Chapter 74

{VICTORIA. 1856}

Conclusion of the Russian War..... General Foreign Relations..... Correspondence of the English Foreign Minister with the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries to the Paris Conference..... Relations with Naples..... British Policy in the East..... Treaty of Commerce and Friendship with Siam..... War with Persia..... War with China..... Disputes with the United States of America..... India..... Ireland..... Financial and Commercial Condition of the Country..... Parliamentary Proceedings.

CONCLUSION OF THE RUSSIAN WAR.

{A.D. 1856}

It will aid the consecutive narrative of events to relate the conclusion of the Russian war, and the home events connected with it, in the opening sections of this chapter.

The early winter months of 1856 were spent inactively by the opposing armies, and negotiations for peace were opened, chiefly through the instrumentality of Austria, backed by Prussia. France, however, it was suspected in England, had made overtures to Russia privately, the French emperor having maintained all through the struggle a separate and selfish policy while uniting with England to destroy the power of Russia in the Black Sea. It was to the interest of France to destroy Muscovite influence in the neighbourhood of the Mediterranean, and to limit the preponderating influence of the Russo-Greek church in Turkey. It was the especial interest of the emperor to compel the czar to recognise him as a great European sovereign, the _de facto_ and _de jure_ sovereign of the French, although not of the line of its legitimate kings. These objects were partly attained, and were obviously attainable as far as France or the emperor had any interest in prosecuting them. Once assured of this, his imperial majesty and his political coadjutors changed their tone (they could scarcely be said to change their policy) towards England. It was declared in France that England had sinister designs in keeping up hostilities; that she was desirous to use the power of France to lessen Russian power in Asia in the interest of the Anglo-Indian dominions. The question, too, was raised in France, how far it was for the advantage of that country to extirpate the naval power of Russia, which might be employed, possibly, in resisting the dominant navy of England. During the war, the French navy performed an inglorious part. It fought well when brought into action, but its operations were entirely subsidiary to those of England. France was jealous of this evident superiority, and from the fall of Sebastopol toiled incessantly to counteract and rival the naval power of England. Everything Russian was popular in France after the capture of southern Sebastopol—everything English was decried. The most mendacious statements, under official authority, were put forth, exaggerating the losses of the English navy and army, and lessening the computation of the losses of Russia and France. The French official journals described the loss of the Russian army at a quarter of a million of men. Lord Panmure, in his place in the British parliament, estimated it at half a million. His lordship, as war minister, was acquainted with the facts as regarded all the armies in the field, and no one ever impeached his truthfulness and moderation. During the two years and a quarter that the Crimean campaign lasted, out of an army, of which the average strength was 34,500, 20,800 died from all causes; but of these deaths only 5,000 occurred in action, or from wounds inflicted by the enemy. Two-thirds of the whole mortality arose from other causes more destructive than shot, bullet, or bayonet. An equal number of men of the same ages would, according to the average death-rate of the more healthy districts of England, have suffered a loss of only 610, in lieu of 20,000. While every credit is given to the war secretary for moderation and truth, his statistics are open to some strictures. They were thus commented upon by the author of this History, in his “History of the War against Russia.”*

* Vol. ii. p. 745.

“Lord Panmure’s statement referred to the army, but it did not include soldiers on board ship, nor the naval brigade, nor the marines. His lordship’s account does not agree with a corrected calculation from the various reports made from time to time. These bring up the computation to a figure higher by several thousands. This may be accounted for by several circumstances. His lordship’s lists excluded the commissary and hospital departments, also the army works and land-transport corps. Besides, his computations only begin with the encounter of the Bulganak, previous to which the sufferings of the soldiers in landing at Old Fort were so great, that on the short march to the bivouac of the Bulganak many men dropped out from cholera, dysentery, thirst, or weakness, who never rejoined their corps; and some of whom, it is to be feared, from the want of transport and ambulances, perished unaided where they fell. Forty thousand would be nearer the total loss than 23,000.”

Small as was the part taken by the navy of France in the war, her losses were great. The _Moniteur de la Flotte_ published the returns of the casualties experienced by the French imperial navy during the expeditions to the Crimea, the Baltic, and Petropaulovski, in 1854, 1855, and 1856. The ships’ crews lost 11 officers and 144 seamen killed by the enemy’s fire, and 39 officers and 3,237 men who died of their wounds or from sickness—in all 50 officers and 3,381 men; the naval artillery corps had 2 officers and 31 non-commissioned officers and soldiers killed, and 3 officers and 231 non-commissioned officers who died of their wounds or from sickness—in all 5 officers and 262 men, and the marine infantry, 9 officers and 73 non-commissioned officers and men killed, and 12 officers and 1,057 non-commissioned officers and men who died of their wounds or from sickness—in all 21 officers and 1,130 men. Total—270 killed and 4,579 dead; in all 4,819. According to Marshal Vaillant, the French minister of war, France sent to the east 309,628 men, 41,974 horses, and 597,686 tons of stores; and brought back 227,125 men, 9.000 horses, and 126,880 tons of stores.

The result of the negotiations brought about by the chief German powers, and ardently desired by France, was a treaty of peace on the 30th of March, 1856. It was ratified on the 27th of April. Six months was fixed for the evacuation of Russian territories by the allies. The French army commenced its embarkation more than a fortnight before the ratification, as a sort of overt proof of the good will of the French emperor to his new ally and recent enemy. In less than three months, on the 5th of July, the whole of the French army had abandoned the soil of Russia, On the 8th of August the last French soldier left Constantinople on the homeward voyage. The British army was more easily removed from its smaller number and its greater transport power.

On the 23rd of April one of the grandest sights ever witnessed from the shores of England was presented at Portsmouth. Never were the waters of the Solent so crowded with “craft of all dimensions” as on that day. Notwithstanding the shameful failures of the English navy in the Pacific, and the dilatory proceedings of the Admiralty, which rendered the blockades in the White Sea so much less effective than they ought to have been—although the massacre of Sinope did take place, and “Old Charley” nursed his gout or drank his grog, when he ought to have been reconnoitering Sweaborg—still the Russian navy of the Euxine had perished rather than meet Dundas; the stores, granaries, and fisheries, were swept from the coasts of the Sea of Azoff; and not a ship of the enemy dare put to sea for two years in the Baltic. After all, Britannia did “rule the waves,” and was more able to rule them than ever. The fleet was assembled for her majesty’s personal review, and consisted of 240 steam vessels, including gun-boats, mortar-boats, and floating batteries. There were three vessels of 100 guns each, six of 91, an equal number of 80 guns, and vessels of every order; frigates, brigs, sloops, &c, had their proportionate numbers. The steam-power equalled that of 31,000 horses, and 3,000 guns were carried. The fleet, covering a space of twelve miles, was manned by 30,000 sailors and marines. On the 29th of April peace was proclaimed. The author of this work witnessed the proclamation in several parts of the metropolis, but the crowds were not such as the great city usually sent forth on occasions of magnitude. The fact was, England did not consider that the war had been prosecuted to its legitimate consequences, and felt that the French emperor had not pursued a direct and fair policy.

The return of the British troops was hailed with enthusiasm, and a review of a portion of them—especially the guards—by her majesty in Hyde Park, elicited unbounded enthusiasm from all classes of the people. Among the most exciting home incidents connected with the war was the distribution by her majesty, in Hyde Park, of the Victoria Cross—the badge of a new order of merit, bestowed for valour upon a number of gallant recipients.

Peace had scarcely been proclaimed when the country was irritated by tidings that Russia was endeavouring to evade its stipulations, and that France and Austria were playing into her hands. One of the terms of the treaty was that the Russian frontier should recede from the Danube. That crafty power had taken advantage of an erroneous French map, introduced by the French diplomatists at the conference, to deceive the allies as to the boundary agreed upon. After much negotiation and dispute, conducted as to England and Turkey on the one side and Russia on the other with intense acrimony, Russia was obliged to conform to the demands of the allies. Another stipulation of the treaty was the free navigation of the Danube. Russia endeavoured to seize upon the Isle of Serpents, off the Sulina mouth of the delta of that river. The island was a portion of the dominions of the sultan; an English naval officer secured the possession of it to the Turkish sovereign. France rendered little assistance to England in these disputes, and displayed sympathy with Russia and jealousy of British influence. The neutrality of the Black Sea, and the destruction of all naval arsenals on its Russian shores, or rivers communicating with its shores, was also a stipulation of the treaty which Russia evaded. Here also England by her firm diplomacy, almost unaided by France, constrained Russia to conform to the terms of the peace. Another article of the treaty referred to the emancipation of the sultan’s Christian subjects from all disabilities on account of their religion. This the sultan and the orthodox Turks evaded, and have continued to evade to the present time, although ostentatious proclamations in the spirit of the treaty were put forth by the sultan’s government, and engagements the most determinate were subscribed. The general conduct of the Christians of the empire was disloyal and dishonest; they sought, like the Russians and Turks, to obtain all the advantages of the treaty, and fulfil none of its obligations. The remaining among the articles of the treaty of chief importance regulated the liberties, and relations to the sultan, of the provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia. Here also difficulties arose, fomented by the united policy of the French and Russian governments, who intrigued—with the Wallachs especially—to insist on acting in a manner hostile to the constitution assigned by the treaty for their government. These disputes continued for years after the termination of the war. England resisted the intrigues which France and Russia set on foot inimical to the interests of the sultan, but her diplomacy and influence were not so successful as in reference to the other terms of the treaty. The great powers played a part that was not great, after the peace.

GENERAL CONDITION OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

_Sardinia_.—The gallant little kingdom of Sardinia had rendered important aid in the war, and at its conclusion urged upon the representatives of the great powers assembled in conference in Paris the importance of preventing an outbreak in Italy, by compelling Austria and the other despots of Italy to govern with justice and observe treaties. On March the 27th, 1856, the plenipotentiaries of Sardinia addressed a _note verbale_ to the Earl of Clarendon, her majesty’s foreign minister, urging upon England the consideration of the dangerous state of Italy, and the complications to which it would give rise. Sardinia especially protested against the occupation of the Roman states by foreign troops—those of Austria and France—thus suppressing all free expression of action and opinion by the people of these states.

On April the 16th the plenipotentiaries of the Sardinian king, then resident at Paris, addressed a voluminous memorandum to Lord Clarendon, entering at large into the affairs of Italy, portraying the danger to Sardinia from Austrian aggression, and showing that it was the duty and interest of England to insist upon the termination of the state of things which existed.

On the 26th of May the Earl of Clarendon addressed a despatch to Sir James Hudson, the English minister at the court of Turin. This despatch was brief, and contained nevertheless a very full exposition of the righteous and sympathising policy of England towards the people of Italy. This despatch obtained much significance from the events which followed. Lord Clarendon’s prediction was but too truly verified,—a few years witnessed the complications foretold,—the peace of Europe was disturbed, and the foreign occupation of Italy was at once the cause of the war and the theatre of its devastations.

The brevity of Lord Clarendon’s despatch to Sir James Hudson allows of its insertion:—

“_Foreign Office, May 26_, 1856.

“Sir,—I herewith inclose the copy of a note which was addressed to me when at Paris by the plenipotentiaries of Sardinia.

“The verbal communications which I frequently had the pleasure of holding with Count Cavour, both before and subsequently to the receipt of this note, can have left no doubt upon the mind of his excellency that her majesty’s government take a deep and sincere interest in the affairs of Italy, and are desirous of doing everything which can properly be done by them with a view to ameliorate the condition of the Italian people.

“No fresh assurances could add weight to those already given to Count Cavour, and I did not, therefore, think it necessary to send an answer in writing to the note of the Sardinian plenipotentiaries; but as it has come to the knowledge of her majesty’s government that it would be agreeable to the Sardinian government to receive one, they cannot hesitate to declare their opinion that the occupation of the Papal territory by foreign troops constitutes an irregular state of things, which disturbs the equilibrium, and may endanger the peace of Europe; and that, by indirectly affording sanction to misgovernment, it promotes discontent and a tendency to revolution among the people.

“Her majesty’s government are aware that as this state of things has now, unfortunately, for some years been established, it may be possible that it could not suddenly be brought to a close without some danger to public order, and the risk of producing events that all would deplore; but her majesty’s government are convinced that the evacuation of the Papal territory may be rendered safe at an early period by a policy of wisdom and justice, and they entertain a hope that the measures agreed upon by the governments of France and Austria will lead to a gradual withdrawal of their respective forces, and to bettering the condition of the subjects of the Pope.

“You will read and give a copy of this despatch to Count Cavour.

“I am, &c,

“[Signed] Clarendon.”

_Naples_.—The state of Naples was at this time appalling, the king was the most unruly man in his kingdom. Oppressions the most barbarous were wrought by his sanguinary and faithless hand. The governments of France and England advised, remonstrated, protested in vain. His majesty adopted the principle of doing what he pleased with his own, to the ruin of his kingdom, the sufferings of his people, and the disgrace of his reign. Various English subjects were injured, but no effectual measures were taken by either England or France to put a stop to the insult and defiance they received. Austria professed to offer the Neapolitan monarch advice in the interests of moderation and good government—it was even alleged that Russia did the same; but his majesty was deaf to all counsel, and expressed his determination to rule absolutely, and deal with his people as he pleased, in spite of the threatened interposition of foreign powers.

BRITISH POLICY IN ASIA.

_Siam_.—The British government used all its influence to cultivate friendly relations with all the Asiatic governments, in the hope that a more extended and peaceful intercourse might spring up between these nations and the British empire. The most decisive results of such negotiations were seen at Siam and Persia. In the former country peace and friendship were confirmed; in the latter, war closed a vexed correspondence, which England conducted with the sincerest desire to secure justice and amity. A treaty of friendship and commerce was signed at Bangkok, May 13, 1856, between her Britannic majesty and the King of Siam. A supplementary agreement was afterwards signed. Dr. Bowring was the British plenipotentiary. His excellency’s account of the embassy and the accomplishment of its purpose has been published, and opens up interesting and instructive views of the people of that region.

THE PERSIAN WAR.

The foundation of this quarrel was laid during the war with Russia. That crafty and active government sought to create a diversion against England by causing Persia to make the occasion available for advancing upon Herat, and pushing her designs upon Affghanistan. The intrigues of Russia developed themselves too slowly for her purpose, and 1856 arrived before the war broke out. During the year the temper and spirit of the Persian court became intensely irritable towards, the English ambassador and his suite. A circumstance arose which brought this out painfully. On the 15th of June, 1854, Mr. Thomson, the English minister, wrote to Lord Clarendon, then minister for foreign affairs, informing him that he had chosen one Meerza Hashem Khan as the Persian secretary to the British mission. This person was courtly, learned, and in every way suitable to the office assigned to him. Lord Clarendon confirmed the appointment. The Persian court immediately persecuted the favourite of the English mission. The Hon. C. A. Murray succeeded Mr. Thomson, and he also favoured Meerza Hashem. The Persian court continued its persecution, and finally seized and imprisoned the khan’s wife. Mr. Murray demanded satisfaction for this outrage upon the staff of the British mission, and the release of the lady. His demands were treated with disdain, and Mr. Murray felt bound to maintain the dignity of the government he represented by striking his flag on the 20th of November, 1855. The Persian prime-minister put a report into circulation that both Mr. Murray and his predecessor had intrigues with the khan’s wife, and therefore employed him in the embassy. The Persian premier at last made the allegation to Mr. Murray himself, in a despatch. On the 5th of December, after having endured many insults, he left Teheran.

In July, 1856, Lord Clarendon caused the ultimatum of his government to be delivered to the Persian _charge d’affaires_ at Constantinople. It was to the following effect:—The sadr azim (prime-minister) to write in the shah’s name a letter to Mr. Murray, expressing his regret at having uttered and given currency to the offensive imputation upon the honour of her majesty’s minister, requesting to withdraw his own letter of the 19th of November, and the two letters of the minister for foreign affairs of the 26th of November. A copy of this apology to be communicated officially to each of the foreign missions at Teheran, and the substance of it to be made public in that capital. The original letter to be conveyed to Mr. Murray, at Bagdad, by the hands of some high Persian officer, and to be accompanied by an invitation to Mr. Murray, in the shah’s name, to return with the mission to Teheran, on his majesty’s assurance that he shall be received with all the honours and consideration due to the representative of the British government. Mr. Murray, on approaching the capital, to be received by persons of high rank deputed to escort him to his residence. Immediately on his arrival, the sadr azim to go in state to the British mission and renew friendly relations with Mr. Murray. At noon on the following day, the British flag to be hoisted under a salute of 21 guns, and the sadr azim to visit the mission immediately afterwards, which visit Mr. Murray will return. Should Herat be occupied by the shah’s troops, his majesty to engage to withdraw them without delay. The British mission to defer to his majesty’s wish, if renewed, respecting Meerza Hashem, by not insisting on his appointment at Shiraz; the Meerza’s wife, however, to be restored to him.

The ultimatum failed to secure redress. A series of fresh outrages was offered at the embassy upon such servants of the British government as remained there. Orders were sent to Consul Stevens to quit Persia, and take the means usual in such cases to secure the liberty and property of British subjects.

On the 1st of November, the governor-general of India declared war against Persia. Three proclamations were issued by his excellency, which, when they arrived at Constantinople, caused the Persian plenipotentiary to withdraw from all further negotiations, and to treat his former agreements as null and void. Major-general Outram, K.C.B., had returned to England from Oude, and while at home was in consultation with the British government concerning the Persian expedition. He was appointed to command it, and arrived in Bombay for that purpose.

On the arrival of General Outram, active operations commenced. The British landed in Bushire, and defeated the Persians. The place was garrisoned by a portion of the troops, while the main army marched into the interior, driving the Persians with ease before them; and afterwards an expedition was made to Mohammerah, a considerable distance up the Persian Gulf. This was attended with complete success. By the end of March all these conquests were effected. They were followed by an expedition to Akwaz, upon which place the defeated Persians had retired from Mohammerah. The squadron proceeded up the Gulf with great judgment and rapidity, and the enterprise was crowned by the accomplishment of the object proposed, the Persians being obliged to retreat far inland. The English remained masters of the Persian Gulf and its shores throughout the year. Meanwhile, negotiations went on at Paris between the British minister there and the Persian ambassador. The shah ultimately consented to receive the English ambassador at Teheran with all the honours insisted upon in the English ultimatum, to redress the grievances, and satisfy the complaints of the embassy, and to engage to renounce all claims upon Herat. The treaty involved a clause that Bushire was to be occupied by the British until all the concessions made to the English government were practically carried out. In virtue of this arrangement General Havelock remained at Bushire, with a garrison, until May, 1857, when he proceeded thence to perform in India the glorious exploits which terminated his illustrious career. General Outram and the main body of the expeditionary army sailed for India in May, 1856.

WAR WITH CHINA.

The year 1856 was fruitful in events in Asia interesting and important to Great Britain. Among these was the breaking out of another war with China. The origin of the war may be thus briefly stated. A small vessel, called a lorcha, was the property of a British subject, resident at Hong-Kong. It was boarded, while carrying the British flag, by the Chinese authorities, who alleged they were in search of a pirate among the crew. The whole crew were arrested, chained, and carried away prisoners. This was in contravention of the existing treaty with China. The English consul demanded that the captured persons should be returned to the lorcha, and that their investigation should be made according to the treaty. Governor Yeh not only refused to do this, but did so in terms insolent, and almost menacing. The consul at Canton reported the case to the governor of Hong-Kong, Sir John Bowring. The reclamations of that functionary were treated as disdainfully as those of the consul, and it became necessary, as a last resort, to appeal to arms. The outrage upon the lorcha was committed on the 8th of October, 1856. On the 22nd of October, Rear-admiral Sir Michael Seymour, on board the _Coromandel_, accompanied by a squadron of gun-boats, captured a number of forts by which the entrance to Canton was defended. On the 28th he took possession of a fort known by the name of the Dutch Folly, situated on an island opposite Canton. Commissioner Yeh seemed now to be alarmed for the safety of the city, and offered to surrender ten out of twelve of the men taken out of the lorcha. This the British authorities declined. He then sent the twelve, but demanded that two of them, whom he alleged were guilty of piracy, should be returned, to be dealt with according to the laws of China. Consul Parks had, however, demanded at first that the men should be as publicly sent back to the lorcha as they had been taken away. The twelve men were accordingly brought back by the Chinese authorities again to Governor Yeh. That strange person refused to receive them any more, probably considering that they had brought sufficient trouble and danger on him already. Sir John Bowring then demanded, that as Canton was included in the five ports opened by the treaty of 29th of August, 1842, such facilities for commerce as existed at the other four ports should be opened to British residents at Canton. The English had waived this privilege so far as Canton was concerned (although reserving their right), in order to conciliate the prejudices of a province supposed to be more hostile than any other in China to foreigners. To the demand of Sir J. Bowring, Yeh returned no answer. Sir M. Seymour accordingly opened fire upon some large government buildings on the 27th. Yeh’s own residence was amongst the buildings thus attacked. A body of troops, drawn up on a rising ground, was shelled by the British, and driven from the position. Yeh, as high commissioner of his imperial majesty, offered, by proclamation, a reward of thirty dollars for the head of every Englishman. On the 29th, a breach being made in the walls, seamen and marines landed, blew in the city gate, penetrated the interior of the city, and captured the governor’s house. Admiral Seymour, more gallant than wise, proposed a conference with the commissioner, who declined it. On the 3rd of November, Canton was therefore again attacked. On the 5th a fleet of war-junks was destroyed, and the French Folly fort captured. Sir Michael Seymour was infected by the old British absurdity in dealing with the Chinese, that of negotiating, when prompt and sustained action to compel them to seek negotiation was the only sound policy. Sir Michael carried on a correspondence with the chief mandarin concerning the surrender of the Bogue forts, and their restoration, unimpaired, under certain contingencies. The mandarin regarded the correspondence useful so as to gain time, but he would make no concessions. On the 12th of November the forts were attacked, and on the 13th captured with ease, although defended by 400 guns. On the same day the Ammughoy forts on the side opposite to the Bogue entrance were attacked and captured, with very little resistance, although mounted by 210 guns. On the 14th of December the foreign factories at Canton were fired by the Chinese, and nearly all destroyed. Admiral Seymour could effect nothing during the month of December, his force being inadequate. While he awaited reinforcements the year terminated.

DISPUTES WITH THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

During the year 1855 disputes existed with the North American republic, which were happily brought to a termination in 1856. The differences between that power and Great Britain referred to two subjects—the enlistment of recruits by British officers, and “the Clayton-Bulwer treaty” concerning Central America. England withdrew her recruiting agents, and made reparation for her conduct. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty was not so easily adjusted. It was a dispute between the two great American powers—England and the United States—for influence in Central America. It was supposed that the convention completed between the two ministers (Bulwer and Clayton) had put an end to the hostile feeling which had arisen. The Americans were not, however, satisfied with the arrangement, and put an interpretation upon the treaty opposed to that which England acknowledged. The British government, by going to the verge of pusillanimity, averted war, but the adjustment made was only temporary; the Americans virtually ignored the treaty, and England, while virtually submitting, still preserved an ostensible recognition of her rights. These events gave rise to fierce debates in the American congress and the British parliament, but an open rupture between the two countries, which appeared imminent, did not take place. The subject of Central America became a generic question, including various specific grounds of quarrel. A question arose as to the British protectorate of Mosquito. The English government issued a proclamation, declaring the Bay Islands a British colony. This offended the United States, and an angry, though courteous, correspondence ensued between Mr. Buchanan and the Earl of Clarendon. The English were anxious to refer the question to the decision of a third power, to which the Americans would not consent. A convention was formed with the republic of Honduras on the 27th of August, which vested in the latter power certain disputed territory which had given rise to much heat and dispute between England and the United States.

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW.

At the congress of Paris, where peace with Russia was negotiated, a new principle was recognised in international maritime law, that “A neutral flag covers an enemy’s goods.” This was not a popular measure in England. It was believed to be a blow struck by France at the maritime power of Britain. The English navy regarded the principle with much hostility, and it was hotly debated in parliament, a large party opposing the government for consenting to such a principle.

INDIA.

The general condition of the British colonies continued prosperous; but in India certain potent elements of disturbance were at work. The annexation of Oude began to produce its fruits, the people of all ranks—high and low, military and civil—were preparing for revolt; and a scheme was set on foot for corrupting the native army of Bengal, chiefly recruited from Oude, which, within a year, produced the most appalling results. Various symptoms of sedition, in different parts of India remote from one another, were indicated, but were not taken notice of by the authorities, either wisely or vigilantly. Among the most remarkable signs of a movement of some kind being on foot, was the transmission of little cakes, called _chupatees_, from hand to hand, throughout all the cities and villages of India. Many officers predicted, from this circumstance, that a conspiracy to a revolt was in progress, but the government discountenanced all warnings, and treated contemptuously all information communicated to it which was calculated to call for its watchfulness. The authorities believed that the chupatee movement was harmless. Even now, this is the opinion of many familiar with India, although the majority I conversant with that country were of a contrary opinion.

One intelligent writer* presents the subject in the following light: “The transmission of such little cakes from one district to another is supposed by the Hindoos to effect the removal of epidemic disease. When cholera broke out in this division, the villagers frequently attached the disease, as they fancied, by some ceremonies, to a buffalo, and drove it across the Ganges, or into some other village. This latter course frequently caused fighting between the villagers. It was also found that a similar transmission of cakes had taken place on a former occasion, when a murrain attacked the cattle of the districts bordering Oude, and the disease was supposed to be stayed as soon as the said cakes reached the holy fanes of Hurdwar. The agitation was fostered, and false rumours founded thereon, prejudicial to government, were almost invariably propagated by Mussulmans, while the transmission of a cake is a purely Hindoo practice. The shape and size of the cakes was that of the common Brahmin ‘Pooree.’ The excitement at the time among the sepoys, and the occurrence afterwards of the mutiny, has led many to connect this cake distribution with our disturbances, but without any sufficient grounds for so doing. It is probable that if any connection existed it was accidental, and the relationship acknowledged by either designing or ignorant persons, was consequent upon the distribution, and did not cause or precede it. Those, indeed, who have attempted to explain the ‘chupatee movement,’ as it is called, to be a sort of ‘fiery cross’ signal for a united rising, appear to have succeeded in proving little by their own ingenuity. Its real origin was, doubtless, a superstitious attempt to prevent any return of the fearful visitation of epidemic cholera which devastated the north-west provinces the year before, and still lingered in scattered spots.”

* Robert Henry Wallace Dunlop, B.C.S.

The symptoms of disaffection, which were evident before Lord Dalhousie retired from the government, became still more marked after the arrival of Lord Canning. Lord Dalhousie left India in March, Lord Canning arriving before the departure of his predecessor in office. The two proud noblemen met at Government-house, and appeared publicly together at a grand ball at that celebrated palace of English governors. An American gentleman, a correspondent of the _New York Herald_,** was struck with the haughty bearing of both these noblemen, their coldness to men of rank and great talent, and their general indifference of manner towards those whom it was their duty, as it ought to have been their privilege, to conciliate.

** Mr. Train, author of “Young America Abroad.”

The American observer, who looked on with an intelligent and impartial eye, was especially disgusted with the insolent bearing of the European officials, as well as of the noble governors-general, to the native princes, especially those who were conquered in the great Sikh war. They were obliged to put off their shoes in token of submission, after the manner of the East, when a conqueror or superior is approached. The American gentleman noticed the look of dejection and distaste expressed in the countenances of these once powerful native chieftains, and foreboded that a government which pursued a policy so arrogant, and where officers were characterized by so offensive an hauteur, must hold the sword tightly in its hand, or public indignation and resentment would arise, dangerous, if not fatal, to its power.

Lord Canning signalized his dawning power by a proclamation on the affairs at Oude, which exasperated to the last degree the vengeance nursed in the hearts of the whole people of that region.

Towards the end of the year the troops of the Bengal army were sullen and almost mutinous. Intelligent, officers noticed the dark scowl which the soldiery in vain endeavoured to conceal. In the public bazaars of the great cities a sort of secret intelligence between the sepoys and the people was observed, and all men, except the high officials, seemed to hear the murmuring of the distant thunder, and the first struggles of the storm, so soon to burst in blood and destruction over so large a portion of India. Thus closed the year 1856 in the British Indian empire: 1857 had scarcely dawned, when the thundercloud burst over its fairest provinces, and the deluge fell by which so many human beings, so many interests, and so vast an army, were swept away.

IRELAND.

The progress of Ireland in material prosperity was obvious, and a source of gratulation to the empire. The moral progress of the country did not keep pace with its temporal advancement; in this respect the predictions of its best friends in parliament and in Great Britain were not fulfilled. Agrarian outrage was as common as in previous years, and the murderous riband conspiracy still dealt out slaughter, and held the good and peaceable in terror without any proper attempts on the part of government to put it down. The following remarks of the editor of the _Annual Register_ were as true and just as they were pertinent and expressive of the facts:—“Many of the homicidal crimes in Ireland arise from motives which must be found in every society, and which therefore are not to be accounted as a peculiar reproach upon the natural character. Many of these foul deeds would not deserve any especial record, were it not needful that they should be noticed simultaneously with those more horrible assassinations perpetrated under the influence of a secret tribunal which has for generations been the curse of that unhappy land. Although the national prosperity of Ireland for some years back has been such as to alter the aspect of the country, it will probably take many years of content and good government—perhaps the passing away of more than one generation—to purge the land of the monstrous organization which keeps all men in dread.”

HOME—GENERAL CONDITION OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The year 1856 opened mildly as to the season, compared with 1855. The winter and spring months passed away without witnessing the severity of weather, or its fatal influence upon health and life which characterized the corresponding months of the previous year. The attention of the people was much occupied by foreign politics and events. The unwelcome peace with Russia, the wars with Persia and China, the threatening aspect of affairs in India, especially in Oude, engaged the minds of men most seriously, and checked in some measure the general prosperous condition of affairs.

There were few incidents connected with the court interesting to the public. The King of the Belgians paid a visit to his august niece early in the year, and rumour attributed a motive in connection with it which referred to the projected peace with Russia. His majesty, indeed, never visited England but some rumour did not prevail as to the influence he sought to exercise over the mind of her majesty, in sympathy with some foreign nation not altogether in harmony with British interests and views. It was believed that he came on this occasion to make as easy terms as possible for Russia. The movements of the royal family throughout the year were as had been customary. The return of the troops from the seat of war gave her majesty opportunity to show her interest in her brave soldiers, and to put forth her benevolence wisely and freely on their behalf.

The prosperity of the country may best be contemplated from trade returns of the year: these were reported by command of her majesty to both houses of parliament. On March 19, 1857, returns were made to the legislature, containing abstracts of reports of the trade of various countries and places for the years 1855—1856, received by the board of trade, through the foreign office, from her majesty’s ministers and consuls. Those abstracts are too voluminous for these pages: a perusal of them in their original form would repay the reader, and show that the great commercial country of the world was Great Britain—that so extensive and ramified were her trade transactions, that she might be considered the centre of universal commerce. The great manufacturing towns in the north of England increased prodigiously in wealth and influence, and the chief provincial ports became hives of industry, while their waters were crowded with forests of ships. The Liverpool Year-book for 1856* disclosed an extraordinary state of power and prosperity in that great commercial thoroughfare and _entrepot_ of the world.

* Edited and compiled by Lee and Nightingale, published by Benson and Mallett, Liverpool.

During the official year, which ended August 31, 1856, the nett ordinary income of the borough amounted to £223,319 18s. The docks of Liverpool were amongst the wonders of England; and since 1856 they have been improved and enlarged, so as to surpass in magnitude and adaptation all previous speculation.

NATIONAL FINANCE.

The expensive war with Russia entailed its costs long after the first outlay and havoc passed away. The financial returns for the year ending with March, 1856, were, however, most encouraging, and proved how great were the pecuniary resources of England for war or peace. The following is a brief abstract of income and expenditure:—“The public income for the year ending the 31st March, 1856, amounted to £70,552,145 against £64,091,571 in 1855, and the expenditure to £93,149,310 against £70,236,817 in 1855. Thus there was an excess of expenditure over income in 1855–56 of £22,597,165, and an excess of £6,145,246 in the year 1854–55. The customs (in 1855–56) yielded £35,635,552; the excise, £5,210,384; stamps, £7,063,610; the assessed and land-taxes, £3,136,077; the income-tax, £15,159,458 against £10,922,267 in the year ending the 31st of March, 1855; the post-office, £2,767,201; and crown lands, £421,715. The duties on spirits and wines remained very stationary; those on malt, coffee, tobacco, snuff, and sugar increased. The house-tax yielded £728,689, and land-taxes £1,157,525. The expenditure in 1855–56 included £2,863,353 for collecting the revenue; £28,112,825 for the public debt; £1,695,052 for the civil government; £3,192,420 for law and justice; £366,443 for diplomatic salaries; £47,461,188 for the army, navy, and ordnance (against £28,321,707 in the preceding year); and £4,200,000 for the vote of credit (war with Russia). The army cost the country £17,395,059; the navy, £19,654,585, and the ordnance, £10,411,544. The civil list, privy purse, the salaries of the royal household, and the payments of the queen’s tradespeople included the sum total of £371.808.”

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

There was little in the session of 1856 to demand attention from the historian, except the debates upon the three great wars in which the nation was engaged. The wars with Russia and Persia excited party debates of long duration and fierce conflict. The war with China occurred too late in the year for parliamentary disputation, until the session of 1857. The terms of the peace agreed on at Paris with Russia caused very prolonged discussions, but in these, and in the opposition sustained in connection with the Persian war, the ministry was successful.

The differences with the United States afforded another opportunity for the parliamentary opposition to attack the government. A debate was opened by a motion, introduced by Mr. G. H. Moore, “a member of the Irish independent opposition,” which was badly managed by the introducer and the parties who supported him; the government was victorious.

Education, especially in Ireland; life peerages; civil service appointments; the use of torture in India; law reform; difficulties in the execution of the treaty of Paris; the questions connected with the Isle of Serpents and Bulgrad, on the new Russo-Bessarabian frontier; the disposal of the Aland Islands conquered by the allies during the war in the Baltic; the Turkish firman in favour of the Christians in fulfilment of the treaty of Paris; annexation of Oude; and maritime international law,—were the subjects which engaged the attention of the members of both houses. The men who were most prominent in these debates were Lords Lyndhurst, Brougham, Campbell, Derby, and the Duke of Argyle in the lords; Lords Palmerston and Russell, Sir James Graham, Sir Charles Napier, and Benjamin Disraeli, in the commons.

The eventful year of 1856 commenced and closed in war. War with Russia and Persia existed at its commencement: war with China was waging at its close.

England, always victorious in the East, won there fresh laurels; always embroiled in India, she had made for herself fresh complications; always bold and enterprising in her industry, she had, in spite of war and warlike expenses, increased marvellously her prosperity, material resources, the comfort of her people, and the real conditions of her power.