{GEORGE IV. 1830—1831}
State of Parties..... Meeting of Parliament..... Motion for
a Committee of the whole House on the State of the
Nation..... Reduction of the Salaries of Public Officers,
&c. Motion for revising the whole System of
Taxation..... Committee on the East India Company’s
Charter..... Debate on the Proposal to alter the
Currency..... Financial Statements..... Bill for Repealing
the Duty on Beer, &c. The Question of Reform..... The
Case of East Retford, &c. Mr. O’Connel’s Bill for
Reform by Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot, &c.
Bill for Removing the civil Disabilities affecting the
Jews..... Bill for Capital Punishment in Cases of
Forgery..... Bill for Amending the Law of Libel, &c.
Alterations in Courts of Justice..... Illness of the
King..... Bill to authorize the adhibiting of the Sign
Manual by a Stamp..... Death of the King, and Accession of
the Duke of Clarence, William IV...........
STATE OF PARTIES.
{A.D. 1830}
At the commencement of this year, government found itself in a new and
unsafe position. It had carried the great party question of Catholic
emancipation, but in so doing it had lost the confidence of a large body
of its most faithful adherents. Ministers had, it is true, on the other
hand, gained the seeming support of their old enemies of the opposition;
but this could not be depended upon. The Whigs were willing to lend
them such assistance as would prevent the necessity of seeking a
reconciliation with the offended Tories; but they were not willing
to concede even this, except as the means of gradually introducing
themselves into an equal share of power. They assented to a coalition in
parliament; but the price of this assent was coalition in office. In a
word, their policy was to aid the government with their countenance and
their votes, so far as it would be sufficient to keep it alive, but by
no means to give it the robustness and vigour of perfect health. On
the other hand, the Duke of Wellington was willing to use them as
supporters; but he was not disposed to extend to them an equal share
of power. It was his wish, indeed, to be reconciled to his old friends;
and, therefore, he stood aloof from a more intimate connexion with the
Whigs, that he might keep open the door of reconciliation to the
former. He flattered himself, that as each of the two divisions of his
adversaries would be unwilling to drive him for the preservation of the
ministry into the arms of the other, he might command the occasional
assistance of both, to an extent sufficient to enable him to govern
without placing himself in the power of either. But this was chimerical.
The Tories showed no inclination to trust men whom they considered as
their betrayers, and they resisted them as statesmen who had abused
their power, and coalesced with their political antagonists, to force
upon the country a measure contrary to its opinions, interests, and
institutions. They resisted them, also, as politicians who, to effect
their purpose had abandoned their tenets, betrayed and surprised their
own confiding adherents, and introduced as a principle into the conduct
of government, that everything was to be granted which was demanded by
clamorous agitation. Between the Tories and the Whigs, the distance was
not greater than between the Tories and the ministry; and perhaps it was
not even so great, as the Whigs had not betrayed their opponents. The
Duke of Wellington, indeed, seems to have had some fear that the two
parties might coalesce, in order to effect his expulsion from power.
Nor was this fear without foundation. Neither party was in heart his
friends; and his own conduct had at once furnished the motives to such
an union, and removed one irreconcileable point of difference between
the parties whose union he feared. Moreover, in itself the ministry
was without the means of making any commanding figure in the house of
commons. With the exception of Mr. Peel, who filled the post of leader
in that house, there was no man who could fight their battles of debate
with any degree of talent and vigour, no one that held any high place in
public opinion, either for oratory or information. Finally, the ministry
increased their unpopularity by prosecutions for libel arising out of
the Catholic relief bill. While that bill was pending, the press had
given birth to much vehement and angry discussion, and some of the
papers having gone beyond the bounds of allowable invective, the
attorney-general resolved to crush them by ex-officio informations.
But these prosecutions were received with an universal dislike by
all parties in the country; and the temper in which the Whig
attorney-general conducted them, gave a severe blow to his public
character, and increased the unpopularity of the government.
MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
Parliament was opened by commission on the 4th of February. The royal
speech expressed satisfaction at the conclusion of war between Russia
and the Ottoman Porte, and alluded to the embarrassing affairs of
Portugal. Concerning the prevailing distress, it remarked:—“His majesty
laments that, notwithstanding an indication of active commerce, distress
should prevail among the agricultural and manufacturing classes in some
parts of the United Kingdom. It would be most gratifying to the paternal
feelings of his majesty to be enabled to propose for your consideration
measures calculated to remove the difficulties of any portion of
his subjects, and at the same time compatible with the general and
permanent interests of his people. It is from a deep solicitude for
those interests that his majesty is impressed with the necessity of
acting with extreme caution in reference to this important subject. His
majesty feels assured that you will concur with him in assigning due
weight to the effect of unfavourable seasons, and to the operation
of other causes which are beyond the reach of legislative control or
remedy.” This qualified admission of the existence of national distress
gave great offence in both houses of parliament. In the lords, Earl
Stanhope moved as an amendment to the address, “That this house views,
with the deepest sorrow and anxiety the severe distress which now
afflicts the country, and will immediately proceed to examine into
its cause, and into the means of effectually providing the necessary
relief.” His lordship said that a more inappropriate and unsatisfactory
speech had never been addressed to any public assembly. The speech said
that distress existed “in some parts” of the country: he asked, in
what part it did not exist? The kingdom, he asserted, was in a state of
universal distress, embracing alike agriculture, manufactures, trade,
and commerce. These great interests had never before at one time been at
so low an ebb, nor in a condition which demanded more imperatively the
prompt and energetic interference of parliament. The speech ascribed
the distress existing, so far as it had admitted it, to unfavourable
seasons. This of course operated upon grain; but was the effect of
unfavourable seasons usually visible in a reduction of price? Did a bad
harvest make corn cheap? The evil was so notorious that nobody but his
majesty’s ministers doubted its existence, and they could not deny it,
if they only cast their eyes around, and saw the counties pouring on
them every kind of solicitation for relief. Why then was inquiry evaded
or denied? It was not true that the causes of distress were placed
beyond the reach of parliament, it was parliament that had produced
them, and yet ministers now wished parliament to disregard the effects,
and treat the public distress with indifference. The amendment moved by
Earl Stanhope was supported by the Duke of Richmond, and the Earls
of Carnarvon and Winchilsea. The Earl of Carnarvon declared that the
address called upon them to pledge themselves to statements inconsistent
with truth, and declared that he would never lend his countenance to the
fallacious representations of mere partial distress, as set forth in
the speech. That speech, he said, did not contain one word of the true
causes of the country’s suffering; but gravely desired them to take “the
state of the seasons” into their consideration. He contended that no
small part of the distress was owing to the change in the currency.
There had been periods of distress in former times, but they had soon
passed away. Now, however, the kingdom was placed in very different
circumstances, as the circulation of specie was no longer commensurate
with the demand. He suggested that a silver standard should be adopted,
by which he conceived that the resources of the country would be
emancipated from the artificial fetters in which they were now bound,
and prove sufficient to feed the now starving population. The Earl of
Winchilsea said, that, if the house refused to take the distress into
consideration, an opinion would be forced on the country, that it was
unable to legislate for the public good. A spirit was springing up, he
said, in different parts of the country, for forming associations, not
to lay the grievances of the people before parliament, but to propose
remedies of their own, and to redress their own wrongs. To that spirit,
he contended, their lordships would be supplying encouragement if
they refused to institute an inquiry into the nature and causes of
the existing distress. The amendment was opposed by Lord Goderich, the
Marquis of Lansdowne, and the Duke of Wellington. Lord Goderich
said that the true object of its noble mover was to get rid of the
alterations lately introduced into our commercial system, and to
unsettle the basis on which the currency now stood. For his own part
he had never been able to learn, from the opponents of what was called
“Free Trade,” what that was which they denounced under that name.
The noble mover seemed to menace by it the refusal to foster domestic
agriculture by prohibiting the importation of foreign wool. That refusal
was no modern invention. It was not till 1819 that the importation of
foreign wool had been prohibited; and the duty then laid was imposed
merely for the purposes of revenue, and not as a protection to trade.
The Duke of Wellington said that much more had been made out of the
expressions in the speech, concerning the bad seasons, than was meant.
It was not set down as the only cause of distress, but was alluded to
as one circumstance not to be lost sight of: there had been one bad
harvest, and another had been attended, in getting it in, with unusual
expense; these were facts to be taken into consideration. Another cause
of distress, he said, “was to be found in the state of our manufactures:
this it was to which his majesty alluded, when he spoke of me operation
of causes beyond the reach of legislative control. Were not, he asked,
competition at home and abroad, the introduction of machinery, and the
general adoption of steam, calculated to produce distress among our
manufacturers? Yet could parliament prevent competition? Could it
prohibit the use of machinery, and the application of steam, all
of which, by throwing labourers out of employment, produced
distress? But,” his grace continued, “I am satisfied that the distress
is not universal; that there are parts of the country free from it. The
exports of last year had been greater than they had ever been before;
and there was not a canal or railway in the country which did not
present an increase of traffic. It was true, no doubt, that all this had
been done at small profits; but profits there must have been, otherwise
the traffic would not exist. Pressure upon the country there certainly
was; but not so great as to prevent it from rising, though slowly. The
country was not stationary; much less was it falling; it was improving.”
His grace in continuance said, that he could not agree with the
supporters of the amendment, that what distress existed was to be
ascribed to the restricted circulating medium to a metallic currency.
There was no foundation in fact for such an opinion: the circulation
was greater now than before the restriction, and therefore the distress
could not be properly attributed to a deficient circulation. The Marquis
of Lansdowne opposed the amendment because its true object was to
bring the house to the adoption of one of the greatest evils which this
country had ever endured, an unlimited issue of a paper circulation. If
the first were taken, it would lead to subsequent steps, against which
it was his duty to guard the house and the public. Distress, he added,
unquestionably existed to a lamentable extent; but he concurred in the
recommendation that it should receive the most cautious attention. On
a division the amendment was lost by a majority of seventy-one against
nine.
In the commons the battle on this subject was much more fierce than
in the lords. An amendment to the address was moved by Sir Edward
Knatchbull, founded, as in the lords, on the alleged misrepresentation
contained in the speech regarding the distresses of the country, and
the consequent determination of ministers to adopt no measures either of
inquiry or relief. Sir Edward Knatchbull contended that the distress was
universal; and if he were called upon for other proof than that of his
own testimony, he would say, “Let every member who now hears me state
honestly and fairly, and without reserve, what is the situation of the
place with which he as a representative is immediately connected.” The
house was asked on this first day of the session to approach his majesty
with a declaration something like a downright falsehood. He did not
mean, however, to advert at present to any remedy for the distress. All
he asked was this, to state in their address to his majesty the naked
truth as to the distress of the country. He therefore moved to strike
out of the address the clause affirming existence of partial distress,
and to insert the following:—“We lament the existence of that distress
which your majesty informs us is confined to some places; but in the
painful discharge of our duty we are constrained to declare to your
majesty that that distress is not confined to some places, as your
majesty has been advised, but is general among all the productive
interests of the country, which are severely suffering from its
pressure. We beg to assure your majesty that we shall adopt the caution
which your majesty recommends in the consideration of the measures to be
adopted in reference to these interests, and that our earnest
endeavours shall be employed to alleviate and remove the distress now so
unfortunately existing.” The amendment was supported by Messrs. Western,
Protheroe, Davenport, Maberly, Duncombe, and R. Palmer, who all joined
in condemning the extenuating phraseology used by government, as either
being the result of gross ignorance regarding the true state of the
country, or betokening a reprehensible determination to propose no
measure of relief, and to institute no inquiry. The house, it was said,
had long been in the habit of hearing complaints from individual classes
in the country; but these complaints were no longer reiterated from the
old quarters. The productive and industrious classes of the community
were in a state of great misery; their distress was settling-down into
universal discontent, and the voice of their disaffection would soon be
heard, he said, with alarm. It was urged, also, that the pressure was
severe on the classes immediately above the industrial portion of the
community; and that those who dealt in manufactured goods were in no
better situation than the agriculturists. It was stated in proof of
this, that among the great body of the traders in the city of London,
their stocks had suffered a depreciation of forty per cent. Sufferings
so general, it was argued, affecting every interest of importance
throughout the country, could not be the result of local causes. The
amendment, it was said, corrected a most erroneous representation of
a matter of fact, and it pledged parliament to nothing more than a
cautious inquiry into the origin of the state of things which in fact
existed. On the other hand the chancellor of the exchequer maintained,
that no amendment had ever been moved so little at variance with the
speech to which it was intended to apply; and that, although there was
distress among both agriculturists and manufacturers in some parts
of the kingdom, other parts were in a comparatively flourishing
and prosperous state. Mr. Goulburn contended that there was great
agricultural prosperity enjoyed in Ireland. This called up Mr.
O’Connell, who denied that such was the case. He had, he said, travelled
through the provinces of Leinster, Connaught, and Munster, where he not
only had not seen proofs of prosperity, but had observed much distress.
Mr. Huskisson supported the amendment, thereby giving the signal for
his friends to divide against the ministry. It was of the greatest
importance, he said, in the present season of universal disquietude
and dissatisfaction, not to provoke a hostile discussion between the
representatives of the people and the people themselves, and not to call
down reproach on the house of commons by understating the distress and
difficulty of the time. He believed that the country, in so far as the
productive classes were concerned, was suffering greatly; and that if
parliament looked at the subject properly, and acted with the caution
which one part of the speech recommended, they would find themselves
fully competent to cope with the existing difficulties. To some of the
causes which had led to the distress parliament could apply no remedy;
but it was in their power to satisfy the country as to what those causes
were, and to afford a partial relief by giving a better direction to the
capital of the country. Mr. Peel expressed surprise that Mr. Huskisson
should support an amendment like the present, considering his
long-expressed opinions. Session after session Mr. Huskisson
had resisted commissions of inquiry, lest he should excite false
expectations; and he now supported an amendment founded on principles
and intended to lead to conclusions from which he totally dissented,
because he thought it stated a matter of fact somewhat more correctly
than did the speech itself. Mr. Peel then contended that the speech did
not misstate facts; but proved the non-existence of universal distress
by the increase of the internal and foreign trade of the country.
Several members expressed their intention to vote for the address,
although they believed the distress to be more general than the speech
represented. As for the Whigs, they were divided between their wish not
to leave the ministry, which showed a leaning towards them, exposed to
defeat, and the fear of endangering their popularity by appearing to be
indifferent to public suffering. Lord Althorp, for instance, was sorry
to give a vote which might give him the appearance of joining the
opponents of government; but found it to be his duty to vote for
the amendment, because he believed the distress to be universal. Mr.
Brougham, also said his vote for the amendment was wrung from him,
because he thought it more correctly represented the state of things;
but if he could bring himself to think that the effect of the amendment
would be to displace the present government, he would vote for the
address. Mr. Spring Rice expressed himself to the same effect. But these
declarations of the leading members of opposition did not prevent their
adherents from carrying their votes to the ministry; and the amendment
was negatived by a majority of one hundred and fifty-eight against one
hundred and five.
On the following day, when the report on the address was brought up, the
Marquis of Blandford moved that the following extraordinary amendment,
which he termed, “a wholesale admonition to the throne,” should be
appended to the address:—“That this house feels itself called upon,
in the awful and alarming state of universal distress into which the
landed, commercial, and all the great productive interests of the
country are at this moment plunged, to take care that your majesty shall
not be the only person in your dominions ignorant of such an astounding
fact, as well as of the consequent impending danger to the throne and
other great national institutions, established by the wisdom of our
ancestors for the protection and benefit of the people over whom your
majesty has been called to preside,”—“That this house is at no loss to
indicate the real cause of this most unnatural state of things; and, in
justice to your majesty and the whole nation, it can no longer hesitate
to proclaim that cause to the world.
“It is a fact, already too notorious, that this house, which was
intended by our ancient and admirable constitution to be the guardian
of the nation’s purse, has, from causes now unnecessary to be detailed,
been nominated for the greater part by a few proprietors of close and
decayed boroughs, and by a few other individuals who, by the mere power
of money employed in means absolutely and positively forbidden by the
laws, have obtained a ‘domination,’ also expressly forbidden by act
of parliament, over certain other cities and boroughs in the United
Kingdom.
“That, in consequence of this departure from the wisdom of our
ancestors, the nation has been deprived of its natural guardian, and has
in consequence become so burdened in the expensive establishments of
all kinds, that, in a period much shorter than the life of man, the
taxation, has risen from £9,000,000 to nearly £60,000,000 a year, and
the poor-rates, or parochial assessments, during the same period, have
augmented from £1,500,000 to £8,000,000 annually.
“That to render such a mass of taxation, so disproportionate to the
whole wealth of the kingdom, in any degree supportable, recourse has
been had, either from ignorance or design, to the most monstrous schemes
in tampering with the currency, or circulating money of the country, at
one time by greatly diminishing the value of the same, and at another
time by greatly augmenting such value; and at each and every of such
changes, which have been but too often repeated, one class of the
community after another has been plunged into poverty, misery, and ruin;
while the sufferers, without any fault or folly of their own, have been
hardly able to perceive from what hand these calamities have come upon
them.
“That under such circumstances, and with this knowledge before its eyes,
this house would consider itself lost to every sense of duty towards
your majesty, and guilty of treason towards the people, if it did
not seize this opportunity of declaring to your majesty its solemn
conviction that the state is at this moment in the most imminent danger,
and that no effectual measures of salvation will, or can, be adopted
until the people shall be restored to their rightful share in the
legislation of the country; that is, to their undoubted right, according
to the true meaning of the constitution, of choosing members of this
house.” This amendment, was seconded by Mr. O’Connell, and Messrs.
Western, Protheroe. Messrs. Smith and Davenport, declared themselves
favourable to its spirit, although they thought it was injudicious
to bring forward a topic of such importance as a mere amendment on an
address. Sir Francis Burdett took the same course; and in his speech on
this occasion he gave the ministry fair warning that they must either
enter into a closer connexion with the Whigs, or no longer count on
their support. Sir Francis said, that when he found the prime minister
of England insensible to sufferings and distress, painfully apparent
throughout the land; when, instead of meeting the calamity with measures
of relief, he sought to stifle every important inquiry; when he
called that a partial and temporary evil which was both long-lived and
universal, he could not look on such a mournful crisis, in which public
misfortune was insulted by ministerial apathy, without hailing any
prospect of change in the system that produced such a state of feeling.
What, he asked, could be said of the ignorance which could attribute the
distress to the introduction of machinery, and the application of steam,
that noble improvement in the inventions of man, to which men of science
and intelligence mainly ascribe our prosperity? He felt a high respect
for the abilities of the Duke of Wellington in the field; but he thought
that the noble duke did himself equal justice when he said, previous to
his taking office, that he should be a fit inmate for a lunatic asylum
if he were ever induced to take such a burden on his shoulders. In
fact, both he and many honourable members about him had long treated the
illustrious individual with such tenderness, because they felt that he
had conferred the greatest benefit on his country. He was the only man
in England who could have accomplished what he had done; and his
praise should be in proportion. It should, however, be at the same
time remembered, that if his service was great, his recompense had
been commensurate: they had repaid him in returns of confidence and
approbation; but the time was come when it would be necessary to do
much more. On a division the Marquis of Blandford’s motion was lost by a
majority of ninety-six against eleven.
MOTION FOR A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.
In the debate on the address Lord Stanhope gave notice that he should
on an early day bring the state of the country under their lordships’
notice, by a special motion. He did so on the 25th of February, by
moving that their lordships should resolve themselves into a committee
of the whole house on the state of the nation. The proposition on which
his lordship founded his motion was, that all the great productive
interests of the country were suffering under the pressure of
a distress the tendency of which was to go on increasing. Complaints and
applications for relief by the agriculturists, he said, had come up from
every county, and they had been disregarded, probably because they were
couched in respectful language. He said this, because recent experience
had shown that if they had formed illegal associations, collected funds,
and spoken to government in the language of intimidation, they would
have received attention. Of the reasonableness of their complaints
no man could doubt who knew their situation. Rents were paid from the
capital of the farmer; and numbers of tenants had already been driven
from their farms in bankruptcy and beggary. The capital of others, also,
was daily extorted from them to meet their current expenses; and when
that capital was exhausted they, too, must go forth ruined men. It had
been said, “Reduce your rents, and you will remove the mischief,” But
this expedient had been tried, and had failed: rents had been reduced
fifty per cent.; but there were cases in which no rent could be paid. He
knew of one parish, for instance, in Sussex, where all the proceeds
of the land were not sufficient to maintain the poor; and neighbouring
parishes had been applied to to give them relief. If the existing state
of things was not speedily remedied, they must end in ruin and anarchy.
Nor, he continued, was the state of the manufacturing population better
than that of the agriculturists. Artisans were at work for threepence
or fourpence per day; and of those who received employment, a great
proportion worked for wages which, when compared with the value of the
article on which they were employed, were altogether deceptive. Then,
he asked, what was the state of the shipping interest? To realize profit
was out of the question; and many of the shipowners had preferred
parting with their ships at a certain loss of forty per cent., to
continuing to hold them at the risk of a loss still greater. All these
interests were, therefore, at present in a state of apparently hopless
distress. As for the symptoms to which ministers pointed as those of
returning health, they were utterly fallacious. It had been said that
the traffic on railways and canals had been increased; the same effect
would be produced if the goods had been transported on speculation, and
hawked about from one part of the country to another for sale, either
in vain or at ruinous prices. With an increasing population consumption
must increase to some extent, because the addition to the population
would not absolutely famish; but the evil was, that it was consumption
which still furnished to those employed in creating the articles
consumed the means, not of living with any reasonable comfort, but of
mere squalid starvation. Ministers had told them, likewise, to look at
the number of new houses which were springing up, and had asked if this
was an indication of distress. No one had ever said that every man in
the country was distressed. Who had ever said, for instance, that
the fund-holders and annuitants felt the general pressure? They might
continue to flourish like rank and noxious weeds among surrounding
ruins; they still drew their fixed incomes, but their security was
diminishing; for that security depended on the productiveness of the
revenue; and the revenue, as the natural result of the misery of all
the productive classes of society, was fall ing off. Lord Goderich, in
reply, said that he had expected the motion would have been supported
by something better than the two undeniable propositions that there was
great distress in the country, and that it was the duty of ministers to
relieve it to the utmost of their power. He should have thought that the
noble mover would have stated the causes which had produced the distress
of the country, and have given some notion of the remedies which he
deemed applicable to the disease. In regard to the one and the other,
the house had been left in the dark. While, however, he resisted a mode
of inquiry which promised nothing, he did not say that it was impossible
for parliament to do anything. In relation to the currency and the state
of our taxation, parliament might afford material relief to the
country. He thought parliament might also do something by a reduction of
taxation; for during the two years that he himself had been chancellor
of the exchequer, nine millions of taxes had been removed, and yet that
amount had not been eventually lost to the revenue: in some heads of
receipt there had been a diminution, but in others there had been an
increase. The Earl of Roseberry, also, spoke against the motion: he
could not support it, because he thought that in its present form it was
neither practicable nor expedient. The motion was supported by the Duke
of Richmond and Lord Eldon. The former insisted principally on various
facts proving the extent and pressure of the prevalent distress; and
maintained that in common sense the causes of the misfortune should be
investigated, before means for removing them were tendered. Lord Eldon,
in supporting the motion, accused his ancient colleagues of coming down
to parliament with a declaration that there were “other causes” for
the distress of the country, which they did not deem it expedient to
specify, and which they left to each one’s sagacity to guess at as he
might. He contended that the smallest consideration of the causes and
remedies of the present all-pervading distress would have been received
by the country with gratitude. He was the more confident of this,
he said, when he bore in mind the pacific and loyal demeanour of the
numerous thousands who were suffering under the most pinching distress,
and who, he hoped, would be prevented from being drawn away from the
line of good conduct by the expressed determination of parliament to
inquire into the causes of their sufferings, with a view to remedy
them so far as circumstances might permit. The Duke of Wellington still
denied that the existence of distress was so extensive as had been
represented, and supported his opinion by the augmented consumption
of various articles, by the increase of buildings, by the state of the
savings’ banks, and by the advanced traffic on railways and canals. He
still maintained, also, that the power of redress was beyond the reach
of parliament; and he defied noble lords opposite to do anything on the
subject which should be at once politic and satisfactory; expedient and
efficacious. Was it right, he asked, for parliament to interfere where
it was utterly impossible to do good? The noble mover might recommend
a committee; but to what end could they follow his counsel if he could
lead them no further? And not one step further had he gone. The Marquis
of Lansdowne said that he had no hesitation in stating what he conceived
to be the causes of the distress. Much of it, he thought, had been
produced by a transition from a state of war to peace. He could not help
recollecting, however, that a great part of the difficulties, out of
which we had now to extricate ourselves, was to be ascribed to that
fatal perseverance, with which we had persisted for many years, in
contracting permanent money engagements in a depreciated currency. That
was the root of the evil; but in saying so, he did not forget,
that, unfortunate as these engagements were, they nevertheless were
engagements which the honour of parliament was bound to respect, and
which we must find means to discharge. It was one thing, however, to
see the cause, and another to point out the remedy: for the present
he confessed that he saw but one means of uniting all opinions on the
subject, and that was retrenchment, retrenchment qualified by diminution
of taxation. The Marquis of Salisbury expressed an opinion that a
general inquiry would do more harm than good: he would prefer a select
committee, and if that should fail in coming at the cause of the
distress, then would be the time for an inquiry of the whole house. Lord
King, in conclusion, moved as an amendment, “that a select committee
should be appointed to inquire into the depressed state of the
agricultural and manufacturing interests of the kingdom for the purpose
of ascertaining whether any, and what relief could be afforded.” This
amendment, however, was received with as little favour as the original
motion, which was lost on a division by one hundred and eighteen against
twenty-five.
A similar motion was made, at a more advanced period of the session
in the house of commons by Mr. Davenport. The discussion in that house
lasted four nights, and in the course of it, the leading members of
all parties delivered their opinions, which were in many respects
contradictory on the extent as well as on the causes of the evil. The
arguments and the views of the speakers, however, were generally the
same that had been used in the house of lords, though being used by a
greater number of persons, they were presented under a greater number
of modifications. The motion was supported by the admitted fact of the
prevailing distress; the duty of the house to give relief, if possible;
and the necessity for that purpose of ascertaining the causes of the
evil. On the other hand it was denied that the distress was general,
and that if it was, it would be useless to enter into an inquiry without
some specific remedy being pointed out, which had not yet been done.
Great objections were also taken to the form of the proposed inquiry.
There was no subject of any difficulty with which parliament had ever
had to deal, but would necessarily come before this committee, and how
could the whole house deal with such an investigation. Sir C. Burrell
moved as an amendment that the petitions should be referred to a
select committee, but this was still more vehemently resisted: Mr. Peel
declaring that a committee of the whole house was the better of
the two. Lord Althorp, with the leading members of the Whig party
generally, as well as Mr. Huskisson and his followers, took part with
the ministry; and the motion was eventually lost by a majority of two
hundred and fifty-five against eighty-seven.
REDUCTION OF SALARIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS, ETC.
Throughout the discussions on the state of the nation, the necessity
of reducing taxation, and curtailing the public expenditure, had been
insisted on with great force. On the 12th of February, Sir James Graham
moved for a reduction of all the salaries paid to official, persons.
The foundation of his motion was this:—that, subsequently to the Bank
Restriction Act, all salaries had been increased, because the expense of
living had increased; and he argued, therefore, that, as the restriction
had been removed, and we had returned to cash payments, the salaries
ought to be diminished. Justice, he said, demanded such a change High
prices, produced by a depreciated currency, had brought them high
salaries; low prices, produced by curing that depreciation, must
bring them low salaries He did not, however, mean to include in his
resolutions the privy-purse and the royal establishment, as these stood
upon arrangements entered into at the beginning of the reign, and were
hence inviolate. Neither would he interfere with the regular pay of the
navy, which had been fixed in 1798, when prices were about the same as
at the present time; or of the army, into which our soldiers had entered
for a term of years, at a stipulated rate. He meant, however, to
include military officers holding civil situations, such as colonial
governments, because in many cases their salaries had been augmented
without sufficient reason, and because some of these officers being
removable at pleasure, their allowances might be altered without
difficulty. Sir James Graham enumerated examples in which the salaries
of governors had been raised; and stated that there had been an addition
of one-third to the number of _employés_, and an increase of fifty per
cent, on their salaries in 1827 as compared with 1797. He concluded by
moving this resolution:—“That, whereas, subsequently to the act of the
37th George III., by which a suspension of cash-payments was effected,
large augmentations had taken place in the salaries and pay of persons
in civil and military employments, on account of the diminished value of
money; and whereas the alleged reason for such augmentations had ceased
to operate, in consequence of the passing of the 59th George III., which
restored a metallic standard of value, resolved that in order to relieve
the country from its extensive load of taxation, it was expedient
to revise our present system of expenditure in respect of all such
augmentations, for the purpose of making every possible reduction that
could be effected without violation of good faith, or detriment to
public justice.” The motion was opposed by Mr. Dawson, the secretary of
the treasury, chiefly on the ground that government had done all that as
yet had been possible in the way of reduction, and felt a sincere desire
to carry the spirit of economy to every practicable extent. Almost
every recommendation of reduction, he said, suggested in the reports of
committees, or by commissions of inquiry, had been carried into effect;
and the recommendation of a committee which sat in 1797 to abolish
sinecures and reversions had been acted upon as far as it was found
possible. Government had, indeed, already acted upon the course which
Sir James Graham recommended; it had been desirous to adopt the scale
of 1797, and though that object had not been fully accomplished, yet,
looking at the extent of public business now, and in 1797, he thought
the house would see that salaries had been brought as near as possible
to the rate of the latter year. After demonstrating the truth of his
assertions by appealing to facts and figures, he said, that he trusted
the house would negative the motion, in which case, in order to show
that he was not desirous to get rid of the question, he would himself
move the following resolution:—“That whereas his majesty was
graciously pleased, in answer to an address of the house, to assure the
house on the 27th of June, 1821, that his majesty would cause an inquiry
to be made into all the departments of the civil government, with a view
of reducing the number of persons employed in the various offices,
and the amount of salaries paid: Resolved, that an humble address be
presented to his majesty, that his majesty might be graciously pleased
to lay before the house an account of the progress which had been made
in such inquiry, and of the measures that had been taken in consequence.
Also, that it was the opinion of that house, that in every establishment
of the state, every saving ought to be made, consistently with the due
performance of the public service, and without the violation of existing
engagements.” Sir James Graham thought this proposition of the secretary
of the treasury better than his own, and he therefore withdrew his
motion, and the house agreed to that of the minister.
This motion regarded the civil establishments only. On the 15th of
February, Mr. Hume proposed a similar resolution in regard to the
military and naval establishments, by moving an address to the crown,
recommending a repeal or modification of all taxes required for the
support of all the naval and military, as well as civil establishments,
in order to afford immediate and effective relief to the country. Mr.
Hume maintained that the scale at which the army and navy were kept up
was much greater than necessity required, or the country could bear; and
that they ought to be brought back as nearly as possible to what
they had been in 1792, when the whole cost of the civil and military
government was little more than one-fifth of the present cost. In his
speech, he treated of every possible topic connected with taxation
and expenditure. The taxes he proposed to reduce were numerous; and
he insisted that all the reductions he proposed were practicable,
if government would only apply the priming-knife to our overgrown
establishments. The chancellor of the exchequer declined following Mr.
Hume over the field in which he had expatiated, but he objected to
the motion as irregular and inexpedient. It was a motion, he
said, recommending a reduction of our civil, naval, and military
establishments, without waiting for the estimates of those
establishments which was to be laid before the house—without waiting
to see whether any and what reductions might be proposed in them by
ministers. How, he asked, would parliament determine the amount or
practicability of any reduction, till it had inquired into the necessity
and general bearing of the several branches of the expenditure? And how
could that inquiry be instituted before ministers had laid before the
house the responsible official statement of the amount of the several
estimates for the year, so as to enable the house to decide upon the
economy or extravagance observed in the management of the public money?
He objected to the motion, therefore, as a departure from the usual
practice of parliament. It was opposed by Messrs. Western and Grant, on
the ground that it would be better for ministers first to produce their
plan, and then to deal with it as the house might think fit. The house
was already pledged to the full extent of this motion, which was,
generally to reduce expenditure, and the next step ought to be to point
out in what particular manner the reduction ought to be made.
Lord Althorp said, that he felt every confidence in the economical
disposition of ministers; but still it was desirable that the house
should express its opinion that the taxes ought to be reduced in
proportion to the reductions in the expenditure, although he did not
conceive it possible that the taxes ought to be reduced to the extent
proposed by Mr. Hume: his duty was to vote, therefore, for the
motion. On a division, however, the motion was lost by one hundred and
eighty-nine to sixty-nine.
MOTION FOR REVISING THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF TAXATION.
On the 25th of March Mr. Poulett Thompson moved the appointment of a
committee to revise the whole system of our taxation. His object,
he said, was to examine the incidents of our great taxation; for all
authorities of any weight were agreed that revenue did not depend merely
on the amount of what actually passed into the exchequer, but on the
manner in which it was derived from the people. Mr. Poulett Thompson
wished the house in the first place to consider the taxes which affected
raw materials; and whether a reduction was not practicable without any
diminution of revenue. He then passed in review certain very productive
taxes, as those on tea, tobacco, foreign spirits, French wines, &c., the
rate of which, he thought, might safely be lowered without any permanent
detriment to the revenue. In conclusion, he said, that his wish was to
give ministers a power which they could not exercise effectually without
a committee. The alterations which he had in view, might produce a
deficiency of revenue in the first stages of their operations, but
ministers, supported by a committee fairly and impartially selected,
might ask of parliament a vote of credit for all that would be necessary
to fill up that deficiency with a much greater certainty of obtaining
it, than they would have by acting upon their Own responsibility. The
chancellor of the exchequer said, that there could be only one opinion
as to the principle on which the motion was founded; namely, the
expediency of raising the money required for the public service, in the
way least injurious to the sources of public wealth; but he could not
accede to the motion founded on this truism, consistently with the
interests of the country, or the character of his majesty’s government.
The wish to relieve the public burthens was not the only guide to be
followed in a question like this; regard was likewise due to the faith
and honour of the country. Some of the taxes might be open to the
objections urged against them; but such as they were we had mortgaged
them to the public creditor; and it I was an imperative duty, not so
to modify them as to shake the basis of his security, and weaken
the strength of public credit. Great inconvenience would arise from
consigning to the consideration of a committee all the various topics
to which the honourable member had referred; and from calling upon the
members of it to pronounce on the amount of our taxation; to decide how
far it admitted of repeal or modification; and to declare how far, in
their opinion, ultimate compensation might be made for any loss which
might accrue from such loss or modification. The motion was supported by
Lord Althorp, Sir Henry Parnell, and Messrs. Bankes and Warburton, who
argued that it was difficult to conceive why the committee should be
refused after the appointment of the late finance committee. If that
committee had proceeded with its labours another year, it would have
been occupied with the very matters which it was now proposed to submit
to consideration. Lord Althorp said that, in his opinion, it would be
a good plan to grant relief to the productive classes by a reduction
of taxation, and the imposition of a property-tax. Mr. Peel protested
against the appointment of a committee which, he contended, was to
be neither less nor more than a delegation of the powers of the whole
house, and of the government likewise, to twenty-one members. The house,
he said, had been found sufficient in former times for the management of
the taxes, and he saw no reason why it should now resign its power. On
the other hand, Mr. Huskisson maintained that there was nothing unusual
in referring questions of taxation to a committee. The salt-duty and the
tax on leather had been referred to committees; and in these cases there
had neither been alarms in the public mind, nor change of government,
nor loss of confidence in his majesty’s ministers. If the house could
not refer such subjects to a committee without endangering the safety
of the country, he thought that it had better give up inquisition
altogether. He did not, indeed, expect any further reduction of taxation
during the present session from the labours of this committee; but
still the inquiry would do good. On a division the motion was lost by a
majority of one hundred and sixty-seven against seventy-eight.
COMMITTEE ON THE EAST INDIA COMPANY’S CHARTER.
{GEORGE IV. 1830—1831}
At this period it was the public opinion that the monopoly of the
East India Company imposed a mischievous restraint on the trade of the
country, without any reasonable cause or counterbalancing advantage. One
large portion of the community, indeed, wished to have the renewal
of their charter refused _in toto_ to any extent, or under any
modification; while another professed themselves willing to be satisfied
with reducing the company to the level of ordinary merchants in matters
of trade, leaving them in the possession of their widely-extended
territories. In this conflicting state of opinion government had
determined not to take the responsibility of proposing any measure of
its own; but had promised that in the present session a committee
should be appointed to make the inquiries which ought to precede any
arrangement affecting interests so varied and important. The appointment
of this committee was moved in both houses on the 9th of February; in
the upper house by Lord Ellenborough, and in the commons by Mr. Peel. In
making this proposition, the latter said, that he had no plan to submit
for the future government of India; no opinion of ministers to state as
to the renewal or modification of the charter. He proposed the committee
that the question in all its bearings might be examined; but the details
should be left for future consideration, when that committee should have
formed its opinion. He proposed it, he continued, with the plain and
honest view of having a full, perfect, and unreserved investigation into
the affairs of the East India Company. The house, he said, would feel
the importance of such an inquiry. It would bear in mind that higher
objects were involved than the mere extension of trade. They would
have to consider the whole character of the government, ruling over
an immense extent of territory, wielding a powerful force, and
administering an ample revenue. They were bound to consider the various
modes in which that government affected the people over whom it ruled,
and how far any alteration might affect the influence of the crown. The
present form of government extended over many millions of people, and
it had existed for a great number of years. Whether another form of
government might be devised from which equal benefits would flow, he was
not prepared to say; but sufficient was known of the present system to
induce them to pause before they rashly interfered with it. As regards
the company’s commercial concerns, the documents which would be
presented to the committee would contain full information on that
subject; and at present he would only say that a reference to these
returns would convince any unprejudiced mind that the sanguine
expectations of great benefits, which some supposed would arise from
throwing the trade entirely open, ought not to be entertained. The
most interesting objects involved in the inquiry were the welfare and
happiness of the Indian population placed under a government. He had
seen a census, which made our native subjects in India amount to ninety
millions. Looking at the extent of territory which in that country
belonged to Great Britain, the vast population there subject to our
sway, the great revolution by which they had come under our dominion,
the immense distance at which they were removed from our shores, and the
difference existing between the languages and usages of the natives and
ours, the mind was almost lost in amazement. Whatever might be the wish
of a British parliament to enlarge the rights and foster the interests
of British citizens, there could be but one feeling as to the moral
obligation which we had incurred to promote the improvement of these
distant subjects, so far as the feelings, the institutions, and the
prejudices of that country would allow. In the list of the committee
proposed by Mr. Peel there were the names of three or four East India
directors. Messrs. Hume and Baring objected to their being put on the
committee, although they expressed an opinion that they would not act
unfairly, and that there was a necessity of obtaining the information
which they possessed. Mr. Astell, one of the directors named, declared
that the company desired nothing more earnestly than the fullest
inquiry. What the directors complained of most, was the ignorance which
prevailed on this subject, and which, by deluding the country, was the
greatest enemy they had to contend with. He courted inquiry; for the
more the subject was investigated, the more likely would it be that the
directors would have justice done them. Let the committee obtain the
fullest evidence; let them examine all the documents that would be
brought before them; and then they would be able to decide whether
India could be better governed; whether justice could be more fairly
administered; and whether the happiness of the natives could be more
humanely consulted. He contended that the directors had done all they
could, and that they had never lost sight of the interests of their
country in the pursuit of their own. The committee was appointed as
proposed, retaining the members of the East India Company.
DEBATE ON A PROPOSAL TO ALTER THE CURRENCY.
During this session Mr. Attwood brought the subject of the currency
before the house, by proposing two resolutions; namely, to make silver
a legal tender as, he contended, it had been before the Bank Restriction
Act of 1797, and to restore small notes. This question underwent a full
discussion but the motion of a double standard seemed so objectionable,
and any scheme for depreciating the currency appeared pregnant with such
dangerous consequences, that the motion was withdrawn without dividing
the house. Several members, indeed, expressed an opinion that it was
far from being certain that the standard adopted was the best; but the
relief to be obtained by the double standard proposed was thought by
them to be neither so great, nor so certain, as to justify the making
of such an experiment. The motion was ably opposed by Mr. Herries, who
said, that the proposal to introduce the silver standard was almost
impracticable and unjust. The proposal was, in point of fact, to have
the two precious metals in circulation at certain fixed proportions; a
condition which rendered the execution of the scheme impossible. It was
well known that the proportion in which these two metals interchanged
now was different from the proportion which they held in 1798. The mover
himself had admitted, indeed, that the difference was five per cent.
It might not be quite so much, but assuming it to be so, to what did
it lead? It made the proposed resolution a recommendation to the
legislature to declare gold and silver equally a legal tender, although
there was a difference of five per cent, in their relative values. What
would this be, he asked, in practice? Every debtor, it was said, who had
money to pay would be enabled to discharge his debt with five per cent,
less than he was bound to pay at present; and no doubt, he would, if the
opportunity was given to him. Suppose then that the resolutions should
be agreed to; what would be the result? It would be proclaimed from one
end of the country to the other that this house had come to a resolution
the effect of which might be shortly stated thus:—namely, that every
man who had claims payable on demand, every man who held notes of
small or great value, every man who had outstanding debts, would, if he
secured the amount of what was due to him before this resolution passed
into a law, get the whole of his money; whereas, if he delayed beyond
that period, he would only get ninety-five for every hundred pounds.
What, he asked, would become of the Bank of England, or of every
banking house in the kingdom, or of all debtors who were liable to pay
upon demand all that they owed? Would not all transactions of commerce
be suspended, and the whole country present one scene of confusion, and
consternation, and ruin, when the house of commons proclaimed to all who
had debts due to them, that if they did not collect them on the instant,
they would assuredly be losers to the amount of five per cent.? Mr.
Herries also contended that the alleged justice of the proposition was
fallacious. Its justice was made to rest on this—that it was only fair
to give the debtor the power of paying as he might have done in 1798;
and it had been assumed, that up to that time men could discharge their
debts in gold or silver, as they pleased. It was a great mistake, he
argued, to suppose that silver had been the standard of this country
throughout the last century. It had only been a legal tender by weight,
but then it had become so depreciated, that, practically, there was
no such thing as tender by weight, while by law the tender in coin was
limited to twenty-five pounds; so that it was clear that in 1798 silver
could not be the standard. He concluded by saying, that if a regulation
could be made that a creditor should be obliged to take half his debt in
one standard, at the will of the debtor, and that the debtor should
not be obliged to pay more than half in one, and half in the other, it
might, perhaps, be practicable to have the two; but he did not see how,
otherwise, the two could exist together.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—BILL FOR REPEALING THE DUTY ON BEER, ETC.
On the 15th of March the chancellor of the exchequer produced his annual
exposition of the finances, and of the financial measures to be
adopted in raising the expenditure of the present year. His statements
presented no remarkable features except the repeal of the beer, cider,
and leather duties. By this measure ministers desired to show their
wish of alleviating the pressure of taxation on the lower classes. With
reference to the extent of the repeal, the chancellor of the exchequer
said, that “the amount of the three duties which I thus propose to
repeal will be, on freer, £3,000,000, on leather from £340,000 to
£350,000, and on cider, £25,000. These reductions will give direct
relief to the people, amounting, at least, to £3,400,000., and will give
them relief indirectly to a further amount; so that in fact the
whole relief cannot be estimated at less than £5,000,000 a year.” The
remission of duty on beer was proposed to take place on the 10th of
October following, and the reason given for such delay was, that the
repeal should take place conjointly with an opening of the trade, when
the time arrived for renewing the licences of public-houses. There can
be no doubt that the measure proceeded from excellent motives; but it
is certain that by encouraging the increase of public-houses to an
indefinite extent, immorality and crime had been introduced into every
nook and corner of the land. The picture which the poet Cowper drew of
the evils of public-houses in his day have been increased a hundredfold
by such a measure so that it is literally true, that,
“Pass where’er we may, through city or through town,
Village or hamlet of this merry land,
Though lean and beggar’d, every twentieth face,
Conducts th’ unguarded nose to such a whiff
Of state debauch, forth issuing from the sties
That law has licensed, as makes temperance rec.”
It is probable that this measure has occasioned more evil than any act
passed during the whole period to which this portion of the history of
England refers. Yet there can be no question that ministers conceived
that they were legislating for the poor man’s comfort; experience,
however, has proved that it was for the poor man’s bane. After stating
the intention of ministers on this subject, the chancellor of the
exchequer next gave his estimate of the revenue of the present year.
The demands of the public service, including the charge of the national
debt, were £47,812,000, and the available income was estimated at
£50,470,000, leaving a probable balance of about £2,500,000 only for
the sinking-fund. In the revenue of last year a deficiency of more than
£500,000 below the estimate was acknowledged; but at the same time a
clear surplus of £4,000,000 had been applied to the redemption of the
national debt. To compensate for the loss of revenue from the repeal of
the above duties, it was proposed to consolidate all the laws relative
to the stamp-duties, for placing the management of the whole of that
branch of the revenue under the stamp-office in England, and make
similar articles everywhere subject to the same duties. It was also
proposed to levy an additional duty on spirits; and also to effect a
yearly saving of about £800,000 by the conversion of four per cent,
stock into three and a half. These measures were subsequently carried
into effect. The chancellor of the exchequer finally held out hopes of a
reduction in the amount of expenditure, by the consolidation of various
departments of the public service: this he said was likely hereafter to
place at the disposal of the government a great surplus revenue which
would enable ministers to make a further repeal of taxes. The principal
reduction promised by government this year, that of the beer-duty, was
not carried without great opposition. Brewers and publicans alike were
arrayed against it, as it would break up their monopoly. The latter
complained loudly of the deterioration to which the capital invested by
them in the trade would be exposed, since every man who could pay two
guineas might take out a licence. The landed interest, likewise, was
against this measure: agriculturists wishing rather to see the duty
on malt than beer repealed. They spoke much of its deficiencies in
not providing any system of control, to secure the proper conduct of
publicans, such as existed under the present licensing system. It
would convert England they said, and with much truth, into one
huge tippling-house, spreading throughout the country universal
demoralization. An attempt was made on the second reading to throw out
the bill, by a motion that it should be read a second time that day six
months. This failed; but in the committee a stronger effort was made in
favour of a clause proposed by Mr. Monck, to the effect of permitting
the brewer to sell his beer on premises different from those on which it
had been brewed. It was contended that this was only an enlargement of
the former permission to sell beer on the premises on which it had been
brewed; and that it would not injure the object sought by the bill in
so far as protection against monopoly was concerned, while it would be
beneficial to the interests of the existing dealers, whose interests
ought not to be neglected. On the other hand, the clause was opposed as
inconsistent with the principle of the bill. The effect of it would
be, it was said, to prevent competition, and the public, instead of
receiving an improved commodity, would remain as they were. When the
committee divided, the proposed clause was rejected by a majority of
only twenty-five. Opposition renewed their efforts against the bill
on its third reading, when Mr. Batley moved a clause, to the effect
of enforcing the statute of James I., against the odious crime of
drunkenness. Mr. Brougham in opposing this motion said, that he was
one of those who thought the general interests of morality were better
consulted by permitting such clauses to slumber in the cells of the
statute-book than by having them enforced. He asked, What was the
real meaning of the statute of James I. It was that a penalty should be
inflicted on any person who committed the odious and ungodly crime of
drunkenness, from any liquor, except claret or champagne. If morality
was to be enforced by act of parliament, let the law be impartial, and
not punish the poor and illiterate for a crime in which the rich might
indulge with impunity. He would like to see the justice of the peace, or
magistrate, who would fine a knight of the shire, or independent member
of an independent borough, who in the morning might possibly be brought
before him in a state presenting a good imitation of the odious and
ungodly crime of drunkenness, which called down the wrath of the moral
legislators of the age of King James. Sir Robert Inglis having reminded
Mr. Brougham that a higher authority than that of James I. had denounced
drunkenness, and that if he himself were found in the street in a state
of inebriety, no magistrate performing his duty would fail to punish
him, Mr. Brougham replied, that he had not the good fortune to be
educated at the university represented by the baronet. It was, indeed,
well replied by Dr. Johnson to a lady who inquired of him to which
university she should send her son: “Why madam, I can only say, that
there is an equal quantity of port drunk at each.” He was perfectly
aware that a higher authority than King James had denounced drunkenness,
but the difference was, that that high authority made no distinction
of persons, whereas the act of James did. Could the right honourable
baronet point out one instance of a member of parliament having been
punished for drunkenness? Sir Robert repeated, that if Mr. Brougham
would go into the street drunk, he would soon meet with due punishment;
he replied, that it would be grossly unfair, inasmuch as there were
thousands of gentlemen in the same situation never noticed. This was an
unanswerable argument, and the subject was dropped.
THE QUESTION OF REFORM.
It has been seen that the Marquis of Blandford moved resolutions
pledging the house forthwith to employ themselves in the work of reform,
as an amendment to the address. On the 18th of February he brought
forward a more specific plan. The house of commons, he argued, had
ceased to be framed as the essential principles and earlier practice
of the constitution required; a circumstance which had arisen from
represented places falling into decay, on the one hand, while, on the
other, wealthy and populous towns, which had sprung up in the meantime,
were unrepresented. His object was, he said, to restore the principles
of representation as they had been established in the days of Henry III.
and the three Edwards. For this purpose he proposed that a committee
should be chosen by ballot, to take a review of all boroughs and cities
in the kingdom, and report to the secretary of the home department those
among them which had fallen into decay, or had in any manner forfeited
their right to representation on the principles of the English
constitution, as anciently recognized by national and parliamentary
usage. The home-secretary was bound to act immediately on this report,
and to relieve all such places from the burthen of sending members to
parliament in future, while he filled up the vacancies by towns which
had been hitherto unrepresented. Another part of his plan was to
revive the custom of paying wages to members for their attendance in
parliament; a provision which he thought would prevent abuses. He
also proposed to extend the right of voting to all copyholders and
leaseholders, and to place the representation of Scotland on the same
footing with that of England. He concluded, by moving, to bring in a
bill to restore the constitutional influence of the house of commons.
This motion was supported by Sir Francis Burdett, and by Messrs.
Pendarvis, Benett, and Hobhouse, with others of the school of reformers.
Sir Francis Burdett said, that he could not comprehend all the details
of the propositions; but he understood it to be a question of reform,
and, therefore, he would support it. He admitted that the house was
composed of men of as enlightened understandings, and as addicted to the
English principles of freedom, as could be found collected in any nation
of the world; but he asserted that they were returned to the house under
an influence which rendered them incapable of exerting the faculties
of their minds, and injurious to the country. He remarked:—“Look at
myself, I have gone through the whole process under the present system
of representation, and a most ruinous one it has been. Early in life, I
came into this house in order to defend the constitution of England; I
purchased my seat of a borough-monger. He was no patron of mine; he took
my money, and by purchase I obtained a right to speak in the most public
place in England, With my views, and with my love of the liberty of
my country, I did not grudge the sacrifice I made for that commanding
consideration. If I had abused the right I had thus purchased, and
passed through corruption to the honours of the peerage, I should not
enjoy the satisfaction I now feel.” He had also tried, he said, the
county system. He stood for a county, though he would not have given
twopence for the representation of that county, his object having been
to expose the abominable system, and the oppressive tyranny of solitary
confinement in England. He had also gone through the remedial operation
as it was called, of the Grenville act, so that, as he had sounded all
the shoals and shallows of the system, it was not wonderful he should
be a great advocate for an alteration. The question was this: ought the
house to be an assembly of retainers of the crown, or of representatives
of the people of England. The bill was opposed by Messrs. Feel, Twiss,
Maberly, and Stanley. Mr. Twiss said, that a scheme had never been
produced so happily calculated to ridicule parliamentary reform,
although it was of course far from the intention of the noble lord by
whom it had been introduced. Mr. Peel also amused the house with remarks
on the title of the bill, and said that he would never be a party to a
wholesale depreciation of the elective franchise, or assent even to the
first stage of the bill, which devolved on a ballotted committee the
power of destroying all boroughs which they might think ought not
to send members. Lord Althorp moved as an amendment, “That it is the
opinion of this house, that a reform in the representation of the people
is necessary,” should be substituted for the motion, for leave to bring
in a bill; but both the amendment and the original motion were negatived
without a division.
THE CASE OF EAST RETFORD.
During this session the proposal for transferring the franchise of
East Retford to Birmingham was ultimately rejected, and the privilege
extended to the adjoining hundred. During the debate Mr. Peel expressly
disclaimed the imputation which had been thrown out, that this selection
had been made with a view to increase the influence of the Duke of
Newcastle, whom the Catholic relief bill had now thrown into the ranks
of opposition. There were circumstances in the case of East Retford
which should induce parliament to extend the franchise to the adjoining
hundred. One element in the case which weighed with him, was the
consideration that the county of Nottingham sent only eight members to
parliament; and he saw no good reason why that number should be reduced.
Lord Howick declared, that though he would vote for the transfer of the
franchise to Birmingham, he thought it useless to inflict punishment
in individual instances, when it was notorious that a large majority of
members obtained their seats by venal means. The proper remedy would
be to adopt a general measure; and he, therefore, moved the following
resolutions:—“That bribery has been repeatedly and habitually employed
to influence the election of members of parliament. That this fact has
been often established, never denied, and was especially proved at the
bar of this house in the first session of the present parliament, in the
cases of Penryn and East Retford. That it is notorious that a similar
practice is openly resorted to in many of the cities and boroughs of the
United Kingdom. That the recent disfranchisement of Grampound does not
appear to have in any degree diminished the prevalence of this evil.
That this house, therefore, finding that the passing of specific
bills directed against particular cases, has neither had the effect of
removing the existence, or arresting the progress of corruption, is of
opinion that its character may best be vindicated by abandoning these
useless and expensive proceedings, in order to adopt some general
and comprehensive measure, the only means of effectually checking
so scandalous an abuse.” These resolutions were negatived by a large
majority.
MR. O’CONNELL’S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE, ETC.
On the third reading of the East Retford bill, the first attempt was
made in the British parliament to introduce principles new to the
representation of the country: namely, that the votes of the electors
should be given by ballot. This proposition came from that most reckless
of all demagogues; that prototype of the Athenian Cleon, Mr. O’Connell,
who argued that the ballot would protect the voter from all undue
influence, whether of fear or corruption. On the other hand, it
was argued that the mode of taking votes by ballot would preclude
representatives confronting their constituents; but it was not till
after nomination, and the demand of a poll, that the ballot would
commence; so that this mode would not take away from constituents the
power they now enjoyed of requiring explanations of past conduct, and
pledges for the future. The motion, which was lost, had been favoured
by certain occurrences at Newark, which were brought before the house of
commons on the 1st of March, on a petition from some of the electors of
that borough against the Duke of Newcastle. His grace was possessed of
large property within the borough—some private, and some held under a
crown lease—and had always been able to decide the election. Mr. Sadler
had recently been returned on his interest in opposition to Sergeant
Wylde; and the petition stated that “the return of Mr. Sadler was
obtained by means of the prevailing belief, founded on the experience of
former elections, that such of the duke’s tenants as should vote against
his grace’s nominee would be expelled from their tenancies; that many
of the tenants gave their votes to the opposing candidate; and that they
had in consequence received notice to quit their holdings, whether the
same was house or land, and whether it constituted part of the estate of
the crown, or the private property of his grace.” The petition further
stated, that his grace had neither denied that such notices had been
given, nor had disclaimed them; but had rather justified them, by
stating that he had a right “to do what he would with his own.” In
moving that this petition should be referred to a select committee, Mr.
Poulett Thomson informed the house, that not only the use thus made
of crown property affected the constitutional character of the
representation, but that its original investment was a ministerial job,
which had caused a great pecuniary loss to the country. The Duke of
Newcastle, he said, held about nine hundred and sixty acres of land
surrounding the town, by a lease, granted in 1760, at a rent of
only £36. This lease had been renewed in 1815, nine years after its
expiration, at a rent of £2,060; but it was still too low, as the
estimated value was £3,500. The pecuniary loss was therefore well worthy
of attention: but this was a trifle compared to the political purposes
to which the property had been applied. The noble lessee never gave
a lease for more than one year, in order to keep the voters under his
power; and the petition stated the manner in which this power had
been employed. If the allegations were true, the house was bound to
interfere; for though he did not mean to impugn the just and natural
influence of the landlord over his tenant, he appealed to the house
whether the power arrogated in the case before them did not rather
resemble the tyranny of the slave-driver, than the proper influence of
a British landlord. There was not even, in the present instance, the
objection of interference with the rights of private property; this was
a species of property against the future abuse of which the house might
guard, though they could not interfere with the existing lease. They
could address the crown, praying that the lease should not be renewed;
and, with a view to have the allegations sifted, he moved that the
petition be referred to a select committee. This motion was supported
by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Hobhouse, who set no bounds to their
indignation. The latter especially exerted his eloquence on the subject.
He remarked:—“Suppose the king’s government should send to his grace
the Duke of Newcastle, to let him know that when his lease expired
he should no longer have the benefits of that lease; suppose such
an intimation was given to his grace, and that it was alleged and
understood that his ejectment from the possession of this property took
place in consequence of his having given a vote against government upon
some great and leading question. If that were done, would it not be
denounced as an attack upon our dearest privileges, as an invasion of
the most sacred birthright of Englishmen: the liberty to assert and
maintain their opinions? Compare the conduct of the government in such a
case, with the conduct of the noble peer in the present instance:
there were these poor men, because they had to vote against his grace’s
candidate, banished from their homes, driven from their happy firesides,
and deprived of all the comforts of life. Could such conduct on the
part of the noble duke bear comparison with the case of the government
depriving the noble duke of these crown-lands on account of his giving
a vote against them?” It was stated on the other hand, that many of
the allegations in the petition were gross perversions of fact. The
crown-lands, for instance, were not in the immediate neighbourhood of
the town, but were scattered about among the adjacent villages to a
considerable extent; and the crown at the renewal of the lease had
only twelve houses and twenty-six cottages. There were others in the
neighbourhood who held land to a much greater extent than that belonging
to the crown. Mr. Sadler himself said that the petition was a mere
election paper, made up of wanton exaggerations, and unfounded
misstatements, for electioneering purposes. He also vindicated his
patron’s character for humanity and consideration, as regarded the
inhabitants of Newark. He denied that he was exposed to the operation
of any sinister influence, and could conscientiously say, that the noble
duke had left him on all questions to pursue his own line of conduct.
Mr. Peel defended the principle of the whole transaction, as well as the
mode by which the land in question had been acquired. He could see no
valid distinction between this property and that which descended to a
man as a freehold from his ancestors. He remarked:—“The lease which his
grace possessed of this crown-land gave him a right to deal with it
as any other possessions during that period; and in dealing with the
property of the crown as with his own, it was obvious that he committed
no breach of privilege. Now the petitioners entirely confined themselves
to the crown possessions held by the noble duke, praying that a lease of
them might in future be refused to him. They did not even refer to his
other property, with regard to which he had dealt precisely in the same
manner. It was plain therefore that if, in the management of his own
private possessions, he had committed no breach of privilege, he had
committed none by dealings in a similar manner with the property of the
crown. He would not say that the Duke of Newcastle did not dispossess
these tenants; but, without entering into the question, he would say
that superior to the privileges of that house were other considerations,
to which they were bound in duty and conscience to defer, namely,
the rights of property. Here was no allegation that menaces had
been employed; there was only the fact that seven tenants had been
dispossessed. Now, if they were to control the rights of property,
under the idea that those rights had been exercised in controlling
an election, a precedent would be set which would be not merely
inconvenient, but positively dangerous; for nothing could be more
dangerous than to say, they would not suffer any tenant to be
dispossessed who had voted in opposition to his landlord’s wishes. It
was in vain that honourable gentlemen exclaimed against the influence
which any peer derived from the possession of property: there was no
difference between that, and the influence which any other great
landed proprietor enjoyed; nor could any species of reform exclude such
influence. Property, he contended, should always have an influence
in that house, no matter whether it was in the hands of peers or
commoners.” The motion for referring the petition to a select committee
was negatived by a majority of one hundred and ninety-four against
sixty-one.
MR. O’CONNELL’S BILL FOR REFORM BY UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE AND VOTE BY
BALLOT, ETC.
Of all the various plans for altering the representation, whether
suggested by an honest desire to obviate the necessity of sweeping
innovations, or springing from the designs of restless demagogues, there
were none against which so little could be said as the proposition for
conferring the elective franchise on populous commercial towns. When,
therefore, Lord John Russell failed in transferring the elective
franchise of East Retford to Birmingham, he did not hesitate to bring
the subject before parliament again, by moving for a bill to confer
that privilege, independently of all other considerations, on Leeds,
Birmingham, and Manchester. He founded the constitutional nature of the
proposed alteration on the known practice of parliament, which extended
such rights to unrepresented places, when they had acquired importance
by their wealth and population. He remarked:—“It is true the proposal
hitherto had been, that the franchise should not be conferred till the
house had a forfeiture to dispose of; but it is now plain that if
the towns in question are to wait for such a transfer, there is no
probability of their obtaining it: so numerous are the difficulties
stated in both houses of parliament.” His lordship said that it did
not seem very reasonable that the fitness of Leeds or Manchester to be
represented should be said to depend on the good or bad conduct of
the electors of Penryn or East Retford: their claims must rest on
circumstances in their own situation; and if that situation was such as
to render it just and desirable that they should be represented, where,
he asked, was the sense of saying, that what was just and reasonable
ought not to be done, because the electors of some other place had
refused to do what was wicked? Lord John Russell then entered into
various details demonstrative of the growing greatness of the towns in
question. In continuation he remarked that he could not discover any
sound reason why so many citizens, and so much wealth, should remain
unrepresented, when the principle as well as the practice of the
constitution, had pointed out the manner of admitting them into
parliament. He knew it would be said that there was no limitation to
the principles that if it was held good to admit three towns, it might
equally be extended to twenty, thirty, forty, or even indefinitely. He
confessed this; and he saw no reason why, if Sheffield, or any other
town should at some future period attain the same rank, it should
not obtain the same privilege. It was not probable, however, that the
principle could ever be applied to more than four or five towns in the
whole realm. Parliament, moreover, had not always been so fastidious
in regard to the extension of a principle. It had not refused, for
instance, the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. But
the present bill would not even add permanently to the members of
the house; he proposed that in future cases of disfranchisement,
the franchise should be allowed to drop altogether, instead of being
transferred. The whole measure seemed to him incapable of alarming the
most timid person, and it ought to be received with willingness by the
sternest opposers of innovation. When he looked at other countries, the
wisdom and policy of the measure was still more imperiously forced on
his conviction. We could not shut our eyes to the fact that a collision
between royal authority and popular resistance was rapidly approaching
in France, though all must regret that some compromise was not
contemplated which might save society from its consequences. It was for
us, then, to profit by the warning, and awaken in time to a perception
of the nice mechanism of our own representative government. It behoved
all who were lovers of liberty without disorder, and of peace without
slavery, to watch anxiously at such a period; endeavouring so to
accommodate our system to altered times and circumstances, as to render
it worthy of the respect and affection of the people. The constitution
itself supplied us with the means; we had only to use its own renovating
principles. Its fabric was not, as some supposed, that of a Grecian
temple, perfect and complete in all its parts, which could not suffer
alteration without the destruction of its symmetry; it was rather like
a Gothic building, susceptible of enlargement, consistently with the
integrity of its ornaments and the security of its duration. The views
on which this bill was founded were repeated and enforced by Lord
Sandon, General Gascoyne, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Huskisson, Bright,
and Brougham. All of these members did not go to the same lengths as
Lord John Russell, but all admitted that it was desirable the towns in
question should be represented. Some would give them members only as a
sequel of the disfranchisement of corrupt boroughs. Mr. Huskisson, who
delivered his last speech on parliamentary reform, said that he would
have been better pleased to have been able directly to transfer the
franchise of East Retford to Birmingham; but as the late decision of the
house had rendered that impracticable, he would support the motion.
He observed that the time was fast approaching when ministers would
be compelled to come down to the house with some measure, or to resign
their situations, and nothing was more unwise than for a government to
delay important propositions, till compelled by overwhelming majorities.
He did not wish it to be understood, however, that his vote implied he
could ever be brought to sanction the substitution of a new system of
representation for that which existed. He added:—“To a more extensive
parliamentary reform, a measure founded upon the principle of a general
revision, reconstruction, and remodelling of our present constitution, I
have always been opposed; and while I have a seat in this house I shall
give it my most decided opposition. If such an extensive reform were
effected, we might go on for two or three sessions in good and easy
times, and such a reformed parliament might adapt itself to one mode
of government on the ordinary concerns of the country; but if such an
extensive change were effected in the constitution of parliament, sure I
am that, whenever an occasion shall arise of great popular excitement
or reaction, the consequence will be a total subversion of our
constitution, followed by anarchy and confusion, and terminating either
in the tyranny of a fierce democracy, or a military despotism; these two
great calamities maintaining that natural order of succession which they
have been always hitherto seen to observe. I am, therefore, opposed to
such an extensive change and revision of our representative system.” The
motion for leave to bring in the bill was negatived by a majority of one
hundred and eighty against forty.
If this bill was the most harmless modification under which reform could
be proposed, that which was subsequently brought before parliament by
Mr. O’Connell was, on the other hand, the most wild and ruinous. That
arch-demagogue moved for leave to bring in a bill to establish triennial
parliaments, universal suffrage, and vote by ballot, the foundation of
this system being this proposition—simple indeed in its nature, but
tending to anarchy—that every man who pays a tax, or is liable to serve
in the militia, is entitled to have a voice in the representation.
Lord John Russell, who took occasion of the motion to introduce certain
resolutions of his own, embracing a more comprehensive scheme of change
than his former proposal, said, that he could not consent to any of
Mr. O’Connell’s scheme. Triennial parliaments might not be very
objectionable; but as to the other propositions, he considered them
totally incompatible with the constitution of England. Lord Althorp
spoke to the same effect: as any change was an evil, he said, the least
change was the limit to which he should go. Mr. Brougham adopted the
same course: the duration of parliaments might be shortened, he thought,
but he set his face against universal suffrage and vote by ballot.
His arguments against them were very cogent and convincing. A county
election, he said, could not be managed like an election at a club,
where the box was handed round, and the pellet thrown in, and there was
an end of it. To contest for a county or extensive city, a man must
be constantly among the people. His friends and himself should be
unremittingly engaged in active canvas; committees and subdivisions of
committees must be occupied in parcelling out the several districts,
and ascertaining how their strength stood in this part and the other;
landlords were to be sought out, and they of course would exercise an
influence over their tenants. He would suppose that those who advocated
this system would be able to devise some plan by which the voter was
to be able to vote in such a manner as that mortal could not discover,
except from himself, how he voted; that he was to be placed in some
kind of sentry-box, and provided with some kind of stamped pellet, the
forgery of which would no doubt be made an offence: it being assumed all
this while that notwithstanding promises made to his landlord, and the
candidate, his friend, the elector intended to give his vote to another.
The vote was given, and against a promise. Well, he went afterwards
to the candidate, congratulated him upon his prospect of success, not
failing to add, that his vote was one of the items which contributed
to the prospect. But then see the moral; see how far the concealment of
what was done could be continued; how far the knowledge of it could be
kept from the landlord, to secure whose interest in retaining him in
his farm he had made the promise. No one could see what passed in the
sentry-box, or how the pellet was disposed of; but were there no such
things as conversation amongst friends in going to or coming from
church, or at the club, or at the alehouse? was nothing of the nature of
the vote to be allowed to transpire? was a man to keep such a watch
and guard over his words and actions for three years, until the next
election come, that no mortal could discover what he did? He must not
tell it to his wife or his child; he must keep it locked up from his
bosom friend; he must not broach it to his pot-companion, but be as dumb
as the tankard which they had emptied between them; and this state of
silence must be observed for three years. Thus far for the elector: how
far was the concealment to be operated upon by the candidate? He had
found out that he was unsuccessful; that where he had been promised five
hundred votes he had not got fifty, the seed giving back one for ten,
instead of yielding ten for one, as a good husbandman had a right to
expect. Inquiries will be set on foot as to where the deficiency was. It
might be a mistake of the poll-clerks: the poll-books were examined
and all was right still. Then the Lord Johns and Sir Roberts, who had
promised their interests, were questioned; but they insisted that it
could not be amongst their tenants, for they had all promised, and
had all, no doubt, religiously kept their words. Each defended his own
tallies; but one had not voted for every tally promised. Suspicions were
excited, and some of the voters questioned. The man so questioned had
only one of three answers to give: he must say that he voted against the
candidate, by which he was sure to lose his farm; or he must refuse
to say how he voted, by which his loss of the farm would be equally
certain; or he must insist and solemnly call God to witness that he had
voted as he had promised. But even this latter alternative would not
completely lull suspicions: there would still be the watchings and
questionings of friends, and of agents, for no act that could be framed
could prevent these. In the course of these something would turn up to
fix the suspicions on which bad landlords would be ready to act against
their tenants; and it was on the assumption of bad landlords, who would
visit the refusal to vote for them or their tenants, that the necessity
of vote by ballot was at all defended. The bad landlord would act upon
suspicion: the more so, as, there being only fifty votes where five
hundred had been promised, the chance was ten to one that any one of
the five hundred who said he kept his word, was stating a falsehood.
Examples would then be made of a few: and what would be the result? Why,
that at the election a vast number would not vote at all. Some even of
those who had kept their word would take that as the surest way to prove
that they were not in the pay of the opposite party. The landlord would
compel others, whom he strongly suspected, not to vote, as the only way
of preventing their accession to the other side; or he might persuade
some of those who, he knew, if they voted at all, would vote against
him, to pair off with those whom he suspected, and thus deprive his
adversary of the whole. But was there no other way of coming at the fact
of how a voter had kept his word? If, in voting against his promise, he
acted for his principles, he would be likely to make it known for the
sake of those principles; if from friendship, he would probably tell
it to gratify his friend; or if he gave it from motives of interest,
nothing was less likely than that he should conceal it, for the
attainment of the object would render the disclosure useful; and in this
way the secret would come out, and the offended landlord at last get at
it, and the visitation upon him, which the vote by ballot was intended
to avert, would follow. But was this the only evil which resulted from
this system? Was there not a far worse remaining behind? Did not all
this study and concealment of a solemn promise violated; this long
watching and guard over a man’s words and actions, so as constantly
to appear that which he was not, tend to make him lead the life of a
hypocrite; that character of whom it was so justly and eloquently said,
that his life was one continued lie! What could be expected from a man
who had deceived those who had trusted him, and from one election to
the other was obliged to keep a constant watch on his words, lest, in
an unguarded moment, he should betray his secret, the discovery of
which would not be more injurious to his interests than fatal to his
character? What must be the opinions of those who could believe that a
man, who was for years, nay, even for months or weeks, habitually false
on one subject which was dear to him, could be true on all others? Such
an opinion was founded in utter ignorance of the human mind: false
such a man was, and false he must be, until human nature became totally
changed, or until men’s opinions of each other were totally subverted.
Thus the ballot would have but little efficiency, and that little would
be purchased at a great price. Mr. O’Connell’s motion was lost by
a majority of three hundred and nineteen against thirteen; and the
resolutions moved by Lord John Russell were afterwards negatived by
two hundred and thirteen against one hundred and seventeen. These
resolutions proposed to give members to large and manufacturing towns,
and additional members to counties of great wealth and population. They
also proposed to decrease the numbers of members for boroughs, giving to
such boroughs compensation by means of a fixed sum to be paid annually
for a certain number of years. Among the towns which were proposed to
be comprehended were Macclesfield, Stockport, Cheltenham, Birmingham,
Brighton, Whitehaven, Wolverhampton, Sunderland, Manchester, Bury,
Bolton, Dudley, Leeds, Halifax, Sheffield, North and South Shields, and
it was stated that the same principle would extend to the representation
of such large cities as Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Belfast. But the
time was not yet come when such an extensive reform as this could be
entertained in the British parliament.
BILL FOR REMOVING THE CIVIL DISABILITIES AFFECTING JEWS.
{GEORGE IV. 1830—1831}
The only other measure affecting the constitution of the legislative
body during this session was proposed by Mr. Grant, who moved for leave
to bring in a bill to repeal the civil disabilities affecting British
born subjects professing the Jewish religion. In support of this
motion Mr. Grant narrated to the house the treatment which the Jews had
received from the conquest down to the last century, when the act for
naturalizing foreign Jews was repealed within a few months after it was
passed, in consequence of the commotions excited by the measure. From
that time, he said, nothing had been done respecting: the Jews; they had
derived no benefit from the growing liberality of legislation; and
were alone still placed beyond the pale of the constitution. They were
excluded from practising law and physic, from holding any corporate
office; and from being members of parliament. They might even be
prevented from voting for members of parliament, if the oath were
tendered to them. They were, also, subject to local grievances; for in
the metropolis, at least, they could not obtain the freedom of any of
the companies, nor exercise any retail trade. And yet they formed a
community of peaceable and industrious persons. They were less stained
with political offences than any other body of men; and by their wealth
they added to the opulence of the country; and all they asked in return
was to be admitted to the benefits of the constitution. The house had
nothing to do but follow the example presented by the Catholic bill of
last year. The introduction of the bill was opposed by Sir Robert Inglis
and the chancellor of the exchequer, as inconsistent with what had
been the constant practice of the legislature; namely, to protect
Christianity under some of its forms in all their enactments. The
proposition could only stand upon the principle that no regard should
be paid to a man’s religion. It would therefore apply to Turks and
Mohammedans as well as to Jews; and it would only teach the people
that parliament held Christianity a matter of indifference, though
Christianity was bound up as part and parcel of the constitution. As
for the Catholic relief bill, that was no precedent; there was a broad
distinction between admitting to power in a Christian state, those who
were sworn enemies to Christianity, and those who were Christians of
different denominations. Jews were aliens in the popular and substantial
sense; they had another country and an interest not merely distinct
from, but hostile to that of the country which they might happen to
inhabit. The solicitor-general said, that, according to the law of
England, the Jews had no rights; for when they came back to this country
at the Restoration, after being driven out, no law had passed giving
them the rights of citizenship. But how did they stand at present? Their
religion was protected; their children legitimate; and they had power to
purchase land, and to transmit it to posterity. No man could doubt that
Christianity was a part of the law of England; and this was to be borne
in mind in legislating for those who were not Christians. The question
is, “Will you put an end to all religious distinctions?” There could
never be a thorough community between Christians and Jews; there was a
marked line of distinction between them; a complete individuality in the
Jewish character. The bill was supported by Sir James Mackintosh, Dr.
Lushington, and Messrs. Macauley and Smith, on the ground that it was
persecution to look at a man’s religion when speaking of his fitness for
civil rights; and that from the introduction of Jews, no danger was to
be dreaded either to the constitution or to Christianity. To refuse the
bill, it was said, after admitting Catholics, would be an absurd and
inexplicable contradiction. On a division the motion for introducing
the bill was carried by a majority of one hundred and fifteen against
ninety-seven. Before the second reading came on several petitions were
presented in favour of the bill, from London, Leeds, Liverpool, and
other places, as well as from private individuals. On the second
reading the usual topics in favour of it were enforced by Sir Robert
Wilson, Lord John Russell, and Messrs. O’Connell, Brougham, and
Huskisson. Sir Robert Peel—for the honourable secretary had now become
a baronet by the death of his father—said that he would not go so far
as to say that this bill would unchristianize the legislature; but its
principle was clearly this, that every form and ceremony whatever, which
gave an assurance of adherence to Christianity, should be abolished;
and all who supported the bill must maintain that every man, whether a
sectarian or infidel, would have a right to the same concession, though
he could give no affirmation which would afford a security to the state.
General Gascoyne moved as an amendment that the bill should be read a
second time that day six months, and on a division this was carried by
a majority of two hundred and twenty-eight against one hundred and
sixty-five, and the bill was lost.
BILL FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN CASES OF FORGERY.
On the 1st of April Mr. Peel brought in a bill to alter the law in cases
of forgery. The principal object of this bill was to abrogate partially
the capital punishment which had so long been affixed to almost every
branch of this offence. Thus he proposed to remit the capital punishment
in all those cases where serious doubts attended its infliction, and
where the complainants by due caution could have saved themselves—such
as forging receipts for money, orders for the delivery of goods, forging
stamps, uttering forged stamps, attempting to defraud by issuing forged
orders for goods, the fabrication of the material of Bank of England
paper, and forging deeds and bonds. Capital punishment was still
retained in all forgeries of the great seal, privy seal, and
sign-manual; in forgeries of wills, on the public funds, on bank or
money notes, or orders for the payment of money; and, in a word, of all
documents which represent money, and are negotiable and transferable
for it. This bill did not meet with the views of a strong party in the
house, who thought that the punishment of death should not be inflicted
in any cases of forgery, nor extended to any offence short of murder.
On the third reading of the bill, Sir James Mackintosh moved a clause
repealing the punishment of death in all cases of forgery, except that
of the forgery of wills. It also provided that any person against whom
a conviction of forgery should pass should lie in prison, either with or
without hard labour, at home for the space of fourteen years, or if
sent abroad to a penal colony, should be transported for any term not
exceeding that number of years. He further proposed to give, not only
the power of inflicting either of these punishments, but also that of
accumulating both whenever the circumstances of the case should be so
atrocious as to deserve the greatest severity. He proposed, likewise, to
vest a power in the crown, authorising it to treat all persons convicted
of forgery in such a manner as would mark forgery as an offence of a
blacker dye than any other which was not directed against life. Finally,
to meet the objection that the importance of employing persons of
education in the public service in new and remote colonies would lead,
first to the pardon, and then to the employment in public situations of
such persons convicted of forgery, he proposed to take away all power
of remitting or relaxing the punishment of forgery, except by a
representation to the king of the grounds on which it was proposed to
remit it, and by a remission of it by the king at home. This clause was
carried, and Mr. Peel thereupon relinquished all charge of the bill,
hinting at the same time that the house would probably regret the
decision to which it had come. On its introduction in the lords,
therefore, the lord chancellor declared himself against so sweeping
a repeal of the capital punishment, and moved that the bill should be
restored to the state in which it had originally been introduced into
the house of commons. His views were supported by Lords Tenterden,
Wynford, and Eldon. The amendment of the lord chancellor was carried by
a large majority; and although when the bill was returned to the commons
those who supported Sir James Mackintosh’s amendment complained that the
lords had improperly treated them, the lord chancellor’s amendment was
finally agreed to, and the bill passed.
BILL FOR AMENDING THE LAW OF LIBEL.
In a previous article certain state prosecutions for libel have been
noticed. These prosecutions, and the conduct of the attorney-general in
promoting them, were brought before the house of commons by Sir Charles
Wetherell, on a motion for copies of the proceedings on the three _ex
officio_ informations against the proprietor of a London newspaper.
As the motion was merely for the production of papers, and the
attorney-general was willing that the papers should be produced, there
was no debate, but the general impression of the house seemed to be that
the prosecutions were harsh and vindictive, and that Sir James Scarlett,
notwithstanding his Whig education and opposition life, was inclined to
be a very dictatorial attorney-general. Sir James attempted to recover
the favour of the house by a bill to mitigate in some respects the laws
of libel as they existed in what were called the Six Acts. By one of
these acts it was provided that a second conviction for a seditious or
blasphemous libel might be punished with transportation; and another set
forth that every person who should publish a newspaper, or certain other
publications, should first enter into a recognizance of three hundred
pounds, with two sufficient securities, in the metropolis, or of two
hundred pounds, if in the country. The object of this clause was to
guard against the circulation of blasphemous and seditious libels, and
to ensure a forthcoming fund, out of which their authors should pay
the awarded penalty. By the bill now introduced the punishment for the
second offence was to be repealed, and the securities demanded raised
from three to four hundred pounds in London, and from two to three
hundred pounds in the country. To the first of these propositions there
was no objection; but a strenuous opposition was made to the second, to
adopt which, it was said, would be imposing new shackles on the press.
When the bill was in committee the clause was rejected on a motion by
Lord Morpeth; but on the third reading, the attorney-general having
collected a more numerous attendance of ministerial members, moved and
carried its restoration.
ALTERATIONS IN COURTS OF JUSTICE.
Committees of the house of commons, and the law-commissioners appointed
by the crown, had recently found much to blame in the arrangements for
the distribution of justice in Wales. In consequence of this an act
was passed during the present session abolishing the separate system of
Welsh judicature, and annexing the jurisdiction of the Welsh judges to
that of the judges of England. By the same bill the number of puisne
judges was increased from twelve to fifteen—a new one being added to
each of the courts of king’s bench, common pleas, and exchequer. In
Scotland, on the other hand, while courts were abolished, the number of
judges in the remaining court was diminished by the subtraction of two
from its fifteen lords ordinary, or working judges, on whose ability
to get through the work depends whether the eight other judges, who
sit four and four in two courts of review, shall have judgments brought
before them.
ILLNESS OF HIS MAJESTY.
During the sitting of parliament, business was interrupted by
the illness of the king. His majesty’s health had, indeed, for a
considerable time been in a precarious state, but the first bulletin
was not issued till the 15th of April, when it was announced that he
was labouring under a bilious attack, accompanied by an embarrassment
of breathing. The disorder was subsequently ascertained to have been
ossification of the vessels of the heart. The symptoms continued to
vary, the patient enjoying temporary intervals of comparative ease; but
they did not give way, and they brought with them such an accession of
bodily debility as rendered painful even the slightest exertion.
BILL TO AUTHORISE THE ADHIBITING OF THE SIGN-MANUAL BY STAMP.
In consequence of the illness of his majesty, on the 24th of May a
message was sent down to both houses of parliament, stating that his
majesty found it inconvenient and painful to sign with his own hand
those public documents which required the sign-manual, and requesting
the parliament to provide means for the temporary discharge of that
function of the crown without detriment to the public service. A bill,
therefore, was immediately passed, allowing the sign-manual to be
adhibited by a stamp. Before the stamp could be affixed, a
memorandum, describing its nature and its objects, signed by three
privy-councillors, was to be endorsed upon the document. The stamp was
then to be affixed in the presence of his majesty, by some person whom
his majesty should command to do so by word of mouth. The presence of
certain high officers of state was likewise required to attest what had
been done; and the party affixing the stamp was to adjoin to the royal
signature the words, “In his majesty’s presence, and by his majesty’s
command,” and subscribe the same with his own name. The bill was limited
in its duration to the present session.
DEATH OF THE KING, AND ACCESSION OF THE DUKE OF CLARENCE, WILLIAM IV.
About the end of May a favourable turn of the disorder of his majesty
gave rise to a hope of his recovery. This feeling, however, was soon
dispersed, for the chest became affected, the lungs completely decayed,
blood was mingled with the expectoration, and general debility rapidly
ensued. His end was evidently near; and a short time before it
took place his physicians intimated to his majesty that all further
endeavours to avert the stroke of death would be unavailing. He calmly
answered, “God’s will be done,” and subsequently received the sacrament
from the hands of the Bishop of Chichester. Soon after his voice became
faint and low, and for several days his words were scarcely articulated;
his sleep also was broken and disturbed. At length, on the night of the
25th of June, the angel of death once more approached the palace of
the kings of England. He had slept little during the evening, and from
eleven to three was in a restless slumber, opening his eyes occasionally
when the cough caused great pain. At three o’clock his majesty beckoned
to the page in waiting to alter his position, and the couch, constructed
for the purpose, was gently raised, and the sufferer lifted to his
chair. At that moment, however, a blood-vessel burst, and his attendants
hastened to apply the usual stimulants, and to call in the physicians.
The royal patient himself perceived that his dissolution was at hand,
and exclaimed, “O God, I am dying!” then in a few seconds he added, in
a whisper scarcely audible, “This is death!” and when the physicians
entered the apartment George IV. had ceased to breathe.
The decease of the monarch had become so much an object of daily
expectation, and for years he had lived so much retired from his people,
that his death excited less sensation than commonly follows that of
English monarchs. Moreover, George IV. was not one of the most popular
monarchs in English history.
As soon as the decease of his majesty was known, his next brother,
William Henry, Duke of Clarence, was proclaimed by the title of William
IV. The new monarch in a short time rendered himself very popular by the
plainness of his habits and manners, and by the condescension, or rather
the familiarity of his intercourse with his people—qualities which
rendered him more popular by a comparison with the secluded life of his
predecessors. No immediate change took place in the government, for
his majesty, after the usual oaths for the security of the church of
Scotland, having signed the instruments requisite at the commencement
of a new reign, re-appointed the judges and other great officers of
the state to the places which had become vacant, and signified to the
members of government that he desired to retain their services.
CONTINUATION
OF
THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND,
By E. H. Nolan
[Illustration: 466.jpg WILLIAM IV.]
CHAPTER XL. (Continued)
{WILLIAM IV. 1830—1831}
_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.