Queen Victoria's accession.
The death of William IV., on the 20th of June 1837, placed on the throne
of England a young princess, who was destined to reign for a longer
period than any of her predecessors. The new queen, the only daughter of
the duke of Kent, the fourth son of George III., had just attained her
majority. Educated in comparative seclusion, her character and her
person were unfamiliar to her future subjects, who were a little weary
of the extravagances and eccentricities of her immediate predecessors.
Her accession gave them a new interest in the house of Hanover. And
their loyalty, which would in any case have been excited by the
accession of a young and inexperienced girl to the throne of the
greatest empire in the world, was stimulated by her conduct and
appearance. She displayed from the first a dignity and good sense which
won the affection of the multitude who merely saw her in public, and the
confidence of the advisers who were admitted into her presence.
The ministry experienced immediate benefit from the change. The Whigs,
who had governed England since 1830, under Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne,
were suffering from the reaction which is the inevitable consequence of
revolution. The country which, in half-a-dozen years, had seen a radical
reform of parliament, a no less radical reform of municipal
corporations, the abolition of slavery, and the reconstruction of the
poor laws, was longing for a period of political repose. The alliance,
or understanding, between the Whigs and the Irish was increasing the
distrust of the English people in the ministry, and Lord Melbourne's
government, in the first half of 1837, seemed doomed to perish. The
accession of the queen gave it a new lease of power. The election,
indeed, which followed her accession did not materially alter the
composition of the House of Commons. But the popularity of the queen was
extended to her government. Taper's suggestion in _Coningsby_ that the
Conservatives should go to the country with the cry, "Our young queen
and our old institutions," expressed, in an epigram, a prevalent idea.
But the institution which derived most immediate benefit from the new
sovereign was the old Whig ministry.
Lord Melbourne's difficulties.
The difficulties of the ministry, nevertheless, were great. In the
preceding years it had carried most of the reforms which were demanded
in Great Britain; but it had failed to obtain the assent of the House
of Lords to its Irish measures. It had desired (1) to follow up the
reform of English corporations by a corresponding reform of Irish
municipalities; (2) to convert the tithes, payable to the Irish Church,
into a rent charge, and to appropriate its surplus revenues to other
purposes; (3) to deal with the chronic distress of the Irish people by
extending to Ireland the principles of the English poor law. In the year
which succeeded the accession of the queen it accomplished two of these
objects. It passed an Irish poor law and a measure commuting tithes in
Ireland into a rent charge. The first of these measures was carried in
opposition to the views of the Irish, who thought that it imposed an
intolerable burden on Irish property. The second was only carried on the
government consenting to drop the appropriation clause, on which Lord
Melbourne's administration had virtually been founded.
The bed-chamber question.
It was not, however, in domestic politics alone that the ministry was
hampered. In the months which immediately followed the queen's accession
news reached England of disturbances, or even insurrection in Canada.
The rising was easily put down; but the condition of the colony was so
grave that the ministry decided to suspend the constitution of lower
Canada for three years, and to send out Lord Durham with almost
dictatorial powers. Lord Durham's conduct was, unfortunately, marked by
indiscretions which led to his resignation; but before leaving the
colony he drew up a report on its condition and on its future, which
practically became a text-book for his successors, and has influenced
the government of British colonies ever since. Nor was Canada the only
great colony which was seething with discontent. In Jamaica the
planters, who had sullenly accepted the abolition of slavery, were
irritated by the passage of an act of parliament intended to remedy some
grave abuses in the management of the prisons of the island. The
colonial House of Assembly denounced this act as a violation of its
rights, and determined to desist from its legislative functions. The
governor dissolved the assembly, but the new house, elected in its
place, reaffirmed the decision of its predecessor; and the British
ministry, in face of the crisis, asked parliament in 1839 for authority
to suspend the constitution of the island for five years. The bill
introduced for this purpose placed the Whig ministry in a position of
some embarrassment. The advocates of popular government, they were
inviting parliament, for a second time, to suspend representative
institutions in an important colony. Supported by only small and
dwindling majorities, they saw that it was hopeless to carry the
measure, and they decided on placing their resignations in the queen's
hands. The queen naturally sent for Sir Robert Peel, who undertook to
form a government. In the course of the negotiations, however, he stated
that it would be necessary to make certain changes in the household,
which contained some great ladies closely connected with the leaders of
the Whig party. The queen shrank from separating herself from ladies who
had surrounded her since she came to the throne, and Sir Robert
thereupon declined the task of forming a ministry. Technically he was
justified in adopting this course, but people generally felt that there
was some hardship in compelling a young queen to separate herself from
her companions and friends, and they consequently approved the decision
of Lord Melbourne to support the queen in her refusal, and to resume
office. The Whigs returned to place, but they could not be said to
return to power. They did not even venture to renew the original Jamaica
Bill. They substituted for it a modified proposal which they were unable
to carry. They were obviously indebted for office to the favour of the
queen, and not to the support of parliament.
Penny postage.
Yet the session of 1839 was not without important results. After a long
struggle, in which ministers narrowly escaped defeat in the Commons, and
in the course of which they suffered severe rebuffs in the Lords, they
succeeded in laying the foundation of the English system of national
education. In the same session they were forced against their will to
adopt a reform, which had been recommended by Rowland Hill, and to
confer on the nation the benefit of a uniform penny postage. No member
of the cabinet foresaw the consequences of this reform. The
postmaster-general, Lord Lichfield, in opposing it, declared that, if
the revenue of his office was to be maintained, the correspondence of
the country, on which postage was paid, must be increased from
42,000,000 to 480,000,000 letters a year, and he contended that there
were neither people to write, nor machinery to deal with, so prodigious
a mass of letters. He would have been astonished to hear that, before
the end of the century, his office had to deal with more than
3,000,000,000 postal packets a year, and that the net profit which it
paid into the exchequer was to be more than double what it received in
1839.
Fiscal policy.
In 1840 the ministry was not much more successful than it had proved in
1839. After years of conflict it succeeded indeed in placing on the
statute book a measure dealing with Irish municipalities. But its
success was purchased by concessions to the Lords, which deprived the
measure of much of its original merit. The closing years of the Whig
administration were largely occupied with the financial difficulties of
the country. The first three years of the queen's reign were memorable
for a constantly deficient revenue. The deficit amounted to L1,400,000
in 1837, to L400,000 in 1838, and to L1,457,000 in 1839. Baring, the
chancellor of the exchequer, endeavoured to terminate this deficiency by
a general increase of taxation, but this device proved a disastrous
failure. The deficit rose to L1,842,000 in 1840. It was obvious that the
old expedient of increasing taxation had failed, and that some new
method had to be substituted for it. This new method Baring tried to
discover in altering the differential duties on timber and sugar, and
substituting a fixed duty of 8s. per quarter for the sliding duties
hitherto payable on wheat. By these alterations he expected to secure a
large increase of revenue, and at the same time to maintain a sufficient
degree of protection for colonial produce. The Conservatives, who
believed in protection, at once attacked the proposed alteration of the
sugar duties. They were reinforced by many Liberals, who cared very
little for protection, but a great deal about the abolition of slavery,
and consequently objected to reducing the duties on foreign or
slave-grown sugar. This combination of interests proved too strong for
Baring and his proposal was rejected. As ministers, however, did not
resign on their defeat, Sir Robert Peel followed up his victory by
moving a vote of want of confidence, and this motion was carried in an
exceptionally full house by 312 votes to 311.
Sir R. Peel forms a ministry.
Before abandoning the struggle, the Whigs decided on appealing from the
House of Commons to the country. The general election which ensued
largely increased the strength of the Conservative party. On the meeting
of the new parliament in August 1841, votes of want of confidence in the
government were proposed and carried in both houses; the Whigs were
compelled to resign office, and the queen again charged Sir Robert Peel
with the task of forming a government. If the queen had remained
unmarried, it is possible that the friction which had arisen in 1839
might have recurred in 1841. In February 1840, however, Her Majesty had
married her cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. She was,
therefore, no longer dependent on the Whig ladies, to whose presence in
her court she had attached so much importance in 1839. By the management
of the prince--who later in the reign was known as the prince
consort--the great ladies of the household voluntarily tendered their
resignations; and every obstacle to the formation of the new government
was in this way removed.
Thus the Whigs retired from the offices which, except for a brief
interval in 1834-1835, they had held for eleven years. During the
earlier years of their administration they had succeeded in carrying
many memorable reforms: during the later years their weakness in the
House of Commons had prevented their passing any considerable measures.
But, if they had failed in this respect, Lord Melbourne had rendered
conspicuous service to the queen. Enjoying her full confidence,
consulted by her on every occasion, he had always used his influence for
the public good; and perhaps those who look back now with so much
satisfaction at the queen's conduct during a reign of unexampled length,
imperfectly appreciate the debt which in this respect is owed to her
first prime minister. The closing years of the Whig government were
marked by external complications. A controversy on the boundary of
Canada and the United States was provoking increasing bitterness on both
sides of the Atlantic. The intervention of Lord Palmerston in Syria,
which resulted in a great military success at Acre, was embittering the
relations between France and England, while the unfortunate expedition
to Afghanistan, which the Whigs had approved, was already producing
embarrassment, and was about to result in disaster. Serious, however, as
were the complications which surrounded British policy in Europe, in the
East, and in America, the country, in August 1841, paid more attention
to what a great writer called the "condition of England" question. There
had never been a period in British history when distress and crime had
been so general. There had hardly ever been a period when food had been
so dear, when wages had been so low, when poverty had been so
widespread, and the condition of the lower orders so depraved and so
hopeless, as in the early years of the queen's reign. The condition of
the people had prompted the formation of two great associations. The
Chartists derived their name from the charter which set out their
demands. The rejection of a monster petition which they presented to
parliament in 1839 led to a formidable riot in Birmingham, and to a
projected march from South Wales on London, in which twenty persons were
shot dead at Newport. Another organization, in one sense even more
formidable than the Chartist, was agitating at the same time for the
repeal of the corn laws, and was known as the Anti-Corn Law League. It
had already secured the services of two men, Cobden and Bright, who, one
by clear reasoning, the other by fervid eloquence, were destined to make
a profound impression on all classes of the people.
Budget reforms.
The new government had, therefore, to deal with a position of almost
unexampled difficulty. The people were apparently sinking into deeper
poverty and misery year after year. As an outward and visible sign of
the inward distress, the state was no longer able to pay its way. It was
estimated that the deficit, which had amounted to L1,842,000 in 1840,
would reach L2,334,000 in 1841. It is the signal merit of Sir Robert
Peel that he terminated this era of private distress and public
deficits. He accomplished this task partly by economical
administration--for no minister ever valued economy more--and partly by
a reform of the financial system, effected in three great budgets. In
the budget of 1842 Sir Robert Peel terminated the deficit by reviving
the income tax. The proceeds of the tax, which was fixed at 7d. in the
L, and was granted in the first instance for three years, were more than
sufficient to secure this object. Sir Robert used the surplus to reform
the whole customs tariff. The duties on raw materials, he proposed,
should never exceed 5%, the duties on partly manufactured articles 12%,
and the duties on manufactured articles 20% of their value. At the same
time he reduced the duties on stage coaches, on foreign and colonial
coffee, on foreign and colonial timber, and repealed the export duties
on British manufactures. The success of this budget in stimulating
consumption and in promoting trade induced Sir Robert Peel to follow it
up in 1845 with an even more remarkable proposal. Instead of allowing
the income tax to expire, he induced parliament to continue it for a
further period, and with the resources which were thus placed at his
disposal he purged the tariff of various small duties which produced
little revenue, and had been imposed for purposes of protection. He
swept away all the duties on British exports; he repealed the duties on
glass, on cotton wool, and still further reduced the duties on foreign
and colonial sugar. This budget was a much greater step towards free
trade than the budget of 1842. The chief object in his third budget in
1846--the reduction of the duty on corn to 1s. a quarter--was
necessitated by causes which will be immediately referred to. But it
will be convenient at once to refer to its other features. Sir Robert
Peel told the house that, in his previous budgets, he had given the
manufacturers of the country free access to the raw materials which they
used. He was entitled in return to call upon them to relinquish the
protection which they enjoyed. He decided, therefore, to reduce the
protective duties on cotton, woollen, silk, metal and other goods, as
well as on raw materials still liable to heavy taxation, such as timber
and tallow. As the policy of 1842 and 1845 had proved unquestionably
successful in stimulating trade, he proposed to extend it to
agriculture. He reduced the duties on the raw materials which the
farmers used, such as seed and maize, and in return he called on them to
give up the duties on cattle and meat, to reduce largely the duties on
butter, cheese and hops, and to diminish the duty on corn by gradual
stages to 1s. a quarter. In making these changes Sir Robert Peel avowed
that it was his object to make the country a cheap one to live in. There
is no doubt that they were followed by a remarkable development of
British trade. In the twenty-seven years from 1815 to 1842 the export
trade of Great Britain diminished from L49,600,000 to L47,280,000; while
in the twenty-seven years which succeeded 1842 it increased from
L47,280,000 to nearly L190,000,000. These figures are a simple and
enduring monument to the minister's memory. It is fair to add that the
whole increase was not due to free trade. It was partly attributable to
the remarkable development of communications which marked this period.
Two other financial measures of great importance were accomplished in
Sir Robert Peel's ministry. In 1844 some L250,000,000 of the national
debt still bore an interest of 31/2%. The improvement in the credit of the
country enabled the government to reduce the interest on the stock to
31/4% for the succeeding ten years, and to 3% afterwards. This conversion,
which effected an immediate saving of L625,000, and an ultimate saving
of L1,250,000 a year, was by far the most important measure which had
hitherto been applied to the debt; and no operation on the same scale
was attempted for more than forty years. In the same year the necessity
of renewing the charter of the Bank of England afforded Sir Robert Peel
an opportunity of reforming the currency. He separated the issue
department from the banking department of the bank, and decided that in
future it should only be at liberty to issue notes against (1) the debt
of L14,000,000 due to it from the government, and (2) any bullion
actually in its coffers. Few measures of the past century have been the
subject of more controversy than this famous act, and at one time its
repeated suspension in periods of financial crises seemed to suggest the
necessity of its amendment. But opinion on the whole has vindicated its
wisdom, and it has survived all the attacks which have been made upon
it.
Ireland.
Free trade.
The administration of Sir Robert Peel is also remarkable for its Irish
policy. The Irish, under O'Connell, had constantly supported the Whig
ministry of Lord Melbourne. But their alliance, or understanding, with
the Whigs had not procured them all the results which they had expected
from it. The two great Whig measures, dealing with the church and the
municipalities, had only been passed after years of controversy, and in
a shape which deprived them of many expected advantages. Hence arose a
notion in Ireland that nothing was to be expected from a British
parliament, and hence began a movement for the repeal of the union which
had been accomplished in 1801. This agitation, which smouldered during
the reign of the Whig ministry, was rapidly revived when Sir Robert Peel
entered upon office. The Irish contributed large sums, which were known
as repeal rent, to the cause, and they held monster meetings in various
parts of Ireland to stimulate the demand for repeal. The ministry met
this campaign by coercive legislation regulating the use of arms, by
quartering large bodies of troops in Ireland, and by prohibiting a great
meeting at Clontarf, the scene of Brian Boru's victory, in the immediate
neighbourhood of Dublin. They further decided in 1843 to place O'Connell
and some of the leading agitators on their trial for conspiracy and
sedition. O'Connell was tried before a jury chosen from a defective
panel, was convicted on an indictment which contained many counts, and
the court passed sentence without distinguishing between these counts.
These irregularities induced the House of Lords to reverse the
judgment, and its reversal did much to prevent mischief. O'Connell's
illness, which resulted in his death in 1847, tended also to establish
peace. Sir Robert Peel wisely endeavoured to stifle agitation by making
considerable concessions to Irish sentiment. He increased the grant
which was made to the Roman Catholic College at Maynooth; he established
three colleges in the north, south and west of Ireland for the
undenominational education of the middle classes; he appointed a
commission--the Devon commission, as it was called, from the name of the
nobleman who presided over it--to investigate the conditions on which
Irish land was held; and, after the report of the commission, he
introduced, though he failed to carry, a measure for remedying some of
the grievances of the Irish tenants. These wise concessions might
possibly have had some effect in pacifying Ireland, if, in the autumn of
1845, they had not been forgotten in the presence of a disaster which
suddenly fell on that unhappy country. The potato, which was the sole
food of at least half the people of an overcrowded island, failed, and a
famine of unprecedented proportions was obviously imminent. Sir Robert
Peel, whose original views on protection had been rapidly yielding to
the arguments afforded by the success of his own budgets, concluded that
it was impossible to provide for the necessities of Ireland without
suspending the corn laws; and that, if they were once suspended, it
would be equally impossible to restore them. He failed, however, to
convince two prominent members of his cabinet--Lord Stanley and the duke
of Buccleuch--that protection must be finally abandoned, and considering
it hopeless to persevere with a disunited cabinet he resigned office. On
Sir Robert's resignation the queen sent for Lord John Russell, who had
led the Liberal party in the House of Commons with conspicuous ability
for more than ten years, and charged him with the task of forming a new
ministry. Differences, which it proved impossible to remove, between two
prominent Whigs--Lord Palmerston and Lord Grey--made the task
impracticable, and after an interval Sir Robert Peel consented to resume
power. Sir Robert Peel was probably aware that his fall had been only
postponed. In the four years and a half during which his ministry had
lasted he had done much to estrange his party. They said, with some
truth, that, whether his measures were right or wrong, they were opposed
to the principles which he had been placed in power to support. The
general election of 1841 had been mainly fought on the rival policies of
protection and free trade. The country had decided for protection, and
Sir R. Peel had done more than all his predecessors to give it free
trade. The Conservative party, moreover, was closely allied with the
church, and Sir Robert had offended the church by giving an increased
endowment to Maynooth, and by establishing undenominational
colleges--"godless colleges" as they were called--in Ireland. The
Conservatives were, therefore, sullenly discontented with the conduct of
their leader. They were lashed into positive fury by the proposal which
he was now making to abolish the corn laws. Lord George Bentinck, who,
in his youth, had been private secretary to Canning, but who in his
maturer years had devoted more time to the turf than to politics, placed
himself at their head. He was assisted by a remarkable man--Benjamin
Disraeli--who joined great abilities to great ambition, and who,
embittered by Sir Robert Peel's neglect to appoint him to office, had
already displayed his animosity to the minister. The policy on which Sir
Robert Peel resolved facilitated attack. For the minister thought it
necessary, while providing against famine by repealing the corn laws, to
ensure the preservation of order by a new coercion bill. The financial
bill and the coercion bill were both pressed forward, and each gave
opportunities for discussion and, what was then new in parliament, for
obstruction. At last, on the very night on which the fiscal proposals of
the ministers were accepted by the Lords, the coercion bill was defeated
in the Commons by a combination of Whigs, radicals and protectionists;
and Sir R. Peel, worn out with a protracted struggle, placed his
resignation in the queen's hands.
Peel's foreign policy.
Thus fell the great minister, who perhaps had conferred more benefits on
his country than any of his predecessors. The external policy of his
ministry had been almost as remarkable as its domestic programme. When
he accepted office the country was on the eve of a great disaster in
India; it was engaged in a serious dispute with the United States; and
its relations with France were so strained that the two great countries
of western Europe seemed unlikely to be able to settle their differences
without war. In the earlier years of his administration the disaster in
Afghanistan was repaired in a successful campaign; and Lord
Ellenborough, who was sent over to replace Lord Auckland as
governor-general, increased the dominion and responsibilities of the
East India Company by the unscrupulous but brilliant policy which led to
the conquest of Sind. The disputes with the United States were
satisfactorily composed; and not only were the differences with France
terminated, but a perfect understanding was formed between the two
countries, under which Guizot, the prime minister of France, and Lord
Aberdeen, the foreign minister of England, agreed to compromise all
minor questions for the sake of securing the paramount object of peace.
The good understanding was so complete that a disagreeable incident in
the Sandwich Islands, in which the injudicious conduct of a French agent
very nearly precipitated hostilities, was amicably settled; and the
ministry had the satisfaction of knowing that, if their policy had
produced prosperity at home, it had also maintained peace abroad.
The Spanish marriages.
On Sir R. Peel's resignation the queen again sent for Lord John Russell.
The difficulties which had prevented his forming a ministry in the
previous year were satisfactorily arranged, and Lord Palmerston accepted
the seals of the foreign office, while Lord Grey was sent to the
colonial office. The history of the succeeding years was destined,
however, to prove that Lord Grey had had solid reasons for objecting to
Lord Palmerston's return to his old post; for, whatever judgment may
ultimately be formed on Lord Palmerston's foreign policy, there can be
little doubt that it did not tend to the maintenance of peace. The first
occasion on which danger was threatened arose immediately after the
installation of the new ministry on the question of the Spanish
marriages. The queen of Spain, Isabella, was a young girl still in her
teens; the heir to the throne was her younger sister, the infanta
Fernanda. Diplomacy had long been occupied with the marriages of these
children; and Lord Aberdeen had virtually accepted the principle, which
the French government had laid down, that a husband for the queen should
be found among the descendants of Philip V., and that her sister's
marriage to the duc de Montpensier--a son of Louis Philippe--should not
be celebrated till the queen was married and had issue. While agreeing
to this compromise, Lord Aberdeen declared that he regarded the Spanish
marriages as a Spanish, and not as a European question, and that, if it
proved impossible to find a suitable consort for the queen among the
descendants of Philip V., Spain must be free to choose a prince for her
throne elsewhere. The available descendants of Philip V. were the two
sons of Don Francis, the younger brother of Don Carlos, and of these the
French government was in favour of the elder, while the British
government preferred the younger brother. Lord Palmerston strongly
objected to the prince whom the French government supported; and, almost
immediately after acceding to office, he wrote a despatch in which he
enumerated the various candidates for the queen of Spain's hand,
including Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, a near relation of the prince
consort, among the number. Louis Philippe regarded this despatch as a
departure from the principle on which he had agreed with Lord Aberdeen,
and at once hurried on the simultaneous marriages of the queen with the
French candidate, and of her sister with the duc de Montpensier. His
action broke up the _entente cordiale_ which had been established
between Guizot and Lord Aberdeen.
Don Pacifico.
The second occasion on which Lord Palmerston's vigorous diplomacy
excited alarm arose out of the revolution which broke out almost
universally in Europe in 1848. A rising in Hungary was suppressed by
Austria with Russian assistance, and after its suppression many leading
Hungarians took refuge in Turkish territory. Austria and Russia
addressed demands to the Porte for their surrender. Lord Palmerston
determined to support the Porte in its refusal to give up these exiles,
and actually sent the British fleet to the Dardanelles with this object.
His success raised the credit of Great Britain and his own reputation.
The presence of the British fleet, however, at the Dardanelles suggested
to him the possibility of settling another long-standing controversy.
For years British subjects settled in Greece had raised complaints
against the Greek government. In particular Don Pacifico, a Jew, but a
native of Gibraltar, complained that, at a riot, in which his house had
been attacked, he had lost jewels, furniture and papers which he alleged
to be worth more than L30,000. As Lord Palmerston was unable by
correspondence to induce the Greek government to settle claims of this
character, he determined to enforce them; and by his orders a large
number of Greek vessels were seized and detained by the British fleet.
The French government tendered its good offices to compose the dispute,
and an arrangement was actually arrived at between Lord Palmerston and
the French minister in London. Unfortunately, before its terms reached
Greece, the British minister at Athens had ordered the resumption of
hostilities, and had compelled the Greek government to submit to more
humiliating conditions. News of this settlement excited the strongest
feelings both in Paris and London. In Paris, Prince Louis Napoleon, who
had acceded to the presidency of the French republic, decided on
recalling his representative from the British court. In London the Lords
passed a vote of censure on Lord Palmerston's proceedings; and the
Commons only sustained the minister by adopting a resolution approving
in general terms the principles on which the foreign policy of the
country had been conducted.
Palmerston dismissed.
In pursuing the vigorous policy which characterized his tenure of the
foreign office, Lord Palmerston frequently omitted to consult his
colleagues in the cabinet, the prime minister, or the queen. In the
course of 1849 Her Majesty formally complained to Lord John Russell that
important despatches were sent off without her knowledge; and an
arrangement was made under which Lord Palmerston undertook to submit
every despatch to the queen through the prime minister. In 1850, after
the Don Pacifico debate, the queen repeated these commands in a much
stronger memorandum. But Lord Palmerston, though all confidence between
himself and the court was destroyed, continued in office. In the autumn
of 1851 the queen was much annoyed at hearing that he had received a
deputation at the foreign office, which had waited on him to express
sympathy with the Hungarian refugees, and to denounce the conduct of
"the despots and tyrants" of Russia and Austria, and that he had, in his
reply, expressed his gratification at the demonstration. If the queen
had had her way, Lord Palmerston would have been removed from the
foreign office after this incident. A few days later the _coup d'etat_
in Paris led to another dispute. The cabinet decided to do nothing that
could wear the appearance of interference in the internal affairs of
France; but Lord Palmerston, in conversation with the French minister in
London, took upon himself to approve the bold and decisive step taken by
the president. The ministry naturally refused to tolerate this conduct,
and Lord Palmerston was summarily removed from his office.
Irish famine.
The removal of Lord Palmerston led almost directly to the fall of the
Whig government. Before relating, however, the exact occurrences which
produced its defeat, it is necessary to retrace our steps and describe
the policy which it had pursued in internal matters during the six years
in which it had been in power. Throughout that period the Irish famine
had been its chief anxiety and difficulty. Sir Robert Peel had attempted
to deal with it (1) by purchasing large quantities of Indian corn, which
he had retailed at low prices in Ireland, and (2) by enabling the grand
juries to employ the people on public works, which were to be paid out
of moneys advanced by the state, one-half being ultimately repayable by
the locality. These measures were not entirely successful. It was
found, in practice, that the sale of Indian corn at low prices by the
government checked the efforts of private individuals to supply food;
and that the offer of comparatively easy work to the poor at the cost of
the public, prevented their seeking harder private work either in
Ireland or in Great Britain. The new government, with this experience
before it, decided on trusting to private enterprise to supply the
necessary food, and on throwing the whole cost of the works which the
locality might undertake on local funds. If the famine had been less
severe, this policy might possibly have succeeded. Universal want,
however, paralysed every one. The people, destitute of other means of
livelihood, crowded to the relief works. In the beginning of 1847 nearly
750,000 persons--or nearly one person out of every ten in Ireland--were
so employed. With such vast multitudes to relieve, it proved
impracticable to exact the labour which was required as a test of
destitution. The roads, which it was decided to make, were blocked by
the labourers employed upon them, and by the stones, which the labourers
were supposed to crush for their repair. In the presence of this
difficulty the government decided, early in 1847, gradually to
discontinue the relief works, and to substitute for them relief
committees charged with the task of feeding the people. At one time no
less than 3,000,000 persons--more than one-third of the entire
population of Ireland--were supported by these committees. At the same
time it decided on adopting two measures of a more permanent character.
The poor law of 1838 had made no provision for the relief of the poor
outside the workhouse, and outdoor relief was sanctioned by an act of
1847. Irish landlords complained that their properties, ruined by the
famine, and encumbered by the extravagances of their predecessors, could
not bear the cost of this new poor law; and the ministry introduced and
carried a measure enabling the embarrassed owners of life estates to
sell their property and discharge their liabilities. It is the constant
misfortune of Ireland that the measures intended for her relief
aggravate her distress. The encumbered estates act, though it
substituted a solvent for an insolvent proprietary, placed the Irish
tenants at the mercy of landlords of whom they had no previous
knowledge, who were frequently absentees, who bought the land as a
matter of business, and who dealt with it on business principles by
raising the rent. The new poor law, by throwing the maintenance of the
poor on the soil, encouraged landlords to extricate themselves from
their responsibilities by evicting their tenants. Evictions were made on
a scale which elicited from Sir Robert Peel an expression of the deepest
abhorrence. The unfortunate persons driven from their holdings and
forced to seek a refuge in the towns, in England, or--when they could
afford it--in the United States, carried with them everywhere the seeds
of disease, the constant handmaid of famine.
Rebellion of 1848.
Famine, mortality and emigration left their mark on Ireland. In four
years, from 1845 to 1849, its population decreased from 8,295,000 to
7,256,000, or by more than a million persons; and the decline which took
place at that time went on to the end of the century. The population of
Ireland in 1901 had decreased to 4,457,000 souls. This fact is the more
remarkable, because Ireland is almost the only portion of the British
empire, or indeed of the civilized world, where such a circumstance has
occurred. We must go to countries like the Asiatic provinces of Turkey,
devastated by Ottoman rule, to find such a diminution in the numbers of
the people as was seen in Ireland during the last half of the 19th
century. It was probably inevitable that the distress of Ireland should
have been followed by a renewal of Irish outrages. A terrible series of
agrarian crimes was committed in the autumn of 1847; and the ministry
felt compelled, in consequence, to strengthen its hands by a new measure
of coercion, and by suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. The
latter measure at once brought to a crisis the so-called rebellion of
1848, for his share in which Smith O'Brien, an Irish member of
parliament, was convicted of high treason. The government, however, did
not venture to carry out the grim sentence which the law still applied
to traitors, and introduced an act enabling it to commute the death
penalty to transportation. The "insurrection" had from the first proved
abortive. With Smith O'Brien's transportation it practically terminated.
Chartism.
In the meanwhile the difficulties which the government was experiencing
from the Irish famine had been aggravated by a grave commercial crisis
in England. In the autumn of 1847 a series of failures in the great
commercial centres created a panic in the city of London, which forced
consols down to 78, and induced the government to take upon itself the
responsibility of suspending the Bank Charter Act. That step, enabling
the directors of the Bank of England to issue notes unsecured by
bullion, had the effect of gradually restoring confidence. But a grave
commercial crisis of this character is often attended with other than
financial consequences. The stringency of the money market increases the
distress of the industrial classes by diminishing the demand for work;
and, when labour suffers, political agitation flourishes. Early in 1848,
moreover, revolutions on the continent produced a natural craving for
changes at home. Louis Philippe was driven out of Paris, the emperor of
Austria was driven out of Vienna, the Austrian soldiery had to withdraw
from Milan, and even in Berlin the crown had to make terms with the
people. While thrones were falling or tottering in every country in
Europe, it was inevitable that excitement and agitation should prevail
in Great Britain. The Chartists, reviving the machinery which they had
endeavoured to employ in 1839, decided on preparing a monster petition
to parliament, which was to be escorted to Westminster by a monster
procession. Their preparations excited general alarm, and on the
invitation of the government no less than 170,000 special constables
were sworn in to protect life and property against a rabble. By the
judicious arrangements, however, which were made by the duke of
Wellington, the peace of the metropolis was secured. The Chartists were
induced to abandon the procession which had caused so much alarm, and
the monster petition was carried in a cab to the House of Commons. There
it was mercilessly picked to pieces by a select committee. It was found
that, instead of containing nearly 6,000,000 signatures, as its
originators had boasted, less than 2,000,000 names were attached to it.
Some of the names, moreover, were obviously fictitious, or even absurd.
The exposure of these facts turned the whole thing into ridicule, and
gave parliament an excuse for postponing measures of organic reform
which might otherwise have been brought forward.
Navigation Acts.
If the ministry thus abstained from pressing forward a large scheme of
political reform, it succeeded in carrying two measures of the highest
commercial and social importance. In 1849 it supplemented the free trade
policy, which Sir Robert Peel had developed, by the repeal of the
Navigation Acts. Briefly stated, these acts, which had been originated
during the Protectorate of Cromwell, and continued after the
Restoration, reserved the whole coasting trade of the country for
British vessels and British seamen, and much of the foreign trade for
British vessels, commanded and chiefly manned by British subjects. The
acts, therefore, were in the strictest sense protective, but they were
also designed to increase the strength of Great Britain at sea, by
maintaining large numbers of British seamen. They had been defended by
Adam Smith on the ground that defence was "of much more importance than
opulence," and by the same reasoning they had been described by John
Stuart Mill as, "though economically disadvantageous, politically
expedient." The acts, however, threw a grave burden on British trade and
British shipowners. Their provisions by restricting competition
naturally tended to raise freights, and by restricting employment made
it difficult for shipowners to man their vessels. Accordingly the
government wisely determined on their repeal; and one of the last and
greatest battles between Free Trade and Protection was fought over the
question. The second reading of the government bill was carried in the
House of Lords by a majority of only ten: it would not have been carried
at all if the government had not secured a much larger number of proxies
than their opponents could obtain.
Ten Hours Bill.
If the repeal of the Navigation Acts constituted a measure of the
highest commercial importance, the passage of the Ten Hours Bill in 1847
marked the first great advance in factory legislation. Something,
indeed, had already been done to remedy the evils arising from the
employment of women and very young children in factories and mines. In
1833 Lord Ashley, better known as Lord Shaftesbury, had carried the
first important Factory Act. In 1842 he had succeeded, with the help of
the striking report of a royal commission, in inducing parliament to
prohibit the employment of women and of boys under ten years of age in
mines. And in 1843 Sir James Graham, who was home secretary in Sir
Robert Peel's administration, had been compelled by the pressure of
public opinion to introduce a measure providing for the education of
children employed in factories, and for limiting the hours of work of
children and young persons. The educational clauses of this bill were
obviously framed in the interests of the Church of England, and raised a
heated controversy which led to the abandonment of the measure; and in
the following year Sir James Graham introduced a new bill dealing with
the labour question alone. Briefly stated, his proposal was that no
child under nine years of age should be employed in a factory, and that
no young person under eighteen should be employed for more than twelve
hours a day. This measure gave rise to the famous controversy on the ten
hours clause, which commenced in 1844 and was protracted till 1847. Lord
Ashley and the factory reformers contended, on the one hand, that ten
hours were long enough for any person to work; their opponents
maintained, on the contrary, that the adoption of the clause would
injure the working-classes by lowering the rate of wages, and ruin the
manufacturers by exposing them to foreign competition. In 1847 the
reform was at last adopted. It is a remarkable fact that it was carried
against the views of the leading statesmen on both sides of the House.
It was the triumph of common sense over official arguments.
Death of Peel.
During the first four years of Lord John Russell's government, his
administration had never enjoyed any very large measure of popular
support, but it had been partly sustained by the advocacy of Sir Robert
Peel. The differences which estranged Sir Robert from his old supporters
were far greater than those which separated him from the Whigs, and the
latter were therefore constantly able to rely on his assistance. In the
summer of 1850, however, a lamentable accident--a fall from his
horse--deprived the country of the services of its great statesman. His
death naturally affected the position of parties. The small remnant of
able men, indeed, who had been associated with him in his famous
administration, still maintained an attitude of neutrality. But the bulk
of the Conservative party rallied under the lead of Lord Stanley
(afterwards Derby) in the House of Lords, and gradually submitted to,
rather than accepted, the lead of Disraeli in the House of Commons.
Oxford movement.
In the autumn which succeeded Sir Robert Peel's death, an event which
had not been foreseen agitated the country and produced a crisis. During
the years which had succeeded the Reform Bill a great religious movement
had influenced politics both in England and Scotland. In England, a body
of eminent men at Oxford--of whom J. H., afterwards Cardinal, Newman was
the chief, but who numbered among their leaders Hurrell Froude, the
brother of the historian, and Keble, the author of the _Christian
Year_--endeavoured to prove that the doctrines of the Church of England
were identical with those of the primitive Catholic Church, and that
every Catholic doctrine might be held by those who were within its pale.
This view was explained in a remarkable series of tracts, which gave
their authors the name of Tractarians. The most famous of these, and the
last of the series, Tract XC., was published three years after the
queen's accession to the throne. In Scotland, the Presbyterian
Church--mainly under the guidance of Dr Chalmers, one of the most
eloquent preachers of the century--was simultaneously engaged in a
contest with the state on the subject of ecclesiastical patronage. Both
movements had this in common, that they indicated a revival of
religious energy, and aimed at vindicating the authority of the church,
and resisting the interference of the state in church matters. The
Scottish movement led to the disruption of the Church of Scotland and
the formation of the Free Church in 1843. The Tractarian movement was
ultimately terminated by the secession of Newman and many of his
associates from the Church of England, and their admission to the Church
of Rome. These secessions raised a feeling of alarm throughout England.
The people, thoroughly Protestant, were excited by the proofs--which
they thought were afforded--that the real object of the Tractarians was
to reconcile England with Rome; and practices which are now regarded as
venial or even praiseworthy--such as the wearing of the surplice in the
pulpit, and the institution of the weekly offertory--were denounced
because they were instituted by the Tractarians, and were regarded as
insidious devices to lead the country Romewards. The sympathies of the
Whigs, and especially of the Whig prime minister, Lord John Russell,
were with the people; and Lord John displayed his dislike to the
Romanizing tendencies of the Tractarians by appointing Renn Dickson
Hampden--whose views had been formally condemned by the Hebdomadal Board
at Oxford--to the bishopric of Hereford. The High Church party
endeavoured to oppose the appointment at every stage; but their attempts
exposed them to a serious defeat. The courts held that, though the
appointment of a bishop by the crown required confirmation in the
archbishop's court, the confirmation was a purely ministerial act which
could not be refused. The effort which the High Church party had made to
resist Dr Hampden's appointment had thus resulted in showing
conclusively that authority resided in the crown, and not in the
archbishop. It so happened that about the same time this view was
confirmed by another judicial decision. The lord chancellor presented
the Rev. G. C. Gorham to a living in Devonshire; and Dr Phillpotts, the
bishop of Exeter, declined to institute him, on the ground that he held
heretical views on the subject of baptism. The court of arches upheld
the bishop's decision. The finding of the court, however, was reversed
by the privy council, and its judgment dealt a new blow at the
Tractarian party. For it again showed that authority--even in
doctrine--resided in the crown and not in the church. Within a few
months of this famous decision the pope--perhaps encouraged by the
activity and despondency of the High Church party--issued a brief "for
re-establishing and extending the Catholic faith in England," and
proceeded to divide England and Wales into twelve sees. One of
them--Westminster--was made an archbishopric, and the new dignity was
conferred on Nicholas Patrick Stephen Wiseman, who was almost
immediately afterwards created cardinal. The publication of this brief
caused much excitement throughout the country, which was fanned by a
letter from the prime minister to the bishop of Durham, condemning the
brief as "insolent and insidious" and "inconsistent with the queen's
supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the
spiritual independence of the nation." Somewhat unnecessarily the prime
minister went on to condemn the clergymen of the Church of England who
had subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles, "who have been the most forward
in leading their own flocks, step by step, to the very edge of the
precipice."
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
In accordance with the promise of Lord John Russell's letter, the
ministry, at the opening of the session of 1851, introduced a measure
forbidding the assumption of territorial titles by the priests and
bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, declaring all gifts made to them
and all acts done by them under these titles null and void, and
forfeiting to the crown all property bequeathed to them. The bill
naturally encountered opposition from many Liberals, while it failed to
excite any enthusiasm among Conservatives, who thought its remedies
inadequate. In the middle of the debates upon it the government was
defeated on another question--a proposal to reduce the county
franchise--and, feeling that it could no longer rely on the support of
the House of Commons, tendered its resignation. But Lord Stanley, whom
the queen entrusted with the duty of forming a new administration, was
compelled to decline the task, and Lord John resumed office. Mild as the
original Ecclesiastical Titles Bill had been thought, the new edition of
it, which was introduced after the restoration of the Whigs to power,
was still milder. Though, after protracted debates, it at last became
law, it satisfied nobody. Its provisions, as was soon found, could be
easily evaded, and the bill, which had caused so much excitement, and
had nearly precipitated the fall of a ministry, remained a dead letter.
The government, in fact, was experiencing the truth that, if a defeated
ministry may be occasionally restored to place, it cannot be restored to
power. The dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the foreign office in 1851
further increased the embarrassments of the government. In February 1852
it was defeated on a proposal to revive the militia, and resigned.
French scare.
The circumstances which directly led to the defeat of the Whigs were, in
one sense, a consequence of the revolutionary wave which had swept over
Europe in 1848. The fall of Louis Philippe in that year created a panic
in Great Britain. Men thought that the unsettled state of France made
war probable, and they were alarmed at the defenceless condition of
England. Lord Palmerston, speaking in 1845, had declared that "steam had
bridged the Channel"; and the duke of Wellington had addressed a letter
to Sir John Burgoyne, in which he had demonstrated that the country was
not in a position to resist an invading force. The panic was so great
that the ministry felt it necessary to make exceptional provisions for
allaying it. Lord John Russell decided on asking parliament to sanction
increased armaments, and to raise the income tax to 1s. in the pound in
order to pay for them. The occasion deserves to be recollected as one on
which a prime minister, who was not also chancellor of the exchequer,
has himself proposed the budget of the year. But it was still more
memorable because the remedy which Lord John proposed at once destroyed
the panic which had suggested it. A certain increase of the income tax
to a shilling seemed a much more serious calamity than the uncertain
prospect of a possible invasion. The estimates were recast, the budget
was withdrawn, and the nation was content to dispense with any addition
to its military and naval strength. Events in France, in the meanwhile,
moved with railway speed. Louis Napoleon became president of the French
Republic: in 1852 he became emperor of the French. The new emperor,
indeed, took pains to reassure a troubled continent that "the empire was
peace." The people insisted on believing--and, as the event proved,
rightly--that the empire was war. Notwithstanding the success of the
Great Exhibition of 1851, which was supposed to inaugurate a new reign
of peace, the panic, which had been temporarily allayed in 1848, revived
at the close of 1851, and the government endeavoured to allay it by
reconstituting the militia. There were two possible expedients. An act
of 1757 had placed under the direct authority of the crown a militia
composed of men selected in each parish by ballot, liable to be called
out for active service, and to be placed under military law. But the act
had been supplemented by a series of statutes passed between 1808 and
1812, which had provided a local militia, raised, like the regular
militia, by ballot, but, unlike the latter, only liable for service for
the suppression of riots, or in the event of imminent invasion. Lord
John Russell's government, forced to do something by the state of public
opinion, but anxious--from the experience of 1848--to make that
something moderate, decided on reviving the local militia. Lord
Palmerston at once suggested that the regular and not the local militia
should be revived; and, in a small house of only 265 members, he
succeeded in carrying a resolution to that effect. He had, in this way,
what he called his "tit for tat" with Lord John; and the queen,
accepting her minister's resignation, sent for Lord Derby--for Lord
Stanley had now succeeded to this title--and charged him with the task
of forming a ministry.
Lord Derby.
The government which Lord Derby succeeded in forming was composed almost
exclusively of the men who had rebelled against Sir Robert Peel in 1845.
It was led in the House of Commons by the brilliant, but somewhat
unscrupulous statesman who had headed the revolt. With the exception of
Lord Derby and one other man, its members had no experience of high
office; and it had no chance of commanding a majority of the House of
Commons in the existing parliament. It owed its position to the
divisions of its opponents. Profiting by their experience, it succeeded
in framing and passing a measure reconstituting the regular militia,
which obtained general approval. It is perhaps worth observing that it
maintained the machinery of a ballot, but reserved it only in case
experience should prove that it was necessary. Voluntary enlistment
under the new Militia Bill was to be the rule: compulsory service was
only to be resorted to if voluntary enlistment should fail. This
success, to a certain extent, strengthened the position of the new
ministry. It was obvious, however, that its stability would ultimately
be determined by its financial policy. Composed of the men who had
resisted the free trade measures of the previous decade, its fate
depended on its attitude towards free trade. In forming his
administration Lord Derby had found it necessary to declare that, though
he was still in favour of a tax on corn, he should take no steps in this
direction till the country had received an opportunity of expressing its
opinion. His leader in the House of Commons went much further, and
declared that the time had gone by for reverting to protection. The view
which Disraeli thus propounded in defiance of his previous opinions was
confirmed by the electors on the dissolution of parliament. Though the
new government obtained some increased strength from the result of the
polls, the country, it was evident, had no intention of abandoning the
policy of free trade, which by this time, it was clear, had conferred
substantial benefits on all classes. When the new parliament met in the
autumn of 1852, it was at once plain that the issue would be determined
on the rival merits of the old and the new financial systems. Disraeli
courted the decision by at once bringing forward the budget, which
custom, and perhaps convenience, would have justified him in postponing
till the following spring. His proposal--in which he avowedly threw over
his friends on the ground that "he had greater subjects to consider than
the triumph of obsolete opinions"--was, in effect, an attempt to
conciliate his old supporters by a policy of doles, and to find the
means for doing so by the increased taxation of the middle classes. He
offered to relieve the shipping interest by transferring some of the
cost of lighting the coasts to the Consolidated Fund; the West India
interest by sanctioning the refining of sugar in bond; and the landed
classes by reducing the malt tax by one-half, and by repealing the old
war duty on hops. He suggested that the cost of these measures should be
defrayed by extending the income tax to Ireland to industrial incomes of
L100 and to permanent incomes of L50 a year, as well as by doubling the
house tax, and extending it to all L10 householders. The weight,
therefore, of these measures was either purposely or unintentionally
thrown mainly on persons living in houses worth from L10 to L20 a year,
or on persons in receipt of incomes from L50 to L150 a year. This defect
in the budget was exposed in a great speech by Gladstone, which did much
to ensure the defeat of the scheme and the fall of the ministry.
Coalition, 1853.
On the resignation of Lord Derby, the queen, anxious to terminate a
period of weak governments, decided on endeavouring to combine in one
cabinet the chiefs of the Whig party and the followers of Sir Robert
Peel. With this view she sent both for Lord Aberdeen, who had held the
foreign office under Sir Robert, and for Lord Lansdowne, who was the
Nestor of the Whigs; and with Lord Lansdowne's concurrence charged Lord
Aberdeen with the task of forming a government. In the new ministry Lord
Aberdeen became first lord of the treasury, Gladstone chancellor of the
exchequer, Lord John Russell foreign minister--though he was almost
immediately replaced in the foreign office by Lord Clarendon, and
himself assumed the presidency of the council. Lord Palmerston went to
the home office. One other appointment must also be mentioned. The
secretary of state for the colonies was also at that time secretary of
state for war. No one in 1852, however, regarded that office as of
material importance, and it was entrusted by Lord Aberdeen to an amiable
and conscientious nobleman, the duke of Newcastle.
Budget of 1853.