Far more serious than this smallest of little wars was the crisis that had simultaneously overtaken the Levant. For years the Turkish Empire had been on the brink 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 folly provoked the catastrophe. 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 intervention of the Powers could alone preserve the Ottoman Empire from disintegration. But, as soon as Lord Palmerston broached 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 overtures 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 suspense 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 diplomacy of the Prime Minister and the strong remonstrances 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 predecessors' shilly-shally had exposed his country. He blustered 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 invincible, was a mere man of straw. His opinion was justified by the easy success of the joint 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 November Commodore Napier reduced to ruins, after a bombardment of only three hours, Acre, the fortress 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 bellicose speech from the throne with which M. Thiers proposed to open the Chambers 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 hereditary 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 impending. 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 abated the desire of the leading Reformers to extend the suffrage to the working classes. Still the Government was lamentably 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 conclusive 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 franchise by fixing upon the Poor Law valuation as the standard; and the Bill proposed to enact that every occupier of a tenement under a holding of not less than fourteen years, of the annual value of £5, should have the right of 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 alteration in the elective franchise of Ireland, founded upon principles unknown both in England and Scotland. It was represented as a new Reform Bill for Ireland, tacked on as a postscript to a Bill for amending the registration. The £5 franchise, it was argued, would in effect be little short of the introduction of universal suffrage. The House divided on the respective merits of the rival Bills, when the Government measure was carried by a majority of five. The result was hailed with cheers from both sides of the House, the Opposition regarding the victory as little better than a defeat. Lord John Russell at first announced that he would proceed immediately with the measure, but he afterwards moved its postponement till the 23rd of April. During the interval Lord Morpeth announced the conversion 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 tenant, in order to entitle him to the franchise, should have a beneficial interest in his holding of £5 a year over and above the rent. Lord Morpeth proposed as a qualification for the franchise a lease of fourteen years, and a low rating of £8. Lord Howick proposed that the yearly tenant should be entitled to vote as well as the leaseholder if he had an annual interest of £5 in it; but Lord Morpeth contended, and showed from statistics, that this principle would disfranchise more than three-fourths of the £10 tenant voters in several of the counties. In short, it would have the effect of almost entirely disfranchising the existing occupying constituency of Ireland. On a division, Lord Howick's amendment was carried by 291 to 270. Finally the Bill was reduced to such a jumble of contradictory amendments 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, utterly failed. Lord Stanley also abandoned his measure, and there the matter ended. The whole of the proceedings plainly indicated that the doom of Lord Melbourne's feeble Cabinet was at hand.

ATTACK ON THE CHINESE JUNKS. (See p. [474].)

[[See larger version]]

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.

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 sufficiently 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 variance 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 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 mischief 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 sanguine members of the Cabinet.

Parliament was dissolved on the 30th of June, and at the general election the Ministerial party was smitten hip and thigh. 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 aggravate the natural fluctuations of supply; and whether they did not embarrass trade, derange the currency, and by their operation diminish the comfort and increase the privations of the great body of the community. Here was a distinct enunciation 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, initiating 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.