A.D. 1841.]

THE CAPTURE OF ACRE.

Lord John Russell had adopted the alternative placed before him by Mr. O'Connell to be either a Conservative or a Repealer. The noble lord replied, that he did not accept the dictum of the honourable member for Dublin, nor feel bound to his alternative of Conservatism or Repeal.

481

character formed and exalted by the institutions of a great and free country, and combining in a remarkable degree the qualities of valour and of prudence. Lord Stanley seconded the motion, which was warmly supported by several other Conservative members. On the 6th of April a letter from Sir Robert Stopford, acknowledging in suitable terms the vote of thanks, was read by the Speaker, and entered on the journals.

On the 4th of February, in the House of Lords, the Earl of Minto moved the thanks of the House to Admiral Sir Robert Stopford, G.C.B., and the officers and men under his command in the late operations on the coast of Syria. The Duke of Wellington, in terms of fortified sea-port, called St. Jean D'Acre by the Knights the most earnest and cordial nature, expressed his of Jerusalem. No town has suffered more from political

Acre, a celebrated city in ancient times, called Ptolemais, from Ptolemy, king of Egypt, was a strongly

admiration of the services performed by those engaged in revolution and the calamities of war. It was contended the glorious expedition under discussion. He considered for as a great prize by all the successive conquerors of the capture of Acre one of the greatest deeds of modern the East. It was possessed by the rulers of Egypt, times; but he thought it his duty to warn their lord- by the Romans, the Saracens, the Christian Crusaders, ships that they must not always expect that ships, and finally by the Turks. In the time of the Crusaders, however well commanded, or however gallant their it was populous and wealthy, containing numerous seamen might be, would be capable of engaging success-churches, convents, and hospitals, of which no traces fully with stone walls.

The vote was carried unanimously, and the next day Lord John Russell moved a similar vote of thanks in the Commons. He wished to observe that the successful result of the operations was owing in a great degree to the character of the men who had directed them-a VOL. VII. No. 353.

now remain. In 1799 the Turks, animated by the example of Sir Sidney Smith, defended it successfully against a siege of sixty-one days by Napoleon. It was besieged by Ibrahim Pasha in the winter of 1831-32, during five months and twenty-one days, when nearly all its public and private buildings were destroyed. Its

fortifications were subsequently repaired and improved tinople. Their characteristics were duplicity and by the Pasha of Egypt, but it could not stand long before the fire of British ships. On the 3rd of November, 1840, it was stormed by our fleet under Sir Robert Stopford, and reduced to ruin after a bombardment of a few hours, the Egyptians losing upwards of 2,000 in killed and wounded, and 3,000 prisoners, while the British had but 12 killed and 42 wounded. The town is situated at the extremity of a plain on the edge of the sea-shore, and at the point of a bay formed by the promontory of Mount Carmel on the south-east, and the termination of the plain on the north-east.

On the 6th of December the admiral transmitted to Mehemet Ali, the official authority from the British Government, in the name of the four Powers-England, France, Russia, and Austria-to maintain His Highness in the Pashalic of Egypt, upon the condition that, within three days after communication made to him by Captain Fanshaw, he would agree to restore the Turkish fleet to the Sultan, and evacuate Syria. The Pasha, in reply to this, expressed his sense of the forbearance shown to him, and said that he was anxious to act in the manner pointed out to him in the despatch. At the same time, he enclosed a communication addressed by him to the Grand Vizier, in which he professed his entire submission to the allies in the following terms:-" Always disposed to make the sacrifice of all that I possess, and of my life itself, in order that I may obtain the good graces of His Highness, and recognising that by the intervention of the allied powers the favour of my sovereign is restored to me, I have made the necessary dispositions, in order that the Ottoman fleet may be given up to such person, and in such manner, as it will please His Highness to order. The troops that were in Candia, in Arabia, and in the Holy Cities, are ready to retire; and their evacuation will take place without delay, as soon as the order of my Sovereign shall have reached me. As to Syria and Adana, I have learned, by a letter from Ibrahim Pasha, dated the last days of the Ramadan, and which came to my hands overland, that he had quitted Damascus on the 3rd or 4th of Cheval, with all the army, for the purpose of returning into Egypt. Syria is, consequently, wholly evacuated, and my act of obedience is thus accomplished. These facts coming to the knowledge of your Excellency, I hope that, in communicating them to our Sovereign and master, you will intercede with His Highness that he will restore to his confidence the oldest and most faithful of his servants."

venality of the grossest kind, while the characteristics of the Government were feebleness, irresolution, inactivity, faithlessness, and poverty. All over the country, access to the pashas, and a favourable decision on matters brought before them, were only obtainable by presents of money. The Custom House officers were regularly bribed to allow goods to pass at lower rates than the tariff, or without entering the Custom House at all. In the courts of justice decisions were openly bought, and no man who was not prepared to purchase the Cadi's favour need go there. In cases where disputes were carried to the pashas by the English and other consuls, the most profligate violation of promises and rights was made without shame or fear. The natural consequences were-insecurity of life and property, universal discontent, and contempt of the Government. The English occupation gave some relief while it lasted; and the common salutation addressed to an Englishman by a native on the road was, “May God send more of you!"

To return to events at home. The powers of the English Poor Law Commissioners, which had been limited to a period of five years, now expired. Accordingly, on the 29th of January, Lord John Russell moved in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill to continue the Poor Law Commission for a time, and for the further amendment of the laws relating to the poor in England. The discontent felt by the opponents of the measure was fanned into a flame by a portion of the press, which published every case of alleged mismanagement on the part of those invested with authority under the act, in order to prevent the renewal of the powers of the Commission. Mr. Wakley denounced the principle of the act as harsh and tyrannical, and the Commission as both expensive and useless. He was surprised that a ministry calling itself reformed should propose the re-enactment of such a law, after the experience they had had of its pernicious and most cruel working. The middle classes considered that the workhouse had been made a place of torture instead of protection, with a view to deter the poor from asking any assistance. Among the poor, the abhorrence of the only species of relief the law allowed was still more strong, He knew instances in which they preferred death from starvation to relief in the workhouse, coupled with the condition of being separated from their children. Sir Francis Burdett believed that the system could never be made palatable to the people of England. Men who loved public liberty could never be reconciled to the tribunal of Somerset House, and he hoped that that, at all events, would be abolished. Mr. Hume, on the other hand, maintained that great benefits had been conferred by the law; and the House ought to do their best to make it still more useful. Leave was given to bring in the bill, but on the second reading being moved, a long and important debate took place. Mr. Disraeli said that it It is scarcely possible to conceive a worse govern- was impossible to conceive any resolution more deeply ment than that which was restored by our arms in affecting the happiness of the people than the Poor Law. Syria. The public officers were supplied from Constan- | He was persuaded that the measure had produced much

The long-agitated question of the East was thus rapidly approaching a settlement; and on the 11th of January, 1841, Mehemet Ali gave up the whole of the Turkish fleet, which sailed away for Marmorice, under the command of the Turkish admiral, Walker; and about the same time a firman was sent from Constantinople, whereby the Sultan accorded to the Pasha the hereditary possession of Egypt.

A.D. 1841.]

DEBATE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE POOR LAW.

483

candidate. Mr. Walter, however-formerly M.P. for Berkshire, and well known as a principal proprietor of the Times-announced himself as a candidate, in opposition to Mr. Larpent. The politics of Mr. Walter were then strongly Conservative, but he took his stand boldly upon the ground of an uncompromising hostility to the new Poor Law. All other differences being merged in sympathy with him upon this question, he carried the election by a majority of 238-a result which produced quite a sensation throughout the country.

The Annual Report of the Irish Poor Law for this year showed that the total number of unions organised up to that time was 127, leaving only three to be formed, which would make the total number required. Fourteen of the workhouses had been completed. There had been an inquiry about the alleged falsification of certain returns from the offices of the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland. The result was to fix the blame upon the Secretary of the Commissioners, but as he had resigned his office in consequence, it was stated, of ill-health, the House of Lords, which had taken up the matter, agreed to waive further proceedings against him. The re-introduction by Lord Stanley of his bill to

disaffection, and he moved the second reading that day six months. Mr. Wakley seconded the amendment. The principle of this act, he said, "was a base and ferocious one, tending to stimulate the bone and muscle of this country to forcible resistance." Whatever the cruelties of oppression committed in the poor-house, the pauper had no appeal, no redress-he could not go out to complain. Mr. G. Knight remarked that it was an easy road to popularity to inveigh against the Poor Law. The enemies of the poor were not those who sought to raise their wages and improve their habits, but those who deluded them with a false sympathy. Mr. Muntz disliked the law because it made no distinction between the respectable and the dissolute poor. Sir Robert Peel observed that they were too apt to forget the past evils, and to dwell only on the present. They forgot how the old system had demoralised the labouring classes. He was for the continuance of the present act; but he hoped the law would not be executed with strict rigidity, and that in matters of feeling, such as churchyard burials, there would be a due deference to the material sentiments and wishes of the people. Mr. Fox Maule held that a central management was necessary, because so little were the boards of guardians fitted for the uncon-regulate the registration of voters in Ireland, led to trolled exercise of their duties, that there was hardly any abuse of the old system of which some one or other of those boards had not solicited the restoration. Viscount Howick believed that the act of 1834 was one of the most beneficial measures ever passed, and he rejoiced that no one had gone so far as to propose the restoration of the old system. Out-door relief, given under pressure, would be an example detrimental to the formation of provident habits. It had been objected that men would endure much suffering rather than enter the workhouse -that was the very thing desired. It threw them on their own efforts and the efforts of their friends. It was only on the abandonment of those efforts under the old system that the character and condition of the English peasantry declined. Lord John Russell answered the various arguments which had been brought forward against the measure, and entreated the House not to admit the recurrence of so injurious a state of things as that which existed under the old law, nor to seek popularity by undermining the independence of the labourers. The term of ten years for the continuance of the Com-voting previously enjoyed by persons who had a benemission was considered too long, and five years were proposed instead. The bill, however, was carried by a majority of 147; the numbers being-ayes, 201; noes, 54. The principle of the measure was thus affirmed by a very large majority; but the subsequent discussions upon the several clauses occupied a large portion of the time of the House during the session.

Notwithstanding what had been said in Parliament to show that the poor law was not condemned by public opinion, or that it was not unpopular with the middle and working classes, a remarkable proof of the contrary was given in the month of April at Nottingham. That borough had always been a stronghold of the Liberal party, and without some extraordinary excitement there would have been very little chance for a Conservative

much angry discussion, especially between the noble lord and Mr. O'Connell, who moved an amendment, which was rejected by a majority of 190. But two days after, Lord Morpeth brought in a Government bill for the same object. The main features of the plan were to abolish certificates; to make the register conclusive of the right to vote, except where disqualification subsequently appeared; to establish an annual revision of the registers, and to give a right of appeal equally to the claimant and the objector. The main point of difference between this and Lord Stanley's bill consisted in the tribunal to which the appeal was to be made. The Government proposed for this purpose the creation of a new court, consisting of three barristers of a certain standing. An additional feature of the Government bill was a proposal to settle the question of the basis of the franchise by fixing upon the Poor Law valuation as the standard; and the bill proposed to enact that every occupier of a tenement, under a holding of not less than fourteen years, of the annual value of £5, should have the right of

ficial interest of £10. The Conservatives complained of the unfairness of thus introducing by surprise a fundamental alteration in the elective franchise of Ireland, founded upon principles unknown both in England and Scotland. It was represented as a new Reform Bill for Ireland, tacked on as a postscript to a bill for amending the registration. The £5 franchise, it was argued, would in effect be little short of the introduction of universal suffrage. On account of this addition Lord Stanley strongly opposed the second reading. Not the least objection to the bill was the circumstance that it had been introduced under false colours and under false pretences. He saw in it another step in that line of policy so pecukar to the present administration, which they had pursued from the first moment of their existence until now, not

with a view of achieving any practical result, but for the sake of enabling themselves to maintain for a few years a struggling existence, and delude a portion of their supporters with a plausible semblance of concession.

the office of chief baron in Ireland. Mr. Sheil replied to Sir James Graham, after which the debate was adjourned the third time. On the fourth night Mr. O'Connell delivered a vehement speech, in which he alluded to the danger of a foreign war so long as Ireland continued dissatisfied. Sir R. Peel rebuked Mr. O'Connell for dwelling on the old animosities between England and Ireland, and declared that it was a libel on the Irish people to say that they would not join England in resistance to a foreign enemy. Referring to the policy of Lord Melbourne's Government, Sir Robert Peel said he could not help thinking, that when the noble lord recalled to mind the declarations of 1834 and 1837, it would abate something of the feeling of satisfaction with which he contemplated his temporary triumph over the pressure of immediate difficulties. Something of dissatisfaction in reflecting on the small majority he might bring to his aid to-night must cast a gloom over the festivities with which, perhaps, he might celebrate the new compact and the new alliance, when the mortifying regret came across

the position which had enabled him to arrest the progress of democratic principles, by stopping the progress of social improvement in Ireland, by encouraging hopes in this country, by rousing passions, and by exciting expectations which he could not disappoint without being the object of indignation, and which he could not gratify without being the fomenter of convulsion.

Lord Stanley's dissection of the measure, and his review of the political state of Ireland, which were very lengthened, and distinguished by remarkable ability, were calculated to produce a strong impression on the House. He was therefore answered by the chief secretary, Lord Morpeth. The clause which was called a postscript he regarded as the preface, or rather as the main portion of the text itself, without which the rest would have no chance of being brought to a satisfactory issue. Ministers were taunted with an excessive partiality to Ireland; but it should be recollected that the forty-shilling freeholders which existed in England had been disfranchised in Ireland to the number of 191,000. All the litigation in the registration courts, or before committees of the House, now turned upon questions of value; and the Irish judges themselves were divided in opinion as to the correct interpretation of the law, so that one interpreta-him that he had gained that support by receding from tion would restrict the franchise materially, while another enlarged it. The Government were satisfied that even a £5 rating would exclude many voters of the class which the former act was intended to admit. He trusted that the House, acting in the spirit of that measure, would guard the honest voter against many difficulties devised by Lord Stanley; and that they would give the preference to a measure conciliatory to the great body of their Irish fellow-subjects. The debate was adjourned. On the second night it was carried on with much spirit. Lord Howick approved of the principle of adopting the Poor Law rating as a test of value. He adverted to the progressive diminution of voters in Ireland, in consequence of the system which the landlords pursued of refusing to renew leases; and he thought the number would be still further reduced by Lord Stanley's bill. Mr. C. Buller asserted that the object of the opposite party was to re-establish the old Orange ascendancy; and he called forth expressions of disapprobation by advising the House to look not only to the strength and temper of the Irish people, but also to the critical state of our foreign relations. This, he said, was delicate ground to touch upon, but it should be remembered that all the great political acquisitions of Ireland had been made at such critical times. Mr. Macaulay next addressed the House, and the debate was again adjourned.

Mr. Serjeant Jackson, Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Milnes, and Sir James Graham spoke strongly against the bill, and the Government which introduced it, following Lord Stanley in attacking them for their Irish policy, and especially for their Irish appointments. Sir James Graham said that thirty-eight persons who had voted for repeal in 1834 had been since promoted. First on the list was Mr. Fitzsimon, a near relative of Mr. O'Connell, appointed to be clerk of the Hanaper; next Mr. Kennedy, now a slave commissioner at the Havannah; next Mr. Lynch, now a master in Chancery; then Mr. Maurice O'Connell, placed over the Registry Office in Dublin; Sir David Roche, made a baronet; and Mr. O'Connell himself, offered

After an effective reply from Lord John Russell, the House divided on the respective merits of the rival bills, when the Government measure was carried by a majority of five. The result was hailed with cheers from both sides of the House, the Opposition regarding the victory as little better than a defeat. Lord John Russell at first announced that he would proceed immediately with the measure, but he afterwards moved its postponement till the 23rd of April. Then Lord Stanley, amidst the vehement cheers of his party, declared that he would take the sense of the House upon the £5 rating.

In Ireland the followers of Mr. O'Connell regarded the postponement of Lord Morpeth's bill till after the Easter recess as a piece of finesse to foil Lord Stanley's measure, and get rid of an unpleasant subject. The repealers argued there was no use in hanging back any longer, that there was nothing to be hoped for from English justice, and that they must put forth all their energies to obtain an Irish Parliament. Mr. John O'Connell, at a public meeting, exclaimed-"Let the English choose between these two bills; let them confer the blessings of Lord Morpeth's bill, or inflict the deep, determined curse of which Lord Stanley's bill would be the source. England now do justice to Ireland, or, so sure as to-morrow's sun will rise, Ireland will yet refuse her assistance in the hour of need."

Let

There was a vital principle at issue between Lord Stanley and the Government on the subject of the franchise. The bill of the former was based upon the principle that the tenant should have an interest in his holding above the rent. This would place the franchise altogether at the mercy of the landlords, the rents in

A.D. 1841.]

DEFEAT OF THE MELBOURNE MINISTRY.

Ireland being generally equal to the full value of the land, if not more, and the franchise being connected with leases which the landlords were at liberty to give or to withhold, and which they would not give unless to tenants upon whose political support they could rely. This fact was proved by the gradual diminution of the constituency arising from this cause. The principle of the Government bill, on the other hand, was to make the franchise dependent upon a certain amount of rating for the support of the poor, which was based upon the real value of the land, and upon occupation independently of leases.

When the question was introduced again, on the 26th of April, it gave rise to a party debate. While the House was in committee on Lord Morpeth's bill, Lord Howick proposed an amendment to the effect that the tenant, in order to entitle him to the franchise, should have a beneficial interest in his holding of £5 a-year over and above the rent. Lord Morpeth proposed as a qualification for the franchise a lease of fourteen years, and a low rating of £8. Lord Howick proposed that the yearly tenant should be entitled to vote as well as the leaseholder if he had an annual interest of £5 in it; but Lord Morpeth contended, and showed from statistics, that this principle would disfranchise more than three-fourths of the £10 tenant voters in several of the counties. In short, it would have the effect of almost entirely disfranchising the existing occupying constituency of Ireland. As the law stood, the Irish electors were being diminished at the rate of 5,000 a-year; and Mr. O'Connell affirmed that the county constituency had decreased to the number of 20,000 since the Reform Act passed. Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel declared that they would vote for the principle of Lord Howick's amendment.

485

ment bill, an £8 rating, 289; against it, 300; majority against the Government, 11.

Sir Robert Peel observed that to conciliate one or two individual members the Government had raised the rating test of franchise from £5 to £8—a change which, judging by returns from thirty-one unions, swept away 76,000 out of the proposed constituency of 103,000. Such uncalled-for concessions, he said, must destroy all confidence in the adherence of a Government even to its own propositions. At the conclusion of this speech a great majority of the members quitted the House, leaving a comparatively small audience to Lord Howick, who briefly attempted to justify his own. course. Lord Stanley said a few words, and the Chairman left the chair. Thus ended the great party struggle of the

session. A vast deal of time was wasted in party debates and fruitless discussions, and the proposal to give the Irish people the benefit of the Reform Act by putting its perishing constituencies on a proper basis, simple as it may seem, utterly failed. Lord Stanley also abandoned his measure, and there the matter ended. The whole of the proceedings plainly indicated that the doom of Lord Melbourne's feeble Cabinet was at hand. A movement was made in Parliament during the present session to place the Jews on a level with their fellow-subjects in respect to their civil rights. Up to this time they were excluded by law not only from seats in Parliament, but from the magistracy and towncouncils, as no one could enter these bodies without taking the oath of allegiance, "on the true faith of a Christian," which of course could not be done conscientiously by Jews. This small but valuable class of the community bore their exclusion quietly, and the question of Jewish Emancipation excited but little attention. Mr. Divett, one of the members for Exeter, Sir Robert, however, said that the question before brought in a bill the object of which was to do away the House was of another kind. It was not whether the with the declaration required by the Municipal Corporafranchise should be co-extensive with the population; the tions Act, from all persons taking corporate offices, by question which arose was this, whether Her Majesty's reason of which the members of the Jewish persuasion Government had made a provision on the subject which were debarred from holding civil magistracies. It was entitled them to the confidence of the House, and he opposed on the second reading by Sir Robert Inglis, must say that the course they had pursued on the Irish who earnestly protested against surrendering the prinfranchise appeared to him to disentitle them to the con- ciple of the constitution, by which all civil authority fidence of the House and the country. This statement had been confined to the professors of Christianity. was received with vehement cheering by the Opposition. Lord John Russell supported the bill, and said he was On a division, Lord Howick's amendment was carried willing to go further, and admit Jews to Parliament, by 291 to 270. Lord Howick subsequently stated that should they demand that concession. On a division, he meant his clause to be merely an addition to some the second reading of the bill was carried in a thin other franchise which would secure a large constituency. House, by a majority of 113, only 24 members voting And Lord Morpeth explained that Lord Howick's argu- in a minority. The principle of the bill was again disment in favour of a £5 beneficial interest had not been cussed on the third reading, when a debate occurred resisted by the Government as an addition to their £8 which was remarkably interesting, on account of masqualification, but as a substitution for it; and on this £8 terly speeches by two of the greatest orators of their qualification they were determined to take the opinion time, Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Macaulay. of the House. After much discussion, and considerable Mr. Gladstone argued that it was not possible to confusion, the House came to the point of real interest-draw a line between a bill to admit Jews to municipal namely, the division, which was supposed to involve offices and one to permit them to hold other offices, the fate of the Government, and was, therefore, antici- including seats in Parliament. To this he objected, pated with intense eagerness and anxiety. The numbers on the following grounds: the Jew's profession was were found to be-for the main clause of the Govern-in itself a disqualification for legislative offices in a