DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16519#0008
Vol. VI.]
INTRODUCTION.
[January to June, 1844.
PA.OE
Sir Charles Napier, denied his harsh treatment of the
Ameers, and said, "he had preferred the hard fare of a tent
to their luxurious palaces. This was conduct which would he
regarded as characteristic by those who knew the combination
of daring bravery and of kindness almost feminine which
distinguished that gallant officer, in whom was united the
courage of a lion and the gentleness—the heart—of a child."
This just estimate of Sir C. Napier was received with loud
cheers. The motion was lost by 202 to 68. Motions for the
thanks of Parliament to Sir 0. Napier were brought forward
in both Houses of Parliament, and the Duke of Wellington"
spoke in the most complimentary manner of Sir Charles.
During the debate Commodore Charles Napier narrated
some anecdotes of the General's exploits in times past. The
number of bayonets at Mecanee were only 1700 as opposed to
30,000 of the enemy, and it was only surprising that the British
force had not been driven into the Indus. The nullah at Hyder-
abad was 40 feet wide and 17 deep. Sir Charles, mounted
. on his horse, Red Rover, was the second to ascend the bank,
and the men in their excitement carried their horses through,
and went <: far beyond hunting in Leicestershire." Had Sir
Charles waited twenty hours longer he would have been
surrounded by fifty or sixty thousand men, as on the evening
after the battle twelve thousand fresh troops of the enemy
arrived at Hyderabad. In the House of Commons Lord
Howiek took exception to Sir Charles's treatment of the
Ameers, but the motion was ultimately agreed to by 164 to 9.
On the 21st of April, in reply to a question put by Mr. T.
B. Macaulay, Sir Robert Peel announced that the Court
of Directors " had exercised the power which the law gives
them to recall at their will and pleasure the Governor-
General of India " (Lord Ellenbqrough). The announce-
ment was received with loud cheers by the Opposition, as
it was known that the Government had been strongly
opposed to the recall.
In the House of Lords the Doke of Wellington" severely
censured the act of the Board of Directors, and declared that
it had been done in opposition to the wishes of the Govern-
ment, and that the conduct of Lord Ellenborough had his
entire approbation. There the matter dropped, but was resumed
the next day, and all papers referring to the correspondence
between the Board and the Ministry were refused in both
Houses. Mr. Roebuck, by a motion, proposed to inquire
into the conduct of Sir C. Metcalfe, the Governor of Canada,
but Sir Robert Peel and Lord Stanley defending the
course, pursued, the discussion terminated without a division.
Lord Normanby called the attention of the House to the
affairs of Ireland, and referring to the O'Connell arrests,
proposed to take the earliest opportunity when no prejudice
could arise therefrom in the minds of the jury, to examine
into the causes of the discontents now unhappily prevalent in
Ireland. The Government did not oppose Lord Normanby's
arguments, and the debate terminated in rather a sharp per-
sonal altercation between Lords Brougham and Campbell.
LOO [The " Terrific Combat " at St. Stephen's.] On a division
there appeared Non-contents 175, Conteuts 78, Majority
against, 97.
Lord John Russell moved for a Committee of the whole
House, to consider the state of Ireland, and the debate
continued for nine nights. Sir James Graham lead the
defence of the Government, but our space forbids the briefest
summary of the various speeches on the occasson, and which
were of a most interesting character. Sir Robert Peel
declared that the Irish Parliament had been the most cor-
rupt that ever existed, and so Mr. Grattan described it;
yet during its continuance Mr. O'Connell declared the hap-
piness of Ireland was almost perfect, though for the last
twenty years of its time there had been a constant series of
insurrections. [Jack the Giant-Killer.] He, Sir Robert 39
Peel, defended the course pursued by the Government to-
wards the agitators, and hoped the time would come when
by the sacrifice of those evil passions that dishonour out-
common faith, nothing would prevent the union of hand and
heart for the welfare of our common country. On a divi-
sion, the numbers were, for the motion 225, against 334,
majority for the Ministers, 99.
The Registration of Voters Bill was then brought in, and a
new measure to amend the Irish Municipal Franchise, which
were after discussion postponed, and finally lost on an Amend-
' ment by Mr. T. Duncombe ; later in the Session, Mr. Hume
moved to abolish the office of Viceroy of Ireland, but ulti-
mately withdrew the motion. Other Irish measures occupied
the attention of Parliament, and the Roman Catholic Penal
Acts Repeal Bill, introduced by Lord Beaumont, and sup-
ported by the Government, was carried. Sir James Graham's
Bill for Restrictions on Labour in Factories, after several
divisions on amendments by Lord Ashley, was passed, his
Lordship's proposal to limit the hours of labour to ten having
been rejected for the longer period. The objects of the Bill
were thus stated by Lord Wharncliffe : it alters the age at
which children may be admitted to work in factories from
nine to eight years ; diminishes the working time of persons
between eight and sixteen years of age from nine to six and a
half hours, extends school hours to two and a half hours
in summer and three hours in winter, besides other salutary
provisions for the well-being of the operative.
Lord Brougham spoke against the Bill, but was now gene-
rally to be found acting with the Government. ["Henry" 141
asking for more] and [the Ruined Gamester.] 14 b
Free Trade and the Corn Laws occupied but a small portion
of the attention of the House, aud the exertions of their advo-
cates were confined to two or three desultory motions, more as
indicating their protest against the existing law than tending
to any practical result. Mr. Cobden, however, on the 15th
of March, brought forward the Corn Law question, and the
same arguments pro and con as had been used on former
occasions were again advanced, and the motion lost by 224
to 133.
On the 25th of June, Mr. Villiers brought forward his
motion on the Corn Laws, and condemnatory of the late Act,
and after various speeches on both sides the question, the
motion was lost by 32S to 124. It is well to remember the
largeness of these majorities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a favourable
account of the Finance of the past year, but a majority
of 20 against the Sugar clause of the Government Customs
Bill (on an Amendment by Mr. Miles) created much anxiety
in the minds of Ministers, and Sir R. Peel explained that
the Government would be embarrassed if the Budget was
materially altered. This Lord John Russell declared to be
no more nor less than asking the House to retract its former
vote, and disgrace itself with the country, and the House
might be sure that if they gave him the victory now, they would
henceforth be wholly in his hand. The House, however, did
reverse their former decision by a Government majority of 22,
and the Bill subsequently passed a third reading.
INTRODUCTION.
[January to June, 1844.
PA.OE
Sir Charles Napier, denied his harsh treatment of the
Ameers, and said, "he had preferred the hard fare of a tent
to their luxurious palaces. This was conduct which would he
regarded as characteristic by those who knew the combination
of daring bravery and of kindness almost feminine which
distinguished that gallant officer, in whom was united the
courage of a lion and the gentleness—the heart—of a child."
This just estimate of Sir C. Napier was received with loud
cheers. The motion was lost by 202 to 68. Motions for the
thanks of Parliament to Sir 0. Napier were brought forward
in both Houses of Parliament, and the Duke of Wellington"
spoke in the most complimentary manner of Sir Charles.
During the debate Commodore Charles Napier narrated
some anecdotes of the General's exploits in times past. The
number of bayonets at Mecanee were only 1700 as opposed to
30,000 of the enemy, and it was only surprising that the British
force had not been driven into the Indus. The nullah at Hyder-
abad was 40 feet wide and 17 deep. Sir Charles, mounted
. on his horse, Red Rover, was the second to ascend the bank,
and the men in their excitement carried their horses through,
and went <: far beyond hunting in Leicestershire." Had Sir
Charles waited twenty hours longer he would have been
surrounded by fifty or sixty thousand men, as on the evening
after the battle twelve thousand fresh troops of the enemy
arrived at Hyderabad. In the House of Commons Lord
Howiek took exception to Sir Charles's treatment of the
Ameers, but the motion was ultimately agreed to by 164 to 9.
On the 21st of April, in reply to a question put by Mr. T.
B. Macaulay, Sir Robert Peel announced that the Court
of Directors " had exercised the power which the law gives
them to recall at their will and pleasure the Governor-
General of India " (Lord Ellenbqrough). The announce-
ment was received with loud cheers by the Opposition, as
it was known that the Government had been strongly
opposed to the recall.
In the House of Lords the Doke of Wellington" severely
censured the act of the Board of Directors, and declared that
it had been done in opposition to the wishes of the Govern-
ment, and that the conduct of Lord Ellenborough had his
entire approbation. There the matter dropped, but was resumed
the next day, and all papers referring to the correspondence
between the Board and the Ministry were refused in both
Houses. Mr. Roebuck, by a motion, proposed to inquire
into the conduct of Sir C. Metcalfe, the Governor of Canada,
but Sir Robert Peel and Lord Stanley defending the
course, pursued, the discussion terminated without a division.
Lord Normanby called the attention of the House to the
affairs of Ireland, and referring to the O'Connell arrests,
proposed to take the earliest opportunity when no prejudice
could arise therefrom in the minds of the jury, to examine
into the causes of the discontents now unhappily prevalent in
Ireland. The Government did not oppose Lord Normanby's
arguments, and the debate terminated in rather a sharp per-
sonal altercation between Lords Brougham and Campbell.
LOO [The " Terrific Combat " at St. Stephen's.] On a division
there appeared Non-contents 175, Conteuts 78, Majority
against, 97.
Lord John Russell moved for a Committee of the whole
House, to consider the state of Ireland, and the debate
continued for nine nights. Sir James Graham lead the
defence of the Government, but our space forbids the briefest
summary of the various speeches on the occasson, and which
were of a most interesting character. Sir Robert Peel
declared that the Irish Parliament had been the most cor-
rupt that ever existed, and so Mr. Grattan described it;
yet during its continuance Mr. O'Connell declared the hap-
piness of Ireland was almost perfect, though for the last
twenty years of its time there had been a constant series of
insurrections. [Jack the Giant-Killer.] He, Sir Robert 39
Peel, defended the course pursued by the Government to-
wards the agitators, and hoped the time would come when
by the sacrifice of those evil passions that dishonour out-
common faith, nothing would prevent the union of hand and
heart for the welfare of our common country. On a divi-
sion, the numbers were, for the motion 225, against 334,
majority for the Ministers, 99.
The Registration of Voters Bill was then brought in, and a
new measure to amend the Irish Municipal Franchise, which
were after discussion postponed, and finally lost on an Amend-
' ment by Mr. T. Duncombe ; later in the Session, Mr. Hume
moved to abolish the office of Viceroy of Ireland, but ulti-
mately withdrew the motion. Other Irish measures occupied
the attention of Parliament, and the Roman Catholic Penal
Acts Repeal Bill, introduced by Lord Beaumont, and sup-
ported by the Government, was carried. Sir James Graham's
Bill for Restrictions on Labour in Factories, after several
divisions on amendments by Lord Ashley, was passed, his
Lordship's proposal to limit the hours of labour to ten having
been rejected for the longer period. The objects of the Bill
were thus stated by Lord Wharncliffe : it alters the age at
which children may be admitted to work in factories from
nine to eight years ; diminishes the working time of persons
between eight and sixteen years of age from nine to six and a
half hours, extends school hours to two and a half hours
in summer and three hours in winter, besides other salutary
provisions for the well-being of the operative.
Lord Brougham spoke against the Bill, but was now gene-
rally to be found acting with the Government. ["Henry" 141
asking for more] and [the Ruined Gamester.] 14 b
Free Trade and the Corn Laws occupied but a small portion
of the attention of the House, aud the exertions of their advo-
cates were confined to two or three desultory motions, more as
indicating their protest against the existing law than tending
to any practical result. Mr. Cobden, however, on the 15th
of March, brought forward the Corn Law question, and the
same arguments pro and con as had been used on former
occasions were again advanced, and the motion lost by 224
to 133.
On the 25th of June, Mr. Villiers brought forward his
motion on the Corn Laws, and condemnatory of the late Act,
and after various speeches on both sides the question, the
motion was lost by 32S to 124. It is well to remember the
largeness of these majorities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a favourable
account of the Finance of the past year, but a majority
of 20 against the Sugar clause of the Government Customs
Bill (on an Amendment by Mr. Miles) created much anxiety
in the minds of Ministers, and Sir R. Peel explained that
the Government would be embarrassed if the Budget was
materially altered. This Lord John Russell declared to be
no more nor less than asking the House to retract its former
vote, and disgrace itself with the country, and the House
might be sure that if they gave him the victory now, they would
henceforth be wholly in his hand. The House, however, did
reverse their former decision by a Government majority of 22,
and the Bill subsequently passed a third reading.