In the same field was to be found the poet Ebenezer Elliott, the "Corn

Law Rhymer." By his addresses to his fellow-townsmen of Sheffield, his

remonstrances with the infatuated followers of O'Connor, who fancied

that their own cause was opposed to that of the Manchester League, and

by his powerful "Corn Law Rhymes," Elliott rendered services to the

movement of the highest value. A good specimen of Elliott's powers of

versification is afforded by the following song:--

"Child, is thy father dead?"

"Father is gone!

Why did they tax his bread?

God's will be done!

Mother has sold her bed;

Better to die than wed:

Where shall she lay her head?

Home we have none!

"Father clammed[3] thrice a week,

God's will be done!

Long for work did he seek,

Work he found none.

Tears on his hollow cheek

Told what no tongue could speak;

Why did his master break?

God's will be done!

"Doctor said air was best--

Food we had none;

Father, with panting breast,

Groaned to be gone.

Now he is with the blest!

Mother says death is best!

We have no place of rest."

"Yes, ye have one!"

The opening of the year 1840 saw no flagging in the efforts of the

Manchester men to bring forward the question, which the _Annual

Register_ had just regarded as finally set at rest. It had been

determined that a great meeting of delegates should be held in that

city. There was no hall large enough to hold half of the then members

even of the local association, and it was therefore resolved to

construct one. Mr. Cobden owned nearly all of the land then unbuilt on

in St. Peter's Field--the very site of the Peterloo massacre of 1819.

In eleven days one hundred men constructed on this spot a temporary

pavilion, which afterwards gave place to the permanent Free Trade Hall,

which long continued to be the favourite scene of great political

meetings. The _Manchester Times_ described the pavilion as comprising

an area of nearly 16,000 square feet. It contained seats for dining

3,800 persons, and 500 more were admitted after the dinner. Among the

most conspicuous speakers at the banquet were Daniel O'Connell, Mr.

Cobden, and Mr. Milner Gibson; but perhaps the most interesting feature

in the proceedings was the operatives' banquet, which took place on the

following day. Five thousand working men, overlooked by their wives,

sisters, and daughters in the galleries, sat down on that occasion.

It was evident from this that the people were emancipating themselves

from the advice of evil counsellors, and were beginning to see the

importance to their interests of the movement of the League.

Mr. Villiers renewed his motion on the 26th of May, 1840, after the

presentation of petitions in support of his views bearing a quarter of

a million of signatures. These signs of the growth of public opinion

had no effect upon the House. There was a fixed determination to

give neither Mr. Villiers nor the petitioners a fair hearing. He was

assailed with a volley of every kind of uncouth sounds. The Speaker's

calls to order were utterly disregarded, and it was not until, losing

patience, he commanded the bar to be cleared, and members to take their

seats, that the advocate of Free Trade could be heard by the reporters.

It was useless to carry on the discussion amid this deafening clamour.

Lord John Russell weakly demanded what the Government could do when a

majority of the House was against any alteration in the law, and said

he would vote for the motion, but not with a view to total repeal, as

his own opinion was in favour of a moderate fixed duty. The House again

divided, when 300 members voted for the landlords' monopoly, against

only 177 in favour of inquiry.

While these events were occurring in London, renewed signs of that

terrible Irish difficulty which, in the end, played so prominent a

part in hastening the conversion of the party who had opposed Free

Trade, began to be forced upon the attention of public men. On the

6th of June the _Limerick Reporter_ stated that at Listowel the state

of the poor was awful and deplorable, potatoes being sixteen pence a

stone, and there being no employment. One morning a boat, containing

560 barrels of oats, while waiting for the steamer at Garry Kennedy

harbour, on its way to Limerick, was boarded by a large body of the

populace, who possessed themselves of part of the grain. The police

were sent for, but did not arrive in time to save the property. The

_Dublin Pilot_ reported that the people of Limerick, prompted by the

cravings of hunger, had broken out in violent attacks on the flour

stores and provision shops throughout the city, sparing none in their

devastation. Flour was openly seized and distributed by the ringleaders

among the populace. The crowd was at length dispersed by the military,

and the mayor called a meeting of the inhabitants, to provide some

means of meeting the distress. In the meanwhile, ten tons of oatmeal

had been distributed among the most wretched, which was stated for

the present to have satisfied their cravings. These things, it was

remarked, took place while corn and flour, to the amount of four or

five millions sterling, might, in a few weeks, be had in exchange for

our manufactured goods.

When such facts as these, again and again urged upon the attention of

the legislators, failed to produce any practical result, it became

evident to the leaders of the League that they must do something more

than be the educators of the people in the principles of Free Trade.

One of the ablest of the London newspapers, which was friendly to their

cause, had warned them that nothing could be done in the House of

Commons until they could send members there expressly to support their

views. The fact was that the party which had an interest in opposing

the Registration Bill returned some forty or fifty members; while the

Corn Law Leaguers, as yet, returned not one. The Leaguers were now

aroused to the importance of this branch of their tactics. The first

fruit of this policy was seen in December, when the borough of Walsall

being declared vacant, led to a contest long after remembered in the

history of the movement. The Leaguers failed; but their failing was

not barren. Captain Lyttelton, a Whig, and Mr. Gladstone, brother of

the distinguished statesman were the two candidates on this occasion.

The League sent a deputation to test the candidates on the question

of Corn Law Repeal, intending to give all their influence to the Whig

candidate, if he pledged himself to advocate their objects. There

was then no hope for assistance from Tory statesmen; and the League

determined to bring forward a new candidate, in the person of Mr. J. B.

Smith, one of the most prominent of their own body, and then President

of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Amid disturbances during which

the military were called in, Mr. Gladstone was returned, but by the

narrow majority only of 362, against 335 votes given for the League

candidate. This event created a strong impression; but it was but

the beginning of the efforts of the League in this field, which were

destined again and again to be crowned with a more successful issue. At

the general election of 1841, however, the League was powerless against

the Conservative majority, though Mr. Cobden was returned for Stockport.

[Illustration: THE MOB BOARDING THE GRAIN SHIP AT GARRY KENNEDY. (_See

p._ 484.)]

Meanwhile the country continued to suffer from a great wave of trade

depression. Gloom and discontent were throughout the land; and the

Home Secretary of the new Administration afterwards stated that there

was hardly a day during this period when he had not found it necessary

to have personal communication with the Horse Guards, as well as with

the heads of the police in the metropolis, and in the manufacturing

districts. There seemed, indeed, to be no limit to the distress of

the people. In Carlisle a committee of inquiry into the state of the

town reported that one-fourth of their population was living in a

state bordering on absolute starvation. In a population of 22,000

they found 5,561 individuals reduced to such a state of suffering

that immediate relief had become necessary to save them from actual

famine. Terrible accounts from other and far distant neighbourhoods

showed how widespread was the evil. The manufacturers of the West of

England appointed a committee to consider the distressed state of

that district. Taking the town of Bradford, in Wilts, as an example,

the committee reported that of the nineteen manufacturers carrying on

business there in 1820, nine had failed, five had declined business

from want of success, one had taken another trade, and two only

remained. Of 462 looms, 316 were entirely out of work, and only 11 in

full employment; and this distress, it must be remembered, could not

be traced to one great overwhelming cause, like that of the failure

of the cotton supplies of a later day. The blight that had spread

over the field of British industry was to most men a puzzle; but the

West of England committee, after reporting that the same condition of

things existed at Chalford, Stroud, Ulley, Wotton, Dursley, Frome,

Trowbridge, etc., did not hesitate to declare that the depression of

trade that was destroying capital, and pauperising the working classes

was attributable to the legislation on the principle of protection. A

public meeting was held at Burnley in the summer of 1842 to memorialise

the Queen on the prevailing distress. At a great public conference

of ministers of religion, held in Manchester in the previous autumn,

it had been resolved that the existing Corn Laws were "impolitic in

principle, unjust in operation, and cruel in effect;" that they were

"opposed to the benignity of the Creator, and at variance with the very

spirit of Christianity." This conference, which extended over an entire

week of meetings, held both morning and evening, was attended by nearly

700 ministers. Their proceedings filled an entire volume, and attracted

considerable attention throughout the kingdom. Similar conferences were

afterwards held in a great number of towns.

In the face of such facts it was clear that something must be done,

even by a Protectionist Ministry, to diminish the effect of the

growing belief that bad legislation was at the bottom of the country's

difficulties. In the spring men had looked eagerly for the Budget of

the new Ministry. It had been bitterly remarked that at the time when

Parliament was prorogued there were nearly 21,000 persons in Leeds

whose average earnings were only 11-3/4 d. per week--that in one

district in Manchester alone a gentleman had visited 258 families,

consisting of 1,029 individuals, whose average earnings were only 7½

d. per head a week; and that while millions were in this deplorable

condition, the duty on wheat stood at 24s. 8d. a quarter, and Sir

Robert Peel and his colleagues demanded four months' leisure at their

country abodes before they would permit the Legislature to take the

distress of the people into consideration. At length came the meeting

of Parliament, at which the Queen in person read the Speech prepared

by her Ministers. It acknowledged with deep regret "the continued

distress in the manufacturing districts," and that the sufferings and

privations which had resulted from it had been "borne with exemplary

patience and forbearance." Finally, her Majesty recommended to the

consideration of both Houses "the laws which affect the import of corn

and other articles." What was the intention of the Ministers was not

then known; but it was already understood that, unlike their rivals,

who had proposed a fixed duty, the new Government would attempt some

modification of the sliding scale. In the account of these transactions

which Sir Robert Peel left to be published by his executors after

his death, he says:--"One of the first acts of the Government over

which I presided (the Government of August, 1841) was to propose a

material change in the Corn Law of 1828. I brought the subject under

the consideration of my colleagues by means of written memoranda, in

preference to proposals made verbally. In the first of these memoranda

I recommended my colleagues to undertake the revision of the Corn

Laws of 1828, as an act of the Government. In the second, after I

had procured their assent to the principle of revision, I submitted

a proposal in respect to the extent to which such revision should be

carried, and to the details of the new law." Then were seen the first

symptoms of that estrangement from his party which reached its climax

in 1846. Glaring as was the necessity for change, and evident as it

was, even to the body of the landowners, that they must choose between

the mild reform of Peel and the more objectionable measure of his

antagonists, there were members of the Cabinet who would still have

held out for no concession. The Duke of Buckingham retired from the

Ministry, and the Duke of Richmond refused to allow his son to move the

Address.

The statement of the Ministerial measure on the Corn Laws was fixed

for the 9th of February. At five o'clock the Ministers moved that the

paragraph in the Queen's Speech relating to the Corn Laws be read by

the Clerk. This having been done, and the House having resolved itself

into a committee to consider the laws relating to corn, Sir Robert

Peel proceeded to explain the measure which he was about to introduce

for their modification. The reception of the Premier's statement was

not flattering. Listened to in watchful silence till he unfolded

the details of the new sliding scale, he was then hailed from the

Opposition benches with shouts of triumphant derision. The Whigs were

relieved at finding that at least his measure was not calculated to be

more popular out of doors than the fixed duty which they had proposed;

but from his own side Sir Robert received little support. His customary

cheerers were mute, and round him were black faces when he spoke of not

wishing corn prices to range higher than 54s. to 58s. Towards the close

of his speech there was a painful inattention, to which he could not

refrain from alluding. The dead silence which prevailed while he was

reading the proposed scale was followed, when he had concluded, by a

great deal of laughter along the line of the Opposition benches, and a

loud buzz of conversation on both sides of the House ensued, which did

not quite subside during the remainder of the speech. The details of

the measure were recapitulated by the Minister as follow:--

"When corn is at 59s., and under 60s., the duty at present is 27s. 8d.

When corn is between those prices, the duty I propose is 13s. When the

price of corn is at 50s. the existing duty is 36s. 8d., increasing as

the price falls; instead of which I propose, when corn is at 50s. that

the duty shall only be 20s., and that that duty shall in no case be

exceeded. At 56s. the existing duty is 30s. 8d.; the duty I propose at

that price is 16s. At 60s. the existing duty is 26s. 8d.; the duty I

propose at that price is 12s. At 63s. the existing duty is 23s. 8d.;

the duty I propose is 9s. At 64s. the existing duty is 22s. 8d.; the

duty I propose is 8s. At 70s. the existing duty is 10s. 8d.; the duty

I propose is 5s. Therefore it is impossible to deny, on comparing

the duty which I propose with that which exists at present, that it

will cause a very considerable decrease of the protection which the

present duty affords to the home grower, a decrease, however, which in

my opinion can be made consistently with justice to all the interests

concerned."

In the comments with which he concluded his speech there were some

signs of progress in the development of Free Trade ideas in the mind of

the perplexed and trammelled Minister, which are interesting to read

by the light of his later career. He still maintained, in deference

to the views of those who surrounded him, that it was the duty of the

Legislature to take precautions to ensure that the main source of our

supply of food should be derived from domestic agriculture; but he

admitted that any protection, beyond what would compensate for the

alleged special burdens upon agriculture, could only be vindicated

on the ground that it was for the interest of all classes of the

community. Mr. Cobden, who in the autumn of the previous year had been

returned for Stockport, said a few words after the speech. He declared

himself not surprised at the position, constituted as the Government

was; for he had not, he said, expected to gather grapes of thistles;

but he denounced the sliding scale as an insult to a suffering people.

Following him, Lord John Russell gave notice that he should move a

resolution to the effect that it was not advisable in any alteration

of the Corn Laws to adopt the principle of a graduated sliding scale;

and Mr. Villiers gave notice that, on going into committee, he should

take the sense of the House on the policy of imposing any duty whatever

on the foreign corn or food imported into the country. The debate on

Sir Robert Peel's proposition began on Monday, the 14th of February,

and reached the close of its first stage on Wednesday, when Lord John

Russell's motion was negatived by a majority of 123, in a House of 575.

Mr. Villiers's motion was debated for five nights more, and finally

negatived by a majority of 393 to 90. The Whigs now gave the people

to understand that the eight shilling duty of the year before was

abandoned, and that if they were again in power they would propose a

lower sum. In Parliament the position of the Minister was by no means

an enviable one. The Free Traders pressed him closely with questions

which must have made him feel still more strongly the embarrassing

part which he was compelled to play. In the House of Lords the Corn

Importation Bill was passed with slight opposition. Lord Brougham

proposed a resolution in favour of a perfectly free trade in corn,

which was negatived. A resolution, moved by Lord Melbourne, in favour

of a fixed duty, was also negatived by a majority of 117 to 49.

Before this, however, the financial statement for the year had been

made, and for awhile the Corn Law question was suspended for the

country to recover from its astonishment at finding in the Minister of

the Conservative party one of the boldest reformers of our tariff who

had ever occupied the Ministerial benches. But yesterday his position

had appeared one of the greatest difficulty, in which a cautious hold

upon the established sources of revenue, with some well-balanced

proposals for additional taxes, was all that could be expected. He

had not the good fortune of Mr. Goulburn or Lord Althorp in having a

surplus to dispose of. The Whig Government had bequeathed to their

successors a deficit, which had been increasing from year to year,

with a revenue falling off even in the face of new taxes. How was the

deficit to be met was the question which filled the mouths of public

men; a question which was answered by the famous financial statement of

Sir Robert Peel on the 11th of March. After showing that the deficiency

for the coming year would be little short of £2,500,000, and that

this deficiency might be expected to be considerably augmented by the

position of affairs in India and China, the Minister declared that he

would not consent to resort to the miserable expedient of continual

loans. He declared that he would not attempt to impose burdens upon

the labouring classes, and that if he did, recent experience had shown

that they would be defeated. In fact, the country had arrived at the

limits of taxation upon articles of consumption. After ridiculing

the various suggestions of people who were constantly sending him

projects for taxes on pianofortes, umbrellas, and other articles,

accompanied with claims of very large percentages upon the proceeds,

he acknowledged the principle laid down by financiers that increased

revenue may be obtained by taking off the taxes which pressed upon

industry, but declared that the first effect was always a diminution in

revenue, and that time was found necessary to restore the amount. In

these circumstances, he stated what the measure was which, under a deep

conviction of its necessity, he was prepared to propose, and which, he

was persuaded, would benefit the country, not only in her pecuniary

interests, but in her security and character. His scheme was this: he

proposed, for a period to be limited, an income tax of not more than

3 per cent., from which he would exempt all incomes under £150, and

in which he would include not only landed but funded property. Sir

Robert Peel calculated that the tax would yield £3,350,000 a year,

a sum which, with an addition to the spirit duties in Ireland, and

an export duty of 4s. on coals, would not only cover the existing

deficiency, but enable him to remit indirect taxes to the amount

of £1,200,000. The sliding scale had brought little credit to the

Minister, and the income tax was in its nature an unpopular measure;

but the proposal to reduce the custom duties on 750 out of the 1,200

articles in the tariff--to remove prohibitions altogether (in itself

a vast concession to Free Trade doctrines)--to reduce the duties on

raw materials of manufactures to five per cent. or less--to keep the

duties on articles partially manufactured under twelve per cent., and

on articles wholly manufactured under twenty per cent., was a scheme

which excited general admiration. The measure was, indeed, contested

by the Whig Opposition at every stage. The preliminary resolutions were

debated for eight nights. There were many of Sir Robert Peel's old

supporters who looked on the financial plan with distrust, as being

founded, in a great measure, avowedly on those principles of political

economy which they had been accustomed to sneer at; but, in truth, it

was not unfavourable to the interests of their party. We have already

seen that the new tax--at least, if a temporary one--was calculated to

impose a far greater burden upon the manufacturing and moneyed class

than upon the landowners; in fact, by exempting incomes under £150

a year, and assessing land only upon its net rental, the burden was

imposed almost entirely upon that middle class which was the especial

object of the dislike of Tories of the more advanced kind. At the same

time, by cheapening articles of general consumption, the Minister did

something towards securing popularity among the working classes, who,

as exemplified in the Chartist agitation, were not always disposed to

take part against the landowners. The Income Tax Bill passed, after

considerable opposition in the Commons. An amendment proposed by

Lord John Russell was rejected by a vote of 302 to 202, and another

amendment, proposing the reading of the Bill on that day six months,

having been thrown out on the 18th of April by a vote of 285 to 188,

the third reading was carried by a majority of 130 on the 30th of May.

No debate took place in the Lords until the third reading, when the

Bill passed by a majority of 71.

The amended copy of the proposed tariff was laid on the table of the

House of Commons on the 5th of May; and its details explained by the

Premier in a speech which served to bring out still more strongly

the anomalous position in which he was placed. His speech was a long

elaborate statement distinguished for its excellent temper, its

clearness, and, above all, by its singularity as delivered by the

Conservative leader. He went over all the sections of his subject,

showing how the removal of prohibitions would benefit everybody; how

the reduction of duties on raw materials would stimulate trade; how

the diminished duties on provisions would make living cheaper for all;

and how the lesser protection to manufactures would injure none. Such,

he said, were the grounds of the change which it was his intention

to carry through; adding, "I know that many gentlemen who are strong

advocates for Free Trade may consider that I have not gone far enough.

I believe that on the general principle of Free Trade there is now

no great difference of opinion, and that all agree in the general

rule that we should purchase in the cheapest market and sell in the

dearest." Loud cheers from the Opposition benches here interrupted

him. Turning in the direction of the cheerers, he said, "I know the

meaning of that cheer. I do not now wish to raise a discussion on the

Corn Laws or the sugar duties. I have stated the grounds, on more than

one occasion, why I consider these exceptions to the general rule, and

I will not go into the question now. I know that I may be met with

the complaints of gentlemen opposite of the limited extent to which I

have applied the general principle to which I have adverted to these

important articles. I thought, after the best consideration I could

give to the subject, that if I proposed a greater change in the Corn

Laws than that which I submitted to the consideration of the House, I

should only aggravate the distresses of the country, and only increase

the alarm which prevailed among important interests. I think that I

have proposed, and the Legislature has sanctioned, as great a change

in the Corn Laws as was prudent, considering the engagements existing

between landlord and tenant, and also the large amount of capital

which has been applied to the cultivation of the soil. Under these

circumstances, I think that we have made as great a change as was

consistent with the nature of the subject."

[Illustration: RICHARD COBDEN. (_From a Photograph by Messrs. W. and D.

Downey._)]

The Free Trade journals did not fail to observe that what they called

"this remarkable lecture on Free Trade, Protection, and smuggling,

delivered from the Tory Treasury bench," was wound up by the avowal

that the principles of Free Trade were now beyond a question, and that

the rule to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest was

the only valid theory of commerce. In the House some opposition was

offered to the reduction of duties on pigs, apples, butter, fish, and

other articles; but the Government proposals were affirmed by large

majorities, except in the case of apples, which were made to pay 6d.

in the bushel. The Opposition, however, raised the old question of the

sugar duties, which had been omitted from the list of changes; but the

Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to give way, and the Tariff Bill

passed the Commons on the 28th of June. It was fiercely debated in the

Upper House, but the Whigs did not carry any material amendments.

The vast development of the coal trade, which contributed so materially

to our national prosperity, occasioned the employment of a large

number of persons at high rates of wages. Upwards of 118,000 people

were working in coal mines. In the county of Durham there were more

persons thus employed under ground than in cultivating the surface.

It was a kind of work at which women and children could earn money,

and in some of the collieries their labour was made available to a

very large extent. It may be supposed that this practice entailed upon

the boys and girls so employed the most serious evils, physical and

moral. When this state of things began to attract public attention,

an extensive inquiry was instituted by the Children's Employment

Commission, which prepared three reports, presented to Parliament in

1842. The Commissioners collected a large mass of evidence at the

collieries which brought to light facts of the most astounding nature

as to the cruelty and demoralisation connected with the employment of

women and children in coal mines. It seemed almost incredible that such

practices could have existed in a civilised country, and showed the

extent to which the thirst for gain will carry men, under circumstances

where they can count upon impunity, and evade the censure of public

opinion. Lord Ashley took up the subject with his usual earnestness in

all questions affecting the welfare of the working classes, and in the

Session of 1842 he brought in a Bill founded upon the reports of the

Commission. The statement of facts with which he introduced the measure

excited the astonishment and indignation of the House, and greatly

shocked the moral sense of the country. The nature of the employment

in which the children were engaged was calculated to brutalise them in

every sense. They were obliged to crawl along the low passages with

barely room for their persons in that posture, each dragging a load

of coals in a cart by means of a chain which was fastened to a girdle

borne round the waist, the chain passing between the legs. This they

dragged through a passage often not as good as a common sewer, in an

atmosphere almost stifling. At this sort of work girls were employed as

well as boys, and they commonly worked quite naked down to the waist,

their only dress being a pair of loose trousers, and in this condition

they were obliged to serve adult colliers who worked without any

clothing at all. The grossest immorality was the natural consequence.

In Scotland a subcommission found one little girl, six years of age,

carrying an eight-stone weight, fourteen times a day, a journey equal

in distance to the height of St. Paul's Cathedral. The Commissioner

adds, "And it not unfrequently happens that the tugs break, and the

load falls upon those females who are following, who are, of course,

struck off the ladders. However incredible it may be, yet I have taken

the evidence of fathers who have ruptured themselves by straining to

lift coals on to their children's backs." The Bill of Lord Ashley was

passed almost unanimously by the Commons. In the Lords it was subjected

to considerable opposition, and some amendments were introduced. The

amendments were adopted by the Commons, and on the 10th of August,

1842, the Act was passed "to prohibit the employment of women and girls

in mines and collieries, to regulate the employment of boys, and to

make other provisions relating to persons working therein." The Act

prohibited the employment of any boys under ground in a colliery who

were under the age of ten years.

The example of Oxford, who made an attempt on the life of the Queen,

was followed by another crazy youth, named Francis, excited by a

similar morbid passion for notoriety. On the 29th of May, 1842, the

Queen and Prince Albert were returning to Buckingham Palace down

Constitution Hill in a barouche and four, when a man who had been

leaning against the wall of the palace garden went up to the carriage,

drew a pistol from his pocket, and fired at the Queen. Her Majesty was

untouched, and seemed unaware of the danger. The assassin was observed

by Prince Albert, and pointed out by him to one of the outriders, who

dismounted to pursue him; but he had been at once arrested by other

persons. The carriage, which was driving at a rapid pace, no sooner

arrived at the palace, than a messenger was sent to the Duchess of

Kent to announce the Queen's danger and her safety. The prisoner,

John Francis, the son of a machinist or stage carpenter at Covent

Garden Theatre, having been twice examined by the Privy Council, was

committed to Newgate for trial at the Central Criminal Court on a

charge of shooting at the Queen with a loaded pistol. He was only

twenty years of age. The trial of Francis took place on the 17th of

June, before Chief Justice Tindal, Baron Gurney, and Justice Patteson.

The principal witness was Colonel Arbuthnot, one of the equerries who

was riding close to the Queen when the shot was fired, and cried out

to a policeman, "Secure him!" which was done. Colonel Wylde, another

equerry, with several other witnesses, corroborated the testimony of

Colonel Arbuthnot; and it appeared that Francis had on the previous day

pointed a pistol at the Queen, though he did not fire. For the defence

it was alleged that the attempt was the result of distress, and that

the prisoner had no design to injure the Queen. The jury retired, and

in about half an hour returned into court with a verdict of "Guilty,"

finding that the pistol was loaded with some destructive substance,

besides the wadding and powder. Chief Justice Tindal immediately

pronounced sentence of death for high treason, that he should be

hanged, beheaded, and divided into four quarters. The sentence was

commuted to transportation for life.

Even this example was not sufficient to protect her Majesty from the

criminal attempts of miscreants of this class. Another was made on

the 3rd of July following, as the Queen was going from Buckingham

Palace to the Chapel Royal, accompanied by Prince Albert and the King

of the Belgians. In the Mall, about half way between the palace and

the stable-yard gate, a deformed youth was seen by a person named

Bassett to present a pistol at the Queen's carriage. Bassett seized

him and brought him to the police; but they refused to take him in

charge, treating the matter as a hoax. Bassett himself was subsequently

arrested, and examined by the Privy Council. When the facts of the

case were ascertained, the police hastened to repair the error of the

morning, and sent to all the police-stations a description of the real

offender. This led to the apprehension of a boy called Bean, who was

identified, examined, and committed to prison. His trial took place on

the 25th of August, at the Central Criminal Court. The Attorney-General

briefly related the facts of the case, and Lord Abinger, the presiding

judge, having summed up, the jury returned a verdict of "Guilty,"

convicting the prisoner of presenting a pistol, loaded with powder and

wadding, "in contempt of the Queen, and to the terror of divers liege

subjects." The sentence of the court was--"Imprisonment in Millbank

Penitentiary for eighteen calendar months."

The repetition of these infamous outrages excited great public

indignation, and led to a general demand that something effectual

should be done to put a stop to them by rendering the law more prompt

and effective, and the punishment more disgraceful. In compliance

with this demand, Sir Robert Peel brought in a Bill upon the subject,

which was unanimously accepted by both Houses, and rapidly passed into

law. Sir Robert Peel in his Bill proposed to extend the provisions of

the Act of the year 1800, passed after the attempt of Hatfield on the

life of George III., to cases where the object was not compassing the

life, but "compassing the wounding of the Sovereign." "I propose," he

said, "that, after the passing of this Act, if any person or persons

shall wilfully discharge or attempt to discharge, or point, aim, or

present at or near the person of the Queen any gun, pistol, or other

description of firearms whatsoever, although the same shall not contain

explosive or destructive substance or material, or shall discharge

or attempt to discharge any explosive or destructive substance or

material, or if any person shall strike, or attempt to strike the

person of the Queen, with any offensive weapons, or in any manner

whatever; or, if any persons shall throw or attempt to throw any

substance whatever at or on the person of the Queen, with intent in

any of the cases aforesaid to break the public peace, or to excite the

alarm of the Queen, etc., that the punishment in all such cases shall

be the same as that in cases of larceny--namely, transportation for

a term not exceeding seven years." But a more effective punishment

was added, namely, public whipping, concerning which Sir Robert Peel

remarked, "I think this punishment will make known to the miscreants

capable of harbouring such designs, that, instead of exciting misplaced

and stupid sympathy, their base and malignant motives in depriving her

Majesty of that relaxation which she must naturally need after the

cares and public anxieties of her station, will lead to a punishment

proportioned to their detestable acts."

Serious differences between Great Britain and the United States of

America occupied the attention of both Governments during the years

1841 and 1842, and were brought to a satisfactory termination by

the Ashburton Treaty, referred to in the Royal Speech at the opening

of Parliament in 1843. The questions at issue, which were keenly

debated on both sides, related to the right of search, the Canadian

boundary, and the McLeod affair. The Government of Great Britain

regarding the slave-trade as an enormous evil and a scandal to the

civilised world, entered into arrangements with other nations for

its suppression. For that purpose treaties were concluded, securing

to each of the contracting parties the mutual right of search under

certain limitations. The United States Government declined to be a

party to these treaties, and refused to have their vessels searched

or interfered with in time of peace upon the high seas under any

pretence whatever. Notwithstanding these treaties, however, and the

costly measures which Great Britain had recourse to for suppressing the

nefarious traffic in human beings, the slave trade was carried on even

by some of the nations that had agreed to the treaties; and in order to

do this more effectually, they adopted the flag of the United States.

For the purpose of preventing this abuse, Great Britain claimed the

right of search or of visitation to ascertain the national character

of the vessels navigating the African seas, and detaining their papers

to see if they were legally provided with documents entitling them to

the protection of any country, and especially of the country whose

flag they might have hoisted at the time. Lord Palmerston, as Foreign

Secretary, argued that while his Government did not claim the right to

search American merchantmen in times of peace, a merchantman could not

exempt itself from search by merely hoisting a piece of bunting with

the United States emblems and colours upon it. It should be shown by

the papers that the vessel was entitled to bear the flag--that she was

United States property, and navigated according to law. Mr. Stevenson,

the American Minister, protested strongly against this doctrine,

denying that there was any ground of public right or justice in the

claim put forth, since the right of search was, according to the law of

nations, a strictly belligerent right. If other nations sought to cover

their infamous traffic by the fraudulent use of the American flag, the

Government of the United States was not responsible; and in any case

it was for that Government to take such steps as might be required to

protect its flag from abuse.

The question of the Canadian boundary had been an open sore for more

than half a century. Nominally settled by the treaty of 1783, it had

remained in dispute, because that arrangement had been drawn up on

defective knowledge. Thus the river St. Croix was fixed as the frontier

on the Atlantic sea-board, but there were five or six rivers St. Croix,

and at another point a ridge of hills that was not in existence was

fixed upon as the dividing line. Numerous diplomatic efforts were made

to settle the difficulty; finally it was referred to the King of the

Netherlands, who made an award in 1831 which was rejected by the United

States. The question became of increasing importance as the population

grew thicker. Thus, in 1837, the State of Maine decided on including

some of the inhabitants of the disputed territory in its census, but

its officer, Mr. Greely, was promptly arrested by the authorities of

New Brunswick and thrust into prison. Here was a serious matter, and

a still greater source of irritation was the McLeod affair. McLeod

was a Canadian who had been a participator in the destruction of the

_Caroline_. Unfortunately his tongue got the better of his prudence

during a visit to New York in 1840, and he openly boasted his share in

the deed. He was arrested, put into prison, and charged with murder,

nor could Lord Palmerston's strenuous representations obtain his

release. At one time it seemed as if war was imminent between England

and the United States, but, with the acquittal of McLeod, one reason

for fighting disappeared.

Such being the state of our relations with America, Sir Robert Peel's

Government determined to send to Washington a special ambassador who

should be clothed with full powers to effect an amicable adjustment

of all the causes of dispute. The gentleman selected for this purpose

was Lord Ashburton. A more judicious selection could not possibly have

been made. Mr. Alexander Baring, who had been raised to the peerage in

1835, having been previously President of the Board of Trade and Master

of the Mint, was known throughout the world as one of our merchant

princes, and was the husband of an American lady, the daughter of Mr.

William Bingham, of Philadelphia, a senator of the United States. The

hopes which his mission excited were not disappointed. He sailed from

England in February, 1842, and after a tedious and stormy passage,

arrived at New York on the 1st of April. He immediately entered upon

negotiations with Mr. Webster. They continued till the month of August,

when a treaty was agreed upon and signed at Washington by the two

plenipotentiaries, the mutual exchange of ratifications to take place

in London within six months of that date. By that treaty the line of

the north-eastern boundary was settled, concession on the St. John

being purchased by the surrender of a strip of land to the States of

New York and Vermont. It was stipulated that Great Britain and America

should each maintain a sufficient squadron or naval force, carrying

not less than eighty guns, for the purpose of enforcing, separately

and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of each of the two

countries for the suppression of the slave trade, and should use their

joint influence for suppressing the slave markets. It also provided

for the mutual delivery to justice of all persons charged with murder,

or assault with intent to murder, or with piracy, robbery, forgery,

and arson committed within the jurisdiction of either country, should

they be found within the territories of the other; but the evidence of

criminality should be sufficient to warrant the committal for trial

of the fugitive according to the laws of the country in which he was

apprehended. This was a distinct withdrawal of Lord Palmerston's

pretensions with regard to the McLeod affair. The mission was thus

eminently successful, but Lord Palmerston was of another opinion, and

declaimed in the House of Commons against the "Ashburton surrender."

But the Commons were unprepared to condemn the work, and the debate

ended in a count-out. The House of Lords, on the motion of Brougham,

passed a vote of thanks to Lord Ashburton.

[Illustration: SEIZURE OF SIR WILLIAM MACNAGHTEN. (_See p._ 495.)]

The war in Afghanistan was alluded to in the Royal Speech, at the

opening of the Session of 1843, in terms of congratulation at the

complete success that had attended the recent military operations

in that country, owing to the high ability with which they had been

directed, as well as the constancy and valour of the European and

native forces, which had established, by decisive victories on the

scenes of former disasters, the superiority of her Majesty's arms,

and had effected the liberation of the British subjects that had been

held in captivity. This, therefore, is the proper time to relate

briefly the incidents of that war, some of which are full of romantic

interest. About the year 1837 the attention of the British Government

in India was attracted by the conduct of certain supposed agents

of Russia, in the countries to the west of the Indus. The Russian

ambassador, Simonitch, was urging the Shah to lay siege to Herat, "the

key to India," and the place was soon closely invested. It was saved

by the fortuitous presence in the town of a gallant young officer of

engineers, Eldred Pottinger, who rallied the inhabitants and beat off

the enemy. Meanwhile, another Russian agent, Vicovitch by name, had

been sent to Cabul. In order to counteract his designs, it was thought

desirable to establish an alliance with the rulers of Afghanistan.

With this view overtures were made to Dost Mahomed Khan through a

mission headed by Alexander Burnes. These having failed, chiefly from

the ill-advised interference with Burnes of the Governor-General, Lord

Auckland, the British Government sought to establish a friendly power

in Afghanistan by aiding the exiled prince, Shah Sujah, in another

attempt to regain his throne. The step, which was condemned by numerous

clear-sighted people in India, was probably forced upon Lord Auckland

by the Melbourne Ministry, to whom it was recommended by the military

authorities at home, among them the Duke of Wellington. The chief of

Cabul had an army of 14,000 men, including 6,000 cavalry, with 40

field-pieces. His brothers held Candahar and the surrounding country,

with a military force of 4,000 men and 50 guns. The British force

assembled to support the claims of his opponent amounted to 28,000 men,

aided by a contingent force of 6,000 Sikhs, furnished by the ruler of

the Panjab, and about 5,000 troops raised by the Shah's eldest son.

This combined force was called "the Army of the Indus." Under the chief

command of Sir John Keane, it advanced to the town of Quetta, and

thence to Candahar, which was occupied without opposition; and there,

on the 8th of May, 1839, Shah Sujah was solemnly enthroned. After

this the march was resumed towards Cabul. The fortress of Ghuznee,

believed by the Afghans to be impregnable, was blown up and taken by

storm. The invading army reached Cabul, and on the 7th of August the

restored sovereign made his public entry into his capital. Having

thus accomplished its mission, the Army of the Indus returned home,

leaving behind a detachment of 8,000 men. For two years Shah Sujah and

his allies remained in possession of Cabul and Candahar, Dost Mahomed

having surrendered after having won a partial success over the British

on the 2nd of November, 1840.

But the attempts to reduce the other chiefs to subjection were

unsuccessful. An unfortunate collision with the tribes of Ghilzais

formed a painful episode in the Afghan war. The Cabul Pass is a long

defile, through which the road runs from Cabul to Jelalabad, which

it was therefore necessary to keep open for the purpose of safe

intercourse between Cabul and British India. The Indian Government

thought that the most desirable mode of effecting this object was

to pay the Ghilzai chiefs a yearly sum from the Cabul treasury, in

order that our troops might not be molested. But retrenchment being

determined upon, the money was withheld; the chiefs, therefore, felt

that the British had been guilty of a deliberate breach of faith.

They were exasperated, assumed a hostile attitude, and cut off all

communication with British India. It therefore became necessary to

force the Pass, for which purpose Major-General Sir Robert Sale was

sent by General Elphinstone from Cabul, with a brigade, of light

infantry. On the 12th of October they entered the Pass, near the middle

of which the enemy were found posted behind precipitous ridges of the

mountains on each side, from which they opened a well-directed fire.

General Sale was hit with a ball above the ankle, and compelled to

retire and give the command to Colonel Dennie. The Pass was gallantly

cleared, but with severe fighting and heavy loss. After this was

accomplished, the force had still to fight its way through a difficult

country, occupied by an active enemy, for eighteen days. All the

commanding points of the hills were held by the Ghilzais, where they

were protected by breastworks; and though they had been from time to

time outflanked and routed, when the march was resumed and the cumbrous

train of baggage filed over the mountains the enemy again appeared from

beyond the most distant ridges, renewing the contest with increased

numbers and the most savage fury. Since leaving Cabul our troops had

been kept constantly on the alert by attacks night and day. Their

positions had been secured only by unremitting labour, throwing up

entrenchments, and very severe outpost duty. The enemy were eminently

skilful at the species of warfare to which their attempts had been

confined, and were armed with weapons that enabled them to annoy the

invaders from a distance at which they could be reached only by our

artillery. The brigade reached Jelalabad on the 12th of November.

The force left to keep possession of Cabul and guard the _protégé_ of

the Indian Government was so situated as to tempt the aggression of a

treacherous enemy. Sir William Macnaghten, the British Resident, and

his suite, resided in the Mission Compound, which was badly defended,

and commanded by a number of small forts, while the commissariat stores

were placed in an old fort, detached from the cantonment and in such

a state as to be wholly indefensible. Moreover, General Elphinstone,

the commander of the troops, was old and inefficient. A conspiracy had

been formed by the friends of Akbar Khan, son of the deposed sovereign,

Dost Mahomed, who forged a document, and had it circulated amongst the

principal men of Cabul, to the effect that it was the design of the

British envoy to send them all to London, and that the king had issued

an order to put the infidels all to death. The insurrection commenced

by an attack on the dwellings of Sir Alexander Burnes, who was about to

succeed Macnaghten, and Captain Johnson, who resided in the city. Sir

Alexander addressed the party from the gallery of his house, thinking

that it was a mere riot. The insurgents, however, broke in, killed him

with his brother, Lieutenant Burnes, and Lieutenant Broadfoot, and set

the house on fire. The Afghans then surrounded the cantonments, and

poured in a constant fire upon them from every position they could

occupy. They quickly seized the ill-defended commissariat stores, upon

which the existence of the British depended. The garrison bravely

defended itself with such precarious supplies as could be had from

the country; but at length these supplies were exhausted. Winter set

in, snow fell, and there was nothing before them but the prospect of

starvation. They therefore listened to overtures for negotiation, and

the British envoy was compelled to consent to these humiliating terms

on the 11th of December, 1841:--That the British should evacuate the

whole of Afghanistan, including Candahar, Ghuznee, and Jelalabad;

that they should be permitted to return unmolested to India, and have

supplies granted on their road thither; that means of transport should

be furnished to the troops; that Dost Mahomed Khan, his family, and

every Afghan then detained within our territories should be allowed

to return to their own country; that Shah Sujah and his family should

receive from the Afghan Government one lac of rupees per annum; that

all prisoners should be released; that a general amnesty should

be proclaimed; and that no British force should ever be sent into

Afghanistan without being invited by the Afghan Government. These terms

having been agreed to, the chiefs took with them Captain Trevor as a

hostage; but nothing was done to carry the agreement into effect, and

Macnaghten and Elphinstone remained irresolutely at Cabul. Some of

their staff attempted to bribe the Afghans, and Akbar Khan thereupon

determined to withhold supplies. It soon became evident that the

object was to starve out the garrison, and compel them to surrender

unconditionally. At length, on the 22nd of December, they sent two

persons into the cantonment, who made a proposal in the name of Akbar

Khan, that the Shah should continue king, that Akbar should become

his Prime Minister, and that one of the principal chiefs should be

delivered up to the British as a prisoner. This was a mere trap, into

which Sir William Macnaghten unfortunately fell with fatal credulity.

On the 23rd of December the envoy, attended by Captains Lawrence,

Trevor, and M'Kenzie, left the Mission Compound, to hold a conference

with Akbar Khan in the plain towards Serah Sung. Crowds of armed

Afghans hovering near soon excited suspicions of treachery. Captain

Lawrence begged that the armed men might be ordered off; but Akbar

Khan exclaimed, "No, they are all in the secret." At that instant Sir

William and the three officers were seized from behind and disarmed.

Sir W. Macnaghten was last seen on the ground struggling violently with

Akbar Khan, consternation and terror depicted on his countenance. "His

look of wondering horror, says Kaye, "will never be forgotten by those

who saw it, to their dying day." The other three officers were placed

on horses, each behind a Ghilzai chief, who galloped off with them to

a fort in the neighbourhood. Captain Trevor fell off his horse, and

was instantly murdered. The others were assailed with knives by the

infuriated Afghans, and barely escaped to the fort with their lives.

Meanwhile the head of the British Minister was cut off and paraded

through the streets, while the bleeding and mangled trunk was exposed

to the insults of the populace in the principal bazaar.

Notwithstanding all this treachery and barbarity, General Elphinstone,

feeling his situation desperate, was weak enough to trust the Afghan

chiefs, and to enter into a convention with them on the 1st of January,

in the hope of saving the garrison from destruction. The negotiations

were carried on by Major Pottinger, the defender of Herat, and it

was agreed that the former treaty should remain in force, with the

following additional terms:--That the British should leave behind all

their guns excepting six; that they should immediately give up all

their treasures; and that hostages should be exchanged for married

men with their wives and families. To this, however, the married men

refused to consent, and it was not insisted on.

In pursuance of this convention the garrison retired, and began their

fatal march on the 6th of January, 1842. The army consisted of 4,500

fighting men, with 12,000 camp-followers, besides women and children.

The snow lay deep upon the ground; they had scarcely commenced their

march when they were attacked by the Afghans, the guns were captured,

and they were obliged to fight their way, sword in hand, defending the

women and children as well as they could. During the whole way through

the snow the road was strewn with bodies and stained with blood. The

dead and dying were immediately stripped naked by the enemy, and their

corpses hacked to pieces with long knives. During all this time the

perfidious Akbar Khan sent messages, professing his regret at not being

able to restrain the Ghilzai tribe; and after they had got through the

Pass, he made a proposal, which was accepted, to take the ladies under

his protection. Accordingly, Lady Sale and Lady Macnaghten, with six

others, accompanied by their husbands, were left under his charge. The

British troops then halted for a day, bivouacking on the snow. The

cold was so intense that the Sepoys became benumbed and paralysed,

in which state the whole of them were next day attacked and cut to

pieces. The Europeans managed to hold together, but when they arrived

at Jugduluk, thirty-five miles distant from Cabul, only 300 out of

16,500 persons who left that city remained alive. At this place a halt

was ordered, and through the interference of Akbar Khan the miserable

remnant were permitted to occupy a ruined enclosure, where, worn out

by fatigue and utterly helpless, they lay down to rest in the snow.

General Elphinstone was detained a prisoner by Akbar Khan in a small

fort, whence he dispatched a note to Brigadier Anketell, advising him

to march that night, as there was treachery afoot. The wearied band,

aroused from their slumbers, accordingly moved on in the dark; but

their departure was noticed, they were attacked in the rear, they broke

into disorder, threatened to shoot their officers, separated in small

parties, and thus, scattered and confused, they were cut down almost

to a man. Of the officers, however, a considerable number escaped on

horseback; but they, too, were attacked wherever they appeared, until

only one gentleman, Dr. Brydon, survived to tell the dreadful story,

reaching Jelalabad on the 13th of January. It afterwards came out,

however, that several other officers were detained in captivity.

Lord Auckland was then Governor-General of India, but the period

of his tenure of office was drawing to a close. He hoped it would

end brightly, that the war for the restoration of an imbecile and

puppet king would have ended triumphantly, and that he would return

to his native land bearing something of the reflected glory of the

conquerors of Afghanistan. He had been cheered by the despatches of

the too sanguine envoy in the month of October, who spoke only of the

continued tranquillity of Cabul. November passed, however, without any

intelligence, and all was anxiety and painful suspense. Intelligence at

last came confirming the worst anticipations. Calcutta was astounded

at the news that Afghanistan, believed to be prosperous and grateful

for British intervention, was in arms against its deliverers. Suddenly

the tranquillity of that doomed country was found to be a delusion.

"Across the whole length and breadth of the land the history of that

gigantic lie was written in characters of blood." Confounded and

paralysed by the tidings of so great a failure, which he had not

energy to retrieve, he thought only of abandoning the vicious policy

of aggression that had ended so miserably, and given such a terrible

blow to the _prestige_ of British power in India, on which our dominion

in the East so much depended. He had owed his appointment to the

Whigs; and the Conservatives, who were now in office, had opposed

the policy of the Government regarding the Afghan war. But no one

seemed more sick of the policy of aggression than the Governor-General

himself. He became thoroughly convinced of the folly of placing a

detached force in a distant city which could be reached only through

dangerous defiles occupied by an ever-watchful enemy, depending for

supplies upon uncertain allies, and without any basis of operations.

The expedition had proved enormously expensive, and had drained the

Indian treasury of funds that should have been employed in developing

the resources of our Indian possessions. When all this had ended in

disastrous failure and national disgrace--when he recollected that the

directors of the Company, as well as the Government, had expressed

intense dissatisfaction at his policy, feeling conscious that their

complaints were just, and that their worst forebodings had been

realised, his spirit seems to have been completely broken; instead

of any attempt at retrieving the misfortunes of his Government, he

thought only of saving, if possible, what remained of the forces that

he had sent across the Indus. Writing to the Commander-in-Chief, Sir

Jaspar Nicolls, who was then on a tour through the Upper Provinces

of India, with reference to the sending forward of reinforcements,

he said he did not see how the sending forward of a brigade could

by any possibility have any influence on the events which it was

supposed were then passing at Cabul, which they could not reach

before April. In his opinion they were not to think of marching fresh

armies to the reconquest of that which they were likely to lose. He

feared that safety to the force at Cabul could only come from itself.

The Commander-in-Chief himself had been always of opinion that the

renewed efforts of the Government to support Shah Sujah on his throne,

and to establish a permanent influence in Afghanistan, was a great

mistake. However, owing to the energy of Mr. George Clarke, the

Governor-General's agent on the north-west frontier, and his assistant,

Captain, afterwards Sir, Henry Lawrence, forces were dispatched from

that quarter, under the command of General Pollock, who had commanded

the garrison of Agra, having been in the Indian service since 1803,

and having distinguished himself under General Lake. This appointment

gave the greatest satisfaction, as it was believed that he was selected

solely for his merit, and not through aristocratic influence. While

he was preparing to advance, Lord Auckland was recalled, and Lord

Ellenborough, the new Governor-General, arrived at Calcutta.

[Illustration: ARRIVAL OF DR. BRYDON AT JELALABAD. (_See p._ 496.)]

Meanwhile Brigadier Wild occupied a position of great difficulty at

Peshawur. He had four native infantry regiments, containing a large

number of young soldiers, whom the mutinous Sikhs had impressed

with a great horror of the Khyber Pass. The only cavalry he had was

a troop of irregular horse, and the only guns, four pieces of Sikh

artillery. Besides, the owners of the camels, which had been hired

at Ferozepore to proceed as far as Jelalabad, refused to advance

farther than Peshawur. It was in these circumstances that Sale and

M'Gregor earnestly urged the advance of the brigade for the relief

of that place. The fortress of Ali Musjid, regarded as the key to

the Khyber Pass, is situated about twenty-five miles from Peshawur:

and as it lay between the two positions of Sale and Wild, it was of

the utmost importance that it should be occupied. It was accordingly

resolved that one-half of Wild's brigade should be dispatched for this

service. On the 15th of January Colonel Moseley, with the 53rd and

64th Sepoy Regiments, started under cover of the night, and reached

their destination early in the morning. The fortress was about five

miles up the Pass. Soon after they had taken up their position they

discovered to their dismay that owing to some mistake, instead of

350 supply bullocks, which had been ordered, only fifty or sixty

had arrived. Here, then, were two regiments shut up in an isolated

fortress without provisions. Day after day passed and no succour came.

Wild made an effort to send forward supplies, but the attempt was a

disastrous failure. The Sikh auxiliaries mutinied to a man, and refused

to enter the Pass. There being no prospect of relief, Colonel Moseley

determined to evacuate the fortress. Captain Burt and Captain Thomas

offered to remain and keep possession of so important a position, if

only 150 men would volunteer for the service. But none were found

willing to undertake the perilous duty, and so Ali Musjid was abandoned

and suffered to fall into the hands of the Afreedis. The brigade had

some fighting on its way back. Some of its officers were killed, some

wounded and sick were abandoned, and some baggage was lost.

On the 5th of February General Pollock reached Peshawur, and found the

troops under Brigadier Wild for the most part sick and disorganised.

His first care was to restore the _morale_ of the troops. Even the

officers had yielded to an unworthy panic. Some of them openly declared

against another attempt to force the Khyber Pass, and one said he would

do his best to dissuade every sepoy of his corps from entering it

again. Owing to this state of things, Pollock was compelled to remain

inactive through the months of February and March, though the eyes of

all India were turned upon him, and the most urgent letters reached

him from Sale and M'Gregor to hasten to their relief. But the general

was resolved not to risk another failure, and his duty was to wait

patiently till the health, spirits, and discipline of the troops were

restored, and until fresh regiments arrived.

No wonder that pressing entreaties for succour came from Jelalabad.

The garrison had exerted themselves with the utmost diligence to

fortify the place, which they expected soon to be invested by hosts

of Afghans, flushed with victory and thirsting for blood and plunder.

The camp-followers were organised to assist in manning the walls, and

foraging parties were sent out with good effect, while there was yet

time to get in provisions. In the meanwhile Sale received a letter

from the Shah, demanding what were his intentions, as his people had

concluded a treaty with the Afghans, consenting to leave the country.

There was an army preparing for their expulsion, and there were many of

their countrymen and countrywomen hostages in the hands of a fanatical

and vindictive enemy, while there was little prospect of any immediate

relief from the Indian Government. There was even a feeling that they

had been abandoned by the Government at Calcutta, which did not wish to

maintain the supremacy of the British arms in Afghanistan. A council

of war was called on the 26th of January; a stormy debate ensued;

the majority were for coming to terms with the enemy and withdrawing

from the country, for which purpose the draft of a letter in reply

to the Shah was prepared. For two days its terms were debated, the

proposition to surrender being vehemently resisted by an officer named

Broadfoot, who declared it impossible that the Government should leave

them to their fate, and do nothing to restore the national reputation,

especially as a new Governor-General was coming out, doubtless with

new counsels, and the Duke of Wellington, now in power, would never

sanction so inglorious a policy. He was overruled, however, by the

majority, and the letter was sent to the Shah. An answer came demanding

that they should put their seals to the document. Another council was

held; Colonel Broadfoot renewed his remonstrances; he was joined by

Colonel Dennie, Captain Abbott, and Colonel Monteith. An answer was

sent which left the garrison free to act as circumstances might direct.

Next day tidings came from Peshawar, that large reinforcements were

moving up through the Punjab, and that all possible efforts were to be

made for their relief. There was no more talk of negotiation; every one

felt that it was his duty to hold out to the last.

The place had been fortified so well as to be able to defy any attack

that could be made upon it without artillery. Colonel Broadfoot had

insisted on bringing an ample supply of working tools, which were found

to be of the greatest advantage. In the official report of General

Sale, written by Havelock, there is a description of the works that

had been executed, and the immense labour that had been undertaken to

clear away everything that could serve as a cover for the enemy. They

demolished forts and old walls, filled up ravines, destroyed gardens,

and cut down groves; they raised the parapets six or seven feet high,

repaired and widened the ramparts, extended the bastions, re-trenched

three of the gates, covered the fortress with an outwork, and excavated

a ditch, ten feet deep and twelve wide, round the whole of the walls.

The enemy soon approached, under the command of Akbar Khan; the white

tents, which the British were obliged to abandon, appearing in the

distance. But the garrison were full of confidence, proudly rejoicing

in the work of their hands, and feeling that they were perfectly safe

behind the defences which they had raised with so much labour. In a

short time, however, they had an astounding illustration of the vanity

of all confidence in human strength, showing that, in a moment, it can

be turned into weakness.

On the 19th of February the men heard an awful and mysterious sound,

as if of thunder, beneath their feet. They instantly rushed to their

arms, and thus many lives were saved. A tremendous earthquake shook

down all the parapets built up with so much labour, injured several

of the bastions, cast to the ground all the guard-houses, made a

considerable breach in the rampart of a curtain in the Peshawur face,

and reduced the Cabul gate to a shapeless mass of ruins. In addition

to this sudden destruction of the fortifications--the labour of three

months--one-third of the town was demolished. The report states that,

within the space of one month, the city was thrown into alarm by the

repetition of full 100 shocks of this phenomenon of Nature. Still, the

garrison did not lose heart or hope. With indomitable energy, they

set to work immediately to repair the damage. The shocks had scarcely

ceased when the whole garrison was told off into working parties, and

before night the breaches were scalped, the rubbish below was cleared

away, and the ditches before them were dug out. From the following day

all the troops off duty were continually at work, and so well sustained

were their energy and perseverance, that by the end of the month the

parapets were entirely restored, or the curtain was filled in, where

restoration was impracticable, and every battery re-established. The

breaches were built up with the rampart doubled in thickness, and the

whole of the gates re-trenched. So marvellously rapid was the work of

restoration that Akbar Khan declared that the earthquake must have been

the effect of English witchcraft, as Jelalabad was the only place that

escaped.

At length General Pollock found himself in a position to advance for

the relief of the garrison, and marched his force to Jumrood. On the

4th of April he issued orders for the guidance of his officers. The

army started at twilight, without sound of bugle or beat of drum. The

heights on each side of the Khyber Pass were covered with the enemy,

but so completely were they taken by surprise that our flankers had

achieved a considerable ascent before the Khyberese were aware of

their approach. The enemy had thrown across the mouth of the Pass a

formidable barrier, composed of large stones, mud, and heavy branches

of trees. In the meantime the light infantry were stealing round

the hills, climbing up precipitous cliffs, and getting possession

of commanding peaks, from which they poured down a destructive fire

upon the Khyberese, who were confounded by the unexpected nature of

the attack. The confidence which arose from their intimate knowledge

of the nature of the ground now forsook them, and they were seen in

their white dresses flying in every direction across the hills. The

centre column, which had quietly awaited the result of the outflanking

movements by the brave and active light infantry, now moved on,

determined to enter the Pass, at the mouth of which a large number

of the enemy had been posted; but finding themselves outflanked,

these gradually retreated. The way was cleared, and the long train

of baggage, containing ammunition and provisions for the relief of

Jelalabad, entered the formidable defile. The heat being intense,

the troops suffered greatly from thirst; but the sepoys behaved

admirably, were in excellent spirits, and had a thorough contempt for

the enemy. It was now discovered that their mutinous spirit arose from

the conviction that they had been sacrificed by bad generalship. Ali

Musjid, from which the British garrison had made such a disastrous

and ignominious retreat, was soon triumphantly reoccupied. Leaving a

Sikh force to occupy the Pass, General Pollock pushed on to Jelalabad.

Writing to a friend, he said, "We found the fort strong, the garrison

healthy, and, except for wine and beer, better off than we are. They

were, of course, delighted to see us; we gave three cheers as we passed

the colours, and the band of each regiment played as it came up. It was

a sight worth seeing; all appeared happy. The band of the 13th had gone

out to play them in, and the relieving force marched the last few miles

to the tune, 'Oh, but you've been long a-coming!'"

But they were not then in the position of a beleaguered garrison.

Before relief came, they had won a victory that covered them with

glory. The troops had been in the highest pluck, and never seemed so

happy as when they could encounter any portion of the enemy. In this

state of feeling an idea began to take possession of the officers that

they were able to capture Mahomed Akbar's camp. A false report had come

to the Sirdar, that General Pollock had been beaten back with great

slaughter in the Khyber Pass; and in honour of this event his guns

fired a royal salute. A rumour also reached the garrison that there had

been a revolution at Cabul, and that the enemy was obliged to break up

his camp and hasten back to the capital. Whether either or both these

reports should prove true, the time seemed to have come for General

Sale to strike a blow. A council of war was held; the general would

have shrunk from the responsibility of an attack upon the camp; but

he was dissuaded by Havelock. Akbar Khan, at the head of 6,000 men,

was aware of their approach and ready to receive them. On issuing from

the gate, General Sale had ordered Colonel Dennie forward, to attack a

small fort, from which the enemy had often molested the garrison. The

colonel, at the head of the brave 13th, rushed to the fort; but having

entered the outer wall, they found themselves exposed to a murderous

fire from the defences of the inner keep. There Colonel Dennie received

a mortal wound, a ball passing through his sword-belt. Sale now gave

orders for a general attack on the enemy's camp, and in his despatch he

thus describes the result:--"The artillery advanced at a gallop, and

directed a heavy fire upon the Afghan centre, whilst two of the columns

of infantry penetrated the line near the same point, and the third

forced back its left from its support on the river, into the stream of

which some of his horse and foot were driven. The Afghans made repeated

attempts to check our advance by a smart fire of musketry, by throwing

forward heavy bodies of horse, which twice threatened the detachments

of foot under Captain Havelock, and by opening upon us three guns from

a battery screened by a garden wall, and said to have been served

under the personal superintendence of the Sirdar. But in a short time

they were dislodged from every point of their position, their cannon

taken, and their camp involved in a general conflagration. The battle

was over, and the enemy in full retreat, by about seven a.m. We have

made ourselves masters of two cavalry standards, re-captured four guns

lost by the Cabul and Gundamuk forces--the restoration of which to our

Government is matter of much honest exultation among the troops--seized

and destroyed a great quantity of material and ordnance stores, and

burnt the whole of the enemy's tents. In short, the defeat of Mahomed

Akbar, in open field, by the troops whom he had boasted of blockading,

has been complete and signal. The field of battle was strewed with the

bodies of men and horses, and the richness of the trappings of some

of the latter seemed to attest that persons of distinction were among

the fallen. The loss on our side was remarkably small--seven privates

killed, and three officers and fifty men wounded."

Great was the joy inspired by these successes. The new

Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, issued a proclamation, in which

he stated that he felt assured every subject of the British Government

would peruse with the deepest interest and satisfaction the report of

the entire defeat of the Afghan troops, under the command of Mahomed

Akbar Khan, by the garrison of Jelalabad. These feelings of joy and

satisfaction were shared by the Home Government. On the 20th of

February, 1843, the Duke of Wellington, in the House of Lords, moved

a vote of thanks to Sir George Pollock, Sir William Nott, Sir John

M'Caskill, Major-General England, and the other officers of the army,

both European and native, for the intrepidity, skill, and perseverance

displayed by them in the military operations in Afghanistan, and

for their indefatigable zeal and exertions throughout the late

campaign. Lord Auckland seconded the motion, which was carried without

opposition. Sir Robert Peel brought forward a similar motion in the

House of Commons on the same day, following the example of the Duke

in giving a succinct narrative of the events of the war, and warmly

eulogising, amidst the cheers of the House, the officers who had most

distinguished themselves. The resolution passed without opposition, Mr.

Hume having withdrawn an amendment which he had proposed.

[Illustration: RESCUE OF THE BRITISH PRISONERS FROM AKBAR KHAN. (_See

p._ 503.)]

It would be useless to encumber these pages with a detailed narrative

of the desultory conflicts that occurred at Candahar, where General

Nott commanded, amidst the greatest difficulties, until General England

came to his relief on the 10th of May; or at Khelat-i-Ghilzai, a

post entrusted to Captain Lawrence; or in the country about Ghuznee,

the garrison of which, commanded by Captain Palmer, was compelled to

surrender for want of water. He was an officer in General Nott's

division, and by his brother officers the fall of the place was

regarded as more disgraceful than the loss of Cabul. At length Generals

Pollock and Nott were enabled to overawe the Afghans. They were now

at the head of two forces in excellent health and spirits, eager to

advance on Cabul and avenge the national honour of Great Britain, which

had been so grievously insulted. But Lord Ellenborough had come to

the resolution that it was no longer necessary to imperil the armies

of Great Britain, and with the armies the Indian Empire, by occupying

Afghanistan. All that was now required to be done rested solely upon

military considerations, and especially upon regard to the safety

of the detached bodies of our troops at Jelalabad, at Ghuznee, at

Khelat-i-Ghilzai, and Candahar. He was, therefore, feverishly anxious

that the troops should retire at the earliest possible moment, and sent

orders to that effect to Pollock at Jelalabad and to Nott at Candahar.

There was one object, however, to be gained which was deeply

interesting to every true Briton in India as well as to the public at

home, without which no victories however glorious, and no infliction

of punishment however terrible, upon the enemy, would have been

considered satisfactory--namely, the deliverance of the captives that

were still held as hostages by Akbar Khan. On this subject the two

generals, Pollock and Nott, held a consultation. Nott declared that the

Government had thrown the prisoners overboard, and protested against

taking any measures for their recovery. But Pollock was determined that

the effort should be made, and took upon himself the responsibility

of telling Nott to ignore his orders. Ellenborough, half-persuaded,

sanctioned Pollock's remaining at Jelalabad until October, but

commanded Nott to retire either by Quetta or Cabul. Nott and Pollock,

however, disregarded these absurd orders, and the advance was

continued. The duty of rescuing the prisoners was undertaken by Sale,

whose own heroic wife was among them. He started in pursuit, taking

with him a brigade from the army at Jelalabad. The captives had been

hurried on towards the inhospitable regions of the Indian Caucasus, not

suffered to sleep at night, and were stared at as objects of curiosity

by the inhabitants of the villages through which they passed. They

reached their destination, Maimene, on the 3rd of September, and there,

in a short time, before Sale's brigade arrived, they had providentially

effected their own ransom. The commander of their escort was Saleh

Mahomed, a soldier of fortune, who had been at one time a soubahdar

in Captain Hopkins's regiment of infantry, and had deserted with his

men to Dost Mahomed. Between this man and Captain Johnson an intimacy

sprang up, which the latter turned to account by throwing out hints

that Saleh Mahomed would be amply rewarded, if, instead of carrying

off his prisoners, he would conduct them in safety to the British

camp. Days passed away without anything being done, till after their

arrival at Maimene, when, on the 11th of September, Saleh Mahomed sent

for Johnson, Pottinger, and Lawrence, and in a private room which had

been appropriated to Lady Sale, he produced a letter which he had just

received from Akbar Khan, directing him to convey the prisoners to a

more distant prison-house. This seemed to be a sentence of hopeless

captivity, but the officers' minds were soon relieved by another piece

of intelligence--namely, a message from General Pollock that if Saleh

Mahomed released the prisoners he should receive a present of 20,000

rupees, and a life pension of 1,000 rupees a month. Saleh said to

them, "I know nothing of General Pollock, but if you three gentlemen

will swear by your Saviour to make good to me what Synd Moortega Shah

states that he is authorised to offer, I will deliver you over to

your own people." The offer was gladly accepted; and an agreement was

drawn up, in pursuance of which Saleh Mahomed and his European allies

proclaimed their revolt to the people of Maimene and the surrounding

country. They deposed the governor of the place, and appointed a more

friendly chief in his stead. They supplied themselves with funds by

seizing upon the property of a party of merchants who were passing that

way. Major Pottinger assumed the functions of government, and issued

proclamations, and called upon the chiefs to come in and make their

salaam. But they might come for a different purpose, and hence they

began to fortify themselves, and prepare for a very vigorous defence.

While thus employed, a horseman was seen rapidly approaching from the

Cabul side of the valley, who proved to be the bearer of glad tidings.

The Jugduluk Pass had been forced; Akbar Khan had been defeated by

General Pollock at Tizeen, and had fled, no one knew whither. This was

delightful news indeed. The power of the oppressor was now broken, and

the captives were free. Early next morning they started for Cabul,

sleeping the first night upon stony beds under the clear moonlight;

they were awakened by the arrival of a friendly chief, who brought a

letter from Sir Richmond Shakespear, stating that he was on his way to

Maimene with a party of horse. On the 17th of September Shakespear,

with his cavalry, came up. Pushing on again, they were met by a large

body of British cavalry and infantry, under the command of Sir Robert

Sale. "In a little time the happy veteran had embraced his wife

and daughter; and the men of the 13th had offered their delighted

congratulations to the loved ones of their old commander. A royal

salute was fired. The prisoners were safe in Sale's camp. The good

Providence that had so long watched over the prisoners and the captives

now crowned its mercies by delivering them into the hands of their

friends. Dressed as they were in Afghan costume, their faces bronzed by

much exposure, and rugged with beards and moustachios of many months'

growth, it was not easy to recognise the liberated officers, who now

came forward to receive the congratulations of their friends."

The safety of the prisoners diffused universal joy throughout the

camps of the two generals; but there was one thing necessary, in

their opinion, in which the Government concurred, in order to give

the crowning proof of our complete triumph, and to restore the

unquestionable supremacy of our power, and compel the respect and

fidelity of the neighbouring provinces. This was the signal punishment

of Cabul for the atrocities that had been perpetrated there. The

hostile chiefs were now as eager to conciliate, as submissive in their

tone as they had been cruel and arrogant. Even Akbar Khan professed

the greatest friendship for the British, and repudiated the acts that

had been done in his name, at the same time restoring to his friends

Captain Bygrave, the last prisoner he had in his possession. The

Afghans had a maiden fortress in the town of Istalif, which is built

upon two ridges of the spur of Hindoo Koosh, which forms the western

boundary of the beautiful valley of Kohistan. There, in its fortified

streets and squares, as in a safe asylum, they had collected their

treasures and their women. The sagacious Havelock suggested that the

capture of this place, believed to be impregnable, would be a great

stroke of policy. General M'Caskill, therefore, made a rapid march

upon it, and after a desperate struggle, in which Havelock greatly

distinguished himself, the place was stormed in gallant style, the

Afghans in every direction giving way before our attacking columns.

The fate of Cabul was now to be decided. Some mark of just retribution

should be left upon it, and General Pollock determined to destroy

the great bazaar, where the mangled remains of our murdered envoy had

been exposed to the insults of the inhabitants. The buildings were

therefore blown up with gunpowder, the design being to allow the work

of destruction to extend no further. But it was impossible to restrain

the troops. "The cry went forth that Cabul was given up to plunder.

Both camps," wrote Major Rawlinson, "rushed into the city, and the

consequence has been the almost total destruction of most parts of the

town, except the Gholom Khana quarter and the Bala Hissar. Numbers of

people--about 4,000 or 5,000--had returned to Cabul, relying on our

promises of protection, rendered confident by the comparative immunity

they had enjoyed during the early part of our sojourn here, and by the

appearance ostentatiously put forth of an Afghan Government. They had

many of them re-opened their shops. These people have been now reduced

to utter ruin; their goods have been plundered, and the houses burnt

over their heads. The Hindoos in particular, whose numbers amount to

some 500 families, have lost everything they possessed, and they will

have to beg their way to India in the rear of our columns." Meanwhile

General Nott had retaken Ghuznee.

Having thus accomplished their mission, the two armies returned in

triumph to India. Lord Ellenborough was delighted, though he only

thwarted his generals. He was now at Simla, in the very house whence

his predecessor had issued his proclamation for the restoration of

Shah Sujah, which had been the cause of all our disasters. On the 1st

of October, the anniversary of the day when, two years before, he had

reversed the policy of Lord Auckland, he issued a proclamation from

the same room. It is a well-written State paper, ably reviewing the

situation of Indian affairs and clearly announcing the future policy

of our Indian Government. It is historically important, and deserves

to be permanently recorded in the history of England:--"The Government

of India directed its army to pass the Indus, in order to expel from

Afghanistan a chief believed to be hostile to British interests, and to

replace upon his throne a Sovereign represented to be friendly to those

interests and popular with his former subjects. The chief believed

to be hostile became a prisoner, and the Sovereign represented to be

popular was replaced upon his throne; but after events which brought

into question his fidelity to the Government by which he was restored,

he lost by the hands of an assassin the throne he had only held

amidst insurrections, and his death was preceded and followed by still

existing anarchy.[4] Disasters unparalleled in their extent, unless

by the errors in which they originated, and by the treachery by which

they were completed, have in one short campaign been avenged upon every

scene of past misfortune; and repeated victories in the field, and the

capture of the cities and citadels of Ghuznee and Cabul, have again

attached the opinion of invincibility to the British arms. The British

armies in possession of Afghanistan will now be withdrawn to the

Sutlej. The Governor-General will leave it to the Afghans themselves

to create a government, amidst the anarchy which is the consequence of

their crimes. To force the Sovereign upon a reluctant people would be

as inconsistent with the policy as it is with the principles of the

British Government, tending to place the arms and resources of that

people at the disposal of the first invader, and to impose the burden

of supporting a Sovereign without the prospect of benefit from his

alliance. The Governor-General will willingly recognise any Government

approved by the Afghans themselves, which shall appear desirous and

capable of maintaining friendly relations with neighbouring States.

Content with the limits Nature appears to have assigned to its

empire, the Government of India will devote all its efforts to the

establishment and maintenance of general peace, to the protection

of the sovereigns and chiefs, its allies, and to the prosperity and

happiness of its own faithful subjects."

Had Lord Ellenborough rested satisfied with this proclamation, all

would have been well; but he issued another proclamation which at

once shocked the religious feelings of the people of England by

its profanity, and covered him with ridicule by its absurdity. He

meant it to be a great stroke of policy; but it was simply a foolish

and gratuitous concession to an idolatrous priesthood, while it

exasperated the pride and fanaticism of the Mahometans. This was

the celebrated Somnath Proclamation. Its authenticity was at first

gravely doubted in India, but when, at length, it was placed beyond

doubt, there was an outburst of censure and ridicule such as never

before overwhelmed a Governor-General of India. "My brothers and my

friends," it ran, "Our victorious army bears the gates of the Temple

of Somnath in triumph from Afghanistan, and the despoiled tomb of

Sultan Mahomed looks upon the ruins of Ghuznee. The insult of 800

years is at last avenged. The gates of the Temple of Somnath, so long

the memorial of your humiliation, are become the proudest record of

your national glory, the proof of your superiority in arms over the

nations beyond the Indus. To you, princes and chiefs of Sirhind, of

Rajwarra, of Malwa, and of Guzerat, I shall commit this glorious

trophy of successful war. You will yourselves, with all honour,

transmit the gates of sandal wood through your respective territories

to the restored Temple of Somnath." One might have supposed that the

princes, chiefs, and people of India thus addressed by the supreme

representative of a Christian nation were all pure Hindoos; and that

the temple from which the gates had been carried away, 800 years

before, was still in their possession; whereas it was in ruins, and the

sacred ground on which it stood was trodden by Mahometans. Even if the

temple had been standing and occupied by the ancient idols, the Hindoo

priests would have regarded the gates as polluted by being so long in

the possession of unbelievers. Viewed as the reversal of a national

humiliation the act was equally absurd. It could be no gratification to

a subjugated race to have restored to them by a foreign Power a trophy

that had been carried away 800 years before. Worst of all, the gates

were discovered to be spurious copies of the originals. The Temple of

Somnath was never restored, and the gates were consigned to an armoury.

[Illustration: WHITEHALL GARDENS, LONDON.]

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 3: Hungered.]

[Footnote 4: Shah Sujah had been murdered shortly after the

commencement of the British retreat.]

CHAPTER XVI.

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (_continued_).

Opening of 1843--Assassination of Drummond--The _Quarterly_ on

the League--Scene between Peel and Cobden--Mr. Villiers's Annual

Motion--Peel's Free Trade Admissions--Progress of the League

Agitation--Activity of its Press--Important Accessions--Invasion of

the County Constituencies--The Free Traders in Parliament--Disraeli

attacks Peel--Lord John Russell's Attitude--Debate on Mr.

Villiers's Motion--Mr. Goulburn's Budget--The Sugar Duties--Defeat

of the Government--Peel obtains a Reconsideration of the

Vote--Disraeli's Sarcasms--The Anti-League League--Supposed Decline

of Cobdenism--The Session of 1845--The Budget--Breach between Peel

and his Party--The Potato Disease--The Cabinet Council--Memorandum

of November 6--Dissent of Peel's Colleagues--Peel's Explanation

of his Motives--Lord Stanley's Expostulation--Announcement in the

_Times_--The Edinburgh Letter--Resignation of the Ministry--Russell

Fails to Form a Government--Return of Peel--Parliament

meets--Debates on the Queen's Speech--Peel's general Statement--Mr.

Bright's Eulogium--The Corn Bill passes the Commons and the

Lords--Defeat of Sir Robert Peel--Some scattered Facts of his

Administration.

The year 1843 opened amid gloom and depression. The newspapers

published the fact that the revenue for the quarter ending on the

5th of January, as compared with the corresponding quarter of the

previous year, had decreased no less than £940,062, occasioned mainly

by diminished consumption of articles used by the industrial classes

of the community; and the _Times_ remarked, "It appears to us very

clear, whatever our Free Trade friends may say, that any alteration

which may be made in the Corn Laws ought not to be made irrespective

of financial considerations: we cannot at these times afford to throw

away revenue." In the same paper appeared a statement that flour was 30

per cent. dearer in London than in Paris. The Queen opened Parliament

on the 2nd of February, and the Speech delivered from the Throne

regretted the diminished receipts from some of the ordinary sources

of revenue, and feared that it must, in part, be attributed to the

reduced consumption of many articles caused by that depression of the

manufacturing industry of the country which had so long prevailed, and

which her Majesty had so deeply lamented. But it suggested no measure

of relief for the people.

A debate which took place shortly afterwards was characterised by a

memorable scene. In the month of January, 1843, Mr. Edward Drummond,

the private secretary of Sir Robert Peel, had been shot in the street

at Charing Cross, by an assassin, named M'Naughten. The unfortunate

gentleman died of the wound, and the wildest rumours agitated the town

as to the motive which had prompted the deed. Many asserted that it

was a political one. M'Naughten had been seen loitering in Whitehall

Gardens, and had followed his victim from Sir Robert Peel's residence

in that locality. It was at once rumoured that the Prime Minister was

the intended victim. M'Naughten had come from Glasgow, and it was said

that when the Queen was in Scotland Sir Robert Peel invariably rode in

the royal carriage, and Mr. Drummond in Sir Robert's own carriage. If

this were true, it was remarked, the assassin's confidence would have

been complete when he saw Mr. Drummond actually leave the house of Sir

Robert Peel. Although the assassin was afterwards proved to be insane,

the fact, coupled with the political excitement of the time, made a

painful impression upon the minds of public men.

In the eyes of the Conservatives the League was now the great cause

of the political ferment that had spread throughout the land. In the

_Quarterly Review_ for December a long and elaborate indictment had

been published against that body, and all who were in any way connected

with them, in which it was attempted to show that the means by which

the League sought to attain their objects were of the worst kind. The

writer of the article hinted that the League's system of levying money

for the avowed purpose of forcing Parliament to alter the law of the

land was criminally punishable. A Mr. Bailey had stated, at one of

the League meetings, that he had heard of a gentleman who, in private

company, had said that if one hundred persons cast lots, and the lot

should fall upon him, he would take the lot to deprive Sir Robert Peel

of life. The teller of this injudicious anecdote added, that "he felt

convinced that no such attempt ought to be made under any pretence

whatever; but he was persuaded of this, that when Sir Robert Peel went

to his grave there would be but few to shed one tear over it." The

speaker was a minister of the Gospel, and there could be no doubt that

he intended his anecdote only as an illustration of the frenzy to which

some persons had been wrought by the political circumstances of the

time; but this fact circulated by the great Tory organs, together with

all the most violent and excited passages which could be found in the

innumerable speeches delivered at League meetings, and in the pamphlets

and other publications of that body, tended to create a vague horror of

the Leaguers in the minds of that large class who read only writers on

that side which accords with their own views.

When the rumours of Mr. Drummond having been mistaken for Sir Robert

Peel were spread abroad, it was impossible for zealous Conservatives

to forget these things. If the assassin M'Naughten was mad, he was

certainly mad about politics; one of the first utterances of his

insane ravings when captured having been directed against the Tories

of Glasgow. One witness, indeed, swore that on his being asked if he

knew the gentleman shot at, M'Naughten replied, "It is Sir Robert

Peel, is it not?" The Minister's life was not considered safe, and

for some time two policemen in plain clothes followed him about in

the street wherever he went. On the 17th of February, the fifth night

of a debate in the Commons on the distress of the country, Mr. Cobden

rose to speak, and in the course of his address alluded to an attempt

made to identify the members of the Anti-Corn-Law League with a most

odious, a most horrible transaction which had lately occurred; but in

the conclusion of his speech, he said, "I tell the right honourable

gentleman [Sir Robert Peel] that I, for one, care nothing for Whigs or

Tories. I have said that I never will help to bring back the Whigs,

but I tell him that the whole responsibility of the lamentable and

dangerous state of the country rests with him." No outcry at these

words, even among the Ministerial party, evinced that the House

regarded them as overstepping the proper limits of debate. Loud cries

for Mr. Bankes, the Dorsetshire landowner, who had been attacked in

Mr. Cobden's speech, were the only party sounds uttered, but the Prime

Minister was immediately seen to rise. It has been stated that he was

"ill and harassed with public anxieties." He was certainly deeply

moved by the loss of his valued and confidential friend, Mr. Drummond.

His countenance, it is said, indicated extreme agitation, while by

gesticulating, and violently striking an empty box before him, he

succeeded in obtaining the ear of the House. It was then that his

audience perceived that the Minister regarded Mr. Cobden as pointing

him out for the hand of the assassin.

Sir Robert Peel began by saying, "Sir, the honourable gentleman has

stated here very emphatically, what he has more than once stated

at the conferences of the Anti-Corn-Law League, that he holds me

individually responsible for the distress and suffering of the country;

that he holds me personally responsible." This was pronounced with

great solemnity of manner, and at the word "individually" the Premier

was interrupted by a loud cheer from the Ministerial benches of a

very peculiar and emphatic kind. Sir Robert then continued, "Be the

consequences of those insinuations what they may, never will I be

influenced by menaces to adopt a course which I consider----" But the

rest of the sentence was lost in renewed shouts from the Ministerial

benches. Mr. Cobden immediately rose and said, "I did not say that I

held the right honourable gentleman personally responsible;" but he

was interrupted by shouts from the Ministerial benches of, "You did,

you did!" mingled with cries of "Order!" and "Chair!" The further

remark from Mr. Cobden, "I have said that I hold the right honourable

gentleman responsible by virtue of his office, as the whole context of

what I said was sufficient to explain," brought renewed shouts from

the same quarter of "No, no," accompanied by great confusion. When

Sir Robert, says a newspaper of the day, gave the signal for this new

light, then, and not till then, the sense so obtained burst forth with

a frantic yell, which would better have befitted a company of savages

who first saw and scented their victim, than a grave and dignified

assembly insulted by conduct deemed deserving of condemnation. Sir

Robert afterwards so far recovered from his excitement as to say, "I

will not overstate anything. Therefore I will not say I am certain

the honourable gentleman used the word 'personally';" but the debate

created a painful impression, which was increased by an article in

the _Times_ of the following day, deliberately attempting to connect

Mr. Cobden with the doctrine of assassination. The friends of the

Anti-Corn-Law movement, however, immediately held meetings throughout

the country, at which they expressed their indignation at the attempt

to fix a calumny upon the man whose arguments in favour of Free Trade

in food were unanswered and unanswerable.

Mr. Villiers's motion was again brought forward on the 9th of May.

The debate lasted for five nights, and ended in a division which,

though it showed a majority of 256 against inquiry, was encouraging as

evidencing an increase in the number of the Free Traders. The minority

numbered 125. The debate was chiefly remarkable for the violence of the

monopolist party. Sir Robert Peel said that the subject was exhausted,

and nothing new could be adduced. "The motion of Mr. Villiers was

fairly stated and proposed--there was no subterfuge involved in it.

But he thought that the principle must be applied generally and

universally to every article on which a duty was levied. They could

not stand on the single article of corn. By the adoption of the motion

they would sound the knell of Protection, and they must immediately

proceed to apply the principle to practice. This would at once upset

the commercial arrangements of the last year. The whole of our colonial

system must be swept away without favour and without consideration."

A contemporary writer describes the uproar which took place on this

occasion as exceeding anything that had been witnessed since the night

of the memorable division on the Corn Bill. The minority, it is said,

were aware that the remaining speeches, even if delivered, could not

be reported, and for that and other reasons were in their resolves

so resolute, that although outvoted in some divisions, the question

was just as often removed and seconded. At length Mr. Ross told Lord

Dungannon, that if he were contented to sit till eight o'clock, he

himself, and those who acted with him, would willingly sit till nine;

and it was at this stage that Sir Charles Napier slyly suggested that

they should divide themselves into three watches, after the fashion of

a ship's crew. This arrangement would afford ease to all, excepting the

Speaker, to whom he was sorry he could not afford the slightest relief.

Worn out at length by the violence of their exertions, and despairing

of victory, the majority yielded.

To the Anti-Corn-Law Leaguers there was at least the consolation of

finding that scarcely a speech was delivered by the Prime Minister

which did not contain some distinct recognition of the great principles

of political economy, showing how completely he had, in reality,

embraced those doctrines. On one occasion he remarked, "We have

reserved many articles from immediate reduction, in the hope that

ere long we may attain that which we consider just and beneficial

to all--namely, increased facilities for our exports in return. At

the same time, I am bound to say that it is for our interest to buy

cheap, whether other countries will buy cheap or no. We have a right to

exhaust all means to induce them to do justice; but if they persevere

in refusing, the penalty is on us if we do not buy in the cheapest

market." Several of the most conspicuous followers of Sir Robert Peel

also in their speeches recognised the abstract principles of Free

Trade in a way which was ominous for the continuance of the landlords'

monopoly. Among the most interesting instances of this was that of Mr.

Gladstone, the young statesman who was destined afterwards to play so

great a part in carrying forward the reforms of his chief.

The Minister still claimed the character of the landowner's friend;

and in the House of Commons, out of 658 members, 125 was the utmost

number that could be considered as Free Traders. But the progress of

the League agitation this year was immense. Five years had elapsed

since the Anti-Corn-Law Association in Manchester had put forth its

humble appeal for five-shilling subscriptions, and now in one single

year £50,000 had been given for the objects of the Association, and

it was resolved to raise a further fund of £100,000. Mr. Bright had

been returned for Durham in July, and already his touching appeals

for justice for the people had struck the ear of the House. Like his

fellow-labourers, Cobden, Colonel Thompson, George Wilson, W. J. Fox,

M.P., and others, he had been busy in all parts of England, addressing

audiences sometimes of 10,000 persons. The League speakers had also

visited Scotland, and had been everywhere received enthusiastically.

The great Free Trade Hall in Manchester was finished, and had been the

scene of numerous gatherings and Free Trade banquets, at which 7,000

or 8,000 persons had sometimes sat down together. The metropolis,

however, was still behind the great provincial cities in supporting

the movement; and the League, therefore, resolved on holding a series

of great meetings in Drury Lane Theatre, which was engaged for one

night a week during Lent. The first of these important meetings was

held on the 15th of March, and was attended by so large a number of

persons that the pit, boxes, and even the higher gallery were filled

immediately upon the opening of the doors. The succeeding meetings

were no less crowded and enthusiastic. Attempts were made to obstruct

these meetings, but without success. The use of Drury Lane Theatre had

soon to be relinquished, the Earl of Glengall and the committee of

shareholders having prohibited Mr. Macready, the lessee, from letting

it for political purposes. The League were, in like manner, refused

admittance to Exeter Hall; but they were soon enabled to obtain the use

of Covent Garden Theatre, where they quickly prepared for a series of

great meetings, which proved to be no less crowded and enthusiastic.

In the report prepared by the League it was stated that during a

very considerable portion of the year there were employed in the

printing, and making up of the electoral packets of tracts, upwards

of 300 persons, while more than 500 other persons were employed in

distributing them from house to house among the constituencies. To the

Parliamentary electors alone of England and Scotland there had been

distributed in this manner, of tracts and stamped publications, five

millions. Besides these, there had been a large general distribution

among the working classes and others, who are not electors, to the

number of 3,600,000. In addition, 426,000 tracts had been stitched

up with the monthly magazines and other periodicals, thus making

altogether the whole number of tracts and stamped publications issued

by the council during the year to amount to upwards of nine millions,

or in weight more than one hundred tons. The distribution had been made

in twenty-four counties containing about 237,000 electors, and in 187

boroughs containing 259,226 electors, making in boroughs and counties

together the whole number of electors supplied 496,226. The labours of

the lecturers employed during the year had been spread over fifty-nine

counties in England, Wales, and Scotland, and they had delivered about

650 lectures during the year. A large number of meetings had been held

during the year in the cities and boroughs, which had been attended by

deputations of members of the council, exclusive of the metropolis.

One hundred and forty towns had been thus visited, many of them twice

and three times; and the report further stated that such had been the

feeling existing in all parts of the kingdom that there was scarcely a

town which had not urged its claim to be visited by a deputation from

the council of the League.

The Covent Garden meeting became thenceforth an annual feature in the

political events of the metropolis, and the effects of this movement

in the chief city of the kingdom were seen in the election of Mr.

Pattison, the Free Trade candidate, for the City of London. Another

sign of the times was the accession to the ranks of the Anti-Corn-Law

League of Mr. Samuel Jones Loyd, the wealthy banker, a conspicuous

City man, and a great authority on financial matters. This gentleman

addressed a letter to the council of the League in October, 1844,

in which, after mentioning his reluctance to join a public body,

for whose acts he could not be responsible, he said, "The time is

now arrived when this must be overruled by other considerations of

overwhelming importance. The great question of Free Trade is now

fairly at issue, and the bold, manly, and effectual efforts which have

been made by the League in its support command at once my admiration

and my concurrence." Still more remarkable was the progress of the

League in its scheme of converting the agriculturists themselves to

their views. The truths which they had always maintained--that the

tenant farmer had no real interest in maintaining the Corn Laws, the

agricultural labourer, if possible, less, and that even the landed

proprietor, on a far-seeing view of his interest, would be on the

same side as themselves--were based upon arguments easily understood

by calm reasoners, and were even beginning to make way with these

classes themselves. Not a few great landowners and noblemen had openly

classed themselves among their supporters. Foremost among these was

Earl Fitzwilliam, who was one of the most effective speakers at

Anti-Corn-Law meetings by the side of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright.

Among the noblemen openly supporting their cause were the Marquis

of Westminster, Lord Kinnaird, Earl Ducie, the Earl of Radnor, Lord

Morpeth, and Earl Spencer.

[Illustration: CAPT. THOMAS DRUMMOND, UNDER-SECRETARY FOR IRELAND.]

But the League did more than attempt to convert the country party. They

determined to create a country party of their own. They had already

taken up the registration of voters in the boroughs, from which they

proceeded, with that practical common sense which had distinguished

nearly all their movements, to inquire into the position of the country

constituencies, where hitherto the landowners had held undisputed sway.

The scheme which resulted from this incursion into the dominions of

the enemy was developed by Mr. Cobden at a meeting in the Free Trade

Hall, Manchester, on the 24th of October, 1844. The Chandos clause in

the Reform Act, giving the tenant-farmers votes for county members, had

so strengthened the landlords' influence in the county that opposition

at most of the county elections was hopeless. But Mr. Cobden showed

his hearers that the counties were really more vulnerable than the

small pocket boroughs. In many of these there was no increase from year

to year in the number of voters--no extension of houses. The whole

property belonged to a neighbouring noble, and as Mr. Cobden said, "You

could no more touch the votes which he held through the property than

you could touch the balance in his banker's hands." But the county

constituency might be increased indefinitely, for there it required

but a freehold property of the value of forty shillings a year to give

a man a vote. This sum had been adopted from an ancient regulation,

when money was of far greater value, and land of far less money worth

than it was then; but the forty-shilling qualification existed, and was

a powerful engine for the creation of voters. Up to that time it had

had but little effect. The laws of England, but more especially the

habits and prejudices of landowners, had always kept the land of the

county in so few hands as to present an extraordinary contrast with the

condition of things in all other nations of Europe. The danger of the

forty-shilling clause to aristocratic influence in the county was not

perceived, simply because forty-shilling freeholders were rare. But

there was no reason why they should be rare. The passion for possessing

freehold land was widely spread, and a few facilities offered for

purchasing it would soon create a large number of small holders. The

chief difficulty in the way of this had hitherto been the great cost

of transferring land. Owing to the complicated laws of real property,

the land, unlike other articles, could only be bought and sold after

a minute investigation into the owner's title, which necessitated an

historical account of the ownership extending back over many years. All

this, however, the League could easily obviate. They could buy land

in the lump, register its title once for all, and part it into small

pieces for small buyers. "This," remarked Mr. Cobden, "must be done,"

and it was done. The Conservative party sneered at the Manchester man's

proposition of serving land over a counter, like calico, by the yard;

but the movement soon began to tell upon elections, and to alarm the

great landed proprietors.

The year 1844 brought little progress to the Free Traders in

Parliament. The members of the House of Commons had been elected in

1841, in the teeth of the Free Trade cry raised by the Whigs, and

before the League had made its power felt in the elections. Unless the

Minister were compelled to dissolve Parliament, they were irremovable

for four years longer, and could safely wait. Parliament met on the

1st of February. The Queen's Speech congratulated the country on the

improved condition of the trade and manufactures of the country,

and the increased demand for labour, from which it was easily

prognosticated that no further concessions were intended that Session.

Sir Robert Peel declared that the Government "did not contemplate

and had never contemplated any change in the existing Corn Laws." At

recent public meetings influential members of the Tory party had openly

threatened the Minister with expulsion unless he maintained those laws

for their benefit--a fact which drew from Mr. Villiers the remark that

he regretted that the Prime Minister had not "the spirit to turn round

upon these people, and show them their utter helplessness without him,

their utter inability to administer, without him, the government upon

their own system." Indeed, it began now to be assumed by all persons

favourable to Free Trade that the Minister's opinions were really far

in advance of his own party, and that he needed only a favourable

opportunity to declare himself openly at variance with their views. The

great meetings at Covent Garden Theatre, immediately before the opening

of Parliament, kept the subject before the public.

On the 11th of March the Earl of Radnor presented a petition adopted

at a great meeting of inhabitants of the county of Somerset, which

led to a long debate, in the course of which the Duke of Wellington

earnestly recommended their lordships to leave the Corn Law as it

was, and to continue to maintain the system which it was the object

of that law to carry into effect; and the Duke of Richmond declared

that he was surprised that any doubt could exist that "the farmers

were, almost to a man, hostile to the delusions of Free Trade." On the

following evening Mr. Cobden brought forward a motion to inquire into

the effects of protective duties on the interests of the tenant-farmers

and labourers of the country, promising that he would not bring

forward a single witness who should not be a tenant-farmer or a landed

proprietor; but the debate concluded with a division which negatived

the motion by 244 votes to 153.

On the 17th of March, a few nights after Mr. Cobden's motion, Mr.

Miles brought forward a motion for relief to the agricultural interest

in the reduction or remission of taxation. He complained that there

had been an importation of wheat during the last thirty-two months

seven or eight times greater in amount than in the thirty-six months

immediately subsequent to the introduction of the Corn Law of 1828.

The abundance of meat in Leadenhall, Smithfield, and Newgate Markets,

through the importation of foreign cattle, was also made a subject of

reproach against the Ministry, and he told the House, as the spokesman

of the agricultural party, "that they had no confidence in the measures

which the Government proposed." They thought that anything would be

better than their present position. They saw that the tariff which was

passed three years ago was now going to be revised again, and that the

shield of protection which was thrown over some of the productions of

their industry was about to be removed still farther from them. In such

circumstances they could not refrain from asking themselves what there

was to prevent the Corn Laws from going next? Mr. Disraeli then, in a

strain of sarcasm which is stated to have elicited cheers and laughter

from the House, assailed the consistency of the Premier, and the tone

in which he rebuked the mutinous and rebellious members of his party.

He believed, he said, Protection to be in the same condition now as

Protestantism had been in 1828, and he, who honoured genius, would

rather see the abolition of all Protection proposed by Mr. Cobden

than by any right honourable gentleman or by any noble lord on either

side of the House. It might be necessary, before such an abolition

was accomplished, for the Premier to dissolve the Parliament for the

benefit of the party which he had betrayed, and to appeal to the

country, which universally mistrusted him. His solemn and deliberate

conviction was that a Conservative Government was an organised

hypocrisy.

Progress was again shown in a speech of Lord John Russell in the debate

on the condition of the people on the 26th of May. Still clinging to

his idea of a fixed duty, he said, "If I had a proposition to make, it

would not be the 8s. duty which was proposed in 1841." An exclamation

of "How much, then?" from Sir James Graham drew forth the further

remark--"No one, I suppose, would propose any duty that would be less

than 4s.; and 4s., 5s., or 6s., if I had a proposition to make, would

be the duty that I should propose." The awkward anomalies of Sir

Robert Peel's position were the frequent subject of the attacks of his

enemies at this time; but the country felt that there was a littleness

in the Whig leader's paltry and vacillating style of dealing with a

great question, beside which, at least, the position of the Minister

exhibited a favourable contrast.

Mr. Villiers's annual motion, brought forward on the 25th of June, was

scarcely more successful than that of Mr. Cobden. Lord John Russell

still harped upon his fixed idea of a fixed duty. In his view the

country suffered not from the Corn Law, but only from the form in which

it was administered. He said he was not prepared to say either that

the Corn Law should be at once abolished, or that the existing law

should be maintained. While such was the feeble policy of the leader

of that Whig party which had set up a claim to a sort of monopoly of

Free Trade principles, it was no wonder that the country began to look

for relief to the Minister who had introduced the tariff of 1842;

but Sir Robert Peel as yet moved too slowly to rouse the enthusiasm

in his favour of the Anti-Corn-Law League. "There were not," he

remarked, "ten reflecting men out of the Anti-Corn-Law League, who did

not believe that a sudden withdrawal of protection, whether it were

given to domestic or colonial produce, would cause great confusion

and embarrassment. In the artificial state of society in which we

lived we could not act on mere abstract philosophical maxims, which,

isolated, he could not contest; they must look to the circumstances

under which we have grown up, and the interests involved. Ireland,

dependent on England for a market for her agricultural produce, was

a case in point. He was not prepared to alter the Corn Law of 1842,

and did not contemplate it. Seeing that Lord John Russell had avowed

himself a consistent friend to Protection, and was opposed to total

repeal, he thought he was somewhat squeamish in flying from his

difficulty, and declining to vote against the motion. As to the Corn

Law, the Government did not intend to alter it, or diminish the amount

of protection afforded to agriculture." On the division the numbers

for the motion were 124, and against it, 330. On the whole, the cause

of Free Trade made but small progress in Parliament in this year,

though out of doors the agitation was carried on with ever-increasing

vigour. As regards Mr. Villiers's motion, the progress made was shown

principally in the decrease of the majority against it. In 1842, when

he first put the question of total repeal on issue before the House, he

had 92 votes, and 395 against him; in 1843 he had 125 votes, and 381

against him; in 1844, 124 votes, and 330 against him.

Mr. Goulburn's financial statement was made on the 8th of May, 1844.

It comprised some small reductions of taxation, and the foretaste of

an important modification of the sugar duties. As a money account it

was encouraging, and showed some progress in diminishing the disastrous

effects of Whig finance. The past financial year had witnessed a gross

surplus of revenue over expenditure of more than £4,000,000; or, after

paying the deficiency of the previous year, £2,400,000; and after

making other deductions there was, for the first time for many years,

an available surplus, amounting to £1,400,000. The anticipated good

effects of relieving industry from burdensome taxes had been more than

realised. The estimate of the revenue had actually been exceeded by

£2,700,000. The Budget, therefore, fully justified the policy of 1842;

but the Chancellor of the Exchequer ventured only on a small and timid

extension of the principles then laid down, with the reduction or

abolition of duty on flint-glass, currants, wool, and some other minor

matters. The abolition of the wool duty provoked new hostility to the

impolitic duty on cotton. The concession to Free Trade principles was

small; but the movement was kept up, and there was at least no sign of

reaction.

Although announced with the Budget, the proposed change in the sugar

duties formed a separate and more momentous question. At that time,

strictly foreign sugar was virtually prohibited by the excessive

differential duties--British plantation sugar paying a duty of 25s.

3d. per cwt., foreign, of 66s. 2d. When the Whig Administration had

proposed to diminish this enormous difference, the Tories had pleaded

the injustice to the West India landlords of taking away their slaves,

and then exposing them to competition with countries still possessing

slave labour. The question had thus become one of party. The Whigs were

pledged to consult the interests of the British consumer; the Tories

to protect the West Indies; and beating the Whigs on this very point,

the Tories had turned them out of office. The British consumer had,

however, happily some voice in the elections, and the problem was now

to conciliate him without a glaring breach of consistency. Accordingly,

the tax on our colonial sugar was to be left untouched, as was the tax

on foreign sugar, the growth of slave countries; but henceforth it was

proposed that the duty on foreign sugar, the produce of free labour,

should pay only 10s. more than colonial. Thus was the first great blow

struck at the protective sugar duties, and at that West Indian party

which had so long prevailed in Parliament over the interests of the

people. But the battle had yet to be fought.

The West India interest in the City held great meetings, and instructed

their Parliamentary representatives for the coming contest. The Free

Traders argued that the Government proposition was simply that the West

India proprietors should receive 10s. per cwt. more for the sugar they

sent here than the growers in any other part of the world could get.

This was equivalent to a tax of £2,000,000 upon the people of Britain,

because the West India landlords were alleged to be in distress, and

could not cultivate their estates. It was, indeed, the old question of

protection for the landed interest on the ground of peculiar burdens.

The white population of the West Indies amounted only to about a tenth

of the whole; and it was admitted that the free coloured people,

forming the bulk of the community, had no interest in the proposed

monopoly. Moreover, it had been shown by repeated experiment that these

differential duties always defeated their own objects. The slave-grown

sugar was simply exported first to the free country, and then to

Britain--the British people paying in the enhanced cost of the article

all the cost of this circuitous mode of supply.