CHAPTER XI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (_continued_).

Prorogation of 1853--End of the Kaffir and Burmese Wars--The Wages

Movement--The Preston Strike--End of the Struggle--The Crystal

Palace--Its Opening by the Queen--Marriage of the Emperor of

the French--His Reception of the Prince Consort--His Visit to

England--At Guildhall--The Queen's Return Visit--Festivities in

Paris--Lord Lyndhurst on Italy--Lord Clarendon's Reply--Similar

Debate in the Commons--Speeches of Russell, Palmerston, and

Disraeli--Withdrawal of the Western Missions from Naples--The

Anglo-French Alliance--The Suez Canal--The _Arrow_ Affair--Debate

in the House of Lords--Mr. Cobden's Resolution--Mr. Labouchere's

Reply--Lord Palmerston's Speech--The Division--Announcement of a

Dissolution--Retirement of Mr. Shaw-Lefevre--Lord Palmerston's

Victory at the Polls--Mr. Denison elected Speaker--Betrothal

of the Princess Royal--Her Allowance--Abolition of "Ministers'

Money"--The new Probate Court--The Divorce Bill in the Lords--The

Bishop of Oxford's Amendments--Motions of Mr. Henley and Sir W.

Heathcote--Major Warburton's Amendment--The Bill becomes Law--The

Orsini Plot--Walewski's Despatch--Subsequent Correspondence--The

Conspiracy to Murder Bill--Debate on the Second Reading--Defeat of

the Government--The Derby Ministry.

The war with Russia, the conclusion of which has just been recorded, and

its effects on political parties and Cabinets, so fully absorbed the

attention of Parliament and the public while it lasted, that comparatively

little progress was made in the work of domestic legislation. It was not,

however, altogether neglected. At the prorogation on the 20th of August,

1853, her Majesty congratulated Parliament on the remission of taxes which

tended to cramp the operations of trade and industry; on the extension

of the system of beneficent legislation, which increased the means of

obtaining the necessaries of life; on the buoyant state of the revenue; on

the steady progress of foreign trade; on the prosperity that pervaded the

great trading and producing classes, without even a partial exception--all

affording continued and increasing evidence of the enlarged comforts of

the people. The Queen at the same time announced the termination of the

Kaffir War, which had lasted since the beginning of 1851, the Kaffirs

having repeatedly defeated our troops, and spread havoc through the

villages. At length they were enabled to bring against us an army of

6,000 horsemen. They were attacked by the Governor-General Cathcart, with

2,000 British troops, and defeated with great loss. The result was that

they accepted the terms of peace he proposed. The Royal Speech expressed

the hope that the establishment of representative government in the

Cape Colony would lead to the development of its resources, and enable

it to make efficient provision for its own defence. Another subject of

congratulation was the termination of the war with Burmah, which commenced

in January, 1851, and was caused by the exactions of the Governor of

Rangoon from British traders. At first the Court of Ava promised redress,

but the Governor refused to receive the British representative, Captain

Fishbourne, and Lord Dalhousie's ultimatum was treated with contempt.

Accordingly a British naval force arrived before Rangoon, under Commodore

Lambert, who, on January 4th, 1852, destroyed the fortifications of the

Irrawaddy, and a few months later stormed Martaban, Rangoon, and Bassein.

Later in the year Pegu was captured, and annexed to our Indian Empire. The

objects of the war having been thus fully attained, and due submission

made by the Burmese Government, peace was proclaimed.

[Illustration: THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE.]

The Session of 1853 had been a fruitful one--116 Bills had been

introduced by the Ministry, of which 104 passed into law, 10 having

been withdrawn, and 2 only rejected. This was the peaceful work of the

Coalition Ministry, under the Earl of Aberdeen, which was destined to end

its existence so ingloriously. Two powerful causes came into operation

soon after, which clouded the political atmosphere, and gradually spread

feelings of discontent and despondency throughout the nation--a bad

harvest and a costly war miserably conducted. The effects of the short

harvest were greatly aggravated by what was called "the Wages Movement,"

which commenced in April. It was generally felt by the skilled artisans

that, though their employment was constant and their wages good, they

did not obtain a fair measure of the extraordinary profits resulting

from their labour. The consequence was a general organisation of the

trades to extort better terms from their employers, enforced--if need

were--by strikes. The artisans engaged in the woollen manufacture led the

way in putting forth their demands. They were followed by carpenters,

shipwrights, waggon-wrights, and almost every class of operative. Large

concessions were made to some classes, and those employed in the coal

trade especially received enormous wages. But, as the prices of provisions

continued to rise the movement spread to every part of the United Kingdom,

assuming its most formidable aspect in the manufacturing districts, where

strikes became general, and many mills were closed. A common fund was

established for the purpose of supporting the unemployed workmen, and it

was hoped that the manufacturers would soon be compelled to give way. But

the masters formed a counter-combination, and wherever a partial or local

strike occurred, they all agreed to close their works, and thus to starve

the operatives into surrender. The result was a bitter controversy, and a

desperate struggle between capital and labour, which lasted with unabated

obstinacy throughout the year, but, happily, unaccompanied by such

acts of violence as attended strikes in former times, when the working

classes were not so well educated. The leaders of the movement were able,

intelligent, and energetic. The plan of the campaign was to conquer in

detail, directing the attack against some particular town, compelling

the firms to succumb individually till the capitalists of that district

were subdued, and then carrying the war to another place. They hoped by

this means to receive ample supplies for continuing the contest, because

the great mass of workmen would always be employed, and would be able to

support those that were out on strike. Preston and Burnley were the places

in which the operations commenced on a large scale, and the contest that

followed will be long remembered as "the Preston Strike." In that town,

upwards of 15,000 idle hands were supported by contributions from the

employed, which were so abundant, at first, that the enormous sum of

£3,000 was distributed weekly--equal to about five shillings a head on an

average. On this allowance they managed to exist for thirty-seven weeks.

The effects were in some respects like those produced by the cotton-famine

in Lancashire. First, the deposits in the saving-banks, and the sums

insured for age and sickness, were consumed in obtaining the necessaries

of life. Personal ornaments and wearing apparel were next sacrificed--sold

for trifling sums to meet the cravings of hunger. With poor, scanty food,

ragged clothes, and domestic discomfort of every kind, the habits of the

operatives became debased and their tempers morose. The retail traders

who depended upon them became bankrupt; many substantial shopkeepers were

ruined; trade everywhere languished and the distress grew general. Still

the operatives held out heroically, they insisted on one-tenth of the

profits of their labour; the watchword still passed from rank to rank;

they shouted enthusiastically, "Ten per cent. and no surrender!" It was

stated that the passion produced by this abstract idea became a sort of

religious conviction, and in one place the people assembled in a chapel

and sang a hymn to "ten per cent."

But, as in wars between nations, the belligerents were ultimately

compelled to come to terms by sheer exhaustion; the workers, as invariably

happens in such suicidal contests, were the first to fail. In April, 1854,

the supplies were diminished to a miserable pittance, the cardloom hands

receiving but a shilling a week each. The contributions from distant

towns fell off, while the demand was more than doubled by the men of

Stockport, to the number of 18,000, suddenly throwing themselves upon the

fund. As Stockport had contributed £200 a week to the fund which they

thus overburdened, the struggle was necessarily brought to an abrupt

conclusion. On the 1st of May, therefore, the committee announced that the

employers had succeeded in their "unholy crusade" and that the operatives

generally had deserted them in their hour of utmost need. The mills were

opened and work was resumed; but some thousands failed to find employment

and were reduced to destitution and pauperism. It has been computed that

the sums expended in maintaining the unemployed in Preston alone amounted

to £100,000. The loss of wages was more than three times that amount;

and altogether the loss to the working classes by that disastrous strike

could not be less than £500,000. The loss of capital to the manufacturers

must have been incalculable, not to speak of the ruin of a multitude of

shopkeepers. The principal leader was afterwards imprisoned for debt,

contracted in carrying on the war.

We pass from this painful subject to a scene that furnishes a contrast. On

the 10th of June, 1854, the Queen opened the Crystal Palace at Sydenham.

Many of those who witnessed the Exhibition in Hyde Park deplored the

demolition of that magnificent structure, which the Commissioners of Woods

and Forests would not suffer to remain. The materials were purchased

by a private company, and removed to a new site on the summit of Penge

Hill, upon which a new palace was constructed. A full description of

this structure would be out of place here. It had three transepts, the

centre one being 120 feet wide, and 208 feet high from the garden front.

The whole nave was covered with an arched roof. This palace crowned an

eminence from which there is a commanding view of the metropolis and

of the rich and vast plains of Surrey and Kent. Internally, the palace

was constructed upon the principle of illustrating the architecture

of different ages, keeping in view its purposes as an educational

institution. Thus it comprised a series of palaces, Egyptian, Assyrian,

Grecian, Byzantine, Moorish, German, French, English, and Italian. All

these buildings, excepting the Egyptian, were reproduced on the scale

of their originals. The building was filled with statues, casts of the

great masterpieces of art, paintings, representations of savage tribes,

exotic shrubs and plants, and art-collections of various kinds; while in

the way of concerts, exhibitions, festivals, and fireworks, multitudes of

pleasure-seekers were congregated. Though created by the enterprise of a

private company, the Crystal Palace was in every respect worthy of the

metropolis, and continued to be patronised by the masses, rather than the

classes, though its immense size and cost of maintenance prohibited its

becoming a distinct commercial success.

The inauguration was witnessed by 40,000 spectators. Around the dais

in the centre transept were gathered the representatives of Britain's

greatness and nobility. The Lord Primate and Ministers of State were on

the left of the throne; on the right sat the diplomatic body. In front

were the directors of the company, in court dresses, with the Lord Mayor

of London, his brothers of Dublin and York, and other provincial magnates.

The members of Parliament and their families filled the lower galleries

of the great transept. The Queen and Prince Albert arrived at three

o'clock, and entered the palace, preceded by Sir Joseph Paxton and Mr.

Laing. With her Majesty were the King of Portugal, his brother, the Duke

of Oporto, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, Prince Alfred, the

Princess Alice, the Duchess of Kent, and the Duchess and Princess Mary

of Cambridge. The National Anthem having been performed with very grand

effect, Mr. Laing, the chairman of the company, presented an address to

her Majesty, to which a most gracious answer was returned. The designers

of the building, and the scientific gentlemen who had undertaken the

formation of the different departments, were then presented. This ceremony

gone through, a procession was formed to perambulate the palace, the Queen

in her circuit being warmly welcomed as she passed. This done, her Majesty

and her immediate circle returned to the elevated platform, the Ministers

of State and other public functionaries surrounding the dais as before.

Then the One Hundredth Psalm, in all its simple grandeur of harmony, was

pealed by the thousand voices and accompanying instruments of the choir.

This led, by a natural transition, to the Archbishop of Canterbury's

dedicatory prayer. The prayer was followed by the Hallelujah Chorus--a

triumph of music; and the Queen, through the Lord Chamberlain, pronounced

the Crystal Palace open. Once more the National Anthem rose and swelled

under the lofty vaults and then the Queen departed.

The Emperor of the French left nothing undone to secure his position and

establish his dynasty. All the Continental monarchs of Europe, except

the Czar, admitted him into the family of Sovereigns, addressing him as

"_Monsieur, mon frère_." The Emperor Nicholas could not overcome his

scruples on the point of legitimacy, and had recourse to a compromise, and

addressed him as "_Mon cher ami_," a slight which Louis Napoleon felt,

but prudently passed over. The next step was to choose an empress. It was

said at the time that his overtures of matrimonial alliance with several

royal families were rejected, and these statements are now known to have

been correct. He consoled himself with satisfactory reasons why such an

alliance would not be desirable, and that he did much better by selecting

for his bride Eugénie de Montijo, Countess-Duchess of Teba. The speech of

the Emperor, announcing his intended marriage, on the 22nd of January,

1853, to the Senate and Corps Législatif, is remarkable. He avowed at

the outset that the union did not accord with the traditions of ancient

policy; but therein lay its advantage. A royal alliance would create a

feeling of false security, and might substitute family interest for that

of the nation. Besides, for the last seventy years foreign princesses had

ascended the steps of the throne only to behold their offspring dispersed

and proscribed by war or revolution. One woman only brought with her good

fortune, the good and modest wife of General Buonaparte, and she was not

the issue of a royal family. "When," he said, "in the face of all Europe

a man is raised by the force of a new principle to the level of the

long-established dynasties, it is not by giving an ancient character to

his blazon, and by endeavouring to introduce himself, at any price, into

the family of kings, that he can get himself accepted; it is rather by

always bearing in mind his origin, by preserving his peculiar character,

and by frankly taking up before Europe the position of one who has arrived

at fortune (_position de parvenu_)--a glorious position, when success

is achieved by the free suffrage of a great people." He then lauded the

bride-elect for her varied moral, mental, and personal accomplishments,

saying, "I have preferred a woman whom I love and respect to one unknown,

and whose alliance would have advantages mingled with sacrifices--placing

independence, qualities of heart, and family happiness above dynastic

prejudices and calculations of ambition." The marriage ceremony, preceded

by the civil contract, was performed with great pomp by the archbishop in

Notre Dame.

In September, 1854, the Emperor being in the north of France, on the

pretext of inspecting the camp established there, he had the gratification

of being honoured with several royal visits. The King of the Belgians,

with his eldest son, and the King of Portugal, with the Duke of Oporto,

went to see him at Boulogne, and met with a very cordial reception. But

what gratified him more than all was a visit from the Prince Consort. The

Emperor, attended by a splendid suite, went down to the quay to receive

him and they both warmly shook hands. Nothing was left undone that could

gratify the English visitor, and the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Harding, Lord

Seaton, and other noblemen who accompanied him. Reviews, illuminations,

fireworks, banquets, balls, followed one another in rapid succession

during the time of the visit, which had the effect of strengthening the

_entente cordiale_ between the two Courts.

It was further ratified by the visit of the Emperor and Empress to the

Queen on Monday the 16th of April, 1855--an event which produced a

profound impression throughout Europe. It was indeed a strange phenomenon

that an Emperor of France, the heir and successor of Napoleon, should be

a welcome and popular guest in England, honoured by the Sovereign and

cheered by the people; this guest being moreover the author of the _coup

d'état_. Prince Albert went to Dover to meet the illustrious visitors,

who landed amid the salutes of the military and the booming of guns on

the heights, the Empress leaning on the Prince's arm. The line of streets

between the London terminus and the Great Western Railway was decorated

with flags and evergreens, and the Imperial party, as they drove along,

were received with enthusiastic cheers. At seven p.m. they arrived at

Windsor Castle, and were received by her Majesty and the Royal Family,

with the great officers of State and of the Household, in the grand hall,

whence the guests were conducted up the grand staircase, and through the

music-room and throne-room, to the reception-room. That evening there was

a dinner-party in St. George's Hall; next day the same, followed by a

brilliant evening party. On Wednesday the Queen made the Emperor a Knight

of the Garter--a very significant ceremony in the circumstances, which was

performed with the utmost magnificence, the Prince Consort helping her

Majesty to buckle the garter on the left leg of the Emperor. Her Majesty

accompanied the Emperor to his apartments, followed by the Empress and

the Prince Consort, and attended by the ladies and gentlemen of the royal

suites. On the evening of that day the Queen gave a State dinner, when, by

her Majesty's command, the Lord Steward of the Household gave the toast of

"The Emperor and the Empress of the French." The State apartments which

were occupied by the Imperial guests were gorgeously decorated for the

occasion.

On Thursday the Emperor and Empress proceeded to London in order to

visit the City, the Queen and the Prince accompanying them to Buckingham

Palace. On the route from Nine Elms to the palace they enjoyed a continual

ovation. The Emperor and Empress and suite were conveyed thence to the

City in six of the Queen's State carriages, the principal one being

drawn by cream-coloured horses; the Life Guards escorting the carriages,

and Carabineers and Blues keeping the ground. As they proceeded along

the Mall, the Strand, Fleet Street, Cheapside, to Guildhall, a vast and

orderly multitude thronged the streets, looked down from the windows and

house-tops, from the roofs of omnibuses, and every available position;

while the scene was enlivened by a profusion of union-jacks and tricolors,

lively peals of church bells, hearty cheers from the people, martial

music, and brilliant sunshine. It was calculated that more than a million

spectators witnessed the sight. They were received at the Guildhall by

the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress, with the City magnates. The Emperor was

dressed as a general of division, wearing the insignia of the Garter and

of the Legion of Honour. After receiving an address from the Corporation,

the Imperial party partook of _déjeuner_ and then proceeded by a different

route to Buckingham Palace. In the evening the Queen and her guests paid a

State visit to the Royal Italian Opera, the house being fitted up superbly

for the occasion. In the evening the City and the West End were splendidly

illuminated. On Friday the Queen and her guests visited the Crystal Palace

at Sydenham, where an immense assembly had an opportunity of seeing them

as they leisurely promenaded through the building. On Saturday the Emperor

and Empress departed, accompanied to Dover by the Prince Consort and the

Duke of Cambridge. The Imperial visit was eminently satisfactory to all

parties, and a friendship between the royal families was established

which was destined to outlive good days and endure into misfortune so far

as the Napoleons were concerned. It was politically important, inasmuch

as it arose out of an alliance between nations regarded as hereditary

enemies, and was so far from being within the calculations of statesmen

that the whole policy of the Continental Powers was based upon its assumed

impossibility.

[Illustration: THE QUEEN OPENING THE CRYSTAL PALACE. (_See p._ 163.)]

Her Majesty was pleased to return the Imperial visit on the 18th of August

following. In a historical point of view this event was most interesting.

No English sovereign had beheld the French capital for four centuries,

since the infant Henry VI. was crowned at Paris in 1422. The Queen,

accompanied by the Prince Consort, the Prince of Wales, and the Princess

Royal, started from Osborne at half-past four in the morning on the 18th

of August, 1855, and arrived at Boulogne at half-past one the same day.

The appearance of the royal squadron was announced by discharges from

cannon on the heights and batteries on shore, by volleys of musketry, and

the cheers of a vast multitude of spectators. A pavilion had been erected

on the pier, in which the Emperor, surrounded by a brilliant suite,

awaited the approach of his royal guests. The instant the royal yacht ran

alongside, he hastened on board and saluted the Queen, kissing her hand

and both cheeks. He then shook hands with the Prince Consort, the Prince

of Wales and the Princess Royal, and with every mark of joy and welcome

conducted them to the pavilion. He rode beside the Queen's carriage to the

railway station. At half-past two the train started for Paris. From the

terminus of the Strasburg railway to the Palace of St. Cloud the houses

were gaily dressed with tapestry, flowers, and evergreens; the windows

and streets were crowded by people in every variety of costume; 200,000

soldiers and National Guards formed double lines five miles long. The

glitter of the arms, the splendour and variety of the dresses, mingling

their colours with the verdure of the trees in the Champs Élysées and

the Bois de Boulogne, presented a spectacle of extraordinary brilliancy

and beauty. The Parisians had been on the ground in great numbers from

noon and waited patiently for hours; but, unfortunately, the train was

behind time, the evening became dark and cold, and when at length her

Majesty appeared at half-past seven, the demonstration was shorn of much

of its splendour. Nevertheless, the boulevards, streets, and avenues

were still crowded and Her Majesty met with an enthusiastic reception.

As the carriages approached the Arc de Triomphe the outriders and escort

carried torches, which added much to the effect. The Palace of St. Cloud

was placed entirely at the disposal of the Queen and her party. She was

received by the Empress, the Princess Mathilde, with the ladies of the

officers of the Household, and the high officers of State. It was Saturday

evening, and the next day--Sunday, the 19th of August--was devoted to

rest, relieved only by a drive in the Bois de Boulogne.

On Monday their Majesties visited the Palais des Beaux Arts, a portion of

the great Industrial Exhibition. The route to the building was one dense

mass of spectators, who received her Majesty with every demonstration

of joy and respect. The royal party lunched with Prince Napoleon at the

Élysée, then visited Sainte Chapelle and Notre Dame, and went through

the city to view its principal buildings. The Parisians were everywhere

delighted with the Queen and the royal children, whose gracious bearing

and frank manners quite won their hearts. On Tuesday her Majesty visited

the magnificent Palace of Versailles. The Emperor was so charmed with

his visitors, that it was remarked he conversed with an animation of

manner and countenance quite surprising to those accustomed to his usual

impassiveness. Two more visits were paid to the Industrial Exhibition.

On Thursday evening the Municipality of Paris gave a ball in the Hôtel

de Ville, which surpassed in splendour and magnificence all previous

experience. There was a grand review next day, and after that a visit to

the tomb of Napoleon. On Saturday evening the Emperor gave a splendid

fête at the Palace of Versailles, which outdid even the magnificence of

the Hôtel de Ville. At half-past ten the Emperor opened the ball with

the Queen of Great Britain. At eleven the Court proceeded to supper

in the theatre. Their Majesties' table was laid in the State box,

commanding a view of all the others, which were filled with ladies.

Orchestra and pit were turned into a festive hall. On all sides flowers,

lights, and brilliant toilettes gave an air of satisfaction, joy, and

delight, impossible to describe. It was like a glance at fairy-land.

Their Majesties left Versailles amid the warmest demonstrations of

enthusiasm. After their departure the ball was kept up till morning,

and during the whole of the night the road was thronged with brilliant

equipages conveying back the guests to Paris. Sunday was dedicated to

repose, Monday to travel. Immense crowds lined the streets to witness

the Queen's departure. The Emperor accompanied his illustrious guests

to Boulogne, where her Majesty reviewed the magnificent army encamped

on the heights. The Imperial host and his guests parted about midnight,

when the British Court re-embarked, and arrived at Osborne at nine a.m.

the following morning. The Earl of Clarendon, who was the Secretary of

State in attendance on her Majesty, addressed an official letter to Sir

George Grey, which contains the following testimony of her Majesty's

pleasure:--"The Queen is profoundly sensible of the kindness with

which she has been received by the Emperor and Empress, and of those

manifestations of respect and cordiality on the part of the French nation

by which she has everywhere been greeted. On personal and political

grounds, the visit to Paris has afforded the highest gratification to her

Majesty."

In July, 1856, the question of intervention or non-intervention was

fully discussed in Parliament, in connection with the affairs of Italy.

Read in the light of subsequent events and of later occurrences, and

with a view to pending eventualities, the debate is full of interest.

The subject was introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, who, in the course of an

eloquent and argumentative speech, expressed the warmest sympathy with

Italy, while exposing and denouncing the horrible oppression under which

she groaned. He declared, that of all military tyrannies, that of Austria

was the most galling and odious, as shown not only in Italy, but in her

Danubian provinces. In Italy she had, in violation of the Treaty of

Vienna, not only usurped the government of the Legations, but had taken

possession of the Duchy of Parma, and kept the whole country in a state

of siege, subjecting the population to martial law. Her excuse was, that

when she could remove her garrisons without danger of insurrection she

would do so. Lord Lyndhurst showed, with admirable clearness, the effect

of this plea. A bad Government produced dissatisfaction, disturbance,

possibly insurrection. That ended in invasion by the military force of

a neighbouring Power, which necessarily increased the dissatisfaction

and the tendency to revolt; so that, according to the Austrian argument,

the occupation of the disaffected districts by a foreign military force

could have no termination. "In adverting to the state and prospects

of Italy," continued the noble and learned lord, "it was impossible

to avoid speaking of the proceedings of the Neapolitan Government;

nothing could exceed its infamous conduct. The same infamous system of

tyranny and oppression--founded on no law, not even the law of arbitrary

government--described by Mr. Gladstone some years since, was at this very

moment pursued with greater secrecy, and, in the present political trials,

carried on now, as then, in disregard of every principle of justice and in

violation of every feeling of right." Lord Lyndhurst contended that there

were cases in which it was the bounden duty of foreign Governments to

interfere in the internal affairs of another State, and if there ever was

such a case, it was Naples. The king of that country denied the right of

Britain to interfere, and had positively refused to give any explanation

or reply to the remonstrances addressed to him. Yet Britain declined to

use her power. From this Lord Lyndhurst could draw but one conclusion,

which was--that there was a feeling at Naples that there was some

backwardness and lukewarmness on the part of France to co-operate with us

in the objects we had in view. "This, then," he said, "is the state to

which we are reduced. We threaten a foreign Government, declaring that its

conduct is infamous and atrocious, and that we require it to be changed;

they refuse to listen to our remonstrances, and we sit quietly down and

take no further steps. What, then, has become of the power and _prestige_

of England?"

Lord Clarendon, then Foreign Secretary, stated that urgent remonstrances

had been addressed to the King of Naples, in the most friendly spirit,

pointing out to him the danger of the existing state of things to the

stability of his throne, and suggesting the establishment of a better

administration of justice, a general amnesty for political offences, and a

system of government that would secure the confidence of the people. But

he did not believe that until the joint pressure of Britain and France

could be brought to bear in all its force, the desired amelioration of the

condition of the Italian people would be obtained; and he declared that

that was a matter which Government had as much at heart as Parliament or

the people. The Marquis of Clanricarde remarked that it was clear from the

statement of Lord Clarendon that the King of Naples had taken a stand upon

his own absolute independence, and had treated with contumely the attempt

of her Majesty's Government to meddle with the affairs of his territory.

The Marquis of Lansdowne expressed a hope that the existing system of

foreign interference in Italy would be ultimately got rid of; and he

trusted that, if ever British interference should become necessary, the

war would be vigorously conducted, so that it might be speedily ended.

In the House of Commons also, at the same time, the Italian question was

debated. Lord John Russell moved that an Address be presented to her

Majesty for copies or extracts of any recent communication which had taken

place between Government and the Governments of Austria, Rome, and the

Two Sicilies, relating to the affairs of Italy. He called attention to

the nature of the declarations made at the Paris Conference, reading the

statements made by Count Walewski, Lord Clarendon, Count Buol, and Count

Cavour; and then referred to the Austrian occupation. That occupation

was the result of bad government. It had existed seven years, and the

government was worse. What prospect was there that it would ever be

better? Austria was taking fresh precautions to perpetuate the oppression.

Without advocating interference with the internal affairs of foreign

States, he maintained that, at whatever risk, we were bound to support

the King of Sardinia. We should nourish the growing spirit of Italian

independence. "I remember," said Lord John Russell, "very long ago, having

had an interview in the Isle of Elba with the first Napoleon. The Emperor

talked much of the States of Italy, and agreed in the observation which

I had made that there was no union among them, and no likelihood of any

effectual resistance by them to their oppressors; but when I asked him

why Austria was so unpopular in Italy, he replied it was because she

governed not with the sword [this was probably not a reflection which

Napoleon I. would make], but that she had no other means of governing

except by the stick. I believe, sir, that that is the secret of the whole

disfavour with which Austria is viewed in Italy."

Lord Palmerston observed that at the Paris conferences the representative

of Austria held out no expectation that her consent would be obtained to

the cessation of foreign occupation in Italy. Her Majesty's Government

felt that that cessation was an object of European interest. If

disturbances broke out in Naples, the King would apply to Austria for

assistance, and complications would thence arise that would endanger the

peace of Europe. But with regard to Naples, as well as to Rome, he did

not despair. The King of Sardinia, having associated himself with Britain

and France in the war which had just closed, had a right to support and

protection against an unprovoked attack. Britain and France were bound by

the ties of honour to assist him to the utmost.

Mr. Disraeli could not understand why the question of Italy was introduced

into conferences and protocols if all that was intended to be done was

no more than diplomatic action. Nothing could be more irrational, he

said, than to address violent representations to Austria, with a view of

terminating the occupation of the Roman States, unless France was also

prepared to quit them. Their "admonitions," without fleets or armies, to

the ruling Powers would set Italy in flames. It was said that the case of

Naples was exceptional, but why was it exceptional more than the case of

Austria or Russia, except that those were strong Powers and Naples was a

weak one? But it was not only a contest between worn-out dynasties and

an intelligent class that was going on in Italy; there were the secret

societies which did not care for constitutional government. "Rome is not

far distant from Naples. The passage from Naples to the States of the

Church is not difficult. You may have triumvirs again established in

Rome; the Pope may again be forced to flee. What will be the consequences

of that? The two great Catholic Powers of Europe--France, whose Emperor

boasts in these protocols of being the eldest son of the Church, that

ally with whose beneficent co-operation Italy is to be emancipated, and

Austria--will pour their legions over the whole peninsula. You will

have to withdraw the British fleet; your admonitions will be thrown

into the mud, as they deserve; and your efforts to free Italy from the

occupation of foreign troops will terminate by rendering the thraldom

a thousand times more severe, and by aggravating the miseries of the

unfortunate people, whose passions you have fired and whose feelings you

have this night commenced to rouse. If they were not prepared," he said,

in conclusion, "to interfere in Italy with fleets and armies, let them

abstain from stirring up the passions of the people--a policy that would

only aggravate the thraldom of Italy, and might lead to consequences still

more fraught with disaster to Europe." Lord John Russell, in reply to

Mr. Disraeli, said, "that as to secret societies, a despotic Government,

supported by foreign troops, was not likely to put them down. Those things

acted upon one another. There were secret societies, therefore there was

foreign occupation. There was foreign occupation, therefore there were

secret societies. The people resorted to secret societies because there

was no other mode of stating their grievances." The motion was negatived

without a division.

In consequence of the discussions which took place during the Paris

conferences with regard to the state of Italy, Britain and France

despatched earnest remonstrances to the King of Naples, in order to

induce the Government to mitigate the system of oppression under which

his subjects groaned, and to adopt a course of policy calculated to

avert the dangers which might disturb the peace that had been recently

restored to Europe. These friendly remonstrances were scornfully rejected

by the infatuated monarch, in terms which left no alternative with the

Western Powers but to withdraw their missions from his Court. The fact was

announced in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session in 1857, and

led, of course, to Conservative attacks upon the Administration for their

interference with the domestic concerns of another country.

The maintenance of the Anglo-French Alliance despite the tortuous courses

to which the Emperor was addicted, was due to the peculiarly close

relations of the two Courts, and the friendship that existed between Lord

Palmerston and the French Ambassador, Count Persigny. Persigny's Imperial

master, however, was regarded by the Prime Minister with but little

confidence. In particular his notable scheme for dividing the Sick Man's

heritage through the occupation of Tunis by Sardinia, Morocco by France,

and Egypt by Britain was rejected at once. How could Britain and France,

Lord Palmerston contended, who had just guaranteed the integrity of the

Turkish Empire, proceed like the partitioners of Poland, to strip the

Sultan of his outlying dominions? Besides, we did not want Egypt; all we

wished was that the country should not belong to any other European Power,

and that we should have a free passage across it. It was undoubtedly

distrust of the Emperor which induced Lord Palmerston to oppose the

construction of the Suez Canal scheme, which he did with such insistence

that the Sultan's firman was not granted until after his death. His public

reasons, which were much ridiculed at the time, were that the canal would

never be made, that even if it was made, it would not pay, and that by

rendering Egypt virtually independent of the Porte, it would impair the

integrity of the Turkish Empire. His private objections, as given in a

letter to Lord John Russell, were far more statesmanlike. They were that a

canal open to all nations would deprive Britain of the commercial monopoly

with the East which she at present possessed, and that "it required only

a glance at the map of the world to see how great would be the naval and

military advantage to France in a war with Britain to have such a short

cut to the Indian seas, while we should be obliged to send ships round by

the Cape."

[Illustration: CHINESE OFFICERS HAULING DOWN THE BRITISH FLAG ON THE

"ARROW." (_See p._ 169.)]

The most momentous debates in the Session of 1857 were connected with

the affairs of China. They resulted in the defeat of Lord Palmerston's

Administration, which was followed by the dissolution of Parliament. It

was a seemingly trivial incident in a remote part of the globe that led

to these important consequences. Sir John Bowring had been appointed

British Consul in Canton in 1849. In 1854 he was appointed her Majesty's

Plenipotentiary in China and Governor of Hong Kong. While he occupied this

position he came into hostile collision with the Imperial Government.

On the 8th of October, 1856, a lorcha named the _Arrow_, which bore

the British flag, was boarded by Chinese officers, for the purpose of

arresting some of their countrymen charged with piracy. The British flag

was torn down, and twelve out of a crew of fourteen were carried off

prisoners. Sir John Bowring in vain endeavoured to obtain redress for

this outrage. The Imperial Commissioner Yeh paid no attention to his

remonstrances, or only returned evasive answers. Menaces being equally

unavailing, the matter was referred to the British admiral, Sir Michael

Seymour. Troops were obtained from India and Ceylon, and Sir John Bowring,

on his own responsibility--without any authority from the Government at

home--made war upon the most ancient and extensive empire in the world.

The forts along the river were one after another attacked and reduced.

The public buildings in the city of Canton were shelled. A large fleet of

war-junks was destroyed, and the city lay defenceless under our guns.

The news of these events had reached England during the autumn, and

produced a great deal of excitement and discussion. On the 16th of

February the Earl of Derby gave notice of a motion on the subject, and

in the House of Commons a similar notice was given by Mr. Cobden. Both

these statesmen delivered speeches memorable for the masterly and eloquent

discussion of the principles of international law and the duties incumbent

upon civilised Powers in their dealings with semi-barbarous nations.

Lord Derby moved his resolutions on the 24th, and then described the

proceedings at Canton as most violent in their character, and as having

inflicted the greatest injury upon trade and commerce. The _Arrow_, it was

said, was a British vessel within the meaning of the treaty, and entitled

to carry a British flag; but he contended that she was a China-built

ship, captured by pirates, recaptured by the Chinese, sold afterwards

by the Chinese, and ultimately bought, owned, and manned by Chinese. It

was an essential characteristic of a British merchant's ship that she

must be wholly owned by British subjects. But even if the _Arrow_ were a

British vessel, no infraction of the treaty had been committed: no one

would think of enforcing "the colonial ordinance," in the case of the

vessels of any European country, trading on the coasts of that country.

Besides, the very existence of the ordinance had not been made known

to the Chinese until some time after it was established. In any case

there could be no doubt that the _Arrow_ had no legal right to carry

the British flag, because it was admitted by Sir John Bowring that her

licence had expired before the seizure. The governor had said to Consul

Parkes, that the lorcha could not claim British protection, although he

made a contrary statement to Commissioner Yeh; and it was by such means

that the British nation was drawn into a destructive and expensive war!

It was true that by treaty the British were entitled to be admitted into

the city of Canton. The admission was denied by the Chinese authorities,

on the ground that it would lead to conflicts between the natives and the

foreigners. This had been held by Sir G. Bonham to be a sufficient reason

for not pressing the claim; but Sir John Bowring was determined to enforce

it at all hazards, and considered no sacrifice too great to effect his

object. In the correspondence upon the subject, the tone of the Chinese

was throughout forbearing, courteous, and gentleman-like; while that of

our representative, with hardly an exception, was menacing, disrespectful,

and arrogant. Lord Derby believed that Sir John Bowring and Mr. Parkes had

determined beforehand that they would not consent to anything proposed,

but would tack to the lorcha grievance Sir John Bowring's monomania for

obtaining admission to the city. The military operations were advised

and planned within twelve days after the cause of quarrel, while every

overture for peace on the part of the Chinese was evaded. Sir John Bowring

had charged the Chinese with shameful violation of treaties; but these

treaties remained unfulfilled, with the acquiescence of her Majesty's

Government, upon reasons assigned and representations made. Lord Derby

concluded his speech with an earnest appeal to the bench of bishops

to come forward on this occasion and vindicate the cause of religion,

humanity, and civilisation from the outrage which had been inflicted upon

it by the British representatives at Canton. He solemnly called upon the

hereditary peers not to tolerate the usurpation by authorities abroad of

that most awful prerogative of the Crown, the right of declaring war, not

to tolerate, upon light and trivial grounds, the capture of commercial

vessels, the destruction of forts belonging to a friendly country, the

bombardment of an undefended city, and the shedding of the blood of

unwarlike and innocent people, without warrant of law and without moral

justification. He then moved three resolutions embodying his sentiments.

Lord Clarendon defended the conduct of the British representatives at

Canton. He denied that the _Arrow_ had forfeited her licence, because,

though the term had expired, the vessel was still at sea, and therefore

still entitled, under the terms of the ordinance, to bear the British

flag. He contended that if Mr. Parkes, whose discretion and moderation

deserved all praise, had shrunk from demanding redress, he would have

failed in his duty, and given the Chinese reason to believe that they

might proceed to still greater insults. Such an outrage could not occur

among nations who respected international law, and it was necessary to

make the Chinese sensible of the law of force. He believed that the

assumed popular hostility to the admission of the British into Canton

was a mere bugbear, and that the Queen's officers were justified in

taking advantage of the dispute about the _Arrow_ to endeavour to obtain

a partial fulfilment of the treaty. He declared that the resolution

prohibiting hostilities against a foreign people, without express

instructions received from her Majesty's Government, would endanger the

lives and property of all British subjects in China, would cast dishonour

upon our name and our flag, and would bring ruin upon our trade with

that country. The Lord Chancellor, in reply to Lord Lyndhurst, took the

same view of the subject; and after a powerful speech on the other side

by Earl Grey, Earl Granville, having defended the conduct of Sir John

Bowring, sarcastically remarked upon the zeal with which noble lords on

the opposite side of the House constituted themselves lay-readers to

the episcopal bench, and admonished right reverend prelates with moving

sermons whenever they were in doubt about which way their votes would go.

He was sure the bishops would vote according to the dictates of their

consciences, and be guided only by what they believed and felt to be the

principles of justice and humanity. The Bishop of Oxford was the only

prelate who spoke in the name of the bench. He declared his belief that

the claim made on behalf of the lorcha was not founded on the principles

of either law or justice; therefore the war which had sprung from that

claim was indefensible, and its principle untenable among Christian

men. He reprobated the conduct of a great Christian nation like England

spreading the horrors of war among a weak and unoffending people. If the

House gave the weight of its great authority to support an act so unjust,

it would go against a Power which took its own time for vindicating

eternal justice, and which never allowed a wrong to pass unavenged--a

Power which could find in the very weakness of China sufficient elements

to abase and rebuke the lawless oppression of this country. All these

appeals failed to avert a decision in favour of the Government, which had

a majority of thirty-six; but this majority was made up chiefly of persons

who had not heard the arguments. The proxies for Lord Derby's motion were

fifty-seven, and the proxies against it seventy-five.

Mr. Cobden, on the 26th of February, moved a resolution to the effect

that the House had heard with concern of the conflicts that had occurred

between the Chinese and British authorities on the Canton river; and

considered that the papers laid on the table failed to establish

satisfactory grounds for the violent measures adopted in the affair of the

_Arrow_. He moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into

the state of our commercial relations with China. He asked the House to

inquire how all this warfare and devastation began--would they have dealt

in a similar manner if the transaction had taken place at Charleston,

and the Government assailed had been at Washington? Referring to the

correspondence between our consul and the Chinese Commissioner, he said

that Mr. Parkes, a young man, seemed to have made up his mind not to

be satisfied, in spite of the logical arguments of Governor Yeh, which

would have done credit to Westminster Hall. Mr. Cobden conscientiously

believed that there had been a preconceived design to pick a quarrel with

the Chinese authorities, for which the world would cry shame upon us. He

regarded the papers laid before the House as a garbled record of trumpery

complaints. It was an insult to bring down such a book in order to make

out a case for Lord Clarendon. Englishmen carried with them a haughty

demeanour and inflexible bearing towards the natives of other countries,

and the demands of our mercantile men in this instance were characterised

by downright selfish violence. Sir John Bowring, acting on their behalf,

had not only violated the principles of international law, but had acted

contrary to his instructions, and even to express directions from the Home

Government.

Sir Bulwer Lytton, on the same side, censured the language of Consul

Parkes to Commissioner Yeh as repugnant to the rules of diplomatic

intercourse, and denounced hostilities carried on upon such a miserable

plea. Lord John Russell reviewed the whole question, and argued that

the alleged provocations furnished no sufficient ground for the extreme

measures resorted to, which were not the proper modes of settling such

a great question. Government should consider that their officials had

committed a serious offence. And where was the matter to end? The worst

part of the case, he said, was the conduct of Sir J. Bowring, who, while

he declared that the vessel had lost all right to British protection, set

up that claim against the Chinese Commissioner, and required an apology

for the British flag as having been rightfully used. Mr. Gladstone

protested against making Sir John a stalking-horse for diverting

attention from the real matter at issue, which involved the interests of

humanity and the honour of England. We talked of the violation of treaty

by the Chinese, but was there no violation of treaty on our part? The

purpose for which Hong Kong was given to us was that it should be a port

in which British ships might tarry and fit. Was not our contraband trade

in opium a breach of treaty obligations? Had our Government struggled to

put it down, as bound by treaty? Had they not encouraged it by organising

a fleet of lorchas under the British flag? They who thus acted had stained

the British flag. For what were we at war with China? If the House had

the courage to assert its prerogative and adopt this resolution, it would

pursue a course consistent at once with sound policy and the principles

of eternal justice. Mr. Disraeli thought that Sir John Bowring had been

unfairly treated in the debate. If his conduct had been ratified by

Government, it should not be impugned by the House. The question at issue

was the policy of Government, which was to extend our commerce in the

East, not by diplomacy, but by force. Lord Palmerston--"the very archetype

of political combination without principle"--complained that he was the

victim of conspiracy. Then let him appeal to the country.

The foregoing is an outline of the case made against Government in the

course of a debate which lasted four days, and which excited extraordinary

interest, because it was felt not only by the House, but by the public,

that the fate of Government depended upon the issue. The following is

an outline of the defence, which was commenced by Mr. Labouchere. He

said that when the case was fairly and impartially considered, the

House would be of opinion that no blame justly attached to our local

authorities at Canton or to Government at home, who could have pursued

no other course than that they had taken without betraying the interests

entrusted to their care, and lowering the British character in the eyes

of the world. The transactions had taken place before the great community

of merchants who had been libelled by Mr. Cobden. French and American

merchants had coincided with ours in their view of the conduct of the

Chinese authorities, which had become absolutely unbearable. He denied

that the British functionaries had evinced any want of forbearance. On the

part of Government at home, he should regret if it had been so weak and

pusillanimous as to fail in supporting officials placed in a difficult

position, whose conduct had been applauded by the representatives of

foreign nations. We were not at war with the Court of Pekin, but with

the local government at Canton, and he hoped that the result of these

hostilities would be to place the relations of Europe with China upon a

safer and more satisfactory footing. Mr. Lowe contended that the real

question was not one of legality, but of the animus of the Chinese

authorities, and it was impossible to acquit them of bad animus in the

matter. Much as he deplored the consequences, it appeared to him that

upon those authorities, not upon the British Government or its officials,

rested the responsibility. The Lord Advocate of Scotland argued upon the

facts, that there was no ground for asserting that international law had

been transgressed by our authorities abroad. He contended that the Hong

Kong ordinance of 1855 was a valid law as respected the Chinese, and

whether or not it was contrary to our municipal law had nothing to do with

the question. The boarding of the lorcha was no doubt preconcerted; it

was regarded by Sir John Bowring as an outrage, as an international and

deliberate insult; and he wanted to know what Sir John was to have done.

He warned the House to pause before it put between us and China a barrier

which might be far more dangerous than any yet offered.

Lord Palmerston began his speech by observing that he should not have

expected from Mr. Cobden such a motion, or such a speech in its support,

nor should he have anticipated the bitterness of his attack upon Sir

John Bowring, an ancient friend, a man who had raised himself by his

talents, attainments, and public services, and who was a fit person for

the situation he held. If there was any man less likely than another to

get the country into hostilities, it was Sir John Bowring, who had been a

member of the Peace Society. But what most surprised him in Mr. Cobden's

speech was the anti-English spirit which pervaded it, and an abnegation

of the ties which bound men to their country and their countrymen. With

regard to the question under discussion, the noble lord said that we had

a treaty with the Chinese, stipulating that British vessels should not

be boarded without a previous application to the British Consul; and the

question is, What did the Chinese know or believe about the nationality of

the _Arrow?_ Did they consider her a British vessel? He affirmed they did,

and if they knowingly violated the treaty, it was immaterial whether,

according to the technicalities of the law, the register had expired.

It was the animus of the insult, the wilful violation of the treaty,

that entitled us to demand reparation for the wrong, and an assurance of

future security. He insisted that, after the refusal of reparation--only

one of many violations of treaty rights by the Chinese--hostilities

were amply justified, and that our proceedings were marked with extreme

forbearance, compared with the proceedings of the Americans when their

flag was insulted. The outrage was only part of a deliberate system to

wrest from us a right essential to our commerce in those waters. Lord

Palmerston referred to the barbarities of the local authorities at Canton;

the Commissioner Yeh having beheaded 70,000 persons in less than a year.

What was the Government expected to do--to send out a message to Yeh

that he was right? This would be withdrawing from the British community

protection against a merciless barbarian. It would disgrace this country

in the eyes of the civilised world, and especially in the estimation of

Eastern nations. The House, therefore, had in its keeping not only the

interests, the property, and the lives of many of our fellow-subjects

abroad, but the honour and the character of the country. As the Government

expected defeat, the latter part of the Prime Minister's speech was a

stirring appeal to the nation against the coalition of Radicals, Tories,

and Peelites, which, as Greville remarks, was "very bow-wow." Mr. Cobden

having briefly replied, and having withdrawn the first paragraph of his

resolution, the concluding portion was put to the vote--to the effect that

the papers laid before the House failed to establish satisfactory grounds

for the violent measures resorted to at Canton. The numbers were--for the

motion, 263; against it, 247; majority against the Government, 16.

[Illustration: VICTORIA, HONG-KONG, FROM THE CHINESE MAINLAND.]

This important division took place on March 3rd. Two days of anxious

suspense passed, during which the political world was full of speculation

as to the alternative Lord Palmerston would adopt--resignation or

dissolution. Mr. Disraeli had challenged him to appeal to the country,

but without such a provocative, that was the course which a man of

Lord Palmerston's spirit and determination was most likely to adopt.

Accordingly, on the 5th, Lord Granville in the Upper House, and the

Prime Minister in the Lower, announced that her Majesty's Ministers had

advised her to dissolve Parliament. The latter explained the grounds of

his decision. In ordinary circumstances, the result of a vote of censure

would be resignation, and to those who had obtained a majority in favour

of such a vote would be left the responsibility of conducting the affairs

of the country. But the present case seemed to Lord Palmerston of so

peculiar a character that he did not think it his duty to adopt that

course. The vote did not seem to imply a general want of confidence,

though it would render it very difficult, if not unseemly, to conduct the

business of the country in the ordinary manner during the remainder of

a long Session. The Parliament was then in its fifth Session, and might

be considered comparatively a very old Parliament, for it had witnessed

more important events than had fallen to the lot of most Parliaments

to see. It had seen three Administrations; it had seen the transition

from a state of profound peace to a great European war; it had seen the

transition from a great European war to the fortunate restoration of

European peace. Consequently, as concerned the events of which it had

been a spectator, it had done as much as could be expected to fall to the

lot of one which had completed its full term of existence. He therefore

proposed that the House should content itself with such provisional and

temporary measures as might be necessary to provide for the public service

until the earliest period at which a new Parliament could assemble. Mr.

Disraeli concurred in this course and said he would give every possible

facility to public business. Mr. Cobden inquired what the Government were

about to do in order to carry out the solemn vote to which the House had

come. If any danger to British residents in China was to be apprehended

from the vote, the first consideration ought to be their safety, and a

competent person should be sent out by the next steam-ship, armed with

full authority to supersede all existing British authority in China, and

to act according to circumstances. If Lord Palmerston did not intend to

take this course, what course would he take? A new Parliament could not

meet until the end of May. Mr. Cobden then attempted to give the Premier

a lesson in electioneering, but the listener, as the event showed, knew

more about the subject than the teacher. Lord Palmerston replied to the

various questions as to the policy to be adopted in China. Every one knew

that if a great extension of commercial intercourse between the nations of

Europe and China ever obtained, it would be an immense advantage to the

cause of civilisation and productive of great benefit to the industry of

the nations trading with that country. The difficulty having been greatly

increased by the unfortunate events that had occurred, it must strike

every one that the selection of a person to whom should be committed

the grave and important charge of conducting negotiations should be a

subject of serious deliberation. It must strike every one that he should

be imbued with the feelings of Government on this subject; and that,

being the recipient of their verbal instructions, he would be likely to

carry more weight than any person who might happen to be now in China.

He by no means undervalued the services of Sir John Bowring, to whom the

greatest injustice had been done, and whose merits had been disparaged to

a degree that astonished him; at the same time, Government could not shut

their eyes to the gravity and importance of the matters in hand. But the

House must expect their policy to remain the same--it was, to maintain

the rights and to protect the lives and property of British subjects, to

improve our relations with China, and in the selection of those means and

the arrangement of them to perform the duty they owed to the country. In

other words the war was to be continued.

The House of Commons turned from the angry discussions about the Chinese

war to a much more agreeable theme. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who had filled the

office of Speaker for nearly eighteen years, now announced his intention

of retiring. On the 9th of March he addressed the House, and said that

he could not contemplate the termination of his official career without

great pain; nor could he allow it to close without offering to the House

his sincere and grateful acknowledgments for that uniform confidence and

support which he had received, not only from every political party in it,

but he might say, with perfect truth, from every individual member. He

was quite aware that, in the discharge of the delicate and very onerous

duties of the Chair, he had much need of the kind indulgence which had

always been extended to him, and especially of late, when he had been

so frequently reminded of his increasing inability to do full justice

to the task imposed upon him. It had been his constant aim to improve

and simplify their forms of proceeding; but at the same time striving

to maintain unimpaired all their rights and privileges, together with

all those rules and orders, sanctioned by ancient usage, which long

experience had taught him to respect and venerate, and which he believed

never could be relaxed, or materially altered, without prejudice to the

freedom and independence of the House of Commons. On the motion of Lord

Palmerston, seconded by Sir. J. Pakington, the House then resolved that an

Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would bestow some

signal mark of her favour upon the retiring Speaker, and stating that the

House would make good the expense. The Queen having returned a gracious

answer, and the House having gone into committee on the message, they

unanimously resolved that an annuity of £4,000 a year should be conferred

upon Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who was subsequently created Viscount Eversley.

The remaining business of Parliament having been rapidly disposed of,

Parliament was prorogued, with a view to its dissolution, on March 21st,

the Royal Speech, which was brief, being delivered by commission. Her

Majesty stated that it was her fervent prayer that the constituencies

of the United Kingdom might be guided by an all-wise Providence to the

selection of representatives whose wisdom and patriotism might aid her to

maintain the honour and dignity of her crown, and to promote the welfare

and happiness of her people. Parliament was convoked for the 30th of

April. The result of the general election showed how well grounded was the

confidence with which Lord Palmerston appealed to the country, and how

correct, as Lord Malmesbury tells us, had been Mr. Disraeli's anticipation

that if the Conservatives forced a contest on that issue they would suffer

complete defeat. The popularity the Prime Minister had won bore him

triumphantly over the most formidable opposition; while those who had been

instrumental in the defeat of his Government seemed not to have pleased

their constituencies; some eminent statesmen were rejected to make way for

untried and ordinary men, whose chief recommendation was that they would

give their zealous support to Lord Palmerston, whom they believed to have

vindicated the honour of the country. In fact the name of Palmerston was

made a popular rallying cry at almost every hustings in Great Britain.

Mr. Cobden, not venturing to face the West Riding of Yorkshire, where he

had been a popular idol, was defeated at Huddersfield, and kept out of

Parliament. Mr. Bright and Mr. Milner Gibson were driven from Manchester,

Mr. Layard from Aylesbury, and Mr. W. J. Fox from Oldham. The small but

powerful phalanx of Peelites, whose experienced and accomplished debaters

had given the Premier so much annoyance, was completely scattered. Thus

his most formidable opponents were driven from the field, while he was

enabled to meet the new Parliament at the head of a numerous body of

zealous supporters.

Mr. John Evelyn Denison was unanimously elected Speaker in the room of

Lord Eversley. Lord Palmerston congratulated him on the dignity to which

he had been raised, pointing out the onerous nature of the duties he

had to discharge, and presenting the example of the late Speaker as a

model which it was impossible to surpass. The Royal Speech was delivered

on the 7th of May, and Parliament at once proceeded to business. The

Queen expressed her heartfelt gratification at witnessing the continued

well-being and contentment of her people, and the progressive development

of productive industry throughout her dominions. The Address was agreed

to in both Houses _nem. con._ The first matter that came before the

Commons was a message from her Majesty, announcing that a marriage had

been negotiated between Prince Frederick William of Prussia and the

Princess Royal. It need hardly be said that so interesting an event as the

betrothal of the Queen's eldest daughter attracted much attention.

In the House of Commons on the same evening, the Premier made some

observations in reference to the approaching marriage:--"I cannot refrain

from saying that those who have had the good fortune to be acquainted

with the Princess Royal must have observed that she possesses, both

in heart and in head, those distinguished qualities which adorn her

illustrious parents, and that she bids fair to hold out in the country of

her adoption a repetition of that brilliant example which her illustrious

parents have held out in this country, of a domestic happiness worthy

to serve as a model of imitation for the most exalted or the humblest

of her Majesty's subjects. Sir, it is impossible not to see that this

marriage--independently of the prospect which I trust it holds out of

happiness to her Royal Highness, from the high qualities of the prince

whom she has selected as her future husband--also holds out to the country

political prospects not undeserving of the attention of this House. We

all know how family alliances tend to mitigate those asperities which

from time to time must be produced by those diversities of policy which

inevitably arise occasionally between great and independent Powers, and

therefore I trust that this marriage may also be considered as holding

out an increased prospect of goodwill and of cordiality among the Powers

of Europe."

In connection with the dowry of the Princess Royal, the Chancellor of

the Exchequer made a statement, in which he contrasted the position of

the Crown as to revenue with what it had been in past times. The Crown,

deprived of its hereditary revenues, was now dependent upon Parliament

for a maintenance suitable to its dignity. The Civil List of George III.

amounted to more than £447,000; whilst that of the present Queen was only

£385,000. George III. also received the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall;

the Queen devoted part of them to the education of the Prince of Wales,

and allowed the rest to accumulate for his benefit. During the reign of

George III., Parliament voted £3,297,000 in payment of debts incurred

by the Royal Family; the Queen had incurred no debts. Allowances were

granted to the younger branches of the family of George III.; no grant of

the kind had been made to the children of her Majesty. The expenses of

the visits of George IV. to Hanover, to Ireland, and to Scotland, were

paid by the country; whereas Queen Victoria visited the Emperor Napoleon

at Paris at her own cost, although the visit was not made for her own

personal enjoyment, but for the public good. Her Majesty had paid £34,000

for the furniture and repairs of Buckingham Palace; and she paid £6,180

a year for the peace income-tax, and £15,500 for the war income-tax. As

to precedent, the eldest daughter of George II. received an annuity of

£8,000 and a dowry of £80,000, and similar sums were granted to the eldest

daughter of George III. Sir George Lewis proposed that the Princess Royal

should receive an annuity of £8,000, and that her marriage portion should

be £40,000. Mr. Roebuck moved, by way of amendment, that a certain sum

should be given at once, and no annuity, in order to avoid an entangling

alliance, and with a view to the large family the nation would have to

provide for. As representatives of a hard-working people, they ought,

while generous, to be just. At the request of Lord John Russell, Mr.

Disraeli, Lord Elcho, and other members, Mr. Roebuck eventually withdrew

his motion. On subsequent days Mr. Coningham, Mr. Maguire, and others,

made attempts to reduce the amount; but their amendments were rejected by

overwhelming majorities.

A reform of some importance to Ireland was effected during the present

Session, namely, the abolition of "Ministers' Money"--a tax which was

imposed upon householders in Dublin, Cork, and other places for the

support of the clergy of the Established Church. It was only about £12,000

a year; but as it was, in the majority of cases, a direct payment from

Roman Catholics to Protestant ministers, it had been a source of much

irritation. Mr. Fagan, of Cork, brought in a Bill for its abolition,

with the assent of the Government, providing that the sum should be made

good by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the Church revenues at

their disposal. On the ground of principle, the measure was strenuously

opposed by Mr. Napier, Mr. Whiteside, Sir F. Thesiger, and Mr. Walpole;

and supported by Sir G. Grey, Mr. Horsman, Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, Lord John

Russell, and Lord Palmerston. The second reading was carried by a majority

of 139. In the House of Lords the Bill was opposed by the Earl of Derby,

the Bishop of Kilmore, Lords Dungannon, Wicklow, and Donoughmore. It was

defended by Earl Granville, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord Talbot de Malahide,

Lord Ellenborough, and the Duke of Newcastle. It narrowly escaped

rejection there, the second reading being passed only by a majority of

five.

The first Session of the new Parliament was distinguished by the passing

of two measures of great social importance--the transfer of testamentary

and matrimonial cases from the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts,

and the establishment of a new Probate Court, and a new Divorce Court.

As might be expected, all the supporters of vested rights and interests

in the Church offered to these measures the most determined opposition.

In the previous Session the Lord Chancellor had introduced the Probate

and Administrations Bill, which there was not then time to pass. It was

altered in the meantime, and on the 18th of May the second reading was

moved by the Lord Chancellor. He proposed that the then present judge

of the Prerogative Court should be the first judge of the new Court of

Probate, with a working salary of £4,000 a year, and a retiring pension of

£2,000. He proposed that he should also be the judge of the Divorce Court.

The proceedings were to be all conducted vivâ voce, and whenever matters

of fact were in dispute they should be referred to a jury. The County

Courts were to have jurisdiction in will cases, where the estate did not

exceed £200 in personalty, or £300 in real property. The Bill was severely

contested in both Houses; but, with certain amendments, it ultimately

passed into law.

[Illustration: MR. SPEAKER DENISON.]

The Divorce Bill--a measure of much greater importance--touching deeper

social interests, and powerful religious feelings connected with the

sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, met with the most determined

and persevering opposition. The second reading was fixed for the 18th of

May, when the Lord Chancellor reviewed the state of the law with regard

to marriage. In 1850 a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the

whole subject, and it was on the recommendation of their report that

the present Bill was founded. Nothing could be more absurd, vexatious,

and expensive, than the law as it previously stood. The principle that

marriage might be dissolved had been adopted by the Legislature; but

practically, the separation of husband and wife was a privilege reserved

for the aristocratic and wealthy classes, although the causes which made

separation necessary or desirable affected all classes. Before a divorce

could be obtained a _vinculo matrimonii_, proceedings must first be taken

in the Ecclesiastical Court, a verbist must be obtained against the

adulterer, and all the facts must be again established, at enormous cost,

before the bar of the House of Lords. The Bill proposed to substitute

one tribunal, by which the matter was to be investigated and finally

decided. The action for _crim. con._, then an indispensable preliminary

to a divorce, would be rendered unnecessary. The Archbishop of Canterbury

gave his assent to the second reading; but he declared that he would

oppose in committee the clause which permitted the guilty parties to be

united in legal marriage. Lord Lyndhurst was most anxious for the success

of the Bill. He believed that it was a scriptural doctrine that marriage

might be dissolved in case of adultery; but our law on the subject was

derived from the system which prevailed when the country was under Roman

Catholic rule. One hundred and fifty years ago recourse had been had to

palliatives; but these means were available only for the rich. The law

ought to embrace both rich and poor. Upon this principle it was impossible

that any solid objection could be made to the alterations proposed by

the Bill. Instead of facilities for severing the marriage tie being

demoralising, he contended that the present law led to great immoralities

among the poorer classes of the people, because they now had no redress

against the adulterer. But he was of opinion that the Bill did not go far

enough. One objection he had to the Bill was its great inequality between

the two sexes. He called upon their lordships to do justice. The more they

considered this part of the measure, the more they would be satisfied of

the unsoundness of the argument urged against women who applied for a

divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of the husband. But if their

lordships could not concur in that suggestion, he hoped they would allow

wilful desertion to be a sufficient ground for divorce. By deserting his

wife the man violated the very purposes for which marriage was instituted.

The Bill was opposed by several of the bishops, particularly by the

Bishop of Oxford; but the Bishop of London gave to the measure his

hearty approval, and the second reading was carried by a majority of

twenty-nine. In committee several amendments were proposed and rejected.

The Archbishop of Canterbury moved a clause restricting the person against

whom the divorce was pronounced from marrying the companion in guilt.

This was carried by fifty-three to forty-seven; but another amendment by

the same prelate was rejected, its object being to exempt from censures

or penalties clergymen who should conscientiously object to officiate

in marrying divorced parties. The Bill passed the third reading on the

23rd of June. It came on for the second reading in the House of Commons

on the 24th of July. Numerous petitions had been presented there against

the measure, one of which was signed by 6,000 clergymen. Mr. Henley moved

that it should be postponed for a month, in order to allow time for

deliberation; but Lord Palmerston pronounced the motion to be a pretence

too shallow to be entertained, though it was supported by Lord John

Manners, Mr. Napier, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Henley's motion

was negatived by 217 to 130.

In moving the second reading on the 30th of July, the Attorney-General

traced the progress of legislation on marriage from the Reformation down.

Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church, holding marriage to

be a sacrament and indissoluble, had recourse to fictions to escape

the operation of the law. But Parliament, proceeding upon settled and

permanent principles, had acted as a tribunal for administering the law of

divorce. The present Bill gave concise expression to the law, simplified

it, and transferred its administration to a more convenient tribunal.

He argued that the dissolution of marriage for adultery is not contrary

either to the letter or spirit of Scripture, and that the intermarriage

of the guilty parties had been supported by the precedents of 150 years.

The operation of the ecclesiastical law by which a divorce was obtained

_a mensa et thoro_ was no effectual relief to an injured wife, as it

allowed the husband to retain his power over her property. Many cruel and

barbarous cases had occurred, in which the wife was driven to sue for this

sentence, and had afterwards by industry in the exercise of intellectual

ability obtained for herself an independent position, and become the owner

of property, till the husband returned, laid his hand on her hard-earned

gains, and swept all away to gratify his own dissolute propensities. This

reproach of our law, this relic of its savage character as regards the

relation of husband and wife, would, he trusted, be effectually removed

by the provisions of the Bill. Sir W. Heathcote moved that the second

reading be deferred for three months. The Bill was also opposed by Mr.

Gladstone, who argued against it at length, both on the law of the case

and on the authority of Scripture. Adverting to the religious view of

it, he asked whether it was consistent with the respect and reverence

due to the revelation of God, for Parliament to take into its own hands

great mysteries, and the remodelling of religious rites? Touching,

lastly, upon the social question, he urged the evils to be apprehended

from the licence of divorce, and from shaking the idea of the sacredness

and indissolubility of marriage, founded upon the great precedents of

human history, and warned the House against entering upon a road which

would remove us from a point to which Christianity had brought us. The

Attorney-General replied and the motion against the Bill was rejected by

a majority of 111; the numbers being--for the amendment, 97; against it,

208. In committee, Mr. Walpole urged the Government to accept an amendment

proposed by Major Warburton, to the effect that no priest or deacon

should be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure, for solemnising, or

refusing to solemnise, the marriage of any person who should be divorced

by virtue of the Act. The Attorney-General solemnly warned the committee

of the consequences of this concession. "You are about," he said, "to

give the clergy an exemption; and upon what ground? Upon the ground of

the sin, guilt, and criminality of the charge affecting those who come

before them with a request that a religious ceremony may be performed. But

if that exemption be granted, where are we to stop? Will the clergy not

reason most consecutively from this exemption when they say, 'You have

exempted us from doing violence to our consciences in this matter; but why

do you leave us under the necessity of submitting to the violation of our

consciences in others, _i.e._ the marriage of notorious free-livers and

so forth?'" The committee, however, decided in favour of the clause by 73

votes against 33, and it was added to the Bill.

In consequence of the adoption of the foregoing clause another was

added--namely, "That when any clergyman refused to perform the marriage

ceremony in the case of divorced parties, it might be lawful for any other

minister of the Church of England, licensed within the diocese, to perform

that ceremony." The Bill, very much altered, having passed the Commons was

sent up to the Lords to have the amendments sanctioned. Lord Redesdale

moved that the amendments of the Commons be taken into consideration that

day six months. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Campbell reprobated this

motion, and Lord Lansdowne affirmed that it was contrary to the practice

of the House for forty years for any peer thus to move the rejection of a

Bill of which he was neither the author nor the mover. Lord Redesdale then

withdrew his motion. The amendments of the Commons were considered on the

24th of August, the House having agreed to do this only by a majority of

two. All the amendments but two were adopted. The Commons concurred, and

the Bill became the law of the land. The court established under the Act

soon became well known under the efficient presidency of Sir Cresswell

Cresswell, who was instrumental in giving relief and freedom to an immense

number of aggrieved husbands and wives. The number of cases that came

before him, however, might lead to a false impression with regard to the

state of matrimonial life in England, because cases had been accumulating

for many years, in consequence of the want of a legal remedy. When this

accumulation was cleared off, the amount of business in the court

indicated a much more favourable condition of married life in the middle

and lower classes of English society. The Act did not extend to Scotland

or Ireland. The Scots did not need its facilities for divorce, and the

Irish indignantly protested against the extension of its provisions to

their country.

The opening of the year 1858 was signalised by a daring attempt on the

life of the Emperor Napoleon. On the 14th of January, at half-past eight

o'clock, just as he arrived with the Empress at the door of the Italian

Opera in the Rue Lepelletier, three explosions were heard proceeding from

hollow projectiles, one of which perforated the hat of the Emperor, and

another struck the neck of his _aide-de-camp_, General Roquet, who was

sitting in front. A considerable number of people standing at the doors

of the theatre, and some soldiers, were wounded, but only two mortally.

Two of the footmen also were wounded. One of the horses of the Imperial

carriage was killed, and the carriage itself was broken by the force

of the explosion. The escape of the Emperor and Empress seemed almost

miraculous. This was the celebrated Orsini plot, which was very near

involving Great Britain in a war with France and led to proceedings in the

British Parliament that resulted in the overthrow of Lord Palmerston's

Administration. On the 20th of January Count Walewski sent a despatch to

Count Persigny, then French Ambassador in London, in which he charged, in

very strong terms, the British Government and nation with something like

complicity with the assassins. "This fresh attempt," he wrote, "like those

which preceded it, has been devised in England. It was in England that

Pianori formed the plan of striking the Emperor; it was from London that,

in an affair the recollection of which is still recent, Mazzini, Ledru

Rollin, and Campanella directed the assassins, whom they had furnished

with arms. It is there also that the authors of the last plot have

leisurely prepared their means of action, have studied and constructed

the instruments of destruction which they have employed, and it is thence

that they set out to carry their plans into execution." He stated that the

Emperor was persuaded of the sincerity of the sentiments of reprobation

which the crime created in England. He appreciated and respected the

liberality with which England exercised the right of asylum to foreigners,

victims of political struggles. He did not complain of that, but very

different was the case of the skilful demagogues established in England.

It was no longer the hostility of misguided individuals manifesting itself

by all the excesses of the press--no longer even the work of the factions,

seeking to rouse opinion and provoke disorder. It was assassination,

elevated to a doctrine, preached openly and practised in repeated

attempts, the most recent of which had just struck Europe with amazement,

and he asked, "ought the right of asylum to protect such a state of

things? Is hospitality due to assassins? Ought the English Legislature to

contribute to favour their designs and their plans, and can it continue to

shelter persons who, by their flagrant acts, place themselves beyond the

pale of common right, and under the ban of humanity?"

Lord Clarendon, who was then Foreign Secretary, did not send an official

communication to Lord Cowley in answer to this despatch, but contented

himself with giving private instructions to lay before the French

Government the sentiments, views, and intentions of her Majesty's

Government, which was thought to be a much more prudent course to be

adopted with a view to allaying the excessive irritation of the French

nation and army at the time. The despatch of Count Walewski, however,

excited general indignation in England, which was rendered more intense

by the fact that very violent military addresses to the Emperor, full

of abuse and threats towards England, had been inserted in the official

_Moniteur_. There was afterwards a good deal of correspondence, which

assumed a conciliatory tone on both sides; but in the course of which

the Emperor insisted on the necessity of passing a new law, in order to

prevent conspiracies like that of Orsini. Towards the end of January he

wrote to his ambassador in London, saying, "I do not deceive myself as

to the little efficacy of the measures which could be taken, but it will

still be a friendly act, which will calm much irritation here. Explain our

position clearly to the Ministers of the Queen; it is not now a question

of saving my life; it is a question of saving the alliance."

Yielding to his pressure, Government, on the 8th of February, brought

in a Bill to "amend the law relating to the crimes of conspiracy and

incitement to murder, either within or without her Majesty's dominions,

and whether the person killed or to be killed were a subject of her

Majesty or not." Such was the state of facts that became the subject

of discussions in Parliament which led to the defeat of Government.

The signal for commencing the war was given by the introduction of

the Conspiracy Bill, the alleged necessity for which was urged by Lord

Palmerston. If our law was defective, we should not abstain from altering

it because other nations had given way to impulses of passion, perhaps of

fear. To the motion for the introduction of the Bill, Mr. Kinglake moved

the following amendment:--"That this House, while sympathising with the

French nation in its indignation and abhorrence at the late atrocious

attempt made against the life of the Emperor, and anxious, on a proper

occasion, to consider the defects of the criminal law of England, the

effect of which may be to render such attempts vain, deems it inexpedient

to legislate in compliance with the demand made in Count Walewski's

despatch of January 20th, until further information be obtained, and until

after the production of the correspondence between the two Governments

subsequent to this despatch." Leave was given to introduce the Bill by

a majority of 299 to 99. But the indignant feeling of the country at

anything like foreign dictation slowly gathered strength, and at length

became terrible and irresistible. Public meetings were held at which the

Conspiracy to Murder Bill was denounced in the strongest terms. It came on

for the second reading on the 19th of February, when Lord Palmerston did

all in his power to mitigate the hostility against it, and its supporters

generally laboured to keep out of view its political and international

bearings, and to treat it merely as a domestic question of law reform. An

amendment was moved by Mr. Milner Gibson, that the Bill be read a second

time that day six months. In the course of his speech he quoted from the

_Times_ a passage, which was received with cheers, to the effect that

there was no constituted authority in Europe with which Lord Palmerston

had not quarrelled, no insurrection that he had not betrayed; while, on

the other hand, when he had made up his mind to court the good will of

a Foreign Power, no sacrifice of principle or of interest was too great

for him. Mr. Gladstone, at the conclusion of a powerful speech, made the

following impressive remarks, as to the tendencies of modern society on

the Continent:--"Sir," he said, "these times are grave for liberty. We

live in the nineteenth century; we talk of progress; we believe that we

are advancing; but can any man of observation, who has watched the events

of the last few years in Europe, have failed to perceive that there is a

movement indeed; but a downward and backward movement? There are a few

spots in which institutions that claim our sympathy still exist and

flourish. They are secondary places; nay, they are almost the holes and

corners of Europe as far as mere material greatness is concerned, although

their moral greatness will, I trust, ensure them long prosperity and

happiness. But in these times, more than ever, does responsibility centre

upon England; and if it does centre upon England, upon her principles,

upon her laws, and upon her governors, then I say that a measure passed

by this House of Parliament--the chief hope of freedom--which attempts

to establish a moral complicity between us and those who seek safety in

repressive measures, will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred

cause in every country in the world." Mr. Disraeli, though he voted for

the introduction of the Bill, now voted for its rejection. The question

now was, not between this country and France, but between the House

of Commons and the British Premier. After a spirited reply from Lord

Palmerston, the House divided; when the Bill was rejected by a majority of

19, the numbers being, ayes 215, noes 234. So entirely had the debate been

mismanaged that many observers thought Government were courting defeat, in

consequence of the pending question of the extremely unpopular appointment

of Lord Clanricarde to the office of Privy Seal, but that explanation is

rejected by Greville. A vote of censure upon Government, touching the

great principles of national policy, left no alternative but resignation.

Lord Palmerston could not go to the country again in such circumstances,

for if he did, his supporters would be sure to be defeated in the

existing temper of the public mind. Addressing the House, therefore, on

the 22nd of February, the noble lord announced that Ministers had tendered

their resignation to her Majesty, which had been accepted. He understood

that Lord Derby had been sent for by the Queen, and he moved the

adjournment of the House for a few days to afford time for the formation

of the new Ministry.

Lord Derby succeeded in forming an Administration. The Cabinet was

composed of the following members:--Prime Minister, Earl of Derby;

Lord Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford; President of the Council, Marquis

of Salisbury; Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Hardwicke; Home Secretary, Mr.

Walpole; Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury; Colonial Secretary, Lord

Stanley; War Secretary, General Peel; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.

Disraeli; First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir John Pakington; President of

the Board of Control, Lord Ellenborough; President of the Board of Trade,

Mr. Henley; First Commissioner of Works, Lord John Manners. Sir Fitzroy

Kelly was Attorney-General; Sir Hugh Cairns, Solicitor-General; Mr.

Inglis, Lord Advocate of Scotland; and Mr. Baillie, Solicitor-General.

The Irish Government was composed as follows:--Viceroy, Earl of Eglinton;

Lord Chancellor, Mr. Napier; Chief Secretary, Lord Naas; Attorney-General,

Mr. Whiteside; Solicitor-General, Mr. Edmund Hayes. Lord Derby had made

overtures to Mr. Gladstone, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord Grey, but all

three declined.