was, that the ministry was not unanimous in the conviction of the
necessity; and we learn from the "Life of the Prince Consort"[312] that
Mr. Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was vehement in his
resistance to it, threatening even to carry his opposition so far as to
resign his office, if it were persevered in. And, as has been intimated
on a previous page, this was not the only question on which in the
course of this year the Prime-minister did in his heart differ from his
Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he did not think it expedient to
refuse his sanction to his proposals on a matter belonging to his own
department, the Exchequer. The subject on which he secretly doubted his
colleague's judgment was one of the proposals made in the Budget of the
year. As has already been mentioned, the transaction throws a rather
curious light on the occasional working of our ministerial system; and
the fate of the measure in the two Houses of Parliament is also
deserving of remark and recollection, as re-opening the question, which
had not been agitated for nearly a century, as to the extent of the
power of the House of Lords with respect to votes of money. In a former
chapter[313] we have had occasion to mention the angry feeling on the
part of the House of Commons which, in the year 1772, had been evoked by
the act of the House of Lords, in making some amendments on a bill
relating to the exportation of corn which had come up to them from the
Commons. A somewhat similar act had, as we have also seen, revived the
discussion a few years later, when the minister of the day had shown a
more temperate feeling on the subject. On neither occasion, however, had
the question of the privileges of the Lords been definitively settled;
and no occasion had since arisen for any consideration of the subject.
But the Budget of 1860 contained a clause which, in spite of the
deserved reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a skilful
financier, was not regarded with general favor. There was a large
deficiency in the revenue for the year; but while, among his expedients
for meeting it, Mr. Gladstone proposed an augmentation of the
income-tax, he proposed also to repeal the excise duty on paper, which
produced about a million and a quarter. It is now known that the
Prime-minister himself highly disapproved of the sacrifice at such a
time of so productive a tax.[314] And, if that had been suspected at the
time, the House of Commons would certainly not have consented to it;
even when the ministry was supposed to be unanimous in its approval of
it, it was only carried by a majority of nine; and, when the bill
embodying it came before the House of Lords, a Whig peer, who had
himself been formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Melbourne's
administration, moved its rejection, and it was rejected by a majority
of eighty-nine.
The rejection of a measure relating to taxation caused great excitement
among a large party in the House of Commons--so violent, indeed, that
the only expedient that presented itself to the Prime-minister, if he
would prevent the proposal of some step of an extreme and mischievous
character, was to take the matter into his own hands. Had he been able
to act entirely on his own judgment, it may, perhaps, be thought that,
with his sentiments on the inexpediency of the measure which had been
rejected, he would have preferred a silent acquiescence in the vote of
the Lords; but he would have been quite unable to induce the majority of
his own supporters, and even some of his own colleagues, to adopt so
moderate a course; and accordingly he moved the appointment of a
committee to examine and report on the practice of Parliament in regard
to bills for imposing or repealing taxes. And when it had made its
report, which was purely of an historical character, setting forth the
precedents bearing on the subject, he proposed three resolutions,
asserting "that the right of granting aids and supplies to the crown is
in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their constitution, etc.;
that, although the Lords had exercised the power of rejecting bills of
several descriptions relating to taxation by negativing the whole, yet
the exercise of that power by them had not been frequent, and was justly
regarded by the Commons with peculiar jealousy, as affecting their
rights, etc.; and that, to guard for the future against an undue
exercise of that power by the Lords, and to secure to the Commons their
rightful control over taxation and supply, the Commons had it in their
power so to impose and remit taxes, and to frame bills of supply, that
their right, etc., might be maintained inviolate."
In the debate which ensued his chief opponents came from his own party,
and even his own colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, displayed a
fundamental difference of feeling from his on the subject, a difference
which was expressed by one of the most eloquent supporters of the
resolutions, Mr. Horsman, M.P. for Stroud, saying that "Lord Palmerston
wished to make the independence of the House of Lords a reality, while
Mr. Gladstone seemed to desire that it should be a fiction." Lord
Palmerston, indeed, showed the feeling thus attributed to him in a
statesman-like declaration that, if "this nation had enjoyed a greater
amount of civil, political, social, and religious liberty than, as he
believed, any other people in the world, that result had been
accomplished, not by vesting in either of the three estates, the Crown,
the Lords, or the Commons, exclusive or overruling power over the
others, but by maintaining for each its own separate and independent
authority, and also by the three powers combining together to bear and
forbear, endeavoring by harmonious concert with each other to avoid
those conflicts and clashings which must have arisen if independent
authority and independent action had been exerted by each or by all." He
entered into the history of the question, explaining that, though "each
branch of the Legislature retained its respective power of rejecting any
measure, the Commons had claimed from time immemorial particular
privileges in regard to particular measures, and especially the
exclusive right of determining matters connected with the taxation of
the people. They claimed for themselves, and denied to the Lords, the
right of originating, altering, or amending such measures; but, as long
ago as 1671, the Attorney-general, in a memorable conference between the
two Houses, had admitted that the Lords, though they could not originate
or amend, had, nevertheless, power to reject money-bills;" and this
admission he regarded as consistent with common-sense, for "it was well
known that, though the Commons contended for the right of originating
measures for the grant of supply, and of framing bills with that object,
according to their belief of what was best for the public interest, yet
such bills could not pass into law without the assent of the Lords; and
it was clear that an authority whose assent was necessary to give a
proposal the force of law, must, by the very nature of things, be at
liberty to dissent and refuse its sanction."
The committee had enumerated a large number of precedents (above thirty)
in which, since that conference, the Lords had rejected such bills; but
the cases were not in general exactly similar to that now under
consideration, since the bills which they had rejected had commonly, if
not in every case, been for the imposition and not for the repeal of a
tax; and in most cases some question of national policy had been
involved which had influenced their vote. But the view which Lord
Palmerston pressed on the House was that the present was "a case in
which party feelings ought to be cast aside. It was one in which higher
and larger interests than those of party were concerned, and in which
the course that the House now took would be a precedent to guide future
Parliaments." He pointed out, moreover, that the smallness of the
majority in the House of Commons had been to the Lords "some
encouragement to take this particular step," and that "he was himself
led to think that they had taken it, not from any intention to step out
of their province, and to depart from the line of constitutional right
which the history of the country has assigned them, but from motives of
policy dependent on the circumstances of the moment; and therefore he
thought it would be wise if the Commons forbore to enter into a conflict
with the Lords on a ground which might really not exist, but satisfied
themselves with a declaration of what were their own constitutional
powers and privileges. It was of the utmost importance in a constitution
like ours, where there are different branches, independent of each
other, each with powers of its own, and where cordial and harmonious
action is necessary, that care should be taken to avoid the commencement
of an unnecessary quarrel, and the party that acted otherwise would
incur a grave responsibility."
Mr. Gladstone, however, though he ended by expressing his concurrence in
the resolution proposed by his chief, used very different language
respecting the vote of the House of Lords, characterizing it as "a
gigantic innovation, the most gigantic and the most dangerous that had
been attempted in our time," since "the origination of a bill for the
imposition of a tax, or the amendment of a money-bill, was a slight
thing compared with the claim to prevent the repeal of a tax;" and,
dealing with assertions which he had heard, that in this instance "the
House of Commons had been very foolish and the House of Lords very
wise," he asked whether that really described the constitution under
which we live. The House of Commons could not be infallible in matters
of finance more than in other matters. It might make errors, but he
demanded to know whether those errors in finance were or were not liable
to correction by the House of Lords. If they were, "what became of the
privileges of the Commons?" On the other hand, Mr. Disraeli, as leader
of the Opposition or Conservative party, supported the resolutions, and
applauded the speech of the Prime-minister, as "a wise, calm, and ample
declaration of a cabinet that had carefully and deliberately considered
this important subject. It had acknowledged that the conduct of the
Lords was justified by law and precedent, and sanctioned by policy," and
he maintained that it showed that "the charge made by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer was utterly untenable, and had no foundation." And Mr.
Horsman, taking a large general view of the legitimate working of the
parliamentary constitution, argued that, while it was an undoubted rule
that "all taxes should originate with the Commons, as that elective and
more immediately responsible assembly that is constantly referred back
to the constituencies, the reviewing power of a permanent and
independent chamber was no less essential;" and that, considering that
"the Reform Bill of 1832 had given a preponderance of powers to the
Commons, and that the tendency of any farther Reform Act must be in the
same direction, so far from narrowing the field of action for the peers,
the wiser alternative might be to adopt a generous construction of their
powers, with a view to preserving the equilibrium that is held to be
essential to the safety and well-working of the constitution. The House
of Commons," he concluded, "is perpetually assuming fresh powers and
establishing new precedents. Virtually all bills now originate with the
Commons; but this is not the consequence of any aggressive spirit in
them, but is the necessary and inevitable result of the historic working
of the constitution; and so this act of the Lords was but the natural
working of the constitution to meet a definite emergency." The
resolutions were passed, the first and third without a division; the
second, to which an amendment had been proposed, designed to limit the
force of the precedents alleged as justifying the act of the Lords, by a
majority of nearly four hundred.[315] In their form and language the
resolutions cannot be said to have greatly affected the power claimed by
the Lords, and exercised by them in this instance. The first two were
simply declaratory of acknowledged principles or facts, and the third
intimated no desire to guard against anything but an undue exertion by
the Lords of the right which they were admitted to possess. But it can
hardly be doubted that the intention even of Lord Palmerston, dictated
by the strong feeling which he perceived to prevail in the House of
Commons on the subject, was to deter the Lords from any future exercise
of their powers of review and rejection of measures relating to
taxation, when, perhaps, the Commons might be under less prudent
guidance; nor that the effect of the resolutions will correspond with
the design rather than with the language of the mover, and will prevent
the Lords, unless under the pressure of some overpowering necessity,
from again interfering to control the Commons in such matters. At the
same time it seems superfluous to point out that one claim advanced by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was apparently carried beyond his
usual discretion by his parental fondness for the rejected bill, is
utterly unreconcileable with the maintenance of any constitution at all
that can deserve the name. When there are three bodies so concerned in
the legislation that the united consent of all is indispensable to give
validity to any act, to claim for any one of them so paramount an
authority that, even if it should adopt a manifestly mischievous course,
neither of the others should have the right to control or check or
correct the error, would be to make that body the irresponsible master
of the whole government and nation; to invest it with that "overruling
power" which Lord Palmerston with such force of reasoning had
deprecated; and to substitute for that harmonious concert of all to
which, in his view, the perfection of our liberties was owing, a
submission to one, and that the one most liable to be acted upon by the
violence or caprice of the populace. He was a wise man who said that he
looked on the tyranny of one man as an evil, but on the tyranny of a
thousand as a thousand times worse. And for this reason also the
resolutions which were now adopted seem to have been conceived in a
spirit of judicious moderation, since, while rendering it highly
improbable that the Lords would again reject a measure relating to
taxation, it avoided absolutely to extinguish their power to do so. Lord
Palmerston, it may be thought, foresaw the possibility of an occasion
arising when the notoriety that such a power still existed might serve
as a check to prevent its exercise from being required. In the very case
which had given rise to this discussion he regarded it as certain that
the feeling of the majority of the nation approved of the action of the
peers; and, as what had occurred once might occur again, it was
certainly within the region of possibility that another such emergency
might arise, when the Lords might interfere with salutary effect to save
the country from the evil result of ill-considered legislation; finance
being, above all others, the subject on which a rash or unscrupulous
minister may find the greatest facility for exciting the people by
plausible delusions. There is, moreover, another reason why it would not
only be impolitic, but absolutely unfair, to deprive the Lords
altogether of their power of rejection even in cases of taxation;
namely, that the Commons, when imposing taxes, are taxing the Lords
themselves, as well as the other classes of the community; while the
Lords alone of the whole nation are absolutely unrepresented in the
House of Commons. There is a frequent cry for a graduated income-tax;
and surely if an unscrupulous demagogue in office were to contrive such
a graduation as would subject a peer to three times the income-tax borne
by a commoner, it would be a monstrous iniquity if the peers were to
have no power of protecting themselves in their own House.
In the last sentence of his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
"respectfully reserved to himself the freedom of acting in such a way as
should appear to offer any hope of success in giving effect by a
practical measure to the principle contained in the first resolution."
And it was, probably, an exemplification of the power of which he thus
bespoke the use that he the next year struck out a scheme for insuring
the repeal of the paper-duties, including it in one bill with all his
other financial propositions, instead of dividing them in the ordinary
way in several distinct bills. It was a manoeuvre which too much
resembled the system of "tacking," which had been so justly denounced as
one of the most unseemly manoeuvres of faction in the previous
century.[316] But, as some of the principal reasons which in the
preceding year had led the Lords to condemn the repeal had ceased to
exist, and the deficiency of the revenue had been converted into a
surplus, they thought it wiser to prove their superiority of wisdom to
the House of Commons by showing a more conciliatory spirit, and passed
the bill; though the course adopted, which had the effect of depriving
the Lords of that power of examination of the details of the financial
scheme of the government which they had hitherto enjoyed without any
question or dispute, was strongly protested against in both Houses, and
by some members who were not generally unfriendly to the administration.
A hundred years had now elapsed since George III. ascended the throne.
It had been a period full of transactions of great importance,
developing the constitution in such a manner and to such an extent as to
make a change in its character but little inferior to those which had
been produced by the contests of the preceding century. One principal
result of the Revolution of 1688 has been described as having been the
placing of the political power of the state chiefly in the hands of the
aristocracy. The Reform Bill of 1832, which has been sometimes called a
"second Revolution," transferred that power to the middle classes.[317]
And what may be called the logical sequence of the later measures is the
contrary of that which was designed to flow from the earlier ones. The
changes which were effected in 1688 were intended to promote, and were
believed to have insured, stability; to have established institutions of
a permanent character, as far as human affairs can be invested with
permanency. And down to the death of George II. the policy of succeeding
ministers, of whom Walpole may be taken as the type, as he was
unquestionably the most able, aimed chiefly at keeping things as they
were. _Quieta non movere_. The Peerage Bill, proposed by a
Prime-minister thirty years after the Revolution, was but an exaggerated
instance of the perseverance with which that object was kept in view.
But the Reform Bill of 1832, like the Emancipation Act which preceded
it, on the contrary, contained in itself, in its very principle, the
seeds and elements of farther change.
The Emancipation Act, following and combined with the repeal of the Test
Act, rendered it almost inevitable that religious toleration would in
time be extended to all persuasions, even to those adverse to
Christianity. And the Reform Bill, as has been already pointed out, by
the principles on which it based its limitations of the franchise, laid
the foundation for farther and repeated revision and modification.[318]
The consequence is, that the aim of statesmen of the present day differs
from that which was pursued by their predecessors. The statesman of the
present day can no longer hope to avoid farther changes, and must,
therefore, be content to direct his energies to the more difficult task
of making them moderate and safe, consistent with the preservation of
that balance of powers to which the country owes the liberty and
happiness which it has hitherto enjoyed.
It is in this point of view that the diffusion of education, beyond the
blessing which it confers on the individual, is of especial importance
to the state. Political theorists affirm that all men have an equal
right to political power--to that amount, at least, of political power
which is conferred by a vote at elections. Men of practical common-sense
affirm that no one has a right to power of any kind, unless he can be
trusted to forbear employing it to the injury of his fellow-creatures or
of himself. And the only safeguard and security for the proper exercise
of political power is sound and enlightened education. It is unnecessary
to dwell on this point, because our statesmen of both parties (to their
honor) give constant proof of their deep conviction of its importance.
But, in closing our remarks, it may be allowable to point out the
political lesson which, above all others, the teachers of the masses
should seek to inculcate on their pupils. The art of government, and
each measure of government, is, above all other things, the two-sided
shield. There are so many plausible arguments which may be advanced on
each side of almost every question of policy, that no candid man will
severely condemn him who in such disputable matters forms an opinion
different from his own. Age and experience are worse than valueless if
they do not teach a man to think better of his kind; and the history of
the period which we have been considering teaches no lesson more
forcibly than this, that the great majority of educated men, and
especially of our leading statesmen, are actuated by honest and
patriotic motives. And we would presume to urge that more important than
a correct estimate of any one transaction of the past, or even of any
one measure to influence the future, is the habit of putting a candid,
and therefore a favorable, construction on the characters and intentions
of those to whom from time to time the conduct of the affairs of the
nation is intrusted.
Notes:
[Footnote 276: "Life of Palmerston," vol. i., c. vii.]
[Footnote 277: "Life of the Prince Consort," ii, 303.]
[Footnote 278: _Ibid_., p. 412.]
[Footnote 279: Amos, "Fifty Years of the English Constitution," p. 289.]
[Footnote 280: "Past Gleanings," i., 242.]
[Footnote 281: "Life of the Prince Consort," iv., 458.]
[Footnote 282: 219 to 210.]
[Footnote 283: "Life of the Prince Consort," v., 100.]
[Footnote 284: _Ibid_., p. 148.]
[Footnote 285: "Life of Pitt," by Earl Stanhope, iii., 210.]
[Footnote 286: "Life of the Prince Consort," iv., 329.]
[Footnote 287: _Ibid._, p. 366.]
[Footnote 288: "Constitutional History," iii., 319, 3d edition.]
[Footnote 289: It should be added that, on a subsequent occasion, Mr.
Roundell Palmer, member for Plymouth (now Lord Chancellor Selborne, and
even then in the enjoyment of the highest professional reputation),
declared his opinion to be in favor of the legality and constitutional
propriety of the proceeding.]
[Footnote 290: To illustrate this position, Lord Lyndhurst said: "The
sovereign may by his prerogative, if he thinks proper, create a hundred
peers with descendible qualities in the course of a day. That would be
consistent with the prerogative, and would be perfectly legal; but
everybody must feel, and everybody must know, that such an exercise of
the undoubted prerogative of the crown would be a flagrant violation of
the principles of the constitution. In the same manner the sovereign
might place the Great Seal in the hands of a layman wholly unacquainted
with the laws of the country. That also would be a flagrant violation of
the constitution of this country."--Hansard's _Parliamentary Debates_,
cxl., February 7, 1856. In the same debate Lord Derby defined
"prerogative" as "the power of doing that which is beside the law."
Hallam, in discussing the prosecution of Sir Edward Hales, fully
recognizes the principle contended for by Lord Lyndhurst, saying that
"it is by no means evident that the decision of the judges" in that case
"was against law," but proceeding to show that "the unadvised assertion
in a court of law" of such an exercise of the prerogative "may be said
to have sealed the condemnation of the house of Stuart."--
_Constitutional History_, vol. iii., c. xiv., p. 86.]
[Footnote 291: In the reign of Richard II. the Earl of Oxford had been
made Marquis of Dublin for life, but he already had a seat in the House
as Earl. Henry V. had originally made the peerages of his brothers, the
Dukes of Bedford and Gloucester, life peerages; but these were afterward
surrendered and regranted "in the usual descendible form," so that they
rather made against the present case than for it. Henry VIII. had
created the Prince of Thomond Earl of Thomond for his life, but he had
at the same time granted him the barony of Inchiquin "for himself and
his heirs forever." It was also alleged that these life peerages had not
been conferred by the King alone, but by the King with the authority and
consent of Parliament, "these significant words being found in the
patents."]
[Footnote 292: The division was 153 to 133. Some years afterward,
however, a clause in the act, which created a new appellate
jurisdiction, empowered the sovereign to create peerages of this limited
character, one of the clauses providing that "every Lord of Appeal in
Ordinary should be entitled during his life to rank as a Baron by such
style as her Majesty may be pleased to appoint, and shall during the
time that he continues in office as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and no
longer be entitled to a writ of summons to attend, sit, and vote in the
House of Lords. His dignity as a Lord of Parliament shall not descend to
his heirs." As this act was passed long after the period at which the
present volume closes, it does not belong to the writer to examine how
far this act, in providing that every Lord of Appeal shall for the time
rank as a Baron (the Lords of Appeal being, of course, appointed by the
crown), is entitled to be spoken of as introducing a great
constitutional innovation, big with future consequences, as it has been
described by some writers.]
[Footnote 293: In one notorious instance, that of the Earl of Bristol
(_confer_ Hallam, i., 518), in the time of Charles I., the House of
Lords had interfered and compelled the issue of the writ; their action
forming a precedent for their right of interference in such matters,
which in the present case the Lord Chancellor denied.]
[Footnote 294: The grant of a pension of £1000 a year, with a baronetcy,
to General Havelock, and more recently to Sir F. Roberts, are, it is
believed, the only exceptions to this rule.]
[Footnote 295: Bishop Lonsdale, of Lichfield, in reference to Simon
Magus, from whose offer of money to the Apostles the offence derives its
name, denying that there was any similarity between his sin and the act
of purchasing an advowson or presentation, remarked that it might just
as fitly be called magic as simony.]
[Footnote 296: It has been, and will probably continue to be, a matter
of dispute whether the first conception and plan of the insurrection
originated with the restless boldness of the Mohammedans or the deeper
fanaticism of the Hindoos. It is notorious that the prophecy that a
century had been assigned by the Almighty as the allotted period of our
supremacy in India had for many years been circulated among both; and,
though the conspiracy was at first generally attributed to the
Mohammedans, the argument that the period from the battle of Plassy, in
1757, to the outbreak in 1857, though an exact century according to the
Hindoo calendar, is three years longer according to the Mohammedan
computation, seems an almost irresistible proof that the Brahmins were
its original authors. Sir John Kaye, in his "History of the Sepoy War,"
at the end of book iii., c. iii., prints the following note, as
furnished to him by Mr. E.A. Reade, a gentleman of long experience in
India: "I do not think I ever met one man in a hundred that did not give
the Mohammedans credit for this prediction. I fully believe that the
notion of change after a century of tenure was general, and I can
testify, with others, to have heard of the prediction at least a quarter
of a century previously. But, call it a prediction or a superstition,
the credit of it must, I think, be given to the Hindoos. If we take the
Hejira calendar, 1757 A.D. corresponds with 1171 Hejira; 1857 A.D. with
1274 Hejira; whereas, by the lunisolar year of the Sumbut, 1757 is 1814
Sumhut, and 1857 is 1914 Sumbut."]
[Footnote 297: It is worthy of remark that, as early as 1829, the Earl
of Ellenborough, then President of the Board of Control, had come to the
conclusion that the Company was no longer competent to govern so vast a
dominion as that of British India had gradually become. In his Diary,
recently published (ii., 131), he expresses his firm conviction that,
"in substituting the King's government for that of the Company, we shall
be conferring a great benefit on India, and effecting the measure which
is most likely to retain for England the possession of India;" and from
the same work (ii., 61) we learn that Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, one
of the ablest servants of whom the Company could boast, and who had
recently been Governor of Bombay, even while confessing himself
prejudiced in favor "of the existing system, under which he had been
educated and lived," admitted that "the administration of the government
in the King's name would be agreeable to the civil and military
services, and to people in England. He doubted whether, as regarded the
princes of India, it would signify much, as they now pretty well
understood us." See also _ibid_., p. 414.]
[Footnote 298: 318 to 173.]
[Footnote 299: The whole bill is given in the "Annual Register" for the
year 1858, p. 226.]
[Footnote 300: See her letter to Lord Derby on the subject, given in the
"Life of the Prince Consort," iv., 308; _confer_ also a memorandum of
the Prince Consort, _ibid._, p. 310.]
[Footnote 301: _Ibid._, p. 106.]
[Footnote 302: It should be remarked that the arrangement originally
carried out awoke among the European troops of the Company so deep and
general a spirit of discontent as at one time threatened to break out in
open mutiny; the ground of their dissatisfaction being "the transfer of
their services in virtue of an act of Parliament, but without their
consent." Accordingly, "on the announcement of the proclamation
transferring the possessions of the East India Company to the crown,
some of the soldiers of the Company's European force set up a claim for
a free discharge or a bounty on re-enlistment." Lord Clyde's
recommendation "that a concession should be made" was overruled by the
government of India, and "pronounced inadmissible by the law-officers of
the crown" in England. The dissatisfaction was allayed for the time by
the judicious measures, equally conciliatory and firm, adopted by Lord
Clyde, in whom all ranks of both armies felt equal confidence; but
eventually the government became convinced of the necessity of granting
discharges to every man who wished for one, provided he had not
misconducted himself.--Shadwell's _Life of Lord Clyde_, ii., 407-416.]
[Footnote 303: See _ante_, p. 385.]
[Footnote 304: Stanhope's "Life of Pitt," i., 173.]
[Footnote 305: Sir Theodore Martin quotes a passage from a letter of the
_Times_ correspondent, giving a report of the effect of the proclamation
on the natives: "Genuineness of Asiatic feeling is always a problem, but
I have little doubt it is in this instance literally sincere. The people
understand an Empress, and did not understand the Company. Moreover,
they (I am speaking of the masses) have a very decided notion that the
Queen has hanged the Company for offences 'which must have been very
great,' and that fact gives hope of future justice."--_Life of the
Prince Consort_, iv., 337.]
[Footnote 306: The "Annual Register" says that "neither the Emperor nor
the Empress was touched;" but Sir Theodore Martin ("Life of the Prince
Consort," iv., 155) says that "the Emperor's nose was grazed, and that
the Empress received a blow on the left eye which affected it for some
time."]
[Footnote 307: "Life of the Prince Consort," iv., 156.]
[Footnote 308: Speech of Lord Palmerston, February 19.]
[Footnote 309: It is remarkable that it was not a very full House, the
numbers of the division being only 234 to 215. Many members absented
themselves, being equally unwilling to condemn the bill or to approve
the silence of the ministry.]
[Footnote 310: 268 to 39.]
[Footnote 311: "Life of the Prince Consort," v., 131.]
[Footnote 312: "Life of the Prince Consort," i., 99.]
[Footnote 313: Chapter II., p. 54.]
[Footnote 314: It is known, from two letters from Lord Palmerston to the
Queen, published in the "Life of the Prince Consort," v., 100--in one,
written before the debate in the House of Lords, he expresses a hope
that the smallness of the majority in the House of Commons will
encourage the Lords to throw it out, and he "is bound in duty to say
that, if they do so, they will perform a good public service;" and in
another, the day after the division in the Lords, he writes again "that
they have done a right and useful thing," adding that the feeling of the
public was so strong against the measure, that those in the gallery of
the House are said to have joined in the cheers which broke out when the
numbers were announced.]
[Footnote 315: 433 to 36.]
[Footnote 316: See the proceedings of 1700 (Macaulay, "History of
England," v., 278; and of 1704, Lord Stanhope's "Reign of Queen Anne,"
p. 168). The Whig and the Tory writer equally condemn the "Tackers."]
[Footnote 317: In the debate on life peerages ("Parliamentary History,"
cxl., 356), Lord Grey spoke of "that great transfer of political power
from one class to another which was accomplished by the Reform Bill" And
Lord Campbell, speaking of Lord Grey himself in connection with that
measure, says: "His Reform Bill ought to place him in a temple of
British worthies by the side of Lord Somers, for it wisely remodelled
the constitution, and it is hardly less important than the Bill of
Rights."--_Life of Lord Campbell_, ii., 201.]
[Footnote 318: A recent writer, professedly belonging to the Radical
party, claims for it the credit of "being the legitimate issue of the
Reform Bill of 1832." ("The State of Parties," by J.E. Kebbel,
_Nineteenth Century_, March, 1881, p. 497.)]
INDEX.
ABBOTT, Mr., proposes a census.
Addington, Mr., becomes Prime-minister, See Sidmouth.
Additional Force Bill.
Albert, Prince, marries Queen Victoria.
Alien' Act, the.
Althorp, Lord, introduces a bill for the reform of the Poor-laws;
his speech on the condition of Ireland;
invites the House of Commons to rescind a vote.
Amelia, Princess, death of.
Archdall, Mr., on Catholic Emancipation, note.
Association, Catholic, suppression of.
BAKER, Mr., moves a resolution on the dismissal of the Coalition
Ministry.
Barrington, Lord, moves the expulsion of Wilkes.
Battle, wager of, abolished.
Bernard, trial of, as accomplice of Orsini.
Bishoprics, provision for the increase of;
exclusion of the occupants of the junior bishoprics from the House of
Peers;
resignation of, by aged bishops.
Blucher, Field-marshal, proposes to put Napoleon to death.
Boston, United States, tea ships at, boarded by rioters, and the cargo
thrown into the sea.
Bristol, Lord, denounces the appointment of the Chief-justice to a seat
in the cabinet.
Brougham, Mr., afterward Lord Chancellor, the chief adviser of the
Queen;
defends the ministry for stopping Lord Powis's bill.
Brownlow, Mr., opposes Pitt's commercial reforms.
Buonaparte, Napoleon, detention of.
Burdett, Sir F., carries a motion for repeal of Roman Catholic
disabilities.
Burke, Mr. B., opposes the expulsion of Wilkes;
supports Mr. Grenville's act;
complains of the insolence of the House of Peers;
supports the repeal of the bill for taxing the American Colonies;
on annual Parliaments;
brings in a bill for economical reform;
his "short account of a late administration";
asserts the right of the House of Peers to examine the public
accounts;
his violent language on the Regency Bill;
member of Lord Rockingham's second ministry;
his view of the attachment of the Colonies to England.
Bute, Earl of, Prime-minister in 1762;
resigns office.
CABINET, character of.
Camden, Earl of, approves the resolution of the House of Commons;
opposes the Royal Marriage Act;
supports Lord Chatham's views on the American question;
moves the Regency bill of 1788.
Campbell, Lord, his "Lives of the Chancellors" referred to;
his denunciation of the Declaratory Act;
and of the Regency bill;
on the Chief-justice in the cabinet.
Canada, disquietude in;
union of the two provinces.
Canning, Lord, grants the right of adoption to the Hindoo feudatories.
Canning, Mr. G., attacks the appointment of the Chief-justice to a seat
in the cabinet; becomes Prime-minister;
dies;
his opinion on the question in which House of Parliament the
Prime-minister should be.
Caroline, Princess of Brunswick, marries the Prince of Wales;
investigations into her conduct;
she dies.
Cave, Mr., punished for publishing reports of debates.
Census established.
Charlotte, Princess, birth of.
Chartists, rise of;
outrages of, at Birmingham and Newport.
Chatham, Earl of, Secretary of State in 1760;
Lord Privy Seal in 1767; supports Lord Rockingham's resolution on the
expulsion of Wilkes;
denies the power of the Parliament to tax America.
Church reform, sketched out by Sir Robert Peel;
earned by Lord Melbourne's ministry.
Clarence, Duke of, opposes the abolition of the slave trade;
his leaning toward the Whigs.
Clarendon, Earl of, omits to reply to the despatch of the French
minister.
Clergy, Roman Catholic, question of endowing the.
Colborne, Sir John crushes the insurrection in Canada.
Colonies, general grant of constitutions to, in New Zealand, the Cape,
and Australia.
Commons, House of privileges of, with respect to money bills.
Conventicle Act, repeal of.
Conway, General, Secretary of State, introduces a bill of indemnity.
Cornwallis, Lord, surrenders in America.
Corporations, reform of.
Crosby, Brass, Mr, Lord Mayor, commits a messenger of the House of
Commons, and is himself committed to the Tower.
Cumberland, Duke of, marries Mrs Horton.
Cust, Sir J, Speaker of the House of Commons.
DASHWOOD, Sir F., his revels at Medmenham Abbey.
Declaratory Act.
De Grey, Mr, Attorney-general, supports the resolutions against Wilkes.
Denbigh, Lord, defends the employment of Hanoverian troops at Gibraltar.
Denman, Lord Chief justice, his charge to the jury in the case of
Stockdale v. Hansard.
Disraeli, Mr B, his act for the trial of election petitions;
he denounces Sir Robert Peel for not resigning when defeated on the
sugar-duties;
condemns Lord Clarendon's omission to reply to the French despatch;
supports the House of Lords on the paper duties.
Dowdeswell, Mr, opposes the Royal Marriage Act.
Dundas, Mr, moves an amendment to Mr Dunning's resolution.
Dunning, Mr, afterward Lord Ashburton, supports Mr Glenvilles act;
criticizes a resolution on the influence of the crown.
Dunham, Lord, Governor of Canada.
EDUCATION, influence of the penal laws on in Ireland.
Eldon, Lord, on the coronation oath in connection with the Catholic
question;
on the detention of Napoleon;
on life peerages.
Elgin, Lord, Governor general of Canada.
Ellenborough, Lord, supports the Additional Force Bill;
becomes a member of the Cabinet;
is recalled from the government of India by the Company.
Emancipation of Roman Catholics designed by Pitt;
concurred by the Duke of Wellington.
Erskine, Lord, as Chancellor, presides over the impeachment of Lord
Melville;
resists Lord Sidmouth's Six Acts.
FITZGERALD, LORD E., opposes the English government.
Fitzgerald, Mr Vesey, is defeated in Clare.
Fitzgibbon, Mr (afterward Lord Clare), opposes the convention of
delegates in Dublin;
Attorney-general in Ireland, prosecutes the sheriff of Dublin;
supports the Regency bill.
Fitzwilliam, Earl, is dismissed from the Lord-lieutenancy of Yorkshire.
Five Mile Act repealed.
Fox, Mr C., opposes Mr Grenville's act;
on the privileges claimed by the House of Commons respecting
money-bills;
_note_, on Parliamentary reform and annual Parliaments;
urges the appointment as Prime-Minister of the Duke of Portland;
resigns office;
becomes Secretary of State;
his India Bill;
violence of his attacks on Pitt at the beginning of his ministry;
his opinions on Colonial policy;
denies the Prince's marriage;
opposes the Regency bill;
opposes the Alien Act and other bills;
opposes Pitt's commercial reforms;
becomes Secretary of State;
supports the abolition of the slave trade;
dies.
France, new revolution in 1848.
Franklin, Dr, is examined by the House of Commons on Mr Glenville's
measures of taxation.
GEORGE III., state of affairs at the accession of;
illness of in 1764;
firmness in the Gordon riots;
becomes deranged;
is attacked on the street;
resists the relaxation of Catholic restrictions;
becomes permanently deranged;
dies;
character of his reign.
George IV. succeeds to the throne.
Gladstone, Mr W.E., opposes the fortification of the dockyards;
proposes to repeal the paper-duties;
carries the repeal of the paper-duties;
desires to weaken the power of the House of Lords.
Gloucester, Duke of, marries Lady Waldegrave.
Gordon, Lord George, the Gordon riots.
Goulburn, Mr. H, is Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Grafton, Duke of, Prime-minister in 1767;
disapproves of American taxation.
Graham, Sir J., as Home-secretary, orders the opening of letters.
Grampound disfranchised.
Granville, Earl, defends life peerages.
Grattan, Mr. H., moves the repeal of Poynings' Act;
opposes Pitt's commercial reforms;
opposes Pitt's Regency bill.
Grenville, Mr. G., becomes Prime minister;
opposes the expulsion of Wilkes;
brings in a bill for the investigation of election petitions;
imposes taxes on the North American Colonies.
Grenville, Lord, introduces the Alien Bill;
opposes the Additional Force Bill;
brings in a bill for the abolition of the slave trade;
refuses a seat in the cabinet in 1812.
Grey, Mr. (afterward Earl), opposes the Regency bill;
opposes the Alien Act;
opposes the union with Ireland;
proposes to diminish the number of members of the House of Commons;
opposes the abolition of slavery;
refuses a seat in the cabinet in 1812;
becomes Prime minister;
his ministry brings in Reform Bill;
defends a proposed creation of peers;
mentions the sovereign's opinion unconstitutionally;
letters from office.
Grey, Earl (son of the preceding), his doctrine on the true principles
of colonial government;
on life peerages.
Gower, Lord F.L., carries a resolution for the endowment of the Roman
Catholic clergy.
Girizot, M., Foreign Secretary in France.
HALIFAX, Earl of, issues a general warrant against the publishers, etc.,
of _The North Briton_.
Hanoverian troops, employment of, at Gibraltar.
Hansard, Mr., publishes the Parliamentary debates.
Hardy, General, taken prisoner by Sir J. Warren.
Hill, Mr. Roland, proposes a reform of the Post-office.
Hillsborough, Lord, writes a circular letter to the North American
Colonies.
Hoche, General, sails for Ireland.
Holdernesse, Earl of, Secretary of State in 1760.
Holland, Lord, opposes the Regency Bill.
Holt, Chief justice, his decision on the question of slavery.
Holsmann, Mr., supports the House of Lords on the paper duties.
Humbert, General, taken prisoner in Mayo.
INDIA, Fox's India Bill;
Pitt's India Bill;
Mutiny in;
transfer of the authority of the Company to the crown;
establishment of the Order of the Star of India;
is visited by the Prince of Wales.
Ireland, affairs of;
connection with France;
rebellion in.
JAMAICA, planters in, compensated for the diminution of the value
of their property by the abolition of slavery;
disturbances in;
its constitution is suspended.
Judges, new tenure of their office.
KING, the, cannot be a witness in any legal proceeding.
LABOUCHERE, Mr. H., reproaches Sir Robert Peel for not resigning.
Leopold, King of Belgium, points of the insufficiency of the description
of Prince Albert.
Lewis, Sir. G.C., speech on the history and power of the East India
Company.
Liverpool, Lord, earnest for the universal abolition of the slave trade;
becomes Prime minister;
makes the Catholic question an open question in the cabinet;
brings in, and subsequently withdraws, a "Bill of Pains and
Penalties";
against the Queen;
attacked by apoplexy and dies;
contemplates an increased grant to Maynooth.
Lopes, Sir M., procures the return of Mr. Pool for Westbury.
Louise, Princess, marriage of.
Lowther, Sir John, obtains a grant of Inglewood Forest.
Luttrell, Mr., is declared elected for Middlesex.
Lyndhurst, Lord, carries an amendment on the Reform Bill;
introduces a Regency bill.
MACINTOSH, Sir J., applies himself to mitigate the severity of the law.
Mahon, Lord, brings in a bill to diminish the expenses of elections.
Mansfield, Lord, condemns general warrants;
insists on the necessity of a bill of indemnity;
vindicates the supremacy of Parliament;
his house is burnt by the rioters in 1780.
Martin, Mr., wounds Wilkes in a duel.
Massachusetts, riots in.
Maynooth, foundation of a college at;
is enlarged and more fully endowed.
Melbourne, Lord, becomes Prime-minister;
resigns;
resumes office;
mismanages the arrangements for Prince Albert.
Melville, Lord, is impeached.
Metternich, Prince, is driven from Vienna.
Miles, Mr., defeats the government on the sugar-duties.
Moira, Lord, employed by the Regent to negotiate with the Whig leaders
in 1812.
Money-bills, power of the House of Lords as to.
Montesquieu, M. de, his opinion of the English constitution.
Montmorin, M., Wilberforce writes to him on the subject of the
slave-trade.
NAPOLEON, Louis, is elected President of the French Republic;
his _coup d'état_;
conspiracy against.
Navigation laws, the, repeal of.
Nelson, Lord, his victory at Copenhagen.
Newcastle, Duke of, Prime minister in 1760.
New Shoreham, disfranchisement of for bribery.
Newspapers, tax on, reduced and afterward abolished.
Nicholas, Emperor of Russia, writes to the Queen.
Normanby, Lord, ambassador in Paris, complains of Lord Palmerston.
North, Lord, supports the decision in favor of Mr. Luttrell;
opposes Mr. Grenville's act;
opposes Mr. Seymour's bill to limit the _Nullum Tempus_ Act;
opposes reform of Parliament;
rejects the demands of Ireland.
Northington, Lord C., defends the embargo on corn;
indicates the supremacy of Parliament.
_Nullum Tempus_ Act, the, extended.
O'CONNELL, Mr. D., is returned for Clare;
is chief of the Catholic Association.
Octennial act for Ireland.
"Olive Branch, the,"
Onslow, Colonel, complains of the publication of the debates.
Orsini, conspiracy of.
PALMERSTON, Lord, is dismissed from the Foreign-office;
introduces the bill for the transfer of the government of India to
the crown;
writes to the Queen on the abolition of the authority of the East
India Company;
is defeated on the Conspiracy Bill and resigns;
returns to office;
disapproves of the reduction of the paper-duty;
desires to uphold the House of Lords.
Papineau. M., organizes an insurrection in Canada.
Parke, Sir J., is created a peer for life.
Parliament, first meeting of the United.
Peel, Sir Robert, responsible for the change of ministry in 1834;
becomes Home-secretary;
resigns his seat for Oxford and fails to be re-elected;
impropriety of his resignation;
speech on introducing the bill for Catholic Emancipation;
becomes Prime-minister;
declines to form an administration in 1839;
supports Lord J. Russell's resolutions in the case of Stockdale _v._
Hansard;
his opinion on the question in which House the Prime-minister should
be;
becomes Prime-minister in 1841;
revises the commercial tariff;
suspends the Corn-law;
causes its abolition.
Peel, Colonel, organizes the Volunteers.
Peerages, life, legality of.
Peers, the House of, strikes out of a corn bill some clauses giving
bounties;
their right to inquire into the public expenditure asserted by Lord
Camden and others;
their privileges as to money-bills;
provisions as to Irish peers in the Act of Union;
proposed creation of peers to carry the Reform Bill considered;
the House of Peers rejects the abolition of the paper-duty.
Penal laws, in Ireland;
repeal of;
in the United Kingdom.
Penu, Mr., sent from America to England with "the Olive Branch."
Perceval, Mr., becomes Prime-minister;
proposes a Regency bill;
is murdered.
Percy, Lord, proposes the entire abolition of slavery.
Persigny, M. de, French Secretary of State, his despatch on Orsini's
conspiracy.
Pigott, Sir A., brings in a bill on the slave-trade.
Pitt, see Earl of Chatham.
Pitt, Mr. T., denounces the influence of the crown.
Pitt, Mr. W., on the privileges of House of Commons respecting
money-bills;
_note_;
becomes Prime-minister;
his long struggle against, and eventual defeat of the Opposition;
comparisons between his father and him;
his India bill;
his Quebec bill;
his Regency bill;
founds Maynouth;
carries the Irish Union;
resigns on the Catholic question.
Plunkett, Mr., opposes the Irish Union.
Ponsonby, Mr. G., condemns the policy of open questions.
Poor-law, the, reform of.
Portland, Duke of, becomes Prime-minister;
again.
Post-office, reform of;
letters opened by the order of the Secretary of State.
Powis, Earl, brings in a bill to preserve the Welsh sees.
Pownall, Governor, introduces a corn bill.
Poynings' Act;
repeal of.
RADETSKY, MARSHAL, his campaign in North Italy.
Reform of Parliament, Alderman Sawbridge proposes a measure of;
Mr. Pitt brings in a bill for;
agitation for, in 1818;
introduced and carried by Lord Grey's administration;
the people indifferent to farther reform.
Regency bill of 1764;
of 1840;
former Regency bills had been passed in the reigns of Edward III.,
Richard II., Henry VI., and George II.;
in Ireland;
bill of 1810.
Registration, extension of, 342.
Rice, Mr. Spring, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduces
Post-office reform;
as Lord Monteagle proposes the rejection of the paper-duty bill.
Roberts, Mr., returning officer for New Shoreham.
Rochfort, Lord, introduces the Royal Marriage Act.
Rockingham, Marquis of, Prime-minister in 1768;
moves a resolution condemning the proceedings against Wilkes;
Prime-minister a second time;
repeals the American taxes;
disapproves of the employment of Hanoverian troops at Gibraltar;
wisdom of his policy toward America;
his speech on the influence of the crown;
becomes Prime-minister a second time.
Rolle, Mr., moots the question of the Prince's marriage.
Romilly, Sir S., opposes the Regency bill;
applies himself to reforms of the law.
Rose, Mr., opposes Sir A. Pigott's bill on the slave-trade.
Russell, Lord J., his opinion on Fox's conduct in Opposition;
on the Regency bill;
carries the repeal of the Test Act;
introduces the Reform Bill;
introduces a bill for municipal reform;
his resolutions in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard;
becomes Prime--minister.
Russia, war with.
SANDWICH, EARL OF, denounces Wilkes's "Essay on Woman."
Sarsfield, General, takes refuge in France.
Savile, Sir G., his bill for the limitation of the _Nullum Tempus_ Act.
Seaforth, Lord, reports of the treatment of slaves in Barbadoes.
Seditious Meetings Act.
Shelburne, Lord, denounces the employment of Hanoverian troops at
Gibraltar;
becomes Prime-minister.
Sheridan, Mr. R., his language on the Prince's marriage;
opposes the Alien Act;
conceals Lord Yarmouth's intention to resign.
Sidmouth, Lord, as Home-secretary, introduces six bills for the
suppression of sedition;
resigns office.
Slavery, abolition of.
Slave-trade, abolition of.
Smith, Mr. W., M.P. for Norwich, on repeal of the Five Mile Act.
Somersett, is released by Lord Mansfield.
Stamp Act, imposed on the American Colonies by Mr. Grenville;
repealed by Lord Rockingham.
Stanley, Mr., afterward Lord, and afterward Lord Derby, denounces the
Catholic Association;
brings in a bill for the abolition of slavery;
fails in the attempt to form a ministry in 1845;
becomes Prime-minister in 1852;
proposes a committee on life peerages;
becomes Prime-minister;
resigns.
St. Vincent, Lord, opposes the abolition of the slave-trade.
Stockdale, Mr., brings an action against Messrs. Hansard.
Sugar-duties, Sir Robert Peel's ministry is defeated on a reduction of.
Sussex, Duke of, protests against some clauses of the Regency Act.
Sydenham, Lord, Governor-general of Canada.
TANDY, NAPPER, proposes a congress.
Temple, Earl, his interview with George III.
Test and Corporation Acts are repealed.
Thurlow, Mr., afterward Lord Chancellor, on the case of Wilkes;
defends the employment of Hanoverian troops at Gibraltar;
denounces Fox's India Bill;
approves of the King's employment of Lord Temple.
Tone, Wolfe, commits suicide.
Townsend, Lord, Lord-lieutenant of Ireland.
Townsend, Mr. C., re-imposes taxes on North America.
Traitorous Correspondence Bill.
Troy, Dr., petitions for a Roman Catholic college in Ireland.
UNION, the Irish.
Union with Scotland, obstacles to, and advantages resulting from.
VICTORIA, Queen, succeeds to the throne;
marries;
her careful exercise of her duties;
draws up a memorandum for the guidance of the ministers;
writes to foreign sovereigns.
Victoria, the province of, grant of a constitution to.
Villiers, Mr. C., advocates the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Volunteers, rise of the Irish, 158; rise of the English.
WALES, Prince or, son of George III., his conduct and establishment;
marries Mrs. Fitzherbert;
is attacked in the streets;
See George IV.
Wales, Prince of, son of the Queen, visits India.
Walpole, Sir R., the case of;
on election petitions;
refuses to repeal the Test Act;
his general policy.
Walpole, Mr. Spencer, supports the Conspiracy Bill.
Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, denounces Wilkes.
Ward, Mr., his motion on the appropriation of Church funds.
Wedderburn, Mr., on the case of Wilkes;
supports Mr. Grenville's act;
his opinion on the Riot Act;
the chief legal adviser of the Prince of Wales;
suggests the Traitorous Correspondence Bill;
excites the King to resist the removal of Catholic disabilities.
Wellesley, Marquis, proposed to be appointed Prime-minister.
Wellington, Lord, afterward Duke of, his victories in the Peninsula and
in France;
becomes Commander-in-chief;
advises the King to decline dining with the Lord Mayor;
fails in the endeavor to form an administration;
becomes temporary Prime-minister, holding several offices;
condemns the recall of Lord Ellenborough.
Westmoreland, Lord, opposes the abolition of the slave-trade.
Wetherall, Sir Charles, is attacked at Bristol.
Weymouth, Lord, Secretary of State, writes a letter to the Surrey
magistrates.
Whately, Archbishop, his opinion on the Lord-lieutenancy of Ireland;
_note_.
Whitbread, Mr., promotes the impeachment of Lord Melville.
Wilberforce, Mr. W., proposes the admission of Roman Catholics to the
militia;
devotes himself to the abolition of the slave-trade.
Wilkes, Mr., sets up _The North Briton_;
criticises the King's speech;
is apprehended;
is expelled the House of Commons for printing the "Essay on Woman;"
is elected for Middlesex, expelled, and re-elected;
as Lord Mayor behaves with spirit during the Gordon riots;
procures the expunction of the resolutions against him.
William IV., his conduct on the Reform Bill;
dies.
Windham, Mr., brings in a bill for reenforcing the army.
Wolseley, Sir C., is elected M.P. by a Birmingham convention.
YARMOUTH, Earl of, Lord Chamberlain.
THE END.