The employment of children in factories also occupied the attention

of Parliament at this time. A Bill had been framed in 1833 with the

most benevolent intentions for the protection of factory children.

The law excluded from factory labour all children under nine years of

age, except in silk factories, and prohibited those under thirteen

from working more than thirteen hours any one day; the maximum in silk

mills alone being ten hours. The provisions of the law were, however,

evaded by fraud. Children were represented as being much older than

they really were, and abuses prevailed that induced Lord Ashley to

bring in a Bill upon the subject. Accordingly, on the 22nd of June the

noble lord moved, by way of amendment to the order of the day, the

second reading of his Bill for the Better Regulation of Factories. The

order of the day was carried by a majority of 119 to 111. The Bill was

therefore lost by a majority of eight. On the 20th of July Lord Ashley

again brought the whole matter under the consideration of the House in

a speech full of painful details, and concluded by moving a resolution

to the effect that the House deeply regretted that the imperfect and

ineffective law for the regulation of labour in factories had been

suffered to continue so long without any amendment. He was answered

by the usual arguments of the Manchester school about the evils of

interfering with free contract. Lord John Russell argued that, in

the present condition of the manufacturing world, we could not, with

restricted hours of labour, compete with other nations. A ten hours'

Bill would drive the manufacturers abroad; and it would no longer be

a question as to an hour or two more or less work to be performed by

the children, but as to how their starvation was to be averted. On a

division, the motion was lost by a majority of 121 to 106. On the

16th of August the Queen proceeded to Westminster for the purpose of

proroguing Parliament.

The system of combination had spread very widely in 1837 and 1838.

So great was the terrorism produced that conviction for an outrage

was very rare. The utmost precautions were taken to prevent discovery

in committing assassination. Strangers were sent to a great distance

for the purpose; and even if they were detected, few persons would

run the risk of coming forward as witnesses. The consequence was that

in nine cases out of ten combination murders were perpetrated with

impunity. In 1837 the Cotton Spinners' Association at Glasgow struck

to prevent a reduction of wages in consequence of the mercantile

embarrassments arising from the commercial crash in the United States.

This association had its branches all over Scotland and the North of

England. During sixteen years a total of £200,000 had passed through

its hands. So extensive were its ramifications that, when it struck in

the spring of 1837, no less than 50,000 persons, including the families

of the workers, were deprived of the means of existence, and reduced

to the last degree of destitution. Crowds of angry workmen paraded the

streets and gathered round the factory gates, to prevent other people

from going in to work; fire-balls were thrown into the mills for the

purpose of burning them. At length the members of the association went

so far as to shoot one of the new hands in open day in a public street

of Glasgow. In consequence of this outrage the sheriff of Lanarkshire

proceeded with a body of twenty policemen and arrested the members of

the secret committee, sixteen in number, who were found assembled in a

garret, to which they obtained access by a trap-ladder, in Gallowgate

of that city. This was on Saturday night, August 3rd. On the Monday

following the strike was at an end, and all the mills in Glasgow were

going. The jury found the prisoners guilty of conspiracy, and they were

sentenced to transportation, but the murder not proven--a result which

excited some surprise, as the evidence was thought to have warranted

a general verdict of "Guilty." This was, two years after, followed by

their being all liberated from confinement by Lord Normanby, then Home

Secretary.

However, the agitation of the working classes continued; and, when

Parliament met in February, 1839, the concluding paragraph of the

Speech referred to the disturbances and combinations among the working

classes: "I have observed with pain the persevering efforts which

have been made in some parts of the country to excite my subjects to

disobedience and resistance to the law, and to recommend dangerous and

illegal practices. For the counteraction of all such designs I depend

upon the efficacy of the law, which it will be my duty to enforce,

upon the good sense and right disposition of my people, upon their

attachment to the principles of justice, and their abhorrence of

violence and disorder." In the course of the debate in the Commons Sir

Robert Peel adverted to the paragraph referring to illegal meetings.

Having read several extracts from the speeches of Mr. Stephens, Dr.

Wade, and Mr. Feargus O'Connor delivered at Chartist meetings, he

quoted, for the purpose of reprehending, a speech delivered by Lord

John Russell at Liverpool in the previous month of October, when,

alluding to the Chartist meeting, the noble lord said, "There are some

perhaps who would put down such meetings, but such was not his opinion,

nor that of the Government with which he acted. He thought the people

had a right to free discussion which elicited truth. They had a right

to meet. If they had no grievances, common sense would speedily come

to the rescue, and put an end to these meetings." These sentiments,

remarked Sir Robert Peel, might be just, and even truisms; yet the

unseasonable expression of truth in times of public excitement was

often dangerous. The Reform Bill, he said, had failed to give permanent

satisfaction as he had throughout predicted would be the case, and

he well knew that a concession of further reform, in the expectation

of producing satisfaction or finality, would be only aggravating the

disappointment, and that in a few years they would be encountered by

further demands.

It was during the year 1838 that the Chartists became an organised

body. The working classes had strenuously supported the middle

classes in obtaining their political rights during the agitation for

the Reform Bill, and they expected to receive help in their turn to

obtain political franchises for themselves, but they found Parliament

indifferent or hostile to any further changes in the representation,

while the middle class, satisfied with their own acquisitions, were

not inclined to exert themselves much for the extension of political

rights among the masses. The discontent and disappointment of the

latter were aggravated by a succession of bad harvests, setting in

about 1835. The hardships of their condition, with scanty employment

and dear provisions, the people ascribed to their want of direct

influence upon the Government. This gave rise to a vigorous agitation

for the extension of the franchise, which was carried on for ten years.

In 1838 a committee of six members of Parliament and six working men

prepared a Bill embodying their demands. This was called the "People's

Charter." Its points were six in number:--First, the extension of the

right of voting to every male native of the United Kingdom, and every

naturalised foreigner resident in the kingdom for more than two years,

who should be twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and unconvicted

of crime; second, equal electoral districts; third, vote by ballot;

fourth, annual Parliaments; fifth, no property qualification for

members; sixth, payment of members of Parliament for their services.

The popular agitation became so alarming, however, that Mr. Stevens,

one of its instigators, was indicted and held to bail on a charge of

sedition. But this interference with liberty of speech served only to

inflame the excitement, and to render the language of the orators more

violent. In June, 1839, Mr. Attwood presented the Chartist petition to

the House of Commons, bearing 1,200,000 signatures, and on the 15th of

July he moved that it should be referred to a select committee, but

the motion was rejected by a majority of 289 to 281. This gave a fresh

impulse to the agitation. The most inflammatory speakers besides Mr.

Stephens were Mr. Oastler and Mr. Feargus O'Connor. The use of arms

began to be freely spoken of as a legitimate means of obtaining their

rights. Pikes and guns were procured in great quantities; drilling was

practised, and armed bands marched in nocturnal processions, to the

terror of the peaceable inhabitants. At length, Lord John Russell,

as Home Secretary, reluctant as he was to interfere with the free

action of the people, issued a proclamation to the lieutenants of the

disturbed counties, authorising them to accept the armed assistance

of persons who might place themselves at their disposal for the

preservation of the public peace. As a means of showing their numerical

strength, the Chartists adopted the plan of going round from house

to house with two books, demanding subscriptions for the support of

the Charter, entering the names of subscribers in one book, and of

non-subscribers in the other. Each subscriber received a ticket,

which was to be his protection in case of insurrection, while the

non-subscribers were given to understand that their names would be

remembered. Another striking mode of demonstrating their power and

producing an impression, though not the most agreeable one, was to go

in procession to the churches on Sunday some time before Divine service

began, and to take entire possession of the body of the edifice. They

conducted themselves quietly, however, although some were guilty of the

impropriety of wearing their hats and smoking pipes.

Monster meetings, not unaccompanied by disturbance, were held in

various places, the most serious of which occurred at Birmingham. The

inhabitants of this town had been kept in a state of almost incessant

alarm by the proceedings of disorderly persons calling themselves

Chartists. Representations to this effect having been sent to the Home

Office, sixty picked men of the metropolitan force were sent down to

aid the civil authorities in the preservation of peace. They arrived

at Birmingham by the railway on Thursday, July 4th, and speedily

mustering, they marched two abreast into the Bull Ring, where about

2,000 Chartists were assembled, at nine o'clock in the evening. They

endeavoured, at first, to induce the meeting quietly to disperse, but

failed in the attempt. They then seized the flags with which Lord

Nelson's monument in the centre of the square was decorated, and among

which was one that bore a death's head; but the Chartists, who had at

first been disconcerted, recaptured them, after a desperate struggle,

and broke their staves into pieces, to be used as clubs. A conflict

immediately ensued, in which the police, who were armed only with

batons, were seriously injured; and the Chartists were retiring in

triumph when the 4th Dragoons charged them, by concert, through all the

streets leading to the Bull Ring, and they fled in every direction.

Further riots ensued, and on the 15th an organised mob attacked the

houses in the High Street and Spiral Street. They broke into the

warehouses, flinging their contents into the streets. A large pile of

bedding was set on fire in the Bull Ring. Windows and shop-fittings

were remorselessly demolished by the infuriated multitude. A few

minutes past nine o'clock the cry of "Fire!" was raised. Scarcely

had the words been uttered when the rioters carried immense heaps of

burning materials from the streets, forcing them into the houses of

Mr. Bourne and Mr. Legatt. Within a quarter of an hour the flames

burst out with awful violence from both houses, amidst the exulting

shouts of the rioters. While this work of destruction was going on they

had the streets to themselves. The general cry among the inhabitants

was, "Where are the military? Where are the magistrates?" At length,

about ten o'clock, sixty of the metropolitan police, with a posse of

special constables, made their appearance, and rushed upon the rioters

sword in hand, causing them to fly in all directions. The dragoons,

under the command of Colonel Chatterton, were now discerned galloping

down Moore Street, and another squadron at the same moment down High

Street, and in five minutes about 300 of the Rifle Brigade marched to

the Bull Ring. The inhabitants, feeling like people sore pressed by

a long siege, clapped their hands with joy at the approach of their

deliverers. The fire engines also came under escort, having been driven

away before, and set about arresting the conflagration. In the meantime

the cavalry were scouring and clearing the streets and suburbs, and

the police were busily engaged bringing in prisoners. About midnight

the roofs of the two houses fell in, and about one o'clock the fire

was got under. Next day the shops were nearly all closed, the middle

classes full of suspicion, and the populace vowing vengeance against

the police and the soldiers. A piece of artillery placed at the head

of High Street contributed materially to prevent further disturbance.

About twenty prisoners were made, and the evidence produced before the

magistrates showed the determined purpose of the rioters. When these

outrages were the subject of discussion in the House of Lords, the Duke

of Wellington said, "That he had seen as much of war as most men; but

he had never seen a town carried by assault subjected to such violence

as Birmingham had been during an hour by its own inhabitants."

[Illustration: CHARTISTS AT CHURCH. (_See p._ 456.)]

The excitement was kept up during the summer and autumn by meetings

held in various places, and the arrest of persons taking a prominent

part in the proceedings. On the 4th of August there was an evening

meeting at Manchester held in Stephenson's Square, when about 5,000

persons attended. The object was to determine whether "the sacred

month" should commence on the 12th of August or not. Mr. Butterworth,

who moved the first resolution, said he considered that the Chartists

of 1839 were the Whigs of 1832, and the Whigs of 1839 were the Tories

of 1832. The Whigs were more violent then than the Chartists now, and

yet the Whigs were the very men to punish the Chartists. During the

meeting persons in the crowd continued to discharge firearms. There

was, however, no disturbance of the public peace.

Government now resorted to vigorous measures; the Chartist leaders were

brought to trial, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. At

a meeting of the National Convention held on the 14th of September,

it was moved by Mr. O'Brien, and seconded by Dr. Taylor, that the

Convention be dissolved. On a division, the numbers were for the

dissolution eleven; against it eleven. The chairman gave his casting

vote in favour of the dissolution. It was thereupon hoped, and, indeed,

publicly declared by the Attorney-General, that Chartism was extinct

and would never again be revived. It soon appeared, however, that this

was a delusion, and that a most formidable attempt at revolution by

force of arms had been planned with great care and secrecy, and on a

comprehensive scale, the principal leader being a justice of the peace.

Among the new borough magistrates made by the Whigs after the passing

of the Reform Bill was Mr. John Frost, a linendraper at Newport. At

the beginning of the Chartist agitation in 1838 Mr. Frost attended

a meeting in that town, when he made a violent speech, for which he

was reprimanded by the Home Secretary. But this warning was far from

having the desired effect. During the autumn of 1839 he entered into a

conspiracy with two other leaders--Jones, a watchmaker, of Pontypool,

and Williams, of the Royal Oak Inn, in the parish of Aberystwith--to

take possession of the town of Newport, which was to be the signal for

a simultaneous rising of the Chartists in Birmingham and in all other

parts of the kingdom. But the weather was unfavourable and the night

was dark. The divisions under the command of Jones and Williams failed

to arrive at the appointed time, and the party under the command of

Frost himself was late. The intention was to surprise Newport at about

midnight on Sunday, the 3rd of November; but owing to the wetness of

the weather it was not till ten o'clock on Monday morning that the

insurgents entered the town in two divisions, one headed by Frost, and

another by his son, a youth of fourteen or fifteen. They were armed

with guns, pistols, pikes, swords, and heavy clubs. The mayor, Mr.

Thomas Philips, apprised of their approach, had taken prompt measures

for the defence of the place.

When the insurgents, about 8,000 strong, drew up in front of the

Westgate Hotel, the principal point of attack, Frost commanded the

special constables to surrender. On their refusal the word was given

to fire, and a volley was discharged against the bow window of the room

where the military were located, and at the same moment the rioters,

with their pikes and other instruments, drove in the door and rushed

into the passage. It was a critical moment, but the mayor and the

magistrates were equal to the emergency. The Riot Act having been read

by the mayor amidst a shower of bullets, the soldiers charged their

muskets, the shutters were opened, and the fighting began. A shower

of slugs immediately poured in from the street, which wounded Mr.

Philips and several other persons. But the soldiers opened a raking

discharge upon the crowd without, and after a few rounds, by which a

great many persons fell dead on the spot, the assailants broke and fled

in all directions. Frost, Williams, and Jones were tried by a special

commission at Monmouth, and found guilty of high treason. Sentence of

death was pronounced upon them on the 16th of January, 1840, but on

the 1st of February the sentence was commuted to transportation for

life. A free pardon was granted to them on the 3rd of May, 1856, and

they returned to England in the September following. Mayor Philips was

knighted for his gallantry.

The first day of 1839 was marked in Ireland by an atrocious crime.

The Earl of Norbury, an amiable nobleman, regarded as one of the most

exemplary of his class, both as a man and a landlord, was shot by

an assassin in the open day near his own house at Kilbeggan, and in

presence of his steward. The murderer escaped. This event deserves

special mention, because it was, during the year, the subject of

frequent reference in Parliament. There was a meeting of magistrates

at Tullamore, at which Lord Oxmantown presided, at which the Earl

of Charleville took occasion to animadvert very strongly upon an

expression in a letter, in answer to a memorial lately presented by the

magistrates of Tipperary, in which Mr. Drummond, the Under-Secretary,

uttered the celebrated maxim, that "property had its duties as well

as its rights." This, in the circumstances of the country, he felt

to be little less than a deliberate and unfeeling insult. He did not

hesitate to say that the employment of those terms had given a fresh

impulse to feelings which had found their legitimate issue in the late

assassination. In the course of the meeting resolutions were proposed

and carried to the following effect:--"That the answer to the Tipperary

magistrates by Mr. Under-Secretary Drummond has had the effect of

increasing the animosities entertained against the owners of the soil,

and has emboldened the disturbers of the public peace. That there being

little hope for a successful appeal to the Irish executive, they felt

it their duty to apply to the people of England, the Legislature, and

the Throne for protection."

These resolutions may be taken as expressing the feelings of the

landed gentry as a body against the Melbourne Administration and

the agitators. But the latter were not idle. O'Connell had then his

"Precursor Association" in full operation. It received its name from

the idea that it was to be the precursor of the repeal of the Union.

On the 22nd of January a public dinner was given in honour of the

"Liberator" in a building then called the Circus, in Dublin, for which

one thousand tickets were issued. Two days later a similar banquet was

given to him in Drogheda, and there he made a significant allusion

to the murder of Lord Norbury, insinuating that he had met his death

at the hands of one who was bound to him by the nearest of natural

ties, and had the strongest interest in his removal. Mr. O'Connell

volunteered the assertion that the assassin of Lord Norbury had left

on the soil where he had posted himself, "not the impress of a rustic

brogue [a coarse rough shoe, usually made of half-dressed leather],

but the impress of a well-made Dublin boot." There was no ground

whatever for the malignant assertion, which was one of those errors of

judgment and of taste that too often disfigured the great "Liberator's"

leadership.

These occurrences in Ireland led to hostile demonstrations against the

Government in Parliament. On the 7th of March Mr. Shaw, the Recorder

of Dublin, as the representative of the Irish Protestants, commenced

the campaign by moving for returns of the number of committals,

convictions, inquests, rewards, and advertisements for the discovery of

offenders in Ireland from 1835 to 1839, in order to enable the House to

form a judgment with regard to the actual amount and increase of crime

in that country. The debate was adjourned till the following Monday,

when it was resumed by Mr. Lefroy, after which the House was counted

out, and the question dropped; but it was taken up in the Lords on the

21st of March, when Lord Roden moved for a Select Committee of inquiry

on the state of Ireland since 1835, with respect to the commission

of crime. His speech was a repetition of the usual charges, and the

debate is chiefly worthy of notice on account of the elaborate defence

by Lord Normanby of his Irish administration. "I am fully aware,"

said the noble marquis, "of the awful responsibility that would lie

upon my head if these charges rested upon evidence at all commensurate

with the vehemence of language and earnestness of manner with which

they have been brought forward; but they rest upon no such foundation.

I am ready, with natural indignation, to prove now, on the floor of

this House, that I have grappled with crime wherever I have found it,

firmly and unremittingly, and have yielded to none of my predecessors

in the successful vindication of the laws." Among the mass of proofs

adduced by Lord Normanby, he quoted a vast number of judges' charges,

delivered from time to time between 1816 and 1835, which presented

only one continuously gloomy picture of the prevailing practice of

violence and atrocious outrage. Passing from this melancholy record,

he proceeded to refer to numerous addresses of judges delivered on

similar occasions since 1835. All of these contained one common topic

of congratulation--the comparative lightness of the calendar--a

circumstance, the noble marquis argued, which went far to establish his

position, however it might fail to prove the extinction of exceptional

cases of heinous crime. With regard to the wholesale liberation of

prisoners, Lord Normanby distinctly denied that he had set free any

persons detained for serious offences without due inquiry; or that any

persons were liberated, merely because he happened to pass through the

town, who would not have met with the same indulgence upon facts stated

in memorials. "No; this measure," he insisted, "had been adopted upon

the conviction that, in the peculiar case of Ireland, after severity

had been so often tried, mercy was well worth the experiment. It was

one which was not lightly to be repeated; but while he had received

satisfactory evidence of the success of the measure, it was in his

power to produce the testimony of judges with whom he had no political

relations, to the pains taken in the examination of each case, and the

deference shown to their reports."

In spite of Lord Melbourne's declaration that he would regard the

success of the motion as a pure vote of censure, it was carried by a

majority of five. In consequence of this result, Lord John Russell

announced his intention, next day, of taking the opinion of the House

of Commons on the recent government of Ireland, in the first week after

the Easter recess. Accordingly, on the 15th of April, he moved--"That

it is the opinion of this House that it is expedient to persevere in

those principles which have guided the Executive Government of late

years, and which have tended to the effectual administration of the

laws, and the general improvement of that part of the United Kingdom."

The debate emphasised the discontent of the Radicals. Mr. Leader

was particularly severe on the Government. "In what position is the

Government?" he asked. "Why, the right hon. member for Tamworth governs

England, the hon. and learned member for Dublin governs Ireland--the

Whigs govern nothing but Downing Street. Sir Robert Peel is content

with power without place or patronage, and the Whigs are contented with

place and patronage without power. Let any honourable man say which is

the more honourable position." On a division, the numbers were--for

Sir Robert Peel's amendment, 296; against it, 318. Majority for the

Ministry, 22.

The majority obtained on their Irish policy was about the number

the Ministry could count upon on every vital question. It was not

sufficiently large to exempt them from the imputation of holding office

on sufferance; but if they were defeated, and were succeeded by the

Conservatives, the new Government, it was plain, could not hope to

exist even on those terms; while Lord Melbourne had this advantage over

Sir Robert Peel, that he was cordially supported by the Sovereign.

Having escaped the Irish ordeal, it might be supposed that he was

safe for a considerable time. But another question arose very soon

after, on which the Cabinet sustained a virtual defeat. The Assembly

in Jamaica had proved very refractory, and, in order to avoid the

evil consequences of its perversity, Mr. Labouchere, on the 9th of

April, brought forward a measure which was a virtual suspension of the

constitution of the island for five years, vesting the government in

the Governor and Council, with three commissioners sent from England to

assist in ameliorating the condition of the negroes, improving prison

discipline, and establishing a system of poor laws. This measure was

denounced by the whole strength of the Opposition. The question may

be thus briefly stated. Before the Act of Emancipation in 1833, all

punishments were inflicted on slaves by the domestics of the master,

who was unwilling to lose the benefit of their services by sending

them to prison. But when emancipation took place, that domestic power

was terminated, and new prison regulations became necessary. The

Colonial Legislature, however, persistently refused to adopt any, and

continued a course of systematic resistance to the will of the supreme

Government, whose earnest and repeated recommendations had been utterly

disregarded. Under the apprenticeship system negroes were treated

worse than they were under the old condition of slavery, because the

planters knew that the time of enfranchisement was at hand. But though,

when the hour of liberty, August 1st, 1840, was seen to be very near,

the Jamaica Assembly voluntarily brought the apprenticeship system

to a termination, they accompanied the measure with an angry protest

against any interference by the British Parliament. It was contended,

on the part of the Government, that if such a state of things were

permitted to exist, the authority of Great Britain over its colonies

would speedily be lost, and every little island that owed its political

existence to the protection afforded by the Imperial Government, would,

without scruple, set its power at defiance. Such being the state of the

case, it might be supposed that no serious objection would be raised to

the course adopted, in the interests of humanity and good government.

But the Conservatives seized the opportunity for another party contest,

and became quite vehement in their defence of the constitutional rights

of the Jamaica planters. The debate was protracted for several nights,

and counsel against the Bill were heard at great length. Eventually

the division took place at five in the morning on the 6th of May, when

the numbers were 294 to 289, giving the Government a majority of only

five, which was regarded as tantamount to a defeat. On the 7th of May,

therefore, Lord John Russell announced that Ministers had tendered

their resignation, which was accepted by the Queen. He assigned as

the reason for this step that the vote which had passed must weaken

the authority of the Crown in the colonies, by giving support to the

contumacy of Jamaica, and encouraging other colonies to follow its bad

example. This obvious consideration rendered more painfully apparent

the weakness of the Government, arising from division among its

supporters; for if anything could have induced the different sections

of the Liberal party to suppress their differences, it would have been

the necessity of interposing, in the manner proposed by the Government,

to shield the unhappy negroes from the oppression of their exasperated

taskmasters. Indeed, in spite of various attempts to patch up the

Cabinet, its members were at hopeless cross-purposes.

[Illustration: BUCKINGHAM PALACE, FROM THE GARDEN.]

CHAPTER XIV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (_continued_).

The Bedchamber Crisis--Peel's Explanation--The Whigs return to

Office--Mr. Shaw Lefevre is elected Speaker--Education Scheme--It

is carried in a modified form--Post Office Reform--Rowland Hill's

Pamphlet--The Proposal scouted by the Authorities--Select Committee

appointed--The Scheme becomes Law--Cabinet Changes--Political

Demonstrations--Announcement of the Queen's Marriage--Lady

Flora Hastings--The Queen's Speech--Insertion of the word

"Protestant"--Debate on the Prince's Precedence--His Income fixed

by the Commons--Stockdale _v_. Hansard--Stockdale's second and

third Actions--Stockdale and the Sheriffs committed--His fourth

and fifth Actions--Russell's Bill settles the Question--Other

Events of the Session--The Queen's Marriage--Oxford's Attempt

on her Life--His Trial for High Treason--Foreign Affairs; the

Opium Traffic--Commissioner Lin confiscates the Opium--Debates

in Parliament--Elliot's Convention--It is Disapproved and

he is Recalled--Renewal of the War--Capture of the Defences

of Canton--Sir Henry Pottinger assumes Command--Conclusion

of the War--The Syrian Crisis; Imminent Dissolution of the

Turkish Empire--The Quadrilateral Treaty--Lord Palmerston's

Difficulties--The Wrath of M. Thiers--Lord Palmerston's

Success--Fall of Acre--Termination of the Crisis--Weakness

of the Ministry--The Registration Bills--Lord Howick's

Amendment--The Budget--Peel's Vote of Censure is carried--The

Dissolution--Ministers are defeated in both Houses--Resignation of

the Melbourne Ministry.

After the lapse of a week the House of Commons met again on the 13th

of May, when Lord John Russell immediately rose and stated that since

he had last addressed them Sir Robert Peel had received authority from

her Majesty to form a new Administration; and the right hon. baronet

having failed, her Majesty had been graciously pleased to permit

that gentleman to state the circumstances which led to the failure.

Sir Robert Peel then proceeded to detail all the facts necessary for

the explanation of his position to the country. He had waited upon

the Queen according to her desire, conveyed at the suggestion of the

Duke of Wellington, who had been sent for by her Majesty in the first

instance. The Queen candidly avowed to him that she had parted with

her late Administration with great regret, as they had given her

entire satisfaction. No one, he said, could have expressed feelings

more natural and more becoming than her Majesty did on this occasion,

and at the same time principles more strictly constitutional with

respect to the formation of a new Government. He stated his sense of

the difficulties a new Government would have to encounter; but having

been a party to the vote that led to those difficulties, nothing

should prevent him from tendering to her Majesty every assistance

in his power. He accordingly, the next day, submitted the following

list for her approval in the formation of a new Ministry:--The Duke

of Wellington, Lord Lyndhurst, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Ellenborough,

Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, Sir Henry Hardinge, and Mr. Goulburn.

It was not until Thursday that any difficulty or misconception arose

to lead to his relinquishing his attempt to form an Administration.

His difficulty related to the Ladies of the Household. With reference

to all the subordinate appointments below the rank of a Lady of the

Bedchamber he proposed no change; and he had hoped that all above that

rank would have relieved him of any difficulty by at once relinquishing

their offices. This not having been done, he had a verbal communication

with her Majesty on the subject, to which he received next day a

written answer as follows:--

"Buckingham Palace,

"May 10th, 1839.

"The Queen having considered the proposal made to her yesterday

by Sir Robert Peel to remove the Ladies of her Bedchamber, cannot

consent to adopt a course which she conceives to be contrary to

usage, and which is repugnant to her feelings."

To this communication Sir Robert Peel returned the following

reply:--"Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your Majesty, and

has had the honour of receiving your Majesty's note this morning. Sir

Robert Peel trusts that your Majesty will permit him to state to your

Majesty his impression with respect to the circumstances which have

led to the termination of his attempts to form an Administration for

the conduct of your Majesty's service. In the interview with which you

honoured Sir Robert Peel yesterday morning, after he had submitted

to your Majesty the names of those he proposed to recommend to your

Majesty for the principal executive appointments, he mentioned to your

Majesty his earnest wish to be enabled, by your Majesty's sanction, so

to constitute your Majesty's Household that your Majesty's confidential

servants might have the advantage of a public demonstration of your

Majesty's full support and confidence, and at the same time, so far

as possible, consistent with such demonstration, each individual

appointment in the Household should be entirely acceptable to your

Majesty's personal feelings. On your Majesty's expressing a desire

that the Earl of Liverpool should hold an office in the Household,

Sir Robert Peel immediately requested your Majesty's permission at

once to confer on Lord Liverpool the office of Lord Steward, or any

other office which he might prefer. Sir Robert Peel then observed

that he should have every wish to apply a similar principle to the

chief appointments which are filled by the Ladies of your Majesty's

Household; upon which your Majesty was pleased to remark, that you

must retain the whole of these appointments, and that it was your

Majesty's pleasure that the whole should continue as at present,

without any change. The Duke of Wellington, in the interview to which

your Majesty subsequently admitted him, understood also that this was

your Majesty's determination, and concurred with Sir Robert Peel in

opinion that, considering the great difficulties of the present crisis,

and the expediency of making every effort, in the first instance, to

conduct the public business of the country with the aid of the present

Parliament, it was essential to the success of the mission with which

your Majesty had honoured Sir Robert Peel that he should have such

public proof of your Majesty's entire support and confidence, as would

be afforded by the permission to make some changes in your Majesty's

Household, which your Majesty resolved on maintaining entirely without

change. Having had the opportunity, through your Majesty's gracious

consideration, of reflecting upon this point, he humbly submits to

your Majesty that he is reluctantly compelled, by a sense of public

duty, and of the interests of your Majesty's service, to adhere to

the opinion which he ventured to express to your Majesty." Subsequent

explanations proved that the _gaucherie_ of Sir Robert Peel was chiefly

responsible for the crisis. He was right in principle, but he was

wrong in the abrupt manner in which he appeared to force the change

of the Ladies upon the Queen. The Duke, with his usual shrewdness,

had foreseen that the accession of a female Sovereign would place

the Conservatives at a disadvantage, because, said he, "Peel has no

manners, and I have no small talk."

On the following evening Lord Melbourne, having explained why he

resigned, said, "And now, my lords, I frankly declare that I resume

office unequivocally and solely for this reason, that I will not

abandon my Sovereign in a situation of difficulty and distress, and

especially when a demand is made upon her Majesty with which I think

she ought not to comply--a demand, in my opinion, inconsistent with

her personal honour, and which, if acquiesced in, would make her

reign liable to all the changes and variations of political parties,

and render her domestic life one constant scene of unhappiness and

discomfort." The Whigs, therefore, returned to office, but not to power.

As soon as the Ministry had been restored, the House reassembled for

the election of a new Speaker in the room of Mr. Abercromby, who had

declared his intention of resigning, having no longer sufficient

strength to perform the arduous duties imposed on him by his office.

When his intention was announced, he received, through Sir Robert Peel

and Lord John Russell, the highest testimony of the esteem in which

he was held by the two great parties, not only for his conduct in the

Chair, but also for his strenuous exertions to improve the mode of

conducting the private business of the House. This was in accordance

with precedent, but as a matter of fact Mr. Abercromby was a very weak

Speaker, and his ruling had been repeatedly questioned by the House. He

was chosen Speaker in 1835. On his resignation of that office he was

raised to the peerage as Lord Dunfermline. Mr. Handley nominated Mr.

Shaw Lefevre, member for North Hants, as a person eminently qualified

to succeed to the vacant chair. Mr. Williams Wynn, a member of great

experience and reputation in the House, proposed Mr. Goulburn, member

for the University of Cambridge. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilson

Patten. It was a party contest, and tested the strength of the Ministry

and the Opposition. The House divided on the motion that Mr. Shaw

Lefevre do take the Chair, which was carried by a majority of eighteen,

the numbers being 317 and 299.

Since the year 1833 the sum of £20,000 was all that had been granted by

Parliament for popular education. Up to this time the National Society

and the British and Foreign School Society had, without distinction

of party, enjoyed an equitable proportion of the benefit of this

grant. The Government were now about to propose an increase, but they

determined at the same time to change the mode of its distribution,

and their plan gave rise to a great deal of discussion on the subject

during the Session. The intentions of the Government were first made

known by Lord John Russell on the 12th of February when he presented

certain papers, and gave an outline of his views. He proposed that the

President of the Council and other Privy Councillors, not exceeding

five, should form a Board, to consider in what manner the grants made

by Parliament should be distributed, and he thought that the first

object of such a Board should be the establishment of a good normal

school for the education of teachers. Lord John said that he brought

forward the plan not as a faultless scheme of education, but as that

which, on consideration, he thought to be the most practical in the

present state of the country. The new committee on the 3rd of June

passed several resolutions, one of which was that in their opinion the

most useful applications of any sums voted by Parliament would consist

in the employment of those moneys in the establishment of a normal

school, under the direction of the State, and not under the management

of a voluntary society. They admitted, however, that they experienced

so much difficulty in reconciling the conflicting views respecting the

provisions they were desirous of making--in order that the children

and teachers instructed in the school should be duly trained in the

principles of the Christian religion, while the rights of conscience

should be respected--that it was not in their power to mature a plan

for the accomplishment of their design without further consideration.

Meanwhile the committee recommended that no grant should thenceforth

be made for the establishment or support of normal schools, or any

other schools, unless the right of inspection were retained, in order

to secure a conformity to the regulations and discipline established

in the several schools, with such improvements as might from time to

time be suggested by the committee. The day after the committee had

adopted these resolutions Lord Ashley moved a call of the House for

the 14th of June, when Lord John Russell, in seconding the motion,

stated that Government did not intend to insist upon their proposal to

found a normal school. This was a weak concession to the Church party,

but it did not prevent Lord Stanley, the author of a similar measure

for Ireland, from attacking the Bill with the full violence of his

eloquence. The vote was to be increased to £30,000. The House, after a

debate of three nights, divided, when the grant was voted by a majority

of only two. On the 5th of July the subject of education was introduced

to the notice of the Lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who

defended the Church, and objected to the giving of Government grants in

a manner calculated to promote religious dissent. He was answered by

the Marquis of Lansdowne. The Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of London,

and several other prelates addressed the House, and gave their views on

this great question. The Archbishop of Canterbury had brought forward a

series of resolutions embodying the Church views of the subject. These

Lord Brougham vigorously opposed. The House divided on the previous

question, when the first resolution, the only one put to the vote, was

carried by a majority of 111. This resolution condemned the Order in

Council, and in consequence of it the Lords went in a body to the Queen

to offer their remonstrance against the proposed change in the mode of

distributing the grant. The remaining resolutions were voted without a

division. Nevertheless the Ministry succeeded in carrying a modified

scheme, by which it was provided that the inspectors to be appointed by

the Committee of the Privy Council should be chosen with the approval

of the Bishops, and should present their reports to the bishop of their

diocese as well as to the Committee of the Privy Council. Thus the

Church practically monopolised the grant.

The year 1839 will be always memorable for the establishment of

the system of a uniform penny postage, one of those great reforms

distinguishing the age in which we live, which are fraught with vast

social changes, and are destined to fructify throughout all time

with social benefits to the human race. To one mind pre-eminently

the British Empire is indebted for the penny postage. We are now so

familiar with its advantages, and its reasonableness seems so obvious,

that it is not easy to comprehend the difficulties with which Sir

Rowland Hill had to contend in convincing the authorities and the

public of the wisdom and feasibility of his plan. Mr. Rowland Hill

had written a pamphlet on Post Office Reform in 1837. It took for its

starting-point the fact that whereas the postal revenue showed for

the past twenty years a positive though slight diminution, it ought

to have shown an increase of £507,700 a year, in order to have simply

kept pace with the growth of population, and an increase of nearly four

times that amount in order to have kept pace with the growth of the

analogous though far less exorbitant duties imposed on stage coaches.

The population in 1815 was 19,552,000; in 1835 it had increased to

25,605,000. The net revenue arising from the Post Office in 1815 was

£1,557,291; in 1835 it had decreased to £1,540,300. At this period the

rate of postage actually imposed (beyond the limits of the London

District Office) varied from fourpence to one and eightpence for a

single letter, which was interpreted to mean a single piece of paper,

not exceeding an ounce in weight. A second piece of paper or any other

enclosure, however small, constituted a double letter. A single sheet

of paper, if it at all exceeded an ounce in weight, was charged with

fourfold postage. The average charge on inland general post letters

was nearly ninepence for each letter. In London the letter-boxes were

only open from eight in the morning to seven p.m., and a letter written

after that hour on Friday did not reach Uxbridge earlier than Tuesday

morning.

These mischiefs it was proposed wholly to remove by enacting that "the

charge for primary distribution--that is to say, the postage on all

letters received in a post town, and delivered in the same or in any

other post town in the British Isles--shall be at the uniform rate of

one penny for each half-ounce; all letters and other papers, whether

single or multiple, forming one packet, and not weighing more than

half an ounce, being charged one penny, and heavier packets to any

convenient limit being charged an additional penny for each additional

half-ounce." And it was further proposed that stamped covers should

be sold to the public at such a price as to include the postage,

which would thus be collected in advance. By the public generally,

and preeminently by the trading public, the plan was received with

great favour. By the functionaries of the Post Office it was at once

denounced as ruinous, and ridiculed as fanciful. Lord Lichfield, then

Postmaster-General, said of it in the House of Lords, "Of all the wild

and visionary schemes I ever heard, it is the most extravagant." On

another occasion, he assured the House that if the anticipated increase

of letters should be realised, "the mails will have to carry twelve

times as much in weight, and therefore the charge for transmission,

instead of £100,000, as now, must be twelve times that amount. The

walls of the Post Office would burst; the whole area in which the

building stands would not be large enough to receive the clerks and the

letters." In the course of the following year (1838) petitions were

poured into the House of Commons. A Select Committee was appointed,

which held nearly seventy sittings, and examined nearly eighty-three

witnesses in addition to the officers of the department. Its report

weakly recommended the substitution of a twopenny for a penny rate, but

this was overruled by the Cabinet. During the Session of Parliament

that followed the presentation of this report, about 2,000 petitions

in favour of penny postage were presented to both Houses, and at

length the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Bill to enable

the Treasury to carry it into effect. The measure was carried in the

House of Commons by a majority of 100, and became law on the 17th of

August, 1839. A new but only temporary office under the Treasury was

created, to enable Mr. Hill to superintend (although, as it proved,

with very inadequate arrangements) the working out of his plan. The

first step taken was to reduce, on the 5th of December, 1839, the

London district postage to one penny, and the general inland postage to

fourpence, the half ounce, except as respected places to which letters

were previously carried at lower rates, these rates being continued. On

the 10th of January, 1840, the uniform penny rate came into operation

throughout the United Kingdom; the scale of weight advancing from one

penny for each of the first two half-ounces, by gradations of twopence

for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce, up to sixteen

ounces. The postage was to be prepaid, or charged at double rates, and

Parliamentary franking was abolished. Postage stamps were introduced

on the 6th of May following. The facilities of despatch were soon

afterwards increased, especially by the establishment of day mails.

But on the important points of simplification in the internal economy

of the Post Office, with the object of reducing its cost without

diminishing its working power, very little was done. For the time being

the loss incurred by the change was more than £1,000,000.

[Illustration: SIR ROWLAND HILL, 1847.]

Nevertheless, the results actually attained in the first two years

were briefly these: first, the chargeable letters delivered in

the United Kingdom, exclusive of that part of the Government's

correspondence which formerly passed free, had already increased

from the rate of about 75,000,000 a year to that of 208,000,000;

secondly, the London district post letters had increased from about

13,000,000 to 23,000,000, or nearly in the ratio of the reduction of

the rates; thirdly, the illicit conveyance of letters was substantially

suppressed; fourthly, the gross revenue, exclusive of repayments,

yielded about a million and a half per annum, which was sixty-three per

cent. on the amount of the gross revenue of 1839, the largest income

which the Post Office had ever afforded. These results, at so early a

stage, and in the face of so many obstructions, amply vindicated the

policy of the new system. But by its enemies that system was declared

to be a failure, until the striking evidence of year after year

silenced opposition by an exhaustive process.

The Parliamentary proceedings of 1839 were closed by an elaborate

review of the Session by Lord Lyndhurst, which he continued annually

for some time while the Liberals were in power. This display took

place on the 24th of August, when the noble and learned lord moved

for a return of all Bills that had arrived from the House of Commons

since the commencement of the Session, with the dates at which they

were brought up. He could point to the fact that Ministers had with

difficulty carried a colourless Jamaica Bill, and had once more failed

to pass the Irish Corporation Bill.

In fact the Ministry remained deplorably weak, despite the numerous

changes in the Cabinet. The Marquis of Normanby, who had been a

failure at the Home Office, changed places with Lord John Russell, who

went to the Colonial Office. Mr. Francis Baring was made Chancellor

of the Exchequer in the place of the most incompetent financier of

modern times, Mr. Spring-Rice, who was raised to the peerage by the

title of Baron Monteagle, and soon afterwards appointed Comptroller

of the Exchequer, with a salary of £2,000 a year; Sir John Newport

having retired from that post on a pension. The Earl of Clarendon

became Lord Privy Seal, and Mr. Macaulay Secretary at War, with a seat

in the Cabinet in the room of Viscount Howick, who had quitted the

Administration because he had disapproved of the political import of

the changes, taken altogether, and they were unalterably fixed without

seeking his concurrence. Mr. Charles Wood, the brother-in-law of Lord

Howick, also resigned shortly afterwards, and Sir Charles Grey was

refused promotion.

The proceedings of Parliament having ceased to occupy public attention,

the time had come for political demonstrations of various kinds in

the country, giving expression to the feelings that had been excited

by the state of public affairs and the conduct of the Government. The

first and most remarkable of these was a banquet, given at Dover, on

the 30th of August, to the Duke of Wellington as Lord Warden of the

Cinque Ports, at which nearly 2,000 persons sat down to dinner. The

toast of the day was proposed by Lord Brougham, who occupied a peculiar

position, as a Liberal ex-Chancellor opposing a Liberal Administration,

and wishing to see them supplanted by their Conservative opponents. He

was greeted with tumultuous cheering when he rose to propose the health

of the Duke of Wellington. He had, according to Greville, intruded

himself upon the company, and made a speech in which bombast alternated

with eloquence. The reply of the Duke of Wellington was a perfect

contrast to Brougham's oratorical flight, in its quietness and modesty.

But if the great chiefs of the Conservative party were moderate in

the expression of their feelings during the vacation, some of their

followers went to the opposite extreme of violence and indiscretion.

At a dinner of the Conservative Registration Society, on the 30th of

October, Mr. Bradshaw, the member for Canterbury, dared to speak of the

young Queen in the following terms:--"Brought up under the auspices of

the citizen King of the Belgians, the serf of France, and guided by

his influence, the Queen thinks if the monarchy lasts her time, it is

enough," and so on. In proportion to the violence of the manifestations

of disloyalty among the Tories, was the fervour of loyalty evinced by

Mr. O'Connell and his followers in Ireland. At a meeting at Bandon, on

the 5th of December, the famous agitator, in the midst of tremendous

cheering, the entire assembly rising in response to the concluding

appeal, said:--"We must be, we are, loyal to our young and lovely

Queen. God bless her! We must be, we are, attached to the Throne, and

to the lovely being by whom it is filled. She is going to be married.

God bless the Queen! I am a father and a grandfather; and in the face

of heaven I pray with as much honesty and fervency for Queen Victoria

as I do for any of my own progeny."

[Illustration: THE PRINCE CONSORT.

FROM THE PAINTING BY F. X. WINTERHALTER IN THE NATIONAL GALLERY.]

In the meanwhile her Majesty was pleased to communicate to the members

of the Privy Council assembled at Buckingham Palace on the 23rd of

November, her intention of contracting an alliance with a Prince of

the family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The story of her affection for

her cousin is well known through Sir Theodore Martin's admirable "Life

of the Prince Consort." The declaration was made by her Majesty in the

following terms:--"I have caused you to be summoned at the present

time in order that I may acquaint you with my resolution in a matter

which deeply concerns the welfare of my people and the happiness of

my future life. It is my intention to ally myself in marriage with

the Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Deeply impressed with

the solemnity of the engagement which I am about to contract, I have

not come to this decision without mature consideration, nor without

feeling a strong assurance that, with the blessing of Almighty God,

it will at once secure my domestic felicity, and serve the interests

of my country. I have thought fit to make this resolution known to

you at the earliest period, in order that you may be fully apprised

of a matter so highly important to me and to my kingdom, and which, I

persuade myself, will be most acceptable to all my loving subjects."

Upon this announcement the Council humbly requested that her Majesty's

most gracious declaration might be made public, which her Majesty was

pleased to order accordingly.

The approaching marriage of the Queen was anticipated by the nation

with satisfaction. We have seen, from the height to which party spirit

ran, that it was extremely desirable that she should have a husband to

stand between her and such unmanly attacks as those of Mr. Bradshaw.

An occurrence, however, took place in the early part of the year very

painful in its nature, which added much to the unpopularity of the

Court. This was the cruel suspicion which was cast upon Lady Flora

Hastings by some of the ladies about the Queen, and is supposed to have

caused her early death. She was one of the ladies in attendance on the

Duchess of Kent; and soon after her arrival at Court it was generally

surmised, from the appearance of her person, that she had been

privately married, the consequence of which was that, in order to clear

her character, which was perfectly blameless, she was compelled to

submit to the humiliation of a medical examination. Shortly afterwards

she died of the disease which was suspected to be pregnancy, and the

public feeling was intensified by the publication of the acrimonious

correspondence which had taken place between her mother on the one side

and Lady Portman and Lord Melbourne on the other.

The Session of 1840 was opened by the Queen in person. The first two

paragraphs of the Royal Speech contained an announcement of the coming

marriage. The Speech contained nothing else very definite or very

interesting; and the debate on the Address was remarkable for nothing

more than its references to the royal marriage. The Duke of Wellington

warmly concurred in the expressions of congratulation. He had, he

said, been summoned to attend her Majesty in the Privy Council when

this announcement was first made. He had heard that the precedent of

the reign of George III. had been followed in all particulars except

one, and that was the declaration that the Prince was a Protestant. He

knew he was a Protestant, he was sure he was of a Protestant family;

but this was a Protestant State, and although there was no doubt about

the matter, the precedent of George III. should have been followed

throughout, and the fact that the Prince was a Protestant should be

officially declared. The Duke, therefore, moved the insertion of the

word "Protestant" before the word "Prince" in the first paragraph

of the Address. Lord Melbourne considered the amendment altogether

superfluous. The Act of Settlement required that the Prince should be

a Protestant, and it was not likely that Ministers would advise her

Majesty to break through the Act of Settlement. The precedent which

the Duke had endeavoured to establish was not a case in point, for

George III. did not declare to the Privy Council that the Princess

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz was a Protestant, but only that she

was descended from a long line of Protestant ancestors. All the world

knew that the Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg was a Protestant, and that

he was descended from the most emphatically Protestant house in Europe.

But the House decided to insert the phrase.

On the 20th of January a Bill was introduced to the House of Lords

for the naturalisation of the Prince. By this Act, which passed the

next day through the House of Commons, the Prince was declared already

exempt, by an Act passed in the sixth year of George IV., from the

obligations that had previously bound all persons to receive the

Lord's Supper within one month before exhibition of a Bill for their

naturalisation. And the Bill was permitted to be read the second time

without his having taken the oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, as

required by an Act passed in the first year of George I. But on the

second reading in the House of Lords the Duke of Wellington objected

that it was not merely a Bill for naturalising the Prince, but that

it also contained a clause which would enable him, "during the term

of his natural life, to take precedence in rank after her Majesty in

Parliament, and elsewhere as her Majesty might think fit and proper,"

any law, statute, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. The Duke

of Wellington stated that as the title of the Bill said nothing about

precedence, the House had not received due notice of its contents; he

therefore moved the adjournment of the debate. Lord Melbourne remarked

that the omission was purely accidental and, in his opinion, of no

importance; at the same time he admitted that this Bill did differ in

form from other similar Bills, as it gave the Queen power to bestow

on Prince Albert a higher rank than was assigned to Prince George of

Denmark, or to Prince Leopold. But the reason for the difference was

to be found in the relative situation of the parties. Lord Brougham,

however, pointed out a practical difficulty that might possibly arise.

According to the proposed arrangement, if the Queen should die before

there was any issue from the marriage, the King of Hanover would reign

in this country, and his son would be Prince of Wales. Prince Albert

would thus be placed in the anomalous position of a foreign naturalised

Prince, the husband of a deceased Queen, with a higher rank than the

Prince of Wales. Lord Londonderry decidedly objected to giving a

foreign Prince precedence over the Blood Royal. In consequence of this

difference of opinion the debate was adjourned till the following week,

when the Lord Chancellor stated that he would propose that power should

be given to the Crown to allow the Prince to take precedence next after

any Heir Apparent to the Throne. Subsequently, however, Lord Melbourne

expressed himself so anxious that it should pass with all possible

expedition, that he would leave out everything about precedence, and

make it a simple Naturalisation Bill, in which shape it immediately

passed.

The question of the Prince's income was not so easily disposed of. On

the 24th of January, Lord John Russell, having moved that the paragraph

relating to the subject should be read, quoted, as precedents for

the grant he was about to propose, the instances of Prince George of

Denmark, Prince Leopold, and Queen Adelaide. As far as he could judge

by precedent in these matters, £50,000 a year was the sum generally

allotted to princes in the situation of the Prince Consort to the Queen

of England. He therefore moved--"That her Majesty be enabled to grant

an annual sum not exceeding £50,000 out of the Consolidated Fund, as

a provision to Prince Albert, to commence on the day of his marriage

with her Majesty, and to continue during his life." The debate having

been adjourned for a few days, Mr. Hume moved, as an amendment, that

only £21,000 should be granted. Colonel Sibthorpe moved that £30,000 be

the sum allowed. Mr. Goulburn was in favour of that sum. The amendment

proposed by Mr. Hume was lost by a majority of 305 against 38. When

Colonel Sibthorpe's amendment became the subject of debate, Lord John

Russell, alluding to professions of respect made by Lord Elliot for

her Majesty, and of care for her comfort, said: "I cannot forget that

no Sovereign of this country has been insulted in such a manner as

her present Majesty has been." Lord Elliot and Sir James Graham rose

immediately to protest against this insinuation, as in all respects

most uncalled-for and unjustifiable. The House then divided on the

amendment, which was carried by a very large majority, the numbers

being--ayes, 262; noes, 158: majority for the sum of £30,000, 104. Such

a signal defeat of the Government, on a question in which the Sovereign

naturally felt a deep interest, was calculated to produce a profound

impression upon the country, and in ordinary circumstances would

have led to a change of Ministry; but it was regarded as the result

of an accidental combination between heterogeneous materials, and

therefore Lord Melbourne did not feel called upon to resign. However,

the decisions caused, says Sir Theodore Martin, considerable pain and

vexation to the Queen.

A remarkable conflict took place this year between the jurisdiction

of the House of Commons and that of the Court of Queen's Bench, which

excited great interest at the time, and has important bearings upon

the constitutional history of the country. The following is a brief

narrative of the facts out of which it arose:--In the year 1835 a

Bill was proposed in the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond for

the purpose of appointing inspectors of prisons. The inspectors were

appointed, and, in the discharge of their duty, reported on the state

of Newgate. The House ordered the report to be printed and sold by the

Messrs. Hansard. In this report it was stated that the inspectors of

that gaol found amongst the books used by the prisoners one printed

by John Joseph Stockdale in 1827, which they said was "a book of the

most disgusting nature, and the plates are obscene and indecent in the

extreme." On the 7th of November, 1836, Stockdale brought an action

for libel against the Messrs. Hansard for the sale of this report,

which was alleged to be false. Sir John Campbell, who was counsel for

the defendants, argued that the report was a privileged publication,

being printed by the authority of the House of Commons, and on that

ground they were entitled to a verdict. But Lord Denman, in his charge

to the jury, said: "I entirely disagree from the law laid down by

the learned counsel for the defendants. My direction to you, subject

to a question hereafter, is, that the fact of the House of Commons

having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish all the Parliamentary

Reports is no justification for them, or for any bookseller who

publishes a Parliamentary Report containing a libel against any man."

In addition, however, to the plea of "Not Guilty," there was a plea

of justification, on the ground that the allegations were true, and

on this the jury found a verdict for the defendants. On the 16th of

February, 1837, the Messrs. Hansard communicated the facts to the House

of Commons. A Select Committee was consequently appointed to examine

precedents, and report upon the question of its privileges in regard

to the publication of its reports and other matters. They reported in

favour of the privilege which would protect any publication ordered

by the House of Commons, and resolutions based upon the report were

adopted.

Another action was brought by Stockdale; the printers were directed to

plead the privilege of the House. The Court gave judgment against the

plea, and damages were afterwards assessed, which the House of Commons

ordered the Messrs. Hansard to pay. On the 31st of July those gentlemen

again communicated to the House that similar legal proceedings were

threatened by Mr. Polac, on account of alleged defamatory matter in a

Parliamentary Report on the state of New Zealand. The House of Commons

passed another resolution, reaffirming its privilege, and directing

Hansard not to take any defence to the threatened action, which,

however, was not proceeded with. But Stockdale, on the 26th of August,

1839, commenced a third action for the publication of the report, which

continued to be sold. The printers then served him with formal notice

of the resolutions of the House and of their intention not to plead.

Stockdale, notwithstanding, on the 26th of October filed a declaration

in the said action, wherein the damages were laid at £50,000; and on

the 1st of November interlocutory judgment was signed for want of a

plea. On the 2nd of November notice was served that a writ of inquiry

of damages would be executed before the Sheriff of Middlesex on the

12th of the same month. The writ of inquiry was accordingly executed,

when the sheriff's jury assessed the damages at £600; the consequence

of which was that the sheriff took possession of the printing-office,

premises, and stock-in-trade of the printers of the House of Commons.

But he was placed in a dilemma with regard to the sale, which was

ultimately prevented by the amount of damages being paid into the

sheriff's office on the night previous. On the 16th of January

following, Lord John Russell presented a petition from the Messrs.

Hansard, which recited the facts of the case, and prayed for such

relief as, in the circumstances, the House might think fit. The course

which Lord John recommended was, that the persons who had violated the

privileges of the House should be summoned to their bar. He therefore

moved that Stockdale, with Burton Howard, his attorney, William

Evans, the sheriff, the under-sheriff, and the deputy-under-sheriff,

be summoned to the bar of the House. There was a long discussion on

the legality of the course to be pursued. The motion was carried

by a majority of 119. On the 17th of January, therefore, Stockdale

was called to the bar, and interrogated by the Attorney-General as

to the facts of the different actions. The House then resolved that

Stockdale should be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms.

It was also resolved that the sheriffs should be called to the bar.

They were accordingly brought in by the Serjeant-at-Arms, dressed in

their scarlet robes. On the 21st of January they petitioned the House,

expressing their sorrow for having incurred its displeasure, and stated

that they believed that they had only done their duty towards their

Sovereign and the Queen's Bench, whose sworn officers they were. They

prayed, therefore, that they might not be amerced or imprisoned. Lord

John Russell moved that the sheriffs, having been guilty of a breach

of the privileges of the House, should be committed to the custody of

the Serjeant-at-Arms, which was carried by a majority of 101. The same

course was adopted with regard to Mr. Howard, the attorney, who was

called in and reprimanded by the Speaker.

But the Queen's Bench was by no means disposed to surrender its own

privileges, even to the House of Commons. On the 24th of January

Sir William Gossett, Serjeant-at-Arms, appeared at the bar of the

House, and said that he had last evening been served with a writ of

Habeas Corpus, commanding him to bring up the bodies of the sheriffs,

William Evans, Esq., and John Wheelton, Esq., then in his custody. The

Attorney-General rose, and said he had no hesitation in advising the

House to direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to return answer to the Court of

Queen's Bench that he held these two individuals in custody by the

warrant of the Speaker. He then moved a resolution to that effect,

which was adopted, and the Court of Queen's Bench acquiesced.

On the 3rd of February Mr. Darby brought forward a motion that the

sheriffs should be discharged from the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms.

This gave rise to a long and animated debate. The Attorney-General

opposed the motion, contending that until they made their submission

the House could not dismiss them with due regard to its dignity. Sir

William Follett replied to the arguments of the Attorney-General, and

was answered by the Solicitor-General. The debate was adjourned, and

was resumed on the 7th. At its conclusion the House divided on the

question that the sheriffs be discharged, which was negatived by a

majority of 71. On the 12th Mr. Sheriff Wheelton was discharged on

account of ill-health, a motion for the release of the other sheriff

having been rejected.

The House, meanwhile, seemed to have been getting still more involved

in the meshes of these difficulties. Stockdale commenced a fourth and

fifth action against Hansard; an order was issued for the arrest of his

attorney for contempt, and he was ultimately lodged in Newgate. But he

afterwards brought actions against all the officers of the House that

had been concerned in his arrest and had searched his premises. On the

17th of February Lord John Russell informed the House that he had a

petition to present from Messrs. Hansard to the effect that a fifth

action had been commenced against them by Stockdale for the same course

as before. It was then moved that Stockdale, and the son of Howard,

his attorney, a lad of nineteen, and his clerk, by commencing this

action had been guilty of a contempt of the House. This was carried by

a majority of 71, and they, too, were imprisoned.

These vexatious proceedings, including a great number of debates and

divisions, led to the passing of an Act for more clearly defining the

privileges of the House of Commons, which had made itself unpopular by

its course of proceeding towards the sheriffs, who had only discharged

duties which they could not have evaded without exposing themselves to

the process of attachment. On the 5th of March, accordingly, Lord John

Russell moved for leave to bring in a Bill relative to the publication

of Parliamentary papers. He said, in the course of his speech,

that at all periods of our history, whatever might have been the

subject--whether it regarded the privileges of Parliament or the rights

of the Crown or any of the constituted authorities--whenever any great

public difficulty had arisen, the Parliament in its collective sense,

meaning the Crown, Lords, and Commons, had been called in to solve

those difficulties. With regard to the measure he was about to propose,

he would take care to state in the preamble of the Bill that the

privilege of the House was known only by interpretation of the House

itself. He proposed that publications authorised by either House of

Parliament should be protected, and should not be liable to prosecution

in any court of common law. Leave was given to introduce the Bill by a

majority of 149, in spite of the opposition of the Solicitor-General,

Sir Thomas Wilde; the House went into committee on the Bill on the

13th of March, and it passed the third reading on the 20th of the same

month. It was read a second time in the Lords on the 6th of April; and

the Royal Assent was given to it by commission on the 14th of the same

month.

At the commencement of the Session a notice of a motion of want of

confidence in the Ministry was given by Sir John Yarde Buller. He

assigned as reasons for bringing forward the motion the disturbed and

unsatisfactory state of the country, which he ascribed to the system

of popular agitation, "nurtured and fostered," as he alleged, by the

Ministers during the preceding two years. After a debate of four

consecutive nights the motion was rejected by 308 votes to 287. The

division was fairly satisfactory, and another source of gratification

to the Ministry was the passing of the Irish Municipal Bill, which

became law in spite of a characteristic protest from Bishop Phillpotts,

who regarded the measure "as a deliberate and wilful abandonment of

the cause of true religion which had provoked the justice of Almighty

God and given too much reason to apprehend the visitation of Divine

vengeance for this presumptuous act of national disobedience." In this

Session Sir Robert Peel at last terminated the scandals connected

with election committees by a plan which authorised the Speaker to

appoint a general committee of elections, with the duty of selecting

election committees to try each particular case. Sir Francis Baring's

Budget was a considerable improvement upon those of his indifferent

predecessor, Mr. Spring-Rice, whose careless finance had produced

no less than four successive deficits. He acknowledged a deficit

of £850,000, and asked for a vote of credit. He further imposed an

additional tax of 4d. a gallon on spirits, increased the customs and

excise by 5 per cent., and the assessed taxes by 10 per cent.

The Queen's marriage has been referred to in connection with the

proceedings in Parliament. The details of that interesting event,

and other incidents affecting her Majesty's happiness which occurred

during the year, will now be recorded. The royal party assembled in the

morning of the 10th of February at Buckingham Palace, whence it had

been arranged that the members of her Majesty's family and those of

Prince Albert's, accompanied by the officers of State, should proceed

to St. James's Palace. The entire route along which the royal _cortège_

was to pass was lined by the Horse Guards, while the trumpeters, in

their State uniforms, were stationed at intervals to announce the

approach of the royal bride and bridegroom. First, the Ladies and

Gentlemen of her Majesty's Household, in seven royal carriages, arrived

at the garden entrance of St. James's Palace; and then followed the

splendid State coach containing her Majesty, her Royal Highness the

Duchess of Kent, and the Mistress of the Robes. The closet behind the

Throne Room had been draped with silk and prepared for the reception

of the Queen. There her Majesty, attended by her maids of honour,

train-bearers, and bridesmaids, remained until the Lord Chamberlain

of her Household marshalled the procession to the Chapel Royal. Soon

after her Majesty had entered the closet, the clash of "presented

arms," the roll of drums and flourish of trumpets outside, told that

the bridegroom had arrived. At a quarter to one o'clock the ring was

placed upon her Majesty's finger; outside, the guns thundered forth

the intelligence; but their loud booming was nearly drowned by the

long-continued shouts of acclamation which arose from the thousands who

thronged the park. At the conclusion of the service the Queen Dowager

cordially embraced and kissed the bride, and the Prince acknowledged

Queen Adelaide's congratulations by kissing her hand. The bride and

her royal consort drove at once to Buckingham Palace, and the noble

assembly that had witnessed the ceremony retired. After a splendid

breakfast at Buckingham Palace the bride and bridegroom took their

departure for Windsor Castle. The sun shone out in cloudless lustre

just at the moment of their leaving the gateway; the vast concourse of

people assembled outside the palace hailed this as a happy omen, and as

the carriage containing the royal pair drove off, the air was rent with

the most enthusiastic cheering.

About four months passed happily away, when another event occurred

which was very near furnishing a startling illustration of the truth

that there is no certain tenure of human happiness. On the night of

Wednesday, the 10th of June, London was agitated by a report of an

attempt upon the life of the Queen. Next day an investigation took

place at the Home Office, from which the public and the reporters

of the daily press were excluded. The following are the facts:--At

a quarter past six on Wednesday evening, the Queen, accompanied by

Prince Albert, left Buckingham Palace, in a very low, open phaeton, to

take her customary drive in Hyde Park before dinner. The carriage had

proceeded a short distance up the road when a young man, who had been

standing with his back to the Green Park fence, advanced to within a

few yards of the carriage, and deliberately fired at the Queen. The

postilions paused for an instant. The Prince ordered them, in a loud

voice, to drive on. "I have got another!" exclaimed the assassin, who

discharged a second pistol, aimed at the carriage, which also proved

harmless. The Queen and the Prince went as far as Hyde Park Corner,

and then turned to the Duchess of Kent's mansion, in Belgrave Square.

Meanwhile, the assassin remained near the spot, leaning against the

park fence, with the weapons in his hand. Several persons laid hold

of him, and he was conveyed by two policemen to the Gardener's Lane

station-house. After staying a short time with the Duchess of Kent,

in Belgrave Square, the Queen and her husband proceeded to Hyde Park,

where an immense concourse of persons, of all ranks and both sexes,

had congregated. The reception of the royal pair was so enthusiastic

as almost to overpower the self-possession of the Queen. They soon

returned to Buckingham Palace, attended by a vast number of the

nobility and gentry, in carriages and on horseback. A multitude of

persons collected at the entrance to the palace, and vehemently cheered

the Queen, who, though pale and agitated, repeatedly bowed and smiled

in return.

The name of the prisoner was Edward Oxford. He was about eighteen

years of age, and of an unprepossessing countenance. He was a native

of Birmingham, which town he had left nine years before. He was last

employed at a public-house, "The Hog in the Pond," at the corner of

South Molton Street and Oxford Street. His trial for high treason was

begun in the Central Criminal Court on Thursday, July 9th, and ended

next day. The judges were Lord Denman, Baron Alderson, and Justice

Patteson. The jury returned the following special verdict:--"We find

the prisoner, Edward Oxford, guilty of discharging the contents of two

pistols, but whether or not they were loaded with ball has not been

satisfactorily proved to us, he being of unsound mind at the time." An

argument followed between counsel as to whether this verdict amounted

to an absolute acquittal, or an acquittal on the ground of insanity.

Lord Denman said that the jury were in a mistake. It was necessary that

they should form an opinion as to whether the pistols were loaded with

bullets or not; but it appeared they had not applied their minds to

that point, and therefore it would be necessary that they should again

retire, and say aye or no. Did the prisoner fire a pistol loaded with

ball at the Queen? After considerable discussion upon the point, the

jury again retired to consider their verdict. During their absence the

question was again argued, and it appeared to be the opinion of the

judges that the jury were bound to return a verdict of "Guilty" or "Not

Guilty" upon the evidence brought before them. After an absence of an

hour they returned into court, finding the prisoner "guilty, he being

at the same time insane." The sentence was that he should be imprisoned

during her Majesty's pleasure, according to the Act 40 George III.,

providing for cases where crimes were committed by insane persons.

Meanwhile the aspect of foreign affairs was hardly reassuring. Britain

was at war with China and Afghanistan, and within measurable distance

of war with France and the United States. Postponing for the present

our review of the first Afghan war and the differences with America,

which will be dealt with more properly under the history of Sir Robert

Peel's Ministry, we proceed to give a short sketch of the Chinese war

and the Syrian crisis. The exclusive right of the East India Company to

trade with China ceased on the 22nd of April, 1834, and from this time

dates the great dispute about the opium traffic. The first free-trade

ship sailed from England on the 25th of the same month. Lord Napier

was sent out to China to superintend British commerce, and arrived

at Macao on the 15th of July. He died soon after his arrival, and was

succeeded by Mr., afterwards Sir, John Davis. But the Chinese were not

disposed to recognise the authority with which he was vested. During

1835 and 1836 matters went on peaceably under the superintendence of

the second and third Commissioners, Mr. Davis and Sir T. Robinson, the

former of whom returned to England, and the latter was superseded by

Captain Elliot, R.N., who in vain renewed the attempt to establish an

official connection with the Chinese authorities. The opening of the

trade in 1834 gave a powerful stimulus to all kinds of smuggling, and

especially in opium, the importation of which into China was prohibited

by the Imperial Government, in consequence of its deleterious

qualities. During the following years, however, the supply of that

drug was increased enormously, and the smuggling trade was carried on

along the coasts of the northern provinces, in defiance of the laws

of the country. The Imperial Government was naturally indignant at

these encroachments, and became, moreover, seriously alarmed, perhaps

not so much for its demoralising effects, as for the continued drain

of specie which it occasioned. In March, 1839, Lin arrived at Canton,

as Imperial High Commissioner, to enforce the laws in this matter. He

immediately issued an edict requiring that every chest of opium on

the river should be delivered up, in order to be destroyed; and that

bonds should be given by traders that their ships should never again

bring any opium, on pain of forfeiture of the article and death to the

importer. Lin having taken strong measures to carry this edict into

effect by blockading the British merchants, Captain Elliot proceeded to

Canton, and issued a circular letter to his countrymen, requiring them

to surrender into his hands all the opium then actually on the coast

of China, and holding himself responsible for the consequences. On the

21st of May the whole of the opium, to the amount of 20,283 chests, was

given up to the Chinese Government, and immediately destroyed. But even

this great sacrifice did not propitiate Commissioner Lin. On the 26th

of November he issued another interdict, ordering the cessation of all

trade with British ships in a week; and in January, 1840, an Imperial

edict appeared directing that all trade with Britain should cease for

ever. Further numerous outrages were committed by the Chinese against

British sailors. In consequence of these proceedings an armament was

sent forth to teach the Chinese the principles of international law.

The first part of the armament reached the Canton river in June, 1840,

under the command of Captain Elliot. Having established a rigorous

blockade in the river, the British, on the 5th of July, took possession

of the large island of Chusan, in the Eastern Sea. It proved very

unhealthy, and one man out of every four died. Proceeding still farther

to the mouth of the Peiho, in the Yellow Sea, Captain Elliot attempted

to overawe the Chinese. But the sea was too shallow to enable him to

land his troops, and he was forced to put back to Chusan.

[Illustration: MARRIAGE OF QUEEN VICTORIA. (_After the Picture by Sir

George Hayter._)]

It was in these circumstances that Sir James Graham, on the 7th of

April, brought forward a series of resolutions on our relations with

China, and the Government escaped defeat by a narrow majority of ten.

A vote of censure would inevitably have been passed, had not the Duke

of Wellington expressed his cordial approval of the Ministerial policy.

His followers were furious. "I know it," said the Duke to Charles

Greville, "and I do not care one damn. I have no time to do what is not

right."

Meanwhile the war had continued, and with the commencement of 1841

fortune began to favour the British. The Chinese position at the mouth

of the Canton river was forced, and the Emperor was compelled to send

a Commissioner, Keshin by name, to treat with the "outer barbarians."

Keshin cunningly transferred the scene of negotiations to Canton, in

order to secure time to strengthen the forts and prepare for defence.

He accordingly employed the interval busily in erecting new batteries

at the Bogue, barricading the bars in the river by sinking boats laden

with stones, throwing up breastworks near Canton, and levying troops.

The British Commissioner, wearied and irritated by these proceedings,

gave directions to Commodore Bremer to proceed at once to compulsory

methods of bringing the Chinese to reason. On the 7th of January,

therefore, he opened fire on the Bogue forts, on two of which the

British flag very soon floated. Next morning, when everything was ready

to attack the principal fort, Annughoy, a flag of truce was sent by

the Chinese, and hostilities were suspended. Keshin offered to adjust

matters immediately, and on the 20th a circular appeared, signed by

Captain Elliot, and dated Macao, addressed to "Her Britannic Majesty's

subjects," stating that her Majesty's plenipotentiary had to announce

the conclusion of preliminary arrangements between the Imperial

Commissioner and himself, involving the following conditions:--1st. The

cession of the harbour and island of Hong Kong to the British Crown.

2nd. An indemnity to the British Government of 6,000,000 dollars,

to be paid in annual instalments in six years. 3rd. Direct official

intercourse between the two countries upon equal footing. It was quite

evident that her Majesty's plenipotentiary did not understand the sort

of people he had to deal with; otherwise, he would not have arrested

the operations of Commodore Bremer till he had all the principal forts

in his possession. In fact he was completely duped by Keshin.

The convention, which did not contain a word about the opium trade,

gave great dissatisfaction at home, and Lord John Russell declared in

the House of Commons, on the 6th of May, that it had been disapproved

of by the Government; that Captain Elliot had been recalled, and Sir

Henry Pottinger appointed plenipotentiary in his stead. The Chinese,

meanwhile, soon violated their engagements. On the 19th of February

an English boat was fired upon from North Wang-ton, in consequence of

which the squadron under Captain Sir H. Flemming Senhouse attacked

the forts on the 26th of February, and in a very short time the

British colours were flying on the whole chain of these celebrated

fortifications, and the British became masters of the islands without

the loss of a single man. Proceeding up the river towards the Whampoa

Reach they found it fortified with upwards of forty war junks, and the

_Cambridge_, an old East Indiaman. But they were all silenced in an

hour, when the marines and small-arm men were landed and stormed the

works, driving before them upwards of 3,000 Chinese troops, and killing

nearly 300. Next day Sir Gordon Bremer joined the advanced squadron,

and the boats were pushed forward within gunshot of Howgua's fort;

and thus, for the first time, were foreign ships seen from the walls

of Canton. On the 2nd of May the _Cruiser_ came up, having on board

Major-General Sir Hugh Gough, who took command of the land forces. On

approaching the fort it was found to be abandoned, as well as those

higher up the river, the Chinese having fired all their guns and fled.

The Prefect or Governor of Canton then made his appearance, accompanied

by the Hong merchants, announcing that Keshin having been recalled

and degraded, and the new Commissioner not having arrived, there was

no authority to treat for peace. Captain Elliot again hesitating,

requested the naval and military commanders to make no further movement

towards the city until it was seen what was the disposition of the

provincial authorities at Canton, and admitted the city to a ransom of

£1,250,000. But Sir G. Bremer observed in a despatch that he feared the

forbearance was misunderstood, and that a further punishment must be

inflicted before that arrogant and perfidious Government was brought to

reason. He was right; for on the 17th of March a flag of truce, with a

message sent by Captain Elliot to the Imperial Commissioner, was fired

upon by the Chinese. In consequence of this, a force under Captain

Herbert, who was in advance of the rest of the armament, carried in

succession all the forts up to Canton, taking, sinking, burning, and

otherwise destroying the flotilla of the enemy, and hoisted the Union

Jack the same day on the walls of the British factory.

At this juncture Sir Henry Pottinger succeeded Captain Elliot, with

orders to bring the war to a satisfactory conclusion. His measures

were prompt; Amoy fell on the 26th of August, Chusan, which had been

abandoned, was recaptured in September, and the Chinese experienced

further reverses in 1842. At length the Chinese saw that resistance

was vain, and that they must come to terms, as the "barbarians" could

not be exterminated. Full powers had been given to three Commissioners

to negotiate a treaty of peace, which, after various conferences,

was concluded on the 26th of August, 1842. It embraced the following

stipulations:--The payment by the Chinese of an indemnity of £4,375,000

in addition to the ransom of £1,250,000 already surrendered; the

opening of the new ports of Canton, Amoy, Fou-chow-fou, Ning-po, and

Shang-hai to British merchants, with permission to consular officers to

reside there; the cession of the island of Hong Kong to the British in

perpetuity; correspondence to be conducted on terms of perfect equality

between the officers of both Governments; and the islands of Chusan

and Ku-lang-su to be held by the British until the money payments were

made, and arrangements for opening the ports were completed.

Far more serious than this smallest of little wars was the crisis that

had simultaneously overtaken the Levant. For years the Turkish Empire

had been on the brink of dissolution, partly through its own weakness,

partly through the ambition of Mehemet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt. In

1838 he had been prevented only by a vigorous remonstrance of Lord

Palmerston's from declaring himself independent and attacking the

Turkish army on the Euphrates. For months the two forces stood face to

face, and then the Turks by their own folly provoked the catastrophe.

Disregarding the advice of the French and British Governments, the

Sultan Mahmoud sent his troops across the river. On the 24th of June,

1839, they were cut to pieces by the Egyptians, on the 29th the Sultan

died, on the 30th the Turkish admiral Achmet Pasha sailed off to

Alexandria, and handed over his fleet to Mehemet Ali. It was evident

that prompt intervention of the Powers could alone preserve the Ottoman

Empire from disintegration. But, as soon as Lord Palmerston broached

the subject, the French Government refused to take part in a general

agreement for the maintenance of the Porte; in fact, its sympathies

were openly expressed on the side of the Pasha. Thereupon Lord

Palmerston resolved to proceed without Louis Philippe. His overtures to

the Russians were cordially received; Austria raised no objections. On

the 15th of July, 1840, the Quadrilateral Treaty was signed, by which

the British, Austrian, Prussian, and Russian representatives on the

one hand, and the Turkish ambassador on the other, bound themselves

to compel the Pasha to yield half of Syria to the Porte, and pledged

themselves to use force to give effect to their demands.

Thereupon a period of the utmost suspense ensued. The British Cabinet

was of very divided mind; there was a strong peace party, headed by

Lord Holland and Lord Clarendon, with which Lord John Russell, after

much hesitation, eventually threw in his lot. Again and again he

threatened resignation, and it needed all the diplomacy of the Prime

Minister and the strong remonstrances of the Queen to induce him to

remain at his post. Even more serious was the attitude of the French

Government. M. Thiers, who had become Prime Minister in March, was

furious at the humiliation to which his predecessors' shilly-shally

had exposed his country. He blustered about going to war, talked

about increasing the fleet and calling out the reserves, and tried to

persuade the British ambassador, Sir Henry Bulwer, that the king, his

master, was even more bloodthirsty than himself. All in vain; Lord

Palmerston had taken the measure of his opponents. He knew that, though

Thiers might mean fighting, Louis Philippe had no such intention; he

knew, too, that the Pasha, whom the world thought to be invincible,

was a mere man of straw. His opinion was justified by the easy success

of the joint British, Austrian, and Turkish squadron. Beyrout fell

early in September, Saida, the ancient Sidon, surrendered before the

end of the month, and on the 3rd of November Commodore Napier reduced

to ruins, after a bombardment of only three hours, Acre, the fortress

hitherto held to be impregnable, from which even Napoleon had turned

away in despair. The fall of Acre settled, for the time being, the

Eastern question. Already Louis Philippe had seen the necessity of

abandoning words which were not to be followed by deeds. He had refused

to countenance the bellicose speech from the throne with which M.

Thiers proposed to open the Chambers in October; that Minister had in

consequence resigned, and had been succeeded by Marshal Soult with

M. Guizot as his Foreign Minister. Still Lord Palmerston refused to

readmit France to the European concert until the Egyptian resistance

was at an end. However, his more pacific colleagues induced him to

allow the French Government to take part in the diplomatic discussion,

which led to the ultimate settlement of the crisis in the following

July. By that treaty the independence of the Porte was guaranteed by a

provision that the Bosphorus and Dardanelles should be closed to ships

of war of all Powers in time of peace, while the Pasha was punished

for his contumacy by being compelled to surrender the whole of Syria,

retaining by way of compensation the hereditary possession of Egypt.

At the opening of 1841 the country might be said to be free from all

excitement on the subject of politics. There was no great question at

issue, no struggle between rival parties seemed impending. Many of the

principal topics which in former years had agitated the public mind

had been settled or laid to rest. The Chartist riots seemed to have

abated the desire of the leading Reformers to extend the suffrage to

the working classes. Still the Government was lamentably weak, and

only existed on sufferance. Nor did the conduct of affairs in the

House of Commons tend to strengthen their position. The reintroduction

by Lord Stanley of his Bill to regulate the registration of voters

in Ireland led to much angry discussion with damaging results to the

Government, who had already suffered grievous defeats in attempting

to arrest the progress of the measure during the previous Session.

Two days later Lord Morpeth brought in a Government Bill for the same

object. The main features of the plan were to abolish certificates;

to make the register conclusive of the right to vote, except where

disqualification afterwards appeared; to establish an annual revision

of the registers, and to give a right of appeal equally to the claimant

and the objector. The main point of difference between this and Lord

Stanley's Bill consisted in the tribunal to which the appeal was to

be made. The Government proposed for this purpose the creation of a

new court, consisting of three barristers of a certain standing. An

additional feature of the Government Bill was a proposal to settle

the question of the basis of the franchise by fixing upon the Poor

Law valuation as the standard; and the Bill proposed to enact that

every occupier of a tenement under a holding of not less than fourteen

years, of the annual value of £5, should have the right of voting

previously enjoyed by persons who had a beneficial interest of £10.

The Conservatives complained of the unfairness of thus introducing

by surprise a fundamental alteration in the elective franchise of

Ireland, founded upon principles unknown both in England and Scotland.

It was represented as a new Reform Bill for Ireland, tacked on as a

postscript to a Bill for amending the registration. The £5 franchise,

it was argued, would in effect be little short of the introduction of

universal suffrage. The House divided on the respective merits of the

rival Bills, when the Government measure was carried by a majority

of five. The result was hailed with cheers from both sides of the

House, the Opposition regarding the victory as little better than a

defeat. Lord John Russell at first announced that he would proceed

immediately with the measure, but he afterwards moved its postponement

till the 23rd of April. During the interval Lord Morpeth announced

the conversion of the Ministry to the principle of an £8 rating. When

the question was introduced again, on the 26th of April, it gave rise

to a party debate. While the House was in committee on Lord Morpeth's

Bill, Lord Howick proposed an amendment to the effect that the tenant,

in order to entitle him to the franchise, should have a beneficial

interest in his holding of £5 a year over and above the rent. Lord

Morpeth proposed as a qualification for the franchise a lease of

fourteen years, and a low rating of £8. Lord Howick proposed that the

yearly tenant should be entitled to vote as well as the leaseholder if

he had an annual interest of £5 in it; but Lord Morpeth contended, and

showed from statistics, that this principle would disfranchise more

than three-fourths of the £10 tenant voters in several of the counties.

In short, it would have the effect of almost entirely disfranchising

the existing occupying constituency of Ireland. On a division, Lord

Howick's amendment was carried by 291 to 270. Finally the Bill was

reduced to such a jumble of contradictory amendments that it was

impossible to proceed with it. Thus ended the great struggle of the

Session. Much time had been wasted in party debates and fruitless

discussions, and the proposal to give the Irish people the benefit of

the Reform Act by putting its perishing constituencies on a proper

basis, simple as it may seem, utterly failed. Lord Stanley also

abandoned his measure, and there the matter ended. The whole of the

proceedings plainly indicated that the doom of Lord Melbourne's feeble

Cabinet was at hand.

[Illustration: ATTACK ON THE CHINESE JUNKS. (_See p._ 474.)]

The Budget did not retrieve the popularity of Ministers. Sir Francis

Baring proposed to make up for an estimated deficit of £2,421,000 by

an alteration of the timber duties producing £600,000 a year, and an

alteration of the sugar duties producing £700,000. Both these changes

were in the direction of free trade, and a still more significant

proposal was the repeal of the existing corn law, and the substitution

of a low fixed duty of 8s. a quarter on wheat. The House, however,

would not accept such a budget from a Government whose Premier had in

the previous year declared that "the responsible advisers of the Crown

would not propose any change in the Corn Laws." After a debate of eight

nights the Ministry were defeated on the sugar duties by 317 votes to

281. Still they did not resign, and the Opposition in consequence had

recourse to a direct vote of censure.

On the 31st of May, pursuant to notice, Sir Robert Peel brought forward

a motion of want of confidence in the Government, in the following

words:--"That her Majesty's Ministers do not sufficiently possess the

confidence of the House of Commons to enable them to carry through the

House measures which they deem of essential importance to the public

welfare; and that their continuance in office under such circumstances is

at variance with the spirit of the Constitution." The right hon. baronet

referred to a number of precedents for the course he adopted--namely, the

cases of Sir Robert Walpole, Lord North, Mr. Pitt, Lord Sidmouth, Lord

Liverpool, the Duke of Wellington, and himself, each of whom resigned,

failing the support of a majority of the House Commons; and he insisted

that Lord Melbourne was bound to follow their example. A debate of two

nights followed: it was interrupted by the Whitsun holidays, after which

it was resumed and lasted three nights more, during which all sorts of

topics were discussed, and all the shortcomings of Ministers were dwelt

upon, and urged against them with great earnestness. The burden of the

charges against them was, that they were causing the greatest public

mischief by leaving important questions in doubt, setting party against

party, and stirring society to its very foundations. At length the House

went to a division, when there appeared for Sir Robert Peel's motion,

312; against it, 311, giving a majority of 1 against the Government. At

the meeting of the House on the following Monday the most lively anxiety

was manifested as to the course Ministers would pursue. Lord John Russell

stated that, after the late division, he felt that in that House of

Commons the Government could expect no further majorities, and that they

were resolved to appeal to the country. The determination, it is now

known, had been opposed by the Premier, but he was overruled by the more

sanguine members of the Cabinet.

Parliament was dissolved on the 30th of June, and at the general

election the Ministerial party was smitten hip and thigh. The City of

London exhibited a most remarkable defection from the Whigs on this

occasion. It had returned four Liberals to the late Parliament, one of

whom was Lord John Russell himself. On this occasion they returned two

Conservatives and two Liberals; Mr. Masterman, a Conservative, being

at the head of the poll. Lord John Russell was also returned, having

beaten his Conservative opponent by a majority of only 7. Another

significant triumph of the Conservatives was won in the West Riding

of Yorkshire, one of the most Liberal constituencies in the kingdom.

There Lord Morpeth and Lord Milton--the candidates, of all others, most

likely to succeed--were beaten, after a tremendous contest, by the Hon.

S. Wortley and Mr. Denison. For Dublin, also, two Conservatives were

returned--Messrs. West and Grogan; Mr. O'Connell being defeated. In

England and Wales the Conservatives had a majority of 104. In Scotland

the Liberals had a majority of 9, and in Ireland of 19. The majority

in favour of the Conservatives in the United Kingdom was 76. The cries

that had most to do in producing this result were, on the one side,

"cheap bread," and on the other, "low wages."

On the 19th of August the new Parliament assembled. The Session was

opened by commission; the Royal Speech, which was read by the Lord

Chancellor, contained a paragraph referring to the duties affecting

the productions of foreign countries, and suggesting for consideration

the question whether the principle of protection was not carried to an

extent injurious alike to the income of the State and the interests

of the people; whether the Corn Laws did not aggravate the natural

fluctuations of supply; and whether they did not embarrass trade,

derange the currency, and by their operation diminish the comfort and

increase the privations of the great body of the community. Here was

a distinct enunciation of the principles of Free Trade in the Speech

from the Throne, for which, of course, the Ministers were responsible.

The Address in the House of Lords was moved by Earl Spencer, a decided

Free Trader, and seconded by the Marquis of Clanricarde. The debate

was relieved from nullity by the Duke of Wellington's testimony to the

conduct of Lord Melbourne towards the Queen. The Duke said--"He was

willing to admit that the noble viscount had rendered the greatest

possible service to her Majesty, in making her acquainted with the mode

and policy of the government of this country, initiating her into the

laws and spirit of the Constitution, independently of the performance

of his duty as the servant of her Majesty's Crown; teaching her, in

short, to preside over the destiny of this great country." The House

divided, when it was found that there was a majority of 72 against the

Government.

The first business in the House of Commons was the re-election of Mr.

Shaw Lefevre as Speaker. On the 24th of August the Address was moved

by Mr. Mark Philips, and seconded by Mr. John Dundas. Mr. Wortley

then moved an amendment similar to the one which had been carried in

the House of Lords, in which he went over all the charges against the

Government. His motion was seconded by Lord Bruce, and supported by Mr.

Disraeli. The debate lasted several nights. Sir Robert Peel delivered a

long and very able speech, in which he reviewed the whole policy of the

Government. He was answered by Lord John Russell, whose speech closed

the debate. The division gave to Sir Robert Peel a majority for which

no one seemed prepared. The numbers were--for the Ministerial Address,

269; for the amendment, 360; majority against the Government, 91. On

the 30th the resignation of Ministers was announced.

CHAPTER XV.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (_continued_).

Peel's Second Cabinet--Prorogation of Parliament--Growing

Demand for Free Trade--Mr. Villiers--His First Motion for the

Repeal of the Corn Laws--The Manchester Association--Bright

and Cobden--Opposition of the Chartists--Growth of the

Association--The Movement spreads to London--Renewal of Mr.

Villiers' Motion--Formation of the Anti-Corn Law League--Its

Pamphlets and Lectures--Ebenezer Elliott--The Pavilion at

Manchester--Mr. Villiers' Third Motion--Want in Ireland--The

Walsall Election--Depression of Trade--Peel determines on a

Sliding Scale--His Corn Law--Its Cold Reception--Progress of

the Measure--The Budget--The Income Tax--Reduction of Custom

Duties--Peel's Speech on the New Tariff--Discussions on the

Bill--Employment of Children in the Coal Mines--Evidence of the

Commission--Lord Ashley's Bill--Further Attempts on the Life of

the Queen--Sir Robert Peel's Bill on the subject--Differences with

the United States--The Right of Search--The Canadian Boundary--The

Macleod Affair--Lord Ashburton's Mission--The First Afghan War:

Sketch of its Course--Russian Intrigue in the East--Auckland

determines to restore Shah Sujah--Triumphant Advance of the

Army of the Indus--Surrender of Dost Mohammed--Sale and the

Ghilzais--The Rising in Cabul--Murder of Burnes--Treaty of 11th of

December--Murder of Macnaghten--Treaty of January 1st--Annihilation

of the Retreating Force--Irresolution of Auckland--His

Recall--Disasters in the Khyber Pass--Pollock at Peshawur--Position

of Affairs at Jelalabad--Resistance determined upon--Approach

of Akbar Khan--The Earthquake--Pollock in the Khyber--Sale's

Victory--Ellenborough's Proclamation--Votes of Thanks--Ellenborough

orders Retirement--The Prisoners--They are saved--Reoccupation of

Cabul--Ellenborough's Proclamation--The Gate of Somnauth.

Sir Robert Peel was sent for by the Queen. No difficulties were

now raised about the Ladies of the Court, since the difficulty had

been settled through the diplomacy of the Prince Consort and his

well-intentioned, though pedantic, adviser, Baron Stockmar. In due

time the following Administration was formed:--First Lord of the

Treasury, Sir Robert Peel; Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst; Chancellor

of the Exchequer, Right Hon. H. Goulburn; President of the Council,

Lord Wharncliffe; Privy Seal, Duke of Buckingham; Home Secretary, Sir

J. Graham; Foreign Secretary, Earl of Aberdeen; Colonial Secretary,

Lord Stanley; President of the Board of Control, Lord Ellenborough;

President of the Board of Trade, Earl of Ripon; Secretary at War, Sir

H. Hardinge; Treasurer of the Navy and Paymaster of the Forces, Sir E.

Knatchbull. The Duke of Wellington was in the Cabinet without office.

It was thus composed of thirteen members, but of these Wellington,

Lyndhurst, Aberdeen, Stanley, and Graham were the only people of

importance. Before the prorogation of Parliament on the 7th of October

the Poor Law was continued until the end of the following July, and the

financial deficit of £2,500,000 was provided for by the creation of

£5,000,000 of new stock, half of which was devoted to the funding of

Exchequer Bills.

On the reassembling of Parliament on the 3rd of February, 1842, Sir

Robert Peel was confronted by a rapidly increasing demand for freedom

of trade. Among the earliest of the Parliamentary champions of the

people's right to cheap food was Mr. Villiers, afterwards President of

the Poor Law Board. He became a pupil of Mr. M'Culloch, the author

of the "Commercial Dictionary," who was also one of the soundest and

most consistent advocates of commercial and fiscal reforms. The bold

attacks of Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Canning upon commercial monopolies

naturally excited his admiration, and as a supporter of those statesmen

he offered himself as a candidate for Hull at the general election

in 1826. The election was lost by a small majority, and Mr. Villiers

was afterwards called to the bar, became Secretary to the Master of

the Rolls, and subsequently one of the Examiners in Chancery. At the

general election in 1835 he presented himself as a candidate for

Wolverhampton, avowing the same Free Trade principles which he had

professed nine years before at Hull. It is said to have been at a

meeting at Sir William Molesworth's, in 1837, that Mr. Villiers was

strongly urged to take the opposition to the Corn Laws as his peculiar

field of Parliamentary duty; and in that year he pledged himself at

the hustings to move for their total repeal, an object at that time

generally regarded as too wild and hopeless to be undertaken seriously

by a practical statesman. On the 15th of March, 1838, Mr. Villiers rose

in Parliament to make the first of those motions on the Corn Laws with

which he afterwards became associated in the public mind. Scarcely

any excitement was caused by this discussion. It seems, indeed, to

have been regarded rather as an exercise in political speaking by some

who viewed the matter in a philosophic, rather than in a practical

light, and who had no real expectation of success. Only one of the

ministers was present during a debate which was destined, in its

annual reappearance, to become so formidable to the party of monopoly;

and this Minister, it was remarked by one speaker, appeared to be

taking "his evening siesta," doubtless "owing to weariness induced

by his close attention to official duties"--a remark which elicited

loud laughter. It must be confessed, however, that the slumber of the

Minister was no unfit representation of the want of faith in Corn Law

Repeal which existed out of doors. It was certain that nothing but

pressure from without could obtain even a modification of those laws

in the teeth of the all-powerful aristocracy and their representatives

in the Commons; but as yet the country took little part in the great

question of the final emancipation of British industry. For a repeal

of the Poor Laws there had been presented to the House not less

than 235 petitions, with 190,000 signatures. The agitation--chiefly

supported by the _Times_ newspaper and a few Socialistic reformers,

like Mr. Fielden, against the law which, harsh as it seemed, was at

bottom a really wise and humane measure for raising the people from

that condition of acquiescence in misery and degradation to which the

bad legislation of past years had so powerfully contributed to reduce

them--had assumed formidable dimensions, and stirred the country in

every part; but for a repeal of the law which in every way depressed

the energies of the people, only a few petitions, bearing at most about

24,000 signatures, had been presented.

[Illustration: QUEEN VICTORIA. (_After a Portrait painted about the

time of her Accession._)]

[Illustration: DUNFORD, NEAR MIDHURST, WHERE COBDEN WAS BORN.]

While the landed interest were thus showing their determination to

maintain, at all hazards, the laws for preventing the importation of

foreign corn, a spirit of opposition had been growing up in the large

manufacturing towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, which, though only

partially shared in by the working classes, was already significant of

the approaching downfall of the system of monopoly. The first use made

by Manchester of its constitution as a political borough by the Reform

Act was to send to Parliament Mr. Poulett Thomson and Mr. Mark Philips,

two members long conspicuous in the House for the zeal and ability

with which they supported the principles of Free Trade. The Manchester

newspapers generally advocated the same views; and Manchester became

regarded as the centre of the Anti-Corn Law agitation. No organised

movement, however, had yet been attempted. A series of good harvests

from 1832 to 1835 rendered it extremely difficult to arouse public

attention to the injustice which the bread law invariably inflicted in

less favourable circumstances. Nevertheless, the effort was made. In

January, 1834, a meeting of merchants and manufacturers was held in

the Manchester Exchange Committee-room, to consider how the cause of

Corn Law Repeal was to be forwarded, at which some powerful speeches

were delivered by the members for the borough and other speakers of

influence. A committee was appointed, which timidly endeavoured to

avoid the appearance of a political agitation and finally ended by

doing nothing. But soon the desultory opposition to the bread tax of

the Manchester Chamber of Commerce--a body which had only presented

one petition on the subject in seven years--was no longer sufficient

to represent the feeling of that great centre of industry. Seven men

united themselves in the month of October, 1838, to advocate the

freedom of trade. The names of those seven members are now scarcely

remembered out of Manchester, with the exception of Mr. Archibald

Prentice, the historian of the League, whose newspaper, the _Manchester

Times_, had fought with considerable talent, and with inexhaustible

energy on the side of all the great reforms of this important period

in our history. In that newspaper for the 13th of October a list of

the Provisional Committee of a new Anti-Corn Law Association was for

the first time published. It comprised thirty-seven names, chiefly

of Manchester manufacturers, and ended with the modest note that

"Subscriptions, 5s. each, would be received by the members of that

committee." Such was the simple origin of that vast movement which, a

few years later, compelled the very chiefs of the landowners' party

in Parliament to become the instruments for carrying out measures

more sweeping than even the most ardent Free Traders had regarded as

possible. But men of influence were beginning to join the movement. The

list of the Provisional Committee contained at least one name which

afterwards became famous--that of Mr. John Bright. Three of them became

members of Parliament at a later date, and another, Mr. George Wilson,

was afterwards known as the permanent chairman of the League.

The name of the leader of the new movement, however, had not yet been

added to the list. Mr. Bright, whose residence was at Rochdale, had

not begun to give personal aid to the cause, and was scarcely known

out of his native town, where his efforts to improve the moral and

social condition of the working classes had, however, long made him

conspicuous among his fellow-townsmen. The name of Richard Cobden,

which appears in the additional list of the committee published a

short time afterwards, was one more familiar in Manchester ears. Mr.

Cobden was the son of a yeoman at Dunford, near Midhurst, in Sussex.

Beginning with small advantages, he had become a successful tradesman.

In the course of 1835 a pamphlet was published by him under the title,

"England, Ireland, and America." It was followed by a second pamphlet

entitled "Russia; by a Manchester Manufacturer." In these writings

he advocated peace and retrenchment, and reprobated a panic fear of

Russia. But he was soon to advocate more important reforms.

Meanwhile, the first municipal election under the Manchester Charter of

Incorporation had been held, at which Mr. Cobden, and a number of other

gentlemen professing Free Trade views, had been chosen aldermen, not

without formidable opposition. At a meeting held at Leeds, and attended

by seven or eight thousand persons, the Chartists, under Mr. Feargus

O'Connor, resisted the resolutions of the Free Traders, on the ground

that the movement was one only intended to give the manufacturers power

to lower the wages of their workmen--a mistaken doctrine, but one not

altogether without support in the writings of the Free Trade party,

some of whom, with the common propensity of zealous advocates for

adopting doubtful arguments as well as good ones in support of their

objects, had put forth the statement that the British manufacturer

required cheap food in order to get cheap labour, and thus to compete

the better with foreign producers. The opposition of the Chartists

created great confusion at almost every meeting held under the auspices

of the Manchester Association. Bread, however, continued to rise, and

the task of the Association in rousing the country became easier.

Subscriptions began to pour in for the Association, and the work went

on. The year 1839 opened with bright prospects for the Anti-Corn Law

crusade. Times were, indeed, changed since pseudo-Liberals had been

able to make the apathy of the country an excuse for withholding aid

from those who had, on principle, continued to demand justice in the

matter of the poor man's loaf. The movement was rapidly becoming

general. Mr. Villiers had prophesied in the last Session of Parliament

that the day was not far distant when the landed interest would be

compelled to treat this question with respect, and abandon the practice

of shouting down the advocates of Free Trade in the Legislature.

That day had now arrived, and sooner, probably, than the prophet

himself had expected it. There was scarcely a large town or thickly

populated district in Great Britain which had not moved, or which

was not about to petition Parliament against the bread-tax. In many

cases political differences were not allowed to hinder the common

fellowship of citizens having such an object as the overthrow of a

system that threatened to convert the mercantile community into a mass

of bankruptcy, and to involve all classes in deep distress.

From the manufacturing districts the movement was spreading to the

metropolis, where usually there had been but little attention paid to

this important subject. The various trades of London began to take

part in the preparation of petitions, and to hold meetings. At some of

these the working men carried resolutions against the petitions; and

they made similar, though unsuccessful, attempts in various towns. But

it was remarked that even while refusing to take preliminary measures

for procuring relief from the bread-tax, they declared its injustice;

in fact, the savage mood to which the prevalent distress was bringing

the labouring classes began to manifest itself in a determination

to postpone every question save that of their claim to a share of

political power. They were not friendly to the middle class; but their

ill-will could not be cited even as a proof of their indifference to

the continuance of the Corn Law system.

On the 12th of March, 1839, Mr. Villiers again moved for a committee

of the whole House to take into consideration the Act regulating the

importation of foreign corn, and the Manchester delegates were once

more in London to watch the progress of events. On this occasion the

House again decided, by 342 votes to 195, not to take the subject

into consideration. The defeat was of course expected; but the

members of the Association immediately assembled again, and issued an

address to the public, in which for the first time they recommended

the formation of a permanent union, to be called the Anti-Corn Law

League, and to be composed of all the towns and districts represented

in the delegation, and as many others as might be induced to form

Anti-Corn Law associations, and to join the League. Delegates from

the different local associations were to meet for business from time

to time at the principal towns represented; but in order to secure

unity of action, it was proposed that the central office of the

League should be established at Manchester, and that to its members

should be entrusted the duties of engaging lecturers, obtaining the

co-operation of the public press, establishing and conducting a stamped

periodical publication, and keeping up a constant correspondence with

the local associations. The delegates then parted, becoming so many

local missionaries for spreading the doctrines of the new crusade.

The Manchester Association had issued a large number of handbills and

placards. It now began to publish more largely and systematically a

series of pamphlets. Among these were "Facts for Farmers," in which

it was shown to demonstration that, whatever might be the interest

of the landowners, their tenants had no real share in the benefits

of their monopoly. The cheapness of the publications secured them an

extraordinary sale wherever political questions were discussed. Mr.

Villiers's speech, extending to thirty-two closely printed pages,

was sold at three halfpence; Mr. Poulett Thomson's speech, occupying

sixteen pages, at three farthings. When the appeals were made to

the electors of the kingdom during the height of the agitation, as

many as half a million each of the more popular tracts were issued

at a time. In accordance with the resolution passed by the League

at its formation in London, a fortnightly organ of the new movement

was started on the 16th of April. Its title was the _Anti-Corn Law

Circular_. A preliminary address announced that a copy of the paper

would be regularly forwarded to every newspaper, review, and magazine

in the empire. The first number contained a "Modern History of the

Corn Laws," by Richard Cobden, with various information on the progress

of the movement. Meanwhile the work of lecturing went on. Free Trade

missionaries were dispatched to all parts, and, to the annoyance of

the landlords, even preached their obnoxious doctrines to audiences in

smock frocks in the agricultural towns and villages, where the views

of the country party had hitherto held undisputed sway. Among the most

remarkable of these speakers was Colonel Perronet Thompson, who, by

his celebrated "Catechism of the Corn Laws," and his other writings,

had done perhaps more than any other man of his time to confute the

fallacies of the Protectionist party. The clear and terse style, the

shrewd reasoning power, the apt and homely illustration, and, above

all, the hearty sincerity and good temper of this remarkable man,

were equally acceptable among the most refined or the least educated

audiences.