It was in the upper house, however, that the bill was exposed to the

greatest danger, since there existed among the peers a majority capable

of defeating ministers on any occasion which they might consider

expedient. It was read a first time in that house _pro forma_, and the

second reading was fixed for the 17th of July. In the meantime, the

commons, aware of the danger to which the bill was exposed, were on the

alert. On the 15th of July Sir J. Wrottesly proposed a call of the house

of commons, to promote its success as that of the reform bill had been

ensured, namely, by putting the members under arms, as it were, at

the critical point of its progress. Ministers deprecated the motion as

tending to embarrass the administration, and defeat the very end

for which it was proposed. At the same time they declared that their

official existence would depend on the success of the bill. The motion

was pressed to a division; but it was lost by a majority of one hundred

and sixty to one hundred and twenty-five. The debate on the second

reading of the bill in the upper house was continued by adjournment on

the 17th, 18th, and 19th of July, it being strongly opposed by many of

the bishops and peers. After an animated discussion, however, the

second reading was carried by one hundred and fifty-seven votes

against ninety-eight. In the committee it was proposed by the Duke of

Wellington, that instead of all the three civil commissioners being

named by the crown, one of them should be named by the head of the

church, one by the primate of Ireland, and one by the archbishop of

Dublin. Ministers conceded this point; but they successfully resisted

another, moved by the Earl of Wicklow, to the effect that the

appointment of the four bishops to the board of commissioners should be

vested in the bench of Irish bishops. They also successfully resisted an

amendment moved by Lord Gage, that the clause imposing the tax should be

extended to lay-impropriators as well as clerical. A proposal was next

made that the ten bishoprics should not be immediately abolished, but

that as they became vacant the crown, if so minded, might grant them to

be held in _commendam_ with the see to which the bill proposed to

unite them, while it should have power at the same time to grant their

revenues to the commissioners. Earl Grey declared that if this amendment

were carried it would be fatal to the bill; and it was lost, though only

by a majority of fourteen, seventy-six voting for it, and ninety against

it. Lord Wharncliffe then moved that the produce of tax imposed upon the

clergy should be appropriated to the augmentation of small livings,

and that the commissioners should not have power to apply it to other

purposes for which parish cess was levied. This amendment was lost by a

majority of twenty; but ministers were left in a minority of two, on the

clause empowering the commissioners to suspend appointments to benefices

in which divine service had not been performed during three years before

the 1st of February, 1833. An amendment was agreed to, that in all such

cases the bishop of the diocese in which the benefice might be situated,

should be entitled to act as a member of the board; and that the

revenues of the suspended benefice should be applied to the building

or repairing of the church or glebe-house in such benefice; or if they

should not require it, that then the revenues should be paid into the

general fund, under the management of the commissioners. On this

defeat Earl Grey adjourned the committee, in order to allow time for

considering whether ministers ought not to throw up the bill and resign.

On the next day, however, his lordship stated that they had resolved to

proceed with the bill; the effect of the amendment would be far from

an improvement to the bill, but he did not deem it such an alteration,

affecting the general efficiency of the measure, as would justify him in

abandoning the duty he had imposed upon himself of conducting it through

the house. At the same time, he said, he would not disguise from their

lordships that he laboured under deep sensations of difficulty and

embarrassment in consequence of the vote; and he felt that if any

further alterations of the like nature should be made, it would be for

him to consider how far it would be possible for him, consistently with

his duty to his sovereign and his country, to continue the conduct of

the measure. Some further alterations were admitted on the bringing up

of the report. One of these went to guard against the future contingency

of the lord-chancellor and lord-chief-justice of Ireland, members of the

board, being Catholics; and another placed at the disposal of the two

archbishops ten livings, not exceeding £800 a-year each, connected with

the suppressed bishoprics, for the purpose of being bestowed on the

junior fellows of the University of Dublin. The bill was passed on

the 30th of July, by a majority of one hundred and thirty-five

against eighty-one; and on the 2nd of August the commons agreed to the

amendments which had been made by the peers. Mr. O’Connell observed

that the lords had not made the bill much worse than they found it, and

protested against its being considered in any other light than as the

first instalment of the debt due to Ireland.

IRISH TITHE BILL.

Another measure connected with Ireland arose from the difficulty of

collecting tithes. It has been seen that in the preceding year an act

was passed, enabling government to advance to the Irish clergy such

amount of tithes as had been illegally withheld during the year 1833,

and empowered the executive, on making such advance, to levy the arrear

itself. This expedient only inflamed the animosity of the tithe-payers,

since it created a creditor whom it was apprehended would be more

difficult to resist. Ministers, therefore, resolved to relinquish

this plan; and they proposed instead of it that government should be

empowered to abandon all processes under the existing law, to pay up all

arrears, and to seek reimbursement in a different manner. On the 12th of

June Lord Althorp moved that it was the opinion of this committee that

an advance of money should be paid to the clergy of the established

church in Ireland, in order to relieve the occupying tenants from

payments on account of arrears of tithes, or composition of tithes

in the year 1833, such advance to be paid within a limited time by a

land-tax chargeable on all land liable to the payment of tithes, the

owners of which should not have paid the tithes, or composition of

tithes, which became due during such years. This was generally approved

of by O’Connell and the Irish members, though they insisted that it

should be extended to lay-impropriators as well as clerical. There were

others who opposed it because they thought it would be holding out a

premium to lawless violence, and an invitation to resistance to the

payment of tithes. Moreover, a third party were for rejecting it,

because instead of involving the principle that the Catholic population

should not be taxed in any shape for the Protestant church, it seemed

to contemplate the perpetuation of the impost. In accordance with

the expressed opinion of the committee, a resolution was moved to the

effect:—“That his majesty be enabled to direct exchequer-bills to

an amount not exceeding £1,000,000 to be issued, for the purpose of

advancing, under certain conditions, the arrears of tithes due for

1831 and 1832, subject to a deduction of 25 per cent., and the value of

tithes for 1833, subject to a deduction of 15 per cent., to such

persons as may be entitled to such arrears on such tithes, and as may be

desirous of receiving such advances; and that the amount advanced shall

be included in the tithe-composition, so as to be repaid in the course

of five years, being payable by half-yearly instalments.” This plan was

strongly opposed, principally on the ground that the money would never

be repaid, since repayment was still to depend on a collection of tithe,

which never would succeed. The pretended loan would be converted into a

gift, and England, besides paying its own tithes, would also be

paying those of Ireland. The resolution was carried by eighty-seven

to fifty-one, and a bill founded on it was brought in and passed both

houses without any important alteration. The measure was regarded by

the Conservatives as a mischievous precedent, and they asserted that

any existing necessity for it had been produced by ministers’ own

misgovernment.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

The budget was opened on the 1st of April. As this was the first

occasion of bringing any financial statement before a reformed

parliament, the chancellor of the exchequer said that he thought it

right to state what progress had been made in redeeming that pledge of

economy on which the administration had taken office. In the number of

places abolished, he showed that there had been a saving effected of

£192,000, and he said that the diplomatic expenses had been reduced by

£91,735. A saving of £28,000 had also been effected by bringing a number

of persons from the retired list in the revenue department, and placing

them on active service. The state of the finances was more satisfactory

than during the last session. The chancellor of the exchequer

stated that the amount of the income and expenditure of the year was

respectively £46,853,000 and £45,366, leaving an excess of income over

expenditure of £1,487,000, an excess which would be more than sufficient

to cover the deficiency of £1,240,412 of the preceding year. He

estimated the revenue for the present year at £46,494,128, and the

expenditure at £44,922,219, which would leave a surplus of about

£1,572,000. He thought it desirable, he continued, that a reduction of

taxes should be made to the extent of this surplus. He proposed to make

the reductions on taxes chiefly which fell on industry; and he selected

tiles, marine insurance, advertisements, the assessed taxes, cotton, and

soap, as the taxes to be reduced. The estimated loss to the revenue by

these reductions was £1,056,000, which would leave a surplus for the

year, after the above reductions, of £516,000. Mr. Hume thought the

reductions were neither sufficiently great nor sufficiently numerous;

they ought to be pushed at least to the extent of the estimated

surplus. On the contrary, Sir Robert Peel was disposed to think that

the chancellor of the exchequer had carried reduction too far: it was

dangerous, he said, to reduce taxes to such an extent as might affect

our ability to keep faith with the public creditor. He concurred,

however, in the general view the noble lord had taken of the subject:

he had acted wisely in maintaining the system of taxation as it stood

at present. The financial statements of the chancellor of the exchequer

appear to have given general satisfaction, for there was no discussion

on the details.

BANK OF ENGLAND CHARTER RENEWED.

On the 31st of May Lord Althorp brought the subject of the renewal of

the Bank of England charter before the commons. In doing so he stated at

great length the terms on which government had determined to consent to

a renewal of that charter; after which he laid the following-resolutions

on the table of the house, that they might be considered:—“That it is

the opinion of the committee, that it is expedient to continue to

the Bank of England, for a limited period, the enjoyment of certain

privileges now vested in law in that corporation, subject to provisions

to be hereafter made: That provided the Bank of England continued

liable, as at present, to defray, in the current coin of the realm,

all its existing engagements, it was expedient that its promissory note

should be constituted a legal tender for sums of £5 and upward: That

one-fourth part of the debt at present due by the public to the Bank be

repaid during the present session of parliament: That the allowances

to the Bank on the management of the national debt, and other public

business be continued, subject to an annual deduction of £120,000 from

the remuneration at present assigned for that purpose: That the laws

restricting the interest of money to five per cent, be repealed, so far

as concerned bills not having more than three months to run before they

become due: That it is expedient that royal charters be granted for

the establishment of joint-stock banks, within a certain distance from

London: That all banks should enter into a composition, in lieu of

stamp-duties, at present chargeable at the rate of seven shillings for

every one hundred pounds issued in notes: That it is expedient that a

bill should be introduced into parliament to regulate country banks, the

provisions of which should be such as to encourage joint-stock banking

companies in the country to issue the notes of the Bank of England.”

These resolutions were moved on the 1st of June, and the first of them

was met by an amendment to the effect of delaying the consideration

of the measure till the ensuing session. The opposition proceeded

principally from members hostile to the renewal of the privileges of

the Bank; and to that hostility they now added objections to particular

parts of the proposed plan. They demanded delay in order that there

might be more full inquiry, and they contended that such inquiry would

make it manifest, that the exclusive privileges of the Bank ought not

to be renewed. The amendment, however, was lost by three hundred

and sixteen to eighty-three, and the first resolution, affirming the

propriety of continuing the privileges of the Bank was agreed to without

a division. The second resolution, making the notes of the Bank of

England a legal tender for sums of £5 and upwards was opposed still more

energetically, as being both unnecessary and mischievous; but it was

carried by a majority of fifty-eight. Lord Althorp, however, agreed so

far to modify the proposal as to make it incumbent to pay all £5

notes in gold, if demanded. To the resolution which provided for the

continuance of remuneration, a counter resolution was moved, to the

effect that it was, in the opinion of the committee, expedient that

the remuneration now insured by law to the Bank of England for the

management of the public debt and other public business should cease;

but this was also lost by a large majority. The sixth and eighth

resolutions, which went to regulate the establishment of joint-stock

banking companies were abandoned for the present, Lord Althorp

conceiving that the opposition was so strong that he should not be able

to carry them, at least during this session. A bill founded on these

resolutions was brought in and read the first and second time without a

division. On the motion for going into the committee, Mr. Gisborne moved

as an amendment that the committee should be taken that day six months;

but this was lost by a majority of one hundred and nineteen against

forty. In the committee multifarious amendments were proposed, but

without success. One alteration, however, was made by ministers

themselves. They had believed that the existing law prohibited

deposit-banks, no less than banks of issue, consisting of more than six

partners, from being established in the metropolis, or within a short

distance of it; but the solicitor-general had now satisfied himself

that, as the law stood, no such restriction existed, and a clause was

introduced declaring such to be, and to have been the law, although

there were legal opinions the other way, and although the Bank, and all

mercantile men, had acted on the belief that the restriction did exist.

As the bill passed the commons, its chief provisions were, a monthly

publication of the Bank accounts; the repayment of a portion of its

capital; a partial repeal of the usury laws which impeded its action; an

annual payment of £120,000 in return for privileges conceded; its

notes made a legal tender except at the Bank itself, or its branches;

a quarterly return of the amount of circulation of all other banks; and

certain regulations for the improvement of joint-stock banks. The bill

passed the upper house without alterations: an amendment moved by Lord

Whynford to leave out the declaratory clause regarding deposit-banks, as

being contrary to law, mercantile understanding, and good faith, having

been rejected. Government, also, refused to allow the opinion of the

judges to be taken regarding the legality of such companies under the

existing law.

EAST INDIA QUESTION.

Another monopoly with which the government had to deed was that of

the East India Company, their charter approaching its termination.

The arrangements which government proposed should be adopted with the

company were explained in a committee of the whole house by Mr.

C. Grant, on the 13th of June. He stated first that the political

government of India was to be continued in the hands of the company

for some time longer; the reasons for it being the good which

that government had done. That there were evils in the system of

administration in India he would admit; but he argued, that they were

more than counterbalanced by the security of life and property, which

had been secured to the natives by the rule of the company. The next

great question was, he said, the company’s monopoly of the trade with

China. Public opinion had decided that it should no longer exist; and it

was only justice to the expression of the public opinion in this case to

state that it was not the clamour of the moment—that it was the voice

of an enlightened community formed during a succession of years. After

detailing various facts, to show that from the competition of private

traders the monopoly of the company could not long continue, even if

parliament did not interfere, Mr. Grant said that government proposed

the monopoly should cease in April, 1834, and that the trade to

China should then be open to all the merchants of this country. In

consideration of the East India Company surrendering all its rights and

privileges, Mr. Grant said it was proposed that the government of India

should be continued in the hands of the company for the period of twenty

years, and that an annuity of £630,000 per annum should be granted to

them, to be charged on the territory of India. At the end of twenty

years, he said, if the East India Company should be deprived of

the government of India, then the payment of their capital might be

demanded; and if not, the payment of the annuity was to be continued

for forty years. He explained further, that certain alterations were

likewise to be introduced in the frame of the government of India; and

he said that he should further have to call the attention of the house

to the state of the ecclesiastical establishments in that country. He

concluded by moving the following resolutions:—“That it is expedient

that all his majesty’s subjects should be at liberty to repair to the

ports of the empire of China, and to trade in tea and in all other

productions in the said empire, subject to such regulations as

parliament shall enact for the protection of the commercial and

political interests of this country: That it is expedient that, in case

the East India Company shall transfer to the crown, on behalf of the

Indian territory, all assets and claims of every description belonging

to the said company, the crown on behalf of the Indian territory, shall

take on itself all the obligations of the said company, of whatever

description; and that the said company shall receive from the revenues

of the said territory such a sum, and paid in such a manner as

parliament shall enact: That it is expedient that the governments of

the British possessions in India be entrusted to the said company,

under such conditions and regulations as parliament shall enact, for the

purpose of extending the commerce of this country, and of securing the

good government, and promoting the moral and religious improvement

of the people of India.” These resolutions were agreed to without any

opposition; and on the 5th of July they passed the lords without a

division, although they were sternly opposed by Lord Ellenborough, who

denounced the whole scheme as being a crude and ill-digested plan, the

offspring of unfounded theories, formed by men who knew nothing, and

desired to know nothing of India. A bill was subsequently brought

into the house of commons founded on the resolutions, and, after some

unsuccessful motions of amendment, was carried. In the upper house Lord

Ellenborough renewed his opposition, and moved, “That all provisions

in the bill, which went to alter the existing laws in the East Indian

presidencies, should be omitted.” This amendment, however, was not

pressed to a division; and the bill was finally passed. One of the

greatest advantages which the public gained by this important measure,

was that which opened a rich field for the enterprise and industry of

our merchants by destroying the monopoly of the trade in tea. Facilities

for conducting this branch of commerce, together with a considerable

relief from taxation on the article of tea, was given try a subsequent

bill for regulating its importation. It must be confessed, indeed, that

the adoption of this measure by parliament was highly beneficial to

the interests of the community at large. By it the long and complicated

account between commerce and territory was settled; the pernicious union

of imperial and economical functions in the body of proprietors of East

India stock was at an end; every office under the company was thrown

open to British subjects without distinction, and the whole of India was

opened to European enterprise and European capital. A grand feature of

the bill, also, was that which provided for extending the influence and

utility of the Anglo-Indian church.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

At the commencement of this session, the minds of reflecting persons

were fixed with intense anxiety on the subject of West India slavery.

The excitement attending the reform act, indeed, had not been neglected

by the friends of emancipation. Meetings were held and petitions got up:

and government found themselves under the necessity of framing a measure

for the gradual abolition of the trade in the bones and the sinews of

man. The subject was brought before the commons by Mr. Stanley on the

14th of May, when he explained the ministerial scheme in a committee of

the whole house. Government, he said, impelled by the force of public

opinion, resolved to propose a plan which would insure the extinction

of slavery, and manumit not only future generations, but likewise the

existing generation, providing at the same time against the dangers of

a sudden transition. It was proposed, he said, to place the slave for a

limited time in an intermediate state of apprenticeship. He was to enter

into a contract, by which his master would be bound to give him food

and clothing, or in lieu thereof a pecuniary allowance; for which

consideration he, on his part, was to give his master three-fourths of

his time in labour, leaving it to be settled between them whether that

should be for three-fourths of the week or of each day. The remaining

fourth of his time, Mr. Stanley said, the slave would be at liberty to

transfer his labour elsewhere; but if he were inclined to give it to

his master, then his master would be obliged to find him employment

according to a fixed rate of wages. It was a difficult point, he said,

to settle the scale of wages; and he could devise no better mode than

that of compelling the planter to fix a price on the labourer at the

time of his apprenticeship, and by enacting that the wages to be paid by

the master should bear such a proportion to the price fixed by him, that

for the whole of his spare time he should receive one-twelfth of his

price annually. In this manner, he said, the slave and his master would

both act in reference to each other: if the master fixed a high price

on his negro, he would have to pay him proportionate wages; and if a low

price, then upon the payment of that price by any other person on

his behalf, the negro would be free. This measure, he continued, must

necessarily occasion loss to many of the West Indian proprietors; and,

as it was not fitting that they alone should lose by the destruction

of this species of property, the legality of which had at least been

recognised by parliament, ministers proposed to advance to the West

Indian body a loan to the amount of ten years’ purchase of their annual

profits on sugars, rum, and coffee, which would amount to £15,000,000.

It was for parliament to say in what manner, and upon what condition,

that loan should be repaid to the country; it might be considered equal

to one-fourth of the proceeds of the slaves’ labour; and with that sum

and the other three-fourths of his labour, the planter, at the end of

twelve years, would have received a just compensation for the price of

his slave, and for all the expense to which the slave might have put him

for food and clothing. It was right, however, to state that during that

time the planter would have to pay interest for his loan, and to that

amount, perhaps, he might be the loser. In conclusion, Mr. Stanley said,

he would call upon the house to aid the local legislatures in the West

Indies in establishing schools for the religious and moral education of

the slave population. He moved the following resolutions:—“That it is

the opinion of this committee that immediate and effectual measures be

taken for the entire abolition of slavery throughout the colonies,

under such provisions for regulating the condition of the negroes as may

combine their welfare with the interest of the proprietors: That it is

expedient that all children born after the passing of any act, or who

shall be under the age of six years at the time of passing any act of

parliament for this purpose, be declared free, subject, nevertheless, to

such temporary restrictions as may be deemed necessary for their

support and maintenance: That all persons now slaves be entitled to

be registered as apprenticed labourers, and to acquire thereby all

the rights and privileges of free men subject to the restriction of

labouring under conditions, and for a time to be fixed by parliament,

for their present owners: That, to provide against the risk of loss

which proprietors in his majesty’s colonial possessions might sustain

by the abolition of slavery, his majesty be enabled to advance by way of

loan, to be raised from time to time, a sum not exceeding in the whole

£15,000,000, to be paid in such manner, and at such rate of interest, as

shall be prescribed by parliament: That his majesty be enabled to

defray any such expense as he may incur in establishing an efficient

stipendiary magistracy in the colonies, and in aiding the local

legislatures in providing for the religious and moral education of

the negro population to be emancipated.” The consideration of these

resolutions was adjourned to the 30th of May. On that day the first

resolution, after considerable debate on the character of the planters,

and on the subject of the compensation to be given to them, was agreed

to without a division. Sir Robert Peel said that he would have preferred

a declaratory resolution, it appearing to him that the co-operation

of the colonial legislative was indispensable to tire success of

the measure. He doubted the policy of using the words “immediate and

effectual measures shall be taken for the entire abolition of slavery

throughout the colonies;” they were calculated to raise expectations

unwarranted by the measure; it was a great evil in establishing a

preliminary resolution. The first impression of any man upon reading

this resolution, and especially the first impression of an illiterate

and ignorant man would be this:—“You never meant to subject me to

coerced labour for twelve years.” The second resolution also passed

without a division; but the third, which involved the principle of the

compulsory apprenticeship, was met with a direct negative by Mr. Fowell

Buxton, on the ground that it was unnecessary and impracticable. It was

founded on this assertion—that emancipated negroes would not work,

or, at least, would not work more than was necessary to supply the mere

wants of life. This opinion he showed by facts was ill-grounded; and

he proved to demonstration that the negroes, if free, would work

more cheerfully than while enslaved. He moved that the resolution be

rejected. He was supported by Mr. Halcomb and Buford Howick, the latter

of whom said that it was not necessary as a groundwork for future

proceedings; and that, on the other hand, if the house agreed to it,

they would pledge themselves to a system of apprenticeship of which they

did not yet know the full effect. This was dealing rather hardly by the

house; government should avoid calling upon the house, at this stage of

the proceeding, distinctly to pledge themselves to do that of which

they had not yet heard a satisfactory account. It was easy to talk of

apprenticing negroes; but the plan was neither more nor less than a

subversion of the existing relations of society in the colonies, and

organising an untried system, the adoption of which must be attended

with difficulties. His objection to the provision was, that the labour

of the negro was, for the greater part of his time, to be obtained by

direct compulsion; his opinion was that the negroes would be in a worse

condition at the termination of the experiment than they were at the

present moment. Ministers replied that the question was not, as it

had been represented, merely one of gradual or immediate abolition; no

matter what might be the period of apprenticeship, whether ten or twelve

years, from the moment the bill passed, slavery in the British colonies,

in its offensive and essential features, was for ever annihilated.

The bill recognised the rights of property; it conferred freedom from

corporal punishment; it respected the domestic ties of the negro in

their tenderest relations; and it ensured to him a considerable portion

of the fruits of his own labour: with these great enactments surely it

was not too much to say that slavery, in its obnoxious features,

could not be said to exist. Mr. Buxton, having been assured that the

resolution did not bind the house to any particular period of compulsory

labour, withdrew his motion to reject it, and proposed to insert

words declaring that the labour was to be for wages. He withdrew this

likewise; but Mr. O’Connell insisted on dividing the house on

the original resolution, when it was carried by three hundred and

twenty-four to forty-two. The fourth resolution, respecting the

compensation to planters, was attended with still greater difficulty.

The original proposal was a loan of £15,000,000, for which they were to

pay interest; but ministers found such stern opposition from the West

India planters, that they were compelled to convert this loan into

an absolute payment of £20,000,000. Mr. Stanley, after admitting the

difficulty of ascertaining what the amount of compensation ought to be,

moved that “Towards the compensation of the West India proprietors,

his majesty be enabled to grant a sum not exceeding £20,000,000, to be

appropriated as parliament may hereafter think fit.” This proposition

called forth much opposition and many amendments; but it was

finally earned by a majority of two hundred and ninety-six against

seventy-seven. The fifth and last resolution was carried by a majority

of two hundred and ninety-six against seventy-seven; and the whole were

then sent to the peers, who agreed to them on the 25th of June. On the

motion for going into committee on the bill brought in pursuant to

the resolutions, Mr. Buxton again discussed the question of compulsory

apprenticeships. He moved, that it be an instruction to the committee

that they shall not, for the sake of the pecuniary interests of the

masters, impose any restraint or obligation on the negro which shall not

be necessary for his own welfare, and for the general peace and order

of society; and that they shall limit the duration of any temporary

restrictions which may be imposed upon the freedom of the negroes,

to the shortest period which may be necessary to establish, on just

principles, the system of free labour for adequate wages. He was

supported by Lord Howick and Mr. Macaulay, who before had opposed him

on the same question, but who now declared that he had an insurmountable

objection to the transition state, which was to be interposed between

the cessation of slavery and complete freedom. If it could be proved,

he said, that any restraint was proposed, the effect of which was to

improve the morals of the negro, to promote his habits of industry, and

to enable him better to discharge the duties of a freeman and citizen,

he would give his assent to such a restraint; but he thought that the

restraint was not laid upon the negro, as it ought to be, with the sole

view of improving his character: one of the objects was, not his own

advantage, but as a compensation to the planter. In reply, Mr. Stanley

said that the compensation was of two sorts: one was a sum to be paid

down now for the remission of one-fourth of the labour of the slave, and

the whole would be paid by the end of twelve years, when the negro would

be completely free. The sum to be paid to the colonies was taken with

reference to the estimated value of the slave, and to the interest of

money: taking that value at £30,000,000 for 800,000 slaves, would give

£37 10s. for each. It was not extravagant to say that such a sum was

about the average value of a slave. He went on to say that one-fourth of

the labour of the negro was to be taken from the master, and placed at

the disposal of the negro himself; but for the remaining three-fourths

he was to be maintained by the master. Now the maintenance, taken at

a moderate average, was calculated at fifty shillings each; this for

800,000 negroes would be £2,000,000 per annum, and the one-fourth of

this would be £500,000; and this at the end of twelve years would make a

great difference in the sum to be paid to the master. Calculations would

show that if the value of £30,000,000, or £37 10s. each were taken, and

the interest of money calculated at six per cent., the sum to be paid

to the master would be £27,000,000; but if the value of the slaves

were taken at £24,000,000, and the interest of money at six per cent.,

£15,000,000 would be the sum to be paid to him. Besides this, the

allowance for the advances for the support of the slave would, at ten

per cent., amount to £3,406,000; at eight per cent., to £3,786,000; and

at six per cent, to £4,900,000. This would show that the apprenticeship

materially came into the account, in estimating the compensation to the

master for his loss; and the compensation would not be made in a state

of slavery, but in a state of comparative freedom. Mr. Stanley said that

if the West India proprietors were asked what they thought of the plan

of apprenticeship, they would say that they could not go on without it;

and that without the application of such a principle in the bill, the

colonies would go to ruin, and the proprietors be reduced to beggary.

In fact, he said, if Mr. Buxton’s motion should be carried, he must

be prepared to see the whole frame of civilization in the colonies

destroyed, and a state of things brought about which, however they

might in time settle down into some improvement, must at least begin in

barbarism. On a division, Mr. Buxton’s amendment was lost by a majority

of only seven, one hundred and fifty-one having voted for it, and

one hundred and fifty-eight against it. The result of this division

convinced government that they must make some concession on this point;

and on the following day Mr. Stanley resolved to reduce the period of

prodial apprenticeship from twelve years to seven, and of non-prodial

from seven to five years. This was adopted, and clauses were added,

empowering the commissioners for the management of the national debt to

raise the money by a loan, specifying the manner in which the operation

was to be conducted after which the bill passed. In the upper-house some

amendments were added to the bill, which did not affect its substance,

and these were finally agreed to by the commons. Thus the dark spot of

slavery was wiped out of the British annals; we had no slaves at home,

and now it was nobly resolved that we should have none abroad—that

wherever Britain’s power was felt, mankind should feel her mercy also.

FACTORY BILL.

During the former session, Mr. Sadleir had introduced a bill for

shortening and regulating the employment of children of certain ages in

cotton and other factories, and protecting them against maltreatment, to

which it was alleged they had long been exposed. Evidence had been taken

regarding the subject matter of the bill before a committee of the

house of commons, and in this session a similar measure to that of Mr.

Sadleir’s was introduced by Lord Ashley. The bill was opposed by the

great body of the manufacturing capitalists, many of whom had been sent

into the house by the reform act, and who possessed powerful interest

out of it. Mr. Patten moved an address to the king to name a royal

commission, for the purpose of collecting evidence anew, founding his

motion on the ground that the evidence taken before the committee was

partial, defective, and untrue. Lord Ashley, and others, contended that

this motion was not only uncalled for, but would be detrimental: fresh

inquiry was needless, inasmuch as the house was in a condition to

legislate on the subject, not only in consequence of the information

obtained from the committee of last year, but also of that furnished by

the other house of parliament. Mr. Patten’s motion was negatived, and

the bill was read a second time; and then ministers, alarmed at the

probable success of a measure which, as it stood, would seriously

interfere with the manufacturers of the country, arrayed themselves

more openly against it. Lord Althorp opposed the motion for going into

committee, and moved, “That the bill be referred to a select committee,

with this instruction—that the committee should make provision in said

bill, that no children who had not entered into their fourteenth year

should be allowed to work for more than eight hours a-day; and that in

the intervals of their labour, care should be taken for their education,

and that inspection of the mills should take place, in order to secure

the operation of the above provisions.” This motion was rejected,

and Lord Ashley’s bill was carried into committee, by one hundred and

sixty-four to one hundred and forty-one. Government, however, did not

give up its opposition. The bill had adopted ten hours as the maximum of

labour daily, which extended to all persons under eighteen years of age;

and when the second clause, which involved the principle, was moved in

committee, Lord Althorp opposed it. He proposed as an amendment, that

instead of the word “eighteen,” the word “thirteen” should be inserted;

expressing, at the same time, his intention of following that up by

substituting “eight” instead of “ten”. The amendment was carried by a

large majority, and Lord Ashley abandoned the bill to the chancellor

of the exchequer, in whose hands its enactments were considerably

mitigated. As altered, the bill provided that the labour of children in

factories under thirteen years of age should be limited to eight instead

of ten hours a-day; that the provisions of Sir J. Hobhouse’s bill should

be extended to other mills besides cotton mills; and that persons under

eighteen years of age should not be required to work more than sixty

hours in the week. It also provided that it should be illegal to

employ any children under nine years of age; that inspectors should be

appointed to see that the provisions of the bill are duly enforced;

and contained provisions for introducing a general system of education

amongst the children in all the manufacturing districts. In the

committee Mr. Wood proposed an amendment, to the effect, that at the

expiration of six months after the passing of the act, no child under

eleven years of age should be permitted to work more than eight hours

a-day; that no child under the age of twelve years should be permitted,

after the expiration of eighteen months from the passing of the bill, to

work for more than eight hours a-day; and that after the expiration

of two years from the passing of the bill, no child under the age of

thirteen years should be permitted to work more than eight hours a-day.

This amendment was opposed by Lord Althorp, on the ground that it would

postpone the operation of the measure, but it was carried against him

and it formed a part of the measure.

THE CORN LAWS.

The people had long been taught to consider the corn laws as unjust

monopolies, which enriched the landowner, by depriving the poor of

“cheap bread,” and they firmly expected that reforming ministers and a

reformed parliament would forthwith abolish them. Ministers, however,

were not inclined to take up the question, and parliament was not yet

prepared to respond to the general demand. On the 17th of May, Mr.

Whitmore moved the following resolutions:—“That the present system of

corn laws, founded on a high and ever-varying scale of duties, while

it fails of conferring permanent benefit on the agricultural interest,

tends to cramp the trade, and impair the general prosperity of this

country; that an alteration of these laws, substituting in their stead

a moderate duty, fixed at all periods except those of extreme dearth,

while it indemnified the agriculturists for the peculiar burthens which

press upon them, would, by restoring the commercial relations between

this kingdom and foreign countries, increase the manufactures, and

render more equal the price of the produce of the country.” Lord Althorp

objected to the resolutions principally on account of the time at which

they were brought forward, considering the many important questions

which yet remained for the consideration of parliament; he therefore

moved the previous question, which was carried by three hundred and five

against two hundred and six. A few days previously certain resolutions

relative to the same question were negatived in the house of lords

without a division; and in the commons, on the 18th of June, a motion

for leave to bring in a bill to alter the corn laws was rejected. The

corn laws, therefore, were yet retained in the British code.

RESOLUTIONS AGAINST BRIBERY, ETC.

The result of the elections showed that the first reformed parliament

had no small quantity of bribery to deal with. The prevention of this

evil, therefore, was an object which a reformed house of commons was

especially bound to secure. On the 6th of February, Lord John Russell

moved the same resolutions which had been adopted by the preceding

house, and which diminished obstacles that stood in the way of

effectually questioning a corrupt election. According to the resolutions

which had hitherto been adopted as the standing orders of the house on

this subject, the return of a member could be questioned only within

fourteen days after the assembling of parliament, or after his return,

if the house were then sitting; and it was the practice of persons who

made use of bribery to secure their elections, not to make any payments

till that period was passed, in order to avoid the penalties attached

to such conduct. In the hope of checking this evil, Lord John Russell

moved, “That all persons who question any future return of members to

serve in parliament upon any allegation of bribery or corruption, and

who shall in their petition specifically allege any payment of money or

other reward to have been made by any member, or on his account, or

with his privity, since the time of such return, in pursuance of, or in

furtherance of, such bribery and corruption, may question the same at

any time within twenty-eight days from the time of such payment; or if

this house be not sitting at the expiration of the said twenty-eight

days, then within fourteen days after the day when the house shall next

meet.” This resolution was agreed to, many members regretting that

it did not go further, and maintaining that a bribery-oath should be

administered to the members as well as to the electors. Subsequently

petitions were received from Liverpool, Warwick, Stafford, Hertford,

Londonderry, Carrickfergus, and Newry; and in all these cases it was

proved that gross bribery had been resorted to at the elections.

Writs were suspended for Warwick, and bills were brought in for the

disfranchisement of Stafford, Hertford, and Carrickfergus, while several

individuals were ordered to be criminally prosecuted. As the session

was drawing to a close, the bills were not persevered in before its

termination. An attempt was made by Mr. Grote, one of the members for

the city of London, to establish voting by ballot; that alone, in his

estimation, being the only means of securing purity of election. This,

however, was negatived, after a long and earnest discussion, by two

hundred and eleven against one hundred and six. Another discussion

relative to the constitution arose on a motion by Mr. Tennyson, for

leave to bring in a bill to shorten the duration of parliaments. In

support of his motion, Mr. Tennyson enforced the ordinary topics, that

the septennial act had been passed to meet a temporary emergency; that

it had originally been an exception from the rules of the constitution;

that the consequence of it had been general corruption both among the

electors and the representatives; and that it rendered the members too

independent of their constituents, and in so far defeated the object of

a representative government, and prevented the operation of the public

opinion. There was a difference of opinion, he said, as to the number

of years which ought to be fixed for the duration of parliaments, some

being in favour of five, others of four, and others of three years. He

thought they were bound to consult the general wishes of the people, and

it appeared to him that they were in favour of triennial parliaments. At

the same time, in the bill which he proposed to bring in, he intended

to leave the term of future parliaments unfixed, so that it might form

a subject of debate in committee. His bill contained two clauses, one to

repeal the septennial act, and the other to determine the period of each

parliament’s existence. The resistance of the proposition was left to

ministers themselves, and Lord Althorp’s mode of getting rid of it was

by moving the previous question. He was ready to acknowledge, he said,

this was a question which he would support, if parliament were in

the same situation as heretofore; but things were now changed, and

he believed that the feelings and opinions of the people were fairly

represented in that house. He did not think, therefore, that the same

necessity existed for abridging the duration of parliaments, as before

the passing of the reform bill. The motion was supported by Messrs.

Cobbett, Kennedy, Shiel, and other members, and opposed by Lord John

Eussell and Mr. Stanley. On a division, the previous question was

carried by a majority of forty-nine, two hundred and thirteen having

voted for it, and one hundred and sixty-four for the motion.

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

PARLIAMENT.

At this period the Jews alone were the only class of the community whose

religion affected their rights. Towards the close of the session Mr.

Goulburn brought in a bill to remove their civil disabilities, and it

passed the commons, but was thrown out on the second reading in the

house of lords. The session was closed on the 29th of August by his

majesty in person, who in his speech touched upon the various important

measures that had this session occupied the attention of parliament. It

may be mentioned that government had recently appointed a commission

for inquiring into the state of corporations, and for digesting into one

body the enactments of the criminal law, and inquiring how far, and by

what means, a similar process might be extended to the other branches of

our jurisprudence. It may also be mentioned that two important acts had

been passed for giving constitutions upon sound principles to the royal

and parliamentary burghs of Scotland, a change by which the whole system

of self-election was entirely abolished. His majesty embraced all these

topics in his speech. On the subject of Ireland his majesty expressed

his regret that coercive measures had been necessary; but he had not

found it desirable, except in a very limited degree, to use the powers

confided to him, and he hoped that the time was not far distant when

repressive laws might be no longer unavoidable.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

{WILLIAM IV. 1832–1833}

During this year a prospect of the close of the dreadful calamities

which had so long weighed down the people of Portugal dawned upon

them. At its commencement Oporto still continued to be the scene of

operations; the regent occupying that city, and Don Miguel maintaining

his positions and his battery on the left bank of the river and to the

north of the city itself. The operations continued to consist of

partial bombardments across the river, or engagements of detachments,

occasionally varied by more regular attacks and sallies to destroy works

already erected, or prevent new ones from being raised. There was not

much blood shed, and the results of the operations made no decisive or

permanent change in the relation of the armies to each other. At the

beginning of March, indeed, a battle was fought, in which it was stated

that the Miguelites lost fifteen thousand men, and their adversary only

one hundred; but still it left matters where it found them—Oporto was

still besieged. At length, however, a decisive blow was struck at the

power of Don Miguel on the seas. While the operations on land were going

forward, Don Pedro was involved in a dangerous quarrel with his admiral,

Sartorius, which resulted in his giving up the command of the fleet,

and with his being replaced by another British officer, Captain Napier.

Under his command an expedition sailed to the Algarves, the most

southern province of the kingdom, having on board two thousand five

hundred men, commanded by the Duke of Terceira, for the purpose of

invading that part of the country. The cities of Tavira, Faro, and Lagos

were soon captured, and in the course of a week the whole province

of Algarves was in possession of Don Pedro. But a still heavier blow

awaited Don Miguel. Admiral Napier, having disembarked the troops and

witnessed their success, set sail to return to the mouth of the Tagus to

watch the squadron of Don Miguel, or bring it to battle. He fell in with

it on the 2nd of July, off Cape St. Vincent, and a battle ensued, in

which the squadron of Don Miguel was annihilated. He had now only the

land to trust to, and there he was soon defeated. Having regained the

province of Algarves, the Duke of Terceira marched towards Lisbon, and

having reached the left bank of the Tagus he was encountered by an army

said to have consisted of five thousand men, under the command of Talles

Jordao. The battle was brief, and the victory complete: Jordao was

routed, his army scattered, and he himself killed. The effect of the

battle was to put Don Pedro’s troops in possession of Lisbon: they

entered unmolested on the 24th of July, and Donna Maria was immediately

proclaimed Queen of Portugal. As soon as Don Pedro received intelligence

of what had taken place at Lisbon, he sailed from Oporto to assume

the government. The war was now transferred to Lisbon; and a series of

battles took place between the troops of Don Pedro and those of Miguel,

and the year closed before the contest was decided. Donna Maria,

however, ruled in Portugal, and a British minister again presented

himself at the court of the rightful sovereign of the country. The

English government at the same time strictly adhered to the neutrality

which it had imposed on itself; but, taught by experience, it did not

trust to assurances of the same line of conduct from other powers, and

especially from the court of Madrid. It prepared itself, indeed, for

all events, by sending a powerful squadron under Admiral Parker to the

Tagus, with orders to take an active part for Don Pedro the moment a

Spanish force should appear in Portugal to assist Don Miguel.

Early in this year Greece received her youthful monarch. Otho was

welcomed by the various chiefs and populace with all due marks of

respect and obedience; and awakening from the torpor of ages, Greece

took her place among the civilized nations of Europe. The kingdom was

divided into ten departments:—1. Argolis and Corinth; 2. Achaia and

Elis; 3. Messene; 4. Arcadia; 5. Laconia; 6. Acarnania and Ætolia; 7.

Locris and Phocis; 8. Attica and Beotia; 9. Eubcea; 10. the Cyclades.

The local government of each department was assisted by a council; and

at the head of each circle or district into which they were subdivided,

was placed an eparch, with a distinct board. The first acts of the

government were to disband the irregular troops, to organise a new

and regular army, and to endeavour to provide something like an

administration of justice. The disbanding of the irregular troops,

however, did not contribute to the internal tranquillity of the country;

on the contrary, it threw large numbers of savage men out of employment,

and many of them formed themselves into bands for the purposes of

plunder. One of these bands sacked the Turkish town of Arta, in Epirus

slaughtering the inhabitants, and setting their houses on fire. The

massacre lasted three days; after which the marauders, laden with booty,

took refuge in the mountains.

While Turkey was thus shorn of one of her European provinces, she was

doomed to see a rebellious, but victorious vassal make himself master

of her Asiatic territories. Ibrahim Pacha, who had during the last year

opened a way across Mount Taurus, lost no time in descending into the

plains of Caramania. Here he fought a great battle with the Turkish

troops, under the command of the grand vizier, Redschid Pacha, whom he

utterly defeated and took prisoner. Constantinople was almost at his

mercy; there was no obstacle between Ibrahim and the shores of the

Bosphorus; and he seemed to be only waiting for the arrival of fresh

troops, which were on their march through Syria to join him, to traverse

Anatolia and assail the capital. The danger, however, was averted by

the exertions of the British government, assisted by that of France. The

Egyptian army retired from Asia Minor; and the Russians, whom the Sultan

had called in for its defence, and from whom he was in no less danger

than from the sword of Ibrahim, left Constantinople. By a treaty which

was concluded between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali, the former gave up

the whole of Syria, granting at the same time an amnesty to all its

inhabitants for the conduct which they might have followed during the

expedition of Ibrahim. The Pasha of Egypt became by this treaty more

powerful than the master from whom he had revolted; his rule extended

from the limits of Asia Minor to the mouth of the Nile. A treaty was

subsequently concluded between the Porte and Russia, in which the

preponderating power of the latter was fully established. Russia was

to aid the sultan in repressing all disturbances, and the sultan was

to shut the Dardanelles, in particular circumstances, against all other

nations. Both England and France complained that such a treaty had been

concluded without their concurrence, and each of them had a fleet near

the Sea of Marmora; but their remonstrances were unheeded, and their

fleets returned. The popular and prophetic belief of the Byzantines,

namely, that “the Russians in the last days should become masters of

Constantinople,” seemed to be rapidly approaching its fulfilment.

The Belgian question had its origin in events antecedent to the

formation of the present British cabinet, so that ministers were

compelled to follow a course which had been adopted by their

predecessors. When the revolution first broke forth in the Netherlands,

the king called on his allies for troops. These were refused by the

English government; but his next request, for the assembling of a

conference, was granted. By subsequent acts of that assembly, the

principle of separation between the two countries was established; and

the task imposed on the present government was to settle the terms on

which a separation should take place, so as to provide for the interest

and security of all parties. The difficulties encountered in performing

this task arose from the obstinacy of the Dutch monarch. By the

armistice which his majesty had invoked in November, 1830, the citadel

of Antwerp was to be evacuated in fifteen days; but the possession of

that fortress enabled him to harass the Belgians, and to intercept their

trade on the Scheldt, and therefore he refused to give it up. England

and France, failing to obtain the co-operation of the other three

powers, were obliged to have recourse to force: Antwerp was besieged

by the French troops, and an embargo was laid on Dutch vessels by Great

Britain. These vigorous measures disconcerted all the calculations of

the Dutch monarch and of his partizans. At the beginning of this year

Antwerp, supposed to have been impregnable, surrendered to Marshal

Gerard. This event, together with the embargo laid on Dutch vessels,

produced the convention of the 21st of May, by which the Belgian

question was settled. This convention provided, “That immediately on the

ratifications being exchanged, the embargoes laid on by Great Britain

and France should be removed, and the vessels and cargoes restored, and

that the Dutch garrison which had defended the citadel of Antwerp should

return to Holland with all their arms and baggage: That Holland should

not recommence hostilities against Belgium so long as a definite treaty

had not settled their mutual relations; that the navigation of the

Scheldt should be free, which was explained in a supplementary article

to mean, that it was to be placed on the same footing as it had been

prior to the 1st of November, 1812: That the navigation of the Meuse

should be opened, subject to the provisions of the convention of Mayence

of the 31st of March, 1831, relative to the navigation of the Rhine:

That the communications between the frontier of North Brabant and

Maestricht, and between that fortress and Germany, should be unimpeded:

That the contracting parties should occupy themselves immediately with

the definitive treaty, to which Austria, Prussia, and Russia should be

invited to become parties.” The King of Holland having agreed to these

articles, the principal point of discussion remaining was that of

compensation: in the meantime Europe was secured against the danger of

a general war, arising from the differences which had existed between

Holland and Belgium.

CHAPTER XLIV.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

_Meeting of Parliament..... Mr. O’Connell’s Motion for the

Repeal of the Union..... Divisions in the Cabinet.....

Commission issued to inquire into the state of the Irish

Church..... Irish Tithe Question..... Renewal of Irish

Coercion Bill..... Resignation of Earl Grey, etc......

Rejection of the Irish Tithe Bill by the Peers..... State

of Ecclesiastical Questions, and the Claims of

Dissenters..... Poor Laws Amendment Act..... The Corn-Law

Question..... Financial Statements, etc...... Bill for the

Removal of the Civil Disabilities of the Jews, etc......

Disputes with France regarding the Newfoundland Fisheries,

etc...... Steam Navigation..... Prorogation of

Parliament..... Dissolution of the Cabinet..... Sir Robert

Peel appointed Prime-Minister..... Dissolution of

Parliament..... The Act abolishing Slavery in the West

Indies carried into effect..... The Affairs of Ireland.....

State of the Continent, etc._

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1834}

On the 4th of February the session was opened by the king in person. In

his speech his majesty alluded to the slavery abolition bill introduced

last year, stating that the manner in which that beneficent measure had

been received throughout the colonies, and the progress made in carrying

it into effect by the legislature of Jamaica, afforded just grounds for

anticipating the happiest results. Among the various important subjects

still calling for consideration, his majesty enumerated reports from

the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of municipal

corporations, into the administration of the poor laws, and into

the ecclesiastical revenues of England and Wales. His majesty also

recommended the early consideration of such a final adjustment of the

tithes in Ireland as might extinguish all just causes of complaint,

without injury to the rights and property of any class of his subjects,

or to any institution in church or state. Concerning the state of

Ireland, his majesty remarked that the public tranquillity had been

generally observed, and that the state of Ireland presented a more

favourable appearance than at any period during the last year. The

speech then reverted to the agitations in Ireland for the repeal of the

legislative union, which it denounced in the strongest terms. The

chief point in our foreign policy noticed by the king related to the

government of Spain. He remarked:—“Upon the death of the late King

of Spain, I did not hesitate to recognise the succession of his infant

daughter; and I shall watch with the greatest solicitude the progress of

events which may affect a government, the peaceable settlement of which

is of the utmost importance to this country, as well as to the general

tranquillity of Europe.” On the motion for an address in the house of

lords, the whole policy of government, both domestic and foreign, was

vehemently attacked by the Duke of Wellington, but no amendment was

moved. In the commons, Mr. Hume, in opposition to the address said, that

although there was a great deal in the speech about the independence

of Turkey, and something about Portugal, &c., yet there was not one word

about poor tax-ridden England. He moved an amendment to the effect, that

the house would pledge itself to take into its immediate and serious

consideration the state of the established church, as regarded its

temporalities and the maintenance of the clergy, and also with a view to

the removal of complaints which arose out of the mode in which tithe and

church-rates were levied, in order to accomplish such changes as might

give effectual relief both to churchmen and dissenters. This amendment

was negatived by a large majority; and another, altering the paragraph

in the address to his majesty, expressive of the satisfaction of the

house at the “uninterrupted enjoyment of the blessings of peace,”

shared the same fate. Mr. O’Connell moved that the clause referring to

the agitation for the repeal of the union should be omitted; but this

was also negatived by an overwhelming majority. On the bringing up

of the report on the address, an incidental discussion arose on the

coercion bill of last session, which gave rise to an extraordinary

scene, and to the committal of Lord Althorp and Mr. Shiel to the custody

of the serjeant-at-arms. A charge had been made by Mr. Hill, one of the

members for Hull, that one of the Irish members who had voted against

the coercion bill, went secretly to one of the ministers, urging him not

to bate a single jot of that bill, or it would be impossible for any man

to live in Ireland. Mr. O’Connell referred to this charge, and he put

two questions to the chancellor of the exchequer respecting it—namely,

whether he, or any other member of the cabinet, had ever stated that an

Irish member had acted in such a manner, and whether any Irish member

ever went to the noble lord, or any other minister, and made the

statement which had been imputed to him. Lord Althorp replied in the

negative to both these questions; but, he added, that he should not act

a manly part, if he did not declare that he had good reason to believe

that more than one Irish member who voted and spoke against the bill,

did in private conversation use very different language. A scene of

confusion and crimination then ensued, in which Lord Althorp charged Mr.

Shiel with being one of the gentlemen who had so acted, which Mr. Shiel

denied in terms which left the house under the impression that a duel

between those two members would ensue. Upon the motion of Sir Francis

Burdett, both were placed under arrest until assurances were given that

the matter should not lead to the apprehended results. Subsequently a

committee of privileges was appointed to examine into this affair, and

it appearing to the committee that there was no evidence to establish

the charge, they made their report in favour of Mr. Shiel. Mr. Hill

himself, finding that he had been deceived, acknowleged his error; and

Lord Althorp said, that if Mr. Shiel would distinctly say that he had

not done what his lordship had stated he had done, he should be bound to

believe his assertion. Mr. Shiel readily made this statement, and thus

ended this ridiculous interlude. Many believe that the subject was

obtruded upon the house as much from a hope of embarrassing a rival in

the work of agitation, as from a desire to vindicate the character of

a friend. The public in general, however, looked on the matter with

indifference.

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

Mr. O’Connell had long made his boast in Ireland, that he would

bring forward the question of the repeal of the union in the British

parliament. His courage, from his non-performance of this promise, began

to be doubted; and to save his credit, he was obliged to bring himself

to trial. On the first day of the sessions he had given notices of

two motions: one that the house should take the act of union into

consideration, with a view to its repeal; the other for the appointment

of a “select committee to inquire and report on the means by which the

dissolution of parliament was effected—on the effects of that measure

upon Ireland, and upon the labourers in husbandry, and the manufacturers

in England—and on the probable consequences of continuing the

legislative union between both countries.” He proceeded only with the

last of the two motions, and he brought that forward on the 22nd of

April. He commenced by declaring that there had never existed a greater

mistake than to suppose that England possessed any right of dominion

over the former country. He then entered at great length into the

incompetency of parliament to pass the act of union; and having detailed

the means by which it was accomplished, he proceeded to prove that the

financial and legislative terms on which the great question had been

settled were in their very nature fraudulent and unjust. Looking at

these circumstances, he said, he dreaded the probable consequences of a

continuance of the union. Ireland felt strongly on the subject; and he

demanded that the bitter recollection of the past should be for ever

effaced by the restoration of her people to their inalienable rights.

Mr. O’Connell was answered at great length by Mr. Spring Rice, who

enumerated the manifold advantages gained by Ireland from the union.

He moved, therefore, that an address be presented to his majesty,

expressive of the fixed and steady determination of the commons to

maintain inviolate the legislative union between Great Britain and

Ireland—a determination to be justified, not only on general grounds,

but by reasons of special application to Ireland itself; declaring also,

that while the house endeavoured to remove all just causes of complaint

alleged by the Irish people, it would promote every well-considered

measure of rational liberty. The debate on the subject was continued by

adjournment for several days. The members who took part in it were—for

the original motion, Messrs. O’Connor, Barron, Ruthven, Shiel, and

others; and for the amendment, Messrs. Tennent, Littleton, Sandford,

Lambert, and Sir Robert Peel, and others. Perhaps the most effective

speech was that which was delivered by Sir Robert Peel, who said, he

believed that no array of official documents, and no force of argument,

could strengthen the conviction of the great majority of the house—a

conviction that lay deeper than any argument could reach—that they

would on no account consent to dismember the British empire. There were

convictions connected with the feelings of the heart as well as with the

faculties of the mind. Mr. Canning had said, “Repeal the union! re-enact

the heptarchy!” The security of the empire depended on the maintenance

of that union; without it England would be reduced to the condition of

a fourth-rate power in Europe, and Ireland to the desolation of a

wilderness. On a division the amendment was carried by the triumphant

majority of five hundred and twenty-three against thirty-eight; the

minority, with one exception only, consisting of Irish members. On the

30th of April the commons, in a conference, communicated their

address to the lords, who, in one spirit, unanimously concurred in

its sentiments, and ordered the blank, which was purposely left, to be

filled up with the words, “lords spiritual and temporal.” It was then

presented to the king as the joint address of both houses; and his

majesty, in reply, expressed the great satisfaction with which he had

received the solemn and united declaration of both houses to maintain

the union inviolate.

DIVISIONS IN THE CABINET.

In opposing the repeal of the union, ministers carried along with them

the sense and feeling of the people; that was a question on which no

man differed from them except O’Connell and his followers. Questions,

however, connected with the Irish church stood in a different light.

The agitators supported the repeal as a measure tending not more

to perpetuate their own domination, than to secure the ruin of the

Protestant establishment. Many, also, who resisted repeal, still

demanded changes and curtailments in that establishment, they

considering it the principal cause of all the turbulence and misery

afflicting Ireland. There were others again who disliked it, not because

it was a Protestant, but because it was a religious establishment; and

such men inveighed against what they termed an unhallowed connection

between church and state, and the practical injustice of compelling

persons of one belief to support the institutions of a different creed.

This party was ready to attack, not only the revenues, but the very

existence of the Irish church, as the first step towards the destruction

of that of England. Union in the cabinet, coupled with a determination

not to be driven further than themselves were inclined to go, might

have rendered ministers sufficiently strong to defy such destructive

reformers. Unfortunately, however, on this question, the cabinet itself

was divided. One portion of the ministers, numerically the strongest,

seemed inclined to admit the principle of appropriation, which they had

repudiated in the bill of last session, by withdrawing the clause in

which it was contained. On the other hand, the minority, however willing

to remove striking and useless inequalities in the distribution of

the ecclesiastical revenue, and to adopt measures which would prevent

irritating collisions in its collection, resisted on principle any

transfer of it to other purposes; and they especially refused to

acquiesce in proposals for making the Protestant establishment depend

on the comparative strength or weakness of the Romish church. This

discordance of opinion would have prevented ministers from starting the

subject; but it was forced on them by a numerous party, which made up in

fury and zeal what was lacking in knowledge and discretion. On the 27th

of May, Mr. Ward, one of the members for St. Albans, moved a resolution

for reducing the temporalities of the Irish church, as exceeding the

spiritual wants of the Protestant establishment. This motion gave rise

to a division in the cabinet. In supporting his proposition, Mr. Ward

contended that vital and extensive changes in the church of Ireland

had now become unavoidable on the grounds of mere expediency. The

tithe system, he said, was the source of all the disorganisation

that prevailed in Ireland. Resistance to it was almost universal,

comprehending both Catholics and Protestants. Commutation, he argued,

would do no good; a new appropriation of church property alone could

produce even a momentary calm. Mr. Ward’s motion was seconded by Mr.

Grote, who said that the means of relief must be suggested from a higher

quarter when once the principle was recognised. Lord Althorp here arose

to request the house to adjourn, in consequence of circumstances which

had come to his knowledge since he had entered the house. He could not

at present, he said, state the nature of these circumstances; but the

house would doubtless believe that he would not make such a proposition

without being convinced of its propriety. The house adjourned, according

to Lord Althorp’s request; and it appeared that the circumstances to

which he had alluded, and which had been communicated to him while Mr.

Ward was speaking, was the resignation of those ministers who would not

consent to the principle which his motion involved. Those who resigned

were Mr. Stanley, colonial secretary; Sir James Graham, first lord of

the admiralty; the Duke of Richmond, postmaster-general; and the Earl

of Ripon, lord privy-seal. These vacant offices were soon filled up:

the Marquis of Conyngham became postmaster-general; the Earl of Carlisle

accepted the privy-seal; Lord Auckland became the first lord of the

admiralty; and the colonial office was filled up by Mr. Spring Rice.

Lord Althorp stated afterwards that he was not aware of the necessity of

these changes till after he had entered the house on the 27th; and the

adjournment seems to have arisen from the fear that the retirement of

these ministers would bring along with it the resignation of the whole.

An address was got up and presented to Earl Grey by a great number of

the ministerial adherents in the commons, entreating his lordship to

retain his place; but though, in reply he announced his intention of

making every personal sacrifice that might be required of him in

support of the principles of the administration, he admitted that much

embarrassment, as well as mischief, was produced by the reckless desire

of innovation. The embarrassment of ministers was rendered still greater

by the king himself, who, in reply to an address presented to him by

the Irish bishops on the 28th of May, on behalf of the Irish church,

remarked with peculiar emphasis:—“I now remember you have a right to

require of me to be resolute in defence of the church. I have been,

by the circumstances of my life and by conviction, led to support

toleration to the utmost extent of which it is justly capable; but

toleration must not be suffered to go into licentiousness: it has its

bounds, which it is my duty, and which I am resolved to maintain. I

am, from the deepest conviction, attached to the pure Protestant faith,

which this church, of which I am the temporal head, is the human means

of diffusing and preserving in this land. I cannot forget what was the

course of events that placed my family on the throne which I now fill.

These events were consummated in a revolution, which was rendered

necessary, and which was effected, not, as has sometimes been most

erroneously stated, merely for the sake of the temporal liberties of

the people, but for the preservation of their religion. It was for the

defence of the religion of the country that the settlement of the crown

was made which has placed me in the situation which I now fill; and that

religion, and the church of England and Ireland, the prelates of which

are now before me, it is my fixed purpose, determination, and resolution

to maintain. The present bishops, I am quite satisfied, have never been

excelled at any period of the history of our church by any of their

predecessors in learning, piety, or zeal in the discharge of their high

duties. If there are any of the inferior arrangements in the discipline

of the church—which, however, I greatly doubt—that require amendment,

I have no distrust of the readiness and ability of the prelates now

before me to correct such things; and to you, I trust, they will be left

to correct, with your authority unimpaired and unshackled.”

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

On the 2nd of June, when the house reassembled, Lord Althorp stated that

Mr. Ward’s motion had compelled ministers to take up the question of the

Irish church; and he informed the house that his majesty had appointed

a commission of inquiry into the state of church property and church

affairs generally in Ireland. This commission, he said, was to be a lay

commission; and it was to visit the different parishes and districts

throughout Ireland; to inquire on the spot into the number of

Protestants in each parish; whether that number was stationary,

increasing, or declining; whether it was a benefice, or if a parish

forming part of a union; the distance and number of churches and

chapels; the situation of the clergyman, how paid, and whether resident

or non-resident; the times which divine service was or had been

performed; the number of Protestants attending such service; and whether

that attendance was stationary, on the increase, or declining. Similar

inquiries were to be made in each parish and district with respect to

Roman Catholics, and to Dissenters of every description, as well as to

the number and the nature of schools in each parish. The commissioners

were further to make minute inquiries in all parishes, touching other

matters connected with the Irish church or church property, and to

report thereupon. Lord Althorp, after making these statements, said that

Mr. Ward’s motion went to pledge the house that the amount of church

property in Ireland was beyond the wants of that establishment; and

next, that parliament had a right to regulate the distribution of

church property, and to determine upon the reduction of the Irish church

revenues as now established by law. He was of opinion that the house

should legislate deliberately upon so grave a question, and he trusted

that Mr. Ward would withdraw his motion, and feel satisfied with what

government had done. Mr. Ward, however, refused to withdraw his motion:

he must press, he said, for a recognition of the principle, because,

from what was passing around him, he was afraid that the present

ministers would not long continue in office. Lord Althorp then moved

the previous question, principally on the ground that, of all questions,

this was one which most required much previous inquiry and detailed

information. Mr. Hume, and Colonels Davies and Evans supported the

original resolution, declaring that the shuffling mode of proceeding

adopted by government in regard to this question, rendered it impossible

to repose confidence in ministers. After a long debate the amendment,

however, was carried by a majority of three hundred and ninety-six

against one hundred and twenty. The majority would have been still

larger, had not a considerable number of conservative members, unwilling

to wear even the appearance of tampering with the question, left the

house before the division. The subject was brought before the lords on

the 6th of June, by the Earl of Wicklow, who moved an address to his

majesty for a copy of the commission, a motion which Earl Grey said he

would not oppose. Many of the peers embraced this opportunity of stating

their objections to the commission, contending that the measures on

which ministers appeared to have resolved would end in the ruin of the

church. Concession, it was said, could not stop here; it must go on from

step to step, till nothing was left to be conceded. Earl Grey denied

that he and his colleagues looked forward to anything that could be

justly called spoliation of the church; they contemplated a great

alteration, but nothing more.

IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

In the meantime ministers had been proceeding with a bill for the

amendment of the tithe system in Ireland, founded on principles which

should extinguish tithe altogether as a payment to be demanded in kind,

and should lay the burden, directly at least, on a different class of

payers. The provisions of the intended measure were explained on the

20th of February, by Mr. Littleton, the Irish secretary, in a committee

of the whole house, met for the purpose of considering the portion

of the king’s speech relating to this subject. Government, he said,

proposed in the first place, that from and after the month of November

next, composition for tithe should cease in Ireland, and in lieu thereof

a land-tax should be imposed, payable to the crown, and to be collected

and managed by the commissioners of woods and forests, of the same

amount as the tithe-payment now exigible, and to be paid by the same

parties who at present were liable. In the second place, he said,

ministers proposed that this land-tax should be redeemable at the end

of five years, by all who had a substantive interest in the estate.

Thirdly, they proposed, he said, that so much of the land-tax as

remained unredeemed on the 1st of November, 1839, should be converted

into a real charge, equal to four-fifths of the land-tax, and payable by

the owner of the first estate of inheritance in the land, who should be

entitled to recover the whole amount over against his tenantry; these

rent-charges would be redeemable or saleable for the best price to be

had, not being less than the consideration for redemption of land-tax.

In the fourth place, ministers proposed that the tithe-owners should be

paid by warrants issued by the ecclesiastical commissioners for Ireland,

and addressed to the commissioners of woods and forests: such payments

to be of the amount of the compositions to which the tithe-owners might

be severally entitled, subject to a deduction for the trouble, loss, and

expense of collection. Finally, ministers proposed that on redemption

of the land-tax or sale of rent-charges taking place, the payments by

warrants were to cease; and that the redemption or purchase-money should

be paid over to the commissioners for the reduction of the national

debt, and to yield an interest of 2 ¼d. per diem. The money was to be

drawn out from time to time, and invested in land, for the benefit of

the tithe-owner entitled to the principal money. The great object of

the measure, Mr. Littleton explained, was, if possible, to invest the

produce of the land-tax and rent-charge in land, so as to give the

tithe-owner £80 in land for every £100 tithe to which he had a claim.

Where clergymen had already agreed to compositions, they would get tax

to the same amount, redeemable on the same terms as in other cases;

clergymen would, indeed, he said, be probably gainers of five per

cent, by the change. Mr. Littleton concluded with moving the following

resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this committee, that composition

for tithes in Ireland ought to be abolished on and after the 1st day of

November in the present year, in consideration of an annual land-tax to

be granted to his majesty, payable by the persons who would have been

liable to such composition for tithes, and of equal amount; that such

tax shall be redeemable; and that out of the produce provision be made

in land or money for the indemnification of the persons entitled to such

composition.” The moderate members reserved their opinions until the

details of the measure should be more fully before the house; but

Messrs. O’Connell, O’Conner, Shiel, Grattan, and others of the same

class, attacked it with unmeasured violence. The bill did not abolish

tithe, and therefore it was not a bill to suit their notions. Of all the

delusions which had ever been practised, they said, this was the most

gross. Did ministers, they asked, think so meanly of the people of

Ireland as to imagine that a change of name would be mistaken for a

change of the thing, or that tithes would become less odious by being

called a land-tax or an annuity? The people of Ireland objected not

merely to the amount of tithes paid, but to the application of the

funds thence arising: the objection to tithes was double, and now that

objection would mix itself with rents. The landlords of Ireland must now

look to themselves, for the principle upon which opposition to tithes

had hitherto been conducted would forthwith be applied to rents: the

Irish people would not regard the present measure as the smallest

alleviation of their misery. Mr. O’Connell proposed that two-thirds of

the existing tithes should be abolished, the remaining third being left

as a quit-rent on the land; and after providing for the life-interest of

present incumbents, he said, he would apply the produce to relieving the

landlord from grand-jury assessments, to the support of charities, and

to other public purposes. Mr. Barron proposed that the tithe levied, to

which he did not object, should be restored in part to the poor, they

originally having had an interest in it. Mr. Grattan proposed a third

scheme: he wished parliament to recognise the liability of property in

Ireland to contribute to a fund for the support of religion and charity,

but he wished also that such a fund should be different in collection

and lighter in its amount than that now raised by the system of tithes.

Lord John Russell characterised Mr. O’Connel’s plan as one of direct

robbery and spoliation, which would be advantageous to none but

landowners. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority

of two hundred and nineteen against forty-two. A bill founded upon it

was then brought in; and on moving the second reading on the 2nd of May,

Mr. Littleton mentioned certain alterations which had been introduced

into the measure, evidently for the purpose of conciliating Irish

members. The principal changes were that instead of a varying rate of

deduction on account of the trouble and expense of collecting, there

should be one uniform deduction of fifteen per cent, to tithe-owners, to

be increased two and a half in cases where landlords had already taken

upon themselves the payment of compositions; and that when leases of

tithes had been made to the possessors of lands, the rent reserved on

such leases or the composition, whichever was the smaller in amount,

should be the measure of the land-tax; but the incumbent lessee was

to receive the amount of the rent, subject to a reasonable charge for

deficiency, the deficiency being made good out of the funds arising from

the deductions. But no change could conciliate the Irish members:

their opposition continued not only unrelaxed, but it even increased in

violence. No plan, indeed, would have been acceptable to them which did

not recognise the principle of despoiling the Protestant church.

The new bill, they contended, would be as inefficient to tranquillise

Ireland as its predecessors had been; and that a new insurrection act

and an additional army would be necessary. The second reading, from the

hostility of the Irish members, was not carried without long debates and

various manouvres; and even the conservative members aided in delaying

the measure. Their objection to it was not that it left too much to the

clergy, but that it took too much from them. They deemed it necessary,

however, to support ministers, in order to prevent worse measures

from being brought forward. It was their belief that the money to

be secured by the present measure was to be applied exclusively to the

purposes of the church. This belief was somewhat shaken by Lord John

Russell, who stated that he understood the bill to be one for securing

a certain fund appropriated to religious and charitable purposes; and if

parliament found it was not so applied, it would be its duty to consider

of a new appropriation. His own opinion was, he said, that the revenues

of the church of Ireland were too large for the religious and moral

instruction of the persons belonging to that church, and for the

safety of the church itself. When, therefore, this property was once

successfully vindicated against those who unjustly withheld it, he would

be prepared to do justice to Ireland, for if ever a people had reason to

complain of a grievance it was the people of Ireland, in relation to the

present appropriation of tithes. These sentiments were hailed by some of

the Irish members as announcing an approaching concession of all their

demands, while others who thought differently complained that, if such

were the intentions of government, they had been induced by a false

belief to receive the bill with favour, even at the sacrifice of some of

their own convictions. On a division, the second reading of the bill was

carried by a majority of two hundred and fifty against fifty-four, the

greater part of the minority being Irish members.

When the bill went into committee, lengthy debates ensued, and several

important alterations were introduced into it from the opposition

encountered. Thus the enemies of the Protestant church had loudly

declaimed against the provision by which the redeemed land-tax was to

be vested in land, and the land vested in the tithe-owner; and in

consequence of this opposition that part of the bill which invested the

revenues of the church in land, and consequently the redemption clauses

were dropped. The composition was to be converted into a land-tax

payable to the crown by the same parties who were now liable for the

composition. The amount so collected was to be paid to the tithe-owners,

subject to a deduction of three per cent. This state of things was

to continue five years, at the end of which period four-fifths of the

land-tax was to be converted into a rent-charge to be imposed on

the owners of estates of inheritance, who should have the power of

recovering it from their tenants, and all others who were primarily

liable under the existing composition laws. The amount of these

rent-charges was to be received by the crown, and to be paid by the

crown to the tithe-owners, subject to a further reduction of two and a

half per cent. for the expense of collection. Another objection to the

bill had been that under the composition-acts, the tithe had been valued

too high, and the payers determined to pay no tithe, and had even failed

to attend the commissions by whom the composition had been struck.

Effect was now given to this objection by the insertion of a provision

conferring a power of appeal against the valuation of the amount of

tithe-composition in certain cases and under certain restrictions. All

the concessions made, however, failed to conciliate the Irish members.

What was required by them was, a legislative declaration to the effect

that the tithe should be diverted from Protestant religious purposes.

On the 23rd of June, Mr. O’Connell moved as an instruction to the

committee, “that after any funds which should be raised in Ireland

in lieu of tithes had been so appropriated as to provide suitably,

considering vested interests and spiritual wants, for the Protestants of

the established church of Ireland, the surplus which remained should be

appropriated to purposes of public utility.” This motion was seconded

by Mr. Hume, and it led to another long debate, in which all the usual

topics were again urged on both sides. This resolution, however, was

lost by a majority of three hundred and sixty to ninety, and on the 30th

of June the order of the day was moved for going into committee. This

step was prefaced by the announcement of new and extensive alterations

in the bill. It was now proposed to offer an inducement to the

imposition of voluntary rent charges, by exacting that, in any case

where the owner of the first perpetual estate in the land should be

willing to subject his estate to a rent-charge in lieu of land-tax, and

should declare his intention to that effect before the 1st of November,

1836, the land-tax should then cease, and his property should become

liable to a rent-charge, which should be a sum equal to the interest at

three and a half per cent, on the amount of the land-tax multiplied by

four-fifths of the number of years’ purchase which the land might be

fairly worth. Mr. Littleton said he thought that the landowners should

be subject to no greater interest than three and a half per cent, on

the amount of the land-tax thus determined by the proportion of years’

purchase of the land, but that the difference between the amount of

the rent-charge and the amount of the land-tax should not be less than

twenty per cent, or more than forty per cent, on the amount of such

land-tax. The difference, he continued, between the bonus given to the

landlord and the deduction made from the tithe-owner, which deduction

was to remain as originally proposed, would produce a considerable

deficiency in the funds accruing to the commissioners of land revenue.

It was proposed at first to make up this deficiency in the first

instance from the consolidated fund, and to repay it from the perpetuity

purchase-fund in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners under the

act of last session. Finally, in all cases where a rent-charge should

not have been voluntarily created before the expiry of five years, a

rent-charge equal to four-fifths of the land-tax would be compulsorily

imposed. Mr. O’Connell taunted ministers with weak and vacillating

conduct, and insisted that the bill should not go into committee till

it had been printed with the new clauses. The bill, he argued, was no

longer the same: it had been altered again and again; eight additional

clauses not originally contained in it, had already been inserted,

and now came a fresh quantity of matter. Familiar as he was with the

subject, he was not sure that he understood the new alterations, and he

was quite sure that nine-tenths of the members did not understand them.

Messrs, Stanley and Shaw joined Mr. O’Connell in thinking that some

postponement was reasonable and necessary. Mr. Stanley said that it

would be more decent to give time for the great alterations in view, and

the deviations from the principles formerly adopted to be deliberately

considered, after the bill should be again printed and put into the

hands of members. The objection to proceeding with the bill was so

forcible that Mr. Stanley’s proposal was acceded to, and the committee

was postponed. On the 4th of July, the house having gone into committee

on another bill connected with the Irish church, Mr. Littleton explained

more in detail the mode of fixing the bonus to be given to the landlords

who submitted to voluntary rent-charges and the financial effects of

it on the consolidated fund. He moved “that for any deficit which might

arise in the sums accruing to the commissioners of woods and forests

out of the land-tax or rent-charges, payable for the composition

of ecclesiastical tithes in Ireland, to the payment of which the

consolidated fund was pledged, that fund should be indemnified from the

revenues in the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners, and out of

the perpetuity purchase-fund, placed at their disposal by the act of

last session, entitled the Irish church temporalities act.” After a

few words from Messrs. O’Connell and Hume, and some other members,

Mr. Stanley attacked the measure and the proceedings of his former

colleagues in a vehement harangue. He opposed the resolution, he said,

because it was both impolitic and dishonest; because it was at variance

with the great principle, which for the last three or four years it had

been the object of government to abolish, namely, the final extinction

of tithes in Ireland by means of redemption; and because it seemed to

him to be the commencement of a new system of plunder, and that too by a

system of plunder not characterised by the straightforward course which

bold offenders followed, but marked with that timidity, that want of

dexterity, which led to the failure of the unpractised shoplifter. He

believed that government was committing great injustice, and would yet

fail in its aim; that the country was against this injustice, and that

Ireland after it had been perpetrated would not be more tranquil; and

therefore he would take the sense of the committee on the resolution

now proposed. Lord Althorp replied to Mr. Stanley, and vindicated the

resolution from the charge of spoliation. He did not see, he said, how

it could be spoliation to take property not from a corporation, but from

a mass of different corporations, and apply it to other purposes, if,

in doing this, he was giving security to the church. Mr. Hume said he

believed in his conscience that ministers were afraid of their late

colleague, and intimated his intention of acting with him. He moved an

amendment the effect of which would be to re-enact the 147th clause of

the act of last session, by substituting for the original resolution the

following:—“That the surplus monies to the credit of the ecclesiastical

commissioners in the perpetuity purchase-fund, to be kept by the said

ecclesiastical commissioners pursuant to an act of last session of

parliament, should be applicable to such purposes, for the adjustment

and settlement of tithes in Ireland, as by an act of parliament of this

session should be provided.” This amendment gave rise to a lengthy

and sharp debate, but it was thrown out by a large majority, and the

ministerial resolution was then carried by two hundred and thirty-five

votes against one hundred and seventy-one. At this stage, however, the

progress of the bill was arrested for a time by circumstances to which

it becomes necessary to advert, those circumstances being calculated by

their moral and political effects on the composition of government, and

on the relations of parties, to exercise a great influence on the spirit

of all subsequent measures.

RENEWAL OF THE IRISH COERCION BILL.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

In the preceding session it had been found necessary to pass what

was termed the coercion bill—a bill intended to put down that

insurrectionary violence and combination which filled Ireland with crime

and confusion. This act was to expire in August; and ministers, acting

upon information received from various parts of Ireland, had determined

to propose its renewal, omitting those parts that related to the trial

of offenders, in certain cases, by courts-martial. There were, however,

other provisions in the bill which the agitators of Ireland viewed with

still greater dislike, they interfering with their own influence, by

preventing those meetings which enabled them to work on the ignorance

and passions of the misguided multitude. To escape from these

restrictions was to Mr. O’Connell and his followers an object of greater

importance than that the multitude whom they misled should be tried only

by the regular tribunals of the country—that the peasant should have

the benefit of the jury, or of an investigation by the civil magistrate.

The lord-lieutenant of Ireland had recommended that the whole act should

be renewed, with the exception of the clause relative to courts-martial;

but on the 23rd of June, Earl Grey received a communication from

him, stating that the provision against public meetings might also

be omitted. What influence had been used with the Marquis Wellesley

subsequently became the subject of much discussion. It appeared that

certain members of the cabinet had been corresponding with him without

the knowledge of Earl Grey, and that the object of their correspondence

had been, not to insure more tranquillity in Ireland, but to smooth the

way of ministers by making concessions to O’Connell and his adherents.

On discovering this, Earl Grey, who dissented from such views,

immediately wrote to the lord-lieutenant to reconsider the subject,

taking nothing into account but what was fitting for Ireland. Lord

Wellesley, however, still adhered to his recommendation, more especially

if, by means of such omission, an extension of the term for the act

could be obtained. The subject was now brought before the cabinet, and

its members were found to be divided in opinion thereon. The minority,

consisting of Lord Althorp, and Messrs. Grant, Rice, Ellice, and

Abercromby, objected to a renewal of the clauses in question, though

they acquiesced in the determination of the majority, that the bill

should be proposed in the form desired by the premier. On the second

reading of the bill, Lord Durham objected to the clauses regarding

public meetings, when Earl Grey declared his dissent from him to be

absolute; if he could not have proposed the bill with these clauses, he

would not have proposed it at all. Without them, he said, the bill would

be ineffectual, impolitic, and cruel: it would punish the miserable

victims of delusion, and let those escape who supplied to Ireland

the fuel of agitation and disturbance. In these sentiments the

lord-chancellor coincided; the clauses, he said, were as necessary as

any others. Attention must be paid to the cause of excitement, as well

as to the parties excited; the clauses regarding public meetings no

doubt were a suspension of rights; but so were all the other clauses of

the bill, to which no objection had been raised. The second reading of

the bill was carried without any serious opposition, and the committee

was fixed for the 7th of July; but in the meantime disclosures were made

in the commons, which stopped the progress of the bill in its present

shape, and which led to the resignation of Earl Grey.

RESIGNATION OF EARL GREY, ETC.

Instead of meeting O’Connell with bold defiance, Mr. Littleton, the

Irish secretary, had committed the fatal error of secretly negotiating

with him, soothing him, and even entrusting him with the views and

determinations of the cabinet, giving him assurances, or encouraging

expectations, for which he had no authority. He seems to have expected

some communication from the lord-lieutenant regarding the omission of

the clauses; and he resolved, before the ministers or the cabinet had

made any decision known to him, to communicate to O’Connell, under the

seal of secrecy and confidence, the sentiments of the Irish government,

and to communicate it as ensuring a similar determination on the part

of government. He spoke of the propriety of acting thus to Lord Althorp,

who said that he saw no harm in it; but, at the same time, entreated him

to use extreme caution in his communication, and by no means to commit

himself in what he said. Under these circumstances Mr. Littleton

sent for Mr. O’Connell on the 20th of June, and made the desired

communication, with an assurance that only a short measure for

repressing agrarian disturbances would be proposed: and, also, that if

the coercion bill was again thought necessary, he would not introduce

it. In consequence of this interview, Mr. O’Connell promised his

assistance in putting down disturbances; and he actually withdrew the

repeal candidate whom he had started for the county of Wexford. To

the dismay of Mr. Littleton, however, the premier and majority of the

cabinet determined to retain the clause respecting public meetings, and

he was compelled to belie his confidential communication. He had told

Mr. O’Connell that he would not be the person to introduce the bill in

that shape: and yet he did not resign when it was determined that the

bill should be introduced in that shape alone. At the same time he

communicated to Mr. O’Connell that his hopes could not be realised; but

begged him to take no public notice of this until he should have seen

Earl Grey’s speech introducing the bill. Mr. O’Connell replied to him,

that if he did not resign, he would be guilty of deception; and Mr.

Littleton answered, “Say nothing of that to-day,” or, “Wait till

to-morrow.” But with regard to the fact, whether such an answer was or

was not given, both O’Connell and Mr. Littleton averred that what the

other stated was not consistent with truth. Be this as it may, O’Connell

thought he was not bound to secrecy; and on the 3rd of July, two days

after the bill had been introduced in the lords, he asked Mr. Littleton

whether it was true that the renewal of the coercion bill in its present

shape had been advised and called for by the Irish government? Mr.

Littleton answered that this was an unusual inquiry to make respecting a

bill not before the house; but he would say that the introduction of

the bill had the entire sanction of the Irish government. Mr. O’Connell

again put his question, as to whether the bill had been called for by

the Irish government? and not obtaining a more direct answer, he said,

“I now ask the Irish secretary if it his intention to bring the bill

forward in this house?” Mr. Littleton replied, “It will be for the

government to decide as to its introduction here when the proper time

arrives; but, whoever may bring in the bill, I shall vote for it.” Mr.

O’Connell then said, “Then I have been exceedingly deceived by him;”

and the Irish secretary was driven to the necessity of stating the

whole matter, and an angry discussion ensued. Two days afterwards Mr.

Littleton tendered his resignation; but it was refused, his colleagues,

as Lord Althorp stated in the house, valuing his services too highly

to dispense with them on such grounds. The coercion bill passed through

committee in the lords on the 7th of July, and on the same evening, in

the house of commons, Lord Althorp, for the purpose of announcing its

approach, presented papers relative to the state of Ireland, which he

moved should be printed. This led to a discussion on the sentiments

of the cabinet, and the change of opinion manifested by the Marquis

Wellesley. Mr. O’Connell moved an amendment, that the papers should

be referred to a select committee; and this being rejected by a

large majority, he gave notice for the production of so much of the

lord-lieutenant’s correspondence as would explain the reason why he

opposed a renewal of the coercion act on or about the 20th of June.

Hitherto there had been no symptoms of change in the ministry, however

unfortunate might be the figure which they had been compelled to make.

They had even refused to accept the resignation of Mr. Littleton, whose

indiscreet negotiations had been the source of all their embarrassments.

Lord Althorp, however, seems now to have come to the conclusion that

ministers would not be able to carry the bill through in its original

form, for, on the very night of this discussion, he sent in his

resignation, and persisted in retiring from office. The resignation of

the chancellor of the exchequer involved that of Earl Grey. The prime

minister, convinced that it was impossible for him to proceed when

deprived of Lord Althorp’s assistance, gave in his own resignation,

which his majesty accepted. By the retirement of the head of the

cabinet, the cabinet itself was dissolved; but no other resignation

followed. The members of the old cabinet, indeed, resolved to

remain together, and selected a new head; and Lord Melbourne, the

home-secretary, was elevated to this post, and kissed hands on the 16th

of July as first lord of the treasury. Lord Melbourne’s first act was

to inform the house that ministers did not intend to proceed with the

coercion bill now before it, but that another bill, omitting certain

clauses contained in the former, would immediately be brought into the

house of commons. This announcement produced a vehement discussion, in

which the conduct of government and some of its individual members was

assailed by the Dukes of Wellington and Buckingham, and several other

peers, who maintained, that since the Revolution, no instance had

occurred of such inconsistency and tergiversation. A modified coercion

bill, however, was introduced on the 18th of July; and having been

rapidly carried through the commons, passed the lords on the 29th, under

a strong protest, signed by the Dukes of Cumberland and Wellington, with

twenty-one other peers. This modified bill re-enacted only those parts

of the former which referred to the proclamation of districts. The

lord-lieutenant was to have power to proclaim any district which he

thought necessary, and in these districts any meeting, not convened by

the high sheriff of the county, was to be held illegal. No person was to

leave his house between sunset and sunrise, except on lawful business;

and constables were to have power to make people show themselves at any

hour of the night when they might call at their houses. The operations

of the bill were to cease on the 1st of August, 1835.

REJECTION OF THE IRISH TITHE QUESTION BY THE PEERS.

Ministers having thus provided for the tranquillity of Ireland, by

what they considered enactments of sufficient energy and severity, now

returned to their tithe bill, which, according to them, was to be the

great recompense of the temporary submission to a strained power of the

law. Accordingly, on the 29th of July, the order of the day was read

for the house resolving itself into a committee on the tithe bill. Mr.

O’Connell moved as an amendment that the house should resolve itself

into a committee that day six months. He did so, he said, on the ground

that it was preposterous to go into a committee on a bill containing

one hundred and twenty-two clauses at that period of the session, on

the ground of the demerits of the bill itself, and on the ground that

it would be time enough to legislate after the report of the commission

which had been issued should have been received, a regular plan arranged

and submitted, with all its details, and all necessary information, to

a select committee composed of men of all parties. This amendment,

however, obtained only fourteen votes in its favour, though others were

carried in committee, which went to alter the operation and consequences

of the bill. Thus Mr. O’Connell moved an amendment, the object of which

was to relieve the tithe-payer immediately to the extent of forty

per cent.; and in consequence of the accommodating language and coy

resistance of ministers, it was carried by a majority of eighty-two to

thirty-three. Additional concessions were also made in the committee;

and even Mr. Shiel remarked that Ireland ought to be grateful. Such,

indeed, was the departure from the original principles and arrangements

of the bill that one hundred and eleven out of one hundred and

seventy-two clauses were expunged. Thus altered, the bill was read a

third time, and passed on the 5th of August.

On the second reading of the bill in the lords, the peers were given

to understand by Lord Melbourne that, if it was lost, government would

propose no other grant to relieve the Irish clergy. He admitted, he

said, that there might be reason for viewing with jealousy and distrust

the quarter whence certain alterations made in the bill, subsequently to

this introduction, proceeded; but, at the same time he did not think

the arrangement bad for the church. The tithe for the future was to be

received by the crown, and paid by the landlord, who, in return for the

burden thus imposed on him, was to have a deduction of two-fifths or

forty per cent, of the original composition. The incomes of the clergy,

however, were not to bear the whole deduction, which was only to be

twenty-two and a half per cent, on them; that is, twenty per cent, for

increased security, and two and a half per cent, for the expenses of

collection. The incumbents would, in fact, receive £79 10s. for every

£100 without trouble, without the risk of bad debts, and without the

odium which had hitherto attended the collection of tithe property.

Another consequence was that the clergy would be relieved from the

payment of sums already advanced to them from the treasury, as that

charge would be laid on the landlord. In conclusion, he said that he

thought the revision of existing compositions, made under the acts of

1823 and ‘32, was also a proper enactment. The bill underwent a complete

discussion—the Conservatives seeing no security for the rights and

interests of the Irish clergy in its provisions as now altered; while

their opponents thought that it would be much more advantageous to the

clerical body to obtain the sum proposed without risk, than to recover

a smaller—if they recovered any at all—through scenes of blood and

slaughter. The Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond pursued a middle

course—they wished the bill to go into committee in order to restore

it to its original state; if unsuccessful there, they would vote against

the third reading. The lords, however, were determined to reject it

forthwith; and on a division the bill was thrown out by a majority of

one hundred and eighty-nine against one hundred and twenty-two. By the

rejection of the bill, the Irish clergy was thrown on the charity of

the British public, who liberally responded to their demand: a large

subscription was made to relieve their distresses.

STATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS AND THE CLAIMS OF DISSENTERS.

It was not the Catholics alone who regarded the Protestant establishment

with a jealous eye; there were discontents and heart-burnings, also,

among dissenters. The great majority of the people of England adhered

to the established church, yet the dissenters formed a numerous

body, possessing in many instances great respectability, wealth, and

influence. As a body they were impressed with the idea that, by the

church being supported as a national institution, they were stamped with

a mark of inferiority. Acting upon this impression, they very naturally

employed the power with which they were now invested to bring down the

established church to the same level on which they themselves stood; to

annihilate all the rights, powers, and privileges which belonged to

its members; and, by depriving it of all support from the funds of the

state, convert it into a self-constituted religious community. Their

great objects were to obtain those privileges from which they were

excluded, and to be relieved from the necessity of supporting an

establishment in the advantages of which they did not participate.

The occasion was favourable for the enterprise, in consequence of the

unsettled and uncertain state in which things stood, and the hopes held

out by a ministry who seemed disposed to make concessions to all classes

of men if they were but importunate. In accordance with their views,

various petitions were presented by them to parliament in the beginning

of the session, praying to be relieved from church-rates; and in many

instances urging the separation of church and state, or recommending the

general establishment of the voluntary system. These petitions, however,

led to no other result but that of producing a strong expression of

opposite opinions, and calling forth numerous anti-petitions, praying

parliament to preserve the church inviolate. Ministers declared

that they would listen to no proposition for its destruction; but,

notwithstanding this, a motion was made by Mr. Rippon, the new member

for Gateshead, to expel the bishops from the house of lords. This motion

was seconded by Mr. Gillon, a Scotch member; but on a division it was

lost by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five against fifty-eight.

The minority seems to have been much larger than had been anticipated,

for the announcement was hailed with loud cheers.

Among the grievances of which the dissenters complained in their

numerous petitions, none were more forcibly insisted on than their

practical exclusion from degrees at Oxford and Cambridge, in consequence

of its being required, as a preliminary, that they should conform to the

church of England, or to subscribe to her articles. As a matter of civil

right, they demanded that all religious tests should be abolished, and

the universities thrown open for the education and graduation of men

of all creeds. Exertions were made by them to get up petitions from the

universities, and in one of them they succeeded. On the 21st of March

Earl Grey presented, in the house of lords, a petition from certain

members of the senate of the University of Cambridge, praying for the

abolition by legislative authority of every religious test exacted from

members of the university before they proceed to degrees, whether of

bachelor, master, or doctor, in arts, law, and physic. On this occasion,

as on others when similar petitions were presented, there was much

incidental discussion of the merits of the demand. Ministers declared

it to be just and proper, and showed an inclination to grant it; but no

distinct motion was made on the subject till after the Easter recess.

On the 17th of April, however, Colonel Williams moved an address to

the king, “requesting his majesty to signify his pleasure to the

universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that these bodies no

longer act under the edicts or letters of James I., 1616; by which he

would have all who take any degree in schools to subscribe to the

three articles’ of the thirty-sixth canon, with the exception of those

proceeding to degrees in divinity; nor to require the declaration,

namely, ‘that I am _bona fide_ a member of the church of England,’ nor

any subscription or declaration of like effect and import.” It was,

however, thought for many reasons more advisable to proceed by bill;

and Mr. Wood, one of the members for Preston, moved as an amendment for

leave to bring in a bill to grant to his majesty’s subjects, generally,

the right of admission to the English universities, and to equal

eligibility to degrees therein, notwithstanding their diversities of

religious opinion, degrees in divinity alone excepted. The address was

withdrawn; and after a discussion, in which even the introduction of the

measure was opposed by Messrs. Goulburn and Estcourt, and Sir R. Inglis,

three of the four members for the universities, it was carried by a

majority of one hundred and eighty-five to forty-four. Although the

Cambridge petition had been presented in both houses by members of

the cabinet, and government had declared its entire concurrence in the

prayer of the petitioners, neither the proposition for an address, nor

that for a bill, was brought forward by ministers. They were favourable

to the measure, however, and supported it by their speeches and votes.

At the same time they wished that neither parliament nor the government

should be pressed or hurried to intermeddle, before they could take

up the matter with the prospect of terminating it in the best and most

satisfactory manner. They hoped, they said, that as a portion of one

of the universities was already inclined to it, the object, by allowing

some time for consideration, might be effected with the concurrence

of those learned bodies, and in a much better form, and to much better

purpose, than if they were made reluctantly to act under the compulsion

of a statute. That hope, however, was vain. Before the bill was brought

in, the sentiments of the great mass in the two universities were fully

expressed. It was soon discovered that the sixty-three petitioners

at Cambridge, by offending the honest principles of many, and the

party-spirit of others, had raised a storm which no argument or

explanation could allay. Meetings were almost daily held, pamphlets were

distributed on every hand, the public press joined in the contest, and

the university pulpits resounded with the most awful denunciations.

During the excitement at Cambridge, a counter-petition was signed by two

hundred and fifty-eight members, resident and non-resident, comprising

eleven heads of houses, eight professors, and twenty-nine tutors; while

a second was signed by seven hundred and fifty-five under-graduates and

bachelors of arts. These were presented on the 21st of April by the Duke

of Gloucester in the lords, as chancellor of the university, and by

Mr. Goulburn in the commons, as one of its representatives. A similar

document was presented from the university of Oxford by Mr. Estcourt,

and on the 9th of May a second petition was sent from Cambridge, signed

by one thousand members of the senate who had not signed the other.

Although Mr. Wood brought his bill into the house soon after the Easter

holidays, it was not till the 20th of June that he was enabled to move

the second reading. Mr. Estcourt proposed as an amendment that it should

be read that day six months. Mr. Herbert seconded the amendment. Messrs.

Paten, Poulter, and Ewart spoke in favour of the bill, contending

that the alteration was necessary, no less for the benefit of the

universities, than in justice to the dissenters. By the present system

the latter were impeded in their progress to the bar, by having to keep

terms for five years instead of three; and were prevented from becoming

fellows of the college of physicians, for want of academical degrees.

These were positive and weighty grievances, which ought, it was urged,

to be remedied. Mr. Spring Rice complained that it was unfair to treat

the bill, not according to its own deserts, but according to measures

which might or might not be immediately connected with that now under

discussion. He asked what could be more inconsistently unjust than

the practice of Cambridge, where dissenters were admitted so far as

instruction was concerned, but then excluded from everything to which

instruction ought to lead? They were admitted to the fullest and most

complete course of study until the twelfth term, when, on being brought

into fair competition with their fellow-students, the odious principle

of exclusion intervened: the dissenter was told that, however obedient

he had been to college regulations, however high the eminence he had

acquired, still he would not be allowed the badge or symbol of his

acquirements, simply because he was a dissenter. The house, indeed, had

the benefit of experience; for in Dublin dissenters were admitted to

degrees, though excluded from fellowships, and all participation in the

internal management of the university. And what mighty mischiefs, he

asked, had followed the admission? Was the university less orthodox in

its principles? or less a Protestant foundation than before? Had

the zeal of its public instructors been lessened, or their sphere of

usefulness narrowed by this interference? It should be remembered

that those on whom the exclusions fell were men of active and stirring

spirits, men who would excite and probably guide the councils of those

with whom they agreed in opinion. It had been said that the dissenters

ought to found universities of their own. He concurred in that argument;

but the English universities would not allow them to do this. When

they proposed such a step, in order to educate the youth of their own

persuasion, and reward them with those honours which the university

denied, and thus sought to secure to themselves academical honours and

privileges, the universities stepped forward and said:—“We will not

only exclude you from our own seats, but will also prevent you from

enjoying the advantages and privileges of a university of your own.”

This double ground of exclusion and prohibition was most undefensible.

The colonial secretary was answered by Mr. Goulburn, who argued that in

proportion as the friends of the bill enforced the danger of excluding

dissenters, they rendered manifest the ruinous consequences of

concession. If the dissenters really deemed it so great a hardship to be

deprived of the empty honour of a degree, what would they say, if they

were admitted to degrees, and found a bar raised against their admission

to college emoluments and distinctions? Sir Robert Peel characterised

the bill as an enactment intended to give to Jews, infidels, and

atheists—to the man who professed some religion, and to the man who

professed none—a statutable right of demanding admission into our

universities. Sir E. Inglis and Lord Sandon opposed the bill, contending

that it was impossible to establish any system of religious education in

institutions into which persons professing different religious opinions

were admitted. Lord Althorp, on the other hand, supported the bill,

disclaiming at the same time any hostility to the established church. On

a division the second reading was carried by a majority of three hundred

and twenty-one against one hundred and seventy-four. In the committee

the speaker gave his decided opposition to the bill; and some amendments

having been made, it was read a third time, and passed by a majority of

one hundred and sixty-four against seventy-five. The bill was conducted

in the lords by the Earl of Radnor, who moved the second reading on the

1st of August. The Duke of Gloucester, Chancellor of the University of

Cambridge, denounced the bill as being not only uncalled for, but most

unjust and mischievous. His royal highness concluded by moving as

an amendment that the bill should be read a second time that day six

months. He was followed by the Duke of Wellington, Chancellor of the

University of Oxford, who sustained the same view of the question. The

Earl of Carnarvon spoke against the bill; the Archbishop of Canterbury

maintained the same side. Lord Melbourne admitted that the subject was

surrounded with difficulties; that he did not altogether approve of the

bill; but, notwithstanding this, the question being brought before the

house, he would vote for the second reading of the bill, because he

thought a question of such magnitude and importance was entitled to

the fullest and most anxious consideration. Lord-chancellor Brougham

supported the bill, because he thought it went to remove a practical

grievance, without affecting the discipline of the universities or the

safety of the church. The discussion was closed by the Bishop of

Exeter, who, in a long and ingenious speech, opposed the bill in all its

bearings. On a division, the amendment to reject the bill was carried by

a majority of one hundred and eighty-seven against eighty-five.