immediate adjournment of the house. Before they separated, however,
news arrived of a revolt in Canada. On the 22nd of December, Lord John
Russell rose to move the order of the day, for the house to resolve
itself into a committee of supply, and at the same time took occasion to
state that, although no measures could be taken by the house with regard
to Canada, he nevertheless did not consider himself justified, in the
actual condition of that province, to move the adjournment of the house
beyond the 16th of January. The present state of affairs was this: the
assembly having been convened to consider the resolutions passed
in parliament, had been adjourned on their refusal to entertain the
supplies, or to proceed to business. Despatches, subsequently received
from Lord Gosford, showed that the intention was not to seek redress by
means of that assembly, but to extort it by violence from her majesty’s
government. In this state of things Lord Gosford had tendered his
resignation, which had been accepted, and the administration of
affairs entrusted to Sir John Colborne, in whose judgment and abilities
government felt the highest confidence. They had declared to that
officer that, though they were reluctant to resort to means of extreme
severity, yet, nevertheless, if he found it necessary to proclaim
martial law in the province, they would take upon themselves the
responsibility. Accounts of open disturbance had been recently received;
and there was reason to believe that a collision had taken place between
her majesty’s troops and persons in arms for treasonable purposes. He
thought that government had done their duty in the measures they had
taken. On the morrow he purposed to produce such details from Lord
Gosford’s despatches as might be communicated without injury to the
public service, and would call upon parliament, in January, for such
measures as the exigency of the case might demand. Mr. Leader applauded
the resort of the Canadians to arms, and derided as desperate every
effort of the government to put them down; their cause was considered
a common one by all our North American colonies. Sir William Molesworth
and Messrs. Grote and Warburton all expressed their sympathy for the
Canadian insurgents, and augured their success. A discussion ensued,
in which the Radical leaders denounced the mother country in terms as
strong as any employed by the leaders of the Canadian insurgents. Mr.
Warburton advocated the separation of the colony from the empire. Mr.
Gladstone maintained a just view of the dispute between the colony and
the mother country, but so mystified his arguments by useless subtleties
and verbosity, that the speech failed to produce an effect corresponding
to its substantial merits. Mr. Leader boldly expressed his complacency
in the dismemberment of the empire, and the speech of the hon. member
was denounced by Mr. George F. Young as disloyal. Sir George Grey made
a sensible speech, expository of the true condition of Canadian affairs.
Mr. Maclean exposed and denounced the conduct of Mr. Papineau, the
leader of the French Canadian insurgent party. Lord John Russell
delivered a speech sound and statesman-like, which completely “carried
the house with the government.” As usual when ministers were at issue
with their Radical supporters, the Conservative party took no prominent
share in the debate. On the following day both houses of parliament
adjourned to the 16th of January.
STATE OF THE CONTINENT.
War still continued in Spain. At the close of the last year the troops
of the queen had succeeded in the relief of Bilboa, an event which had
the effect of giving rise to dissensions among the Carlists. After this
event, many weeks were spent by the Christino commanders in concerting
a combined movement upon the Carlist lines in Guipuscoa. An attack was
made upon them by General Evans on the 15th of March. His forces were
collected at Loyola, the right of the line being composed of Spaniards,
and the left of the British legion, which amounted to between four and
five thousand men. The attack was at first successful: the Carlists,
having maintained a furious fire, after a five hours’ conflict abandoned
their last defence, and fell back to Hernani. On the following day,
however, matters took a different turn: while the victorious troops were
preparing to descend upon Hernani, on a sudden solid masses of infantry
appeared behind the town, under the command of Don Sebastian. These
troops consisted of ten fresh battalions; and their charge was so
impetuous, that the British legion and the Spanish troops were obliged
to give way. From this time the army of Don Carlos gained courage, and
province after province was invaded by his guerilla chiefs. Still no
decisive event favoured his design upon the Spanish throne. In one grand
point he, however, succeeded, that of annihilating or dispersing the
British legion. Unsupported by the people for whom they fought, many
of them were slain in various engagements of desultory warfare; and
at length those who remained laid clown their arms, and the British
auxiliary legion ceased to exist. Before this event General Evans had
returned to England, disheartened by the want of co-operation in the
Spanish generals. But the year closed, and the Carlists and Christinos
were still arrayed in arms against each other. People of the same nation
and the same blood were seeking each other’s destruction with a deadly
animosity.
In Portugal, also, there were strifes and divisions, and rumours of
intended insurrections. In that country, moreover, the British who had
defended the cause of the queen were ill treated. The unpopularity of
the English increased daily, and the ambition and selfishness of Great
Britain were the constant themes of the popular press. So odious
were our countrymen that the English admiral in the Tagus thought it
necessary to issue the following general order to his captains:—“The
unsettled state of the country, and the differences known lately to have
existed between her most faithful majesty and her present ministers,
as well as the difficult position in which his royal highness Prince
Ferdinand is placed with regard to the Portuguese people, and the great
suspicion with which all foreigners he brought here into his service are
viewed, renders it necessary that the utmost caution, should be observed
by the English residing in Portugal with respect to private interviews
either with her most faithful majesty or her august consort,
that neither the government nor the people may have a pretext for
entertaining any undue impressions of the intentions of England. It is
therefore my most positive orders that you do not yourself call at the
palace, nor permit any officer to do so without my previous sanction.”
The British ambassador sought, though in vain, to obtain justice for
the officers and soldiers who had been in Don Pedro’s service, and whose
claims upon the Portuguese government remained unliquidated. A royal
order appeared, indeed, informing “the foreigners lately in the service
of her most faithful majesty,” that if they were dissatisfied with the
decision of the commissioners to whom their claims stood referred, “the
law was open to them.” This was most unsatisfactory, as the Portuguese
courts of law are notorious for corruption. The privileges of the
British, indeed, ceased to be respected in Portugal, and their claims
were set aside. They were restrained from carrying on retail trades,
which they had hitherto done by virtue of early treaties, and as they
were entitled to do by law. At the same time, disputes were constantly
taking place on the Tagus between the crews of British vessels and the
custom-house officers.
CHAPTER XLIX.
{VICTORIA. 1838—1839}
Parliament reassembles: Debates on Canada; Address to the
Throne moved by Lord John Russell; Bill for suspending; the
Lower Canadian Constitution..... The Question of Election
Committees..... Motion for the Ballot..... Parliamentary
Qualification Bill..... Personal Attacks..... Revival of
Anti-slavery Agitation..... Debates on the Irish Poor-law
Bill: the Bill carried in the Commons..... Motion for the
Repeal of the Appropriation Clause..... Ministerial Plan for
settling the Tithe Question..... Committee of the House of
Commons upon the Irish Municipal Bill; the Bill
rejected..... The Coronation..... Debates in the House of
Commons on the Irish Tithe Question..... The Irish Poor
Law Bill carried in the Lords..... Projected Formation
of a Colony in New Zealand..... Financial Statements.....
Motion for Repeal of the Corn Laws..... Various Improvements
in the Law..... A Select Committee to inquire into the
Operation of the Poor Laws..... Combinations in England and
Ireland..... Debates in Parliament on John Thorn, alias Sir
William Courtenay..... Committee on Church Lands..... Act
for abolishing Pluralities..... The Subject of Education
discussed in both Houses..... The Question of Canada
renewed..... Queen Prorogues Parliament..... Disaffection
among the Working Classes..... Proposed Reduction of the
Rates of Postage..... The State of Ireland..... The Affairs
of Canada..... The State of the Continent.
PARLIAMENT REASSEMBLES—DEBATES ON CANADA—ADDRESS TO THE THRONE
MOVED BY LORD JOHN RUSSELL—BILL FOR SUSPENDING THE LOWER CANADIAN
CONSTITUTION.
{A.D. 1838}
Parliament reassembled on the 16th of January. The first subject brought
under notice was the affairs of Canada. This subject was introduced by
Lord John Russell, who, after recapitulating the principal events that
had occurred since the connexion of that colony with Great Britain
down to the report of the Committee in 1828, took up his ground on that
report, which the assembly of Lower Canada had characterised as
“an imperishable monument to the justice and profound wisdom of the
committee, an authentic testimonial of the reality of their grievances
and of the justice of their complaints, faithfully interpreting their
wishes and their wants.” It might have been supposed, said his lordship,
that after the people and the government of this country had proved
themselves anxious to perform all that was asked for, and that was
indicated by the reports of the committee, the Canadians would have been
not only satisfied, but willing to express their cordiality towards the
British government. The case, however, was the very reverse of this. On
the 6th of December, 1828, the house of assembly resolved, “That on
the permanent settlement before mentioned being effected, it would
be expedient to render the governor, lieutenant-governor, or person
administering the government for the time being, the judges and
executive councillors, independent of the annual vote of that house,
to the extent of their present salaries.” Having adverted to other
resolutions indicative of the growing dissatisfaction of the Canadians,
Lord John Russell proceeded to state what had been done in order to
remedy the grievances set forth in those resolutions. The independence
of the judges was demanded; and Lord Ripon, then colonial-secretary, had
fully concurred in its reasonableness, and had suggested a method for
carrying it into effect. The house of assembly, however, instead
of following out that suggestion, tacked to the law by which the
independence of the judges was to be secured, certain provisions
relating to the hereditary revenues of the crown, and to the
establishment of a court of impeachment for the judges. Then as regarded
the subject on which the widest difference between the assembly and the
imperial government had existed, no opposition had been offered to
the terms of the assembly’s resolutions. The judges were informed,
instantly, that, with the exception of the chief-justice, it was no
longer desirable that they should sit in the legislative council; and
a number of persons were added to that body totally independent of the
crown, and giving a great majority in the council to those who were
unconnected with the government. Of the forty members in the council,
indeed, not less than eighteen were French Canadians: many of the
members of English origin had quitted the province, and but seven
remained in official connexion with the government. Another grievance
related to the crown and clergy reserves; and Lord Ripon had declared
it was time to put an end to the old system; and only differed from the
assembly in wishing to prevent an undue facility from being afforded
to poor and improvident purchasers of waste lands. Concessions had also
been made with reference to the property of the Jesuits, which had
been ordered to be applied to educational purposes; and on the
much-contested, question of the duties collected under the earlier acts,
and which the crown had, according to law, the right of appropriating.
The Canadians, however, made but a poor return for these concessions. In
1833, a supply-bill, containing the most unusual conditions, passed
the house of assembly; and in the following year the assembly adopted a
course which had led to the present difficulties. It passed
ninety-two resolutions, some of grievance, some of eulogy, and some
of vituperation, and amounting in the whole to a long and vehement
remonstrance; and after spending an entire session in framing it, it
separated without having passed any bill of supply. Since that time no
supplies had been voted. The demeanour of the house of assembly in the
following years remained unaltered. At the commencement of his speech,
Lord John Russell proposed a bill to suspend for a certain time the
existing constitution of Lower Canada; and at the same time moved
an address pledging the house to assist her majesty in restoring
tranquillity to her Canadian dominions, His lordship in the course of
his speech gave an outline of the intended bill. Mr. Hume entered
at considerable length into a recapitulation of the past and present
grievances of the Canadians. He laid the blame of all that had passed
upon the government; and said that “it was not the man who shed blood,
but the man who stimulated him to shed it, who was the guilty
party.” Mr. Grote likewise opposed the proposed address. He threw the
responsibility of the failure of the measure which had been taken to
adjust the financial disputes, upon Lord Ripon. Not content, he
said, with advancing a claim to the appropriation of the casual and
territorial revenues to the purposes of civil government without the
consent of the house of assembly, that noble lord had thought fit to
propose to make them over to the clergy; a step which was at once novel
and preposterous, and only embroiled matters still further. Sir Robert
Peel promised his cordial assent to the address, because this country
had acted with justice and liberality towards Canada. He thought that
the military force in the colony should have been immediately increased.
In reply, Lord Howick endeavoured to show that the government was not
culpable in omitting to back their resolutions of the last year with a
military force. He argued that regiments were not necessary to put down
meetings: they could not stop speeches, prevent resolutions, or obtain
juries to convict men for seditious practices. An additional regiment
introduced into Halifax had, in fact, served greatly to increase the
existing discontents. Mr. Charles Buller supported the address: the law
should be vindicated, and the insurgents put down without parley, unless
we were prepared to consent to a separation, and leave Canada to itself.
There was no ground for separation, nor could we with any regard to the
interests of the colony consent to abandon it; but we ought to comply
without delay with all the just demands of the Canadians. Mr. Leader
complained of being taken by surprise; and wished the house to adjourn
for the purpose of giving himself and his friends time to consider what
course they should take, and an opportunity of refuting the “fallacies
contained in the noble lord’s speech.” This was opposed by Lord John
Russell; and on a division the motion for an address was carried by one
hundred and eighty-eight against twenty-eight.
On the following day Lord John Russell brought in his proposed bill
for the suspension of the existing constitution of Canada. Its leading
object was to enable the governor-general and council, on the motion
of the governor, to pass any laws which might be considered necessary,
during the present suspension of the legislature of the province. In
addition to the means for suppressing the insurrection, the bill would
authorise the governor-general to grant a general amnesty. With respect
to the future government of Canada, his lordship said, that it was the
intention of ministers that the governor-general should be invested with
power to convene a certain number of persons; namely, three from
the legislative councils of each of the two provinces, and ten
“representatives” from each, to form a council to concert with the
governor-general as to the measures which might be deemed advisable for
the adjustment of the affairs of the province. The persons to be named
would be chosen by the governor-general, while those who were to be
convened, having a “representative character,” might of course be taken
from the legislative assembly. But as in Lower Canada it was almost
impossible that the assembly would be brought to act beneficially, it
would be competent to the governor-general, both in the upper and lower
province, to hold elections for persons, amounting to twenty in the
whole, to concert with him upon the general state of affairs. Sir Hussey
Vivian said that Mr. Hume had constantly stated in that house that he
anticipated a revolt. No man had a greater right to foretell such
an event. The man Martin had recently foretold the destruction of
Yorkminster; and he had set it on fire to fulfil his prediction. In
that same manner Mr. Hume had taken measures for the fulfilment of
his prophecy. Sir George Grey, the under-secretary for the colonial
department, in reply to some doubts which had been raised by Mr. Hume,
with respect to the loyalty of the other North American colonies, cited
facts to prove that the best possible spirit existed in Nova Scotia and
New-Brunswick. Mr. Grote presented a petition from Mr. Roebuck, praying
that he might be heard at the bar in defence of the house of assembly
of Lower Canada, and in opposition to the ministerial bill. Lord John
Russell thought that the house should be allowed time to consider
precedents; and after some further conversation Mr. Grote gave notice
that he should call the attention of the house to the subject on the
22nd instant.
The subject of Canada was brought before the lords on the 18th by Lord
Glenelg, who moved an appropriate address to the queen. After adverting
to the disturbances in that province, he made reference to the intended
bill. With respect to ulterior arrangements his lordship saw great
difficulties in the way of a legislative union between the two
provinces, but thought that considerable advantage might be made of
a federal union. In conclusion, his lordship defended the conduct of
government in not having provided more troops for the suppression of
the insurrection. Lord Brougham ridiculed Lord Glenelg’s despatches, to
which that noble lord had referred in his speech. The despatches
were certainly the products of a mind inadequately furnished with the
experience and knowledge necessary for the task imposed upon it, but
the honest intentions of the writer were equally apparent, and might
have protected him from the kind of invective to which the noble
logomachist subjected him. The whole speech of Lord Brougham was as
damaging to himself as to the government which he assailed. He pursued
the government with his irony and abuse, not because they fell beneath
him in point of honour or principle, but because they refused him their
confidence as Lord Chancellor, when his indiscretions and bullying
rendered him alike odious to the court and unendurable to the cabinet.
His lordship might fairly be considered as much the “standing counsel”
for the rebellious Canadians in the lords, as Mr. Roebuck was in the
commons. Nevertheless, the denunciations of the government by the
eccentric peer were in the main grounded upon their errors and
vacillation, and these vices in their administration were depicted with
a scathing eloquence, and a malignant spirit. Lord Brougham played the
part of a mere partisan, and was set down by the country for such. The
patriotic prestige associated with his name passed away. Lord Melbourne,
in reply, characterized Lord Brougham’s speech as “a laboured and
extreme concentration of bitterness.” Concerning the charge against
ministers of neglect in not providing against the possibility of an
outbreak, his lordship said, that it was a difficult question which they
had at the time to decide. By not re-enforcing the troops they ran
the hazard of what had in fact occurred; but, on the other hand, had a
considerable force been sent out, there would have been an end to all
chance of an amicable termination of the disputes. It would have been
instantly said, that we were filling Canada with troops, and thus
manifesting a fixed intention of putting down public opinion by the
force of arms. The Duke of Wellington thought that the proceeding’s
should have originated in a message from the throne. With reference to
the military force, he said, that he must do ministers the justice
to say that he could not blame them for not having taken more active
measures. He knew several officers in Canada; and the opinions of these
officers, as communicated to him, were, that there was not the smallest
reason to apprehend anything like insurrection in Lower Canada. At the
same time his grace said, that he could not understand, when ministers
had found it expedient to move troops from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
into Canada, they did not despatch fresh troops to supply the vacancy
thereby occasioned. After a few words from Lord Ripon, who condemned the
conduct of government, the Marquess of Lansdowne applauded the candid
terms in which the Duke of Wellington had expressed his opinion on the
military part of the question. The Earl of Durham, who was about to go
to Canada as governor, said, that it was impossible for words to express
the reluctance with which he had undertaken the arduous task, and
incurred the awful responsibility which must await him in his endeavours
to execute the objects of his mission. Nothing but the most determined
devotion to her majesty’s service, and the welfare of his country, could
have induced him to place himself in a situation in which he feared he
should neither answer the expectations of his friends nor of the nation.
Having noticed the various tasks which would devolve upon him, his
lordship said, with an apparent foreboding of what was to ensue, that he
could not perform them without the cordial and energetic support of her
majesty’s cabinet, and the co-operation of the imperial parliament. Lord
Glenelg closed the debate by retaliating on Lord Brougham for his fierce
denunciations, and by contrasting his conduct with that of the Duke
of Wellington, whose candour and magnanimity he warmly applauded. The
address was agreed to.
According to notice, Mr. Grote, on the 22nd, moved that Mr. Roebuck be
heard at the bar on behalf of the assembly of Lower Canada. Mr. Roebuck
relied on his title to be heard as general agent for Canada, but Mr.
Gladstone said that he was not aware of any constitutional right or
privilege of colonies to appoint agents with powers of this general
description. If allowed in practice, it must lead to interminable
confusion. Lords John Russell and Stanley also expressed their aversion
to hearing Mr. Roebuck as an agent of Canada; but the motion was
nevertheless acceded to. On the motion of Lord John Russell, the bill
for suspending the constitution of Lower Canada was read a second time;
after which Mr. Roebuck proceeded to address the house from the bar. His
speech was by no means conciliatory; on the contrary, his care seems to
have been to select such topics as were most likely to prove
generally offensive to its temper and prejudices. In one passage he
remarked:—“Talk to me of being frightened at being called a traitor—at
being told that my life is forfeited—at the newspapers setting
forth that I am to be sent to the Tower! Do you think that I am to be
frightened by such petty warfare? If I be guilty, why are there not some
who dare accuse me lawfully? My papers have been seized: let them be
produced. I have not run away; because I know that there is a jury
in England who will render justice to the accused.” On Mr. Roebuck’s
withdrawal, Mr. Hume moved the postponement of the committal to that day
six months. This motion was opposed by Sir George Grey, who replied to
Mr. Roebuck’s speech in a very able harangue. The subject was renewed on
the 23rd by Sir William Molesworth. Mr. E. L. Bulwer gave ministers his
cordial support. He thanked them for their determination to uphold the
integrity of the empire, and the maintenance of the laws; and he thanked
them as a friend to a liberal and popular policy, for their declared
resolution to redress the grievances of Canada. He would ask Mr.
Warburton and his friends, whether they were aware that till within the
last seventy years printing-presses were forbidden in Canada; that at
the present day the vast majority of the electors could neither read nor
write; and that it often happened that the foreman of a jury could not
give in the verdict because of his inability to read it? Was this a
colony fit for independence? If it were a republic to-morrow, it would
be a monster in legislation—half-jacobinism, half-feudalism. Mr. Bulwer
designated Mr. Warburton and his friends, in the course of his speech,
by the term “philosophical Radicals.” Mr. Grote, in reply, said that
the designation was quite as respectable as that of “literary Whig.”
The debate was closed by Lord John Russell. On a division the motion
for going into committee was carried by a majority of two hundred and
sixty-two against sixteen.
On the 25th Lord John Russell, in moving that “the speaker leave
the chair,” informed the house that in looking over the bill he had
discovered a number of verbal amendments to be necessary, and as it
was desirable that these should be introduced before the discussion was
resumed, he moved that the house should go into committee _pro forma_,
in order to afford an opportunity for making the requisite alterations.
Upon the question being put that the speaker leave the chair, Mr.
Warburton rose and made a long speech in opposition, which was utterly
devoid of any practicable suggestions. A long and rambling debate
followed, without any result.
The house finally went into committee on the bill, and proceeded to
consider its several clauses and the amendments proposed. The bill was
read a third time, and passed on the 29th of January, by a majority of
one hundred and ten against eight; the few non-contents being Radicals.
The bill came before the house of lords on the 2nd of February, when
it was opposed by Lord Brougham, in a speech of great length, and in an
acrimonious spirit. Lord Aberdeen also, though he supported the measure,
expressed his contempt of the conduct of the government. Lord Melbourne
had quietly endured the repeated attacks which had been made upon
ministers; but on this occasion he retorted upon Lord Brougham’s
censures with effect, convicting him of a change of principles. Lord
Brougham, however, denied that he had changed his principles: it was
the changed conduct of others that had compelled him to oppose them. The
Duke of Wellington reproduced many of the objections that had been urged
in the other house; and Lord Wharncliffe, after censuring the conduct of
ministers, gave a reluctant assent to the bill. On the 5th of February,
Mr. Roebuck, on the motion of Lord Brougham, was heard by the house as
agent of the house of assembly of Lower Canada; but his speech could not
arrest the progress of the bill. It was passed on the 8th of February;
Lords Ellenborough, Fitzwilliam, and Brougham entering their protest
against it on the journals of the house, though on different grounds.
The more important provisions of this bill were that the constitution
of Lower Canada was suspended till November, 1840; that her majesty in
council was empowered to constitute a special council, and to appoint,
or authorize the governor to appoint, such and so many special
councillors as she might think proper; that, until November, 1840, it
should be lawful for the governor, with the advice and consent of the
majority of the said councillors convened for the purpose, to make such
laws or ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of Lower
Canada, as the legislature of that province, at the time of passing the
act, was empowered; and that all laws or ordinances so made, subject to
the provisions thereinafter contained for disallowance thereof by her
majesty, should have the like force and effect as laws passed by the
legislative bodies. The governor was further to have the initiative of
all measures proposed in the council, five of whom were required for a
quorum. Certain restrictive provisoes followed these provisions; and it
was directed that a copy of every such law or ordinance “be transmitted
to the home government;” and her majesty was empowered, by an order
in council, to disallow the same at any time within two years of its
receipt.
THE QUESTION OF ELECTION COMMITTEES, ETC.
The necessity of an alteration in the mode of trying controverted
elections under the Grenville act had been for some time recognised. A
committee had been appointed to examine into this subject in 1837; and
Mr. Charles Buller, who had been chairman of that committee, had, on the
21st of November last, obtained leave to bring in a bill similar in
its provisions to one which had been in the hands of members in the
preceding session, though it had not been discussed. This bill, in
its original shape, provided that three assessors, barristers of seven
years’ standing, should be appointed by the speaker to act as chairmen
of election committees for the session only, and as a court of appeal
from the revising barristers on matters of law. Subsequently, when this
bill was in progress, it was thought better that the first assessors
should be named in the act, and that the future appointments should be
placed at the disposal of the speaker, subject to the confirmation of
the house. On the same day Mr. O’Connell said that he also had devised a
plan, which he was anxious to submit to the consideration of the house;
and he likewise obtained leave to bring in a bill for a similar
purpose. Mr. Buller’s bill came on for the second reading on the 27th of
November, when it was opposed by Lord Stanley, who moved that the second
reading be postponed till the 12th of May, in order that the question
might receive a fuller consideration. Mr. Williams Wynn approved of
the bill; and Mr. O’Connell abandoned his own in its favour. Lord John
Russell recommended that the bill should be read a second time, thinking
that it at least provided some remedy for the evils complained of. On a
division the second reading was carried by a majority of two hundred
and fourteen against one hundred and sixty. Nothing further was done,
however, before Christmas, except that there was much discussion on the
subject of election committees.
The house of commons was again occupied with the subject of controverted
elections on the 2nd of April. On the motion for the re-committal of Mr.
C. Buller’s bill, Sir Robert Peel rose for the purpose of bringing
the subject generally before the house, and of submitting to their
consideration a proposition of his own. Sir Robert’s scheme was, that
the speaker should nominate a committee, which should be called “a
general committee for elections,” and which should consist of four or
six, or some such limited number. To this committee he would leave the
duty of appointing select committees, by whom election petitions were to
be tried. These last committees might consist of seven or nine members,
and each was to have the aid of an assessor who should be its chairman,
and in all respects on an equal footing with the members of the
committee. These persons were not to be permanent, but employed as
occasion might demand. There was to be no attendance of members at a
ballot and the operation of chance was entirely excluded. Mr. O’Connell
still thought it would be advisable to take the adjudication of these
contests out of the present hands, and to transfer it to the judges. He
moved as an amendment, that Mr. Buller’s bill should be referred to a
select committee, who might report on the subject at large. Lord Stanley
moved that Mr. Buller’s bill be considered that day six months; and
proposed that a committee should be appointed to examine the conflicting
cases, and to report on a mode of giving uniformity to the law. Mr.
Shiel approved of Sir Robert Peel’s plan; but he thought that party
spirit would stand in the way of their obtaining a declaratory
act, since on some questions the two parties in parliament were
systematically opposed to each other. Mr. O’Connell’s proposition was
negatived, and Mr. Buller consented to withdraw his measure. On the 10th
of May, therefore, Sir Robert Peel moved for leave to bring in his
bill, dropping that part of his scheme, however, which established
assessors. Leave was given to bring in the bill; but the
attorney-general thought that all that was necessary was to repeal
the Grenville act. They might then go on making one experiment after
another, until they arrived at some plan that would give universal
satisfaction.
Before the Christmas recess, the freemen and parliamentary electors’
bill, which had been dropped in the preceding session, had been
reintroduced. The two grand objects of this bill were to relieve
householders entitled to the elective franchise, by extending the time
fixed by the reform bill for payment of rates and taxes; and to remove
the stamp-duty payable by freemen on their admission. The former part
of the bill met with much opposition; and Mr. T. Duncombe moved an
amendment, tending altogether to repeal the rate-paying clause of the
reform act. This amendment, however, was rejected, and the original
clause carried by a large majority. The third reading of the bill came
on on the 19th of February, when it was condemned by Sir Robert Peel as
involving a serious infraction of the great principle understood to be
settled when the reform bill was passed. The bill was finally passed by
the commons, by a majority of one hundred and eighty-nine against one
hundred and seventy-two; but it was rejected in the house of lords on
the second reading, on the 8th of March. The house of commons passed
another bill, conceding tire desired relief to freemen alone; but
the session closed before the lords were called upon to take it into
consideration.
MOTION FOR THE BALLOT.
On the 15th of February Mr. Grote made his annual motion for the ballot.
The debate at this time was expected with considerable interest, because
it was generally understood to be a question which was becoming an
element of disunion in the camp of the reformers. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Ward, and supported by Mr. E. L. Bulwer. Mr. Ward,
in seconding the motion, intimated that after Lord John Russell’s
declaration respecting the ballot, the extension of the suffrage, and
the duration of parliaments, the people were anxious to see how far
the other members of the administration were prepared to identify their
opinions with those of the noble lord. He represented the constituents
of Sir John Hobhouse, Mr. Poulett Thomson, Sir Hussey Vivian, and Sir
Henry Parnell as especially watching their conduct in this matter, and
concluded by expressing his conviction that anything like a government
opposition to the measure would “have for its effect the production of
a new combination most important to the country and to that house.” Lord
John Russell again manfully stated his general objections to the change;
and Sir Robert Peel, in a speech of considerable power, attacked the
system of secret voting with effect. On a division, the motion was
lost by a majority of three hundred and fifteen against one hundred and
ninety-eight.
PARLIAMENTARY QUALIFICATION BILL.
During this session a bill was introduced and passed, which had for
its object the extension to personal property of the privilege hitherto
confined to real property, as regarded a qualification for parliament.
By this act, an estate for life, or for the life of another; or a term
of years of which thirteen shall be unexpired at the time of election,
or personal estate and effects of any description within the United
Kingdom, or the interest or dividends of such, may constitute either
the whole or part of the sum required to qualify a member. By another
clause, every member before he takes his seat is required to deliver
to the clerk, while the house is sitting, a paper signed by himself,
containing a statement of the real or personal property whereby he makes
out his qualification. By the same clause he is also called upon to
subscribe a declaration, that to the best of his belief he is duly
qualified to be elected a member of the house. To make a false
declaration is declared to be a misdeameanour, and the election becomes
void if the member sits or votes without complying with the provisions
of the acts. This statute, however, does not extend to the members for
the universities, to the eldest sons of peers, or to persons qualified
to be knight of the shire.
PERSONAL ATTACKS.
On the 6th of March Sir William Molesworth, with a view of bringing the
whole colonial administration of the empire before the consideration of
the house of commons, moved that an address be presented to her majesty,
respectfully expressing the opinion of the house, that in the present
critical state of many of her majesty’s foreign possessions, the
colonial minister should be a person in whose diligence, activity, and
firmness the house and the public may be able to place reliance; and
declaring that her majesty’s present secretary of state for the colonies
does not enjoy the confidence of the house or the country. The right
honourable baronet prefaced his motion by a speech of two hours’
duration. His speech was very moderate, although it might have appeared
that he was guided by some acrimonious feeling in selecting Lord
Glenelg for attack. Mr. Leader seconded the motion; and Lord Palmerston
undertook the defence of the colonial secretary. He would meet the
motion by a simple negative. Lord Sandon said that he had expected that
the affairs of Canada would have formed the basis of the present
motion. Lord Palmerston was right in saying that it should not have
been directed against Lord Glenelg alone, but against the entire
administration. He could not vote with Sir William Molesworth; nor could
he be content with a simple negative of his motion. He considered that
the troubles in Canada were attributable to the misconduct of ministers;
and under these circumstances he should move an amendment, in the
shape of an address to the queen, in which would be laid down his own
principles, and those of the party with whom he acted. His lordship’s
address expressed the regret of the house at the treasonable movements
in Canada, and their determination to aid her in the suppression of the
revolt, and the establishment of a sound constitution; but representing
also their opinion, that the present state of things in that colony was
mainly owing to the want of foresight and energy, and to the ambiguous,
dilatory, and irresolute course of her majesty’s ministers. Lord
Stanley then addressed the house, and after a speech from Sir Charles
Grey the house adjourned; and on the following evening the debate was
renewed, many members expressing their opinions on the subject. In the
course of his speech Lord John Russell directed some bitter remarks
against Lord Stanley, and said that in respect of temper and judgment he
was more comfortable now that Lord Glenelg was his colleague than he was
when the former nobleman was at the head of the colonial department.
His lordship demanded to know whether in the event of the resignation
of ministers, there existed means of forming a better administration,
or whether the tories could safely appeal to the test of a popular
election? Lord John Russell concluded by suggesting to Sir William
Molesworth the expediency of withdrawing his motion, in order that the
house might divide upon the amendment. The right honourable baronet
consented to this; but said that, for his own part, he felt precluded
from voting on either side on the amendment of Lord Sandon. On a
division ministers had a majority of twenty-nine only; the numbers
being, against the amendment, three hundred and sixteen; for it, two
hundred and eighty-seven.
REVIVAL OF ANTI-SLAVERY AGITATION, ETC.
At this period anti-slavery agitation again became the order of the
day. On the one hand there existed a large class of declaimers and needy
orators who were interested in the revival of the subject; and on
the other, there was a powerful body of humane people, to whom the
contemplation of the sufferings of the negro people had become habitual,
and who required little inducement to recur to such an exciting theme.
But there was a cause for this display of philanthropy: the slave
was still in chains, and was still suffering from the lash of the
hard-hearted driver. The legislatures also in the colonies were not free
from blame; they acted in many cases with obstinacy and intemperance;
and Jamaica especially afforded many instances of systematic violations
of the imperial law. The apprentice system, in point of fact, was a
complete failure: it produced on the part of the slaves contumacy; and
on the part of the masters breaches of the law, cruelty, and violence.
From these circumstances there was no difficulty in lighting up a flame
in England on the subject. Meetings were held and petitions got up, with
a view of hastening the time when the slave should become a man among
his fellow-men. The subject of slavery was brought before the house of
lords, on the 29th of January, by Lord Brougham, who, after presenting
a petition from Leeds, praying the immediate abolition of negro slavery,
delivered an eloquent and impassioned speech on the enormities still
committed in the slave-trade. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Glenelg
admitted that Lord Brougham’s statements of the horrors of slavery were
substantially correct. In his speech his lordship had said, that British
officers were induced to allow vessels equipped for the slave-trade to
escape, in order to secure the head-money, and to wait at the mouth of
rivers till the cargoes had been shipped. Lord Minto, first lord of
the admiralty, in reply, said, that he would not assert that no single
instance of this nature had occurred; but he could say that none such
had come to his knowledge, and that he did not believe a similar
case had ever existed. He could assure their lordships that the only
complaint he had heard against British officers thus employed, was, that
they were too ready to take these vessels, and too little careful of
themselves, not attending sufficiently to their own security against
prosecutions. Every letter he received from those officers lamented
the difficulties in the way of obtaining the means of the capture and
conviction of these vessels until the cargo was embarked; and they all
pressed for the conclusion of further treaties. If those treaties could
be extended to all nations under whose flag the traffic was carrying on,
there would be no difficulty in putting it down. The case was not the
same with respect to Spain as to Portugal. With the former there was a
treaty which enabled us to capture all slavers under her flag; but our
cruisers could not capture vessels under Portuguese colours until they
had taken in their cargoes. Lord Brougham asked, if a reward according
to the tonnage of the vessel captured could not be substituted
for head-money? His views were supported by Lords Ellenborough and
Ashburton, the latter of whom said strong measures should be taken to
compel Portugal to desist from the traffic. Lord Glenelg said, that Lord
Palmerston was engaged in negotiating a treaty with that country, with a
view of putting a stop to the trade. He thought with Lord Brougham that
our interference had aggravated the horrors of slavery; but at the same
time he contended that parliament had no alternative but to act as it
had done; and that the fear of increasing the evil ought not to
have prevented us from taking steps to extirpate the practice. The
conversation on this subject here dropped; but it was renewed again
on the 20th of February by Lord Brougham, who urged upon the house the
propriety of immediately emancipating the negro apprentices. His speech
on this occasion gained for him the golden opinions of the good and the
wise. He commenced by painting in poetic language the “delicate, calm,
and tranquil joy” which pervaded the Antilles on the day when slavery
ceased to exist. He continued to show that the predictions of those who
had declared that labour would cease when slavery was abolished, had
failed. Twice as much sugar was made under the new system; and one
planter had said, that with twenty free labourers he could do the
work of a hundred slaves. His lordship next proceeded to show that
the slave-holders had not kept faith with this country, and that the
condition of the negroes, instead of being made better, was in many
respects worse than before. They were, he said, the victims of partial
tribunals, and of excessive and illegal punishments; and he related the
case of eleven females having perished from the punishments inflicted
upon them, but whose deaths were, nevertheless, ascribed by a coroner’s
jury to “the visitation of God.” At the conclusion of his speech his
lordship, after moving that an address be presented to her majesty,
beseeching her to take steps for the suppression of the slave-trade,
laid these resolutions on the table:—“That the practice of paying
head-money to British cruisers should be discontinued. That letters of
marque should be issued to private individuals, empowering them to fit
out vessels for the capture of slavers. That it was expedient that the
period of prædial apprenticeship should cease on the 1st of August,
1838.” The resolutions also further indicated certain regulations
for the protection of apprentices in the meantime. Lord Glenelg, in a
powerful speech, objected to Lord Brougham’s propositions of issuing
letters of marque to privateers, and the discontinuance of head-money.
With respect to the condition of the apprentices in the West India
colonies, he contended that the change had been more advantageous
than Lord Brougham had supposed, although he allowed that abuses and
difficulties of a serious nature did exist. Still he did not think that
sudden emancipation would be for the advantage of the negroes; and he
must, therefore, oppose Lord Brougham’s resolutions. Lord Brougham
took the sense of the house on the resolution which regarded immediate
emancipation; and on a division it was lost by a majority of thirty-one
against seven.
Soon after this the vigilance of Lord Brougham brought to light what
appeared to be a new method of establishing a slave-trade. In the
colony of British Guiana there had been an old law, which permitted the
importation of labourers without restriction. In 1836 a law was passed
by the governor and council of policy of the colony, with a view to
regulate the relations between the labourers who should come to the
colony under articles of indenture, and their employers. On being
transmitted to England for approval, the plan was considered on the
whole to be an improvement, and therefore it was sanctioned. An order
in council was issued in March, 1837, giving assent to the act of
the colonial legislature, but with several important alterations, and
especially reducing the period of service from seven to three years,
and prohibiting the introduction of labourers from Africa, or islands
peopled chiefly by the African race. Shortly after these modifications
of the law had been promulgated, an application was made for a different
regulation, to be extended to individuals from the East Indies, who, it
was said, could not be brought into the colony with any profit, unless
the term of service was prolonged to five years. This was conceded by
Lord Glenelg; and arrangements were made for the deportation of a class
of Hindoos, called “Hill Coolies,” or Highland labourers, to British
Guiana. This subject was brought forward by Lord Brougham on the 6th of
March, who moved two resolutions in condemnation of the order in council
of July. In his speech he asserted that twenty-five thousand Africans
had been introduced into the Mauritius in defiance of the law; and
predicted that they were about to expose to this infernal traffic the
entire Asiatic coast. His lordship complained that no precautions had
been taken to secure proper ships, provision, or accommodation for the
labourers on their voyage. Lord Glenelg contended that Lord Brougham’s
alarm was premature; that he had exaggerated the danger, and was urging
ministers to present a “barrier to the circulation of voluntary labour.”
The Duke of Wellington suggested that arrangements should be made for
the superintendence of the embarkation of labourers by responsible
persons; that the nature of the bargain made should be fully explained
to the labourer; that provision should be made for his return, if he
wished it, at the expiration of his period of service; and that persons
should be appointed to go with them while on board, and on their
landing, to see the due performance of their respective bargains by the
masters and the workmen. Lord Melbourne said that Lord Brougham’s
ardent imagination rendered him an unsafe guide in such matters; but
he intimated that the Duke of Wellington’s suggestion should receive
attention. His grace then said that he thought it unadvisable to divide
upon Lord Brougham’s motion; and therefore he would move the previous
question. On a division the previous question was carried by a large
majority; and the original motion being put, was negatived.
The subject of slavery was introduced on the 29th of March in the house
of commons, by Sir George Strickland, who moved the immediate abolition
of negro apprenticeship. The motion was seconded by Mr. Pease, and
supported by Dr. Lushington and Lord Howick. On the other hand, it was
opposed by Sir George Grey, Sir Edward Sugden, Lord John Russell, and
Mr. W. E. Gladstone; and on a division it was negatived by a majority
of two hundred and sixty-nine to two hundred and five. An attempt was
subsequently made by Sir Eardley Wilmot to obtain a resolution from the
house in favour of immediate abolition. He succeeded, his motion being
carried by a majority of ninety-six against ninety-three. Government,
however, still expressed aversion to any alteration of the present
system; and on the 28th of May Sir George Grey proposed and carried
a resolution which virtually rescinded that of Sir Eardley Wilmot, by
declaring that, in the opinion of the house, it was not advisable to
adopt any proceeding for the purpose of giving effect to the resolution
of the 26th of that month. Sir George Grey’s motion was carried by a
majority of two hundred and fifty against one hundred and seventy-three.
Although slavery was still allowed to exist, yet two important bills
connected with this subject passed the legislature this session. One
of these was entitled “An act to amend the act for the abolition of
slavery;” and it contained various provisions, giving further protection
to the apprentices, and enforcing such regulations of the former act
as had been disregarded by the planters. The second bill empowered her
majesty in council to make rules for the government of the prisons in
the West Indies; to appoint inspectors of prisons; to dismiss or suspend
officers; and to determine on the fitness or unfitness of any place to
be used for the purposes of penal confinement.
DEBATES ON THE IRISH POOR-LAW BILL—THE BILL CARRIED.
It will be remembered that the Irish poor-law bill had arrived at an
advanced stage, last session, in the committee, and that many of its
important clauses had been discussed and determined, when the demise of
the crown put a stop to its further progress. The subject was renewed
on the 1st of December, when the bill was read a first time. It was
proposed that the house should go into committee on the 9th of February,
on which day Mr. O’Connell moved, as an amendment, that it be committed
that day six months. When the bill was last year before the house, he
said he had addressed them at considerable length in opposition to it.
At the same time he had avowed that he had not moral courage to take the
course of direct opposition to the measure, although perfectly convinced
of its injurious tendency. Since then he had grown both older and
firmer; and he was now determined to take the sense of the house on the
committal of the bill. He was opposed to the introduction of poor-laws
into Ireland, at least so far as regarded able-bodied persons; it might
induce them to abandon their habitual industry and economy, and prevent
them from providing for the wants of age and supervening infirmity.
Any such plan was calculated to diminish self-reliance, to paralyse
industry, to decrease economy, and, above all, to damp and extinguish
the kindly and generous feelings of nature. He further objected to
the bill, because it taxed the occupiers of lands, and involved many
difficulties of apportionment between his landlord and himself: it would
be a constant source of litigation. Besides, he contended that the mode
in which the poor-law was proposed to be carried into effect, was not
calculated to benefit Ireland: and he enlarged on the poverty of the
people in general, in order to show that they ought not to be called
upon to endure taxation to the amount of another million. Messrs. Shaw,
W. S. O’Brien, Lucas, and Redington supported the bill, though they
all thought that many of its details were objectionable. Mr. O. Gore
supported Mr. O’Connell’s amendment, he objecting to the workhouse
system as prejudicial to the best habits and feelings of the Irish.
Other members, as Messrs. Barron, Young, and Litton, supported the
measure; while others, as Mr. J. Gibson and Sir F. French, opposed
it. On a division the original motion was carried by a majority of two
hundred and seventy-seven against twenty-five.
The house went into committee on the 12th of February. The third reading
of the bill came on on the 30th of April, when Mr. O’Connell again
endeavoured to arrest its progress. His opposition, however, was
bootless: it passed the house of commons by a majority of two hundred
and thirty-four against fifty-nine.
MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE APPROPRIATION CLAUSE—MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR
SETTLING THE TITHE QUESTION.
On the 14th of May Sir Thomas Acland moved for the repeal of the
appropriation clause. Lord John Russell had previously given notice that
he would bring forward his resolutions concerning Irish tithes; and in
moving that the speaker should leave the chair, the noble lord said that
it had been his original intention to refrain from saying a single word,
and to reserve his remarks to the time when the house should go into
committee. It had pleased the gentlemen opposite, however, to give
notice that they meant to interpose another question in order to raise
a debate, and produce a division, before allowing the resolutions to be
considered in committee. He should consider the proposition made by Sir
Thomas Acland in two points of view; with reference to its object of
producing discord and bitterness of feeling in the house, and how far
such a course was conformable to the professions made by gentlemen
opposite with respect to the Irish church. After descanting at
considerable length on the subject of the alliance of the church
and state generally, and the small influence which the Irish church
exercised over the people, the noble lord went on to unfold his scheme.
The existing tithe-composition, he said, would be converted into a
rent-charge at the rate of £70 for every £100; and he proposed that the
rent-charge should, with a saving of existing interests, be redeemed by
the government at the rate of sixteen years’ purchase on the full sum
of £100. The money received in redemption of the rent-charge he proposed
should be invested in land, or in such other way as the ecclesiastical
commissioners should advise; and the rent-charges themselves, when
purchased, should go towards a fund, from which £160,000 should be
paid yearly to the constabulary force of Ireland; £20,000 to the Dublin
police; £70,000 to the expense of criminal informations; and £100,000
for the purposes of education, instead of the £50,000 now voted annually
for that purpose; any surplus was to be applied to charitable purposes.
After developing his plan, Lord John Russell descanted on the obstinacy
and exorbitance of the clergy, and then attacked Sir T. Acland’s motion.
He commenced this part of his speech by quoting the Duke of Wellington’s
declared desire to see the Irish questions brought to a settlement,
contending that the present motion was not in accordance with that
declaration. With respect to the principle of the appropriation
resolutions, his opinion was unaltered: it was a wise and just
principle, and he could not consent to its reversal: it would imply
a stigma upon ministers which he could not endure. Sir Thomas Acland,
however, rose to move that the resolutions of the 7th and 8th of April,
1835, should be read; and after addressing the house at considerable
length, he further moved that they should be rescinded. The motion was
seconded by Sir Eardley Wilmot. After a long speech from Lord Stanley,
and a few words from Lord Morpeth in defence of government, the house
was adjourned till the following day, when Mr. Litton renewed the
discussion by delivering a speech in favour of Sir T. Acland’s
amendment. Messrs. Young, Laseelles, Bennett, and Lord Sandon also
supported it; while Messrs. Redington and Townley opposed it. Mr.
O’Connell remarked that the real question before the house was, how
should Ireland be governed? This was the question that had been under
discussion for seven hundred years. Should Ireland, he asked, be
governed by a section? A loud shout interrupted the speaker, and in the
midst of continued uproar, he continued thus:—“I thank you for that
shriek. Many a shout of insolent domination, despicable and contemptible
as it is, have I heard against my country.”—[Here the speaker
interfered]—“Let them shout; it is a senseless yell—the spirit of a
party. Ireland will hear their shrieks. They may want us again. What
would Waterloo have been if we had not been there? I ask not that
question for the renowned commander-in-chief, who is himself an
Irishman, but for the hardy soldiery of Ireland, who fought the battle
for him. I say again, that is the question.” In conclusion, Mr. O’Connell
admitted that the ministerial plan did not go far enough, but he was
ready to accede to it for the sake of an amicable arrangement. Sir
Robert Peel and other members addressed the house, a discussion ensued,
when Sir Thomas Acland’s motion was lost by a majority of three hundred
and seventeen against two hundred and ninety-eight. On the following day
Lord John Russell gave the house distinctly to understand that the tithe
measure would solely consist of a proposition to the effect that the
composition then existing should be converted into a rent-charge.
COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS UPON THE IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL—THE
BILL REJECTED, ETC.
On the 29th of May Lord John Russell moved that the house should go into
committee on the Irish municipal corporation bill. Sir Robert Peel then
rose and stated his views and intentions with respect to the two great
Irish questions.
The consideration of the subject was renewed on the 1st of June, when,
the house being in committee, Mr. Shaw moved that schedules A and
B should be consolidated, so that there should be but two schedules
instead of three; the first to contain the towns to which corporations
were to be given with an uniform ten-pound franchise; and the second to
contain those in which the majority of the ten-pound householders might,
according to their option, be incorporated. Mr. Shaw further proposed
that Sir Robert Peel’s mode of estimating the qualification of electors
should be adopted. Lord John Russell consented to that part of the
proposition which regarded the distribution of towns to be incorporated,
but at the same time intimated that government considered an uniform
ten-pound franchise too high a qualification. On this point, indeed, the
two parties were at issue, for Lord John Russell proposed a five-pound
assessment as the qualification, while Sir Robert Peel advocated the
ten-pound assessment. On the 11th of June Sir Robert moved to substitute
the latter for the former sum; but on a division it was negatived by
a majority of two hundred and eighty-six against two hundred and
sixty-six. The bill came on for the third reading on the 25th of June,
when Lord Francis Egerton moved that it should be read that day three
months; but on a division the bill passed by a majority of one hundred
and sixty-nine against one hundred and thirty-four.
The bill came under deliberation in the house of lords on the 12th of
July, and it was read a third time on the 27th of the same month. The
lords, however, had, on the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, substituted
the ten-pound for the five-pound franchise, and had also made further
alterations in the bill at the instigation of the same noble lord. When
the bill in its amended shape came under the consideration of the
house of commons on the 2nd of August, Lord John Russell entered into
a detailed examination of these amendments. In order to settle the
question of the franchise, he proposed that a rated house of eight
pounds rent should confer it; and he carried this by a majority of one
hundred and sixty-nine against one hundred and fifty-four. A variety of
alterations were then introduced into the other amendments of the lords,
and the bill was once more sent up to that house. A conference took
place, but with no effect, and the matter ended by Lord John Russell
moving in the house of commons that “the lords’ amendments should be
further considered that day three months.” The bill, therefore, was
again laid aside, and that for the most part from a difference of a
pound or two in the qualification. The great principle of granting
popular corporations to the Irish towns was conceded by the
Conservatives; but they would not overlook the trifling difference
contested by them and their opponents in the qualification.
[Illustration: 589.jpg CORONATION CHAIR]
THE CORONATION.
The coronation of Queen Victoria took place on the 28th of June.
The principal novel feature of this august ceremony consisted in the
substitution of a procession through the streets of London for the
banquet in Westminster-hall. The result of this change justified
the departure from an ancient usage. The people of all ages, sexes,
conditions, professions, arts, and trades assembled on that day to greet
their youthful sovereign. The ceremony was conducted with great
harmony: happiness and cheerful good humour prevailed among the enormous
multitude which thronged the streets; and courtesy and self-restraint
were everywhere conspicuous. The coronation was succeeded by a series
of fetes and banquets, and many weeks elapsed before the metropolis
had ceased to hold festivals in its remembrance. In a word, the utmost
enthusiasm for the youthful sovereign prevailed on every hand, and gave
promise of a happy and glorious reign.
It was stated in the house of commons shortly after the coronation that
the expenses incurred for the coronation of George IV. were £243,000,
and that the expenses incurred for that of his successor did not exceed
£50,000. On the present occasion the charges amounted to about £70,000,
and the chancellor of the exchequer, in explaining the cause of this
excess, said, that it was in no respect occasioned by any portion of
the ceremony as regarded the sovereign, but for enabling the people to
participate in the national festivity. The public, he continued, had
voluntarily paid for seats commanding a view of the procession not less
than £200,000; and four hundred thousand persons had visited London
for the purpose of witnessing the ceremony. He added:—“Never was there
given to a sovereign, or to a country, a more exalted proof of good
conduct and discretion, than was afforded by the assembled multitude on
this occasion.”
DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE IRISH TITHE QUESTION.
On the 2nd of July the house of commons proceeded to take Lord John
Russell’s tithe resolutions into consideration. On the motion for
going into committee, Mr. Ward condemned ministers for abandoning the
appropriation principle, and moved a series of resolutions for the
appropriation of the surplus revenues of the Irish church to the moral
and religious education of all classes. Mr. Hawes seconded and Mr. Hume
supported the motion. Mr. O’Connell, however, opposed it, contending
that it led to a deception and delusion: it offered to the Irish people
something as the purchase-money of a tithe bill, which bill they had
refused unanimously to take. Their determination was not to pay tithe;
and he required that provision should be made for the established church
of Ireland out of the consolidated fund, and that the tithe fund should
be applied to the maintenance of peace in the country. By converting
tithes into a rent-charge, they would turn landlords into tithe
proprietors; and would further throw many landlords into the ranks of
White-boys. Mr. Harvey said that three years ago he was denounced by Mr.
O’Connell for not supporting the motion which his learned friend was now
opposing. On a division Mr. Ward’s motion was rejected by two hundred
and seventy against forty-six. On the house going into committee, Mr.
Shaw moved, as an amendment, that twenty-five instead of thirty per
cent, should be substituted. This amendment was carried by a majority of
one hundred and eighty-eight against one hundred and sixty-seven.
In a preceding year one million sterling had been voted by parliament
for the relief of tithe-owners who had been unable to pay their dues;
and out of this sum they had by this time actually received £640,000. At
the time of the grant it was intended that the advances should be repaid
as soon as the tenants should pay up their arrears. That event was not
likely to happen; for, since the grant had been made, a new arrear of
tithes had accrued. It was now generally agreed that repayment of the
money advanced should not be required; but it became a question how far
the fresh arrears were to be settled. Sir Robert Peel suggested that
a commission should be appointed to ascertain the entire amount of the
tithe, and the nature of each particular case; and that in proportion
to that amount, and with due regard to individual circumstances, the sum
remaining of the million not yet advanced should be distributed among
the respective tithe-owners in purchase of their interests. According
to his plan, if a landlord owned tithe, he was not to be included in
the proposition; but where the debtors were occupying tenants, there
tithe-owners were to have the option of enforcing their claims, or of
accepting their proportion of the fund, and exonerating their debtors:
government was also to have the right of proceeding against the tenant
at their option. This proposition was favourably received; and, on July
16th, Lord John Russell, when the house resumed the consideration of
the bill in committee, adopted it with some slight modifications. On
the 26th of July the bill came on for the third reading. Mr. D. Browne
moved, that the bill be read that day six months; in doing which he
contended for a total abolition of tithes. On a division the bill was
carried by a majority of one hundred and forty-eight against thirty; and
thus terminated the contests concerning “the appropriation clause.” The
adoption of it had assisted the Whigs in their return to power; and the
sacrifice of it enabled them to maintain office.
Lord Melbourne brought the Irish tithe-bill before the house of lords on
the 3rd of August. After descanting on the million loan and the arrears,
his lordship remarked that it was obvious, unless they closed up all
questions with reference to arrears, they would not be giving the
measure fair play. This bill directed the lord lieutenant to remit to
the clergy the instalments due from them in respect of the loan; and the
residue of the million was to be applied in satisfaction of the arrears,
according to the claims of the spiritual tithe-owners, which had
been accruing during the last four years. Nothing was said of the
“appropriation clause” by his lordship: on which Lord Brougham
remarked:—“I had not looked to see the day when appropriation should be
given to the winds, as if the thing had never been talked of—as if it
never had been the means of seating one ministry and unseating another.”
The bill was read a third time on the 9th of August, Lord Clancarty
alone raising a dissentient voice.
THE IRISH POOR-LAW BILL CARRIED IN THE LORDS.
On the 21st of May Lord Melbourne moved the second reading of the Irish
poor-law bill in the lords. The motion was opposed by Earl Fitzwilliam,
who said that he was opposed to the whole principle of poor-laws. As for
the present bill, he said, it could never be carried into effect; it
was not an Irish bill, nor was it a bill desired either by the landed
interests, the middling gentry, or the poorest classes of Ireland.
The Marquis of Londonderry also opposed the bill; while the Duke of
Wellington recommended their lordships to give it a second reading, with
a view of amending it in committee. Lord Lyndhurst, having adverted to
the unpopularity of the bill in Ireland, and cautioned their lordships
against setting themselves up as better judges than the Irish people
themselves of what was best calculated to promote the interests of that
nation, said he should not object to a trial of the bill, provided
he thought that they would, in the event of failure, return to their
original situation. His lordship then stated his various objections to
the proposed bill; but, in conclusion, intimated his intention of voting
for the second reading, in the hope that it might be brought into a
better state in committee. The Marquis of Clanricarde, Lord Brougham,
and the Marquis of Westmeath opposed the bill; and Lord Radnor and the
Earl of Devon supported it. On a division the second reading was
carried by a majority of one hundred and forty-nine against twenty.
In committee, Earl Fitzwilliam moved an am end-mend to the forty-first
clause, by which he limited the relief under the bill to age, bodily
infirmity, &c.; and he was supported by Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, who
contended that the operations of the bill would be mischievous; but
it was not carried. On the 31st the latter noble lord moved another
amendment, empowering the guardians to relieve in poor-houses “all
destitute persons who are either incurably lame, or blind, or sick, or
labouring under permanent bodily infirmity;” also all orphan children
left in a state of destitution. Ministers, however, succeeded in
carrying the original clause of the bill by a majority of one hundred
and seven to forty-one. Subsequently some amendments were made in the
minor details of the bill, and it was read a third time on the 9th of
July, and carried by a majority of ninety-three against thirty-one.
The momentous experiment, therefore, of introducing a poor-law into a
country where the people were everywhere opposed to it was to be tried.
PROJECTED FORMATION OF A COLONY IN NEW ZEALAND, ETC.
At this period an association had been formed for the purpose of
colonizing New Zealand, under certain grants of territory which had been
obtained from the native authorities. During this session an application
for a parliamentary sanction to the undertaking was made, and Mr. F.
Baring, on the 23rd of June, moved the second reading of a bill to
establish the said colony. Sir George Grey opposed the motion. The bill
was also opposed by Sir Walter James, Lord Sandon, and Messrs. Goulbourn
and Pease, while Messrs. Hutt and P. Howard pointed out the advantages
which would accrue to Great Britain from the measure. The bill was
rejected by a majority of ninety-two against thirty-two.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, ETC.
The navy estimates were presented to the house of commons on the 5th of
March, when Mr. C. Wood moved a resolution to the effect, that there be
employed in the fleet for the next thirteen lunar months, ending on the
31st of March, 1839, 33,665 men including 2,000 boys and 9,000 marines.
After some opposition, this motion was agreed to; as was another, made
by Lord Howick, on the 12th of the same month, to the effect that
89,305 men should be raised for her majesty’s land-forces. The ordnance
estimates were moved by Sir Hussey Vivian on the 27th of April, and
these, likewise, were granted. The chancellor of the exchequer presented
his financial statement on the 18th of May, when it appeared that the
past year had been one of increased expenditure and diminished receipt.
The estimate of revenue, he said, had amounted to £47,240,000, while the
actual income did not exceed £46,090,000. The estimate of expenditure
had been £47,873,000, and the actual expenditure £47,519,000; so that
there existed a deficiency of £1,428,000. But, continued Mr. Rice, if
the house would compare the income and expenditure of the two years
1836 and 1837, they would find a surplus of income; and he showed that,
taking these two years together, and comparing the anticipation with the
actual results, there was no deficiency. The right honourable gentleman
proceeded to say that he calculated the income of the next year would
be £47,271,803, and the expenditure £47,479,000. Here, also, would be a
deficiency; and the question arose, how was this deficiency to be
met? There was no ground for considering it permanent; and he should
therefore propose to take the course adopted by parliament on former
similar occasions. In 1827 Mr. Canning found himself with a deficiency
of £2,900,000, and he met it by a resort to a corresponding issue of
exchequer-bills. Mr. Spring Rice intimated that he should follow the
same course, and should ask for a vote of credit to the extent of a few
hundred thousand pounds only.
MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE CORN-LAWS.
On the 15th of March Mr. Villiers moved for a committee of the whole
house to consider the act of 9 George IV. c. 60, relating to the
importation of corn. In his speech he remarked that the purpose and
principle of the corn-laws were protection to the landed interest. It
was alleged that the British farmers could not compete with the foreign
grower without protection. He considered this principle indefinite and
unjust. The motion was seconded by Sir William Molesworth, who drew a
gloomy picture of the operation of the corn-laws. Through them, he
said, there was an excess of farmers without farm, shopkeepers without
customers, lawyers without briefs, clergymen without cure of souls,
doctors without patients, sailors and soldiers without employment;
besides shoals of architects, painters, surveyors, tutors, clerks, and
others. All these classes were uneasy, and the victims of competition.
The corn-laws had further the effect of producing great immorality:
people either could not marry, or were obliged to many late in life, and
consequently there was an excess of unmarried women! Hence immorality
prevailed, and every foreigner who visited the land was shocked at the
exhibition of profligacy in the streets. Only a few members supported
the motion, which was consequently lost.
On a subsequent evening Colonel Seale proposed that foreign corn in this
country should, under certain restrictions, be permitted to be ground
while in bond, and exported, security being given for its exportation.
The object of this measure was to enable merchants trading to foreign
countries, and shipowners, to lay in their supplies in the ports of
the United Kingdom, instead of being compelled to obtain them, as at
present, from the Baltic. The Marquis of Chandos contended that this
measure would repeal the corn-laws: extensive frauds would take place,
and a great alteration ensue in the price of corn. On the other hand,
Messrs. Warburton and Poulett Thomson argued that the agricultural
interest would not suffer from it in the least degree. The latter said
that no fraud could take place, and he entered into details to show that
the preservation of the whole revenue of the country depended upon the
security afforded by the bonded warehouses. Corn could not be smuggled
out of them more easily than sugar and tobacco, &c., on which much higher
duties were payable. After hearing these statements of Mr. Thomson,
several members intimated their disposition to make a concession upon so
immaterial a point. Colonel Seale’s motion was carried by a majority
of one hundred and twenty-seven against ninety-two, but the bill was,
notwithstanding, thrown out on the second reading, by a majority of two
hundred and twenty against one hundred and fifty.
VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LAW.
An important alteration in the law took place this session, in the
abolition of imprisonment for debt on mesne process. Public attention
had been for some time directed to this subject; and during last session
a bill passed the house of commons with reference to it, but at too late
a period to admit of its discussion in the upper house. On the 5th of
December the lord-chancellor brought the subject before the lords, by
moving the second reading of a similar bill. Many of the details of the
bill, however, were thought to be so defective, that it was referred
to the consideration of a select committee. The lord-chancellor again
presented his bill, as altered and amended by the committee, on the 12th
of June. In his exposition of the measure, his lordship stated that it
would empower creditors to get possession of various descriptions of
property, which were at present exempt from execution. Thus the bill
would authorize the sheriff to seize cash, bank-notes, and bills of
exchange; and, under the authority of a judge’s order, and with certain
restrictions, stock in the public funds would be available to the
creditor. These and similar provisions were framed for the purpose of
doing justice to the creditor, by enabling him, if possible, to obtain
payment out of his debtor’s property. Having effected this object it
seemed but right to abolish imprisonment on mesne process. Still, to
prevent fraud, it was necessary to secure to the creditor the right of
seizing the debtor’s person in certain cases. The bill, moreover, would
authorize a judge, on the creditor’s application, to issue a warrant
to restrain a fraudulent debtor from leaving the country before he had
surrendered his property. Lords Brougham and Abingdon commended the
measure as far as it went; but they still thought it incomplete. The
bill was read a third time and passed; and after some minor alterations
had been introduced in it by the commons, it finally became law. Another
useful act passed during this session was one which facilitated the
recovery of possession of tenements after the determination of the
tenancy. This bill empowered any two justices at petty-sessions,
in certain cases, and after proof given of the determination of the
tenancy, and of the refusal of the tenant to render possession, to issue
their warrant to the peace-officers of the place, directing them to
enter, by force, if needful, upon the premises unlawfully held over,
and to give possession of the same to the landlord or to his agent; such
entry to be made not less than twenty, and not more than thirty days
from the date of the warrant. The provisions of this bill, however,
are confined to premises held at will, or for less than a term of
seven years, and which are let for less than £20 per annum, without the
reservation of a fine.
In the course of this session, a bill for securing to authors, in
certain cases, the benefit of international copyright passed the
legislature, and which enabled her majesty in council to direct that the
authors of books published abroad shall have a copyright here, provided
there be a reciprocal protection in favour of this country in the state
in which such publications first make their appearance.
A SELECT COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO THE OPERATION OF THE POOR-LAWS.
During the past and the present year the New Poor-law was exposed to a
severe trial. Distress, from a severe winter and the high price of corn,
abounded on every hand, while in various parts of the country local
and temporary causes operated unfavourably to the labourer. Under these
circumstances, the New Poor-law encountered great opposition, and this
appeared to be becoming progressively formidable. In the northern
parts of the country, indeed, Tories, Whigs, and Radicals alike arrayed
themselves against it, all agreeing to seek its entire abolition. The
subject had been introduced into the commons as early as the 27th of
November of the past year, when Lord John Russell moved for a select
committee to inquire into the operation of the New Poor-law. This
afforded, however, but little satisfaction to the opponents of the
measure; and on the 20th of February Mr. Fielden moved for a repeal of
the act itself. He was seconded by Mr. Wakley; and, in the course of the
evening, a discussion ensued, in which many members took part. Those
who spoke generally concurred in the impolicy of taking any steps in
the question until the committee should have made its report. Sir
Robert Peel bore testimony to the merits of the bill; remarking that,
considering the magnitude of the experiment, which had been but four
years under trial, it was as satisfactory as any man could expect. On
a division, the motion was rejected by a majority of three hundred and
nine against seventeen.
The commissioners made their report on the 4th of August. It had
been proposed to authorize the guardians to relieve the families of
labourers, by taking one or more of their children into the workhouse.
The report stated, “that in the practical application of this exception,
it would be difficult to avoid the establishment of a system similar in
principle to the scale system; i. e. a regular allowance, in addition to
the labourer’s earnings, depending on the number of his children and the
rate of wages.” It had further been proposed to obviate the hardship of
obliging a man to part with his cottage and furniture, and take up his
abode, with his family, in the workhouse, by admitting the head of the
family only into that establishment, and leaving his family at home. The
report stated an objection to this proposal thus:—“The small degree of
inconvenience sustained by the labourer by a temporary sojourn in the
workhouse, whilst his wife and family remain at home, ceases altogether
to have the effect upon the employer which is produced by the strict
workhouse system; namely, the creating a great reluctance, on his part,
to lose temporarily the services of the labourer, lest he should find
it impossible to regain them; and a desire so to arrange the work of
his farm, as to afford employment, during the unfavourable part of the
season, to those upon whose assistance he must rely for the necessary
services during the more active periods of the year.” The report
proceeded to notice other particulars of the system, as the migration of
families from the southern to the northern counties; and the emigration
of others to the Australian colonies. It remarked, that the most
important and characteristic circumstance of the last twelve months had
been the extreme severity of a long winter, and the continuance of the
interruption to manufacturing industry which had commenced in 1836. From
this circumstance the guardians of various unions had been induced to
give out-door relief to able-bodied male paupers, but the commissioners
were of opinion that, with few exceptions, it might have been safely
withheld.
COMBINATIONS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
For some years combinations of workmen for the purpose of regulating
the rate of wages, and other matters connected with the employment of
labour, had been permitted by law to exist. At this time, however,
these confederacies had become formidable. “Strikes” were constantly
recurring, so that the masters lay at the mercy of the operatives. Thus
at Ashton fifty-two mills and thirty thousand persons were thrown out
of work, by the “strike” of three thousand “coarse spinners,” who could
clear at the time about thirty shillings per week; and at Manchester one
thousand “fine spinners” struck work, because the masters would not pay
them more than thirty-five shillings per week. At Glasgow, where the
cotton-spinners had been long noted for the violent and arbitrary
proceedings of their confederacy, five individuals connected with their
body were taken up, charged with murder, attempts at arson, and other
grave offences of a similar character. On their trial, the evidence
disclosed some revolting details of the practices and formidable
organization of the cotton-spinners’ union of Glasgow; but the jury
found the prisoners guilty of the minor charges only, and they
were transported for seven years. There was much in these judicial
proceedings that, in the opinion of Lord Brougham and Mr. Wakley,
required correction, and accordingly they brought the subject under the
consideration of parliament, each in their respective spheres.
The subject was introduced by Mr. Wakley in the house of commons,
by moving for a select committee to inquire into the constitution,
practices, and effects of the association of operative cotton-spinners
in Glasgow and its neighbourhood. Mr. O’Connell moved, by way of
amendment, for a select committee to inquire into trades’ unions and
combinations generally, in the United Kingdom. He remarked that
there was no tyranny equal to that which was exercised by the trades’
unionists in Dublin. He had in vain wished to convince those people of
the wickedness and impolicy of their proceedings. Hour after hour had
he had interviews with the deputation from the various trades, and had
seldom met with men of more ability, information, or skill, in putting
forward their own views. He had also challenged discussion, and two
assemblies had been held for that purpose; but the workmen had concerted
interruption, and they could not proceed in the business of the day. He
could not be heard, and they expressed their determination to persist in
their system of outrage. Mr. O’Connell proceeded to detail some of the
more prominent regulations of the combination. One of their rules was
to limit the number of apprentices; another prescribed a minimum rate of
wages, so that the best workmen received no more than the worst; and
by a third the masters were deprived of all freedom in their power of
selecting workmen. The honourable gentleman then proceeded to relate
some instances of the prejudicial effects of combination on the
manufacturing industry of the country; and he concluded by adverting to
the murders and outrages committed by stipendiary assassins acting under
the authority of the unions, and by asserting that he had no wish
to re-enact the old combination laws. Some combinations were even
meritorious: his aim would be to separate unions of this kind from those
of a pernicious character. The chancellor of the exchequer paid some
just compliments to Mr. O’Connell for the course he had pursued with
respect to this subject, and said that he proposed a second amendment,
which did not materially differ from that of the member for Dublin. He
moved for a select committee to inquire into the operation of the 6th
of George IV., and into the general constitution of trades’ unions, and
also the combinations of workmen and masters in the United Kingdom. Mr.
Wakley expressed himself satisfied to leave the question in the hands
of her majesty’s ministers, and the chancellor of the exchequer’s motion
was agreed to without a division.
JOHN THOM. ALIAS SIR WILLIAM COURTENAY.
A few years back an individual of the name of John Nicholls Thorn
left his home in Cornwall, and went into the county of Kent. Here he
exchanged his name for the more euphonious one of Sir William Courtenay,
Knight of Malta, and he commenced a practice of parading his naturally
commanding person before the admiring people, clad in rich costumes, and
pouring forth streams of exciting and persuasive eloquence. Attracted by
his romantic appearance, the populace flocked round him with the wildest
enthusiasm; and even the superior classes of society, furnished him with
partizans. In 1833 he became a candidate for the representation of the
city of Canterbury, and he succeeded so far as to poll nine hundred and
fifty votes. Not long after, however, he was found to be implicated in
a transaction which resulted in his conviction for perjury, and he was
sentenced to six years’ transportation. Decided symptoms of insanity
having exhibited themselves, instead of being sent on board the hulks,
in conformity with the act 9th George IV., he was removed from Maidstone
gaol to the county lunatic asylum. He remained here four years, and at
the expiration of that period, Lord John Russell, in virtue of a power
conferred on him as secretary of state by the same act, delivered him up
to his friends upon their engaging to take care of him. His friends ill
discharged their duty; for in 1838 John Thom reappeared in Kent, and
this time under a higher title than that of baronet: he claimed to be,
and the people acknowledged his pretensions as, another Messiah. The
delusion led to the “Canterbury riots,” in which a constable was shot by
Thom himself, and Lieutenant Bennet was killed by some of his
enthusiastic followers. Thom on his trial was proved to be of unsound
mind; and several of his followers were sentenced to be transported,
some for life, and others for longer or shorter periods of time,
according to the parts they had acted in the tragical scene.
COMMITTEE ON CHURCH LANDS.
It has been seen in a former page that a committee had been appointed
to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might be
obtained by an improved management of church property. On the 3rd of
May Lord John Russell proposed the reappointment of this committee. He
estimated the revenue of the church of England at £3,439,767, and
he calculated this income would admit of considerable increase. With
respect to the disposal of such additional revenue, when obtained,
his lordship said that both himself and colleagues held it as a
fixed principle that it ought to be devoted to a purpose clearly and
intimately connected with the church. Many honourable members were
of opinion that such a fund should be applied to the education of the
people: government would prefer to dedicate it to the repairs of the
fabric of the church itself. His lordship then entered into details to
show that the present system of managing church property was improvident
and unsatisfactory; and that the funds of the church were often disposed
of in a way contrary to their original purposes, and not desirable
for the spiritual interests of the country. By proper arrangements he
expected that an annual surplus of £300,000 might be secured. The motion
was opposed by Mr. Liddell, who, in moving a direct negative to it,
observed that government had been stimulated to stir this “mischievous
question, and unsettle men’s minds and properties by the clamour of
persons hostile to the church.” The church of Durham, he said, was the
great object of their appetency. It certainly had rich possessions, but
then its charities were in proportion. It had, moreover, crying wants:
many of its cures were underpaid, and many new churches were requisite,
for which there were no adequate means of endowment. The honourable
gentleman concluded by saying, that should the motion for a committee
be carried, he would further move the addition to it of the following
words:—“with a view of applying such amount to the gradual diminution
of the evils which flow from the deficiency in the means of religious
instruction and pastoral superintendence by ministers of the established
church.” The original motion was carried by a majority of two hundred
and seventy-seven against two hundred and forty-one; and Mr. Liddell’s
second amendment was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixty-five
against two hundred and fifty-four.
ACT FOR ABOLISHING PLURALITIES, ETC.
During this session an act was passed for “abridging pluralities,” and
for making better provision for the residence of the clergy. This bill
enacts that no person holding more benefices than one shall accept and
hold any cathedral preferment or other benefice; and that no person
holding preferment in one cathedral shall hold any in another, with
certain exceptions in favour of archdeacons. The bill further enacts
that two benefices are not to be enjoyed together, unless within ten
miles of each other, nor if the population of the one exceeds three
thousand, or the joint revenue £1,000, unless the yearly value of
the one fall short of £150, while the population exceeds two thousand
persons; in which case the bishop of the diocese may authorize the two
to be held jointly, though at the same time it was made necessary to
obtain a dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury. By another
clause of the bill any spiritual person in the possession of preferment
is prohibited from farming more than eighty acres of land without the
consent of his diocesan, and from engaging in any trade, unless in
cases where the number of partners exceed six, or where the share in a
business may devolve upon the individual by operation of law; but in
no case may such person carry on or manage trade personally. The bill
finally empowers the bishops to grant dispensations to their clergy from
residing in the parsonage-houses when unfit to be occupied, provided
that the residence selected be within a certain distance of the cure,
and further enumerates a variety of other instances in which the bishops
may grant licences for non-residence.
During this session also, in consequence of a recent decision in the
court of exchequer, that it was unlawful for a clergyman to be a member
of a joint-stock company, an act was passed, altering the law on that
head. In 1817, an act had been passed prohibiting all spiritual persons
from engaging in any trade for gain or profit, and imposing a penalty
upon transgressors of the law. It also declared the acts of any
partnership into which such spiritual person had been introduced to be
null and void.
On the 22nd of February the Earl of Ripon announced to the house of
lords that the ecclesiastical commissioners had resolved to recommend
the continuance of the bishopric of Sodor and Man as a separate see,
and not to unite it with the diocese of Carlisle, as had been proposed.
During this session, therefore, a bill was passed for continuing the see
upon its original footing.
THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT.
On the 1st of December Lord Brougham brought the subject of national
education under the consideration of the house of lords. His lordship’s
plan was disclosed in two bills, corresponding with that which he had
brought forward in the preceding session, and which were only separated
for the sake of convenience. The measure of Lord Brougham seems to have
been conceived in an enlightened spirit, and its outline exhibits
many excellent features; but it was clear that there would be great
difficulty in carrying out its details. The bill was generally approved
of, and was read a first time, but it did not come again under the
consideration of parliament during this session.
THE QUESTION OF CANADA RENEWED.
While parliament was sitting, Lord Durham sailed for his seat of
government in Canada; and news arrived of his first acts in that
province. Before his lordship had sailed, however, attacks were
made upon him by the opposition, although they had exercised so much
forbearance towards him at the outset of his mission.
The main attack on Lord Durham was opened in the house of lords on the
30th of July. Of the many important matters which Lord Durham found on
his arrival in Canada unsettled, the disposal of the state prisoners was
“by far the most delicate and dangerous.” This difficulty was increased
by the restrictions which the home-government had thought it expedient
to impose upon the governor-in-chief. These restrictions were contained
in a letter written by Lord Glenelg, and were to this effect:—“From the
very commencement of the late disturbances it has been, as your lordship
is aware, the earnest desire of the government, that the utmost lenity
compatible with the public safety should be exercised towards the
insurgents. This is a principle inculcated in my various despatches
to the authorities of Lower and Upper Canada, and it is a principle
supported by considerations, not only of humanity, which cannot be in
such cases admitted as the exclusive test of right conduct, but also of
true policy, in reference to the well-being of the Canadas. You will,
I am persuaded, enter into the views of the government on this subject;
and in order to enable you to act with promptitude in this respect,
you are relieved from the restrictions by which your predecessors
were prevented, in case of treason, from giving an absolute pardon, or
granting more than a respite, till the royal pleasure should be known.
The power thus entrusted to you, of granting an amnesty or pardon in all
cases, should, in the opinion of her majesty’s government, be exercised
largely, but not entirely without exception. Independently of persons
committed on charges of murder, to whose cases I have referred in my
despatch of the 19th of March to Sir J. Colborne, as exceptions to the
class of cases fit to be included in an amnesty, there must probably
among the prisoners be some flagrant and prominent cases of delinquency,
which it would not be just or advisable to comprehend in the general
lenity. These cases it will be for you to select, in order that they may
be brought to trial. In the constitution of the tribunals before which
these prisoners are to be arraigned, and in the conduct of these trials,
her majesty’s government are, after full deliberations, satisfied that
there should be no further deviation from the established mode of legal
procedure, than was sanctioned in my despatch to Sir J. Colborne. You
will, therefore, bring them to trial in the usual manner before the
courts of justice, as at present constituted for the trial of criminal
offences. By the verdict of the ordinary juries, the fate of the
prisoners must be decided.... Except in cases of murder, capital
punishments should be avoided.” In dealing with this difficult subject
Lord Durham availed himself of the assistance of his special council,
the members of which were Vice-admiral Sir Charles Paget, Major-general
Sir James Macdonnell, Colonel Couper, the governor’s military
secretary, and principal aide-de-camp, Colonel Grey, and Mr. Charles
Buller. The council met on the 18th of June; but it was not for the
purposes of consultation that Lord Durham convened his board, for on the
very day on which they were summoned to meet, appeared the celebrated
ordinance, by which Lord Brougham not only accomplished his fall, but
contrived that all the odium of the transaction should attach to the
ministers themselves The nature of this ordinance will be clearly seen
in the following debates which took place in both houses of parliament.
On the day before mentioned (30th July), when the attack was opened on
Lord Durham in the upper house, Lord Brougham called the attention of
the peers to the ordinance which had been passed by the noble governor
of Canada, asserting that if carried into effect it would involve the
crime of murder, the whole proceeding being at variance with law. Seven
days after, Lord Brougham renewed the attack. No power, he said, to
inflict pains and penalties upon individuals who had not been brought to
trial, which that ordinance usurped, was conferred upon Lord Durham.
He might make general laws for the good government of the colony, but
subject to an exception which restrained him from altering any act
of the British parliament. The ordinance in question contravened the
provisions of the act 7th William III. “for the trial of treasonable
offences;” and if Lord Durham had the power of dispensing with that act,
he might condemn in every case as traitors men against whom no witnesses
had been examined, and into whose alleged offences no inquiry had
been made. Lord Glenelg remarked that Lord Durham had been placed in
a situation of extreme difficulty: he had been solicited for extreme
punishments on the one hand, and for a complete amnesty on the other;
he had adopted a middle course, and when his decision was announced, it
gave general satisfaction. Lord Brougham replied, that the noble earl
might have accomplished all he was desirous of doing without a breach of
the law. If he had said to parties accused or suspected, “I won’t bring
you to trial, if you conduct yourselves properly,” he would have acted
in a legal manner; but instead of doing this, he said, “I shall send
you to Bermuda; and if you leave that island, I declare you guilty of
high-treason.” Lord Melbourne deprecated such rigid criticism. He owned
that the clause in the ordinance which related to Bermuda was an error
on the part of Lord Durham, but he declared his belief that the whole
of the remainder was perfectly legal, and warranted by the powers which
parliament had committed to the noble governor of Canada. On the other
hand Lord Ellenborough contended that all the penal provisions of the
ordinance were illegal, and that the whole transaction was alien from
the spirit of British jurisprudence. The Duke of Wellington said that
he did not approve of the constant attacks on Lord Durham; but he really
thought that steps should be taken to set the government of Canada right
on proceedings which appeared to be illegal. Lord Brougham followed up
the course he had taken on the following night by introducing a bill
“for declaring the true intent and meaning of an act passed in the
present session of parliament, intituled ‘An act to make temporary
provisions for the government of Lower Canada,’ and for indemnifying
those who have issued or acted under a certain ordinance made under
colour of the said act.” This bill was read a first time in silence,
but on the second reading on the 9th of August, Lord Brougham, by way
of preface, propounded certain “canons of policy” by which the
administration of the government of Lower Canada, during the suspension
of the constitution ought, in his opinion, to have been directed. The
bill introduced by Lord Brougham was so loosely framed that it afforded
Lord Glenelg fair occasion for criticism. He availed himself of
this opportunity of encountering his adversary with some effect. In
conclusion, Lord Glenelg observed that the bill before the house was not
a mere declaratory act, but a new law restricting the powers which the
act of that session had already conferred upon the governor of Canada.
It would be inexpedient and extraordinary, if, having invested Lord
Durham with plenary authority, they were suddenly to abridge the powers
which he had been led to suppose he possessed. A warm and acrimonious
debate was maintained by the Earl of Ripon, the Duke of Wellington, and
other opposition peers on the one hand, and Lord Melbourne and the lord
chancellor on the other. The two ex-chancellors made themselves very
remarkable on this occasion, Lord Brougham manifesting the utmost
excitement, and the most bitter personal hostility to Lord Durham,
to whose instrumentality he attributed his being overlooked by Lord
Melbourne in his cabinet arrangements. Lord Lyndhurst did the excellent
qualities of Lord Durham justice, and displayed a calmness in debate
which contrasted strikingly with the irritability and personalities of
Lord Brougham. The debate brought forcibly to light the disposition of
Lord Durham to carry matters with a high hand in his new government,
and his deficiency in that wariness and prudence so essential to a chief
governor. After a few remarks from Lord Brougham, the bill was read
a second time by a majority of fifty-four against thirty-six. On the
following day Lord Melbourne informed the house that ministers had
resolved to advise the queen to disallow of the whole ordinance. It was
with the deepest regret and alarm that they had taken this course; nor
was it without the greatest apprehension of the consequences that they
had come to this determination. His lordship then intimated his approval
of the indemnity bill, and that he should in a future stage of the
proceedings move a clause explanatory of Sir William Follett’s proviso.
Lord Brougham commended ministers for their “judicious, wise, politic,
and most virtuous resolution.” The Duke of Wellington was by no means
inclined to sanction Lord Melbourne’s proposed explanation of the
proviso: Sir John Colborne had acted under the law as it stood, and
must have found it sufficient for the purpose. The Marquis of Lansdowne
remarked, that if the noble lords opposite acquiesced in the mode in
which Sir John Colborne had exercised his authority; if they admitted
that he had not exceeded the law, Lord Melbourne’s proposed clause would
be unnecessary. That gentleman had been permitted to pass an act
of attainder, which had lain unnoticed on the table for six weeks.
Ministers only claimed for Lord Durham the power which was conceded to
his predecessor: he desired to know whether Sir John Colborne had acted
in conformity with the law. Lord Brougham replied, that Lord Durham’s
powers were coextensive with those of Sir John Colborne; but as to
whether or not that officer had exceeded the limits of his authority, he
begged to say that he did not feel himself at liberty to answer. It
is quite clear, indeed, that no noble lord could have answered this
question satisfactorily; for if Lord Durham had been guilty in passing
an act of attainder, the same guilt must have attached to Sir John
Colborne; and if the one had been pronounced innocent, the other must
have shared in his innocence. This question, which was one of the
greatest importance, however, was allowed to pass over; and in the
course of the evening Lord Melbourne moved the insertion of his
explanatory clause, which, after reciting the proviso, proceeded to
declare, that it should not extend to prevent the governor and council
from passing such laws as might be necessary for the safety of the
province, or from providing for the punishment or detention of persons
engaged in conspiracies against the government. By the results of this
clause, in fact, and the discussions which followed, Lord Brougham’s
bill was stripped of its declaratory character, and reduced to a mere
act of indemnity to the parties concerned in the transportation and
detention of the Bermuda prisoners. In this mutilated condition Lord
Brougham moved the third reading of the bill, which he did with evident
reluctance, inasmuch as he rightly considered that its chief value lay
in its declaratory character. “As I have been accidentally mixed up with
this business,” said his lordship, “I have no hesitation in moving the
third reading of the bill, as it now stands, although quite sensible
that I am making that motion on the part of her majesty’s government.”
On this occasion the lord-chief-justice Denman spoke on the question for
the first time. His objections to the ordinance were directed to a gross
violation of the constitution. As to the indemnity, he was entirely
opposed to it; the passing of such bills was one of the most
unjustifiable practices of parliament. Publie functionaries might
be justified by their good intentions in overstepping the law; but
parliament had no right to say to the parties who had suffered by such
excess of authority, “You can have no redress against those persons who
have wronged you, because it is our pleasure to indemnify them.” “If
indeed,” he continued, “parliament are of opinion that individuals,
actuated by a good and upright intention, and only zealous for
the public service, have broken the laws, let them indemnify those
individuals out of the public purse, against the consequences of the
legal proceedings that may be instituted; but let them not leave the
injured party without a remedy.” The bill was finally read a third time,
and passed in the lords.
Lord Brougham’s bill was introduced into the house of commons on the
13th of August, and read a first and second time without any discussion.
On the following day, however, Lord John Russell brought the subject
before the house. His lordship said it was his intention to submit to
the house of commons a proposal which he made with extreme reluctance;
namely, that they should assent to the bill as it came down from the
lords without any amendment. He presumed that no objection would be made
to the indemnity which it was the object of the bill to provide; and he
then explained in what sense he understood the act for governing Canada.
The discussion which ensued was similar in argument and spirit to the
debates in the house of lords. The house went into committee on the
bill. No amendments were introduced; and on the 15th of August Lord
John Russell moved the third reading, which, after a short debate, was
carried without a division.
QUEEN PROROGUES PARLIAMENT.
The queen prorogued parliament on the 16th of August. Being seated on
the throne her majesty was addressed by the speaker of the house of
commons on the subject of the suspension of the constitution of Lower
Canada, and the Irish poor-law and tithe bills. The queen then gave the
royal assent to a series of bills, after which she proceeded to read the
speech. In the speech her majesty lamented that war still continued in
Spain; adverted to the affairs of Canada; noticed the progress which
had been made towards the entire abolition of negro-apprenticeship; made
some approving observations on the attention which had been bestowed
upon the amendment of the domestic institutions of the country; thanked
the commons for providing for the expenses of her household, &c.; and
expressed her satisfaction in having given her assent to a bill for the
relief of the destitute poor in Ireland. Her majesty concluded thus: “My
lords and gentlemen,—The many useful measures which you have been able
to consider, while the settlement of the civil list and the state of
Canada demanded so much of your attention, are a satisfactory proof
of your zeal for the public good. You are so well acquainted with the
duties which now devolve upon you in your respective counties, that it
is unnecessary to remind you of them, In the discharge of them you may
securely rely upon my firm support; and it only remains to express an
humble hope that Divine Providence may watch over us all, and prosper
our united efforts for the welfare of our country.”
DISAFFECTION AMONG THE WORKING CLASSES.
During the autumn of this year a turbulent spirit displayed itself among
the working classes in the manufacturing districts. Meetings were held
in various quarters, and demagogues addressed the assembled multitudes
in the most inflammatory language. The twofold cause of this
disaffection was the poor-laws and the price of bread; and as a remedy
for these evils the people were taught to ask for universal suffrage.
A favourite practice with the parties to these transactions was to
assemble by torchlight in the open air—a practice which gave a mystery
to the meetings well calculated to strike the imagination of the vulgar,
and which gave those whose employment did not admit of their being
present in the daytime, an opportunity of attending them. The speeches
delivered at these meetings have been well characterized as “furious
nonsense;” but at the same time they were calculated to work mischief
in the community. Happily, however, the Whigs were in office, and for
their own interest’s sake they restrained these ebullitions. Had there
been a Conservative government, possibly the danger might have been
greater.
PROPOSED REDUCTION OF THE RATES OF POSTAGE.
At this time the question of an alteration in the rates of postage was
beginning to occupy attention. A proposal was submitted to the country
by Mr. Rowland Hill, for substituting a uniform rate of one penny upon
every half-ounce, without any reference to distance. This scheme was
loudly applauded by all classes of society; and the subject was referred
to a committee of the house of commons. The report of this committee
was, that the high rates of postage then in existence were extremely
injurious to the community, interfering with moral and social
improvement; restricting commercial enterprise; impairing general
national prosperity; restraining the progress of art and science;
circumscribing the operations of religious societies, and acting as a
grievous tax upon the poor. The report further stated that the illicit
conveyance of letters prevailed to a great extent, and was on the
increase; that the law was impotent to arrest the practice; and that the
only mode of effectually suppressing it would be to reduce the charges
to the standard of the contraband carrier. The report recommended that,
prior to the establishment of an uniform rate of one penny, a similar
rate of twopence per half-ounce on inland general-post letters should be
adopted at the rate of one penny with every additional half-ounce, with
certain exceptions. It further suggested that as soon as the revenue
would bear a large temporary reduction, it would be expedient to subject
all inland letters to a penny postage the half-ounce, increasing at the
rate of one penny with every additional half-ounce. It advised also
that payment of postage should be required in advance; and for the
facilitation of this plan, recommended the adoption of stamped covers,
which should have the effect of franking the letters enclosed. The
use of these stamps was to be made compulsory as soon as justified by
experience. At this time, the report added, it was calculated the number
of letters, &c., passing through the post-offices of the United Kingdom
were from 75,000,000 to 80,000,000 annually; of which about 5,700,000
were general-post letters. The number of franks was about 7,000,000; and
of newspapers, 44,000,000.
THE STATE OF IRELAND.
As usual, Mr. O’Connell devoted his time during the parliamentary recess
to “agitation.” A series of manifestoes issued from his retreat at
Derrynane Abbey, all well calculated to stir up the evil passions
of human nature. Nor were these missiles the only instruments of his
agitation. On the very day of his arrival in Dublin, after parliament
was prorogued, he convened a meeting of his constituents for the morrow,
in order to take into consideration “ulterior measures, to procure from
the British legislature ‘full justice for Ireland,’ or to provide for
the contingency of a perseverance in the refusal of that legislature to
right the people of Ireland.” Accordingly, a large concourse of people
assembled at the Corn-exchange, and were addressed by the demagogue
in that braggart style which he well knew would win its way to their
feelings. In his speech Mr. O’Connell intimated his intention of forming
a new association, the exertions of which were to be directed to obtain
for Ireland a greater share in the representation of the United Kingdom.
He developed his plan for accomplishing this design in a series of
letters to the people. In these letters he founded his allegation, that
Ireland had not her fair proportion of members of the house of commons,
on this data. By the last census it appeared that the population
of England and Wales was 13,899,675; of Scotland, 2,365,930; and of
Ireland, 7,943,940. Scotland, he said, had fifty-three representatives,
while Ireland had only one hundred and five; so that the Scotch had more
than half the number of representatives possessed by the Irish; whereas,
in order to be on an equality, the latter ought to have one hundred and
fifty-nine. In order to be on an equality with the English, he said,
they ought to have one hundred and sixty-six; but Mr. O’Connell said
that he would be satisfied with one hundred and fifty. In order to
obtain that number he proposed the organization of an association
sufficiently numerous to speak the sentiments of all Ireland. For this
purpose, he said, the “Precursor Society” had been established, and
was now in progress of enrolment. Mr. T. M. Ray was secretary to the
“Precursor Society,” and to become a member it was necessary to pay
him one shilling at the enrolment. All the population might have the
privilege of enrolment—men, women, and children—for the more shillings
that were paid, the better for the pockets of the agitators. The
operations of the society was to be conducted by local boards,
corresponding with that over which Mr. Ray presided at the Corn-exchange
Rooms, Dublin. The duty of the “Precursor Society,” in every parish,
was to procure petitions to parliament for “justice to Ireland;” for a
corporate reform; for an amendment of the law of election, and extension
of the suffrage, and an increase of representatives. The precursors
were also instructed to furnish accurate details of the state of the
franchise in every parish, and to keep up and extend the registry. This
was what Mr. O’Connell designated in one of his letters as “one great
experiment more to obtain justice;” and if this failed, then he would
have repeal.