THE AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

It has been seen in the parliamentary debates that the affairs of Canada

were in a very unsettled state; it is now necessary, however, to give

a brief account of the transactions which had taken place in that

province.

During several preceding years great dissensions had existed in Lower

Canada; and in the year 1837 these dissensions broke out into open

insurrection. The provincial parliament of that province assembled on

the 18th of August; but from its refractory conduct Lord Gosford was

compelled to prorogue it. He had no other alternative but to dismiss

the members, since they plainly declared that they suspended all

deliberation until the consummation of the reforms announced by and

in the name of the imperial authorities. On the prorogation of the

provincial parliament everything denoted imminent troubles. The

authorities were on the alert; and plans were formed for the effective

disposition of the small force that the local government possessed. Nor

were the loyalists inactive: a great meeting was held at Montreal, at

which resolutions were adopted in support of the British government.

These resolutions were followed up by the formation of regiments of

volunteers, thus showing a steady determination to carry them out to the

utmost. But, notwithstanding all this, the French party, or patriots,

convened a great meeting in the county of Richelieu, which they termed

“the meeting of the five counties,” at which place delegates were

collected from the various parishes. The people met in a large meadow;

and in this meadow was erected a column, surmounted with a cap of

liberty, and bearing this inscription:—“To Papineau, by his grateful

brother patriots.” Papineau was there; and after haranguing the

multitude with other leaders of the faction, and a string of

insurrectionary resolutions having been passed, the transatlantic

demagogue was conducted to the foot of the column, where an address was

delivered to him by one of his brother agitators. The proceedings of the

day terminated with a procession of young men, who, marching up to

the pillar, sung a patriotic hymn, and, with their hands placed on the

column, devoted themselves to their country. Mischief was now fairly

afloat. Soon after this a collision took place in the streets of

Montreal between the “loyalists and patriots,” in which the latter were

defeated. The troops in Lower Canada were reinforced by two regiments

sent from Halifax; and Sir Francis Head placed the whole of the troops

stationed in Upper Canada at the disposal of the Lower, although there

were symptoms of disaffection within his jurisdiction. Still rebellion

continued. Every day displayed a new manifestation of an intended

rising: on the one side men assembled in arms, using threatening

language; and on the other the magistrates issued proclamations and

warrants, which the military were called on to enforce. On one occasion

a party of volunteer cavalry, who composed the escort of some prisoners,

was waylaid by an overpowering assemblage of insurgents, who, receiving

them with a galling fire, put them to the rout, and rescued the

prisoners. Before the close of the last year many of the leaders of the

faction were in prison, and more of them, among whom was M. Papineau,

had withdrawn to a place of safety.

The insurrection in Lower Canada rendered it necessary for the British

government to appoint a species of dictatorial governor, one who should

possess the power of making temporary provision for the government of

Canada. It has been already seen that Lord Durham was selected for this

important mission, and that he had arrived in the province. Before,

however, relating the particulars of his government, it is necessary to

take a retrospective view of events in Upper Canada.

Sir Francis Head at this time was governor of the upper province of

Canada; and at the period when he arrived there a Mr. Lyon Mackenzie,

who had originally emigrated from Scotland, was a principal leader of

the “Reform,” or malcontent party in the province. In the year 1832 Mr.

Mackenzie made his appearance in London, as the agent of his party;

and in that capacity he was received with every mark of respect. Mr.

Mackenzie, in fact, was so successful in his mission as to procure

the removal of the attorney and solicitor-generals from their posts, a

penalty which they paid for the part they had taken in joining in a

vote which had expelled their antagonist from the house of assembly. He

returned in triumph to Upper Canada; and, supported by the approval

of the English cabinet, succeeded in regaining a seat in the house

of assembly. At the ensuing election “the reformers” obtained a

large majority in that assembly; and the result was that a “grievance

committee” was appointed, which committee made a report that was

subsequently transmitted to England. It was to redress the grievances

therein stated that Sir Francis Head was despatched to Canada; and he

was hailed on his arrival there as a “tried reformer.” His appearance

under such circumstances naturally excited the distrust of the

loyalists, who gave indications of their dissatisfaction. Sir Francis

Head, however, was nothing daunted at this demonstration; he had the

grievances of Upper Canada to redress, and he had the remedies; and

whether the Tories liked the medicine or not, he did not care a straw.

At the same time he soon gave an intimation to the Republican leaders

that he was not the kind of man they believed him to be. Beyond the

grievances they had enumerated in the report, they had a variety of

others hitherto unmentioned; and when this was intimated to him, he gave

a distinct intimation that he should not take these into consideration.

His graphic account of his interview will well illustrate the manner

in which he treated the Republicans. He says,—“When Mr. Mackenzie,

bringing with him a letter of introduction from Mr. Hume, called upon

me, I thought that of course he would be too happy to discuss with

me the contents of the report; but his mind seemed to nauseate

its subjects. Afraid to look me in the face, he sat with his feet

not-reaching the ground, and with his countenance averted from me at

an angle of about seventy degrees, while, with the eccentricity, the

volubility, and, indeed, the appearance of a madman, the tiny creature

raved in all directions about grievances here, and grievances there,

which the committee, he said, had not ventured, to enumerate. ‘Sir,’

I exclaimed, ‘let us cure what we have got here first!’ pointing to the

report before me. But no; nothing that I could say would induce this

pedlar to face his own report; and I soon found that it had the same

effect upon all the members, and that, like the repelling end of a

magnet, I had only to present it to the Radicals to drive them from the

very object which his majesty’s government expected would have

possessed attractions.” On his arrival Sir Francis Head promulgated his

instructions; a step which had the effect of precipitating matters in

Lower Canada. He then proceeded to act, by adding three Reformers to

his executive council, making the total number six. By this means the

executive council was brought into unison with the majority of the house

of assembly. Thus favoured, in furtherance of the views of that body as

then constituted, the board requested the governor to bestow upon it a

considerable enlargement of its powers. But this sealed the fate of the

executive council. Instead of granting their request, Sir Francis, who

had already become hostile to the Reformers, dismissed the whole of

the members of which the council was composed. This brought him into

collision with the house of assembly; the supplies were stopped, and

violent and condemnatory addresses drawn up. Sir Francis, however,

fought them with their own weapons; when they stopped the supplies, he

refused to assent to bills providing for their own contingencies; and

in April, 1836, first prorogued, and then dissolved his exasperated

parliament. The next assembly presented a majority of opposite politics

to the last, and Sir Francis had everything his own way: he “rode on a

full tide of popularity.” Still he was beset with difficulties on every

hand; and his mode of governing was of so novel and experimental a

nature, that it was evident he must sooner or later become offensive to

his superiors at home. Before the close of the year, indeed, he found

himself in collision with Lord Glenelg. During that period and in the

following year he addressed several memorandums to the colonial office,

in which he gave a description of the political state of Canada, and

offered his advice as to what measures were necessary for its good

government. It must be confessed that his views were generally of the

most eccentric character; and hence they were either unnoticed by the

government at home, or he was given to understand that they were not

thought worthy to be included among those submitted to the imperial

government. The points at issue between Sir Francis and his superiors

progressively accumulated, until at length the lieutenant-governor

broke out into insubordination, and thereby made his recall a matter

of necessity. But before his recall, and while the correspondence was

passing between Sir Francis and Lord Glenelg, an insurrection broke out,

which was headed by Mr. Mackenzie: Toronto was attacked by him, bearing

on his colours the name of “Bidwell,” the judge-elect for the court

of Queen’s Bench. This attack failed, and it became incumbent on Sir

Francis Head’s successor, Major-general Sir George Arthur, to institute

proceedings against some of those engaged in the outbreak, who had been

taken prisoners. Among these were Samuel Lount, a native of the United

States, and Peter Mathews, an Upper Canadian, both of them men of

considerable property. Mathews had headed a party, and attacked the

city, when Sir Francis Head was shut up in the Town-hall; on which

occasion a bridge and several houses were set on fire. Being brought to

trial they pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to death—a sentence that

was executed on them. Upon being informed of this event, Lord Glenelg

wrote to express his regret that these severities should have been

deemed requisite, and expressed a hope that no similar necessity might

recur. No more of the offenders suffered capital punishment; but great

embarrassment was occasioned by the number of prisoners, it being alike

inexpedient to pardon and inconvenient to punish. Sir Francis Head had

instituted a board of commissioners, with the vice-chancellor of the

province at their head, for the purpose of investigating the cases,

and classifying the offenders according to their guilt. A considerable

number were finally discharged on bail; others were bound over to

keep the peace; some were set at liberty; and of the remainder, a

few, principally Americans, were banished from the province; while the

residue, for the most part men of property and influence, were sentenced

to transportation to the penal colonies. But while the government

was occupied in the disposal of these prisoners, the marauders on the

American side of the border were making preparations for a renewal

of hostilities; and on the 30th of May, 1838, a band of these outlaws

boarded the Sir Robert Peel British steamer at Well’s Island, situated

in the river St. Lawrence, and belonging to the United States. The

passengers were robbed of everything, and the vessel was set on fire and

then abandoned. Lord Durham, who had just arrived, offered £1,000 reward

for the discovery and conviction of the offenders; but the marauders

set the authorities, British as well as American, at defiance. Johnson,

their commander, celebrated for his address and courage, became the

terror of the coast, and executed his schemes of plunder with success

and impunity. During the summer and autumn the preparations for invasion

continued to be conducted on the American border without any attempt at

concealment, and the alarm of the Canadians was naturally proportionate

to the danger. Sir George Arthur devoted himself with the greatest

assiduity to the defence of the province upon an extensive scale;

but the known lenity of Lord Durham had excited a strong feeling of

dissatisfaction in the upper province, and had created a feeling of

lukewarmness, against which it was difficult to work. On the other hand,

Lord Durham thought that the local government had erred on the opposite

side of severity. On this subject he wrote to the government at

home:—“It cannot be doubted that events of the past year have greatly

increased the difficulty of settling the disorders of Upper Canada. A

degree of discontent, approaching, if not amounting to disaffection, has

gained considerable ground. The causes of dissatisfaction continue to

act on the minds of the reformers; and their hope of redress, under the

present order of things, has been seriously diminished. The exasperation

caused by the conflict itself, the suspicions and terrors of that trying

period, and the use made by the triumphant party of the power thrown

into their hands, have heightened the passions which existed before.

It certainly appeared too much as if the rebellion had been purposely

invited by the government, and the unfortunate men who took part in it,

deliberately drawn into a trap by those who subsequently inflicted so

severe a punishment on them for their error.”

It seemed, too, as if the dominant party made use of the occasion

afforded by the real guilt of a few desperate and imprudent men,

in order to persecute or disable the whole body of their political

opponents. A great number of perfectly innocent individuals were thrown

into prison, and suffered in person, property, and character. The

whole body of reformers were subjected to suspicion, and to harassing

proceedings, instituted by magistrates whose political leanings were

notoriously adverse to them. Severe laws were passed, under colour of

which individuals very generally esteemed were punished without any form

of trial—I make no mention of the reasons which, in the opinion of the

local government, rendered those different steps advisable, because my

object is not to discuss the propriety of its conduct, but to point

out the effects which it necessarily had in augmenting irritation.

The revolt in Lower Canada has been noticed at the commencement of this

article. After this event Lord Gosford was recalled, and during the

interval between his departure, and the arrival of Lord Durham, the

functions of government in that province devolved on Sir John Colborne.

The first care of Sir John, after the termination of the revolt,

concerned the disposal of the prisoners, of whom a great number remained

in custody. In the whole, about three hundred and twenty-six were

from time to time liberated, leaving about one hundred and sixty in

confinement, among whom seventy-two stood charged with being among the

principal promoters of the insurrection. It was not expected that any of

these would be convicted if tried by ordinary juries; but Lord Glenelg

being informed of this, declined to sanction a resort to any other

species of court, without previously submitting as a practical test

the anticipations as to the issues of the ordinary tribunals. Sir

John Colborne was instructed to take steps for reducing the number of

prisoners still remaining, by allowing some of them after arraignment to

plead guilty, on the assurance that the judgment recorded against them

should not be executed, if they would consent to leave the province.

From the remaining number he was directed to select four or five cases,

and bring them before the ordinary courts of the province, the juries

being convened according to the existing practice; but in case this line

of proceeding should not appear expedient, it was suggested that a

law should be passed, suspending the _habeas corpus_ act, and that

the prisoners should be detained until Lord Durham’s arrival. Sir

John Colborne adopted this latter course, being little disposed to try

state-prisoners under what he considered a certainty of their acquittal.

In the meantime, however, the news arrived of the new act of parliament,

which provisionally invested him with the powers which were eventually

to devolve on Lord Durham. In pursuance of his fresh instructions he

proceeded to nominate provisionally a special council, consisting

of twenty-one members, of whom eleven were French Canadians, and two

natives of the province. After preparing a series of “rules and orders”

for the better conduct of their deliberations, this council proceeded to

pass ordinances for such domestic objects as would have come before the

local parliaments in the ordinary course, and to take necessary measures

to meet the peculiar exigencies of the time. Among the latter class may

be mentioned enactments suspending the _habeas corpus_, and imposing

certain restrictions on the publishers of newspapers. An ordinance

was also passed to continue the local act for the transportation of

offenders from the province to England, and from thence to New South

Wales and Van Diemen’s Land; an act which was on the point of expiring.

By a second ordinance it was provided that, upon the petition of any

person charged with high treason committed in the province, it should

be lawful for the person administering the government, before the

arraignment of the offender, to grant a pardon upon such terms as should

seem proper, which pardon should have the same effect as an attainder,

so far as regarded the forfeiture of the real and personal estate of

the person therein named; and further, that in case any person should be

pardoned under that ordinance, upon condition of being transported,

or of voluntary banishment, either for life or for a shorter time,

and should afterwards return without lawful excuse, contrary to the

condition of his pardon, he should be deemed guilty of felony, and

forfeit his life. By a third ordinance it was enacted that if a person

against whom an indictment for treason was found by a grand-jury in

the province would not appear, he might be summoned by proclamation to

surrender himself by a given day, such day not to be less than three

months from the date of the proclamation; and in the event of his

failing to do so, should stand and be adjudged attainted of the crime

expressed in the indictment, and suffer and forfeit accordingly, and

judgment be recorded to that effect. After issuing these ordinances,

with others of minor importance, and after repealing martial-law in the

district of Montreal, on the 5th of May the council was prorogued.

On the 29th of the same month Lord Durham arrived at Quebec, and

immediately proceeded to the council-chamber at the castle, and took

possession of the government with the accustomed formalities. His first

act was to issue a proclamation, assuring the people that he appeared

among them as a friend and arbitrator, ready at all times to listen to

them without respect to party, race, or politics. On the 31st of May he

addressed a circular to the respective members of the executive council,

dispensing with their services, having previously formed another,

composed of the secretaries to the general government; namely, C.

Buller, Esq., M.P., chief secretary; T. E. M. Turton, Esq., secretary;

Colonel G. Couper, military secretary; the provincial secretary; and the

commissary-general. Among the earliest measures of Lord Durham was the

mission of Colonel Grey to Washington, with instructions to expostulate

with the American government on the state of things existing on its own

borders. Colonel Grey obtained the fullest assurances of the president

that the American government desired to preserve the good understanding

existing with England, and ample promises of co-operation in any

measures which Lord Durham might think necessary to adopt for restoring

the peace of the frontier. A more difficult affair for Lord Durham to

settle was the disposal of the state prisoners. His lordship himself

remarked that it was “by far the most delicate and dangerous” of all the

matters requiring settlement. The manner in which his lordship settled

this question has already been seen in the record of the recent debates

in parliament. Having appointed a special council, consisting of

five members only, he, with the sanction of this council, issued an

ordinance, which, after reciting that Wolf Nelson, and seven others

therein named, had acknowledged their participation in high-treason, and

submitted themselves to her majesty’s pleasure, and that Papineau with

fifteen others had absconded, enacted that it should be lawful for her

majesty to transport Nelson and his seven associates to Bermuda, during

pleasure, there to be subjected to such restraints as should be deemed

fit; and further, that if any person of the above classes should be

found at large, or within the province without permission, they should

be deemed guilty of high-treason, and on conviction of coming within the

province, suffer death. The ordinance further empowered the governor

for the time being to grant, whenever he should think fit, permission to

all, or any, of the above-named individuals to return to the province.

By a special clause two other classes of persons implicated in the

murder of Lieutenant Weir and one Joseph Chartrand, were excluded from

the operation of the ordinance, and from the benefit of any amnesty

which might be proclaimed. The ordinance was accompanied by a

proclamation of amnesty, which declared that, with the exception of

the persons named therein, all persons then in custody on a charge of

high-treason, or who had withdrawn themselves from justice beyond the

limits of the province, should, on giving proper security, be at liberty

to return to their own homes. What views were taken in the imperial

parliament has been seen. During the debates there, Lord Durham applied

himself to the consideration of questions connected with the management

of the crown-lands within his dominion. He formed a design for making

these lands more subservient to the purpose of emigration than they

had hitherto been. A commission of inquiry into the disposal of the

crown-lands to that end was issued by him, and he directed similar

investigations to be instituted in the other colonies subject to his

control. Subsequently his lordship commenced a progress through the two

provinces; and, according to his despatches, he was warmly greeted on

every hand. He writes:—“Everywhere, in the most insignificant village,

as in the most populous town, I have been received with the utmost

enthusiasm: in fact, in no part of England have I ever been more warmly

greeted, or received more unequivocal marks of respect from all ranks

and classes. I announce this fact with much satisfaction, as it is

an unerring mark of the feelings with which the measures which I have

adopted for the public good have been regarded by the great majority of

the inhabitants of the two provinces.” It is quite clear, however, that

Lord Durham had not conciliated the great body of the people. During the

month of September, those who were charged with the crime of murdering

the French Canadian, Chartrand, were tried, and although they were

arraigned before a jury consisting exclusively of French Canadians, and

were moreover notoriously guilty, they were acquitted. On this subject,

in one of his reports, Lord Durham says:—“A perusal of the notes

of the chief-justice in this case, will satisfy every candid and

well-ordered mind, that a base and cruel assassination, committed

without a single circumstance of provocation or palliation, was brought

home by evidence, which no man ever pretended to doubt, against the

prisoners, whom the jury nevertheless acquitted. The duty of giving this

dishonest verdict had been most assiduously inculcated by the French

press before the trial came on; the jurors are said to have been kept

for some time in the hands of zealous partizans, whose business it was

not only to influence their inclination, but to stimulate their courage;

the array of the leaders of the party who were present at the trial, was

supposed to be collected for the same purpose; and it is notorious that

the acquittal was celebrated at public entertainments, to which the

jurors were invited, in order that they might be thanked for their

verdict.” This intelligence seems to have had the effect of opening

the eyes of Lord Glenelg and his colleagues, as to the impolicy of the

restrictions which had been imposed upon the colonial authorities with

respect to the trial of political offenders. In his reply, Lord Glenelg

stated that it was the desire of her majesty’s government that an

ordinance should be passed by the special council of Lower Canada,

constituting a tribunal for the trial of treason and murder; leaving it

to Lord Durham’s own discretion how such a tribunal should be formed. It

does not appear, however, that Lord Durham adopted any plan for securing

the conviction of such offenders as it might be deemed expedient to

bring to trial. He scarcely, indeed, had an opportunity of making

any alteration in the criminal law. Soon after Lord Glenelg had

given directions on that point, he was compelled to communicate the

determination of ministers to annul his celebrated ordinance. After

informing him that so much of that edict as related to the Bermudas was

generally admitted to be invalid, and that in all other respects

the law-officers of the crown thought its provisions were within

the competency of the governor and special council; he said that, in

consequence of the discussions in parliament, and the unpopularity

of the penal parts of the ordinance, government, though reluctantly,

advised her majesty to disallow the ordinance. Lord Glenelg then

proceeded to direct Lord Durham, with a view of preventing the return of

the prisoners from Bermuda, to pass an ordinance subjecting them to such

penalty, short of death, as might be thought expedient, in the event of

their being convicted of returning to the province without permission.

With regard to those who had previously fled from justice, it was

suggested it might be sufficient by proclamation to make it known that,

should they re-enter the province, they would be forthwith arrested, and

dealt with according to law, on the charge of treason. The expediency

of suspending the _habeas corpus_ act was pointed out; and the despatch

concluded with an assurance of the earnest desire of ministers to afford

Lord Durham the utmost support in the arduous discharge of his duties.

Before these instructions were received, however, Lord Durham had

despatched a letter notifying his resolution to resign his office.

In this letter he dwelt on the incessant persecutions to which he was

exposed in the house of lords; the backwardness of ministers in his

defence; and the injurious effects of these circumstances upon the

moral authority of his government. “Upon two things,” said he, “could I

chiefly rely for ultimate success: first, the great extent of the legal

powers conferred upon me; secondly, the impression which prevailed

throughout the colonies, that I might reckon with perfect confidence on

the undeviating support and approval of the government.” Deprived of

these by the proceedings in question, he proceeded to say, the prestige

of his situation was gone for ever, and he had resolved to quit his

untenable post, Soon after this, Lord Durham forwarded to Lord Glenelg a

statement of the grounds upon which he was prepared to maintain that no

part of the ordinance was illegal, however imperative it might, and must

of necessity be without assistance and co-operation at home. In another

paper, of the same date, he entered at great length into an examination

of the conduct of ministers in the late proceedings, arraigning them

with great severity for deserting him in the hour of need. He asked,

“in what their opposition to the second reading of Lord Brougham’s bill

consisted? In a concession far more calculated to weaken my hands than

would have been any vote of the house of lords, in which it is notorious

that her majesty’s government have never commanded a majority.” His

lordship added, “A vote of the house of lords adverse to her majesty’s

government, or merely condemnatory of any proceedings of mine, would

have been considered almost as a matter of course in the present

state of parties; and would, if it had been decidedly opposed by the

ministers, have left my authority untouched, because it would have been

attributed to the mere party motives of a powerful opposition.” After

remonstrating against the conduct of ministers, Lord Durham proceeded

to vindicate his policy. As regarded the particular defect of the

ordinance, his lordship contended that he had power to banish people

from the province, to keep them in custody during the transit, and

to land them at Bermuda or elsewhere. At the same time his lordship

admitted that his jurisdiction did not extend further: once landed in

Bermuda, the prisoners were subject only to the laws of the island.

Lord Durham, after justifying his policy, made some remarks on the

impossibility of governing the country with any effect; and then

proceeded to consider Lord Glenelg’s suggestions of the course which it

was advisable to adopt in the present emergency. His lordship treated

the suggestion of another ordinance, banishing from the province the

eight persons who had been sent to Bermuda, as futile; and stated that

he had strong objections to the suspension of the _habeas corpus_. He

remarked:—“Men’s notions of right and freedom would be more shocked at

such an universal violation of every man’s dearest rights, than by any

summary process adopted for the punishment of the undeniable guilt of

a few. In the event of a general outbreak, it might be proper that the

government should be armed with the power of arresting objects of its

suspicion without trial. But there existed no such necessity at present;

and he did not think it justifiable to take away the franchise of a

whole people, in order to punish a few known and dangerous individuals,

or to guard against the misconduct of twenty-three men, by enveloping

them in a general forfeiture of personal liberty.” In conclusion Lord

Durham intimated his intention of remaining a few weeks longer, only in

order to complete certain measures then in progress. Upon the receipt

of Lord Durham’s first announcement of his intention to throw up his

office, Lord Glenelg endeavoured to soothe his mind, by acknowledging

that he had much reason to complain; and entreated him, upon public

grounds, to reconsider his decision. His lordship, however, remained

firm: he retained office only until arrangements had been made for

some one to assume the reins of government. Before he left Canada he

proclaimed the act of indemnity, and notified her majesty’s disallowance

of the ordinance. He accompanied the promulgation of these acts with a

manifesto, in which he forgot alike what was due to the country and to

himself. The tendency of this manifesto will be seen by Lord Glenelg’s

remarks upon it. He observed:—“The proclamation of the 9th of October,

her majesty’s confidential advisers regard not merely as a deviation

from the course which has hitherto been invariably pursued by the

governors of British possessions abroad, but as a dangerous departure

from the practice and principles of the constitution. They consider as

open to a most serious objection an appeal by such an officer to the

public at large, from measures adopted by the sovereign, with the advice

and consent of parliament. The terms in which that appeal has been made,

in this instance, appear to her majesty’s ministers calculated to impair

the reverence due to the royal authority, to derogate from the character

of the imperial legislature, to excite amongst the disaffected hopes

of impunity, and to enhance the difficulties with which your lordship’s

successor will have to contend. The ministers of the crown having humbly

submitted this opinion to the queen, it is my duty to inform you that

I have received her majesty’s commands to signify to your lordship her

majesty’s disapprobation of your proclamation of the 9th of October.

Under these circumstances, her majesty’s government are prepared to

admit that your continuance in the government of British North America

could be attended with no beneficial result.” Lord Durham’s manifesto

was deservedly condemned by all parties, as unbecoming the office and

character of the queen’s representative: it procured for him, in the

_Times_ newspaper, the unenviable title of “the lord-high seditioner.”

In Canada, however, it increased the golden opinions entertained of

him greatly. Public meetings were convened, and addresses expressive of

sorrow at his resignation poured in upon him from all quarters. At

home, also, there were those who admired his character and applauded his

conduct. His lordship sailed from Quebec on the 1st of November, and

on the 26th he arrived in Plymouth harbour. At Plymouth, Devonport, and

Exeter he received complimentary addresses, and unfortunately he was

betrayed upon these occasions into renewed indiscretions, the only

excuse for which could be that he had received most serious provocation.

In his reply to the addresses at Devonport and Plymouth, Lord Durham

boasted that he had “effaced the remains of a disastrous rebellion,”

and “had conciliated the esteem of a great and powerful nation, in which

were to be found all the elements of danger or security to our North

American possessions.” Before he reached Exeter, however, where another

address awaited him, he was compelled to say that he had foreseen

another event, the intelligence of which had just been conveyed from

Liverpool—the renewal of the rebellion in Canada.

On the departure of Lord Durham, the government again provisionally

devolved upon Sir John Colborne. It was expected before he set sail that

a renewal of the rebellion would take place during the winter. On the

20th of October, indeed, his lordship had informed Lord Glenelg that

the indications of mischief were so numerous and urgent that it was no

longer possible to conceal a consciousness of danger. The indications

of conspiracy had, in fact, become undeniable. Throughout the French

population there existed a formidable organization, bound together by

oaths and secret signs. Knowing this, the loyalists in both provinces

either took up their abode in the towns, or fled altogether from the

British dominion. What made their situation the more critical was the

reluctance of the militia and volunteers to take up arms. This was

especially the case in Upper Canada, and it seems to have chiefly

originated in their dissatisfaction with the lenity of the government.

No sooner had Lord Durham departed than the danger became imminent.

Arrests took place at Montreal on the following night: domiciliary

visits were general; guards and pickets were dispersed in all parts of

the city, and its approaches occupied. It was originally intended by the

insurgents that the rising should take place at Montreal, on Sunday,

the 3rd instant, when the troops were unarmed, and at church. The

precautions of Sir John Colborne, however, defeated this scheme, and

Beauharnois was selected for the theatre of war. The _habitans_ were

now, therefore, once more in arms against the British crown. A numerous

party attacked the house of Mr. Ellice, late private secretary to Lord

Durham, and that gentleman with three others were carried away by the

rebels. On the same day an interesting incident occurred at Caughnawaga,

an Indian village. While at church, the Indians were informed that

a large body of armed men were secreted in their neighbourhood; and

rushing from the sacred walls, they hurried home, seized what arms came

to hand, raised the war-whoop, fell upon the enemy, and captured seventy

prisoners, with scarcely a show of resistance. The Indians conveyed

their prisoners to Montreal, bound with their own sashes and

garters; and when Sir John Colborne thanked the chief of the party, he

characteristically offered to bring in the scalp of every _habitant_ in

the vicinity within twenty-four hours. Sir John Colborne, however, did

not think it prudent to give him such a commission, though use of these

warriors was made during the struggle. Every day the number of the

insurgents increased. Between the 3rd and 6th of November, four thousand

were concentrated at Napierville, in La Prairie, under the command

of Dr. Robert Nelson, Dr. Cote, and one Gagnor. Upon this point

Major-general Sir James Macdonnell was directed to march; but before he

could arrive the rebels had dispersed, and were beyond pursuit. In

their route they were twice attacked and defeated by a small party of

volunteers, losing in the whole sixty men killed, and having about an

equal number wounded. The loyalist forces now scoured the insurgent

districts, and it was found impossible to prevent many excesses from

taking place. The village of Beauharnois was partially destroyed by

fire, and the houses of disaffected persons in every part shared the

same fate. But while the war was thus easily suppressed in Lower Canada,

their American coadjutors were actively engaged on their side. On the

evening of the 12th they effected a landing at a place called Prescott,

in Upper Canada, to the number of five hundred men, carrying with them

several field-pieces. These were, however, defeated by the troops under

the command of Colonel Dundas, Major McBean, Colonel Young, and Captain

Sandom. Nearly two hundred of them were taken, and conveyed to Kingston,

to be tried by court-martial; many were slain, and the rest escaped

across the river. Another attack was made by the American marauders on

the 4th of December, near Sandwich, at the western extremity of Upper

Canada. A steam-boat and the barracks were set on fire, and Dr. Hume,

a military surgeon, having fallen into their hands, was barbarously

murdered. On discovering this outrage, the militia, under the command

of Colonel Price, assembled, and on their approach the enemy fled.

Twenty-six of their number were slain in their flight, and twenty-five

captured.

In the meantime Sir John Colborne and his special council were busy in

the exercise of their legislative functions. Ordinances were passed for

substituting martial law, for suspending the _habeas corpus_, for the

attainder of persons against whom the sentence of courts-martial

should be given, and for preventing, by highly penal provisions, the

administering of unlawful oaths. It had been suggested by Lord Glenelg

to Lord Durham, that a special court for the trial of “rebels and

murderers” should be instituted. Sir John Colborne, however, preferred

to resort to courts-martial for the disposal of prisoners recently

captured. Soon after the dispersion of the insurgents, therefore, a

general court-martial was convened, and twelve prisoners, all of French

extraction, were arraigned before it. Two of these were acquitted, and

the rest were sentenced to death; a sentence, however, which was

only executed upon two of the most notorious—Cardinal, a notary, and

Duguette, a tavern-keeper, who had commanded in both insurrections.

In Upper Canada, where Sir George Arthur provisionally governed, the

difficulties attendant upon the disposal of the prisoners were greater.

The Upper Canadians demanded severity, and would not hear of mercy being

extended to men whom they deemed robbers and murderers. A court-martial

was assembled at Kingston for the trial of some of the recently captured

prisoners; and several of them, as Van Schoultz, a Pole, who commanded

the brigands, and three of his associates in command, Abbey, George, and

Woodruff, were executed. Not long afterwards five more of the prisoners,

three of whom had been engaged in the affair near Sandwich, suffered

the same fate. At this time, indeed, according to Sir George Arthur’s

report, the feelings of the loyal portion of the inhabitants of

the upper province, were in the highest degree exasperated. He

writes:—“Never was there a task more difficult than to decide what

course, under the existing circumstances of the country, should be

pursued, so as to combine the least possible violation of public feeling

with a sense of justice, preserving withal a due and necessary regard

to mercy in its administration; mercy not only as regards the prisoners,

whose fate was yet undecided, but which respectively has reference to

the lives that may hereafter be sacrificed by the adoption of a present

injudicious measure.”

It may be mentioned that while these events were transpiring in Upper

and Lower Canada, the remainder of the British North American provinces

were in perfect harmony with the British government. In Newfoundland,

indeed, there were the elements of discord between the colonial

legislature and their rulers, superadded to which were religious

dissensions; but these circumstances gave no cause for alarm. The broils

prevailing there owed their existence to Roman Catholic agitation; but

the Protestant interests were too strong to be shaken by them, or the

government disturbed.

THE STATE OF THE CONTINENT.

During the whole of this year the war still continued in Spain. The

Carlists were less successful and less enterprising than in the two

preceding years; but their cause was not yet hopeless. A body of them

was defeated at Yebenes, in the province of Toledo, and at Val de Penas

in New Castile, by Major-general Flinta; but shortly after this latter

defeat they took possession of Almaden, with its famous quicksilver

mines, the only element of credit remaining with the queen’s government.

Basilio Garcia, however, failed in his endeavours to destroy the works

of the mines; and having evacuated the town, retired into the mountains

of Toledo, whence he harassed the surrounding country, and levied heavy

contributions. While Basilio Garcia was carrying on war in Castile and

Grenada, another body of Carlists, under the command of Count Negri, was

making its way into the interior. He advanced as far as Segovia, but he

then turned to the northward; and after presenting himself to no purpose

before the walls of Valladolid, he hastened his retrograde march with

all possible diligence towards the mountains. In the meantime Basilio

Garcia had been again defeated at Bejar with great loss; and he hurried

with the remains of his column into the province of Soria, where he

effected a junction with Balmaseda. All this time Don Carlos was at

Estella; but on the 10th of May, the discontent of the Nayarese in his

service compelled him to withdraw to Tolosa. About this time Espartero,

who had been elevated to the rank of captain-general of Spain, commenced

active operations. He advanced to Pampeluna, and Don Carlos then removed

to Glorrio. A series of conflicts now took place; and the struggle

closed with the battle of Maella, in which Cabrera, who was the only

Carlist general who in this year increased his reputation, defeated

the Christino general, Pardinas, with great loss: out of 4,500 men only

1,500 men are said to have escaped: Pardinas himself was slain. But one

of the most important events that took place during this year in Spain

was an insurrection at Seville, headed by Cordova and Narvaez; this,

however, was quelled by the activity of Espartero.

The history of Portugal for the year is marked by no very striking

event. The efforts of the Cortes were chiefly directed to the averting

of the catastrophe of a national bankruptcy, which was effected by

the acceptation of a loan, conjointly tendered by the Mercantile

Association, and the Lisbon bank. Early in March a street riot took

place in the capital, and threw it into disorder for some few days; but

it did not produce any result beyond the bloodshed which it occasioned.

The Miguelite guerillas, however, ravaged Portugal, and especially

the southern provinces, more this year than they had hitherto done.

Remeihido, especially, who had been educated for the priesthood,

committed many daring acts; but in the course of the summer he was

attacked in his mountain-fastnesses by Colonel Fontoura, and after a

sharp conflict his band was routed, and himself captured: he was shot at

Faro.

In the month of March the king of Holland intimated to the conference

at London sitting on the Hollando-Belgic question, that “having been

constantly disappointed in his just expectations of being able to obtain

by negociation better terms for his beloved subjects, he had become

convinced that the only pledge which still remained for him to give of

his regard for their welfare, and the sole means to attain his object,

consisted in a full and entire assent on his part to the conditions of

separation which the courts of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia,

and Russia, had declared to be unalterable and irrevocable.” His

majesty, therefore, declared his readiness to accept the twenty-four

articles which had been agreed upon in the year 1831. Belgium, however,

now refused to accede to the arrangement, by resolving not to cede

Luxembourg. But the conference insisted peremptorily on its cession;

and it was quite apparent that Belgium would be compelled to render

obedience to its decree.

It may be mentioned that an important treaty of amity, commerce, and

navigation, was this year concluded between Great Britain and Austria,

thus further cementing the ancient and natural alliance between two

countries, of whom it has been said, “that for one hundred and fifty

years they have always had the same enemies, though those enemies have

not been the same.”

CHAPTER L.

{VICTORIA. 1839—1840}

State of Parties..... Meeting of Parliament..... The Corn-

law Question..... The Affairs of Ireland discussed in

Parliament..... Proceedings in Parliament respecting

Jamaica..... Resignation of Ministers, and Failure of Sir

Robert Peel to form a new Administration, &c. National

Education..... The Affairs of Canada..... The second Jamaica

Bill, &c. Bill for the Suppression of the Portuguese

Slave trade, &c. Motion for the Ballot..... Act for the

better ordering of Prisons..... Motion for a Committee of

the whole House to consider the National Petition.....

Birmingham Riots, &c. The Budget; proposed Reduction of

Postage Duties, &c. Prorogation of Parliament.....

Affairs in the East Indies..... State of the Continent.

STATE OF PARTIES.

{A.D. 1839}

It has been noticed in a previous page that the relative strength of the

two great parties in the country continued much the same as they were

at the commencement of the year 1837. The Whigs, indeed, gained by the

change which had taken place in the monarchy, inasmuch as by the death

of the late king they were delivered from an avowed adversary, and by

the accession of Queen Victoria they gained a known friend to their

cause. The ministers, indeed, found considerable advantage in her

support. Yet in the house of commons the number of’ their supporters had

upon the whole rather decreased since their accession to the government;

and in the country generally their popularity may be said to have

continued on the decline. One of the principal grounds in this change is

to be found in the connection of government with the agitator O’Connell.

Although that gentleman had rendered many services to the cause of

reform, yet his delinquencies were so many, that he never enjoyed the

sympathy of any considerable mass of the English people. Moreover,

popery, of which he was one of the leaders, is still unpopular in

this country, and the Conservatives sedulously took advantage of the

connection of the ministers with him to raise apprehensions of Romanist

intrigue and encroachment. This was, therefore, a great source of

embarrassment to the ministry; and yet they could not offend this man

of the people of Ireland by standing aloof from him. Another cause

of embarrassment was the movement of the people calling themselves

Chartists.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was opened by the queen in person on the 6th of February.

The speech referred to the discontents in England and Ireland and the

insurrection in Canada, and recommended improvements in the law, and

reforms as the remedy for this state of things, while it expressed a

determination to maintain the authority of the crown.

The addresses in the lords and commons were, as usual, the occasion of

long party debates, in which all the irritating topics of the day were

made the most of by the opposition. The affairs of Ireland and the

East occupied the greatest prominence; next to these, Chartism and

the general distress; while Canada and the Iberian peninsula afforded

fertile subjects for the opposition speakers, with which to annoy the

government. Free-trade, and the duties on the importation of corn,

became a subject of important debate at this juncture. In the commons

Sir Robert Peel threw himself, acrimoniously, and with all his energy,

into this controversy, and used all the exploded arguments of the

protectionists with the air of one who for the first time urged them

upon the house. Mr. Villiers severely chastised the protectionist

champion, showing how unscrupulously he played the part of a plagiarist

even in the sophisms he employed. Mr. Duncombe had the bad taste to move

an amendment, which he knew there was no hope of carrying, or of finding

a tolerable minority to support, thus impeding the public business

without any counterpoising benefit.

When the address was brought up, Mr. O’Connell animadverted in strong

language upon the transfer of Limbourg and Luxembourg to Holland: it was

one of the greatest cruelties ever committed that the five powers should

impose such terms on Belgium. In reply, Lord Palmerston observed that by

the treaty of Vienna Limbourg was annexed to the Seven United Provinces.

Luxembourg, by the same treaty, was constituted a separate sovereignty,

as a grand duchy, to be held by the same individual who should be king

of the Netherlands; but by a separate title, and transmissible in a

separate line of succession. The kingdom of the Netherlands went to the

heirs general of the king, while Luxembourg would descend to the heirs

male only: the king of the Netherlands in that character was not a

member of the Germanic confederation, but he was a member as grand duke

of Luxembourg; and when the grand duchy was formed, it became subject to

the federal constitution, and to the regulations which bound the

members of the confederacy. When the revolution broke out it extended to

Luxembourg, and the king of the Netherlands applied for aid to the

five powers. It was ultimately found that the only way of arranging the

difficulties between Holland and Belgium was a separation; but the

five powers did not feel themselves competent, nor were they competent

according to the treaties which governed the relations of the states

of Europe, to deal with the question as regarded Luxembourg. In the

progress of the negociation the Belgian government expressed a strong

desire that a portion of Luxembourg and Limbourg should form a part

of Belgium; and the five powers had no objection to this, provided

the consent of the Germanic confederation, which had full liberty to

re-establish the grand duke in his rights, could be obtained. The diet

gave permission, on condition that some equivalent portion of territory

should be ceded by Belgium in return for what was detached from the

duchy of Luxembourg. To these terms the Belgian government consented,

and an arrangement was made, by which it was agreed that for the

incorporation of a part of Luxembourg in the kingdom of Belgium an

equivalent should be provided by the latter state. This arrangement

formed part of the twenty-four articles; and it was perfectly true that

these articles, as Mr. O’Connell had said, were accepted by Belgium, and

not by Holland. When, however, these articles were incorporated into

a regular treaty between Belgium and the five powers, then that treaty

became a binding instrument on the contracting party: the five powers

were entitled to keep Belgium to the terms of the treaty, and Belgium

in turn was entitled to claim their observance of it. The Belgian

government had, indeed, on various occasions appealed to the treaty

as the charter of its rights; and it was preposterous that, after so

regarding it for eight years, they should finally declare to all Europe,

because it suited their convenience, that the fundamental articles of

the treaty were of no obligation to them. His lordship concluded by

saying that, so far from its being an injustice in the five powers to

refuse to add Luxembourg to Belgium, it would have been an act of the

grossest oppression if they had consented to make a violent seizure of

that territory for the purpose of transferring it: all that was done was

to leave the matter as it was settled at the congress of Vienna.

THE CORN-LAW QUESTION.

At this time a great many petitions had been presented to both houses of

parliament on the subject of the corn-laws. On the 18th of February Lord

Brougham moved that these petitions should “be referred to a committee

of the whole house, and that evidence be heard at the bar.” The Dukes of

Buckingham and Richmond and Earl Stanhope opposed the motion; and Lord

Melbourne thought that the plan proposed would have no other result

than the obstruction of the business of the house, and to perplex and

embarrass the question itself. The Duke of Wellington said that the

proposed mode of inquiry was without a precedent, and contended that

without protection agriculture could not prosper. The reduction of the

duty even a trifle too much might involve the country in the utmost

difficulty, by rendering the cultivation of the soil impossible, and

thereby ruining a large class of industrious and at present happy

people. The motion was negatived without a division.

The subject of the corn-laws was debated in the house of commons on the

following day. Mr. Villiers moved, “that certain persons be heard at the

bar of the house by their agents, witnesses, or counsel, in support

of the allegations of the petition presented to the house on the 15th

instant, complaining of the operation of the corn-laws.” In support of

this motion, Mr. Villiers considered at great length the effect of the

corn-laws upon the manufactures and commerce of the country. Sir Francis

Burdett objected to the course proposed; but, at the same time, he

stated that it was his conviction that the landed interest, in which he

was himself concerned, was under erroneous impressions on the subject.

The debate which followed brought out speeches from many of the men who

afterwards took so prominent a part in promoting or opposing the repeal

of the corn-laws—such as Mr. Mark Philips (member for Manchester), Lord

Stanley, Lord Howick, and Sir Robert Peel. The first-named made a useful

and practical speech; Lord Stanley an absurd one; Lord Howick was as

capricious and crotchetty as on most other occasions; Sir Robert

Peel repeated himself and other hack orators on the side of the

protectionists. Mr. Villiers made a calm and effective reply, in which

he especially directed his skill as a debater to the exposure of the

fallacies of Sir Robert Peel, whose ignorance or partizanship he

handled with a calm and dignified severity. On a division the motion

was rejected by three hundred and sixty-one against one hundred and

seventy-two.

THE AFFAIRS OF IRELAND DISCUSSED IN PARLIAMENT.

On the 1st of January an Irish nobleman, Lord Norbury, was savagely

murdered. His lordship was shot within sight of his own house, in clear

daylight, with many people at hand, and yet the assassin escaped with

impunity. The occurrence was the more shocking, because the deceased

nobleman was a most exemplary character both as a man and as a landlord.

His lordship expired on the 3rd of January, after forty-three hours of

suffering; and on the same day a notification to the magistrates was

issued by the lord-lieutenant of the county, requesting their attendance

on the 10th instant, to consider the measures necessary to be taken

in consequence of the late outrage. This meeting was held, under the

auspices of Lord Osmantown, at Tullamore, and in the course of it

resolutions to the following effect were unanimously adopted:—“That

it appears to this meeting, that property had its duties as well as its

rights; that the answer conveyed to the magistrates of Tipperary by

Mr. under-secretary Drummond has had the effect of increasing the

animosities entertained against the owners of the soil, and has

emboldened the disturbers of the public peace. That finding from the

circumstances mentioned in the former resolutions that there is little

room to hope for a successful appeal to the Irish executive, we feel

it a duty to apply to the people of England, the legislature, and the

throne, for protection. That the magistrates assembled are determined

to co-operate with the government in any manner pointed out by her

majesty’s ministers which may give the slightest hope of restoring

tranquillity in this distracted country.” In the meantime the opposite

party made efforts of counteraction. Mr. O’Connell was indefatigable

in stirring up his Precursor Society and other similar machines of

agitation. Festivals were even held in honour of the demagogue; and at

one of these Mr. O’Connell actually asserted that the assassin of Lord

Norbury had left on the soil where he had posted himself, not the print

of a rustic brogue, but the impress of a well-made Dublin boot. By this

and other insinuations, indeed, the arch-agitator directed the minds of

the audience to the conclusion that the earl had met his death at the

hands of one bound to him by the nearest of natural ties—his son.

The state of Ireland being such, it naturally became a subject for

discussion in parliament. On the 7th of March Mr. Shaw moved for

returns of the number of committals, convictions, inquests, rewards, and

advertisements for the discovery of offenders in Ireland, from 1835 to

1839, in order to enable the house to form a judgment with regard to

the actual amount and increase of crime in that country. Lord Morpeth

expressed his satisfaction at the course Mr. Shaw had taken; instead of

appealing to parliament for a verdict of censure upon government, he had

simply moved for papers. There could be no objection to the issue of any

information respecting Lord Normanby’s administration: he might, indeed,

move for returns applicable to a period beyond the last four years, in

the confidence that the late lord-lieutenant would have nothing to fear

from the comparison. Mr. Colquhoun endeavoured to show, from a long

enumeration of cases, that crime had been gaining ground under the

system of agitation which prevailed, and which was connived at by the

present government. Colonel Conolly, and Messrs. Villiers, Stuart,

Litton, and Emerson Tennent, all urged the same serious charge against

the Irish administration which had been made by preceding speakers, Mr.

O’Connell, after delivering a violent speech, in which he was constantly

interrupted, and in which he charged several members with coming to

parliament for the sole purpose of villifying their native land, moved

that after the word “Ireland” there be added the words, “also similar

returns for England, Wales, and Scotland.” The last speaker on this

evening was Serjeant Jackson, who maintained that by almost every

single exercise of patronage, and especially by the appointment of

Lord Ebrington to the vice-royalty, government had favoured the cause of

agitation. The debate was resumed on the 11th of March, when the house

was addressed by Messrs. Lefroy, French, and Sir Charles Styles. As

the latter gentleman was speaking the house was counted out, and the

discussion, which had little reference to the motion, therefore dropped.

The subject of the state of Ireland was introduced in the upper house

on the 21st of March by Lord Roden, who moved for a select committee

of inquiry into the state of Ireland since 1835, with respect to the

commission of crime. His lordship, indeed, adopted the most inculpatory

view of the question, and every circumstance in his delineation of the

matter—the deeply-rooted ribbon conspiracy; the unredressed grievances

of the persecuted Protestants at Achill, and the general insecurity of

life and property, were, in his opinion, either created by the conduct

of Lord Normanby, or had acquired an aggravated character under his

auspices. In reply Lord Normanby vindicated his administration with very

great ability. Lord Melbourne also ably defended the noble marquis. The

Duke of Wellington and Lord Brougham offered an earnest and eloquent

support to Lord Roden’s motion. The two noble lords spoke as if they had

had a previous concert and arrangement. This alliance of Lord Brougham

with the Duke of Wellington did not silence Lord Plunkett. He begged to

know what course Lord Brougham would pursue in the event of the motion

being carried. Had he any measure of his own to propose, or was he

willing to adopt the propositions of others? Was he willing to commit

all the friends with whom he had hitherto acted, and to surrender all

the principles and opinions which he had advocated throughout life? On a

division, Lord Boden’s motion was carried by a majority of sixty-three

against fifty-eight: a result which gave great dissatisfaction to the

ministers. On the day following, indeed, Lord John Russell gave notice

of his intention to take the opinion of the house of commons on the

government of Ireland in late years in the very first week after the

Easter recess.

The vote of the house of lords also alarmed and gave umbrage to

Ireland’s agitators. Incensed by it, Mr. O’Connell crossed St. George’s

Channel as soon as the houses had arisen, in order to increase the

turbulence of his country. Day after day was he to be seen on the corn

exchange haranguing the multitude; on Sundays, after mass, he attended

parochial meetings; and the columns of the newspapers were filled with

the exercitations of his pen. On the 11th of April a grand meeting was

held in the theatre-royal, to prepare petitions to the queen and

the house of commons, declaratory of their confidence in the actual

administration of Ireland. On this occasion Mr. O’Connell exerted all

his eloquence to rouse the passions of his hearers, and their shouts

told that he was but too successful. “Shout!” he exclaimed at the close

of his harangue. The shout that that day emanated from that theatre

would be heard in St. Stephen’s, and it would cheer the heart of the

queen at St. James’s.

When the house of commons, resumed its sittings on the 8th of April,

Lord John Russell gave notice of his intention on the 15th to propose

the following resolution:—“That it is the opinion of this house that

it is expedient to persevere in those principles which have guided the

executive government of Ireland of late years, and which have tended to

the effectual administration of the laws and the general improvement of

that part of the United Kingdom.” On the following day Sir Robert Peel

gave notice that he should move an amendment on this resolution, and on

the 12th the right honourable baronet brought forward the draught of his

resolutions. They read thus:—“Resolved, that on the 13th day of March

last, a motion was made in this house for the production of various

documents connected with the state of Ireland, in respect to crime and

outrage; including communications made to the Irish government relating

to offences connected with ribbonism, and all memorials, resolutions,

and addresses, forwarded to the Irish government by magistrates, or

other official persons, in respect of crimes and outrages committed in

Ireland, and the answers thereto. That the period included within the

returns so called for extends from the commencement of the year 1835 to

the present time; and that the motion made for the production of them

was assented to by this house, no opposition to it having been offered

to it on the part of her majesty’s government. That on the 21st day of

March last, the house of lords appointed a select committee to inquire

into the state of Ireland since the year 1835, in respect to crime and

outrage, which have rendered life and property insecure in that part of

the empire. That, in consequence of the appointment of such committee by

the house of lords, it has been proposed that this house should resolve,

‘That it is the opinion of this house that it is expedient to persevere

in those principles which have guided the executive government of late

years, and which have tended to the effectual administration of the

law, and the general improvement of that part of the United Kingdom.’

Resolved, that it appears to this house, that the appointment of a

committee of inquiry by the house of lords, under the circumstances,

and for the purposes above-mentioned, does not justify her majesty’s

ministers in calling upon this house, without previous inquiry, or even

the production of the information which this house has required, to make

a declaration of opinion with respect to one branch of the public policy

of the executive government, still less a declaration of opinions, which

is neither explicit as to the principles which it professes to approve,

nor definite as to the period to which it refers; and that it is

not fitting that this house should adopt a proceeding which has the

appearance of calling in question the undoubted right of the house

of lords to inquire into the state of Ireland in respect to crime and

outrage, more especially when the exercise of that right by the house of

lords does not interfere with any previous proceeding or resolution of

the house of commons, nor with the progress of any legislative

measure assented to by the house of commons, or at present under its

consideration.” The adroitness with which these resolutions were framed

are apparent, and needs no comment; they completely evaded all the

difficulties of the case. The situation of the ministers was also

rendered more difficult by the conduct of the radical section of the

house, whose tactics were called into play on this occasion. They felt

themselves bound, indeed, to support Lord John Russell’s motion, but

then they wished him to go further. No sooner had Sir Robert Peel sat

down, indeed, than Mr. Duncombe stated that in the event of the noble

lord’s resolution being-carried, it was in his contemplation to move an

addition to it in the following terms:—“And that it is expedient also

to effect such further reforms in the representation of the people in

parliament as would conduce to their contentment, and to the security

and welfare of the kingdom at large.”

On the 15th of April Lord John Russell moved his long-announced

resolution of confidence on the part of the house in the executive

government of Ireland. His lordship dwelt at great length on the

constitutional right of the lords to make inquiry into the state of

Ireland and the conduct of its government. He did not deny that right;

but considering such a measure under all its circumstances, the

indiscriminate vehemence of the inculpations allowed to circulate, the

limitation of time, the very name of the mover, he could not but feel

that he was called upon to demand from the house of commons a definite

opinion upon the conduct of the Irish administration. Sir Robert

Peel contended that the noble lord’s resolution was partial and

unintelligible. Mr. Spring Rice, in reply, contended that the vote

of the house of lords was a vote of censure upon government; and he

remonstrated against the unfairness of making the existence of crime

in Ireland a charge against the present government, when nobody ever

thought of censuring preceding administrations on account of turbulence

and outrages in Ireland. At the close of Mr. Spring Rice’s speech the

debate was adjourned, and subsequently two adjournments took place.

In the course of the debate ministers were supported by Messrs. Smith

O’Brien, Bellew, Henry Grattan, Grote, Edward Lytton Bulwer, Hume, the

O’Connor Don, Sir William Somerville, and others, and opposed by Messrs.

Lascelles, Sidney Herbert, Lucas, Shaw, Colonel Conolly, Sir James

Graham, and others. Mr. Shiel delivered a long and eloquent speech in

defence of Lord Normanby. The debate was closed by Mr. O’Connell,

whose statements, as usual, were more distinguished for their animated

delivery than their accuracy. On a division Sir Robert Peel’s amendment

was negatived by three hundred and eighteen against two hundred and

ninety-six; and Mr. Duncombe’s rider by two hundred and ninety-nine

against eighty-one.

IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

On the 16th of February Lord Morpeth again moved for leave to bring in

a bill for the regulation of municipal corporations in Ireland. It has

been seen that the main point of dispute on this subject between the two

houses was the amount of the franchise; the house of lords contending

that it should be acquired by the occupation for twelve months of a

tenement of the value of ten pounds, to be made up of the sum at which

it was rated to the relief of the poor; and the house of commons, that

the occupation of a tenement rated at the net annual value of eight

pounds for six months should confer the qualification in question. It

was proposed to retain this last franchise in the present measure; and

the only material difference between the present and the former bill

consisted in a provision which was now made for the eventual adoption

of the English franchise. Lord Morpeth proposed that in whatever town,

otherwise competent to receive such institutions, the poor-law act

should have been in operation for three years, all persons resident for

that period, and rated to any amount, should be entitled to vote for the

election of municipal officers. The whole of schedule A, containing the

towns in which corporations were to be established, remained the same;

but with regard to schedule B, which enumerated those towns to which

municipal institutions might be granted on petition of the inhabitants,

it was proposed that, without the signatures of an absolute majority,

the crown might establish corporations in those places as well as in

any other town of three thousand inhabitants, in which there might be

a number of persons occupying premises at not less than £4 per annum,

sufficient to make up a constituency. On the second reading of the bill

it met with a stern opposition of the conservative party; but it was

eventually carried through by the small majority of twenty-six. The bill

was committed _pro-formâ_ on the 19th of April; but many delays took

place in order that thirty-four clauses, which should have made part of

the original measure, should be included. On the 4th of July, however,

the house went into committee upon clause twenty, which referred to the

value of the franchise. An attempt was made by Mr. Shaw to introduce a

£10 qualification, which had been the ultimatum of the Conservatives

in the last session: but after a short debate the original question was

carried by one hundred and fifty-four against fifty-four. Some other

minor amendments were subsequently proposed, but they were negatived;

and the bill was finally carried in the commons by a majority of

ninety-seven against seventy-six.

On the 22nd of July, the Irish Municipal Corporations bill was read a

second time in the house of lords. On the 25th of July, before the house

went into committee, Lord Lyndhurst gave notice of the amendments which

he intended to move in the course of the evening, and of his intention

to vote against the third reading, if the bill should come unaltered out

of the committee. The only amendment of the noble lord which gave rise

to any discussion after their lordships went into committee was for

raising the qualification from £8 to £10. This was objected to by Lord

Melbourne, who said, that he could not but think that their lordships

were acting no very worthy part, in raising difficulties in the way of

what they all considered desirable—the settlement of the question.

The Duke of Wellington administered a severe rebuke to his lordship for

uttering such a sentiment; and on a division the amendment was carried

by a majority of ninety-three against forty-three. A number of

minor amendments were also made in conformity with Lord Lyndhurst’s

suggestions; and on the 5th of August the bill was read a third time,

and passed.

Lord John Russell moved the order of the day, for the consideration

of the lords’ amendments, on the 12th of August; on which occasion he

stated that it was not advisable, in his opinion, to take objection to

the bill on the question of privilege, on account of certain clauses

transferring certain fiscal powers from the grand-juries to the new

town-councils, which had been struck out in the other house, and to send

it back to the lords. The only course to pursue would be to bring in a

new bill either now or at the beginning of the next session. He moved,

therefore, that the amendments be taken into consideration that day

three months, in the hope that he might be able finally to adjust the

question. This motion was agreed to.

On the 6th of August Lord Brougham brought forward several resolutions

on the administration of justice in Ireland under the Marquis of

Normanby. His lordship’s remarks were chiefly confined to Lord

Normanby’s public measures; and the debate in general was conducted in

a tone friendly to the noble marquis, even by the opposite party. At

the same time the resolutions were carried by a majority of eighty-six

against fifty-two.

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT RESPECTING JAMAICA.

It has been seen that in the earlier part of the preceding year the

agitation on the subject of West India slavery had become general

throughout the kingdom, and that it gave rise to discussion in

parliament. An important bill was passed, entitled “An act to amend the

act for the abolition of slavery.” Many salutary provisions were made

in this instrument for the further protection of the apprentices; and in

order to serve the execution of such regulations of the former enactment

as had been disregarded by the planters. This act was promulgated in

Jamaica by the governor on the 1st of June; and on the 5th of the same

month he convened the legislature of that colony. In his speech Sir

Lionel Smith informed the assembly that he had called the house together

to take into consideration the state of the island, and to recommend

the early and equal abolition of apprenticeship for all parties. The

assembly entered a warm remonstrance against the abolition amendment

act; but nevertheless on the 16th of June the governor gave the royal

assent to an act for the entire abolition of prædial apprenticeship from

the 1st of August, 1838.

On the arrival in England of the news of this voluntary abandonment on

the part of the planters of the remaining term of apprenticeship. Lord

Melbourne presented to the house of lords an important bill, founded on

the report of Captain Pringle, empowering her majesty in council to

make rules for the government of the West India prisons, to appoint

inspectors, and regulate other matters of necessary discipline. This

bill was sent out and promulgated by the governor in a proclamation

affixed to the doors of their house about six weeks before the meeting

of the assembly. That meeting took place on the 30th of October, and

their very first procedure was to pass four resolutions condemnatory of

Lord Melbourne’s bill; complaining of the violation of their rights

by the parliament of Great Britain; asserting that as a body they (the

assembly) had ceased to exist for any useful purpose to the people

whom they represented; and that therefore they would abstain from

the exercise of any legislative function, excepting such as might be

necessary to preserve inviolate the faith of the island with the public

creditor, until her majesty’s pleasure should be known, whether her

subjects of Jamaica, now in a state of freedom, should henceforth

be treated as subjects, with the power of making laws for their own

government, or as a conquered colony. Sir Lionel now prorogued the

assembly for a few days; but when they again met they asserted their

determination to adhere to their resolutions, and the result of their

contumacy was the final prorogation of their house.

In consequence of these transactions, on the 9th of April Mr.

Labouchere introduced a bill to suspend the existing constitution for

five years. In the meantime it was proposed to make provision for the

government of that colony by investing it _pro tempore_ in the hands of

a governor, and a council augmented by the accession of three persons,

who would be sent from England as commissioners, especially qualified by

experience to assist in the consideration of some of the more important

topics to which their early attention would be directed, as the

improvement of the negroes, the poor-laws, and prison discipline. This

interval, it was said, would give time for the enactment of such laws

as were called for by the transition state of the colony, and the

government afterwards proposed to restore the ancient constitution,

subject to the requisite modifications. The introduction of this measure

was not opposed by the Conservatives. The bill arrived at the second

reading on the 23rd of April, when Sir Robert Peel stated that he would

again allow it to be read _pro formâ_. Counsel would then be heard

at the bar against the measure: he was even content to have the bill

committed, and take the discussion on the question that the speaker do

now leave the chair. At the same time, before they proceeded to suspend

the constitution of Jamaica for five years, and to vest so great an

authority of taxation in an unpopular government, he could wish to give

to the assembly the power of reconsidering their course, and returning

to their duties. If the house of assembly should still adhere to their

refractory courses, he was disposed to confide to ministers the power

of carrying on the government for a time, until parliament should decide

otherwise; or if it could be further shown that public business would be

prejudiced by such delay, he would, make no more opposition to the

bill. Counsel were then heard; the cause of the colony being pleaded

by Sergeant Mereweather and Mr. Burge, the accredited agent of the

colonies. The debate on the question was opened on the 3rd of May, when

Sir Robert Peel expressed his disappointment that it had not been found

practicable to come to some arrangement with regard to the government of

Jamaica without any party conflict, or even any serious division on

the course to be pursued. He thought that the temporary abrogation of

a popular form of government was by no means desirable. Mr. Labouchere

maintained that the result of the great experiment of emancipation

would depend on the fate of this bill. The only chance of securing the

investment of English capital, and ensuring success to the experiments

to be tried of cultivating the estates by free labour, lay in the timely

introduction of proper regulations. It would be vexatious if, after all,

the negroes should take to squatting, and pass their lives in indolence;

but half of the good work would have been achieved until the black was

raised to the condition of a free and laborious citizen. As matters

stood, the negroes refused to enter into contracts; the only method

for obtaining from the black population the continuous labour which was

notoriously indispensable for the cultivation of sugar, was to induce

them to enter into an agreement to work uninterruptedly for a stipulated

sum of money. So arbitrary and partial, however, was the power assigned

by the present law of contract, that the negro was reluctant to engage

on such conditions. This called for alteration; and so likewise did

the law relating to the militia, as well as the vagrancy law and the

constitution of the courts of justice. It would also be advisable to

introduce some measure of relief for the poor; but nothing could

be effected in the present discontinuance of all legislation. Mr.

Labouchere added, that the present measure, though avowedly an arbitrary

one, would, after all, only place Jamaica on the same footing with the

other crown colonies, who were administered by a governor and council.

He concluded by proposing two years and a half instead of five as the

shortest interval within which the measures in contemplation could

be prepared. Mr. Godson opposed the measure; and Mr. Charles Buller

delivered a clever speech in its support. Mr. Hume expressed his

reluctance to separate himself from the government on this question;

but he could not vote in favour of such injustice. Sir George Grey

vindicated the measure, noticing a variety of instances in which the

assembly had eluded the recommendations of government in favour of

the negroes, and referring, in proof of his assertion, to several

conservative authorities.

The house then adjourned; and the debate was opened on the following

Monday by Mr. Maclean. The bill on this night was supported by Sir

Eardley Wilmot, and Messrs. Warburton and O’Connell; and opposed by

Messrs. Grote, Gaily Knight, Goulburn, Gladstone, and Lord Stanley. The

debate was closed by Lord John Russell, who enumerated a short summary

of the arguments for the bill, and declaimed against those of his usual

supporters who were about to desert him. On a division the measure was

carried by a majority of five only, the numbers being, in favour of

the bill, two hundred and ninety-four; against it, two hundred and

eighty-nine.

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS, AND FAILURE OF SIR ROBERT PEEL TO FORM A NEW

ADMINISTRATION, ETC.

The result of the debate on the Jamaica suspension bill was followed by

the resignation of the ministers. On the 7th of May the leading members

of the administration in both houses declared their inability to carry

on the government with advantage to the public service, and that they

had in consequence tendered their resignations, which her majesty had

graciously accepted. After the lapse of a week the house of commons

again met, when Lord John Russell stated, that since he last addressed

them Sir Robert Peel had received authority from her majesty to form a

new administration; and that the attempt of the right honourable baronet

having failed, her majesty had been graciously pleased to permit that

gentleman to state the circumstances which had led to that failure. In

explanation, Sir Robert Peel said that her majesty had invited the Duke

of Wellington to assist her in the formation of a new government;

and that his grace had informed her that, in his opinion, the chief

difficulties a government would have to encounter would be in the house

of commons; and for that and other reasons the noble duke had advised

her majesty to send for him as the person best qualified to undertake

the duties of prime minister. Her majesty accordingly sent for him, and

when he waited on her, he stated his sense of the difficulties a new

government would have to encounter; but that, having been a party to

the vote of the house which led to those difficulties, nothing should

prevent him from tendering to her majesty every assistance in his power.

Subsequently he submitted the following list of names to her majesty for

approval in the formation of the new cabinet:—The Duke of Wellington,

Lords Lyndhurst, Aberdeen, Ellenborough, and Stanley; Sirs James Graham,

and Henry Hardinge, and Mr. Goulburn. Sir Robert proceeded to state

that no difficulties arose to lead to his relinquishing to form a new

administration until Thursday; and that difficulty arose, he said,

exclusively from that portion of the household which is filled by the

ladies in her majesty’s service. On the Wednesday night previous to this

event, he had stated to those whom he proposed to submit to her majesty

as ministers, the course he intended to pursue with respect to the

household. He had little considered the subject; and with regard to the

female part of it, he scarcely knew of whom it consisted. He took the

red book in his hand, however, and there saw the different appointments.

He then stated that with reference to all the subordinate appointments

below the rank of a lady of the bedchamber, he should propose no change

to her majesty; and that with respect to the superior class he took

for granted they would relieve him from any difficulty, by at once

relinquishing their offices. If such offices, however, should not be

voluntarily relinquished, he gave it as his opinion that they should be

subject to some change, although in some instances the absence of all

political feeling might render any such change unnecessary. On the

Thursday he saw her majesty, when he made a verbal communication to

such an effect. He would not enter into the precise nature of this

communication, but simply read two letters which had subsequently

passed: one, conveying her majesty’s impressions, and the other his own.

These letters read thus:—

“_Buckingham Palace, May 10th_, 1839.

“The queen having considered the proposal made to her yesterday by Sir

Robert Peel, to remove the ladies of her bedchamber, cannot consent to

adopt a course which she conceives to be contrary to usage, and which is

repugnant to her feelings.”

“_Whitehall, May 10th_, 1839.

“Sir Robert Peel presents his humble duty to your majesty, and has

had the honour of receiving your majesty’s note of this morning. In

respectfully submitting to your majesty’s pleasure, and humbly returning

into your majesty’s hands the important trust which your majesty had

been graciously pleased to transmit to him, Sir Robert Peel trusts that

your majesty will permit him to state to your majesty, his impression

with respect to the circumstances which have led to the termination of

his attempt to form an administration for the conduct of your majesty’s

service. In the interview with which your majesty honoured Sir Robert

Peel yesterday morning, after he had submitted to your majesty the

names of those whom he proposed to recommend to the principal executive

appointments, he mentioned to your majesty his earnest wish, to be

enabled by your majesty’s sanction, so to constitute your majesty’s

household that your majesty’s confidential servants might have the

advantage of a public demonstration of your majesty’s full support and

confidence; and that at the same time, as far as possible consistently

with that demonstration, each individual appointment in the household

should be entirely acceptable to your majesty’s personal feelings. On

your majesty expressing a desire that the Earl of Liverpool should hold

an office in the household, Sir Robert Peel requested your majesty’s

permission at once to offer to Lord Liverpool the office of

lord-steward, or any other which he might prefer. Sir Robert Peel then

observed, that he should have every wish to apply a similar principle to

the chief appointments which are filled by the ladies of your majesty’s

household: upon which your majesty was pleased to remark that you must

reserve the whole of these appointments, and that it was your majesty’s

pleasure the whole should continue, as at present, without change. The

Duke of Wellington, in the interview to which your majesty subsequently

admitted him, understood that this was your majesty’s determination, and

concurred with Sir Robert Peel in opinion, that, considering the great

difficulties of the present crisis, and the expediency of making every

effort in the first instance to conduct the public business of the

country with the aid of the present parliament, it was essential to

the success of the commission with which your majesty had honoured Sir

Robert Peel, that he should have that public proof of your majesty’s

entire support and confidence, which would be afforded by the permission

to make some changes in that part of your majesty’s household, which

your majesty resolved on maintaining entirely without change. Having

had the opportunity, through your majesty’s gracious consideration, of

reflecting upon this point, he humbly submits to your majesty that he is

reluctantly compelled, by a sense of public duty and of the interest of

your majesty’s service, to adhere to the opinion which he expressed to

your majesty. He trusts he may be permitted at the same time to express

to your majesty his grateful acknowledgments for the distinction which

your majesty conferred upon him, by requiring his advice and assistance

in the formation of an administration, and his earnest prayers that

whatever arrangements your majesty may be enabled to make for that

purpose, may be most conducive to your majesty’s personal comfort and

happiness, and to the promotion of the public welfare.”

After reading these letters, Sir Robert Peel proceeded to notice certain

misrepresentations with regard to his conduct in this affair, and

to vindicate his policy in requiring the change alluded to in those

letters. Lord John Russell replied at great length, and in reference

to the point which proved a stumblingblock to Sir Robert Peel in

his efforts to form an administration, said, that her majesty, after

relating all the circumstances, was pleased to ask him whether he

thought she was justified in making the refusal of a change in her

household to the required extent? His lordship said, he replied that he

thought her majesty was justified; and then she was pleased to observe,

that as in the exercise of the powers of the crown she had hitherto

given her support to the administration, she hoped I would consider

myself bound now to support her majesty in return. His lordship

then proceeded to state that on the next day a cabinet was held in

Downing-street, at which her majesty’s confidential servants having

taken into consideration the letter addressed by her majesty to Sir

Robert Peel, and the reply of the right honourable baronet, were of

opinion that for the purpose of giving to the administration that

character of efficiency and stability, and those marks of the

constitutional support of the crown, which are required to enable it

to act usefully to the public service, it is reasonable that the great

officers of the court, and situations held in the household by members

of parliament, should be included in the political arrangements made

in a change of the administration; but they were not of opinion that a

similar principle should be applied or extended to the offices held by

ladies in her majesty’s household. Lord John Russell concluded by saying

that he conceived that those who thought her majesty justified in what

she had done, should not refuse to assume the responsibility which

belongs to their opinion; and that they should neither conceal nor evade

the avowal of it, but should trust to the opinion of parliament, and of

the country as to the result. In reply Sir Robert Peel said that Lord

John Russell had relieved him from the greatest load of anxiety he had

ever suffered under during his whole life; and as there was no important

difference in their explanations, he thought it would be more respectful

to her majesty to let the matter rest where it was. On the following

evening a supplementary explanation of these matters was given in the

lords; but as it would be mere repetition, it is not necessary to

detail any portion of the speeches delivered. In the end the cabinet was

reconstructed, and the first act of the house of commons, when it again

met, was to elect Mr. Shaw Lefevre to the office of speaker, in the

room of Mr. Abercrombie, who had three weeks previously declared his

intention of resigning. Mr. Goulburn was nominated by the Conservatives

in opposition to Mr. Shaw Lefevre; but the latter gentleman was elected

by a majority of three hundred and seventeen against two hundred and

ninety-nine. Mr. Shaw Lefevre took the chair accordingly.

NATIONAL EDUCATION.

Since the year 1833 parliament had granted annually the sum of £20,000

for the purposes of education. This money had been equally divided

between the National Society and the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Government, however, were not satisfied with merely asking an increase;

they required liberty to change entirely the mode of its distribution.

Their views on this subject were first made known to the house on the

12th of February, when Lord John Russell, in presenting certain papers

connected with education, gave an outline of his views upon it, and

stated the determination of himself and colleagues respecting it.

His lordship proposed that the president of the council, and other

privy-councillors, not exceeding five, should form a board for the

consideration of the manner in which the grants made by parliament

should be distributed. He further stated that the first object of such a

board should be the establishment of a good normal school; and, in order

to make that as perfect as possible, attention should be mainly directed

to four objects—religious instruction; general education; moral

training; and habits of industry, applied in learning some trade or

profession. This brief outline was regarded with various feelings by

the house and the public. Sir Robert Inglis confessed the noble lord

had proposed to do less evil than he expected; while Mr. Wyse complained

that he proposed much less good than was hoped for. The manner in which

this step was followed up by the government subsequently was unfolded in

a minute of the privy-council. This minute recommended that the sum of

£10,000 granted by parliament in 1835 towards the erection of normal

or model schools, should be given in equal proportions to the National

Society and the British and Foreign School Society; and that the

remainder of the subsequent grants of the years 1837 and 1838 yet

unappropriated, any grant that may be voted in the present year,

be chiefly applied in aid of subscriptions for buildings; and, in

particular cases, for the support of schools connected with these

societies. The report further stated, that the committee did not feel

themselves precluded from making grants in particular cases which

shall appear to them to call for the aid of government, although the

application may not come from either of the two mentioned societies.

The opinion of the committee, it was stated, was that the most useful

applications of any sums voted by parliament, would consist in the

employment of those moneys in the establishment of a normal school,

under the direction of the state, and not placed under the management of

a voluntary society. Finally, the committee recommended that no further

grant be made now or hereafter for the establishment or support of

normal schools, or of any other schools, unless the right of inspection

be retained, in order to secure a conformity to the regulations and

discipline established in the several schools, with such improvements as

may from time to time be suggested by the committee. The report added,

that a part of any grant voted in the present year might be usefully

applied to the purposes of inspection, and to the means of acquiring

a complete knowledge of the present state of education in England and

Wales. The day after these resolutions appeared, Lord Ashley moved a

call of the house for the 14th of June. This motion was seconded by

Lord John Russell, who embraced the opportunity of warning the members

against the petitions which had been presented against the ministerial

scheme. Great error and misrepresentation, his lordship said, prevailed

on this subject throughout the country. At the same time he stated that

government would not persist in their proposal to found a normal school.

His lordship concluded by some remarks on the merits of the National

and British and Foreign School Society; and by stating that he should be

ready to go into the report of the committee of the privy-council, and

should also propose that the vote of £30,000, of which he had given

notice, should be divided as it hitherto had been, between the two

societies. Lord Stanley objected to the proposition for giving a direct

control over the moral and the religious education of the people to a

board or committee exclusively political in its character, and having

no fixed principle of action. His lordship also objected to the plan

for giving a secular rather than a religious education; contending that

schoolmasters entrusted with the instruction of youth should be of sound

doctrine. He concluded by moving an amendment to this effect, “That an

address be presented to her majesty to rescind the order in council for

constituting the proposed board of privy-council.” Lord Morpeth

said that he conceived that the speech of Lord Stanley went to this

extent—to separate by a specific vote of the house the executive

government of the country from all superintendence and control over the

general education of the people. He combated this notion at considerable

length; arguing that so long as the state thought proper to employ Roman

Catholic sinews, and to finger Unitarian gold, it could not refuse to

extend to those by whom it so profited the blessings of education. Lord

Ashley said that he considered the scheme propounded to the house to

be hostile to the constitution, to the church, and to revealed religion

itself, although he did not mean to assert it was unconstitutional. The

remainder of the debate was conducted by Mr. Wyse, Mr. D’Israeli, Sir

Robert Inglis, Mr. O’Connell, Mr. Gladstone, and Sir Robert Peel. The

house divided on the original question, that the order of the day for

a committee of supply be read, which was carried by a majority of two

hundred and eighty against two hundred and seventy-five. In accordance

with this vote Lord John Russell, on the 24th of June, moved that

the house should resolve itself into a committee of supply, in which

committee, after recapitulating many of the arguments previously urged

by himself and other members, he proposed that £30,000 be granted by her

majesty for public education in Great Britain for the year 1839.

Lord Mahon said, he felt it his duty to meet the motion with a direct

negative. The debate which followed was chiefly remarkable for an

eloquent speech delivered by Mr. Shiel in support of the motion. After

a few words from Mr. Goulburn in opposition to the grant, the committee

divided, and Lord John Russell’s proposition was carried by a majority

of two only, the numbers being, for the grant, two hundred and

seventy-five; against it, two hundred and seventy-three.

The subject of national education was introduced in the lords on the

5th of July, by the Archbishop of Canterbury; who, after defending the

clergy from the attacks made on them by certain parties in regard to

this government scheme, and entering into some details of the progress

of education in this country, moved a series of resolutions condemnatory

of the proposed system of education; and the resolutions were carried

by a majority of two hundred and twenty-nine against one hundred and

eighteen.

In consequence of this majority the lords went in a body to her majesty

to offer their remonstrance against the proposed alteration in the

manner of distributing the educational grant.

At a later period of the session Lord Brougham brought forward his

plan for educating the people; but its merits were not canvassed by the

house, and the consideration of it was adjourned till next session.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

On the 11th of February Lord Melbourne laid the report of Lord Durham,

and other papers, on the table of the house of lords, expressing a hope

at the same time, that before the Easter recess he should be enabled

to introduce a measure for the purpose of putting a speedy end to the

discontents in that part of the empire. This report had appeared in the

columns of the _Times_ newspaper some days before it was presented to

either house of parliament; in allusion to which unusual circumstance,

Lord Durham said he deeply regretted the premature publication of it.

His subsequent statement, however, proved that it could not have been

a matter of surprise to his lordship. There had been, he said, an

understanding with the ministry that the document should be printed

before the meeting of parliament, in order to save time, and accordingly

two thousand copies were prepared; and he had himself half a dozen for

circulation among his private friends. It would appear from this report

that the chief cause of all the troubles that had disturbed Lower Canada

was to be found in the spirit of exasperation that had grown up between

the two races by whom it was peopled. It was possible, it stated, that

under a better system of management this temper would never have been

called forth, and that the present disparity between the numbers of

the two races would not have existed. During the eighty years that

had elapsed since the conquest of Canada, the French inhabitants had

increased from sixty thousand to four hundred and fifty thousand souls,

while the English settlers amounted to no more than a fourth of the

entire population, notwithstanding the great influx of emigrants which

had taken place between the years 1829 and 1837. Another source of evil

pointed out by Lord Durham in his report was the lack of education in

the colonies. According to returns laid before parliament in 1835, there

were in Lower Canada, besides several Roman Catholic colleges, and a

number of private seminaries for the higher branches of education, two

grammar-schools, one at Quebec and the other at Montreal, and in the

three districts of Quebec, Montreal, and Three Rivers, thirty-seven

free-schools, with nearly two thousand scholars. In addition to these

there were established, under a provincial act of parliament,

one thousand one hundred and seventy-one elementary schools, with

thirty-seven thousand six hundred and fifty-eight scholars, distributed

through the colonies, and placed under the superintendence of trustees

annually elected by the inhabitants. The utility of these schools,

however, may be estimated by this passage from Lord Durham’s

report:—“It came to my knowledge that out of a great number of boys and

girls assembled at the school-house door of St. Thomas, all but three

were admitted upon inquiry to be unable to read; yet the children of

this large parish attend school regularly, and make use of books. They

hold the catechism-book in their hands as if they were reading, while

they only repeat its contents, which they know by rote.” The only

exception to this state of things made by Lord Durham was in favour of

the Catholic clergy, who were represented by him as a respectable and

well-conducted class of men, and well-disposed towards the government.

The report further stated that there was no combination between the

two races for public objects. All public meetings, no matter for what

purpose they were called, were attended exclusively by one or the other

of the races. They could not harmonize even in associations of charity;

and the only public occasion on which they met was in the jury-box, and

then they met only to obstruct justice. With such feelings existing

in the colony, there could be no wonder that insurrections and tumults

abounded.

No discussion arose on the presentation of Lord Durham’s report to the

lords. On the 15th of February the Duke of Wellington moved an address

to her majesty for copies of the correspondence of Sir F. Head with her

majesty’s government on the affairs of Upper Canada; and also for copies

of the correspondence of Sir J. Colborne and her majesty’s government

relative to the establishment of rectories in Upper Canada.

Viscount Melbourne said he was ready to produce such portions of the

correspondence as appeared to be necessary for the defence of Sir F.

Head, or which afforded general information; he further suggested that

the motion should be for “copies or extracts” as to the correspondence

of Sir J. Colborne relative to the establishment of rectories. The Duke

of Wellington, in reply, intimated that, although he thought the whole

correspondence ought to be produced, he would alter his motion according

to the suggestion of the noble viscount. The Earl of Aberdeen said it

was impossible for the house to legislate upon the affairs of Canada

without being in possession of this correspondence; and the Earl of

Wicklow contended that there should be superadded any report given

by Lords Gosford or Aylnaer. On the 19th of February Lord Winchilsea

further moved, that a humble address be presented to her majesty,

praying that she would be graciously pleased to order to be laid upon

the table of the house any correspondence that had passed between her

Majesty’s government and Lord Durham, relative to the appointment of Mr.

Turton as his lordship’s secretary. This was a topic which had excited

severe animadversion in parliament, as well as on the part of the public

press; but it does not appear that government had anything to do with

it, or that there were any papers to be produced. In the desultory

conversation which followed, indeed, Lord Durham took the whole

responsibility of the appointment on himself, and insisted that he was

justified in making that appointment. He had known Mr. Turton from his

earliest infancy; and he knew also his high professional reputation. He

had been employed as advocate-general in India, by Lords Combermere and

Amherst, and had discharged his office so much to the satisfaction of

the governor and council in India, that they voted him five thousand

sicca rupees, and a vote of thanks for his conduct. It was not to be

endured, therefore, that he was to be taunted for appointing to this

trumpery office a man who had previously filled the highest judicial

functions in India. Lord Durham concluded by threatening that if this

matter were proceeded in further by parliament he would not rest until

he had obtained an inquiry into the case of every public man who had

received official employment after having been convicted of the same

kind of immorality as Mr. Turton.

On the 3rd of May Lord Melbourne presented the following message from

the queen to the imperial parliament:—“Her majesty thinks it proper

to acquaint the house of lords, that it appears to her majesty that the

future welfare of her majesty’s subjects in Upper and Lower Canada would

be promoted by the union of the said provinces into one province for

the purpose of legislating, from and after the period to be fixed

by parliament. Her majesty therefore recommends it to the house, to

consider such measures as may be submitted to them for that purpose. Her

majesty is persuaded that the house of lords will be careful to combine

a due regard for the peace and security of these important provinces

with such provisions as may be conducive to the welfare of England, and

the permanent freedom and prosperity of her majesty’s North American

provinces.” The idea of uniting the two provinces originated in Lord

Durham’s report, in which he gave several cogent reasons for such a

measure. The subject was taken into consideration on the 3rd of

June, when Lord John Russell said it became his duty to call upon

the parliament to lay the foundation of a permanent settlement of the

affairs of Canada. In his speech, his lordship recapitulated the various

circumstances connected with the subject of Canadian affairs. With

reference to the recommendation contained in her majesty’s message, Lord

John said that the act of 1791 was founded on two principles: first,

that by dividing the province into two the French population might

remain in that portion called Lower Canada, whilst British emigrants

would have free scope for their industry, and power to establish their

own institutions and customs, in the other portion of the province,

which was to be called Upper Canada. Another reason was, the French

inhabitants being very loyal to the crown, of very simple habits, and

possessing institutions to which they were attached, it was advisable

that means for maintaining those institutions should be reserved to

them. His lordship acknowledged that there might have been at the time

reasons for introducing the constitutional act of 1791, but argued at

great length that it was a mistaken act of policy. The grievances which

had arisen out of it were manifold; and as a remedy for them he proposed

the re-union of the two provinces. Other remedies had been suggested,

but his lordship thought that they were not sufficient to meet the

exigencies of the case. In support of his own proposition his lordship

stated that there were many persons in Lower Canada anxious for such a

union, and that the legislature of Upper Canada had decided in favour of

the plan. The noble lord concluded by moving these resolutions:—I. “It

is the opinion of the house that it is expedient to form a legislative

union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, on the principles of a

free and representative government, in such a manner as may most conduce

to the prosperity and contentment of the people of the united provinces.

II. That it is expedient to continue until 1842 the powers vested in the

governor and special council of Lower Canada, by an act of last session,

with such alteration of those powers as may be deemed advisable.” Mr.

Hume protested against this plan, and Mr. Goulburn moved the adjournment

of the house. Sir Robert Peel expressed his surprise to find that it was

not the intention of her majesty’s government to propose any legislative

measure in the present session, having reference to Canada. His

parliamentary experience was entirely against resolutions pledging

the house to any particular course. The debate was adjourned to the

following Monday, when Lord John Russell stated his intention of

withdrawing his resolution, pledging the house to the abstract principle

of a union of Upper and Lower Canada; giving as his reason for this

change in the policy of government, the strong protest against such a

measure on the part of the commons house of assembly of Upper Canada; a

protest which was contained in a report drawn up by a select committee

of that body and presented to her majesty. With reference to the second

resolution, Lord John Russell proposed the continuation for three more

years of the power now placed in the hands of the governor and special

council of Lower Canada. On the resumption of the debate on the 13th

of June, Lord John Russell moved for the withdrawal of the first

resolution. He was still of opinion, he said, that at some future period

such an union should be carried into effect, but in the meanwhile he

thought it necessary that certain exciting topics should be disposed of

by the legislature. Accordingly he proposed to introduce a measure for

the continuance of the act of last session, for the suspension of the

constitution until 1842, and at the same time amending that act in

several particulars. The amendments proposed by his lordship were the

alteration of the clause authorizing the governor to suspend the

_habeas corpus_ act; the alteration of the clause known as Sir William

Follett’s, limiting its operation to measures affecting the clergy, on

the tenures of land; and the introduction of a new clause, giving power

to impose rates and taxes not to be paid into the public treasury, but

to be applied to such local purposes as watching and the roads. With

regard to the bill for the union of the provinces, his lordship said,

that he thought it might be necessary to change some of its provisions.

The bill he would ask to introduce provided for the establishment of a

central district at Montreal and its neighbourhood, where the meetings

of the assembly should be held. The other parts of Upper and Lower

Canada he proposed to divide into two districts. There would then be

a central district, and four other districts. Each of these was to be

subdivided into nine other districts, so that supposing each division

to return two members, there would be ninety members for the electoral

divisions. In addition to these, his lordship proposed that the

four largest towns should return two members, making in the whole

ninety-eight. After a brief discussion, leave was given to bring in the

bill, and to amend the act of last session, appointing a provisional

government.

It was not until the 4th of July that Lord John Russell moved the order

of the day for the second reading of this bill. The discussion which

followed was a mere repetition of former debates. The bill was then read

a second time.

Lord John Russell moved the order of the day forgoing into a committee

of the whole house on the 11th of July, when Sir William Molesworth

moved a resolution, the object of which was to declare on the part of

the house, that considerations of humanity, justice, and sound policy

demanded that parliament should apply itself without delay to legislate

for the permanent government of the Canadas.

The debate which followed threw no new light upon Canadian affairs, or

the policy which ought to be pursued towards the people of the Canadian

provinces. The discussions, however, demonstrated the incapacity of the

government to deal with matters of such magnitude, and the desire of

the opposition to sacrifice justice and expediency to party spirit. The

house divided, and the original motion was carried by a majority of two

hundred and twenty-three against twenty-eight.

In the committee Mr. Hume objected to the first clause, which

appertained to the increased number of councillors, as only making an

addition to despotism; but the clause was carried by a large majority.

On the second clause being moved, Lord Stanley objected to it as

enlarging the extraordinary powers already granted to the governor and

council; but, after much discussion, it was carried by a majority of one

hundred and seventy-six against one hundred and fifty-six. On the 4th

clause being proposed, Sir Robert Peel moved an amendment to prevent any

alteration in the law of tenures, which was agreed to; and the remaining

clauses were then passed, and the report of the committee ordered to be

received on the following Monday.

This bill was brought forward in the house of lords on the 20th of July,

by the Marquis of Normanby, who, in introducing it, confined himself

to its immediate subjects, and to an explanation of its intentions. The

bill, as amended by the commons, was carried. Thus ended all attempts to

legislate for the Canadas in the session of 1839: the great expectations

formed at the commencement of the session on this important subject were

doomed to be disappointed in the results. Conversations of a personal

nature took place, but neither party approached the question as became

the legislators of a great and mighty empire. Government, it is

true, intimated that they had framed a plan for the union of the two

provinces, but it was scarcely intimated before it was abandoned.

Finally came forth the fragment of a measure which had not the

confidence of either party, but which was nevertheless passed into a

law.

THE SECOND JAMAICA BILL, ETC.

On the 30th of May Mr. Labouchere brought forward a second measure

relative to the affairs of Jamaica. In the newly-proposed bill ministers

had resolved to call together once more the colonial assembly, in order

to allow them what had been termed a _locus penitentio_. This assembly

represented the necessity of ameliorating the existing laws regarding

vagrancy, the relation between master and servant, the state of the

militia, and the electoral qualification. At the same time no fewer than

seventeen annual acts of importance had been suffered by the assembly

to expire, although in many cases the peace of the colony depended upon

them. The first clause of the bill related to those matters which did

not fall under the head of expired enactments, as vagrancy, contracts,

and squatting. With reference to these questions, orders had already

been transmitted to the crown colonies, and were now in successful

operation. By the bill, therefore, the assembly of Jamaica would be

referred to them, with injunctions to legislate in conformity with the

spirit of those provisions; and should they fail to do so, it would be

competent for the governor, with the aid of the council, after a certain

interval, to make tire requisite laws, _mutatis mutandis_, upon the

models which had before been indicated. The object of the second

clause was to leave a certain time to the assembly for re-enacting

the seventeen annual laws, and to invest the governor in council with

authority to renew them, in the event of their failing to do so. A brief

conversation took place, in which Sir Robert Peel declined offering any

opinion on the merits of the bill in its present stage, and the house

went into committee upon it. On the 10th of June Sir Edward Sugden

proposed on this occasion to omit the first clause of the bill,

after which he proceeded to dissect its provisions with considerable

acuteness. Mr. Labouchere defended the measure, and Messrs. Gladstone

and Goulburn objected to it. The latter said that tire present bill

differed but little from the former, and, in his opinion, only differed

for the worse, as it offered a premium to the council for disapproving

of the acts of the assembly, in order that it might itself acquire the

power of legislating in its place. On a division the clause was carried

by a majority of two hundred and twenty-eight against one hundred and

ninety-four: a result which was chiefly owing to the circumstance that

the Conservatives were not prepared for so early a division, but which

was nevertheless received with great cheering from the ministerial

benches. The order of the day was moved for the third reading on the

19th of June, when Mr. Labouchere stated that the time left to the

assembly for deliberation could be extended from the 1st to the 15th of

October. The bill was then read without opposition; but Mr. Goulburn

immediately rose to move the omission of the first clause, in which he

was seconded by Mr. Hume. Lord John Russell urged that the rejection

of that clause would prevent any useful legislation on the subjects

embraced by its provisions, and that the constitutional difficulty

rather rested on the second section. Sir Robert Peel contended that the

government was about to give just grounds of complaint to the assembly.

In reply, Mr. Labouchere admitted that the method in contemplation was

not an agreeable mode of proceeding; but at the same time he argued that

it was the best which, under the circumstances, could be adopted. On

a division the clause was carried by a majority of two hundred and

sixty-seven against two hundred and fifty-seven.

The second reading of the bill was moved in the house of lords on the

1st of July by the Marquis of Normanby, who made some stringent

remarks on the conduct and constitution of the Jamaica assembly. On the

following day, after the order of the day had been read for going into

committee, Lord Lyndhurst moved the expunction of the first clause of

the bill. The opposition charged the government with a desire to subvert

the constitution of Jamaica, and to tyrannize over the colonists. Lord

Brougham made the question an occasion to vent his personal spleen

against the cabinet. The opinions expressed by his lordship were so

utterly at variance with those which he had so often uttered when

eloquently advocating the cause of the negro, as to betray his personal

motives in his opposition to the bill, and to lessen public confidence

in his justice and consistency. Lord Melbourne vehemently disclaimed,

on the part of himself and colleagues, the least desire to abolish the

Jamaican constitution, or to interfere with the rights of the people

either in this country or in any of the colonies. What they had done had

been done with deep regret and reluctance; and it was with the utmost

unwillingness that they made both the previous and present propositions.

On a division, the first clause was expunged by a majority of one

hundred and forty-nine against eighty. Lord Brougham then moved an

amendment to the second clause, limiting the power of the governor with

regard to the renewal of money-bills; but was prevailed upon to postpone

the discussion till Thursday, on which day, the other clauses having

passed, it was agreed that the report should be brought up. When the

order of the day for bringing up the report was read, his lordship

moved as a proviso, “that nothing herein contained shall enable the said

governor, with the assent of the said council, to continue or renew

any acts for the raising or appropriating money.” This amendment was

strongly opposed by Lord Melbourne and other members of the cabinet, and

it was negatived without a division. The report was then received, and

on the 5th of July the bill was read a third time and passed. On

the 9th of the same month Lord John Russell recommended the house to

acquiesce in the amendments of the lords, which was agreed to; and thus

the bill finally assumed the very shape which Sir Robert Peel at first

suggested should be adopted.

BILL FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE PORTUGUESE SLAVE-TRADE, ETC.