ONE: Progress of the War on the ContinentLethargic Condition of PoliticsBattle of LaufeldtCapture of Bergen-op-ZoomDisasters of the French on the Sea and in ItalyNegotiations for PeaceCongress of Aix-la-ChapelleConditions of PeacePeace at HomeCommercial Treaty with SpainDeath of the Prince of WalesPopular feeling against the Bill for Naturalising the JewsLord Hardwicke's Marriage ActFoundation of the British MuseumDeath of PelhamNewcastle's DifficultiesFailure of RobinsonApproaching Danger from AmericaA State of Undeclared WarThe Battles of Boscawen and BraddockGeorge's Anxiety for HanoverSubsidiary Treaties against PrussiaPitt's OppositionDebate in the House of CommonsDanger of EnglandFrench Expedition against MinorcaThe Failure of ByngNewcastle resignsAttempts to Form a MinistryDevonshire SucceedsWeakness of the MinistryCoalition against PrussiaAlliance with EnglandCommencement of the Seven Years' WarFrederick Conquers SaxonyGloominess of AffairsCourt-Martial on Byng, and his DeathDismissal of PittThe Pitt and Newcastle CoalitionFailure of the attack on Rochefort and of that on LouisburgConvention of Closter-SevenFrederick's Campaign; Kolin, Rosbach, and LissaSuccesses elsewhereWolfe and CliveBattle of PlasseyCapture of LouisburgTiconderoga and Fort DuquesneAttacks on St. Malo and CherbourgVictory of CrefeldFrederick's CampaignCommencement of 1759; Blockade of the French CoastPitt's Plans for the Conquest of CanadaAmherst's and Prideaux's ColumnsWolfe before QuebecPosition of the CityWolfe fails to draw Montcalm from his PositionApparent Hopelessness of the ExpeditionWolfe Scales the Heights of AbrahamThe BattleSuccesses in IndiaBattle of QuiberonFrederick's FortunesCampaign of Ferdinand of BrunswickBattle of MindenGlorious Termination of the YearFrench Descent on CarrickfergusAttempt of the French to Recover QuebecTheir Expulsion from North AmericaFrederick's Fourth CampaignSuccesses of Ferdinand of BrunswickDeath of George II.
FORE:The Budget did not retrieve 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 repeal 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 Premier had in the previous year declared that "the responsible advisers 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.The purport of these Cabinet Councils was generally understood by the country; but as yet only the most sanguine anticipated the proposal of Sir Robert Peel, when the Times newspaper on the 4th of December announced, apparently from secret information, that it was the intention of the Government to repeal the Corn Laws, and to call Parliament together in January for that purpose. The assertion was received with incredulity, not only by the Opposition, but by the Ministerial journals. One organ of the Tory party placarded its office with a bill, headed "Atrocious fabrication of the Times!" But the latter journal, on the following day, declared that it "adhered to its original announcement." Day by day the controversy raged in the newspapers; but the news was too probable not to gain credence. The result was a conviction throughout the country that the Times had really obtained information of the Government's intentions; but as a matter of fact its information was incorrect, as the Cabinet, far from intending to repeal the Corn Laws, had made up its mind to retire.
FORE:The Bill having passed, amidst the enthusiastic cheers of the Reformers, Lord John Russell and Lord Althorp were ordered to carry it in to the Lords, and "to request the concurrence of their Lordships in the same." They did so on Monday, the 26th, followed by a large number of members. It was read by the Lords the first time, and the debate on the second reading commenced on the 9th of April. On that day the Duke of Buckingham gave notice thatin the event of the Bill being rejected, a result which he fully anticipatedhe would bring in a Reform Bill, of which the principal provisions would be to give members to large and important towns, to unite and consolidate certain boroughs, and to extend the elective franchise. Lord Grey then rose to move the second reading of the Reform Bill. The principle of the Bill, he remarked, was now universally conceded. It was admitted in the Duke of Buckingham's motion. Even the Duke of Wellington did not declare against all reform. They differed with the Opposition then only as to the extent to which reform should be carried. He adverted to the modifications that had been made in the Bill, and to the unmistakable determination of the people. At this moment the public mind was tranquil, clamour had ceasedall was anxious suspense and silent expectation. Lord Grey disclaimed any wish to intimidate their lordships, but he cautioned them not to misapprehend the awful silence of the people. "Though the people are silent," he said, "they are looking at our proceedings this night no less intently than they have looked ever since the question was first agitated. I know it is pretended by many that the nation has no confidence in the Peers, because there is an opinion out of doors that the interests of the aristocracy are separated from those of the people. On the part of this House, however, I disclaim all such separation of interests; and therefore I am willing to believe that the silence of which I have spoken is the fruit of a latent hope still existing in their bosoms." The Duke was severe upon the "waverers," Lords Wharncliffe and Harrowby, who defended themselves on the ground that the Bill must be carried, if not by the consent of the Opposition, against their will, by a creation of peers that would swamp them. The Earl of Winchilsea, on the third day, expressed unbounded indignation at the proposed peer-making. If such a measure were adopted he would no longer sit in the House thus insulted and outraged; but would bide his time till the return of those good days which would enable him to vindicate the insulted laws of his country by bringing an unconstitutional Minister before the bar of his peers. The Duke of Buckingham would prefer cholera to the pestilence with which this Bill would contaminate the Constitution. This day the Bill found two defenders on the episcopal bench, the Bishops of London and Llandaff. The Bishop of Exeter, in the course of the debate, made remarks which called forth a powerful and scathing oration from Lord Durham. The Bill was defended by Lord Goderich, and Lord Grey rose to reply at five o'clock on Friday morning. Referring to the attack of the Bishop of Exeter, he said, "The right reverend prelate threw out insinuations about my ambition: let me tell him calmly that the pulses of ambition may beat as strongly under sleeves of lawn as under an ordinary habit." He concluded by referring to the proposed creation of peers, which he contended was justified by the best constitutional writers, in extraordinary circumstances, and was in accordance with the acknowledged principles of the Constitution. The House at length divided at seven o'clock on the morning of the 13th, when the second reading was carried by a majority of nine; the numbers beingcontents present, 128; proxies, 56-184; non-contents present, 126; proxies, 49-175. The Duke of Wellington entered an elaborate protest on the journals of the House against the Bill, to which protest 73 peers attached their signatures.
