At this time, in consequence of the great abundance of capital in tire

market, there was a general impression that the time had arrived when a

considerable saving might be effected to the country, by a reduction

in those stocks which bore the highest rate of interest. Early in the

present session, indeed, it was discovered that government contemplated

a plan for reducing the three and a half per cent, consols, which, at

the commencement of the year, had reached the price of 102 ½. This

plan was developed by Mr. Goulburn, in a lucid and able speech, on the

8th of March. He was about to ask the house, he said, to deal with the

largest sum for which any government had been called on to propose

a regulation, being no less than £250,000,000 of money. Never, he

continued, was there a period when capital, seeking an investment, was

so plentiful, and the rate of interest so low as at present; and there

was nothing in the circumstances of the times which gave any reason to

suppose that this state of things would prove transient. The condition

of the public finances also was favourable to the proposed object; for,

thanks to the firmness of the house of commons, the revenue once more

exceeded the expenditure. In explaining this measure, he said that

he was not disposed to purchase an immediate relief by increasing the

burdens of succeeding times. He had, therefore, rejected the idea of

lowering the present interest by augmenting the capital of the debt. His

intention was to propose the conversion of the three and a half into

a three and a quarter per cent, stock, which should continue until

October, 1854, after which period the interest should be reduced to

three per cent., with a guarantee that for twenty years there should be

no further reduction. By this measure the public, from October, 1844, to

1854, would save £625,000 per annum, which saving, from and after 1854,

would become £1,250,000 per annum. Mr. Goulburn also proposed to make

such arrangement that, from next October, the payments of interests

would be nearly equalized in each quarter. His speech was received with

loud demonstrations of approbation from both sides of the house; and the

resolution being put, was carried unanimously. The bill brought in,

to give it effect, passed rapidly through its stages in the house of

commons; and it was carried through the upper house with equal unanimity

and facility, all being convinced that it was a sound and practical

measure, and honest withal to the public creditor.

The annual financial statement for this year was made on the 24th

of April, when Mr. Goulburn had the satisfaction of showing that the

receipts exceeded the expenditure. There had been an increase of amount

in all the estimates: in the customs, the excise, the stamps, the taxes,

the post-office, and the property-tax. The estimate of the total revenue

was £50,150,000; the sum received £52,835,134, showing an increase of

about £2,700,000. The expenditure also was less than the estimate

by £650,000; and the total result was that, instead of the estimated

surplus of £700,000, the gross surplus amounted to £4,165,000. From

this, however, there was the deficiency of last year to be taken,

namely, £2,749,000; and when this was discharged there was a net surplus

of £1,400,000 over the expenditure of the year ending April, 1844. The

total estimate of the revenue for the year following was £51,790,000,

and the expenditure £49,643,170, whereby an apparent surplus of

£3,146,000, or, making a deduction for a portion of the debt to be

discharged next year, £2,376,000. Mr. Goulburn proceeded to say that

this balance having been anticipated, he had been pressed from all

quarters to reduce various taxes. He would gladly have done so, but the

source of the surplus was not permanent: it was mainly the income-tax

which was to be considered next year, in order to determine whether

it should be prolonged, as had originally been proposed, for two years

beyond the first. If other taxes were now hastily reduced before

the operation of the tariff could be known, the house might have no

alternative next year but to continue this tax. It was under these

circumstances that he resisted large reductions; but he thought there

were some articles upon which remission might be afforded, with a fair

prospect of making up revenue by an increased consumption, and with a

probability of increasing the consumption of other articles. The items

which he proposed to select for such remission were glass, vinegar,

currants, coffee, marine insurance, and wool, upon the aggregate of

which the amount of duty to be remitted would be £387,000 per annum.

Later in the session he intended to take the sugar duties into

consideration; when he should recommend that England should admit, at a

differential duty of ten shillings per cwt., the sugar of those

states which do not cultivate that commodity by slave-labour. After

considerable discussion, in which several members recommended the

reduction or abolition of other taxes, the motion of Mr. Goulburn was

agreed to; and the customs duties bill, and other bills founded on his

proposition, subsequently passed through both houses with unanimity.

SUGAR-DUTIES BILL, ETC.

The great conflict of parties was reserved for the sugar duties. The

chancellor of the exchequer’s views on this subject were propounded on

the 3rd of June, when, after delivering a lucid and able speech on

the sugar duties at present existing, and explaining his intended

alterations in those duties, he moved:—“That towards raising the supply

granted to her majesty, the several duties now payable on sugar be

further continued for a time to be limited, save and except that from

and after the 10th day of November next, there shall be charged on brown

Muscovado, or clayed sugar, certified to be the growth of China, Java,

or Manilla, or of any other foreign country, the sugar of which her

majesty in council shall have declared to be admissible as not being the

produce of slave-labour, £114s. the cwt., together with the additional

duty of £5 per cent, on the afore-mentioned rate. That from and after

the 10th day of November next her majesty be authorized by order in

council to give effect to the provisions of any treaty now in force,

which binds her majesty to admit sugar, the produce of a foreign

country, at the same duties as are imposed on sugar the produce of the

most favoured nation.” Lord John Russell had announced that he would

propose an amendment for including slave-grown sugar in that foreign

produce which was to be admitted at diminished duties; but Mr. Goulburn

said he could not believe that the house would consent to throw away the

whole of that large amount which the country had recently paid for the

abolition of slavery, by creating, through a new rise of prices, an

additional stimulus to the importation of slaves into the foreign

colonics. Lord John Russell, however, combated the views of government

at great length; after which he moved, as an amendment, “That towards

raising the supply granted to her majesty, instead of the duties of

customs now payable on sugar, there shall be charged on brown, or

Muscovado sugar, the produce of any foreign country, the sum of £1 14s.

per cwt.” In support of his motion the noble lord argued, that the time

was come when the sugar duties ought to undergo a full consideration.

It was proposed, he said, to admit the sugar of Java and Manilla as

free-grown, though the policy of these countries was questionable in

point of personal freedom; but the sugar of Porto Rico was excluded,

because our conscience was shocked at the notion that some part of

it might have been produced by slaves. But what was thus forbidden

directly, was allowed circuitously; we were willing to refine and

export this slave-grown sugar, and to take the hemp and tallow of

Russia in its stead, which seemed to be an easy way of letting down

our consciences. This savoured of hypocrisy. If the United States were

permitted to send us their sugars, which they would do to the extent of

50,000 tons per annum, they would take slave-grown sugar into their own

consumption to the same extent; and to that whole extent, therefore,

would give encouragement to slave-grown sugar. No implicit faith,

moreover, was to be placed in the certificates of the Americans. Messrs.

Gladstone and Baring defended the government measure; and Messrs.

Hume, Labouchere, and M. P. Stewart opposed it. On a division Lord

John Russell’s amendment was negatived by one hundred and ninety-seven

against one hundred and twenty-eight. A few days afterwards, a bill

founded on the chancellor of the exchequer’s resolutions was brought

in, and was read a second time without discussion. But the most critical

crisis for ministers had yet to be encountered. On the 14th of June, the

house having resolved itself into committee on the sugar-duties bill,

Mr. P. Miles objected to the change proposed by ministers in the old

amount of protection as a measure which was not expedient, and not final

in its settlement; wherefore he moved as an amendment, “That, from the

10th of November next, the duty on British colonial sugar should be.

20s.; on the sugars of China, Java, and Manilla, 30s.; with a duty

of 34s. upon the foreign sugars, when imported at a certain degree of

refinement, and with an addition, as usual, of five per cent, upon the

whole.” This amendment was seconded by Mr. H. Baillie, who described the

measure of government as causing general dissatisfaction; and asserted

that, while it violated the principle of refusing encouragement to

the foreign slave-trade, it gave but partial advantages to the British

people. A long discussion took place, in which many members took part;

and on a division government was defeated by a majority of two hundred

and forty-one against two hundred and twenty-one. The committee then

adjourned to the 17th; on which day Sir Robert Peel rose to put the

house in possession of the course which government intended now to

pursue. After explaining the nature of the sugar duties, and their

views in the proposed alterations, and asserting that he believed a

concurrence between the friends and the opponents of ministers had been

concerted in the late division, he said the course which government

would now take, and on which all members would be free, who had not

engaged to vote for Mr. Miles’s proposal of 20s., would be to propose,

as an amendment, that 24s. should be the duty. They wished it to

be known in the countries east of the Cape what the intentions of

government were. Sir Robert Peel went on to explain the reasons why he

did not content himself with merely proposing a renewal of the present

sugar duties; after which, he said, that he was not insensible to

the impediments which had been opposed to the progress of ministerial

legislation. In certain of their measures, government had failed to

obtain the approbation of some whose support they valued: but they were

not prepared to purchase that approbation at the price of refraining

from the policy which they deemed essential to the welfare of the

country. They had felt it their duty to make a relaxation of duties;

in that course they held it their duty to persevere: and he was anxious

that on so important an occasion there should be no deception and no

reserve. Lord John Russell considered that the proposal of Sir Robert

Peel was neither more nor less than that the house should retract its

former vote, and thus disgrace itself with the country. For his own part

he was not much moved by their threats of quitting office, as he had not

been one of the general supporters of the government. He justified

the degree of concert which had taken place between Mr. Miles and the

opposition; and asked if there had not also been a combination on his

side. In conclusion, he warned the house that if they gave Sir Robert

Peel the victory on this occasion, they would henceforth be wholly in

his power. Mr. P. Miles denied that the conspiracy existed of which the

right honourable baronet had spoken, and expressed his regret that he

intended to persevere with his bill: he should have thought he would

have been justified in paying due deference to the decision of a

majority of that house, and postponing his measure till another session.

Messrs. Cochrane and Labouchere opposed; and Sir Howard Douglas, and

Messrs. Kemble and Warburton expressed their intention to vote with

ministers. Mr. D’Israeli was not a little lost in wonder when he heard

the threatened resignation of ministers; and facetiously congratulated

the administration and the country, that instead of resigning, the right

honourable baronet had simply moved an amendment. Several other members

took part in the debate; and on a division Mr. Miles’s motion was

negatived this time by a majority of two hundred and fifty-five against

two hundred and thirty-three; after which Sir Robert Peel’s amendment,

that 24s. and 84s. should be inserted, was agreed to. In committee

further discussion occurred, and several amendments ‘were moved; but

they were all negatived and the bill finally passed the commons.

The principal debate in the house of lords took place on the 2nd of

July, when Lord Dalhousie moved the third reading. In his speech, the

noble lord showed the prejudicial effects of the emancipation of the

slaves in the West Indies on the supply of labour, and the consequent

diminished production of sugar. This diminution had increased the price;

and it became requisite to provide a supply from other quarters to

answer the increase of demands. It was for this purpose that the present

measure was introduced. By the act, which it was intended to supersede,

all foreign sugar was subjected to a duty of 63s. per cwt. and five per

cent.; and British sugar to a duty of only 24s., and five per cent. This

bill proposed to leave the duty on sugar, the produce of the British

possessions, as it then stood, namely, 24s. and five per cent.; but

it proposed to effect an important alteration with respect to foreign

sugar, by allowing the sugar of China, Java, and Manilla to be admitted

at a duty of 34s. and five per cent., such sugar being the produce of

free labour; and it also proposed to give to her majesty in council

a power to admit, under peculiar circumstances, sugar, the produce

of other countries with which we had reciprocal treaties, such

being-certified to be _bona fide_ the sugar of those countries, and

the produce of free labour. The bill was opposed by the Marquis of

Lansdowne, Earl St. Vincent, and Lord Monteagle; and supported by the

Earl of Radnor, and Lords Ashburton and Brougham. After a few words from

Earl Dalhousie, in reply, it was read a third time, and passed without a

division.

BANK CHARTER AND BANKING REGULATIONS.

In the speech at the opening of parliament, her majesty had alluded to

measures about to be brought forward for the regulation of the Bank of

England, and the administration of banking concerns in general. On the

6 th of May, in accordance with this announcement, the house having

resolved itself into a committee upon the Bank charter, Sir Robert Peel

explained these measures. The act of 1833, he said, had empowered the

government to notify to the Bank, before August, 1844, that parliament

meant to deal anew with the subject; and government now proposed

that parliament should exercise that power of notification. The right

honourable baronet went on to consider the principle of value. What, he

asked, was a pound, and what the engagement to pay a pound? He contended

that the word meant more than an abstraction—that it meant a certain

weight of precious metal; and the engagement of a maker of a promissory

note was to pay on demand a definite amount of that metal and fineness.

A real measure of value in this just sense had existed till the year

1797, when bank paper became issuable without being convertible into

metal. For some years the subject attracted little attention, until

the bullion committee of 1810 propounded a sounder theory. This theory,

however, was unsatisfactory to the people at large, and a notion became

general that a pound was merely an abstraction. Some writers had argued,

he continued, that gold was unfit to be a particular medium, because

it was an article of commerce. There were several theories upon this

subject. For instance, Mr. Ricardo conceived that paper should be

convertible only when the notes tendered for specie should reach to

upwards of a certain high amount; but he preferred, to adhere to

the present system of a single gold standard, and a five pound note

convertible into gold. The right honourable baronet next proceeded to

state his views respecting the principle for the regulation of a paper

currency, making a distinction between bills of exchange and those

promissory notes, which, being payable to bearer, served the direct

purposes of money. He next stated the outline of the practical measures

he was prepared to recommend. He remarked: “I propose, with respect to

the Bank of England, that there should be an actual separation of the

two departments of issue and banking—that there should be different

offices to each, and a different system of account. I likewise propose

that to the issue department should be transferred the whole amount

of bullion now in the possession of the Bank, and that the issue of

bank-notes should hereafter take place on two foundations: first, on a

definite amount of securities, and, after that, exclusively upon that of

bullion; so that the action of the public would, in this latter respect,

govern the amount of the circulation. There will be no power in the

Bank to issue notes on deposits and discount of bills; and the issue

department will have to place to the credit of the banking department

the amount of notes which the issue department by law will be entitled

to issue. With respect to the banking business of the Bank, I propose

that it should be governed on precisely the same principles as would

regulate any other body dealing with Bank of England notes. The fixed

amount of securities on which I propose that the Bank of England should

issue notes is £14,000,000; and the whole of the remainder of the

circulation is to be issued exclusively on the foundation of bullion.

I propose that there should be a complete and periodical publication

of the accounts of the Bank of England, both of the banking and issue

departments, as tending to increase the credit of the Bank, and to

prevent panic and needless alarm. I would, therefore, enact by law that

there should be returned to the government a weekly account of the

issue of notes by the Bank of England; of the amount of bullion; of

the fluctuations of the bullion; of the amount of the deposits; and, in

short, an account of every transaction, both in the issue department and

the banking department of the Bank of England; and that the government

should forthwith publish, unreservedly and weekly, a full account of the

circulation of the Bank.” Sir Robert Peel next explained the regulations

proposed by him for private banks. The general rule, he said, would be

to draw a distinction between the privilege of issue, and the conduct of

banking business: the object being to limit competition, but to make the

great change with as little detriment as possible to private interests.

From this time no new bank of issue would be constituted; but all those

existing would be allowed to retain the privilege, upon condition that

they do not exceed the present amount, to be calculated upon the average

of a term of years. This would enable the Bank of England to know the

extent of issue with which it would have to compete. While the issues

would be restricted, banking business would be facilitated; the

privilege of suing and being sued, at present withheld from joint-stock

banks, would be accorded; the law of partnership would be so altered,

that while the acts of an individual director, or otherwise authorized

partner, would bind the whole, the acts of an unauthorized partner would

not do so; and joint-stock banks in London, at present forbidden to

accept bills for a date of less than six months, would be placed on an

equality with other banks, and allowed to accept bills of any amount and

any date. If the last privilege were abused by the circulation of small

bills, he would then appeal to parliament to correct the evil. All

joint-stock banks would be required to publish a full and complete

periodical list of all partners and directors, and banks of issue to

publish an account of their issues. Joint-stock banks would also be

prohibited from having shares of less than £100, £50, or some fixed

amount; and no new joint-stock bank should be constituted except upon

application to a government department, on registration of prospectuses,

and probably registration of shares and paid-up capital. Reverting

to the proposition respecting the Bank of England, Sir Robert Peel

remarked:—“It is to be allowed issues to the extent of a fixed

amount of securities, £14,000,000. The existing loan of £11,000,000 to

government, at three per cent., will be continued, there appearing no

advantage in change.

“The remaining £3,000,000 will be based upon exchequer bills and other

securities, over which the Bank will have entire control; with

the power, however, of limiting its issues on that portion of the

securities, to restore the exchanges, and so forth: there could hardly

be a case in which the securities could safely be diminished to less

than £11,000,000. The Bank will also be allowed to extend its issues

beyond the £14,000,000 on emergency, but only with the assent of three

members of the government; and in such case the whole of the net profit

on any amount beyond the £14,000,000 will revert to government. A

case might arise such as the sudden extinction of £2,000,000 of the

provincial currency, which would need an extension of the Bank currency

to fill the gap. Without seeing any great advantage in the ‘legal

tender’ clause, it is proposed to continue it, in order to facilitate

the circulation of bank paper. The pecuniary arrangements between the

Bank and government have to be explained, The Bank retains the privilege

of issuing notes on securities to the amount of £14,000,000, at three

per cent., which would yield £420,000. From this there are deductions to

be made. The total cost of the Bank on an issue of £20,000,000, has been

estimated at £117,000; but take it at about £113,000, which, taken from

£420,000, leaves £307,000. There is then to be deducted about £60,000

composition with the Stamp-Office for the privilege of issuing notes.

Then there is about £24,000 paid by the Bank to those bankers who

undertake to issue Bank of England notes: taking-one per cent, on a

payment of three per cent. The result, after subtracting these items, is

£220,000 derived from the issuing of notes. Hitherto the Bank has paid

£120,000 to government for its privileges: its privileges are now to be

affected; but on the other hand increased stability is to be given to

its banking business; and I propose that in future the Bank should

still pay that sum, besides the £60,000 for the composition with the

Stamp-Office, making in all about £180,000. Government pay to the Bank

£240,000 for the management of the public debt; and the difference

between the two last sums would be the balance that government would

have to pay over to the Bank.” After stating that the present measure

would not be extended to Ireland and Scotland, Sir Robert Peel

concluded with moving a string of resolutions which embodied the above

propositions. His scheme met with general approbation; and on the 20th

of May, the house having gone into committee on the resolutions, Sir

Robert Peel made some further explanations upon points in the detail

of the measure. He would suppose, he said, that the circulation in

the country was £8,000,000; that the country banks would desire, by

agreement with the Bank of England, to reduce this by one-half; and that

it might become necessary for that establishment to make fresh issues in

order to supply the vacuum. The cases then in which he would allow the

Bank to do so, would be those of a country bank failing, or closing,

or commuting its own circulation for that of the Bank of England.

With respect to the question, whether the bullion on which the Bank of

England was to issue its notes should include silver, he proposed that

it should; but without departing from the great principle that there

must be but one standard, and that standard a gold one; all he meant

was, that if a party brought silver to the Bank, the Bank might, within

a certain limit, give its notes in exchange for it. If this were not

permitted, the Bank having no interest in keeping a supply of silver,

would probably cease to keep it; but it was important for the country

to have access to such a supply, not only for domestic circulation, but

with reference to foreign commerce. He proposed, therefore, to permit

an issue of notes upon silver bullion, in the proportion of one-fifth of

the whole, or one part in silver to four in gold. With respect to banks

of issue, he would save them their circulation until parliament should

make further order, and he would compute that circulation upon the

average of its amount from the 6th May, 1842, to the 6th May, 1844,

requiring henceforth a weekly publication of it. Where one bank took

the business of another, the benefit of the averages of the extinguished

bank should be given in the circulation of the surviving bank. If a bank

should increase its branches, it would not be allowed to increase

its total issues. If private banks should coalesce, the consolidated

concern, being still a private bank, should be permitted to retain the

benefit of the circulation of all the component banks, but a change

of character would not be permitted: joint-stock banks would not be

authorized to buy up the circulation of private banks. Sir Robert Peel

next explained the way in which he intended that the new plan should

operate with respect to those banks which had been issuing Bank of

England notes, and announced that the Bank of England was prepared to

enter into negociations with other banks for arrangements under which

its notes should be circulated by them. He concluded by adverting to

some exceptions which had been taken to some parts of his measure,

in doing which he showed that they were founded upon safe and just

principles. After a brief discussion, the resolutions were passed, and

the second reading of the bill founded upon them was moved on the 13th

of June. Mr. Hawes moved as an amendment:—“That no sufficient evidence

has been laid before the house to justify the proposed interference with

banks of issue in the management of their circulation.” This motion

was supported by Messrs. Hastie, Woolehouse, C. Buller, Gisborne, and

Williams; and opposed by the chancellor of the exchequer, Sirs R.

Peel and W. Clay, and Messrs. Hume and Warburton. On a division it was

negatived by a majority of one hundred and eighty-five against thirty;

and after some further discussions in committee, in which some members

attempted to introduce modifications in the bill, all the original

propositions were carried, and, with the exception of a small section,

with the general concurrence of the house. In the house of lords it

received very little discussion. The first and second readings passed

_sub silentio_; and it went through committee without any division: the

Earl of Radnor and Lord Ashburton only expressing fears of its practical

working.

DISSENTERS’ CHAPELS BILL.

During this session a bill was brought into the house of lords by the

lord-chancellor for confirming the possession of religious endowments in

the hands of dissenters, and arresting such litigation as had recently

taken place in the case of Lady Hewley’s charities, which were endowed

by her for Calvinistic Independents, but which had gradually passed

to the Unitarians, whose occupancy was successfully opposed. The

lord-chancellor’s bill proposed to terminate all further legal

controversy respecting the right to voluntary endowments connected with

dissenting chapels, by vesting the property in the religious body in

whose hands it had been for twenty years. The bill was opposed in

the house of lords by the Bishops of London and Exeter, the Earl of

Winchilsea, and Lords Kenyon, Teynham, and Mountcashel; but it was

carried by a large majority. Before it came under discussion in the

house of commons a vigorous opposition was manifested against it,

especially by the Trinitarian dissenters. Public meetings were held,

and petitions were sent up from all quarters against the obnoxious

proposition. Under these circumstances, on the 6th of June, when the

second reading of the bill was moved, the attorney-general explained its

objects, which, he said, had been misunderstood. The alarm which this

bill had created, namely, that it would have the effect of encouraging

Unitarian doctrines, he contended was wholly unfounded. An act had been

passed in 1813, legalizing the foundation of schools and chapels for

the benefit of the Unitarians, and placing them upon the same footing

as other Protestant dissenters. The question then arose respecting

foundations which might have been made before 1813, when the Unitarians

were excepted out of the Toleration Act: namely, would they or ought

they to take from that body, which was now legal, and could legally

endow chapels, that which they possessed, because it was given them

before the year 1813? The first clause of the bill put not only

Unitarians, but all Protestant dissenters on the same footing; it

rendered the toleration act retrospective. The second clause, he

continued, related to dissenting chapels only; not to general charitable

foundations. By the present law, the will of the donor must be binding;

but it was not to be assumed, in the case of every religious charity,

that it was founded for a particular sect, even though the donor held

the doctrine of that sect. It was said, that the bill would encourage

trustees to violate their trusts, and hand over the property for

purposes not intended by the donor. It could do no such thing.

Dissenting chapels were thus founded:—Congregations of dissenters

wishing to establish places of meeting and chapels for worship, formed

together voluntary associations, which associations subscribed funds,

purchased the land, and built the chapels. In the first instance these

chapels were vested in trustees; but he was told that so little had the

trustees to do with the arrangement or control of these chapels, that

in the great majority of cases when the original trustees died, no

fresh ones were appointed to succeed them: the congregation relying upon

possession. In this country every question of private right was decided

upon usage; twenty or thirty years’ possession prevailed against both

the crown and the church. Why then should it not be applied to the

property in dissenters’ chapels? He was told that the consequence might

be, that property now possessed by Presbyterians or other dissenters

would in the lapse of time fall into the hands of the Unitarians. How

could it be so? By the bill the usage must be that of the congregation.

Notwithstanding this explanation, the bill was strenuously opposed in

the commons by Sir Kobert Inglis, who moved that it should be read a

second time that day six months, and by other members of the house, who

looked upon it as outraging and insulting the Christian feeling of the

country. On a division the amendment of Sir Robert Inglis was negatived

by a majority of three hundred and seven against one hundred and seven.

The house then went into committee on the bill, and having made some

unimportant amendments to it; it passed and was sent up to the lords,

where it again became the subject of discussion. It was opposed in its

progress by the Bishop of London, who moved “that the amendments be

taken into consideration that day three months,” but this was negatived

by two hundred and two against forty-one, and the bill then passed.

SEES OF BANGOR AND ST. ASAPH.

During this session the Earl of Powis renewed his proposition for

repealing so much of the act of the 6th and 7th William IV. as related

to the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor. In Ins speech the

noble lord laid great stress on the numerous petitions from every county

in North Wales, and from many in South Wales and England, as testifying

the unanimous feeling pervading the clergy throughout both countries

and all classes in Wales against the suppression of one of those ancient

bishoprics. On its second reading, the measure was opposed by the Duke

of Wellington and the Archbishop of Canterbury; and supported by the

Bishops of St. Davids, Lincoln, Exeter, London, and Salisbury, and the

Earls of Winchilsea and Harrowby. On a division, it was carried by

a majority of forty-nine against thirty-seven; but though the second

reading was thus carried, a difficulty arose in another quarter, which

frustrated the endeavours of the friends of North Wales to preserve the

integrity of its episcopate. On the motion for its third reading, the

Duke of Wellington announced that the bill was one which touched the

prerogative of the crown, and that he was not authorized to give her

majesty’s consent to its further progress. The manner in which the

question of the crown’s prerogative arose in this case was explained by

the lord-chancellor. His lordship remarked, that during the vacancy of

a see, the temporalities belonged to the crown; and any alterations in a

see, therefore, affected the pecuniary interests of the crown; and there

could be no doubt that where the pecuniary interests of the crown

were concerned, its consent was necessary. He doubted whether he was

authorized in putting a question affecting the royal prerogative without

the consent of her majesty; and he suggested the appointment of a

committee to search for precedents. A committee was appointed, and under

these circumstances Lord Powis announced his determination to withdraw

the bill, stating at the same time his conviction that the matter would

not rest where it was. He believed that during the whole period the

house of Hanover had been on the throne there was no precedent to be

found to sanction the present course adopted by government. There was

no measure that parliament had expressed a wish for them to consider,

in which the crown had introduced its authority to prevent the further

consideration of that measure.

MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES OF THE SESSION.

In the course of the session there were several acts passed of great

utility without any prominent discussion. One of the most important of

these was an act for the regulation of railways, which was brought in

by Mr. Gladstone, and which embodied a variety of enactments designed

to protect the public against the injurious effects of monopoly and

combination, by vesting in the government a controlling power over such

companies as should thereafter come to solicit powers from parliament,

and a right of intervention for the reduction of charges and tolls

whenever the profits of a railway should exceed the maximum of ten per

cent, on its capital. The act also contained salutary regulations

for securing economy and comfort in travelling to the poorer classes.

Another act passed contained provisions of practical importance for the

regulation of joint-stock companies. The main object of this measure

was to protect the public against fictitious and delusive schemes,

by requiring from all joint-stock companies the observance of certain

conditions for the purpose of ascertaining their real character, and

subjecting them to an efficient responsibility. There was to be a system

of registration under a proper superintendence, whereby the names and

descriptions of the projectors, and the particular nature and objects

of the undertaking were required to be enrolled at an office established

for that purpose. Upon compliance with these regulations, certain

privileges were to be accorded to the company, and some anomalies and

inconveniences heretofore existing removed. Reports were also to be

made annually to parliament by an officer to be appointed under the act,

relating to such companies as should have come within its provisions

during the year. A third Act remodelled the entire system of

turnpike-road management in South Wales, the abuses of which had given

rise to the Rebecca riots. The leading principle of this measure was the

consolidation of trusts, the debts of those existing being paid off by a

system of arbitration, to be conducted by three commissioners appointed

by government; the money required for this purpose being lent by

the treasury, and secured on the rates of the several counties. The

consolidation having been effected, all the roads in each county were

to be administered by a now executive body, consisting partly of

_ex-officio_ members, partly of magistrates, and partly of ratepayers.

A further alteration was made this session in the original poor-law

amendment act, the principal feature of which was an alteration in

the enactments of the statute of 1835, relating to the maintenance of

illegitimate children. By this alteration, a more efficient mode of

obtaining from the father a provision for his child’s maintenance was

placed in the power of the mother, by means of a proceeding in which

she herself was entitled to make the application, and not, as under the

original law, the officers of the parish: more stringent remedies were

also substituted for enforcing the remedy against the putative father

than had before existed. Towards the close of the session, repeated

discussions of an animated nature took place in both houses of

parliament, on the subject of a petition which was presented by Mr.

Thomas Duncombe, from Serafino Calderara, Joseph Mazzini, W. J. Linton,

and William Lovett, complaining that their letters had been opened at

the post-office. Mr. Duncombe, in the commons, and the Earl of Radnor

in the lords, moved for committees of inquiry, which were ultimately

appointed; and these committees made their reports during the session;

from which reports it appeared that the warrants of the secretary of

state had only been issued in peculiar emergencies; and that the cases

in which his power had been exercised formed a small annual average,

and did not amount to an invasion of private correspondence, which the

assailants of government had represented. No other result arose out of

the conflicts upon this subject than a bill introduced by Lord Radnor,

in the house of lords, for the abolition of the power complained of; but

this bill did not proceed beyond the first reading.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.

Parliament was prorogued by commission on the 5th of September. The

speech announced that her majesty had given her cordial assent to

the bill for regulating the issue of bank-notes; adverted to some

discussions which had taken place with the government of the king of the

French on events calculated to interrupt the friendly relations of the

two countries, but which danger had been averted; congratulated the

houses on the improvement which had taken place in the condition of

manufactures and commerce; and expressed high satisfaction at the spirit

of loyalty and cheerful obedience to the law manifested in all parts of

her majesty’s kingdom. The commissioners concluded:—“We are commanded

by her majesty to assure you that when you shall be called upon to

resume the discharge of your parliamentary functions, you may place

entire reliance on the cordial co-operation of her majesty in your

endeavours to improve the social condition and to promote the happiness

and contentment of her people.” Thus ended this important session—a

session signalized in the addition to the statute-book of severed

important measures, conceived in a safe and judicious spirit of reform,

well suited to the circumstances of the country and to the temper of the

age.

THE STATE OF INDIA.

The event of chief interest connected with the present year was the

recall of Lord Ellenborough, the governor-general, by the unanimous vote

of the court of directors. This subject, as noticed in a previous page,

gave rise to discussion in both houses of parliament. What were the real

motives of the directors of the East India Company in exercising their

right of recalling a governor-general, which from non-use had almost

become obsolete, and in thus acting in direct opposition to the views

and wishes of her majesty’s government have never been fully developed;

and the public have therefore been driven to conjecture on the subject.

The most probable opinion, perhaps, may be, that the directors were

offended at his evident mania for military achievements. Throughout the

whole of his administration he showed his desire of conquest; and

even when he left India he did not scruple to say, at a farewell

entertainment given him by the military society of Calcutta, that the

only regret he felt in leaving India was that of being separated from

the army; and that the most interesting period of his life was that

which he had passed in cantonments and camps. Another cause of offence

may have been derived from his proclamations, which were offensive to

good taste, and which justly exposed him to ridicule. His behaviour

towards the directors also was by no means judicious; for, although he

had bound himself to attend exclusively to their orders, he was by no

means an obedient servant. But whatever may have been the directors’

motives, Lord Ellenborough was recalled from his government, and Sir

Henry Hardinge was, at the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, appointed his

successor; and he arrived in India in the month of July.

In Scinde nothing of importance occurred this year. The worst foe which

the British had to encounter there was the climate, owing to which a

distressing sickness prevailed among the troops. In consequence of this

several Bengal native regiments were ordered to march on Scinde; and,

although they at first refused to march, from an impression that they

were destined for foreign service, they finally marched thither, with

the exception of the thirty-fourth native infantry; and that regiment

was ignominiously broken at Meerut, in presence of all the troops at the

station.

During this year a governor-general was appointed over our recent

acquisitions in China, in the person of Mr. Davies, well-known for his

admirable work on China, and who had resided many years at Macao, as

chief superintendent under the East India Company. Mr. Davies arrived on

the 7th of May at Hong Kong, the seat of the new government; and, at the

end of July, Sir Henry Pottinger, whose mission to that empire had been

attended with such complete success, sailed for England.

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. O’CONNELL.

It has been seen in the last chapter that the trial of Mr. O’Connell

and his associates for a seditious conspiracy was postponed till the

commencement of the present year. It was intended that the trial should

commence on the 15th of January; and, although the defendant sought to

obtain a postponement of it till the 1st of February, this intention

was carried out. On that day the Court of Queen’s Bench was crowded

with barristers and spectators, in the expectation that the trial would

commence. Before the jury were sworn, however, Sir Coleman O’Loghlen,

on the part of Mr. O’Connell, challenged the array, on the ground of the

irregularities in the preparation of the jury lists, stating at the same

time that the challenges of the other counsellors, or traversers,

as they were called, because they had traversed the indictment,

were identically the same, and would be handed in very shortly. The

attorney-general demurred to the challenge; on which the question

previously debated was re-argued. The judges, however allowed the

demurrer; and then the court adjourned without swearing the jury. On

the 16th, after some delay, twelve jurymen were sworn, when Mr. Napier

opened the pleadings; after which Mr. Smith, the attorney-general,

opened the case. The court adjourned at five o’clock; and next day the

hearing of evidence commenced, which continued up to the 11th day of the

trial, January 26th, on which day the case for the prosecution closed.

On the next day Mr. Shiel opened the case for the defence, as counsel

for himself and Mr. John O’Connell. In his speech he contended that Mr.

O’Connell shrank with abhorrence from the sanguinary aims imputed to

him; and bitterly complained that poems and articles in newspapers

should be brought as evidence against him, as if he were the editor of

the several journals from which that evidence had been collected. It was

like making, he said, Mr. Cobden answerable for all that appeared in the

_Chronicle_, or the _Globe_, or the _Sun_: he was accused, in fact, of

conspiracy with men who, so far from conspiring together, were rivals.

“They pay their addresses to the same mistress; but they cordially

detest each other.” How formidable, then, was this doctrine of legal

conspiracy! In 1819, when England was in a perilous condition, it was

proved that men were drilled by night near Manchester; yet an English

jury would not find Henry Hunt guilty of conspiracy. Mr. Shiel next

undertook to show that his clients’ objects were legal, and sought by

legal means; and concluded with an impassioned address to the jury on

behalf of Mr. O’Connell and all the traversers. He asked:—“Shall I,

who stretch out to you in behalf of the son the hand whose fetters the

father had struck off, live to cast my eyes upon that domicile of sorrow

in the vicinity of this great metropolis, and say, ’Tis there they

have immured the liberator of Ireland with his fondest and best beloved

child. No; it shall never be! You will not consign him to the spot to

which the attorney-general invites you to surrender him. No! When the

spring shall have come again, and the winter shall have passed—when

the spring shall have come again, it is not through the windows of this

mansion that the father of such a son, and the son of such a father,

shall look upon those green hills on which the eyes of so many a captive

have gazed so wistfully in vain; but in their own mountain home again

they shall listen to the murmurs of the great Atlantic; they shall go

forth, and inhale the freshness of the morning air together; ‘they

shall be free of mountain solitude;’ they will be encompassed with

the loftiest images of liberty upon every side; and if time shall have

stolen its suppleness from the father’s knee, or impaired the firmness

of his tread, he shall lean on the child of her that watches over him

from heaven, and shall look out from some high place, far and wide, into

the island whose greatness and whose glory shall be ever associated with

his name. In your love of justice; in your love of Ireland; in your

love of honesty and fair play, I place my confidence. I ask you for an

acquittal, not only for the sake of your country, but for your own. Upon

the day when this trial shall have been brought to a termination;

when, amidst the burst of public expectancy, in answer to the solemn

interrogatory which shall be put to you by the officer of the court, you

shall answer, ‘Not guilty,’ with what a transport shall that glorious

negative be welcomed! How will you be blessed, adored, worshipped! And

when retiring from the scene of excitement and of passion, you shall

return to your own tranquil homes, how pleasurably will you look upon

your children, in the consciousness that you will have left them a

patrimony of peace, by impressing upon the British cabinet that

some other measure beside a state prosecution is necessary for the

pacification of your country.” On the thirteenth day Mr. Moore addressed

the jury on behalf of the Reverend Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Hatchell for Mr.

Ray. On the fourteenth day Mr. Fitzgibbon spoke on behalf of Dr.

Gray, his address occupying two days. In the course of his address an

extraordinary scene took place, in consequence of a challenge which the

attorney-general had sent to Mr. Fitzgibbon to fight a duel. Of this

circumstance Mr. Fitzgibbon took every advantage. After handing the note

to the judges which contained the challenge, he said that he left him

to their lordships to answer for his conduct. Mutual recriminations

and explanations followed; but the matter resulted in Mr. Smith’s

withdrawing the note, which was allowed by the consent of all parties.

On the four following days, Messrs. Fitzgibbon, Whiteside, M’Donnah,

and Henn, successively addressed the court for different clients. On the

nineteenth day, Mr. O’Connell commenced his defence. He began by showing

that he had a right to demand from the jury a favourable verdict; after

which he came to the consideration of the case itself; in doing which he

retraced, with more or less of variety, arguments already employed. In

referring to the indictment, he said that it was the history of the last

nine months; and that he defied the most brilliant imagination to grasp

the monstrous accumulation of matter. Its entire strength rested on the

meaning of that cabalistic word, “conspiracy.” He continued:—“If, my

lords, I look into the dictionary for the meaning of that word, I find

that it is ‘a secret agreement between several to commit a crime;’ and

that is the rational, common-sense definition of it. This word,

however, in recent times, has been taken under special protection by the

government; and the definition of it now is, not only a secret agreement

between several to commit crime, but they have taken two loops to their

bow, and the further depiction given of it is, to effect, or

attempt to effect, a legal object by means that are considered illegal;

and thus a conspiracy is spelt out by the construction put upon the

means that are used to attain the object sought, however legitimate that

object may be. It has been admitted even by the crown, that in this case

there is no privacy, no secresy, no definite agreement to do anything

whatsoever; but, above all, no secret agreement, no secret society, no

private information. It has been admitted by the crown that there has

not been even one act of private communication; that everything was

openly avowed, published to the world; that this ‘secret conspiracy’

had no secrecy at all. What a monstrous thing it would be to hold that

that was a conspiracy which everybody knew of, everybody heard of, and

three-fifths of the people of this country were engaged in. And what

was the evidence of those conspirators assembling together? That Mr.

Such-a-one attended at such a meeting; that Mr. Barret attended at a

certain meeting; and that Mr. Duffy attended once or twice; that I.

myself attended; and this is the way the charge of conspiracy is to

be spelt out. Is it common sense that that should be denominated a

conspiracy? Conspiracy! where was it made? when was it made? how was it

made? Was it made in winter, or in summer? in spring or in autumn? Was

it made on a holiday, or on a Sunday, or on a week day? Tell me the

hour, the week, the month, the year it was made? In which of the three

quarters of the twelve months did the gestation of this conspiracy

commence? Who proposed it? Who seconded it? Who was present at it? I

don’t know whether it was said that I was present at the concoction of

this conspiracy, or this agreement, private or public, or who else was

there. When and where did it take place? Ought I not, at all events, to

have the advantage of being-able to prove an alibi? No; but you must go

over nine months, and toss up which time or place you may select. Do you

not believe that if there was a conspiracy it would be proved, and that

the only reason it was not proved, is, because it did not exist? The

attorney-general told you it did exist; that it must have existed: but

that is all imaginary; and you are called upon to find me ‘guilty’ if

you imagine that this agreement was entered into. I don’t want to speak

of the talents of the attorney-general. I admit the ingenuity, the

talent, and the industry with which he conducted this case. He was

eleven hours, eleven mortal hours detailing the facts to you. What did

he tell you the conspiracy consisted of? He made a long statement, and

when he came to the end, he told you to go back to the beginning, find

out the conspiracy, and what it consisted of. I say, gentlemen of the

jury, without tire least affectation, if any gentleman could have

found out evidence of a conspiracy, it would have been found by the

attorney-general.” Mr. O’Connell proceeded at great length to defend the

means of his agitation, and then proceeded to vindicate its object—the

repeal of the union. On the latter subject he remarked:—“I mean first

to demonstrate that the English Parliament has, from the remotest

period at which she possessed the power, governed Ireland with a narrow,

jealous, restrictive, and oppressive policy. By way of parenthesis,

I would first beg of you to recollect the history of the woollen

manufactures of Ireland, in the reign of a monarch whom you are not

disposed to condemn. I shall next demonstrate in succession, that the

transactions of 1782 were intended to be a final adjustment, and that

it was then intended and agreed that the Irish parliament, after having

achieved its independence, should maintain it, and that the union was

forced upon the Irish people against their consent, by the most criminal

means. I shall next show you in detail the many evils that resulted from

the union, and the gross injustice of the enactment of that statute. I

shall show you the increasing distress and destitution which have

arisen from that statute; and that there is no probability of restoring

prosperity to this country, or of avoiding ultimate separation from

England, save by the restoration of her parliament.” In support of these

propositions, Mr. O’Connell read extracts from the writings and speeches

of various statesmen, both native and foreign. In conclusion he said to

the jury:—“I leave the case in your hands. I deny I have done anything

to stain me. I reject with contempt the appellation of conspirator. I

have acted boldly, in the open day, in the presence of the magistracy:

there lias been nothing secret or concealed. I have struggled for

the restoration of the parliament of my native country. Others have

succeeded before me; but, succeed or fail, it is a struggle to make the

fairest land in the world possess those benefits which nature intended

she should enjoy.” On the next day some evidence was gone into on behalf

of the defendants, in the course of which it was proved that on the 16th

of July, when an arch was erected bearing the inscription, “Ireland,

her parliament, or the world in a blaze,” Mr. O’Connell expressed

disapprobation of it, and Mr. Steele stood by to see that it was taken

down before the people were fully assembled. The next two days were

chiefly occupied by the solicitor-general’s reply, which recapitulated

the principal points of the evidence, and stated its bearings upon the

different charges laid in the indictment. After he had concluded,

the lord-chief-justice commenced the charge: in doing which he first

explained the nature of the indictment, and of the single offence with

which the traversers were charged, “conspiracy;” then explained the law

of public discussion and public meeting; next proceeded to consider

the evidence that had been given; then commented on the large funds

collected in Ireland, England, Scotland, and America, towards the

“exchequer” of the association; and finally, alluding to the scheme

for bringing into disrepute the courts of justice as established by law

through the arbitration courts, showed in what maimer the conspiracy

was to be inferred. He asked:—“Have you or have you not Dr. Gray coming

forward and telling the assembled multitude that the time was coming

when they would be taken out of the hands of those petty tyrants who at

present preside in their courts of justice? Have you or have you not Mr.

O’Coimell himself adverting to the same system at the Clifden and other

subsequent meetings; recommending the appointment of arbitration courts,

and the placing thereon the magistrates who had been dismissed? And have

you or have you not Mr. John O’Coimell making a speech recommending the

same systems, and appearing himself to act under the appointment of the

repeal association, in presiding over an arbitration court established

in Blackrock?” The jury retired about half-past seven o’clock, and the

judges withdrew. Later in the evening, Mr. Justice Crampton returned,

and remained in court to await the return of the jury. They brought in

a verdict of “guilty” against all the traversers on various counts; but

stated “no finding” upon others, deeming them too comprehensive. This

verdict was handed back by Mr. Justice Crampton, saying, that it was

imperfect: they must find a verdict of “guilty” or “not guilty” upon

every part and every person. Finally, they were ordered to be locked

up till Monday, on which day they were summoned, and an issue paper was

given them, which set forth the five several issues in the indictment

in a distinct shape, against which they were directed to write their

finding. This was done, and all the prisoners were found guilty on one

or other of the counts, and some of them, including Mr. O’Coimell,

on them all, Sentence was pronounced on the 30th of May against the

traversers, with the exception of the Reverend Mr. Tierney, against whom

the attorney-general did not press judgment, by Mr. Justice Burton in

these terms:—“With respect to the principal traverser, the court is

of opinion that he must be sentenced to be imprisoned for the space of

twelve calendar months; and that he is further to be fined in the sum of

£2000, and bound in his own recognizances in the sum of £5000, and two

sureties in £2500, to keep the peace for seven years. With respect to

the other traversers, we have come to the conclusion that to each shall

be allotted the same sentence: which is, that they be imprisoned for the

space of nine calendar months, each of them to pay £50 fine, and enter

into their own recognizances of £1000, and two sureties of £500, to

keep the peace for seven years.” In accordance with this sentence the

traversers were imprisoned: but in consequence of the sympathy, real

or supposed, which they met with in the English parliament, their full

sentence was not carried into execution. On the 9th of August, Messrs.

Shiel, Wyse, Lord John Russell, and others, called upon government to

release them from imprisonment; and the result of this appeal was,

that on the 4th of September, the judgment of the house of lords

was pronounced, reversing the judgment of Mr. O’Connell and his

co-defendants. The prisoners were freed from confinement; but the result

of the trial was, that the virulence of the agitation for repeal abated.

CONTINENTAL AFFAIRS.

France this year was engaged in a war with the Emperor of Morocco, over

whose forces the French troops triumphed on the banks of the river Isly

on the 14th of August. The result of this battle was a treaty between

the two countries, in which the Emperor of Morocco engaged to prevent

troops from assembling on his frontiers for the invasion of Algeria.

During the autumn, Louis Philippe and the Emperor of Russia paid a visit

to Queen Victoria, and stayed a few days in England, where they were

treated with all due honours. In Spain the civil war which had so long

convulsed the nation was ended; but it was succeeded by a state of

doubtful tranquillity, and isolated insurrections broke out in various

parts of the country, which were only put down by force of arms. The

same fate awaited Portugal: there was a revolt of troops at Torres

Novas, headed by Count Bomfin; but the rebels having shut themselves up

in Almeida, that place was invested with government troops, and finally

surrendered, the leader of the insurrection taking refuge in flight.

In Greece the most important event was the framing of a constitutional

charter by the National Assembly, consisting of one hundred and seven

articles, which was signed and ratified, after some hesitation, by

King Otho. During this year the King of Prussia narrowly escaped

assassination at Ischl by the Burgomaster Tschech, who fired two shots

from a double-barrelled pistol in quick succession against the carriage.

In the early part of the year a conference took place at Vienna of

plenipotentiaries from the different German states to frame measures to

secure themselves by all the means in their power against the slightest

change in the existing order of things, which at this time were

threatened by a formidable parly, in the different states hostile to all

authority. In Sweden this j’ear witnessed the death of Bernadotte,

the king of that country, the most permanently successful of all the

generals who took part in the French revolution. Although of obscure

birth and a foreigner, he was called upon to wear the crown of Sweden

by the unanimous voice of the nation; and he so identified himself with

their interests, that he reigned in peace and died universally beloved

by his subjects. In Switzerland disturbances took place this year in the

Valais and at Lucerne: but order and tranquillity were quickly restored

by the federal troops of that country.

CHAPTER LVI.

{VICTORIA. 1845–1846}

Meeting of Parliament..... Finance and Commercial

Policy..... Retention of the Income Tax, &c. The Sugar

Duties Question..... Corn Laws and Free Trade..... The

Affairs of Ireland..... Maynooth Improvement Bill, &c.

Academical Education in Ireland..... Colonial Policy.....

Question of the Oregon Territory..... Miscellaneous

Measures of the Session..... Prorogation of

Parliament..... The Affairs of India..... The State of the

Continent.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1845}

Parliament was opened by the queen in person on the 4th of February. The

speech first referred to the prosperous state of trade and commerce; to

the royal visits made to her majesty by the Emperor of Russia and the

King of France; to the estimates for the ensuing year; and to the peace

which at this time prevailed in Ireland. Her majesty continued:—“I

recommend to your favourable consideration the policy of improving and

extending the opportunities of academical education in Ireland. The

report of the commission appointed to inquire into the law and practice

in respect to the occupation of land is nearly prepared, and shall be

communicated to you immediately after its presentation. The state of

the law in regard to the privileges of the Bank of Ireland, and to other

banking establishments in that country, and in Scotland, will no doubt

occupy your attention. The health of the inhabitants of large towns

and populous districts in this part of the United Kingdom has been the

subject of recent inquiry before a commission, the report of which shall

be immediately kid before you. It will be highly gratifying to me if the

information and suggestions contained in that report shall enable you

to devise the means of promoting the health and comfort of the poorer

classes of my subjects. I congratulate you on the success of the

measures which three years since were adopted by parliament for the

purpose of supplying the deficiency in the public revenue, and arresting

the accumulation of debt in the time of peace. The act which was passed

at that time for imposing a tax upon income will shortly expire. It will

be for you to determine whether it may not be expedient to continue

its operation for a further period, and thus to obtain the means of

adequately providing for the public service, and at the same time of

making a reduction in other taxations. Whatever may be the result of

your deliberations in this respect, I feel assured that it will be your

determination to maintain an amount of revenue amply sufficient to meet

the necessary expenditure of the country, and firmly to uphold that

public credit which is indispensable to the national welfare. The

prospect of continued peace, and the general state of domestic

prosperity and tranquillity, afford a favourable opportunity for the

consideration of the matters to which I have directed your attention;

and I commit them to your deliberation, with the earnest prayer that you

may be enabled, under the superintending care and protection of Divine

Providence, to strengthen the feelings of mutual confidence and goodwill

between different classes of my subjects, and to improve the condition

of my people.”

FINANCIAL AND COMMERCIAL POLICY—RETENTION OF THE INCOME-TAX, ETC.

The great scheme of commercial reform alluded to in her majesty’s speech

at the opening of the session was brought forward by Sir Robert Peel,

in a committee of ways and means, on the 14th of February. The right

honourable baronet commenced by saying that though he had considerable

experience in the discharge of official duties, and though he had often

addressed the house on matters of great public concern, he could not

approach the subject on which he had then to address the committee

without great anxiety, and a deep consciousness how inadequate and

imperfect the explanation would be which he should endeavour to place

before it. After the declaration made in her majesty’s speech, that

it was the intention of ministers to propose the continuance of the

income-tax for a certain number of years; he had no other alternative

than to submit to the house the general views which the government took

of the financial condition and the commercial policy of the country. In

explaining their views, after referring to the estimate of the probable

revenue and expenditure made by the chancellor of the exchequer in

April, 1844, and, after showing that the surplus revenue, on which

he had calculated for the whole year had been greatly exceeded by

the actual amount of revenue received on the 5th of January, 1845,

he proceeded to estimate the surplus revenue which would be in the

exchequer on the 5th of April in the present year, at a sum not less

than £5,000,000. He next submitted to the house an estimate of the

probable receipt of the revenue for the year ending the 5th of

April, 1846, on the assumption that the house would not sanction the

income-tax. He calculated that the receipts up to that period would be

£51,000,000, and the expenditure £48,557,000; but if they deducted from

this surplus the revenue derived from half a year’s income-tax, which

would become due in the interim, and from the payment of the instalment

from China, there would then be a small deficiency in the revenue as

compared with the expenditure of the year. The question then arose,

whether ministers were justified in demanding, under such circumstances,

an increased expenditure on account of the public service. He was

satisfied that they were justified. He did not propose an increase

in the army, but he could not consent to its diminution. The military

estimate for the present year would be £6,600,000; and there were

reasons which induced him to propose an increased estimate for the navy;

namely, the growing necessity for a further protection to our commerce

in every part of the globe, and in the establishment of three new naval

stations—one on the coast of Africa, another in the Pacific, and

a third in the Chinese seas. He should propose an increase of four

thousand men, which would cost £184,000; and in respect of the vote for

the navy, and tire ordnance connected with the navy, there would be in

the votes of this year an increase of nearly one million. He thought the

revenues of the next year would meet this increased expenditure, even

if the house would not consent to continue the income-tax. It was quite

clear, however, that if it did not continue the income tax, there would

be a decrease of revenue in the following year. The question, therefore,

which he must put to the committee was, whether they would run the risk

of deficiency by making no provision to meet it, or whether they would

postpone the consideration of the deficiency till the year 1846. But

ministers were induced to propose the continuance of the property-tax

for a further period. If the committee sanctioned it, the revenue on

the 5th of April, 1846, would amount to £53,700,000; and so long as the

other sources of revenue were productive, might be calculated at that

sum, deducting only a sum of £600,000 from China, which would only

be receivable for one year more. He would take the amount then at

£53,100,000, and deducting £49,000,000, the estimated expenditure, from

that sum there would be a net surplus of £4,100,000, or if the committee

acquiesced in the increased naval estimates, £3,409,000. Sir Robert Peel

next approached the most important question of all; namely, the mode in

which this surplus was to be applied to the relief of taxation. If

the property-tax were continued, ministers intended to make a great

experiment with respect to taxation; and in explaining their views Sir

Robert Peel said that he would first take the customs, and submit to

the house a proposition with respect to the duty on sugar. On brown

Muscovado sugar, which now paid a duty of 25s. 3d., he proposed to

reduce the duty to 14s.; on free-labour sugar he proposed that the

protecting duty should not exceed 9s. 4d., and therefore the duty would

be 23s. 2d.; on British plantation sugars he proposed that the duty

should be 16s. 4d., instead of 25s. 3d.; that the duty on sugar imported

from India should be 21s. 9d.; and that the duty on free-labour

foreign sugar should be 21s. 9d.—thus retaining the whole amount of

discriminating duty which was imposed last year, but applying that

discriminating duty in a different manner; giving 9s. 4d. as a

protection on Muscovado sugar, and an increased protection of lis. 4d.

on the more valuable and costly article. Sir Robert Peel said that he

proposed to reduce the duty on molasses; and after giving an estimate

of the supply of sugar which he considered likely to come from our

possessions this year, stated that the effect which would be produced on

the price of sugar by this reduction in the duty would be a reduction of

three halfpence per pound. The estimated loss to the revenue from this

source would be £1,300,000. Sir Robert Peel next proceeded to state

that in the tariff of 1842 he had abolished generally the duty on all

exports, with the exception of some few articles: he now proposed to

abolish the duty on all articles. By this plan the export duty on coal

would cease to exist, which would be a loss to the revenue of £120,000.

He next proceeded to a consideration of the duties on raw materials used

in manufactures: the tariff included eight hundred and thirteen such

articles, and he proposed to remove the duties applicable to four

hundred and thirty of them; which would occasion a loss to the revenue

of about £320,000. He next stated that he was prepared to abolish the

duty on cotton-wool, which would cause a loss to the revenue of not

less than £680,000. These were all the alterations he proposed in

the customs; and the right honourable baronet next proceeded to the

excise-duties. Among the duties which he proposed to to repeal was the

auction-duty on the transfer of property. He likewise proposed that

auctioneers, instead of taking out several licences, at an expense of

five pounds each, for selling different articles, should take out one

general licence only, at fifteen pounds each; and as the number of

auctioneers was 4000, this would produce a revenue of £60,000. Sir

Robert Peel next stated that he proposed to relieve the article of glass

from all duty, the loss of revenue arising from which would be £642,000.

This was the whole of the articles, he said, on which he proposed a

remission of taxation; and the total immediate loss which the revenue

would sustain by their repeal or abolition, would amount to £3,338,000,

which would nearly absorb the surplus of £3,409,000. He confessed that

this was a bold experiment; but, responsible as he was to parliament

for its success, he was not afraid to ran the risk of making it. He

then proposed to the committee to continue the income-tax for a further

limited period of three years; because he had a confident persuasion

that the reduction in the price of articles of great importance would

be, if not a complete, yet a great compensation for its burden. He would

not say that it might not be wiser to give a longer time than three

years for testing this experiment; but he thought that parliament ought

to have a control over the duration of such a tax. Sir Robert Peel

concluded by expressing a hope that the house would be prepared to

decide on the principle of his resolutions on the following Monday, the

17th, and after several members had made some brief remarks on isolated

parts of the plan, most of them expressive of satisfaction with it, he

moved that the chairman report progress; and gave notice that on

the following Monday he would move—“That it is the opinion of the

committee, that, towards raising the supply to her majesty, the

respective duties on property, professions, trades, and offices, and the

stamp duties in Ireland, granted by two several acts passed in the fifth

year of her present majesty, be continued and further granted to

her majesty for a time to be limited.” This resolution was read in a

committee of ways and means on Monday, the 17th of February, after which

Lord John Russel addressed the committee, factiously opposing the scheme

of the premier, without offering any sound practical suggestion, or

propounding any principle. Several amendments were moved by various

members; but they were all negatived, and the bill passed through

committee. A discussion of considerable length was renewed on the 10th

of March, by Mr. Charles Duller, but the bill was read a third time and

passed.

In the house of lords the principal discussion on the income-tax took

place on the 4th of April, when the third reading of the bill was moved

by the Earl of Ripon. The bill was read a third time and passed.

THE SUGAR-DUTIES QUESTION.

On the 24th of February, the house of commons having resolved itself

into a committee of ways and means, Mr. Gibson, with a view of obtaining

a permanent arrangement of the sugar-duties, moved, as an amendment

upon the resolution of Sir Robert Peel, a resolution stating that no

arrangement of these duties would be satisfactory and permanent, which

did not involve an equalization of duty on foreign and colonial sugar.

In support of this resolution Mr. Gibson called the attention of the

house to a plain matter of justice in taxation, and asserted that it was

not consistent with the fair performance of their functions, when

they were resolving themselves into a committee of ways and means to

consider of a supply to her majesty, in order to enable her to meet

the expenditure of the country, to levy another tax, which was not paid

either to the crown or to the exchequer, but to a class of men who had

not made good their claim to any compensation fora grievance inflicted

on them. The protection afforded to the West India proprietors, he said,

was not for revenue, for it defrauded revenue; not for the protection

of the producer, for his produce had not been increased; not for the

benefit of the exporter at home, for the export to those colonies were

stationary; and not to be defended on the score of consistency, since

Sir Robert Peel was going to admit cotton, the produce of the East

Indies and the United States of America, on the same terms. The motion

was seconded by Mr. Ewart, and supported by Lord Howick, and Messrs.

Ricardo, Cobden, Villiers, Miles, and Bright. On the other hand, it was

opposed by Sir George Clerk, and Messrs. James, Gladstone, Labouchere,

and Goulburn. On a division it was rejected by a majority of two hundred

and seventeen against eighty-four. Subsequently several amendments were

moved, but without success, with the exception of one proposed by Mr.

Hawes; namely, to the effect—“that provision be made in the bill for

the drawback of the amount of the duty reduced on such duty-paid sugar

as now remains in the queen’s warehouses.” This amendment was at first

resisted by Mr. Goulburn; but finding that the house was in favour of

it, Sir Robert Peel consented to make arrangements, not to return the

whole duty, but to make compensation for the loss. On this understanding

Mr. Hawes withdrew his amendment, and the bill passed through committee.

Various discussions took place, during the progress of the hill, upon

the other parts of the ministerial tariff, but they were all affirmed,

and the bill then passed. Its progress through the upper house was

speedily effected.

CORN-LAWS AND FREE TRADE.

This long-agitated and great question formed a prominent subject of

debate during this session. The first occasion which led to a general

discussion of the policy of the protective laws as regards agriculture,

was furnished by a motion made by Mr. Cobden, on the 13th March, “for

a select committee to inquire into the causes and extent of the alleged

existing agricultural distress, and into the effects of legislative

protection upon the interests of landowners, tenant-farmers, and

farm-labourers.” In support of this motion Mr. Cobden endeavoured to

prove the existence of distress among the farmers; asserting that half

of them were in a state of insolvency, and that the other half were

paying rents out of their capital, and were fast hastening to the same

melancholy condition. Mr. Cobden next contended that there was a want

of security in tenure, and that this fact not only prevented the

application of capital, but that it also kept the land in a bad state of

cultivation. The farmer without a lease was afraid that if he made any

improvement in his farm, he should be called upon to pay a higher

rent; and he proved this fact by reference to the language used by many

distinguished members of agricultural associations. He asked why land

should not be let on the same condition as manufactories, which were

let with a schedule of the state of the manufactory; and when the tenant

left them he was bound to make compensation for any damage which it

might have suffered. Having advocated the plan of leasing farms at great

length, Mr. Cobden proceeded to contend that a free trade in corn would

be more beneficial to the farmers and to the labourers than to any other

class of the community. He had thought so before the new tariff; and

he contended so now with tenfold confidence. He then described the

lamentable condition of the agricultural peasantry; and asked the

landlords, after they had brought their labourers to such a melancholy

state, whether they could have anything to fear from risking this

inquiry? What had government done for them in their financial scheme?

Nothing that was calculated, if he had heard aright, to benefit the

agricultural population. Well, then, what would they do? Protection had

been a failure when it reached a prohibitory duty of 80s. a quarter; it

had been a failure when it reached the pivot price of 60s.; and it was a

failure now when they had got a sliding-scale; for they had admitted the

lamentable condition of their tenantry and peasantry. Let them accede,

then, to his proposition for a committee, and he would pledge himself to

explode the fallacy of agricultural protection, and to put an end to the

present system within two years from the publication of its report. Mr.

S. Herbert, secretary at war, announced that government would meet Mr.

Cobden’s motion with a direct negative. On a division the motion was

negatived by a majority of two hundred and thirteen against one hundred

and twenty-one.

On the 3rd of June Mr. Ward resumed his exertions to obtain a select

committee to inquire into the existence of the peculiar burdens and

exemptions of the landed interests. Taking advantage of an admission

contained in a speech of Sir James Graham, that during the last twelve

months pauperism had diminished, and trade and commerce had improved in

the country because the price of wheat was low, Mr. Ward said that he

was not going to underrate the benefit produced by an abundant harvest,

but he believed that still greater benefit had been effected by the

liberal policy of government. The idea that there were any peculiar

burdens on the land, was a fallacy peculiar to English gentlemen

brought up in the school of the corn-laws. He denied that the land-tax,

poor-rates, tithes, county-rates, highway-rates, the malt-tax, and

similar impositions, were peculiar burdens on land; but if they were,

he contended that there were to be set against them the exemptions

enjoyed by the land in not being liable to the legacy and probate duty,

and in the cultivation of it being relieved from the horse-tax, from the

tax on husbandry servants if employed for domestic services, and various

other taxes. Mr. Ward moved for a select committee of inquiry into this

subject; and his motion was supported by Dr. Bowring, and Messrs. Cobden

and Vernon Smith. Sir John Tyrell opposed it, as did also Messrs. Sidney

Herbert and Newdegate. On a division it was rejected by a majority of

one hundred and eighty-two against one hundred and nine.

The subject of the corn-laws was taken into more complete consideration

on the 26th of May, when, pursuant to notice, Lord John Russell moved

the following resolutions:—“That the present state of political

tranquillity, and the recent revival of trade, afford to this house

a favourable opportunity to consider of such measures as may tend

permanently to improve the condition of the labouring classes. That

those laws which impose duties, usually called protective, tend to

impair the efficiency of labour, to restrict the free interchange of

commodities, and to impose on the people unnecessary taxation. That the

present corn-law tends to check improvements in agriculture, produces

uncertainty in all farming speculations, and holds out to the owners

and occupiers of land prospects of special advantage which it fails to

secure. That this house will take the said laws into consideration,

with a view to such cautious and deliberate arrangements as may be most

beneficial to all classes of her majesty’s subjects. That the freedom of

industry would be promoted by a careful revision of the law of parochial

settlement which now prevails in England and Wales. That a systematic

plan of colonization would partially relieve those districts of the

country where the deficiency of employment Iras been most injurious to

the labourers in husbandry. That the improvements made of late years

in the education of the people, as well as its more general diffusion,

have been seen with satisfaction by this house. That this house will

be ready to give its support to measures founded on liberal and

comprehensive principles, which may be conducive to the further

extension of religious and moral instruction. That a humble address be

presented to her majesty to lay the foregoing resolutions before her

majesty.” In support of these resolutions, Lord John Russell made a long

and comprehensive speech, embracing the several topics to which they

had reference. Adverting to the corn-laws, he said, that experience had

shown that the present system was founded in error, and produced the

very evil against which it was intended to guard. The graduated scale

was a complete failure, and equally injurious to the purchaser and

consumer. It was contrary to all true commercial principles, and

was perfectly ruinous to the farmer. It also tended to check all

improvements in agriculture, and to render the cultivator of the soil

careless as to the system of cultivation which he pursued. Mr. Sharman

Crawford moved as an amendment that the following words be inserted

after the word “opportunity,” in the first clause:—“To give immediate

attention to the claims, so repeatedly urged in the petitions of the

people, for the extension of the parliamentary suffrage, as well as—.”

Sir James Graham, in reply, said that he agreed to the first resolution

moved by Lord John Russell, but not to the rest; and, therefore,

he moved the previous question. The house divided on Mr. Crawford’s

amendment, which was negatived by a majority of two hundred and

fifty-three against thirty-three. Sir James Graham then moved the

previous question, which was carried by a majority of one hundred and

eighty-two against one hundred and four.

Mr. C. Villiers, according to his annual custom, on the 10th of June

submitted to the house of commons a motion for the appointment of

a committee of the whole house for the purpose of considering his

resolutions for the abolition of all restrictions on the importation of

foreign corn. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of

two hundred and fifty-four against one hundred and thirty-two.

AFFAIRS OF IRELAND—MAYNOOTH IMPROVEMENT BILL.

On the 3rd of April, Sir Robert Peel brought in a measure for improving

and increasing the grant to the college of Maynooth. The intention of

the premier had been made known before, and a large number of petitions

were on that evening presented against any such grant; in reference

to which Sir Robert Peel said that he had given timely notice of his

intention to consider the case of Maynooth in a friendly spirit; and

therefore he was not unprepared for the demonstration which had

been made, and which no doubt proceeded from persons actuated by

conscientious scruples. In continuation, he observed, that it appeared

to the ministers there were three courses which they might pursue:—to

continue the present system, and grant without alteration; to

discontinue the vote altogether, and to repudiate all connexion with

Maynooth; or liberally to adopt, improve, and extend the institution

provided for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood. He

proceeded to discuss these three courses in succession; and after

showing that they could not conscientiously adopt the two first, he

said:—“There remains, therefore, but one other course, and that is the

course we are prepared to take. We are prepared, in a liberal sense and

confiding spirit, to improve that institution, and to elevate the tone

of education there. Will you not take that course?” Sir Robert Peel

then stated the proposals of government to the house. The trustees of

Maynooth college, he said, could purchase land to the extent of £1,000

per annum; but they could not receive it on any other terms than for the

lives of the trustees; he proposed to incorporate the trustees by the

title of “the trustees of Maynooth college;” and to enable them to hold

real property to the amount of £3,000 per annum, should members of

the Roman Catholic faith be desirous to contribute to the college so

incorporated. The stipend of each professor did not now exceed £120

per annum; instead of defining what should be the amount paid to each

professor, he proposed to allot to the trustees a certain sum, which

should be placed at their discretion for the payment of salaries. The

sum would admit of a payment of £600 or £700 per annum to the president

of the college; of £260 or £270 to the professors of theology; and of

£220 or £230 to the other professors. A sum not exceeding £6,000 would

be allotted to the trustees for making provision for the officers of

that institution. At present there were about four hundred and thirty

students in the college, divided into three classes: the twenty

Dumboyne students, the three senior classes, and the four junior

classes. It was proposed to allot £40 per annum to each of the Dumboyne

students: and to make provision on the whole for five hundred free

students; that there should be two hundred and fifty students in the

four junior classes, and two hundred and fifty in the three senior

classes, these being divinity students. For the maintenance of each

of these students, it was proposed that a sum should be placed at the

disposal of the trustees of £28 on the average. It was further proposed

that to each of the students in the three senior classes, £20 per annum

should be allowed for their own personal expenses. The sum required

for the students would be £14,560; the total sum for the establishment,

£26,360. It was further proposed that the college should be made, in

appearance and in fact, worthy of an institution of the kind; and that

proper provision should be made for the accommodation of the presidents

and professors; and for every purpose ministers asked for a vote, not

annual, of £30,000. Sir Robert Peel further stated, that it was proposed

the board of works should undertake the repairs of the college, as they

did of the other public buildings, in order that they might be conducted

with the greatest economy; and that the expenses of the repairs should

be an annual vote, included in the annual estimates for the board

of works, as in other cases. Instead of the present _ex-officio_

ministers—the lord-chancellor and the judges—it was further proposed

that the crown should appoint five visitors, who were to visit the

college once a year, and as often as the lord-lieutenant might direct.

These visitors were not to interfere with any matters relating to the

doctrine and discipline of the church of Rome; but for those objects

three more visitors would be elected by the other five, as at present

to be members of the Roman Catholic church. Such, Sir Robert Peel

continued, was an outline of the measure. It had not been the subject of

any stipulation with the authorities of the Roman Catholic church: but

the ministers had intimated their intentions to these dignitaries; and

they had every reason to believe they were satisfied with, and grateful

for, the measure. He added, in conclusion:—“We do not think that there

is any violation of conscientious scruples involved in our proposition.

We believe that it is perfectly compatible to hold steadfast the

profession of our faith without wavering, and at the same time to

improve the education, and to elevate the character of those who, do

what you will—pass this measure or refuse it—must be the spiritual

guides and religious instructors of millions of your fellow-countrymen.”

Sir Robert Inglis met the motion for leave to bring in this bill by a

direct negative. Messrs. Law, Bruce, Grogan, and others, followed with

similar expressions of sentiment. Mr. Plumptre especially expressed

in strong terms his repugnance to the proposal on religious grounds;

avowing, as the basis of his objections, the belief that the Roman

Catholic religion was idolatrous. On the side of the liberal, all were

in favour of the motion, except Mr. T. Duncombe, who expressed himself

averse to all religious establishments supported out of the public

revenue. Some on the conservative side, as Lords Francis Egerton and

Sandon, and Mr. J. S. Wortley, spoke in favour of the measure. Several

of the Irish members anticipated a great improvement in the Roman

Catholic priesthood, and Lord John Russell, while he supported the

motion, expressed a hope that it was the commencement of a series of

measures which would unite the two countries in an enduring bond. On

a division, the motion for leave to bring in the bill was carried by

a large majority; but the measure, though destined to become law, was

subsequently most strenuously opposed, both in and out of parliament.

Those who were ardently attached to the vital principles of

Protestantism felt an apprehension that the endowment of the Roman

Catholic hierarchy in Ireland, and the rapid downfall of the established

church in that country, if not in England also, was involved in such a

measure; and their zeal being thus awakened, no exertions were spared

to frustrate the plans of government. On the second reading of the

bill being moved on the 11th of April, the measure was opposed by Mr.

Colquhoun. Mr. Colquhoun concluded by moving that the bill be read a

second time that day six months. Mr. Grogan followed on the same side;

and the Earl of Arundel and Mr. Gladstone supported the measure: the

latter stating that he did so in opposition to the prevailing opinion,

and to his own deeply cherished prepossessions. Mr. D’Israeli said that

Sir Robert Peel had declared there were three courses open to him. “In

a certain sense, and looking to his own position, he is right: there is

the course the right honourable gentleman has left; there is the course

that the right honourable gentleman is following; and there is usually

the course which the right honourable gentleman ought to pursue.

Perhaps, sir, I ought to say that there is a fourth course; because

it is possible for the house of commons to adopt one of those courses

indicated by the right honourable gentleman, and then having voted for

it, to rescind it.” Mr. D’Israeli proceeded to complain of the course

pursued by Sir R. Peel towards his supporters, in which he indulged in

private personalities, which was strongly condemned by Mr. Roebuck, who

described his speech as being poor in execution as it was malicious in

motive. Mr. Roebuck proceeded to defend the measure; and he was followed

by Messrs. Fox Maule and Stafford O’Brien, both of whom opposed it. Mr.

Macauley considered it merely a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence:

it was not a question of principle, but purely a question between £9000

and £26,000. Mr. Shaw energetically opposed the endowment; and Lord

Lincoln and Mr. Sidney Herbert supported it. Mr. Byng, the venerable

member for Middlesex, also declared himself in favour of the measure;

and Lord Ashley and G. A. Hamilton opposed it; Lord Ashley had never

known a measure more important for good or evil, not even excepting the

Roman Catholic relief bill. His lordship contended that the proposal of

government amounted to almost a declaration, that, as far as the power

of enactments and statutes extended, the Roman Catholic religion should

never cease to be the religion of Ireland. But while Lord Ashley opposed

the measure, he disclaimed being actuated by any feeling of hostility

towards the people of Ireland. If he thought, indeed, that this

concession would really content the people of Ireland, he would pause

before he came to a decision in the matter. The bill was further

supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lords John Manners and

Russell, Sirs George Grey and James Graham, and Messrs. Cobden, Smyth,

and Shiel. On the other hand it was opposed by Messrs. Bright, dimming,

Bruce, Blackstone, Ferrand, Sharman Crawford, T. Duncombe, Muntz, and

Law. The debate was closed by Sirs Robert Inglis and Robert Peel; the

former against, and the latter for the measure. On a division the second

reading was carried by a majority of three hundred and twenty-three

against one hundred and seventy-six. The battle, however, was not yet

ended. On the order of the day being read for going into committee, Mr.

Ward moved the following resolution as an amendment:—“That it is the

opinion of this house, that any provision to be made for the purposes of

the present bill, ought to be taken from the funds already applicable

to ecclesiastical purposes in Ireland.” A long debate ensued on this

motion, which was continued for two nights; but on a division it was

negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against one

hundred and forty-eight. On the 25th a resolution, authorising a grant

of £30,000 for improving Maynooth college, and for the payment of

the amount requisite for salaries and other expenses, out of the

consolidated fund, was passed by the house; but on the motion for

bringing up the report, opposition to the measure was renewed by Mr.

Law, who moved as an amendment that it be brought up on that day

six months. Another lengthened debate took place, but the motion was

negatived by one hundred and twenty-eight against fifty-two; and several

other amendments, subsequently moved by Mr. Hindley and other members,

were rejected by large majorities. The whole question was reopened

on the motion for the third reading, and a discussion commenced which

continued for three nights; but the third reading was carried by

a majority of three hundred and seventeen against one hundred and

eighty-four. The last attempt to defeat the measure was a motion by Mr.

T. Duncombe, on the question, “That the bill do now pass,” proposing a

clause to limit its operation to three years. This was objected to by

Sir Robert Peel, and the proposal was negatived by a large majority,

after which the bill was passed.

The second reading was moved by the Duke of Wellington in the house of

lords, on the second of June. Lord Roden had given notice of intention

to move, as an amendment, for a select committee to inquire into the

character of the education given at Maynooth; and he now rose for the

purpose of thus endeavouring to get rid of the bill. Instead of the

measure being looked upon in Ireland, he said, as a boon, it was looked

upon as one extorted by fear. He quoted a letter from Dr. Higgins, one

of the Roman Catholic bishops, to show that no conciliatory effects

could result from the measure. Nor was it his opinion that it would

improve the education given at Maynooth: rather, it would afford

facilities for recruiting the priesthood from the lower classes of the

people. He maintained that the system of instruction given there had

anti-social and disloyal tendencies, which he illustrated by a reference

to the text-books, and details in the history and conduct of the

institution. The Bishop of London supported the amendment: he could

not consent to any measure which would make the college of Maynooth an

integral part of the constitution. The Earl of St. Germains and Lord

Beaumont vindicated the measure; and the Duke of Manchester and the

Bishop of Cashel opposed it. The debate having been adjourned, was

resumed by the Earls of Hardwick and Carnarvon, who supported the bill.

The Earl of Winchilsea followed, and condemned the bill in vehement

terms; and the Marquis of Normanby defended it as a proper concession to

a nation of which seven-eighths were Roman Catholics. The Archbishop of

Dublin supported the measure. The Bishop of Exeter argued against the

measure that the college was not originally meant to be endowed by the

state; and denied that the improved visitation which the bill professed

to give would be a system of education. The debate having been again

adjourned, was resumed by Earl Spencer and the Bishop of Norwich. On

a division, Lord Roden’s amendment was negatived by a majority of one

hundred and fifty-five to fifty-nine; and the house having again divided

on the original resolution, the second reading was carried by a majority

of two hundred and twenty-six against sixty-nine. Subsequently, a

discussion took place on the committal of the bill. On the motion for

the third reading another debate took place; and the Bishop of Llandaff

moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months; but on a

division this amendment was negatived by a majority of one hundred and

eighty-one against fifty. On the question that the bill do pass, the

Earl of Winchilsea moved another amendment to the effect that the

operation of the bill should be limited to a period of three years; but

tins also was negatived, and the bill then passed.

ACADEMICAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

Another scheme, emanating from government, for the improvement of the

Irish people, was a plan for the extension of academical education in

Ireland. This measure was developed by the secretary of state for the

home department. On moving for leave to bring in the bill, on the 9th of

May, Sir James Graham said that the object in bringing it forward was to

improve the social condition of Ireland. The difficulty of accomplishing

such an object, he said, would be discerned, when he stated that the

plan which he conceived to be the most essential was the diffusion

of the benefits of education among the higher classes of the people.

Religious differences formed the great obstacle to the adjustment of the

general question of education in Ireland. For a long series of years

the religion of the majority of the Irish people had been treated by the

state as hostile. That notion, however, had been gradually abandoned:

the penal laws had either been removed, or were in the course of

removal, although traces of them were still perceptible, and operating

most noxiously in their interference with the education of the people.

Sir James Graham next proceeded to discuss what was the best mode of

educating the people of Ireland, contending that it consisted in the

absence of all religious tests. It was on this principle that the

bill he proposed was founded. Government recommended to the house the

establishment of three provincial institutions for education in Ireland,

and founded upon the same principles as the metropolitan colleges of

London and Edinburgh. Cork was proposed as the site of the college for

the south; Galway, or Limerick, for the west; and Deny, or Belfast, for

the north of Ireland. He could not pledge himself for the exact amount

of the expense which would be necessary to carry this proposal into

execution; but he conceived that £30,000 would be wanted for the

erection of each college; and he would therefore mention £100,000 as a

sum amply sufficient for that purpose. He further recommended the sum

of £6000 for each of the colleges, to meet the annual expenses of the

officers of these institutions, and of the prizes to be established for

the encouragement of learning. Sir James Graham then gave a sketch of

the different officers whom he would establish in these institutions. In

each college there was to be a principal and ten or twelve professors;

and at Belfast and Cork there would be a medical school attached to each

college. The professors were to be nominated by the crown; and the crown

was to possess the power of removing them for good cause. There were no

professorships of divinity to be established; but religion was not to

be neglected; on the contrary, every facility would be given for the

voluntary endowment of theological professorships; but the attendance at

these lectures would not be compulsory, for the fundamental principle

of the measure would be the avoidance of all interference, positive or

negative, in all matters affecting the conscience. The right honourable

baronet went on to state that there was already an academical

institution at Belfast for the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland,

which was supported by a parliamentary grant, at the cost of £2100 per

annum; and government proposed to continue this grant. There was another

subject, he said, with which, although a difficult one, he was prepared

to grapple. The bill only founded colleges in Ireland: the question

was:—“Should these three colleges be incorporated into one great

central university, or should parliament invest each of them with the

power of granting degrees in the arts, sciences, and medicine?” He

proposed that the bill should afford her majesty means to establish a

new university in Dublin for this purpose—Trinity College being founded

on Protestant principles, and therefore excluding Roman Catholics or

dissenters from all privileges—or to incorporate into the existing

university these colleges. Lord Palmerston promised ministers the fair

and honest support of the Whigs. The measure was opposed by Sir Robert

Inglis; but leave was given to bring in the bill, and it was read a

first time. On the motion for the second reading, which was moved on the

2nd of June, a debate was commenced, which continued by adjournment for

two nights. The debate was opened by Lord John Manners, who moved that

it be read a second time that day six months: his belief was, that if

it passed in its present shape it would prove a curse, and not a boon to

Ireland. Sir James Graham defended it from this charge. He proceeded to

state some proposed alterations in the bill. The first change proposed

was with regard to the visitorial power of the crown. He proposed to

give the crown the power of appointing visitors, which visitors would

have authority to inquire into any abuse which might arise in these

institutions, and to apply an effective remedy thereto. He also now

thought that there should be attached to each of the colleges a hall or

halls in which religious instructions might be given to the students by

pastors of their own religion; and he was disposed to add a clause to

that effect. The Roman Catholic bishops had presented a memorial praying

that a fair proportion of the professors and office-bearers in the new

colleges should be members of the Roman Catholic church; that

Roman Catholic professors should fill the chairs of history, logic,

metaphysics, moral philosophy, geology, and anatomy; that there should

be a Roman Catholic chaplain in each of the colleges, to superintend the

moral and religious instruction of the Roman Catholic pupils, and that

each of these chaplains should be provided with a suitable salary; and

that all Roman Catholic professors should be appointed to a local board

of trustees. Sir James Graham could not consent to such demands: as a

majority of the students would belong to the Roman Catholic church, it

was probable that a majority of the professors would belong to it also;

but they could not be exclusively provided by the measure. Mr. E. B.

Roche, who had at first hailed the measure as a boon, now declared his

intention of opposing its further progress, because the nomination of

all the professorships was in the crown, and there was no “fixity of

tenure” for any administration which entertained friendly sentiments

toward the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. Sir Robert Inglis

repeated that this bill was “a gigantic scheme of godless education;”

and agreed with Mr. O’Connell in thinking that these new institutions

would be deficient in that species of education which was the only

legitimate one for an immortal being—education in the duties which

every man had to perform, and the principles on which those duties

rested. The second reading was supported by Lord John Russell, who

nevertheless wished to amend it in committee, and Lord Mahon, and

Messrs. Redington, Milnes, Osborne, Wyse, and R. M. O. Ferrol; and

opposed by Messrs. Acland, B. Hope, and Hamilton. Mr. Acland called

attention to the fact that some of the speakers in behalf of the bill

gave an unqualified support to it; and contended that not one of them

had proved that it would give such education as would be useful in any

respect to Ireland. Sir Robert Peel spoke at great length in behalf of

the measure; and announced that, if adopted, and the plan worked

well, government would consider whether the three colleges should be

incorporated into a university, and what power that university should

have in conferring degrees. After a few words from Messrs. M. J.

O’Connell and Shaw in favour of the second reading, though not of entire

approval of the measure, the amendment was negatived by a majority of

three hundred and eleven against forty-six, and the bill was read a

second time. Upon the resolution of the committee of the whole house

for the grant being reported, Mr. O’Connell took occasion to declare

his protest against it; and to thank Sir Robert Inglis for calling it

“a godless system of education.” Subsequently, on the committal of the

bill, he again declared his objections to its principle: and Lord John

Russell coincided with him in his statement, that unless the bill was

made acceptable to the Roman Catholics, by providing for the religious

instruction of the pupils, it would be useless. On the first clause,

relating to the grant of £100,000 for building the three colleges and

necessary buildings, Lord John Russell proposed, as an amendment,

to include among the buildings to be thus paid for, halls for the

accommodation of the students. This motion, however, was negatived; as

was also another, moved by Mr. Wyse, on the clause which declared that

the appointment of professors should be vested in the crown, and after

a time limited should revert to parliament. Mr. Wyse desired that

the professors should be chosen, after an investigation into their

qualifications, by a competent board of examiners; but Sir Robert

Peel opposed the amendment, as premature, and likely to operate to the

discouragement of the students.. Several other amendments were proposed

in committee, but they were all rejected; and on the third reading Mr.

Bernai Osborne introduced a collateral discussion upon the revenues

and management of Trinity College, Dublin, by proposing the following

resolution:—“That an humble address be presented to her majesty,

praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be

made into the amount of the revenue of Trinity College, Dublin, from

rents of college-lands, endowments, and bequests, fees on matriculation,

on taking degrees, and from every other source; also into the manner in

which that income is expended; the number of senior and junior fellows,

of professors, scholars, and all other officers of the college, with

the amount of salary and allowances to each of them, with a view to

ascertain whether the income or funds at present applied solely to

the benefit of Protestants in Trinity College, Dublin, might not be

beneficially extended so as to make Roman Catholics and Protestant

dissenters eligible if otherwise qualified, to all scholarships, and

to all such fellowships, professorships, and other offices in Trinity

College, Dublin, as are not intended for ecclesiastical purposes

immediately connected with ecclesiastical endowment.” Mr. Osborne,

in support of this resolution, contended that Trinity College was

not founded with Protestant money, but with the property of the Roman

Catholic Earl of Desmond, confiscated by Elizabeth in 1592; and that

it was not until forty years afterwards, in the time of Strafford,

that Roman Catholics were mentioned, and rendered ineligible for the

professorships. The motion was opposed by Sirs Thomas Freemantle and

R. Inglis, the latter of whom denied that the college was founded with

Roman Catholic money. It was erected on the site of the old monastery

of All-Hallows, which having become vested in the mayor and citizens

of Dublin, by grant from Henry the Eighth, was by them given for the

establishment of this college. The funds for its erection and endowment

were raised by a contribution among the gentry of Ireland, for

which purpose a circular letter was sent to them by the Lord-deputy

Fitzwilliam, the archbishop, and the lords of the council in 1791:

the original foundation of the college might, therefore, he said, be

as purely Protestant as could be imagined. The motion was supported by

Messrs. Warburton and Shiel, the latter of whom contended that Queen

Elizabeth’s charter did not contemplate exclusively Protestant objects.

But it was rather on the ground of justice than on such grounds, he

said, that this subject ought to be discussed. He remarked:—“There

are seventy scholarships; the scholars have lodging and commons for a

nominal sum, with £10 a-year and £40 a-year in the last three years: the

scholarships being exclusively Protestant. So long,” he continued, “as

you keep up Trinity College in its supremacy you will make your measure

of academical education, for all political purposes, an entire failure.

Your provincial academies will be marked with all the characteristics of

mediocrity, which will only render the elevation of Trinity College more

conspicuous by the inferiority with which it will be surrounded. How

stunted and dwarfed the groves of our new academies when compared with

the rich luxuriance of the gardens of Trinity! I had a thousand times

rather you had applied your £18,000 a-year to the establishment of new

fellowships and new professorships in the metropolitan and national

institutions; because if you had done so, Englishmen would have got a

value—a value in peace, a value in contentment, a value in pacificatory

results—for their money. Now your measure, for political purposes—I

say, for political purposes, though I won’t deny that the advantages

of education will be distributed to a certain extent—but your measure,

though for political purposes it may partially succeed, yet as a message

of peace it will be a failure.” Sir Robert Peel contended that he and

his colleagues had exerted themselves to make equality in Ireland, at

the expense of giving umbrage to the majority of the people in this

country. He appealed to the enlarged grant to Maynooth, and to the way

in which the charitable bequests act had been carried out, as showing

the conciliatory disposition of the government. Yet, after all their

exertions for peace they were doomed to be disappointed. He regretted

Mr. Shiel’s speech on account of the use that would be made of it in

this country. It would be said—“See how unavailing all attempts are to

conciliate the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Regardless of the warnings,

the feelings, and fears of their friends, they hoped by proposing

certain measures, that they would make an impression on the Irish mind;

but, instead of this, the leading Roman Catholic member in the house of

commons gets up and tells them that, unless they went ten times as far

as they had yet gone, they would have an insurrection in Ireland.”

This he believed, however, was not the feeling of the Irish people; he

believed that government had made an impression on the feelings of

the Irish people. After a few words from Lord John Russell, the house

divided on Mr. Osborne’s amendment, which was negatived by a majority

of one hundred and sixty-eight against ninety-one, and the bill was then

read a third time and passed.

The second reading of the Irish education bill was moved in the house

of lords by Lord Stanley on the 21st of July. The Earl of Shrewsbury

opposed the measure. Government he said, had been overawed by the

fanatic feeling of the English people; and he urged ministers to

withdraw the bill for a season, and reintroduce it in a shape better

suited to the wants and wishes of Ireland. The bill was further opposed

by the Earl of Carnarvon, who protested against the divorce of religion

from education, and expressed his fears that such a precedent might be

applied to Oxford and Cambridge. The bill was defended by the Duke of

Newcastle, the Marquis of Lansdowne, the Bishop of Norwich, and Lords

Brougham, Beaumont, and Clifford. The second reading was affirmed

without a division; and subsequently the bill passed through committee,

and was read a third time without any fixed opposition.

COLONIAL POLICY.

In the early part of this session intelligence had arrived which

announced a disastrous collision in New Zealand between the natives and

the settlers at the Bay of Islands, and which terminated in defeat

and serious loss on the part of the latter. This intelligence produced

considerable sensation in the public mind, more especially among those

connected with the colonists in those islands. The New Zealand Company

loudly accused the colonial office, and the administration of the

governor, Captain Fitzroy; while other parties contended that the evil

which had arisen had been in a great measure induced by the company

itself. The event became the subject of several discussions in

parliament. The first of these discussions took place on the 11th of

March, when Mr. Somes moved for all copies of correspondence between the

colonial office and the governor of New Zealand, respecting the issue

of debentures and the rendering them a legal tender in that colony,

the taxes proposed in the legislative council, the outrages recently

committed by the natives in the Bay of Islands, and a proclamation

issued by the governor of New Zealand, allowing the sale of land by the

natives at a less price than that fixed by the act of the 5th and 6th

Victoria. This motion was seconded by Mr. Aglionby, who asked whether

government was not aware that in that colony inconvertible paper

had been made by the governor a legal tender for sums as low as two

shillings? whether the governor had previously received authority by

warrant from the colonial department to issue such debentures to the

amount of £15,000? whether it was true that in a colony that was to

flourish by its agriculture a tax of 10s. had been levied on every sheep

imported, and a similar tax on every dog imported to herd them? what

the house thought of a governor who placed a tax of £1 on every house in

which more than three rooms were inhabited? and whether the governor had

vindicated the character of this country by protecting the whites from

the outrages of the natives? Nine of our countrymen, he continued, had

been tomahawked after they had given up their arms: had the governor

made inquiry into the circumstances of this massacre? or had he gone, as

was reported, to the murderous tribes, and declared himself satisfied?

He also wanted to know in what manner the honour of the British flag

had been vindicated, after it had been cut down at the custom-house;

and made several inquiries respecting the sale of lands in New Zealand,

observing that when he had obtained an answer to his questions, he

should bring forward a distinct motion on the subject, and should

call for further information. Mr. Hope, the under-secretary, protested

against the course pursued by Mr. Aglionby, demanding why he did not

boldly come forward, make his charge against government, and endeavour

to substantiate it. He proceeded, however, to answer the questions

put by Mr. Aglionby. The government, he said, had disapproved of the

debentures issued by the local governor, ami they had been withdrawn.

Respecting the taxes imposed in New Zealand he knew nothing, as

government had been an unusually long time without intelligence from

that colony. With respect to the outrages at the Bay of Islands, troops

had been sent for their repression; and the governor, he thought had

sufficiently vindicated the honour of the British flag. On the other

subjects of interrogation he had no information to communicate. Other

members took part in the discussion; and finally the motion was agreed

to.

A more lengthened discussion on the condition of this colony took

place on the 17th of June, on which occasion Mr. Charles Buller brought

forward a series of resolutions relating to the policy pursued towards

New Zealand. In his speech he contended that the colonization of New

Zealand, after it had been successfully commenced by the New Zealand

Company, had been marred by the interference of her majesty’s

government. He proceeded to show the superiority of the scheme of

colonization adopted by the company with that pursued by the colonial

office. After pointing out the great importance of New Zealand in

a national and political point of view, and the fair field which it

afforded for the development of the capital and labour of England, he

showed that at the time when it was first colonized, strong reasons

existed for colonizing it regularly, lest it should be colonized

irregularly. The whole of the native population did not exceed 100,000

souls, and they were principally concentrated in the northern parts of

the island. Was that a circumstance which ought to prevent any other

country from colonizing the southern parts of it, which were almost

totally unoccupied, or the northern parts, which were almost all left

uncultivated? It was wicked to deny the right of civilized man to

cultivate the wilderness; but he was bound to treat the savage with

kindness, and to communicate to him the advantages of civilization. The

New Zealand Company had treated the savage with kindness, making him

ample compensation for the land purchased of him, by setting a part

of it to his service after it had been brought into cultivation. The

colonial office, however, conceived that its duty was discharged towards

the savage when it had obtained for him a large price for his land, and

had not taken any measure to apply it to his future amelioration. Mr.

Buller next entered into a minute history of the proceedings of the

colonial authorities in New Zealand, from the time of the conclusion of

the treaty of Waitangi, down to the present period; and vindicated the

conduct of the New Zealand Company, showing that their settlements had

been founded on a scale of liberality and munificence hitherto unknown

in the history of English colonization. Their principal object had been

merely to protect themselves from loss, whilst engaged in diffusing the

arts and industry along with the laws and language of England; yet Lord

Stanley had adopted measures which had marred all their prospects of

future success. Mr. Buller proceeded to enter into a discussion of

the land question between Lord Stanley and the New Zealand Company. He

contended that the company had a right to expect to be put in possession

by government of the number of acres awarded to them; yet, after

spending £800,000 of its own, and £300,000 more on credit, obtained from

the public, it had not obtained the grant of a single acre. Its capital

was exhausted; its proceedings were suspended; and, what was worse, the

unhappy emigrants had been debarred from all access as owners to the

land which they had purchased with hard cash in England. The crops

which they had raised were destroyed by fire, and their lives had been

menaced; and when they applied for redress to the colonial office, that

aid had been coldly refused. They now apprehended a general massacre;

and yet Captain Fitzroy prohibited them from arming themselves in

self-defence. His policy had inspired the New Zealanders with an

overweening confidence, and our countrymen with fierce resentment; and

the consequence would be that the first would perish under the attacks

of the last, as they would be no more in the hands of Englishmen than

mere children in the hands of full-grown men. In conclusion, Mr.

Buller expressed his conviction that Lord Stanley had put down the most

promising experiment of colonization that had ever been attempted by

England; and moved that the house resolve itself into a committee of the

whole house to consider the resolutions. The motion was seconded by Mr.

Milnes, who contended that a case had been made out for the interference

of the house. Mr. Hope defended the character of Lord Stanley at great

length, denying that his lordship was influenced by any hostility either

to colonization or to the New Zealand Company. He was not prepared, he

said, to justify all the acts of Captain Fitzroy; but he was convinced

that he did himself frequent injustice by the scanty reports he sent

home. In reply to the allegation that the colonial office was chargeable

with all the disasters of the colony, he insisted that they were mainly

attributable to the hasty proceedings of the New Zealand Company, in

taking possession of that island without authority from the crown.

Mr. Hope next proceeded to give an account of the state of the colony

according to the latest advices received from thence; endeavouring to

show that the settlers and the natives generally were on good terms,

and that there was no fear of a collision between them. He concluded by

entering into a consideration of the resolutions, and by declaring that

government would not consent to them. The debate was then adjourned, and

on the following day it was resumed by Captain Rous, who brought some

grave charges against the New Zealand Company. He did so, he said,

for the purpose of giving the directors of that company, who had been

described as philanthropic gentlemen, an opportunity of replying to

those charges. Mr. Aglionby, in reply, protested against them; but

declined to enter into a refutation of them on the present occasion: the

details of them all had been inquired into in the previous session by

the select committee, and on every one of them a verdict of acquittal

had been given by that committee. Other members who took part in the

debate for the motion were Lords Howick and John Russell, and Messrs.

Ellice, Hawes, Mangles, Colquhoun, and Shiel; against it, Sirs Robert

Peel, James Graham, Robert Inglis, and Howard Douglas and Mr. Cardwell.

After a brief reply from Mr. Buller, the house divided on the motion,

which was negatived by a majority of two hundred and twenty-three

against one hundred and seventeen.