CHAPTER XLVII.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

_Meeting of Parliament..... Consideration of the State of Ireland..... Irish Municipal Corporations Bill..... Question of Establishing a System of Poor-Law in Ireland..... Irish Tithe Question..... Question of Church- Rates..... The Church of Scotland..... Notices of Motions for Constitutional Changes..... Operation of the New Poor- Laws..... The Affairs of Canada..... State of the Banking System, &c. Consideration of the Foreign Policy of England under the Whig Administration..... Motion on the State of the Nation..... Illness and Death of the King..... Remarks on his Reign, Character, &c._

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.

{A.D. 1837}

Parliament reassembled on the 31st of January. The session was opened by commission; and the speech of the commissioners referred to the contests in Spain, and the recent events in Portugal. The speech also called the attention of both houses to the state of Canada, stating that the reports of the commissioners appointed to inquire into which, would be laid before them. It further recommended to their serious deliberation the provisions which would be submitted to them for the improvement of the law and the administration of justice, and conveyed his majesty’s desire that they should consult upon such further measures as might give increased stability to the established church. The revenues, moreover, formed a subject of congratulation in the speech, and an early renewal of inquiries into the operation of the act permitting the establishment of joint-stock banks. The concluding topic of the speech was Ireland; such measures as might improve the condition of that country were recommended to be adopted. The present constitution of the municipal corporations of that country, the collection of tithes, and the establishment of some legal provision for the poor were especially noticed as subjects worthy of their attention.

The address in the lords was moved by the Earl of Fingal, and seconded by Lord Suffield. In the commons the address was moved by Mr. Sandford, and seconded by Mr. Stuart Villiers. The debate that followed was enlivened by Mr. Roebuck, who made a violent assault on the whole system of ministerial policy. Sir Robert Peel referred to those parts of the speech relating to the affairs of Spain and Portugal. His remarks with reference to Spain were confined to that passage in the address which expressed the satisfaction of the house that his majesty’s co-operating force had rendered useful assistance to her Catholic majesty. Whatever opinion he might hold on the policy of the quadruple alliance, he had always considered it our duty to fulfil the treaty so long as we stood pledged to it. By that treaty we stipulated to give the assistance of a naval force to the arms of the queen of Spain; and he supported the address on the understanding that the aid we had given had been strictly of that character. The distinction was important. The grant of a military force might have supposed an interference with the civil dissensions and party conflicts of Spain. Might not the precedent be equally adopted by despotic governments claiming a right to support absolute principles among their neighbours? where then would be the peace of Europe? The next paragraph in the address illustrated the danger of interfering in the civil affairs of other countries. We express our regret that “events in Portugal have occurred which, for a time, threaten to disturb the internal peace of the country.” These events are but the corollary of the revolution in that country in 1834, and which was then called in the speech from the throne “a happy result.” A consequence of this “happy result” is that we have now six sail of the line in the Tagus. For what purpose? To defend the queen of that country from an attack on the part of her own subjects; and to protect the lives and property of the English residing there from the danger with which they are threatened. In reply, Lord Palmerston remarked, that, “when we stated that the effect of the treaty in 1834 was to put an end to the civil war in Portugal, we did not take upon ourselves the responsibility of the government of that kingdom in all future times, or undertake that it should be henceforth free from the civil disturbances to which every country was liable.” This might be true; but if the last revolution in Portugal was the result of the one which we had been instrumental in bringing about, then we were in no slight degree responsible for its occurrence.

CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE OF IRELAND.

Ireland was still the cardinal point of our domestic politics. At this time, in fact, Irish politics had acquired more importance than ever. The state of that country was brought before parliament this session, in a petition from the Protestants, setting forth the dangers by which they were surrounded from the effects of the agitation which everywhere prevailed. This petition was presented to the lords by the Marquis of Downshire on the 28th of April, and it was the occasion of an interesting debate on the state of Ireland. The topics insisted on, however, were for the most part identical with those which had for a series of years been repeatedly adduced in the commons, so that a repetition of them is unnecessary. The debate unfolded one great fact: namely, that the Protestant party were not behindhand with the Catholics in the vigour and perseverance of their agitation.

Government lost no time in bringing the politics of Ireland before parliament. On the 7th of April Lord John Russell moved for leave to bring in a bill for the amendment of the Irish municipal corporations. The bill differed from that of the last year on one material point only. By the former measure the town-councils were not allowed to interfere in the appointment of sheriffs, which was vested in the crown; but they were now authorised to nominate or suggest a certain number of persons for that office; the power of selection, rejection, and appointment being given to the lord-lieutenant. Sir John Hobhouse made an intimation, that the fate of this measure would decide that of the cabinet; he asked of the party opposite, if they succeeded in throwing out this bill and so coming into office, upon what principle they hoped to govern Ireland? Was it by Orange, neckerchiefs and acclamations that they expected to do so? They ought to be prepared to give a decided answer to the question. Sir Robert Peel said, that he doubted the right of any one to catechise his party on the results of a contingency. The motion, which was merely for leave to bring in the bill, was not opposed, and the two parties had therefore no opportunity of making trial of their strength on a division.

The order of the day was read for going into committee on the reform of municipal corporations on the 20th of February. Lord Francis Egerton moved an instruction similar to that which he had brought forward in the last session, to the effect that the committee be empowered to make provisions for the abolition of corporations in Ireland, and for such arrangements as might be necessary on their abolition for securing the efficient and impartial administration of justice, and the peace and good government of Ireland. A long discussion ensued and was adjourned. On the following day Mr. Serjeant Jackson delivered a long speech, which was chiefly directed against the government of Lord Mulgrave. Mr. Vesey followed in the same track. The bill was supported, on the other hand, by Mr. E. L. Bulwer, Lord Howick, and Mr. Roebuck. The latter asked Sir Robert Peel this plain question:—“Can he pretend to carry on the government of Ireland on entirely different principles from those of Great Britain? Does he believe that, at this period of man’s history, and by the side of the most enlightened nation of the earth, doctrines of government suited for the meridian of St. Petersburg can be carried into actual practice? In a word, Does he believe that the system of Protestant supremacy can be continued in Ireland without civil war?” On the third night of the debate, Sir James Graham delivered a powerful speech in support of Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment. Mr. Shiel followed, in a speech which was more personal than argumentative. Sir Robert Peel deprecated this mode of conducting the debate. He had been reproached, he continued, by Lord Howick for not having earlier seen the necessity of yielding to the Catholic claims. Would the noble lord ask of his noble colleague of the foreign department, why he was not an earlier convert than he had proved to reform? Would he put the same question to the head of the present administration? If it were blindness in him not to foresee in 1825 the necessity of concession to the Catholics, was not the blindness of Lord Melbourne as great when, in 1826, he even opposed the transfer of representatives from Penryn to Manchester? Mr. O’Connell followed, urging his usual topics—the long misgovernment of Ireland, and the necessity of the repeal of the union as her only chance of obtaining justice. After a reply from Lord John Russell, the house divided; when Lord Francis Egerton’s amendment was negatived by a majority of three hundred and twenty-two against two hundred and forty-two.

Little discussion took place on the bill when in committee. The third reading was moved on the 10th of April, when Mr. Goulburn opposed the measure as pregnant with danger to the church, and tending by its renewed agitation to place the two houses of parliament in an undesirable situation. Another long debate ensued, in which the bill was defended by Colonel Thompson, Lords Morpeth and John Russell, and Messrs. Bulwer, Charles Villiers, and O’Connell; and opposed by Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and Sir Robert Peel. The debate lasted two nights; and on a division the bill was carried by a majority of three hundred and two against two hundred and forty-seven.

The bill was introduced to the house of peers by Lord Melbourne on the 13th of April; and the second reading was fixed for the 25th of the same month. On its introduction the Duke of Wellington gave no opinion on the subject of the bill, but contented himself with observing, that it was only one of the three measures relating to Ireland which had been recommended to the consideration of the house in the speech from the throne. He added, that, as he thought it desirable before the house decided on the present measure it should have the other two before them, he hoped the noble viscount would appoint a more distant day for its consideration. Lord Melbourne objected to this, stating at the same time that he could not see any necessary connexion between the three measures. In moving its second reading, Lord Melbourne dwelt at great length upon the good effects which had already resulted from the grant of a similar boon to England. On these grounds he called upon the house to accede to the measure. It was only a little to give, but a great deal to withhold. The Duke of Wellington said, that he would agree to the second reading of the bill, on the principle that the existing corporations ought not to be continued. He would not, however, pledge himself to consent to the present measure, to various details of which he had strong objections. He would endeavour to remove these in committee; in the meanwhile he could not but express his surprise that Lord Melbourne should have again brought forward such a measure. Lord Lyndhurst expressed similar sentiments. In reference to the surprise expressed by the Duke of Wellington that the bill should have been reintroduced, Lord Melbourne said the case was not a singular one; and he reminded the duke that he had introduced and carried a measure to which he had been opposed. Lord Brougham regretted that, from the tone of the speeches of the Duke of Wellington, he was led to believe that they would only throw away some five or six weeks of their time in unprofitable discussions on the subject, and be left at the end of this session where they were at the close of the last. This proved to be the true interpretation of those speeches. On the 5th of May, when the order of the day was read for the house to resolve itself into committee on the bill, the Duke of Wellington rose, and moved to defer the committal till the 9th of June. His reason for asking this delay was, that he was anxious to see the result of the deliberations of the other house of parliament on the pending measures of Irish tithe and Irish poor-law. Lord Melbourne objected to the proposed postponement as inconvenient in itself, and dangerous in the motive on which it was grounded. There was no connexion between the church and corporation bills; and if the house of commons should follow the example of the lords, and refuse to consider one set of bills until the lords had passed another to their satisfaction, he apprehended their lordships would not have the best of the struggle. As for the appropriation clause, he denied, as his grace had intimated, that it had been abandoned; it existed in the new bill as strongly as in the former one. The Duke of Wellington replied, that though he objected to much of the present measure, he was not adverse to the establishment, under certain circumstances, of local jurisdictions in Ireland. The Earl of Wicklow and Lord Fitzgerald made yet ampler concessions than his grace; and the Marquis of Lansdowne argued on this, that they assented to the principles of the bill; and that, therefore, no further delay should take place in its progress. Lord Brougham said that he drew no happy augury of the fate of the bill from the very significant speech of the Duke of Wellington. He would not say any sinister motive lurked in his proposition for delay; but if he was averse to the present measure, as he appeared to be, why did he not throw it out altogether? It was very well to talk of amendments; but their lordships would so alter the bill, that the man who drew it would not know it again. Although the different sections under the duke’s command might move by different routes, they would all meet in the end. On a division the motion for postponement was carried by a majority of one hundred and ninety-two against one hundred and fifteen.

Although the postponement decided on was for more than one month, there appeared to be little probability that either the tithe or the poor-rate bill would be before the lords by the assigned period for resuming the municipal corporations bill. Under these circumstances, when the 9th of June arrived, Lord Lyndhurst rose to move a further postponement of the bill till the 3rd of July next. His lordship took occasion again to state his objections to the measure. Lord Melbourne opposed the further postponement of the bill; but on a division the motion was carried by a majority of two hundred and five against one hundred and nineteen.

QUESTION OF ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF POOR-LAWS IN IRELAND.

A board of commissioners had been for some time busied with the consideration of a system of poor-laws in Ireland, and in the last session a report containing the result of their inquiries was laid before parliament. This report, however, was not satisfactory to government. They thought it desirable that some inquiry should be made as to how far it might be practicable to introduce into Ireland a system of relief based upon the principles of the new English poor-law. For this purpose, Mr. Nicholls, one of the commissioners, was sent to Ireland to prosecute the matter by personal investigation. The report of Mr. Nicholls was very able, and on it government grounded the measure which they intended to bring forward on the subject. This measure was introduced in the commons by Lord John Russell on the 13th of February. In introducing it, his lordship called the attention of the house to that part of the king’s speech at the opening of the session, in which the establishment of some legal provision for the poor was recommended. At the same time he laid on the table of the house a copy of Mr. Nicholl’s report upon the subject. In his speech, his lordship first dwelt upon the benefits derivable to a country from a well-administered system of poor-laws; upon its tendency to preserve peace, prevent vagrancy, diminish crime, and establish harmony among all classes of society. Having dwelt on this subject at length, Lord John Russell then stated the leading provisions of the bill as recommended by the commissioner. With respect to the expense of the system, he said, it had been calculated that the whole average charge for each person in the English workhouses, including lodging, fuel, clothing, and diet, was one shilling and sixpence per week. If, therefore, we take one hundred union houses, each containing eight hundred inmates, and suppose them all fully occupied, the annual expense for the whole would be £312,000.

In order to understand the nature of the bill brought in by Lord John Russell, however, it is necessary to give a brief extract of the report made by Mr. Nicholls. He stated that he found the people almost universally favourable to the introduction of a poor-law. But with respect to the question of how far the introduction of the English poor-law was practicable in Ireland, two difficulties suggested themselves—first, whether the workhouse system could be relied on as a test of destitution in Ireland; and secondly, whether the means and machinery existed there for the formation of unions as in England. The great principle of the workhouse system is, that the support which is afforded at the public charge there should be less desirable than that to be obtained by independent exertion. It would be impossible to make the lodging, clothing, and diet of the inmates of an Irish workhouse inferior to those of the Irish peasantry, and therefore this security would not be found for the efficiency of the workhouse-test. On the other hand, it is to be remembered that the Irish are naturally or by habit a migratory people, fond of change, full of hope, and eager for experiment. They had never been tied down to one limited settlement, and consequently confinement of any kind would be irksome, and therefore the test of the workhouse is likely to prove fully as efficient in Ireland as in England. With respect to the’ supply of local machinery for the execution of the law, Mr. Nicholls considered that by making the unions sufficiently large, there would be no difficulty of obtaining boards of guardians of competent intelligence and activity. These might, he said, be elected by the contributors to the county cess; but Mr. Nicholls thought that, in the first instance, large general powers should be vested in some competent authority to control and direct the proceedings of the board of guardians, and, where necessary, to supersede their functions altogether. He further proposed, that the same central authority should be empowered to dispense with the election of the first board of guardians, and to appoint such persons as it should think proper to act in their stead. It was further proposed, that the number of magistrates acting officially as guardians should not exceed one-third of the elected members of the board; and that no clergyman or minister of any denomination should be eligible to act as ex-officio guardian. The enactment of a provision for the destitute at the common charge, would give the community a right to interfere with the proceedings of individuals, so as to prevent the spread of destitution, and enable it to guard itself from loss and damage by the negligence or obstinacy of any of its members. With this view, it was recommended that the central authority should appoint, or empower the board of guardians to appoint, one or more wardens or head-boroughs for every parish, who might superintend the affairs of the district. Assuming the general practicability and expediency of establishing a system of poor-law in Ireland on principles the same with those of the English law, Mr. Nicholls proceeded to consider the details of its application in that country. It was proposed that all relief out of the workhouse should be absolutely refused. Another point to be insisted upon, was, that no individual of a family should be admitted unless all its members entered the house. All relief was to be given by the orders and direction of the central authority. With respect to the formation and regulation of the local machinery, the report recommended that, as in England, the appointment of guardians should be vested in the ratepayers and owners of property in the union. A scale was proposed, by which the number of votes possessed by an individual rate-payer might be raised from one to five, as his rating increased from five pounds to two hundred. The commissioners had proposed that the owner should pay two-thirds of the rate, and that the remainder should fall on the tenant: Mr. Nicholls thought that it would be better to divide the charge equally between the two parties. It was not recommended to establish a parochial settlement in Ireland, as the habits of the people were migratory: if a law settlement should be established, it would be a union of settlement, making the limits of the union the boundary. The simpler the conditions on which this settlement was made to depend, it would be the better. They might, it was stated, be limited to two—birth, and actual residence for a term of years; but, on the whole, it would be better to dispense with settlement altogether. One great object in the establishment of a legal relief for the destitute would be the right it afforded to take measures for the suppression of mendicancy. The present state of Ireland, and the feelings and habits of the people, threw considerable difficulty in the way of an immediate enforcement of such a prohibition. The best method, it was stated, would probably be to enact a general prohibition, and to cast upon the central authority the responsibility of bringing the act into operation in the several unions, as the workhouses became fitted for the reception of inmates. With respect to emigration, Mr. Nicholls did not think it should be looked to as an ordinary resource; the necessity for its adoption would be regarded as an indication of disease, which it would be better to prevent than thus to relieve. The source, however, would be one which must be employed as a means of relief whenever any population became excessive in any district, and no opening for migration to other districts could be found. In the conclusion of his report, Mr. Nicholls considered the nature and appointment of the central authority upon which the whole administration of the new system would depend. He was in favour of its being carried into effect by the existing English board, inasmuch as the object being to carry the English system into Ireland, it could only be done by persons practically conversant with its administration.

Such were the principles on which the measure introduced by Lord John Russell was founded. On its introduction, Irish members of all parties expressed their satisfaction with it. Mr. O’Connell, however, though he did not oppose it, expressed himself less sanguine as to its beneficial results. The hundred workhouses which it was proposed to erect would afford shelter and relief to eighty thousand persons in Ireland only; and he asked, what proportion that bore to the mass of destitution in Ireland? He objected also to the proposed gradual introduction of the measure. They would thereby create a state of transition, during which neither relief nor charity would be afforded to the suffering population of the country. He disapproved, also, of that part of the plan which confined relief and employment to the workhouses. There was no part of Ireland, he said, which might not be made ten times more productive than it was, and yet it was proposed to feed men in idleness in a workhouse. The system of workhouses acted well in England, where a sort of slave labour was adopted in them, to force the idle to seek employment elsewhere; but what could be expected from it in Ireland where men worked for twopence per day? Many expected that a poor-rate in Ireland would prevent the influx of Irish labourers into England; there could not be a greater mistake: unmarried men would still go to England; and so would the married, leaving their families to be maintained in the workhouse. The experiment, he saw, must be made; and, notwithstanding his objections, he would certainly give every aid in working out its details. Mr. O’Connell urged the necessity of extensive emigration on the consideration of government; but Sir Robert Peel said that he was not sanguine as to any benefits to be derived therefrom. The long sea-voyage would always stand in the way of its adoption to any extent. As to public works, to vote money merely to employ people, that would only aggravate existing evils by interfering with the natural demand for labour. Sir Robert Peel, however, was disposed cordially to support the measure in its general objects; as was also Lord Stanley.

The second reading of the bill did not take place till the end of April. The interval seems to have confirmed Mr. O’Connell in his hostility to the measure. It was not his intention directly to oppose it—some measure of the kind was inevitable; but his deliberate judgment was, that it would aggravate, instead of mitigate, the existing evils of the Irish peasantry. Those evils he ascribed to English misgovernment: the distinct and direct object of the penal laws was to enforce ignorance and poverty by act of parliament. For a century, the Irish had had laws requiring the people to be ignorant, and punishing them for being industrious. And what, he asked, were the natural consequences of this legislation? He entered into a variety of statistical details to prove that, with a less fertile soil, the quantity of agricultural produce raised in England was as four to one compared with that of Ireland; though, according to the number of acres under cultivation, it ought not to exceed two to one. He then proceeded to read numerous extracts from the reports of the commissioners, descriptive of the extreme misery of the Irish peasantry. He described men as lying in bed for want of food; turning thieves in order to be sent to jail; lying on rotten straw in mud cabins, with scarcely any covering; feeding on unripe potatoes and yellow weed, and feigning sickness, in order to get into hospitals. He continued:—“This is the condition of a country blest by nature with fertility, but barren from the want of cultivation, and whose inhabitants stalk through the land enduring the extremity of misery and want. Did we govern ourselves? Who did this? You, Englishmen!—I say, you did it? It is the result of your policy and domination!” With respect to the bill before the house, Mr. O’Connell ridiculed the proposition of relieving the destitution of 2,300,000 persons by building poor-houses to shelter eighty thousand at the expense of £312,000 a year. The charities in Dublin alone amounted to half that sum, and the farmers gave away in kind from a million to a million and a half yearly. As for tranquillizing the country, Mr. O’Connell said that the bill would not have any such effect. On the contrary, as all relief was to be given in the workhouse, every man who was refused would have a pretext for prædial resistance. The man refused would be the very man to resent the refusal; he would go to others and induce them to adopt his quarrel, and perhaps to avenge what he would consider to be his wrong. In conclusion, Mr. O’Connell admitted that he was opposed to a law of settlement, and also to a labour-rate: he thought emigration should be tried on a large scale; and he was still an advocate for a tax on absentees. However much he disapproved of the bill, he would not vote against it: he had not moral courage enough to resist a poor-law altogether. A long and angry debate ensued, which issued in nothing practical.

The only point in the measure in which any serious opposition was raised, respected the law of settlement. On the 12th of May, when the order of the day was read for the house to go into committee on the bill, Mr. Lucas moved,—“That it be an instruction to the committee to introduce a provision for settlement, so as more justly to apportion the pecuniary charges to be incurred and levied under the name of poor-rates.” Mr. Lucas suggested a particular scheme of settlement, by which he conceived most of the evils attaching to the system as hitherto practised might be avoided; but his statement of its nature and probable operation was not very intelligible, and his motion was negatived, after some discussion of the subject, by a majority of one hundred and twenty against sixty-eight. The bill did not proceed beyond this stage of its progress, in consequence of the demise of the crown.

IRISH TITHE QUESTION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Another cardinal point of Irish policy remaining to be settled, as pointed out to the consideration of parliament in the speech from the throne, was the tithe question. This subject was brought forward in the house of commons on the 1st of May by Lord Morpeth, who, in introducing it, said, that it was the fifth measure which had been brought forward in the last three years for the adjustment of Irish tithes. His present plan was this. He proposed to deduct thirty per cent, from the tithe composition, so as to make a rent-charge on the owner of the first estate of inheritance, in the proportion of £70 to every £100 of the tithe. By the bill of last year power was given to the commissioners of woods and forests to collect the rent-charge; but this was thought to make the clergy too dependant on the officers of government, and they were, therefore, now allowed to collect it for themselves. The provisions of former bills for the revising or reopening of compositions were to be reserved. With respect to the regulation of the incomes of the various benefices, Lord Morpeth proposed to adopt the scale of last session, as recommended by Lord Stanley, with the exception of the minimum of £300, which Lord Stanley had taken as the lowest point of reduction to which the clerical income should be liable. The most novel provision proposed was that which went to apply a portion of the clergyman’s income to the purposes of general education. Lord Morpeth observed, that by a statute, the 15th of the 28th of Henry III., it was enacted, that “every incumbent in each parish in Ireland should keep or cause to be kept within his parish, a school to learn English; and that every archbishop, bishop, &c., at the time of his induction should take a corporal oath, that, being so admitted or inducted, he shall to his best endeavour himself teach the English tongue to all that are under his rule and governance.” Penalties were laid both on the bishop and clergyman for the breach of this statute; and the oath imposed by the act was taken by all rectors and vicars. The question was, continued Lord Morpeth, had this obligation been complied with? There were 2400 parishes in Ireland; and it appeared from the report of the commissioners of inquiry into Irish education, there were only seven hundred and eighty-two schools, the number of benefices being 1242, and the amount of the contributions of the clergy £3299. It appeared from that report, indeed, that, though there were many benefices in which there was no school, yet the act of Henry VIII. was sufficiently complied with by the annual payment of forty-shillings to a schoolmaster. Attempts had been made to revise the act in 1767, and again in the year 1806; but these were abandoned. Lord Morpeth now proposed to raise a fixed rate of ten per cent, upon the ecclesiastical revenues of Ireland, including the incomes of the dignitaries of the church as well as of the parochial clergy; to take effect not on the present holders, but on their successors. The plan of education which he proposed was not to be confined to the teaching of the English language only; it was to combine instruction in letters, lessons of morality and religion, and that upon a national system, comprehending all sects and denominations. Lord Morpeth, however, did not, he said, intend to propose resolutions which would call upon the house to pledge themselves to the whole of his plan; he contented himself for the present with moving, “That it is expedient to commute the tithes of Ireland into a rent-charge, payable by the first estate of inheritance, and to make further provision for the better regulation of ecclesiastical duties.” The resolution was adopted without comment from either side of the house; but when the bill founded on Lord Morpeth’s resolutions was read a second time, June 9th, Mr. Sharman Crawford opposed it as wholly inadequate to the wants of the people of Ireland. He moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months; but on a division his motion was rejected by two hundred and twenty-nine against fourteen. The decision on the clause for taking livings was deferred, and nothing further was done on this question, the death of the king on the 20th of June precluding all further consideration of it.

QUESTION OF CHURCH-RATES.

Government had for some time been occupied in framing a scheme for the arrangement of the question of church-rates. On the 3rd of March the chancellor of the exchequer brought this subject before the house of commons, by moving that the house should resolve itself into a committee for its discussion. In his speech Mr. Rice first attempted to prove that the existing system could not be maintained. He remarked:—“By the law as it stood at present any vestry has the power of refusing its assent to a church-rate. Can it then be said there is, in fact, any fixed or satisfactory mode of providing for the maintenance of the churches of the establishment? Not only have they the power of refusing their assent, but this power has been frequently exercised. In consequence of the contests that took place in Sheffield on the subject, up to the year 1818, no rate has existed there since. In Manchester, in 1833, a poll took place on a rate, which was lost by a majority of one out of six or seven thousand votes. It is true the majority was set aside on a scrutiny; but it has not been ventured to collect the rate. In 1834 and 1835 the same scenes took place; large majorities were polled against the rates; those majorities were, on a scrutiny, declared to be minorities; but the churchwardens did not dare to act on their decision, or levy the rate that had been assessed. Can, or ought,” asked Mr. Bice, “this state of things to continue? If you depend upon the church-rate for the maintenance of the church, can you depend upon the present state of the law to enable you to enforce that payment? It is not sufficient to assert that the law must be strengthened; if you wish to maintain such a proposition, you must carry the house of commons with you. Can you do so? I confess I should like to see, not the person, but the party, however combined in force or numbers, who could come down to this house and ask of parliament to grant additional power for enforcing the payment of church-rates. They would soon find that they miscalculate the character both of the legislature and of the people whom it represents.” Having thus stated his grievance, Mr. Bice considered the remedy. He expressed his decided objection to the voluntary system; when he could be satisfied that the army and navy could be supported, or the administration of justice provided for on the voluntary principle, then, and not till then, would he apply it to the church. He also objected to a distinctive tax on the members of the established church, to the raising of a fund from pew-rents, and to a graduated impost on the benefices of the clergy. He further objected to the proposition brought forward by Lord Althorp; namely, that a sum of £250,000 should be voted by parliament, for the purpose of maintaining the fabric of the church. His plan would be different from all these propositions. He proposed to take the whole property of the bishops, deans, and chapters out of the hands of those dignitaries, and to vest them in the hands of a commission, under whose improved system of management it was calculated that, after paying to their full present amount all existing incomes, a sum not less than £250,000 might be saved and applied to the purposes of church-rates. He proposed that there should be eleven commissioners; five of high ecclesiastical rank; three high officers of state; and three paid members of the board. He further proposed that in all cases where pew-rents had been received, or where they could be justly demanded from the rich, the proceeds should be collected, and placed, in the first instance, under the control of a parochial committee, who should be required in ordinary cases to apportion one-fifth of the whole space in the church to free seats for the poor; in the churches built under the church building act, one-third; the surplus to be handed over to the commissioners. The sums received by the commissioners were to be paid to the ecclesiastical commission, to be applied by them to their specific objects. All visitation fees, and fees on swearing in churchwardens, were to be abolished; by which regulation it was stated a saving of £180,000 a year would be effected. A short and desultory conversation took place; in the course of which the liberal members expressed themselves satisfied with the proposition, while those on the other side of the house intimated their distrust of the principles of the measure.

The friends of the church soon sounded an alarm upon this subject. Three days after Mr. Rice had made his statement, a meeting of fifteen bishops took place at Lambeth Palace; and they came to an unanimous resolution in disapprobation of the bill. The same evening the Archbishop of Canterbury, on presenting some petitions against the abolition of church-rates, expressed his feelings on the subject to the house of lords. The principle of the bill was so unkind to the church, he said, and so mischievous in its effects, that he would never give his assent to its becoming law. This protest raised the indignation of Lord Melbourne. He heard this expression of opinion on the part of the most reverend prelate with sorrow and concern, not less on account of the effect which it would have on the success of the measure, than with reference to the interests of the church itself. He would put it, he said, to the archbishop, whether there was not something of undue haste and precipitation in the course which he had adopted; and whether he was not put forward by those who had more guile and deeper designs than himself, in order that his expressed opinions might affect the decision of the question in another place? He thought it would have been more decent if the most reverend prelate had waited for the regular time for the discussion of the matter, and not have thus precipitately announced his intentions with respect to it. He learned with affliction that he should have the most reverend prelate and his brethren against him on this measure; but this would not alter his course: considering it as just in itself, advantageous to the church, and beneficial to the community, he should persevere in urging it upon parliament.

The house of commons went into committee upon the resolutions of Mr. Rice on the 13th March. The discussion was opened by Sir Robert Peel in opposition. Lord Howick contented himself with replying on one or two points in the financial criticisms of Sir Robert Peel. He was convinced, he said, that the property of the church in land and houses was much greater than was reported by the bishops and chapters, and was greatly improvable under a better management; and he enlarged upon the evils of the present system, and the absolute necessity of removing them for the sake of the church. A discussion followed which lasted several nights. On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and seventy-three against two hundred and fifty.

This was a small majority on a question which involved little more than than the taking of the plan into consideration; ministers, indeed, were evidently dissatisfied with the reception of their measure, for they did not seem inclined to urge it through the house. Nearly two months elapsed before the subject was renewed by them: a delay which was made a matter of reproach to the government by some of its supporters without doors, as implying an acknowledgment of failure on the part of the authors of the scheme. The second reading of the resolutions was moved on the 22nd of May. An amendment was moved by Mr. A. Johnstone to this effect: “That it is the opinion of this house that funds may be derived from an improved mode, of management of church lands, and that these funds should be applied to religious instruction within the established church, where the same may be found deficient, in proportion to the existing population.” Messrs. Baines, Hardy, Borthwick, and Horace Twiss, all spoke against the measure. Sir Francis Burdett expressed his regret that he was compelled to act against his former associates in politics, but he could not support the measure. Mr. Shiel endeavoured to make the honourable baronet refute himself by quoting extracts from his former speeches on the same subject. He spoke, however, of the honourable baronet in terms of the highest respect, as “a venerable relic of a temple dedicated to freedom, though ill-omened birds now built their nests and found shelter in that once noble edifice.” On the second night of the debate the bill was supported by Messrs. Brotherton and Charles Buller. Mr. Johnstone withdrew his amendment; and on a division the original resolution was carried by a majority of five only, the numbers being two hundred and eighty-seven against two hundred and eighty-two. This division was a death-blow to the bill: ministers did not even attempt to urge it further in the house of commons. They were still disposed, however, to follow up the inquiries which had been suggested, into the present method of holding and leasing the property belonging to the bishops and chapters. On the 13th of June, Lord John Russell moved a committee “to inquire into this subject, with a view to ascertain the probable amount of any increased value which might be obtained by an improved management, with a due consideration of the interests of the established church, and of the present leases of such property.” This motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and nineteen against two hundred and thirty-six, although it was opposed both by the church party and by honourable members on the part of dissenters. Mr. Coulburn moved a resolution to be added to the original motion, pledging the house to a specific appropriation of any increased revenue derivable from church lands, to the extension of religious instruction by ministers of the establishment. This was lost, but it was only by a majority of two hundred and ninety-one against two hundred and sixty-five. On the other hand, an amendment moved by Mr. Harvey, for the abolition of church-rates altogether, was negatived by an overwhelming majority of four hundred and eighty-nine against fifty-eight. These divisions possessed some interest, as indicative of the different shades of opinion which prevailed in the house on matters relating to the established church.

THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

On the opening of the first session of this parliament, Sir Robert Peel had made the deficient means of pastoral superintendence in the church of Scotland, the matter of a recommendation from the crown to the parliament. His government did not exist long enough in power to carry these recommendations into effect, and their successors were supposed to be adverse to the subject. On being pressed, however, they consented to the appointment of a commission, which should make inquiry into the whole of it, and report the same to parliament. The first report of this commission was not made till February of the present year, and then government appeared to take no notice of it. Under these circumstances Sir William Rae moved, on the 5th of May, that the “report should be taken into immediate consideration, for the purpose of remedying the evils acknowledged to exist within the district to which it refers, by extending the means of religious instruction and pastoral superintendence furnished by the established church of Scotland, and rendering them available to all classes of the community.” This motion embarrassed government. Lord John Russell said that the general assembly of the Scottish church was about to assemble within a few days, and no doubt it was desired that they should have the ministers’ refusal to consent to this motion, to allege as a presumption of their indifference to the interests of the establishment. He objected to the motion, only on the ground that they had not yet sufficient information on the subject to enable them to deal with it satisfactorily. The motion was opposed by Messrs. Horsman and Oillon on more general grounds; and on a division the order of the day, which was moved by Lord John Russell, was carried by two hundred and seventeen against one hundred and seventy-six: Sir William Rae’s resolutions, therefore, were negatived by a majority of forty-one.

NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.

Within the first week of this session, the notice-book of the house of commons presented the announcement of motions for various “organic changes” in our constitution. Mr. Grote gave notice of his annual proposition of vote by ballot; Sir William Molesworth announced his intention of moving a committee on peerage reform; Mr. Tennyson D’Eyncourt promised to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Septennial Act; Mr. Hume gave notice for the extension of the parliamentary suffrage to all householders; Mr. Duncombe, of another for the repeal of the rate-paying clauses in the reform bill; Mr. Ewart, one of an address to the crown for the appointment of a minister of education; Mr. Roebuck, of a bill for the establishment of a system of national education; and Mr. Clay, a motion for the repeal of the corn-laws.

The motion for the ballot took place on the 7th of March. Mr. Grote’s speech on this occasion contained many specious arguments, and it appears to have had a great effect upon the house. His motion was seconded by Mr. Hodges, and supported by Dr. Lushington and Mr. Charles Buller. The chancellor of the exchequer opposed the motion. He had as much right as any man to complain of the effects of undue influence and intimidation at his election at Cambridge: but he doubted whether the ballot would prove a remedy for the evil. He thought the only way was to let in public opinion upon the acts and conduct of individuals abusing their power. On a division, the motion was negatived by a majority of two hundred and sixty-seven against one hundred and fifty-five.

Another motion, referring to the exercise or regulation of the parliamentary franchise, was that of Sir William Molesworth, for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the property qualification of members of parliament, which, after a brief discussion, was negatived. The other notice which Sir William had given for a committee on peerage reform was not followed up. The only motion relating to this subject was introduced by Mr. Charles Lushington, who, on the 16th February, moved for leave to bring in a bill for the expulsion of bishops from the house of peers, on the ground that the sitting of bishops in parliament was unfavourable in its operation to the general interests of the Christian religion in this country, and tended to alienate the affections of the people from the established church. This motion was decidedly opposed by Lord John Russell, as introducing a change into one of the most ancient portions of the British constitution. It was a motion not to amend, but to destroy a part of our institutions. And where would such changes stop? The conservative party seemed content to leave this question to be debated between the two parties of their opponents; but when Mr. Buller made some remarks on their silence, Sir Robert Peel declared that if any unpopularity attended resistance to the motion, he was willing to put in a distinct claim for his share. He feared he should not benefit Lord John Russell by his compliments; but he would say that he had never heard a speech delivered in a more manly tone than the noble lord’s, or one that did more credit to his judgment and abilities. On a division, the motion was lost by a majority of one hundred and ninety-seven against ninety-two.

Another motion connected with the reform of the house of lords was brought forward on the 9th of May, by Mr. Thomas Duncombe. He moved by way of resolution, “That the practice of any deliberative assembly deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative enactments is so incompatible with every principle of justice and reason, that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and well-founded complaint among all classes of his majesty’s subjects.” This resolution went, therefore, to abolish the right of peers to vote by proxy. Mr. Duncombe observed, that after the house should have affirmed that resolution, he would move, “That a message be sent to the house of lords, requesting a conference, at which the foregoing resolution might be communicated. Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel met Mr. Duncombe’s arguments on the subject, by endeavouring to show that if voting by proxy was absurd, the custom of pairing off in the commons, or of coming in to vote at the division without having heard a syllable of the debate, was open to the same objection.” Sir Robert went so for as to parody Mr. Duncombe’s resolution, by drawing up a similar one against the practice of pairing; and he concluded by recommending that they should take the mote out of their own eye before they made any attempt to extract the mote out of that of another. On a division, the motion was negatived by one hundred and twenty-nine against eighty-one.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe’s motion on the subject of the rate-paying clauses of the reform bill was disposed of in a similar manner. He brought this forward on the 9th of March, by moving for leave to bring in a bill for the repeal of those clauses. Mr. Duncombe made no prefatory observations; on which, the chancellor of the exchequer remarked, that on so grave a motion he thought it much better that argument should precede rather than follow the introduction of the bill. Mr. Duncombe then said, that it was his conviction that the clauses in question operated materially to diminish the number of voters throughout the country. It was promised that the reform act should add half a million to the amount of electors, whereas it did not give more than three hundred thousand. The great reason for this was the want of punctuality in the payment of rates and taxes, and the partiality shown by collectors. The chancellor of the exchequer replied, that the principle on which the clause was founded was one of the oldest in the constitution; namely, that no man should enjoy civil rights who did not discharge his civil obligations. If there was any unfairness in collectors it should be inquired into; they were not appointed by the crown. After a few words from Mr. Wakley in support of the motion, and from Mr. Pease, who opposed it, the motion was carried by forty-nine against thirty-eight. On the second reading of the bill, however, Lord John Russell moved its postponement for six months, which was carried by one hundred and sixty-six against seventy-three, so that Mr. Duncombe’s success was but transient.

Mr. Tennyson D’Eyncourt brought forward his promised motion for the shortening of the legal duration of parliaments, on the 8th of May. The terms of his motion were confined to a repeal of the septennial act, without specifying any particular period to be substituted for the present one. The motion was supported by Mr. Hume, on the ground that seven years was too long a tenancy of a political trust. He thought three years a better term, and one with which, he believed, reformers in general would be content. Lord John Russell opposed the motion. In private affairs a man would no more be disposed to trust his interests to another, without taking account, for three years than for seven. The septennial act at the time of its passing had been considered essential for the security of the Hanoverian succession; but the preamble of that measure showed that it was not intended merely for a temporary purpose, it stated the object to be to diminish the heavy expenses of frequent elections, and to put an end to heats and animosities. It was observable, he said, that from the Revolution to the passing of the septennial act, the persons who had the chief weight and leading authority in the country were peers; since the passing of that act almost every person who has possessed a leading influence has sat in the house of commons. Mr. Roebuck desired a bill of this description, not because it would lesson, but because he thought it would increase the stability of the government, particularly if coupled with the provision that parliament should not sit for more or less than three years. The motion was rejected by a majority of ninety-one against eighty-seven.

On the 4th of April Mr. Ewart renewed the motion which he had made in the previous session, for leave to bring in a bill, providing that in cases of intestacy, or in the absence of any settlement to the contrary, landed property be equally divided among the children or nearest relatives of the deceased. He quoted Adam Smith, Gibbon, Bentham, &c., in favour of an equal partition of property, and insisted that the system of primogeniture tended only to foster all the harsh and selfish passions of the human heart. The attorney-general opposed the motion. Mr. Ewart’s arguments, he said, if they went for anything, would bring us to the system of equal distribution prevailing in France, which he could not think a desirable consummation. The change proposed would create great confusion in our law. The motion was lost by a majority of fifty-four against thirty-three. Mr. Ewart had given notice of an address to the crown, on the appointment of a minister of education; but neither this motion nor those of Messrs. Hume, Roebuck, and Clay, noticed at the opening of this article, were brought forward this session.

OPERATION OF THE NEW POOR-LAWS.

From the last report of the commissioners of the poor-laws, which was made up to July, 1837, it appeared that up to that period, of 18,433 parishes or townships in England, 12,132 had been united under the provisions of the poor-law act. These parishes or townships contained a population of above ten millions and a half; while the number of those not yet included contained a population of two millions and a half. In Wales, of 1049 parishes, twenty-eight only remained not yet united. Those which were not yet brought under the new system chiefly consisted of extensive and populous parishes, administering relief to the poor under local acts; a few others united for rating and settlement; while others were included in the unions established under Gilbert’s act. The report stated that the progress of the new poor-law had been made in the face of much resistance, and under the pressure of difficult circumstances. These obstacles, however, had not been so considerable as might have been supposed. The opponents of the law had acted on the principle of agitation; but they had failed to accomplish that which they desired. The report further gave a very favourable account of the practical operation of the law in the habits of the poor. It did appear, in truth, that the new system had so far operated as to induce the farmers to give permanent employment to a much greater extent than formerly. On the working of the new poor-laws, however, there were differences of opinion, differences which were illustrated during this session on an occasion of a motion made by Mr. Walter, to inquire into the operation of the act. On introducing this subject, he brought forward a great many cases of individual hardship under its operation. The terms of his motion were, “That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the poor-law amendment act, and to report their opinion on it to the house;” but he disclaimed any intention to repeal the bill. Mr. Fielden, the seconder of the motion, was more explicit. His object was, he said, to obtain the total defeat of the obnoxious measure; he had voted against it on every division at the time it was passing; he had attended meetings of the people preparatory to resistance of its introduction into the county of Lancashire; and he had openly declared that if it were attempted to establish its operation in his own peaceable valley of Todmorden, it would be met with opposition, of which he would be the leader. Lord John Russell, in reply, objected to the inquiry; and he moved, as an amendment, “That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the administration of the relief of the poor, under the orders and regulations issued by the commissioners appointed under the provisions of the poor-law amendment act.” On the second night of the debate, Colonel Sibthorp, Mr. Robinson, and other members spoke against the measure; while Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, and the chancellor of the exchequer defended it. The latter said, in conclusion, that the intention of government in proposing the amendment was not to exclude any one topic of inquiry which was not directly opposed to the principle of the bill; on which Mr. Walter consented to withdraw his motion, and the amendment was then carried and the committee appointed.

The committee began its inquiries immediately, and continued them almost daily. Such, however, were the minuteness of examination to which the witnesses were subjected, and the mass of conflicting evidence brought forward on both sides, that the progress of the inquiry was but slow. Mr. Harvey had been one of the members of this committee, but had retired from it, “because it was all a delusion in its consequences, if not in its intention.” Before he retired, he adopted the course of printing the evidence before it was reported, in a paper called the _True Sun_, of which he was the proprietor and editor, by way of appealing to the judgment of the public against the prepossessions of his colleagues in the committee. This was made a question of breach of privilege, and as such brought before the house on the 21st of April, by Lord John Russell. The speaker had informed Mr. Harvey that it was a violation of the privileges of the house, and the chairman of the committee had given him due warning that unless he desisted from the practice he should be reported. Lord John Russell, in bringing the subject forward, pointed out the obvious injury to the public which would result from allowing such a discretion to every member of a committee. Mr. Harvey defended his conduct upon grounds peculiar to the object of the poor-law committee. He asked, “Who were the parties composing that committee? On the one hand, there was all the property of the country, in every variety and form, aggregated to support a measure peculiarly framed for its interest and protection. Who was the other party? All that was pitiable and miserable in the land, sunken alike by ignorance and destitution. How, again, were the respective causes of these parties conducted? On the one side was one of the most active and vigilant bodies of men, the poor-law commissioners and their assistants; but who was there on the other to advocate the rights of the unprotected and oppressed millions? How was the working man, chained as he was to the soil upon which he dragged out a miserable being, to become acquainted with what took place except through the newspapers? Such publicity was the more necessary, when it was recollected that the advocates of the law in the committee were as a majority of twenty-two to four.” Mr. Harvey’s reasoning would have been sound if the committee had been compelled to make a daily report—a course which they subsequently adopted of themselves; but there could be no doubt that it rested only with the committee or the house to determine that point. Lord John Russell’s motion was simply declaratory of the privileges of the house in this matter which was carried without a division.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

Commissioners had been appointed to inquire into the ground of the complaints which for some years had been alleged by the prevailing party in the legislature of Canada, and by their friends and agents in the British parliament. Early in this session the report of these commissioners was laid before both houses, and on the 6th of March the subject was brought before the commons by Lord John Russell. His lordship declared at the outset that lie did not intend to cast any censure upon the conduct of the house of assembly in Lower Canada. He considered their course to be so much the same with that which other popular assemblies had followed in similar circumstances, that instead of an act of self-will, or caprice, or presumption, it seemed to be rather the obligation of a general law which affects all these disputes between a popular assembly on the one hand, and the executive government on the other. The course of these controversies, he said, seemed to impress this general lesson—that popular assemblies are hardly ever wrong in the beginning, and as seldom right in the conclusion of such struggles. They began with the assertion of right, and ended with the establishment of wrong. His lordship proceeded to state what were the demands of the leading party in the house of assembly. The first was, that the legislative council, which had hitherto been appointed by the crown, should for the future be an elective assembly. The second was, that the executive council should be responsible in the same way that the cabinet was in this country. By a third, it was exacted that the law of tenures should be changed, without respect to the rights obtained under a British act of parliament. Fourthly, it was demanded that the land company should be abolished, with a similar disregard of the rights required under the same act. Having stated the difficulties of the case, Lord John Russell proceeded to propose his remedies. It was now four years and a half, he said, since the judges had received their salaries, and it was high time for parliament to interfere on their behalf. He proposed to apply a certain portion of the revenue of Canada to such payments as in their rejected supply bill of 1833 the assembly had under certain conditions agreed to. The total amount of these would be £148,000, and in so applying them they would simply be applying the revenue of the colony for its own benefit. His lordship next proposed to adopt the recommendation of the commissioners which had been sent out in 1855, and exclude the judges from the legislative council; and to provide that in future the members of that body should not be chosen so exclusively from persons of the English race, but that alternately one of French and one of British extraction should be selected. With respect to the executive council, it was proposed that there should not be more than two or three official persons among its members, and that the rest should be selected by the legislative council, and from the house of assembly. The privileges of the North American Loan Company were to be preserved inviolate; a provision might easily be framed to prevent any abuse of them. As the complaints made against the Canada tenures act were in some degree well founded, it was proposed to repeal that act, care being taken that the lights of individuals vested under it should be respected. Complaints had been likewise made of the commercial relations between Upper and Lower Canada: the upper province, by the act of 1791, was allowed no communication with the sea, except on the payment of heavy duties; while the lower province put various impediments in the way of its commercial progress. It was proposed that, with the assent of the legislatures of the two provinces, a joint committee should sit at Montreal, composed of four members of the legislative council and eight of the representative assemblies of each, making twenty-four persons in all, who should have power to prepare laws and regulations upon all matters of reciprocal intercourse. These propositions were embodied in a series of ten resolutions, of the first of which, relating to the payment of the judges, &c., Lord John Russell then moved the adoption. These resolutions met with violent opposition on the part of the Radical section of the house of commons. Mr. Leader called the measure a coercion bill, and reminded the noble mover of the rule of unlimited concession in government which his lordship had a few nights before quoted from Mr. Fox, and desired him to apply it not merely to Ireland, but to Canada. He moved as an amendment on the fourth resolution, “That it is advisable to make the legislative council of Lower Canada an elective council.” Mr. Robinson said that the whole of Mr. Leader’s argument was founded on the modest assumption that the government, and commissioners, and legislative council had been wrong, and Mr. Papineau and the house of assembly as uniformly right in everything that had been done. Mr. O’Connell warmly advocated the cause of the Papineau party, whose sole object was, separation from this country. He called for “justice to Canada.” He remarked:—“Give them a legislative council elected by themselves; place them in possession of all the rights and privileges which as British subjects they could reasonably demand; and then if they persevered in their opposition to the home government, it would be time enough to think of adopting some such measures as were now proposed.” The Canadas, he urged, ought not to be governed with reference merely to British interests: Great Britain did not want Canadian revenues. Sir William Molesworth, Colonel Thompson, and Mr. Roebuck followed on the same side of the question. The speech of the latter was more violent than any of his party. Like all the orators on his side of the house, he dwelt much on the example of the American revolution, and on the sympathy and assistance the United States would give to the Canadians if they should resist. He asked, “What is the evil, and what is the remedy? You say, Great merit exists among the public servants. But do you propose to prevent the recurrence of that difficulty? Not at all. You pay the arrears. But who will pay the servants next year? Do you believe that the house of assembly will do so? You know as well as I do that the supplies will again be stopped; the same outcries will be raised, and then, I suppose we shall have another special commission, another delay of three years, another evasion of the difficulty, another breach of faith. Distrust will continue; exasperation will increase; their powers of resistance will increase also; one effort will be made, and you and your shuffling policy, your degraded government, your unworthy peculating and mischievous officials, will be dismissed with ignominy and hatred. I hear eternal talk of the evil consequences of stopping the supplies to those official servants, and hear nothing in reproof of the legislative council, who shut up last year all the primary schools in the country, and left 60,000 children without instruction. All your regards are turned the wrong way. You sought to make out a case of hardship to the servants of the people, but turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the people themselves. But I would ask his majesty’s ministers, Have they well weighed the policy of this measure, and do they know its inevitable result? If not, I will tell them. The direct effect on the minds of the Canadian population will be a determination as soon as possible to get rid of a dominion which entails on them results so mischievous and degrading. Every year will hereafter strengthen the feeling, and lasting enmity and discord will thus be entailed on the mother country and the colony—discord that will cease only when the colony shall become a great, powerful, and independent community. The immediate effects of this feeling will not be seen in open and violent revolt, but in a silent though effective warfare against your trade. Non-intercourse will become the religion of the people: they will refuse your manufactures, and they will smuggle from the States. The long line of frontier will render all your attempts to prevent this smuggling unavailing. The people will refuse your West India produce, and they will view with hatred your schools of unprotected emigrants. Impatiently will they wait for the moment in which they shall obtain their freedom, and become part of that happy, and, for our interests, already too powerful republic. A war will be waged through an unrestricted press upon your government and your people. In America you will be held up as the oppressors of mankind, and millions will daily pray for your signal and immediate defeat. The fatal moment will at length arrive; the standard of independence will be raised; thousands of Americans will cross the frontier, and the history of Texas will tell the tale of the Canadian revolt.”

In reply to Mr. Roebuck’s declamation, Sir G. Grey, the colonial under-secretary, appealed to all the papers on the table, to all the instructions which had been sent out to the local government, and to every act which had been done in pursuance of these institutions, and he asked if anything had been done of which a free and independent people had the slightest right to complain? Every grievance which had arisen out of former misgovernment had been redressed: and now the house of assembly took their stand on another ground, and declared that if the constitution were not altered they would stop the supplies. The cry was raised by the house of assembly in Lower Canada alone; the people of Upper Canada disclaimed any share in it. The debate was adjourned to another day, when it was opened by Mr. Hume, who, in a speech of three hours’ duration, impugned the whole conduct and policy of the government towards Canada. Finally, the three first resolutions being simply declaratory, were agreed to without division. The fourth, also, was carried on a division by a majority of three hundred and eighteen against fifty-six. This resolution was to the effect, “That in the existing state of Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to make the legislative council of that province an elective body; but that it is expedient that measures be adopted for securing to that branch of the legislature a greater degree of public confidence.”

After this decision ministers expressed a hope that the opponents of the resolutions would not throw any obstacle in the way of government. Delay, however, was the object of the Canadian party, apparently in the hope of giving time for a demonstration of popular feeling on the other side of the Atlantic. The committee was not resumed till the 14th of April, and then the fifth resolution came under consideration. This was to the effect, “That while it is expedient to improve the composition of the executive council in Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to subject it to the responsibility demanded by the house of assembly of that province.” On this occasion Mr. Roebuck again opposed government, and intimated that the loss of the colony would be the certain eventual consequence of their adoption. At the same time he disclaimed all interest in, or desire to accelerate this consummation. Mr. Roebuck broached a plan of his own for the settlement of the dispute. Since the house would not make the legislative council elective, he proposed to abolish it altogether. The only useful power at present exercised by the legislative council was that of proposing amendments on the bills passed by the house of assembly. This office he proposed to transfer to an executive council of twelve persons, to be named by the governor, who might amend any measure sent up from the assembly, but not to have the power of rejecting it; that would rest with the governor. The great object of this scheme was, he said, to concentrate responsibility, and to bring it to bear on known individuals; but it was plain that the effect of it would be to bring the executive in constant and direct collision with the popular branch of the legislature by doing away every intermediate power. The other principal feature of Mr. Roebuck’s scheme was, the establishment of a general assembly at Montreal, composed of delegates chosen by the houses of assembly of each of our North American colonies, and clothed with certain judicial and legislative powers. In its judicial capacity this assembly was to constitute the tribunal before which the judges of the various provinces might be impeached; and, moreover, might act as a court of appeal, and exercise the functions now performed by our privy-council. Its legislative offices would relate to all matters of dispute or communication between two or more provinces. Lord John Russell remarked, in reply, that whatever might be the merits of Mr. Roebuck’s propositions, he had no authority from the colony to make them, and therefore parliament could not think of making them the basis of pacification, As for the threat that the people of Lower Canada would, if their demands were rejected, throw themselves into the arms of their republican neighbours, his lordship contented himself with saying, that it would not be their interest to act thus; nor did he think that the United States would be anxious to seek a quarrel on this question. Mr. Robinson supported and Mr. Charles Buller opposed the resolution. Mr. Roebuck again spoke in reply, and complained that Lord John Russell was doing all in his power to insult and vilify the people of Canada. He doubted, if Sir Robert Peel was in power, that with his wary prudence and caution, he would carry out these resolutions. The right honourable baronet and his friends, he said, were silent on certain questions; they no doubt acted so that they might come into office with clean hands. Sir Robert Peel said that he did not desire to withhold his sentiments on this subject. In his speech, the right honourable baronet took the same view of the policy of the government that had been expressed by Lord Stanley. He observed, that if no other, interests but those of the French Canadians were involved in the question, and if the continuation of British connexion were unpalatable to them, he would say, “God forbid that we should force it upon them.” In that case he should think it more for our interest than theirs that the connexion should be dissolved. But he-doubted, if he were to make the people of Lower Canada an offer of establishing their own government, that they would be disposed to accept it. At any rate the question could only be considered in reference to the French Canadians: there was a British population in the province, which had a right to look up to this country for a continuance of the connexion and protection on the faith of which they had established themselves in it. On a division the resolution was carried by a majority of two hundred and sixty-nine against forty-six.

On the 21st of April Mr. Leader moved the postponement of the further consideration of the resolutions, in order to give time to the Canadian people to state whether or not they agreed to Mr. Roebuck’s scheme for the settlement of the existing differences between the province and the mother country. This motion was negatived by a large majority; and the house then went into committee on the sixth resolution, which declared the necessity of maintaining inviolate the privileges conferred by an act of parliament on the North American Loan Company. Mr. Roebuck moved as an amendment, deferring all resolutions on the subject of the land company “until an inquiry shall have been instituted into the circumstances under which the land held by that company had been obtained.” The company found supporters in Lord Stanley, Sir George Grey, and Mr. Robinson; and even Mr. Grote, and others of the radical section, declined voting for the amendment. On a division the resolution was carried by one hundred and sixty-six against six; and this closed the discussion on this subject in the house of commons. On the 1st of May the resolutions were communicated to the house of lords in a conference.

The subject was brought before the house of lords by Lord Glenelg on the 9th of May, in a speech of considerable length, but which contained the same arguments which had been so frequently urged in favour of the resolutions in the house of commons. The resolutions were supported by Lord Ripon, although he objected to the wording of the fourth resolution, in which it was declared that “in the existing state” of Lower Canada, it was not advisable to introduce the elective principle into the formation of the legislative council. The inference from this mode of expression was, that a state of things might arise when it would be considered advisable to do so; but he could not acquiesce in the principle under any circumstances. The only opposition to the resolutions came from Lord Brougham, who objected to them entirely, as well to the principles as to the policy of them. His lordship chiefly dwelt upon the violation of the Canadian constitution by the advance of moneys, without the consent of the house of assembly. Under the eighth resolution it was intended to replace the £30,000 advanced out of the military chest, to provide the means of defraying colonial expenses. Lord Aberdeen remarked that Lord Brougham, who seemed so shocked at the idea of interfering with the rights of the assembly, had himself been a member of that government which made this advance; and the house of assembly had designated it as a monstrous, and unconstitutional interference, and had prayed that an impeachment might be instituted against the noble and learned lord, and his late colleagues, for committing it. The resolutions were agreed to without a division, Lord Brougham alone saying, “Not content.”

STATE OF THE BANKING SYSTEM, ETC.

At this time there was a general impression that there was something in the constitution of the joint-stock banks, that imperatively called for legislative interference. This, indeed, was one of the subjects immediately pressed upon the investigation of parliament, by the speech of the lords commissioners at the opening of the session. In the preceding session a select committee had been appointed to consider the state of the law in reference to this subject. This committee began its inquiries in the month of May, and continued them till the close of the session. In their report to the house, they stated that they saw so many difficulties in the way of immediate legislation, and so many objections to imperfect legislation, that they would content themselves with merely recommending that the committee should be revived in the following session. On the 6th of February the chancellor of the exchequer made a motion to that effect, on which occasion he observed that he did not mean in any way to anticipate the decision of the committee; but he should be greatly misconceived, if it were supposed that his motion was made in hostility to the general principle of joint-stock banks. It had been suggested, he said, that the range of inquiry should be extended; but he considered the subjects already before them were sufficiently complicated and difficult, without the committee embarrassing themselves with other and still more delicate matters of investigation. He should, however, propose the extension of the committee’s inquiries to Ireland; and with that view would move the addition to its number of four Irish members, two from each side of the house. Mr. Hume expressed himself satisfied that the source of the difficulty lay, not in the conduct of the joint-stock banks, but in that of the Bank of England; and he was therefore anxious that the inquiries of the committee should be extended to the proceedings of that establishment, and generally to the banking system of the country. The conduct of the Bank of England, he contended, should form a principal object of investigation; and he moved as an amendment, “that there be an inquiry into the state of banking, and the causes for the changes of the circulation since the year 1833.” Mr. Williams seconded the amendment, and urged that the Bank of England had displayed a more reckless disregard of the interests of the country than had ever been shown by any public body intrusted with the management of its financial resources. On the 28th of December, 1833, the issues of the Bank were £32,600,000, and their stock £10,000,000. On the 28th of March, 1835, a reduction appeared on those issues of no less than four millions and a half. Nine months afterwards of the same year, there appeared an increased issue of nearly nine millions, being more than one-fourth of their circulation. What was the consequence? Such an advance in prices, that in September last the cost of every article of import was raised from forty to one hundred per cent. This caused a falling off of trade. Then again in January last the circulation of the Bank of England was £31,000,000, and they had four millions to pay that amount, being little more than half-a-crown in the pound to meet their engagements. The directors professed to have discovered that the true principle for regulating their issues was to keep gold to the amount of one-third of those issues; in so doing they would be safe. But had they acted upon that principle? At that moment, instead of having one-third, they had only about one-seventh or one-eighth of their issues in gold. Mr. Gisborne took a similar view of the conduct of the Bank of England, and urged the necessity of an inquiry into it by the committee, if, at least, any inquiry into the banking system was at all necessary. For his own part he did not think it was; it would only lead to expectations which it would be impossible to satisfy. The debate was closed by the chancellor of the exchequer, who objected to an extended inquiry, and on a division, the original motion was carried by one hundred and twenty-one to forty-two.

CONSIDERATION OF THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND UNDER THE WHIG ADMINISTRATION.

There was no part of the conduct of the Whig administration which had been made the subject of more incessant attack than that which related to their foreign policy. This session the line of policy followed by Lord Palmerston in reference to Spain afforded a subject for declamation against him and his coadjutors in the government. At this time British soldiers were fighting in that country without the protection of the British flag, exposed to all the shame and hardships of a disastrous and disgraceful war. In the midst of the public anxiety on this subject, it was brought forward in the house of commons by Lord Mahon, who had been under-secretary for foreign affairs during Sir Robert Peel’s administration. His lordship began by expressing a want of confidence in government, and especially in Lord Palmerston: the country, he said, had too long reposed a confidence in his exertions, to which he was neither entitled by prudence nor success. He complained that the public had been kept in a state of ignorance as to whether they were in peace or at war: in his opinion it was a peace without tranquillity, and a war without honour. The object of the quadruple alliance had been to appease the civil dissensions in Portugal; not to sanction the intervention of France and England in Spain. He did not object to this, but he lamented the policy which led to the additional articles signed in 1834, which stipulated for a certain degree of interference. The Duke of Wellington, during the four months he had been in office, had acted up to the spirit of those articles, as he was bound to do; but Lord Palmerston had thought proper to proceed still further, in suspending the foreign enlistment act, and allowing twelve thousand Englishmen to enlist under the banners of the queen. Lord Mahon went on to contrast our position throughout the peninsular campaign. The great object had then been to drive the French out of the Peninsula, an object which had been sanctioned by all our greatest statesmen for more than a century and a half. Lord Palmerston had, however, departed from this line of policy. Count Mole, the prime minister of France, said in the chamber of deputies that “Lord Palmerston considered that circumstances justified the co-operation of France; and that in March, 1836, he notified to General Sebastiani, that it was his intention to land a certain force of marines on the coast of Spain, and invited France to join in that co-operation.” At the same time he had offered France the occupation of the port of Passages, and left to her own option the mode and extent of co-operation. M. Thiers had, however, declined the invitation. Next came the revolution of La Grunja, and soon after that event, an increased force was sent to relieve ‘Bilboa. More than £540,000 had already been expended in the war, and all the accounts were not as yet sent in. In Lord Mahon’s opinion, the influence of Great Britain in Spain had not been augmented by these measures; and in proof of it, he quoted a memorial presented by the British merchants of Alicant, complaining that their interests had been neglected; and that while England carried away three-fourths of the produce of Spain, that country took very little in return. To illustrate still further the decline of our influence with the court of Madrid, Lord Mali on alluded to a tax imposed on British subjects. “For the liberation of the king,” originally levied during the captivity of King Ferdinand. This impost had been kept up though the king was now dead. There were other grievances of a similar kind: the only one redressed was a tax on military quarters, which had been ceded to the English residents. Lord Mahon concluded by calling Lord Palmerston’s attention to the provinces of Biscay and Navarre, which had been deprived of their legal rights and privileges; and by stating that in bringing the subject forward, he was not actuated by any partiality for the character of Don Carlos, or any desire of advocating his claims on the crown of Spain. Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, while he admired the moderate and gentlemanly tone of Lord Mahon’s speech, yet differed from his views. He defended the alteration which Ferdinand had made in the succession, and which had been approved of by the Cortes, while they looked upon Don Carlos as a pretender. The question for the house was whether this country was not justified in abiding by the terms of the quadripartite treaty. We had done no more, he said, till Don Carlos had published the edict of Durango: after that infamous act an important article had been appended to the treaty, stipulating that arms and stores should be supplied for the maintenance of the war, and, if necessary, a naval force. Mr. Gaily Knight also dissented from Mr. Fergusson’s views; while Mr. Fenton expressed his disapprobation of Lord Palmerston’s policy. Lord Francis Egerton said that in his opinion we were not the proper judges of the value of those rights and privileges for which the Basques were contending; if they themselves held them dear, every Englishman must feel a sympathy in their cause. Mr. Fergusson had admitted, that could we have foreseen the failure of the Spanish generals, it would have altered the question as to the policy of suspending the foreign enlistment act: were not ministers culpable for such a want of foresight? Surely Lord Palmerston and his colleagues might have distinguished between Spain in the sixteenth century, when her troops were the first in Europe, and Spain during the peninsular war. Had not Lord Palmerston been in office during the war of independence? And had not its records taught him something of Spanish generals and Spanish promises? At any rate, a glance at the pages of a Napier, or a word from the Duke of Wellington would have enlightened him on the subject. Mr. Cutlar Fergusson explained, and Mr. Poulter protested against the doctrine which stigmatized the conduct of government as intervention. Mr. Grove Price defended the character of Don Carlos from the aspersions which had been cast upon it, but he did not attempt to contradict or justify the fact that the Don had issued the edict of Durango; and that, in virtue of the same, some English soldiers had already been executed. He concluded with a tribute to his virtue and magnanimity: so far was he from desiring to establish the Inquisition, that his prime-minister, the Bishop of Leon, had spent his whole life in writing against it, and had obtained a decree from his sovereign for its abolition. This was denied by Mr. O’Connell, whom Mr. Grove Price allowed to be a competent judge, because he was acquainted with the Bishop of Leon. He added, “If it were supposed that Don Carlos admitted Mr. O’Connell to his councils, then no English Protestant gentleman would for a moment countenance the pretensions of that sovereign.”

Lord Palmerston ably defended the policy of government. He added, if he could contribute to the establishment of the same happy things in Spain as existed in Belgium and Portugal, he should esteem it a proud satisfaction to the latest hour of his life. Sir Robert Peel complained of the line of argument which had been adopted by Lord Palmerston. He, for one, he said, openly disavowed all participation in the principles, or sympathy with the cause of Don Carlos. He would not say that the objects of British policy would be advanced by the success of that prince; and he begged most distinctly to state that he wished to see Spain in the settled enjoyment of a free and enlightened form of civil government. His belief was, however, that the course adopted by ministers was defeating its professed objects; it was obstructing the cause of improvement, and was calculated neither to raise our own character as a nation, nor to gain the affections of Spain. Mr. O’Connell spoke against Don Carlos, dwelling at length upon the atrocities which had been committed by his partisans.

Lord Mahon did not press any motion on the house, he being satisfied with the expression of opinion that had taken place. Within a fortnight after the debate the news of the defeat at Hernani arrived; and the political opponents of government eagerly embraced this opportunity of renewing the discussion. Immediately after the Easter recess, Sir Henry Hardinge gave notice of a motion on the subject, which motion he brought forward on the 18th of April. He moved an address to the king, “praying his majesty not to renew the order in council of the 10th of June, 1835, granting permission to British subjects to enlist in the service of the Queen of Spain, which order in council would expire on the 10th of June next following; and praying also that directions be given that his majesty’s marine forces shall not be employed in the civil contests now prevailing in Spain, otherwise than in that naval co-operation which his majesty has engaged to afford, if necessary, under the stipulations of the treaty.” The motion was seconded by Sir Stratford Canning, who argued that the terms of the quadruple treaty did not justify the interference which government had sanctioned. On the other hand Lord Leveson contended that government had gained great credit on the continent by the part they had taken in the affairs of the Peninsula. Mr. Charles Wood defended ministers: it was not uncommon, he said, for British officers to enter into the service of foreign powers. Mr. O’Connell remarked on the eagerness with which the recent disasters of the legion had been seized upon by gentlemen on the opposite side. The actions in which they had clone honour to the British name were forgotten: nothing was said of their victories; but not a moment was lost in bringing forward their defeat. On the second night of the debate, Sir Robert Inglis adverted to the imputation which had been cast against his party—that they were the enemies of the church of Rome in their own country, but its friends in every other—from its association with despotism. He disclaimed any such feeling on their part. Mr. Ward considered that opposition tried this question merely by the test of success. Why did not Sir Henry Hardinge bring forward his motion soon after the victory at Bilboa? This was the first time that he had heard in the house of commons the misfortunes of an ally urged as a reason for abandoning him. No doubt the legion had suffered a defeat; but not such as to disable their continuance of the contest. General Evans had admitted his losses; yet it was at this moment that an old brother officer in arms had chosen to aggravate his difficulties, and to cast against him the weight of his authority in military matters. In reply to the imputation as to the motives in bringing forward the motion at this particular time, Lord Mahon contended that he and his friends had hitherto exercised the utmost forbearance on the subject. He contended, further, that the country had a right to know whether there was any limit to the expense which we might be called upon to incur: twenty millions might be required by Spain; and did the treaty oblige us to furnish that sum? Dr. Lushington followed, and endeavoured to show that the naval co-operation which we had afforded was precisely that contemplated by the treaty. It could not be supposed that the British fleet was to encounter that of Don Carlos, and drive it off the seas; the only object could be a naval warfare along the coast. He considered the existence of the present government depended on this motion: if the reformed parliament of Great Britain should now abandon those principles of liberty and independence which they had hitherto advocated, the news would be hailed at St. Petersburg by bonfires. Mr. Grove Price supported the motion, and Mr. Shiel opposed it. The latter argued that the government had put a right construction on the stipulations of the quadruple treaty; and he entered into a long apology for the ill success of General Evans, and for the excesses and insubordination of his troops. With respect to the naval co-operation of the mariners, he referred to their motto, _Per mare ‘per terras_, as of itself setting that question at rest. He continued:—“But it is alleged that the measures of the government have not produced any good result. I ask if those measures had not been adopted, what would have befallen the Spanish people? Would not Bilboa have been taken by assault, and the standard of Don Carlos at this moment have been floating from the castle of St Sebastian? Or try the allegation by another test. Let me suppose this motion carried. The courier that will convey the intelligence will carry tidings of great joy to St. Petersburg, to Vienna, to Berlin; and he will convey tidings of great dismay wherever men value the possession of liberty, or pant for its enjoyment. It will palsy the arm of freedom in Spain—a terrible revulsion will be produced: from Calpe to the Pyrenees the cry, ‘We are betrayed by England!’ will be heard; and over that nation which you indeed have betrayed, Don Carlos will march without an obstacle to Madrid.” In conclusion, Mr. Shiel said:—“I have heard it asked whether it be befitting that in Spain, the theatre of so many of their best exploits, British soldiers should give way before bands of mountain peasants? I feel the force of that question; but there is another which I venture to put to every man who hears me, and, above all, to the gallant officer by whom the motion has been brought forward: I invoke the same recollections; I appeal to the same glorious remembrances, and in the name of those scenes, of which he was not only an eye-witness, but a sharer, I ask, whether it be befitting that in that land, consecrated as it is in the annals of England’s glory, a terrible, remorseless, relentless despotism should be established; and that the throne which England saved should be filled by the tyrant by whom your own countrymen, after the heat of battle, have been savagely and deliberately murdered? Never! the people of this country are averse, indeed, to wanton and unnecessary war; but where the honour of England is at stake, there is no consequence which they are not prepared to meet—no hazard which they will not be prompt to encounter.” The debate was protracted by another adjournment to a third night.

Lord Palmerston, who had been repeatedly called upon in the course of the debates, at length arose to defend government from the imputations of their opponents. The manner, he said, in which the question had been dealt with by opposition was not fitted to impress other people with a notion that their own convictions were very strong in respect to it. Having made a few observations on the conduct of General Evans, on the sufferings of the British soldiers, and on the atrocities which had been committed, he came to the question of the quadruple treaty. Every one knew, he said, under what circumstances, and for what purpose it was concluded. The most superficial observer must have perceived that the change that had been made in the accession to the Spanish throne, though accompanied by every circumstance cf legality and regularity, yet laid the foundation for a great revolution in that country. It was not merely the substitution of an infant female for a grown man; out of that change must spring a great alteration in the internal constitutions of Spain, and a change too in the tendencies of its external policy. What happened on the death of Ferdinand? A Spanish minister came to London to request of the English government a force to assist in expelling Don Miguel from Portugal. This was refused; but we said:—“Though we will not give you an army, we will give you a treaty.” Accordingly, we joined with the three “great powers” of the west of Europe in one alliance. This was the quadruple treaty; and such was its effect, that even before the ratifications were exchanged, Don Miguel’s army of twelve thousand men laid down their arms, and the two pretenders abandoned Portugal. Then came the escape of Don Carlos, and his placing himself at the head of the insurgents in the Basque provinces. The four contracting parties considered the treaty to be fully in force, and that it was only necessary to prepare new articles in order to provide for the altered circumstances of the war, which articles, however, should be considered merely as complementary of the original treaty. The noble lord proceeded to defend the manner in which those articles had been carried into execution; and, in conclusion, he observed, that however skilfully the question before them might be disguised, it involved no less than, whether England should continue to fulfil her engagement with the Queen of Spain, or should disgracefully abandon an ally whom she had pledged herself to succour. But this was far short of the real and ultimate tendency of the motion. The contest now waging in Spain was but a portion of that great conflict which was going on elsewhere throughout the world. The house had to decide that night between two opposite systems of foreign policy. Even these were not isolated principles, which might be taken or neglected by themselves: they were intimately connected with, and affected also our domestic interests. The object of the one party was to support Don Carlos and despotism; the other to uphold Isabella and the constitution. Sir Robert Peel replied to Lord Palmerston, reproducing the arguments and facts already urged; and the discussion was closed by Lord John Russell, who defended the existing state of our foreign relations, by contrasting it with that in which they had been left by the right honourable baronet and his friends in 1830, when they quitted office. On a division Sir Henry Hardinge’s motion was rejected by two hundred and seventy-eight against two hundred and forty-two. The same subject was brought under the consideration of the lords, April 21st, by Lord Alvanley, in a motion for the dispatches of Lord John Hay relative to the affair at Hernani.

A circumstance occurred which brought the state of our relations with Russia under the attention of parliament. A mercantile house, Messrs. Bell, of London, had fitted out a vessel laden with goods for the coast of Circassia. On attempting to land her cargo she was seized by a Russian man-of-war and confiscated, first, on the ground of the violation of the blockade, to which the Russian government had subjected the whole of the Circassian coast; and, secondly, for an alleged violation of the custom-house regulations established by the same authority in the ports of that country. This proceeding of the Russian government was generally denounced as unjustifiable; and the subject was brought before parliament on the 17th of March by Mr. Roebuck, who moved for copies of all the correspondence which had taken place between the British and Russian government on this transaction. Lord Palmerston entered into a lengthy statement of the occurrence; but the papers were refused, on the ground that the question was still under negotiation. Mr. Roebuck repeated his inquiries on the subject, when Lord Palmerston stated that, upon a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the government had come to the conclusion that there was no room for making any further demand upon the Russian government. Another matter, in which our relations with Russia were concerned, was brought before the house of commons on the 22nd of March by Lord Dudley, who inquired of Lord Palmerston whether any consular agent had been appointed to the state of Cracow. Lord Dudley Stuart said, that in the preceding session a motion had been made by the member for Lancaster for an address to the king, praying that his majesty would appoint a consul to reside in that city; and that the noble secretary for foreign affairs had stated that it was the intention of government to make such appointment, on which the motion for an address was withdrawn. Lord Palmerston admitted the correctness of this statement. It had been his intention, he said, to send a consular agent to Cracow; but he had since been induced to depart from his purpose, finding that greater difficulties would attend it than he had anticipated. His lordship did not state what those difficulties were, and the house seems not to have thought it expedient to press the government further upon the subject.

A more important point of our foreign policy considered this session was the situation of the province of Texas. On the 9th of March, Mr. Barlow Hay moved for “copies of all correspondence which had taken place between our government and those of Mexico and of the United States on this subject;” stating at the same time his sense of its importance, and the suspicions he entertained of the ambitious project of the American government in respect to it. Lord Palmerston admitted the importance of the subject, and its claim on the anxious attention both of the government and the public; but he resisted the production of the papers moved for, and on a division the motion was rejected by a majority of forty-one to twenty-eight.

MOTION ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.

{WILLIAM IV. 1836—1837}

At this time the state of public affairs was such as to induce Mr. Roebuck to bring the subject before parliament. On the 9th of June, when the order of the day had been moved for the second reading of the Irish tithe bill, Mr. Roebuck moved an amendment that the house should resolve itself into a committee for considering the state of the nation. He made some observations upon the extraordinary position in which the representatives of the people were placed. Two bills had been sent to the other house of parliament, but they were told that the house of lords would not take them into consideration until something had been done by that house to please them. He contended that there was no government in the country: ministers were no longer in the position in which they were at the beginning of the session. They stated then that they would place their existence as ministers on the fate of the Irish corporation bill. What had become of that bill? It was laid on the shelf till the lords knew what that house was about. The other house virtually said, “If you do not what we like, we will not pass your bill.” What good could be got from playing over the farce of discussing the Irish tithe bill? Did they not know that if it passed that house, defeat awaited it elsewhere. Ministers, in fact, were useless for good purposes; and as far as the people were concerned, they were mischievous. Mr. Roebuck’s motion was seconded by Colonel Thompson, who said that ministers had started with a large stock of popular energy in their favour; but, in their fear of the boiler bursting, they had let the fire go out. Like Spanish generals, they had always one eye in their own camp, and the other in the enemy’s; and all their efforts were paralysed by their fear of being too successful. Their situation had become desperate: if any event in the chapter of human accidents should fall out to give them a reprieve, the only consequences would be, that as they had dwindled, dwindled before, they would dwindle, dwindle again. There was no stock of good luck which such conduct would not run out. It was clear what was coming: the Tories must return to power. How long they would stay there was another question; but their return was a phasis, a phenomenon which ministers had rendered it inevitable to go through. Mr. O’Connell eschewed the doctrines of Mr. Roebuck and Colonel Thompson. It was his duty, he said, in the name of the people of Ireland, to protest against his majesty’s government being blamed for not doing more. Government had the confidence and the affections of the people; and whatever might be the opinions of others, he, for one, hoped that they would long continue to occupy their present situations. Lord John Russell, in reply, disclaimed any community of sentiment with Mr. Roebuck in the constitutional views he had broached, either in reference to church or state. He was decidedly opposed to the voluntary system, and to the abolition of the house of lords. As for the doctrine of the honourable member for Bath, that men of moderation and compromise never succeed in establishing anything good or useful, his lordship said it was, on the contrary, his decided conviction that to the moderation and mediation between violent or extreme opinions on both sides, which had been exercised by Lord Somers, and the great Whig leaders at the Revolution, the country was indebted for all her subsequent prosperity. In reference to Mr. Roebuck’s reproach against ministers for not having conciliated the dissenters and popular favour generally by adopting the voluntary principle in church matters, his lordship said that such a course would not have that effect: his own opinion was not in favour of the voluntary system, and he believed that the people of this country were, like himself, still attached to the established church. The opposition, properly so called, took no part in this discussion, and Mr. Roebuck’s motion was negatived without a division. The discussion proved one great fact, namely, that between the extremes of opposition, the Whigs might for a long period maintain their places on the treasury benches; but at the same time they could not but feel embarrassment in a position which left them dependent on their opponents, now on the Radicals and now on the Tories. Had it been possible for the two to have united on any great question, the Whig ministry would soon have been no more; but oil and water might almost as soon have commingled, as the Tories and the Radicals agree.

ILLNESS AND DEATH OF THE KING—REMARKS ON HIS CHARACTER.

Ever since his accession to the throne, the king’s health had in general been good. In the course of the present spring, however, symptoms of decline began to show themselves; and they increased so rapidly, that by the beginning of June his situation became one of serious alarm to his family. His majesty continued to transact business, but it was under such oppressive weakness, that it was clear to his medical attendants that his end was approaching. There was no active disease, indeed, but a general languor and weakness, which foretokened dissolution. His last days were spent in preparing for eternity; nothing seemed to give him greater pleasure than the presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who attended him, and from whose hands he received the sacrament. His deportment at this solemn ceremony, as related by a church dignitary, was fully edifying. He says:—“His majesty had already experienced the blessed consolations of religion, and removed the doubts his anxious attendants were entertaining, by eagerly desiring the queen to send for the archbishop, seeming, as it were, anxious to ratify the discharge of his earthly by the performance of his spiritual duties. His grace promptly attended, attired in his robes, and at a quarter to eleven administered the sacrament to his majesty and the queen, Lady Mary Fox communicating at the same time. The king was very calm and collected; his faculties were quite clear, and he paid the greatest attention to the service, following it in the prayer-book, which lay on the table before him. His voice indeed failed, but his humble demeanour and uplifted eyes gave expression to the feeling of devotion and of gratitude to the Almighty which his faltering lips refused to utter. The performance of this act of religion, and this public attestation of his communion with that church, for the welfare and prosperity of which he had more than once during his illness ejaculated short but fervent prayers, was the source of great and manifest comfort to his majesty. Though the shorter form had been adopted by the archbishop, his majesty was nevertheless rather exhausted by the duration and solemnity of the ceremony; but as his grace retired, the king said, with that peculiar kindness of manner by which he was so much distinguished, and at the same time gently moving his hand and inclining his head, ‘God bless you! a thousand, thousand thanks!’ There cannot be more certain evidence of the inward strength and satisfaction which the king derived from this office of religion than that, in spite of great physical exertion, his majesty, after the lapse of an hour, again requested the attendance of the archbishop, who, in compliance with the wishes of the queen, read the prayer for the evening service, with the happiest effect on the king’s spirits. This being done, the archbishop, naturally fearing the consequences of so much mental exertion on his majesty’s debilitated frame, was about to retire, when the king motioned him to sit down at the table, on the opposite side of which he himself was seated. His majesty was too weak to hold any conversation, but his spirits seemed soothed and comforted by the presence of the archbishop, on whose venerable, benign countenance his majesty’s eye reposed with real pleasure. The king at this interview stretched his hand across the table, and taking that of the archbishop, pressed it fervently, saying in a tone of voice which was only audible to the queen, who was seated near his majesty, ‘I am sure the archbishop is one of those persons who pray for me.’ The afternoon of this day witnessed a still further diminution of his majesty’s strength; but in proportion to the decay of his bodily power, was the increase of his spiritual hope and consolation. At nine o’clock in the evening the archbishop was again summoned by his majesty’s desire. The king was now still less able to converse than on the last occasion; but his grace remained more than three quarters of an hour, supplying by his presence the same comfort to the king, and receiving from his majesty the same silent though expressive proof of his satisfaction and gratitude. At length, on the suggestion of the queen that it was already late, and the archbishop might become fatigued, the king immediately signified his assent that he should retire; and crossing his hands upon his breast, and inclining his head, said, as his grace left the room, ‘God bless thee, dear, excellent, worthy man! a thousand, thousand thanks!’” This was on Sunday, the 18th of June, the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, which the king remembered, expressing his desire that the Duke of Wellington should hold his usual banquet on the morrow. That was the day on which his majesty breathed his last. He had spent a tranquil night, but no corresponding effect was produced upon his health. Decaying nature could no longer be recruited by ordinary sources of strength and sustenance. His majesty rose at seven o’clock, for during his illness he had not been wholly confined to his bed, but there was much in his language and manner which bespoke his sense of approaching death. “I shall get up once more,” he said to the queen, “to do the business of the country.” After joining in the service for the visitation of the sick, performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which his majesty’s demeanour was characterised by the most genuine spirit of devotion. Sir Herbert Taylor was summoned, and was directed to get all things ready. As it was Monday, however, there were no papers, and consequently there was no business to transact. In the evening the archbishop visited his majesty for the last time: at half-past ten the king was seized with a fainting fit, on which he was removed into his bed, and from this time his voice was not heard, except to pronounce the name of his valet. In less than an hour death reigned in the palace of the English monarchs. His majesty expired without a struggle, and without a groan, the queen kneeling at the bedside and still affectionately holding his hand, unwilling to believe the reality of the sad event. “Thus expired, in the seventy-third year of his age, in firm reliance on the merits of his Redeemer, King William IV., a just and upright king, a forgiving enemy, a sincere friend, and a most gracious and indulgent master.”

Few monarchs, indeed, have possessed the love of their subjects in a greater degree than King William IV. By the common consent of all parties he had the welfare of his country truly at heart. There was but one opinion of his character, and that was expressive of his kindness and amiability. He does not appear to have had a personal enemy in the world, although he sanctioned measures to which a large section of the community were inimical: this is praise as singular as it is high when applied to a king. His intellectual faculties may not have been of a superior order; but he had what more than counterbalanced this defect—a heart which beat high with love for his country.

CONTINUATION

OF

THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND,

By E. H. Nolan