplated an invasion of the British province of Arracan.
After a desperate struggle, a very small number of British succeeded in
storming the stockades and capturing the place.
While the English were engaged capturing Bassein, the Birmese attempted
the reconquest of Martaban, but were repulsed with great slaughter, by a
very small force, with little loss.
On the 5th of July, Prome was attacked: the conquest was easy, but the
conqueror did not deem it necessary to garrison the place; consequently,
as he retired to Rangoon, the enemy re-entered Prome.
The incompetency and inactivity of the British general caused July and
August to pass uselessly. The whole army murmured. All the abuses of
British military official routine prevailed, and the accounts which
arrived in England excited, as tidings from India had so often done,
much popular discontent. A popular writer thus criticised
General Godwin’s conduct, and gave the following relation of his
proceedings:—“The expected reinforcements having reached head-quarters,
the force available amounted in the month of September to nearly twenty
thousand men, in the highest state of efficiency, and quite large enough
to have at once swept all before them to the very gates of the emperor’s
palace. But this did not appear to be the view taken of the matter by
General Godwin, who now made preparation for once more attacking Prome.
In tire middle of this month, two regiments, a field-battery, with a
detachment of sappers and miners, left Rangoon, followed within a few
days by the general, and a party of artillerymen. They ascended the
river without opposition until the 9th of October, when, as they
approached the stockaded defences of the city, they were fired upon from
many sides. The enemy’s gunnery was not of first-rate quality, and in
less than two hours was entirely silenced, the ground being completely
cleared of the opposing force by the shells thrown from the steamers.
The troops were landed towards the evening, and, advancing at once upon
a pagoda and the few remaining defences, carried everything before
them at the point of the bayonet. Night fell before the town could be
reached, and it was therefore not until the next morning that Prome
was occupied for the second time by our troops. A large body of Birmese
troops, amounting to upwards of six thousand men, were known to be
posted within a few miles of the town, strongly entrenched behind
stockades, and out of reach of our steamers, the artillery practice
from which appears to have impressed them with a proper sense of our
superiority in that arm of war. To have dislodged them with the force at
his command would have been a matter of comparative ease; but so thought
not General Godwin, who, fearful probably of terminating the war too
quickly, determined to await the arrival of further troops before
attempting any forward movement. He did not wait long, however; but
within a day or two left for Rangoon, in search of the troops considered
to be requisite for further operations. This reinforcement was
dispatched towards the latter part of the month. By this time the
Irriwaddy, which had been previously deep enough throughout for our
largest steamers, sank so suddenly, and as it appears so unexpectedly,
that several of the flotilla were left aground in the middle of the
stream, with every prospect of having to remain there until the next
rains should float them.”
The English general seemed to be unable to manage the large
reinforcements which he had received, or to avail himself of the
combinations which the activity of the governor-general made to
facilitate the objects of the expedition.
The general resolved to attack Pegu again, which had been abandoned
after a previous successful attack. The conquest was easy, and a
garrison was established. This detachment was attacked in December
by large numbers of the enemy. The garrison was hemmed in, and in the
greatest danger; General Godwin, after failing to relieve the place, by
ill-judged and inadequate measures, at last sent a strong force, which
successfully encountered every obstacle, and dispersed the enemy.
On the 28th of December, 1852, Pegu and Martaban were “annexed” to
British India by proclamation of the governor-general. When these
tidings reached Ava, a revolution occurred, promoted by the emperor’s
brother, with the design of propitiating the English, and making peace.
The emperor was made a captive, and his brother ascended the musnid.
Meanwhile, the British forced the great pass between Arracan and Pegu,
leading through it two hundred and fifty elephants sent from Calcutta to
convey stores to the army under Godwin. Baffled and beaten, the Birmese
troops fell back upon the capital early in the year 1853.
The British opened negotiations with the new sovereign, which were
tediously protracted until May. An embassy was sent to the Birmese
court, and the emperor had the folly and arrogance, after all the
disaster and defeat experienced by the arms of Ava, to demand homage
from the English envoys. The firmness of these gentlemen, and the fear
of renewed hostilities, caused the sovereign to waive his claims to
forms and ceremonies of abject submission, and the issue was peaceful.
Cordial relations with the Birmese dominions were not however
established, either at that juncture or subsequently: but the salutary
fear of British power, caused by the war of 1851–2–3, prevented any
violent interruption of good neighbourhood on the part of the Birmese.
FRANCE.
The most important of all the foreign relations of Great Britain are
those connected with France—the most powerful of all the allies or
enemies of England. During 1852, peace and professions of friendship
prevailed between the two nations, but there existed considerable
apprehension in Great Britain that the designs of the French president
were hostile to England, and that the country was inadequately defended.
The Duke of Wellington, without giving any opinion as to the intentions
of the president, made more powerful than ever by the _coup d’état_,
declared that there was danger from the defenceless state of the
country, and recommended the government to fortify and aim. His grace
inspected the coasts, and by the opinions he pronounced increased the
public apprehension of peril, while he also stimulated the confidence of
the country in its great capacity for defence. Sir Howard Douglas,
the distinguished engineer officer, accompanied the duke in his coast
inspections, and in a work* published by him on the subject, he thus
describes the duke’s impressions;—
* “Observations on Modern Systems of Fortification.” By
General Sir Howard Douglas, Bart.
“When the late Duke of Wellington visited the coast defences—on the
alarm of an invasion, soon after the accession of Louis Napoleon, the
present Emperor of France, to the presidency—his grace, being at
Seabrook, between Sandgate and Hythe, conversing with his staff and
the other officers, the principles of permanent camps and other fixed
defences became the subject of discussion, when the duke used the
following expressions, ‘Look at those splendid heights all along this
coast; give me communications which admit of rapid flank movement along
those heights, and I might set anything at defiance.’”
The fears felt in England that a struggle with France would be speedily
necessitated were intensified, when, at the close of the year, the
president of the republic appealed to the universal suffrage of France,
as to whether he should assume the name and power of emperor. This
appeal was answered by 7,824,189 “ayes,” and 253,143 “noes.”
On the 1st of December, the senate and legislative corps met, and
proceeded to St. Cloud, to announce to the president of the republic
that he had been elected sovereign of France. He accepted the splendid
boon, and declared himself Napoleon III. The British government
recognised the title, declaring that whatever form of government the
French people chose to adopt would be acknowledged and respected by
England.
GENERAL EUROPEAN RELATIONS.
England interested herself in certain diplomatic discussions concerning
the succession to the crown of Denmark, and in the disputes which
occurred between the government of Copenhagen and the German
Confederation, connected with Schleswig Holstein.
A treaty of commerce and navigation, between her Britannic majesty and
the King of the Belgians, also signalized the year.
No other events of serious importance engaged the attention of England
in connection with Europe.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Another of the many disputes concerning territory, or rights,
perpetually occurring between Great Britain and the United States,
took place in 1852. The contest regarded the fisheries off the American
coasts; the citizens of the United States claiming the right, in virtue
of a certain convention dated 1818, to fish off the coasts, and dry fish
on the coasts, of an extensive area of British territory. The British
colonial minister, Sir J. Pakington, conceded nearly all that the
Americans demanded, to the mortification of the colonial subjects of
Great Britain. Discussions concerning Central America, and the formation
of a ship-canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific, also engaged
the diplomatic abilities of British and American ministers. Ostensible
agreements were entered into, but neither nation heartily acquiesced,
and no expectation was entertained in England that the people of the
United States regarded the settlement as final.
EFFORTS AGAINST THE SLAVE TRADE, AND TO SUPPRESS PIRACY.
The energy put forth by the British government to destroy the traffic in
slaves by an armed naval force off the coasts of Africa were this year
unremitting and successful. Several vessels trading in slaves were
taken, and though the British squadron was not sufficient to suppress,
it was a powerful check upon the slave trade.
Naval operations off the Chinese coasts, within the Straits of Malacca
and on the coasts of Labuan, were also crowned with success. Through
the instrumentality of Rajah Brooke, the Malay pirates were defeated and
ultimately extirpated from the bays and creeks of Labuan. The position
of the rajah at Sarawak afforded him facilities for directing these
enterprises, which his indomitable courage and energy enabled him to
make available. His country did not appreciate his deeds as highly as
they deserved, and certain cliques in England decried his labours and
aspersed his motives. He rendered commerce and his country great and
disinterested services.
DEATHS OF EMINENT PERSONS.
During the year 1852, death was as usual busy in the circles of
eminent persons: the fame and talents of some of the deceased render it
desirable and necessary to record their names upon the page of history.
On the 22nd of January, George Herbert Rodwell, the celebrated composer
and writer, was removed from among the living. His musical compositions
and stage productions were numerous and popular.
In the month of February, Samuel Prout, F.S.A., celebrated for his
drawings in water-colours, and a peculiar style of depicting public
buildings, died. Also, Dr. Murray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin,
a man of extraordinary influence, acquired by prudence, moderation,
patriotism, and consistency of character.
The most remarkable man who departed this life in the British Isles
during 1852 was Thomas Moore, the poet. He died in his seventy-third
year, at Sloperton Cottage, Wiltshire, where, through the generous
patronage of Lord Lansdowne, the poet spent his most tranquil years.
This extraordinary man was born in Aungier Street, Dublin, in the year
1779. The poet’s father was a grocer, but subsequently received an
appointment as quarter-master to a regiment. The poetical genius of
Thomas Moore was shown at a very early period of life—in his thirteenth
year he contributed to the Dublin periodicals. He was at that time under
the care of a very celebrated schoolmaster, Mr. Samuel Whyte, who took
a deep interest in the precocious genius of his pupil, and had no small
share of honour in bringing him into notice. As early as fourteen years
of age he entered the Dublin University. He was scarcely more than a
year a pupil in the university when he published a paraphrase on the
fifth ode of Anacreon. This was so well received that he proceeded to
translate the remaining odes, which performance ultimately met with
a most encouraging reception. In his nineteenth year, he proceeded to
London in the hope of obtaining by subscription a sufficient amount to
secure the success of his “Anacreon,” and also to enter as a student
the Middle Temple. The work did not appear until 1800, when, under the
patronage of the Earl of Moira, he was enabled to dedicate it to the
Prince of Wales. In 1802, he published a volume under the designation
of, “The Poetical Works of the Late Thomas Little.” The moral tone of
these productions offended the public taste, and inflicted injury upon
the poet’s reputation which his subsequent life did not remove, even
when the glory of his genius shed lustre upon his name and his country.
His more popular works are well known. In politics he was a whig
partizan, but was not at heart attached to any school of politics.
He was ostensibly a Roman Catholic, and was intolerant as a writer in
defence of Romanism, while in private he was most liberal on religious
subjects, and showed no earnest belief in any system of theology. He
was one of the most accomplished scholars of his day, but was not
a profound thinker, and was regarded as rather a lazy writer.
His imagination was not of the highest order, but it was rich and
diversified. His artistic taste and harmony as a poetical writer were
exquisite. His love of music and song was a deep passion. In society, he
held every circle as in a spell, so charming were his conversation and
manner, and so brilliant and vivacious was his wit. Lord Byron, who had
so happy a power of describing a notable character in a single sentence
or paragraph, said of him, “He is gentlemanly, gentle, and altogether
more pleasing than any individual with whom I am acquainted.”
When Lord Melbourne was in office, in 1835, he counselled her majesty
to bestow a pension on the poet of £300 a-year. Moore had found it
difficult to realize this sum by his writings, as his prose works
did not meet the expectations raised by his poetry. When he became a
pensioner he seldom wrote, verifying the predictions of his friends. He
exchanged too early in life the department of literature in which he
had made so great a reputation for prose, in which he sought by memoirs,
historical writing, and even controversy, to increase his income, and
establish a new reputation. A passionate love for Ireland pervaded most
of his writings, especially his Irish melodies. He constantly breathed
a fervid wish from his earliest years for her national independence, and
severance from England. Yet when a large portion of his countrymen flew
to arms for that purpose, in 1798, he, although nineteen years of age,
took no part in the struggle: neither did he show any desire to live in
Ireland, but courted English aristocratic society, and served English
party interests. During three years before his death, the brain
gradually softened, and he sunk into childishness. None of his children
survived him. His widow, a charming person, retained a pension of £100
a-year, conferred upon her by the government.
The poetical works of Thomas Moore retain their popularity in many
lands. Not only in England, where he spent by far the greater part of
his life, and in Ireland, where he was born and educated, and whose
popular joys, sorrows, hopes, aspirations, traditions, and prejudices he
sung so sweetly, but wherever the English language is spoken, his fame
is cherished and his verse repeated. Nor is the delight inspired by his
works limited to the language in which they were written. All over the
continent of Europe, among the nations whose language is of Latin
and Celtic origin, his muse inspires deep interest and pleasure. His
extraordinary oriental poem, “Lalla Rookh,” has been translated into
Persian, and delights the literary sons of Iran as it erst thrilled
the imagination and heart of all persons of poetic temperament in the
British Isles. In the city of Dublin, a statue has been erected to his
memory, close by the old senate, now used as the Bank of Ireland, and
near the poet’s Alma Mater, Trinity College. The statue is a failure,
private partiality and _clique_ interest having stifled public
competition and robbed the great sculptors, and the poet, of the reward
of genius, the city of Dublin of an ornament of which it might have been
proud, and his country of the opportunity of paying a suitable tribute
of respect to one of the most gifted of her sons. Had M’Dowell or
Hogan been allowed to execute a statue for Moore, it would have been
accomplished _con amore_, and in a way worthy of the poet and of the
sculptor.
The month of February witnessed the death, at the advanced age of
ninety, of John Landseer, the celebrated engraver. He left behind him
three sons, all eminent—George, Charles, and Sir Edwin.
Among the deaths of remarkable persons in April was that of General
Arthur O’Connor, aged eighty-nine, at the Chateau de Rignon, near
Nemours. This notable person was one of the leaders in the terrible
Irish rebellion of 1798. He was the third son of Roger Connor, of
Connorville, by Anne Longfield, sister of Lord Longueville. He was
called to the Irish bar in 1788. Lord Longueville returned him to the
Irish parliament as representative of Philipstown, in the King’s County,
in the year 1790. Lord Longueville afterwards deprived him of his seat
in parliament, and disinherited him, by which a loss occurred to Mr.
O’Connor of £10,000 a-year, in consequence of his violent advocacy, in
the Irish parliament, of “Catholic emancipation.” He afterwards became
a leader of the “United Irishmen,” and one of “the Directory of Five,”
of that body. After various unsuccessful efforts to separate Ireland
from Great Britain, he was arrested, and made an ingenious and desperate
effort to escape, assisted by the Earl of Thanet. In 1804, he was
deported from Ireland, his life being spared on condition, it was
alleged, of some disclosures as to the plans for insurrection even then
entertained by him and his colleagues. Buonaparte made him a general of
division, and he subsequently received further promotion in the French
army. In 1809 he married a niece of Marshal Grouchy, daughter of the
Marquis Condorcet, the French mathematician. In 1834, he was permitted
by Earl Grey, then in power in England, to revisit Ireland for the
purpose of disposing of some property inherited by him, and which the
British government had not confiscated. With the proceeds he purchased
the chateau where Mirabeau was born, and there General O’Connor died.
The celebrated agitator Fergus O’Connor, once member of parliament for
Cork, and afterwards for Nottingham, was nephew to the general.
In May, Mrs. Coleridge, only daughter of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. She
was a lady of extraordinary attainments and vigour. Her acquaintance
with the classics was most extensive and accurate, and by her
translations from the Latin her reputation was to a great extent made.
Wordsworth and Southey were her intimate friends, and intense admirers
of her genius. In a review written by an eminent critic, it was remarked
of her that “she was the inheritrix of her father’s genius, and almost
rival of his attainments.”
In August, in his eightieth year, Thomas Thompson, M.D., F.R.S., London
and Edinburgh, Regius Professor of Chemistry in the University of
Glasgow, and President of the Glasgow Philosophical Society. Dr.
Thompson, as a chemist and inventor, had obtained a great celebrity.
In August, the death of Joseph W. Allen, the celebrated
landscape-painter, took place at Hammersmith. He was the son of a
schoolmaster in that place.
In September, George Richardson Porter, senior, Secretary of the Board
of Trade, Treasurer of the Statistical Society. The statistical writings
of this remarkable man brought about many changes in the law, and
conduced signally to the repeal of “the corn-laws.”
Dr. Macgillivray, Professor of Natural History, and Lecturer on
Botany in the University of Aberdeen. As a writer, a professor, and a
philosopher, the doctor obtained an enduring fame, not only in Scotland,
but throughout the learned world.
Augustus Nathmure Welby Pugin, the celebrated architect, was among those
called away by death in this month.
In November, Gideon Alderson Mantell, LL.D., F.R.S., F.S.A., F.L.S.
He was distinguished in early life by a thirst for knowledge, and a
capacity to attain it under the greatest difficulties, being lowly
born—the son of a shoemaker at Lewes. As a chemist, a physician, a
naturalist, and a geologist, he obtained a wide-spread reputation.
The Countess of Lovelace died this month. This lady had achieved nothing
remarkable by any effort or genius of her own, but the country felt
great interest in her as the only daughter of the popular poet. Lord
Byron: of her he had sung,—
“Ada, sole daughter of my house and heart.”
She was a lady of very elegant mind, and capable of accurate and
profound thought; her intellectual attainments were very considerable,
and of a nature unusual for ladies. Her remains were laid beside those
of her father.
In December, the death of the Rev. Samuel Lee, D.D., was recorded. He
was Canon of Bristol, and Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University
of Cambridge. His knowledge of languages was vast and critical, and
he attained especially a great reputation in the dead languages of the
East. He was born in great obscurity, and received his first rudiments
of learning in a charity school. He was one of the most remarkable men
of the age.
At Kensington, Mr. Stephens, the celebrated entomologist, added another
to the list of remarkable persons removed during this year.
It is not possible within the space allotted to this work to notice the
removal from life of all the eminent persons recorded in the obituary
of this year—persons whose life was a portion of English history in its
most interesting aspects, and whose death excited the deep attention and
regret of the nation, A record of great political events, merely,
will not depict the history or progress of a nation, but as her mighty
children one by one disappear from the social state, upon which they
have impressed their own intellect and character, their names and deeds
should be presented as forming a glorious part of the facts and history
of the country and the time.
CHAPTER LXV.
{VICTORIA. 1853}
Condition of Great Britain..... The Court..... State of
Ireland..... Colonial Affairs..... Foreign Affairs..... The
War with Russia..... Parliamentary and Party Events.....
Deaths of Eminent Persons.
GENERAL STATE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
{A.D. 1853}
Great Britain was peaceful and prosperous—no internal strife, no civil
feud, no general discontent disturbed her fair aspect, or impeded her
glorious progress. The working classes were better off than in previous
years. Pauperism declined, crime was greatly lessened. In 1852, the
commitments in England and Wales were 3899 fewer than the average.
In 1853, the favourable difference was seen not so much in decreased
numbers as in the lesser gravamen of the offences. Much sickness was
caused by the excessive severity of the weather during the spring
quarter. From the 20th of-April to the 15th of May, the temperature on
one day fell to 14° below the average, on another to 13°, and on others
to 10°, 9°, and 8°. There was a heavy fall of snow in April, and still
more heavily during the first fortnight in May. The snow in the north
was so accumulated upon the ground that the lines of railway were
occasionally closed, and trains embedded in the snow. The effect of
such severe weather late in the spring and in the opening of summer was
disastrous upon the crops, and entailed upon the harvest consequences
which formed a check to this otherwise prosperous year. With a
deficient harvest came the certainty of a war with Russia, still
further embarrassing a year which opened with so many felicitations. The
appearance of Asiatic cholera in the autumn tended also to depress
the close of the year. That fell disease burst out with extraordinary
violence at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the month of August, where more than
2000 lives were sacrificed to its fury. The disease reached London the
same month, and there also effected serious ravages, both in 1853 and in
1854.
The revenue of the year 1853, up to the 8th of January, 1854,
was—receipts, £69,410,976 15s.; disbursements, £55,769,252 4s. The
surplus revenue, after adding balances to the actual income, exceeded
three millions and a quarter sterling—a financial condition of the
country proving great prosperity: and one for congratulation at a time
when war so imminently impended.
THE COURT.
On the 7th of April, her majesty was delivered of a son. Her recovery
was, as on similar occasions, speedy, and the country hailed the event
with joy. On the 28th of June, the infant prince was baptized in
the private chapel of Buckingham Palace. The splendour usual on such
occasions was perhaps somewhat surpassed. Many foreign princes and
ministers were present. The sponsors were the King of Hanover, the
Princess of Prussia, the Princess Mary of Cambridge, and the Prince of
Hohenloe-Lengenburgh. The child was named Leopold George Duncan Albert.
The ceremonial was followed by a brilliant state banquet.
The court was not exempt from illness prevalent during a portion of the
year. In July, measles attacked her majesty, Prince Albert, the Prince
of Wales, the Princess Royal, and others of the royal children. This
event postponed the visit of the court to the Dublin Exhibition, and
caused uneasiness for a short time both in Ireland and Great Britain.
On the 11th of August, her majesty reviewed a portion of her fleet at
Spithead. It was a magnificent spectacle, affording one of the most
gorgeous and glorious displays of naval power ever presented to the
eyes of even a British sovereign. Her majesty wherever she appeared was
received with the greatest enthusiasm; and, in this grand review, she
was attended by the members of both branches of the legislature.
On the 29th of August, her majesty visited the Dublin Exhibition of
Industry, an event which is more particularly noticed in the following
section.
After her majesty’s visit to Ireland, she sailed to Holyhead, whence, on
the 5th of September, she proceeded to Balmoral, to enjoy her Scottish
Highland retreat. While at Balmoral an incident occurred illustrative of
the character of the royal family. A fire broke out near the palace.
Her majesty rendered prompt assistance, directing the efforts used
to extinguish the fire, while Prince Albert and the Prince of Wales
personally worked with ardour and assiduity to accomplish that object.
On the 14th of October the royal family arrived at Windsor Castle for a
prolonged residence.
Thus the United Kingdom, in its capitals, great harbours, and even
remote hills and glens, continued to witness the domestic happiness,
private virtues, queenly goodness and dignity, and public usefulness and
activity of their noble queen and her family. It might in truth be said
that every heart in the British Isles felt the aspiration “God save the
queen.”
STATE OF IRELAND.
The condition of the sister kingdom was still one of faction, feud,
and fiery religious and political agitation. Emigration to the British
colonies, and the United States of America continued, and by this means
the land was relieved of such a portion of its pauper population as
lowered the poor-rates and gave relief to the occupiers. Increased
attention began to be paid by the landlords to the cultivation of the
soil, and commerce appeared somewhat to revive. The expectations of
improvement in Ireland, which were entertained in England, were
too sanguine. When these hopes of seeing Ireland more peaceable and
prosperous were much cherished, tidings continually arrived of deeds of
violence and blood, connected with the law of landlord and tenant. To
this fruitful source of crime in Ireland, much of the evil state
of things there was attributable. The landlords were exacting, and
cherished no kindly feeling for the peasantry, especially where
political and religious differences existed between the landlords and
the priests. The people, on the other hand, shared with their spiritual
advisers in a rancorous religious and political hostility to the
landlords, whom they regarded as the descendants of invaders and
plunderers. It was a common impression among the peasantry, that the
rightful owners of the forfeited Irish estates were the descendants of
those who had been dispossessed. Prophesies, attributed to various Irish
saints, were in circulation among the people, promising the reconquest
of Ireland by the children of her own land and of the true faith,
the expulsion of the stranger, and the restoration of the soil to the
families from whom it had been taken by the sword. With these feelings
to the landowners on the part of the farming and labouring population
in the Roman Catholic provinces of the country, it cannot be matter
of surprise that any trick, or act of violence by which a landlord was
deprived of his just rights, was regarded either as a “venial offence,”
or no offence, or even a patriotic and virtuous act, according as the
conscience of the rude casuist was more or less under such influences.
Had the landlords as a body administered their estates in a spirit of
justice; used their power to bring land questions under the influence of
just and simple legislation; and, as magistrates and legislators, set an
example of moderation, good sense, and true patriotism, the prejudices
of the peasantry would have been worn down, in spite of sacerdotal
or other influences to sustain and foster them. Such a happy state
of affairs had not arrived in 1853, and the old tales of brutal and
barbarous murders filled Europe-with a sense of astonishment and mystery
as to the social and political condition of Ireland.
It was peculiarly remarkable that during the prevalence of a general
state of affairs so lamentable, there should arise in Dublin a Palace of
Industry, the sequel of that erected in Hyde Park. The site chosen was
admirable—the lawn of Leinster House, at a former time the property
of “Ireland’s only Duke,” but then in possession of the Dublin Royal
Society. Mr. William Dargan, a celebrated contractor for railway works,
with patriotic feeling, conceived the idea of erecting a building, at
his own risk, for the display of the industrial products of Ireland.
One thousand men were employed daily for many months in completing the
structure, which was admirably adapted to its purpose.
On the 12th of May, the building was opened with much _éclat_. It
was found more imposing and elegant than the public expected, and the
pleasure felt by the people of Ireland and their British friends was
thus much enhanced. It was divided into three “halls.” The centre hall
was 425 feet long, and 100 feet wide; two lesser ones were each 355 feet
long and 50 feet wide. The elevation of the three halls was equal, 65
feet. The whole area occupied by this Palace of Industry was 210,000
square feet. Light was admitted only from above, an arrangement which
was deemed better for the peculiar kind of exhibition made than that
of the London Crystal Palace, which was an edifice of glass, All the
designs and plans, and the superintendence of the entire construction
devolved on Mr. Dargan. He advanced £80,000 to the object, expecting a
heavy loss, and repudiating any intention to derive any gain.
The exhibition was opened by the Lord-lieutenant, the Earl of St.
Germans, attended by the Irish court. The Knights of St. Patrick joined
the procession in all the insignia of their order. All were welcomed
by the populace without, and the assembled rank and fashion within the
building, with that enthusiasm characteristic of the Irish people. None
received such applause as the generous and skilful man who originated
and carried out the undertaking; and none of the many gifted and useful
men who rendered the event memorable by their presence, deserved equal
honours on the occasion. Mr. Dargan declined the honour of a baronetcy;
that of knighthood was conferred on Mr. Benson, the architect.
The productions exhibited surpassed public expectation still more than
did the building itself. Various descriptions of manufacture attracted
the attention of visitors from Great Britain, the continent of Europe,
and from America. The linen and damask of Ulster, the products of the
Dublin silk-loom, especially the tabinets and poplins, fine woollen
cloths, “Irish frize,” Limerick gloves and lace, received high encomiums
from the manufacturing and commercial visitors from Great Britain and
distant countries, as well as from the general public. It was, however,
chiefly in works of art that the exhibition excelled. The splendid
sculpture of M’Dowel, Hogan, and other sculptors, was most of all
conspicuous. The paintings of Shee, M’Lise, O’Neil, and many more,
almost rivalled the display of sculpture. There were also beautiful
carvings in Irish oak, “bog oak,”* and arbutus, from the beautiful
specimens which in natural woods crown the hillsides in Kerry,
especially near the Killarney Lakes.
* Found in the “peat” or “turf.” The word “bog,” so well
known in India, and other portions of the East, as meaning a
garden, has the same signification in Irish, and marks the
places where gardens or woods once flourished, now reduced
to masses of peat.
Old Irish illuminated MSS., the rarest in the world—no nation having
attained the same perfection as the Irish in that department of
taste—and specimens of ancient sculpture from before the Christian era,
excited the attention of the lovers of antiquity, and admiration for the
genius of ancient Ireland.
The English and French newspaper press and reviews complimented
the Irish people upon those qualities of artistic taste which their
exhibition proved them to possess, and the London _Times_ asserted
in several leaders, that whatever might be the superior qualities or
advantages of the English people, industrial or otherwise, as compared
with the Irish, the latter possessed in a far higher degree, artistic
genius, and taste in its superior developments.
The queen and court of London felt great interest in the Dublin
exhibition. Her majesty visited it, and expressed her gratification in a
manner most flattering to the Irish people, and especially complimentary
to the patriotism of Mr. Dargan. Her majesty’s visit to the exhibition
was one of those happy circumstances in her reign, in which her noble
qualities of head and heart were made conspicuous, and in which she
appeared so auspiciously, as the healer of contention, the soother of
social asperities, the patroness of art, and the encourager and rewarder
of industry and merit. It was on the 29th of August the court visited
the Irish metropolis. They arrived early on the morning of that day at
Kingstown Jetty, and her majesty, accompanied by the Prince of Wales,
and Prince Albert, drove through the streets of Dublin, which were
thronged with multitudes of persons, offering the most enthusiastic and
unanimous demonstrations of respect and welcome. In the evening, the
city was brilliantly illuminated. Her majesty’s visit to the exhibition
was one of the most gratifying incidents in modern Irish history. The
royal party, while remaining in Dublin, drove much in the environs,
and paid a visit to the house of Mr. Dargan, as a compliment to the
enterprise and patriotism of that gentleman. Queen and people were
delighted with the royal visit to Ireland, which also, as a matter of
public policy, was wise and beneficent.
GENERAL CONDITION OF THE COLONIES.
The year was not very eventful to our colonial empire. There was general
prosperity. India was, as usual, the theatre of Oriental cabal, and
Oude was the scene of its chief features, and the seat of most of the
intrigues and plots against English dominion in Hindustan.
CANADA.
This province was especially prosperous, but it experienced the
consequences of the policy so embarrassing at home—of allowing Irish
religious disturbances, and those who create them, to pass without
sufficient reprobation by the government. In Canada the Irish were
numerous. The Protestant Irish there were energetic and zealous for
their creed. The Roman Catholic Irish were full of a fierce fanaticism.
Orangeism and Ribandism flourished in Canada, even as at Belfast, and
used such opportunities as arose to fight as fiercely.
One Gavazzi, an Italian priest, left the church of Rome, and lectured
against his former faith in Great Britain and Ireland. The liberty
enjoyed in Great Britain by all men to discuss publicly their opinions,
was not possessed in Ireland. There, indeed, the government conceded
such a right, but the local magistracy often acted in a spirit adverse
to the British constitution; and the priests and people of the Roman
Catholic religion, although always waging an active controversial
warfare against Protestants, never tolerated a reply; and whenever any
aggressive controversy was set on foot by any sect of Protestants, they
were generally assailed with brutal violence, their places of worship
attacked, and the persons of the preachers or polemists fiercely
assaulted. The Irish Roman Catholic immigrants in Canada carried with
them to their adopted country the same spirit of religious intolerance
and mob violence, so indulgently treated by whig and tory governments in
their own country. Gavazzi was the occasion, in June, 1853, of evoking
this fact in a startling manner in Canada. He visited Quebec, and
lectured against the Romish church in “the Free Church” in that city.
He alluded in his argument to the condition of the Roman Catholics of
Ireland, as influenced by their religion. The statements of the reverend
gentleman were such as the members of any other communion than the
churches of Rome or Greece would have considered matter for reply and
fair argument. The Roman Catholics of Quebec, especially the Irish
of that communion, resorted to their usual mode of opposing a
controversialist: they attacked the preacher with brutal violence,
uttering the fiercest yells and denunciations, and in language horrible,
as proceeding from men on religious grounds. Gavazzi had to fight for
his life, which was with difficulty saved. In Montreal the lectures of
the Italian polemist were attended by disturbances more serious and more
general. The police protected him, as they would have protected a Roman
Catholic clergyman had he been assailed by intolerant Protestants. The
police were nearly overwhelmed by the onslaught of a multitude of Irish
Canadian Romanists, anxious to imbrue their hands in the blood of a man
who had, as a clergyman, left their church and made a public protest
against it. Fire-arms were used on both sides, to the disadvantage of
the rioters, some of whom were killed. The military arrived in time to
protect the place of worship, in which the Italian doctor lectured, from
being demolished. The Romanists collected in greater strength, and
fired upon the soldiery, who returned the fire, killing seven, mortally
wounding six, otherwise wounding many more, and finally driving the
aggressive bigots from the streets. The authorities did not follow up
with justice or spirit this disgraceful affair; a fear of the Roman
Catholic influence in the English parliament deterring them. When
tidings of these events arrived in the United Kingdom, the Roman
Catholics in parliament, at public meetings, and by the press, expressed
sympathy with the violators of law, and the riotous mobs which
had attempted to tread down civil and religious freedom; while
denunciations, false, vehement, and intolerant, were directed upon
the Reverend Doctor Gavazzi. The principles upon which this course was
based, were those so commonly assumed by the party in Ireland, when
it was needful to justify violence and bigotry there; namely, that the
Roman Catholic Church, being the true church, should have immunity from
polemic charges against its doctrines and worship; and that, as all
attacks upon it are sure, amidst a Roman Catholic population, to lead
to a breach of the peace, Gavazzi ought to have been punished by the
authorities, and the authorities who neglected to do that should be
regarded as accessories to the riot, and guilty of the murder of the
rioters who fell. The leaders of the opposite sections of Whigs and
Tories in the English parliament treated such arguments very blandly,
and instead of denouncing any party or sect which impeded religious
liberty, no matter what its theological opinions, the tone adopted was
more in sympathy with the Roman Catholic party in parliament, to gain
whose votes each party was after its own mode bidding, each alike
willing to sacrifice the liberty of public controversy for the political
aid thus sought to be procured.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
The year 1853 witnessed little in the foreign relations of the United
Kingdom to excite the public interest, except in connection with the
dangers to which the integrity of the Turkish empire became exposed.
The establishment of the empire in France consolidated the amity
between that country and the British government and people. With Europe
generally the best understanding existed. Various treaties were formed
with countries of minor power, all having a tendency to preserve peace
and promote commerce. The public were made acquainted with others which
had been made or ratified the previous year; and the expectation was
general that the repose of Europe would remain undisturbed. A treaty of
friendship, commerce, and navigation, was ratified the previous October
with the republic of Peru, and published the beginning of January. A
similar treaty was ratified at Guayaquil on the 23rd of January with the
republic of the equator. On the 1st of February, a treaty relative to
the succession of the crown of Greece was ratified in London, between
her Britannic Majesty, the French Emperor, and the Emperor of Russia.
“Declarations” were signed at Florence and Rome, on the 17th of
November, and exchanged between the governments of Great Britain and
the Roman States, “for securing national treatment to the vessels and
commerce of the one country in the other.”
THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.
Early in the year, events transpired which ultimately led to a war
on the part of the United Kingdom, France, and Turkey against Russia.
Designs against the integrity of the Turkish empire had long been
entertained by Russia, and there was reason to believe that Austria
was an abettor of those schemes, in the hope of being a partaker of the
spoil. Sir Hamilton Seymour, the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg,
came to the conclusion that those two great powers were in secret league
against the Turkish empire. They dared not, however, proceed in
their plans in opposition to the will of England and France, and the
ambassadors of both countries were sounded by the czar, to ascertain
with what part of the territorial plunder contemplated they would
be satisfied. Both powers indignantly refused to participate in any
aggression against the sultan, and made known their reasons in terms
calculated to deter his imperial majesty from the like. Austria
had fomented disputes on the Turkish frontier, and threatened armed
interference when the sultan made military preparation to restore the
peace of his provinces. Russia ostensibly opposed Austria in these
proceedings, but, as was afterwards proved, secretly abetted her.
The attitude of the czar towards Turkey was one of vigilance and
preparation, as an armed robber watches the wayfaring man. The czar was
encouraged to hope that events would arise from the policy of France
favourable to his own designs. This expectation arose from the
ostentatious interference of France in the disputes between the Latin
and Greek Christians. French agents were spread over Syria; and a tone
at once insolent to the authorities, defiant to the Greeks, and unworthy
the dignity of the representatives of a great power, was adopted by
these men. The French ministers and consuls in the Turkish empire were
rather religious partizans, than political agents acting in harmony
with the authorities of the country to which they had been accredited.
Frequent disputes arose in Jerusalem, in connection with Greek and
Latin rites in celebration of certain anniversaries at the Holy Places.
Disturbances of a fierce nature at last rendered the interference of the
Turkish authorities necessary, who acted with impartiality. The French
ambassador resorted to menace and intrigue on behalf of the _protégés_
of France—the professors of the Latin rite; and the sultan,
intimidated, yielded everything which French violence demanded. The
English ambassador in vain advised moderation on the one hand, and
firmness on the other; the French minister seemed to disdain all
temperate counsels, and the Porte was too much awed by his threats to
adopt an attitude of resolution, or even dignity. The concessions wrung
from the sultan by the French furnished the Russian government with the
occasion it had long sought. An especial envoy was sent to demand the
restitution of all the privileges of which the Greeks had been deprived.
The vacillating sultan yielded to his new tormentor. Negotiations were
set on foot by the ministers who represented the great powers; and
France was induced by the influence of England to adopt a concessive
tone, and to withdraw from the insolent and hostile position she had
assumed. The Russian minister, Prince Menschikoff, and his master, were
elated by their success, and increased their demands. An ultimatum
was put forth on the 21st of May, that contained stipulations which
virtually made the czar protector of the Greek Christians throughout the
Turkish empire. It was at the same time notified by the envoy, that if
the ultimatum were not complied with, he would leave Constantinople
in eight days. The events connected with these transactions, and the
results, are described by the author of this History, in his _History
of the War against Russia_, in the following terms, which are here
transcribed. The account is the result of careful and painstaking
researches, and of confidential intercourse with official persons well
acquainted with the diplomacy and events of the period.
This ultimatum was declined by the Porte, and Prince Menschikoff
withdrew from Constantinople. During these negotiations the Russian
armies were concentrated upon the Bessarabian frontiers, and at the same
time the Emperor Nicholas was sounding Sir H. Seymour at St. Petersburg.
These conversations were accompanied by despatches and protestations
that the emperor would not, in the quarrel then pending, attempt any
territorial occupation. But Odessa and Sebastopol were filled with naval
and military preparation, and the Russian army was massing upon the
Pruth, ready at a moment’s notice to invade the principalities. The
moment at last came. Prince Metternich, and Count Nesselrode (the
Russian minister for foreign affairs), baffled in their intrigues by
the resolution of the sultan, gave place to other and more decisive
performers. Prince Gortschakoff crossed the Pruth on the 25th June, at
the head of a numerous army, organized to the highest efficiency on
the Russian principle, and attended by a most powerful artillery and
_matériel_ of war. Contemporaneous with the advance of his armies, the
autocrat published a manifesto, which left his motives and objects no
longer in disguise, and which no persons could misapprehend, except
those whom the disclosures of Sir H. Seymour had failed to enlighten.
Means were taken to reassure the Western governments that no conquest
was intended. Count Nesselrode wrote diplomatic circulars to the Russian
ambassadors and consuls at the various courts and capitals; M. Druhyn
de L’Huys, the French minister of foreign affairs, and our own foreign
minister, wrote countercirculars; and time was bootlessly expended by
the Western governments that ought to have been given to the preparation
of armaments. The Russians lost no time. Having advanced upon Wallachia
by way of Leova, and upon Moldavia by way of Skouliany, they rapidly
penetrated to the capitals of the provinces, where the clergy of the
Greek Church, and the leading officials also of that communion, gave
them public welcome. _Te Deum_ was sung in the churches, and the Russian
armies acted as if on conquered territory. It was on the 3rd of July
that the Pruth was crossed; on the 8th Prince Gortschakoff assisted in
the ceremonies of the Church of St. Spiridion, at Jassy; on the 29th he
received the compliments of the assembled bishops of the Greek Church of
the provinces at Bucharest, 150 miles nearer to the Danube. By this date
the Russian army had greatly increased; Gortschakoff, Dannenberg,
and Luders had at their disposal nearly 20,000 cavalry, 144 pieces of
cannon, of a larger calibre than had ever before been brought into the
field by any army, and a force of infantry not so large in proportion
to these arms of the service, but the precise number of which it is
impossible, amidst so many conflicting statements, to verify. General
Osten-Sacken remained within the Russian frontier with powerful
reserves, and reinforcements were pouring along in unbroken streams from
the great centres of Russian military power. The fierce Cossack from the
Don and the Dneister, the Tartar from the Ukraine, the beetle-browed and
predatory Baschkir, with all their variety of wild uniform, and “helm
and blade” glancing in the summer’s sun, crowded on the great military
thoroughfares, while fresh supplies of well-appointed and formidable
artillery were carefully transmitted. The foundries of Russia were
blazing in the manufacture of warlike weapons; and the workshops of
Belgium were ransacked for the musket and rifle. The shores of the
Sea of Azoff and of the Black Sea were alive with craft of every size,
bearing military resources to the points destined to receive them. By
shore and river in the occupied cities of the provinces, and far off
in the cities of imperial Russia, the din of ceaseless preparation
was heard; and it was evident to all men—still only excepting our
government and the diplomatists—that Russia was preparing for a
struggle against whatever forces might be brought against her, and was
resolved to peril her empire upon one desperate effort to humble Europe,
and grasp from Turkey some of her richest provinces, or compel the
formal admission of her vassalage.