In the meantime, while the lords were occupied in the consideration

of the municipal bill, the commons were occupied with the Irish church

bill. Lord Morpeth brought this measure forward on the 26th of June, and

in doing so, he stated that, in conformity with the bill of last year,

and of that which the late government had contemplated, he proposed to

convert the existing composition into an annual rent-charge, payable by

the owners of the first estate of inheritance, or such other equivalent

estate as would be defined by the bill, equal to seven-tenths of the

amount of composition, or £70 for every £100, charging the cost of

collection, to the amount of sixpence in the pound, on the tithe-owners.

He thought it advisable to make a distinction not only between existing

and future clerical incumbents, but also between clergymen and lay

impropriators; and he proposed that the existing clerical incumbent

should receive £73 8s. for every £100 of composition, the additional

five per cent, being charged upon the perpetuity purchase-fund. As the

machinery of the bill, he said, was similar to that of last year, he

did not feel called upon to enter into any of the details respecting the

real charges payable to the crown, and the investments which would be

placed under the management of the commissioners of land revenue. The

bill would authorise a revision and revaluation of benefices for the

tithe composition; and it was likewise proposed to extend the provisions

of Lord Tenterden’s act for the limitation of suits to Ireland, in the

same way as it was included in the bill of last year. By the report of

the commissioners of public instruction, the members of the established

church amounted to 853,064, the presbyterians to 642,356, and other

dissenters to 21,808 persons; tire number of Roman Catholics was

6,427,712, in other words, the members of the established church

amounted to 853,064, and the number of those who dissented was

7,091,876. The distribution of the members of the established church,

also, was as disproportionate as their total amount; in the diocese of

Dromore, there were 264 members for every 1000 acres; in the diocese of

Glogher 26 to every 1000 acres, and in the diocese of Tuam there were

only 8 to every 1000 acres. It was proposed, therefore, to suspend

the presentation to every benefice in Ireland where the number of

Protestants did not exceed fifty. In the case of a suspended parish, in

which there was any number of members of the establishment from one to

fifty, the ecclesiastical commissioners would be empowered, subject to

the approbation and consent of the lord-lieutenant in council, either to

assign the cure of souls in that parish to the care of the neighbouring

minister, or else to appoint a separate curate. It would further be

enacted, that, in all parishes where there now existed a church and a

resident officiating minister, a separate curate should be appointed.

When the cure of souls was committed to a neighbouring minister, the

amount of stipend to be given was not to be less than £10, or more than

£50 per annum; and where a separate curate was appointed, the salary was

not to exceed £75 per annum, with permission to live in the glebe-house,

if he undertook to keep it in repair. In every parish where the cure of

souls was committed to a neighbouring minister, or a separate curate,

provision was to be made for the erection of suitable places of worship,

fit to accommodate the probable number of the different congregations.

These places of worship were to be built at a cost not exceeding £100,

or rented at a cost not exceeding £15 per annum. In making all these

provisions the archbishop of the province and the bishops of the

diocesses were to be associated with the ecclesiastical commissioners.

With respect to other parishes, if it should appear, after deducting

thirty per cent, from the existing tithe-composition and the payment

of that tax on ecclesiastical benefices, that the income of any parish

should exceed £300 per annum, the commissioners would be required

to report the circumstance on the voidance of the benefice to the

lord-lieutenant, who would be empowered to make any reduction he might

deem proper. The incomes, however, were in no case to be reduced below

£300 per annum. In cases of livings in the gift of the crown and the

bishops, he thought that it would be acknowledged there should be no

delay in carrying these provisions into effect; but power would be

given to indemnify the owners of lay advowsons, and to charge that

indemnification on the fund which would be created from the various

sources which he had mentioned, and which it was proposed to call “the

reserved fund;” a fund which would be applicable to pay the salaries of

the neighbouring ministers or separate curates—to pay all charges which

might accrue on the suspended parishes, and to pay for the erection

of places of public worship. These purposes having been satisfied,

the surplus fund accruing from year to year was to be applied by the

commissioners of national education in Ireland to the religious and

moral instruction of all classes of the people, without reference to

creeds or sects. The total number of parishes, he continued, that would

come under the operation of the bill, would be eight hundred and sixty.

He had computed the salaries of the curates at £65 each, and after the

existing interests were provided for, there would accrue to the reserved

fund, 47,898, to which there was to be added, on account of indemnified

patronage, £10,178, making the whole amount £58,076. Lord Morpeth added,

that in the report of the committee on public instruction, it was stated

that the Protestants of the church of England were on the increase.

Government was not inattentive to this; and it was proposed that where

it should appear to the ecclesiastical commissioners that the number of

the members of the established church in any of the suspended parishes

had increased to such a degree as to make the provisions of the bill

inadequate to the religious wants of the place, they would be required

to report the circumstance to the lord-lieutenant, and to submit a

proposition to meet the exigency. If the lord-lieutenant approved of

it, the report and the proposition were to be laid on the tables of both

houses of parliament; and the ecclesiastical commissioners, after the

expiration of six months, would be empowered to carry the proposition

into effect, if parliament should not otherwise direct.

The bill was brought in and read a first time. It contained two distinct

sets of provisions—some relating solely to the mode of collecting

tithe, and others which established a new distribution of the church

funds, so as to create a surplus to be applied to other purposes. Sir

Robert Peel gave notice on the 7th of July, that, on the motion for

committing the bill, he would move an instruction to the committee to

divide it into two bills, that he might have an opportunity of rejecting

altogether those parts of the bill which suppressed the Protestant

churches of eight hundred and sixty parishes, appropriating their

revenues to purposes not immediately in connection with the interests

of the established church, and of supporting those provisions in which

he could concur. The bill was read a second time _pro forma_ on the 13th

of July, and the motion to commit it was made on the 21st. Sir Robert

Peel moved the instruction of which he had given notice. Mr. Spring Rice

answered Sir Robert Peel. The debate was continued by adjournment on

the 22nd and 23rd of July, the leading speakers in support of the motion

being Sirs R. H. Inglis and J. Graham, Lord Stanley, and Messrs. Lefroy

and Jackson; while the ministerial side of the question was maintained

by Lords Howick, Morpeth, and J. Russell, and Messrs. Hume, Shiel, and

O’Connell. On a division ministers had a majority of three hundred and

nineteen against two hundred and eighty-two, a majority which secured

the success of the bill in the commons. It passed, in fact, without any

further opposition, the minority declining to discuss details which, in

their opinion, could not be amended except by omitting them. Ministers,

however, seem to have been convinced that Sir Robert Peel was correct

in stating that they would have no surplus, for they introduced a clause

providing that the consolidated fund should immediately begin to make

an annual payment of £50,000, for the purposes of general education in

Ireland, on the faith of the anticipated surplus, from which it was to

be repaid.

The bill passed the commons on the 12th of August, and the second

reading took place in the house of lords on the 20th. No opposition was

made to the second reading; but it was intimated that the opposition

intended in committee to strike out of the bill all the clauses

containing the new scheme of appropriation, and the machinery by which

it was to be worked. The house went into committee on the 24th of

August, and agreed to all the clauses forming the first part of the

measure, with the exception of the provisions for opening compositions

and for taking a new average, both of which were expunged. When the

house arrived at the first of the clauses which formed the new system of

appropriation, the Earl of Haddington moved that they should be omitted.

The bill was defended by the Marquises of Lansdowne, Glarincarde, and

Conyngham, and Lords Plunkett, Brougham, and Glenelg. Lord Melbourne

announced that if the motion were carried he would abandon the bill;

he would not be a party to sending it back to the house of commons in a

shape, both as to form and principle, which would compel that house

to reject it entirely. On a division, the motion to omit all the

appropriation clauses was carried by one hundred and thirty-eight

against forty-one. Ministers now abandoned the bill, being in such

a position, by the Catholic majority in the commons, as rendered

honourable retreat impossible. On the 29th of August the chancellor

of the exchequer brought in a bill empowering the government, on

application from the clergy, and on satisfactory proof being given that

the parties were not in a condition to pay, to suspend the claim for

the instalment which was due from the Irish clergy to the 5th of April,

1846. This bill passed both houses without opposition.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

{WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836}

On the 25th of May the Marquis of Chandos again brought forward the

subject of agricultural distress. The object of his present motion was

to give relief by diminishing the pressure of the local burdens to which

land was subject. The farmer, he said, severely felt the heavy pressure

of the maintenance of prisoners in gaol, and building and repairing

county bridges. He was likewise compelled to perform statute labour

on the highway. He thought all this should be thrown on the general

taxation of the country. He thought also that the duty on windows

in farm-houses, and on horses used in husbandry, should be taken off

entirely. Lord Althorp had made some reductions; but the benefit would

be increased by total relief from these burdens. He moved:—“That an

humble address be presented to his majesty, expressing the deep regret

this house feels at the continuing distressed state of the agricultural

interest of this country, to which the attention of parliament was

called by his majesty’s most gracious speeches from the throne at the

commencement of the preceding and of the present session of parliament;

and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this house that the

attention of his majesty’s government may be directed without delay to

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

of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of

general and local taxation.” The motion was seconded by the Earl of

Darlington. Government opposed it on the ground that what was proposed

would give no relief, and that the suggestions at which it pointed

required deliberate consideration. The home-secretary moved an amendment

to the effect, that “the house would direct its early attention to the

recommendations of a committee which sat last session of parliament

upon the subject of county-rates, with a view to the utmost practical

alleviation of those burdens to which the land was subject through the

pressure of local taxation.” Sir Robert Peel supported the amendment,

because the resolution pledged the house to objects which must excite

expectations on the part of the agriculturists which could not,

consistently with public credit, be fulfilled. The Marquis of Chandos,

however, pressed his motion to a division, which was lost by a majority

of two hundred and eleven against one hundred and fifty. In the course

of the debate on this subject, some members urged that all the evil had

arisen from the resumption of cash payments, and that it could only be

cured by some alteration of the currency. On the 1st of June, Mr. Cayley

moved the appointment of “a select committee, to inquire if there be

not effectual means within the reach of parliament to afford substantial

relief to the agriculture of the United Kingdom, and especially to

recommend to the attention of such committee the subject of a silver

standard, or conjoined standard of silver and gold.” Sir Robert Peel

and Mr. P. Thompson opposed the motion; and Sir C. Burrell and Messrs.

Wodehouse, Bennett, and O’Connell supported it; but on a division it was

lost by a majority of two hundred and sixteen against one hundred and

twenty-six.

DISCUSSION REGARDING ORANGE SOCIETIES IN IRELAND.

During this session a series of parliamentary attacks were directed

against the Orange lodges. On the 6th of March, Mr. Shiel moved for

the production of addresses presented to the king from certain Orange

societies, and the answers which had been returned to them. These

papers were granted; but this did not prevent a discussion on the

subject, which was distinguished chiefly by the abuse which the Irish

opposition poured upon the Orangemen. The subject was again brought

forward on the 23rd of March by Mr. Finn, who moved that “a select

committee be appointed to inquire into the nature, character, extent,

and tendency of Orange lodges, associations, or societies in Ireland,

and to report their opinion thereon to the house.” Mr. Maxwell, himself

an Orangeman, seconded this motion; he courted the fullest inquiry, with

a hope that the committee would be constituted in the most impartial

manner. The committee was appointed, and was still proceeding with its

inquiries when, on the 4th of August, Mr. Hume brought part of them

before the house. He had seen in newspapers portions of the evidence,

real or fictitious, taken before the committee, by which it appeared

that Orange lodges had been introduced into the army, and existed in

thirty or forty regiments of the line. These institutions were in direct

violation of general orders issued by the commander-in-chief in 1828 and

1829, which strongly reprobated the practice of holding Orange lodges in

regiments. The lodges, he said, had been formed under warrants granted

for that purpose by the Duke of Cumberland, who was the grand-master of

the Orange body, and a field-marshal. It was true the wan-ants had not

the name of his royal highness upon them; but he found it difficult to

imagine that he was ignorant of the existence of Orange lodges in the

army. Mr. Hume moved a string of eleven resolutions upon this subject.

Mr. Patten, the chairman of the committee to which the house had

referred the inquiry, complained of the manner in which the subject

had been introduced; it was a farce, he said, to appoint a committee to

inquire into a subject, if, when a portion of the evidence was printed,

and the inquiry was still pending, a member was to be permitted to bring

the subject forward in such a manner as must necessarily prejudge

the whole question, and at the same time attack the character of

individuals. He moved, as an amendment, “That a humble address be

presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to

direct his royal attention to the nature and extent of the Orange

lodges in the army, in contravention of the general orders issued by the

commander-in-chief in 1822 and 1829, which strongly prohibit the holding

of Orange lodges in regiments: and that his majesty will be graciously

pleased to direct an investigation to take place with respect to other

secret societies in the army.” In the debate which followed, it was

generally admitted that the establishment of lodges in the army was

pregnant with mischief and indefensible; but it was maintained, that any

use which had been made in this way of warrants for creating lodges had

taken place without the knowledge and authority of the grand-master, or

the other superior officers of the association. From statements made

by the members for Sligo and Cavan, it appeared that non-commissioned

officers received warrants signed by those gentlemen and by the Duke of

Cumberland, none of whom knew a word about the matter. Colonel Perceval,

the member for Sligo, who held the office of grand-treasurer of the

grand-lodge, stated that ever since he had held that office it had been

his duty to sign warrants in blank, after they had been signed by the

grand-secretary, the member for Cavan. In this way, he said, numbers had

been sent in parcels to his royal highness, the Duke of Cumberland, who,

on seeing his signature and that of the grand-secretary, had appended

his own, with the understanding that the warrants were to be applied to

purposes conformable to the rules of the association. Lord John Russell

condemned this practice, and observed that he could not conceive that

the Duke of Cumberland would hesitate, when convinced of the use which

had been made of the blank warrants bearing Iris signature, to retire

from the association; and he could not conceive otherwise than that he

would feel it inconsistent with his duty as a prince of the blood, and

filling a high rank in the army, to continue any longer in the situation

which in this society he now filled. Lord John Russell suggested that

the resolution should not be adopted without giving notice to his

royal highness of the debates which had taken place on his conduct

as grand-master. This suggestion was adopted; and the discussion

was adjourned until the 11th of August. In the interval the Duke of

Cumberland addressed a letter to the chairman, in which he denied

having issued, or countenanced the issuing, of warrants to soldiers, and

stated, that when such a proposal had been made to him he had declined

it, on the ground that it was contrary to the orders and regulations of

the Horse-guards, and that if any warrants had been so used, they would

be annulled. His royal highness, however, did not intimate his intention

of abandoning the Orange institutions. When the discussion was resumed

on the 11th of August, Mr. Hume withdrew the 5th and 6th resolutions,

referring to the general interference of Orange societies in political

matters, thus confining the question to their existence in the army. The

only disputed matter, indeed, was the last resolution, which stated

that the Duke of Cumberland “had signed warrants in his capacity of

grand-master of the grand Orange lodge of Ireland, which warrants have

been issued for constituting Orange lodges in the army.” Lord John

Russell said, that he did not think the letter of the Duke of Cumberland

to the chairman of the committee was all that was required of his royal

highness; but he did not wish to agree to the resolution stating

that his royal highness, in contravention of an order issued from the

Horse-guards, had signed warrants, which were issued for constituting

Orange lodges in the army. He wished such a clause to be omitted; and he

thought the resolution would then satisfy both sides of the house. The

resolution, thus modified, was carried by one hundred and eighty-three

to forty; and the other resolutions were agreed to without a division.

THE VOTE BY BALLOT, ETC.

During this session, as usual after a general election, the house had

to deal with a considerable number of election petitions. Among others

petitions were presented from Great Yarmouth, complaining that bribery

had been practised at the election for that borough; these petitions

were referred to a committee. The fact of these petitions being

presented, encouraged Mr. Grote to make his annual motion in favour of

vote by ballot. On the 2nd of June he proposed this resolution:—“That

it is the opinion of this house that the votes at elections for members

of parliament should be taken by way of secret ballot.” This motion,

which was supported on the same grounds which had been urged to the

house on former occasions, was seconded by Sir William Molesworth. Mr.

Gisborne met it by moving the previous question. Lords Howick, Stanley,

and Russell, and Sir Robert Peel opposed the motion. Sir Robert Peel

expressed his surprise that government, in opposing the motion, should

allow it to be set aside by the previous question, instead of meeting

it with a direct negative; and Lord John Russell explained that

the amendment of the previous question had been moved without any

arrangement with him; if it were withdrawn, he was ready to meet it

with a direct negative. After some demur, Mr. Gisborne withdrew his

amendment; and the motion was directly negatived by three hundred and

seventeen votes against one hundred and forty-four.

THE BUDGET.

The budget was brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer on the

14th of August. He calculated the income of the country for the ensuing

year, ending in July, 1836, at £45,500,000, and the expenditure at

£44,715,000, leaving a surplus of £835,000. He regretted, however, to

add that this surplus, calculated on the ordinary expenditure of the

country, would be found to crumble away before the further statement

which it was his duty to make. The interest due to the slave-owners, he

said, was to be provided for from the 1st of August, 1834. The maximum

of the charge to which the country might be liable from that time was

£730,000; and supposing that the whole balance of the loan were to be

paid up within three months on discount, and that the permanent interest

on the whole amount of the stock were at once incurred, this would

subject us to a further charge of £250.935, making the total charge

for the present year, on account of the West Indian loan, nearly £1000.

Against this, as a set off, there was a surplus of £885,000; but the

probability was that the amount instead of being £1,000,000 would not

exceed a sum between £600,000 and £700,000, so that the actual surplus

which might be expected would be from £150,000 to £200,000. The

chancellor of the exchequer said, in continuation, that though the

country was in a prosperous condition, he could not under existing

circumstances be expected to make any great reduction in taxation. There

were two or three taxes, however, which he thought might be reduced, and

he proposed to reduce the duty on licences, which would cause a loss to

the revenue of about £40,000; and on flint-glass, on which there might

be a loss of about £70,000. He also proposed to relieve Ireland from the

stamp-duty on awards, the loss on which would not exceed £500 a year.

The resolutions of the chancellor of the exchequer were agreed to

without a division.

DISCUSSIONS REGARDING CANADA.

During this session, the affairs of Lower Canada were brought before

parliament. That colony was still distracted by dissensions; the

French, or democratic party, which had gained a majority in the house of

assembly, still insisting on all their pretensions, and declaring their

determination to control both the legislative council and the governor,

who represented the mother country. Their cause was advocated in the

British parliament by Mr. Roebuck, who, on the 9th of March presented a

petition from certain members of the legislative bodies of the province,

setting forth their alleged grievances. In supporting his motion, Mr.

Roebuck held out threats, that, if the demands urged in the petition

were not granted, there would be a rebellion. Lower Canada, he said,

would inevitably follow the example of the United States. Mr. Spring

Rice and Lord Stanley deprecated the use of such language as Mr. Roebuck

had adopted; language like this made matters only worse. So far back as

1828, a committee had been appointed to examine into the complaints

of the Canadians. Another committee was subsequently appointed, which

committee had come to this general resolution:—“That the most earnest

desire has existed on the part of the home government to carry into

effect the suggestions of the committee of 1823; that the endeavours of

the government to the ends recommended have been unremitting, and guided

by the desire, in all cases, to promote the interests of the colonies;

and that in several important particulars, their endeavours had

been entirely successful.” Mr. Roebuck himself was a member of this

committee, and was, therefore, a party to this report; but in the face

of it he now blamed the government. On the other hand, petitions were

presented to the commons on the 16th of March, and to the lords on

the 24th of March, deprecating the violence of the democratic party in

Canada. In presenting the petition to the house of lords, the Earl of

Aberdeen stated that it was signed by 11,000 persons, inhabitants of

Montreal and its vicinity, who represented a numerous and respectable

body in that country of not less than 100,000 persons.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued on the 10th of September. In his closing speech

his majesty alluded to the civil contest still raging in the northern

provinces of Spain; and intimated that he had concluded fresh

conventions with Denmark, Sardinia, and Sweden, calculated to prevent

the traffic in African slaves.

STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During this year Portugal exhibited a more peaceful and prosperous

picture than it had done for some time, although it presented likewise

the contests and intrigues of political parties for power and place. The

Cortes met on the 2nd of January, and continued in deliberation till

the 22nd of April. The principal objects of their attention were the

financial state of the country, and the claims for indemnification which

had been put forward by those who had suffered under the domination of

Don Miguel, or who had sustained loss in consequence of the measures

which had now terminated in the establishment of the constitutional

system. The bill, which received the sanction of the Cortes, provided

that where injuries had been directly caused by individuals, or at the

instigation of any individual, such persons were liable for the whole

amount, and should be called upon to make it good. On the other hand,

all unavoidable damages done in order to defend or attack towns, as well

as injuries done by the usurper’s government, were to be made good by

the nation at large. In the course of this year, Prince Augustus of

Leuchtenberg, the husband of the young queen, arrived in Portugal; but

after he had been there little more than a month, he died from exposure

to cold in taking exercise. The chambers justly considered the

constitutional system to be greatly dependent upon a direct succession

to the constitutional throne, and they, therefore, presented

addresses to her majesty, praying her to enter into a new marriage as

soon as possible. She replied that she was a queen and a Portuguese, and

the chamber might be assured that she would make every sacrifice for the

public interest which was not inconsistent with her dignity. Before the

end of the year, indeed, the queen’s second marriage was arranged, the

bridegroom being the nephew of the reigning Duke of Saxe Coburg, and of

the King of the Belgians. In Spain all was confusion and revolt. The

war between Don Carlos and the queen, or rather the Spanish nation,

was still continued, and the year closed while they were yet in arms.

Towards the latter part of the year an army of 6000 men crossed the

Spanish frontier to assist in the struggle, a convention having been

signed between Spain and Portugal to that end: these troops, however,

bore no part in the events of the year. In France an attempt was made

to assassinate the king, by means of what has been denominated “the

infernal machine.” On the second day of the great political festival in

honour of the three days of July, 1830, as his majesty was riding

along the Boulevard du Temple, surrounded by the crowded citizens,

and attended by his civil and military servants, an explosion like a

discharge of musketry took place from the window of an adjoining house.

The effect was terrific. Several officer’s of rank were killed on the

spot, as well as some grenadiers of the national guard of Paris, besides

mere lookers on, while many were severely wounded. The horse on which

the king rode was wounded, but he himself escaped unhurt. The assassin

was captured, and he turned out to be a Corsican, of the name of

Fieschi, who had been a noted vagabond for many years. The questions in

dispute between Belgium and Holland remained in the same unsettled state

in which the preceding year had left them. In Belgium the formation of

Sir Robert Peel’s ministry excited alarm, lest the policy of the great

powers should now be less favourable to that country, and in particular

lest Britain should refuse to interfere to compel the Germanic

confederation to concede to the demands of the Belgians on the duchy of

Luxembourg. Communications from the English ministry, however, allayed

these fears; and finally they were relieved from them altogether by the

return of the Whigs to office. In the autumn of this year the Emperor of

Russia met the King of Prussia at Kalisah, and the Emperor of Austria at

Toplitz; but neither of these meetings seemed to have been brought about

for the purposes of political deliberation. In Greece, on the 10th of

June, King Otho having come of age, assumed the reins of government, and

the regency deposited its functions in his hands. The changes which took

place gave great umbrage to the Greeks, who were already displeased at

seeing so many offices in the hands of foreigners. Their displeasure was

increased at finding there was no intention of sending away the Bavarian

military. Turkey, during the present year, remained unchanged in her

relations to the great European powers. On her western frontier she

was occupied in putting down an insurrection which had broken out in

Albania. The Porte was likewise under the necessity of using its arms

against some tribes which had rebelled in Kurdistan. These disturbances

saved the Pacha of Egypt from any attack by the Porte in his new Syrian

acquisitions. On his part he showed no disposition to proceed further

against his sovereign; he occupying himself with completing the

subjugation of Syria, and attempting to extend his conquests in Arabia,

which attempt was unsuccessful.

CHAPTER XLVI.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

_Meeting of Parliament..... The Question of Orange

Lodges..... Bill to Reform the Irish Municipal

Corporations..... Irish Tithe Bill..... Commutation of

Tithes in England..... Bill for Registration of Births,

Deaths, and Marriages, &c. Bill to alter the Revenues

and Territory of the different Sees..... Bill to abolish the

secular Jurisdiction of Bishops, &c. Bill to amend the

English Municipal Corporation Act..... Bill to Allow Felons

Counsel to Address the Jury, &c. Abolition of

Imprisonment for Debt, &c. Election Committees.....

New Houses of Parliament..... Motion for the Reduction of

Taxation on behalf of the Agriculturists..... The Budget,

&c. Discussions on the Colonies and our Foreign

Relations..... Prorogation of Parliament..... The Affairs

of Ireland..... State of the Continent_

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1836}

Parliament reassembled on the 14th of February. In his speech his

majesty alluded to disputes between France and the United States, which

he was endeavouring to allay; and to the civil contests in the northern

province of Spain, for the termination of which he had also adopted

measures which he hoped would succeed. His majesty also alluded to

a treaty which he had concluded with the Queen of Spain for the

suppression of the slave-trade. He expressed his regret that the

agricultural interests in England still suffered, and recommended

parliament to institute inquiry, with the view of ascertaining whether

there were any measures which could be adopted for its alleviation. He

then referred to the various measures affecting the united church of

England and Ireland, and the state of the poor of Ireland. In the lords

the address was moved by the Duke of Leinster, and seconded by the Earl

of Burlington. The only part of it which gave rise to a discussion was

a passage which repeated the hope, expressed in the speech from the

throne, that the Irish municipal corporations would be subjected to a

process of change, “founded upon the same principles as those of the

acts which had already passed for England and Scotland.” These words

raised a question of importance between the contending parties, for, as

the municipal acts of England and Scotland established a £5 franchise in

one country, and a £10 franchise in the other, to establish in Ireland

a system of municipal government founded on a similar basis, was to

transfer to the Papists that monopoly of municipal authority hitherto

enjoyed by the Protestants. The Duke of Wellington objected to the

house being required, in voting the address, to pledge itself to the

principles of any measure before the measure itself had come regularly

before the house. He moved to substitute the following amendment:—“We

shall proceed without delay to the consideration of any defects or evils

that may have been shown to exist in these institutions, for the purpose

of applying such remedies as may obviate all just causes of complaint,

and insure the impartial administration of justice.” Several peers

supported this amendment, and the defeat of government was inevitable;

but, on seeing this, the Marquis of Lansdowne intimated that ministers

conceded the point as one of no particular moment, and the address was

then agreed to. In the commons, however, government was stronger, and,

therefore, did not exhibit the same spirit of concession. Sir Robert

Peel moved the same amendment which the Duke of Wellington had moved in

the lords. Lord John Russell defended the clause in the address. Lord

Stanley supported the amendment. Lords Howick and Palmerston, and Mr.

O’Connell spoke in favour of the address. Mr. O’Connell gave notice,

that if Ireland got less than had been granted to England and Scotland,

the cry of repeal would immediately be resumed. With an air of

self-importance he cautioned the house to beware; if they excited that

cry again, it would be at their peril. On a division the address was

carried by a majority of two hundred and eighty-four against two hundred

and forty-three.

THE QUESTION OF ORANGE LODGES.

On the reassembling of parliament, Mr. O’Connell and his friends lost no

time in returning to the attack made last session on Orange lodges. On

the 21st of February Mr. Finn moved this resolution:—“That Orangeism

has been productive of the most baneful effects upon the character and

administration of public justice in Ireland; that its presence in the

constabulary and peace preservation force and yeomanry corps of that

country has led individual members, as well as large bodies of the above

description of force, to the gross neglect and violation of their public

duty, and to open, daring, and lawless resistance to the authority of

the magistracy and of the executive government, on various occasions;

that the systematic and surreptitious introduction of Orangeism into

every branch of the military service, in almost every part of the

empire, in direct violation of orders issued in 1822 and 1829 by the

commander-in-chief of his majesty’s forces, and the absolute power and

control vested by its governing body, the grand Orange lodge of England

and Ireland, in his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland, together with

the rank, station, influence, and numbers of that formidable and secret

conspiracy, are well calculated to excite serious apprehensions in

all his majesty’s loyal subjects, and imperatively call for the most

energetic expression on the part of the representatives of the people

of this empire, to secure the safe, peaceable, legal, and rightful

succession to the throne of these realms.” In the speech with which Mr.

Finn introduced this resolution, he treated the Orange system as one of

deadly hostility to the great mass of the population, and asserted

that it was established by the report of the secret committee, that the

Orange society set all law, justice, and authority at defiance. Mr. E.

Buller, who seconded the resolution, reiterated these sentiments. As

notice had been given for the 23rd of February by Colonel Verner, to

extend the inquiry to other existing societies in Ireland, and as Mr.

Hume was to bring forward certain resolutions directed to the same

object on that day, the house adjourned the further consideration of

the motion to that day. On the 23rd of February Mr. Hume entered at

considerable length into the evidence which had been given before the

select committee of the previous session, which included documents laid

before it by the office-bearers of the Orange association and private

correspondence. Most of the evidence, it would appear, had indeed been

derived from the officers of the institution themselves, which was by no

means a proof of guilt. Nevertheless, Mr. Hume contrived to make out a

case against the association from such evidence; and when he had laid

it before the house, he moved this condemnatory resolution:—“That this

house, taking into consideration the evidence given before the select

committee appointed to inquire into the nature, extent, character, and

tendency of Orange lodges, associations, or societies in Ireland, and of

Orange institutions in Great Britain and the colonies; and seeing that

the existence of Orange societies is highly detrimental to the peace

of the community, by exciting discord among the several classes of his

majesty’s subjects; and seeing that it is highly injurious to the due

administration of justice that any judge, sheriff, magistrate, juryman,

or any other person employed in maintaining the peace of the country,

should be bound by any secret obligation to, or be in any combination

with, any association unknown to the laws, and founded on principles of

religious exclusion, that even if justice were impartially administered

under such circumstances, which is in itself impossible, yet any

connection with such societies would create suspicions and jealousies

detrimental to the peace and good government of this country: that

Orange societies, and all other political societies which have secret

forms of initiation and secret signs, and are bound together by any

religious ceremonies, are particularly deserving of the severest

reprobation of the house, and should no longer be permitted to

continue;—an humble address be presented to his majesty, that his

majesty will be graciously pleased to direct measures to be taken

to remove from the public service, at home and abroad, every judge,

privy-councillor, lord-lieutenant, _custos rotulorum_, magistrate,

militia officer, inspector, chief-constable of the constabulary and

peace preservation force, every officer of police in Ireland, and

every functionary employed in the administration of justice, and in

maintaining the peace of the country, who shall attend the meeting of

any Orange lodge, of any riband lodge, or of any other political club,

institution, or association, whenever or wherever assembled, having

secret forms of initiation, and being bound together by any religious

ceremony, and with secret signs, and passwords, for recognition of

members of such bodies, and who shall not withdraw from such societies

or associations, on or before the expiration of one month after the

publication of any proclamation which his majesty may be pleased to

direct to be issued hereupon, forbidding their continuing to be members

of such Orange lodges, societies, and associations.” This motion was

supported by Sir William Molesworth, who endeavoured to prove that

the societies against which it was directed had already been declared

illegal; a position which should have simply led to an address to the

crown to cause the statutes to be enforced. Lord John Russell agreed

that it was desirable to suppress these institutions, and all similar

societies; but he intimated that government could not approve of some

of the modes of doing so which were now proposed. He thought that the

effect of these societies, however good their motives might be, were

injurious: by their existence, whether founded upon religion or not,

a distinction was made between them and some other part of the king’s

subjects, who formed! themselves into counter societies, with other

names and distinctions; and thus a perpetual and ever-recurring source

of disunion, disaffection, quarrels, and bloodshed was created. At the

same time, though it might be clear that it was desirable to get rid of

this and all other societies of the like nature, whether known as Orange

or Riband societies, or by any other name, it was by no means so clear

how that object was to be attained. The report of last year by the

committee on Orange lodges, stated that the existing statutes, if put in

execution, would be adequate for their suppression, as well as that of

all other societies of the like nature. He had discussed this question

with the attorney and solicitor-general; and they declared that,

without looking most carefully into the subject, they could not venture

absolutely to pronounce an opinion as to their legality or illegality.

The government, therefore, were of opinion that if the several penal

statutes already in force did not contain clear enactments against this

offence, it was not proper for them to seek some meaning in the law,

which would be construed by others into a straining of the provisions of

the law, and make it doubtful whether they had not forced the meaning

of an enactment, in order to procure a condemnation of the societies in

question. Even if they could have discovered that, although the Orange

societies had contrived to evade the law in some points, they had yet

contravened it in others, and could have obtained a conviction against

them, he thought it would be mischievous to the general liberty of the

subject to attempt giving a strained interpretation. In 1822, it was

held by Lord Gifford and other eminent lawyers, that Orange societies

were not held to come within the meaning of the law; and, therefore,

if they came at present within the terms of any act, it must be in

consequence of some recent change in their constitution. He was,

therefore, averse to putting the question on such narrow grounds.

Government also had no thought of proposing any new law against them;

for, although by such a proceeding the secret signs and distinctive

marks presently in use might be made to disappear, they might be

succeeded by some other evasion of the law. He thought, also, that a

general address to the crown affecting all judges, without entering

into the case of each individual, would be scarcely consistent with the

independence of the bench. As to removing every magistrate and person in

office belonging to the Orange societies—if they should be removed at

once by an address of this kind—without any previous declaration either

from the house of commons or the crown, they would conceive such a

stigma affixed to them, that they would still remain banded together

from a spirit of resentment, and would regard the measure only as an

unfair and biassed transaction. His colleagues and himself thought that

it would be better to adopt this course:—that where a person applied

for any official situation of trust and responsibility under the crown,

inquiry should be made whether he were an Orangeman, and if he meant to

continue in that society, that his appointment should not take place. It

was not only convenient to adopt measures of discouragement in respect

to those societies, but he was prepared to add to these discouragements

that of an address to his majesty by this house. In conclusion, his

lordship moved:—“That an humble address be presented to his majesty,

praying that his majesty would be graciously pleased to take such

measures as to his majesty seemed advisable for the effectual

discouragement of Orange lodges, and generally all political societies

excluding persons of different faith, using signs and symbols, and

acting by associated branches.” The Orange societies of Ireland were

defended by Mr. Maxwell. They refused, he said, to be tried by the

report of the committee, for its proceedings had been partial and

biassed, and the investigation had not been complete. Lord Stanley urged

the omission of the specific mention of Orange lodges in the address,

inasmuch as they were only part of the secret societies which existed

in Ireland. Lord John Russell, however, insisted on retaining the words,

denying that they implied any stigma; there was no opinion pronounced

as to the legality of these societies, but merely that they, as well as

other secret societies, should meet the disapprobation of the crown.

His motion was agreed to without a division; and the address having been

presented to the king, his majesty, on the 25th of February, returned

this answer:—“I willingly assent to the prayer of the address of my

faithful commons, that I Would be pleased to take such measures as may

seem to me advisable for the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges,

and generally of all political societies, excluding persons of a

different religious faith, using secret signs and symbols, and acting by

means of associated branches. It is my firm intention to discourage

all such societies in my dominions, and I rely with confidence on the

fidelity of my loyal subjects to support me in this determination.” The

home-secretary transmitted a copy of the address and the king’s answer

to the Duke of Cumberland, as the official head of the Orange societies,

and his royal highness replied, that before receiving the communication,

he had recommended the dissolution of the Orange institutions

in Ireland. The Orange societies immediately acquiesced in this

recommendation, and from that time they were professedly dissolved; but

it was soon discovered that the law and will of king and commons were

only evaded, and that Orange lodges were as numerous as ever. The

conduct of O’Connell and his Irish adherents in this discussion was as

faithless as in their professions of the voluntary principle. They knew

well that ribandism was far more extensively prevalent in Ireland than

orangeism, and that, whatever might be the character of the latter, the

objects and spirit of the former were utterly atrocious. The riband-men

were banded for purposes subversive of all law and order—of all

liberty, civil and religious—and they were utterly reckless as to the

means by which they promoted their ends. Assassination and incendiarism

were the common instruments of this diabolical association of fanaticism

and bigotry. Yet O’Connell and his confederates glossed over the evils

of this system, or denied their existence, while he and they pretended

zeal for public justice and liberty in the destruction of the Orange

confederation. The true policy would have been the suppression of all

secret political societies.

BILL TO REFORM THE IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.

A commission had been appointed to inquire into the state of the

corporations in Ireland, and the royal speech had intimated that the

subject would be brought forward during this session. Acting upon this

report and intimation, Mr. O’Loghlen, attorney-general for Ireland,

introduced a bill for the better regulation of Irish municipal

corporations. In doing so he entered into many details to show the

limited and exclusive nature of the corporations, and the abuses to

which this had led. He proposed to remedy the abuses which had crept

into the system, by a bill similar to those already adopted for England

and Scotland. In regard to the seven largest towns—Dublin, Cork,

Limerick, Kilkenny, Belfast, Galway, and Waterford—it was proposed

that every inhabitant possessing the £10 franchise under the provisions

of the Irish reform act, should be entitled to vote in the election of

municipal offices. As regarded all boroughs containing a population

of less than 20,000 inhabitants, it was farther proposed that every

occupier of a £5 house should be entitled to vote in the election of

municipal officers. With regard to councillors, the qualification in the

seven large boroughs was to consist in having property worth £1000, and

in the other towns, property worth £5000. In the seven large boroughs,

and likewise in Londonderry, Sligo, Dungannon, and Drogheda, where

the population exceeded 15,000, there would be a division of wards.

Aldermen, likewise, were to be elected by the inhabitants, and were to

consist of the councillors who had the greatest number of votes at the

election. One half of the councillors and aldermen were to retire every

three years; and in the seven large boroughs, the council was to

have the power of electing sheriffs, subject to the approval of the

lord-lieutenant. The bill further declared that a commission of the

peace might be granted in any large borough if the lord-lieutenant

thought fit, and in other towns the mayor for the time being would be

the magistrate of the borough. It was likewise intended to preserve to

the inhabitants of the Irish corporate towns the right of proceeding

summarily by petition in cases of misapplication of public funds,

instead of leaving them to the ordinary tedious process of the law,

and to retain the courts in the nature of courts of conscience, and the

right of their suitors to proceed by attachment. It was further proposed

that government should have the power of obliging the council, if either

or both the persons first chosen were not approved of, to proceed to

the election of some other persons, and not, as in the case of Dublin,

re-elect the same person. All the other provisions were similar to those

comprised in the English bill. The bill was allowed to be read a second

time on the 29th of February without opposition; but Sir Robert Peel

took occasion to state the views taken of this particular mode of

reforming Irish corporations by himself and the party to which he

adhered. He avowed that it was not possible to defend the corporation

system which existed in Ireland; but he contended that the bill would

not be a remedy for the evils. Although the views of the Conservatives,

as explained by Sir Robert Peel, did not allow them to oppose the second

reading of the bill, yet when the motion was made that the house should

go into committee, Lord Francis Egerton moved that the committee should

be empowered to make provision for the abolition of corporations in

Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their

abolition, for securing the efficient and impartial administration

of justice, and the peace and good government of cities and towns in

Ireland. His lordship said, that in substituting abolition for the

process of restoration proposed by ministers, he was not withholding

from Ireland any of the benefits intended to be conferred on the other

parts of the kingdom by their new municipal institutions; and lie argued

generally that there was much in the situation of that country, and in

the state of its society, which distinguished it from England and other

nations, and which might render it, in certain cases, an unfit recipient

for institutions not essential in themselves to good government, and

only valuable as being machinery for that purpose. His motion was

seconded by Mr. Lefroy. The bill was defended by Lords John Russell,

Morpeth, and Hawick, Mr. O’Connell, and other members; and was attacked

by Lord Stanley, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, and Sirs Henry Hardinge and

James Graham. Mr. O’Connell insisted that Ireland must have justice; and

she would not have it if she was not treated as England and Scotland

had been treated. Lord Stanley said, that he felt some hesitation in

receiving Mr. O’Connell as the plenipotentiary of the people of Ireland

to treat with the British parliament. Lord John Russell closed the

debate on Lord Francis Egerton’s motion. On a division the motion was

lost by a majority of three hundred and seven against two hundred

and forty-three. In the committee none of the provisions of the bill

underwent any important alteration, except the allowing of sheriff’s in

the large boroughs to be chosen by the town-councils. Ministers listened

to the objections urged against this, and retained the nomination of

these officers in the power of the crown. The bill was finally passed

on the 28th of March, after another debate, by a majority of two hundred

and sixty to one hundred and ninety-nine.

A harder battle was, however, to be fought in the lords. On the second

reading Lord Lyndhurst expressed his willingness to go into committee,

but not with the intention of preserving the bill in all its present

features. He did not deny that evils existed in the Irish corporations,

but he wished to see some scheme adopted which would not only remove

those evils, but prevent the recurrence of others of a similar kind. The

present bill, however, was a bill to extend the system of exclusion, and

to aggravate all the violations to which justice was now exposed. The

town-councils would not consist of persons anxious for the preservation

of peace and the security of property, but would be filled with men

of the anti-church and Catholic party, advocates of the repeal of

the union, and of the separation of British and Irish interests.

His lordship argued that the five-pound qualification would increase

agitation, would aggrandise radical interests. If excitement, he said,

prevailed in Ireland at the election of members of parliament, how far

more prevalent would be the excitement which would attend the elections

of this bill. His lordship looked also, with alarm, at the formidable

power which the priesthood would gain by this bill; and the

town-councils, he contended, would be confined to a party of

inflammatory demagogues: justice itself would be poisoned at its source,

and corporate property devoted to anything but its legitimate purposes.

He concluded by sketching a plan similar to that which had been proposed

in the commons by Sir Robert Peel, and which he, or some of those with

whom he acted, would propose should be inserted in the bill in place

of the clauses containing the new corporations. The house went into

committee on the 26th of April, when Lord Fitzgerald moved, as had been

done in the commons, “That it be an instruction to the committee to

make provision for the abolition of such corporations, and for such

arrangements as may be necessary on their abolition for securing the

efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and

good government of cities and towns in Ireland.” The lord-chancellor and

Lords Holland and Melbourne spoke against this motion; and Lords Abinger

and Lyndhurst supported it.. The motion was carried by a majority of

two hundred and three against one hundred and nineteen. The committee

proceeded on the 9th of May, and the first clause, repealing “all acts,

charters, and customs inconsistent with this act,” was agreed to; and

the existing corporations were thus abolished. Lord Lyndhurst moved

certain amendments on the second clause, which reserved the rights of

freemen; and after some debate these were carried by a majority of one

hundred and seven against fifty-three. Another debate and division took

place on the 22nd clause, which enacted that the boroughs should have

a mayor, and a certain number of councillors and aldermen, as they were

arranged in the schedules. This was struck out. And on the third reading

of the bill, the Duke of Richmond proposed limiting the bill to seven

of the largest towns. This motion, it was said, was not made by any

arrangement or communication with the ministry. Government had never

intended to preclude itself from inquiring to what towns corporate

powers should be extended. What they were most anxious to preserve

was, the corporation principle in Ireland. If that were maintained, the

Marquis of Lansdowne said, he should not argue that corporations ought

to be continued in the small towns: if any difference was to be made,

it ought to be in favour of the large towns, because it was there that

corporations must be useful if they were good for anything. The motion,

however, was negatived; and the bill, having thus been brought into the

form which the minority in the lower house had endeavoured to give it,

was sent down on the 19th of May to the commons.

In moving that the lords’ amendments should be printed, Lord John

Russell stated that, however willing he might be to come to some

arrangement in regard to the constitution of the franchise, he would

never consent to deprive Ireland of municipal government altogether,

thereby stigmatising and degrading its people. The Radicals were very

violent, boldly maintaining that there required an “organic change” in

the house of lords. The amendments were moved, by Lord John Russell, to

be taken into consideration on the 9th of June. The bill, he said, as

amended, contained little or nothing of the bill which had been sent up

to the lords. Out of one hundred and forty clauses, one hundred and

six had been in substance omitted, while eighteen others had been

introduced. A bill had been put up for regulating and renewing

corporations in Ireland on the same conditions as in England and

Scotland; they had received back a bill which abolished them entirely,

but which preserved to many of the persons who held office in these

bodies all the power and profit of their situations. In order to meet

the concurrence of the lords, however, instead of abolishing the whole

of the corporations, it was proposed that the larger towns, originally

divided between schedules A and B should be placed in one, and that all

the clauses for the government of corporate towns should be restored

to the bill, with the view of applying them to these particular towns.

These towns would be Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Gal way, Kilkenny, Limerick,

Waterford, Clonmel, Drogheda, Londonderry, Sligo, and Carrickfergus. In

regard to the other towns, he would not give them corporations; but at

the same time he would not leave them subject to the provisions of the

lords’ bill. He proposed rather, that the provisions of the act of 1828

should be applied immediately to twenty-two of the towns in schedule

C, and that so soon as the five-pound householders in these towns

had chosen commissioners, the corporate property, and the right of

appointing to the necessary offices should vest in the commissioners.

There would be commissioners elected by the inhabitants, instead of

being appointed by the lord-lieutenant. In regard to the remaining

boroughs of schedule C, as they possessed but little property, he would

neither subject them to the expense of a corporation, nor compel them to

elect commissioners under the act of 1828; but would leave it to them

to have recourse to the latter, if they thought fit. The lords had made

other alterations in other clauses of the bill, regarding the granting

of quarter-sessions, &c.; but these alterations did not impair the

spirit of the original bill, and therefore he would not quarrel with

them. The difference which still remained between them was one of

principle—should there be municipal governments or not? He thought

that municipal government, placed on a popular basis, and under popular

control, was excellent and useful in itself; and that in Ireland it

would tend to public tranquillity, by assuaging jealousies, and removing

causes of discontent. His lordship concluded by moving the rejection

of the amendment of the lords on the fourth clause, which implied the

continuance of corporations, and which the peers had therefore expunged.

This motion led to another debate of two days’ duration, in which all

the topics previously discussed were again brought forward; superadded

to which were many reflections on the house of lords, and on Lord

Lyndhurst in particular. On a division, the motion to reject the

amendment on the lords was carried by three hundred and twenty-four

against one hundred and twenty-eight; and on the 13th and 14th of June,

the bill was brought back to the shape proposed by ministers in so far

as regarded corporations being limited to the twelve towns mentioned by

Lord John Russell. Subsequently, a committee was appointed to draw up

the reasons of the house for not agreeing to the amendment of the peers;

and the amended bill was delivered to the lords at a conference on the

17th of June. On the 27th, Lord Melbourne moved that the amendments

of the commons should be agreed to, which motion was met by a direct

negative by Lord Lyndhurst. The motion was lost by a majority of two

hundred and twenty against one hundred and twenty-one; and the bill

was then sent back to the commons, with the reasons of the lords for

adhering to their own amendments. Finally, on the 30th of June, Lord

John Russell moved, and the house agreed, that the amendment should be

taken into consideration that day three months, and thus the bill was

dropped.

THE IRISH TITHE-BILL.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Another great party measure was the Irish tithe-bill. Ministers

reintroduced this measure on the 25th of April. It was brought forward

by Lord Morpeth, the Irish secretary, who moved this resolution:—“That

it is expedient to commute the composition of tithes in Ireland into a

rent-charge, payable by the owners of the estate, and to make further

provisions for the better regulation of ecclesiastical dues and

revenues.” In opening the scheme which ministers intended to

incorporate in their bill, Lord Morpeth announced that the principle of

appropriation would still be declared and acted on. The bill, he said,

would follow the uniform precedent of three previous bills, and

he believed of four successive administrations, in converting the

tithe-composition into a rent-charge, payable by the owners of the first

estate of inheritance, as it was termed. The bill would also preserve

those terms of commutation which, in the bill of last year, had been

adopted by both houses of parliament, by conferring a deduction

of thirty per cent, upon those subject to the payment of the

tithe-composition. He would not propose any contribution from the

national funds towards payment of the arrears of former years; and, on

the other hand, he would abandon all claims for repayment of the sums

which had been advanced to tithe-owners under the million act, and

which amounted to £637,000. Ministers proposed, he said, to entrust

the collection of rent-charges to the board of woods and forests for a

period of seven years, and thereafter until parliament should otherwise

determine. The bill would also contain the provisions for allowing a

revaluation of the present tithe-composition in the cases and under

the limitations specified in the bill of last year. These were the

arrangements to be enacted in regard to existing incumbents. As regarded

the future regulation of the church revenues, government felt that they

could not abandon those declarations and principles with which they

entered upon office; that they could not shake off the engagement under

which they conceived themselves to stand, of doing justice to the Irish

nation; and the terms of that virtual and most honourable compact they

conceived to be that if, in the future disposition of the revenues of

the Irish church, something superfluous for its legitimate and becoming

uses should arise, they should, after the satisfaction of all existing

interests, apply that superfluity to the religious and moral education

of the people. He felt that he might consider the principle as

established and conceded, that parliament had a right to deal with the

revenues of the church, if it should think them superfluous for church

purposes; so long as the resolution adopted by the present parliament

stood upon their books unrepealed, he had a right to think that that

principle was admitted. It was now proposed by government, he continued,

that on any future vacancy of a benefice, providing, as before,

compensation for the patronage of private individuals in possession

of the avowson, the lord-lieutenant should direct the board of

ecclesiastical commissioners, now sitting in Dublin, to submit to

the privy-council a report containing all particulars concerning such

benefice; and a committee of the privy-council would be established with

a view to this especial purpose, consisting exclusively of members of

the established church, and named by his majesty. Power would be given

to this committee to alter the boundaries of vacant benefices, subject

to such modifications as subsequent vacancies of contiguous benefices

might render advisable to carry into effect. Since the year 1718

the lord-lieutenant and the privy-council had united two hundred and

eighty-nine parishes, consisting of the union of two or more parishes.

The committee, after fixing the boundaries, were to apportion such

income as they might think proper relative to the duties of the future

incumbents, but within certain limitations. Where the number of the

members of the established church varied from 500 to 1000, the income

would be £300; and where the number varied from 1000 to 3000, the income

would be £400. Where the number of Protestants amounted to 3000 and

upwards, the income would be raised to £500; but wherever the number

was below 50, it was proposed to assign to the incumbent an income not

exceeding £100. After thus providing for the Protestant establishment,

his lordship said that there would still be a considerable surplus of

ecclesiastical revenue. The tithes payable to the clergy at present

were £511,000, which, remitting thirty per cent, left a rent-charge of

£353,000. The ministers’ money might be stated at £10,000, without the

expenses of collection; the private bounty fund, £5000; glebe-lands,

clear revenue, £86,500; total, £459,550. There were 1385 benefices in

Ireland, a considerable number of which were sinecures, not merely from

the circumstance of having no members of the church of England within

their locality, but also from the fact that they were in the hands of

the dignitaries of the church, who performed little or no service

in them. There were also many which had been suppressed by the

church-temporalities act, divine service not having been performed in

them for three years. Perhaps the number necessary to keep up would be

about 1250. It was intended, indeed, under this bill, to give power to

the privy-council to constitute new benefices in Ireland, of which they

were likely to avail themselves to some extent. The whole payment to be

made to the clergy of the 1250 benefices he calculated at £361,928,

thus leaving a surplus of £97,612. This was a larger surplus than he had

hoped for last year; but as the committee of the privy-council would, in

certain cases, have the power to constitute new benefices, this surplus

would be likely to undergo some alteration. It would also be remembered

that no part of the surplus could be expected to be realised for some

time to come, from the necessity of satisfying vested interests, and of

making other important arrangements. After satisfying all the charges

that must be met, it was proposed to have the remainder paid into the

consolidated fund, upon which a charge of £50,000 per annum was to be

fixed, for the purpose of supplying religious and moral education to the

people of Ireland. The second reading was delayed till the 1st of June,

when Lord Stanley, who had previously given notice of his intention,

moved this amendment:—“That leave be given to bring in a bill for the

conversion of tithe into a rent-charge, and for the redemption thereof,

and for the better distribution of ecclesiastical revenues in Ireland.”

In reply, Lord John Eussell reminded the house that he had expressed his

willingness to allow Lord Stanley to bring in his bill as a substantive

measure; but when it was moved as an amendment on the original motion

before them, it was merely a new form of opposing the second reading of

the government bill, and raising the question on the principle of that

bill. They had been appealed to as gentlemen, but he hoped they were

something more; that they were representatives of popular feelings and

popular interests—representatives, not of local bodies, but of the

whole empire, including the six millions of Roman Catholics in Ireland.

In conclusion, Lord John Russell said that it had been asked, whether he

meant the income of the glebe-lands generally, or in part, to go towards

giving glebe to the Roman Catholic church? He gave a distinct answer

in the negative; government had no intention of providing, out of any

surplus of glebe-lands in Ireland, glebe-lands for the Roman Catholic

church. The debate continued by adjournment on the 2nd and 3rd of June,

the ministerial measure being defended by Lord Morpeth, the chancellor

of the exchequer, Messrs. O’Connell, Shiel, Ward, and others; and that

of Lord Stanley being supported by Sergeant Jackson, Sirs James Graham,

and E. Peel, and Mr. Lefroy, and others. The most remarkable speeches

delivered in this debate were those of Mr. O’Connell and Sir Robert

Peel. The debate was closed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who

complained that the opposition fixed upon ministers all the opinions of

those who supported the bill. On a division, ministers had a majority of

thirty-nine; the votes for the second reading being three hundred, and

for Lord Stanley’s amendment, two hundred and sixty-one. A motion was

made on the 1st of July for going into committee on the bill, on

which day the ultimate designs and the real wishes of the Papists were

disclosed by Mr. Crawford, who moved the following resolutions:—“1.

That it is expedient that tithes, and all compositions for tithes in

Ireland should cease, and be for ever extinguished, compensations being

first made for all existing interests, whether lay or ecclesiastical;

and that it is also expedient that measures should be adopted to render

the revenues of the church lands more productive, and more available

for the support of the working clergy of the establishment; and that all

persons not in communion with the established church of Ireland should

be relieved from all assessment for its support. 2. That it is expedient

that the moneys necessary for the aforesaid compensation (estimated at

£2,500,000) should be advanced out of the public revenue, and afterwards

repaid by instalments from the proceeds of a tax to be imposed on

profit-rents; such tax to cease and determine as soon as the said debt

shall be paid.” These resolutions, however, were rejected by a majority

of fifty-one against eighteen. In the committee the Irish leader

betrayed his conviction that it would be impossible either to pass the

bill, or to make it the means of raising any popular excitement against

the house of lords. On the discussion of the first clause, he said, that

to discuss anything was only waste of time; for it was clear that no

measure for the pacification of Ireland, whether respecting tithes or

anything else, was likely to pass. Any bill containing solid relief

was sure to be destroyed; they were legislating in despair. He himself

intended to have proposed several amendments; but he should not do so,

as there could be no doubt the lords would throw out the bill. The only

debate which took place in the committee arose on the question, whether

the appropriation clause should stand part of the bill. The arguments

adopted were a repetition of all that had been formerly urged,

diversified with a few new illustrations, and some acrimony of

expression. The clause was retained on a division by a majority of two

hundred and ninety against two hundred and sixty-four. The bill was

finally read a third time, and passed on the 15th of July.

The second reading was moved in the lords on the 22nd of July. Lord

Melbourne briefly explained its provisions, observing that it was not

necessary for him to go into any lengthened argument on the subject.

It was read a second time without opposition, the Duke of Wellington

declaring that he was prepared to consider it in committee, with a view

to make such amendments as might render it consistent with the interests

of the church and the people. The house went into committee on the

25th, and the bill was passed on the 28th. When passed, however, all the

provisions for what was called appropriation were struck out, and all

the other important arrangements in the bill were modified. By the bill

the clergy were only to receive seventy per cent.; the lords raised it

to seventy-five; they raised also the minimum stipend to be paid in any

benefice to £300. In this shape the bill was sent down to the commons.

Lord John Russell brought the amendments of the lords before that house

on the 2nd of August, when he started a question of privilege, as if the

lords had interfered with a money-bill, thereby leaving the commons no

other choice than to reject it, independently of the merits or demerits

of the alterations which had been introduced. He entered subsequently

into the merits of the amendments at large; and having explained them,

he said, it was for the house to say whether, after having solemnly

affirmed certain principles, it would, because the lords had rejected

them, yield them up, and then endeavour to agree with the lords in the

alterations of this bill, or in the provisions of a new measure. For

himself, he would say, that if the members of the house of commons

were to go up to the bar of the house of lords in such humble guise,

admitting that they had been in error, and that the wisdom of the house

of lords had taught them a lesson of policy they had never learned

before, he, for one, would not accompany the commons on such a message.

Sir Robert Peel, who followed the home-secretary, moved as an amendment

that the lords’ amendments should now be taken into consideration; but,

after a brief debate, the motion for rejecting the bill was carried by

a majority of two hundred and sixty against two hundred and thirty-one.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES IN ENGLAND.

One of the leading measures of the session, as regarded England, was for

the commutation of tithes; a measure which was brought forward for the

relief of the dissenters. The ministerial plan for the commutation of

tithes was brought before the house of commons by Lord John Russell

on the 9th of February. The subject, he said, consisted of two parts:

namely, the principles on which the commutation should be made, and the

machinery by which it was to be carried into execution. The machinery,

he confessed, would be borrowed from Sir Robert Peel’s bill of last

year. There would be a central board of commissioners, consisting of

three persons, for the purpose of arranging the question of commutation;

and this board would have power to appoint assistant-commissioners to a

certain extent, and in certain cases, in the same manner as the poor-law

commissioners. His lordship admitted that the selection of the principle

on which the commutation should proceed was a subject attended with much

difficulty. In the plan government proposed, their object had been to

produce as little disturbance as possible in existing interests, not

to diminish violently or excessively the income now enjoyed by the

tithe-owners, and to produce some uniformity in the mode of calculating

and valuing tithe throughout England and Wales. As in the bill of last

year, any landowner would be allowed to agree with the tithe-owner for

a commutation of his tithe; and having made such an agreement, he would

stand to the tenant in the relation not only of landlord, but likewise

of tithe-owner. He also proposed that it should be competent for the

possessor or possessors of one-fourth of the value of the tithe to call

a meeting of the owners of land in the parish, at which parties might be

represented as they now were under the poor-law act. When three-fourths

in value of the owners of tithe agreed with three-fourths in value of

the owners of land, they would have power to make an agreement binding

on the whole parish, if no person appealed against it within a certain

period. If any person appealed, it should still be binding against those

who did not appeal. The parties appealing would be compelled to appear

before the assistant-commissioners, who, on hearing their statements,

would make an award, which award, on the ratification of the central

board, would become binding on the parish. If, at the end of a certain

period, he would say six months, no such agreement were made between

the tithe-owners and the tithe-payers, it would be competent for any

landowner, or any tithe-owner, to ask the commissioners to make such a

general award on the tithes of the parish. When such a demand was made,

an assistant-commissioner would be authorised to examine what had been

the amount of tithes, and what had been the expense of collecting the

tithes for the last seven years; he would then declare the amount of

tithes so paid for the last seven years, and that amount would be

represented by a certain quantity of wheat, barley, and oats. If any

person should appeal against this declaration, on the ground that the

amount fixed for the tithes on the composition did not fairly represent

their value, the assistant-commissioner would make an estimate of the

value of the tithes for the seven years previous, and ascertain the

actual gross value of them for that period. If it should appear that

the sum of tithes taken in any parish during a period of seven years

exceeded seventy-five per cent, of the gross value, then it would be

competent to the commissioners to determine that the commutation should

amount to seventy-five per cent. of the gross value, and no more, and

they would reduce the sum accordingly; if, on the contrary, it appeared

that the amount taken was less than sixty per cent, of the gross value

of the tithe, the commissioners would be authorised to raise the sum to

sixty per cent., and to declare that that should be the amount of the

future charge. If the sum paid was between these two limits, it should

be competent to the commissioners to make such an award as they thought

the circumstances and the justice of the case required. In some cases

tithes had been taken to such an extent as ought not to form the basis

of a permanent charge; and, on the other hand, there were instances, as

had been satisfactorily established by undoubted evidence, of clergymen

who did not receive more than forty or fifty per cent, of the amount to

which they were entitled. It appeared just to interfere in these cases;

and he thought it right to fix a sum to be taken hereafter, which should

not exceed or fall below a certain amount, in proportion to the gross

value of the tithe. It was open for consideration, whether sixty or

seventy-five pounds were the proper minimum and maximum: he referred

to these sums only as illustrating the principle. In certain cases,

however, a special regulation would be required, as tithes on hops,

orchards, and gardens, on which the tithes were extremely high. He

proposed giving the commissioners the power of taking certain hop

districts, in order to ascertain the average tithe of the last seven

years, and fix the amount in future. They would also have the power of

declaring what the tithe of any particular land or property should be,

supposing hop cultivation to be abandoned; and it was provided that in

cases where land should be brought into hop cultivation anew, it should

be subject to an additional payment of fifteen shillings an acre on

account of tithe. As regarded orchards and gardens, he had not been able

to settle a particular provision on the subject, although he admitted

lands thus cultivated were particularly circumstanced. The tithe thus

commuted, Lord John Russell continued, would become a rent-charge,

payable by the landowner according to the value of grain: thus—the

average prices for seven years of wheat, barley, and oats would be

published at certain periods by the comptroller of corn returns; this

publication would take place every year, and the payment of rent-charge

made in lieu of tithe would be varied accordingly. The prices of three

different kinds of grain were taken, for the purpose of ascertaining the

value and amount of the charge, so that if an individual were chargeable

with £300 for tithe, one-third would be estimated by the price of wheat,

one-third by that of barley, and the remaining third by the price of

oats, which would be giving each a fair proportion in the gross amount.

Finally, the intended bill did not deal, his lordship said, with the

question of redemption of the rent-charge; that was an important and

difficult subject, and would require to be dealt with in a separate

measure after the commutations should have been made, and the charge

ascertained. Sir Robert Peel said that he would not object to the

measure being introduced, since he thought himself entitled to say that

it was taken in great part from his bill of last year. The whole of its

machinery was, in fact, adopted, and to a certain extent likewise, its

principle of voluntary commutation. The bill passed the second

reading on the 22nd of February without any division, although various

objections were stated, both as to its principles and details; the

former being chiefly directed against the compulsory nature of the

commutation. When the bill went into committee, ministers made several

alterations in its provisions. Thus the period during which voluntary

commutations might be entered into was extended from six months to

twelve; and the clauses under which a single landholder might compel a

commutation in regard to his own property, while there was none for

the rest of the parish, were given up; it was now proposed that a fixed

proportion of the landowners should have power to enter into a voluntary

agreement, which, after a certain time, should become binding on the

whole parish. A great deal of hostility, however, was still expressed

against the measure, and that even among the ordinary supporters of

government. Mr. Hume maintained that no good bill could be enacted till

the corn-laws were repealed, since they had given land and its produce

an artificial value; and as their repeal was anticipated, this measure

would inflict great injury on the landowners, unless the value of the

tithe was fixed much lower than was done by the bill. Great opposition

was also manifested to the maximum and minimum of seventy-five and sixty

pounds, and fixing them merely by the average of the preceding seven

years, but the clause was retained. On the bringing up of the report,

however, government proposed a modification of the clause, to the effect

that the commissioners, on receiving a representation that the sum paid

was not a fair composition, should ascertain the gross value of the

tithe, and should have power to raise or diminish the sum to be paid in

future, but not beyond one-fifth of the sum paid during the

preceding seven years. Some amendments of minor importance were moved

subsequently, but were rejected; and the bill having gone up to the

lords, was read a second time without opposition, and was passed on the

22nd, both sides of the house approving of its general principles.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said, he thought the bill would be very

beneficial in its effects, relieving the land from the pressure of

tithes, and doing justice to the clergy, and as little liable to

objection as any measure that could be framed on a subject so difficult

and so complicated. With respect to those lands which might be brought

into cultivation as agriculture improved, and for which the bill made no

provision, he agreed that to give the clergy a tithe on such land would

be to prevent the general object of the bill—the expenditure of

capital on the land; but when waste lands were enclosed and brought into

profitable cultivation, he could see no reason why such steps should not

be taken in favour of the clergy as were usual in other cases, and why

a portion of the land should not be given to them. His grace accordingly

moved, in the committee, an amendment to the effect, that when waste

or common lands should be enclosed, the commissioners should assign a

certain portion of the land to the tithe-owner instead of his tithe.

This was objected to on both sides of the house, and the amendment was

negatived without a division. The bill passed, and the few alterations

which had been made in the lords were agreed to with one exception. The

peers had agreed to an amendment giving tithe on cows fed in stalls and

sheds. This was rejected; and the lords, when the bill returned to them,

did not insist upon its retention.

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

On the 12th of February Lord John Russell brought in bills for relieving

dissenters from the necessity of celebrating their marriages according

to the forms of the church of England, and for establishing a system of

registration of marriages, births, and deaths. His lordship stated

that the two bills were not connected with each other, but that the

establishment of a proper system of registration was, in his opinion,

an indispensable pre-requisite to any measure for removing from the

dissenters their grievances relative to marriage. It was further,

he said, an important object, in a national point of view, to have a

general scheme of registration. At present there were no registry of

births, but only of baptisms; no registry of marriages, because they

were only such marriages as were performed by ministers of the church of

England; and no registry of burials, as the only burials registered

were those in which the service was performed by clergymen of the

establishment. He argued that it was necessary we should have a

registration, which should comprehend, indifferently and impartially,

all sects of the people. The late change effected in our domestic

policy, he continued, seemed to furnish the means of attaining this

end without any heavy additional expense. By the poor-law amendment act

there were two hundred and twenty-eight unions already in England and

Wales; and it might be calculated that, when the whole country was

divided into unions, there would be more than eight hundred. In every

union there was a relieving-officer, each union consisting of about

twenty parishes, and containing from sixteen to twenty thousand

inhabitants. There was likewise an auditor appointed by the board of

guardians. Now the government proposed that the poor-law commissioners

should have the power of appointing the relieving-officer, or any other

person whom they might think fit, to keep the register of a certain

number of parishes; and the auditor of the union, or his clerk, or any

other person appointed by the poor-law commissioners, should superintend

the register of that part. There would further be a registry-office

in each county, and a chief office in London, subject, however, to the

authority of the poor-law commissioners. The superintendent in each

union was to send the registers to the county office every two months,

and copies would be transmitted thence to the central office in London.

As regarded the manner in which the registration was to be made, his

lordship said, that the bill would require notice to be given by the

occupier of the house in which the child was born within eight days

after that event had taken place, and that within fifteen or twenty days

the registrar might call upon either the father or mother of the child,

or upon the occupier of the house, to give him certain particulars, in

order to fill up accurately the register in respect to that child. The

person who furnished these particulars would also be required to furnish

the name of the child; if that was declined at the time, and withheld

to a future period, it would be necessary to postpone it, and the

party would be obliged to produce to the registrar a certificate of the

baptism of the child, and to pay him a fee of one shilling for making

the entry. In cases of death likewise the occupier would have to give

an account of the deaths which happened in his house—of the time and

circumstances of the event—in the same manner as was provided in the

case of birth. The registrar, within a certain time, would also call

upon the next of kin, or any person living in the house, to furnish

him with further particulars with respect to the death, the age of

the deceased, information as to what part of the country the deceased

belonged to, and all such other information as was usual and material in

such cases. Persons who gave this information would not be required

to pay any fees for the entry, or, indeed, for anything; but copies or

certificates of the entry at any time afterwards supplied would have to

be paid for. Every registrar would receive two shillings and sixpence

for each name entered by him within twenty days after birth or death,

and one shilling extra after that time, and the superintendent of the

registrar would be paid twopence on each entry. It was calculated that

altogether there would be about 812,000 entries made in the course of

one year, and that the amount paid to the registrars thereon would be

somewhat more than £40,000. The total expense, including superintendents

and the register-office in London, would amount to about £80,000 per

annum. For the present the lords of the treasury would be empowered to

pay the expenses of the central register-office in London; the future

expenses would be borne by the parishes, according to the number of

entries supplied by each. Lord John Russell next proceeded to state

the provisions of the registration of marriages. He laid it down as a

principle that the state had no interest in the form of the marriage

ceremony, beyond that of its being binding on the consciences of the

parties. When it was ascertained that due notice of the contract had

been given, according to the form requisite to be followed by all

parties, that the contract was duly registered, and that the manner in

which that contract was entered into was binding upon the consciences of

the parties to it, then the state had learned all that it was essential

or necessary for it to know. The law of the country, however, as it at

present stood, took a very different view. By the marriage law of

1754 it was declared that a marriage, in order to be valid, must be

performed—after bans published in the church, or licence granted by

authority—in the church, within certain hours, except under a special

licence, and in all cases by a clergyman of the church of England. This

law he considered as an unnecessary violation of conscience, and he

proposed to leave the marriages of the members of the church of

England as they were under the present law, and to allow the Protestant

dissenters to be married in their own chapels, according to the

religious form most acceptable to themselves. Instead of the

publication of bans, he proposed that all persons, whether of the church

establishment or Protestant dissenters, should give notice of their

intention to marry to the registrar, and that their names should be

entered by him in a notice-book, open to inspection for twenty-one days

prior to the celebration; but that persons intending to marry by licence

would be required to give only eight days’ notice; and special licences,

issued under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, would still

be retained. If the parties were unknown to the registrar, some person

known to him would be required to declare that they were the parties

they professed themselves to be. After the names had remained twenty-one

days on the notice, the registrar would have to give them a notice to

that effect, and the marriage might be celebrated within three months

from that date. If the parties were members of the church of England,

the clergyman, on the production of the certificate within the period,

would be empowered to perform the ceremony without the publication of

bans; or, if the parties were dissenters, they would be at liberty to

go to a dissenting chapel with the certificate of notice, and, on its

production, the ceremony would there be solemnized. The chapel, however,

must first be duly licensed, on the application of at least twenty

householders, who must declare that it was a dissenting chapel, used as

a place of worship, and that they desired it to be licensed for the

celebration of marriages. It was further proposed that as a dissenting

minister was not known so well as a clergyman of the church of England,

and that as he might take upon himself the office and lay it down again,

the registrar should be present at such marriages, and should afterwards

enter the names of the parties on the registry. To those who considered

marriage to be altogether a civil contract, he would give something

like what had been proposed last year by Sir Robert Peel, with this

exception, that the parties, instead of going before a magistrate, would

go before the registrar of marriages for the district in which they

resided, who would enter the marriage contracted before him in a form

of words set out in the bill. In respect to the registration of other

marriages, the only difference between members of the establishment and

dissenters would be this—that the established clergyman might enter the

certificate of marriage in his own register, and send a duplicate copy

thereof to the superior registrar of the district, to be forwarded by

him to London; while, in the case of dissenters, it would be required

that the ceremony should be performed in the presence of the registrar,

who would certify that the marriage had taken place after a compliance

with all the forms.

The bills were brought in, and were read a second time on the 15th

of April without any opposition. The registration bill passed through

committee without any important alteration; and the house of lords

passed it on the 15th of August, with several amendments, to which the

commons agreed. In the committee on the marriage bill, it was proposed

to continue the publication of bans in rural districts, as a more

effective means of giving notice to families interested in preventing

a clandestine marriage than a register, which would require to be

daily examined. It was also proposed to allow a dissenting chapel to be

licensed for marriage purposes on the application of ten householders

belonging to the congregation, instead of twenty, because there were

many such chapels which did not contain ten householders. Both these

propositions were rejected, as was also a motion for the rejection of

the clause which allowed persons who objected to marry in church, or

in a registered meeting-house, to marry at the office of the registrar.

This clause was objected to on the ground that it altered the whole

marriage law of England, and separated the contract of marriage from all

religious sanction; but a large majority decided in its favour. On the

third reading Mr. Goulburn moved the insertion of a clause requiring, in

all cases where marriages were not solemnized in a church or chapel, nor

according to the rites of the church of England, that the parties should

make the following declaration:—“I do solemnly declare that I have

conscientious scruples against the solemnization of marriage according

to the rites and ceremonies of the church of England.” This motion,

however, was rejected by a large majority, and another was carried,

which went to reject the eighteenth clause of the bill, which required

persons married before the registrar solemnly to declare that their had

conscientious scruples against marrying in either church or chapel, or

with any religious ceremony. Sir Robert Peel said, that the bill thus

altered had assumed an entirely different aspect; while it provided

for the relief of the dissenters, it passed a gratuitous and most

intolerable insult on the feelings and principles of the members of the

church of England. Lord Lincoln, after making similar remarks, moved, as

an amendment, that the bill should be read that day six months; but the

third reading was carried by one hundred and four against fifty-four. In

the lords the second reading encountered no opposition, objections to it

being reserved for the committee. In the committee the Bishop of Exeter

moved, in order to avoid the desecration of the marriage contract when

the ceremony was not performed in church, that the parties should make

the following declaration:—“In the presence of Almighty God and these

witnesses, I, M., do take thee, N., to be my wedded wife, according to

God’s holy ordinance; and I do here, in the presence of God, solemnly

promise, before these witnesses, to be to thee a loving and faithful

husband during life,” instead of, as it stood in the bill, “I call upon

these persons here present to witness that, I, A. B., do take thee, C.

D., to be my lawful, wedded wife.” This amendment was carried; but

on the bringing up of the report, the bill, on the motion of Lord

Melbourne, was restored in this respect to what it had formerly

been. The lords, however, struck out that provision of the bill which

abolished the proclamation of bans, and they enacted with regard to all

marriages of members of the established church, that bans should still

be proclaimed. They likewise enacted that the superintendent of each

district should send to the clerks of the unions the names of all

persons who gave notice of their intention to marry, they being

Protestant dissenters, and that their names should be read weekly, for

three successive weeks, at the meetings of the guardians of the poor.

Finally, in some parts of the bill they introduced an oath in

place of a declaration, and required the interference of the

superintendent-registrar, instead of the registrar. Some of these

amendments were very unfavourably received by the dissenting interest in

the commons, and an amendment was carried expunging the enactment

that the names of dissenters intending to marry, should be read by

the guardians of the poor at their weekly meetings. To all the other

amendments of the lords, the commons, on the advice of Lord John

Russell, agreed.

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

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

During the administration of Sir Robert Peel, a commission had been

appointed to inquire what useful changes, if any, could be introduced in

the ecclesiastical condition of the church of England, so as to remove

anomalies which might still exist in it, and insure more effective

pastoral superintendence. This commission had made a first report before

Sir Robert Peel had resigned, and on the occurrence of that event his

successors continued it, though its official members were changed. The

second report was presented to both houses early in the present session,

when it appeared that the inquiries of the committee had been threefold:

first, their recommendations referred to the ecclesiastical division

of territory, and the revenues of the different sees; secondly, to the

cathedral and collegiate revenues, which it was desirable should be made

more useful for the church establishment; and, lastly, the residence

of clergymen on their benefices. During this session Lord John Russell

introduced into the lower house a bill founded on those recommendations,

which regarded the new modelling of the episcopal sees in relation to

territory and income; and at a later period, another measure was

brought in, providing for the suppression of cathedral and collegiate

preferments, and sinecure benefices. A third measure was likewise

brought into the house of lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to

carry into effect the recommendations of the commissioners regarding

pluralities and non-residence.

The bill concerning the territories and revenues of the diocesses, or

the established church bill, recited those parts of the reports of the

commissioners which set forth the proposed alterations among the sees,

and deductions from their revenues. The first of these reports had

recommended a different territorial arrangement of diocesses, with

the view of making them more equal; the suppression of two sees; the

erection of two others, those of Manchester and Ripon, in their places;

and that the revenues of the sees—the two archbishoprics, and the sees

of London, Durham, and Winchester excepted, should not exceed £5500,

nor fall below £4500. The second report proposed that the diocess

of Bristol, which, according to the previous recommendation, was to

comprehend part of the diocess of Llandaff, should be united, as far as

respected Bristol, with the diocess of Bath and Wells; and, as far

as respected the remaining portion of the see, with the bishopric of

Gloucester. It was further proposed that the Isle of Man should be

united with the bishopric of Carlisle. With regard to the revenues,

the second report recommended that the income of the Archbishop of

Canterbury should be reduced from £17,000 to £15,000; of the see of

London, from £12,200 to £10,000; of Durham, from £17,800 to £8000; of

Winchester, from £10,700 to £7000; of Ely, from £11,000 to £7500; and of

Worcester, from £6500 to £5000. The excess produced by these deductions

was to be divided among thirteen sees, so as to make their respective

revenues range between £5500 and £4500 per annum. It was further

suggested that some useful measure might be proposed with respect to the

mode of granting leases; but this was a subject which the commission had

found extremely difficult in treating with, and therefore they had not

agreed upon any proposition. After reciting these various parts of the

reports of the commissioners, Lord John Russell’s bill incorporated

a board of commissioners under the style of “the ecclesiastical

commissioners for England,” which board was composed of spiritual and

lay peers, of the lord-chancellor, the president of the council, and

first lord of the treasury, of the chancellor of the exchequer, and

such of the secretaries of state as his majesty might name for the

time being, and of the right honourable Henry Hobhouse and Sir Herbert

Jenner. The bill further enacted that the commissioners from time to

time should lay before the king in council such schemes as should appear

to them to be best adapted for carrying into effect the before-cited

recommendations, and such measures as should appear to them necessary

for the proper execution of these schemes, with a power of making such

modifications and variations in matters of detail, as might not be

repugnant to the recommendations themselves. When any such scheme had

been approved of by his majesty, it was to be ratified by an order of

the king in council, published in the _Gazette_, and recorded by the

registrars in the diocesses, and was thereafter to be of the same force

and effect as if every part of it had been included in this act. A

clause was inserted, enacting that in future no bishop should hold _in

commendam_ any ecclesiastical office, dignity, or benefice, all

such grants being declared null and void; and by another clause the

commissioners were directed to prepare a scheme for preventing the

appointment of clergymen not fully conversant with the Welsh language,

to any benefice in Wales, with the cure of souls, where the majority of

the inhabitants of the parish did not understand English. On the motion

for going into the committee on tire bill, the second reading of which

had encountered no opposition, Lord John Russell entered at considerable

length into this measure, and likewise the other two bills which were

to accompany it in reforming the church. It would be mere repetition

to record his expressions on the first measure; but passing to the

recommendation of the commissioners for suppressing collegiate and

cathedral charges, and benefices without the cure of souls, he said,

that the income which would become available from these sources would be

£130,000. In making a new application of this revenue, the first regard

would be given to the wants and circumstances of the parishes from which

the revenue was derived. The want of church accommodation in many places

was lamentable. With respect to patronage, Lord John Russell added,

it was proposed that instead of the large number of livings now in the

hands of the dean and chapters, for the future they should only have the

power either of appointing one of their own body, or one of their minor

canons to benefices; but if they were not accepted, they should, after

three months, be disposed of by the crown in some cases, and by the

bishop of the diocess in others. With respect to the patronage of the

crown, by which the church was connected with the state, he thought

it would be a great evil to have the church totally independent of the

state. Patronage was one of the means by which the church was united to

the state, and by which the latter was bound to promote the interest and

welfare of the church; and on the other hand the clergy were enlisted

in the common cause and general policy of the state. He considered also

that the patronage in the hands of bishops and individuals was useful;

and the commissioners had proposed that the patronage in the hands of

cleans, prebends, and residentiaries, should go into the hands of the

bishops. On the motion for going into committee the bill was inveighed

against as a mockery of reform, which still left the church too wealthy;

merely making a new distribution among the bishops, instead of a

reduction; not only not taking sufficient from the richer bishoprics,

but giving what it even did take to the other bishops, instead of

bestowing it on the poor and working clergy. The bill passed through the

committee on the 14th; and on the bringing up of the report, Mr. Hume

moved that it should be considered that day three months. This motion

was rejected by a majority of more than two to one; and Mr. C. Buller

then moved a clause, to the effect that, until due provision should have

been made for the adequate payment of the parochial clergy, and for the

supply of religious instruction to those parts of the country stated in

the report of the commissioners to be destitute thereof, the Archbishop

of Canterbury should receive an income of not more than £8000; the

Archbishop of York, £7000; the Bishop of London, £4500; and each of

the other bishops £4000. This proposition was rejected by a majority of

eighty-two against forty-four; but the resistance of ministers seemed

only to increase the opposition of their radical opponents. On the

motion for the third reading, Mr. Hume moved, as an amendment, that the

bill should be read a third time that day six months. It was impossible,

he said, that the bill could pass; and if ministers thought it would be

passed, they would find themselves mistaken, and do great injury to the

liberal cause which they professed to advocate; such a bill was not to

be passed while the pledges of the government in regard to the church

remained unredeemed. Mr. T. Duncombe bitterly reproached ministers for

their supposed dereliction of principle; they might talk as they chose

of their Irish tithe-bill and their appropriation clause, but English

church reform would be the touchstone by which it would be tried whether

they would retain the confidence of the country. On a division,

Mr. Hume’s amendment was rejected by a majority of one hundred and

seventy-five against forty-four, ministers being supported by the

conservatives, and generally by the Irish members. In the meantime

the lords had been proceeding with the bill regarding pluralities and

non-residence. On the second reading of that bill, the Bishops of Exeter

and Hereford expressed strong apprehensions of the consequences of the

bill, although, as the house was unanimous in its favour, they would not

occasion any vote. The bill was founded on the recommendations of the

commissioners previously alluded to. It was proposed that exemptions

in favour of non-residence should be granted only to chaplains in

attendance on their majesties, or on bishops, the principals of some

schools, and in a few other special cases. The law at present allowed

incumbents to be absent three months; and it was not proposed to shorten

the time, as circumstances did not permit the clergy generally to

take advantage of it, and pluralities produced a greater quantity

of non-residence than all other causes. In regard to pluralities,

therefore, the commissioners proposed, that no clerygyman should hold

two livings if the income of one of them exceeded £500, or they were

more than ten miles distant from each other; and that, in no case,

should any clergyman hold more than two livings. The bill further

enacted, that no person should hold more than one benefice, with one

cathedral preferment, and that no person should hold preferment in

more than one cathedral or collegiate church, except archdeacons, whose

office was very laborious, and in general ill-paid. After some remarks

made against some of these provisions by the Bishops of Exeter and

Hereford, the lords agreed to them; and the bill was passed and sent

down to the commons, but it was dropped for the session. Nothing more

was heard of the bills which Lord John Russell had successfully carried

through the commons, regarding the new modelling of episcopal sees, &c.,

and the suppression of cathedral and collegiate preferments and sinecure

benefices. With reference to the latter subject, however, a short

act was passed, in order to prevent the creation of any new vested

interests, by providing generally that all future appointments to any

ecclesiastical dignity or office referred to in the recommendations of

the ecclesiastical commissioners, should be subject to such regulations

as might subsequently be enacted regarding them; and that no appointment

should be made to any canonry or prebend of cathedrals and collegiate

churches, nor to any sinecure benefice not in the patronage of private

persons, or of one of the universities, that was now vacant, or might

become vacant during the continuance of the act, which was limited to a

year, and to the end of the next session of parliament. Various canons

and prebends were excepted, principally those which were attached to

professorships and dignities of the universities; but the canonries of

York, St. Paul, Carlisle, Chichester, and Lincoln, and prebends held

by the Bishops of Lincoln, Lichfield. Exeter, and Salisbury, in their

respective sees, were likewise excluded.

BILL TO ABOLISH THE SECULAR JURISDICTION OF BISHOPS, ETC.

During this session an act was passed, by which the secular jurisdiction

of the county palatine of Durham, with all forfeitures, mines, treasure

trove, and other rights belonging to that authority, were transferred

from the bishop of the diocess and vested in the crown. The county-court

was abolished; and it was likewise declared that the bishop elect, or

any bishop for the time being, should take and hold the see, subject to

such provisions as parliament might make regarding it within three

years from the passing of the act. By another measure, the secular

jurisdiction of the Archbishop of York over the liberty of Ripon

and other places in Yorkshire, and the stoke of Southwell, in

Nottinghamshire; and the secular authority of the Bishop of Ely over the

Isle of Ely, were separated from the sees, and transferred to the king.

A third act was passed, imposing restrictions on the renewal of leases

by ecclesiastical persons. This bill provided, that where a lease had

been granted for more than two lives, no renewal of it should be given

till one or more of those lives had expired; and that, even then, the

renewal should be only for the surviving lives, or for such new lives

as, with the survivors, would make up the number of lives, not exceeding

three, for which the lease had been originally granted. Where the lease

had been granted for forty, thirty, or twenty-one years, it was not to

be renewable till fourteen, ten, and seven years respectively of the

original term had expired; and where it had merely been for years, no

new lease was to be given for a life or lives. It was further required,

that all leases should contain a recital, setting forth, in the case of

a lease for lives, the names of the persons mentioned in the original

lease as those on whose lives it was granted, and specifying such of the

lives as were still existing, or had been exchanged for some other life.

If the lease had been for a term of years, the recital was to set forth

that term, and how much remained unexpired; and every such recital, so

far as related to the validity of the lease containing it, was to be

deemed and taken as conclusive evidence of the matter so recited.

BILL TO AMEND THE ENGLISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT.

When the bill relative to the reform of municipal corporations came into

operation, in the end of 1835, it was soon discovered that some of

the details of its machinery would require amendment. A bill for that

purpose was brought in early in the present session. In some instances

the mayor and other corporate officers had been elected, when the person

presiding at the election was not legally entitled to preside; and the

bill enacted that, notwithstanding this, all such elections, and all

acts done by the officers so elected, should be good and valid. The

act passed directed that elections should be held before the mayor and

assessors; but, in some instances, there had been elections where there

were no assessors: the present bill proposed to declare, both for

the past and the future, that elections held before the election

of assessors, but with the mayor or council presiding, should be as

effectual as if they had been made before the mayor and assessors. The

act provided, that the councillors who should go out of office were to

be those who had been elected by the smallest number of votes; and if

the votes had been equal, the majority of the council was to determine

who should first go out. This did not provide for the case when there

was no division of votes, in consequence of there being no contest; and

the present bill provided for this case, by enacting that the majority

of the council should select their outgoing colleagues. The act did not

provide for the town-councillors being equally divided in the election

of mayor or alderman, and instances had occurred of two parties in

the council dividing against each other till midnight, after which no

election could take place, as the day named in the act had expired: it

was proposed by the present bill that, in such a case, the councillor

who had the greatest number of votes at the election should preside, but

without any casting vote, and that when the councillors could not

agree on a mayor or alderman, the election should be referred to the

constituent body. The act had abolished various corporate officers,

without observing that, by their charter, their presence was necessary

at the sessions. Serious doubts had arisen from this as to the legality

of the proceedings at the sessions, before the new officers entered upon

their duties under the act of parliament. The present bill declared that

any court held since the passing of the act of last session, or before

the 1st of May, 1836, in presence of the recorder, or any two persons

who, at the date of that act, were entitled to act as justices for

the borough, had been well and lawfully held. Many of the municipal

elections having been questioned by proceedings in the King’s Bench,

as being illegally and invalidly made, it was proposed by the bill that

these causes should be decided in favour of one of the parties by act

of parliament; that the proceedings should be quashed, and suits

prohibited, by enacting that the defendants should have the right of

getting them discontinued on making payment of costs. This bill passed

the commons; and when it came to be read a second time in the house of

lords, the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst pointed out the grave

consideration and the careful examination which many of its enactments

would require. Lord Lyndhurst especially called the attention of the

house to the tendency of those provisions which had a retrospective

operation. After the bill, therefore, had been read a second time, it

was referred, with the acquiescence of ministers, to a select committee,

which committee made various amendments upon the bill, all of which

were agreed to by the house and adopted into the bill. The commons, on

receiving the bill back again, agreed to all the amendments except two.

The first of these was an amendment on the provision, that when the

town-council was equally divided in the election of mayor or alderman,

these officers should be chosen directly by the constituent body. The

lords had altered this into a provision that, in case of equality,

the town-council should first of all name by lot one of this number to

preside at the meeting, and that their presiding councillor should have

a casting vote. The second amendment consisted in the insertion of a

clause to continue for another year the arrangement contained in the

municipal act for the management of charitable trusts. No portion of

these new institutions had produced greater jealousy between parties;

the popular party were eager to get hold of them, while the other

insisted on some arrangement which would prevent the funds of charities

from being prostituted to party and political purposes. This jealousy

was not set aside by the municipal bill, which left those charitable

trusts in the hands of the persons then administering them, till the

1st of August, 1837, unless parliament in the meantime should otherwise

provide, and if it did not, then the lord-chancellor was to appoint new

trustees. Previous to this Mr. Smith had brought in a bill to administer

these trusts by a system of popular election. The town-council of each

borough was to fix the number of trustees, and then the trustees were to

be chosen by the municipal electors, each elector voting for only half

of the number, in the idea that this would give both parties an equal

chance. The trustees were to be elected every three years. This bill

had not passed when the municipal bill was sent up to the lords; and it

proceeded upon a system which their lordships were not likely to approve

of. The lords, therefore, had inserted in the municipal bill a clause

continuing for another year that administration of these charitable

trusts which had been admitted into the original corporation act.

The attorney-general moved that the commons should not agree to this

amendment, as Mr. Smith’s bill would soon pass; and he further moved

that they should not agree to the amendment regarding the election of

mayor and aldermen when the town-council were equally divided, on the

ground, that it left to chance, and not to the voice of the people,

which should be the predominating party in the corporation. This motion

was agreed to; and the reasons of the commons for disagreeing with these

amendments were communicated to the lords in a conference. The lords,

however, still adhered to their amendments, the Duke of Wellington

contending that the rejection of them was a departure from the principle

on which he and his friends had waived all opposition to the decision of

the select committee, and had consented to adopt the amendments as that

committee had framed them. The decision of the lords to adhere to their

amendments took place on the 1st of July, and on the 28th Mr. Smith’s

bill for administering the charities by popular election passed the

commons. The second reading was moved in the lords on the 4th of

August, when it was opposed by the Duke of Wellington, who deemed it as

unreasonable in the circumstances and bad in itself. On a division the

second reading of the bill was negatived by a majority of thirty-nine to

twenty-two. The commons still refused to agree to the clause which the

lords had inserted in the bill on this subject, and there seemed to be

no alternative but to drop the bill. The lower house, however,

resolved to adopt the only course open to them, namely, that of a free

conference, at which the matter in dispute might be debated between the

managers _viva voce_. This course was pursued; but the two houses

could not come to any agreement on these clauses, and finally Lord John

Russell moved that the further consideration of the amendments should

be postponed till that day three months, which motion was agreed to.

Certain bills were subsequently brought in and passed, to supply those

parts of the dropped bill, in which both houses were agreed.

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

Several attempts had been made to obtain an act for allowing prisoners

on trial for felony the benefit of counsel to address the jury on

their behalf. Hitherto these attempts had been unsuccessful; but

notwithstanding this, the subject was again brought before the commons

at the commencement of the present session. The bill was introduced by

Mr. Ewart, and it passed the commons by a great majority. The second

reading of the bill in the house of lords was moved by Lord Lyndhurst,

who descanted at large on the justice and reasonableness of the bill

in its principle, although he did not approve of all its details. Lords

Denman and Wynford also spoke in favour of the principles of the bill,

and it was accordingly read a second time without opposition. In the

committee, however, several amendments and alterations were made upon

the bill, none of which were of great practical importance except one,

and all of which, except that one, were agreed to by the commons. It

frequently happened that persons were tried for felony where no counsel

were present, and by this bill the privileges of the counsel were

extended to attornies. The bill, as it came up from the commons,

contained a clause entitling the accused to copies of the depositions

upon which he had been committed. This clause was struck out, on the

ground that the rights of a prisoner in this respect were already

settled by law; but, to prevent all doubt upon the subject, a clause

declaratory of the right was again introduced, before the bill finally

passed the lords. A more important matter, however, regarded the right

of the prisoner to have the last word. As the bill passed the commons,

this right was established; but the clause enacting that he should

possess that right was struck out, and the effect of the alteration

was to make the practice the same as in cases of misdemeanour, and in

criminal cases, giving the last word to the prisoner, only in the event

of his adducing no evidence. The bill now consisted of this simple

enactment:—“That all persons tried for felony shall be admitted, after

the close of the case for the prosecution, to make full answer and

defence thereto by counsel learned in the law, or by attorney in courts,

where attornies practise as counsel.” When the bill as amended by the

lords came to be taken into consideration by the commons, its supporters

argued that, as it now stood, it conferred no real advantage, and

that it would be better to leave to prisoners the benefit of the

commiseration which the state of the law, such as it was at present,

induced, than to deprive them of it without giving them anything

substantive in return. It was resolved that the lords’ amendments should

be referred to a select committee, and that committee reported in favour

of the other amendments; but they decided that any arrangement which

would deprive the prisoner of the last word would be injurious to his

interests, and to the ends of justice. The attorney-general urged the

house to accept the bill as it stood; but the amendment was rejected,

and its rejection immediately communicated to the other house. The

lords, however, still resolved to adhere to the amendment, and a

conference was held, at which their reasons for adhering to it were

communicated to the commons. The amendment was finally adopted by the

lower house, and the bill passed—Lord John Russell stating that the

matter in dispute would form a subject of future deliberation, and Mr.

Ewart assuring the house that he would not fail still to press upon

it the principle which he now sacrificed, rather than reject the bill,

which still retained a great deal of good.