After the lapse19 of a week the House of Commons met again on the 13th of May, when Lord John Russell immediately rose and stated that since he had last addressed them Sir Robert Peel had received authority from her Majesty20 to form a new Administration; and the right hon. baronet having failed, her Majesty had been graciously pleased to permit that gentleman to state the circumstances which led to the failure. Sir Robert Peel then proceeded to detail all the facts necessary for the explanation of his position to the country. He had waited upon the Queen according to her desire, conveyed at the suggestion of the Duke of Wellington, who had been sent for by her Majesty in the first instance. The Queen candidly22 avowed23 to him that she had parted with her late Administration with great regret, as they had given her entire satisfaction. No one, he said, could have expressed feelings more natural and more becoming than her Majesty did on this[462] occasion, and at the same time principles more strictly24 constitutional with respect to the formation of a new Government. He stated his sense of the difficulties a new Government would have to encounter; but having been a party to the vote that led to those difficulties, nothing should prevent him from tendering to her Majesty every assistance in his power. He accordingly, the next day, submitted the following list for her approval in the formation of a new Ministry:—The Duke of Wellington, Lord Lyndhurst, Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, Sir Henry Hardinge, and Mr. Goulburn. It was not until Thursday that any difficulty or misconception arose to lead to his relinquishing25 his attempt to form an Administration. His difficulty related to the Ladies of the Household. With reference to all the subordinate appointments below the rank of a Lady of the Bedchamber he proposed no change; and he had hoped that all above that rank would have relieved him of any difficulty by at once relinquishing their offices. This not having been done, he had a verbal communication with her Majesty on the subject, to which he received next day a written answer as follows:—
"Buckingham Palace,
"May 10th, 1839.
"The Queen having considered the proposal made to her yesterday by Sir Robert Peel to remove the Ladies of her Bedchamber, cannot consent to adopt a course which she conceives to be contrary to usage, and which is repugnant to her feelings."
To this communication Sir Robert Peel returned the following reply:—"Sir Robert Peel presents his humble27 duty to your Majesty, and has had the honour of receiving your Majesty's note this morning. Sir Robert Peel trusts that your Majesty will permit him to state to your Majesty his impression with respect to the circumstances which have led to the termination of his attempts to form an Administration for the conduct of your Majesty's service. In the interview with which you honoured Sir Robert Peel yesterday morning, after he had submitted to your Majesty the names of those he proposed to recommend to your Majesty for the principal executive appointments, he mentioned to your Majesty his earnest wish to be enabled, by your Majesty's sanction, so to constitute your Majesty's Household that your Majesty's confidential28 servants might have the advantage of a public demonstration3 of your Majesty's full support and confidence, and at the same time, so far as possible, consistent with such demonstration, each individual appointment in the Household should be entirely29 acceptable to your Majesty's personal feelings. On your Majesty's expressing a desire that the Earl of Liverpool should hold an office in the Household, Sir Robert Peel immediately requested your Majesty's permission at once to confer on Lord Liverpool the office of Lord Steward30, or any other office which he might prefer. Sir Robert Peel then observed that he should have every wish to apply a similar principle to the chief appointments which are filled by the Ladies of your Majesty's Household; upon which your Majesty was pleased to remark, that you must retain the whole of these appointments, and that it was your Majesty's pleasure that the whole should continue as at present, without any change. The Duke of Wellington, in the interview to which your Majesty subsequently admitted him, understood also that this was your Majesty's determination, and concurred31 with Sir Robert Peel in opinion that, considering the great difficulties of the present crisis, and the expediency32 of making every effort, in the first instance, to conduct the public business of the country with the aid of the present Parliament, it was essential to the success of the mission with which your Majesty had honoured Sir Robert Peel that he should have such public proof of your Majesty's entire support and confidence, as would be afforded by the permission to make some changes in your Majesty's Household, which your Majesty resolved on maintaining entirely without change. Having had the opportunity, through your Majesty's gracious consideration, of reflecting upon this point, he humbly33 submits to your Majesty that he is reluctantly compelled, by a sense of public duty, and of the interests of your Majesty's service, to adhere to the opinion which he ventured to express to your Majesty." Subsequent explanations proved that the gaucherie of Sir Robert Peel was chiefly responsible for the crisis. He was right in principle, but he was wrong in the abrupt34 manner in which he appeared to force the change of the Ladies upon the Queen. The Duke, with his usual shrewdness, had foreseen that the accession of a female Sovereign would place the Conservatives at a disadvantage, because, said he, "Peel has no manners, and I have no small talk."
On the following evening Lord Melbourne, having explained why he resigned, said, "And now, my lords, I frankly36 declare that I resume office unequivocally and solely37 for this reason, that I will not abandon my Sovereign in a situation[463] of difficulty and distress38, and especially when a demand is made upon her Majesty with which I think she ought not to comply—a demand, in my opinion, inconsistent with her personal honour, and which, if acquiesced39 in, would make her reign8 liable to all the changes and variations of political parties, and render her domestic life one constant scene of unhappiness and discomfort40." The Whigs, therefore, returned to office, but not to power.
As soon as the Ministry had been restored, the House reassembled for the election of a new Speaker in the room of Mr. Abercromby, who had declared his intention of resigning, having no longer sufficient strength to perform the arduous41 duties imposed on him by his office. When his intention was announced, he received, through Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, the highest testimony42 of the esteem43 in which he was held by the two great parties, not only for his conduct in the Chair, but also for his strenuous44 exertions45 to improve the mode of conducting the private business of the House. This was in accordance with precedent46, but as a matter of fact Mr. Abercromby was a very weak Speaker, and his ruling had been repeatedly questioned by the House. He was chosen Speaker in 1835. On his resignation of that office he was raised to the peerage as Lord Dunfermline. Mr. Handley nominated Mr. Shaw Lefevre, member for North Hants, as a person eminently47 qualified48 to succeed to the vacant chair. Mr. Williams Wynn, a member of great experience and reputation in the House, proposed Mr. Goulburn, member for the University of Cambridge. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilson Patten. It was a party contest, and tested the strength of the Ministry and the Opposition49. The House divided on the motion that Mr. Shaw Lefevre do take the Chair, which was carried by a majority of eighteen, the numbers being 317 and 299.
Since the year 1833 the sum of £20,000 was all that had been granted by Parliament for popular education. Up to this time the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society had, without distinction of party, enjoyed an equitable50 proportion of the benefit of this grant. The Government were now about to propose an increase, but they determined51 at the same time to change the mode of its distribution, and their plan gave rise to a great deal of discussion on the subject during the Session. The intentions of the Government were first made known by Lord John Russell on the 12th of February when he presented certain papers, and gave an outline of his views. He proposed that the President of the Council and other Privy52 Councillors, not exceeding five, should form a Board, to consider in what manner the grants made by Parliament should be distributed, and he thought that the first object of such a Board should be the establishment of a good normal school for the education of teachers. Lord John said that he brought forward the plan not as a faultless scheme of education, but as that which, on consideration, he thought to be the most practical in the present state of the country. The new committee on the 3rd of June passed several resolutions, one of which was that in their opinion the most useful applications of any sums voted by Parliament would consist in the employment of those moneys in the establishment of a normal school, under the direction of the State, and not under the management of a voluntary society. They admitted, however, that they experienced so much difficulty in reconciling the conflicting views respecting the provisions they were desirous of making—in order that the children and teachers instructed in the school should be duly trained in the principles of the Christian53 religion, while the rights of conscience should be respected—that it was not in their power to mature a plan for the accomplishment54 of their design without further consideration. Meanwhile the committee recommended that no grant should thenceforth be made for the establishment or support of normal schools, or any other schools, unless the right of inspection56 were retained, in order to secure a conformity57 to the regulations and discipline established in the several schools, with such improvements as might from time to time be suggested by the committee. The day after the committee had adopted these resolutions Lord Ashley moved a call of the House for the 14th of June, when Lord John Russell, in seconding the motion, stated that Government did not intend to insist upon their proposal to found a normal school. This was a weak concession58 to the Church party, but it did not prevent Lord Stanley, the author of a similar measure for Ireland, from attacking the Bill with the full violence of his eloquence59. The vote was to be increased to £30,000. The House, after a debate of three nights, divided, when the grant was voted by a majority of only two. On the 5th of July the subject of education was introduced to the notice of the Lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who defended the Church, and objected to the giving of Government grants in a manner calculated to promote religious dissent61. He[464] was answered by the Marquis of Lansdowne. The Bishop60 of Exeter, the Bishop of London, and several other prelates addressed the House, and gave their views on this great question. The Archbishop of Canterbury had brought forward a series of resolutions embodying62 the Church views of the subject. These Lord Brougham vigorously opposed. The House divided on the previous question, when the first resolution, the only one put to the vote, was carried by a majority of 111. This resolution condemned63 the Order in Council, and in consequence of it the Lords went in a body to the Queen to offer their remonstrance64 against the proposed change in the mode of distributing the grant. The remaining resolutions were voted without a division. Nevertheless the Ministry succeeded in carrying a modified scheme, by which it was provided that the inspectors65 to be appointed by the Committee of the Privy Council should be chosen with the approval of the Bishops66, and should present their reports to the bishop of their diocese as well as to the Committee of the Privy Council. Thus the Church practically monopolised the grant.
The year 1839 will be always memorable67 for the establishment of the system of a uniform penny postage, one of those great reforms distinguishing the age in which we live, which are fraught68 with vast social changes, and are destined69 to fructify70 throughout all time with social benefits to the human race. To one mind pre-eminently the British Empire is indebted for the penny postage. We are now so familiar with its advantages, and its reasonableness seems so obvious, that it is not easy to comprehend the difficulties with which Sir Rowland Hill had to contend in convincing the authorities and the public of the wisdom and feasibility of his plan. Mr. Rowland Hill had written a pamphlet on Post Office Reform in 1837. It took for its starting-point the fact that whereas the postal71 revenue showed for the past twenty years a positive though slight diminution72, it ought to have shown an increase of £507,700 a year, in order to have simply kept pace with the growth of population, and an increase of nearly four times that amount in order to have kept pace with the growth of the analogous73 though far less exorbitant74 duties imposed on stage coaches. The population in 1815 was 19,552,000; in 1835 it had increased to 25,605,000. The net revenue arising from the Post Office in 1815 was £1,557,291; in 1835 it had decreased to £1,540,300. At this period the rate of postage actually imposed (beyond the limits of the London District Office) varied75 from fourpence to one and eightpence for a single letter, which was interpreted to mean a single piece of paper, not exceeding an ounce in weight. A second piece of paper or any other enclosure, however small, constituted a double letter. A single sheet of paper, if it at all exceeded an ounce in weight, was charged with fourfold postage. The average charge on inland general post letters was nearly ninepence for each letter. In London the letter-boxes were only open from eight in the morning to seven p.m., and a letter written after that hour on Friday did not reach Uxbridge earlier than Tuesday morning.
These mischiefs76 it was proposed wholly to remove by enacting79 that "the charge for primary distribution—that is to say, the postage on all letters received in a post town, and delivered in the same or in any other post town in the British Isles—shall be at the uniform rate of one penny for each half-ounce; all letters and other papers, whether single or multiple, forming one packet, and not weighing more than half an ounce, being charged one penny, and heavier packets to any convenient limit being charged an additional penny for each additional half-ounce." And it was further proposed that stamped covers should be sold to the public at such a price as to include the postage, which would thus be collected in advance. By the public generally, and preeminently by the trading public, the plan was received with great favour. By the functionaries80 of the Post Office it was at once denounced as ruinous, and ridiculed81 as fanciful. Lord Lichfield, then Postmaster-General, said of it in the House of Lords, "Of all the wild and visionary schemes I ever heard, it is the most extravagant82." On another occasion, he assured the House that if the anticipated increase of letters should be realised, "the mails will have to carry twelve times as much in weight, and therefore the charge for transmission, instead of £100,000, as now, must be twelve times that amount. The walls of the Post Office would burst; the whole area in which the building stands would not be large enough to receive the clerks and the letters." In the course of the following year (1838) petitions were poured into the House of Commons. A select Committee was appointed, which held nearly seventy sittings, and examined nearly eighty-three witnesses in addition to the officers of the department. Its report weakly recommended the substitution of a twopenny for a penny rate, but this was overruled by the Cabinet. During the Session of Parliament that followed the presentation of[465] this report, about 2,000 petitions in favour of penny postage were presented to both Houses, and at length the Chancellor83 of the Exchequer84 brought in a Bill to enable the Treasury85 to carry it into effect. The measure was carried in the House of Commons by a majority of 100, and became law on the 17th of August, 1839. A new but only temporary office under the Treasury was created, to enable Mr. Hill to superintend (although, as it proved, with very inadequate86 arrangements) the working out of his plan. The first step taken was to reduce, on the 5th of December, 1839, the London district postage to one penny, and the general inland postage to fourpence, the half ounce, except as respected places to which letters were previously87 carried at lower rates, these rates being continued. On the 10th of January, 1840, the uniform penny rate came into operation throughout the United Kingdom; the scale of weight advancing from one penny for each of the first two half-ounces, by gradations of twopence for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce, up to sixteen ounces. The postage was to be prepaid, or charged at double rates, and Parliamentary franking was abolished. Postage stamps were introduced on the 6th of May following. The facilities of despatch88 were soon afterwards increased, especially by the establishment of day mails. But on the important points of simplification in the internal economy of the Post Office, with the object of reducing its cost without diminishing its working power, very little was done. For the time being the loss incurred89 by the change was more than £1,000,000.
SIR ROWLAND HILL, 1847.
[See larger version]
Nevertheless, the results actually attained90 in the first two years were briefly91 these: first, the[466] chargeable letters delivered in the United Kingdom, exclusive of that part of the Government's correspondence which formerly92 passed free, had already increased from the rate of about 75,000,000 a year to that of 208,000,000; secondly93, the London district post letters had increased from about 13,000,000 to 23,000,000, or nearly in the ratio of the reduction of the rates; thirdly, the illicit94 conveyance95 of letters was substantially suppressed; fourthly, the gross revenue, exclusive of repayments96, yielded about a million and a half per annum, which was sixty-three per cent. on the amount of the gross revenue of 1839, the largest income which the Post Office had ever afforded. These results, at so early a stage, and in the face of so many obstructions97, amply vindicated98 the policy of the new system. But by its enemies that system was declared to be a failure, until the striking evidence of year after year silenced opposition by an exhaustive process.
The Parliamentary proceedings100 of 1839 were closed by an elaborate review of the Session by Lord Lyndhurst, which he continued annually101 for some time while the Liberals were in power. This display took place on the 24th of August, when the noble and learned lord moved for a return of all Bills that had arrived from the House of Commons since the commencement of the Session, with the dates at which they were brought up. He could point to the fact that Ministers had with difficulty carried a colourless Jamaica Bill, and had once more failed to pass the Irish Corporation Bill.
In fact the Ministry remained deplorably weak, despite the numerous changes in the Cabinet. The Marquis of Normanby, who had been a failure at the Home Office, changed places with Lord John Russell, who went to the Colonial Office. Mr. Francis Baring was made Chancellor of the Exchequer in the place of the most incompetent102 financier of modern times, Mr. Spring-Rice, who was raised to the peerage by the title of Baron21 Monteagle, and soon afterwards appointed Comptroller of the Exchequer, with a salary of £2,000 a year; Sir John Newport having retired103 from that post on a pension. The Earl of Clarendon became Lord Privy Seal, and Mr. Macaulay Secretary at War, with a seat in the Cabinet in the room of Viscount Howick, who had quitted the Administration because he had disapproved of the political import of the changes, taken altogether, and they were unalterably fixed without seeking his concurrence104. Mr. Charles Wood, the brother-in-law of Lord Howick, also resigned shortly afterwards, and Sir Charles Grey was refused promotion105.
The proceedings of Parliament having ceased to occupy public attention, the time had come for political demonstrations of various kinds in the country, giving expression to the feelings that had been excited by the state of public affairs and the conduct of the Government. The first and most remarkable106 of these was a banquet, given at Dover, on the 30th of August, to the Duke of Wellington as Lord Warden107 of the Cinque Ports, at which nearly 2,000 persons sat down to dinner. The toast of the day was proposed by Lord Brougham, who occupied a peculiar108 position, as a Liberal ex-Chancellor opposing a Liberal Administration, and wishing to see them supplanted109 by their Conservative opponents. He was greeted with tumultuous cheering when he rose to propose the health of the Duke of Wellington. He had, according to Greville, intruded110 himself upon the company, and made a speech in which bombast111 alternated with eloquence. The reply of the Duke of Wellington was a perfect contrast to Brougham's oratorical112 flight, in its quietness and modesty113. But if the great chiefs of the Conservative party were moderate in the expression of their feelings during the vacation, some of their followers114 went to the opposite extreme of violence and indiscretion. At a dinner of the Conservative Registration Society, on the 30th of October, Mr. Bradshaw, the member for Canterbury, dared to speak of the young Queen in the following terms:—"Brought up under the auspices115 of the citizen King of the Belgians, the serf of France, and guided by his influence, the Queen thinks if the monarchy116 lasts her time, it is enough," and so on. In proportion to the violence of the manifestations117 of disloyalty among the Tories, was the fervour of loyalty118 evinced by Mr. O'Connell and his followers in Ireland. At a meeting at Bandon, on the 5th of December, the famous agitator119, in the midst of tremendous cheering, the entire assembly rising in response to the concluding appeal, said:—"We must be, we are, loyal to our young and lovely Queen. God bless her! We must be, we are, attached to the Throne, and to the lovely being by whom it is filled. She is going to be married. God bless the Queen! I am a father and a grandfather; and in the face of heaven I pray with as much honesty and fervency120 for Queen Victoria as I do for any of my own progeny121."
THE PRINCE CONSORT122.
FROM THE PAINTING BY F. X. WINTERHALTER IN THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
[See larger version]
In the meanwhile her Majesty was pleased to communicate to the members of the Privy Council assembled at Buckingham Palace on the 23rd of[467] November, her intention of contracting an alliance with a Prince of the family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The story of her affection for her cousin is well known through Sir Theodore Martin's admirable "Life of the Prince Consort." The declaration was made by her Majesty in the following terms:—"I have caused you to be summoned at the present time in order that I may acquaint you with my resolution in a matter which deeply concerns the welfare of my people and the happiness of my future life. It is my intention to ally myself in marriage with the Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Deeply impressed with the solemnity of the engagement which I am about to contract, I have not come to this decision without mature consideration, nor without feeling a strong assurance that, with the blessing123 of Almighty124 God, it will at once secure my domestic felicity, and serve the interests of my country. I have thought fit to make this resolution known to you at the earliest period, in order that you may be fully125 apprised126 of a matter so highly important to me and to my kingdom, and which, I persuade myself, will be most acceptable to all my loving subjects." Upon this announcement the Council humbly requested that her Majesty's most gracious declaration might be made public, which her Majesty was pleased to order accordingly.
The approaching marriage of the Queen was anticipated by the nation with satisfaction. We have seen, from the height to which party spirit ran, that it was extremely desirable that she should have a husband to stand between her and such unmanly attacks as those of Mr. Bradshaw. An occurrence, however, took place in the early part of the year very painful in its nature, which added much to the unpopularity of the Court. This was the cruel suspicion which was cast upon Lady Flora Hastings by some of the ladies about the Queen, and is supposed to have caused her early death. She was one of the ladies in attendance on the Duchess of Kent; and soon after her arrival at Court it was generally surmised127, from the appearance of her person, that she had been privately128 married, the consequence of which was that, in order to clear her character, which was perfectly129 blameless, she was compelled to submit to the humiliation130 of a medical examination. Shortly afterwards she died of the disease which was suspected to be pregnancy131, and the public feeling was intensified132 by the publication of the acrimonious133 correspondence which had taken place between her mother on the one side and Lady Portman and Lord Melbourne on the other.
The Session of 1840 was opened by the Queen in person. The first two paragraphs of the Royal Speech contained an announcement of the coming marriage. The Speech contained nothing else very definite or very interesting; and the debate on the Address was remarkable for nothing more than its references to the royal marriage. The Duke of Wellington warmly concurred in the expressions of congratulation. He had, he said, been summoned to attend her Majesty in the Privy Council when this announcement was first made. He had heard that the precedent of the reign of George III. had been followed in all particulars except one, and that was the declaration that the Prince was a Protestant. He knew he was a Protestant, he was sure he was of a Protestant family; but this was a Protestant State, and although there was no doubt about the matter, the precedent of George III. should have been followed throughout, and the fact that the Prince was a Protestant should be officially declared. The Duke, therefore, moved the insertion of the word "Protestant" before the word "Prince" in the first paragraph of the Address. Lord Melbourne considered the amendment altogether superfluous134. The Act of Settlement required that the Prince should be a Protestant, and it was not likely that Ministers would advise her Majesty to break through the Act of Settlement. The precedent which the Duke had endeavoured to establish was not a case in point, for George III. did not declare to the Privy Council that the Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz was a Protestant, but only that she was descended135 from a long line of Protestant ancestors. All the world knew that the Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg was a Protestant, and that he was descended from the most emphatically Protestant house in Europe. But the House decided136 to insert the phrase.
On the 20th of January a Bill was introduced to the House of Lords for the naturalisation of the Prince. By this Act, which passed the next day through the House of Commons, the Prince was declared already exempt137, by an Act passed in the sixth year of George IV., from the obligations that had previously bound all persons to receive the Lord's Supper within one month before exhibition of a Bill for their naturalisation. And the Bill was permitted to be read the second time without his having taken the oaths of Supremacy138 and Allegiance, as required by an Act passed in the first year of George I. But on the second reading in the House of Lords the Duke of Wellington objected that it was not merely a Bill[468] for naturalising the Prince, but that it also contained a clause which would enable him, "during the term of his natural life, to take precedence in rank after her Majesty in Parliament, and elsewhere as her Majesty might think fit and proper," any law, statute140, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. The Duke of Wellington stated that as the title of the Bill said nothing about precedence, the House had not received due notice of its contents; he therefore moved the adjournment142 of the debate. Lord Melbourne remarked that the omission143 was purely144 accidental and, in his opinion, of no importance; at the same time he admitted that this Bill did differ in form from other similar Bills, as it gave the Queen power to bestow145 on Prince Albert a higher rank than was assigned to Prince George of Denmark, or to Prince Leopold. But the reason for the difference was to be found in the relative situation of the parties. Lord Brougham, however, pointed2 out a practical difficulty that might possibly arise. According to the proposed arrangement, if the Queen should die before there was any issue from the marriage, the King of Hanover would reign in this country, and his son would be Prince of Wales. Prince Albert would thus be placed in the anomalous146 position of a foreign naturalised Prince, the husband of a deceased Queen, with a higher rank than the Prince of Wales. Lord Londonderry decidedly objected to giving a foreign Prince precedence over the Blood Royal. In consequence of this difference of opinion the debate was adjourned147 till the following week, when the Lord Chancellor stated that he would propose that power should be given to the Crown to allow the Prince to take precedence next after any Heir Apparent to the Throne. Subsequently, however, Lord Melbourne expressed himself so anxious that it should pass with all possible expedition, that he would leave out everything about precedence, and make it a simple Naturalisation Bill, in which shape it immediately passed.
The question of the Prince's income was not so easily disposed of. On the 24th of January, Lord John Russell, having moved that the paragraph relating to the subject should be read, quoted, as precedents148 for the grant he was about to propose, the instances of Prince George of Denmark, Prince Leopold, and Queen Adelaide. As far as he could judge by precedent in these matters, £50,000 a year was the sum generally allotted149 to princes in the situation of the Prince Consort to the Queen of England. He therefore moved—"That her Majesty be enabled to grant an annual sum not exceeding £50,000 out of the Consolidated150 Fund, as a provision to Prince Albert, to commence on the day of his marriage with her Majesty, and to continue during his life." The debate having been adjourned for a few days, Mr. Hume moved, as an amendment, that only £21,000 should be granted. Colonel Sibthorpe moved that £30,000 be the sum allowed. Mr. Goulburn was in favour of that sum. The amendment proposed by Mr. Hume was lost by a majority of 305 against 38. When Colonel Sibthorpe's amendment became the subject of debate, Lord John Russell, alluding151 to professions of respect made by Lord Elliot for her Majesty, and of care for her comfort, said: "I cannot forget that no Sovereign of this country has been insulted in such a manner as her present Majesty has been." Lord Elliot and Sir James Graham rose immediately to protest against this insinuation, as in all respects most uncalled-for and unjustifiable. The House then divided on the amendment, which was carried by a very large majority, the numbers being—ayes, 262; noes, 158: majority for the sum of £30,000, 104. Such a signal defeat of the Government, on a question in which the Sovereign naturally felt a deep interest, was calculated to produce a profound impression upon the country, and in ordinary circumstances would have led to a change of Ministry; but it was regarded as the result of an accidental combination between heterogeneous152 materials, and therefore Lord Melbourne did not feel called upon to resign. However, the decisions caused, says Sir Theodore Martin, considerable pain and vexation to the Queen.
A remarkable conflict took place this year between the jurisdiction153 of the House of Commons and that of the Court of Queen's Bench, which excited great interest at the time, and has important bearings upon the constitutional history of the country. The following is a brief narrative154 of the facts out of which it arose:—In the year 1835 a Bill was proposed in the House of Lords by the Duke of Richmond for the purpose of appointing inspectors of prisons. The inspectors were appointed, and, in the discharge of their duty, reported on the state of Newgate. The House ordered the report to be printed and sold by the Messrs. Hansard. In this report it was stated that the inspectors of that gaol155 found amongst the books used by the prisoners one printed by John Joseph Stockdale in 1827, which they said was "a book of the most disgusting nature, and the plates are obscene and indecent in the extreme." On the 7th of November, 1836, Stockdale[469] brought an action for libel against the Messrs. Hansard for the sale of this report, which was alleged156 to be false. Sir John Campbell, who was counsel for the defendants157, argued that the report was a privileged publication, being printed by the authority of the House of Commons, and on that ground they were entitled to a verdict. But Lord Denman, in his charge to the jury, said: "I entirely disagree from the law laid down by the learned counsel for the defendants. My direction to you, subject to a question hereafter, is, that the fact of the House of Commons having directed Messrs. Hansard to publish all the Parliamentary Reports is no justification158 for them, or for any bookseller who publishes a Parliamentary Report containing a libel against any man." In addition, however, to the plea of "Not Guilty," there was a plea of justification, on the ground that the allegations were true, and on this the jury found a verdict for the defendants. On the 16th of February, 1837, the Messrs. Hansard communicated the facts to the House of Commons. A select Committee was consequently appointed to examine precedents, and report upon the question of its privileges in regard to the publication of its reports and other matters. They reported in favour of the privilege which would protect any publication ordered by the House of Commons, and resolutions based upon the report were adopted.
Another action was brought by Stockdale; the printers were directed to plead the privilege of the House. The Court gave judgment159 against the plea, and damages were afterwards assessed, which the House of Commons ordered the Messrs. Hansard to pay. On the 31st of July those gentlemen again communicated to the House that similar legal proceedings were threatened by Mr. Polac, on account of alleged defamatory matter in a Parliamentary Report on the state of New Zealand. The House of Commons passed another resolution, reaffirming its privilege, and directing Hansard not to take any defence to the threatened action, which, however, was not proceeded with. But Stockdale, on the 26th of August, 1839, commenced a third action for the publication of the report, which continued to be sold. The printers then served him with formal notice of the resolutions of the House and of their intention not to plead. Stockdale, notwithstanding, on the 26th of October filed a declaration in the said action, wherein the damages were laid at £50,000; and on the 1st of November interlocutory judgment was signed for want of a plea. On the 2nd of November notice was served that a writ26 of inquiry160 of damages would be executed before the Sheriff of Middlesex on the 12th of the same month. The writ of inquiry was accordingly executed, when the sheriff's jury assessed the damages at £600; the consequence of which was that the sheriff took possession of the printing-office, premises161, and stock-in-trade of the printers of the House of Commons. But he was placed in a dilemma162 with regard to the sale, which was ultimately prevented by the amount of damages being paid into the sheriff's office on the night previous. On the 16th of January following, Lord John Russell presented a petition from the Messrs. Hansard, which recited the facts of the case, and prayed for such relief as, in the circumstances, the House might think fit. The course which Lord John recommended was, that the persons who had violated the privileges of the House should be summoned to their bar. He therefore moved that Stockdale, with Burton Howard, his attorney, William Evans, the sheriff, the under-sheriff, and the deputy-under-sheriff, be summoned to the bar of the House. There was a long discussion on the legality of the course to be pursued. The motion was carried by a majority of 119. On the 17th of January, therefore, Stockdale was called to the bar, and interrogated163 by the Attorney-General as to the facts of the different actions. The House then resolved that Stockdale should be committed to the custody164 of the Serjeant-at-Arms. It was also resolved that the sheriffs should be called to the bar. They were accordingly brought in by the Serjeant-at-Arms, dressed in their scarlet165 robes. On the 21st of January they petitioned the House, expressing their sorrow for having incurred its displeasure, and stated that they believed that they had only done their duty towards their Sovereign and the Queen's Bench, whose sworn officers they were. They prayed, therefore, that they might not be amerced or imprisoned166. Lord John Russell moved that the sheriffs, having been guilty of a breach167 of the privileges of the House, should be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, which was carried by a majority of 101. The same course was adopted with regard to Mr. Howard, the attorney, who was called in and reprimanded by the Speaker.
But the Queen's Bench was by no means disposed to surrender its own privileges, even to the House of Commons. On the 24th of January Sir William Gossett, Serjeant-at-Arms, appeared at the bar of the House, and said that he had last[470] evening been served with a writ of Habeas Corpus, commanding him to bring up the bodies of the sheriffs, William Evans, Esq., and John Wheelton, Esq., then in his custody. The Attorney-General rose, and said he had no hesitation168 in advising the House to direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to return answer to the Court of Queen's Bench that he held these two individuals in custody by the warrant of the Speaker. He then moved a resolution to that effect, which was adopted, and the Court of Queen's Bench acquiesced.
On the 3rd of February Mr. Darby brought forward a motion that the sheriffs should be discharged from the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. This gave rise to a long and animated169 debate. The Attorney-General opposed the motion, contending that until they made their submission170 the House could not dismiss them with due regard to its dignity. Sir William Follett replied to the arguments of the Attorney-General, and was answered by the Solicitor-General. The debate was adjourned, and was resumed on the 7th. At its conclusion the House divided on the question that the sheriffs be discharged, which was negatived by a majority of 71. On the 12th Mr. Sheriff Wheelton was discharged on account of ill-health, a motion for the release of the other sheriff having been rejected.
The House, meanwhile, seemed to have been getting still more involved in the meshes171 of these difficulties. Stockdale commenced a fourth and fifth action against Hansard; an order was issued for the arrest of his attorney for contempt, and he was ultimately lodged172 in Newgate. But he afterwards brought actions against all the officers of the House that had been concerned in his arrest and had searched his premises. On the 17th of February Lord John Russell informed the House that he had a petition to present from Messrs. Hansard to the effect that a fifth action had been commenced against them by Stockdale for the same course as before. It was then moved that Stockdale, and the son of Howard, his attorney, a lad of nineteen, and his clerk, by commencing this action had been guilty of a contempt of the House. This was carried by a majority of 71, and they, too, were imprisoned.
These vexatious proceedings, including a great number of debates and divisions, led to the passing of an Act for more clearly defining the privileges of the House of Commons, which had made itself unpopular by its course of proceeding99 towards the sheriffs, who had only discharged duties which they could not have evaded173 without exposing themselves to the process of attachment174. On the 5th of March, accordingly, Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a Bill relative to the publication of Parliamentary papers. He said, in the course of his speech, that at all periods of our history, whatever might have been the subject—whether it regarded the privileges of Parliament or the rights of the Crown or any of the constituted authorities—whenever any great public difficulty had arisen, the Parliament in its collective sense, meaning the Crown, Lords, and Commons, had been called in to solve those difficulties. With regard to the measure he was about to propose, he would take care to state in the preamble175 of the Bill that the privilege of the House was known only by interpretation176 of the House itself. He proposed that publications authorised by either House of Parliament should be protected, and should not be liable to prosecution177 in any court of common law. Leave was given to introduce the Bill by a majority of 149, in spite of the opposition of the Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Wilde; the House went into committee on the Bill on the 13th of March, and it passed the third reading on the 20th of the same month. It was read a second time in the Lords on the 6th of April; and the Royal Assent178 was given to it by commission on the 14th of the same month.
At the commencement of the Session a notice of a motion of want of confidence in the Ministry was given by Sir John Yarde Buller. He assigned as reasons for bringing forward the motion the disturbed and unsatisfactory state of the country, which he ascribed to the system of popular agitation179, "nurtured180 and fostered," as he alleged, by the Ministers during the preceding two years. After a debate of four consecutive181 nights the motion was rejected by 308 votes to 287. The division was fairly satisfactory, and another source of gratification to the Ministry was the passing of the Irish Municipal Bill, which became law in spite of a characteristic protest from Bishop Phillpotts, who regarded the measure "as a deliberate and wilful182 abandonment of the cause of true religion which had provoked the justice of Almighty God and given too much reason to apprehend183 the visitation of Divine vengeance184 for this presumptuous185 act of national disobedience." In this Session Sir Robert Peel at last terminated the scandals connected with election committees by a plan which authorised the Speaker to appoint a general committee of elections, with the duty of selecting election committees to try each particular[471] case. Sir Francis Baring's Budget was a considerable improvement upon those of his indifferent predecessor186, Mr. Spring-Rice, whose careless finance had produced no less than four successive deficits187. He acknowledged a deficit188 of £850,000, and asked for a vote of credit. He further imposed an additional tax of 4d. a gallon on spirits, increased the customs and excise189 by 5 per cent., and the assessed taxes by 10 per cent.
The Queen's marriage has been referred to in connection with the proceedings in Parliament. The details of that interesting event, and other incidents affecting her Majesty's happiness which occurred during the year, will now be recorded. The royal party assembled in the morning of the 10th of February at Buckingham Palace, whence it had been arranged that the members of her Majesty's family and those of Prince Albert's, accompanied by the officers of State, should proceed to St. James's Palace. The entire route along which the royal cortège was to pass was lined by the Horse Guards, while the trumpeters, in their State uniforms, were stationed at intervals190 to announce the approach of the royal bride and bridegroom. First, the Ladies and Gentlemen of her Majesty's Household, in seven royal carriages, arrived at the garden entrance of St. James's Palace; and then followed the splendid State coach containing her Majesty, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and the Mistress of the Robes. The closet behind the Throne Room had been draped with silk and prepared for the reception of the Queen. There her Majesty, attended by her maids of honour, train-bearers, and bridesmaids, remained until the Lord Chamberlain of her Household marshalled the procession to the Chapel192 Royal. Soon after her Majesty had entered the closet, the clash of "presented arms," the roll of drums and flourish of trumpets193 outside, told that the bridegroom had arrived. At a quarter to one o'clock the ring was placed upon her Majesty's finger; outside, the guns thundered forth55 the intelligence; but their loud booming was nearly drowned by the long-continued shouts of acclamation which arose from the thousands who thronged194 the park. At the conclusion of the service the Queen Dowager cordially embraced and kissed the bride, and the Prince acknowledged Queen Adelaide's congratulations by kissing her hand. The bride and her royal consort drove at once to Buckingham Palace, and the noble assembly that had witnessed the ceremony retired. After a splendid breakfast at Buckingham Palace the bride and bridegroom took their departure for Windsor Castle. The sun shone out in cloudless lustre195 just at the moment of their leaving the gateway197; the vast concourse of people assembled outside the palace hailed this as a happy omen196, and as the carriage containing the royal pair drove off, the air was rent with the most enthusiastic cheering.
About four months passed happily away, when another event occurred which was very near furnishing a startling illustration of the truth that there is no certain tenure198 of human happiness. On the night of Wednesday, the 10th of June, London was agitated199 by a report of an attempt upon the life of the Queen. Next day an investigation200 took place at the Home Office, from which the public and the reporters of the daily press were excluded. The following are the facts:—At a quarter past six on Wednesday evening, the Queen, accompanied by Prince Albert, left Buckingham Palace, in a very low, open phaeton, to take her customary drive in Hyde Park before dinner. The carriage had proceeded a short distance up the road when a young man, who had been standing141 with his back to the Green Park fence, advanced to within a few yards of the carriage, and deliberately201 fired at the Queen. The postilions paused for an instant. The Prince ordered them, in a loud voice, to drive on. "I have got another!" exclaimed the assassin, who discharged a second pistol, aimed at the carriage, which also proved harmless. The Queen and the Prince went as far as Hyde Park Corner, and then turned to the Duchess of Kent's mansion202, in Belgrave Square. Meanwhile, the assassin remained near the spot, leaning against the park fence, with the weapons in his hand. Several persons laid hold of him, and he was conveyed by two policemen to the Gardener's Lane station-house. After staying a short time with the Duchess of Kent, in Belgrave Square, the Queen and her husband proceeded to Hyde Park, where an immense concourse of persons, of all ranks and both sexes, had congregated203. The reception of the royal pair was so enthusiastic as almost to overpower the self-possession of the Queen. They soon returned to Buckingham Palace, attended by a vast number of the nobility and gentry204, in carriages and on horseback. A multitude of persons collected at the entrance to the palace, and vehemently205 cheered the Queen, who, though pale and agitated, repeatedly bowed and smiled in return.
The name of the prisoner was Edward Oxford. He was about eighteen years of age, and of an[472] unprepossessing countenance206. He was a native of Birmingham, which town he had left nine years before. He was last employed at a public-house, "The Hog207 in the Pond," at the corner of South Molton Street and Oxford Street. His trial for high treason was begun in the Central Criminal Court on Thursday, July 9th, and ended next day. The judges were Lord Denman, Baron Alderson, and Justice Patteson. The jury returned the following special verdict:—"We find the prisoner, Edward Oxford, guilty of discharging the contents of two pistols, but whether or not they were loaded with ball has not been satisfactorily proved to us, he being of unsound mind at the time." An argument followed between counsel as to whether this verdict amounted to an absolute acquittal, or an acquittal on the ground of insanity208. Lord Denman said that the jury were in a mistake. It was necessary that they should form an opinion as to whether the pistols were loaded with bullets or not; but it appeared they had not applied209 their minds to that point, and therefore it would be necessary that they should again retire, and say aye or no. Did the prisoner fire a pistol loaded with ball at the Queen? After considerable discussion upon the point, the jury again retired to consider their verdict. During their absence the question was again argued, and it appeared to be the opinion of the judges that the jury were bound to return a verdict of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" upon the evidence brought before them. After an absence of an hour they returned into court, finding the prisoner "guilty, he being at the same time insane." The sentence was that he should be imprisoned during her Majesty's pleasure, according to the Act 40 George III., providing for cases where crimes were committed by insane persons.
Meanwhile the aspect of foreign affairs was hardly reassuring210. Britain was at war with China and Afghanistan, and within measurable distance of war with France and the United States. Postponing211 for the present our review of the first Afghan war and the differences with America, which will be dealt with more properly under the history of Sir Robert Peel's Ministry, we proceed to give a short sketch212 of the Chinese war and the Syrian crisis. The exclusive right of the East India Company to trade with China ceased on the 22nd of April, 1834, and from this time dates the great dispute about the opium traffic. The first free-trade ship sailed from England on the 25th of the same month. Lord Napier was sent out to China to superintend British commerce, and arrived at Macao on the 15th of July. He died soon after his arrival, and was succeeded by Mr., afterwards Sir, John Davis. But the Chinese were not disposed to recognise the authority with which he was vested. During 1835 and 1836 matters went on peaceably under the superintendence of the second and third Commissioners214, Mr. Davis and Sir T. Robinson, the former of whom returned to England, and the latter was superseded215 by Captain Elliot, R.N., who in vain renewed the attempt to establish an official connection with the Chinese authorities. The opening of the trade in 1834 gave a powerful stimulus216 to all kinds of smuggling217, and especially in opium, the importation of which into China was prohibited by the Imperial Government, in consequence of its deleterious qualities. During the following years, however, the supply of that drug was increased enormously, and the smuggling trade was carried on along the coasts of the northern provinces, in defiance218 of the laws of the country. The Imperial Government was naturally indignant at these encroachments, and became, moreover, seriously alarmed, perhaps not so much for its demoralising effects, as for the continued drain of specie which it occasioned. In March, 1839, Lin arrived at Canton, as Imperial High Commissioner, to enforce the laws in this matter. He immediately issued an edict requiring that every chest of opium on the river should be delivered up, in order to be destroyed; and that bonds should be given by traders that their ships should never again bring any opium, on pain of forfeiture219 of the article and death to the importer. Lin having taken strong measures to carry this edict into effect by blockading the British merchants, Captain Elliot proceeded to Canton, and issued a circular letter to his countrymen, requiring them to surrender into his hands all the opium then actually on the coast of China, and holding himself responsible for the consequences. On the 21st of May the whole of the opium, to the amount of 20,283 chests, was given up to the Chinese Government, and immediately destroyed. But even this great sacrifice did not propitiate220 Commissioner Lin. On the 26th of November he issued another interdict221, ordering the cessation of all trade with British ships in a week; and in January, 1840, an Imperial edict appeared directing that all trade with Britain should cease for ever. Further numerous outrages222 were committed by the Chinese against British sailors. In consequence of these proceedings an armament was sent forth to teach the Chinese the principles of international law. The first part of the armament reached the Canton river in June, 1840, under the command of Captain Elliot. Having established a rigorous blockade in the river, the British, on the 5th of July, took possession of the large island of Chusan, in the Eastern Sea. It proved very unhealthy, and one man out of every four died. Proceeding still farther to the mouth of the Peiho, in the Yellow Sea, Captain Elliot attempted to overawe the Chinese. But the sea was too shallow to enable him to land his troops, and he was forced to put back to Chusan.
[473]
MARRIAGE OF QUEEN VICTORIA. (After the Picture by Sir George Hayter.)
[See larger version]
[474]
It was in these circumstances that Sir James Graham, on the 7th of April, brought forward a series of resolutions on our relations with China, and the Government escaped defeat by a narrow majority of ten. A vote of censure would inevitably223 have been passed, had not the Duke of Wellington expressed his cordial approval of the Ministerial policy. His followers were furious. "I know it," said the Duke to Charles Greville, "and I do not care one damn. I have no time to do what is not right."
Meanwhile the war had continued, and with the commencement of 1841 fortune began to favour the British. The Chinese position at the mouth of the Canton river was forced, and the Emperor was compelled to send a Commissioner, Keshin by name, to treat with the "outer barbarians224." Keshin cunningly transferred the scene of negotiations225 to Canton, in order to secure time to strengthen the forts and prepare for defence. He accordingly employed the interval191 busily in erecting226 new batteries at the Bogue, barricading227 the bars in the river by sinking boats laden228 with stones, throwing up breastworks near Canton, and levying229 troops. The British Commissioner, wearied and irritated by these proceedings, gave directions to Commodore Bremer to proceed at once to compulsory230 methods of bringing the Chinese to reason. On the 7th of January, therefore, he opened fire on the Bogue forts, on two of which the British flag very soon floated. Next morning, when everything was ready to attack the principal fort, Annughoy, a flag of truce231 was sent by the Chinese, and hostilities232 were suspended. Keshin offered to adjust matters immediately, and on the 20th a circular appeared, signed by Captain Elliot, and dated Macao, addressed to "Her Britannic Majesty's subjects," stating that her Majesty's plenipotentiary had to announce the conclusion of preliminary arrangements between the Imperial Commissioner and himself, involving the following conditions:—1st. The cession35 of the harbour and island of Hong Kong to the British Crown. 2nd. An indemnity233 to the British Government of 6,000,000 dollars, to be paid in annual instalments in six years. 3rd. Direct official intercourse234 between the two countries upon equal footing. It was quite evident that her Majesty's plenipotentiary did not understand the sort of people he had to deal with; otherwise, he would not have arrested the operations of Commodore Bremer till he had all the principal forts in his possession. In fact he was completely duped by Keshin.
The convention, which did not contain a word about the opium trade, gave great dissatisfaction at home, and Lord John Russell declared in the House of Commons, on the 6th of May, that it had been disapproved of by the Government; that Captain Elliot had been recalled, and Sir Henry Pottinger appointed plenipotentiary in his stead. The Chinese, meanwhile, soon violated their engagements. On the 19th of February an English boat was fired upon from North Wang-ton, in consequence of which the squadron under Captain Sir H. Flemming Senhouse attacked the forts on the 26th of February, and in a very short time the British colours were flying on the whole chain of these celebrated236 fortifications, and the British became masters of the islands without the loss of a single man. Proceeding up the river towards the Whampoa Reach they found it fortified237 with upwards238 of forty war junks, and the Cambridge, an old East Indiaman. But they were all silenced in an hour, when the marines and small-arm men were landed and stormed the works, driving before them upwards of 3,000 Chinese troops, and killing239 nearly 300. Next day Sir Gordon Bremer joined the advanced squadron, and the boats were pushed forward within gunshot of Howgua's fort; and thus, for the first time, were foreign ships seen from the walls of Canton. On the 2nd of May the Cruiser came up, having on board Major-General Sir Hugh Gough, who took command of the land forces. On approaching the fort it was found to be abandoned, as well as those higher up the river, the Chinese having fired all their guns and fled. The Prefect or Governor of Canton then made his appearance, accompanied by the Hong merchants, announcing that Keshin having been recalled and degraded, and the new Commissioner not having arrived, there was no authority to treat for peace. Captain Elliot again hesitating, requested the naval240 and military commanders to make no further movement towards the city until it was seen what was the disposition241 of the provincial242 authorities at Canton, and admitted the[475] city to a ransom243 of £1,250,000. But Sir G. Bremer observed in a despatch that he feared the forbearance was misunderstood, and that a further punishment must be inflicted244 before that arrogant245 and perfidious246 Government was brought to reason. He was right; for on the 17th of March a flag of truce, with a message sent by Captain Elliot to the Imperial Commissioner, was fired upon by the Chinese. In consequence of this, a force under Captain Herbert, who was in advance of the rest of the armament, carried in succession all the forts up to Canton, taking, sinking, burning, and otherwise destroying the flotilla of the enemy, and hoisted247 the union Jack248 the same day on the walls of the British factory.
At this juncture249 Sir Henry Pottinger succeeded Captain Elliot, with orders to bring the war to a satisfactory conclusion. His measures were prompt; Amoy fell on the 26th of August, Chusan, which had been abandoned, was recaptured in September, and the Chinese experienced further reverses in 1842. At length the Chinese saw that resistance was vain, and that they must come to terms, as the "barbarians" could not be exterminated250. Full powers had been given to three Commissioners to negotiate a treaty of peace, which, after various conferences, was concluded on the 26th of August, 1842. It embraced the following stipulations:—The payment by the Chinese of an indemnity of £4,375,000 in addition to the ransom of £1,250,000 already surrendered; the opening of the new ports of Canton, Amoy, Fou-chow-fou, Ning-po, and Shang-hai to British merchants, with permission to consular251 officers to reside there; the cession of the island of Hong Kong to the British in perpetuity; correspondence to be conducted on terms of perfect equality between the officers of both Governments; and the islands of Chusan and Ku-lang-su to be held by the British until the money payments were made, and arrangements for opening the ports were completed.
Far more serious than this smallest of little wars was the crisis that had simultaneously252 overtaken the Levant. For years the Turkish Empire had been on the brink253 of dissolution, partly through its own weakness, partly through the ambition of Mehemet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt. In 1838 he had been prevented only by a vigorous remonstrance of Lord Palmerston's from declaring himself independent and attacking the Turkish army on the Euphrates. For months the two forces stood face to face, and then the Turks by their own folly254 provoked the catastrophe255. Disregarding the advice of the French and British Governments, the Sultan Mahmoud sent his troops across the river. On the 24th of June, 1839, they were cut to pieces by the Egyptians, on the 29th the Sultan died, on the 30th the Turkish admiral Achmet Pasha sailed off to Alexandria, and handed over his fleet to Mehemet Ali. It was evident that prompt intervention256 of the Powers could alone preserve the Ottoman Empire from disintegration257. But, as soon as Lord Palmerston broached258 the subject, the French Government refused to take part in a general agreement for the maintenance of the Porte; in fact, its sympathies were openly expressed on the side of the Pasha. Thereupon Lord Palmerston resolved to proceed without Louis Philippe. His overtures259 to the Russians were cordially received; Austria raised no objections. On the 15th of July, 1840, the Quadrilateral Treaty was signed, by which the British, Austrian, Prussian, and Russian representatives on the one hand, and the Turkish ambassador on the other, bound themselves to compel the Pasha to yield half of Syria to the Porte, and pledged themselves to use force to give effect to their demands.
Thereupon a period of the utmost suspense260 ensued. The British Cabinet was of very divided mind; there was a strong peace party, headed by Lord Holland and Lord Clarendon, with which Lord John Russell, after much hesitation, eventually threw in his lot. Again and again he threatened resignation, and it needed all the diplomacy261 of the Prime Minister and the strong remonstrances262 of the Queen to induce him to remain at his post. Even more serious was the attitude of the French Government. M. Thiers, who had become Prime Minister in March, was furious at the humiliation to which his predecessors263' shilly-shally had exposed his country. He blustered264 about going to war, talked about increasing the fleet and calling out the reserves, and tried to persuade the British ambassador, Sir Henry Bulwer, that the king, his master, was even more bloodthirsty than himself. All in vain; Lord Palmerston had taken the measure of his opponents. He knew that, though Thiers might mean fighting, Louis Philippe had no such intention; he knew, too, that the Pasha, whom the world thought to be invincible265, was a mere139 man of straw. His opinion was justified266 by the easy success of the joint267 British, Austrian, and Turkish squadron. Beyrout fell early in September, Saida, the ancient Sidon, surrendered before the end of the month, and on the 3rd of[476] November Commodore Napier reduced to ruins, after a bombardment of only three hours, Acre, the fortress268 hitherto held to be impregnable, from which even Napoleon had turned away in despair. The fall of Acre settled, for the time being, the Eastern question. Already Louis Philippe had seen the necessity of abandoning words which were not to be followed by deeds. He had refused to countenance the bellicose269 speech from the throne with which M. Thiers proposed to open the Chambers270 in October; that Minister had in consequence resigned, and had been succeeded by Marshal Soult with M. Guizot as his Foreign Minister. Still Lord Palmerston refused to readmit France to the European concert until the Egyptian resistance was at an end. However, his more pacific colleagues induced him to allow the French Government to take part in the diplomatic discussion, which led to the ultimate settlement of the crisis in the following July. By that treaty the independence of the Porte was guaranteed by a provision that the Bosphorus and Dardanelles should be closed to ships of war of all Powers in time of peace, while the Pasha was punished for his contumacy by being compelled to surrender the whole of Syria, retaining by way of compensation the hereditary271 possession of Egypt.
At the opening of 1841 the country might be said to be free from all excitement on the subject of politics. There was no great question at issue, no struggle between rival parties seemed impending272. Many of the principal topics which in former years had agitated the public mind had been settled or laid to rest. The Chartist riots seemed to have abated273 the desire of the leading Reformers to extend the suffrage274 to the working classes. Still the Government was lamentably275 weak, and only existed on sufferance. Nor did the conduct of affairs in the House of Commons tend to strengthen their position. The reintroduction by Lord Stanley of his Bill to regulate the registration of voters in Ireland led to much angry discussion with damaging results to the Government, who had already suffered grievous defeats in attempting to arrest the progress of the measure during the previous Session. Two days later 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 conclusive276 of the right to vote, except where disqualification afterwards 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 franchise277 by fixing upon the Poor Law valuation as the standard; and the Bill proposed to enact78 that every occupier of a tenement278 under a holding of not less than fourteen years, of the annual value of £5, should have the right of voting previously enjoyed by persons who had a beneficial interest of £10. The Conservatives complained of the unfairness of thus introducing by surprise a fundamental alteration279 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, tacked235 on as a postscript280 to a Bill for amending281 the registration. The £5 franchise, it was argued, would in effect be little short of the introduction of universal suffrage. 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 postponement282 till the 23rd of April. During the interval Lord Morpeth announced the conversion283 of the Ministry to the principle of an £8 rating. 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 tenant284, 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 leaseholder285 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. On a division, Lord Howick's amendment was carried by 291 to 270. Finally the Bill was reduced to such a jumble286 of[477] contradictory287 amendments288 that it was impossible to proceed with it. Thus ended the great struggle of the Session. Much time had been 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, utterly289 failed. Lord Stanley also abandoned his measure, and there the matter ended. The whole of the proceedings plainly indicated that the doom290 of Lord Melbourne's feeble Cabinet was at hand.
ATTACK ON THE CHINESE JUNKS. (See p. 474.)
[See larger version]
The Budget did not retrieve291 the popularity of Ministers. Sir Francis Baring proposed to make up for an estimated deficit of £2,421,000 by an alteration of the timber duties producing £600,000 a year, and an alteration of the sugar duties producing £700,000. Both these changes were in the direction of free trade, and a still more significant proposal was the repeal292 of the existing corn law, and the substitution of a low fixed duty of 8s. a quarter on wheat. The House, however, would not accept such a budget from a Government whose Premier293 had in the previous year declared that "the responsible advisers294 of the Crown would not propose any change in the Corn Laws." After a debate of eight nights the Ministry were defeated on the sugar duties by 317 votes to 281. Still they did not resign, and the Opposition in consequence had recourse to a direct vote of censure.
On the 31st of May, pursuant to notice, Sir Robert Peel brought forward a motion of want of confidence in the Government, in the following words:—"That her Majesty's Ministers do not sufficiently295 possess the confidence of the House of Commons to enable them to carry through the House measures which they deem of essential importance to the public welfare; and that their continuance in office under such circumstances is at variance296 with the spirit of the Constitution." The right hon. baronet referred to a number of precedents for the course he adopted—namely, the cases of Sir Robert Walpole, Lord North, Mr. Pitt, Lord Sidmouth, Lord Liverpool, the Duke of Wellington, and himself, each of whom resigned, failing the support of a majority of the House of[478] Commons; and he insisted that Lord Melbourne was bound to follow their example. A debate of two nights followed: it was interrupted by the Whitsun holidays, after which it was resumed and lasted three nights more, during which all sorts of topics were discussed, and all the shortcomings of Ministers were dwelt upon, and urged against them with great earnestness. The burden of the charges against them was, that they were causing the greatest public mischief77 by leaving important questions in doubt, setting party against party, and stirring society to its very foundations. At length the House went to a division, when there appeared for Sir Robert Peel's motion, 312; against it, 311, giving a majority of 1 against the Government. At the meeting of the House on the following Monday the most lively anxiety was manifested as to the course Ministers would pursue. Lord John Russell stated that, after the late division, he felt that in that House of Commons the Government could expect no further majorities, and that they were resolved to appeal to the country. The determination, it is now known, had been opposed by the Premier, but he was overruled by the more sanguine297 members of the Cabinet.
Parliament was dissolved on the 30th of June, and at the general election the Ministerial party was smitten298 hip213 and thigh299. The City of London exhibited a most remarkable defection from the Whigs on this occasion. It had returned four Liberals to the late Parliament, one of whom was Lord John Russell himself. On this occasion they returned two Conservatives and two Liberals; Mr. Masterman, a Conservative, being at the head of the poll. Lord John Russell was also returned, having beaten his Conservative opponent by a majority of only 7. Another significant triumph of the Conservatives was won in the West Riding of Yorkshire, one of the most Liberal constituencies in the kingdom. There Lord Morpeth and Lord Milton—the candidates, of all others, most likely to succeed—were beaten, after a tremendous contest, by the Hon. S. Wortley and Mr. Denison. For Dublin, also, two Conservatives were returned—Messrs. West and Grogan; Mr. O'Connell being defeated. In England and Wales the Conservatives had a majority of 104. In Scotland the Liberals had a majority of 9, and in Ireland of 19. The majority in favour of the Conservatives in the United Kingdom was 76. The cries that had most to do in producing this result were, on the one side, "cheap bread," and on the other, "low wages."
On the 19th of August the new Parliament assembled. The Session was opened by commission; the Royal Speech, which was read by the Lord Chancellor, contained a paragraph referring to the duties affecting the productions of foreign countries, and suggesting for consideration the question whether the principle of protection was not carried to an extent injurious alike to the income of the State and the interests of the people; whether the Corn Laws did not aggravate300 the natural fluctuations301 of supply; and whether they did not embarrass trade, derange302 the currency, and by their operation diminish the comfort and increase the privations of the great body of the community. Here was a distinct enunciation303 of the principles of Free Trade in the Speech from the Throne, for which, of course, the Ministers were responsible. The Address in the House of Lords was moved by Earl Spencer, a decided Free Trader, and seconded by the Marquis of Clanricarde. The debate was relieved from nullity by the Duke of Wellington's testimony to the conduct of Lord Melbourne towards the Queen. The Duke said—"He was willing to admit that the noble viscount had rendered the greatest possible service to her Majesty, in making her acquainted with the mode and policy of the government of this country, initiating304 her into the laws and spirit of the Constitution, independently of the performance of his duty as the servant of her Majesty's Crown; teaching her, in short, to preside over the destiny of this great country." The House divided, when it was found that there was a majority of 72 against the Government.
The first business in the House of Commons was the re-election of Mr. Shaw Lefevre as Speaker. On the 24th of August the Address was moved by Mr. Mark Philips, and seconded by Mr. John Dundas. Mr. Wortley then moved an amendment similar to the one which had been carried in the House of Lords, in which he went over all the charges against the Government. His motion was seconded by Lord Bruce, and supported by Mr. Disraeli. The debate lasted several nights. Sir Robert Peel delivered a long and very able speech, in which he reviewed the whole policy of the Government. He was answered by Lord John Russell, whose speech closed the debate. The division gave to Sir Robert Peel a majority for which no one seemed prepared. The numbers were—for the Ministerial Address, 269; for the amendment, 360; majority against the Government, 91. On the 30th the resignation of Ministers was announced.
点击收听单词发音
1 scouted | |
寻找,侦察( scout的过去式和过去分词 ); 物色(优秀运动员、演员、音乐家等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 demonstration | |
n.表明,示范,论证,示威 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 demonstrations | |
证明( demonstration的名词复数 ); 表明; 表达; 游行示威 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 flora | |
n.(某一地区的)植物群 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 Oxford | |
n.牛津(英国城市) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 reign | |
n.统治时期,统治,支配,盛行;v.占优势 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 opium | |
n.鸦片;adj.鸦片的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 commissioner | |
n.(政府厅、局、处等部门)专员,长官,委员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 confiscates | |
没收,充公( confiscate的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 disapproved | |
v.不赞成( disapprove的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 imminent | |
adj.即将发生的,临近的,逼近的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 wrath | |
n.愤怒,愤慨,暴怒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 ministry | |
n.(政府的)部;牧师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 registration | |
n.登记,注册,挂号 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 amendment | |
n.改正,修正,改善,修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 censure | |
v./n.责备;非难;责难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 lapse | |
n.过失,流逝,失效,抛弃信仰,间隔;vi.堕落,停止,失效,流逝;vt.使失效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 majesty | |
n.雄伟,壮丽,庄严,威严;最高权威,王权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 baron | |
n.男爵;(商业界等)巨头,大王 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 candidly | |
adv.坦率地,直率而诚恳地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 avowed | |
adj.公开声明的,承认的v.公开声明,承认( avow的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 relinquishing | |
交出,让给( relinquish的现在分词 ); 放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 writ | |
n.命令状,书面命令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 humble | |
adj.谦卑的,恭顺的;地位低下的;v.降低,贬低 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 confidential | |
adj.秘(机)密的,表示信任的,担任机密工作的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 steward | |
n.乘务员,服务员;看管人;膳食管理员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 concurred | |
同意(concur的过去式与过去分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 expediency | |
n.适宜;方便;合算;利己 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 humbly | |
adv. 恭顺地,谦卑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 abrupt | |
adj.突然的,意外的;唐突的,鲁莽的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 cession | |
n.割让,转让 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 frankly | |
adv.坦白地,直率地;坦率地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 solely | |
adv.仅仅,唯一地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 distress | |
n.苦恼,痛苦,不舒适;不幸;vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 acquiesced | |
v.默认,默许( acquiesce的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 discomfort | |
n.不舒服,不安,难过,困难,不方便 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 arduous | |
adj.艰苦的,费力的,陡峭的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 esteem | |
n.尊敬,尊重;vt.尊重,敬重;把…看作 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 strenuous | |
adj.奋发的,使劲的;紧张的;热烈的,狂热的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 exertions | |
n.努力( exertion的名词复数 );费力;(能力、权力等的)运用;行使 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 precedent | |
n.先例,前例;惯例;adj.在前的,在先的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 eminently | |
adv.突出地;显著地;不寻常地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 qualified | |
adj.合格的,有资格的,胜任的,有限制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 opposition | |
n.反对,敌对 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 equitable | |
adj.公平的;公正的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 privy | |
adj.私用的;隐密的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 accomplishment | |
n.完成,成就,(pl.)造诣,技能 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 inspection | |
n.检查,审查,检阅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 conformity | |
n.一致,遵从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 concession | |
n.让步,妥协;特许(权) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 eloquence | |
n.雄辩;口才,修辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 bishop | |
n.主教,(国际象棋)象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 dissent | |
n./v.不同意,持异议 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 embodying | |
v.表现( embody的现在分词 );象征;包括;包含 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 condemned | |
adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 remonstrance | |
n抗议,抱怨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 inspectors | |
n.检查员( inspector的名词复数 );(英国公共汽车或火车上的)查票员;(警察)巡官;检阅官 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 bishops | |
(基督教某些教派管辖大教区的)主教( bishop的名词复数 ); (国际象棋的)象 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 memorable | |
adj.值得回忆的,难忘的,特别的,显著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 fraught | |
adj.充满…的,伴有(危险等)的;忧虑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 destined | |
adj.命中注定的;(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 fructify | |
v.结果实;使土地肥沃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 postal | |
adj.邮政的,邮局的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 diminution | |
n.减少;变小 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 analogous | |
adj.相似的;类似的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 exorbitant | |
adj.过分的;过度的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 varied | |
adj.多样的,多变化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 mischiefs | |
损害( mischief的名词复数 ); 危害; 胡闹; 调皮捣蛋的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 mischief | |
n.损害,伤害,危害;恶作剧,捣蛋,胡闹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 enact | |
vt.制定(法律);上演,扮演 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 enacting | |
制定(法律),通过(法案)( enact的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 functionaries | |
n.公职人员,官员( functionary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 ridiculed | |
v.嘲笑,嘲弄,奚落( ridicule的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 extravagant | |
adj.奢侈的;过分的;(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 chancellor | |
n.(英)大臣;法官;(德、奥)总理;大学校长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 exchequer | |
n.财政部;国库 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 treasury | |
n.宝库;国库,金库;文库 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 inadequate | |
adj.(for,to)不充足的,不适当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 previously | |
adv.以前,先前(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 despatch | |
n./v.(dispatch)派遣;发送;n.急件;新闻报道 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 incurred | |
[医]招致的,遭受的; incur的过去式 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 briefly | |
adv.简单地,简短地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 formerly | |
adv.从前,以前 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 secondly | |
adv.第二,其次 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 illicit | |
adj.非法的,禁止的,不正当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 conveyance | |
n.(不动产等的)转让,让与;转让证书;传送;运送;表达;(正)运输工具 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 repayments | |
偿还,报答,偿付的钱物( repayment的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 obstructions | |
n.障碍物( obstruction的名词复数 );阻碍物;阻碍;阻挠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 vindicated | |
v.澄清(某人/某事物)受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的过去式和过去分词 );表明或证明(所争辩的事物)属实、正当、有效等;维护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 proceeding | |
n.行动,进行,(pl.)会议录,学报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 proceedings | |
n.进程,过程,议程;诉讼(程序);公报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 annually | |
adv.一年一次,每年 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 incompetent | |
adj.无能力的,不能胜任的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 retired | |
adj.隐退的,退休的,退役的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 concurrence | |
n.同意;并发 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 promotion | |
n.提升,晋级;促销,宣传 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 warden | |
n.监察员,监狱长,看守人,监护人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 supplanted | |
把…排挤掉,取代( supplant的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 intruded | |
n.侵入的,推进的v.侵入,侵扰,打扰( intrude的过去式和过去分词 );把…强加于 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 bombast | |
n.高调,夸大之辞 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 oratorical | |
adj.演说的,雄辩的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 modesty | |
n.谦逊,虚心,端庄,稳重,羞怯,朴素 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 followers | |
追随者( follower的名词复数 ); 用户; 契据的附面; 从动件 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 auspices | |
n.资助,赞助 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 monarchy | |
n.君主,最高统治者;君主政体,君主国 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 manifestations | |
n.表示,显示(manifestation的复数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 loyalty | |
n.忠诚,忠心 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 agitator | |
n.鼓动者;搅拌器 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 fervency | |
n.热情的;强烈的;热烈 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 progeny | |
n.后代,子孙;结果 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 consort | |
v.相伴;结交 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 blessing | |
n.祈神赐福;祷告;祝福,祝愿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 almighty | |
adj.全能的,万能的;很大的,很强的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 apprised | |
v.告知,通知( apprise的过去式和过去分词 );评价 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 surmised | |
v.臆测,推断( surmise的过去式和过去分词 );揣测;猜想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 privately | |
adv.以私人的身份,悄悄地,私下地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 humiliation | |
n.羞辱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 pregnancy | |
n.怀孕,怀孕期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 intensified | |
v.(使)增强, (使)加剧( intensify的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 acrimonious | |
adj.严厉的,辛辣的,刻毒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 superfluous | |
adj.过多的,过剩的,多余的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 descended | |
a.为...后裔的,出身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 exempt | |
adj.免除的;v.使免除;n.免税者,被免除义务者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 supremacy | |
n.至上;至高权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 statute | |
n.成文法,法令,法规;章程,规则,条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 adjournment | |
休会; 延期; 休会期; 休庭期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 omission | |
n.省略,删节;遗漏或省略的事物,冗长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 purely | |
adv.纯粹地,完全地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 bestow | |
v.把…赠与,把…授予;花费 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 anomalous | |
adj.反常的;不规则的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 adjourned | |
(使)休会, (使)休庭( adjourn的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 precedents | |
引用单元; 范例( precedent的名词复数 ); 先前出现的事例; 前例; 先例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 allotted | |
分配,拨给,摊派( allot的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 consolidated | |
a.联合的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 alluding | |
提及,暗指( allude的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 heterogeneous | |
adj.庞杂的;异类的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 jurisdiction | |
n.司法权,审判权,管辖权,控制权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 narrative | |
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 gaol | |
n.(jail)监狱;(不加冠词)监禁;vt.使…坐牢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 defendants | |
被告( defendant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 premises | |
n.建筑物,房屋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 dilemma | |
n.困境,进退两难的局面 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 interrogated | |
v.询问( interrogate的过去式和过去分词 );审问;(在计算机或其他机器上)查询 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 custody | |
n.监护,照看,羁押,拘留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 scarlet | |
n.深红色,绯红色,红衣;adj.绯红色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 imprisoned | |
下狱,监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 breach | |
n.违反,不履行;破裂;vt.冲破,攻破 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 hesitation | |
n.犹豫,踌躇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 animated | |
adj.生气勃勃的,活跃的,愉快的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 submission | |
n.服从,投降;温顺,谦虚;提出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 meshes | |
网孔( mesh的名词复数 ); 网状物; 陷阱; 困境 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 lodged | |
v.存放( lodge的过去式和过去分词 );暂住;埋入;(权利、权威等)归属 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 evaded | |
逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 ); 避开; 回避; 想不出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 attachment | |
n.附属物,附件;依恋;依附 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 preamble | |
n.前言;序文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 prosecution | |
n.起诉,告发,检举,执行,经营 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 assent | |
v.批准,认可;n.批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 agitation | |
n.搅动;搅拌;鼓动,煽动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 nurtured | |
养育( nurture的过去式和过去分词 ); 培育; 滋长; 助长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 consecutive | |
adj.连续的,联贯的,始终一贯的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 wilful | |
adj.任性的,故意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 apprehend | |
vt.理解,领悟,逮捕,拘捕,忧虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 vengeance | |
n.报复,报仇,复仇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 presumptuous | |
adj.胆大妄为的,放肆的,冒昧的,冒失的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 predecessor | |
n.前辈,前任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 deficits | |
n.不足额( deficit的名词复数 );赤字;亏空;亏损 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 deficit | |
n.亏空,亏损;赤字,逆差 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 excise | |
n.(国产)货物税;vt.切除,删去 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 intervals | |
n.[军事]间隔( interval的名词复数 );间隔时间;[数学]区间;(戏剧、电影或音乐会的)幕间休息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 interval | |
n.间隔,间距;幕间休息,中场休息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 chapel | |
n.小教堂,殡仪馆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 trumpets | |
喇叭( trumpet的名词复数 ); 小号; 喇叭形物; (尤指)绽开的水仙花 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 thronged | |
v.成群,挤满( throng的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 lustre | |
n.光亮,光泽;荣誉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 omen | |
n.征兆,预兆;vt.预示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 gateway | |
n.大门口,出入口,途径,方法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 tenure | |
n.终身职位;任期;(土地)保有权,保有期 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 agitated | |
adj.被鼓动的,不安的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 deliberately | |
adv.审慎地;蓄意地;故意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 mansion | |
n.大厦,大楼;宅第 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 congregated | |
(使)集合,聚集( congregate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 gentry | |
n.绅士阶级,上层阶级 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 vehemently | |
adv. 热烈地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 countenance | |
n.脸色,面容;面部表情;vt.支持,赞同 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 hog | |
n.猪;馋嘴贪吃的人;vt.把…占为己有,独占 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 insanity | |
n.疯狂,精神错乱;极端的愚蠢,荒唐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 reassuring | |
a.使人消除恐惧和疑虑的,使人放心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 postponing | |
v.延期,推迟( postpone的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 sketch | |
n.草图;梗概;素描;v.素描;概述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 hip | |
n.臀部,髋;屋脊 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 commissioners | |
n.专员( commissioner的名词复数 );长官;委员;政府部门的长官 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 superseded | |
[医]被代替的,废弃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 stimulus | |
n.刺激,刺激物,促进因素,引起兴奋的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 smuggling | |
n.走私 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 defiance | |
n.挑战,挑衅,蔑视,违抗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 forfeiture | |
n.(名誉等)丧失 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 propitiate | |
v.慰解,劝解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 interdict | |
v.限制;禁止;n.正式禁止;禁令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 outrages | |
引起…的义愤,激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 inevitably | |
adv.不可避免地;必然发生地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 barbarians | |
n.野蛮人( barbarian的名词复数 );外国人;粗野的人;无教养的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 negotiations | |
协商( negotiation的名词复数 ); 谈判; 完成(难事); 通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 erecting | |
v.使直立,竖起( erect的现在分词 );建立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 barricading | |
设路障于,以障碍物阻塞( barricade的现在分词 ); 设路障[防御工事]保卫或固守 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 laden | |
adj.装满了的;充满了的;负了重担的;苦恼的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 levying | |
征(兵)( levy的现在分词 ); 索取; 发动(战争); 征税 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 compulsory | |
n.强制的,必修的;规定的,义务的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 truce | |
n.休战,(争执,烦恼等的)缓和;v.以停战结束 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 hostilities | |
n.战争;敌意(hostility的复数);敌对状态;战事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 indemnity | |
n.赔偿,赔款,补偿金 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 intercourse | |
n.性交;交流,交往,交际 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 tacked | |
用平头钉钉( tack的过去式和过去分词 ); 附加,增补; 帆船抢风行驶,用粗线脚缝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 celebrated | |
adj.有名的,声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 fortified | |
adj. 加强的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 upwards | |
adv.向上,在更高处...以上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 killing | |
n.巨额利润;突然赚大钱,发大财 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 naval | |
adj.海军的,军舰的,船的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 disposition | |
n.性情,性格;意向,倾向;排列,部署 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 provincial | |
adj.省的,地方的;n.外省人,乡下人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 ransom | |
n.赎金,赎身;v.赎回,解救 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 inflicted | |
把…强加给,使承受,遭受( inflict的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 arrogant | |
adj.傲慢的,自大的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 perfidious | |
adj.不忠的,背信弃义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 hoisted | |
把…吊起,升起( hoist的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 jack | |
n.插座,千斤顶,男人;v.抬起,提醒,扛举;n.(Jake)杰克 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 juncture | |
n.时刻,关键时刻,紧要关头 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 exterminated | |
v.消灭,根绝( exterminate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 consular | |
a.领事的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 simultaneously | |
adv.同时发生地,同时进行地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 brink | |
n.(悬崖、河流等的)边缘,边沿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 folly | |
n.愚笨,愚蠢,蠢事,蠢行,傻话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 catastrophe | |
n.大灾难,大祸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 intervention | |
n.介入,干涉,干预 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 disintegration | |
n.分散,解体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 broached | |
v.谈起( broach的过去式和过去分词 );打开并开始用;用凿子扩大(或修光);(在桶上)钻孔取液体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 overtures | |
n.主动的表示,提议;(向某人做出的)友好表示、姿态或提议( overture的名词复数 );(歌剧、芭蕾舞、音乐剧等的)序曲,前奏曲 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 suspense | |
n.(对可能发生的事)紧张感,担心,挂虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 diplomacy | |
n.外交;外交手腕,交际手腕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 remonstrances | |
n.抱怨,抗议( remonstrance的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 predecessors | |
n.前任( predecessor的名词复数 );前辈;(被取代的)原有事物;前身 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 blustered | |
v.外强中干的威吓( bluster的过去式和过去分词 );咆哮;(风)呼啸;狂吹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 invincible | |
adj.不可征服的,难以制服的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 joint | |
adj.联合的,共同的;n.关节,接合处;v.连接,贴合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 fortress | |
n.堡垒,防御工事 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 bellicose | |
adj.好战的;好争吵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 chambers | |
n.房间( chamber的名词复数 );(议会的)议院;卧室;会议厅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 hereditary | |
adj.遗传的,遗传性的,可继承的,世袭的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 impending | |
a.imminent, about to come or happen | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 abated | |
减少( abate的过去式和过去分词 ); 减去; 降价; 撤消(诉讼) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 suffrage | |
n.投票,选举权,参政权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 lamentably | |
adv.哀伤地,拙劣地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 conclusive | |
adj.最后的,结论的;确凿的,消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 franchise | |
n.特许,特权,专营权,特许权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 tenement | |
n.公寓;房屋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 alteration | |
n.变更,改变;蚀变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 postscript | |
n.附言,又及;(正文后的)补充说明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 amending | |
改良,修改,修订( amend的现在分词 ); 改良,修改,修订( amend的第三人称单数 )( amends的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 postponement | |
n.推迟 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 conversion | |
n.转化,转换,转变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 tenant | |
n.承租人;房客;佃户;v.租借,租用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 leaseholder | |
n.租贷人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 jumble | |
vt.使混乱,混杂;n.混乱;杂乱的一堆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 contradictory | |
adj.反驳的,反对的,抗辩的;n.正反对,矛盾对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 amendments | |
(法律、文件的)改动( amendment的名词复数 ); 修正案; 修改; (美国宪法的)修正案 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 utterly | |
adv.完全地,绝对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 doom | |
n.厄运,劫数;v.注定,命定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 retrieve | |
vt.重新得到,收回;挽回,补救;检索 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 repeal | |
n.废止,撤消;v.废止,撤消 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 premier | |
adj.首要的;n.总理,首相 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 advisers | |
顾问,劝告者( adviser的名词复数 ); (指导大学新生学科问题等的)指导教授 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 sufficiently | |
adv.足够地,充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 variance | |
n.矛盾,不同 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 sanguine | |
adj.充满希望的,乐观的,血红色的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 smitten | |
猛打,重击,打击( smite的过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 thigh | |
n.大腿;股骨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 aggravate | |
vt.加重(剧),使恶化;激怒,使恼火 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 fluctuations | |
波动,涨落,起伏( fluctuation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 derange | |
v.使精神错乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 enunciation | |
n.清晰的发音;表明,宣言;口齿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 initiating | |
v.开始( initiate的现在分词 );传授;发起;接纳新成员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |