CONTINUATION

     Royal Message to Parliament..... Rupture between the
     Ministers and the Whigs..... Debates on the Question of
     Regency..... Prorogation and Dissolution of Parliament.....
     Formation   of Earl Grey's Administration..... Death of Mr.
     Huskisson..... State of foreign Nations.

ROYAL MESSAGE TO PARLIAMENT—RUPTURE BETWEEN THE MINISTERS AND WHIGS-DEBATES ON THE QUESTION OF THE REGENCY.

On the 29th of June the new king sent down a message to parliament, in which he paid a tribute of respect to his deceased brother, and requested the commons to make temporary provision for the public service preparatory to the dissolution of parliament, which would speedily take place according to constitutional usage. An address, in answer to that part of the message relating to the death of the late monarch, was immediately moved by the Duke of Wellington in the upper, and by Sir Robert Peel in the lower house, in the terms of which all parties expressed their hearty concurrence. This harmony, however, did not long prevail. The Whigs had become uneasy because the session had passed away without bringing them into closer contact with ministers; and this uneasiness increased when they saw a new reign commencing, and a new parliament about to be chosen, without any invitation given, or hope held out to them. The time, they conceived, had arrived, when it became necessary, if they hoped to participate in the sweets of office, again to try their strength. They did this on the following day, when the remaining parts of the speech were taken into consideration. The king had recommended that parliament should make provision for carrying on the public service. The Whigs insisted that parliament should continue to sit until a bill be carried through, appointing a regency in case the new king should die before the new parliament could meet—the heir-presumptive, the infant of the late Duke of Kent, being a minor. Accordingly, the ministers having moved in both houses an address simply noting that they would make the temporary provision recommended in the royal message, Earl Grey in the lords, and Lord Althorp in the commons, moved as an amendment, that the consideration of the address should be postponed to the following day. They objected, generally, to the dissolution of parliament, when so many important bills were pending; and insisted more specifically on the necessity of providing for a possible demise of the crown during the interval which must elapse before a new parliament could assemble. They argued that the only inconvenience that could occur was that of sitting a month longer, and they asked why they should not sit, when so imperative a duty required it. The matter, at all events, was so important as to make it reasonable that parliament should have twenty-four hours more deliberation how to address the crown. Ministers replied, that the importance of the question, the difficulties which would arise in the course of it, and the caution with which every part of it must be considered, were the strongest possible reasons for not hurrying it through at the end of a session, when members of the lower house would be thinking much more of the elections for the next parliament than the business of the present. There was, moreover, no present necessity, they said, for this weighty arrangement, as there was no prospect of danger from the king's health. Earl Grey had himself said, it was urged, that his majesty's strong constitution and temperate habits gave promise of a long reign. While the inconvenience, then, was positive and present, the danger was imaginary and remote. It was in vain to say that the object was to gain twenty-four hours' deliberation. "If the motion is agreed to," said the Duke of Wellington, "it will be viewed as a complete defeat of ministers." Lord Grey declared that the bona fide intention of his motion was to obtain a day's delay, in the hope that the crown might thereby be induced to come forward itself with a recommendation to parliament to consider the question of the regency; and the Duke of Wellington remarked that he believed him. But his grace was right in suspecting that, whatever the mover's object might be, the result was to end in a trial of strength. The discussion, in truth, opened his eyes to the fact that all parties but his own were determined to oppose him: Lords Harrowby, Winchelsea, and Eldon, the Duke of Richmond, the Marquis of Londonderry, Earl Mansfield, and Lord Wharncliffe, one after another, stated their determination to vote for the amendment; even Lord Goderich himself expressed similar sentiments. On discovering this, ministers and their friends lost their temper, and railed against the "unnatural coalition" which, the said, was now shown to have taken place between parties opposed to each other in principle. Earl Grey, in reply, assured the house that he had never either felt or expressed confidence in the government. They had done well in carrying the Catholic Relief bill; they had received all the political and personal support he could give; and that support he could not but feel was of some benefit to the cause; but he claimed no gratitude for what he had done; and, on the other hand, he had none. As to general confidence in the present cabinet, he never entertained such an idea. His public declarations must be known to some of their lordships, and he was certain that, in private, he had often made the same statements. He had repeatedly expressed his belief of the incapacity of ministers, and therefore he could not have any confidence in them. On a division, ministers had a majority of one hundred against fifty-six; but the debate was a declaration of war; and it became evident that their scheme of government, by balancing and trimming their measures, so as to secure the aid of one section of those who trusted them not, against another, was now at an end.

In the house of commons, the language was still more vehement and bitter. The amendment was supported by Messrs. Brougham, Wynn, and Huskisson, Sir Charles Wetherell, and Lord John Russell. Sir Robert Peel had the mortification of receiving a lecture on the subject of consistency from Mr. Huskisson. On a division, the amendment was lost by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five against one hundred and thirty-nine.

PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by the king in person on the 28rd of July. In his speech he thanked both houses for their expressions of sympathy and affectionate attachment, conveyed to him on the demise of his lamented brother, and on his accession; and said that he ascended the throne with a deep sense of the sacred duties which devolved upon him, and with a humble and earnest prayer to Almighty God, that he would prosper his anxious endeavours to promote the happiness of a free and loyal people. His majesty referred to the Catholic Relief bill, expressing a hope that it would put an end to religious feuds; and declaring that he was determined to support the Protestant religion as by law established. On the next day parliament was dissolved by proclamation, and writs were ordered to be issued for the election of a new one, returnable on the 14th of September.

STATE OF PARTIES.

The session just closed had broken up the alliance which enabled ministers to retain office; and as this alliance, whilst it lasted, seemed to widen the breach between them and their ancient friends, they were destined, in the ensuing elections, to meet with a formidable opposition. To oust the ministry was the avowed object of the Whigs, and whoever professed the same object was their friend. The hostility of the Tories rested on different grounds from that of the Whigs, but it was equally formidable. The ministry, therefore, was forced to an election in face of the combined opposition of the two parties—by playing off one of which against the other it had flattered itself with being able to retain its power. Yet the opposition was not stated on any special ground. The manifestoes of the Whigs attacked it on the ground of incapacity; but in what they were incapable was not shown. The Duke of Wellington was said by them to be a domineering soldier, unfitted to conduct alone the government of the nation, yet determined to surround himself with men of mean capacity and dependent spirit, who would act as the unreflecting instruments of his will. Such were the views put forth by the Whigs, and though the offended Tories did not deliberately act in union with them, yet their influence operated in the same direction—namely, to overthrow the ministry. This general spirit of opposition suddenly gained an addition of strength by a revolution in France. The ministers of Charles X., discovering that the new elections increased the number of their opponents, broke through the fences of the constitution, with a determination to establish a species of Prussian government, in which the material interests of the people should dominate over those that are intellectual and political. A royal ordinance abolished the liberty of the press; cancelled the existing system of representation; and fashioned for the kingdom a new system of election, which would produce a chamber of deputies more subservient to the royal will. Paris rose in arms against these decrees, and the rabble overcame the troops. Charles X. and his descendants were then excluded from the throne by the deputies then in Paris, and the French crown was presented by them at the same time to the Duke of Orleans. This revolution in France was followed by another in Belgium, where a national congress declared Belgium an independent state, excluded the house of Orange from the throne, and set themselves about the election of a new king. These events were hailed in England by the Whigs with applause, as the dawning of a new and glorious era in the history of man. Public meetings were held to pass resolutions commending the spirit with which the Parisians had shaken off encroaching despotism, and deputations were sent to congratulate them on their triumph. The people of England were especially called on to remark how little they had to fear from military power, since the citizens of Paris and Brussels had been able to set it at defiance. It was also stated that they were clearly entitled to be heard in the government, since it was in their power to make the government what they chose. The excitement produced by these events, indeed, acted in the elections very unfavourably to ministers; and it had also the effect of bringing forward the question of parliamentary reform in a much more prominent and remarkable shape than it had yet assumed. The force of example was now added to the existing motives for change, and the notion of transferring the privileges of a corrupt borough to an unrepresented place, or giving the elective franchise to a populous town, was discarded. A wild and indiscriminating change was abroad. Meetings, petitions, and addresses were got up on every hand, advocating extensive alterations in our representative system, all of which, however vague and indeterminate in their respective conditions, tended to confer the elective rights on a much larger proportion of the people than had hitherto enjoyed them. Threats were even uttered that a refusal of these rights would lead to a general convulsion, in which the privileged orders might possibly be forced to yield more than was required. As a natural consequence of these menaces and demands, disturbances took place throughout the country. Lurking incendiaries wreaked their vengeance on property, the destruction of which only tended to aggravate the prevailing distress. Night after night they lighted up conflagrations, by which a large quantity of grain, and even of live stock, was consumed. Bands of men, also, still more daring than the incendiary, attacked machinery of all kinds, particularly thrashing machines, the use of which became so unpopular that insurance-offices refused a policy to those who kept them on their premises. The military force was increased in the disturbed counties, and a proclamation was issued, offering a reward of five hundred pounds for the conviction of an incendiary. A special commission, also, was ordered to proceed into those counties where the outrages were committed. The first offenders that were seized, being tried before county magistrates, met with lenity, from commiseration for their starving condition. But this only increased the evil; and, therefore, the government resolved to quell the riotous proceedings by the strong arm of the law. They were aided in this work by the yeomanry and fanners, who, mounting their horses and scouring the country, aided the civil officers in the discovery and apprehension of offenders.

MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

It was under these gloomy circumstances that, on the 26th of October, the new parliament met for the dispatch of business. The meeting of parliament found parties precisely as they had been at the dissolution, with this difference, that all the elements of opposition had acquired new vigour by the course of events, while new topics had sprung up, on which it would be forced to make a trial of strength. It appeared certain that the question of reform would speedily be brought forward; and the ministers may have hoped that such a discussion would restore to their ranks their former adherents. The session opened in reality on the 2nd of November, the intervening days being occupied in swearing in members, and in the reelection of Mr. Manners Sutton as speaker. The king attended on that day in person. In his speech his majesty alluded to the important events which had occurred on the continent; to the continuance of his diplomatic relations with the new French dynasty; to the endeavours he was making to restore tranquillity in the Netherlands; to the maintenance of those general treaties by which the political system of Europe had been established; and to the hope of renewing his diplomatic relations with Portugal, because the government of that country had determined to perform a great act of justice and humanity by the grant of a general amnesty. The remainder of his majesty's address referred to the estimates, the expiration of the civil list on the demise of his late brother, and his own dependence upon the generosity and loyalty of the house and the country.

The usual addresses were carried in both houses, though not without signs of opposition to ministers on the subjects of reform and retrenchment. Earl Grey, in allusion to that part of the address which spoke of the proceedings in Belgium as a revolt against an enlightened government, and expressed our determination to maintain in regard to it those general treaties by which the political system of Europe had been fixed, said, that all this sounded like threatened interference, while our principle should have been, as in the case of France, non-interference. He could not conceive why we should be bound by treaties to interfere between Holland and the Low Countries. We ought to learn wisdom from what had passed before our eyes; and when the spirit of liberty was breaking out all around, it was our duty to secure our own institutions by introducing into them a temperate reform. Unless we did so, he was persuaded that we must make up our minds to witness the destruction of the constitution. He had been a reformer all his life; but at no period had he been inclined to go further than he would be prepared to go now, if the opportunity offered. He did not found this on abstract right. It was said that every man who paid taxes, nay, that every man arrived at years of discretion, had a right to vote for representatives. He denied this. The right of the people was to have a good government, one calculated to secure their privileges and happiness; and if that was incompatible with universal suffrage, then the limitation, and not the extension, was the true right of the people. In reply to Earl Grey on this subject, the Duke of Wellington went beyond his usual prudence and reserve. He remarked:—"The noble earl has alluded to something in the shape of a parliamentary reform; but he has been candid enough to acknowledge that he is not prepared with any measure of reform. I have as little scruple to say, that his majesty's government is as totally unprepared as the noble lord. Nay, on my part I will go further, and say, that I have never read or heard of any measure, up to the present moment, which could in any degree satisfy my mind that the state of the representation could be improved, or be rendered more satisfactory to the country at large than at the present moment. I will not, however, at such an unseasonable time enter upon the subject, or excite discussion; but I shall not hesitate to declare unequivocally what are my sentiments upon it. I am fully convinced that the country possesses at the present moment a legislature which answers all the good purposes of legislation, and this to a greater degree than any legislature ever has answered in any country whatever. I will go further, and say, that the legislature and the system of representation possess the full and entire confidence of the country—deservedly possess that confidence; and the discussions in the legislature have a very great influence over the opinions of the country. I will go still further, and say, that if at the present moment I had imposed upon me the duty of forming a legislature for a country like this, in possession of great property of various descriptions, I do not mean to assert that I would form such a legislature as we possess now, for the nature of man is incapable of reaching it at once; but my great endeavour would be to form some description of the legislature which would produce the same results. The representation of the people at present contains a large body of the property of the country, in which the landed interest have a predominating influence. Under these circumstances I am not prepared to bring forward any measure of the description alluded to by the noble lord. I am not only not prepared to bring forward any measure of this nature, but I will at once declare that, as far as I am concerned, as long as I hold any station in the government of the country, I shall always feel it my duty to resist such measures when proposed by others."

In the house of commons Mr. Brougham did not wait even till the address was moved before he gave notice that, on the 16th, he would submit a distinct proposition for a change in the representation. Sir Robert Peel professed that he saw difficulties about the question which he was by no means prepared to encounter. He wished, nevertheless, to say nothing then which might prevent discussion hereafter, or interfere with its advance towards a satisfactory termination. These declarations of ministers spread widely the flames of discontent, which had already been kindled against government; and the consequences appeared in formidable combinations, both in and out of parliament, to embarrass ministers, and thwart their measures.

DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THEIR MAJESTIES' VISIT TO LONDON.

The embarrassment to which ministers were exposed was greatly increased by a domestic occurrence. Some time before the meeting of parliament the king and queen had promised to honour the lord-mayor's feast at Guildhall with their presence: great preparations had been made by the citizens on the approach of that civic festival, and all London was on tip-toe expectation of the splendid procession. On the 7th of November, however, all their expectations were disappointed: the lord-mayor received a note from the home-secretary, stating that his majesty had resolved, by the persuasion of his ministry, to postpone his visit to a future opportunity, because, from information recently received, "there was reason to apprehend that, notwithstanding the devoted loyalty and affection borne to his majesty by the citizens of London, advantage would be taken of an occasion which must necessarily assemble a vast number of persons by night to create tumult and confusion, and thereby to endanger the property and lives of his majesty's subjects; and it would be a source of deep and lasting concern to their majesties were any calamity to occur on the occasion of their visit to the city of London." This announcement filled the metropolis with doubt and alarm. Men conceived that some atrocious conspiracy had come to light—that a new gunpowder-plot had been discovered—and that the crisis of the constitution and of the country had arrived. The funds fell three per cent.; and in the country every man expected that the next mail would bring intelligence that London was in a state of insurrection. All, however, remained calm; and ministers were naturally called upon to explain the grounds on which they had acted. It appeared that the principal foundation of their proceedings was a note from some person in private life, stating that he was apprehensive the Duke of Wellington would not be very favourably received. Mr. John Key, lord-mayor elect, wrote to his grace informing him that "in London, as well as in the country, there was a set of desperate characters," fond of every opportunity of producing confusion, and that, according to information received by him, some of these desperadoes intended to make an attack on his grace's person on his approach to the hall; and, therefore, suggesting that his grace should come strongly and sufficiently guarded. The Duke of Wellington stated in the house of lords, and Sir Robert Peel in the commons, that on receiving this letter it was considered an imperative duty to recommend to his majesty the postponement of his visit to a future occasion. "But, besides the letter of the lord-mayor elect to the Duke of Wellington," remarked Sir Robert, "information had been received that an attack was to be made on his house in the course of the night, when the police were at a distance, under the pretence of calling for lights to illuminate. Any such attack must be accompanied by riot; and the attempt to suppress such riot by force, when the streets were filled with women and children, must be accompanied by consequences which all of us must lament. That, however, is only one of the causes which I have for believing in the possibility of such an attempt at riot taking place. Every one is aware that there exists in the public mind considerable excitement against those authorities which have been appointed, under the sanction of the house, to maintain the public peace—I allude of course to the body which is known by the name of the new police." In the course of Saturday and Sunday the most industrious attempts were made in various quarters to inflame the public mind against the new police. Thousands of printed handbills were circulated for the purpose of inciting the people against that portion of the civil force which is entrusted with the preservation of the public tranquillity. These were not written papers drawn up by illiterate persons, and casually dropped in the streets, but printed handbills, not ill adapted to the mischievous purposes which they were intended to answer. After reading some of these missives, Sir Robert continued:—"Now, after hearing the inflammatory language of the bills, I call upon the house to consider how great the likelihood is that, after the police had returned to their ordinary duties in their respective portions of the town, a desperate attack would have been made upon them. If it were made, it would of course be resisted by the civil force; if the civil force were insufficient to repel it, military aid would be called in; and then on that night of general festivity and rejoicing, in the midst of crowds of unsuspecting men, women, and children, there might be resistance, and if resistance bloodshed, occasioned by the necessity of supporting civil authorities." In reply, Mr. Brougham observed that, so far as the statement made did not proceed on the unpopularity of the Duke of Wellington, it amounted simply to this—that it was a bad thing to have a large assembly on the 9th of November; and for this reason, that though nine hundred and ninety-nine men out of one thousand might be peaceable and loyally disposed, yet the odd units, the few who were riotously inclined, might put out the lights in the streets, might involve the town in darkness, and might afterwards commence a scene of riot and confusion which could not end without bloodshed. If this were any objection to his majesty's attendance at the civic festival, it was not an objection to which the course of events had suddenly given birth within the last two or three days. Every one must have known that such an event as the visit of his majesty to the city of London must, from its rarity, collect thousands, if not myriads, to witness it; so that any accident to which the metropolis was exposed at present, from the collection of a large mass of people together, must have been as palpable a month ago as at the present moment. In the course of his speech Mr. Brougham contrasted with severity the popularity of the king with the hostility exhibited towards the premier.

MAJORITY AGAINST MINISTERS FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL LIST.

It was now obvious that the duke's administration had received a shock from which it could not recover. The opposition made a final and successful attack upon it on the 15th of November, when the chancellor of the exchequer stated to the house his arrangement for the civil list, which he proposed to raise to the annual sum of £970,000. They insisted that government in many of its departments was extravagant, and, above all, that the portion which was incurred on the personal account of the monarch ought to be kept apart from every other item. Sir Henry Parnell moved, "That a select committee be appointed to take into consideration the estimates and accounts, presented by command of his majesty, regarding the civil list." The debate on this proposition was brief. Messrs. Calcraft and Hemes, both members of government, opposed the motion, chiefly on the ground that it had never been customary to submit the civil list to a committee, and that retrenchment and simplification had been earned as far as was practicable or prudent. The motion was supported by Lord Althorp and Messrs. Bankes, Wynn, and Holme Sumner, three of which members would in other times have been loath to lend their votes to unseat a Tory ministry; and on a division there appeared a majority in its favour of two hundred and thirty-three against two hundred and four, thus defeating ministers. The consequence of this vote was that on the next day the Duke of Wellington in the lords, and Sir Robert Peel in the commons, announced that they had tendered, and his majesty had accepted, their resignations, and that they continued to hold their offices only until successors should be appointed. They afterwards declared that they came to the resolution not so much on account of the vote on the civil list as from anticipation of the result of a division on Mr. Brougham's proposition for reform, which stood for the day on which this announcement was made. But if the civil list question had not been deemed important enough to justify a resignation, the majority that decided it showed a settled and stern system of opposition, which must have convinced ministers that they could no longer rule the country. At the request of his friends, Mr. Brougham postponed his motion for reform till the 25th of November, professing to do so with reluctance, "because he could not possibly be affected by any change in administration." He pledged himself to bring forward his motion on the day appointed, whoever might be his majesty's ministers. He repeated the same declaration on a motion made by Sir M. W. Ridley to postpone the consideration of election petitions till after Christmas; but two days afterwards Mr. Brougham was gazetted as lord high chancellor of Great Britain with a peerage.

FORMATION OF EARL GREY'S ADMINISTRATION.

WILLIAM IV. 1830—1831

The Tories had lent their votes to displace the ministry, but they had formed no plan, and taken no steps, to ensure to themselves any share in the succession. Earl Grey was authorised by the king to form a new administration, of which he himself should be the head; and his lordship accepted the office on condition that he should have authority to make parliamentary reform a cabinet measure. The ministry was formed in about a week, and it consisted of Whigs, and of those who had been formerly adherents of Messrs. Canning and Huskisson, and who had held office with the leading members of the displaced administration. The greatest difficulty lay in managing Mr. Brougham, who had just declared that no change could affect him, by which it was found he meant that no change would bring him the offer of an office sufficiently high for his ambition. Earl Grey was afraid to leave him neglected or discontented in the lower house, and the honourable gentleman was determined not to sacrifice his importance in that home for any subordinate office. The negotiation ended in Mr. Brougham being made lord-chancellor—a striking instance of the most important judicial functions in the empire being entrusted, as the reward of merely political services, to a man who possessed splendid talents, but who was unprovided with judicial learning, and, above all, destitute of habits and capacity in judicial thinking. No man pitied the fate of Sir James Scarlett, but many thought the Irish chancellor, Sir Anthony Hart, who had stood impartially between contending parties, harshly treated in being made to resign for Lord Plunkett—the new premier considering it necessary to have an Irish chancellor whom he could fully trust and employ in Irish politics. The Duke of Richmond was the only leading member of the old Tory party who entered the new cabinet, and he became postmaster-general. The other members of government were as follows:—Lord Althorp was appointed to lead the house of commons as chancellor of the exchequer; the offices of home, foreign, and colonial secretaries were given respectively to Lords Melbourne, Palmerston, and Goderich; Sir James Graham was made first lord of the admiralty; Lord Lansdowne became president of the council, and Lord Durham privy seal; Messrs. Denman and Home were attorney and solicitors general; Lord Hill was commander-in-chief; Lord Auckland, president of the board of trade, and Mr. C. Grant, of the board of control; Lord Holland, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; the Duke of Devonshire, lord chamberlain; the honourable Agar Ellis, chief commissioner of the woods and forests; Mr. E. Grant, judge-advocate; Lord John Eussell, paymaster of the forces; Mr. Poulett Thompson, vice-president of the board of trade and treasurer of the navy; Sir Edward Paget and Sir Robert Spencer, master and surveyor-general of the board of ordnance; Mr. C. W. Wynne, secretary at war; and Messrs. Ellice and Spring Rice appointed joint secretaries of the treasury. In Scotland there were no offices liable to change except those of the lord-advocate and the solicitor-general, the former of which was given to Mr. Jeffrey, and the latter to Mr. Cockbum, both of them long-tried friends of the lord-chancellor, and at the head of their profession. Ireland received, as its chief governor, the Marquis of Anglesea, with Mr. Stanley as secretary, Lord Plunkett as chancellor, and Mr. Pennefather, attorney-general. It was necessary that the new ministers, who had vacated their seats by taking office, should be reelected, and this afforded an opportunity to the radical party of showing their strength. Thus Mr. Stanley was defeated at Preston by the notorious democrat, Plenry Hunt. After the new ministry had secured seats, no business of importance was transacted during the remainder of the year, except the passing of a regency bill in conformity with the recommendation in the speech from the throne. This bill had been introduced into the house of lords on the day when the fate of the late cabinet was sealed in the commons. It provided that in the event of a posthumous child of the present queen, her majesty should be guardian and regent of the kingdom; and that if such an event did not occur, then the Duchess of Kent was to be guardian and regent during the minority of her daughter, the Princess Victoria, the heir-presumptive. The princess herself was not to marry while a minor without the consent of the king, or, if he died, without the consent of both houses of parliament; and the regency was to be at an end if the Duchess of Kent, while regent, married a foreigner. A select committee was appointed on the 9th of December to inquire what reduction could be made in the salaries and emoluments of offices held during the pleasure of the crown by members of either house of parliament, and to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the house. On the 23rd both houses adjourned to the 3rd of February—ministers declaring that a long adjournment was necessary, in order to enable them to prepare the different measures which they intended submitting to parliament, especially that plan of reform to which they had pledged themselves on accepting office, and by which alone they could hope to retain it.

DEATH OF MR. HUSKISSON.

Among the most interesting events of this year may be reckoned the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester railway. It was, however, attended by a lamentable catastrophe. Mr. Huskisson, as one of the members for Liverpool, accompanied the Duke of Wellington in the procession; and, neglecting the caution given to visitors against leaving the carriages, he was knocked down by one of the returning engines, and his leg was so dreadfully crushed, that amputation could not be performed. He died of that disorder called tetanus, which commonly occurs after extensive lacerated wounds. His character is recorded in the previous pages of this history.

STATE OF FOREIGN NATIONS.

The revolutions in France and Belgium have already been noticed. The spirit of insurrection displayed in these countries extended itself to Leipsic, Dresden, Hesse-Cassel, Hamburgh, Berne, Basle, and Poland. In this latter country, however, the insurrection did not arise from civil discord, or political machinations, but rather from the harsh and insulting proceedings of Duke Constantine, its viceroy. It was a light to guide and warm a noble people to attempt their national redemption from the hand of a foreign and tyrannical master. A contest took place in the streets of Warsaw, between the people and the Russian troops, and the latter were expelled the city. Subsequently the grand duke was obliged to retire from the frontier, but not till it had been represented to him that it was the universal wish of the nation that the constitution should be carried into complete execution; that the promise of Alexander should be fulfilled, of incorporating with Poland its ancient provinces now under the dominion of Russia; but that no demands pointed to the dethronement of the emperor as their king, in whose name all the changes lately made in the government had been effected. The Poles, however, being doubtful in what light Nicholas, Emperor of Eussia would regard their proceedings, prepared for resistance, should he be determined to treat them as rebels. General Klopicki was named commander-in-chief of the army, and he soon found himself at the head of a powerful force. All the Polish regiments joined the cause of the people; but, divided and mutilated as Poland was, it seemed a hopeless prospect for a portion of it to engage in a struggle with the gigantic power of Russia. Fears were also entertained—and they were too soon realised—that Austria and Prussia, in fear for their plunder, would be adverse to its cause. Notwithstanding, the Poles made themselves ready for the contest with stout hearts. To secure energy and promptitude in their measures, they invested Klopicki, after the manner of the Romans of old, with dictatorial power. But even in assuming this office, which was to endure till the chambers of the diet, which were convoked for the 18th of December, could be assembled, the dictator disclaimed any design on the part of Poland of throwing off its king, or of demanding anything more than to enjoy under that king, an independent national existence, with the free constitution which had been promised. "The Poles," said Klopicki, "know how to be faithful; and when all Europe abandoned him before whose victorious eagles the nations had prostrated themselves, the Polish battalions, firm in the hour of reverses, never ceased till the last moment to range themselves round the fallen conqueror. But in the present instance the power of evil had overstepped all bounds; it was impossible to convey the language of truth to the head of the state; flatterers, greedy of reward and prodigal of calumnies, gave us every day new chains instead of liberty. Never was insurrection more legitimate. No; the king himself will be forced to admit the justice of our cause, when he comes to know the extent to which he was abused." But what could the unhappy Poles have expected from the mercy of the haughty autocrat Nicholas? They sent two commissioners to St. Petersburg, in order to attempt to arrange some terms of compromise; but the emperor refused to listen to their representations, and issued proclamations in which he threatened to inflict on the Poles the most severe punishment for what he called "their horrid treason." The year closed with a storm thickly gathering over the unhappy country of Poland.

In Spain, Ferdinand deeply offended the Carlists by his abolition of the salique law in favour of the child, if it should be a female, with which his queen was pregnant, and thus gave rise to a war which long desolated the northern provinces of Spain, as well as to the quadripartite treaty, under which it was hoped that the country might enjoy the blessings of a constitutional government. When the infant was born, it proved to be a daughter, and the nation was called upon to proclaim Don Carlos immediately. A civil war commenced; but the Carlists were at the close of the year so far subdued as to leave the government in apparent security. In Portugal, Don Miguel, still cut off from direct communication with European sovereigns, except his brother of Spain, continued, by means of special commissions, to take vengeance on those of his subjects suspected of political delinquencies, and to supply his wants by the confiscation of their property. Blood had, it is true, ceased to flow; but a more terrible and lingering destruction was ensured to his victims by their deportation to servitude in the African settlements. In the beginning of the year about fifty persons, whose only offence was that of being suspected of being malcontents, were shipped off for Angola. These unhappy men, though of good families, and respectable characters, were chained up with the most abandoned ruffians, robbers, and assassins, and doomed to the same punishment. In the middle passage, they were even stowed away in the smallest compass possible, like the slaves of Africa, while the best places were assigned to the malefactors; magistrates, members of the cortes, and other reputable persons occupied the most deadly and pestilential berths. Out of respect for their former situation in life, and pity for their present sufferings, they were for some time spared the fatigues of hard labours; but the superintendent soon received orders to discontinue this lenity. Nor were the political prisoners confined in the dungeons at Lisbon much better treated. They could scarcely obtain trials, and when declared innocent, they could not gain their liberty. The treatment they received may be seen from a petition which those confined in the castle of St. Julian presented to Miguel against their jailer:—"The prisoners of the tower of St. Julian have been lodged in the worst cells, subterraneous, dark, exposed to rain and all weathers, and so damp that it has frequently been necessary to strew the ground with furze, to enable them to walk on it. They have occupied apartments only nine yards long and three yards wide; and these being crowded, the temperature has been raised to such a degree as to cause cutaneous eruptions, and other complaints. Among these sufferers are the Spanish bishop, Dr. Diego Munoiz Torrero, Doru. Ant. Pinho, and J. Ant. Cansado, these latter being already declared innocent by the commissioners. In one of these cells a complete inundation has occurred more than once, leaving a continual dampness, and causing a consequent deterioration of health. Besides this dreadful state, sir, the governor has ordered the windows to be closed, to shut out the few spans of light of the heavens, and the fresh air, the only remaining part of it being from the fissures of the door, whereto the prisoners apply in turn their mouths, to breathe particles of that air which the Almighty spreads so unsparingly to all animals and living beings. Another cell, called the principal one, from below, is also inhabited, and so dark that, let the sun be as brilliant as possible, six lights will not suffice to lighten it, being twenty steps below the surface of the ground. Such, sir, has been the habitations of your prisoners, not for the space of a few days, but for eighteen, twenty, and twenty-three months; whereas several other better cells are occupied by only three or four prisoners." The petition further stated that the food given to them was of the most revolting kind; and that those who were sick were thrust into solitary confinement, in dungeons without light, without water, food, or bed, and filled with vermin. But the heart of Miguel was steeled against this petition. It was in vain that complaints were poured into his ears; nor did the death of his mother, who had been blamed for much of this cruelty, and who this year was called to her account at the bar of an offended Maker, make any change in the proceedings of a disposition which her maxims had deadened to the voice of mercy. Earl Grey, on assuming the reins of government, very properly refused to make an alliance with such an infamous usurper; notwithstanding, he was blamed for this line of policy by the members of the late administration. Towards the close of the year, indeed, there were signs of a rupture between the two countries. Part of the Portuguese navy was employed in an attempt to blockade Terceira, where the regency, in the name of the young queen, was still ruling. Miguel made the non-success of these vessels a pretext for seizing some English ships; and threats from the government were resorted to before he would give up the pretended prizes to their owners. Then the usurper relinquished his prey, and war was averted.

The administration of Greece, during the present year, remained in the hands of Capo d'Istrias and his partisans. The allied powers, however, were occupied in attempting to make arrangements for the permanent settlement of its government. The crown was tendered by them to Prince John of Saxony, who declined it. Several candidates were then passed over in favour of the pretensions of Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg, and the sovereignty was unanimously offered to him; but, though he had been once anxious for the prize, he also finally rejected it. The causes of his rejection of it were these:—Early in the year the prince wrote to Capo d'Istrias to announce his acceptance of the sovereignty, and to communicate to the Greek community the efforts he had made, and was still making, to obtain from the allied sovereigns as many advantages as possible for the new state. The count, however, did not like the idea of relinquishing his power; and he transmitted letters and documents expatiating on a variety of objections to the arrangements of the allies, and on the dissatisfaction which they had produced throughout Greece. These letters and documents excited the apprehensions of the prince; and the horrors of an embarrassed administration, and of discontented, unruly subjects, prevailed over the glittering radiance of a crown. At the same time the illness of George IV., which was likely to terminate fatally, opened to him new prospects. The question, therefore, regarding the new boundaries of the kingdom, and the separation of Candia from its territory, formed a ready pretext for his rejection of the offer. The three allied courts endeavoured to change his determination; but their efforts were unsuccessful; he definitely declined the crown.

Before the revolution of July, the French government had sent a powerful fleet and army, under the command of General Bourmont, against the dey of Algiers. Bourmont was successful; the dey capitulated, and retired to Naples, leaving the head of the piratical states in the hands of the conquerors. The expedition was principally undertaken to obtain the glory of a military exploit which had baffled the most powerful nations of Europe, and of thus creating popularity for the despotic ministers of Charles X. But no exploit could raise them in the estimation of the people; monarch and statesmen alike were overthrown; and when the expatriated dey heard of the event, he exclaimed, "Allah! Allah! God is great, and the avenger of injustice."

In Belgium, where Prince Leopold finally obtained a crown, the progress of military events was interrupted by foreign interference. The kingdom of the Netherlands had been created by Great Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and France, which powers held themselves bound to look after their work. Some of them wished to compel the Belgians to submit by force. The Rhenish provinces of Prussia were directly opposed to the infection of that spirit which had severed the United States; the Germanic confederation was already attacked by formal claims on Luxembourg; and the King of the Netherlands had appealed to the allied powers to preserve the throne which they had created. On the other hand, it was certain that the new government of France would favour the independence of Belgium, and its people would desire nothing more ardently than a pretext for war, which might terminate in the restoration of these provinces to her dominion. One party in Belgium, indeed, openly declared that her interests demanded a reunion with France; and that there was no doubt that she would receive the protection of that power in case any of the allies should attempt to preserve her connexion with Holland. To avoid war, therefore, the allies agreed to interpose their good offices; and as their first object was to stop hostilities, a protocol, signed at London on the 4th of November, bound all parties to negotiation rather than to have recourse to the sword. These negotiations involved many difficulties, and were counteracted by many conflicting interests; but their result, as will be seen, was the erection of Belgium into an independent kingdom.

CHAPTER XLI.

WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832

     State of the Reform Question..... Meeting of Parliament.....
     Introduction of the Reform Bill..... Debate on the Motion
     that the Bill be read a Second Time, &c...... Motion of
     Adjournment pending the   Ordnance Estimates carried against
     Ministers..... Prorogation and Dissolution of
     Parliament..... The Budget..... Proposed   Change   in
     Taxes, &c...... Arrangement of the Civil List..... General
     Election..... Meeting of Parliament: The Reform Question
     renewed in Parliament, and carried in the Commons.....
     Rejection of it by the Lords..... Consequences of its
     Rejection..... Financial Statements..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... Coronation of William IV...... Opening   of
     the  New London Bridge..... Ravages  of the Cholera.....
     Foreign Affairs..... Meeting of Parliament..... New Reform
     Bill..... State of Ireland

STATE OF THE REFORM QUESTION.

A.D. 1831

It has been seen that the ministry which succeeded that of the Duke of Wellington were pledged to apply themselves forthwith to what was termed the reform of the representation; that is, to strengthen and enlarge the democratic part of the constitution. While they were occupied in this work, the details of which were as yet unknown, meetings were held in all parts of the country, for the purpose of getting up petitions in support of their policy. The prayers of the petitions were various, and in many cases very indefinite. Thus one set of petitioners prayed that the right of suffrage should be equalised and extended; but whether they meant such an extension and equalisation as would convert the government into a democracy, or some more modified degree of change, did not appear. Others said that a real, substantial, and effectual reform in the representation of the people had become necessary; but what reform they actually wanted was all conjecture. Some petitions, however, plainly declared what species of reform the petitioners required. These demanded the annihilation of all influence on the part of the aristocracy in returning members of the house of commons; the shortening the duration of parliaments; the extension and equalisation of the elective franchise; and vote by ballot. Another set of petitions recommended a reform of property as well as of representation, actually demanding that the possessions of the church should be seized, and appropriated to "the necessities of the state." In other petitions, the petitioners, apparently at a loss to conceive what kind of reform was required, were satisfied with announcing that the country was ruined, and that it could only be restored by reform; at the same time gravely leaving it to his majesty's ministers to declare what change would best answer the purpose. But, besides petitions in favour of reform, permanent political associations had begun to be formed in different parts of the country, for the purpose of organising large numbers of individuals into one body, to act on the mind of the public, and to press the question upon government. These associations took the name of Political Unions; and they had a regular array of officers, with a council, which transacted the ordinary business. Their objects were to push on changes to any extent possible; to insist on whatever they chose to demand, as a right which could not justly be refused; to repress opposing opinions in their neighbourhood; and to make even the government feel that they existed in order to dictate, not to obey. The whole kingdom was indeed in a ferment; and not only the correction of abuses, but immediate relief from national calamities, was confidently expected by the multitude in a reform of parliament. It was to prove a balm for all their sufferings—the commencement of a golden era of prosperity.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met, pursuant to adjournment, on the 3rd of February. Hitherto ministers had veiled in profound secrecy the plan of reform which they intended to produce. The question was introduced on this day by Earl Grey; but it was only to state that ministers had succeeded in framing a measure which would be effective, without exceeding the bounds of a just and well-advised moderation; that it had received the unanimous assent of the government, and that it would be introduced into the house of commons at an early period.

INTRODUCTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

The measure of reform concocted by ministers was brought forward on the 1st of March by Lord John Russell, to whom, though not a cabinet minister, it was entrusted, in consideration of his constant and strenuous exertions in this great question. His lordship commenced by stating, that he was about to propose what had been formed in the mind of Earl Grey himself. Ministers, he said, had discarded the notion of complying with violent and extravagant demands, and had framed a measure which would satisfy every reasonable man in the country. They wished to take their stand between two hostile parties; neither agreeing with those, on the one hand, who thought that no reform was necessary, nor with others who conceived that only one particular reform could be wholesome or satisfactory. His lordship then proceeded to detail the plan by which ministers proposed to satisfy a demand for reform which, as they themselves believed, could be no longer resisted. That plan had been framed so as to remove the reasonable complaints of the people, which complaints were principally directed, first, against nomination by individuals; secondly, against elections by corporations; and, thirdly, against electioneering expenses. As regards the first two grounds of complaint, the ministerial plan consisted, first, in disfranchisement, in whole or in part, of places which had hitherto sent members to parliament; secondly, of enfranchisement, in order to enable unrepresented places to elect members; and, thirdly, of an extension of the franchise, in order to increase the number of electors in those places which were to be allowed to retain, in whole, or in part, their existing privileges. The part of the plan which related to disfranchisement proceeded on a plain rule; namely, to disfranchise all boroughs whose population did not exceed a certain number. It was true, said Lord John Russell, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the wealth, trade, extent, and population of a given number of places; but we have been governed by the population return of 1821, and we propose that every borough which at that date did not contain two thousand inhabitants should be deprived of the privilege of sending members to parliament. This, he explained, would disfranchise sixty boroughs, and get rid of one hundred and nineteen members. Disfranchisement was not to stop here. There were some boroughs which should be blotted out altogether, while others, although more flourishing in point of population, were too low to have any good title to retain their present privilege of sending two members to the house of commons. It was therefore proposed that all boroughs whose population exceeded, according to the census of 1821, two thousand, and yet was under four thousand, should only send one instead of two members. The number of these boroughs was forty-seven; and Weymouth, which had hitherto sent four members, was in future only to send two. Having proposed the disfranchisement of these places, amounting in the whole to one hundred and sixty-eight members, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial plan of enfranchisement. It was proposed that each of seven considerable towns should send two members, and twenty others one member each. Then twenty-seven of the largest counties, including Yorkshire, was in future to return four members instead of two, with this exception, that Yorkshire, already possessing four, was to return an additional member for each riding. The representation of London, likewise, was to be more than doubled; the Tower Hamlets, Finsbury, Lambeth, and Marylebone, were each to return two members. But the most important part of the new constitution was as follows:—The cities, boroughs, and counties which were to send members, and the number of members to be elected being ascertained, the existing right of franchise in them all was to be altered, and a new franchise introduced, extending equally to those which remained untouched, with the declared purpose of increasing the number of electors, and of having but one uniform election throughout the empire. The elective franchise was to be extended to all persons paying a rent of ten pounds per annum, whether they occupied the premises or not; copyholders, whose property was of the same yearly value, and all householders to an equal amount, were to be electors for counties; all holders of leases for twenty-one years, which had not been renewed within two years, were to have the privilege of voting in towns; and all leaseholders for twenty years of property worth fifty pounds per annum, were to vote for counties. Existing resident electors were not to be deprived of their right during their lifetime; but no non-resident elector was to be allowed to retain his franchise. Finally, no alteration was to be made in regard to the forty-shilling freeholders. The new constituency being thus formed, Lord John Russell explained the ministerial plan regarding the actual election. All voters were to be duly registered; and in order to diminish the expense of elections, as well as opportunities for bribery, drunkenness, and corruption, the duration of the poll was to be diminished; that for counties was to be taken simultaneously at different places. Such was the general outline of the reform bill, in so far as England was concerned. The only alteration in Wales, was to consist in adding unrepresented towns to those which already sent members: for instance, Holyhead was to be united with Beaumaris, and Bangor to Carnarvon. A new district of boroughs was to be erected, consisting of Swansea, Cambridge, Langhorn, and three other places, which should have the privilege of sending one member to parliament; the only additional one proposed to be added to the representation of Wales. In Scotland the existing county franchise, which depended on a mere feudal right of superiority over lauds belonging to others, was to be annihilated; the election of members for boroughs was to be taken from the town-councils, and vested in the citizens at large; and the new English franchise was to be introduced, both in counties and in boroughs. Every resident owner of land or houses worth ten pounds per annum, and every tenant under a written lease for nineteen years or upwards, paying fifty pounds a year, was to have a vote in county elections; and in towns the franchise was to attach to the occupancy of a dwelling-house, rented at ten pounds per annum. To some of the large towns, which hitherto had elected only in conjunction with others, as Glasgow and Aberdeen, separate or new members were to be conferred; while the Fife district of burghs was annihilated and thrown into the county; and some counties were conjoined. In the whole, Scotland was to have fifty members instead of forty-five. In Ireland the principal alterations were to be the introduction of the ten pounds' qualification; and that in towns the franchise should be taken out of the hands of the corporations, and given to the duly qualified citizens: Belfast was to return one member, and Limerick and Waterford two each, thus adding three to the existing members for Ireland. The general result of the whole measure, Lord John Russell said, would be to create a new constituency of about 500,000 persons; the increase in counties would be about 100,000; that in towns already represented, about 110,000; in new boroughs 50,000; in Scotland 60,000; and in Ireland, perhaps, 40,000. This numerous body, he said, was connected with property, and possessed a valuable stake in the country; and upon this body it would depend, if any future struggle should arise, to support parliament and the throne in carrying that struggle to a successful termination. The probability of this franchise, he continued, would be an inducement to good conduct; for when a man found that by being rated at a certain rent, and by paying rates, he became entitled to vote in the election of members of that house, he would feel an inducement to be careful, frugal, and punctual in all his dealings, to preserve his character amongst his neighbours, and the place which he might hold in society. This large increase of the constituency would provide for the political and moral improvement of the people. It was true, he said, that the arrangements which he had detailed would diminish the total number of members in the house; but that would not be a disadvantage. There would be an absolute diminution in the whole of sixty-two, which diminution was inflicted exclusively upon England; but it was the opinion of ministers that this reduction would enable the house to transact business more effectually and conveniently. After accounting for two omissions, which might be brought as charges against him—namely, that no provision was made for shortening the duration of parliaments, or for introducing the vote by ballot—his lordship concluded by requesting leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales.

This motion brought on a debate which lasted seven nights, and elicited opinions from between seventy and eighty members. This debate would of itself form a volume, and therefore only a brief outline can be given of it in these pages. Sir Robert Inglis admitted that there was excitement and expectation among the people; but he argued that the origin of it was to be found in the events which had occurred in France and Belgium, and that, if government would oppose instead of fomenting it, it would soon pass away. Mr. Horace Twiss took the same view of the question. Lord Althorp denied the validity of the grounds of opposition relied upon by the previous speakers, and, in terms nearly identical with those used by Lord John Russell, advocated the measure. Mr. Hume declared that, radical reformer as he was, the plan proposed had exceeded his anticipations. Mr. Baring Wall and Lord Stormont used the usual arguments against the bill; Lord Newark trimmed between its opponents and supporters; and Mr. Macaulay advocated it on the strange grounds that, being opposed to universal suffrage and revolutionary measures, he felt constrained to adopt this proposal. Mr. Hunt, the radical member for Preston, and Lord Morpeth, strenuously supported the motion, and Sir Charles Wetherell most bitterly and vehemently denounced it. The baronet's speech was one of the most eccentric pieces of vituperative declamation ever delivered within the walls of parliament. He nicknamed the bill "Russell's purge!" which afforded much amusement to honourable and right honourable gentlemen on his side of the house, and was taken up out of doors, the party throughout the country using it as if it were expressive of something which ought to be considered very fatal to the measure. Mr. Hobhouse replied with smartness to Sir Charles, aptly quoting Hume's History of England for illustrations of his arguments. This speech was effective on the ministerial side. Mr. Baring made a heavy speech, which fell flatly on the house, and was replied to by Lord Palmerston, who, in a most statesmanlike oration, reviewed the whole question, defended the motives of ministers, and exposed the fallacy and folly of the arguments on the anti-ministerial, side. This speech produced a most damaging effect upon the opposition. Sir Robert Peel revived the hopes of the latter by one of his most studied speeches. It was, however, defective in temper, and although received with cheers by the opposition, failed to convince any one that reform was either the unjust or dangerous thing which he represented it. The speech was specious, sophistical and acrimonious; its effect upon the country was to strengthen the public prejudice against the anti-reformers. The Hon. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, made his reply to Sir Robert effective by illustrations drawn from the condition and wants of Ireland, its yearnings for freedom, and the restrictions which were laid upon the franchise. Mr. Croker made one of those speeches which proved nothing but the impolicy of the speaker. The bill was supported by Lords Dudley Stuart and Howick, Sir J. Johnston, and Messrs. Russell, Wood, Tennyson, and Long Wellesley. It was opposed by Colonels Sibthorp and Tyrrell, Sir George Clerk, Sir George Warrender, and Mr. William Peel, who merely repeated Sir Robert Peel in an ineffective manner. Mr. O'Connell delivered a persuasive and eloquent oration in favour of the immediate adoption of the bill, and intimated that there was danger of insurrection in Ireland if that country were left any longer without reform. Sir James Graham spoke well on the same side, especially in reply to certain unguarded statements of Mr. Croker. Lord John Russell replied, and the motion for leave to bring in the bill, as well as those for Scotland and Ireland, was not resisted. The bill itself was not brought in till the 14th—a delay which gave occasion to some members of the opposition to express their surprise that a plan which ministers were stated to have so long carefully pondered and concocted, and which had already been amply discussed, should be in so incomplete a state as to be unfit to be presented to parliament. On the 14th, however, the bill, in | which one or two alterations and corrections had been made, was brought in, and read a first time without opposition. It was not known why the opponents of the bill allowed the contest to terminate without a division, but it appears to have arisen from the fact that they did not form a combined body, and that they had no regular plan of party operations. Ministers subsequently admitted that if a division had taken place they would have been left in a minority; but the opposition reserved themselves for the second reading—a stage at which, according to the forms of the house, the fate of the principle of a bill is usually decided.

DEBATE ON THE MOTION THAT THE BILL BE READ A SECOND TIME, ETC.

From the moment that the general outlines of the plan of reform proposed by ministers had been discussed in parliament, public excitement daily increased. The bill contained few of those changes for which violent reformers had long clamoured; yet these persons professed to receive it with joy. The secret of their conduct was easy to be understood; for though the bill gave less than they wished or demanded, it granted more than they had expected. They were told, moreover, by their leaders, whose hopes lay in the future, that as ministers had determined to go no further, all would be lost unless government were strenuously supported by those who conceived a change desirable. From these causes they agreed to forget the defects of the bill, and to be silent regarding the ballot, universal suffrage, and annual parliaments. The ministerial measure became their standard; "the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill," became their watchword; and ministers were invested for a time with a species of infallibility. No part of their measure was wrong, and their conduct was not to be questioned. The manufacturers of petitions again set to work; and the same places which had petitioned a month before for much more, now prayed that the bill might pass untouched and unimpaired. Men, in fact, who had craved reduction of taxation and retrenchment of expenditure—who had desired a more democratic house of commons as the only means of securing those good objects, now conjured the house to enact a measure of which even its patrons declared that it would neither reduce taxation or expenses. The number of petitions was large, but the majority of the names attached to them were from the lowest classes of society, to whom ministers had declared no power could be given. But all this petitioning, though regular, constitutional, and powerful, did not promise to be effective. Ministers had threatened convulsions as the consequences of refusing the bill, and the reformers resolved to support them by opinions which indicated its approach, and exhibitions of mob force which might be used as its means. Language of an intimidating nature was constantly used at their assemblies, and in petitions, against all who should dare to oppose the bill, which intimidation served the purposes of the reformers in two ways: on the one hand, many who were averse to the violent changes proposed were driven into acquiescence from the apprehension that resistance would produce confusion; and on the other hand, those who would actively have resisted the change were overawed from any public expression of their sentiments. The menaces of the reformers were even accompanied with a display of the means of executing them. Everywhere the political unions boasted of the numbers they could bring into the field. Ten thousand men, said Colonel Evans at a reform meeting held in London, are ready to march hither from Beigate to support his majesty's ministers if they should be defeated; and the chairman of the Birmingham union openly declared that it could supply two armies, each of them as numerous and brave as that which had conquered at Waterloo, if the king and his ministers required them in the contest with the boroughmongers. Nor was the press idle in this critical state of affairs; that daily supplied the fuel by which the excitement was kept up, preaching, in some instances, doctrines subversive of all order and government. Individuals who distinguished themselves in opposing the change were attacked with every species of calumny that enmity could invent; the property of the church and the rights of the peerage were held out as illegally amassed treasures, which the people, in the exercise of their rights, would soon have the pleasure of pillaging; and pretended lists of the names of pensioners and placemen were circulated, in which were to be found the names of men who had never received one farthing from the purse of the state. Even parliament itself was the object of incessant and absurd attack, and privilege seemed no longer to exist.

Such was the state of the public mind when, on the 21st of March, the second reading of the bill was moved. The debate lasted only two days. It was commenced by Sir R. Vyvyan, one of the members for Cornwall, who moved that the bill should be read that day six months. He declared that the bill affected no interests of his own, but it was a measure full of danger to the institutions of the kingdom, and which, therefore, his conscience bound him to oppose. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cartwright, who stated that Mr. Hume had actually written to the radical reformers of Glasgow, entreating them not to say a word about the ballot. Mr. Sheil, an Irish agitator, repeated the usual arguments in favour of the bill, dwelling at great length on the disfranchisement of the Irish boroughs at the time of the union, and the later disfranchisement of the Irish forty-shilling freeholders, as justifying in principle everything that was now proposed. He treated as ridiculous the idea that the bill could be dangerous either to the crown or to the aristocracy. There was variance between the logic of the non-reformers and their sarcasms. The syllogisms were overthrown by their satire, and their arguments evaporated in their vituperation. This bill would wrench despotism from oligarchy, but it would not touch the legitimate influence of property, and birth, and station, and all the other circumstances which create a title to respect. It would take power from individuals, and give it to a class; it would cut off the secret and subterraneous conduit-pipes through which aristocratic influence was now conveyed to that house, and would make it flow in a broad, open, constitutional, and natural channel. Mr. Charles Grant followed on the same side. The solicitor-general said that the whole argument against the bill seemed to proceed on the assumption that there was something in the British constitution inconsistent with change, and that to make an alteration would be to effect its destruction. The history of this country, however, and its institutions, showed that there had been an almost uninterrupted series of conflicts between the principle of democracy and despotism, with alternations of success, and the inevitable consequences of that, a system of perpetual change. The present bill, therefore, was in every point of view in perfect harmony with the whole current of our legislation. In six years after the Revolution, he said, the triennial act was passed, distinctly admitting on the part of the legislature of that period that the Revolution was not a settlement to be permanently unchangeable. Neither was the triennial act itself treated with undeviating respect, for, in the year 1715, its repeal was sanctioned by some of the very men who had brought about the Revolution; then the septennial act was passed, and another great change effected in the constitution of parliament. Did any one at that period hold that the septennial bill was a revolutionary measure? So far from any such character being imputed to it, the measure had always been treated as one within the constitution of parliament to enact. Sir Edward Sugden complained that the solicitor-general had gone back to the bill of rights, instead of attempting to explain and justify this bill of wrongs. It was perfectly true that the septennial act did not spring from the Revolution; it was brought in by Whig ministers for the same purpose for which the present bill was brought in by Whig ministers—as the only means by which they could retain their places. Mr. Pendarvis warmly supported the bill; and Mr. Cavendish declared his intention of voting for it, although his constituents at Cambridge had petitioned against it; many of them, he said, were not hostile to the whole measure, but objected to the new qualification as being too low. Mr. Ward, on the other hand, opposed it in opposition to his constituents in the city of London, who had petitioned in favour of the bill. He had passed the earlier years of his life, he said, principally in two close boroughs; and among the representatives of those had been, during his remembrance, Messrs. Fox, Pitt, Canning, Perceval, the noble lord at present at the head of foreign affairs, and the Duke of Wellington. Such had been the representatives of those close boroughs, and he much doubted if by a reformed system more able members would be introduced into that house. Again, when he first entered that house he had looked at both sides to see who were the most influential members, and he saw on the ministerial side Messrs. Canning and Huskisson, and on the opposition side Mr. Tierney, Sir James Mackintosh, and the present lord-chancellor (then Mr. Brougham), all of whom had either been, or were at the present time, members for close boroughs. Such was the case, and it would be fortunate if large and populous places always found and returned men of such abilities. On the other hand, during his experience but three members had been called to account by that house in consequence of their conduct, and all these three members were the representatives of large and populous places. Mr. Calcraft, paymaster of the forces under the late administration, who had expressed his unqualified disapprobation of the bill, startled the house by declaring that he intended to vote for the second reading. At length the house divided on Sir B. Vyvyan's motion, when there appeared for the amendment three hundred and one against three hundred and two, thus leaving Lord John Eussell a majority of only one in an assembly of more than six hundred members. This division was, indeed, in substance, a defeat of ministers, although the mob celebrated it as a victory by illuminations, and by venting its vengeance on the houses of all who would not join in the triumph. Ministers, however, could not labour under such a delusion, although they still resolved to try their fortunes in a committee. That committee was delayed till the 18th of April, and in the meantime the bill was brought in for Ireland.

The bill for amending the representation of Ireland was brought in by Mr. Stanley, the Irish secretary, on the 24th of March. In explaining the bill, he said, in the first place, that the right of voting for comities would be left to freeholders, as they already stood; but that leaseholders of fifty pounds a year, under leases of twenty years, would be added to them. Clergymen likewise were to vote, if they were freeholders to the extent of fifty pounds; and householders who occupied a house let at the yearly rent of ten pounds per annum. The machinery of the bill was to be nearly the same with that proposed for England; and the necessary result of the measure would be to take the franchise out. of the hands of the corporations, who had hitherto monopolised it; and Mr. Stanley thought that no one could deny its propriety. The English bill, he said, in continuation, made no change in the election of the members for the universities; but an alteration was to be made in regard to the University of Dublin. In future it was to return two members instead of one; and the number of electors was to be increased by bringing back the right of voting to what it had originally been. At Oxford and Cambridge the masters of arts had always voted; but in Dublin, a subsequent charter having excluded scholars from receiving their stipendia after the expiry of the five years, it had been held by a forced construction that they lost their right to vote for the university-member after the same period, though they still continued to be scholars. The present bill would restore the original right, by extending their academic franchise to all persons who at any time had been scholars of the university, provided they placed their names on the books, as claimants of the right, within six months after the passing of the act. Mr. O'Connell admitted that the bill would prove a great boon to Ireland, and would produce an effective constituency; but there were parts of it which he hoped would be altered. In the first place, he thought that a greater number of members ought to be given to Ireland. He objected, likewise, to the arrangement concerning the university, because it still left to the franchise an exclusive character; no Roman Catholic could vote there, because he could not become a scholar of a Protestant university; scholarships, therefore, ought to be thrown open to all classes of the community. Nor did the Irish counties receive justice. Many counties in England, because their population extended to 200,000, were to receive two members each, while in Ireland there were twelve counties, with a population above that point, whose representation was not to be increased. In reply to the demand for opening the university-scholarships to Catholics, and making all masters of arts voters, the Irish solicitor-general announced that the charter did not allow it. At Oxford and Cambridge the charters gave the rights to the masters, but at Dublin it was only given to the fellows and scholars, and it was the principle of the bill to preserve vested rights and settled institutions, as far as could be done consistently with an efficient reform. Mr. Bankes, and Sir C. Wetherell, and Mr. Hardinge, argued, that the giving of additional members to Ireland, as well as Scotland, was unjust towards England, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the two legislative unions. They also complained of the effects which the bill would inevitably produce upon the Protestants of Ireland. If the bill passed, it would be impossible, they said, for an Irish Protestant to be returned to parliament, unless two-thirds of the Catholic population chose to vote for him. It would be a virtual exclusion of all Protestants from the representation of Ireland; not one would be elected unless he became an agitator, pledged himself to all that was demanded, and basely pandered to the passions and views of the Catholic electors. The chancellor of the exchequer, in reply to these objections, stated that the bill did not interfere with the unions, any more than the union with Ireland had violated the union with Scotland; and that as to the different circumstances in which Irish Protestants might find themselves, he and his colleagues entertained no apprehensions of their opponents being able successfully to raise against them a no-popery cry; the public mind was too enlightened to be affected by such idle clamours. The bill was allowed to be read a first time; and the second reading was fixed for the 18th of April.

When the house met, on the 12th of April, after the Easter recess, Lord John Eussell communicated certain alterations which it had been found necessary to make in the schedules of boroughs to be disfranchised, in consequence of inaccuracies discovered in the population returns of 1821, on which the whole plan had been founded. Lord John Russell also declared that, although ministers had not changed their opinion regarding the propriety of reducing the numbers of the house, and would try to carry that clause in the bill, still "they were not prepared to say that this was a question of such essential and vital importance, that, if the feelings of the house were strongly shown in a desire to keep up the present number, they might not be induced to relax their determination on that point. If it should appear to be the sense of the house that the whole number of six hundred and fifty-eight members should be retained, the government would not feel that they were altering a vital or essential part of the measure by agreeing to that proposition." On the following day Mr. Stanley, when adverting to the same topic, to prevent any misconception that ministers, though they might consent to retain the numbers, would leave them to the boroughs, stated, that they were determined to adhere in all circumstances to the disfranchisement of every borough whose population did not reach a particular standard, and the partial disfranchisement of every borough falling beneath a certain other standard; the number of members to be added should be given to such populous towns as might be considered in that event to have a fair claim to representation.

On the 18th of April, Lord John Russell moved that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the reform bill. In doing so he stated the alterations which had been recently made in it by ministers. According to his statement, it appeared that five boroughs had been transferred from schedule A to schedule B, and allowed to retain one member, and that seven of those in schedule B were allowed to retain their two members, in consequence of its having been ascertained that the population returns had not accurately represented the number of inhabitants. On the other hand members were to be added to the following counties: namely, Bucks, Berks, Cambridge, Dorset, Hereford, Hertford, Oxford, and Glamorgan. Members were also to be added to the following towns: namely, Oldham, Buly, Bochdale, Whitby, Wakefield, Salford, and Stoke-on-Trent: Halifax was restricted to the township, and to return only one member, the parish being twenty-five miles in extent. Sons of freemen entitled to the privilege of freemen, and apprentices having entered into indentures in the same manner, were to retain their franchise on taking out their freedom, being resident, and registered under the provisions of the bill. General Gaseoyne moved as an instruction to be given to the committee, "That it is the opinion of this house, that the total number of knights, citizens, and burgesses returned to parliament for that part of the United Kingdom called England and Wales, ought not to be diminished." This motion was designed to get rid of the bill altogether, and it produced a violent and contentious debate. Mr. Sadler, who seconded it, delivered a long, argumentative, and learned speech against the general principles of the whole plan of reform. He was followed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who declared that he was quite sure that the amendment was put with a view of destroying the bill. It was impossible to misunderstand it: it was the first of that series of motions by which it was intended to interfere with the progress of the committee, and which, if agreed to, would be fatal to the bill. The debate was adjourned till the next day. On that occasion, of the members who opposed it, some did not see how an agreement to the amendment could be considered hostile to the principle of the bill, even if it were carried; and not one, except ministers themselves, pretended it would be a good reason for abandoning the whole bill. Mr. Bulwer, for instance, thought that this question regarding the number of members would make no difference in the general character of the measure, and Mr. J. Campbell hoped that the bill would go on, though the amendment should be carried. Mr. Wynn, who had resigned office because he was opposed to the bill, also thought that this motion was not of much consequence one way or the other. Sir George Warrington, though opposed to the bill, would resist the amendment, on the idea that the effect of it would be, if the bill went on, to prevent the giving of additional members to Scotland. Sir George Clerk said, that he, also, would vote against it if he anticipated any such results; but he saw no reason that it should be so. Sir Robert Wilson, one of the most zealous of all the reformers, expressed great surprise at the view which ministers, after all that had passed, chose to take of this amendment. In voting for it he was not voting against increasing the representation of either Scotland or Ireland, nor did he believe that the fate of the bill depended in the slightest degree on the success or the failure of the present motion. Mr. Stanley, however, declared that this discussion would decide the fate of the bill. The amendment, he said, was concocted in a spirit of hostility to the bill, and brought forward to embarrass ministers. He warned those honourable members, who, while they professed themselves friendly to reform, supported this amendment, that it would decide the fate of the bill, and that by their votes on this occasion they would be judged by their constituents and by the country. In giving their votes, he added, they would either vote for or against the carrying of that question, for the carrying of which, if now lost, an opportunity so favourable might not soon again return, and that the result of that night's division would be, either to carry that great question, or to defeat the hopes of the people of this country. Sir James Graham, on the same side, remarked that he did not say if this amendment was carried, ministers would abandon the bill; but he did say, that if it should be, it would be a matter of very grave consideration, whether the bill would be so impugned, that they ought not to attempt to carry it through its other stages. General Gaseoyne expressed his surprise at being told that the motion he had made for keeping the sixty-two members was inconsistent with the essence and principles of the bill. If I understood the noble lord who brought in the bill, right, in a conversation which I had with him only yesterday, he distinctly admitted to me that my amendment would not touch the principle of the bill. Lord John Russell replied that the amendment now moved was a different one to that to which General Gaseoyne alluded: and thus ended this debate. On a division, the amendment was carried by two hundred and ninety-nine against two hundred and ninety-one, being a majority of eight against ministers.

MOTION OF ADJOURNMENT PENDING THE ORDNANCE ESTIMATES CARRIED AGAINST MINISTERS—PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832

It has been seen that ministers looked at the amendment of General Gaseoyne as one likely to destroy the bill of reform which they had introduced into parliament. It was evident from the beginning that a majority of the present house could not be relied on by its supporters. Ministers, however, did not seem at first determined to have recourse to a dissolution. On the 20th, nothing transpired except that Mr. Hume declared that he would offer no opposition to the ordnance estimates, because, after the vote of last night, he was anxious to assist ministers in getting through the necessary business, in order that a dissolution might take place. On the following day, Lord Wharncliffe, in the upper house, asked Earl Grey whether ministers had advised his majesty to dissolve parliament, and whether it had been resolved that that course should be adopted. Earl Grey declined answering the question; and his interrogator then gave notice that he would next day move an address to the king, praying that his majesty would be graciously pleased not to exercise his prerogative of dissolving parliament. The same question was put in the commons by Sir R. Vyvyan, and Lord Althorp replied, that it was not his duty to answer the question. The discussion on the propriety of a dissolution was continued till the morning of the 22nd, and an adjournment on the ordnance estimates was then moved till the next sitting. This was strenuously resisted by the chancellor of the exchequer, on the ground that the topic which had occupied so much time was not a question before the house; and that he wished to get on with the report of the committee of supply on the ordnance estimates. On a division, however, ministers were left in a minority of twenty-two. It was clear from this that ministers had more to decide on than the reform question, and that they had to straggle not merely for their bill, but their places. On the next day, therefore, they resolved to dissolve parliament.

When the house met on the 22nd, the presentation of a petition connected with parliamentary reform furnished occasion in the commons for another discussion on that subject. Sir R. Vyvyan inveighed strongly against the desperation with which ministers were believed to be urging on a dissolution in the present state of the country. He was called to order by Sir Francis Burdett; but the speaker declared that Sir B. Vyvyan was not out of order. A scene of indescribable confusion ensued, in which the authority of the speaker was for some time set aside. At length Sir B. Peel was enabled to address the house. He referred to the scene which had been exhibited, and made a disingenuous use of it, declaring that it was a specimen of what might be expected in a reformed house of commons, whereas the disturbance was created by those who were desirous, per fas et nefas, to obstruct the measure before the house. Sir Robert, in a strain of unhappy invective, reiterated his previous denunciations of all reform.

Sir Robert was interrupted by the sergeant-at-arms, who knocked at the door, and the usher of the black rod, who suddenly appeared to summons the speaker and the members, to the house of peers, to hear the prorogation of parliament.

In the upper house proceedings had been of a similar nature to those in the commons. Lord Wharncliffe had scarcely risen to move for an address to his majesty against the dissolution, when the Duke of Richmond rose to complain that all the peers were not sitting in their proper places, as usual on such occasions. This gave rise to a scene of noise and confusion, in which one noble lord was heard to say that ministers were taking the crown off the king's head. Lord Wharncliffe, being at length allowed to proceed, stated that, without wishing to provoke discussion on the subject, he was anxious that it should be entered on the journals of the house, that he in his place yesterday did give notice that he would move an humble address to his majesty not to exercise his undoubted prerogative of dissolving parliament. His lordship then made a motion to that effect. The lord-chancellor said, that he had never yet heard it doubted that the king possessed the prerogative of dissolving parliament at pleasure; still less had he ever known a doubt to exist on the subject at a moment when the lower house has thought fit to refuse the supplies. The near approach of his majesty was now announced, and Lord Shaftesbury was called to the chair amid discordant noises which it was difficult for him to subdue. Lord Mansfield addressed the house, but was interrupted in his speech by the entrance of the king, and the house of commons having been summoned, his majesty prorogued parliament in these words:—"My lords and gentlemen,—I have come to meet you for the purpose of proroguing this parliament with a view to its dissolution. I have been induced to resort to this measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people, in the way in which it can be most constitutionally and authentically expressed, on the expediency of making such changes in the representation as circumstances may appear to require, and which, founded upon the acknowledged principles of the constitution, may tend at once to uphold the just rights and prerogatives of the crown, and to give security to the liberties of the people." Parliament was prorogued to the 10th of May, and a proclamation appeared the next day announcing its dissolution, and directing a new election, the writs of which were made returnable on the 14th of June.

The dissolution of parliament was hailed by the people with great joy. Illuminations were got up on every hand. That in London was authorised by the lord-mayor; and the consequence was that, in the west end of the town, the rabble vented their fury on the houses of all those members of parliament who had expressed sentiments unfavourable to the bill, and in whose windows no candles were placed. Many people, doubtless, illuminated their houses lest they should become obnoxious to the mob; yet these illuminations were made use of by the reformers to keep up their incessant cry, that the inhabitants of the country, from one end to the other, were animated by one universal feeling of enthusiasm for the reform bill, and for the act which got rid of a parliament that refused it. It has been well remarked that, in political disputes, to place candles in windows is no proof of political opinion, or of anything else than a prudent desire to avoid the outrages of a mob.

THE BUDGET—PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES, ETC.—ARRANGEMENT OF THE CIVIL LIST.

The other business of this session related chiefly to financial matters. The budget was opened on the 11th of February by Lord Althorp, who estimated the charge for the year at £46,850,000; while the revenue, on account of the many taxes repealed, would yield only £47,150,000, and thus give an excess over the charge of only about £300,000. This, he said, did not afford much room for the reduction of taxation; but still he thought that something might be done, especially by reducing those imposts which pressed on the industry of the country; by relieving trade from fiscal embarrassments; and by introducing, in many cases, a more equal distribution of taxes. Lord Althorp avowed that he had taken his principles and general views from Sir Henry Parnell's work entitled "Financial Reform." He divided the taxes into three classes:—first, taxes on commodities of which there would be an increased consumption and revenue; secondly, taxes which, instead of being equally and impartially distributed amongst all classes, pressed more severely on one part of the community; and thirdly, those taxes which, besides interfering with commerce, took more out of the pockets of the people than was furnished to the revenue. Under the first head, his lordship explained that he intended to reduce the duty on tobacco, and on newspapers, stamps, and advertisements; under the second, that of sea-borne coal, which he proposed to repeal altogether; and under the third, the duties on tallow and candles, calicoes, glass, &c. The estimated loss of the reductions in the whole was £3,170,000, a reduction which the revenue could not sustain. The next point was, therefore, how to make good this loss without imposing an equal burthen on the people. Lord Althorp proposed to equalise the duties on foreign wines, and foreign European timber and exported coals; and to place duties on cotton, steam-boats, and the bona fide sale or transfer of landed property. The estimated revenue from these sources was £2,740,000; while on the other hand, the amount of taxes repealed or reduced was £4,080,000; so that the country gained £1,340,000, while it was stated the public services would not suffer. This financial project of Lord Althorp was vehemently attacked by all parties in the house. The experiment, it was said, was a dangerous one, and the probability was, that it would be necessary to raise by exchequer-bills a sum to meet the charges of the year; thus gratifying the country for a time by an apparent relief from taxation, only to produce the necessity of afterwards imposing heavier taxes on the people. The experiment was represented as the less justifiable, as not one shilling was included in the budget as being applicable to the diminution of the national debt. It was always believed by some that the budget was not one of reduction, but of mere transposition. Some taxes were reduced, but others were imposed to make up the loss. At all events, it was said, the budget was merely a pretext of doing something, while in truth it did nothing, or did mischief. An attack was especially made on the tax proposed on transfers in the public funds, and Lord Althorp was induced to abandon it. Ministers were also defeated on a division in regard to a proposed diminution of duties on Baltic timber, and an augmentation of those grown in Canada. The tax on steam-boat passengers was likewise abandoned, and an increased duty on our colonial wines, which his lordship consented to reduce. Finally, the proposed duty on the importation of raw cotton was reduced, and the whole affair produced a strong impression of the practical inefficiency of the government. Under any other circumstances, indeed, ministers could not survive the defeats they had experienced; but the anchor of reform saved the ship in which they had embarked, albeit it was a crazy one, from foundering in the sea of politics.

Ministers were not more skilful in the arrangements of the civil list. The late ministry had gone out of office after a vote by which the house of commons declared its opinion that the civil list should be referred to a select committee. When these arrangements were considered, it appeared that the most material changes made after the abolition of certain offices, were the reduction of the pension list in future to the sum of £75,000 per annum, and the subtraction of £460,000 from the civil list, to be placed under the control of parliament. On hearing the statements of the chancellor of the exchequer, the members of the late government expressed their satisfaction that the present ministers, so loud against expenditure when out of office, and pledged to retrenchment when they came in, had been driven to acknowledge that they found it impossible to carry economy further, in the matter of the civil list, than had been done by their predecessors. The new estimate, they said, was identically the same with the former, except as to the principle, whether a certain portion of the amount should be kept constantly under the control of parliament. The system of retrenchment proposed was by no means satisfactory to Messrs. Hume, Hunt, and others of the radical school. Ministers, they said, had not adhered to their promises of retrenchment in framing the estimates, especially in regard to the pensions. It was of no use to tell the people that most of these pensions were charitable; charity begins at home; and the house was bound to be just to the people before being generous to poor peers, or the poor relations of wealthy peers. Another point on which ministers had to encounter stern opposition from their old allies, was a proposal which they made for an increase in the army of 7680 men. No opposition, however, was offered to a resolution moved in consequence of a royal message, assigning to the queen, in case she should survive his majesty, £100,000 per annum, with Marlborough House and Bushy Park as town and country residences.

GENERAL ELECTION.

The election of the new parliament took place in the midst of general excitement. This was very auspicious for the ministry. The declared intention of the dissolution had been to obtain from the people a house of commons pledged to support the reform bill. The only test by which candidates were tried, was their determination to support that measure. Nor was it sufficient to save a candidate from the storm which raged all over the country, that he should be willing to reform the representation. It was demanded of him that he should support the particular measure which the ministry had proposed. It was to be "the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill." Candidates who had long represented places were told by the electors that they could no longer vote for them, not because they were against the bill, but that they were against the king; they did not know much about it, but it was the king's, and it must pass. The official influence of the ministry was put forth unsparingly and unblushingly. In some instances, indeed, it defeated its own object. Thus, in Ireland, two pledged supporters of the bill were elected for the city of Dublin. The losing candidates petitioned against the return, and it came out in the proceedings before the committee, that the vice-regal government had interfered directly to ensure the success of the sitting members. The consequence of this was that the committee found the sitting members were not duly elected; and, on a new election, two members were returned who were hostile to reform. The tumult and license which usually characterise a general election were more than ordinarily rampant and intolerant. Anti-bill candidates and their supporters were exposed to the most lawless violence wherever they dared to show themselves on the hustings, and were denounced on the one hand as oppressors of the people, and on the other as disloyal opponents of the people. In some instances the life, as well as the property of unpopular men was sacrificed; and in Scotland especially, the elections were controlled by the violence of riotous mobs. At the election for the county of Lanark, the late member was attacked with stones and missiles, from the gallery of the church in which the election took place; and when he was re-elected, those who voted for him were detained prisoners for some hours, until the military arrived to shield them from lawless violence. At Dumbarton, also, the successful candidate for the county was obliged to conceal himself in a garret, till the mob, believing he had escaped, dispersed. From the excitement and violence which everywhere prevailed, it was not surprising that the great majority of the elections terminated in favour of the reforming candidates. Out of the eighty-two county members for England, with the exception of about twelve, all were pledged to support the bill. Ministers, indeed, completely succeeded in obtaining a house of commons fashioned after their own mind: the great majority of the members were pledged to implicit obedience to the will of the people.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—THE REFORM QUESTION RENEWED IN PARLIAMENT.

Parliament met on the 14th of June; being opened by commission till the preliminary forms necessary to be gone through in the house of commons should have been completed. On the 21st. after Mr. Manners Sutton had been re-elected speaker without opposition, and all the members were sworn in, his majesty opened the session in person. In his speech his majesty remarked: "I have availed myself of the earliest opportunity of resorting to your advice and assistance, after the dissolution of the late parliament. Having had recourse to that measure for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of my people on the expediency of a reform in the representation, I have now to recommend that important question to your earliest and most attentive consideration; confident that in any measures which you may propose for its adjustment, you will carefully adhere to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, by which the prerogative of the crown, the authority of both houses of parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people are equally secured." No amendment was proposed to the address in the upper house. The discussion chiefly turned on the dissolution of parliament, the inattention of government to the security of property during the London illuminations, and the arts used to inflame the public mind during the election. The same topics were also discussed in the commons, and the address was carried there without opposition.

The house of commons having been elected for the purpose of passing a measure of reform, no time was lost in bringing it forward. Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of England on the 24th of June. No debate took place on this occasion: Sir R. Peel having stated that he did not wish to divide the house on the first reading, or to have a long debate without a division. At his suggestion the second reading was postponed from the 30th of June to the 4th of July. In the meantime the Irish and Scotch bills were brought in and read the first time: the former on the 30th of June, and the latter on the 1st of July. On the appointed day for the second reading of the English reform bill an animated debate took place. Sir John Walsh moved that the bill should be read that day six months. The debate which followed this amendment continued three nights; and it consisted chiefly of a repetition of the views, arguments, and anticipations which had been brought out at such great length in the former parliament. Ministers and their supporters, however, found new matter for triumph in the evidence with which the general election had furnished them, that the people were generally for reform. All doubt or hesitation was at an end: the voice of the people had decided, not merely that there must be reform, but that it must be that kind of reform contained in the ministerial bill. This voice had been pronounced unanimously, for the returns from close boroughs and particular counties could not be taken into account in estimating the will and the wishes of those who formed the people. The opposition on the other hand contended, that the argument drawn from the mere fact of a popular clamour having been raised in favour of this measure, was fit only for legislators who had been invested with that character on no other terms than those of pledging themselves to discharge the humble duty of delegates, and not to act according to any opinions which they might form on the measures proposed by government. No man, it was said, could deny the violent excitement which had taken place, and few would maintain that large bodies of electors were the fittest persons for deciding on the merits of so complicated and delicate a question; and every man must concede, that least of all could the decision of such assemblages be regarded when made under the influence of agitation, sedulously cherished by false pretexts, and supported by groundless anticipations. Nor could the returns, it was argued, be considered as manifesting the opinion of the country on this plan of reform. They had been influenced, it was said, by considerations not connected with the merits of the proposition; and by identifying it with consequences, to which even its most rational and candid friends admitted that it never would lead. It was asked, Where had been the unanimity in favour of reform before the promulgation of the present measure, and the triumphs of the democracy of France? How little ministers could trust to reason and calmness among the people, and how much they reckoned on everything that was the reverse, was clear from the delicacy and respect with which they treated bodies that ought to have been unknown to them as a government, except for the purpose of checking their pretensions. Ministers had resolved not to intrust ten-pound voters who paid weekly; and this having displeased the Birmingham Political Union, they addressed a letter to the prime-minister on the subject, and that noble lord honoured them with the most friendly recognition. The speech of Mr. Macaulay, a nominee of Lord Lansdowne for the borough of Calne, in favour of the bill, elicited much applause. He remarked:—"The country and their children for ages to come will call this the second bill of rights; the greater charter of the liberties of England. I believe that the year 1831 is destined to exhibit to mankind the first example of a great, complicated, and deeply-rooted system of abuses removed without violence, bloodshed, and rapine; all forms observed, the fruits of industry not destroyed, and the authority of the law not suspended. These are things which may well make Englishmen proud of the age and country in which they live. These are things which may make them look forward to a long series of tranquil and happy years, during which nothing will disturb the concord of a popular government and a loyal people; of years in which, if war should be inevitable, it will find the people a united nation: of years pre-eminently distinguished by the mitigation of public burdens, by the prosperity of industry, by the reformation of jurisprudence, and by all the victories of peace: in which, far more than in military triumphs, consist the true prosperity of states and the glory of statesmen. It is with such feelings and hopes that I give my most cordial assent to this measure of reform, a measure which, in itself, I think desirable, but which in the present temper of the public mind is indispensably necessary to the repose of empire and the stability of government." The debate was closed by Lord John Russell, who defended his plan: and on a division the second reading of the measure was carried by a majority of three hundred and sixty-seven against two hundred and thirty-one.

It was proposed that the house should go into committee on the 12th of July, when Lord Maitland, one of the members for Appleby, rose to oppose the disfranchisement of that borough, on the score of a mistake in the population returns. He moved that his constituents should be heard at the bar by themselves and their counsel against the bill, in so far as it affected them, and in support of the allegations in their petition. Ministers declared that they would resist such an inquiry. They asked, whether the progress of this great measure was to be stopped to enter into the examination of a particular case of so insignificant a borough as Appleby? Members would be heard in committee in regard to this and every other borough; but if the house was to hear counsel in the case of Appleby, they might likewise be called on to hear them in the case of the other condemned boroughs, and that would be vexatious. The house had the information furnished by the population returns, which ministers deemed sufficient: if witnesses were examined at the bar, they must necessarily, if they had not been engaged in taking the census, be unable to furnish any other evidence; and if they had been so engaged, they would furnish the same evidence. A stormy debate followed, several members maintaining that there never had been an instance of so arbitrary and unconstitutional an attempt as ministers were now making. The second reading had carried the principle of the bill; but these petitioners were not objecting to the principle, but simply maintaining that, adopting this principle, the rule laid down by the bill itself, and founded on matters of fact, could not apply to them. Ministers, however, were deaf to all remonstrances; and the motion was negatived, although several supporters of the bill ventured to vote in the minority, feeling that the petitioners were justly entitled to show cause why they should not be disfranchised, and that justice would not be done if the motion were rejected. This motion being lost, a new discussion arose before the speaker left the chair, on the general principles and tendencies of the bill. As many members wished to express their sentiments, and the majority seemed impatient to cut all argument short, Mr. Gordon moved for an adjournment. The chancellor of the exchequer, however, asserted that he would have no further general argument on the bill after that night; and, notwithstanding the motion was ably defended, it was negatived. Repeated motions for adjournment were made, and were as repeatedly negatived; but as the minority still kept to their point, and seven o'clock in the morning was approaching, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that if the house would allow him to go into committee pro forma, the chairman might report progress, and ask leave to sit again to-morrow, when the discussion might go on as before. This was agreed to, and the house then adjourned. On the 13th, when the motion was made for the speaker leaving the chair, some discussion took place on the general principles of the bill; but it was very brief; and the house then discussed the measure clause by clause. The discussion on the several clauses continued from the 13th of July to the 15th of September, the opposition combating every point foot to foot with ministers. Amendments were moved as to the general principles of the bill, and as regards particular boroughs; but ministers were triumphant in almost every instance of importance. An amendment, moved by the Marquis of Chandos, that the right of voting should belong-to all occupiers of land paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds, was, however, earned by a majority of eighty-four; and it was incorporated with the original clause, which gave a right of voting for counties to leaseholders for a certain period, and a defined rent. The committee finished its labours on the 7th of September; and the bill, as amended, was reported to the house. The third reading was carried without a debate, on the 15th of September, by a majority of fifty-five; but on the motion that the bill do pass, a debate arose, which continued during the 19th, 20th, and 21st of September. Mr. Macaulay, with brilliant eloquence, admonished the peers to look to the deserted halls of France, and take warning not to oppose popular lights. Mr. Croker who seemed to make a point of rising to address the house after Mr. Macaulay, ridiculed the idea of the peers of England being deterred by fear from the performance of their duty, and reminded Mr. Macaulay that if the halls of France were deserted, it was because the French nobility were so foolish as to make any concessions to popular clamour. Mr. Stanley, then in the noon of his reputation, replied with his usual debating power to Mr. Croker, and carried the sympathies, if not the opinions of the house. Useless and angry recrimination entered largely into the remainder of the debate, in which Mr. Wynn and Sir Charles Wetherell especially figured. The personal influence of Lord Althorp and Sir Robert Peel allayed this angry spirit.

REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL BY THE LORDS.

The reform bill having been carried in the commons, on the next day Lord John Russell, attended by many of its supporters, delivered the bill to the lord-chancellor in the house of lords. The bill was read a first time, and, on the motion of Earl Grey, was directed to be read a second time on the 3rd of October. In the meantime the reformers vigorously employed all the means in their power to intimidate the peers into submission. Political unions again sent forth their addresses and petitions, and meetings were convened to warn them of "the tremendous consequences of rejecting the bill," and to inform them how "deeply and fearfully the security of commercial, as well as of all other property, was involved" in passing it without delay. In a meeting held in the common-hall of London, Colonel Torrens remarked:—"Let the peers refuse this bill if they dare; and if they do, dearly will they rue their obstinacy hereafter. You all remember the Sibyl's story. She presented her oracles to the court of Tarquin, and they were rejected. She burned a portion, and again offered them, but they were again rejected. After diminishing their number still further, she once more returned, and the remaining volumes were gladly purchased at the price which she had originally demanded for the entire. We, however, mean to reverse the moral, for should the present bill be defeated, we shall bring their lordships another bill, demanding a little more; and then, should they still dare to resist the might, and insult the majesty of the people of England united as one man, we will come forward with a bill of reform in which their lordships will find themselves inserted in schedule A." Such language as this was used from one end of the country to the other, and the press and orators alike endeavoured to intimidate the peers into submission. They were to have no direct influence in the deliberations of the commons, and now they were to have no deliberate voice in their own house. Such was the state of public feeling when, on the 3rd of October, Earl Grey moved the second reading of the bill. After some prefatory remarks, he said, that being called to form a new administration, he stated to his majesty that the only condition on which he would accept office was that he should be allowed to bring forward the question of parliamentary reform as a measure of government. That condition was sanctioned by the monarch, assented to by the commons, and hailed with joy by the people. Earl Grey next went into the details of the bill, an account of which is given in the previous pages. He added: "You are asked to give up that which is odious, unjust, and unconstitutional, and by retaining which the security of this house may be shaken. The influence which your lordships possess in the representation of sixty-five old boroughs may be taken from you by this bill, but the peers and the landed interest are not thereby deprived of their influence in the representation—on the contrary, that influence is increased." Earl Grey proceeded to contend that the measure had received the approbation of the country. He was, he said, one of the last men in that house who would grant anything to intimidation, and he would say, "Resist popular violence, and do not give way to popular commotion," but here there was neither violence nor commotion. The opinion of the people was fairly and unequivocally expressed, and no government could turn a deaf ear to it, and least of all could a government founded on free principles take such a step. The time was passed for taking half-measures; their lordships must either adopt this bill, or they would have in its stead something infinitely stronger and more extensive. The measure was brought forward at the recommendation of the crown; it had been carried by an overwhelming majority of the other house, and it was supported by the prayers of millions, who respectfully knocked at their lordships' door, and asked, for that which they considered to be the restoration of their just rights. Were their lordships prepared to reject a bill so supported, and that, too, on its second reading? He would venture for a moment, he continued, to address himself to the right reverend prelates who sat near him. While he assured that body that no man was more sincerely attached than he was to the maintenance of all the rights and privileges of the church—no man held in higher veneration the purity of its doctrine and discipline—no man was more ready to admit the zeal, and learning, and piety of those who presided over it,—let him at the same time ask, that if this bill be rejected by a narrow majority of the lay peers, and if its fate should thus within a few votes be decided by the votes of the heads of the church, what would then be their situation with the country? Those right reverend prelates had shown that they were not indifferent or inattentive to the signs of the times; they had introduced measures for effecting some salutary reforms in matters relating to the temporalities of the church, let them be implored to follow up the same course. The eyes of the country were upon them; he called upon them to "set their house in order," and prepare to meet the coming storm—to consider seriously what would be the opinion of the country should a measure on which the nation had fixed its hopes be defeated by their votes. They were the ministers of peace; he hoped that the result of their votes would be such as might tend to the tranquillity, peace, and happiness of the country. Earl Grey concluded his speech by saying that he was prepared to stand or fall by this measure; the question of his continuance in office for one hour would depend on the prospect of being able to carry through that which he considered important to the tranquillity, safety, and happiness of the country. Lord Wharncliffe addressed the house against the measure, defending nomination, not because it was made by peers or other influential individuals, but because its effect in the house of commons was that it acted as a check on those places which were popularly represented. He further argued, that if a house of commons were once elected on the principles of this bill, it would cramp the crown in the exercise of its prerogatives, and create a body in that house so irresistible as to make their lordships' decisions on all public questions a dead letter. The house of commons would become too much the image of the people. The dangers, indeed, which at this moment surrounded their lordships proved the accuracy of his argument. They had now a popular house of commons—a delegate house of commons; that house had passed this measure, and their lordships were told that nothing was left for them but to record and register the decree of the house of commons. He moved, therefore, that "this bill be rejected." Lords Mulgrave and Mansfield followed..... the former in support of, and the latter against the bill. After which Lord Wharncliffe, lest his motion should be interpreted as an insult to the house of commons, begged leave to withdraw his motion, and to propose in its stead that the bill be read a second time that day six months. After some discussion this alteration was allowed, and the debate was resumed by Lord Winchilsea, who opposed the bill. Lord Melbourne supported the measure, and the Duke of Wellington opposed it. After some introductory remarks, the duke referred to language which Earl Grey had uttered concerning the house of commons in 1817. His words were—"Constituted as it now is, I in my conscience believe that the house of commons is, of all institutions, in all countries of the world, the best calculated for the general protection of the subject." In 1830 he (the Duke of Wellington) had pronounced an opinion in parliament on the subject of reform, of which the noble earl disapproved. What he said was, that he approved of the constitution of parliament; and if he were to invent a constitution for parliament over again, he would endeavour to frame one like it, in which property should preponderate. The noble earl had said that it was this sentence which had created the spirit of reform now pervading the country. It was not so; the spirit of reform had originated with the French revolution. Ever since the American war, the minds of the people had been occasionally disturbed by the spirit of reform; and when any insurrection grew up in Europe, a desire for reform was sure to be exhibited. Concerning the measure before the house, the noble duke asked whether it was founded on the principles of the constitution? He thought not; he thought the bill violated both the principles and practice of the constitution. It went to establish a new system of representation in every county, borough, and town in the United Kingdom, with the exception of the two universities. The town representation would be placed in the hands of close, self-elected committees, like that which had appointed itself in the metropolis at the close of the last session, and which dissolved itself only in consequence of the notice which its proceedings had attracted in parliament. The undue enlargement of the powers of the town constituency would entirely destroy the balance of the agricultural representation of the counties. The towns already exercised an extraordinary influence in the election of county representatives, and the evil would be aggravated tenfold by the clause of the bill which gave votes to leaseholders and copyholders. The noble duke entered into the details of the measure at great length, and concluded by eulogising the constitution as it now existed. Under it, he said, we enjoyed the largest commerce, and the most flourishing colonies in the world. There was not any country in the universe in which so much happiness, so much prosperity, and so much comfort, were diffused amongst all the various classes of society; none in which so many and such large properties, both public and private, were to be found as in England. There was not a position in Europe in any degree important for military purposes, or advantageous for trade, which was not under our control, or within our reach. All these great and numerous advantages we possess, he added, under the existing system; but it will be impossible to retain them if we once establish a wild democracy, a complete democratic assembly under the name of a house of commons. On the two following evenings the principal speakers for the bill were Lords Lansdowne, Goderich, and Plunkett; and against it, Lords Dudley and Ward, Haddington, and Carnarvon. The fifth and last night of the debate was begun by Lord Wynford, who was followed by Lord Eldon, who condemned the measure as subversive of the right of property as well as of the monarchy, and of every principle acknowledged by the constitution. Lord Eldon concluded his speech by warning their lordships of the danger of conceding the terms required; and by declaring that if the measure passed, there would be an end to the monarchy. The lord-chancellor, after taking a review of the courses taken by the opponents of the bill, denied that the bill was founded upon population, and not property. Lord Lyndhurst resisted the bill because it appeared to him inconsistent with the prerogative of the crown, and with the authority of their lordships; but, above all, because it was detrimental to the rights and liberties of the people. The bill was opposed by Lord Tenterden and the Archbishop of Canterbury, both of whom expressed their belief that it would have a mischievous tendency. The Duke of Sussex supported it; but the Duke of Gloucester, although desirous of temperate reform, opposed it, as he conceived it to be a scheme for a new constitution. Lord Grey, in reply, complained that the opposition to the measure seemed to be carried on, less with a view to defeat the bill, than to drive its advocates from office. He repeated that he was pledged to this measure, or to one of equal extent; and said, that if a more moderate scheme would satisfy the people, he would not be the person to introduce such a measure. As to what course he should follow if defeated, he could not say; but he should be culpable if he were to resign his office and abandon his king, so long as he could be of use to him; for he was bound to him by gratitude as great as ever subject owed a sovereign. The house at length divided; and the bill, which had occupied so much of the attention of parliament during this session, and for which the people had long been earnestly striving, was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-one against one hundred and fifty-eight.

WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832

This division in the house of lords took place on the 8th of October. When the house met on Monday, the 10th, Lord Ebrington brought forward a motion, the object of which was to prevent ministers from resigning, by pledging the house of commons to support them. He founded their claims to public confidence, not merely on what they had done for the question of reform, but likewise on other measures which had distinguished their course; the relief, in particular, granted to the poor by the repeal of the duty on soap and candles, the improvements introduced by them into criminal jurisprudence, and the cleansing of the Augean stable of the court of chancery. He moved the following resolution;—"That while this house laments the present state of a bill for introducing a reform into the commons house of parliament, in favour of which the opinion of the country stands unequivocally pronounced, and which has been matured by discussions the most anxious and the most laborious, it feels itself most imperatively called upon to reassert its firm adherence to the principles and leading provisions of that great measure, and to express its unabated confidence in the integrity, perseverance, and ability of those ministers who, by introducing and conducting it, so well consulted the best interests of the country." The motion was supported by Messrs. O'Connell, Shiel, Macaulay, Hunt, and Duncombe, all of whom argued that, as matters stood, the continuance of ministers in office was the only thing that would secure public tranquillity, and that perseverance for a short time was sure to make reform triumphant, while their resignation would produce a state of things where demagogues would be above the law. Mr. Hume described the vote of the house of lords to be the unreasonable and wilful blindness of a miserable minority withholding from the majority their just rights. Others insisted that government should not hesitate, if it seemed necessary, to create as many peers as might be required to secure a triumphant majority. "The people," it was said, "have sent a sweeping-majority of reformers into the house of commons; why should not ministers send an equally decisive majority into the other house?" The motion was opposed by Sir C. Wetherell and Sir Robert Peel, and by Messrs. Croker and Goulburn, as being unnecessary and unfounded. If agreed to, it was said, it would only be a repetition of former votes. Lord Althorp said that the motion was made without any suggestion on the part of ministers. For himself, unless he felt a reasonable hope that a measure equally efficient would be brought forward and carried, he would not remain in office a single hour. The opponents of reform had gained a great triumph, and might rejoice in their success; but he did not think that any great triumph would be eventually gained; he was confident that the measure was only postponed. If the people of England remained firm and determined, but peaceable, he hoped and believed that there would be ultimate and speedy success. There was only one chance of failure; namely, if their disappointment led them into acts of violence, or to unconstitutional measures of resistance. The motion was earned by a majority of three hundred and twenty-nine against one hundred and ninety-eight.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

The rejection of the reform bill produced an extraordinary sensation throughout the country. Meetings were instantly convened in the metropolis. One was held at the Thatched-house Tavern, consisting of all the members who had supported the bill in its passage through the commons. The common-council also promptly assembled; and this was followed by a meeting at the Mansion-house of merchants and bankers, who passed resolutions approving of the conduct of government, and pledging themselves to its support. Petitions were also carried to the king, praying him to continue his ministers, and have recourse to a new creation of peers, sufficient in numbers to carry the bill. The lord-mayor and corporation went to St. James's with an address to the throne, and the civic procession was joined in its route by such numerous bodies with similar addresses, that, before it reached the palace, it consisted of more than 500,000 persons. Soon after their arrival the parochial deputies waited on Lord Melbourne, who prudently advised them to commit their addresses to the county members for presentation at the levee. This was announced to the multitude by Mr. Hume, who, while he exhorted them to be firm and united, advised them to be peaceable, and to disperse immediately, so that no advantage might be given to the enemies of reform. Mischief, however, was on foot. The mansions of the Duke of Wellington, the Marquis of Bristol, and that of Earl Dudley, were attacked, and were only saved from destruction by the timely interference of the police. The Marquis of Londonderry and the Duke of Cumberland were personally attacked in the park; and the latter would probably have been killed had not the police rescued him. In the country, also, violence and outrage became the order of the day. At first they were confined to the counties of Derby and Nottingham, at the latter of which places the mob set fire to the castle, the seat of the Duke of Newcastle, one of the sternest opposers of the reform bill. The house of Mr. Masters, also, in the vicinity, was sacked and pillaged; and his wife died in consequence of being obliged to seek shelter under the bushes of a shrubbery in a cold and rainy October night. In both houses of parliament ministers loudly expressed their disapprobation of such proceedings; but they were charged by their opponents with having indirectly encouraged the rioters by the language they had used, and the connexion in which they had placed themselves with large bodies of men acting illegally. While the bill was before the lords a meeting of political unions took place at Birmingham; and this assembly voted an address to the king, setting forth their alarm "at the awful consequences" which might arise from the failure of the bill; their pain at imagining the house of lords so infatuated as to reject it; and their earnest desire that his majesty would create as many peers as might be necessary to carry the measure. The most violent and threatening language was uttered by the speakers at this meeting; and one of the resolutions agreed to was a vote of thanks to Lords Althorp and John Russell. This was answered in these courteous terms:—"I beg to acknowledge with heartfelt gratitude the undeserved honour done me by 150,000 of my countrymen. Our prospects are now obscured for a moment, and I trust only for a moment. It is impossible that the whisper of faction should prevail against the voice of a nation." This courteous reply to a body of demagogues was severely deprecated in the house of commons, especially by Sir H. Hardinge, Sir R. Vyvyan, and Sir Charles Wetherell. In the meantime the spirit of insubordination seemed to increase. At Croydon the Archbishop of Canterbury was grossly insulted while presiding over a meeting of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; and in Somersetshire the bishop of the diocese was attacked when engaged in the solemn ceremony of consecrating a new church. Several other obnoxious prelates were burned in effigy. But these were trifles compared with the devastation committed at Bristol, when its recorder. Sir Charles Wetherell, arrived there late in October, on his official duties. He had no sooner opened his commission than he was attacked with such violence by the mob, that he was compelled to seek for safety by flight and disguise. Even his departure did not stop the mad fury of the populace. The episcopal palace, the mansion-house, the excise-office, with great part of Queen's Square, fell a sacrifice to the flames. A large number of warehouses, also, many of which were filled with wine and spirits, shared in the conflagration. The soldiers had been sent out of the city, but they were compelled to be recalled; and as parties of them arrived, tranquillity was restored. The total number of killed and wounded amounted nearly to one hundred; and about two hundred were taken prisoners during the outrages, while others were captured afterwards with plundered property in their possessions. About the same time partial disturbances broke out at Bath, Coventry, and Worcester; but these being vigorously opposed by the municipal and military powers, were speedily checked. A proclamation was finally issued by his majesty in council on the 2nd of November, exhorting all classes of his subjects to unite in suppressing tumults. As winter advanced, however, the alarm of the executive government increased, and serious apprehensions were entertained lest the peace of the country should be endangered by the formidable associations which everywhere existed, and especially by those in London, Birmingham, and Manchester. These associations began even to appoint councils and officers, and to assume a regular plan of organization. The rapid increase of unions at length made it necessary that some steps should be taken to lay them under restraint; and the Gazette of the 22nd of November contained a proclamation, declaring their illegality, and warning all subjects of the realm against entering into such combinations. About the same time a special commission was appointed to try the Bristol rioters, and the result was that eighty-five were convicted: five were left for execution, but four only suffered the extremity of the law. A military court of inquiry was also instituted on the conduct of the officers commanding at Bristol, and a court-martial was appointed on Colonel Brereton and Captain Warrington. The former, overcome by his feelings, and the weight of evidence against him, destroyed himself, and the latter rested his defence for his neglect in suppressing the riots, and preserving the buildings, on the want of directions from Colonel Brereton, and of assistance from the city magistrates, the head of whom purposely concealed himself when his presence was needed; whilst all the aldermen excused themselves for not accompanying the soldiers, by their inability to ride on horseback. General Sir Charles Dalbiac, however, the crown-prosecutor, laid it down as a fundamental principle of the common law:—"That if the occasion demands immediate action, and no opportunity is given for procuring the advice or sanction of a magistrate, it is the duty of every subject to act on his own responsibility, in suppressing a riotous and tumultuous assembly; and whatever may be done by him honestly, in the execution of that object, he will be justified and supported by the common law. That law acknowledges no distinction between the private citizen and the soldier, who is still a citizen, lying under the same obligation, and invested with the same authority to preserve the king's peace as any other subject." Later in the year commissions were issued to try the rioters at Nottingham and Derby.

During all this time Ireland continued in a most distracted state. Associations were promoted in the country by Mr. O'Connell for the repeal of the union, until at length the magistrates dispersed one of his meetings, and apprehended the great agitator and his accomplices for illegal acts. True bills were found against them by the grand jury, and Mr. O'Connell put in a demurrer; but withdrew it, and pleaded not guilty. After several attempts to delay the trial, he withdrew that plea, also, and pleaded guilty to the first fourteen counts in the indictment respecting the holding of meetings in contempt of proclamations. Mr. Stanley, secretary for Ireland, distinctly stated in the house of commons, in answer to a question put by the Marquis of Chandos, that he and his accomplices would be brought up for judgment; but this promise was never fulfilled, and many discussions took place in parliament, as to whether government had made any compromise with the agitators. Ministers denied that such was the case; and that they were not brought up for judgment is perhaps sufficiently accounted for by the state of both England and Ireland. In the latter country the disturbances toward the close of the year greatly increased. In the counties of Clare, Roscommon, Galway and Tipperary, all law was trampled under foot; murder, robbery, and searching for arms by bodies of men were the ordinary occurrences of every day. The lord-lieutenant made a progress through the disturbed counties in the vain hope that his presence would restore tranquillity; but things remained in the same state on his return to Dublin as before his departure from thence. More vigorous measures were afterwards adopted: proclamations were issued in several counties applying the insurrection act to them, and a special commission was sent down to try all offenders captured. A great number of miserable creatures were convicted, but few individuals suffered the last penalty of the law. But notwithstanding these trials, the outrages in Ireland lost little of their horrors. The refusal to pay tithes became general; and many frightful collisions occurred between the peasantry and the authorities which endeavoured to repress their lawless proceedings, The law was, in fact, powerless; and whenever the officers of the law interfered, open war was declared against them.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

On the 3rd of October the chancellor of the exchequer laid his view of finance for the year before the house of commons. This was the second statement within the year; for the original budget was a failure, and his lordship had been driven to the necessity of changing his operations. His present statement was that the total amount of receipts for the present year would be £47,250,000, and the expenditure £46,756,221. He had, he said, to allow for £200,000 more received from the account of the last year, so that he would take the surplus of revenue over expenditure at £493,000. He begged to observe that this surplus was larger than he had anticipated in February last, notwithstanding he had not succeeded in carrying several of the taxes he had proposed. In the customs there had been a falling off this quarter; but he had grounds for concluding that it would not continue. In regard to the sinking-fund, he said, that, at the commencement of each quarter, he had taken an average of the four preceding quarters, and that sum he had applied to the reduction of the debt in the succeeding quarter, if the revenue was not clearly falling. The act allowed the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt to apply the surplus to the purchase of exchequer-bills, as well as stock; and since the revenue had been diminished so much by the reduction of taxes, the surplus had been applied in the purchase of such bills. He had done this in order to diminish the number of securities in the hands of the bank; and although the plan was operose, the effect was, that the debt was not reduced, unless there was a real surplus of revenue.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The king prorogued parliament on the 20th of October, in person. On the one all-absorbing topic, that of reform in parliament, he remarked:—"In the interval of repose which may now be afforded to you, I am sure it is unnecessary for me to recommend to you the most careful attention to the preservation of tranquillity in your respective counties. The anxiety which has been so generally manifested by my people for the accomplishment of a constitutional reform in the commons house of parliament, will, I trust, be regulated by a due sense of the necessity of order and moderation in their proceedings. To the consideration of this important question the attention of parliament must necessarily again be called at the opening of the ensuing session; and you may be assured of my unaltered desire to promote its settlement by such improvements in the representation as may be found necessary for securing to my people the full enjoyment of their rights, which, in combination with those of the other orders of the state, are essential to the support of our free constitution." Parliament was prorogued to the 22nd of November, but subsequently by proclamation to the 6th of December.

CORONATION OF WILLIAM IV.

The coronation of William IV. took place on the 8th of September. The ceremony was shorn of the grotesque pageantry of chivalric times, and was confined to the interior of the abbey. The royal procession moved in state carriages from St. James's Palace, and was escorted by the cavalry. His majesty was saluted with hearty cheers from the multitude, such as greeted his father in the most palmy days of his reign. His majesty, the first naval king that ever sat on the British throne, was dressed in an admiral's uniform. As the procession passed, the bands which were stationed at different points played the national anthem, which tended to excite the enthusiasm of the people. In conformity with precedents, the coronation was distinguished by the grant of new honours. Three marquesses, four earls, and fifteen barons were created; and this increase of the peerage was afterwards succeeded by the addition of twenty-eight names to the list of baronets of the United Kingdom, for the express purpose of carrying the reform bill.

OPENING OF NEW LONDON BRIDGE, ETC.

The ceremony of opening new London Bridge took place on the 1st of August. It was honoured by the presence of their majesties, who partook of a banquet in a pavilion erected on the bridge. On the day following, another exhibition of royalty took place in the procession of their majesties to the house of lords, that the king might give his assent to the queen's dower bill. On the same day, in consequence of a royal message, delivered by Earl Grey, the importance of making a further provision to support the honour and dignity of the Princess Victoria, as presumptive heiress of the crown, was taken into consideration. It appeared that, in consequence of Prince Leopold's election to the throne of Belgium, £6000 per annum, which he had hitherto allowed his sister and niece, had been withdrawn. Lord Althorp made a similar statement in the commons; and he proposed an addition of £10,000 per annum to the income of the duchess, which resolution was agreed to nem. con.

RAVAGES OF THE CHOLERA.

While the country was in the disturbed state described in previous pages, its confusion was increased by the appearance of the cholera morbus. This frightful malady first appeared on the banks of the Ganges, in 1817. The early manifestations of it consisted in violent vomitings and discharges of the bowels. After this, spasmodic contractions, beginning in the fingers, gradually extended themselves to the trunk; the pulse sank; the skin became cold; the lips, face, neck, hands, and feet, and soon after the thighs, arms, and surface assumed a leaden, blue, purple, black, or deep brown tint, according to the complexion of the individual, or the intensity of the attack. The fingers and toes were reduced in size; the skin and soft parts covering them became wrinkled, shrivelled, and folded; the nails assumed a bluish, pearly white hue; the larger superficial veins were marked by flat lines of a deeper black; the pulse became small as a thread, and sometimes totally extinct; the voice sunk into a whisper; the respiration was quick, irregular, and imperfect; and the secretion of urine was totally suspended. Death took place often in ten or twelve, and generally in eighteen or twenty hours after the appearance of well-founded symptoms. Many were the thousands who perished by this visitation in India; the cities of Decca and Patna, the towns of Balasore, Burrishol, Burdavan, and Malda suffered greatly, and throughout the Gangetic Delta the population was sensibly diminished. The scourge was extended eastward along the coast of the Asiatic continent, and through the islands of the Indian Ocean, to China and to Timor. Before the end of 1827, it had traversed the Molucca islands, and the island of Timor, and continuing for several years to ravage the interior of China, it had, by 1827, passed to the north of the great wall, and had desolated some places in Mongolia. In the meantime, also, it extended to the west. Bombay, Persia, Asiatic Turkey, Russia, Poland, Austria, and Prussia, all experienced the dreadful visitation, from 1818 to 1831. Precautions had been taken in England, by enforcing quarantine regulations, to protect the country from the malady; but notwithstanding, in the month of October of this year, it made its appearance in Sunderland. Before the close of the year, it found its way from Sunderland and Newcastle to the suburbs of the metropolis. At first its outrages were generally confined to the victims of intemperance; but it soon began to attack patients of all descriptions, and to spread from the capital into the provinces. Scarcely any part in the empire, eventually, escaped the fearful scourge, but its inflictions, probably by reason of the habits of the people, and the nature of the climate, were less violent than in the other nations which it had visited. A board of health was established, which made a daily report of cases. Concerning the disease, there was great contrariety of opinion among medical men. The main points on which they differed were as to whether the disease was contagious or not; whether it was the Asiatic cholera or a new complaint; whether it was imported or indigenous; and whether it partook of the properties of the plague, or was to be regarded as a transient scourge. The ratio of deaths in England was found to be about one to three. Some places were entirely free from its ravages, although it was raging near, which gave rise to an opinion that its propagation was extended by currents in the air.

     "God proclaims His hot displeasure against foolish men,
     That live an atheist life; involves the heaven
     In tempests; quits his grasp upon the winds,
     And gives them all their fury; bids a plague
     Kindle a fiery boil upon the shin,
     And putrefy the breath of blooming health.
     He calls for famine, and the meagre fiend
     Blows mildew from between his shrivelled lips,
     And taints the golden ear.
     He springs his mines,
     And desolates a nation at a blast."

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

In France, this year was likewise distinguished by tumults. In Paris and Lyons especially there were great disturbances; and at the latter place the riot of workmen advanced to such a height that the Duke of Orleans, accompanied by Marshal Soult, was dispatched thither with extraordinary powers to quell the revolt. In the Netherlands, after Prince Leopold had accepted the crown, which he did in the month of June, Holland, on the 1st of August, declared the armistice to be at an end, and prepared to enforce by arms the rights which Europe had, on a former occasion, declared to belong to the king of that country. A Dutch army entered Belgium, and routed the Belgian forces at Hasselt and Louvain, which latter city it captured. This army, however, subsequently retired before a large French force which arrived at Brussels for the defence of the country. The marches of the Dutch and French armies became a subject of debate, in consequence of which the French troops were recalled. Another set of articles was framed by the conference, which declared that the acceptance of them should be compulsory. Belgium readily accepted them, but they were rejected by Holland. After this, a treaty was signed between the five powers and Leopold, who was recognized by them as King of Belgium; but the Dutch plenipotentiaries entered a strong protest against this instrument, feeling a certainty of being aided in their pretensions by some of the contracting powers, and by a strong party even in Great Britain. The state of possession however, at the close of the year, remained undisturbed; the King of Holland having declared that, although he would not desist from his military armaments, he would employ them at present only for the purposes of defence. In Spain, this year two attempts at insurrection were made; but they were followed by defeats, arrests, and executions. In Portugal, where Don Miguel's cruelties continued unabated, the hopes of the constitutionalists were revived in the return of Don Pedro, with his daughter. Donna Maria, to Europe, and his preparations for a descent on Portugal. Don Miguel made every exertion to put the forts of the Tagus into a state of complete preparation to repel the expected attack; but all his efforts were weakened by the want of money; and at the close of the year his usurped throne was in danger of being overthrown. Insurrections were also, this year, prevalent in Italy. They occurred in Parma, Modena, and the Papal States, and were put clown by Austrian interference. Greece, during the same period, for whose pacification the powers of Europe had laboured so long, was a scene of violence and war. The popularity of Capo d'Istria, either from his too great attachment to Russian interests, or from the jealousy and discontents of the chiefs, unused to control and jealous of power, had rapidly declined. In consequence of this he became suspicious and tyrannical; and before the year closed he lost his life by assassination. This year was fatal to the liberty of Poland. Driven to insurrection by the faithless and tyrannical conduct of Nicholas, betrayed by France, deserted by England, and persecuted in their low estate by Austria and Prussia, the Poles, after heroically struggling with the armies of Eussia, were finally subdued. Warsaw was captured; the Polish armies disbanded; the nobles degraded; and thousands of every rank, age, and sex subjected to the most cruel punishments, and the nationality of the country destroyed, so far as human ingenuity could accomplish so fell a destruction. Poland rose for a desperate struggle against the Russian giant, and astonished the world with its prowess; but it proved unequal to stem the crushing movements of the Muscovites.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

WILLIAM IV. 1831—1832

The British parliament reassembled on the 6th of December. During the recess, ministers had been urged by their reforming adherents to reintroduce the reform bill without delay; and it became evident, from his majesty's speech, that this subject would become the absorbing topic of the next session. His majesty distinctly stated his views on the subject of reform in the opening of the speech, thus:—"I feel it to be my duty, in the first place, to recommend to your most careful consideration the measures which will be proposed to you for a reform in the commons house of parliament; a speedy and satisfactory settlement of this question becomes daily of more pressing importance to the security of the state, and to the contentment and welfare of my people." The other parts of the speech referred to the distress which prevailed; to the appearance of the cholera morbus; to the agitation prevailing in Ireland; to the Portuguese affairs; to the separation of the states of Holland and Belgium; to a convention entered into with the king of the French for the suppression of the slave-trade; to the estimates; and to the recent riots. The address did not produce any division, but several parts of it were objected to in both houses. In the lords, the principal matter of discussion was found in those parts of the royal speech which regarded the foreign policy of the government, the opposition particularly objecting to that part of the address in answer to it which expressed satisfaction that an arrangement had been made for the separation of the states of Holland and Belgium. At the suggestion of Lord Harrowby the paragraph was slightly altered, so as to meet the views of all parties. In the commons, Sir Charles Wetherell brought under notice that part of the speech which related to the riots at Bristol, in the course of which he made some severe remarks on the libels of the press, which had charged him with being the author of those events; the charge was false, he said, in all its parts, and known to be false by those who made it. Sir Robert Peel proposed the same alteration in that part of the address that related to the affairs of Holland and Belgium, which Lord Harrowby had suggested in the upper house, and it was adopted. In his speech, besides adverting generally to the other topics in the address, he protested against a precedent now established, that of assembling parliament for the dispatch of business without giving the usual notice. He admitted that, by the letter of the law, government was entitled to call parliament together after fourteen days' notice; yet it was laid down by the highest authority that, up to the period when the old law was altered, it was deemed of high importance that forty days' notice should be given of the meeting of parliament. Of the allusion in the speech and address to the necessity of a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the reform question, Sir Robert said that he would not object to it, as ministers had declared that it was not intended to express any pledge. He would candidly avow, however, that he despaired of seeing the question brought to a speedy and satisfactory settlement. In the different discussions on the reform bill, ministers had agitated principles which did not admit of any satisfactory settlement. It was his conscientious belief, indeed, that the principles of the bill were so many impediments to the settlement of the question, which the ministers themselves had not the capacity to remove. In reply, Lord Althorp justified the short notice on which parliament had been called together, by the circumstances of the country. Mr. Hume made some remarks on the distress of the country, which he connected with the paper currency, and he moved this amendment:—"That in the present critical and alarming state of the country, when trade and manufactures were reduced to such difficulties by the withdrawing of, and narrowing the circulation, without a proportionate reduction of taxation, by which the means of all but those who lived upon the taxes were reduced one-half in value, the greatest distress existed; that these were aggravated by the baleful system called free-trade, by which a competition of foreign silks, gloves, and other articles was permitted with our own manufactures; that by these means the people were driven to desperation and frenzy, and that to these causes were to be attributed those incendiary proceedings going on in the country; that for these reasons the house do adjourn, to give time to ministers to prepare a suitable address, taking proper notice of the state and condition of the country." Mr. Hume said that he did not move this amendment to get rid of the address, but to give ministers time to consider whether they would not depart from the practice of making the address a mere echo of the speech. No member, however, would second the amendment, and therefore it fell to the ground.

NEW REFORM BILL.

On the 12th of December, pursuant to notice, Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a new reform bill. He first called upon the house to remember Earl Grey's declaration on the rejection of the former bill in the house of lords—namely, that he remained in office only with the view of bringing forward another and no less efficient measure of reform. The principles of the two measures, he said, were the same—any alterations which had been made left its efficiency unimpaired. He conceived that, as a resolution had been passed by the house of commons in favour of the last measure, it was only necessary to explain the alterations in the present bill, which alterations regarded the manner of carrying into effect principles already adopted by the house. These principles consisted in the disfranchisement of decayed and inconsiderable boroughs; the enfranchisement of large and opulent towns; and the introduction of a general new electoral qualification. As regards the disfranchisement of decayed boroughs, the former bill had taken the census of 1821 as the rule, and had fixed on a certain amount of population, disfranchising all those whose population did not at that time reach the amount. Since that time a new census had been taken. This census could not be thrown out of view, but, at the same time, it was liable to objection, having been taken after a particular point of population had been fixed as that of disfranchisement, it was not improbable that pains had been taken to raise certain boroughs above the line of disfranchisement. Ministers had, therefore, rather taken the number of houses than that of inhabitants, it being less likely that improper practices would be adopted in regard to the former than to the latter. It had been found difficult, he continued, to draw a line which should mark where the census should be attended to, and where it was to be disregarded. Ministers had used every effort to obtain a correct account of the size and importance of the boroughs which were to be abolished; and on the data they had obtained schedule A of the new bill was to be founded. The drawing of the line at which disfranchisement should stop, he said, must necessarily be arbitrary, whether the population, the houses, or the amount of the assessed taxes, or the number of boroughs, was to be taken into consideration. It had appeared to ministers that the number which had been fixed last session to be disfranchised was proper, and therefore they proposed to strike off fifty-six, the number which stood in schedule A of the former bill. The consequence of this was that some of the boroughs which formerly escaped disfranchisement in consequence of the population of their parishes being large, though the boroughs themselves were inconsiderable, would now be placed in schedule A, whilst others would be raised out of it, and placed in schedule B. Another part of the disfranchising clauses of the bill regarded the boroughs in schedule B, which were to be deprived of only one of their two members. Ministers had now resolved to give an additional member to a certain number of boroughs in this schedule, taking the number to be included in it to be forty-one, as it had been fixed last session, and dividing the rest of the twenty-three members, with two exceptions, among the newly enfranchised towns which, under the late bill, were to have only one representative.

Of the twenty-three members required to fill up the numbers of the house, it was proposed that ten should be given to the most considerable towns in schedule B, one to Chatham, so as to render it independent of Rochester, and another to the county of Monmouth, from which there had been several petitions, stating that there was only one district of boroughs in that county, although its population exceeded 100,000. The rest of the twenty-three, he continued, were given to the large towns to which the late bill gave one representative each. The consequence of all this was, that there would be only thirty boroughs in schedule B, instead of forty-one, and that in schedule C. instead of twelve members, there would be forty-two: instead of ninety-six places, as by the old bill, there would be only forty-nine returning one representative each. His lordship next proceeded to the ten-pound qualification clause. As it stood in the last bill, he said, the right of voting in boroughs was to be enjoyed by occupiers of houses assessed to the house-duty, or poor-rates at ten pounds, or rented, or of the annual value of the same; but then this right was afterwards limited thus:—that no one whose landlord compounded for the rates should be entitled to vote unless he claimed to be rated in his own name, and that no one should be entitled to vote for airy premises, unless he had occupied them for twelve calendar months, and had not been in the receipt of parochial relief during that time. He now proposed that every one who occupied a lease of the value of ten pounds should have a right to vote in behalf of it, provided he was rated,—not that he should be rated at ten pounds, but that he should be assessed to the poor-rates, and then the only question to be decided would be, whether he was the occupier of a house or a warehouse of the stated value. It would also be enacted, that any person who was not rated to the poor-rates might demand to be placed upon them, and being so placed upon them, might claim to be put on the registry. In other matters, his lordship said, connected with the right of voting, the present bill would be found to differ from the last, though most of what stood in the latter was still allowed to remain. Thus the former bill had allowed the right of voting to freemen during the lives of those now in possession; the present bill did the same, but it went a step further, in preserving the rights of freemen, acquired by birth or servitude, for ever. Another change related to officers, about which some difficulty arose in the committee on the late bill: it was this, that in any case where his majesty might grant a charter of incorporation to any of the new boroughs to be created by the bill,—such as those in schedule C,—it was intended that the mayor or other chief officer of such corporation should be returning officer of such borough. It was thought much better, he said, to unite the voters in such boroughs in a corporate form on liberal principles, the same as those of London and other places, than to leave them the right of voting without such corporate form. Another right reserved in the bill related to the rights of freeholders in cities being counties in themselves. Freeholders were of three classes: some voted in the county at large; others only for the county of the city or borough; and others did not vote for either. It was intended that the voters for counties at large should remain undisturbed, and those who voted for the county of the city would also be allowed to continue that vote, but those who by the former bill were not to be allowed to vote for either place would now be allowed to vote for the county in which the city or borough happened to be situated. Lord John Russell added in conclusion, that by the late bill commissioners were appointed to make inquiries, and to ascertain the limits of boroughs, and that the reports of these commissioners would be laid before parliament, for it to determine the limits of each. In consequence of the inquiries of these commissioners a mass of information had been obtained, which he hoped to be able to lay before the house soon after the Christmas recess. There were other alterations of minor importance, he said, in the bill, and some verbal changes, but it was not necessary to allude to them, as the discussion of these would be more proper in the committee. Sir Robert Peel said that in one thing there must be an unanimous feeling on all sides—that of gratitude at the escape which the country had had from the bill of the last session, a danger which he had not till now fully appreciated. The new bill, he contended, was a full and complete answer to the calumnies of which they had heard so much in the last session against the factious delays, as they were then called, of those who sought to introduce some of those very modifications now adopted by the noble lord who brought forward the former measure. There was scarcely an amendment in schedule A which had been offered from the opposition side of the house which had not been adopted. The principle of population was abandoned; and the preservation of the rights of freemen, which the opposition had vainly struggled to introduce last session, was now voluntarily urged by the noble lord, as an improvement in his new plan of reform. He would not stop to inquire, he said, why when five boroughs were taken out of schedule A as many more should be added, so as to make the number fifty-six; nor would he now examine why the number of boroughs having but one member each should be reduced from sixty-nine to forty-nine; nor would he enter into any inquiry as to the cause of the change in the right of voting in cities and counties; he left all these matters for future discussion;—but he must congratulate himself and his friends on the effect of the opposition which they made to the last bill. He was not surprised that the noble mover should have been so severe on the last bill; but he must say, that he was not prepared for such a sacrifice to the manes of the late parliament as the adoption of the resolution of General Gaseoyne, by keeping up the number of members undiminished. After all that had been said, both in and out of the house, as to the nature and the object of the opposition, it was declared to be the deliberate conviction of the king's government, that the objections which the opposition took were well founded. He rejoiced for the sake of the character of those on that side of the house with whom he had the honour to act, that such a triumphant refutation was brought forward of the charges which had been made against them. He rejoiced, also, not only on account of the amendments which had been made in the details of the bill; but because, if the house should determine, on the second reading of the bill, to adopt the principle of the measure, and to make so extraordinary and extensive a change in the frame and constitution of the government of this country, he could not help thinking that when they approached the discussion of the details, there would be a disposition on the part of the majority of the house to follow the course of ministers, and to introduce more amendments into the measure. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, said that he could not recollect a question moved from the opposition side of the house with respect to any of the alterations which had since been made in the bill. Ministers had given their attention to every reasonable suggestion with regard to the details of the bill, and some of those alterations now proposed might have been pressed upon their consideration; but he did not remember that an opportunity had been given them last session to adopt such resolutions. The bill having been rejected, ministers had employed the interval which had since elapsed in endeavouring to remove all objections to the details of the measure, and in introducing such improvements as were consistent with its great principle; and yet, because they had done so, the right honourable baronet taunted them with unstable conduct. The giving up the clause regarding commissioners, he asserted, was the necessary consequence of the fact of the commissioners having now made their inquiry. Great alterations were said to have been made in schedule A: fifty-one boroughs out of fifty-six remained as before. The ten-pound clause, again, it was admitted, had not suffered from the alteration which had been introduced in it: the fact was, the clause had been merely simplified in its wording and provisions; in its practical effect it was precisely similar to that contained in the late bill. Some of the Irish members complained that injustice was done to Ireland in not allowing her a greater number of members: twenty-three additional members, it was said, had now been given to England, and eight to Scotland; and yet Ireland was still to receive only the one hundred and five which had originally been allotted her under very different circumstances. The bill, however, was read a first time without a division, and the second reading was fixed for the 16th; after which, Lord Althorp stated that the house would adjourn for the Christmas holidays.

On the 16th, on the motion being made that the bill be read a second time, Lord Porchester moved an amendment that it should be read a second time that day six months. He had hoped, he said, that ministers would have framed a bill which would have been generally acceptable. The debate which followed was continued by adjournment on the 17th. Sir E. Sugden, who seconded the amendment, agreed with Lord Porchester that the bill was more democratic in its tendency than its predecessor, and equally unfounded in any sound principle of the constitution, though some of the alterations made in the details were changes for the better. There were other changes, however, which were alterations greatly for the worst, setting aside the mischievous and unconstitutional tendency of the measure. Mr. Macaulay contended that since opposition admitted that the principles of the bill were unchanged, they had no reason for the exultation in which they had indulged over minor alterations, as if ministers had abandoned their own plans, and gave the preference to theirs. The new bill, he said, was an improved edition of the first; but the first was superior to it in one point, inasmuch as it was the first, and was, therefore, more likely to cement a reconciliation between the refractory aristocracy and the exasperated people. It had been asked, he continued, why they had the temerity to legislate in haste? He did not mean to dispute that a hurried settlement at a season of excitement might not be wholly unaccompanied with evil; but if so, the responsibility must be with those who had withheld concession when there was no excitement. The time had arrived when reformers must legislate in haste, because bigots would not legislate early; when reformers must legislate in excitement, because bigots would not do so at a more auspicious opportunity. Bigots would not walk with sufficient speed, nay, they could not be prevailed on to move at all; and now, therefore, the reformers must run for it. Mr. Macaulay entered into a defence of the principles of the bill; and in conclusion asserted, that, by fair means or foul, either through or over parliament, the question must be carried. He was followed by Mr. Croker, who said that the doctrine now set up, of some terrific and uncontrollable necessity, put an end to all argument and consideration. Lord Althorp, in reply, challenged the opposition to point out any instance in which, ministers had neglected their duty, or had looked with apathy on the violations of the public peace, or on outrages against persons and property. Mr. Stuart Wortley said he had hoped that ministers, after knowing the sentiments entertained in another place, would have introduced a measure which might, to a great extent, have met the 'wishes of those who, like himself, were disposed to mitigate their opposition, if it could be done without sacrificing the principles for which they contended. He had been disappointed: and, therefore, notwithstanding the improvements made in the bill, he could not give it his support. He was satisfied that in principle, and in some of the details, this bill was dangerous: yet if members on the other side would declare their willingness to admit of further amendments, he would not be indisposed to give up the point of disfranchisement to a considerable extent, as being the point on which the popular feeling was most strongly excited; provided that, on the other hand, concessions were made in parts of the bill on which the public did not feel so strongly. Lord John Russell contended that it signified little whether they took away this or that number of nomination-boroughs; the time was gone by when any government could be earned on by means of their operation. It must be carried on under the control of the intelligent and respectable part of the community, which control would be provided by the bill. If the bill passed into operation, he had no doubt that men would be returned of sound views, and entitled to the confidence of the country. Sir C. Wetherell, on the other hand, maintained that while the present was the most unfit of all seasons to agitate reform, in consequence of the violent excitement into which the country had been thrown, that excitement itself was mainly attributable to ministers, who had fostered it for the express purpose of carrying the bill. Sir Robert again combated the details of the bill, arguing that they tended to the destruction of the British constitution. He added, in conclusion, "This bill, therefore, I shall oppose to the last, believing, as I do, that the people are grossly deluded as to the practical benefits which they have been taught to expect from it; that it is the first step, not directly to revolution, but to a series of changes which will affect the property, and alter the mixed constitution of the country; that it will be fatal to the authority of the house of lords; and that it will force on a series of further concessions. I will oppose it to the last, convinced that, though my opposition will be unavailing, it will not be fruitless, because the opposition now made will oppose a bar to further concessions hereafter. If the whole of the house were now to join in giving way, it would have less power to resist future changes. On this ground I take my stand, not opposed to any well-considered reform of any of our institutions, which the well-being of the country demands, but opposed to this reform in our constitution, because it tends to root up the feelings of respect towards it, which are founded in prejudice, perhaps, as well as in higher sources of veneration for all our institutions. I believe that reform will do this; and I will wield all the power I possess to oppose the gradual progress of that spirit of democracy to which others think we ought gradually to yield; for if we make those concessions, it will only lead to establish the supremacy of that principle. We may, I know, make it supreme; we may be enabled to establish a republic full, I have no doubt, of energy—not wanting, I have no doubt, in talent; but in my conscience I believe fatal to our mixed form of government, and ultimately destructive of all those usages and practices which have long ensured to us a large share of peace and prosperity, and which have made and preserved this the proudest kingdom in the annals of the world." The bill was supported by Sir H. Willoughby, Lord William Lennox, Messrs. Bulwer and Slaney, and other members, who all insisted on the absolute necessity of yielding, and of yielding precisely what was contained in the bill, because all the principles therein contained, and the extent to which they should be applied, had been submitted to the people, and had been adopted by them, with a determination which rendered resistance useless. On the other hand, the bill was opposed by Lord Mahon, Sir E. H. Inglis, and other members. It was stated that most members of the house had seen an address to the inhabitants of Leeds, signed "Thomas Babington Macaulay," in which that gentleman stated that he by no means considered the bill as final, but that he looked upon it only as a step towards a more extended suffrage. The house divided on the morning of the 18th, which was Sunday, and the motion for the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and sixty-two. Immediately after the division, the house adjourned for the Christmas holidays, till the 17th of January.

CHAPTER XLII.

WILLIAM IV. 1832-1833

     Reform Bill passed by the Commons..... Debates on the Reform
     Bill in the Lords..... Disturbed State of the Nation.....
     Reassembling of Parliament..... Failure of the Attempts to
     form a New Administration..... Ministers Recalled.....
     Reform Bill passed..... Irish and Scotch Reform Bills
     passed..... Bill to Prevent Bribery at Elections,  &c......
     Committees on  Irish Tithes..... Financial Statements.....
     Committee on the Charter of the East India Company, &c......
     The Affairs of the West Indies..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... General Election..... Resignation of the
     Speaker..... State of Ireland..... State of the Continent

REFORM BILL PASSED BY THE COMMONS.

A.D. 1832

When parliament re-assembled on the 17th of January ministers expressed their intention of going into committee on the reform bill on the 20th. Messrs. Croker and Goulburn rejected this proposition, as bringing the house into a consideration of the details of the bill before it had been put in possession of the proper information. Lord John Russell and Lord Althorp, however, would not consent to any delay of the committee. On the 20th, when the motion was made for the house to go into committee, Mr. Croker repeated his objection to their proceeding in the state of imperfect information in which they were now left. Lord Althorp, and the material adherents, asserted that the information called for was unnecessary in deciding on the first clause, which respected the number of boroughs to be disfranchised, though they admitted that when they came to the schedule, information would be necessary in order to see whether the boroughs designated ought to be retained or not. Mr. Croker moved as an amendment that the committee should be delayed till the 24th; but it was negatived by a large majority; and the house then went into committee. On the first clause being read, Lord John Russell said, that as the line must, in any case, be arbitrary, it had been thought best to take the number which had received the sanction of the house in the former bill. Ministers would have liked quite as well fifty or fifty-five, sixty or sixty-five; but in fixing upon a number different from that of the preceding bill, they would have been acting on their own responsibility. After combating this clause with all the arguments that could be enforced, Mr. Croker, in accordance with the views of the opposition, moved, as an amendment, that the number fifty-six should be omitted. Lords John Russell and Althorp, however, repeated that the number had been adopted because it had been sanctioned in the preceding session. The former bill, they said, containing precisely the same number of disfranchised boroughs in schedule A, had been rejected by the lords; and it appeared of great importance to ministers that as little risk as possible should be run of its being again rejected by them, while at the same time they felt it to be of equal importance, to satisfy the country, that the great disfranchising principle of the former bill should be preserved. Mr. Croker's motion was negatived; and then a similar discussion took place regarding the next clause, which enacted that thirty boroughs, to form schedule B, should in future send only one member to parliament. This was opposed on the ground that no reason was given why this number had been selected, and also on the ground that the principle of giving only one member was an inexpedient principle. Sir Robert Peel moved an amendment, that each of the boroughs in schedule B should continue to return two members; but this motion was also negatived by a large majority. The clauses giving members to various towns hitherto unrepresented, and those which united different places into one for electioneering purposes, were agreed to without much opposition, and without a division. The provision, also, that each of the three ridings of Yorkshire should return two members passed without opposition. Colonel Sibthorp made an ineffectual attempt to prevent the division of the county, but the clause was carried by a large majority. On the clause which provided that the limits of all places having the right of electing members, should be held to be such boundaries as shall "be settled and described by an act to be passed for that purpose in this present parliament," Lord Althorp admitted an amendment, that the present act should not operate as a law until the boundary bill should have been passed. The provision, that where no particular returning officer was named in the schedule, the sheriff within whose jurisdiction the place lay should annually appoint such resident person as he thought fit to be returning officer, was strongly objected to; but the objections to the clause were not pressed to a division. The clause for dividing certain counties and giving two members occasioned much discussion. An amendment was proposed for the purpose of getting rid of it, and giving the four members to the undivided county. The principal support of this amendment was from the reformers, who opposed this part of the ministerial scheme on the ground that it was inconsistent with the main principles of the bill, as it narrowed the sphere within which aristocratic influence was to act, thus adding to its energy; and that it was a wanton and unnecessary interference with the ancient institutions of the country. Some members who had voted for this clause in the preceding session now declared themselves opposed to it in consequence of the extension of the comity franchise to tenants-at-will; while on the other hand several members who had voted against it in the former session, conceiving that the division would do good by preventing contests and unsatisfactory compromises, now supported it. Sir Robert Peel said, that though he intended to vote for the clause, he wished to suggest that another arrangement might be made with respect to the right of voting for counties, which would simplify the operation of the bill, and improve it; namely, that wherever a right of voting accrued from property, of whatever nature, in any city or borough, the individual possessing such property should be allowed to vote for the city or borough, but not for the county. Having made that provision for cities or boroughs, he would continue the integrity of the counties, and propose that each county should return four members. He offered this suggestion bona fide, as an alteration that would simplify the operation of the bill; and though he did not mean to move it as an amendment, he would ask whether it was not a proposition that was likely to please all parties? Ministers defended the clause on the ground that it would greatly diminish the expenses of county elections, and thus contribute to the purity of the representation, while it would neither tend to throw the power of the elections into the hands of the rural voters exclusively, nor of large proprietors, as it had been objected. As for Sir Robert Peel's proposition, there was the great objection which he had himself suggested; namely, that it was too great a distinction between the inhabitants of towns and those who were more immediately connected with counties. If the proposition succeeded, the consequence would be that many voters possessing freeholds in boroughs, which, as the bill now stood, would enable them to vote for counties, would be disfranchised. The original clause, however, was carried by an overwhelming majority. An amendment, intended to have a similar result with Sir Robert Peel's proposal, was subsequently moved by Mr. Praed on the clause, to the effect that no county franchise should arise from the possession of property of any kind situated in a represented borough, and that forty-shilling freeholders in boroughs returning members should be entitled to vote for the borough members only; but this amendment was likewise negatived. No division took place on the clause giving three members to certain of the middle-sized counties, although it was denounced as monstrous and unjustifiable on any principle of fairness or common equity. In the preceding session, while the former bill was in committee, the Marquis of Chandos had succeeded in carrying as an amendment a provision which conferred the county franchise on tenants-at-will paying a rent of not less than fifty pounds per annum. Ministers had opposed this, but had been defeated; and they now, although they had made the provision part of the new bill, sought to get rid of it by an amendment which went to strike it out of the clause altogether. The amendment was moved by Sir Robert Heron, and supported by Lord Milton and Mr. C. Ferguson, but only thirty-two members voted for it, while two hundred and seventy-two supported what was now part of an original clause. A variety of amendments on the clause fixing the qualification of borough electors at ten pounds was moved by Mr. Hunt and others, but were all negatived. The clauses which regulated the formation of registers of the voters, the duration of elections, and the mode of polling, were carried without giving rise to much discussion. By the 20th of February the committee had gone through the different clauses, and then proceeded to take up the schedules, which it had been agreed should be postponed till the other provisions of the bill should be arranged. Mr. Croker argued that great inconvenience and injustice would result, if the committee proceeded to determine what boroughs should stand in schedules A and B, before they had ascertained whether the calculations on which disfranchisement was made to depend were correct and uniform. In some boroughs, he said, game-certificates and yeomanry exemptions were included, while in others they were omitted: if the rule was not uniform it would be unjust. The fifty-six boroughs for schedule A, and the thirty for schedule B would come up to No. 86 in the list: Helstone No. 84; neither the yeomanry exemptions, nor the game-certificates for that borough had been included; if the former were added, Helstone would be No. 88; if the game-certificates were likewise added, it would be No. 89; in either case it would be raised above the line of disfranchisement. It was impossible for the committee to decide what boroughs ought to be disfranchised, until they had returns of the assessed taxes of each borough, specifying whether game-certificates and yeomanry exemptions were or were not included. The consideration of the schedule ought to be postponed till that information had been obtained. Lord John Russell admitted that there was a difference with respect to many boroughs, and that one uniform rule ought to be observed. Directions for that purpose had been given to the commissioners, and they had endeavoured to obtain returns comprehending the game-duties; but from some misunderstanding there still remained a few cases where the game-duties were omitted. He argued, however, that this was no reason for delay; and the house supporting him in his views, it was resolved to proceed. After a discussion on the principles and calculations on which the schedules had been framed, which led to no division, the committee proceeded to the particular boroughs, and the disfranchisement of the first fifty-two was agreed to without an amendment. The next was Appleby, in regard to which it was contended by the opposition that ministers had repeated the injustice which they had committed last session, by leaving out details which ought to have been introduced, which omission was made for the purpose of securing its disfranchisement. A motion was made for its exclusion from schedule A; but the committee having divided, it was decided that it should remain in the schedule. The last of the fifty-six boroughs to be disfranchised was Amersham, and Mr. Croker moved that Midhurst should take its place. No reason was offered why the one should be disfranchised and the other not; but Midhurst was saved by taking in an adjoining district. Alderman Waithman justified the disfranchisement of Amersham, because it was a corrupt borough, where there had been no election within the memory of man. But this had been the case equally at Midhurst, and yet it was decided by vote that Amersham should be No. 5G in schedule A, instead of Midhurst. Mr. Shiel, who wished to extend the disfranchisement in England, in order that Ireland might receive a larger number of members, moved that Petersfield should be taken out of schedule B and transferred to schedule A. If successful in this, he intended to follow up the motion by one regarding Eye, Wareham, Midhurst, and Woodstock. He conceived it impossible that his motion should be rejected, considering what had been done to Amersham, as that town had far higher claims to return a member than Petersfield, whether as regarded population, wealth, rental, or number of ten-pound houses. Lord Althorp admitted that he could not oppose the motion on principle, though he resisted it on the ground of expediency. Prudence, he said, required that the success of the bill in the house of lords should not be hazarded by sending up to their lordships a bill disfranchising a greater number of boroughs than had been contained in that which they had rejected. Mr. Shiel withdrew his motion; and on the 28th of February the committee proceeded to the consideration of the thirty boroughs which were to form schedule B. Having thus disposed of the disfranchising clauses, the committee proceeded to schedule C, which gave members to places hitherto unrepresented. The only debate or division which took place in considering this schedule, was on the clause which proposed to confer eight members on the metropolitan districts: the Tower Hamlets, Finsbmy, Marylebone, and Lambeth. The Marquis of Chandos, after contending that to extend the elective franchise in that quarter would lead to a great excitement, and give the capital a preponderating influence over the rest of the country, moved an amendment, that the clause should be omitted. He was supported by Sir E. Sugden, Sir George Murray, and Lord Sandon, who argued that the provision was unnecessary, and far from being expedient. The clause was defended by Lords Althorp and John Russell, and Messrs. Macaulay and C. Grant, who, on the other hand, maintained that an increase to the metropolitan representation, was required both by justice and by the principles of the bill; and that the dangers apprehended from it were visionary, while those which would attend its refusal were real and unavoidable. On a division, the motion of the Marquis of Chandos was lost by a majority of three hundred and sixteen against two hundred and thirty-six. In the consideration of schedule D, which contained those new boroughs which were only to return one member, an unsuccessful attempt was made to include Stockton-on-Tees, and Merthyr Tydvil; but on the bringing up of the report, Lord John Russell informed the house that ministers had resolved to allow the latter place a member of its own: "treating it," he said, "rather like an English town than a Welsh contributory borough." By the 9th of March the committee had gone through the bill, and the report was considered on the 14th, on which day Mr. Croker put several resolutions on the journals without pressing them to a division, embodying the objections, not to the principles of the bill, but to the manner in which they had been applied. On the 19th the motion for the third reading of the bill was met by an amendment, moved by Lord Mahon, that it should be read a third time that day six months.

The amendment was seconded by Sir John Malcolm, and was followed by a debate which continued to the 22nd, in which old arguments, both for and against, were reiterated with deep earnestness. On a division, the bill was carried by a majority of three hundred and fifty-five against two hundred and thirty-nine; leaving a majority of one hundred and sixteen for ministers. On the 23rd the bill was finally passed; an amendment which went to raise the qualification to twenty pounds in Liverpool, and all the new boroughs, returning two members, having been negatived without a division.

DEBATES ON THE REFORM BILL IN THE LORDS.

When the reform bill had been thus carried through the commons a second time, the reformers began again to be apprehensive of its fate in the upper house, and to bring again into operation their various engines of clamour and intimidation. It was industriously reported abroad that ministers had been armed with a carte blanche for the creation of peers, in order to carry the measure; but though they did not deny it, it does not appear that any such power had been delegated to them. At all events the bill was laid before the house of lords without a single peer having been created, and it was read a first time on the 26th of March. The most important part of its reception consisted in the speeches of Lords Harrowby and Wharncliffe, who had led the opposition of last session, but who now declared their intention to vote for the second reading. The Bishop of London was also so impressed with the dangers hanging over the country, that he resolved to follow this example. On the other hand, the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Carnarvon, and the Marquis of Londonderry, expressed their undiminished aversion to the measure. The second reading was moved on the 9th of April, and the debate was continued up to the 13th. Before the discussion commenced, the Duke of Buckingham gave notice that if there should be, as he trusted there would be, a majority against the second reading of this bill, he would bring in, after the Easter recess, a bill for the purpose of giving representatives to such of the large towns therein to be named, whose importance entitled them to representation; and also for the purpose of joining and consolidating the representation of certain boroughs which now elected members, so as to make room for the new representatives without adding to the members of the house of commons, and to extend the franchise in such a way as to prevent its abuse in boroughs. In proof of his sincerity, his grace moved the insertion of this notice on the journals of the house.

In moving the second reading of the reform bill, Earl Grey said, that he considered himself almost relieved from entering into discussion of its principles, because there were few of their lordships who did not now recognise those principles, and admit that some degree of change was necessary. After briefly mentioning the nature of the bill, its interesting object, the large majority that had sent it from the commons to the lords, and the support it had received from the people, he proceeded to notice the Duke of Buckingham's intended motion for reform. His very notice, he said, admitted all the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and an extension of the right of voting. He felt, therefore, justified in calling on the house to sanction the second reading of a measure founded upon a basis which was acknowledged to be just, even by those who opposed the measure itself; inasmuch as they would have an opportunity of proposing in the committee such alterations in its details as might appear necessary and expedient. The noble earl next proceeded to notice the alterations introduced into the bill, and to defend the ten-pound qualification from objections that had been raised against it. He concluded with an appeal to their lordships on the unjust attacks made on him for having proposed a measure which, in his opinion, was required by that duty which he owed to his sovereign and his country. He especially called their lordships' attention to the awful silence on the part of the people now prevailing, and taking place of that outcry which first marked the progress of the bill. Silence, he said, might perhaps lead some to imagine that they were not viewing this measure with the same feelings of interest; but he cautioned their lordships against forming such an opinion. "Though the people are silent," he added, "they are looking at our proceedings this night no less intensely than they have looked even ever since the question was first agitated. I know that 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." Lord Ellenborough opposed the motion for the second reading, and moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. His lordship admitted that the bill had passed the commons by a large majority, and that the majority was seconded by a large body of the people: but when he recollected how often material alterations had been made in the bill; that the qualification clause had been remodelled eleven times; that a town had been enfranchised at the very last moment; that among forty-six boroughs of the original bill there had been forty-seven changes; and that no such sweeping alteration had ever been made in the established constitution of a great country, he could not see any reason for adopting this last emanation of an ever-changing mind. There could be no doubt that there were many respectable persons whose opinions ought to be held in proper regard, who were anxious that some change should take place in our system of parliamentary representation. He contended, however, that if this bill passed it was clear, from the constituency which would be created by it, that parliament must be prepared to go further. It would be impossible, he said, to resist the demands of the most numerous and most necessitous class in the state: concession must proceed until universal suffrage was established. Lord Melbourne spoke briefly in favour of the bill, and the Bishop of Durham opposed it. At the same time, the latter said, he by no means considered that the rejection of the present measure implied a rejection of reform in toto; it was the duty of ministers to have proposed a measure calculated to satisfy both the party that was anxious for reform, and the party which felt alarmed at the consequences of great changes, while they had introduced a proposition which would gratify neither party. Earl Bathurst took the same view of the question: he had no objections to a bill for reform, but the present measure would make parliament worse than it had ever been. His lordship particularly called on the house to recollect the declaration which the lord-chancellor had made regarding the ten-pound qualification: that it was emphatically a subject for deliberation in committee, and for such alterations as their lordships should think fitting. Now, however, it was not to be touched, though it was a qualification opposed to the recorded opinions of its present patrons, as well as of the people. The Earl of Haddington had changed his opinion on the subject of reform. On the former occasion, he said, till within a few days before the debate, his mind had been made up that the bill should be read a second time, because he conceived it expedient that the question should be arranged by the house as soon as possible. He had abandoned these sentiments from a conviction that, in the existing state of feeling in the country, anything like an amendment in the bill would not be practicable. Lord Gage also declared that he had changed his opinion. He thought it impossible to prevent the people from having a reform, and by refusing to go into committee, their lordships might deprive themselves of the opportunity of introducing such amendments as they wished into the bill. On the other hand, the Earl of Wicklow conceived that the reasons which had led to the rejection of the bill of the last session were equally as potent for rejecting the present; and he therefore continued his hostility to it. The Earl of Shrewsbury, a Catholic peer, distinguished himself while he supported the bill by a violent attack against the Protestant bishops. The Earl of Mansfield objected to the present bill, as he did to the former. The Earl of Harrowby had already announced that he would vote for the second reading; but he had yet to state his reasons for this change of sentiment, he having been one of the most distinguished opponents of the bill of last session. In doing so, he denied that the sentiments he had delivered against the former bill were those of a man determined to resist, under all circumstances whatever, the considerations of parliamentary reform. On the contrary, the opinion which more than another he was anxious to express was, that they should not treat the present bill as they had treated the last; that though they had then acted right in rejecting the bill, they would not be warranted to do so again; and that they could not hope again successfully to resist a measure which the house of commons had sanctioned a second time by a large majority, and in favour of which the people of England had expressed a decided opinion. It was for this reason that he had prepared a resolution by which the house would pledge itself, in the then next session, to take into serious consideration some plan for extending the franchise to his majesty's subjects, and for correcting the abuses which had crept into the representative branch of the constitution. He was on the point of moving this resolution, when he was persuaded by some noble friends that to do so then would do more harm than good; that it would be better to wait till the excitement of the public mind had been somewhat allayed before a more moderate measure of reform than that brought forward by ministers should be submitted to parliament. He yielded to the suggestion, hoping that the interval between the two sessions would afford the public and their lordships time to consider maturely the merits of the question, and that both would see that, if the ministers' plan were adopted, it would prove injurious to all existing interests. In this he had been disappointed; there had been time enough to allow a reaction to have manifested itself; but it could not be denied that, notwithstanding the potent objections which had been urged against the bill, no such reaction had occurred. On these grounds, with others, his lordship said he would vote for the second reading. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, who said that he could not shift into the course which the Earl of Harrowby, and those who thought with him had adopted. Why he could not, he explained at great length; and he afterwards descanted at large upon the objections which he had to the bill itself. It was bad, he said, because it went to overturn the whole established system of representation; it destroyed for the mere pleasure of reconstructing: it totally revolutionised the representation of Scotland, and put an end to all the arrangements which, three years ago, had been entered into for the final settlement of the catholic question. It put an end, also, to that most valuable principle of our existing constitution—the principle of prescription—which sanctioned the descent, and secured the possession of all kinds of property in this country. It went to destroy a number of boroughs—some holding by prescription, and some by charter—and for no reason whatever, except that such was the will of the minister of the day. Lord Wharncliffe, who had moved the amendment which threw out the former bill, had now come to the conclusion that the danger of rejecting the bill was greater than that of taking it into consideration; and that, by going into committee they might get rid of those parts of it against which a strong objection was felt; and, at all events, would be enabled more thoroughly to weigh its provisions. The effect of rejecting the bill, in his opinion, would be to place all those who voted against the second reading in a perilous situation with the country. The Duke of Buckingham opposed the bill. His grace introduced no new argument, but urged the house at all costs to resist reform in every shape. He severely animadverted upon the speech of the Earl of Shrewsbury, for attacking the constitution and the ministers of the protestant religion. The Bishops of Lincoln and Llandaff, who had opposed the last bill, now announced their intention of voting for the second reading; at the same time they did not pledge themselves to adopt the measure as a whole. On the other hand, the Bishop of Exeter announced his intention of giving the bill his decided opposition. His speech gave occasion to an angry episode, founded on a somewhat common occurrence. It was generally believed that the Times newspaper, which had recently distinguished itself by great abuse in favour of the bill, was not altogether excluded from the confidential communications of ministers. The Bishop of Exeter, in descanting on the tone and the temper of the press, spoke of some articles in this journal as "breathing the inspiration of the treasury." On the following evening Lord Durham, son-in-law of the premier, assuming that he was the party pointed at, attacked what he called "the bishop's gross and virulent invective—his malignant, calumnious, and false insinuations—his well-known powers of pamphleteering slang." Here the noble lord was called to order, and the Earl of Winchelsea moved that the words "false insinuations" and "pamphleteering slang" should be taken down. After some observations from Earl Grey, Lord Holland, and the Duke of Buckingham, Lord Durham went on to state that he had not the slightest objection to the words being taken down, and denied the imputations cast upon him. The Marquis of Lansdowne argued in favour of the measure; in doing which he denied that he, or the rest of his majesty's ministers, were introducing new doctrines. They wished, he said, to go back to the elements of the constitution; and he argued that there was nothing contrary to the principles of that constitution, in extending the right of voting to those places which had become the depositories of that knowledge, and the possessors of that influence on society, to which the wisdom and policy of this government had always endeavoured to attach itself; or in disfranchising small and unimportant places, and enfranchising others of importance. As to the apprehensions, he continued, that the new constituency were likely to be governed in their choice of representatives by factious or revolutionary motives, and, above all, by anything like a desire to disturb the tranquillity of the country, they were groundless. In moments of great excitement it might be so; but the class of persons on whom the franchise was now to be conferred would generally feel themselves flattered on being consulted by their superiors, and would in the end rely on their judgment. His belief was that their choice would be governed by a desire to elect such persons as would advocate measures contributing to the public tranquillity; for, having acquired their property by their own industry, they had as deep a stake in the country' as any noble baron who derived a splendid fortune from his progenitors. Small fortunes were as valuable to them as the ample incomes of any of their lordships. Their lordships might convey away their land, and go to another country to avoid the evils of a revolution; but to the professional man, who depended upon the peaceful exertions of his talents; to the mechanic, who depended upon his weekly wages; to the annuitant and small proprietor, who depended upon their half-yearly and quarterly incomes—revolution, or even agitation, would bring greater ruin than could come upon their lordships, even by the confiscation of their estates. Lord Wynford, in opposing the bill, said that those who were voting for the second reading, in the hope of introducing amendments in committee, were acting a very foolish and dangerous part. They might beat government on different clauses; but all that was done in the committee might be undone on bringing up the report. Lord Eldon, on the same side, said that no man was or could be an enemy to reform; but, he thought, the first duty of every peer was to consider whether what was proposed was or was not reform; whether it was a measure which the people ought to expect, and which would confer any additional happiness on those for whom it was intended. He had opposed reform for forty years, because he had seen no plan which, in his opinion, would improve the condition of the people: and this last was so vicious in its principles and details, that it would be impossible to carry it into effect with any safety to the institutions of the country. Lord Tenterden likewise declared his continued hostility to the bill; and he went so far as to say that he would never enter the doors of the house again if the bill should be carried, "after it had become the phantom of its departed greatness." The Bishops of Rochester and Gloucester likewise expressed their determination to vote against the bill; and the latter took occasion to animadvert, with pointed but just severity, on the attack which had been made by the Catholic Earl of Shrewsbury on the ecclesiastical bench. The Earl of Carnarvon opposed the motion, and Viscount Goderich spoke in favour of it. They were followed by the lord-chancellor, who referred to the petitions which had been addressed to the house, the resolutions adopted at public meetings of merchants and bankers, and the composition of the majorities and minorities in the house of commons, to show that the opinion of property, as well as of members, was in favour of the measure, and that the feeling of the people had in no degree subsided. Lord Lyndhurst said that he had not heard or seen anything to convince him that he had acted erroneously in voting against the principles of the former bill; and as the present bill was admitted to be the same, he should vote against the second reading. Earl Grey, in his reply, repeated the answers which had already been put forward to the views taken of the bill by its opponents, and denied the charge of having excited the country. On the subject of the threatened creation of peers, which had been so frequently alluded to, his lordship said that the best writers on the constitution admitted that, although the creation of a large number of peers for a particular object was a measure which should rarely be resorted to, yet in some cases, such as to avoid a collision between the two houses, it might be absolutely necessary. For many reasons he was averse to such a scheme; but he believed it would be found that in a case of necessity, like that which he had stated, a creation of peers would be justifiable, and in accordance with the most acknowledged principles of our constitution. On a division, the second reading was carried in favour of ministers by a majority of nine, the numbers being one hundred and eighty-four against one hundred and seventy-five.

After the reform bill had been read a second time, the lords broke up for the Easter recess. Previous to their breaking up, however, the Duke of Wellington thought proper to enter a protest against the second reading on the journals. This protest embodied all the objections urged against the bill; and it was signed by seventy-four other peers, including the Dukes of Cumberland and Gloucester. The committee was appointed the first day after the Easter recess.

DISTURBED STATE OF THE NATION.

WILLIAM IV. 1832-1833

The interval which elapsed before the reassembling of parliament was a very memorable one in the annals of the country. Every association and political union, tremblingly alive for the fate of the bill, was on the alert, it being conceived that it was in imminent clanger of being lost in committee. At Leeds, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paisley, Dundee, as well as throughout the south of England, meetings were held, at all of which resolutions were passed expressing confidence in Earl Grey and his colleagues; and petitions were got up to the king and the house of lords, beseeching them to pass the bill unmutilated. In the counties of Warwick, Worcester, and Stafford, all the associations agreed to meet at the foot of Newhall Hill, and an immense assembly was collected on the day appointed, when a petition to the house of lords was carried, "imploring them not to drive to despair a high-minded, generous, and fearless people; nor to urge them on, by a rejection of their claims, to demands of a much more extensive nature; but rather to pass the reform bill into a law, unimpaired in any of its great parts and provisions, more especially uninjured in the clauses relating to the ten-pounds franchise." At Birmingham, the council of the union declared its sittings permanent until the fate of the bill should be decided. In the metropolis, an extraordinary assembly of the national union took place. Mr. Hume was in the chair, and various resolutions were agreed to, all urging the necessity of the bill being passed without alterations; while a petition to the house of lords stated that, in case of its mutilation or rejection, "there was reason to expect that the payment of taxes would cease; that other obligations of society would be disregarded; and that the ultimate consequence might be the utter extinction of the privileged orders."

REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament reassembled after the Easter recess on the 7th of May. The house of lords then went into committee on the reform bill, no attempt having been made by the opposition to move any obstructions to it. In the committee, Earl Grey stated that the house would probably be inclined to follow the course which had been adopted by the commons; namely, to dispose of the disfranchising clauses, leaving the schedules for future consideration. He proposed that the number fifty-six should not be specified, but that their lordships should come to a successive vote on each individual borough as part of the clause. He thought this the best method of obviating objections which had been made to the clause as it now stood. Lord Lyndhurst, however, thought it would be still more convenient to postpone the consideration of the first clause altogether. If this were done, he should likewise propose the postponement of the second clause; and he would take this course for the purpose of entering on the consideration of the boroughs and places to be enfranchised—a matter which, he thought, ought to be discussed before the house entered on the question of disfranchisement. His lordship admitted that he considered the second reading of the bill to have fixed the three principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and extension of suffrage; but he contended that the house was not fettered, in the slightest degree, as to the point to which these principles were to be carried, although he had no hesitation in saying that, after all that had passed in both houses of parliament, and looking at the state of the country, and the expectations that were abroad, neither he, nor those with whom he acted, were disposed to suggest any alterations which would render the measure unsatisfactory to intelligent reformers. He observed, that Lord John Russell had said on a previous day, "Let us first agree as to what towns shall be enfranchised, and then we shall see what is to be the extent of disfranchisement—what alterations it may be necessary to propose." He would proceed on the same principle. It was not prejudging the question of disfranchisement; for their lordships would afterwards measure the extent of disfranchisement by the extent to which they should have carried the principle of enfranchisement. On these grounds, therefore, he moved that the first and second clauses of the bill should be postponed. The lord-chancellor said that, although Earl Grey had proposed to omit the number, that had no connection whatever with any intention not to propose the disfranchisement of all the fifty-six. There would be an inconvenience attending the clause, if it were proposed at once that fifty-six boroughs should be disfranchised, and therefore it had been proposed to leave out the number, but with the certain intention of proposing the insertion of every one of the fifty-six as they went on. The present proposition, however, was of a different character, and considering by whom it was made, and likely to be supported, he could view it in no other light than as a negative of the most important part of the bill. The amendment was supported by Lords Harrowby, Wharncliffe, Winchelsea, and Ellenborough, and the Duke of Wellington, and others, on the ground that its object was not to defeat schedules A and B. Several of these noble lords deemed it expedient to enter on a defence of their character for integrity and fair dealing in thus supporting the amendment; but the Duke of Newcastle avowed boldly that he gave it his support, as he would any other measure likely to frustrate the bill. Lord Holland argued that the proposition was inconsistent with the decision to which that house had come on the second reading; being in reality a proposition against the principles of the bill. The Earl of Harewood thought, that as the bill had passed the second reading, and entered the committee, it ought to be dealt with fairly; and if he believed that the motion now before the house contained anything of a sinister character, he would not support it. If ministers knew the nature of the amendments which would be proposed if the postponement should be agreed to, much of their objection to the proposition would be removed. They were under the impression that the object of the amendment was to defeat schedule A; but he believed that no such intention was entertained; if it were, he would not support it. It was his belief that the amendments which would be proposed would comprise the whole of schedule A. Earl Grey, however, asserted that nothing could have been devised better calculated to defeat the bill than this amendment; and he would state at once that, if it were carried, he would consider it fatal to the bill. He was pledged to the principles of disfranchisement, enfranchisement, and the extension of the qualification. With respect to the two first, he was ready to listen to any suggestions which might be made with a view of preventing injustice in details, but he would not consent to any reduction of the extent of either disfranchisement or enfranchisement. His lordship also stated that he would resist with the most fixed determination any proposition which, under the pretence of regulation, would have the effect of raising the qualification. These things being fixed, he was so far from considering the proposed motion of little consequence, that it appeared to him of the greatest importance. If it did not subvert the principle of the bill, it materially affected it; and therefore it was impossible that he should give it his assent. He was unable to understand why enfranchisement should be proceeded with before disfranchisement; he might reverse the proposition, and say, that the amount of enfranchisement could not be ascertained till the extent of disfranchisement was settled. A noble lord had expressed a hope that ministers would confide in the peers on the other side of the house, to grant a proper measure of reform to the people; had he observed any such disposition, no one would have been more ready than himself to have met it in a proper spirit; always recollecting that he was irrevocably fixed to the bill. Another noble lord had said, that if any alteration should be proposed which would defeat the principles of the bill, ministers might reckon upon many coming over to them from the opposite side: he could not rely on such a hope consistently with his duty to his king, his country, and himself. It was his opinion that if the present motion should be carried, there would be a difficulty in bringing the bill to a successful issue; and if it should, it would then be necessary for him to consider the course he should be constrained to adopt. At length the house divided, and ministers were left in a minority, the votes for Lord Lyndhurst's amendment being one hundred and fifty-five, and those against it, one hundred and sixteen.

On this defeat of ministers, Earl Grey immediately moved that the house should resume; and stated that he would then move that the further consideration of the bill be postponed till Thursday, the 10th. Lord Ellen-borough expressed his regret that ministers should interpose delay; and took the opportunity of detailing the amendments which his party, after serious consideration, intended to propose. These consisted in a disfranchisement of one hundred and thirteen boroughs, their privileges to be distributed among other places; a prohibition of persons to vote for counties in respect of property situated in boroughs; the adoption of a clearer and more certain mode of ascertaining the genuineness and value of holdings; and the retention, not only of the ten-pound qualification, but of scot and lot where it existed.

Having postponed the further consideration of the bill, Earl Grey and the lord-chancellor proceeded to Windsor, and tendered his majesty the alternative of either arming the ministers with the powers they deemed necessary to enable them to carry through their bill—namely, a creation of peers—or of accepting their resignation. The ministers seem to have expected that he would have adopted the former alternative; but the king hesitated on account of the great number requisite, and the danger of such a precedent. He did not give his answer till the next day, when he informed Earl Grey that he had determined to accept his resignation rather than have recourse to the only alternative which had been proposed. Ministers then resigned en masse; and on the 9th Earl Grey in the lords, and Lord Althorp in the commons, announced that the ministry was at an end, and that they held their offices only till their successors should be appointed. Earl Grey in doing so moved that the order for going on with the committee next day should be discharged; and he did not think it necessary to name another day for that purpose. The Earl of Carnarvon strenuously resisted this proposition: the house would not do its duty, he said, to the country or the sovereign, if it left them in this extraordinary state, by suspending so important a subject as reform. The motion for taking the committee on the following Monday was agreed to.

In the commons, on the announcement of the resignation of ministers, Viscount Ebrington gave notice that he would next day move an address to the king on the state of public affairs, and that he would likewise move a call of the house, that he might "guard against backsliders and time-watchers," and show the people who were their honest and consistent representatives and who were not. In pursuance of this notice, on the 10th of May his lordship moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, humbly to represent to his majesty the deep regret felt by this house at the change which has been announced in his majesty's councils by the retirement of those ministers in whom this house continues to repose unabated confidence. That this house, in conformity with the recommendation contained in his majesty's most gracious speech from the throne, has framed and sent up to the house of lords a bill for a reform in the representation of the people, by which they are convinced that the prerogatives of the crown, the authority of both houses of parliament, and the rights and liberties of the people, are equally secured. That, to the progress of this measure, this house considers itself bound in duty to state to his majesty that his subjects are looking with the most intense interest and anxiety; and they cannot disguise from his majesty their apprehension that any successful attempt to mutilate or impair its efficiency would be productive of the greatest disappointment and dismay. This house is therefore compelled, by warm attachment to his majesty's person and government, humbly, but most earnestly, to implore his majesty to call to his councils such persons only as will cany into effect, unimpaired in all its essential provisions, that bill for the reform of the representation of the people, which has recently passed this house." The motion was opposed by Mr. Baring, who, before proceeding to speak against it, expressed a hope that Lord Althorp would give some explanation of the nature of that advice which ministers had tendered to the king, and his majesty's refusal of which had led to their resignation. Lord Althorp declined answering, and Mr. Baring then went on to say that the house was thus left in utter ignorance. He asked on what facts, therefore, was the proposed address to be rested? Lord Althorp, in reply, said, that he had no objection to state plainly that the advice which ministers had given to the king was, that he should create as many peers as would enable them to carry the reform bill through the house of lords in all its efficiency. It was true he had treated a similar proposition to Lord Lyndhurst's, when made in the house of commons, as a matter of small importance; but after the decision to which the lords had come, there was no hope left of carrying the measure. From that moment the bill had passed into the hands of its declared enemies; and ministers had to choose between two alternatives,—either to resign immediately, or to tender such advice as would place them in a situation in which they might be responsible for the further progress of the bill; they had adopted the latter alternative, and their advice having been rejected, all that was left them was to resign. Mr. Hume, in supporting the proposition, stated that it did not go far enough. Lord Morpeth supported, and Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion. The latter said, that the first resolution implied a complete confidence in the existing government. He could not consent to this; with reference to the general course they had taken, he could not say that they deserved his confidence. With respect to the reform question, and with reference to some other points, he was decidedly opposed to the course which the government had pursued. Mr. Macaulay, in supporting the proposition, contended that the house had a right, with respect to the prerogative of the sovereign in the choice of his ministers, as with regard to all the other prerogatives of the crown, to offer its respectful advice. The prerogative vested in the crown of creating peers, for the purpose of carrying any public question, was a valuable and useful power, the existence of which was absolutely necessary, in order, on important questions, to obviate great and pressing inconveniences. He argued, also, that there existed a strong necessity for counter-balancing, by a creation of peers from the Whig party, the number of peers which, during the last forty years, had been made from the Conservative party. There could not be a strong objection to the creation of fifty peers in one day, when no objection had been raised to the creation of two hundred in the course of a generation by the one party that held power during that period. He heartily concurred in the advice which ministers had given to the king, and he regretted it had not been taken: unless ministers were recalled, the reform bill would be lost. On a division, the resolutions were carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-eight against two hundred and eight.

FAILURE OF THE ATTEMPTS TO FORM A NEW ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERS RECALLED, ETC.

During these proceedings in parliament great agitation prevailed throughout the country. The political unions convened large assemblies in the open air, and violent resolutions were passed, which threatened a dissolution of society. Addresses were voted to the king, praying him to create as many peers as might be necessary, while others were sent to the commons, praying them to stop the supplies. One meeting, which styled itself "a meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster," assured the king, that, unless their advice was complied with, "tumult, anarchy, and confusion would overspread the land, and would cease only with the extinction of the privileged orders," The national political union resolved to present a petition, praying that, till the bill passed, no supplies should be allowed to go into the hands of the lords of the treasury, but should be paid over to commissioners named by the house of commons; this course was specifically recommended to them, on the ground that it was taken from "that admirable resolution adopted by the house of commons in 1642." The national union also resolved "that the betrayal of the people's cause was not attributable to Lord Grey, or his administration; but to the base and foul treachery of others; that meetings be recommended in every comity, town, and parish throughout the kingdom; which, by inducing compliance with the unanimous wishes of the people, may prevent the mischief that would otherwise result from the general indignation; that a petition be presented to the house of commons, praying the appointment of commissioners to receive the supplies; and that, until the bill pass, they be not managed by the lords of the treasury." The common-council met at Guildhall, and passed a number of resolutions, expressing their mortification and disappointment at the distressing communication made by ministers, that his majesty had refused them the means of carrying the reform Dill through the house of lords; declaring that the advisers of such a refusal had put to hazard the stability of the throne and tranquillity of the country; and petitioning the commons to withhold supplies till the reform bill was carried. Tire livery of the city also met, and passed a similar set of resolutions; adding, that "they viewed with distrust and abhorrence attempts, at once interested and hypocritical, to delude and mislead the people by pretended plans of reform, promised or proposed by the insidious enemies of all reform." The speeches at this meeting dared any administration to assume the reins of government, without undertaking to carry the whole bill. The Duke of Wellington was particularly censured by the speakers: nor did his majesty himself escape censure for yielding to domestic influence, and following the advice of pernicious counsellors. The majority of the house of lords, however, was more particularly attacked: it was said, they were men who would mix blood with corruption; that they were friends of every despotism; and that they were representatives of Miguel and of Ferdinand, of Russian lords and German ladies. Similar meetings were held in Westminster, Southwark, Marylebone, St. Paneras, and Paddington. At Birmingham also, the news of Earl Grey's resignation had no sooner arrived, than the inhabitants assembled at New-hall Hill, and a petition was voted to the house of commons, which, in addition to a prayer that the supplies might be stopped, contained this ominous sentence: "Your petitioners find it declared in the bill of rights that the people of England may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law; and they apprehend that this great right will be enforced generally, in order that the people may be prepared for any circumstances that may arise." Some of the inhabitants defied the laws of their country by exhibiting printed placards in their windows to the effect that no taxes would be paid until the reform bill had passed. Similar meetings were held, similar petitions were got up, and similar language used at Manchester, Liverpool, and in various parts of Scotland and Ireland. The annals of England, indeed, clo not present a more alarming period than the interval between the 9th and the 16th of May. The language used at the numerous meetings indicated the bitterness of the disappointment which the people, or at least a certain portion of the people, felt, and their determination of having "the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill," be the cost what it might. At a public meeting at Paddington, Mr. Hume told the multitude, "that military were marching upon the metropolis; and he asked whether, when other nations were free, they would submit to walk the streets with the brand of slavery upon them? whether they were prepared to bend before a military yoke?" He added that there were one hundred and fifty peers against them, but he did not know how many women, though he heard there were some. This allusion to the queen was immediately followed by groans; and shortly after her majesty, while taking an airing, was grossly insulted by the populace. In fact the king himself, at this period, learned the true value of the shoutings which had attended him as the personal protector of the reform bill. In one of the metropolitan unions a member was loudly applauded for declaring that till the reform bill was passed there was no William IV., but only a Duke of Clarence. The queen, also, was dragged forward, as an active enemy of the bill, to be made the theme of atrocious insult.

In the meantime the king found a difficulty in forming an administration. As soon as he had resolved to accept the resignation of his cabinet, he sent for Lord Lyndhurst, desiring that nobleman to obtain the opinion of parties respecting the advice which he had rejected, and also authorising him to adopt measures for the formation of a new ministry. At the same time his majesty declared, that "extensive reform was necessary, and was the express condition on which such a ministry must be based." Lord Lyndhurst, on receiving his majesty's commands, immediately waited upon the Duke of Wellington. The sentiments of his grace on the subject of reform had been fully and openly declared; but he, nevertheless, was found willing to make large sacrifices, and to encounter any obloquy, in order to extricate his majesty from embarrassment. He desired no office, he said, much less that of prime-minister; yet if necessary for the king's service, he was ready to serve in any way that might be thought fit. After some consultation, these noble lords considered it advisable to offer the first place to Sir Robert Peel. He was asked if he would accept the office of prime-minister; on the clear understanding that he must carry through a measure of extensive reform, in fulfilment of his majesty's declaration? Sir Robert replied that by an "extensive reform" he assumed to be understood all the principles of the bill, and that under such a condition, it was impossible to accept office: hostile as he uniformly had been to every plan of extensive reform, he felt that he could be of no service to the king or to the country. Lord Lyndhurst communicated the nature of his commission to several other influential persons, and they were not unwilling to take subordinate situations, but no one came forward as a leader. In the meantime Lord Ebrington's motion interposed insurmountable difficulties in the way of negotiations. The new ministry was of necessity to be sought for among the opponents of the bill; office must be accepted in defiance of the lower house; and the utter hopelessness of any change from a dissolution of parliament was evident from the agitation already distracting the country. Lord Lyndhurst, therefore, was compelled to inform his majesty that the commission with which he had been entrusted had failed. The king was now reduced to the necessity of renewing his intercourse with his former ministers. On the 10th Earl Grey announced in the house of lords that he had that day received a communication from his majesty, though of too recent a date to be followed by any decided consequence. Both houses adjourned to the 17th; but before the commons separated, a debate took place on the presentation of the London petition, which for boldness of invective and declamation was scarcely ever surpassed. It turned chiefly on the supposed conduct of the Duke of Wellington, and some others, in accepting office under the peculiar circumstances of that period. On the 17th, however, the lords had no sooner met, than the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst gave an explanation of their conduct in this matter. The Duke of Wellington remarked:—"When his majesty found that he could not consistently with his duty to the state, follow the advice of his confidential servants, so little communication had he with men other than his responsible advisers, that he had had recourse to a nobleman, whose judicial functions took him almost out of the line of politics, to inquire whether means existed, and what means, of forming an administration on the principle of carrying into execution an extensive reform. That nobleman communicated to me the difficulties in which his majesty was placed, in order to ascertain how far it was in my power to assist in extricating him from them. With this view, I thought it my duty to institute similar inquiries of others, the rather as I was myself as unprepared as his majesty for the advice which his ministers had tendered, and for the consequences which had ensued from its being rejected. On inquiry I found that there was a large number of most influential persons not indisposed to support a government formed to aid his majesty in resisting the advice tendered to him by his late administration. Under this conviction I attended his majesty; and my advice to him was, not that he should appoint me Iris minister, but certain members of the other house of parliament. So far from seeking office for myself, I merely named those persons I thought best qualified for the service; adding, that, for my own part, whether I was in office or out of office, he and those persons might depend upon my most strenuous support. The object of this advice and tender of assistance was to enable his majesty to form an administration upon the principle of resisting the advice which he had just rejected. These are the first steps of the transaction; and I believe they show that, if ever there was an instance in which the king acted with honesty and fairness towards his servants, and if ever there was an instance in which public men, opposed to those servants, kept aloof from intrigue, and from the adoption of all means except the most honourable, in promoting their own views of the public weal, this was that individual instance; and I will add with reference to myself, that these transactions show that, so far from being actuated by those motives of personal aggrandizement, with which I have been charged by persons of high station in another place, my object was, that others should occupy a post of honour, and that for myself I was willing to serve in any capacity, or without any official capacity, so as to enable the crown to carry on the government." Lord Lyndhurst, in explaining the part he had taken in the matter, bitterly complained of being calumniated by the press, which, he said, now reigned paramount over the legislature and the country. "As far as I am myself concerned," he said, "I despise these calumnies. They may wound, however, the feelings of those allied to me by the dearest ties, and so far they are a source of pain to myself; but apart from the feelings of others, I hold them in the utmost scorn." Several noble lords, although they had in no way been connected with the transactions which had been explained, declared that the conduct of the Duke of Wellington had been high-minded and disinterested. He had been hunted down day after day because he had dared to become minister; and it turned out that he had neither accepted nor sought office. Earl Grey expressed his surprise that the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst should have indulged in violent invective against the reform bill and ministers, and "dinned their lordships' ears" with denunciations of the measure, and declarations that the bill, instead of saving, would tend to the destruction of that house and of the monarchy. He thought differently. There were clangers, not imaginary or hypothetical, but substantial and imminent, both to that house and to the monarchy, to be apprehended from proceedings which tended to a collision between the hereditary and representative branches of the constitution. He concluded by declaring that his continuance in office must depend on his conviction of his own ability to carry into full effect the bill on their lordships' table, unimpaired in principle and all essential details. The Earl of Carnarvon said, that if he could venture to make any comment on the reasons assigned for the proceedings of ministers, he would say that they had hurried on in their violent course, because they feared that if their opponents were permitted to introduce their measures, not all the power and influence of ministers could have produced a collision between the two houses. It was his duty, as the continued day for the committee had been fixed on his motion, now to get rid of it. He therefore moved that "the order for the committee on the reform bill be discharged." He added:—"Thus I leave it to other noble lords to do their dirty work." The order was accordingly discharged.

On Friday, the 18th of May, on the assembling of the peers, the Earl of Harewood asked Earl Grey whether it was yet settled that ministers were to continue in office? His lordship answered, that in consequence of having received the king's request to that effect, and in consequence of now finding himself in a situation which would enable him to carry through the bill unimpaired in its efficiency, he and his colleagues did remain in office. He moved that the committee on the bill, under these circumstances, should be taken on Monday. The Earl of Harewood continued, that he had understood the continuance of Earl Grey in office depended on the power he should receive to carry the reform bill—a power which might be conferred by the creation of peers, or by the act and will of certain lords in seceding from their opposition to the bill. In the choice of these two evils, it was his duty to select the lesser. He had opposed the bill on the second reading, and he would likewise have opposed many of its details in the committee, but the wiser course would be now to withhold further opposition to the bill, rather than render the calamity of creating a great number of peers unavoidable. But though he adopted this course, let it be understood that it was by compulsion, and with a feeling that he never would again enjoy an opportunity of uttering in that house one word in an independent form. Bidding farewell to freedom of debate, let those who had brought this infliction on the country be responsible for their acts when the nation came to its senses. On the other hand, the Earl of Winchilsea, while he admitted that the independence of the house was at an end, and that their lordships might be pointed at with scorn, as belonging to a body which went through the mockery of legislative functions while it was denied all legislative power, expressed his determination still to offer every possible opposition to the bill. Earl Grey had not yet stated in what shape the power of carrying the bill had been conferred; and Lord Wharncliffe, conceiving that before any peer could decide on the course he would adopt, it was necessary to know, put the question direct to him, whether their deliberations were to be carried on under the immediate threat of a creation of peers? or whether it was to be understood that a certain number of peers would absent themselves from the house on the occasion of the discussions that might ensue upon the bill? Earl Grey replied, "I do not feel myself called on to answer the questions which have been put to me by the noble baron. I have already stated to your lordships that I continue to hold office under the expectation that the bill will be successfully carried in its future stages through this house. I do not consider that the noble lord has any right to call on me for any further explanation; and I will add, that I wish to be bound only by what I state myself." Lord Wharncliffe rejoined, that he could come to no conclusion as to what course he should take until he saw more clearly the real position in which their lordships were placed. The noble earl opposite had no right to call for any statement as to the course his opponents meant to pursue when he hesitated to communicate his own. The Earl of Carnarvon repeated Lord Wharn-cliffe's question, whether it was intended to create peers? but the minister replied that it was a question which ought not to be put, and one which he would not answer. The motion for going into committee on Monday was agreed to.

Although ministers, however, refused to give any answer as to the intended creation of peers, it was soon known that this power was assured to them—at least, as an alternative or an expedient. Sir Herbert Taylor, in the name and by the authority of the king, wrote a circular note to the opposition peers, stating his majesty's wish that they should facilitate the passing of the bill by absenting themselves from the house when any important part of the measure to which they could not consent came under discussion. Such a request implied that his majesty desired it, as the only means of avoiding the creation of a number of peers; and the opposition lords,—that is, the majority,—understanding the hint, were thus compelled to abandon for a time their rights and duties as legislators. During the remainder of the discussions on the bill, therefore, not more than between thirty or forty attended at a time. The king and the lords were equally opposed to this measure, but both were compelled to bend to the will of the house of commons.

A similar announcement to that which Earl Grey made in the lords was made in the commons by Lord Althorp. This announcement stopped another address to the king in the house of commons, which Lord Milton intended to have brought forward, and furnished to Sir Robert Peel an opportunity of explaining the share he had taken in the late negotiations to form a new administration.

REFORM BILL PASSED.

WILLIAM IV. 1832-1833

The committee on the bill was resumed on Monday, the 21st of May, and, as was natural, it now passed rapidly through the upper house. The inverted order of the schedules, taken up at Lord Lyndhurst's suggestion, was adopted, though in a very different spirit from that which was in the noble mover's mind. Schedule C was voted at the first sitting up to the Tower Hamlets; and next day the clauses on the Tower Hamlets, to which so many objections had been raised, were passed. Lord Ellenborough wished the county of Lancashire to be divided into three districts, each retaining two members, he conceiving that as the bill now stood the agricultural interest of that county would be utterly helpless; but there were only fifteen peers who ventured to vote with him, while seventy-five adhered to the bill. The bill, in fact, passed, with some few slight verbal alterations, on the 4th of June, one hundred and sixty voting for it, and twenty-two against it. The bill was now ordered back to the commons, and the amendments of their lordships having been agreed to on the following day without any discussion regarding their merits, the royal assent was given to the bill by commission on the 7th of June.

IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS PASSED.

It was easy to foresee that the English reform bill having passed, those relating to Scotland and Ireland would be equally triumphant. Deliberation was, in point of fact, at an end. Both bills had been read a first time, and had awaited on the table of the house of commons the fate of the English bill in the house of lords. The bill relating to Scotland was read in the commons on the 21st of May, the day on which the restored ministry resumed the committee in the lords on the English bill. No resistance was made to the second reading, the opposition knowing that it was hopeless, and feeling assured that this measure must follow as part of the general scheme, all the elements of which had triumphed in regard to England. Various amendments were moved in the committee, but they were all rejected by large majorities, and it passed the third reading unmutilated. In the house of lords also, as in the commons, no opposition was made to the second reading, and it passed that house on the 13th of July, The Irish bill called forth more resistance than that of Scotland, though its triumph from the first was equally certain. Mr. Lefroy moved, on its re-introduction, that it should be read that day six months. He said, that if a reform bill was to be passed at all, the present measure, in so far as the country representation was concerned, was not very objectionable; but he could discover no advantage to be derived from it in respect to the alterations in the boroughs. Seven of these boroughs had sent reformers to parliament, and eight possessed an open constituency. In the others the constituency varied from twelve to ninety-four, and none of them could be called decayed boroughs; on the contrary, they were more flourishing than at the time when they received the franchise. Of the one hundred Irish members, eighty-three were popularly returned. Where then, he asked, was the necessity or expediency of the measure? Would any rational man have deemed a reform bill necessary in England under such circumstances? And while the bill was unnecessary, he continued, it was also dangerous—dangerous not merely to the Protestant church of Ireland, but to the sister church of England, and the integrity of the empire. The fall of the Irish church would endanger the connection between the two countries. The leader of the Catholic population in Ireland had told them to choose reformers as the best means of opening the way to repealers; yet it was proposed by opening the boroughs to put them into the hands of this party—a party whose influence would be increased to an extent that no government would have power to oppose. The amendment was seconded by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Messrs. Shaw, Conolly, and Gordon, who all said that the bill would be ruinous to the Protestant interest in Ireland. Messrs. O'Connell and Shiel defended the bill against the objections urged by the supporters of the amendment, but pointed out other defects, which they expressed a hope would be remedied in the committee. For instance, the name of the ten-pound franchise had been given to Ireland without the reality; the Irish and English freeholders, from the nature of their tenures, and the disproportion between their means, were in opposite positions to each other. In respect to houses also, the franchise was too high; and, instead of being the instrument of reform, it would be productive of corruption. Thus Portarlington, which was formerly sold by a single proprietor, would now be sold by one hundred members. In England, no man was called upon to show his title unless by previous notice; but in Ireland a scrutinising assistant-barrister examined it without any process being-served on the man who came to vote. In Ireland, also, half-a-crown was the sum paid for registry; in England it was a shilling only. Was this equality? Was this union? Could this conduce to the continuance of the union between the two countries? But while he found so much in the bill of an objectionable nature, he would support it for the good it would effect; he would support it because it would strike down the corporation of Dublin, and because it would open the borough of Belfast, whose representative had hitherto been appointed by the noble Marquis of Donegal, like his groom or his footman. After a few words of opposition from Sir Robert Peel, the house divided on the second reading, and it was carried by two hundred and forty-six against one hundred and thirty.

It was in the committee that the attacks of the Irish reformers against the bill commenced in reality. The emancipation act had been accompanied by the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. Mr. O'Connell moved that it should be an instruction to the committee to restore the franchise to these freeholders. The Irish reform bill exhibited gross injustice. England was to have thirty members more than had originally been contemplated, but Ireland was not to derive any such advantage. It was always the way when Ireland was concerned; her aid was invoked in the battle, but when the division of the spoil came, she was forgotten. And in the present instance insult had been added to injury. The Scotch bill had been brought forward by a Scotch legal luminary. Was there no Irish gentleman to whom ministers could entrust the Irish reform bill? Ministers wished to put an end to agitation in Ireland. But how did they set about it? By perpetrating an act of injustice, which would perpetuate agitation. The amendment was supported by Mr. Shiel, who contended that the restoration of the forty-shilling freeholders was just in principle, because it would assimilate the constituency of England and Ireland, and because it would conciliate the people of Ireland without being detrimental to England. Ministers replied, that if the proposed instruction was carried, it would have, the effect of impeding, if not ultimately defeating, the measure. Mr. O'Connell's motion was lost! by a majority-of one hundred and twenty-two against seventy-three; and he immediately moved, as a modification of it; that "the franchise should be restored to persons seized of an estate for three lives, renewable for ever, of the yearly value of forty shillings, provided that the rent did not exceed four pounds per annum, of which one-third was to be profit, and provided also that the renewal fee did net exceed two-pounds." This was opposed by Mr. Stanley, on the ground, that it would create a minute subdivision of independent, property, and by that means would also create an immense multitude of independent voters. The motion, was not pressed to a division; and Mr. O'Connell then took up the subject of the increase of representation in Ireland. Of the five additional members, one was to be given to the University of Dublin, which was now to return two members; and Mr. O'Connell and his party objected to this arrangement, because it would strengthen the Protestant interest. Sir Robert Heron moved as an instruction to the committee, that the University of Dublin should continue to return only one member. The motion was opposed by Mr. Crampton, the solicitor-general of Ireland, who vindicated the character of the electors of Dublin University from the attacks which the Irish reformers made upon it. The proposal was rejected by a large majority: and Mr. O'Connell returned to the attack by moving, as an instruction to the committee, to extend the franchise to persons occupying freehold estates of the yearly value of five pounds. His motion was founded on this reasoning—that, as Ireland was a poorer country, a ten-pound qualification in England was a twenty-pound qualification in Ireland, and the constituency of the latter would consequently be curtailed. In his speech, he said that the object of all parties seemed to be to exclude the people of Ireland as much as possible from the enjoyment of the franchise. He was justified in making this charge, when he saw two members given to Trinity College, Dublin, in the constituency of which it was impossible there should be a Roman Catholic voter. If the system was acted on, the Catholic question still remained to be settled. Mr. Stanley complained of the unreasonable conduct of Irish members, and especially of Mr. O'Connell, who first desired alterations in the bill, and then complained that it was no longer the same. The change in the plan of registration, he said, had been recommended by Sir Henry Darnel. An alteration had also been made in the leasehold from twenty-one years to fourteen, and this was done at the instance of Irish members. Mr. O'Connell himself had entreated ministers to omit the fifty-pound qualification, which was complied with: but he had hardly effected his purpose, when he turned round and accused the government of making unfavourable alterations in the bill. Members might be astonished, but it was fact, that he had given notice of a motion for the restoration of a qualification which was omitted on his own suggestion. This motion was likewise rejected; as was another, made by Mr. Mullins, to extend the franchise in counties to leaseholders for nineteen years, at a rent of thirty pounds. Ministers, however, yielded something in the committee by consenting to extend the franchise to leaseholders for twenty years, having a beneficial interest to the amount of ten pounds. Mr. Shiel divided the house without success, to get rid of a proviso that required ten-pound voters in boroughs to pay all municipal taxes. The recorder of Dublin was equally unsuccessful in a motion tending to place Irish freemen on the same footing with their brethren in English boroughs; that is, to have their rights as freemen perpetuated, instead of terminating with the lives of those existing, as provided in the Irish bill Before the bill left the committee, Mr. Dominick Browne, one of the members for the county of Mayo, proposed a different plan for Ireland; but his proposition was not entertained by the house. The bill passed the commons on the 18th of July, and was read a second time in the lords on the 23rd. No division took place; but the Duke of Wellington stated at length his objections to the measure, which were replied to by Lord Plunkett. The bill passed through the committee in the peers almost without discussion. The only amendment of importance was one which had been rejected in the commons; namely, to place the rights of freemen in boroughs on the same footing on which they stood in the English bill, by continuing them in perpetuity instead of confining them simply to the children of freemen born after the passing of the bill. When the bill returned to the commons, Mr. Stanley declared that he felt a strong repugnance to this amendment. It was, however, allowed to stand, and by the first week of August all the three bills had received the royal assent.

BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS, ETC.

Soon after, the reform bill was carried the house of commons was filled with complaints, that, in its working, it was producing, extensive disfranchisement among the new constituencies. It was required by the English bill, that the intended voter should have paid up by the 20th of July all rates and taxes, payable in the preceding April in respect of the premises on which he claimed. That period was now past, and the non-payers were so numerous as greatly to diminish the new constituencies. Under these circumstances Lord Althorp, on the 7th of August, moved for leave to bring in a bill "for allowing further time for persons to pay the poor-rates, in pursuance of an act passed in the present session to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales." This was resisted on the ground that the act contained no clause allowing it to be altered, during the present session, and that the proposition was a breach of pledge. The house, it was said, had fully discussed and finally passed a measure effecting a great and extensive change in the constitution of the country, and that measure had gone forth to the country as being the final act of those who had originated it; yet it was now proposed to make an alteration in one of its most essential provisions. The alteration proposed was not unreasonable in itself; but there was danger in permitting any alteration to be made with respect to the reform act. Who could say, if changes were to be made, when they would stop? Lord Althorp argued that there were precedents which would enable the house to get over the difficulty in point of form, but as the bill was to be opposed, and as, in that case, it could not be carried through before the 20th of August, he would withdraw it altogether; he was the more ready to do so, because he thought that the inconvenience had been exaggerated. The subject, however, was taken up by Colonel Evans, who thought that a great number of tax and rate payers entitled to vote were defaulters, and therefore not able to enjoy their franchise. He moved a resolution, which, after adverting to the disfranchisement likely to arise, suggested that the mischief might be remedied by substituting for "the 6th of April," in the 27th clause of the reform act, "the 25th of September last" for the payment of the poor rates, and the "10th of October last" for the payment of the assessed taxes. This motion was only supported by two members, yet the colonel brought the matter before the house again on the 10th of August, by moving "that an address be presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to prorogue the present, and convene another short session of parliament, to take into consideration the unexpected disfranchisement produced by certain restrictive clauses of the act for amending the representation of the people in parliament." This motion was opposed by ministers, and was not pressed to a division. It had become clear, indeed, that many of the statements concerning the number of non-payers were without good foundation, and therefore there was no reason for altering the clause. About the same time objections were raised to the boundaries of boroughs as laid down by the commissioners whom ministers had employed, principally on the ground of the influence which, it was supposed, had here and there been given to individuals, by adding large portions of their lands to boroughs. It was objected, for instance, that, in the case of Whitehaven, a rural district, comprehending thirty voters, had been added to a borough containing three hundred. It was said that this was done to conciliate opposition; as this district was the property of Lord Lonsdale, it was stated, he would acquire by its junction with the town a preponderating influence. An amendment was made to exclude it, but ministers resisted it, and it was lost. Lord Althorp said, that nobody who knew the state of parties would believe in these theories of conciliation; and that Lord Lonsdale would have no more influence in the borough than the legitimate influence to which rank and property entitled their possessor. A similar objection was stated against the boundary allotted to Stamford, which was followed by a similar motion of exclusion; but it found only nineteen supporters, while one hundred and seventy-two voted against it.

Another measure connected with the changes in the representation was a bill brought in to amend and render more effectual the laws relating to bribery and corruption in elections. Lord John Russell, who brought in the bill, stated that its principal object was to subject all cases of bribery to a more complete investigation. With that view, the bill extended the term for presenting petitions complaining of bribery at elections from fourteen days to two years; and provided that it would be lawful for any person to petition the house during that period, complaining that the election of any particular borough had been carried by bribery and corruption. The bill also provided that where the parties complained of undue elections in consequence of bribery, if they proved their case, all their costs and expenses in sustaining their petition should be defrayed by the public. Objections were urged against this measure from both sides of the house. It was argued, that the extension of the period for petitioning would keep members in a state of vassalage for two years; that a new petition might be presented every week, if it only related to a different alleged act; and that the terms which defined what bribery was were so vague, and yet so comprehensive, that it was impossible for a member to know whether a charge could be brought against him or not. Some members thought that nothing but the ballot would prevent bribery, while others suggested that every member on entering the house should take an oath that he had neither given, nor promised to give, or would promise hereafter, by himself, his agents, or friends, any money, security, order, or other thing of value, or any pecuniary fee, or reward of any kind, in consideration of any vote or votes, by which his return to that house had been promoted or served. The bill passed the commons; but when it came to the lords its postponement for six months was moved by Lord Wynford, and the lord chancellor agreeing with him as to the impossibility of carrying its provisions into effect, the bill was thrown out.

During the discussion on the reform question, one strong objection against the destruction of nomination-boroughs had been, that without them there would be no certain means of members who vacated their seats by accepting office of securing a new return. In order to obviate this inconvenience, the Marquis of Northampton brought in a bill to repeal, in so far as certain offices were concerned, the act of Queen Anne, by which an acceptance of any of them vacated a member's seat. On the motion for the second reading of this bill, the Duke of Wellington said there could be no doubt that some measure of this description was necessary; but it appeared to him that the present bill was only a half measure, because it provided for only half of the inconvenience likely to result. He also objected to the bill being brought forward in the individual capacity of the noble marquis. As the inconvenience would arise from a government measure, government should introduce a remedy, and recommend it to both houses of parliament upon their own responsibility. The lord-chancellor likewise thought that the second reading should be delayed till the matter had been more ripely considered. The second reading, therefore, was postponed, and, as the end of the session approached, the bill was ultimately laid aside. The last subject of direct reform in the representation was introduced by Mr. Bulwer, who moved an address to the king, praying that his majesty would give the free inhabitants of New South Wales a representative system. He grounded their title to it on the score both of population and taxation; but while ministers admitted that New South Wales must in time have a representative body, they did not think the elements had yet been formed out of which a safe constituency could be created, and the motion was negatived.

COMMITTEES ON IRISH TITHES.

WILLIAM IV. 1832—1833

In the speech from the throne, on the opening of parliament, there was this clause:—"In parts of Ireland a systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, attended in some instances with afflicting results; and it will be one of your first duties to inquire whether it may not be possible to effect improvements in the laws respecting this subject, which may afford the necessary protection to the established church, and at the same time remove the present causes of complaint." Both houses, during this session, appointed select committees to inquire into the collection and payment of tithes in Ireland, and the state of the laws relating thereto. The report of the committee of the house of lords was presented on the 16th of February, and that of the commons on the 17th. The report stated that in different parts of Ireland resistance had been made to the payment of tithes, by means of organised, illegal, and in some instances armed combinations, which, if allowed to extend themselves successfully to other districts, would be applied to other objects, and ultimately subvert the dominion of the law, and endanger the peace and security of society. In many districts the report further stated, where resistance had been made to the payment of tithes, the clergy had been reduced to the greatest distress; and in order to obviate this, the committee recommended that his majesty should be empowered to advance to the incumbent, where tithes or compositions had been illegally withheld, or to his representatives, sums not exceeding the amount of the arrears due for the tithes of the year 1836, proportioned to the income of each, according to a scale diminishing as their incomes increased. It further recommended that as a security for repayment of the sums so advanced, his majesty should be empowered to levy, under the authority of a law to be passed for that purpose, the amount of arrears due for the tithes of the year 1831, without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear that might be due for a longer period. Where the arrears were due in a compounded parish, the sum to be advanced was to be regulated by the composition, and where there was no special agreement, by an average of the produce of the tithe for the years 1827, 1828, and 1829. As the crown was to become entitled to the arrears, it was recommended that the attorney-general should be empowered to sue for them, either by petition in chancery or exchequer, or by civil bill at the county quarter-session. On the tithe system, the committee stated that they had seen sufficient to satisfy them, "that with a view to serve both the interests of the church and the lasting welfare of Ireland, a permanent change of system will be required: that such a change, to be safe and satisfactory, must involve a complete extinction of tithes, including those belonging to lay impropriators, by commuting them for a charge upon land, or an exchange for or investment in land, so as effectually to secure the revenues of the church, so far as relates to tithes, and at the same time to remove all pecuniary collisions between the clergymen and the tithe-payer, which, at present, were unavoidable." On the 8th of March, the Marquis of Lansdowne in the upper house, and Mr. Stanley in the commons, moved resolutions adopting and embodying the recommendations of the report. In the lords no opposition was offered to them, but in the commons it did not pass so readily. Mr. Stanley said that as he intended to state the whole plan which government had in contemplation, with all its details, he should move for that purpose that the house should resolve itself into a committee on the report; a course which he deemed advisable, because it would put it into his power to give every explanation which might be required, and to take the opinion of the committee separately on each of the resolutions. This motion was sternly opposed by the Irish members. Mr. Brownlow led the attack, by maintaining that the report was too partial and imperfect to be made the subject of consideration in committee. He moved "that the debate be adjourned, until the committee had gone into a full inquiry into the subject of tithes, and the appropriation of church property in Ireland, and until the evidence and report of the committee came before parliament." In support of the amendment, Mr. Shiel said that the Irish members did not oppose the resolutions: they only said, "Wait for the final report, and do not decide on a document resting on one-sided evidence." Catholics, he said, had been excluded from the committee, and only one out of eighteen Catholic witnesses had been examined. Was this just, or fair dealing? It was as if a jury were desired to retire on the closing of the plaintiff's case. They find their verdict; judgment is given; and then the defendant was desired to proceed with her case. If the committee had confined themselves to the recommendation of assisting the clergy, the Irish members would not have complained; but while they came with a purse of gold for the church, they also came with a rod of iron for the people. Mr. Shiel proceeded next to discuss the plan which was supposed to be unknown, in doing which he discovered the true objection of the Irish members to it, namely, that the Protestant church of Ireland was still to be preserved. Other Irish members urged the same objections; and added, that if every thing else in the supposed plan were right, it was wrong to pay the arrears to the clergy, and then ask repayment by coercive measures. Lord Ebrington, who had been on the committee, and concurred in its report, now sided with the Irish members. Sir Robert Peel said that the discussion on the anticipated propositions was foreign to the question before the house. The question was, whether the propositions should be explained now, or after the house had gone into a committee. Pie thought that the latter was the course most conformable to the practice of the house; and by supporting a motion to that effect, no member pledged himself in the least to the proposition of the government. Lord Althorp and Mr. Stanley complained of the course the Irish members had taken in commenting on propositions of which they knew nothing; and on a division the amendment of the Irish members was lost by an overwhelming majority.

The committee was delayed till the 18th, on which day Mr. Stanley moved a series of resolutions similar to those which had been agreed to by the lords. The first of these resolutions was, "That it appears to the house that in several parts of Ireland, an organised and systematic opposition has been made to the payment of tithes, by which the law has been rendered unavailing, and many of the clergy of the established church have been reduced to great distress." Mr. Stanley entered at great length into the evidence which proved both parts of this resolution. It was quite clear from the evidence that a system of opposition had been established in Ireland to the payment of tithes, which could not be overcome by ordinary means. Every plan had been adopted by which the operations of the law might be traversed. Tithe-proctors and process-servants were violently assailed; impediments were interposed to prevent the seizure and sale of cattle; and, in a word, every system of determined and organised opposition was manifested that could be displayed by a whole population acting as one man against the payment of a claim legally due. Having proved the truth of the first resolution, Mr. Stanley proceeded to the second, which provided means of relief. It read thus:—"That, in order to afford relief to the distress, it is expedient that his majesty should be empowered, upon the application of the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, to direct that there be issued from the consolidated fund such sums as may be required for this purpose. That the sums so issued shall be distributed by the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, by and with the advice of the privy-council, in advances proportioned to the incomes of the incumbents of benefices wherein the tithes, or tithe composition lawfully due may have been withheld, according to a scale diminishing as the incomes of such incumbents increase." To this resolution Mr. Stanley said that he did not anticipate any objection, inasmuch as it was from no fault of the clergy that the resistance, and the consequent distress had arisen. He then proceeded to the third resolution, which provided for the reimbursement of the sums advanced:—"That, for the more effectual vindication of the authority of the law, and as a security for the repayment of the sums to be advanced, his majesty may be empowered to levy, under the authority of an act to be passed for this purpose, the amount of arrears for the tithes or tithe-composition of the whole or any part of the year 1831, without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear which may be due for a longer period; reserving, in the first instance, the amount of such advances, and paying over the remaining balance to the legal claimants." The last resolution pledged the house to an alteration of the existing tithe system on some principle of commutation, though Mr. Stanley said he was not prepared to state the nature of the change. Those who dissented from the resolutions consisted chiefly of the Irish members, and, singular enough, their opposition was chiefly confined to the last resolution. This was, it was said, to introduce a change of system, but it implied that the tithe was still to be a fund available to the established church. It was said to be unjust to demand extraordinary powers for the execution of a law acknowledged to be bad and mischievous, and that every renewed attempt to recover tithes by coercion would only hasten the ruin of the church establishment in Ireland. Some adjustment must be made by which the church property should be applied to the support of the three prominent sects in Ireland, instead of its being bestowed exclusively on one, which only comprehended about a third of the population. It was admitted at the same time that it was right to relieve the clergy who were suffering; but it was asserted that the resolutions held out no hope of any substantial amendment of the existing state of things. Mr. Shiel argued that the last resolution did not pledge the house not to appropriate church property as it might deem fit, and insinuated that this was what the ministry meant, though they could not venture to speak it out plainly. Sir Robert Peel supported the plan of the ministry, for, although hostile, he said, on general principles, to pledges that the house would do something at a future period, he thought that the interests of religion and the Protestant church required that the present case should be made an exception. As to the proposal to delay the question till the committee should have given a full report, he deemed it unnecessary and mischievous. If the spirit of combination was to be checked, it should be so at once; it would be true mercy to check it as soon as possible, for any delay would only add wings to its already rapid progress. The first resolution was agreed to finally without a division. On the second, Mr. Hunt divided the house, as he did not think the distress of the clergy in Ireland was such as to warrant money being taken out of the pockets of the people of this country for their relief. He was, however, only supported by eleven members, while eighty-six voted for the resolution. The third then passed without a division, and an amendment on the fourth was negatived without being put to the vote, so that the whole were carried. The bill was brought in to be read a second time on the 6th of April, when the Irish opposition pressed for a delay on the ground that it was inconsistent with sound policy to carry through this coercive measure before introducing the other measure for the change or extinction of tithes; that if the arrangements regarding the latter were complicated and required delay, that was the best reason for delaying the former, and that Mr. Stanley, the Irish secretary, ought to take advantage of the Easter recess, then approaching, to pay a visit to Ireland. Ministers resisted all delay, however, and the second reading was carried by a majority of one hundred and nineteen against twenty-one. It was read a third time, without much discussion, on the 16th of April; and in the house of lords, where the resolutions had been agreed to, the bill was passed without opposition.

The tithe-committees still continued their investigations, and on the 25th of June Mr. Stanley stated to the house of commons the measures which ministers intended to recommend for the final settlement of the questions connected with tithes. Three bills were to be introduced: the first, to make the composition act permanent and compulsory, and to render it at the same time more equitable and effective in some of its details; the second, constituting the bishop and beneficed clergy of each diocese into a corporation for the purpose of receiving the tithes for the whole body, and dividing them for their common benefit in the proportion to which the respective parties would be entitled: and the third, providing for a commutation of the tithe on the same principle as the land-tax redemption in England, or the redemption of quit-rents in Ireland—that is, that the party liable to the charge might redeem it, and the money thus paid for redemption would go to a fund as a provision for the clergy in the proportions to which they were at present entitled. Mr. Stanley explained the principles of these three bills at great length; but stated that it was not intended to carry all of them through the house at so late a period of the session. And this, he continued, was not necessary, as the first and second were independent of the third. He moved therefore for leave to bring in a bill for making the tithe-composition act compulsory, and the composition permanent, and another for establishing the ecclesiastical corporations. Subsequently the latter of these was delayed, and the composition bill only pressed on. The motion for this was opposed by Mr. J. Grattan, who moved as an amendment the following resolutions:—"That it is essential to the peace of Ireland that the system of tithes in that country should be extinguished, not in name only, but in substance, and unequivocally: That in coming to this resolution we recognise the rights of persons having vested interests, and declare that it is the duty of parliament to provide for those persons by making them a just compensation: That we also recognise the liability of property in Ireland to contribute to a fund for supporting and promoting religion and charity; but that such may and ought to be quite different in the mode of collection, and much lighter in effect than that raised by the system of tithes: That we are also of opinion that the mode of levying and the application of such fund and its distribution ought to be left to the decision of a reformed parliament." As the session was drawing near to a close, the opposition seemed to entertain hopes of rendering the measure abortive by mere opposition. Ministers were first compelled to adjourn the debate from the 3rd of July to the 10th, and on the 10th it was found necessary to adjourn it again to the 13th. On that day, after stern opposition from the Irish members, and especially Mr. O'Connell, who descanted in his usual strain on the "insulting contempt with which all Irish affairs were treated," a division took place on Mr. Grattan's resolutions, which were rejected by a large majority, and then the bill passed the second reading without opposition, and the house went into committee. Mr. Stanley in opening the ministerial propositions had adverted to the payment of church-cess and church-rates by Catholics, and expressed an opinion that they might be got rid of by a proper application of the first-fruits. Mr. Shiel moved that "the committee should be instructed to recite in the preamble of the bill, that the tithe composition should be extended, with the view to the levying of first-fruits according to their real value, and to such future appropriation of them to the purposes of religion, education, and charity, as, after making a due provision for the maintenance of the church, should to parliament seem proper." Mr. Shiel said that the preamble already set forth that the bill was to effect a commutation. The government, however, ought not to stop there: they had declared that they intended to relieve the people from the church-rate, by levying their first-fruits to their full extent, and it was their object to ascertain the full amount of tithes through Ireland in order to tax the church. The committee, also, had reported that the people ought to be relieved in this particular: wherefore then was it not set forth in the preamble? They should be embodied in the bill, and the legislature should give an earnest of their determination to rescue the Irish nation from the most odious imposition in the annals of ecclesiastical taxation, the erection of temples with which the people had no concern. Mr. Stanley, in reply, admitted that he agreed in the principle that the fund arising from the first-fruits should be made available for the repair and erection of churches. When asked, however, "Why not say in the preamble of this bill that there should be an abolition of church-cess and rates for the future?" he said he was not prepared to go to that extent. If he consented to the introduction of these words into the preamble, he should be doubtless told that church-rates were abolished, and that the people of Ireland so understood it. He did not wish, he said, to declare that to be the object of the bill which was not its object, however it might be likely to be effected by the passing of the bill. On a division Mr. Shiel's motion was rejected by seventy-nine to eighteen. The bill now proceeded without further delay, and was passed by the commons and the lords. On the second reading in the upper house the Duke of Wellington expressed a wish that it should pass unanimously, he believing it to be the commencement of a series of measures which had the pacification of Ireland for their object.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

As the reform bill and the management of Ireland were the great business of this session, matters of trade did not occupy much attention in parliament. The chancellor of the exchequer made his financial statements on the 27th of July, when it appeared that in the quarter of the year ending on the 5th of January, there had been a deficiency of £700,000, making the revenue of that quarter fall short of the estimate by no less a sum than £1,200,000; ministers having calculated on a surplus of £500,000. The revenue in the year 1830, the chancellor of the exchequer said, was £50,056,616, while the expenditure was £47,142,943, leaving a surplus of £2,913,673. The expenditure of 1831 ending in 1832 was within £19,664 of that of 1830; but this equality did not proceed from an equality of votes in the two years, because in the latter year there arose, from the reduction of four per cents., a saving of £777,443. After entering into minute particulars of the receipts and expenditure, with the savings which government had effected, the chancellor of the exchequer said, that upon the whole there was a decrease of income in 1831, as compared with 1830, of £3,682,176. From this, if the surplus, which would have accrued if the income had been equal to the expenditure in that year, that was £2,933,319, were deducted, there would be an excess of expenditure in 1831 over the income amounting to £698,857. The state of the revenue, therefore, in the commencement of 1832, was, that instead of having a surplus of £2,913,673, as in the commencement of 1831, the expenditure of 1831 being £19,646 below that of 1830, there was a falling off to the amount he had already shown; and the real excess of expenditure over income in 1831 was the sum of £698,857. Lord Althorp attributed this deficiency chiefly to the reduction of taxation in 1830. The whole reduction of taxation in 1831 amounted to £4,780,000. From this, if £3,364,412 were deducted as the loss on customs and excise, there would be a balance of £1,414,588; a clear proof that the resources of the country had increased by nearly a million and a half in the consumption of articles not affected by taxation. He owned he had been too sanguine in the calculation he had made of increased consumption from reduced taxation, but it was satisfactory to observe that, notwithstanding the great reduction of taxation, the deficiency in the revenue had been so small. He felt it right to state, he continued, that the deficiency at the end of the year was increased in the April quarter, the amount in that quarter being £1,240,413. Finding this deficiency his majesty's ministers had endeavoured to meet it, not by an increase of taxation, but by a reduction of expenditure. They had lowered the estimates by more than £2,000,000, and had reduced official salaries and appointments to the utmost of their power. In two years, the reductions they had made in salaries and officers amounted to £334,353. Lord Althorp next entered into a statement of the gradual decrease of the surplus, and then proceeded to the estimates for the year ending-April, 1833. He calculated that the expenditure of the year ending April, 1833, would be £45,696,376, which would be £2,162,051 less than that for the year ending in April, 1832. He next proceeded to give a comparative estimate of the income as it was in April, 1832, and as he calculated it to be for 1833. From the various items he expected a total of £46,470,000; deduct from that £45,696,376, as the amount of expenditure, and it left a surplus for the year ending in April, 1833, of £773,624. Against this, however, was to be set the deficiency of 1832, amounting to £1,240,413, and take from that sum the surplus of £773,624 for 1833, and it would leave a deficiency on the two years of £466,789. Mr. Goulburn contended that, according to the noble lord's statement, there would be a deficiency at the end of the current year, on account of 1832, although in this year there was a surplus. After a few words from Sir Robert Peel, however, who questioned the reality of the reductions made by government, the financial arrangements were carried without opposition.

COMMITTEE ON THE CHARTER OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY, ETC.

On the 27th of January the president of the board of control moved the appointment of a committee upon the affairs of the East India Company, and to inquire into the state of trade between Great Britain, the East Indies, and China. This was, in fact, only the reappointment of a committee which had sat during previous sessions; but the president hinted that as the charter would expire in April, 1834, and the East India Company had declined to make itself a party to the discussion, it would be necessary that the government should take a more direct management of the question, though without intimating its intentions, so as not to disappoint expectations. It would be necessary to carry this proposal into effect, he said, to have a considerable number of sub-committees, at least six or seven, each taking a separate branch of the inquiry. In the East India House, and in the board of control, the business was divided into six departments, each division having its separate functionaries; and he proposed, therefore, that there should be at least six sub-committees, each taking one of these departments. As it was necessary, he continued, to provide for the absence of members, and as five or six members would be necessary in each subcommittee, he should propose that there should be at least forty-eight or forty-nine in the committee. The present committee, he added, would have this advantage, that, the subject was not entirely new. A large mass of testimony had been obtained; and though the evidence had not been systematically collected, yet the materials were in preparation, and the committee would be supplied with them. In addition to this the board of control had for some time been preparing for the discussion, officers having been employed in classifying the evidence laid before both houses, and in separating the different branches of the evidence. The committee was appointed without opposition. Subsequently, the chancellor of the exchequer proposed the appointment of "a committee of secrecy, to inquire into, and report upon the expediency of renewing the charter of the Bank of England; and also on the existing system of banking by banks of issue in England and Wales." The circumstance which gave rise to this motion was the renewal of the charter with the Bank of England. As the occasion of a renewal of that charter had always been considered the proper time for an inquiry into the banking system, and had been looked forward to by the public as a proper season for taking the principles of the Bank of England into consideration, therefore the proposition was made. In making the proposal, the chancellor of the exchequer said that he trusted the house would agree in the propriety of making it a committee of secrecy, in order to prevent any discussions in that house upon the subject pending the inquiry; on such a question, involving the money transactions of the country, nothing could be more objectionable than these discussions. As to the questions which the committee would have to consider, they would have first to decide whether the charter should be renewed, and then, in case of renewal, whether any, and what exclusive privileges should be given to the Bank. Another question for their consideration would be the existing system of banking with reference to banks of issue; and they would likewise have to consider the Bank of England in its quality of banker to the state. It was not, however, intended that the committee should go into the question of the currency; it was to confine itself to banking, properly so called. But one exception to this would be found in the one-pound notes: it would be impossible to exclude that question from the consideration of the committee, if they should consider it was necessary to enter upon it. It was thought by some members that it would be better to restrict the committee from entering into that question, and by others that it would be better to delay the whole subject till a new parliament. In substance, in fact, it was so delayed, for, although a committee was appointed, it had made no report when parliament was prorogued and subsequently dissolved.

THE AFFAIRS OF THE WEST INDIES.

In the latter part of 1831, a violent hurricane had occasioned a great deal of injury in Barbadoes, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia. During this session ministers proposed, and parliament agreed, to grant his majesty £100,000 for the relief of the sufferers in those islands. Jamaica was soon after visited by a calamity of a different kind, though not less destructive. About the end of 1831, a formidable insurrection, which had been organised for some time, broke out among the slaves, particularly in the parishes of Trelawney, Portland, and St. James. The negroes on several estates began at first to refuse to go to their work, and then they assembled together in large bodies, and marched over the country, spreading devastation around them. The destruction which they caused was not confined to the whites; the houses and small settlements of free people of colour were attacked equally with the large plantations of the white inhabitants. It was found necessary on the 20th of December to proclaim martial law, and the militia of the different parishes was called out. Sir Willoughby Cotton also marched to Montego Bay, with between two and three hundred troops. Two engagements took place between the negroes and the militia, in both of which the former were routed. They again made head in some quarters; but at length the troops succeeded in dispersing them; and offers of pardon being issued to all but the ringleaders, the greater part of them returned to their masters. Of the ringleaders, some were shot after trial by courts-martial; and by the middle of January the danger was over, though some of the negroes still remained out, and martial law was not recalled. The insurrection was ascribed by the whites partly to the vague notions existing among the negroes by the orders in council intended to effect the amelioration of their condition, and partly to the arts or imprudence of sectarian missionaries. A belief had been produced among the former that their liberty had been granted by the king; and it was said that they had been encouraged in these ideas by some of the missionaries. This unfortunately gave rise to the work of retaliation. At Montego Bay. Falmouth, Lucia, and Savanna-la-Mer, the chapels of the Baptists were razed to the ground by the mob, probably at the instigation of the planters. A Baptist and Moravian missionary were arrested on the charge of exciting the insurrection, but nothing was found to criminate them. But apart from the effect which the orders in council might have had in misleading the negroes, they were regarded by the colonists as an unnecessary and mischievous interference with the rights of property, and even with their political privileges. The orders appointed slave-protectors to attend to the rights of negroes against their own masters, fixed the hours of labour, and contained various other regulations, all deemed useful, and intended to prepare the way for a general emancipation. These orders were considered in both sets of islands as dangerous incitements to turbulence among the negroes, and ruinous to the property of planters. There were discontent and irritation everywhere against the government at home; and in the colonies which had legislative assemblies it was plainly spoken out by resolutions and petitions. Nor were the proprietors at home silent on the occasion. On the 6th of April the West-India mercantile body of London presented a protest against the order in council to the secretary of state. This was followed by a public meeting of persons interested in the colonies, where it was resolved to petition the house of lords, praying, "That a full and impartial parliamentary inquiry should be instituted for the purposes of ascertaining the laws and usages of the colonies, the condition of the slaves, the improvements that had been made in that condition, and what further steps could be taken for the amelioration of that condition consistently with the best interests of the slaves themselves, and with the rights of private property." This petition was presented on the 17th of April, by the Earl of Harewood, and the prayer of their petition was granted. Mr. Buxton, on the 24th of May, made a motion on the other side of the question. He moved: "That a select committee be appointed to consider and report upon the measures expedient to be adopted for properly effecting the extinction of slavery throughout the British dominions at the earliest period compatible with the safety of all classes." Lord Althorp objected to this motion as too unqualified, and he wished Mr. Buxton to add the words, "in conformity with the resolutions of 15th of May, 1823." To this Mr. Buxton would not consent, and Lord Althorp then moved them as an amendment on the motion, and they were carried by a large majority. These measures were subsequently followed by pecuniary relief to those who had lost property. The sum of £100,000, which had been granted to the sufferers from the hurricane in Barbadoes, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia, was raised to £1,000.000, and extended to the sufferers in Jamaica by the insurrection. In addition to this, the sum of £58,000 was granted to be applied in giving aid in regard to the internal expenses to the crown colonies, which had adopted the orders in council, and had carried the same into effect.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by his majesty in person on the 16th of August. On the great question of the session his majesty remarked:—"The matters which you have had under consideration have been of the first importance; and the laws in particular which have been passed for the reforming the representation of the people have occupied, as was unavoidable, the greatest portion of your time and attention. In recommending this subject to your consideration, it was my object, by removing the just causes of complaint, to restore general confidence in the legislature, and to give additional security to the settled institutions of the state. This object will, I trust, be found to have been accomplished." Ireland was still in a disturbed state, on which his majesty remarked:—"I have still to lament the continuance of disturbances in Ireland, notwithstanding the vigilance and energy displayed by my government there, in the measures which it has taken to repress them. The laws which have been passed in conformity with my recommendation at the beginning of the session, with respect to the collection of tithes, are well calculated to lay the foundation of a new system, to the completion of which the attention of parliament, when it again assembles, will of course be directed. To this necessary work my best assistance will be given, by enforcing the execution of the laws, and by promoting the prosperity of a country blessed by Divine Providence with so many natural advantages. As conducive to this subject, I must express the satisfaction which I have felt at the measures adopted for extending generally to my people in that kingdom the benefits of education." At the close of his majesty's speech the lord-chancellor said, that it was his majesty's royal will and pleasure that parliament be prorogued to Tuesday the 16th of October next, to be then holden, and this parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the 16th day of October next.

GENERAL ELECTION.

WILLIAM IV. 1832-1833

After parliament was prorogued, the great objects of public attention were the registration of the new constituency under the reform bill, and other preparations for a general election, which was to follow as soon as the registration was completed. The registration, which was conducted very quietly, having been completed, parliament, which had been prorogued by commission on the 16th of October, was dissolved on the 3rd of December, and the first general election under the reform act took place. The writs were made returnable on the 29th of January, 1833. As regards the machinery of the act, it appeared to work more smoothly than had been anticipated. Generally speaking, in the most populous places, the polling was concluded within the two days allowed by the act. Less time and opportunity were allowed for bribery, and the disturbances which used to arise from drunkenness and profligacy in a great measure ceased. As regards the candidates which the machinery of the act produced, there was a great dislocation of old connexions and previous interests. There were three parties in the field: ministerial candidates; Tories, now called Conservatives; and the Radicals, who have been aptly termed "the apostles of pledges." The elections were generally in favour of the ministerial candidates, or at least of candidates who professed the same general views, and declared their adherence to a reforming ministry. This was natural, for in almost all the boroughs success depended on the newly created electors, who could scarcely refuse their votes to that party by whose means they had procured the right of voting. The Whigs were most successful in Scotland: out of fifty-three representatives elected in that portion of the empire, not more than twelve were Conservatives; nor could half that number be termed "apostles of pledges." In Ireland, however, the Whigs were not so successful. O'Connell had denounced the ministers, even while the reform bill was in progress, as acting with insult and injustice towards Ireland in the measure of change meted out to her; and the refusal to abolish the Protestant established church in Ireland had converted him and his adherents into declared enemies. All their energies, therefore, were employed to return members who would either drive ministers from the helm, or drive them to sacrifice the church, and repeal the union. The consequence of his agitation was, that, while Mr. O'Connell was himself elected for Dublin, he brought over with him when parliament met some half-dozen of his own immediate relations, besides various demagogical dependents, as the representatives of Ireland. O'Connell's manners and language on this occasion were violent in the extreme. In a letter "To the Reformers of Great Britain," he even ventured to put forth articles of impeachment against the ministers, and he went so far as to offer to coalesce with the Orangemen in order to defeat them. The result of his agitation was that, by his exertions and influence, coupled with that of the minor demagogues of Ireland, the number of Radicals, or "Repealers" was greatly increased.

RESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER.

As the end of last session was approaching, Mr. Manners Sutton, who had filled the speaker's chair in six successive parliaments, announced his intended resignation. His chief reason appears to have been that the next parliament would consist of many new faces; and would be differently constituted to those in which he had presided. All parties, however, received his announcement with regret; and Lord Althorp moved, Mr. Goulburn seconded, and the house voted by acclamation the usual resolution of thanks in such cases. An address was also voted to the king, praying his majesty to confer some signal mark of his favour on the speaker; and this was carried into effect by granting to Mr. Sutton £4000 a-year, to be reduced one-half if he accepted office under the crown of equal value, and £3000 a-year to his son on his demise.

STATE OF IRELAND.

This year witnessed the disaffection of all parties in Ireland. Towards the conclusion of the preceding year a systematic opposition to tithes had been organised, and the repeal of the union had been openly advocated. Ministers, doubtless, conceived that the reform bill would conciliate both the agitators and their followers; but in this they were mistaken. The reform bill, indeed, gave rise to new sources of discontent. The Protestants lost all confidence therefrom in the government; and they very naturally felt inclined to have recourse, for means of defence, to the same instruments which the Catholics used against them. They were surrounded by Catholic bands, inclined to pillage and murder, and it was no wonder that they felt irritated by a measure which appeared to give licence to the lawless. A meeting of Protestant noblemen and gentlemen, held in Dublin, put forth a manifesto, enumerating the various grievances of which they thought themselves entitled to complain, and calling upon all their brethren to be vigilant and true to their own interests. The example of this assembly was followed in many parts of the country, and addresses were voted by numerous meetings to the king. In one of these addresses dissatisfaction and alarm was expressed at the spirit that appeared to influence the councils and direct the measures of the Irish government. Unconstitutional and mischievous associations, it was stated, had been suffered to be formed and continued, the efforts of which were directed to usurp the power of government, and destroy the civil and religious institutions of the country; and these associations, instead of being suppressed, were allowed to take place even in the metropolis, while the instigators of them were rewarded with favour and confidence. This address also expressed strong opinions on the reform bill. It would transfer, it was said, to the Catholics and Catholic clergy an overwhelming influence in the representation; that the boroughs, whose franchise was to be taken from the Protestant corporations and transferred to a larger constituency, had been incorporated for the express purpose of maintaining, by a Protestant constituency, the connexion between the two countries; and that the measure in progress could have no other effect than to vest the dominion of Ireland in the Catholics. On the other hand, the reform bill did not give satisfaction to the Catholics; it gave much, but it did not give all that they desired, or all that was necessary to the completion of their schemes. Their object was ascendancy. Popery could not retain its glories in Ireland, or the Protestant church be destroyed, so long as their fate depended on a Protestant parliament. The union must be repealed; and unless Ireland sent into the house of commons a large body of Catholic repealers, there was no chance of such a consummation. Hence it was that Mr. O'Connell attacked the Irish bill with such bitterness; it did not make a larger addition to the representatives of Ireland, and it did not sink the qualification to a scale sufficiently low to ensure the return of all repealers to the reformed parliament. These "defects of the bill," therefore, supplied the demagogues with new sources of agitation. The people were told that this pretended reform was an insult; that they had received only a small portion of the justice that was due to them; and that they must still offer unyielding opposition to a government which granted only a part of their demands.

Meanwhile the tithe question became & fruitful source of discontent and bloodshed. A petition was entrusted to Mr. O'Connell to the house of commons against the Protestant church, which, while it announced in plain language their own wishes, gave direct encouragement to violence and outrage. The different counties, in fact, from the agitation of the demagogues, presented one scene of growing lawlessness and crime. The king's speech was even made to foster this spirit of insubordination. It had recommended the consideration of the tithe question in parliament; and the Irish Catholics construed this into a condemnation of the tax. Looking upon the tithes, therefore, as already denounced by the king and the parliament, they thought they were justified in resisting the payment of them. Everyman refused to pay; and threats, arson, and murder, were directed against all who in any way connected themselves with the payment, or collection of tithes, whether as clergyman, proctor, policeman, or payer. Recourse was even had to intimidation by public proclamation; chapel doors were desecrated by placards threatening death and destruction to all who should pay tithes. Thus instructed at the very sanctuary where peace alone should have been taught, the ignorant and misguided peasantry everywhere committed acts of violence and outrage. The premises of the tithe-payer were reduced to ashes, and his cattle were houghed, or scattered over the country, or, as in Carlow, hunted over precipices. Moreover, scarcely a week elapsed in which a proctor, or a process-server, or a constable, or a tithe-payer, were not murdered. An archdeacon of Cashel was even murdered in broad daylight, while several persons who were ploughing in the field where the act was committed, either would not, or dared not interfere. Neither life nor property were safe; and in the beginning of February the Irish government found it necessary to have recourse to the peace-preservation act, and to proclaim certain baronies in the county of Tipperary to be in a state of disturbance. This, however, had no effect; large bodies of men everywhere openly defied the law, and roamed about the county, compelling landlords to sign obligations to reduce their rents, and to pay no tithes. They even compelled some farmers to give up their farms and their houses, and, in some instances, they committed the most atrocious cruelties. An end was put not only to the payment of tithe, but to the payment of rent; and the terror which prevailed on every hand acted as a shield to the offenders. In fact, it was considered a crime to be connected with any attempt to execute the law against the insurgents, and to betray any activity in preserving order was to become a marked man; such a man was sure of being made the victim of open violence, or secret assassination. Such an extensive combination had been entered into to resist the payment of tithes, and to protect all who might be implicated, that the ends of justice could not be attained. Jurors were in danger of losing property and life; and at Kilkenny the attorney-general even found it necessary to delay the trials.

Government, as the year advanced, filled the disturbed districts with troops and an augmented constabulary force; but no approach was made to the restoration of order. The magistrates of the county of Kilkenny made an unanimous application to the Irish government for stronger measures to meet the crisis; but the lord-lieutenant stated in his answer, that, from circumstances which had taken place, he had no expectation left of any appeal to the law under the existing excitement proving effectual. He sent, indeed, into that county three additional stipendiary magistrates, and one hundred additional policemen; but this was ineffectual: crime still prevailed, and resistance was successfully made to the payment of tithes. In the meantime, the agitators and their political unions, while they affected to deplore the perpetration of the outrages which were every day occurring, did not cease to address to their countrymen the same exciting language in which they had hitherto indulged, and to devise new schemes and combinations for open resistance to the law. It was quite evident, indeed, that they were at the bottom of all the mischief that was afloat. It is true, they did not recommend openly murder and arson, and that they preached passive resistance; but they called upon every man to refuse payment of tithes, and in that call was involved disobedience to the laws. Dublin was the seat of most of the mischief going forward. From thence the agitators continued to describe Ireland to its inhabitants as the slave of England, and to denounce the existence of tithe. The remedy of the tithe-owner was distraint; but in a few instances only could a sale be carried into effect, and the clergy were at length compelled to give up all attempts to enforce their rights, the more especially as the arrears, if the measures proposed by ministers were carried, would become debts due to government. Where-ever a sale was effected, all those connected with it were objects of vengeance. Thus, in Kildare, a farmer who had purchased some distrained cattle, was obliged to throw up his farm and leave the country. The opposition against the payment of tithe was directed against the government as well as the clergy. Its intention was to drive ministers, if possible, to recommend and enforce their abolition, by rendering the recovery of them impracticable. Anti-tithe meetings were held in every part of Ireland, and the greater part of the country was involved in one huge conspiracy. During the year government seemed to think it time to try whether the law could not reach the tumultuous assemblies of the conspirators. A circular was addressed to the Irish magistracy, directing them to disperse all meetings collected in such numbers as to produce alarm and endanger peace, as distinguished by banners, inscriptions, or emblems, which tended to disturbance, or to throw contumely on the law. This circular was denounced by Mr. O'Connell as illegal, though he advised that it should be obeyed. Several large meetings were dispersed by the military, headed by a magistrate; but where the meeting was strictly parochial, no opposition was offered to their proceedings. It was this spirit of lawlessness which gave rise to the Irish tithe-bill of this session. The passing of that bill neither mitigated the discord which everywhere prevailed, nor diminished the crimes which that discord produced. The people had been taught to demand as their right, and to expect as a concession, the annihilation of tithe; but they found that the crown, by the Irish tithe-bill, had become creditor instead of the clergymen. They had now, therefore, to struggle with the crown. Proceedings were adopted by the law-officers of government to enforce payment of arrears, and at the same time it was resolved to try the power of the law against the ringleaders of the "anti-tithe meetings." A great number of persons were apprehended on the charge of conspiracy, and of holding illegal assemblies. Some of these on their trials were convicted, and others, on the advice of O'Connell, pleaded guilty, and they were fined and imprisoned; but they were looked upon as martyrs, and the penalties which they were suffering were noted down as another unpardonable injury committed against Ireland by the English government and the Protestant church. The law, however, was not equally successful when directed against the more atrocious crimes of arson and murder, which had been committed in the southern counties. Life was not safe in those parts, and jurors and witnesses alike dreaded the execution of a duty which might involve a sentence of death upon themselves. Rather than attend, they paid the fine for absence; or if they attended, they were afraid to convict, even in the most atrocious cases. The law-officers were, in fact, compelled to give up the prosecutions in despair, and murder remained unavenged. In celebration of this triumph over law and justice, the county of Kilkenny blazed with bonfires, announcing to the world that the guilty had escaped punishment. As for the "acquitting jurors," they were greeted with the popular applause; and because they allowed murder to be committed with impunity, the peasantry hastened in crowds to their fields in harvest-time, and reaped their fields for nothing. Crime, therefore, prospered; and the tale of murder was repeatedly told in the newspapers of the day, while the perpetrators thereof escaped the punishment due to their crimes. Yet no lament was raised by the political guides of Ireland over murdered landholders and clergymen; it appeared to be, in their sight, a just revenge. At the same time a long wail of woe was heard throughout the country, if it happened that any of the resisting peasantry were killed by the military in the performance of their duties in securing the tithe. Four were thus killed in the county of Cork, and others wounded, the military being compelled to fire in self-defence; and Mr. O 'Connell immediately sent forth a letter to the reformers of Great Britain, invoking vengeance. And yet this man, who could deplore the fate of violators of the laws, could not find any cause for lament in the deaths of the many clergymen and laymen who had been slain by the infuriated peasantry. He could not find it in his heart to deplore the fact that the blood of peaceful, respectable, and virtuous citizens, had been shed on Irish ground; but he could palliate the conduct of their murderers, and by his agitation virtually sanction the foul crime.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year Don Pedro carried his threat into execution, of attempting to recover the throne of Portugal from his brother by force of arms. He had been permitted to levy men, and to purchase vessels and shipments of arms and ammunition, both in England and France, and the naval part of the expedition was placed under the command of a British officer, who became a Portuguese admiral. The expedition sailed from the rendezvous, in the Azores, on the 27th of June, and it consisted of two frigates, three corvettes, three armed brigs, and four schooners, besides transports, and a number of gun-boats to cover the landing. The army on board, including British and French recruits, did not amount to ten thousand men, and it was scantily provided, both with cavalry and artillery. The invaders landed off Oporto on the 9th of July, without any opposition; and in the course of the day they took undisturbed possession of the city, the enemy having retired to the left bank of the Douro, and destroyed the bridge. The possession of this city was doubtless of great importance to Don Pedro; but it was far removed from the capital. He had hopes that the country would rise in his favour, and that the military would abandon his opponent. In these expectations, however, he was doomed to be disappointed. Don Miguel was enabled to concentrate his forces, and to organise the means of resistance; and at the close of the year, after some slight successes in engagements with the enemy, he was shut up in Oporto by the Miguelites, who bombarded the town, blockaded the Douro, and placed him in a very critical situation.

In the East a quarrel took place between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali, Pasha of Egypt, which threatened serious consequences to the Turkish empire, and occasioned such interference on the part of Russia as awakened the jealousy, and aroused the watchfulness of the other European powers. Ibrahim wrested Syria from the Porte, and the Ottoman empire was tottering to its fall, unless the European states should interfere to prevent it, or Russia should realize her long-cherished schemes of aggrandizement by taking the shores of the Bosphorus, which the Sultan was not able to defend, under her own protection. It was feared by the European powers that Russia would thus act; and toward the end of June, ministers dispatched the son-in-law of the premier on a special mission to Russia. Much confidence was placed by the public in the integrity and talents of Lord Durham, and an attempt was made to induce the ministers to embrace this opportunity of mitigating the cruel fate which hung over the unhappy Poles. Poland, however, was still doomed to be unbefriended. Russia was left to seek the annihilation of its existence as a separate nation at her pleasure. By an ukase this year, indeed, the emperor declared that Poland, with a separate administration, should become an integral part of the empire, "and its inhabitants form but one nation with the Russians, bound together by uniform and national sentiments." During this session, also, there was a debate on the subject of payments made to Russia without the authority of parliament. This question was connected with the financial affairs of the country, though it was treated more as a question of political party. It arose out of the treaty of 1814 for the incorporation of the Belgian provinces with Holland. By that treaty Great Britain had agreed to pay a certain share of a debt due to Russia by Holland, so long as Holland and Belgium were united. They had now been disjoined for nearly a year, and yet ministers had been making these payments without any new authority from parliament. The subject was brought forward by Mr. Herries, who entered at length on the subject, and contended that England had no right any longer to pay money to Russia: the Dutch had refused to pay any more, and ministers should not have done so without at least new powers from parliament. He moved three resolutions:—"That by the 55 Geo. III., for carrying into effect the convention between Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia, the treasury was empowered to issue sums to pay the interest and capital due by Holland to Russia, conformably with the provisions of the convention: That the payment of these sums was made to depend upon the non-separation of the kingdoms of Holland and Belgium; and that, as the kingdoms of Belgium and Holland had been separated, all payments made since that separation were unwarranted by act of parliament, and contrary to the treaty recognising the loan." Lord Althorp, in reply, said that the true question was, whether the country was not bound in honour to the continued payment of those sums. Looking at it only according to the strict letter of the treaty, we might not be bound; but he thought that by a careful examination of its spirit and provisions, it would be found that our honour was pledged to the payments, and that on no other consideration than that it was so pledged should we have interfered as we had done in the affairs of Holland and Belgium. He argued that the separation contemplated by the framers of the treaty was one produced by extreme force, and had nothing to say to any severance proceeding from internal causes. He argued further, that it was by giving Russia an interest in preventing the severance of Holland and Belgium, that this country concluded the treaty; and that, therefore, to that treaty we were equally pledged. That Holland had refused to pay was immaterial: if one pledged himself to the payment of a debt to which there was also a third party, it would be dishonourable to take advantage of that third party having refused to fulfil his engagement, as a legal reason for also refusing to fulfil your engagement. With respect to the resolutions, he had only to say, that, as the two first were merely declaratory of the fact, he should, as far as they were concerned, move the previous question; but as the third was a direct censure on ministers, he should meet it with a direct negative. Ministers had acted on the opinion of the attorney and solicitor-general, and they now defended that opinion. Lord John Russell also argued that it was the spirit and not the letter of the treaty which must be looked at, and that that spirit justified the payment. He complained that the resolutions were moved with a mere party view, and not from any love of economy or from any desire to maintain a constitutional principle. He complained also, that a motion should be made for censuring ministers, without calling for papers, and without any allusion to the circumstances which had occurred in 1830 and 1831, and on which the interpretation of the treaty might in a great degree depend. After some stinging comments upon this speech, Sir Robert Peel wound up the debate in one of his most plausible parliamentary addresses. He clearly confuted the main arguments which Lord Althorp used, and produced an effect unfavourable to ministers. When the house divided, the previous question was carried by a majority only of twenty; and government had but the narrow majority of twenty-four for the third resolution. Many of their adherents, including Mr. Hume, voted against them on this occasion; and even their secretary-at-war, Sir Henry Parnell, failed to attend to vote for them, for which conduct he lost his place, and was succeeded by Sir John Cam Hobhouse. The truth was, as it afterwards appeared, ministers had entered into a new convention with Russia, although that convention had not been ratified. Ministers laid this before parliament on the 27th of June; and on the 12th of July Lord Althorp moved the house to go into committee to consider of it, with the view that a bill should be brought in to enable his majesty to execute it. The convention provided for continuing the payments, and the opposition thought this a powerful argument in their favour; if a new convention was necessary, it was said, the former payments were made without authority. They moved the following amendment to Lord Alfhorp's motion:—"That it appears to this house that the payment made by the commissioners of the treasury on account of the interest due on the Russian loan in Holland, in January last, when the obligation and authority to make such payment had, according to the terms of the convention with Holland and Russia, and of the act of parliament founded thereon, ceased and determined, and also when a new convention with Russia, not then communicated to this house, had been entered into, recognising the necessity of recurring to parliament for power to continue such payments under the circumstances which had attended the separation which had taken place, was an application of the public money not warranted by law." Ministers still argued the question on the ground, whether this country was bound in good faith to continue the payments? if we were, they said, this convention was only to fulfil that duty. But the strongest argument in their favour was that adduced by Lord Althorp, which was to the effect, that, if his motion were lost, it would upset the ministry. As the reform bill was still pending, many voted for, who would have voted against them; and, on a division, the amendment was lost by forty-six—one hundred and ninety-seven voting for it, and two hundred and forty-three against it. During the progress of the bill, founded on the motion, Mr. A. Baring moved an address to the king, "praying his majesty to be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before that house copies or extracts of any documents relating to the convention of the 19th of May, 1815, between Great Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands, explanatory of the spirit and objects of that convention;" but this motion was lost by a majority of thirty-six in favour of ministers. On this occasion Mr. Hume voted for them, although, he said, he knew they were in the wrong. He had come down to the house on the 12th of July, he said, with a firm determination to vote against them; but when he found by whom he was surrounded, he was unwilling to join them in driving ministers from office. He had changed his opinion, and would vote with the Whigs against the Tories, although he believed the Whigs were in the wrong. But the fact was, he was determined not to assist in turning out ministers until they had completed the great measure of reform. A great deal remained to be done, and he wanted to see a new election take place; he was determined, therefore, to support ministers. The conduct of Mr. Hume was followed generally by the liberal party, and this policy of the extreme sections of liberals alone preserved ministers in office. Another interesting subject was brought before the house by Mr. Lytton Bulwer, relating to the Germanic states. He moved for "an address to the king, requesting his majesty to exert his influence with the diet in opposition to the course which that body was then pursuing." In making this motion, Mr. Bulwer traced an outline of the political history of the Germanic confederacy, from its free government to its termination with the victories of Austerlitz and Jena, when the principle of aggrandizing the larger states at the expense of the smaller was first avowed and practised. He said that the defeat of Napoleon in his Russian campaign gave to Germany the opportunity of casting off a yoke which had been reluctantly borne. Russia and Prussia then appealed to her former free constitutions, the restoration of which was distinctly promised, when the Germanic states rose en masse; and the battle of Leipsic, with the downfall of the French power, speedily followed. By the second article of the congress of Vienna, he continued, the promises of Russia and Prussia were respected, and the rights of every class in the nation were solemnly guaranteed, the only state disagreeing being Wurtemburg. The late protocol of the diet, however, had for its object the rendering of the representative bodies of the several states useless, by relieving their despotic princes from every embarrassment which an efficient control by such assemblies might create, and to protect Austria and Prussia against the influential example of popular institutions. The sovereigns of these two states, he said, are willing to give just so much constitutional liberty to Germany as will not allow its writers to write, its professors to teach, its chambers to vote taxes, make speeches, or propose resolutions; whilst every state should be so inviolate, so independent, that, with or without the invitation of its sovereign, a deputation of Austrian or Prussian hussars may be sent to keep it in order! The question was, therefore, was it politic for England, under such circumstances, to interfere? Our situation, he said, rendered it incumbent on us to express an opinion, at least, in favour of the German people, or we must be thought to take part with their rulers. He could not recommend a foolish and hasty interference with foreign states, yet he could not consent that England should be a cipher in the political combinations of Europe, looking with indifference on the continent, as though no changes could affect her interests. And if there was any one thing more than another which immediately affected British interests, he thought it was the fate of Germany. Unite that country under a good government, and it would be at once a check on the aggrandisement of France and ambition of Russia. Mr. Bulwer concluded with his motion for the address; but Lord Palmerston dissented from his opinions, and was willing to believe that the government alluded to would not be so impolitic as to put down free constitutions. The motion was therefore negatived.

During this year Greece was involved in absolute anarchy. After the assassination of Capo d'Istrias it was left without a government, and although Augustine, brother of the murdered president, concocted a provisional government, and placed himself at the head, the refractory chiefs could not brook his authority, and began to act for themselves. A national assembly met at Argos in the middle of December, 1831; but it was not more successful in restoring obedience and tranquillity. Everywhere there was confusion and bloodshed, as in the days of the ancients. The national assembly of Argos was overthrown, and every chief ruled despotic in the small district which he was strong enough to occupy. In the meantime the courts of Britain, France, and Russia were occupied in selecting a king who might reduce the country to order more easily and effectually than they could do by protocols and despatches. Their choice fell on Otho, son of the King of Bavaria; and his majesty having accepted the crown on behalf of his son, the conditions were fixed by a treaty, concluded in May, between him and the sovereigns of England, France, and Russia. The territory to be comprehended in the new state was to be somewhat larger than when its sovereignty had been offered to Leopold; and the King of Bavaria was to send along with his son an army of 36,000 men, to be supported entirely at the expense of the country. It might have been expected that the Greeks would have been averse to the rule of a foreign monarch, attended by foreign troops, and professing a different religion to themselves. The assembly of Napoli, however, as soon as they had been informed of the conclusion of the treaty, dispatched an address to the King of Bavaria, praying him to hasten the arrival of their monarch. The address was followed by a deputation, which was received at Munich with marks of royal favour, and which had been commissioned to assure their future sovereign of their good will and ready submission to his rule. The young monarch quitted Munich for Greece on the 6th of December, proceeding by the way of Naples, Otranto, and Brindisi, to Corfu, where he was to be met by the army intended to support his newly-erected throne. He made his entrance into Napoli on the 5th of February, 1833; and the regency appointed for the duration of his minority—for he was a minor—replaced the provisional government.

CHAPTER XLIII.

WILLIAM IV. 1832-1833

     Meeting of Parliament; Reelection of Mr. Manners Sutton as
     Speaker..... . Opening of the Reformed Parliament by the
     King in person..... Case of Mr. Pease..... Irish  Coercion
     Bill..... Irish   Church  Bill..... Irish Tithe Bill.....
     Financial Statements..... Bank of England Charter
     renewed..... . East India Question..... Abolition of Slavery
     in the Colonies..... Factory Bill..... The Corn  Laws.....
     Resolutions against Bribery,  &c...... Bill  to Remove the
     Civil Disabilities of Jews..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... Foreign Affairs

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—RE-ELECTION OF MR. MANNERS SUTTON AS SPEAKER.

A.D. 1833

The first reformed parliament was opened by commission on the 29th of January. The first business of the commons was to elect a speaker. Mr. Manners Sutton had not been advanced to the peerage, although such a mark of honour is usually bestowed on those who have filled the chair for so long a period, and with such distinguished applause. At the general election he had been returned one of the members for the university of Cambridge; and ministers having obtained his consent to put him in nomination, resolved to support his re-election as chairman. This intention was not concealed; and on the meeting of parliament Mr. Hume moved that Mr. Littleton, one of the members for Staffordshire, should take the chair. The Radicals, of whom Mr. Hume was one of the leaders, took this step on the score of Mr. Manners Sutton's politics, considering it a matter of the greatest importance that the speaker should concur generally in the political sentiments entertained by a majority of members. Mr. Hume's motion was seconded by Mr. O'Connell, who denounced the intention of government as "another instance of the paltry truckling of the present administration." On the other side, Lord Morpeth moved, and Sir Francis Burdett seconded the motion, that Mr. Manners Sutton should take the chair. In doing so, they insisted on the admitted fact of his superior qualification, as well as the candid and impartial conduct which he had observed during the late political struggles. Mr. Littleton himself requested Mr. Hume to withdraw his motion; but that gentleman declined to do so. Seeing the house universally in the favour of Mr. Manners Sutton, the Radicals now chiefly confined themselves to the question of the pension. The attorney and solicitor-general argued that there was no feasible ground for these objections, and asserted that he would have no claim to his retiring annuity. By act of parliament, any speaker was entitled to his salary till a successor was elected, and Mr. Manners Sutton, being thus entitled to his salary, he could have no claim for a pension. On a division, Mr. Manners Sutton was re-elected by a majority of two hundred and forty-one against thirty-one.

OPENING OF THE REFORMED PARLIAMENT BY THE KING IN PERSON.

The first session of the new parliament was opened by the king in person, on the 5th of February. His speech on this occasion took a comprehensive view of our foreign and domestic relations, in which the affairs of Holland, the approaching termination of the charters of the Bank and the East India Company, the temporalities of the church, and the state of Ireland, were prominently introduced.

In the house of lords the address was voted almost unanimously, a slight discussion only being elicited by the sentiments of Lord Aberdeen and the Duke of Wellington, against the foreign policy of government, and especially that regarding Portugal and Holland. Such harmony, however, did not exist in the commons. A part of the speech which pointed at the adoption of extraordinary measures to suppress insubordination, excited violent indignation among a large portion of the Irish members. Mr. O'Connell denounced the address as "bloody, brutal, and unconstitutional." He concluded by moving an amendment, that the house do now resolve itself into a committee of the whole house to consider of the address to his majesty. Mr. Stanley replied in a speech of caustic severity, which the agitators of Ireland have never forgotten or forgiven. He argued that coercion was necessary; that crime could not be put down in Ireland but by the strong arm of the law. Colonel Davis considered Mr. Stanley's speech as an insult to Ireland, and as proving that he was totally unfit for office. He was opposed to the repeal of the union; but unless justice were dealt out to Ireland by measures of relief being proposed, he would vote against the coercive policy contemplated by government. Mr. Roebuck expressed himself to the same effect: he would not join with ministers in doing what must produce a civil war in Ireland: if they did not take care, they would find the people rise up in such terrible array that they would not know where to turn. Lord Althorp declared that it was the intention of ministers to remove every grievance they possibly could; but, he asked, was it not a grievance that, in Ireland, life and property were not secure—that murder, burglary, and arson should exist in every part of that country? If it was their duty to remove grievances, ought they not to remove this grievance also? The debate was continued by adjournment on the three following days; the general strain of the arguments adduced coinciding with those expressed on the first day of the debate. The opposition to the address was chiefly conducted by Irish members, although they received likewise the support of Messrs. Hume, Cobbett, Bulwer, Tennyson, and Clay. Mr. Bulwer told ministers that the independent representatives of the people in that house, three hundred in number, were allied to no old party, and attached to no superstitious observance of Whig names; and that these members could not, night after night, hear grievances stated by the Irish members, which, received no other answers except demands for soldiery, without dropping off in serious defection from the ministerial majority. Mr. Tennyson said, that he had no doubt of the good intention of ministers; but he could not approve of their conduct in pressing the house to adopt the address. At the same time he could not support the amendment of Mr. O'Connell, and he therefore proposed another to this effect:—"That the house should declare its readiness to sanction such measures for restoring social order in Ireland, as might appear, on mature deliberation and inquiry, necessary, and to entrust his majesty's official servants with additional power for that purpose, and to employ its best energies to the putting an end to the disturbances which affect that country; that, while the house would give a willing ear and earnest attention to the complaints and petitions of the Irish people, with the view to promoting an efficient remedy, it was prepared to resist by every means in its power all lawless attempts to effect a repeal of the legislative union between the two countries." Mr. Macaulay taunted Mr. O'Connell with not having ventured to bring the question of repeal before the house. He asked, what was meant by the watch-word of repeal of the union between Great Britain and Ireland. If those who used it meant a complete separation, or a species of Hibernian republic, their conduct was both comprehensible and consistent; but if, as they asserted, they only meant two separate independent legislatures, under the same monarch, the motion was inconsistent with the first principles of the science of government. After having shown this inconsistency by a chain of conclusive reasoning, he said, that he admitted Ireland had grievances to remove; but, he asked, was he in the meantime to see the law outraged and despised by a misguided multitude? Talk of the distribution of church property in a country where no property was respected! and be told that to enforce the laws against the robber, the murderer, and the incendiary, was to drive an injured people into civil war! Did those who talked thus wildly recollect that sixty murders, or attempts at murder, and six hundred burglaries, or attempts at burglary, were committed in one county alone, in the space of a few weeks? This was worse than civil war. He would rather live in the midst of many civil wars he had read of, than in some parts of Ireland. Civil war had commenced, and if not checked, it would end in the ruin of the empire. Mr. Shiel, in reference to repeal, entrenched himself behind quotations from speeches delivered by Lord Grey at the time of the union, in which he predicted that it would only lead to distress, suspicion, and resentment, and that the people of Ireland would seek an opportunity of recovering rights which they would believe to have been wrested from them by force. The interest of the debate ended with Mr. Shiel's speech, although addresses were subsequently made by Mr. Grant, Mr. Hume, and Sir Robert Peel. On a division, Mr. O'Connell's amendment was lost by a majority of four hundred and twenty-eight against forty; and Mr. Tennyson's, by three hundred and ninety-three against sixty. On the bringing up of the report, Mr. Cobbett moved that the whole of the address should be rejected, and that another which he had concocted should be adopted. This crude amendment was negatived by an overwhelming majority: only twenty-three in a full house voted for it.

CASE OF MR. PEASE.

During the general election, the southern division of the county of Durham had returned Mr. Pease, a gentleman who belonged to the Society of Friends. On the 9th of February, when he appeared to be sworn in, as a Friend he refused to take an oath, but offered to give his solemn affirmation. He was desired by the speaker to withdraw, as no affirmation could be made without the sanction of the house. A committee was appointed, on the motion of Lord Althorp, to report what precedents were to be found on the journals, and what was the state of the law in regard to Friends being allowed to substitute affirmation for oath. The report of this committee was taken into consideration on the 14th, and its chairman, Mr. Wynn, moved that Mr. Pease was, on making his solemn affirmation, entitled to take his seat, without taking those oaths which were demanded from the other members of the house. Mr. Wynn stated, at great length, the reasons which induced him to make this motion, and the solicitor-general agreed in his views. It was quite clear, the latter said, that at the time of passing the 7th and 8th William III., Friends could not sit in parliament, having been excluded, along with all other dissenters, by the 30th Charles II.; but under the act of William they would have been admissible, if its provisions, as they ought to have been, had been construed liberally. At all events, the act of George II. removed every doubt: it was evident that the legislature, in passing that act, intended to put Friends on the same footing in England with all other dissenters, except Catholics; such being the case, the act ought to be construed in accordance with the intention of the legislature in passing it. The motion to allow Mr. Pease to make his solemn affirmation in place of the usual oath was agreed to unanimously.

IRISH COERCION BILL.

On the 15th of February, Earl Grey introduced into the house of lords a bill for the suppression of disturbances in Ireland. In doing so, his lordship related the evils which called for such a measure, clearly showing that it was necessary. In explaining the provisions by which ministers proposed to meet the evils, he said, that the bill combined many provisions of the several laws that had been passed both in the Irish and English parliament for the repression of such outrages as he had related, with such alterations as circumstances seemed to require. Provision was made for proclaiming districts in a state of disturbance; and it was provided that courts should be appointed in which offences connected with such districts were to be tried. It was also provided that persons prosecuted under this act should be obliged to plead forthwith, as in cases of felony, and not be permitted to delay their trial. By the bill the lord-lieutenant was to be empowered, on due information, to proclaim any district to be in a disturbed state. All persons were to be warned to abstain from seditious and illegal meetings; and no one was to be absent from their houses after sunset until sunrise, unless they could give good reason for their being abroad, under the penalty of being found guilty of a misdemeanour. Another provision was, that meetings for the purpose of petitioning parliament, or for discussing grievances, should not be held without giving ten days' notice to the lord-lieutenant, or without his sanction. It was further thought advisable that proclaimed districts should, to a certain extent, be subjected to martial law. Military courts were to be formed for the trial of all offences under this act, with power to pronounce sentence as definitively as any commission of oyer and terminer. The lord-lieutenant was to have the power for the appointment of courts-martial; and it was provided that courts-martial should not consist of more than nine gentlemen nor less than five. It was further provided, that no officer under twenty-one years of age, or who had held his commission for less than two years, should act on such courts-martial; and that the said courts-martial should not have the power of trying for any offence to which a felonious punishment was attached, except by special direction of the lord-lieutenant; and that, in that case, they should only pronounce sentence of transportation, either for seven years or for life. It was made imperative that a serjeant-at-law or a king's counsel should sit to assist in the judgment. A clause was likewise introduced to shield officers who had. acted on courts-martial under this act from future prosecution: any complaints made against them on account of their proceedings at any court-martial were to be inquired into by a court-martial to be called for that purpose. The bill further gave power to enter houses in search of arms; and persons refusing to produce them were subjected to punishment. It was also made a misdemeanour to disperse seditious papers in a proclaimed district; with a provision that, if the persons actually dispersing them gave up his employer, the former should be discharged. Finally, it was to be enacted, that when an individual arrested under this bill sued out a writ of habeas corpus within three calendar months after his arrest, it should be a sufficient return to the writ, that the person so detained was kept in custody on a charge of offence perpetrated in a proclaimed district; at the same time it was provided that every person arrested should be brought to trial within three calendar months, or should be discharged. This bill was carried in the lords without opposition; some slight amendments being adopted in the committee with reference to the constitution, the powers, and the mode of procedure of the courts-martial. The bill, however, had to encounter a stormy course in the commons. On its appearance there on the 22nd, the first reading was postponed till the 27th, and Mr. O'Connell gave notice that he would move a call of the house for that day, and would repeat the call whenever he perceived any relaxation of its effects, so long as the bill was before them. He taunted ministers with the delay, which he insinuated was interposed to their remedial measures, and reminded them there was another house of parliament through which they might find it impossible to carry redress of grievances, whatever was the unanimity with which it enacted measures of coercion: "a house where any proposal springing from malignant hatred of Ireland was sure to pass." Mr. Stanley denied that there was any necessity for remedial and repressive measures going on together; but at the same time he declared that if ministers found themselves unable to carry both they would resign office. On the 27th, the house having been called over, Lord Althorp moved the first reading of the bill. Ministers, he said, had waited to the last, to ascertain what order could be restored by the ordinary administration of the laws; and after relating at length the evils which afflicted Ireland—telling-many a tale of murder committed with impunity, even in broad daylight—he explained the provisions of the bill concocted to repress them. In conclusion, he asserted that the bill had no reference to the collection of tithes, as some had hinted, or any other individual purpose, except the maintenance of social order. The motion was met by an amendment from Mr. Tennyson, that the bill should be read a second time that day fortnight: his object being, as he stated, to give government an opportunity, whether in a select committee or otherwise, to satisfy the house that the dangers which had been stated really existed, and that there were no other means of effectually checking them. The amendment was supported by Messrs. Bulwer and Grote, the former of whom was averse to coercion in any shape, and contended that it would only produce mischief. Mr. Grote admitted that good grounds had been stated why the hands of justice should be strengthened, but he objected very strongly to courts-martial being employed in the administration of justice. To him it appeared that it would be much better if, instead of creating these courts-martial, the bill had granted more extensive, prompt, and efficient powers to the civil courts. Mr. Stanley, in reply to Mr. Grote, said it was true that the committee of last year had recommended a tribunal consisting of the magistrates of the neighbourhood sitting at quarter-sessions, and having power to sit by adjournment from time to time, till tranquillity was restored. He contended, however, that it would be a most objectionable thing to confide the administration of such a law to the local magistracy. The debate was continued up to the 5th of March, the Irish members threatening to have recourse to repeated motions of adjournment if any attempt was made to close the discussion prematurely. The opposition was composed of those who considered that the bill ought to be resisted altogether, as well as of those who thought that delay, as involved in the amendment, should be conceded. The members who opposed it were Messrs. O'Connell, Shiel, O'Connor, Baldwin, Barron, O'Dwyer, and Ruthven, among the Irish members; and Messrs. Romilly and Harvey, with Majors Beauclerk and Fancourt, among the English members. On the other hand, the necessity and efficacy of the bill were maintained by Lord John Russell, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Macaulay, with other English members; and by Messrs. Carew, Tennent, and Lefroy, Lords Castlereagh and Acheson, and Sirs R. Bateson and C. Coote, among the Irish members. The opposition contended that no necessity for the bill had been made out to any extent, much less to the effect of utterly destroying the constitution over the whole of Ireland; that the "prædial agitation" had no connection with political agitation, and did not require any measure like this to put it down; and that the true cause of these disturbances was the refusal of ministers to abolish tithes, and the true object of it to prevent all expression of public sentiment in Ireland against their faithlessness and misgovernment. Those who supported the bill contended, on the other hand, that not only were the existing outrages such as to require extraordinary measures contrary to the constitution, and that when this necessity for overstepping the constitution once existed, it was safer to err on the side of vigour than to run the risk of a half-measure; but that it was likewise proved that this "prædial agitation," as it was called by the repealers, was closely connected with the political agitation; the principle of both was intimidation. Sir Robert Peel admitted that the measure was one of intolerable severity if there was not a paramount necessity for it; but he denied that it was a suspension of the British constitution. As for the amendment proposing delay, Sir Robert said that he could not listen to it for one moment; the necessity for the measure was urgent. What could be answered to the astounding fact that in one year and in one province there had been one hundred and ninety-six murders and attempts at murder, one hundred and ninety-four burnings, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven burglaries and attacks on houses? How could the state of society be worse! and how could the people of Ireland be better off by persevering in maintaining the existing law! One hundred and ninety-six murders! Why, great battles had been fought, and great victories achieved by this country at a less expense of human blood. The battle of St. Vincent had been gained at less cost of life; the sanguinary bombardment of Algiers had caused less loss of life; and we had rolled back the impetuous tide of French exultation at the battle of Busaco with less loss of life. There was something animating in the idea of a battle; but what horrid recollections haunted the mind which had witnessed a murder! The debate was closed by Mr. O'Connell, who, smarting under the severe remarks made by some of the speakers, delivered a speech of remarkable energy. Ministers, he said, after combating at length the principles of the measures, had done their best by enforcing the tithe act; it was not their fault that the case was not worse. As for the attacks made upon himself he cared nothing for them personally; but the wrongs of his country were mixed up with them. Why, he asked, did they not pass an act to banish him? That would be fair and manly, and he would consent to it; but let them not banish the constitution from Ireland. He stood in a reformed parliament, in the midst of the representatives of the great and glorious people of England, who, disguise it as they might, were about to legislate against a single individual. What mighty work! He felt compassion for them. On a division, the first reading of the bill was carried by a majority of four hundred and sixty-six to eighty-nine. This was a preponderance which seemed to promise an easy passage through its other stages, especially as the discussion which is generally elicited at the second reading took place on the first reading. When, however, the order of the day for the second reading was moved, Mr. Hume opposed it in a violent speech, denouncing the apostasy of ministers: they had forgotten, he said, and violated the principles of which they had been the noisy advocates for twenty-five years, and to which advocacy they were wholly indebted for their political reputation and power. He warned them against "the wickedness of their proceedings," and called on them to pause in their rash career. He moved as an amendment:—"That the house deeply laments the disturbed state of some of the districts in Ireland, and is willing to entrust to his majesty whatever powers may be necessary to control and punish the disturbers of the public peace, and the midnight violators of the law; but is of opinion that it has not been satisfactorily shown that the existing laws are not sufficient for these purposes, and it cannot, therefore, give its consent to a bill which places Ireland out of the pale of the British constitution." Alderman Wood seconded this resolution; but, on a division which took place on the 11th, the second reading being put off on some matter of form to that day, the amendment was rejected, and the second reading carried by three hundred and sixty-three against eighty-four. But notwithstanding this overwhelming majority, the progress of the bill through the committee on the 13th, 15th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd of March was a series of conflicts. On the 13th Mr. O'Connell moved an instruction to the committee to "preserve inviolate and effectual the undoubted right of his majesty's subjects in Ireland peaceably to propose, prepare, and present petitions for redressing grievances to his majesty, and to both houses of parliament." This, he said, would still leave hope to his country. This proposition was rejected by one hundred and twenty-five against sixty-three; and in the committee Mr. O'Connell moved several amendments, which were likewise negatived. In the committee ministers themselves inserted a provision by which, even in proclaimed districts, offences purely political were withdrawn from the cognizance of the military tribunals, and left to be dealt with by the ordinary civil jurisdiction. Ministers, also, of their own accord, omitted, in the clause giving powers to search, arrest, and detain for trial in proclaimed districts, the provision which gave this power to "such other persons as the said lord-lieutenant shall think fit to authorize in that behalf." Divisions took place on the clauses establishing the courts-martial, suspending the Habeas Corpus Act, and protecting those who should act under the bill: but these were all carried by large majorities. The bill finally passed on the 23rd of March, and was immediately sent back to the peers for their concurrence in the alterations which had been made in the commons. Their lordships took these into consideration on the 1st of April; and though much dissatisfaction was expressed by the peers with the amendments, and especially with a proviso inserted in one of the clauses, that no district should be proclaimed because tithes were not paid in it, the bill was finally passed. The effect of the bill was such as was desired. On the 10th of April the lord-lieutenant issued a proclamation suppressing the association of volunteers, after which he applied the provisions of the act to the county of Kilkenny with the best effect. It soon appeared, indeed, that the list of outrageous offenders against the laws decreased throughout the country. The discussions on the coercion act had produced many personal conflicts in debate between Mr. O'Connell and the Irish secretary. O'Connell seemed to regard Mr. Stanley with bitter hostility, arising partly from the vigour with which he repelled the attack of the repealers, and from the supposition that he was not disposed to give up any of the revenues of the Irish church. Mr. Stanley, however, now retired from the battle by accepting the more tranquil office of colonial secretary, which had become vacant by Viscount Goderich being made lord-privy-seal, and advanced a step in the peerage by becoming Earl of Papon. Sir John Cam Hobhouse succeeded Mr. Stanley as Irish secretary.

IRISH CHURCH BILL.

WILLIAM IV. 1832-1833

While carrying on their measures for tranquillizing Ireland, ministers had uniformly admitted that grievances existed in Ireland which ought to be redressed. They had also declared their readiness to propose expedients for that purpose. At the head of these grievances, the Irish established church had always been placed, it standing in the peculiar predicament of possessing large revenues, whilst a majority of the people belonged to a faith, the clergy of which had once been the possessors of that opulence. The object of the repealers was to diminish these revenues, while they disclaimed any wish of seeing them bestowed on their own clergy. There were others, at the same time, and those not Irishmen, who, regarding every religious establishment as an evil, considered the property of the church as a fund which might be seized for what they denominated the purposes of the state. It was with this subject that government next dwelt, and in doing so they adopted a middle course—conceding much, but not conceding all that was required of them. The measures which they intended to pursue were unfolded in the commons by Lord Althorp, on the 12th of February. It appeared from his statement that the total revenues of the Irish church were found not to exceed £800,000 per annum. On these funds, he said, it was the intention of ministers, after abolishing first-fruits, to impose a tax varying from five to fifteen per cent. This tax, however, was not to be imposed on clergymen whose livings were under £200 per annum. The larger revenues of the primates, he said, were to be reduced respectively to the amounts of £10,000 and £8000 per annum. The sum thus collected was to be applied under commissioners to the abolition of church-cess; the augmentation of poor livings and building of glebe-houses; the division of unions, and the erection of churches. With respect to the offices of deans and chapters, it was proposed, wherever they were unconnected with the cure of souls, to abolish them altogether, or to unite them to such cure; and with regard to livings, where no duty had been done for the last three years, it was further proposed to suspend the appointment of ministers at the discretion of the commissioners. Ten bishoprics were to be abolished, and the vacated sees were to be annexed to those preserved. With reference to the lands attached to bishoprics the chancellor of the exchequer laid down this principle, namely, that if by the act of parliament to be introduced any new value was given to benefices, that new value not belonging properly to the church might be appropriated to the exigencies of the state. He believed, he said, that £500,000 per annum was the value of all Irish episcopal lands to the lessees or tenants, though the bishops did not receive more than £100,000. By a different mode of granting leases, his lordship showed that a sum of near £3,000,000 might be acquired for the state without any diminution of income to the bishops. His lordship concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the established church in Ireland. The plan thus unfolded by Lord Althorp was calculated to produce hostility from two opposite quarters,—from the conservative opposition, who thought its principles destructive to the Irish church; and from the economists, repealers, and radicals, who thought that it left too much of the church untouched. At the same time it was clear that these different kinds of opposition would not endanger the success of the bill in the commons, as ministers were sure of being joined by one of the parties in resisting any amendment proposed by the other. Moreover, most of the Irish members approved of tire plan so far as it went, although Mr. O'Connell denounced the estimate of the Irish church revenues as "a base delusion," and the design of government as one which tended to "relieve no grievance except church-cess, not even suspending the war against the poor man's pig and tenth potato."

Leave was given to bring in the bill; but it was not brought in before the 1st of March. It was read a first time on the same evening; but the proposal to take the second reading on the 13th was successfully opposed by Sir Robert Peel, Sir R. Inglis, and others, ministers consenting to let it stand for the 14th. On the 14th, when the motion was made for reading the order of the day, Mr. C. Wynn objected that the bill was a tax-bill, and therefore could originate only in a committee of the whole house. This view was combated by Lord Althorp, Mr. Stanley, and the solicitor-general; and supported by Sir Robert Peel, and Messrs. Goulburn and others. The objection was so strong that Lord Althorp found himself under the necessity of discharging the order for the second reading; and, on the suggestion of Sir R. Peel, a select committee was appointed to search for precedents, and report its opinion whether the bill should, according to the rules and orders of the house, originate in a committee of the whole house. This committee reported that the bill was a tax-bill; and in consequence of this decision Lord Althorp, on the 1st of April, moved three resolutions with reference to the Irish church in a committee of the whole house. These resolutions having been agreed to, the bill relating thereto, which was a counterpart of the former, was read a first time. The second reading was fixed for the 6th of May, on which day Mr. Shaw met the motion with an amendment that it should be read that day six months. He opposed the bill, he said, because it would violate the rights of property, and because it tended to lower the character of the clergy. If property so fenced by acts of parliament, as church property was, could be assailed, he asked, what species of property could be safe? He admitted that it was desirable to change the system of church-cess; the Irish clergy themselves would not have objected to a proper remedy for this; but he would have sought a substitute for it in the reduction of the incomes of the bishops, and not in the diminution of their number. The amendment was seconded by Mr. Estcourt, one of the members for the University of Oxford, who thought that where the principles of the bill were not mischievous, as involving the first example of a confiscation of property, they were fallacious in the results which it was promised they would produce. Sir Robert Peel said that he approved of many parts of the bill—as that part which required that the spiritual duties of the clergy should be personally discharged, and of that which provided for the abolition of the church-cess. At the same time there were other parts of the bill, he said, which he disliked. Lord Althorp and Messrs. Stanley and Grant maintained that there was no ground for denying the right of parliament to interfere with the church property; and argued with regard to the diminution in the number of bishops, that the bill did not suppress bishoprics, but only consolidated them. The second reading of the bill was carried by three hundred and seventeen to seventy-eight. Before the house went into committee, Mr. Gillon moved an instruction to the committee, that the bill should contain certain provisions for resuming all the temporalities of the Irish church, and applying them after the demise of the present incumbents to purposes of general utility; but this motion was at once negatived. The reduction of the number of bishops was strongly opposed by the committee; but the clause was nevertheless carried. The most important discussion arose on that part of the measure which took £3,000,000 from the church to apply it to state purposes. Both the conservative and radical party were opposed to this; and though there could be no doubt that ministers would be able to carry the clause through the commons, they had ascertained that it would certainly be rejected by the lords. On these grounds, when the house came to that clause, Mr. Stanley moved that it should be omitted. He remarked:—"I am well aware that a strong feeling exists against the alienation of church property, and therefore I propose that the sum alluded to should be paid into, the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners, to be applied to the same purposes as the other with which they are entrusted." Mr. O'Connell immediately attacked government in a strain of unmeasured reproach. Many other members also contended that ministers, by relinquishing this cause, had degraded themselves in the eyes of the country, and that, if the house was to have tory measures, it ought to have them under a tory ministry. But although many of the supporters of the ministers deserted them from this cause, yet the omission of the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty against one hundred and forty-eight. In the committee, also, it was agreed that beneficed clergymen in present possession of their livings were to be exempted from the graduated tax: it was only to affect their successors. On the third reading of the bill, Mr. Shiel moved the insertion in the preamble of the following words:—"That whereas the property in the possession of the established church of Ireland is under the control of the legislature, and is applicable to such purposes as may be deemed most fitting for the best interests of the community at large, due regard being paid to the rights of all parties interested." A long discussion took place on this motion, in which old arguments were repeated, and on a division it was rejected. The bill was read a third time on the 8th of July, by a majority of two hundred and ninety-seven against ninety-four.

It was in the upper house, however, that the bill was exposed to the greatest danger, since there existed among the peers a majority capable of defeating ministers on any occasion which they might consider expedient. It was read a first time in that house pro forma, and the second reading was fixed for the 17th of July. In the meantime, the commons, aware of the danger to which the bill was exposed, were on the alert. On the 15th of July Sir J. Wrottesly proposed a call of the house of commons, to promote its success as that of the reform bill had been ensured, namely, by putting the members under arms, as it were, at the critical point of its progress. Ministers deprecated the motion as tending to embarrass the administration, and defeat the very end for which it was proposed. At the same time they declared that their official existence would depend on the success of the bill. The motion was pressed to a division; but it was lost by a majority of one hundred and sixty to one hundred and twenty-five. The debate on the second reading of the bill in the upper house was continued by adjournment on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of July, it being strongly opposed by many of the bishops and peers. After an animated discussion, however, the second reading was carried by one hundred and fifty-seven votes against ninety-eight. In the committee it was proposed by the Duke of Wellington, that instead of all the three civil commissioners being named by the crown, one of them should be named by the head of the church, one by the primate of Ireland, and one by the archbishop of Dublin. Ministers conceded this point; but they successfully resisted another, moved by the Earl of Wicklow, to the effect that the appointment of the four bishops to the board of commissioners should be vested in the bench of Irish bishops. They also successfully resisted an amendment moved by Lord Gage, that the clause imposing the tax should be extended to lay-impropriators as well as clerical. A proposal was next made that the ten bishoprics should not be immediately abolished, but that as they became vacant the crown, if so minded, might grant them to be held in commendam with the see to which the bill proposed to unite them, while it should have power at the same time to grant their revenues to the commissioners. Earl Grey declared that if this amendment were carried it would be fatal to the bill; and it was lost, though only by a majority of fourteen, seventy-six voting for it, and ninety against it. Lord Wharncliffe then moved that the produce of tax imposed upon the clergy should be appropriated to the augmentation of small livings, and that the commissioners should not have power to apply it to other purposes for which parish cess was levied. This amendment was lost by a majority of twenty; but ministers were left in a minority of two, on the clause empowering the commissioners to suspend appointments to benefices in which divine service had not been performed during three years before the 1st of February, 1833. An amendment was agreed to, that in all such cases the bishop of the diocese in which the benefice might be situated, should be entitled to act as a member of the board; and that the revenues of the suspended benefice should be applied to the building or repairing of the church or glebe-house in such benefice; or if they should not require it, that then the revenues should be paid into the general fund, under the management of the commissioners. On this defeat Earl Grey adjourned the committee, in order to allow time for considering whether ministers ought not to throw up the bill and resign. On the next day, however, his lordship stated that they had resolved to proceed with the bill; the effect of the amendment would be far from an improvement to the bill, but he did not deem it such an alteration, affecting the general efficiency of the measure, as would justify him in abandoning the duty he had imposed upon himself of conducting it through the house. At the same time, he said, he would not disguise from their lordships that he laboured under deep sensations of difficulty and embarrassment in consequence of the vote; and he felt that if any further alterations of the like nature should be made, it would be for him to consider how far it would be possible for him, consistently with his duty to his sovereign and his country, to continue the conduct of the measure. Some further alterations were admitted on the bringing up of the report. One of these went to guard against the future contingency of the lord-chancellor and lord-chief-justice of Ireland, members of the board, being Catholics; and another placed at the disposal of the two archbishops ten livings, not exceeding £800 a-year each, connected with the suppressed bishoprics, for the purpose of being bestowed on the junior fellows of the University of Dublin. The bill was passed on the 30th of July, by a majority of one hundred and thirty-five against eighty-one; and on the 2nd of August the commons agreed to the amendments which had been made by the peers. Mr. O'Connell observed that the lords had not made the bill much worse than they found it, and protested against its being considered in any other light than as the first instalment of the debt due to Ireland.

IRISH TITHE BILL.

Another measure connected with Ireland arose from the difficulty of collecting tithes. It has been seen that in the preceding year an act was passed, enabling government to advance to the Irish clergy such amount of tithes as had been illegally withheld during the year 1833, and empowered the executive, on making such advance, to levy the arrear itself. This expedient only inflamed the animosity of the tithe-payers, since it created a creditor whom it was apprehended would be more difficult to resist. Ministers, therefore, resolved to relinquish this plan; and they proposed instead of it that government should be empowered to abandon all processes under the existing law, to pay up all arrears, and to seek reimbursement in a different manner. On the 12th of June Lord Althorp moved that it was the opinion of this committee that an advance of money should be paid to the clergy of the established church in Ireland, in order to relieve the occupying tenants from payments on account of arrears of tithes, or composition of tithes in the year 1833, such advance to be paid within a limited time by a land-tax chargeable on all land liable to the payment of tithes, the owners of which should not have paid the tithes, or composition of tithes, which became due during such years. This was generally approved of by O'Connell and the Irish members, though they insisted that it should be extended to lay-impropriators as well as clerical. There were others who opposed it because they thought it would be holding out a premium to lawless violence, and an invitation to resistance to the payment of tithes. Moreover, a third party were for rejecting it, because instead of involving the principle that the Catholic population should not be taxed in any shape for the Protestant church, it seemed to contemplate the perpetuation of the impost. In accordance with the expressed opinion of the committee, a resolution was moved to the effect:—"That his majesty be enabled to direct exchequer-bills to an amount not exceeding £1,000,000 to be issued, for the purpose of advancing, under certain conditions, the arrears of tithes due for 1831 and 1832, subject to a deduction of 25 per cent., and the value of tithes for 1833, subject to a deduction of 15 per cent., to such persons as may be entitled to such arrears on such tithes, and as may be desirous of receiving such advances; and that the amount advanced shall be included in the tithe-composition, so as to be repaid in the course of five years, being payable by half-yearly instalments." This plan was strongly opposed, principally on the ground that the money would never be repaid, since repayment was still to depend on a collection of tithe, which never would succeed. The pretended loan would be converted into a gift, and England, besides paying its own tithes, would also be paying those of Ireland. The resolution was carried by eighty-seven to fifty-one, and a bill founded on it was brought in and passed both houses without any important alteration. The measure was regarded by the Conservatives as a mischievous precedent, and they asserted that any existing necessity for it had been produced by ministers' own misgovernment.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The budget was opened on the 1st of April. As this was the first occasion of bringing any financial statement before a reformed parliament, the chancellor of the exchequer said that he thought it right to state what progress had been made in redeeming that pledge of economy on which the administration had taken office. In the number of places abolished, he showed that there had been a saving effected of £192,000, and he said that the diplomatic expenses had been reduced by £91,735. A saving of £28,000 had also been effected by bringing a number of persons from the retired list in the revenue department, and placing them on active service. The state of the finances was more satisfactory than during the last session. The chancellor of the exchequer stated that the amount of the income and expenditure of the year was respectively £46,853,000 and £45,366, leaving an excess of income over expenditure of £1,487,000, an excess which would be more than sufficient to cover the deficiency of £1,240,412 of the preceding year. He estimated the revenue for the present year at £46,494,128, and the expenditure at £44,922,219, which would leave a surplus of about £1,572,000. He thought it desirable, he continued, that a reduction of taxes should be made to the extent of this surplus. He proposed to make the reductions on taxes chiefly which fell on industry; and he selected tiles, marine insurance, advertisements, the assessed taxes, cotton, and soap, as the taxes to be reduced. The estimated loss to the revenue by these reductions was £1,056,000, which would leave a surplus for the year, after the above reductions, of £516,000. Mr. Hume thought the reductions were neither sufficiently great nor sufficiently numerous; they ought to be pushed at least to the extent of the estimated surplus. On the contrary, Sir Robert Peel was disposed to think that the chancellor of the exchequer had carried reduction too far: it was dangerous, he said, to reduce taxes to such an extent as might affect our ability to keep faith with the public creditor. He concurred, however, in the general view the noble lord had taken of the subject: he had acted wisely in maintaining the system of taxation as it stood at present. The financial statements of the chancellor of the exchequer appear to have given general satisfaction, for there was no discussion on the details.

BANK OF ENGLAND CHARTER RENEWED.

On the 31st of May Lord Althorp brought the subject of the renewal of the Bank of England charter before the commons. In doing so he stated at great length the terms on which government had determined to consent to a renewal of that charter; after which he laid the following-resolutions on the table of the house, that they might be considered:—"That it is the opinion of the committee, that it is expedient to continue to the Bank of England, for a limited period, the enjoyment of certain privileges now vested in law in that corporation, subject to provisions to be hereafter made: That provided the Bank of England continued liable, as at present, to defray, in the current coin of the realm, all its existing engagements, it was expedient that its promissory note should be constituted a legal tender for sums of £5 and upward: That one-fourth part of the debt at present due by the public to the Bank be repaid during the present session of parliament: That the allowances to the Bank on the management of the national debt, and other public business be continued, subject to an annual deduction of £120,000 from the remuneration at present assigned for that purpose: That the laws restricting the interest of money to five per cent, be repealed, so far as concerned bills not having more than three months to run before they become due: That it is expedient that royal charters be granted for the establishment of joint-stock banks, within a certain distance from London: That all banks should enter into a composition, in lieu of stamp-duties, at present chargeable at the rate of seven shillings for every one hundred pounds issued in notes: That it is expedient that a bill should be introduced into parliament to regulate country banks, the provisions of which should be such as to encourage joint-stock banking companies in the country to issue the notes of the Bank of England." These resolutions were moved on the 1st of June, and the first of them was met by an amendment to the effect of delaying the consideration of the measure till the ensuing session. The opposition proceeded principally from members hostile to the renewal of the privileges of the Bank; and to that hostility they now added objections to particular parts of the proposed plan. They demanded delay in order that there might be more full inquiry, and they contended that such inquiry would make it manifest, that the exclusive privileges of the Bank ought not to be renewed. The amendment, however, was lost by three hundred and sixteen to eighty-three, and the first resolution, affirming the propriety of continuing the privileges of the Bank was agreed to without a division. The second resolution, making the notes of the Bank of England a legal tender for sums of £5 and upwards was opposed still more energetically, as being both unnecessary and mischievous; but it was carried by a majority of fifty-eight. Lord Althorp, however, agreed so far to modify the proposal as to make it incumbent to pay all £5 notes in gold, if demanded. To the resolution which provided for the continuance of remuneration, a counter resolution was moved, to the effect that it was, in the opinion of the committee, expedient that the remuneration now insured by law to the Bank of England for the management of the public debt and other public business should cease; but this was also lost by a large majority. The sixth and eighth resolutions, which went to regulate the establishment of joint-stock banking companies were abandoned for the present, Lord Althorp conceiving that the opposition was so strong that he should not be able to carry them, at least during this session. A bill founded on these resolutions was brought in and read the first and second time without a division. On the motion for going into the committee, Mr. Gisborne moved as an amendment that the committee should be taken that day six months; but this was lost by a majority of one hundred and nineteen against forty. In the committee multifarious amendments were proposed, but without success. One alteration, however, was made by ministers themselves. They had believed that the existing law prohibited deposit-banks, no less than banks of issue, consisting of more than six partners, from being established in the metropolis, or within a short distance of it; but the solicitor-general had now satisfied himself that, as the law stood, no such restriction existed, and a clause was introduced declaring such to be, and to have been the law, although there were legal opinions the other way, and although the Bank, and all mercantile men, had acted on the belief that the restriction did exist. As the bill passed the commons, its chief provisions were, a monthly publication of the Bank accounts; the repayment of a portion of its capital; a partial repeal of the usury laws which impeded its action; an annual payment of £120,000 in return for privileges conceded; its notes made a legal tender except at the Bank itself, or its branches; a quarterly return of the amount of circulation of all other banks; and certain regulations for the improvement of joint-stock banks. The bill passed the upper house without alterations: an amendment moved by Lord Whynford to leave out the declaratory clause regarding deposit-banks, as being contrary to law, mercantile understanding, and good faith, having been rejected. Government, also, refused to allow the opinion of the judges to be taken regarding the legality of such companies under the existing law.

EAST INDIA QUESTION.

Another monopoly with which the government had to deed was that of the East India Company, their charter approaching its termination. The arrangements which government proposed should be adopted with the company were explained in a committee of the whole house by Mr. C. Grant, on the 13th of June. He stated first that the political government of India was to be continued in the hands of the company for some time longer; the reasons for it being the good which that government had done. That there were evils in the system of administration in India he would admit; but he argued, that they were more than counterbalanced by the security of life and property, which had been secured to the natives by the rule of the company. The next great question was, he said, the company's monopoly of the trade with China. Public opinion had decided that it should no longer exist; and it was only justice to the expression of the public opinion in this case to state that it was not the clamour of the moment—that it was the voice of an enlightened community formed during a succession of years. After detailing various facts, to show that from the competition of private traders the monopoly of the company could not long continue, even if parliament did not interfere, Mr. Grant said that government proposed the monopoly should cease in April, 1834, and that the trade to China should then be open to all the merchants of this country. In consideration of the East India Company surrendering all its rights and privileges, Mr. Grant said it was proposed that the government of India should be continued in the hands of the company for the period of twenty years, and that an annuity of £630,000 per annum should be granted to them, to be charged on the territory of India. At the end of twenty years, he said, if the East India Company should be deprived of the government of India, then the payment of their capital might be demanded; and if not, the payment of the annuity was to be continued for forty years. He explained further, that certain alterations were likewise to be introduced in the frame of the government of India; and he said that he should further have to call the attention of the house to the state of the ecclesiastical establishments in that country. He concluded by moving the following resolutions:—"That it is expedient that all his majesty's subjects should be at liberty to repair to the ports of the empire of China, and to trade in tea and in all other productions in the said empire, subject to such regulations as parliament shall enact for the protection of the commercial and political interests of this country: That it is expedient that, in case the East India Company shall transfer to the crown, on behalf of the Indian territory, all assets and claims of every description belonging to the said company, the crown on behalf of the Indian territory, shall take on itself all the obligations of the said company, of whatever description; and that the said company shall receive from the revenues of the said territory such a sum, and paid in such a manner as parliament shall enact: That it is expedient that the governments of the British possessions in India be entrusted to the said company, under such conditions and regulations as parliament shall enact, for the purpose of extending the commerce of this country, and of securing the good government, and promoting the moral and religious improvement of the people of India." These resolutions were agreed to without any opposition; and on the 5th of July they passed the lords without a division, although they were sternly opposed by Lord Ellenborough, who denounced the whole scheme as being a crude and ill-digested plan, the offspring of unfounded theories, formed by men who knew nothing, and desired to know nothing of India. À bill was subsequently brought into the house of commons founded on the resolutions, and, after some unsuccessful motions of amendment, was carried. In the upper house Lord Ellenborough renewed his opposition, and moved, "That all provisions in the bill, which went to alter the existing laws in the East Indian presidencies, should be omitted." This amendment, however, was not pressed to a division; and the bill was finally passed. One of the greatest advantages which the public gained by this important measure, was that which opened a rich field for the enterprise and industry of our merchants by destroying the monopoly of the trade in tea. Facilities for conducting this branch of commerce, together with a considerable relief from taxation on the article of tea, was given try a subsequent bill for regulating its importation. It must be confessed, indeed, that the adoption of this measure by parliament was highly beneficial to the interests of the community at large. By it the long and complicated account between commerce and territory was settled; the pernicious union of imperial and economical functions in the body of proprietors of East India stock was at an end; every office under the company was thrown open to British subjects without distinction, and the whole of India was opened to European enterprise and European capital. A grand feature of the bill, also, was that which provided for extending the influence and utility of the Anglo-Indian church.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.

WILLIAM IV. 1832-1833

At the commencement of this session, the minds of reflecting persons were fixed with intense anxiety on the subject of West India slavery. The excitement attending the reform act, indeed, had not been neglected by the friends of emancipation. Meetings were held and petitions got up: and government found themselves under the necessity of framing a measure for the gradual abolition of the trade in the bones and the sinews of man. The subject was brought before the commons by Mr. Stanley on the 14th of May, when he explained the ministerial scheme in a committee of the whole house. Government, he said, impelled by the force of public opinion, resolved to propose a plan which would insure the extinction of slavery, and manumit not only future generations, but likewise the existing generation, providing at the same time against the dangers of a sudden transition. It was proposed, he said, to place the slave for a limited time in an intermediate state of apprenticeship. He was to enter into a contract, by which his master would be bound to give him food and clothing, or in lieu thereof a pecuniary allowance; for which consideration he, on his part, was to give his master three-fourths of his time in labour, leaving it to be settled between them whether that should be for three-fourths of the week or of each day. The remaining fourth of his time, Mr. Stanley said, the slave would be at liberty to transfer his labour elsewhere; but if he were inclined to give it to his master, then his master would be obliged to find him employment according to a fixed rate of wages. It was a difficult point, he said, to settle the scale of wages; and he could devise no better mode than that of compelling the planter to fix a price on the labourer at the time of his apprenticeship, and by enacting that the wages to be paid by the master should bear such a proportion to the price fixed by him, that for the whole of his spare time he should receive one-twelfth of his price annually. In this manner, he said, the slave and his master would both act in reference to each other: if the master fixed a high price on his negro, he would have to pay him proportionate wages; and if a low price, then upon the payment of that price by any other person on his behalf, the negro would be free. This measure, he continued, must necessarily occasion loss to many of the West Indian proprietors; and, as it was not fitting that they alone should lose by the destruction of this species of property, the legality of which had at least been recognised by parliament, ministers proposed to advance to the West Indian body a loan to the amount of ten years' purchase of their annual profits on sugars, rum, and coffee, which would amount to £15,000,000. It was for parliament to say in what manner, and upon what condition, that loan should be repaid to the country; it might be considered equal to one-fourth of the proceeds of the slaves' labour; and with that sum and the other three-fourths of his labour, the planter, at the end of twelve years, would have received a just compensation for the price of his slave, and for all the expense to which the slave might have put him for food and clothing. It was right, however, to state that during that time the planter would have to pay interest for his loan, and to that amount, perhaps, he might be the loser. In conclusion, Mr. Stanley said, he would call upon the house to aid the local legislatures in the West Indies in establishing schools for the religious and moral education of the slave population. He moved the following resolutions:—"That it is the opinion of this committee that immediate and effectual measures be taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the colonies, under such provisions for regulating the condition of the negroes as may combine their welfare with the interest of the proprietors: That it is expedient that all children born after the passing of any act, or who shall be under the age of six years at the time of passing any act of parliament for this purpose, be declared free, subject, nevertheless, to such temporary restrictions as may be deemed necessary for their support and maintenance: That all persons now slaves be entitled to be registered as apprenticed labourers, and to acquire thereby all the rights and privileges of free men subject to the restriction of labouring under conditions, and for a time to be fixed by parliament, for their present owners: That, to provide against the risk of loss which proprietors in his majesty's colonial possessions might sustain by the abolition of slavery, his majesty be enabled to advance by way of loan, to be raised from time to time, a sum not exceeding in the whole £15,000,000, to be paid in such manner, and at such rate of interest, as shall be prescribed by parliament: That his majesty be enabled to defray any such expense as he may incur in establishing an efficient stipendiary magistracy in the colonies, and in aiding the local legislatures in providing for the religious and moral education of the negro population to be emancipated." The consideration of these resolutions was adjourned to the 30th of May. On that day the first resolution, after considerable debate on the character of the planters, and on the subject of the compensation to be given to them, was agreed to without a division. Sir Robert Peel said that he would have preferred a declaratory resolution, it appearing to him that the co-operation of the colonial legislative was indispensable to tire success of the measure. He doubted the policy of using the words "immediate and effectual measures shall be taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the colonies;" they were calculated to raise expectations unwarranted by the measure; it was a great evil in establishing a preliminary resolution. The first impression of any man upon reading this resolution, and especially the first impression of an illiterate and ignorant man would be this:—"You never meant to subject me to coerced labour for twelve years." The second resolution also passed without a division; but the third, which involved the principle of the compulsory apprenticeship, was met with a direct negative by Mr. Fowell Buxton, on the ground that it was unnecessary and impracticable. It was founded on this assertion—that emancipated negroes would not work, or, at least, would not work more than was necessary to supply the mere wants of life. This opinion he showed by facts was ill-grounded; and he proved to demonstration that the negroes, if free, would work more cheerfully than while enslaved. He moved that the resolution be rejected. He was supported by Mr. Halcomb and Buford Howick, the latter of whom said that it was not necessary as a groundwork for future proceedings; and that, on the other hand, if the house agreed to it, they would pledge themselves to a system of apprenticeship of which they did not yet know the full effect. This was dealing rather hardly by the house; government should avoid calling upon the house, at this stage of the proceeding, distinctly to pledge themselves to do that of which they had not yet heard a satisfactory account. It was easy to talk of apprenticing negroes; but the plan was neither more nor less than a subversion of the existing relations of society in the colonies, and organising an untried system, the adoption of which must be attended with difficulties. His objection to the provision was, that the labour of the negro was, for the greater part of his time, to be obtained by direct compulsion; his opinion was that the negroes would be in a worse condition at the termination of the experiment than they were at the present moment. Ministers replied that the question was not, as it had been represented, merely one of gradual or immediate abolition; no matter what might be the period of apprenticeship, whether ten or twelve years, from the moment the bill passed, slavery in the British colonies, in its offensive and essential features, was for ever annihilated. The bill recognised the rights of property; it conferred freedom from corporal punishment; it respected the domestic ties of the negro in their tenderest relations; and it ensured to him a considerable portion of the fruits of his own labour: with these great enactments surely it was not too much to say that slavery, in its obnoxious features, could not be said to exist. Mr. Buxton, having been assured that the resolution did not bind the house to any particular period of compulsory labour, withdrew his motion to reject it, and proposed to insert words declaring that the labour was to be for wages. He withdrew this likewise; but Mr. O'Connell insisted on dividing the house on the original resolution, when it was carried by three hundred and twenty-four to forty-two. The fourth resolution, respecting the compensation to planters, was attended with still greater difficulty. The original proposal was a loan of £15,000,000, for which they were to pay interest; but ministers found such stern opposition from the West India planters, that they were compelled to convert this loan into an absolute payment of £20,000,000. Mr. Stanley, after admitting the difficulty of ascertaining what the amount of compensation ought to be, moved that "Towards the compensation of the West India proprietors, his majesty be enabled to grant a sum not exceeding £20,000,000, to be appropriated as parliament may hereafter think fit." This proposition called forth much opposition and many amendments; but it was finally earned by a majority of two hundred and ninety-six against seventy-seven. The fifth and last resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and ninety-six against seventy-seven; and the whole were then sent to the peers, who agreed to them on the 25th of June. On the motion for going into committee on the bill brought in pursuant to the resolutions, Mr. Buxton again discussed the question of compulsory apprenticeships. He moved, that it be an instruction to the committee that they shall not, for the sake of the pecuniary interests of the masters, impose any restraint or obligation on the negro which shall not be necessary for his own welfare, and for the general peace and order of society; and that they shall limit the duration of any temporary restrictions which may be imposed upon the freedom of the negroes, to the shortest period which may be necessary to establish, on just principles, the system of free labour for adequate wages. He was supported by Lord Howick and Mr. Macaulay, who before had opposed him on the same question, but who now declared that he had an insurmountable objection to the transition state, which was to be interposed between the cessation of slavery and complete freedom. If it could be proved, he said, that any restraint was proposed, the effect of which was to improve the morals of the negro, to promote his habits of industry, and to enable him better to discharge the duties of a freeman and citizen, he would give his assent to such a restraint; but he thought that the restraint was not laid upon the negro, as it ought to be, with the sole view of improving his character: one of the objects was, not his own advantage, but as a compensation to the planter. In reply, Mr. Stanley said that the compensation was of two sorts: one was a sum to be paid down now for the remission of one-fourth of the labour of the slave, and the whole would be paid by the end of twelve years, when the negro would be completely free. The sum to be paid to the colonies was taken with reference to the estimated value of the slave, and to the interest of money: taking that value at £30,000,000 for 800,000 slaves, would give £37 10s. for each. It was not extravagant to say that such a sum was about the average value of a slave. He went on to say that one-fourth of the labour of the negro was to be taken from the master, and placed at the disposal of the negro himself; but for the remaining three-fourths he was to be maintained by the master. Now the maintenance, taken at a moderate average, was calculated at fifty shillings each; this for 800,000 negroes would be £2,000,000 per annum, and the one-fourth of this would be £500,000; and this at the end of twelve years would make a great difference in the sum to be paid to the master. Calculations would show that if the value of £30,000,000, or £37 10s. each were taken, and the interest of money calculated at six per cent., the sum to be paid to the master would be £27,000,000; but if the value of the slaves were taken at £24,000,000, and the interest of money at six per cent., £15,000,000 would be the sum to be paid to him. Besides this, the allowance for the advances for the support of the slave would, at ten per cent., amount to £3,406,000; at eight per cent., to £3,786,000; and at six per cent, to £4,900,000. This would show that the apprenticeship materially came into the account, in estimating the compensation to the master for his loss; and the compensation would not be made in a state of slavery, but in a state of comparative freedom. Mr. Stanley said that if the West India proprietors were asked what they thought of the plan of apprenticeship, they would say that they could not go on without it; and that without the application of such a principle in the bill, the colonies would go to ruin, and the proprietors be reduced to beggary. In fact, he said, if Mr. Buxton's motion should be carried, he must be prepared to see the whole frame of civilization in the colonies destroyed, and a state of things brought about which, however they might in time settle down into some improvement, must at least begin in barbarism. On a division, Mr. Buxton's amendment was lost by a majority of only seven, one hundred and fifty-one having voted for it, and one hundred and fifty-eight against it. The result of this division convinced government that they must make some concession on this point; and on the following day Mr. Stanley resolved to reduce the period of prodial apprenticeship from twelve years to seven, and of non-prodial from seven to five years. This was adopted, and clauses were added, empowering the commissioners for the management of the national debt to raise the money by a loan, specifying the manner in which the operation was to be conducted after which the bill passed. In the upper-house some amendments were added to the bill, which did not affect its substance, and these were finally agreed to by the commons. Thus the dark spot of slavery was wiped out of the British annals; we had no slaves at home, and now it was nobly resolved that we should have none abroad—that wherever Britain's power was felt, mankind should feel her mercy also.

FACTORY BILL.

During the former session, Mr. Sadleir had introduced a bill for shortening and regulating the employment of children of certain ages in cotton and other factories, and protecting them against maltreatment, to which it was alleged they had long been exposed. Evidence had been taken regarding the subject matter of the bill before a committee of the house of commons, and in this session a similar measure to that of Mr. Sadleir's was introduced by Lord Ashley. The bill was opposed by the great body of the manufacturing capitalists, many of whom had been sent into the house by the reform act, and who possessed powerful interest out of it. Mr. Patten moved an address to the king to name a royal commission, for the purpose of collecting evidence anew, founding his motion on the ground that the evidence taken before the committee was partial, defective, and untrue. Lord Ashley, and others, contended that this motion was not only uncalled for, but would be detrimental: fresh inquiry was needless, inasmuch as the house was in a condition to legislate on the subject, not only in consequence of the information obtained from the committee of last year, but also of that furnished by the other house of parliament. Mr. Patten's motion was negatived, and the bill was read a second time; and then ministers, alarmed at the probable success of a measure which, as it stood, would seriously interfere with the manufacturers of the country, arrayed themselves more openly against it. Lord Althorp opposed the motion for going into committee, and moved, "That the bill be referred to a select committee, with this instruction—that the committee should make provision in said bill, that no children who had not entered into their fourteenth year should be allowed to work for more than eight hours a-day; and that in the intervals of their labour, care should be taken for their education, and that inspection of the mills should take place, in order to secure the operation of the above provisions." This motion was rejected, and Lord Ashley's bill was carried into committee, by one hundred and sixty-four to one hundred and forty-one. Government, however, did not give up its opposition. The bill had adopted ten hours as the maximum of labour daily, which extended to all persons under eighteen years of age; and when the second clause, which involved the principle, was moved in committee, Lord Althorp opposed it. He proposed as an amendment, that instead of the word "eighteen," the word "thirteen" should be inserted; expressing, at the same time, his intention of following that up by substituting "eight" instead of "ten". The amendment was carried by a large majority, and Lord Ashley abandoned the bill to the chancellor of the exchequer, in whose hands its enactments were considerably mitigated. As altered, the bill provided that the labour of children in factories under thirteen years of age should be limited to eight instead of ten hours a-day; that the provisions of Sir J. Hobhouse's bill should be extended to other mills besides cotton mills; and that persons under eighteen years of age should not be required to work more than sixty hours in the week. It also provided that it should be illegal to employ any children under nine years of age; that inspectors should be appointed to see that the provisions of the bill are duly enforced; and contained provisions for introducing a general system of education amongst the children in all the manufacturing districts. In the committee Mr. Wood proposed an amendment, to the effect, that at the expiration of six months after the passing of the act, no child under eleven years of age should be permitted to work more than eight hours a-day; that no child under the age of twelve years should be permitted, after the expiration of eighteen months from the passing of the bill, to work for more than eight hours a-day; and that after the expiration of two years from the passing of the bill, no child under the age of thirteen years should be permitted to work more than eight hours a-day. This amendment was opposed by Lord Althorp, on the ground that it would postpone the operation of the measure, but it was carried against him and it formed a part of the measure.

THE CORN LAWS.

The people had long been taught to consider the corn laws as unjust monopolies, which enriched the landowner, by depriving the poor of "cheap bread," and they firmly expected that reforming ministers and a reformed parliament would forthwith abolish them. Ministers, however, were not inclined to take up the question, and parliament was not yet prepared to respond to the general demand. On the 17th of May, Mr. Whitmore moved the following resolutions:—"That the present system of corn laws, founded on a high and ever-varying scale of duties, while it fails of conferring permanent benefit on the agricultural interest, tends to cramp the trade, and impair the general prosperity of this country; that an alteration of these laws, substituting in their stead a moderate duty, fixed at all periods except those of extreme dearth, while it indemnified the agriculturists for the peculiar burthens which press upon them, would, by restoring the commercial relations between this kingdom and foreign countries, increase the manufactures, and render more equal the price of the produce of the country." Lord Althorp objected to the resolutions principally on account of the time at which they were brought forward, considering the many important questions which yet remained for the consideration of parliament; he therefore moved the previous question, which was carried by three hundred and five against two hundred and six. A few days previously certain resolutions relative to the same question were negatived in the house of lords without a division; and in the commons, on the 18th of June, a motion for leave to bring in a bill to alter the corn laws was rejected. The corn laws, therefore, were yet retained in the British code.

RESOLUTIONS AGAINST BRIBERY, ETC.

The result of the elections showed that the first reformed parliament had no small quantity of bribery to deal with. The prevention of this evil, therefore, was an object which a reformed house of commons was especially bound to secure. On the 6th of February, Lord John Russell moved the same resolutions which had been adopted by the preceding house, and which diminished obstacles that stood in the way of effectually questioning a corrupt election. According to the resolutions which had hitherto been adopted as the standing orders of the house on this subject, the return of a member could be questioned only within fourteen days after the assembling of parliament, or after his return, if the house were then sitting; and it was the practice of persons who made use of bribery to secure their elections, not to make any payments till that period was passed, in order to avoid the penalties attached to such conduct. In the hope of checking this evil, Lord John Russell moved, "That all persons who question any future return of members to serve in parliament upon any allegation of bribery or corruption, and who shall in their petition specifically allege any payment of money or other reward to have been made by any member, or on his account, or with his privity, since the time of such return, in pursuance of, or in furtherance of, such bribery and corruption, may question the same at any time within twenty-eight days from the time of such payment; or if this house be not sitting at the expiration of the said twenty-eight days, then within fourteen days after the day when the house shall next meet." This resolution was agreed to, many members regretting that it did not go further, and maintaining that a bribery-oath should be administered to the members as well as to the electors. Subsequently petitions were received from Liverpool, Warwick, Stafford, Hertford, Londonderry, Carrickfergus, and Newry; and in all these cases it was proved that gross bribery had been resorted to at the elections. Writs were suspended for Warwick, and bills were brought in for the disfranchisement of Stafford, Hertford, and Carrickfergus, while several individuals were ordered to be criminally prosecuted. As the session was drawing to a close, the bills were not persevered in before its termination. An attempt was made by Mr. Grote, one of the members for the city of London, to establish voting by ballot; that alone, in his estimation, being the only means of securing purity of election. This, however, was negatived, after a long and earnest discussion, by two hundred and eleven against one hundred and six. Another discussion relative to the constitution arose on a motion by Mr. Tennyson, for leave to bring in a bill to shorten the duration of parliaments. In support of his motion, Mr. Tennyson enforced the ordinary topics, that the septennial act had been passed to meet a temporary emergency; that it had originally been an exception from the rules of the constitution; that the consequence of it had been general corruption both among the electors and the representatives; and that it rendered the members too independent of their constituents, and in so far defeated the object of a representative government, and prevented the operation of the public opinion. There was a difference of opinion, he said, as to the number of years which ought to be fixed for the duration of parliaments, some being in favour of five, others of four, and others of three years. He thought they were bound to consult the general wishes of the people, and it appeared to him that they were in favour of triennial parliaments. At the same time, in the bill which he proposed to bring in, he intended to leave the term of future parliaments unfixed, so that it might form a subject of debate in committee. His bill contained two clauses, one to repeal the septennial act, and the other to determine the period of each parliament's existence. The resistance of the proposition was left to ministers themselves, and Lord Althorp's mode of getting rid of it was by moving the previous question. He was ready to acknowledge, he said, this was a question which he would support, if parliament were in the same situation as heretofore; but things were now changed, and he believed that the feelings and opinions of the people were fairly represented in that house. He did not think, therefore, that the same necessity existed for abridging the duration of parliaments, as before the passing of the reform bill. The motion was supported by Messrs. Cobbett, Kennedy, Shiel, and other members, and opposed by Lord John Eussell and Mr. Stanley. On a division, the previous question was carried by a majority of forty-nine, two hundred and thirteen having voted for it, and one hundred and sixty-four for the motion.

BILL TO REMOVE THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF JEWS.—PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

At this period the Jews alone were the only class of the community whose religion affected their rights. Towards the close of the session Mr. Goulburn brought in a bill to remove their civil disabilities, and it passed the commons, but was thrown out on the second reading in the house of lords. The session was closed on the 29th of August by his majesty in person, who in his speech touched upon the various important measures that had this session occupied the attention of parliament. It may be mentioned that government had recently appointed a commission for inquiring into the state of corporations, and for digesting into one body the enactments of the criminal law, and inquiring how far, and by what means, a similar process might be extended to the other branches of our jurisprudence. It may also be mentioned that two important acts had been passed for giving constitutions upon sound principles to the royal and parliamentary burghs of Scotland, a change by which the whole system of self-election was entirely abolished. His majesty embraced all these topics in his speech. On the subject of Ireland his majesty expressed his regret that coercive measures had been necessary; but he had not found it desirable, except in a very limited degree, to use the powers confided to him, and he hoped that the time was not far distant when repressive laws might be no longer unavoidable.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

WILLIAM IV. 1832-1833

During this year a prospect of the close of the dreadful calamities which had so long weighed down the people of Portugal dawned upon them. At its commencement Oporto still continued to be the scene of operations; the regent occupying that city, and Don Miguel maintaining his positions and his battery on the left bank of the river and to the north of the city itself. The operations continued to consist of partial bombardments across the river, or engagements of detachments, occasionally varied by more regular attacks and sallies to destroy works already erected, or prevent new ones from being raised. There was not much blood shed, and the results of the operations made no decisive or permanent change in the relation of the armies to each other. At the beginning of March, indeed, a battle was fought, in which it was stated that the Miguelites lost fifteen thousand men, and their adversary only one hundred; but still it left matters where it found them—Oporto was still besieged. At length, however, a decisive blow was struck at the power of Don Miguel on the seas. While the operations on land were going forward, Don Pedro was involved in a dangerous quarrel with his admiral, Sartorius, which resulted in his giving up the command of the fleet, and with his being replaced by another British officer, Captain Napier. Under his command an expedition sailed to the Algarves, the most southern province of the kingdom, having on board two thousand five hundred men, commanded by the Duke of Terceira, for the purpose of invading that part of the country. The cities of Tavira, Faro, and Lagos were soon captured, and in the course of a week the whole province of Algarves was in possession of Don Pedro. But a still heavier blow awaited Don Miguel. Admiral Napier, having disembarked the troops and witnessed their success, set sail to return to the mouth of the Tagus to watch the squadron of Don Miguel, or bring it to battle. He fell in with it on the 2nd of July, off Cape St. Vincent, and a battle ensued, in which the squadron of Don Miguel was annihilated. He had now only the land to trust to, and there he was soon defeated. Having regained the province of Algarves, the Duke of Terceira marched towards Lisbon, and having reached the left bank of the Tagus he was encountered by an army said to have consisted of five thousand men, under the command of Talles Jordao. The battle was brief, and the victory complete: Jordao was routed, his army scattered, and he himself killed. The effect of the battle was to put Don Pedro's troops in possession of Lisbon: they entered unmolested on the 24th of July, and Donna Maria was immediately proclaimed Queen of Portugal. As soon as Don Pedro received intelligence of what had taken place at Lisbon, he sailed from Oporto to assume the government. The war was now transferred to Lisbon; and a series of battles took place between the troops of Don Pedro and those of Miguel, and the year closed before the contest was decided. Donna Maria, however, ruled in Portugal, and a British minister again presented himself at the court of the rightful sovereign of the country. The English government at the same time strictly adhered to the neutrality which it had imposed on itself; but, taught by experience, it did not trust to assurances of the same line of conduct from other powers, and especially from the court of Madrid. It prepared itself, indeed, for all events, by sending a powerful squadron under Admiral Parker to the Tagus, with orders to take an active part for Don Pedro the moment a Spanish force should appear in Portugal to assist Don Miguel.

Early in this year Greece received her youthful monarch. Otho was welcomed by the various chiefs and populace with all due marks of respect and obedience; and awakening from the torpor of ages, Greece took her place among the civilized nations of Europe. The kingdom was divided into ten departments:—1. Argolis and Corinth; 2. Achaia and Elis; 3. Messene; 4. Arcadia; 5. Laconia; 6. Acarnania and Ætolia; 7. Locris and Phocis; 8. Attica and Beotia; 9. Eubcea; 10. the Cyclades. The local government of each department was assisted by a council; and at the head of each circle or district into which they were subdivided, was placed an eparch, with a distinct board. The first acts of the government were to disband the irregular troops, to organise a new and regular army, and to endeavour to provide something like an administration of justice. The disbanding of the irregular troops, however, did not contribute to the internal tranquillity of the country; on the contrary, it threw large numbers of savage men out of employment, and many of them formed themselves into bands for the purposes of plunder. One of these bands sacked the Turkish town of Arta, in Epirus slaughtering the inhabitants, and setting their houses on fire. The massacre lasted three days; after which the marauders, laden with booty, took refuge in the mountains.

While Turkey was thus shorn of one of her European provinces, she was doomed to see a rebellious, but victorious vassal make himself master of her Asiatic territories. Ibrahim Pacha, who had during the last year opened a way across Mount Taurus, lost no time in descending into the plains of Caramania. Here he fought a great battle with the Turkish troops, under the command of the grand vizier, Redschid Pacha, whom he utterly defeated and took prisoner. Constantinople was almost at his mercy; there was no obstacle between Ibrahim and the shores of the Bosphorus; and he seemed to be only waiting for the arrival of fresh troops, which were on their march through Syria to join him, to traverse Anatolia and assail the capital. The danger, however, was averted by the exertions of the British government, assisted by that of France. The Egyptian army retired from Asia Minor; and the Russians, whom the Sultan had called in for its defence, and from whom he was in no less danger than from the sword of Ibrahim, left Constantinople. By a treaty which was concluded between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali, the former gave up the whole of Syria, granting at the same time an amnesty to all its inhabitants for the conduct which they might have followed during the expedition of Ibrahim. The Pasha of Egypt became by this treaty more powerful than the master from whom he had revolted; his rule extended from the limits of Asia Minor to the mouth of the Nile. A treaty was subsequently concluded between the Porte and Russia, in which the preponderating power of the latter was fully established. Russia was to aid the sultan in repressing all disturbances, and the sultan was to shut the Dardanelles, in particular circumstances, against all other nations. Both England and France complained that such a treaty had been concluded without their concurrence, and each of them had a fleet near the Sea of Marmora; but their remonstrances were unheeded, and their fleets returned. The popular and prophetic belief of the Byzantines, namely, that "the Russians in the last days should become masters of Constantinople," seemed to be rapidly approaching its fulfilment.

The Belgian question had its origin in events antecedent to the formation of the present British cabinet, so that ministers were compelled to follow a course which had been adopted by their predecessors. When the revolution first broke forth in the Netherlands, the king called on his allies for troops. These were refused by the English government; but his next request, for the assembling of a conference, was granted. By subsequent acts of that assembly, the principle of separation between the two countries was established; and the task imposed on the present government was to settle the terms on which a separation should take place, so as to provide for the interest and security of all parties. The difficulties encountered in performing this task arose from the obstinacy of the Dutch monarch. By the armistice which his majesty had invoked in November, 1830, the citadel of Antwerp was to be evacuated in fifteen days; but the possession of that fortress enabled him to harass the Belgians, and to intercept their trade on the Scheldt, and therefore he refused to give it up. England and France, failing to obtain the co-operation of the other three powers, were obliged to have recourse to force: Antwerp was besieged by the French troops, and an embargo was laid on Dutch vessels by Great Britain. These vigorous measures disconcerted all the calculations of the Dutch monarch and of his partizans. At the beginning of this year Antwerp, supposed to have been impregnable, surrendered to Marshal Gerard. This event, together with the embargo laid on Dutch vessels, produced the convention of the 21st of May, by which the Belgian question was settled. This convention provided, "That immediately on the ratifications being exchanged, the embargoes laid on by Great Britain and France should be removed, and the vessels and cargoes restored, and that the Dutch garrison which had defended the citadel of Antwerp should return to Holland with all their arms and baggage: That Holland should not recommence hostilities against Belgium so long as a definite treaty had not settled their mutual relations; that the navigation of the Scheldt should be free, which was explained in a supplementary article to mean, that it was to be placed on the same footing as it had been prior to the 1st of November, 1812: That the navigation of the Meuse should be opened, subject to the provisions of the convention of Mayence of the 31st of March, 1831, relative to the navigation of the Rhine: That the communications between the frontier of North Brabant and Maestricht, and between that fortress and Germany, should be unimpeded: That the contracting parties should occupy themselves immediately with the definitive treaty, to which Austria, Prussia, and Russia should be invited to become parties." The King of Holland having agreed to these articles, the principal point of discussion remaining was that of compensation: in the meantime Europe was secured against the danger of a general war, arising from the differences which had existed between Holland and Belgium.

CHAPTER XLIV.

WILLIAM IV. 1834

     Meeting of Parliament..... Mr. O'Connell's Motion for the
     Repeal of the Union..... Divisions in the Cabinet.....
     Commission issued to inquire into the state of the Irish
     Church..... Irish Tithe Question..... Renewal  of Irish
     Coercion Bill..... Resignation of Earl Grey, etc......
     Rejection of the Irish Tithe Bill by the  Peers..... State
     of Ecclesiastical Questions, and the Claims of
     Dissenters..... Poor Laws Amendment Act..... The Corn-Law
     Question..... Financial Statements, etc...... Bill for the
     Removal of the Civil Disabilities of the Jews, etc......
     Disputes with France regarding the Newfoundland  Fisheries,
     etc...... Steam Navigation..... Prorogation of
     Parliament..... Dissolution of the Cabinet..... Sir Robert
     Peel appointed Prime-Minister..... Dissolution of
     Parliament..... The Act abolishing Slavery in the West
     Indies carried into effect..... The Affairs of Ireland.....
     State of the Continent, etc.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

A.D. 1834

On the 4th of February the session was opened by the king in person. In his speech his majesty alluded to the slavery abolition bill introduced last year, stating that the manner in which that beneficent measure had been received throughout the colonies, and the progress made in carrying it into effect by the legislature of Jamaica, afforded just grounds for anticipating the happiest results. Among the various important subjects still calling for consideration, his majesty enumerated reports from the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of municipal corporations, into the administration of the poor laws, and into the ecclesiastical revenues of England and Wales. His majesty also recommended the early consideration of such a final adjustment of the tithes in Ireland as might extinguish all just causes of complaint, without injury to the rights and property of any class of his subjects, or to any institution in church or state. Concerning the state of Ireland, his majesty remarked that the public tranquillity had been generally observed, and that the state of Ireland presented a more favourable appearance than at any period during the last year. The speech then reverted to the agitations in Ireland for the repeal of the legislative union, which it denounced in the strongest terms. The chief point in our foreign policy noticed by the king related to the government of Spain. He remarked:—"Upon the death of the late King of Spain, I did not hesitate to recognise the succession of his infant daughter; and I shall watch with the greatest solicitude the progress of events which may affect a government, the peaceable settlement of which is of the utmost importance to this country, as well as to the general tranquillity of Europe." On the motion for an address in the house of lords, the whole policy of government, both domestic and foreign, was vehemently attacked by the Duke of Wellington, but no amendment was moved. In the commons, Mr. Hume, in opposition to the address said, that although there was a great deal in the speech about the independence of Turkey, and something about Portugal, &c, yet there was not one word about poor tax-ridden England. He moved an amendment to the effect, that the house would pledge itself to take into its immediate and serious consideration the state of the established church, as regarded its temporalities and the maintenance of the clergy, and also with a view to the removal of complaints which arose out of the mode in which tithe and church-rates were levied, in order to accomplish such changes as might give effectual relief both to churchmen and dissenters. This amendment was negatived by a large majority; and another, altering the paragraph in the address to his majesty, expressive of the satisfaction of the house at the "uninterrupted enjoyment of the blessings of peace," shared the same fate. Mr. O'Connell moved that the clause referring to the agitation for the repeal of the union should be omitted; but this was also negatived by an overwhelming majority. On the bringing up of the report on the address, an incidental discussion arose on the coercion bill of last session, which gave rise to an extraordinary scene, and to the committal of Lord Althorp and Mr. Shiel to the custody of the serjeant-at-arms. A charge had been made by Mr. Hill, one of the members for Hull, that one of the Irish members who had voted against the coercion bill, went secretly to one of the ministers, urging him not to bate a single jot of that bill, or it would be impossible for any man to live in Ireland. Mr. O'Connell referred to this charge, and he put two questions to the chancellor of the exchequer respecting it—namely, whether he, or any other member of the cabinet, had ever stated that an Irish member had acted in such a manner, and whether any Irish member ever went to the noble lord, or any other minister, and made the statement which had been imputed to him. Lord Althorp replied in the negative to both these questions; but, he added, that he should not act a manly part, if he did not declare that he had good reason to believe that more than one Irish member who voted and spoke against the bill, did in private conversation use very different language. A scene of confusion and crimination then ensued, in which Lord Althorp charged Mr. Shiel with being one of the gentlemen who had so acted, which Mr. Shiel denied in terms which left the house under the impression that a duel between those two members would ensue. Upon the motion of Sir Francis Burdett, both were placed under arrest until assurances were given that the matter should not lead to the apprehended results. Subsequently a committee of privileges was appointed to examine into this affair, and it appearing to the committee that there was no evidence to establish the charge, they made their report in favour of Mr. Shiel. Mr. Hill himself, finding that he had been deceived, acknowleged his error; and Lord Althorp said, that if Mr. Shiel would distinctly say that he had not done what his lordship had stated he had done, he should be bound to believe his assertion. Mr. Shiel readily made this statement, and thus ended this ridiculous interlude. Many believe that the subject was obtruded upon the house as much from a hope of embarrassing a rival in the work of agitation, as from a desire to vindicate the character of a friend. The public in general, however, looked on the matter with indifference.

MR. O'CONNELL'S MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE UNION.

Mr. O'Connell had long made his boast in Ireland, that he would bring forward the question of the repeal of the union in the British parliament. His courage, from his non-performance of this promise, began to be doubted; and to save his credit, he was obliged to bring himself to trial. On the first day of the sessions he had given notices of two motions: one that the house should take the act of union into consideration, with a view to its repeal; the other for the appointment of a "select committee to inquire and report on the means by which the dissolution of parliament was effected—on the effects of that measure upon Ireland, and upon the labourers in husbandry, and the manufacturers in England—and on the probable consequences of continuing the legislative union between both countries." He proceeded only with the last of the two motions, and he brought that forward on the 22nd of April. He commenced by declaring that there had never existed a greater mistake than to suppose that England possessed any right of dominion over the former country. He then entered at great length into the incompetency of parliament to pass the act of union; and having detailed the means by which it was accomplished, he proceeded to prove that the financial and legislative terms on which the great question had been settled were in their very nature fraudulent and unjust. Looking at these circumstances, he said, he dreaded the probable consequences of a continuance of the union. Ireland felt strongly on the subject; and he demanded that the bitter recollection of the past should be for ever effaced by the restoration of her people to their inalienable rights. Mr. O'Connell was answered at great length by Mr. Spring Rice, who enumerated the manifold advantages gained by Ireland from the union. He moved, therefore, that an address be presented to his majesty, expressive of the fixed and steady determination of the commons to maintain inviolate the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland—a determination to be justified, not only on general grounds, but by reasons of special application to Ireland itself; declaring also, that while the house endeavoured to remove all just causes of complaint alleged by the Irish people, it would promote every well-considered measure of rational liberty. The debate on the subject was continued by adjournment for several days. The members who took part in it were—for the original motion, Messrs. O'Connor, Barron, Ruthven, Shiel, and others; and for the amendment, Messrs. Tennent, Littleton, Sandford, Lambert, and Sir Robert Peel, and others. Perhaps the most effective speech was that which was delivered by Sir Robert Peel, who said, he believed that no array of official documents, and no force of argument, could strengthen the conviction of the great majority of the house—a conviction that lay deeper than any argument could reach—that they would on no account consent to dismember the British empire. There were convictions connected with the feelings of the heart as well as with the faculties of the mind. Mr. Canning had said, "Repeal the union! re-enact the heptarchy!" The security of the empire depended on the maintenance of that union; without it England would be reduced to the condition of a fourth-rate power in Europe, and Ireland to the desolation of a wilderness. On a division the amendment was carried by the triumphant majority of five hundred and twenty-three against thirty-eight; the minority, with one exception only, consisting of Irish members. On the 30th of April the commons, in a conference, communicated their address to the lords, who, in one spirit, unanimously concurred in its sentiments, and ordered the blank, which was purposely left, to be filled up with the words, "lords spiritual and temporal." It was then presented to the king as the joint address of both houses; and his majesty, in reply, expressed the great satisfaction with which he had received the solemn and united declaration of both houses to maintain the union inviolate.

DIVISIONS IN THE CABINET.

In opposing the repeal of the union, ministers carried along with them the sense and feeling of the people; that was a question on which no man differed from them except O'Connell and his followers. Questions, however, connected with the Irish church stood in a different light.

The agitators supported the repeal as a measure tending not more to perpetuate their own domination, than to secure the ruin of the Protestant establishment. Many, also, who resisted repeal, still demanded changes and curtailments in that establishment, they considering it the principal cause of all the turbulence and misery afflicting Ireland. There were others again who disliked it, not because it was a Protestant, but because it was a religious establishment; and such men inveighed against what they termed an unhallowed connection between church and state, and the practical injustice of compelling persons of one belief to support the institutions of a different creed. This party was ready to attack, not only the revenues, but the very existence of the Irish church, as the first step towards the destruction of that of England. Union in the cabinet, coupled with a determination not to be driven further than themselves were inclined to go, might have rendered ministers sufficiently strong to defy such destructive reformers. Unfortunately, however, on this question, the cabinet itself was divided. One portion of the ministers, numerically the strongest, seemed inclined to admit the principle of appropriation, which they had repudiated in the bill of last session, by withdrawing the clause in which it was contained. On the other hand, the minority, however willing to remove striking and useless inequalities in the distribution of the ecclesiastical revenue, and to adopt measures which would prevent irritating collisions in its collection, resisted on principle any transfer of it to other purposes; and they especially refused to acquiesce in proposals for making the Protestant establishment depend on the comparative strength or weakness of the Romish church. This discordance of opinion would have prevented ministers from starting the subject; but it was forced on them by a numerous party, which made up in fury and zeal what was lacking in knowledge and discretion. On the 27th of May, Mr. Ward, one of the members for St. Albans, moved a resolution for reducing the temporalities of the Irish church, as exceeding the spiritual wants of the Protestant establishment. This motion gave rise to a division in the cabinet. In supporting his proposition, Mr. Ward contended that vital and extensive changes in the church of Ireland had now become unavoidable on the grounds of mere expediency. The tithe system, he said, was the source of all the disorganisation that prevailed in Ireland. Resistance to it was almost universal, comprehending both Catholics and Protestants. Commutation, he argued, would do no good; a new appropriation of church property alone could produce even a momentary calm. Mr. Ward's motion was seconded by Mr. Grote, who said that the means of relief must be suggested from a higher quarter when once the principle was recognised. Lord Althorp here arose to request the house to adjourn, in consequence of circumstances which had come to his knowledge since he had entered the house. He could not at present, he said, state the nature of these circumstances; but the house would doubtless believe that he would not make such a proposition without being convinced of its propriety. The house adjourned, according to Lord Althorp's request; and it appeared that the circumstances to which he had alluded, and which had been communicated to him while Mr. Ward was speaking, was the resignation of those ministers who would not consent to the principle which his motion involved. Those who resigned were Mr. Stanley, colonial secretary; Sir James Graham, first lord of the admiralty; the Duke of Richmond, postmaster-general; and the Earl of Ripon, lord privy-seal. These vacant offices were soon filled up: the Marquis of Conyngham became postmaster-general; the Earl of Carlisle accepted the privy-seal; Lord Auckland became the first lord of the admiralty; and the colonial office was filled up by Mr. Spring Rice. Lord Althorp stated afterwards that he was not aware of the necessity of these changes till after he had entered the house on the 27th; and the adjournment seems to have arisen from the fear that the retirement of these ministers would bring along with it the resignation of the whole. An address was got up and presented to Earl Grey by a great number of the ministerial adherents in the commons, entreating his lordship to retain his place; but though, in reply he announced his intention of making every personal sacrifice that might be required of him in support of the principles of the administration, he admitted that much embarrassment, as well as mischief, was produced by the reckless desire of innovation. The embarrassment of ministers was rendered still greater by the king himself, who, in reply to an address presented to him by the Irish bishops on the 28th of May, on behalf of the Irish church, remarked with peculiar emphasis:—"I now remember you have a right to require of me to be resolute in defence of the church. I have been, by the circumstances of my life and by conviction, led to support toleration to the utmost extent of which it is justly capable; but toleration must not be suffered to go into licentiousness: it has its bounds, which it is my duty, and which I am resolved to maintain. I am, from the deepest conviction, attached to the pure Protestant faith, which this church, of which I am the temporal head, is the human means of diffusing and preserving in this land. I cannot forget what was the course of events that placed my family on the throne which I now fill. These events were consummated in a revolution, which was rendered necessary, and which was effected, not, as has sometimes been most erroneously stated, merely for the sake of the temporal liberties of the people, but for the preservation of their religion. It was for the defence of the religion of the country that the settlement of the crown was made which has placed me in the situation which I now fill; and that religion, and the church of England and Ireland, the prelates of which are now before me, it is my fixed purpose, determination, and resolution to maintain. The present bishops, I am quite satisfied, have never been excelled at any period of the history of our church by any of their predecessors in learning, piety, or zeal in the discharge of their high duties. If there are any of the inferior arrangements in the discipline of the church—which, however, I greatly doubt—that require amendment, I have no distrust of the readiness and ability of the prelates now before me to correct such things; and to you, I trust, they will be left to correct, with your authority unimpaired and unshackled."

COMMISSION ISSUED TO INQUIRE INTO THE STATE OF THE IRISH CHURCH.

On the 2nd of June, when the house reassembled, Lord Althorp stated that Mr. Ward's motion had compelled ministers to take up the question of the Irish church; and he informed the house that his majesty had appointed a commission of inquiry into the state of church property and church affairs generally in Ireland. This commission, he said, was to be a lay commission; and it was to visit the different parishes and districts throughout Ireland; to inquire on the spot into the number of Protestants in each parish; whether that number was stationary, increasing, or declining; whether it was a benefice, or if a parish forming part of a union; the distance and number of churches and chapels; the situation of the clergyman, how paid, and whether resident or non-resident; the times which divine service was or had been performed; the number of Protestants attending such service; and whether that attendance was stationary, on the increase, or declining. Similar inquiries were to be made in each parish and district with respect to Roman Catholics, and to Dissenters of every description, as well as to the number and the nature of schools in each parish. The commissioners were further to make minute inquiries in all parishes, touching other matters connected with the Irish church or church property, and to report thereupon. Lord Althorp, after making these statements, said that Mr. Ward's motion went to pledge the house that the amount of church property in Ireland was beyond the wants of that establishment; and next, that parliament had a right to regulate the distribution of church property, and to determine upon the reduction of the Irish church revenues as now established by law. He was of opinion that the house should legislate deliberately upon so grave a question, and he trusted that Mr. Ward would withdraw his motion, and feel satisfied with what government had done. Mr. Ward, however, refused to withdraw his motion: he must press, he said, for a recognition of the principle, because, from what was passing around him, he was afraid that the present ministers would not long continue in office. Lord Althorp then moved the previous question, principally on the ground that, of all questions, this was one which most required much previous inquiry and detailed information. Mr. Hume, and Colonels Davies and Evans supported the original resolution, declaring that the shuffling mode of proceeding adopted by government in regard to this question, rendered it impossible to repose confidence in ministers. After a long debate the amendment, however, was carried by a majority of three hundred and ninety-six against one hundred and twenty. The majority would have been still larger, had not a considerable number of conservative members, unwilling to wear even the appearance of tampering with the question, left the house before the division. The subject was brought before the lords on the 6th of June, by the Earl of Wicklow, who moved an address to his majesty for a copy of the commission, a motion which Earl Grey said he would not oppose. Many of the peers embraced this opportunity of stating their objections to the commission, contending that the measures on which ministers appeared to have resolved would end in the ruin of the church. Concession, it was said, could not stop here; it must go on from step to step, till nothing was left to be conceded. Earl Grey denied that he and his colleagues looked forward to anything that could be justly called spoliation of the church; they contemplated a great alteration, but nothing more.

IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

In the meantime ministers had been proceeding with a bill for the amendment of the tithe system in Ireland, founded on principles which should extinguish tithe altogether as a payment to be demanded in kind, and should lay the burden, directly at least, on a different class of payers. The provisions of the intended measure were explained on the 20th of February, by Mr. Littleton, the Irish secretary, in a committee of the whole house, met for the purpose of considering the portion of the king's speech relating to this subject. Government, he said, proposed in the first place, that from and after the month of November next, composition for tithe should cease in Ireland, and in lieu thereof a land-tax should be imposed, payable to the crown, and to be collected and managed by the commissioners of woods and forests, of the same amount as the tithe-payment now exigible, and to be paid by the same parties who at present were liable. In the second place, he said, ministers proposed that this land-tax should be redeemable at the end of five years, by all who had a substantive interest in the estate. Thirdly, they proposed, he said, that so much of the land-tax as remained unredeemed on the 1st of November, 1839, should be converted into a real charge, equal to four-fifths of the land-tax, and payable by the owner of the first estate of inheritance in the land, who should be entitled to recover the whole amount over against his tenantry; these rent-charges would be redeemable or saleable for the best price to be had, not being less than the consideration for redemption of land-tax. In the fourth place, ministers proposed that the tithe-owners should be paid by warrants issued by the ecclesiastical commissioners for Ireland, and addressed to the commissioners of woods and forests: such payments to be of the amount of the compositions to which the tithe-owners might be severally entitled, subject to a deduction for the trouble, loss, and expense of collection. Finally, ministers proposed that on redemption of the land-tax or sale of rent-charges taking place, the payments by warrants were to cease; and that the redemption or purchase-money should be paid over to the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, and to yield an interest of 2 1/4d. per diem. The money was to be drawn out from time to time, and invested in land, for the benefit of the tithe-owner entitled to the principal money. The great object of the measure, Mr. Littleton explained, was, if possible, to invest the produce of the land-tax and rent-charge in land, so as to give the tithe-owner £80 in land for every £100 tithe to which he had a claim. Where clergymen had already agreed to compositions, they would get tax to the same amount, redeemable on the same terms as in other cases; clergymen would, indeed, he said, be probably gainers of five per cent, by the change. Mr. Littleton concluded with moving the following resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this committee, that composition for tithes in Ireland ought to be abolished on and after the 1st day of November in the present year, in consideration of an annual land-tax to be granted to his majesty, payable by the persons who would have been liable to such composition for tithes, and of equal amount; that such tax shall be redeemable; and that out of the produce provision be made in land or money for the indemnification of the persons entitled to such composition." The moderate members reserved their opinions until the details of the measure should be more fully before the house; but Messrs. O'Connell, O'Conner, Shiel, Grattan, and others of the same class, attacked it with unmeasured violence. The bill did not abolish tithe, and therefore it was not a bill to suit their notions. Of all the delusions which had ever been practised, they said, this was the most gross. Did ministers, they asked, think so meanly of the people of Ireland as to imagine that a change of name would be mistaken for a change of the thing, or that tithes would become less odious by being called a land-tax or an annuity? The people of Ireland objected not merely to the amount of tithes paid, but to the application of the funds thence arising: the objection to tithes was double, and now that objection would mix itself with rents. The landlords of Ireland must now look to themselves, for the principle upon which opposition to tithes had hitherto been conducted would forthwith be applied to rents: the Irish people would not regard the present measure as the smallest alleviation of their misery. Mr. O'Connell proposed that two-thirds of the existing tithes should be abolished, the remaining third being left as a quit-rent on the land; and after providing for the life-interest of present incumbents, he said, he would apply the produce to relieving the landlord from grand-jury assessments, to the support of charities, and to other public purposes. Mr. Barron proposed that the tithe levied, to which he did not object, should be restored in part to the poor, they originally having had an interest in it. Mr. Grattan proposed a third scheme: he wished parliament to recognise the liability of property in Ireland to contribute to a fund for the support of religion and charity, but he wished also that such a fund should be different in collection and lighter in its amount than that now raised by the system of tithes. Lord John Russell characterised Mr. O'Connel's plan as one of direct robbery and spoliation, which would be advantageous to none but landowners. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and nineteen against forty-two. A bill founded upon it was then brought in; and on moving the second reading on the 2nd of May, Mr. Littleton mentioned certain alterations which had been introduced into the measure, evidently for the purpose of conciliating Irish members. The principal changes were that instead of a varying rate of deduction on account of the trouble and expense of collecting, there should be one uniform deduction of fifteen per cent, to tithe-owners, to be increased two and a half in cases where landlords had already taken upon themselves the payment of compositions; and that when leases of tithes had been made to the possessors of lands, the rent reserved on such leases or the composition, whichever was the smaller in amount, should be the measure of the land-tax; but the incumbent lessee was to receive the amount of the rent, subject to a reasonable charge for deficiency, the deficiency being made good out of the funds arising from the deductions. But no change could conciliate the Irish members: their opposition continued not only unrelaxed, but it even increased in violence. No plan, indeed, would have been acceptable to them which did not recognise the principle of despoiling the Protestant church. The new bill, they contended, would be as inefficient to tranquillise Ireland as its predecessors had been; and that a new insurrection act and an additional army would be necessary. The second reading, from the hostility of the Irish members, was not carried without long debates and various manouvres; and even the conservative members aided in delaying the measure. Their objection to it was not that it left too much to the clergy, but that it took too much from them. They deemed it necessary, however, to support ministers, in order to prevent worse measures from being brought forward. It was their belief | that the money to be secured by the present measure was to be applied exclusively to the purposes of the church. This belief was somewhat shaken by Lord John Russell, who stated that he understood the bill to be one for securing a certain fund appropriated to religious and charitable purposes; and if parliament found it was not so applied, it would be its duty to consider of a new appropriation. His own opinion was, he said, that the revenues of the church of Ireland were too large for the religious and moral instruction of the persons belonging to that church, and for the safety of the church itself. When, therefore, this property was once successfully vindicated against those who unjustly withheld it, he would be prepared to do justice to Ireland, for if ever a people had reason to complain of a grievance it was the people of Ireland, in relation to the present appropriation of tithes. These sentiments were hailed by some of the Irish members as announcing an approaching concession of all their demands, while others who thought differently complained that, if such were the intentions of government, they had been induced by a false belief to receive the bill with favour, even at the sacrifice of some of their own convictions. On a division, the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty against fifty-four, the greater part of the minority being Irish members.

When the bill went into committee, lengthy debates ensued, and several important alterations were introduced into it from the opposition encountered. Thus the enemies of the Protestant church had loudly declaimed against the provision by which the redeemed land-tax was to be vested in land, and the land vested in the tithe-owner; and in consequence of this opposition that part of the bill which invested the revenues of the church in land, and consequently the redemption clauses were dropped. The composition was to be converted into a land-tax payable to the crown by the same parties who were now liable for the composition. The amount so collected was to be paid to the tithe-owners, subject to a deduction of three per cent. This state of things was to continue five years, at the end of which period four-fifths of the land-tax was to be converted into a rent-charge to be imposed on the owners of estates of inheritance, who should have the power of recovering it from their tenants, and all others who were primarily liable under the existing composition laws. The amount of these rent-charges was to be received by the crown, and to be paid by the crown to the tithe-owners, subject to a further reduction of two and a half per cent. for the expense of collection. Another objection to the bill had been that under the composition-acts, the tithe had been valued too high, and the payers determined to pay no tithe, and had even failed to attend the commissions by whom the composition had been struck. Effect was now given to this objection by the insertion of a provision conferring a power of appeal against the valuation of the amount of tithe-composition in certain cases and under certain restrictions. All the concessions made, however, failed to conciliate the Irish members. What was required by them was, a legislative declaration to the effect that the tithe should be diverted from Protestant religious purposes. On the 23rd of June, Mr. O'Connell moved as an instruction to the committee, "that after any funds which should be raised in Ireland in lieu of tithes had been so appropriated as to provide suitably, considering vested interests and spiritual wants, for the Protestants of the established church of Ireland, the surplus which remained should be appropriated to purposes of public utility." This motion was seconded by Mr. Hume, and it led to another long debate, in which all the usual topics were again urged on both sides. This resolution, however, was lost by a majority of three hundred and sixty to ninety, and on the 30th of June the order of the day was moved for going into committee. This step was prefaced by the announcement of new and extensive alterations in the bill. It was now proposed to offer an inducement to the imposition of voluntary rent charges, by exacting that, in any case where the owner of the first perpetual estate in the land should be willing to subject his estate to a rent-charge in lieu of land-tax, and should declare his intention to that effect before the 1st of November, 1836, the land-tax should then cease, and his property should become liable to a rent-charge, which should be a sum equal to the interest at three and a half per cent, on the amount of the land-tax multiplied by four-fifths of the number of years' purchase which the land might be fairly worth. Mr. Littleton said he thought that the landowners should be subject to no greater interest than three and a half per cent, on the amount of the land-tax thus determined by the proportion of years' purchase of the land, but that the difference between the amount of the rent-charge and the amount of the land-tax should not be less than twenty per cent, or more than forty per cent, on the amount of such land-tax. The difference, he continued, between the bonus given to the landlord and the deduction made from the tithe-owner, which deduction was to remain as originally proposed, would produce a considerable deficiency in the funds accruing to the commissioners of land revenue. It was proposed at first to make up this deficiency in the first instance from the consolidated fund, and to repay it from the perpetuity purchase-fund in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners under the act of last session. Finally, in all cases where a rent-charge should not have been voluntarily created before the expiry of five years, a rent-charge equal to four-fifths of the land-tax would be compulsorily imposed. Mr. O'Connell taunted ministers with weak and vacillating conduct, and insisted that the bill should not go into committee till it had been printed with the new clauses. The bill, he argued, was no longer the same: it had been altered again and again; eight additional clauses not originally contained in it, had already been inserted, and now came a fresh quantity of matter. Familiar as he was with the subject, he was not sure that he understood the new alterations, and he was quite sure that nine-tenths of the members did not understand them. Messrs, Stanley and Shaw joined Mr. O'Connell in thinking that some postponement was reasonable and necessary. Mr. Stanley said that it would be more decent to give time for the great alterations in view, and the deviations from the principles formerly adopted to be deliberately considered, after the bill should be again printed and put into the hands of members. The objection to proceeding with the bill was so forcible that Mr. Stanley's proposal was acceded to, and the committee was postponed. On the 4th of July, the house having gone into committee on another bill connected with the Irish church, Mr. Littleton explained more in detail the mode of fixing the bonus to be given to the landlords who submitted to voluntary rent-charges and the financial effects of it on the consolidated fund. He moved "that for any deficit which might arise in the sums accruing to the commissioners of woods and forests out of the land-tax or rent-charges, payable for the composition of ecclesiastical tithes in Ireland, to the payment of which the consolidated fund was pledged, that fund should be indemnified from the revenues in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners, and out of the perpetuity purchase-fund, placed at their disposal by the act of last session, entitled the Irish church temporalities act." After a few words from Messrs. O'Connell and Hume, and some other members, Mr. Stanley attacked the measure and the proceedings of his former colleagues in a vehement harangue. He opposed the resolution, he said, because it was both impolitic and dishonest; because it was at variance with the great principle, which for the last three or four years it had been the object of government to abolish, namely, the final extinction of tithes in Ireland by means of redemption; and because it seemed to him to be the commencement of a new system of plunder, and that too by a system of plunder not characterised by the straightforward course which bold offenders followed, but marked with that timidity, that want of dexterity, which led to the failure of the unpractised shoplifter. He believed that government was committing great injustice, and would yet fail in its aim; that the country was against this injustice, and that Ireland after it had been perpetrated would not be more tranquil; and therefore he would take the sense of the committee on the resolution now proposed. Lord Althorp replied to Mr. Stanley, and vindicated the resolution from the charge of spoliation. He did not see, he said, how it could be spoliation to take property not from a corporation, but from a mass of different corporations, and apply it to other purposes, if, in doing this, he was giving security to the church. Mr. Hume said he believed in his conscience that ministers were afraid of their late colleague, and intimated his intention of acting with him. He moved an amendment the effect of which would be to re-enact the 147th clause of the act of last session, by substituting for the original resolution the following:—"That the surplus monies to the credit of the ecclesiastical commissioners in the perpetuity purchase-fund, to be kept by the said ecclesiastical commissioners pursuant to an act of last session of parliament, should be applicable to such purposes, for the adjustment and settlement of tithes in Ireland, as by an act of parliament of this session should be provided." This amendment gave rise to a lengthy and sharp debate, but it was thrown out by a large majority, and the ministerial resolution was then carried by two hundred and thirty-five votes against one hundred and seventy-one. At this stage, however, the progress of the bill was arrested for a time by circumstances to which it becomes necessary to advert, those circumstances being calculated by their moral and political effects on the composition of government, and on the relations of parties, to exercise a great influence on the spirit of all subsequent measures.

RENEWAL OF THE IRISH COERCION BILL.

WILLIAM IV. 1834

In the preceding session it had been found necessary to pass what was termed the coercion bill—a bill intended to put down that insurrectionary violence and combination which filled Ireland with crime and confusion. This act was to expire in August; and ministers, acting upon information received from various parts of Ireland, had determined to propose its renewal, omitting those parts that related to the trial of offenders, in certain cases, by courts-martial. There were, however, other provisions in the bill which the agitators of Ireland viewed with still greater dislike, they interfering with their own influence, by preventing those meetings which enabled them to work on the ignorance and passions of the misguided multitude. To escape from these restrictions was to Mr. O'Connell and his followers an object of greater importance than that the multitude whom they misled should be tried only by the regular tribunals of the country—that the peasant should have the benefit of the jury, or of an investigation by the civil magistrate. The lord-lieutenant of Ireland had recommended that the whole act should be renewed, with the exception of the clause relative to courts-martial; but on the 23rd of June, Earl Grey received a communication from him, stating that the provision against public meetings might also be omitted. What influence had been used with the Marquis Wellesley subsequently became the subject of much discussion. It appeared that certain members of the cabinet had been corresponding with him without the knowledge of Earl Grey, and that the object of their correspondence had been, not to insure more tranquillity in Ireland, but to smooth the way of ministers by making concessions to O'Connell and his adherents. On discovering this, Earl Grey, who dissented from such views, immediately wrote to the lord-lieutenant to reconsider the subject, taking nothing into account but what was fitting for Ireland. Lord Wellesley, however, still adhered to his recommendation, more especially if, by means of such omission, an extension of the term for the act could be obtained. The subject was now brought before the cabinet, and its members were found to be divided in opinion thereon. The minority, consisting of Lord Althorp, and Messrs. Grant, Rice, Ellice, and Abercromby, objected to a renewal of the clauses in question, though they acquiesced in the determination of the majority, that the bill should be proposed in the form desired by the premier. On the second reading of the bill, Lord Durham objected to the clauses regarding public meetings, when Earl Grey declared his dissent from him to be absolute; if he could not have proposed the bill with these clauses, he would not have proposed it at all. Without them, he said, the bill would be ineffectual, impolitic, and cruel: it would punish the miserable victims of delusion, and let those escape who supplied to Ireland the fuel of agitation and disturbance. In these sentiments the lord-chancellor coincided; the clauses, he said, were as necessary as any others. Attention must be paid to the cause of excitement, as well as to the parties excited; the clauses regarding public meetings no doubt were a suspension of rights; but so were all the other clauses of the bill, to which no objection had been raised. The second reading of the bill was carried without any serious opposition, and the committee was fixed for the 7th of July; but in the meantime disclosures were made in the commons, which stopped the progress of the bill in its present shape, and which led to the resignation of Earl Grey.

RESIGNATION OF EARL GREY, ETC.

Instead of meeting O'Connell with bold defiance, Mr. Littleton, the Irish secretary, had committed the fatal error of secretly negotiating with him, soothing him, and even entrusting him with the views and determinations of the cabinet, giving him assurances, or encouraging expectations, for which he had no authority. He seems to have expected some communication from the lord-lieutenant regarding the omission of the clauses; and he resolved, before the ministers or the cabinet had made any decision known to him, to communicate to O'Connell, under the seal of secrecy and confidence, the sentiments of the Irish government, and to communicate it as ensuring a similar determination on the part of government. He spoke of the propriety of acting thus to Lord Althorp, who said that he saw no harm in it; but, at the same time, entreated him to use extreme caution in his communication, and by no means to commit himself in what he said. Under these circumstances Mr. Littleton sent for Mr. O'Connell on the 20th of June, and made the desired communication, with an assurance that only a short measure for repressing agrarian disturbances would be proposed: and, also, that if the coercion bill was again thought necessary, he would not introduce it. In consequence of this interview, Mr. O'Connell promised his assistance in putting down disturbances; and he actually withdrew the repeal candidate whom he had started for the county of Wexford. To the dismay of Mr. Littleton, however, the premier and majority of the cabinet determined to retain the clause respecting public meetings, and he was compelled to belie his confidential communication. He had told Mr. O'Connell that he would not be the person to introduce the bill in that shape: and yet he did not resign when it was determined that the bill should be introduced in that shape alone. At the same time he communicated to Mr. O'Connell that his hopes could not be realised; but begged him to take no public notice of this until he should have seen Earl Grey's speech introducing the bill. Mr. O'Connell replied to him, that if he did not resign, he would be guilty of deception; and Mr. Littleton answered, "Say nothing of that to-day," or, "Wait till to-morrow." But with regard to the fact, whether such an answer was or was not given, both O'Connell and Mr. Littleton averred that what the other stated was not consistent with truth. Be this as it may, O'Connell thought he was not bound to secrecy; and on the 3rd of July, two days after the bill had been introduced in the lords, he asked Mr. Littleton whether it was true that the renewal of the coercion bill in its present shape had been advised and called for by the Irish government? Mr. Littleton answered that this was an unusual inquiry to make respecting a bill not before the house; but he would say that the introduction of the bill had the entire sanction of the Irish government. Mr. O'Connell again put his question, as to whether the bill had been called for by the Irish government? and not obtaining a more direct answer, he said, "I now ask the Irish secretary if it his intention to bring the bill forward in this house?" Mr. Littleton replied, "It will be for the government to decide as to its introduction here when the proper time arrives; but, whoever may bring in the bill, I shall vote for it." Mr. O'Connell then said, "Then I have been exceedingly deceived by him;" and the Irish secretary was driven to the necessity of stating the whole matter, and an angry discussion ensued. Two days afterwards Mr. Littleton tendered his resignation; but it was refused, his colleagues, as Lord Althorp stated in the house, valuing his services too highly to dispense with them on such grounds. The coercion bill passed through committee in the lords on the 7th of July, and on the same evening, in the house of commons, Lord Althorp, for the purpose of announcing its approach, presented papers relative to the state of Ireland, which he moved should be printed. This led to a discussion on the sentiments of the cabinet, and the change of opinion manifested by the Marquis Wellesley. Mr. O'Connell moved an amendment, that the papers should be referred to a select committee; and this being rejected by a large majority, he gave notice for the production of so much of the lord-lieutenant's correspondence as would explain the reason why he opposed a renewal of the coercion act on or about the 20th of June. Hitherto there had been no symptoms of change in the ministry, however unfortunate might be the figure which they had been compelled to make. They had even refused to accept the resignation of Mr. Littleton, whose indiscreet negotiations had been the source of all their embarrassments. Lord Althorp, however, seems now to have come to the conclusion that ministers would not be able to carry the bill through in its original form, for, on the very night of this discussion, he sent in his resignation, and persisted in retiring from office. The resignation of the chancellor of the exchequer involved that of Earl Grey. The prime minister, convinced that it was impossible for him to proceed when deprived of Lord Althorp's assistance, gave in his own resignation, which his majesty accepted. By the retirement of the head of the cabinet, the cabinet itself was dissolved; but no other resignation followed. The members of the old cabinet, indeed, resolved to remain together, and selected a new head; and Lord Melbourne, the home-secretary, was elevated to this post, and kissed hands on the 16th of July as first lord of the treasury. Lord Melbourne's first act was to inform the house that ministers did not intend to proceed with the coercion bill now before it, but that another bill, omitting certain clauses contained in the former, would immediately be brought into the house of commons. This announcement produced a vehement discussion, in which the conduct of government and some of its individual members was assailed by the Dukes of Wellington and Buckingham, and several other peers, who maintained, that since the Revolution, no instance had occurred of such inconsistency and tergiversation. A modified coercion bill, however, was introduced on the 18th of July; and having been rapidly carried through the commons, passed the lords on the 29th, under a strong protest, signed by the Dukes of Cumberland and Wellington, with twenty-one other peers. This modified bill re-enacted only those parts of the former which referred to the proclamation of districts. The lord-lieutenant was to have power to proclaim any district which he thought necessary, and in these districts any meeting, not convened by the high sheriff of the county, was to be held illegal. No person was to leave his house between sunset and sunrise, except on lawful business; and constables were to have power to make people show themselves at any hour of the night when they might call at their houses. The operations of the bill were to cease on the 1st of August, 1835.

REJECTION OF THE IRISH TITHE QUESTION BY THE PEERS.

Ministers having thus provided for the tranquillity of Ireland, by what they considered enactments of sufficient energy and severity, now returned to their tithe bill, which, according to them, was to be the great recompense of the temporary submission to a strained power of the law. Accordingly, on the 29th of July, the order of the day was read for the house resolving itself into a committee on the tithe bill. Mr. O'Connell moved as an amendment that the house should resolve itself into a committee that day six months. He did so, he said, on the ground that it was preposterous to go into a committee on a bill containing one hundred and twenty-two clauses at that period of the session, on the ground of the demerits of the bill itself, and on the ground that it would be time enough to legislate after the report of the commission which had been issued should have been received, a regular plan arranged and submitted, with all its details, and all necessary information, to a select committee composed of men of all parties. This amendment, however, obtained only fourteen votes in its favour, though others were carried in committee, which went to alter the operation and consequences of the bill. Thus Mr. O'Connell moved an amendment, the object of which was to relieve the tithe-payer immediately to the extent of forty per cent.; and in consequence of the accommodating language and coy resistance of ministers, it was carried by a majority of eighty-two to thirty-three. Additional concessions were also made in the committee; and even Mr. Shiel remarked that Ireland ought to be grateful. Such, indeed, was the departure from the original principles and arrangements of the bill that one hundred and eleven out of one hundred and seventy-two clauses were expunged. Thus altered, the bill was read a third time, and passed on the 5th of August.

On the second reading of the bill in the lords, the peers were given to understand by Lord Melbourne that, if it was lost, government would propose no other grant to relieve the Irish clergy. He admitted, he said, that there might be reason for viewing with jealousy and distrust the quarter whence certain alterations made in the bill, subsequently to this introduction, proceeded; but, at the same time he did not think the arrangement bad for the church. The tithe for the future was to be received by the crown, and paid by the landlord, who, in return for the burden thus imposed on him, was to have a deduction of two-fifths or forty per cent, of the original composition. The incomes of the clergy, however, were not to bear the whole deduction, which was only to be twenty-two and a half per cent, on them; that is, twenty per cent, for increased security, and two and a half per cent, for the expenses of collection. The incumbents would, in fact, receive £79 10s. for every £100 without trouble, without the risk of bad debts, and without the odium which had hitherto attended the collection of tithe property. Another consequence was that the clergy would be relieved from the payment of sums already advanced to them from the treasury, as that charge would be laid on the landlord. In conclusion, he said that he thought the revision of existing compositions, made under the acts of 1823 and '32, was also a proper enactment. The bill underwent a complete discussion—the Conservatives seeing no security for the rights and interests of the Irish clergy in its provisions as now altered; while their opponents thought that it would be much more advantageous to the clerical body to obtain the sum proposed without risk, than to recover a smaller—if they recovered any at all—through scenes of blood and slaughter. The Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond pursued a middle course—they wished the bill to go into committee in order to restore it to its original state; if unsuccessful there, they would vote against the third reading. The lords, however, were determined to reject it forthwith; and on a division the bill was thrown out by a majority of one hundred and eighty-nine against one hundred and twenty-two. By the rejection of the bill, the Irish clergy was thrown on the charity of the British public, who liberally responded to their demand: a large subscription was made to relieve their distresses.

STATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS OF DISSENTERS.

It was not the Catholics alone who regarded the Protestant establishment with a jealous eye; there were discontents and heart-burnings, also, among dissenters. The great majority of the people of England adhered to the established church, yet the dissenters formed a numerous body, possessing in many instances great respectability, wealth, and influence. As a body they were impressed with the idea that, by the church being supported as a national institution, they were stamped with a mark of inferiority. Acting upon this impression, they very naturally employed the power with which they were now invested to bring down the established church to the same level on which they themselves stood; to annihilate all the rights, powers, and privileges which belonged to its members; and, by depriving it of all support from the funds of the state, convert it into a self-constituted religious community. Their great objects were to obtain those privileges from which they were excluded, and to be relieved from the necessity of supporting an establishment in the advantages of which they did not participate. The occasion was favourable for the enterprise, in consequence of the unsettled and uncertain state in which things stood, and the hopes held out by a ministry who seemed disposed to make concessions to all classes of men if they were but importunate. In accordance with their views, various petitions were presented by them to parliament in the beginning of the session, praying to be relieved from church-rates; and in many instances urging the separation of church and state, or recommending the general establishment of the voluntary system. These petitions, however, led to no other result but that of producing a strong expression of opposite opinions, and calling forth numerous anti-petitions, praying parliament to preserve the church inviolate. Ministers declared that they would listen to no proposition for its destruction; but, notwithstanding this, a motion was made by Mr. Rippon, the new member for Gateshead, to expel the bishops from the house of lords. This motion was seconded by Mr. Gillon, a Scotch member; but on a division it was lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five against fifty-eight. The minority seems to have been much larger than had been anticipated, for the announcement was hailed with loud cheers.

Among the grievances of which the dissenters complained in their numerous petitions, none were more forcibly insisted on than their practical exclusion from degrees at Oxford and Cambridge, in consequence of its being required, as a preliminary, that they should conform to the church of England, or to subscribe to her articles. As a matter of civil right, they demanded that all religious tests should be abolished, and the universities thrown open for the education and graduation of men of all creeds. Exertions were made by them to get up petitions from the universities, and in one of them they succeeded. On the 21st of March Earl Grey presented, in the house of lords, a petition from certain members of the senate of the University of Cambridge, praying for the abolition by legislative authority of every religious test exacted from members of the university before they proceed to degrees, whether of bachelor, master, or doctor, in arts, law, and physic. On this occasion, as on others when similar petitions were presented, there was much incidental discussion of the merits of the demand. Ministers declared it to be just and proper, and showed an inclination to grant it; but no distinct motion was made on the subject till after the Easter recess. On the 17th of April, however, Colonel Williams moved an address to the king, "requesting his majesty to signify his pleasure to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that these bodies no longer act under the edicts or letters of James I., 1616; by which he would have all who take any degree in schools to subscribe to the three articles' of the thirty-sixth canon, with the exception of those proceeding to degrees in divinity; nor to require the declaration, namely, 'that I am bona fide a member of the church of England,' nor any subscription or declaration of like effect and import." It was, however, thought for many reasons more advisable to proceed by bill; and Mr. Wood, one of the members for Preston, moved as an amendment for leave to bring in a bill to grant to his majesty's subjects, generally, the right of admission to the English universities, and to equal eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their diversities of religious opinion, degrees in divinity alone excepted. The address was withdrawn; and after a discussion, in which even the introduction of the measure was opposed by Messrs. Goulburn and Estcourt, and Sir R. Inglis, three of the four members for the universities, it was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five to forty-four. Although the Cambridge petition had been presented in both houses by members of the cabinet, and government had declared its entire concurrence in the prayer of the petitioners, neither the proposition for an address, nor that for a bill, was brought forward by ministers. They were favourable to the measure, however, and supported it by their speeches and votes. At the same time they wished that neither parliament nor the government should be pressed or hurried to intermeddle, before they could take up the matter with the prospect of terminating it in the best and most satisfactory manner. They hoped, they said, that as a portion of one of the universities was already inclined to it, the object, by allowing some time for consideration, might be effected with the concurrence of those learned bodies, and in a much better form, and to much better purpose, than if they were made reluctantly to act under the compulsion of a statute. That hope, however, was vain. Before the bill was brought in, the sentiments of the great mass in the two universities were fully expressed. It was soon discovered that the sixty-three petitioners at Cambridge, by offending the honest principles of many, and the party-spirit of others, had raised a storm which no argument or explanation could allay. Meetings were almost daily held, pamphlets were distributed on every hand, the public press joined in the contest, and the university pulpits resounded with the most awful denunciations. During the excitement at Cambridge, a counter-petition was signed by two hundred and fifty-eight members, resident and non-resident, comprising eleven heads of houses, eight professors, and twenty-nine tutors; while a second was signed by seven hundred and fifty-five under-graduates and bachelors of arts. These were presented on the 21st of April by the Duke of Gloucester in the lords, as chancellor of the university, and by Mr. Goulburn in the commons, as one of its representatives. A similar document was presented from the university of Oxford by Mr. Estcourt, and on the 9th of May a second petition was sent from Cambridge, signed by one thousand members of the senate who had not signed the other.

Although Mr. Wood brought his bill into the house soon after the Easter holidays, it was not till the 20th of June that he was enabled to move the second reading. Mr. Estcourt proposed as an amendment that it should be read that day six months. Mr. Herbert seconded the amendment. Messrs. Paten, Poulter, and Ewart spoke in favour of the bill, contending that the alteration was necessary, no less for the benefit of the universities, than in justice to the dissenters. By the present system the latter were impeded in their progress to the bar, by having to keep terms for five years instead of three; and were prevented from becoming fellows of the college of physicians, for want of academical degrees. These were positive and weighty grievances, which ought, it was urged, to be remedied. Mr. Spring Rice complained that it was unfair to treat the bill, not according to its own deserts, but according to measures which might or might not be immediately connected with that now under discussion. He asked what could be more inconsistently unjust than the practice of Cambridge, where dissenters were admitted so far as instruction was concerned, but then excluded from everything to which instruction ought to lead? They were admitted to the fullest and most complete course of study until the twelfth term, when, on being brought into fair competition with their fellow-students, the odious principle of exclusion intervened: the dissenter was told that, however obedient he had been to college regulations, however high the eminence he had acquired, still he would not be allowed the badge or symbol of his acquirements, simply because he was a dissenter. The house, indeed, had the benefit of experience; for in Dublin dissenters were admitted to degrees, though excluded from fellowships, and all participation in the internal management of the university. And what mighty mischiefs, he asked, had followed the admission? Was the university less orthodox in its principles? or less a Protestant foundation than before? Had the zeal of its public instructors been lessened, or their sphere of usefulness narrowed by this interference? It should be remembered that those on whom the exclusions fell were men of active and stirring spirits, men who wrould excite and probably guide the councils of those with whom they agreed in opinion. It had been said that the dissenters ought to found universities of their own. He concurred in that argument; but the English universities would not allow them to do this. When they proposed such a step, in order to educate the youth of their own persuasion, and reward them with those honours which the university denied, and thus sought to secure to themselves academical honours and privileges, the universities stepped forward and said:—"We will not only exclude you from our own seats, but will also prevent you from enjoying the advantages and privileges of a university of your own." This double ground of exclusion and prohibition was most undefensible. The colonial secretary was answered by Mr. Goulburn, who argued that in proportion as the friends of the bill enforced the danger of excluding dissenters, they rendered manifest the ruinous consequences of concession. If the dissenters really deemed it so great a hardship to be deprived of the empty honour of a degree, what would they say, if they were admitted to degrees, and found a bar raised against their admission to college emoluments and distinctions? Sir Robert Peel characterised the bill as an enactment intended to give to Jews, infidels, and atheists—to the man who professed some religion, and to the man who professed none—a statutable right of demanding admission into our universities. Sir E. Inglis and Lord Sandon opposed the bill, contending that it was impossible to establish any system of religious education in institutions into which persons professing different religious opinions were admitted. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, supported the bill, disclaiming at the same time any hostility to the established church. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-one against one hundred and seventy-four. In the committee the speaker gave his decided opposition to the bill; and some amendments having been made, it wras read a third time, and passed by a majority of one hundred and sixty-four against seventy-five. The bill was conducted in the lords by the Earl of Radnor, who moved the second reading on the 1st of August. The Duke of Gloucester, Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, denounced the bill as being not only uncalled for, but most unjust and mischievous. His royal highness concluded by moving as an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, Chancellor of the University of Oxford, who sustained the same view of the question. The Earl of Carnarvon spoke against the bill; the Archbishop of Canterbury maintained the same side. Lord Melbourne admitted that the subject was surrounded with difficulties; that he did not altogether approve of the bill; but, notwithstanding this, the question being brought before the house, he would vote for the second reading of the bill, because he thought a question of such magnitude and importance was entitled to the fullest and most anxious consideration. Lord-chancellor Brougham supported the bill, because he thought it went to remove a practical grievance, without affecting the discipline of the universities or the safety of the church. The discussion was closed by the Bishop of Exeter, who, in a long and ingenious speech, opposed the bill in all its bearings. On a division, the amendment to reject the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty-seven against eighty-five.

Another grievance of which the dissenters complained was, that they were liable to church-rates—that is, they were taxed towards the expenses of the established church. On the 21st of April Lord Althorp brought forward his plan for the mitigation of this evil in the shape of a resolution: "that, after a fixed time, church-rates should cease and determine; and, in lieu thereof, a sum not exceeding £250,000 should be granted from the land-tax to be applied to the expenses of the fabrics of churches and chapels in such manner as parliament should direct." He said that his intention was not merely to relieve dissenters, but likewise to provide for the fabrics of the church. This plan, however, did not suit the views of either churchmen or dissenters. The friends of the dissenters, indeed, immediately attacked it with unmeasured violence. Mr. Hume moved that all the words in the resolution should be expunged, except those which declared "that church-rates should cease and determine." The proposal, it was said, was a contemptible juggle, founded on the old financial principle that if money were taken out of the pockets of the people by indirect means, they would not be sensible of their loss. On the other hand, the friends of the church objected to the plan because it questioned the rights of the church, infringed on some of them, and left others on a foundation less sure than before; and all this without any reason in principle, and confessedly without any good result in practice. Lord Althorp, in his reply, expressed much surprise that the dissenters should receive the proposition so ungraciously; but expressed his determination to persevere in bringing it forward. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty-six against one hundred and forty; but notwithstanding this majority, and the certainty of ultimate success, ministers proceeded no further with the measure. Churchmen considered that one advantage was gained, in the dissenters having been brought to disclose somewhat prematurely the real purposes which they had in view, and to proclaim opinions tending to the complete abolition of a religious establishment. Government were equally unfortunate in another attempt to gratify the dissenters, by allowing them to celebrate the marriage ceremony in their own chapels, and thus escape what was deemed by them a grievous oppression.

The commutation of tithes in England was a subject still more complicated and difficult. It in fact involved so many interests of different kinds, and so many details requiring minute attention, that the adjustment of the question was a work requiring both time, patience, and circumspection. Lord Althorp brought forward the ministerial plan on the 15th of April, and it was contained in the following resolution:—"That it was expedient that the payment of tithes in kind should cease and determine, and that in the several parishes throughout England and Wales there should be substituted in lieu thereof a payment to the parties who might be entitled to such tithe, such payment bearing a fixed proportion to the annual value of all land whence tithe might be payable, that value to be ascertained throughout the several counties at large, striking an average on the parishes in each county; also that all owners of property liable to tithe be at liberty to redeem the same at the rate of twenty-five years' purchase." Lord Althorp then proceeded to develop his plan at great length; but its principles and details were so strongly objected to both by landlords and the clergy that the measure was dropped for the present. Lord Althorp stated as a reason for not going on with it, that he saw, from the state of the public business, and the time which would require to be devoted to the more urgent question of the amendment of the poor-laws, that there was no probability of its being brought to a successful issue before the termination of the session.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

WILLIAM IV. 1834

One act was carried this session, which, in itself, is sufficient to signalise the administration under whose auspices it was brought forward. Soon after their accession to office the present ministry had issued a commission of inquiry into the state and operation of the poor laws. The inquiries of the commission were to be directed towards ascertaining what was the cause why, in some parts of the country, the poor-laws were considered a benefit by parishes, while in others their operation had been ruinous and destructive. The commissioners had made their report, and an abstract of the evidence which they had taken had been printed in the course of the preceding session. Government was so strongly impressed by that report, with a conviction of the evils produced by the system in many districts of the country, that they resolved to propose a remedy to parliament. On the 17th of April, therefore, Lord Althorp moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the poor. The necessity of interference was maintained on the ground that the present administration of those laws tended directly and indirectly to the destruction of all property, whilst their continued operation was fatal even to the labouring classes whom they had been intended to benefit. It was the abuse of the system, rather than the system itself, which was to be apprehended. Its worst abuses, indeed, were scarcely older than the beginning of the present century, and they had originated in measures intended for the benefit of that class of the community to whose interests and welfare they were now most destructively opposed. A feeling at that period prevailed that great discontent existed among the working classes, and a principle was then adopted in legislation, which, though humane and well intended, was found to produce the most baneful consequences. The 36th of George III. laid down the principle that the relief to paupers ought to be given in such a manner as to place them in a situation of comfort. It might have been desirable to place all our countrymen in this situation; but to give relief in the manner prescribed by this statute was rather the duty of private charity than of the public legislature. The effect of this law had been to give the magistrates the power of ordering relief to the poor in their own dwellings, and the principle being followed up, led from bad to worse, until every spark of independence in the breast of the peasantry had been nearly extinguished. The parish must keep them, it was often said; and they did not care to obtain an honest livelihood by the sweat of their brow. The existing state of things had indeed reduced the labouring population in many districts to a state of deplorable misery and distress. It was evident that there were great dangers to be incurred if matters were left as they stood, and that it was absolutely necessary to adopt sounder principles, and to carry them into execution unflinchingly. In fact, there were examples already to be followed. In about one hundred parishes the evils of the system had compelled the inhabitants to adopt an approved mode of administration, and in every instance they had succeeded, although some of them had been completely pauperised. Where, again, the former system still prevailed, cultivation had been abandoned; so heavy was the pressure of rates, and so great the evils of mismanagement. The consequence of this was that the neighbouring parishes were compelled to support the poor; and it was evident that they also would soon be reduced to a similar situation if the system was not soon and effectually altered. It was on the grounds of this mischief, and the necessity of checking it, that Lord Althorp defended the principle of entrusting the poor-laws to a board of commissioners. He admitted that this was an anomalous course of legislation, and that the board would be entrusted with extraordinary powers. This, however, he argued, was rendered unavoidable by the necessity of the case; a discretionary power must be vested somewhere, in order to carry into effect the better principles to be introduced. But before extending any discretionary power, he continued, it would be necessary to fix a day on which the allowance system should cease; and in the bill it would be fixed in some of the summer months, when the labourers were in full employment. The allowance system, he said, was the foundation of almost all other evils; and until it was abolished, any attempt at amending the poor-laws would be nugatory.

The allowance system being abolished, and the central board established, next came the powers of the commissioners. He proposed one uniform system operating over the whole country, in order to obtain which they were to have power to make general rules and orders as to the mode of relief, and for the regulation of workhouses, and the mode of relief afforded therein. As a check against any abuse, every such rule, order, or regulation so proposed by the commissioners would be submitted to the secretary-of-state: forty days were to elapse before it could be brought into operation, and during that period it should be competent, by an order in council, issued for that purpose, to prevent it from being carried into effect. The commissioners would further have power, he said, to make specific rules and orders for the regulation and mode of relief of the poor in separate districts and parishes: to form unions of parishes, in order to make larger districts; to arrange classifications of the poor in the same or different workhouses; to exercise a general control in such unions as might be established without their consent; and to dissolve unions which might now exist. Unions having been formed, each parish in the union would have to maintain its own poor, or contribute to the general fund the proportion of expense which it had hitherto borne by itself. The commissioners would likewise have power to call the attention of parishes and unions to the state of their workhouse establishments, and to suggest to them the propriety of adding to those formed, or of building separate and distinct establishments. Another fertile source of mischief had been the practice of ordering relief to the poor in their own houses. The bill would provide that justices should have no power for the future, thus bringing back the law to the state in which it had been previous to the year 1796. Other features of the bill, he explained, consisted in simplifying the law of settlement and removal; in rendering the mother of an illegitimate child liable for its support, and, for its ailment, to save from imprisonment the putative father to whom she might swear it. The great principles of the proposed plan, therefore, went to stop the allowance system; to deprive the magistracy of the power of ordering out-door relief; to alter, in certain cases, the constitution of parochial vestries; to give large discretionary powers to the commissioners; to simplify the law of settlement and removal; and to render the mother of an illegitimate child liable for its support. The bill by which these principles were to be carried into effect having been brought in, the second reading was opposed by Colonel Evans, one of the members for Westminster, and Sir S. Whalley, one of the members for Marylebone. The latter moved an amendment, that the bill should be read a second time that day six months. It was his opinion, he said, that the bastardy clause, which threw all the burden on the mother, on whom the odium rested already, thus held out a premium to immorality and an inducement to infanticide; and the clauses which effected the law of settlement would of themselves justify the house in throwing out the bill. His great objection, however, was to the board of commissioners. The board was unnecessary, for the principal existing defect consisted in the ratepayers not having sufficient control over the expenditure. If they were only vested with complete control over the poor-law management, the evils of the present system would soon disappear. He doubted whether the house had authority to give powers of the description proposed to any set of men—at all events it was impolitic. The bashaws whom the bill proposed to start into life would be omnipotent; they might do as they pleased, and account for their acts by merely stating it was their pleasure. There were to be no less than thirty-six discretionary powers vested in the commissioners; a degree of authority entrusted to three men of which the country afforded no parallel. Government ought to wait before they undertook any poor-law reform: the report of the commissioners had already led to the correction of many abuses, and time only was required to secure a trial to the greater part, if not all, of the recommendations that report contained. The amendment was seconded by Alderman Wood, and supported by Mr. Walter, a reforming representative of Berkshire. Messrs. Grote and Hume, and Sirs J. Scarlett and Francis Burdett, with other members who spoke on the occasion, all agreed that there was no good reason against the second reading of the bill, though none of them approved it as a whole. The chancellor of the exchequer argued in reply, that nothing had been stated which could be regarded as an ostensible reason for not going into committee; and that when in committee all matters which had been noticed would be open to consideration. The second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and nineteen to twenty. In the committee a discussion took place as regarded the effect of the bill in establishing workhouses, a system which some members disliked; but the clause was retained. Another discussion also took place on the clause which allowed occupiers and owners to vote in vestries, the latter having accumulative votes proportioned to their property. It was objected to as being inconsistent with popular rights and good management; but it was nevertheless retained. The forty-fifth clause provided that it should be lawful for the commissioners, by such orders or regulations as they should think fit, to declare to what extent the relief to be given might be administered out of the workhouse. An amendment was moved, "that no rule or order of the commissioners shall prohibit the guardians of unions from giving relief out of the workhouse, to such of their sick or impotent poor, and to such widows, orphans, and illegitimate children, as they may think fit so to relieve." This amendment, however, was only supported by forty, while one hundred and forty-eight voted against it. In the clauses regarding settlement, settlement by having occupied a tenement, and having been assessed to the poor-rates for one year, and having paid such assessment, was added to settlement by birth and marriage.

The clauses which laid the burden of supporting an illegitimate child on the mother, as if she had been a widow, gave rise to much discussion. Mr. Robinson moved that they should be omitted, he objecting to them chiefly on the ground that they removed the liability from the father. He did not object, he said, to so much of them as repealed certain acts affecting the mother, but to that part which let the father go free. The bill proposed, he said, that in case the woman should be unable to support the child, the liability should rest on the father, or if he were not alive, or being alive and not able to support it, then the liability was to fall on the grandfather or grandmother. Could the house, he asked, seriously entertain propositions of this nature, or consent to pass enactments so contrary to every principle of justice and humanity? Lord Althorp protested against these provisions being discussed as matters of feeling; they should be considered not as they affected one portion of society, but the whole of it; and looking at it in this point of view he was prepared to support this part of the bill as a boon to the female population. He left it as an alternative to the committee, that if this clause was struck out, the bastardy clauses should be wholly severed from the bill, and proceeded with in a future session of parliament. The general feeling in the house seemed to be that the clauses should be struck out, and the matters which they involved made the subject of a separate measure, or that they should be postponed till some middle term should be devised. The majority, however, preferred the latter alternative, and it was decided that the provisions in question should not be expunged. On the 21st of March Mr. Miles proposed a modified clause, which still refused any claim to the mother against the father, and gave no power of demanding security before the child was born; but it exposed him to a claim at the instance of the managers of the poor, in the event of the mother and the child becoming chargeable to the parish. The chancellor of the exchequer said he would have preferred the original provisions of the bill; but he acquiesced in the adoption of the proposed clause, because he saw that the opinion of the house was in its favour. Subsequently clauses were added, disqualifying the commissioners from sitting in parliament; requiring all general orders and regulations to be laid before parliament; and limiting the operation of the act, in so far as regarded the commissioners, to five years. The bill was read a third time and passed on the 1st of July. It was introduced to the lords on the day following, and the second reading was fixed for the 8th of July; but in consequence of the resignation of Earl Grey, it was not again brought forward till the 21st of July. The second reading was moved by the lord-chancellor, who, after giving an historical account of the progress of the poor-laws, pointed out the manner in which they had become the sources of so much evil. The bill found its most violent opponent in Lord Wynford, who moved as an amendment that it be read that day six months. He did not oppose it, he said, on the ground that there was not much in the administration of the poor-laws which required to be corrected, but because he conceived that the remedies proposed by the bill were partly unnecessary and partly inefficient, while some of them were perfectly tyrannical. The Earl of Winchilsea and the Dukes of Richmond and Wellington supported the motion for the second reading, though they did not approve of all the provisions of the bill. The division on the amendment gave seventy-six peers for the second reading, and only thirteen against it. In the committee Lord Alvanley proposed that the bill should be dropped. Lord Wynford urged strong objections to the central board of commissioners, but this was defended by the lord-chancellor, the Earl of Winchilsea, and the Duke of Wellington. The only alteration made in the clauses respecting them and their powers was an addition proposed by the Duke of Wellington, to the effect that they should be bound to keep a record of each letter received, the date of its reception, the person from whom it came, the subject to which it related, and the minute of any answer given to it, or made thereon, and also, where the commissioners differed, of the opinion of each commissioner, and that a copy of such record be transmitted to the secretary-of-state once a year-, or oftener if required. The Bishop of Exeter moved to substitute for the leading enactment in reference to bastardy, "That the father and mother of an illegitimate child, or the survivor of them, shall be required to support such child, and that no parish shall be bound to support such child whilst either parent is able to do so, and that all relief occasioned by the wants of such child shall be considered as relief afforded to the father and mother, or the survivor of them." This amendment, however, was negatived by thirty-eight votes against thirty-four; but the clause itself, being that which the house of commons, on the motion of Mr. Miles, had substituted for the original clause, was likewise rejected. On the third reading the Bishop of Exeter again brought the question before the house, by moving the omission of the clause which provided that any person marrying a woman who had an illegitimate child or children by another man, should be liable to maintain them. The original clause, however, was retained, although by a majority of only eleven, eighty-two voting for and seventy-one against it. Instead of the rejected clause which Mr. Miles had carried in the house of commons, clauses were introduced on the motion of the Duke of Wellington, enacting, that the putative father of any bastard child, so soon as such child became chargeable to the parish by the mother's inability to maintain it, should be liable to reimburse to the parish the expenses of its maintenance until it attained the age of seven years, on his paternity being proved before the quarter-sessions, but not without the testimony of the woman being corroborated by other evidence; that when a woman had had one bastard child, she should obtain no order in a subsequent case; that an order should be operative only till the child attained the age of seven years; that sums to be recovered from the putative father should be recoverable only by attachment or distress; and that he should not, in any case, be liable to imprisonment for costs. Subsequently, several other amendments were made of minor importance, as alterations in the allowance system, and in administering outdoor relief, &c.; and the bill thus altered passed the third reading on the 8th of August, by a majority of forty-five against fifteen. On the 11th of August, when Lord Althorp moved the commons to agree to the lords' amendment, an amendment was moved that they should be read that day six months. This proposal was chiefly supported by those who were opposed to the bill altogether, or who wished it should be delayed till next session; but Lord Althorp declared that if it did not pass, he would not again bring it forward; and the amendment was negatived by a large majority. All the amendments of the lords were then agreed to, with the exception of the omission of the clause which provided for the instruction of pauper children in the religious creed of his surviving parent or god-parent, and entitled dissenting clergymen to visit workhouses at all times, for the purpose of religious instruction, at the desire of any pauper of any sect. This amendment was said to be a violation of the principle of religious liberty, and an insult to the small portion of good feeling towards dissenters which existed in the upper house, and it was rejected. Finally, the amendment of the commons restoring the clause which had been expunged, was agreed to by the lords, and thus the great experiment of a revision and alteration of the poor-laws commenced.

From the great change effected in the poor-laws, no class of men could eventually expect greater relief than the owners and occupiers of lands. At this time, however, the agriculturists longed after means of relief of more immediate, direct, and certain operation. The subject of agricultural distress had, indeed, formed a paragraph in the king's speech, and it was now brought forward by the Marquis of Chandos. On the 21st of February, after ably stating both the local and general causes of the evil, he moved a resolution, "That, in any reduction of national burdens by the remission of taxes, due regard be shown to that distress of the agriculturists which had been alluded to in the speech from the throne." The resolution was supported by Mr. A. Baring, who said, that importunity and clamour, threats of commotion and resistance to the law obtained that which was refused to the patient suffering of the farmer. Several members spoke against the resolution, not meaning to deny that the agriculturists were suffering, but considering the resolution as not likely to lead to any result; and that the means alluded to by those who supported it were neither efficient nor just. Moreover, the supporters of the motion were far from being of one mind as to the manner in which relief ought to be afforded. On a division the resolution was lost by a majority of four only in a very full house. This success induced the noble mover to bring the subject before the house again. On the 7th of July he moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, expressing the deep regret that this house feels at the continuance of the distressed state of the agricultural interests of the country, to which the attention of parliament was especially called in his majesty's most gracious speech from the throne, and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this house that the attention of his majesty's government should be directed, without further delay, to this important subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and local taxation." On a division the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety against one hundred and seventy-four.

On the 17th of March the question of the malt-duty was brought directly before the house by a motion of Mr. Cobbett, that it should cease and determine from and after the 5th of October next. It was rejected by one hundred and forty-two to fifty-nine.

THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

While the agriculturists were thus demanding relief, the corn-laws were not only insisted on as an answer to all complaints by those who maintained a different interest, but were also themselves made the subject of a formal attack. On the 6th of March, Mr. Hume moved, "That this house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to consider of the corn-laws, and of substituting, instead of the present graduated scale of duties, a fixed and moderate duty on the import at all times of foreign corn into the United Kingdom, and for granting a fixed and equivalent bounty on the export of corn from the United Kingdom, with the ultimate view of establishing a free trade in corn." Sir James Graham defended the present system as necessary to prevent the destruction of the farmers, and the annihilation of the occupations of an immense body of agricultural labourers. On the other hand, Lord Morpeth, who was himself connected with the landed interest, Lord Howick, and Mr. Clay, member for the Tower Hamlets, supported the motion, contending that it was the corn-laws which kept the agricultural interest in a state of depression while all other interests were prospering. The Irish members who spoke were adverse to the proposition; the very agitation of the question, it was said, would do much mischief in Ireland, unless the house distinctly declared that there should be no change in the existing law. Lord Althorp said that he would meet the motion with a direct negative, although his opinions were favourable to an alteration of the existing system. In opposition, therefore, to his theoretical opinion, he would resist the motion; and he believed that every cabinet minister would vote against it. There were, however, some of the members of government favourable to a repeal of the corn-laws; and Mr. Thompson, vice-president of the board of trade, supported the motion, and delivered a long speech, principally in answer to Sir James Graham's. He contended that so far from the existing system conferring any benefit on the corn-growers, the farmers, who had been deluded by it, had more reason to complain of it than any other class in the country. And what, he asked, were the effects on our manufactures of this system which had ruined the farmers? The motion was rejected by three hundred and twelve against one hundred and fifty-five. The subject was again discussed incidentally, on the occasion of the presentation of a petition from Liverpool in favour of free trade, and especially of a free trade in corn. Sir Robert Peel embraced this opportunity of expressing his opinions on the subject—opinions utterly at variance with the enlightened policy adopted by him at a subsequent date. On the other hand, Sir Henry Parnell said that the pretext of farmers being interested in a continuation of the corn-laws was a gross delusion practised on them by the landlords. It was for their advantage alone that the whole community was taxed.

At this time, also, those concerned in the shipping-interest complained loudly of distress, which they considered to be either caused or aggravated by the admission into our ports of the ships of foreign nations on the same terms on which our vessels were admitted into theirs; an admission which the crown had the power of conceding under the fourth of George IV., c. 77, commonly called "the Reciprocity of Duties Act." Many petitions for the repeal of this act were presented; and on the 5th of June Mr. G. F. Young moved for leave to bring in a bill for that purpose; but the motion was resisted by ministers, and rejected by one hundred and seventeen against fifty-two.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ETC.

Notwithstanding the distress of the country, the financial affairs of the present year exhibited an encouraging aspect. The chancellor of the exchequer indeed, after providing for the interest on the £20,000,000 granted to West India proprietors, had a disposable surplus of £1,620,000. From various alterations about to be made in the state of taxation with respect to spirits and beer, the estimated surplus might be taken at £1,815,000. Under these circumstances, the chancellor of the exchequer made the following reductions in taxation: in the house-tax, which was wholly abolished,£1,200,000; customs,£200,000; starch, £75,000; stone bottles and sweets, £6000; almanacks, £25,000; small assessed taxes, £75,000—leaving still a surplus of about £230,000. But this surplus would be further reduced by a change which was proposed in the spirit duties. The duty on spirits distilled in Ireland had for several years been fixed at the same amount as in Scotland. That policy was now to be departed from, and the duty on Irish spirits was to be reduced from 3s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. per gallon. After a few words from Mr. Baring against the views of the chancellor of the exchequer, the resolutions proposed were adopted by the house. Subsequently, an important measure of finance was attempted in a plan for the reduction of the four per cent, annuities created in 1826. All holders of that stock who should not signify their dissent, were to have, for every £100, three and a half per cent, in a new stock to be consolidated with the existing three and a half per cent, annuities, which were not liable to redemption before January, 1840. The dissentients were found to be a greater number than had been anticipated. Before the 9th of June, nine hundred and sixty-nine had expressed their dissent, and they held stock to the amount of £4,600,000. In order to provide funds for paying off these dissentients, a resolution was passed on the 7th of June, authorising the commissioners of the national debt to pay them out of the monies, stocks, or exchequer-bills which they held under "the savings' bank act." The dissented stock was from the tenth of October following to be considered as converted into an equal amount of three and a half per cents., which were to be vested in the commissioners, and placed in the bank-books to the account intituled "funds for the banks of savings."

BILL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS, ETC.

WILLIAM IV. 1834

During this session Mr. Robert Grant again brought in a bill for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews. The second reading was opposed by Mr. C. Bruce. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The amendment, however, was rejected, and the bill carried through committee by large majorities, and it was read a third time and passed on the 11th of June by fifty votes against fourteen. In the lords, on the second reading, the Earl of Malmsbury moved the amendment that the bill should be read that day six months. The Earl of Winchilsea seconded the amendment. On a division the bill was lost by one hundred and thirty-two against thirty-eight.

The distress felt at this time by all classes of the community was dexterously made use of by the opponents of ministers to render their administration unpopular. They became exposed to great inconvenience from a statutory rule of the constitution, which requires that all members of the house of commons who accept certain offices under the crown shall vacate their seats, and take the chance of a re-election. In more instances than one, the candidate thus stamped with the approbation of government had not been re-elected; and even the attorney-general, having, by his promotion, lost his seat for Dudley, was unable to appear in the house of commons. This was the first practical grievance experienced under the reform act, which had swept away all the close boroughs without any exception, and provided no means to compensate the loss. This state of matters induced Sir Robert Heron, on the 1st of May, to move for leave to bring in a bill to obviate the necessity of members vacating their seats on their accepting certain offices under the crown. Mr. E. L. Bulwer was dissatisfied with the proposition, because it failed to remove the worst clanger of the present system. The principle of the constitution, he said, was not that the people should choose ministers, but that they should have an opportunity of deciding whether or not they wished their representatives to become ministers, and this principle the present measure would destroy. Pie moved, as an amendment, "That, for the convenience of the public service, and the promotion of the public interests, it is desirable that one member of each of the principal departments of state should have a seat in that house, but without the privilege of voting, unless returned by the suffrages of a constituency." Dr. Lushington and Mr. Ward opposed both these propositions, as taking from the people one of the most valuable privileges given to them by the constitution, merely for the purpose of consulting the convenience and safety of the party now in power. Lord Althorp assured the house that the subject had been introduced without the sanction of government; but, at the same time, he stated that ministers had been put to great inconvenience. On the whole, however, he thought that the time was not yet come when a measure like that should be pressed on the house. Both the motion and the amendment were withdrawn.

On the 15th of May Mr. Tennyson submitted a motion for leave to introduce a bill to shorten the duration of parliaments. He reserved to himself the right, he said, of suggesting the precise period to which parliaments should extend, when the measure had gone into committee. The motion was seconded by Sir Edward Codrington, who expressed himself in favour of five years as being more likely to reconcile the different parties. Colonel Davies opposed the motion as being premature; and Lord Dalmeny thought the passing of the reform act the strongest possible reason against entertaining the question. In reply, Mr. Tennyson stated that those who supported the bill would bind themselves only to the propriety of shortening the duration of parliaments, without at all pledging themselves to any particular period, which might be reserved for determination in committee; whereas, those who voted against it, would give a conclusive opinion that the present term ought to be continued. Mr. E. J. Stanley moved, byway of amendment, that the bill be one to shorten parliaments to five years, which was negatived without a division: the original motion was lost by a majority of fifty. Subsequently Colonel Evans moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the reform act, in so far as it made the payment of rates and taxes an essential qualification for voting at parliamentary elections, which was supported by Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Attwood, and O'Connell. The motion was opposed by Lords John Russell and Althorp; and it was lost, on a division, by a majority of eighty-seven. Previous to this, Lord John Russell had introduced a bill to prevent bribery at elections, which had passed the commons. The peers had referred this bill to a select committee; and on the 28th of July, the Marquis of Lansdowne, on presenting the report of the committee, stated that there had been no interference with the powers possessed by the election committees of the house of commons. The single object kept in view by the committee was the attainment of the proposed end in the speediest manner possible. Accordingly an amendment on the bill was suggested, by which it was directed that, when a committee of the house of commons had come to the conclusion that gross and extensive bribery had been committed in any place, the result of that inquiry should be laid before their lordships; and then the crown should issue a commission, over which one of the judges should preside, to form a court of inquiry on the whole matter in dispute. He proposed that this court should consist of seven members of the house of commons, five of their lordships, and one judge, who should have the power of calling before them all persons and documents affecting the subject of inquiry; that the witnesses should be exempted from the consequences of*any evidence which they might be called on to give; and that a statement of the result having been drawn up, any legislative enactment with regard to the alleged abuse should be left to the discretion of the two houses of parliament. When these amendments were brought under the consideration of the lower house, Lord John Russell thought them of so extensive a nature as to render the bill almost a new measure; and ultimately he agreed to withdraw it.

On the 15th of April, Mr. Roebuck moved for a select committee to inquire into the political condition of the Canadas. These provinces, he said, in consequence of bad government, were in a state of revolt. By their constitution they had a governor, a legislative council, and a house of assembly. Some years after the constitution had been conferred upon them, the two provinces were permitted to provide for their own expenses, and consequently to have control over the expenditure of the government. It had been proposed to pass the estimates annually; but that plan had been thwarted by the government, which charged the house of assembly with disrespect to his majesty. The representatives of the people next resolved to vote their money by items; but this having excited the jealousy of the officials, put a stop for the time to the business of the state. In consequence of all this the public mind was embittered, and the country was divided into two hostile sections—a small band of official persons on the one hand, and the nation, with their representatives at their head, on the other. Mr. Stanley said, that he was glad of the opportunity of bringing under the notice of the house the present state of the province of Lower Canada, and after entering into the subject at great length, he moved as an amendment for the appointment of a select committee, to inquire and report whether the grievances complained of in 1828 by certain inhabitants of that colony had been redressed; and also, whether the recommendation of a committee of that house, to which the question of those grievances was referred, had been complied with on the part of government: also to inquire into other grievances set forth in the resolutions of the house of assembly in Lower Canada, and report thereupon to the house. Mr. O'Connell said that the object of government was to thwart the Catholic clergymen of Canada, and to throw obstacles in the way of their building chapels. He recommended that the motion should be withdrawn, and the amendment allowed to be carried, so as to throw upon government the responsibility of appointing the committee. Mr. Hume contrasted the tyranny exercised over the colony by the present government, with the leniency of the measures adopted by Lord Goderich; and Lord Howick expressed a hope that the committee about to be appointed would succeed in effecting an amicable adjustment of the differences prevailing in Lower Canada. Finally the motion was withdrawn, and the amendment of Mr. Stanley adopted.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by the king in person on the 15th of August. In his speech his majesty lamented the still unsettled state of Holland and Belgium; but expressed satisfaction that civil war had absolutely terminated in Portugal. He rejoiced, he said, that the state of affairs in the Peninsula had induced him to conclude with the King of France, the Queen Regent of Spain, and the Regent of Portugal that quadripartite treaty, which had materially contributed to produce so happy a result. Events, however, had since occurred in Spain, to disappoint for a time those hopes of tranquillity, which the pacification of Portugal had inspired. In his speech his majesty alluded to the numerous and important questions that had engaged, and would still engage the attention of parliament.

DISSOLUTION OF THE CABINET.

Before parliament was prorogued the weakness and vacillation of the ministry had been very apparent. From the moment of Earl Grey's resignation, indeed, the want of intrinsic power had rendered them dependent on O'Connell and his faction. And this very support was vouchsafed to them in such a way as tended to bring their government still more into contempt: while the Irish demagogues supported them, they expressed the utmost contempt for them. Thus, in the month of October, O'Connell wrote a series of letters to Lord Duncannon, in which every species of abuse was heaped upon the ministry and the Whigs.

Another circumstance which contributed to lower the reputation of the ministry was the hostility evinced to them by the public press. There was scarcely a daily newspaper, except the Morning Chronicle, which did not occasionally express contempt for them; and as for the Times, its columns perpetually exposed their feebleness and incapacity to carry on government on any fixed set of principles. The conduct of Lord Brougham also tended to bring his colleagues into contempt. During the autumn he traversed different parts of Scotland, making speeches wherever hearers were to be found, in which at one time he would go the utmost lengths of ultra-radicalism, and at another, would speak in such a way as would have induced the Conservatives to hail him as their own. The dissolution of the ministry, however, was especially aided by the death of Earl Spencer, which took place on the 10th of November. As that event moved Lord Althorp to the house of lords, it was requisite to find a new chancellor of the exchequer, and a new leader of the house of commons.

On the 14th of November Lord Melbourne waited on the king at Brighton, to submit to his majesty the changes in official appointments which the death of Earl Spencer had rendered necessary, Lord John Russell being the individual selected as leader of the house of commons; but the king thought that business could not be carried on by such a ministry as it was proposed to construct, and he expressed his opinion that Lord Brougham could not continue chancellor, as well as his dissatisfaction with the selection of the members of the cabinet who were to frame the Irish church bill. The king, in fact, announced that he should not impose upon Lord Melbourne the task of completing the official arrangements, but would apply to the Duke of Wellington.

SIR ROBERT PEEL APPOINTED PRIME-MINISTER.

Having thus dismissed the cabinet, his majesty sent for the Duke of Wellington, who advised him to entrust the government to Sir Robert Peel. As Sir Robert, however, was in Italy, he offered to carry on the public business till his return. This course was adopted, and as a temporary arrangement, his grace was appointed first lord of the treasury, and sworn in as one of the principal secretaries of state. On the 21st of November, Lord Lyndhurst received the great seal, and took the oaths as lord-chancellor, but he did not resign the office of lord-chief-baron till the settlement of the ministry in December. Sir Robert Peel, who had been sent for by a special messenger, arrived on the 9th of that month, and one of his first steps was to propose to Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham that they should be members of the new administration; but they both declined pledging themselves to the extent to which they might be considered bound by the acceptance of office. The official arrangements, however, were completed by the end of December, and the new cabinet consisted of the following members:—Sir Robert Peel, first lord of the treasury; Lord Lyndhurst, lord-chancellor; the Earl of Rossyln, president of the council; Lord Wharncliffe, lord-privy-seal; the Duke of Wellington, secretary-of-state for foreign affairs; Mr. Goulburn, secretary-of-state for the home department; the Earl of Aberdeen, colonial secretary; Mr. Alexander Baring, president of the board or trade; Sir George Murray, master-general of the ordnance; Sir E. Knatchbull, paymaster of the forces; Earl de Grey, first lord of the admiralty; Lord Ellenborough, president of the board of control; Lord Maryborough, postmaster-general; the Earl of Jersey, lord-chamberlain; the Earl of Roden, lord-steward; Lord Lowther, vice-president of the board of trade, and treasurer of the navy; Mr. C. Wynn, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; Mr. Hemes, secretary-at-war; Mr. F. Pollock, attorney-general for England; and Mr. Follett, solicitor-general. The Earl of Haddington went to Ireland as lord-lieutenant; Sir Edward Sugden was appointed lord-chancellor of Ireland; Sir Henry Hardinge became chief-secretary to the lord-lieutenant; and Sir James Scarlett succeeded Lord Lyndhurst as lord-chief-baron of the exchequer, with the title of Lord Abinger.

DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

Every man of penetration saw that the new ministry had too much of the old leaven to stand long as the present parliament was constituted. Sir Robert Peel, however, did not despair. Though there was a reformed parliament, he fully anticipated carrying on the government with advantage to the country. In the month of November he expounded the principles on which he designed to conduct government, in a long address to his constituents at Tamworth, observing, that he would not accept power on the condition of declaring himself an apostate from the principles on which he had hitherto acted, and declaring that he had not been a defender of abuses, or an enemy to judicious reforms, either before or after the reform bill had passed. It was evident, however, to Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues that government could not be carried on with the present parliament; and therefore, on the 30th of December, a proclamation was issued, dissolving it, and convoking a new one to meet on the 5th of February, 1835.

THE ACT ABOLISHING SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES CARRIED INTO EFFECT.

On the 1st of August in the present year, the act for the emancipation of the negroes came into operation. In some islands symptoms of insubordination were exhibited, and the planters were obliged to have recourse to punishment and force, in order to overcome the reluctance of the black population to regular labour; yet this great change took place without any serious disturbances. In Barbadoes, indeed, there was perfect tranquillity and order; and in Jamaica the transition was accompanied with very little alarm or commotion. The slave felt grateful that he was permitted to take his proper station among the great family of mankind.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

At the close of the last year, the government of the Queen of Portugal was in possession of the capital, as well as of Oporto. Having an efficient army, as the authority of Don Miguel was obeyed over a large extent of country, the government resolved to pursue its military operations with vigour. The plan adopted was to crush the smaller bodies of men in arms for the pretender in various parts of the kingdom, till there should be no Miguelites but those who were around himself at Santarem. In pursuance of this plan, the Duke of Terceira joined the queen's army in January, in order that Saldanha might undertake other operations. Saldanha made himself master of Leyria, between Lisbon and Coimbra, and Torres Novas, in which a system of massacre was adopted disgraceful to himself and his officers. His army now separated Miguel from the north, while the army of the Duke of Terceira pressed upon him from Lisbon. Saldanha took up his position at Almoster, where, in February, he was attacked by the Miguelites; but he repulsed them with great slaughter. Events equally favourable to the queen took place in the north, where considerable numbers of Miguelites were still in arms. The provinces north of the Duero were, indeed, cleared of the enemy by the Duke of Terceira; and he then retraced his steps to expel the partisans of Miguel from the positions which they still held between the Duero and the Tagus, particularly Coimbra, on the Mondego, and Figueiras, at the mouth of that river. Figueiras was reduced by a naval expedition, under Admiral Napier, and Coimbra opened its gates to the duke himself. The queen's forces now pressed upon Don Miguel; and on the 18th of May he abandoned his lines at Santarem, and retreated towards Guadiana, in the direction of Evora. He was followed by Count Saldanha and the Duke of Terceira, who were at the head of 20,000 men; and seeing no hopes of success or escape, he sought a suspension of arms for the purpose of negociating. The government refused to enter into any negociation, or to listen to any terms different from those which had been already tendered; namely, that Don Miguel should leave Portugal within fifteen days, and engage never to return to any part of the Spanish provinces or the Portuguese dominions, nor in any way concur in disturbing the tranquillity of these kingdoms; that he would be allowed to embark in a ship of war belonging to any of the four allied powers; and that he should receive a pension of sixty centos of reis, about £15,000, and be permitted to dispose of his personal property, on restoring the jewels and other articles belonging to the crown and to private individuals. The troops of Don Miguel were to lay down their arms, and return peaceably to their homes under the protection of the amnesty; and he was to issue orders to commanders of fortresses, or of troops, who still recognised his authority, immediately to submit, under the same protection, to the government of the queen. To these terms Don Miguel now consented; and having signed the convention, he went on board a British vessel of war, which carried him to Genoa. The civil war was thus brought to an end in Portugal; and it was this happy event which led his majesty to conclude a treaty with that government, as alluded to in his speech. One act of ingratitude which the Portuguese government committed, however, must not be forgotten. It was chiefly by the valour of the British volunteer auxiliaries that the cause of the queen was triumphant; and these volunteers had been induced to enter into the service by promises of pay equal to that of England, exclusive of allowances for compensation and other advantages. The Cortes, however resolved, in January, 1834, that they should only receive Portuguese pay; and when the war came to an end, the British troops remained unpaid. The men, in fact, on whose bravery the sole dependence was placed when danger was threatened, were left to wander through the streets of Lisbon in rags and poverty, and compelled to prolong a miserable existence on scanty rations of beans and bread, with the occasional addition of a morsel of salt fish. Such is the usual reward of mercenaries who hire themselves out as the supporters of foreign revolutionary governments.

During this year the political relations between Holland and Belgium continued in the same state of uncertainty in which they had been left at the close of the former year. In Spain, also, the history of the present year opens with a continuance of the same contests for the succession to the crown which had marked the close of the preceding. Throughout the whole year, indeed, there was war between the queen-regent and Don Carlos; and the year closed while yet they were in arms. In Switzerland some agitation was occasioned by an attempt of the Poles in that country, in concert with Italian fugitives in the French departments of the Rhone and Isère, to overthrow the Sardinian throne in Turin, by a sudden attack upon Savoy. Greece, during the present year, suffered both the evils of civil war and of political intrigue. In Turkey, the ascendancy of Russia was increased by an alliance, offensive and defensive, which was concluded between those two powers. The emperor gave up two-thirds of what remained to be paid in respect of the indemnities stipulated for by the treaty of Adrianople; and, on the other hand, to surround his Asiatic frontier, the Porte ceded to him an extensive tract of country in the pachalic of Athattsick. Turkey was to pay that portion of the indemnity which was not relinquished when it might suit her finances; and, in the meantime, Silistria was to remain as a pledge in the hands of the Russians, an arrangement which gave them the effective command of Moldavia and Wallachia, and left the frontier of Turkey defenceless against invasion. Russia also was to have the free passage of the Dardanelles.

CHAPTER XLV.

WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836

     State of Parties..... General Election..... Ecclesiastical
     Commission..... Meeting of Parliament; Contest for the
     Office of Speaker..... Opening of the Session.....
     Discussion in the Lords regarding the Slavery Abolition
     Act..... Motion of the Marquis of Chandos to repeal   the
     Malt-tax..... The Dissenters' Marriage Act..... Ministerial
     Plan for  the Commutation  of Tithes in England..... Report
     of Commission regarding the Church  of England, &c...... The
     Question   of   the  Appropriation  of   the   Surplus
     Revenues of  the  Irish   Church..... Resignation of
     Ministers   and   the Restoration of Lord Melbourne's
     Cabinet..... Municipal Reform and the Irish   Church.....
     Agricultural   Distress..... Municipal   Corporations.....
     Bill  for regulating the  Irish   Church..... Discussion
     regarding  Orange Societies in Ireland..... The Vote by
     Ballot, &c...... Motion for the Repeal of the Window-tax,
     &c...... The Budget..... Discussions regarding Canada.....
     Prorogation of Parliament..... State of the Continent

STATE OF PARTIES.

A.D. 1835

The state of the political world in this country was, at the opening of the present year, one of great interest and excitement. The dismissal of the Melbourne ministry was received by the country with undisturbed composure and perfect good-humour; but this was viewed by its members and partisans with alarm and humiliation; and, conceiving that it betokened a relaxation of power in the springs to whose action they trusted for their speedy return to office, they resolved to leave no means untried to agitate the country from one end to the other, in order to recover their waning influence. To this end the dismissal of the ministry was announced as exclusively the work of the queen, and as the result of a deep tory plot, and complicated tory intrigues. These tales, however, failed in creating the universal dismay so much desired; and then the organs of the party in opposition constantly insisted on the dreadful fate which awaited the country from the removal of the only men who had either head to conceive or courage to undertake the task of saving the public weal, and putting in their place politicians who would repeal the reform act, impose new taxes, restore and multiply pensions, establish military law, and finally produce civil war. Still the country remained quiescent: it was known that the picture was fictitious, and men refused to be dismayed. One thing, however, was effected: although the Radicals did not raise any clamorous outcries at the downfall of their former associates, they struck a bargain with the Whigs, and came to terms for the purpose of putting down a common enemy.

GENERAL ELECTION.

The result of the elections crushed the present hopes of the Whigs. Instead of increasing either their numbers or their radical accomplices, it brought an addition of more than one hundred members to the Conservatives, exclusive of those whig reformers, such as Lord Stanley, who refused to identify themselves with the whig opposition in its present character and conduct, and of those among the Radicals, as Mr. Cobbett, who would not consent to be used merely as instruments for lifting men into power who would not manfully adopt any one of their opinions, and yet boasted their alliance as being engaged in a common cause. It must be confessed, however, that the Conservatives placed their all on this cast of the die. The Carlton Club dispersed its agents far and wide throughout the country, and every engine which aristocratic wealth and ecclesiastical influence could put in motion was employed in their cause. In the counties, the fifty-pound clause operated greatly to their advantage, and success generally attended their efforts; but in towns the opposite party were more successful. In Scotland there were some changes, but the comparative strength of parties remained there nearly the same as before; but in Ireland the retinue of the popish agitator was somewhat diminished, although the popish priests exerted themselves to the utmost in his favour. As for O'Connell himself, together with his coadjutors, he practised every form of violence and intimidation against every candidate who would not join in his cry for repeal, vote by ballot, short parliaments, and extension of the suffrage. Thus the Knight of Kerry, who started as a candidate for his native county, and who had spent his whole life in resisting Orangemen, because he refused to become an instrument in the hands of the popish priesthood and their agitator, was denounced as unworthy of being elected; every man who dared to vote for him was to have a death's-head and cross-bones painted on his door: and the consequence was that he was rejected. Of a candidate for New Ross, who refused to enlist under his banner, O'Connell said, "Whoever shall support him, his shop shall be deserted; no man shall pass his threshold. Put up his name as a traitor to Ireland; let no man deal with him; let no woman speak to him; let the children laugh him to scorn." Mr. Shiel likewise opposed a candidate for the county of Clonmel in the following words: "If any Catholic should vote for him, I will supplicate the throne of the Almighty that he may be shown mercy in the next world; but I ask no mercy for him in this." Yet this unconstitutional line of conduct was not always successful, and even O'Connell himself, with Mr. Ruthven his colleague, found it difficult to obtain their return for the city of Dublin. The final result of the elections secured to the ministry a decided majority, in so far as England was concerned.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.—CONTEST FOR THE ELECTION OF SPEAKER.

Parliament met on the 19th of February. The attendance in the house of commons on the first day was more numerous than had ever been witnessed, even on the discussion of any great political or party question, it being determined by both parties to contest the election of speaker. Lord Francis Egerton moved that Sir Charles Manners Sutton should be called to the chair. The motion was seconded by Sir C. Burrell, who said that though he had supported Mr. Wynn as a candidate for the chair in 1817, in opposition to the late speaker, he had never found reason to regret his want of success on that occasion. On the other hand, Mr. Denison proposed that Mr. Abercromby should take the chair, which motion was seconded by Mr. Orde. Both these gentlemen expressed the pain which they felt at being compelled by an imperative sense of public duty to oppose the re-election of the late speaker, and declared their hearty concurrence in all that had been said regarding his excellent qualifications; but they maintained that a great public principle rendered it necessary that those qualifications should not be taken into consideration. A debate of considerable length ensued, in which the two candidates themselves took part. On a division Mr. Abercromby was elected, three hundred and sixteen voting for him, and three hundred and six for Sir Charles Sutton. The honourable gentleman was then conducted to the chair, and next day, appearing at the bar of the house of lords, he received from the lord-chancellor an assurance of his majesty's approval of his election. His election was the first fruits of the treaty of alliance between the opposition and O'Connell; but the smallness of the majority by which it was obtained demonstrated to the opposition that, without his aid, they could never hope to triumph over the present ministry.

OPENING OF THE SESSION.

His majesty opened the session in person on the 24th of February; the intervening days from the election of speaker having been employed in swearing in members of the house of commons. Recently the two houses of parliament had been destroyed by fire, and temporary rooms had been fitted up for the accommodation of the British senate. In the lords the address was moved by the Earl of Hardwicke, and seconded by Lord Gage. An amendment was moved by Lord Melbourne, which was apparently framed for the purpose of catching stray votes, by being so constructed that even its success could not lead to the resignation of the ministry. The Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond, who had both been connected with the late government, expressed their intention of supporting ministers, so far as they could applaud their measures, though they were unable to promise them full confidence. Finally, the amendment was negatived without a division.

In the commons, the address was moved by Lord Sandon, and seconded by Mr. Branston. Lord Morpeth moved an amendment to this effect:—"That in place of the concluding paragraphs should be substituted words expressing a trust that his majesty's councils would be directed in a spirit of well-considered and effective reform; that, in the same liberal and comprehensive policy which had dictated the reform of our representation and tire abolition of negro slavery, the municipal corporations would be placed under vigilant popular control; that all the well-founded grievances of the Protestant dissenters would be removed; that all the abuses in the church which impair its efficiency in England, and disturb the peace of society in Ireland, would be corrected; and that the commons beg submissively to add, that they could not but lament that the progress of these and other reforms should have been unnecessarily interrupted and endangered by the dissolution of the late parliament." The amendment was seconded by Mr. Bannerman, and the debate was continued by adjournment on the 25th and 26th of February. The members who took part in it were, for the original address, Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Messrs. Pemberton, Richards, Robinson, Goulburn, and Praed, and Sir James Graham; for the amendment, Lords John Russell and Howick, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Grote, Poulton, Ward, Ewart, Harvey, Fox Maule, Gisborne, Duncombe, O'Connell, and Sir Samuel Whalley. On a division, the amendment was carried by a majority of three hundred and nine against three hundred and two. The majority being so small, Sir Robert Peel intimated that it was possible he might take the sense of the house again on the question of bringing up the report; but next evening he stated that it was not now his intention to do this. The address, therefore, as amended, was presented to the king, who made the following reply:—"I thank you sincerely for the assurances which you have given me, in this loyal and dutiful address, of your disposition to co-operate with me in the improvement, with a view to the maintenance, of our institutions in church and state. I learn with regret that you do not concur with me as to the policy of the appeal which I have earnestly made to the sense of my people. I never have exercised, and I will never exercise any of the prerogatives which I hold, excepting for the single purpose of promoting the great end for which they are entrusted to me—the public good; and I confidently trust that no measure conducive to the general interest will be endangered or interrupted in its progress by the opportunity which I have afforded to my faithful and loyal subjects of expressing their opinions through the choice of their representatives in parliament." On a subsequent day, in answer to some questions put by Lord John Russell, the premier stated that he had not felt it his duty, in consequence of the vote on the address, to tender his resignation; that with respect to the Irish church, he retained his opinion that ecclesiastical property ought not to be diverted from ecclesiastical purposes, although any measures not inconsistent with this principle should have his best consideration; that he had no motive or intention to obstruct corporation reform; and that, in regard to a rumour which had been promulgated about another dissolution, and an alleged intention of government, in case the mutiny bill should not pass, to keep up a standing army in defiance of parliament, he had never sanctioned the first either directly or indirectly, and he had never heard a whisper about the second until it fell from Lord John Russell's own lips. These assurances, however, were not sufficient to satisfy the objections of his political opponents.

The conduct of Sir Robert Peel, in retaining office after an adverse vote upon the address, became the subject of indignant declamation throughout the country, and strengthened the general impression that ministers intended, if possible, to destroy the measures enacted by the reform bill, and to obstruct all further melioration of the law. It was true, as the partisans of the government urged, that there were precedents for the retention of office in the face of adverse votes; but this was a vote upon the general policy of the government, not upon its policy in some non-essential particular, and constitutionally decided that the ministry did not possess the confidence of the commons house of parliament. According to all rule and precedent, Sir Robert ought to have resigned. The Duke of Sussex, Lord Holland, the great Fox, and other statesmen of acknowledged constitutional principles and respect for public rights, had always maintained these views. The conduct of Sir Robert and his cabinet was, therefore, justly held to be opposed to the practice of parliament and the doctrines of the constitution. Much of the odium of this procedure fell upon the Duke of Wellington, who was supposed to be the potential adviser of Sir Robert in this matter, and whose despotic sympathies, betrayed in many ways, gave great offence to the people. Had not the previous ministers, by their inconsistency, incompetency, and truckling to O'Connell and the Irish priest party, forfeited the confidence of a large portion of their British supporters, the efforts of Sir Robert Peel to retain office in opposition to a majority of parliament, would have created such a storm of hostility to him throughout Great Britain, as would have made it difficult for him to hold any office for many a year.

DISCUSSION IN THE LORDS RESPECTING THE SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT.

On the 27th of February the Earl of Mulgrave, whose efficient administration of the government of Jamaica had made him an authority on the West India slavery question, inquired of the secretary for the colonies, whether it was the intention of the present government to carry out the measure of emancipation recently passed through parliament. Lord Mulgrave strongly represented to the house the apprehensions entertained by the public that, in two respects, the government would differ from its predecessor:—the appointment of impartial magistrates—men not holders of slave property; and the protection of the missionaries, to whom the planters entertained an unjust prejudice, but who, in the experience of Lord Mulgrave in Jamaica, were a most useful body of men, who had in no way transgressed the bounds of their sacred calling in their conduct to slave or master. To these inquiries and remarks the Earl of Aberdeen replied very much in the tone and spirit in which he was accustomed to answer questions when, many years later, during the Russian war, he was prime-minister. He affected surprise that any one should suppose him an opponent to freedom; promised everything that popular opinion demanded; but betrayed, nevertheless, by his sneers and misrepresentations where the missionaries were concerned, and his deep sympathy with the planters, that his heart was set against justice and liberty to the poor apprentices. The Duke of Wellington brusquely said, that he had been opposed to the philanthropic view of the negro question altogether, but the bill passed by parliament he would not consent to see made a dead letter. The duke evidently said what he meant. The well-known honesty of his character assured the Earl of Mulgrave who accepted the reply. It was a good sign as to the policy which the cabinet intended to pursue on this question, that the Marquis of Sligo was requested to retain his office as Governor of Jamaica. The noble marquis was not an experienced politician or administrator; but in his management of the difficult and complicated concerns of Jamaica at that time, he proved himself to be a man of ability and honour.

MOTION OF THE MARQUIS OF CHANDOS TO REPEAL THE MALT-TAX.

The first proposal which ministers found themselves compelled to resist proceeded from one of their own supporters, and it was also one in which their opponents were compelled to join them in resisting. On the 10th of March, the Marquis of Chandos moved a resolution for the repeal of the malt-tax, as a source of relief to the agricultural interest. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hand-ley. Sir Robert Peel, in reply, contended that the motion, if it was to be made at all, ought not to have been brought forward till after an authentic declaration of the national means had been laid before the house. In the course of his speech, Sir Robert Peel said that if the malt-duty were repealed, there was no alternative but to have a property-tax to make up the deficiency. Messrs. Cobbett and Bennett, who supported the motion, saw no objection to such a tax; and the latter gentleman said that the English landowners were too depressed in their circumstances to fear anything from the change, as the property was in the hands of the mortgagees and money-jobbers. The Earl of Darlington was bound, he said, to vote in favour of the resolution, however great his reluctance to do anything that might embarrass a government to which he was friendly, and a minister who, he believed, would endeavour to effect what he considered best calculated for the interest of the country. Messrs. C. Wood, Rice, and Poulett Thompson, all of whom had been connected with the late government, spoke against the motion; as did also Sir Edward Knatchbull, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Baring, Sir R. Gresely, and Mr. Grote. The debate was closed by Mr. Hume, who supported the motion. On a division, however, the motion was negatived by three hundred and fifty votes against one hundred and ninety-two. So convincing were Sir Robert Peel's arguments, that several members voted with him who had either pledged themselves at their election to take a different side, or had, at least, induced their constituents to believe they would.

THE DISSENTERS' MARRIAGE ACT.

Sir Robert Peel introduced the first important measure of government on the 17th of March, being a bill to provide relief for those dissenters who objected to have their marriage rites performed according to the ritual of the English church. The measure provided that a civil marriage should take place before a magistrate, who should refer the certificate to the parish clergyman, by whom it was to be inserted in the parochial registry. The various bodies of dissenters might, by arrangements of their own, provide a religious form as a sort of addendum to the civil ceremony. This brief affair was stated by Sir Robert in a very verbose speech, in which he showed a desire to conciliate all parties, and an apprehension that he would fail to conciliate any. Leave was given to bring in a bill.

REPORT OF COMMISSION REGARDING THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ETC.

One of the first acts of the new ministry had been the appointment of a commission, consisting principally of the heads of the church, to inquire into and report upon the changes which might be effected in regard to ecclesiastical territory, income, and patronage, so as to render remuneration and labour more commensurate with each other; to enforce residence; and to destroy the necessity of pluralities, by providing for all a sufficient maintenance. The first report of this commission was presented to the house of commons on the 19th of March, which proposed a new arrangement of diocesses. As regards emolument, the principle adopted was to proportion, as far as might be, the revenues of the bishops to their several stations and duties; not making any reduction where the income did not exceed £5500, and making an addition where it amounted to £4500. The division of large parishes was further recommended; the revenues of new incumbents being supplied from prebends and other preferments which might fall.

On the 12th of March the attorney-general obtained leave to bring in a bill for improving, the administration of justice in ecclesiastical causes, which was one of the measures alluded to in the speech from the throne. On the same day also he obtained leave to bring in another bill, having for its object the better maintenance of the discipline of the church of England. On the 24th of March, Sir Robert Peel brought the subject of the commutation of tithes in England before the house of commons. After a long statement explanatory of his views, he concluded by moving the following resolution:—"That it is expedient to give facilities for the commutation of tithe in the several parishes of England and Wales, and for a payment in moneys, in substitution thereof to be allotted on the tithable lands in each parish; such payment to be subject to variation at stated periods, according to the prices of corn, or for the allotment of land in lieu of tithe in parishes wherein the parties concerned may consent to such allotment." This resolution was agreed to, and a bill founded on it was ordered to be brought in.

REPEATED DEFEATS OF THE MINISTRY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

While the ministry, by the introduction of these important measures, were vindicating their claim to the character of men who in their policy regarded the prosperity of the country, and were not wedded to anything which might interfere with its welfare, their conduct in other matters furnished manifold indications of the same spirit, and hence disappointed the opposition, which had predicted the continuance and the restoration of every species of abuse. Several committees which had been appointed by the late government were re-appointed; and they professed themselves willing to carry out their well-founded measures. But, notwithstanding all this, their rule was brief; they were unable to disarm the spirit of hostility. During the period in which ministers were proposing their important measures, some minor topics were introduced, in which they found themselves unable to resist the numerical force of their opponents. Thus they were left in a minority on the subject of a petition presented, complaining of Colonel Tremenhere, an officer in the public service at Chatham, as having interfered unconstitutionally in the election for that borough, in which election the government candidate had been returned. Ministers were also left in a minority, when Mr. Tooke moved an "address to his majesty, beseeching him to grant his royal charter of incorporation to the London University, as approved in the year 1831, by the then law-officers of the crown, and containing no other restriction than against conferring degrees in divinity and medicine." Mr. Goulburn moved, as an amendment, that the address should be for copies of the memorials which had been presented against granting the charter, together with an account of the proceedings before the privy-council; but, on a division, the motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and forty-six against one-hundred and thirty-six. On the 1st of April the king returned this answer to the address:—"That his majesty, desirous that such a subject should receive the fullest consideration, had referred it to his privy-council; that the reply of his privy-council had not as yet been communicated to him; but that his majesty begged to assure his most faithful commons that he should call upon his privy-council without delay, for a report of the proceedings they had adopted on the subject, in order to enable his majesty to judge what would be the best mode of carrying into effect the wishes of his faithful commons respecting a charter to the London University, and what might be the conditions on which it should be granted." These questions, however, did not distinctly affect the government. Frequent hints, indeed, were given to Sir Robert Peel that he ought to retire; but as yet no motion was ventured which, if carried, must necessarily have led to that result. On one occasion, Lord John Russell having remarked that all the prerogatives of the crown seemed in a fair way of being successively compromised, in the course of what he called an attempt on the part of the administration to govern with a majority of tire house of commons against them, Sir Robert-Peel complained that the opposition did not bring the question of the retirement of the ministry to a fair issue. No one was more anxious for this, he said, than he himself was; and if the opposition could not find a day for the purpose, he would facilitate their views. He asked Lord John Russell whether, if ministers had thrown up the government, he would not have turned round on them and said, "You are guilty of a cowardly abandonment of office; you never meant to remove grievances; we never brought forward a direct vote of censure; we were prepared to hear your propositions; but you yourself have shrunk from the trial." Mr. Hume admitted that ministers had reason to complain that the question had not yet been brought to an issue; but he hinted at the same time the opposition would take their own time and day for the attack. Lord John Russell said, that if a direct vote of want of confidence had been brought forward, ministers might have gained a number of votes on the plea of being unfairly treated. They might have said to the opposition, "You now preclude us from being heard; you want to condemn us without trial; and to reject our reforms before you are able to judge of them." He would not expose himself to the chance of receiving such an answer; he would wait for the promised measures of reform. The reply sent by the king to the house of commons on the 1st of April created great dissatisfaction in the minds of the liberal members, and among their supporters in the country. It was denounced as another instance of "back-stairs government" by many; this phrase was intended to describe the influence of the queen, and certain ladies of her suite, in political matters. Many of the people, however, absolved the court from all blame, and attributed what so much offended them to the despotic opinions and dispositions of the cabinet, especially "the duke" and Sir Robert Peel. This feeling was chiefly directed against his grace.

THE QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATION OF THE SURPLUS OF THE REVENUES OF THE IRISH CHURCH.

On the 20th of March Sir Henry Hardinge, the secretary for Ireland, brought forward, in a committee of the whole house, the ministerial plan for settling the Irish tithe question, and moved a resolution to this effect:—"That it is expedient to abolish tithes in Ireland, and to authorise a composition in lieu of it, charged upon the land, and payment to the tithe-owner; that such rent-charge might be redeemed, and the redemption money invested in land or otherwise, for the benefit of the persons entitled to such composition; and that the arrears of tithe due in the year 1834 should be made up from what remained of the £1.000,000 advanced by parliament to the clergy of Ireland in 1833." After a determined resistance from a large portion of the radical members, the motion was carried by a majority of fifteen. This would probably not have been the case, had not Lord John Russell given Sir Robert Peel a qualified support.

Ministers had brought forward everything that could be done practically to remove the evils attending the collection of tithes in Ireland; and the opposition propounded no measure which would go further in the way of securing or arranging the payment of tithe to the Protestant church; they even complained that the new government was merely imitating the conduct of its predecessors. Their only position now was to maintain that it was not enough merely to place on a better and surer foundation the collection of tithe for the Protestant church, but that, to some extent at least, though to what extent nobody attempted to define, it must cease to exist as tithe payable to the Protestant church, and be applied to purposes in which Catholics might have an equal interest. This ground was now taken by the opposition. On the 30th of March Lord John Russell moved the following resolution:—"That this house resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, in order to consider the present state of the church establishment in Ireland, with the view of applying any surplus of the revenues not required for the spiritual care of its members to the general education of all classes of the people, without distinction of religious persuasion." Lord John Russell said, that if the house should resolve itself into a committee on the motion, and should the resolution be carried in a committee of the whole house, he would move an address to the crown, embodying that resolution with an humble entreaty to his majesty, that he would be pleased to enable the house to carry it into effect—for a measure of this kind should be introduced by a message from the crown. The debate which followed was continued by adjournment up to the 2nd of April. Sir Edward Knatchbull, who followed Lord John Russell, objected to the proposition itself, he said, on the distinct ground that he was not prepared to apply church property to other than Protestant church purposes. Mr. Ward, whose motion of a similar character had been set aside by the appointment of the commission, entered at great length into the general question of the right of the state to appropriate church property to whatever purposes it thought proper; contending that no member should give his vote without remembering the undoubted right which parliament possessed of dealing with all corporate property as the welfare of the community might require, and of so disposing of it as to accommodate its distribution to that state of things which the alterations of time might unfold, or the progress of society occasion. Sir James Graham, in opposing the motion, showed that the income of the Irish church did not amount to so large a sum as represented by opposition; and contended that the evils of the proposed appropriation would not be limited to Ireland, but would extend to England: the church of England would not only be endangered by it, but ultimately destroyed. Lord Howick spoke in favour of the resolution, but at the same time disclaimed all participation in any wish that it should be the means of turning out the ministry. Messrs Shiei, Poulter, and Wood also supported the resolution; and Messrs. Lefroy and Gladstone, and Sir R. Inglis spoke against it. Sir William Follett, the solicitor-general, followed on the same side as the latter. Mr. O'Connell, after reiterating his charge of misrule, said that he would avoid any discussion upon tithes, and content himself with laying down the broad principle that the emoluments of a church ought not to be raised from a people who did not belong to it. Ireland did not ask a Catholic establishment; the Irish desired political equality alone; they would not accept a shilling for their church. Their church was unpolluted by the mammon of unrighteousness; the voluntary principle had answered every purpose of the Catholics, and they desired no connexion with the state in matters of religion. It was said, he continued, that the number of Protestants was on the increase in Ireland; he contended that the reverse was the case. It was said, also, that there was danger in giving the Catholics ascendancy; they had been in power three times since the Reformation, and they had not persecuted the Protestants. The address of Mr. O'Connell aided very much in deciding the question against the government. His protestations of moderation as to the desires of enlightened Roman Catholics, and his disclaimers of any wish for the ascendancy of his church, produced an effect favourable to Lord John's motion among such liberal members of the house as possessed little knowledge of ecclesiastical history. The protestations of Mr. O'Connell were as insincere as his statements were historically untrue. His church had never been in power without efforts to persecute; and while he made the voluntary principle his confession of faith, it was notorious to the leading Whigs that his pet measure was the purchase of glebes for the Irish priesthood by the funds of the state, and the further endowment of Maynooth College on an enlarged scale. After various addresses, especially one in a very defiant strain by Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell briefly replied, and the motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and eighty-nine.

The next step was to consider the resolution in committee; and Sir Robert Peel proposed that the committee should not be taken till the following Monday; but the opposition, flushed with victory, would not consent to a single day's intermission. They insisted that the committee should be taken that very day, which was done; and the debate continued by adjournment on the 5th. In the committee, Lord John Russell substituted "moral and religious instruction" for "general education." On a division in the committee, two hundred and sixty-two voted in favour of the resolution, and two hundred and thirty-seven against it. In the meantime the opposition had partly changed their intended plan of operation. It had been announced by them that the carrying of the resolution would be followed up by an address to the crown; but Lord John Russell now gave notice that he would interpose another step between the house and the throne, by asking the former to pledge itself to this further resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this house that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, which does not embody the principle contained in the foregoing resolution." Sir Robert Peel allowed the report to be brought up without a division, but he said that he would certainly divide the house on the new resolution. In support of it, Lord John Russell treated it as a necessary corollary of what the house had already voted; it behoved the house, he said, to continue the work which they had begun, and to say that the principle which they had declared to be essential to the maintenance of peace and the due administration of justice in Ireland, should be carried into effect by some legislative measure. The resolution was opposed by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. George Sinclair; while Messrs. Spring Rice, Perrin, and Gisborne supported it. On a division, the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-five against two hundred and fifty-eight.

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS, AND RESTORATION OF LORD MELBOURNE'S CABINET.

WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836

The majorities of the opposition caused the resignation of ministers. On the meeting of the house, April 8th, Sir Robert Peel stated that he and his colleagues had placed their offices at the disposal of the king. On the same evening a similar announcement was made in the lords by the Duke of Wellington. After Sir Robert Peel's announcement of his resignation, the house of commons met on the 9th for an election ballot, and then adjourned till the 13th. On that day the house was informed by Sir Robert Peel that he had received an intimation from his majesty that the new arrangements were in progress, but were not completed, and the house again adjourned till the 16th. On the 16th Sir Robert was under the necessity of making a similar communication, and the house adjourned to the 18th, on which day the new administration was announced in both houses of parliament. The new cabinet was formed as follows:—Viscount Melbourne resumed his place as first lord of the treasury; Mr. Spring-Rice became chancellor of the exchequer; Lord Auckland was the first lord of the admiralty; Sir John Cam Hob-house, president of the board of control; Mr. Poulett Thompson, president of the board of trade; Lord Dun-cannon was placed at the head of the woods and forests; Lord John Russell took his place in the home department; the colonial office was given to Mr. Charles Grant; the seals of the foreign office were again entrusted to Lord Palmerston; Viscount Howick was secretary-at-war; Sir Henry Parnell was paymaster-general; Mr. Cutlar Ferguson, judge-advocate-general; and Sir John Campbell and Mr. Rolfe again became attorney and solicitor-general. There was no lord-chancellor appointed; the great seal was put in commission, the commissioners being the master of the rolls, the vice-chancellor, and Mr. Justice Bosanquet; Lord Mulgrave was made lord-lieutenant of Ireland, with Lord Plunkett once more as chancellor, and Lord Morpeth as Irish secretary. Mr. Perrin was named attorney-general, and Mr. O'Loghlin, solicitor-general. The lord-advocate of Scotland was Mr. J. A. Murray; the Marquis of Conyngham was postmaster-general; and the Marquis of Welles-ley, lord-chamberlain. After the announcement had been made, the house adjourned to the 30th of April, but with an understanding that no public business should be undertaken till the 12th of May. In the upper house Lord Alvanley asked Lord Melbourne how the ministry stood in regard to Mr. O'Connell and his followers. He wished to know whether government had or had not secured their aid; and if they had, the terms on which that support had been obtained. Lord Brougham said that these questions were improper, and advised Lord Melbourne not to answer them. Lord Melbourne, however, was more courteous. The noble lord had asked him, he said, how far he coincided in opinion with Mr. O'Connell? His answer was, "Not at all. As for the question as to 'whether I have taken any means to secure the assistance of Mr. O'Connell, and if so, on what terms?' I answer that I do not know whether I shall have his assistance or not. I have taken no means to secure it, nor have I said anything from which any inference could be drawn in order to secure that individual's support." As to tithes, Lord Melbourne said, that he did not hesitate to say that he considered himself pledged to act on the resolution of the other house. After the houses had adjourned, the new ministers who belonged to the commons sought to be re-elected; but although they were in general successful, they encountered some failures. The severest stroke of all occurred in the case of Lord John Russell himself: he again presented himself to the electors of the southern division of Devonshire; but he was defeated by Mr. Parker, and he did not procure a seat till after parliament had reassembled. Colonel Fox, member for Stroud, accepted the Chiltern hundreds in his favour, and became secretary to the ordnance. By a similar negotiation, Mr. Kennedy, member for Tiverton, made room for Lord Palmerston. These failures were very discouraging, and gave symptoms of the alarm which had been created in the public mind.

MUNICIPAL REFORM AND THE IRISH CHURCH.

When the new ministers explained what they intended to do this session, it was found that the only measures which they meant to bring forward were a bill for the reform of municipal corporations, and a bill founded on the late resolutions of the commons regarding tithes. Changes in the mode of electing municipal authorities and in the general government of boroughs had become inevitable from, and after the passing of the reform bill. A commission had been appointed, in 1833, to inquire into the state of corporations in England and Wales; and on more than one occasion his majesty had alluded, in his royal speeches, to the objects of the commission. The report of the commissioners had not been made when Sir Robert Peel went out of office, but soon after they framed a general report, besides separate reports on individual corporations. The former, and several of the latter, were presented in May, and the general report thus concluded:—"In conclusion, we report to your majesty, that there prevails amongst the inhabitants of a great majority of the incorporated towns a general, and in our opinion a just, dissatisfaction with their municipal institutions; a distrust of the self-elected municipal councils, whose powers are subject to no popular control, and whose acts and proceedings, being secret, are unchecked by the influence of public opinion; a distrust of the municipal magistracy, tainting with suspicion the local administration of justice, and often accompanied with contempt of the persons by whom the law is administered; a discontent under the burdens of local taxation, while revenues that ought to be applied for the public advantage are diverted from their legitimate use, and are sometimes wastefully bestowed for the benefit of individuals—sometimes squandered for purposes injurious to the character and morals of the people. We therefore feel it to be our duty to represent to your majesty that the existing municipal corporations of England and Wales neither possess nor deserve the confidence or respect of your majesty's subjects, and that a thorough reform must be effected before they can become what we humbly submit to your majesty they ought to be—useful and efficient instruments of local government." Lord John Russell, proceeding on this recommendation, on the 5th of June detailed the plan of municipal government which ministers intended to provide for one hundred and eighty-three corporations. After detailing the many abuses which existed, he said that, instead of the present irregular government of corporations, it was proposed that there should be one uniform system of government—one uniform franchise for the purpose of election: and the like description of officers, with the exception of some of the larger places, in which it might be desirable to have a recorder, or some other magistrates different from the other smaller boroughs. In regard to the qualification of electors, he said it had been determined not to adhere to the parliamentary franchise. By the proposed bill they would be obliged to pay the borough rates, and accord to the established practice of the English government, and the acknowledged and recognised principles of the British constitution. He thought it fair that they should have a voice in the election of those by whom the rates were made, and by whom the corporate funds were expended. As, however, the electors ought to be the fixed inhabitants of the town, known to contribute to the rates, it was proposed that they should be persons who had been rated for three years, and had regularly paid those rates. Provision was also made in the bill for the case of those individuals who might have omitted to pay their rates. In regard to the governing body, there was to be one only—a mayor and common-council. The common-council would consist of various numbers, generally regulated by the population of the different places; their numbers would vary from fifteen in the smallest places to ninety in the largest. It was proposed that the largest towns, of which there were only twenty, should be divided into wards, and a certain proportion, which would be regulated by the schedules to the bill, of common-councillors should be chosen in each ward. In all the rest of the boroughs it was proposed that the whole common-council should be elected for three years. They were to be elected for three years; but one-third were to go out of office every year, thus taking care that two-thirds of the common-council should have experience in the transaction of town business. The mayor was to be elected annually, and he was to be, during the time of his mayoralty, a justice of peace for the borough and likewise for the county. The town-council was to have the power of appointing a town-clerk and treasurer, and it was left to their option whether they would retain their present town-clerks in their office. If, however, another was chosen, and the dismissal of the present town-clerk was attended with any pecuniary loss to the individual, he was to receive compensation. All the old modes of acquiring the freedom of a corporation, such as birth and apprenticeship, were to be abolished; but all pecuniary rights, such as rights of common, exemption from tolls, &c., would be preserved to the persons now enjoying them, during their lives; in future, however, no person should be a burgess, or admitted into the corporations, except in consequence of the permanent occupancy of a house, and the payment of the borough rates. All exclusive rights of trade were to be abolished, due regard being paid to the pecuniary interests of existing individuals. It was proposed, touching the pecuniary affairs of corporations, that town-councils should have the power to appoint committees in order to manage their financial matters; that their accounts should be regularly audited; and that they should no longer be secret accounts, but regularly brought before the public. Town-councils were further to become the trustees of charitable funds, appointing a committee, if they thought proper, to manage them. For the management o? these funds a separate secretary and treasurer was to be appointed, and provision was made for auditing them in a different manner from the general accounts of the borough. The number of persons chosen for the management of these charitable estates were not to be less than fifteen, and they were to be chosen from among the general body of burgesses. The police, as far as regarded the watching of the towns, were to be placed under the control of the town-council. The power of granting alehouse licences was also to be left to town-councils, or to a committee chosen by them from their own numbers, to grant these licences. It was proposed to divide the one hundred and eighty-three boroughs into two schedules; the greater part of these, one hundred and twenty-nine, were to be placed in schedule A, and would have a commission of the peace granted them. The remaining fifty-four might also, if they chose, have a commission of the peace on application to the crown. With respect to those in schedule A, the town-councils were to have the power of recommending to the crown certain persons whom they thought proper to receive the commission of the peace within the borough; but they were not to have the power of electing magistrates in such sense as that the assent of the crown should not be necessary to perfect the election. These magistrates were not to have the power of sitting in quarter-sessions; but the bill enacted that, on a town-council applying to the crown for the establishment of a court of quarter-sessions, and stating that they were willing to continue the salary paid to the recorder, the recorder should be retained if a barrister of five years' standing. With respect to other towns desiring to have quarter-sessions, but which either had no recorder, or where the recorder was not a barrister of five years' standing, it was intended that the crown should in future have the nomination of that officer. Sir Robert Peel said that he would present no impediment to the introduction of the bill, but would reserve all consideration of its details, every one of which deserved a separate discussion, to a future stage of proceedings. The bill was read a second time, without debate and without opposition, on the 15th of June, and the committee began on tire 22nd of the same month. The first disputed point regarded the fixing of the boundaries of those boroughs whose limits had not been defined in the act passed for that purpose in reference to the reform bill. The bill provided, "That they should be, and remain the same as they are now taken to be, until such time as his majesty shall have been pleased to issue his letters-patent under the great seal, that he may be certified concerning the fit metes and bounds to be allotted unto the same respectively, and until such further time as it shall please his majesty, by advice of his privy-council, upon inspection of the return thereof made by the commissioners unto whom such letters-patent shall have been directed, to declare fit metes and bounds of the said last-named boroughs, and the metes and bounds of the said last-named boroughs thenceforward, for the purposes of this act, shall be the same so declared as last aforesaid." This was objected to by several members, as placing a dangerous power where it ought not to be placed. Sir Robert Peel said, he would consent that the boundaries of the existing boroughs should continue as they were until they should be otherwise settled by parliament: and Lord Stuart Dudley, although a friend of the ministry, moved an amendment to that effect. He was supported by Sir James Graham, Mr. Goulburn, and other members, who argued, that the clause gave the crown a power which the crown ought not to possess, and devolved upon the executive, duties which clearly belonged to the legislature. Lord John Russell said, he had no objection to add words to the effect that his majesty having appointed a commission to settle the boundaries, the report of that commission should be laid before parliament at its meeting, and the boundaries therein named should be and remain the boundaries of these boroughs, unless parliament should otherwise decide. Lord Dudley Stuart, however, pressed his motion to a division; but it was lost by a majority of two hundred and fifty-nine against one hundred and ninety-two. A more important discussion took place on the clause which affected the rights of existing freemen, and the future modes of acquiring freedom in corporations. The bill enacted, "That after the passing of this act no person shall be elected, admitted, or enrolled a citizen, freeman, liveryman, or burgess, of any borough, or by any name, a member of any body corporate in respect of any right or title other than by occupancy and payment of rates within such borough, according to the meaning and provisions of the act." Sir William Follett opposed this sacrifice of freemen; and he moved an amendment to the effect of preserving their rights without interfering with the municipal government of corporate bodies. Government vehemently opposed this amendment; but various members accustomed to go with ministers declared their intention to vote for it. Sir James Graham thought it would simplify the question if the amendments were limited to the rights of freemen under the reform bill, because the question of inchoate rights would arise more properly under another clause. Sir William Follett acceded to this suggestion; but Lord John Russell still maintained that the provision contained in the clause was a necessary consequence of adopting this new municipal franchise; and, if so, ministers were not proposing it for the sake of altering the reform bill, but for the sake of amending the municipal corporations. The amendment said that the clause must not affect either the rights of property or the privileges to which the freemen were at present entitled. Many of these rights and privileges were of a description hurtful to the inhabitants of towns generally; many of them consisted in a monopoly of trades; and many in an exemption of tolls to which the inhabitants generally were liable. Lord Stanley supported the amendment: he could not see how the clause came to appear in a bill which professed to be a measure to provide for the regulation of the municipal corporations in England and Wales. On a division the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-eight against two hundred and thirty-two.

The question, however, was again raised by Mr. Praed, who moved the following amendment:—"Provided always, and be it enacted, that in every borough, whether the same be a county of itself or not, where the right to vote in the election of members or a member to serve in parliament for such borough, is, according to the laws now in force, enjoyed by persons entitled to vote in virtue of some corporate right, nothing whatsoever in this act contained shall in anywise hinder or prevent any person or persons who now enjoy, or who hereafter, according to the laws now in force, might have acquired such corporate right, from enjoying or acquiring such corporate right for the purpose of voting in such elections." In opposing this amendment, Lord John Russell denied that he was interfering by this municipal bill with the parliamentary franchise: he was not enacting that there should be no freemen; and, therefore, though there would no longer be freemen voting for members of parliament, that was only an incidental consequence of the principle of the bill, which principle was again brought into action, not with a view to parliamentary franchise, but solely with a view to municipal government. The amendment was lost by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four against two hundred and sixty-two. Another amendment, moved by Mr. Ponsonby, for the purpose of protecting inchoate rights of freemen, was equally unsuccessful, being negatived by a majority of two hundred and thirty-four to two hundred and three. The bill arranged all the boroughs into two classes, according to their population, the larger boroughs being divided into wards. In all these boroughs the bill required no qualification in the common-councilmen, except that of being rate-payers. Sir Robert Peel moved as an amendment, "Provided such members of council who shall be elected in boroughs divided into wards shall, at the time of their election, be seized or possessed of personal property of the clear value of £1000, or that they shall be rated on a rental of not less than £40 a-year: and also, provided that all such members elected in towns not divided into wards shall, at the time of their election, be seized or possessed of property, real or personal, of the clear value of £500, or be rated to the relief of the poor on a rental of not less than £20." Sir Robert founded his amendment on what had been the usual practice in enactments regarding corporate towns. It was true that, according to ancient practice, no pecuniary qualifications were required for members of corporations; but the spirit of the charter was, that persons fit for their respective offices should be appointed; and he apprehended that, even in those self-elected corporations, whatever might be their defects in other respects, care was taken to elect persons of wealth and respectability. In opposing the amendment, Lord John Russell, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Blackburne, and other members, argued, that it was in contradiction to the spirit of the bill, not agreeable to the provisions of the original charters, incapable of being generally and fitly applied, and not productive of any practical benefit. It was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixty-seven against two hundred and four. On the same day Lord Stanley moved an amendment on the clause which fixed the periods of election, which he proposed should take place only every second year; but this also was lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one hundred and seventy-six. Mr. Grote attempted to engraft on this part of the bill a modification of his favourite measure of vote by ballot; but the amendment was withdrawn. A division took place on the clause of the bill which declared that the town-clerk should be removable at pleasure; but it was retained by a majority of sixty. Sir James Graham was also unsuccessful in an amendment on the clause which gave to the set of men who should once get into office a formidable instrument for maintaining their predominance, by vesting in the council the power of granting or refusing all licences within the limits of the borough; the original clause was retained by a majority of forty-five. The labours of the committee were finished, and the report received on the 17th of July; and on the 20th the bill was read a third time without a division, the opponents of the bill leaving it to the house of lords to accomplish those ameliorations in its enactments which they deemed requisite.

The day fixed for the second reading of the municipal bill in the house of lords was the 28th of July. On that day petitions were presented against it from Coventry, Doncaster, Lancaster, Worcester, Lincoln, and other corporations, praying to be heard against the bill by counsel; and from Bristol and Liverpool, praying to be heard against it by their respective recorders. It was moved, that the petitioners should be heard by counsel, which Lord Melbourne opposed. The Duke of Wellington and other peers contended that it would be a denial of justice to refuse to hear parties against a measure which affected their character as well as their interests. Lord Brougham also said that there would be no objection to counsel being heard, provided the matter was so arranged as to prevent that hearing from becoming interminable. He suggested that two counsel should state all that was to be stated for the whole of the corporations. In this suggestion Lord Melbourne concurred, and it was agreed to by the whole house, after which the bill was read a second time pro forma. The hearing of the counsel commenced on the 30th of July, and was continued up to the 1st of August. The two gentlemen who appeared for the corporations were Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight, who insisted largely on the general character of the bill, as putting an end to all rights enjoyed under any corporate charter in the kingdom; and attacked the reports made by the commission regarding the different boroughs. They claimed a right to tender evidence in order to prove the ignorance and partiality with which the corporations had been treated. After the counsel had concluded their argument, Lord Melbourne gave notice that he would oppose any motion for allowing evidence to be adduced in defence of any corporation. Notwithstanding this notice, however, on the 3rd of August, after his lordship had moved that the house should go into committee on the bill, the Earl of Carnarvon moved, as an amendment, that evidence should now be taken at the bar of the house in support of the allegations of the several petitions. After a long debate on this counter-motion, which was strenuously opposed by the ministers and their party, the house determined in its favour by a majority of one hundred and twenty-four to fifty-four.

Evidence was now heard at the bar, which occupied the house from the 5th to the 8th of August. Witnesses were examined in relation to about thirty boroughs; and the evidence went to show that the commissioners had acted like attorneys employed to get up a case, and with but little prudence, since they chiefly derived their information from partizans of their own opinions. The evidence having been finished, the house went into committee on the bill on the 12th of August, when the Duke of Newcastle proposed the rejection of the bill, by moving that the committee should be taken that day'six months. He did not, however, press his motion to a division, the conservative peers having resolved to pass the bill, in so far as they thought it might do good, after stripping it of those provisions which seemed to be most operative for evil. Lord Lyndhurst proposed the first alteration; He moved a clause preserving to all freemen, to every person who might be a freeman but for this measure, and to their widows and children, or the husband of their daughters or widows, the same rights in the property of the boroughs as would have belonged to them by its laws and customs if this act had not been passed. He did not refer, he said, to general corporate property, but to individual and specific rights of property enjoyed by freemen in many boroughs—rights of commons and others. Lord Melbourne opposed the motion. He would not be disinclined, he said, to consider a proposal for extending the period during which these rights should be preserved further than it was now fixed by the bill; but he could not consent to preserve in perpetuity rights which he believed to be prejudicial both to the freemen themselves and to the whole community. The Earls of Haddington and Ripon supported the amendment, while Lords Plunkett and Brougham, and the Marquis of Lansdowne opposed it, contending that the rights to which the bill put an end were not rights of property. On a division the amendment was carried by one hundred and thirty against thirty-seven; and, thus victorious, Lord Lyndhurst immediately moved another, to preserve the freemen their parliamentary franchise as secured by the reform bill. Lord Melbourne was hostile to this amendment; but as there was no hope of success, he did not call for a division, and it was adopted. Another amendment, moved by Lord Lyndhurst, which required a certain qualification in the town councillors, after stern opposition from the ministers, was carried by a majority of one hundred and twenty to thirty-nine. The next alteration proposed by the opposition peers was an amendment which provided that a fixed proportion of the town-council should hold office for life. This was described by the supporters of the bill as being more glaringly inconsistent with the principle of the bill than any of those which had been adopted. To agree to it, they said, was to lose the bill; but it was carried by one hundred and twenty-six against thirty-nine. Further amendments proposed by the conservative peers were agreed to without much discussion, and without any division. The provisions which declared that persons who were at present justices of the peace under borough charters should cease to be so in future, were struck out, as were the clauses which took from the county magistrates, and gave to the new town-councils the power of granting licenses. The ecclesiastical patronage of the town-council was further limited to the members of the church of England; and it was decided that town-clerks should hold their offices during good behaviour. All towns containing six thousand inhabitants instead of twelve thousand were to be divided into wards; and the number of councillors allotted to each was to be fixed by a compound ratio of members and property. Finally, instead of the power of dividing boroughs into wards, and fixing the number of councillors which each ward should return, being left to the king in council, who could only act through commissioners, it was given to the revising barristers; and instead of the determination of the boundaries of the burgal territory being left to the government of the new councils, the peers retained it in the hands of parliament. The bill, as amended, was passed by the house of lords on the 28th of August, and the amendments were brought before the commons on the 31st. Lord John Russell in bringing them before the house, said that the lords, by their mode of proceeding, had caused their own amendments to be viewed in a more unfavourable light than would have belonged to them, if they had merely been the result of calm deliberation. The question, however, for the house was, whether the bill even as altered, might not be moulded into an efficient instrument of good municipal government. He would not recommend the adoption of the amendments by which town-clerks were made irremovable, and by which borough magistrates who were now justices by virtue of their offices, should continue to be so. Neither was he favourable to the provision inserted by the lords, that a certain number of councillors, under the name of aldermen, should be elected for life; he would rather propose that the same number of members of the town-council as the lords proposed should be elected for life, should be chosen for a period of six years, and that one half should always be made at 'the expiration of three years. Another amendment, from which he did not intend to dissent altogether, regarded the divisions of towns into wards; he proposed that instead of six thousand inhabitants there should be nine thousand in any borough so divided. As regards the lords' amendment, which gave the crown the power of nominating justices, he proposed that the house should not agree with the alteration. In most of the other amendments he concurred; but he would not ask the house to accede to the provision which limited the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage to such members of the town-councils as might belong to the church of England, or to that clause which perpetuated the exemption from toll enjoyed by freemen in certain boroughs. The radical section of the commons blamed ministers for conceding too much, and indulged in violent language against the house of lords. Mr. Roebuck asked why the real representatives of the people should bear the insults of the lords, when they had the power to crush them? He was an advocate for democracy, and the sooner they brought the matter to an issue the better. It was necessary to stir up the people upon this subject to something like a revolution. On the part of the conservative members of the house there was, also, a difference of opinion; some thought that the amendments of the lords should be preserved in all their integrity, while others were of opinion that the modifications proposed by ministers should be adopted.

Sir Robert Peel, after entering at length into the merits of the amendments adopted by the lords, in which he generally concurred, proposed an additional and alternative qualification for voters—namely, the being rated in £30 in the larger, and £15 in the smaller boroughs. Ministers acceded to this. But there was a greater difficulty encountered in dealing with the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage. Lord John Russell proposed the rejection of the amendment of the lords on this subject; but Mr. Spring Rice proposed an expedient, which was ultimately adopted, to insert a clause directing the ecclesiastical patronage belonging to boroughs to be sold, and the price to be invested for the purpose of being applied to the public good of the boroughs. The amendments of the commons were taken into consideration by the lords on the 4th of September, and were agreed to with few exceptions. They still retained, however, their original amendments providing that justices should be named by the crown, and that the division into wards should begin with boroughs containing a population of six thousand. On the 7th of September the commons agreed to the bill as it had been returned to them from the house of lords, and in that shape it finally passed.

In the meantime, while the lords were occupied in the consideration of the municipal bill, the commons were occupied with the Irish church bill. Lord Morpeth brought this measure forward on the 26th of June, and in doing so, he stated that, in conformity with the bill of last year, and of that which the late government had contemplated, he proposed to convert the existing composition into an annual rent-charge, payable by the owners of the first estate of inheritance, or such other equivalent estate as would be defined by the bill, equal to seven-tenths of the amount of composition, or £70 for every £100, charging the cost of collection, to the amount of sixpence in the pound, on the tithe-owners. He thought it advisable to make a distinction not only between existing and future clerical incumbents, but also between clergymen and lay impropriators; and he proposed that the existing clerical incumbent should receive £73 8s. for every £100 of composition, the additional five per cent, being charged upon the perpetuity purchase-fund. As the machinery of the bill, he said, was similar to that of last year, he did not feel called upon to enter into any of the details respecting the real charges payable to the crown, and the investments which would be placed under the management of the commissioners of land revenue. The bill would authorise a revision and revaluation of benefices for the tithe composition; and it was likewise proposed to extend the provisions of Lord Tenterden's act for the limitation of suits to Ireland, in the same way as it was included in the bill of last year. By the report of the commissioners of public instruction, the members of the established church amounted to 853,064, the presbyterians to 642,356, and other dissenters to 21,808 persons; tire number of Roman Catholics was 6,427,712, in other words, the members of the established church amounted to 853,064, and the number of those who dissented was 7,091,876. The distribution of the members of the established church, also, was as disproportionate as their total amount; in the diocese of Dromore, there were 264 members for every 1000 acres; in the diocese of Glogher 26 to every 1000 acres, and in the diocese of Tuam there were only 8 to every 1000 acres. It was proposed, therefore, to suspend the presentation to every benefice in Ireland where the number of Protestants did not exceed fifty. In the case of a suspended parish, in which there was any number of members of the establishment from one to fifty, the ecclesiastical commissioners would be empowered, subject to the approbation and consent of the lord-lieutenant in council, either to assign the cure of souls in that parish to the care of the neighbouring minister, or else to appoint a separate curate. It would further be enacted, that, in all parishes where there now existed a church and a resident officiating minister, a separate curate should be appointed. When the cure of souls was committed to a neighbouring minister, the amount of stipend to be given was not to be less than £10, or more than £50 per annum; and where a separate curate was appointed, the salary was not to exceed £75 per annum, with permission to live in the glebe-house, if he undertook to keep it in repair. In every parish where the cure of souls was committed to a neighbouring minister, or a separate curate, provision was to be made for the erection of suitable places of worship, fit to accommodate the probable number of the different congregations. These places of worship were to be built at a cost not exceeding £100, or rented at a cost not exceeding £15 per annum. In making all these provisions the archbishop of the province and the bishops of the diocesses were to be associated with the ecclesiastical commissioners. With respect to other parishes, if it should appear, after deducting thirty per cent, from the existing tithe-composition and the payment of that tax on ecclesiastical benefices, that the income of any parish should exceed £300 per annum, the commissioners would be required to report the circumstance on the voidance of the benefice to the lord-lieutenant, who would be empowered to make any reduction he might deem proper. The incomes, however, were in no case to be reduced below £300 per annum. In cases of livings in the gift of the crown and the bishops, he thought that it would be acknowledged there should be no delay in carrying these provisions into effect; but power would be given to indemnify the owners of lay advowsons, and to charge that indemnification on the fund which would be created from the various sources which he had mentioned, and which it was proposed to call "the reserved fund;" a fund which would be applicable to pay the salaries of the neighbouring ministers or separate curates—to pay all charges which might accrue on the suspended parishes, and to pay for the erection of places of public worship. These purposes having been satisfied, the surplus fund accruing from year to year was to be applied by the commissioners of national education in Ireland to the religious and moral instruction of all classes of the people, without reference to creeds or sects. The total number of parishes, he continued, that would come under the operation of the bill, would be eight hundred and sixty. He had computed the salaries of the curates at £65 each, and after the existing interests were provided for, there would accrue to the reserved fund, 47,898, to which there was to be added, on account of indemnified patronage, £10,178, making the whole amount £58,076. Lord Morpeth added, that in the report of the committee on public instruction, it was stated that the Protestants of the church of England were on the increase. Government was not inattentive to this; and it was proposed that where it should appear to the ecclesiastical commissioners that the number of the members of the established church in any of the suspended parishes had increased to such a degree as to make the provisions of the bill inadequate to the religious wants of the place, they would be required to report the circumstance to the lord-lieutenant, and to submit a proposition to meet the exigency. If the lord-lieutenant approved of it, the report and the proposition were to be laid on the tables of both houses of parliament; and the ecclesiastical commissioners, after the expiration of six months, would be empowered to carry the proposition into effect, if parliament should not otherwise direct.

The bill was brought in and read a first time. It contained two distinct sets of provisions—some relating solely to the mode of collecting tithe, and others which established a new distribution of the church funds, so as to create a surplus to be applied to other purposes. Sir Robert Peel gave notice on the 7th of July, that, on the motion for committing the bill, he would move an instruction to the committee to divide it into two bills, that he might have an opportunity of rejecting altogether those parts of the bill which suppressed the Protestant churches of eight hundred and sixty parishes, appropriating their revenues to purposes not immediately in connection with the interests of the established church, and of supporting those provisions in which he could concur. The bill was read a second time pro forma on the 13th of July, and the motion to commit it was made on the 21st. Sir Robert Peel moved the instruction of which he had given notice. Mr. Spring Rice answered Sir Robert Peel. The debate was continued by adjournment on the 22nd and 23rd of July, the leading speakers in support of the motion being Sirs R. H. Inglis and J. Graham, Lord Stanley, and Messrs. Lefroy and Jackson; while the ministerial side of the question was maintained by Lords Howick, Morpeth, and J. Russell, and Messrs. Hume, Shiel, and O'Connell. On a division ministers had a majority of three hundred and nineteen against two hundred and eighty-two, a majority which secured the success of the bill in the commons. It passed, in fact, without any further opposition, the minority declining to discuss details which, in their opinion, could not be amended except by omitting them. Ministers, however, seem to have been convinced that Sir Robert Peel was correct in stating that they would have no surplus, for they introduced a clause providing that the consolidated fund should immediately begin to make an annual payment of £50,000, for the purposes of general education in Ireland, on the faith of the anticipated surplus, from which it was to be repaid.

The bill passed the commons on the 12th of August, and the second reading took place in the house of lords on the 20th. No opposition was made to the second reading; but it was intimated that the opposition intended in committee to strike out of the bill all the clauses containing the new scheme of appropriation, and the machinery by which it was to be worked. The house went into committee on the 24th of August, and agreed to all the clauses forming the first part of the measure, with the exception of the provisions for opening compositions and for taking a new average, both of which were expunged. When the house arrived at the first of the clauses which formed the new system of appropriation, the Earl of Haddington moved that they should be omitted. The bill was defended by the Marquises of Lansdowne, Glarincarde, and Conyngham, and Lords Plunkett, Brougham, and Glenelg. Lord Melbourne announced that if the motion were carried he would abandon the bill; he would not be a party to sending it back to the house of commons in a shape, both as to form and principle, which would compel that house to reject it entirely. On a division, the motion to omit all the appropriation clauses was carried by one hundred and thirty-eight against forty-one. Ministers now abandoned the bill, being in such a position, by the Catholic majority in the commons, as rendered honourable retreat impossible. On the 29th of August the chancellor of the exchequer brought in a bill empowering the government, on application from the clergy, and on satisfactory proof being given that the parties were not in a condition to pay, to suspend the claim for the instalment which was due from the Irish clergy to the 5th of April, 1846. This bill passed both houses without opposition.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836

On the 25th of May the Marquis of Chandos again brought forward the subject of agricultural distress. The object of his present motion was to give relief by diminishing the pressure of the local burdens to which land was subject. The farmer, he said, severely felt the heavy pressure of the maintenance of prisoners in gaol, and building and repairing county bridges. He was likewise compelled to perform statute labour on the highway. He thought all this should be thrown on the general taxation of the country. He thought also that the duty on windows in farm-houses, and on horses used in husbandry, should be taken off entirely. Lord Althorp had made some reductions; but the benefit would be increased by total relief from these burdens. He moved:—"That an humble address be presented to his majesty, expressing the deep regret this house feels at the continuing distressed state of the agricultural interest of this country, to which the attention of parliament was called by his majesty's most gracious speeches from the throne at the commencement of the preceding and of the present session of parliament; and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this house that the attention of his majesty's government may be directed without delay to this subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and local taxation." The motion was seconded by the Earl of Darlington. Government opposed it on the ground that what was proposed would give no relief, and that the suggestions at which it pointed required deliberate consideration. The home-secretary moved an amendment to the effect, that "the house would direct its early attention to the recommendations of a committee which sat last session of parliament upon the subject of county-rates, with a view to the utmost practical alleviation of those burdens to which the land was subject through the pressure of local taxation." Sir Robert Peel supported the amendment, because the resolution pledged the house to objects which must excite expectations on the part of the agriculturists which could not, consistently with public credit, be fulfilled. The Marquis of Chandos, however, pressed his motion to a division, which was lost by a majority of two hundred and eleven against one hundred and fifty. In the course of the debate on this subject, some members urged that all the evil had arisen from the resumption of cash payments, and that it could only be cured by some alteration of the currency. On the 1st of June, Mr. Cayley moved the appointment of "a select committee, to inquire if there be not effectual means within the reach of parliament to afford substantial relief to the agriculture of the United Kingdom, and especially to recommend to the attention of such committee the subject of a silver standard, or conjoined standard of silver and gold." Sir Robert Peel and Mr. P. Thompson opposed the motion; and Sir C. Burrell and Messrs. Wodehouse, Bennett, and O'Connell supported it; but on a division it was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixteen against one hundred and twenty-six.

DISCUSSION REGARDING ORANGE SOCIETIES IN IRELAND.

During this session a series of parliamentary attacks were directed against the Orange lodges. On the 6th of March, Mr. Shiel moved for the production of addresses presented to the king from certain Orange societies, and the answers which had been returned to them. These papers were granted; but this did not prevent a discussion on the subject, which was distinguished chiefly by the abuse which the Irish opposition poured upon the Orangemen. The subject was again brought forward on the 23rd of March by Mr. Finn, who moved that "a select committee be appointed to inquire into the nature, character, extent, and tendency of Orange lodges, associations, or societies in Ireland, and to report their opinion thereon to the house." Mr. Maxwell, himself an Orangeman, seconded this motion; he courted the fullest inquiry, with a hope that the committee would be constituted in the most impartial manner. The committee was appointed, and was still proceeding with its inquiries when, on the 4th of August, Mr. Hume brought part of them before the house. He had seen in newspapers portions of the evidence, real or fictitious, taken before the committee, by which it appeared that Orange lodges had been introduced into the army, and existed in thirty or forty regiments of the line. These institutions were in direct violation of general orders issued by the commander-in-chief in 1828 and 1829, which strongly reprobated the practice of holding Orange lodges in regiments. The lodges, he said, had been formed under warrants granted for that purpose by the Duke of Cumberland, who was the grand-master of the Orange body, and a field-marshal. It was true the wan-ants had not the name of his royal highness upon them; but he found it difficult to imagine that he was ignorant of the existence of Orange lodges in the army. Mr. Hume moved a string of eleven resolutions upon this subject. Mr. Patten, the chairman of the committee to which the house had referred the inquiry, complained of the manner in which the subject had been introduced; it was a farce, he said, to appoint a committee to inquire into a subject, if, when a portion of the evidence was printed, and the inquiry was still pending, a member was to be permitted to bring the subject forward in such a manner as must necessarily prejudge the whole question, and at the same time attack the character of individuals. He moved, as an amendment, "That a humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to direct his royal attention to the nature and extent of the Orange lodges in the army, in contravention of the general orders issued by the commander-in-chief in 1822 and 1829, which strongly prohibit the holding of Orange lodges in regiments: and that his majesty will be graciously pleased to direct an investigation to take place with respect to other secret societies in the army." In the debate which followed, it was generally admitted that the establishment of lodges in the army was pregnant with mischief and indefensible; but it was maintained, that any use which had been made in this way of warrants for creating lodges had taken place without the knowledge and authority of the grand-master, or the other superior officers of the association. From statements made by the members for Sligo and Cavan, it appeared that noncommissioned officers received warrants signed by those gentlemen and by the Duke of Cumberland, none of whom knew a word about the matter. Colonel Perceval, the member for Sligo, who held the office of grand-treasurer of the grand-lodge, stated that ever since he had held that office it had been his duty to sign warrants in blank, after they had been signed by the grand-secretary, the member for Cavan. In this way, he said, numbers had been sent in parcels to his royal highness, the Duke of Cumberland, who, on seeing his signature and that of the grand-secretary, had appended his own, with the understanding that the warrants were to be applied to purposes conformable to the rules of the association. Lord John Russell condemned this practice, and observed that he could not conceive that the Duke of Cumberland would hesitate, when convinced of the use which had been made of the blank warrants bearing Iris signature, to retire from the association; and he could not conceive otherwise than that he would feel it inconsistent with his duty as a prince of the blood, and filling a high rank in the army, to continue any longer in the situation which in this society he now filled. Lord John Russell suggested that the resolution should not be adopted without giving notice to his royal highness of the debates which had taken place on his conduct as grand-master. This suggestion was adopted; and the discussion was adjourned until the 11th of August. In the interval the Duke of Cumberland addressed a letter to the chairman, in which he denied having issued, or countenanced the issuing, of warrants to soldiers, and stated, that when such a proposal had been made to him he had declined it, on the ground that it was contrary to the orders and regulations of the Horse-guards, and that if any warrants had been so used, they would be annulled. His royal highness, however, did not intimate his intention of abandoning the Orange institutions. When the discussion was resumed on the 11th of August, Mr. Hume withdrew the 5th and 6th resolutions, referring to the general interference of Orange societies in political matters, thus confining the question to their existence in the army. The only disputed matter, indeed, was the last resolution, which stated that the Duke of Cumberland "had signed warrants in his capacity of grand-master of the grand Orange lodge of Ireland, which warrants have been issued for constituting Orange lodges in the army." Lord John Russell said, that he did not think the letter of the Duke of Cumberland to the chairman of the committee was all that was required of his royal highness; but he did not wish to agree to the resolution stating that his royal highness, in contravention of an order issued from the Horse-guards, had signed warrants, which were issued for constituting Orange lodges in the army. He wished such a clause to be omitted; and he thought the resolution wrould then satisfy both sides of the house. The resolution, thus modified, was carried by one hundred and eighty-three to forty; and the other resolutions were agreed to without a division.

THE VOTE BY BALLOT, ETC.

During this session, as usual after a general election, the house had to deal with a considerable number of election petitions. Among others petitions were presented from Great Yarmouth, complaining that bribery had been practised at the election for that borough; these petitions were referred to a committee. The fact of these petitions being presented, encouraged Mr. Grote to make his annual motion in favour of vote by ballot. On the 2nd of June he proposed this resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this house that the votes at elections for members of parliament should be taken by way of secret ballot." This motion, which was supported on the same grounds which had been urged to the house on former occasions, was seconded by Sir William Molesworth. Mr. Gisborne met it by moving the previous question. Lords Howick, Stanley, and Russell, and Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion. Sir Robert Peel expressed his surprise that government, in opposing the motion, should allow it to be set aside by the previous question, instead of meeting it with a direct negative; and Lord John Russell explained that the amendment of the previous question had been moved without any arrangement with him; if it were withdrawn, he was ready to meet it with a direct negative. After some demur, Mr. Gisborne withdrew his amendment; and the motion was directly negatived by three hundred and seventeen votes against one hundred and forty-four.

THE BUDGET.

The budget was brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer on the 14th of August. He calculated the income of the country for the ensuing year, ending in July, 1836, at £45,500,000, and the expenditure at £44,715,000, leaving a surplus of £835,000. He regretted, however, to add that this surplus, calculated on the ordinary expenditure of the country, would be found to crumble away before the further statement which it was his duty to make. The interest due to the slave-owners, he said, was to be provided for from the 1st of August, 1834. The maximum of the charge to which the country might be liable from that time was £730,000; and supposing that the whole balance of the loan were to be paid up within three months on discount, and that the permanent interest on the whole amount of the stock were at once incurred, this would subject us to a further charge of £250.935, making the total charge for the present year, on account of the West Indian loan, nearly £1000. Against this, as a set off, there was a surplus of £885,000; but the probability was that the amount instead of being £1,000,000 would not exceed a sum between £600,000 and £700,000, so that the actual surplus which might be expected would be from £150,000 to £200,000. The chancellor of the exchequer said, in continuation, that though the country was in a prosperous condition, he could not under existing circumstances be expected to make any great reduction in taxation. There were two or three taxes, however, which he thought might be reduced, and he proposed to reduce the duty on licences, which would cause a loss to the revenue of about £40,000; and on flint-glass, on which there might be a loss of about £70,000. He also proposed to relieve Ireland from the stamp-duty on awards, the loss on which would not exceed £500 a year. The resolutions of the chancellor of the exchequer were agreed to without a division.

DISCUSSIONS REGARDING CANADA.

During this session, the affairs of Lower Canada were brought before parliament. That colony was still distracted by dissensions; the French, or democratic party, which had gained a majority in the house of assembly, still insisting on all their pretensions, and declaring their determination to control both the legislative council and the governor, who represented the mother country. Their cause was advocated in the British parliament by Mr. Roebuck, who, on the 9th of March presented a petition from certain members of the legislative bodies of the province, setting forth their alleged grievances. In supporting his motion, Mr. Roebuck held out threats, that, if the demands urged in the petition were not granted, there would be a rebellion. Lower Canada, he said, would inevitably follow the example of the United States. Mr. Spring Rice and Lord Stanley deprecated the use of such language as Mr. Roebuck had adopted; language like this made matters only worse. So far back as 1828, a committee had been appointed to examine into the complaints of the Canadians. Another committee was subsequently appointed, which committee had come to this general resolution:—"That the most earnest desire has existed on the part of the home government to carry into effect the suggestions of the committee of 1823; that the endeavours of the government to the ends recommended have been unremitting, and guided by the desire, in all cases, to promote the interests of the colonies; and that in several important particulars, their endeavours had been entirely successful." Mr. Roebuck himself was a member of this committee, and was, therefore, a party to this report; but in the face of it he now blamed the government. On the other hand, petitions were presented to the commons on the 16th of March, and to the lords on the 24th of March, deprecating the violence of the democratic party in Canada. In presenting the petition to the house of lords, the Earl of Aberdeen stated that it was signed by 11,000 persons, inhabitants of Montreal and its vicinity, who represented a numerous and respectable body in that country of not less than 100,000 persons.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 10th of September. In his closing speech his majesty alluded to the civil contest still raging in the northern provinces of Spain; and intimated that he had concluded fresh conventions with Denmark, Sardinia, and Sweden, calculated to prevent the traffic in African slaves.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year Portugal exhibited a more peaceful and prosperous picture than it had done for some time, although it presented likewise the contests and intrigues of political parties for power and place. The Cortes met on the 2nd of January, and continued in deliberation till the 22nd of April. The principal objects of their attention were the financial state of the country, and the claims for indemnification which had been put forward by those who had suffered under the domination of Don Miguel, or who had sustained loss in consequence of the measures which had now terminated in the establishment of the constitutional system. The bill, which received the sanction of the Cortes, provided that where injuries had been directly caused by individuals, or at the instigation of any individual, such persons were liable for the whole amount, and should be called upon to make it good. On the other hand, all unavoidable damages done in order to defend or attack towns, as well as injuries done by the usurper's government, were to be made good by the nation at large. In the course of this year, Prince Augustus of Leuchtenberg, the husband of the young queen, arrived in Portugal; but after he had been there little more than a month, he died from exposure to cold in taking exercise. The chambers justly considered the constitutional system to be greatly dependent upon a direct succession to the constitutional throne, and they, therefore, presented addresses to her majesty, praying her to enter into a new marriage as soon as possible. She replied that she was a queen and a Portuguese, and the chamber might be assured that she would make every sacrifice for the public interest which was not inconsistent with her dignity. Before the end of the year, indeed, the queen's second marriage was arranged, the bridegroom being the nephew of the reigning Duke of Saxe Coburg, and of the King of the Belgians. In Spain all was confusion and revolt. The war between Don Carlos and the queen, or rather the Spanish nation, was still continued, and the year closed while they were yet in arms. Towards the latter part of the year an army of 6000 men crossed the Spanish frontier to assist in the struggle, a convention having been signed between Spain and Portugal to that end: these troops, however, bore no part in the events of the year. In France an attempt was made to assassinate the king, by means of what has been denominated "the infernal machine." On the second day of the great political festival in honour of the three days of July, 1830, as his majesty was riding along the Boulevard du Temple, surrounded by the crowded citizens, and attended by his civil and military servants, an explosion like a discharge of musketry took place from the window of an adjoining house. The effect was terrific. Several officer's of rank were killed on the spot, as well as some grenadiers of the national guard of Paris, besides mere lookers on, while many were severely wounded. The horse on which the king rode was wounded, but he himself escaped unhurt. The assassin was captured, and he turned out to be a Corsican, of the name of Fieschi, who had been a noted vagabond for many years. The questions in dispute between Belgium and Holland remained in the same unsettled state in which the preceding year had left them. In Belgium the formation of Sir Robert Peel's ministry excited alarm, lest the policy of the great powers should now be less favourable to that country, and in particular lest Britain should refuse to interfere to compel the Germanic confederation to concede to the demands of the Belgians on the duchy of Luxembourg. Communications from the English ministry, however, allayed these fears; and finally they were relieved from them altogether by the return of the Whigs to office. In the autumn of this year the Emperor of Russia met the King of Prussia at Kalisah, and the Emperor of Austria at Toplitz; but neither of these meetings seemed to have been brought about for the purposes of political deliberation. In Greece, on the 10th of June, King Otho having come of age, assumed the reins of government, and the regency deposited its functions in his hands. The changes which took place gave great umbrage to the Greeks, who were already displeased at seeing so many offices in the hands of foreigners. Their displeasure was increased at finding there was no intention of sending away the Bavarian military. Turkey, during the present year, remained unchanged in her relations to the great European powers. On her western frontier she was occupied in putting down an insurrection which had broken out in Albania. The Porte was likewise under the necessity of using its arms against some tribes which had rebelled in Kurdistan. These disturbances saved the Pacha of Egypt from any attack by the Porte in his new Syrian acquisitions. On his part he showed no disposition to proceed further against his sovereign; he occupying himself with completing the subjugation of Syria, and attempting to extend his conquests in Arabia, which attempt was unsuccessful.

CHAPTER XLVI.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

     Meeting of Parliament..... The Question of Orange
     Lodges..... Bill to Reform the Irish Municipal
     Corporations..... Irish Tithe Bill..... Commutation of
     Tithes in England..... Bill for Registration of Births,
     Deaths, and Marriages, &c...... Bill to alter the Revenues
     and Territory of the different Sees..... Bill to abolish the
     secular Jurisdiction of Bishops, &c...... Bill to amend the
     English Municipal Corporation Act..... Bill to Allow Felons
     Counsel to Address the Jury, &c...... Abolition of
     Imprisonment for Debt, &c...... Election  Committees.....
     New Houses  of Parliament..... Motion for the Reduction  of
     Taxation  on behalf of the Agriculturists..... The Budget,
     &c...... Discussions on the Colonies and our Foreign
     Relations..... Prorogation of Parliament..... The Affairs
     of Ireland..... State of the Continent

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

A.D. 1836

Parliament reassembled on the 14th of February. In his speech his majesty alluded to disputes between France and the United States, which he was endeavouring to allay; and to the civil contests in the northern province of Spain, for the termination of which he had also adopted measures which he hoped would succeed. His majesty also alluded to a treaty which he had concluded with the Queen of Spain for the suppression of the slave-trade. He expressed his regret that the agricultural interests in England still suffered, and recommended parliament to institute inquiry, with the view of ascertaining whether there were any measures which could be adopted for its alleviation. He then referred to the various measures affecting the united church of England and Ireland, and the state of the poor of Ireland. In the lords the address was moved by the Duke of Leinster, and seconded by the Earl of Burlington. The only part of it which gave rise to a discussion was a passage which repeated the hope, expressed in the speech from the throne, that the Irish municipal corporations would be subjected to a process of change, "founded upon the same principles as those of the acts which had already passed for England and Scotland." These words raised a question of importance between the contending parties, for, as the municipal acts of England and Scotland established a £5 franchise in one country, and a £10 franchise in the other, to establish in Ireland a system of municipal government founded on a similar basis, was to transfer to the Papists that monopoly of municipal authority hitherto enjoyed by the Protestants. The Duke of Wellington objected to the house being required, in voting the address, to pledge itself to the principles of any measure before the measure itself had come regularly before the house. He moved to substitute the following amendment:—"We shall proceed without delay to the consideration of any defects or evils that may have been shown to exist in these institutions, for the purpose of applying such remedies as may obviate all just causes of complaint, and insure the impartial administration of justice." Several peers supported this amendment, and the defeat of government was inevitable; but, on seeing this, the Marquis of Lansdowne intimated that ministers conceded the point as one of no particular moment, and the address was then agreed to. In the commons, however, government was stronger, and, therefore, did not exhibit the same spirit of concession. Sir Robert Peel moved the same amendment which the Duke of Wellington had moved in the lords. Lord John Russell defended the clause in the address. Lord Stanley supported the amendment. Lords Howick and Palmerston, and Mr. O'Connell spoke in favour of the address. Mr. O'Connell gave notice, that if Ireland got less than had been granted to England and Scotland, the cry of repeal would immediately be resumed. With an air of self-importance he cautioned the house to beware; if they excited that cry again, it would be at their peril. On a division the address was carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-four against two hundred and forty-three.

THE QUESTION OF ORANGE LODGES.

On the reassembling of parliament, Mr. O'Connell and his friends lost no time in returning to the attack made last session on Orange lodges. On the 21st of February Mr. Finn moved this resolution:—"That Orangeism has been productive of the most baneful effects upon the character and administration of public justice in Ireland; that its presence in the constabulary and peace preservation force and yeomanry corps of that country has led individual members, as well as large bodies of the above description of force, to the gross neglect and violation of their public duty, and to open, daring, and lawless resistance to the authority of the magistracy and of the executive government, on various occasions; that the systematic and surreptitious introduction of Orangeism into every branch of the military service, in almost every part of the empire, in direct violation of orders issued in 1822 and 1829 by the commander-in-chief of his majesty's forces, and the absolute power and control vested by its governing body, the grand Orange lodge of England and Ireland, in his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland, together with the rank, station, influence, and numbers of that formidable and secret conspiracy, are well calculated to excite serious apprehensions in all his majesty's loyal subjects, and imperatively call for the most energetic expression on the part of the representatives of the people of this empire, to secure the safe, peaceable, legal, and rightful succession to the throne of these realms." In the speech with which Mr. Finn introduced this resolution, he treated the Orange system as one of deadly hostility to the great mass of the population, and asserted that it was established by the report of the secret committee, that the Orange society set all law, justice, and authority at defiance. Mr. E. Buller, who seconded the resolution, reiterated these sentiments. As notice had been given for the 23rd of February by Colonel Verner, to extend the inquiry to other existing societies in Ireland, and as Mr. Hume was to bring forward certain resolutions directed to the same object on that day, the house adjourned the further consideration of the motion to that day. On the 23rd of February Mr. Hume entered at considerable length into the evidence which had been given before the select committee of the previous session, which included documents laid before it by the office-bearers of the Orange association and private correspondence. Most of the evidence, it would appear, had indeed been derived from the officers of the institution themselves, which was by no means a proof of guilt. Nevertheless, Mr. Hume contrived to make out a case against the association from such evidence; and when he had laid it before the house, he moved this condemnatory resolution:—"That this house, taking into consideration the evidence given before the select committee appointed to inquire into the nature, extent, character, and tendency of Orange lodges, associations, or societies in Ireland, and of Orange institutions in Great Britain and the colonies; and seeing that the existence of Orange societies is highly detrimental to the peace of the community, by exciting discord among the several classes of his majesty's subjects; and seeing that it is highly injurious to the due administration of justice that any judge, sheriff, magistrate, juryman, or any other person employed in maintaining the peace of the country, should be bound by any secret obligation to, or be in any combination with, any association unknown to the laws, and founded on principles of religious exclusion, that even if justice were impartially administered under such circumstances, which is in itself impossible, yet any connection with such societies would create suspicions and jealousies detrimental to the peace and good government of this country: that Orange societies, and all other political societies which have secret forms of initiation and secret signs, and are bound together by any religious ceremonies, are particularly deserving of the severest reprobation of the house, and should no longer be permitted to continue;—an humble address be presented to his majesty, that his majesty will be graciously pleased to direct measures to be taken to remove from the public service, at home and abroad, every judge, privy-councillor, lord-lieutenant, custos rotulorum, magistrate, militia officer, inspector, chief-constable of the constabulary and peace preservation force, every officer of police in Ireland, and every functionary employed in the administration of justice, and in maintaining the peace of the country, who shall attend the meeting of any Orange lodge, of any riband lodge, or of any other political club, institution, or association, whenever or wherever assembled, having secret forms of initiation, and being bound together by any religious ceremony, and with secret signs, and passwords, for recognition of members of such bodies, and who shall not withdraw from such societies or associations, on or before the expiration of one month after the publication of any proclamation which his majesty may be pleased to direct to be issued hereupon, forbidding their continuing to be members of such Orange lodges, societies, and associations." This motion was supported by Sir William Moles-worth, who endeavoured to prove that the societies against which it was directed had already been declared illegal; a position which should have simply led to an address to the crown to cause the statutes to be enforced. Lord John Russell agreed that it was desirable to suppress these institutions, and all similar societies; but he intimated that government could not approve of some of the modes of doing so which were now proposed. He thought that the effect of these societies, however good their motives might be, were injurious: by their existence, whether founded upon religion or not, a distinction was made between them and some other part of the king's subjects, who formed! themselves into counter societies, with other names and distinctions; and thus a perpetual and ever-recurring source of disunion, disaffection, quarrels, and bloodshed was created. At the same time, though it might be clear that it was desirable to get rid of this and all other societies of the like nature, whether known as Orange or Riband societies, or by any other name, it was by no means so clear how that object was to be attained. The report of last year by the committee on Orange lodges, stated that the existing statutes, if put in execution, would be adequate for their suppression, as well as that of all other societies of the like nature. He had discussed this question with the attorney and solicitor-general; and they declared that, without looking most carefully into the subject, they could not venture absolutely to pronounce an opinion as to their legality or illegality. The government, therefore, were of opinion that if the several penal statutes already in force did not contain clear enactments against this offence, it was not proper for them to seek some meaning in the law, which would be construed by others into a straining of the provisions of the law, and make it doubtful whether they had not forced the meaning of an enactment, in order to procure a condemnation of the societies in question. Even if they could have discovered that, although the Orange societies had contrived to evade the law in some points, they had yet contravened it in others, and could have obtained a conviction against them, he thought it would be mischievous to the general liberty of the subject to attempt giving a strained interpretation. In 1822, it was held by Lord Gifford and other eminent lawyers, that Orange societies were not held to come within the meaning of the law; and, therefore, if they came at present within the terms of any act, it must be in consequence of some recent change in their constitution. He was, therefore, averse to putting the question on such narrow grounds. Government also had no thought of proposing any new law against them; for, although by such a proceeding the secret signs and distinctive marks presently in use might be made to disappear, they might be succeeded by some other evasion of the law. He thought, also, that a general address to the crown affecting all judges, without entering into the case of each individual, would be scarcely consistent with the independence of the bench. As to removing every magistrate and person in office belonging to the Orange societies—if they should be removed at once by an address of this kind—without any previous declaration either from the house of commons or the crown, they would conceive such a stigma affixed to them, that they would still remain banded together from a spirit of resentment, and would regard the measure only as an unfair and biassed transaction. His colleagues and himself thought that it would be better to adopt this course:—that where a person applied for any official situation of trust and responsibility under the crown, inquiry should be made whether he were an Orangeman, and if he meant to continue in that society, that his appointment should not take place. It was not only convenient to adopt measures of discouragement in respect to those societies, but he was prepared to add to these discouragements that of an address to his majesty by this house. In conclusion, his lordship moved:—"That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that his majesty would be graciously pleased to take such measures as to his majesty seemed advisable for the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges, and generally all political societies excluding persons of different faith, using signs and symbols, and acting by associated branches." The Orange societies of Ireland were defended by Mr. Maxwell. They refused, he said, to be tried by the report of the committee, for its proceedings had been partial and biassed, and the investigation had not been complete. Lord Stanley urged the omission of the specific mention of Orange lodges in the address, inasmuch as they were only part of the secret societies which existed in Ireland. Lord John Russell, however, insisted on retaining the words, denying that they implied any stigma; there was no opinion pronounced as to the legality of these societies, but merely that they, as well as other secret societies, should meet the disapprobation of the crown. His motion was agreed to without a division; and the address having been presented to the king, his majesty, on the 25th of February, returned this answer:—"I willingly assent to the prayer of the address of my faithful commons, that I Would be pleased to take such measures as may seem to me advisable for the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges, and generally of all political societies, excluding persons of a different religious faith, using secret signs and symbols, and acting by means of associated branches. It is my firm intention to discourage all such societies in my dominions, and I rely with confidence on the fidelity of my loyal subjects to support me in this determination." The home-secretary transmitted a copy of the address and the king's answer to the Duke of Cumberland, as the official head of the Orange societies, and his royal highness replied, that before receiving the communication, he had recommended the dissolution of the Orange institutions in Ireland. The Orange societies immediately acquiesced in this recommendation, and from that time they were professedly dissolved; but it was soon discovered that the law and will of king and commons were only evaded, and that Orange lodges were as numerous as ever. The conduct of O'Connell and his Irish adherents in this discussion was as faithless as in their professions of the voluntary principle. They knew well that ribandism was far more extensively prevalent in Ireland than orangeism, and that, whatever might be the character of the latter, the objects and spirit of the former were utterly atrocious. The riband-men were banded for purposes subversive of all law and order—of all liberty, civil and religious—and they were utterly reckless as to the means by which they promoted their ends. Assassination and incendiarism were the common instruments of this diabolical association of fanaticism and bigotry. Yet O'Connell and his confederates glossed over the evils of this system, or denied their existence, while he and they pretended zeal for public justice and liberty in the destruction of the Orange confederation. The true policy would have been the suppression of all secret political societies.

BILL TO REFORM THE IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

A commission had been appointed to inquire into the state of the corporations in Ireland, and the royal speech had intimated that the subject would be brought forward during this session. Acting upon this report and intimation, Mr. O'Loghlen, attorney-general for Ireland, introduced a bill for the better regulation of Irish municipal corporations. In doing so he entered into many details to show the limited and exclusive nature of the corporations, and the abuses to which this had led. He proposed to remedy the abuses which had crept into the system, by a bill similar to those already adopted for England and Scotland. In regard to the seven largest towns—Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny, Belfast, Galway, and Water-ford—it was proposed that every inhabitant possessing the £10 franchise under the provisions of the Irish reform act, should be entitled to vote in the election of municipal offices. As regarded all boroughs containing a population of less than 20,000 inhabitants, it was farther proposed that every occupier of a £5 house should be entitled to vote in the election of municipal officers. With regard to councillors, the qualification in the seven large boroughs was to consist in having property worth £1000, and in the other towns, property worth £5000. In the seven large boroughs, and likewise in Londonderry, Sligo, Dungannon, and Drogheda, where the population exceeded 15,000, there would be a division of wards. Aldermen, likewise, were to be elected by the inhabitants, and were to consist ©f the councillors who had the greatest number of votes at the election. One half of the councillors and aldermen were to retire every three years; and in the seven large boroughs, the council was to have the power of electing sheriffs, subject to the approval of the lord-lieutenant. The bill further declared that a commission of the peace might be granted in any large borough if the lord-lieutenant thought fit, and in other towns the mayor for the time being would be the magistrate of the borough. It was likewise intended to preserve to the inhabitants of the Irish corporate towns the right of proceeding summarily by petition in cases of misapplication of public funds, instead of leaving them to the ordinary tedious process of the law, and to retain the courts in the nature of courts of conscience, and the right of their suitors to proceed by attachment. It was further proposed that government should have the power of obliging the council, if either or both the persons first chosen were not approved of, to proceed to the election of some other persons, and not, as in the case of Dublin, re-elect the same person. All the other provisions were similar to those comprised in the English bill. The bill was allowed to be read a second time on the 29th of February without opposition; but Sir Robert Peel took occasion to state the views taken of this particular mode of reforming Irish corporations by himself and the party to which he adhered. He avowed that it was not possible to defend the corporation system which existed in Ireland; but he contended that the bill would not be a remedy for the evils. Although the views of the Conservatives, as explained by Sir Robert Peel, did not allow them to oppose the second reading of the bill, yet when the motion was made that the house should go into committee, Lord Francis Egerton moved that the committee should be empowered to make provision for the abolition of corporations in Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their abolition, for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of cities and towns in Ireland. His lordship said, that in substituting abolition for the process of restoration proposed by ministers, he was not withholding from Ireland any of the benefits intended to be conferred on the other parts of the kingdom by their new municipal institutions; and lie argued generally that there was much in the situation of that country, and in the state of its society, which distinguished it from England and other nations, and which might render it, in certain cases, an unfit recipient for institutions not essential in themselves to good government, and only valuable as being machinery for that purpose. His motion was seconded by Mr. Lefroy. The bill was defended by Lords John Russell, Morpeth, and Hawick, Mr. O'Connell, and other members; and was attacked by Lord Stanley, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, and Sirs Henry Hardinge and James Graham. Mr. O'Connell insisted that Ireland must have justice; and she would not have it if she was not treated as England and Scotland had been treated. Lord Stanley said, that he felt some hesitation in receiving Mr. O'Connell as the plenipotentiary of the people of Ireland to treat with the British parliament. Lord John Russell closed the debate on Lord Francis Egerton's motion. On a division the motion was lost by a majority of three hundred and seven against two hundred and forty-three. In the committee none of the provisions of the bill underwent any important alteration, except the allowing of sheriff's in the large boroughs to be chosen by the town-councils. Ministers listened to the objections urged against this, and retained the nomination of these officers in the power of the crown. The bill was finally passed on the 28th of March, after another debate, by a majority of two hundred and sixty to one hundred and ninety-nine.

A harder battle was, however, to be fought in the lords. On the second reading Lord Lyndhurst expressed his willingness to go into committee, but not with the intention of preserving the bill in all its present features. He did not deny that evils existed in the Irish corporations, but he wished to see some scheme adopted which would not only remove those evils, but prevent the recurrence of others of a similar kind. The present bill, however, was a bill to extend the system of exclusion, and to aggravate all the violations to which justice was now exposed. The town-councils would not consist of persons anxious for the preservation of peace and the security of property, but would be filled with men of the anti-church and Catholic party, advocates of the repeal of the union, and of the separation of British and Irish interests. His lordship argued that the five-pound qualification would increase agitation, would aggrandise radical interests. If excitement, he said, prevailed in Ireland at the election of members of parliament, how far more prevalent would be the excitement which would attend the elections of this bill. His lordship looked also, with alarm, at the formidable power which the priesthood would gain by this bill; and the town-councils, he contended, would be confined to a party of inflammatory demagogues: justice itself would be poisoned at its source, and corporate property devoted to anything but its legitimate purposes. He concluded by sketching a plan similar to that which had been proposed in the commons by Sir Robert Peel, and which he, or some of those with whom he acted, would propose should be inserted in the bill in place of the clauses containing the new corporations. The house went into committee on the 26th of April, when Lord Fitzgerald moved, as had been done in the commons, "That it be an instruction to the committee to make provision for the abolition of such corporations, and for such arrangements as may be necessary on their abolition for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of cities and towns in Ireland." The lord-chancellor and Lords Holland and Melbourne spoke against this motion; and Lords Abinger and Lyndhurst supported it.. The motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and three against one hundred and nineteen. The committee proceeded on the 9th of May, and the first clause, repealing "all acts, charters, and customs inconsistent with this act," was agreed to; and the existing corporations were thus abolished. Lord Lyndhurst moved certain amendments on the second clause, which reserved the rights of freemen; and after some debate these were carried by a majority of one hundred and seven against fifty-three. Another debate and division took place on the 22nd clause, which enacted that the boroughs should have a mayor, and a certain number of councillors and aldermen, as they were arranged in the schedules. This was struck out. And on the third reading of the bill, the Duke of Richmond proposed limiting the bill to seven of the largest towns. This motion, it was said, was not made by any arrangement or communication with the ministry. Government had never intended to preclude itself from inquiring to what towns corporate powers should be extended. What they were most anxious to preserve was, the corporation principle in Ireland. If that were maintained, the Marquis of Lansdowne said, he should not argue that corporations ought to be continued in the small towns: if any difference was to be made, it ought to be in favour of the large towns, because it was there that corporations must be useful if they were good for anything. The motion, however, was negatived; and the bill, having thus been brought into the form which the minority in the lower house had endeavoured to give it, was sent down on the 19th of May to the commons.

In moving that the lords' amendments should be printed, Lord John Russell stated that, however willing he might be to come to some arrangement in regard to the constitution of the franchise, he would never consent to deprive Ireland of municipal government altogether, thereby stigmatising and degrading its people. The Radicals were very violent, boldly maintaining that there required an "organic change" in the house of lords. The amendments were moved, by Lord John Russell, to be taken into consideration on the 9th of June. The bill, he said, as amended, contained little or nothing of the bill which had been sent up to the lords. Out of one hundred and forty clauses, one hundred and six had been in substance omitted, while eighteen others had been introduced. A bill had been put up for regulating and renewing corporations in Ireland on the same conditions as in England and Scotland; they had received back a bill which abolished them entirely, but which preserved to many of the persons who held office in these bodies all the power and profit of their situations. In order to meet the concurrence of the lords, however, instead of abolishing the whole of the corporations, it was proposed that the larger towns, originally divided between schedules A and B should be placed in one, and that all the clauses for the government of corporate towns should be restored to the bill, with the view of applying them to these particular towns. These towns would be Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Gal way, Kilkenny, Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, Drogheda, Londonderry, Sligo, and Carrickfergus. In regard to the other towns, he would not give them corporations; but at the same time he would not leave them subject to the provisions of the lords' bill. He proposed rather, that the provisions of the act of 1828 should be applied immediately to twenty-two of the towns in schedule C, and that so soon as the five-pound householders in these towns had chosen commissioners, the corporate property, and the right of appointing to the necessary offices should vest in the commissioners. There would be commissioners elected by the inhabitants, instead of being appointed by the lord-lieutenant. In regard to the remaining boroughs of schedule C, as they possessed but little property, he would neither subject them to the expense of a corporation, nor compel them to elect commissioners under the act of 1828; but would leave it to them to have recourse to the latter, if they thought fit. The lords had made other alterations in other clauses of the bill, regarding the granting of quarter-sessions, &c.; but these alterations did not impair the spirit of the original bill, and therefore he would not quarrel with them. The difference which still remained between them was one of principle—should there be municipal governments or not? He thought that municipal government, placed on a popular basis, and under popular control, was excellent and useful in itself; and that in Ireland it would tend to public tranquillity, by assuaging jealousies, and removing causes of discontent. His lordship concluded by moving the rejection of the amendment of the lords on the fourth clause, which implied the continuance of corporations, and which the peers had therefore expunged. This motion led to another debate of two days' duration, in which all the topics previously discussed were again brought forward; superadded to which were many reflections on the house of lords, and on Lord Lyndhurst in particular. On a division, the motion to reject the amendment on the lords was carried by three hundred and twenty-four against one hundred and twenty-eight; and on the 13th and 14th of June, the bill was brought back to the shape proposed by ministers in so far as regarded corporations being limited to the twelve towns mentioned by Lord John Russell. Subsequently, a committee was appointed to draw up the reasons of the house for not agreeing to the amendment of the peers; and the amended bill was delivered to the lords at a conference on the 17th of June. On the 27th, Lord Melbourne moved that the amendments of the commons should be agreed to, which motion was met by a direct negative by Lord Lyndhurst. The motion was lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one hundred and twenty-one; and the bill was then sent back to the commons, with the reasons of the lords for adhering to their own amendments. Finally, on the 30th of June, Lord John Russell moved, and the house agreed, that the amendment should be taken into consideration that day three months, and thus the bill was dropped.

THE IRISH TITHE-BILL.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

Another great party measure was the Irish tithe-bill. Ministers reintroduced this measure on the 25th of April. It was brought forward by Lord Morpeth, the Irish secretary, who moved this resolution:—"That it is expedient to commute the composition of tithes in Ireland into a rent-charge, payable by the owners of the estate, and to make further provisions for the better regulation of ecclesiastical dues and revenues." In opening the scheme which ministers intended to incorporate in their bill, Lord Morpeth announced that the principle of appropriation would still be declared and acted on. The bill, he said, would follow the uniform precedent of three previous bills, and he believed of four successive administrations, in converting the tithe-composition into a rent-charge, payable by the owners of the first estate of inheritance, as it was termed. The bill would also preserve those terms of commutation which, in the bill of last year, had been adopted by both houses of parliament, by conferring a deduction of thirty per cent, upon those subject to the payment of the tithe-composition. He would not propose any contribution from the national funds towards payment of the arrears of former years; and, on the other hand, he would abandon all claims for repayment of the sums which had been advanced to tithe-owners under the million act, and which amounted to £637,000. Ministers proposed, he said, to entrust the collection of rent-charges to the board of woods and forests for a period of seven years, and thereafter until parliament should otherwise determine. The bill would also contain the provisions for allowing a revaluation of the present tithe-composition in the cases and under the limitations specified in the bill of last year. These were the arrangements to be enacted in regard to existing incumbents. As regarded the future regulation of the church revenues, government felt that they could not abandon those declarations and principles with which they entered upon office; that they could not shake off the engagement under which they conceived themselves to stand, of doing justice to the Irish nation; and the terms of that virtual and most honourable compact they conceived to be that if, in the future disposition of the revenues of the Irish church, something superfluous for its legitimate and becoming uses should arise, they should, after the satisfaction of all existing interests, apply that superfluity to the religious and moral education of the people. He felt that he might consider the principle as established and conceded, that parliament had a right to deal with the revenues of the church, if it should think them superfluous for church purposes; so long as the resolution adopted by the present parliament stood upon their books unrepealed, he had a right to think that that principle was admitted. It was now proposed by government, he continued, that on any future vacancy of a benefice, providing, as before, compensation for the patronage of private individuals in possession of the avowson, the lord-lieutenant should direct the board of ecclesiastical commissioners, now sitting in Dublin, to submit to the privy-council a report containing all particulars concerning such benefice; and a committee of the privy-council would be established with a view to this especial purpose, consisting exclusively of members of the established church, and named by his majesty. Power would be given to this committee to alter the boundaries of vacant benefices, subject to such modifications as subsequent vacancies of contiguous benefices might render advisable to carry into effect. Since the year 1718 the lord-lieutenant and the privy-council had united two hundred and eighty-nine parishes, consisting of the union of two or more parishes. The committee, after fixing the boundaries, were to apportion such income as they might think proper relative to the duties of the future incumbents, but within certain limitations. Where the number of the members of the established church varied from 500 to 1000, the income would be £300; and where the number varied from 1000 to 3000, the income would be £400. Where the number of Protestants amounted to 3000 and upwards, the income would be raised to £500; but wherever the number was below 50, it was proposed to assign to the incumbent an income not exceeding £100. After thus providing for the Protestant establishment, his lordship said that there would still be a considerable surplus of ecclesiastical revenue. The tithes payable to the clergy at present were £511,000, which, remitting thirty per cent, left a rent-charge of £353,000. The ministers' money might be stated at £10,000, without the expenses of collection; the private bounty fund, £5000; glebe-lands, clear revenue, £86,500; total, £459,550. There were 1385 benefices in Ireland, a considerable number of which were sinecures, not merely from the circumstance of having no members of the church of England within their locality, but also from the fact that they were in the hands of the dignitaries of the church, who performed little or no service in them. There were also many which had been suppressed by the church-temporalities act, divine service not having been performed in them for three years. Perhaps the number necessary to keep up would be about 1250. It was intended, indeed, under this bill, to give power to the privy-council to constitute new benefices in Ireland, of which they were likely to avail themselves to some extent. The whole payment to be made to the clergy of the 1250 benefices he calculated at £361,928, thus leaving a surplus of £97,612. This was a larger surplus than he had hoped for last year; but as the committee of the privy-council would, in certain cases, have the power to constitute new benefices, this surplus would be likely to undergo some alteration. It would also be remembered that no part of the surplus could be expected to be realised for some time to come, from the necessity of satisfying vested interests, and of making other important arrangements. After satisfying all the charges that must be met, it was proposed to have the remainder paid into the consolidated fund, upon which a charge of £50,000 per annum was to be fixed, for the purpose of supplying religious and moral education to the people of Ireland. The second reading was delayed till the 1st of June, when Lord Stanley, who had previously given notice of his intention, moved this amendment:—"That leave be given to bring in a bill for the conversion of tithe into a rent-charge, and for the redemption thereof, and for the better distribution of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland." In reply, Lord John Eussell reminded the house that he had expressed his willingness to allow Lord Stanley to bring in his bill as a substantive measure; but when it was moved as an amendment on the original motion before them, it was merely a new form of opposing the second reading of the government bill, and raising the question on the principle of that bill. They had been appealed to as gentlemen, but he hoped they were something more; that they were representatives of popular feelings and popular interests—representatives, not of local bodies, but of the whole empire, including the six millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland. In conclusion, Lord John Russell said that it had been asked, whether he meant the income of the glebe-lands generally, or in part, to go towards giving glebe to the Roman Catholic church? He gave a distinct answer in the negative; government had no intention of providing, out of any surplus of glebe-lands in Ireland, glebe-lands for the Roman Catholic church. The debate continued by adjournment on the 2nd and 3rd of June, the ministerial measure being defended by Lord Morpeth, the chancellor of the exchequer, Messrs. O'Connell, Shiel, Ward, and others; and that of Lord Stanley being supported by Sergeant Jackson, Sirs James Graham, and E. Peel, and Mr. Lefroy, and others. The most remarkable speeches delivered in this debate were those of Mr. O'Connell and Sir Robert Peel. The debate was closed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who complained that the opposition fixed upon ministers all the opinions of those who supported the bill. On a division, ministers had a majority of thirty-nine; the votes for the second reading being three hundred, and for Lord Stanley's amendment, two hundred and sixty-one. A motion was made on the 1st of July for going into committee on the bill, on which day the ultimate designs and the real wishes of the Papists were disclosed by Mr. Crawford, who moved the following resolutions:—"1. That it is expedient that tithes, and all compositions for tithes in Ireland should cease, and be for ever extinguished, compensations being first made for all existing interests, whether lay or ecclesiastical; and that it is also expedient that measures should be adopted to render the revenues of the church lands more productive, and more available for the support of the working clergy of the establishment; and that all persons not in communion with the established church of Ireland should be relieved from all assessment for its support. 2. That it is expedient that the moneys necessary for the aforesaid compensation (estimated at £2,500,000) should be advanced out of the public revenue, and afterwards repaid by instalments from the proceeds of a tax to be imposed on profit-rents; such tax to cease and determine as soon as the said debt shall be paid." These resolutions, however, were rejected by a majority of fifty-one against eighteen. In the committee the Irish leader betrayed his conviction that it would be impossible either to pass the bill, or to make it the means of raising any popular excitement against the house of lords. On the discussion of the first clause, he said, that to discuss anything was only waste of time; for it was clear that no measure for the pacification of Ireland, whether respecting tithes or anything else, was likely to pass. Any bill containing solid relief was sure to be destroyed; they were legislating in despair. He himself intended to have proposed several amendments; but he should not do so, as there could be no doubt the lords would throw out the bill. The only debate which took place in the committee arose on the question, whether the appropriation clause should stand part of the bill. The arguments adopted were a repetition of all that had been formerly urged, diversified with a few new illustrations, and some acrimony of expression. The clause was retained on a division by a majority of two hundred and ninety against two hundred and sixty-four. The bill was finally read a third time, and passed on the 15th of July.

The second reading was moved in the lords on the 22nd of July. Lord Melbourne briefly explained its provisions, observing that it was not necessary for him to go into any lengthened argument on the subject. It was read a second time without opposition, the Duke of Wellington declaring that he was prepared to consider it in committee, with a view to make such amendments as might render it consistent with the interests of the church and the people. The house went into committee on the 25th, and the bill was passed on the 28th. When passed, however, all the provisions for what was called appropriation were struck out, and all the other important arrangements in the bill were modified. By the bill the clergy were only to receive seventy per cent.; the lords raised it to seventy-five; they raised also the minimum stipend to be paid in any benefice to £300. In this shape the bill was sent down to the commons.

Lord John Russell brought the amendments of the lords before that house on the 2nd of August, when he started a question of privilege, as if the lords had interfered with a money-bill, thereby leaving the commons no other choice than to reject it, independently of the merits or demerits of the alterations which had been introduced. He entered subsequently into the merits of the amendments at large; and having explained them, he said, it was for the house to say whether, after having solemnly affirmed certain principles, it would, because the lords had rejected them, yield them up, and then endeavour to agree with the lords in the alterations of this bill, or in the provisions of a new measure. For himself, he would say, that if the members of the house of commons were to go up to the bar of the house of lords in such humble guise, admitting that they had been in error, and that the wisdom of the house of lords had taught them a lesson of policy they had never learned before, he, for one, would not accompany the commons on such a message. Sir Robert Peel, who followed the home-secretary, moved as an amendment that the lords' amendments should now be taken into consideration; but, after a brief debate, the motion for rejecting the bill was carried by a majority of two hundred and sixty against two hundred and thirty-one.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN ENGLAND.

One of the leading measures of the session, as regarded England, was for the commutation of tithes; a measure which was brought forward for the relief of the dissenters. The ministerial plan for the commutation of tithes was brought before the house of commons by Lord John Russell on the 9th of February. The subject, he said, consisted of two parts: namely, the principles on which the commutation should be made, and the machinery by which it was to be carried into execution. The machinery, he confessed, would be borrowed from Sir Robert Peel's bill of last year. There would be a central board of commissioners, consisting of three persons, for the purpose of arranging the question of commutation; and this board would have power to appoint assistant-commissioners to a certain extent, and in certain cases, in the same manner as the poor-law commissioners. His lordship admitted that the selection of the principle on which the commutation should proceed was a subject attended with much difficulty. In the plan government proposed, their object had been to produce as little disturbance as possible in existing interests, not to diminish violently or excessively the income now enjoyed by the tithe-owners, and to produce some uniformity in the mode of calculating and valuing tithe throughout England and Wales. As in the bill of last year, any landowner would be allowed to agree with the tithe-owner for a commutation of his tithe; and having made such an agreement, he would stand to the tenant in the relation not only of landlord, but likewise of tithe-owner. He also proposed that it should be competent for the possessor or possessors of one-fourth of the value of the tithe to call a meeting of the owners of land in the parish, at which parties might be represented as they now were under the poor-law act. When three-fourths in value of the owners of tithe agreed with three-fourths in value of the owners of land, they would have power to make an agreement binding on the whole parish, if no person appealed against it within a certain period. If any person appealed, it should still be binding against those who did not appeal. The parties appealing would be compelled to appear before the assistant-commissioners, who, on hearing their statements, would make an award, which award, on the ratification of the central board, would become binding on the parish. If, at the end of a certain period, he would say six months, no such agreement were made between the tithe-owners and the tithe-payers, it would be competent for any landowner, or any tithe-owner, to ask the commissioners to make such a general award on the tithes of the parish. When such a demand was made, an assistant-commissioner would be authorised to examine what had been the amount of tithes, and what had been the expense of collecting the tithes for the last seven years; he would then declare the amount of tithes so paid for the last seven years, and that amount would be represented by a certain quantity of wheat, barley, and oats. If any person should appeal against this declaration, on the ground that the amount fixed for the tithes on the composition did not fairly represent their value, the assistant-commissioner would make an estimate of the value of the tithes for the seven years previous, and ascertain the actual gross value of them for that period. If it should appear that the sum of tithes taken in any parish during a period of seven years exceeded seventy-five per cent, of the gross value, then it would be competent to the commissioners to determine that the commutation should amount to seventy-five per cent. of the gross value, and no more, and they would reduce the sum accordingly; if, on the contrary, it appeared that the amount taken was less than sixty per cent, of the gross value of the tithe, the commissioners would be authorised to raise the sum to sixty per cent., and to declare that that should be the amount of the future charge. If the sum paid was between these two limits, it should be competent to the commissioners to make such an award as they thought the circumstances and the justice of the case required. In some cases tithes had been taken to such an extent as ought not to form the basis of a permanent charge; and, on the other hand, there were instances, as had been satisfactorily established by undoubted evidence, of clergymen who did not receive more than forty or fifty per cent, of the amount to which they were entitled. It appeared just to interfere in these cases; and he thought it right to fix a sum to be taken hereafter, which should not exceed or fall below a certain amount, in proportion to the gross value of the tithe. It was open for consideration, whether sixty or seventy-five pounds were the proper minimum and maximum: he referred to these sums only as illustrating the principle. In certain cases, however, a special regulation would be required, as tithes on hops, orchards, and gardens, on which the tithes were extremely high. He proposed giving the commissioners the power of taking certain hop districts, in order to ascertain the average tithe of the last seven years, and fix the amount in future. They would also have the power of declaring what the tithe of any particular land or property should be, supposing hop cultivation to be abandoned; and it was provided that in cases where land should be brought into hop cultivation anew, it should be subject to an additional payment of fifteen shillings an acre on account of tithe. As regarded orchards and gardens, he had not been able to settle a particular provision on the subject, although he admitted lands thus cultivated were particularly circumstanced. The tithe thus commuted, Lord John Russell continued, would become a rent-charge, payable by the landowner according to the value of grain: thus—the average prices for seven years of wheat, barley, and oats would be published at certain periods by the comptroller of corn returns; this publication would take place every year, and the payment of rent-charge made in lieu of tithe would be varied accordingly. The prices of three different kinds of grain were taken, for the purpose of ascertaining the value and amount of the charge, so that if an individual were chargeable with £300 for tithe, one-third would be estimated by the price of wheat, one-third by that of barley, and the remaining third by the price of oats, which would be giving each a fair proportion in the gross amount. Finally, the intended bill did not deal, his lordship said, with the question of redemption of the rent-charge; that was an important and difficult subject, and would require to be dealt with in a separate measure after the commutations should have been made, and the charge ascertained. Sir Robert Peel said that he would not object to the measure being introduced, since he thought himself entitled to say that it was taken in great part from his bill of last year. The whole of its machinery was, in fact, adopted, and to a certain extent likewise, its principle of voluntary commutation. The bill passed the second reading on the 22nd of February without any division, although various objections were stated, both as to its principles and details; the former being chiefly directed against the compulsory nature of the commutation. When the bill went into committee, ministers made several alterations in its provisions. Thus the period during which voluntary commutations might be entered into was extended from six months to twelve; and the clauses under which a single landholder might compel a commutation in regard to his own property, while there was none for the rest of the parish, were given up; it was now proposed that a fixed proportion of the landowners should have power to enter into a voluntary agreement, which, after a certain time, should become binding on the whole parish. A great deal of hostility, however, was still expressed against the measure, and that even among the ordinary supporters of government. Mr. Hume maintained that no good bill could be enacted till the corn-laws were repealed, since they had given land and its produce an artificial value; and as their repeal was anticipated, this measure would inflict great injury on the landowners, unless the value of the tithe was fixed much lower than was done by the bill. Great opposition was also manifested to the maximum and minimum of seventy-five and sixty pounds, and fixing them merely by the average of the preceding seven years, but the clause was retained. On the bringing up of the report, however, government proposed a modification of the clause, to the effect that the commissioners, on receiving a representation that the sum paid was not a fair composition, should ascertain the gross value of the tithe, and should have power to raise or diminish the sum to be paid in future, but not beyond one-fifth of the sum paid during the preceding seven years. Some amendments of minor importance were moved subsequently, but were rejected; and the bill having gone up to the lords, was read a second time without opposition, and was passed on the 22nd, both sides of the house approving of its general principles. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, he thought the bill would be very beneficial in its effects, relieving the land from the pressure of tithes, and doing justice to the clergy, and as little liable to objection as any measure that could be framed on a subject so difficult and so complicated. With respect to those lands which might be brought into cultivation as agriculture improved, and for which the bill made no provision, he agreed that to give the clergy a tithe on such land would be to prevent the general object of the bill—the expenditure of capital on the land; but when waste lands were enclosed and brought into profitable cultivation, he could see no reason why such steps should not be taken in favour of the clergy as were usual in other cases, and why a portion of the land should not be given to them. His grace accordingly moved, in the committee, an amendment to the effect, that when waste or common lands should be enclosed, the commissioners should assign a certain portion of the land to the tithe-owner instead of his tithe. This was objected to on both sides of the house, and the amendment was negatived without a division. The bill passed, and the few alterations which had been made in the lords were agreed to with one exception. The peers had agreed to an amendment giving tithe on cows fed in stalls and sheds. This was rejected; and the lords, when the bill returned to them, did not insist upon its retention.

BILL FOR REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES, ETC.

On the 12th of February Lord John Russell brought in bills for relieving dissenters from the necessity of celebrating their marriages according to the forms of the church of England, and for establishing a system of registration of marriages, births, and deaths. His lordship stated that the two bills were not connected with each other, but that the establishment of a proper system of registration was, in his opinion, an indispensable pre-requisite to any measure for removing from the dissenters their grievances relative to marriage. It was further, he said, an important object, in a national point of view, to have a general scheme of registration. At present there were no registry of births, but only of baptisms; no registry of marriages, because they were only such marriages as were performed by ministers of the church of England; and no registry of burials, as the only burials registered were those in which the service was performed by clergymen of the establishment. He argued that it was necessary we should have a registration, which should comprehend, indifferently and impartially, all sects of the people. The late change effected in our domestic policy, he continued, seemed to furnish the means of attaining this end without any heavy additional expense. By the poor-law amendment act there were two hundred and twenty-eight unions already in England and Wales; and it might be calculated that, when the whole country was divided into unions, there would be more than eight hundred. In every union there was a relieving-officer, each union consisting of about twenty parishes, and containing from sixteen to twenty thousand inhabitants. There was likewise an auditor appointed by the board of guardians. Now the government proposed that the poor-law commissioners should have the power of appointing the relieving-officer, or any other person whom they might think fit, to keep the register of a certain number of parishes; and the auditor of the union, or his clerk, or any other person appointed by the poor-law commissioners, should superintend the register of that part. There would further be a registry-office in each county, and a chief office in London, subject, however, to the authority of the poor-law commissioners. The superintendent in each union was to send the registers to the county office every two months, and copies would be transmitted thence to the central office in London. As regarded the manner in which the registration was to be made, his lordship said, that the bill would require notice to be given by the occupier of the house in which the child was born within eight days after that event had taken place, and that within fifteen or twenty days the registrar might call upon either the father or mother of the child, or upon the occupier of the house, to give him certain particulars, in order to fill up accurately the register in respect to that child. The person who furnished these particulars would also be required to furnish the name of the child; if that was declined at the time, and withheld to a future period, it would be necessary to postpone it, and the party would be obliged to produce to the registrar a certificate of the baptism of the child, and to pay him a fee of one shilling for making the entry. In cases of death likewise the occupier would have to give an account of the deaths which happened in his house—of the time and circumstances of the event—in the same manner as was provided in the case of birth. The registrar, within a certain time, would also call upon the next of kin, or any person living in the house, to furnish him with further particulars with respect to the death, the age of the deceased, information as to what part of the country the deceased belonged to, and all such other information as was usual and material in such cases. Persons who gave this information would not be required to pay any fees for the entry, or, indeed, for anything; but copies or certificates of the entry at any time afterwards supplied would have to be paid for. Every registrar would receive two shillings and sixpence for each name entered by him within twenty days after birth or death, and one shilling extra after that time, and the superintendent of the registrar would be paid two-pence on each entry. It was calculated that altogether there would be about 812,000 entries made in the course of one year, and that the amount paid to the registrars thereon would be somewhat more than £40,000. The total expense, including superintendents and the register-office in London, would amount to about £80,000 per annum. For the present the lords of the treasury would be empowered to pay the expenses of the central register-office in London; the future expenses would be borne by the parishes, according to the number of entries supplied by each. Lord John Russell next proceeded to state the provisions of the registration of marriages. He laid it down as a principle that the state had no interest in the form of the marriage ceremony, beyond that of its being binding on the consciences of the parties. When it was ascertained that due notice of the contract had been given, according to the form requisite to be followed by all parties, that the contract was duly registered, and that the manner in which that contract was entered into was binding upon the consciences of the parties to it, then the state had learned all that it was essential or necessary for it to know. The law of the country, however, as it at present stood, took a very different view. By the marriage law of 1754 it was declared that a marriage, in order to be valid, must be performed—after bans published in the church, or licence granted by authority—in the church, within certain hours, except under a special licence, and in all cases by a clergyman of the church of England. This law he considered as an unnecessary violation of conscience, and he proposed to leave the marriages of the members of the church of England as they were under the present law, and to allow the Protestant dissenters to be married in their own chapels, according to the religious form most acceptable to themselves. Instead of the publication of bans, he proposed that all persons, whether of the church establishment or Protestant dissenters, should give notice of their intention to marry to the registrar, and that their names should be entered by him in a notice-book, open to inspection for twenty-one days prior to the celebration; but that persons intending to marry by licence would be required to give only eight days' notice; and special licences, issued under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, would still be retained. If the parties were unknown to the registrar, some person known to him would be required to declare that they were the parties they professed themselves to be. After the names had remained twenty-one days on the notice, the registrar would have to give them a notice to that effect, and the marriage might be celebrated within three months from that date. If the parties were members of the church of England, the clergyman, on the production of the certificate within the period, would be empowered to perform the ceremony without the publication of bans; or, if the parties were dissenters, they would be at liberty to go to a dissenting chapel with the certificate of notice, and, on its production, the ceremony would there be solemnized. The chapel, however, must first be duly licensed, on the application of at least twenty householders, who must declare that it was a dissenting chapel, used as a place of worship, and that they desired it to be licensed for the celebration of marriages. It was further proposed that as a dissenting minister was not known so well as a clergyman of the church of England, and that as he might take upon himself the office and lay it down again, the registrar should be present at such marriages, and should afterwards enter the names of the parties on the registry. To those who considered marriage to be altogether a civil contract, he would give something like what had been proposed last year by Sir Robert Peel, with this exception, that the parties, instead of going before a magistrate, would go before the registrar of marriages for the district in which they resided, who would enter the marriage contracted before him in a form of words set out in the bill. In respect to the registration of other marriages, the only difference between members of the establishment and dissenters would be this—that the established clergyman might enter the certificate of marriage in his own register, and send a duplicate copy thereof to the superior registrar of the district, to be forwarded by him to London; while, in the case of dissenters, it would be required that the ceremony should be performed in the presence of the registrar, who would certify that the marriage had taken place after a compliance with all the forms.

The bills were brought in, and were read a second time on the 15th of April without any opposition. The registration bill passed through committee without any important alteration; and the house of lords passed it on the 15th of August, with several amendments, to which the commons agreed. In the committee on the marriage bill, it was proposed to continue the publication of bans in rural districts, as a more effective means of giving notice to families interested in preventing a clandestine marriage than a register, which would require to be daily examined. It was also proposed to allow a dissenting chapel to be licensed for marriage purposes on the application of ten householders belonging to the congregation, instead of twenty, because there were many such chapels which did not contain ten householders. Both these propositions were rejected, as was also a motion for the rejection of the clause which allowed persons who objected to marry in church, or in a registered meeting-house, to marry at the office of the registrar. This clause was objected to on the ground that it altered the whole marriage law of England, and separated the contract of marriage from all religious sanction; but a large majority decided in its favour. On the third reading Mr. Goulburn moved the insertion of a clause requiring, in all cases where marriages were not solemnized in a church or chapel, nor according to the rites of the church of England, that the parties should make the following declaration:—"I do solemnly declare that I have conscientious scruples against the solemnization of marriage according to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England." This motion, however, was rejected by a large majority, and another was carried, which went to reject the eighteenth clause of the bill, which required persons married before the registrar solemnly to declare that their had conscientious scruples against marrying in either church or chapel, or with any religious ceremony. Sir Robert Peel said, that the bill thus altered had assumed an entirely different aspect; while it provided for the relief of the dissenters, it passed a gratuitous and most intolerable insult on the feelings and principles of the members of the church of England. Lord Lincoln, after making similar remarks, moved, as an amendment, that the bill should be read that day six months; but the third reading was carried by one hundred and four against fifty-four. In the lords the second reading encountered no opposition, objections to it being reserved for the committee. In the committee the Bishop of Exeter moved, in order to avoid the desecration of the marriage contract when the ceremony was not performed in church, that the parties should make the following declaration:—"In the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses, I, M., do take thee, N., to be my wedded wife, according to God's holy ordinance; and I do here, in the presence of God, solemnly promise, before these witnesses, to be to thee a loving and faithful husband during life," instead of, as it stood in the bill, "I call upon these persons here present to witness that, I, A. B., do take thee, C. D., to be my lawful, wedded wife." This amendment was carried; but on the bringing up of the report, the bill, on the motion of Lord Melbourne, was restored in this respect to what it had formerly been. The lords, however, struck out that provision of the bill which abolished the proclamation of bans, and they enacted with regard to all marriages of members of the established church, that bans should still be proclaimed. They likewise enacted that the superintendent of each district should send to the clerks of the unions the names of all persons who gave notice of their intention to marry, they being Protestant dissenters, and that their names should be read weekly, for three successive weeks, at the meetings of the guardians of the poor. Finally, in some parts of the bill they introduced an oath in place of a declaration, and required the interference of the superintendent-registrar, instead of the registrar. Some of these amendments were very unfavourably received by the dissenting interest in the commons, and an amendment was carried expunging the enactment that the names of dissenters intending to marry, should be read by the guardians of the poor at their weekly meetings. To all the other amendments of the lords, the commons, on the advice of Lord John Russell, agreed.

BILL TO ALTER THE REVENUES AND TERRITORIES OF THE DIFFERENT SEES, ETC.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

During the administration of Sir Robert Peel, a commission had been appointed to inquire what useful changes, if any, could be introduced in the ecclesiastical condition of the church of England, so as to remove anomalies which might still exist in it, and insure more effective pastoral superintendence. This commission had made a first report before Sir Robert Peel had resigned, and on the occurrence of that event his successors continued it, though its official members were changed. The second report was presented to both houses early in the present session, when it appeared that the inquiries of the committee had been threefold: first, their recommendations referred to the ecclesiastical division of territory, and the revenues of the different sees; secondly, to the cathedral and collegiate revenues, which it was desirable should be made more useful for the church establishment; and, lastly, the residence of clergymen on their benefices. During this session Lord John Russell introduced into the lower house a bill founded on those recommendations, which regarded the new modelling of the episcopal sees in relation to territory and income; and at a later period, another measure was brought in, providing for the suppression of cathedral and collegiate preferments, and sinecure benefices. A third measure was likewise brought into the house of lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to carry into effect the recommendations of the commissioners regarding pluralities and non-residence.

The bill concerning the territories and revenues of the diocesses, or the established church bill, recited those parts of the reports of the commissioners which set forth the proposed alterations among the sees, and deductions from their revenues. The first of these reports had recommended a different territorial arrangement of diocesses, with the view of making them more equal; the suppression of two sees; the erection of two others, those of Manchester and Ripon, in their places; and that the revenues of the sees—the two archbishoprics, and the sees of London, Durham, and Winchester excepted, should not exceed £5500, nor fall below £4500. The second report proposed that the diocess of Bristol, which, according to the previous recommendation, was to comprehend part of the diocess of Llandaff, should be united, as far as respected Bristol, with the diocess of Bath and Wells; and, as far as respected the remaining portion of the see, with the bishopric of Gloucester. It was further proposed that the Isle of Man should be united with the bishopric of Carlisle. With regard to the revenues, the second report recommended that the income of the Archbishop of Canterbury should be reduced from £17,000 to £15,000; of the see of London, from £12,200 to £10,000; of Durham, from £17,800 to £8000; of Winchester, from £10,700 to £7000; of Ely, from £11,000 to £7500; and of Worcester, from £6500 to £5000. The excess produced by these deductions was to be divided among thirteen sees, so as to make their respective revenues range between £5500 and £4500 per annum. It was further suggested that some useful measure might be proposed with respect to the mode of granting leases; but this was a subject which the commission had found extremely difficult in treating with, and therefore they had not agreed upon any proposition. After reciting these various parts of the reports of the commissioners, Lord John Russell's bill incorporated a board of commissioners under the style of "the ecclesiastical commissioners for England," which board was composed of spiritual and lay peers, of the lord-chancellor, the president of the council, and first lord of the treasury, of the chancellor of the exchequer, and such of the secretaries of state as his majesty might name for the time being, and of the right honourable Henry Hobhouse and Sir Herbert Jenner. The bill further enacted that the commissioners from time to time should lay before the king in council such schemes as should appear to them to be best adapted for carrying into effect the before-cited recommendations, and such measures as should appear to them necessary for the proper execution of these schemes, with a power of making such modifications and variations in matters of detail, as might not be repugnant to the recommendations themselves. When any such scheme had been approved of by his majesty, it was to be ratified by an order of the king in council, published in the Gazette, and recorded by the registrars in the diocesses, and was thereafter to be of the same force and effect as if every part of it had been included in this act. A clause was inserted, enacting that in future no bishop should hold in commendam any ecclesiastical office, dignity, or benefice, all such grants being declared null and void; and by another clause the commissioners were directed to prepare a scheme for preventing the appointment of clergymen not fully conversant with the Welsh language, to any benefice in Wales, with the cure of souls, where the majority of the inhabitants of the parish did not understand English. On the motion for going into the committee on tire bill, the second reading of which had encountered no opposition, Lord John Russell entered at considerable length into this measure, and likewise the other two bills which were to accompany it in reforming the church. It would be mere repetition to record his expressions on the first measure; but passing to the recommendation of the commissioners for suppressing collegiate and cathedral charges, and benefices without the cure of souls, he said, that the income which would become available from these sources would be £130,000. In making a new application of this revenue, the first regard would be given to the wants and circumstances of the parishes from which the revenue was derived. The want of church accommodation in many places was lamentable. With respect to patronage, Lord John Russell added, it was proposed that instead of the large number of livings now in the hands of the dean and chapters, for the future they should only have the power either of appointing one of their own body, or one of their minor canons to benefices; but if they were not accepted, they should, after three months, be disposed of by the crown in some cases, and by the bishop of the diocess in others. With respect to the patronage of the crown, by which the church was connected with the state, he thought it would be a great evil to have the church totally independent of the state. Patronage was one of the means by which the church was united to the state, and by which the latter was bound to promote the interest and welfare of the church; and on the other hand the clergy were enlisted in the common cause and general policy of the state. He considered also that the patronage in the hands of bishops and individuals was useful; and the commissioners had proposed that the patronage in the hands of cleans, prebends, and residentiaries, should go into the hands of the bishops. On the motion for going into committee the bill was inveighed against as a mockery of reform, which still left the church too wealthy; merely making a new distribution among the bishops, instead of a reduction; not only not taking sufficient from the richer bishoprics, but giving what it even did take to the other bishops, instead of bestowing it on the poor and working clergy. The bill passed through the committee on the 14th; and on the bringing up of the report, Mr. Hume moved that it should be considered that day three months. This motion was rejected by a majority of more than two to one; and Mr. C. Buller then moved a clause, to the effect that, until due provision should have been made for the adequate payment of the parochial clergy, and for the supply of religious instruction to those parts of the country stated in the report of the commissioners to be destitute thereof, the Archbishop of Canterbury should receive an income of not more than £8000; the Archbishop of York, £7000; the Bishop of London, £4500; and each of the other bishops £4000. This proposition was rejected by a majority of eighty-two against forty-four; but the resistance of ministers seemed only to increase the opposition of their radical opponents. On the motion for the third reading, Mr. Hume moved, as an amendment, that the bill should be read a third time that day six months. It was impossible, he said, that the bill could pass; and if ministers thought it would be passed, they would find themselves mistaken, and do great injury to the liberal cause which they professed to advocate; such a bill was not to be passed while the pledges of the government in regard to the church remained unredeemed. Mr. T. Duncombe bitterly reproached ministers for their supposed dereliction of principle; they might talk as they chose of their Irish tithe-bill and their appropriation clause, but English church reform would be the touchstone by which it would be tried whether they would retain the confidence of the country. On a division, Mr. Hume's amendment was rejected by a majority of one hundred and seventy-five against forty-four, ministers being supported by the conservatives, and generally by the Irish members. In the meantime the lords had been proceeding with the bill regarding pluralities and non-residence. On the second reading of that bill, the Bishops of Exeter and Hereford expressed strong apprehensions of the consequences of the bill, although, as the house was unanimous in its favour, they would not occasion any vote. The bill was founded on the recommendations of the commissioners previously alluded to. It was proposed that exemptions in favour of non-residence should be granted only to chaplains in attendance on their majesties, or on bishops, the principals of some schools, and in a few other special cases. The law at present allowed incumbents to be absent three months; and it was not proposed to shorten the time, as circumstances did not permit the clergy generally to take advantage of it, and pluralities produced a greater quantity of non-residence than all other causes. In regard to pluralities, therefore, the commissioners proposed, that no clerygyman should hold two livings if the income of one of them exceeded £500, or they were more than ten miles distant from each other; and that, in no case, should any clergyman hold more than two livings. The bill further enacted, that no person should hold more than one benefice, with one cathedral preferment, and that no person should hold preferment in more than one cathedral or collegiate church, except archdeacons, whose office was very laborious, and in general ill-paid. After some remarks made against some of these provisions by the Bishops of Exeter and Hereford, the lords agreed to them; and the bill was passed and sent down to the commons, but it was dropped for the session. Nothing more was heard of the bills which Lord John Russell had successfully carried through the commons, regarding the new modelling of episcopal sees, &c., and the suppression of cathedral and collegiate preferments and sinecure benefices. With reference to the latter subject, however, a short act was passed, in order to prevent the creation of any new vested interests, by providing generally that all future appointments to any ecclesiastical dignity or office referred to in the recommendations of the ecclesiastical commissioners, should be subject to such regulations as might subsequently be enacted regarding them; and that no appointment should be made to any canonry or prebend of cathedrals and collegiate churches, nor to any sinecure benefice not in the patronage of private persons, or of one of the universities, that was now vacant, or might become vacant during the continuance of the act, which was limited to a year, and to the end of the next session of parliament. Various canons and prebends were excepted, principally those which were attached to professorships and dignities of the universities; but the canonries of York, St. Paul, Carlisle, Chichester, and Lincoln, and prebends held by the Bishops of Lincoln, Lichfield. Exeter, and Salisbury, in their respective sees, were likewise excluded.

BILL TO ABOLISH THE SECULAR JURISDICTION OF BISHOPS, ETC.

During this session an act was passed, by which the secular jurisdiction of the county palatine of Durham, with all forfeitures, mines, treasure trove, and other rights belonging to that authority, were transferred from the bishop of the diocess and vested in the crown. The county-court was abolished; and it was likewise declared that the bishop elect, or any bishop for the time being, should take and hold the see, subject to such provisions as parliament might make regarding it within three years from the passing of the act. By another measure, the secular jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York over the liberty of Ripon and other places in Yorkshire, and the stoke of Southwell, in Nottinghamshire; and the secular authority of the Bishop of Ely over the Isle of Ely, were separated from the sees, and transferred to the king. A third act was passed, imposing restrictions on the renewal of leases by ecclesiastical persons. This bill provided, that where a lease had been granted for more than two lives, no renewal of it should be given till one or more of those lives had expired; and that, even then, the renewal should be only for the surviving lives, or for such new lives as, with the survivors, would make up the number of lives, not exceeding three, for which the lease had been originally granted. Where the lease had been granted for forty, thirty, or twenty-one years, it was not to be renewable till fourteen, ten, and seven years respectively of the original term had expired; and where it had merely been for years, no new lease was to be given for a life or lives. It was further required, that all leases should contain a recital, setting forth, in the case of a lease for lives, the names of the persons mentioned in the original lease as those on whose lives it was granted, and specifying such of the lives as were still existing, or had been exchanged for some other life. If the lease had been for a term of years, the recital was to set forth that term, and how much remained unexpired; and every such recital, so far as related to the validity of the lease containing it, was to be deemed and taken as conclusive evidence of the matter so recited.

BILL TO AMEND THE ENGLISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT.

When the bill relative to the reform of municipal corporations came into operation, in the end of 1835, it was soon discovered that some of the details of its machinery would require amendment. A bill for that purpose was brought in early in the present session. In some instances the mayor and other corporate officers had been elected, when the person presiding at the election was not legally entitled to preside; and the bill enacted that, notwithstanding this, all such elections, and all acts done by the officers so elected, should be good and valid. The act passed directed that elections should be held before the mayor and assessors; but, in some instances, there had been elections where there were no assessors: the present bill proposed to declare, both for the past and the future, that elections held before the election of assessors, but with the mayor or council presiding, should be as effectual as if they had been made before the mayor and assessors. The act provided, that the councillors who should go out of office were to be those who had been elected by the smallest number of votes; and if the votes had been equal, the majority of the council was to determine who should first go out. This did not provide for the case when there was no division of votes, in consequence of there being no contest; and the present bill provided for this case, by enacting that the majority of the council should select their out-going colleagues. The act did not provide for the town-councillors being equally divided in the election of mayor or alderman, and instances had occurred of two parties in the council dividing against each other till midnight, after which no election could take place, as the day named in the act had expired: it was proposed by the present bill that, in such a case, the councillor who had the greatest number of votes at the election should preside, but without any casting vote, and that when the councillors could not agree on a mayor or alderman, the election should be referred to the constituent body. The act had abolished various corporate officers, without observing that, by their charter, their presence was necessary at the sessions. Serious doubts had arisen from this as to the legality of the proceedings at the sessions, before the new officers entered upon their duties under the act of parliament. The present bill declared that any court held since the passing of the act of last session, or before the 1st of May, 1836, in presence of the recorder, or any two persons who, at the date of that act, were entitled to act as justices for the borough, had been well and lawfully held. Many of the municipal elections having been questioned by proceedings in the King's Bench, as being illegally and invalidly made, it was proposed by the bill that these causes should be decided in favour of one of the parties by act of parliament; that the proceedings should be quashed, and suits prohibited, by enacting that the defendants should have the right of getting them discontinued on making payment of costs. This bill passed the commons; and when it came to be read a second time in the house of lords, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst pointed out the grave consideration and the careful examination which many of its enactments would require. Lord Lyndhurst especially called the attention of the house to the tendency of those provisions which had a retrospective operation. After the bill, therefore, had been read a second time, it was referred, with the acquiescence of ministers, to a select committee, which committee made various amendments upon the bill, all of which were agreed to by the house and adopted into the bill. The commons, on receiving the bill back again, agreed to all the amendments except two. The first of these was an amendment on the provision, that when the town-council was equally divided in the election of mayor or alderman, these officers should be chosen directly by the constituent body. The lords had altered this into a provision that, in case of equality, the town-council should first of all name by lot one of this number to preside at the meeting, and that their presiding councillor should have a casting vote. The second amendment consisted in the insertion of a clause to continue for another year the arrangement contained in the municipal act for the management of charitable trusts. No portion of these new institutions had produced greater jealousy between parties; the popular party were eager to get hold of them, while the other insisted on some arrangement which would prevent the funds of charities from being prostituted to party and political purposes. This jealousy was not set aside by the municipal bill, which left those charitable trusts in the hands of the persons then administering them, till the 1st of August, 1837, unless parliament in the meantime should otherwise provide, and if it did not, then the lord-chancellor was to appoint new trustees. Previous to this Mr. Smith had brought in a bill to administer these trusts by a system of popular election. The town-council of each borough was to fix the number of trustees, and then the trustees were to be chosen by the municipal electors, each elector voting for only half of the number, in the idea that this would give both parties an equal chance. The trustees were to be elected every three years. This bill had not passed when the municipal bill was sent up to the lords; and it proceeded upon a system which their lordships were not likely to approve of. The lords, therefore, had inserted in the municipal bill a clause continuing for another year that administration of these charitable trusts which had been admitted into the original corporation act. The attorney-general moved that the commons should not agree to this amendment, as Mr. Smith's bill would soon pass; and he further moved that they should not agree to the amendment regarding the election of mayor and aldermen when the town-council were equally divided, on the ground, that it left to chance, and not to the voice of the people, which should be the predominating party in the corporation. This motion was agreed to; and the reasons of the commons for disagreeing with these amendments were communicated to the lords in a conference. The lords, however, still adhered to their amendments, the Duke of Wellington contending that the rejection of them was a departure from the principle on which he and his friends had waived all opposition to the decision of the select committee, and had consented to adopt the amendments as that committee had framed them. The decision of the lords to adhere to their amendments took place on the 1st of July, and on the 28th Mr. Smith's bill for administering the charities by popular election passed the commons. The second reading was moved in the lords on the 4th of August, when it was opposed by the Duke of Wellington, who deemed it as unreasonable in the circumstances and bad in itself. On a division the second reading of the bill was negatived by a majority of thirty-nine to twenty-two. The commons still refused to agree to the clause which the lords had inserted in the bill on this subject, and there seemed to be no alternative but to drop the bill. The lower house, however, resolved to adopt the only course open to them, namely, that of a free conference, at which the matter in dispute might be debated between the managers viva voce. This course was pursued; but the two houses could not come to any agreement on these clauses, and finally Lord John Russell moved that the further consideration of the amendments should be postponed till that day three months, which motion was agreed to. Certain bills were subsequently brought in and passed, to supply those parts of the dropped bill, in which both houses were agreed.

BILL TO ALLOW FELONS' COUNSEL TO ADDRESS THE JURY, ETC.

Several attempts had been made to obtain an act for allowing prisoners on trial for felony the benefit of counsel to address the jury on their behalf. Hitherto these attempts had been unsuccessful; but notwithstanding this, the subject was again brought before the commons at the commencement of the present session. The bill was introduced by Mr. Ewart, and it passed the commons by a great majority. The second reading of the bill in the house of lords was moved by Lord Lyndhurst, who descanted at large on the justice and reasonableness of the bill in its principle, although he did not approve of all its details. Lords Denman and Wynford also spoke in favour of the principles of the bill, and it was accordingly read a second time without opposition. In the committee, however, several amendments and alterations were made upon the bill, none of which were of great practical importance except one, and all of which, except that one, were agreed to by the commons. It frequently happened that persons were tried for felony where no counsel were present, and by this bill the privileges of the counsel were extended to attornies. The bill, as it came up from the commons, contained a clause entitling the accused to copies of the depositions upon which he had been committed. This clause was struck out, on the ground that the rights of a prisoner in this respect were already settled by law; but, to prevent all doubt upon the subject, a clause declaratory of the right was again introduced, before the bill finally passed the lords. A more important matter, however, regarded the right of the prisoner to have the last word. As the bill passed the commons, this right was established; but the clause enacting that he should possess that right was struck out, and the effect of the alteration was to make the practice the same as in cases of misdemeanour, and in criminal cases, giving the last word to the prisoner, only in the event of his adducing no evidence. The bill now consisted of this simple enactment:—"That all persons tried for felony shall be admitted, after the close of the case for the prosecution, to make full answer and defence thereto by counsel learned in the law, or by attorney in courts, where attornies practise as counsel." When the bill as amended by the lords came to be taken into consideration by the commons, its supporters argued that, as it now stood, it conferred no real advantage, and that it would be better to leave to prisoners the benefit of the commiseration which the state of the law, such as it was at present, induced, than to deprive them of it without giving them anything substantive in return. It was resolved that the lords' amendments should be referred to a select committee, and that committee reported in favour of the other amendments; but they decided that any arrangement which would deprive the prisoner of the last word would be injurious to his interests, and to the ends of justice. The attorney-general urged the house to accept the bill as it stood; but the amendment was rejected, and its rejection immediately communicated to the other house. The lords, however, still resolved to adhere to the amendment, and a conference was held, at which their reasons for adhering to it were communicated to the commons. The amendment was finally adopted by the lower house, and the bill passed—Lord John Russell stating that the matter in dispute would form a subject of future deliberation, and Mr. Ewart assuring the house that he would not fail still to press upon it the principle which he now sacrificed, rather than reject the bill, which still retained a great deal of good.

Another act passed during this session had reference to the execution of those convicted of murder. By the existing law a person convicted of murder was directed to be executed the next day but one after that on which he was convicted, unless it should happen on a Sunday, in which case the execution was to take place on the following Monday. The law further required that after conviction such persons should be fed only on bread and water, except in case of sickness, and that no other person than the gaoler, surgeon, and chaplain, should have access to them, unless by the permission of the sheriff or the judge who had presided on the trial. During the present session an act was passed repealing these provisions, enacting that "sentence of death maybe pronounced after conviction for murder in the same manner, and the judge shall have the same power in all respects, as after conviction for other capital offences."

A third act passed this session related to medical attendance on inquests. This was an act to provide that when medical men were called from their ordinary duties to serve the public by giving evidence on coroners' inquests, and going through the anatomical and chemical processes which these examinations sometimes required, they should receive a proper remuneration. This bill, which was brought in by Mr. Wakley, enacted that not only the coroner should have power to summon medical witnesses, but "that if the jury were not satisfied with such medical evidence, the coroner should be bound to summon another gentleman of the same profession; and every medical witness so summoned was subjected, in case of non-attendance, to a penalty of £5, to be recovered summarily before the justices." On the other hand, every medical man attending to give evidence was entitled to the fee of one guinea; and if he had performed a post-mortem examination, his fee was to be two guineas. The fees were made payable out of the poors'-rates.

ABOLITION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, ETC.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

In the preceding session a bill for the abolition of imprisonment for debt had passed the commons; but from the lateness of the session it was not possible for the lords when they received it to take it into consideration. The lord-chancellor took up the subject himself in this session, and a bill similar to that passed by the commons was read a first time in the lords on the 30th of June. It is unnecessary to give the details of the measure as it was not permitted to pass. Indeed the house of lords seemed determined to avenge itself upon the ministry which carried the reform bill, by rejecting every measure it introduced, except where the feeling of the country was too strongly in favour of such measure. On the second reading, the Duke of Wellington objected to taking up at that late stage of the session a measure involving such extensive interests, and introducing a new system of law. His grace moved, that the bill should be read a second time that day three months; and his motion was supported by Lords Abinger and Wynford, who considered it not as rejecting any measure founded on the principle of the bill, but only as postponing the subject till they could give it due consideration. Lord Melbourne agreed that the weight of business pressing on the house was great; but he did not see anything in it to deter them from proceeding with the bill. The proposed delay, he said, would only carry them to the 1st of August; and there was no probability that parliament would be prorogued by that time. On a division, however, the amendment was carried; and, although the session continued till the 20th of August, the subject was not again brought forward.

In his speech from the throne the king had recommended to parliament "to consider whether better provision may not be made for the speedy and satisfactory administration of justice in some of the departments of law, and more particularly in the court of chancery." These words had been used in reference to an intention entertained by government of dividing the office of lord-high-chancellor, distributing his functions between two judges, one of whom should be devoted to legal duties, and be irremovable; while the other should retain the patronage and political functions of the office, and should be liable to be dismissed with the ministry who appointed him. On the 28th of April, the lord-chancellor brought forward the measures by which this great change was to be effected; and he founded the necessity of such measures on the increase of business which had taken place in the court of chancery, both in its original and appellate jurisdictions. On the second reading, Lord Lyndhurst objected to these bills in point of principle. The necessary effect of the measure would be, he said, to divide the office of chancellor, and to disqualify him from exercising that very appellate jurisdiction to which he was devoted. This separation was most mischievous; and he, therefore, moved that the bill should be read that day six months. On the other hand, Lord Langdale did not consider that the bill went far enough. He held it, he said, to be indispensable that the judicial functions of the chancellor should be separated from those which were not judicial: and that the appellate jurisdiction of the house of lords ought to be placed under the superintendence of a judge having no connexion with politics. Lord Abinger and the Duke of Wellington supported the amendment; the latter remarking that it was important that the most eminent lawyer in the country should occupy such a position in the councils of his majesty as would give those councils substantial benefit from his assistance. Lord Melbourne contended that the house could do no wrong in going into committee on the bill; but on a division the amendment was carried by a majority of ninety-four to twenty-nine.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

Early in the session Mr. C. Buller brought the subject of the constitution of election committees before the house of commons, by moving "that a select committee be appointed to consider the laws relating to the determination of the right of voting, and the trial of controverted elections." In accordance with this motion a select committee was appointed; but its labours did not produce any fruit during the session. In the preceding sessions bills had passed the commons to disfranchise the borough of Stafford; but none of them had passed both houses. A new bill was passed by the commons, and sent up to the lords in the beginning of April. The second reading of the bill, however, in the house of lords was negatived by thirty-eight against twenty-two. On the 11th of June Mr. Hume moved in the house of commons, that the issuing of the writ for the borough of Stafford should be suspended till ten days after the next meeting of parliament. This motion was carried by a great majority.

Another question touching parliamentary purity attracted still greater attention. In May, 1835, the election of Colonel Bruen and Mr. Cavanagh for the county of Carlow had been declared void by a committee. Messrs. Vigors and Raphael were elected in their stead, by the interest of Mr. O'Connell. Upon a petition, however, these members were likewise unseated; and Mr. Raphael, who resided in London, believing that Mr. O'Connell had broken faith with him, published an account of the bargain by which he had secured his influence. It appeared that Mr. Raphael had begun to negociate with the agitator while the petition against Colonel Bruen and Mr. Cavanagh was still pending, and that the pecuniary treaty was concluded on that petition having terminated unfavourably for these gentlemen. Its terms were contained in the following letter, dated the 1st of June:—"My dear sir, you have acceded to the terms proposed to you for the election of the county of Carlow, viz., you are to pay before nomination £1,000—say £1,000, and a like sum after being returned; the first to be paid absolutely and entirely for being nominated; the second to be paid only in the event of your having been returned, I hereby undertake to guarantee and save you harmless from any and every other expense whatever, whether of agents, carriages, counsel, petition against the return, or of any other description; and I make this guarantee in the fullest sense of the honourable engagement that you should not possibly be required to pay one shilling more in any event or upon any contingency whatever." Mr. O'Connell wrote to the electors on behalf of Mr. Raphael; and, on the 10th of June, Mr. O'Connell received through his son, likewise a member of parliament, the first sum of £1,000. On the 21st he was returned; and, Mr. O'Connell, apparently in the prospect of a petition, wrote thus to his protégé:—"I am glad to tell you our prospects of success are, I do believe, quite conclusive. If only one liberal is to be returned, you are to be the man.

"I have made all the pecuniary arrangements.... I send you Vigors' letter to me. You see how secure we are. Return me this letter, as it vouches £800 for me; with that you have nothing to do, as, of course, I stand between you and everybody." A petition was presented against the return; and Mr. Raphael considered himself safe from any further expense except the sum of £1,000, and that Mr. O'Connell was bound by the express terms of his bargain to defend the return. He paid the second moiety of the £2,000 on the 28th of July; on the same day the election committee was ballotted. Mr. John O'Connell, who had received the money for his father, was himself one of that committee; and the inquiry before the committee having resolved into a scrutiny, Mr. Raphael soon discovered that it was in vain to look for the defence of his seat to his patron. He called upon Mr. O'Connell to fulfil his engagement "by fighting the battle so long as a bad vote for the petitioners remained on the poll, or, at all events, to the end of the session." Mr. O'Connell, however, either could not, or would not defend him; and Mr. Raphael was unseated along with his colleague, on which he published the whole transaction to the world. Mr. O'Connell felt himself called upon to answer the charges brought against him; and in doing so, he began by abusing his antagonist. He had been put on his guard, he said, against Mr. Raphael, by "honest and experienced men," who described him as "a faithless creature, who never observed any contract, and with whom no person ever had a dealing without being sorry for it." He admitted the terms of the bargain; but he insisted that he only acted as the agent of Mr. Vigors, who was to pay all additional expenses of opposing the petition. The first sum of £1,000 which Mr. Raphael had paid was expended on the five days' poll; and he urged that that gentleman had made an excellent bargain in having all the expenses of nomination and of a five days' poll covered by a £1,000. As for the other £1,000, he said, that had been expended in opposing the petition; and he maintained that there was no obligation to continue that opposition after it had been spent. He averred that he himself had no pecuniary interest in the matter: he had made the bargain as acting for Mr. Vigors; for Mr. Vigors he had received the money; and to him he had paid it over. The most important part of his statement consisted in the admission of the purpose to which the money was to be applied in the event of the return not being petitioned against. He remarked:—"If there should be no petition, I agreed, on the part of Mr. Vigors, that the greater part of the second £1,000, more than one-half of it, whatever might be the amount of the election expenses, should be applied to commence the formation of a fund to indemnify the voters, and their friends and relations, from that persecution which the Carlow landlords then threatened, and have since exercised." The subject was brought before parliament on the 11th of February, by a petition, setting forth the transaction in all its bearings. The petition likewise stated "that the ballot for a committee to try the validity of the said return took place on the same afternoon on which the said second sum of £1,000 had been so received, in respect of such return, by the said John O'Connell, for the use of his father, the said Daniel O'Connell; and the said John O'Connell and Daniel O'Connell both attended the ballot for the committee; and the said John O'Connell was, in fact, balloted as a member to serve on the said committee, and suffered to remain on the list of the committee as finally reduced." The petition prayed the house to inquire into the circumstances; and if the charge was proved, to adopt proper proceedings against the offenders. A similar petition was presented from Bath by Mr. Hardy, member for Bradford; and it was proposed that both petitions should be taken into consideration on Monday, the 15th. Mr. O'Connell wished the discussion to be postponed till the following day, which was agreed to. On the 16th, therefore, Mr. Hardy moved—"That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the traffic and agreement alleged to have taken place between Mr. Daniel O'Connell and Mr. Alexander Raphael, as one of the representatives for the county of Carlow, at the last election, and to report the minutes of evidence taken before them, with their observations thereon." Mr. Hardy said, that it was impossible to consider Mr. O'Connell in the light of an agent, as he had argued: who had ever heard of an agent becoming responsible to such an amount? The terms of agreement were:—"I hereby undertake to guarantee and save you harmless from any and every other expense whatsoever, whether of agents, carriages, counsel, petition against the return, or of any other description." He thought that Mr. Vigors was the agent of Mr. O'Connell at Carlow, rather than that Mr. O'Connell was the agent of Mr. Vigors in London. At all events, the consequence of the bargain was, that the member for Dublin, whether as agent or principal, put in two members for Carlow—Mr. Vigors, his old friend ex animo; and Mr. Raphael, his friend ex contracta. It was of little consequence what sort of representatives the people of Carlow obtained. They had never seen or heard Mr. Raphael, and they knew nothing about his physical or intellectual abilities; all they knew was his address, and there was nothing of him even in that but his name. In his reply, Mr. O'Connell was violent and abusive. He contended that it was not on account of anything connected with the Carlow election that this charge was brought forward, but because he had contributed to put down Toryism, and had thrown his weight into the scale of government to accomplish that object. He demanded that the inquiry should be extensive and searching, comprehending the whole of the late general election. He had neither been guilty of pecuniary corruption by pocketing money, nor of personal corruption by gratifying his ambition by the improper expenditure of the money on the part of other persons. He entered into a long explanation of the circumstances connected with the transaction, making it appear that he was guiltless in the matter. In conclusion, he demanded that the committee should not be a packed one, but a committee of "honourable gentlemen," by which he meant gentlemen who would be inclined to take a favourable view of the matter. Mr. Warburton thought that the motion did not make the object of the committee sufficiently extensive; and he moved the addition of words, authorising them to inquire likewise into "the application of the money said to have been received, together with the circumstances under which it was received and expended." This amendment was agreed to and the committee named, its members being taken equally from both sides of the house. Two nominees were likewise appointed, to assist in conducting the evidence; Mr. Sergeant Wilde on the part of Mr. O'Connell, and Sir Frederick Pollock on the part of his opponents. The report of the committee was made to the house by Mr. Colborne, their chairman, on the 11th of March. It read thus:—"It appears to your committee that the subject may be arranged under two heads—the first as relating to any traffic or agreement between Mr. Raphael and Mr. O'Connell for a seat in parliament, and the second as to the application of the sum said to have been given. It does not appear to your committee to be necessary for them to enter upon any detailed summary of the evidence, but they feel it their duty to draw the attention of the house very briefly to the main points as they bear upon the question. It appears that Mr. O'Connell addressed a letter, bearing date, 1st of June, 1835, in which the agreement for Mr. Raphael's return for the county of Carlow for £2,000 was concluded; the committee cannot help observing that the whole tone and tenour of this letter was calculated to excite much suspicion and grave animadversion; but they must add that, upon a very careful investigation, it appeared that previous conferences and communications had taken place between Mr. Raphael, Mr. Vigors, and other persons connected with the county of Carlow, and that Mr. O'Connell was acting on this occasion at the express direction of Mr. Raphael, and was the only medium between Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors and the Political Club at Carlow. It appears that the money was placed to Mr. O'Connell's general account at his bankers in London. It was, however, advanced the moment it was called for to Mr. Vigors; and though some of it was paid in bills, the discount was allowed; the amount, therefore, was available whenever wanted, and no charge of pecuniary interest can be attached to Mr. O'Connell. It appears also that this money had been expended under the immediate direction of Mr. Vigors and others connected with the county of Carlow, in what may be called legal expenses, or so unavoidable that your committee see no reason to question their legality; and that the balance was absorbed in defending the return of Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors before the committee appointed to investigate on the 21st of July, 1835." In moving that this report and the evidence given should be printed, Mr. Colborne stated, that the committee had agreed unanimously in the conclusion at which they arrived, and that he had no doubt that the house would join in the same opinion, if the evidence were considered without any reference to party feeling. To a large party in the house, however, it appeared that the committee had overlooked some important branches of the inquiry, and that matter had come out in the evidence before the committee which rendered the whole transaction more deserving of animadversion. On the 21st of April Mr. Hardy again brought the subject forward, by moving a series of resolutions, which declared that in the transactions regarding this seat, a breach of privilege had been committed. The committee itself had found it proved, he said, that the £2,000 had been paid and received; and if the circumstances under which the payment and receipt were made did not constitute a breach of privilege, he had yet to learn what did. He entered at length into the transaction, and concluded by asserting that there could not be a grosser case in all its bearings. There had been a contract to sell a seat in parliament for £2,000. which money was to be appropriated in a corrupt manner in every respect. From the evidence respecting the Carlow club, and the £1,000 to be applied to county purposes, nothing could be clearer than this, that any tenant who fell into arrear of rent from want of prudence or honesty, had only to say to the club, "My landlord is against you: if you expect my vote, you must pay my arrears of rent." What a system was this! If this were to pass unnoticed, who could object to the formation of Conservative clubs which would say to those shopkeepers, before whose doors the priests threatened the grass should grow, we will indemnify you. Better be without the reform-bill than see it leading to consequences like these. In former days they had to complain of boroughs being sold: now they had to complain of the sale of whole counties. Mr. O'Connell applauded the conduct of the members, of the committee: he would take this stand on their report. The agitator was defended by Lord Francis Egerton; not that he would wish to imitate his conduct in many respects, but he thought that he stood acquitted of pecuniary corruption: that charge was removed, and he did not feel inclined to go upon the minor questions arising out of the case, because he wished to be indulgent as well as just. The transaction did not meet with his approbation, but he looked upon it as part, at least, of the extensive system now carried on in Ireland; and however strongly he might deprecate that system, he doubted whether it would be just or expedient to bring the member for Dublin, or the other parties concerned in the transaction, within the resolutions of the house. He was not one of those who felt a desire to bring any man within the scope of a breach of their privileges. His own hands were as clean as those of most men; but if everything that he had done in violation of those privileges was to be brought against him, if a king's evidence could be found in every instance, he scarcely knew whether he might not himself be brought under the grasp of a tribunal. Messrs. Warburton and Barneby also stood up in the defence of Mr. O'Connell. Lord John Russell likewise expressed his hostility to any further inquiry or proceeding: the report of the committee, he said, ought not to be touched, unless the house saw some very strong reasons to doubt the opinions, or to distrust the integrity, of the gentlemen who had given judgment. He moved as an amendment a series of resolutions which embodied the report verbatim, making them the resolutions of the house, instead of the opinions of the committee. This amendment, after Lord Stanley, Sir Robert Peel, and others had spoken in favour of the original motion, and other members had stood up in defence of Mr. O'Connell, was carried by a majority of two hundred and forty-three against one hundred and sixty-nine. Lord Stanley then brought the question still more to the point by moving, "That it appears to this house that there was between the contracting parties a distinct understanding, that, if any surplus should remain, after providing for the legal expenses of the election of Mr. Raphael, that surplus should be applied in the first place to the defraying of the expenses of the petition against the former elections, and in the next place to the funds of the Carlow Liberal Club: and such understanding calls for the notice of the house, as liable to serious abuse, as a dangerous precedent, and as tending to subvert the purity and freedom of election." Lord John, in reply, said he would not enter into the matter of fact, or go into anything beyond the report of the committee; if the committee had agreed on these facts, and had thought them material, they would have been reported to the house.

Mr. O'Connell's troubles, however, were not yet over. His return, with that of his colleague, Mr. Ruthven, for the city of Dublin at the last election had been petitioned against, and the petition had been referred to an election committee in the usual manner. This committee made their report on the 16th of May, when Messrs. O'Connell and Ruthven were declared not duly elected, and they were accordingly unseated. Their opponents at the election, Messrs. Hamilton and West, took their seats, after having been excluded from them for the whole of one session and the half of another: the committee being appointed in 1835, and not making their report before 1836. Mr. O'Connell appears to have expected the result of the inquiry, for he had provided himself with another seat by making one of his underlings accept the Chiltern Hundreds: he appeared during the session as the member for Kilkenny. Subsequently, Mr. O'Connell presented a petition from certain electors of Dublin, praying that Messrs. Hamilton and West should not be allowed to retain their seats, on the ground that they had been connected with bribery; but the report of the committee had stated that they were neither directly nor indirectly implicated in such practices, and after reading this report the house ordered the petition to be withdrawn. Mr. O'Connell maintained that the petition must be received, because the matter to which it referred had not come under the consideration of the committee; but the attorney-general declared his opinion that it was one which could not be received, and the speaker having given an opinion to the same effect, it was withdrawn accordingly.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

In consequence of the destruction of the two houses of parliament by fire in October, 1834, a select committee had been appointed by the commons, to consider all matters connected with the rebuilding of these edifices. On their report an address had been presented to the crown to appoint commissioners to receive plans, from which they were to select not fewer than three nor more than five, to be submitted to the committee. More than ninety plans had been sent in, and the commissioners had selected four out of that number. On the 9th of February the committee was renewed for the purpose of determining which of these four ought to be adopted. This was followed by a motion of Mr. Hume's, that it should be an instruction to the committee to consider the propriety of removing the houses of parliament to another site. Mr. Hume, however, only found forty-four members to vote for his motion, while one hundred and forty-three voted against it. The committee thus re-appointed made their report on the 16th of March. On that day they recommended that an address should be presented to his majesty, praying him to institute inquiries as to what would be the probable expense of executing the plan which had been sent in by Mr. Barry, the architect. The committee had not selected Mr. Barry's plan as the best, but they thought that they could not safely recommend the adoption of any plan till the expense had been ascertained. The proceeding, was, however, a plain intimation that the plan in question was the one which had been adopted by the commissioners and the committee; and a committee also, in the house of lords had arrived at the same conclusion. The manner of proceeding gave great offence to the other competitors, and they brought their complaints before the house of commons on the 21st of June, in a petition which was presented by Mr. Hume. In this petition they stated that they had, in framing their plans, taken the probable expense into account, as an important consideration to which it was their duty to attend; whereas the commissioners declared that they had come to a decision wholly independent of the question of expense, as not an object for their consideration. They further stated that they had given their best attention to the elaborate instructions given by the committee, as regarded the number and dimensions of the offices and apartments, while the commissioners had been guided in the choice by the "superiority of the elevation." They further stated, that, as well by the general instructions, as by a report of the committee of the house on sound and ventilation, of which committee one of the commissioners was a member, they had constructed their plans with reference to these objects; but the commissioners had declared that they did not allow that subject to have weight in determining their preference. Finally, they arraigned the preference which had been given to the four selected plans, and prayed the house would either hear them by counsel at the bar, or appoint competent persons to examine the grounds of the report of the commissioners before finally adopting any of the plans. This matter was allowed to lie over till the evidence which had been taken before the select committee, by whom the commissioners themselves had been examined, should be laid on the table. The whole subject was brought forward by Mr. Hume on the 21st of July, who, after descanting at length on the conduct of the commissioners, moved for an address to the crown, to direct a new competition of designs, without limits as to the style of architecture, but not to exceed a certain fixed sum as the cost of erection, and that such designs should be examined and reported on by commissioners to be afterwards appointed. The motion was supported by Messrs. Estcourt and Hawes, and opposed by Mr. Tracy and Sir Robert Peel. The latter said, that if the house agreed to this motion, they would strike a fatal blow at the principles of competition, and teach the most eminent of living architects to rue the day when, in compliance with an invitation of the house of commons, they sent in plans which had the misfortune to be found entitled to preference. The question raised was, not whether they should finally resolve to adopt Mr. Barry's plan, but whether they would declare all the proceedings that had been taken to be null. There was not even an implied engagement with Mr. Barry; there was only a prima facie presumption that his plan was entitled to a preference. Mr. Hume, on seeing the general feeling of the house was against his proposition, withdrew it; at the same time he considered that his arguments had not only been unanswered, but that they were unanswerable.

On the 3rd of May Mr. Grantley Berkeley renewed his proposition for admitting ladies to the debates, by moving a resolution, "that it is the opinion of this house that the resolution of the select committee appointed in 1835 to consider the means of admitting ladies to a portion of the stranger's gallery, together with the plan of Sir R. Smirke, should be adopted, and that means should be taken to carry it into effect with as little delay as possible." This resolution was carried by a majority of one hundred and thirty-two against ninety. The chancellor of the exchequer accordingly proposed among the miscellaneous estimates, a grant of £400 to defray the expenses of fitting up an adequate portion of the gallery; but after a few words from the Earl of Lincoln against the motion and Lord Palmerston in favour of it, the grant was refused by a majority of forty-two against twenty-eight.

MOTION FOR THE REDUCTION OF TAXATION ON BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURISTS.

The complaints of the agricultural class of the community still continued. On the 8th of February Lord John Russell proposed the appointment of a select committee, in order to inquire into the distress complained of. His lordship said, that whenever any great branch of national industry was materially depressed, it was the duty of parliament to give a favourable consideration to the complaints of those engaged in it, to ascertain the facts of the case, and, if possible, to devise a remedy: the proposition arose more from this feeling than from any hope that the distress of the agriculturists would be removed by legislative interference. The low price of wheat was stated to be the main cause of it: the price of wheat was certainly low, but there had not been an equal fall in the other descriptions of grain. The committee would, therefore, have to consider not only the price of wheat, but likewise the alterations which had taken place in the prices of different kinds of grain, and of other articles of agricultural produce. They would likewise have to ascertain and to weigh the changes already produced, and likely to be produced, by the new system of poor-laws. This committee was appointed, and a similar committee was appointed on the 18th of February by the house of lords. These committees, however, ended in doing nothing. On the 21st of July the chairman of the committee stated to the house of commons that they had resolved merely to report the evidence, without giving any opinion. A draft of a report had been drawn up by the chairman; but so much of it was objected to by those who advocated the agricultural interest, that no report was made.

In the meantime the Marquis of Chandos had brought forward the distresses of the agriculturists. On the 27th of April he moved a resolution, "That in the application of any surplus revenue towards the relief of the burdens of the country, either by the remission of taxation or otherwise, due regard should be had to the necessity of a portion thereof being applied to the relief of the agricultural interests." Lord John Russell objected to the motion, both on its merits and because he thought it premature to entertain such a question, before the agricultural committee, then sitting, had made its report. On a division it was lost by a majority of two hundred and eight against one hundred and seventy-two.

THE BUDGET, ETC.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

By an act of the 4th and 5th of William IV. an additional duty of fifty per cent, had been imposed on spirit licenses. On the 10th of March Mr. Divett moved that the house should resolve itself into committee, for the purpose of considering the propriety of repealing this impost. The chancellor of the exchequer resisted this motion, opposing it principally on account of the circumstances under which it was brought forward.

Various proposals had been made at different times for the reduction or purification of the pension list. This list had been, in truth, as much a matter of political principle and of party feeling as of mere finance. In the preceding session government had consented that it should be printed; and on April 19th, Mr. Whittle Harvey moved this resolution on the subject:—"That a select committee be appointed to revise each pension specified in the return ordered to be printed on the 28th of June, 1836, with a view to ascertain whether the continued payment thereof is justified by the circumstances of the original grant, or the condition of the parties now receiving the same, and to report thereon to the house." After stating that there were 1303 persons on the pension list, who received amongst them about £150,000 a year, Mr. Harvey went into a history of the restrictions which had been laid on the granting of pensions out of the civil list, from the original bill of Mr. Burke, down to the accession of his present majesty. The motion was opposed by Lord John Russell, on the ground that it contained a proposition against which parliament had already decided, and as being inconsistent with the practice which had been uniformly folio wed. Mr. Harvey's views were enforced by Mr. Hume; but the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-eight against one hundred and forty-six.

The chancellor of the exchequer opened his budget on the 6th of May. He first explained that the receipts of the last year had exceeded the estimate by the sum of £338,000; while, on the other hand, the expenditure had somewhat exceeded the estimates. The income of last year, he said, had been £46,381,000, and he calculated that it would amount during the present year to £46,980,000. The total expenditure would be £45,205,807 leaving a surplus of £1,774,193. But out of this surplus payment would fall to be made, on account of the West Indian compensation during the year, to the amount of £1,118,633, leaving, as the utmost disposable surplus with which parliament had to deal, a sum of £662,000. Had it not been for the sums payable to the West-India planters, there would have been a surplus of £2,000,000. In applying what surplus there was, he continued, to the reduction of taxation, he preferred selecting those taxes the repeal of which extinguished a source of fraud to those which merely afford relief. The duties he proposed to reduce were those on paper, plain and stained, on newspapers, and on farming buildings; and he proposed to give up those on taxed carts, and the additional fifty per cent, on spirit licenses. The amount of all the taxes which he proposed to remit would be £351,000 this year, though when the proposed reductions came into full operation it would amount to £568,000. At the same time, when the increased consumption of paper was taken into account, the money collected from the penny stamp, and the increase of duty from advertisements, he thought he might say that government would not lose £530,000 a year. The reduction of the stamp on newspapers was from fourpence to one penny, and this was deemed by many as being a sacrifice to the demands of a political party, and not a concession to principles of political economy or fiscal regulations. There were many other articles, it was contended, a reduction of the duties on which would contribute much more to the comfort of the community, and especially of those classes to which it was proposed to give cheap newspapers and cheap spirits. Sir C. Knightley moved, that instead of diminishing the duty on newspapers, the duty on soap should be reduced. This he represented as a duty which pressed not only severely on the lower classes, but unequally in comparison with the more wealthy—the soap of the poor man being taxed at seventy-five per cent., and that of the rich man only at thirty per cent. This motion was seconded by Mr. C. Barclay, who showed that the revenue would not sustain a greater loss from the reduction of this tax than would arise from the diminution in newspaper stamp duties. The chancellor of the exchequer, however, preferred a reduction of the stamp duties to those on soap; and on a division the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and forty-one against two hundred and eight.

As the law stood, there was no distinction between newspapers in regard of duty on account of their size, all differences of this nature having been removed in 1828. By the new bill, however, this distinction was restored, an additional duty being imposed on every newspaper containing more than a certain number of square inches of surface. Government was accused of having so selected the particular number of inches, as to impose the additional duty on some of the most influential journals opposed to them, while it did not apply to their supporters. This imputation was repelled by the chancellor of the exchequer; but it was still maintained that such must have been its effect. It was finally proposed and acceded to by the chancellor of the exchequer, that 1530 square inches, of which the paper might consist without any additional duty, should be limited to the printed part of the sheet, excluding the margin, which would meet the size of every paper in the metropolis. If the sheet exceeded 1530 square inches, but did not exceed 2295, an additional duty of one halfpenny was to be paid; and if it exceeded the latter quantity, an additional duty of one penny. Supplements were likewise to pay a penny additional. Mr. Grote subsequently moved that every newspaper should be stamped with a die peculiar to itself—an enactment which was introduced into the bill. The bill enacted that two proprietors of a newspaper should be registered along with the printer and publisher. The Radicals contended that every proprietor should be registered at the stamp-office, and on the third reading a clause to this effect was carried, the chancellor of the exchequer himself agreeing to it, he conceiving that it might establish a salutary system of restraint. When the bill went up to the lords this was the only clause which encountered opposition; and Lord Lyndhurst moved that it should be omitted, on the ground that the regulations contained in it were arbitrary, inquisitorial, unjust, and unnecessary. It was defended by the lord-chancellor and Lord Melbourne; but the motion was carried by a majority of sixty-one against forty. The bill was returned to the commons without any other alteration; but on the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer it was laid aside, on the principle that the privileges of the members of the house of commons did not permit them to entertain an amended money-bill. The chancellor of the exchequer, however, immediately brought in a bill which was an exact copy of the one laid aside, except that the provisions in dispute were omitted, and this bill passed both houses without delay.

The speech from the throne on the opening of the session had recommended an addition of five thousand men to the navy. This increase was explained during the session to be necessary for the protection of British merchants in various parts of the globe—in the Pacific, at Lima, Mexico, Valparaiso, the coast of Peru, the northern coasts of the Brazils, the West Indies, Newfoundland, and the East India and the African stations. Demands had been made in all these quarters, and it was impossible to comply with them without withdrawing the British naval force from Spain and Portugal, where their presence was necessary. On these grounds government proposed this additional force, which was granted without a division. Mr. Hume, however, endeavoured to make a compensating saving, by moving a reduction of five thousand men in the army estimates; and when this motion was negatived, he moved a proposition which was directed against the foot-guards as being costly troops, maintained rather for show than use, and enjoying, for the sake of the aristocracy, prerogatives which were degrading to the rest of the army: this motion was also negatived.

DISCUSSIONS ON THE COLONIES, AND ON OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.

At this period unfortunate differences prevailed in the Mauritius between a part of the inhabitants and the government authorities, and between one part of the population and another. They were said to have originated in the desire of the white population to evade some requirements of the law for the emancipation of the negroes, and were believed to have been aggravated on the one side by indiscretion, and on the other by the honest determination of the colonial judges. More than one judge had been recalled; and the consequence was, that their successors, who did not pursue the same course, and the governors of the island were denounced as being guilty of abusing their powers to prevent the due execution of the emancipation act. Mr. Roebuck took the discontented inhabitants of the Mauritius under his protection. On the 15th of February he moved, that a select committee should be appointed to inquire into the administration of justice in that colony. In supporting his motion, he said, that the mother country had declared slave-trading to be a felony, and that an order in council was passed, in consequence of a resolution of that house, to the effect that no governor, judge, or registrar of slaves, should hold any species of slave property, either directly, in trust, or mortgage. He charged the whole body of these functionaries with holding slave property. He also charged Sir C. Colville, the late governor, with speculating and creating debts in slave property; and Chief-justice Blackburne, the officers of the supreme court, and nearly all the functionaries of the island, with the same gross violation of that order in council. Proof of the fact, he said, was to be found in the despatches of government; and he entered into a long statement of mal-administration in that colony. His statements, on the other hand, were represented by Sir George Grey, on the part of government, as being mere repetitions of charges which had been abandoned by those who had made them. The motion was supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Fowell Buxton, the latter of whom said, that few persons residing in that colony knew its affairs better than himself: the slave-trade prevailed in the Mauritius to such an extent, that no man could live for a single week as governor of the island and not behold it under his own eyes; yet not one of the persons engaged in the traffic had ever been brought to justice. The reason assigned for this impunity was this—that no court would authorise a conviction, and that no public functionary would countenance the man who dared to interfere with their trade. If a case arose in which it was necessary that the prosecution should be placed upon record, the accused was, on the first opportunity, set at liberty. The motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and twenty-nine against seventy-one.

It has been recorded in previous pages that political discontents prevailed in Canada. A large portion of the population, French in its origin, democratic and intemperate in its views, led on by demagogues, insisted on demands equally inconsistent with a monarchical government, and with the supremacy of the mother country. Democratical as were their views, however, they had their supporters in the British parliament. On the 16th of May, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a proposition for the reform of the Canadian constitution, which was to consist in nothing less than in making both branches of the colonial legislature elective. By the statute 81 George III., c. 81, a constitution was given to the province of Quebec, which was thereby divided into Lower and Upper Canada. The constitution so conferred was professedly a copy of the constitution of England, the governor being as the king, the legislative council as the house of lords, and the house of assembly as the house of commons. The object, Mr. Roebuck said, which he had in view, was to amend the legislative council, which was no more like the house of lords at home than the governor of the colony was like the king of these realms. The members of the legislative council, unlike the house of lords, were poor, having no tenants, and consequently no influence over the people; they were a clique holding power for their own purposes. On the explanation of ministers, Mr. Hume advised Mr. Roebuck to withdraw his motion, to which he conceded, stating at the same time that he did not believe government were prepared to say, that a measure for remedying the evils complained of was delayed only till the report of the commissioners was received.

Civil war was still raging in Spain, and at this time Great Britain had interfered in it—an interference which seemed to be becoming more direct as the situation of the queen became more critical, and the arms of the Carlists more successful. This subject occupied the attention of parliament. On the 26th of February Mr. Maclean directed the attention of the house of commons to the policy of this interference. Lord Palmerston said that the interference of this country had consisted, first, in executing the quadruple treaty; and, secondly, in the order of council which, by suspending the foreign enlistment act, had enabled the British legion to be formed which was now serving in Spain. The treaty was now a new one; it did not raise any new question—no motion had ever been made to disapprove of it—and its execution was admitted to be imperative.

In the beginning of tin's year a body of Austrian, Russian, and Prussian troops took possession of Cracow, under the plea that it contained the elements of dangerous conspiracies against the neighbouring governments. This subject was brought before the commons on the 18th of March, by Sir Stratford Canning, from whose statement it appeared that the three powers had addressed a joint note to the senate of Cracow, requesting them to send away, within eight days, all Polish refugees and other dangerous persons; that the senate had remonstrated against so sweeping a denunciation of individuals, many of whom had resided there for years; and that military possession had, notwithstanding, been taken on the expiry of eight days. It appeared further that four hundred persons had been given up to the commander of the occupying force, while others had been required to find security for their good behaviour; and that the president of the republic had resigned, and his place been supplied by the direct nomination of the residents of the three powers. He contended that by the treaty of Vienna, the establishment of Cracow as an independent state was provided for by definite articles, being placed under the protection of the three powers now in possession of it. He further contended that Great Britain was an immediate party to this treaty; that its provisions were parcel of our solemn engagements; and that when circumstances so extraordinary occurred as that a state, recognised as free and independent, was occupied by foreign powers, we were called on to look narrowly at these events, and see whether or not any violation of the engagement in which we were interested had or had not taken place. Lord Palmerston found himself embarrassed in consequence of neither the facts of the military occupation nor its causes having been communicated to him officially by the three powers. Doubtless the demand made by the three powers appeared contrary to the letter of the treaty, for they had not required that the persons referred to should be given up by the powers to which they might belong, but that they should be within eight days removed from the territory of Cracow. At the same time, if statements made were true, as a justification of the measure, it might be considered as falling within the spirit of the treaty. It was alleged that a number of person, natives of Poland, assembled in the state of Cracow, and inspired by feelings which, perhaps, in their peculiar circumstances were natural, had established a communication with the inhabitants of some of the Russian and other parts of Poland, calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the neighbouring states. But, although the three powers might be justified in requesting such persons to depart, it did not follow that they were justified in going to the extreme of military occupation because their demand was not immediately conceded. As yet no sufficient reason had been given either for the entrance of the troops, or the shortness of the interval which had been allowed between the demand and the entrance which had been effected. All friendly means should have been exhausted before any such measures were resorted to; and, under all circumstances, as Great Britain had been a party to the treaty of Vienna, it was the duty of those powers when they made the demand, and before they had recourse to occupation, to have communicated to the government of this country the grounds on which they thought themselves entitled to act, and the intentions they were about to put into execution. Messrs. O'Connell and Hume were violent against the three powers. They advised, that if any part of the Russian Dutch loan due by this country was not yet paid, payment should be refused till satisfaction was made to Cracow. Lord John Russell deprecated the language used by Messrs. O'Connell and Hume, the more particularly as the honour of Great Britain was not committed in the transaction. Lord Dudley Stuart, however, contended that the honour of Great Britain had been violated. Was it, he asked, no affront for these three powers to tell a great country like this, that the treaty which settled the possession of all the powers of Europe, and to which it was a party, should be infringed and violated at their pleasure? By the violation of the neutrality of Cracow a serious blow had been inflicted on our national reputation, and on the security of Europe.

During this session a lengthened discussion took place regarding the dangers to which Europe was exposed from the systematic encroachments of Russia. The subject was introduced by Lord Dudley Stuart, who moved an address for the production of the treaty of Constantinople between Russia and the Porte, the treaty of St. Petersburg, the correspondence between the British government and the governments of Russia and Turkey relative to these treaties, and the correspondence between the courts of London and St. Petersburg regarding the remonstrances made by this country against the conduct of Russia towards Poland. In reply, Lord Palmerston said, that he had no objection to produce the treaty of Constantinople, or Hoonkiar Skelessi; but he would not concede the production of others. Government, in fact, was not officially possessed of the treaty of St. Petersburg, and therefore it could not be supplied. The correspondence, again, between this country, Russia, and Turkey, relative to these treaties could not be produced without inconvenience to the public service, and would not answer any object which could be contemplated by the motion. With respect to the correspondence which had taken place on the subject of Poland, he thought its production would not serve any useful purpose. No good could arise from publishing to the world, after an interval of three years, all the correspondence which might have passed between two governments on a subject respecting which their opinion differed, especially as nothing had occurred to make the publication of this correspondence necessary. Lord Dudley Stuart expressed himself satisfied with the papers which the foreign secretary had expressed himself willing to give. Mr. P. M. Stewart, however, thought that Lord Palmerston was either too blind as regarded Russia, or too confiding. He referred to his lordship's predictions in 1832 regarding Poland. He had said, "As to the idea which is entertained by some honourable gentlemen of its being the intention of Russia to exterminate a large kingdom like Poland, either morally or politically, it is so utterly impracticable that there need be no apprehension of its ever being attempted." Since these words had been spoken, Poland had been politically exterminated, and every exertion had been made to exterminate her morally. On the 20th of April Mr. P. M.

Stewart brought this subject again before the house, justifying himself for renewing the discussion on the ground that, since the last debate, Russia had actually interfered with our commerce on the Danube. In direct violation of treaties, he said, which declared that the navigation of the Danube should be free to ships of all nations, Russia had extorted tribute from British vessels passing down that river; and she was putting a stop to the trade not merely of England, but of the whole of central Europe on that magnificent stream, by wilful neglect to cleanse its channel, which would soon be so filled up that a Thames punt would not be able to cross it. Mr. Stewart moved—"That an address should be presented to his majesty, praying him to adopt such measures as might seem best fitted to protect and extend the commercial interests of Great Britain in Turkey and the Euxine, and likewise to send a diplomatic agent forthwith to the free and independent state of Cracow." This motion was seconded by Sir Edward Codrington, who urged the necessity of immediately arming, as an expedient which had uniformly been successful iii checking aggression. In reply, Lord Palmerston informed the house that government had already sent a consular agent to Cracow, so that this part of the proposed address was unnecessary. Government, he continued, concurred in the importance of maintaining and extending the commercial relations of Great Britain with Turkey, Persia, and the neighbouring countries; but, in his opinion, nothing had happened to confine or check them. There could be no doubt that, by the treaty of Vienna, the navigation of the Danube was free to the commerce of all countries in Europe. We had, however, suffered no wrong as yet; and in dealing with foreign nations, it was not prudent to anticipate injuries at their hands: it was enough to deal with events when they had occurred. Members of all parties expressed similar opinions; and Mr. Stewart finally withdrew his resolution.

On the establishment of the kingdom of Greece, Great Britain, France, and Russia, had agreed by treaty to guarantee a loan of 60,000,000 of francs for the use of the new monarchy. Two instalments of 20,000,000 each had been paid. Greece, on the other hand, had undertaken certain obligations in relation to her revenue and its application; and Russia, on the ground that these obligations had not been fulfilled, refused to concur in raising the third instalment. Under these circumstances ministers found it necessary to introduce a bill for authorising the advance of the money by this country alone. Lord Palmerston made the proposal, and it encountered considerable opposition even from the ordinary supporters of government. The resolution, however, moved by Lord Palmerston, authorising his majesty to guarantee the portion to which this country was liable of the third and last instalment of the loan to be advanced to the King of Greece, was carried by a majority of eighty-one against forty. The bill founded on the resolution encountered the same objections which had been raised to the resolution itself; but it passed without any determined opposition. In the house of lords the Duke of Wellington said, that while he admitted the measure was necessary, he thought that the necessity was an unfortunate one, and might have been avoided. It did not appear to him that proper measures had been taken to obtain the concurrence of Russia. The first demand made by Greece was for 3,000,000 francs; why was not an effort made to obtain the consent of Russia to advance her share of this sum? Why was Russia left out of that part of the negotiation? If Russia had been called on for her portion, it would have amounted to nearly the sum which this country was about to advance under existing circumstances; and the consequence would have been this—that the three powers would now be placed on the same footing. But how would it be hereafter? Great Britain would be a creditor of Greece to the amount of 20,000,000 francs, with a claim on the resources of Greece, which must and would be pressed, for the interest and sinking-fund of that amount of debt. On the other side, Russia would have in hand the third part of 20,000,000 francs to issue to Greece whenever, and under whatever circumstances she thought proper. France was placed in a similar situation; and both these countries would, therefore, stand in a more desirable relation towards Greece, having always the power of conferring a benefit, than that which would be occupied by this country, who could only be a creditor pressing for payment of a debt.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

During this session the proposal for removing the civil disabilities of the Jews was brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer himself, and was carried through the commons, but was rejected by the lords. Mr. Rippon also renewed a proposal he had made in 1834, for the expulsion of the bishops from the house of lords; but his motion was lost by an overwhelming majority. Mr. O'Connell moved for leave to bring in a bill to reform the whole house of lords, by making that body elective, a motion which gave rise only to laughter. Mr. Grote also brought forward his annual motion for vote by ballot; but it was lost by a majority of one hundred and thirty-nine against fifty-one. Parliament was prorogued on the 20th of August, by the king in person.

THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

The royal speech had announced that tranquillity prevailed in Ireland; but yet that country was not in a state of quiescence. Agitation was still at work: societies and combinations were being formed, and the angry passions of the multitude lashed almost into fury. At this time the authorities were enforcing the payment of tithe; and this excited the wrath of the leaders of the Popish party. This wrath was aggravated by the refusal of the house of lords to create, by passing the ministerial municipal bill for Ireland, a mass of Catholic corporations, of which there was every reason to apprehend that, while they would not have any useful duties to discharge as machines for municipal government, they would become powerful and legalized engines for working out the great aim of the Papists—the destruction of the Protestant church. The clauses which went to reconstruct the Irish corporations were struck out by the lords on the 17th of May; and on the following day Mr. O'Connell put forth a letter "to the people of England," the object of which was to rouse them to show their gratitude to Ireland for the aid which she had lent them in carrying the Reform Act, by destroying the character and rights of the house of lords. This epistle, however, was addressed to deaf ears; his sentiments rather tended to call forth expressions of opinion that the lords should fearlessly exercise their constitutional rights. In his letter, he had threatened to reorganize agitation; and finding his exertions to that end useless in England, he resolved to cany out his threat in Ireland. The course which it was wished that the people of Ireland should adopt, was explained by Mr. Shiel in clear terms. It was wished that a strenuous and simultaneous movement of the popular masses should take place; that the millions of Ireland should be roused; and that the might which slumbered in her arm might be developed; above all, that "the active system of organization should again be strenuously applied, with its weekly meetings, its appeals to the people, its enthusiasm, and exciting eloquence." Doubts were expressed by some persons of the prudence of forming a permanent association at present. Mr. Pigott, a barrister, however, suggested an expedient, by which all the advantages of association might be secured without its name. He recommended that the requisitionists, who had called a public meeting in Dublin for the 23rd of May, should constitute themselves an open committee, with power to add to their numbers, which should meet from time to time as occasion might require, and should arrange communications with the most active inhabitants of the different towns and districts who might be disposed to second their object, in order to obtain petitions from all parts of the country. This plan was adopted; and the objects of the new agitation were declared to be municipal institutions, founded on the same principles of popular election and control which had been adopted in England, and the speedy settlement of the tithe question. This committee dispatched circulars all over Ireland, urging the people to hold public meetings for the purpose of voting petitions to parliament on these two questions, and directing the petitioners how to draw up their petitions. It was soon found, however, that this plan was not effective, and that, therefore, a revival of the machinery of the Catholic association would be necessary, in order to exercise the required influence over the public mind, and to raise funds for the support of agitation. The "petition committee," as it was called, complained in a meeting, held on the 1st of July, that petitions came in slowly, and that the people of Ireland were dormant and dead to what ought to be now their feelings, of nationality. Under these circumstances it was deemed prudent to "recreate the active system of organization devised by Mr. O'Connell, with its weekly meetings," and other appliances. A "general association" was now formed on the model of the Catholic association, using the same species of influence, but bearing another name and professing different objects. The two declared objects of the association were to obtain the abolition of tithes and municipal corporations; to these were added a minute attention to the approaching registrations, in order to increase the democratic party in the house of commons. These and the other purposes of the association required money; and accordingly the "justice rent" was established. The association was to meet once a week in the corn-exchange; Mr. O'Connell presented to it the chair of the Catholic association, which had been left in his possession; and the walls of its place of meeting displayed in large characters these words:—"Scotland has municipal reform; England has municipal reform; Ireland has been declared unworthy of municipal reform." After Mr. O'Connell's arrival, in August, the association was put into full operation. From him proceeded addresses to the people of England and Ireland, the complete organization of the justice rent, the appointment of committees, and of a reporter on the election registry of every county, city, and town of Ireland. It was resolved that officers, called pacificators, should be appointed in every parish in Ireland. Each parish was to contain two pacificators; one named by the clergyman of the majority of the parish, and the other by the inhabitants themselves. There was, therefore, the general association sitting in Dublin, holding its weekly meetings, with its registry inspectors, and its agitating pacificators scattered all over the country. It was to maintain this system that justice money was required; and in general the business of each weekly meeting consisted in announcing the amount of "rent" collected during the preceding week, or in receiving more. There was talking at these meetings, it is true, but the term business can scarcely be applied to the verbose and unmeaning speeches in which the orators indulged. The usual topics were the greatness and determination of Ireland; the demand for justice by getting new corporations and abolishing tithes; the flattery of every one who sent money to the association; and the abuse of those who differed from the agitators in opinion. Yet Mr. O'Connell and his party did not fail to stir up the evil passions of the deluded multitude. These "thundering resolutions" were put forth by the association:—"Resolved—That it is incompatible with the principles of religious liberty that any man should be compelled to pay for the ordinances of a church with which he is not joined in communion. That, as under the present appropriation of tithe-composition, a tribute is levied from the whole nation for the uses of the church of only the one-tenth portion of the community, the people of Ireland are, therefore, justified in demanding the total extinction of an assessment so applied. That no settlement of the tithe question can give satisfaction to the people of Ireland which is not founded on the foregoing principle. That the people of Ireland be called upon not to desist from all legal and constitutional means of redress, till they have obtained full and complete relief from an impost equally oppressive and degrading. That, in carrying out these resolutions, the representatives of the Irish people should always keep in mind the adopting such a prudent and wise course as shall enable them to realise for the Irish nation the greatest possible quantity of good, and as shall also enable them to support and sustain in office, without any violation of principle, the first and only true and honest government that has ever been known in Ireland." This call upon the peasantry not to desist from seeking the abolition of tithes "by all legal and constitutional means of address," by no means tending to diminish the resistance still shown to every attempt to enforce the steps necessary to the recovery of tithes, where a protecting force did not attend. The process-server was still hunted; mobs still attempted to set aside sales of distrained cattle; and now that the efficacy of the exchequer-process, by merely posting notices instead of service, had been felt, the writs of that court would have been equally set at defiance by brute force, but for the power which they possessed of compelling police and military aid. A scene of bloodshed occurred at Dunkerrin, in the county of Tipperary. A mob attacked a commissioner of the exchequer and his party, in the act of serving a writ, and the bailiff was murdered on the spot, while one of the murderers was killed by a shot from the police. Mr. O'Connell and the association demanded justice for the death of the latter; but not a word was said on the heinousness of his crime, or a syllable of regret was uttered concerning the death of the bailiff.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

The whole Spanish Peninsula was torn with political dissensions. Revolutions and counter revolutions disturbed British relations with Portugal especially, and prevented the execution of a treaty of commerce which was looked for in England, as a benefit to both nations. England sympathised too much with the faithless queens of both the governments of the Iberian Peninsula, which had the effect of protracting the disturbances which prevailed, and of exciting angry feelings against England. The gallant men who as British subjects volunteered to serve the queen 'of Portugal were refused their pay, and treated with contumely and injury, just as the British legion in Spain had been used.

The relation of the Sublime Porte to England was also a source of embarrassment, especially to the former country. On the one hand, the pressure of Russia, jealous of her predominating influence, and on the other, the efforts of Britain and France to counteract the exclusive character which that influence was assuming, imposed on the divan the necessity of giving satisfaction to all the competitors for favour. During this year an English merchant of Constantinople, of the name of Churchill, while shooting in the neighbourhood of Scutari, accidentally wounded a Turkish boy. He was dragged to the guardhouse of Scutari, where the officer on duty ordered him first to be bastinadoed, and then sent to the governor of Scutari. The governor declined interfering, and caused him to be conveyed to the office of the reis effendi, or foreign minister, by whom he was thrown into prison. Mr. Churchill immediately addressed a letter to the British consul, acquainting him with the accident that had occurred, and the manner in which he had been treated, claiming, as a British subject, the interference in his behalf. The consul sent a dragoman to the Porte to reclaim his countryman, promising to keep him in custody till the accusation brought against him had been inquired into. This application was rejected; and the British ambassador then sent his interpreter to the reis effendi, who promised that the prisoner should be delivered over to his own authorities. Instead of this promise, however, being observed, Mr. Churchill was thrown into the Bagnio, and fettered in iron chains, by virtue of an order granted by the sultan. The British interpreter again waited on the reis effendi, and expressed to him the surprise Lord Ponsonby had experienced on witnessing so direct and intentional an infringement of the treaties existing between the king of England and the sultan; committed, too, by the very individual appointed by the Porte to preside over their strict and scrupulous observance. The reis effendi now desired one of his officers to proceed with the English interpreter to the Bagnio, and cause the detained merchant to be given up; but the governor of the Bagnio refused to comply with the request, pretending that since the prisoner had been placed under his care in virtue of a firman, he could not release him without a written order from the Porte. Lord Ponsonby now addressed an official note, stating that, as the minister of foreign affairs had violated one of the most important stipulations of the treaties existing between Great Britain and Turkey, he was obliged to declare to the government that he would not any longer hold official communication with his excellency, and to submit to the Sublime Porte, and emphatically to declare to the sultan himself, his just complaint against a minister who had dared to violate the laws of his own sovereign, and insult the British nation. This step procured the liberation of Mr. Churchill; but Lord Ponsonby refused to consider this alone as any reparation of the breach of the treaties securing to British subjects the right of being tried and punished only through the agency of their own official representatives. His lordship insisted that the reis effendi should be dismissed from his office. He insisted upon this the more strenuously on account of the predominating influence of Russia; for if the injured party had been a Russian subject, the Turkish government would have hastened to make humble apologies, and would have consented to give any satisfaction which the offended dignity of the czar might have required. The Porte endeavoured to mitigate the demand lay negociation; but Lord Ponsonby refused to accept of any satisfaction which did not include the dismissal of the minister. As the Porte seemed to think it below its dignity to grant such a request when merely made by an ambassador, he said he would refer the matter to his government at home. The British merchants, likewise, resident at Constantinople, transmitted an address to Viscount Palmerston, representing the necessity of supporting the demand made by the ambassador. They remarked:—"We will concede that the first outrage was committed by subordinate local authorities, whose acts might admit of excuse or explanation; but the subsequent imprisonment was deliberately ordered by a high public functionary, the official depositary-, in fact, of the treaties existing between the two countries, one who could not be ignorant of the privileges they guaranteed, and who was not ignorant that in the instance in question he was grossly and intentionally violating them. Considering, therefore, that the present is not the only instance, although the most flagrant one, of personal violence offered to British subjects, we cannot but see in their repeated occurrence, more especially of late, an intentional infraction of the treaties, and, indeed, the existence of some fixed design on the part of the Turkish government to assume to itself a power of control in such matters which it would be dangerous ever to concede." Before the determination of the British cabinet could be known, the divan of Constantinople had resolved to yield: the reis effendi was dismissed, with a monthly pension of 10,000 piastres; but it was on the pretence that bad health disabled him from regularly attending to the duties of his office. It was said afterwards, that the British ministry viewed the matter in a less serious light than that in which it had been viewed by Lord Ponsonby; and that they were not inclined to consider the demand he had made as one on which it was necessary to insist. It is certain, indeed, that the dispatches of the Turkish envoy ill London, subsequent to the dismissal of the reis effendi, assured the divan of the readiness of the British ministry to settle the controversy on conditions much milder than those on which Lord Ponsonby had stated to be the only terms which his majesty's government could consider proper reparation for the insult offered to its dignity. It is also certain that the credit of the British ambassador, whose successful firmness was neutralised by his government, was greatly diminished at the Porte.

CHAPTER XLVII.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

     Meeting  of  Parliament..... Consideration of the State of
     Ireland..... Irish Municipal Corporations  Bill.....
     Question of Establishing a System of Poor-Law in
     Ireland..... Irish Tithe Question..... Question of Church-
     Rates..... The Church of Scotland..... Notices of Motions
     for Constitutional Changes..... Operation of the  New Poor-
     Laws..... The Affairs of Canada..... State of the Banking
     System, &c...... Consideration  of   the Foreign   Policy of
     England under the Whig Administration..... Motion on the
     State of the Nation..... Illness and Death of the King.....
     Remarks on his Reign, Character, &c.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

A.D. 1837

Parliament reassembled on the 31st of January. The session was opened by commission; and the speech of the commissioners referred to the contests in Spain, and the recent events in Portugal. The speech also called the attention of both houses to the state of Canada, stating that the reports of the commissioners appointed to inquire into which, would be laid before them. It further recommended to their serious deliberation the provisions which would be submitted to them for the improvement of the law and the administration of justice, and conveyed his majesty's desire that they should consult upon such further measures as might give increased stability to the established church. The revenues, moreover, formed a subject of congratulation in the speech, and an early renewal of inquiries into the operation of the act permitting the establishment of joint-stock banks. The concluding topic of the speech was Ireland; such measures as might improve the condition of that country were recommended to be adopted. The present constitution of the municipal corporations of that country, the collection of tithes, and the establishment of some legal provision for the poor were especially noticed as subjects worthy of their attention.

The address in the lords was moved by the Earl of Fingal, and seconded by Lord Suffield. In the commons the address was moved by Mr. Sandford, and seconded by Mr. Stuart Villiers. The debate that followed was enlivened by Mr. Roebuck, who made a violent assault on the whole system of ministerial policy. Sir Robert Peel referred to those parts of the speech relating to the affairs of Spain and Portugal. His remarks with reference to Spain were confined to that passage in the address which expressed the satisfaction of the house that his majesty's co-operating force had rendered useful assistance to her Catholic majesty. Whatever opinion he might hold on the policy of the quadruple alliance, he had always considered it our duty to fulfil the treaty so long as we stood pledged to it. By that treaty we stipulated to give the assistance of a naval force to the arms of the queen of Spain; and he supported the address on the understanding that the aid we had given had been strictly of that character. The distinction was important. The grant of a military force might have supposed an interference with the civil dissensions and party conflicts of Spain. Might not the precedent be equally adopted by despotic governments claiming a right to support absolute principles among their neighbours? where then would be the peace of Europe? The next paragraph in the address illustrated the danger of interfering in the civil affairs of other countries. We express our regret that "events in Portugal have occurred which, for a time, threaten to disturb the internal peace of the country." These events are but the corollary of the revolution in that country in 1834, and which was then called in the speech from the throne "a happy result." A consequence of this "happy result" is that we have now six sail of the line in the Tagus. For what purpose? To defend the queen of that country from an attack on the part of her own subjects; and to protect the lives and property of the English residing there from the danger with which they are threatened. In reply, Lord Palmerston remarked, that, "when we stated that the effect of the treaty in 1834 was to put an end to the civil war in Portugal, we did not take upon ourselves the responsibility of the government of that kingdom in all future times, or undertake that it should be henceforth free from the civil disturbances to which every country was liable." This might be true; but if the last revolution in Portugal was the result of the one which we had been instrumental in bringing about, then we were in no slight degree responsible for its occurrence.

CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF IRELAND.

Ireland was still the cardinal point of our domestic politics. At this time, in fact, Irish politics had acquired more importance than ever. The state of that country was brought before parliament this session, in a petition from the Protestants, setting forth the dangers by which they were surrounded from the effects of the agitation which everywhere prevailed. This petition was presented to the lords by the Marquis of Downshire on the 28th of April, and it was the occasion of an interesting debate on the state of Ireland. The topics insisted on, however, were for the most part identical with those which had for a series of years been repeatedly adduced in the commons, so that a repetition of them is unnecessary. The debate unfolded one great fact: namely, that the Protestant party were not behindhand with the Catholics in the vigour and perseverance of their agitation.

Government lost no time in bringing the politics of Ireland before parliament. On the 7th of April Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the Irish municipal corporations. The bill differed from that of the last year on one material point only. By the former measure the town-councils were not allowed to interfere in the appointment of sheriffs, which was vested in the crown; but they were now authorised to nominate or suggest a certain number of persons for that office; the power of selection, rejection, and appointment being given to the lord-lieutenant. Sir John Hobhouse made an intimation, that the fate of this measure would decide that of the cabinet; he asked of the party opposite, if they succeeded in throwing out this bill and so coming into office, upon what principle they hoped to govern Ireland? Was it by Orange, neckerchiefs and acclamations that they expected to do so? They ought to be prepared to give a decided answer to the question. Sir Robert Peel said, that he doubted the right of any one to catechise his party on the results of a contingency. The motion, which was merely for leave to bring in the bill, was not opposed, and the two parties had therefore no opportunity of making trial of their strength on a division.

The order of the day was read for going into committee on the reform of municipal corporations on the 20th of February. Lord Francis Egerton moved an instruction similar to that which he had brought forward in the last session, to the effect that the committee be empowered to make provisions for the abolition of corporations in Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their abolition for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of Ireland. A long discussion ensued and was adjourned. On the following day Mr. Serjeant Jackson delivered a long speech, which was chiefly directed against the government of Lord Mulgrave. Mr. Vesey followed in the same track. The bill was supported, on the other hand, by Mr. E. L. Bulwer, Lord Howick, and Mr. Roebuck. The latter asked Sir Robert Peel this plain question:—"Can he pretend to carry on the government of Ireland on entirely different principles from those of Great Britain? Does he believe that, at this period of man's history, and by the side of the most enlightened nation of the earth, doctrines of government suited for the meridian of St. Petersburg can be carried into actual practice? In a word, Does he believe that the system of Protestant supremacy can be continued in Ireland without civil war?" On the third night of the debate, Sir James Graham delivered a powerful speech in support of Lord Francis Egerton's amendment. Mr. Shiel followed, in a speech which was more personal than argumentative. Sir Robert Peel deprecated this mode of conducting the debate. He had been reproached, he continued, by Lord Howick for not having earlier seen the necessity of yielding to the Catholic claims. Would the noble lord ask of his noble colleague of the foreign department, why he was not an earlier convert than he had proved to reform? Would he put the same question to the head of the present administration? If it were blindness in him not to foresee in 1825 the necessity of concession to the Catholics, was not the blindness of Lord Melbourne as great when, in 1826, he even opposed the transfer of representatives from Penryn to Manchester? Mr. O'Connell followed, urging his usual topics—the long misgovernment of Ireland, and the necessity of the repeal of the union as her only chance of obtaining justice. After a reply from Lord John Russell, the house divided; when Lord Francis Egerton's amendment was negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and forty-two.

Little discussion took place on the bill when in committee. The third reading was moved on the 10th of April, when Mr. Goulburn opposed the measure as pregnant with danger to the church, and tending by its renewed agitation to place the two houses of parliament in an undesirable situation. Another long debate ensued, in which the bill was defended by Colonel Thompson, Lords Morpeth and John Russell, and Messrs. Bulwer, Charles Villiers, and O'Connell; and opposed by Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel. The debate lasted two nights; and on a division the bill was carried by a majority of three hundred and two against two hundred and forty-seven.

The bill was introduced to the house of peers by Lord Melbourne on the 13th of April; and the second reading was fixed for the 25th of the same month. On its introduction the Duke of Wellington gave no opinion on the subject of the bill, but contented himself with observing, that it was only one of the three measures relating to Ireland which had been recommended to the consideration of the house in the speech from the throne. He added, that, as he thought it desirable before the house decided on the present measure it should have the other two before them, he hoped the noble viscount would appoint a more distant day for its consideration. Lord Melbourne objected to this, stating at the same time that he could not see any necessary connexion between the three measures. In moving its second reading, Lord Melbourne dwelt at great length upon the good effects which had already resulted from the grant of a similar boon to England. On these grounds he called upon the house to accede to the measure. It was only a little to give, but a great deal to withhold. The Duke of Wellington said, that he would agree to the second reading of the bill, on the principle that the existing corporations ought not to be continued. He would not, however, pledge himself to consent to the present measure, to various details of which he had strong objections. He would endeavour to remove these in committee; in the meanwhile he could not but express his surprise that Lord Melbourne should have again brought forward such a measure. Lord Lyndhurst expressed similar sentiments. In reference to the surprise expressed by the Duke of Wellington that the bill should have been reintroduced, Lord Melbourne said the case was not a singular one; and he reminded the duke that he had introduced and carried a measure to which he had been opposed. Lord Brougham regretted that, from the tone of the speeches of the Duke of Wellington, he was led to believe that they would only throw away some five or six weeks of their time in unprofitable discussions on the subject, and be left at the end of this session where they were at the close of the last. This proved to be the true interpretation of those speeches. On the 5th of May, when the order of the day was read for the house to resolve itself into committee on the bill, the Duke of Wellington rose, and moved to defer the committal till the 9th of June. His reason for asking this delay was, that he was anxious to see the result of the deliberations of the other house of parliament on the pending measures of Irish tithe and Irish poor-law. Lord Melbourne objected to the proposed postponement as inconvenient in itself, and dangerous in the motive on which it was grounded. There was no connexion between the church and corporation bills; and if the house of commons should follow the example of the lords, and refuse to consider one set of bills until the lords had passed another to their satisfaction, he apprehended their lordships would not have the best of the struggle. As for the appropriation clause, he denied, as his grace had intimated, that it had been abandoned; it existed in the new bill as strongly as in the former one. The Duke of Wellington replied, that though he objected to much of the present measure, he was not adverse to the establishment, under certain circumstances, of local jurisdictions in Ireland. The Earl of Wicklow and Lord Fitzgerald made yet ampler concessions than his grace; and the Marquis of Lansdowne argued on this, that they assented to the principles of the bill; and that, therefore, no further delay should take place in its progress. Lord Brougham said that he drew no happy augury of the fate of the bill from the very significant speech of the Duke of Wellington. He would not say any sinister motive lurked in his proposition for delay; but if he was averse to the present measure, as he appeared to be, why did he not throw it out altogether? It was very well to talk of amendments; but their lordships would so alter the bill, that the man who drew it would not know it again. Although the different sections under the duke's command might move by different routes, they would all meet in the end. On a division the motion for postponement was carried by a majority of one hundred and ninety-two against one hundred and fifteen.

Although the postponement decided on was for more than one month, there appeared to be little probability that either the tithe or the poor-rate bill would be before the lords by the assigned period for resuming the municipal corporations bill. Under these circumstances, when the 9th of June arrived, Lord Lyndhurst rose to move a further postponement of the bill till the 3rd of July next. His lordship took occasion again to state his objections to the measure. Lord Melbourne opposed the further postponement of the bill; but on a division the motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and five against one hundred and nineteen.

QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.

A board of commissioners had been for some time busied with the consideration of a system of poor-laws in Ireland, and in the last session a report containing the result of their inquiries was laid before parliament. This report, however, was not satisfactory to government. They thought it desirable that some inquiry should be made as to how far it might be practicable to introduce into Ireland a system of relief based upon the principles of the new English poor-law. For this purpose, Mr. Nicholls, one of the commissioners, was sent to Ireland to prosecute the matter by personal investigation. The report of Mr. Nicholls was very able, and on it government grounded the measure which they intended to bring forward on the subject. This measure was introduced in the commons by Lord John Russell on the 13th of February. In introducing it, his lordship called the attention of the house to that part of the king's speech at the opening of the session, in which the establishment of some legal provision for the poor was recommended. At the same time he laid on the table of the house a copy of Mr. Nicholl's report upon the subject. In his speech, his lordship first dwelt upon the benefits derivable to a country from a well-administered system of poor-laws; upon its tendency to preserve peace, prevent vagrancy, diminish crime, and establish harmony among all classes of society. Having dwelt on this subject at length, Lord John Russell then stated the leading provisions of the bill as recommended by the commissioner. With respect to the expense of the system, he said, it had been calculated that the whole average charge for each person in the English workhouses, including lodging, fuel, clothing, and diet, was one shilling and sixpence per week. If, therefore, we take one hundred union houses, each containing eight hundred inmates, and suppose them all fully occupied, the annual expense for the whole would be £312,000.

In order to understand the nature of the bill brought in by Lord John Russell, however, it is necessary to give a brief extract of the report made by Mr. Nicholls. He stated that he found the people almost universally favourable to the introduction of a poor-law. But with respect to the question of how far the introduction of the English poor-law was practicable in Ireland, two difficulties suggested themselves—first, whether the workhouse system could be relied on as a test of destitution in Ireland; and secondly, whether the means and machinery existed there for the formation of unions as in England. The great principle of the workhouse system is, that the support which is afforded at the public charge there should be less desirable than that to be obtained by independent exertion. It would be impossible to make the lodging, clothing, and diet of the inmates of an Irish workhouse inferior to those of the Irish peasantry, and therefore this security would not be found for the efficiency of the workhouse-test. On the other hand, it is to be remembered that the Irish are naturally or by habit a migratory people, fond of change, full of hope, and eager for experiment. They had never been tied down to one limited settlement, and consequently confinement of any kind would be irksome, and therefore the test of the workhouse is likely to prove fully as efficient in Ireland as in England. With respect to the' supply of local machinery for the execution of the law, Mr. Nicholls considered that by making the unions sufficiently large, there would be no difficulty of obtaining boards of guardians of competent intelligence and activity. These might, he said, be elected by the contributors to the county cess; but Mr. Nicholls thought that, in the first instance, large general powers should be vested in some competent authority to control and direct the proceedings of the board of guardians, and, where necessary, to supersede their functions altogether. He further proposed, that the same central authority should be empowered to dispense with the election of the first board of guardians, and to appoint such persons as it should think proper to act in their stead. It was further proposed, that the number of magistrates acting officially as guardians should not exceed one-third of the elected members of the board; and that no clergyman or minister of any denomination should be eligible to act as ex-officio guardian. The enactment of a provision for the destitute at the common charge, would give the community a right to interfere with the proceedings of individuals, so as to prevent the spread of destitution, and enable it to guard itself from loss and damage by the negligence or obstinacy of any of its members. With this view, it was recommended that the central authority should appoint, or empower the board of guardians to appoint, one or more wardens or head-boroughs for every parish, who might superintend the affairs of the district. Assuming the general practicability and expediency of establishing a system of poor-law in Ireland on principles the same with those of the English law, Mr. Nicholls proceeded to consider the details of its application in that country. It was proposed that all relief out of the workhouse should be absolutely refused. Another point to be insisted upon, was, that no individual of a family should be admitted unless all its members entered the house. All relief was to be given by the orders and direction of the central authority. With respect to the formation and regulation of the local machinery, the report recommended that, as in England, the appointment of guardians should be vested in the rate-payers and owners of property in the union. A scale was proposed, by which the number of votes possessed by an individual rate-payer might be raised from one to five, as his rating increased from five pounds to two hundred. The commissioners had proposed that the owner should pay two-thirds of the rate, and that the remainder should fall on the tenant: Mr. Nicholls thought that it would be better to divide the charge equally between the two parties. It was not recommended to establish a parochial settlement in Ireland, as the habits of the people were migratory: if a law settlement should be established, it would be a union of settlement, making the limits of the union the boundary. The simpler the conditions on which this settlement was made to depend, it would be the better. They might, it was stated, be limited to two—birth, and actual residence for a term of years; but, on the whole, it would be better to dispense with settlement altogether. One great object in the establishment of a legal relief for the destitute would be the right it afforded to take measures for the suppression of mendicancy. The present state of Ireland, and the feelings and habits of the people, threw considerable difficulty in the way of an immediate enforcement of such a prohibition. The best method, it was stated, would probably be to enact a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the responsibility of bringing the act into operation in the several unions, as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. With respect to emigration, Mr. Nicholls did not think it should be looked to as an ordinary resource; the necessity for its adoption would be regarded as an indication of disease, which it would be better to prevent than thus to relieve. The source, however, would be one which must be employed as a means of relief whenever any population became excessive in any district, and no opening for migration to other districts could be found. In the conclusion of his report, Mr. Nicholls considered the nature and appointment of the central authority upon which the whole administration of the new system would depend. He was in favour of its being carried into effect by the existing English board, inasmuch as the object being to carry the English system into Ireland, it could only be done by persons practically conversant with its administration.

Such were the principles on which the measure introduced by Lord John Russell was founded. On its introduction, Irish members of all parties expressed their satisfaction with it. Mr. O'Connell, however, though he did not oppose it, expressed himself less sanguine as to its beneficial results. The hundred workhouses which it was proposed to erect would afford shelter and relief to eighty thousand persons in Ireland only; and he asked, what proportion that bore to the mass of destitution in Ireland? He objected also to the proposed gradual introduction of the measure. They would thereby create a state of transition, during which neither relief nor charity would be afforded to the suffering population of the country. He disapproved, also, of that part of the plan which confined relief and employment to the workhouses. There was no part of Ireland, he said, which might not be made ten times more productive than it was, and yet it was proposed to feed men in idleness in a workhouse. The system of workhouses acted well in England, where a sort of slave labour was adopted in them, to force the idle to seek employment elsewhere; but what could be expected from it in Ireland where men worked for twopence per day? Many expected that a poor-rate in Ireland would prevent the influx of Irish labourers into England; there could not be a greater mistake: unmarried men would still go to England; and so would the married, leaving their families to be maintained in the workhouse. The experiment, he saw, must be made; and, notwithstanding his objections, he would certainly give every aid in working out its details. Mr. O'Connell urged the necessity of extensive emigration on the consideration of government; but Sir Robert Peel said that he was not sanguine as to any benefits to be derived therefrom. The long sea-voyage would always stand in the way of its adoption to any extent. As to public works, to vote money merely to employ people, that would only aggravate existing evils by interfering with the natural demand for labour. Sir Robert Peel, however, was disposed cordially to support the measure in its general objects; as was also Lord Stanley.

The second reading of the bill did not take place till the end of April. The interval seems to have confirmed Mr. O'Connell in his hostility to the measure. It was not his intention directly to oppose it—some measure of the kind was inevitable; but his deliberate judgment was, that it would aggravate, instead of mitigate, the existing evils of the Irish peasantry. Those evils he ascribed to English misgovernment: the distinct and direct object of the penal laws was to enforce ignorance and poverty by act of parliament. For a century, the Irish had had laws requiring the people to be ignorant, and punishing them for being industrious. And what, he asked, were the natural consequences of this legislation? He entered into a variety of statistical details to prove that, with a less fertile soil, the quantity of agricultural produce raised in England was as four to one compared with that of Ireland; though, according to the number of acres under cultivation, it ought not to exceed two to one. He then proceeded to read numerous extracts from the reports of the commissioners, descriptive of the extreme misery of the Irish peasantry. He described men as lying in bed for want of food; turning thieves in order to be sent to jail; lying on rotten straw in mud cabins, with scarcely any covering; feeding on unripe potatoes and yellow weed, and feigning sickness, in order to get into hospitals. He continued:—"This is the condition of a country blest by nature with fertility, but barren from the want of cultivation, and whose inhabitants stalk through the land enduring the extremity of misery and want. Did we govern ourselves? Who did this? You, Englishmen!—I say, you did it? It is the result of your policy and domination!" With respect to the bill before the house, Mr. O'Connell ridiculed the proposition of relieving the destitution of 2,300,000 persons by building poor-houses to shelter eighty thousand at the expense of £312,000 a year. The charities in Dublin alone amounted to half that sum, and the farmers gave away in kind from a million to a million and a half yearly. As for tranquillizing the country, Mr. O'Connell said that the bill would not have any such effect. On the contrary, as all relief was to be given in the workhouse, every man who was refused would have a pretext for prædial resistance. The man refused would be the very man to resent the refusal; he would go to others and induce them to adopt his quarrel, and perhaps to avenge what he would consider to be his wrong. In conclusion, Mr. O'Connell admitted that he was opposed to a law of settlement, and also to a labour-rate: he thought emigration should be tried on a large scale; and he was still an advocate for a tax on absentees. However much he disapproved of the bill, he would not vote against it: he had not moral courage enough to resist a poor-law altogether. A long and angry debate ensued, which issued in nothing practical.

The only point in the measure in which any serious opposition was raised, respected the law of settlement. On the 12th of May, when the order of the day was read for the house to go into committee on the bill, Mr. Lucas moved,—"That it be an instruction to the committee to introduce a provision for settlement, so as more justly to apportion the pecuniary charges to be incurred and levied under the name of poor-rates." Mr. Lucas suggested a particular scheme of settlement, by which he conceived most of the evils attaching to the system as hitherto practised might be avoided; but his statement of its nature and probable operation was not very intelligible, and his motion was negatived, after some discussion of the subject, by a majority of one hundred and twenty against sixty-eight. The bill did not proceed beyond this stage of its progress, in consequence of the demise of the crown.

IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

Another cardinal point of Irish policy remaining to be settled, as pointed out to the consideration of parliament in the speech from the throne, was the tithe question. This subject was brought forward in the house of commons on the 1st of May by Lord Morpeth, who, in introducing it, said, that it was the fifth measure which had been brought forward in the last three years for the adjustment of Irish tithes. His present plan was this. He proposed to deduct thirty per cent, from the tithe composition, so as to make a rent-charge on the owner of the first estate of inheritance, in the proportion of £70 to every £100 of the tithe. By the bill of last year power was given to the commissioners of woods and forests to collect the rent-charge; but this was thought to make the clergy too dependant on the officers of government, and they were, therefore, now allowed to collect it for themselves. The provisions of former bills for the revising or reopening of compositions were to be reserved. With respect to the regulation of the incomes of the various benefices, Lord Morpeth proposed to adopt the scale of last session, as recommended by Lord Stanley, with the exception of the minimum of £300, which Lord Stanley had taken as the lowest point of reduction to which the clerical income should be liable. The most novel provision proposed was that which went to apply a portion of the clergyman's income to the purposes of general education. Lord Morpeth observed, that by a statute, the 15th of the 28th of Henry III., it was enacted, that "every incumbent in each parish in Ireland should keep or cause to be kept within his parish, a school to learn English; and that every archbishop, bishop, &c., at the time of his induction should take a corporal oath, that, being so admitted or inducted, he shall to his best endeavour himself teach the English tongue to all that are under his rule and governance." Penalties were laid both on the bishop and clergyman for the breach of this statute; and the oath imposed by the act was taken by all rectors and vicars. The question was, continued Lord Morpeth, had this obligation been complied with? There were 2400 parishes in Ireland; and it appeared from the report of the commissioners of inquiry into Irish education, there were only seven hundred and eighty-two schools, the number of benefices being 1242, and the amount of the contributions of the clergy £3299. It appeared from that report, indeed, that, though there were many benefices in which there was no school, yet the act of Henry VIII. was sufficiently complied with by the annual payment of forty-shillings to a schoolmaster. Attempts had been made to revise the act in 1767, and again in the year 1806; but these were abandoned. Lord Morpeth now proposed to raise a fixed rate of ten per cent, upon the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, including the incomes of the dignitaries of the church as well as of the parochial clergy; to take effect not on the present holders, but on their successors. The plan of education which he proposed was not to be confined to the teaching of the English language only; it was to combine instruction in letters, lessons of morality and religion, and that upon a national system, comprehending all sects and denominations. Lord Morpeth, however, did not, he said, intend to propose resolutions which would call upon the house to pledge themselves to the whole of his plan; he contented himself for the present with moving, "That it is expedient to commute the tithes of Ireland into a rent-charge, payable by the first estate of inheritance, and to make further provision for the better regulation of ecclesiastical duties." The resolution was adopted without comment from either side of the house; but when the bill founded on Lord Morpeth's resolutions was read a second time, June 9th, Mr. Sharman Crawford opposed it as wholly inadequate to the wants of the people of Ireland. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months; but on a division his motion was rejected by two hundred and twenty-nine against fourteen. The decision on the clause for taking livings was deferred, and nothing further was done on this question, the death of the king on the 20th of June precluding all further consideration of it.

QUESTION OF CHURCH-RATES.

Government had for some time been occupied in framing a scheme for the arrangement of the question of church-rates. On the 3rd of March the chancellor of the exchequer brought this subject before the house of commons, by moving that the house should resolve itself into a committee for its discussion. In his speech Mr. Rice first attempted to prove that the existing system could not be maintained. He remarked:—"By the law as it stood at present any vestry has the power of refusing its assent to a church-rate. Can it then be said there is, in fact, any fixed or satisfactory mode of providing for the maintenance of the churches of the establishment? Not only have they the power of refusing their assent, but this power has been frequently exercised. In consequence of the contests that took place in Sheffield on the subject, up to the year 1818, no rate has existed there since. In Manchester, in 1833, a poll took place on a rate, which was lost by a majority of one out of six or seven thousand votes. It is true the majority was set aside on a scrutiny; but it has not been ventured to collect the rate. In 1834 and 1835 the same scenes took place; large majorities were polled against the rates; those majorities were, on a scrutiny, declared to be minorities; but the churchwardens did not dare to act on their decision, or levy the rate that had been assessed. Can, or ought," asked Mr. Bice, "this state of things to continue? If you depend upon the church-rate for the maintenance of the church, can you depend upon the present state of the law to enable you to enforce that payment? It is not sufficient to assert that the law must be strengthened; if you wish to maintain such a proposition, you must carry the house of commons with you. Can you do so? I confess I should like to see, not the person, but the party, however combined in force or numbers, who could come down to this house and ask of parliament to grant additional power for enforcing the payment of church-rates. They would soon find that they miscalculate the character both of the legislature and of the people whom it represents." Having thus stated his grievance, Mr. Bice considered the remedy. He expressed his decided objection to the voluntary system; when he could be satisfied that the army and navy could be supported, or the administration of justice provided for on the voluntary principle, then, and not till then, would he apply it to the church. He also objected to a distinctive tax on the members of the established church, to the raising of a fund from pew-rents, and to a graduated impost on the benefices of the clergy. He further objected to the proposition brought forward by Lord Althorp; namely, that a sum of £250,000 should be voted by parliament, for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the church. His plan would be different from all these propositions. He proposed to take the whole property of the bishops, deans, and chapters out of the hands of those dignitaries, and to vest them in the hands of a commission, under whose improved system of management it was calculated that, after paying to their full present amount all existing incomes, a sum not less than £250,000 might be saved and applied to the purposes of church-rates. He proposed that there should be eleven commissioners; five of high ecclesiastical rank; three high officers of state; and three paid members of the board. He further proposed that in all cases where pew-rents had been received, or where they could be justly demanded from the rich, the proceeds should be collected, and placed, in the first instance, under the control of a parochial committee, who should be required in ordinary cases to apportion one-fifth of the whole space in the church to free seats for the poor; in the churches built under the church building act, one-third; the surplus to be handed over to the commissioners. The sums received by the commissioners were to be paid to the ecclesiastical commission, to be applied by them to their specific objects. All visitation fees, and fees on swearing in churchwardens, were to be abolished; by which regulation it was stated a saving of £180,000 a year would be effected. A short and desultory conversation took place; in the course of which the liberal members expressed themselves satisfied with the proposition, while those on the other side of the house intimated their distrust of the principles of the measure.

The friends of the church soon sounded an alarm upon this subject. Three days after Mr. Rice had made his statement, a meeting of fifteen bishops took place at Lambeth Palace; and they came to an unanimous resolution in disapprobation of the bill. The same evening the Archbishop of Canterbury, on presenting some petitions against the abolition of church-rates, expressed his feelings on the subject to the house of lords. The principle of the bill was so unkind to the church, he said, and so mischievous in its effects, that he would never give his assent to its becoming law. This protest raised the indignation of Lord Melbourne. He heard this expression of opinion on the part of the most reverend prelate with sorrow and concern, not less on account of the effect which it would have on the success of the measure, than with reference to the interests of the church itself. He would put it, he said, to the archbishop, whether there was not something of undue haste and precipitation in the course which he had adopted; and whether he was not put forward by those who had more guile and deeper designs than himself, in order that his expressed opinions might affect the decision of the question in another place? He thought it would have been more decent if the most reverend prelate had waited for the regular time for the discussion of the matter, and not have thus precipitately announced his intentions with respect to it. He learned with affliction that he should have the most reverend prelate and his brethren against him on this measure; but this would not alter his course: considering it as just in itself, advantageous to the church, and beneficial to the community, he should persevere in urging it upon parliament.

The house of commons went into committee upon the resolutions of Mr. Rice on the 13th March. The discussion was opened by Sir Robert Peel in opposition. Lord Howick contented himself with replying on one or two points in the financial criticisms of Sir Robert Peel. He was convinced, he said, that the property of the church in land and houses was much greater than was reported by the bishops and chapters, and was greatly improvable under a better management; and he enlarged upon the evils of the present system, and the absolute necessity of removing them for the sake of the church. A discussion followed which lasted several nights. On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-three against two hundred and fifty.

This was a small majority on a question which involved little more than than the taking of the plan into consideration; ministers, indeed, were evidently dissatisfied with the reception of their measure, for they did not seem inclined to urge it through the house. Nearly two months elapsed before the subject was renewed by them: a delay which was made a matter of reproach to the government by some of its supporters without doors, as implying an acknowledgment of failure on the part of the authors of the scheme. The second reading of the resolutions was moved on the 22nd of May. An amendment was moved by Mr. A. Johnstone to this effect: "That it is the opinion of this house that funds may be derived from an improved mode, of management of church lands, and that these funds should be applied to religious instruction within the established church, where the same may be found deficient, in proportion to the existing population." Messrs. Baines, Hardy, Borthwick, and Horace Twiss, all spoke against the measure. Sir Francis Burdett expressed his regret that he was compelled to act against his former associates in politics, but he could not support the measure. Mr. Shiel endeavoured to make the honourable baronet refute himself by quoting extracts from his former speeches on the same subject. He spoke, however, of the honourable baronet in terms of the highest respect, as "a venerable relic of a temple dedicated to freedom, though ill-omened birds now built their nests and found shelter in that once noble edifice." On the second night of the debate the bill was supported by Messrs. Brotherton and Charles Buller. Mr. Johnstone withdrew his amendment; and on a division the original resolution was carried by a majority of five only, the numbers being two hundred and eighty-seven against two hundred and eighty-two. This division was a death-blow to the bill: ministers did not even attempt to urge it further in the house of commons. They were still disposed, however, to follow up the inquiries which had been suggested, into the present method of holding and leasing the property belonging to the bishops and chapters. On the 13th of June, Lord John Russell moved a committee "to inquire into this subject, with a view to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might be obtained by an improved management, with a due consideration of the interests of the established church, and of the present leases of such property." This motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and nineteen against two hundred and thirty-six, although it was opposed both by the church party and by honourable members on the part of dissenters. Mr. Coulburn moved a resolution to be added to the original motion, pledging the house to a specific appropriation of any increased revenue derivable from church lands, to the extension of religious instruction by ministers of the establishment. This was lost, but it was only by a majority of two hundred and ninety-one against two hundred and sixty-five. On the other hand, an amendment moved by Mr. Harvey, for the abolition of church-rates altogether, was negatived by an overwhelming majority of four hundred and eighty-nine against fifty-eight. These divisions possessed some interest, as indicative of the different shades of opinion which prevailed in the house on matters relating to the established church.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

On the opening of the first session of this parliament, Sir Robert Peel had made the deficient means of pastoral superintendence in the church of Scotland, the matter of a recommendation from the crown to the parliament. His government did not exist long enough in power to carry these recommendations into effect, and their successors were supposed to be adverse to the subject. On being pressed, however, they consented to the appointment of a commission, which should make inquiry into the whole of it, and report the same to parliament. The first report of this commission was not made till February of the present year, and then government appeared to take no notice of it. Under these circumstances Sir William Rae moved, on the 5th of May, that the "report should be taken into immediate consideration, for the purpose of remedying the evils acknowledged to exist within the district to which it refers, by extending the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence furnished by the established church of Scotland, and rendering them available to all classes of the community." This motion embarrassed government. Lord John Russell said that the general assembly of the Scottish church was about to assemble within a few days, and no doubt it was desired that they should have the ministers' refusal to consent to this motion, to allege as a presumption of their indifference to the interests of the establishment. He objected to the motion, only on the ground that they had not yet sufficient information on the subject to enable them to deal with it satisfactorily. The motion was opposed by Messrs. Horsman and Oillon on more general grounds; and on a division the order of the day, which was moved by Lord John Russell, was carried by two hundred and seventeen against one hundred and seventy-six: Sir William Rae's resolutions, therefore, were negatived by a majority of forty-one.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.

Within the first week of this session, the notice-book of the house of commons presented the announcement of motions for various "organic changes" in our constitution. Mr. Grote gave notice of his annual proposition of vote by ballot; Sir William Molesworth announced his intention of moving a committee on peerage reform; Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt promised to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Septennial Act; Mr. Hume gave notice for the extension of the parliamentary suffrage to all householders; Mr. Duncombe, of another for the repeal of the rate-paying clauses in the reform bill; Mr. Ewart, one of an address to the crown for the appointment of a minister of education; Mr. Roebuck, of a bill for the establishment of a system of national education; and Mr. Clay, a motion for the repeal of the corn-laws.

The motion for the ballot took place on the 7th of March. Mr. Grote's speech on this occasion contained many specious arguments, and it appears to have had a great effect upon the house. His motion was seconded by Mr. Hodges, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Charles Buller. The chancellor of the exchequer opposed the motion. He had as much right as any man to complain of the effects of undue influence and intimidation at his election at Cambridge: but he doubted whether the ballot would prove a remedy for the evil. He thought the only way was to let in public opinion upon the acts and conduct of individuals abusing their power. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-seven against one hundred and fifty-five.

Another motion, referring to the exercise or regulation of the parliamentary franchise, was that of Sir William Molesworth, for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the property qualification of members of parliament, which, after a brief discussion, was negatived. The other notice which Sir William had given for a committee on peerage reform was not followed up. The only motion relating to this subject was introduced by Mr. Charles Lushington, who, on the 16th February, moved for leave to bring in a bill for the expulsion of bishops from the house of peers, on the ground that the sitting of bishops in parliament was unfavourable in its operation to the general interests of the Christian religion in this country, and tended to alienate the affections of the people from the established church. This motion was decidedly opposed by Lord John Russell, as introducing a change into one of the most ancient portions of the British constitution. It was a motion not to amend, but to destroy a part of our institutions. And where would such changes stop? The conservative party seemed content to leave this question to be debated between the two parties of their opponents; but when Mr. Buller made some remarks on their silence, Sir Robert Peel declared that if any unpopularity attended resistance to the motion, he was willing to put in a distinct claim for his share. He feared he should not benefit Lord John Russell by his compliments; but he would say that he had never heard a speech delivered in a more manly tone than the noble lord's, or one that did more credit to his judgment and abilities. On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-seven against ninety-two.

Another motion connected with the reform of the house of lords was brought forward on the 9th of May, by Mr. Thomas Duncombe. He moved by way of resolution, "That the practice of any deliberative assembly deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative enactments is so incompatible with every principle of justice and reason, that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and well-founded complaint among all classes of his majesty's subjects." This resolution went, therefore, to abolish the right of peers to vote by proxy. Mr. Duncombe observed, that after the house should have affirmed that resolution, he would move, "That a message be sent to the house of lords, requesting a conference, at which the foregoing resolution might be communicated. Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel met Mr. Duncombe's arguments on the subject, by endeavouring to show that if voting by proxy was absurd, the custom of pairing off in the commons, or of coming in to vote at the division without having heard a syllable of the debate, was open to the same objection." Sir Robert went so for as to parody Mr. Duncombe's resolution, by drawing up a similar one against the practice of pairing; and he concluded by recommending that they should take the mote out of their own eye before they made any attempt to extract the mote out of that of another. On a division, the motion was negatived by one hundred and twenty-nine against eighty-one.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe's motion on the subject of the rate-paying clauses of the reform bill was disposed of in a similar manner. He brought this forward on the 9th of March, by moving for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of those clauses. Mr. Duncombe made no prefatory observations; on which, the chancellor of the exchequer remarked, that on so grave a motion he thought it much better that argument should precede rather than follow the introduction of the bill. Mr. Duncombe then said, that it was his conviction that the clauses in question operated materially to diminish the number of voters throughout the country. It was promised that the reform act should add half a million to the amount of electors, whereas it did not give more than three hundred thousand. The great reason for this was the want of punctuality in the payment of rates and taxes, and the partiality shown by collectors. The chancellor of the exchequer replied, that the principle on which the clause was founded was one of the oldest in the constitution; namely, that no man should enjoy civil rights who did not discharge his civil obligations. If there was any unfairness in collectors it should be inquired into; they were not appointed by the crown. After a few words from Mr. Wakley in support of the motion, and from Mr. Pease, who opposed it, the motion was carried by forty-nine against thirty-eight. On the second reading of the bill, however, Lord John Russell moved its postponement for six months, which was carried by one hundred and sixty-six against seventy-three, so that Mr. Duncombe's success was but transient.

Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt brought forward his promised motion for the shortening of the legal duration of parliaments, on the 8th of May. The terms of his motion were confined to a repeal of the septennial act, without specifying any particular period to be substituted for the present one. The motion was supported by Mr. Hume, on the ground that seven years was too long a tenancy of a political trust. He thought three years a better term, and one with which, he believed, reformers in general would be content. Lord John Russell opposed the motion. In private affairs a man would no more be disposed to trust his interests to another, without taking account, for three 3^ears than for seven. The septennial act at the time of its passing had been considered essential for the security of the Hanoverian succession; but the preamble of that measure showed that it was not intended merely for a temporary purpose, it stated the object to be to diminish the heavy expenses of frequent elections, and to put an end to heats and animosities. It was observable, he said, that from the Revolution to the passing of the septennial act, the persons who had the chief weight and leading authority in the country were peers; since the passing of that act almost every person who has possessed a leading influence has sat in the house of commons. Mr. Roebuck desired a bill of this description, not because it would lesson, but because he thought it would increase the stability of the government, particularly if coupled with the provision that parliament should not sit for more or less than three years. The motion was rejected by a majority of ninety-one against eighty-seven.

On the 4th of April Mr. Ewart renewed the motion which he had made in the previous session, for leave to bring in a bill, providing that in cases of intestacy, or in the absence of any settlement to the contrary, landed property be equally divided among the children or nearest relatives of the deceased. He quoted Adam Smith, Gibbon, Bentham, &c, in favour of an equal partition of property, and insisted that the system of primogeniture tended only to foster all the harsh and selfish passions of the human heart. The attorney-general opposed the motion. Mr. Ewart's arguments, he said, if they went for anything, would bring us to the system of equal distribution prevailing in France, which he could not think a desirable consummation. The change proposed would create great confusion in our law. The motion was lost by a majority of fifty-four against thirty-three. Mr. Ewart had given notice of an address to the crown, on the appointment of a minister of education; but neither this motion nor those of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, and Clay, noticed at the opening of this article, were brought forward this session.

OPERATION OF THE NEW POOR-LAWS.

From the last report of the commissioners of the poor-laws, which was made up to July, 1837, it appeared that up to that period, of 18,433 parishes or townships in England, 12,132 had been united under the provisions of the poor-law act. These parishes or townships contained a population of above ten millions and a half; while the number of those not yet included contained a population of two millions and a half. In Wales, of 1049 parishes, twenty-eight only remained not yet united. Those which were not yet brought under the new system chiefly consisted of extensive and populous parishes, administering relief to the poor under local acts; a few others united for rating and settlement; while others were included in the unions established under Gilbert's act. The report stated that the progress of the new poor-law had been made in the face of much resistance, and under the pressure of difficult circumstances. These obstacles, however, had not been so considerable as might have been supposed. The opponents of the law had acted on the principle of agitation; but they had failed to accomplish that which they desired. The report further gave a very favourable account of the practical operation of the law in the habits of the poor. It did appear, in truth, that the new system had so far operated as to induce the farmers to give permanent employment to a much greater extent than formerly. On the working of the new poor-laws, however, there were differences of opinion, differences which were illustrated during this session on an occasion of a motion made by Mr. Walter, to inquire into the operation of the act. On introducing this subject, he brought forward a great many cases of individual hardship under its operation. The terms of his motion were, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the poor-law amendment act, and to report their opinion on it to the house;" but he disclaimed any intention to repeal the bill. Mr. Fielden, the seconder of the motion, was more explicit. His object was, he said, to obtain the total defeat of the obnoxious measure; he had voted against it on every division at the time it was passing; he had attended meetings of the people preparatory to resistance of its introduction into the county of Lancashire; and he had openly declared that if it were attempted to establish its operation in his own peaceable valley of Todmorden, it would be met with opposition, of which he would be the leader. Lord John Russell, in reply, objected to the inquiry; and he moved, as an amendment, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the administration of the relief of the poor, under the orders and regulations issued by the commissioners appointed under the provisions of the poor-law amendment act." On the second night of the debate, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Robinson, and other members spoke against the measure; while Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and the chancellor of the exchequer defended it. The latter said, in conclusion, that the intention of government in proposing the amendment was not to exclude any one topic of inquiry which was not directly opposed to the principle of the bill; on which Mr. Walter consented to withdraw his motion, and the amendment was then carried and the committee appointed.

The committee began its inquiries immediately, and continued them almost daily. Such, however, were the minuteness of examination to which the witnesses were subjected, and the mass of conflicting evidence brought forward on both sides, that the progress of the inquiry was but slow. Mr. Harvey had been one of the members of this committee, but had retired from it, "because it was all a delusion in its consequences, if not in its intention." Before he retired, he adopted the course of printing the evidence before it was reported, in a paper called the True Sun, of which he was the proprietor and editor, by way of appealing to the judgment of the public against the prepossessions of his colleagues in the committee. This was made a question of breach of privilege, and as such brought before the house on the 21st of April, by Lord John Russell. The speaker had informed Mr. Harvey that it was a violation of the privileges of the house, and the chairman of the committee had given him due warning that unless he desisted from the practice he should be reported. Lord John Russell, in bringing the subject forward, pointed out the obvious injury to the public which would result from allowing such a discretion to every member of a committee. Mr. Harvey defended his conduct upon grounds peculiar to the object of the poor-law committee. He asked, "Who were the parties composing that committee? On the one hand, there was all the property of the country, in every variety and form, aggregated to support a measure peculiarly framed for its interest and protection. Who was the other party? All that was pitiable and miserable in the land, sunken alike by ignorance and destitution. How, again, were the respective causes of these parties conducted? On the one side was one of the most active and vigilant bodies of men, the poor-law commissioners and their assistants; but who was there on the other to advocate the rights of the unprotected and oppressed millions? How was the working man, chained as he was to the soil upon which he dragged out a miserable being, to become acquainted with what took place except through the newspapers? Such publicity was the more necessary, when it was recollected that the advocates of the law in the committee were as a majority of twenty-two to four." Mr. Harvey's reasoning would have been sound if the committee had been compelled to make a daily report—a course which they subsequently adopted of themselves; but there could be no doubt that it rested only with the committee or the house to determine that point. Lord John Russell's motion was simply declaratory of the privileges of the house in this matter which was carried without a division.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

Commissioners had been appointed to inquire into the ground of the complaints which for some years had been alleged by the prevailing party in the legislature of Canada, and by their friends and agents in the British parliament. Early in this session the report of these commissioners was laid before both houses, and on the 6th of March the subject was brought before the commons by Lord John Russell. His lordship declared at the outset that lie did not intend to cast any censure upon the conduct of the house of assembly in Lower Canada. He considered their course to be so much the same with that which other popular assemblies had followed in similar circumstances, that instead of an act of self-will, or caprice, or presumption, it seemed to be rather the obligation of a general law which affects all these disputes between a popular assembly on the one hand, and the executive government on the other. The course of these controversies, he said, seemed to impress this general lesson—that popular assemblies are hardly ever wrong in the beginning, and as seldom right in the conclusion of such struggles. They began with the assertion of right, and ended with the establishment of wrong. His lordship proceeded to state what were the demands of the leading party in the house of assembly. The first was, that the legislative council, which had hitherto been appointed by the crown, should for the future be an elective assembly. The second was, that the executive council should be responsible in the same way that the cabinet was in this country. By a third, it was exacted that the law of tenures should be changed, without respect to the rights obtained under a British act of parliament. Fourthly, it was demanded that the land company should be abolished, with a similar disregard of the rights required under the same act. Having stated the difficulties of the case, Lord John Russell proceeded to propose his remedies. It was now four years and a half, he said, since the judges had received their salaries, and it was high time for parliament to interfere on their behalf. He proposed to apply a certain portion of the revenue of Canada to such payments as in their rejected supply bill of 1833 the assembly had under certain conditions agreed to. The total amount of these would be £148,000, and in so applying them they would simply be applying the revenue of the colony for its own benefit. His lordship next proposed to adopt the recommendation of the commissioners which had been sent out in 1855, and exclude the judges from the legislative council; and to provide that in future the members of that body should not be chosen so exclusively from persons of the English race, but that alternately one of French and one of British extraction should be selected. With respect to the executive council, it was proposed that there should not be more than two or three official persons among its members, and that the rest should be selected by the legislative council, and from the house of assembly. The privileges of the North American Loan Company were to be preserved inviolate; a provision might easily be framed to prevent any abuse of them. As the complaints made against the Canada tenures act were in some degree well founded, it was proposed to repeal that act, care being taken that the lights of individuals vested under it should be respected. Complaints had been likewise made of the commercial relations between Upper and Lower Canada: the upper province, by the act of 1791, was allowed no communication with the sea, except on the payment of heavy duties; while the lower province put various impediments in the way of its commercial progress. It was proposed that, with the assent of the legislatures of the two provinces, a joint committee should sit at Montreal, composed of four members of the legislative council and eight of the representative assemblies of each, making twenty-four persons in all, who should have power to prepare laws and regulations upon all matters of reciprocal intercourse. These propositions were embodied in a series of ten resolutions, of the first of which, relating to the payment of the judges, &c, Lord John Russell then moved the adoption. These resolutions met with violent opposition on the part of the Radical section of the house of commons. Mr. Leader called the measure a coercion bill, and reminded the noble mover of the rule of unlimited concession in government whicli his lordship had a few nights before quoted from Mr. Fox, and desired him to apply it not merely to Ireland, but to Canada. He moved as an amendment on the fourth resolution, "That it is advisable to make the legislative council of Lower Canada an elective council." Mr. Robinson said that the whole of Mr. Leader's argument was founded on the modest assumption that the government, and commissioners, and legislative council had been wrong, and Mr. Papineau and the house of assembly as uniformly right in everything that had been done. Mr. O'Connell warmly advocated the cause of the Papineau party, whose sole object was, separation from this country. He called for "justice to Canada." He remarked:—"Give them a legislative council elected by themselves; place them in possession of all the rights and privileges which as British subjects they could reasonably demand; and then if they persevered in their opposition to the home government, it would be time enough to think of adopting some such measures as were now proposed." The Canadas, he urged, ought not to be governed with reference merely to British interests: Great Britain did not want Canadian revenues. Sir William Molesworth, Colonel Thompson, and Mr. Roebuck followed on the same side of the question. The speech of the latter was more violent than any of his party. Like all the orators on his side of the house, he dwelt much on the example of the American revolution, and on the sympathy and assistance the United States would give to the Canadians if they should resist. He asked, "What is the evil, and what is the remedy? You say, Great merit exists among the public servants. But do you propose to prevent the recurrence of that difficulty? Not at all. You pay the arrears. But who will pay the servants next year? Do you believe that the house of assembly will do so? You know as well as I do that the supplies will again be stopped; the same outcries will be raised, and then, I suppose we shall have another special commission, another delay of three years, another evasion of the difficulty, another breach of faith. Distrust will continue; exasperation will increase; their powers of resistance will increase also; one effort will be made, and you and your shuffling policy, your degraded government, your unworthy peculating and mischievous officials, will be dismissed with ignominy and hatred. I hear eternal talk of the evil consequences of stopping the supplies to those official servants, and hear nothing in reproof of the legislative council, who shut up last year all the primary schools in the country, and left 60,000 children without instruction. All your regards are turned the wrong way. You sought to make out a case of hardship to the servants of the people, but turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the people themselves. But I would ask his majesty's ministers, Have they well weighed the policy of this measure, and do they know its inevitable result? If not, I will tell them. The direct effect on the minds of the Canadian population will be a determination as soon as possible to get rid of a dominion which entails on them results so mischievous and degrading. Every year will hereafter strengthen the feeling, and lasting enmity and discord will thus be entailed on the mother country and the colony—discord that will cease only when the colony shall become a great, powerful, and independent community. The immediate effects of this feeling will not be seen in open and violent revolt, but in a silent though effective warfare against your trade. Non-intercourse will become the religion of the people: they will refuse your manufactures, and they will smuggle from the States. The long line of frontier will render all your attempts to prevent this smuggling unavailing. The people will refuse your West India produce, and they will view with hatred your schools of unprotected emigrants. Impatiently will they wait for the moment in which they shall obtain their freedom, and become part of that happy, and, for our interests, already too powerful republic. A war will be waged through an unrestricted press upon your government and your people. In America you will be held up as the oppressors of mankind, and millions will daily pray for your signal and immediate defeat. The fatal moment will at length arrive; the standard of independence will be raised; thousands of Americans will cross the frontier, and the history of Texas will tell the tale of the Canadian revolt."

In reply to Mr. Roebuck's declamation, Sir G. Grey, the colonial under-secretary, appealed to all the papers on the table, to all the instructions which had been sent out to the local government, and to every act which had been done in pursuance of these institutions, and he asked if anything had been done of which a free and independent people had the slightest right to complain? Every grievance which had arisen out of former misgovernment had been redressed: and now the house of assembly took their stand on another ground, and declared that if the constitution were not altered they would stop the supplies. The cry was raised by the house of assembly in Lower Canada alone; the people of Upper Canada disclaimed any share in it. The debate was adjourned to another day, when it was opened by Mr. Hume, who, in a speech of three hours' duration, impugned the whole conduct and policy of the government towards Canada. Finally, the three first resolutions being simply declaratory, were agreed to without division. The fourth, also, was carried on a division by a majority of three hundred and eighteen against fifty-six. This resolution was to the effect, "That in the existing state of Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to make the legislative council of that province an elective body; but that it is expedient that measures be adopted for securing to that branch of the legislature a greater degree of public confidence."

After this decision ministers expressed a hope that the opponents of the resolutions would not throw any obstacle in the way of government. Delay, however, was the object of the Canadian party, apparently in the hope of giving time for a demonstration of popular feeling on the other side of the Atlantic. The committee was not resumed till the 14th of April, and then the fifth resolution came under consideration. This was to the effect, "That while it is expedient to improve the composition of the executive council in Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to subject it to the responsibility demanded by the house of assembly of that province." On this occasion Mr. Roebuck again opposed government, and intimated that the loss of the colony would be the certain eventual consequence of their adoption. At the same time he disclaimed all interest in, or desire to accelerate this consummation. Mr. Roebuck broached a plan of his own for the settlement of the dispute. Since the house would not make the legislative council elective, he proposed to abolish it altogether. The only useful power at present exercised by the legislative council was that of proposing amendments on the bills passed by the house of assembly. This office he proposed to transfer to an executive council of twelve persons, to be named by the governor, who might amend any measure sent up from the assembly, but not to have the power of rejecting it; that would rest with the governor. The great object of this scheme was, he said, to concentrate responsibility, and to bring it to bear on known individuals; but it was plain that the effect of it would be to bring the executive in constant and direct collision with the popular branch of the legislature by doing away every intermediate power. The other principal feature of Mr. Roebuck's scheme was, the establishment of a general assembly at Montreal, composed of delegates chosen by the houses of assembly of each of our North American colonies, and clothed with certain judicial and legislative powers. In its judicial capacity this assembly was to constitute the tribunal before which the judges of the various provinces might be impeached; and, moreover, might act as a court of appeal, and exercise the functions now performed by our privy-council. Its legislative offices would relate to all matters of dispute or communication between two or more provinces. Lord John Russell remarked, in reply, that whatever might be the merits of Mr. Roebuck's propositions, he had no authority from the colony to make them, and therefore parliament could not think of making them the basis of pacification, As for the threat that the people of Lower Canada would, if their demands were rejected, throw themselves into the arms of their republican neighbours, his lordship contented himself with saying, that it would not be their interest to act thus; nor did he think that the United States would be anxious to seek a quarrel on this question. Mr. Robinson supported and Mr. Charles Buller opposed the resolution. Mr. Roebuck again spoke in reply, and complained that Lord John Russell was doing all in his power to insult and vilify the people of Canada. He doubted, if Sir Robert Peel was in power, that with his wary prudence and caution, he would carry out these resolutions. The right honourable baronet and his friends, he said, were silent on certain questions; they no doubt acted so that they might come into office with clean hands. Sir Robert Peel said that he did not desire to withhold his sentiments on this subject. In his speech, the right honourable baronet took the same view of the policy of the government that had been expressed by Lord Stanley. He observed, that if no other, interests but those of the French Canadians were involved in the question, and if the continuation of British connexion were unpalatable to them, he would say, "God forbid that we should force it upon them." In that case he should think it more for our interest than theirs that the connexion should be dissolved. But he-doubted, if he were to make the people of Lower Canada an offer of establishing their own government, that they would be disposed to accept it. At any rate the question could only be considered in reference to the French Canadians: there was a British population in the province, which had a right to look up to this country for a continuance of the connexion and protection on the faith of which they had established themselves in it. On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and sixty-nine against forty-six.

On the 21st of April Mr. Leader moved the postponement of the further consideration of the resolutions, in order to give time to the Canadian people to state whether or not they agreed to Mr. Roebuck's scheme for the settlement of the existing differences between the province and the mother country. This motion was negatived by a large majority; and the house then went into committee on the sixth resolution, which declared the necessity of maintaining inviolate the privileges conferred by an act of parliament on the North American Loan Company. Mr. Roebuck moved as an amendment, deferring all resolutions on the subject of the land company "until an inquiry shall have been instituted into the circumstances under which the land held by that company had been obtained." The company found supporters in Lord Stanley, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Robinson; and even Mr. Grote, and others of the radical section, declined voting for the amendment. On a division the resolution was carried by one hundred and sixty-six against six; and this closed the discussion on this subject in the house of commons. On the 1st of May the resolutions were communicated to the house of lords in a conference.

The subject was brought before the house of lords by Lord Glenelg on the 9th of May, in a speech of considerable length, but which contained the same arguments which had been so frequently urged in favour of the resolutions in the house of commons. The resolutions were supported by Lord Ripon, although he objected to the wording of the fourth resolution, in which it was declared that "in the existing state" of Lower Canada, it was not advisable to introduce the elective principle into the formation of the legislative council. The inference from this mode of expression was, that a state of things might arise when it would be considered advisable to do so; but he could not acquiesce in the principle under any circumstances. The only opposition to the resolutions came from Lord Brougham, who objected to them entirely, as well to the principles as to the policy of them. His lordship chiefly dwelt upon the violation of the Canadian constitution by the advance of moneys, without the consent of the house of assembly. Under the eighth resolution it was intended to replace the £30,000 advanced out of the military chest, to provide the means of defraying colonial expenses. Lord Aberdeen remarked that Lord Brougham, who seemed so shocked at the idea of interfering with the rights of the assembly, had himself been a member of that government which made this advance; and the house of assembly had designated it as a monstrous, and unconstitutional interference, and had prayed that an impeachment might be instituted against the noble and learned lord, and his late colleagues, for committing it. The resolutions were agreed to without a division, Lord Brougham alone saying, "Not content."

STATE OF THE BANKING SYSTEM, ETC.

At this time there was a general impression that there was something in the constitution of the joint-stock banks, that imperatively called for legislative interference. This, indeed, was one of the subjects immediately pressed upon the investigation of parliament, by the speech of the lords commissioners at the opening of the session. In the preceding session a select committee had been appointed to consider the state of the law in reference to this subject. This committee began its inquiries in the month of May, and continued them till the close of the session. In their report to the house, they stated that they saw so many difficulties in the way of immediate legislation, and so many objections to imperfect legislation, that they would content themselves with merely recommending that the committee should be revived in the following session. On the 6th of February the chancellor of the exchequer made a motion to that effect, on which occasion he observed that he did not mean in any way to anticipate the decision of the committee; but he should be greatly misconceived, if it were supposed that his motion was made in hostility to the general principle of joint-stock banks. It had been suggested, he said, that the range of inquiry should be extended; but he considered the subjects already before them were sufficiently complicated and difficult, without the committee embarrassing themselves with other and still more delicate matters of investigation. He should, however, propose the extension of the committee's inquiries to Ireland; and with that view would move the addition to its number of four Irish members, two from each side of the house. Mr. Hume expressed himself satisfied that the source of the difficulty lay, not in the conduct of the joint-stock banks, but in that of the Bank of England; and he was therefore anxious that the inquiries of the committee should be extended to the proceedings of that establishment, and generally to the banking system of the country. The conduct of the Bank of England, he contended, should form a principal object of investigation; and he moved as an amendment, "that there be an inquiry into the state of banking, and the causes for the changes of the circulation since the year 1833." Mr. Williams seconded the amendment, and urged that the Bank of England had displayed a more reckless disregard of the interests of the country than had ever been shown by any public body intrusted with the management of its financial resources. On the 28th of December, 1833, the issues of the Bank were £32,600,000, and their stock £10,000,000. On the 28th of March, 1835, a reduction appeared on those issues of no less than four millions and a half. Nine months afterwards of the same year, there appeared an increased issue of nearly nine millions, being more than one-fourth of their circulation. What was the consequence? Such an advance in prices, that in September last the cost of every article of import was raised from forty to one hundred per cent. This caused a falling off of trade. Then again in January last the circulation of the Bank of England was £31,000,000, and they had four millions to pay that amount, being little more than half-a-crown in the pound to meet their engagements. The directors professed to have discovered that the true principle for regulating their issues was to keep gold to the amount of one-third of those issues; in so doing they would be safe. But had they acted upon that principle? At that moment, instead of having one-third, they had only about one-seventh or one-eighth of their issues in gold. Mr. Gisborne took a similar view of the conduct of the Bank of England, and urged the necessity of an inquiry into it by the committee, if, at least, any inquiry into the banking system was at all necessary. For his own part he did not think it was; it would only lead to expectations which it would be impossible to satisfy. The debate was closed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who objected to an extended inquiry, and on a division, the original motion was carried by one hundred and twenty-one to forty-two.

CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND UNDER THE WHIG ADMINISTRATION.

There was no part of the conduct of the Whig administration which had been made the subject of more incessant attack than that which related to their foreign policy. This session the line of policy followed by Lord Palmerston in reference to Spain afforded a subject for declamation against him and his coadjutors in the government. At this time British soldiers were fighting in that country without the protection of the British flag, exposed to all the shame and hardships of a disastrous and disgraceful war. In the midst of the public anxiety on this subject, it was brought forward in the house of commons by Lord Mahon, who had been under-secretary for foreign affairs during Sir Robert Peel's administration. His lordship began by expressing a want of confidence in government, and especially in Lord Palmerston: the country, he said, had too long reposed a confidence in his exertions, to which he was neither entitled by prudence nor success. He complained that the public had been kept in a state of ignorance as to whether they were in peace or at war: in his opinion it was a peace without tranquillity, and a war without honour. The object of the quadruple alliance had been to appease the civil dissensions in Portugal; not to sanction the intervention of France and England in Spain. He did not object to this, but he lamented the policy which led to the additional articles signed in 1834, which stipulated for a certain degree of interference. The Duke of Wellington, during the four months he had been in office, had acted up to the spirit of those articles, as he was bound to do; but Lord Palmerston had thought proper to proceed still further, in suspending the foreign enlistment act, and allowing twelve thousand Englishmen to enlist under the banners of the queen. Lord Mahon went on to contrast our position throughout the peninsular campaign. The great object had then been to drive the French out of the Peninsula, an object which had been sanctioned by all our greatest statesmen for more than a century and a half. Lord Palmerston had, however, departed from this line of policy. Count Mole, the prime minister of France, said in the chamber of deputies that "Lord Palmerston considered that circumstances justified the co-operation of France; and that in March, 1836, he notified to General Sebastiani, that it was his intention to land a certain force of marines on the coast of Spain, and invited France to join in that co-operation." At the same time he had offered France the occupation of the port of Passages, and left to her own option the mode and extent of co-operation. M. Thiers had, however, declined the invitation. Next came the revolution of La Grunja, and soon after that event, an increased force was sent to relieve 'Bilboa. More than £540,000 had already been expended in the war, and all the accounts were not as yet sent in. In Lord Mahon's opinion, the influence of Great Britain in Spain had not been augmented by these measures; and in proof of it, he quoted a memorial presented by the British merchants of Alicant, complaining that their interests had been neglected; and that while England carried away three-fourths of the produce of Spain, that country took very little in return. To illustrate still further the decline of our influence with the court of Madrid, Lord Mali on alluded to a tax imposed on British subjects. "For the liberation of the king," originally levied during the captivity of King Ferdinand. This impost had been kept up though the king was now dead. There were other grievances of a similar kind: the only one redressed was a tax on military quarters, which had been ceded to the English residents. Lord Mahon concluded by calling Lord Palmerston's attention to the provinces of Biscay and Navarre, which had been deprived of their legal rights and privileges; and by stating that in bringing the subject forward, he was not actuated by any partiality for the character of Don Carlos, or any desire of advocating his claims on the crown of Spain. Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, while he admired the moderate and gentlemanly tone of Lord Mahon's speech, yet differed from his views. He defended the alteration which Ferdinand had made in the succession, and which had been approved of by the Cortes, while they looked upon Don Carlos as a pretender. The question for the house was whether this country was not justified in abiding by the terms of the quadripartite treaty. We had done no more, he said, till Don Carlos had published the edict of Durango: after that infamous act an important article had been appended to the treaty, stipulating that arms and stores should be supplied for the maintenance of the war, and, if necessary, a naval force. Mr. Gaily Knight also dissented from Mr. Fergusson's views; while Mr. Fenton expressed his disapprobation of Lord Palmerston's policy. Lord Francis Egerton said that in his opinion we were not the proper judges of the value of those rights and privileges for which the Basques were contending; if they themselves held them dear, every Englishman must feel a sympathy in their cause. Mr. Fergusson had admitted, that could we have foreseen the failure of the Spanish generals, it would have altered the question as to the policy of suspending the foreign enlistment act: were not ministers culpable for such a want of foresight? Surely Lord Palmerston and his colleagues might have distinguished between Spain in the sixteenth century, when her troops were the first in Europe, and Spain during the peninsular war. Had not Lord Palmerston been in office during the war of independence? And had not its records taught him something of Spanish generals and Spanish promises? At any rate, a glance at the pages of a Napier, or a word from the Duke of Wellington would have enlightened him on the subject. Mr. Cutlar Fergusson explained, and Mr. Poulter protested against the doctrine which stigmatized the conduct of government as intervention. Mr. Grove Price defended the character of Don Carlos from the aspersions which had been cast upon it, but he did not attempt to contradict or justify the fact that the Don had issued the edict of Durango; and that, in virtue of the same, some English soldiers had already been executed. He concluded with a tribute to his virtue and magnanimity: so far was he from desiring to establish the Inquisition, that his prime-minister, the Bishop of Leon, had spent his whole life in writing against it, and had obtained a decree from his sovereign for its abolition. This was denied by Mr. O'Connell, whom Mr. Grove Price allowed to be a competent judge, because he was acquainted with the Bishop of Leon. He added, "If it were supposed that Don Carlos admitted Mr. O'Connell to his councils, then no English Protestant gentleman would for a moment countenance the pretensions of that sovereign."

Lord Palmerston ably defended the policy of government. He added, if he could contribute to the establishment of the same happy things in Spain as existed in Belgium and Portugal, he should esteem it a proud satisfaction to the latest hour of his life. Sir Robert Peel complained of the line of argument which had been adopted by Lord Palmerston. He, for one, he said, openly disavowed all participation in the principles, or sympathy with the cause of Don Carlos. He would not say that the objects of British policy would be advanced by the success of that prince; and he begged most distinctly to state that he wished to see Spain in the settled enjoyment of a free and enlightened form of civil government. His belief was, however, that the course adopted by ministers was defeating its professed objects; it was obstructing the cause of improvement, and was calculated neither to raise our own character as a nation, nor to gain the affections of Spain. Mr. O'Connell spoke against Don Carlos, dwelling at length upon the atrocities which had been committed by his partisans.

Lord Mahon did not press any motion on the house, he being satisfied with the expression of opinion that had taken place. Within a fortnight after the debate the news of the defeat at Hernani arrived; and the political opponents of government eagerly embraced this opportunity of renewing the discussion. Immediately after the Easter recess, Sir Henry Hardinge gave notice of a motion on the subject, which motion he brought forward on the 18th of April. He moved an address to the king, "praying his majesty not to renew the order in council of the 10th of June, 1835, granting permission to British subjects to enlist in the service of the Queen of Spain, which order in council would expire on the 10th of June next following; and praying also that directions be given that his majesty's marine forces shall not be employed in the civil contests now prevailing in Spain, otherwise than in that naval co-operation which his majesty has engaged to afford, if necessary, under the stipulations of the treaty." The motion was seconded by Sir Stratford Canning, who argued that the terms of the quadruple treaty did not justify the interference which government had sanctioned. On the other hand Lord Leveson contended that government had gained great credit on the continent by the part they had taken in the affairs of the Peninsula. Mr. Charles Wood defended ministers: it was not uncommon, he said, for British officers to enter into the service of foreign powers. Mr. O'Connell remarked on the eagerness with which the recent disasters of the legion had been seized upon by gentlemen on the opposite side. The actions in which they had clone honour to the British name were forgotten: nothing was said of their victories; but not a moment was lost in bringing forward their defeat. On the second night of the debate, Sir Robert Inglis adverted to the imputation which had been cast against his party—that they were the enemies of the church of Rome in their own country, but its friends in every other—from its association with despotism. He disclaimed any such feeling on their part. Mr. Ward considered that opposition tried this question merely by the test of success. Why did not Sir Henry Hardinge bring forward his motion soon after the victory at Bilboa? This was the first time that he had heard in the house of commons the misfortunes of an ally urged as a reason for abandoning him. No doubt the legion had suffered a defeat; but not such as to disable their continuance of the contest. General Evans had admitted his losses; yet it was at this moment that an old brother officer in arms had chosen to aggravate his difficulties, and to cast against him the weight of his authority in military matters. In reply to the imputation as to the motives in bringing forward the motion at this particular time, Lord Mahon contended that he and his friends had hitherto exercised the utmost forbearance on the subject. He contended, further, that the country had a right to know whether there was any limit to the expense which we might be called upon to incur: twenty millions might be required by Spain; and did the treaty oblige us to furnish that sum? Dr. Lushington followed, and endeavoured to show that the naval co-operation which we had afforded was precisely that contemplated by the treaty. It could not be supposed that the British fleet was to encounter that of Don Carlos, and drive it off the seas; the only object could be a naval warfare along the coast. He considered the existence of the present government depended on this motion: if the reformed parliament of Great Britain should now abandon those principles of liberty and independence which they had hitherto advocated, the news would be hailed at St. Petersburg by bonfires. Mr. Grove Price supported the motion, and Mr. Shiel opposed it. The latter argued that the government had put a right construction on the stipulations of the quadruple treaty; and he entered into a long apology for the ill success of General Evans, and for the excesses and insubordination of his troops. With respect to the naval co-operation of the mariners, he referred to their motto, Per mare 'per terras, as of itself setting that question at rest. He continued:—"But it is alleged that the measures of the government have not produced any good result. I ask if those measures had not been adopted, what would have befallen the Spanish people? Would not Bilboa have been taken by assault, and the standard of Don Carlos at this moment have been floating from the castle of St Sebastian? Or try the allegation by another test. Let me suppose this motion carried. The courier that will convey the intelligence will carry tidings of great joy to St. Petersburg, to Vienna, to Berlin; and he will convey tidings of great dismay wherever men value the possession of liberty, or pant for its enjoyment. It will palsy the arm of freedom in Spain—a terrible revulsion will be produced: from Calpe to the Pyrenees the cry, 'We are betrayed by England!' will be heard; and over that nation which you indeed have betrayed, Don Carlos will march without an obstacle to Madrid." In conclusion, Mr. Shiel said:—"I have heard it asked whether it be befitting that in Spain, the theatre of so many of their best exploits, British soldiers should give way before bands of mountain peasants? I feel the force of that question; but there is another which I venture to put to every man who hears me, and, above all, to the gallant officer by whom the motion has been brought forward: I invoke the same recollections; I appeal to the same glorious remembrances, and in the name of those scenes, of which he was not only an eye-witness, but a sharer, I ask, whether it be befitting that in that land, consecrated as it is in the annals of England's glory, a terrible, remorseless, relentless despotism should be established; and that the throne which England saved should be filled by the tyrant by whom your own countrymen, after the heat of battle, have been savagely and deliberately murdered? Never! the people of this country are averse, indeed, to wanton and unnecessary war; but where the honour of England is at stake, there is no consequence which they are not prepared to meet—no hazard which they will not be prompt to encounter." The debate was protracted by another adjournment to a third night.

Lord Palmerston, who had been repeatedly called upon in the course of the debates, at length arose to defend government from the imputations of their opponents. The manner, he said, in which the question had been dealt with by opposition was not fitted to impress other people with a notion that their own convictions were very strong in respect to it. Having made a few observations on the conduct of General Evans, on the sufferings of the British soldiers, and on the atrocities which had been committed, he came to the question of the quadruple treaty. Every one knew, he said, under what circumstances, and for what purpose it was concluded. The most superficial observer must have perceived that the change that had been made in the accession to the Spanish throne, though accompanied by every circumstance cf legality and regularity, yet laid the foundation for a great revolution in that country. It was not merely the substitution of an infant female for a grown man; out of that change must spring a great alteration in the internal constitutions of Spain, and a change too in the tendencies of its external policy. What happened on the death of Ferdinand? A Spanish minister came to London to request of the English government a force to assist in expelling Don Miguel from Portugal. This was refused; but we said:—"Though we will not give you an army, we will give you a treaty." Accordingly, we joined with the three "great powers" of the west of Europe in one alliance. This was the quadruple treaty; and such was its effect, that even before the ratifications were exchanged, Don Miguel's army of twelve thousand men laid down their arms, and the two pretenders abandoned Portugal. Then came the escape of Don Carlos, and his placing himself at the head of the insurgents in the Basque provinces. The four contracting parties considered the treaty to be fully in force, and that it was only necessary to prepare new articles in order to provide for the altered circumstances of the war, which articles, however, should be considered merely as complementary of the original treaty. The noble lord proceeded to defend the manner in which those articles had been carried into execution; and, in conclusion, he observed, that however skilfully the question before them might be disguised, it involved no less than, whether England should continue to fulfil her engagement with the Queen of Spain, or should disgracefully abandon an ally whom she had pledged herself to succour. But this was far short of the real and ultimate tendency of the motion. The contest now waging in Spain was but a portion of that great conflict which was going on elsewhere throughout the world. The house had to decide that night between two opposite systems of foreign policy. Even these were not isolated principles, which might be taken or neglected by themselves: they were intimately connected with, and affected also our domestic interests. The object of the one party was to support Don Carlos and despotism; the other to uphold Isabella and the constitution. Sir Robert Peel replied to Lord Palmerston, reproducing the arguments and facts already urged; and the discussion was closed by Lord John Russell, who defended the existing state of our foreign relations, by contrasting it with that in which they had been left by the right honourable baronet and his friends in 1830, when they quitted office. On a division Sir Henry Hardinge's motion was rejected by two hundred and seventy-eight against two hundred and forty-two. The same subject was brought under the consideration of the lords, April 21st, by Lord Alvanley, in a motion for the dispatches of Lord John Hay relative to the affair at Hernani.

A circumstance occurred which brought the state of our relations with Russia under the attention of parliament. A mercantile house, Messrs. Bell, of London, had fitted out a vessel laden with goods for the coast of Circassia. On attempting to land her cargo she was seized by a Russian man-of-war and confiscated, first, on the ground of the violation of the blockade, to which the Russian government had subjected the whole of the Circassian coast; and, secondly, for an alleged violation of the custom-house regulations established by the same authority in the ports of that country. This proceeding of the Russian government was generally denounced as unjustifiable; and the subject was brought before parliament on the 17th of March by Mr. Roebuck, who moved for copies of all the correspondence which had taken place between the British and Russian government on this transaction. Lord Palmerston entered into a lengthy statement of the occurrence; but the papers were refused, on the ground that the question was still under negotiation. Mr. Roebuck repeated his inquiries on the subject, when Lord Palmerston stated that, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the government had come to the conclusion that there was no room for making any further demand upon the Russian government. Another matter, in which our relations with Russia were concerned, was brought before the house of commons on the 22nd of March by Lord Dudley, who inquired of Lord Palmerston whether any consular agent had been appointed to the state of Cracow. Lord Dudley Stuart said, that in the preceding session a motion had been made by the member for Lancaster for an address to the king, praying that his majesty would appoint a consul to reside in that city; and that the noble secretary for foreign affairs had stated that it was the intention of government to make such appointment, on which the motion for an address was withdrawn. *Lord Palmerston admitted the correctness of this statement. It had been his intention, he said, to send a consular agent to Cracow; but he had since been induced to depart from his purpose, finding that greater difficulties would attend it than he had anticipated. His lordship did not state what those difficulties were, and the house seems not to have thought it expedient to press the government further upon the subject.

A more important point of our foreign policy considered this session was the situation of the province of Texas. On the 9th of March, Mr. Barlow Hay moved for "copies of all correspondence which had taken place between our government and those of Mexico and of the United States on this subject;" stating at the same time his sense of its importance, and the suspicions he entertained of the ambitious project of the American government in respect to it. Lord Palmerston admitted the importance of the subject, and its claim on the anxious attention both of the government and the public; but he resisted the production of the papers moved for, and on a division the motion was rejected by a majority of forty-one to twenty-eight.

MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.

WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837

At this time the state of public affairs was such as to induce Mr. Roebuck to bring the subject before parliament. On the 9th of June, when the order of the day had been moved for the second reading of the Irish tithe bill, Mr. Roebuck moved an amendment that the house should resolve itself into a committee for considering the state of the nation. He made some observations upon the extraordinary position in which the representatives of the people were placed. Two bills had been sent to the other house of parliament, but they were told that the house of lords would not take them into consideration until something had been done by that house to please them. He contended that there was no government in the country: ministers were no longer in the position in which they were at the beginning of the session. They stated then that they would place their existence as ministers on the fate of the Irish corporation bill. What had become of that bill? It was laid on the shelf till the lords knew what that house was about. The other house virtually said, "If you do not what we like, we will not pass your bill." What good could be got from playing over the farce of discussing the Irish tithe bill? Did they not know that if it passed that house, defeat awaited it elsewhere. Ministers, in fact, were useless for good purposes; and as far as the people were concerned, they were mischievous. Mr. Roebuck's motion was seconded by Colonel Thompson, who said that ministers had started with a large stock of popular energy in their favour; but, in their fear of the boiler bursting, they had let the fire go out. Like Spanish generals, they had always one eye in their own camp, and the other in the enemy's; and all their efforts were paralysed by their fear of being too successful. Their situation had become desperate: if any event in the chapter of human accidents should fall out to give them a reprieve, the only consequences would be, that as they had dwindled, dwindled before, they would dwindle, dwindle again. There was no stock of good luck which such conduct would not run out. It was clear what was coming: the Tories must return to power. How long they would stay there was another question; but their return was a phasis, a phenomenon which ministers had rendered it inevitable to go through. Mr. O'Connell eschewed the doctrines of Mr. Roebuck and Colonel Thompson. It was his duty, he said, in the name of the people of Ireland, to protest against his majesty's government being blamed for not doing more. Government had the confidence and the affections of the people; and whatever might be the opinions of others, he, for one, hoped that they would long continue to occupy their present situations. Lord John Russell, in reply, disclaimed any community of sentiment with Mr. Roebuck in the constitutional views he had broached, either in reference to church or state. He was decidedly opposed to the voluntary system, and to the abolition of the house of lords. As for the doctrine of the honourable member for Bath, that men of moderation and compromise never succeed in establishing anything good or useful, his lordship said it was, on the contrary, his decided conviction that to the moderation and mediation between violent or extreme opinions on both sides, which had been exercised by Lord Somers, and the great Whig leaders at the Revolution, the country was indebted for all her subsequent prosperity. In reference to Mr. Roebuck's reproach against ministers for not having conciliated the dissenters and popular favour generally by adopting the voluntary principle in church matters, his lordship said that such a course would not have that effect: his own opinion was not in favour of the voluntary system, and he believed that the people of this country were, like himself, still attached to the established church. The opposition, properly so called, took no part in this discussion, and Mr. Roebuck's motion was negatived without a division. The discussion proved one great fact, namely, that between the extremes of opposition, the Whigs might for a long period maintain their places on the treasury benches; but at the same time they could not but feel embarrassment in a position which left them dependent on their opponents, now on the Radicals and now on the Tories. Had it been possible for the two to have united on any great question, the Whig ministry would soon have been no more; but oil and water might almost as soon have commingled, as the Tories and the Radicals agree.

ILLNESS AND DEATH OF THE KING—REMARKS ON HIS CHARACTER.

Ever since his accession to the throne, the king's health had in general been good. In the course of the present spring, however, symptoms of decline began to show themselves; and they increased so rapidly, that by the beginning of June his situation became one of serious alarm to his family. His majesty continued to transact business, but it was under such oppressive weakness, that it was clear to his medical attendants that his end was approaching. There was no active disease, indeed, but a general languor and weakness, which foretokened dissolution. His last days were spent in preparing for eternity; nothing seemed to give him greater pleasure than the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who attended him, and from whose hands he received the sacrament. His deportment at this solemn ceremony, as related by a church dignitary, was fully edifying. He says:—"His majesty had already experienced the blessed consolations of religion, and removed the doubts his anxious attendants were entertaining, by eagerly desiring the queen to send for the archbishop, seeming, as it were, anxious to ratify the discharge of his earthly by the performance of his spiritual duties. His grace promptly attended, attired in his robes, and at a quarter to eleven administered the sacrament to his majesty and the queen, Lady Mary Fox communicating at the same time. The king was very calm and collected; his faculties were quite clear, and he paid the greatest attention to the service, following it in the prayer-book, which lay on the table before him. His voice indeed failed, but his humble demeanour and uplifted eyes gave expression to the feeling of devotion and of gratitude to the Almighty which his faltering lips refused to utter. The performance of this act of religion, and this public attestation of his communion with that church, for the welfare and prosperity of which he had more than once during his illness ejaculated short but fervent prayers, was the source of great and manifest comfort to his majesty. Though the shorter form had been adopted by the archbishop, his majesty was nevertheless rather exhausted by the duration and solemnity of the ceremony; but as his grace retired, the king said, with that peculiar kindness of manner by which he was so much distinguished, and at the same time gently moving his hand and inclining his head, 'God bless you! a thousand, thousand thanks!' There cannot be more certain evidence of the inward strength and satisfaction which the king derived from this office of religion than that, in spite of great physical exertion, his majesty, after the lapse of an hour, again requested the attendance of the archbishop, who, in compliance with the wishes of the queen, read the prayer for the evening service, with the happiest effect on the king's spirits. This being done, the archbishop, naturally fearing the consequences of so much mental exertion on his majesty's debilitated frame, was about to retire, when the king motioned him to sit down at the table, on the opposite side of which he himself was seated. His majesty was too weak to hold any conversation, but his spirits seemed soothed and comforted by the presence of the archbishop, on whose venerable, benign countenance his majesty's eye reposed with real pleasure. The king at this interview stretched his hand across the table, and taking that of the archbishop, pressed it fervently, saying in a tone of voice which was only audible to the queen, who was seated near his majesty, 'I am sure the archbishop is one of those persons who pray for me.' The afternoon of this day witnessed a still further diminution of his majesty's strength; but in proportion to the decay of his bodily power, was the increase of his spiritual hope and consolation. At nine o'clock in the evening the archbishop was again summoned by his majesty's desire. The king was now still less able to converse than on the last occasion; but his grace remained more than three quarters of an hour, supplying by his presence the same comfort to the king, and receiving from his majesty the same silent though expressive proof of his satisfaction and gratitude. At length, on the suggestion of the queen that it was already late, and the archbishop might become fatigued, the king immediately signified his assent that he should retire; and crossing his hands upon his breast, and inclining his head, said, as his grace left the room, 'God bless thee, dear, excellent, worthy man! a thousand, thousand thanks!'" This was on Sunday, the 18th of June, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, which the king remembered, expressing his desire that the Duke of Wellington should hold his usual banquet on the morrow. That was the day on which his majesty breathed his last. He had spent a tranquil night, but no corresponding effect was produced upon his health. Decaying nature could no longer be recruited by ordinary sources of strength and sustenance. His majesty rose at seven o'clock, for during his illness he had not been wholly confined to his bed, but there was much in his language and manner which bespoke his sense of approaching death. "I shall get up once more," he said to the queen, "to do the business of the country." After joining in the service for the visitation of the sick, performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which his majesty's demeanour was characterised by the most genuine spirit of devotion. Sir Herbert Taylor was summoned, and was directed to get all things ready. As it was Monday, however, there were no papers, and consequently there was no business to transact. In the evening the archbishop visited his majesty for the last time: at half-past ten the king was seized with a fainting fit, on which he was removed into his bed, and from this time his voice was not heard, except to pronounce the name of his valet. In less than an hour death reigned in the palace of the English monarchs. His majesty expired without a struggle, and without a groan, the queen kneeling at the bedside and still affectionately holding his hand, unwilling to believe the reality of the sad event. "Thus expired, in the seventy-third year of his age, in firm reliance on the merits of his Redeemer, King William IV., a just and upright king, a forgiving enemy, a sincere friend, and a most gracious and indulgent master."

Few monarchs, indeed, have possessed the love of their subjects in a greater degree than King William IV. By the common consent of all parties he had the welfare of his country truly at heart. There was but one opinion of his character, and that was expressive of his kindness and amiability. He does not appear to have had a personal enemy in the world, although he sanctioned measures to which a large section of the community were inimical: this is praise as singular as it is high when applied to a king. His intellectual faculties may not have been of a superior order; but he had what more than counterbalanced this defect—a heart which beat high with love for his country.

Previous Part

Main Index

Next Part

CONTINUATION

OF

THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND,

BY E. H. NOLAN

Volume IIIc WILLIAM IV.

Contents

List of Illustrations

CHAPTER XL. (Continued)

ROYAL MESSAGE TO PARLIAMENT—RUPTURE BETWEEN THE MINISTERS AND WHIGS-DEBATES ON THE QUESTION OF THE REGENCY.

PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

STATE OF PARTIES.

MEETING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THEIR MAJESTIES' VISIT TO LONDON.

MAJORITY AGAINST MINISTERS FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CIVIL LIST.

FORMATION OF EARL GREY'S ADMINISTRATION.

DEATH OF MR. HUSKISSON.

STATE OF FOREIGN NATIONS.

CHAPTER XLI.

STATE OF THE REFORM QUESTION.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

INTRODUCTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

DEBATE ON THE MOTION THAT THE BILL BE READ A SECOND TIME, ETC.

MOTION OF ADJOURNMENT PENDING THE ORDNANCE ESTIMATES CARRIED AGAINST MINISTERS—PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

THE BUDGET—PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES, ETC.—ARRANGEMENT OF THE CIVIL LIST.

GENERAL ELECTION.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—THE REFORM QUESTION RENEWED IN PARLIAMENT.

REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL BY THE LORDS.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE REJECTION OF THE REFORM BILL.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

CORONATION OF WILLIAM IV.

OPENING OF NEW LONDON BRIDGE, ETC.

RAVAGES OF THE CHOLERA.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

NEW REFORM BILL.

CHAPTER XLII.

REFORM BILL PASSED BY THE COMMONS.

DEBATES ON THE REFORM BILL IN THE LORDS.

DISTURBED STATE OF THE NATION.

REASSEMBLING OF PARLIAMENT.

FAILURE OF THE ATTEMPTS TO FORM A NEW ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERS RECALLED, ETC.

REFORM BILL PASSED.

IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS PASSED.

BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS, ETC.

COMMITTEES ON IRISH TITHES.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

COMMITTEE ON THE CHARTER OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY, ETC.

THE AFFAIRS OF THE WEST INDIES.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

GENERAL ELECTION.

RESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER.

STATE OF IRELAND.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

CHAPTER XLIII.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT—RE-ELECTION OF MR. MANNERS SUTTON AS SPEAKER.

OPENING OF THE REFORMED PARLIAMENT BY THE KING IN PERSON.

CASE OF MR. PEASE.

IRISH COERCION BILL.

IRISH CHURCH BILL.

IRISH TITHE BILL.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

BANK OF ENGLAND CHARTER RENEWED.

EAST INDIA QUESTION.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.

FACTORY BILL.

THE CORN LAWS.

RESOLUTIONS AGAINST BRIBERY, ETC.

BILL TO REMOVE THE CIVIL DISABILITIES OF JEWS.—PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

CHAPTER XLIV.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

MR. O'CONNELL'S MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE UNION.

DIVISIONS IN THE CABINET.

COMMISSION ISSUED TO INQUIRE INTO THE STATE OF THE IRISH CHURCH.

IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

RENEWAL OF THE IRISH COERCION BILL.

RESIGNATION OF EARL GREY, ETC.

REJECTION OF THE IRISH TITHE QUESTION BY THE PEERS.

STATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS OF DISSENTERS.

Volume IIIc

WILLIAM IV.