FRUITS OF THE REFORM.
It was assumed in 1832, and has been held ever since, that a
redistribution act must be speedily followed by a dissolution, so as to
give the new constituencies the power of returning new members.
Accordingly, parliament, having been prorogued until October 16, was
further prorogued until December 3, and then finally dissolved. The
general election which followed, though awaited with much anxiety, was
orderly on the whole, and produced less change than had been expected in
the _personnel_ of the house of commons. The counties, for the most
part, elected men from the landed aristocracy, the great towns elected
men of recognised distinction, and few political leaders were excluded,
though Croker abjured political life and refused to solicit a seat in
the reformed house of commons. The good sense of the country asserted
itself; while Cobbett was returned for Oldham, "Orator" Hunt was
defeated at Preston, and no general preference was shown for violent
demagogues by the more democratic boroughs. The age of members in the
new house was higher, on the average, than in the old; its social
character was somewhat lower, and the high authority of William Ewart
Gladstone, who now entered parliament for the first time, may be quoted
for the opinion that it was inferior, in the main, as a deliberative
assembly. But it was certainly superior as a representative assembly, it
contained more capable men of business, and its legislative productions,
as we shall hereafter see, claim the gratitude of posterity. A certain
want of modesty in the new class of members was observed by hostile
critics, and was to be expected in men who had won their seats by
popular oratory and not through patronage. The house of commons had
already ceased to be "the best club in London," and later reforms have
still further weakened its title to be so regarded, but they have also
shown the wonderful power of assimilation inherent in the atmosphere of
the house itself, and the spirit of freemasonry which springs up among
those who enter it by very different avenues.
[Pageheading: _THE FIRST REFORMED PARLIAMENT._]
The change wrought by the reform act in the strength and distribution of
parties was immediate and conspicuous. The ancient division of whigs and
tories, which had become well-nigh obsolete in the reign of George IV.,
had been revived by the great struggle of 1831-32. It was now superseded
to a great extent by the combination of the radicals with O'Connell's
followers into an independent section, and by the growth of a party
under Peel, distinct from the inveterate tories and known by the name of
"conservative," which first came into use in 1831.[110] The
preponderance of liberalism, in its moderate and extreme forms, was
overwhelming. It was roughly computed that nearly half the house were
ministerialists and about 190 members radicals, Irish repealers, or free
lances, while only 150 were classed as "conservatives," apparently
including tories.[111] In such circumstances the attitude to be adopted
by Peel was of the highest constitutional importance. It is some proof
of the respect for statesmanship instinctively felt by the new house of
commons that Peel, as inexorable an opponent of reform as Canning
himself, should at once have assumed a foremost position and soon
obtained an ascendency in an assembly so largely composed of his
opponents.
But Peel himself was no longer a mere party leader. Unlike Wellington
and Eldon, he saw the necessity of accepting loyally the accomplished
fact and shaping his future course in accordance with the nation's will.
He, therefore, took an early opportunity of declaring that he regarded
the reform act as irrevocable, and that he was prepared to participate
in the dispassionate amendment of any institution that really needed it.
In a private letter to Goulburn he stated that, in his judgment, "the
best position the government could assume would be that of moderation
between opposite extremes of ultra-toryism and radicalism," intimating
further that "we should appear to the greatest advantage in defending
the government" against their own extreme left wing.[112] In this
policy he persevered; his influence did much to quell the confusion and
disorder of the first debate, and his followers swelled the government
majorities in several of the early divisions. When he came to review the
first session of the reformed parliament he remarked in a private letter
that what had been foreseen took place, that "the popular assembly
exercised tacitly supreme power," and, without abolishing the crown or
the house of lords, overawed the convictions of both.[113]
[Pageheading: _IRISH COERCION BILL._]
The passion for reform, far from spending itself in remodelling the
house of commons, filled the statute-book with monuments of remedial
legislation. No session was more fruitful in legislative activity than
that of 1833. But the way of legislation was at first blocked against
all projects of improvement by the urgent necessity of passing an Irish
coercion bill. This had been indicated in the king's speech, and on
February 15, 1833 Grey introduced the strongest measure of repression
ever devised for curbing anarchy in Ireland. It combined, as he
explained, the provisions of "the proclamation act, the insurrection
act, the partial application of martial law, and the partial suspension
of the _habeas corpus_ act". But the barbarities and terrorism which it
was designed to put down were beyond precedent and almost beyond belief.
The attempt to collect the arrears of tithe, even with the aid of
military force, had usually failed, and less than an eighth of the sum
due was actually levied. The organised defiance of law was not, however,
confined to refusal of tithes; it embraced the refusal of rent and
extended over the whole field of agrarian relations. The Whiteboys of
the eighteenth century reappeared as "Whitefeet," and other secret
associations, under grotesque names, enforced their decrees by wholesale
murder, burglary, arson, savage assaults, destruction of property, and
mutilation of cattle. In two counties, Kilkenny and Queen's County,
nearly a hundred murders or attempted murders were reported within
twelve months, and the murderous intimidation of witnesses and jurors
secured impunity to perpetrators of crimes. No civilised government
could have tolerated an orgy of lawlessness on so vast a scale, and
nothing but the exigencies of the reform bill can excuse Grey and his
colleagues for not having grappled with it earlier. Nor does it appear
that any remedy less stern would have been effectual. Where unarmed
citizens have not the courage either to protect themselves or to aid the
constabulary employed for their protection, soldiers, accustomed to face
death and inflict it upon others under lawful command, must be called in
to maintain order. Where civil tribunals have become a mockery, summary
justice must be dealt out by military tribunals. Force may be no remedy
for grievances, but it is the one sovereign remedy for organised crime,
and this was soon to be proved in Ireland.
The viceroy, Anglesey, true to his liberal instincts, would have
postponed coercion to measures of relief, such as a settlement of the
church question. Stanley, on the other hand, insisted on the prompt
introduction of a stringent peace preservation bill, and his energetic
will prevailed. The bill contained provisions enabling the
lord-lieutenant to suppress any meeting, establishing a curfew law in
disturbed districts, and placing offenders in such districts under the
jurisdiction of courts martial with legal assessors. It passed the house
of lords with little discussion on the 22nd, and was laid before the
house of commons a few days later by Althorp, who had already brought in
an Irish Church temporalities bill. The debate on the address had
already given warning of the reception which the Irish members would
accord to any coercion bill, and of their malignant hostility to
Stanley. Efforts were made to delay its introduction, and full advantage
was taken of Althorp's statement that one special commission had been
completely successful. His opening speech, tame and inconclusive,
discouraged his own followers. The fate of the bill appeared doubtful,
but Stanley, who had twice staked the existence of the ministry on its
adoption, reversed the whole tendency of the debate by a speech of
marvellous force and brilliancy, which Russell afterwards described as
"one of the greatest triumphs ever won in a popular assembly by the
powers of oratory".[114] It was in this speech that he proved himself at
least a match for O'Connell, whom he scathed with fierce indignation as
having lately called the house of commons a body of scoundrels. It cost
many nights of debate to carry the bill, with slight amendments, but
Stanley's appeal had a lasting effect, and it became law in April, to
the great benefit of Ireland.
[Pageheading: _IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES BILL._]
Meanwhile, the Irish Church temporalities bill was pressed forward as a
counterpoise to coercion. It imposed a graduated tax upon all episcopal,
capitular, and clerical incomes above £200 a year, and placed the
proceeds, estimated at £60,000 or £70,000 a year, in the hands of
commissioners, to be expended in the repairs of churches, the erection
of glebe-houses, and other parochial charges. In this way Irish
ratepayers might be relieved of the obnoxious "vestry cess," a species
of Church rate, at the expense of the clergy. A further saving of
£60,000 a year or upwards was to be effected by a reduction of the Irish
episcopate, aided by a new and less wasteful method of leasing Church
lands attached to episcopal sees. Two out of four Irish archbishoprics
and eight out of eighteen bishoprics were doomed to extinction, as
vacancies should occur. Dioceses and benefices were to be freely
consolidated, clerical sinecures were to cease, and the more scandalous
abuses of the Irish Church were to be redressed.
As a scheme for ecclesiastical rearrangement within the Church itself,
the bill was sound and liberal, but it was utterly futile to imagine
that it would be welcomed, except as a mere instalment of conciliation,
by Roman catholics who looked upon the protestant Church itself as a
standing national grievance. The only boon secured to them was exemption
from their share of vestry cess, for, though Althorp intimated that the
ultimate surplus to be realised by the union of sees and livings would
be at the disposal of parliament, they well knew how many influences
would operate to prevent its reaching them. Not even O'Connell, still
less the ministry, ventured to propose "concurrent endowment" as it was
afterwards called, and the very idea of diverting revenues from the
protestant establishment to Roman catholic uses was disclaimed with
horror. More than a century earlier, a partition of these revenues
between the great protestant communions had been seriously entertained,
and Pitt had notoriously contemplated a provision for the Roman catholic
priests out of state funds. But no such demand was now made, and the one
feature of the bill which commanded the vigorous support of O'Connell
and his adherents was the 147th section, or "appropriation clause,"
which enabled parliament to apply the expected surplus of some £60,000
in income, or some £3,000,000 in capital, to whatever purposes, secular
or otherwise, it might think fit to approve. The far-reaching importance
of this principle was fully understood on both sides. To radicals and
Roman catholics it was the sole virtue of the bill; to friends of the
Irish Church and tories it was a blot to be erased at any cost.
The progress of the measure was not rapid. Its nature had been explained
by Althorp on February 12, but it was not in print on March 11 when,
notwithstanding the reasonable protest of Peel, he induced the house to
fix the second reading for the 14th. It was then found that, owing to
its form, it must be preceded by resolutions, in order to satisfy the
rules of the house. These resolutions, containing the essence of the
bill, were proposed on April 1, but were not adopted without a long
debate, and the debate on the second reading did not begin until May 6.
It ended in a majority of 317 to 78 for the government, chiefly due to a
moderate speech from Sir Robert Peel, who, however, denounced the policy
of "appropriation". The discussion in committee was far more vehement,
and radicals like Hume did not shrink from avowing their desire to pull
down the Irish establishment, root and branch. The attack on the
conservative side was mainly concentrated on the appropriation clause.
In vain was it argued that a great part of the expected surplus was not
Church property, inasmuch as it would result from improvements in the
system of episcopal leases to be carried out by the agency of the state.
Every one saw that, however disguised, and whether legitimate or not,
appropriation of the surplus for secular purposes would be an act of
confiscation, and must needs be interpreted as a precedent.
The cabinet itself was divided on the subject, and despaired of saving
the bill in the house of lords, without sacrificing the disputed clause.
On June 21, therefore, Stanley announced in the house of commons that
the appropriation clause would be withdrawn, and that any profits
arising out of financial reforms within the Church would be allowed to
fall into the hands of the ecclesiastical commissioners. The fury of
O'Connell was unbounded, and not so devoid of excuse as many of his
passionate outbreaks. He treated the Church bill as the stipulated
price to be paid for the coercion bill, and the appropriation clause as
the only part of it, except relief from vestry cess, which could possess
the smallest value for Irish Roman catholics. There was no valid answer
to his argument, except that another collision with the house of lords
must be avoided at any tolerable cost, for, as Russell bluntly said,
"the country could not stand a revolution once a year". Thus lightened,
and slightly modified in the interest of Irish incumbents, the bill
passed through committee and was read a third time by very large
majorities, the minority being mainly composed of its old radical
partisans. Peel's letters show how anxious he was to "make the reform
bill work," by protecting the government against this extreme
faction,[115] and the parliamentary reports show how much he did to
frustrate the attempt to intimidate the lords by a resolution of the
commons.
The debate in the upper house lasted three nights in July, but is almost
devoid of permanent interest. The appropriation question being dropped,
there was little to discuss except the historical origin of Irish
dioceses, the precedents for their consolidation, and the economical
details of the scheme for equalising, in some degree, the incomes of
Irish clergymen. Two or three peers, headed by the Duke of Cumberland,
took their stand once more on the coronation oath, and Bishop Phillpotts
of Exeter availed himself of this objection in one of the most powerful
speeches delivered against the bill. On the other hand, Bishop Blomfield
of London, and the Duke of Wellington, now acting in concert with Peel,
gave it a grudging support, as the less of two evils. After passing the
second reading by a majority of 157 to 98, it was subjected to minute
criticism in committee, and one amendment was carried against the
government, but Grey wisely declined to relinquish it except on some
vital issue. The majority on the third reading was 135 to 81, and on
August 2 the commons agreed to the lords' amendments, O'Connell
remarking that, after all, the peers had not made the bill much worse
than they found it. More than a generation was to elapse before this
"act to alter and amend the laws relating to the temporalities of the
Church in Ireland" was completed by an act severing that Church from
the state. But the ulterior aims of those who first challenged the
sanctity of Church endowments were not concealed, and the more than
Erastian tendency of the liberal movement was henceforth clearly
perceived by high Churchmen. We know, on the authority of Dr. Newman,
that he and his early associates regarded the Anglican revival of which
they were the pioneers as essentially a reaction against liberalism, and
liberalism as the most formidable enemy of sacerdotal power.
[Pageheading: _STANLEY COLONIAL SECRETARY._]
Long before the Irish church bill had passed the house of commons
Stanley exchanged the chief secretaryship of Ireland for the higher
office of colonial secretary, to which he was gazetted on March 28. His
uncompromising advocacy of the coercion bill, and his known hostility to
direct spoliation of the Church, alike provoked the hatred of Irish
Roman catholics, and Brougham had already advised his retirement from
Ireland. His promotion was facilitated by the resignation of Durham,
nominally on grounds of health, but also because he was in constant
antagonism to his own father-in-law, Grey, and his moderate colleagues
in the cabinet. He received an earldom, and was succeeded as lord privy
seal by Goderich, who became Earl of Ripon. This opened the colonial
office to Stanley, who instantly found himself face to face with a
question almost as intractable as the pacification of Ireland. Sir John
Hobhouse became chief secretary for Ireland, but without a seat in the
cabinet. He resigned in May, and was succeeded by Edward John Littleton,
who was married to a natural daughter of the Marquis Wellesley.
Among the statutes passed in 1833, there are several, besides those
relating to Ireland, of sufficient importance to confer distinction upon
any parliamentary session. One of these is entitled "an act for the
better administration of justice in His Majesty's privy council"; a
second, "an act for the abolition of slavery throughout the British
colonies, for promoting the industry of the manumitted slaves, and for
compensating the persons hitherto entitled to the services of such
slaves"; a third, "an act for the abolition of fines and recoveries, and
for the substitution of more simple methods of assurance"; a fourth, "an
act to regulate the trade to China and India"; a fifth, "an act for
giving to the corporation of the governor and company of the Bank of
England certain privileges, for a limited period, under certain
conditions"; a sixth, "an act to regulate the labour of children and
young persons in the mills and factories of the United Kingdom". Not one
of these salutary measures was forced upon the legislature by popular
clamour, every one of them represents a sincere zeal for what has been
ridiculed as "world-bettering," and the parliament that passed them must
have been thoroughly imbued with the spirit of reform.
Foremost of these measures, as a monument of philanthropic legislation,
will ever stand the act for the abolition of colonial slavery. No class
in the country was concerned in its promotion; the powerful interests of
the planters were arrayed against it; and humanity, operating through
public opinion, was the only motive which could induce a government to
espouse the anti-slavery cause. Stanley had not occupied his new office
many weeks when on May 14 it became his lot to explain the ministerial
scheme in the house of commons. Its essence consisted in the immediate
extinction of absolute property in slaves, but with somewhat complicated
provisions for an intermediate state of apprenticeship, to last twelve
years. During this period negroes were to be maintained by their former
masters, under an obligation to serve without wages for three-fourths of
their working hours, and were to earn wages during the remaining fourth.
All children under six years of age were to become free at once, and all
born after the passing of the act were to be free at birth. The
proprietors were to receive compensation by way of loan, to the extent
of £15,000,000, and additional grants were promised for the institution
of a stipendiary magistracy and a system of education.
Several resolutions embodying the scheme were carried, with little
opposition, though some abolitionists, headed by Mr. Fowell Buxton, a
wealthy brewer and eminent philanthropist, who sat for Weymouth, took
strong exception to compulsory apprenticeship, as perpetuating the
principle of slavery, however mitigated by the recognition of personal
liberty and the suppression of corporal punishment. It was found
expedient, however, in deference to a very strong remonstrance from West
Indian proprietors, to convert the proposed loan of £15,000,000 into an
absolute payment of £20,000,000, and this noble donation, for
conscience' sake, was actually ratified by parliament and the country.
The bill founded on the resolutions met with no serious opposition, but
an amendment by Buxton for adopting free labour at once was lost by so
narrow a majority that Stanley consented to reduce the period of
apprenticeship to an average of six years. In this instance the lords
followed the guidance of the commons, and a measure of almost quixotic
liberalism was endorsed by them without hesitation. It must be confessed
that experience has not verified the confident prediction that free
labour would prove more profitable than slave labour, but Great Britain
has never repented of the abolition act, and its example was followed,
thirty years later, by the United States.
[Pageheading: _FACTORY ACTS._]
The first of the general factory acts was marked by the same
philanthropic character, but here the manufacturing capitalists,
introduced by the reform act, were induced by self-interest to oppose
it. Ever since the beginning of the century the sufferings and
degradation of children in factories had occasionally engaged the
attention of parliament, but the full enormity of the factory system was
known to few except those who profited by it. It seems incredible, but
it was shown afterwards by irresistible evidence, that children of seven
years old and upwards were often compelled to work twelve or fourteen
hours a day, with two short intervals for meals, in a most unwholesome
atmosphere, exposed not only to ill-treatment but to every form of moral
corruption. A very partial remedy was applied by a law passed in 1802
which restricted the hours of labour to twelve for mills in which
apprentices were employed. The same limit of hours was extended to
cotton mills generally in 1816, and, but for the resistance of the house
of lords, it would have been reduced to ten, as a select committee had
recommended on the initiative of the first Sir Robert Peel. A few years
later the question was revived by Sir John Hobhouse, but left unsettled.
In 1831 Sadler introduced a ten hours bill for children, and obtained a
select committee, before which disclosures were made well calculated to
shock the country. At the general election of 1832, Sadler was defeated
by Macaulay for the new borough of Leeds, but his mantle fell on Lord
Ashley, afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury, one of the noblest
philanthropists of modern times.
Early in the session of 1833 Ashley introduced a ten hours bill,
applicable, like that of Sadler, to all young persons under eighteen
years of age working in factories. It also prohibited the employment of
children under nine, and provided for the appointment of inspectors. It
was strongly opposed by the Lancashire members as interfering with
freedom of labour even for adults, since mills could not be kept running
without the labour of boys under eighteen. They also objected to the
evidence already reported as one-sided, and succeeded in procuring the
appointment of a royal commission. This commission prosecuted its
inquiries with unusual despatch, but its report was not in the hands of
members on July 5, when the bill came on for its second reading. Though
Althorp, unwilling to offend the manufacturing interest, pleaded for
deliberation and urged that a select committee should frame the
regulations to be adopted, the majority of the house was impatient of
delay, and he encountered a defeat. The question now resolved itself
into a choice between a greater or less limitation of hours. On this
question, a compromise proposed by Althorp prevailed, and Ashley
resigned the conduct of the bill into his hands. It was further modified
in committee, but ultimately became law in a form which secured the main
objects of its promoters. No child under nine years of age could be
employed at all in a factory, after two years none under thirteen could
be worked more than eight hours, and no young person under eighteen
could be required to work more than sixty-nine hours a week, while the
provisions for inspection were retained along with others which
contained the germ of education on the half-time system.
[Pageheading: _THE EAST INDIA COMPANY._]
The trading monopoly of the East India Company, though confined to China
by the act of 1813, had been regarded ever since with great jealousy by
the mercantile community. As the revised charter was now on the point of
expiring, it was for the government to frame terms of renewal which
might satisfy the growing demand for free trade. Their scheme, which few
were competent to criticise, met with general approval, and the only
determined opposition to it was offered in the house of lords by
Ellenborough, who lived to come into sharp collision with the court of
directors as governor-general. It was embodied in three simple
resolutions, the first of which recommended the legislature to open the
China trade without reserve, the second provided for the assumption by
the crown of all the company's assets and liabilities but with the
obligation of paying the company a fixed subsidy, while the last
affirmed the expediency of entrusting the company with the political
government of India. Grant, who moved these resolutions, as president of
the board of control, had no occasion to defend the policy of setting
free the China trade which no one disputed; but he undertook to show
that it had declined in the hands of the company, and that private
competition had already crept in on a large scale. He also dwelt on the
advantage of bringing the political relations arising out of commercial
intercourse more directly under the control of the government. His
reasoning was sound, and the China trade rapidly developed, nor could he
be expected to foresee the course of events whereby the government
afterwards became embroiled with the Chinese empire, on the importation
of opium, and other economical questions. As compensation for the loss
of its exclusive privileges, the company was to receive an annuity of
£630,000, charged on the territorial revenues of India.
The policy of continuing the company's rule in India for twenty years
longer would have excited more earnest discussion in a session less
crowded with legislative projects. The way had been paved for the
concession of complete free trade in the eastern seas by the reports of
select committees and parliamentary debates under former governments.
The consumers of tea, numbered by millions, promised themselves a better
quality at a lower price, and a keen spirit of enterprise was kindled by
the idea of breaking into the unknown resources of China. But public
interest in the administration of India was languid. It might well have
appeared that a board sitting in Leadenhall Street was fitter to conduct
shipping and mercantile operations than to govern an imperial dependency
like British India. But the contrary alternative was almost tacitly
accepted. The directors were "to remain princes, but no longer merchant
princes," and Ellenborough complained that whereas "hitherto the court
had appeared in India as beneficent conquerors, henceforth they would be
mortgagees in possession". Perhaps the ministry shrunk from provoking
the storm of obloquy which must have resulted from placing the vast
patronage of the company in the hands of the crown. At all events, it
was agreed, with little dissent, that under the new charter the company
should nominally retain the reins of power, checked, however, by Pitt's
"board of control," the president of which, in reality, shared a
despotic authority with the governor-general of Bengal, who was
hereafter to be in name what he had long been in fact, governor-general
of India. The bill strengthened his council, and enabled him to
legislate for all India.
At the same time Europeans were permitted to settle and hold land in
India without the necessity of applying for a licence. Lastly, the
principle was laid down, pregnant with future consequences, that all
persons in India, without distinction of race or creed, should be
subject to the same law and eligible for all offices under the
government. Such was the last charter of the great company. It is
interesting to observe that Grant, in admitting that the government of
India under its sway had not been prone "to make any great or rapid
strides in improvement," paid a just tribute to its eminently pacific
character. "It excited vigilance," he said, "against any encroachment of
violence or rapacity; it ensured to the people that which they most
required--repose, security, and tranquillity." The immense annexations
of territory and far-reaching reforms which have created the British
India of the twentieth century were either most reluctantly sanctioned
by the court of directors or have been carried out since its dominion
was transferred to the crown. Irrevocable as they are, and beneficent as
they may be on the whole, they have certainly imposed difficulties of
portentous magnitude upon the rulers of India, nor would it be
surprising if some native survivors of the olden days in far-off
recesses of the country should remember with sad regret the paternal,
though unprogressive, despotism of the sovereign company.
[Pageheading: _THE BANK CHARTER ACT._]
The bank charter act of 1833, having been superseded by that of 1844,
fills a less important place than it otherwise would in the history of
legislation on currency. The bill was founded, however, on the report of
a secret committee which embraced Peel as well as Althorp and several
other members of high financial repute or great experience in the city.
Since the subject of it was familiar to a large section of members
engaged in business, and touched the pockets of bankers all over the
country, it was discussed in the house of commons far more earnestly
than the bill renewing the charter of the East India Company. In the end
two provisions were dropped, which directly encouraged the increase of
joint stock banks. The rest were passed, and contained important
modifications of the banking system as it then existed. The main
privileges of the Bank of England were continued, in spite of a strong
opposition and of protests against the one-sided inquiry said to have
been conducted by the secret committee. These privileges embraced the
exclusive possession of the government balances, the monopoly of limited
liability, then refused to other banks, and the right, shared by no
other joint stock bank, of issuing its own notes. Though private London
banks might have legally exercised this power they did not actually do
so, and nearly all of them deposited their reserves with the Bank of
England.
Another part of the scheme, which even Peel condemned, was thus briefly
stated in a preliminary resolution: "That, provided the Bank of England
continued liable, as at present, to defray in the current coin of the
realm all its existing engagements, it was expedient that its promissory
notes should be constituted a legal tender for sums of £5 and upwards".
In other words, country bankers would no longer be compelled to cash
their own notes, or pay off their deposits in gold, but might use Bank
of England notes instead, above the value of £5. The Bank of England,
however, and all its branches, remained liable to cash payments, as
before, so that, as Baring argued, only one intermediate stage was
interposed between the presentation of a country note and the exchange
of it for specie. Peel's objection, which did not prevail, chiefly
rested on the danger of the Bank of England closing its branches in its
own interests, in order to check the demand for cash. Though his fears
were not literally realised, experience disclosed the danger of country
banks multiplying unduly, and, by their over-issue of notes, causing a
severe drain upon the Bank of England for gold. For the present,
however, the critics of the measure were less concerned in forecasting
such remote consequences than in protesting against the charge to be
made by the bank for managing the public debt. This charge was, in fact,
to be reduced by £120,000 a year, but one-fourth part of the advances
made by the bank to the public (or £3,671,700) was to be paid off, and
the proposed remuneration was denounced as exorbitant. Althorp hardly
denied that it was a good bargain for the bank, though he persuaded the
house of commons to endorse the arrangement, rather than incur the
dislocation of national finance and commercial business certain to ensue
if the bank should withdraw from its connexion with the government and
use its vast influence for its own interest alone.
[Pageheading: _LEGAL REFORMS._]
Two great law reforms close the series of important remedial measures
passed in the first session of the reformed parliament--a session, be it
remembered, which embraced all the furious and protracted debates on the
Irish coercion act and the Irish Church temporalities act. The first of
these was Brougham's valuable bill constituting a permanent "judicial
committee of the privy council," and transferring to it the judicial
functions theoretically belonging to "the king in council," but
practically exercised by committees selected _ad hoc_ on each occasion.
Charles Greville, to whose memoirs all historians of this period are
greatly indebted, and who in 1833 was clerk of the council, was inclined
to disparage the proposed change as one of Brougham's fanciful projects,
designed to gratify his own self-importance.[116] Even Greville,
however, saw reason to modify his view, and the new court has ever since
commanded general respect, except from those high Churchmen who resented
its assumption of the appellate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes,
formerly vested, along with a similar jurisdiction in admiralty causes,
in the king in chancery, and exercised by a "court of delegates,"
usually consisting of three common law judges and three or four
civilians selected _ad hoc_.
The essential defects of such a court were fully stated in the report of
a very strong commission, including six bishops, appointed in 1830.
Probably the expediency of reforming the jurisdiction of the privy
council for the purpose of hearing these ecclesiastical appeals may have
suggested to Brougham the idea of constructing a standing appellate
tribunal within the privy council, for the purpose of hearing all
appeals that might come before that body. Accordingly, after carrying a
bill in 1832 whereby the privy council, as such, took over the powers of
the "court of delegates," he introduced the general bill whereby the
judicial committee was created, and under which it still acts. It was to
consist of the lord chancellor, with the present and past holders of
certain high judicial offices, and two privy councillors to be
appointed by the sovereign; to whom prelates, being privy councillors,
were to be added for ecclesiastical appeals. The system thus founded,
and since developed, is capable of indefinite expansion, in case still
closer relations should be established between Great Britain and the
colonies.
The act for the abolition of fines and recoveries, though scarcely
intelligible except to lawyers, was a masterpiece not only of
draughtsmanship, but of honest law amendment. It swept away grotesque
and antiquated forms of conveyance, which had lost their meaning for
centuries, and which nothing but professional self-interest kept alive.
Had it been followed up by legislation in a like spirit on other
departments of law, the profits of lawyers and the needless expenses of
clients might have been reduced to an extent of which the unlearned
public has no conception. As it was, it simplified the process of
selling land in a remarkable degree, though it left untouched the
complications of title and transfer affecting real property, which no
lord chancellor since Brougham has been courageous enough to attack in
earnest, and which remain the distinctive reproach of English law. It is
not without shame that we read in the king's prorogation speech,
delivered on August 29, 1833, the assurance that he will heartily
co-operate with parliament in making justice easily accessible to all
his subjects. He adds that, with this view, a commission has been issued
"for digesting into one body the enactments of the criminal law, and for
inquiring how far, and by what means, a similar process may be extended
to the other branches of jurisprudence". Seventy years have since
elapsed, yet this royal promise of codification is not even in course of
fulfilment. On the other hand, Brougham's scheme for establishing local
courts in certain parts of the kingdom was destined to bear ample fruit
in the next reign. It was described by Eldon as "a most abominable
bill," and, being generally opposed by the law lords, was rejected by a
small majority, but it was the germ of the county courts, which have
since done so much to bring justice within the reach and the means of
poor suitors.
Notwithstanding its legislative exploits, the whig government was
declining in popularity at the end of 1833, and was beginning to
discover how vain it is to rely on political gratitude. Other reforming
governments have since undergone the same bitter experience, the causes
of which are by no means obscure. No reform can be effected without
"harassing interests," and the sense of resentment in the sections of
the community thus harassed is far stronger and more efficacious than
any appreciation of the benefits reaped by the general public at home,
or by mankind at large. Again, the expectations excited by the agitation
of such a question as parliamentary reform are far beyond the power of
any legislature to satisfy. Grey and his colleagues were too well aware
of this, and Stanley, for one, manfully championed the government
measures on their own merits, disdaining to flatter the radicals, but
his discretion was not equal to his valour, and every debate brought
into stronger relief the more statesmanlike capacity and moderation of
Peel. There was no tory reaction, but a growing distrust of heroic
remedies for national disorders, and a growing faith in the possible
development of a liberal policy in a conservative spirit. Even the Duke
of Wellington found himself restored insensibly to popular favour, and
was again received in the streets with marks of public respect.
[Pageheading: _ALTHORP'S THIRD BUDGET._]
Of all the ministers, no one enjoyed a greater share of confidence both
in and out of parliament than Althorp. He was not a great financier, but
he was an honest and prudent chancellor of the exchequer, a free-trader
by conviction, and incapable of those artifices by which a plausible
balance-sheet may be made out at the cost of future liabilities. Yet his
budgets of 1831, 1832, and 1833 undoubtedly helped to shake the credit
of the government. The first had been far too ambitious, and became
almost futile, when the proposed tax on transfers was abandoned, and the
timber duties left undisturbed. The second was modest enough, and was
saved from damaging criticism by the absorbing interest of the reform
bill. Considerable reductions were made in the estimates, the revenue
yielded somewhat more than had been expected, and Althorp was enabled to
present a favourable account in 1833. He anticipated a surplus of about
a million and a half, out of which he was prepared to abolish certain
vexatious duties and to decrease others. But the country gentlemen,
headed by Ingilby, member for Lincolnshire, insisted on a reduction of
the malt duty by one-half, while the borough members, headed by Sir John
Key, clamoured for a repeal of the house tax and window tax. The former
motion was actually carried against the government by a small majority,
but its effect was annulled, and the latter motion was defeated, by a
skilful manoeuvre. This consisted in the proposal by Althorp of a
counter-resolution, declaring that, if half of the malt tax and the
whole tax on windows and houses were to be taken off, it would be
necessary to meet the deficiency by a general income tax. Such a
prospect was equally alarming to the landed interest and the
householders, whose rival demands were mutually destructive, the result
being that Althorp's amendment was carried by a large majority, and the
government escaped humiliation, though not without some loss of
prestige.
It was perhaps to be expected that private members in the first session
of the reformed parliament should be eager to gain a hearing for their
special projects of improvement. So it was, but two only of these
projects deserved historical mention. One of these was the abortive
attempt of Attwood, the radical member for Birmingham, to reverse the
policy of 1819 by inducing parliament to initiate the return to a paper
currency. Cobbett actually followed up this failure by moving for an
address praying the king to dismiss Sir Robert Peel from his councils, a
motion defeated by a majority of 295 to 4.
FOOTNOTES:
[110] _The Croker Papers_, ii., 198.
[111] Mahon to Peel (Jan, 8, 1833), Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii., 209.
[112] Jan. 3, 1833, Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii., 213.
[113] Peel to Croker (Sept. 28, 1833), _ibid._, p. 224.
[114] Russell, _Recollections and Suggestions_, p. 113.
[115] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii., 212-16.
[116] Greville, _Memoirs_, ii., 364, 365.