Chapter LXII: {victoria. 1850} (2)

So long as the Greek question remained open both these sections of opponents tormented the ministry, and when, on the 15th of May, the French ambassador suddenly left London, a perfect storm of hostility fell upon the cabinet. Lord Palmerston defended the policy of the foreign office throughout with candour, courtesy, and yet with a satirical wit, which keenly annoyed the opposition, while no excuse was left them to impeach the veteran minister’s politeness, or constitutional respect for the house. The ministry were not apprised that the French ambassador had been withdrawn from any dissatisfaction with England, but the explanations given in the French Assembly soon left no doubt of that. Lord Stanley brought on a debate on the 18th of June. He arraigned the policy of government with an eloquence which was most formidable. He was supported by Lord Aberdeen in a disingenuous and un-English speech. The government was never more feebly defended, and the result was a signal defeat, Lord Stanley’s motion of censure being carried by a large majority.

In the commons, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a resolution of confidence in the cabinet on the 24th of June. The speech of the honourable member was constitutional and effective. Lord Palmerston delivered a most powerful _exposé_ of his foreign policy. Sir Robert Peel took much the same views in the commons as Lord Aberdeen did in the lords, and, considering that both these statesmen had by their impolicy allowed the grievances to accumulate which it devolved upon Lord Palmerston to redress, their conduct was equally inequitable and ungenerous in withholding from him their support, not to say opposing him. The speech of Sir Robert Peel was the last he ever delivered, and was remarkable for that circumstance as well as for the ability it displayed; but the principles of foreign policy put forth by the illustrious baronet were such as tended to make the country weak in its foreign relations, and were more calculated to subserve the immediate interests of Lancashire than the permanent interests of that powerful district, or the honour and weal of the empire at large. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden were also among the prominent opponents of Lord Palmerston’s policy. The minority was large, the government policy having been supported only by a majority of forty-six.

CONSTITUTIONS FOR THE COLONIES.

On the 8th of February, Lord John Russell made a statement in regard to colonial government. His lordship denounced the imprudence of the Colonial Reform Association, which, by its correspondence with disaffected persons, kept alive discontent wherever it existed, and indirectly promoted it everywhere else. The pith of the noble lord’s statement was, that the colonies were a source of strength in peace and war, contrary to the doctrine propounded by Messrs. Cobden and Bright: that it was the duty of England to preserve her colonial influence, and to extend civilization and freedom wherever her flag was planted; and that in most cases the colonies were in a position, as to population and intelligence, to justify the institution of a constitutional form of government in harmony with that of the parent state. The noble lord’s speech was received with loud cheering, especially on the conservative side of the house, when he announced the opinion of the government that the colonies were sources of commercial and political strength, and ought to be retained. The speech was followed by the proposal of resolutions in harmony with its statements. A very wide diversity of opinion was expressed by the house, Mr. Gladstone animadverting with bad temper upon such portions as did not meet his approbation.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES’ BILL.

On the 18th of February, in pursuance of these resolutions, Lord John Russell moved “the Australian Colonies’ Bill.” Mr. Roebuck criticised the measure in a tone of severity, in which he was followed by other members, but the second reading was easily carried. On its committal, considerable opposition was offered, in the form of amendments, to which the government could not accede. Mr. Roebuck and Sir William Molesworth led this species of opposition, and neither in a fair or national spirit. The bill was carried, with some slight modifications; but, upon bringing up the report, Sir William Molesworth moved the re-committal of the bill, and was seconded by Mr. Gladstone. The object of Sir William was to initiate a broad and liberal line of policy in colonial affairs on principles which, it appeared to the government, would be adverse to the interests and subversive of the authority of the parent country. Mr. Gladstone was actuated by sheer party opposition. Only forty-two votes were found in favour of the re-committal.

Mr. Gladstone then moved an additional clause, giving the Church of England in the colonies the power of synodical action. The speech of the honourable member was so thoroughly sectarian as to forbid any chance of success, as it awakened prejudices in many directions which a more prudent politician would have endeavoured to allay. The portion of the house usually known as “Young England,” sustained Mr. Gladstone, but the government opposed him, and the house at large went with it.

On the third reading, Mr. Gladstone made another attempt to oppose its progress by moving that it be suspended until the opinion of the colonies could be taken as to its provisions. This motion was plausible, and this time the obstructor spoke plausibly, concealing the temper which really pervaded his opposition. Mr. Roebuck seconded it, although his motives and policy were utterly opposite to those of the mover. The majority was large which rejected the postponement. Other modes of obstruction less prominent were unattended by success.

In the lords the second reading was carried _nemine contradicente_. Afterwards, Lord Brougham, who co-operated with Mr. Roebuck in the commons, moved that counsel should be heard at the bar against the bill; this motion was defeated. The Bishop of Oxford, who co-operated with Mr. Gladstone in the commons, moved that the bill be referred to a select committee; the motion was refused. The lords accepted the bill with great reluctance, but continued to deal with it in good faith; they amended it in various particulars, to which the commons afterwards consented, and the bill became law.

LOCAL BURDENS ON LAND.

On the 19th of February, Mr. Disraeli moved for a committee of the whole house to consider the burden of the poor law and other local burdens borne by the land, and with a view to such revision as would relieve that interest. The debate was a renewal, under another form, of the protectionist controversy. Mr. Bright, Mr. James Wilson, and Sir Robert Peel, made very effective speeches against the motion. On a division, Mr. Disraeli secured a powerful minority, his motion having been defeated by a majority of only twenty-one votes.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

On the 28th of February, Mr. Hume brought on a motion for the extension of the franchise. Like most of that honourable gentleman’s measures, this was as ill-timed as it was well-intended. Sir Joshua Walmsley seconded it. Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Fergus O’Connor, and some other members advocated it, who did not bring any parliamentary or moral influence to its support. Only ninety-six votes were given in its behalf.

IRISH DISTRESS.

The parliamentary measures concerning Ireland have been noticed under the section of the chapter devoted to its history, and therefore only require a passing reference. Early in the session Lord John Russell made a statement to the house concerning Irish distress, and proposed various resolutions pertinent to the repayment of loans, and the modes of dealing with insolvent “unions.” These resolutions were agreed to, and a bill founded on them was passed.

IRISH FRANCHISE BILL.

At the passing of the Reform Bill Ireland was not placed on an equality with England, and this fact operated strongly in promoting the disloyalty which had prevailed there. But for the Irish liberal members the reform bill for Great Britain could not have been carried, and the Irish people expected from the liberal representatives of Great Britain similar support, which was not accorded. This filled the minds of the Irish with strong resentment, and caused them to agitate for a reform bill on terms substantially as popular as that accorded to Great Britain. Moved by considerations of this sort, Lord John Russell resolved to enlarge the Irish franchise, and a bill was brought in for that purpose. It was warmly supported by Mr. Hume, Mr. Bright, and other English members of the liberal party, who desired even a more democratic measure for Ireland.

The main feature of the bill was the extension of the franchise to all occupiers of land to the amount of £8 per annum, adopting the rating as the ultimate standard of value. The bill was read a second time, after a fierce conservative opposition, which continued until it finally passed the commons. In the lords it was vehemently opposed by Lord Brougham upon principles not reconcilable with his well-known political creed. Lord Desart proposed to raise the qualification to £15, and carried his proposition. Lord Stanley made a proposal intended to obstruct the registration, and carried it against the government. In this state the bill passed.

In the commons the amendments of the lords were discussed with bitter acrimony, and a strong sense of injury, deepened into resentment, was circulated in Ireland, when the tidings of the lords’ amendments reached that country. This reacted upon the commons, and the government was considerably embarrassed by the suspicions and anger of its own general supporters among the Irish members. Lord John proposed that the commons should confer with the lords upon the feasibility of establishing a £12 franchise instead of the £8 or the £15. Some other amendments of the lords were rejected. A conference ensued, and the lords conceded to the commons on the basis of their new proposals.

BILL FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE LORD-LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.

On the 18th of May, the premier moved for leave to bring in a bill for this purpose. This was one of the many ill-digested and inconsiderate measures by which Lord John Russell’s government was characterised. The Irish people almost unanimously opposed it, and so did their representatives. Mr. Shiel, however, who had become a mere ministerial hack, took part with the government against the known feeling of his countrymen. He was chastised by Mr. Disraeli in one of that gentleman’s most eloquent and happy orations.

The second reading was carried by a large majority, but it was so obvious that if the bill were proceeded with, it would be by virtue of an English majority on an Irish question, against the feeling of the Irish members and their constituents, that the government abandoned it. Much evil was inflicted by its introduction in the temper it evoked in Ireland; and much evil was also accomplished by abandoning it, for it exposed the vacillation of the premier and the government, so as to lessen their moral influence in both Great Britain and Ireland.

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS OF DEBATE.

There were few other measures of importance as to general government or law introduced by the cabinet, but the subjects introduced by private members were very various, such as—the conduct of government on the question of the extradition of Hungarian refugees from Turkey, brought on by Lord Dudley Stuart; the abandonment of the naval efforts on the coasts of Africa to suppress the slave-trade, introduced by Mr. Hutt, and efficiently opposed by Mr. Buxton; different party questions, connected with outrage in Ireland, on the social condition of that country; bill for a new tribunal instead of the judicial committee of privy council; reform of the universities; alteration of the law of marriage as to degrees of affinity; Sunday labour in the Post-office; amendment of the factory act; debate on the continuation of the annuity of £12,000 per year to the Duke of Cambridge, on occasion of the death of his father, &c. The city of London having elected Baron Rothschild, a Jew, as their representative, and he having refused to take the oaths, “on the faith of a Christian,” a debate ensued of much importance in the commons. Mr. Hume moved that the oath should be administered to Baron Rothschild on the Old Testament. This was obstinately resisted by the tory members, but ultimately carried. The next day, Baron Rothschild was sworn on the Old Testament, but refusing to adopt the words, “on the true faith of a Christian,” he was ordered to withdraw. Sir F. Thesiger moved that a new writ should be issued for the city of London. The attorney-general proposed two resolutions:—1st, that the oath taken by Baron Rothschild was not according to law, and did not entitle him to take his seat; 2nd, pledging the house to a bill in the next session, altering the form of the oath. A debate ensued, which was confused and desultory, and much opposition from both sides of the house was offered to the resolutions, which were, however, eventually carried. The issue was not satisfactory to the city of London, the members of the Jewish persuasion, or the country.

FINANCE.

The financial campaign may be represented as having opened on the 8th of March, when Mr. Cobden made a series of resolutions, pledging the house to retrenchment. The basis of the honourable member’s speech and motion was, that warlike armaments were not necessary, there being no likelihood of any nation going to war with us; and the costly character of such armaments affecting the progress of commerce and civilization, and depriving the people of comfort by an oppressive taxation. The honourable member was of opinion that the differences between states did not require a resort to arms, and that if our government only adopted proper means to effect it, they would find it possible to adjust all disputes with foreign countries by arbitration. The resolutions were rejected by an overwhelming majority.

On the 13th, Mr. Drummond submitted to the house a resolution, recommending economy in the public outlay. This was entertained as a party resolution by the protectionists, who thus suddenly became the professed advocates of economy for the purpose of allowing the agricultural burdens to be relaxed. Being a party motion, it was well supported, and the motion was rejected by a majority of less than fifty members.

Various motions were made by individual members to give a new form to the pressure of taxation, and to adjust in a different way the public burdens. The chancellor of the exchequer, in his financial statement, which is given at the close of this section, anticipated some of these motions, and secured their defeat by his success in inducing the house to acquiesce in his own budget. Others came on before the budget was introduced, but all shared a like fate, as the financial policy of the government received the decided support of the house. Some of the financial motions of the session made by independent members attracted much attention, and produced some impression in the house, being supported by considerable minorities. Thus Lord Duncan moved for the repeal of the window duty. There followed a debate of the most animated character in a thin house, various leading men opposing the government. On a division, the motion was rejected by only a majority of three, there having been eighty to seventy-seven. This was the narrowest escape in the commons which the government experienced in the session.

Mr. Cayley was recognised as the champion of the favourite financial measure with the protectionists, the repeal of the malt duty. He accordingly introduced that subject by motion, which was seconded by Mr. Christopher, another champion “of the agricultural interest.” It was warmly supported by several of the leading Conservatives; but Lord John Russell, Mr. James Wilson, and the chancellor of the exchequer, delivered powerful speeches against it. Mr. Milner Gibson, always intelligent on economical questions, made a very able speech against the repeal of the tax. The motion was lost, a large majority being against it.

On the 15th of March, the chancellor of the exchequer made his financial statement, which was eagerly looked forward to by both sides of the house, and by the country, as it was supposed that a vigorous effort to defeat the ministry on that point would be made. The minister was determined, if possible, to meet the ideas of all parties, and he hit upon the expedient of relieving the agricultural interest by reducing the duty on bricks. Neither the ministers nor their supporters were very sanguine that this would give satisfaction, but it met with very general approval, the trading, tenant, and agricultural interests all felt concerned in the cheapness of this useful material, then heavily taxed; and the result was unanimity in the favourable reception given to the chancellor’s proposal. The following correctly describes the ministerial scheme.

THE BUDGET.

The house having resolved itself into a committee of ways and means,—The chancellor of the exchequer proceeded to lay before it the financial statement for the ensuing year. He had to lay before the house two estimates—one, that up to the 5th of April next, and the other up to the 5th of April, 1851. He had estimated the income for this year at £52,262,000; but he was happy to say that it would probably amount to £52,874,000. He could not, however, take the estimate for next year so high, as, during the last quarter, the returns bad not been so good. He would, however, take them at £52,785,500. He had estimated the expenditure of last year at £50,853,622, but it amounted only to £50,553,651; and he calculated that next year there would be a surplus of two millions and a quarter. He had calculated last year on a surplus of only £104,000, whereas the increase amounted to £523,500. He did not, however, anticipate such favourable results from the customs this year as last, for there would be a probable loss on sugar of between four and five hundred thousand pounds; on brandy, and likewise on corn, there would also be probably a loss. The right honourable gentleman then enumerated the various sources of revenue from which he anticipated revenue, as follows:—

Excise 14,045,000

Stamps 6,860,000

Assessed Taxes 4,320,000

Income Tax 5,410,000

Customs 20,000,000

Post-Office 820,000

Crown Lands 160,000

Miscellaneous 260,000

Old Stores 410,000

Making a total of £52,285,000.

With respect to the expenditure,

The interest on the Funded Debt was 28,105,000

Other charges on the Consolidated Fund 2,620,000

Navy Estimates 6,613,000

Army Estimates 6,120,006

Ordnance 2,434,417

The Militia 110,000

Commissariat 500,000

Miscellaneous 211,159

Excess of expenditure in former years 4,000,000

Making altogether an expenditure of £50,613,582.

To this should be added the expenses of the new houses of parliament, and for a building to hold the records of the house. Upon the whole, he calculated, after meeting their expenses, upon an available surplus of fifteen hundred thousand, in round numbers. The right hon. gentleman then adverted to the propositions which had been made to reduce the duties on windows, tea, timber, malt, soap, bricks, paper, advertisements, and attorneys’ certificates; and also the proposition of the hon. member for Buckingham, to place on the consolidated fund certain charges otherwise provided for hitherto, and said he would not assent to those propositions, for which no special case had been made out. When he remembered that, within the last few years, no less a sum than £148,000,000 had been laid out in railways, he could not help thinking that there was a strong symptom of a return to more prosperous times. He would now state his own views on the subject. He had thought that they should first direct their attention to a reduction of the debt, and he should state to the house the fact, that since 1831, we had borrowed no less than £35,000,000, while in the same twenty years we had only applied £8,000,000 towards its repayment, leaving a balance of debt of no less than £27,000,000. If they were always to borrow when the revenue was deficient, and never to pay when they had an excess, he could not see how they were to get out of debt at all. Neither could he see how they would get rid of the income-tax if they were to apply every surplus to the reduction of taxation instead of to the reduction of the debt. He felt it desirable, however, that some relief should lie given in the way of taxation; and the first class to which lie should apply the principle would be the small holders of land, by reducing the stamp duty on the sales of land up to £1000, and rendering it more equitable on transfers above that amount. Also a reduction of the duty on mortgages and bonds, and to reduce the stamp duty on leases from one to half per cent. He also thought it desirable that the habitations of the labouring classes should be improved, and he should therefore propose the total repeal of the duty on bricks. He estimated the loss to the revenue at £300,000 on stamps, and at £455,000 on bricks; making a total of £755,000, which was about one-half of the surplus available. He thought, therefore, that he was making a fair distribution of the surplus, one half to the reduction of taxation, and one half to the reduction of the debt. He proposed to make advances for the purpose of drainage and land improvement as an inducement to an expenditure of capital, which could not fail to be considered a national as well as an individual benefit. The last sum granted in this was for England and Scotland, £2,000,000; and of this, owing to priority of application, the gentlemen north of the Tweed had got no less than £1,600,000. He proposed to advance another £2,000,000, and to take care to reserve a fair share of it for England. He also proposed to advance for similar purposes £1,000,000 to Ireland, £800,000 of which should be for arterial drainage. He hoped to be able to make these advances without any addition whatever to the public debt. These were the proposals he had to submit to the house. He also proposed to apply £25,000 in order to got rid of the perpetual annuities. He hoped to be able to make these advances without making any addition whatever to the funded debt, if the house would leave him a surplus to do so. He proposed, by the payment of a sum of £250,000 out of the surplus in hand, to extinguish the equivalent fund, which was a charge on the public funds of £10,000 a year, since the junction of the debt of Scotland with that of England at the time of the Union. That would leave him £500,000; and that he thought the house should leave him as a reserve fund. The right lion, gentleman concluded by moving a vote of £9,200,000, to be raised by exchequer bills, for the service of the year.

After some discussion, in which Mr. Hume, Mr. Newdegate, Lord John Manners, and several other members took part, the motion was agreed to.

DEATH OF SIR ROBERT PEEL.

A record of this event properly belongs to parliamentary history. Disraeli justly described the baronet when he called him “a very great member of parliament.” It was as a member of parliament, rather than as a man or a minister, that Sir Robert Peel was great. Possessing superior culture and extraordinary talents, he was not a man of genius. His administrative abilities were of a very high order, perhaps we might say, of the highest order that this country had ever known in a minister; but he was indebted for his conceptions sometimes to his friends, often to his opponents. The great aim of his policy was conservative—conservative of class privilege and old institutions. He resisted every measure of civil and religious liberty introduced in his time, until the overwhelming pressure of public opinion rendered further resistance hopeless. Thus, he opposed Catholic emancipation, the repeal of the corporation and test acts, the reform bill, and free trade, until all these measures were forced by public opinion. It was his gift to discern more keenly than other men when the moment arrived beyond which public opinion could be no longer safely opposed, and he was then generally ready to adopt the very measures which he had before so warmly denounced, and blamed others so strongly for promoting. He had, by his timely apostasy on all great questions conciliated the masses, and by preventing the conflict of parties and classes on these occasions, he did much to promote the public welfare at the expense of his own consistency. Measures seemed to be regarded by him, not in the light of principle, but in that of political expediency. He passed bills, not because truth, freedom, and justice demanded them, but because they promoted the interests of party, or, it might be, because he thought it was expedient for the national interests at the time that they should be passed. Even the great measure of the repeal of the corn laws he retarded longer than any other man could have retarded it. He was the minister who passed it, and who hindered it from passing sooner. His whole political history was a confession of political error, and repentance. Yet he did not leave the honour of carrying out their own measures to men who had formed a public opinion concerning them, and who could with conscience and honour have conducted them through parliament; he refused them all aid in each efforts, and when his time arrived, seized the schemes and carried them, demanding the homage of the Conservatives for conceding so little to the people, and the homage of the people for conceding to them so much more than they could have obtained from anybody else.

The personal history of this eminent man contained little that was striking; a cold prudence preserved him from engaging in and personal matters that could make his life eventful. He was born in the year 1788, in a cottage near Bury, in Lancashire, where his father then lived in humble circumstances. Mr. Peel founded in that neighbourhood works for calico-printing, and laid by that means the foundation of a very great fortune. He was afterwards knighted, and having written a pamphlet entitled, “The National Debt a Source of National Prosperity,” he was frequently consulted by Mr. Pitt, and it is alleged, conceived the idea that his son might become Mr. Pitt’s successor. He sent young Robert to Harrow at an early age, where he was on the same form with Byron the poet, who thus recorded his impressions of him: “There were great hopes of Peel among us all, masters and scholars. As a scholar he was greatly my superior; as a schoolboy out of school I was always in scrapes, he never; and in school he always knew the lesson, and I rarely.” “The boy was father to the man” in both these cases, for Peel through life maintained the same cautious, industrious, and circumspect habits, which certainly never characterised his far greater schoolfellow. He left Harrow for Oxford, where he especially distinguished himself as a classic. In 1809 he became of age, and entered parliament for a rotten borough openly bought for him by his father. His first speech was a success, and although he never gave promise of becoming a brilliant orator, he grew in favour with the house by the practicability of his views, and his faculty of perceiving the tone of feeling prevailing in the assembly at the time. In March, 1811, he made a very able speech in favour of the Duke of Wellington, then fighting the battles of the Peninsula, and against whom a public outcry had been raised. Percival, then in power, was so pleased with the speech that he invited Mr. Peel to take office, and he commenced his career, before he was twenty-three years of age, as under-secretary of the colonies. Upon the death of Percival he was appointed chief secretary for Ireland, under the administration of Lord Liverpool. During his Irish secretaryship he opposed Catholic emancipation with great zeal and some bitterness. Afterwards he held office in various other situations. During the free-trade agitation of 1819, he was its warm opponent, and when the great Lancashire meeting took place at Peterloo, afterwards the site of the free-trade hall in Manchester, and the Peterloo massacre occurred, Mr. Peel defended that act, which left for so many years a deep discontent in the hearts of the operatives of Lancashire. When in 1821 Lord John Russell first brought forward his motion for a reform in parliament, he met from Mr. Peel a determined opposition, such as the honourable baronet continued to offer against all increase in the power of the people, until Lord John had the pleasure of carrying his view triumphantly through parliament in the shape of the reform bill. Even after that measure passed, Sir Robert devoted his talent to advise and lead his party in every practical attempt to defeat it. In 1822, while preparation was making to invade Spain, at the instigation of “the Holy Alliance,” Mr. Brougham called the attention of the house to the circumstance, and eloquently denounced that despotic confederacy. Mr. Peel, with his usual caution, defended “the Holy Alliance;” but notwithstanding his guarded language, he left no doubt of his sympathy with foreign as well as domestic tyranny. The defender of the Peterloo massacre and the Holy Alliance gave no promise of ever being popular with the people of England. The other leading facts and features of his political career will be found in the pages of this history, where his part in public affairs has been noticed.

Sir Robert married, in 1820, Julia, youngest daughter of General Sir John Floyd, Bart., and when his death occurred, his family consisted of Robert, his successor in the baronetcy, then secretary of legation in Switzerland; Frederick, then M.P. for Leominster; William, a captain in the royal navy; John Floyd, an officer in the Fusilier Guards; Arthur Wellesley, not then quite of age; Julia, married to Viscount Villiers; and Eliza.

The circumstances of Sir Robert’s death were as follow: On Saturday, the 29th of June, he had been to Buckingham Palace, where he had made, a call, and entered his name on her majesty’s visiting book. He then rode slowly up Constitution Hill. When he arrived nearly opposite the wicket gate leading to the Green Park, his horse suddenly became restive. The baronet was a bad horseman, and he soon lost all control of the animal, which at last threw him over its head. Several gentlemen rendered assistance immediately, and among them two medical men. Mrs. Lucas, of Bryanstone Square, was passing in her carriage, in which he was conveyed to his residence. Dr. Foucart, of Glasgow, and Sir James Clark accompanied him in the carriage. An examination of his person was immediately made, when the medical gentlemen present pronounced that he had incurred severe injury of the shoulder and fracture of the collar bone; it was hoped that no internal consequences had been produced by the fall. The fracture was compound. He continued to grow worse in spite of every surgical remedy, until the Tuesday night following, when, a little after eleven o’clock, he expired. After death it was perceived, _for the first time_, that the fifth rib had been fractured on the left side. It is astonishing that the faculty Were unable to discover this, for it was the region in which he had felt most pain. This was supposed to have been the cause of his death; but the family opposed a _post mortem_ examination.

Mr. Becket Denison and Lord Villiers had ridden the horse to prove it, and it had met the bands and the omnibuses without shying, so that no apprehension was entertained that Sir Robert’s deficient horsemanship would be of any serious consequence with so quiet an animal; he had also ridden it regularly for a week without having any cause of alarm. The event seemed, therefore, one of those singular providences which so often occur, baffling human precautions, confounding calculations, and showing that that the ways and destinies of men are in the hands of an all-ruling Power.

Tidings of his death spread with great rapidity, and universal regret was displayed by the people. Shops were closed, the flags of the ships in the river and on the public buildings were lowered, and many went immediately into mourning. The funeral took place the ensuing week; the body was laid in the mausoleum of the family, at Drayton, near Tamworth, the whole population of the district manifesting every token of respect and sorrow of which the occasion allowed.

On Thursday, July the 4th, the following occurrences, in the house of commons, marked at once the estimation in which Sir Robert was held by public men, and his own singular and unostentatious character. Lord John Russell introduced to the house the circumstance of the honourable baronet’s decease, and said:—“It is impossible not to lament that hereafter this house will be no longer guided by that long and large experience of public affairs, by that profound knowledge, by those rhetorical powers, by that copious yet exact memory, with which this house was wont to be enlightened, instructed, and guided. It is not for me, or for this house to speak of the career of Sir Robert Peel. It never happened to me to be in political connexion with him; but so late as that last debate to which I have referred, I took occasion to thank him for that fair and frank support which he had given to the present government. Sir Robert Peel, sir, in that speech which preceded the one which I addressed to the house, and in which he opposed the policy of the government, spoke with such temper and such forbearance towards all those who might hold an opposite opinion to his, that it must be a satisfaction to those remaining that his last act should have been one of such candour and kindness towards those all around him. Sir, there can, I think, be no doubt that, however history may deal with the wisdom of the course he pursued, that it will be admitted that on two great occasions when he held power, undisturbed and apparently with every sign of security, and when he proposed measures to this house which shook, and, after a time, subverted his party, he did so from those motives of deep love for his country which ever distinguished him.” Having slightly adverted to the course of the late right honourable baronet on the corn-laws, the noble lord concluded by observing, “That if it should appear to the family and friends of the late Sir Robert Peel to be desirable to take such a course, though I shall not now proceed to make any motion on the subject, I will give my willing support to a proposal for conferring the same honours on his remains that was awarded to Mr. Grattan and Mr. Pitt. I may, perhaps, be permitted to add, that I thought it right to obtain the sanction of the crown before I made this proposal, and I feel assured that anything which could do honour to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, or which could add any further tribute of respect to his name, would be unhesitatingly acquiesced in by her majesty. Sir, I wish, therefore, in concluding these few words, to say that, in disposing of this proposal, I place myself entirely in the hands of the friends of the late Sir Robert Peel. Having had no political connexion with him, this proposal comes from me without the tinge of partiality; and I may say in conclusion, without any fear of a charge of insincerity, that I do feel, that this country, as well as posterity hereafter, in recognising the claims of individuals deceased to the title of eminent statesmen who have adorned the annals of this country, or contributed to its lustre, those of the late Sir Robert Peel will be amongst the foremost.”

Mr. Goulburn, while acknowledging, on the part of the family of the late lamented right honourable baronet, the high honour shown to his memory in the offer made by the noble lord, begged gratefully to decline it, as opposed to the wishes of Sir Robert Peel, as expressed in his will, which was dated May 8, 1844, and in which he stated, “I desire that I may be interred in the vault in the parish of Drayton-Bassett, in which my father and mother were interred, and that my funeral may be without ostentation or parade of any kind.” Nor did this sentiment undergo any alteration; for, not later than six weeks since, when alterations were made in that particular church to which that memorandum referred, Sir Robert Peel pointed out to Lady Peel the very spot in the vault in which he wished and trusted his body might be laid, without any of that parade or ostentation which he so strongly deprecated, and the absence of which gave him such great satisfaction in the case of the funeral of the late queen-dowager. Under these circumstances, therefore, he was sure that he (Mr. Goulburn) had but one duty to perform, and the family of the late Sir Robert Peel but one wish, and that was the thankfulness with which he (Mr. Goulburn), on their part, had to acknowledge the intentions, both of her majesty and her parliament, in wishing to confer on his late lamented friend that, the greatest honour that could be paid to a subject—a proposition which they were compelled respectfully, but thankfully, to decline. He (Mr. Goulburn) only entreated the house to add to that mark of respect which they had paid to the ability and public services of his lamented friend the further mark of respect to his simplicity of character, and give effect to his desire as to the way in which he wished his funeral obsequies to be conducted. The entry of the adjournment of the house immediately after its meeting on the previous day, out of respect to the memory of the deceased statesman, was an honour which would live for ever in the journals of that house, and an honour which was never before paid to a subject.

It was subsequently intended to make Lady Peel a peeress in her own right, but she declined the honour, her late husband having enjoined that none of his family should accept any honour or reward from his country.

When the tidings of Sir Robert’s decease reached other countries, much sympathy was expressed; the French assembly, and also the Congress of the United States, having in the most marked manner paid tributes of respect to his memory. M. Guizot, the favourite minister of Louis Philippe of France, wrote a memoir of Sir Robert, which displays much talent, but over praises the subject of the memoir, without doing justice, nevertheless, to his policy. The opinions and measures of the great statesman will long be a subject of discussion, not only in England, but in other nations. The following estimate of his political principles and career by Count Cavour, the eminent Sardinian statesman, a man intellectually superior to Sir Robert, is probably the truest and best of the many which has appeared. It was uttered in a speech during a sitting of the Sardinian senate, in the year 1857, when sufficient time had elapsed for foreign statesmen, at all events, to form a fair judgment of the man, unbiassed by the interests of their respective states. Count Cavour had been taunted with having expressed himself in very high terms of Sir Robert’s commercial and financial policy, while he at the same time refused, in many respects, to accept him as an exemplar. He, consequently, addressed to the senate the following remarkable speech:—“I entertain the highest admiration for that statesman; I believe that few men have rendered greater services to mankind than he has. Yet I do not believe that Sir Robert Peel was always infallible in his political career. It is my opinion that Sir Robert Peel would have left a much more illustrious name behind him, if, instead of having been compelled by circumstances to introduce reforms, he himself had originated them. I think that Sir Robert Peel would have left behind him a fame unequalled in history, if, instead of proposing the emancipation of the Catholics in 1829, he had proposed it in 1825. I think that his name would have eclipsed all those of ancient and modern statesmen if the reform of the corn-laws had been initiated in 1840—a good harvest year—instead of being passed in consequence of the famine which desolated Ireland, and instead of being in some measure a consequence of the potato disease. In fact, if Sir Robert Peel had been the originator of reforms, he would at his death have left to his friends a political inheritance far different from that which he bequeathed to them. If Sir Robert Peel had associated his name and his whole career with successive reforms, there would be no need of recording at the present time a strange fact which has taken place in England—namely, that a party, consisting of eminent men, including the most eloquent speaker in parliament, and the most able legislators, has been completely routed at the late elections. And this, gentlemen, is the fate of parties who allow themselves to be led by public opinion, and who wait to the last moment to carry out reforms which they have not the courage to introduce. I trust that the senate, convinced of this truth, will give its support to the present government, which, while following the example of Sir Robert Peel, nevertheless deviates from the course he adopted by making itself the originator of reforms, not waiting to grant them to any popular pressure, nor to the pressure of unforeseen circumstances.”

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The queen in person prorogued parliament on the 15th of August. The address to her majesty, and the royal speech, were ordinary documents. The houses were prorogued to the 15th of October, but parliament did not meet again for the transaction of business that year.

THE COURT.

_Birth of a Prince_.—On the 1st of May her majesty was delivered of a son, the third prince that had been born to her. The baptism took place in the chapel of Buckingham Palace, on the 22nd of June. The ceremony was unusually superb.

Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, his Royal Highness Prince George, her Royal Highness Princess Mary, his Royal Highness the Prince of Prussia, his Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, his Serene Highness the Prince of Leiningen, his Grace the Duke of Wellington; the Belgian, Portuguese, and Prussian ministers; the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Earl of Minto, Lord John Russell, Sir George Grey, Viscount Palmerston, Earl Grey, Sir Charles Wood, Sir Francis Baring, Sir John Hobhouse, the Earl of Carlisle, the Right Hon. Fox Maule, Sir William Somerville, and others invited to the solemnity, assembled in the old dining-room, at the palace, at six o’clock, the royal family being conducted to an adjoining drawing-room, and were conducted to seats in the chapel.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Chester (clerk of the closet), the Bishop of Oxford (lord high almoner), with the Rev. Henry Howarth (rector of the parish of St. George, Hanover-square), the Hon. and Rev. Gerald Wellesley (resident chaplain to her majesty), the Rev. Lord Worthesley Russell (deputy clerk of the closet), and the Rev. Henry George Liddell (chaplain to his Royal Highness Prince Albert), assembled in the room adjoining the old dining-room, and took their places at the communion-table. The Archbishop of Canterbury commenced the baptismal service, and on arriving at that part for naming the child, the Countess of Gainsborough handed the infant prince to the archbishop, when his royal highness was named Arthur William Patrick Albert.

The queen, the prince, and the royal personages then passed up the grand staircase to the Throne-room, where her majesty was joined shortly before eight o’clock by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester. The remainder of the company continued in the Green Drawing-room. The queen wore a dress of white, watered, and brocaded silk, with a broad flounce of Honiton lace, trimmed with white satin ribbon. Her majesty also wore a diadem of emeralds and diamonds, and ornaments of emeralds and diamonds to correspond. From the ribbon of the Most Noble Order of the Garter was suspended a most splendid George, set in brilliants; the ribbon itself was confined on the left shoulder by a diamond clasp. The queen also wore the garter as an armlet, the motto being formed of diamonds. The infant prince had a robe and mantle of Honiton lace over white satin, with a cap to correspond. The Princess Royal, the Princess Alice, and the Princess Helena, wore dresses of white watered silk with satin stripe, trimmed with white satin ribbon and silver fringe; the silk woven at Spitalfields. The dress of her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent was of the richest white watered silk, of English manufacture, trimmed with blonde, having diamond ornaments down the front, and the stomacher adorned with brilliants. Her royal highness’s head-dress was formed of feathers, blonde lappets, and pearl and diamond ornaments. The necklace and earrings were diamonds. His Royal Highness Prince Albert wore a field-marshal’s uniform, with the collars of the Orders of the Garter and the Black Eagle (of Prussia), with four stars set in diamonds of the Garter, the Thistle, St. Patrick, and the Bath, and the ensigns of the Golden Fleece.

Her majesty was conducted by the lord steward and the lord chamberlain, at eight o’clock, to a state banquet in the picture-gallery, accompanied by the royal family, the foreign ministers, the cabinet ministers, and the other ladies and gentlemen who attended the ceremonial. “The christening cake” was placed in the middle of the dinner-table on the plateau of the magnificent service of gold plate. The top of the cake represented an octangular fountain, ornamented with a number of small vases, filled with miniature bouquets. The fountain rested on a circular plinth, containing a number of painted vignettes, set in silver frames.

After the toast of “The Queen and the Prince,” her majesty rose from the banquet, and proceeded to the White Drawing-room, accompanied by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, her Royal Highness Princess Mary of Cambridge, and the other ladies present. Soon after which, his Royal Highness Prince Albert, his Royal Highness the Prince of Prussia, his Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge, his Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, his Serene Highness the Prince of Leiningen, and the other guests, proceeded to the Music-room, when the doors of the White Drawing-room were opened, and the queen received an evening party.

The name of Patrick was given to the infant prince in compliment to the people of Ireland, and was a graceful sequel to her majesty’s confiding visit to that country the previous autumn.

_Arrival of the Nepaulese Ambassador_.—This illustrious person arrived on the 25th of May, accompanied by his two brothers, and a brilliant suite. He brought presents to her majesty, worth a quarter of a million sterling. On his arrival at the Custom House, the officials attempted to search his luggage, but he intimated that by their so doing he would lose caste, and in case of any attempt of the kind, he would not persevere in the object of his visit, but return by the next steamer. His religious scruples were respected, but to make himself certain, he placed a man with a drawn sword constantly beside his baggage. The ambassador was feted by the great, and his liberality in dispensing presents of precious stones did not detract from his popularity. He was received at court most graciously, and returned to his country greatly impressed with British power, and remained a friend and an ally of England.

_Death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge_.—On the 8th of July, this popular prince died at Cambridge House. He was the seventh son of George the Third. His remains were interred at Kew Church, with many demonstrations of sorrow on the part of the people. Her majesty was much attached to her royal relative, and was much afflicted by his death.

_Visit of her Majesty to the King of the Belgians_.—On the 21st of August, lier majesty, the prince, and four of the royal children, embarked at Osborne for Ostend, in tempestuous weather. Her majesty being “a good sailor,” was seldom deterred from her voyages by bad weather. The royal visitors only remained a few days, and returned to Osborne. The visit had no political significance, but was dictated simply by the affection of the royal pair for their uncle, the Belgian king.

_Her Majesty’s Visit to Scotland_.—On the 27th of August, the court paid its autumnal visit to the north. A visit was paid, _en route_, to Castle Howard, the seat of the Earl of Carlisle. At Newcastle-upon-Tyne the royal party was received by Earl Grey, and the corporations of Newcastle and Gateshead made many demonstrations of loyalty, which were gratifying to her majesty. As on the previous year her majesty visited Dublin, Cork, Belfast, and Glasgow, it was deemed politic and respectful to pay a visit to Edinburgh, of such a nature as to show the inhabitants of the Scottish metropolis her interest in it.

The citizens of “the modern Athens” vied with those of the other great cities of her majesty’s dominions in enthusiastic loyalty. The queen took up her residence in Holyrood House, which greatly gratified the national feeling of the Scotch. Immediately on her arrival, she entered the apartments which were once occupied by the beautiful and unfortunate Mary, Queen of Scots. Her majesty regarded the historical objects there presented to her, with melancholy interest. The following day the royal family ascended to the top of Arthur’s Seat, where it was said her majesty was intensely excited by the magnificence of the scenery. The following day, Prince Albert laid the foundation-stone of the Scottish National Gallery. The remaining portion of the day was spent in visiting remarkable persons and places. On the day following, her majesty and suite proceeded to Balmoral. On the 10th of October the court left their Scottish retreat, and returned to Edinburgh, remaining at Holyrood Palace for the night, and the next day proceeded to England. The first tidings which met her majesty on her return to Buckingham Palace were, of the death of the Queen of the Belgians, her august aunt, by marriage.

_The Queen and the Papal Aggression_.—During the winter, while the court was at Windsor, the papal aggression disturbed the country. It was known that her majesty felt great indignation, and her people determined to regard the act of the court of Rome as an insult to her as well as to the nation. The corporations of London and Oxford, and the University of Oxford, have the privilege of demanding audience of the crown; they were all received by the queen in a manner to mark her sense of the indignity offered to her by the Roman court.

_Assault on the Queen_.—On the 27th of June, her majesty having visited her uncle at Cambridge House, as she re-entered her carriage, a man rushed forward and struck her on the face with a cane; the blow drew blood, and caused a considerable swelling. A poor man present instantly struck the ruffian in the face in return; and other bystanders seized him, and handled him very roughly. He was taken into regular custody by the police, and interrogated at the Home Office. He had been an officer in the army. He was sentenced to seven years’ transportation. His sanity was doubted, as his manners were incoherent.

DEATHS OF REMARKABLE PERSONS.

During the year a number of persons died remarkable in every department of fame. Some of these have come in review under other sections, as in the case of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Cambridge. The following persons of note may be referred to in this section, as all that our space allows.

January 7th, in London, Lieutenant Waghorn, R. N. This remarkable man had devoted a very considerable portion of his life to the establishment of steam communication between this country and India. He explored several overland routes to India with success. In these enterprises he expended his fortune, and the government refused all suitable acknowledgment for the great services he had rendered to the state and to commerce, except a paltry pension, unworthy of the donors.

This year was remarkable for loss to the naval service by the death of distinguished officers. Only two days after the decease of the gallant and indefatigable Waghorn, Admiral Schombergh died, an officer who had seen extraordinary variety of service, and had carried into effect several improvements in victualling the navy.

On the 16th, Commander Le Vesconte, more popular, however, as a consul than distinguished as a commander.

February 14th, Rear-Admiral Sir Gordon Bremer, after long and arduous services to his country.

It would be a task beyond our limits to notice the individual history and exploits of the heroic men in the naval service who died during this year. Among the most memorable of these were the Hon. Vice-Admiral Bouverie, and Vice-Admiral Sir Charles Richardson, K. C. B.

Among many notable military officers who died, the following deserve especial notice:—