1842].

ASSAULTS ON THE QUEEN-PARLIAMENT PROROGUED.

497

Ashley's bill for restraining the employment of women and children in mines and collieries was passed.* In this Session important alterations were made in the constitution of Courts of Bankruptcy. The Court of Review was formed of one judge instead of three judges; and District Courts of Bankruptcy were established. This amendment of the Bankruptcy Law was introduced by the Chancellor, lord Lyndhurst. Whilst parliament was sitting, two infamous assaults were made upon the person of the Sovereign. On the 30th of May John Francis, a young man under twenty years of age, fired a pistol at the Queen as she was returning to Buckingham Palace down Constitution Hill, in a barouche and four, accompanied by Prince Albert. Some rumour of the intended attempt upon the Queen's life had previously reached the Palace. Her Majesty, thinking of others rather than of herself, desired that none of the ladies in waiting should accompany her in her ride, which she would not forego for ambiguous threats that had reached the ears of the police. Francis, who had been immediately seized, was found guilty of high treason, and received the usual capital sentence, which on the 2nd of July was commuted into transportation for life. On the 3rd of July a deformed youth, named John William Bean, presented a pistol at her Majesty, but being seized by a bystander was prevented firing it. The mode in which the legislature dealt with offences of this nature was completely successful in putting an end to attempts which were odious and contemptible, having their origin in no feelings of public or private grievance, but were the results most probably, in each of the three cases which had shocked the public feeling, of a distempered imagination producing a morbid desire for notoriety. On the 12th of July sir Robert Peel brought in a bill for the better protection of the Queen's person. He proposed that any party not actually designing to take away the Queen's life, but intending to hurt her or alarm her, should be subject to transportation for a term not exceeding seven years; but that there should also be another punishment, more suitable to the offence and more calculated to repress it-a discretionary power of imprisonment with authority to inflict personal chastisement. What we have to guard against, said sir Robert Peel, is not any traitorous attempt against the peace of the nation by conspiring to take away the life of the Sovereign, but it is the folly or malignity of wretches who are guilty of acts prompted by motives which are scarcely assignable. The bill was rapidly passed through all its stages in both Houses.

On the 12th of August her Majesty prorogued parliament in person. The Queen's Speech necessarily adverted to the great financial and commercial measures of the Session, and expressed a trust that there were indications of a recovery from that depression which had affected many branches of manufacturing industry.

In the debate at the conclusion of the Session-a debate which was truly a passage-at-arms between lord Palmerston and sir Robert Peel-the Prime Minister said, that the non-ratification of treaties by France, and her delay in admitting our just claims, had been the consequences of that alienation, that irritable feeling, which either through the fault or the misfortune of the noble lord (Palmerston) had been the result of his foreign policy. "This

See Ante, p. 395.

VOL. VIII.

K K

498

RELATIONS WITH FRANCE-TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

[1842.

country," said sir Robert Peel, "has no feeling of hostility towards France. It was but the other day that we heard of the lamentable death of the duke of Orleans, the heir to the throne of France, with deep and universal regret and sympathy.' The duke of Orleans was thrown from his carriage and killed on the 13th of July. Twenty years ago, so different was the mode of transmitting intelligence from one country to the other, that the news of this event reached London by pigeon-carriers on the morning of the 14th.† The foreign policy of the British government was chiefly intrusted by sir Robert Peel to lord Aberdeen. M. Guizot has said of this able and honest member of the Cabinet:-"Like Peel, he desired that peace and justice should prevail in the mutual relations of States:-better than any one else, he knew how to discern and accept their conditions, and to employ only those means and that language which were calculated to secure their predominance, and by inspiring the men with whom he treated with confidence in his moderation and equity, he disposed them to deal with him in the same spirit." In the debate of the 14th of August, sir Robert Peel said, "We have no hostile, no irritable feeling towards France, neither have we any fear; we are too proud, too conscious of our own strength, to regard the power of France with apprehension; but we deprecate, for the interests of humanity, the interruption of friendly relations with that country."§ The Count de Jarnac, who succeeded M. Guizot in his embassy to England, had an interview with sir Robert Peel at this period, at which "in spite of his habitual reserve and laconicism," the Prime Minister strongly expressed his opinion upon the temper of the French government: "The recent policy of France has entirely alienated from you the party which sustains me. No one more often than myself has testified from its origin my respect and confidence for the actual government of France. I have supported it from the beginning with all my power against the convictions and antipathies of a great number of my partizans. I have never endeavoured to impede its march or augment its difficulties. But never have I foreseen that our relations would be placed in such a situation as I find them in to-day." Who, says Count Jarnac, shall fathom the depth of popular credulity? At this epoch Louis Philippe and his government were seriously accused of excessive condescension towards England, and sir Robert Peel and lord Aberdeen escaped not the reproach of extreme complaisance towards France.

It was in this year that lord Ashburton, having proceeded to the United States as a Special Commissioner, concluded a treaty which settled the question as to the boundary between Canada and the state of Maine. Sir Robert Peel, at the commencement of the Session of 1843, declared that the treaty which lord Ashburton had concluded at Washington in August 1842, established such a division of the disputed district as secured our British possessions in North America, and at the same time preserved our military communication intact. Subsequent circumstances have manifested that these

1842].

DISTURBANCES IN MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS.

499

results were not altogether obtained by what lord Palmerston called "the Ashburton Capitulation." *

On the day after the prorogation of Parliament a proclamation by the Queen was issued, setting forth that in divers parts of Great Britain multitudes of lawless and disorderly persons had assembled and with force and violence had entered into mines, mills, and manufactories, and by threats and intimidation had prevented those employed from following their usual occupation. The distress in the manufacturing districts had been most severe for a considerable time. Many employers had failed; mills were shut up; the poorrates were enormously increased; and Government was called upon to supply that aid for the relief of the distress which was beyond the management of local administrators of the Poor-Law. The working people upon the whole bore their privations with patience and fortitude; but in many places the Chartists were busy stirring them up to demand higher wages than the capitalists could afford out of their reduced means, although the workmen perfectly well knew that their employers were fast sinking into ruin. Strikes were unavailing; and then came riots. Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, encountered the crisis with decision and firmness. The system of railroads had enabled him to send troops rapidly to any scene of outrage, and their appearance was sufficient in any case to effect the restoration of tranquillity without a repetition of such sanguinary collisions as those of Manchester and Bristol at a past time. Some of the more dangerous Chartists, amongst whom was Feargus O'Connor, were held to bail, and during the first fortnight of October Special Commissions sat at Stafford, at Chester, and at Liverpool, for the trial of persons accused of riots and political offences, a great number of whom were convicted and sentenced either to transportation or to various terms of imprisonment.

When parliament met on the 2nd of February, 1843, the government had few subjects for exultation, which were not more than counter-balanced by circumstances calculated to weaken the confidence of the country, if not to inspire distrust and alarm. The treaty with the United States, the conclusion of the war with China, the final success of military operations in Afghanistan, were the favourable topics of the royal speech delivered by Commission. The diminished receipt from some of the ordinary sources of revenue, which it was acknowledged must be attributed to reduced consumption caused by depression of the manufacturing industry of the country, was a most significant index of the continuance of that depression which a few months before had produced serious violations of the public peace. There was no Amendment proposed to the Address. But very little time was suffered to elapse before the one great cause assigned for the stagnation of commerce, for the languor of manufacturing industry, for men working at half-time or wholly unemployed, was rung into the ears of the minister in parliament. That cause had been most effectually proclaimed throughout the country by a body of agitators more powerful in their wealth, their social position, their talents, and their perseverance, than had ever before been banded together to force upon an unwilling legislature a great measure of Reform.

*The boundary as finally agreed upon by the Treaty of 1842, is fully stated in the "English Cyclopædia," art. Canada, col. 276.

500

DEBATE ON THE DEPRESSION OF MANUFACTURES.

[1843. Against this dreaded Reform was arrayed a no less powerful combination of the noble and the exclusive classes, hounded on by orators and writers who took their stand upon the wisdom of their forefathers, and despised all opinions founded upon increasing knowledge. On the 13th of February lord Howick moved for a Committee to consider so much of her Majesty's Speech as referred to that depression of the manufacturing interest of the country which had so long prevailed. The debate was continued for five nights. It was on the fifth night that Mr. Cobden uttered one of those harangues which, making no pretensions to be eloquent, extorted conviction from a few, and respect from many, by their strong common sense, their logical array of facts, and their utter contempt for the conventionalities of party. It is time, he said, to give up bandying the terms Whig and Tory about from one side of the House to the other, and engage in a serious inquiry into the condition of the country. . . . "I tell the right honourable baronet that I, for one, care nothing for Whigs or Tories; I have said that I never will help to bring back the Whigs; but I tell him that the whole responsibility of the lamentable and dangerous state of the country rests with him." At the close of Mr. Cobden's speech sir Robert Peel rose with manifest emotion, and said, "the honourable gentleman has stated here very emphatically, what he has more than once stated at the Conferences of the Anti-Corn-Law League, that he holds me individually-individually responsible for the distress and suffering of the country; that he holds me personally responsible; but be the consequences of those insinuations what they may, never will I be influenced by menaces either in this House or out of this House, to adopt a course which I consider" The minister was unable to complete his sentence. Mr. Cobden denied that he had said that he held sir Robert Peel personally responsible. "You did!" was the cry from the ministerial benches; "You did!" said sir Robert Peel, It was some time before the orator, usually so calm and unimpassioned, could shake off this sensitiveness, to which the term extraordinary might be applied, if it had not been associated with a lamentable event that had occurred on the previous 21st of January. On that day Mr. Drummond, private Secretary of the Minister, was shot by a Scotchman of the name of Mac Naughten, who had come to London brooding over some supposed official injury, and had mistaken Mr. Drummond for sir Robert Peel. There was no political motive in this act; the man upon his subsequent trial was shown to be a maniac. But it produced a deep impression on the mind of sir Robert Peel; and when Mr. Cobden held him individually responsible for the state of the country, he considered that the words were an incentive to assassination. This extraordinary scene was concluded by Mr. Cobden disclaiming, amidst repeated interruptions, the meaning which had been ascribed to his words. declared that in what he stated he intended to throw the responsibility of his measures upon the right honourable baronet as the head of the government, and in using the word individually he used it as the minister himself used the first pronoun when he said "I passed the tariff, and you supported me." The construction which Mr. Cobden had put upon the language he employed was accepted by sir Robert Peel. But, says his biographer, "he accepted the explanation coldly, and still maintained an air of reserved distrust." M. Guizot adds, "Who can tell how much fatal poison may be

He

1843].

CORN-LAW DEBATE-SYSTEMATIC COLONIZATION.

501

He repeats a

contained in words uttered without any evil design?" sentiment which was expressed in a speech by Mr. Roebuck: "I ask the honourable member if he did not see the danger of such language? Passion does sometimes destroy people's judgment." The motion of lord Howick was finally rejected by a majority of a hundred and fifteen.

If the Corn-Laws were not on the point of being repealed, it was not for the want of perseverance in their parliamentary opposers. The general subject was directly and indirectly brought forward again and again; but on each occasion a large majority asserted the principle of protection. At the close of one debate, which had lasted five nights upon a motion by Mr. Villiers, Mr. Cobden declared that whatever might be the fate of the motion it would not have the slightest effect upon the progress of public opinion on this subject. The League would go on as it had hitherto done, and if there were any force in truth and justice, it would go on to an ultimate and not distant triumph. The landed and agricultural interests were so much alarmed by what they considered the coquettings of the government with free-trade, that when lord Stanley, as Secretary for the Colonies, proposed to impose a duty only of three shillings per quarter upon wheat imported from Canada, the more sensitive of the party shrieked out their horror of the Canadian Corn-bill as a free-trade measure. They were not soothed when they were told by Mr. T. Duncombe that " between their pledges to their constituents, their attachment to the government, and their antipathy to the Whigs, they were in a most unpleasant predicament. They smelt a rat; it was in the Canadian Corn-bill."* Skirmishes such as these occupied much of the time of the House during this Session. The Canadian Corn-bill passed—the one practical move towards a great change of policy, although its supporters did not clearly see where their steps were tending.

Important as was the question of the repeal of the Corn-Laws with reference to the condition of the great bulk of the people, there were legislators who could take a wider view of the circumstances of the country than was implied in the one prevailing cry of Cheap Bread. On the 6th of April Mr. Charles Buller moved an Address to the Queen on the subject of Systematic Colonization. His speech was a most able and comprehensive exposition of his belief that there was a permanent cause of the depression of industry, and the suffering of the people, in the constant accumulation of capital and the constant increase of population within the same restricted field of employment. He proposed Colonization as a means of remedying the competition both of Capital and Labour in this restricted field. He stated that Emigration had promised to be of little service until Mr. Wakefield propounded the theory of Colonization that goes by his name. The great principles of that theory were, the sale of colonial land, and the expenditure of the proceeds in carrying out labourers. The government opposed Mr. Buller's motion, upon the plea that it would raise false hopes in the public mind. Mr. Buller withdrew his proposal, but it was clear that, with or without an official inquiry, new principles of colonization would gradually take root and finally produce, in concurrence with the rapid development of the resources of a vast colonial empire, that refuge for a surplus population which has been attended