Chapter LIX: {victoria. 1847} (4)

The distressed condition of the poor of the British Isles, the disarrangement of commercial affairs, the famine in Ireland, and the crime prevailing in that country, rendered it necessary to open the session of 1847 earlier than usual. Accordingly, on the 19th of January her majesty, in person, read the speech from the throne. It referred to all these subjects in a manner appropriate to the occasion. The marriage of the Infanta of Spain to the Duke of Montpensier, was simply noticed as having given rise to a correspondence between her majesty’s government and that of France. When her majesty came to the passage referring to the Montpensier marriage, the house was intensely still, and every eye watched the royal countenance to see if any indication of her private feelings would be given. This portion of the royal speech was read with a peculiar expression of displeasure by her majesty, never before witnessed in her countenance on a public occasion. In private, the royal lady did not hesitate to denounce the conduct of Louis Philippe as utterly faithless, and she was accustomed to refer to him as incapable of acting with the honour of a private gentleman, for he had given his hand to her while making a solemn promise that this marriage should not take place. This state of feeling on the part of her majesty was well known to the King of the French, who, while he regretted it, took credit to himself for having frustrated her majesty’s own intention to have the infanta married to a Cobourg. Her reference to the extinction of the free city and state of Cracow was made in terms of great severity, as a manifest violation of the treaty of Vienna, and her intention of laying before the house copies of her protests to the three states was expressed. Allusion was made to the action of the combined squadrons of France and England in the River Plate. Her majesty read the passages which described the condition of Ireland with a subdued tone, as if mingled shame and sympathy struggled within her breast.

The debates which ensued upon the address were neither remarkable for judgment nor eloquence. Lord Stanley, in the lords, was, as usual, apt, ready, and ingenious, but dealt in platitudes unworthy of his reputation. Lord Brougham was bitter against his former friends, allowing his personal spleen to interfere with his patriotism and the public welfare. He did not succeed either in embarrassing the ministry or enlightening the lords. The debates in the commons were regarded with more interest by the country than those in the lords. Mr. Disraeli’s sarcasm that the house of lords had become “the high court of registry,” had truth in it. The address gave rise to much animated discussion, envenomed by party spirit. Smith O’Brien laid the grievances of Ireland before the house in terms more patriotic and honest than wise. Lord George Bentinck taunted the government with the failure of their remedial measures for Ireland, political and material, and his taunts were keenly felt. The cabinet was not equal to the crisis.

On the 21st of January Lord John Russell moved that the house should go into committee on the corn importation acts; and he announced his intention to follow that up by a motion on the navigation laws, by which they should be suspended until the 6th of November. He accordingly first proposed the suspension of the duties on the importation of foreign corn until September. Bills were brought in, and passed both houses with the utmost rapidity, the standing orders being waived. On the 25th they received the royal assent. On that day ministers communicated their plans for the melioration of Irish suffering. So overwhelming was the wretchedness of Ireland, that the amount of relief for January was calculated by Lord John Russell at three-quarters of a million sterling. Colonel Jones, who was at the head of the board of works in Ireland, with very little advantage to his country, and no moral advantage to himself, had, in a letter dated the 19th, stated the difficulties which were admitted to stand in the way of employing labourers. The people were so reduced by famine that task-work could not be imposed upon them, and Colonel Jones was therefore of opinion that to give food was, on the whole, cheaper than to employ such labour. Lord John Russell made very effective use of this letter in support of the views which he presented to the house. He stated that the money advanced for public works should not be exacted in full, but half remitted upon the payment of each instalment. The next proposal of the premier was for a grant of £50,000 in advance, to enable proprietors to procure seed for the land. His lordship animadverted in very indignant terms upon the conduct of men of mark in Ireland, who, instead of paying their rates for the relief of the poor, invited them to make demands with which no government could comply. He instanced the union of Castlebar, in the county of Mayo, where there was room in the workhouse for six hundred persons, and only one hundred and twenty were admitted, while the Marquis of Sligo and Mr. Moore addressed a letter to the people of the district, calling upon them to meet at Castlebar and “demand their rights.” Lord John dwelt eloquently upon the want of self-reliance and co-operation displayed in Ireland, and affirmed the utter impossibility of government or any human power interposing so as to prevent the continuance of many of the painful consequences of harvest failure already experienced. His lordship’s counsels and cautions were badly received, both by the Irish members and by the people of Ireland, and notwithstanding his liberal measures of relief, his speech added to his unpopularity in that country. The Irish were very unwilling to adopt the philosophy of Mr. Disraeli, “Whether, under any circumstances, it should be the office of a government to supply the people with food is a very interesting question. When famine prevails there will always be a numerous party who will maintain the affirmative. Death and decimation are stern facts which seem to bring conviction. Yet it is the duty of a minister to consider whether, if the government were to interfere, the death might not be increased, and the rate of mortality aggravated.”

Another measure for the relief of Ireland was proposed by ministers to enable government to make advances from the treasury on the security of the rates, and excited a debate, when its committal was moved on the 8th of February. This debate was remarkable as giving an opportunity to the great agitator for his last parliamentary effort. He declared that two millions of the Irish population must perish if the parliament did not come forward with adequate relief; while he proclaimed their measures totally inadequate, and showing either ignorance of the state of the country, or want of sympathy for its sufferings. He affirmed that in the ruin which had fallen on the land, any attempt to levy rates would be abortive, and drive the people to desperation. The honourable and venerable member depicted the condition of the people with truthful eloquence, and he was no less correct in showing the shortcomings of the government schemes of relief. His speech was delivered in a faint voice, and with every symptom of physical exhaustion. He was heard with the most profound attention and respect. His predictions, unfortunately, came to pass. His dissolution was hastened by his inability to procure an assent to his views in the house, and by the consequences which he so clearly foresaw.

Lord John’s measures for the relief of Ireland having been carried, he on the 1st of March proposed a permanent measure to compel the land to support the pauper poor. On the 12th of March his lordship made an elaborate defence of his scheme, which was warmly debated, Mr. Roebuck acrimoniously attacking Irish landlords, and Mr. Smith O’Brien insisting that the blame of the condition of Ireland rested upon the government. Government, however, was not left alone to initiate measures of Irish relief. Lord George Bentinck, on the 4th of February, brought forward a motion for the reproductive employment of Irish labour by the construction of railways in Ireland. This motion his lordship advocated eloquently, and it has been agreed that his oration was the best he ever delivered. His plan was in all respects sound considered in reference to the principles of political economy, and more useful, practically, than any which the government had devised; yet the ministerial side of the house treated it with ridicule. An advance of sixteen millions sterling to promote railways in Ireland they scouted as preposterous; but no effective answer was given to the facts and figures of Lord George, who was singularly careful on this occasion in his preparation of both. The bill was brought in without any opposition from the government, but it was foreseen that the influence of the cabinet would be used for its defeat. Accordingly, on the 12th of February, on the proposal of the second reading, government opposition was offered: the debate, after an adjournment, was resumed on the 15th, and continued through that day and the next, when the bill was thrown out by an overwhelming majority.

On the 22nd of February the chancellor of the exchequer made his financial statement, and made a demand for an eight millions loan on behalf of Ireland, noticed elsewhere. He gave an appalling picture of the state of the English poor, showing that, in Manchester alone, nearly thirty thousand workmen and labourers were out of employment, while the prospect of the augmentation of the unemployed there was disheartening. The grant for Ireland was especially opposed by two members of the house, who, while they sympathised beyond most other members with the political agitators of Ireland, looked upon her material condition without an equally warm interest, and regarded her rather from an English than an imperial point of view; these members were Mr. Hume and Mr. Roebuck. Government was triumphant in those measures, so far as the support of a majority in the commons was concerned. It was, however, felt that neither the men nor the measures were adequate to the exigencies of party, any more than to the magnitude of the occasion. Lord John Russell was vacillating and time-serving, although with a show of resolution in resisting and defeating measures which afterwards met, at all events, his qualified approval. This was most singularly exemplified in connection with Lord George Bentinck’s measure for an advance of money to create railways in Ireland. On the 26th of April the house was taken by surprise when the chancellor of the exchequer proposed a loan to certain Irish railways. The proposed sum was £620,000, half a million of which was to be advanced to one particular railway—“the great South Western.” This gave great offence to many. Mr. Hume led off the opposition, Mr. Roebuck followed, of course, with fiery impetuosity; Sir Robert Peel disapproved of it, and the whole Peel party echoed his objections. Lord George Bentinck exulted in the homage paid to his counsels by the tardy, trimming, half measure, or less than half measure of her majesty’s advisers. Notwithstanding so rigorous an opposition from so many quarters, government was so well backed by the Irish members and the ministerial hacks who represented British constituencies, that they carried this and several other measures to which a similar opposition was offered. The remark that the railway scheme of Sir Charles Wood was the fag-end of Lord George Bentinck’s measure, was received with loud cheers by the house, and was repeated much “out of doors.” During these debates the grossest ignorance of Ireland, her people, resources, and financial relation to Great Britain, was evinced by English representatives. Mr. Hume and Mr. Roebuck were very conspicuous in this respect. Mr. Disraeli had the folly to say that the railway scheme of Lord George Bentinck would be beneficial to Ireland, in a political, moral, and social point of view, irrespective of material advantage, because the Roman Catholic and Protestant populations would be brought to work together as “navvies!” Mr. Disraeli did not know that not one man, probably, out of five thousand in that class of labourers in Ireland was a Protestant, and that if working together in the same employments would be sufficient to reconcile them, the reconciliation must have been long ago effected—over the whole of Ulster, at least. The differences between Irish Protestants and Roman Catholics were founded in principle, cherished deeply and warmly by them respectively, and were not, and are not, to be healed by the political or economical quackery of Mr. Disraeli, or politicians who, like him, share with neither party in the earnestness of their opinions. The Irish Protestant and the Irish Roman Catholic believe that the political ascendancy of their respective creeds is necessary to the development of their power and usefulness, and strive, therefore, with jealous eagerness and honesty for that ascendancy. Whatever concessions on this ground the Protestants might be induced to make, the spirit of Irish Romanism is ultramontane in every province and in every social grade of the people.

The Earl of Lincoln and Lord Monteagle united in bringing under the notice of the commons and lords the subject of Irish emigration, and each of these noble persons occupied the time and attention of parliament with an impracticable measure. The general want of parliamentary tact and practical sagacity evinced by the members of both houses at this juncture was discouraging to those who regarded parliament as the hope of the nation.

Parliament was much occupied with Irish and financial questions during the session; several other matters, however, occupied earnest attention. Mr. Fielden, member for Oldham, brought before the commons a measure for shortening the hours of labour of women and children, and young persons in factories. His agitation of this subject derived additional interest from the fact that he himself had been a poor factory boy, and had, to use his own expression, always “stood by his order.” His measure proposed the limitation of labour to twelve hours a clay, allowing two hours out of the twelve for meals, and he would apply this rule to all young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen. On Saturday, however, he would limit the hours to eight, making a total of sixty-three hours in the week until the 1st of May, 1848, after which the total hours of labour for each young person in the week should be fifty-eight. These restrictions he would apply to all females, of whatever age, engaged in factory labour. The working-classes were strongly in favour of Mr. Fielden’s motion. Mr. Cobden had said the previous year that, if the matter was postponed for twelve months, the feelings of the working-classes would change; but that eloquent and philanthropic man very often proved himself a bad prophet, and never more signally than in this instance. The desire of the working-classes for some such law had greatly increased since the time Mr. Cobden declared that it would abate. On the second reading of the bill a fierce opposition was offered, based upon principles of political economy. Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Hume, Mr. Trelawney, Sir Charles Wood, Mr. Mark Philips, and Mr. Bright, were the chief opponents of the measure. Mr. Bright very ably animadverted upon the vacillation of Lord John Russell upon this subject, and the mischief inflicted upon the interests in question by the noble lord’s indecision.

Lord John Russell avowed his support of the principle of the measure, because parliament had already given its sanction to that principle, but he objected to the details. The bill was very ably supported by Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Duncombe. Several speeches were made on its behalf, which were calculated to damage it, and to awaken the alarm of the manufacturing interest; these were made by Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Borthwick, Sir Robert Inglis, and Mr. Newdegate. Mr. Roebuck offered an able and formidable opposition to it. Mr. Brotherton made a feeling appeal to the house, assuring it that the working-classes were borne down by the oppressive number of their hours of toil; that it was impossible for them to accomplish a better arrangement by voluntary agreement; that he himself had worked in a factory, and felt the oppressiveness of the burden, resolving, if ever he could, to contribute to the emancipation of the workmen from so great an evil, and declaring that he still retained in their original freshness the feelings he then cherished. This noble appeal was received by the house with warm demonstrations of applause. Sir James Graham endeavoured to remove the effect which it produced, setting out with the paltry sophism that Mr. Brotherton had risen by the long-hour system, ergo, he should not oppose it! The fair implication of Mr. Brotherton’s speech was that he had risen _in spite_ of the long-hour system, and if Sir James could have regarded the arguments of the honourable member for Salford with common candour, he must have drawn that inference. The bill was carried through both houses with rapid success, after undergoing certain modifications. Lord Brougham took occasion to launch his thunders against his former friends in the ministry for their varying opinions, forgetful that from him this reproach, however well founded, came with the worst possible grace.

On the 22nd of March Mr. Fox Maule moved the second reading of a bill for shortening the period of service in the army. The bill was opposed by Sir Howard Douglas, who did not on this occasion give his last mistaken opinion on military affairs. Colonel Sibthorp, the opponent of every improvement in the law, was an appropriate companion for Sir Howard Douglas in this opposition. Colonel Reid also denounced the measure. It received support from Major Layard, who exposed the injustice of the Duke of Wellington’s Horse-guards’ administration by instances of the gross political partiality displayed in the promotion of officers. Sir De Lacy Evans, the friend of the soldier, the supporter of every liberal opinion and just law, supported Mr. Maule. Mr. Sidney Herbert afforded a qualified support. The measure passed the commons, and received an eloquent and powerful advocacy in the lords from the Duke of Wellington. This mainly contributed to the success of the bill, for the lords were disposed to throw it out. The Earl of Lucan proposed a plan calculated to reconcile parties; but the Duke of Wellington was so strenuously in favour of the plan of the government, that it was carried, but by a very small majority.

GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION.

Few subjects had engaged the attention of the country more than that of popular education. The government resolved upon an enlarged scheme, and submitted their views to parliament. The plan was essentially in the interest of the Established Church, and had the appearance of being intended not only as a means of proselytizing dissenters, but also to disparage them. No measure could be more adapted to aggravate the differences between the two great sections of English Protestants. An opposition was awakened among all the dissenting communities of the most hearty nature, and the government sowed the seeds of distrust of the whig party, which their old abettors, the dissenters, have cherished to this day, although ten years have since elapsed. It is unlikely that the Whigs, as a party, will ever regain the confidence of the Protestant dissenters of Great Britain. The whig government showed its usual inaptitude to perceive the real state of public feeling among the lower strata of the middle classes, and the unhappy faculty of making unpalatable measures, as _mal apropos_ as possible in the time and mode of their introduction.

Lord Lansdowne introduced the measure to the lords. Upon certain minutes emanating from the privy council the government based their measure. It comprised a system of educational grants, and of school inspection, which virtually consigned the education of the country to the custody of the clergy of the Established Church. In the lords the measure of the ministers passed with little question; in the commons numerous and stormy debates ensued. Mr. Macaulay, on the one hand, and Mr. Bright, on the other, threw some acrimony into these debates, but probably the former never appeared to less advantage in parliament, nor the latter to more advantage than in this discussion. Government succeeded in disarming the Roman Catholic members from opposition by a private understanding that, although by the minutes of the educational committee of the privy council then under consideration, they were debarred from any grant, separate minutes would afterwards be introduced in their especial behalf. There was also an understanding with the Wesleyan Methodists on the principle of the grants to their schools, the inspection to be exercised, and the selection of pupil teachers, which disarmed the opposition of that numerous and energetic body. The Unitarians were also conciliated by the explanations which were offered to them, and that body was so extremely anxious for the spread of education, that they were ready to accept a position of great denominational disadvantage, in order to see the extension of some plan that would conduce to the mitigation of popular ignorance. The Congregationalists and Baptists, Presbyterians and Friends, and various other bodies of Methodists who adopted the voluntary principle, were beyond conciliation. They boldly demanded equal rights for all, and perfect freedom of education. This large class of persons were much maligned by the Earl of Surrey, when he consented to have Boman Catholics excluded from the minutes, because, in his opinion, if they were placed within the circle of advantage which the government was willing to accord, all the dissenting sects would assail them with an increased and perhaps successful opposition. The objections of the “voluntary dissenters,” and more liberal sections of churchmen, were unaffected by theological considerations; they desired that their schools should be protected from government interference, and remain uncorrupted by government patronage, and they objected to the unconstitutional authority, as they deemed it, exercised by the privy council. No public man out of their own party ever had so much intercourse with those classes as Lord Brougham, who, at the same time, understood them so little. His lordship affected to “live and move and have his being” in an atmosphere of liberality and enlightenment too high for the earnestly religious men of the country to attain. From this elevation he looked down upon their conflicts with an affected compassion, which if meant to cover his disdain was very unsuccessful, and it brought out more prominently his lordship’s thorough ignorance of the tone and principles of these classes, many of whom had studied the merits of the whole question with far more undivided attention, and not less capacity, than he had.

Lord Lansdowne could not introduce a more comprehensive plan, but he admitted the impossibility of his so doing, because society was divided into two great classes, churchmen and dissenters, who loved education much, but controversy more. Never was a sentence uttered in parliament where the religious feelings and opinions of the people were concerned, even by Lord Brougham himself, more unfounded in fact. The assertion was certainly true of a great many, both churchmen and dissenters, but there was a far greater number of each who loved education very much, and who did not regard controversy with any favour—men of strong conscientious principles, and of deep and earnest piety, who were not prepared to sacrifice their opinions to any government, or to any view of expediency, whatever the end proposed.

Instead of making these classes the object of his constant sneers, Lord Brougham would have rendered more service to his country, and have been more just, had he honoured their scruples, and devoted himself to the production of some scheme which, whether successful or not in passing the legislature, would have laid the basis of an ultimate acceptance by its respect for the religious rights of all. No plan of education will ever gain acceptance in England, so long as there is freedom of discussion and religious liberty, which recognises either a sectarian or a state ascendancy in education. As the Bishop of Oxford once said, as to the feasibility of a compulsory system of education—“We are too free a people for such a scheme ever to be carried out amongst us.” Carlisle showed his philosophy and accuracy of historical knowledge when he described the Roundheads and Cavaliers as honest, earnest men,— heroes, because nobly true to the principles they had espoused, and fearless of all consequences in their avowal; but that eloquent writer showed, like Lord Brougham, his ignorance of the classes of men which, in the present age, succeed to the opinions of Roundheads and Cavaliers, when he declares that there are no such men in the England of to-day. They are now as earnest and more numerous: let the same circumstances call them forth and they will be found. A superior civilisation, a clearer understanding of the principles of civil and religious liberty, a more tolerant temper now prevail, but there is as much conscientiousness still; and now as ever, in this and in every land, men, deeply imbued with the principles of Christianity, will be found ready to bear the testimony of the advocate or the confessor, as events demand. The spirit evinced by Lord Brougham pervaded, to a less extent, a large number of the members of both houses, and produced impressions amongst the numerous classes thus contemptuously treated, which worked deeply into their hearts, and influenced for many a year the votes at elections, and the general feeling of the people towards the great historical parties by which parliament had been divided.

The government carried its measure; £100,000 was devoted to educational purposes on the plan provided by the minutes of the Committee of Education of the Privy Council. The discussions so long existing on the question of education received, however, a new impetus, and became more acrimonious than before. A very large party was gradually created favourable to a national system of secular education, leaving the religious care of the scholars to denominational supervision. A very large class of earnest men became still more devoted than ever to the voluntary system of education, and prodigious efforts were made to promote it. It was found, however, that the expense was such as to defy voluntary efforts, except as sustained through a long period, while the deficiency to be met was urgent and extensive. To carry out any government system that would at all meet the necessity, and respect the scruples of all classes would also entail an enormous burden upon the nation. In the debate on the question to which this section refers, Mr. Duncombe depicted the heavy public burdens that would be thus imposed: Mr. Macaulay exclaimed, “A penny ahead.” Mr. Duncombe’s retort, that this statement was a romance was merited. Mr. Macaulay could never have examined the financial bearing of this great question thoroughly, or his acute mind must have discovered the fallacy of the opinion he so rashly hazarded.

The discussions in and out of parliament brought to light a vast mass of statistics as to the crime and ignorance with which the worthful elements of society had to contend. The alarm felt by good men in the result of these revelations strengthened the hands of government in passing the bill. Objections were raised by many in view of the magnitude of the evil to be encountered, and a sense of responsibility in connection with some immediate and extensive action. The reverend Doctor Guthrie, on a different and subsequent occasion, eloquently expressed what was at this juncture so generally felt:—“When men die, corruption commonly begins after death, but when nations die, it always begins before it. And as in that man’s gangrened extremities, and swollen feet, and slow circulation, I see the heralds of death approaching,—in these godless masses, sunk in ignorance, lost to the profession of religion, and even to the decent habits of civilised society, I see the most alarming signs of a nation’s danger, unless remedies are promptly applied, the unmistakeable forerunners of a nation’s death. Unless early, active, adequate measures are employed to arrest the progress of our social maladies, there remains for this mighty empire no fate but the grave—that grave which has closed over all that have gone before it. Where are the Assyrian and Egyptian monarchies? Where is the Macedonian empire? Where the world-wide power of Rome? Egypt lies entombed amid the dust of her catacombs. Assyria is buried beneath the mounds of Nineveh. Rome lives only in the pages of history, survives but in the memory of her greatness, and the majestic ruins of the ‘Eternal City.’ Shall our fate resemble theirs? Shall it go to prove that Providence has extended the same law of mortality to nations that lies on men—that they also should struggle through the dangers of a precarious infancy; grow up into the beauty, and burn with the ardour, of youth; arrive at the vigour of perfect manhood; and then, slowly sinking, pass through the blindness and decay of old age, until they drop into the tomb? Under God, it depends upon ourselves whether that shall or shall not be our fate. Matters are not so far gone but it may yet be averted. A great French general, who reached the battle-field at sundown, found that the troops of his country had been worsted in the fight; unskilful arrangements had neutralised Gallic bravery, and offered the enemy advantages they were not slow to seize. He accosted the unfortunate commander; having rapidly learned how matters stood, he pulled out his watch, turned his eye on the sinking sun, and said, ‘There’s time yet to gain the victory.’ He rallied the broken ranks; he placed himself at their head, and launching them with the arm of a giant in war, upon the columns of the foe, he plucked the prize from their hands—won the day. There is no time to lose. To her case, perhaps, may be applied the words, which we would leave as a solemn warning to every worldly, careless, Christless man, ‘Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.’”

BILL FOR CREATING A NEW DIOCESS OF MANCHESTER.

The government brought in a bill for this purpose which excited much discussion in parliament, and much discontent in the locality more immediately interested. The second reading was proposed by Lord Lansdowne on the 7th of June. The bill also created a new archdeaconry of Liverpool, The bill proposed to exclude the new bishop from a seat in parliament. This evoked opposition from the high church party, but the success of the measure was secured by this proviso; for the opposition raised in Lancashire was so great that the government could hardly have proceeded with the bill had a seat in the House of Peers been associated with the new see. It was provided, however, that when a vacancy, by death or otherwise, occurred on the bench of bishops, the bishop of Manchester should succeed to a seat in that house. This introduced a new principle in the relations of the episcopal bench to the peerage; for a bishop would not in future have a seat in their lordships’ house as a matter of course, but would occupy his see without such privilege until a vacancy occurred.

DEBATE ON THE ANNEXATION OF CRACOW.

The annexation of Cracow to the Austrian empire has been already related in this chapter. Several allusions were made to this in the debates on the address, but on the 4th of March Mr. Hume brought the subject forward in a formal manner. Mr. Hume, however, so mixed up the subject with the Russo-Dutch loan, that his resolutions as far as regarded Cracow were impracticable, and he withdrew them after uselessly occupying the time of the house by a long debate.

There were few matters of interest connected with the remainder of the session. Lord Palmerston delivered a speech in which he animadverted so severely on the bad faith of the Spanish government, in reference to Spanish bonds, as to produce great indignation in Spain. It was supposed that the good effects of the speech, however, would be felt by those interested in the punctual disbursements of the Spanish government. That government had too little probity to meet the calls of honour, and too little shame to be moved by the disapprobation of honest men.

It was resolved by the government of Lord John Russell to advise her majesty to dissolve parliament, so that the elections might terminate before harvest; various bills were therefore postponed or abandoned.

Lord Lyndhurst had been accustomed to take a retrospective view of each session, in a speech which recapitulated the doings and misdoings of government, according to his lordship’s view of them. Lord Brougham, ambitious to do everything, even when he knew others could do it better, resolved to perform the task usually sustained by his brother ex-chancellor. The performance was inferior to that usually accomplished by the noble Baron Lyndhurst, although in declamatory force Lord Brougham’s oration was perfect. All the bills passed in the session he described as bad ones. Many of those lost or abandoned, if introduced by government, he represented as useless, and their introduction as a waste of time. Every epithet of contempt furnished by the English language, and by any other which his lordship knew, however imperfectly, was heaped upon the defunct bills. They were consigned to the shades below, to that “lean world” where—

“Ibant obseuri sola sub nocte per nmbram
Perque domos Ditis vacuas et mania regna.”

What his lordship said of the defunct measures will be true of himself, when his great energies are still, and his eloquent tongue silent for ever—“A thousand faults and a thousand freaks died with them.” His lordship appended a condemnatory motion to his speech, which, like most of his motions, came to nothing. The house was greatly amused, and even instructed, by the noble lord’s oration, but not at all edified. The Marquis of Lansdowne replied with that calm and graceful dignity by which that venerable peer was so much distinguished; and his reply carried with it the weight of his consistent political character, for the house unanimously adopted his course.

PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

On the 23rd of July, parliament was prorogued by her majesty. As the parliament which had been called together in 1841 had been one of the longest during the century, the prorogation, which was made by her majesty in person, excited very great public interest, and the queen’s speech was looked for with unusual public attention. The streets leading to the House of Lords presented the same animated appearance as is usual on similar occasions. Her majesty, accompanied by Prince Albert, and attended by the usual great officers of state, entered the royal carriage, and proceeded from Buckingham Palace to the House of Lords shortly before two o’clock. As the royal procession passed through St. James’s Park, and along the line of road, her majesty and her illustrious consort were loudly cheered by the spectators who had assembled to witness this splendid pageant. On the arrival of the royal _cortège_ at the House of Lords, it was announced by a discharge of cannon.

Her majesty having robed, she immediately proceeded to the house, and took her seat on the throne. Prince Albert occupied a state chair on the right of the sovereign. The entrance of her majesty to the house was announced by a nourish of trumpets. The peers and peeresses all rose as the queen entered. The new house was crowded, and presented a brilliant spectacle. All, or nearly all, the foreign ambassadors and ministers were present. The dresses of the ladies were very elegant.

Her majesty having taken her seat, the Lord Chancellor directed Sir Augustus Clifford, Usher of the Black Rod, to summon the House of Commons to hear the royal speech on the prorogation of parliament. In a short time the speaker, accompanied by a number of members, appeared at the bar, when the right honourable gentleman, as is usual, addressed her majesty in a short speech, recounting the business of the session, and concluded by praying the royal assent to several bills which had passed both houses. Her majesty then read the following most gracious speech:—

“_My Lords and Gentlemen_,—I have much satisfaction in being able to release you from the duties of a laborious and anxious session. I cannot take leave of you without expressing my grateful sense of the assiduity and zeal with which you have applied yourselves to the consideration of the public interests. Your attention has been principally directed to the measures of immediate relief which a great and unprecedented calamity rendered necessary.

“I have given my cheerful assent to those laws which, by allowing the free admission of grain, and by affording facilities for the use of sugar in breweries and distilleries, tend to increase the quantity of human food, and to promote commercial intercourse.

“I rejoice to rind that you have in no instance proposed new restrictions, or interfered with the liberty of foreign or internal trade; as a mode of relieving distress. I feel assured that such measures are generally ineffectual, and, in some cases, aggravate the evils for the alleviation of which they are adopted.

“I cordially approve of the acts of large and liberal bounty by which you have assuaged the sufferings of my Irish subjects. I have also readily given my sanction to a law to make better provision for the permanent relief of the destitute in Ireland. I have likewise given my assent to various bills calculated to promote the agriculture and develop the industry of that portion of the United Kingdom. My attention shall be directed to such further measures as may be conducive to those salutary purposes.

“My relations with foreign powers continue to inspire me with confidence in the maintenance of peace. It has afforded me great satisfaction to find that the measures which, in concert with the King of the French, the Queen of Spain, and the Queen of Portugal, I have taken for the pacification of Portugal, have been attended with success; and that the civil war which for many months had afflicted that country has, at last, been brought to a bloodless termination. I indulge the hope that future differences between political parties in that country may be settled without an appeal to arms.

“_Gentlemen of the House of Commons_,—I thank you for your willingness in granting me the necessary supplies; they shall be applied with due care and economy to the public service.

“I am happy to inform you that, notwithstanding the high price of food, the revenue has, up to the present time, been more productive than I had reason to anticipate. The increased use of articles of general consumption has chiefly contributed to this result. The revenue derived from sugar, especially, has been greatly augmented by the removal of the prohibitory duties on foreign sugar.

“The various grants which you have made for education in the United Kingdom will, I trust, be conducive to the religious and moral improvement of my people.

“_My Lords and Gentlemen_,—I think it proper to inform you that it is my intention immediately to dissolve the present parliament.

“I rely with confidence on the loyalty to the throne, and attachment to the free institutions of this country, which animate the great body of my people. I join with them in supplications to Almighty God that the dearth by which we have been afflicted may, by the Divine blessing, be converted into cheapness and plenty.”

An event occurred at this juncture not unimportant to the government, and in which the Roman Catholics of Ireland felt concern. The O’Connor Don, one of the members for Roscommon, and a lord of the Treasury, died. He was a patriotic Irishman, of superior education and intelligence, and much respected, not only by the county he represented, but in Ireland generally. In the province of Connaught he was regarded with the reverence paid to a Celtic chief.

Parliament having been dissolved, writs were at once issued for the election of members for a new one. The especial feature of this election was the want of a definite policy on the part of the great body of the candidates. The Whigs seemed to have no clear notion of what they ought to propose to themselves or to the country. Lord John Russell, as has always been his custom, referred to his past life as the standard by which the electors should judge his future policy. A suspicion existed in the electoral body in Great Britain that it was the intention of government to endow the Roman Catholic clergy, and this injured the cause of such Whig candidates as were not very explicit on this matter. The previous parliament had added to the influence of the church by increasing the number of bishops, and by their education plan; this prejudiced many of the Dissenters against Whigism in general, and the government leaders of that school as its most prominent advocates. There was a general expectation that, whatever the complexion of the new parliament, Sir Robert Peel would of necessity be in power before its dissolution. The energy of the country party was, however, mainly directed against the Peelites, and their strength was sufficient to bar, for a time at all events, the approaches to power against Sir Robert.

The elections proceeded throughout Great Britain with fairness, except that the landlords in some places exercised an influence which was unconstitutional and unjust. Tenants were evicted because they voted according to their conscience; and the tradespeople in country towns were menaced with loss of custom by the neighbouring landowners. In Ireland the landed interest also exercised an undue influence, and many cases of extreme hardship occurred. The Boman Catholic clergy used the power of their office for electioneering purposes, in a way injurious to their own moral influence, subversive of the rights of the people, and dangerous to law and order.

The elections terminated by the return of a majority, ostensibly in favour of government, but there was little earnestness of principle or purpose to give consistency or continuity to their support.

ASSEMBLING OF A NEW PARLIAMENT.

In consequence of the public distress in Great Britain, the famine in Ireland, and the disturbed state of that country, it became necessary for parliament to assemble sooner than had been customary. Accordingly, on the 18th of November, the first session of the new parliament began; Mr. Shaw Lefevre was re-elected speaker. On the 23rd, the Marquis of Lansdowne was commissioned to read her majesty’s speech. That document referred with hope to the state of commercial matters in Great Britain, and with gratitude to Providence for a bountiful harvest. Her majesty expressed her sympathy for Irish suffering, and her abhorrence of Irish crime. She expressed her pleasure at the alacrity showed by all classes to relieve the destitute in Ireland; and recommended her parliament to take measures for repressing outrage, and preserving the public peace in that country. She expressed her regret that civil war had broken out in Switzerland, and her readiness to use her influence to heal those distractions. The speech announced a treaty with the republic of the equator for the suppression of the slave-trade, and avowed confidence in maintaining the general peace of Europe. The navigation laws, the health of the metropolis, and the revenue, were also subjects to which she called the attention of her parliament.

In the debate upon the address, in the lords, Lord Stanley was unreasonable and virulent; Lord Brougham, always in opposition to somebody, refuted the conservative leader. He “praised the government for calling parliament together so soon; justified the interference with the bank charter, recorded on another page; declared that Ireland stood in a shameful and hateful pre-eminence of crime, and trusted that effectual measures would be taken to disarm the people, and protect life and property.”

The debate on the address, in the commons, was chiefly remarkable for the boldness and extent of Mr. John O’Connell’s demands upon the Treasury for the relief of Ireland. Sir Benjamin Hall made some very foolish replies to Mr. O’Connell, and added to the bitterness of the debate. Mr. Maurice O’Connell made the startling declaration that not more than one-fifth of the sum voted for Ireland had ever reached that country.

A Roman Catholic archdeacon, named Laffan, at a public meeting in Cashel, had made a very inflammatory speech, which had excited the indignation of the public, and was the subject of animadversion in parliament. Mr. Mahon, an Irish member, was chairman of that meeting, and the mode in which he palliated the atrocious speech of the archdeacon caused murmurs of disapprobation in the house. Ireland appeared to great disadvantage in this debate, and the tone of English members was not so generous as it ought to have been. The dreadful crimes perpetrated in Ireland had produced a state of feeling in England which was almost resentful, notwithstanding the compassion entertained for the sufferings of the Irish poor. There could be no doubt, as Mr. Stafford O’Brien reminded the house, that some of the best of landlords had been assassinated. There appeared to be a relentless thirst for blood among the Irish peasantry, prompted by fanaticism, famine, and despair, which was calculated to destroy the sympathy of the representatives of Great Britain.

The address in the commons was ultimately agreed to after a most acrimonious debate, protracted by the Irish members and their opponents far beyond the limits usual on such occasions.

DEBATE ON THE DISTRESS OF THE NATION.

On the 30th the chancellor of the exchequer rose, pursuant of notice, to move for “a select committee to inquire into the causes of the recent commercial distress, and how far it has been effected by the laws for regulating the issue of bank-notes payable on demand.” After an intellectual debate, except so far as some incoherent rhapsodies of Mr. Urquhart made it otherwise, the motion was acceded to. Sir Robert Peel appeared to singular advantage in this discussion; he placed the causes of public distress luminously before the house, and supported the policy of government. In the lords there was a similar debate, remarkable for the extraordinary assertion of Lord Brougham, that the public distress was chiefly to be attributed to the obstinacy of government and parliament in not taking his advice and that of the Duke of Wellington, proffered for the last ten years. His lordship seemed ambitious of identifying himself with the illustrious duke on all possible occasions, although scarcely any two men could have entertained opinions more dissonant than these two noble persons.

MEASURES FOR THE REPRESSION OF HOMICIDE AND OUTRAGE IN IRELAND.

The party of Lord John Russell had thwarted the government of Sir Robert Peel when endeavouring to enact a law for the preservation of life and property from the lawlessness of the peasantry in Ireland: it was Lord John’s fate, in this session, to invoke Sir Robert’s aid in carrying measures very similar. It became necessary to pass some enactment calculated to hold Irish outrage in check. Lord John’s influence ultimately suffered by so frequently opposing others in their more timely efforts to carry measures of which he was glad at last to avail himself.

In the six months ending October, 1847, there were ninety-six murders, while the appalling number of one hundred and fifty-six attempts at assassination had been made. During the same period, one hundred and sixteen dwelling-houses had been set on fire by incendiaries. But offences against life, property, and the civil and religious freedom of the respectable inhabitants, were innumerable. Portions of Ireland were under a reign of terror. The sympathies of whole districts were on the side of those by whom rapine and assassination were committed; and there was a general unwillingness, even among the better class of farmers, and persons in higher stations still, to bring the malefactors to justice.

Sir George Grey introduced the remedial measures of government. The proposed bill was to be applicable only to such portions of Ireland as the lord-lieutenant should proclaim to be disturbed. The reserved force of Irish constabulary was to be increased from four hundred to six hundred men—a feature of the scheme so absurdly inadequate as to expose its authors to ridicule. From this paltry reserve his excellency was to send forces into the proclaimed districts. This force would be paid out of the district it was sent to protect—a most salutary arrangement, as giving the small farmers and clergy an interest in checking insurgent proceedings. All persons, unless especially exempt from the prohibition, were to be forbidden the use of arms in proclaimed districts, but they might have such in their own houses. This provision, which appeared reasonable in itself, was practically mischievous, for the houses of many became depots of arms for their companions in disaffection more suspected than themselves. Robberies of arms were perpetrated by _unarmed_ bands, who were nevertheless not resisted. Any violation of the disarming clause of the bill would subject the culprit to three years’ imprisonment. The lord-lieutenant had power to authorise search for arms in the houses of the suspected, and all prohibited weapons were to be delivered up on proclamation to that effect, under penalties. This also was evaded, for as soon as a district was proclaimed, the arms disappeared into a neighbouring district, not so situated, from whence incursions were made into the proclaimed district, where the force was generally too feeble to protect the numerous points upon which the depredators fell. The police had power to call upon all males between sixteen and sixty, in any district where a murder was committed, to join in pursuit of the murderer; and any one who refused, was held guilty of misdemeanour. This clause alarmed the disaffected more than any other.