Another grievance of which the dissenters complained was, that they were

liable to church-rates—that is, they were taxed towards the expenses

of the established church. On the 21st of April Lord Althorp brought

forward his plan for the mitigation of this evil in the shape of a

resolution: “that, after a fixed time, church-rates should cease and

determine; and, in lieu thereof, a sum not exceeding £250,000 should be

granted from the land-tax to be applied to the expenses of the fabrics

of churches and chapels in such manner as parliament should direct.”

He said that his intention was not merely to relieve dissenters, but

likewise to provide for the fabrics of the church. This plan, however,

did not suit the views of either churchmen or dissenters. The friends

of the dissenters, indeed, immediately attacked it with unmeasured

violence. Mr. Hume moved that all the words in the resolution should be

expunged, except those which declared “that church-rates should cease

and determine.” The proposal, it was said, was a contemptible juggle,

founded on the old financial principle that if money were taken out of

the pockets of the people by indirect means, they would not be sensible

of their loss. On the other hand, the friends of the church objected to

the plan because it questioned the rights of the church, infringed on

some of them, and left others on a foundation less sure than before; and

all this without any reason in principle, and confessedly without any

good result in practice. Lord Althorp, in his reply, expressed

much surprise that the dissenters should receive the proposition so

ungraciously; but expressed his determination to persevere in bringing

it forward. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority

of two hundred and fifty-six against one hundred and forty; but

notwithstanding this majority, and the certainty of ultimate success,

ministers proceeded no further with the measure. Churchmen considered

that one advantage was gained, in the dissenters having been brought to

disclose somewhat prematurely the real purposes which they had in

view, and to proclaim opinions tending to the complete abolition of a

religious establishment. Government were equally unfortunate in another

attempt to gratify the dissenters, by allowing them to celebrate the

marriage ceremony in their own chapels, and thus escape what was deemed

by them a grievous oppression.

The commutation of tithes in England was a subject still more

complicated and difficult. It in fact involved so many interests of

different kinds, and so many details requiring minute attention, that

the adjustment of the question was a work requiring both time, patience,

and circumspection. Lord Althorp brought forward the ministerial plan

on the 15th of April, and it was contained in the following

resolution:—“That it was expedient that the payment of tithes in kind

should cease and determine, and that in the several parishes throughout

England and Wales there should be substituted in lieu thereof a payment

to the parties who might be entitled to such tithe, such payment bearing

a fixed proportion to the annual value of all land whence tithe might be

payable, that value to be ascertained throughout the several counties at

large, striking an average on the parishes in each county; also that all

owners of property liable to tithe be at liberty to redeem the same at

the rate of twenty-five years’ purchase.” Lord Althorp then proceeded to

develop his plan at great length; but its principles and details were so

strongly objected to both by landlords and the clergy that the measure

was dropped for the present. Lord Althorp stated as a reason for not

going on with it, that he saw, from the state of the public business,

and the time which would require to be devoted to the more urgent

question of the amendment of the poor-laws, that there was no

probability of its being brought to a successful issue before the

termination of the session.

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

One act was carried this session, which, in itself, is sufficient

to signalise the administration under whose auspices it was brought

forward. Soon after their accession to office the present ministry had

issued a commission of inquiry into the state and operation of the

poor laws. The inquiries of the commission were to be directed towards

ascertaining what was the cause why, in some parts of the country, the

poor-laws were considered a benefit by parishes, while in others their

operation had been ruinous and destructive. The commissioners had made

their report, and an abstract of the evidence which they had taken had

been printed in the course of the preceding session. Government was

so strongly impressed by that report, with a conviction of the evils

produced by the system in many districts of the country, that they

resolved to propose a remedy to parliament. On the 17th of April,

therefore, Lord Althorp moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and

amend the laws relating to the poor. The necessity of interference was

maintained on the ground that the present administration of those laws

tended directly and indirectly to the destruction of all property,

whilst their continued operation was fatal even to the labouring classes

whom they had been intended to benefit. It was the abuse of the system,

rather than the system itself, which was to be apprehended. Its worst

abuses, indeed, were scarcely older than the beginning of the present

century, and they had originated in measures intended for the benefit of

that class of the community to whose interests and welfare they were

now most destructively opposed. A feeling at that period prevailed that

great discontent existed among the working classes, and a principle was

then adopted in legislation, which, though humane and well intended, was

found to produce the most baneful consequences. The 36th of George III.

laid down the principle that the relief to paupers ought to be given in

such a manner as to place them in a situation of comfort. It might have

been desirable to place all our countrymen in this situation; but to

give relief in the manner prescribed by this statute was rather the duty

of private charity than of the public legislature. The effect of this

law had been to give the magistrates the power of ordering relief to the

poor in their own dwellings, and the principle being followed up, led

from bad to worse, until every spark of independence in the breast of

the peasantry had been nearly extinguished. The parish must keep them,

it was often said; and they did not care to obtain an honest livelihood

by the sweat of their brow. The existing state of things had indeed

reduced the labouring population in many districts to a state of

deplorable misery and distress. It was evident that there were great

dangers to be incurred if matters were left as they stood, and that it

was absolutely necessary to adopt sounder principles, and to carry them

into execution unflinchingly. In fact, there were examples already to

be followed. In about one hundred parishes the evils of the system had

compelled the inhabitants to adopt an approved mode of administration,

and in every instance they had succeeded, although some of them had been

completely pauperised. Where, again, the former system still prevailed,

cultivation had been abandoned; so heavy was the pressure of rates, and

so great the evils of mismanagement. The consequence of this was that

the neighbouring parishes were compelled to support the poor; and it was

evident that they also would soon be reduced to a similar situation if

the system was not soon and effectually altered. It was on the grounds

of this mischief, and the necessity of checking it, that Lord Althorp

defended the principle of entrusting the poor-laws to a board of

commissioners. He admitted that this was an anomalous course of

legislation, and that the board would be entrusted with extraordinary

powers. This, however, he argued, was rendered unavoidable by the

necessity of the case; a discretionary power must be vested somewhere,

in order to carry into effect the better principles to be introduced.

But before extending any discretionary power, he continued, it would be

necessary to fix a day on which the allowance system should cease; and

in the bill it would be fixed in some of the summer months, when the

labourers were in full employment. The allowance system, he said, was

the foundation of almost all other evils; and until it was abolished,

any attempt at amending the poor-laws would be nugatory.

The allowance system being abolished, and the central board established,

next came the powers of the commissioners. He proposed one uniform

system operating over the whole country, in order to obtain which they

were to have power to make general rules and orders as to the mode of

relief, and for the regulation of workhouses, and the mode of relief

afforded therein. As a check against any abuse, every such rule, order,

or regulation so proposed by the commissioners would be submitted to the

secretary-of-state: forty days were to elapse before it could be brought

into operation, and during that period it should be competent, by an

order in council, issued for that purpose, to prevent it from being

carried into effect. The commissioners would further have power, he

said, to make specific rules and orders for the regulation and mode of

relief of the poor in separate districts and parishes: to form unions of

parishes, in order to make larger districts; to arrange classifications

of the poor in the same or different workhouses; to exercise a general

control in such unions as might be established without their consent;

and to dissolve unions which might now exist. Unions having been

formed, each parish in the union would have to maintain its own poor,

or contribute to the general fund the proportion of expense which it had

hitherto borne by itself. The commissioners would likewise have power

to call the attention of parishes and unions to the state of their

workhouse establishments, and to suggest to them the propriety of adding

to those formed, or of building separate and distinct establishments.

Another fertile source of mischief had been the practice of ordering

relief to the poor in their own houses. The bill would provide that

justices should have no power for the future, thus bringing back the

law to the state in which it had been previous to the year 1796. Other

features of the bill, he explained, consisted in simplifying the law of

settlement and removal; in rendering the mother of an illegitimate child

liable for its support, and, for its ailment, to save from imprisonment

the putative father to whom she might swear it. The great principles

of the proposed plan, therefore, went to stop the allowance system;

to deprive the magistracy of the power of ordering out-door relief; to

alter, in certain cases, the constitution of parochial vestries; to give

large discretionary powers to the commissioners; to simplify the law

of settlement and removal; and to render the mother of an illegitimate

child liable for its support. The bill by which these principles were

to be carried into effect having been brought in, the second reading was

opposed by Colonel Evans, one of the members for Westminster, and Sir

S. Whalley, one of the members for Marylebone. The latter moved an

amendment, that the bill should be read a second time that day six

months. It was his opinion, he said, that the bastardy clause, which

threw all the burden on the mother, on whom the odium rested already,

thus held out a premium to immorality and an inducement to infanticide;

and the clauses which effected the law of settlement would of themselves

justify the house in throwing out the bill. His great objection,

however, was to the board of commissioners. The board was unnecessary,

for the principal existing defect consisted in the ratepayers not having

sufficient control over the expenditure. If they were only vested with

complete control over the poor-law management, the evils of the present

system would soon disappear. He doubted whether the house had authority

to give powers of the description proposed to any set of men—at all

events it was impolitic. The bashaws whom the bill proposed to start

into life would be omnipotent; they might do as they pleased, and

account for their acts by merely stating it was their pleasure. There

were to be no less than thirty-six discretionary powers vested in the

commissioners; a degree of authority entrusted to three men of which

the country afforded no parallel. Government ought to wait before they

undertook any poor-law reform: the report of the commissioners had

already led to the correction of many abuses, and time only was

required to secure a trial to the greater part, if not all, of the

recommendations that report contained. The amendment was seconded by

Alderman Wood, and supported by Mr. Walter, a reforming representative

of Berkshire. Messrs. Grote and Hume, and Sirs J. Scarlett and Francis

Burdett, with other members who spoke on the occasion, all agreed that

there was no good reason against the second reading of the bill, though

none of them approved it as a whole. The chancellor of the exchequer

argued in reply, that nothing had been stated which could be regarded

as an ostensible reason for not going into committee; and that when

in committee all matters which had been noticed would be open to

consideration. The second reading was carried by a majority of three

hundred and nineteen to twenty. In the committee a discussion took place

as regarded the effect of the bill in establishing workhouses, a system

which some members disliked; but the clause was retained. Another

discussion also took place on the clause which allowed occupiers

and owners to vote in vestries, the latter having accumulative votes

proportioned to their property. It was objected to as being inconsistent

with popular rights and good management; but it was nevertheless

retained. The forty-fifth clause provided that it should be lawful for

the commissioners, by such orders or regulations as they should

think fit, to declare to what extent the relief to be given might be

administered out of the workhouse. An amendment was moved, “that no rule

or order of the commissioners shall prohibit the guardians of unions

from giving relief out of the workhouse, to such of their sick or

impotent poor, and to such widows, orphans, and illegitimate children,

as they may think fit so to relieve.” This amendment, however, was only

supported by forty, while one hundred and forty-eight voted against it.

In the clauses regarding settlement, settlement by having occupied a

tenement, and having been assessed to the poor-rates for one year,

and having paid such assessment, was added to settlement by birth and

marriage.

The clauses which laid the burden of supporting an illegitimate child

on the mother, as if she had been a widow, gave rise to much discussion.

Mr. Robinson moved that they should be omitted, he objecting to them

chiefly on the ground that they removed the liability from the father.

He did not object, he said, to so much of them as repealed certain acts

affecting the mother, but to that part which let the father go free.

The bill proposed, he said, that in case the woman should be unable to

support the child, the liability should rest on the father, or if he

were not alive, or being alive and not able to support it, then the

liability was to fall on the grandfather or grandmother. Could the

house, he asked, seriously entertain propositions of this nature, or

consent to pass enactments so contrary to every principle of justice

and humanity? Lord Althorp protested against these provisions being

discussed as matters of feeling; they should be considered not as they

affected one portion of society, but the whole of it; and looking at it

in this point of view he was prepared to support this part of the bill

as a boon to the female population. He left it as an alternative to

the committee, that if this clause was struck out, the bastardy clauses

should be wholly severed from the bill, and proceeded with in a future

session of parliament. The general feeling in the house seemed to

be that the clauses should be struck out, and the matters which they

involved made the subject of a separate measure, or that they should

be postponed till some middle term should be devised. The majority,

however, preferred the latter alternative, and it was decided that the

provisions in question should not be expunged. On the 21st of March Mr.

Miles proposed a modified clause, which still refused any claim to

the mother against the father, and gave no power of demanding security

before the child was born; but it exposed him to a claim at the instance

of the managers of the poor, in the event of the mother and the child

becoming chargeable to the parish. The chancellor of the exchequer said

he would have preferred the original provisions of the bill; but he

acquiesced in the adoption of the proposed clause, because he saw that

the opinion of the house was in its favour. Subsequently clauses were

added, disqualifying the commissioners from sitting in parliament;

requiring all general orders and regulations to be laid before

parliament; and limiting the operation of the act, in so far as regarded

the commissioners, to five years. The bill was read a third time and

passed on the 1st of July. It was introduced to the lords on the day

following, and the second reading was fixed for the 8th of July; but in

consequence of the resignation of Earl Grey, it was not again brought

forward till the 21st of July. The second reading was moved by the

lord-chancellor, who, after giving an historical account of the progress

of the poor-laws, pointed out the manner in which they had become the

sources of so much evil. The bill found its most violent opponent in

Lord Wynford, who moved as an amendment that it be read that day six

months. He did not oppose it, he said, on the ground that there was

not much in the administration of the poor-laws which required to be

corrected, but because he conceived that the remedies proposed by the

bill were partly unnecessary and partly inefficient, while some of

them were perfectly tyrannical. The Earl of Winchilsea and the Dukes

of Richmond and Wellington supported the motion for the second reading,

though they did not approve of all the provisions of the bill. The

division on the amendment gave seventy-six peers for the second reading,

and only thirteen against it. In the committee Lord Alvanley proposed

that the bill should be dropped. Lord Wynford urged strong objections

to the central board of commissioners, but this was defended by the

lord-chancellor, the Earl of Winchilsea, and the Duke of Wellington. The

only alteration made in the clauses respecting them and their powers was

an addition proposed by the Duke of Wellington, to the effect that they

should be bound to keep a record of each letter received, the date of

its reception, the person from whom it came, the subject to which it

related, and the minute of any answer given to it, or made thereon,

and also, where the commissioners differed, of the opinion of each

commissioner, and that a copy of such record be transmitted to the

secretary-of-state once a year, or oftener if required. The Bishop of

Exeter moved to substitute for the leading enactment in reference to

bastardy, “That the father and mother of an illegitimate child, or the

survivor of them, shall be required to support such child, and that no

parish shall be bound to support such child whilst either parent is

able to do so, and that all relief occasioned by the wants of such child

shall be considered as relief afforded to the father and mother, or

the survivor of them.” This amendment, however, was negatived by

thirty-eight votes against thirty-four; but the clause itself, being

that which the house of commons, on the motion of Mr. Miles, had

substituted for the original clause, was likewise rejected. On the

third reading the Bishop of Exeter again brought the question before

the house, by moving the omission of the clause which provided that any

person marrying a woman who had an illegitimate child or children by

another man, should be liable to maintain them. The original clause,

however, was retained, although by a majority of only eleven, eighty-two

voting for and seventy-one against it. Instead of the rejected clause

which Mr. Miles had carried in the house of commons, clauses were

introduced on the motion of the Duke of Wellington, enacting, that

the putative father of any bastard child, so soon as such child became

chargeable to the parish by the mother’s inability to maintain it,

should be liable to reimburse to the parish the expenses of its

maintenance until it attained the age of seven years, on his paternity

being proved before the quarter-sessions, but not without the testimony

of the woman being corroborated by other evidence; that when a woman had

had one bastard child, she should obtain no order in a subsequent case;

that an order should be operative only till the child attained the

age of seven years; that sums to be recovered from the putative father

should be recoverable only by attachment or distress; and that he should

not, in any case, be liable to imprisonment for costs. Subsequently,

several other amendments were made of minor importance, as alterations

in the allowance system, and in administering out-door relief, &c.; and

the bill thus altered passed the third reading on the 8th of August, by

a majority of forty-five against fifteen. On the 11th of August, when

Lord Althorp moved the commons to agree to the lords’ amendment, an

amendment was moved that they should be read that day six months. This

proposal was chiefly supported by those who were opposed to the bill

altogether, or who wished it should be delayed till next session; but

Lord Althorp declared that if it did not pass, he would not again bring

it forward; and the amendment was negatived by a large majority. All the

amendments of the lords were then agreed to, with the exception of the

omission of the clause which provided for the instruction of pauper

children in the religious creed of his surviving parent or god-parent,

and entitled dissenting clergymen to visit workhouses at all times, for

the purpose of religious instruction, at the desire of any pauper of

any sect. This amendment was said to be a violation of the principle of

religious liberty, and an insult to the small portion of good feeling

towards dissenters which existed in the upper house, and it was

rejected. Finally, the amendment of the commons restoring the clause

which had been expunged, was agreed to by the lords, and thus the great

experiment of a revision and alteration of the poor-laws commenced.

From the great change effected in the poor-laws, no class of men could

eventually expect greater relief than the owners and occupiers of lands.

At this time, however, the agriculturists longed after means of relief

of more immediate, direct, and certain operation. The subject of

agricultural distress had, indeed, formed a paragraph in the king’s

speech, and it was now brought forward by the Marquis of Chandos. On the

21st of February, after ably stating both the local and general causes

of the evil, he moved a resolution, “That, in any reduction of national

burdens by the remission of taxes, due regard be shown to that distress

of the agriculturists which had been alluded to in the speech from the

throne.” The resolution was supported by Mr. A. Baring, who said, that

importunity and clamour, threats of commotion and resistance to the law

obtained that which was refused to the patient suffering of the farmer.

Several members spoke against the resolution, not meaning to deny that

the agriculturists were suffering, but considering the resolution as not

likely to lead to any result; and that the means alluded to by those who

supported it were neither efficient nor just. Moreover, the supporters

of the motion were far from being of one mind as to the manner in which

relief ought to be afforded. On a division the resolution was lost by

a majority of four only in a very full house. This success induced the

noble mover to bring the subject before the house again. On the 7th of

July he moved, “That an humble address be presented to his majesty,

expressing the deep regret that this house feels at the continuance of

the distressed state of the agricultural interests of the country, to

which the attention of parliament was especially called in his majesty’s

most gracious speech from the throne, and humbly to represent the

anxious desire of this house that the attention of his majesty’s

government should be directed, without further delay, to this important

subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those

burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and

local taxation.” On a division the motion was lost by a majority of one

hundred and ninety against one hundred and seventy-four.

On the 17th of March the question of the malt-duty was brought directly

before the house by a motion of Mr. Cobbett, that it should cease and

determine from and after the 5th of October next. It was rejected by one

hundred and forty-two to fifty-nine.

THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

While the agriculturists were thus demanding relief, the corn-laws

were not only insisted on as an answer to all complaints by those who

maintained a different interest, but were also themselves made the

subject of a formal attack. On the 6th of March, Mr. Hume moved, “That

this house do resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, to

consider of the corn-laws, and of substituting, instead of the present

graduated scale of duties, a fixed and moderate duty on the import at

all times of foreign corn into the United Kingdom, and for granting

a fixed and equivalent bounty on the export of corn from the United

Kingdom, with the ultimate view of establishing a free trade in corn.”

Sir James Graham defended the present system as necessary to prevent the

destruction of the farmers, and the annihilation of the occupations

of an immense body of agricultural labourers. On the other hand, Lord

Morpeth, who was himself connected with the landed interest, Lord

Howick, and Mr. Clay, member for the Tower Hamlets, supported the

motion, contending that it was the corn-laws which kept the agricultural

interest in a state of depression while all other interests were

prospering. The Irish members who spoke were adverse to the proposition;

the very agitation of the question, it was said, would do much mischief

in Ireland, unless the house distinctly declared that there should be

no change in the existing law. Lord Althorp said that he would meet the

motion with a direct negative, although his opinions were favourable to

an alteration of the existing system. In opposition, therefore, to his

theoretical opinion, he would resist the motion; and he believed that

every cabinet minister would vote against it. There were, however, some

of the members of government favourable to a repeal of the corn-laws;

and Mr. Thompson, vice-president of the board of trade, supported the

motion, and delivered a long speech, principally in answer to Sir James

Graham’s. He contended that so far from the existing system conferring

any benefit on the corn-growers, the farmers, who had been deluded

by it, had more reason to complain of it than any other class in the

country. And what, he asked, were the effects on our manufactures of

this system which had ruined the farmers? The motion was rejected by

three hundred and twelve against one hundred and fifty-five. The subject

was again discussed incidentally, on the occasion of the presentation of

a petition from Liverpool in favour of free trade, and especially of

a free trade in corn. Sir Robert Peel embraced this opportunity of

expressing his opinions on the subject—opinions utterly at variance

with the enlightened policy adopted by him at a subsequent date. On the

other hand, Sir Henry Parnell said that the pretext of farmers being

interested in a continuation of the corn-laws was a gross delusion

practised on them by the landlords. It was for their advantage alone

that the whole community was taxed.

At this time, also, those concerned in the shipping-interest complained

loudly of distress, which they considered to be either caused or

aggravated by the admission into our ports of the ships of foreign

nations on the same terms on which our vessels were admitted into

theirs; an admission which the crown had the power of conceding under

the fourth of George IV., c. 77, commonly called “the Reciprocity of

Duties Act.” Many petitions for the repeal of this act were presented;

and on the 5th of June Mr. G. F. Young moved for leave to bring in a

bill for that purpose; but the motion was resisted by ministers, and

rejected by one hundred and seventeen against fifty-two.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ETC.

Notwithstanding the distress of the country, the financial affairs of

the present year exhibited an encouraging aspect. The chancellor of the

exchequer indeed, after providing for the interest on the £20,000,000

granted to West India proprietors, had a disposable surplus of

£1,620,000. From various alterations about to be made in the state of

taxation with respect to spirits and beer, the estimated surplus might

be taken at £1,815,000. Under these circumstances, the chancellor of the

exchequer made the following reductions in taxation: in the house-tax,

which was wholly abolished,£1,200,000; customs,£200,000; starch,

£75,000; stone bottles and sweets, £6000; almanacks, £25,000; small

assessed taxes, £75,000—leaving still a surplus of about £230,000. But

this surplus would be further reduced by a change which was proposed

in the spirit duties. The duty on spirits distilled in Ireland had for

several years been fixed at the same amount as in Scotland. That policy

was now to be departed from, and the duty on Irish spirits was to be

reduced from 3s. 4d. to 2s. 4d. per gallon. After a few words from

Mr. Baring against the views of the chancellor of the exchequer,

the resolutions proposed were adopted by the house. Subsequently, an

important measure of finance was attempted in a plan for the reduction

of the four per cent, annuities created in 1826. All holders of that

stock who should not signify their dissent, were to have, for every

£100, three and a half per cent, in a new stock to be consolidated with

the existing three and a half per cent, annuities, which were not liable

to redemption before January, 1840. The dissentients were found to be a

greater number than had been anticipated. Before the 9th of June, nine

hundred and sixty-nine had expressed their dissent, and they held stock

to the amount of £4,600,000. In order to provide funds for paying

off these dissentients, a resolution was passed on the 7th of June,

authorising the commissioners of the national debt to pay them out

of the monies, stocks, or exchequer-bills which they held under “the

savings’ bank act.” The dissented stock was from the tenth of October

following to be considered as converted into an equal amount of three

and a half per cents., which were to be vested in the commissioners, and

placed in the bank-books to the account intituled “funds for the banks

of savings.”

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

{WILLIAM IV. 1834}

During this session Mr. Robert Grant again brought in a bill for

removing the civil disabilities of the Jews. The second reading was

opposed by Mr. C. Bruce. He moved that the bill be read a second time

that day six months. The amendment, however, was rejected, and the bill

carried through committee by large majorities, and it was read a third

time and passed on the 11th of June by fifty votes against fourteen.

In the lords, on the second reading, the Earl of Malmsbury moved the

amendment that the bill should be read that day six months. The Earl of

Winchilsea seconded the amendment. On a division the bill was lost by

one hundred and thirty-two against thirty-eight.

The distress felt at this time by all classes of the community was

dexterously made use of by the opponents of ministers to render their

administration unpopular. They became exposed to great inconvenience

from a statutory rule of the constitution, which requires that all

members of the house of commons who accept certain offices under the

crown shall vacate their seats, and take the chance of a re-election. In

more instances than one, the candidate thus stamped with the approbation

of government had not been re-elected; and even the attorney-general,

having, by his promotion, lost his seat for Dudley, was unable to

appear in the house of commons. This was the first practical grievance

experienced under the reform act, which had swept away all the close

boroughs without any exception, and provided no means to compensate the

loss. This state of matters induced Sir Robert Heron, on the 1st of May,

to move for leave to bring in a bill to obviate the necessity of members

vacating their seats on their accepting certain offices under the crown.

Mr. E. L. Bulwer was dissatisfied with the proposition, because it

failed to remove the worst clanger of the present system. The principle

of the constitution, he said, was not that the people should choose

ministers, but that they should have an opportunity of deciding whether

or not they wished their representatives to become ministers, and this

principle the present measure would destroy. Pie moved, as an amendment,

“That, for the convenience of the public service, and the promotion

of the public interests, it is desirable that one member of each of the

principal departments of state should have a seat in that house, but

without the privilege of voting, unless returned by the suffrages of

a constituency.” Dr. Lushington and Mr. Ward opposed both these

propositions, as taking from the people one of the most valuable

privileges given to them by the constitution, merely for the purpose of

consulting the convenience and safety of the party now in power. Lord

Althorp assured the house that the subject had been introduced without

the sanction of government; but, at the same time, he stated that

ministers had been put to great inconvenience. On the whole, however, he

thought that the time was not yet come when a measure like that

should be pressed on the house. Both the motion and the amendment were

withdrawn.

On the 15th of May Mr. Tennyson submitted a motion for leave to

introduce a bill to shorten the duration of parliaments. He reserved to

himself the right, he said, of suggesting the precise period to which

parliaments should extend, when the measure had gone into committee. The

motion was seconded by Sir Edward Codrington, who expressed himself in

favour of five years as being more likely to reconcile the different

parties. Colonel Davies opposed the motion as being premature; and Lord

Dalmeny thought the passing of the reform act the strongest possible

reason against entertaining the question. In reply, Mr. Tennyson stated

that those who supported the bill would bind themselves only to the

propriety of shortening the duration of parliaments, without at all

pledging themselves to any particular period, which might be reserved

for determination in committee; whereas, those who voted against it,

would give a conclusive opinion that the present term ought to be

continued. Mr. E. J. Stanley moved, byway of amendment, that the bill be

one to shorten parliaments to five years, which was negatived without

a division: the original motion was lost by a majority of fifty.

Subsequently Colonel Evans moved for leave to bring in a bill for the

amendment of the reform act, in so far as it made the payment of

rates and taxes an essential qualification for voting at parliamentary

elections, which was supported by Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, Attwood, and

O’Connell. The motion was opposed by Lords John Russell and Althorp; and

it was lost, on a division, by a majority of eighty-seven. Previous

to this, Lord John Russell had introduced a bill to prevent bribery at

elections, which had passed the commons. The peers had referred this

bill to a select committee; and on the 28th of July, the Marquis of

Lansdowne, on presenting the report of the committee, stated that there

had been no interference with the powers possessed by the election

committees of the house of commons. The single object kept in view by

the committee was the attainment of the proposed end in the speediest

manner possible. Accordingly an amendment on the bill was suggested, by

which it was directed that, when a committee of the house of commons

had come to the conclusion that gross and extensive bribery had been

committed in any place, the result of that inquiry should be laid before

their lordships; and then the crown should issue a commission, over

which one of the judges should preside, to form a court of inquiry on

the whole matter in dispute. He proposed that this court should consist

of seven members of the house of commons, five of their lordships, and

one judge, who should have the power of calling before them all persons

and documents affecting the subject of inquiry; that the witnesses

should be exempted from the consequences of any evidence which they

might be called on to give; and that a statement of the result having

been drawn up, any legislative enactment with regard to the alleged

abuse should be left to the discretion of the two houses of parliament.

When these amendments were brought under the consideration of the lower

house, Lord John Russell thought them of so extensive a nature as

to render the bill almost a new measure; and ultimately he agreed to

withdraw it.

On the 15th of April, Mr. Roebuck moved for a select committee to

inquire into the political condition of the Canadas. These provinces,

he said, in consequence of bad government, were in a state of revolt.

By their constitution they had a governor, a legislative council, and a

house of assembly. Some years after the constitution had been conferred

upon them, the two provinces were permitted to provide for their own

expenses, and consequently to have control over the expenditure of the

government. It had been proposed to pass the estimates annually; but

that plan had been thwarted by the government, which charged the house

of assembly with disrespect to his majesty. The representatives of

the people next resolved to vote their money by items; but this having

excited the jealousy of the officials, put a stop for the time to the

business of the state. In consequence of all this the public mind was

embittered, and the country was divided into two hostile sections—a

small band of official persons on the one hand, and the nation, with

their representatives at their head, on the other. Mr. Stanley said,

that he was glad of the opportunity of bringing under the notice of

the house the present state of the province of Lower Canada, and after

entering into the subject at great length, he moved as an amendment for

the appointment of a select committee, to inquire and report whether the

grievances complained of in 1828 by certain inhabitants of that colony

had been redressed; and also, whether the recommendation of a committee

of that house, to which the question of those grievances was referred,

had been complied with on the part of government: also to inquire into

other grievances set forth in the resolutions of the house of assembly

in Lower Canada, and report thereupon to the house. Mr. O’Connell said

that the object of government was to thwart the Catholic clergymen of

Canada, and to throw obstacles in the way of their building chapels.

He recommended that the motion should be withdrawn, and the amendment

allowed to be carried, so as to throw upon government the responsibility

of appointing the committee. Mr. Hume contrasted the tyranny exercised

over the colony by the present government, with the leniency of the

measures adopted by Lord Goderich; and Lord Howick expressed a hope

that the committee about to be appointed would succeed in effecting

an amicable adjustment of the differences prevailing in Lower Canada.

Finally the motion was withdrawn, and the amendment of Mr. Stanley

adopted.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by the king in person on the 15th of August. In

his speech his majesty lamented the still unsettled state of Holland

and Belgium; but expressed satisfaction that civil war had absolutely

terminated in Portugal. He rejoiced, he said, that the state of affairs

in the Peninsula had induced him to conclude with the King of France,

the Queen Regent of Spain, and the Regent of Portugal that quadripartite

treaty, which had materially contributed to produce so happy a result.

Events, however, had since occurred in Spain, to disappoint for a time

those hopes of tranquillity, which the pacification of Portugal

had inspired. In his speech his majesty alluded to the numerous and

important questions that had engaged, and would still engage the

attention of parliament.

DISSOLUTION OF THE CABINET.

Before parliament was prorogued the weakness and vacillation of

the ministry had been very apparent. From the moment of Earl Grey’s

resignation, indeed, the want of intrinsic power had rendered them

dependent on O’Connell and his faction. And this very support was

vouchsafed to them in such a way as tended to bring their government

still more into contempt: while the Irish demagogues supported them,

they expressed the utmost contempt for them. Thus, in the month of

October, O’Connell wrote a series of letters to Lord Duncannon, in which

every species of abuse was heaped upon the ministry and the Whigs.

Another circumstance which contributed to lower the reputation of the

ministry was the hostility evinced to them by the public press. There

was scarcely a daily newspaper, except the _Morning Chronicle_, which

did not occasionally express contempt for them; and as for the _Times_,

its columns perpetually exposed their feebleness and incapacity to

carry on government on any fixed set of principles. The conduct of Lord

Brougham also tended to bring his colleagues into contempt. During

the autumn he traversed different parts of Scotland, making speeches

wherever hearers were to be found, in which at one time he would go the

utmost lengths of ultra-radicalism, and at another, would speak in such

a way as would have induced the Conservatives to hail him as their own.

The dissolution of the ministry, however, was especially aided by the

death of Earl Spencer, which took place on the 10th of November. As that

event moved Lord Althorp to the house of lords, it was requisite to

find a new chancellor of the exchequer, and a new leader of the house of

commons.

On the 14th of November Lord Melbourne waited on the king at Brighton,

to submit to his majesty the changes in official appointments which the

death of Earl Spencer had rendered necessary, Lord John Russell being

the individual selected as leader of the house of commons; but the king

thought that business could not be carried on by such a ministry as

it was proposed to construct, and he expressed his opinion that Lord

Brougham could not continue chancellor, as well as his dissatisfaction

with the selection of the members of the cabinet who were to frame

the Irish church bill. The king, in fact, announced that he should

not impose upon Lord Melbourne the task of completing the official

arrangements, but would apply to the Duke of Wellington.

SIR ROBERT PEEL APPOINTED PRIME-MINISTER.

Having thus dismissed the cabinet, his majesty sent for the Duke of

Wellington, who advised him to entrust the government to Sir Robert

Peel. As Sir Robert, however, was in Italy, he offered to carry on

the public business till his return. This course was adopted, and as

a temporary arrangement, his grace was appointed first lord of the

treasury, and sworn in as one of the principal secretaries of state. On

the 21st of November, Lord Lyndhurst received the great seal, and

took the oaths as lord-chancellor, but he did not resign the office of

lord-chief-baron till the settlement of the ministry in December. Sir

Robert Peel, who had been sent for by a special messenger, arrived on

the 9th of that month, and one of his first steps was to propose to

Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham that they should be members of the new

administration; but they both declined pledging themselves to the extent

to which they might be considered bound by the acceptance of office. The

official arrangements, however, were completed by the end of December,

and the new cabinet consisted of the following members:—Sir Robert

Peel, first lord of the treasury; Lord Lyndhurst, lord-chancellor;

the Earl of Rossyln, president of the council; Lord Wharncliffe,

lord-privy-seal; the Duke of Wellington, secretary-of-state for foreign

affairs; Mr. Goulburn, secretary-of-state for the home department; the

Earl of Aberdeen, colonial secretary; Mr. Alexander Baring, president of

the board or trade; Sir George Murray, master-general of the ordnance;

Sir E. Knatchbull, paymaster of the forces; Earl de Grey, first lord

of the admiralty; Lord Ellenborough, president of the board of

control; Lord Maryborough, postmaster-general; the Earl of Jersey,

lord-chamberlain; the Earl of Roden, lord-steward; Lord Lowther,

vice-president of the board of trade, and treasurer of the navy; Mr. C.

Wynn, chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster; Mr. Hemes, secretary-at-war;

Mr. F. Pollock, attorney-general for England; and Mr. Follett,

solicitor-general. The Earl of Haddington went to Ireland as

lord-lieutenant; Sir Edward Sugden was appointed lord-chancellor

of Ireland; Sir Henry Hardinge became chief-secretary to the

lord-lieutenant; and Sir James Scarlett succeeded Lord Lyndhurst as

lord-chief-baron of the exchequer, with the title of Lord Abinger.

DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT.

Every man of penetration saw that the new ministry had too much of the

old leaven to stand long as the present parliament was constituted.

Sir Robert Peel, however, did not despair. Though there was a reformed

parliament, he fully anticipated carrying on the government with

advantage to the country. In the month of November he expounded the

principles on which he designed to conduct government, in a long address

to his constituents at Tamworth, observing, that he would not accept

power on the condition of declaring himself an apostate from the

principles on which he had hitherto acted, and declaring that he had

not been a defender of abuses, or an enemy to judicious reforms, either

before or after the reform bill had passed. It was evident, however, to

Sir Robert Peel and his colleagues that government could not be carried

on with the present parliament; and therefore, on the 30th of December,

a proclamation was issued, dissolving it, and convoking a new one to

meet on the 5th of February, 1835.

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

On the 1st of August in the present year, the act for the emancipation

of the negroes came into operation. In some islands symptoms of

insubordination were exhibited, and the planters were obliged to have

recourse to punishment and force, in order to overcome the reluctance of

the black population to regular labour; yet this great change took

place without any serious disturbances. In Barbadoes, indeed, there

was perfect tranquillity and order; and in Jamaica the transition was

accompanied with very little alarm or commotion. The slave felt grateful

that he was permitted to take his proper station among the great family

of mankind.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

At the close of the last year, the government of the Queen of Portugal

was in possession of the capital, as well as of Oporto. Having an

efficient army, as the authority of Don Miguel was obeyed over a large

extent of country, the government resolved to pursue its military

operations with vigour. The plan adopted was to crush the smaller bodies

of men in arms for the pretender in various parts of the kingdom, till

there should be no Miguelites but those who were around himself at

Santarem. In pursuance of this plan, the Duke of Terceira joined the

queen’s army in January, in order that Saldanha might undertake other

operations. Saldanha made himself master of Leyria, between Lisbon and

Coimbra, and Torres Novas, in which a system of massacre was adopted

disgraceful to himself and his officers. His army now separated Miguel

from the north, while the army of the Duke of Terceira pressed upon

him from Lisbon. Saldanha took up his position at Almoster, where, in

February, he was attacked by the Miguelites; but he repulsed them with

great slaughter. Events equally favourable to the queen took place in

the north, where considerable numbers of Miguelites were still in arms.

The provinces north of the Duero were, indeed, cleared of the enemy

by the Duke of Terceira; and he then retraced his steps to expel the

partisans of Miguel from the positions which they still held between

the Duero and the Tagus, particularly Coimbra, on the Mondego, and

Figueiras, at the mouth of that river. Figueiras was reduced by a naval

expedition, under Admiral Napier, and Coimbra opened its gates to the

duke himself. The queen’s forces now pressed upon Don Miguel; and on the

18th of May he abandoned his lines at Santarem, and retreated towards

Guadiana, in the direction of Evora. He was followed by Count Saldanha

and the Duke of Terceira, who were at the head of 20,000 men; and seeing

no hopes of success or escape, he sought a suspension of arms for

the purpose of negociating. The government refused to enter into any

negociation, or to listen to any terms different from those which had

been already tendered; namely, that Don Miguel should leave Portugal

within fifteen days, and engage never to return to any part of the

Spanish provinces or the Portuguese dominions, nor in any way concur in

disturbing the tranquillity of these kingdoms; that he would be allowed

to embark in a ship of war belonging to any of the four allied powers;

and that he should receive a pension of sixty centos of reis, about

£15,000, and be permitted to dispose of his personal property, on

restoring the jewels and other articles belonging to the crown and to

private individuals. The troops of Don Miguel were to lay down their

arms, and return peaceably to their homes under the protection of the

amnesty; and he was to issue orders to commanders of fortresses, or of

troops, who still recognised his authority, immediately to submit, under

the same protection, to the government of the queen. To these terms Don

Miguel now consented; and having signed the convention, he went on board

a British vessel of war, which carried him to Genoa. The civil war was

thus brought to an end in Portugal; and it was this happy event which

led his majesty to conclude a treaty with that government, as alluded

to in his speech. One act of ingratitude which the Portuguese government

committed, however, must not be forgotten. It was chiefly by the valour

of the British volunteer auxiliaries that the cause of the queen was

triumphant; and these volunteers had been induced to enter into the

service by promises of pay equal to that of England, exclusive of

allowances for compensation and other advantages. The Cortes, however

resolved, in January, 1834, that they should only receive Portuguese

pay; and when the war came to an end, the British troops remained

unpaid. The men, in fact, on whose bravery the sole dependence was

placed when danger was threatened, were left to wander through the

streets of Lisbon in rags and poverty, and compelled to prolong a

miserable existence on scanty rations of beans and bread, with the

occasional addition of a morsel of salt fish. Such is the usual reward

of mercenaries who hire themselves out as the supporters of foreign

revolutionary governments.

During this year the political relations between Holland and Belgium

continued in the same state of uncertainty in which they had been left

at the close of the former year. In Spain, also, the history of the

present year opens with a continuance of the same contests for the

succession to the crown which had marked the close of the preceding.

Throughout the whole year, indeed, there was war between the

queen-regent and Don Carlos; and the year closed while yet they were in

arms. In Switzerland some agitation was occasioned by an attempt of the

Poles in that country, in concert with Italian fugitives in the French

departments of the Rhone and Isère, to overthrow the Sardinian throne in

Turin, by a sudden attack upon Savoy. Greece, during the present year,

suffered both the evils of civil war and of political intrigue. In

Turkey, the ascendancy of Russia was increased by an alliance, offensive

and defensive, which was concluded between those two powers. The

emperor gave up two-thirds of what remained to be paid in respect of

the indemnities stipulated for by the treaty of Adrianople; and, on the

other hand, to surround his Asiatic frontier, the Porte ceded to him an

extensive tract of country in the pachalic of Athattsick. Turkey was

to pay that portion of the indemnity which was not relinquished when it

might suit her finances; and, in the meantime, Silistria was to remain

as a pledge in the hands of the Russians, an arrangement which gave them

the effective command of Moldavia and Wallachia, and left the frontier

of Turkey defenceless against invasion. Russia also was to have the free

passage of the Dardanelles.

CHAPTER XLV.

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

_State of Parties..... General Election..... Ecclesiastical

Commission..... Meeting of Parliament; Contest for the

Office of Speaker..... Opening of the Session.....

Discussion in the Lords regarding the Slavery Abolition

Act..... Motion of the Marquis of Chandos to repeal the

Malt-tax..... The Dissenters’ Marriage Act..... Ministerial

Plan for the Commutation of Tithes in England..... Report

of Commission regarding the Church of England, &c. The

Question of the Appropriation of the Surplus

Revenues of the Irish Church..... Resignation of

Ministers and the Restoration of Lord Melbourne’s

Cabinet..... Municipal Reform and the Irish Church.....

Agricultural Distress..... Municipal Corporations.....

Bill for regulating the Irish Church..... Discussion

regarding Orange Societies in Ireland..... The Vote by

Ballot, &c. Motion for the Repeal of the Window-tax,

&c. The Budget..... Discussions regarding Canada.....

Prorogation of Parliament..... State of the Continent_

STATE OF PARTIES.

{A.D. 1835}

The state of the political world in this country was, at the opening of

the present year, one of great interest and excitement. The dismissal

of the Melbourne ministry was received by the country with undisturbed

composure and perfect good-humour; but this was viewed by its members

and partisans with alarm and humiliation; and, conceiving that it

betokened a relaxation of power in the springs to whose action they

trusted for their speedy return to office, they resolved to leave no

means untried to agitate the country from one end to the other, in order

to recover their waning influence. To this end the dismissal of the

ministry was announced as exclusively the work of the queen, and as the

result of a deep tory plot, and complicated tory intrigues. These tales,

however, failed in creating the universal dismay so much desired; and

then the organs of the party in opposition constantly insisted on the

dreadful fate which awaited the country from the removal of the only

men who had either head to conceive or courage to undertake the task of

saving the public weal, and putting in their place politicians who would

repeal the reform act, impose new taxes, restore and multiply pensions,

establish military law, and finally produce civil war. Still the country

remained quiescent: it was known that the picture was fictitious, and

men refused to be dismayed. One thing, however, was effected: although

the Radicals did not raise any clamorous outcries at the downfall of

their former associates, they struck a bargain with the Whigs, and came

to terms for the purpose of putting down a common enemy.

GENERAL ELECTION.

The result of the elections crushed the present hopes of the Whigs.

Instead of increasing either their numbers or their radical accomplices,

it brought an addition of more than one hundred members to the

Conservatives, exclusive of those whig reformers, such as Lord Stanley,

who refused to identify themselves with the whig opposition in its

present character and conduct, and of those among the Radicals, as Mr.

Cobbett, who would not consent to be used merely as instruments for

lifting men into power who would not manfully adopt any one of their

opinions, and yet boasted their alliance as being engaged in a common

cause. It must be confessed, however, that the Conservatives placed

their all on this cast of the die. The Carlton Club dispersed its agents

far and wide throughout the country, and every engine which aristocratic

wealth and ecclesiastical influence could put in motion was employed in

their cause. In the counties, the fifty-pound clause operated greatly

to their advantage, and success generally attended their efforts; but

in towns the opposite party were more successful. In Scotland there were

some changes, but the comparative strength of parties remained there

nearly the same as before; but in Ireland the retinue of the popish

agitator was somewhat diminished, although the popish priests exerted

themselves to the utmost in his favour. As for O’Connell himself,

together with his coadjutors, he practised every form of violence and

intimidation against every candidate who would not join in his cry

for repeal, vote by ballot, short parliaments, and extension of the

suffrage. Thus the Knight of Kerry, who started as a candidate for his

native county, and who had spent his whole life in resisting Orangemen,

because he refused to become an instrument in the hands of the popish

priesthood and their agitator, was denounced as unworthy of being

elected; every man who dared to vote for him was to have a death’s-head

and cross-bones painted on his door: and the consequence was that he was

rejected. Of a candidate for New Ross, who refused to enlist under his

banner, O’Connell said, “Whoever shall support him, his shop shall be

deserted; no man shall pass his threshold. Put up his name as a traitor

to Ireland; let no man deal with him; let no woman speak to him; let the

children laugh him to scorn.” Mr. Shiel likewise opposed a candidate for

the county of Clonmel in the following words: “If any Catholic should

vote for him, I will supplicate the throne of the Almighty that he may

be shown mercy in the next world; but I ask no mercy for him in this.”

Yet this unconstitutional line of conduct was not always successful,

and even O’Connell himself, with Mr. Ruthven his colleague, found it

difficult to obtain their return for the city of Dublin. The final

result of the elections secured to the ministry a decided majority, in

so far as England was concerned.

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

Parliament met on the 19th of February. The attendance in the house of

commons on the first day was more numerous than had ever been witnessed,

even on the discussion of any great political or party question, it

being determined by both parties to contest the election of speaker.

Lord Francis Egerton moved that Sir Charles Manners Sutton should be

called to the chair. The motion was seconded by Sir C. Burrell, who said

that though he had supported Mr. Wynn as a candidate for the chair in

1817, in opposition to the late speaker, he had never found reason to

regret his want of success on that occasion. On the other hand, Mr.

Denison proposed that Mr. Abercromby should take the chair, which motion

was seconded by Mr. Orde. Both these gentlemen expressed the pain which

they felt at being compelled by an imperative sense of public duty to

oppose the re-election of the late speaker, and declared their

hearty concurrence in all that had been said regarding his excellent

qualifications; but they maintained that a great public principle

rendered it necessary that those qualifications should not be taken into

consideration. A debate of considerable length ensued, in which the

two candidates themselves took part. On a division Mr. Abercromby was

elected, three hundred and sixteen voting for him, and three hundred and

six for Sir Charles Sutton. The honourable gentleman was then conducted

to the chair, and next day, appearing at the bar of the house of lords,

he received from the lord-chancellor an assurance of his majesty’s

approval of his election. His election was the first fruits of the

treaty of alliance between the opposition and O’Connell; but the

smallness of the majority by which it was obtained demonstrated to the

opposition that, without his aid, they could never hope to triumph over

the present ministry.

OPENING OF THE SESSION.

His majesty opened the session in person on the 24th of February; the

intervening days from the election of speaker having been employed in

swearing in members of the house of commons. Recently the two houses

of parliament had been destroyed by fire, and temporary rooms had been

fitted up for the accommodation of the British senate. In the lords the

address was moved by the Earl of Hardwicke, and seconded by Lord Gage.

An amendment was moved by Lord Melbourne, which was apparently framed

for the purpose of catching stray votes, by being so constructed that

even its success could not lead to the resignation of the ministry. The

Earl of Ripon and the Duke of Richmond, who had both been connected with

the late government, expressed their intention of supporting ministers,

so far as they could applaud their measures, though they were unable

to promise them full confidence. Finally, the amendment was negatived

without a division.

In the commons, the address was moved by Lord Sandon, and seconded by

Mr. Branston. Lord Morpeth moved an amendment to this effect:—“That

in place of the concluding paragraphs should be substituted words

expressing a trust that his majesty’s councils would be directed in

a spirit of well-considered and effective reform; that, in the same

liberal and comprehensive policy which had dictated the reform of

our representation and tire abolition of negro slavery, the municipal

corporations would be placed under vigilant popular control; that

all the well-founded grievances of the Protestant dissenters would be

removed; that all the abuses in the church which impair its efficiency

in England, and disturb the peace of society in Ireland, would be

corrected; and that the commons beg submissively to add, that they could

not but lament that the progress of these and other reforms should have

been unnecessarily interrupted and endangered by the dissolution of the

late parliament.” The amendment was seconded by Mr. Bannerman, and the

debate was continued by adjournment on the 25th and 26th of February.

The members who took part in it were, for the original address, Sir

Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, Messrs. Pemberton, Richards, Robinson,

Goulburn, and Praed, and Sir James Graham; for the amendment, Lords John

Russell and Howick, Dr. Lushington, and Messrs. Grote, Poulton, Ward,

Ewart, Harvey, Fox Maule, Gisborne, Duncombe, O’Connell, and Sir Samuel

Whalley. On a division, the amendment was carried by a majority of three

hundred and nine against three hundred and two. The majority being so

small, Sir Robert Peel intimated that it was possible he might take the

sense of the house again on the question of bringing up the report; but

next evening he stated that it was not now his intention to do this. The

address, therefore, as amended, was presented to the king, who made the

following reply:—“I thank you sincerely for the assurances which you

have given me, in this loyal and dutiful address, of your disposition to

co-operate with me in the improvement, with a view to the maintenance,

of our institutions in church and state. I learn with regret that you do

not concur with me as to the policy of the appeal which I have earnestly

made to the sense of my people. I never have exercised, and I will never

exercise any of the prerogatives which I hold, excepting for the single

purpose of promoting the great end for which they are entrusted to

me—the public good; and I confidently trust that no measure conducive

to the general interest will be endangered or interrupted in its

progress by the opportunity which I have afforded to my faithful and

loyal subjects of expressing their opinions through the choice of their

representatives in parliament.” On a subsequent day, in answer to some

questions put by Lord John Russell, the premier stated that he had not

felt it his duty, in consequence of the vote on the address, to tender

his resignation; that with respect to the Irish church, he retained

his opinion that ecclesiastical property ought not to be diverted from

ecclesiastical purposes, although any measures not inconsistent with

this principle should have his best consideration; that he had no motive

or intention to obstruct corporation reform; and that, in regard to

a rumour which had been promulgated about another dissolution, and an

alleged intention of government, in case the mutiny bill should not

pass, to keep up a standing army in defiance of parliament, he had never

sanctioned the first either directly or indirectly, and he had never

heard a whisper about the second until it fell from Lord John Russell’s

own lips. These assurances, however, were not sufficient to satisfy the

objections of his political opponents.

The conduct of Sir Robert Peel, in retaining office after an adverse

vote upon the address, became the subject of indignant declamation

throughout the country, and strengthened the general impression that

ministers intended, if possible, to destroy the measures enacted by the

reform bill, and to obstruct all further melioration of the law. It

was true, as the partisans of the government urged, that there were

precedents for the retention of office in the face of adverse votes; but

this was a vote upon the general policy of the government, not upon its

policy in some non-essential particular, and constitutionally decided

that the ministry did not possess the confidence of the commons house

of parliament. According to all rule and precedent, Sir Robert ought

to have resigned. The Duke of Sussex, Lord Holland, the great Fox, and

other statesmen of acknowledged constitutional principles and respect

for public rights, had always maintained these views. The conduct of Sir

Robert and his cabinet was, therefore, justly held to be opposed to the

practice of parliament and the doctrines of the constitution. Much of

the odium of this procedure fell upon the Duke of Wellington, who was

supposed to be the potential adviser of Sir Robert in this matter, and

whose despotic sympathies, betrayed in many ways, gave great offence

to the people. Had not the previous ministers, by their inconsistency,

incompetency, and truckling to O’Connell and the Irish priest party,

forfeited the confidence of a large portion of their British supporters,

the efforts of Sir Robert Peel to retain office in opposition to a

majority of parliament, would have created such a storm of hostility to

him throughout Great Britain, as would have made it difficult for him to

hold any office for many a year.

DISCUSSION IN THE LORDS RESPECTING THE SLAVERY ABOLITION ACT.

On the 27th of February the Earl of Mulgrave, whose efficient

administration of the government of Jamaica had made him an authority

on the West India slavery question, inquired of the secretary for the

colonies, whether it was the intention of the present government

to carry out the measure of emancipation recently passed through

parliament. Lord Mulgrave strongly represented to the house the

apprehensions entertained by the public that, in two respects, the

government would differ from its predecessor:—the appointment of

impartial magistrates—men not holders of slave property; and the

protection of the missionaries, to whom the planters entertained

an unjust prejudice, but who, in the experience of Lord Mulgrave in

Jamaica, were a most useful body of men, who had in no way transgressed

the bounds of their sacred calling in their conduct to slave or master.

To these inquiries and remarks the Earl of Aberdeen replied very much

in the tone and spirit in which he was accustomed to answer questions

when, many years later, during the Russian war, he was prime-minister.

He affected surprise that any one should suppose him an opponent

to freedom; promised everything that popular opinion demanded; but

betrayed, nevertheless, by his sneers and misrepresentations where the

missionaries were concerned, and his deep sympathy with the planters,

that his heart was set against justice and liberty to the poor

apprentices. The Duke of Wellington brusquely said, that he had been

opposed to the philanthropic view of the negro question altogether, but

the bill passed by parliament he would not consent to see made a dead

letter. The duke evidently said what he meant. The well-known honesty of

his character assured the Earl of Mulgrave who accepted the reply. It

was a good sign as to the policy which the cabinet intended to pursue

on this question, that the Marquis of Sligo was requested to retain his

office as Governor of Jamaica. The noble marquis was not an experienced

politician or administrator; but in his management of the difficult and

complicated concerns of Jamaica at that time, he proved himself to be a

man of ability and honour.

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

The first proposal which ministers found themselves compelled to resist

proceeded from one of their own supporters, and it was also one in which

their opponents were compelled to join them in resisting. On the 10th of

March, the Marquis of Chandos moved a resolution for the repeal of the

malt-tax, as a source of relief to the agricultural interest. The motion

was seconded by Mr. Handley. Sir Robert Peel, in reply, contended that

the motion, if it was to be made at all, ought not to have been brought

forward till after an authentic declaration of the national means had

been laid before the house. In the course of his speech, Sir Robert Peel

said that if the malt-duty were repealed, there was no alternative but

to have a property-tax to make up the deficiency. Messrs. Cobbett and

Bennett, who supported the motion, saw no objection to such a tax; and

the latter gentleman said that the English landowners were too depressed

in their circumstances to fear anything from the change, as the property

was in the hands of the mortgagees and money-jobbers. The Earl of

Darlington was bound, he said, to vote in favour of the resolution,

however great his reluctance to do anything that might embarrass a

government to which he was friendly, and a minister who, he believed,

would endeavour to effect what he considered best calculated for the

interest of the country. Messrs. C. Wood, Rice, and Poulett Thompson,

all of whom had been connected with the late government, spoke against

the motion; as did also Sir Edward Knatchbull, Sir J. Graham, Mr.

Baring, Sir R. Gresely, and Mr. Grote. The debate was closed by Mr.

Hume, who supported the motion. On a division, however, the motion

was negatived by three hundred and fifty votes against one hundred and

ninety-two. So convincing were Sir Robert Peel’s arguments, that several

members voted with him who had either pledged themselves at their

election to take a different side, or had, at least, induced their

constituents to believe they would.

THE DISSENTERS’ MARRIAGE ACT.

Sir Robert Peel introduced the first important measure of government on

the 17th of March, being a bill to provide relief for those dissenters

who objected to have their marriage rites performed according to the

ritual of the English church. The measure provided that a civil marriage

should take place before a magistrate, who should refer the certificate

to the parish clergyman, by whom it was to be inserted in the parochial

registry. The various bodies of dissenters might, by arrangements of

their own, provide a religious form as a sort of addendum to the civil

ceremony. This brief affair was stated by Sir Robert in a very verbose

speech, in which he showed a desire to conciliate all parties, and an

apprehension that he would fail to conciliate any. Leave was given to

bring in a bill.

REPORT OF COMMISSION REGARDING THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, ETC.

One of the first acts of the new ministry had been the appointment of

a commission, consisting principally of the heads of the church, to

inquire into and report upon the changes which might be effected in

regard to ecclesiastical territory, income, and patronage, so as to

render remuneration and labour more commensurate with each other; to

enforce residence; and to destroy the necessity of pluralities, by

providing for all a sufficient maintenance. The first report of this

commission was presented to the house of commons on the 19th of March,

which proposed a new arrangement of diocesses. As regards emolument, the

principle adopted was to proportion, as far as might be, the revenues

of the bishops to their several stations and duties; not making any

reduction where the income did not exceed £5500, and making an addition

where it amounted to £4500. The division of large parishes was further

recommended; the revenues of new incumbents being supplied from prebends

and other preferments which might fall.

On the 12th of March the attorney-general obtained leave to bring in

a bill for improving, the administration of justice in ecclesiastical

causes, which was one of the measures alluded to in the speech from the

throne. On the same day also he obtained leave to bring in another bill,

having for its object the better maintenance of the discipline of the

church of England. On the 24th of March, Sir Robert Peel brought the

subject of the commutation of tithes in England before the house of

commons. After a long statement explanatory of his views, he concluded

by moving the following resolution:—“That it is expedient to give

facilities for the commutation of tithe in the several parishes of

England and Wales, and for a payment in moneys, in substitution thereof

to be allotted on the tithable lands in each parish; such payment to be

subject to variation at stated periods, according to the prices of corn,

or for the allotment of land in lieu of tithe in parishes wherein the

parties concerned may consent to such allotment.” This resolution was

agreed to, and a bill founded on it was ordered to be brought in.

REPEATED DEFEATS OF THE MINISTRY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

While the ministry, by the introduction of these important measures,

were vindicating their claim to the character of men who in their policy

regarded the prosperity of the country, and were not wedded to anything

which might interfere with its welfare, their conduct in other

matters furnished manifold indications of the same spirit, and hence

disappointed the opposition, which had predicted the continuance and the

restoration of every species of abuse. Several committees which had been

appointed by the late government were re-appointed; and they professed

themselves willing to carry out their well-founded measures. But,

notwithstanding all this, their rule was brief; they were unable to

disarm the spirit of hostility. During the period in which ministers

were proposing their important measures, some minor topics were

introduced, in which they found themselves unable to resist the

numerical force of their opponents. Thus they were left in a minority on

the subject of a petition presented, complaining of Colonel Tremenhere,

an officer in the public service at Chatham, as having interfered

unconstitutionally in the election for that borough, in which election

the government candidate had been returned. Ministers were also left in

a minority, when Mr. Tooke moved an “address to his majesty, beseeching

him to grant his royal charter of incorporation to the London

University, as approved in the year 1831, by the then law-officers of

the crown, and containing no other restriction than against conferring

degrees in divinity and medicine.” Mr. Goulburn moved, as an amendment,

that the address should be for copies of the memorials which had been

presented against granting the charter, together with an account of the

proceedings before the privy-council; but, on a division, the motion was

carried by a majority of two hundred and forty-six against one-hundred

and thirty-six. On the 1st of April the king returned this answer to the

address:—“That his majesty, desirous that such a subject should receive

the fullest consideration, had referred it to his privy-council; that

the reply of his privy-council had not as yet been communicated to him;

but that his majesty begged to assure his most faithful commons that he

should call upon his privy-council without delay, for a report of the

proceedings they had adopted on the subject, in order to enable his

majesty to judge what would be the best mode of carrying into effect

the wishes of his faithful commons respecting a charter to the London

University, and what might be the conditions on which it should be

granted.” These questions, however, did not distinctly affect the

government. Frequent hints, indeed, were given to Sir Robert Peel that

he ought to retire; but as yet no motion was ventured which, if carried,

must necessarily have led to that result. On one occasion, Lord John

Russell having remarked that all the prerogatives of the crown seemed in

a fair way of being successively compromised, in the course of what he

called an attempt on the part of the administration to govern with

a majority of tire house of commons against them, Sir Robert-Peel

complained that the opposition did not bring the question of the

retirement of the ministry to a fair issue. No one was more anxious for

this, he said, than he himself was; and if the opposition could not find

a day for the purpose, he would facilitate their views. He asked Lord

John Russell whether, if ministers had thrown up the government, he

would not have turned round on them and said, “You are guilty of a

cowardly abandonment of office; you never meant to remove grievances; we

never brought forward a direct vote of censure; we were prepared to hear

your propositions; but you yourself have shrunk from the trial.” Mr.

Hume admitted that ministers had reason to complain that the question

had not yet been brought to an issue; but he hinted at the same time the

opposition would take their own time and day for the attack. Lord John

Russell said, that if a direct vote of want of confidence had been

brought forward, ministers might have gained a number of votes on the

plea of being unfairly treated. They might have said to the opposition,

“You now preclude us from being heard; you want to condemn us without

trial; and to reject our reforms before you are able to judge of them.”

He would not expose himself to the chance of receiving such an answer;

he would wait for the promised measures of reform. The reply sent by

the king to the house of commons on the 1st of April created great

dissatisfaction in the minds of the liberal members, and among their

supporters in the country. It was denounced as another instance of

“back-stairs government” by many; this phrase was intended to describe

the influence of the queen, and certain ladies of her suite, in

political matters. Many of the people, however, absolved the court from

all blame, and attributed what so much offended them to the despotic

opinions and dispositions of the cabinet, especially “the duke” and Sir

Robert Peel. This feeling was chiefly directed against his grace.

THE QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATION OF THE SURPLUS OF THE REVENUES OF THE

IRISH CHURCH.

On the 20th of March Sir Henry Hardinge, the secretary for Ireland,

brought forward, in a committee of the whole house, the ministerial plan

for settling the Irish tithe question, and moved a resolution to this

effect:—“That it is expedient to abolish tithes in Ireland, and to

authorise a composition in lieu of it, charged upon the land, and

payment to the tithe-owner; that such rent-charge might be redeemed, and

the redemption money invested in land or otherwise, for the benefit of

the persons entitled to such composition; and that the arrears of

tithe due in the year 1834 should be made up from what remained of the

£1.000,000 advanced by parliament to the clergy of Ireland in 1833.”

After a determined resistance from a large portion of the radical

members, the motion was carried by a majority of fifteen. This would

probably not have been the case, had not Lord John Russell given Sir

Robert Peel a qualified support.

Ministers had brought forward everything that could be done practically

to remove the evils attending the collection of tithes in Ireland; and

the opposition propounded no measure which would go further in the way

of securing or arranging the payment of tithe to the Protestant church;

they even complained that the new government was merely imitating the

conduct of its predecessors. Their only position now was to maintain

that it was not enough merely to place on a better and surer foundation

the collection of tithe for the Protestant church, but that, to some

extent at least, though to what extent nobody attempted to define, it

must cease to exist as tithe payable to the Protestant church, and be

applied to purposes in which Catholics might have an equal interest.

This ground was now taken by the opposition. On the 30th of March Lord

John Russell moved the following resolution:—“That this house resolve

itself into a committee of the whole house, in order to consider the

present state of the church establishment in Ireland, with the view of

applying any surplus of the revenues not required for the spiritual care

of its members to the general education of all classes of the people,

without distinction of religious persuasion.” Lord John Russell said,

that if the house should resolve itself into a committee on the motion,

and should the resolution be carried in a committee of the whole house,

he would move an address to the crown, embodying that resolution with an

humble entreaty to his majesty, that he would be pleased to enable the

house to carry it into effect—for a measure of this kind should be

introduced by a message from the crown. The debate which followed was

continued by adjournment up to the 2nd of April. Sir Edward Knatchbull,

who followed Lord John Russell, objected to the proposition itself, he

said, on the distinct ground that he was not prepared to apply church

property to other than Protestant church purposes. Mr. Ward, whose

motion of a similar character had been set aside by the appointment of

the commission, entered at great length into the general question of the

right of the state to appropriate church property to whatever purposes

it thought proper; contending that no member should give his vote

without remembering the undoubted right which parliament possessed of

dealing with all corporate property as the welfare of the community

might require, and of so disposing of it as to accommodate its

distribution to that state of things which the alterations of time

might unfold, or the progress of society occasion. Sir James Graham, in

opposing the motion, showed that the income of the Irish church did not

amount to so large a sum as represented by opposition; and contended

that the evils of the proposed appropriation would not be limited to

Ireland, but would extend to England: the church of England would not

only be endangered by it, but ultimately destroyed. Lord Howick spoke

in favour of the resolution, but at the same time disclaimed all

participation in any wish that it should be the means of turning out the

ministry. Messrs Shiei, Poulter, and Wood also supported the resolution;

and Messrs. Lefroy and Gladstone, and Sir R. Inglis spoke against it.

Sir William Follett, the solicitor-general, followed on the same side as

the latter. Mr. O’Connell, after reiterating his charge of misrule, said

that he would avoid any discussion upon tithes, and content himself with

laying down the broad principle that the emoluments of a church ought

not to be raised from a people who did not belong to it. Ireland did

not ask a Catholic establishment; the Irish desired political equality

alone; they would not accept a shilling for their church. Their church

was unpolluted by the mammon of unrighteousness; the voluntary principle

had answered every purpose of the Catholics, and they desired no

connexion with the state in matters of religion. It was said, he

continued, that the number of Protestants was on the increase in

Ireland; he contended that the reverse was the case. It was said, also,

that there was danger in giving the Catholics ascendancy; they had been

in power three times since the Reformation, and they had not persecuted

the Protestants. The address of Mr. O’Connell aided very much in

deciding the question against the government. His protestations of

moderation as to the desires of enlightened Roman Catholics, and his

disclaimers of any wish for the ascendancy of his church, produced an

effect favourable to Lord John’s motion among such liberal members of

the house as possessed little knowledge of ecclesiastical history. The

protestations of Mr. O’Connell were as insincere as his statements were

historically untrue. His church had never been in power without efforts

to persecute; and while he made the voluntary principle his confession

of faith, it was notorious to the leading Whigs that his pet measure

was the purchase of glebes for the Irish priesthood by the funds of

the state, and the further endowment of Maynooth College on an enlarged

scale. After various addresses, especially one in a very defiant strain

by Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell briefly replied, and the motion

was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two

hundred and eighty-nine.

The next step was to consider the resolution in committee; and Sir

Robert Peel proposed that the committee should not be taken till the

following Monday; but the opposition, flushed with victory, would not

consent to a single day’s intermission. They insisted that the committee

should be taken that very day, which was done; and the debate continued

by adjournment on the 5th. In the committee, Lord John Russell

substituted “moral and religious instruction” for “general education.”

On a division in the committee, two hundred and sixty-two voted in

favour of the resolution, and two hundred and thirty-seven against it.

In the meantime the opposition had partly changed their intended plan

of operation. It had been announced by them that the carrying of the

resolution would be followed up by an address to the crown; but Lord

John Russell now gave notice that he would interpose another step

between the house and the throne, by asking the former to pledge itself

to this further resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this house

that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland can lead to a

satisfactory and final adjustment, which does not embody the principle

contained in the foregoing resolution.” Sir Robert Peel allowed the

report to be brought up without a division, but he said that he would

certainly divide the house on the new resolution. In support of it, Lord

John Russell treated it as a necessary corollary of what the house had

already voted; it behoved the house, he said, to continue the work which

they had begun, and to say that the principle which they had declared to

be essential to the maintenance of peace and the due administration of

justice in Ireland, should be carried into effect by some legislative

measure. The resolution was opposed by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. George

Sinclair; while Messrs. Spring Rice, Perrin, and Gisborne supported it.

On a division, the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred

and eighty-five against two hundred and fifty-eight.

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

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

The majorities of the opposition caused the resignation of ministers. On

the meeting of the house, April 8th, Sir Robert Peel stated that he and

his colleagues had placed their offices at the disposal of the king.

On the same evening a similar announcement was made in the lords by

the Duke of Wellington. After Sir Robert Peel’s announcement of his

resignation, the house of commons met on the 9th for an election ballot,

and then adjourned till the 13th. On that day the house was informed by

Sir Robert Peel that he had received an intimation from his majesty that

the new arrangements were in progress, but were not completed, and the

house again adjourned till the 16th. On the 16th Sir Robert was under

the necessity of making a similar communication, and the house adjourned

to the 18th, on which day the new administration was announced in both

houses of parliament. The new cabinet was formed as follows:—Viscount

Melbourne resumed his place as first lord of the treasury; Mr.

Spring-Rice became chancellor of the exchequer; Lord Auckland was the

first lord of the admiralty; Sir John Cam Hobhouse, president of the

board of control; Mr. Poulett Thompson, president of the board of trade;

Lord Duncannon was placed at the head of the woods and forests; Lord

John Russell took his place in the home department; the colonial office

was given to Mr. Charles Grant; the seals of the foreign office

were again entrusted to Lord Palmerston; Viscount Howick was

secretary-at-war; Sir Henry Parnell was paymaster-general; Mr. Cutlar

Ferguson, judge-advocate-general; and Sir John Campbell and Mr.

Rolfe again became attorney and solicitor-general. There was no

lord-chancellor appointed; the great seal was put in commission, the

commissioners being the master of the rolls, the vice-chancellor,

and Mr. Justice Bosanquet; Lord Mulgrave was made lord-lieutenant of

Ireland, with Lord Plunkett once more as chancellor, and Lord Morpeth

as Irish secretary. Mr. Perrin was named attorney-general, and Mr.

O’Loghlin, solicitor-general. The lord-advocate of Scotland was Mr. J.

A. Murray; the Marquis of Conyngham was postmaster-general; and the

Marquis of Wellesley, lord-chamberlain. After the announcement had

been made, the house adjourned to the 30th of April, but with an

understanding that no public business should be undertaken till the 12th

of May. In the upper house Lord Alvanley asked Lord Melbourne how the

ministry stood in regard to Mr. O’Connell and his followers. He wished

to know whether government had or had not secured their aid; and

if they had, the terms on which that support had been obtained. Lord

Brougham said that these questions were improper, and advised Lord

Melbourne not to answer them. Lord Melbourne, however, was more

courteous. The noble lord had asked him, he said, how far he coincided

in opinion with Mr. O’Connell? His answer was, “Not at all. As for the

question as to ‘whether I have taken any means to secure the assistance

of Mr. O’Connell, and if so, on what terms?’ I answer that I do not know

whether I shall have his assistance or not. I have taken no means to

secure it, nor have I said anything from which any inference could be

drawn in order to secure that individual’s support.” As to tithes,

Lord Melbourne said, that he did not hesitate to say that he considered

himself pledged to act on the resolution of the other house. After the

houses had adjourned, the new ministers who belonged to the commons

sought to be re-elected; but although they were in general successful,

they encountered some failures. The severest stroke of all occurred in

the case of Lord John Russell himself: he again presented himself to the

electors of the southern division of Devonshire; but he was defeated

by Mr. Parker, and he did not procure a seat till after parliament

had reassembled. Colonel Fox, member for Stroud, accepted the Chiltern

hundreds in his favour, and became secretary to the ordnance. By a

similar negotiation, Mr. Kennedy, member for Tiverton, made room

for Lord Palmerston. These failures were very discouraging, and gave

symptoms of the alarm which had been created in the public mind.

MUNICIPAL REFORM AND THE IRISH CHURCH.

When the new ministers explained what they intended to do this session,

it was found that the only measures which they meant to bring forward

were a bill for the reform of municipal corporations, and a bill founded

on the late resolutions of the commons regarding tithes. Changes in the

mode of electing municipal authorities and in the general government of

boroughs had become inevitable from, and after the passing of the reform

bill. A commission had been appointed, in 1833, to inquire into the

state of corporations in England and Wales; and on more than one

occasion his majesty had alluded, in his royal speeches, to the objects

of the commission. The report of the commissioners had not been made

when Sir Robert Peel went out of office, but soon after they framed a

general report, besides separate reports on individual corporations.

The former, and several of the latter, were presented in May, and

the general report thus concluded:—“In conclusion, we report to your

majesty, that there prevails amongst the inhabitants of a great

majority of the incorporated towns a general, and in our opinion a just,

dissatisfaction with their municipal institutions; a distrust of the

self-elected municipal councils, whose powers are subject to no popular

control, and whose acts and proceedings, being secret, are unchecked by

the influence of public opinion; a distrust of the municipal magistracy,

tainting with suspicion the local administration of justice, and

often accompanied with contempt of the persons by whom the law is

administered; a discontent under the burdens of local taxation, while

revenues that ought to be applied for the public advantage are diverted

from their legitimate use, and are sometimes wastefully bestowed for the

benefit of individuals—sometimes squandered for purposes injurious to

the character and morals of the people. We therefore feel it to be

our duty to represent to your majesty that the existing municipal

corporations of England and Wales neither possess nor deserve the

confidence or respect of your majesty’s subjects, and that a thorough

reform must be effected before they can become what we humbly submit to

your majesty they ought to be—useful and efficient instruments of local

government.” Lord John Russell, proceeding on this recommendation,

on the 5th of June detailed the plan of municipal government which

ministers intended to provide for one hundred and eighty-three

corporations. After detailing the many abuses which existed, he said

that, instead of the present irregular government of corporations, it

was proposed that there should be one uniform system of government—one

uniform franchise for the purpose of election: and the like description

of officers, with the exception of some of the larger places, in which

it might be desirable to have a recorder, or some other magistrates

different from the other smaller boroughs. In regard to the

qualification of electors, he said it had been determined not to adhere

to the parliamentary franchise. By the proposed bill they would be

obliged to pay the borough rates, and accord to the established

practice of the English government, and the acknowledged and recognised

principles of the British constitution. He thought it fair that they

should have a voice in the election of those by whom the rates were

made, and by whom the corporate funds were expended. As, however,

the electors ought to be the fixed inhabitants of the town, known to

contribute to the rates, it was proposed that they should be persons

who had been rated for three years, and had regularly paid those rates.

Provision was also made in the bill for the case of those individuals

who might have omitted to pay their rates. In regard to the governing

body, there was to be one only—a mayor and common-council. The

common-council would consist of various numbers, generally regulated by

the population of the different places; their numbers would vary from

fifteen in the smallest places to ninety in the largest. It was proposed

that the largest towns, of which there were only twenty, should be

divided into wards, and a certain proportion, which would be regulated

by the schedules to the bill, of common-councillors should be chosen

in each ward. In all the rest of the boroughs it was proposed that the

whole common-council should be elected for three years. They were to be

elected for three years; but one-third were to go out of office every

year, thus taking care that two-thirds of the common-council should

have experience in the transaction of town business. The mayor was to be

elected annually, and he was to be, during the time of his mayoralty,

a justice of peace for the borough and likewise for the county. The

town-council was to have the power of appointing a town-clerk and

treasurer, and it was left to their option whether they would retain

their present town-clerks in their office. If, however, another was

chosen, and the dismissal of the present town-clerk was attended with

any pecuniary loss to the individual, he was to receive compensation.

All the old modes of acquiring the freedom of a corporation, such

as birth and apprenticeship, were to be abolished; but all pecuniary

rights, such as rights of common, exemption from tolls, &c., would

be preserved to the persons now enjoying them, during their lives; in

future, however, no person should be a burgess, or admitted into the

corporations, except in consequence of the permanent occupancy of a

house, and the payment of the borough rates. All exclusive rights of

trade were to be abolished, due regard being paid to the pecuniary

interests of existing individuals. It was proposed, touching the

pecuniary affairs of corporations, that town-councils should have the

power to appoint committees in order to manage their financial matters;

that their accounts should be regularly audited; and that they should

no longer be secret accounts, but regularly brought before the public.

Town-councils were further to become the trustees of charitable funds,

appointing a committee, if they thought proper, to manage them. For the

management of these funds a separate secretary and treasurer was to

be appointed, and provision was made for auditing them in a different

manner from the general accounts of the borough. The number of persons

chosen for the management of these charitable estates were not to be

less than fifteen, and they were to be chosen from among the general

body of burgesses. The police, as far as regarded the watching of the

towns, were to be placed under the control of the town-council.

The power of granting alehouse licences was also to be left to

town-councils, or to a committee chosen by them from their own numbers,

to grant these licences. It was proposed to divide the one hundred and

eighty-three boroughs into two schedules; the greater part of these, one

hundred and twenty-nine, were to be placed in schedule A, and would have

a commission of the peace granted them. The remaining fifty-four might

also, if they chose, have a commission of the peace on application to

the crown. With respect to those in schedule A, the town-councils were

to have the power of recommending to the crown certain persons whom

they thought proper to receive the commission of the peace within the

borough; but they were not to have the power of electing magistrates in

such sense as that the assent of the crown should not be necessary to

perfect the election. These magistrates were not to have the power

of sitting in quarter-sessions; but the bill enacted that, on a

town-council applying to the crown for the establishment of a court of

quarter-sessions, and stating that they were willing to continue the

salary paid to the recorder, the recorder should be retained if a

barrister of five years’ standing. With respect to other towns desiring

to have quarter-sessions, but which either had no recorder, or where the

recorder was not a barrister of five years’ standing, it was intended

that the crown should in future have the nomination of that officer. Sir

Robert Peel said that he would present no impediment to the introduction

of the bill, but would reserve all consideration of its details, every

one of which deserved a separate discussion, to a future stage of

proceedings. The bill was read a second time, without debate and without

opposition, on the 15th of June, and the committee began on tire 22nd

of the same month. The first disputed point regarded the fixing of the

boundaries of those boroughs whose limits had not been defined in the

act passed for that purpose in reference to the reform bill. The bill

provided, “That they should be, and remain the same as they are now

taken to be, until such time as his majesty shall have been pleased to

issue his letters-patent under the great seal, that he may be certified

concerning the fit metes and bounds to be allotted unto the same

respectively, and until such further time as it shall please his

majesty, by advice of his privy-council, upon inspection of the return

thereof made by the commissioners unto whom such letters-patent

shall have been directed, to declare fit metes and bounds of the said

last-named boroughs, and the metes and bounds of the said last-named

boroughs thenceforward, for the purposes of this act, shall be the same

so declared as last aforesaid.” This was objected to by several members,

as placing a dangerous power where it ought not to be placed. Sir Robert

Peel said, he would consent that the boundaries of the existing boroughs

should continue as they were until they should be otherwise settled by

parliament: and Lord Stuart Dudley, although a friend of the ministry,

moved an amendment to that effect. He was supported by Sir James Graham,

Mr. Goulburn, and other members, who argued, that the clause gave the

crown a power which the crown ought not to possess, and devolved upon

the executive, duties which clearly belonged to the legislature. Lord

John Russell said, he had no objection to add words to the effect that

his majesty having appointed a commission to settle the boundaries,

the report of that commission should be laid before parliament at its

meeting, and the boundaries therein named should be and remain the

boundaries of these boroughs, unless parliament should otherwise decide.

Lord Dudley Stuart, however, pressed his motion to a division; but it

was lost by a majority of two hundred and fifty-nine against one hundred

and ninety-two. A more important discussion took place on the clause

which affected the rights of existing freemen, and the future modes of

acquiring freedom in corporations. The bill enacted, “That after the

passing of this act no person shall be elected, admitted, or enrolled a

citizen, freeman, liveryman, or burgess, of any borough, or by any name,

a member of any body corporate in respect of any right or title other

than by occupancy and payment of rates within such borough, according to

the meaning and provisions of the act.” Sir William Follett opposed

this sacrifice of freemen; and he moved an amendment to the effect

of preserving their rights without interfering with the municipal

government of corporate bodies. Government vehemently opposed this

amendment; but various members accustomed to go with ministers declared

their intention to vote for it. Sir James Graham thought it would

simplify the question if the amendments were limited to the rights of

freemen under the reform bill, because the question of inchoate rights

would arise more properly under another clause. Sir William Follett

acceded to this suggestion; but Lord John Russell still maintained that

the provision contained in the clause was a necessary consequence of

adopting this new municipal franchise; and, if so, ministers were not

proposing it for the sake of altering the reform bill, but for the sake

of amending the municipal corporations. The amendment said that the

clause must not affect either the rights of property or the privileges

to which the freemen were at present entitled. Many of these rights

and privileges were of a description hurtful to the inhabitants of towns

generally; many of them consisted in a monopoly of trades; and many in

an exemption of tolls to which the inhabitants generally were liable.

Lord Stanley supported the amendment: he could not see how the clause

came to appear in a bill which professed to be a measure to provide for

the regulation of the municipal corporations in England and Wales. On

a division the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and

seventy-eight against two hundred and thirty-two.

The question, however, was again raised by Mr. Praed, who moved the

following amendment:—“Provided always, and be it enacted, that in every

borough, whether the same be a county of itself or not, where the right

to vote in the election of members or a member to serve in parliament

for such borough, is, according to the laws now in force, enjoyed by

persons entitled to vote in virtue of some corporate right, nothing

whatsoever in this act contained shall in anywise hinder or prevent any

person or persons who now enjoy, or who hereafter, according to the laws

now in force, might have acquired such corporate right, from enjoying

or acquiring such corporate right for the purpose of voting in such

elections.” In opposing this amendment, Lord John Russell denied that he

was interfering by this municipal bill with the parliamentary franchise:

he was not enacting that there should be no freemen; and, therefore,

though there would no longer be freemen voting for members of

parliament, that was only an incidental consequence of the principle of

the bill, which principle was again brought into action, not with a

view to parliamentary franchise, but solely with a view to municipal

government. The amendment was lost by a majority of two hundred and

thirty-four against two hundred and sixty-two. Another amendment, moved

by Mr. Ponsonby, for the purpose of protecting inchoate rights of

freemen, was equally unsuccessful, being negatived by a majority of two

hundred and thirty-four to two hundred and three. The bill arranged all

the boroughs into two classes, according to their population, the

larger boroughs being divided into wards. In all these boroughs the bill

required no qualification in the common-councilmen, except that of being

ratepayers. Sir Robert Peel moved as an amendment, “Provided such

members of council who shall be elected in boroughs divided into wards

shall, at the time of their election, be seized or possessed of personal

property of the clear value of £1000, or that they shall be rated on

a rental of not less than £40 a-year: and also, provided that all such

members elected in towns not divided into wards shall, at the time of

their election, be seized or possessed of property, real or personal,

of the clear value of £500, or be rated to the relief of the poor on a

rental of not less than £20.” Sir Robert founded his amendment on what

had been the usual practice in enactments regarding corporate towns.

It was true that, according to ancient practice, no pecuniary

qualifications were required for members of corporations; but the spirit

of the charter was, that persons fit for their respective offices

should be appointed; and he apprehended that, even in those self-elected

corporations, whatever might be their defects in other respects, care

was taken to elect persons of wealth and respectability. In opposing the

amendment, Lord John Russell, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Blackburne, and

other members, argued, that it was in contradiction to the spirit of

the bill, not agreeable to the provisions of the original charters,

incapable of being generally and fitly applied, and not productive of

any practical benefit. It was lost by a majority of two hundred and

sixty-seven against two hundred and four. On the same day Lord Stanley

moved an amendment on the clause which fixed the periods of election,

which he proposed should take place only every second year; but this

also was lost by a majority of two hundred and twenty against one

hundred and seventy-six. Mr. Grote attempted to engraft on this part of

the bill a modification of his favourite measure of vote by ballot; but

the amendment was withdrawn. A division took place on the clause of the

bill which declared that the town-clerk should be removable at pleasure;

but it was retained by a majority of sixty. Sir James Graham was also

unsuccessful in an amendment on the clause which gave to the set of men

who should once get into office a formidable instrument for maintaining

their predominance, by vesting in the council the power of granting or

refusing all licences within the limits of the borough; the original

clause was retained by a majority of forty-five. The labours of the

committee were finished, and the report received on the 17th of July;

and on the 20th the bill was read a third time without a division, the

opponents of the bill leaving it to the house of lords to accomplish

those ameliorations in its enactments which they deemed requisite.

The day fixed for the second reading of the municipal bill in the house

of lords was the 28th of July. On that day petitions were presented

against it from Coventry, Doncaster, Lancaster, Worcester, Lincoln, and

other corporations, praying to be heard against the bill by counsel;

and from Bristol and Liverpool, praying to be heard against it by their

respective recorders. It was moved, that the petitioners should be heard

by counsel, which Lord Melbourne opposed. The Duke of Wellington and

other peers contended that it would be a denial of justice to refuse to

hear parties against a measure which affected their character as well

as their interests. Lord Brougham also said that there would be no

objection to counsel being heard, provided the matter was so arranged

as to prevent that hearing from becoming interminable. He suggested that

two counsel should state all that was to be stated for the whole of the

corporations. In this suggestion Lord Melbourne concurred, and it was

agreed to by the whole house, after which the bill was read a second

time _pro forma_. The hearing of the counsel commenced on the 30th of

July, and was continued up to the 1st of August. The two gentlemen who

appeared for the corporations were Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight,

who insisted largely on the general character of the bill, as putting

an end to all rights enjoyed under any corporate charter in the kingdom;

and attacked the reports made by the commission regarding the different

boroughs. They claimed a right to tender evidence in order to prove the

ignorance and partiality with which the corporations had been treated.

After the counsel had concluded their argument, Lord Melbourne gave

notice that he would oppose any motion for allowing evidence to be

adduced in defence of any corporation. Notwithstanding this notice,

however, on the 3rd of August, after his lordship had moved that the

house should go into committee on the bill, the Earl of Carnarvon moved,

as an amendment, that evidence should now be taken at the bar of the

house in support of the allegations of the several petitions. After a

long debate on this counter-motion, which was strenuously opposed by

the ministers and their party, the house determined in its favour by a

majority of one hundred and twenty-four to fifty-four.

Evidence was now heard at the bar, which occupied the house from the

5th to the 8th of August. Witnesses were examined in relation to about

thirty boroughs; and the evidence went to show that the commissioners

had acted like attorneys employed to get up a case, and with but little

prudence, since they chiefly derived their information from partizans

of their own opinions. The evidence having been finished, the house

went into committee on the bill on the 12th of August, when the Duke

of Newcastle proposed the rejection of the bill, by moving that the

committee should be taken that day’six months. He did not, however,

press his motion to a division, the conservative peers having resolved

to pass the bill, in so far as they thought it might do good, after

stripping it of those provisions which seemed to be most operative for

evil. Lord Lyndhurst proposed the first alteration; He moved a clause

preserving to all freemen, to every person who might be a freeman but

for this measure, and to their widows and children, or the husband

of their daughters or widows, the same rights in the property of the

boroughs as would have belonged to them by its laws and customs if this

act had not been passed. He did not refer, he said, to general corporate

property, but to individual and specific rights of property enjoyed by

freemen in many boroughs—rights of commons and others. Lord Melbourne

opposed the motion. He would not be disinclined, he said, to consider

a proposal for extending the period during which these rights should be

preserved further than it was now fixed by the bill; but he could

not consent to preserve in perpetuity rights which he believed to be

prejudicial both to the freemen themselves and to the whole community.

The Earls of Haddington and Ripon supported the amendment, while

Lords Plunkett and Brougham, and the Marquis of Lansdowne opposed it,

contending that the rights to which the bill put an end were not rights

of property. On a division the amendment was carried by one hundred

and thirty against thirty-seven; and, thus victorious, Lord Lyndhurst

immediately moved another, to preserve the freemen their parliamentary

franchise as secured by the reform bill. Lord Melbourne was hostile to

this amendment; but as there was no hope of success, he did not call

for a division, and it was adopted. Another amendment, moved by

Lord Lyndhurst, which required a certain qualification in the town

councillors, after stern opposition from the ministers, was carried by

a majority of one hundred and twenty to thirty-nine. The next alteration

proposed by the opposition peers was an amendment which provided that a

fixed proportion of the town-council should hold office for life. This

was described by the supporters of the bill as being more glaringly

inconsistent with the principle of the bill than any of those which had

been adopted. To agree to it, they said, was to lose the bill; but it

was carried by one hundred and twenty-six against thirty-nine. Further

amendments proposed by the conservative peers were agreed to without

much discussion, and without any division. The provisions which declared

that persons who were at present justices of the peace under borough

charters should cease to be so in future, were struck out, as were the

clauses which took from the county magistrates, and gave to the new

town-councils the power of granting licenses. The ecclesiastical

patronage of the town-council was further limited to the members of the

church of England; and it was decided that town-clerks should hold

their offices during good behaviour. All towns containing six thousand

inhabitants instead of twelve thousand were to be divided into wards;

and the number of councillors allotted to each was to be fixed by a

compound ratio of members and property. Finally, instead of the power of

dividing boroughs into wards, and fixing the number of councillors which

each ward should return, being left to the king in council, who could

only act through commissioners, it was given to the revising barristers;

and instead of the determination of the boundaries of the burgal

territory being left to the government of the new councils, the peers

retained it in the hands of parliament. The bill, as amended, was passed

by the house of lords on the 28th of August, and the amendments were

brought before the commons on the 31st. Lord John Russell in bringing

them before the house, said that the lords, by their mode of proceeding,

had caused their own amendments to be viewed in a more unfavourable

light than would have belonged to them, if they had merely been the

result of calm deliberation. The question, however, for the house was,

whether the bill even as altered, might not be moulded into an efficient

instrument of good municipal government. He would not recommend the

adoption of the amendments by which town-clerks were made irremovable,

and by which borough magistrates who were now justices by virtue of

their offices, should continue to be so. Neither was he favourable

to the provision inserted by the lords, that a certain number of

councillors, under the name of aldermen, should be elected for life; he

would rather propose that the same number of members of the town-council

as the lords proposed should be elected for life, should be chosen for

a period of six years, and that one half should always be made at ‘the

expiration of three years. Another amendment, from which he did not

intend to dissent altogether, regarded the divisions of towns into

wards; he proposed that instead of six thousand inhabitants there

should be nine thousand in any borough so divided. As regards the lords’

amendment, which gave the crown the power of nominating justices, he

proposed that the house should not agree with the alteration. In most

of the other amendments he concurred; but he would not ask the house

to accede to the provision which limited the exercise of ecclesiastical

patronage to such members of the town-councils as might belong to the

church of England, or to that clause which perpetuated the exemption

from toll enjoyed by freemen in certain boroughs. The radical section

of the commons blamed ministers for conceding too much, and indulged in

violent language against the house of lords. Mr. Roebuck asked why the

real representatives of the people should bear the insults of the lords,

when they had the power to crush them? He was an advocate for democracy,

and the sooner they brought the matter to an issue the better. It was

necessary to stir up the people upon this subject to something like a

revolution. On the part of the conservative members of the house there

was, also, a difference of opinion; some thought that the amendments of

the lords should be preserved in all their integrity, while others

were of opinion that the modifications proposed by ministers should be

adopted.

Sir Robert Peel, after entering at length into the merits of the

amendments adopted by the lords, in which he generally concurred,

proposed an additional and alternative qualification for voters—namely,

the being rated in £30 in the larger, and £15 in the smaller boroughs.

Ministers acceded to this. But there was a greater difficulty

encountered in dealing with the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage.

Lord John Russell proposed the rejection of the amendment of the lords

on this subject; but Mr. Spring Rice proposed an expedient, which was

ultimately adopted, to insert a clause directing the ecclesiastical

patronage belonging to boroughs to be sold, and the price to be invested

for the purpose of being applied to the public good of the boroughs. The

amendments of the commons were taken into consideration by the lords on

the 4th of September, and were agreed to with few exceptions. They still

retained, however, their original amendments providing that justices

should be named by the crown, and that the division into wards should

begin with boroughs containing a population of six thousand. On the 7th

of September the commons agreed to the bill as it had been returned to

them from the house of lords, and in that shape it finally passed.