It was easy to foresee that the English reform bill having passed,

those relating to Scotland and Ireland would be equally triumphant.

Deliberation was, in point of fact, at an end. Both bills had been read

a first time, and had awaited on the table of the house of commons the

fate of the English bill in the house of lords. The bill relating to

Scotland was read in the commons on the 21st of May, the day on which

the restored ministry resumed the committee in the lords on the English

bill. No resistance was made to the second reading, the opposition

knowing that it was hopeless, and feeling assured that this measure

must follow as part of the general scheme, all the elements of which

had triumphed in regard to England. Various amendments were moved in the

committee, but they were all rejected by large majorities, and it passed

the third reading unmutilated. In the house of lords also, as in the

commons, no opposition was made to the second reading, and it passed

that house on the 13th of July, The Irish bill called forth more

resistance than that of Scotland, though its triumph from the first

was equally certain. Mr. Lefroy moved, on its re-introduction, that it

should be read that day six months. He said, that if a reform bill

was to be passed at all, the present measure, in so far as the country

representation was concerned, was not very objectionable; but he

could discover no advantage to be derived from it in respect to the

alterations in the boroughs. Seven of these boroughs had sent reformers

to parliament, and eight possessed an open constituency. In the others

the constituency varied from twelve to ninety-four, and none of them

could be called decayed boroughs; on the contrary, they were more

flourishing than at the time when they received the franchise. Of the

one hundred Irish members, eighty-three were popularly returned. Where

then, he asked, was the necessity or expediency of the measure? Would

any rational man have deemed a reform bill necessary in England under

such circumstances? And while the bill was unnecessary, he continued,

it was also dangerous—dangerous not merely to the Protestant church of

Ireland, but to the sister church of England, and the integrity of

the empire. The fall of the Irish church would endanger the connection

between the two countries. The leader of the Catholic population in

Ireland had told them to choose reformers as the best means of opening

the way to repealers; yet it was proposed by opening the boroughs to

put them into the hands of this party—a party whose influence would be

increased to an extent that no government would have power to oppose.

The amendment was seconded by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Messrs.

Shaw, Conolly, and Gordon, who all said that the bill would be ruinous

to the Protestant interest in Ireland. Messrs. O’Connell and Shiel

defended the bill against the objections urged by the supporters of the

amendment, but pointed out other defects, which they expressed a hope

would be remedied in the committee. For instance, the name of the

ten-pound franchise had been given to Ireland without the reality; the

Irish and English freeholders, from the nature of their tenures, and the

disproportion between their means, were in opposite positions to each

other. In respect to houses also, the franchise was too high; and,

instead of being the instrument of reform, it would be productive of

corruption. Thus Portarlington, which was formerly sold by a single

proprietor, would now be sold by one hundred members. In England, no

man was called upon to show his title unless by previous notice; but

in Ireland a scrutinising assistant-barrister examined it without any

process being-served on the man who came to vote. In Ireland, also,

half-a-crown was the sum paid for registry; in England it was a shilling

only. Was this equality? Was this union? Could this conduce to the

continuance of the union between the two countries? But while he found

so much in the bill of an objectionable nature, he would support it for

the good it would effect; he would support it because it would strike

down the corporation of Dublin, and because it would open the borough of

Belfast, whose representative had hitherto been appointed by the noble

Marquis of Donegal, like his groom or his footman. After a few words

of opposition from Sir Robert Peel, the house divided on the second

reading, and it was carried by two hundred and forty-six against one

hundred and thirty.

It was in the committee that the attacks of the Irish reformers against

the bill commenced in reality. The emancipation act had been accompanied

by the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders. Mr. O’Connell

moved that it should be an instruction to the committee to restore the

franchise to these freeholders. The Irish reform bill exhibited gross

injustice. England was to have thirty members more than had originally

been contemplated, but Ireland was not to derive any such advantage. It

was always the way when Ireland was concerned; her aid was invoked in

the battle, but when the division of the spoil came, she was forgotten.

And in the present instance insult had been added to injury. The Scotch

bill had been brought forward by a Scotch legal luminary. Was there no

Irish gentleman to whom ministers could entrust the Irish reform bill?

Ministers wished to put an end to agitation in Ireland. But how did

they set about it? By perpetrating an act of injustice, which would

perpetuate agitation. The amendment was supported by Mr. Shiel, who

contended that the restoration of the forty-shilling freeholders was

just in principle, because it would assimilate the constituency of

England and Ireland, and because it would conciliate the people of

Ireland without being detrimental to England. Ministers replied, that

if the proposed instruction was carried, it would have, the effect of

impeding, if not ultimately defeating, the measure. Mr. O’Connell’s

motion was lost! by a majority-of one hundred and twenty-two against

seventy-three; and he immediately moved, as a modification of it; that

“the franchise should be restored to persons seized of an estate for

three lives, renewable for ever, of the yearly value of forty shillings,

provided that the rent did not exceed four pounds per annum, of which

one-third was to be profit, and provided also that the renewal fee did

net exceed two-pounds.” This was opposed by Mr. Stanley, on the ground,

that it would create a minute subdivision of independent, property,

and by that means would also create an immense multitude of independent

voters. The motion, was not pressed to a division; and Mr. O’Connell

then took up the subject of the increase of representation in Ireland.

Of the five additional members, one was to be given to the University of

Dublin, which was now to return two members; and Mr. O’Connell and his

party objected to this arrangement, because it would strengthen the

Protestant interest. Sir Robert Heron moved as an instruction to the

committee, that the University of Dublin should continue to return

only one member. The motion was opposed by Mr. Crampton, the

solicitor-general of Ireland, who vindicated the character of the

electors of Dublin University from the attacks which the Irish reformers

made upon it. The proposal was rejected by a large majority: and Mr.

O’Connell returned to the attack by moving, as an instruction to the

committee, to extend the franchise to persons occupying freehold estates

of the yearly value of five pounds. His motion was founded on

this reasoning—that, as Ireland was a poorer country, a ten-pound

qualification in England was a twenty-pound qualification in Ireland,

and the constituency of the latter would consequently be curtailed.

In his speech, he said that the object of all parties seemed to be to

exclude the people of Ireland as much as possible from the enjoyment of

the franchise. He was justified in making this charge, when he saw two

members given to Trinity College, Dublin, in the constituency of which

it was impossible there should be a Roman Catholic voter. If the system

was acted on, the Catholic question still remained to be settled. Mr.

Stanley complained of the unreasonable conduct of Irish members, and

especially of Mr. O’Connell, who first desired alterations in the bill,

and then complained that it was no longer the same. The change in

the plan of registration, he said, had been recommended by Sir Henry

Darnel. An alteration had also been made in the leasehold from

twenty-one years to fourteen, and this was done at the instance of

Irish members. Mr. O’Connell himself had entreated ministers to omit the

fifty-pound qualification, which was complied with: but he had hardly

effected his purpose, when he turned round and accused the government

of making unfavourable alterations in the bill. Members might be

astonished, but it was fact, that he had given notice of a motion

for the restoration of a qualification which was omitted on his own

suggestion. This motion was likewise rejected; as was another, made by

Mr. Mullins, to extend the franchise in counties to leaseholders for

nineteen years, at a rent of thirty pounds. Ministers, however, yielded

something in the committee by consenting to extend the franchise to

leaseholders for twenty years, having a beneficial interest to the

amount of ten pounds. Mr. Shiel divided the house without success, to

get rid of a proviso that required ten-pound voters in boroughs to pay

all municipal taxes. The recorder of Dublin was equally unsuccessful in

a motion tending to place Irish freemen on the same footing with their

brethren in English boroughs; that is, to have their rights as freemen

perpetuated, instead of terminating with the lives of those existing,

as provided in the Irish bill Before the bill left the committee, Mr.

Dominick Browne, one of the members for the county of Mayo, proposed a

different plan for Ireland; but his proposition was not entertained by

the house. The bill passed the commons on the 18th of July, and was read

a second time in the lords on the 23rd. No division took place; but the

Duke of Wellington stated at length his objections to the measure, which

were replied to by Lord Plunkett. The bill passed through the committee

in the peers almost without discussion. The only amendment of importance

was one which had been rejected in the commons; namely, to place the

rights of freemen in boroughs on the same footing on which they stood in

the English bill, by continuing them in perpetuity instead of confining

them simply to the children of freemen born after the passing of the

bill. When the bill returned to the commons, Mr. Stanley declared that

he felt a strong repugnance to this amendment. It was, however, allowed

to stand, and by the first week of August all the three bills had

received the royal assent.

BILL TO PREVENT BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS, ETC.

Soon after, the reform bill was carried the house of commons was filled

with complaints, that, in its working, it was producing, extensive

disfranchisement among the new constituencies. It was required by the

English bill, that the intended voter should have paid up by the 20th of

July all rates and taxes, payable in the preceding April in respect

of the premises on which he claimed. That period was now past, and

the non-payers were so numerous as greatly to diminish the new

constituencies. Under these circumstances Lord Althorp, on the 7th of

August, moved for leave to bring in a bill “for allowing further time

for persons to pay the poor-rates, in pursuance of an act passed in the

present session to amend the representation of the people in England and

Wales.” This was resisted on the ground that the act contained no clause

allowing it to be altered, during the present session, and that the

proposition was a breach of pledge. The house, it was said, had fully

discussed and finally passed a measure effecting a great and extensive

change in the constitution of the country, and that measure had gone

forth to the country as being the final act of those who had originated

it; yet it was now proposed to make an alteration in one of its most

essential provisions. The alteration proposed was not unreasonable in

itself; but there was danger in permitting any alteration to be made

with respect to the reform act. Who could say, if changes were to

be made, when they would stop? Lord Althorp argued that there were

precedents which would enable the house to get over the difficulty in

point of form, but as the bill was to be opposed, and as, in that case,

it could not be carried through before the 20th of August, he would

withdraw it altogether; he was the more ready to do so, because he

thought that the inconvenience had been exaggerated. The subject,

however, was taken up by Colonel Evans, who thought that a great number

of tax and rate payers entitled to vote were defaulters, and therefore

not able to enjoy their franchise. He moved a resolution, which, after

adverting to the disfranchisement likely to arise, suggested that the

mischief might be remedied by substituting for “the 6th of April,” in

the 27th clause of the reform act, “the 25th of September last” for the

payment of the poor rates, and the “10th of October last” for the

payment of the assessed taxes. This motion was only supported by two

members, yet the colonel brought the matter before the house again on

the 10th of August, by moving “that an address be presented to his

majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to prorogue the

present, and convene another short session of parliament, to take

into consideration the unexpected disfranchisement produced by certain

restrictive clauses of the act for amending the representation of the

people in parliament.” This motion was opposed by ministers, and was

not pressed to a division. It had become clear, indeed, that many of

the statements concerning the number of non-payers were without good

foundation, and therefore there was no reason for altering the clause.

About the same time objections were raised to the boundaries of

boroughs as laid down by the commissioners whom ministers had employed,

principally on the ground of the influence which, it was supposed, had

here and there been given to individuals, by adding large portions of

their lands to boroughs. It was objected, for instance, that, in the

case of Whitehaven, a rural district, comprehending thirty voters, had

been added to a borough containing three hundred. It was said that this

was done to conciliate opposition; as this district was the property of

Lord Lonsdale, it was stated, he would acquire by its junction with the

town a preponderating influence. An amendment was made to exclude it,

but ministers resisted it, and it was lost. Lord Althorp said, that

nobody who knew the state of parties would believe in these theories of

conciliation; and that Lord Lonsdale would have no more influence in

the borough than the legitimate influence to which rank and property

entitled their possessor. A similar objection was stated against the

boundary allotted to Stamford, which was followed by a similar motion of

exclusion; but it found only nineteen supporters, while one hundred and

seventy-two voted against it.

Another measure connected with the changes in the representation was a

bill brought in to amend and render more effectual the laws relating to

bribery and corruption in elections. Lord John Russell, who brought in

the bill, stated that its principal object was to subject all cases

of bribery to a more complete investigation. With that view, the bill

extended the term for presenting petitions complaining of bribery at

elections from fourteen days to two years; and provided that it would

be lawful for any person to petition the house during that period,

complaining that the election of any particular borough had been carried

by bribery and corruption. The bill also provided that where the parties

complained of undue elections in consequence of bribery, if they proved

their case, all their costs and expenses in sustaining their petition

should be defrayed by the public. Objections were urged against this

measure from both sides of the house. It was argued, that the extension

of the period for petitioning would keep members in a state of vassalage

for two years; that a new petition might be presented every week, if

it only related to a different alleged act; and that the terms which

defined what bribery was were so vague, and yet so comprehensive, that

it was impossible for a member to know whether a charge could be brought

against him or not. Some members thought that nothing but the ballot

would prevent bribery, while others suggested that every member on

entering the house should take an oath that he had neither given, nor

promised to give, or would promise hereafter, by himself, his agents,

or friends, any money, security, order, or other thing of value, or any

pecuniary fee, or reward of any kind, in consideration of any vote or

votes, by which his return to that house had been promoted or served.

The bill passed the commons; but when it came to the lords its

postponement for six months was moved by Lord Wynford, and the lord

chancellor agreeing with him as to the impossibility of carrying its

provisions into effect, the bill was thrown out.

During the discussion on the reform question, one strong objection

against the destruction of nomination-boroughs had been, that without

them there would be no certain means of members who vacated their seats

by accepting office of securing a new return. In order to obviate this

inconvenience, the Marquis of Northampton brought in a bill to repeal,

in so far as certain offices were concerned, the act of Queen Anne,

by which an acceptance of any of them vacated a member’s seat. On the

motion for the second reading of this bill, the Duke of Wellington

said there could be no doubt that some measure of this description was

necessary; but it appeared to him that the present bill was only a half

measure, because it provided for only half of the inconvenience likely

to result. He also objected to the bill being brought forward in the

individual capacity of the noble marquis. As the inconvenience would

arise from a government measure, government should introduce a

remedy, and recommend it to both houses of parliament upon their own

responsibility. The lord-chancellor likewise thought that the second

reading should be delayed till the matter had been more ripely

considered. The second reading, therefore, was postponed, and, as the

end of the session approached, the bill was ultimately laid aside. The

last subject of direct reform in the representation was introduced by

Mr. Bulwer, who moved an address to the king, praying that his majesty

would give the free inhabitants of New South Wales a representative

system. He grounded their title to it on the score both of population

and taxation; but while ministers admitted that New South Wales must in

time have a representative body, they did not think the elements had yet

been formed out of which a safe constituency could be created, and the

motion was negatived.

COMMITTEES ON IRISH TITHES.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832—1833}

In the speech from the throne, on the opening of parliament, there was

this clause:—“In parts of Ireland a systematic opposition has been made

to the payment of tithes, attended in some instances with afflicting

results; and it will be one of your first duties to inquire whether it

may not be possible to effect improvements in the laws respecting this

subject, which may afford the necessary protection to the established

church, and at the same time remove the present causes of complaint.”

Both houses, during this session, appointed select committees to inquire

into the collection and payment of tithes in Ireland, and the state of

the laws relating thereto. The report of the committee of the house of

lords was presented on the 16th of February, and that of the commons

on the 17th. The report stated that in different parts of Ireland

resistance had been made to the payment of tithes, by means of

organised, illegal, and in some instances armed combinations, which, if

allowed to extend themselves successfully to other districts, would be

applied to other objects, and ultimately subvert the dominion of the

law, and endanger the peace and security of society. In many districts

the report further stated, where resistance had been made to the payment

of tithes, the clergy had been reduced to the greatest distress; and in

order to obviate this, the committee recommended that his majesty should

be empowered to advance to the incumbent, where tithes or compositions

had been illegally withheld, or to his representatives, sums not

exceeding the amount of the arrears due for the tithes of the year 1836,

proportioned to the income of each, according to a scale diminishing as

their incomes increased. It further recommended that as a security for

repayment of the sums so advanced, his majesty should be empowered to

levy, under the authority of a law to be passed for that purpose, the

amount of arrears due for the tithes of the year 1831, without prejudice

to the claims of the clergy for any arrear that might be due for a

longer period. Where the arrears were due in a compounded parish, the

sum to be advanced was to be regulated by the composition, and where

there was no special agreement, by an average of the produce of the

tithe for the years 1827, 1828, and 1829. As the crown was to become

entitled to the arrears, it was recommended that the attorney-general

should be empowered to sue for them, either by petition in chancery or

exchequer, or by civil bill at the county quarter-session. On the tithe

system, the committee stated that they had seen sufficient to satisfy

them, “that with a view to serve both the interests of the church and

the lasting welfare of Ireland, a permanent change of system will be

required: that such a change, to be safe and satisfactory, must involve

a complete extinction of tithes, including those belonging to lay

impropriators, by commuting them for a charge upon land, or an exchange

for or investment in land, so as effectually to secure the revenues of

the church, so far as relates to tithes, and at the same time to remove

all pecuniary collisions between the clergymen and the tithe-payer,

which, at present, were unavoidable.” On the 8th of March, the Marquis

of Lansdowne in the upper house, and Mr. Stanley in the commons, moved

resolutions adopting and embodying the recommendations of the report. In

the lords no opposition was offered to them, but in the commons it did

not pass so readily. Mr. Stanley said that as he intended to state the

whole plan which government had in contemplation, with all its details,

he should move for that purpose that the house should resolve itself

into a committee on the report; a course which he deemed advisable,

because it would put it into his power to give every explanation which

might be required, and to take the opinion of the committee separately

on each of the resolutions. This motion was sternly opposed by the Irish

members. Mr. Brownlow led the attack, by maintaining that the report

was too partial and imperfect to be made the subject of consideration in

committee. He moved “that the debate be adjourned, until the committee

had gone into a full inquiry into the subject of tithes, and the

appropriation of church property in Ireland, and until the evidence

and report of the committee came before parliament.” In support of the

amendment, Mr. Shiel said that the Irish members did not oppose the

resolutions: they only said, “Wait for the final report, and do not

decide on a document resting on one-sided evidence.” Catholics, he

said, had been excluded from the committee, and only one out of eighteen

Catholic witnesses had been examined. Was this just, or fair dealing?

It was as if a jury were desired to retire on the closing of the

plaintiff’s case. They find their verdict; judgment is given; and then

the defendant was desired to proceed with her case. If the committee had

confined themselves to the recommendation of assisting the clergy, the

Irish members would not have complained; but while they came with a

purse of gold for the church, they also came with a rod of iron for the

people. Mr. Shiel proceeded next to discuss the plan which was supposed

to be unknown, in doing which he discovered the true objection of the

Irish members to it, namely, that the Protestant church of Ireland was

still to be preserved. Other Irish members urged the same objections;

and added, that if every thing else in the supposed plan were right, it

was wrong to pay the arrears to the clergy, and then ask repayment by

coercive measures. Lord Ebrington, who had been on the committee, and

concurred in its report, now sided with the Irish members. Sir Robert

Peel said that the discussion on the anticipated propositions was

foreign to the question before the house. The question was, whether the

propositions should be explained now, or after the house had gone into

a committee. Pie thought that the latter was the course most conformable

to the practice of the house; and by supporting a motion to that

effect, no member pledged himself in the least to the proposition of the

government. Lord Althorp and Mr. Stanley complained of the course the

Irish members had taken in commenting on propositions of which they knew

nothing; and on a division the amendment of the Irish members was lost

by an overwhelming majority.

The committee was delayed till the 18th, on which day Mr. Stanley moved

a series of resolutions similar to those which had been agreed to by the

lords. The first of these resolutions was, “That it appears to the house

that in several parts of Ireland, an organised and systematic opposition

has been made to the payment of tithes, by which the law has been

rendered unavailing, and many of the clergy of the established church

have been reduced to great distress.” Mr. Stanley entered at great

length into the evidence which proved both parts of this resolution. It

was quite clear from the evidence that a system of opposition had been

established in Ireland to the payment of tithes, which could not be

overcome by ordinary means. Every plan had been adopted by which

the operations of the law might be traversed. Tithe-proctors and

process-servants were violently assailed; impediments were interposed to

prevent the seizure and sale of cattle; and, in a word, every system

of determined and organised opposition was manifested that could be

displayed by a whole population acting as one man against the payment

of a claim legally due. Having proved the truth of the first resolution,

Mr. Stanley proceeded to the second, which provided means of relief.

It read thus:—“That, in order to afford relief to the distress, it is

expedient that his majesty should be empowered, upon the application of

the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, to

direct that there be issued from the consolidated fund such sums as

may be required for this purpose. That the sums so issued shall be

distributed by the lord-lieutenant, or other chief governor or governors

of Ireland, by and with the advice of the privy-council, in advances

proportioned to the incomes of the incumbents of benefices wherein

the tithes, or tithe composition lawfully due may have been withheld,

according to a scale diminishing as the incomes of such incumbents

increase.” To this resolution Mr. Stanley said that he did not

anticipate any objection, inasmuch as it was from no fault of the clergy

that the resistance, and the consequent distress had arisen. He then

proceeded to the third resolution, which provided for the reimbursement

of the sums advanced:—“That, for the more effectual vindication of the

authority of the law, and as a security for the repayment of the sums to

be advanced, his majesty may be empowered to levy, under the authority

of an act to be passed for this purpose, the amount of arrears for the

tithes or tithe-composition of the whole or any part of the year 1831,

without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear which may

be due for a longer period; reserving, in the first instance, the amount

of such advances, and paying over the remaining balance to the legal

claimants.” The last resolution pledged the house to an alteration of

the existing tithe system on some principle of commutation, though Mr.

Stanley said he was not prepared to state the nature of the change.

Those who dissented from the resolutions consisted chiefly of the Irish

members, and, singular enough, their opposition was chiefly confined

to the last resolution. This was, it was said, to introduce a change of

system, but it implied that the tithe was still to be a fund available

to the established church. It was said to be unjust to demand

extraordinary powers for the execution of a law acknowledged to be bad

and mischievous, and that every renewed attempt to recover tithes by

coercion would only hasten the ruin of the church establishment in

Ireland. Some adjustment must be made by which the church property

should be applied to the support of the three prominent sects in

Ireland, instead of its being bestowed exclusively on one, which only

comprehended about a third of the population. It was admitted at the

same time that it was right to relieve the clergy who were suffering;

but it was asserted that the resolutions held out no hope of any

substantial amendment of the existing state of things. Mr. Shiel argued

that the last resolution did not pledge the house not to appropriate

church property as it might deem fit, and insinuated that this was

what the ministry meant, though they could not venture to speak it

out plainly. Sir Robert Peel supported the plan of the ministry, for,

although hostile, he said, on general principles, to pledges that

the house would do something at a future period, he thought that the

interests of religion and the Protestant church required that the

present case should be made an exception. As to the proposal to delay

the question till the committee should have given a full report, he

deemed it unnecessary and mischievous. If the spirit of combination was

to be checked, it should be so at once; it would be true mercy to

check it as soon as possible, for any delay would only add wings to

its already rapid progress. The first resolution was agreed to finally

without a division. On the second, Mr. Hunt divided the house, as he did

not think the distress of the clergy in Ireland was such as to warrant

money being taken out of the pockets of the people of this country for

their relief. He was, however, only supported by eleven members, while

eighty-six voted for the resolution. The third then passed without a

division, and an amendment on the fourth was negatived without being put

to the vote, so that the whole were carried. The bill was brought in

to be read a second time on the 6th of April, when the Irish opposition

pressed for a delay on the ground that it was inconsistent with sound

policy to carry through this coercive measure before introducing the

other measure for the change or extinction of tithes; that if the

arrangements regarding the latter were complicated and required delay,

that was the best reason for delaying the former, and that Mr. Stanley,

the Irish secretary, ought to take advantage of the Easter recess, then

approaching, to pay a visit to Ireland. Ministers resisted all delay,

however, and the second reading was carried by a majority of one hundred

and nineteen against twenty-one. It was read a third time, without much

discussion, on the 16th of April; and in the house of lords, where the

resolutions had been agreed to, the bill was passed without opposition.

The tithe-committees still continued their investigations, and on the

25th of June Mr. Stanley stated to the house of commons the measures

which ministers intended to recommend for the final settlement of the

questions connected with tithes. Three bills were to be introduced:

the first, to make the composition act permanent and compulsory, and to

render it at the same time more equitable and effective in some of its

details; the second, constituting the bishop and beneficed clergy of

each diocese into a corporation for the purpose of receiving the tithes

for the whole body, and dividing them for their common benefit in the

proportion to which the respective parties would be entitled: and the

third, providing for a commutation of the tithe on the same principle as

the land-tax redemption in England, or the redemption of quit-rents in

Ireland—that is, that the party liable to the charge might redeem

it, and the money thus paid for redemption would go to a fund as

a provision for the clergy in the proportions to which they were at

present entitled. Mr. Stanley explained the principles of these three

bills at great length; but stated that it was not intended to carry all

of them through the house at so late a period of the session. And

this, he continued, was not necessary, as the first and second were

independent of the third. He moved therefore for leave to bring in

a bill for making the tithe-composition act compulsory, and the

composition permanent, and another for establishing the ecclesiastical

corporations. Subsequently the latter of these was delayed, and the

composition bill only pressed on. The motion for this was opposed by Mr.

J. Grattan, who moved as an amendment the following resolutions:—“That

it is essential to the peace of Ireland that the system of tithes in

that country should be extinguished, not in name only, but in substance,

and unequivocally: That in coming to this resolution we recognise the

rights of persons having vested interests, and declare that it is the

duty of parliament to provide for those persons by making them a just

compensation: That we also recognise the liability of property in

Ireland to contribute to a fund for supporting and promoting religion

and charity; but that such may and ought to be quite different in the

mode of collection, and much lighter in effect than that raised by the

system of tithes: That we are also of opinion that the mode of levying

and the application of such fund and its distribution ought to be left

to the decision of a reformed parliament.” As the session was drawing

near to a close, the opposition seemed to entertain hopes of rendering

the measure abortive by mere opposition. Ministers were first compelled

to adjourn the debate from the 3rd of July to the 10th, and on the 10th

it was found necessary to adjourn it again to the 13th. On that day,

after stern opposition from the Irish members, and especially Mr.

O’Connell, who descanted in his usual strain on the “insulting contempt

with which all Irish affairs were treated,” a division took place on Mr.

Grattan’s resolutions, which were rejected by a large majority, and then

the bill passed the second reading without opposition, and the house

went into committee. Mr. Stanley in opening the ministerial propositions

had adverted to the payment of church-cess and church-rates by

Catholics, and expressed an opinion that they might be got rid of by

a proper application of the first-fruits. Mr. Shiel moved that “the

committee should be instructed to recite in the preamble of the bill,

that the tithe composition should be extended, with the view to the

levying of first-fruits according to their real value, and to such

future appropriation of them to the purposes of religion, education,

and charity, as, after making a due provision for the maintenance of

the church, should to parliament seem proper.” Mr. Shiel said that the

preamble already set forth that the bill was to effect a commutation.

The government, however, ought not to stop there: they had declared that

they intended to relieve the people from the church-rate, by levying

their first-fruits to their full extent, and it was their object to

ascertain the full amount of tithes through Ireland in order to tax the

church. The committee, also, had reported that the people ought to be

relieved in this particular: wherefore then was it not set forth in

the preamble? They should be embodied in the bill, and the legislature

should give an earnest of their determination to rescue the Irish

nation from the most odious imposition in the annals of ecclesiastical

taxation, the erection of temples with which the people had no concern.

Mr. Stanley, in reply, admitted that he agreed in the principle that

the fund arising from the first-fruits should be made available for the

repair and erection of churches. When asked, however, “Why not say

in the preamble of this bill that there should be an abolition of

church-cess and rates for the future?” he said he was not prepared to go

to that extent. If he consented to the introduction of these words

into the preamble, he should be doubtless told that church-rates were

abolished, and that the people of Ireland so understood it. He did not

wish, he said, to declare that to be the object of the bill which was

not its object, however it might be likely to be effected by the

passing of the bill. On a division Mr. Shiel’s motion was rejected by

seventy-nine to eighteen. The bill now proceeded without further delay,

and was passed by the commons and the lords. On the second reading in

the upper house the Duke of Wellington expressed a wish that it should

pass unanimously, he believing it to be the commencement of a series of

measures which had the pacification of Ireland for their object.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

As the reform bill and the management of Ireland were the great business

of this session, matters of trade did not occupy much attention

in parliament. The chancellor of the exchequer made his financial

statements on the 27th of July, when it appeared that in the quarter of

the year ending on the 5th of January, there had been a deficiency of

£700,000, making the revenue of that quarter fall short of the estimate

by no less a sum than £1,200,000; ministers having calculated on a

surplus of £500,000. The revenue in the year 1830, the chancellor of the

exchequer said, was £50,056,616, while the expenditure was £47,142,943,

leaving a surplus of £2,913,673. The expenditure of 1831 ending in 1832

was within £19,664 of that of 1830; but this equality did not proceed

from an equality of votes in the two years, because in the latter

year there arose, from the reduction of four per cents., a saving of

£777,443. After entering into minute particulars of the receipts

and expenditure, with the savings which government had effected, the

chancellor of the exchequer said, that upon the whole there was a

decrease of income in 1831, as compared with 1830, of £3,682,176. From

this, if the surplus, which would have accrued if the income had

been equal to the expenditure in that year, that was £2,933,319, were

deducted, there would be an excess of expenditure in 1831 over the

income amounting to £698,857. The state of the revenue, therefore,

in the commencement of 1832, was, that instead of having a surplus of

£2,913,673, as in the commencement of 1831, the expenditure of 1831

being £19,646 below that of 1830, there was a falling off to the amount

he had already shown; and the real excess of expenditure over income in

1831 was the sum of £698,857. Lord Althorp attributed this deficiency

chiefly to the reduction of taxation in 1830. The whole reduction of

taxation in 1831 amounted to £4,780,000. From this, if £3,364,412 were

deducted as the loss on customs and excise, there would be a balance

of £1,414,588; a clear proof that the resources of the country had

increased by nearly a million and a half in the consumption of articles

not affected by taxation. He owned he had been too sanguine in the

calculation he had made of increased consumption from reduced taxation,

but it was satisfactory to observe that, notwithstanding the great

reduction of taxation, the deficiency in the revenue had been so small.

He felt it right to state, he continued, that the deficiency at the

end of the year was increased in the April quarter, the amount in

that quarter being £1,240,413. Finding this deficiency his majesty’s

ministers had endeavoured to meet it, not by an increase of taxation,

but by a reduction of expenditure. They had lowered the estimates by

more than £2,000,000, and had reduced official salaries and appointments

to the utmost of their power. In two years, the reductions they had made

in salaries and officers amounted to £334,353. Lord Althorp next entered

into a statement of the gradual decrease of the surplus, and then

proceeded to the estimates for the year ending-April, 1833. He

calculated that the expenditure of the year ending April, 1833, would

be £45,696,376, which would be £2,162,051 less than that for the year

ending in April, 1832. He next proceeded to give a comparative estimate

of the income as it was in April, 1832, and as he calculated it to be

for 1833. From the various items he expected a total of £46,470,000;

deduct from that £45,696,376, as the amount of expenditure, and it left

a surplus for the year ending in April, 1833, of £773,624. Against this,

however, was to be set the deficiency of 1832, amounting to £1,240,413,

and take from that sum the surplus of £773,624 for 1833, and it would

leave a deficiency on the two years of £466,789. Mr. Goulburn contended

that, according to the noble lord’s statement, there would be a

deficiency at the end of the current year, on account of 1832, although

in this year there was a surplus. After a few words from Sir Robert

Peel, however, who questioned the reality of the reductions made by

government, the financial arrangements were carried without opposition.

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

On the 27th of January the president of the board of control moved the

appointment of a committee upon the affairs of the East India Company,

and to inquire into the state of trade between Great Britain, the

East Indies, and China. This was, in fact, only the reappointment of

a committee which had sat during previous sessions; but the president

hinted that as the charter would expire in April, 1834, and the East

India Company had declined to make itself a party to the discussion,

it would be necessary that the government should take a more direct

management of the question, though without intimating its intentions, so

as not to disappoint expectations. It would be necessary to carry

this proposal into effect, he said, to have a considerable number of

sub-committees, at least six or seven, each taking a separate branch of

the inquiry. In the East India House, and in the board of control, the

business was divided into six departments, each division having its

separate functionaries; and he proposed, therefore, that there should be

at least six sub-committees, each taking one of these departments. As it

was necessary, he continued, to provide for the absence of members,

and as five or six members would be necessary in each subcommittee, he

should propose that there should be at least forty-eight or forty-nine

in the committee. The present committee, he added, would have this

advantage, that, the subject was not entirely new. A large mass of

testimony had been obtained; and though the evidence had not been

systematically collected, yet the materials were in preparation, and the

committee would be supplied with them. In addition to this the board

of control had for some time been preparing for the discussion, officers

having been employed in classifying the evidence laid before both

houses, and in separating the different branches of the evidence. The

committee was appointed without opposition. Subsequently, the chancellor

of the exchequer proposed the appointment of “a committee of secrecy,

to inquire into, and report upon the expediency of renewing the charter

of the Bank of England; and also on the existing system of banking by

banks of issue in England and Wales.” The circumstance which gave rise

to this motion was the renewal of the charter with the Bank of England.

As the occasion of a renewal of that charter had always been considered

the proper time for an inquiry into the banking system, and had been

looked forward to by the public as a proper season for taking the

principles of the Bank of England into consideration, therefore the

proposition was made. In making the proposal, the chancellor of the

exchequer said that he trusted the house would agree in the propriety of

making it a committee of secrecy, in order to prevent any discussions

in that house upon the subject pending the inquiry; on such a question,

involving the money transactions of the country, nothing could be more

objectionable than these discussions. As to the questions which the

committee would have to consider, they would have first to decide

whether the charter should be renewed, and then, in case of renewal,

whether any, and what exclusive privileges should be given to the Bank.

Another question for their consideration would be the existing system of

banking with reference to banks of issue; and they would likewise have

to consider the Bank of England in its quality of banker to the state.

It was not, however, intended that the committee should go into the

question of the currency; it was to confine itself to banking, properly

so called. But one exception to this would be found in the one-pound

notes: it would be impossible to exclude that question from the

consideration of the committee, if they should consider it was necessary

to enter upon it. It was thought by some members that it would be better

to restrict the committee from entering into that question, and by

others that it would be better to delay the whole subject till a new

parliament. In substance, in fact, it was so delayed, for, although

a committee was appointed, it had made no report when parliament was

prorogued and subsequently dissolved.

THE AFFAIRS OF THE WEST INDIES.

In the latter part of 1831, a violent hurricane had occasioned a great

deal of injury in Barbadoes, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia. During this

session ministers proposed, and parliament agreed, to grant his majesty

£100,000 for the relief of the sufferers in those islands. Jamaica was

soon after visited by a calamity of a different kind, though not less

destructive. About the end of 1831, a formidable insurrection, which had

been organised for some time, broke out among the slaves, particularly

in the parishes of Trelawney, Portland, and St. James. The negroes on

several estates began at first to refuse to go to their work, and then

they assembled together in large bodies, and marched over the country,

spreading devastation around them. The destruction which they caused

was not confined to the whites; the houses and small settlements of free

people of colour were attacked equally with the large plantations of

the white inhabitants. It was found necessary on the 20th of December

to proclaim martial law, and the militia of the different parishes was

called out. Sir Willoughby Cotton also marched to Montego Bay, with

between two and three hundred troops. Two engagements took place between

the negroes and the militia, in both of which the former were routed.

They again made head in some quarters; but at length the troops

succeeded in dispersing them; and offers of pardon being issued to all

but the ringleaders, the greater part of them returned to their masters.

Of the ringleaders, some were shot after trial by courts-martial; and

by the middle of January the danger was over, though some of the negroes

still remained out, and martial law was not recalled. The insurrection

was ascribed by the whites partly to the vague notions existing among

the negroes by the orders in council intended to effect the amelioration

of their condition, and partly to the arts or imprudence of sectarian

missionaries. A belief had been produced among the former that their

liberty had been granted by the king; and it was said that they had

been encouraged in these ideas by some of the missionaries. This

unfortunately gave rise to the work of retaliation. At Montego Bay.

Falmouth, Lucia, and Savanna-la-Mer, the chapels of the Baptists were

razed to the ground by the mob, probably at the instigation of the

planters. A Baptist and Moravian missionary were arrested on the charge

of exciting the insurrection, but nothing was found to criminate them.

But apart from the effect which the orders in council might have had

in misleading the negroes, they were regarded by the colonists as an

unnecessary and mischievous interference with the rights of property,

and even with their political privileges. The orders appointed

slave-protectors to attend to the rights of negroes against their

own masters, fixed the hours of labour, and contained various other

regulations, all deemed useful, and intended to prepare the way for

a general emancipation. These orders were considered in both sets of

islands as dangerous incitements to turbulence among the negroes,

and ruinous to the property of planters. There were discontent and

irritation everywhere against the government at home; and in the

colonies which had legislative assemblies it was plainly spoken out by

resolutions and petitions. Nor were the proprietors at home silent on

the occasion. On the 6th of April the West-India mercantile body of

London presented a protest against the order in council to the secretary

of state. This was followed by a public meeting of persons interested

in the colonies, where it was resolved to petition the house of lords,

praying, “That a full and impartial parliamentary inquiry should be

instituted for the purposes of ascertaining the laws and usages of the

colonies, the condition of the slaves, the improvements that had been

made in that condition, and what further steps could be taken for the

amelioration of that condition consistently with the best interests of

the slaves themselves, and with the rights of private property.” This

petition was presented on the 17th of April, by the Earl of Harewood,

and the prayer of their petition was granted. Mr. Buxton, on the 24th of

May, made a motion on the other side of the question. He moved: “That a

select committee be appointed to consider and report upon the measures

expedient to be adopted for properly effecting the extinction of slavery

throughout the British dominions at the earliest period compatible with

the safety of all classes.” Lord Althorp objected to this motion as too

unqualified, and he wished Mr. Buxton to add the words, “in conformity

with the resolutions of 15th of May, 1823.” To this Mr. Buxton would not

consent, and Lord Althorp then moved them as an amendment on the

motion, and they were carried by a large majority. These measures

were subsequently followed by pecuniary relief to those who had lost

property. The sum of £100,000, which had been granted to the sufferers

from the hurricane in Barbadoes, St. Vincent, and St. Lucia, was

raised to £1,000.000, and extended to the sufferers in Jamaica by the

insurrection. In addition to this, the sum of £58,000 was granted to be

applied in giving aid in regard to the internal expenses to the crown

colonies, which had adopted the orders in council, and had carried the

same into effect.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by his majesty in person on the 16th of August.

On the great question of the session his majesty remarked:—“The

matters which you have had under consideration have been of the first

importance; and the laws in particular which have been passed for

the reforming the representation of the people have occupied, as

was unavoidable, the greatest portion of your time and attention. In

recommending this subject to your consideration, it was my object, by

removing the just causes of complaint, to restore general confidence

in the legislature, and to give additional security to the settled

institutions of the state. This object will, I trust, be found to have

been accomplished.” Ireland was still in a disturbed state, on which

his majesty remarked:—“I have still to lament the continuance of

disturbances in Ireland, notwithstanding the vigilance and energy

displayed by my government there, in the measures which it has taken

to repress them. The laws which have been passed in conformity with

my recommendation at the beginning of the session, with respect to the

collection of tithes, are well calculated to lay the foundation of a new

system, to the completion of which the attention of parliament, when it

again assembles, will of course be directed. To this necessary work my

best assistance will be given, by enforcing the execution of the

laws, and by promoting the prosperity of a country blessed by Divine

Providence with so many natural advantages. As conducive to this

subject, I must express the satisfaction which I have felt at the

measures adopted for extending generally to my people in that kingdom

the benefits of education.” At the close of his majesty’s speech the

lord-chancellor said, that it was his majesty’s royal will and pleasure

that parliament be prorogued to Tuesday the 16th of October next, to be

then holden, and this parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the

16th day of October next.

GENERAL ELECTION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

After parliament was prorogued, the great objects of public attention

were the registration of the new constituency under the reform bill, and

other preparations for a general election, which was to follow as soon

as the registration was completed. The registration, which was conducted

very quietly, having been completed, parliament, which had been

prorogued by commission on the 16th of October, was dissolved on the 3rd

of December, and the first general election under the reform act took

place. The writs were made returnable on the 29th of January, 1833. As

regards the machinery of the act, it appeared to work more smoothly than

had been anticipated. Generally speaking, in the most populous places,

the polling was concluded within the two days allowed by the act. Less

time and opportunity were allowed for bribery, and the disturbances

which used to arise from drunkenness and profligacy in a great measure

ceased. As regards the candidates which the machinery of the act

produced, there was a great dislocation of old connexions and

previous interests. There were three parties in the field: ministerial

candidates; Tories, now called Conservatives; and the Radicals, who

have been aptly termed “the apostles of pledges.” The elections were

generally in favour of the ministerial candidates, or at least of

candidates who professed the same general views, and declared their

adherence to a reforming ministry. This was natural, for in almost all

the boroughs success depended on the newly created electors, who could

scarcely refuse their votes to that party by whose means they had

procured the right of voting. The Whigs were most successful in

Scotland: out of fifty-three representatives elected in that portion of

the empire, not more than twelve were Conservatives; nor could half that

number be termed “apostles of pledges.” In Ireland, however, the Whigs

were not so successful. O’Connell had denounced the ministers, even

while the reform bill was in progress, as acting with insult and

injustice towards Ireland in the measure of change meted out to her; and

the refusal to abolish the Protestant established church in Ireland

had converted him and his adherents into declared enemies. All their

energies, therefore, were employed to return members who would either

drive ministers from the helm, or drive them to sacrifice the church,

and repeal the union. The consequence of his agitation was, that, while

Mr. O’Connell was himself elected for Dublin, he brought over with him

when parliament met some half-dozen of his own immediate relations,

besides various demagogical dependents, as the representatives of

Ireland. O’Connell’s manners and language on this occasion were violent

in the extreme. In a letter “To the Reformers of Great Britain,” he even

ventured to put forth articles of impeachment against the ministers, and

he went so far as to offer to coalesce with the Orangemen in order to

defeat them. The result of his agitation was that, by his exertions and

influence, coupled with that of the minor demagogues of Ireland, the

number of Radicals, or “Repealers” was greatly increased.

RESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER.

As the end of last session was approaching, Mr. Manners Sutton, who had

filled the speaker’s chair in six successive parliaments, announced his

intended resignation. His chief reason appears to have been that

the next parliament would consist of many new faces; and would be

differently constituted to those in which he had presided. All parties,

however, received his announcement with regret; and Lord Althorp moved,

Mr. Goulburn seconded, and the house voted by acclamation the usual

resolution of thanks in such cases. An address was also voted to the

king, praying his majesty to confer some signal mark of his favour on

the speaker; and this was carried into effect by granting to Mr. Sutton

£4000 a-year, to be reduced one-half if he accepted office under the

crown of equal value, and £3000 a-year to his son on his demise.

STATE OF IRELAND.

This year witnessed the disaffection of all parties in Ireland. Towards

the conclusion of the preceding year a systematic opposition to

tithes had been organised, and the repeal of the union had been openly

advocated. Ministers, doubtless, conceived that the reform bill would

conciliate both the agitators and their followers; but in this they

were mistaken. The reform bill, indeed, gave rise to new sources

of discontent. The Protestants lost all confidence therefrom in the

government; and they very naturally felt inclined to have recourse,

for means of defence, to the same instruments which the Catholics

used against them. They were surrounded by Catholic bands, inclined to

pillage and murder, and it was no wonder that they felt irritated by

a measure which appeared to give licence to the lawless. A meeting

of Protestant noblemen and gentlemen, held in Dublin, put forth a

manifesto, enumerating the various grievances of which they thought

themselves entitled to complain, and calling upon all their brethren

to be vigilant and true to their own interests. The example of this

assembly was followed in many parts of the country, and addresses

were voted by numerous meetings to the king. In one of these addresses

dissatisfaction and alarm was expressed at the spirit that appeared to

influence the councils and direct the measures of the Irish government.

Unconstitutional and mischievous associations, it was stated, had been

suffered to be formed and continued, the efforts of which were directed

to usurp the power of government, and destroy the civil and religious

institutions of the country; and these associations, instead of being

suppressed, were allowed to take place even in the metropolis, while

the instigators of them were rewarded with favour and confidence. This

address also expressed strong opinions on the reform bill. It would

transfer, it was said, to the Catholics and Catholic clergy an

overwhelming influence in the representation; that the boroughs,

whose franchise was to be taken from the Protestant corporations and

transferred to a larger constituency, had been incorporated for the

express purpose of maintaining, by a Protestant constituency, the

connexion between the two countries; and that the measure in progress

could have no other effect than to vest the dominion of Ireland in the

Catholics. On the other hand, the reform bill did not give satisfaction

to the Catholics; it gave much, but it did not give all that they

desired, or all that was necessary to the completion of their schemes.

Their object was ascendancy. Popery could not retain its glories in

Ireland, or the Protestant church be destroyed, so long as their fate

depended on a Protestant parliament. The union must be repealed; and

unless Ireland sent into the house of commons a large body of Catholic

repealers, there was no chance of such a consummation. Hence it was that

Mr. O’Connell attacked the Irish bill with such bitterness; it did not

make a larger addition to the representatives of Ireland, and it did not

sink the qualification to a scale sufficiently low to ensure the return

of all repealers to the reformed parliament. These “defects of the

bill,” therefore, supplied the demagogues with new sources of agitation.

The people were told that this pretended reform was an insult; that they

had received only a small portion of the justice that was due to them;

and that they must still offer unyielding opposition to a government

which granted only a part of their demands.

Meanwhile the tithe question became & fruitful source of discontent and

bloodshed. A petition was entrusted to Mr. O’Connell to the house of

commons against the Protestant church, which, while it announced in

plain language their own wishes, gave direct encouragement to violence

and outrage. The different counties, in fact, from the agitation of the

demagogues, presented one scene of growing lawlessness and crime. The

king’s speech was even made to foster this spirit of insubordination. It

had recommended the consideration of the tithe question in parliament;

and the Irish Catholics construed this into a condemnation of the tax.

Looking upon the tithes, therefore, as already denounced by the king

and the parliament, they thought they were justified in resisting

the payment of them. Everyman refused to pay; and threats, arson, and

murder, were directed against all who in any way connected themselves

with the payment, or collection of tithes, whether as clergyman,

proctor, policeman, or payer. Recourse was even had to intimidation

by public proclamation; chapel doors were desecrated by placards

threatening death and destruction to all who should pay tithes. Thus

instructed at the very sanctuary where peace alone should have been

taught, the ignorant and misguided peasantry everywhere committed acts

of violence and outrage. The premises of the tithe-payer were reduced to

ashes, and his cattle were houghed, or scattered over the country, or,

as in Carlow, hunted over precipices. Moreover, scarcely a week

elapsed in which a proctor, or a process-server, or a constable, or

a tithe-payer, were not murdered. An archdeacon of Cashel was even

murdered in broad daylight, while several persons who were ploughing in

the field where the act was committed, either would not, or dared not

interfere. Neither life nor property were safe; and in the beginning of

February the Irish government found it necessary to have recourse to the

peace-preservation act, and to proclaim certain baronies in the county

of Tipperary to be in a state of disturbance. This, however, had no

effect; large bodies of men everywhere openly defied the law, and roamed

about the county, compelling landlords to sign obligations to reduce

their rents, and to pay no tithes. They even compelled some farmers

to give up their farms and their houses, and, in some instances, they

committed the most atrocious cruelties. An end was put not only to

the payment of tithe, but to the payment of rent; and the terror which

prevailed on every hand acted as a shield to the offenders. In fact, it

was considered a crime to be connected with any attempt to execute the

law against the insurgents, and to betray any activity in preserving

order was to become a marked man; such a man was sure of being made

the victim of open violence, or secret assassination. Such an extensive

combination had been entered into to resist the payment of tithes, and

to protect all who might be implicated, that the ends of justice could

not be attained. Jurors were in danger of losing property and life; and

at Kilkenny the attorney-general even found it necessary to delay the

trials.

Government, as the year advanced, filled the disturbed districts with

troops and an augmented constabulary force; but no approach was made to

the restoration of order. The magistrates of the county of Kilkenny made

an unanimous application to the Irish government for stronger measures

to meet the crisis; but the lord-lieutenant stated in his answer, that,

from circumstances which had taken place, he had no expectation left of

any appeal to the law under the existing excitement proving effectual.

He sent, indeed, into that county three additional stipendiary

magistrates, and one hundred additional policemen; but this was

ineffectual: crime still prevailed, and resistance was successfully

made to the payment of tithes. In the meantime, the agitators and their

political unions, while they affected to deplore the perpetration of

the outrages which were every day occurring, did not cease to address to

their countrymen the same exciting language in which they had hitherto

indulged, and to devise new schemes and combinations for open resistance

to the law. It was quite evident, indeed, that they were at the bottom

of all the mischief that was afloat. It is true, they did not recommend

openly murder and arson, and that they preached passive resistance; but

they called upon every man to refuse payment of tithes, and in that call

was involved disobedience to the laws. Dublin was the seat of most

of the mischief going forward. From thence the agitators continued to

describe Ireland to its inhabitants as the slave of England, and to

denounce the existence of tithe. The remedy of the tithe-owner was

distraint; but in a few instances only could a sale be carried into

effect, and the clergy were at length compelled to give up all attempts

to enforce their rights, the more especially as the arrears, if the

measures proposed by ministers were carried, would become debts due to

government. Where-ever a sale was effected, all those connected with it

were objects of vengeance. Thus, in Kildare, a farmer who had purchased

some distrained cattle, was obliged to throw up his farm and leave

the country. The opposition against the payment of tithe was directed

against the government as well as the clergy. Its intention was to drive

ministers, if possible, to recommend and enforce their abolition, by

rendering the recovery of them impracticable. Anti-tithe meetings were

held in every part of Ireland, and the greater part of the country was

involved in one huge conspiracy. During the year government seemed to

think it time to try whether the law could not reach the tumultuous

assemblies of the conspirators. A circular was addressed to the Irish

magistracy, directing them to disperse all meetings collected in such

numbers as to produce alarm and endanger peace, as distinguished by

banners, inscriptions, or emblems, which tended to disturbance, or to

throw contumely on the law. This circular was denounced by Mr. O’Connell

as illegal, though he advised that it should be obeyed. Several large

meetings were dispersed by the military, headed by a magistrate; but

where the meeting was strictly parochial, no opposition was offered to

their proceedings. It was this spirit of lawlessness which gave rise to

the Irish tithe-bill of this session. The passing of that bill neither

mitigated the discord which everywhere prevailed, nor diminished the

crimes which that discord produced. The people had been taught to demand

as their right, and to expect as a concession, the annihilation of

tithe; but they found that the crown, by the Irish tithe-bill, had

become creditor instead of the clergymen. They had now, therefore, to

struggle with the crown. Proceedings were adopted by the law-officers

of government to enforce payment of arrears, and at the same time it

was resolved to try the power of the law against the ringleaders of the

“anti-tithe meetings.” A great number of persons were apprehended on the

charge of conspiracy, and of holding illegal assemblies. Some of these

on their trials were convicted, and others, on the advice of O’Connell,

pleaded guilty, and they were fined and imprisoned; but they were looked

upon as martyrs, and the penalties which they were suffering were noted

down as another unpardonable injury committed against Ireland by the

English government and the Protestant church. The law, however, was not

equally successful when directed against the more atrocious crimes of

arson and murder, which had been committed in the southern counties.

Life was not safe in those parts, and jurors and witnesses alike dreaded

the execution of a duty which might involve a sentence of death upon

themselves. Rather than attend, they paid the fine for absence; or if

they attended, they were afraid to convict, even in the most atrocious

cases. The law-officers were, in fact, compelled to give up the

prosecutions in despair, and murder remained unavenged. In celebration

of this triumph over law and justice, the county of Kilkenny blazed

with bonfires, announcing to the world that the guilty had escaped

punishment. As for the “acquitting jurors,” they were greeted with the

popular applause; and because they allowed murder to be committed

with impunity, the peasantry hastened in crowds to their fields in

harvest-time, and reaped their fields for nothing. Crime, therefore,

prospered; and the tale of murder was repeatedly told in the newspapers

of the day, while the perpetrators thereof escaped the punishment due

to their crimes. Yet no lament was raised by the political guides of

Ireland over murdered landholders and clergymen; it appeared to be, in

their sight, a just revenge. At the same time a long wail of woe was

heard throughout the country, if it happened that any of the resisting

peasantry were killed by the military in the performance of their duties

in securing the tithe. Four were thus killed in the county of Cork, and

others wounded, the military being compelled to fire in self-defence;

and Mr. O ‘Connell immediately sent forth a letter to the reformers of

Great Britain, invoking vengeance. And yet this man, who could deplore

the fate of violators of the laws, could not find any cause for lament

in the deaths of the many clergymen and laymen who had been slain by the

infuriated peasantry. He could not find it in his heart to deplore the

fact that the blood of peaceful, respectable, and virtuous citizens, had

been shed on Irish ground; but he could palliate the conduct of their

murderers, and by his agitation virtually sanction the foul crime.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year Don Pedro carried his threat into execution, of

attempting to recover the throne of Portugal from his brother by force

of arms. He had been permitted to levy men, and to purchase vessels and

shipments of arms and ammunition, both in England and France, and the

naval part of the expedition was placed under the command of a British

officer, who became a Portuguese admiral. The expedition sailed from the

rendezvous, in the Azores, on the 27th of June, and it consisted of

two frigates, three corvettes, three armed brigs, and four schooners,

besides transports, and a number of gun-boats to cover the landing. The

army on board, including British and French recruits, did not amount to

ten thousand men, and it was scantily provided, both with cavalry and

artillery. The invaders landed off Oporto on the 9th of July, without

any opposition; and in the course of the day they took undisturbed

possession of the city, the enemy having retired to the left bank of

the Douro, and destroyed the bridge. The possession of this city was

doubtless of great importance to Don Pedro; but it was far removed from

the capital. He had hopes that the country would rise in his favour,

and that the military would abandon his opponent. In these expectations,

however, he was doomed to be disappointed. Don Miguel was enabled to

concentrate his forces, and to organise the means of resistance; and at

the close of the year, after some slight successes in engagements with

the enemy, he was shut up in Oporto by the Miguelites, who bombarded the

town, blockaded the Douro, and placed him in a very critical situation.

In the East a quarrel took place between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali,

Pasha of Egypt, which threatened serious consequences to the Turkish

empire, and occasioned such interference on the part of Russia as

awakened the jealousy, and aroused the watchfulness of the other

European powers. Ibrahim wrested Syria from the Porte, and the Ottoman

empire was tottering to its fall, unless the European states should

interfere to prevent it, or Russia should realize her long-cherished

schemes of aggrandizement by taking the shores of the Bosphorus, which

the Sultan was not able to defend, under her own protection. It was

feared by the European powers that Russia would thus act; and toward

the end of June, ministers dispatched the son-in-law of the premier on

a special mission to Russia. Much confidence was placed by the public

in the integrity and talents of Lord Durham, and an attempt was made to

induce the ministers to embrace this opportunity of mitigating the

cruel fate which hung over the unhappy Poles. Poland, however, was still

doomed to be unbefriended. Russia was left to seek the annihilation of

its existence as a separate nation at her pleasure. By an ukase

this year, indeed, the emperor declared that Poland, with a separate

administration, should become an integral part of the empire, “and its

inhabitants form but one nation with the Russians, bound together by

uniform and national sentiments.” During this session, also, there was

a debate on the subject of payments made to Russia without the authority

of parliament. This question was connected with the financial affairs

of the country, though it was treated more as a question of political

party. It arose out of the treaty of 1814 for the incorporation of the

Belgian provinces with Holland. By that treaty Great Britain had agreed

to pay a certain share of a debt due to Russia by Holland, so long as

Holland and Belgium were united. They had now been disjoined for nearly

a year, and yet ministers had been making these payments without any

new authority from parliament. The subject was brought forward by

Mr. Herries, who entered at length on the subject, and contended that

England had no right any longer to pay money to Russia: the Dutch had

refused to pay any more, and ministers should not have done so without

at least new powers from parliament. He moved three resolutions:—“That

by the 55 Geo. III., for carrying into effect the convention between

Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Russia, the treasury was empowered

to issue sums to pay the interest and capital due by Holland to Russia,

conformably with the provisions of the convention: That the payment of

these sums was made to depend upon the non-separation of the kingdoms

of Holland and Belgium; and that, as the kingdoms of Belgium and

Holland had been separated, all payments made since that separation were

unwarranted by act of parliament, and contrary to the treaty recognising

the loan.” Lord Althorp, in reply, said that the true question was,

whether the country was not bound in honour to the continued payment

of those sums. Looking at it only according to the strict letter of

the treaty, we might not be bound; but he thought that by a careful

examination of its spirit and provisions, it would be found that our

honour was pledged to the payments, and that on no other consideration

than that it was so pledged should we have interfered as we had done

in the affairs of Holland and Belgium. He argued that the separation

contemplated by the framers of the treaty was one produced by extreme

force, and had nothing to say to any severance proceeding from internal

causes. He argued further, that it was by giving Russia an interest

in preventing the severance of Holland and Belgium, that this country

concluded the treaty; and that, therefore, to that treaty we were

equally pledged. That Holland had refused to pay was immaterial: if one

pledged himself to the payment of a debt to which there was also a third

party, it would be dishonourable to take advantage of that third party

having refused to fulfil his engagement, as a legal reason for also

refusing to fulfil your engagement. With respect to the resolutions, he

had only to say, that, as the two first were merely declaratory of

the fact, he should, as far as they were concerned, move the previous

question; but as the third was a direct censure on ministers, he should

meet it with a direct negative. Ministers had acted on the opinion of

the attorney and solicitor-general, and they now defended that opinion.

Lord John Russell also argued that it was the spirit and not the letter

of the treaty which must be looked at, and that that spirit justified

the payment. He complained that the resolutions were moved with a mere

party view, and not from any love of economy or from any desire to

maintain a constitutional principle. He complained also, that a motion

should be made for censuring ministers, without calling for papers, and

without any allusion to the circumstances which had occurred in 1830

and 1831, and on which the interpretation of the treaty might in a great

degree depend. After some stinging comments upon this speech, Sir Robert

Peel wound up the debate in one of his most plausible parliamentary

addresses. He clearly confuted the main arguments which Lord Althorp

used, and produced an effect unfavourable to ministers. When the house

divided, the previous question was carried by a majority only of twenty;

and government had but the narrow majority of twenty-four for the third

resolution. Many of their adherents, including Mr. Hume, voted against

them on this occasion; and even their secretary-at-war, Sir Henry

Parnell, failed to attend to vote for them, for which conduct he lost

his place, and was succeeded by Sir John Cam Hobhouse. The truth was, as

it afterwards appeared, ministers had entered into a new convention with

Russia, although that convention had not been ratified. Ministers laid

this before parliament on the 27th of June; and on the 12th of July Lord

Althorp moved the house to go into committee to consider of it, with the

view that a bill should be brought in to enable his majesty to execute

it. The convention provided for continuing the payments, and the

opposition thought this a powerful argument in their favour; if a new

convention was necessary, it was said, the former payments were made

without authority. They moved the following amendment to Lord Alfhorp’s

motion:—“That it appears to this house that the payment made by the

commissioners of the treasury on account of the interest due on the

Russian loan in Holland, in January last, when the obligation and

authority to make such payment had, according to the terms of the

convention with Holland and Russia, and of the act of parliament founded

thereon, ceased and determined, and also when a new convention with

Russia, not then communicated to this house, had been entered into,

recognising the necessity of recurring to parliament for power to

continue such payments under the circumstances which had attended the

separation which had taken place, was an application of the public

money not warranted by law.” Ministers still argued the question on the

ground, whether this country was bound in good faith to continue the

payments? if we were, they said, this convention was only to fulfil that

duty. But the strongest argument in their favour was that adduced by

Lord Althorp, which was to the effect, that, if his motion were lost,

it would upset the ministry. As the reform bill was still pending, many

voted for, who would have voted against them; and, on a division, the

amendment was lost by forty-six—one hundred and ninety-seven voting for

it, and two hundred and forty-three against it. During the progress of

the bill, founded on the motion, Mr. A. Baring moved an address to the

king, “praying his majesty to be graciously pleased to direct that there

be laid before that house copies or extracts of any documents relating

to the convention of the 19th of May, 1815, between Great Britain,

Russia, and the Netherlands, explanatory of the spirit and objects of

that convention;” but this motion was lost by a majority of thirty-six in

favour of ministers. On this occasion Mr. Hume voted for them, although,

he said, he knew they were in the wrong. He had come down to the house

on the 12th of July, he said, with a firm determination to vote against

them; but when he found by whom he was surrounded, he was unwilling to

join them in driving ministers from office. He had changed his opinion,

and would vote with the Whigs against the Tories, although he believed

the Whigs were in the wrong. But the fact was, he was determined not

to assist in turning out ministers until they had completed the great

measure of reform. A great deal remained to be done, and he wanted to

see a new election take place; he was determined, therefore, to support

ministers. The conduct of Mr. Hume was followed generally by the

liberal party, and this policy of the extreme sections of liberals alone

preserved ministers in office. Another interesting subject was brought

before the house by Mr. Lytton Bulwer, relating to the Germanic states.

He moved for “an address to the king, requesting his majesty to exert

his influence with the diet in opposition to the course which that body

was then pursuing.” In making this motion, Mr. Bulwer traced an outline

of the political history of the Germanic confederacy, from its free

government to its termination with the victories of Austerlitz and Jena,

when the principle of aggrandizing the larger states at the expense of

the smaller was first avowed and practised. He said that the defeat

of Napoleon in his Russian campaign gave to Germany the opportunity of

casting off a yoke which had been reluctantly borne. Russia and Prussia

then appealed to her former free constitutions, the restoration of which

was distinctly promised, when the Germanic states rose _en masse_; and

the battle of Leipsic, with the downfall of the French power, speedily

followed. By the second article of the congress of Vienna, he continued,

the promises of Russia and Prussia were respected, and the rights of

every class in the nation were solemnly guaranteed, the only state

disagreeing being Wurtemburg. The late protocol of the diet, however,

had for its object the rendering of the representative bodies of the

several states useless, by relieving their despotic princes from every

embarrassment which an efficient control by such assemblies might

create, and to protect Austria and Prussia against the influential

example of popular institutions. The sovereigns of these two states, he

said, are willing to give just so much constitutional liberty to Germany

as will not allow its writers to write, its professors to teach, its

chambers to vote taxes, make speeches, or propose resolutions; whilst

every state should be so inviolate, so independent, that, with or

without the invitation of its sovereign, a deputation of Austrian or

Prussian hussars may be sent to keep it in order! The question was,

therefore, was it politic for England, under such circumstances, to

interfere? Our situation, he said, rendered it incumbent on us to

express an opinion, at least, in favour of the German people, or we

must be thought to take part with their rulers. He could not recommend

a foolish and hasty interference with foreign states, yet he could not

consent that England should be a cipher in the political combinations of

Europe, looking with indifference on the continent, as though no changes

could affect her interests. And if there was any one thing more than

another which immediately affected British interests, he thought it was

the fate of Germany. Unite that country under a good government, and it

would be at once a check on the aggrandisement of France and ambition of

Russia. Mr. Bulwer concluded with his motion for the address; but Lord

Palmerston dissented from his opinions, and was willing to believe that

the government alluded to would not be so impolitic as to put down free

constitutions. The motion was therefore negatived.

During this year Greece was involved in absolute anarchy. After the

assassination of Capo d’Istrias it was left without a government, and

although Augustine, brother of the murdered president, concocted a

provisional government, and placed himself at the head, the refractory

chiefs could not brook his authority, and began to act for themselves.

A national assembly met at Argos in the middle of December, 1831; but

it was not more successful in restoring obedience and tranquillity.

Everywhere there was confusion and bloodshed, as in the days of the

ancients. The national assembly of Argos was overthrown, and every

chief ruled despotic in the small district which he was strong enough to

occupy. In the meantime the courts of Britain, France, and Russia were

occupied in selecting a king who might reduce the country to order more

easily and effectually than they could do by protocols and despatches.

Their choice fell on Otho, son of the King of Bavaria; and his majesty

having accepted the crown on behalf of his son, the conditions were

fixed by a treaty, concluded in May, between him and the sovereigns of

England, France, and Russia. The territory to be comprehended in the

new state was to be somewhat larger than when its sovereignty had been

offered to Leopold; and the King of Bavaria was to send along with his

son an army of 36,000 men, to be supported entirely at the expense of

the country. It might have been expected that the Greeks would have been

averse to the rule of a foreign monarch, attended by foreign troops, and

professing a different religion to themselves. The assembly of Napoli,

however, as soon as they had been informed of the conclusion of the

treaty, dispatched an address to the King of Bavaria, praying him to

hasten the arrival of their monarch. The address was followed by a

deputation, which was received at Munich with marks of royal favour, and

which had been commissioned to assure their future sovereign of their

good will and ready submission to his rule. The young monarch quitted

Munich for Greece on the 6th of December, proceeding by the way of

Naples, Otranto, and Brindisi, to Corfu, where he was to be met by the

army intended to support his newly-erected throne. He made his entrance

into Napoli on the 5th of February, 1833; and the regency appointed

for the duration of his minority—for he was a minor—replaced the

provisional government.

CHAPTER XLIII.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

_Meeting of Parliament; Reelection of Mr. Manners Sutton as

Speaker..... . Opening of the Reformed Parliament by the

King in person..... Case of Mr. Pease..... Irish Coercion

Bill..... Irish Church Bill..... Irish Tithe Bill.....

Financial Statements..... Bank of England Charter

renewed..... . East India Question..... Abolition of Slavery

in the Colonies..... Factory Bill..... The Corn Laws.....

Resolutions against Bribery, &c. Bill to Remove the

Civil Disabilities of Jews..... Prorogation of

Parliament..... Foreign Affairs_

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

{A.D. 1833}

The first reformed parliament was opened by commission on the 29th of

January. The first business of the commons was to elect a speaker. Mr.

Manners Sutton had not been advanced to the peerage, although such a

mark of honour is usually bestowed on those who have filled the chair

for so long a period, and with such distinguished applause. At the

general election he had been returned one of the members for the

university of Cambridge; and ministers having obtained his consent to

put him in nomination, resolved to support his re-election as chairman.

This intention was not concealed; and on the meeting of parliament Mr.

Hume moved that Mr. Littleton, one of the members for Staffordshire,

should take the chair. The Radicals, of whom Mr. Hume was one of the

leaders, took this step on the score of Mr. Manners Sutton’s politics,

considering it a matter of the greatest importance that the speaker

should concur generally in the political sentiments entertained by a

majority of members. Mr. Hume’s motion was seconded by Mr. O’Connell,

who denounced the intention of government as “another instance of the

paltry truckling of the present administration.” On the other side, Lord

Morpeth moved, and Sir Francis Burdett seconded the motion, that Mr.

Manners Sutton should take the chair. In doing so, they insisted on the

admitted fact of his superior qualification, as well as the candid

and impartial conduct which he had observed during the late political

struggles. Mr. Littleton himself requested Mr. Hume to withdraw

his motion; but that gentleman declined to do so. Seeing the house

universally in the favour of Mr. Manners Sutton, the Radicals now

chiefly confined themselves to the question of the pension. The attorney

and solicitor-general argued that there was no feasible ground for these

objections, and asserted that he would have no claim to his retiring

annuity. By act of parliament, any speaker was entitled to his salary

till a successor was elected, and Mr. Manners Sutton, being thus

entitled to his salary, he could have no claim for a pension. On a

division, Mr. Manners Sutton was re-elected by a majority of two hundred

and forty-one against thirty-one.

OPENING OF THE REFORMED PARLIAMENT BY THE KING IN PERSON.

The first session of the new parliament was opened by the king in

person, on the 5th of February. His speech on this occasion took a

comprehensive view of our foreign and domestic relations, in which the

affairs of Holland, the approaching termination of the charters of the

Bank and the East India Company, the temporalities of the church, and

the state of Ireland, were prominently introduced.

In the house of lords the address was voted almost unanimously, a slight

discussion only being elicited by the sentiments of Lord Aberdeen and

the Duke of Wellington, against the foreign policy of government, and

especially that regarding Portugal and Holland. Such harmony, however,

did not exist in the commons. A part of the speech which pointed at the

adoption of extraordinary measures to suppress insubordination, excited

violent indignation among a large portion of the Irish members.

Mr. O’Connell denounced the address as “bloody, brutal, and

unconstitutional.” He concluded by moving an amendment, that the house

do now resolve itself into a committee of the whole house to consider of

the address to his majesty. Mr. Stanley replied in a speech of caustic

severity, which the agitators of Ireland have never forgotten or

forgiven. He argued that coercion was necessary; that crime could not

be put down in Ireland but by the strong arm of the law. Colonel Davis

considered Mr. Stanley’s speech as an insult to Ireland, and as proving

that he was totally unfit for office. He was opposed to the repeal of

the union; but unless justice were dealt out to Ireland by measures

of relief being proposed, he would vote against the coercive policy

contemplated by government. Mr. Roebuck expressed himself to the same

effect: he would not join with ministers in doing what must produce a

civil war in Ireland: if they did not take care, they would find the

people rise up in such terrible array that they would not know where to

turn. Lord Althorp declared that it was the intention of ministers to

remove every grievance they possibly could; but, he asked, was it not

a grievance that, in Ireland, life and property were not secure—that

murder, burglary, and arson should exist in every part of that country?

If it was their duty to remove grievances, ought they not to remove this

grievance also? The debate was continued by adjournment on the three

following days; the general strain of the arguments adduced coinciding

with those expressed on the first day of the debate. The opposition

to the address was chiefly conducted by Irish members, although

they received likewise the support of Messrs. Hume, Cobbett, Bulwer,

Tennyson, and Clay. Mr. Bulwer told ministers that the independent

representatives of the people in that house, three hundred in number,

were allied to no old party, and attached to no superstitious observance

of Whig names; and that these members could not, night after night, hear

grievances stated by the Irish members, which, received no other answers

except demands for soldiery, without dropping off in serious defection

from the ministerial majority. Mr. Tennyson said, that he had no doubt

of the good intention of ministers; but he could not approve of their

conduct in pressing the house to adopt the address. At the same time

he could not support the amendment of Mr. O’Connell, and he therefore

proposed another to this effect:—“That the house should declare its

readiness to sanction such measures for restoring social order in

Ireland, as might appear, on mature deliberation and inquiry, necessary,

and to entrust his majesty’s official servants with additional power for

that purpose, and to employ its best energies to the putting an end to

the disturbances which affect that country; that, while the house would

give a willing ear and earnest attention to the complaints and petitions

of the Irish people, with the view to promoting an efficient remedy, it

was prepared to resist by every means in its power all lawless attempts

to effect a repeal of the legislative union between the two countries.”

Mr. Macaulay taunted Mr. O’Connell with not having ventured to bring

the question of repeal before the house. He asked, what was meant by the

watchword of repeal of the union between Great Britain and Ireland. If

those who used it meant a complete separation, or a species of Hibernian

republic, their conduct was both comprehensible and consistent; but if,

as they asserted, they only meant two separate independent legislatures,

under the same monarch, the motion was inconsistent with the first

principles of the science of government. After having shown this

inconsistency by a chain of conclusive reasoning, he said, that he

admitted Ireland had grievances to remove; but, he asked, was he in the

meantime to see the law outraged and despised by a misguided multitude?

Talk of the distribution of church property in a country where no

property was respected! and be told that to enforce the laws against the

robber, the murderer, and the incendiary, was to drive an injured people

into civil war! Did those who talked thus wildly recollect that sixty

murders, or attempts at murder, and six hundred burglaries, or attempts

at burglary, were committed in one county alone, in the space of a few

weeks? This was worse than civil war. He would rather live in the midst

of many civil wars he had read of, than in some parts of Ireland. Civil

war had commenced, and if not checked, it would end in the ruin of the

empire. Mr. Shiel, in reference to repeal, entrenched himself behind

quotations from speeches delivered by Lord Grey at the time of the

union, in which he predicted that it would only lead to distress,

suspicion, and resentment, and that the people of Ireland would seek an

opportunity of recovering rights which they would believe to have been

wrested from them by force. The interest of the debate ended with Mr.

Shiel’s speech, although addresses were subsequently made by Mr. Grant,

Mr. Hume, and Sir Robert Peel. On a division, Mr. O’Connell’s amendment

was lost by a majority of four hundred and twenty-eight against forty;

and Mr. Tennyson’s, by three hundred and ninety-three against sixty. On

the bringing up of the report, Mr. Cobbett moved that the whole of the

address should be rejected, and that another which he had concocted

should be adopted. This crude amendment was negatived by an overwhelming

majority: only twenty-three in a full house voted for it.

CASE OF MR. PEASE.

During the general election, the southern division of the county of

Durham had returned Mr. Pease, a gentleman who belonged to the Society

of Friends. On the 9th of February, when he appeared to be sworn in,

as a Friend he refused to take an oath, but offered to give his

solemn affirmation. He was desired by the speaker to withdraw, as no

affirmation could be made without the sanction of the house. A committee

was appointed, on the motion of Lord Althorp, to report what precedents

were to be found on the journals, and what was the state of the law in

regard to Friends being allowed to substitute affirmation for oath. The

report of this committee was taken into consideration on the 14th, and

its chairman, Mr. Wynn, moved that Mr. Pease was, on making his solemn

affirmation, entitled to take his seat, without taking those oaths which

were demanded from the other members of the house. Mr. Wynn stated, at

great length, the reasons which induced him to make this motion, and the

solicitor-general agreed in his views. It was quite clear, the latter

said, that at the time of passing the 7th and 8th William III., Friends

could not sit in parliament, having been excluded, along with all other

dissenters, by the 30th Charles II.; but under the act of William they

would have been admissible, if its provisions, as they ought to have

been, had been construed liberally. At all events, the act of George

II. removed every doubt: it was evident that the legislature, in passing

that act, intended to put Friends on the same footing in England with

all other dissenters, except Catholics; such being the case, the

act ought to be construed in accordance with the intention of the

legislature in passing it. The motion to allow Mr. Pease to make his

solemn affirmation in place of the usual oath was agreed to unanimously.

IRISH COERCION BILL.

On the 15th of February, Earl Grey introduced into the house of lords

a bill for the suppression of disturbances in Ireland. In doing so,

his lordship related the evils which called for such a measure, clearly

showing that it was necessary. In explaining the provisions by which

ministers proposed to meet the evils, he said, that the bill combined

many provisions of the several laws that had been passed both in the

Irish and English parliament for the repression of such outrages as he

had related, with such alterations as circumstances seemed to require.

Provision was made for proclaiming districts in a state of disturbance;

and it was provided that courts should be appointed in which offences

connected with such districts were to be tried. It was also provided

that persons prosecuted under this act should be obliged to plead

forthwith, as in cases of felony, and not be permitted to delay their

trial. By the bill the lord-lieutenant was to be empowered, on due

information, to proclaim any district to be in a disturbed state.

All persons were to be warned to abstain from seditious and illegal

meetings; and no one was to be absent from their houses after sunset

until sunrise, unless they could give good reason for their being

abroad, under the penalty of being found guilty of a misdemeanour.

Another provision was, that meetings for the purpose of petitioning

parliament, or for discussing grievances, should not be held without

giving ten days’ notice to the lord-lieutenant, or without his sanction.

It was further thought advisable that proclaimed districts should, to a

certain extent, be subjected to martial law. Military courts were to

be formed for the trial of all offences under this act, with power

to pronounce sentence as definitively as any commission of oyer and

terminer. The lord-lieutenant was to have the power for the appointment

of courts-martial; and it was provided that courts-martial should not

consist of more than nine gentlemen nor less than five. It was further

provided, that no officer under twenty-one years of age, or who had

held his commission for less than two years, should act on such

courts-martial; and that the said courts-martial should not have the

power of trying for any offence to which a felonious punishment was

attached, except by special direction of the lord-lieutenant; and that,

in that case, they should only pronounce sentence of transportation,

either for seven years or for life. It was made imperative that

a serjeant-at-law or a king’s counsel should sit to assist in the

judgment. A clause was likewise introduced to shield officers who had.

acted on courts-martial under this act from future prosecution: any

complaints made against them on account of their proceedings at any

court-martial were to be inquired into by a court-martial to be called

for that purpose. The bill further gave power to enter houses in

search of arms; and persons refusing to produce them were subjected to

punishment. It was also made a misdemeanour to disperse seditious papers

in a proclaimed district; with a provision that, if the persons actually

dispersing them gave up his employer, the former should be discharged.

Finally, it was to be enacted, that when an individual arrested under

this bill sued out a writ of _habeas corpus_ within three calendar

months after his arrest, it should be a sufficient return to the writ,

that the person so detained was kept in custody on a charge of offence

perpetrated in a proclaimed district; at the same time it was provided

that every person arrested should be brought to trial within three

calendar months, or should be discharged. This bill was carried in the

lords without opposition; some slight amendments being adopted in the

committee with reference to the constitution, the powers, and the mode

of procedure of the courts-martial. The bill, however, had to encounter

a stormy course in the commons. On its appearance there on the 22nd, the

first reading was postponed till the 27th, and Mr. O’Connell gave notice

that he would move a call of the house for that day, and would repeat

the call whenever he perceived any relaxation of its effects, so long as

the bill was before them. He taunted ministers with the delay, which he

insinuated was interposed to their remedial measures, and reminded them

there was another house of parliament through which they might find it

impossible to carry redress of grievances, whatever was the unanimity

with which it enacted measures of coercion: “a house where any proposal

springing from malignant hatred of Ireland was sure to pass.” Mr.

Stanley denied that there was any necessity for remedial and repressive

measures going on together; but at the same time he declared that

if ministers found themselves unable to carry both they would resign

office. On the 27th, the house having been called over, Lord Althorp

moved the first reading of the bill. Ministers, he said, had waited

to the last, to ascertain what order could be restored by the ordinary

administration of the laws; and after relating at length the evils

which afflicted Ireland—telling-many a tale of murder committed with

impunity, even in broad daylight—he explained the provisions of the

bill concocted to repress them. In conclusion, he asserted that the bill

had no reference to the collection of tithes, as some had hinted, or any

other individual purpose, except the maintenance of social order. The

motion was met by an amendment from Mr. Tennyson, that the bill should

be read a second time that day fortnight: his object being, as he

stated, to give government an opportunity, whether in a select committee

or otherwise, to satisfy the house that the dangers which had been

stated really existed, and that there were no other means of effectually

checking them. The amendment was supported by Messrs. Bulwer and Grote,

the former of whom was averse to coercion in any shape, and contended

that it would only produce mischief. Mr. Grote admitted that good

grounds had been stated why the hands of justice should be strengthened,

but he objected very strongly to courts-martial being employed in the

administration of justice. To him it appeared that it would be much

better if, instead of creating these courts-martial, the bill had

granted more extensive, prompt, and efficient powers to the civil

courts. Mr. Stanley, in reply to Mr. Grote, said it was true that the

committee of last year had recommended a tribunal consisting of the

magistrates of the neighbourhood sitting at quarter-sessions, and having

power to sit by adjournment from time to time, till tranquillity was

restored. He contended, however, that it would be a most objectionable

thing to confide the administration of such a law to the local

magistracy. The debate was continued up to the 5th of March, the Irish

members threatening to have recourse to repeated motions of adjournment

if any attempt was made to close the discussion prematurely. The

opposition was composed of those who considered that the bill ought to

be resisted altogether, as well as of those who thought that delay, as

involved in the amendment, should be conceded. The members who opposed

it were Messrs. O’Connell, Shiel, O’Connor, Baldwin, Barron, O’Dwyer,

and Ruthven, among the Irish members; and Messrs. Romilly and Harvey,

with Majors Beauclerk and Fancourt, among the English members. On the

other hand, the necessity and efficacy of the bill were maintained by

Lord John Russell, Sir R. Peel, and Mr. Macaulay, with other English

members; and by Messrs. Carew, Tennent, and Lefroy, Lords Castlereagh

and Acheson, and Sirs R. Bateson and C. Coote, among the Irish members.

The opposition contended that no necessity for the bill had been made

out to any extent, much less to the effect of utterly destroying the

constitution over the whole of Ireland; that the “prædial agitation”

had no connection with political agitation, and did not require any

measure like this to put it down; and that the true cause of these

disturbances was the refusal of ministers to abolish tithes, and the

true object of it to prevent all expression of public sentiment in

Ireland against their faithlessness and misgovernment. Those who

supported the bill contended, on the other hand, that not only were the

existing outrages such as to require extraordinary measures contrary

to the constitution, and that when this necessity for overstepping the

constitution once existed, it was safer to err on the side of vigour

than to run the risk of a half-measure; but that it was likewise proved

that this “prædial agitation,” as it was called by the repealers, was

closely connected with the political agitation; the principle of both

was intimidation. Sir Robert Peel admitted that the measure was one of

intolerable severity if there was not a paramount necessity for it; but

he denied that it was a suspension of the British constitution. As for

the amendment proposing delay, Sir Robert said that he could not listen

to it for one moment; the necessity for the measure was urgent. What

could be answered to the astounding fact that in one year and in one

province there had been one hundred and ninety-six murders and attempts

at murder, one hundred and ninety-four burnings, one thousand eight

hundred and twenty-seven burglaries and attacks on houses? How could the

state of society be worse! and how could the people of Ireland be better

off by persevering in maintaining the existing law! One hundred and

ninety-six murders! Why, great battles had been fought, and great

victories achieved by this country at a less expense of human blood.

The battle of St. Vincent had been gained at less cost of life; the

sanguinary bombardment of Algiers had caused less loss of life; and we

had rolled back the impetuous tide of French exultation at the battle of

Busaco with less loss of life. There was something animating in the idea

of a battle; but what horrid recollections haunted the mind which

had witnessed a murder! The debate was closed by Mr. O’Connell,

who, smarting under the severe remarks made by some of the speakers,

delivered a speech of remarkable energy. Ministers, he said, after

combating at length the principles of the measures, had done their best

by enforcing the tithe act; it was not their fault that the case was not

worse. As for the attacks made upon himself he cared nothing for them

personally; but the wrongs of his country were mixed up with them. Why,

he asked, did they not pass an act to banish him? That would be fair

and manly, and he would consent to it; but let them not banish the

constitution from Ireland. He stood in a reformed parliament, in

the midst of the representatives of the great and glorious people of

England, who, disguise it as they might, were about to legislate against

a single individual. What mighty work! He felt compassion for them. On

a division, the first reading of the bill was carried by a majority

of four hundred and sixty-six to eighty-nine. This was a preponderance

which seemed to promise an easy passage through its other stages,

especially as the discussion which is generally elicited at the second

reading took place on the first reading. When, however, the order of the

day for the second reading was moved, Mr. Hume opposed it in a violent

speech, denouncing the apostasy of ministers: they had forgotten, he

said, and violated the principles of which they had been the noisy

advocates for twenty-five years, and to which advocacy they were wholly

indebted for their political reputation and power. He warned them

against “the wickedness of their proceedings,” and called on them to

pause in their rash career. He moved as an amendment:—“That the house

deeply laments the disturbed state of some of the districts in Ireland,

and is willing to entrust to his majesty whatever powers may be

necessary to control and punish the disturbers of the public peace, and

the midnight violators of the law; but is of opinion that it has not

been satisfactorily shown that the existing laws are not sufficient for

these purposes, and it cannot, therefore, give its consent to a bill

which places Ireland out of the pale of the British constitution.”

Alderman Wood seconded this resolution; but, on a division which took

place on the 11th, the second reading being put off on some matter of

form to that day, the amendment was rejected, and the second reading

carried by three hundred and sixty-three against eighty-four. But

notwithstanding this overwhelming majority, the progress of the bill

through the committee on the 13th, 15th, 18th, 19th, and 22nd of

March was a series of conflicts. On the 13th Mr. O’Connell moved an

instruction to the committee to “preserve inviolate and effectual

the undoubted right of his majesty’s subjects in Ireland peaceably to

propose, prepare, and present petitions for redressing grievances to his

majesty, and to both houses of parliament.” This, he said, would still

leave hope to his country. This proposition was rejected by one hundred

and twenty-five against sixty-three; and in the committee Mr. O’Connell

moved several amendments, which were likewise negatived. In the

committee ministers themselves inserted a provision by which, even in

proclaimed districts, offences purely political were withdrawn from the

cognizance of the military tribunals, and left to be dealt with by

the ordinary civil jurisdiction. Ministers, also, of their own accord,

omitted, in the clause giving powers to search, arrest, and detain for

trial in proclaimed districts, the provision which gave this power

to “such other persons as the said lord-lieutenant shall think fit

to authorize in that behalf.” Divisions took place on the clauses

establishing the courts-martial, suspending the Habeas Corpus Act,

and protecting those who should act under the bill: but these were all

carried by large majorities. The bill finally passed on the 23rd of

March, and was immediately sent back to the peers for their concurrence

in the alterations which had been made in the commons. Their lordships

took these into consideration on the 1st of April; and though much

dissatisfaction was expressed by the peers with the amendments, and

especially with a proviso inserted in one of the clauses, that no

district should be proclaimed because tithes were not paid in it, the

bill was finally passed. The effect of the bill was such as was

desired. On the 10th of April the lord-lieutenant issued a proclamation

suppressing the association of volunteers, after which he applied the

provisions of the act to the county of Kilkenny with the best effect. It

soon appeared, indeed, that the list of outrageous offenders against the

laws decreased throughout the country. The discussions on the coercion

act had produced many personal conflicts in debate between Mr. O’Connell

and the Irish secretary. O’Connell seemed to regard Mr. Stanley with

bitter hostility, arising partly from the vigour with which he repelled

the attack of the repealers, and from the supposition that he was

not disposed to give up any of the revenues of the Irish church. Mr.

Stanley, however, now retired from the battle by accepting the more

tranquil office of colonial secretary, which had become vacant by

Viscount Goderich being made lord-privy-seal, and advanced a step in the

peerage by becoming Earl of Papon. Sir John Cam Hobhouse succeeded Mr.

Stanley as Irish secretary.

IRISH CHURCH BILL.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

While carrying on their measures for tranquillizing Ireland, ministers

had uniformly admitted that grievances existed in Ireland which ought

to be redressed. They had also declared their readiness to propose

expedients for that purpose. At the head of these grievances, the Irish

established church had always been placed, it standing in the peculiar

predicament of possessing large revenues, whilst a majority of the

people belonged to a faith, the clergy of which had once been the

possessors of that opulence. The object of the repealers was to diminish

these revenues, while they disclaimed any wish of seeing them bestowed

on their own clergy. There were others, at the same time, and those

not Irishmen, who, regarding every religious establishment as an evil,

considered the property of the church as a fund which might be seized

for what they denominated the purposes of the state. It was with this

subject that government next dwelt, and in doing so they adopted a

middle course—conceding much, but not conceding all that was required

of them. The measures which they intended to pursue were unfolded in the

commons by Lord Althorp, on the 12th of February. It appeared from his

statement that the total revenues of the Irish church were found not to

exceed £800,000 per annum. On these funds, he said, it was the intention

of ministers, after abolishing first-fruits, to impose a tax varying

from five to fifteen per cent. This tax, however, was not to be imposed

on clergymen whose livings were under £200 per annum. The larger

revenues of the primates, he said, were to be reduced respectively to

the amounts of £10,000 and £8000 per annum. The sum thus collected was

to be applied under commissioners to the abolition of church-cess; the

augmentation of poor livings and building of glebe-houses; the division

of unions, and the erection of churches. With respect to the offices of

deans and chapters, it was proposed, wherever they were unconnected with

the cure of souls, to abolish them altogether, or to unite them to such

cure; and with regard to livings, where no duty had been done for the

last three years, it was further proposed to suspend the appointment of

ministers at the discretion of the commissioners. Ten bishoprics were

to be abolished, and the vacated sees were to be annexed to those

preserved. With reference to the lands attached to bishoprics the

chancellor of the exchequer laid down this principle, namely, that if

by the act of parliament to be introduced any new value was given to

benefices, that new value not belonging properly to the church might be

appropriated to the exigencies of the state. He believed, he said, that

£500,000 per annum was the value of all Irish episcopal lands to

the lessees or tenants, though the bishops did not receive more than

£100,000. By a different mode of granting leases, his lordship showed

that a sum of near £3,000,000 might be acquired for the state without

any diminution of income to the bishops. His lordship concluded by

moving for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating

to the established church in Ireland. The plan thus unfolded by

Lord Althorp was calculated to produce hostility from two opposite

quarters,—from the conservative opposition, who thought its principles

destructive to the Irish church; and from the economists, repealers, and

radicals, who thought that it left too much of the church untouched.

At the same time it was clear that these different kinds of opposition

would not endanger the success of the bill in the commons, as ministers

were sure of being joined by one of the parties in resisting any

amendment proposed by the other. Moreover, most of the Irish members

approved of tire plan so far as it went, although Mr. O’Connell

denounced the estimate of the Irish church revenues as “a base

delusion,” and the design of government as one which tended to “relieve

no grievance except church-cess, not even suspending the war against the

poor man’s pig and tenth potato.”

Leave was given to bring in the bill; but it was not brought in before

the 1st of March. It was read a first time on the same evening; but the

proposal to take the second reading on the 13th was successfully opposed

by Sir Robert Peel, Sir R. Inglis, and others, ministers consenting to

let it stand for the 14th. On the 14th, when the motion was made for

reading the order of the day, Mr. C. Wynn objected that the bill was a

tax-bill, and therefore could originate only in a committee of the whole

house. This view was combated by Lord Althorp, Mr. Stanley, and the

solicitor-general; and supported by Sir Robert Peel, and Messrs.

Goulburn and others. The objection was so strong that Lord Althorp found

himself under the necessity of discharging the order for the second

reading; and, on the suggestion of Sir R. Peel, a select committee was

appointed to search for precedents, and report its opinion whether the

bill should, according to the rules and orders of the house, originate

in a committee of the whole house. This committee reported that the bill

was a tax-bill; and in consequence of this decision Lord Althorp, on the

1st of April, moved three resolutions with reference to the Irish church

in a committee of the whole house. These resolutions having been agreed

to, the bill relating thereto, which was a counterpart of the former,

was read a first time. The second reading was fixed for the 6th of May,

on which day Mr. Shaw met the motion with an amendment that it should be

read that day six months. He opposed the bill, he said, because it

would violate the rights of property, and because it tended to lower the

character of the clergy. If property so fenced by acts of parliament,

as church property was, could be assailed, he asked, what species of

property could be safe? He admitted that it was desirable to change

the system of church-cess; the Irish clergy themselves would not

have objected to a proper remedy for this; but he would have sought a

substitute for it in the reduction of the incomes of the bishops, and

not in the diminution of their number. The amendment was seconded by Mr.

Estcourt, one of the members for the University of Oxford, who thought

that where the principles of the bill were not mischievous, as involving

the first example of a confiscation of property, they were fallacious

in the results which it was promised they would produce. Sir Robert

Peel said that he approved of many parts of the bill—as that part which

required that the spiritual duties of the clergy should be personally

discharged, and of that which provided for the abolition of the

church-cess. At the same time there were other parts of the bill, he

said, which he disliked. Lord Althorp and Messrs. Stanley and Grant

maintained that there was no ground for denying the right of parliament

to interfere with the church property; and argued with regard to the

diminution in the number of bishops, that the bill did not suppress

bishoprics, but only consolidated them. The second reading of the bill

was carried by three hundred and seventeen to seventy-eight. Before

the house went into committee, Mr. Gillon moved an instruction to the

committee, that the bill should contain certain provisions for resuming

all the temporalities of the Irish church, and applying them after the

demise of the present incumbents to purposes of general utility; but

this motion was at once negatived. The reduction of the number of

bishops was strongly opposed by the committee; but the clause was

nevertheless carried. The most important discussion arose on that part

of the measure which took £3,000,000 from the church to apply it to

state purposes. Both the conservative and radical party were opposed to

this; and though there could be no doubt that ministers would be able to

carry the clause through the commons, they had ascertained that it would

certainly be rejected by the lords. On these grounds, when the house

came to that clause, Mr. Stanley moved that it should be omitted. He

remarked:—“I am well aware that a strong feeling exists against the

alienation of church property, and therefore I propose that the

sum alluded to should be paid into, the hands of the ecclesiastical

commissioners, to be applied to the same purposes as the other with

which they are entrusted.” Mr. O’Connell immediately attacked government

in a strain of unmeasured reproach. Many other members also contended

that ministers, by relinquishing this cause, had degraded themselves

in the eyes of the country, and that, if the house was to have tory

measures, it ought to have them under a tory ministry. But although many

of the supporters of the ministers deserted them from this cause, yet

the omission of the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and

eighty against one hundred and forty-eight. In the committee, also,

it was agreed that beneficed clergymen in present possession of their

livings were to be exempted from the graduated tax: it was only to

affect their successors. On the third reading of the bill, Mr. Shiel

moved the insertion in the preamble of the following words:—“That

whereas the property in the possession of the established church of

Ireland is under the control of the legislature, and is applicable to

such purposes as may be deemed most fitting for the best interests

of the community at large, due regard being paid to the rights of all

parties interested.” A long discussion took place on this motion, in

which old arguments were repeated, and on a division it was rejected.

The bill was read a third time on the 8th of July, by a majority of two

hundred and ninety-seven against ninety-four.