Chapter LXIV: {victoria. 1852} (2)

There were few incidents connected with the court in 1852 interesting to the general reader. Her majesty and the royal family spent the usual season in London, especially in connection with ministerial changes and parliamentary proceedings. Windsor Castle and Osborne House also received their royal proprietor at the accustomed seasons. In the summer, however, her majesty made a cruise in her yacht, before retiring to her autumnal Scottish retreat. A royal yacht squadron escorted the queen and the royal household from Cowes along the southern coast of England to Plymouth, the party landing at various points celebrated for their picturesque situation. Having cruised about the south and south-west coast, the squadron returned to Osborne. At the close of August, her majesty, the prince, and the elder five children left Osborne for Balmoral. Her residence there was shortened by tidings of the death of the Duke of Wellington, which reached her September 16th. Early in October she left for Windsor, visiting _en route_ the Menai Straits, and passing through the tubular bridge.

A curious circumstance occurred to her majesty on the 30th of August. The royal lady was then made aware that she was legatee to a large fortune, bequeathed by a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn. He was a man of singularly penurious habits, allowing himself to be in want of necessary food, and neglecting cleanliness. An old housekeeper, who had served him twenty-six years, he left without any provision whatever. The sum bequeathed to his sovereign was £250,000.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS AND PARTY CONFLICTS DURING 1852.

The parliamentary history of 1852 was in various respects eventful. It was rendered so by the character of the debates both on home and foreign questions, by the rivalry of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, for the leadership of the whig party, the changes of ministry, and the last effort of the tory and protectionist party to gain ascendancy.

On the 3rd of February the queen opened parliament in person. “The speech” referred to the necessity of amending the Reform Bill. Lord John Russell hoped by this means to prolong his lease of power, which was seriously menaced in consequence of his dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the cabinet the previous year. Such was the confidence reposed in that noble lord by the commons and the country for the management of foreign negotiations, that from the moment it was understood that serious differences existed between the premier and the foreign secretary, the government lost its moral power. An impression also gained ground throughout the country that Prince Albert interfered with the legitimate transaction of business at the foreign office, that the premier was so much of a courtier as to connive at this, and that Lord Palmerston, having asserted the dignity and independence of an English minister, became an object of dislike to the prince, Lord John sacrificing his colleague to the caprices of the court. Whatever might have been the truth, these impressions prevailed among the people, and contributed to Lord John Russell’s displacement from office. Even after both those noblemen gave explanations in the commons, the public retained the impressions, sympathised with Lord Palmerston, and withdrew much of their confidence from Lord John, nor has his lordship been able to regain the popularity he previously possessed, even up to the time these sheets are passing through the press, near the commencement of the year 1860.

Parliament had only just met when Sir Benjamin Hall, by questions directed to the premier, brought out a statement of the circumstances which led to his dismissal of the popular foreign minister. It appeared that without any instigation from Lord John, the queen complained to him of the management of the foreign office. Her majesty demanded that all despatches should be shown to her, that no decision on foreign questions should be made by the foreign minister until her opinion was taken, that no despatch which she had signed should be arbitrarily altered by the minister, and that she should receive early and prompt intimation of all negotiations between the foreign office and the ministers of foreign courts. Her majesty directed Lord John Russell to show the document conveying her demands to the foreign secretary. From the production of this stern, severe, and rebukeful missive from the royal hand, it became evident either that Lord Palmerston had failed in his duty, abused the confidence of her majesty, and behaved with intolerable insolence, assumption, and arrogance, or that a conspiracy existed to prejudice the mind of the queen against a faithful and most competent minister, and that the premier either aided that conspiracy, or took no decided stand to resist it. It appeared that the main occasion of the cabinet and court differences with Lord Palmerston was in connection with the _coup d’état_ in Paris. The court and the premier sympathised with the house of Orleans, and consequently with the opposition given by the French assembly to the president of the republic. Lord Palmerston believed that the assembly provoked the conduct of the president by invading his constitutional rights, and by violating the constitution formed by the constituent assembly, and in virtue of which the legislative assembly of France existed. Despatches sent to the English minister at Paris, the Marquis of Normanby, of a private nature, were by that nobleman shown to the French minister for foreign affairs, and out of that event arose the complication. Lord Palmerston pleaded unqualified innocence of the impeachment implied in her majesty’s written commands to Lord John. Lord Normanby was well known to be of Lord John’s section of the whigs, and a court favourite. From all these circumstances, the country drew the following conclusions with extraordinary unanimity:—that Lord Palmerston acted with more independence of the first minister than was customary on the part of a secretary of state, but that his great talents, great experience, great influence at home and abroad, justified him; that Lord John Russell was imprudent in overlooking the peculiar claims and qualifications of the foreign minister, displayed an unworthy jealousy of his great colleague, and probably by his private complaints of insubordination, caused the letter of her majesty, so humiliating to her long-tried and most able minister; that Lord Normanby either showed grave indiscretion, or played his part in a plot adverse to Lord Palmerston; and finally, that the court was unduly sympathetic with the Orleans dynasty. No efforts on the part of Lord John Russell’s friends could root out these convictions from the general public, and although the House of Commons said little about it, there were sufficient indications given that such convictions were largely shared there. In the debate that ensued, all sides of the house expressed confidence in Lord Palmerston’s sense of duty and responsibility, and respect and admiration for his talents. It became at once evident that the days of Lord John Russell’s ministry were numbered, and that it must be long, in any fresh ministerial combinations, before he could occupy the same high post in the counsels of her majesty.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

On the 9th of February, Lord John made a statement as to his views of parliamentary reform. His lordship proposed the disfranchisement of all small constituencies proved to be corrupt by a system of inquisition adapted to the purpose. He declared that a ten-pound franchise in boroughs was too high, and proposed a five-pound franchise. The county franchise of fifty pounds he would reduce to twenty pounds. The copyholds and long leaseholds of ten-pound qualification he would reduce to five pounds. All persons living within boroughs paying two pounds a-year assessed taxes he would enfranchise as county voters. Boroughs having less than five hundred electors were to have the number of the enfranchised augmented by adding neighbouring towns in the same representations. Property qualification of members to be repealed. Reform, mainly on the game plan, to be extended to Scotland and Ireland.

Mr. Hume expressed dissatisfaction with any measure that did not comprise the ballot and triennial parliaments, and a large number of liberal members sympathised with the radical leader. The majority of the liberal members received the announcement of the premier with great favour. His lordship proposed introducing a bill on the 23rd of February. Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Newdegate opposed the measure with expressions of earnest apprehension, because it was proposed by Lord John to abolish the oath of abjuration. Mr. Disraeli, however, offered the chief opposition to the measure. He endeavoured to lead the house to postpone the consideration of the bill, but obviously for the object of gaining time to throw out the bill itself. Sir George Grey, in a speech of unusual felicity, exposed the dishonesty of Mr. Disraeli’s pretences as to the necessity of delay in order to perfect measures which he was eager to defeat.

The house gave leave to bring in the bill. It never was brought in, new events depriving its author and the cabinet of the power to carry any measure. The foregoing statement of the character of the proposed reform bill of 1852 is, however, important, as the question of reform occupied attention for several years subsequently in a serious degree, and “the proposed bill of 1852” was constantly referred to by all parties in the discussions which took place.

THE MILITIA BILL.—DEFEAT AND RESIGNATION OF THE CABINET.

On the 16th of February, Lord John, in a committee of the whole house, explained his intentions in reference to the local militia acts. This question excited considerable interest, as the Duke of Wellington and Sir John Burgoyne had pointed out the possibility of an invasion, and the defenceless state of the coasts and of the country generally. The _coup d’état_ in France had also created considerable public uneasiness. The secrecy, sternness of purpose, swiftness of action, boldness, and indifference to bloodshed shown by the president of the French republic, caused most men to reflect upon the possibility of some terrible _coup de main_ being attempted against England; the president, in his writings as Prince Charles Louis Napoleon Buonaparte, having so often asserted that he represented a defeat, the defeat of Waterloo, which France must avenge. Lord John proposed to allow the plan of “the old regular militia” to fall out of use, and to establish a new scheme for a local militia. Ireland was to be exempt from the measure. In twelve months, the number of men to be raised was 70,000, in two years 100,000, in three years 130,000, after which period Great Britain alone should furnish, if necessary, 180,000 men.

Lord Palmerston’s expulsion from the cabinet was then about to tell on the ministry, and the future history of party. His lordship opposed the ministerial measure; and, released from ministerial privacy, declared that he had urged upon Lord John in vain since the year 1846 the organization of a militia. His lordship opposed the plan of a local militia, preferring the old force, and, as an Irish peer, expressed some warmth that Ireland was excluded from the arrangement.

When the bill came forth from the committee, Lord Palmerston proposed amendments in harmony with the principles upon which he had criticised the measure on going into committee. The two noble lords were now fairly pitted against one another as rivals for parliamentary influence, and the result was the defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell. The Irish members supported Lord Palmerston in great force, and threw out the ministry. His lordship also received considerable support from the Derby-Disraeli party. From that moment it was obvious that Lord John ceased—at all events for many years, should Lord Palmerston survive—to be the leader of the House of Commons.

THE EARL OF DERBY’S ADMINISTRATION.

The majority in favour of Lord Palmerston’s measure caused the adjournment of the house. The queen sent for Lord Derby, and committed to him the reins of power.

One of the first acts of his lordship, after conferring with Mr. Disraeli and a few of his most attached adherents, was to offer a seat in his cabinet to Lord Palmerston. Mr. Disraeli had, however, in the debate upon the address, renewed his agitation of the previous year for re-adjusting taxation in favour of the landed interest, as compensation for the loss of high prices for corn, which had been secured by protection. As this was only another mode of re-enacting protectionist laws, and one which was especially offensive to all the community not inheriting land, it was impossible for Lord Palmerston to accept office with Lord Derby, even if their political differences were less. Failing to strengthen his government by the accession of Lord Palmerston, Lord Derby, had recourse to Mr. Gladstone, but his repugnance to act with Disraeli personally, and his opposition to the protectionist schemes of both that minister and Lord Derby, rendered all negotiations unsuccessful. The ministry, therefore, became a pure tory and protectionist cabinet, except so far as Lord Stanley was concerned, whose opinions were supposed to be liberal, although connected with the ministry by the influence of his father.

The following ministry was ultimately formed:—

_In the Cabinet._

First Lord of the Treasury ... Earl of Derby.

Lord Chancellor ............... Lord St. Leonards.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Disraeli.

President of the Council ...... Earl Lonsdale.

Privy Seal....................... Marquis of Salisbury.

Home Secretary ............... Mr. Horace Walpole.

Foreign Secretary............... Earl of Malmesbury.

First Lord of the Admiralty..... Duke of Northumberland.

President of the Board of Control Mr. Hume.

Post-Master General ............ Earl of Hardwicke.

President of the Board of Trade Mr. Henley.

First Commissioner of Woods/Forests Lord J. Manners

_Not in the Cabinet._

Commander-in-Chief
of Her of Majesty’s Land Forces ...... Duke of Wellington.

Master-General of the Ordnance Viscount Hardinge.

Paymaster of the Forces,
and Vice-President of the Board of Trade Lord Colchester.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.... Mr. Christopher.

Secretary at War .................... Major Beresford

Secretary of the Admiralty........... Mr. O’Brien Stafford.

Attorney-General...................... Sir Frederick Thesiger.

Solicitor-General .................. Sir Fitzroy Kelly.

Judge Advocate-General................ Mr. Banks.

Chief Poor-Law Commissioner........... Sir George Trollope.

SCOTLAND.

Lord-Advocate.................. Mr. Anderson.

Solicitor-General .............. Mr. Inglis.

IRELAND.

Lord-Lieutenant ............... Earl of Eglinton.

Lord-Chancellor ............... Rt. Hon. Mr. Blackburn.

Chief Secretary................. Lord Naas.

Attorney-General................ Mr. Napier.

Solicitor-General ............. Mr. Whiteside.

QUEEN’S HOUSEHOLD.

Lord-Steward..................... Duke of Montrose.

Lord-Chamberlain................. Marquis of Exeter.

Master of the Horse.............. Earl of Jersey.

Mistress of the Robes .......... Duchess of Athole.

This ministry was but slightly modified during the year, and altogether apart from political changes. The death of the Duke of Wellington led to the appointment of Lord Hardinge to the Horse Guards, Lord Raglan becoming master-general of the Ordnance.

This ministry was not popular. In the cabinet the lord-chancellor was not an accession of strength. Although a very high Tory, he was not liked by the aristocracy; and although a very good lawyer, he was believed by the country to be narrow-minded and prejudiced. Lord John Manners was extremely unpopular, in consequence of his well-known couplet, expressive of the desire that learning and commerce should perish rather than that the power of the aristocracy should be diminished. The Duke of Northumberland was considered utterly unfit for the important duties imposed on him, and it was supposed that he would patronise “jobbing,” and promotion by unfair means.

Out of the cabinet, the English appointments were generally severely criticised, except those of the household and the law officers. These latter were considered able men, but bigoted partizans—clever enough for attorney-general and solicitor-general, but very unsuitable for judges, to which honours the offices notoriously led.

All the Irish appointments were popular in Ireland, although the gentlemen who filled them belonged to a party of so small a minority. Lord Eglinton was a gentleman personally liberal and generally esteemed, generous, and off-hand, fond of Ireland, and adapted to intercourse with the Irish. Mr. Blackburn, the lord-chancellor, was considered the greatest equity lawyer in Ireland, and an impartial judge. Lord Naas, the chief secretary, was an Irishman who knew the country well, and was connected with many popular families. Joseph Napier was held to be a first-rate lawyer and scholar, a polished gentleman, and a sincere Christian. Whiteside was regarded as having too much of the clever, eloquent, fiery Irish agitator in his own constitution, not to have some complaisant sympathy with such qualities in his countrymen. Accordingly, the government worked well in Ireland for its own ascendancy, but every step it took in England rendered the hope of ministerial longevity impossible. Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli were personally liked; both were believed to be more liberal than their relation to their party allowed, and their brilliant eloquence made the country proud of them in or out of office.

The time soon arrived for testing the House of Commons as to the amount of toleration it was likely to show to the new ministry. On the 27th of February, Lord Derby offered the lords an exposition of his views, which, even while he was yet speaking, found its way substantially to the commons, and was buzzed about among the members. In his speech, his lordship disavowed any intention to interfere violently with free-trade principles, but avowed himself still a Protectionist, declaring, that in his opinion, the importation of all articles which competed with the industry of the country ought to be taxed, and that corn ought not to be exempt. A report of his lordship’s speech had scarcely reached the commons, when it was evident that so far as the parliament then sitting was concerned, the doom of his ministry was sealed. When, the next day, the wings of the press bore to the country his lordship’s oration, indignation was everywhere excited, and the free-traders were united and strengthened, in a manner they had not been from the time of the repeal of the corn-laws.

Lord Derby made a statement connected with reform, which proved to be nearly as distasteful to a majority of the people out of doors as that on free-trade. He expressed his intention not to proceed with Lord John Russell’s reform bill, which he described as unsettling everything and settling nothing, which began by exciting the country, and finished by dissatisfying it.

His lordship, as if not satisfied with the opposition such statements were likely to raise against him, provided himself with a third element of hostility, by invoking the assistance of his hearers for the extension of the established church, and of an education entirely under the control of the parochial clergy. The dissenters and Roman Catholics were much alarmed ly this portion of his lordship’s speech, and quietly, but extensively and effectually, prepared to give a strenuous opposition to his government. Thus, in his _début_ as premier, Lord Derby contrived to set against him the free-traders, reformers, dissenters, and Roman Catholics, at a moment when there was a majority against him in the commons. The premier’s oratorical onslaught was so indiscreet, that only the most headstrong and ignorant of his own party had any hope that he would display the tact, sagacity, self-control, and party-moderation which alone could enable him to hold his ground against the opposition in the commons, and the general want of confidence in his ministry.

Such was the imprudence of the first minister, that although Earl Grey gave him an easy opportunity of withdrawing his anti-free-trade doctrines, the most in the form of concession which he (Lord Grey) could extort was, that the government had no _present_ intention of proposing a tax on the importation of corn, but regarded it as a question still open, and remaining with the intelligence of the country for solution. Some of the high whig peers expressed their approbation of his lordship’s views in terms of warm support. On the other hand, the Earl of Aberdeen strenuously opposed the purpose which the government evidently contemplated, of imposing a new corn-tax.

In the commons, an adjournment to the 12th of March was proposed and carried.

When the houses resumed their sittings, it became evident to the government that the imprudent speech of Lord Derby had roused the opposition to a high pitch of excitement. Demands were made as to whether the government intended to re-impose the corn-laws. No honest answer could be extracted in either house—experience had made the leaders wary: the answers given were, in effect, that the government would abide by the decision of the country. This reply made it evident that parliament was to be dissolved on the question of free-trade and a corn-law. After the country had reasonably concluded that the question was settled, fierce disputes from end to end of the kingdom were about to be raised. The old members of the Corn-law League accordingly convoked meetings in London and Manchester, and it was determined to resuscitate that powerful body, and with new and more effectual instrumentalities of agitation, upon the first proposition for imposing a tax upon the importation of corn. The uneasiness throughout the country became very great, and a personal ill-will to the two tory leaders began to show itself in the north of England, and throughout Scotland.

On the 15th of March, Lord Beaumont presented a petition from certain inhabitants of the West Biding of Yorkshire, praying the house to set at rest the question of free-trade, as commercial enterprise was seriously injured. Lord Derby answered that he did not consider the question settled, and that the next general election must decide it. On the same evening, Mr. Villiers, the leader of the anti-cornlaw party in the commons, demanded final and explicit explanations from the government, alleging that distrust and alarm filled the country. Mr. Disraeli denied the statements, and resorted to the usual tricks of words to evade the interrogatory; the inference from his reply was that a desperate effort would be made to gain a corn-law majority in a new House of Commons, and, in case of success, re-impose the corn-laws. Lord John Bussell, Sir James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Palmerston, Sir A. Cockburn, and other prominent men on the liberal side of the house, expressed their determination to offer every resistance they could employ to the re-imposition of any duty, in any form, upon the importation of corn.

Rumours began to circulate, that the government would endeavour to go on with the public business in the face of an adverse majority, and on the 19th of March, the Duke of Newcastle demanded explanations in the lords from the premier. The duke presented a petition from the Commercial Association of Manchester, praying for relief from the confusion and uncertainty thrown into commercial operations by the speeches of the leading members of government, in fact, demanding that the question of a corn-law should once more be submitted to the country. Lord Derby denied the assertions of the Manchester Association, refused to dissolve parliament, or to give any explicit information as to his intentions in reference to free-trade.

In the House of Commons, the same night, Lord John Bussell demanded that the public should be at once relieved from all uncertainty by an appeal to the country. So decided and angry was the aspect of the house, and so loud the demonstrations of its determination not to be trifled with on the great subject of a corn-law, that Mr. Disraeli was compelled to give that assurance which Lord Derby refused, and pledged the government to dissolve parliament, and meet the new house within the year, and as soon after the public business necessary to the country was disposed of.

It was, however, found difficult to transact business—the house was so excited; so that the question of dissolution was again and again renewed in angry and almost boisterous terms. Mr. Cobden called the attention of the house to the fact that the country had once more a protectionist government; that the fact was indisputable, and ought to be met with that intelligence and decision which became the greatest question of the day. He urged the house to limit the rates of supply, until the country decided whether it wished a tax upon bread, to enrich the landlords. Mr. Cardwell, in language as decided as that of Mr. Cobden, urged the house to fulfil its constitutional obligations, and compel the government of the minority to give suitable assurances of an early dissolution. Lord John Bussell declared that the government had taken a course for which there was no precedent in the constitutional history of England. He followed Mr. Cobden and Mr. Cardwell in insisting upon the government adopting such a course as to a dissolution, as would remove from the house the necessity of taking measures to assert its own high prerogatives. Mr. Disraeli declined pledging the government more definitely than he had done, which drew from Mr. Bright an invective full of fire, yet marked by a dignity unusual with that honourable member; he demanded that the supplies should be stopped, or the house be assured that no effort would be made by the government to retain power by unconstitutional methods. The result of these vigorous proceedings were statements made in both houses on the part of the ministry, that it was the intention to dissolve parliament and have an autumn session to settle the question of protection. It does not appear that these promises were made in good faith;—at all events no autumn session was called, although a new parliament met in November, and the question in debate set at rest.

The government introduced a militia-bill, which Lord John Bussell and the Whigs generally opposed. Lord Palmerston supported the government, as did the Peel party, his lordship criticising the tactics of Lord John with severity. The opposition between these two statesmen kept the liberal party divided, and alone enabled the government to maintain its course.

Lord Brougham introduced a bill to enable parliament to meet thirty-five days after a dissolution. The bill was carried through both houses without opposition.

The government took up a bill of Lord John Russell’s for the disfranchisement of the borough of St. Albans, on account of gross bribery and corruption. The bill was carried, no opposition being offered except by a small number of Lord Derby’s own party in the House of Lords.

Sudbury and St. Albans being disfranchised, a question arose as to the appropriation of the four seats. On the 10th of May, Mr. Disraeli brought in a bill for the purpose, proposing that the four vacant seats be given to great county constituencies in the north of England. Mr. Gladstone opposed the measure, on the ground that the government was trifling with the prerogatives of the house. It was a government in a minority, and its duty was to pass no measures but such routine business as the country absolutely required. Mr. Disraeli had given this promise, and, notwithstanding, sought to appropriate to county constituencies the four borough votes of which other constituencies had been penally deprived. The speech of Mr. Gladstone was received with enthusiasm by the house, and his amendment, “That the house do pass to the order of the day,” was carried by a very large majority. That this was purely a party movement of Mr. Gladstone was soon made evident enough, for he assisted the government soon after in carrying a bill for giving New Zealand a constitution; and he himself brought in a measure termed “the Colonial Bishops’ Bill.”

Various motions were brought under the consideration of the house, but were received with impatience, and all further attempts of government to prolong the session by inducing the house to entertain bills, were fruitless; all were bent upon one object,—that of bringing to an issue before the country the question of the re-imposition of a tax upon corn.

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.—OUTRAGE ON MR. MATHER AT FLORENCE.

The impatience of the house for a dissolution did not prevent it from discussing the foreign policy of the government. It was considered that Lord Malmesbury had shown a sympathy for despotic states, and had by his diplomacy played into-the hands of Austria, and the petty tyrannical Italian governments. Lord John Russell brought his lordship’s conduct, as well as the policy of the government, before the house on the 14th of June.

In the last chapter, our readers were informed that a young English gentleman of moral excellence and high culture, the son of a patriotic and influential gentleman of the county of Durham, named Mather, was wantonly cut down in the streets of Florence by an Austrian officer. Lord John Bussell exposed the conduct of Lord Malmesbury in this affair, and was ably supported by Lord Palmerston. The government suffered much in reputation, both in the house and throughout the country, from this debate. Their defence was extremely feeble, while the attacks of the opposition glowed with indignant eloquence. Probably at no period of party strife did the two great parties in the house appear more strongly contrasted than during that debate. Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston spoke with exceeding force, and uttered sentiments worthy of British patriotism and British statesmanship. Mr. Disraeli, on the other hand, spoke with an apathy, where insults to England and to a defenceless Englishman were concerned, which was discreditable to a statesman of any free country, or indeed to any speaker that had a sympathy with manhood and national dignity. In the elections which ensued, the tone adopted on that occasion by the chancellor of the exchequer, and the conduct of Lord Malmesbury, told effectively against the government in various constituencies in the north of England. A feeling was created that the rights of Englishmen in foreign countries were neglected by their own government, and that so far as English ambassadors and ministers were concerned, Englishmen abroad were at the merey of any foreign tyrant who thought proper to wrong them. This feeling had extended for some years upon the continent, and the debate in the commons promoted by Lords John Russell and Palmerston, brought out such glaring criminality on the part of the English foreign office in connection with Mr. Mather, that the sentiment became strengthened on the continent that unless an English traveller had powerful connections in his own country, he might be made the object of foreign outrage with impunity. Mr. Bernai Osborne only expressed the truth in the strong language with which he concluded his speech, “Lord Malmesbury had trifled with the honour of the country, and disgraced it in the eyes of the whole continent of Europe.” In the House of Lords, warm debates arose upon the same question, in which Lord Malmesbury made a defence still more disingenuous and unpatriotic than it was feeble.

LAW REFORM.

Notwithstanding the difficulties of the government, various useful bills which had been prepared by the Whigs, but which the Russell government was unable to carry, were passed into law. By the end of June, all these measures were enacted as laws.

PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.—GENERAL ELECTION.

On the 1st of July, her majesty in person prorogued her parliament, and announced her intention of speedily dissolving it. This event took place shortly after, and was followed by a general election, when the voice of the country was so decidedly given against protection as to cause the abandonment of all idea by the protectionist party of re-imposing a corn-law. The orators of the government, however, announced throughout the country their intention to promote a parliamentary struggle for the re-adjustment of the public burdens, so as to relieve the landlord interest of a large share of the proportion of the taxes borne by them.

MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

The houses of parliament assembled on the 4th of November. On the 11th her majesty in person delivered the speech from the throne. The speech referred to commercial policy in terms which the Hon. Mr. Villiers denounced as “vague and equivocal.”

BOTH HOUSES CARRY RESOLUTIONS PLEDGING THEM TO THE FREE-TRADE POLICY.

On the 23rd of November, the Hon. Mr. Villiers proposed a series of resolutions affirming the prosperity of the country, and the comfort of the poorer classes, as resulting from the policy of free-trade, and more especially in corn, pledging the house to support the measure of 1846, by which all duties on corn were repealed. The chancellor of the exchequer moved an amendment with the intention of defeating these resolutions. The government, however, assumed the tone of converts to free-trade on the ground that the country had pronounced for it. Mr. Frederick Peel, with bitter and eloquent irony, in the best speech he probably ever delivered in parliament, reminded Mr. Disraeli of his taunts and abuse of Sir Robert Peel for changing his opinions on the subject of a corn-law, and invited the right honourable satirist to account for his own change, if it were effected by any other motive than to retain office. He went to the country advocating the re-imposition of a corn-tax, and on his return presented himself to the house a convert to the opinion that it would be wrong to disturb the settlement of 1846. After a protracted debate, Lord Palmerston proposed an amendment which more generally embodied the public opinion, and was more adapted to party exigencies. All opposition to it on the part of the government was so hopeless, that most of their supporters left the house. Eighty remained, and voted against his lordship; four hundred and eight members supported it. The House of Commons was pledged to the free-trade policy.

A similar debate took place in the lords with nearly identical results. Various measures were discussed without leading to any parliamentary decision or useful law. It was evident that on all subjects of free-trade and financial philosophy the government and the majority of the house were at issue—the one desiring to restore protection under various sly and indirect pretences, the other anxious to develop free-trade principles, and a system of national finance in harmony with the principles of political economy.

THE GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF FINANCE.—DEFEAT AND RESIGNATION OF THE MINISTRY.

On the 3rd of December, the chancellor of the exchequer stated to the house the views which the government entertained of the principles of finance which were applicable to the condition of the country. He declared that he accepted as irreversible the decision of the country in favour of a free commercial policy, and that his object was to harmonize with that the system of national taxation. He proposed to relieve certain interests which he considered had suffered by the free-trade policy. The first of these named by him was the shipping interest. His views connected with that subject met with general approbation, as they comprehended only the removal of special and unjust taxation. He proposed to satisfy the West India interest by allowing sugar to be refined in bond. The opinions stated by the right honourable gentleman were so at variance with his former violent orations in favour of the shipping interest, and that of the sugar-growing countries, as to excite astonishment and amusement in the house. Observing this feeling, he exclaimed, “I may be called a renegade, I may be called a traitor—” but the sentence remained unfinished amidst shouts of laughter from all sides of the house, and reiterated bursts of derisive cheers from the opposition. In fact, the leader of the commons gave up the shipping and colonial interests, with some slight show of concession, which nearly the whole house was prepared to make. The third interest for which he demanded relief was that of the owners of land. He adverted to the local burdens which he had so often pointed out as intolerable to the landowners, and admitted, amidst long-continued peals of laughter, that the agricultural interest had no longer ground of complaint on such matters, and denounced contrary opinions as obsolete. For the relief of the agricultural interest he announced his intention to reduce the malt-tax one half, and to abolish the drawback from spirits made in Scotland. He would reduce one half the duty on hops; he would continue the income-tax, about to expire, but reduce that of farmers by one-half. This announcement was received with demonstrations of astonishment and anger by the opposition. He would impose the income-tax in Ireland, but would exempt the landed interest of that country from its application. This announcement threw the house into extraordinary agitation. Perceiving this, the right hon. gentleman expressed sympathy with the sufferings through which Ireland had passed, and drew from the fact of these sufferings the inference that while imposing new taxes upon other portions of the community in that country, the landed interest ought to be exempt. He would also increase the house-tax, in order that the inhabitants of the metropolis might bear a proportion of the burden from which land would be relieved, and would extend the tax to all houses rated at £10. The right hon. gentleman intimated that his financial scheme should be considered as a first step in a new direction.

The financial statement of the chancellor excited an intense ferment through the country. The landed, the West Indian, and the shipping interests, which were all supposed to derive advantage from protection, supported him, all the rest of the community exhibited an angry opposition. The monied and commercial classes in Ireland, the English manufacturers, and the London householders, were Mr. Disraeli’s fiercest opponents. Besides the popular hostility, Mr. Disraeli had to encounter that of the political economists, and all the leading financiers in the country. The monied interest ridiculed the estimates, and it became evident in a few days after the announcement of his plan to the house, that it had seriously impaired the reputation of its propounder. His unfitness for the post of chancellor of the exchequer was proclaimed everywhere, and every where accepted as true.

On the 6th of December, on the report of the Committee of Supply being brought up, the House of Commons, led on by Mr. Gladstone, showed an uncompromising opposition to the whole scheme of Mr. Disraeli.

After a series of adjournments, Mr. Disraeli replied to the criticism of his opponents in language personally offensive, and full of party violence. This led to a scene of singular excitement: Mr. Gladstone retorted in the most eloquent speech he ever delivered in parliament. Attempts were made by the government party to stifle his voice in uproar, but the house sustained him by repeated and long-continued rounds of applause. Mr. Gladstone’s denunciation of the budget as a delusive and dishonest scheme was followed by a vote which rejected it. The protectionist members voted to a man with the government, but a majority was against them, and the government resigned.

FORMATION OF A NEW MINISTRY.

The queen sent for Lord Lansdowne, by whom she was advised to send for Lord Aberdeen, as the most prominent member of the Peel party, upon whom it would properly devolve to form a government, as that of Lord Derby was defeated on a question of political economy and finance.

On the 27th of December the new government appeared before parliament. Its constitution was as follows:—

_In the Cabinet_

First Lord of the Treasury...... Earl of Aberdeen.

Lord-Chancellor ............... Lord Cranworth.

Chancellor of the Exchequer...... Mr. Gladstone.

President of the Council........ Earl Granville.

Privy Seal....................... Duke of Argyle.

Home Secretary ................ Viscount Palmerston.

Foreign Secretary................ Lord John Russell.

Colonial Secretary ............ Duke of Newcastle.

First Lord of the Admiralty .... Sir James Graham.

President of the Board of Control Sir Charles Wood

Secretary at War................. Mr. Sidney Herbert.

Commissioner of Works/Buildings Sir W. Molesworth.

Honorary.........,.............. Marquis of Lansdowne.

On meeting parliament, an adjournment until February was approved by all parties.

The government was not popular: few of the positions were occupied by those whom the country regarded as the men for the place. The premier had, as foreign minister, neglected the honour of England more than Lord Malmesbury had done. He had been outwitted by Louis Philippe, and had been the sycophant of Russia and Austria. He was, to use his own phraseology, “regarded as a sort of Austro-Russian.” His sympathy with Puseyism made him unpopular with large and influential sections of the religious public. Indeed the Aberdeen cabinet was regarded as, on the whole, more Puseyite than any which England had seen since the rise of the party in the established church. The Duke of Newcastle, to whom the administration of colonial affairs was entrusted, was of the Puseyite school, and his appointment, when known in the colonies, gave great dissatisfaction. The chancellor of the exchequer was more a champion of ecclesiastical exclusiveness than any member of the Derby cabinet, and Mr. Sidney Herbert rivalled Mr. Gladstone in this respect. The Lord Chancellor was also of this politico-ecclesiastical party, and was regarded as a crotchetty man, of little intellectual strength. As an equity lawyer, he had won reputation; as a judge there had been more appeals from his decisions than from all the other judges of the bench.

The appointment of Lord John Russell to the foreign-office, while Lord Palmerston was placed in the home-office, was regarded as an absurd inversion of their appropriate positions, and the arrangement was considered as an unwarrantable concession by Lord Aberdeen to the vanity of the ex-premier. Events justified the suspicions and dislikes of the public, except in the instance of Lord Palmerston, who proved himself to be the most efficient home-minister the country ever possessed.

The Irish appointments were very unpopular amongst the Protestants in Ireland, and among those in England who gave themselves any concern about Irish appointments. The Irish ministry of Lord Derby was greatly superior to that of Lord Aberdeen, in talent, moral standing, and influence in the country where their functions were to be sustained.

With the adjournment of the house closed the parliamentary history of 1852.

IRELAND.

The distracted state of Ireland was, as usual, a source of uneasiness to the empire. There was, indeed, no insurrectionary movement, but the spirit of agrarian outrage continued, and numerous murders were perpetrated of a most savage nature—the country people conniving at the crimes, and secreting the criminals. These evils were, to a great extent, provoked by the unjust state of the law between landlord and tenant. Efforts were made in parliament to mitigate the injustice and oppression to which the tenantry in Ireland were subjected; but the landed interest in England upheld that in Ireland in resisting all melioration.

Religious intolerance continued to agitate every other malady of Ireland. Indeed this was the _fons et origo mali_, for it deprived honest men and patriots of opportunity to combine for their country’s freedom and prosperity. During the elections caused by Lord Derby’s dissolution of parliament, the priests incited the populace, in some places, to acts of disturbance and violence. At Six Miles Bridge the soldiery were attacked while protecting voters in the free exercise of their franchise. Proceedings were taken against a Roman Catholic priest for the part which it was alleged he took in those disturbances. Public opinion considered him to have been the cause of the outbreak, but the tory government, anxious for party purposes to conciliate the Roman Catholics, did not dare to prosecute him.

The Young Ireland agitation was not extinguished, and it received some new inspiration of hope from the escape of Thomas Meagher, from Australia. That adventurous young man made his way from his penal abode at the antipodes to America, where he became a citizen. He was a true patriot, and an ardent friend of liberty; he had no sympathy with the pro-slavery and red republican opinions of his former coadjutor, Mitchell, nor with the raving and malignant bigotry of Charles Gavan Duffy. In the United States he was an object of universal respect, his amiability and eloquence winning, in private and public, “golden opinions from all sorts of men.”

Ireland showed various symptoms of returning prosperity. The only agitation in which the higher classes took part was in opposition to the unjust scheme of Disraeli, to tax the Irish fundholder for the advantage of the English and Irish landholder. This measure was denounced by the capitalists of Ireland as a violation of faith to the public creditor, and sapping tire foundations upon which the security and sacredness of property rested.

The ribbon conspiracy was active during the year, and no suitable effort was made by Lord Derby’s government to uproot it.

COLONIES.

The colonies were generally prosperous throughout the year, and quietude and contentment prevailed. The Cape of Good Hope, and even India, were less disturbed than usual; but in each of these places a few events occurred to which we shall especially refer.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

In the early part of the year, the troubles which harassed the colony in the previous year exercised some influence. The efforts of the governor to establish tranquillity and good government met with co-operation from the colonists. The Boers, however, showed a disposition hostile to the British, chiefly because they hated the liberty which the English enjoyed and extended to the coloured population. The eagerness of the Boers to subdue to slavery the natives who came within their control, was not abated by the bitter lessons which their past experience had received. Before the year had far advanced, the whole colony was in repose, law and order for a time having been everywhere established.

INDIA.

India generally was quiet throughout this year, except upon the frontiers of Birmese territory. The vast regions comprehended under the name of British India, are never free from some tumults, local insurrections, and sudden and almost unaccountable revolts of petty chiefs. The year 1852 was not without events of this sort, but there was no startling incident except a war with Birmah, which of course was waged from India, and by the governor-general. A brief account of it will appear most appropriately in the relation of the foreign affairs of the empire.

The author of “The Three Presidencies” relates the political events of interest to the English in India, with the following brief but correct summary:—“Throughout India, with the exception of the north-western frontier, the most profound peace has reigned. The only disturbance which broke this complete tranquillity was the periodical incursion of some of the hill-tribes, especially of the Momunds. Their forays were mainly directed against the inhabitants of the villages in their vicinity, where they frequently committed great destruction of life and property. These marauders occupied the forces under Sir Colin Campbell from early in January, at various periods, until quite the end of the year, often falling upon our troops when not expected, and inflicting considerable loss. These freebooters mustered very strong in light horse, by the rapidity of their movements and their intimate knowledge of every mile of the country, bade defiance to such of our troops as were brought against them. In Scinde, the occurrence of the year was the deposition of Ali Morad from his princedom. The plots and falsehoods of this designing intriguer having been completely brought home to him, and it being made clear how nefariously he had deprived both his brothers and the British government of large tracts of territory, no time was lost in stripping him of his ill-gotten honours and estates, and reducing him to the rank of a simple chief. An attempt was made, during 1852, to establish an annual fair at Kurrachee, for the supply of the great commercial marts above the Indus with European goods, and the disposal of their produce in return.”

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.—BIRMESE WAR.

The general relations of Great Britain with other nations were tranquil during the year, although some alarms were entertained as to the intentions of her nearest neighbour on the European continent. The war with Birmah was, however costly and sanguinary and was the most prominent matter of public interest in the foreign relations of the British empire. It was in 1851 that the occasion for hostilities was given by the Birmese, and that the governor-general took measures for reprisal. Various acts of oppression and cruelty to British subjects were perpetrated by the authorities of Ava.*

* For a minute and extended account of the causes of both
the wars with Birmah, see Nolan’s “History of the British
Umpire in India and the East.” Virtue: City-road.

It was not, however, until 1852 that the conflict assumed a serious character, and that tidings reached the English public of this new Indian war. Early in January, 1852, the King of Ava pretended a willingness to settle the differences between him and the British by negotiations. By this means he succeeded in capturing a number of English residents at Rangoon, whom he subjected to indignity and suffering. Commodore Lambert, who commanded the naval expedition, blockaded the Birmese ports. The governor-general despatched from Calcutta, and the Governor of Madras, from the capital of that presidency, strong bodies of troops. Preparations of an extensive nature were made to bring the war to a speedy issue. Several officers of eminent ability, among them the great and good Havelock, afterwards Sir Henry, and the saviour of India, joined the force. By the 24th of February, six steamers left Bombay for Madras, where they embarked the troops destined for the Birmese campaign, under the command of General Godwin, viz., two European and four native regiments, with four corps of artillerymen, chiefly Europeans. These left Madras on the 29th of March, whilst at Calcutta the armament had been equally hastened. The last of the force despatched there left the Hoogly on the 25th of March, the total having been similar to the Madras force—two European and four native regiments, with their accompaniments of artillery, in four steamers and four transports. These amounted in the aggregate to about eight thousand men.

The 1st of April was the clay appointed for the ultimatum. A steamer was sent to Rangoon, to obtain the king’s reply. The English envoy found the river lined with stockades, and from thence a heavy fire was opened upon him; this was the only answer to the British ultimatum his Birmese majesty deigned to give.

Admiral Austin, with the Bengal force, arrived at this juncture, and at once attacked and conquered Martaban, so that, by the evening of the 5th of April, the British were masters of the place. The Madras troops arrived on the 7th, and the forces of the two presidencies proceeded up the river and attacked the stockades, which were defended by twenty-five thousand men.

Early in May, the British resolved upon attacking Bassein, sixty miles up one of the branches of the Irriwaddy. From that point, the Birmese commander contemplated an invasion of the British province of Arracan. After a desperate struggle, a very small number of British succeeded in storming the stockades and capturing the place.

While the English were engaged capturing Bassein, the Birmese attempted the reconquest of Martaban, but were repulsed with great slaughter, by a very small force, with little loss.

On the 5th of July, Prome was attacked: the conquest was easy, but the conqueror did not deem it necessary to garrison the place; consequently, as he retired to Rangoon, the enemy re-entered Prome.

The incompetency and inactivity of the British general caused July and August to pass uselessly. The whole army murmured. All the abuses of British military official routine prevailed, and the accounts which arrived in England excited, as tidings from India had so often done, much popular discontent. A popular writer thus criticised General Godwin’s conduct, and gave the following relation of his proceedings:—“The expected reinforcements having reached head-quarters, the force available amounted in the month of September to nearly twenty thousand men, in the highest state of efficiency, and quite large enough to have at once swept all before them to the very gates of the emperor’s palace. But this did not appear to be the view taken of the matter by General Godwin, who now made preparation for once more attacking Prome. In tire middle of this month, two regiments, a field-battery, with a detachment of sappers and miners, left Rangoon, followed within a few days by the general, and a party of artillerymen. They ascended the river without opposition until the 9th of October, when, as they approached the stockaded defences of the city, they were fired upon from many sides. The enemy’s gunnery was not of first-rate quality, and in less than two hours was entirely silenced, the ground being completely cleared of the opposing force by the shells thrown from the steamers. The troops were landed towards the evening, and, advancing at once upon a pagoda and the few remaining defences, carried everything before them at the point of the bayonet. Night fell before the town could be reached, and it was therefore not until the next morning that Prome was occupied for the second time by our troops. A large body of Birmese troops, amounting to upwards of six thousand men, were known to be posted within a few miles of the town, strongly entrenched behind stockades, and out of reach of our steamers, the artillery practice from which appears to have impressed them with a proper sense of our superiority in that arm of war. To have dislodged them with the force at his command would have been a matter of comparative ease; but so thought not General Godwin, who, fearful probably of terminating the war too quickly, determined to await the arrival of further troops before attempting any forward movement. He did not wait long, however; but within a day or two left for Rangoon, in search of the troops considered to be requisite for further operations. This reinforcement was dispatched towards the latter part of the month. By this time the Irriwaddy, which had been previously deep enough throughout for our largest steamers, sank so suddenly, and as it appears so unexpectedly, that several of the flotilla were left aground in the middle of the stream, with every prospect of having to remain there until the next rains should float them.”