CHAPTER LXII.
{VICTORIA. 1850}
Foreign Relations..... Colonial Affairs..... Ireland..... Home Incidents-Debates in Parliament..... Deaths of Remarkable Persons.
{A.D. 1850}
The year 1850 was not a striking period of English history. There was no foreign war, no colonial revolt, no great question to be solved at home; yet in every department of the national affairs there were occurrences of importance, as might be expected in so vast an empire, with so many and complicated interests.
FOREIGN RELATIONS.
_Spain_.—The interruptions of diplomatic relations with Spain, in consequence of the offence taken by General Narvaez at the interference of Sir Henry L. Bulwer, was brought to a termination by the appointment of Lord Howden as envoy extraordinary, and ambassador plenipotentiary of the Queen of Great Britain to the court of Madrid. This event seemed to give great satisfaction to the Spanish court and people, and her Iberian majesty, on the assembling of the cortes, made the matter a prominent topic in her address; but little interest was taken in Great Britain in connection with the event.
_Greece_.—The independence of the Greek kingdom was not followed by any improvement in the condition or character of the people. The government constituted by the three protecting powers (England, France, and Russia) was corrupt and incompetent, and the king despotic and faithless. Russia had an interest in keeping Greece disturbed, and especially in exciting both king and people to ambitious projects against Turkey, and Louis Philippe, King of the French, aided in promoting the corruption, and founded a policy for France inimical to the permanent advantage of Greece and the peace of Europe. The Greek government well knowing the unfavourable feeling of both Russia and France to England, treated British subjects with insult, and frequently allowed Greek subjects to treat them with wanton and unprovoked injury. The remonstrances of the English minister were unavailing, the wrongs of English citizens were unredressed. At last, the British foreign minister determined to make a categorical demand for justice, and in case of refusal to take reprisals. The demands made by Lord Palmerston were for satisfaction of the following claims:—
1. Mr. Finlay, an English subject, was deprived of land in 1838, which was enclosed in the gardens of the royal palace at Athens, in 1840.
2. M. Pacifico, a native of Gibraltar, was insulted, his house broken into at Athens in open day by a mob, aided by soldiers and gendarmes, in 1847. The mob supposed that certain measures of the government were incited by the British, and that M. Pacifico had personally some part in the matter. The government made no effort to restrain the rioters, and refused all reparation.
3. In October, 1846, six Ionian boats were plundered at the custom-house of Salcina. The Greek government refused all satisfaction.
4. Two Ionians were illegally arrested at Pyrgos, in 1847, and cruelly flogged.
5. The police at Paints arrested two Ionians, and subjected them to various cruelties and indignities for putting up some English, Ionian, and Greek flags on the awning of a coffee-shop.
6. The boat’s crew of a British man-of-war landed the son of the British consul at Patras, in January, 1848, when Greek soldiers seized the unarmed sailors, beat and imprisoned them. The Greek government refused to apologise for the outrage.
After these claims were made, another was added—that the isles or rocks of Corvi and Lapienza belonged to the Ionian Isles, and that, therefore, the Greek government should forego all acts of sovereignty in respect to them.
On the 28th of December, 1849, Mr. Wyse, the English minister at the court of Athens, called the attention of M. Londos, the minister for foreign affairs at the court of Athens, to the claims of England, declaring, that the long forbearance of her majesty’s government must not be construed into indifference. No notice was taken of the note; the Greek king and his ministers had for so many years been permitted to offer insults to the English government with impunity, they could not conceive that it was now in earnest. The conduct of Lord Aberdeen in the English foreign office had especially encouraged this state of feeling, and Lord Palmerston had found no opportunity during the eventful years 1847–8–9, to enter upon the matter with such purpose as the case required, from the known sympathies of Russia and France. On January 10th, Mr. Wyse and Admiral Parker had an interview with M. Londos, who listened to their representations, but reserved a formal reply. The next day he read a note, refusing the concessions required. No allusion was made in any of these transactions to the cession of the islets. Mr. Wyse then made a formal written demand, and allowed twenty-four hours for a reply. During that time the agents of both Russia and France were consulted by the Greek minister, who was encouraged by them to resist the English requisitions. This was notorious at Athens; yet, at the expiration of the twenty-four hours, M. Londos offered to submit the matter to the arbitration of France and Russia. Her majesty’s minister, of course, refused to bring in the arbitration of the powers whose jealousy and intrigue had led to the situation. He accordingly declared the blockade of the Piræus by the English fleet, and himself embarked on board Sir W. Parker’s flag-ship. The Greek government treated the blockade with contempt, and sent out the _Otho_, and other government vessels. These were seized and sent to Salamis by the admiral, or detained near his own ships. On the 20th, M. Londos sent a protest to Mr. Wyse against these proceedings, and an hint that the other nations of Europe would interfere. Sir W. Parker next laid an embargo upon all Greek ships, and made arrangements for the capture of all he might find at sea.
On the 5th of February, M. Drouyn de Lhuys made an offer in London of friendly offices on the part of France, which were accepted, and on the 12th official notes were exchanged to that effect. Orders were, consequently, sent to Mr. Wyse and Admiral Parker to suspend coercive measures, pending the friendly intervention of France. The French government sent out a negotiator, Baron Gros, who arrived at Athens on the 5th of March. That gentleman, on examining the claims, fixed upon those of M. Pacifico as exaggerated, and no agreement between him and the British negotiator could be concluded; and on the 23rd of April, he notified the failure of his mission to the Greek government.
While this was going on at Athens, the French ambassador in London and the English foreign minister had agreed upon a plan of settlement, and the French government sent immediately a frigate with despatches for Baron Gros, instructing him to that effect. From some mistake or oversight the English government sent no orders to Mr. Wyse, and the result was that he refused to recognise the instructions sent out to the baron by his government. Hostilities commenced next day, which compelled the Greek government to submit to the demands of the English minister.
When tidings of these transactions reached France the French ambassador quitted London, but the difference between France and England was ultimately arranged by friendly explanations, and by the English government substituting the terms of agreement which had been made by the two governments at London, for the mere stipulations accepted by the Greek government at Athens.
The czar was enraged at these proceedings, and his ministers addressed a remonstrance to the British cabinet, couched in terms indignant and affrontful. The diplomatic turmoil in connection with the affairs of Greece caused considerable discussion in the country and the commons, which will be noticed under the section appropriated to parliamentary proceedings.
_Liberia_.—The British government, in its desire to put down negro slavery, took a deep interest in the prosperity of the free black colony of Liberia. The English public regarded it as a great experiment as to the adaptation of the negro race for self-government and modern civilization. The origin of the colony was not as philanthropic as was supposed in England. It did not originate in the benevolence of American citizens anxious to promote the advantages and progress of the negro, but in the selfishness of those who favoured slavery, and were desirous to exile the free blacks from the land of their birth, where their good conduct was a reproach to oppressors, and their freedom a temptation to the whole negro race to break their own bonds. In 1848–9 negotiations for a treaty of commerce, based on reciprocal advantages, was opened between the infant black state and her Britannic majesty. It consisted of eleven articles, which stipulated perpetual peace and friendship, freedom of commerce, mutual protection of the subjects of the respective states, the establishment of consuls, the slave trade to be piracy, English vessels of war in pursuit of slavers to be received with hospitality, and at liberty to visit any suspected vessels sailing under the Liberian flag. This treaty belongs strictly to the history of the previous year, but became known to the British public generally at the beginning of 1850.
_Costa Rica_.—The trade of England with the South American republics having for many years assumed considerable importance, a formal recognition of the principles by which it was desirable to conduct that trade became necessary with this particular state. This treaty consisted of sixteen articles, which engaged the powers mutually to preserve perpetual amity; freedom of commerce; freedom of correspondence; “the most favoured nation” clause; personal freedom and protection; exemption from forced loans and military conscriptions; establishment of consuls; in case of any interruption of friendly intercourse, citizens on the coasts to be allowed six months, and in the interior twelve months, to wind up their affairs, and safe conduct to be afforded to them; liberty of Christian burial and protection of places of sepulture; total prohibition of the slave trade. This treaty was signed at San Jose de Costa Rica, November 27th, 1849, and ratified at London, February, 1850. The treaty to exist for seven years, or longer, unless either party gave notice to the contrary after that date.
_St. Domingo_.—This was a treaty of eleven articles, engaging the respective powers named to mutual friendship; freedom of commerce; personal protection and protection of property; “the most favoured nation” clause; consular immunities and privileges; religious freedom for the subjects of each state within the territory of the other; perpetual prohibition of slavery; “right of search;” existence of treaty to be ten years, and after that, until due notice on either party had expired. Subsequently, an additional article was inserted, providing for the possible suspension of the previous articles in case the Dominican republic should continue at war with Hayti, or be again at war with that nation.
The treaty was signed at St. Domingo on the 6th of March, and the ratifications were exchanged at the same place on the 10th of September.
_Coast of Guinea_.—On the Gold Coast, or Coast of Guinea, the Danes had long held certain positions or forts, named Christiansbergh, Augustabergh, Kongensteen, and Prindsensteen; connected with these was an undefined amount of territory. The Danish merchants, who at first derived some profit from these establishments, soon found that they could obtain from Great Britain more cheaply the various articles of that commerce, than by direct communication with the country itself. This arose from the numerous interests of Great Britain, and the broader foundation of her commercial speculations. The Danish government felt the African possessions cumbersome and expensive, and agreed to cede them, with their guns, stores, property, territorial rights, &c, to her Britannic majesty for the sum of £10,000. A treaty to this effect was signed in London on the 17th of August, and ratified there September 11th.
COLONIAL AFFAIRS.
_Australia_.—Considerable excitement existed in the Australian colonies for a more constitutional form of government, and at last the imperial legislature took up the subject with earnestness. Constitutions were granted to the Australian colonies in harmony with their British origin. These concessions of the mother country were hailed with delight in the colonies. The general prosperity of Australia secured peace. Crime, however, prevailed to a great extent in New South Wales, Victoria, and Van Dieman’a Land: in the first and last named, from the presence of convicts, or those who had been such. Many of this class had made their escape to the colony of Victoria, where they committed depredations and violence, and brought some disrepute upon the settlement.
_Canada_.—The annexation movement continued to disturb the province and disquiet the government. Persons holding civil situations, and officers of militia who took any part in the agitation, were dismissed; and by a vigilant repressive policy the government gradually brought the Canadas into a more quiescent state. A reaction at last set in, and general expressions of loyalty prevailed where opinions in favour of an independent confederation of the British American provinces had been boldly announced. The ministry by which the indemnity bill was carried during the previous year were not able to retain power. The governor, on opening the provincial parliament at Toronto, delivered a speech in French and English, which was well received by both parties. Before the year closed it was proved that a large majority of the people of the Canadas were against separation from the mother country.
_The West Indies_.—The West India Islands were in a discontented state throughout the year. Jamaica led the way in the expression of dissatisfaction. The English free-trade measures were the chief source of the disquietude, and tinged every disappointment or misfortune that befel the colonists. The post-office arrangements; the local finance; the provision required by the imperial government for the support of the various colonial administrations; the relation of the planters to the negro free labourers, were all topics of angry debate in the colonial press and legislatures. A very general desire to unite with the North American States was felt, or at all events, expressed; the desire being, as in Canada, to escape free trade, and the additional motive that, by such a change, negro slavery might possibly be restored. A fear and hatred of freedom was the grand source of colonial sedition throughout the continent and islands of British America.
INDIA.
The vast territory comprised in British India was seldom wholly at peace, the agitations of contiguous countries extending to it, and requiring the constant vigilance of the government, lest mischief beginning beyond the borders should spread within them.
In the early part of the year there were signs of disaffection throughout the north-west districts, and the native garrison of Delhi manifested some insubordination on account of batta which they demanded if ordered beyond the Sutlej, and which the government had determined to refuse. Sir Charles Napier persevered in his attempts to reform the army, and put down drunkenness and gaming among the officers, and some severe examples were made even in the case of officers of professional merit. In these efforts the commander-in-chief was not seconded by the governor-general and the authorities at Calcutta.
In the Nizam’s territory disturbances occurred which compelled the attention of the Indian government. At Sikhim, in the latter part of the previous year, two British officers were seized by the independent sovereign of that country, formerly a dependency of Nepaul. The offence of these officers was entering the territory without permission; and the severity, and even cruelty and indignity with which they were treated, called for the interposition of the authorities at Calcutta; but it was necessary to move troops against the tyrant before he gave the satisfaction required.
The border tribes in the neighbourhood of Peshawur gave great uneasiness notwithstanding that severe chastisement was inflicted upon them at the close of the previous year by Colonel Lawrence. Sir Colin Campbell was sent against them, at the head of a considerable force, but his expedition was not attended with success. Dost Mohamed used every exertion to prevent the peaceful occupation of the province by the English, his hope being that they would abandon it as too troublesome and expensive, and that he might take possession of it on their retirement. Early in June one of the most terrible calamities which had ever occurred in British India took place at Benares. A number of magazine boats were in the river, which by some means ignited and blew up, spreading destruction far and wide. One thousand persons were killed, many of them blown to pieces, and great numbers besides were injured. Rumours reached England of the dissatisfaction expressed by Sir Charles Napier with many things connected with the native armies in India. The extravagance and dissipation of the officers, and the constitution generally of the army of the Bengal Presidency, were named as the subjects of his displeasure.
IRELAND.
The condition of this unhappy country during the year 1850 was only a little less miserable than it had been in what were emphatically called the “famine years.” Great distress prevailed, aggravated by bad laws, and the general social state and spirit of the people. The moral condition of the country was still worse than its material circumstances. Scarcely had the year opened, when a series of the most atrocious murders that ever disgraced a country were perpetrated. A gentleman, steward to a person of large landed property in the county Tipperary, was shot near his own dwelling by cowardly assassins, who fired upon him from behind a hedge. Two brothers, in the same county, disputed about land; the younger clove the skull of the elder with the spade which he held in working. A poor emaciated man, in the same blood-stained county, while in a state of starvation pulled a turnip in a turnipfield, and was caught by the owner in the act of satisfying his hunger upon it; the inhuman wretch shot the miserable delinquent on the spot.
These atrocities were but samples of the barbarous deeds which took place over many districts in Ireland throughout the year. The criminals were not always poor men; farmers, farmers’ sons, and even men of this class possessing what might be called affluence, either committed, or caused others to commit, the savage acts which disgraced their country and shocked all civilized nations. Sometimes the murders were effected by men who had no wrong to complain of, no injury to redress, but who for a small sum of money, or being chosen by the ballot of the ribbon lodges, assassinated men whom they had never seen before, having been pointed out by their associates in the ribbon conspiracy. Sometimes the assassinations were on account of religion; in a few cases, for personal vengeance; but, generally, they were in connection with disputes about land. The state of the law was such as to have enabled the government to put down these societies, and to disarm the people, who were unworthy to be trusted with the liberty of keeping dangerous weapons; but the Whigs were unwilling to incur unpopularity, and only acted with spirit and determination when the government itself was endangered, and anarchy impended. The Conservatives charged the government with tolerating, to a certain extent, for political purposes, evils which nothing could justify a government for allowing to be perpetrated. This imputation was deserved.
The political agitations were of the usual character, but gradually diminished; the events of the two preceding years having nearly extinguished the Young Ireland party, and so lowered the tone of its rival, as to deprive it of much notice either in Ireland or England.
An agitation for what was called tenant right extended itself, but especially in Dublin, the great centre of all Irish agitation, and in the north. The character of this movement will more fully appear when noticing the debates in parliament which afterwards took place on the subject: it is here only necessary to say, that the ostensible and real objects of the agitators were very different. They professed to seek justice for the occupying tenant; they desired to inflict injustice upon the owner of the soil. The Irish tenant suffered much from an unfair state of the law in favour of the landlord, who often used to the uttermost the inequitable advantage thus afforded him. In the province of Ulster this was less the case; a more generous disposition prevailed among the landlords, and a more confiding one among the tenantry; the relations between the two classes were, as described by themselves, “live, and let live.” The outgoing tenant claimed a right to a certain sum for his improvements and interest, from the incoming tenant, which was altogether irrespective of any bargain between the latter and the owner of the soil. This prescriptive right was so generally recognised, that all parties were satisfied. In the other provinces of Ireland it was otherwise. The English and Scottish settlers in Ulster found this usage, which was an old Celtic tradition, and adopted it; their power enabled them to assert it; but the vanquished Celts themselves were not permitted by those to whom the estates were confiscated, to retain a custom so favourable to the occupier. The professed object of the agitation was to secure compensation to the occupying tenant all over the country for his improvements, and such certainty of tenure, according to the nature of his lease or taking, as would secure him from vexatious lawsuits and inequitable ejectments, against which, notwithstanding that they were inequitable in the eyes of all men, there was no redress. As the agitation was developed, it was plain that the real object was political and religious on the part of the prime movers. It became noticeable that while the clergy of the Established Church, the Methodists, Congregationalists, &c, abstained from all participation in the struggle, those of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian communions fiercely fanned it. The higher classes were generally episcopal Protestants, the former in the north, to a large extent, were Presbyterians, and in the other provinces Roman Catholics; it was the interest of the clergy of both sects that their flocks and chief supporters should be placed in as independent position as possible. Ultimately, however, the two parties ceased to coalesce, their objects became so dissimilar, that all co-operation was impossible. The tenant-right league became a focus of Roman Catholic agitation, for purely Roman Catholic objects. Mr. Lucas, an English proselyte to the Church of Rome, who had formerly been a Quaker, became a very prominent person, and he carried his fanaticism to great lengths. Charles Gavan Duffy coalesced with him, and these men, abetted by others, so disgusted their Presbyterian confederates, that the latter seceded altogether from the confederacy. The doctrines taught by the party which remained became increasingly bold, and it was soon apparent that the league was a knot of conspirators, whose object was to transfer the property of the Protestant landlords of Ireland to the hands of their Roman Catholic tenants, the former having a sort of rent-charge upon their own land, which would in time have been also taken from them. The state of the law of landlord and tenant was so unjust, that a well-organized opposition to it, conducted with truth, dignity, and honour, must have speedily adjusted matters. The imperial legislature could not have resisted demands so fair. But the movement, like almost all others in Ireland, no matter for what object originally framed, became a mere sectarian and party one, conducted without justice or decency, and with designs that were disloyal to the government, and insidious to all classes of Irishmen not identified with it. These remarks anticipate the progress and character of this unprincipled agitation, as it soon became, but in doing so, an explanation is afforded to the reader which enables him to comprehend occurrences and debates which entered into the history of subsequent years.
The remaining matters of interest connected with Ireland will be found in the section given to the affairs of parliament.
HOME EVENTS.—PROPOSAL FOR AN EXHIBITION OF THE INDUSTRY OF ALL NATIONS.
Early in the year a project was mooted for bringing together in one vast building specimens of the industry of all nations, The object in view was to promote commerce and national amity. The persons who projected this scheme had several consultations at the Institution of Civil Engineers, in Westminster, and it was finally agreed, if possible, to interest Prince Albert in the matter, give him all the credit of its origin, and its chief direction. On communicating the matter to the prince, he accepted the responsibility, and from that moment her majesty became deeply concerned in its success. The interest taken by the queen and her consort soon communicated itself to the rest of the royal family and to the government, and every exertion was made to secure the aid of foreign courts and governments, and the sympathy of foreign nations. A committee was organized of the most likely persons to conduct such an undertaking to a fortunate conclusion, and the powerful influence of the court was exerted throughout the British Isles. It was resolved to erect a building in Hyde Park for the display of the various productions that might be forwarded, and although a fierce opposition was raised by the aristocracy of Kensington and Knightsbridge, the court and government supported the committee as to the site they had chosen. A design was made by Mr. Paxton, gardener to the Duke of Devonshire, to erect a structure of glass, which was accepted, and Messrs. Fox, Henderson, and Co., of Birmingham, contracted for the erection. The contemplated size of the “Palace of Industry” was such as to make the undertaking one of much courage and enterprise on the part of those who made themselves responsible for its construction: the particulars will be most properly given under another chapter.
On the 2nd of March, the Lord Mayor of London gave a splendid entertainment at the Mansion House to the chief magistrates of as many towns and cities of Great Britain and Ireland as could accept the invitation. There were present two hundred and two chief magistrates of English and Welsh cities and boroughs, ten provosts of Scotch burghs, and five mayors of Irish cities and boroughs. Prince Albert was present on the occasion. The assembled magistrates received such information as enabled them in their respective localities to promote the object. The bringing together so unusual an assembly attracted the notice of the empire and of the civilized world; the project was in that way greatly accelerated.
A very large portion of the upper classes were, however, very much opposed to the whole design. An alarm was spread that men would be brought together from all nations, revolutionists and anarchists, especially from France, Italy, and Germany, and that possibly, with the assistance of these invaders landing upon our shores in the disguise of promoters of peace and industry, a revolution of the disaffected among ourselves would be attempted. Many were the dissuasions resorted to for the purpose of checking the zeal of the committee, and causing the court to swerve from its patronage of so bold a measure! The court, the government, the committee, and the leading men in the mercantile interests of the metropolis and the provinces, pursued the even tenor of their way, amused at the folly of so many persons in a condition of life to know better. These fears proved how large a portion of the classes who occupy the higher positions in society are ignorant of their own countrymen, and of the world. They could not comprehend the scheme, sympathise with its objects, or appreciate its benefits. Many men of strong conservative tendencies who wished to persevere in what they called the good old ways for ever, declared that the shopkeepers of London would be ruined, and that western London would be lost in a deluge of immorality, the result of such an influx of wicked foreigners from every clime. All these apprehensions were destined to be dissipated; but it was in vain that men eminent for wisdom and experience, pointed out their groundlessness; they were indulged until facts confuted them.
Meanwhile, communications were transmitted from foreign courts and governments that the most eminent persons in their respective countries were nominated as commissioners to collect and arrange the products of those countries in the form and way most calculated to ensure the end in view. Intelligence of this sort was received from Russia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, the Hanse Towns, Nassau, Hanover, Oldenburgh, Mechlenburgh, France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Turkey, Sardinia, Switzerland, the United States, Venezuela, and some other foreign countries, as well as from the governors of all our colonies, and from various Indian princes.
It would appear as if the exhibition which had been held in France for various limited objects, and that intended to be held in Vienna, in 1851, had suggested to the English projectors the feasibility and desirableness of uniting all nations in one grand attempt to exhibit together their products, natural and industrial, in the great centre of finance, commerce, and power—the metropolis of the world. The Emperor of Austria, however, entered heartily into the views of Prince Albert, and postponed the exhibition intended at Vienna to the year 1852. Throughout the year the great preparations were pursued, and at the appointed time in the ensuing year reached a happy consummation, to the amazement of all, and gratification of most of those whose vaticinations were so gloomy.
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.
The commercial condition of Great Britain throughout the year was favourable. The railway speculations of previous years exercised a prejudicial influence upon the money market, and “calls” were severely felt; but the foreign commerce of the country increased rapidly, and the revenue was in a state which tended to preserve public confidence, and showed that the resources of the nation were unimpaired notwithstanding so many recent calamities. Free trade began already largely to tell upon the great interests which it affected, and justified its advocates and promoters.
The farming interest was, however, distressed; free trade in corn had deranged their habits, and rendered alterations necessary in their customary procedure as to the landowners, their farms, and the markets which they were reluctant to adopt. The landlords were unwilling to concede lower rents, and kept up those which were brought about by war prices during the great struggle with France. Hence a protectionist agitation pervaded the country, unsettling the minds of the farmers, inspiring false hopes, irritating the trading classes, producing counter agitation, and by all these means inflicting injury upon the country.
THE CHOLERA.
The cholera, which broke out at the close of 1848, slumbered during the winter and spring, 1849, and then ravaged the country, continued to afflict, more or less, during this year also. The mitigation and removal of the disease during the year enabled medical and scientific men to give more calm and undisturbed investigation as to its phenomena. Some of the laws which characterized its advance, prevalence, and removal, were discovered and brought before the public; but the cause or source of the pestilence still remained a mystery, and no specific treatment was discovered. It was remarked that it appeared generally in the same districts, towns, streets, houses, and some persons affirmed, even apartments, which had entered in the year 1832.
PAPAL AGGRESSION.
The most striking home incident of the year, was the event which went generally under the name of papal aggression. England, since the Reformation, had been exceedingly jealous of any exercise of authority by the Roman pontiff within her dominions, and in consequence of this feeling it had been deemed politic at Rome to govern the Roman Catholics of England by vicars apostolic. For some years, however, the church and court of Rome had been encouraged by the Romanist tendencies of the “High Anglican” and Puseyite parties in the English church. Many clergymen and laymen went over to Rome, especially of the former, and very many more were known to be inclined to follow. It was also alleged that a large body of the clergy and gentry were favourable to a union of the Church of England with the Church of Rome. In many of the churches, the communion-table was turned into an altar; lighted candles were employed in the daytime, crucifixes were placed above what was called the altar, and the clergy practised genuflexions and intonations which were supposed to be peculiar to Roman Catholicism. All these things prepared the minds of the people, who were in the main attached to Evangelism, and were steady in their Protestantism, to meet any aggressive action on the part of Rome with anger, and even exasperation. An occasion arose to put this to the test. The pope issued “a brief,” constituting an episcopal hierarchy in England instead of the vicars apostolic. One archiepiscopal and twelve episcopal sees were created, and the territorial limits of the province and the sees were marked out. Dr. Wiseman, elevated to the rank of cardinal, was appointed Archbishop of Westminster. The language of the brief was arrogant in the extreme, and literally outraged the feelings and the honour of the English people. It was followed by a document still more offensive, written by Cardinal Wiseman, which he termed a pastoral, and dated “Out of the Flaminian Gate at Rome.” This was addressed to the faithful about to become, and whom he treated as though they had already become, his subjects. The arrogance of this document was such as to move the Protestant feeling of the country, and to awaken a spirit of hostility to the Church of Rome which seemed unlikely ever to be quenched. The irritation created among the Protestant population was greatly increased by the tone in which the cardinal and his newly-created bishops addressed their followers upon their appointment to their new offices. The cardinal adopted the style of a prince, commencing with the royal “We,” his authority to “rule over” the province to which he was nominated. His vindication of the course pursued by the pontiff was a bitter sneer at English and Protestant institutions, mingled with an insulting defiance of the established authorities of the British nation. He reminded his hearers and the whole British nation (whom he knew would at such a crisis peruse his address) that he had no authority in Westminster, or in Westminster Abbey, by law, and that he would still pay the entrance fee to go into Westminster Abbey like other liege subjects, resign himself meekly to the guidance of the beadle, and “listen without rebuke when he pointed out to his admiration detestable monuments, or show a hole in the wall for a confessional.” “He would still visit the shrine of St. Edward, and meditate on the olden times when the church would fill without a coronation, and multitudes hourly worshipped without a service.”
The popish Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. Ullathorn, went beyond his master in boasting, and uttered the following blasphemous address:—“The people of England, who for many years had been separated from the see of Rome, were about, of their own free will, to be added to the Holy Church. He did not recollect any people on earth, but those of Great Britain, who, having rejected the religion of God, were again restored to the bosom of the Church. The hierarchy was restored, the grave was opened, and Christ was coming out.”
Great as was the excitement produced throughout the country by the event itself, and by the preposterous pretensions of the new Roman bishops, the public feeling was much intensified by a letter of Lord John Russell’s to the Bishop of Durham. The prelate was supposed to be an ardent and consistent Protestant, and the circumstance of a man of such a character being selected by the premier as the medium through which to give his opinions to the public, parliament not being then sitting, led the country to believe that his lordship really sought its support for some great and practical purpose; that the letter was intended to indicate an anti-papal policy for the future, for which the support of the nation was sought. It was as follows:—
_TO THE RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF DURHAM_.
My dear Lord,—I agree with you in considering “the late aggression of the pope upon our Protestantism” as “insolent and insidious,” and I therefore feel as indignant as you can do upon the subject.
I not only promoted to the utmost of my power the claims of the Roman Catholics to all civil rights, but I thought it right, and even desirable, that the ecclesiastical system of the Roman Catholics should be the means of giving instruction to the numerous Irish immigrants in London and elsewhere, who, without such help, would have been left in heathen ignorance.
This might have been done, however, without any such innovation as that which we have now seen.
It is impossible to confound the recent measures of the pope with the division of Scotland into dioceses by the Episcopal Church, or the arrangement of districts in England by the Wesleyan Conference.
There is an assumption of power in all the documents which have come from Rome—a pretension to supremacy over the realm of England, and a claim to sole and undivided sway, which is inconsistent with the queen’s supremacy, with the rights of our bishops and clergy, and with the spiritual independence of the nation, as asserted even in Roman Catholic times.
I confess, however, that my alarm is not equal to my indignation.
Even if it shall appear that the ministers and servants of the pope in this country have not transgressed the law, I feel persuaded that we are strong enough to repel any outward attacks. The liberty of Protestantism has been enjoyed too long in England to allow of any successful attempt to impose a foreign yoke upon our minds and consciences. No foreign prince or potentate will be permitted to fasten his fetters upon a nation which has so long and so nobly vindicated its right to freedom of opinion—civil, political, and religious.
Upon this subject, then, I will only say, that the present state of the law shall be carefully examined, and the propriety of adopting any proceedings with reference to the recent assumption of power deliberately considered.
There is a danger, however, which alarms me much more than any aggression of a foreign sovereign.
Clergymen of our own church, who have subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles, and acknowledged in explicit terms the queen’s supremacy, have been the most forward in leading their flocks, “step by step, to the very verge of the precipice.” The honour paid to saints, the claim of infallibility for the church, the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, the muttering of the liturgy so as to disguise the language in which it is written, the recommendation of auricular confession, and the administration of penance and absolution, all these things are pointed out by clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of adoption, and are now openly reprehended by the Bishop of London in his charge to the clergy of his diocese.
What, then, is the danger to be apprehended from a foreign prince of no great power, compared to the danger within the gates from the unworthy sons of the Church of England herself?
I have little hope that the propounders and framers of these innovations will desist from their insidious course; but I rely with confidence on the people of England; and I will not bate a jot of heart or hope so long as the glorious principles and the immortal martyrs of the Reformation shall be held in reverence by the great mass of a nation which looks with contempt on the mummeries of superstition, and with scorn at the laborious endeavours which are now making to confine the intellect and enslave the soul.
I remain, with great respect, &c.,
J. Russell.
Downing-street, Nov. 4.
Whether the noble writer of this letter was sincere in the feelings he expressed was doubted by few at the time, although his subsequent turning and time-serving justified the public in believing that the letter was used merely for the party purpose of forestalling the opposition by an appeal to the Protestant feeling which then seemed irresistible. The immediate effect of the letter upon the country was to stimulate afresh the indignation which had been so keenly felt and warmly expressed. Public addresses were presented to the Queen, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other notable persons, by the clergy of the various dioceses, the universities, the corporations of cities, and voluntary assemblies, pledging those who presented them to the most loyal support of her majesty and the legislature in resisting the pretensions of popery. On the 5th of November, the anniversary of the gunpowder plot, there was a burst of anti-popish feeling all over the kingdom, such as had not been witnessed since the glorious revolution of 1688. The pope, Cardinal Wiseman, the new bishops, members of the conclave at Rome, and various other persons, offensive by their popery, were burnt in effigy, and “Guys” were carried about through London and the provincial cities in mockery of their assumed dignity and pretensions.
These events produced very opposite effects upon the Roman Catholics themselves. Cardinal Wiseman manifested some alarm, and endeavoured to appease the popular wrath by directing his emissaries to speak slightingly of the importance of the matter, and to represent it as an ecclesiastical arrangement only of any interest to Roman Catholics themselves. Lord Beaumont, and other members of the Latin church, who were men of culture and enlightenment, deprecated the whole proceeding of the court of Rome, and the haughty spirit in which its English agents proclaimed them. In Ireland the Roman Catholic party were stirred up to perfect fury, and “Conciliation Hall” echoed with blustering attacks upon the government, and upon Protestantism. The following extract of a speech of John O’Connell’s depicts the spirit of the Irish sympathies with Cardinal Wiseman and his English coadjutors:—“If a cry be raised against the Catholic Church, cannot a cry be raised against the Protestant Church? In Ireland, at least, we shall do so. Does the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster send tax-gatherers and bring the force of law to bear upon Protestants to compel them to contribute to the support of his dignity? No; he will be supported by the voluntary contributions of the Catholics; he will receive no money under false pretences; he will take no money for services he does not render. But the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and the Protestant archbishop and bishops of other sees are not so; they receive money under false pretenses—they exact money for services they do not perform. The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, or the other Catholic bishops in England or Ireland, do not enforce the payment of tithes at the point of the bayonet; the life of no widow’s son is taken on their account. The soil of Ireland has been saturated with blood in the forced collection of this odious impost, and the Catholic people are still compelled to pay it indirectly, for they cannot get their receipts for their rent until they pay the tithes to the landlord, who has to pay it to the parson in the first instance. We must put an end to this. I hope the country will rally, and meet the cry against popery by a cry against the Protestant Church establishment.”
The cardinal and his colleagues persisted in their assumption of territorial ecclesiastical authority, and the ceremony of his enthronisation was attended with extraordinary pomp and parade, while the doctrines propounded on the occasion showed Rome to be, as to her ambition and purpose, _semper eadem_.
Finally, a bill rendering illegal and punishable the assumption of ecclesiastical titles was brought into parliament under the auspices of the premier: the right of prosecution was, however, reserved to the government, and as it was well known that the Whigs would never exercise that right from fear of losing the parliamentary support of the Romanists, their bill was seen by the public to be a sham. This circumstance, taken in connection with the premier’s vehement letter to the Bishop of Durham, threw an imputation of inconsistency and insincerity upon the political character of Lord John Russell, which impaired his subsequent usefulness and credit.
COMPLIMENT TO LORD PALMERSTON.
The keystone of the whig political arch was Lord Palmerston. He was by far the ablest man attached to the party. It was well understood that the connection of the noble viscount with the whig government was not from any partizan predilections, but from approval of their foreign policy, and from a patriotic desire to maintain the honour and credit of the country in its relation to other states, by devoting his diplomatic talent and experience to the conduct of the foreign office. The conservative party, knowing the powerful support which the presence of the noble lord in the whig cabinet gave to it, was unscrupulous in its desire to weaken his prestige, and “the peace party,” considering that his lordship would be prompt in claiming redress for any injuries offered to British subjects, affected to believe that his policy was rash, and to desire on public grounds his removal from office. The policy of Sir Robert Peel, and his foreign minister, Lord Aberdeen, was essentially one of compromise: it preserved peace by a concession of everything that the national temper would allow to be conceded. This answered the views of the peace party, and of those whose commercial interests were subserved by peace at any price, and who therefore identified themselves with “the peace party on principle,” although not holding at heart its theory. The House of Commons supported the policy of Viscount Palmerston, and early in June originated a subscription among its members for the purpose of presenting to Lady Palmerston a picture of her gifted husband. On the 22nd of that month a deputation, consisting of about ninety members, waited upon her ladyship, and presented the portrait, with a suitable address. The picture was a full length, and represented Lord Palmerston in cabinet council, a portrait of Canning, his political preceptor and exemplar, being suspended in the council-room. It was a curious and happy coincidence, that on the day on which this tribute of respect to her husband was presented to Lady Palmerston, a telegraphic despatch from Paris announced the settlement of the Greek question.
ARRIVAL OF THE KOH-I-NOOR.
Considerable excitement was created by the arrival of this magnificent diamond. “The mountain of light,” as its eastern designation means, was valued at two millions sterling, and was the most costly precious stone in the world. A certain Brazilian gem in the crown of Portugal was alone admitted to be a rival. Its discovery was made in the mines of Golconda, and passed into possession of the Mogul emperors from the king of that country. From Delhi it was borne away by the conquering Persian, and when his rebellious subjects assassinated him (Nadir Shah), Ahmed Shah carried away to Affganhistan this treasure. Runjeet Singh obtained it thence by inhospitable and unjust stratagem. At the conquest of Lahore the gem became the property of the British crown. The great diamond at the top of the Russian sceptre weighed a greater number of carats, but was not so beautiful. The arrival of the “glittering carbon” was opportune for the great Exhibition of 1851. Many events of political importance caused less conversation and curiosity than the arrival of this “mountain of light.”
ATTACK UPON GENERAL HAYNAU.
During the struggles between the Kasir and his insurgent provinces, one of his most efficient and successful generals was Haynau. He was also, unfortunately, one of the most cruel and sanguinary, women having been frequently subjected by his orders to the most indecent and merciless application of the lash.
This officer visited England during the autumn, and his presence excited much indignant comment, and various demonstrations of personal dislike. It occurred that, on the 5th of September, he, with two other foreigners, presented themselves at Barclay’s brewery for permission to inspect that very great establishment, so much an object of curiosity among foreign visitors. According to the rules of the establishment, visitors sign their names in a book, and this circumstance caused the general to be identified by the numerous work-people, who were excited with an intense disgust of his presence. The draymen and brewers abandoned their occupations, and cried out. “Down with the Austrian butcher,” “Down with the woman-flogger,” and many other expressions too truly descriptive of the general’s character. He was assailed with every form of indignity, even with blows, and sought for safety in flight, pursued by a large and furious mob, every moment increasing. The general ran along Bankside, and found refuge in the “George” public-house, whither the mob pursued him, forcing open every door but that in which the general found concealment. The police opportunely arrived, and with difficulty dispersed the mob; the general was then brought out upon the wharf, and brought up the river to Somerset House in the police galley, crowds following along shore, uttering menaces and execrations. None of the perpetrators of the attack were identified or punished; and it is beyond question that the authorities did not pursue the matter as international relations with Austria gave that power a right to expect. A diplomatic quarrel between the two governments ensued, which threatened the interruption of all friendly communication. The Austrian foreign minister dispatched an indignant protest against the inhospitality shown to a dignified subject of the Kasir, and the apathy of the British government in reference to the offence of the offenders. It was the cause of much bad feeling to England in the higher circles of Vienna; yet it impressed the government of his imperial majesty, and other foreign governments, with the fact, that the people of England sympathised with liberal policy, and hated cruelty and oppression; that no European state could be guilty of the atrocities which Austria had committed, and hold the respect or esteem of the English people.
PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY.—OPENING OF THE SESSION.
Parliament was opened by commission on the last day of January. The lord chancellor read the royal speech from the throne. The speech referred to the leading events, the history of which have been already related in this chapter. It also gratified the house by the intelligence that Sweden and the United States of America had taken steps to reciprocate the advantages conceded to the ships of these nations. Her majesty referred to her visit to Ireland with great satisfaction, and the countenances of the audience expressed sympathy with these statements. The address to her majesty in the Lords, was moved and seconded by the Earl of Essex and Earl Methuen. The former complimented the press in eloquent and judicious terms for the great services which it had rendered to the cause of law and order during the tumultuous seasons that had so recently passed. An amendment was proposed declaring that recent legislative enactments, and heavy local taxation, oppressed the agricultural interest and caused distress. The mover of this amendment was the Earl of Stradbroke, and it found a seconder in the Earl of Desart.
It was obvious thus early in the session that the Protectionists were prepared to urge their principles, and if possible compel the legislature to retrace its steps on the subject of free trade. “Out of doors” this produced anger and discontent among the numerous and powerful classes who had carried the free-trade agitation to a successful issue. It had the effect of lowering the reputation of the conservative party for wisdom, discretion, and disinterestedness. The leaders of the party were boldly reproached by the press as anxious to sustain their luxurious living by taxing the necessaries of the people, and the House of Lords was denounced by the popular press, and at popular meetings, as “a normal school of agitation,”—the title given by Lord Lyndhurst as speculatively applicable to popular corporations. Lord Stanley lent his great name and his able advocacy to the support of the amendment; it was opposed by the free-trade lords and the ministry, and defeated. In the commons, a similar amendment to the address was moved by Sir J. Trollope, and seconded by Colonel Chatterton. After a debate of two nights, the amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority.
AFFAIRS OF GREECE.
The political campaign of the session might be said to have opened on the 4th of February, when Lord Stanley demanded explanations from ministers in reference to the affairs of Greece. The Marquis of Lansdowne gave a clear, temperate, and just exposition of the facts, and of the policy of the government. Lord Aberdeen animadverted upon that policy in a manner that was deficient in all those qualities which characterized the speech of the ministerial leader. It was neither clear, temperate, nor just.
In the commons, Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Milner Gibson, both addressed demands for explanation, Mr. Disraeli in the interest of the tory opposition, and Mr. Gibson in the interest of the “Peace at all price” party, as a certain knot of gentlemen in the house was designated. The answers of Lord Palmerston were lucid and statesman-like; his opponents were no more than children in his hands. He had neither the eloquence of Disraeli, nor the assurance, which ignorance alone can supply, possessed by Mr. Milner Gibson, who, whatever his merits, was innocent of all knowledge, for good or evil, on subjects of foreign policy; but his lordship showed his perfect cognizance of all the bearings of the dispute, of international law, and of the policy which his country could alone pursue, with honour to herself, and justice to her injured subjects.
So long as the Greek question remained open both these sections of opponents tormented the ministry, and when, on the 15th of May, the French ambassador suddenly left London, a perfect storm of hostility fell upon the cabinet. Lord Palmerston defended the policy of the foreign office throughout with candour, courtesy, and yet with a satirical wit, which keenly annoyed the opposition, while no excuse was left them to impeach the veteran minister’s politeness, or constitutional respect for the house. The ministry were not apprised that the French ambassador had been withdrawn from any dissatisfaction with England, but the explanations given in the French Assembly soon left no doubt of that. Lord Stanley brought on a debate on the 18th of June. He arraigned the policy of government with an eloquence which was most formidable. He was supported by Lord Aberdeen in a disingenuous and un-English speech. The government was never more feebly defended, and the result was a signal defeat, Lord Stanley’s motion of censure being carried by a large majority.
In the commons, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a resolution of confidence in the cabinet on the 24th of June. The speech of the honourable member was constitutional and effective. Lord Palmerston delivered a most powerful _exposé_ of his foreign policy. Sir Robert Peel took much the same views in the commons as Lord Aberdeen did in the lords, and, considering that both these statesmen had by their impolicy allowed the grievances to accumulate which it devolved upon Lord Palmerston to redress, their conduct was equally inequitable and ungenerous in withholding from him their support, not to say opposing him. The speech of Sir Robert Peel was the last he ever delivered, and was remarkable for that circumstance as well as for the ability it displayed; but the principles of foreign policy put forth by the illustrious baronet were such as tended to make the country weak in its foreign relations, and were more calculated to subserve the immediate interests of Lancashire than the permanent interests of that powerful district, or the honour and weal of the empire at large. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden were also among the prominent opponents of Lord Palmerston’s policy. The minority was large, the government policy having been supported only by a majority of forty-six.
CONSTITUTIONS FOR THE COLONIES.
On the 8th of February, Lord John Russell made a statement in regard to colonial government. His lordship denounced the imprudence of the Colonial Reform Association, which, by its correspondence with disaffected persons, kept alive discontent wherever it existed, and indirectly promoted it everywhere else. The pith of the noble lord’s statement was, that the colonies were a source of strength in peace and war, contrary to the doctrine propounded by Messrs. Cobden and Bright: that it was the duty of England to preserve her colonial influence, and to extend civilization and freedom wherever her flag was planted; and that in most cases the colonies were in a position, as to population and intelligence, to justify the institution of a constitutional form of government in harmony with that of the parent state. The noble lord’s speech was received with loud cheering, especially on the conservative side of the house, when he announced the opinion of the government that the colonies were sources of commercial and political strength, and ought to be retained. The speech was followed by the proposal of resolutions in harmony with its statements. A very wide diversity of opinion was expressed by the house, Mr. Gladstone animadverting with bad temper upon such portions as did not meet his approbation.
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES’ BILL.
On the 18th of February, in pursuance of these resolutions, Lord John Russell moved “the Australian Colonies’ Bill.” Mr. Roebuck criticised the measure in a tone of severity, in which he was followed by other members, but the second reading was easily carried. On its committal, considerable opposition was offered, in the form of amendments, to which the government could not accede. Mr. Roebuck and Sir William Molesworth led this species of opposition, and neither in a fair or national spirit. The bill was carried, with some slight modifications; but, upon bringing up the report, Sir William Molesworth moved the re-committal of the bill, and was seconded by Mr. Gladstone. The object of Sir William was to initiate a broad and liberal line of policy in colonial affairs on principles which, it appeared to the government, would be adverse to the interests and subversive of the authority of the parent country. Mr. Gladstone was actuated by sheer party opposition. Only forty-two votes were found in favour of the re-committal.
Mr. Gladstone then moved an additional clause, giving the Church of England in the colonies the power of synodical action. The speech of the honourable member was so thoroughly sectarian as to forbid any chance of success, as it awakened prejudices in many directions which a more prudent politician would have endeavoured to allay. The portion of the house usually known as “Young England,” sustained Mr. Gladstone, but the government opposed him, and the house at large went with it.
On the third reading, Mr. Gladstone made another attempt to oppose its progress by moving that it be suspended until the opinion of the colonies could be taken as to its provisions. This motion was plausible, and this time the obstructor spoke plausibly, concealing the temper which really pervaded his opposition. Mr. Roebuck seconded it, although his motives and policy were utterly opposite to those of the mover. The majority was large which rejected the postponement. Other modes of obstruction less prominent were unattended by success.
In the lords the second reading was carried _nemine contradicente_. Afterwards, Lord Brougham, who co-operated with Mr. Roebuck in the commons, moved that counsel should be heard at the bar against the bill; this motion was defeated. The Bishop of Oxford, who co-operated with Mr. Gladstone in the commons, moved that the bill be referred to a select committee; the motion was refused. The lords accepted the bill with great reluctance, but continued to deal with it in good faith; they amended it in various particulars, to which the commons afterwards consented, and the bill became law.
LOCAL BURDENS ON LAND.
On the 19th of February, Mr. Disraeli moved for a committee of the whole house to consider the burden of the poor law and other local burdens borne by the land, and with a view to such revision as would relieve that interest. The debate was a renewal, under another form, of the protectionist controversy. Mr. Bright, Mr. James Wilson, and Sir Robert Peel, made very effective speeches against the motion. On a division, Mr. Disraeli secured a powerful minority, his motion having been defeated by a majority of only twenty-one votes.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
On the 28th of February, Mr. Hume brought on a motion for the extension of the franchise. Like most of that honourable gentleman’s measures, this was as ill-timed as it was well-intended. Sir Joshua Walmsley seconded it. Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Fergus O’Connor, and some other members advocated it, who did not bring any parliamentary or moral influence to its support. Only ninety-six votes were given in its behalf.
IRISH DISTRESS.
The parliamentary measures concerning Ireland have been noticed under the section of the chapter devoted to its history, and therefore only require a passing reference. Early in the session Lord John Russell made a statement to the house concerning Irish distress, and proposed various resolutions pertinent to the repayment of loans, and the modes of dealing with insolvent “unions.” These resolutions were agreed to, and a bill founded on them was passed.
IRISH FRANCHISE BILL.
At the passing of the Reform Bill Ireland was not placed on an equality with England, and this fact operated strongly in promoting the disloyalty which had prevailed there. But for the Irish liberal members the reform bill for Great Britain could not have been carried, and the Irish people expected from the liberal representatives of Great Britain similar support, which was not accorded. This filled the minds of the Irish with strong resentment, and caused them to agitate for a reform bill on terms substantially as popular as that accorded to Great Britain. Moved by considerations of this sort, Lord John Russell resolved to enlarge the Irish franchise, and a bill was brought in for that purpose. It was warmly supported by Mr. Hume, Mr. Bright, and other English members of the liberal party, who desired even a more democratic measure for Ireland.
The main feature of the bill was the extension of the franchise to all occupiers of land to the amount of £8 per annum, adopting the rating as the ultimate standard of value. The bill was read a second time, after a fierce conservative opposition, which continued until it finally passed the commons. In the lords it was vehemently opposed by Lord Brougham upon principles not reconcilable with his well-known political creed. Lord Desart proposed to raise the qualification to £15, and carried his proposition. Lord Stanley made a proposal intended to obstruct the registration, and carried it against the government. In this state the bill passed.
In the commons the amendments of the lords were discussed with bitter acrimony, and a strong sense of injury, deepened into resentment, was circulated in Ireland, when the tidings of the lords’ amendments reached that country. This reacted upon the commons, and the government was considerably embarrassed by the suspicions and anger of its own general supporters among the Irish members. Lord John proposed that the commons should confer with the lords upon the feasibility of establishing a £12 franchise instead of the £8 or the £15. Some other amendments of the lords were rejected. A conference ensued, and the lords conceded to the commons on the basis of their new proposals.
BILL FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE LORD-LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.
On the 18th of May, the premier moved for leave to bring in a bill for this purpose. This was one of the many ill-digested and inconsiderate measures by which Lord John Russell’s government was characterised. The Irish people almost unanimously opposed it, and so did their representatives. Mr. Shiel, however, who had become a mere ministerial hack, took part with the government against the known feeling of his countrymen. He was chastised by Mr. Disraeli in one of that gentleman’s most eloquent and happy orations.
The second reading was carried by a large majority, but it was so obvious that if the bill were proceeded with, it would be by virtue of an English majority on an Irish question, against the feeling of the Irish members and their constituents, that the government abandoned it. Much evil was inflicted by its introduction in the temper it evoked in Ireland; and much evil was also accomplished by abandoning it, for it exposed the vacillation of the premier and the government, so as to lessen their moral influence in both Great Britain and Ireland.
MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS OF DEBATE.
There were few other measures of importance as to general government or law introduced by the cabinet, but the subjects introduced by private members were very various, such as—the conduct of government on the question of the extradition of Hungarian refugees from Turkey, brought on by Lord Dudley Stuart; the abandonment of the naval efforts on the coasts of Africa to suppress the slave-trade, introduced by Mr. Hutt, and efficiently opposed by Mr. Buxton; different party questions, connected with outrage in Ireland, on the social condition of that country; bill for a new tribunal instead of the judicial committee of privy council; reform of the universities; alteration of the law of marriage as to degrees of affinity; Sunday labour in the Post-office; amendment of the factory act; debate on the continuation of the annuity of £12,000 per year to the Duke of Cambridge, on occasion of the death of his father, &c. The city of London having elected Baron Rothschild, a Jew, as their representative, and he having refused to take the oaths, “on the faith of a Christian,” a debate ensued of much importance in the commons. Mr. Hume moved that the oath should be administered to Baron Rothschild on the Old Testament. This was obstinately resisted by the tory members, but ultimately carried. The next day, Baron Rothschild was sworn on the Old Testament, but refusing to adopt the words, “on the true faith of a Christian,” he was ordered to withdraw. Sir F. Thesiger moved that a new writ should be issued for the city of London. The attorney-general proposed two resolutions:—1st, that the oath taken by Baron Rothschild was not according to law, and did not entitle him to take his seat; 2nd, pledging the house to a bill in the next session, altering the form of the oath. A debate ensued, which was confused and desultory, and much opposition from both sides of the house was offered to the resolutions, which were, however, eventually carried. The issue was not satisfactory to the city of London, the members of the Jewish persuasion, or the country.
FINANCE.
The financial campaign may be represented as having opened on the 8th of March, when Mr. Cobden made a series of resolutions, pledging the house to retrenchment. The basis of the honourable member’s speech and motion was, that warlike armaments were not necessary, there being no likelihood of any nation going to war with us; and the costly character of such armaments affecting the progress of commerce and civilization, and depriving the people of comfort by an oppressive taxation. The honourable member was of opinion that the differences between states did not require a resort to arms, and that if our government only adopted proper means to effect it, they would find it possible to adjust all disputes with foreign countries by arbitration. The resolutions were rejected by an overwhelming majority.
On the 13th, Mr. Drummond submitted to the house a resolution, recommending economy in the public outlay. This was entertained as a party resolution by the protectionists, who thus suddenly became the professed advocates of economy for the purpose of allowing the agricultural burdens to be relaxed. Being a party motion, it was well supported, and the motion was rejected by a majority of less than fifty members.
Various motions were made by individual members to give a new form to the pressure of taxation, and to adjust in a different way the public burdens. The chancellor of the exchequer, in his financial statement, which is given at the close of this section, anticipated some of these motions, and secured their defeat by his success in inducing the house to acquiesce in his own budget. Others came on before the budget was introduced, but all shared a like fate, as the financial policy of the government received the decided support of the house. Some of the financial motions of the session made by independent members attracted much attention, and produced some impression in the house, being supported by considerable minorities. Thus Lord Duncan moved for the repeal of the window duty. There followed a debate of the most animated character in a thin house, various leading men opposing the government. On a division, the motion was rejected by only a majority of three, there having been eighty to seventy-seven. This was the narrowest escape in the commons which the government experienced in the session.
Mr. Cayley was recognised as the champion of the favourite financial measure with the protectionists, the repeal of the malt duty. He accordingly introduced that subject by motion, which was seconded by Mr. Christopher, another champion “of the agricultural interest.” It was warmly supported by several of the leading Conservatives; but Lord John Russell, Mr. James Wilson, and the chancellor of the exchequer, delivered powerful speeches against it. Mr. Milner Gibson, always intelligent on economical questions, made a very able speech against the repeal of the tax. The motion was lost, a large majority being against it.
On the 15th of March, the chancellor of the exchequer made his financial statement, which was eagerly looked forward to by both sides of the house, and by the country, as it was supposed that a vigorous effort to defeat the ministry on that point would be made. The minister was determined, if possible, to meet the ideas of all parties, and he hit upon the expedient of relieving the agricultural interest by reducing the duty on bricks. Neither the ministers nor their supporters were very sanguine that this would give satisfaction, but it met with very general approval, the trading, tenant, and agricultural interests all felt concerned in the cheapness of this useful material, then heavily taxed; and the result was unanimity in the favourable reception given to the chancellor’s proposal. The following correctly describes the ministerial scheme.
THE BUDGET.
The house having resolved itself into a committee of ways and means,—The chancellor of the exchequer proceeded to lay before it the financial statement for the ensuing year. He had to lay before the house two estimates—one, that up to the 5th of April next, and the other up to the 5th of April, 1851. He had estimated the income for this year at £52,262,000; but he was happy to say that it would probably amount to £52,874,000. He could not, however, take the estimate for next year so high, as, during the last quarter, the returns bad not been so good. He would, however, take them at £52,785,500. He had estimated the expenditure of last year at £50,853,622, but it amounted only to £50,553,651; and he calculated that next year there would be a surplus of two millions and a quarter. He had calculated last year on a surplus of only £104,000, whereas the increase amounted to £523,500. He did not, however, anticipate such favourable results from the customs this year as last, for there would be a probable loss on sugar of between four and five hundred thousand pounds; on brandy, and likewise on corn, there would also be probably a loss. The right honourable gentleman then enumerated the various sources of revenue from which he anticipated revenue, as follows:—
Excise 14,045,000
Stamps 6,860,000
Assessed Taxes 4,320,000
Income Tax 5,410,000
Customs 20,000,000
Post-Office 820,000
Crown Lands 160,000
Miscellaneous 260,000
Old Stores 410,000
Making a total of £52,285,000.
With respect to the expenditure,
The interest on the Funded Debt was 28,105,000
Other charges on the Consolidated Fund 2,620,000
Navy Estimates 6,613,000
Army Estimates 6,120,006
Ordnance 2,434,417
The Militia 110,000
Commissariat 500,000
Miscellaneous 211,159
Excess of expenditure in former years 4,000,000
Making altogether an expenditure of £50,613,582.
To this should be added the expenses of the new houses of parliament, and for a building to hold the records of the house. Upon the whole, he calculated, after meeting their expenses, upon an available surplus of fifteen hundred thousand, in round numbers. The right hon. gentleman then adverted to the propositions which had been made to reduce the duties on windows, tea, timber, malt, soap, bricks, paper, advertisements, and attorneys’ certificates; and also the proposition of the hon. member for Buckingham, to place on the consolidated fund certain charges otherwise provided for hitherto, and said he would not assent to those propositions, for which no special case had been made out. When he remembered that, within the last few years, no less a sum than £148,000,000 had been laid out in railways, he could not help thinking that there was a strong symptom of a return to more prosperous times. He would now state his own views on the subject. He had thought that they should first direct their attention to a reduction of the debt, and he should state to the house the fact, that since 1831, we had borrowed no less than £35,000,000, while in the same twenty years we had only applied £8,000,000 towards its repayment, leaving a balance of debt of no less than £27,000,000. If they were always to borrow when the revenue was deficient, and never to pay when they had an excess, he could not see how they were to get out of debt at all. Neither could he see how they would get rid of the income-tax if they were to apply every surplus to the reduction of taxation instead of to the reduction of the debt. He felt it desirable, however, that some relief should lie given in the way of taxation; and the first class to which lie should apply the principle would be the small holders of land, by reducing the stamp duty on the sales of land up to £1000, and rendering it more equitable on transfers above that amount. Also a reduction of the duty on mortgages and bonds, and to reduce the stamp duty on leases from one to half per cent. He also thought it desirable that the habitations of the labouring classes should be improved, and he should therefore propose the total repeal of the duty on bricks. He estimated the loss to the revenue at £300,000 on stamps, and at £455,000 on bricks; making a total of £755,000, which was about one-half of the surplus available. He thought, therefore, that he was making a fair distribution of the surplus, one half to the reduction of taxation, and one half to the reduction of the debt. He proposed to make advances for the purpose of drainage and land improvement as an inducement to an expenditure of capital, which could not fail to be considered a national as well as an individual benefit. The last sum granted in this was for England and Scotland, £2,000,000; and of this, owing to priority of application, the gentlemen north of the Tweed had got no less than £1,600,000. He proposed to advance another £2,000,000, and to take care to reserve a fair share of it for England. He also proposed to advance for similar purposes £1,000,000 to Ireland, £800,000 of which should be for arterial drainage. He hoped to be able to make these advances without any addition whatever to the public debt. These were the proposals he had to submit to the house. He also proposed to apply £25,000 in order to got rid of the perpetual annuities. He hoped to be able to make these advances without making any addition whatever to the funded debt, if the house would leave him a surplus to do so. He proposed, by the payment of a sum of £250,000 out of the surplus in hand, to extinguish the equivalent fund, which was a charge on the public funds of £10,000 a year, since the junction of the debt of Scotland with that of England at the time of the Union. That would leave him £500,000; and that he thought the house should leave him as a reserve fund. The right lion, gentleman concluded by moving a vote of £9,200,000, to be raised by exchequer bills, for the service of the year.
After some discussion, in which Mr. Hume, Mr. Newdegate, Lord John Manners, and several other members took part, the motion was agreed to.
DEATH OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.
A record of this event properly belongs to parliamentary history. Disraeli justly described the baronet when he called him “a very great member of parliament.” It was as a member of parliament, rather than as a man or a minister, that Sir Robert Peel was great. Possessing superior culture and extraordinary talents, he was not a man of genius. His administrative abilities were of a very high order, perhaps we might say, of the highest order that this country had ever known in a minister; but he was indebted for his conceptions sometimes to his friends, often to his opponents. The great aim of his policy was conservative—conservative of class privilege and old institutions. He resisted every measure of civil and religious liberty introduced in his time, until the overwhelming pressure of public opinion rendered further resistance hopeless. Thus, he opposed Catholic emancipation, the repeal of the corporation and test acts, the reform bill, and free trade, until all these measures were forced by public opinion. It was his gift to discern more keenly than other men when the moment arrived beyond which public opinion could be no longer safely opposed, and he was then generally ready to adopt the very measures which he had before so warmly denounced, and blamed others so strongly for promoting. He had, by his timely apostasy on all great questions conciliated the masses, and by preventing the conflict of parties and classes on these occasions, he did much to promote the public welfare at the expense of his own consistency. Measures seemed to be regarded by him, not in the light of principle, but in that of political expediency. He passed bills, not because truth, freedom, and justice demanded them, but because they promoted the interests of party, or, it might be, because he thought it was expedient for the national interests at the time that they should be passed. Even the great measure of the repeal of the corn laws he retarded longer than any other man could have retarded it. He was the minister who passed it, and who hindered it from passing sooner. His whole political history was a confession of political error, and repentance. Yet he did not leave the honour of carrying out their own measures to men who had formed a public opinion concerning them, and who could with conscience and honour have conducted them through parliament; he refused them all aid in each efforts, and when his time arrived, seized the schemes and carried them, demanding the homage of the Conservatives for conceding so little to the people, and the homage of the people for conceding to them so much more than they could have obtained from anybody else.
The personal history of this eminent man contained little that was striking; a cold prudence preserved him from engaging in and personal matters that could make his life eventful. He was born in the year 1788, in a cottage near Bury, in Lancashire, where his father then lived in humble circumstances. Mr. Peel founded in that neighbourhood works for calico-printing, and laid by that means the foundation of a very great fortune. He was afterwards knighted, and having written a pamphlet entitled, “The National Debt a Source of National Prosperity,” he was frequently consulted by Mr. Pitt, and it is alleged, conceived the idea that his son might become Mr. Pitt’s successor. He sent young Robert to Harrow at an early age, where he was on the same form with Byron the poet, who thus recorded his impressions of him: “There were great hopes of Peel among us all, masters and scholars. As a scholar he was greatly my superior; as a schoolboy out of school I was always in scrapes, he never; and in school he always knew the lesson, and I rarely.” “The boy was father to the man” in both these cases, for Peel through life maintained the same cautious, industrious, and circumspect habits, which certainly never characterised his far greater schoolfellow. He left Harrow for Oxford, where he especially distinguished himself as a classic. In 1809 he became of age, and entered parliament for a rotten borough openly bought for him by his father. His first speech was a success, and although he never gave promise of becoming a brilliant orator, he grew in favour with the house by the practicability of his views, and his faculty of perceiving the tone of feeling prevailing in the assembly at the time. In March, 1811, he made a very able speech in favour of the Duke of Wellington, then fighting the battles of the Peninsula, and against whom a public outcry had been raised. Percival, then in power, was so pleased with the speech that he invited Mr. Peel to take office, and he commenced his career, before he was twenty-three years of age, as under-secretary of the colonies. Upon the death of Percival he was appointed chief secretary for Ireland, under the administration of Lord Liverpool. During his Irish secretaryship he opposed Catholic emancipation with great zeal and some bitterness. Afterwards he held office in various other situations. During the free-trade agitation of 1819, he was its warm opponent, and when the great Lancashire meeting took place at Peterloo, afterwards the site of the free-trade hall in Manchester, and the Peterloo massacre occurred, Mr. Peel defended that act, which left for so many years a deep discontent in the hearts of the operatives of Lancashire. When in 1821 Lord John Russell first brought forward his motion for a reform in parliament, he met from Mr. Peel a determined opposition, such as the honourable baronet continued to offer against all increase in the power of the people, until Lord John had the pleasure of carrying his view triumphantly through parliament in the shape of the reform bill. Even after that measure passed, Sir Robert devoted his talent to advise and lead his party in every practical attempt to defeat it. In 1822, while preparation was making to invade Spain, at the instigation of “the Holy Alliance,” Mr. Brougham called the attention of the house to the circumstance, and eloquently denounced that despotic confederacy. Mr. Peel, with his usual caution, defended “the Holy Alliance;” but notwithstanding his guarded language, he left no doubt of his sympathy with foreign as well as domestic tyranny. The defender of the Peterloo massacre and the Holy Alliance gave no promise of ever being popular with the people of England. The other leading facts and features of his political career will be found in the pages of this history, where his part in public affairs has been noticed.
Sir Robert married, in 1820, Julia, youngest daughter of General Sir John Floyd, Bart., and when his death occurred, his family consisted of Robert, his successor in the baronetcy, then secretary of legation in Switzerland; Frederick, then M.P. for Leominster; William, a captain in the royal navy; John Floyd, an officer in the Fusilier Guards; Arthur Wellesley, not then quite of age; Julia, married to Viscount Villiers; and Eliza.
The circumstances of Sir Robert’s death were as follow: On Saturday, the 29th of June, he had been to Buckingham Palace, where he had made, a call, and entered his name on her majesty’s visiting book. He then rode slowly up Constitution Hill. When he arrived nearly opposite the wicket gate leading to the Green Park, his horse suddenly became restive. The baronet was a bad horseman, and he soon lost all control of the animal, which at last threw him over its head. Several gentlemen rendered assistance immediately, and among them two medical men. Mrs. Lucas, of Bryanstone Square, was passing in her carriage, in which he was conveyed to his residence. Dr. Foucart, of Glasgow, and Sir James Clark accompanied him in the carriage. An examination of his person was immediately made, when the medical gentlemen present pronounced that he had incurred severe injury of the shoulder and fracture of the collar bone; it was hoped that no internal consequences had been produced by the fall. The fracture was compound. He continued to grow worse in spite of every surgical remedy, until the Tuesday night following, when, a little after eleven o’clock, he expired. After death it was perceived, _for the first time_, that the fifth rib had been fractured on the left side. It is astonishing that the faculty Were unable to discover this, for it was the region in which he had felt most pain. This was supposed to have been the cause of his death; but the family opposed a _post mortem_ examination.
Mr. Becket Denison and Lord Villiers had ridden the horse to prove it, and it had met the bands and the omnibuses without shying, so that no apprehension was entertained that Sir Robert’s deficient horsemanship would be of any serious consequence with so quiet an animal; he had also ridden it regularly for a week without having any cause of alarm. The event seemed, therefore, one of those singular providences which so often occur, baffling human precautions, confounding calculations, and showing that that the ways and destinies of men are in the hands of an all-ruling Power.
Tidings of his death spread with great rapidity, and universal regret was displayed by the people. Shops were closed, the flags of the ships in the river and on the public buildings were lowered, and many went immediately into mourning. The funeral took place the ensuing week; the body was laid in the mausoleum of the family, at Drayton, near Tamworth, the whole population of the district manifesting every token of respect and sorrow of which the occasion allowed.
On Thursday, July the 4th, the following occurrences, in the house of commons, marked at once the estimation in which Sir Robert was held by public men, and his own singular and unostentatious character. Lord John Russell introduced to the house the circumstance of the honourable baronet’s decease, and said:—“It is impossible not to lament that hereafter this house will be no longer guided by that long and large experience of public affairs, by that profound knowledge, by those rhetorical powers, by that copious yet exact memory, with which this house was wont to be enlightened, instructed, and guided. It is not for me, or for this house to speak of the career of Sir Robert Peel. It never happened to me to be in political connexion with him; but so late as that last debate to which I have referred, I took occasion to thank him for that fair and frank support which he had given to the present government. Sir Robert Peel, sir, in that speech which preceded the one which I addressed to the house, and in which he opposed the policy of the government, spoke with such temper and such forbearance towards all those who might hold an opposite opinion to his, that it must be a satisfaction to those remaining that his last act should have been one of such candour and kindness towards those all around him. Sir, there can, I think, be no doubt that, however history may deal with the wisdom of the course he pursued, that it will be admitted that on two great occasions when he held power, undisturbed and apparently with every sign of security, and when he proposed measures to this house which shook, and, after a time, subverted his party, he did so from those motives of deep love for his country which ever distinguished him.” Having slightly adverted to the course of the late right honourable baronet on the corn-laws, the noble lord concluded by observing, “That if it should appear to the family and friends of the late Sir Robert Peel to be desirable to take such a course, though I shall not now proceed to make any motion on the subject, I will give my willing support to a proposal for conferring the same honours on his remains that was awarded to Mr. Grattan and Mr. Pitt. I may, perhaps, be permitted to add, that I thought it right to obtain the sanction of the crown before I made this proposal, and I feel assured that anything which could do honour to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, or which could add any further tribute of respect to his name, would be unhesitatingly acquiesced in by her majesty. Sir, I wish, therefore, in concluding these few words, to say that, in disposing of this proposal, I place myself entirely in the hands of the friends of the late Sir Robert Peel. Having had no political connexion with him, this proposal comes from me without the tinge of partiality; and I may say in conclusion, without any fear of a charge of insincerity, that I do feel, that this country, as well as posterity hereafter, in recognising the claims of individuals deceased to the title of eminent statesmen who have adorned the annals of this country, or contributed to its lustre, those of the late Sir Robert Peel will be amongst the foremost.”
Mr. Goulburn, while acknowledging, on the part of the family of the late lamented right honourable baronet, the high honour shown to his memory in the offer made by the noble lord, begged gratefully to decline it, as opposed to the wishes of Sir Robert Peel, as expressed in his will, which was dated May 8, 1844, and in which he stated, “I desire that I may be interred in the vault in the parish of Drayton-Bassett, in which my father and mother were interred, and that my funeral may be without ostentation or parade of any kind.” Nor did this sentiment undergo any alteration; for, not later than six weeks since, when alterations were made in that particular church to which that memorandum referred, Sir Robert Peel pointed out to Lady Peel the very spot in the vault in which he wished and trusted his body might be laid, without any of that parade or ostentation which he so strongly deprecated, and the absence of which gave him such great satisfaction in the case of the funeral of the late queen-dowager. Under these circumstances, therefore, he was sure that he (Mr. Goulburn) had but one duty to perform, and the family of the late Sir Robert Peel but one wish, and that was the thankfulness with which he (Mr. Goulburn), on their part, had to acknowledge the intentions, both of her majesty and her parliament, in wishing to confer on his late lamented friend that, the greatest honour that could be paid to a subject—a proposition which they were compelled respectfully, but thankfully, to decline. He (Mr. Goulburn) only entreated the house to add to that mark of respect which they had paid to the ability and public services of his lamented friend the further mark of respect to his simplicity of character, and give effect to his desire as to the way in which he wished his funeral obsequies to be conducted. The entry of the adjournment of the house immediately after its meeting on the previous day, out of respect to the memory of the deceased statesman, was an honour which would live for ever in the journals of that house, and an honour which was never before paid to a subject.
It was subsequently intended to make Lady Peel a peeress in her own right, but she declined the honour, her late husband having enjoined that none of his family should accept any honour or reward from his country.
When the tidings of Sir Robert’s decease reached other countries, much sympathy was expressed; the French assembly, and also the Congress of the United States, having in the most marked manner paid tributes of respect to his memory. M. Guizot, the favourite minister of Louis Philippe of France, wrote a memoir of Sir Robert, which displays much talent, but over praises the subject of the memoir, without doing justice, nevertheless, to his policy. The opinions and measures of the great statesman will long be a subject of discussion, not only in England, but in other nations. The following estimate of his political principles and career by Count Cavour, the eminent Sardinian statesman, a man intellectually superior to Sir Robert, is probably the truest and best of the many which has appeared. It was uttered in a speech during a sitting of the Sardinian senate, in the year 1857, when sufficient time had elapsed for foreign statesmen, at all events, to form a fair judgment of the man, unbiassed by the interests of their respective states. Count Cavour had been taunted with having expressed himself in very high terms of Sir Robert’s commercial and financial policy, while he at the same time refused, in many respects, to accept him as an exemplar. He, consequently, addressed to the senate the following remarkable speech:—“I entertain the highest admiration for that statesman; I believe that few men have rendered greater services to mankind than he has. Yet I do not believe that Sir Robert Peel was always infallible in his political career. It is my opinion that Sir Robert Peel would have left a much more illustrious name behind him, if, instead of having been compelled by circumstances to introduce reforms, he himself had originated them. I think that Sir Robert Peel would have left behind him a fame unequalled in history, if, instead of proposing the emancipation of the Catholics in 1829, he had proposed it in 1825. I think that his name would have eclipsed all those of ancient and modern statesmen if the reform of the corn-laws had been initiated in 1840—a good harvest year—instead of being passed in consequence of the famine which desolated Ireland, and instead of being in some measure a consequence of the potato disease. In fact, if Sir Robert Peel had been the originator of reforms, he would at his death have left to his friends a political inheritance far different from that which he bequeathed to them. If Sir Robert Peel had associated his name and his whole career with successive reforms, there would be no need of recording at the present time a strange fact which has taken place in England—namely, that a party, consisting of eminent men, including the most eloquent speaker in parliament, and the most able legislators, has been completely routed at the late elections. And this, gentlemen, is the fate of parties who allow themselves to be led by public opinion, and who wait to the last moment to carry out reforms which they have not the courage to introduce. I trust that the senate, convinced of this truth, will give its support to the present government, which, while following the example of Sir Robert Peel, nevertheless deviates from the course he adopted by making itself the originator of reforms, not waiting to grant them to any popular pressure, nor to the pressure of unforeseen circumstances.”
PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
The queen in person prorogued parliament on the 15th of August. The address to her majesty, and the royal speech, were ordinary documents. The houses were prorogued to the 15th of October, but parliament did not meet again for the transaction of business that year.
THE COURT.
_Birth of a Prince_.—On the 1st of May her majesty was delivered of a son, the third prince that had been born to her. The baptism took place in the chapel of Buckingham Palace, on the 22nd of June. The ceremony was unusually superb.
Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, his Royal Highness Prince George, her Royal Highness Princess Mary, his Royal Highness the Prince of Prussia, his Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, his Serene Highness the Prince of Leiningen, his Grace the Duke of Wellington; the Belgian, Portuguese, and Prussian ministers; the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Minto, Lord John Russell, Sir George Grey, Viscount Palmerston, Earl Grey, Sir Charles Wood, Sir Francis Baring, Sir John Hobhouse, the Earl of Carlisle, the Right Hon. Fox Maule, Sir William Somerville, and others invited to the solemnity, assembled in the old dining-room, at the palace, at six o’clock, the royal family being conducted to an adjoining drawing-room, and were conducted to seats in the chapel.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Chester (clerk of the closet), the Bishop of Oxford (lord high almoner), with the Rev. Henry Howarth (rector of the parish of St. George, Hanover-square), the Hon. and Rev. Gerald Wellesley (resident chaplain to her majesty), the Rev. Lord Worthesley Russell (deputy clerk of the closet), and the Rev. Henry George Liddell (chaplain to his Royal Highness Prince Albert), assembled in the room adjoining the old dining-room, and took their places at the communion-table. The Archbishop of Canterbury commenced the baptismal service, and on arriving at that part for naming the child, the Countess of Gainsborough handed the infant prince to the archbishop, when his royal highness was named Arthur William Patrick Albert.
The queen, the prince, and the royal personages then passed up the grand staircase to the Throne-room, where her majesty was joined shortly before eight o’clock by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester. The remainder of the company continued in the Green Drawing-room. The queen wore a dress of white, watered, and brocaded silk, with a broad flounce of Honiton lace, trimmed with white satin ribbon. Her majesty also wore a diadem of emeralds and diamonds, and ornaments of emeralds and diamonds to correspond. From the ribbon of the Most Noble Order of the Garter was suspended a most splendid George, set in brilliants; the ribbon itself was confined on the left shoulder by a diamond clasp. The queen also wore the garter as an armlet, the motto being formed of diamonds. The infant prince had a robe and mantle of Honiton lace over white satin, with a cap to correspond. The Princess Royal, the Princess Alice, and the Princess Helena, wore dresses of white watered silk with satin stripe, trimmed with white satin ribbon and silver fringe; the silk woven at Spitalfields. The dress of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent was of the richest white watered silk, of English manufacture, trimmed with blonde, having diamond ornaments down the front, and the stomacher adorned with brilliants. Her royal highness’s head-dress was formed of feathers, blonde lappets, and pearl and diamond ornaments. The necklace and earrings were diamonds. His Royal Highness Prince Albert wore a field-marshal’s uniform, with the collars of the Orders of the Garter and the Black Eagle (of Prussia), with four stars set in diamonds of the Garter, the Thistle, St. Patrick, and the Bath, and the ensigns of the Golden Fleece.
Her majesty was conducted by the lord steward and the lord chamberlain, at eight o’clock, to a state banquet in the picture-gallery, accompanied by the royal family, the foreign ministers, the cabinet ministers, and the other ladies and gentlemen who attended the ceremonial. “The christening cake” was placed in the middle of the dinner-table on the plateau of the magnificent service of gold plate. The top of the cake represented an octangular fountain, ornamented with a number of small vases, filled with miniature bouquets. The fountain rested on a circular plinth, containing a number of painted vignettes, set in silver frames.
After the toast of “The Queen and the Prince,” her majesty rose from the banquet, and proceeded to the White Drawing-room, accompanied by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, her Royal Highness Princess Mary of Cambridge, and the other ladies present. Soon after which, his Royal Highness Prince Albert, his Royal Highness the Prince of Prussia, his Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge, his Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, his Serene Highness the Prince of Leiningen, and the other guests, proceeded to the Music-room, when the doors of the White Drawing-room were opened, and the queen received an evening party.
The name of Patrick was given to the infant prince in compliment to the people of Ireland, and was a graceful sequel to her majesty’s confiding visit to that country the previous autumn.
_Arrival of the Nepaulese Ambassador_.—This illustrious person arrived on the 25th of May, accompanied by his two brothers, and a brilliant suite. He brought presents to her majesty, worth a quarter of a million sterling. On his arrival at the Custom House, the officials attempted to search his luggage, but he intimated that by their so doing he would lose caste, and in case of any attempt of the kind, he would not persevere in the object of his visit, but return by the next steamer. His religious scruples were respected, but to make himself certain, he placed a man with a drawn sword constantly beside his baggage. The ambassador was feted by the great, and his liberality in dispensing presents of precious stones did not detract from his popularity. He was received at court most graciously, and returned to his country greatly impressed with British power, and remained a friend and an ally of England.
_Death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge_.—On the 8th of July, this popular prince died at Cambridge House. He was the seventh son of George the Third. His remains were interred at Kew Church, with many demonstrations of sorrow on the part of the people. Her majesty was much attached to her royal relative, and was much afflicted by his death.
_Visit of her Majesty to the King of the Belgians_.—On the 21st of August, lier majesty, the prince, and four of the royal children, embarked at Osborne for Ostend, in tempestuous weather. Her majesty being “a good sailor,” was seldom deterred from her voyages by bad weather. The royal visitors only remained a few days, and returned to Osborne. The visit had no political significance, but was dictated simply by the affection of the royal pair for their uncle, the Belgian king.
_Her Majesty’s Visit to Scotland_.—On the 27th of August, the court paid its autumnal visit to the north. A visit was paid, _en route_, to Castle Howard, the seat of the Earl of Carlisle. At Newcastle-upon-Tyne the royal party was received by Earl Grey, and the corporations of Newcastle and Gateshead made many demonstrations of loyalty, which were gratifying to her majesty. As on the previous year her majesty visited Dublin, Cork, Belfast, and Glasgow, it was deemed politic and respectful to pay a visit to Edinburgh, of such a nature as to show the inhabitants of the Scottish metropolis her interest in it.
The citizens of “the modern Athens” vied with those of the other great cities of her majesty’s dominions in enthusiastic loyalty. The queen took up her residence in Holyrood House, which greatly gratified the national feeling of the Scotch. Immediately on her arrival, she entered the apartments which were once occupied by the beautiful and unfortunate Mary, Queen of Scots. Her majesty regarded the historical objects there presented to her, with melancholy interest. The following day the royal family ascended to the top of Arthur’s Seat, where it was said her majesty was intensely excited by the magnificence of the scenery. The following day, Prince Albert laid the foundation-stone of the Scottish National Gallery. The remaining portion of the day was spent in visiting remarkable persons and places. On the day following, her majesty and suite proceeded to Balmoral. On the 10th of October the court left their Scottish retreat, and returned to Edinburgh, remaining at Holyrood Palace for the night, and the next day proceeded to England. The first tidings which met her majesty on her return to Buckingham Palace were, of the death of the Queen of the Belgians, her august aunt, by marriage.
_The Queen and the Papal Aggression_.—During the winter, while the court was at Windsor, the papal aggression disturbed the country. It was known that her majesty felt great indignation, and her people determined to regard the act of the court of Rome as an insult to her as well as to the nation. The corporations of London and Oxford, and the University of Oxford, have the privilege of demanding audience of the crown; they were all received by the queen in a manner to mark her sense of the indignity offered to her by the Roman court.
_Assault on the Queen_.—On the 27th of June, her majesty having visited her uncle at Cambridge House, as she re-entered her carriage, a man rushed forward and struck her on the face with a cane; the blow drew blood, and caused a considerable swelling. A poor man present instantly struck the ruffian in the face in return; and other bystanders seized him, and handled him very roughly. He was taken into regular custody by the police, and interrogated at the Home Office. He had been an officer in the army. He was sentenced to seven years’ transportation. His sanity was doubted, as his manners were incoherent.
DEATHS OF REMARKABLE PERSONS.
During the year a number of persons died remarkable in every department of fame. Some of these have come in review under other sections, as in the case of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Cambridge. The following persons of note may be referred to in this section, as all that our space allows.
January 7th, in London, Lieutenant Waghorn, R. N. This remarkable man had devoted a very considerable portion of his life to the establishment of steam communication between this country and India. He explored several overland routes to India with success. In these enterprises he expended his fortune, and the government refused all suitable acknowledgment for the great services he had rendered to the state and to commerce, except a paltry pension, unworthy of the donors.
This year was remarkable for loss to the naval service by the death of distinguished officers. Only two days after the decease of the gallant and indefatigable Waghorn, Admiral Schombergh died, an officer who had seen extraordinary variety of service, and had carried into effect several improvements in victualling the navy.
On the 16th, Commander Le Vesconte, more popular, however, as a consul than distinguished as a commander.
February 14th, Rear-Admiral Sir Gordon Bremer, after long and arduous services to his country.
It would be a task beyond our limits to notice the individual history and exploits of the heroic men in the naval service who died during this year. Among the most memorable of these were the Hon. Vice-Admiral Bouverie, and Vice-Admiral Sir Charles Richardson, K. C. B.
Among many notable military officers who died, the following deserve especial notice:—
February 23rd, Captain Maurice O’Connel, nephew of the late Baron O’Connel, chamberlain to the Emperor of Austria. This officer had no rank in the British service.
March 7th, the Hon. Sir Hercules Robert Pakenham, lieut.-general. This officer, well-known as the brother-inlaw, and one of the generals of the great Duke of Wellington, had seen long and trying services, and was always distinguished by his great gallantry.
The month of August closed with the announcement of the death of Major-General Sir Alexander Cameron, G.C.B. This heroic man had served in nearly every country of Europe, where the standard of England floated over the field of battle. At Corunna he, with Sir John Hope, carried to a boat the last wounded Highlander, that could be descried straggling near the scene of action. Marshal Soult and his staff observed this act of heroism, and warmly expressed their admiration.
The list of literary and scientific men who passed to the great account, was a longer and more remarkable one than that of England’s deceased warriors.
In January, Mr. Charles Robert Forrester, whose writings were very popular, under the _nomme de plume_ of “Alfred Crowquill.”
On the 26th, Francis Jeffrey, one of the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland. He was the colleague of the Rev. Sydney Smith and Henry Brougham in founding the _Edinburgh Review_, and celebrated in every country for his critical contributions to that periodical.
February 2nd, Rev. Edward Bickersteth, rector of Watton, Hertfordshire. His place amongst literary men was won by his religious writings, which were exceedingly popular and useful. This eminent clergyman shed great lustre on the church by his devoted religious life, and gained for himself great renown in the department of religious literature.
On the 17th, the Rev. T. S. Grimshaw, A.M., vicar of Biddenham. This renowned clergyman distinguished himself in the department of literature in which the Rev. Mr. Bickersteth gained so much fame. Mr. Grimshaw wrote a “Life of the Rev. Leigh Richmond” (author of “The Dairyman’s Daughter”), the “Life and Works of William Cowper,” &c.
On the 23rd, Sir William Allan, R.A, limner to Her Majesty for Scotland, president of the Royal Scottish Academy. This artist was original and indefatigable, but could obtain no patronage out of his own country, where his treatment of Scottish subjects won for him popularity.
On the 2nd of March, John Peter Deering, Esq., a celebrated architect. He designed Exeter Hall, London, the University Club-house, and the best portions of University College, London.
April 7th, Canon Bowles, of Salisbury, eminent as a Latin and English poet. His early sonnets were highly intellectual and artistic in their versification. His memoirs of the poet Pope, and of other distinguished persons, were extremely popular, but did not obtain the lasting fame of his poetry.
On the 17th, in New York, Thom, the self-taught and celebrated Scottish sculptor. His “Tarn O’Shanter,” and “Old Mortality,” obtained for him a wide-spread fame in Great Britain and the United States of America.
On the 23rd, at Rydal Mount, near Ambleside, William Wordsworth, D.C.L., the poet, whose works have had a universal circulation. His chief productions are “The Evening Walk,” “The Excursion,” and “The White Doe of Rylstone.” He also wrote many deeply touching minor poems.
May 24th, Miss Jane Porter, authoress of many works, which have been translated into various languages. The most popular of these were “Thaddeus of Warsaw,” and the “Scottish Chiefs.” Sir Walter Scott is represented as having admitted to George IV. that his idea of the “Waverley Novels” was suggested by the perusal of the “Scottish Chiefs.” If this currently believed anecdote be correct, Miss Porter was the founder of the school of modern historical novels, and not Sir Walter Scott.
On the 27th, Mr. Richard J. Wyatt, known as a sculptor of great merit throughout Europe. His death took place at Rome.
July 4th, at Barham, Suffolk, Canon Kirby, rector of that parish. He was a distinguished naturalist, and the author of various eminent works, especially in the department of entomology. His _Monographic, Apium Anglio_, his description of the _Fauna Boreali Americana_, and his “Bridgewater Treatise,” on the “history, habits, and instincts of animals,” have made him a world-wide tame.
July 12th, Mr. Robert Stephenson, civil engineer, who had obtained an honourable notoriety for his achievements in his profession.
August 19th, Sir Martin Shee, president of the Royal Academy. He was not only celebrated as a painter, but was an accomplished scholar and author.
On the 30th of October, one of the most benevolent and amiable ladies in the world of letter’s, Mrs. Bell Martin, died at New York. This gifted lady was born at Ballinahinch Castle, in Galway. Her father, Mr. Thomas Barnewell Martin, M.P. for Galway, died in 1847. Miss Martin married a Mr. Bell, who assumed the name of Martin. The estates of Mr. Martin, of Ballinahinch, were in area the largest in the United Kingdom, and Miss Martin was commonly styled “the Irish heiress,” from her very large patrimony. The failure of the potato crops, and the ensuing famine, which afflicted Ireland for several years, ruined Miss Martin’s inheritance. The estates were encumbered, and as landed property in Ireland during “the famine years” brought but little in the market, the Ballinahinch properly was thrown into the Encumbered Estates Court, and there were no assets for “the heiress,” She left the extensive region over which she had almost reigned as a princess, without any longer having a claim to a single acre. She was in deep distress, and, to the dishonour of the gentry of Ireland, she found no friends in her hour of trial. She took up her residence on the continent, and supported herself by her pen: she was the authoress of “St. Etienne, a tale of the Vendean war,” “Julia Howard,” and some minor works. Her contributions to the _Encyclopédie des Gens de Monde_ were numerous, and gained her high reputation. She eventually sought New York as the sphere of her enterprise. During the voyage she was prematurely confined, and died in consequence, soon after her arrival at the Union Place Hotel. It was generally believed in that city, and in the land of her birth, that uneasiness as to her temporal prospects aggravated, and perhaps caused the illness, which proved fatal to this highly gifted lady.
November 15th, Joseph Hullmandle, whose inventions and improvements connected with lithography, and tinted lithographic printing, contributed so much to the perfection of that branch of artistic skill.
November 26th, Lord Nugent, a celebrated politician, poet, and man of letters. The title was Irish, and became extinct with him.
December 8th, Mr. William Sturgeon, celebrated for his scientific learning, his voluminous productions on electricity, and various branches of natural science. He had been originally a shoemaker, afterwards a soldier, subsequently scientific lecturer at Addiscombe College, and in his old age suffered much from poverty. Lord John Russell obtained him a grant of £50 per year from the Civil List, so paltry a recognition of such great merits and services as is exceedingly dishonouring to the country.
Several remarkable persons were removed by death from various walks of life unnecessary to classify. The following were the most remarkable instances:—
On the 24th of January, Sir Felix Booth, the celebrated brewer, a man of large wealth, and a patron of science. He fitted out, at an expense of £17,000, the expedition in search of the North-West passage, commanded by Captain Ross, who commemorated the name of his munificent patron by giving to the northern termination of the American continent the name of Felix Boothia.
On the 6th of March, Sir James Gibson Craig, Bart., who had distinguished himself as a leader of the Scottish Whigs for many years.
July the 8th, at Cambridge House, Piccadilly, H.R.H. Prince Adolphus Frederick, of Brunswick Lunenburgh, Duke of Cambridge, youngest surviving son of George III. He was a very benevolent prince, liberal in politics, patriotic in feeling, and much beloved by the country.
July 20th, Sir Robert Peel, Bart., the statesman and parliamentary leader. Such ample notice has been taken of his life and death, on former pages, that it is not necessary more particularly to refer to it in this place.
August the 7th, Louis Philippe, the exiled King of the French, aged 77 years. Few princes experienced so many and such great vicissitudes of fortune. He died at Claremont, in Surrey. When in his power the most obsequious homage was paid to him by the court and the citizens of London; in his exile, he was allowed to sink almost unnoticed into obscurity and death. His faithlessness to political engagements, his avarice, and want of principle generally, had created a universal obloquy round his name.