Chapter 58

{VICTORIA. 1841—1842}

Meeting of Parliament..... Poor-law Amendment Act..... Jews’ Civil Disabilities Removal Bill..... Church of Scotland; Non-intrusion Question, &c. Law Reform..... Financial Statements..... Discussion on the Corn-laws..... Resolution of Want of Confidence in the Government..... Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament..... State of Parties..... Meeting of the new House of Commons, &c. Resignation of Ministers..... Sir Robert Peel’s Administration..... Statement of Sir Robert Peel as to his intended Course of Proceeding, &c. Financial Statement..... Poor-laws, &c. East India Affairs..... State of the Continent.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1841}

Parliament was opened by her majesty in person, on the 26th of January. Her majesty’s speech chiefly referred to the posture of affairs in the Levant and China, and to serious differences which had arisen between Spain and Portugal about the execution of a treaty concluded by those powers in 1835, for regulating the navigation of the Douro.

On the 4th of February the Earl of Minto moved the thanks of the house to Admiral Sir Robert Stopford, G.C.B., and the officers and men under his command in the late operations on the coast of Syria. This motion was carried _nem. con_. The same unanimity prevailed also in the commons on the same subject.

POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

On the 29th of January Lord John Russell moved in the house of commons for leave to bring in “a bill to continue the poor-law commission for a time to be limited, and for the further amendment of the laws relating to the poor in England.” The powers of the commissioners were to be continued for ten years, and when his lordship had made this known, several members, as Sir. Burdett, and Messrs. Wakley and Hume, opposed such an extension of powers to them. Leave, however, was given to bring in the bill on the 8th of February; and an important debate took place on the second reading. The debate was opened by Mr. D’Israeli, who opposed the bill, and moved that it should be read that day six months. Mr. Wakley seconded this amendment. The motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and one against fifty-four. But although the principle of the bill was thus emphatically confirmed, yet on several occasions the attacks upon it were renewed by its opponents with much acerbity. Upon the motion for the committal of the bill, Mr. Townley Parker moved, and Mr. Grimsditch seconded the motion, that it should be committed that day six months: but this was negatived by a large majority, and the bill was committed. When the bill was in committee, government gave up the longer period of ten years for the continuance of the powers of the commissioners, and reduced it to five, in deference to the opinion expressed by Sir Robert Peel, and other members. After this, the bill was considerably delayed in its progress by a great variety of amendments suggested by members on both sides of the house, to several of which government assented, and one or two of which were carried against the wishes of ministers.

JEWS’ CIVIL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.

During this session, Mr. Divett, one of the members for Exeter, introduced a bill, the object of which was to do away with the declaration required by the municipal corporations act from all persons taking corporate offices, by reason of which members of the Jewish persuasion had been debarred from holding civic magistracies. This bill was opposed on the second reading by Sir R. Inglis; but on a division it was carried by a majority of one hundred and thirteen against twenty-four. On the third reading Mr. Gladstone moved that it be read that day six months; a motion which was seconded by Mr. Pringle; both objecting to the principle of the bill, as hostile to the constitution and repugnant to the feelings of Christians. Mr. Macauley and Lord Sandon supported, and Mr. Goulburn and Sir R. Inglis opposed the measure. The third reading was carried in the commons by a majority of one hundred and eight against thirty-one; but the bill experienced a different fate in the house of lords. It passed a second reading; but on the third reading its rejection was moved by the Bishop of Llandaff, which was carried by ninety-eight against sixty-four: the bill was consequently lost.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: NON-INTRUSION QUESTION, ETC.

On the 1st of May, the Duke of Argyle introduced a measure with reference to the right of patronage in the church of Scotland: a question which had been long the subject of controversy. In introducing his bill, the noble duke, after referring to the history of the various acts of the legislature affecting the right of patronage in the church of Scotland, proceeded to read some letters from Drs. Gordon and Chalmers, and others of the dominant party in the church, with the view of showing that the total abolition of patronage, as by law established, was not the means by which this party desired the settlement of the existing differences. The object of the bill proposed, the noble duke subsequently explained, was to give effect to the principle of non-intrusion on the right of the congregation to give their approval or dissent to the appointment of any presentee that might be offered them by the patron. He felt convinced, he said, that unless some measure to this effect were passed, the most lamentable consequences to the church of Scotland would ensue, and there can be no doubt but a secession of a large number of the members of the church would take place; while, if the principle of non-intrusion were conceded, the surest means would be taken to put an end to the agitation of those who were opposed to patronage. Lord Aberdeen said that he wished to give full expression to the genuine and honest feelings and wishes of the people in these matters, but he could not give his support to a measure which might lead to the monstrous consequence of compelling the presbytery to reject a presentee, though he were objected to for no other reason than because he had been presented, or because he had been compelled to take the oath of allegiance. Lord Dunfermline and the earl of Haddington opposed, and the marquess of Breadalbane supported the measure, and it was read a first time. On the 27th of May, the general assembly of the church of Scotland deposed seven clergymen of the presbytery of Strathbogie, and these seven ministers appealed to parliament. A petition was presented from them on the 15th of June, by Lord Aberdeen, in which they called upon the house to save them, by its interference, from the consequences of the sentence which had been pronounced. This petition gave rise to a discussion in the house of lords, but no step was taken for the restoration of the deposed ministers.

LAW-REFORM.

During this session there was a further mitigation of the criminal code. Two bills were introduced for this purpose in the house of commons. The first of these was introduced by Mr. Kelly, who proposed to abolish the punishment of death for all the crimes still capital, except murder and treason. This motion was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and the bill was brought in; but shortly afterwards a measure was introduced on the part of government, by Lord John Russell, which proposed to abolish the punishment of death in certain cases of embezzlement; for the offence of returning from transportation; for burning ships, where the act involved no treasonable intent; and for the crime of rape. Mr. Kelly approved of this measure as far as it went, but contended for the superiority of his own more comprehensive measure. He particularly objected to leaving the offence of setting fire to ships in the royal dock-yards capital, and to retaining the punishment of death for attempts to murder. Mr. Kelly’s bill went first into committee; but he experienced so many defeats that he was induced to leave government to deal with their own measures on the same subject. The result was, that near the close of the session a bill was passed, whereby the punishment of transportation for life is substituted for death in all cases of forgery and embezzlement, which had before remained capital, and the crime of rape is made subject to the same mitigated penalty.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

On the 31st of April, the chancellor of the exchequer entered into his financial statement. When he came forward last year, he said, he had anticipated that the expenditure would amount to £49,499,000, and the income to £48,641,000; leaving a deficiency of £858,000. The results of the year had proved less favourable than he had anticipated: the expenditure had amounted only to £49,285,000, but the income had only reached £47,443,000, leaving a deficiency of more than £1,840,000. He calculated that the expenditure for the ensuing year would be £50,731,226, and the income £48,310,000, which would leave a deficiency of £2,421,000 to be provided for. In order to raise the revenue, Mr. Baring proposed to deal with the two articles, timber and sugar. The present duty on colonial timber, he said, amounted to ten shillings a load, and on Baltic timber fifty-five shillings. These duties he proposed to modify, by raising that on colonial to twenty shillings, and reducing that on Baltic to fifty shillings a load, by which he anticipated an increased revenue of £750,000. He next explained that the alteration which he intended to propose in the sugar-duties would still leave a protection of fifty per cent. to colonial sugar. He would leave, he said, the duty on colonial sugar at the present amount of twenty-four shillings per cwt., but that on foreign sugar, amounting to sixty-three shillings, he proposed to reduce to thirty-six shillings per cwt.; from which change he expected an augmentation of revenue of £700,000. There would still, he said, be a deficiency to be provided for. But Lord John Russell had that evening given notice of his intention at an early period to submit the question of the corn-trade to the consideration of the house; and if the propositions of his noble friend were agreed to, he should be under no uneasiness about the deficiency; if not, it would be his duty to make provision by direct taxation. Messrs. Hume, Ward, Villiers, and other members, expressed their satisfaction at the propositions of the chancellor of the exchequer, while Lord Francis Egerton, Viscount Sandon, Sir Robert Peel, and Messrs. Goulburn and Christopher, complained of them, and especially of the announcement of an intended alteration in the corn-laws. The debate on the budget was protracted to a considerable length, and the nature of the discussion will be seen in the following article.

DISCUSSION ON THE CORN-LAWS.

The announcement made by Mr. Baring, that an alteration in the corn-laws was contemplated by government, caused the anti-corn-law party to set to work with activity to organize new associations, to despatch lecturers and emissaries, which might rouse the public mind throughout the country, and to get up requisitions for public meetings in the principal towns. In parliament, also, the opposition lost no time in coming to the attack. On the 3rd of May, the Duke of Buckingham presented one hundred and twenty petitions against a repeal of the corn-laws.

In the house of commons, Viscount Sandon gave notice of the following resolution, which he would move on going into the committee of ways and means: “That, considering the efforts and sacrifices which parliament and the country have made for the abolition of the slave-trade and slavery, with the earnest hope that their exertions and example might lead to a mitigation and final extinction of those evils in other countries, this house is not prepared, especially with the present prospects of the supply of sugar from the British possessions, to adopt the measure proposed by her majesty’s government for the reduction of the duty on foreign sugars.” Lord John Russell gave notice, in the event of the house not going into committee on the sugar duties, and Viscount Sandon’s resolution being put from the chair, he should move a counter-resolution; namely, “That it is the opinion of this house, that it is practicable to supply the present inadequacy of the revenue to meet the expenditure of the country, by a judicious alteration of protective and differential duties, without any material increase of the public burdens; that such a course will, at the same time, promote the interests of trade, and afford relief to the industrious classes, and is best calculated to provide for the maintenance of the public faith and the general welfare of the people.” A third notice was given by Mr. O’Connell, to the effect that any diminution of the duty on foreign sugar should be limited to that which was produced by free labour, and not extend in any way to the produce of slave labour. The debate on the sugar question was preceded by the presentation of petitions both for and against the alterations proposed by government. In commencing the debate, which lasted eight nights, Lord John Russell took the formal motion for going into committee out of Mr. Baring’s hands, and availed himself of the opportunity for pre-occupying the ground, and anticipating the arguments of his opponents. In his speech his lordship remarked, that if this had been merely a financial question, he should have left it in the hands of the chancellor of the exchequer. He regarded it, however, as constituting, by the variety and magnitude of its relations, a great national subject. Government were well aware, he continued, at the commencement of the year, that the finance of the country was matter of great difficulty, and would require great attention. Their resolution to consider the corn-laws was formed before the 11th of March, when the notice was given that the colonial duties would be reviewed.

Government had to meet a deficiency of £2,400,000. It was open to the house to have objected to the expenditure at the time; but now to oppose the going into committee of ways and means, without suggesting any other plan as preferable to that of the government, was unworthy of a great party. Ministers had preferred the plan of altering the import duties, as now proposed, for the purpose of relieving instead of oppressing the people. Being prepared to deal with sugar and timber as questions of revenue, they would not have been justified in excluding the other great question, that of corn; especially with their opinions on the merits of that question, and their belief that, sooner or later, it must be made the means of an extensive change in the commercial situation of this country. Before the house had gone into committee, Lord John Russell had announced the rate of duties which he meant to propose on corn; namely, on wheat, a duty of eight shillings per quarter; on rye, of five shillings; on barley, of four shillings and sixpence, and on oats, of three shillings and sixpence. His lordship now said that the duties he meant to propose, added to the charge of freight, would constitute a sufficient protection, keeping the price of wheat, in all probability, at from fifty to sixty shillings a quarter. With respect to sugar, he considered the true principle was protection, not prohibition. He entered into some details, for the purpose of showing that West Indian interests would be protected under the proposals of ministers, and that freedom of commercial intercourse among nations had a tendency to improve and cheapen the productions of each. By the admission of foreign sugar, his lordship said, the industry of the West Indies would be stimulated to better means of production, and the English labourer would obtain his sugar on more reasonable terms. His lordship next entered into various statistical details, to prove that the great measure of slave emancipation had been eminently successful; and that the condition of the negroes was not only promising, but prosperous. On Lord John Russell’s resuming his seat, Viscount Sandon rose to propose a resolution of which he had given notice.

Lord John Russell then moved _pro forma_ the resolution of which he had given notice as an amendment to Viscount Sandon’s; but it was negatived without a division; and that of Viscount Sandon’s being carried, the house adjourned. After this defeat it was generally expected that ministers would resign; but on the next day business was resumed, and carried on as though nothing of importance had happened; and when business was over Lord John Russell simply moved that the house at its rising should adjourn to the Monday following. The Earl of Darlington, on hearing this, said that he had been relieved of all suspense as to the intentions of government: it was plain that they meant to stay in office with a tenacity unparalleled in the history of governments, and with the deliberate decision of the house of commons unequivocally declared against them. He asked when Lord John Russell intended to bring forward the question of the corn-laws. And his lordship replied, “On Friday, the 4th of June;” but before that day arrived ministers had suffered another signal defeat, and were compelled to postpone the subject.

RESOLUTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT.

On the first day on which the house met after its temporary adjournment, Sir Robert Peel gave notice that he should move, on the 27th of May, this resolution:—“That her majesty’s ministers do not sufficiently possess the confidence of the house of commons to enable them to carry through the house measures which they deem of essential importance to the public welfare; and that their continuance in office under such circumstances is at variance with the spirit of the constitution.” On the day named the right honourable baronet introduced this resolution with a speech of considerable length and ability. The debate which ensued lasted five nights; in the course of which much was said for and against the motion. The leading speakers in support of it were Lord Stanley, Sirs James Graham and William Follett, and Messrs. Christopher and Sergeant Jackson; those against it were Viscount Morpeth, Sir George Grey, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Macauley, Handley, O’Connell, and Shiel. Towards the close of the debate, Lord John Russell denied that the motion was in the spirit of the constitution, and ably defended his own conduct and that of his colleagues in retaining office. Sir Robert Peel briefly replied; and on a division the motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and twelve against three hundred and eleven. After this division, Lord John Russell announced that he would state on the following Monday the course which the government should resolve under existing circumstances to pursue.

PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

At the meeting of the house on the following Monday, after moving the order of the day for the committee of supply, Lord John Russell said that he and his colleagues had come to the determination not to bring on the alteration of the corn-laws as a government measure. He further stated that, after the late division, he felt that tire government could expect no further majorities in the house of commons, and that they would not make any further struggle for the retention of their offices until the opinion of the nation had been ascertained. A desultory conversation followed, in which his lordship expressly declared that the intentions of government were to advise that no time should be lost in dissolving the present Parliament, and that a new one should be summoned without delay. Subsequently the house resolved itself into a committee of supply; and the estimates were voted without opposition. The session was now virtually at an end, although the condemned parliament lingered on for about a fortnight after the ministerial announcement of a dissolution. In the course of that period Lord John Russell announced many bills, in more or less advanced stages, as abandoned; but he still sought to carry the bill for the better administration of justice. This bill, however, was opposed by Sir E. Sugden, who moved that it should not come into operation till the 10th day of October. This motion was carried; and Lord John Russell then declared his determination to throw up the bill altogether. It thus fell to the ground; but it was revived in the next session, and then passed into a law. After this discussion nothing worthy of note occurred; and on the 22nd of June, parliament was prorogued by the queen in person, after having previously given her assent to the appropriation and other bills. The lord-chancellor then declared parliament to be prorogued to Tuesday, the 29th of June; and on the following day the queen’s proclamation was issued, by which the parliament thus prorogued was declared to be dissolved; and writs for a new one were issued, returnable on the 19th of August. Thus terminated the first session of 1841; a more barren and unprofitable one than which is not to be found in the annals of modern parliaments. It lasted nearly five months, and yet all the great questions brought forward were still in an unsettled state. It has indeed been well remarked, that “the whole operations of this session might have been at once blotted out of the records of parliament, with scarcely any sensible effects upon the laws or institutions of the country.”

STATE OF PARTIES.

On the dissolution of parliament both the great parties in the state—the Conservatives and Liberals—prepared themselves for the struggle which was immediately to ensue at the general election. The hopes and expectations of the two parties were essentially different. On the one hand, the Conservative party had been for some time increasing in numbers throughout the country. Their ranks had been recruited by those who had been accustomed to identify themselves with their opponents, but who believed that the time was come when the exigencies of the country demanded a strong and efficient government, and who were willing to accord to Conservative statesmen the merit of being ready to support all measures of real amendment; knowing that they only had the power of carrying such measures into effect. There were, moreover, many who although they stood aloof from the Conservative party, and professed jealous suspicion of its future policy, who were not averse to give it once more a trial in the possession of power. It was clear, indeed, that the Conservative party at this period stood the highest in the estimation of the people. The landowners and farmers were united in their favour, and the mercantile body, alarmed at the attack which had been made upon our West Indian and Canadian interests in the articles of sugar and timber, agreed, too, in an anxious desire for their return to power. The Liberal party, however, could still reckon confidently upon the support of the Radicals; and they had an advantage even from their recent defeat. The defeat happened in consequence of certain financial measures which they brought forward in their budget, which measures assumed the character of a removal of disabilities from trade. This afforded good grounds for an appeal to the people, and an attack upon monopoly. Land-owners and West Indian proprietors were styled monopolists: the former, because the legislature had imposed a duty on corn for the protection of agriculture; and the latter, because their interests were protected by a duty on sugar. In like manner it was attempted to excite popular odium against other classes, as favoured in the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the community: all who supported the Conservatives were subjected to the same charge, while the supporters of government were exultingly denominated anti-monopolists. The watchword of the Liberal party was, in truth, “anti-monopoly;” and a strenuous effort was made to enlist popular feeling in its behalf. This cry, however, did not succeed.. Even the city of London, which had before returned four Liberals, now returned only two, which were coupled with two Conservatives. As for the elections, in the counties they went everywhere against the ministry: and in the towns and manufacturing districts the cry of “Low wages!” was raised against that of “Cheap bread!” with considerable effect. In a word, the returns proved more favourable to the Conservative party than the most sanguine among them had anticipated; and it appeared certain that Sir Robert Peel would command a stronger and more efficient majority than had supported any minister for a long period.

MEETING OF THE NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS, ETC.

The new session of parliament was opened by commission on the 19th of August, and the speech was read by the lord-chancellor on the 24th of the same month. The speech referred to a treaty concluded on the 15th of July, 1840, between her majesty and the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Russia, and the Sultan, the objects of which, it was said, had been fully accomplished. The speech also informed the house that her majesty had ordered the return of her minister to the court of Persia, and announced that the differences which had arisen between Spain and Portugal about the execution of a treaty concluded by those powers in 1835, for regulating the navigation of the Douro had been amicably adjusted. In reference to the disputes with China, a hope was expressed that the emperor would see the justice of the demands which her majesty’s plenipotentiaries had been recently instructed to make. The speech concluded thus:—“My lords and gentlemen,—We are more especially commanded to declare to you that the extraordinary expenses which the events in Canada, China, and the Mediterranean have occasioned, and the necessity of maintaining a force adequate to the protection of our extensive possessions, have made it necessary to consider the means of increasing the public revenue. Her majesty is anxious that this object should be effected in the manner least burdensome to her people: and it has appeared to her majesty, after full deliberation, that you may at this juncture properly direct your attention to the revision of duties affecting the productions of foreign countries. It will be for you to consider whether some of these duties are not so trifling in amount as to be unproductive to the revenue, while they are vexatious to commerce. You may further examine whether the principle of protection upon which others of these duties are founded be not carried to an extent injurious alike to the income of the state and the interests of the people. Her majesty is desirous that you should consider the laws which regulate the trade in corn. It will be for you to determine whether these laws do not aggravate the natural fluctuation of supply—whether they do not embarrass trade, derange the currency, and by their operation diminish the comfort and increase the privations of the great body of the community.” In the house of lords the address was moved by Earl Spencer, and seconded by the Marquess of Clanricarde, both of whom in their speeches vindicated the conduct of government, and advocated the repeal of the corn-laws. The address was opposed by the Earl of Ripon, who arraigned government on many points, more especially on their financial operations. He concluded a long and able speech by proposing as an amendment, that an address be presented to her majesty, “humbly to represent to her majesty, that we observe with great concern that the public expenditure has of late, in each of several years, exceeded the annual income, and that we are convinced of the necessity of adopting measures for the purpose of remedying so great an evil: To assure her majesty that we are deeply sensible of the importance of those considerations, to which her majesty has been graciously pleased to direct our attention in reference to the commerce and revenue of the country, and to the laws which regulate the trade in corn: That in deciding the course which it may be advisable to pursue with reference to such matters, it will be our earnest desire to consult the interest and promote the welfare of all classes of her majesty’s subjects: That we feel it, however, to be our duty humbly to submit to her majesty that it is essential to the satisfactory results of our deliberations upon these and other matters of public concern that her majesty’s government should possess the confidence of this house and of the country; and respectfully to represent to her majesty that that confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of her majesty: To assure her majesty that in the gracious expression of her majesty’s deep sympathy with those of her subjects who are now suffering from distress and want of employment, we recognise an additional proof of her majesty’s tender regard for the welfare of her subjects; and that we cordially join in the prayer of her majesty that all our deliberations may be guided by wisdom, and may conduce to the happiness of her people.” Viscount Melbourne expressed himself to the effect that the Earl of Ripon’s motion came like a thunder-clap upon him. He was ignorant that there existed in the house the spirit on which the motion seemed to proceed. The Duke of Wellington, after alluding to the various allegations brought against government by the Earl of Ripon, said that they sufficiently justified him in calling on that house to vote against the address. He continued to animadvert upon, and to condemn the introduction of her majesty’s name in the royal speech, in such a way as to give the country to believe that those who opposed the proposed alterations in commerce opposed her majesty. At the same time the noble duke passed a warm eulogium upon the general conduct of Viscount Melbourne in his relation to the crown, frankly admitting that the noble viscount had rendered the greatest possible service to her majesty, in making her acquainted with the mode and policy of the government of this country; initiating her into the laws and spirit of the constitution; and teaching her to preside over the destinies of the empire of Great Britain. His grace concluded by making some severe remarks on the budget, about which so much had been said; and by expressing himself to be still adverse to any alteration in the corn-laws. The noble duke was followed by the Duke of Richmond, who, in a short speech, advocated the interests of the agriculturists. The Marquess of Lansdowne said that the government had not proposed a repeal of the corn laws _in toto_, as the Duke of Richmond seemed to have understood: they simply contemplated some change. After a few words from the Earl of Coventry and the Marquess of Northampton, in support of the amendment, and from Lord Brougham, partly in favour of the address, and partly condemnatory of the measures of government, their lordships divided on the original question, when there appeared for it only ninety-six, and against it one hundred and sixty-eight; so that ministers were left in a minority of seventy-two.

In the commons the first business performed was the election of a speaker, and Mr. Shaw Lefevre was re-elected by the consent of all parties. The house then adjourned; after which several days were consumed in swearing in members. This being done, the speaker having read from the chair the speech delivered in the other house by the lords-commissioners, an address was moved in consonance with it by Mr. Mark Phillips, and seconded by Mr. John Dundas. An amendment was moved by Mr. J. S. Wortley, which expressed the regret of the house at the recent increase of expenditure; its determination to provide for that increase; its earnest desire to promote the welfare of her majesty’s subjects; and respectfully to represent to her majesty the necessity that her ministers should enjoy the confidence of the country, which the present administration did not possess. This amendment was seconded by Lord Bruce; and a long discussion followed, in which many members expressed their views. The result showed that ministers were even deserted by some of their tried friends: even Mr. Roebuck declared that he should vote in favour of the amendment. On this occasion Mr. Cobden, who had been elected in the new parliament, and who was destined to be the greatest antagonist of the corn-laws that had ever appeared in the house of commons, came forward to express his views on the subject. On a division the amendment was carried by a majority of three hundred and sixty, against two hundred and sixty-nine. When the house of commons met for the purpose of receiving the report on the amended address, Mr. Sharman Crawford proposed another amendment, to the effect that the house would feel it their duty so to extend the suffrage as to give to the working classes their just weight in legislation; but this was negatived by an overwhelming majority.

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.—SIR ROBERT PEEL’S ADMINISTRATION.

At the next meeting of the house of commons, Lord Marcus Hill appeared at the bar, and read this answer to the address:—“It is the greatest satisfaction to me to find that the house of commons are deeply sensible of the importance of those considerations to which I directed their attention in reference to the commerce and revenue of the country, and the laws which regulate the trade in corn; and that, in deciding on the course which it may be desirable to pursue, it will be their earnest desire to consult the welfare of all classes of my subjects. Ever anxious to listen to the advice of my parliament, I will take immediate measures for the formation of a new administration.” The division on Mr. J. S. Wortley’s amendment had so emphatically declared the sense of the new house of commons upon the continuance of the Whig government, that no other course remained to them but retirement from office. Accordingly, on the 30th of August, Viscount Melbourne in the lords, and Lord John Russell in the commons, intimated that they and their colleagues had resigned, and that they only continued to hold their respective offices till their successors were appointed. The task of forming a new government was assigned by the queen to Sir Robert Peel, and this time he was successful; the change embracing the queen’s household. The following were the principal members of the new administration:—the Duke of Wellington was leader in the lords; Sir Robert Peel himself was first lord of the treasury; Lord Lyndhurst became lord-chancellor; the honourable H. Goulburn, chancellor of the exchequer; Lord Wharncliffe, president of the council; the Duke of Buckingham, privy-seal; Sir James Graham, home-secretary; Earl of Aberdeen, foreign secretary; Lord Stanley, colonial secretary; Earl of Haddington, first lord of the admiralty; Lord Ellenborough, president of the board of control; Earl of Ripon, president of the board of trade; Sir H. Hardinge, secretary-at-war; Sir E. Knatchbull, treasurer of the navy and paymaster of the forces; and Lord Lowther, postmaster-general. After the new government was formed, writs were moved for in the commons for various places, in consequence of the acceptance of office of those members who belonged to that house; and the house afterwards adjourned until the 16th of September.

STATEMENT OF SIR ROBERT PEEL AS TO HIS INTENDED COURSE OF PROCEEDING, ETC.

The re-election of the members of government took place without the loss of a seat, and the house of commons reassembled on the day appointed. Business was commenced by Sir Robert Peel moving _pro forma_ for a copy of the letter of the first commissioners of woods and forests, on the subject of warming and ventilating the new houses of parliament. The right honourable baronet on this occasion stated his intentions as to the course to be pursued with respect to the public business of the country.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Mr. Goulburn brought forward his financial statement in a committee of ways and means on the 27th of September. He first stated what was wanted, showing that the house was called on to provide for a deficiency of £2,467,432. This sum, he said, did not differ materially from the deficiency anticipated by his predecessor; and to meet it he proposed funding a portion of the unfunded debt. He had, indeed, already made proposals to the public, which, he said, had been completely successful; the subscription he had obtained would enable him to give the requisite relief. The sum subscribed exceeded £3,500,000; and the terms he had offered were not higher than those offered by Mr. Spring Rice in 1838. The bonus would be found to be about 18s. 10d. per cent. With respect to the requisite supply, immediate taxation was out of the question; and he should therefore propose a mode of supply, which as a permanent resource he should deprecate, by an issue of exchequer-bills or a sale of stock, at the option of government. He suggested this alternative method, in order that the market might not be presently flooded again with a quantity of exchequer-bills equal to that from which it had just been relieved. Mr. Goulburn concluded by moving a resolution in accordance with the plan which he had explained, for funding the recent subscriptions in three per cent, consols. This proposition met with considerable opposition from Mr. Baring and other members; but the resolutions necessary for carrying it out were, nevertheless, passed without a division.

POOR LAWS, ETC.

The only measures of importance brought forward this session, after the supplies had been granted, were the bill for the better administration of justice in the court of Chancery, and the poor-law commission continuance bill. The former of these measures was merely a revival of that which was thrown up by the former government, as seen in a previous page; and it now quickly passed both houses, and received the royal assent. The latter subject gave rise to more opposition and debate. It was brought forward by Sir Robert Peel on the 21st of September, by moving for leave to bring in a bill to continue the office of commissioners for six months only; namely, till 31st July, 1842. In the course of the discussion, Mr. Lefroy bore testimony to the generally successful working of the Irish poor-law. On the house going into committee, Mr. R. Yorke moved an instruction to the committee, to the effect that the poor-law commissioners should not be empowered to enforce separation between man and wife, except where application for relief arose from idleness, vice, or crime. The honourable member quoted the injunction of Scripture against separating those whom God had joined together, and called on members on the ministerial side to redeem the pledges they had given to their constituents. After some discussion, this instruction was negatived.

The bill went through the committee and passed.

Parliament was prorogued by lords-commissioners on the 7th of October.

EAST INDIA AFFAIRS, ETC.

It has been seen in the last chapter that Dost Mohammed was still in arms. About the close of the last year his army was completely routed at Bamean by Brigadier Dennie, and he then fled across the Hindoo Koosh into the Khoohun territory. In the mean time, Sir Robert Sale was employed in reducing the strongholds of the partizans of the ex-king in Kohistan; a work in which he experienced considerable difficulty, owing to the determined manner in which the forts were defended. Dost Mohammed subsequently summoned his son Afzul Khan to join him, and he moved from the Nijrow towards the Ghorebund Pass, leading into the Kohistan valley, to effect the junction. Sir Robert Sale, hearing of this movement, resolved to frustrate its object, and breaking up his camp at Bolan, proceeded towards Purwau. At Purwau a battle took place, and Dost Mohammed again received a signal defeat. His soldiers refused to make any further efforts against the British forces, and Dost Mohammed threw himself upon the generosity of his foes, surrendering himself to Sir William M’Naghten on the 3rd of November. His confidence was not misplaced; he was permitted to take up his residence at Loodianah, and a yearly pension of three lacs of rupees (£30,000) was granted to him. His treatment was so generous that he wrote to his three sons, who were in different parts of the country, to follow his example, and deliver themselves up to the British. During the remainder of this year Afghanistan remained comparatively tranquil; nothing occurred of a hostile nature except the capture of the old fort of Khelat-i-Ghilzee by Major Lynch, on which occasion the garrison was destroyed by a mistake, an event which caused great commotion among the whole of the Ghilzee tribe, as will be seen in a future page. It may be mentioned that in Scinde, during this year, the fortress of Khelat, which had again fallen into the hands of the enemy, was recaptured, and the whole of the Punjaub fell into a state of disorganization; but the British were not called upon to interfere in the internal dissensions which shook the throne, so long and ably occupied by our steadfast ally, Runjeet Sing, whose death gave rise to the commotions.

In China, after Chusan fell into our hands. Admiral Elliot, accompanied by Captain Elliot, sailed to the Pechelee harbour, where he arrived on the 9 th of August, 1840. On the 30th of that month an interview took place between Captain Elliot and Keshen, the-imperial commissioner, the third man in the empire, and the negociations were protracted until the 15th of September, on which clay the admiral sailed away from the Peho. When the squadron returned to Chusan, it was discovered that Admiral Elliot had consented to transfer the negociations from the Pechelee to Canton, where all details were to be settled, and where the Chinese government promised to arrange everything to the satisfaction of the British. Negociations were carried on; but in the meantime Keshen was busily employed in erecting new batteries at the Bogue, barricading the bars in the rivers by sinking boats laden with stones, throwing up breast-works near Canton, and levying troops. It was so evident that the Chinese commissioner was insincere, that hostilities recommenced on the 7th of January. Two of the Bogue forts were reduced, and Keshen then offered to adjust matters without delay. These arrangements were made between Captain Elliot and the imperial commissioner:—“1. The cession of the harbour and island of Hong-Kong to the British crown. All just charges and duties to the empire upon the commerce carried on there to be paid as if the trade were conducted at Whampoa. 2. An indemnity to the British government of 6,000,000 of dollars, 1,000,000 payable at once, and the remainder in equal annual instalments, ending in 1846. 3. Direct official intercourse between the two countries upon an equal footing. 4. The trade of the port of Canton to be opened within ten days after the Chinese new year (the 2nd of February), and to be carried on at Whampoa till further arrangements are practicable at the new settlement. Details to remain matter of negociation.” The terms of this convention were much censured; and Lord John Russell declared in the house of commons, on the 6th of May, that they were not approved of by her majesty’s government; that Captain Elliot had been recalled; and that Sir Henry Pottinger had been appointed plenipotentiary in his stead. In the meantime it had become evident that the Chinese had no intention of fulfilling these engagements. On the morning of the 19th of February, a hostile shot was fired at the boat of the _Nemesis_ steamer from North Wangtong, and hostilities again commenced. The British squadron now attacked the Anunghoy batteries, which were soon silenced, and they then landed, and both the ships and land troops proceeded towards Canton. The British colours were soon hoisted on Howqua’s fort; and while Sir George Brewer and General Gough were preparing to attack those forts which still remained between them and Canton, the Kwang-chow Foo, as prefect, accompanied by the Hong merchants, came down and admitted that Keshen had been degraded, and that no commissioner had yet arrived to treat for peace, or make any new arrangements. Keshen had, it appeared, delayed the execution of the treaty until he could obtain the emperor’s confirmation of it. The emperor, however, looking upon the English “as dogs and sheep in their dispositions,” and considering that “both gods and men were indignant at their conduct, refused to ratify a treaty with them; and Keshen was ordered to be delivered over to the board of punishment.” The Chinese again contemplated hostilities, and in the month of May the British commanders again determined to advance upon Canton. All the surrounding forts were captured, and it was determined that the city should be taken by assault; but a flag of truce was hoisted on the walls, and Captain Elliot again requested Sir H. Gough to suspend hostilities. He was employed, he said, in a settlement of the difficulties upon the following conditions:—“1. The imperial commissioner, and all the troops, other than those of the province, to quit the city within six days, and to remove to a distance exceeding sixty miles. 2. 6,000,000 dollars to be paid in one week for the use of the crown of England; 1,000,000 dollars payable before to-morrow at sunset. 3. British troops to remain in their actual positions till the whole sum be paid. No additional preparations on either side; but all British troops and ships of war to return without the Bocca Tigris as soon as the whole be paid. Quang-tong also to be evacuated; but not to be re-armed by the Chinese government till all the difficulties are adjusted between the two governments. 4. The loss occasioned by the burning of the Spanish brig, _Bilbaino_, and all losses occasioned by the destruction of the factories, to be paid within one week.” In consequence of this arrangement, the British flag was lowered in the various captured forts, and the troops inarched out, and returned to Tsing-hae. The 6,000,000 of dollars amounted to about £120,000, and Captain Elliot appropriated about half that sum to reimburse those who had surrendered their opium-chests to him at the commencement of the disturbances; but this payment was subsequently disallowed by the British government. Matters were at this point, when, on the 9th of August, Sir Henry Pottinger, the new plenipotentiary, arrived in the Canton waters, accompanied by Sir William Parker, who assumed a command of the fleet in the Chinese seas. Having published a copy of his credentials, authorizing him to negociate and conclude with the minister vested with similar power and authority on the part of the Emperor of China, any treaty or agreement for the arrangement of the differences now subsisting between Great Britain and China; and having warned all her majesty’s subjects and foreigners against putting themselves in the power of the Chinese authorities, during the anomalous and unsettled state of our relations with the emperor, Sir Henry Pottinger embarked for Hong-Kong, whither Sir William Parker had preceded him. The superseded plenipotentiary, Captain Elliot, left China on the 24th of August.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

An important treaty was signed in London in December, between France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain, whereby the former powers agreed to adopt the English laws relating to the slave-trade. Spain still remained in a state of insecurity. A quarrel took place between that country and Portugal, relative to the navigation of the Douro, and both countries prepared for war; but the question was finally settled without an appeal to arms. Later in the year there was an insurrection at Pampeluna and Vittoria, in behalf of the queen-mother, and a desperate attempt was made to seize the queen in the palace at Madrid, but, through the energetic measures of Espartero, the insurrection was suppressed: Don Diego Leon, one of its leaders, was tried and executed. During this year the long agitated question of the East rapidly approached a settlement. On the 11th of January. Mehemet Ali gave up the whole of the Turkish fleet; and about the same time a finnan was sent from Constantinople, whereby the sultan accorded to Mehemet the hereditary possession of Egypt. At the same time also Ibrahim Pacha was directed by his father to evacuate Syria. Several causes, however, combined against the complete restoration of peace between the sultan and the pacha; and the year closed before negociations were concluded.