Another act passed during this session had reference to the execution

of those convicted of murder. By the existing law a person convicted of

murder was directed to be executed the next day but one after that on

which he was convicted, unless it should happen on a Sunday, in which

case the execution was to take place on the following Monday. The law

further required that after conviction such persons should be fed only

on bread and water, except in case of sickness, and that no other person

than the gaoler, surgeon, and chaplain, should have access to them,

unless by the permission of the sheriff or the judge who had presided on

the trial. During the present session an act was passed repealing these

provisions, enacting that “sentence of death maybe pronounced after

conviction for murder in the same manner, and the judge shall have

the same power in all respects, as after conviction for other capital

offences.”

A third act passed this session related to medical attendance on

inquests. This was an act to provide that when medical men were called

from their ordinary duties to serve the public by giving evidence

on coroners’ inquests, and going through the anatomical and chemical

processes which these examinations sometimes required, they should

receive a proper remuneration. This bill, which was brought in by Mr.

Wakley, enacted that not only the coroner should have power to summon

medical witnesses, but “that if the jury were not satisfied with

such medical evidence, the coroner should be bound to summon another

gentleman of the same profession; and every medical witness so summoned

was subjected, in case of non-attendance, to a penalty of £5, to be

recovered summarily before the justices.” On the other hand, every

medical man attending to give evidence was entitled to the fee of one

guinea; and if he had performed a post-mortem examination, his fee was

to be two guineas. The fees were made payable out of the poors’-rates.

ABOLITION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

In the preceding session a bill for the abolition of imprisonment for

debt had passed the commons; but from the lateness of the session it

was not possible for the lords when they received it to take it into

consideration. The lord-chancellor took up the subject himself in this

session, and a bill similar to that passed by the commons was read a

first time in the lords on the 30th of June. It is unnecessary to give

the details of the measure as it was not permitted to pass. Indeed the

house of lords seemed determined to avenge itself upon the ministry

which carried the reform bill, by rejecting every measure it introduced,

except where the feeling of the country was too strongly in favour of

such measure. On the second reading, the Duke of Wellington objected

to taking up at that late stage of the session a measure involving such

extensive interests, and introducing a new system of law. His grace

moved, that the bill should be read a second time that day three

months; and his motion was supported by Lords Abinger and Wynford, who

considered it not as rejecting any measure founded on the principle of

the bill, but only as postponing the subject till they could give it

due consideration. Lord Melbourne agreed that the weight of business

pressing on the house was great; but he did not see anything in it to

deter them from proceeding with the bill. The proposed delay, he said,

would only carry them to the 1st of August; and there was no probability

that parliament would be prorogued by that time. On a division, however,

the amendment was carried; and, although the session continued till the

20th of August, the subject was not again brought forward.

In his speech from the throne the king had recommended to parliament

“to consider whether better provision may not be made for the speedy

and satisfactory administration of justice in some of the departments

of law, and more particularly in the court of chancery.” These words

had been used in reference to an intention entertained by government of

dividing the office of lord-high-chancellor, distributing his functions

between two judges, one of whom should be devoted to legal duties,

and be irremovable; while the other should retain the patronage and

political functions of the office, and should be liable to be dismissed

with the ministry who appointed him. On the 28th of April, the

lord-chancellor brought forward the measures by which this great change

was to be effected; and he founded the necessity of such measures on

the increase of business which had taken place in the court of chancery,

both in its original and appellate jurisdictions. On the second reading,

Lord Lyndhurst objected to these bills in point of principle. The

necessary effect of the measure would be, he said, to divide the office

of chancellor, and to disqualify him from exercising that very

appellate jurisdiction to which he was devoted. This separation was most

mischievous; and he, therefore, moved that the bill should be read that

day six months. On the other hand, Lord Langdale did not consider that

the bill went far enough. He held it, he said, to be indispensable that

the judicial functions of the chancellor should be separated from those

which were not judicial: and that the appellate jurisdiction of the

house of lords ought to be placed under the superintendence of a

judge having no connexion with politics. Lord Abinger and the Duke of

Wellington supported the amendment; the latter remarking that it was

important that the most eminent lawyer in the country should occupy such

a position in the councils of his majesty as would give those councils

substantial benefit from his assistance. Lord Melbourne contended that

the house could do no wrong in going into committee on the bill; but

on a division the amendment was carried by a majority of ninety-four to

twenty-nine.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

Early in the session Mr. C. Buller brought the subject of the

constitution of election committees before the house of commons, by

moving “that a select committee be appointed to consider the laws

relating to the determination of the right of voting, and the trial

of controverted elections.” In accordance with this motion a select

committee was appointed; but its labours did not produce any fruit

during the session. In the preceding sessions bills had passed the

commons to disfranchise the borough of Stafford; but none of them had

passed both houses. A new bill was passed by the commons, and sent up

to the lords in the beginning of April. The second reading of the bill,

however, in the house of lords was negatived by thirty-eight against

twenty-two. On the 11th of June Mr. Hume moved in the house of commons,

that the issuing of the writ for the borough of Stafford should be

suspended till ten days after the next meeting of parliament. This

motion was carried by a great majority.

Another question touching parliamentary purity attracted still greater

attention. In May, 1835, the election of Colonel Bruen and Mr. Cavanagh

for the county of Carlow had been declared void by a committee. Messrs.

Vigors and Raphael were elected in their stead, by the interest of

Mr. O’Connell. Upon a petition, however, these members were likewise

unseated; and Mr. Raphael, who resided in London, believing that Mr.

O’Connell had broken faith with him, published an account of the bargain

by which he had secured his influence. It appeared that Mr. Raphael had

begun to negociate with the agitator while the petition against Colonel

Bruen and Mr. Cavanagh was still pending, and that the pecuniary treaty

was concluded on that petition having terminated unfavourably for these

gentlemen. Its terms were contained in the following letter, dated the

1st of June:—“My dear sir, you have acceded to the terms proposed

to you for the election of the county of Carlow, viz., you are to

pay before nomination £1,000—say £1,000, and a like sum after being

returned; the first to be paid absolutely and entirely for being

nominated; the second to be paid only in the event of your having been

returned, I hereby undertake to guarantee and save you harmless from any

and every other expense whatever, whether of agents, carriages, counsel,

petition against the return, or of any other description; and I make

this guarantee in the fullest sense of the honourable engagement that

you should not possibly be required to pay one shilling more in any

event or upon any contingency whatever.” Mr. O’Connell wrote to the

electors on behalf of Mr. Raphael; and, on the 10th of June, Mr.

O’Connell received through his son, likewise a member of parliament, the

first sum of £1,000. On the 21st he was returned; and, Mr. O’Connell,

apparently in the prospect of a petition, wrote thus to his protégé:—“I

am glad to tell you our prospects of success are, I do believe, quite

conclusive. If only one liberal is to be returned, you are to be the

man.

“I have made all the pecuniary arrangements.... I send you Vigors’ letter

to me. You see how secure we are. Return me this letter, as it vouches

£800 for me; with that you have nothing to do, as, of course, I stand

between you and everybody.” A petition was presented against the return;

and Mr. Raphael considered himself safe from any further expense except

the sum of £1,000, and that Mr. O’Connell was bound by the express terms

of his bargain to defend the return. He paid the second moiety of the

£2,000 on the 28th of July; on the same day the election committee

was ballotted. Mr. John O’Connell, who had received the money for his

father, was himself one of that committee; and the inquiry before the

committee having resolved into a scrutiny, Mr. Raphael soon discovered

that it was in vain to look for the defence of his seat to his patron.

He called upon Mr. O’Connell to fulfil his engagement “by fighting the

battle so long as a bad vote for the petitioners remained on the poll,

or, at all events, to the end of the session.” Mr. O’Connell, however,

either could not, or would not defend him; and Mr. Raphael was unseated

along with his colleague, on which he published the whole transaction to

the world. Mr. O’Connell felt himself called upon to answer the

charges brought against him; and in doing so, he began by abusing his

antagonist. He had been put on his guard, he said, against Mr. Raphael,

by “honest and experienced men,” who described him as “a faithless

creature, who never observed any contract, and with whom no person ever

had a dealing without being sorry for it.” He admitted the terms of the

bargain; but he insisted that he only acted as the agent of Mr. Vigors,

who was to pay all additional expenses of opposing the petition. The

first sum of £1,000 which Mr. Raphael had paid was expended on the

five days’ poll; and he urged that that gentleman had made an excellent

bargain in having all the expenses of nomination and of a five days’

poll covered by a £1,000. As for the other £1,000, he said, that had

been expended in opposing the petition; and he maintained that there was

no obligation to continue that opposition after it had been spent. He

averred that he himself had no pecuniary interest in the matter: he

had made the bargain as acting for Mr. Vigors; for Mr. Vigors he had

received the money; and to him he had paid it over. The most important

part of his statement consisted in the admission of the purpose to

which the money was to be applied in the event of the return not being

petitioned against. He remarked:—“If there should be no petition, I

agreed, on the part of Mr. Vigors, that the greater part of the second

£1,000, more than one-half of it, whatever might be the amount of the

election expenses, should be applied to commence the formation of a

fund to indemnify the voters, and their friends and relations, from that

persecution which the Carlow landlords then threatened, and have since

exercised.” The subject was brought before parliament on the 11th

of February, by a petition, setting forth the transaction in all its

bearings. The petition likewise stated “that the ballot for a committee

to try the validity of the said return took place on the same afternoon

on which the said second sum of £1,000 had been so received, in respect

of such return, by the said John O’Connell, for the use of his father,

the said Daniel O’Connell; and the said John O’Connell and Daniel

O’Connell both attended the ballot for the committee; and the said

John O’Connell was, in fact, balloted as a member to serve on the

said committee, and suffered to remain on the list of the committee

as finally reduced.” The petition prayed the house to inquire into the

circumstances; and if the charge was proved, to adopt proper proceedings

against the offenders. A similar petition was presented from Bath by

Mr. Hardy, member for Bradford; and it was proposed that both petitions

should be taken into consideration on Monday, the 15th. Mr. O’Connell

wished the discussion to be postponed till the following day, which

was agreed to. On the 16th, therefore, Mr. Hardy moved—“That a select

committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances attending the

traffic and agreement alleged to have taken place between Mr. Daniel

O’Connell and Mr. Alexander Raphael, as one of the representatives for

the county of Carlow, at the last election, and to report the minutes of

evidence taken before them, with their observations thereon.” Mr. Hardy

said, that it was impossible to consider Mr. O’Connell in the light

of an agent, as he had argued: who had ever heard of an agent becoming

responsible to such an amount? The terms of agreement were:—“I hereby

undertake to guarantee and save you harmless from any and every other

expense whatsoever, whether of agents, carriages, counsel, petition

against the return, or of any other description.” He thought that Mr.

Vigors was the agent of Mr. O’Connell at Carlow, rather than that Mr.

O’Connell was the agent of Mr. Vigors in London. At all events, the

consequence of the bargain was, that the member for Dublin, whether as

agent or principal, put in two members for Carlow—Mr. Vigors, his old

friend _ex animo_; and Mr. Raphael, his friend _ex contracta_. It was

of little consequence what sort of representatives the people of Carlow

obtained. They had never seen or heard Mr. Raphael, and they knew

nothing about his physical or intellectual abilities; all they knew was

his address, and there was nothing of him even in that but his name. In

his reply, Mr. O’Connell was violent and abusive. He contended that it

was not on account of anything connected with the Carlow election that

this charge was brought forward, but because he had contributed to put

down Toryism, and had thrown his weight into the scale of government to

accomplish that object. He demanded that the inquiry should be extensive

and searching, comprehending the whole of the late general election. He

had neither been guilty of pecuniary corruption by pocketing money,

nor of personal corruption by gratifying his ambition by the improper

expenditure of the money on the part of other persons. He entered into

a long explanation of the circumstances connected with the transaction,

making it appear that he was guiltless in the matter. In conclusion, he

demanded that the committee should not be a packed one, but a committee

of “honourable gentlemen,” by which he meant gentlemen who would be

inclined to take a favourable view of the matter. Mr. Warburton thought

that the motion did not make the object of the committee sufficiently

extensive; and he moved the addition of words, authorising them to

inquire likewise into “the application of the money said to have been

received, together with the circumstances under which it was received

and expended.” This amendment was agreed to and the committee named, its

members being taken equally from both sides of the house. Two nominees

were likewise appointed, to assist in conducting the evidence; Mr.

Sergeant Wilde on the part of Mr. O’Connell, and Sir Frederick Pollock

on the part of his opponents. The report of the committee was made to

the house by Mr. Colborne, their chairman, on the 11th of March. It read

thus:—“It appears to your committee that the subject may be arranged

under two heads—the first as relating to any traffic or agreement

between Mr. Raphael and Mr. O’Connell for a seat in parliament, and the

second as to the application of the sum said to have been given. It does

not appear to your committee to be necessary for them to enter upon any

detailed summary of the evidence, but they feel it their duty to draw

the attention of the house very briefly to the main points as they bear

upon the question. It appears that Mr. O’Connell addressed a letter,

bearing date, 1st of June, 1835, in which the agreement for Mr.

Raphael’s return for the county of Carlow for £2,000 was concluded; the

committee cannot help observing that the whole tone and tenour of this

letter was calculated to excite much suspicion and grave animadversion;

but they must add that, upon a very careful investigation, it appeared

that previous conferences and communications had taken place between

Mr. Raphael, Mr. Vigors, and other persons connected with the county

of Carlow, and that Mr. O’Connell was acting on this occasion at the

express direction of Mr. Raphael, and was the only medium between Mr.

Raphael and Mr. Vigors and the Political Club at Carlow. It appears that

the money was placed to Mr. O’Connell’s general account at his bankers

in London. It was, however, advanced the moment it was called for to

Mr. Vigors; and though some of it was paid in bills, the discount was

allowed; the amount, therefore, was available whenever wanted, and

no charge of pecuniary interest can be attached to Mr. O’Connell. It

appears also that this money had been expended under the immediate

direction of Mr. Vigors and others connected with the county of Carlow,

in what may be called legal expenses, or so unavoidable that your

committee see no reason to question their legality; and that the balance

was absorbed in defending the return of Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors

before the committee appointed to investigate on the 21st of July,

1835.” In moving that this report and the evidence given should be

printed, Mr. Colborne stated, that the committee had agreed unanimously

in the conclusion at which they arrived, and that he had no doubt

that the house would join in the same opinion, if the evidence were

considered without any reference to party feeling. To a large party in

the house, however, it appeared that the committee had overlooked some

important branches of the inquiry, and that matter had come out in the

evidence before the committee which rendered the whole transaction more

deserving of animadversion. On the 21st of April Mr. Hardy again brought

the subject forward, by moving a series of resolutions, which declared

that in the transactions regarding this seat, a breach of privilege had

been committed. The committee itself had found it proved, he said, that

the £2,000 had been paid and received; and if the circumstances under

which the payment and receipt were made did not constitute a breach of

privilege, he had yet to learn what did. He entered at length into

the transaction, and concluded by asserting that there could not be a

grosser case in all its bearings. There had been a contract to sell a

seat in parliament for £2,000. which money was to be appropriated in a

corrupt manner in every respect. From the evidence respecting the Carlow

club, and the £1,000 to be applied to county purposes, nothing could

be clearer than this, that any tenant who fell into arrear of rent from

want of prudence or honesty, had only to say to the club, “My landlord

is against you: if you expect my vote, you must pay my arrears of rent.”

What a system was this! If this were to pass unnoticed, who could

object to the formation of Conservative clubs which would say to those

shopkeepers, before whose doors the priests threatened the grass should

grow, we will indemnify you. Better be without the reform-bill than

see it leading to consequences like these. In former days they had to

complain of boroughs being sold: now they had to complain of the sale of

whole counties. Mr. O’Connell applauded the conduct of the members, of

the committee: he would take this stand on their report. The agitator

was defended by Lord Francis Egerton; not that he would wish to imitate

his conduct in many respects, but he thought that he stood acquitted

of pecuniary corruption: that charge was removed, and he did not feel

inclined to go upon the minor questions arising out of the case, because

he wished to be indulgent as well as just. The transaction did not meet

with his approbation, but he looked upon it as part, at least, of the

extensive system now carried on in Ireland; and however strongly he

might deprecate that system, he doubted whether it would be just or

expedient to bring the member for Dublin, or the other parties concerned

in the transaction, within the resolutions of the house. He was not one

of those who felt a desire to bring any man within the scope of a breach

of their privileges. His own hands were as clean as those of most men;

but if everything that he had done in violation of those privileges was

to be brought against him, if a king’s evidence could be found in every

instance, he scarcely knew whether he might not himself be brought under

the grasp of a tribunal. Messrs. Warburton and Barneby also stood up in

the defence of Mr. O’Connell. Lord John Russell likewise expressed

his hostility to any further inquiry or proceeding: the report of the

committee, he said, ought not to be touched, unless the house saw some

very strong reasons to doubt the opinions, or to distrust the integrity,

of the gentlemen who had given judgment. He moved as an amendment a

series of resolutions which embodied the report verbatim, making them

the resolutions of the house, instead of the opinions of the committee.

This amendment, after Lord Stanley, Sir Robert Peel, and others had

spoken in favour of the original motion, and other members had stood up

in defence of Mr. O’Connell, was carried by a majority of two hundred

and forty-three against one hundred and sixty-nine. Lord Stanley then

brought the question still more to the point by moving, “That it appears

to this house that there was between the contracting parties a distinct

understanding, that, if any surplus should remain, after providing for

the legal expenses of the election of Mr. Raphael, that surplus should

be applied in the first place to the defraying of the expenses of the

petition against the former elections, and in the next place to the

funds of the Carlow Liberal Club: and such understanding calls for

the notice of the house, as liable to serious abuse, as a dangerous

precedent, and as tending to subvert the purity and freedom of

election.” Lord John, in reply, said he would not enter into the matter

of fact, or go into anything beyond the report of the committee; if the

committee had agreed on these facts, and had thought them material, they

would have been reported to the house.

Mr. O’Connell’s troubles, however, were not yet over. His return, with

that of his colleague, Mr. Ruthven, for the city of Dublin at the last

election had been petitioned against, and the petition had been referred

to an election committee in the usual manner. This committee made their

report on the 16th of May, when Messrs. O’Connell and Ruthven were

declared not duly elected, and they were accordingly unseated. Their

opponents at the election, Messrs. Hamilton and West, took their seats,

after having been excluded from them for the whole of one session and

the half of another: the committee being appointed in 1835, and not

making their report before 1836. Mr. O’Connell appears to have expected

the result of the inquiry, for he had provided himself with another

seat by making one of his underlings accept the Chiltern Hundreds: he

appeared during the session as the member for Kilkenny. Subsequently,

Mr. O’Connell presented a petition from certain electors of Dublin,

praying that Messrs. Hamilton and West should not be allowed to retain

their seats, on the ground that they had been connected with bribery;

but the report of the committee had stated that they were neither

directly nor indirectly implicated in such practices, and after

reading this report the house ordered the petition to be withdrawn. Mr.

O’Connell maintained that the petition must be received, because the

matter to which it referred had not come under the consideration of the

committee; but the attorney-general declared his opinion that it was one

which could not be received, and the speaker having given an opinion to

the same effect, it was withdrawn accordingly.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

In consequence of the destruction of the two houses of parliament by

fire in October, 1834, a select committee had been appointed by the

commons, to consider all matters connected with the rebuilding of these

edifices. On their report an address had been presented to the crown to

appoint commissioners to receive plans, from which they were to

select not fewer than three nor more than five, to be submitted to

the committee. More than ninety plans had been sent in, and the

commissioners had selected four out of that number. On the 9th of

February the committee was renewed for the purpose of determining which

of these four ought to be adopted. This was followed by a motion of Mr.

Hume’s, that it should be an instruction to the committee to consider

the propriety of removing the houses of parliament to another site. Mr.

Hume, however, only found forty-four members to vote for his motion,

while one hundred and forty-three voted against it. The committee thus

re-appointed made their report on the 16th of March. On that day they

recommended that an address should be presented to his majesty, praying

him to institute inquiries as to what would be the probable expense of

executing the plan which had been sent in by Mr. Barry, the architect.

The committee had not selected Mr. Barry’s plan as the best, but they

thought that they could not safely recommend the adoption of any plan

till the expense had been ascertained. The proceeding, was, however, a

plain intimation that the plan in question was the one which had been

adopted by the commissioners and the committee; and a committee also,

in the house of lords had arrived at the same conclusion. The manner of

proceeding gave great offence to the other competitors, and they brought

their complaints before the house of commons on the 21st of June, in a

petition which was presented by Mr. Hume. In this petition they stated

that they had, in framing their plans, taken the probable expense into

account, as an important consideration to which it was their duty to

attend; whereas the commissioners declared that they had come to a

decision wholly independent of the question of expense, as not an object

for their consideration. They further stated that they had given their

best attention to the elaborate instructions given by the committee, as

regarded the number and dimensions of the offices and apartments, while

the commissioners had been guided in the choice by the “superiority

of the elevation.” They further stated, that, as well by the general

instructions, as by a report of the committee of the house on sound and

ventilation, of which committee one of the commissioners was a member,

they had constructed their plans with reference to these objects; but

the commissioners had declared that they did not allow that subject to

have weight in determining their preference. Finally, they arraigned the

preference which had been given to the four selected plans, and prayed

the house would either hear them by counsel at the bar, or appoint

competent persons to examine the grounds of the report of the

commissioners before finally adopting any of the plans. This matter was

allowed to lie over till the evidence which had been taken before

the select committee, by whom the commissioners themselves had been

examined, should be laid on the table. The whole subject was brought

forward by Mr. Hume on the 21st of July, who, after descanting at length

on the conduct of the commissioners, moved for an address to the crown,

to direct a new competition of designs, without limits as to the style

of architecture, but not to exceed a certain fixed sum as the cost of

erection, and that such designs should be examined and reported on by

commissioners to be afterwards appointed. The motion was supported by

Messrs. Estcourt and Hawes, and opposed by Mr. Tracy and Sir Robert

Peel. The latter said, that if the house agreed to this motion, they

would strike a fatal blow at the principles of competition, and teach

the most eminent of living architects to rue the day when, in compliance

with an invitation of the house of commons, they sent in plans which had

the misfortune to be found entitled to preference. The question raised

was, not whether they should finally resolve to adopt Mr. Barry’s plan,

but whether they would declare all the proceedings that had been taken

to be null. There was not even an implied engagement with Mr. Barry;

there was only a _prima facie_ presumption that his plan was entitled to

a preference. Mr. Hume, on seeing the general feeling of the house was

against his proposition, withdrew it; at the same time he considered

that his arguments had not only been unanswered, but that they were

unanswerable.

On the 3rd of May Mr. Grantley Berkeley renewed his proposition for

admitting ladies to the debates, by moving a resolution, “that it is

the opinion of this house that the resolution of the select committee

appointed in 1835 to consider the means of admitting ladies to a portion

of the stranger’s gallery, together with the plan of Sir R. Smirke,

should be adopted, and that means should be taken to carry it into

effect with as little delay as possible.” This resolution was carried by

a majority of one hundred and thirty-two against ninety. The chancellor

of the exchequer accordingly proposed among the miscellaneous estimates,

a grant of £400 to defray the expenses of fitting up an adequate portion

of the gallery; but after a few words from the Earl of Lincoln against

the motion and Lord Palmerston in favour of it, the grant was refused by

a majority of forty-two against twenty-eight.

MOTION FOR THE REDUCTION OF TAXATION ON BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURISTS.

The complaints of the agricultural class of the community still

continued. On the 8th of February Lord John Russell proposed the

appointment of a select committee, in order to inquire into the distress

complained of. His lordship said, that whenever any great branch

of national industry was materially depressed, it was the duty of

parliament to give a favourable consideration to the complaints of those

engaged in it, to ascertain the facts of the case, and, if possible, to

devise a remedy: the proposition arose more from this feeling than from

any hope that the distress of the agriculturists would be removed by

legislative interference. The low price of wheat was stated to be the

main cause of it: the price of wheat was certainly low, but there had

not been an equal fall in the other descriptions of grain. The committee

would, therefore, have to consider not only the price of wheat,

but likewise the alterations which had taken place in the prices of

different kinds of grain, and of other articles of agricultural produce.

They would likewise have to ascertain and to weigh the changes already

produced, and likely to be produced, by the new system of poor-laws.

This committee was appointed, and a similar committee was appointed on

the 18th of February by the house of lords. These committees, however,

ended in doing nothing. On the 21st of July the chairman of the

committee stated to the house of commons that they had resolved merely

to report the evidence, without giving any opinion. A draft of a report

had been drawn up by the chairman; but so much of it was objected to by

those who advocated the agricultural interest, that no report was made.

In the meantime the Marquis of Chandos had brought forward the

distresses of the agriculturists. On the 27th of April he moved a

resolution, “That in the application of any surplus revenue towards

the relief of the burdens of the country, either by the remission of

taxation or otherwise, due regard should be had to the necessity of

a portion thereof being applied to the relief of the agricultural

interests.” Lord John Russell objected to the motion, both on its merits

and because he thought it premature to entertain such a question, before

the agricultural committee, then sitting, had made its report. On a

division it was lost by a majority of two hundred and eight against one

hundred and seventy-two.

THE BUDGET, ETC.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

By an act of the 4th and 5th of William IV. an additional duty of fifty

per cent, had been imposed on spirit licenses. On the 10th of March Mr.

Divett moved that the house should resolve itself into committee, for

the purpose of considering the propriety of repealing this impost.

The chancellor of the exchequer resisted this motion, opposing it

principally on account of the circumstances under which it was brought

forward.

Various proposals had been made at different times for the reduction or

purification of the pension list. This list had been, in truth, as much

a matter of political principle and of party feeling as of mere finance.

In the preceding session government had consented that it should be

printed; and on April 19th, Mr. Whittle Harvey moved this resolution

on the subject:—“That a select committee be appointed to revise each

pension specified in the return ordered to be printed on the 28th of

June, 1836, with a view to ascertain whether the continued payment

thereof is justified by the circumstances of the original grant, or the

condition of the parties now receiving the same, and to report thereon

to the house.” After stating that there were 1303 persons on the pension

list, who received amongst them about £150,000 a year, Mr. Harvey went

into a history of the restrictions which had been laid on the granting

of pensions out of the civil list, from the original bill of Mr. Burke,

down to the accession of his present majesty. The motion was opposed by

Lord John Russell, on the ground that it contained a proposition against

which parliament had already decided, and as being inconsistent with

the practice which had been uniformly folio wed. Mr. Harvey’s views were

enforced by Mr. Hume; but the motion was negatived by a majority of two

hundred and sixty-eight against one hundred and forty-six.

The chancellor of the exchequer opened his budget on the 6th of May.

He first explained that the receipts of the last year had exceeded

the estimate by the sum of £338,000; while, on the other hand, the

expenditure had somewhat exceeded the estimates. The income of last

year, he said, had been £46,381,000, and he calculated that it would

amount during the present year to £46,980,000. The total expenditure

would be £45,205,807 leaving a surplus of £1,774,193. But out of this

surplus payment would fall to be made, on account of the West Indian

compensation during the year, to the amount of £1,118,633, leaving, as

the utmost disposable surplus with which parliament had to deal, a sum

of £662,000. Had it not been for the sums payable to the West-India

planters, there would have been a surplus of £2,000,000. In applying

what surplus there was, he continued, to the reduction of taxation,

he preferred selecting those taxes the repeal of which extinguished

a source of fraud to those which merely afford relief. The duties

he proposed to reduce were those on paper, plain and stained, on

newspapers, and on farming buildings; and he proposed to give up those

on taxed carts, and the additional fifty per cent, on spirit licenses.

The amount of all the taxes which he proposed to remit would be £351,000

this year, though when the proposed reductions came into full operation

it would amount to £568,000. At the same time, when the increased

consumption of paper was taken into account, the money collected from

the penny stamp, and the increase of duty from advertisements, he

thought he might say that government would not lose £530,000 a year. The

reduction of the stamp on newspapers was from fourpence to one penny,

and this was deemed by many as being a sacrifice to the demands of a

political party, and not a concession to principles of political economy

or fiscal regulations. There were many other articles, it was contended,

a reduction of the duties on which would contribute much more to the

comfort of the community, and especially of those classes to which

it was proposed to give cheap newspapers and cheap spirits. Sir C.

Knightley moved, that instead of diminishing the duty on newspapers,

the duty on soap should be reduced. This he represented as a duty

which pressed not only severely on the lower classes, but unequally in

comparison with the more wealthy—the soap of the poor man being taxed

at seventy-five per cent., and that of the rich man only at thirty per

cent. This motion was seconded by Mr. C. Barclay, who showed that the

revenue would not sustain a greater loss from the reduction of this

tax than would arise from the diminution in newspaper stamp duties. The

chancellor of the exchequer, however, preferred a reduction of the stamp

duties to those on soap; and on a division the motion was negatived by a

majority of two hundred and forty-one against two hundred and eight.

As the law stood, there was no distinction between newspapers in regard

of duty on account of their size, all differences of this nature having

been removed in 1828. By the new bill, however, this distinction was

restored, an additional duty being imposed on every newspaper containing

more than a certain number of square inches of surface. Government was

accused of having so selected the particular number of inches, as to

impose the additional duty on some of the most influential journals

opposed to them, while it did not apply to their supporters. This

imputation was repelled by the chancellor of the exchequer; but it was

still maintained that such must have been its effect. It was finally

proposed and acceded to by the chancellor of the exchequer, that 1530

square inches, of which the paper might consist without any additional

duty, should be limited to the printed part of the sheet, excluding the

margin, which would meet the size of every paper in the metropolis.

If the sheet exceeded 1530 square inches, but did not exceed 2295, an

additional duty of one halfpenny was to be paid; and if it exceeded

the latter quantity, an additional duty of one penny. Supplements were

likewise to pay a penny additional. Mr. Grote subsequently moved that

every newspaper should be stamped with a die peculiar to itself—an

enactment which was introduced into the bill. The bill enacted that two

proprietors of a newspaper should be registered along with the printer

and publisher. The Radicals contended that every proprietor should be

registered at the stamp-office, and on the third reading a clause

to this effect was carried, the chancellor of the exchequer himself

agreeing to it, he conceiving that it might establish a salutary system

of restraint. When the bill went up to the lords this was the only

clause which encountered opposition; and Lord Lyndhurst moved that it

should be omitted, on the ground that the regulations contained in it

were arbitrary, inquisitorial, unjust, and unnecessary. It was defended

by the lord-chancellor and Lord Melbourne; but the motion was carried

by a majority of sixty-one against forty. The bill was returned to

the commons without any other alteration; but on the motion of the

chancellor of the exchequer it was laid aside, on the principle that the

privileges of the members of the house of commons did not permit them

to entertain an amended money-bill. The chancellor of the exchequer,

however, immediately brought in a bill which was an exact copy of the

one laid aside, except that the provisions in dispute were omitted, and

this bill passed both houses without delay.

The speech from the throne on the opening of the session had recommended

an addition of five thousand men to the navy. This increase was

explained during the session to be necessary for the protection of

British merchants in various parts of the globe—in the Pacific, at

Lima, Mexico, Valparaiso, the coast of Peru, the northern coasts of

the Brazils, the West Indies, Newfoundland, and the East India and the

African stations. Demands had been made in all these quarters, and it

was impossible to comply with them without withdrawing the British naval

force from Spain and Portugal, where their presence was necessary.

On these grounds government proposed this additional force, which was

granted without a division. Mr. Hume, however, endeavoured to make a

compensating saving, by moving a reduction of five thousand men in

the army estimates; and when this motion was negatived, he moved a

proposition which was directed against the foot-guards as being costly

troops, maintained rather for show than use, and enjoying, for the sake

of the aristocracy, prerogatives which were degrading to the rest of the

army: this motion was also negatived.

DISCUSSIONS ON THE COLONIES, AND ON OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.

At this period unfortunate differences prevailed in the Mauritius

between a part of the inhabitants and the government authorities, and

between one part of the population and another. They were said to

have originated in the desire of the white population to evade some

requirements of the law for the emancipation of the negroes, and were

believed to have been aggravated on the one side by indiscretion, and on

the other by the honest determination of the colonial judges. More

than one judge had been recalled; and the consequence was, that their

successors, who did not pursue the same course, and the governors of the

island were denounced as being guilty of abusing their powers to

prevent the due execution of the emancipation act. Mr. Roebuck took the

discontented inhabitants of the Mauritius under his protection. On the

15th of February he moved, that a select committee should be appointed

to inquire into the administration of justice in that colony. In

supporting his motion, he said, that the mother country had declared

slave-trading to be a felony, and that an order in council was passed,

in consequence of a resolution of that house, to the effect that no

governor, judge, or registrar of slaves, should hold any species of

slave property, either directly, in trust, or mortgage. He charged the

whole body of these functionaries with holding slave property. He

also charged Sir C. Colville, the late governor, with speculating and

creating debts in slave property; and Chief-justice Blackburne, the

officers of the supreme court, and nearly all the functionaries of the

island, with the same gross violation of that order in council. Proof of

the fact, he said, was to be found in the despatches of government; and

he entered into a long statement of mal-administration in that colony.

His statements, on the other hand, were represented by Sir George Grey,

on the part of government, as being mere repetitions of charges which

had been abandoned by those who had made them. The motion was supported

by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Fowell Buxton, the latter of whom said,

that few persons residing in that colony knew its affairs better than

himself: the slave-trade prevailed in the Mauritius to such an extent,

that no man could live for a single week as governor of the island and

not behold it under his own eyes; yet not one of the persons engaged in

the traffic had ever been brought to justice. The reason assigned for

this impunity was this—that no court would authorise a conviction,

and that no public functionary would countenance the man who dared to

interfere with their trade. If a case arose in which it was necessary

that the prosecution should be placed upon record, the accused was, on

the first opportunity, set at liberty. The motion was negatived by a

majority of two hundred and twenty-nine against seventy-one.

It has been recorded in previous pages that political discontents

prevailed in Canada. A large portion of the population, French in its

origin, democratic and intemperate in its views, led on by demagogues,

insisted on demands equally inconsistent with a monarchical government,

and with the supremacy of the mother country. Democratical as were their

views, however, they had their supporters in the British parliament.

On the 16th of May, Mr. Roebuck brought forward a proposition for the

reform of the Canadian constitution, which was to consist in nothing

less than in making both branches of the colonial legislature elective.

By the statute 81 George III., c. 81, a constitution was given to the

province of Quebec, which was thereby divided into Lower and Upper

Canada. The constitution so conferred was professedly a copy of the

constitution of England, the governor being as the king, the legislative

council as the house of lords, and the house of assembly as the house

of commons. The object, Mr. Roebuck said, which he had in view, was to

amend the legislative council, which was no more like the house of

lords at home than the governor of the colony was like the king of these

realms. The members of the legislative council, unlike the house of

lords, were poor, having no tenants, and consequently no influence over

the people; they were a _clique_ holding power for their own purposes.

On the explanation of ministers, Mr. Hume advised Mr. Roebuck to

withdraw his motion, to which he conceded, stating at the same time that

he did not believe government were prepared to say, that a measure for

remedying the evils complained of was delayed only till the report of

the commissioners was received.

Civil war was still raging in Spain, and at this time Great Britain

had interfered in it—an interference which seemed to be becoming more

direct as the situation of the queen became more critical, and the arms

of the Carlists more successful. This subject occupied the attention of

parliament. On the 26th of February Mr. Maclean directed the attention

of the house of commons to the policy of this interference. Lord

Palmerston said that the interference of this country had consisted,

first, in executing the quadruple treaty; and, secondly, in the order of

council which, by suspending the foreign enlistment act, had enabled the

British legion to be formed which was now serving in Spain. The treaty

was now a new one; it did not raise any new question—no motion had

ever been made to disapprove of it—and its execution was admitted to be

imperative.

In the beginning of tin’s year a body of Austrian, Russian, and Prussian

troops took possession of Cracow, under the plea that it contained the

elements of dangerous conspiracies against the neighbouring governments.

This subject was brought before the commons on the 18th of March, by

Sir Stratford Canning, from whose statement it appeared that the three

powers had addressed a joint note to the senate of Cracow, requesting

them to send away, within eight days, all Polish refugees and other

dangerous persons; that the senate had remonstrated against so sweeping

a denunciation of individuals, many of whom had resided there for years;

and that military possession had, notwithstanding, been taken on the

expiry of eight days. It appeared further that four hundred persons had

been given up to the commander of the occupying force, while others had

been required to find security for their good behaviour; and that the

president of the republic had resigned, and his place been supplied by

the direct nomination of the residents of the three powers. He contended

that by the treaty of Vienna, the establishment of Cracow as an

independent state was provided for by definite articles, being placed

under the protection of the three powers now in possession of it. He

further contended that Great Britain was an immediate party to this

treaty; that its provisions were parcel of our solemn engagements;

and that when circumstances so extraordinary occurred as that a state,

recognised as free and independent, was occupied by foreign powers, we

were called on to look narrowly at these events, and see whether or not

any violation of the engagement in which we were interested had or

had not taken place. Lord Palmerston found himself embarrassed in

consequence of neither the facts of the military occupation nor its

causes having been communicated to him officially by the three powers.

Doubtless the demand made by the three powers appeared contrary to

the letter of the treaty, for they had not required that the persons

referred to should be given up by the powers to which they might belong,

but that they should be within eight days removed from the territory

of Cracow. At the same time, if statements made were true, as a

justification of the measure, it might be considered as falling within

the spirit of the treaty. It was alleged that a number of person,

natives of Poland, assembled in the state of Cracow, and inspired by

feelings which, perhaps, in their peculiar circumstances were natural,

had established a communication with the inhabitants of some of

the Russian and other parts of Poland, calculated to disturb the

tranquillity of the neighbouring states. But, although the three powers

might be justified in requesting such persons to depart, it did not

follow that they were justified in going to the extreme of military

occupation because their demand was not immediately conceded. As yet no

sufficient reason had been given either for the entrance of the troops,

or the shortness of the interval which had been allowed between the

demand and the entrance which had been effected. All friendly means

should have been exhausted before any such measures were resorted to;

and, under all circumstances, as Great Britain had been a party to the

treaty of Vienna, it was the duty of those powers when they made the

demand, and before they had recourse to occupation, to have communicated

to the government of this country the grounds on which they thought

themselves entitled to act, and the intentions they were about to put

into execution. Messrs. O’Connell and Hume were violent against the

three powers. They advised, that if any part of the Russian Dutch loan

due by this country was not yet paid, payment should be refused till

satisfaction was made to Cracow. Lord John Russell deprecated the

language used by Messrs. O’Connell and Hume, the more particularly as

the honour of Great Britain was not committed in the transaction. Lord

Dudley Stuart, however, contended that the honour of Great Britain had

been violated. Was it, he asked, no affront for these three powers

to tell a great country like this, that the treaty which settled the

possession of all the powers of Europe, and to which it was a party,

should be infringed and violated at their pleasure? By the violation

of the neutrality of Cracow a serious blow had been inflicted on our

national reputation, and on the security of Europe.

During this session a lengthened discussion took place regarding the

dangers to which Europe was exposed from the systematic encroachments of

Russia. The subject was introduced by Lord Dudley Stuart, who moved

an address for the production of the treaty of Constantinople between

Russia and the Porte, the treaty of St. Petersburg, the correspondence

between the British government and the governments of Russia and Turkey

relative to these treaties, and the correspondence between the courts

of London and St. Petersburg regarding the remonstrances made by this

country against the conduct of Russia towards Poland. In reply, Lord

Palmerston said, that he had no objection to produce the treaty of

Constantinople, or Hoonkiar Skelessi; but he would not concede the

production of others. Government, in fact, was not officially possessed

of the treaty of St. Petersburg, and therefore it could not be supplied.

The correspondence, again, between this country, Russia, and Turkey,

relative to these treaties could not be produced without inconvenience

to the public service, and would not answer any object which could be

contemplated by the motion. With respect to the correspondence which had

taken place on the subject of Poland, he thought its production would

not serve any useful purpose. No good could arise from publishing to the

world, after an interval of three years, all the correspondence which

might have passed between two governments on a subject respecting which

their opinion differed, especially as nothing had occurred to make

the publication of this correspondence necessary. Lord Dudley Stuart

expressed himself satisfied with the papers which the foreign secretary

had expressed himself willing to give. Mr. P. M. Stewart, however,

thought that Lord Palmerston was either too blind as regarded Russia,

or too confiding. He referred to his lordship’s predictions in 1832

regarding Poland. He had said, “As to the idea which is entertained

by some honourable gentlemen of its being the intention of Russia to

exterminate a large kingdom like Poland, either morally or politically,

it is so utterly impracticable that there need be no apprehension of

its ever being attempted.” Since these words had been spoken, Poland

had been politically exterminated, and every exertion had been made to

exterminate her morally. On the 20th of April Mr. P. M.

Stewart brought this subject again before the house, justifying himself

for renewing the discussion on the ground that, since the last debate,

Russia had actually interfered with our commerce on the Danube.

In direct violation of treaties, he said, which declared that the

navigation of the Danube should be free to ships of all nations, Russia

had extorted tribute from British vessels passing down that river; and

she was putting a stop to the trade not merely of England, but of the

whole of central Europe on that magnificent stream, by wilful neglect to

cleanse its channel, which would soon be so filled up that a Thames

punt would not be able to cross it. Mr. Stewart moved—“That an address

should be presented to his majesty, praying him to adopt such measures

as might seem best fitted to protect and extend the commercial interests

of Great Britain in Turkey and the Euxine, and likewise to send a

diplomatic agent forthwith to the free and independent state of

Cracow.” This motion was seconded by Sir Edward Codrington, who urged

the necessity of immediately arming, as an expedient which had uniformly

been successful in checking aggression. In reply, Lord Palmerston

informed the house that government had already sent a consular agent

to Cracow, so that this part of the proposed address was unnecessary.

Government, he continued, concurred in the importance of maintaining and

extending the commercial relations of Great Britain with Turkey,

Persia, and the neighbouring countries; but, in his opinion, nothing had

happened to confine or check them. There could be no doubt that, by the

treaty of Vienna, the navigation of the Danube was free to the commerce

of all countries in Europe. We had, however, suffered no wrong as yet;

and in dealing with foreign nations, it was not prudent to anticipate

injuries at their hands: it was enough to deal with events when they

had occurred. Members of all parties expressed similar opinions; and Mr.

Stewart finally withdrew his resolution.

On the establishment of the kingdom of Greece, Great Britain, France,

and Russia, had agreed by treaty to guarantee a loan of 60,000,000 of

francs for the use of the new monarchy. Two instalments of 20,000,000

each had been paid. Greece, on the other hand, had undertaken certain

obligations in relation to her revenue and its application; and Russia,

on the ground that these obligations had not been fulfilled, refused

to concur in raising the third instalment. Under these circumstances

ministers found it necessary to introduce a bill for authorising the

advance of the money by this country alone. Lord Palmerston made the

proposal, and it encountered considerable opposition even from the

ordinary supporters of government. The resolution, however, moved by

Lord Palmerston, authorising his majesty to guarantee the portion to

which this country was liable of the third and last instalment of the

loan to be advanced to the King of Greece, was carried by a majority of

eighty-one against forty. The bill founded on the resolution encountered

the same objections which had been raised to the resolution itself; but

it passed without any determined opposition. In the house of lords

the Duke of Wellington said, that while he admitted the measure was

necessary, he thought that the necessity was an unfortunate one, and

might have been avoided. It did not appear to him that proper measures

had been taken to obtain the concurrence of Russia. The first demand

made by Greece was for 3,000,000 francs; why was not an effort made to

obtain the consent of Russia to advance her share of this sum? Why was

Russia left out of that part of the negotiation? If Russia had been

called on for her portion, it would have amounted to nearly the sum

which this country was about to advance under existing circumstances;

and the consequence would have been this—that the three powers would

now be placed on the same footing. But how would it be hereafter?

Great Britain would be a creditor of Greece to the amount of 20,000,000

francs, with a claim on the resources of Greece, which must and would

be pressed, for the interest and sinking-fund of that amount of debt. On

the other side, Russia would have in hand the third part of 20,000,000

francs to issue to Greece whenever, and under whatever circumstances she

thought proper. France was placed in a similar situation; and both these

countries would, therefore, stand in a more desirable relation towards

Greece, having always the power of conferring a benefit, than that which

would be occupied by this country, who could only be a creditor pressing

for payment of a debt.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

During this session the proposal for removing the civil disabilities of

the Jews was brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer himself,

and was carried through the commons, but was rejected by the lords. Mr.

Rippon also renewed a proposal he had made in 1834, for the expulsion

of the bishops from the house of lords; but his motion was lost by an

overwhelming majority. Mr. O’Connell moved for leave to bring in a bill

to reform the whole house of lords, by making that body elective, a

motion which gave rise only to laughter. Mr. Grote also brought forward

his annual motion for vote by ballot; but it was lost by a majority of

one hundred and thirty-nine against fifty-one. Parliament was prorogued

on the 20th of August, by the king in person.

THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND.

The royal speech had announced that tranquillity prevailed in Ireland;

but yet that country was not in a state of quiescence. Agitation was

still at work: societies and combinations were being formed, and the

angry passions of the multitude lashed almost into fury. At this time

the authorities were enforcing the payment of tithe; and this excited

the wrath of the leaders of the Popish party. This wrath was aggravated

by the refusal of the house of lords to create, by passing the

ministerial municipal bill for Ireland, a mass of Catholic corporations,

of which there was every reason to apprehend that, while they would

not have any useful duties to discharge as machines for municipal

government, they would become powerful and legalized engines for working

out the great aim of the Papists—the destruction of the Protestant

church. The clauses which went to reconstruct the Irish corporations

were struck out by the lords on the 17th of May; and on the following

day Mr. O’Connell put forth a letter “to the people of England,” the

object of which was to rouse them to show their gratitude to Ireland

for the aid which she had lent them in carrying the Reform Act, by

destroying the character and rights of the house of lords. This epistle,

however, was addressed to deaf ears; his sentiments rather tended to

call forth expressions of opinion that the lords should fearlessly

exercise their constitutional rights. In his letter, he had threatened

to re-organize agitation; and finding his exertions to that end useless

in England, he resolved to cany out his threat in Ireland. The course

which it was wished that the people of Ireland should adopt, was

explained by Mr. Shiel in clear terms. It was wished that a strenuous

and simultaneous movement of the popular masses should take place;

that the millions of Ireland should be roused; and that the might which

slumbered in her arm might be developed; above all, that “the active

system of organization should again be strenuously applied, with its

weekly meetings, its appeals to the people, its enthusiasm, and exciting

eloquence.” Doubts were expressed by some persons of the prudence of

forming a permanent association at present. Mr. Pigott, a barrister,

however, suggested an expedient, by which all the advantages of

association might be secured without its name. He recommended that the

requisitionists, who had called a public meeting in Dublin for the 23rd

of May, should constitute themselves an open committee, with power to

add to their numbers, which should meet from time to time as occasion

might require, and should arrange communications with the most active

inhabitants of the different towns and districts who might be disposed

to second their object, in order to obtain petitions from all parts of

the country. This plan was adopted; and the objects of the new agitation

were declared to be municipal institutions, founded on the same

principles of popular election and control which had been adopted in

England, and the speedy settlement of the tithe question. This committee

dispatched circulars all over Ireland, urging the people to hold public

meetings for the purpose of voting petitions to parliament on these two

questions, and directing the petitioners how to draw up their petitions.

It was soon found, however, that this plan was not effective, and that,

therefore, a revival of the machinery of the Catholic association would

be necessary, in order to exercise the required influence over the

public mind, and to raise funds for the support of agitation. The

“petition committee,” as it was called, complained in a meeting, held on

the 1st of July, that petitions came in slowly, and that the people of

Ireland were dormant and dead to what ought to be now their feelings,

of nationality. Under these circumstances it was deemed prudent to

“recreate the active system of organization devised by Mr. O’Connell,

with its weekly meetings,” and other appliances. A “general association”

was now formed on the model of the Catholic association, using the same

species of influence, but bearing another name and professing different

objects. The two declared objects of the association were to obtain the

abolition of tithes and municipal corporations; to these were added a

minute attention to the approaching registrations, in order to increase

the democratic party in the house of commons. These and the other

purposes of the association required money; and accordingly the “justice

rent” was established. The association was to meet once a week in the

corn-exchange; Mr. O’Connell presented to it the chair of the Catholic

association, which had been left in his possession; and the walls of its

place of meeting displayed in large characters these words:—“Scotland

has municipal reform; England has municipal reform; Ireland has been

declared unworthy of municipal reform.” After Mr. O’Connell’s arrival,

in August, the association was put into full operation. From him

proceeded addresses to the people of England and Ireland, the complete

organization of the justice rent, the appointment of committees, and of

a reporter on the election registry of every county, city, and town of

Ireland. It was resolved that officers, called pacificators, should be

appointed in every parish in Ireland. Each parish was to contain two

pacificators; one named by the clergyman of the majority of the parish,

and the other by the inhabitants themselves. There was, therefore, the

general association sitting in Dublin, holding its weekly meetings, with

its registry inspectors, and its agitating pacificators scattered all

over the country. It was to maintain this system that justice money was

required; and in general the business of each weekly meeting consisted

in announcing the amount of “rent” collected during the preceding week,

or in receiving more. There was talking at these meetings, it is

true, but the term business can scarcely be applied to the verbose and

unmeaning speeches in which the orators indulged. The usual topics were

the greatness and determination of Ireland; the demand for justice by

getting new corporations and abolishing tithes; the flattery of every

one who sent money to the association; and the abuse of those who

differed from the agitators in opinion. Yet Mr. O’Connell and his party

did not fail to stir up the evil passions of the deluded

multitude. These “thundering resolutions” were put forth by the

association:—“Resolved—That it is incompatible with the principles

of religious liberty that any man should be compelled to pay for the

ordinances of a church with which he is not joined in communion. That,

as under the present appropriation of tithe-composition, a tribute is

levied from the whole nation for the uses of the church of only

the one-tenth portion of the community, the people of Ireland are,

therefore, justified in demanding the total extinction of an assessment

so applied. That no settlement of the tithe question can give

satisfaction to the people of Ireland which is not founded on the

foregoing principle. That the people of Ireland be called upon not to

desist from all legal and constitutional means of redress, till they

have obtained full and complete relief from an impost equally

oppressive and degrading. That, in carrying out these resolutions,

the representatives of the Irish people should always keep in mind the

adopting such a prudent and wise course as shall enable them to realise

for the Irish nation the greatest possible quantity of good, and as

shall also enable them to support and sustain in office, without any

violation of principle, the first and only true and honest government

that has ever been known in Ireland.” This call upon the peasantry

not to desist from seeking the abolition of tithes “by all legal and

constitutional means of address,” by no means tending to diminish the

resistance still shown to every attempt to enforce the steps necessary

to the recovery of tithes, where a protecting force did not attend. The

process-server was still hunted; mobs still attempted to set aside

sales of distrained cattle; and now that the efficacy of the

exchequer-process, by merely posting notices instead of service, had

been felt, the writs of that court would have been equally set at

defiance by brute force, but for the power which they possessed of

compelling police and military aid. A scene of bloodshed occurred at

Dunkerrin, in the county of Tipperary. A mob attacked a commissioner

of the exchequer and his party, in the act of serving a writ, and the

bailiff was murdered on the spot, while one of the murderers was killed

by a shot from the police. Mr. O’Connell and the association demanded

justice for the death of the latter; but not a word was said on the

heinousness of his crime, or a syllable of regret was uttered concerning

the death of the bailiff.

FOREIGN RELATIONS.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

The whole Spanish Peninsula was torn with political dissensions.

Revolutions and counter revolutions disturbed British relations with

Portugal especially, and prevented the execution of a treaty of commerce

which was looked for in England, as a benefit to both nations. England

sympathised too much with the faithless queens of both the governments

of the Iberian Peninsula, which had the effect of protracting the

disturbances which prevailed, and of exciting angry feelings against

England. The gallant men who as British subjects volunteered to

serve the queen ‘of Portugal were refused their pay, and treated with

contumely and injury, just as the British legion in Spain had been used.

The relation of the Sublime Porte to England was also a source of

embarrassment, especially to the former country. On the one hand, the

pressure of Russia, jealous of her predominating influence, and on the

other, the efforts of Britain and France to counteract the exclusive

character which that influence was assuming, imposed on the divan the

necessity of giving satisfaction to all the competitors for favour.

During this year an English merchant of Constantinople, of the name of

Churchill, while shooting in the neighbourhood of Scutari, accidentally

wounded a Turkish boy. He was dragged to the guardhouse of Scutari,

where the officer on duty ordered him first to be bastinadoed, and then

sent to the governor of Scutari. The governor declined interfering, and

caused him to be conveyed to the office of the reis effendi, or foreign

minister, by whom he was thrown into prison. Mr. Churchill immediately

addressed a letter to the British consul, acquainting him with the

accident that had occurred, and the manner in which he had been treated,

claiming, as a British subject, the interference in his behalf. The

consul sent a dragoman to the Porte to reclaim his countryman, promising

to keep him in custody till the accusation brought against him had been

inquired into. This application was rejected; and the British ambassador

then sent his interpreter to the reis effendi, who promised that the

prisoner should be delivered over to his own authorities. Instead of

this promise, however, being observed, Mr. Churchill was thrown into the

Bagnio, and fettered in iron chains, by virtue of an order granted by

the sultan. The British interpreter again waited on the reis effendi,

and expressed to him the surprise Lord Ponsonby had experienced on

witnessing so direct and intentional an infringement of the treaties

existing between the king of England and the sultan; committed, too, by

the very individual appointed by the Porte to preside over their strict

and scrupulous observance. The reis effendi now desired one of his

officers to proceed with the English interpreter to the Bagnio, and

cause the detained merchant to be given up; but the governor of the

Bagnio refused to comply with the request, pretending that since the

prisoner had been placed under his care in virtue of a firman, he could

not release him without a written order from the Porte. Lord Ponsonby

now addressed an official note, stating that, as the minister of foreign

affairs had violated one of the most important stipulations of the

treaties existing between Great Britain and Turkey, he was obliged to

declare to the government that he would not any longer hold official

communication with his excellency, and to submit to the Sublime Porte,

and emphatically to declare to the sultan himself, his just complaint

against a minister who had dared to violate the laws of his own

sovereign, and insult the British nation. This step procured the

liberation of Mr. Churchill; but Lord Ponsonby refused to consider

this alone as any reparation of the breach of the treaties securing to

British subjects the right of being tried and punished only through the

agency of their own official representatives. His lordship insisted that

the reis effendi should be dismissed from his office. He insisted upon

this the more strenuously on account of the predominating influence of

Russia; for if the injured party had been a Russian subject, the Turkish

government would have hastened to make humble apologies, and would have

consented to give any satisfaction which the offended dignity of the

czar might have required. The Porte endeavoured to mitigate the demand

lay negociation; but Lord Ponsonby refused to accept of any satisfaction

which did not include the dismissal of the minister. As the Porte seemed

to think it below its dignity to grant such a request when merely made

by an ambassador, he said he would refer the matter to his government

at home. The British merchants, likewise, resident at Constantinople,

transmitted an address to Viscount Palmerston, representing the

necessity of supporting the demand made by the ambassador. They

remarked:—“We will concede that the first outrage was committed by

subordinate local authorities, whose acts might admit of excuse or

explanation; but the subsequent imprisonment was deliberately ordered

by a high public functionary, the official depositary, in fact, of

the treaties existing between the two countries, one who could not be

ignorant of the privileges they guaranteed, and who was not ignorant

that in the instance in question he was grossly and intentionally

violating them. Considering, therefore, that the present is not the only

instance, although the most flagrant one, of personal violence offered

to British subjects, we cannot but see in their repeated occurrence,

more especially of late, an intentional infraction of the treaties, and,

indeed, the existence of some fixed design on the part of the Turkish

government to assume to itself a power of control in such matters which

it would be dangerous ever to concede.” Before the determination of the

British cabinet could be known, the divan of Constantinople had resolved

to yield: the reis effendi was dismissed, with a monthly pension of

10,000 piastres; but it was on the pretence that bad health disabled

him from regularly attending to the duties of his office. It was said

afterwards, that the British ministry viewed the matter in a less

serious light than that in which it had been viewed by Lord Ponsonby;

and that they were not inclined to consider the demand he had made as

one on which it was necessary to insist. It is certain, indeed, that the

dispatches of the Turkish envoy ill London, subsequent to the dismissal

of the reis effendi, assured the divan of the readiness of the British

ministry to settle the controversy on conditions much milder than

those on which Lord Ponsonby had stated to be the only terms which his

majesty’s government could consider proper reparation for the insult

offered to its dignity. It is also certain that the credit of the

British ambassador, whose successful firmness was neutralised by his

government, was greatly diminished at the Porte.

CHAPTER XLVII.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

_Meeting of Parliament..... Consideration of the State of

Ireland..... Irish Municipal Corporations Bill.....

Question of Establishing a System of Poor-Law in

Ireland..... Irish Tithe Question..... Question of Church-

Rates..... The Church of Scotland..... Notices of Motions

for Constitutional Changes..... Operation of the New Poor-

Laws..... The Affairs of Canada..... State of the Banking

System, &c. Consideration of the Foreign Policy of

England under the Whig Administration..... Motion on the

State of the Nation..... Illness and Death of the King.....

Remarks on his Reign, Character, &c._

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1837}

Parliament reassembled on the 31st of January. The session was opened by

commission; and the speech of the commissioners referred to the contests

in Spain, and the recent events in Portugal. The speech also called

the attention of both houses to the state of Canada, stating that the

reports of the commissioners appointed to inquire into which, would be

laid before them. It further recommended to their serious deliberation

the provisions which would be submitted to them for the improvement of

the law and the administration of justice, and conveyed his majesty’s

desire that they should consult upon such further measures as might give

increased stability to the established church. The revenues, moreover,

formed a subject of congratulation in the speech, and an early renewal

of inquiries into the operation of the act permitting the establishment

of joint-stock banks. The concluding topic of the speech was Ireland;

such measures as might improve the condition of that country were

recommended to be adopted. The present constitution of the municipal

corporations of that country, the collection of tithes, and the

establishment of some legal provision for the poor were especially

noticed as subjects worthy of their attention.

The address in the lords was moved by the Earl of Fingal, and seconded

by Lord Suffield. In the commons the address was moved by Mr. Sandford,

and seconded by Mr. Stuart Villiers. The debate that followed was

enlivened by Mr. Roebuck, who made a violent assault on the whole system

of ministerial policy. Sir Robert Peel referred to those parts of the

speech relating to the affairs of Spain and Portugal. His remarks with

reference to Spain were confined to that passage in the address which

expressed the satisfaction of the house that his majesty’s co-operating

force had rendered useful assistance to her Catholic majesty. Whatever

opinion he might hold on the policy of the quadruple alliance, he had

always considered it our duty to fulfil the treaty so long as we stood

pledged to it. By that treaty we stipulated to give the assistance of

a naval force to the arms of the queen of Spain; and he supported the

address on the understanding that the aid we had given had been strictly

of that character. The distinction was important. The grant of a

military force might have supposed an interference with the civil

dissensions and party conflicts of Spain. Might not the precedent be

equally adopted by despotic governments claiming a right to support

absolute principles among their neighbours? where then would be the

peace of Europe? The next paragraph in the address illustrated the

danger of interfering in the civil affairs of other countries. We

express our regret that “events in Portugal have occurred which, for

a time, threaten to disturb the internal peace of the country.” These

events are but the corollary of the revolution in that country in

1834, and which was then called in the speech from the throne “a happy

result.” A consequence of this “happy result” is that we have now six

sail of the line in the Tagus. For what purpose? To defend the queen

of that country from an attack on the part of her own subjects; and to

protect the lives and property of the English residing there from

the danger with which they are threatened. In reply, Lord Palmerston

remarked, that, “when we stated that the effect of the treaty in 1834

was to put an end to the civil war in Portugal, we did not take upon

ourselves the responsibility of the government of that kingdom in all

future times, or undertake that it should be henceforth free from the

civil disturbances to which every country was liable.” This might be

true; but if the last revolution in Portugal was the result of the one

which we had been instrumental in bringing about, then we were in no

slight degree responsible for its occurrence.

CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF IRELAND.

Ireland was still the cardinal point of our domestic politics. At this

time, in fact, Irish politics had acquired more importance than ever.

The state of that country was brought before parliament this session, in

a petition from the Protestants, setting forth the dangers by which

they were surrounded from the effects of the agitation which everywhere

prevailed. This petition was presented to the lords by the Marquis

of Downshire on the 28th of April, and it was the occasion of an

interesting debate on the state of Ireland. The topics insisted on,

however, were for the most part identical with those which had for

a series of years been repeatedly adduced in the commons, so that a

repetition of them is unnecessary. The debate unfolded one great fact:

namely, that the Protestant party were not behindhand with the Catholics

in the vigour and perseverance of their agitation.

Government lost no time in bringing the politics of Ireland before

parliament. On the 7th of April Lord John Russell moved for leave to

bring in a bill for the amendment of the Irish municipal corporations.

The bill differed from that of the last year on one material point only.

By the former measure the town-councils were not allowed to interfere

in the appointment of sheriffs, which was vested in the crown; but they

were now authorised to nominate or suggest a certain number of persons

for that office; the power of selection, rejection, and appointment

being given to the lord-lieutenant. Sir John Hobhouse made an

intimation, that the fate of this measure would decide that of the

cabinet; he asked of the party opposite, if they succeeded in throwing

out this bill and so coming into office, upon what principle they hoped

to govern Ireland? Was it by Orange, neckerchiefs and acclamations that

they expected to do so? They ought to be prepared to give a decided

answer to the question. Sir Robert Peel said, that he doubted the right

of any one to catechise his party on the results of a contingency.

The motion, which was merely for leave to bring in the bill, was not

opposed, and the two parties had therefore no opportunity of making

trial of their strength on a division.

The order of the day was read for going into committee on the reform

of municipal corporations on the 20th of February. Lord Francis Egerton

moved an instruction similar to that which he had brought forward in

the last session, to the effect that the committee be empowered to make

provisions 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 Ireland. A long discussion ensued and was adjourned.

On the following day Mr. Serjeant Jackson delivered a long speech, which

was chiefly directed against the government of Lord Mulgrave. Mr. Vesey

followed in the same track. The bill was supported, on the other hand,

by Mr. E. L. Bulwer, Lord Howick, and Mr. Roebuck. The latter asked

Sir Robert Peel this plain question:—“Can he pretend to carry on the

government of Ireland on entirely different principles from those of

Great Britain? Does he believe that, at this period of man’s history,

and by the side of the most enlightened nation of the earth, doctrines

of government suited for the meridian of St. Petersburg can be carried

into actual practice? In a word, Does he believe that the system of

Protestant supremacy can be continued in Ireland without civil war?”

On the third night of the debate, Sir James Graham delivered a powerful

speech in support of Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment. Mr. Shiel

followed, in a speech which was more personal than argumentative. Sir

Robert Peel deprecated this mode of conducting the debate. He had been

reproached, he continued, by Lord Howick for not having earlier seen the

necessity of yielding to the Catholic claims. Would the noble lord ask

of his noble colleague of the foreign department, why he was not an

earlier convert than he had proved to reform? Would he put the same

question to the head of the present administration? If it were blindness

in him not to foresee in 1825 the necessity of concession to the

Catholics, was not the blindness of Lord Melbourne as great when, in

1826, he even opposed the transfer of representatives from Penryn to

Manchester? Mr. O’Connell followed, urging his usual topics—the long

misgovernment of Ireland, and the necessity of the repeal of the union

as her only chance of obtaining justice. After a reply from Lord John

Russell, the house divided; when Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment was

negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two

hundred and forty-two.

Little discussion took place on the bill when in committee. The third

reading was moved on the 10th of April, when Mr. Goulburn opposed

the measure as pregnant with danger to the church, and tending by

its renewed agitation to place the two houses of parliament in an

undesirable situation. Another long debate ensued, in which the bill

was defended by Colonel Thompson, Lords Morpeth and John Russell, and

Messrs. Bulwer, Charles Villiers, and O’Connell; and opposed by Lord

Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel. The debate lasted two

nights; and on a division the bill was carried by a majority of three

hundred and two against two hundred and forty-seven.

The bill was introduced to the house of peers by Lord Melbourne on the

13th of April; and the second reading was fixed for the 25th of the same

month. On its introduction the Duke of Wellington gave no opinion on the

subject of the bill, but contented himself with observing, that it

was only one of the three measures relating to Ireland which had been

recommended to the consideration of the house in the speech from the

throne. He added, that, as he thought it desirable before the house

decided on the present measure it should have the other two before them,

he hoped the noble viscount would appoint a more distant day for its

consideration. Lord Melbourne objected to this, stating at the same

time that he could not see any necessary connexion between the three

measures. In moving its second reading, Lord Melbourne dwelt at great

length upon the good effects which had already resulted from the grant

of a similar boon to England. On these grounds he called upon the house

to accede to the measure. It was only a little to give, but a great deal

to withhold. The Duke of Wellington said, that he would agree to

the second reading of the bill, on the principle that the existing

corporations ought not to be continued. He would not, however, pledge

himself to consent to the present measure, to various details of

which he had strong objections. He would endeavour to remove these in

committee; in the meanwhile he could not but express his surprise that

Lord Melbourne should have again brought forward such a measure. Lord

Lyndhurst expressed similar sentiments. In reference to the surprise

expressed by the Duke of Wellington that the bill should have been

reintroduced, Lord Melbourne said the case was not a singular one; and

he reminded the duke that he had introduced and carried a measure to

which he had been opposed. Lord Brougham regretted that, from the tone

of the speeches of the Duke of Wellington, he was led to believe that

they would only throw away some five or six weeks of their time in

unprofitable discussions on the subject, and be left at the end of this

session where they were at the close of the last. This proved to be the

true interpretation of those speeches. On the 5th of May, when the order

of the day was read for the house to resolve itself into committee on

the bill, the Duke of Wellington rose, and moved to defer the committal

till the 9th of June. His reason for asking this delay was, that he was

anxious to see the result of the deliberations of the other house of

parliament on the pending measures of Irish tithe and Irish poor-law.

Lord Melbourne objected to the proposed postponement as inconvenient in

itself, and dangerous in the motive on which it was grounded. There was

no connexion between the church and corporation bills; and if the

house of commons should follow the example of the lords, and refuse to

consider one set of bills until the lords had passed another to their

satisfaction, he apprehended their lordships would not have the best of

the struggle. As for the appropriation clause, he denied, as his grace

had intimated, that it had been abandoned; it existed in the new bill

as strongly as in the former one. The Duke of Wellington replied, that

though he objected to much of the present measure, he was not adverse to

the establishment, under certain circumstances, of local jurisdictions

in Ireland. The Earl of Wicklow and Lord Fitzgerald made yet ampler

concessions than his grace; and the Marquis of Lansdowne argued on this,

that they assented to the principles of the bill; and that, therefore,

no further delay should take place in its progress. Lord Brougham said

that he drew no happy augury of the fate of the bill from the very

significant speech of the Duke of Wellington. He would not say any

sinister motive lurked in his proposition for delay; but if he was

averse to the present measure, as he appeared to be, why did he not

throw it out altogether? It was very well to talk of amendments; but

their lordships would so alter the bill, that the man who drew it would

not know it again. Although the different sections under the duke’s

command might move by different routes, they would all meet in the end.

On a division the motion for postponement was carried by a majority of

one hundred and ninety-two against one hundred and fifteen.

Although the postponement decided on was for more than one month, there

appeared to be little probability that either the tithe or the poor-rate

bill would be before the lords by the assigned period for resuming the

municipal corporations bill. Under these circumstances, when the 9th of

June arrived, Lord Lyndhurst rose to move a further postponement of

the bill till the 3rd of July next. His lordship took occasion again to

state his objections to the measure. Lord Melbourne opposed the further

postponement of the bill; but on a division the motion was carried by a

majority of two hundred and five against one hundred and nineteen.

QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.

A board of commissioners had been for some time busied with the

consideration of a system of poor-laws in Ireland, and in the last

session a report containing the result of their inquiries was laid

before parliament. This report, however, was not satisfactory to

government. They thought it desirable that some inquiry should be made

as to how far it might be practicable to introduce into Ireland a system

of relief based upon the principles of the new English poor-law. For

this purpose, Mr. Nicholls, one of the commissioners, was sent to

Ireland to prosecute the matter by personal investigation. The report

of Mr. Nicholls was very able, and on it government grounded the measure

which they intended to bring forward on the subject. This measure was

introduced in the commons by Lord John Russell on the 13th of February.

In introducing it, his lordship called the attention of the house to

that part of the king’s speech at the opening of the session, in which

the establishment of some legal provision for the poor was recommended.

At the same time he laid on the table of the house a copy of Mr.

Nicholl’s report upon the subject. In his speech, his lordship first

dwelt upon the benefits derivable to a country from a well-administered

system of poor-laws; upon its tendency to preserve peace, prevent

vagrancy, diminish crime, and establish harmony among all classes of

society. Having dwelt on this subject at length, Lord John Russell

then stated the leading provisions of the bill as recommended by the

commissioner. With respect to the expense of the system, he said, it

had been calculated that the whole average charge for each person in the

English workhouses, including lodging, fuel, clothing, and diet, was one

shilling and sixpence per week. If, therefore, we take one hundred union

houses, each containing eight hundred inmates, and suppose them all

fully occupied, the annual expense for the whole would be £312,000.

In order to understand the nature of the bill brought in by Lord John

Russell, however, it is necessary to give a brief extract of the

report made by Mr. Nicholls. He stated that he found the people almost

universally favourable to the introduction of a poor-law. But with

respect to the question of how far the introduction of the English

poor-law was practicable in Ireland, two difficulties suggested

themselves—first, whether the workhouse system could be relied on as

a test of destitution in Ireland; and secondly, whether the means and

machinery existed there for the formation of unions as in England. The

great principle of the workhouse system is, that the support which is

afforded at the public charge there should be less desirable than that

to be obtained by independent exertion. It would be impossible to make

the lodging, clothing, and diet of the inmates of an Irish workhouse

inferior to those of the Irish peasantry, and therefore this security

would not be found for the efficiency of the workhouse-test. On the

other hand, it is to be remembered that the Irish are naturally or by

habit a migratory people, fond of change, full of hope, and eager for

experiment. They had never been tied down to one limited settlement, and

consequently confinement of any kind would be irksome, and therefore the

test of the workhouse is likely to prove fully as efficient in Ireland

as in England. With respect to the’ supply of local machinery for the

execution of the law, Mr. Nicholls considered that by making the unions

sufficiently large, there would be no difficulty of obtaining boards of

guardians of competent intelligence and activity. These might, he said,

be elected by the contributors to the county cess; but Mr. Nicholls

thought that, in the first instance, large general powers should be

vested in some competent authority to control and direct the proceedings

of the board of guardians, and, where necessary, to supersede their

functions altogether. He further proposed, that the same central

authority should be empowered to dispense with the election of the

first board of guardians, and to appoint such persons as it should think

proper to act in their stead. It was further proposed, that the

number of magistrates acting officially as guardians should not exceed

one-third of the elected members of the board; and that no clergyman

or minister of any denomination should be eligible to act as ex-officio

guardian. The enactment of a provision for the destitute at the

common charge, would give the community a right to interfere with the

proceedings of individuals, so as to prevent the spread of destitution,

and enable it to guard itself from loss and damage by the negligence or

obstinacy of any of its members. With this view, it was recommended that

the central authority should appoint, or empower the board of guardians

to appoint, one or more wardens or head-boroughs for every parish, who

might superintend the affairs of the district. Assuming the general

practicability and expediency of establishing a system of poor-law

in Ireland on principles the same with those of the English law, Mr.

Nicholls proceeded to consider the details of its application in that

country. It was proposed that all relief out of the workhouse should

be absolutely refused. Another point to be insisted upon, was, that no

individual of a family should be admitted unless all its members entered

the house. All relief was to be given by the orders and direction of the

central authority. With respect to the formation and regulation of

the local machinery, the report recommended that, as in England, the

appointment of guardians should be vested in the ratepayers and owners

of property in the union. A scale was proposed, by which the number of

votes possessed by an individual rate-payer might be raised from one

to five, as his rating increased from five pounds to two hundred. The

commissioners had proposed that the owner should pay two-thirds of the

rate, and that the remainder should fall on the tenant: Mr. Nicholls

thought that it would be better to divide the charge equally between the

two parties. It was not recommended to establish a parochial settlement

in Ireland, as the habits of the people were migratory: if a law

settlement should be established, it would be a union of settlement,

making the limits of the union the boundary. The simpler the conditions

on which this settlement was made to depend, it would be the better.

They might, it was stated, be limited to two—birth, and actual

residence for a term of years; but, on the whole, it would be better

to dispense with settlement altogether. One great object in the

establishment of a legal relief for the destitute would be the right it

afforded to take measures for the suppression of mendicancy. The present

state of Ireland, and the feelings and habits of the people, threw

considerable difficulty in the way of an immediate enforcement of such a

prohibition. The best method, it was stated, would probably be to

enact a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the

responsibility of bringing the act into operation in the several unions,

as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. With

respect to emigration, Mr. Nicholls did not think it should be looked

to as an ordinary resource; the necessity for its adoption would be

regarded as an indication of disease, which it would be better to

prevent than thus to relieve. The source, however, would be one which

must be employed as a means of relief whenever any population became

excessive in any district, and no opening for migration to other

districts could be found. In the conclusion of his report, Mr. Nicholls

considered the nature and appointment of the central authority upon

which the whole administration of the new system would depend. He was in

favour of its being carried into effect by the existing English board,

inasmuch as the object being to carry the English system into Ireland,

it could only be done by persons practically conversant with its

administration.

Such were the principles on which the measure introduced by Lord John

Russell was founded. On its introduction, Irish members of all parties

expressed their satisfaction with it. Mr. O’Connell, however, though he

did not oppose it, expressed himself less sanguine as to its beneficial

results. The hundred workhouses which it was proposed to erect would

afford shelter and relief to eighty thousand persons in Ireland only;

and he asked, what proportion that bore to the mass of destitution in

Ireland? He objected also to the proposed gradual introduction of the

measure. They would thereby create a state of transition, during which

neither relief nor charity would be afforded to the suffering population

of the country. He disapproved, also, of that part of the plan which

confined relief and employment to the workhouses. There was no part of

Ireland, he said, which might not be made ten times more productive than

it was, and yet it was proposed to feed men in idleness in a workhouse.

The system of workhouses acted well in England, where a sort of slave

labour was adopted in them, to force the idle to seek employment

elsewhere; but what could be expected from it in Ireland where men

worked for twopence per day? Many expected that a poor-rate in Ireland

would prevent the influx of Irish labourers into England; there could

not be a greater mistake: unmarried men would still go to England; and

so would the married, leaving their families to be maintained in the

workhouse. The experiment, he saw, must be made; and, notwithstanding

his objections, he would certainly give every aid in working out its

details. Mr. O’Connell urged the necessity of extensive emigration on

the consideration of government; but Sir Robert Peel said that he

was not sanguine as to any benefits to be derived therefrom. The long

sea-voyage would always stand in the way of its adoption to any extent.

As to public works, to vote money merely to employ people, that would

only aggravate existing evils by interfering with the natural demand for

labour. Sir Robert Peel, however, was disposed cordially to support the

measure in its general objects; as was also Lord Stanley.

The second reading of the bill did not take place till the end of April.

The interval seems to have confirmed Mr. O’Connell in his hostility

to the measure. It was not his intention directly to oppose it—some

measure of the kind was inevitable; but his deliberate judgment was,

that it would aggravate, instead of mitigate, the existing evils of the

Irish peasantry. Those evils he ascribed to English misgovernment: the

distinct and direct object of the penal laws was to enforce ignorance

and poverty by act of parliament. For a century, the Irish had had

laws requiring the people to be ignorant, and punishing them for being

industrious. And what, he asked, were the natural consequences of this

legislation? He entered into a variety of statistical details to prove

that, with a less fertile soil, the quantity of agricultural produce

raised in England was as four to one compared with that of Ireland;

though, according to the number of acres under cultivation, it ought not

to exceed two to one. He then proceeded to read numerous extracts from

the reports of the commissioners, descriptive of the extreme misery of

the Irish peasantry. He described men as lying in bed for want of food;

turning thieves in order to be sent to jail; lying on rotten straw in

mud cabins, with scarcely any covering; feeding on unripe potatoes and

yellow weed, and feigning sickness, in order to get into hospitals. He

continued:—“This is the condition of a country blest by nature

with fertility, but barren from the want of cultivation, and whose

inhabitants stalk through the land enduring the extremity of misery and

want. Did we govern ourselves? Who did this? You, Englishmen!—I say,

you did it? It is the result of your policy and domination!” With

respect to the bill before the house, Mr. O’Connell ridiculed the

proposition of relieving the destitution of 2,300,000 persons by

building poor-houses to shelter eighty thousand at the expense of

£312,000 a year. The charities in Dublin alone amounted to half that

sum, and the farmers gave away in kind from a million to a million and a

half yearly. As for tranquillizing the country, Mr. O’Connell said that

the bill would not have any such effect. On the contrary, as all relief

was to be given in the workhouse, every man who was refused would have a

pretext for prædial resistance. The man refused would be the very man to

resent the refusal; he would go to others and induce them to adopt his

quarrel, and perhaps to avenge what he would consider to be his wrong.

In conclusion, Mr. O’Connell admitted that he was opposed to a law of

settlement, and also to a labour-rate: he thought emigration should

be tried on a large scale; and he was still an advocate for a tax on

absentees. However much he disapproved of the bill, he would not

vote against it: he had not moral courage enough to resist a poor-law

altogether. A long and angry debate ensued, which issued in nothing

practical.

The only point in the measure in which any serious opposition was

raised, respected the law of settlement. On the 12th of May, when the

order of the day was read for the house to go into committee on the

bill, Mr. Lucas moved,—“That it be an instruction to the committee to

introduce a provision for settlement, so as more justly to apportion

the pecuniary charges to be incurred and levied under the name of

poor-rates.” Mr. Lucas suggested a particular scheme of settlement, by

which he conceived most of the evils attaching to the system as hitherto

practised might be avoided; but his statement of its nature and probable

operation was not very intelligible, and his motion was negatived, after

some discussion of the subject, by a majority of one hundred and twenty

against sixty-eight. The bill did not proceed beyond this stage of its

progress, in consequence of the demise of the crown.

IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Another cardinal point of Irish policy remaining to be settled, as

pointed out to the consideration of parliament in the speech from the

throne, was the tithe question. This subject was brought forward in the

house of commons on the 1st of May by Lord Morpeth, who, in introducing

it, said, that it was the fifth measure which had been brought forward

in the last three years for the adjustment of Irish tithes. His present

plan was this. He proposed to deduct thirty per cent, from the tithe

composition, so as to make a rent-charge on the owner of the first

estate of inheritance, in the proportion of £70 to every £100 of the

tithe. By the bill of last year power was given to the commissioners of

woods and forests to collect the rent-charge; but this was thought to

make the clergy too dependant on the officers of government, and

they were, therefore, now allowed to collect it for themselves. The

provisions of former bills for the revising or reopening of compositions

were to be reserved. With respect to the regulation of the incomes of

the various benefices, Lord Morpeth proposed to adopt the scale of

last session, as recommended by Lord Stanley, with the exception of the

minimum of £300, which Lord Stanley had taken as the lowest point of

reduction to which the clerical income should be liable. The most

novel provision proposed was that which went to apply a portion of the

clergyman’s income to the purposes of general education. Lord Morpeth

observed, that by a statute, the 15th of the 28th of Henry III., it was

enacted, that “every incumbent in each parish in Ireland should keep or

cause to be kept within his parish, a school to learn English; and that

every archbishop, bishop, &c., at the time of his induction should take

a corporal oath, that, being so admitted or inducted, he shall to his

best endeavour himself teach the English tongue to all that are under

his rule and governance.” Penalties were laid both on the bishop and

clergyman for the breach of this statute; and the oath imposed by the

act was taken by all rectors and vicars. The question was, continued

Lord Morpeth, had this obligation been complied with? There were

2400 parishes in Ireland; and it appeared from the report of the

commissioners of inquiry into Irish education, there were only seven

hundred and eighty-two schools, the number of benefices being 1242, and

the amount of the contributions of the clergy £3299. It appeared from

that report, indeed, that, though there were many benefices in which

there was no school, yet the act of Henry VIII. was sufficiently

complied with by the annual payment of forty-shillings to a

schoolmaster. Attempts had been made to revise the act in 1767, and

again in the year 1806; but these were abandoned. Lord Morpeth now

proposed to raise a fixed rate of ten per cent, upon the ecclesiastical

revenues of Ireland, including the incomes of the dignitaries of the

church as well as of the parochial clergy; to take effect not on the

present holders, but on their successors. The plan of education which he

proposed was not to be confined to the teaching of the English language

only; it was to combine instruction in letters, lessons of morality and

religion, and that upon a national system, comprehending all sects

and denominations. Lord Morpeth, however, did not, he said, intend to

propose resolutions which would call upon the house to pledge themselves

to the whole of his plan; he contented himself for the present with

moving, “That it is expedient to commute the tithes of Ireland into a

rent-charge, payable by the first estate of inheritance, and to make

further provision for the better regulation of ecclesiastical duties.”

The resolution was adopted without comment from either side of the

house; but when the bill founded on Lord Morpeth’s resolutions was

read a second time, June 9th, Mr. Sharman Crawford opposed it as wholly

inadequate to the wants of the people of Ireland. He moved that the bill

be read a second time that day six months; but on a division his motion

was rejected by two hundred and twenty-nine against fourteen. The

decision on the clause for taking livings was deferred, and nothing

further was done on this question, the death of the king on the 20th of

June precluding all further consideration of it.

QUESTION OF CHURCH-RATES.

Government had for some time been occupied in framing a scheme for the

arrangement of the question of church-rates. On the 3rd of March the

chancellor of the exchequer brought this subject before the house of

commons, by moving that the house should resolve itself into a committee

for its discussion. In his speech Mr. Rice first attempted to prove that

the existing system could not be maintained. He remarked:—“By the law

as it stood at present any vestry has the power of refusing its assent

to a church-rate. Can it then be said there is, in fact, any fixed or

satisfactory mode of providing for the maintenance of the churches

of the establishment? Not only have they the power of refusing their

assent, but this power has been frequently exercised. In consequence of

the contests that took place in Sheffield on the subject, up to the year

1818, no rate has existed there since. In Manchester, in 1833, a poll

took place on a rate, which was lost by a majority of one out of six

or seven thousand votes. It is true the majority was set aside on a

scrutiny; but it has not been ventured to collect the rate. In 1834 and

1835 the same scenes took place; large majorities were polled against

the rates; those majorities were, on a scrutiny, declared to be

minorities; but the churchwardens did not dare to act on their decision,

or levy the rate that had been assessed. Can, or ought,” asked Mr. Bice,

“this state of things to continue? If you depend upon the church-rate

for the maintenance of the church, can you depend upon the present state

of the law to enable you to enforce that payment? It is not sufficient

to assert that the law must be strengthened; if you wish to maintain

such a proposition, you must carry the house of commons with you. Can

you do so? I confess I should like to see, not the person, but the

party, however combined in force or numbers, who could come down to

this house and ask of parliament to grant additional power for enforcing

the payment of church-rates. They would soon find that they miscalculate

the character both of the legislature and of the people whom it

represents.” Having thus stated his grievance, Mr. Bice considered the

remedy. He expressed his decided objection to the voluntary system; when

he could be satisfied that the army and navy could be supported, or the

administration of justice provided for on the voluntary principle, then,

and not till then, would he apply it to the church. He also objected

to a distinctive tax on the members of the established church, to the

raising of a fund from pew-rents, and to a graduated impost on the

benefices of the clergy. He further objected to the proposition brought

forward by Lord Althorp; namely, that a sum of £250,000 should be voted

by parliament, for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the church.

His plan would be different from all these propositions. He proposed to

take the whole property of the bishops, deans, and chapters out of

the hands of those dignitaries, and to vest them in the hands of a

commission, under whose improved system of management it was calculated

that, after paying to their full present amount all existing incomes, a

sum not less than £250,000 might be saved and applied to the purposes

of church-rates. He proposed that there should be eleven commissioners;

five of high ecclesiastical rank; three high officers of state; and

three paid members of the board. He further proposed that in all

cases where pew-rents had been received, or where they could be justly

demanded from the rich, the proceeds should be collected, and placed,

in the first instance, under the control of a parochial committee, who

should be required in ordinary cases to apportion one-fifth of the whole

space in the church to free seats for the poor; in the churches built

under the church building act, one-third; the surplus to be handed over

to the commissioners. The sums received by the commissioners were to be

paid to the ecclesiastical commission, to be applied by them to

their specific objects. All visitation fees, and fees on swearing in

churchwardens, were to be abolished; by which regulation it was stated

a saving of £180,000 a year would be effected. A short and desultory

conversation took place; in the course of which the liberal members

expressed themselves satisfied with the proposition, while those on the

other side of the house intimated their distrust of the principles of

the measure.

The friends of the church soon sounded an alarm upon this subject. Three

days after Mr. Rice had made his statement, a meeting of fifteen bishops

took place at Lambeth Palace; and they came to an unanimous resolution

in disapprobation of the bill. The same evening the Archbishop of

Canterbury, on presenting some petitions against the abolition of

church-rates, expressed his feelings on the subject to the house of

lords. The principle of the bill was so unkind to the church, he said,

and so mischievous in its effects, that he would never give his assent

to its becoming law. This protest raised the indignation of Lord

Melbourne. He heard this expression of opinion on the part of the most

reverend prelate with sorrow and concern, not less on account of the

effect which it would have on the success of the measure, than with

reference to the interests of the church itself. He would put it, he

said, to the archbishop, whether there was not something of undue haste

and precipitation in the course which he had adopted; and whether he

was not put forward by those who had more guile and deeper designs than

himself, in order that his expressed opinions might affect the decision

of the question in another place? He thought it would have been more

decent if the most reverend prelate had waited for the regular time for

the discussion of the matter, and not have thus precipitately announced

his intentions with respect to it. He learned with affliction that he

should have the most reverend prelate and his brethren against him on

this measure; but this would not alter his course: considering it

as just in itself, advantageous to the church, and beneficial to the

community, he should persevere in urging it upon parliament.

The house of commons went into committee upon the resolutions of Mr.

Rice on the 13th March. The discussion was opened by Sir Robert Peel in

opposition. Lord Howick contented himself with replying on one or two

points in the financial criticisms of Sir Robert Peel. He was convinced,

he said, that the property of the church in land and houses was much

greater than was reported by the bishops and chapters, and was greatly

improvable under a better management; and he enlarged upon the evils of

the present system, and the absolute necessity of removing them for the

sake of the church. A discussion followed which lasted several nights.

On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred

and seventy-three against two hundred and fifty.

This was a small majority on a question which involved little more than

than the taking of the plan into consideration; ministers, indeed, were

evidently dissatisfied with the reception of their measure, for they

did not seem inclined to urge it through the house. Nearly two months

elapsed before the subject was renewed by them: a delay which was made

a matter of reproach to the government by some of its supporters without

doors, as implying an acknowledgment of failure on the part of the

authors of the scheme. The second reading of the resolutions was moved

on the 22nd of May. An amendment was moved by Mr. A. Johnstone to this

effect: “That it is the opinion of this house that funds may be derived

from an improved mode, of management of church lands, and that these

funds should be applied to religious instruction within the established

church, where the same may be found deficient, in proportion to the

existing population.” Messrs. Baines, Hardy, Borthwick, and Horace

Twiss, all spoke against the measure. Sir Francis Burdett expressed his

regret that he was compelled to act against his former associates in

politics, but he could not support the measure. Mr. Shiel endeavoured to

make the honourable baronet refute himself by quoting extracts from

his former speeches on the same subject. He spoke, however, of the

honourable baronet in terms of the highest respect, as “a venerable

relic of a temple dedicated to freedom, though ill-omened birds now

built their nests and found shelter in that once noble edifice.” On the

second night of the debate the bill was supported by Messrs. Brotherton

and Charles Buller. Mr. Johnstone withdrew his amendment; and on a

division the original resolution was carried by a majority of five only,

the numbers being two hundred and eighty-seven against two hundred and

eighty-two. This division was a death-blow to the bill: ministers did

not even attempt to urge it further in the house of commons. They were

still disposed, however, to follow up the inquiries which had been

suggested, into the present method of holding and leasing the property

belonging to the bishops and chapters. On the 13th of June, Lord John

Russell moved a committee “to inquire into this subject, with a view

to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might

be obtained by an improved management, with a due consideration of the

interests of the established church, and of the present leases of such

property.” This motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and

nineteen against two hundred and thirty-six, although it was opposed

both by the church party and by honourable members on the part of

dissenters. Mr. Coulburn moved a resolution to be added to the original

motion, pledging the house to a specific appropriation of any increased

revenue derivable from church lands, to the extension of religious

instruction by ministers of the establishment. This was lost, but it was

only by a majority of two hundred and ninety-one against two hundred and

sixty-five. On the other hand, an amendment moved by Mr. Harvey, for the

abolition of church-rates altogether, was negatived by an overwhelming

majority of four hundred and eighty-nine against fifty-eight. These

divisions possessed some interest, as indicative of the different shades

of opinion which prevailed in the house on matters relating to the

established church.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

On the opening of the first session of this parliament, Sir Robert Peel

had made the deficient means of pastoral superintendence in the church

of Scotland, the matter of a recommendation from the crown to the

parliament. His government did not exist long enough in power to carry

these recommendations into effect, and their successors were supposed to

be adverse to the subject. On being pressed, however, they consented

to the appointment of a commission, which should make inquiry into the

whole of it, and report the same to parliament. The first report of

this commission was not made till February of the present year, and then

government appeared to take no notice of it. Under these circumstances

Sir William Rae moved, on the 5th of May, that the “report should be

taken into immediate consideration, for the purpose of remedying the

evils acknowledged to exist within the district to which it refers,

by extending the means of religious instruction and pastoral

superintendence furnished by the established church of Scotland, and

rendering them available to all classes of the community.” This motion

embarrassed government. Lord John Russell said that the general assembly

of the Scottish church was about to assemble within a few days, and no

doubt it was desired that they should have the ministers’ refusal to

consent to this motion, to allege as a presumption of their indifference

to the interests of the establishment. He objected to the motion,

only on the ground that they had not yet sufficient information on the

subject to enable them to deal with it satisfactorily. The motion was

opposed by Messrs. Horsman and Oillon on more general grounds; and on a

division the order of the day, which was moved by Lord John Russell,

was carried by two hundred and seventeen against one hundred and

seventy-six: Sir William Rae’s resolutions, therefore, were negatived by

a majority of forty-one.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.

Within the first week of this session, the notice-book of the house

of commons presented the announcement of motions for various “organic

changes” in our constitution. Mr. Grote gave notice of his annual

proposition of vote by ballot; Sir William Molesworth announced

his intention of moving a committee on peerage reform; Mr. Tennyson

D’Eyncourt promised to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Septennial

Act; Mr. Hume gave notice for the extension of the parliamentary

suffrage to all householders; Mr. Duncombe, of another for the repeal of

the rate-paying clauses in the reform bill; Mr. Ewart, one of an

address to the crown for the appointment of a minister of education;

Mr. Roebuck, of a bill for the establishment of a system of national

education; and Mr. Clay, a motion for the repeal of the corn-laws.

The motion for the ballot took place on the 7th of March. Mr. Grote’s

speech on this occasion contained many specious arguments, and it

appears to have had a great effect upon the house. His motion was

seconded by Mr. Hodges, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Charles

Buller. The chancellor of the exchequer opposed the motion. He had as

much right as any man to complain of the effects of undue influence and

intimidation at his election at Cambridge: but he doubted whether the

ballot would prove a remedy for the evil. He thought the only way was to

let in public opinion upon the acts and conduct of individuals abusing

their power. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of

two hundred and sixty-seven against one hundred and fifty-five.