Anonymous

THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued).

Prorogation of 1853—End of the Kaffir and Burmese Wars—The Wages Movement—The Preston Strike—End of the Struggle—The Crystal Palace—Its Opening by the Queen—Marriage of the Emperor of the French—His Reception of the Prince Consort—His Visit to England—At Guildhall—The Queen's Return Visit—Festivities in Paris—Lord Lyndhurst on Italy—Lord Clarendon's Reply—Similar Debate in the Commons—Speeches of Russell, Palmerston, and Disraeli—Withdrawal of the Western Missions from Naples—The Anglo-French Alliance—The Suez Canal—The Arrow Affair—Debate in the House of Lords—Mr. Cobden's Resolution—Mr. Labouchere's Reply—Lord Palmerston's Speech—The Division—Announcement of a Dissolution—Retirement of Mr. Shaw-Lefevre—Lord Palmerston's Victory at the Polls—Mr. Denison elected Speaker—Betrothal of the Princess Royal—Her Allowance—Abolition of "Ministers' Money"—The new Probate Court—The Divorce Bill in the Lords—The Bishop of Oxford's Amendments—Motions of Mr. Henley and Sir W. Heathcote—Major Warburton's Amendment—The Bill becomes Law—The Orsini Plot—Walewski's Despatch—Subsequent Correspondence—The Conspiracy to Murder Bill—Debate on the Second Reading—Defeat of the Government—The Derby Ministry.

THE war with Russia, the conclusion of which has just been recorded, and its effects on political parties and Cabinets, so fully absorbed the attention of Parliament and the public while it lasted, that comparatively little progress was made in the work of domestic legislation. It was not, however, altogether neglected. At the prorogation on the 20th of August, 1853, her Majesty congratulated Parliament on the remission of taxes which tended to cramp the operations of trade and industry; on the extension of the system of beneficent legislation, which increased the means of obtaining the necessaries of life; on the buoyant state of the revenue; on the steady progress of foreign trade; on the prosperity that pervaded the great trading and producing classes, without even a partial exception—all affording continued and increasing evidence of the enlarged comforts of the people. The Queen at the same time announced the termination of the Kaffir War, which had lasted since the beginning of 1851, the Kaffirs having repeatedly defeated our troops, and spread havoc through the villages. At length they were enabled to bring against us an army of 6,000 horsemen. They were attacked by the Governor-General Cathcart, with 2,000 British troops, and defeated with great loss. The result was that they accepted the terms of peace he proposed. The Royal Speech expressed the hope that the establishment of representative government in the Cape Colony would lead to the development of its resources, and enable it to make efficient provision for its own defence. Another subject of congratulation was the termination of the war with Burmah, which commenced in January, 1851, and was caused by the exactions of the Governor of Rangoon from British traders. At first the Court of Ava promised redress, but the Governor refused to receive the British representative, Captain Fishbourne, and Lord Dalhousie's ultimatum was treated with contempt. Accordingly a British naval force arrived before Rangoon, under Commodore Lambert, who, on January 4th, 1852, destroyed the fortifications of the Irrawaddy, and a few months later stormed Martaban, Rangoon, and Bassein. Later in the year Pegu was captured, and annexed to our Indian Empire. The objects of the war having been thus fully attained, and due submission made by the Burmese Government, peace was proclaimed.

THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE.

The Session of 1853 had been a fruitful one—116 Bills had been introduced by the Ministry, of which 104 passed into law, 10 having been withdrawn, and 2 only rejected. This was the peaceful work of the Coalition Ministry, under the Earl of Aberdeen, which was destined to end its existence so ingloriously. Two powerful causes came into operation soon after, which clouded the political atmosphere, and gradually spread feelings of discontent and despondency throughout the nation—a bad harvest and a costly war miserably conducted. The effects of the short harvest were greatly aggravated by what was called "the Wages Movement," which commenced in April. It was generally felt by the skilled artisans that, though their employment was constant and their wages good, they did not obtain a fair measure of the extraordinary profits resulting from their labour. The consequence was a general organisation of the trades to extort better terms from their employers, enforced—if need were—by strikes. The artisans engaged in the woollen manufacture led the way in putting forth their demands. They were followed by carpenters, shipwrights, waggon-wrights, and almost every class of operative. Large concessions were made to some classes, and those employed in the coal trade especially received enormous wages. But, as the prices of provisions continued to rise the movement spread to every part of the United Kingdom, assuming its most formidable aspect in the manufacturing districts, where strikes became general, and many mills were closed. A common fund was established for the purpose of supporting the unemployed workmen, and it was hoped that the manufacturers would soon be compelled to give way. But the masters formed a counter-combination, and wherever a partial or local strike occurred, they all agreed to close their works, and thus to starve the operatives into surrender. The result was a bitter controversy, and a desperate struggle between capital and labour, which lasted with unabated obstinacy throughout the year, but, happily, unaccompanied by such acts of violence as attended strikes in former times, when the working classes were not so well educated. The leaders of the movement were able, intelligent, and energetic. The plan of the campaign was to conquer in detail, directing the attack against some particular town, compelling the firms to succumb individually till the capitalists of that district were subdued, and then carrying the war to another place. They hoped by this means to receive ample supplies for continuing the contest, because the great mass of workmen would always be employed, and would be able to support those that were out on strike. Preston and Burnley were the places in which the operations commenced on a large scale, and the contest that followed will be long remembered as "the Preston Strike." In that town, upwards of 15,000 idle hands were supported by contributions from the employed, which were so abundant, at first, that the enormous sum of £3,000 was distributed weekly—equal to about five shillings a head on an average. On this allowance they managed to exist for thirty-seven weeks. The effects were in some respects like those produced by the cotton-famine in Lancashire. First, the deposits in the saving-banks, and the sums insured for age and sickness, were consumed in obtaining the necessaries of life. Personal ornaments and wearing apparel were next sacrificed—sold for trifling sums to meet the cravings of hunger. With poor, scanty food, ragged clothes, and domestic discomfort of every kind, the habits of the operatives became debased and their tempers morose. The retail traders who depended upon them became bankrupt; many substantial shopkeepers were ruined; trade everywhere languished and the distress grew general. Still the operatives held out heroically, they insisted on one-tenth of the profits of their labour; the watchword still passed from rank to rank; they shouted enthusiastically, "Ten per cent. and no surrender!" It was stated that the passion produced by this abstract idea became a sort of religious conviction, and in one place the people assembled in a chapel and sang a hymn to "ten per cent."

But, as in wars between nations, the belligerents were ultimately compelled to come to terms by sheer exhaustion; the workers, as invariably happens in such suicidal contests, were the first to fail. In April, 1854, the supplies were diminished to a miserable pittance, the cardloom hands receiving but a shilling a week each. The contributions from distant towns fell off, while the demand was more than doubled by the men of Stockport, to the number of 18,000, suddenly throwing themselves upon the fund. As Stockport had contributed £200 a week to the fund which they thus overburdened, the struggle was necessarily brought to an abrupt conclusion. On the 1st of May, therefore, the committee announced that the employers had succeeded in their "unholy crusade" and that the operatives generally had deserted them in their hour of utmost need. The mills were opened and work was resumed; but some thousands failed to find employment and were reduced to destitution and pauperism. It has been computed that the sums expended in maintaining the unemployed in Preston alone amounted to £100,000. The loss of wages was more than three times that amount; and altogether the loss to the working classes by that disastrous strike could not be less than £500,000. The loss of capital to the manufacturers must have been incalculable, not to speak of the ruin of a multitude of shopkeepers. The principal leader was afterwards imprisoned for debt, contracted in carrying on the war.

We pass from this painful subject to a scene that furnishes a contrast. On the 10th of June, 1854, the Queen opened the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. Many of those who witnessed the Exhibition in Hyde Park deplored the demolition of that magnificent structure, which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests would not suffer to remain. The materials were purchased by a private company, and removed to a new site on the summit of Penge Hill, upon which a new palace was constructed. A full description of this structure would be out of place here. It had three transepts, the centre one being 120 feet wide, and 208 feet high from the garden front. The whole nave was covered with an arched roof. This palace crowned an eminence from which there is a commanding view of the metropolis and of the rich and vast plains of Surrey and Kent. Internally, the palace was constructed upon the principle of illustrating the architecture of different ages, keeping in view its purposes as an educational institution. Thus it comprised a series of palaces, Egyptian, Assyrian, Grecian, Byzantine, Moorish, German, French, English, and Italian. All these buildings, excepting the Egyptian, were reproduced on the scale of their originals. The building was filled with statues, casts of the great masterpieces of art, paintings, representations of savage tribes, exotic shrubs and plants, and art-collections of various kinds; while in the way of concerts, exhibitions, festivals, and fireworks, multitudes of pleasure-seekers were congregated. Though created by the enterprise of a private company, the Crystal Palace was in every respect worthy of the metropolis, and continued to be patronised by the masses, rather than the classes, though its immense size and cost of maintenance prohibited its becoming a distinct commercial success.

The inauguration was witnessed by 40,000 spectators. Around the dais in the centre transept were gathered the representatives of Britain's greatness and nobility. The Lord Primate and Ministers of State were on the left of the throne; on the right sat the diplomatic body. In front were the directors of the company, in court dresses, with the Lord Mayor of London, his brothers of Dublin and York, and other provincial magnates. The members of Parliament and their families filled the lower galleries of the great transept. The Queen and Prince Albert arrived at three o'clock, and entered the palace, preceded by Sir Joseph Paxton and Mr. Laing. With her Majesty were the King of Portugal, his brother, the Duke of Oporto, the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, Prince Alfred, the Princess Alice, the Duchess of Kent, and the Duchess and Princess Mary of Cambridge. The National Anthem having been performed with very grand effect, Mr. Laing, the chairman of the company, presented an address to her Majesty, to which a most gracious answer was returned. The designers of the building, and the scientific gentlemen who had undertaken the formation of the different departments, were then presented. This ceremony gone through, a procession was formed to perambulate the palace, the Queen in her circuit being warmly welcomed as she passed. This done, her Majesty and her immediate circle returned to the elevated platform, the Ministers of State and other public functionaries surrounding the dais as before. Then the One Hundredth Psalm, in all its simple grandeur of harmony, was pealed by the thousand voices and accompanying instruments of the choir. This led, by a natural transition, to the Archbishop of Canterbury's dedicatory prayer. The prayer was followed by the Hallelujah Chorus—a triumph of music; and the Queen, through the Lord Chamberlain, pronounced the Crystal Palace open. Once more the National Anthem rose and swelled under the lofty vaults and then the Queen departed.

The Emperor of the French left nothing undone to secure his position and establish his dynasty. All the Continental monarchs of Europe, except the Czar, admitted him into the family of Sovereigns, addressing him as "Monsieur, mon frÈre." The Emperor Nicholas could not overcome his scruples on the point of legitimacy, and had recourse to a compromise, and addressed him as "Mon cher ami," a slight which Louis Napoleon felt, but prudently passed over. The next step was to choose an empress. It was said at the time that his overtures of matrimonial alliance with several royal families were rejected, and these statements are now known to have been correct. He consoled himself with satisfactory reasons why such an alliance would not be desirable, and that he did much better by selecting for his bride EugÉnie de Montijo, Countess-Duchess of Teba. The speech of the Emperor, announcing his intended marriage, on the 22nd of January, 1853, to the Senate and Corps LÉgislatif, is remarkable. He avowed at the outset that the union did not accord with the traditions of ancient policy; but therein lay its advantage. A royal alliance would create a feeling of false security, and might substitute family interest for that of the nation. Besides, for the last seventy years foreign princesses had ascended the steps of the throne only to behold their offspring dispersed and proscribed by war or revolution. One woman only brought with her good fortune, the good and modest wife of General Buonaparte, and she was not the issue of a royal family. "When," he said, "in the face of all Europe a man is raised by the force of a new principle to the level of the long-established dynasties, it is not by giving an ancient character to his blazon, and by endeavouring to introduce himself, at any price, into the family of kings, that he can get himself accepted; it is rather by always bearing in mind his origin, by preserving his peculiar character, and by frankly taking up before Europe the position of one who has arrived at fortune (position de parvenu)—a glorious position, when success is achieved by the free suffrage of a great people." He then lauded the bride-elect for her varied moral, mental, and personal accomplishments, saying, "I have preferred a woman whom I love and respect to one unknown, and whose alliance would have advantages mingled with sacrifices—placing independence, qualities of heart, and family happiness above dynastic prejudices and calculations of ambition." The marriage ceremony, preceded by the civil contract, was performed with great pomp by the archbishop in Notre Dame.

In September, 1854, the Emperor being in the north of France, on the pretext of inspecting the camp established there, he had the gratification of being honoured with several royal visits. The King of the Belgians, with his eldest son, and the King of Portugal, with the Duke of Oporto, went to see him at Boulogne, and met with a very cordial reception. But what gratified him more than all was a visit from the Prince Consort. The Emperor, attended by a splendid suite, went down to the quay to receive him and they both warmly shook hands. Nothing was left undone that could gratify the English visitor, and the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Harding, Lord Seaton, and other noblemen who accompanied him. Reviews, illuminations, fireworks, banquets, balls, followed one another in rapid succession during the time of the visit, which had the effect of strengthening the entente cordiale between the two Courts.

It was further ratified by the visit of the Emperor and Empress to the Queen on Monday the 16th of April, 1855—an event which produced a profound impression throughout Europe. It was indeed a strange phenomenon that an Emperor of France, the heir and successor of Napoleon, should be a welcome and popular guest in England, honoured by the Sovereign and cheered by the people; this guest being moreover the author of the coup d'État. Prince Albert went to Dover to meet the illustrious visitors, who landed amid the salutes of the military and the booming of guns on the heights, the Empress leaning on the Prince's arm. The line of streets between the London terminus and the Great Western Railway was decorated with flags and evergreens, and the Imperial party, as they drove along, were received with enthusiastic cheers. At seven p.m. they arrived at Windsor Castle, and were received by her Majesty and the Royal Family, with the great officers of State and of the Household, in the grand hall, whence the guests were conducted up the grand staircase, and through the music-room and throne-room, to the reception-room. That evening there was a dinner-party in St. George's Hall; next day the same, followed by a brilliant evening party. On Wednesday the Queen made the Emperor a Knight of the Garter—a very significant ceremony in the circumstances, which was performed with the utmost magnificence, the Prince Consort helping her Majesty to buckle the garter on the left leg of the Emperor. Her Majesty accompanied the Emperor to his apartments, followed by the Empress and the Prince Consort, and attended by the ladies and gentlemen of the royal suites. On the evening of that day the Queen gave a State dinner, when, by her Majesty's command, the Lord Steward of the Household gave the toast of "The Emperor and the Empress of the French." The State apartments which were occupied by the Imperial guests were gorgeously decorated for the occasion.

On Thursday the Emperor and Empress proceeded to London in order to visit the City, the Queen and the Prince accompanying them to Buckingham Palace. On the route from Nine Elms to the palace they enjoyed a continual ovation. The Emperor and Empress and suite were conveyed thence to the City in six of the Queen's State carriages, the principal one being drawn by cream-coloured horses; the Life Guards escorting the carriages, and Carabineers and Blues keeping the ground. As they proceeded along the Mall, the Strand, Fleet Street, Cheapside, to Guildhall, a vast and orderly multitude thronged the streets, looked down from the windows and house-tops, from the roofs of omnibuses, and every available position; while the scene was enlivened by a profusion of union-jacks and tricolors, lively peals of church bells, hearty cheers from the people, martial music, and brilliant sunshine. It was calculated that more than a million spectators witnessed the sight. They were received at the Guildhall by the Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress, with the City magnates. The Emperor was dressed as a general of division, wearing the insignia of the Garter and of the Legion of Honour. After receiving an address from the Corporation, the Imperial party partook of dÉjeuner and then proceeded by a different route to Buckingham Palace. In the evening the Queen and her guests paid a State visit to the Royal Italian Opera, the house being fitted up superbly for the occasion. In the evening the City and the West End were splendidly illuminated. On Friday the Queen and her guests visited the Crystal Palace at Sydenham, where an immense assembly had an opportunity of seeing them as they leisurely promenaded through the building. On Saturday the Emperor and Empress departed, accompanied to Dover by the Prince Consort and the Duke of Cambridge. The Imperial visit was eminently satisfactory to all parties, and a friendship between the royal families was established which was destined to outlive good days and endure into misfortune so far as the Napoleons were concerned. It was politically important, inasmuch as it arose out of an alliance between nations regarded as hereditary enemies, and was so far from being within the calculations of statesmen that the whole policy of the Continental Powers was based upon its assumed impossibility.

THE QUEEN OPENING THE CRYSTAL PALACE. (See p. 163.)

Her Majesty was pleased to return the Imperial visit on the 18th of August following. In a historical point of view this event was most interesting. No English sovereign had beheld the French capital for four centuries, since the infant Henry VI. was crowned at Paris in 1422. The Queen, accompanied by the Prince Consort, the Prince of Wales, and the Princess Royal, started from Osborne at half-past four in the morning on the 18th of August, 1855, and arrived at Boulogne at half-past one the same day. The appearance of the royal squadron was announced by discharges from cannon on the heights and batteries on shore, by volleys of musketry, and the cheers of a vast multitude of spectators. A pavilion had been erected on the pier, in which the Emperor, surrounded by a brilliant suite, awaited the approach of his royal guests. The instant the royal yacht ran alongside, he hastened on board and saluted the Queen, kissing her hand and both cheeks. He then shook hands with the Prince Consort, the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal, and with every mark of joy and welcome conducted them to the pavilion. He rode beside the Queen's carriage to the railway station. At half-past two the train started for Paris. From the terminus of the Strasburg railway to the Palace of St. Cloud the houses were gaily dressed with tapestry, flowers, and evergreens; the windows and streets were crowded by people in every variety of costume; 200,000 soldiers and National Guards formed double lines five miles long. The glitter of the arms, the splendour and variety of the dresses, mingling their colours with the verdure of the trees in the Champs ÉlysÉes and the Bois de Boulogne, presented a spectacle of extraordinary brilliancy and beauty. The Parisians had been on the ground in great numbers from noon and waited patiently for hours; but, unfortunately, the train was behind time, the evening became dark and cold, and when at length her Majesty appeared at half-past seven, the demonstration was shorn of much of its splendour. Nevertheless, the boulevards, streets, and avenues were still crowded and Her Majesty met with an enthusiastic reception. As the carriages approached the Arc de Triomphe the outriders and escort carried torches, which added much to the effect. The Palace of St. Cloud was placed entirely at the disposal of the Queen and her party. She was received by the Empress, the Princess Mathilde, with the ladies of the officers of the Household, and the high officers of State. It was Saturday evening, and the next day—Sunday, the 19th of August—was devoted to rest, relieved only by a drive in the Bois de Boulogne.

On Monday their Majesties visited the Palais des Beaux Arts, a portion of the great Industrial Exhibition. The route to the building was one dense mass of spectators, who received her Majesty with every demonstration of joy and respect. The royal party lunched with Prince Napoleon at the ÉlysÉe, then visited Sainte Chapelle and Notre Dame, and went through the city to view its principal buildings. The Parisians were everywhere delighted with the Queen and the royal children, whose gracious bearing and frank manners quite won their hearts. On Tuesday her Majesty visited the magnificent Palace of Versailles. The Emperor was so charmed with his visitors, that it was remarked he conversed with an animation of manner and countenance quite surprising to those accustomed to his usual impassiveness. Two more visits were paid to the Industrial Exhibition. On Thursday evening the Municipality of Paris gave a ball in the HÔtel de Ville, which surpassed in splendour and magnificence all previous experience. There was a grand review next day, and after that a visit to the tomb of Napoleon. On Saturday evening the Emperor gave a splendid fÊte at the Palace of Versailles, which outdid even the magnificence of the HÔtel de Ville. At half-past ten the Emperor opened the ball with the Queen of Great Britain. At eleven the Court proceeded to supper in the theatre. Their Majesties' table was laid in the State box, commanding a view of all the others, which were filled with ladies. Orchestra and pit were turned into a festive hall. On all sides flowers, lights, and brilliant toilettes gave an air of satisfaction, joy, and delight, impossible to describe. It was like a glance at fairy-land. Their Majesties left Versailles amid the warmest demonstrations of enthusiasm. After their departure the ball was kept up till morning, and during the whole of the night the road was thronged with brilliant equipages conveying back the guests to Paris. Sunday was dedicated to repose, Monday to travel. Immense crowds lined the streets to witness the Queen's departure. The Emperor accompanied his illustrious guests to Boulogne, where her Majesty reviewed the magnificent army encamped on the heights. The Imperial host and his guests parted about midnight, when the British Court re-embarked, and arrived at Osborne at nine a.m. the following morning. The Earl of Clarendon, who was the Secretary of State in attendance on her Majesty, addressed an official letter to Sir George Grey, which contains the following testimony of her Majesty's pleasure:—"The Queen is profoundly sensible of the kindness with which she has been received by the Emperor and Empress, and of those manifestations of respect and cordiality on the part of the French nation by which she has everywhere been greeted. On personal and political grounds, the visit to Paris has afforded the highest gratification to her Majesty."

In July, 1856, the question of intervention or non-intervention was fully discussed in Parliament, in connection with the affairs of Italy. Read in the light of subsequent events and of later occurrences, and with a view to pending eventualities, the debate is full of interest. The subject was introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, who, in the course of an eloquent and argumentative speech, expressed the warmest sympathy with Italy, while exposing and denouncing the horrible oppression under which she groaned. He declared, that of all military tyrannies, that of Austria was the most galling and odious, as shown not only in Italy, but in her Danubian provinces. In Italy she had, in violation of the Treaty of Vienna, not only usurped the government of the Legations, but had taken possession of the Duchy of Parma, and kept the whole country in a state of siege, subjecting the population to martial law. Her excuse was, that when she could remove her garrisons without danger of insurrection she would do so. Lord Lyndhurst showed, with admirable clearness, the effect of this plea. A bad Government produced dissatisfaction, disturbance, possibly insurrection. That ended in invasion by the military force of a neighbouring Power, which necessarily increased the dissatisfaction and the tendency to revolt; so that, according to the Austrian argument, the occupation of the disaffected districts by a foreign military force could have no termination. "In adverting to the state and prospects of Italy," continued the noble and learned lord, "it was impossible to avoid speaking of the proceedings of the Neapolitan Government; nothing could exceed its infamous conduct. The same infamous system of tyranny and oppression—founded on no law, not even the law of arbitrary government—described by Mr. Gladstone some years since, was at this very moment pursued with greater secrecy, and, in the present political trials, carried on now, as then, in disregard of every principle of justice and in violation of every feeling of right." Lord Lyndhurst contended that there were cases in which it was the bounden duty of foreign Governments to interfere in the internal affairs of another State, and if there ever was such a case, it was Naples. The king of that country denied the right of Britain to interfere, and had positively refused to give any explanation or reply to the remonstrances addressed to him. Yet Britain declined to use her power. From this Lord Lyndhurst could draw but one conclusion, which was—that there was a feeling at Naples that there was some backwardness and lukewarmness on the part of France to co-operate with us in the objects we had in view. "This, then," he said, "is the state to which we are reduced. We threaten a foreign Government, declaring that its conduct is infamous and atrocious, and that we require it to be changed; they refuse to listen to our remonstrances, and we sit quietly down and take no further steps. What, then, has become of the power and prestige of England?"

Lord Clarendon, then Foreign Secretary, stated that urgent remonstrances had been addressed to the King of Naples, in the most friendly spirit, pointing out to him the danger of the existing state of things to the stability of his throne, and suggesting the establishment of a better administration of justice, a general amnesty for political offences, and a system of government that would secure the confidence of the people. But he did not believe that until the joint pressure of Britain and France could be brought to bear in all its force, the desired amelioration of the condition of the Italian people would be obtained; and he declared that that was a matter which Government had as much at heart as Parliament or the people. The Marquis of Clanricarde remarked that it was clear from the statement of Lord Clarendon that the King of Naples had taken a stand upon his own absolute independence, and had treated with contumely the attempt of her Majesty's Government to meddle with the affairs of his territory. The Marquis of Lansdowne expressed a hope that the existing system of foreign interference in Italy would be ultimately got rid of; and he trusted that, if ever British interference should become necessary, the war would be vigorously conducted, so that it might be speedily ended.

In the House of Commons also, at the same time, the Italian question was debated. Lord John Russell moved that an Address be presented to her Majesty for copies or extracts of any recent communication which had taken place between Government and the Governments of Austria, Rome, and the Two Sicilies, relating to the affairs of Italy. He called attention to the nature of the declarations made at the Paris Conference, reading the statements made by Count Walewski, Lord Clarendon, Count Buol, and Count Cavour; and then referred to the Austrian occupation. That occupation was the result of bad government. It had existed seven years, and the government was worse. What prospect was there that it would ever be better? Austria was taking fresh precautions to perpetuate the oppression. Without advocating interference with the internal affairs of foreign States, he maintained that, at whatever risk, we were bound to support the King of Sardinia. We should nourish the growing spirit of Italian independence. "I remember," said Lord John Russell, "very long ago, having had an interview in the Isle of Elba with the first Napoleon. The Emperor talked much of the States of Italy, and agreed in the observation which I had made that there was no union among them, and no likelihood of any effectual resistance by them to their oppressors; but when I asked him why Austria was so unpopular in Italy, he replied it was because she governed not with the sword [this was probably not a reflection which Napoleon I. would make], but that she had no other means of governing except by the stick. I believe, sir, that that is the secret of the whole disfavour with which Austria is viewed in Italy."

Lord Palmerston observed that at the Paris conferences the representative of Austria held out no expectation that her consent would be obtained to the cessation of foreign occupation in Italy. Her Majesty's Government felt that that cessation was an object of European interest. If disturbances broke out in Naples, the King would apply to Austria for assistance, and complications would thence arise that would endanger the peace of Europe. But with regard to Naples, as well as to Rome, he did not despair. The King of Sardinia, having associated himself with Britain and France in the war which had just closed, had a right to support and protection against an unprovoked attack. Britain and France were bound by the ties of honour to assist him to the utmost.

Mr. Disraeli could not understand why the question of Italy was introduced into conferences and protocols if all that was intended to be done was no more than diplomatic action. Nothing could be more irrational, he said, than to address violent representations to Austria, with a view of terminating the occupation of the Roman States, unless France was also prepared to quit them. Their "admonitions," without fleets or armies, to the ruling Powers would set Italy in flames. It was said that the case of Naples was exceptional, but why was it exceptional more than the case of Austria or Russia, except that those were strong Powers and Naples was a weak one? But it was not only a contest between worn-out dynasties and an intelligent class that was going on in Italy; there were the secret societies which did not care for constitutional government. "Rome is not far distant from Naples. The passage from Naples to the States of the Church is not difficult. You may have triumvirs again established in Rome; the Pope may again be forced to flee. What will be the consequences of that? The two great Catholic Powers of Europe—France, whose Emperor boasts in these protocols of being the eldest son of the Church, that ally with whose beneficent co-operation Italy is to be emancipated, and Austria—will pour their legions over the whole peninsula. You will have to withdraw the British fleet; your admonitions will be thrown into the mud, as they deserve; and your efforts to free Italy from the occupation of foreign troops will terminate by rendering the thraldom a thousand times more severe, and by aggravating the miseries of the unfortunate people, whose passions you have fired and whose feelings you have this night commenced to rouse. If they were not prepared," he said, in conclusion, "to interfere in Italy with fleets and armies, let them abstain from stirring up the passions of the people—a policy that would only aggravate the thraldom of Italy, and might lead to consequences still more fraught with disaster to Europe." Lord John Russell, in reply to Mr. Disraeli, said, "that as to secret societies, a despotic Government, supported by foreign troops, was not likely to put them down. Those things acted upon one another. There were secret societies, therefore there was foreign occupation. There was foreign occupation, therefore there were secret societies. The people resorted to secret societies because there was no other mode of stating their grievances." The motion was negatived without a division.

In consequence of the discussions which took place during the Paris conferences with regard to the state of Italy, Britain and France despatched earnest remonstrances to the King of Naples, in order to induce the Government to mitigate the system of oppression under which his subjects groaned, and to adopt a course of policy calculated to avert the dangers which might disturb the peace that had been recently restored to Europe. These friendly remonstrances were scornfully rejected by the infatuated monarch, in terms which left no alternative with the Western Powers but to withdraw their missions from his Court. The fact was announced in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the Session in 1857, and led, of course, to Conservative attacks upon the Administration for their interference with the domestic concerns of another country.

The maintenance of the Anglo-French Alliance despite the tortuous courses to which the Emperor was addicted, was due to the peculiarly close relations of the two Courts, and the friendship that existed between Lord Palmerston and the French Ambassador, Count Persigny. Persigny's Imperial master, however, was regarded by the Prime Minister with but little confidence. In particular his notable scheme for dividing the Sick Man's heritage through the occupation of Tunis by Sardinia, Morocco by France, and Egypt by Britain was rejected at once. How could Britain and France, Lord Palmerston contended, who had just guaranteed the integrity of the Turkish Empire, proceed like the partitioners of Poland, to strip the Sultan of his outlying dominions? Besides, we did not want Egypt; all we wished was that the country should not belong to any other European Power, and that we should have a free passage across it. It was undoubtedly distrust of the Emperor which induced Lord Palmerston to oppose the construction of the Suez Canal scheme, which he did with such insistence that the Sultan's firman was not granted until after his death. His public reasons, which were much ridiculed at the time, were that the canal would never be made, that even if it was made, it would not pay, and that by rendering Egypt virtually independent of the Porte, it would impair the integrity of the Turkish Empire. His private objections, as given in a letter to Lord John Russell, were far more statesmanlike. They were that a canal open to all nations would deprive Britain of the commercial monopoly with the East which she at present possessed, and that "it required only a glance at the map of the world to see how great would be the naval and military advantage to France in a war with Britain to have such a short cut to the Indian seas, while we should be obliged to send ships round by the Cape."

CHINESE OFFICERS HAULING DOWN THE BRITISH FLAG ON THE "ARROW." (See p. 169.)

The most momentous debates in the Session of 1857 were connected with the affairs of China. They resulted in the defeat of Lord Palmerston's Administration, which was followed by the dissolution of Parliament. It was a seemingly trivial incident in a remote part of the globe that led to these important consequences. Sir John Bowring had been appointed British Consul in Canton in 1849. In 1854 he was appointed her Majesty's Plenipotentiary in China and Governor of Hong Kong. While he occupied this position he came into hostile collision with the Imperial Government. On the 8th of October, 1856, a lorcha named the Arrow, which bore the British flag, was boarded by Chinese officers, for the purpose of arresting some of their countrymen charged with piracy. The British flag was torn down, and twelve out of a crew of fourteen were carried off prisoners. Sir John Bowring in vain endeavoured to obtain redress for this outrage. The Imperial Commissioner Yeh paid no attention to his remonstrances, or only returned evasive answers. Menaces being equally unavailing, the matter was referred to the British admiral, Sir Michael Seymour. Troops were obtained from India and Ceylon, and Sir John Bowring, on his own responsibility—without any authority from the Government at home—made war upon the most ancient and extensive empire in the world. The forts along the river were one after another attacked and reduced. The public buildings in the city of Canton were shelled. A large fleet of war-junks was destroyed, and the city lay defenceless under our guns.

The news of these events had reached England during the autumn, and produced a great deal of excitement and discussion. On the 16th of February the Earl of Derby gave notice of a motion on the subject, and in the House of Commons a similar notice was given by Mr. Cobden. Both these statesmen delivered speeches memorable for the masterly and eloquent discussion of the principles of international law and the duties incumbent upon civilised Powers in their dealings with semi-barbarous nations. Lord Derby moved his resolutions on the 24th, and then described the proceedings at Canton as most violent in their character, and as having inflicted the greatest injury upon trade and commerce. The Arrow, it was said, was a British vessel within the meaning of the treaty, and entitled to carry a British flag; but he contended that she was a China-built ship, captured by pirates, recaptured by the Chinese, sold afterwards by the Chinese, and ultimately bought, owned, and manned by Chinese. It was an essential characteristic of a British merchant's ship that she must be wholly owned by British subjects. But even if the Arrow were a British vessel, no infraction of the treaty had been committed: no one would think of enforcing "the colonial ordinance," in the case of the vessels of any European country, trading on the coasts of that country. Besides, the very existence of the ordinance had not been made known to the Chinese until some time after it was established. In any case there could be no doubt that the Arrow had no legal right to carry the British flag, because it was admitted by Sir John Bowring that her licence had expired before the seizure. The governor had said to Consul Parkes, that the lorcha could not claim British protection, although he made a contrary statement to Commissioner Yeh; and it was by such means that the British nation was drawn into a destructive and expensive war! It was true that by treaty the British were entitled to be admitted into the city of Canton. The admission was denied by the Chinese authorities, on the ground that it would lead to conflicts between the natives and the foreigners. This had been held by Sir G. Bonham to be a sufficient reason for not pressing the claim; but Sir John Bowring was determined to enforce it at all hazards, and considered no sacrifice too great to effect his object. In the correspondence upon the subject, the tone of the Chinese was throughout forbearing, courteous, and gentleman-like; while that of our representative, with hardly an exception, was menacing, disrespectful, and arrogant. Lord Derby believed that Sir John Bowring and Mr. Parkes had determined beforehand that they would not consent to anything proposed, but would tack to the lorcha grievance Sir John Bowring's monomania for obtaining admission to the city. The military operations were advised and planned within twelve days after the cause of quarrel, while every overture for peace on the part of the Chinese was evaded. Sir John Bowring had charged the Chinese with shameful violation of treaties; but these treaties remained unfulfilled, with the acquiescence of her Majesty's Government, upon reasons assigned and representations made. Lord Derby concluded his speech with an earnest appeal to the bench of bishops to come forward on this occasion and vindicate the cause of religion, humanity, and civilisation from the outrage which had been inflicted upon it by the British representatives at Canton. He solemnly called upon the hereditary peers not to tolerate the usurpation by authorities abroad of that most awful prerogative of the Crown, the right of declaring war, not to tolerate, upon light and trivial grounds, the capture of commercial vessels, the destruction of forts belonging to a friendly country, the bombardment of an undefended city, and the shedding of the blood of unwarlike and innocent people, without warrant of law and without moral justification. He then moved three resolutions embodying his sentiments.

Lord Clarendon defended the conduct of the British representatives at Canton. He denied that the Arrow had forfeited her licence, because, though the term had expired, the vessel was still at sea, and therefore still entitled, under the terms of the ordinance, to bear the British flag. He contended that if Mr. Parkes, whose discretion and moderation deserved all praise, had shrunk from demanding redress, he would have failed in his duty, and given the Chinese reason to believe that they might proceed to still greater insults. Such an outrage could not occur among nations who respected international law, and it was necessary to make the Chinese sensible of the law of force. He believed that the assumed popular hostility to the admission of the British into Canton was a mere bugbear, and that the Queen's officers were justified in taking advantage of the dispute about the Arrow to endeavour to obtain a partial fulfilment of the treaty. He declared that the resolution prohibiting hostilities against a foreign people, without express instructions received from her Majesty's Government, would endanger the lives and property of all British subjects in China, would cast dishonour upon our name and our flag, and would bring ruin upon our trade with that country. The Lord Chancellor, in reply to Lord Lyndhurst, took the same view of the subject; and after a powerful speech on the other side by Earl Grey, Earl Granville, having defended the conduct of Sir John Bowring, sarcastically remarked upon the zeal with which noble lords on the opposite side of the House constituted themselves lay-readers to the episcopal bench, and admonished right reverend prelates with moving sermons whenever they were in doubt about which way their votes would go. He was sure the bishops would vote according to the dictates of their consciences, and be guided only by what they believed and felt to be the principles of justice and humanity. The Bishop of Oxford was the only prelate who spoke in the name of the bench. He declared his belief that the claim made on behalf of the lorcha was not founded on the principles of either law or justice; therefore the war which had sprung from that claim was indefensible, and its principle untenable among Christian men. He reprobated the conduct of a great Christian nation like England spreading the horrors of war among a weak and unoffending people. If the House gave the weight of its great authority to support an act so unjust, it would go against a Power which took its own time for vindicating eternal justice, and which never allowed a wrong to pass unavenged—a Power which could find in the very weakness of China sufficient elements to abase and rebuke the lawless oppression of this country. All these appeals failed to avert a decision in favour of the Government, which had a majority of thirty-six; but this majority was made up chiefly of persons who had not heard the arguments. The proxies for Lord Derby's motion were fifty-seven, and the proxies against it seventy-five.

Mr. Cobden, on the 26th of February, moved a resolution to the effect that the House had heard with concern of the conflicts that had occurred between the Chinese and British authorities on the Canton river; and considered that the papers laid on the table failed to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures adopted in the affair of the Arrow. He moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of our commercial relations with China. He asked the House to inquire how all this warfare and devastation began—would they have dealt in a similar manner if the transaction had taken place at Charleston, and the Government assailed had been at Washington? Referring to the correspondence between our consul and the Chinese Commissioner, he said that Mr. Parkes, a young man, seemed to have made up his mind not to be satisfied, in spite of the logical arguments of Governor Yeh, which would have done credit to Westminster Hall. Mr. Cobden conscientiously believed that there had been a preconceived design to pick a quarrel with the Chinese authorities, for which the world would cry shame upon us. He regarded the papers laid before the House as a garbled record of trumpery complaints. It was an insult to bring down such a book in order to make out a case for Lord Clarendon. Englishmen carried with them a haughty demeanour and inflexible bearing towards the natives of other countries, and the demands of our mercantile men in this instance were characterised by downright selfish violence. Sir John Bowring, acting on their behalf, had not only violated the principles of international law, but had acted contrary to his instructions, and even to express directions from the Home Government.

Sir Bulwer Lytton, on the same side, censured the language of Consul Parkes to Commissioner Yeh as repugnant to the rules of diplomatic intercourse, and denounced hostilities carried on upon such a miserable plea. Lord John Russell reviewed the whole question, and argued that the alleged provocations furnished no sufficient ground for the extreme measures resorted to, which were not the proper modes of settling such a great question. Government should consider that their officials had committed a serious offence. And where was the matter to end? The worst part of the case, he said, was the conduct of Sir J. Bowring, who, while he declared that the vessel had lost all right to British protection, set up that claim against the Chinese Commissioner, and required an apology for the British flag as having been rightfully used. Mr. Gladstone protested against making Sir John a stalking-horse for diverting attention from the real matter at issue, which involved the interests of humanity and the honour of England. We talked of the violation of treaty by the Chinese, but was there no violation of treaty on our part? The purpose for which Hong Kong was given to us was that it should be a port in which British ships might tarry and fit. Was not our contraband trade in opium a breach of treaty obligations? Had our Government struggled to put it down, as bound by treaty? Had they not encouraged it by organising a fleet of lorchas under the British flag? They who thus acted had stained the British flag. For what were we at war with China? If the House had the courage to assert its prerogative and adopt this resolution, it would pursue a course consistent at once with sound policy and the principles of eternal justice. Mr. Disraeli thought that Sir John Bowring had been unfairly treated in the debate. If his conduct had been ratified by Government, it should not be impugned by the House. The question at issue was the policy of Government, which was to extend our commerce in the East, not by diplomacy, but by force. Lord Palmerston—"the very archetype of political combination without principle"—complained that he was the victim of conspiracy. Then let him appeal to the country.

The foregoing is an outline of the case made against Government in the course of a debate which lasted four days, and which excited extraordinary interest, because it was felt not only by the House, but by the public, that the fate of Government depended upon the issue. The following is an outline of the defence, which was commenced by Mr. Labouchere. He said that when the case was fairly and impartially considered, the House would be of opinion that no blame justly attached to our local authorities at Canton or to Government at home, who could have pursued no other course than that they had taken without betraying the interests entrusted to their care, and lowering the British character in the eyes of the world. The transactions had taken place before the great community of merchants who had been libelled by Mr. Cobden. French and American merchants had coincided with ours in their view of the conduct of the Chinese authorities, which had become absolutely unbearable. He denied that the British functionaries had evinced any want of forbearance. On the part of Government at home, he should regret if it had been so weak and pusillanimous as to fail in supporting officials placed in a difficult position, whose conduct had been applauded by the representatives of foreign nations. We were not at war with the Court of Pekin, but with the local government at Canton, and he hoped that the result of these hostilities would be to place the relations of Europe with China upon a safer and more satisfactory footing. Mr. Lowe contended that the real question was not one of legality, but of the animus of the Chinese authorities, and it was impossible to acquit them of bad animus in the matter. Much as he deplored the consequences, it appeared to him that upon those authorities, not upon the British Government or its officials, rested the responsibility. The Lord Advocate of Scotland argued upon the facts, that there was no ground for asserting that international law had been transgressed by our authorities abroad. He contended that the Hong Kong ordinance of 1855 was a valid law as respected the Chinese, and whether or not it was contrary to our municipal law had nothing to do with the question. The boarding of the lorcha was no doubt preconcerted; it was regarded by Sir John Bowring as an outrage, as an international and deliberate insult; and he wanted to know what Sir John was to have done. He warned the House to pause before it put between us and China a barrier which might be far more dangerous than any yet offered.

Lord Palmerston began his speech by observing that he should not have expected from Mr. Cobden such a motion, or such a speech in its support, nor should he have anticipated the bitterness of his attack upon Sir John Bowring, an ancient friend, a man who had raised himself by his talents, attainments, and public services, and who was a fit person for the situation he held. If there was any man less likely than another to get the country into hostilities, it was Sir John Bowring, who had been a member of the Peace Society. But what most surprised him in Mr. Cobden's speech was the anti-English spirit which pervaded it, and an abnegation of the ties which bound men to their country and their countrymen. With regard to the question under discussion, the noble lord said that we had a treaty with the Chinese, stipulating that British vessels should not be boarded without a previous application to the British Consul; and the question is, What did the Chinese know or believe about the nationality of the Arrow? Did they consider her a British vessel? He affirmed they did, and if they knowingly violated the treaty, it was immaterial whether, according to the technicalities of the law, the register had expired. It was the animus of the insult, the wilful violation of the treaty, that entitled us to demand reparation for the wrong, and an assurance of future security. He insisted that, after the refusal of reparation—only one of many violations of treaty rights by the Chinese—hostilities were amply justified, and that our proceedings were marked with extreme forbearance, compared with the proceedings of the Americans when their flag was insulted. The outrage was only part of a deliberate system to wrest from us a right essential to our commerce in those waters. Lord Palmerston referred to the barbarities of the local authorities at Canton; the Commissioner Yeh having beheaded 70,000 persons in less than a year. What was the Government expected to do—to send out a message to Yeh that he was right? This would be withdrawing from the British community protection against a merciless barbarian. It would disgrace this country in the eyes of the civilised world, and especially in the estimation of Eastern nations. The House, therefore, had in its keeping not only the interests, the property, and the lives of many of our fellow-subjects abroad, but the honour and the character of the country. As the Government expected defeat, the latter part of the Prime Minister's speech was a stirring appeal to the nation against the coalition of Radicals, Tories, and Peelites, which, as Greville remarks, was "very bow-wow." Mr. Cobden having briefly replied, and having withdrawn the first paragraph of his resolution, the concluding portion was put to the vote—to the effect that the papers laid before the House failed to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures resorted to at Canton. The numbers were—for the motion, 263; against it, 247; majority against the Government, 16.

This important division took place on March 3rd. Two days of anxious suspense passed, during which the political world was full of speculation as to the alternative Lord Palmerston would adopt—resignation or dissolution. Mr. Disraeli had challenged him to appeal to the country, but without such a provocative, that was the course which a man of Lord Palmerston's spirit and determination was most likely to adopt. Accordingly, on the 5th, Lord Granville in the Upper House, and the Prime Minister in the Lower, announced that her Majesty's Ministers had advised her to dissolve Parliament. The latter explained the grounds of his decision. In ordinary circumstances, the result of a vote of censure would be resignation, and to those who had obtained a majority in favour of such a vote would be left the responsibility of conducting the affairs of the country. But the present case seemed to Lord Palmerston of so peculiar a character that he did not think it his duty to adopt that course. The vote did not seem to imply a general want of confidence, though it would render it very difficult, if not unseemly, to conduct the business of the country in the ordinary manner during the remainder of a long Session. The Parliament was then in its fifth Session, and might be considered comparatively a very old Parliament, for it had witnessed more important events than had fallen to the lot of most Parliaments to see. It had seen three Administrations; it had seen the transition from a state of profound peace to a great European war; it had seen the transition from a great European war to the fortunate restoration of European peace. Consequently, as concerned the events of which it had been a spectator, it had done as much as could be expected to fall to the lot of one which had completed its full term of existence. He therefore proposed that the House should content itself with such provisional and temporary measures as might be necessary to provide for the public service until the earliest period at which a new Parliament could assemble. Mr. Disraeli concurred in this course and said he would give every possible facility to public business. Mr. Cobden inquired what the Government were about to do in order to carry out the solemn vote to which the House had come. If any danger to British residents in China was to be apprehended from the vote, the first consideration ought to be their safety, and a competent person should be sent out by the next steam-ship, armed with full authority to supersede all existing British authority in China, and to act according to circumstances. If Lord Palmerston did not intend to take this course, what course would he take? A new Parliament could not meet until the end of May. Mr. Cobden then attempted to give the Premier a lesson in electioneering, but the listener, as the event showed, knew more about the subject than the teacher. Lord Palmerston replied to the various questions as to the policy to be adopted in China. Every one knew that if a great extension of commercial intercourse between the nations of Europe and China ever obtained, it would be an immense advantage to the cause of civilisation and productive of great benefit to the industry of the nations trading with that country. The difficulty having been greatly increased by the unfortunate events that had occurred, it must strike every one that the selection of a person to whom should be committed the grave and important charge of conducting negotiations should be a subject of serious deliberation. It must strike every one that he should be imbued with the feelings of Government on this subject; and that, being the recipient of their verbal instructions, he would be likely to carry more weight than any person who might happen to be now in China. He by no means undervalued the services of Sir John Bowring, to whom the greatest injustice had been done, and whose merits had been disparaged to a degree that astonished him; at the same time, Government could not shut their eyes to the gravity and importance of the matters in hand. But the House must expect their policy to remain the same—it was, to maintain the rights and to protect the lives and property of British subjects, to improve our relations with China, and in the selection of those means and the arrangement of them to perform the duty they owed to the country. In other words the war was to be continued.

The House of Commons turned from the angry discussions about the Chinese war to a much more agreeable theme. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who had filled the office of Speaker for nearly eighteen years, now announced his intention of retiring. On the 9th of March he addressed the House, and said that he could not contemplate the termination of his official career without great pain; nor could he allow it to close without offering to the House his sincere and grateful acknowledgments for that uniform confidence and support which he had received, not only from every political party in it, but he might say, with perfect truth, from every individual member. He was quite aware that, in the discharge of the delicate and very onerous duties of the Chair, he had much need of the kind indulgence which had always been extended to him, and especially of late, when he had been so frequently reminded of his increasing inability to do full justice to the task imposed upon him. It had been his constant aim to improve and simplify their forms of proceeding; but at the same time striving to maintain unimpaired all their rights and privileges, together with all those rules and orders, sanctioned by ancient usage, which long experience had taught him to respect and venerate, and which he believed never could be relaxed, or materially altered, without prejudice to the freedom and independence of the House of Commons. On the motion of Lord Palmerston, seconded by Sir. J. Pakington, the House then resolved that an Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would bestow some signal mark of her favour upon the retiring Speaker, and stating that the House would make good the expense. The Queen having returned a gracious answer, and the House having gone into committee on the message, they unanimously resolved that an annuity of £4,000 a year should be conferred upon Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who was subsequently created Viscount Eversley.

The remaining business of Parliament having been rapidly disposed of, Parliament was prorogued, with a view to its dissolution, on March 21st, the Royal Speech, which was brief, being delivered by commission. Her Majesty stated that it was her fervent prayer that the constituencies of the United Kingdom might be guided by an all-wise Providence to the selection of representatives whose wisdom and patriotism might aid her to maintain the honour and dignity of her crown, and to promote the welfare and happiness of her people. Parliament was convoked for the 30th of April. The result of the general election showed how well grounded was the confidence with which Lord Palmerston appealed to the country, and how correct, as Lord Malmesbury tells us, had been Mr. Disraeli's anticipation that if the Conservatives forced a contest on that issue they would suffer complete defeat. The popularity the Prime Minister had won bore him triumphantly over the most formidable opposition; while those who had been instrumental in the defeat of his Government seemed not to have pleased their constituencies; some eminent statesmen were rejected to make way for untried and ordinary men, whose chief recommendation was that they would give their zealous support to Lord Palmerston, whom they believed to have vindicated the honour of the country. In fact the name of Palmerston was made a popular rallying cry at almost every hustings in Great Britain. Mr. Cobden, not venturing to face the West Riding of Yorkshire, where he had been a popular idol, was defeated at Huddersfield, and kept out of Parliament. Mr. Bright and Mr. Milner Gibson were driven from Manchester, Mr. Layard from Aylesbury, and Mr. W. J. Fox from Oldham. The small but powerful phalanx of Peelites, whose experienced and accomplished debaters had given the Premier so much annoyance, was completely scattered. Thus his most formidable opponents were driven from the field, while he was enabled to meet the new Parliament at the head of a numerous body of zealous supporters.

Mr. John Evelyn Denison was unanimously elected Speaker in the room of Lord Eversley. Lord Palmerston congratulated him on the dignity to which he had been raised, pointing out the onerous nature of the duties he had to discharge, and presenting the example of the late Speaker as a model which it was impossible to surpass. The Royal Speech was delivered on the 7th of May, and Parliament at once proceeded to business. The Queen expressed her heartfelt gratification at witnessing the continued well-being and contentment of her people, and the progressive development of productive industry throughout her dominions. The Address was agreed to in both Houses nem. con. The first matter that came before the Commons was a message from her Majesty, announcing that a marriage had been negotiated between Prince Frederick William of Prussia and the Princess Royal. It need hardly be said that so interesting an event as the betrothal of the Queen's eldest daughter attracted much attention.

In the House of Commons on the same evening, the Premier made some observations in reference to the approaching marriage:—"I cannot refrain from saying that those who have had the good fortune to be acquainted with the Princess Royal must have observed that she possesses, both in heart and in head, those distinguished qualities which adorn her illustrious parents, and that she bids fair to hold out in the country of her adoption a repetition of that brilliant example which her illustrious parents have held out in this country, of a domestic happiness worthy to serve as a model of imitation for the most exalted or the humblest of her Majesty's subjects. Sir, it is impossible not to see that this marriage—independently of the prospect which I trust it holds out of happiness to her Royal Highness, from the high qualities of the prince whom she has selected as her future husband—also holds out to the country political prospects not undeserving of the attention of this House. We all know how family alliances tend to mitigate those asperities which from time to time must be produced by those diversities of policy which inevitably arise occasionally between great and independent Powers, and therefore I trust that this marriage may also be considered as holding out an increased prospect of goodwill and of cordiality among the Powers of Europe."

In connection with the dowry of the Princess Royal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement, in which he contrasted the position of the Crown as to revenue with what it had been in past times. The Crown, deprived of its hereditary revenues, was now dependent upon Parliament for a maintenance suitable to its dignity. The Civil List of George III. amounted to more than £447,000; whilst that of the present Queen was only £385,000. George III. also received the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall; the Queen devoted part of them to the education of the Prince of Wales, and allowed the rest to accumulate for his benefit. During the reign of George III., Parliament voted £3,297,000 in payment of debts incurred by the Royal Family; the Queen had incurred no debts. Allowances were granted to the younger branches of the family of George III.; no grant of the kind had been made to the children of her Majesty. The expenses of the visits of George IV. to Hanover, to Ireland, and to Scotland, were paid by the country; whereas Queen Victoria visited the Emperor Napoleon at Paris at her own cost, although the visit was not made for her own personal enjoyment, but for the public good. Her Majesty had paid £34,000 for the furniture and repairs of Buckingham Palace; and she paid £6,180 a year for the peace income-tax, and £15,500 for the war income-tax. As to precedent, the eldest daughter of George II. received an annuity of £8,000 and a dowry of £80,000, and similar sums were granted to the eldest daughter of George III. Sir George Lewis proposed that the Princess Royal should receive an annuity of £8,000, and that her marriage portion should be £40,000. Mr. Roebuck moved, by way of amendment, that a certain sum should be given at once, and no annuity, in order to avoid an entangling alliance, and with a view to the large family the nation would have to provide for. As representatives of a hard-working people, they ought, while generous, to be just. At the request of Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, Lord Elcho, and other members, Mr. Roebuck eventually withdrew his motion. On subsequent days Mr. Coningham, Mr. Maguire, and others, made attempts to reduce the amount; but their amendments were rejected by overwhelming majorities.

A reform of some importance to Ireland was effected during the present Session, namely, the abolition of "Ministers' Money"—a tax which was imposed upon householders in Dublin, Cork, and other places for the support of the clergy of the Established Church. It was only about £12,000 a year; but as it was, in the majority of cases, a direct payment from Roman Catholics to Protestant ministers, it had been a source of much irritation. Mr. Fagan, of Cork, brought in a Bill for its abolition, with the assent of the Government, providing that the sum should be made good by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the Church revenues at their disposal. On the ground of principle, the measure was strenuously opposed by Mr. Napier, Mr. Whiteside, Sir F. Thesiger, and Mr. Walpole; and supported by Sir G. Grey, Mr. Horsman, Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, Lord John Russell, and Lord Palmerston. The second reading was carried by a majority of 139. In the House of Lords the Bill was opposed by the Earl of Derby, the Bishop of Kilmore, Lords Dungannon, Wicklow, and Donoughmore. It was defended by Earl Granville, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord Talbot de Malahide, Lord Ellenborough, and the Duke of Newcastle. It narrowly escaped rejection there, the second reading being passed only by a majority of five.

The first Session of the new Parliament was distinguished by the passing of two measures of great social importance—the transfer of testamentary and matrimonial cases from the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the establishment of a new Probate Court, and a new Divorce Court. As might be expected, all the supporters of vested rights and interests in the Church offered to these measures the most determined opposition. In the previous Session the Lord Chancellor had introduced the Probate and Administrations Bill, which there was not then time to pass. It was altered in the meantime, and on the 18th of May the second reading was moved by the Lord Chancellor. He proposed that the then present judge of the Prerogative Court should be the first judge of the new Court of Probate, with a working salary of £4,000 a year, and a retiring pension of £2,000. He proposed that he should also be the judge of the Divorce Court. The proceedings were to be all conducted viv voce, and whenever matters of fact were in dispute they should be referred to a jury. The County Courts were to have jurisdiction in will cases, where the estate did not exceed £200 in personalty, or £300 in real property. The Bill was severely contested in both Houses; but, with certain amendments, it ultimately passed into law.

The Divorce Bill—a measure of much greater importance—touching deeper social interests, and powerful religious feelings connected with the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, met with the most determined and persevering opposition. The second reading was fixed for the 18th of May, when the Lord Chancellor reviewed the state of the law with regard to marriage. In 1850 a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and it was on the recommendation of their report that the present Bill was founded. Nothing could be more absurd, vexatious, and expensive, than the law as it previously stood. The principle that marriage might be dissolved had been adopted by the Legislature; but practically, the separation of husband and wife was a privilege reserved for the aristocratic and wealthy classes, although the causes which made separation necessary or desirable affected all classes. Before a divorce could be obtained a vinculo matrimonii, proceedings must first be taken in the Ecclesiastical Court, a verbist must be obtained against the adulterer, and all the facts must be again established, at enormous cost, before the bar of the House of Lords. The Bill proposed to substitute one tribunal, by which the matter was to be investigated and finally decided. The action for crim. con., then an indispensable preliminary to a divorce, would be rendered unnecessary. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave his assent to the second reading; but he declared that he would oppose in committee the clause which permitted the guilty parties to be united in legal marriage. Lord Lyndhurst was most anxious for the success of the Bill. He believed that it was a scriptural doctrine that marriage might be dissolved in case of adultery; but our law on the subject was derived from the system which prevailed when the country was under Roman Catholic rule. One hundred and fifty years ago recourse had been had to palliatives; but these means were available only for the rich. The law ought to embrace both rich and poor. Upon this principle it was impossible that any solid objection could be made to the alterations proposed by the Bill. Instead of facilities for severing the marriage tie being demoralising, he contended that the present law led to great immoralities among the poorer classes of the people, because they now had no redress against the adulterer. But he was of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough. One objection he had to the Bill was its great inequality between the two sexes. He called upon their lordships to do justice. The more they considered this part of the measure, the more they would be satisfied of the unsoundness of the argument urged against women who applied for a divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of the husband. But if their lordships could not concur in that suggestion, he hoped they would allow wilful desertion to be a sufficient ground for divorce. By deserting his wife the man violated the very purposes for which marriage was instituted.

The Bill was opposed by several of the bishops, particularly by the Bishop of Oxford; but the Bishop of London gave to the measure his hearty approval, and the second reading was carried by a majority of twenty-nine. In committee several amendments were proposed and rejected. The Archbishop of Canterbury moved a clause restricting the person against whom the divorce was pronounced from marrying the companion in guilt. This was carried by fifty-three to forty-seven; but another amendment by the same prelate was rejected, its object being to exempt from censures or penalties clergymen who should conscientiously object to officiate in marrying divorced parties. The Bill passed the third reading on the 23rd of June. It came on for the second reading in the House of Commons on the 24th of July. Numerous petitions had been presented there against the measure, one of which was signed by 6,000 clergymen. Mr. Henley moved that it should be postponed for a month, in order to allow time for deliberation; but Lord Palmerston pronounced the motion to be a pretence too shallow to be entertained, though it was supported by Lord John Manners, Mr. Napier, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Henley's motion was negatived by 217 to 130.

In moving the second reading on the 30th of July, the Attorney-General traced the progress of legislation on marriage from the Reformation down. Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church, holding marriage to be a sacrament and indissoluble, had recourse to fictions to escape the operation of the law. But Parliament, proceeding upon settled and permanent principles, had acted as a tribunal for administering the law of divorce. The present Bill gave concise expression to the law, simplified it, and transferred its administration to a more convenient tribunal. He argued that the dissolution of marriage for adultery is not contrary either to the letter or spirit of Scripture, and that the intermarriage of the guilty parties had been supported by the precedents of 150 years. The operation of the ecclesiastical law by which a divorce was obtained a mensa et thoro was no effectual relief to an injured wife, as it allowed the husband to retain his power over her property. Many cruel and barbarous cases had occurred, in which the wife was driven to sue for this sentence, and had afterwards by industry in the exercise of intellectual ability obtained for herself an independent position, and become the owner of property, till the husband returned, laid his hand on her hard-earned gains, and swept all away to gratify his own dissolute propensities. This reproach of our law, this relic of its savage character as regards the relation of husband and wife, would, he trusted, be effectually removed by the provisions of the Bill. Sir W. Heathcote moved that the second reading be deferred for three months. The Bill was also opposed by Mr. Gladstone, who argued against it at length, both on the law of the case and on the authority of Scripture. Adverting to the religious view of it, he asked whether it was consistent with the respect and reverence due to the revelation of God, for Parliament to take into its own hands great mysteries, and the remodelling of religious rites? Touching, lastly, upon the social question, he urged the evils to be apprehended from the licence of divorce, and from shaking the idea of the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage, founded upon the great precedents of human history, and warned the House against entering upon a road which would remove us from a point to which Christianity had brought us. The Attorney-General replied and the motion against the Bill was rejected by a majority of 111; the numbers being—for the amendment, 97; against it, 208. In committee, Mr. Walpole urged the Government to accept an amendment proposed by Major Warburton, to the effect that no priest or deacon should be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure, for solemnising, or refusing to solemnise, the marriage of any person who should be divorced by virtue of the Act. The Attorney-General solemnly warned the committee of the consequences of this concession. "You are about," he said, "to give the clergy an exemption; and upon what ground? Upon the ground of the sin, guilt, and criminality of the charge affecting those who come before them with a request that a religious ceremony may be performed. But if that exemption be granted, where are we to stop? Will the clergy not reason most consecutively from this exemption when they say, 'You have exempted us from doing violence to our consciences in this matter; but why do you leave us under the necessity of submitting to the violation of our consciences in others, i.e. the marriage of notorious free-livers and so forth?'" The committee, however, decided in favour of the clause by 73 votes against 33, and it was added to the Bill.

In consequence of the adoption of the foregoing clause another was added—namely, "That when any clergyman refused to perform the marriage ceremony in the case of divorced parties, it might be lawful for any other minister of the Church of England, licensed within the diocese, to perform that ceremony." The Bill, very much altered, having passed the Commons was sent up to the Lords to have the amendments sanctioned. Lord Redesdale moved that the amendments of the Commons be taken into consideration that day six months. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Campbell reprobated this motion, and Lord Lansdowne affirmed that it was contrary to the practice of the House for forty years for any peer thus to move the rejection of a Bill of which he was neither the author nor the mover. Lord Redesdale then withdrew his motion. The amendments of the Commons were considered on the 24th of August, the House having agreed to do this only by a majority of two. All the amendments but two were adopted. The Commons concurred, and the Bill became the law of the land. The court established under the Act soon became well known under the efficient presidency of Sir Cresswell Cresswell, who was instrumental in giving relief and freedom to an immense number of aggrieved husbands and wives. The number of cases that came before him, however, might lead to a false impression with regard to the state of matrimonial life in England, because cases had been accumulating for many years, in consequence of the want of a legal remedy. When this accumulation was cleared off, the amount of business in the court indicated a much more favourable condition of married life in the middle and lower classes of English society. The Act did not extend to Scotland or Ireland. The Scots did not need its facilities for divorce, and the Irish indignantly protested against the extension of its provisions to their country.

The opening of the year 1858 was signalised by a daring attempt on the life of the Emperor Napoleon. On the 14th of January, at half-past eight o'clock, just as he arrived with the Empress at the door of the Italian Opera in the Rue Lepelletier, three explosions were heard proceeding from hollow projectiles, one of which perforated the hat of the Emperor, and another struck the neck of his aide-de-camp, General Roquet, who was sitting in front. A considerable number of people standing at the doors of the theatre, and some soldiers, were wounded, but only two mortally. Two of the footmen also were wounded. One of the horses of the Imperial carriage was killed, and the carriage itself was broken by the force of the explosion. The escape of the Emperor and Empress seemed almost miraculous. This was the celebrated Orsini plot, which was very near involving Great Britain in a war with France and led to proceedings in the British Parliament that resulted in the overthrow of Lord Palmerston's Administration. On the 20th of January Count Walewski sent a despatch to Count Persigny, then French Ambassador in London, in which he charged, in very strong terms, the British Government and nation with something like complicity with the assassins. "This fresh attempt," he wrote, "like those which preceded it, has been devised in England. It was in England that Pianori formed the plan of striking the Emperor; it was from London that, in an affair the recollection of which is still recent, Mazzini, Ledru Rollin, and Campanella directed the assassins, whom they had furnished with arms. It is there also that the authors of the last plot have leisurely prepared their means of action, have studied and constructed the instruments of destruction which they have employed, and it is thence that they set out to carry their plans into execution." He stated that the Emperor was persuaded of the sincerity of the sentiments of reprobation which the crime created in England. He appreciated and respected the liberality with which England exercised the right of asylum to foreigners, victims of political struggles. He did not complain of that, but very different was the case of the skilful demagogues established in England. It was no longer the hostility of misguided individuals manifesting itself by all the excesses of the press—no longer even the work of the factions, seeking to rouse opinion and provoke disorder. It was assassination, elevated to a doctrine, preached openly and practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of which had just struck Europe with amazement, and he asked, "ought the right of asylum to protect such a state of things? Is hospitality due to assassins? Ought the English Legislature to contribute to favour their designs and their plans, and can it continue to shelter persons who, by their flagrant acts, place themselves beyond the pale of common right, and under the ban of humanity?"

Lord Clarendon, who was then Foreign Secretary, did not send an official communication to Lord Cowley in answer to this despatch, but contented himself with giving private instructions to lay before the French Government the sentiments, views, and intentions of her Majesty's Government, which was thought to be a much more prudent course to be adopted with a view to allaying the excessive irritation of the French nation and army at the time. The despatch of Count Walewski, however, excited general indignation in England, which was rendered more intense by the fact that very violent military addresses to the Emperor, full of abuse and threats towards England, had been inserted in the official Moniteur. There was afterwards a good deal of correspondence, which assumed a conciliatory tone on both sides; but in the course of which the Emperor insisted on the necessity of passing a new law, in order to prevent conspiracies like that of Orsini. Towards the end of January he wrote to his ambassador in London, saying, "I do not deceive myself as to the little efficacy of the measures which could be taken, but it will still be a friendly act, which will calm much irritation here. Explain our position clearly to the Ministers of the Queen; it is not now a question of saving my life; it is a question of saving the alliance."

Yielding to his pressure, Government, on the 8th of February, brought in a Bill to "amend the law relating to the crimes of conspiracy and incitement to murder, either within or without her Majesty's dominions, and whether the person killed or to be killed were a subject of her Majesty or not." Such was the state of facts that became the subject of discussions in Parliament which led to the defeat of Government. The signal for commencing the war was given by the introduction of the Conspiracy Bill, the alleged necessity for which was urged by Lord Palmerston. If our law was defective, we should not abstain from altering it because other nations had given way to impulses of passion, perhaps of fear. To the motion for the introduction of the Bill, Mr. Kinglake moved the following amendment:—"That this House, while sympathising with the French nation in its indignation and abhorrence at the late atrocious attempt made against the life of the Emperor, and anxious, on a proper occasion, to consider the defects of the criminal law of England, the effect of which may be to render such attempts vain, deems it inexpedient to legislate in compliance with the demand made in Count Walewski's despatch of January 20th, until further information be obtained, and until after the production of the correspondence between the two Governments subsequent to this despatch." Leave was given to introduce the Bill by a majority of 299 to 99. But the indignant feeling of the country at anything like foreign dictation slowly gathered strength, and at length became terrible and irresistible. Public meetings were held at which the Conspiracy to Murder Bill was denounced in the strongest terms. It came on for the second reading on the 19th of February, when Lord Palmerston did all in his power to mitigate the hostility against it, and its supporters generally laboured to keep out of view its political and international bearings, and to treat it merely as a domestic question of law reform. An amendment was moved by Mr. Milner Gibson, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. In the course of his speech he quoted from the Times a passage, which was received with cheers, to the effect that there was no constituted authority in Europe with which Lord Palmerston had not quarrelled, no insurrection that he had not betrayed; while, on the other hand, when he had made up his mind to court the good will of a Foreign Power, no sacrifice of principle or of interest was too great for him. Mr. Gladstone, at the conclusion of a powerful speech, made the following impressive remarks, as to the tendencies of modern society on the Continent:—"Sir," he said, "these times are grave for liberty. We live in the nineteenth century; we talk of progress; we believe that we are advancing; but can any man of observation, who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe, have failed to perceive that there is a movement indeed; but a downward and backward movement? There are a few spots in which institutions that claim our sympathy still exist and flourish. They are secondary places; nay, they are almost the holes and corners of Europe as far as mere material greatness is concerned, although their moral greatness will, I trust, ensure them long prosperity and happiness. But in these times, more than ever, does responsibility centre upon England; and if it does centre upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws, and upon her governors, then I say that a measure passed by this House of Parliament—the chief hope of freedom—which attempts to establish a moral complicity between us and those who seek safety in repressive measures, will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every country in the world." Mr. Disraeli, though he voted for the introduction of the Bill, now voted for its rejection. The question now was, not between this country and France, but between the House of Commons and the British Premier. After a spirited reply from Lord Palmerston, the House divided; when the Bill was rejected by a majority of 19, the numbers being, ayes 215, noes 234. So entirely had the debate been mismanaged that many observers thought Government were courting defeat, in consequence of the pending question of the extremely unpopular appointment of Lord Clanricarde to the office of Privy Seal, but that explanation is rejected by Greville. A vote of censure upon Government, touching the great principles of national policy, left no alternative but resignation. Lord Palmerston could not go to the country again in such circumstances, for if he did, his supporters would be sure to be defeated in the existing temper of the public mind. Addressing the House, therefore, on the 22nd of February, the noble lord announced that Ministers had tendered their resignation to her Majesty, which had been accepted. He understood that Lord Derby had been sent for by the Queen, and he moved the adjournment of the House for a few days to afford time for the formation of the new Ministry.

Lord Derby succeeded in forming an Administration. The Cabinet was composed of the following members:—Prime Minister, Earl of Derby; Lord Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford; President of the Council, Marquis of Salisbury; Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Hardwicke; Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole; Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury; Colonial Secretary, Lord Stanley; War Secretary, General Peel; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli; First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir John Pakington; President of the Board of Control, Lord Ellenborough; President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Henley; First Commissioner of Works, Lord John Manners. Sir Fitzroy Kelly was Attorney-General; Sir Hugh Cairns, Solicitor-General; Mr. Inglis, Lord Advocate of Scotland; and Mr. Baillie, Solicitor-General. The Irish Government was composed as follows:—Viceroy, Earl of Eglinton; Lord Chancellor, Mr. Napier; Chief Secretary, Lord Naas; Attorney-General, Mr. Whiteside; Solicitor-General, Mr. Edmund Hayes. Lord Derby had made overtures to Mr. Gladstone, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord Grey, but all three declined.