CHAPTER LI.

{VICTORIA. 1840—1841}

Meeting of Parliament: Announcement of the Queen’s Marriage..... Bill for the Naturalization of Prince Albert..... The Civil List..... Question of Privilege: Hansard and Stockdale..... Affairs of China..... Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, &c. Financial Statement..... The Union of the Canadas..... Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill..... The Regency Bill..... Prorogation of Parliament..... Affairs of British India..... The Marriage of the Queen..... State of the Continent.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.—ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUEEN’S MARRIAGE.

{A.D. 1840}

Parliament was opened on the 16th of January by her majesty in person. The opening of her majesty’s speech was one of great interest. It read thus:—“My lords and gentlemen—Since you have last assembled, I have declared my intention of allying myself in marriage with the Prince of Saxe Cobourg and Gotha. I humbly implore that the divine blessing may prosper this union, rendering it conducive to the interests of my people, as well as my own domestic happiness; and it will be to me a source of the most lively satisfaction, to find the resolution I have taken approved of by parliament. The constant proofs I have received of your attachment to my person and family, persuade me that you will enable me to provide for such an establishment as may appear suitable to the rank of the prince, and the dignity of the crown.” In continuance, her majesty congratulated parliament on the termination of civil war in Spain; expressed a hope that the five powers would be able to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman empire, and the peace of Europe; and referred to the success of the European and native troops in India with great satisfaction. Her majesty also declared her confident hope of adjusting our difference with the court of Persia; and intimated that serious attention had been given to her commercial relations with China. In conclusion, her majesty recommended to the early consideration of parliament two important measures relating to our home policy: namely, the state of the municipal corporations in Ireland, and the measures suggested by the ecclesiastical commissioners with respect to the church establishment in this country. In the lords the address was moved by the Duke of Somerset, and seconded by Lord Seaford. The Duke of Wellington fully concurred in the expression of congratulation to her majesty upon the alliance which had been announced to the country. But, his grace continued, every precedent of the reign of George III. had been followed in this matter except one, and that was the declaration that this prince was a Protestant. He knew the prince was a Protestant; but as this was a Protestant state, the fact that the prince was a Protestant should have been officially declared. The house of lords could not omit this; and therefore he moved the insertion of the word Protestant before the word prince, in the first paragraph of the address. Lord Melbourne said that he considered the amendment superfluous. The act of settlement required that the prince should be a Protestant, and it was not likely that ministers would advise her majesty to break through the act of settlement. All the world knew that Prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg was a Protestant, and that he was descended from the most emphatically Protestant house in Europe. Lord Winchilsea did not regard the insertion of the word Protestant as unnecessary. Near and dear relations of the prince had become Roman Catholics, and the husband of the Queen of Portugal, a first cousin of this very prince, was an avowed Romanist. In the close of his observations, Lord Winchilsea adverted to the alarming state of the country, and censured Lord Melbourne for having recently presented Mr. Owen to the queen—a man who was the notorious advocate of doctrines which struck at the root of all religion and morality. The amendment was agreed to, and the address, as amended, ordered to be presented to her majesty.

In the commons the address was agreed to; and her majesty subsequently replied to the addresses of both houses, expressing satisfaction at their loyalty and affection; thanking them for their support and concurrence in her intended marriage; and assuring them that it would be her endeavour to make her reign conducive to the happiness of all classes of the community.

BILL FOR THE NATURALIZATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.

On the 20th of January, in the house of lords, a bill for naturalizing his serene highness Prince Albert of Saxe Cobourg and Gotha was passed through all its stages. On the second reading, the Duke of Wellington objected that it was not only an act for the naturalization of Prince Albert, but contained also a clause entitling the prince, “for and during the term of his natural life, to take precedence in rank after her majesty, in parliament and elsewhere, as her majesty may think fit and proper; any law, statute, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.” Under these circumstances, his grace moved that the debate be adjourned, as the house had not sufficient notice of the contents of the bill, and as the title of it did not state anything respecting the precedence of the prince. Lord Melbourne replied, that the omission was purely accidental, and, in his opinion, of no importance. At the same time his lordship admitted that this bill differed in form from any other bills, inasmuch as it gave her majesty an ability to bestow on Prince Albert a higher station than that assigned to Prince George of Denmark, or Prince Leopold. But the reason for the difference, he contended, was to be looked for in the relative situation of the parties. The arrangements with regard to the marriage of the Princess Charlotte were temporary; in this act it was intended to raise the prince to a station next to that of the queen; and no opposition had been offered to this course by those peculiarly interested in point of rank. After a few observations from Lords Brougham and Londonderry, the debate was adjourned till the following week, when the lord-chancellor stated that he should propose that power be given to the crown to allow the prince to take precedence next after any heir-apparent to the throne.

Subsequently, however, Lord Melbourne, in moving the committal of the bill, expressed himself so anxious that it should pass with all possible expedition, that he had determined to leave out all relating to precedence, and reduce it to a naturalization bill, as expressed in the title. In that shape the bill passed without further opposition. In the commons the bill was passed without discussion.

THE CIVIL-LIST.

On the 24th of June, after moving that the paragraph in the queen’s speech relative to Prince Albert’s annuity be read, Lord John Russell went into a long detail of precedents of grants to princes and princesses allied to the royal family of England; and concluded by moving “that her majesty be enabled to grant an annual sum of £50,000 out of the consolidated fund, for a provision to Prince Albert, to commence on the day of his marriage with her majesty, and to continue during his life.” The debate was adjourned for a few days, and on its resumption Mr. Hume moved as an amendment, that £21,000 be voted annually to Prince Albert, instead of £50,000. In his opinion, indeed, no grant should be made during her majesty’s lifetime. The chancellor of the exchequer replied to Mr. Hume, and several members spoke in opposition to the grant; after which the house divided, on the amendment, which was lost by a majority of three hundred and five against thirty-eight. Ministers, however, were doomed to be defeated on this question. Colonel Sibthorp had given notice that he would move an amendment that £30,000 should be the extent of the annuity; and on the defeat of Mr. Hume’s motion, the gallant colonel rose to move this amendment. On a division it was carried by a large majority, the numbers being two hundred and sixty-two against one hundred and fifty-eight. This was a great triumph over the ministers, and Colonel Sibthorp was so elated by it, that he endeavoured to follow it up a week or two afterwards by moving for the insertion of a clause in the bill for Prince Albert’s provision, to the effect that the annuity of £30,000 should cease altogether in case his serene highness should reside for a less period than six months consecutively in each year within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or should ally himself in marriage with any foreign princess who should not be a Protestant, or should cease to profess and adhere to the Protestant religion as by law established in these realms. Both Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell contended that such restrictions were inexpedient and inconsistent, and the gallant colonel, finding that there was no chance of success, did not press his motion to a division.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE—HANSARD AND STOCKDALE.

In the year 1835, a bill was proposed in the house of lords, by the Duke of Richmond, for the purpose of appointing inspectors of prisons. In the report of these inspectors, which was printed by Messrs. Hansard, it was stated, that amongst other books in use by the prisoners, one published by John Joseph Stockdale, in 1827, was of the most disgusting nature, the plates being obscene and indecent in the extreme. In 1836, Stockdale brought an action against Messrs. Hansard for the sale of this report, on the ground that the allegation therein contained about the work was a libel. The defendants pleaded two picas: first, “Not guilty;” and, secondly, “That the words complained of in the declaration were true.” The jury gave a verdict for the defendants on the second plea; and in his charge to the jury, Lord Denman said that the fact of the house of commons having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish all their parliamentary reports, is no justification for them, or for any bookseller, who publishes a parliamentary report containing a libel against any man. On the 6th of February, 1837, Messrs. Hansard communicated to the house of commons that legal proceedings had been instituted against them by Stockdale, for the publication of the report, in which he conceived himself to have been libelled. A select committee was then appointed by the house to examine precedents, and report upon the question of its privileges in regard to the publication of reports and other matters. This committee decided in favour of the privilege, which would protect any publication ordered by the house from being made the subject of an action for libel; and the house of commons, on the 30th of May, 1837, passed the following resolutions:—“First, that the power of publishing such of its reports, votes, and proceedings as it shall deem necessary, or conducive to the public interest, is an essential incident to the constitutional freedom of parliament, more especially of this house, as the representative portion of it.—Second, that by the law and privileges of parliament, this house has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges; and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit, or other proceedings, for the purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than a parliament, is a high breach of such privilege, and renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to the punishment consequent thereon.” The action, however, went on; and Messrs. Hansard pleaded to the declaration to the effect that the publication in question was a privileged one, on the ground that it was issued by the authority of the house of commons. This plea was demurred to as insufficient in point of law; and judgment was given by the court against the defendants, and damages afterwards assessed, which were paid over to the plaintiff. On the 31st of July, 1839, Messrs. Hansard again informed the house that similar legal proceedings were threatened against them on behalf of a Mr. Polack on account of some alleged defamatory matter contained in a report of the state of New Zealand, which had been published by order of the house of commons. In this case they were directed by the house not to take any step towards defending the action with which they were threatened; but subsequently Mr. Polack communicated to the house that proceedings had been commenced without his sanction, and that he had no intention of taking any legal steps in the matter. The matter seemed thus set at rest; but on the 26th of August, Stockdale commenced a third action against Messrs. Hansard, for again publishing the same libel; the sale of each copy of the report containing the alleged libel being, in contemplation of law, a fresh publication of it. This was also communicated to the house of commons; and Messrs. Hansard were again directed that the action should not be defended. In consequence of this direction Messrs. Hansard served Stockdale with formal notice of the resolutions of the house of commons; but notwithstanding this, on the 26th of October, Stockdale filed a declaration in the said action, wherein the damages were laid at £50,000. On the 1st of November intercalatory judgment was signed for want of a plea; and then Messrs. Hansard again caused notices against proceeding with the said action, together with fresh copies of the resolutions, to be served upon Stockdale. The action, however, went on; notice was given that a writ of inquiry of damages would be executed before the sheriff of Middlesex on the 12th of November. This writ was executed, when the sheriffs’ jury assessed the damages at £600. Stockdale then applied to the court of Queen’s Bench for a rule to compel the sheriff to return the writ of inquiry. This was ordered; and on the 23rd of November a writ of _fieri facias_ was issued and lodged with the sheriff, who thereupon took possession of the printing-office, premises, and stock in trade of Messrs. Hansard. On the 16th of December, Mr. Winsland, a builder, purchased of the sheriff goods belonging to Messrs. Hansard to the amount of £695. The sheriff, however, had not paid this money into the hands of Stockdale, when, on the 16th of January, the case of Messrs. Hansard was brought before the commons by Lord John Russell, who presented a petition from them, which prayed for such relief, under the circumstances, as the house should deem proper. His lordship said that it was incumbent upon the house to come to a decision upon the question. There was, he continued, many ways in which they might dispose of it. They might act upon their ancient and undoubted right, and vindicate the violation of their privilege by the ancient mode of commitment. That was the most constitutional course, and the one most consistent with the dignity and privileges of the house. Again, the house could, if it thought fit, direct that Messrs. Hansard should plead in all cases of future action, and thereby bring the question of privilege before the courts. They could abandon all their privileges, confining all their papers to a circulation among the members only; or they might proceed, if they thought it necessary to have the papers circulated for general use, to provide for the settlement of the question by a bill brought in for that purpose. But their present position was one which ought not to continue; and he should move that, John Joseph Stockdale, the plaintiff, Thomas Barton Howard, his attorney, William Evans, the sheriff, Mr. Burchell, the deputy under-sheriff, and the bailiff who acted in this case, be called to the bar of the house, and then it would be in the power of the house to adopt that course which, under all circumstances of the case, it might think proper to pursue. After a long discussion, in which Sir. E. Sugden, the attorney-general, and other members took part, this motion was agreed to by a majority of two hundred and eighty-six against one hundred and sixty-seven. On the following clay, January 17th, the order of the clay for taking into consideration the petition of Messrs. Hansard was read, and Lord John Russell moved that John Joseph Stockdale be called to the bar. He was accordingly called in, and placed at the bar, when the attorney-general interrogated him concerning the facts of the different actions against Messrs. Hansard in which he was plaintiff. After examining him, he was ordered to withdraw; when Lord John Russell moved that John Joseph Stockdale, having brought an action against Messrs. Hansard for the publication of a report ordered by this house to be printed, has been guilty of a high contempt and breach of the privileges of the house. Mr. Law proposed as an amendment that Mr. Stockdale be discharged from his attendance at the bar; but, after an animated discussion, the original question was carried by a majority of two hunded and forty-nine against one hundred. Lord John Russell then moved, that John Joseph Stockdale, for the said breach of privilege, be committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, and that the speaker do issue his warrant for the committal. After a brief discussion, this was carried by a large majority; and on the next day the sheriffs and bailiffs were called in, and, after examination, ordered to attend on the following Monday. On that clay, the 20th of January, Lord John Russell said that it became him now to state the precise course which should be taken in the present stage of the proceedings; and, after going at length into the whole question of privilege, he moved, “that it appeared to the house that an execution in the cause of Stockdale v. Hansard had been levied to the amount of £640, by the sale of the property of Messrs. Hansard, in contempt of the privileges of that house; and that such money then remained in the hands of the sheriff for Middlesex.” If that resolution should be carried, he should move further, “that the said sheriff be ordered to refund the said amount forthwith to Messrs. Hansard.” Mr. F. Kelly opposed this motion, and moved, by way of amendment, the following resolutions:—“That, it appearing to this house that an action has been brought against James Hansard and others, for the publication by them, under an order of this house, of certain papers containing libellous matter upon John Joseph Stockdale, and that judgment has been obtained, and execution issued by due course of law against the said James Hansard and others in such action: it is expedient that the said James Hansard and others be indemnified against all costs and damages by them sustained in respect of such action.” This amendment was supported by Sir Edward Sugden, and opposed by Sir Robert Peel and the attorney-general; and, on a division, the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and five against ninety. Subsequently the sheriffs were called in, and committed to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms; and Mr. Howard, the attorney of Stockdale, reprimanded by the speaker at the bar, when he was discharged. The matter, however, was not yet at rest.

On the 27th of January Lord John Russell gave notice that he had received a petition from Messrs. Hansard, stating that a fresh action had been commenced against them by Stockdale, and that a writ of summons had been issued upon them on the 25th of January, by Thomas Burton Howard, as attorney for Stockdale. A motion was carried, ordering the said Thomas Burton Howard, forthwith to attend the house: but it was not till the 6th of February that he could be found, and on that evening he was ordered to be committed to her majesty’s gaol of Newgate. Subsequently, on the 17th of February, Lord John Russell presented another petition from Messrs. Hansard, to the effect, that the fifth action had been renewed against them by Stockdale, for the same cause as before, and praying to be directed as to the course they should pursue. His lordship moved to the effect, that Stockdale, by commencing this fresh action, had been guilty of a contempt of the house, and of a breach of its privileges, and that the sheriffs, under-sheriffs, and others, who should aid in the prosecution of the said action, would be guilty of a contempt of the house, and of a violation of its privileges, and would subject themselves to the severe censure and displeasure of the house. This was carried; and on the following evening Thomas Howard, jun., the attorney in this action, was, on the motion of the attorney-general, committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms. In the meantime several motions had been made for the discharge of the sheriffs from prison, on the plea of ill-health. These had been all negatived; but on the 5th of March, Mr. Sheriff Evans was allowed to be set at liberty, being at the same time directed to attend at the bar of the house on Monday, the 6th of April. On the same evening Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill to give summary protection to persons employed in the publication of parliamentary papers, which was carried by a large majority; and the bill was brought in and read a third time on the 12th of the same month. On the 31st of March the sergeant-at-arms appeared at the bar, and acquainted the house that on Saturday last the assistant-sergeant and four other officers of the house had been served with notice that an action had been commenced against them in the court of Queen’s Bench, at the suit of Thomas Burton Howard. Under the impression that a verdict would certainly be given for the defendants, the attorney-general moved that they should be allowed to appear and defend the action; a motion which, after a few words in opposition by Viscount Howick, was carried by a majority of one hundred and forty against ninety-one. On the 6th April the bill relating to the protection of persons employed in the publication of parliamentary papers was sent up to the lords; and, after making some amendments in committee, the lords passed it and returned it to the commons, who agreed to the amendments; and on the 14th April the royal assent was given to it by commission. On the 15th of April, on the motion of Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Sheriff Evans and Mr. Howard, jun., were discharged. Messrs. Thomas Burton Howard, sen., and Stockdale were still left in Newgate; but, on the 15th of May, on the motion of Mr. T. Duncombe, they were liberated likewise, and thus terminated this much-agitated and important question. In the course of the discussion in the commons the ablest lawyers spoke in favour of the particular privilege of free publication claimed by the house, as essential to the due discharge of its functions as a constituent branch of the legislature; but many of them dissented from the doctrine that it was a breach of their privilege to bring them under the cognizance of a court of law. Above all, they thought that having once submitted the case to the court of Queen’s Bench, by pleading in the action, they were bound to respect the judgment of the court; and if they considered it erroneous, to bring it under the review of a court of error, in the legal and constitutional mode, and not proceed by arbitrary imprisonment against officers who merely acted in their ministerial capacity, and who would have stood exposed to the process of attachment, if they had refused to obey the writs which the court called upon them to execute. Sir William Follett, indeed, broadly stated that the commons were enforcing their privileges in a manner that could not be maintained; that they were assuming powers which the constitution did not give them; and that he was not able to vote for any of the committals which had taken place. He did not deny that the house was the exclusive judge of its own privileges, and that they had the power of committal; but he did not think that if a servant of the house should be questioned for any act done under their orders, that they had a right to deprive the courts of law of their jurisdiction over that servant.

AFFAIRS OF CHINA, ETC.

During the last year a serious collision took place between the Chinese authorities and the British subjects at Canton. This arose out of the contraband traffic in opium. The government of China resolved to put an end to the commerce altogether, and with this view an imperial commissioner arrived at Canton. He resorted at once to decisive measures, by demanding that every particle of opium on board the ships should be at once delivered up to the government to be destroyed; at the same time requiring a bond that the ships would never again dare to introduce that article. In the event of any opium being thereafter brought, the goods were to be confiscated, and the parties were to submit to death. Should the foreigners fail to comply with these requisitions, Commissioner Lin threatened that they would be overwhelmed by numbers and sacrificed. The whole foreign community was thrown into a state of the deepest distress at these demands; and the chief superintendent, Captain Elliot, considered it to be his duty to take his own countrymen under his protection. He issued a circular, requiring the surrender into his hands of all the English opium actually on the coast of China. On the 3rd of April, however, 20,283 chests of opium were delivered over to the commissioner, from the ships which had assembled for that purpose below the Bocca Tigris. Some merchants had been imprisoned by the Chinese authorities; but on the 4th of May leave was given for all to quit Canton with the exception of sixteen individuals, who ultimately took their departure with injunctions never to return. Captain Elliot immediately ordered every subject of her majesty out of the river; but he did not himself remove from Canton until the 25th of May, when the proscribed persons had been released, and there remained no other British subject in jeopardy. When they were out of danger, he immediately wrote to the governor-general, detailing the course of violence and spoliation which had broken up this great trade; and at the same time applied for armed vessels from the Indian station to protect life and property. Later in the year the breach was widened by an affray which took place at Macao, between some English sailors and Chinese villagers, in which, unfortunately, one of the latter was killed. Commissioner Lin demanded of Captain Elliot that the homicide should be given up; but this was refused, and in consequence an edict was issued by Lin prohibiting any provisions or other articles being supplied to the British at Macao. The British superintendent subsequently removed his residence to Hong Kong, off which lay the _Volage_ frigate, commanded by Captain Smith. At the latter end of the year Commissioner Lin issued an edict against the importation of any British goods, in which he ordained that a bond should be required from any vessel entering the port, certifying that it did not contain any British property on board, and consenting to the confiscation of the ship and cargo, if any such should be therein discovered. In his edict, Commissioner Lin gave all foreigners to understand that it was no use to deceive the Chinese; for there were skilful translators and interpreters among them, who would certainly ascertain the country from whence they came. In this state of affairs. Captain Elliot sent a petition to Commissioner Lin,’ entreating for the restoration of the trade with Canton, until he received further advice from England. The commissioner replied by a haughty refusal; enumerating all the offences of which, in the eyes of the “great pure dynasty,” the British had been guilty; and declaring that, until the murderer of the Chinese was given up, there could be no intercourse allowed between the two nations. But notwithstanding this peremptory refusal, a temporary adjustment of the matters in difference so far took place, that Commissioner Lin permitted the commerce of Great Britain to be carried on below the Bocca Tigris until further instructions should be received from England. The high-commissioner still insisted that the captains of all vessels which traded with Canton should sign the required bond; and this was unfortunately consented to by Mr. Warner, master of the ship _Thomas Coutts_. The consequence of this consent was, that Commissioner Lin determined to break off the arrangement concluded, unless the whole British shipping which was re-entering the Bocca Tigris should agree to the same terms: if not, the vessels were again to depart, or be destroyed. Matters now proceeded to extremities; and the Chinese soon received a lesson from British artillery. Finding that the inhabitants of the celestial empire were preparing to attack the fleet, and that Admiral Kwan lay in considerable force near Chuenpee, two English frigates, the _Volage_ and _Hyacinth_, were removed to that neighbourhood. Captain Elliot now prepared another address to Commissioner Lin, and then went on board the _Volage_ frigate. That vessel took up her station, on the 2nd of November, not far below the first battery, where an imposing force of war-junks and fire-vessels was collected. On the 3rd, the Chinese squadron, consisting of twenty-nine sail, anchored close to the British vessels, and their attitude became so menacing that Captain Smith, of the _Volage_, resolved to compel them to return to their former anchorage. A brief action took place, which told with terrible effect on the celestials: one war-junk blew up at a pistol-shot distance from the _Volage_, three were sunk, and several others water-logged. In about half-an-hour Admiral Kwan and his squadron retired in great distress to their former anchorage, no obstruction being offered to their retreat. But notwithstanding their palpable defeat, as the English ships soon after set sail for Macao, the Chinese claimed the victory. But this was only the beginning of their sorrows. At the close of the year the English government determined to send an expedition into the Chinese seas, which should be sufficient to attain all the ends we had in view, and compel the great pure dynasty to acknowledge the principles of international law which were acted upon by all the civilized nations of the earth. This armament, which consisted of eight ships of war with frigates, transports, and steamers, arrived at its place of rendezvous at Singapore, in the month of April of the present year. It was placed under the command of Admiral Elliot; Commodore Sir J. J. Gordon Brewer was next in command, and Major-General Burrell had the command of the military force. Previous to this an edict had been issued, warning all foreign vessels from anchoring near the devoted English ships, lest they should be involved in the destruction preparing for the latter—“lest the gem should be consumed with the common stone.” The first arrival of this armament in the Canton river was her majesty’s ship _Alligator_, Captain Kuper, on the 9th of June. Previous to this the Chinese authorities at Canton had sent a boat-load of poisoned tea, packed in small parcels, to be sold to the English sailors. This boat was captured by Chinese pirates, and her cargo sold to their own countrymen, many of whom died in consequence. A proclamation was issued, by the Chinese authorities, offering rewards to all who should destroy the English, and who should be able to capture an English man-of-war. An attempt was indeed made to burn the British shipping, but this happily failed, and then Sir J. J. Gordon Brewer gave public notice, that on and after the 28th of June, a blockade of the river and port of Canton would be established. The commodore, however, with several ships, sailed northward in the direction of Cliusan, and he was followed on the 28th by Admiral Elliot and Captain Elliot. The Chinese authorities now bestirred themselves vigorously to meet the danger. By a proclamation issued on the 2nd of July, the people were called upon to unite heart and hand with the government in opposing the barbarians. All the proclamations and precautions of the Chinese, however, were vain. On Sunday, the 5th of June, the British captured Chusan: for the first time British cannon wrested from his celestial majesty a portion of his dominions.

The policy of government with reference to the affairs of China was made the subject of a series of condemnatory resolutions in parliament. These were brought forward by Sir James Graham on the 7th of April, who introduced the subject by calling the attention of the house to the magnitude of the interests involved in our relations with China. The right honourable baronet then went into a detailed history of the disputes of which a brief account is given above; and finally concluded by moving, that “it appears to the house, in consideration of the papers relating to China, presented to this house by command of her majesty, that the interruption in our commercial and friendly intercourse with that country, and the hostilities which have since taken place, are mainly to be attributed to the want of foresight and precaution on the part of her majesty’s present advisers in respect to our relations with China; and especially to their neglect to furnish the superintendent at Canton with powers and instructions calculated to provide against the growing evils connected with the contraband traffic in opium, and adapted to the novel and difficult situation in which the superintendent was placed.” Mr. Macauley replied to Sir James Graham; and a long debate ensued, in which the motion was supported by Sir W. Follett, Messrs. Thesiger, Sidney Herbert, W. E. Gladstone, and G. Palmer; and opposed by Sirs George Staunton, S. Lushington, and J. C. Hobhouse, and Messrs. Hawes, C. Buller, and Ward. The debate was closed by powerful speeches from Sir Robert Peel in support of the motion, and Viscount Palmerston against it. On a division the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and seventy-one against two hundred and sixty-two.

THE IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL, ETC.

The second reading of the Irish municipal corporations bill was moved on the 14th of February in the commons by Viscount Morpeth. It was carried by a majority of one hundred and forty-nine against fourteen; and the house, on the 24th of February, went into committee on the bill, when several amendments were proposed and negatived. The bill was read a third time in the commons on the 9th of March; but the second reading was not moved in the lords until the 4th of May. The Earl of Winchilsea moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months, which amendment was supported by the Marquis of Westmeath; but the Duke of Wellington recommended their lordships to vote for the second reading; and, after a few words from Viscount Melbourne, it was carried by a large majority. The house went into committee on the 19th of June, when the Bishop of Exeter delivered a powerful speech against it. Their lordships, however, went into committee, and Lord Lyndhurst proposed several amendments, which were ordered to be printed. On a subsequent evening, Lord Lyndhurst explained the nature of his amendments, and when the house was in committee, he moved and carried an amendment which went to preserve the inchoate rights of freemen, which under this bill were threatened. Several other amendments were agreed to without a division, and some clauses were struck out; and on the 6th of July the bill was recommitted in the house of lords. The third reading was moved by Viscount Duncannon on the 31st July, when Lord Lyndhurst proposed and carried an amendment relating to the recorder of Dublin. He proposed to strike out of the 161st clause, which had reference to the holding of the recorder’s court, these words, “or as the lord-lieutenant shall from time to time think fit to direct.” This proposition was resisted by ministers, but was carried by a majority of sixteen. On the question that the bill do now pass, it was again opposed by the Bishop of Exeter, who predicted that “it would not, and could not come to good;” but it passed, and the bill was, on the 3rd of August, brought down to the commons.

After a brief discussion in the lower house, managers were appointed to conduct a conference with the lords on the subject of their amendments, and the result was more harmonious than heretofore: in some things the commons gave way to the lords, and in others, the lords gave way to the commons; and by this mutual concession, the bill finally received, on the 10th of August, the royal assent.

On the 14th of February Mr. Labouchere moved the second reading of the importation of flour info Ireland bill, which, after some opposition offered by Mr. E. Tennent, was carried by a majority of one hundred and fifty-four against one hundred and two.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT, ETC.

The ministerial budget was brought forward on the 15th day of May. The total income of the year 1840 amounted to £47,685,000, and the total expenditure £49,300,000; leaving a deficiency of £1,457,000. With a view of meeting this deficiency, however, a vote of £1,000,000 of exchequer-bills had been taken, which reduced the balance to £457,000. Mr. Baring calculated the expenditure of the current financial year to be £49,432,000, and the income £46,700,000. To meet the deficiency he proposed to increase the assessed taxes fen per cent.; the customs and excise five per cent.; to lay an additional duty of fourpence per gallon on all spirits, British, colonial, and foreign; and to take a vote of credit of £395,000. He, expected, also, that by a more strict collection of the assessed taxes he should obtain £150,000. His income and expenditure would thus be made equal; but as the increase to be derived from raising the duties would not be available to the full extent this year, he thought it would be necessary to take a vote of credit for £350,000. He concluded by moving resolutions authorizing him to make the proposed additions to the taxes.

THE UNION OF THE CANADAS.

On the 23rd of March Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill for the union of the Canadas. His lordship said, that he had allowed no time to elapse since the arrival of the propositions from the governor-general of Canada, who had taken the greatest pains to ascertain the sentiments of the people in that colony upon the measure he was about to introduce. In his opinion the union would not have been expedient, had it been repugnant to the feelings of the Canadians themselves. “But,” continued his lordship, “the council of Lower Canada have been called together, and have passed resolutions agreeing to the principle of an union, but leaving the details to the imperial parliament. In Upper Canada, the measure has been much discussed, both in the assembly and the legislative council; and, after a full consideration of the whole question, a resolution in favour of the union was passed, unfettered by any restrictions or conditions.” His lordship proceeded to state the nature of the proposed union. With regard to the legislative council and assembly, it was proposed, that, together with the governor, they should form the legislature; and that the crown, or the governor on the part of the crown, should appoint the legislative crown councillors. The nomination of the council was to be for life, the only disqualification being bankruptcy or crime. It was further proposed that the number of representatives sent by Upper and Lower Canada should be equal, with the power of adding members as the population increased. Thirty-nine members were to be allowed to each province, and distributed without any great alteration of the existing boundaries. In Upper Canada, the towns of Kingston, Hamilton, Brockville, London, Niagara, and Cornwall, and in Lower Canada, Montreal, Quebec, and the three Rivers were each to send one member; the rest of the members for each province were to be returned by districts which were to be denominated “counties.” Lord John Russell next entered upon the question relating to the laws, and to the mode in which they were to be enacted. A general power only was to be given to the assembly to enact laws: certain subjects were to be reserved for the assent of the crown, such as those pointed out by the constitutional act of 1791. It was proposed that money-votes should not originate with the assembly; but that a message from the governor, giving the assembly the power of addressing him, should precede any vote on such matters. A permanent appropriation was to be made for the governor and judges, and the civil secretary and all the various expenses connected with the civil establishments were to be voted, either for a period of years, or during the life of the queen. It was also proposed that the duties included in the act introduced by the Earl of Ripon, and collected under the 14th George III., should become part of the crown revenue. His lordship continued to say, that in Upper Canada there was already the form of a municipal government: there were townships and elective offices; and they had likewise districts formed of two or more counties, which were attached to the local courts for the administration of justice: but their powers were limited. He proposed that the power of these municipal councils should be increased, and that they should be enabled to lay a tax of threepence an acre upon all lands. The same authority in local matters was to be granted to the municipal courts in Lower Canada—that of forming districts and settling the boundaries of such districts. His lordship concluded by making some remarks on the clergy reserves, in the course of which he stated that a bill had been passed by the Upper Canada assembly, which proposed that the clergy reserves should be sold, and that one half of the proceeds should be given to the churches of England and Scotland, and that the remaining half should be divided among the clergy of all denominations of Christians recognised by certain acts of the province, such as that of registration. His lordship thought that this bill would give general satisfaction; but Mr. Hume stated that the noble lord was mistaken in supposing that such a bill would settle discontent in Canada. The Canada union bill was read a first and second time without opposition; and on the 29th of May Lord John Russell moved that the house should go into committee on its details. After a few words in opposition from Messrs. Pakington and O’Connell, and in support of it by Messrs. Gladstone and Charles Buller, the house went into committee, and the various clauses of the bill were all agreed to almost unanimously. The third reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and fifty-six against six. In the course of the discussion Sir Robert Peel had suggested that the civil-list should be charged on the consolidated fund of the provinces, and Mr. Ellis had proposed the omission of all the clauses relating to district councils; and on a subsequent evening Lord John Russell intimated that he should adopt those suggestions. On the second reading in the house of lords, on the 30th of June, a considerable discussion took place; but the bill was allowed to go into committee without a division. In committee the Duke of Wellington moved that the commencement of the operation of the act should be postponed to fifteen months, instead of six, after its passing, as proposed by government; and Lord Ellenborough moved a clause to empower the governor and two-thirds of the council to suspend any member guilty of unworthy and disreputable conduct. Both these amendments were agreed to, and the bill afterwards was read a third time. A bill introduced by Lord John Russell for the sale of the Canada clergy reserves also subsequently passed, without much opposition, through both houses of parliament.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES BILL.

During Sir Robert Peel’s administration in 1835 an ecclesiastical commission had been appointed for the purpose of considering what changes could be made in the distribution of the revenues of the church of England with benefit to the establishment and to the community at large. These commissioners had made their report, and her majesty in her speech at the opening of parliament had advised the prosecution of the measures recommended by the commissioners. The plan chiefly consisted in a modification of the constitution of chapters and cathedral colleges, and in the reduction of the expenses of cathedral establishments to a large amount; the saving to be expended in the augmentation of small livings, and the supplying the existing want of spiritual instruction by means of additional churches and resident clergymen. The measure for these purposes, which was introduced in the commons by Lord John Russell, created but little discussion and still less opposition; but in the house of lords it was not looked upon with so much favour. The second reading was moved by Lord Melbourne on the 27th of July, and was carried by a majority of ninety-nine against forty-eight. The house subsequently went into committee, and some amendments were proposed, but none which affected the leading principles of the bill.

THE REGENCY BILL.

In consequence of a message from the crown, a bill was passed during this session, appointing his royal highness Prince Albert regent in the possible event of her most gracious majesty’s decease, during the minority of any issue to her majesty, whilst such issue should be under the age of eighteen years, and for the care and guardianship of such issue. This bill was introduced by the lord-chancellor on the 16th of July, and was passed with the unanimous approbation of both houses of parliament.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by her majesty in person on the 11th of August. The speech congratulated both houses on the termination of the civil war in Spain; and informed them that the government of Portugal had made arrangements for satisfying certain just claims of some of her majesty’s subjects, and for the payment of a sum due to this country under the stipulations of the convention of 1827. Her majesty further said that she was engaged, in concert with the Emperors of Austria and Russia and the King of Prussia, in measures tending to effect the permanent pacification of the Levant. After alluding to the disputes with China, her majesty proceeded to make some remarks on the subject of Canada and the legislative bodies of Jamaica, &c.: and the speech concluded with an expression of regret that it had been found necessary to impose additional burdens upon the people.

AFFAIRS OF BRITISH INDIA.

The army of the Indus having achieved the object for which it had been sent to the north-western extremity of India, by seating Shah Soojah-ool-Moolk on the throne of Cabul, and by storming the fortresses of Ghuznee and Khelat, commenced its retrograde march in the middle of October. 1839. The army marched in two divisions, one to Bengal, under Sir J. Keene and the other to Bombay, by the Bolau Pass and Scinde. At this time Dost Mohammed seemed shorn of his power; he had retired across the Hindoo Koosh, the passes of which were guarded, and the chiefs of Balkh and Bokhara refused to join him. But although the prowess of British arms had wrested from him the throne of Afghanistan, Shah Soojah was by no means secure of it a moment longer than he was supported by European aid, The precarious tenure by which he held his power was seen early in this year, when Syed Hoshein, the chief of Koona, sent a letter to his majesty, couched in the most insulting terms, and stating that, as he had heard the Russians were advancing, it was his intention to join them. On hearing this Sir Willoughby Cotton, who commanded one division of the force which was returning to Bengal, despatched Colonel Orchard from Jellalabad, with a body of troops to attack the fort of Pooshat, where the Koona chief resided. Pooshat was captured, but Syed Hoshein escaped. The state of Affghanistan, however, still remained unsettled, for Dost Mohammed was employed with restless activity in intriguing among the native princes, with a view to recovering the throne which he had lost; and at the close of the year the British troops which had been left to support Shah Soojah imperatively demanded refreshment and repose. In testimony of the services of the army of the Indus, Lord Auckland resolved that all the corps, European and native, in the service of the East India Company, which proceeded beyond the Bolau Pass, should have on their regimental colours the word “Affghanistan,” and such of them as were employed in the reduction of the fortress of that name the word “Ghuznee” in addition. In the same general order he stated, on behalf of the queen’s regiments, that he would recommend to her majesty that the same distinction should be granted to them. Besides this complimentary notice, Lord Auckland ordered that a donation of six months’ full or field batta should be given to officers and men of every rank attached to the army who advanced beyond the Bolau Pass.

THE MARRIAGE OF THE QUEEN.

Her most gracious majesty Queen Victoria was married to Prince Albert of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha on the 10th of February. This event gave great satisfaction to the people generally, both in the dominions of her majesty and in the duchy of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year the Carlists in Spain were compelled to give up the contest which they had so long carried on against the queen regent. All the principal places held by the chiefs of that party still remaining in the country, fell into the hands of the Christino generals; and Cabrera and Balemaseda took refuge in France, while Borso, another Carlist leader, was captured and shot. In the spring of this year a question arose with the Neapolitan government and the British cabinet, which led to hostilities on the part of England, and at one time threatened to involve other powers in Europe in a general quarrel. This question related to the “sulphur monopoly.” A treaty existed which gave certain commercial advantages to England in respect of sulphur, and the treaty set forth that the Neapolitan government was not to grant any state mercantile privileges hostile to the British interests. But notwithstanding this distinct stipulation, the King of Naples granted some natives of France, in 1838, as well as others of different countries, a monopoly of all the sulphur produced and worked in Sicily. Great Britain naturally considered this grant to be a direct infraction of the stipulation of the existing treaty; and Lord Palmerston called on the Neapolitan government for the immediate termination of the monopoly, and full indemnity for all losses sustained by British subjects arising therefrom. The king professed to comply: Prince Cassaro, the minister for foreign affairs, wrote a note to Mr. Kennedy, stating that the monopoly should be abolished, and that the King of Naples acted thus in deference to England. Shortly afterwards, however, his Neapolitan majesty signified to the British minister that he had determined not to consent to the demands of Great Britain, he not considering the sulphur contract a violation of the treaty of 1816. The British government now proceeded to enforce its demands: orders were sent to Admiral Sir R. Stopford, in the Mediterranean, to hold himself in readiness to commence active hostilities against the Neapolitan flag. Hostilities commenced on the 17th of April by the British ships of war in the vicinity of Naples; an embargo was laid on all in the ports of Malta that bore the Sicilian flag. At first the king prepared to resist: but he was induced finally to accept the proposed mediation of France, in adjusting the quarrel, on the principle that the monopoly should be dissolved, and an indemnity given to the contractors. Early in May amicable relations between the courts of England and Naples commenced. In the month of July this year, the affairs of the Levant were brought to a crisis. A convention was signed at London between England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia—France declined to concur in it; whereby the following ultimatum was offered to the viceroy of Egypt. He was to have the hereditary sovereignty of Egypt, and the possession of the pashalic of St. Jean d’Acre for life. If within ten days from the notification of these terms the pasha should not accept them, the Sultan was to offer him Egypt alone; and, if he still persisted in refusing, the four powers were to compel him by force to accede to the proposed settlement. Disliking the terms, Mehemet Ali endeavoured to gain time by offering a negociation with the Porte: Rifat Bey was sent to Constantinople with certain proposals; but these were not deemed satisfactory; and the Sultan, acting upon intemperate advice, pronounced the formal deposition of the Sultan of Egypt from his pashalic, and sent a firman to Alexandria to notify that event. Mehemet Ali intimated his intention of repelling force by force; and it was then resolved by the four powers that the ports of Syria and Egypt should be declared to be in a state of blockade. Captain Napier immediately captured some Egyptian vessels off the coast of Syria; and on the 9th of September, Admiral Stopford appeared off Beyrout, and the next day made preparations for bombarding and taking that town and fortress. Beyrout was captured, and the troops of Ibrahim Pasha, which consisted of 14,000 men, subsequently dispersed, while he himself fled to Damascus. The ports of Syria and Alexandria were now strictly blockaded, and in a short time after, Tripoli, Tortosa, and Latakia were evacuated by their Egyptian garrisons, St. Jean d’Acre was next captured, and the Egyptian garrisons in Caiffa and Jaffa immediately evacuated those places; and while they were endeavouring to force for themselves a passage through Palestine into Egypt, were taken prisoners of war. The Syrian tribes, which had hitherto been in the interest of the Pasha of Egypt, now declared in favour of the Sultan, and on the 19th of November the Seraskier was informed that the garrison and inhabitants of Jerusalem had returned to their allegiance to the Porte. About this time negociations were commenced between Commodore Napier and the Pasha of Egypt, but the year closed before a convention was ratified. In Holland, this year was signalized by the abdication of its monarch, William I. In the month of October he voluntarily laid down the crown, and was succeeded by his eldest son, the Prince of Orange, who ascended the throne by the title of William II. In Prussia there was also a change in the monarchy: Frederick William III. expired at Berlin on the 7th of June, and he was succeeded by his son Frederic William IV.