Another motion, referring to the exercise or regulation of the

parliamentary franchise, was that of Sir William Molesworth, for leave

to bring in a bill to abolish the property qualification of members of

parliament, which, after a brief discussion, was negatived. The other

notice which Sir William had given for a committee on peerage reform was

not followed up. The only motion relating to this subject was introduced

by Mr. Charles Lushington, who, on the 16th February, moved for leave to

bring in a bill for the expulsion of bishops from the house of peers, on

the ground that the sitting of bishops in parliament was unfavourable in

its operation to the general interests of the Christian religion in this

country, and tended to alienate the affections of the people from the

established church. This motion was decidedly opposed by Lord John

Russell, as introducing a change into one of the most ancient portions

of the British constitution. It was a motion not to amend, but to

destroy a part of our institutions. And where would such changes stop?

The conservative party seemed content to leave this question to be

debated between the two parties of their opponents; but when Mr. Buller

made some remarks on their silence, Sir Robert Peel declared that if any

unpopularity attended resistance to the motion, he was willing to put

in a distinct claim for his share. He feared he should not benefit Lord

John Russell by his compliments; but he would say that he had never

heard a speech delivered in a more manly tone than the noble lord’s, or

one that did more credit to his judgment and abilities. On a division,

the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-seven

against ninety-two.

Another motion connected with the reform of the house of lords was

brought forward on the 9th of May, by Mr. Thomas Duncombe. He moved

by way of resolution, “That the practice of any deliberative assembly

deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative

enactments is so incompatible with every principle of justice and

reason, that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and

well-founded complaint among all classes of his majesty’s subjects.”

This resolution went, therefore, to abolish the right of peers to

vote by proxy. Mr. Duncombe observed, that after the house should have

affirmed that resolution, he would move, “That a message be sent to

the house of lords, requesting a conference, at which the foregoing

resolution might be communicated. Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel met

Mr. Duncombe’s arguments on the subject, by endeavouring to show that if

voting by proxy was absurd, the custom of pairing off in the commons, or

of coming in to vote at the division without having heard a syllable of

the debate, was open to the same objection.” Sir Robert went so for as

to parody Mr. Duncombe’s resolution, by drawing up a similar one against

the practice of pairing; and he concluded by recommending that they

should take the mote out of their own eye before they made any attempt

to extract the mote out of that of another. On a division, the motion

was negatived by one hundred and twenty-nine against eighty-one.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe’s motion on the subject of the rate-paying clauses

of the reform bill was disposed of in a similar manner. He brought this

forward on the 9th of March, by moving for leave to bring in a bill

for the repeal of those clauses. Mr. Duncombe made no prefatory

observations; on which, the chancellor of the exchequer remarked, that

on so grave a motion he thought it much better that argument should

precede rather than follow the introduction of the bill. Mr. Duncombe

then said, that it was his conviction that the clauses in question

operated materially to diminish the number of voters throughout the

country. It was promised that the reform act should add half a million

to the amount of electors, whereas it did not give more than three

hundred thousand. The great reason for this was the want of punctuality

in the payment of rates and taxes, and the partiality shown by

collectors. The chancellor of the exchequer replied, that the

principle on which the clause was founded was one of the oldest in the

constitution; namely, that no man should enjoy civil rights who did

not discharge his civil obligations. If there was any unfairness in

collectors it should be inquired into; they were not appointed by the

crown. After a few words from Mr. Wakley in support of the motion, and

from Mr. Pease, who opposed it, the motion was carried by forty-nine

against thirty-eight. On the second reading of the bill, however, Lord

John Russell moved its postponement for six months, which was carried by

one hundred and sixty-six against seventy-three, so that Mr. Duncombe’s

success was but transient.

Mr. Tennyson D’Eyncourt brought forward his promised motion for the

shortening of the legal duration of parliaments, on the 8th of May. The

terms of his motion were confined to a repeal of the septennial act,

without specifying any particular period to be substituted for the

present one. The motion was supported by Mr. Hume, on the ground that

seven years was too long a tenancy of a political trust. He thought

three years a better term, and one with which, he believed, reformers

in general would be content. Lord John Russell opposed the motion. In

private affairs a man would no more be disposed to trust his interests

to another, without taking account, for three years than for seven. The

septennial act at the time of its passing had been considered essential

for the security of the Hanoverian succession; but the preamble of that

measure showed that it was not intended merely for a temporary purpose,

it stated the object to be to diminish the heavy expenses of frequent

elections, and to put an end to heats and animosities. It was

observable, he said, that from the Revolution to the passing of the

septennial act, the persons who had the chief weight and leading

authority in the country were peers; since the passing of that act

almost every person who has possessed a leading influence has sat in the

house of commons. Mr. Roebuck desired a bill of this description, not

because it would lesson, but because he thought it would increase the

stability of the government, particularly if coupled with the provision

that parliament should not sit for more or less than three years. The

motion was rejected by a majority of ninety-one against eighty-seven.

On the 4th of April Mr. Ewart renewed the motion which he had made in

the previous session, for leave to bring in a bill, providing that in

cases of intestacy, or in the absence of any settlement to the contrary,

landed property be equally divided among the children or nearest

relatives of the deceased. He quoted Adam Smith, Gibbon, Bentham, &c., in

favour of an equal partition of property, and insisted that the system

of primogeniture tended only to foster all the harsh and selfish

passions of the human heart. The attorney-general opposed the motion.

Mr. Ewart’s arguments, he said, if they went for anything, would bring

us to the system of equal distribution prevailing in France, which he

could not think a desirable consummation. The change proposed would

create great confusion in our law. The motion was lost by a majority

of fifty-four against thirty-three. Mr. Ewart had given notice of an

address to the crown, on the appointment of a minister of education;

but neither this motion nor those of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, and Clay,

noticed at the opening of this article, were brought forward this

session.

OPERATION OF THE NEW POOR-LAWS.

From the last report of the commissioners of the poor-laws, which was

made up to July, 1837, it appeared that up to that period, of 18,433

parishes or townships in England, 12,132 had been united under the

provisions of the poor-law act. These parishes or townships contained a

population of above ten millions and a half; while the number of those

not yet included contained a population of two millions and a half.

In Wales, of 1049 parishes, twenty-eight only remained not yet united.

Those which were not yet brought under the new system chiefly consisted

of extensive and populous parishes, administering relief to the poor

under local acts; a few others united for rating and settlement; while

others were included in the unions established under Gilbert’s act. The

report stated that the progress of the new poor-law had been made in

the face of much resistance, and under the pressure of difficult

circumstances. These obstacles, however, had not been so considerable

as might have been supposed. The opponents of the law had acted on the

principle of agitation; but they had failed to accomplish that which

they desired. The report further gave a very favourable account of the

practical operation of the law in the habits of the poor. It did appear,

in truth, that the new system had so far operated as to induce the

farmers to give permanent employment to a much greater extent than

formerly. On the working of the new poor-laws, however, there were

differences of opinion, differences which were illustrated during this

session on an occasion of a motion made by Mr. Walter, to inquire

into the operation of the act. On introducing this subject, he brought

forward a great many cases of individual hardship under its operation.

The terms of his motion were, “That a select committee be appointed to

inquire into the operation of the poor-law amendment act, and to report

their opinion on it to the house;” but he disclaimed any intention

to repeal the bill. Mr. Fielden, the seconder of the motion, was more

explicit. His object was, he said, to obtain the total defeat of the

obnoxious measure; he had voted against it on every division at the time

it was passing; he had attended meetings of the people preparatory to

resistance of its introduction into the county of Lancashire; and he had

openly declared that if it were attempted to establish its operation in

his own peaceable valley of Todmorden, it would be met with opposition,

of which he would be the leader. Lord John Russell, in reply, objected

to the inquiry; and he moved, as an amendment, “That a select committee

be appointed to inquire into the administration of the relief of the

poor, under the orders and regulations issued by the commissioners

appointed under the provisions of the poor-law amendment act.” On the

second night of the debate, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Robinson, and other

members spoke against the measure; while Sir Robert Peel, Sir James

Graham, and the chancellor of the exchequer defended it. The latter

said, in conclusion, that the intention of government in proposing the

amendment was not to exclude any one topic of inquiry which was not

directly opposed to the principle of the bill; on which Mr. Walter

consented to withdraw his motion, and the amendment was then carried and

the committee appointed.

The committee began its inquiries immediately, and continued them almost

daily. Such, however, were the minuteness of examination to which the

witnesses were subjected, and the mass of conflicting evidence brought

forward on both sides, that the progress of the inquiry was but slow.

Mr. Harvey had been one of the members of this committee, but had

retired from it, “because it was all a delusion in its consequences,

if not in its intention.” Before he retired, he adopted the course of

printing the evidence before it was reported, in a paper called the

_True Sun_, of which he was the proprietor and editor, by way of

appealing to the judgment of the public against the prepossessions of

his colleagues in the committee. This was made a question of breach of

privilege, and as such brought before the house on the 21st of April,

by Lord John Russell. The speaker had informed Mr. Harvey that it was

a violation of the privileges of the house, and the chairman of the

committee had given him due warning that unless he desisted from the

practice he should be reported. Lord John Russell, in bringing the

subject forward, pointed out the obvious injury to the public which

would result from allowing such a discretion to every member of a

committee. Mr. Harvey defended his conduct upon grounds peculiar to

the object of the poor-law committee. He asked, “Who were the parties

composing that committee? On the one hand, there was all the property of

the country, in every variety and form, aggregated to support a measure

peculiarly framed for its interest and protection. Who was the other

party? All that was pitiable and miserable in the land, sunken alike

by ignorance and destitution. How, again, were the respective causes of

these parties conducted? On the one side was one of the most active and

vigilant bodies of men, the poor-law commissioners and their assistants;

but who was there on the other to advocate the rights of the unprotected

and oppressed millions? How was the working man, chained as he was

to the soil upon which he dragged out a miserable being, to become

acquainted with what took place except through the newspapers? Such

publicity was the more necessary, when it was recollected that the

advocates of the law in the committee were as a majority of twenty-two

to four.” Mr. Harvey’s reasoning would have been sound if the committee

had been compelled to make a daily report—a course which they

subsequently adopted of themselves; but there could be no doubt that

it rested only with the committee or the house to determine that point.

Lord John Russell’s motion was simply declaratory of the privileges of

the house in this matter which was carried without a division.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Commissioners had been appointed to inquire into the ground of the

complaints which for some years had been alleged by the prevailing party

in the legislature of Canada, and by their friends and agents in

the British parliament. Early in this session the report of these

commissioners was laid before both houses, and on the 6th of March

the subject was brought before the commons by Lord John Russell. His

lordship declared at the outset that lie did not intend to cast any

censure upon the conduct of the house of assembly in Lower Canada. He

considered their course to be so much the same with that which other

popular assemblies had followed in similar circumstances, that instead

of an act of self-will, or caprice, or presumption, it seemed to be

rather the obligation of a general law which affects all these disputes

between a popular assembly on the one hand, and the executive government

on the other. The course of these controversies, he said, seemed to

impress this general lesson—that popular assemblies are hardly ever

wrong in the beginning, and as seldom right in the conclusion of such

struggles. They began with the assertion of right, and ended with the

establishment of wrong. His lordship proceeded to state what were the

demands of the leading party in the house of assembly. The first was,

that the legislative council, which had hitherto been appointed by the

crown, should for the future be an elective assembly. The second was,

that the executive council should be responsible in the same way that

the cabinet was in this country. By a third, it was exacted that the

law of tenures should be changed, without respect to the rights obtained

under a British act of parliament. Fourthly, it was demanded that the

land company should be abolished, with a similar disregard of the rights

required under the same act. Having stated the difficulties of the case,

Lord John Russell proceeded to propose his remedies. It was now four

years and a half, he said, since the judges had received their salaries,

and it was high time for parliament to interfere on their behalf. He

proposed to apply a certain portion of the revenue of Canada to such

payments as in their rejected supply bill of 1833 the assembly had

under certain conditions agreed to. The total amount of these would

be £148,000, and in so applying them they would simply be applying the

revenue of the colony for its own benefit. His lordship next proposed to

adopt the recommendation of the commissioners which had been sent out

in 1855, and exclude the judges from the legislative council; and to

provide that in future the members of that body should not be chosen so

exclusively from persons of the English race, but that alternately one

of French and one of British extraction should be selected. With respect

to the executive council, it was proposed that there should not be more

than two or three official persons among its members, and that the rest

should be selected by the legislative council, and from the house of

assembly. The privileges of the North American Loan Company were to be

preserved inviolate; a provision might easily be framed to prevent any

abuse of them. As the complaints made against the Canada tenures act

were in some degree well founded, it was proposed to repeal that act,

care being taken that the lights of individuals vested under it should

be respected. Complaints had been likewise made of the commercial

relations between Upper and Lower Canada: the upper province, by the

act of 1791, was allowed no communication with the sea, except on

the payment of heavy duties; while the lower province put various

impediments in the way of its commercial progress. It was proposed

that, with the assent of the legislatures of the two provinces, a

joint committee should sit at Montreal, composed of four members of the

legislative council and eight of the representative assemblies of each,

making twenty-four persons in all, who should have power to prepare

laws and regulations upon all matters of reciprocal intercourse. These

propositions were embodied in a series of ten resolutions, of the first

of which, relating to the payment of the judges, &c., Lord John Russell

then moved the adoption. These resolutions met with violent opposition

on the part of the Radical section of the house of commons. Mr. Leader

called the measure a coercion bill, and reminded the noble mover of the

rule of unlimited concession in government which his lordship had a

few nights before quoted from Mr. Fox, and desired him to apply it not

merely to Ireland, but to Canada. He moved as an amendment on the fourth

resolution, “That it is advisable to make the legislative council of

Lower Canada an elective council.” Mr. Robinson said that the whole

of Mr. Leader’s argument was founded on the modest assumption that the

government, and commissioners, and legislative council had been wrong,

and Mr. Papineau and the house of assembly as uniformly right in

everything that had been done. Mr. O’Connell warmly advocated the cause

of the Papineau party, whose sole object was, separation from this

country. He called for “justice to Canada.” He remarked:—“Give them a

legislative council elected by themselves; place them in possession

of all the rights and privileges which as British subjects they could

reasonably demand; and then if they persevered in their opposition to

the home government, it would be time enough to think of adopting some

such measures as were now proposed.” The Canadas, he urged, ought not

to be governed with reference merely to British interests: Great

Britain did not want Canadian revenues. Sir William Molesworth, Colonel

Thompson, and Mr. Roebuck followed on the same side of the question. The

speech of the latter was more violent than any of his party. Like all

the orators on his side of the house, he dwelt much on the example of

the American revolution, and on the sympathy and assistance the United

States would give to the Canadians if they should resist. He asked,

“What is the evil, and what is the remedy? You say, Great merit exists

among the public servants. But do you propose to prevent the recurrence

of that difficulty? Not at all. You pay the arrears. But who will pay

the servants next year? Do you believe that the house of assembly will

do so? You know as well as I do that the supplies will again be stopped;

the same outcries will be raised, and then, I suppose we shall have

another special commission, another delay of three years, another

evasion of the difficulty, another breach of faith. Distrust will

continue; exasperation will increase; their powers of resistance will

increase also; one effort will be made, and you and your shuffling

policy, your degraded government, your unworthy peculating and

mischievous officials, will be dismissed with ignominy and hatred. I

hear eternal talk of the evil consequences of stopping the supplies to

those official servants, and hear nothing in reproof of the legislative

council, who shut up last year all the primary schools in the country,

and left 60,000 children without instruction. All your regards are

turned the wrong way. You sought to make out a case of hardship to the

servants of the people, but turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the

people themselves. But I would ask his majesty’s ministers, Have they

well weighed the policy of this measure, and do they know its inevitable

result? If not, I will tell them. The direct effect on the minds of the

Canadian population will be a determination as soon as possible to

get rid of a dominion which entails on them results so mischievous and

degrading. Every year will hereafter strengthen the feeling, and lasting

enmity and discord will thus be entailed on the mother country and the

colony—discord that will cease only when the colony shall become a

great, powerful, and independent community. The immediate effects of

this feeling will not be seen in open and violent revolt, but in a

silent though effective warfare against your trade. Non-intercourse will

become the religion of the people: they will refuse your manufactures,

and they will smuggle from the States. The long line of frontier will

render all your attempts to prevent this smuggling unavailing. The

people will refuse your West India produce, and they will view with

hatred your schools of unprotected emigrants. Impatiently will they wait

for the moment in which they shall obtain their freedom, and become part

of that happy, and, for our interests, already too powerful republic. A

war will be waged through an unrestricted press upon your government

and your people. In America you will be held up as the oppressors of

mankind, and millions will daily pray for your signal and immediate

defeat. The fatal moment will at length arrive; the standard of

independence will be raised; thousands of Americans will cross the

frontier, and the history of Texas will tell the tale of the Canadian

revolt.”

In reply to Mr. Roebuck’s declamation, Sir G. Grey, the colonial

under-secretary, appealed to all the papers on the table, to all the

instructions which had been sent out to the local government, and to

every act which had been done in pursuance of these institutions, and he

asked if anything had been done of which a free and independent people

had the slightest right to complain? Every grievance which had arisen

out of former misgovernment had been redressed: and now the house of

assembly took their stand on another ground, and declared that if the

constitution were not altered they would stop the supplies. The cry was

raised by the house of assembly in Lower Canada alone; the people of

Upper Canada disclaimed any share in it. The debate was adjourned to

another day, when it was opened by Mr. Hume, who, in a speech of three

hours’ duration, impugned the whole conduct and policy of the government

towards Canada. Finally, the three first resolutions being simply

declaratory, were agreed to without division. The fourth, also, was

carried on a division by a majority of three hundred and eighteen

against fifty-six. This resolution was to the effect, “That in

the existing state of Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to make the

legislative council of that province an elective body; but that it is

expedient that measures be adopted for securing to that branch of the

legislature a greater degree of public confidence.”

After this decision ministers expressed a hope that the opponents of

the resolutions would not throw any obstacle in the way of government.

Delay, however, was the object of the Canadian party, apparently in the

hope of giving time for a demonstration of popular feeling on the other

side of the Atlantic. The committee was not resumed till the 14th of

April, and then the fifth resolution came under consideration. This was

to the effect, “That while it is expedient to improve the composition of

the executive council in Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to subject

it to the responsibility demanded by the house of assembly of that

province.” On this occasion Mr. Roebuck again opposed government, and

intimated that the loss of the colony would be the certain eventual

consequence of their adoption. At the same time he disclaimed all

interest in, or desire to accelerate this consummation. Mr. Roebuck

broached a plan of his own for the settlement of the dispute. Since the

house would not make the legislative council elective, he proposed to

abolish it altogether. The only useful power at present exercised by the

legislative council was that of proposing amendments on the bills passed

by the house of assembly. This office he proposed to transfer to an

executive council of twelve persons, to be named by the governor, who

might amend any measure sent up from the assembly, but not to have the

power of rejecting it; that would rest with the governor. The great

object of this scheme was, he said, to concentrate responsibility, and

to bring it to bear on known individuals; but it was plain that the

effect of it would be to bring the executive in constant and direct

collision with the popular branch of the legislature by doing away every

intermediate power. The other principal feature of Mr. Roebuck’s scheme

was, the establishment of a general assembly at Montreal, composed of

delegates chosen by the houses of assembly of each of our North American

colonies, and clothed with certain judicial and legislative powers.

In its judicial capacity this assembly was to constitute the tribunal

before which the judges of the various provinces might be impeached;

and, moreover, might act as a court of appeal, and exercise the

functions now performed by our privy-council. Its legislative offices

would relate to all matters of dispute or communication between two

or more provinces. Lord John Russell remarked, in reply, that whatever

might be the merits of Mr. Roebuck’s propositions, he had no authority

from the colony to make them, and therefore parliament could not think

of making them the basis of pacification, As for the threat that the

people of Lower Canada would, if their demands were rejected, throw

themselves into the arms of their republican neighbours, his lordship

contented himself with saying, that it would not be their interest to

act thus; nor did he think that the United States would be anxious to

seek a quarrel on this question. Mr. Robinson supported and Mr. Charles

Buller opposed the resolution. Mr. Roebuck again spoke in reply, and

complained that Lord John Russell was doing all in his power to insult

and vilify the people of Canada. He doubted, if Sir Robert Peel was in

power, that with his wary prudence and caution, he would carry out these

resolutions. The right honourable baronet and his friends, he said, were

silent on certain questions; they no doubt acted so that they might

come into office with clean hands. Sir Robert Peel said that he did not

desire to withhold his sentiments on this subject. In his speech,

the right honourable baronet took the same view of the policy of the

government that had been expressed by Lord Stanley. He observed, that if

no other, interests but those of the French Canadians were involved

in the question, and if the continuation of British connexion were

unpalatable to them, he would say, “God forbid that we should force it

upon them.” In that case he should think it more for our interest than

theirs that the connexion should be dissolved. But he-doubted, if he

were to make the people of Lower Canada an offer of establishing their

own government, that they would be disposed to accept it. At any

rate the question could only be considered in reference to the French

Canadians: there was a British population in the province, which had a

right to look up to this country for a continuance of the connexion and

protection on the faith of which they had established themselves in it.

On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred

and sixty-nine against forty-six.

On the 21st of April Mr. Leader moved the postponement of the further

consideration of the resolutions, in order to give time to the Canadian

people to state whether or not they agreed to Mr. Roebuck’s scheme for

the settlement of the existing differences between the province and the

mother country. This motion was negatived by a large majority; and the

house then went into committee on the sixth resolution, which declared

the necessity of maintaining inviolate the privileges conferred by an

act of parliament on the North American Loan Company. Mr. Roebuck moved

as an amendment, deferring all resolutions on the subject of the

land company “until an inquiry shall have been instituted into the

circumstances under which the land held by that company had been

obtained.” The company found supporters in Lord Stanley, Sir George

Grey, and Mr. Robinson; and even Mr. Grote, and others of the radical

section, declined voting for the amendment. On a division the resolution

was carried by one hundred and sixty-six against six; and this closed

the discussion on this subject in the house of commons. On the 1st

of May the resolutions were communicated to the house of lords in a

conference.

The subject was brought before the house of lords by Lord Glenelg on the

9th of May, in a speech of considerable length, but which contained

the same arguments which had been so frequently urged in favour of the

resolutions in the house of commons. The resolutions were supported

by Lord Ripon, although he objected to the wording of the fourth

resolution, in which it was declared that “in the existing state” of

Lower Canada, it was not advisable to introduce the elective principle

into the formation of the legislative council. The inference from this

mode of expression was, that a state of things might arise when it would

be considered advisable to do so; but he could not acquiesce in

the principle under any circumstances. The only opposition to the

resolutions came from Lord Brougham, who objected to them entirely, as

well to the principles as to the policy of them. His lordship chiefly

dwelt upon the violation of the Canadian constitution by the advance of

moneys, without the consent of the house of assembly. Under the eighth

resolution it was intended to replace the £30,000 advanced out of the

military chest, to provide the means of defraying colonial expenses.

Lord Aberdeen remarked that Lord Brougham, who seemed so shocked at the

idea of interfering with the rights of the assembly, had himself been

a member of that government which made this advance; and the house

of assembly had designated it as a monstrous, and unconstitutional

interference, and had prayed that an impeachment might be instituted

against the noble and learned lord, and his late colleagues, for

committing it. The resolutions were agreed to without a division, Lord

Brougham alone saying, “Not content.”

STATE OF THE BANKING SYSTEM, ETC.

At this time there was a general impression that there was something in

the constitution of the joint-stock banks, that imperatively called

for legislative interference. This, indeed, was one of the subjects

immediately pressed upon the investigation of parliament, by the

speech of the lords commissioners at the opening of the session. In the

preceding session a select committee had been appointed to consider the

state of the law in reference to this subject. This committee began its

inquiries in the month of May, and continued them till the close of the

session. In their report to the house, they stated that they saw so many

difficulties in the way of immediate legislation, and so many objections

to imperfect legislation, that they would content themselves with merely

recommending that the committee should be revived in the following

session. On the 6th of February the chancellor of the exchequer made

a motion to that effect, on which occasion he observed that he did not

mean in any way to anticipate the decision of the committee; but he

should be greatly misconceived, if it were supposed that his motion was

made in hostility to the general principle of joint-stock banks. It had

been suggested, he said, that the range of inquiry should be extended;

but he considered the subjects already before them were sufficiently

complicated and difficult, without the committee embarrassing themselves

with other and still more delicate matters of investigation. He should,

however, propose the extension of the committee’s inquiries to Ireland;

and with that view would move the addition to its number of four Irish

members, two from each side of the house. Mr. Hume expressed himself

satisfied that the source of the difficulty lay, not in the conduct of

the joint-stock banks, but in that of the Bank of England; and he was

therefore anxious that the inquiries of the committee should be extended

to the proceedings of that establishment, and generally to the banking

system of the country. The conduct of the Bank of England, he contended,

should form a principal object of investigation; and he moved as an

amendment, “that there be an inquiry into the state of banking, and

the causes for the changes of the circulation since the year 1833.” Mr.

Williams seconded the amendment, and urged that the Bank of England had

displayed a more reckless disregard of the interests of the country than

had ever been shown by any public body intrusted with the management of

its financial resources. On the 28th of December, 1833, the issues of

the Bank were £32,600,000, and their stock £10,000,000. On the 28th of

March, 1835, a reduction appeared on those issues of no less than four

millions and a half. Nine months afterwards of the same year, there

appeared an increased issue of nearly nine millions, being more than

one-fourth of their circulation. What was the consequence? Such an

advance in prices, that in September last the cost of every article

of import was raised from forty to one hundred per cent. This caused a

falling off of trade. Then again in January last the circulation of the

Bank of England was £31,000,000, and they had four millions to pay that

amount, being little more than half-a-crown in the pound to meet their

engagements. The directors professed to have discovered that the true

principle for regulating their issues was to keep gold to the amount of

one-third of those issues; in so doing they would be safe. But had they

acted upon that principle? At that moment, instead of having one-third,

they had only about one-seventh or one-eighth of their issues in gold.

Mr. Gisborne took a similar view of the conduct of the Bank of England,

and urged the necessity of an inquiry into it by the committee, if, at

least, any inquiry into the banking system was at all necessary. For

his own part he did not think it was; it would only lead to expectations

which it would be impossible to satisfy. The debate was closed by the

chancellor of the exchequer, who objected to an extended inquiry, and

on a division, the original motion was carried by one hundred and

twenty-one to forty-two.

CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND UNDER THE WHIG

ADMINISTRATION.

There was no part of the conduct of the Whig administration which had

been made the subject of more incessant attack than that which related

to their foreign policy. This session the line of policy followed

by Lord Palmerston in reference to Spain afforded a subject for

declamation against him and his coadjutors in the government. At

this time British soldiers were fighting in that country without the

protection of the British flag, exposed to all the shame and hardships

of a disastrous and disgraceful war. In the midst of the public anxiety

on this subject, it was brought forward in the house of commons by

Lord Mahon, who had been under-secretary for foreign affairs during Sir

Robert Peel’s administration. His lordship began by expressing a want

of confidence in government, and especially in Lord Palmerston: the

country, he said, had too long reposed a confidence in his exertions,

to which he was neither entitled by prudence nor success. He complained

that the public had been kept in a state of ignorance as to whether

they were in peace or at war: in his opinion it was a peace without

tranquillity, and a war without honour. The object of the quadruple

alliance had been to appease the civil dissensions in Portugal; not to

sanction the intervention of France and England in Spain. He did not

object to this, but he lamented the policy which led to the additional

articles signed in 1834, which stipulated for a certain degree of

interference. The Duke of Wellington, during the four months he had been

in office, had acted up to the spirit of those articles, as he was bound

to do; but Lord Palmerston had thought proper to proceed still further,

in suspending the foreign enlistment act, and allowing twelve thousand

Englishmen to enlist under the banners of the queen. Lord Mahon went on

to contrast our position throughout the peninsular campaign. The great

object had then been to drive the French out of the Peninsula, an object

which had been sanctioned by all our greatest statesmen for more than

a century and a half. Lord Palmerston had, however, departed from this

line of policy. Count Mole, the prime minister of France, said in the

chamber of deputies that “Lord Palmerston considered that circumstances

justified the co-operation of France; and that in March, 1836, he

notified to General Sebastiani, that it was his intention to land a

certain force of marines on the coast of Spain, and invited France to

join in that co-operation.” At the same time he had offered France the

occupation of the port of Passages, and left to her own option the

mode and extent of co-operation. M. Thiers had, however, declined the

invitation. Next came the revolution of La Grunja, and soon after

that event, an increased force was sent to relieve ‘Bilboa. More than

£540,000 had already been expended in the war, and all the accounts

were not as yet sent in. In Lord Mahon’s opinion, the influence of Great

Britain in Spain had not been augmented by these measures; and in

proof of it, he quoted a memorial presented by the British merchants of

Alicant, complaining that their interests had been neglected; and that

while England carried away three-fourths of the produce of Spain, that

country took very little in return. To illustrate still further the

decline of our influence with the court of Madrid, Lord Mali on alluded

to a tax imposed on British subjects. “For the liberation of the king,”

originally levied during the captivity of King Ferdinand. This impost

had been kept up though the king was now dead. There were other

grievances of a similar kind: the only one redressed was a tax on

military quarters, which had been ceded to the English residents. Lord

Mahon concluded by calling Lord Palmerston’s attention to the provinces

of Biscay and Navarre, which had been deprived of their legal rights and

privileges; and by stating that in bringing the subject forward, he was

not actuated by any partiality for the character of Don Carlos, or

any desire of advocating his claims on the crown of Spain. Mr. Cutlar

Fergusson, while he admired the moderate and gentlemanly tone of Lord

Mahon’s speech, yet differed from his views. He defended the alteration

which Ferdinand had made in the succession, and which had been approved

of by the Cortes, while they looked upon Don Carlos as a pretender. The

question for the house was whether this country was not justified in

abiding by the terms of the quadripartite treaty. We had done no more,

he said, till Don Carlos had published the edict of Durango: after

that infamous act an important article had been appended to the treaty,

stipulating that arms and stores should be supplied for the maintenance

of the war, and, if necessary, a naval force. Mr. Gaily Knight also

dissented from Mr. Fergusson’s views; while Mr. Fenton expressed his

disapprobation of Lord Palmerston’s policy. Lord Francis Egerton said

that in his opinion we were not the proper judges of the value of those

rights and privileges for which the Basques were contending; if they

themselves held them dear, every Englishman must feel a sympathy in

their cause. Mr. Fergusson had admitted, that could we have foreseen the

failure of the Spanish generals, it would have altered the question

as to the policy of suspending the foreign enlistment act: were not

ministers culpable for such a want of foresight? Surely Lord Palmerston

and his colleagues might have distinguished between Spain in the

sixteenth century, when her troops were the first in Europe, and Spain

during the peninsular war. Had not Lord Palmerston been in office during

the war of independence? And had not its records taught him something

of Spanish generals and Spanish promises? At any rate, a glance at the

pages of a Napier, or a word from the Duke of Wellington would have

enlightened him on the subject. Mr. Cutlar Fergusson explained, and Mr.

Poulter protested against the doctrine which stigmatized the conduct of

government as intervention. Mr. Grove Price defended the character of

Don Carlos from the aspersions which had been cast upon it, but he did

not attempt to contradict or justify the fact that the Don had issued

the edict of Durango; and that, in virtue of the same, some English

soldiers had already been executed. He concluded with a tribute to his

virtue and magnanimity: so far was he from desiring to establish the

Inquisition, that his prime-minister, the Bishop of Leon, had spent his

whole life in writing against it, and had obtained a decree from his

sovereign for its abolition. This was denied by Mr. O’Connell, whom Mr.

Grove Price allowed to be a competent judge, because he was acquainted

with the Bishop of Leon. He added, “If it were supposed that Don Carlos

admitted Mr. O’Connell to his councils, then no English Protestant

gentleman would for a moment countenance the pretensions of that

sovereign.”

Lord Palmerston ably defended the policy of government. He added, if he

could contribute to the establishment of the same happy things in

Spain as existed in Belgium and Portugal, he should esteem it a proud

satisfaction to the latest hour of his life. Sir Robert Peel complained

of the line of argument which had been adopted by Lord Palmerston. He,

for one, he said, openly disavowed all participation in the principles,

or sympathy with the cause of Don Carlos. He would not say that the

objects of British policy would be advanced by the success of that

prince; and he begged most distinctly to state that he wished to see

Spain in the settled enjoyment of a free and enlightened form of

civil government. His belief was, however, that the course adopted by

ministers was defeating its professed objects; it was obstructing

the cause of improvement, and was calculated neither to raise our

own character as a nation, nor to gain the affections of Spain.

Mr. O’Connell spoke against Don Carlos, dwelling at length upon the

atrocities which had been committed by his partisans.

Lord Mahon did not press any motion on the house, he being satisfied

with the expression of opinion that had taken place. Within a fortnight

after the debate the news of the defeat at Hernani arrived; and the

political opponents of government eagerly embraced this opportunity of

renewing the discussion. Immediately after the Easter recess, Sir Henry

Hardinge gave notice of a motion on the subject, which motion he brought

forward on the 18th of April. He moved an address to the king, “praying

his majesty not to renew the order in council of the 10th of June, 1835,

granting permission to British subjects to enlist in the service of the

Queen of Spain, which order in council would expire on the 10th of

June next following; and praying also that directions be given that his

majesty’s marine forces shall not be employed in the civil contests now

prevailing in Spain, otherwise than in that naval co-operation which his

majesty has engaged to afford, if necessary, under the stipulations

of the treaty.” The motion was seconded by Sir Stratford Canning,

who argued that the terms of the quadruple treaty did not justify the

interference which government had sanctioned. On the other hand Lord

Leveson contended that government had gained great credit on the

continent by the part they had taken in the affairs of the Peninsula.

Mr. Charles Wood defended ministers: it was not uncommon, he said,

for British officers to enter into the service of foreign powers. Mr.

O’Connell remarked on the eagerness with which the recent disasters of

the legion had been seized upon by gentlemen on the opposite side.

The actions in which they had clone honour to the British name were

forgotten: nothing was said of their victories; but not a moment was

lost in bringing forward their defeat. On the second night of the

debate, Sir Robert Inglis adverted to the imputation which had been cast

against his party—that they were the enemies of the church of Rome in

their own country, but its friends in every other—from its association

with despotism. He disclaimed any such feeling on their part. Mr. Ward

considered that opposition tried this question merely by the test of

success. Why did not Sir Henry Hardinge bring forward his motion soon

after the victory at Bilboa? This was the first time that he had heard

in the house of commons the misfortunes of an ally urged as a reason for

abandoning him. No doubt the legion had suffered a defeat; but not

such as to disable their continuance of the contest. General Evans

had admitted his losses; yet it was at this moment that an old brother

officer in arms had chosen to aggravate his difficulties, and to cast

against him the weight of his authority in military matters. In reply to

the imputation as to the motives in bringing forward the motion at

this particular time, Lord Mahon contended that he and his friends had

hitherto exercised the utmost forbearance on the subject. He contended,

further, that the country had a right to know whether there was any

limit to the expense which we might be called upon to incur: twenty

millions might be required by Spain; and did the treaty oblige us to

furnish that sum? Dr. Lushington followed, and endeavoured to show

that the naval co-operation which we had afforded was precisely that

contemplated by the treaty. It could not be supposed that the British

fleet was to encounter that of Don Carlos, and drive it off the seas;

the only object could be a naval warfare along the coast. He considered

the existence of the present government depended on this motion: if the

reformed parliament of Great Britain should now abandon those principles

of liberty and independence which they had hitherto advocated, the news

would be hailed at St. Petersburg by bonfires. Mr. Grove Price supported

the motion, and Mr. Shiel opposed it. The latter argued that the

government had put a right construction on the stipulations of the

quadruple treaty; and he entered into a long apology for the ill success

of General Evans, and for the excesses and insubordination of his

troops. With respect to the naval co-operation of the mariners, he

referred to their motto, _Per mare ‘per terras_, as of itself setting

that question at rest. He continued:—“But it is alleged that the

measures of the government have not produced any good result. I ask

if those measures had not been adopted, what would have befallen the

Spanish people? Would not Bilboa have been taken by assault, and the

standard of Don Carlos at this moment have been floating from the castle

of St Sebastian? Or try the allegation by another test. Let me suppose

this motion carried. The courier that will convey the intelligence will

carry tidings of great joy to St. Petersburg, to Vienna, to Berlin; and

he will convey tidings of great dismay wherever men value the possession

of liberty, or pant for its enjoyment. It will palsy the arm of freedom

in Spain—a terrible revulsion will be produced: from Calpe to the

Pyrenees the cry, ‘We are betrayed by England!’ will be heard; and

over that nation which you indeed have betrayed, Don Carlos will march

without an obstacle to Madrid.” In conclusion, Mr. Shiel said:—“I have

heard it asked whether it be befitting that in Spain, the theatre of

so many of their best exploits, British soldiers should give way before

bands of mountain peasants? I feel the force of that question; but there

is another which I venture to put to every man who hears me, and, above

all, to the gallant officer by whom the motion has been brought

forward: I invoke the same recollections; I appeal to the same glorious

remembrances, and in the name of those scenes, of which he was not only

an eye-witness, but a sharer, I ask, whether it be befitting that in

that land, consecrated as it is in the annals of England’s glory, a

terrible, remorseless, relentless despotism should be established; and

that the throne which England saved should be filled by the tyrant by

whom your own countrymen, after the heat of battle, have been savagely

and deliberately murdered? Never! the people of this country are averse,

indeed, to wanton and unnecessary war; but where the honour of England

is at stake, there is no consequence which they are not prepared to

meet—no hazard which they will not be prompt to encounter.” The debate

was protracted by another adjournment to a third night.

Lord Palmerston, who had been repeatedly called upon in the course of

the debates, at length arose to defend government from the imputations

of their opponents. The manner, he said, in which the question had been

dealt with by opposition was not fitted to impress other people with

a notion that their own convictions were very strong in respect to it.

Having made a few observations on the conduct of General Evans, on the

sufferings of the British soldiers, and on the atrocities which had been

committed, he came to the question of the quadruple treaty. Every one

knew, he said, under what circumstances, and for what purpose it was

concluded. The most superficial observer must have perceived that the

change that had been made in the accession to the Spanish throne, though

accompanied by every circumstance cf legality and regularity, yet laid

the foundation for a great revolution in that country. It was not merely

the substitution of an infant female for a grown man; out of that change

must spring a great alteration in the internal constitutions of Spain,

and a change too in the tendencies of its external policy. What happened

on the death of Ferdinand? A Spanish minister came to London to request

of the English government a force to assist in expelling Don Miguel from

Portugal. This was refused; but we said:—“Though we will not give you

an army, we will give you a treaty.” Accordingly, we joined with the

three “great powers” of the west of Europe in one alliance. This was

the quadruple treaty; and such was its effect, that even before the

ratifications were exchanged, Don Miguel’s army of twelve thousand men

laid down their arms, and the two pretenders abandoned Portugal. Then

came the escape of Don Carlos, and his placing himself at the head of

the insurgents in the Basque provinces. The four contracting parties

considered the treaty to be fully in force, and that it was only

necessary to prepare new articles in order to provide for the altered

circumstances of the war, which articles, however, should be considered

merely as complementary of the original treaty. The noble lord proceeded

to defend the manner in which those articles had been carried into

execution; and, in conclusion, he observed, that however skilfully

the question before them might be disguised, it involved no less than,

whether England should continue to fulfil her engagement with the Queen

of Spain, or should disgracefully abandon an ally whom she had pledged

herself to succour. But this was far short of the real and ultimate

tendency of the motion. The contest now waging in Spain was but a

portion of that great conflict which was going on elsewhere throughout

the world. The house had to decide that night between two opposite

systems of foreign policy. Even these were not isolated principles,

which might be taken or neglected by themselves: they were intimately

connected with, and affected also our domestic interests. The object

of the one party was to support Don Carlos and despotism; the other to

uphold Isabella and the constitution. Sir Robert Peel replied to Lord

Palmerston, reproducing the arguments and facts already urged; and the

discussion was closed by Lord John Russell, who defended the existing

state of our foreign relations, by contrasting it with that in which

they had been left by the right honourable baronet and his friends

in 1830, when they quitted office. On a division Sir Henry Hardinge’s

motion was rejected by two hundred and seventy-eight against two hundred

and forty-two. The same subject was brought under the consideration of

the lords, April 21st, by Lord Alvanley, in a motion for the dispatches

of Lord John Hay relative to the affair at Hernani.

A circumstance occurred which brought the state of our relations with

Russia under the attention of parliament. A mercantile house, Messrs.

Bell, of London, had fitted out a vessel laden with goods for the

coast of Circassia. On attempting to land her cargo she was seized by

a Russian man-of-war and confiscated, first, on the ground of the

violation of the blockade, to which the Russian government had subjected

the whole of the Circassian coast; and, secondly, for an alleged

violation of the custom-house regulations established by the same

authority in the ports of that country. This proceeding of the Russian

government was generally denounced as unjustifiable; and the subject was

brought before parliament on the 17th of March by Mr. Roebuck, who moved

for copies of all the correspondence which had taken place between the

British and Russian government on this transaction. Lord Palmerston

entered into a lengthy statement of the occurrence; but the papers were

refused, on the ground that the question was still under negotiation.

Mr. Roebuck repeated his inquiries on the subject, when Lord Palmerston

stated that, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the

case, the government had come to the conclusion that there was no room

for making any further demand upon the Russian government. Another

matter, in which our relations with Russia were concerned, was brought

before the house of commons on the 22nd of March by Lord Dudley,

who inquired of Lord Palmerston whether any consular agent had been

appointed to the state of Cracow. Lord Dudley Stuart said, that in the

preceding session a motion had been made by the member for Lancaster for

an address to the king, praying that his majesty would appoint a consul

to reside in that city; and that the noble secretary for foreign

affairs had stated that it was the intention of government to make such

appointment, on which the motion for an address was withdrawn. Lord

Palmerston admitted the correctness of this statement. It had been his

intention, he said, to send a consular agent to Cracow; but he had

since been induced to depart from his purpose, finding that greater

difficulties would attend it than he had anticipated. His lordship did

not state what those difficulties were, and the house seems not to have

thought it expedient to press the government further upon the subject.

A more important point of our foreign policy considered this session was

the situation of the province of Texas. On the 9th of March, Mr. Barlow

Hay moved for “copies of all correspondence which had taken place

between our government and those of Mexico and of the United States on

this subject;” stating at the same time his sense of its importance, and

the suspicions he entertained of the ambitious project of the American

government in respect to it. Lord Palmerston admitted the importance

of the subject, and its claim on the anxious attention both of the

government and the public; but he resisted the production of the papers

moved for, and on a division the motion was rejected by a majority of

forty-one to twenty-eight.

MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

At this time the state of public affairs was such as to induce Mr.

Roebuck to bring the subject before parliament. On the 9th of June, when

the order of the day had been moved for the second reading of the Irish

tithe bill, Mr. Roebuck moved an amendment that the house should resolve

itself into a committee for considering the state of the nation. He

made some observations upon the extraordinary position in which the

representatives of the people were placed. Two bills had been sent to

the other house of parliament, but they were told that the house of

lords would not take them into consideration until something had been

done by that house to please them. He contended that there was no

government in the country: ministers were no longer in the position in

which they were at the beginning of the session. They stated then that

they would place their existence as ministers on the fate of the Irish

corporation bill. What had become of that bill? It was laid on the shelf

till the lords knew what that house was about. The other house virtually

said, “If you do not what we like, we will not pass your bill.” What

good could be got from playing over the farce of discussing the Irish

tithe bill? Did they not know that if it passed that house, defeat

awaited it elsewhere. Ministers, in fact, were useless for good

purposes; and as far as the people were concerned, they were

mischievous. Mr. Roebuck’s motion was seconded by Colonel Thompson, who

said that ministers had started with a large stock of popular energy in

their favour; but, in their fear of the boiler bursting, they had let

the fire go out. Like Spanish generals, they had always one eye in

their own camp, and the other in the enemy’s; and all their efforts were

paralysed by their fear of being too successful. Their situation had

become desperate: if any event in the chapter of human accidents should

fall out to give them a reprieve, the only consequences would be, that

as they had dwindled, dwindled before, they would dwindle, dwindle

again. There was no stock of good luck which such conduct would not run

out. It was clear what was coming: the Tories must return to power. How

long they would stay there was another question; but their return was

a phasis, a phenomenon which ministers had rendered it inevitable to

go through. Mr. O’Connell eschewed the doctrines of Mr. Roebuck and

Colonel Thompson. It was his duty, he said, in the name of the people

of Ireland, to protest against his majesty’s government being blamed for

not doing more. Government had the confidence and the affections of the

people; and whatever might be the opinions of others, he, for one, hoped

that they would long continue to occupy their present situations. Lord

John Russell, in reply, disclaimed any community of sentiment with Mr.

Roebuck in the constitutional views he had broached, either in reference

to church or state. He was decidedly opposed to the voluntary system,

and to the abolition of the house of lords. As for the doctrine of the

honourable member for Bath, that men of moderation and compromise never

succeed in establishing anything good or useful, his lordship said it

was, on the contrary, his decided conviction that to the moderation and

mediation between violent or extreme opinions on both sides, which

had been exercised by Lord Somers, and the great Whig leaders at the

Revolution, the country was indebted for all her subsequent prosperity.

In reference to Mr. Roebuck’s reproach against ministers for not having

conciliated the dissenters and popular favour generally by adopting the

voluntary principle in church matters, his lordship said that such a

course would not have that effect: his own opinion was not in favour of

the voluntary system, and he believed that the people of this country

were, like himself, still attached to the established church. The

opposition, properly so called, took no part in this discussion, and Mr.

Roebuck’s motion was negatived without a division. The discussion proved

one great fact, namely, that between the extremes of opposition, the

Whigs might for a long period maintain their places on the treasury

benches; but at the same time they could not but feel embarrassment in

a position which left them dependent on their opponents, now on the

Radicals and now on the Tories. Had it been possible for the two to have

united on any great question, the Whig ministry would soon have been

no more; but oil and water might almost as soon have commingled, as the

Tories and the Radicals agree.

ILLNESS AND DEATH OF THE KING—REMARKS ON HIS CHARACTER.

Ever since his accession to the throne, the king’s health had in general

been good. In the course of the present spring, however, symptoms of

decline began to show themselves; and they increased so rapidly, that by

the beginning of June his situation became one of serious alarm to his

family. His majesty continued to transact business, but it was under

such oppressive weakness, that it was clear to his medical attendants

that his end was approaching. There was no active disease, indeed, but

a general languor and weakness, which foretokened dissolution. His last

days were spent in preparing for eternity; nothing seemed to give him

greater pleasure than the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury,

who attended him, and from whose hands he received the sacrament. His

deportment at this solemn ceremony, as related by a church dignitary,

was fully edifying. He says:—“His majesty had already experienced the

blessed consolations of religion, and removed the doubts his anxious

attendants were entertaining, by eagerly desiring the queen to send for

the archbishop, seeming, as it were, anxious to ratify the discharge

of his earthly by the performance of his spiritual duties. His grace

promptly attended, attired in his robes, and at a quarter to eleven

administered the sacrament to his majesty and the queen, Lady Mary Fox

communicating at the same time. The king was very calm and collected;

his faculties were quite clear, and he paid the greatest attention to

the service, following it in the prayer-book, which lay on the table

before him. His voice indeed failed, but his humble demeanour and

uplifted eyes gave expression to the feeling of devotion and of

gratitude to the Almighty which his faltering lips refused to utter. The

performance of this act of religion, and this public attestation of his

communion with that church, for the welfare and prosperity of which

he had more than once during his illness ejaculated short but fervent

prayers, was the source of great and manifest comfort to his majesty.

Though the shorter form had been adopted by the archbishop, his majesty

was nevertheless rather exhausted by the duration and solemnity of the

ceremony; but as his grace retired, the king said, with that peculiar

kindness of manner by which he was so much distinguished, and at the

same time gently moving his hand and inclining his head, ‘God bless you!

a thousand, thousand thanks!’ There cannot be more certain evidence of

the inward strength and satisfaction which the king derived from this

office of religion than that, in spite of great physical exertion, his

majesty, after the lapse of an hour, again requested the attendance of

the archbishop, who, in compliance with the wishes of the queen, read

the prayer for the evening service, with the happiest effect on the

king’s spirits. This being done, the archbishop, naturally fearing the

consequences of so much mental exertion on his majesty’s debilitated

frame, was about to retire, when the king motioned him to sit down at

the table, on the opposite side of which he himself was seated. His

majesty was too weak to hold any conversation, but his spirits seemed

soothed and comforted by the presence of the archbishop, on whose

venerable, benign countenance his majesty’s eye reposed with real

pleasure. The king at this interview stretched his hand across the

table, and taking that of the archbishop, pressed it fervently, saying

in a tone of voice which was only audible to the queen, who was seated

near his majesty, ‘I am sure the archbishop is one of those persons

who pray for me.’ The afternoon of this day witnessed a still further

diminution of his majesty’s strength; but in proportion to the decay

of his bodily power, was the increase of his spiritual hope and

consolation. At nine o’clock in the evening the archbishop was again

summoned by his majesty’s desire. The king was now still less able to

converse than on the last occasion; but his grace remained more than

three quarters of an hour, supplying by his presence the same comfort

to the king, and receiving from his majesty the same silent though

expressive proof of his satisfaction and gratitude. At length, on the

suggestion of the queen that it was already late, and the archbishop

might become fatigued, the king immediately signified his assent that he

should retire; and crossing his hands upon his breast, and inclining

his head, said, as his grace left the room, ‘God bless thee, dear,

excellent, worthy man! a thousand, thousand thanks!’” This was on

Sunday, the 18th of June, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo,

which the king remembered, expressing his desire that the Duke of

Wellington should hold his usual banquet on the morrow. That was the day

on which his majesty breathed his last. He had spent a tranquil night,

but no corresponding effect was produced upon his health. Decaying

nature could no longer be recruited by ordinary sources of strength and

sustenance. His majesty rose at seven o’clock, for during his illness

he had not been wholly confined to his bed, but there was much in his

language and manner which bespoke his sense of approaching death. “I

shall get up once more,” he said to the queen, “to do the business of

the country.” After joining in the service for the visitation of the

sick, performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which his majesty’s

demeanour was characterised by the most genuine spirit of devotion. Sir

Herbert Taylor was summoned, and was directed to get all things ready.

As it was Monday, however, there were no papers, and consequently there

was no business to transact. In the evening the archbishop visited his

majesty for the last time: at half-past ten the king was seized with a

fainting fit, on which he was removed into his bed, and from this time

his voice was not heard, except to pronounce the name of his valet. In

less than an hour death reigned in the palace of the English monarchs.

His majesty expired without a struggle, and without a groan, the queen

kneeling at the bedside and still affectionately holding his hand,

unwilling to believe the reality of the sad event. “Thus expired, in

the seventy-third year of his age, in firm reliance on the merits of his

Redeemer, King William IV., a just and upright king, a forgiving enemy,

a sincere friend, and a most gracious and indulgent master.”

Few monarchs, indeed, have possessed the love of their subjects in

a greater degree than King William IV. By the common consent of all

parties he had the welfare of his country truly at heart. There was but

one opinion of his character, and that was expressive of his kindness

and amiability. He does not appear to have had a personal enemy in the

world, although he sanctioned measures to which a large section of the

community were inimical: this is praise as singular as it is high when

applied to a king. His intellectual faculties may not have been of a

superior order; but he had what more than counterbalanced this defect—a

heart which beat high with love for his country.

CONTINUATION

OF

THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND,

By E. H. Nolan

CHAPTER XLVIII.

{VICTORIA. 1837—1838}

The Accession of Queen Victoria..... The Queen’s Message to

both Houses: Eulogies of the late Sovereign in both Houses

of Parliament..... Bill for providing the Succession to the

Crown..... The Budget, &c. Alterations in the Criminal

Law, &c. Prorogation of Parliament..... State of

Parties and Elections..... City Banquet to the Queen.....

Opening of the New Parliament..... The Subject of the Civil

List debated..... The Subject of the Pension List.....

Intelligence from Canada: Discussion on the Subject.....

Adjournment of the House..... State of the Continent

THE ACCESSION OF QUEEN VICTORIA.

{A.D. 1837}

On the arrival of the news in town of the death of King William,

orders were immediately issued for summoning a privy-council, which was

assembled before noon on Tuesday, at the palace of Kensington. At this

council directions were given for proclaiming Queen Victoria, and the

act of allegiance was signed by all present, the first name on the list

being that of “Ernest, King of Hanover.” When the ceremony of signing

the act of allegiance had been performed, the queen made the following

declaration to the country:—“The severe and afflicting loss which the

nation has sustained by the death of his majesty, my beloved uncle,

has devolved upon me the duty of administering the government of this

empire. This awful responsibility is imposed upon me so suddenly, and

at so early a period of my life, that I should feel myself utterly

oppressed by the burden, were I not sustained by the hope that Divine

Providence, which has called me to this work, will give me strength

for the performance of it: and that I shall find in the purity of my

intentions, and in my zeal for the public welfare, that support and

those resources which usually belong to a more mature age, and to long

experience. I place my firm reliance on the wisdom of parliament, and

upon the loyalty and affection of my people. I esteem it also a peculiar

advantage, that I succeed to a sovereign whose constant regards for the

rights and liberties of his subjects, and whose desire to promote the

amelioration of the laws and institutions of the country, have rendered

his name the object of general attachment and veneration. Educated in

England, under the tender and enlightened care of a most affectionate

mother, I have learned from my infancy to respect and love the

constitution of my native country. It will be my unceasing study to

maintain the reformed religion as by law established, securing at the

same time to all the full enjoyment of religious liberty. And I shall

steadily protect the rights, and promote to the utmost of my power the

happiness and welfare of all classes of my subjects.” On this occasion

her majesty is described as displaying extraordinary self-possession:

the dignified composure and firmness of voice with which she pronounced

the above declaration were indeed a theme of admiration with those who

were present at the scene. Thus commenced the reign of Queen Victoria

over the United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland.

One effect of the descent of the crown to a female was the separation

from it of Hanover, after an union which had lasted for nearly a century

and a quarter. This abscission of territory, however, was scarcely

noticed; it hardly called forth an observation in the newspapers, much

less an expression of regret—a proof of the little value attached in

this country to foreign dominion as a source of wealth or strength.

THE QUEEN’S MESSAGE TO BOTH HOUSES—EULOGIES OF THE LATE SOVEREIGN IN

BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

On the news of the death of the king both houses of parliament were

immediately summoned to meet. On that and the following day, however,

the administration of the oath of allegiance to the members, formed the

only business transacted. On Thursday, the 22nd, Lord Melbourne brought

the following message from the queen to the house of lords:—“Victoria

Regina. The queen entertains the fullest confidence that the house of

lords will participate in the deep affliction which her majesty feels

in the death of the late king, whose constant desire to promote the

interests, to maintain the liberties, and to improve the laws and

institutions of the country, must ensure for his name and memory the

dutiful and affectionate respect of all her majesty’s subjects. The

present state of public business, and the period of the session, when

considered in connection with the law which imposes on her majesty the

duty of summoning a new parliament within a limited time, renders it

inexpedient in the judgment of her majesty, that any new measures should

be recommended for your adoption, with the exception of such as may

be requisite for carrying on the public service from the close of

the present session to the meeting of the new parliament.” Upon this

occasion the leaders of all parties in parliament expressed their strong

sense of the sterling and amiable qualities of the departed monarch.

Lord Melbourne lamented the loss of a most gracious master, and

said that the world had lost a man of the best intentions, the most

uncompromising honour, and the strictest integrity. After adverting

to the naval education of the late king, to the part which he had

occasionally taken in the debates of that house, Lord Melbourne moved

an address of condolence to her majesty upon the death of the late king,

and of congratulation upon her accession to the throne. This was carried

unanimously. Another proposition also was carried with unanimity, to the

effect that an address of condolence be sent to her majesty the

queen dowager, assuring her majesty of the sympathy which the house

entertained for her loss. Lord John Russell brought the same message to

the commons, moving a similar address in reply.

BILL FOR PROVIDING THE SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN.

A bill for providing for the contingency of another demise of the crown

was brought into the upper house by the lord chancellor on the 3rd

of July. Its object was to make provision for the carrying on of the

executive government, in such an event, during the possible absence of

the heir presumptive from the country. The bill provided that certain

great officers of state, namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the

lord-chancellor, the lord-treasurer, the president of the council, the

lord privy seal, the lord high admiral, and the chief-justice of

the Queen’s Bench at the time being respectively, should act as

lords-justices, to exercise all the powers and authorities of the

successor of the crown, as a king would exercise them at present, until

his arrival in the kingdom, or until he should otherwise order. The bill

also provided that the heir presumptive to the throne might at any time

deposit a list—which list was revocable at pleasure—of such persons as

he might appoint to act with such justices, and to be considered as part

of them; and the persons named in that list were to exercise, in common

with the lords already named, the functions of royalty, until the

successor to the throne should otherwise determine. By another provision

in the bill, however, the powers of the lords-justices were restricted

to those only which were necessary to carry on the government of the

country. They were not to have the power of dissolving parliament; nor

of creating peers; nor of giving the royal assent to any bill altering

the succession to the throne; or for changing the established religion

of England, Scotland, or Ireland. The bill passed almost unanimously

through both houses of parliament, Lord Brougham only urging an

objection against the omission of any portion of the royal family in the

lists of lords-justices named in the bill. His lordship even made this

omission the subject of a protest entered in the journals of the house.

His lordship began at this time to display an obstructive disposition

towards the government with which he had so long acted. He had proved

that his exaltation to the office of lord-chancellor had inflated

his vanity, and made him so self-willed and crotchetty as to render

co-operation with him either in the government of the country, or in

conducting bills through the legislature, next to impossible.

THE BUDGET, ETC.

On the 30th of June the chancellor of the exchequer made his yearly

financial statement. After adverting to the embarrassments which had

beset the commerce of the country since the close of the preceding

session, he proceeded to state the actual income and expenditure of the

country, as compared with the estimate he had formed of its probable

amount in the course of the last session. He had calculated, he said,

that the customs would produce £20,540,000; the actual receipt was

£21,445,000; the excise he had taken at £14,150,000; the actual income

was, £14,439,000: the stamps he had calculated at £7,000,000; the

receipts were £7,100,000: the assessed taxes he estimated at £3,575,000;

they produced £3,681,000: the post-office revenue he had reckoned at

£1,450,000; it amounted to £1,618,000. On the whole the income, which

on the data then before him he had calculated at £46,980,000, produced

£48,453,000. Mr. Rice then proceeded to state the expenditure, with

reference to which he had fortunately, he said, rather under than

over-estimated the probable income for the present year, as otherwise

government would have become embarrassed. He had taken the interest

on the funded debt at £28,528,000; the actual payment was £28,537,000:

other charges upon the consolidated fund, exclusive of the West India

slave-compensation, he took at £2,092,000; the actual charge was

£2,183,000. With respect to the army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous

estimates of the year, he had taken them at £14,585, but that estimate

was taken before all the supplies of the year were voted: the sum

actually required was £14,652,000. The estimated expenditure for the

whole year, exclusive of the West India slave-compensation fund, was

£45,205,000; the actual expenditure was £45,372,000. With respect to the

West India loan, Mr. Rice said that he had reckoned we might be called

upon to pay annually a sum of £1,111,000; but the call had on that score

amounted to £1,448,342. The chancellor of the exchequer next proceeded

to make several statements illustrative of the financial and commercial

state of the country. He dwelt especially on the excess of the amount

of tea duty in the last year over that received in former years, and

observed that it was apparent that without any change of duty, the

consumption of that article was increasing. Mr. Rice took the estimates

for the year as follows:—the army, navy, ordnance, and miscellaneous,

£14,895,000; and the charges upon the consolidated fund, and the

interest upon the funded and unfunded debt which it was necessary to

provide for the current year, £30,890,000. Thus the total expenditure

for the current year was calculated at £45,786,000; but that was

exclusive of the West India compensation, the amount of which would be

£845,000. With respect to the probable amount of the income, Mr. Rice

calculated it might amount in the whole to £47,240,000, which would

leave a surplus of £1,454,000. When the interest of the West Indian

loan, however, was deducted, the surplus would be diminished to

£608,585; and that sum would be reduced by the payment necessary to be

made to meet various deficiencies of former years; in fact, all the net

surplus upon which they could calculate was £384,673. In conclusion, Mr.

Rice made some observations on the increased interest now payable on

the unfunded debt of the country, and on the general prospects of the

nation. On the latter subject, he observed, that he had before him the

means of showing that within the last two or three weeks the elements

of improvement had been developing themselves in various parts, and

that many of the most depressed branches of trade and manufactures were

rapidly reviving. As a natural consequence of this the receipts of the

revenue were improving, and the condition of the country was such as

to inspire him with confidence. A reduction of taxation, he said, would

materially assist that revival. He inferred this from the experiment

he had made of lowering the duty on various articles of consumption,

especially in the instances of glass and paper. The trade in these

articles was now rapidly increasing; but with the present small balance

of income on hand, it was impossible for him to propose any speculative

reduction of taxation. A conversation followed this statement of the

chancellor of the exchequer, and several members proposed various

economical nostrums for the benefit of the country, but none of them met

with the approbation of the house.

ALTERATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL LAW, ETC.

In 1833, a royal commission had been issued for the purpose of inquiring

how far it might be expedient to reduce the written and unwritten law of

the country into one digest, and to report on the best manner of

doing it. A report was made on this subject in 1834; and while the

commissioners were occupied in carrying, in some degree, their own

recommendations in respect of it into effect, they were further called

upon by government to state their opinions on the subject of the

employment of counsel by prisoners, and on the punishment of death. In

their second report, which was made in 1836, at great length, this was

done, and one result was the bill which was passed in the preceding

session, for allowing the assistance of counsel to prisoners in criminal

cases. A more important result, however, was the introduction in the

present session of a series of bills, having for their object the

abolition in many instances of capital punishment. This subject had been

brought before the house of commons on the 23rd of March by Lord John

Russell, who argued that, if it were thought right that a change should

take place in the law of the land on this head, it should be delayed as

little as possible. Lord John Russell began by discussing the general

doctrines advanced by Paley on the use of severity in criminal

punishments, after which he gave some statistical details of capital

condemnations in former years. He argued from these details that such a

state of things gave a character of great uncertainty to the operation

of the law, and rendered it less calculated to inspire that salutary

dread in offenders which was the object of criminal punishment. His

lordship proceeded to contend that there was no reason to apprehend

an increase of crime from the abolition of the punishment of death in

certain offences. He instanced the crime of forgery, which, with the

exception of the cases of the forgery of powers of attorney and of

bills, was now only punishable by transportation. The number of persons

committed for this offence in the three years previous to 1833, was one

hundred and fifty-five; and in the three following years two hundred and

ten. In the first instance only fifty-eight per cent, were convicted;

in the latter period the number convicted was seventy-one per cent.

From this it appeared that there was no great increase in the number of

offences, while the number of convictions was materially increased.

The reason of this last effect of the present, criminal law was to be

ascribed to the diminished reluctance to prosecute now that the offence

was no longer capital. His lordship here stated that in a recent case

a man had been tried and convicted of forging a power of attorney. That

offence was yet capital; but previously to the case coming before the

king in council, the secretary of state received a communication

from the bankers of London, expressing their objections to capital

punishment: and also another from the governor of the Bank of England,

stating, though the Bank directors did not think it their duty to

interfere, they had no wish to press for capital punishment. His

lordship considered this to be an encouragement to proceed in their

course of mitigating the punishment, and particularly for doing away

with it in the two reserved cases in forgery. The principle as suggested

by the commissioners on which his lordship proposed to proceed was, that

capital punishment should be confined to high treason, and, with some

exceptions, to offences which consist in or are aggravated by acts of

violence to the person, or which tend directly to endanger life. It was

proposed that capital offences should be reduced to—1st, high treason;

2nd, murder; 3rd, attempt to murder; 4th, burnings of buildings or

ships; 5th, piracy; 6th, burglary; 7th, robbery; 8th, rape. Arson,

piracy, burglary, and robbery were to be capital offences only when

committed under circumstances or accompanied by acts directly calculated

to endanger life. The setting fire to stacks would be no longer a

capital offence: the crime, his lordship said, was no doubt a heinous

one; but the severity of the punishment had the effect of deterring

prosecutions. On the secondary punishments which were to be substituted

for capital condemnation, Lord John Russell expressed considerable

doubt as to whether the present system of transportation ought to be

continued. In theory it seemed desirable to remove an offender to a

great distance from the scene of his crime; but the accounts of the

practical working of the system were unsatisfactory. The four or five

thousand persons annually sent to New South Wales were not absorbed by

the population, but continued to form a large and separate vicious mass.

Crime and vice were consequently on the increase in the settlement; and

the continual importation of fresh cargoes of criminals threatened to

aggravate the evils indefinitely. The punishment operated unequally on

the convicts; it depended on the humour or temper of the masters whether

their situation should be one of indulgence, or one of intolerable

hardship. Moreover, there was no merit in the system on the score of

economy, it cost the country from £350,000 to £400,000 annually.

His lordship proposed, therefore, to abridge the number of cases of

transportation, but to aggravate its operation in those which continued

subject to it. No person should be transported for less than ten years,

it having been found that the effect of a shorter period was to make

the criminals insolent and unruly. The next period was to be for fifteen

years, and the last for life. A certain hour of labour in the chain

gangs was to be allotted to all the prisoners, and indulgences afforded

them according to their good conduct. But these were merely suggestions;

he did not in the present session intend to bring in any general measure

with a view of carrying them into effect.

No opposition was given to the passing of the bills in the commons. They

were brought into the upper house by Lord Denman, and the second reading

was fixed for the 4th of July. The propositions were moved by Lord

Denman, who alleged in their support similar facts and arguments to

those urged in the commons by Lord John Russell. Lord Lyndhurst gave his

full support to the principle and object of the bills; but he pointed

out certain inconsistencies and anomalies of detail, which were

subsequently rectified. The measures were likewise warmly advocated

by Lord Brougham, who looked with confidence towards a general and

effectual mitigation of the criminal code. Among the amendments which

were made by the lords was one changing the term of imprisonment from

five to three years, limiting the term of solitary confinement to a

month at one time, and to not more than three months in a year, and the

taking away the capital punishment for offences against the riot

act. Thus amended, the bill passed the lords, and the amendments were

afterwards agreed to unanimously by the commons.

An important alteration was made in this session, also, in the civil law

of the country in respect of the forms to be observed in the execution

of wills. This subject was introduced in the house of peers on the 23rd

of February, by Lord Langdale, the master of the rolls. His lordship

said that the general object of the measure was to collect the

provisions of several statutes relating to wills into one act of

parliament; and to make at the same time such modifications of these

provisions as should afford additional securities for the prevention of

spurious wills, and additional facilities for making genuine ones.

His lordship proposed to allow the owner of copyholds and customary

freeholds to dispose of them by will, which could not now be done. As

the law stood, a person could only bequeath such real property as he was

possessed of at the time of making his will; but his lordship said

he would enable the testator to dispose of any he might acquire

subsequently to the execution of the will. At present no person under

the age of twenty-one could make a will: his lordship proposed to give

the power of disposing of personal property to those who were beyond the

age of seventeen. With respect to witnesses the bill would enact that in

all cases the execution of the will must be attested by two, whether the

property were real or personal. An executor would be admitted to give

evidence of the validity of a will, which he could not do at present.

Under the existing law it was not necessary that both the witnesses

should be present at the same time; but the bill provided that the

signature of the testator or his acknowledgment should be made in the

presence of two witnesses, who should then attest it themselves. With

respect to the revocation of wills, no alteration was proposed in

the rule whereby a woman’s will is set aside, by marriage; but it was

proposed to alter the rule adopted from the ecclesiastical courts

in modern times, whereby a man’s will is considered as revoked by a

subsequent marriage and the birth of a child. The bill finally provided

for the due construction and effect of certain words. His lordship said

that a legislative construction of words had been objected to; but,

he argued, that when a rule of construction which plainly violated the

lawful intention of testators had been established in the courts of law,

there was no way of correcting it but by legislative interposition. The

bill was warmly approved of by the leading law authorities in the upper

house, and passed almost without discussion. In the commons, also, it

met with general approbation; the only opposition came from Sir Robert

Inglis, who objected to it chiefly on the ground of the expense which

the mode of execution there enjoined would entail on the humbler class

of testators. By abolishing holograph wills, and rendering two witnesses

necessary, a resort to professional advice would become indispensable.

The bill, however, was ably defended by the attorney-general; and it

passed into law.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

The queen went in state to the house of lords, for the purpose of

closing the session, on the 17th of July. On this occasion the speaker

delivered an address to her majesty, in which, on behalf of the house of

commons, he assured her of their cordial participation in “that strong

and universal feeling of dutiful and affectionate attachment which

prevailed among the free and loyal people of which they were the

representatives, and expressed their trust that this feeling would be

strengthened by a long course of constitutional, beneficent, and wise

government.” In recording the results of the session, the speaker

expressly mentioned the acts for the abolition of capital punishments,

&c.; and he expressed a hope that the important measures which had been

recommended to parliament, and which had not yet been perfected, might

be eventually adopted. The royal assent was then given to a number of

public and private bills; after which her majesty thus addressed both

houses of parliament:—

“My lords and gentlemen, I have been anxious to seize the first

opportunity of meeting you, in order that I might repeat in person my

cordial thanks for your condolence upon the death of his late majesty,

and for the expression of attachment and affection with which you

congratulated me upon my accession to the throne. I am very desirous of

renewing the assurances of my determination to maintain the Protestant

religion as established by law; to secure to all the free exercise of

the rights of conscience; to protect the liberties, and to promote the

welfare of all classes of the community. I rejoice that in ascending the

throne I find the country in amity with all foreign powers; and while

I faithfully perform the engagements of the crown, and carefully watch

over the interests of my subjects, it will be the constant object of my

solicitude to maintain the blessings of peace.” Her majesty next thanked

the house of commons for the liberal supplies which they had granted

for the service of the year, as well as for the provision which they had

made to meet the usual payments chargeable on the civil list. Addressing

both houses again, the queen thanked them for the zeal and assiduity

with which they had applied themselves to the public business of the

country. Notwithstanding the melancholy interruption that had taken

place in their labours, she trusted they would have the beneficial

effect of advancing the progress of legislation in the new parliament.

Her majesty expressed much pleasure in the mitigation of the severity

of the criminal code; she hailed it as an auspicious commencement of her

reign. In conclusion, her majesty said—“I ascend the throne with a deep

sense of the responsibility which is imposed upon me; but I am supported

by the consciousness of my own right intentions, and by my dependence

upon the protection of Almighty God. It will be my care to strengthen

our institutions, civil and ecclesiastical, by discreet improvement,

wherever improvement is required, and to do all in my power to compose

and allay animosity and discord. Acting upon these principles, I shall

on all occasions look with confidence to the wisdom of parliament and

the affections of my people, which form, the true support of the dignity

of the crown, and ensure the stability of the constitution.” The age and

sex of the youthful sovereign gave a singular and touching interest to

this scene, and the manner in which her majesty delivered the speech

heightened its effect. It was read in a clear and unfaltering tone,

indicating great presence of mind and firmness of character. The

appearance and manners of her majesty, indeed, enlisted in her favour

all the best feelings of the august assembly she addressed—all wished

that her reign might be long and prosperous.

STATE OF PARTIES AND ELECTIONS.

Queen Victoria ascended the throne at a period of perfect tranquillity.

The popularity of the ministers was, indeed, declining, and they were

surrounded with difficulties, partly from their own mismanagement of

affairs, and partly from the position into which their eagerness

for power had placed them. On the other hand the spirit of party was

subsiding in the country: calm and impartial thinkers began to embrace a

wider circle, yet it seemed clear that the administration could not have

long existed had the late king lived a few months longer. His majesty

had taken them back to his service with reluctance, and he was supposed

to be on the watch for the first favourable opportunity of dismissing

them. His demise, however, promised an increased stability to their

power. Under their new sovereign they looked for a new order of things.

She was believed to have been educated by her mother in principles and

predilections favourable to their rule, and her countenance and support

was expected to give not merely security, but popularity to their

government. Nor did they fail to turn the event to good account. When

pressed by their democratic allies to introduce organic measures for

which they had no predilection themselves, it had been their practice to

allege the king’s reluctance to proceed, as a reason for not falling

in with their views. When, however, Queen Victoria ascended the throne,

they eagerly declared their emancipation from the thraldom of an hostile

court, and they proclaimed that the young queen had entered warmly into

their views, and had espoused their political creed without reservation.

Another considerable resource of popular appeal to the ministerial

candidates was the alleged misdeeds of the new King of Hanover.

Immediately upon his accession to the throne of that kingdom, his

majesty had issued an ordinance, by which the then existing constitution

was suspended; and it was thought this conduct of one who was an

acknowledged leader of the Tories, might be represented to the

disadvantage of that party. These, and other topics, were not without

their weight with the multitude. Yet, with their assistance, the

ministers had sufficient to do to maintain their previous position.

By the end of July the elections for English cities and boroughs were

nearly over, and the relative strength of parties was little changed as

regarded the Whigs. In the county elections they underwent, indeed, a

serious defalcation of strength; besides losing twenty-three seats, they

failed in fifteen counties out of sixteen in which they endeavoured

to substitute members of their own party for Conservatives. As for the

Radicals, public opinion was still less in their favour: even Mr. Hume

failed in being returned for Middlesex, and was driven to the necessity

of appearing in the house as Mr. O’Connell’s nominee for Kilkenny. The

Radicals, it is true, did not suffer numerically; but the absence of

many of their leaders from the representation of important towns which

they had hitherto represented, was significant of the waning popularity

of extreme opinions. The loss, however, which ministers sustained in

the English representation, was somewhat compensated by the returns

of Scotland and Ireland. But while their numbers were not on the whole

diminished, there was an evident falling off in quality. Their friends

were not the representatives of such an extensive part of the population

as they had been in the last parliament.

CITY BANQUET TO THE QUEEN.

During this autumn the great corporation of the city of London

distinguished itself by a striking demonstration of its loyalty to the

crown, in a magnificent entertainment which was given to the queen

in Guildhall, on the 9th of November. On this occasion the utmost

enthusiasm prevailed, and her majesty’s reception, both in her progress

to the city and at the banquet, must have been highly gratifying to her

feelings. Along the entire route, in going to and returning from the

city, she was greeted with enthusiastic cheers, and in the evening a

brilliant illumination appeared along the whole line of her passage.

Nothing was wanting, indeed, to give the utmost possible splendour to

the pageant. The event showed that the “liberal” common-council of

the city of London still fostered a substantial respect for loyalty—a

circumstance of great political interest.

OPENING OF THE NEW PARLIAMENT.

On the 20th of November the queen went in state to the house of lords to

open the new parliament. Having read and signed the usual declaration,

her majesty read the speech in a clear and audible voice. The speech

expressed satisfaction at the friendly assurances of all foreign powers;

regretted that civil war still afflicted the kingdom of Spain; stated

that directions had been given for a treaty of commerce, recently

concluded with the united republic of Peru and Bolivia, to be laid

before parliament; recommended to their serious consideration the state

of the province of Lower Canada; and stated that the demise of the crown

rendered it necessary that a new provision should be made for the

civil list. On this latter subject the queen remarked, that she placed

unreservedly at the disposal of the house of commons, those hereditary

revenues which were transferred to the public by her immediate

predecessor, and that she had commanded such papers as might be

necessary for the full examination of the subject to be laid before

them. Her majesty’s speech concluded thus:—

“My lords and gentlemen—The external peace and domestic tranquillity

which at present happily prevail, are very favourable for the

consideration of such measures of reformation and amendment as may be

necessary or expedient, and your attention will naturally be directed

to that course of legislation which was interrupted by the necessary

dissolution of the last parliament. The result of the inquiries which

have been made into the condition of the poor in Ireland has been

already laid before parliament. And it will be your duty to consult

whether it may not be wise and safe to establish by law some

well-regulated means of relief for the destitute in that country. The

municipal government of the cities and towns in Ireland calls for

better regulation. The laws which govern the collection of the

tithe-composition in Ireland require revision and amendment. Convinced

that the better and more effectual administration of justice is amongst

the first duties of a sovereign, I request your attention to those

measures which will be submitted to you for the improvement of the law.

You cannot but be sensible of the deep importance of these questions

which I have submitted to you, and of the necessity of treating them in

that spirit of impartiality and justice which affords the best hope

of bringing them to a happy and useful termination. In meeting this

parliament, the first that has been elected under my authority, I am

anxious to declare my confidence in your loyalty and wisdom. The early

age at which I am called to the sovereignty of this kingdom renders it

a more imperative duty, that, under Divine Providence, I should place my

reliance upon your cordial co-operation, and upon the love and affection

of my people.”

The address was moved in the house of lords by the Duke of Sussex,

who, in the several topics of his speech, avoided every allusion or

expression capable of giving offence to any member of the house. His

royal highness referred with much satisfaction to the declaration of

the Duke of Wellington at the close of the last session, namely, that he

would assist in the settlement of the Irish questions, and also to

the approbation he had avowed of the new poor-law. His royal highness

further expressed his pleasure at the affectionate reception which the

queen had met with in her late visit to the city, and adverted to the

peculiar interest with which he regarded a sovereign whose birth he

had been one of the first to witness. The address was seconded by Lord

Portman, and fully assented to by the Duke of Wellington, who said he

would follow the example which had been set him of abstaining from every

remark that could awaken party feeling. The address was then agreed to,

and ordered to be presented with the usual forms.

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

Mr. Craig. A discussion followed, in which Mr. Wakley took the lead.

After hearing the speech from the throne, Mr. Wakley said he rose to

remind ministers that they had some radical supporters in the house, a

circumstance which they appeared to have forgotten. After hearing the

speech from the throne, he could not avoid asking to what purpose

they had been so anxious, in 1835, to eject Sir Robert Peel and the

Conservatives? It was complained of the speech from the throne framed by

Sir Robert in that year, that it was vague and unsatisfactory: he, Mr.

Wakley, had never read a speech from any sovereign of this country more

open to the same reproach than the present one. He thought that at the

commencement of a new reign, with a young queen educated as ours had

been, the people had a right to expect a more explicit acknowledgment of

their grievances, and some indication of the means of redress. They

were now fresh from the hustings, where they had all been liberal in

promises: even the Tories had professed themselves the friends of

the people, and declared their delight in seeing the operatives come

forward, and take a share in politics. In order to test the sincerity of

both parties, he would move an amendment, in general terms, in favour of

an extension of the suffrage. Mr. Wakley concluded his speech by moving

three amendments, which he said he would put to the house separately,

in order that members might have no excuse for avoiding to vote on any

particular proposition. The first amendment was to the effect, “That

this house embraces the earliest opportunity of respectfully assuring

her majesty, that it will in the present session of parliament take

into consideration the state of the representation of the people in this

branch of the legislature, with a view to ensure by law an equitable

extension of the elective franchise.” This amendment was seconded by

Sir W. Molesworth, and supported by Messrs. Hume and Grote. On the other

hand it was opposed by Mr. Liddell, Colonel Perceval, and Lord John

Russell. The latter admitted the reproach—if reproach it were—of

having framed the speech with a view to preclude discussion. It was

desirable that the queen should receive from her first parliament an

unanimous address. In allusion to Mr. Wakley’s amendment, his lordship

observed that the hon. member had put his powders into three separate

papers, as portions of what he considered the same medicine. Without

entering into any general discussion of the questions involved in those

amendments. He thought it necessary shortly to state his opinion of

the present operation of the reform bill, and of his own position with

respect to it. He admitted the disadvantages and injuries to which the

reform act was subject; corruption and intimidation had prevailed at the

late elections to a great extent. With respect to the registration of

voters great amendments had been made. These were points on which it

behoved parliament to be always attentive, to see that the act suffered

no essential injury, and to remedy any error in the details which

experience of its actual working might suggest. But these, his lordship

continued, were questions widely different from those now brought

forward, such as the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and

triennial parliaments, which were, in his estimation, a repeal of

the reform act, and placed the representation on a totally different

footing. He was not prepared to go thus far. With respect to

registration, Lord John Russell said that the attorney-general was about

to bring forward the bill of last session in an amended form, and he

himself would reintroduce the measure respecting the payment of rates.

But as to a second reform of the representation, having only five years

ago placed it on a new basis, it would be a most unwise and unsound

experiment, now to begin anew the process of reconstruction; he, for

one, at least, would decline taking any share in such a measure. Sir

Robert Peel congratulated the house upon the noble lord’s aversion to

Mr. Wakley’s physic. The member for Finsbury called for a change, in

order to recover for himself and his party the predominance they had

lost; but he was confident that if he were to give Mr. Wakley a _carte

blanche_ to cut and carve the constituency as he pleased, he and his

party would still be in a minority. Mr. Ward, on the other hand, warned

Lord John Russell that by his declaration against the ballot, he had

signed his own death-warrant, and chalked out his political grave. On a

division, Mr. Wakley’s amendment was negatived by five hundred and nine

against twenty; and his two other amendments, pledging the house to the

vote by ballot and the repeal of the septennial act, were then put, and

negatived without a division.

The question having been again put on the address, Mr. Harvey proposed

an amendment to this effect:—“That whilst this house is desirous

of making the most liberal provision for the support of the becoming

splendour and just dignity of the crown, they feel that the same ought

to be derived from obvious and direct sources; and that to such end

every branch of the hereditary revenues of the crown ought to be

placed, without reservation, and without exception, under the control

of parliament, as the surest means of protecting the crown against

exaggerated impressions of their amount, and as a security against

their misapplication.” The amendment further set forth, that in the

arrangement of the civil list, the house confidently relied upon the

ready co-operation of her majesty, in promoting all needful inquiry into

the claims of persons to be continued as recipients of state provision.

In moving this amendment, Mr. Harvey observed that the former part of it

was in substance the same with the proposition ministers had themselves

made on the subject when in opposition. He pressed the second part of

his amendment, on the ground that a strong feeling existed in the

public mind against it as it now stood, which feeling was materially

strengthened by the late alteration in the poor-law system. He assured

ministers that they had not a superabundance of popularity, and he

predicted that Lord John Russell’s declaration of that night would

operate fatally to his government. In reply, Lord John Russell contented

himself with stating that an account of the actual and average receipts

from the duties in question would be laid before the committees; and

that with respect to the pension list, the precedent of 1831 would be

strictly followed. Ministers agreed in thinking it far wiser to provide

against abuses for the future, than to take away pensions already

granted. If the revision proposed by the hon. member should be adopted

by parliament, ministers would claim the right of further consideration,

before they decided whether or not they should give it their support.

After a few words from Mr. Harvey in rejoinder, his amendment was put

and negatived without a division.

Lord John Russell’s determination to resist any further movement in

the way of constitutional innovation, was made the subject of indignant

comment on the part of the radical organs, both in parliament and

throughout the country.

THE SUBJECT OF THE CIVIL LIST DEBATED.

The subject first brought before the attention of parliament by

ministers was the arrangement of the civil list. On the 23rd of November

the chancellor of the exchequer moved that the passage in the queen’s

speech relating thereto should be referred to a select committee. He

observed that former sovereigns had inherited considerable personal

property from their predecessors, while Queen Victoria had derived

nothing from that source, and would further be deprived of the revenues

of Hanover, now a separate kingdom. Her establishment must also so far

exceed that of a king or of a queen-consort, as being composed of ladies

as well as gentlemen. Under those circumstances Mr. Rice submitted that

the charges of the establishment of the late king were proper for Queen

Victoria, These charges were:—

William IV. The Queen.

First class, privy purse........ £110,000 £60,600

Second class, salaries.......... 130,000 130,000

Third class, bills ............ 171,500 172,000

Fourth class, special service... 23,000 23,200

Unappropriated money............ 9,000

Total £510,000 £470,000

In conclusion, Mr. Rice touched upon the decrease in the amount of the

pension list, and said he should be prepared to prove that the pensions

granted by Earl Grey and Lord Melbourne had been awarded in strict

conformity with a resolution of the house passed in February, 1834,

which recommended the granting of pensions to such persons only as by

their services to the crown, or the public, or by useful discoveries in

science or art, had a just claim on the benevolence of the crown or the

gratitude of the nation. The papers with reference to the civil list

were referred to a select committee, consisting of twenty-one members.

The result of their labours was a report in favour of the minister’s

proposition, which was presented on the 16th of December, when a bill

carrying out his views was brought in. The bill was read a third time on

the 19th of December, after which Mr. Hume moved that the sum granted to

the queen should be reduced from £385,000 to £335,000; and this motion

having been negatived, Mr. Grote proposed as an amendment the entire

removal of the sum allotted to pensions from the civil list. This

amendment was seconded by Mr. Hume, and opposed by the chancellor of the

exchequer, who contended that in a monarchical government, the power

of conferring honour and rewards should be inseparably attached to the

crown. The principle advocated by the honourable member struck at the

very root of monarchy. Mr. Rice proceeded to deny that politics

had influenced ministers in their grant of pensions to literary and

scientific men, as had been asserted by Mr. Grote, and expressed his

belief that were any government disposed so to prostitute its power,

there was a spirit in literature and science which would save talent

from the disgrace of such political profligacy. Mr. Grote’s motion was

further opposed by Mr. Charles Buller, albeit he was his friend. He

differed from him both as to tire policy of granting pensions at all,

and in respect to the quarter in which the power of according them

should be placed. He thought that it was desirable that men of letters

should be fostered by the government, when labouring for the public

good, and without the support of popular favour. Scarcely a great name

in English literature could be produced which had not been supported by

regal or individual generosity. At the present day, men of letters would

not brook to receive the bounty of private individuals: men like Hobbes

or Locke, could no longer consent to depend on the liberality of an

Earl of Devonshire, or an Earl of Shaftesbury. On a division Mr. Grote’s

amendment was rejected by a majority of one hundred and twenty-five to

twenty-three. An amendment was then moved by Sir Robert Peel, to the

effect that if the sum of £1200 were not granted in pensions in any

one year, the difference might be applied in any subsequent year. No

opposition was made to this amendment on the part of ministers; but the

Radicals divided against them, and it was carried by a majority of one

hundred and fourteen to twenty-six. Another and last protest was made

against the bill by Mr. Hume, but the bill passed without further

division.

The bill was taken to the lords and read a first time on the same

evening. Lord Melbourne moved the second reading on the 20th, and in

doing so entered into a full explanation of the details of the bill,

and emphatically called upon the peers to support it, as they valued the

preservation of the monarchy, laws, and liberties of England. He would

not say that monarchy was the best form of government that ever existed,

but an attempt to alter it in this country would be the height of

insanity and crime. The only opposition to the measure in the house of

lords came from Lord Brougham, who contended that due consideration had

not been employed either in the framing or passing of this bill. The

wisdom of making a definite arrangement for the life of a sovereign who

might be expected to reign for the next half century was questionable;

and yet this was to be done, and a civil list voted which exceeded that

of lier majesty’s predecessors, while parliament was left in the dark as

to those very important revenues possessed by the crown, the incomes of

the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. After a few words from the Duke

of Wellington, who expressed his apprehensions that the bill did not

contain a sufficient provision for pensions, the bill went through the

committee, and was afterwards read a third time and passed without a

division. It was customary that the royal assent should be given to

bills of this nature in person, and the queen went in state to the house

of lords on the 23rd of December for that purpose. On presenting the

bill, the speaker observed, that it had been framed in “a liberal and

confiding spirit,” on which the queen bowed her acknowledgment, and

after the royal assent had been given to that and other bills, her

majesty left the house.

On the 11th of December, a message was brought from the queen to both

houses, recommending to the consideration of parliament the provision

made by law for the support of her royal highness the Duchess of Kent,

and expressing her majesty’s reliance on their zeal and loyalty to adopt

such measures for the future provision of the duchess as her rank and

station, and increased proximity to the throne might require. On the

following day this message was taken into consideration by a committee

of the house of commons, when an additional grant of £8000 a year,

raising the annual income of the duchess to £30,000, passed without much

discussion.

THE SUBJECT OF THE PENSION LIST.

The chancellor of the exchequer redeemed a pledge which he had given

in the debate on the civil list, by moving “for a select committee to

inquire how far pensions granted in virtue of the first of William IV.

c. 24, and charged on the civil list, and in virtue of second and

third William IV. c. 116, charged on the consolidated fund, ought to be

continued, having due regard to the just claims of the parties, and to

economy in the public expenditure.” Mr. Spring Rice, on this occasion,

gave a brief history of the pension list. Sir Robert Peel opposed the

motion, and moved a series of resolutions, declaring it advisable to

make such provision as should enable the crown to continue all such

pensions as had existed at the accession of the late king, or had been

granted by him during his reign. This amendment was seconded by Lord

Elliot, and supported by several Conservative members. Mr. Harvey

took the lead in opposing it. Mr. Spring Rice closed the debate by

endeavouring to vindicate himself from the charge of inconsistency; and

on a division the motion for a committee was carried by a majority of

two hundred and ninety-five against two hundred and thirty-three.

INTELLIGENCE FROM CANADA—DISCUSSION ON THE SUBJECT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE

HOUSE.