沧州青县:爱心超市做“阵地” 驻村指导员来“跑腿 ”

No small curiosity was experienced to see the man that had maintained a defence, obstinate and protracted beyond any related in the annals of modern war. Gorgeously attired in silks and splendid arms, he rode a magnificent Arab steed, with a rich saddle-cloth of scarlet. He but little exceeded the middle size, was powerfully but elegantly formed; his keen, dark, piercing, restless eyes surveyed at a glance everything around. He neither wore the face of defiance nor dejection; but moved along under the general gaze as one conscious of having bravely done his duty.

The Irish Bill was read a second time in the House of Lords on the 23rd of July. It was strongly opposed by the Duke of Wellington, as transferring the electoral power of the country from the Protestants to the Roman Catholics. Lord Plunket, in reply, said, "One fact, I think, ought to satisfy every man, not determined against conviction, of its wisdom and necessity. What will the House think when I inform them that the representatives of seventeen of those boroughs, containing a population of 170,000 souls, are nominated by precisely seventeen persons? Yet, by putting an end to this iniquitous and disgraceful system, we are, forsooth, violating the articles of the union, and overturning the Protestant institutions of the country! This is ratiocination and statesmanlike loftiness of vision with a vengeance! Then it seems that besides violating the union Act we are departing from the principles of the measure of 1829. I deny that. I also deny the assumption of the noble Duke, that the forty-shilling freeholders were disfranchised on that occasion merely for the purpose of maintaining the Protestant interests in Ireland. The forty-shilling freeholders were disfranchised, not because they were what are called 'Popish electors,' but because they were in such indigent circumstances as precluded their exercising their[353] suffrage right independently and as free agentsbecause they were an incapable constituency." The Bill, after being considered in committee, where it encountered violent opposition, was passed by the Lords on the 30th of July, and received the Royal Assent by commission on the 7th of August. 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.

[593]

The year 1843 opened amid gloom and depression. The newspapers published the fact that the revenue for the quarter ending on the 5th of January, as compared with the corresponding quarter of the previous year, had decreased no less than 940,062, occasioned mainly by diminished consumption of articles used by the industrial classes of the community; and the Times remarked, "It appears to us very clear, whatever our Free Trade friends may say, that any alteration which may be made in the Corn Laws ought not to be made irrespective of financial considerations: we cannot at these times afford to throw away revenue." In the same paper appeared a statement that flour was 30 per cent. dearer in London than in Paris. The Queen opened Parliament on the 2nd of February, and the Speech delivered from the Throne regretted the diminished receipts from some of the ordinary sources of revenue, and feared that it must, in part, be[506] attributed to the reduced consumption of many articles caused by that depression of the manufacturing industry of the country which had so long prevailed, and which her Majesty had so deeply lamented. But it suggested no measure of relief for the people.