Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

in that House was anxious to do honour to those gallant soldiers who had contributed so much to sustain the glory of their country abroad.

The Earl of Galloway having recommended the celebration of the victory by a day of general thanksgiving,

The Duke of Wellington address ed the House with great energy and earnestness. It had fallen to his lot to know and to consider the great difficulties under which the war had been conducted, and he could therefore bear testimony to the ability with which the combinations had been carried out which had resulted in the triumphant victory upon which they were now called to pronounce their approbation. The success that had attended the operations of General Whish and Colonel Dundas against Mooltan, was the first point which called for the thanks of the House; and though some untoward accidents, which it was impossible to avoid, had attended the earlier actions of Lord Gough, the result of the whole series of operations had been brilliant in the extreme. The noble Duke also expressed his admiration at the conduct of Major Edwardes and those young officers who, he was happy to say, had immortalized themselves in the late campaign; and having called the attention of the House to the effective service rendered by the Scinde Horse in the battle of Goojerat, sat down reiterating his hearty concurrence in the vote of thanks.

The Duke of Richmond, Lord Hardinge, and the Earl of Ellenborough also spoke in approbation of the vote of thanks, and the resolutions in which it was embodied were unanimously agreed to.

In the House of Commons,

Sir J. Hobhouse, pursuant to notice, moved a similar vote of thanks to the Governor-General of India, the Commander-in-Chief in India, the General and other officers, noncommissioned officers and men, engaged in the recent operations in the Punjaub. He observed that, acquainted as we had become with the Sikh people, it was superfluous to preface his motion by any preliminary remarks upon the character of that nation, with whom it had been long foreseen that the great struggle for dominion in India would take place. It was due to the Sikhs to say, that they had contended against us with an energy, a courage and perseverance, worthy of a better cause. Sir John took a rapid glance at the relations established by Lord Hardinge between the British Indian Government and the State of Lahore; the new arrangements subsequently entered into; the treacherous murder of Mr. Vans Agnew and Lieutenant Andersonmen of the highest hope and promise-the revolt of the Dewan of Mooltan, and the general insurrection which followed. He then gave a brief narrative of the early exploits of Major Edwardes, and Lieutenant Lake; the expedition against Mooltan under General Whish; the events which delayed its operations; the march of the Bengal and Bombay divisions to reinforce the besieging army; and the promptitude with which General Whish resumed operations against Mooltan, and the storming of that place, whereby, according to the Duke of Wellington, the great object of the war was accomplished. Sir John then took up the proceedings of Lord Gough against the Sikh army under Shere Singh, who had separated from Moolraj,

and collected a formidable force of 35,000 men upon the Chenab, whilst Chuttur Singh had broken into Peshawur, and the Sikh troops in Bunnoo revolted. He then described the march of Lord Gough to the Chenab; the expulsion of Shere Singh from his post upon that river, and his retreat upon the Jhelum ; the bloody battle of Chillianwallah and the concentration of the Sikh army at Russool, where it was joined by Chuttur Singh. A new cause of apprehension now arose; the Affghans took the field. Dost Mahomed Khan had unfurled the green banner on the banks of the Indus in co-operation with the Sikh army, then numbering 60,000 men, whilst Shere Singh with his large force was meditating a movement across the Chenab upon Lahore. By a most fortunate circumstance, showing the judgment which had dictated the arrangements and the celerity with which they had been executed, this movement was defeated by the appearance of the advanced force of Gene ral Whish's army, which had accomplished a march of twenty-one days in seventeen, arriving on the left bank of the Chenab at the critical moment to prevent the passage of the Sikhs. Sir John Hobhouse then read some highly interesting details of the battle of Goojerat, which the Governor-General had characterized as one of the most memorable ever fought by the British troops in India. After a tribute to the merits of the officers who had distinguished themselves in action, and others employed upon detached services, and to the memory of those who had fallen, the right honourable baronet closed his speech with an animated panegyric upon Lord Gough.

The Marquis of Granby seconded the motion.

Sir R. Peel, in a few words, expressed his cordial concurrence in the vote, and bore testimony to the merits and services of Lord Gough, who had four times received the thanks of that House. He (Sir R. Peel) had never doubted that the campaign would redound to the honour of Lord Gough, and would give new security to the British power; and he rejoiced not only at the glorious termination of the campaign, but that great exploits had been performed, not only by veterans, but by young men, who had nobly discharged the responsibilities cast upon them. While such acts were performed by the aged, and such examples set by the young, he should not despair of the permanence of the British power in India.

Sir J. W. Hogg, observing that a more complete victory than that of Goojerat had never been fought, panegyrized the conduct of Lord Gough, and gave some further details respecting Lahore politics. He distinguished between the Sikh troops under the mutinous Sirdars and the four regiments placed under British officers, not a man of which had joined the insurgents, and he expressed his belief that the Sikhs, so officered and well treated, would make able, zealous, and faithful soldiers.

Sir R. Inglis concurred in the vote, and hoped that some further marks of Royal approbation would be bestowed upon Lord Gough.

After a few remarks from Mr. Mangles, Mr. Grattan, and Colonel Dunne, and a warm eulogium upon the character and conduct of the Earl of Dalhousie from Sir R. Peel, the several resolutions were agreed to nem. con.

CHAPTER VII.

He

FINANCE-General impression on the public mind as to the necessity of Retrenchment in Expenditure-Formation of Financial Associations -Mr. Cobden's Scheme for reducing the public disbursements by ten millions-He brings forward the Question in the House of Commons on the 26th of February-His Speech-He is answered with great force by the Chancellor of the Exchequer-Speeches of Mr. Hume, Mr. Herries, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. H. Drummond, and other Members-On a Division the Motion is negatived by 275 to 78. THE BUDGET-Sir Charles Wood makes his Financial Statement on the 29th of June, in Committee of the whole House-His Estimates show a probable Surplus to a small amount for the year ensuing states the various Reductions effected by the Ministers in several departments of Expenditure-Reception of the Budget-Observations of Mr. Hume, who demands further retrenchments, of Mr. H. Drummond, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Hodges, Mr. Cobden, and other Members-Motion of Mr. Herries for increasing the Revenue by a fixed duty on Corn-Speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to the Motion-Remarks of Mr. Sandars, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Bright-The Motion is withdrawn. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM-Mr. Hume moves, on the 4th of June, for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the National Representation-He describes the chief features of his Plan-Household Suffrage, Ballot, Triennial Parliaments, and more equal proportion of Representatives to Population-Mr. H. Berkeley seconds the Motion, which is also supported by Mr. F. O'Connor, Mr. Locke King, Mr. Bright, Mr. B. Osborne, and Mr. W. P. Wood, and opposed by Sir George Grey, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Newdegate, and Lord John Russell-The Motion is negatived on a Division by 268 to 82. MR. COBDEN'S SCHEME OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION-He proposes an Address to the Crown in favour of establishing that mode of adjusting National DisputesMr. Ewart seconds the Motion-Lord Robert Grosvenor, Mr. Mackinnon, Col. Thompson, Mr. T. Hobhouse, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Hume speak in favour of the Motion-Lord Palmerston moves the previous Question—Mr. B. Cochrane, Mr. Urquhart, Mr. Milnes, Captain Harris, and Lord John Russell, support the Amendment-After a reply from Mr. Cobden the previous Question is carried by 176 against 79.

A

BOUT the close of the Session of 1848, the desire for Financial Reform, which had been awakened by several discussions in

Parliament on financial subjects, and by the unfortunately depressed condition of the revenue, took a considerable hold upon the public

mind. An opinion gained ground that it would be practicable to effect a large reduction in the national expenditure, without either weakening the military defences of the country or otherwise impairing the efficiency of the public service. This notion was widely diffused, and obtained very general acquiescence. A desire to organize some means for enforcing economy upon the Government soon arose, and in pursuance of this object Associations for promoting the cause of Financial Reform sprung up in London, Edinburgh, Liverpool, and other principal towns. Among the various schemes propounded for giving effect to the general desire for retrenchment none attracted so much attention as a plan proposed by Mr. Cobden, the member for the West Riding, in which that Gentleman advocated the remission of the malt tax, and several other public burthens, and undertook to prove that the amount of revenue thus to be remitted might easily be dispensed with by simply returning to the scale of public expenditure that was found sufficient in 1835. By so doing, a sum of no less than ten millions would be saved, according to Mr. Cobden's statement, to the public. This scheme was received in many quarters with great favour, and a large class of persons were sanguine enough to believe that the proposition would be found both feasible and expedient. At all events, its author undertook to bring it form ally before the House of Commons, and take the sense of Parliament upon the subject.

At an early period of the Session (the 26th of February) Mr. Cobden redeemed this pledge. On the question that the Speaker leave the chair, to go into a Committee of Supply,

the honourable Gentleman moved a resolution to this effect:-That the increase of nearly ten millions between the net expenditure of 1835 and that of 1848 having been caused principally by augmentations of warlike establishments and outlays for defensive armaments, which increase is not warranted by the present circumstances of the country, whilst the taxes required to meet the present expenditure impede agriculture and manufac tures, and diminish the funds applicable to productive industry, thereby adding to the burthens of the people, it is expedient to reduce the annual expenditure, with all practicable speed, to the sum which in 1835 was sufficient to maintain the security, honour, and dignity of the nation." Mr. Cobden began by stating, that he did not desire that any Member should infer from his notice that the reduction he proposed could be made instanter; his object was to afford the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to the desirableness and necessity of such a reduction. He compared various items in the budgets of England and France, and contended that, notwithstanding the disparity of their populations, the items were larger in the former country than in the latter. He referred to the extravagance of our local taxation, which he attributed to the fault of the Imperial Legislature, and then proceeded to justify his selection of 1835 as a model year, which he had done in order to avoid the charge of taking an arbitrary standard; just as, at the close of the war, 1792 had been taken as the starting point. Mr. Cobden then instituted a comparison between various items of expenditure in the respective years of 1885 and 1848,

and laid great stress upon the enormous item of 18,000,000l. for our naval and military establishments, upon which, he said, the great gist of his argument rested, and showed what had been the increase in that great item since 1835, and the causes of that increase. He gave a sketch of the political condition of this country, with reference to its foreign relations, during the last fourteen years, and referred to the apprehensions, some real, some imaginary, which had induced the House to consent to augment the army and navy, insisting that our foreign relations were upon an infinitely safer footing than in 1835, and that if we took advantage of our insular position, and did not run heedlessly into the internal disputes of other countries, there never was a time when this country, as respected its foreign relations, was in stiller water. Mr. Cobden then adverted to the expenditure incurred on account of the Colonies, and put it to the House to say, whether the Colonies ought not to maintain their own establishments, for it was in his opinion a monstrous injustice that, considering the boons given to the Colonies, the people of England should be taxed to support possessions from which they derived no greater benefit than the mass of the people of any other country. With respect to our armaments at home, he maintained that neither in England, where there was per feet feeling of loyalty, nor even in Ireland, the disturbances in which had been exaggerated, did any cause exist for keeping up such a military establishment as was now proposed. Mr. Cobden expatiated upon the relief which every branch of our industry would enjoy by a remission of taxation; this could only

be obtained by a reduction of our naval and military establishments, by which he would undertake to bring back the total expendi ture to the amount in 1835, at the same time allowing an addition of 1,500,000l. to our civil expenditure.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer complimented Mr. Cobden upon the temperate manner in which he had brought forward this subject, and glancing slightly at the subject of local taxation, which had little connection with the question, observed that Mr. Cobden's argument for assuming 1835 as a standard to which we should go back, depended upon two conditions: first, that in that year adequate provision was made for the public service; and secondly, that no subsequent changes had taken place calling for increase. The excess of 9,763,000. of expenditure in 1848 over that of 1835 was not, he remarked, attributable to the augmentation of the naval and military estab lishments alone; and he undertook to show that it was not consistent with the true interests of the country. the protection of life and property at home, and of trade and commerce abroadto effect a reduction in those establishments to the extent proposed by Mr. Cobden. He entered into details to establish his first proposition, that the estimates of 1835 were inadequate to the exigencies of the country, in doing which he combated the theory of Mr. Cobden respecting the Colonies, and contended that it was the true policy of the mother-country to extend its protecting arm over its Colonial possessions. He then enumerated various changes which had been

[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »